Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Does LR4 need to go on a diet?  (Read 13435 times)
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3546



WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 03, 2012, 06:58:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Define "faffy"...is that the same as fuggly? Or FUBAR? (I'm assuming it's not a positive adjective :~)
You Americans, not understanding the Queen'sEnglish! ;-)

Faff verb - (UK) To waste time on an unproductive activity.
"I decided to stop faffing about and get some work done."
Faff - adj - (UK) fiddly, fussy.
"He was able to get the job done, but it was a bit of a faff."

Actually as it turns out LR4 isn't a such a faff to use when syncing videos, as you can indeed sync in the dev module as I thought you should be able to. It's just all the instructions I've seen on how to use LR4 videos chose to use a faffy workaround fudge of way of doing things.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #41 on: February 04, 2012, 03:52:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Faff - adj - (UK) fiddly, fussy.
"He was able to get the job done, but it was a bit of a faff."

Ah, hmmmm . . .

I would point out that this is not an adjectival usage of faff, but demonstrates its use as a noun.

Just to set the record straight  Wink

John
Logged

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

Posts: 1264


« Reply #42 on: March 06, 2012, 02:32:44 AM »
ReplyReply

The final LR4 download for Windows now weighs in at 718MB.

This is three times the size of 3.5.

What happened there?
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 06, 2012, 02:44:14 AM »
ReplyReply

It's both 32 and 64 bit versions and it has a extra modules and a lot more functionality.
Logged

richarddd
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2012, 08:42:14 AM »
ReplyReply

For me the most important changes from LR3.6 are in the develop module rather than in adding new features, the bulk of which I don't care about.

Adding the healing tools from PS would be nice. 

It's far from clear that the existence of other modules slows anything down.   

Disk space is so cheap these days it's hard to see why anyone cares about file size.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #45 on: March 06, 2012, 03:18:03 PM »
ReplyReply

For me the most important changes from LR3.6 are in the develop module rather than in adding new features, the bulk of which I don't care about.

Adding the healing tools from PS would be nice. 

It's far from clear that the existence of other modules slows anything down.   

Disk space is so cheap these days it's hard to see why anyone cares about file size.
There is some (probably irrational) perception about filesize. When my HP printer tells me to download a 120 MB driver in order to print a document, my initial thought is "incompetent developers and/or bloatware", and it turns out that I am right on both accounts. When the foobar2000 sound player offers playback of all kinds of sound files in 3 MB, my gut-feeling is that those guys must be making a solid application, and it turns out that I am right.

-h
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #46 on: March 06, 2012, 06:31:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I have no problem with bloat as long as it doesn't affect anything else, but the problem is, it always does.
Always. There are no exceptions.

I'm a still photographer, and LR started out as a way to post-process and file still photographs. They sold me that idea, and I bought into it, and now I have a large LR database that would be a little complicated to get out of. Now I have to pay for video capability and book making and other stuff. I have no use for it, but I have to pay for it to keep my database going in a current version. So why not just skip the new version? Because I do want the updates and increased functionality of the product that was originally sold to me -- that is, better data-base functionality, better ACR, more camera coverage, better still-photo post processing. But to get that, I have to pay for all these other new functions that originally were not part of the program.

And that's the difference between updates and bloat. Updates make the old program better. Bloat adds stuff that a lot of the original buyers don't want, but have to pay for.

I think Adobe would have done better is they had a core LR program with lots of optional plugins -- not for small features, like a plug-in for sharpening, but the big ones, like video processing or book production. Sell them separately.
Logged
richarddd
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


WWW
« Reply #47 on: March 06, 2012, 06:38:41 PM »
ReplyReply

And that's the difference between updates and bloat. Updates make the old program better. Bloat adds stuff that a lot of the original buyers don't want, but have to pay for.
All that bloat has resulted in LR4 costing half of what they charged for LR3
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 06, 2012, 08:34:35 PM »
ReplyReply

John - the price has been reduced.  I don't think you have too much to complain about paying for the bloat - remember, the revenue generated by sales to people who do want those features are also funding upgrades to the features that you care about.
Logged

FredT
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #49 on: March 06, 2012, 09:56:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The final LR4 download for Windows now weighs in at 718MB.

This is three times the size of 3.5.

What happened there?
Don't complain: the Mac version is 909MB vs 101MB for LR3.6!  What's a little more troubling is that it seems to be taking more than three times as much RAM doing the same tasks.
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #50 on: March 07, 2012, 01:21:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Using or allocating?  Are you running out?  Is it slower?
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #51 on: March 07, 2012, 01:39:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I have no problem with bloat as long as it doesn't affect anything else, but the problem is, it always does.
Always. There are no exceptions.
Sure there are exceptions. If version 2 of a product is delivered with 1GB of PDF documentation, while version 1 is not, you might say that the distributable file is bloated. It does not affect the gui experience, does not make the application run any slower, and can in fact safely be deleted by the user so as to reclaim hd space.

I think that the correct thing to say is that "bloat" affects anything else in subtle ways that are very hard to estimate by end-users. It might make that application slower, more buggy, etc, to a large degree, to a small degree or to exactly zero degree.

-h
Logged
FredT
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #52 on: March 07, 2012, 12:05:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Using or allocating?  Are you running out?  Is it slower?
For me it's using more memory, but I'm not running out, and it is not slower.  Not a problem now, could be if it increases proportionally to the way version 3 can.  In the very limited testing I've done, 3.6 was using up to about 800MB while 4.0 was up to 2.4GB.  I've seen version 3 use over 2GB, if 4 went to 6GB that might be a problem.  That said, I'm really liking how responsive version 4 seems, so it seems that perhaps the increased memory usage is being put to good use.
Logged
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343


WWW
« Reply #53 on: March 07, 2012, 12:43:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah, hmmmm . . .

I would point out that this is not an adjectival usage of faff, but demonstrates its use as a noun.

Just to set the record straight  Wink

John

The usage in this phrase seems adjectival to me, especially in the context of an idiomatic expression. That is, "bit of faff"= fussy, fiddly or hard. :-/
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 12:58:53 PM by David Eichler » Logged

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

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #54 on: March 07, 2012, 01:43:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah, David, but you have misquoted. I was referring to "a bit of a faff".

When we use 'a' in front of something, that something is usually a noun.

And no, fellow Forum members, this does not have much relevance to Lightroom or the rest of this thread. My apologies.

John
Logged

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

Posts: 2110


« Reply #55 on: March 07, 2012, 02:57:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi folks, with Lr 4 we have some more advanced caching systems in place (esp. in Develop) which can increase memory usage some ... on the other hand, you should experience overall improved responsiveness.  This is of course a delicate balance and tradeoff.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8107



WWW
« Reply #56 on: March 07, 2012, 04:52:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah, David, but you have misquoted. I was referring to "a bit of a faff".

When we use 'a' in front of something, that something is usually a noun.

And no, fellow Forum members, this does not have much relevance to Lightroom or the rest of this thread. My apologies.

John
Let's start a rumor that version 4.1 of LR will have a de-faffing slider.   Cheesy
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

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

Posts: 1966


WWW
« Reply #57 on: March 07, 2012, 04:54:56 PM »
ReplyReply

you should experience overall improved responsiveness. 
Compared to what ? the beta ?

I don't think I've read one comment anywhere yet saying responsiveness of LR4 is better than LR3, but I've read loads of complaints about the sluggishness of the UI in LR4. Adobe have some serious code optimisation to do before Lightroom becomes a slick tool again, assuming that's possible with the new process at all.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3546



WWW
« Reply #58 on: March 07, 2012, 07:03:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah, hmmmm . . .

I would point out that this is not an adjectival usage of faff, but demonstrates its use as a noun.

Just to set the record straight  Wink

John
Duh! Of course it is. Not sure how that got through quality control.  Shocked
Logged

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

Posts: 3546



WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 07, 2012, 07:21:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm a still photographer, and LR started out as a way to post-process and file still photographs.
They sold me that idea, and I bought into it, and now I have a large LR database that would be a little complicated to get out of.
No, LR was designed as a tool for photographers. And astonishingly other photographers have different requirements from you.  Shocked
LR 1.0 also came with web, slideshow and print modules, not just a file and process application.
You could always use Bridge and ACR.

Quote
Now I have to pay for video capability and book making and other stuff. I have no use for it, but I have to pay for it to keep my database going in a current version.
Except this upgrade is less than previous upgrades.

Quote
So why not just skip the new version? Because I do want the updates and increased functionality of the product that was originally sold to me -- that is, better data-base functionality, better ACR, more camera coverage, better still-photo post processing. But to get that, I have to pay for all these other new functions that originally were not part of the program.

And that's the difference between updates and bloat. Updates make the old program better. Bloat adds stuff that a lot of the original buyers don't want, but have to pay for.
Translation of bloat - "Stuff I do not need." Other people other than yourself use LR and what they require from LR is not the same as you. So chill out and do not begrudge others who now have the tools they need.

Quote
I think Adobe would have done better is they had a core LR program with lots of optional plugins -- not for small features, like a plug-in for sharpening, but the big ones, like video processing or book production. Sell them separately.
Although I suggested a similar idea many years back for making LR more adaptable in a slightly different context, seeing as the upgrade price is only 50, why even bother at such low prices. And as suggested above, if you do not need certain module, just move them out of LR folder.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad