mreddington Posted April 2, 2008 Share #1 Posted April 2, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I tried posting this earlier but must have done something wrong. But if it appears twice, my apologies in advance. There is a good overview of the features here: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.0 Public Beta The download is available at Adobe Labs - Adobe Lightroom 2.0 Beta For me, the most interesting thing is local, non-destructive editing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 2, 2008 Posted April 2, 2008 Hi mreddington, Take a look here Adobe Lightroom 2.0 beta available. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tashley Posted April 2, 2008 Share #2 Posted April 2, 2008 Hi Martin, That's pretty timely given the recent Aperture 2.1 news. I had decided to import all new images into Aperture, despite having none in it so far and about 15,000 in Lightroom, because I got fed up having to round trip everything into Photoshop for dodge and burn and for soft proofing. Aperture now supports pretty much everything I need in software of this type. But unfortunately if you are correct and Adobe won't be including softproofing then the product is lost. Adobe is about to 'do a Sony' and ruin one product for the sake of protecting another. Sony has never sold as many MP3-style units as its heritage as inventor of the Walkman would suggest it should have, because of it's music publishing division's issues around DRM. Similarly, Adobe's desire to protect sales of Photoshop is hobbling Lightroom. I hate to say it because though a Mac user, I greatly prefer Adobe to Apple as a company to be a customer of, Aperture wins - and not just for now - if Adobe can't do something about this. :-( Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericperlberg Posted April 2, 2008 Share #3 Posted April 2, 2008 I had a brief play with Lightroom 2.0 beta. It's very nice, more powerful, more intuitive than Lightroom 1.3 and the non destructive local editing is excellent. Lightroom 2.0 beta on a mac can operate in 64 bit mode by simply ticking a box in the get info window. This allows for memory usage beyond 4 gig of RAM as well as an unknown speed increase. Windows users need to own 64 bit Vista. Lightroom also has added a nice roundtripping tool to photoshop smart objects which means that one can go back and re-edit smart object effects (CS3 only) after additional work in Lightroom. Aperture can't do this though how significant this will be depends a lot (IMO) on each end user. Unfortunately 1) Lightroom still doesn't offer soft-proofing which I find amazing given that the web personalities who have hitched their stars to Lightroom (Schewe, Reichmann, Lyons) are among those who did so much work on explaining the importance of soft-proofing. So if you understand and use soft-proofing, 2.0 is and won't be a solution sans Photoshop or some other auxiliary product which has soft-proofing capability. Aperture does offer soft-proofing. Ian Lyons says that soft-proofing will not make it into version 2 before the release in August (its now feature complete) which means we probably won't see soft-proofing in Lightroom 2.0 this year. 2) Everywhere on the Adobe site you are warned NOT to use the beta as a production tool. Most importantly they will not guarantee that edits made in 2.0 Beta will be translated into what ever the final catalogue framework is. Since the release date for 2.0 is in August, you could wind up with the loss of access to a lot of your post production work. I find it curious that Adobe announces the public beta a few days after Aperture 2.1 was released just as Adobe announced the public beta of Lightroom 1 shortly after Aperture 1 was released but it could be just coincidence. I notice Scott Kelby already has his book on using Lightroom 2 ready to go so this isn't just a quickie on Adobe's part though they have had a contingency plan for any Aperture announcements. The best part of this intense competition is that we as photographers benefit. Even though I own Lightroom and like LIghtroom 2.0 beta, if I didn't own photoshop and I was looking for a one product solution to do my photography post processing, I'd have to say that I'd go for Aperture for the reasons above and obviously because of the plug-in architecture. Whither Capture 4? Left to wedding and event photographers me thinks for its fine image quality but weaker than weak workflow and adjustment toolset. I can't see any of this being any good for Lightzone but who knows. Lots of good intro to Lightroom 2.0 videos and text here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreddington Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share #4 Posted April 2, 2008 Tim, Eric I understand that the lack of soft-proofing might be a problem. I am not sophisticated enough in colour management for it to be an issue to me and I can always make a detour to CS3 if necessary. In a professional context this is certainly a problem. It isn't clear to me, though, if this is a basic philosophical decision or if they just haven't made it the highest priority this time around. Anyway, I don't use a Mac so Adobe is the only choice I have. Many of the other new features are things I am excited about. It looks like coincidence to me that they have started this beta just after the new Aperture was announced since this certainly took some advanced planning. Also, Jeff Schewe has been on some cryptic journeys recently and I wondered if there was something in the pipeline even before he mentioned April 2 on the Adobe user to user forum. They seem to be pretty up-front about the existing problems and I would never use a beta version, even an advanced beta, for production work so I don't hold that against them. It's frustrating that I downloaded it before going to work this morning but won't have a chance to play until the weekend Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted April 2, 2008 Share #5 Posted April 2, 2008 I prefer Adobe's approach. Lightroom is more intuitive to use, and faster. But the key is in the "all-raw workflow" philosophy. The idea is to operate in a 100% raw workflow for 100% of the ajustments we need. It depends on what you need, of course, but I can live inside Lightroom and only produce gamma adjusted files (TIFF or PSD) at the end of the process. When they finish the "output" area of Lightroom (soft-proofing, print, books) we will not have to generate and save any final file, never. This would be a 100% raw process, and this is the target. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericperlberg Posted April 2, 2008 Share #6 Posted April 2, 2008 It's frustrating that I downloaded it before going to work this morning but won't have a chance to play until the weekend I think you'll really like the changes. It's frustrating that its too early yet in the beta cycle to really use the software. From what I've read its almost Alpha level with lots of rough edges below the slick interface. Apparently though its feature complete. My gripe with Lightroom (and previously Aperture) and C1 is their reliance on such an expensive piece of software (photoshop) if they are to be a complete solution for photographers. I think Apple originally left this dependency because they didn't want to antagonise Adobe into making photoshop better on the PC than the Mac. Apple even went out of their way to emphasise that Aperture wasn't going to replace Photoshop. All this (IMO) is because when Apple bought and marketed Final Cut Pro they essentially took away Adobe's Premier market on the Mac (its only just returned) and the rift it caused between Apple and Adobe remains today. From Adobe's point of view, they didn't want Lightroom to compete with Photoshop which is a big cash cow for them. For Phase One I assume that its a resource issue and they focused on what they could do well. For me, soft-proofing is essential. How can you print if you can't see the actual colours in your print before hand? I'm amazed by Adobe's leaving this out of even v.1 of Lightroom and highly suspicious about why this feature was left off. Beyond that, I use local enhancements fairly often. I don't see anything benign about Adobe, witness their pricing scheme for the CS3 suite in the UK and their rationale for it. I don't see anything benign about Apple either, both are trying to maximise shareholder value. Anyway enough corporate rambling, have a fun play with your new toy. Eric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted April 2, 2008 Share #7 Posted April 2, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here's a link to the Lightroom 2.0 Learning Center: Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom™ 2.0 Learning Center | National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreddington Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share #8 Posted April 2, 2008 Anyway enough corporate rambling, have a fun play with your new toy.Eric Your corporate ramble might well be right and I will reserve judgement. Business is, after all, business. What I do find very attractive about the LR2 approach compared to Aperture is that the local editing does not require generation of an external tiff. Anyway, I should probably keep my mouth shut until I've actually had a chance to use it. In the meantime I am eagerly reading first impressions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted April 2, 2008 Share #9 Posted April 2, 2008 I had a brief play with Lightroom 2.0 beta. It's very nice, more powerful, more intuitive than Lightroom 1.3 and the non destructive local editing is excellent. Lightroom 2.0 beta on a mac can operate in 64 bit mode by simply ticking a box in the get info window. Eric, I'm being thick here but I don't see that tick box option. Do you mean the Get Info window for the application in the finder? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted April 2, 2008 Share #10 Posted April 2, 2008 My gripe with Lightroom (and previously Aperture) and C1 is their reliance on such an expensive piece of software (photoshop) if they are to be a complete solution for photographers. I think Apple originally left this dependency because they didn't want to antagonise Adobe into making photoshop better on the PC than the Mac. Apple even went out of their way to emphasise that Aperture wasn't going to replace Photoshop. All this (IMO) is because when Apple bought and marketed Final Cut Pro they essentially took away Adobe's Premier market on the Mac (its only just returned) and the rift it caused between Apple and Adobe remains today. From Adobe's point of view, they didn't want Lightroom to compete with Photoshop which is a big cash cow for them. For Phase One I assume that its a resource issue and they focused on what they could do well. I think that's probably partially true, but it's also the case that Photoshop is essentially a pixel editor, and Lightroom an image processor. In programming terms, those two things are miles apart - sort of like the difference between raster and vector graphics. It makes it really difficult to combine them in one program Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericperlberg Posted April 2, 2008 Share #11 Posted April 2, 2008 Eric, I'm being thick here but I don't see that tick box option. Do you mean the Get Info window for the application in the finder? Yes Tashley, unless you're not yet working in Leopard in which case maybe you wouldn't see it? I've attached a screen imageLightroom get info.pdf which hopefully I attached correctly (I need a fingers crossed smiley). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericperlberg Posted April 2, 2008 Share #12 Posted April 2, 2008 that didn't work. Here's a link, scroll down half a screen or so and you'll see a screenshot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted April 3, 2008 Share #13 Posted April 3, 2008 that didn't work. Here's a link, scroll down half a screen or so and you'll see a screenshot. Veeeery interesting... I'm on a dual 2 gig intel macbook pro with 2gig ram at the moment, and that very same Info pane looks exactly like your screenshot only without the vital checkbox for how many bits I want! Will try on another machine tomorrow... And thanks! t Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted April 3, 2008 Share #14 Posted April 3, 2008 Here's another link of explanation of the changes/enhancements. Personally I find LR very good and intuitive. I"m trying Aperture 2.1 but I don't like its file handling method so it's coming off the Mac after the 30-day trail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WPalank Posted April 3, 2008 Share #15 Posted April 3, 2008 I'm on a dual 2 gig intel macbook pro with 2gig ram at the moment, and that very same Info pane looks exactly like your screenshot only without the vital checkbox for how many bits I want! From the site: Mac users must be using an Intel-based computer and OS X 10.5 (Leopard). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted April 3, 2008 Share #16 Posted April 3, 2008 From the site:Mac users must be using an Intel-based computer and OS X 10.5 (Leopard). I got that WIlliam, and I am doing so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted April 3, 2008 Share #17 Posted April 3, 2008 Here's another link of explanation of the changes/enhancements. Sigh. I don't see an indication in here that the cropping aspect ratio in the Develop module will become "sticky" so that when I click "crop" I can have the aspect ratio default to "8x10" rather than "as shot", for example. This is my single biggest gripe with Lightroom; the next biggest is the relatively non-aggressive noise-reduction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted April 3, 2008 Share #18 Posted April 3, 2008 Sigh. I don't see an indication in here that the cropping aspect ratio in the Develop module will become "sticky" so that when I click "crop" I can have the aspect ratio default to "8x10" rather than "as shot", for example. This is my single biggest gripe with Lightroom; the next biggest is the relatively non-aggressive noise-reduction. But at least in LR the crop gives you a grid to tweak. In Aphole, you have to click'n'drag. They'll be asking me to carry my own shopping next! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harmsr Posted April 4, 2008 Share #19 Posted April 4, 2008 Good for new Lightroom but I'm starting to use Aperture much more. I shoot both the M8 and Nikon D3. Capture NX works very well with the D3 but not the M8. Capture One works very well with both and probably provides the best conversion but is really only a RAW program. Aperture is giving me great color, tonality, and fine detail with good workflow. These new plug-ins may also keep me out of Photoshop for a lot of work. Lightroom is easy to use but seems to provide me the worst detail and tonality. It just seems flat compared to the others. Just my $.02, but Lightroom is in last place of the convertors that I have. Best, Ray Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. white Posted April 4, 2008 Share #20 Posted April 4, 2008 Just my $.02, but Lightroom is in last place of the convertors that I have. Hi Ray, Just curious: Are you referring strictly to RAW conversion or image processing quality as well? Thanks, -J. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.