| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2007 02:03:09 AM · #1 |
So i got my D300! Great!
Unfortunately, this means i have to part with the late "Raw Shooter Premium" software, as it doesn't support the D300 RAW images.
So i fiddled around with Adobe Lightroom and Nikon Capture NX. Neither seem to be as fast and intuitive as Rawshooter was. What's up!? Why can't these newer software packages offer the ease of use that rawshooter offered so long ago? Everytime i change a setting, these programs take time to update the image, while rawshooter was instantaneous.
Am i missing something? Is anyone else going through this withdrawl? Which package do you suggest and why? |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 07:55:49 AM · #2 |
lightroom is a resource hog.
if you have the PC power it seems to run pretty quick and smooth.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 08:12:29 AM · #3 |
Aleks-I'm having a good time with Lightroom. Using a Mac G5 probably makes it much faster but beyond that I'm finding it super easy and quite intuitive. I was avoiding Raw shooting because I didn't like the interface of any of the software out there, Nikon Capture, Capture One, Rawshooter...I have them all and my conversions stunk. Now I'm in a groove.
Perhaps some more time and you'll get used to it. |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 08:16:55 AM · #4 |
Make sure you're on Lightroom version 1.3. They've sped things up considerably from the initial releases.
I think the sluggishness is actually two-fold: 1) Yes, RSP was a speed demon, I loved that about it!, and 2) You've upgraded to a 12mp camera, the files are much larger and take longer to process. Double whammy. Time to upgrade to a faster processor with more memory.
I'm using a Core 2 Duo processor with 4G of memory and am "content" with the speed of Lightroom. I was much happier with RSP's speed. But with the current hardware I have, and the latest release of Lightroom, it's "fast enough" that I don't complain any more.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 08:47:23 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Make sure you're on Lightroom version 1.3. They've sped things up considerably from the initial releases.
I think the sluggishness is actually two-fold: 1) Yes, RSP was a speed demon, I loved that about it!, and 2) You've upgraded to a 12mp camera, the files are much larger and take longer to process. Double whammy. Time to upgrade to a faster processor with more memory.
I'm using a Core 2 Duo processor with 4G of memory and am "content" with the speed of Lightroom. I was much happier with RSP's speed. But with the current hardware I have, and the latest release of Lightroom, it's "fast enough" that I don't complain any more. |
David, is there a speed improvement in LR 1.3 over 1.2? Still havent upgraded yet so will have to give the Adobe updater a bit of a kick tonight. |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 09:11:18 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Simms:
David, is there a speed improvement in LR 1.3 over 1.2? Still havent upgraded yet so will have to give the Adobe updater a bit of a kick tonight. |
Yes, but I think it affects the way I use it more than others. I have LR maintain the .XMP files all the time so that I can back up my files and use them wherever they are. There was sluggishness in the way LR 1.2 and prior handled the .XMP files. So that's where I think the biggest increase in speed for 1.3 comes from. If you don't use the .XMP files, you may not notice as much of an improvement.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 09:14:53 AM · #7 |
Beware - a friend told me about a Lightroom 1.3 problem for Nikon D100 users:
Camera Raw 4.3 and Compressed D100 Raw Captures
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 09:41:13 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by Simms:
David, is there a speed improvement in LR 1.3 over 1.2? Still havent upgraded yet so will have to give the Adobe updater a bit of a kick tonight. |
Yes, but I think it affects the way I use it more than others. I have LR maintain the .XMP files all the time so that I can back up my files and use them wherever they are. There was sluggishness in the way LR 1.2 and prior handled the .XMP files. So that's where I think the biggest increase in speed for 1.3 comes from. If you don't use the .XMP files, you may not notice as much of an improvement. |
hi, i was just wondering ... i'm not using XMP but i'm considering to start, can you please tell me what are the real benefits of doing so ... or vice versa, thanks in advance! |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 10:13:59 AM · #9 |
I too was forced to abandon RSP because it doesn't seem to support the N80. A good argument for DNG I guess, and perhaps Adobe is trying to force our hands at that.
I like lightroom a lot--particularly the way it lets me store multiple versions of edits, including crops (whereas RSP did not--the crop applied to all versions).
But LR is a hog. I am using 1.3 now, on the Mac, with 5 GB of memory, and it's finally acceptable in speed. However, it leaks memory, and eventually crashes. I just shut it down in fact because I noticed that it showed "null" as the window title in activity monitor, and system errors were being generated every second in the console.
The renaming function is great. But having to always import into the database is a pain. And so far, I don't find myself using the database much--not that I don't need it, I do--but it was too slow before. So I have all this database OVERHEAD (management overhead, importing, backing up, redoing it when I want to move my data around), and very little benefit so far.
If they would add the ability to do adjustment layers with gradient masks--like LightZone does--I would really consider giving up PS!
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 10:54:13 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by labuda:
Is anyone else going through this withdrawl? Which package do you suggest and why? |
Similar scenario with the new Sony A700...had to abandon RSE. Tried LR but while it supported Sony .ARW raw files it was still not handling them correctly.
Ended up with SilkyPix. Doesn't have a sort/rating feature, but I like how it handles my Sony raw files.
They have a free download...may want to give it a look.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 11:00:04 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I too was forced to abandon RSP because it doesn't seem to support the N80. A good argument for DNG I guess, and perhaps Adobe is trying to force our hands at that. |
Everything else you wrote is true - but DNG isn't any sort of solution for this. A large part of the DNG spec is a 'vendor & camera' specific area for hidden fields, proprietary info and all the same problems that exist with private formats like CR2 and NEF. Universal adoption of DNG would make life a touch easier for the people who have to reverse engineer RAW formats to find the data, but it doesn't make it any easier to understand that data or do anything useful with it after you've worked out where it is.
DNG makes life easier for Adobe and gives them a bit of control back.
DNG is like a bag. It helps if we all use the same bag, but there's nothing in the DNG spec that says what you have to put in it, or if you can put sealed and locked boxes in the bag or not.
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 11:00:49.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 01:56:55 PM · #12 |
I just processed and exported 125 photos to be ready for print in 30 minutes while goofing around on DPC. I don't see a problem with LR.
I love LR. Was never a big fan of Rawshooter.
Granted it could get a bit sluggish on my old machine which was an older Celeron processor and only had 640MBs of RAM. But, even then, it ran well enough to get the job done. With the DuoCore and 2GBs of RAM, it waits on me more than I do it.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 02:38:40 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by Simms:
David, is there a speed improvement in LR 1.3 over 1.2? Still havent upgraded yet so will have to give the Adobe updater a bit of a kick tonight. |
Yes, but I think it affects the way I use it more than others. I have LR maintain the .XMP files all the time so that I can back up my files and use them wherever they are. There was sluggishness in the way LR 1.2 and prior handled the .XMP files. So that's where I think the biggest increase in speed for 1.3 comes from. If you don't use the .XMP files, you may not notice as much of an improvement. |
I found a little speed improvement in 1.3 over 1.2 and I only use the DB as I could not put up with the xmp file speed (or lack thereof). Still not acceptable IMO.
Yeah, LR is a pig compared to RSP unless you have a fast machine (I still cannot figure out what has to be "fast"... video, memory, bus, processor but some combo). A cray supercomputer would probably run LR at an acceptable speed (you think I am kidding hey :-/).
I really wanted to like Bibble but didn't like the output or the clagy interface.... might be worth a trial.
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 14:39:21.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 10:07:56 PM · #14 |
Well, I have a pentium D and 1GB of RAM, so that might be my problem.
What would you say the system requirements are to run LR quickly?
No one seems to be talking about Capture NX. Is there a reason for that? |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 11:05:03 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by labuda:
Well, I have a pentium D and 1GB of RAM, so that might be my problem.
What would you say the system requirements are to run LR quickly?
No one seems to be talking about Capture NX. Is there a reason for that? |
I can't find any official suggested system config, but here is my system that works well with LR:
This is a Dell 1721 notebook running Vista Home Premium
AMD Turion X2 64 1.8 Ghz Dual Core Processor
2 GB RAM
It's got a SATA drive, but not one of the high RPM drives.
It's not a top of the line config, kinda modest actually, but Lightroom runs pretty smoothly with 500-600 images loaded.
I will say that Library mode runs more smoothly than Develop Mode. So, if your sorting/rating staying in Library mode helps. Also, for global WB and exposure adjustments I stay in the Library module.
Oh, I copy all images to the HD from my CF card manually before loading into LR, I also use .xmp sidecard files.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2007 02:29:24 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by labuda:
Well, I have a pentium D and 1GB of RAM, so that might be my problem.
What would you say the system requirements are to run LR quickly?
No one seems to be talking about Capture NX. Is there a reason for that? |
Well, for me, Capture NX for windows just plain sucks. Everything that was easy for me to do in Capture 4.04 is hard, and non-intuitive. I tried the demo and it just plain sucked for me. I haven't tried any Mac version if it exists. If you're a Mac user you'll probably like NX because that's what it looks like on the PC, a very poor imitation of a Mac. As long as I don't upgrade to a new camera I'll be in business. But if I get a D3 I'll be out in the cold. This is one of the things that really sucks about proprietary raw software. If we're to have a record of our work in the future I'd suggest you print your most valuable images with a pigment ink jet, and store copies of the digital files in DNG and original RAW formats. Maybe one of the three will be readable in 100 years. Probably only the prints!
|
|
