Adobe lightroom

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Padu, Aug 18, 2006.

  1. Padu

    Padu Guest

    I'm sorry if it's been discussed before, but what do you guys think or adobe
    lightroom (from adobe labs, the same folks that were macromedia labs one
    day)?
    I know, it's still beta (nowadays some products never leave beta... go
    figure...) but I'm enjoying. A few quirks here and there, but very nice
    looking and nice features.

    Cheers

    Padu
     
    Padu, Aug 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Padu

    Mark² Guest

    Adobe just bought out the excellent RawShooter Essential/Premium company to
    supposedly incorporate its technology/engine into Lightroom...so...assuming
    Adobe doesn't entirely screw it up...and assuming they bought it to actually
    USE it, rather than simply to smash the mostly FREE competition...it could
    be very decent.

    I'll wait and see because for one...I already have RawShooter Premium and
    I'm happy with it. They'll have to significantly improve on it, or perhaps
    make it seamlessly FAST for use with Photoshop...and then I'll be
    interested.

    I just hope they don't anihilate its ease of use and straight-forward
    interface...

    -Mark²
     
    Mark², Aug 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I have never found Raw Shooter to have a straight-forward interface. I also
    am a Premium owner, but use other software much of the time as they still
    don't have it together with curves and layers.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 18, 2006
    #3
  4. Padu

    Padu Guest

    "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    I'm a software engineer, and from the engineering standpoint, I liked the
    UI. It is still a bit slow, but I cannot judge that, since I was using the
    software while it was cataloging my pictures (about 8K) on the background.

    The folks at adobe labs say (in a presentation video) that the final version
    is going to have many more useful features. I liked the quick develop a lot,
    looks very powerful. The editing you do is non-destructive, to commit to
    changes you have to open it in photoshop, when it will ask you if you want
    to carry the changes with the image.

    For now it's free, I'm not sure if it will stay like that, but I guess so.

    Cheers

    Padu
     
    Padu, Aug 18, 2006
    #4
  5. I am a software engineer (and consultant) as well ... and I found the UI less
    than intuitive, and that is why I refered to it as such. As far as slow goes,
    I actually found it to be quite fast as compared to other products like any of
    the Adobe offerings.
    I haven't given lightroom any real effort as of yet to understand what it is
    supposed to do and how it will do it.
    Lightroom? No, it won't be free, in fact, I read [somewhere] that it would be
    more expensive than Rawshooter Premium, but that the price point has yet to be
    decided.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 18, 2006
    #5
  6. Padu

    bmoag Guest

    I have Raw Shooter Premium, along with a few other converters, but use them
    less and less. The general reason that I find stand-alone raw converters
    somewhat unsatisfactory is that, at least for my non-professional habits,
    the global adjustments that one can make to an image in a stand alone
    converter are rarely enough and regional adjustments to part of an image is
    still required in Photoshop. While some adjustments initially seem easier in
    some raw converters I have not found anything that cannot be duplicated in
    CS2.
    The specific problem I have with Raw Shooter Premium is that the appearance
    of an image in its preview window is significantly different, particularly
    with regard to contrast and gamma but not color, than how that image looks
    when it is opened in CS2. Since I print from CS2 and my color management
    routine provides satisfactorily predictable results RSP is often not worth
    using. Bibble, Dx and Nikon NX do not show these shifts in image quality
    when opening the image in CS2. Nikon NX with its control points may be on to
    a new and usable interface for image adjustment but I see it as a work in
    progress.
    From a marketing standpoint I really do not understand why Adobe would want
    to insert the functionality of Raw Shooter Premium into Lightroom. My
    limited experience with Lightroom has me wondering how Adobe plans to market
    it in relationship to CS2. My major impression of Lightroom is that it is
    merely Bridge on steroids. Lightroom has a nicer interface for making
    limited global adjustments to groups of images made in a studio under
    identical lighting conditions but I don't immediately see what you can do
    with Lightroom that you can't already do in CS2.
    I suspect Adobe also is not clear how they can market this product and that
    is why it is out there as a free beta. Adobe might have thought they needed
    to have something to compete with Aperture but that ill-starred product is
    not likely to survive due to bizarre programing and marketing by Apple. For
    example how could Apple release Aperture at the same time as the Mactel and
    not have a version native to the Mactel OS--as of this writing the number
    of programs that run native to the Mactel OS makes those Mactel boxes the
    most overpriced and underwarrantied Wintel clones in the marketplace.
     
    bmoag, Aug 18, 2006
    #6
  7. Padu

    Padu Guest

    "bmoag"
    <snip>

    I had that impression too... bridge on steroids, but lacks the file
    management features (moving files around), while bridge lacks the developing
    features... if only they could combine both. I have the impression that
    lightroom will be free or bundled with next versions of photoshop.
    I don't think lightroom is supposed to replace CS2, only to complement.
     
    Padu, Aug 18, 2006
    #7
  8. Padu

    no_name Guest

    Maybe you've hit it, that the next version of Photoshop will have
    Lightroom combined with Bridge to give the best of both.

    --

    These are my views. If you've got a problem with it, you can blame it on
    me, but this is what I think. I am not the official spokes-person for
    any Government, Commercial or Educational institution.

    John
     
    no_name, Aug 18, 2006
    #8
  9. Padu

    Tim Guest

    The fact that Aperture isn't native today isn't going to have any impact
    on it's long-term success. Soon enough it will be native, as will all
    the other major apps. Software development cycles don't match hardware
    development cycles. The transition to Intel hardware is a major
    transition and it takes time for software products to catch up. We
    certainly aren't going to see all Windows applications updated for VISTA
    within several months of its release.
     
    Tim, Aug 19, 2006
    #9
  10. Padu

    cjcampbell Guest

    Everyone here is well aware of your "Apple can do no right" theme. If
    Apple had never switched to Intel, you would still be going on about
    the inferior processor. Now that they have switched, you are spinning
    it as a bad move. No matter what Apple does, it seems that you think it
    was the wrong move. Overall, your ignorance and outright defamatory
    postings have become more than tiresome.

    Apples have warranties, contrary to your defamatory insistence that
    they do not.

    They are not intended to be Wintel clones.

    It is highly doubtful that they are the most overpriced Intel computer
    on the market.

    Aperture has its faults, but you probably have no idea what they are.

    You are possibly the most ignorant, biased, and stupid jerk posting
    here. And that is really going some.
     
    cjcampbell, Aug 21, 2006
    #10
  11. Vista is not a platform upgrade, it is an OS upgrade of the same OS. Most
    software will work 100% as well on Vista as it does on XP. There will be
    exceptions, but very few of them.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Aug 21, 2006
    #11
  12. No, he's not, not by a long shot. But what you say about his anti-Mac
    rants is right and right on. Tiresome and predictable, with more than a
    dash of unsupportable statements and bias thrown in.
     
    John McWilliams, Aug 21, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.