biglouis Posted June 12, 2010 Share #1 Posted June 12, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Embarassed to say this but LR 3 absolutely rocks. Anyone played with the layers and brush tools yet? No doubt this will lead to massive over post processing but they are incredibly cool to use. My only question mark is over the need to upgrade CS3 to CS5 which I could do at the same time as purchasing LR3 (still using the 30 day trial at present). LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 Hi biglouis, Take a look here LR 3 Rocks. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted June 12, 2010 Share #2 Posted June 12, 2010 Very impressed so far with the trial. Adobe have a "what's new" video here... Getting Started with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 - What's New in Lightroom 3 | Adobe TV At the moment I think I'll skip the upgrade from CS4 to CS5 - the first time I've done that since Photoshop 7 <grin>. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted June 12, 2010 Share #3 Posted June 12, 2010 Anyone played with the layers..... layers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted June 13, 2010 Share #4 Posted June 13, 2010 At the moment I think I'll skip the upgrade from CS4 to CS5 - the first time I've done that since Photoshop 7 <grin>. I was of the same opinion, but because I'm a university teacher part of the time I was able to get an extremely good deal on CS5 Design edition (Photoshop / InDesign / Illustrator / Acrobat Pro..) - all for little more than the cost of the commercial upgrade. Had this not been the case I might well not have bothered. With LR2 I had to go to PS to get consistent printing. With LR3 (running under Win 7x64) I'm getting outstanding colour and B&W prints from a recently acquired Epson R2880. I'm extremely happy with all this. Steve - what do you mean by "layers" - are you refering to the adjustment brush / graduated filter? These I use from time to time (especially the grad filter) and am really pleased to have them there... Photoshop uses? Panorama / HD regularly used. The rest feels a bit superfluous for day-to-day needs, though I know I need to have it for those odd occasions when I need to provide separations or whatever... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 13, 2010 Share #5 Posted June 13, 2010 Chris, it was Louis who mentioned layers not me. I've never printed from LR, I always go into Photoshop for that, I'll have to try printing from LR3 and see what the output looks like. Certainly from CS4 with an Epson 3800 the results are fantastic. I mainly print b&w and worked my way though a number of printers trying to get a neutral print before buying the 3800 a few years ago. I'm envious of the academic offer and if I was in your position I'd probably have done the same. I think I'm correct in saying that once you've installed a multi application packages you can't just upgrade one component of it at a future date - i.e. upgrade CS5 to CS6 - but have to buy the whole package. Still at those prices that shouldn't be a hardship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptarmigan Posted June 13, 2010 Share #6 Posted June 13, 2010 I think I'm correct in saying that once you've installed a multi application packages you can't just upgrade one component of it at a future date - i.e. upgrade CS5 to CS6 - but have to buy the whole package. Still at those prices that shouldn't be a hardship. Steve I think the official line maybe, but I read in another thread that Adobe will do so, couldn't find the thread but it was a recent one! Best check with Adobe to be sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted June 13, 2010 Author Share #7 Posted June 13, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) layers? Sorry, I meant the adjustment brush and graduated filter brush which does things I would otherwise have to do with layers in CS3. Anyway, they have really extended the functionality rather than just upgraded a few things. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanyasi Posted June 14, 2010 Share #8 Posted June 14, 2010 I agree with the sentiment about LR3 rocking, with one major exception. The print module now allows you to drop photos on the page and arrange and size them as you like. The problem is with the tools for alignment, grouping, and positioning--there are none. Virtually every drawing, graphics, PowerPoint, etc application that I have ever seen has alignment, centering, and grouping commands, which make it easy to position the shapes. None of that is in LR3, at least that I can see. You are forced to use the ruler and a graph paper background to position photos, which is not easy to do. Plan and simple: this is sloppy software development on Adobe's part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted June 15, 2010 Share #9 Posted June 15, 2010 Plan and simple: this is sloppy software development on Adobe's part. Lighten up and enjoy what is there. This has nothing to do with the development, it is a missing feature. Lack of specification, OK, but not the software development. Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanyasi Posted June 15, 2010 Share #10 Posted June 15, 2010 Sorry--it's not a question of lighten up and enjoy. As configured, the new print feature is not usable if you are looking to develop precise layouts. I've already printed four photos in a group and the margins were off. Layout on a computer has to be done with tools rather than visually. When you consider that the align, center, and group functions have been part of every graphics and drawing program for at least the last decade, this omission is a major one. It also is notable that Adobe did "add bring to the front," "move to the back" menu items, which is standard layout that always accompany the other functions. Ironically, this past weekend was the first time I every wanted to print more than one photo on a sheet of paper, so the omission will not be a major impediment for me. Nevertheless, for those who want to design layouts, these omissions are a problem. Otherwise, I like LR3, as I did LR 2 and LR1. By the way, if you check out the Adobe feature request site, this omission is already drawing similar complaints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanetomlane Posted June 16, 2010 Share #11 Posted June 16, 2010 I've tried previous version of Lightroom and haven't really been impressed. However LR3 is in a category of its own, which is superb. I will most certainly be buying the 'full-blown' edition once the beta expires at the end of this month. _________________________________ Regards, Tom Photography by Tom Lane Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 16, 2010 Share #12 Posted June 16, 2010 I will most certainly be buying the 'full-blown' edition once the beta expires at the end of this month Why not download the trial and use that for 30 days? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanetomlane Posted June 17, 2010 Share #13 Posted June 17, 2010 Why not download the trial and use that for 30 days? Thanks for the suggestion Steve, but I've been so happy with the Beta version that I'll probably just buy it outright. Unless you have reasons to the contrary, it saves the hassel of downloading the trial and then at the end of 30 days having to go online and register it. Basically, I'm lazy. ________________________________ Cheers, Tom Photography by Tom Lane Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 17, 2010 Share #14 Posted June 17, 2010 Tom the only reason for suggest the download was because the beta is more likely to have bugs in it. I certainly don't think you'll regret the purchase. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photolandscape Posted June 17, 2010 Share #15 Posted June 17, 2010 Do people who've bought an M9 (in my case in December) and received LR2.6 qualify for a free or discounted upgrade to LR3? I'm guessing not, but it never hurts to ask. I just moved up to CS5--there are some nice features to it. Content aware, a new tool built into Lens correction that corrects my 35mm Summarit's barrel distortion, and there are some new tools that really improve "keylining" problems from sharpening that look good. If you can do an upgrade for $200 or less, particularly from CS2 or CS3, I'd say it's worth it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 17, 2010 Share #16 Posted June 17, 2010 There is a massive thread dedicated to M9 users downloading LR3. If you have already downloaded LR2.x, then Leica have fulfilled their obligation to you and you will need to purchase the upgrade if you want LR3. At some point in the near future, it looks like Leica will be offering LR3 to those who have not already taken advantage of the LR2.x download. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hteasley Posted June 23, 2010 Share #17 Posted June 23, 2010 Sorry--it's not a question of lighten up and enjoy. Um, yes it is. As a software developer, I can see many reasons for why it is what it is. I call it "Garden Path design": the implementation of Feature A implies the existence of Features B-Z, and not providing all of them makes users feel as if you've taken something away, rather than added something. They feel like you led them down the garden path. The problem is that some features are so large that they cannot be completed in a single cycle: turning image printing into a full layout editor sounds like a pretty large feature. You have to roll those sorts of updates out piecemeal. You can't withhold the incomplete feature at the last minute, for development QA reasons. The next version, the additions you're wanting may be there. Just as Adobe rolled out 16-bit support in Photoshop over several versions: the first implementation only permitted loading and saving, and about 7 filters worked. That was it. But as it stands, you were given a new feature. It is not as fully-implemented as you would want, but it is *more* capability than you had before, and will certainly be useful to folks who are Not You. Ask for further refinement, but to petulantly accuse them of "sloppy development" is simply ignorant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanyasi Posted June 25, 2010 Share #18 Posted June 25, 2010 In 1995, I purchased Adobe Image Styler for $100 or so. It allowed you to distribute, arrange, group, and align objects in a drawing environment. Take a look at PowerPoint, which is on hundreds of millions of desktops. It contains those same features, as does every flowcharting and graphics program I have ever worked with. I am not asking for advanced or improved features, just software that meets basic industry standards. I am not talking about incremental development, which I fully understand, having added new features to software products I developed. In this case, we are talking about adding "Copy" without "Paste." I am hardly the lone wolf here. There are already multiple complaints on the Adobe Web site about the omissions. As for me, I can only recall one other time that I printed more than one photo on a sheet of paper so I will be able to carry on just fine without a more complete tool. Unfortunately, there will be those who upgrade for better control over layout and they will be disappointed by the omissions. It is more than fair to call out a company when it screws up. My bottom line for Adobe: As a photographer (not a graphic designer) I don't want to use Photoshop because while it is a great program, it is too cumbersome and complex. Give me more features in Lightroom that are useful to photographers. I am happy to pay you more than you are currently charging for the upgrades if you simplify my workflow by letting me work in one program. I suspect the omission may be driven by a desire to protect the Photoshop franchise. Jack Siegel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hteasley Posted June 25, 2010 Share #19 Posted June 25, 2010 I suspect the omission may be driven by a desire to protect the Photoshop franchise. Lightroom *is* part of the Photoshop family. I think the upgrade history on Lightroom shows that they're more than happy to reduce your dependence on Photoshop by adding more and more features to Lightroom that obviate the need to open an image up in PS. The idea that they've added a "Copy without Paste" feature is, again, completely overblown. They have one level of alignment tools, and you want more. It's not that you can't produce exactly the layout you want, it's that you can't produce it quite as easily as you desire. Sure, it's a complaint that is worth addressing: more alignment tools would be nice. But I completely disagree with the way you've characterized LR development and developers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanyasi Posted June 25, 2010 Share #20 Posted June 25, 2010 But I completely disagree with the way you've characterized LR development and developers. That's your right. Best regards, Jack Siegel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.