Adobe Photoshop Lightroom

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by John McWilliams, Mar 9, 2007.

  1. LIGHTROOM-

    It's shipped, released, and for the last few weeks I have been testing
    and using Lightroom. It's good, eventually could be superb. Not ready
    for network or multi-user use yet, it's on for a free 30 day trial.

    It's pretty much a streamlined RAW processor with a database structure,
    and there are also a lot of tutorials out there to give a boost up the
    learning curve, which isn't huge. Lots of depth for a product only a few
    years old, still some bugs to work out.

    I like it a lot, and wonder how many here have taken a real look at it?
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Uh, that's "for a product only a few _DAYS_ old"...
    I like it a lot, too. It's got everything one needs in a raw converter, even
    dust removal, rotation and cropping (for dizzy photographers such as
    myself), and vignetting correction (for FF users and folks with cheap
    consumer DX lenses). It would be nice if the sharpening happened _after_
    noise reduction, but the sharpening is remarkably free of halos
    (halleluiah!). Fill light, highlight rescuing, and vibrance work _better_
    than in RSP (antoher loud halleluiah!).

    It's a tad sluggish though. But nothing a 4GHz quad CPU PC with 16 GB of RAM
    and four large, fast, internal disk drives wouldn't fix, though. Pity no
    such PC exists...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sharpening aggravates noise. Unless it has a threshold setting, and even
    then that only helps for relatively low-noise images. So you want to apply
    sharpening to the noise reduced image when any noise is present; trying to
    noise reduce sharpening-aggravated noise is going to just lose more detail.
    For ISO 100 dSLR images this isn't an issue. But it becomes an issue at some
    ISO for any camera.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 9, 2007
    #3
  4. Fill light in RSP reduces highlight contrast as well, so having those
    separate is a big improvement, I think. Vibrance in LR seems more subtle
    than in RSP; in RSP anything over about 10 was off the wall, but the whole
    range of the control seems useful in LR. Also, I think the histogram is more
    accurate in LR than in RSP, i.e. when you export a file and look at it in
    Photoshop, RSP often needs more levels adjustment that I thought reasonable.

    But the halleluiah and it's loudness were largely for not losing anything; a
    slight improvement on something good is superb news when one was worrying
    that one might be moving backwards.
    That's good to hear. My PC is a single CPU 3GHz/2GB system, and LR takes
    painfully long to load an image. This is worse in Develop than in Library,
    so the trick is to (do what you are supposed to and) use Library mode for
    looking through things. In particular, Library mode gets to 1:1 view much
    faster than Develop mode when you first switch to a different image.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 9, 2007
    #4
  5. And I was counting the time to include the pre-public beta; it was the
    public beta on Mac which went on for about a year, and about 7 months on
    PCs.
    It's quite decent on a MacBookPro, 2 Gigs RAM. There are things that can
    be done to avoid "congestion" if the app is processing bunches of files.

    One interesting aspect between the betas and release v1 is that sidecars
    are done away with for all but RAW files. So even JPEGs can be edited
    non-destructively and the edit data and metadata written into the
    headers. Same for TIFFs, which is not surprising, and DNGs.
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 9, 2007
    #5
  6. John McWilliams

    Saguenay Guest


    We are waiting for this looooong list.
    Better each one has at least the same features than Lightroom, or we will
    laugh.
    Don't forget, they must work with both: RAW **and** JPG.
     
    Saguenay, Mar 9, 2007
    #6
  7. You can force it to build Previews when you're not using it, and turning
    off "automatically write XMP to files" can speed things up. (It'll still
    be writing changes to the db)
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 10, 2007
    #7
  8. Rotation correction as in 90 degrees, or as in straightening horizons?
    Both are dead simple. I do cropping at the same time as any adjustments
    to level.

    I pretty much don't [need to] do barrel or pincushion correction, so I
    can't comment on those controls.

    It's hardly just an adjustment/enhancement tool. It batch processes
    better than anything I've seen, and is a full asset manager for images.
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 10, 2007
    #8
  9. I have no complaints with my Core2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz x 2) with 4GB DDR2-800
    (4-4-4-12) and 750GB of disk space. No problems with the software at all (as
    far as performance goes).
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Mar 12, 2007
    #9
  10. 1. What size (MP) images are you converting? (12.7MP here)
    2. How long does it take to see the 1:1 view (with no "Loading" displayed)
    when you switch between images in the Develop module? (8 to 10 seconds here
    on a 3Ghz/2GB 1-CPU machine).

    Now that I'm getting used to it, this bit is the only major problem
    (although Develop in general could be a tad faster); Loupe view at 1:1 in
    Library mode is quite zippy. But switching between images in Develop is
    grossly slow.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 12, 2007
    #10

  11. I guess I need to try more RAM. I have the same processor as you but
    only 2GB DDR2. On mine it's a bit sluggish. On my neighbor's IMAC Core
    Duo, it's a dog.
     
    Oliver Costich, Mar 12, 2007
    #11
  12. 10.2 ... from my Nikon D200. Also, played with some scanned TIFFs from my old
    slide film ... these were 100+MB.
    I don't know, I didn't really notice any delays that caused me to "twiddle my
    thumbs". I could actually try it out and post back here I suppose.
    I will give it a shot and see if I suffer similar performance issues. Having
    said that, I can state unequivically that my DUAL-CORE will stomp a 3GHz single
    core (that is what I upgraded from .. a 3.0GHz P4 HT with 1.5GB RAMBUS1066 ...
    533MHz FSB). And, my box is running Windows Vista Ultimate x64 for that added
    resource drain effect so sought after by the masses.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Mar 12, 2007
    #12
  13. RAM Performance will also have a significant effect. Like I said, I am
    running 4GB DDR2-800 (4-4-4-12). Asus P5W DH Deluxe mainboard as well ....
    nice fast board, but I NOT overclocking any hardware at this time.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Mar 12, 2007
    #13
  14. That's good to hear, thanks. Given that CPU speeds have been stuck at 3GHz
    for several years now, I've been worried that performance is stuck as well.

    My current problem is that Dell Japan appears to have stopped providing
    bundles with English versions of the OS. I read Japanese just fine, but I'd
    rather not if I don't have to. Sigh.
    Wow. You're a braver man than I. I was thinking of sticking with XP for my
    next PC if I upgrade this spring.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 12, 2007
    #14
  15. John McWilliams

    Saguenay Guest

    6 to 7 Megs (as RAW) here.


    Locking the 1:1 view in Develop, I wait 4 to 5 seconds for the "Loading"
    message to disappear when switching images.

    I happen to use a 3 GHz processor + 1 Gb RAM , 1 CPU machine.
    Hope this helps...
     
    Saguenay, Mar 13, 2007
    #15
  16. Thanks, it does. I wanted to know if what I'm seeing is odd, and it sounds
    that it's not, i.e. that the time to render images per MP is about the same.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 13, 2007
    #16
  17. There's an oddity I've found in Develop, and that's that the image can
    be edited before the "image loading" notice disappears.
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 13, 2007
    #17
  18. Yes, but the image is not necessarily displayed correctly.

    Again, if I simply remember to use Library view for checking focus, life is
    much less painful.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 13, 2007
    #18
  19. As DirectX hardware and software become available, you will only get full
    support for it in Windows Vista, so that alone MAY be a reason for upgrade.
    There are a few minor improvements [context switching on multi-core/cpu
    machines is much more efficient] with Vista, but mostly, it is eye candy.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Mar 13, 2007
    #19
    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.