Re: Lightroom (was Re: Adobe Photoshop CS3 update)
Eric,
I wasn't the guy who slagged off LR, which for many people is a great
program (not perfect, but what is.)
If you put yourself out on a limb like that expect a few people to saw
through it.
Print with Photoshop - its fine. LR links to it perfectly. Why should I
want to print from LR when I've software that does it better? Helps if
you've got a RIP, especially for b/w of course.
>NOT meant to be used by Fine Artist withfile that exceed 100000 pixel.
I don't understand this at all. Most of my files in LR are 10,000,000
pixels or larger, no problems. The largest I use regularly are for
printing at 24x16", but larger files are not a problem. Your experiences
just don't seem to match up with mine or with others who are using the
software.
With a monitor properly profiled an your printer profiled for the paper
and inks you are using, things work fine for colour. To get the best b/w
you need to take a look at Jon Cone's offerings and print using QTR or
some other RIP (I use Bowhaus.) Its all there, all working fine so long
as you take a little trouble to set it up. Better matt prints than I
could ever make in the darkroom - better than platinum too. Gloss is
more or less there too with the latest papers - higher DMax than silver
but perhaps surfaces could still be improved. But 18 months since I last
felt I needed to go in the darkroom.
Regards,
Peter
Peter Marshall - Photographer, Writer: NUJ
petermarshall@cix.co.uk
_________________________________________________________________
Re:PHOTO http://re-photo.co.uk
My London Diary
http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage:
http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:
http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......
Eric Neilsen wrote:
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