Adobe Lightroom Review 181
onethumb writes "Andy over at Digital Grin got his hands on a pre-release copy of Adobe's hot new app 'Lightroom' last week and has a nice review up. Adobe Lightroom, is designed to go head-to-head with Apple's own recently released Aperture. Is digital photo editing finally getting both powerful and easy?"
Dumb Question? (Score:2)
And it wasn't before?
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:1)
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:2, Informative)
And it wasn't before?
I certainly didn't think so. I don't find Adobe Photoshop to the the least bit intuitive. The online help is fairly useless, unless I assume you already know what you are doing. I spent $600 buying this a couple years ago and still do most of my photo editing in other tools because they are a bit more obvious how to navigate. Photoshop may be a breeze once you've been trained on it.
I've been a bit put off, too,
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:4, Funny)
Now that's some powerful software -- it can crop itself!
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:1)
Alas, not more powerful than the school's regents, who with the stroke of a pen or an 'Aye' can lay waste to an Arts department.
all in favor of increasing the board's stipend say Aye!
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:1)
Thanks, I'll give it a try. I'm getting a higher-end digital camera to do some Astrophotography with and would like to be able to use PS for the work.
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:1)
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:1)
Already have it tagged, thanks. I'll doublecheck my version when I get home, though I believe it is 6.0
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:3, Informative)
Many of the experienced people in the competitions are generous about sharing tips and techniques. Some can be real pricks though, so develop a thick skin...
Even dumber Question? (Score:1)
Is Photoshop a magnitude better or just slightly more powerful at certain things?
Re:Even dumber Question? (Score:3, Informative)
PSP has no colour management (it can actually silently screw up anything non sRGB)
PSP can't do >8bit per channel
For serious work those are frequently show stoppers. Those are just the first two limits I ran into.
"Is PhotoShop a magnitude better ?"
This is like saying "is [high end DSLR] a magnitude better than [cheap compact]" - the answer is that it all depends what you are trying to do. If you only care about megapixels, buy
Re:Even dumber Question? (Score:3, Informative)
From its "What's New" file:
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not meant to be, or rather it is, but mostly it's not because you don't understand the paradigms on which it's based. It's a professional-level tool, designed for graphic arts professionals who're going to be trained in it's use and using it day-in and day-out. If all you want to do is fix the red-eye from your 3MP P&S, then use Elements or some other hand-holding piece of software.
From a similar perspective, Linux command lines and
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:2)
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:2)
Hundreds of women with nothing better to do (and a few guys) would sit around chopping up copyrighted artwork (for the most part) and putting usernames on them.
Then came the effects, glitter, sparkling, gold, fades, weaving and glass
Most of these people did a google for "glass text" or something similar and came back with tutorials up the wazoo for using a $600 softwa
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:1)
In my office (where I'm one of the most-experienced Photoshop users), I refer to Adobe's attempts at user-friendliness as "Job Security." Nobody argues.
Re: This is not a "traditional" photo app! (Score:3, Informative)
The reason this category is gaining traction is that this is not the same as the old-line photo editors. Aperture, Lightroom, etc. are more along the lines of Capture One, Camera Raw/Bridge, Bibble, and other pro-photoshoot-oriented batch RAW processing tools. For this particular purpose of quickly culling and processing entire shoots of RAW camera sensor data, the "single document"-cent
Re:Dumb Question? (Score:2)
One more adjective (Score:2, Informative)
So is there a better option? (Score:2)
Currently I use Picassa which is easy to use and good at keeping track of all my photos, but it doesn't have the most powerful selection of tools to do image correction. I prefer
Re:So is there a better option? (Score:2)
Re:So is there a better option? (Score:2)
Re:So is there a better option? (Score:2)
So I guess you could say that iPhoto would cost someone with no computer whatsoever $499. ACDC or whatever would cost you {PRICE OF COMPUTER} + {PRICE OF WINDOWS} + {ACDC REGISTRATION FEE}. Or a third option would be to go with {PRICE OF COMPUTER} + Linux (free) + photo organization soft
requirements (Score:4, Interesting)
Mac-only for now (Score:1, Interesting)
Sigh...misinformed submitter. (Score:5, Informative)
As for the submission:
Is digital photo editing finally getting both powerful and easy?
It already was with apps like iPhoto (easy), Photoshop (powerful), and others. Aperture is geared toward professional photographers processing RAW format images. The submitter obviously has no idea what these apps are and what they're for--they're not supposed to be consumer-level photo-editing apps. They're professional photography pre-processing applications.
Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit OT]? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm an amateur photographer (I just have a D50 right now as my first DSLR but was an SLR user for almost a decade beforehand). I love the new line of DSLRs, they are completely a step ahead of the SLRs for my needs and the quality is amazing. I've ruined a few rolls of film in the past, so I'm glad I'm much safer with the digital storage.
My off-topic question that sort of remains on-topic is this: With all the cheap labor available online (from
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:5, Funny)
If your time is so valuable, you could just hire a photographer to take the pictures for you and skip that chore as well.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:3, Interesting)
I like taking the photos, and I think I've become pretty good at it. I think the photos would be better wit
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:2)
Correct the color
Remove blemishes
Correct contrast
Crop, rotate, etc... the list is long. However, it does take a professional eye and a knowledge of how to "correct" the images via software to do it correctly.
BTW, it's also a much easier job (souping up...) when the photograph is taken by a professional. They tend to get the original image much closer to intent. Not only does the image look better (closer to natural), but time to "soup up" is minimal.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:3, Interesting)
Good question.
First, I like the ability to use multiple lenses. I carry 3 different lenses in my camera bag and actually use them (the zoom lens is awesome).
Second, I take pictures of customers' offices on occasion. When I do my consulting, I sometimes try to sell my customers on "value added" services such as desk organizing and the like (I have subcontractors that do all these jobs and I get a cut). I love to do before and after shot
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:1)
Try taking pictures of a bunch of playing kids - its almost no doable with a non-SLR digital camera.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:3, Interesting)
The resultant photo will then be a collaboration. What you were seeing through the viewfinder when you took it, and what they think it should look like.
If that's ok with you, then go for it. But it won't be 'yours' any more.
I'll be happy to pay up to $5 per photo
If it takes an hour to d/l, analyze, process, and send back...well...$5/hour isn't worth getting out of bed for.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:2)
If that's ok with you, then go for it. But it won't be 'yours' any more.
I repudiate copyright and ownership of thought and content anyway. Everything I write, code, photograph or paint is free for all to use (in the public domain). Yet I don't mind collaborating, in fact, I prefer it.
If it takes an hour to d/l, analyze, process, and send back...well...$5/h
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:2)
I meant 'yours' in the sense of what it was supposed to be. What the image is suppoed to represent. What you were thinking when you took the shot.
Not 'yours' as in copyright or ownership.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:2)
Actually, I just like to capture the image for memory-sake, but I've been told by friends and family that I should do something with the better ones. I don't really like clutter -- my better half is the one with all her painting and stuff up on the walls. I guess I'd like to get the images looking even better -- I've seen what pros can do, so I don't see what's wrong w
How about this idea? (Score:4, Funny)
...
I pay to have my lawn mowed. I pay to have my house cleaned. I pay to have my food prepared. I pay to get driven around (sometimes). Why not pay to have my photos "corrected" or "enhanced"?
Why don't you pay someone to find the answer to your original question?
Quick and cheap (Score:2)
Kodak's Perfect Touch usually does a good job of enhancing pictures, yet it's an automatic process and consequently cheap and always available. YMMV
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:1)
I used to do print work like 10 years ago, and this was a common service at pre-press shops and the like.
Re:Where to get decent farking done (Score:3, Funny)
Really there's only one place [fark.com] to enjoy serious photoshopping of images.... artistry I tell ya...
Re:Where to get decent farking done (Score:2)
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution to your problem: take better photos.
Some of my favourite photos make it to the printer absolutely untouched from when they came out the camera. The most I ever need to do is make minor adjustments to brightness and contrast, perform some extra cropping or rotate the image slightly. I mainly use iPhoto simply for its organisational abilities - it's great for that.
Get to know your camera. Take your time over shots. Just because you have umpteen gigabytes of memory cards and take ten thousand RAW-format photos a day doesn't make you a PROPAR PHOTOGRAFER. The best lens in the world won't correct for poor technique.
If your photos need endless work in Photoshop or similar to make them worth looking at, then you're probably doing something wrong...
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:2)
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, I am quite happy with my photos as-is. When I have the time to take them into a good digital editing suite, I end up preferring them as a little tweaking can make a more vibrant picture. I'm not talking about pictures with crushed saturation or any major problems.
These packages from the topic are made for a reason. There are people out there who bought them for whatever reason -- I'd like to utilize these people.
I can spend 15 minutes or an hour
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:5, Insightful)
Not helpful at all.
The solution to just about everything is to do it better.
Some of my favourite photos make it to the printer absolutely untouched from when they came out the camera.
Impossible. Every photo is processed. Whether you do it yourself, or let the various attributes of the in-camera software, printer driver settings, and printer characteristics do it for you.
If your photos need endless work in Photoshop or similar to make them worth looking at, then you're probably doing something wrong...
You are exaggerating what the OP said. He just wants someone to post-process his images.
Why shouldn't someone post-process? Even you admit to doing it (although you didn't mention adjusting curves, which is common among pros, while "brightness and contrast" is basic and crude (by pro standards)). Take any photo. Any. Take Ansel Adams' top best most perfect photo ever. Odds are it can look even better if a skilled person were to process it, purposefully adjusting various attributes of the photo. Why accept a mediocre photo if it's capable of being a great photo? Why accept a great photo if it could be a superb photo?
But your advice, just take perfect photos and you won't want to post-process, is not helpful at all. It implies dada21 is so incredibly stupid that he never thought that maybe it would be desirable to take better photos to begin with. An implication which is wholly unwarranted.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone already did this - Ansel Adams.
Not only did Adams carefully compose his pictures and often wait many hours and days for exactly the right lighting, he was a master of the darkroom and creating perfect prints. I seriously doubt that many people are capable of taking his originals and making them look any better than he did.
Digital post-processing is analagous to working in a darkroom processing your own prints - it takes skill and vision. Rarely do any pictures go right from the film (or raw file) to print without any sort of processing or adjustments.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:3, Interesting)
On the radio station I web-listen to (KFOG out of San Francisco), someone's running an ad for high-quality photo printing. In it, there's a caricature of an "elite" French photographer (complete with cheesy accent) who says,
sounds like a job for... (Score:1)
Sounds like a use for amazon's mechanical turk [amazon.com]. I'm betting some form of this labor-exchange over the internet is gonna be huge. (I mean aside from wipro et al.)
The idea is you submit tasks and assign a bounty. People with skills for your task can then do the work and submit a response. You pay them. It's tri
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:3, Informative)
There are people who clean up photos professionally, but those tend to be cases where there is extensive editing to be done and the goal is usu
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:1)
Sure, there are a whole bunch of people that could edit your photograph in a technically correct fashion, but, from an artistic standpoint, how are they going to have any idea what you were thinking when you took the picture? You took the picture for a reason - you had something in mind when you took the picture - otherwise why would you have bothered?
If you are worried about taking o
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:2)
It's famous for it's high quality photoshop contests, but you can also sponsor a corporate contest: http://www.worth1000.com/popup.asp?faq=265 [worth1000.com]. You'd upload your photos, set the prize price, and then let the competition begin. If you look around the site, you'll see that there's a lot of talent.
Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O (Score:3, Informative)
Calypso Imaging [calypsoinc.com]in Santa Clara does what you want, as does West Coast Imaging [westcoastimaging.com] in Oakhurst.
Both are studios that employ long-time professional photographers who apply their knowledge of photography and digital printing to make the best prints possible from your photographs. Calypso also offers workshops taught by people like Bill Atkinson [natureimages.com] and Charlie Cramer [charlescramer.com], in case you want to edit your own images and simply output them on printers like the LIghtjet, C
professional tools (Score:5, Insightful)
Both tools are very clearly aimed (and labeled as such) at the professional market. Pros will always have a need for more in depth features than a typical consumer or home user. With the ability to properly use those tools comes a need to understand them (aka, a learning curve). So, to answer your questions: yes on the powerful part, no on the easy part.
Re:professional tools (Score:1)
My homage to Red Rose Tea commercials... (Score:2, Interesting)
Jesus! How is my parent post a TROLL? (Score:2)
Is that considered inflamatory speech on Slashdot now? Did I miss the memo or something?
Re:Jesus! How is my parent post a TROLL? (Score:1)
Lightroom really lean on features (Score:5, Informative)
* No PSD support for external editing of files (16-bit TIFF)
* No "Copy Image" (much less Versions or Stacks as Aperture has them).
* No Crop or Rotate
It does have some nice features. The printing and slideshow part are well done. The Lightroom take on Levels is rather interetsing and I think easier for people who do not use Photoshop much to use.
However Aperture at this point has a serious lead out of the gate, that combined with the Lightroom team also having to try and support a Windows build eventually may let Apple not only keep but increase the lead.
Also I have to say I am concerned with the caching strategy in Lightroom - every image has a same-size JPG created along with decreasing half sizes images as well. That can take up a lot of space. And the editing information for any given image seems to only be stored in the central database, not in sidecar files alongside the image. Thankfully they do back up this database automatically.
Some people will be happy to be able to use images in-place in directories. However as there is no support for conepts like versions or stacks people may be less happy when those harder-to-map kinds of things make it in the program and start making the life of a directory more complicated.
One good thing is that the competiton between Apple and Adobe in this space should yield a pretty solid application over time. I just hope Adobe is in this for the long run, and the release (currently planned around the end of 2006 according to the FAQ) has a pretty solid product.
Re:Lightroom really lean on features (Score:1)
Also I have to say I am concerned with the caching strategy in Lightroom - every image has a same-size JPG created along with decreasing half sizes images as well. That can take up a lot of space.
This is called a mipmap [wikipedia.org], and it's not as bad as you'd think. A mipmap representation occupies only a third more space than just the original image.
Bad by measurement (Score:1)
For reference (going by creation dates), the 65MB TIFF resulted in six preview files: 16KB, 48KB, 156KB, 532KB, 1,8MB and 5.9MB
5.9MB + 1.8MB + a bit more is around 8MB, or around 12% storage increase. To me it seems overkill if an image is very large to hold this data on disc.
Aperture stores a large thumbnails at a maximum size of 1024x680 (for a 2:3 ration image) and some progressivly smaller ones from there, which gives you quick and large previews witho
Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is unforgivable if those two features are not available. Jesus christ...it's 2005. They might as well rename it "MS Paint" if there is no cropping.
Re:Wha? (Score:3, Informative)
You can rotate at least (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lightroom really lean on features (Score:2)
Then you should be even more concerned with Aperture, as there you have to import the entire image into its database.
Guess I was not clear (Score:2)
With Aperture, I have the oriignal master (in the database), and versions that take up no space beyond the image cache that is (as noted) a maximum of 1024x680.
With Lightroom, I have the original master (either in a directory or in your own file) and as noted an image cache that takes up about 12% of the space. Now if you want another "version" that's another image - double the size - and th
Re:Lightroom really lean on features (Score:2)
Re:Lightroom really lean on features (Score:2)
Excuse me? The fact that there will be a Windows version means Lightroom will pretty much TOAST Aperture as long as Apple has NO DECENT LAPTOPS. Sure, that may change, but as it stands now, a top of the range (1.67/2GB) Powerbook will not run Aperture well and even Photoshop on it trembles at the s
Irrelevant at this point (Score:2)
May? That's the whole point of the Intel switch. Even if there are no pro Intel laptops by the end of today, there will be before the end of the year.
Remember that the Adobe software is not even due to ship before the end of this year - and if you've used it you'd realize that is VERY optimistic. The clock on this doesn't even start until th
Not in marketshare, in development (Score:2)
If you are have a team developing a program for two different platforms and another team developing a similar application program for just one - which will take less time to develop all their aspects being equal?
Developing for multiple platforms means coding to be careful you can move to other platforms. It also means more testing, and a wider range of requirements as some aspects of interfacing to the OS are fairly different (as
The trap of the larger team (Score:2)
There you make the mistake of assuming a larger team will be faster. There is a core team size (I'd say seven to ten developers) beyond which you loose ground for every team member added.
We'll see in a year though - or perhaps even sooner, as I plan to check in at the ADobe booth at PMA to see what progress has been made. By then I imag
Since the Xara Xtreme announcement... (Score:2)
Like I said, they've announced that the whole suite is going GPL so it should end-up in most distros very quickly; but it's not released yet.
Adobe's Mighty Fall? (Score:4, Insightful)
InDesign was created to take Quark Express down and Photoshop Elements was to prevent companies like ACDSystems from getting a foothold.
The idea is to store, organize and evaluate quickly with reasonable color accuracy. Editing comes later. Does anyone else think it has so many editing features because they're built into a code base they are reusing?
I doubt a legitimate threat to them exists in any of their markets. Could they be classified as a monopoly?
Re:Adobe's Mighty Fall? (Score:2)
"got his hands" on it? (Score:2, Informative)
FYI, that's not exactly a difficult feat. Adobe's been giving it away for free to the public on their website. [macromedia.com]
Re:"got his hands" on it? (Score:2, Funny)
Because you touch yourself at night.
Lua! (Score:2)
Lua the programming language
It's cool to see folks like adobe using nifty languages like Lua [lua.org]. I've never used Lua but have been intrigued by it.
Anyone know how Lua is used in Lightroom?
-c
Another (p)review (Score:5, Informative)
PPC Code (Score:2)
They talked about this.. (Score:2)
Re:PPC Code (Score:2)
I believe... (Score:2)
From a development perspective, for Xcode apps, it is a single checkbox. Testing, obviously, is a bit more work. But if Adobe has Intel developer Macs (a fair bet), they may already be doing these builds internally.
Re:I believe... (Score:2)
Here's [sourceforge.net] two! [codingmonkeys.de]
Although I suppose they're both things more likely to be used by developers with the appropriate Intel development hardware to run them on - I guess Apple's edict is more of a strong guideline than a definitive rule. It would be silly to bloat downloads of consumer software and add confusion for 99.99+% of the market, anyway, I imagine.
Re:I believe... (Score:2)
I prefer... (Score:3, Funny)
Meh, I prefer Fireworks to do batch photo editing, and I'm still hoping for some great improvements on the next version...
Oh, wait...
Finally getting easy? (Score:3, Funny)
if that's not easy i don't know what is. if i can do it drunk and stoned first time, i'm sure joe six-pack can do it in half an hour. another good area where things keep getting easier is music production, where programs such as reason mean i know someone (drummer in one of my bands) managed to finish a whole song in reason, while on the same day asking me the brain exploding question of "where is the shift key?"
Aperture is awesome (Score:1)
Great App - get Aperture (Score:1)
Adobe: superior compatibility with Photoshop CS2 (or so I've read)/available for major platforms.
Re:Great App - get Aperture (Score:1)
paint shop pro (Score:1)
Julien. http://free.hostdepartment.com/8/81fortune/ [hostdepartment.com]
Re:paint shop pro (Score:1)
Really a Macromedia app? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have absolutely zero inside knowledge of this, but it would be interesting to know how much inside knowledge Macromedia had of Apple's Aperture, how much input Adobe actually had in the Lightroom product, and what impact, if any, Lightroom had on Adobe's decision to purchase Macromedia.
Or maybe Adobe just thought Macromedia's site was better for hosting betas.
Beta? Or stable pre-alpha rushed out the door? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this perhaps some engineer's hobby project that is being rushed to market in response to Aperture as a placeholder while they figure out what to do?
After all, would Adobe seriously ship a product with such poor Photoshop integration?
Just watching the demo the "we have lots of features to add" comment gets bandied about so often it's not funny. How is this a "beta"?
Re:Beta? Or stable pre-alpha rushed out the door? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Beta? Or stable pre-alpha rushed out the door? (Score:2)
As per my parenthetic inclusion:
Adobe Premiere -- started as Mac only, now PC only.
Macromedia Authorware -- started as Mac only, now PC only.
And also:
Adobe Audition -- PC only.
Adobe Encore -- PC only.
Adobe Acrobat -- originally Mac, now frequently lags on Mac.
Adobe Dimensions -- started as PC Only, now defunct.
Adobe FrameMaker -- started out totally cross-platform (including Linux/UNIX), has dropped Mac support.
Macromedia ColdFusion -- started out cross-platform, now lags o
Great now OSX has 2 great photo apps :) (Score:2)
easy? (Score:2)
Digital photo editing is as hard as it ever was: you still need to understand color, composition, etc.
It just seems like things are getting easier because Photoshop's UI sucked so badly that it got in the way. Finally, Adobe may (!) be getting around to designing less stupid UIs than they have in the past.
Patience, Grasshopper (Score:2)
Odds are, the Windows version is still just too buggy for a public release, beta or not.
Re:Capture One? (Score:2)
As the need for such an app became clear, they quickly rushed this to market it seems. Compared to a program like Aperture, it's clear that there is a new generation of photography workflow tool coming into its own.
It seems funny to say that Capture One is the end-all-be-all of photography workflow.