| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/07/2006 07:08:16 PM · #1 |
Has anybody tried the Beta version of Adobe Lightroom yet? I downloaded it a couple of days ago and so far it is extremely impressive. Currently it's free until sometime in January. If you have a chance try it out, I personally think it's going to make a pretty big spalsh.
//labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/video/#
|
|
|
|
12/07/2006 07:10:36 PM · #2 |
I've tried it, it eats my processor as a light snack, spits it out and asks me if I have any beer, while I try to ctrl-alt-del for all I'm worth.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2006 07:13:10 PM · #3 |
| Ohhh yeah I should mention that it has a very BIIIIG stomache |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 09:11:11 AM · #4 |
| I have to concur with you both, the program is vary well put together, for such an early Beta, and does a wonderful job with what I do, mostly weddings, but it certainly does like to "munch" on my system's memory. A LOT! |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 09:19:19 AM · #5 |
| Well i havent had a performance issue... I have performance issues while handling 13GB per hour DV-AVI Video. So yeah plus it starts up faster then photoshop does even though the basic toolset is avliable in Photoshops Raw import i do like the tools in the program. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 09:27:06 AM · #6 |
| i've been running the mac version for about six months, on both my g5 imac and my macbook. performance is great... program does a great job. i do have 2gb of ram on each system, but with that memory it works great and won't over-tax the processor (unlike aperture, which eats both ram and cpu power). i haven't fully switched over because i want to see what the final version is like this spring, and compare it to aperture v2.0 (which will likely be released in a timeframe similar to the release of lightroom v1.0). at that point i'll decide which to use for all of my stuff. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 10:28:22 AM · #7 |
I haven't had a performance issue and at times have had 4 adobe products open at once. (Lightroom, Bridge, PS CS2, Premiere Elements)
(2GB RAM, 3GHz dual processor)
If you bought RAWShooter Premium before July 2006 then you get the first full release of Lightroom free.
I love the amount of control you have with the image in Lightroom. You can work on all image types as well, not just RAW.
I also like the management part of things, quick collections, batch processing etc. etc.
Anyone care to take a guess at the price (or is it posted already)? |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 10:36:37 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I love the amount of control you have with the image in Lightroom. You can work on all image types as well, not just RAW.
|
Yeah well if you dont have something else to work on it with then sure fine go ahead ane dit jpegs in it... honestly if you already have the toolset I dont think lightroom isnecesary
However the ability todo this all to raw files without converting them to 16 bit tifs is Lightrooms advantage over all, plus it puts all the tools in one neat little spot but thats not gonna make me run out and buy it to reprocess jpegs. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 10:47:18 AM · #9 |
I've installed it, but once I actually try to do something important like IMPORT images. The app hangs itelf. I've tried uninstalling. I've tried smaller folders of images.
2 Ghz, 1 Gb. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 10:47:44 AM · #10 |
I have the trial and used it for many photos, but nothing I have entered into challenges as I am not sure of the legality of a lot of things it does for Basic. Seems to me it does a lot 'behind the scenes' that I have no idea what is actually happening.
Selections - cannot make selections.
Layers - since everything is automatically done in layers (which you can't see), the loss of control over these bothers me a bit. Not that I am an expert and perhaps I am missing something/doing something incorrectly, but it just seems that I don't have as much control.
Layout - although I really like the interface, I am not that fond of the order the tools are represented. Especially since there is no description for them on how they work or their intended purpose. Maybe if I used Photoshop I would understand them better, but as a non-PS user, a lot of things just seem 'strange.' And I do have PS on one of my systems at home and gtried to transfer an image to that to see if it handled it any better than PI12 and got the same results - nothing like it looked in Lightroom.
Documentation - lack thereof. When you read the help file it basically just says HAVE FUN! or whatever. Not very helpful. I suppose they feel it is intuitive enough as it is set-up, but I still like to know what things are actually doing to my photo and how things are performing their functions (yes, I am a manual reader). Lack of tool descriptions makes me not want to use them as I have no idea what the intended purpose/use is designed to be/do. As such, I ha ve used only the very basic tools of the program.
Transferring - when I want to do things that I can find no way to do in the interface, I convert and transfer to my normal editor. EVERY image I have done this with, when opened in the editor, looks like crap! The images only look good in Lightroom. The images I have processed and uploaded to DPC workshop to see how they look on the web I have been very disappointed with. Most look like I have done nothing to them but make them worse. An example of this is the image FLOATS in my portfolio. In Lightroom this image looks totally different (actually quite good) - cannot even recognize it as the same shot you see in my portfolio. Very disappointed with this. And the bad part about it is that Lightroom was the only editor that achieved the results I wanted with the shot.
In general, I like the idea of the program, better than the last one that was similar that was posted (cannot remember the name, but very similar...perhaps an earlier version of the Beta??) I like the color handling capabilities - closer to PS than PI. But would like a better understanding of the actual tools and what the program is doing. I do like the interface but have problems with the way to open images. Not very fond of the import to lightroom concept. I wish it would just OPEN an image and not have to go through the import and all the files and disc space this system seems to take up (I noticed a large amount of files in temp folders that weren't there before and when deleted they don't show up in Lightroom anymore.)
Message edited by author 2006-12-08 12:22:05. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 10:50:51 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Layers - since everything is automatically done in layers (which you can't see), the loss of control over these bothers me a bit. Not that I am an expert and perhaps I am missing something/doing something incorrectly, but it just seems that I don't have as much control.
|
I Havent read the tech specs on that but you may have been using layers way too long lol.
Not every program uses layers even ones that let you undo certain steps.
I understand where you feel control using layers to edit regions but i dont actually see how Lightroom has or uses actual layers and I do know that earlier processing software didnt use or need layers. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 10:53:10 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Transferring - when I want to do things that I can find no way to do in the interface, I convert and transfer to my normal editor. EVERY image I have done this with, when opened in the editor, looks like crap! The images only look good in Lightroom. The images I have processed and uploaded to DPC workshop to see how they look on the web I have been very disappointed with. Most look like I have done nothing to them but make them worse. An example of this is the image FLOATS in my portfolio. In Lightroom this image looks totally different (actually quite good) - cannot even recognize it as the same shot you see in my portfolio. Very disappointed with this. And the bad part about it is that Lightroom was the only editor that achieved the results I wanted with the shot. |
Sounds like you aren't exporting the images correctly or applying the changes you've made when you bring them out.
When I pull images into photoshop from Lightroom, they look the same. When I export to web sized images, they look the same. It asks you when you are doing it if you want to apply the changes or not - what's that set to for you ?
And lightroom has selections ? Haven't seen anything approaching that in my version - maybe I'm not looking hard enough.
Or are you talking about lightzone ? :) [btw anyone tried that?]
Message edited by author 2006-12-08 10:54:49.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2006 11:12:12 AM · #13 |
Lightzone...that was the other software...tried it, thought it was ok, but again, felt very limited in my control.
Corrected statement on selections in above post.
Yes I am applying the changes and exporting correctly...they just look like crap. I can see I have made changes to the image when opened in the editor, just not the same changes I thought I made in Lightroom.
If it would show the images the same I would upload the lightroom version I see on my screen, but when I do, the result is what FLOATS looks like in my port. In lightroom the image is darker where I want it darker and lighter where I want it lighter. When uploaded the image appears to have the same lightness over the whole image. Different than the original so I know changes have been applied, just not what it appears to be in Lightroom.
I read on one of the write ups about it that the layers are transparent (like they are in Lightzone). When a change/edit is made it automatically does it in a new layer, you just can't see the layer.
Message edited by author 2006-12-08 12:22:45. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 11:40:55 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Not very fond of the import to lightroom concept. I wish it would just OPEN an image and not have to go through the import and all the files and disc space this system seems to take up (I noticed a large amount of files in temp folders that weren't there before and when deleted they don't show up in Lightroom anymore.) |
btw, I keep reading this over and over. That and complaints about it taking hours to import.
You don't have to import files in to lightroom. Just select 'refer to original location'
Import then takes about 1 second for the first image and you can start working straight away. No extra disk space used.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2006 11:49:02 AM · #15 |
| The other issue is i dont think that you will have to import when this goes commercial... the open button is there its bound to have a function sometime....lol |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 12:05:31 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
The other issue is i dont think that you will have to import when this goes commercial... the open button is there its bound to have a function sometime....lol |
It comes down to a 'central database' vs distributed files model. Aperture I think does something similar, in that you can go either way.
I wouldn't put all my images into any of these proprietary databases though. Too much potential for screw-ups.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2006 12:08:25 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
The other issue is i dont think that you will have to import when this goes commercial... the open button is there its bound to have a function sometime....lol |
It comes down to a 'central database' vs distributed files model. Aperture I think does something similar, in that you can go either way.
I wouldn't put all my images into any of these proprietary databases though. Too much potential for screw-ups. |
Yeah I have my own anal retentive organization system but i will be converting my NEF's to DNG's after i get my D-40 in a couple of months |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 12:24:22 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
don't have to import files in to lightroom. Just select 'refer to original location'
Import then takes about 1 second for the first image and you can start working straight away. No extra disk space used. |
I have that selected, but you still have to import the image. Speed is not a factor for me, just the fact that it won't just OPEN an image. An extra step that just doesn't need to be. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 12:53:19 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Yeah I have my own anal retentive organization system but i will be converting my NEF's to DNG's after i get my D-40 in a couple of months |
That's a whole other box of jellyfish ;)
DNG is a bit of a farce really. They dropped the ball by letting it store proprietary data, So you can convert your NEFs to DNGs if you like, but they are still Nikon proprietary data with all their special sauce, just with a nice open standard wrapper around them.
It is the only practical solution, given that Nikon & Canon weren't playing ball, but it ends up being a standard that gives a whole lot of false hope for future proofing and doesn't actually provide anything significantly different.
You go from proprietary data, with proprietary tweaks stored in a proprietary format, to proprietary data, with proprietary tweaks stored in an open standard format.
Its like going to a library where all the books are encrypted and you can't read them and the filing system is also encrypted. Someone who knows the filing system comes in and re-files everything according to the Dewy decimal system.
Now everyone can find the book they want. But they still can't understand the contents.
Message edited by author 2006-12-08 12:56:31.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2006 12:57:17 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Yeah I have my own anal retentive organization system but i will be converting my NEF's to DNG's after i get my D-40 in a couple of months |
That's a whole other box of jellyfish ;)
DNG is a bit of a farce really. They dropped the ball by letting it store proprietary data, So you can convert your NEFs to DNGs if you like, but they are still Nikon proprietary data with all their special sauce, just with a nice open standard wrapper around them. |
Heh I can still open them in more editors then NEF's and Nikon and Adobe are to an unpublic yet official tune working together on it. To the same point the fact that they encrypt the whie balance is idiotic. |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 01:00:00 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Heh I can still open them in more editors then NEF's and Nikon and Adobe are to an unpublic yet official tune working together on it. To the same point the fact that they encrypt the whie balance is idiotic. |
Yup, DNG is just a marketing swipe from Adobe at Canon/ Nikon because they won't tell Adobe how to read their RAW formats and Adobe has to reverse engineer them (which costs Adobe money)
So Adobe manufactured a standard to try and make Canon/Nikon look bad, but didn't do anything to actually help users get access to their data.
If Canon/Nikon adopt DNG, then the contents would still be encrypted, still be proprietary, still have the camera manufacturers special sauce and still lock out 3rd party RAW converter developers (much to Adobe's original intent)
|
|
|
|
12/08/2006 01:02:28 PM · #22 |
| Reverse Engineering cost money..... yeah cause Adboe and evry other corporation like to spend it and people like to get paid..... PCSX2 Team has been reverse engineering the Playstation 2 for 5 years and the only money that changed hands was at a software compeition in the form of them winning a prize..... Pull an AOL fire the netscape developers ate the whim of microsofts command then let the outside world do all the work for you (Firefox) |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 01:07:43 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Reverse Engineering cost money..... yeah cause Adboe and evry other corporation like to spend it and people like to get paid..... |
Of course Adobe don't want to do the reverse engineering of the file format. That's all DNG does. It is just a renamed version of TIFF.
There's an entire part of the DNG format designed to support camera vendor private, non-documented metadata to allow their own conversions to be better than any publically available tools. Adobe list it as an advantage of DNG (in their documents for manufacturers, strangely comments about it are left out of the documents touting the 'advantage's of the 'open' standard for the general public/ photographers)
It meets Adobe's needs. They are trying to claim it meets the future proofing needs of photographers. The reality is it only helps Adobe, but they are hoodwinking the general public to force it on the camera manufacturers. The sad thing is it seems to be working.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2006 01:11:02 PM · #24 |
| Its adobe's first non commercial format even if it promotes sales of commercial software... its also their first open source and documented format that we arent havign to crack.... say PDF anyone lol |
|
|
|
12/08/2006 01:21:29 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Reverse Engineering cost money..... yeah cause Adboe and evry other corporation like to spend it and people like to get paid..... |
Of course Adobe don't want to do the reverse engineering of the file format. That's all DNG does. It is just a renamed version of TIFF.
There's an entire part of the DNG format designed to support camera vendor private, non-documented metadata to allow their own conversions to be better than any publically available tools. Adobe list it as an advantage of DNG (in their documents for manufacturers, strangely comments about it are left out of the documents touting the 'advantage's of the 'open' standard for the general public/ photographers)
It meets Adobe's needs. They are trying to claim it meets the future proofing needs of photographers. The reality is it only helps Adobe, but they are hoodwinking the general public to force it on the camera manufacturers. The sad thing is it seems to be working. |
I see Pentax is using DNG as a format in the new camera. I really don't know what kind of file a DNG is, however in my experience, it requires a raw converter to open them. Actually I like DNG and have it as Lightroom output. A native Adobe format, it works well brought into photoshop. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 10:28:52 AM EDT.
