Is lightroom all Adobe hope it will be?

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Douglas., Mar 16, 2007.

  1. Douglas.

    Douglas. Guest

    I bought the Original RawShooter Premium. About 3 month's into ownership I
    gave up on it. It simply couldn't develop shadow detail as well as the
    "Digital Photo Professional" Canon gave me with the camera.

    I tried Lightroom beta and didn't discover anything about it I thought might
    make it worth the cost it would eventually be. Adobe fixed that when they
    started distributing it free to everyone who had registered their
    RawShooter.

    So here I am, a month into ownership and thoroughly disappointed with a
    program which promised so much and delivered so little. I certainly agree
    that there is room for a stand alone RAW developer but this isn't it.

    I tried Silky Pix too. This has just as much teasing promise as Lightroom
    and delivers about the same disappointment.

    The problem seems to be shadows and Canon RAW files. There is shadow detail
    in the file. I can get it out with DPP. To some extent I can get at it with
    ACR but both Lightroom and Silkypix both degrade the developed image in a
    way that makes using Photoshop to recover any more shadow detail impossible
    because neither Lightroom or Silkypix pay attention to detail in shadow
    areas.

    This may be all well and good for happy snappers but both of these programs
    are targeting Professional photographers. Pros use shadows as an element of
    a portrait and seek significant detail in dark areas. I never had a problem
    with film but increasingly with digital images, more and more software
    developers are ignoring the art and concentrating on the shock. It's not
    good enough.

    Has anybody else discovered the murky depth of digital photography can't
    come close to the finely defines shadow detail of a good portrait film?

    Douglas
    http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com
     
    Douglas., Mar 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Douglas.

    KatWoman Guest

    maybe CANON has the better program as it has the best info on how to handle
    the Canon output??
    and it's comes with the camera, so why buy another program if DPP is working
    well?

    FWIW My photographer thinks film was nicer too.
    Digital capture is way closer to video in capture than the old 35mm
    transparency film.
    I find it more contrasty, too hot in the highlights and not so detailed in
    shadows
    it has improved over time so there is hope....................
     
    KatWoman, Mar 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Douglas.

    Joe1 Guest

    I'm going to sidestep how to best work on underexposed pictures and
    just deal with why they're so hard to work on. When shooting, keep
    in mind that half of the data that is possible to capture in an image
    is in the brightest fifth stop. This means shoot to the bright side
    (being careful to not clip) if you intend to shoot and postprocess in
    RAW. You will be amazed at the detail you can recover in areas that
    look blown out. (If shooting jpeg, keep in mind its fewer bits will
    not allow it to stand up to postprocessing nearly as well as RAW, so
    shoot a more normal exposure.)

    Conversely, the darkest fifth stop gets the least number of bits set
    aside for it, so when you're trying to brighten those areas, they will
    come out looking the worst. So shoot bright, you can always bring
    your not so darks down to a darker appearance. Going the other way
    just doesn't work very well - too much breakdown.
     
    Joe1, Mar 16, 2007
    #3
  4. Douglas.

    KatWoman Guest

    yes an old friend used to always say overexpose, underdevelop
    it is the same theory I think
     
    KatWoman, Mar 17, 2007
    #4

  5. ---

    Adobe is getting a lot of praise and a lot of flack for LR. You won't get
    Adobe to say that it was a disappointment, just like you won't get an Adobe
    fan to say it has some very major problems. Myself I find it to be a big
    disappointment, but have hopes that in a year or two when they have the very
    large number of bugs fixed and the much needed major missing features added
    that it will be pretty good. Right now, it is more of a curiosity than
    something to really use. Adobe may call it a 1.0, but it is really a beta
    and that is Adobe's fault. They made major changes from beta 4.1 to beta 5
    but didn't release beta 5 for testing. This is why it is so flawed.

    =(8)
     
    Jack Splat =\(8\), Mar 17, 2007
    #5
  6. [snip]

    That is curious, because ACR and Lightroom share the same core raw
    conversion code, and ACR 3.7 is intended to respect Lightroom's
    settings with the same rendering.

    Are you changing something in the ACR versus Lightroom comparison?
     
    Barry Pearson, Mar 17, 2007
    #6
  7. It's not. Film reacts on light in a curved way. Overexposure combined
    with under development lowers the contrast, so it's a way to make the
    film react differently.

    A sensor reacts to light in a linear way. That is the reason why 50% of
    all bits are in the brightest stop, 50% of the remaining bits are in the
    next stop, etc. Exposing for the brightest stop means getting as many
    useful bits in your image as possible. But it doesn't change the sensor
    respons line.
     
    Johan W. Elzenga, Mar 17, 2007
    #7
  8. Douglas.

    Douglas. Guest

    : [snip]
    : > The problem seems to be shadows and Canon RAW files. There is shadow
    detail
    : > in the file. I can get it out with DPP. To some extent I can get at it
    with
    : > ACR but both Lightroom and Silkypix both degrade the developed image in
    a
    : > way that makes using Photoshop to recover any more shadow detail
    impossible
    : > because neither Lightroom or Silkypix pay attention to detail in shadow
    : > areas.
    : [snip]
    :
    : That is curious, because ACR and Lightroom share the same core raw
    : conversion code, and ACR 3.7 is intended to respect Lightroom's
    : settings with the same rendering.
    :
    : Are you changing something in the ACR versus Lightroom comparison?
    :
    : --
    : Barry Pearson
    : http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
    :
    ACR and Lightroom could not possibly share the same core conversion code.
    Light room develops a raw file and ACR develop a raw file. If that's "the
    same" then your theory might hold water.

    Lightroom is RAWShooter Premium in drag which eventuated out of a
    developer's dispute at Capture one. Very little has changed in how it
    processes a file and a lot has changed in how it looks and feels. Methinks
    if Adobe could have built this from ACR, they wouldn't have spent as many
    millions as they did buying the RawShooter's code.

    Capture One was a defacto standard raw developer for a lot of Pro
    Photographers who adopted digital capture early. I never really warmed to it
    but respected it's place in history. I did (for a while) warm to RawShooter
    and later to LightRoom until it got around to working with tricky images and
    images mainly in black regions...

    Neither works well here but surprisingly ACR retains a lot of shadow detail
    post raw development and this can be further recovered/enhanced with
    Photoshop. This is why I'm so convinced, ACR and Lightroom do not share
    common code, just respect the setting each makes.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas., Mar 18, 2007
    #8
  9. ACR and Lightroom DO share the same core raw conversion code. More
    specifically:

    - ACR 3.7 was released for PS CS2 to match Lightroom's rendering (note
    that) and XMP metadata, although it doesn't have all the same sliders
    itself. It also supports the same set of cameras, and has similar
    support for DNG.

    - ACR 4.x (for PS CS3) should also have all of the sliders and
    controls of the Lightroom Develop module, and should render the same.
    (The Beta version 4.0 has most of the same controls, but not clone /
    heal / red-eye).
    [snip]

    That isn't the history. I believe the people who left Phase One /
    Capture One formed Pixmantec and designed Rawshooter. Lightroom was
    certainly designed, initially developed, and released at Beta, while
    those people were still at Pixmantec. Adobe acquired the assets of
    Pixmantec during the Beta phase of Lightroom, but the prime influence
    on Lightroom (hence ACR) is in the use of those people themselves.
    This shows in the design of some features such as the Recover, Fill,
    and Vibrance controls. I don't believe that specific code was
    incorporated, although perhaps subroutines were.
     
    Barry Pearson, Mar 18, 2007
    #9
  10. Douglas.

    Douglas. Guest

    : [snip]
    : > ACR and Lightroom could not possibly share the same core conversion
    code.
    : > Light room develops a raw file and ACR develop a raw file. If that's
    "the
    : > same" then your theory might hold water.
    :
    : ACR and Lightroom DO share the same core raw conversion code. More
    : specifically:
    :
    : - ACR 3.7 was released for PS CS2 to match Lightroom's rendering (note
    : that) and XMP metadata, although it doesn't have all the same sliders
    : itself. It also supports the same set of cameras, and has similar
    : support for DNG.
    :
    : - ACR 4.x (for PS CS3) should also have all of the sliders and
    : controls of the Lightroom Develop module, and should render the same.
    : (The Beta version 4.0 has most of the same controls, but not clone /
    : heal / red-eye).
    :
    : > Lightroom is RAWShooter Premium in drag which eventuated out of a
    : > developer's dispute at Capture one. Very little has changed in how it
    : > processes a file and a lot has changed in how it looks and feels.
    Methinks
    : > if Adobe could have built this from ACR, they wouldn't have spent as
    many
    : > millions as they did buying the RawShooter's code.
    : [snip]
    :
    : That isn't the history. I believe the people who left Phase One /
    : Capture One formed Pixmantec and designed Rawshooter. Lightroom was
    : certainly designed, initially developed, and released at Beta, while
    : those people were still at Pixmantec. Adobe acquired the assets of
    : Pixmantec during the Beta phase of Lightroom, but the prime influence
    : on Lightroom (hence ACR) is in the use of those people themselves.
    : This shows in the design of some features such as the Recover, Fill,
    : and Vibrance controls. I don't believe that specific code was
    : incorporated, although perhaps subroutines were.
    :

    Yeah... You don't get much for 25 million eh?
    I suppose Adobe gave me a copy of Lightroom because I'm such a lovable
    bloke, then?
    They gave it to me because I bought and paid for RawShooter just weeks
    before Adobe bought the program and this... Is the evolution of it.

    But Hey... Don't let fact stand in the way of a good story Barry.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas., Mar 18, 2007
    #10
  11. The facts are as I stated. You can read here if you like:

    9 January 2006:
    "Adobe Press Release on Lightroom"
    http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/adobe-press-release-on-lightroom/

    9 January 2006:
    "The Shadowland/Lightroom Development Story"
    http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/

    13 June 2006:
    "Lightroom Public Beta 3.0 for Mac Now Available"
    http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/13/lightroom-public-beta-30-for-mac-now-available/

    26 June 2006:
    "Adobe Acquires Technology Assets of Pixmantec ApS"
    http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/26/adobe-acquires-technology-assets-of-pixmantec-aps/

    You may want to listen to some of the podcasts (as I have) and learn
    more about the relationship between Lightroom and ACR:
    http://idisk.mac.com/george_jardine-Public?view=web

    Adobe gave free copies of Lightroom to people who had paid for
    Rawshooter because, by buying the assets of Pixmantec, they had
    terminated the further development of a product that people had paid
    for expecting a future. That is NOT evidence that any Rawshooter code
    was included in Lightroom.

    Perhaps some Pixmantec code has been incorporated into ACR and
    Lightroom - but clearly after Public Beta 3.0, and I believe not for
    the next Beta either. (I haven't heard of any such code, and I try to
    keep in touch on Adobe forums, etc). Because Adobe are synchronising
    ACR and Lightroom, partially with ACR 3.7, and more completely with
    ACR 4.x, and these are clearly forward developments of ACRs that have
    been available for years, it is clear that the core raw conversion
    code of Lightroom was derived from ACR originally, and its currently
    more evolved state is becoming shared with ACR 4.x.
     
    Barry Pearson, Mar 18, 2007
    #11
  12. Douglas.

    Douglas. Guest

    : [snip]
    : > Yeah... You don't get much for 25 million eh?
    : > I suppose Adobe gave me a copy of Lightroom because I'm such a lovable
    : > bloke, then?
    : > They gave it to me because I bought and paid for RawShooter just weeks
    : > before Adobe bought the program and this... Is the evolution of it.
    : >
    : > But Hey... Don't let fact stand in the way of a good story Barry.
    :
    : The facts are as I stated. You can read here if you like:
    :
    : 9 January 2006:
    : "Adobe Press Release on Lightroom"
    : http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/adobe-press-release-on-lightroom/
    :
    : 9 January 2006:
    : "The Shadowland/Lightroom Development Story"
    :
    http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/
    :
    : 13 June 2006:
    : "Lightroom Public Beta 3.0 for Mac Now Available"
    :
    http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/13/lightroom-public-beta-30-for-mac-now-available/
    :
    : 26 June 2006:
    : "Adobe Acquires Technology Assets of Pixmantec ApS"
    :
    http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/26/adobe-acquires-technology-assets-of-pixmantec-aps/
    :
    : You may want to listen to some of the podcasts (as I have) and learn
    : more about the relationship between Lightroom and ACR:
    : http://idisk.mac.com/george_jardine-Public?view=web
    :
    : Adobe gave free copies of Lightroom to people who had paid for
    : Rawshooter because, by buying the assets of Pixmantec, they had
    : terminated the further development of a product that people had paid
    : for expecting a future. That is NOT evidence that any Rawshooter code
    : was included in Lightroom.
    :
    : Perhaps some Pixmantec code has been incorporated into ACR and
    : Lightroom - but clearly after Public Beta 3.0, and I believe not for
    : the next Beta either. (I haven't heard of any such code, and I try to
    : keep in touch on Adobe forums, etc). Because Adobe are synchronising
    : ACR and Lightroom, partially with ACR 3.7, and more completely with
    : ACR 4.x, and these are clearly forward developments of ACRs that have
    : been available for years, it is clear that the core raw conversion
    : code of Lightroom was derived from ACR originally, and its currently
    : more evolved state is becoming shared with ACR 4.x.
    :
    : --
    : Barry Pearson
    : http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
    :

    All those links confirm is that Adobe have an aversion to giving credit to
    the origins of any product they put their name to. They do not confirm or
    deny your (or my) claims. My claim that LR is in fact RS in drag is based on
    the almost identical to RawShooter problem areas in LR and virtual freedom
    from these in ACR.

    Logic tells me you can't have a flaky developer that destroys shadow (and
    much) highlight detail in it's developed image and still use the "Core Code"
    of an earlier program that does not have these issues. Probably no more or
    less plausible than your examples produced by the masters of spin.

    The fact remains, Lightroom is starting to look like a Dud and unless Adobe
    do something about it's "identical to RawShooter" ...terrible handling of
    shadow detail, it is going to get a pasting from those who make a living
    using shadow detail in their work and paid for the program.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas., Mar 18, 2007
    #12
  13. Douglas.

    Mike Russell Guest

    ....
    ....
    Adobe certainly spins with the best of them, and you may have a point with
    the highlight issue, but I'm respectfully in agreement with Barry on this
    one, Douglas.

    There's an ongoing discussion of ACR on the adobe forums that has all the
    scuttlebutt. The latest ACR and Lightroom are acknowledged, by Knoll and
    others, to have the same code base. Another factor is that Lightroom was
    into public beta well before they acquired Pixmantec.
     
    Mike Russell, Mar 18, 2007
    #13
  14. Douglas.

    Douglas. Guest

    : : ...
    : > Logic tells me you can't have a flaky developer that destroys shadow
    (and
    : > much) highlight detail in it's developed image and still use the "Core
    : > Code"
    : > of an earlier program that does not have these issues. Probably no more
    or
    : > less plausible than your examples produced by the masters of spin.
    : ...
    : Adobe certainly spins with the best of them, and you may have a point with
    : the highlight issue, but I'm respectfully in agreement with Barry on this
    : one, Douglas.
    :
    : There's an ongoing discussion of ACR on the adobe forums that has all the
    : scuttlebutt. The latest ACR and Lightroom are acknowledged, by Knoll and
    : others, to have the same code base. Another factor is that Lightroom was
    : into public beta well before they acquired Pixmantec.
    : --
    : Mike Russell
    : www.curvemeister.com/forum/
    :
    :
    If the "code base" used in Lightroom is the future of ACR, then it certainly
    is timely for Canon camera owners to consider standardising on Canon's own
    software as the only viable alternative for future RAW development of Canon
    images when one wishes to explore the murky depths of shadows.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas., Mar 19, 2007
    #14
  15. The code base in Lightroom was evolved from ACR 3.x, and the code base
    in ACR 4.x will be the same as that of Lightroom.

    I don't believe Canon users will get worse results from ACR 4.x than
    they did from ACR 3.x. I don't know whether they will get better
    results, but they will easier results.
     
    Barry Pearson, Mar 19, 2007
    #15
  16. [snip]

    I posted the DATES of those announcements & press releases to show you
    that Lightroom was well advanced before Adobe acquired the assets of
    Pixmantec.

    For interest, the "Filing Date" for Adobe's application to trademark
    "Lightroom" was 13 May 2004:
    http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78418515
     
    Barry Pearson, Mar 19, 2007
    #16
  17. Douglas.

    Douglas. Guest

    : [snip]
    : > If the "code base" used in Lightroom is the future of ACR, then it
    certainly
    : > is timely for Canon camera owners to consider standardising on Canon's
    own
    : > software as the only viable alternative for future RAW development of
    Canon
    : > images when one wishes to explore the murky depths of shadows.
    :
    : The code base in Lightroom was evolved from ACR 3.x, and the code base
    : in ACR 4.x will be the same as that of Lightroom.
    :
    : I don't believe Canon users will get worse results from ACR 4.x than
    : they did from ACR 3.x. I don't know whether they will get better
    : results, but they will easier results.
    :
    : --
    : Barry Pearson
    : http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
    :
    Barry,
    The part about you response and Adobe's spin doctors tales, I simply don't
    comprehend is that I can develop a Canon 20D image in ACR (2.4) and bring
    out deep shadow detail as if it were just a part of the image - which should
    be the case with any developer.

    When I attempt to do this with LightRoom or RawShooter, the results are
    terrible. They develop with a 'screen' of hatched lines in the areas ACR
    manages to pull detail from. ACR 2.4 is not what I would term a "Noisy
    developer of shadows " although it does create it's fair share of noise in
    shadows. I don't use ACR later than this because I don't need to. Adobe say
    if 2.4 has my camera profile, that's all I need. Even ACR is no match for
    DPP from Canon.

    Now you can tell me for as long as you wish that ACR and LightRoom use the
    same "code base" but I'm here to tell you, Barry:
    "If it looks like a fish, smells like a fish and has scales, it gotta be a
    fish".

    Personal experience is all that motivates my comments. I had hoped at the
    start to find another lone sole who paid hard cash for a program that never
    quite lived up to it's expectations but promised greatness in the process
    of doing this. All I get is Adobe's fan club trying to tell me what I see is
    not actually how it is. The end of it for me.
     
    Douglas., Mar 19, 2007
    #17
  18. Douglas.

    Douglas. Guest

    : [snip]
    : > All those links confirm is that Adobe have an aversion to giving credit
    to
    : > the origins of any product they put their name to. They do not confirm
    or
    : > deny your (or my) claims.
    : [snip]
    :
    : I posted the DATES of those announcements & press releases to show you
    : that Lightroom was well advanced before Adobe acquired the assets of
    : Pixmantec.
    :
    : For interest, the "Filing Date" for Adobe's application to trademark
    : "Lightroom" was 13 May 2004:
    : http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78418515
    :
    I files an application for a trademark in 2003. I am yet to develop the
    product for which I hold that trademark. Dates for these things are
    meaningless, Barry.

    All Adobe did by registering a Trademark was prevent anyone else doing the
    same thing.
    So, Barry ...I have plans for an anti gravity machine and I registered my
    trademark to prevent other from taking the wind from my sails when my
    machine get's off the ground.

    Where's the evidence?
    So far it's in what I discovered when I used one image with 6 different
    developers. Only two produced near identical results. RawShooter and
    LightRoom... Scales and fish thing, Barry.
     
    Douglas., Mar 19, 2007
    #18
  19. Evidence for what? You have had material identified in responses to
    you that shows that Lightroom was already released at Beta 3.0 when
    Adobe acquired the assets of Pixmantec. Look at the dates of those
    documents! (I read them when they were first published - they really
    did come out on those dates). And if you had followed discussions in
    various Adobe forums, as Mike Russell and I do, you would never have
    begun your erroneous theory.

    If you read the "Shadowland/Lightroom Development" document I
    identify, (published in January 2006, more than 5 months before the
    acquisition), you would discover that the first technology
    demonstrator for what eventually became Lightroom started in 2002,
    then gradually evolved over subsequent years. I've repeated the
    document list, with publication dates, below.

    9 January 2006:
    "Adobe Press Release on Lightroom"
    http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/adobe-press-release-on-lightroom/

    9 January 2006:
    "The Shadowland/Lightroom Development Story"
    http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/

    13 June 2006:
    "Lightroom Public Beta 3.0 for Mac Now Available"
    http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/13/lightroom-public-beta-30-for-mac-now-available/

    26 June 2006:
    "Adobe Acquires Technology Assets of Pixmantec ApS"
    http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/26/adobe-acquires-technology-assets-of-pixmantec-aps/

    The podcasts reveal more about the relationship between Lightroom and
    ACR:
    http://idisk.mac.com/george_jardine-Public?view=web
     
    Barry Pearson, Mar 19, 2007
    #19
  20. What Mike Russell and I are saying it NOT about the image quality from
    Lightroom. It is that Lightroom is not an evolution of Rawshooter. It
    is irrelevant whether Mike and I favour some Adobe products in any
    way, we are talking about published history.

    It appears that you have a need to believe something that demonstrably
    is not true. If so, it means that no matter how much evidence I and
    others post here, you will continue to ignore it.
     
    Barry Pearson, Mar 19, 2007
    #20
    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.