Adobe Lightroom........

[Timeframe]

Well, so far, I'm not impressed. Adobe has taken a fairly intuitive interface in RawShooter, and turned it into the typical, Adobe, cluttered, non-intuitive interface that we all know so-well and love. <SIGH> I'm not really sure that this move to Adobe was a good move for RawShooter customers.

Steve

[Dierk Haasis]

I don't think so.

I have given the issue much thought over the past few days, looked through all the postings on Adobe's froum, many on pixmantec's. Interestingly Mac-folks had no trouble at all to navigate and work with LR's UI. Windows users, particularly RS|[x] users, have much more complaints - most unfounded.

The problem is not that LR has a bad UI, there surely are things that can be optimised (straighten, for instance). Most Windows users have adapted their work-flow to DOS-style directory structures - which are neither very efficient nor really intuitive. The question/complaint coming up most is about a missing folder-tree. This also shows that many photographers complaining may not be professionals with large amounts of photos, which don't get used only once but over and over again for different projects under different themes.

With a DOS-style directory structure you get an easy hierarchy - Country->Region->Town->Quarter->Street - but you will not find the wonderful image of your daughter in a red dress playing football in Carnaby Street with David Beckham. And you need this urgently for a magazine cover. Where is it, under Great Britain->England->Thames->London->Carnaby Street? Or rather under Celebrities->Men->Sports->Football? Or perhaps under Celebrities->Women->Showbiz (yip, right on the left border you can make out Victoria)? Could be filed under Commerce->Shopping->Clothing ... You get my drift.

The reason I went from BreezeBrowser to MediaPro is exactly that the former is a file browser and the latter an actual management system. What always bugged me about RS|P was the lack of virtual folders (or sets or shoots, whatever you call them). This is necessary the moment you don't file away your photos in a shoebox system (put in and forget).

Sure, LR is still far from perfect, it may never get there. Rumour tells us that, for the moment, Adobe has scrapped the idea of making LR a full-fledged DAM. [BTW, if they do they surely have to get interactivity with othe rprograms right.] But the concept of putting the image itself, and not some arbitrary storage system, at the centre of attention is more than applaudable.

There is a lot of things I won't need, perhaps never use, in LR but I think they did right to include it; there's things I miss and hope they will put in. Examples: QImage is such a brilliant piece of software for printing, I don't see I will ever use LR except maybe for very q'n'd selection sheets. I hope to see local correction - U-Point-like as well as retouching tools - so Photoshop will only be needed for the big composition jobs.

Other areas currently missing (at least on Windows): A backup/archiving tool like ArchiveCreator, which I'd rather see in MediaPro where it belongs; the Web module with support for themes like MP or BreezeBrowser or JAlbum offer, so Peter Berger's EOS template can be made available.

Bear in mind, LR is still in alpha mode, regardless if Adobe calls it beta (check Wikipedia for the differences).

[MichaelT]

I call it Lightroom Preview

Well thought out response. Thanks Dierk.

[Butch Wilson]

I can't help but to feel ripped off by Pixmantec for $99.00 4 months ago for their vaporware. I'm updating my camera firmware this month and that will be the end of RS.

I think Pixmantec should do the right thing and send a refund to all RS customers.

I tried Lightroom and it's doesn't look very promising and besides it's still beta.

Well I guess it's back to the Nikon Capture drudge for now. Anyone have ideas,suggestions.

Butch Wilson

[LTobias]

I can't help but to feel ripped off by Pixmantec for $99.00 4 months ago for their vaporware. I'm updating my camera firmware this month and that will be the end of RS.

Why is this the end of RSP? I don't see why RSP should not work after the firmware update. Did they change something with RAW files?

I only know one reason to stop working with RSP. That's the day I buy a unsupported camera.

I think Pixmantec should do the right thing and send a refund to all RS customers.

I tried Lightroom and it's doesn't look very promising and besides it's still beta.


The Beta3 is more an alpha or like MT said a preview. We get Lightroom 1.0 for free. So let's see that the final product can do (or not).


Well I guess it's back to the Nikon Capture drudge for now. Anyone have ideas,suggestions.

Butch Wilson

I hope you can still use RSP after the firmware update. For me it's still a great piece of software.

Leif

[Dierk Haasis]

Anyone have ideas,suggestions.

A few, first the non-helpful ones:

1. RSP is technically not vapourware since it is on the market.
2. I guess you have a D200 or a D2x/h; why not just wait if Nikon again changes something in the structure of the NEF before judging.
3. As can be seen in my review and various comments on NX, it's better as an idea than in execution.

Now two much more helpful hints:

a) Light Craft's LightZone is very good and rather close [in concept] to Capture NX.
b) RAW Therapee (http://www.rawtherapee.com) is free, promising but still in beta. It uses yet another demosaicing algorithm than most other share./freeware converters.

[MichaelT]

The discontinuation of RSP is old news at this point. Adobe is doing the right thing by providing a free copy of Lightroom to all RSP owners. The current public LR is not nearly the finished product, so let's wait for judgment. In the meantime RSP continues to work with all but the camera released in the last few months. For canon ALL but XTi and for Nikon ALL but d2Hs and D80 (if I have my models numbers right.)

[Butch Wilson]

Thanks for suggestions.

I'm almost sure the D2x firmware upgrade will make my copy of RSP of no use, I hope I'm wrong. Right now Nikon Capture will not except the new firmware version.

I'm sorry for the mis-use of the term "Vaporware,you're right it doesn't apply RSP.

I have tried all the raw converters out there before I settled on RSP. RSP fits my type of work flow and I love the UI and speed.

I tried NX and no thanks, bad UI,clunky and slow.

I guess I'll just go back to using Nikon Capture 4.

Thanks for the replies

Butch

[Dierk Haasis]

Do I understand this correctly: You already have the new firmware? Because I haven't seen it, yet, or got anotification from Nikon's support channel [I set the appropriate thread there to notify me].

As for the UI, my main criticism of NX is that it uses much too much from bad old 4.x - and due to using .NET Framework is much slower. The icons and colours are a bit problematic (read: not very informative or decipherable). But then, I've set my XP to Classic [Win9x] style and try to forego all the fancy skins offered for many programs nowadays; always found the old paradigm much more intuitive and clear.

[MichaelT]

......

[Butch Wilson]

Well I guess I have to eat crow on this one. RS does read the D2x files after the firmware upgrade.

Looks like I can continue using RS for years to come.


Butch

[MichaelT]

Enjoy..

[leebase]

Most Windows users have adapted their work-flow to DOS-style directory structures]

Yes, 90% of the computer systems have had this directory structure for 30 years now. Gee....wonder why people are wanting support for that structure.

There is nothing that would prevent LR from having support for the directory structure that most people already know -- and they database categorizing way they seem to want to force people to use.

which are neither very efficient nor really intuitive.

Something that "everyone knows" doesn't have to be intuitive - just supported. Every application you install on windows uses that directory structure because WINDOWS uses that directory structure. It will be a long time, if ever, that LR will be "all that anyone need use" -- so in the mean time, support the basic file structure of the operating system.

The question/complaint coming up most is about a missing folder-tree. This also shows that many photographers complaining may not be professionals with large amounts of photos, which don't get used only once but over and over again for different projects under different themes.

I'm just that sort of professional. I have hundreds of thousands of photos on my computer -- and the file structure is the HEART of my organization. There is nothing preventing the file structure from being searchable via all the other goodies in LR. Every other file browser that I know of has the ability to add categories and such to photos. Those are stored in a database...but the pictures are left in the file system.

With a DOS-style directory structure you get an easy hierarchy - Country->Region->Town->Quarter->Street - but you will not find the wonderful image of your daughter in a red dress playing football in Carnaby Street with David Beckham.

They are not mutually exclusive. Consider books in a library. They live on a bookshelf, but you can have card catalogues and databases that index them any way you care to.

It would not prevent LR from having all it's categorizing abilities to ALSO support file browsing. It's the "we thought it through and have a better way" hubris at work.

Bear in mind, LR is still in alpha mode, regardless if Adobe calls it beta (check Wikipedia for the differences).

Yep -- so lets keep giving feedback so they come to their senses before releasing the product.

Lee

[Dierk Haasis]

What it comes down to is that Adobe promised a self-contained, complete work-flow tool, with which any (serious) photographer can do everything he needs to do in one application. And that is not what they will deliver, they scrapped, at least for now and probably v1.0, the entire DAM aspect.

In so far I now agree with Lee and many others. I still don't think LR needs to be another file browser, but since metadata alone are not DAM (only a sub-aspect) it may well be better to have a directory tree available, too, instead of nothing at all.

Now, George Jardine made it quite clear in a post from this week that a directory tree/file browser will not be in LR. Considering the happenings since Aperture was published and LR announced for a public beta (more than a year now) my initial optimism towards LR has all but vanished. My hopes are much higher that Microsoft will come up with something around iView MediaPro being what LR could and should have been.

ATM, LR is an overblown RAW converter giving any photographer highest flexibility with a UI that is far from easy. And nothing more.* I guess that makes all the questions from Adobe forums valid: What is LR supposed to be?




*LightZone shows how easy a UI can be, iView MediaPro shows what DAM should be and how easy a UI can be. Even QImage's UI is easier than LR's.

[MichaelT]

Lee,

Why doesn't the Import by Reference work for you? it keeps your file structure, but allows LR to catalog them. I too woulf like to see a file browser, but I wonder why this would not work for your structure whici is no doubt looking very similar to mine.

[bigbob]

Could some one tell me the workflow in the print mode. I printed one 8x10. Print was unusable. It does not seem to allow me to use the printer profile. bob

[pegelli]

First of all Michael, thanks for this website and the free and payware that's on it. Very usefull indeed.

Responding to some of the comments I've read in the notes above here's some of my remarks:

1: I find LR gives me better TIFF's to work from then RSP, somehow they seem "cleaner" colorwise. I allways post process TIFF's in either PSP, PictureWindow or PS. Depends what I want to do which tool I use. Only for high noise (1600/3200 iso) images RSP does a much better job of ending up with something acceptable.

2: If you can't live w/o RSP with a new unsupported camera a viable workaround is to convert to DNG (wise decision in the base case anyway) and go from there. RSP will take DNG's for the coming centuries.

3: I would love to get a file tree in LR. My current workaround is to have a 1:1 relationship between shoot names and my directory names and export TIFF files to my own directory structure again. Hope V1 gives us a tree, but if it doesn't I'll still use it for the better picture quality I refer to above. In the end that's what counts for me most.

The above comments are made from the perspective of an amateur with a modest number of pictures every month (100 - 300), so I can imagine these comments don't work for a professional with a multitude more pictures. However I hope this might be usefull workarounds for others anyway.

Greetings and for tomorrow a happy new year !

[MichaelT]

RawShooter will NOT honor DNGs except for camera that it currently supports natively. So that is not an option. If you have a newer camera than RS supports, like the Canon 400D/Xti/Kiss, Pemtax K10, or others, there is no practical way for RS to deal with it. This will not change.

Regarding the file tree in LR. The Shoots no longer exist, and in fact they have been replaced by "Folders" which match the physical location of the file. According to Jeff Schewe, we should see the official LR version before the beta expires in Feb, or so he hinted on his site today.

[leebase]

RawShooter will NOT honor DNGs except for camera that it currently supports natively. So that is not an option. If you have a newer camera than RS supports, like the Canon 400D/Xti/Kiss, Pemtax K10, or others, there is no practical way for RS to deal with it. This will not change..

I've always found that odd. How valuable is DNG if it's not truly a universal format -- that the individual camera support needs to be there for a DNG.

If I have to have specific camrea support -- why not just keep my files in their native format?

Just one more reason I remain on the sidelines watching the DNG/OpenRaw movements while keeping my files in their native Canon formats.

Lee

[MichaelT]

DNG is perhaps more important as a single container for RAW data and meta data (thereby eliminating sidecar files). It is still a developing format (container) and there is more work to be done. If a "Raw Converter" uses the DNG and has no knowledge of the camera's RAW format, then in fact the RAW converter can only use much less of its secret sauce that makes it output unique to itself. Did that make sense???

[leebase]

Did that make sense???

No. But I don't think it's a problem with your explaination -- but just my expectation. It makes no sense to me for there to be an open "format" that one you've converted to it -- the tools that work with it still need intimate knowledge of the original source type in order to work with it.

To MY puny mind, that kinda removes the main reason of moving my files from their proprietary format. If Canon goes bust -- why should I think that the DNG programs of 30 years from now will work with my canon originated DNG files than they will with my canon proprietary raw files?

BTW -- I am really glad that Adobe saw the light about the "folder issue" for version 1.0 :)

Lee