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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Yes or No for Lightroom 1.0
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 33, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/12/2007 12:34:23 AM · #1

Cant decide whether to get it or not because I read somewhere that Laptops cant really handle the program. Any takes on this matter?
06/12/2007 12:35:29 AM · #2
Yes its a great program but also yet it struggle on my laptop and kept freezing the computer.
06/12/2007 12:51:34 AM · #3
For me it was a toss up between LR and PhotoShop CS3 with Camera RAW 4 and I ended up going with PS CS3 and haven't regretted it. The main reason for me not to get LR is its slow on my desktop and my laptop suffers even more with it, and I end up editing 99.999% of my shots in PS anyway as the new CR4 is extremely nice. My laptop is still not to bad with a 3.4ghz intel and 1gig of ram but LR tends to drag it down quite a bit and my desktop with a dualcore AMD and 4 gig of ram is not a whole lot better with LR.

-dave
06/12/2007 12:56:08 AM · #4
I haven't found a good use for it, personally. Most of my editing is for DPC, so I do it all directly in PS. I don't trust Lightroom not to muck with my metadata.
06/12/2007 01:02:05 AM · #5
No; It's just far too s.l.o.w. Images can be good IF you can deal with it. Workflow too restricted. Maybe it will get there in a few versions :-(
06/12/2007 01:03:51 AM · #6
Originally posted by chimericvisions:

I haven't found a good use for it, personally. Most of my editing is for DPC, so I do it all directly in PS. I don't trust Lightroom not to muck with my metadata.


I've found it does bog down my 5 year old machine if I try to run other programs along side. Otherwise, I like the ability to process 1000 pictures quickly and with several options. I've used it for two weddings and two other sessions. Plus for some of my DPC pics.

I saw something else pop up about the metadata??? I've had one picture validated that I had processed with LR. I uploaded the RAW file like normal and everything checked out. Doesn't LR just create a set of adjustments which it ties to the RAW file? So it wouldn't actually affet the metadata????
06/12/2007 01:05:59 AM · #7
I think some people are using the software to transfer files which is where the problem lies?

Even so I never use any transfer software for any device that does not 100% require it.
06/12/2007 01:09:13 AM · #8
I have CS3 and Lightroom. I say no to LR unless you are mass processing groups of photos with similar lighting and camera settings. I don't use LR anymore, it was a waste for me
06/12/2007 01:11:51 AM · #9
Last month I had to travel to a wedding (meaning I couldn't make it back home to do processing), the wedding pictures started around 12:30 and finished around 2:30. I had to bee-line it to the reception hall where, in my van, I used my laptop to process about 400 pictures (well, load them into LR and pick about 60 of them for a slide show).

I had 2.5 hours to get everything processed and integrated into a slide show and to have the slide show up and running on a big screen TV before the reception was to begin. It was the first time I had "pushed LR this hard". I was sweating bullets thinking I wasn't going to make it, in part because of using LR (and it *is* slow), and in part because I was on a laptop.

But I made it. And it was worth it. The pictures turned out awesome and the people at the reception loved the slide show.

06/12/2007 01:12:51 AM · #10
I say, "Hell No." Until the performance issues are dealt with, I'm staying away.
06/12/2007 01:14:10 AM · #11
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

I think some people are using the software to transfer files which is where the problem lies?


Nope... I do the xfer and the first cut outside of LR - It's too painful trying to do that in LR. I gave it a few months to see if it was just me but I am pretty close to giving up on it. I have a single 2.8Ghz with 1.5GB memory - not a new machine obviously but not slow either.

I refuse to go back to RSP even though it's a far better product. Probably end up with Bibble, thought I was not real happy with the interface when I tried it. I went back to DPP for a bit and it's not bad as an option.

Message edited by author 2007-06-12 01:23:23.
06/12/2007 01:26:25 AM · #12
I use CS3 with ACR4 mainly, especially for DPC and everything photography related. Lightroom is great for mass adjustments or making a quick flash gallery for me to imbed into a website, especially photos I already have done in cs3. It definately has its uses but I agree with the others about newer versions better have more optimizations to speed things up on the avg. computer.

You can always DL the trial and see how it works on your laptop, or if you don't mind the torrent route, its only about 23megs compared to the 500 for cs3 extended.
06/12/2007 01:36:46 AM · #13
I pressed the order button on one of those new fangled 24" iMacs last week just so that I can play with Lightroom. Well, not just for lightroom but I've been running it on a first generation emac and it was a nightmare. But then again pretty much any program capable of dealing with raw files from the 5D is a nightmare on my machine. It took a week just to deal with all the files from the last wedding I did - and I've still got the ulcer.
Hopefully the new machine will eat up the Canon raw files from a wedding in slightly less time. And lightroom should be a big help. If it's not I'll give iView media a go, and a pile of other contenders.
06/12/2007 01:49:33 AM · #14
FWIW, it moderately faster than RSE(not Pro) and 200% faster than CS2 bridge which was a flippin nightmare, even on my speedy office computer.

Maybe it's just my frame of reference but LR seems turbocharged in comparison.

I don't use it for transfer from card to computer.
06/12/2007 02:28:53 AM · #15
I've heard that LR uses your video card and that's why it can be tediously slow... but I really don't have a clue. I don't even remember where I heard it :0P
06/12/2007 02:52:49 AM · #16
I downloaded it on my laptop as well. I didn't notice much with performance, only used it a couple times, just couldn't figure out how to stop making it pop up when I plugged in my CF Card to download the pictures. I usually view them and transfer with The regular folders explorer.
06/12/2007 05:25:46 AM · #17
Originally posted by robs:

I refuse to go back to RSP even though it's a far better product.


Why?

I use RSP all the time. It is so fast compared to LR 1.0 and is perfectly focussed - the right balance of options for effective viewing, grading and processing of RAW files in prep for Photoshop for the pick of the crop.
06/12/2007 06:27:27 AM · #18
I have no issues with LR1 on my macbook pro runs like a dream I load up shoot after shoot in Lightroom and edit them then export them to another folder. I think it's a good solid program ... Im running it native on an intel core2 Mac with 2GB RAM.
06/12/2007 10:04:11 AM · #19
On my 1.6ghz centrino duo 1g RAM lappy, Lightroom runs no slower than other RAW converters that I've tried. My product satisfaction is quite high.
06/12/2007 10:46:39 AM · #20
Originally posted by Matthew:


Why?

I use RSP all the time. It is so fast compared to LR 1.0 and is perfectly focussed - the right balance of options for effective viewing, grading and processing of RAW files in prep for Photoshop for the pick of the crop.


It's dead software and the promised converter from the sidecar files to LR seems to have been dropped by Adobe (they had said they would provide one and the last message I saw was months old with a release date of March something - normal Adobe support model :-/).

I agree it's light speeds faster and the interface is clean as opposed to the stupid scrolls wasting screen space and whatnot in LR. It's a shame because another release or two RSP could have been a great product (based on some of the discussed future functionality). The biggie for me would be customisable queues for different output types - which I think bibble provides in some way (gota check out the latest release when I get a chance).
06/12/2007 11:28:12 AM · #21
On my Tablet PC (laptop) LR runs like a dog. I prefer and use Bibble Pro 4.9 as the RAW processor, into either CS2 or PSP XI, depending on how fancy I need to get. Most times, however, I can do enough in Bibble to get the output I need.

Love the LR concept, hate the way it runs.
06/12/2007 12:27:43 PM · #22
I have found Lightroom to be far to slow on my machine. If they can speed things up a bit I would use it a lot. Love the prog but hate the speed issues. I've also had far too many crashes since I installed it. Im now sticking with RawShooter essentials (until they release a new version of LR)
06/12/2007 12:34:06 PM · #23
On our screamin P4 3.8GHz with 8gb RAM, lightroom just rocks. That's our main editing machine, and Lightroom is now where we do most of our initial work. Still bring some of the shots into PS to do additional, but for the really quick adjustments, it's lightroom all the way.

On the baby screamer laptop, P4 3.2GHz with 1gb RAM, it's slower, but still adequate for the work we do on it.

Would I like it to be faster? Well, nothing is "fast enough" these days.
06/12/2007 12:43:16 PM · #24
Originally posted by shanksware:

On our screamin P4 3.8GHz with 8gb RAM, lightroom just rocks. That's our main editing machine, and Lightroom is now where we do most of our initial work. Still bring some of the shots into PS to do additional, but for the really quick adjustments, it's lightroom all the way.

On the baby screamer laptop, P4 3.2GHz with 1gb RAM, it's slower, but still adequate for the work we do on it.

Would I like it to be faster? Well, nothing is "fast enough" these days.


Does that prescott 3.8 support IA64 memory addressing? Because I know a 32 bit processor can not address more then 4 gb of ram. I know some of the later version support 64 bit memory addressing a whole mess i know little about.
06/12/2007 12:53:19 PM · #25
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by shanksware:

On our screamin P4 3.8GHz with 8gb RAM, lightroom just rocks. That's our main editing machine, and Lightroom is now where we do most of our initial work. Still bring some of the shots into PS to do additional, but for the really quick adjustments, it's lightroom all the way.

On the baby screamer laptop, P4 3.2GHz with 1gb RAM, it's slower, but still adequate for the work we do on it.

Would I like it to be faster? Well, nothing is "fast enough" these days.


Does that prescott 3.8 support IA64 memory addressing? Because I know a 32 bit processor can not address more then 4 gb of ram. I know some of the later version support 64 bit memory addressing a whole mess i know little about.


I don't have a clue. I just kind of assumed that Dell wouldn't sell me a computer that can hold 8GB of memory without using the whole lot.

In the properties page of my computer, it says something about Physical Address Extension using 3.5GB, so it looks like it sees the added RAM.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2021 08:33:58 PM

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 © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 08/03/2021 08:33:58 PM EDT.