DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Lightroom 1.0 Discussion
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 100, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/28/2007 03:32:26 PM · #76
Originally posted by marksimms:



I suspect those will appear soon. Last I looked Adobe hadn't released the third party API documentation for LR, but it supposed to be available soon, with a pretty comprehensive plug-in/ docking app support (you can add new tabs, in the way that the current 'library', 'develop', 'print' etc are integrated.


Gordon, does that mean it will be full non-destructive editting in the case of, say, a neatimage type plugin? That would be nice.. [/quote]

No idea really, but the lightroom FAQs describe some of the plug-in architecture and they've certainly said on several occasions that the sw was designed to allow plug-ins to extend the features. I suspect it would be some sort of non-destructive preview that would get applied prior to any export, same with the other parts of the tool though.
02/28/2007 03:56:55 PM · #77
Okay, I've had my first "real life" experience with Lightroom.

I had used it off-and-on all throughout the beta, but always went back to RSP for anything really important (i.e. weddings). But I shot my first wedding since LR's release this past Saturday and processed all 2000+ images via LR (whether outputting or not, everything from selection to rating to converting the images was doing via LR), and here are my thoughts:

1) The output of LR is quick. If you simply hit Alt-Ctrl-Shift-E, it will export a single image (same as hitting the INS key in RSP) and does so pretty quickly. I'm impressed by that.

2) However, the user interface is slow. With RSP I could point it at a given directory (which may be full of some 2000 images, like this shoot was) and let it start rendering the images. If I wanted the quickest response time, I could walk away for a few minutes and let RSP chug through them all. By the time I came back, RSP was then very snappy. But even while simultaneously rendering, RSP was never slow. LR, on the other hand, only renders images that are within view at the time. So you can't render all 2000 images at once. Instead, LR renders them as you see them. And to make matters worse, LR slows way down while rendering. So it just plain "feels" slow. Once they are all rendered, it is quicker... but still not nearly as fast as RSP.

3) I really, really, really, don't like the import idea. It would, perhas, make more sense if I were using the Metadata features... storing information ABOUT the images together with the images. But I don't. Never have, don't envision I ever will. So it's a wasted effort pulling the images into a database.

4) But I discovered the REAL downside of the library versus RSP method (which had a .RWSettings folder with all of the image settings in it) this past weekend and it is this: My main drive filled up and didn't have room to store all of the wedding pictures. So, to save time, I moved part of them over to another drive and processed them over there. The idea was that I would "later" free up space and move the images back.

Now here's the downside: With RSP, I would simply move the folder full of images (including the .RWSettings folder) from one drive to the other and would immediately be up and running on the new drive -- with ALL of my image settings intact.

But with my image settings stored in a database... how do I now successfully move all of the images AND settings from one drive to the other? I haven't tried it yet, but I don't think it can be done. At least, not without LR being involved in the move some how.

Also, I always backup my weddings, first to an external drive, later to DVD. On the DVD(s), I store the raw files, the image settings, and the jpegs for only wedding. But if my image settings are stored in a database, then how do I back up the settings for that wedding to the same DVD set?

5) I do like LR's ability to handle the image (color, levels, curves, highlights, shadows, etc). I'm impressed with the user interface that gives so much control over these things.

Will I use it for my next wedding? Probably. Unless there is a time crunch for the wedding, then I'll fall back to RSP where I know I can get the job done quickly. But I'm hoping the LR developers will consider an option to not use the library model in a future release.

02/28/2007 04:51:17 PM · #78
You don't have to put the images in the database when you 'import'. I just leave them were they are. Also, at the 'import' stage, you have the option of pre-rendering all of the images previews. If you are finding your machine is too slow to do them on the fly, you can just check that box and it'll behave the way RSP did.
02/28/2007 04:51:56 PM · #79
Have you printed from it yet David?

The Library structure is like that of any other DAM program, in that it's all maintained in the main database file. I've got about 3000 images imported, with a fair few histories, and that's sitting at 25MB at the moment, so it isn't going to be a massive file: so long as you've got that backed up, your adjustments are safe.

You could, of course, use a new library for every wedding - in your case, and keep that file with the images. Not as simple as the RSP set-up, but then you do gain the catalogue management side of things.

e
02/28/2007 05:03:10 PM · #80
i'll just say i hate when big companies buys a smaller company and gives us crap.

i'm not saying LR is bad but needs time to get on RSP level even if they are kind of brothers :-)
02/28/2007 05:18:36 PM · #81
Dave, you might consider posting this "real life" experience over at the Lightroom support forums.

Also, on my laptop when I'm importing images with RSP things slow down too much for me to do anything so I just walk away and wait until it is finished.
03/01/2007 05:41:27 AM · #82
Originally posted by dwterry:


But with my image settings stored in a database... how do I now successfully move all of the images AND settings from one drive to the other? I haven't tried it yet, but I don't think it can be done. At least, not without LR being involved in the move some how.


I seem to remember this happening to me back in the beta, I moved a whole directory full of stuff it had imported. The first time I tried to touch one of the files, it popped up a box saying it had moved giving the option to indicate where it had gone. I think after that all the images that were in the moved directory worked. This is only a vague memory though so don't treat it as gospel.

Either way this is pretty easy to test, take a directory full of test images, move it and see what happens...

splidge
03/01/2007 06:54:19 AM · #83
I missed that sentence in David's post - sorry for writing the obvious.

Just tried that little experiment - once you've told it the location of one of the files in a directory, it finds the rest of the images too - but only the images from the same folder. If, like me, you import stuff into dated folders that's a nightmare when you shift them off your main machine into hard-drive land.

In fact, I would say the whole file management structure of the app needs work. One immediate inconsistency: if you drag images into a different folder in Lightroom, that moves the actual files on your system also. If you delete a folder in Lightroom, that has no effect on your system's files. I rather think, currently, that they've fallen into the old hole of grasping the implications of imposing a different database structure over the computer's own.

e
03/01/2007 09:35:38 AM · #84
Just to follow up for those of us who use Neat Image, I posted the suggestion on Neat Image's support forums, and got confirmation that the Neat Image team is planning to support a plug-in for Lightroom when Adobe releases their Software Developer's Kit. See the post and reply here:
//www.neatimage.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1764

03/02/2007 01:15:39 AM · #85
Originally posted by splidge:

Originally posted by dwterry:


But with my image settings stored in a database... how do I now successfully move all of the images AND settings from one drive to the other? I haven't tried it yet, but I don't think it can be done. At least, not without LR being involved in the move some how.


I seem to remember this happening to me back in the beta, I moved a whole directory full of stuff it had imported. The first time I tried to touch one of the files, it popped up a box saying it had moved giving the option to indicate where it had gone. I think after that all the images that were in the moved directory worked. This is only a vague memory though so don't treat it as gospel.


Hmmm... this isn't happening for me.

I've moved all of Saturday's files (I exported the XMP files just in case that became necessary). I go into LR and it simply states at the top of each image that "The file could not be opened". And that's it. It makes no attempt to go find the files. It doesn't ask me if I want it to. All it does is show that message and everything else is normal.
03/02/2007 01:19:06 AM · #86
NEVER MIND!

I don't know what I did different. I had gone in and out of LR several times. I had been in the Library mode, in the Develop mode. I had zoomed in and out on specific images. I had tried exporting images (knowing it would fail). Nothing made it pop up and ask me where to locate the images. Until just now. The only thing I can think of that I did different was that I first had a "quick collection" of images and I clicked on one of the images in that collection. Then it asked me to locate the file, at which point it promptly found all the rest.

03/20/2007 07:14:28 AM · #87
Anyone heard anything about the 'RSP settings migration tool' as it appears to be called? I think it was promised for the 5th, but I can't find anything about it anywhere.
03/20/2007 09:03:58 AM · #88
Migration Tool

General Discussion >> Adobe Lightroom RawShooter Migration Tool

This is what I can find.

Message edited by author 2007-04-18 20:18:29.
03/20/2007 09:51:16 AM · #89
HEH - and someone called RSP dead software. it appears RSP is what i'll be using for awhile yet.


03/20/2007 11:31:45 AM · #90
Thanks Andre. Back to thumb-twiddling for a while then.

e
04/16/2007 05:45:09 PM · #91
Does anyone know how I can change the web templates (beyond the choices available within the product itself obviously)?
04/16/2007 05:53:48 PM · #92
Originally posted by samchad:

Does anyone know how I can change the web templates (beyond the choices available within the product itself obviously)?


I've been searching for this info as well and have found no difinitive answer. Apparently you need to know xml and xslt to build your own.

Search the adobe forum and there may be an update on this as there was some discussion about it. Thanks for the reminder. I'll be doing some more digging.
04/16/2007 07:17:07 PM · #93
Just some short notes about this version (tested it for a short while)

1. It sometimes doesn't displays the capture time correct.
2. The one who thought it was a great idea to update files when you are
typing should be sacked.
3. Some developers should follow an SQL course. Performance is quite
stupid when you try to find something.

In my opinion it contains too may "first release" bugs. It's a great product, but I'll think you better wait for the next release.
04/16/2007 07:27:52 PM · #94
Originally posted by hajeka:

In my opinion it contains too may "first release" bugs. It's a great product, but I'll think you better wait for the next release.

Hell, I was saying this when it was still Beta and they obviously still haven't got it right. <shrug> Oh well. Keep on, keepin' on.
04/17/2007 01:01:26 PM · #95
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by samchad:

Does anyone know how I can change the web templates (beyond the choices available within the product itself obviously)?


I've been searching for this info as well and have found no difinitive answer. Apparently you need to know xml and xslt to build your own.

Search the adobe forum and there may be an update on this as there was some discussion about it. Thanks for the reminder. I'll be doing some more digging.


If you find anything, let me know. I'd gladly write a 'how-to' on whatever I find works / share templates.
04/17/2007 04:16:00 PM · #96
Originally posted by hajeka:

In my opinion it contains too may "first release" bugs. It's a great product, but I'll think you better wait for the next release.

On the other hand, since the price is going to (supposedly) go up $100 after April, it might be worth it to buy now, get the free updates for some of the minor annoyances, and buy the next release upgrade (for probably around $100-150) when it comes out and you'll be no worse off.
04/17/2007 06:49:35 PM · #97
Recent comment that there will be coming instruction on creating your own templates. But need to know Flash and Actionscript - yet another language to learn. Sigh.

//blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2007/03/templates_and_galleries.html#comments
04/24/2007 08:49:35 AM · #98
I'm not shooting professionally, so am not dealing with enormous volumes, BUT I have what feels to me like an awful lot of photos. I'm becoming intrigued with the batch processing as I read this forum, but I'm really most interested in Lightroom as a cataloguing tool. I've been using Photoshop Photo Album for a few years now, and it's been handy enough for that purpose. I'm finding LR a bit unintuitive on that score. I sense it's very capable if I can take the time to learn it. I'm trying to decide whether Adobe's dropping the Photo Album product such that I'd need to switch to LR. And of course, I'd like to make my decision before April 30. :^)

Any thoughts on this aspect of LR?
04/24/2007 10:11:37 AM · #99
Originally posted by kreshkin:

I'm not shooting professionally, so am not dealing with enormous volumes, BUT I have what feels to me like an awful lot of photos. I'm becoming intrigued with the batch processing as I read this forum, but I'm really most interested in Lightroom as a cataloguing tool.


I personally don't care for having to spend a lot of time cataloguing photos. I did it for years. Then one time my database became corrupt and I lost all of my "cataloguing work". The images were intact, I simply lost the key words, the ratings, etc. Then I realized ... I was putting so much time and effort into doing the cataloguing but never really *used* it to any benefit. So, in the end, I was glad I lost the database because the discouragement from that incident has saved me many hours since then.

With that said ... if I were to do cataloguing, I think I would use ACDSee instead of LR simply for the speed. Right now, in release 1.0, LR is dog slow when it comes to handling files. ACDSee is lightning fast by comparison and it will let you keyword and rate you files and much more.

I'm really enjoying LR for its ability to convert raw files. The UI takes a little getting used to, but I think that's really the beauty of LR as compared to some of the others. But if all you want is cataloguing, I just can't recommend it (over other products such as ACDSee) at this time.


04/24/2007 09:18:29 PM · #100
More on creating your own gallery templates here and someone has started Lightroom Galleries where they seem to be developing templates for people to download, but it's pretty empty so far.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 08:30:04 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/28/2024 08:30:04 AM EDT.