RE: Lightroom (was Re: Adobe Photoshop CS3 update)
Peter, Condemnation is a bit strong. I don't recall reading in the ads, or hearing Adobe tell us that this was NOT meant to be used by Fine Artist with file that exceed 100000 pixel. I don't recall them advertising that all non maximized PSD, a native Adobe format, would not be honored by this Adobe program. I don't recall them saying large tif files would not be honored. Their focus ha without a doubt has been on processing RAW files for many cameras. Great. But they were also strongly touting their file system, which for me has crashed several times. One may not need flexibility in processing a variety of RAW files, and Adobe may not be using the best conversion of those files. Perhaps, I should have said consider your purchase strongly, but I think don't may have gotten their attention a bit faster. What do I want to do with files? Keep track of all my image files, not just ones small enough to be exported by LR but those that have also been worked on to make prints. The industry has a massive failing by catering to forces that don't share a fine artist' needs. Apple, Epson, Adobe, MS have for years been struggling with good integrated control over print engines. Looking at pretty, and some not so pretty pictures on a screen is one thing, but having them come to life in print and be able to keep track of those files is something else. This group is based on printing, not processing RAW files. This is where LR needs more help and development. I believe the only way to get the developers attention is to get the users from this side of the track to demand more complete packages for OUR needs. Eric Eric Neilsen Photography 4101 Commerce Street Suite 9 Dallas, TX 75226 http://e.neilsen.home.att.net http://ericneilsenphotography.com Skype ejprinter > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Marshall [mailto:petermarshall@cix.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:18 AM > To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca > Subject: Re: Lightroom (was Re: Adobe Photoshop CS3 update) > > Eric, > > I think you may be condemning it mainly for not being something it never > set out to be. It is a program for importing and processing RAW files, > and creating a simple database of them. > > It can create 16 bit per channel TIFF files from these - which is the > largest format needed. I regularly use it to create 50Mb '8 bit' TIFFs, > as well as 'full size' very high quality jpegs at around 5-10Mb (both > Adobe RGB for repro use and also for my own printing) and of course > small sRGB jpegs for web use. It does these things several times faster > than other software I own, and rather more conveniently. I just can't > imagine what else you might want it to make from RAW files. > > I do think it has limitations as a database and I've had a few problems > with very large databases, though it is currently doing fine with well > over 50,000 images. But I suspect some of the problems I've had were of > my own making and I think I really need to work out more how to use this > aspect of the program rather than blame it. I can live with it as it is. > > But it is great to be able to add IPTC data including keywords > automatically on input, and it can make getting your images catalogued > by other software more or less automatic. > > There are other features that I'd like to see in LR, and the release > last week of a preview SDK to enable developers to work on plugins is > great news for LR users - more significant than the relatively minor > interface improvements in 1.3. > > The file browser in PS7 was useless - and I soon disabled it, though I > understand it is better in later versions, so perhaps Adobe have learnt > from their experience. > > I'd still advise any photographer using a camera that can shoot RAW to > get LR. > > Regards, > > Peter >
|