RE: Lightroom (was Re: Adobe Photoshop CS3 update)
Peter, I am perfectly comfortable where I am. I don't consider anything that I said as putting myself out on a limb. What I am doing is making sure as best I can, that others don't buy LR thinking it is a Digital asset management program even if it claims to be. In a limited capacity it is for RAW and small JPEGs. It even does a fine job of letting you edit in PS (PS 7 - CS3). I don't print often with LR but certainly tried its functionality. I have Image Print, Q Image, QTR, and the old Epson drivers. I did make a typo there but Gawain has already cleared that up and expanded on LR short fall. I not only bought LR for its processing capabilities, but for the claims at cataloging your photos. I already print with Cones' Sepia set of Peizotone inks and have been doing so for four or five years. I haven't tried his newer K6 or K7 inks. I am however, currently in testing on another set of inks that I believe will be everything those are and perhaps more. Time will tell. Happy printing! And now back a getting out of Dallas for T day, Happy belated Thanksgiving Day. We had a great time. 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 3:13 PM > To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca > Subject: 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 > >> > >> > > > > > >
|