Camera Craniums: The Photography Community for Enthusiasts

Software, Editing and Printing => Adobe Lightroom => Topic started by: Forseti on October 22, 2009, 09:29:59 AM

Title: Lightroom 3
Post by: Forseti on October 22, 2009, 09:29:59 AM
Lightroom 3 has now been released as a beta version expiring in April next year. As good an indication as any of when we can expect the final release. There has been some useful improvements as well as additions, and for Flickr users a direct export to your account option. Useful is the ability to add comments etc from within Lightroom as well as have received comments added to your images in the Library.

More info here  http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/ which also includes links to 3 short(?) each of approx 16 mins and presented by Julianne Kost illustrating these improvements/additions. Video No2 I think it is that details the Flickr functionality.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Oly Paul on October 22, 2009, 09:34:58 AM
Not that impressed Forseti as ACDseePro in there last release allowed direct uploading to Flickr ,Zenfolio and Facebook without using plugins so i tend to use that over LR for that kind of thing  ;)
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on October 22, 2009, 11:14:32 AM
having a play - haven't noticed anything drastic on the surface at the moment.
Flickr thing may be nice - just need a chance to play. Busy working on IOTW at the moment...

Gotta get my priorities right  :)
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on November 04, 2009, 03:23:14 PM
OK, after having had a play with it - 2 things really come to note and i'm wondering if any one else who has tested it has had any similar experiences.

Firstly, it is bringing my Mac almost to a stand still. It's like being on an underpowered Windows computer.
Open up, view the cataogue, shut down, import pictures - you name it - it's embarassingly slow.
Back to Lightroom 2 (.5) and all is whizzing along just nicely.

Both versions have access to the same 12000 pictures and the same system resources so why the enormous drain on system resources?

Second, on a positive note, i'm noting that images are displayed with a fraction more detail. I was going to say 'not a large difference' but the fact that i can see a difference and in general the difference is pleasant must mean it is a significant enough difference. Where i'm really finding the difference is on my badger shots taken with the 30D last year at night. I recall reading about this but it was put more down to something for the pixel peepers, but on this experience it is more than pixel peeping.

Now for the new file management side. Boy is it cluttered. I know it is beneficial having Flickr etc and NAS drives available but why make it so messy. Also, is there a simple way to 'tidy it up'.
I'm a stickler for only wanting what i need showing - not bucket loads of stuff just because some one else might find it useful.
If it had an option to upload to Photobox or Loxley direct with an inclusion of colour settings and profiles to get accurate screen to print rendition i would consider that a worth while addition to have - but to my mind that sort of thing should be located under the print section and FLickr located under the web section - not the Library tab..

Well there you go - that's my two penneth worth - now to pass it onto Adobe! 
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on November 04, 2009, 06:32:11 PM
Haven't even got round to d/ling LR 3 yet.  But Betas are sometimes a lot slower than "finished" code.  Developers leave debug tell tales in.  It's also a nice surprise when the paid for release arrives (and may prevent people from just cracking the beta).

Did you check where the bottle neck is?  Processor, ram, HD?

Do make sure you mention your thoughts to Adobe though.  I did that once and ended up testing some specific improvements for them.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on November 04, 2009, 07:27:53 PM
Thanks for the pointers. From what i can glean it was the processor. 1 Tb H/D with almost 800gb now free. 4gb ram and according to the stats only 1.39gb was ever used by LR3. So that leaves just the dual core 3.06ghz processor...

It certainly 'felt' like a processor bottle neck.

I certainly wouldn't recommend loosing it on anything business critical though. I'm still using LR2.5 for the daily grind and getting to enjoy using it as i become more familiar with its intricacies. Been on to the forums and several of the minor issues have already been reported and awaiting responses including my system grinding to a halt. Also menitons the other crime -thumbnails taking ages to 'sharpen up' from the initial pixelated state. Thank heavens i have organised in sub folders. 12k images in one folder would have left me going out for the day whilst it made the iamges viewable...

I can see it will have features that will appeal to people but at this moment i see nothing worth upgrading for.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Forseti on November 04, 2009, 09:23:41 PM
Quote from: picsfor on November 04, 2009, 07:27:53 PM
Been on to the forums and several of the minor issues have already been reported and awaiting responses including my system grinding to a halt.

Hope this isn't a daft question, but you did post on the LR 3 forum didn't you and not the more general LR forum?
http://forums.adobe.com/community/labs/lightroom3/
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on November 05, 2009, 04:15:25 AM
yes thanks. Thankfully your original link pointed me to it.

I am still drafting my feedback issues and need to check if i need to list each one as a single issue or just list them on mass.
Quite a lot of reading to do at the moment before i commit 'pen to paper'
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on November 05, 2009, 04:18:48 PM
OK, as a further update.

Been doing some further testing and leaving feedback.
Interesting to note that i got an almost instant response from Victoria Bampton - which is as good an authority as you would want to see involved in LR beta testing.

System is not hanging today and thumbnails are sharpening up quicker.
Have tried the Flickr feature (which allows you to upload direct to Flickr) an have experienced one or two issues with it. This may well be user error but i will have to play further.
UI for catalogues is IMHO still messy and i've read of many complaints about the import dialogue box that say similar. Having only used it once i can't really comment.
A few other minor but useful features have been discovered though not tested and in general images still 'look better' when viewd in LR3 Beta than when viewed in LR 2.5

Glad we've got until some time next year to check this out before having to decide whether to hand over any money!
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Forseti on November 05, 2009, 04:53:07 PM
Quote from: picsfor on November 05, 2009, 04:18:48 PM

Victoria Bampton ......... as good an authority as you would want to see involved in LR beta testing.

And along with Victoria I'd also rate Julieanne Kost very highly. Have you watched her 3 introductory videos to LR3? http://tv.adobe.com/product/lightroom
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on November 05, 2009, 06:29:02 PM
having watched the video clips -  i would have to agree.

Plenty more to go and play with again!
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Graham on November 06, 2009, 05:48:13 AM
Quote from: picsfor on November 05, 2009, 04:18:48 PM

Glad we've got until some time next year to check this out before having to decide whether to hand over any money!

         I'm afraid all this Beta testing malarky is a bit beyond me, but your saying you do all this testing for them and they they don't then give you a copy? :o
                                    Graham. :)
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on November 06, 2009, 06:24:40 AM
It's all part of the caring nature of Adobe and the unbending and continuing support they provide to their customers. As long as they keep on paying.

I beta test for a small UK company (and from time to time a one man band Russian one) and the smallest reward offered is free software at the end of it.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on November 06, 2009, 07:21:21 AM
Quote from: Graham on November 06, 2009, 05:48:13 AM
but your saying you do all this testing for them and they they don't then give you a copy? :o

In simple - yes.

But in reality you are getting a chance to try something out for quite a while and see if it is worth the upgrade price.
You are also getting an awful lot of 'free training' on the product.
Finally you get a chance to influence policy on what the final product release will actually be like.

Examples of influencing policy are the "Publish Flickr' feature and the new 'import dialogue box' UI. Both have been heavily slated according to the feedback threads. A working alternate solution for the 'Publish to Flickr' exists and is being recommended and the 'import dialogue box' UI seems to be suffering from 'don't change it if it ain't broke' syndrome.

'Free training' comes in the form of videos showing and explaining what all the new features are. By watching those and then going to play you will get a better understanding of the package than any book will give. By then engaging in the feedback discussions you will get further tips etc. This brings me to the final point.

Will i pay for the upgrade? Only if the new features offer something that really makes a difference to the finished product (the published photo), saves me time in my processing or allow me greater options to process an image how i want. The 'free training' will increase my understanding of the product and learn how to maximise its usefulness and in turn improve my workflow efficiency. Then the upgrade will become more desirable because the product will 'appear' more suitable to my needs then the current version.

Should i get a free copy of the product for my efforts? It would be nice but i'm realistic enough to know that such an offer would almost destroy any hopes Adobe had of making money from this product. I'm sure those involved in the 'closed' beta testing will get a free copy, plus the chance to create their training videos and books to accompany its' release with Adobes blessing. But then that's how they make their living!
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Forseti on November 06, 2009, 09:45:23 AM
Quote from: picsfor on November 06, 2009, 07:21:21 AM
Quote from: Graham on November 06, 2009, 05:48:13 AM
but your saying you do all this testing for them and they they don't then give you a copy? :o

Will i pay for the upgrade? Only if the new features offer something that really makes a difference to the finished product (the published photo), saves me time in my processing or allow me greater options to process an image how i want.

I agree with your reasoning to a point. The problem (well not really a problem but you know what I mean) is that being a DAM application it sort of induces you to a commitment. You painstakingly append keywords, edits and goodness knows what, which are all saved to the database. Everything goes fine - you settle into a workflow and after much trial and error have finally got control over your images and know exactly how best to find any particular one. Your also happy with the current version and also the camera(s) that you have. Now here comes the crunch - at some point in the future you upgrade your camera to the latest and greatest only to discover that the current version of any DAM application (plus others i.e. ACR) doesn't support your new purchase.  So in a way your saying that you will only pay for the upgrade if the new features offer something that really makes a difference to the finished product is only part of the story. What really makes a difference is whether the application supports your future camera purchase so in this respect a lot of the choice is taken out of our hands and we are obliged to upgrade.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on November 06, 2009, 12:47:29 PM
Your points are valid, and i think that are amongst Adobes reasons for giving such a public beta testing.

I have only just settled into using LR 2.5 and also just made my technological upgrade to a 5D MkII. That is my body upgrade for quite some time (FF, 21mp,25600 iso, don't need high FR)
I still have a couple of extra lenses i'd like to get and maybe a second flash gun.
I am fortunate that i currently have enough time to run them side by side. I have also made a commitment to using LR 2.5 as my main tool of choice, but experiment with LR3.

I think with LR3 i am mainly look at the newer processing features - as these can be exported as a jpg etc which can be read by LR 2.5.

My real concern, and reservation, is that LR3 is a Beta and the final release may be different - so any settings, keywords, profiles could all be lost - hence my refusal to hand over to it big time.

Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on November 08, 2009, 08:19:12 AM
OK, update.

I've now had to uninstall LR3 as it is killing my Mac. No doubt abut it. Ever since it was installed my Mac has been trying to impersonate and under specced Windows PC.
I've made reports to the LR3 Beta forum and this does not seem to be a unique problem. Seems to happen with Windows as well as Mac. And at this point no real idea as to what set computer set up is causing it.

My Mac is now returning to normal operating speed, for what i've got used to, and LR 2.5 is working extremely quickly again. I'll give it another go in the new year when they should have a newer beta version floating about to play with - but for now, i'll advise of my actions when the LR3 forum is up again (it's down at the time of writing) and leave it at that.

From a user point of view - there are some nice touches, the improved B&W tools in develop are a real improvement as are the export to web and print options. The publish feature has potential as is the new back up menu that allows you to choose when to back up your catalogue instead of suffering it on opening the program. Down side for me is the import dialogue which i find to be badly thought out or implemented along with the new side bar directory menu in library mode. Way to busy and too easy to navigate round if you're working with multiple folders.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: chris@seary.com on November 14, 2009, 09:31:01 PM
Quote from: Forseti on November 06, 2009, 09:45:23 AM
Quote from: picsfor on November 06, 2009, 07:21:21 AM
Quote from: Graham on November 06, 2009, 05:48:13 AM
but your saying you do all this testing for them and they they don't then give you a copy? :o

Will i pay for the upgrade? Only if the new features offer something that really makes a difference to the finished product (the published photo), saves me time in my processing or allow me greater options to process an image how i want.

I agree with your reasoning to a point. The problem (well not really a problem but you know what I mean) is that being a DAM application it sort of induces you to a commitment. You painstakingly append keywords, edits and goodness knows what, which are all saved to the database. Everything goes fine - you settle into a workflow and after much trial and error have finally got control over your images and know exactly how best to find any particular one. Your also happy with the current version and also the camera(s) that you have. Now here comes the crunch - at some point in the future you upgrade your camera to the latest and greatest only to discover that the current version of any DAM application (plus others i.e. ACR) doesn't support your new purchase.  So in a way your saying that you will only pay for the upgrade if the new features offer something that really makes a difference to the finished product is only part of the story. What really makes a difference is whether the application supports your future camera purchase so in this respect a lot of the choice is taken out of our hands and we are obliged to upgrade.

Two alternatives:
-shoot jpeg. I do. Quite happy with it
-convert your files to DNG format using the free Adobe tool. I do this on the rare occasions that I shoot RAW and have to use my version of Elements

I have to agree with Forseti when he bemoans the fact that support for new cameras is dropped by the older Adobe versions. Most software vendors will support their software fully for a couple of years, keep it usable with updates for five years, and provide limited support for ten.

Adobe manages 18 months or so.

Well, It's a good thing that their products are not massively overpriced, otherwise we'd be really angry..............
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: chris@seary.com on November 14, 2009, 09:37:33 PM
Quote from: picsfor on November 08, 2009, 08:19:12 AM
I've now had to uninstall LR3 as it is killing my Mac. No doubt abut it. Ever since it was installed my Mac has been trying to impersonate and under specced Windows PC.
I've made reports to the LR3 Beta forum and this does not seem to be a unique problem. Seems to happen with Windows as well as Mac. And at this point no real idea as to what set computer set up is causing it.

My Mac is now returning to normal operating speed, for what i've got used to, and LR 2.5 is working extremely quickly again. I'll give it another go in the new year when they should have a newer beta version floating about to play with - but for now, i'll advise of my actions when the LR3 forum is up again (it's down at the time of writing) and leave it at that.


Beta versions always run slowly - as Jonathan said, lots of debug code may be in there, which slows things down.

I generally pop beta versions in a virtual machine to run, as they can sometimes be a little untidy during uninstall/removal, and leave artefacts (file changes, security changes etc) that haven't been restored properly.

Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 07, 2010, 11:25:58 PM
Lightroom 3 is now available for download via trial download and online license purchase. £80 inc delivery of disk...

This is the full retail product NOT Beta 2...

https://store2.adobe.com/cfusion/store/html/index.cfm?store=OLS-UK&event=displayProduct&categoryPath=/Applications/PhotoshopLightroom&distributionMethod=FULL

Oh, and did i mention the sh*t off a shovel speed increase?

Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Treehugga on June 08, 2010, 11:42:26 AM
Jesus £233 for me  :o :-\ :'(

And I was enjoying the beta soooo much. Though it was going to be around the £150 mark.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 08, 2010, 01:32:25 PM
Yes, it has increased over the previous version. But for me it is much less of an outlay having paid my £200 for the v2 edition.

I wasn't going to upgrade to this version - but there are enough Brucie's to make it worth the while - that and the increase in speed...
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on June 08, 2010, 02:45:40 PM
How's this for a customer loyalty bonus....?

If you buy LR3 and PSCS5 (either full version or upgrade) together, you get 30% off LR.

However, if you are a loyal Adobe customer and bought CS5 upgrade a few weeks ago and now want to buy LR3 then....no discount for you!

Fortunately after 30 mins on the phone they saw it my way.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 08, 2010, 03:16:54 PM
nicely done - though your point is valid.

Don't know why they didn't release them together - would probably have had a greater uptake on the offer and increases new customers...
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on June 09, 2010, 10:05:26 PM
Woah.

If you have LR3 and like Flickr then read this - http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/flickr/publish

A bit techie but very interesting.  I thought the publish services were just an easy way to upload to Flickr.  They are more.....
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on June 10, 2010, 11:48:09 AM
Just finished editing my first full editing in LR3.  Stuck to what I know rather than playing with the new toys but it's definitely faster plus the files look very nice indeed.

New NR is very good.  It was a dark wedding with lots of shots at 3,200 and the NR saved me round tripping several files to PS for Imagenomic.  Probably shaved half an hour off the edit with that alone.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 10, 2010, 08:02:22 PM
Quote from: Jonathan on June 10, 2010, 11:48:09 AM
Probably shaved half an hour off the edit with that alone.

So, upgrade paid for itself already then  :tup: 8)
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: anglefire on June 11, 2010, 07:20:32 AM
I've not looked at it, because I don't have LR3 (I prefer bridge and CS5 as it happens), but I've found this link http://www.photoshopuser.com/lightroom3

Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on June 11, 2010, 07:50:39 AM
Quote from: anglefire on June 11, 2010, 07:20:32 AM
I've not looked at it, because I don't have LR3 (I prefer bridge and CS5 as it happens), but I've found this link http://www.photoshopuser.com/lightroom3



I'd pay good money if they promised I didn't have to listen to Scott Kelby....
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: deetus on June 11, 2010, 10:47:01 AM
Quote
I'd pay good money if they promised I didn't have to listen to Scott Kelby....

I quite like Scott Kelby and I have a few of his books. I think he's an aquired taste but I like his sense of humour and the light hearted way he gets things across.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 11, 2010, 02:35:31 PM
yes, knowledgeable man - just American SOH  :-\

Prefer Martin Evening myself...

Good post thought...
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Graham on June 11, 2010, 05:05:59 PM
        I know what you mean about Scott Kelby (Why does he reffer to himself as Scatt? ???) but for folks like me with a fear of such things he does have a "Come on in, It's fun" sort of attitude.
        As you may know I'm having problems with Bridge in CS3 at the moment and had pretty much decided, on what seems to me to be good advice, to "Upgrade" to CS5. And now Lightroom3 comes along ( I have LR2 and ,er, don't use it :-[) .
        So. CS5 or LR3?..... or both!
                                You know , I think I know the answer.
                                               Graham. :(
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 11, 2010, 05:30:37 PM
Graham - if you don't use LR2 why keep it or even think of upgrading to LR3?

You could flog your LR2 and use towards the cost of upgrading to CS5.

LR2/3 is very much about cataloguing you images and performing everyday photo fixes - a real work flow workhorse.

I don't use anything else except for HDR or Panorama's - but that doesn't mean it is right for you.
Simon, my friend and work colleague at Eastbourne uses Bridge and PS and prefers it to LR. But then, his work flow is totally different to mine as are his style of pictures and processing.

I'm more than sure you'll gain a great deal from CS5 - it's just that CS5 doesn't offer enough for me to warrant a purchase.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Graham on June 11, 2010, 06:15:35 PM
   Hi Andrew thanks for the reply.
                                            The reason I'm considering LR is because , seeing what it does and can do, I believe it's the way for me to go. It's just a case of getting used to different softwear which I always find daunting.
                                            There's lots of features on LR that I think "Yes, that's what I want Bridge to do!" It would seem that the new version is more intuative in the import stages which caused me some confusion when I first loaded the programe and I'm afraid I just reverted to my old Bridge ways rather than persevering.
                                            I'm sure that once I got used to it there would be no looking back. The problems I'm having with Bridge now may just be the kick up the a£$e I need.
                                                             Graham. :tup:
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 11, 2010, 06:45:01 PM
Graham,

if you've not tried LR3 retail version (not beta) pop on over to Adobe and download the trial and have yourself a months worth of free play.

For me the big benefits are non destructive editing (always), efficient file management, and great processing tools with a never ending step back option allowing you to under something with a simple click or reset the whole photo from all your editing with another click. Keyword and Metadata insertion as well as the nice new watermark on output feature that is as simple as it gets. Aber's will tell you about its great new printing suite and like me Jonathan has now discovered how much nicer your images look and just how quick it is over the previous version or Bridge. If you use Flickr you can upload straight to Flickr from LR3.  The export option is just so great - really does cover all angles - image size, image quality, and image size shown as you vary the parameters and so on!

Did Jonathan mention the great NR feature? Well it also works in reverse so you can actually add grain to an image with a slider. How much more fun do you want to have with a picture?

The downside is - it is so easy to experiment, save that version as tif, jpg etc and then reset the photo and start on a different tac. You really can lose yourself in single picture.  :beer:
It's addictive  ;)
Oh yes - Geo-Tagging would have been nice.
it's fun  :tup:
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: anglefire on June 11, 2010, 07:40:21 PM
I don't understand how the files can look any different using LR3 or ACR in Bridge or CS5 - as it is the same basic engine?

And the NR and grain features are all part of CS5. As is the lens correction feature that is now in ACR 6.1
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 11, 2010, 08:11:03 PM
You've answered your own question - 'the same basic engine'.

Both products have been slightly tweaked according to purpose.

LR is about speedy work flow and image management from the camera to the client.
CS5 is about image manipulation with ACR and Bridge as bolt on's to fulfill the camera to client process.

Both can do the same thing. Bit like cars - a 1.6 engined family car will pull a caravan but not as well as a 3.0 engined 4x4 - but the 4x4 is not as suitable for a runabout.
Horses for courses. 

Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: anglefire on June 11, 2010, 09:20:18 PM
I was thinking of the actual RAW conversion side - doing the same thing in both LR3 and ACR 6.x should give the same result.

Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 11, 2010, 10:29:54 PM
Creating a same looking image can be created a multitude of packages if you know how to use them to their fullest - not just these 2 packages.

How they go about though is some what different - bit like a petrol engine and a diesel engine...

ACR is the RAW conversion bolt on for PS, LR has the RAW conversion embedded within the whole program. Example in the difference is that ACR is not designed to handle jpg's and GIf's - LR is and in the same lossless manner that ACR handles RAW files.

Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: anglefire on June 12, 2010, 09:51:01 AM
ACR does handle Jpg and Tiff files. And AFAIK the settings applied (As long as the sidecar files are updated) in LR3 are used by ACR and vica versa,

I agree that the way its done in LR3 is sometimes slightly different, but ultimately, its just a series of numbers.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on June 13, 2010, 09:20:29 AM
Quote from: deetus on June 11, 2010, 10:47:01 AM
Quote
I'd pay good money if they promised I didn't have to listen to Scott Kelby....

I quite like Scott Kelby and I have a few of his books. I think he's an aquired taste but I like his sense of humour and the light hearted way he gets things across.

Oh yeah. Scott Kelby the Photoshop expert...........

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2010/06/digital-photography-book-reflections.html
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Colin on June 14, 2010, 07:27:19 AM
Quote from: Jonathan on June 13, 2010, 09:20:29 AM

Oh yeah. Scott Kelby the Photoshop expert...........

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2010/06/digital-photography-book-reflections.html

He's American so he must be an expert.  ;) Didn't you know that's where all the experts come from. :D
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 14, 2010, 09:06:52 AM
Before I download this trial (I always like to know what I am missing ;)) can someone answer these questions for me, bearing in mind Andrew's comment "efficient file management"

1) Does LR still have to take over your entire image file system to work? Bibble, for example, allows you to use its internal catalogues or the computer file system, and will open several catalogues at once.
2) Notwithstanding the answer to the first question, will LR catalogues handle two files with the same name but in different directories? Again this is something that Bibble has no trouble with, and even Picasa isn't phased by this issue. I don't have files with identical names in any recent folders, but the long tail of legacy naming means that this a a deal breaker for me.

I will probably have a play at some point. I want to see if the NR is up to DXO's standard for one.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 14, 2010, 06:06:19 PM
Quote from: Tringle WP on June 14, 2010, 09:06:52 AM
Before I download this trial (I always like to know what I am missing ;)) can someone answer these questions for me, bearing in mind Andrew's comment "efficient file management"

1) Does LR still have to take over your entire image file system to work? Bibble, for example, allows you to use its internal catalogues or the computer file system, and will open several catalogues at once.
2) Notwithstanding the answer to the first question, will LR catalogues handle two files with the same name but in different directories? Again this is something that Bibble has no trouble with, and even Picasa isn't phased by this issue. I don't have files with identical names in any recent folders, but the long tail of legacy naming means that this a a deal breaker for me.

I will probably have a play at some point. I want to see if the NR is up to DXO's standard for one.

1. LR does not take over the image file system at all and is non invasive. It creates it own catalogue and allows you to add files to the catalogue  from their current location or create new folders and move them to those new folders or add 'copies' to the new folders. When you install it, it will go and search you system for images and offer you the chance to choose what you want to do with those files, so in your case leave them where they are and add them to the catalogue from that position.
Does it allow you to open several catalogues at once? Not sure - LR2 couldn't but this feature was much debated in the LR3 beta trials but wasn't enabled if it allowed. The thing with LR is - the way it works you don't really need multiple catalogues open at once... but check the forums at Adobe for certainty.

2. Yes it can handle duplicate file names in different directories - i know from first hand. LR works with the date format as its first level of file separation which means the likely hood of you creating 2 files on the same date with the same name are almost impossible (note i say almost). It does allow you to create your own folders and file system but I've learned to use the date system in conjunction with keywording etc. But in fairness I've put a lot of effort into getting this all sorted out.

Can't comment on DXo's noise standard but i know a lot of people are pleased with the version that came with LR3.

If you want to give it a try, do so, but do yourself a favour and do so when you've got time to try it properly. If you got a large collection of images, it might take some time cataloguing them all and then there is the case of looking around the interface. The interface is fairly self explanatory and simple to work with, but has so many options that you need to give it a good play to test it fully. Some of the tools look a bit different from PS and take a little getting used to but are fairly simple once acquainted.

My personal line is save all original files to an EHD with files copied onto the main HD as .dng files and added to the catalogue. The originals EHD are backed up to a second EHD whilst all the .dng files are backed up via Time Machine. When i delete a file off the main HD the original is still left on 2 EHD's for archiving if needed...
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 14, 2010, 08:08:22 PM
Thanks for all the time typing Andrew.

I'm afraid the answer to question 1)  is still a yes then. That's a shame. when I meant takes over, I meant you have to physically import every file into LR before you can work on it. This is major no-no for me. I don't want to use an image editor as my DAM. It would have to be an order of magnitude faster than 2.6 to make this viable (rendering thumbnails even on 'minimal' was dog slow).

I couldn't help noticing also that LR keywords are in a proprietary format, so useless to any recipient who doesn't have LR to read them. To use Bibble or DXO I just navigate to where the files are and open them - simples:)

2) is a major improvement. LR 2.6 (the last one I tried) certainly couldn't.

3) Everyone is raving about the NR, so it'll be worth a look just for that I reckon.

I have downloaded but not run it yet as I am in the middle of a closed Beta and have a load of old photos to restore. That'll keep me busy for the foreseeable.

As you say, it represents a rather challenging and complete change in the way that I work; I have never managed to get on with previous versions, but I'll give it a go at some point. I'm a bit of an old dog; new tricks don't come easily.  ;)
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on June 14, 2010, 09:18:38 PM
It seems you don't like Lightroom.  So it's likely you'll never be persuaded but....

>> when I meant takes over, I meant you have to physically import every file into LR before you can work on it

Yes.  That's it's strength ;)  It's a database controlled application which makes for minimal file writes, high data integrity and speed (well, it will be fast at some things and slow at others -it depends of course which you want to do).  If you want to see the alternative then check out Hasselblad's Phocus software (the new version will process other manufacturers' raw files). It rewrites a 40 - 90MB file practically every time you move the mouse.  I prefer Lightroom.

>> LR 2.6 (the last one I tried) certainly couldn't.

I didn't know that.  It surprises me that they have changed that.

>> I couldn't help noticing also that LR keywords are in a proprietary format

No.  It puts them in the IPTC keyword fields.  So they are available to any app that can read those.  Like OS X - fire up Spotlight and type a search and the operating system will find your files independently of Lightroom.  I'll bet Windows 7 (or 8 or 9 at the latest) will also be able to do that.

The noise reduction is certainly better than 2.6.  I don't personally think it's as good as a dedicated noise application but I haven't tested it properly.  It's pretty good and very quick.

But if the app's not for you then it's not for you.  I know Phocus will produce better files out of the 'blad and NX2 will possibly produce better files out of the D3.  But for me LR is good enough and faster than anything else I know how to use.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 14, 2010, 09:30:44 PM
Thanks for the thoughts Jonathan.

I'm afraid I'm stuck with Vista at the moment. I haven't found anything else that will read the LR keywords, so far, apart from LR.

I suppose I never got very far because of the slow and clunky file importing and glacial thumbnail building.

And I think that having to import and catalogue every file is it's major weakness. Very useful if you want it, a complete pain if you don't. It means that all file management has to be done within LR, even though there are dozens of ways you might want to interact with image files other than through LR.  Opinions may varyTM . I guess it's basically because I don't want to be coerced into only having one way of doing things.

Anyway, all this is for sometime next month.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on June 14, 2010, 09:37:38 PM
>> Very useful if you want it, a complete pain if you don't.

Yeah - you're really trading up front and backend time (import / export) for process time.  I'd rather take the hit while I'm doing something else and then fly through the editing.  But other times I'll want to work with one file immediately without all the overhead.

BTW if you want speed then look at Photo Mechanic.  Very cool.  Very very fast.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 14, 2010, 09:44:06 PM
Ah back to the Vista thing again.

Why do i hate MS Vista? It should have been called MS Windows DOG it's so resource hungry and slow to boot.
Windows 7 really is much faster and much more efficient than Vista. Give LR a miss and get a Win 7 upgrade, and if your machine can't handle the upgrade - then you've explained why LR runs like a dog.

Not really sure what you're trying to achieve...
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 15, 2010, 06:15:30 AM
I'm trying to join the gang Andrew :)

It's only LR that's runs so slowly, that's why it's noticeable.

I'll get Windows 7 when I upgrade the machine, probably in about a year's time. By then we should have a new broadband node in the village too, so it'll be like computer Christmas.

I'll take a gander at Photo Mechanic Jonanthan, thanks.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 15, 2010, 11:01:53 AM
Well I was itching to see what it looked like and I just got a discount code from Adobe, so I ran it.

It IS an order of magnitude faster than version 2x.  :) :) :) :)

I can hear the faint noise of my wallet starting to moan  . . .
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 15, 2010, 12:10:56 PM
Yep - definitely faster  :tup:

AND the images look better when viewed in LR3 - but that's down to improved de-mosaicing algorithms!
and if Graham is looking in - the Slide Show feature is much improved.
Abers says the Print feature is much improved
Jonathan says the NR feature is saving him time

So between us - we've managed to justify 1 of us upgrading  :2funny:
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Graham on June 15, 2010, 04:52:20 PM
Quote from: picsfor on June 15, 2010, 12:10:56 PM
Yep - definitely faster  :tup:

AND the images look better when viewed in LR3 - but that's down to improved de-mosaicing algorithms!
and if Graham is looking in - the Slide Show feature is much improved.
Abers says the Print feature is much improved
Jonathan says the NR feature is saving him time

So between us - we've managed to justify 1 of us upgrading  :2funny:
I don't have to look in, I'm omni-present! :D
      S'pose I'd better do it then.
             Thanks for the shove.
                          Graham. :dance:
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 16, 2010, 01:13:40 PM
Does anyone know how to remove all of the adjustments made by LR? I have found how to reapply the 'defaults' but not how to remove everything all together and start again.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on June 16, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
Reset button.  Bottom right in develop module.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 16, 2010, 04:21:43 PM
Alas, no it doesn't.

It does the same as ctrl+shift+R (or for you I guess cmd+shift+R), the reset shortcut from the photo develop menu - it reapplies the defaults. The only way to get back to the unaltered image that I have found is to disable the default editing in the preferences menu. Which I have now done and I bet every experienced user has done too. So now when I click reset or ctrl+shift+R it really does reset.

Early days . . .
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 16, 2010, 04:34:10 PM
If i understand it correctly - you want the opportunity to play with a photo/ image and then, instead of undoing all the changes step by step in the edit menu, reset it all to how the photo was before you started experimenting.

If that's the case then you go into the develop module and select the "Settings" menu and the top option is "reset all settings" - and this will restore a photo to the state it was in before you started experimenting.

If you'd already processed the picture via another package then LR3 will not restore the picture to the pre-processed state for that other package - only the state in which the photo was imported to LR3.

Remember to export a copy of a picture if you like it before you opt to restore it to its original state.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: anglefire on June 16, 2010, 06:56:54 PM
Can't you do virtual copies of the image, so you can easily do this?

You can in ACR by saving a preset in effect.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 16, 2010, 07:40:42 PM
As mentioned in previous comments - LR3 does not work the same way as ACR.

With LR you play around with the image and save it when you're happy with that version - then hit the reset button and start again - no presets or virtual copies need to be made up front as it appears are needed in ACR.

Same result - 2 different ways of going about it!
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 16, 2010, 08:02:53 PM
The reset function only resets any changes you have made after interacting with the develop modules, either quick in library mode or full in develop.

In <edit><preferences><presets> LR defaults to "Auto Tone". Reset simply reapplies the auto tone. In order to get back to the raw image as it were, you have to turn this off.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 16, 2010, 09:05:41 PM
interesting how the same program can install itself to 2 different computers with 2 different set ups.

If you hadn't pointed that out i wouldn't have known. I've always had the option to use the reset to return the image to its natural raw state as imported - but then i suppose that's not really accurate.
All my images are converted to .dng files when imported leaving the original raw file on the EHD's. Maybe that's my difference!
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 17, 2010, 06:26:54 AM
Could be Andrew. I'm still using Flashpipe for importing, and I don't convert the original RAWs (although the Pentaxes will save to uncompressed DNGs, I still use the proprietary RAW format - I had noticed subtle differences).

However, this may all be moot as the new version of Bibble 5 was released today with Perfectly Clear built in - it was this that was the icing on the cake of Bibble 4. I know from my limited fiddlings already that LR3 cannot get close to Bibble for processing speed, so this might be a done deal for the Texas boys ;)
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: picsfor on June 17, 2010, 07:15:34 AM
and when i gave Bibble 5 a go - i couldn't get on with it.

Some lovely stuff in that package, but other aspects that just plain annoyed me. I suspect though that you'll probably enjoy it.
If it does the job - that's the main thing...
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 17, 2010, 03:50:23 PM
Horses for courses as they say.

Knowing me I'll probably prevaricate to such an extent that I end up sticking with DXO, even though processing a big batch means going away to read a book for a while :)
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 21, 2010, 06:34:06 AM
Still playing with LR3.

Overall pretty impressive, but still has some (user ignorance related) nasty glitches, like no filter for file type, and the slide show function is probably the most useless I've ever come across - great for export, but rubbish for just reviewing images on the screen. I bet there's another way of running automatically through the pictures in sequence on screen, but Adobe will have called it something completely obscure.

Anyway, my reason for posting is to ask a question. I watched the training vid about publishing to Flickr, and set my account up. Now I cannot find any way of actually publishing anything to Flickr. There is no 'publish' command, no 'export to Flickr' command, and opening the publishing service just opens the dialogue to edit parameters.

I'm guessing that one of you guys will know how this is supposed to work?

Every time I see that strap line about LR being intuitive I fall about laughing . .  :legit:
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Oly Paul on June 21, 2010, 06:35:44 AM
Quote from: Tringle WP on June 17, 2010, 03:50:23 PM
Horses for courses as they say.

Knowing me I'll probably prevaricate to such an extent that I end up sticking with DXO, even though processing a big batch means going away to read a book for a while :)

You should try Capture One 5 if you want to see real speed in processing raw files. ;)
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on June 21, 2010, 11:35:32 AM
>> I'm guessing that one of you guys will know how this is supposed to work?

Once you have set up Flickr Export, just drag the picture you want to publish to the Flickr Badge under export services.  It works like a collection.  Once a pic is in there you can click publish.

It will copy keywords to Flickr Tags and IPTC Title and Caption to Flickr Title and Caption (or at least that's the way I have it set up).

If you later edit the picture it will show a status of "need republish" or something.  Then you can update Flick when you are ready.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 21, 2010, 12:51:24 PM
Cheers Jonathan - no way of doing it with menu commands - cunning ;)

Now, what about an impromptu slide show?
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on June 21, 2010, 03:30:38 PM
Quote from: Tringle WP on June 21, 2010, 12:51:24 PM
Cheers Jonathan - no way of doing it with menu commands - cunning ;)

Not as far as I know.

One cunning trick though is you can set a Smart collection within a publish service.  So you could, for example, create one that contains all images keyworded with "Flickr" (or marked green, or 5 stars or whatever including clever combinations).  Then on any picture you can add the keyword or whatever and it will automatically be ready for publishing.

It's easy to imagine how you could use this to automatically update a website with your best shots from the last 30 days.

Quote
Now, what about an impromptu slide show?

What do you mean?  Select the pictures you want, jump in the slideshow module, choose a template and click play.  Impromptu enough?
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 21, 2010, 06:28:26 PM
Ah Jonathan, the benefits of a faster machine. Lucky man.

Like the publishing trick.

On mine in LR it is select a folder of say 300 images, my last ski holiday, click slideshow. Wait 20 seconds for the window to appear, select play, and then wait and wait and wait while LR builds the slide previews. On the holiday folder I lost patience after more than five minutes and only 80 previews prepared. So that would take at a tough guess 18 minutes before the slideshow was ready to roll. Hardly impromptu.

So I start Picasa, navigate to the folder I want to slideshow and press play - less than 15 seconds.

I've pretty much decided that although LR isn't perfect (what is?) it's looking like the best product out there - certainly the most comprehensive. And I have my DXO for when I need it (the NR is superb in 6)- although it won't talk to LR3 yet.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Jonathan on June 22, 2010, 07:55:21 AM
Quote from: Tringle WP on June 21, 2010, 06:28:26 PM
So I start Picasa, navigate to the folder I want to slideshow and press play - less than 15 seconds.

Yeah 18 minutes is kind of a long time.  You could uncheck "prepare slides in advance" (last option on the right) but this may slow the show down when it runs.  From your figures I'm guessing LR is rendering from a raw file or at least a jpeg with adjustments and has to calculate everything on the fly.  Picassa works from finished files or at worst extracts the embedded jpeg from the raws.  If that's true then 15 seconds is actually pretty long.

I jus tried rendering a slideshow from 350 or so raws (Nikon + Hasselblad) all with adjustments on them. Firt 65 took 1 minute to render then I got bored.  Then I tried it with jpegs I'd generated from them previously.  It was too fast to time.  Certainly less than 2 seconds.
Title: Re: Lightroom 3
Post by: Hinfrance on June 22, 2010, 09:26:51 AM
I see Jonathan, I'll try with the prepare in advance switched off and see what happens. I am also cognisant of the fact that your much newer and much more powerful machine, unburdened by Vista, will run an order of magnitude faster than my virtual antique.

The 15 second time for Picasa includes starting the application and navigating to the folder. The slide show is instant, so it's a reasonable option. I'm guessing it runs that from the previews it builds on 'import', although, of course, it doesn't actually import anything.