Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Does LR4 need to go on a diet?  (Read 13822 times)
Les Sparks
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2012, 01:30:34 PM »
ReplyReply

But, without new features there would be no need to update from LR1 to LR4.
In reality, one persons bloat is another persons must have new feature.
I suspect that many of us who now see a particular feature as not necessary, will discover that it is really useful when they actually use it.
Les
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2012, 02:11:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I fully agree. On the other hand I dont see why Lightroom should support Blurb and GPS information. There are much better ways. InDesign from Adobe is a powerfull tool and supports Blurb's PDF to Book procedure. Geosetter is a powerfull tool to handle GPS informations and is free. I do not see what path Adobe is following with Lightroom 4. A bit of everything ? In addition it will not work under Windows XP. Frankly speeeking, I'm not impressed.

GPS integration is a very welcome addition. Geosetter is an extremely clunky implementation.

Blurb integration is a tool for Adobe to get a cut of Blurb's revenue (or maybe Blurb just paid for the tab), and for Blurb to expand their potential customer base. If people actually use it, expect to see more such tie-ins in Adobe's future products. Fortunately it is a good feature with benefits for photographers, unfortunately it's just one service provider out of many.

LR will continue to bloat thanks to the never-ending feature requests here and elsewhere, and for Adobe's necessity to roll out updates periodically ($$$).
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2012, 02:55:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Too bad we can't have a series of check boxes for which modules we might want installed. Wink  I don't have any interest in video processing.
Once the software is developed, the cost for shipping you the megabytes is close to 0 for everyone.

While feature bloat can cause a cluttered user interface and a strain on development time/money/people, I think that adding video editing to Lightroom is not what make its still-image development slower.

-h
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2000


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2012, 03:02:23 PM »
ReplyReply

So I'm assuming you are the final voice as to what should and should not be included? See that's the issue. It's not about you or me individually, it's not about what you want or don't want in the software, it's what works well for the total user base.
I don't see my opinion as the final word, but it's just as important as anyone else's.
Maybe my opinion IS more important to Adobe than some of the other voices. If Adobe want to keep their customers upgrading they need to listen to the existing customers that aren't upgrading because they're the people that can build their business on, or loose it. The fanbois that just stump up the cash for every upgrade regardless are cash cows they don't need to worry about.
Quote
I guess the most amazing thing Microsoft ever did was create an operating system that lasted a decade. Perhaps that's why they simply don't inspire innovation anymore.
Curious how maturity and stability isn't valued in software. No one suggests throwing away Leicas because they're old.
Quote
I can only assume that the voices of LR4 frustration stem from amateurs and hobbyists,
I'm sure you're correct, as I'm also sure that they are the largest sector of users of LR.
Quote
Ask for features you would benefit from and you may receive if enough people also require such a feature, but simply saying it's bloated is of no value to the development team.
I've contributed to official feature requests on each beta and release. It's nice to see some requests being implemented eg book creation, soft proofing etc. However it's frustrating when those features then arrive incomplete, eg not being able to soft proof for book creation or not having custom layout capability like Blurb's free software has.
It's also worth pointing out when some additions to the program aren't wanted. They need to know where to stop adding unwanted features too.
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1291


« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2012, 07:14:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I suppose the key here is that it's not the download size that is the problem but rather the impact on the installed software.

It would be nice if the Lightroom installer let you select which parts of the package you wanted so that you could (for example) exclude the video stuff from installation.

I suppose the question boils down to is the increase in disk space significant?

Given that the installation of the application is typically on the same partition as that used for caching images (and the library), the more space that the application takes up the less space it will have to use for data.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2012, 01:52:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I suppose the key here is that it's not the download size that is the problem but rather the impact on the installed software.

It would be nice if the Lightroom installer let you select which parts of the package you wanted so that you could (for example) exclude the video stuff from installation.

I suppose the question boils down to is the increase in disk space significant?

Given that the installation of the application is typically on the same partition as that used for caching images (and the library), the more space that the application takes up the less space it will have to use for data.
400MB (if that is installed size) is 20 raw files from my DSLR. I have 30000 images in my library. My guess is that those 400MB is mostly image files used in the GUI/help and possible sound files. Adding or removing a function in itself may not impact filesize that much (you can do _a lot_ in 100KB of pure functional code)

Actually, I have my windows, lightroom and image cache on a 128GB SSD, while image library is on a spinning disk. Even then, 0.5GB more or less is insignificant.

If these new functions don't get in my way, allows Adobe to sell more copies, be more profitable and secure the funds in order to continue development of core still-image quality enhancements, I have no problem with it.

-h
Logged
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424


« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2012, 03:18:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm sure you're correct, as I'm also sure that they are the largest sector of users of LR.
Amateurs (like me) may be the largest sector of users, but not the largest sector of customers, if you know what I mean. Roll Eyes
Adobe don't have to listen to non-upgrading users but to non-upgrading customers.
I'll upgrade Lr 99% for every and each version; not because I'm a 'fanboy', but because it's probably the software I use the most on my machine.
I wan't it to be as up to date as possible.
An OS primitive must be fast and stable: a digital photography workflow assistant should be cutting edge.

Anyway, FWIW, I -do- like the new features and I'm not a photo professional. So what?
As others told better before me, what may not work for you could be a huge time saver for others.
I don't care at all the MB count of the binaries. 200MB or 600MB means nothing to me. 20GB would be critical. My attention lies somewhere else.
My SSD drive (which is meant for Apps and other important files) can accomodate way more than that  Smiley
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2012, 04:34:00 PM »
ReplyReply

It's also worth pointing out when some additions to the program aren't wanted. They need to know where to stop adding unwanted features too.

I seriously doubt whether, given their competing priorities, Adobe ever have added, or ever will add, a feature that isn't wanted. Unwanted by you, sure, unwanted by others on a thread, probably, but they do their homework in ways that you or I never could (unless you happen to own a consumer research business) and wouldn't waste their time on features that aren't wanted. Video is a case in point. I have read, over the years, lots of old-fart (or young-fart) harrumphing on forums from people who never use it. Meanwhile, maybe, out there, plenty of people who use cameras that take quality stills and videos and want to manage the assets together.
Logged

vladssad
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2012, 11:23:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Not much of interest in the  size growth :

227MB = 2064 JPG files
86.5MB = 777 DCP (camera profiles)
177MB = 617 LCP (lens profiles)
197MB = support subdirectory (optionally used files)

EXE and DLL files in Lightroom directory itself only grown from 58 files at 51MB to 88 files at 100MB.

Not bad for the new features and performance of the software seems comparable or better to 3.6 (at a first glance, no measurements).
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2012, 11:38:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Some of you need to get out and shoot more.
Logged

CASpyr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #30 on: January 25, 2012, 04:05:38 AM »
ReplyReply

But, without new features there would be no need to update from LR1 to LR4.

I beg to differ. This view does not take into account the significant improvements in the processing engine from LR1 to LR4. Those improvements alone almost make a good case for upgrading on their own (IMHO of course).
I'm very glad to get these improvements in core functionality as they directly contribute to higher quality output. As for additional features, I don't care about some of the new things that were added, but I have no problem ignoring them as I don't think they impact the usability/performance of the program noticeably (final proof being the final release of LR4, of course).
Furthermore, I don't think that all of the new stuff are 'additional features' but are fleshing out of functionality already present in the very first LR version. Case in point being soft proofing, nicely complementing and enhancing the printing functionality of LR. These kind of things are certainly most welcome.

Christian

Logged

----------------
Christian Spyr
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #31 on: January 25, 2012, 07:08:42 PM »
ReplyReply

A lot of the new size comes from libraries needed to support the new functionality (like books, video, etc.).  But like others have said, its footprint is probably tiny compared to your image collection ...
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3645



WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 25, 2012, 08:04:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I think we should worry about feature bloat.
Adding unwanted features can slow the whole program down, make it unnecessarily more complex to use and that it can restrict it's usefulness(eg not being able to use LR4 on XP because of the video features).
Bloat:Definition - Things added to a programme that the complainer does not want or need. The fact that these features may be incredibly important to many other users is never considered or taken into account.

BTW I've been asking for video inclusion since LR first appeared as having to manage my digitals assets in multiple programmes undermines the point of the Digital Asset Manager that LR purports to be.
Besides software is not necessarily more complex if it adds more abilities that work in the way you would expect from the programme. And adds zero complexity if you don't need to use them.  Wink

Having said that LR's faffy way of processing video is well faffy. There's a sync feature in LR Dev module to match images that would do exactly what you need for applying a look to your video files from the sample jpeg, without the daft making presets fudge that is currently being used and this would allow for a much faster workflow too.
Logged

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

Posts: 5541


WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 25, 2012, 08:38:19 PM »
ReplyReply

LR's faffy way of processing video is well faffy.

Define "faffy"...is that the same as fuggly? Or FUBAR? (I'm assuming it's not a positive adjective :~)
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8009


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 25, 2012, 11:53:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I like to add some short videos to my slide shows, but going to editor, create new project, edit, share for a 5 second clip is to much mess. So I really like that feature in LR4.

The problem is that whatever the feature is, there is someone out there who would not live without it.

Best regards
Erik


I'm not so crazy about the basic video editing, although to be able to color correct the video is a nice thing, but for video editing I guess a lot of us go to another software, the geolocation that's a good one.
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2910


« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2012, 03:44:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Would it not be better if things like video was an optional plug in?
Logged

kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 26, 2012, 04:19:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Would it not be better if things like video was an optional plug in?
;

In LR4 it is optional. You need never see the module again. Adobe is taking care of those who want it, and of those who don't. .
Logged

albartpeter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2012, 11:53:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I keep on examining these function needs and individuals are not going to be satisfied until LR becomes Illustrator (or at least just the components we usually use).  Ain't want to occur.  LR is NOT PS.
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2012, 12:00:43 PM »
ReplyReply

In LR3.5 I already get rid of features I don't want. I just remove the Web and Slideshow modules from the application folder, and they don't load.

So I have Library - Develop - Print

That's all I want, need and use. Even with my big Hass 3FR files it runs briskly and gets the job done.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 02, 2012, 05:19:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Define "faffy"...is that the same as fuggly? Or FUBAR? (I'm assuming it's not a positive adjective :~)

My wife uses the word "faff" regularly. In her vocabulary it means "to fiddle with something in an unnecessarily complicated, unproductive and annoying way". As in "stop faffing around with that camera and start cooking the dinner before we all die of starvation" .
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad