| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/21/2006 02:21:07 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Geeze, between the reported slowness of Lightroom, it's seeming lack of enthusiasm here with the DPC crowd, and the Windows & RAM issues that were mentioned, I'm not so sure I want to even bother with it.
Maybe I'll just suck it up, save pennys, and buy CS2 so I have good RAW capability. |
Get Canon's DPP - it's free and makes working with lots of files easy. I shoot RAW instead of JPG just because of it!
My last wedding I had 800 some off RAW files off two cameras and went thru them all, sorting the good ffrom the bad, WB/color correct, played with picture style a bit, and was ready to convert from RAW (including some cropping) in 90 minutes. The conversion happens while i sleep or I can keep working on something else.
I also use Breezebrowser Pro ($69 i think). it uses canon's engine for RAW conversion, but i use it mostly for generating web pages for proofing, sales, etc. It can go from RAW to a sales ready w/ cart and all web site in about 3 clicks.
Message edited by author 2006-07-21 02:23:14.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2006 10:46:04 AM · #52 |
I messed with it for an hour or so, found out it wasn't for me and uninstalled it.
While reading the posts above I couldn't help but laugh when I saw the part about Adobe intending this to be for "professional photographers" only. You know Adobe's gonna sell a boatload of $250 CD's to amatures because now they'll just have to have it. |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 10:51:18 AM · #53 |
Downloaded Lightroom onto a HP Tablet PC (Pentium M with 1.5GB of RAM). Love the look and feel and like the fact that as I cannot shoot RAW it allowed to play TIFF files like RAW. I could now alter white balance and a bunch of neat stuff without going into PS2.
So saying, this feels more like alpha than beta software and it hund like crazy. Also, because it is in development, some of the stuff that is missing is exactly what I was after.
So loads of potential but not yet ready for me to use in anything approaching anger. |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 11:03:51 AM · #54 |
So far, from reading the posts here and on other forums with the people that have tried it, the general vibe I'm getting from everyone is: "hmmph...change....me no like change....me like same thing....change bad...me no wanna like new thing...me stick with old thing".
That pretty much sums it all up when you distill it down. There are even people complaining that it won't install on a seven (7) year old operating system. "Me no like change" indeed.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2006 11:21:50 AM · #55 |
That pretty much sums it all up when you distill it down. There are even people complaining that it won't install on a seven (7) year old operating system. "Me no like change" indeed.
Play nicely now...
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I like Lightroom, and I think that if Adobe sticks with what they're offering, plus a little more of what's been discussed in this forum, and others elsewhere, we may just have a serious replacement for all of the proprietary SW that ships with the big boys.
My personal hope is that it will be less processor and RAM hungry, with the addition of a tree-viewing structure.
As for "vibrance" - what's that supposed to be?
My dictionary defines it as "colours which are bright and striking".
Now, let me see if I've got this right - Lightroom has:
* White Balance
* Tone Curve
* Split Toning
* HSL Tuning
* Detail (noise) control
* Lens Correction (including fringe control)
* Camera Control
In a clear case of chucking the baby with the bathwater, everything Lightroom offers, in terms of serious, real control over an image, is going to be ignored for one gimmicky control in a UI which is distinctly amateurish (RSP - I've now tested, it based on a previous commentator's post).
Stuff it.
Play like you want to.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2006 07:47:27 PM · #56 |
I do like the ability to split your screen and having a before-and-after view of your images. It's slooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww!!!!!
I don't like the facts that I can't don direct curves adjustment.
I made a comparison between Photoshop CS2 and lightroom concerning conversion. The same images was converted with both software using the default setup, with no sharpening and no noise reduction. The results from photoshop were a lot better to me than those from lightroom concerning extreme highlights handling, sharpness and noise. Lightroom seems to have better contrast and details in shadow area. It's not necessary representative of the editing capacity of both programs but at first with the same settings photoshop seem to be the winner to me.
Here are some samples.
PS  Lightroom 
PS  Lightroom 
PS  Lightroom 
|
|
|
|
07/24/2006 12:31:44 PM · #57 |
I've been using the OSX version for a while now. From what y'all are saying about the Win version, it seems like they started from scratch! I don't notice any speed problems or bugs in OSX.
I like how you can import an image into CS2 with a right-mouse-click, and when you are done, the CS2 file imports back into Lightroom. IMO, Lightroom has a suprising amount of editing power, as long as you don't need layers or spot editing. Someone mentioned it already - it is perfect for "basic editing" rules.
I was impressed with the website auto-generation. IMO, much better than CS2.
It makes browsing through a large number of RAW images fairly painless.
-Chad |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 12:09:30 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Kemptonreporter:
As for "vibrance" - what's that supposed to be?
My dictionary defines it as "colours which are bright and striking". |
I really like the vibrance tool for quickly pushing colours without getting unrealistic results. It is very quick and simple, and most of my recent high colour images have resulted from pushing vibrance rather than saturation in Rawshooter Pro, with some very pleasing results/comments.
Originally posted by Kemptonreporter:
In a clear case of chucking the baby with the bathwater, everything Lightroom offers, in terms of serious, real control over an image, is going to be ignored for one gimmicky control in a UI which is distinctly amateurish (RSP - I've now tested, it based on a previous commentator's post). |
If you are referring to me, I will use both. Many of the advantages that you refer to were included in Rawshooter Pro (are you sure you were testing the "pro" version, not the cut down freeware version?). I agree that Lightroom has some advantages, but I will have to hold fire until Lightroom is optimised better - it runs v slowly on my mid-range, 6 month old laptop.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 12:18:05 PM · #59 |
The one thing that I wish Lightroom would do is share the library between different compuers.
I have all my photos on a network share and anyone in the company can mount the share to access the photos. If I import photos from my CF card to Lightroom and let it copy them on to the network share they DON'T show up in anyone else's library.
I guess I'm going to have to stick with Portfolio plus ACR for now. :(
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 12:19:30 PM · #60 |
to keep my photos organized i have been using Picture Project, aka the program that came with my cam. seems a tad slow at times. But does a decent job of keeping my files organized and easy to access. it could use a few more editing tools. but i push everything through photoshop once so i guess it serves it's purpose. i am never lucky when i try beta versions of anything so i will wait til for the final build to be released.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2006 08:11:48 AM · #61 |
I've been using Lightroom for a month and I can imagine my life without it for basic editing. I still use photoshop for certain things in lightroom are fantastic. I really like the overall feel of the program. As has been previously mentioned, the split screen is nice. The noise reduction option is good
|
|
|
|
09/25/2006 02:34:54 AM · #62 |
|
|
|
09/25/2006 04:54:50 AM · #63 |
Downloaded it onto my PC laptop and it is definitely faster than before and reasonably intuitive. However, I am starting to evaluate Bibble (the new version supports the D80 - whoopee!) and I like the way that works a lot, though I cannot claim I have come anywhere near to mastering the beast.
Sigh! New cameras. New lenses. New post processing capability. What is a poor boy to choose? :-) |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:21:57 PM · #64 |
I downloaded and installed 4.1. I uninstalled 4.0 first.
So why does it not say 4.1? And why does it insist that there's a newer version 4.1?
Seems like something's wrong.
Does anyone have 4.1 running, and does it say 4.1?
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:40:30 PM · #65 |
| Certainly appears LR is not going to be a real replacement for RSP (despite the rah rah crap). I will try out 4.1 but in 4.0 unless you follow what they want, it's not a real bit of software and just a resource pig (it's Adobe after all). Bibble looks interesting when I looked a few months ago and I will probably go that way - I am waiting for a close to final LR before I decide which way to jump (much as I HATE staying on dead RSP software and wasting my effort in the mean time). If only somebody would come out and say there is a migration for the RSP sidecar files :-/ |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:42:34 PM · #66 |
Downloaded LR a couple months ago.
Not a big fan of it.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:42:47 PM · #67 |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 07:52:11 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by robs:
Certainly appears LR is not going to be a real replacement for RSP (despite the rah rah crap). I will try out 4.1 but in 4.0 unless you follow what they want, it's not a real bit of software and just a resource pig (it's Adobe after all). Bibble looks interesting when I looked a few months ago and I will probably go that way - I am waiting for a close to final LR before I decide which way to jump (much as I HATE staying on dead RSP software and wasting my effort in the mean time). If only somebody would come out and say there is a migration for the RSP sidecar files :-/ |
Yes, I have not yet found lightroom to be comfortable enough to use. I really like RSP. I also own Bibble, and they've made some great feature strides in recent versions (including putting in lens correction, a "basic features" copy of Noise Ninja for noise reduction, and something called perfectly clear, which tries to optimize exposure and sharpness on the image), but it is still more crash prone than any other software I have (it seems it's never really been completely reliable, in the several years I've owned it with many updates).
Bibble also has a very nice conversion queue feature, much nicer than RSPs. Feature-wise, Bibble is the best, but there are still speed of work issues and some things that are a nuisance compared to RSP. Bibble DOES read the sidecar files from RSP. So it's worth a try (I still think the converter is better in RSP though).
I was hoping to like LightRoom, since I don't have CS2, and this gives me the Adobe Raw converter they gypped me out of in CS (I upgraded to a Rebel XT shortly after CS2 came out, and then they decided not to upgrade the RAW converter in CS).
But what really sounds good to me is Apple's Aperture software--I'd love to be able to "stack" multiple variations of a photo where I really want to just pick the best. I use a PC not a Mac for most my work, though, and my Mac Mini isn't up to the task for Aperture.
But after that little tangent, I still want to know if my upgrade worked: can anyone confirm that Lightroom does not say 4.1 even if you have 4.1 installed. Or do I need to try to clean it out before reinstalling?
Message edited by author 2006-10-29 07:52:36.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 08:37:48 AM · #69 |
Yeah - I started the POS again. On the about box I see (left top corner) that it's build 264255. The main window just says beta 4.
Just for giggles, I played with the last shoot - 194 images. This is on a 3Ghz machine with about 1.5Gb of memory (and @ 200Gb of scratch space for caching e.t.c.) - Nothing else is running (apart fom the normal windows stuff).
- 4 minutes to "import" the 194 images.
- EACH image in develop took 20 seconds to completely render.
This is a LOT faster then the first version but still absolutely pathetic. Unless they speed this hog up by factors of 10 or more, I won't use it. Seems like all the rah rah from the RSP buy-out is just rubbish.
On top of this there are all the really hard to do functions... Oh, I dunno, Like getting output from the thing. If you shoot 3 or 4 images it's probably fine but forget about any volume. Last play, I imported 12K images - took all night and the response for anything was > 10 seconds.
Message edited by author 2006-10-29 09:05:00. |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 10:42:43 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by robs:
Yeah - I started the POS again. On the about box I see (left top corner) that it's build 264255. The main window just says beta 4.
Just for giggles, I played with the last shoot - 194 images. This is on a 3Ghz machine with about 1.5Gb of memory (and @ 200Gb of scratch space for caching e.t.c.) - Nothing else is running (apart fom the normal windows stuff).
- 4 minutes to "import" the 194 images.
- EACH image in develop took 20 seconds to completely render.
This is a LOT faster then the first version but still absolutely pathetic. Unless they speed this hog up by factors of 10 or more, I won't use it. Seems like all the rah rah from the RSP buy-out is just rubbish.
On top of this there are all the really hard to do functions... Oh, I dunno, Like getting output from the thing. If you shoot 3 or 4 images it's probably fine but forget about any volume. Last play, I imported 12K images - took all night and the response for anything was > 10 seconds. |
I've seen similar comments from other about Lightroom, so I know you aren't alone. Yet when I use it (started at beta 4 - have used 4 & 4.1
a lot) The import time for my last shoot was in seconds (2000 files)
Sorting/ ranking was almost instantaneous. Development settings are
applied in less than a second for most changes, 2 seconds at the most.
It's fast. Responsive. Quick.
I'm running with a dual core 2.4GHz AMD system, with 3Gb of RAM and only a few Gb of disk space free for this. Output to the web, printing, or full res, finished images for further use is simple and intuative.
Message edited by author 2006-10-29 10:43:33. |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 10:49:01 AM · #71 |
Ok, thanks, mine still has an older build number. So I think I need to uninstall and clean out the folder before reinstalling (which I've done twice already!).
EDIT: That's it. I had to uninstall, and delete the Lightroom directory to get the install to work correctly.
Message edited by author 2006-10-29 10:53:25.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 11:23:57 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I'm running with a dual core 2.4GHz AMD system, with 3Gb of RAM and only a few Gb of disk space free for this. Output to the web, printing, or full res, finished images for further use is simple and intuative. |
That must be my problem, I really need to upgrade my RAM at the very least.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 11:33:28 AM · #73 |
I just installed on my computer 3.0ghz p4 HT 3gb ram. the importing was about the same, maybe a little slower than adobe bridge. as i'm going through just looking through the features of everything, i really like the interface and layout. it is fast for me once everything is imported. i guess i just don't see the value of it unless it has all the functionality of PS included. i could do the same things way faster in PS CS2, lightroom just looks cooler. i wish CS2's raw interface looked like Lightroom and was a lot faster Lightroom is, that would be way cool. And I wish it was integrated somehow into easily creating websites with golive, not just the couple templates they have. That would be really way cool. But really isn't this just something "cool" to get more money from people? It's not really a new idea or something that isn't already out there for photographers.
Message edited by author 2006-10-29 11:43:51.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 12:10:26 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by achiral:
unless it has all the functionality of PS included.
|
Isn't that the point ? Photoshop has so much functionality included that you've probably never even used. Pre-press separations, drawing tools for graphic design, image ready etc (Never used as a photographer)
Originally posted by achiral:
i could do the same things way faster in PS CS2, lightroom just looks cooler. i wish CS2's raw interface looked like Lightroom and was a lot faster Lightroom is,
|
So which is it - photoshop is faster, or lightroom is faster ? :)
I found for 90% of what I'm shooting lightroom does all the processing I need. I hardly need to use photoshop - and only when I'm trying to do per-pixel manipulation (dust removal, editing, or creative effects) I've found lightroom hugely faster than bridge/ photoshop, once you learn the shortcuts and workflow.
The main problem is that the lightroom -> photoshop workflow is a bit clunky. The rest of the things, like golive integration and stuff will no doubt be handled by the lightroom plug-in architecture - just as soon as someone writes the bits.
Originally posted by achiral:
But really isn't this just something "cool" to get more money from people? It's not really a new idea or something that isn't already out there for photographers. |
It isn't a new idea - its just a much improved workflow than the clunky bridge/ Adobe RAW/ Photoshop flow that most people go through. I get the feeling its designed to make you spend as little as possible of your time infront of a computer, editing images.
I think the idea is to build a tool for digital photographers, addressing the things they do - getting pictures into a computer, selecting the good images, processing the RAW files, getting output in a variety of forms, quickly.
Photoshop is an hodge-podge of different tools for different audiences.
Analog photographers, pre-press work, designers, graphic artists, web designers. Jack of all trades.
Message edited by author 2006-10-29 12:11:34. |
|
|
|
10/29/2006 12:33:20 PM · #75 |
| OK - So to get close to the RSP performance I need a dual core with 3Gb of memory. Unless the guy in the red suite drops one past without using my credit card, not gonna happen. |
|
