Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Layers for Lightroom!?  (Read 11977 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5664



WWW
« on: April 21, 2011, 08:00:32 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.ononesoftware.com/
« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 10:19:35 AM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7874



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2011, 08:44:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm a bit skeptical, but I plan to give it a whirl. Thanks for posting the link.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1616


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2011, 09:26:35 AM »
ReplyReply

$160 for the software; why would I want to pay this if I already have PS & LR?  I can't see this doing anything novel unless you only had LR and even then it's not clear that this has any advantages.
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2011, 10:05:13 AM »
ReplyReply

$160 for the software; why would I want to pay this if I already have PS & LR?  I can't see this doing anything novel unless you only had LR and even then it's not clear that this has any advantages.
Agreed. And even then, wouldn't you get more bangs for your bucks by buying PS Elements?

John
Logged

NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2011, 10:08:07 AM »
ReplyReply

$160 for the software; why would I want to pay this if I already have PS & LR? 
From what I understand, the advantage may be to be able to tweak the layers in a layered TIFF or PSD from the plugin, without having to do the round trip to PS.
The 160$ question is : is the plugin faster to launch and easier to use than PS? Roll Eyes

Agreed. And even then, wouldn't you get more bangs for your bucks by buying PS Elements?
Do Layers for LR and PSE allow for adjustment layers in 16bits?
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2739



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2011, 10:27:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Good point - I don't think Elements 9 does. OTOH you can do a lot more if you're willing to go 8 bit.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2011, 10:37:47 AM »
ReplyReply

$160 for the software; why would I want to pay this if I already have PS & LR?  I can't see this doing anything novel unless you only had LR and even then it's not clear that this has any advantages.

Well, there are a lot of people who only have Lightroom and Aperture. In that event, $160 for the ability to do limited compositing may be useful. If you had Photoshop (even an older version) then you would have to look at the relative value. I would prolly choose to upgrade Photoshop to be current vs buying a plug-in (about $199 for the CS5 standard upgrade).

But the preview is free to try...
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2011, 11:23:53 AM »
ReplyReply

You've gotta wonder if Adobe will add layers soon as well.  A product like this should hurry them right along..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2011, 11:42:20 AM »
ReplyReply

You've gotta wonder if Adobe will add layers soon as well.

Not very likely...they have an app for that, Photoshop.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8782



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2011, 12:45:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Not very likely...they have an app for that, Photoshop.

Exactly. We need to muck up LR to be more like Photoshop while not concentrating on the things it needs more than layers? I think Jeff is spot on, the money is better spent upgrading to the later version of Photoshop so at least ACR is on parity for use of Smart Objects (and new, useful functionality such as Content Aware Fill etc). I don’t want LR to be Photoshop.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2011, 01:11:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Exactly. We need to muck up LR to be more like Photoshop while not concentrating on the things it needs more than layers? I think Jeff is spot on, the money is better spent upgrading to the later version of Photoshop so at least ACR is on parity for use of Smart Objects (and new, useful functionality such as Content Aware Fill etc). I don’t want LR to be Photoshop.
Well.. I can't argue there are more important features needed than layers, but I don't think this will preclude layers from becoming a feature in Lightroom anymore than more complete databasing/indexing in Bridge won't become inclusive in Photoshop.

Photoshop is much more than LR, but as image editors I think we'll see the subsets of image editing features merge closer, rather than remain separate. 

And I don't think Adobe's main target with LR is those who use both PS and LR together.  It appears to me LR is slowing becoming a more complete stand alone imaging program, in which case layers will be necessary to compete.  I think it's a natural progression.

Of course these decisions are the subject of interesting discussions in Adobe's marketing department.. would love to be a fly on the way and watch the power plays as different team member's influence changes..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5664



WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2011, 01:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

An interesting number to throw into the equation: apparently, only 16% of Photoshop users are photographers. I would suspect that the number for Lightroom is closer to 90-100%
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2011, 04:24:40 PM »
ReplyReply

An interesting number to throw into the equation: apparently, only 16% of Photoshop users are photographers. I would suspect that the number for Lightroom is closer to 90-100%
That is an interesting number.  Where do you get them?  I'm always interested in sites that list useful stats.

My take on this is only a guess based on observation.. the other guys might be part of Adobe's test team and have more inside knowledge.  But if they're right I've got to wonder what the heck Adobe is thinking.

Here's a strange one.  I put up two online image editors on my site.  Both by the same company, but one is an easy menu driven editor anyone's grandmother could use, and the other a more advanced familiar feeling PS like editor.  It's a small footprint flash based editor.. but it does layers and they're easy to use.  So anyway, feedback has been positive, remarks like "I use LR and don't want to spring for PS so I find your online image editors very useful for the layers...." are starting to become more common.  I originally didn't add them to my site for the layer capability, but rather so those traveling in SEA and who left their laptops at home and are utilizing internet cafe's.. could have editing tools available during their travels.  But no one is mentioning that use.    Huh
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5664



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2011, 04:32:23 PM »
ReplyReply

That is an interesting number.  Where do you get them?...

I remember seeing the 16% on the internet. The LR percentage is my wild guess.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2011, 04:38:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Of course these decisions are the subject of interesting discussions in Adobe's marketing department.. would love to be a fly on the way and watch the power plays as different team member's influence changes..

Product marketing doesn't drive development...product management and engineering design does.

Since Lightroom uses a raw processing pipeline for it's processing, the "concept" of a layer based editing is foreign to such a pipeline. While there may be ways to incorporate multiple image editing in such a pipeline, it won't be based on a layers paradigm as we know it in Photoshop. It would be more a mask based composite more like what's in the Adjustment Brush now.

The power plays do occur...but while Mark Hamburg left Adobe for MSFT, he left MSFT and returned to Adobe. He has great influence and vision (he started Lightroom/Shadowland) and made a decision early on that LR would be a workflow based raw processing DAM application. Dwelling for great periods of time on single images (or composites) is simply not what Lightroom was designed for. It's designed for working through many images...the way LR has been developed was intentionally very divergent from Photoshop.

I'm not saying Lightroom might not see a compositing module but it won't look anything like Photoshop's layers. Panos and HDR are far more likely than compositing.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5453


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2011, 04:39:34 PM »
ReplyReply

...only 16% of Photoshop users are photographers.

Actually, I think the number is lower...
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5664



WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2011, 04:47:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually, I think the number is lower...

You are probably correct... it must be my faulty memory.

I do remember some dude posted something about it some time ago, so I went back and searched for it Wink:


... guess what, photographers make up less than 10% of the Ps user base...
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
StuartOnline
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2011, 04:56:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Yesterday April 20th I attended a Webinar put on by OnOne Software.  
The guest speaker was Seth Resnick who is a huge user of Lightroom and gives traing on using it.
That Webinar maybe found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTV3O9rCqA
Toward the end of the Webinar Seth gave a short demo with OnOne Perfect Layers in Lightroom.
On Monday Apirl 25th 9-10am Pacific time he is giving a full Webinar using OnOne Perfect Layers via Lightroom.
http://www.ononesoftware.com/webinars/
I surely do not know much about this Perfect Layers, however if someone like Seth Resnick is holding Webinars there must be something good about this software.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2011, 04:59:56 PM by StuartOnline » Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2011, 05:49:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Product marketing doesn't drive development...product management and engineering design does.

Since Lightroom uses a raw processing pipeline for it's processing, the "concept" of a layer based editing is foreign to such a pipeline. While there may be ways to incorporate multiple image editing in such a pipeline, it won't be based on a layers paradigm as we know it in Photoshop. It would be more a mask based composite more like what's in the Adjustment Brush now.

The power plays do occur...but while Mark Hamburg left Adobe for MSFT, he left MSFT and returned to Adobe. He has great influence and vision (he started Lightroom/Shadowland) and made a decision early on that LR would be a workflow based raw processing DAM application. Dwelling for great periods of time on single images (or composites) is simply not what Lightroom was designed for. It's designed for working through many images...the way LR has been developed was intentionally very divergent from Photoshop.

I'm not saying Lightroom might not see a compositing module but it won't look anything like Photoshop's layers. Panos and HDR are far more likely than compositing.

What drives marketing, development, and engineering is at best a circular chicken/egg thing.  What can be marketed, and can be developed, will be marketed if the numbers are favorable.  Sometimes engineering produces that which can be directly marketed, or developed and marketed.. so many ways this can go.  But with a defined market and a 'developing' product the marketing guys are very much into the decision making process.  There are very few engineers calling the shots these days.  But none of that really matters, I think we can agree that if there is a huge call for LR to have layers, or layer like capabilities, and it will increase their market share/profits, then we'll have layers or layer like capabilities in LR.

Is layers at the raw level an engineering impossibility or an engineering problem yet to be solved?  And when it's solved will it work like layers in PS or will it just provide the same capabilities achieved differently?  I don't know enough to speculate, but from a business standpoint I'd guess when they do solve the issue, and it looks like the plug-in in the OP has went a ways to doing just that.. they'll call it layers and people will accept it.  For no other reason than because people know what layers are, what they do, and how they want to use them.  It's solid marketing.  UNLESS the new way offers significant benefits/advantages that warrants new terminology, which will result in more market share/profits.

Your knowledge of LR's development is interesting.  It helps us understand why we've seen some features and not others, and like you said, what we might see first in the future.

Yet, I've observed a big call for layers in LR and I can't see the ignoring it forever.  We've all started projects with specific goals and intents, only to see them refined and developed along the way.  There are many examples.

Personally I use both.. and C1pro and more.  I'd rather see them put more effort into database speed and efficiency, make it more stable/reliable, and take better advantage of newer hardware (more cores, RAM, SSD technology, hybrid tech, etc) to make our existing experience faster and more satisfying.  I import images into PS all the time, almost as a matter of course, and just having layers, or HDR, or Pano's.. would not change my workflow.  I'd still do these things in PS.  So far it seems that with actual imagine editing tools, most everything in PS works better for me.  I'd like to see CA handled much better though.. on par with C1 would be nice.

It would be soooo interesting to be that fly on the way and watch how these decisions are made.. we can all guess how such decisions are made in other companies.. but I want to know about this one.. Smiley
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7308


WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2011, 05:55:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

My view is that if it can be done parametrically that it is nice to have it in Lightroom. If the plugin does involve conversion to bitmap image I may see less benefit.

Best regards
Erik


Exactly. We need to muck up LR to be more like Photoshop while not concentrating on the things it needs more than layers? I think Jeff is spot on, the money is better spent upgrading to the later version of Photoshop so at least ACR is on parity for use of Smart Objects (and new, useful functionality such as Content Aware Fill etc). I don’t want LR to be Photoshop.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad