Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LightRoom6 Must have!  (Read 23538 times)
sm906
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96


WWW
« Reply #120 on: December 27, 2013, 11:43:39 PM »
ReplyReply

If I can get the majority of users to nod that they use dual screen, I can make my case for the NEED to seperate the Lib from Dev functionality!
This is LR achilies heel, and it is frustrating jumping back and forth.

I absolutely agree to this request. But, for an additional reason. The inherent database of LR is still a show stopper and needs to be changed by a new one with reasonable performance, or the existing one needs a vast bunch of optimization (at least for Wintel computers, such as Win 7 Ultimate 64bit in my case). It was of bad performance from the beginning and is of bad performance ever since. Two examples: When opening my D800 36MPixel files which are losless compressed (which reduces the file size by about 40% compared to the uncompressed files) LR is always showing its "Loading" info for about 4 sec, everytime I switch from one image to another. LR is doing this even though 1:1 previews are available in the highest resolution (for my 27" display). This is not the case when opening the same files with ACR in CS6 and when using Capture NX which is not known for its high performance either.

Second example: Recently I merged my different LR databases into one single database again. The database now has roughly 40.000 images in it. Every time I open LR it takes a while for the programm to finish its counting procedure for the number of images that are stored in the folders on the harddrive (3TB Seagate Barracuda with 7.200 rpm). This is not as annoying as the 4 seconds delay per image, but it's another hint for the bad performance or programming of the database.

Thomas

« Last Edit: December 27, 2013, 11:46:38 PM by sm906 » Logged

landscape - nature - wildlife - travel
photo workshops
http://hintze-photo.com
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #121 on: December 29, 2013, 03:40:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I always have and still do use two screens for the editing computer.
Agreed with the post above, the DB is making my beloved LR become pain ware.
>100k images yet I go in and work on images in this archive daily for fun. Separating catalogues would make doing this worse, as even as is, I have forgotten about shoots that have gems inside.
If the problem is brush tools adjustments then for LR6 why not have a toggle for switching them off unless in dev module?
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1083


« Reply #122 on: January 02, 2014, 02:41:14 AM »
ReplyReply

The more I think about it the more I see LR greatly benefits from a option to use Library mode as Browser only. Not force a catalog.
Logged

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

Posts: 2029


« Reply #123 on: January 02, 2014, 02:52:17 AM »
ReplyReply

The more I think about it the more I see LR greatly benefits from a option to use Library mode as Browser only. Not force a catalog.
So you want a pixel editor then? Use Photoshop.

Tony Jay
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #124 on: January 02, 2014, 03:02:25 AM »
ReplyReply

The more I think about it the more I see LR greatly benefits from a option to use Library mode as Browser only. Not force a catalog.

I'd keep thinking, Phil! What Lightroom needs is more/better features in Library, not to have one of its key features undermined.

John
Logged

Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 284


« Reply #125 on: January 02, 2014, 04:01:31 AM »
ReplyReply

The more I think about it the more I see LR greatly benefits from a option to use Library mode as Browser only. Not force a catalog.

That's like saying "I see cars would benefit from an option to use them in free wheel only.  Not force an engine on people."

The catalog is central to the way Lightroom works, it's the engine.  
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #126 on: January 02, 2014, 04:10:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd keep thinking, Phil! What Lightroom needs is more/better features in Library, not to have one of its key features undermined.
Absolutely. Lightroom juts needs a few tweaks and feature additions to be as near as perfect as we could hope for.
Whilst Phil tries to work in an unintended way with LR it's going to keep him frustrated.
Logged
Wills
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


Wills


WWW
« Reply #127 on: January 02, 2014, 04:16:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I would like to see all adjuments implemented through tonal range selection highlights, mid tones, shadows similar to curves since it exists it shouldn't be difficult to achieve.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #128 on: January 02, 2014, 05:16:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that the Develop module works reasonably well. That is also where I spend most of my time. Print also does what it is supposed to, I guess.

I think that the search and cataloging features of Lightroom are surprisingly weak. I mean, that is supposed to be one of the selling points of this kind of software. So why is it so unintuitive (introducing non-familiar UI conventions) and limited? Why are there no search functions based on image analysis (face detection, color content, in-focus estimation,…)? Why is not the tagging system better organized (nice hierachical tags? default tags/cloud-based auto-complete?) Ideally, I want this kind of program to keep track of every way in which I have ever accessed my image collection (search, collections etc) in a manner that is better than I could ever think of myself. That should be the main benefit of database-driven collection as opposed to just moving the files in a file folder system.

A friend of mine claims that Photoshop Elements (!) has search functions surpassing LR, at least in some areas. Is this really true?

The Book and Web modules are places I avoid spending time (I find that MS Paint gives me better flexibility in arranging multiple images before print, too bad that one loose color management that way). The Map module I haven't had a reason to test (due to lack of GPS). The Slideshow thingy works, although generating the show is painfully slow.

At least it is possible to switch to fullscreen with a simple keystroke now. This indicates to me that Adobe actually listens.

-h
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 05:20:51 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #129 on: January 02, 2014, 05:37:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Those are the kinds of things I'd like to see too, especially filtering based on colour content and other data which is already harvested and should be available to us. Why for example can't I find all my B&W images? Sure, you can find those converted in LR, but not TIFs converted in PS or Silver Efex etc which LR categorises as colour.

I also think we'd get a lot of bangs for our bucks from refinement of existing features such as smart collection criteria. For instance, we can't query all data in the database and use it to improve our quality control (eg find all pictures taken in the last x days with ISO > y but noise reduction not adjusted).  

John
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 05:39:31 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

Anthony.Ralph
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43



« Reply #130 on: January 02, 2014, 06:36:22 AM »
ReplyReply


[..]

 What Lightroom needs is more/better features in Library, not to have one of its key features undermined.

John

+1

Anthony.
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #131 on: January 02, 2014, 07:23:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry if this was cvoered.  But will there be a LR6? Wouldn't Adobe be making changes for CC members only?
Logged
tomrock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 237


WWW
« Reply #132 on: January 02, 2014, 08:14:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Remember when the Mac download was 80-90 megs? Now it's >400 megs.

I'd like to see them remove the book module, the map module and while they're at it the slideshow module.

Then they could concentrate on what Lightroom does.
Logged
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 512


« Reply #133 on: January 02, 2014, 09:32:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry if this was cvoered.  But will there be a LR6? Wouldn't Adobe be making changes for CC members only?

No.  Adobe have said LR will remain a stand alone perpetual license product.

Rand
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2391


« Reply #134 on: January 02, 2014, 09:46:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I would like to see all adjuments implemented through tonal range selection highlights, mid tones, shadows similar to curves since it exists it shouldn't be difficult to achieve.

You can do that by using the TAT.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8064



WWW
« Reply #135 on: January 02, 2014, 09:48:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd keep thinking, Phil! What Lightroom needs is more/better features in Library, not to have one of its key features undermined.

True indeed. But Phil is wanting to throw out the DAM baby with the bath water because he doesn't understand how the product works and is using it incorrectly. Hence his frustration. Over on PhotoNet, he posted the following which many here know to be untrue:

Quote
You can't even make adjustments and save the file and find it unless you Sync the folder every time.

Quote
I was talking about how saving files in PS force you to sync...So meaning, unless you saved the file in the same format in PS, LR will force you to sync.

Quote
When you are in LR, you make some adjustments and launch out to PS in TIF (set in Preferences to do so). Make your edits in PS that need layers etc, and save a PSD (AR: user error) OR if you launch out in PSD and save in TIF, (AR:more user error and misunderstanding) you lose the connection there also...or JPEG..either way it is not known to LR.

I tried to explain to him how this all works with the Edit In command and explain his misunderstanding of file formats required to use layers. But he's justifiably frustrated and I explained to him that Bridge + ACR will "free" him from one of the most important features of LR, the Library. So yes, getting back OT on the subject of what LR6 needs based on a sound understanding of the product, I agree with you and hjulenissen, we should be able to search for any or all metadata that exists and currently we can't. I know all my rendered images have color space tags, why can't I find them within LR? Why are the Filter attributes not the same as the Smart Collection attributes?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
colinm
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


« Reply #136 on: January 02, 2014, 09:50:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry if this was cvoered.  But will there be a LR6? Wouldn't Adobe be making changes for CC members only?

In addition to what Rand mentioned, they've also said there'll be feature parity if it ever splits into Lightroom and Lightroom CC. Any theoretical difference would be in features specific to what Creative Cloud offers (e.g. doing something with that mostly-useless 20GB of storage, syncing settings across computers, etc.).
Logged

Colin
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8064



WWW
« Reply #137 on: January 02, 2014, 09:52:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd like to see them remove the book module, the map module and while they're at it the slideshow module.
For a smaller installer? How about users like myself that use those modules, screw us? This is a lot like the DNG or Gay Marriage 'debate'. If you don't like those modules, don't use them. I'd be super pissed off if the some of those modules were gone, I use them. I also don't suggest the Photoshop team remove all the 3D functionality because I don't use them.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Wills
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


Wills


WWW
« Reply #138 on: January 02, 2014, 10:02:02 AM »
ReplyReply

You can do that by using the TAT.

I know Stamper that's what I want for all tools and brushes not just those covered at present
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #139 on: January 02, 2014, 11:43:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Remember when the Mac download was 80-90 megs? Now it's >400 megs.
Is that really a major problem to you for a once or twice a year download ?
Quote
I'd like to see them remove the book module, the map module and while they're at it the slideshow module.
I use both book and map modules, so I'd be very unhappy to see those left out.
and if you think removing the minor modules would reduce the download size, think again. On Windows the book module only adds 14Kb (yes Kb), next to nothing in the whole package.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad