Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The "dreaded" Lightroom 3.0 wishlist  (Read 21299 times)
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3382



WWW
« Reply #60 on: May 04, 2009, 08:09:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Josh-H
My post wasn't patronizing - at least I did not intend for it to be. Thats why I said 'with respect'. If it was misconstrued I apologise.
No Problem.


Quote
I agree that being able to do both inside of LR would be a nice function for photographers who also shoot video. My point was - LR is not crippled because it currently cant. Well.. at least it isnt crippled from my perspective since video is not part of my workflow.
Video is not really the issue when I talk about LR being crippled, it's the fact that the catalogue is limited at all in image file types and files used with images [such as sound] that it recognizes, which means it cannot be used as a DAM application - thus undermining one of it's main functions.


Quote
I think that is a matter of personal taste - I find LR less annoying than bridge for cataloguing, sorting and finding. Although I do still use Bridge occasionally as a front end to LR - but not often.
I think it's less to do with personal taste, more likely the fact that most people do not know what Bridge is or how to use Bridge if they do as they think it's not worth bothering with. I use both programmes and Br CS4 is my tool of choice more often than LR these days as it's faster for most things. With Br CS3 and LR 1.4 it was the other way around. I've demo-ed Br on many occasions and people haven't a clue about how good/fast Br is, as a rule.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3382



WWW
« Reply #61 on: May 04, 2009, 08:17:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
I find myself resorting from LR to PS quite frequently in order to perform elementary transforms on an image - for example keystoning adjustment,or de-skewing. I'm wondering whether the crop area of the program, which now permits rotations (a non-destructive transform) copuld be expanded to include some of these other transforms in a non-destructive manner. I can see some of us being accused of trying to bring all of PS into LR, but quite to the contrary, my underlying approach in suggesting add-ins is to pinpoint the ones which are most frequently used and thereby simplify the overall image preparation workflow by eliminating the most frequent reasons to invoke PS from an LR workflow.
An alternative view is that by doing all the basic stuff on the RAW file in LR, such as you request, it leaves more time to do the more fun stuff in PS. I rarely do any global adjustment work in PS now unless as part of actions.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3382



WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 04, 2009, 08:20:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: photo570
No offense Ian, but the method described is a work around. As you say the underlying infrastructure is there, it just needs to be part of the main product. DAM is really one of those "All or nothing" propositions, if you have to use more than one, because some aspect "is coming soon ( or never)" then in reality it just makes things harder, not easier, which was the whole idea of the product in the first place.
My view exactly.
Although I used LR from the Beta, I did not use LR for work until v1.3 as there were too many irritating workarounds and bodges as well as poor performance to make it usable to my mind.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Per Zangenberg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #63 on: May 10, 2009, 01:37:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I am surprised that most people only think about adding new features when there are serious problems with the very core of the program. http://macperformanceguide.com/Optimizing-Lightroom.html
This article clearly shows that LR is very poor at utilizing multiple cores and faster machines. IMO LR2.3 is pretty good as is and for it is rock solid (Windows Vista 64 bit with 8GB RAM). Cutting your post-work-time in half by getting a newer i7 machine would be awesome, but that would require LR to be able to better use the multiple cores.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1925


WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 10, 2009, 02:10:01 AM »
ReplyReply

A rather curious set of statements there
Quote from: Per Zangenberg
there are serious problems with the very core of the program. ... IMO LR2.3 is pretty good as is and for it is rock solid
If it's "pretty good and rock solid", there's not really a "serious problem" is there?
I find LR 2.3 fast enough and am very rarely inconvenienced by waiting for the software to react or process files, even though I don't have a screamingly fast PC.

Adding functionality is more important to me than worrying about trimming a few seconds off every import or export when I can be doing something else whilst LR works anyway.
Logged
James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #65 on: May 10, 2009, 11:32:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll add my wish and excuse me if it has already been mention some where in this thread:  Make LR capable of pulling detail from images on a level closer to Capture One Pro Ver 4 or Capture NX2.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 10, 2009, 04:21:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I have no issue with the detail which LR "pulls-in". If one knows what one is doing, the results look very well-detailed to me.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #67 on: May 10, 2009, 04:37:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
I have no issue with the detail which LR "pulls-in". If one knows what one is doing, the results look very well-detailed to me.

Hence, that is why it's on my wish list.      This question of which program pulls more detail from a nef has been done to death and not probably required in this thread.
Logged
Stephane Desnault
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #68 on: May 19, 2009, 03:28:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Put me in for

. Lens Correction (they should just buy DxO, we'd get the added bonus of the "DxO lighting" auto adjustments which are right on spot 80% of the time).
. Soft Proofing
. Photo Books

If I have that I'll have very little reason to get out of LR ever, except for heavy editing in PS, which is very well integrated already. Interacting with DxO to lens-correct can only be described as awkward at the moment .

There! My 2cents . You heard it here first Adobe!

(noisily slapping the mug of virtual beer back on the virtual bar)
Logged
Tklimek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


« Reply #69 on: May 19, 2009, 10:50:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Cheers Stephane!!

 

Quote from: Stephane Desnault
Put me in for

. Lens Correction (they should just buy DxO, we'd get the added bonus of the "DxO lighting" auto adjustments which are right on spot 80% of the time).
. Soft Proofing
. Photo Books

If I have that I'll have very little reason to get out of LR ever, except for heavy editing in PS, which is very well integrated already. Interacting with DxO to lens-correct can only be described as awkward at the moment .

There! My 2cents . You heard it here first Adobe!

(noisily slapping the mug of virtual beer back on the virtual bar)
Logged
viahorizon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #70 on: May 21, 2009, 01:48:01 PM »
ReplyReply

How about some better low level sharpening? LR looks pale in comparison to some clever RAW converters like RAW Developer... (http://joemullins.com/archive/2008/08/06/r...d-photoshop.php)
« Last Edit: May 21, 2009, 01:49:31 PM by viahorizon » Logged

gallery@viahorizon
oldcsar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #71 on: May 21, 2009, 10:28:00 PM »
ReplyReply

With all due respect viahorizon, I do not think that that hyperlink shows any conclusive evidence that Raw Developer is actually able to pull more detail from the displayed photo. What I'm seeing is that Raw Developer is simply leaving in the uniform noise pattern which covers the whole photo, although I believe you are very correct to say that LR removes some of this very fine noise. However, when looking at the actual detail present in the photo, I don't actually see anything extra in the Raw Developer crop. All that is missing is the very fine noise, which should not be apparent in actual prints. Unlike previous versions of Lightroom, I think that 2.3 has a beneficial amount of this effect- it does not actually remove real details if you pixelpeep (which, in my opinion, is the necessary response with the nature of your request).

By doing this small amount of noise reduction in the demosaicing, it actually allows photos to be sharpened more without having to sharpen the micro-noise, which has no significant benefit in real-world terms. Additionally, when this would actually be significant is when the photo is being interpolated for large prints, but in that stage of the workflow adding a fine layer of monochrome noise (or "false detail" as Photozoom Pro puts it) will restore that impression of micro-detail, if the user wishes. I think that too many people are incorrectly identifying what they are seeing in 100% crops of LR conversions- I believe Jeff Schewe might agree on this point- and that if you are really that concerned about it, you are under no obligation to use Lightroom. What some people identify as a disadvantage is actually an advantage when Lightroom is used well in conjunction with its sharpening, which is actually pretty good IMHO. I think it was somewhere on this site that I found a user's approximations of Photoshop's PK Sharpener Capture Sharpening presets, which is a really good starting point to get familiar with ways to sharpen the LR files.

It's all a matter of taste, I know, but it is very easy to re-add what you are mistaking as micro-detail later in the workflow by adding a monochrome layer of noise. What deconvolution routines do, such as FocusMagic, is that they enhance the grain-- it is yet another way to visually create the impression that detail exists when it is the enhancement of grain you are seeing (which is why deconvolution can make high-ISO pictures look damned ugly by enhancing the noise). I think deconvolution techniques can create some great effects with low-ISO pictures, and it is something that is requested every so often for new features (I have requested it myself in the past), but LR capture sharpening can actually do a pretty good job if treated right, and you understand what you are seeing at high magnification.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2009, 10:36:30 PM by oldcsar » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #72 on: May 21, 2009, 10:39:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: oldcsar
What deconvolution routines do, such as FocusMagic, is that they enhance the grain-- it is yet another way to visually create the impression that detail exists when it is the enhancement of grain you are seeing (which is why deconvolution can make high-ISO pictures look damned ugly by enhancing the noise). I think deconvolution techniques can create some great effects with low-ISO pictures, and it is something that is requested every so often for new features (I have requested it myself in the past), but LR capture sharpening can actually do a pretty good job if treated right, and you understand what you are seeing at high magnification.

From what I've seen, I think one needs to tread very carefully with deconvultion even at lower ISOs - it can turn images too crunchy very easily.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
oldcsar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #73 on: May 21, 2009, 11:08:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
From what I've seen, I think one needs to tread very carefully with deconvultion even at lower ISOs - it can turn images too crunchy very easily.
Agreed- it can also increase the appearance of undesirable artifacts that anti-aliasing filters attempt to mitigate.
Logged

viahorizon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #74 on: May 22, 2009, 04:51:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Oldcsar, I believe what you address is the issue of balance between perceived (low, no-) noise and detail. So it may be a matter of taste, still 1) I want to have an option to pick one over the other, and 2) the LR 2.3 approach is to get rid of the noise, so 1:1 crops have these nasty worm-like patterns and plastic look. I’m sure it is not only the noise that’s being smoothened out.
I print large and prefer not to do “this small amount of noise reduction in the demosaicing” just to add noise layer again to upsized images.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 04:54:43 AM by viahorizon » Logged

gallery@viahorizon
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad