Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What's still missing from LR4?  (Read 20545 times)
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #80 on: February 14, 2012, 08:13:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Not having seen that, Jeremy, I don't get what you mean.

@Rhossydd Thanks for the feedback. I have since made some changes which do try to simplify things, but I still think there's some way to go.

John
Logged

jeremyrh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 240


« Reply #81 on: February 14, 2012, 08:32:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Not having seen that, Jeremy, I don't get what you mean.
Sorry if that was cryptic :-) - I just meant that Seth makes a good case for keywording for everyday photographers, and not just professionals, and has some concrete examples of how to put it into practice. He makes the point that keywording is part of the workflow, and not just a "nice to have". If more people had taken that on board then there would be more interest in your contribution and in the LR functionality.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #82 on: February 14, 2012, 09:01:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Gotcha.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3197



WWW
« Reply #83 on: February 14, 2012, 08:59:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I should point out I don't even recall seeing this particular tool on your sites John.
One of the problems with websites in general is that there are so many millions of interesting websites out there, that keeping up with them is a full time job in itself. And it is so very easy to miss useful info. With the immediacy of online content news tends to happen in real time, so if you do not look at all the sites on a daily basis [or even hourly basis with some] you can easily miss even important stuff, as it's already been replaced by the next news item.
Logged

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

Posts: 310


WWW
« Reply #84 on: February 14, 2012, 09:17:09 PM »
ReplyReply

CMYK output would be nice. Also, would like to be able create presets for multiple exports (that is, to export at various predetermined sizes, file types, kinds of sharpening, etc., with one click).
Logged

Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 542


« Reply #85 on: February 14, 2012, 09:42:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I could do with a possibility to alter a graduated filter mask a bit further.

What I mean by that is the ability to "paint" away the effect of a graduated filter from taller trees for example. Or when you have a clear horizon, but 1/3rd of the photo is land etc.

+1 !!!!!!!  A graduated filter "eraser" would be a valuable tool for eliminating the filter from foreground elements, etc.
Logged
Javier S.
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #86 on: February 15, 2012, 03:58:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I might have got it wrong, but in the spanish edition of Scott Kelby´s "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3" on the page 108, under "creation and use of various catalogs" it goes:
"LR has been designed to administrate a library of, literally, tnths of thousands of images  and I know about photographers that have  50.000 or 60.000 images in their catalogs and, even though, LR is able to work with them. Anyway, once your catalog is getting so big, LR will start to work slower. Thankfully tou can create more catalogs ..."
The translation is as close to the spanish version I have as I´m able to produce.
I read this same thing in other places, probably deriving from this same sentence?

Thanks a lot for your advise, I feel much more confident now with bigger catalogs, wich suites me much better in my workflow.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2012, 05:04:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Glad to hear it. While SK may have a successful business model, people don't buy his books for advice on digital asset management.
Logged

Remo Nonaz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 243


WWW
« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2012, 07:58:20 PM »
ReplyReply



- 'print size' added to the default FIT, FILL, 1:1, etc.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2012, 08:03:45 PM by Remo Nonaz » Logged

I really enjoy using old primes on my m4/3 camera. There's something about having to choose your aperture and actually focusing your camera that makes it so much more like... like... PHOTOGRAPHY!
Nigel Johnson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


« Reply #89 on: February 18, 2012, 05:12:35 PM »
ReplyReply

- 'print size' added to the default FIT, FILL, 1:1, etc.

Remo

Unlike Photoshop, there is no concept of print size in Lightroom except in the Print module; so I see no way this would be possible. This independence from print size is an advantage of Lightroom since different sizes, with appropriate output sharpening, can easily be created in the Print Module.

Regards
Nigel
Logged
Costas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #90 on: February 19, 2012, 04:09:36 AM »
ReplyReply


- 'print size' added to the default FIT, FILL, 1:1, etc.

Good point, can sometimes be useful to view the output on screen at the print size, especially when this is smaller than your monitor. Would that be in the print module
Logged
luxborealis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 943



WWW
« Reply #91 on: February 19, 2012, 10:41:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Try it! You'll see that although LR does show a facsimile of the print, it is at a standard size in relation to your monitor and the preview panel size - not the actual size of the print. Toggling on "Page Bleed" in the Guides palette will show you the whole page and not just the print area.
Logged

Terry McDonald
Revealing the art inherent in nature
- visit luxBorealis.com.
Have a read of my PhotoBlog and subscribe!
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #92 on: February 19, 2012, 10:47:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Another thing missing;

Why aren't the keywording tools, ie the same panels as in library module, available in the import dialogue ?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #93 on: February 19, 2012, 11:07:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Because the import dialog doesn't - and shouldn't - attempt to duplicate every aspect of Library. Import is for getting your pictures into the library, so its keywording box is just for keywords common to all the files you're importing.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #94 on: February 19, 2012, 11:16:30 AM »
ReplyReply

...shouldn't - attempt to duplicate every aspect of Library.... Import is for getting your pictures into the library, so its keywording box is just for keywords common to all the files you're importing.

There's a lot of wasted space on the import dialogue panel on most modern systems. If they're going to put the keyword input option there, why not make it as useful as possible ?
Logged
aduke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360


« Reply #95 on: February 19, 2012, 11:22:18 AM »
ReplyReply

A "test strip" facility in the Print module. You would set page size as usual and, separately, set print size. LR would render the as much of the image. at the print size, using the print resolution, if selected, into to page size. There should be the ability to drag the print to show the desired portion of the image.

Alan
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #96 on: February 19, 2012, 11:43:29 AM »
ReplyReply

There's a lot of wasted space on the import dialogue panel on most modern systems. If they're going to put the keyword input option there, why not make it as useful as possible ?
Because there's no point creating a duplicate place to do serious keywording. Granted, there's often wasted space, and you might make a similar argument for using the space for a Metadata panel or even Quick Develop. But this is always assuming the Import dialog is for something other than moving pictures off cameras and ensuring you have two copies. That is its core role, and the reason it has that keywording box is so people can efficiently slap on a few keywords that happen to be common to the shoot.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #97 on: February 19, 2012, 11:53:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Why argue not to add a feature that wouldn't significantly compromise the existing workflow ?
...and the reason it has that keywording box is so people can efficiently slap on a few keywords that happen to be common to the shoot.
So why shouldn't that be easier ?

One of LR's key feature's it's it's DAM capability. The easier that is to use, the more useful the program becomes.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #98 on: February 19, 2012, 11:58:45 AM »
ReplyReply

In the map module;

A finer scale of time offset from a preloaded track.
This needs to be down to individual minutes, not hours to correct differences between cameras & GPS loggers.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #99 on: February 19, 2012, 12:12:31 PM »
ReplyReply

"Why argue not to add a feature that wouldn't significantly compromise the existing workflow ?" etc

Because a duplicated feature does come at a cost - the development time which would be better spent on other DAM features. Simply in the area of keywording, sets could be made bigger and the clever keyword suggestion idea could be expanded. Reorganising keywords is a pain, and multilingual keywording is difficult. The Do Not Export flag is right for some people, wrong for others, and needs revisiting. There's also a bug affecting Windows users with large numbers of keywords.

I don't say that the DAM features shouldn't receive more attention - I am disappointed they don't - but Import's for the physical aspects of DAM, not for serious kewording.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 12:29:11 PM by johnbeardy » Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad