| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2007 05:02:28 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
...confirmed by binary compare that, at least for Windows, this is EXACTLY the same file you may have already downloaded if you downloaded the 1.0 trial version.
So if you already downloaded the 1.0 trial (not the beta), you don't need to do the download. They are the same. More importantly, if you've already installed the 1.0 trial version, there's no need to reinstall. You should be able to enter your license key. |
Ah, good to see that the downloads are the same :-)
When the page with the serial number came up, I saved the number to a text file that I put with the previously-downloaded trial version. I then fired up the trial version and entered the serial number from the web page, clicked OK, et voila! Registered product. |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 05:17:46 PM · #27 |
Question for you LR users...
One thing I really liked about RSP is that I could just hit the INS key on an image (after having adjusted it as desired) and it would immediately begin exporting that image. I could, with a slower machine, get several images ahead of it ... adjust, INS, adjust, INS, adjust, INS, and when I was done, RSP would just catch up behind me. The nice thing is that all of my "think time" also turns into computer "processing time". RSP was a great multitasker and often finished processing only a few minutes behind me.
With LR it feels more "batch oriented".
It seems like, with LR, I should do all of my adjustments first and then Export at the end. But if I have hundreds of images to adjust, then that means having to wait for hundreds of images to process after I finish my adjustments (instead of only having to wait for a couple of images to process).
Is there anything equivalent to hitting the INS key with LR so that LR can be multitasking while I'm doing my adjustments?
Message edited by author 2007-02-23 17:18:02.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 06:29:06 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Thanks for all who answered my question. I might clarify a bit for RSP users who have not downloaded yet.
1) When you click on the link, your serial number is generated. You need to write that down! (You can copy/paste it to notepad or your PIM so you don't make any mistakes.) Also, you should print that page and keep the print as your receipt.
2) The next step is to download. I downloaded it and confirmed by binary compare that, at least for Windows, this is EXACTLY the same file you may have already downloaded if you downloaded the 1.0 trial version.
So if you already downloaded the 1.0 trial (not the beta), you don't need to do the download. They are the same. More importantly, if you've already installed the 1.0 trial version, there's no need to reinstall. You should be able to enter your license key. |
I thought I confirmed the same thing ;-)... |
|
|
|
02/23/2007 06:49:48 PM · #29 |
I don't see the point to LR.
But then I use DPP for RAW conversion and PS7 (CS3 soon) for editing.
My understanding is LR is targeted at pros that don't want to learn PS and have been complaining about it for a while now, and some for amateurs that want more than Elements but can't/won't spring for CS3 due to the price.
I suppose if a one-stop solution existed it might be handy, but since I'll still use PS7/CS and probably DPP, it's just another way to spend $200 to $300 without any real benefit.
Perhaps I just didn't spend enough time on the beta to see the advantage.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 07:29:58 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
My understanding is LR is targeted at pros that don't want to learn PS and have been complaining about it for a while now, and some for amateurs that want more than Elements but can't/won't spring for CS3 due to the price. |
Not really - it is intended for batch processing. CS3 does a good job at single image corrections, but not quick handling of a few hundred. Images from LS may still need touching up in CS3 (or similar).
|
|
|
|
02/23/2007 09:28:58 PM · #31 |
in love with this program so far... I like it alot
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:30:23 AM · #32 |
| i have been playing with it for a couple hours now, i think i like it for simple things |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 04:25:13 AM · #33 |
I agree with the comment that it is for batch or quick processing. Preparing an image for a challenge I might spend a lot of time in CS but when you need to quickly process many images, CS is not feasible and LR rocks.
I especially love the tone mapper and agree it prevents me from being too heavy handed. But the features that will make me purchase it are:
* Batch Keywording and general metadata management
* Black & White conversion |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 05:20:23 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Question for you LR users...
One thing I really liked about RSP is that I could just hit the INS key on an image (after having adjusted it as desired) and it would immediately begin exporting that image. I could, with a slower machine, get several images ahead of it ... adjust, INS, adjust, INS, adjust, INS, and when I was done, RSP would just catch up behind me. The nice thing is that all of my "think time" also turns into computer "processing time". RSP was a great multitasker and often finished processing only a few minutes behind me.
With LR it feels more "batch oriented".
It seems like, with LR, I should do all of my adjustments first and then Export at the end. But if I have hundreds of images to adjust, then that means having to wait for hundreds of images to process after I finish my adjustments (instead of only having to wait for a couple of images to process).
Is there anything equivalent to hitting the INS key with LR so that LR can be multitasking while I'm doing my adjustments? |
There's a keyboard shortcut to 'export' an image via a dialogue for settings, or another to 'export as previous' which just processes it in background. Same as RSP, and likewise allows you to continue your editing over it - also, you can start your edit before the program has loaded the full preview image - crop, rotate and so on.
I like it more after a whole day on it. Still need to use PS to finish things for different presentations though - I'd like it if they incorporated some more sophisticated sharpening and re-sizing and file-size management tools, which would allow finishing for web/slideshow/print/agencies from within the one program.
With the Beta, I felt that they hadn't properly incorporated the gains made by RSP; in this release, they definitely have.
E
Message edited by author 2007-02-24 05:30:10. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 05:33:33 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I don't see the point to LR.
But then I use DPP for RAW conversion and PS7 (CS3 soon) for editing.
My understanding is LR is targeted at pros that don't want to learn PS and have been complaining about it for a while now, and some for amateurs that want more than Elements but can't/won't spring for CS3 due to the price.
I suppose if a one-stop solution existed it might be handy, but since I'll still use PS7/CS and probably DPP, it's just another way to spend $200 to $300 without any real benefit.
Perhaps I just didn't spend enough time on the beta to see the advantage. |
And the Beta is nothing much like the release. I don't think it's so much about 'not wanting to learn PS' as the fact that PS does a million tons of stuff that most folks never need to use. Sure if you're going to layer all your processing and complicate the hell out of every image, you want to stick with PS. The vast majority of photographers, I would suggest, just want to be able to work through their RAW files and get them to presentation quality without all that mangling: LR is for us.
E |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 10:15:55 AM · #36 |
Yeah - Only taking a couple of seconds to render an image instead of 10 seconds is a big improvement. 10 times faster and it will be back to where RSP started :pathetic:
Until the speed is addressed, the functionality is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 11:23:09 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by robs:
Yeah - Only taking a couple of seconds to render an image instead of 10 seconds is a big improvement. 10 times faster and it will be back to where RSP started :pathetic:
Until the speed is addressed, the functionality is irrelevant. |
It is still a lot slower than RSP. The extra functionality is nice, but I think that I preferred RSP's tabs for collections of processing tools, to Lightroom's scroll panel.
I think that I would have preferred RSP with the extra functionality, rather than Adobe's program with RSP tech incorporated. RSP is very well layed out for users. I am still debating between the two.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 11:54:46 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I think that I would have preferred RSP with the extra functionality, rather than Adobe's program with RSP tech incorporated. RSP is very well layed out for users. I am still debating between the two. |
I agree.
RSP is dead, so not sure what choice you have unless you take the risk of still using it. Personally, I stopped using it for anything but throw-away quick stuff once the buy-out was announced and the "replacement" software was not a prod version (or even available in beta to windows at the time). I don't use dead software (as opposed to older versions).
Not sure what happened to the supposed conversion of RSP sidecar files but I guess just another lie at the time....
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:04:39 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by loriprophoto:
Shoot I didnt know the forums were still open and my old e-mail address was on my profile there. I have just gone and changed it so hope that I will receive the e-mail, if not what the heck do I do??? |
I don't know how they're doing this. I have a valid RSP license yet the only email I've gotten from Adobe is for the price reduced initial release. I guess an email to adobe support is in order.
You might try that route as well. |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:28:50 PM · #40 |
They were suggesting to make sure the element5 (the vendor that did the RSP purchasing) email was up to date but I presume there is a way to get it from support. The email was customised to my email addy from element5.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 12:58:48 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by robs:
Not sure what happened to the supposed conversion of RSP sidecar files but I guess just another lie at the time.... |
I'm not sure why you say this... I saw this announcement several days ago:
Q: How can I convert my RawShooter Premium settings to Lightroom or Photoshop Camera Raw compatible settings?
A: A free settings conversion tool will be posted to the following URL on March 5th for use by RawShooter Premium customers. //labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Pixmantec_RawShooter_Migration_Tool
Looking at the date of the post, it appears to have been posted on February 18th. Wasn't that a day before LR officially came out? See here:
Adobe Lightroom - Pixmantec RawShooter FAQ
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:36:02 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by robs:
Not sure what happened to the supposed conversion of RSP sidecar files but I guess just another lie at the time.... |
I'm not sure why you say this... I saw this announcement several days ago:
Q: How can I convert my RawShooter Premium settings to Lightroom or Photoshop Camera Raw compatible settings?
A: A free settings conversion tool will be posted to the following URL on March 5th for use by RawShooter Premium customers. //labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Pixmantec_RawShooter_Migration_Tool
Looking at the date of the post, it appears to have been posted on February 18th. Wasn't that a day before LR officially came out? See here:
Adobe Lightroom - Pixmantec RawShooter FAQ |
Cool!!, I obviously didn't see that post in the forums. My marketing personality would have mentioned that in the RSP specific web-page where we downloaded LR but what do I know. Why on earth would they not release that on the same day????
Either way, still debating if I waste my time given the lack of speed even when the library has a few images. I want to see what happens with a filled library; It's been "importing" for going on 4.5 hours now and just passed 12K images; that puts it around 1/3 of the way thru the initial import (granted future imports will be smaller). Considering this gives me nothing as far as I can tell apart from the ability to start doing something :-/.
Can you tell, I am far from happy about this thing?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:39:25 PM · #43 |
Yeah, well... I hate the concept of the library as well. It just doesn't "add" anything to the way I do things, and it definitely subtracts (makes things harder and slower). Maybe it'll grow on me. I'm still keeping RSP around though!
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 01:52:21 PM · #44 |
i don't understand this philosophy? why is RSP dead - still seems to run fine on my machine. i suppose if i got an updated camera it may not be able to read the RAW files. but until that point what is the 'risk' in continuing to use RSP,,,?
Originally posted by robs:
RSP is dead, so not sure what choice you have unless you take the risk of still using it. Personally, I stopped using it for anything but throw-away quick stuff once the buy-out was announced and the "replacement" software was not a prod version (or even available in beta to windows at the time). I don't use dead software (as opposed to older versions). |
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 02:12:01 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by soup:
i don't understand this philosophy? why is RSP dead - still seems to run fine on my machine. i suppose if i got an updated camera it may not be able to read the RAW files. but until that point what is the 'risk' in continuing to use RSP,,,?
Originally posted by robs:
RSP is dead, so not sure what choice you have unless you take the risk of still using it. Personally, I stopped using it for anything but throw-away quick stuff once the buy-out was announced and the "replacement" software was not a prod version (or even available in beta to windows at the time). I don't use dead software (as opposed to older versions). |
|
You are correct. Many of us who have tried Lightroom are still using RSP. But lightroom does have some new features to offer, and they are worth considering. I watched one of the LR tutorials (done by one of the RSP creators), and I was impressed with it there. The way he used it was not intuitively obvious to me when I started trying Lightroom, so there may be some value into checking it out further. But it's still an underperformer on my dual processor xeon with 1 GB memory, so I'm kind of holding out for new hardware.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 05:40:57 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by soup:
i don't understand this philosophy? why is RSP dead - still seems to run fine on my machine. i suppose if i got an updated camera it may not be able to read the RAW files. but until that point what is the 'risk' in continuing to use RSP,,,? |
The company no longer exists, there is no support apart from a user forum that may or may not exist tomorrow, it will not handle new camera models (already a list of current models it cannot support without editing the camera model in the RAW header), there is no maintenance been done for it, you may or may not be able to reinstall (activation remember) - In my book, that counts as dead.
Yeah, it will run on your machine (assuming there is no OS patch or something happen that wipes it out) but why put effort into software that has no future. It comes down to how you use the RAW file - if you generate a TIFF or something and never go back to the RAW file, it's not that much of a risk.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 06:09:50 PM · #47 |
it's a RAW file, i save the originals - don't you? RSP works well, so i'm not looking for any sort of 'support'. generally with decent software needing 'support' isn't really an issue anyway. i highly doubt an OS patch will wipe RSP out. i could think of a few more likely things that might have that potential, but i'm not really worried about that either. the TIFF's i generate will be able to be viewed with any image-edit software. the RAW files will be supported by any current or future image-edit software that comes along and supports my current camera. so again unless i get a new camera that RSP doesn't recognize, what's the 'risk' in using RSP?
you have your view on 'dead' software, and i could really not care much less. however, equating 'risk' with using software that's 'dead' is a little silly. to be honest the upgrade to LR is free, and if i DL and install it, i am a registered owner of that software. while at the same time capable of running my 'risky' version of RSP right along side. if there is some ticking time bomb inside my RSP installation that is going to wipe out my system, i have it covered and am not too concerned. please let know, if you would though, so i can avoid having to reinstall my OS..
Originally posted by robs:
The company no longer exists, there is no support apart from a user forum that may or may not exist tomorrow, it will not handle new camera models (already a list of current models it cannot support without editing the camera model in the RAW header), there is no maintenance been done for it, you may or may not be able to reinstall (activation remember) - In my book, that counts as dead.
Yeah, it will run on your machine (assuming there is no OS patch or something happen that wipes it out) but why put effort into software that has no future. It comes down to how you use the RAW file - if you generate a TIFF or something and never go back to the RAW file, it's not that much of a risk. |
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 07:17:18 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by soup:
it's a RAW file, i save the originals - don't you? RSP works well, so i'm not looking for any sort of 'support'. generally with decent software needing 'support' isn't really an issue anyway. i highly doubt an OS patch will wipe RSP out. i could think of a few more likely things that might have that potential, but i'm not really worried about that either. the TIFF's i generate will be able to be viewed with any image-edit software. the RAW files will be supported by any current or future image-edit software that comes along and supports my current camera. so again unless i get a new camera that RSP doesn't recognize, what's the 'risk' in using RSP?
you have your view on 'dead' software, and i could really not care much less. however, equating 'risk' with using software that's 'dead' is a little silly. to be honest the upgrade to LR is free, and if i DL and install it, i am a registered owner of that software. while at the same time capable of running my 'risky' version of RSP right along side. if there is some ticking time bomb inside my RSP installation that is going to wipe out my system, i have it covered and am not too concerned. please let know, if you would though, so i can avoid having to reinstall my OS.. |
I didn't say RSP would wipe out your machine :shrug:
Either way - I noticed that LR locks the computer when trying to copy from a card reader to a network drive - repeatable 3 times before I gave up and manually did it (fine for local drives). The initial import did complete around 6.5 hours, so I can have a play and see if it's improved over the "beta" versions.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2007 08:57:56 PM · #49 |
|
|
|
02/24/2007 09:07:33 PM · #50 |
As far as legacy software goes, FWIW, I have been using Ecco Pro (a PIM) daily since it first came out (1993?). The company went out of business when Microsoft brought out Outlook (around 1997?). Ecco ran on Windows 3.1 and still runs on XP. (Haven't tried Vista yet.)
Actually, Ecco still has quite a following, and after a lot of pressure, the company that owned it last (Netmanage) finally released the rights and source so that developers could create the next generation of Ecco, under an open source license or at least model.
So it's entirely possible we could continue using RSP for years, without problems. Just thought that would be an interesting comparison. Perhaps not the same thing, given cameras and RAW files change. But who knows.
|
|
