Too bad about LightRoom

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Finally downloaded my "free with the M9" version of LR3 - used it for a day - went back to Adobe Bridge/Camera Raw 5/PhotoShop CS4.

 

Biggest beefs

 

>> silly "percentage-based" color readouts - with NO alternative. We have something like 25 years of literature on digital image processing written around the 0-255 RGB scale (a fair amount of it written by Adobe), yet Adobe doesn't even offer a "preference" to choose between 0-255 or 0%-100% scales. I get the reasoning behind the percentages (a color or darkness can't really have an 8-bit 0-255 value in a "raw" RAW image, since the bit-depth and color space/gamma are not yet defined) - but we've "limped along" with that discrepancy for a decade or so (and ACR still uses that scale).

 

A new scale is OK - no possibility of using the old scale is lame. The program is obviously measuring something in "undefined" raw images to come up with percentage values. It can't take that much extra code to offer the option of just displaying those values multiplied by 2.55 (and rounding to integers) on the fly. A case of "Momma Adobe knows best." Uh - no - she doesn't.

 

Even cheap thermometers come with both C° and F° scales.

 

>> Library format. Just too inflexible. I have a perfectly good filing system. Having to (at least eventually) re-import 100K images so Lightroom knows they exist isn't worth it. Bridge doesn't have to know, or keep track of, where my pictures are - it just has to follow my instructions on where to look ("open this folder, then open this folder, then open this shoot, then open this image").

 

I suppose if one is a newbie starting to build an image library from scratch, or graduating from iPhoto, having Momma Adobe's guiding hand on the wheel isn't a bad thing. Personally, I live by an adage my Dad taught me - "Never 'help' someone until they ask for it."

 

Minor beefs

 

>> no ability to zoom out beyond "fit screen." Sometimes I need to take a "step back" from an image, with some space around it, to think about composition, lighting balance, etc. Not all the way down to thumbnail size - just a bit smaller than fit-to-window.

 

>> Interface settings too inflexible. For print work, the brighter the background, the better the impression of how dark an image will look surrounded by white paper/wall/etc. Unfortunately LR gives at best a quarter-inch white border. Otherwise, the interface choices are really "black and darker black" . I want to be able to see at least 3" of white around an image from time to time. (This ties to the lack of a zoom-out function mentioned above).

 

>> A fair amount of wasted screen space for the "Lightroom" logo bar (which can be hidden, but only at the cost of also hiding the module links). Memo to Adobe, you are on my screen to process pictures, not to promote yourself and look pretty.

____________________________________

 

Kudos!

 

>> New noise reduction algorithms (or "2010 process" as Adobe calls it). While not earth-shattering visually, obviously a paradigm change in how Adobe thinks about noise - and removing it. Luminance NR seems to vary contrast between noisy pixels and their surroundings on a much more delicate, pixel-by-pixel basis - so it can be stronger without "artist's brush" effects, left-over "clumps" and global detail blurring. And the color noise reduction not only blurs color noise to blobs - but then removes even the blobs.

 

(Does not do much to help banded noise, and seems to make the cloth-like pattern noise from my 5D2's CMOS more apparent than the "2003 process". The good news is that (unlike the color measurements) Adobe DOES make both the "2010" and legacy "2003" processes available, in case one works better that the other for any given camera/image)

 

In some ways, NR the way it always should have been (but probably had to wait for more powerful CPUs to become the norm.)

 

>> "Convert to dng on import" - useful for my Canon files. Not a huge time-saver over my current "copy files to desktop, then convert with DNG Converter" process, but at least reduced to a single step. May have to revise my own workflow to do those conversions right off the CF cards with DNG Converter for similar one-stop shopping.

_______________________________

 

As I said, for me, back to Bridge/ACR/PS for most work. But I'll keep LR around to import and process specific dngs that need the "2010 process" noise reduction (saving the results as Photoshop files).

 

Eventually, when I can afford it, I'll upgrade to Photoshop/Bridge CS5+ and ACR 6+, which shares the LR "2010 process." Then LR can go in the dumpster.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sandymc]

>> silly "percentage-based" color readouts - with NO alternative. We have something like 25 years of literature on digital image processing written around the 0-255 RGB scale (a fair amount of it written by Adobe), yet Adobe doesn't even offer a "preference" to choose between 0-255 or 0%-100% scales. I get the reasoning behind the percentages (a color or darkness can't really have an 8-bit 0-255 value in a "raw" RAW image, since the bit-depth and color space/gamma are not yet defined) - but we've "limped along" with that discrepancy for a decade or so (and ACR still uses that scale).

 

A new scale is OK - no possibility of using the old scale is lame. The program is obviously measuring something in "undefined" raw images to come up with percentage values. It can't take that much extra code to offer the option of just displaying those values multiplied by 2.55 (and rounding to integers) on the fly. A case of "Momma Adobe knows best." Uh - no - she doesn't.

 

Andy,

 

The "something" is actually what is known as "Melissa RGB" - it's not in raw space, it's actually a normal color space constructed with ProPhoto primaries and an sRGB tone curve (also lovingly known as "bastard RGB"). Why Adobe don't provide other options for the readout - well, as I understand it, the theory is that in Lightroom you really shouldn't ever have to worry about color spaces, so it shouldn't matter

 

Regards,

 

Sandy

[hoppyman]

Andy those are interesting impressions. The ideal combination of course would be to upgrade your Photoshop to the current standards and use the two applications together as desired.

You wouldn't find the Digital Assets Management capability a large advantage with your volume of work? You must be extremely disciplined and organised.

 

You may like to experiment with the settings in Interface preferences for 'lights out', screen and dimming. That would be Negative lights out really!

But those much brighter surrounds on your transmissive screen seems likely to me to mess with your perceptions of the tonal levels for print previewing.

In the print module if you set up suitable margins to simulate your Mat (and save as a preset) you can easily replicate what you seem to be looking for in a print preview

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

You can change the default logo showing Lightroom at the top as well.

 

You can temporarily hide various elements and customise the interface quite a bit if wanted and save as a different workspace too.

Regarding Convert to DNG on Import, there is a hidden benefit when starting with Leica DNGs of course, in that you get the lossless compression applied.

[ho_co]

... "Melissa RGB" ...

 

Any idea why "Melissa"?

[adan]

@ ho_co - I suspect that "Melissa Gaul" as the second name in the LR credits box may have something to do with "Melissa RGB."

 

@ hoppyman - I guess what experience has shown me is that (assume a calibrated monitor) - when I view an image against a dark or medium-gray background and get it to look brilliant, the print from that image (surrounded by paper white) usually looks muddy. When I view that image on a "white screen" - it also looks dark and muddy, so I brighten it, and then the print also looks brilliant.

 

In effect, I find a white background to be an essential part of "soft-proofing" on-screen - for print. For web, I use a whole different approach on the assumption that my audience is mostly people without monitor calibration, and with the brightness turned up to "11" as it comes from the factory.

 

As to photo management (I leave "assets management" to my mutual fund ) I guess I just figured out a way to keep track of pictures back when I began scanning film (1994 or thereabouts). Not actually much different from Lightroom's scheme (by year/month, then by shoot/assignment within each month). I don't have much need for sorting by lens used or main color in picture, and I have a definite non-desire to go through all those folders importing them for Lightroom's benefit so it can catalog them.

 

@ sandy =8^o - understood! Lightroom DOES make me give some thought to moving to ProPhoto as my working space (I have to ride two horses, prepping images for sRGB viewing on the web and also in Adobe 1998 (or ProPhoto, maybe) for printing.)

 

It's funny that five years ago the mantra was "Use the big Adobe 1998 colorspace for archiving" - yet today if I move to ProPhoto as my working space, all those archived images will have to be converted on opening (with no doubt some rounding errors) to be used. Five years doesn't seem very "archival" to me.

[hoppyman]

Andy I understand what you are saying re visualising your photos in print. I think I demonstrated that you can achieve that with LR if wanted. You can simulate basically a range of backgrounds with screen, background and dimming preferences while showing any border proportions that you desire in the Print module preview using the page layout options (see my posted screen grab). What we don't have is proper soft proofing in LR currently. However the latest iteration of Ps has made custom profiling for papers much more problematic in that respect too. Reportedly Adobe plan a different solution there to the earlier Ps arrangements (prior CS5)

 

As far as your Colour space decisions, of course if you archive DNG files you have not limited yourself in any way there. If you are archiving TIFFS or PSDs or whatever then of course every file tht you converted to AdobeRGB will output the same on your existing devices in the future too. There is no point in converting those files to the (much) broader colur space now. You can't put back what was discarded. You can simply choose to retain the broadest possible colour space in your masters if you wish as future insurance, remebering once again tht if you archive DNGs the issue does not exist since no colur space is set.

The internal colour space that LR uses is not the same thing as whatever you assign when you convert your files from Raw. You haven't been limited in any way there and it is not unique to LR either.

Regarding Melissa, that's the rumour

On digital asset management you are applying traditional thinking in folder structures etc as make sense to you. That's fine, but LR is capable of very much more.

Hey whatever works for you.

@ ho_co - I suspect that "Melissa Gaul" as the second name in the LR credits box may have something to do with "Melissa RGB."

 

@ hoppyman - I guess what experience has shown me is that (assume a calibrated monitor) - when I view an image against a dark or medium-gray background and get it to look brilliant, the print from that image (surrounded by paper white) usually looks muddy. When I view that image on a "white screen" - it also looks dark and muddy, so I brighten it, and then the print also looks brilliant.

 

In effect, I find a white background to be an essential part of "soft-proofing" on-screen - for print. For web, I use a whole different approach on the assumption that my audience is mostly people without monitor calibration, and with the brightness turned up to "11" as it comes from the factory.

 

As to photo management (I leave "assets management" to my mutual fund ) I guess I just figured out a way to keep track of pictures back when I began scanning film (1994 or thereabouts). Not actually much different from Lightroom's scheme (by year/month, then by shoot/assignment within each month). I don't have much need for sorting by lens used or main color in picture, and I have a definite non-desire to go through all those folders importing them for Lightroom's benefit so it can catalog them.

 

@ sandy =8^o - understood! Lightroom DOES make me give some thought to moving to ProPhoto as my working space (I have to ride two horses, prepping images for sRGB viewing on the web and also in Adobe 1998 (or ProPhoto, maybe) for printing.)

 

It's funny that five years ago the mantra was "Use the big Adobe 1998 colorspace for archiving" - yet today if I move to ProPhoto as my working space, all those archived images will have to be converted on opening (with no doubt some rounding errors) to be used. Five years doesn't seem very "archival" to me.

[GRBrown]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Adan wrote:

 

"Interface settings too inflexible. For print work, the brighter the background, the better the impression of how dark an image will look surrounded by white paper/wall/etc. Unfortunately LR gives at best a quarter-inch white border. Otherwise, the interface choices are really "black and darker black" . I want to be able to see at least 3" of white around an image from time to time."

 

Go to Lightroom Preferences. Click on the Interface tab. Go to the Lights Out box. Click on Screen Color. The five choices displayed include white.

 

No, I didn't know the white option was available. I tested it with Lightroom 3, hitting the L key twice. It worked--one image surrounded by white.

 

Adan's subsequent posting/responses included a mention of a "soft-proofing" technique that I'm going to try for my prints.

[adan]

Hoppy and GR - OK, yes, the "Lights out to white" option does solve that problem. Or at least as well as Bridge/Photoshop.

 

However I also found a few other little headaches in LR

1. WB eyedropper goes away after 1 click - yes, I can reacquire it with another click on the icon or by hitting W(?) - but in ACR the dropper is just "there," all the time for multiple samples.

 

2. In LR, if I have a custom WB setting as my default, and then go to "Auto WB" or "As shot" - if I decide I preferred the default and switch back to it - it is no longer MY default but has acquired the As ahot or auto values. Again that is not how ACR behaves. ACR remembers what your custom setting was if you switch back to it

 

3. Throughout Adobe's Creative Suite (PhotoShop. Illustrator, InDesign), it is standard that holding down the option (Alt for Windoze) key while hovering over the image or page gives you a "minus" magnifying glass for zooming out - again the oddball LR interface does not stick with the conventions Adobe has used for 20 years.

 

That's probably the bottom line - LR is primarily designed for those who will use nothing else, and has its own interface conventions. Outside of being free to M9 users and providing the improved noise processing, for someone who works day in and day out with the integrated and consistent Creative Suite units, it is simply a PITA to use intuitively based on the CS conventions. It "feels" like a non-Adobe product - and I just don't need that.

 

If anyone wants to correct my impressions or explain workarounds for other potential LR users, that's cool. Personally, I'm not looking for further coaching on how to do this or that in LR - I'm simply not going to use it except to process the occasional noisy image.

[hoppyman]

Andy not trying to dispute your conclusions for what makes best sense for you. I just tried to contribute to the general discussion and suggest some options for specifics that you brought up.

But you've sort of said, I don't want to know, my mind is made up which stomps on the thread a bit!

Not to worry, not intending to lecture you there, actually I have CS5 as well and happily use the strengths of both programs.

BTW just returned from a couple of hours workshop with a fashion pro shooting a tethered Hasselblad using Phocus. Even got to play with a 60MP model. Quite a revelation to see how someone that shoots a LOT gets work done.

[adan]

"But you've sort of said, I don't want to know, my mind is made up which stomps on the thread a bit! "

 

Oh, feel free to continue the discussion! I'm not necessarily right (I may have missed something), and I'm certainly not the "standard" for what will work fine for other people, either.

[250swb]

"But you've sort of said, I don't want to know, my mind is made up which stomps on the thread a bit! "

 

Oh, feel free to continue the discussion! I'm not necessarily right (I may have missed something), and I'm certainly not the "standard" for what will work fine for other people, either.

 

I think your first post perfectly echo's my own feelings about Lightroom in every respect Andy. All the time I feel like I'm fighting to do really simple stuff, and that Library system drives me up the wall. You won't regret CS5 when you get around to it.

 

Steve

[delander †]

Lightroom drives me up the wall also, too complex by far. I far prefer the simplicity of Capture One and the output is better (in my humble view).

Jeff

[jaapv]

Finally - I was starting to feel lonely in my inability to like Lightroom....

[pierovitch]

Just think of it like setting up a darkroom.

Setting up your preferences can take time but eventually saves time.

The concept of digital negative and the unlimited interpretations can be a liberating way of getting your personal interpretation of an image.

Photoshop elements 9 can cover just about anything else with a simple right click and edit in photoshop. if pixels really need to be changed.

 

At least the percentage values are more sensible than CIE co-ordinates

[jaapv]

Actually I infinitely prefer developing my files in C1 5 pro and editing in PS CS5, or for high ISO ACR--> CS5

[Shootist]

Finally - I was starting to feel lonely in my inability to like Lightroom....

 

You are not alone.

[dcoombs]

Just think of it like setting up a darkroom.

Setting up your preferences can take time but eventually saves time.

The concept of digital negative and the unlimited interpretations can be a liberating way of getting your personal interpretation of an image.

Photoshop elements 9 can cover just about anything else with a simple right click and edit in photoshop. if pixels really need to be changed.

 

At least the percentage values are more sensible than CIE co-ordinates

 

Pierre, does LR3 talk with PSE-9 the way it can with Photoshop CS5? I saw a demo where you could move easily back and forth between LR and Photoshop, and am curious if that applies to Elements 9 as well.

 

Thanks, Doug

[pierovitch]

Still on LR 2.5 with PS elements 9 using edit in Photoshop elements. not the tight integration of full PS but nice merging, intelligent fill, adjustment layers etc available in elements 9. Still discovering options like running them side by side on two monitors working on a copy with or without LR adjustments still preserves the original DNG.

Presets are easier to fine tune than actions and when was the last time anyone wanted CMYK ?

 

sorry I can't help with LR3

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pierovitch]

Updated to LR2.7 and still working fine.

using two screens, saved edits in elements 9 show immediately in LR develop so both work side by side and its very interactive. Adobe forums do have a some errors posted with LR3 and elements.

[MindsEye]

I have CS5 as well and happily use the strengths of both programs.

 

hoppyman makes a good point. Lightroom and Photoshop are not mutually exclusive. My perspective is that of a full time photographer. I also conduct workshops including workflow with Lightroom. From this experience I have found that for those who are used to using CSx/ACR/Bridge, that Lightroom is a two edged sword. It takes some time to wrap one's head around it and get used to using a catalog. But once this is accomplished the skill set from ACR/Bridge will help you learn LR and in the end you'll save a lot of time and happily use LR and CS5 (or 4 or whatever) together.

 

Also if you're already organized and have a good file naming and organization system you don't have to change it to make use of Lightroom.

 

I can certainly find faults with LR (or PS or any software for that matter) but here are a few useful things I like about Lightroom:

 

1. With 25,000 images in my main catalog (and growing daily) I can find any image(s) I want in about 1 second.

2. Collections are indispensable for grouping related images and don't affect the location of the image files on your drive. You can have the same images in multiple collections. Smart collections are quite useful too. Somewhat related to this if you use Facebook, Fickr or Smugmug you can publish a collection directly from LR.

3. I love using virtual copies for variations such as black and white, different crops and development treatments. You can have as many as you want and without using any extra disk space.

4. I can create a beautiful looking website and go live with it all in a few minutes. I use this most often for customer requests but great for personal use too for friends and family.

5. Batch capabilities are great for applying keywording and/or development attributes. Keywording capability in general is fantastic

6. Great looking slideshows with music, overlays, etc. can be created in a few minutes and exported as pdf or videos.

7. The ability to save templates for print, web, and slideshow modules and presets for doing just about anything on import or export. One example- I apply lens corrections and custom camera profiles on the fly while importing.

 

One of the most important attributes is that Lightroom is non-destructive (parametric editing) and maintains a complete history of edits. So for images that don't require going into PS you don't bloat your files using layers and you never lose your history. Of course sometimes it is necessary to use PS.

 

Like anything else there are many ways to do things and LR isn't perfect for everyone but it is a useful addition to PS and a great hub for efficient workflow (as is Aperture).

 

My 2 cents