Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What are you wishing for in LR5 ?  (Read 65331 times)
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #300 on: April 01, 2013, 09:10:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Another item:

A masking tool to deal with shadow noise.  This would work much like the masking tool for sharpening, but instead of looking for edges... it would look for luminance in the image.  Adjusting the slider to the right would move from applying noise reduction to the entire image, to applying it to the luminance values you really need it applied to.  Many images don't technically need much (if any) noise reduction overall, but the shadows do if you have brought them up to any large extent.  This would allow you to apply noise reduction to just those areas.

Yes, I realize you can use local adjustments to do the same thing, but it's much more tedious to do so.  Thoughts?
Logged

aduke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 361


« Reply #301 on: April 01, 2013, 10:58:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting idea.

Perhaps an alternative definition of the slider: moving the slider to the right raises the luminance level that noise reduction is applied to. This would keep the slider movement consistent with that of the other develop module sliders.

Alan
Logged
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #302 on: April 02, 2013, 12:17:04 AM »
ReplyReply

True, although I was thinking of it working more like the sharpening mask, the more to the right, the "less" of the image it applies to.  Meaning it would default to the far left (or close to it) so that noise reduction would be applied to all luminance levels.  i think that would be the case more so than not...for those that are shooting high ISO images.  For those of us that usually shoot very low ISO speeds, we rarely need it on the whole image... just in the deep shadows with very low luminance values.  Personally I'd rather see the default be the whole image, and any adjustment otherwise would be up to the user.
Logged

John Caldwell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 463



« Reply #303 on: April 04, 2013, 08:00:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Once the keyword list is large it's a great help to filter the list of KW displayed. I find my filter lists are often repeated depending on assignment type, but the filter list may contain up to 20 or so keywords. So the idea of creating, reusing and editing "filter lists" is very appealing to me. It's a considerable use of time to type those lists repeatedly.

Keyword Sets, which we now have, is not equivalent to Filter List presets.

John Caldwell
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4025



« Reply #304 on: April 05, 2013, 09:16:59 AM »
ReplyReply

How about being able to delete just one history step. I haven't been able to figure out how to do that.

I mentioned that as a possibility just after LR1 was released. Jeff's response (on this site) was, well, very Jeff-like. I haven't held my breath for it since.

Jeremy
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4025



« Reply #305 on: April 05, 2013, 09:18:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Another item:

A masking tool to deal with shadow noise.  This would work much like the masking tool for sharpening, but instead of looking for edges... it would look for luminance in the image.  Adjusting the slider to the right would move from applying noise reduction to the entire image, to applying it to the luminance values you really need it applied to.  Many images don't technically need much (if any) noise reduction overall, but the shadows do if you have brought them up to any large extent.  This would allow you to apply noise reduction to just those areas.

Yes, I realize you can use local adjustments to do the same thing, but it's much more tedious to do so.  Thoughts?

I agree it would be very useful.

Jeremy
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1951


WWW
« Reply #306 on: April 05, 2013, 09:50:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I realize you can use local adjustments to do the same thing, but it's much more tedious to do so.  Thoughts?
I don't really see a masking provision being much different in use to local adjustment.
The real star addition would be to add the HSL panel to the local adjustment options, the TAT option would open so many possibilities.
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718


« Reply #307 on: April 05, 2013, 09:53:03 AM »
ReplyReply

The problem I see with all of the above "wishes" is that most photographers see LR as a Raw converter and a fully blown photo editor. There was a thread on the forum recently about the meaning of editor but I don't want to open that can of worms again. It wasn't intended to be both and it won't - imo - be both? Therefore I take it that most of the "wishes" won't happen especially because some of them are already implemented and some photographers didn't realise they were there. I suspect about 10% of them will be implemented in LR5 and then another wish list will start for LR6. What would be interesting would be a wish list for the modules and functions that are already implemented and could be left out in future versions. Wink
Logged

John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #308 on: April 05, 2013, 03:31:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't really see a masking provision being much different in use to local adjustment.
The real star addition would be to add the HSL panel to the local adjustment options, the TAT option would open so many possibilities.


I agree HSL localized would be a very good addiition.  I still would like the masking provision for noise adjustment however.  One, I think it would be pretty easy to do, luminance data is readily available in the raw file.  Two, vx. the local adjustment brush... it's much quicker/efficient to drag a slider over with the ALT held down to see the masking, than it is to paint the adjustment in with a brush....in my opinion.
Logged

John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #309 on: April 05, 2013, 03:33:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The problem I see with all of the above "wishes" is that most photographers see LR as a Raw converter and a fully blown photo editor. There was a thread on the forum recently about the meaning of editor but I don't want to open that can of worms again. It wasn't intended to be both and it won't - imo - be both? Therefore I take it that most of the "wishes" won't happen especially because some of them are already implemented and some photographers didn't realise they were there. I suspect about 10% of them will be implemented in LR5 and then another wish list will start for LR6. What would be interesting would be a wish list for the modules and functions that are already implemented and could be left out in future versions. Wink

I don't think we will see much of this on Lr5 either, unless it just happened to be already planned by luck.  If they're reading this however, perhaps it will enter some thoughts for Lr6. 
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1680


« Reply #310 on: April 06, 2013, 05:26:51 AM »
ReplyReply

The problem I see with all of the above "wishes" is that most photographers see LR as a Raw converter and a fully blown photo editor. There was a thread on the forum recently about the meaning of editor but I don't want to open that can of worms again. It wasn't intended to be both and it won't - imo - be both?
...
I have the opposite view: Lightroom was (or should be?) intended as a "fully blown" parametric photo editor integrated with a sensible database engine. By "photo editor" I mean the kind of editing that is needed by "photographers" working on "photos". It should probably never include the flexibility and functionality of Photoshop geared towards "graphics artists" and other users that do visual work far removed from photography.

If Lightroom did close to 100% of what _I_ want to do to my photos without introducing usability "clutter", then it would be worth even more to me. I am guessing that much of Lightrooms success is based on many people having sufficiently similar needs, needs that were sufficiently covered by Lightroom.

-h
Logged
mburke
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #311 on: April 06, 2013, 06:38:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I mentioned that as a possibility just after LR1 was released. Jeff's response (on this site) was, well, very Jeff-like. I haven't held my breath for it since.

Jeremy

Thanks for the reply. Just the other day I was working on an old photo that had a bunch of edit steps. I wanted to warm it up and add some clarity. I didn't like the changes. It would have been nice to just highlight those 2 and hit delete. There have been times when I had a list of edits where I wanted to go back and highlight a couple steps and then delete. There may be a way to do this but I haven't run across it.

Mike
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #312 on: April 06, 2013, 08:30:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think we will see much of this on Lr5 either, unless it just happened to be already planned by luck.  If they're reading this however, perhaps it will enter some thoughts for Lr6.  

Feature requests (like the ones in this thread) and Lightroom development happen on a "staggered timeframe".  By this, I mean that the feature set for the next Lightroom was actually determined long ago, shortly after Lr 4 shipped.  This feature set was in turn determined by requests that came in during the Lr 4 development cycle (yes, we had a similar thread on LL then!).

So, John's comment above is right on:  this thread isn't going to factor into the next major Lr version, but into the one after that ...
Logged

John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #313 on: April 06, 2013, 09:04:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Feature requests (like the ones in this thread) and Lightroom development happen on a "staggered timeframe".  By this, I mean that the feature set for the next Lightroom was actually determined long ago, shortly after Lr 4 shipped.  This feature set was in turn determined by requests that came in during the Lr 4 development cycle (yes, we had a similar thread on LL then!).

So, John's comment above is right on:  this thread isn't going to factor into the next major Lr version, but into the one after that ...


Thanks for the confirmation Eric, now just give me my luminance mask for noise  Grin
Logged

Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107


« Reply #314 on: April 06, 2013, 02:28:55 PM »
ReplyReply

How about a simple Envoke backup NOW!!

It is tough to expect large catalogs to be backed up at all intervals and a manual backup is a must
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718


« Reply #315 on: April 07, 2013, 04:03:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the reply. Just the other day I was working on an old photo that had a bunch of edit steps. I wanted to warm it up and add some clarity. I didn't like the changes. It would have been nice to just highlight those 2 and hit delete. There have been times when I had a list of edits where I wanted to go back and highlight a couple steps and then delete. There may be a way to do this but I haven't run across it.

Mike

If you were to delete two edits then that will have an effect on the others you made? I know that all of the edits are applied at the end but from a workflow point of view it changes everything. If you make a boost in contrast followed by a small boost in saturation and then delete the contrast edit then the saturation boost will be affected. Personally if I don't like what image looks like after it is "finished" then I would start over again.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 04:07:38 AM by stamper » Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718


« Reply #316 on: April 07, 2013, 04:06:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I have the opposite view: Lightroom was (or should be?) intended as a "fully blown" parametric photo editor integrated with a sensible database engine. By "photo editor" I mean the kind of editing that is needed by "photographers" working on "photos". It should probably never include the flexibility and functionality of Photoshop geared towards "graphics artists" and other users that do visual work far removed from photography.

If Lightroom did close to 100% of what _I_ want to do to my photos without introducing usability "clutter", then it would be worth even more to me. I am guessing that much of Lightrooms success is based on many people having sufficiently similar needs, needs that were sufficiently covered by Lightroom.

-h

And how much more would you be willing to spend when buying the next version? Nobody seems to think about that when they make multiple wishes. It all costs money with regards to research and implementation. Smiley
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1951


WWW
« Reply #317 on: April 07, 2013, 04:21:25 AM »
ReplyReply

And how much more would you be willing to spend when buying the next version?
That, of course, depends on what's in it, or what's taken out.

I'd happily pay 250( $375) for an upgrade if it had all the features I'd like added, and the unnecessary resource wasting bits stripped out. The chances of the later happening seem pretty slim though.
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718


« Reply #318 on: April 07, 2013, 04:42:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think that most users would be willing to pay that much? Many at the moment see LR as a cheap alternative to PS and wish for it to remain that way. There has to be a balance but finding it is difficult. I am sure Adobe knows where the balance is but obviously won't reveal it.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1951


WWW
« Reply #319 on: April 07, 2013, 04:55:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Many at the moment see LR as a cheap alternative to PS and wish for it to remain that way.
An interesting way to think of it.
I don't see it as an alternative to PS at all. It does so much more and has become the core of my photographic workflow and as such I'm prepared to pay a significant amount to pull it up to what I'd like to see it do.
Whether I'd pay that much for another couple of minor additions is a different matter.

I've pretty much given up upgrading PS at CS4 after which they started taking things out I used. I can't see myself upgrading PS again now. The few things I can't do in LR now, can be done in CS4 or ID4 (or even The Gimp, Scribus or Booksmart).

The only thing that will kill LR for me is if they move it to being a cloud based operation, then I'll be looking elsewhere.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad