jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I've used all the public betas and like the logic behind it. For the 1.0 release, they've added a spot-fixing tool, which will add to its utility a lot. And they've even borrowed the 'stacks' concept from Apple's Aperture, so that's one previous gripe resolved.
So I'll buy it, but I'm still a bit worried about how it will perform with a lot of images in the library. The betas have gotten slower and slower as my count of managed images has gotten into the thousands.
I still think I'd prefer the Aperture work environment -- but Lightroom supports R-D 1 files and Aperture doesn't, so that's the deal-closer.
So I'll buy it, but I'm still a bit worried about how it will perform with a lot of images in the library. The betas have gotten slower and slower as my count of managed images has gotten into the thousands.
I still think I'd prefer the Aperture work environment -- but Lightroom supports R-D 1 files and Aperture doesn't, so that's the deal-closer.
Topdog1
Well-known
I wonder if the slow down occurs when you import the photos into LR, rather than leaving them in place? I had a copy of iPhoto on a MAC early on that got so slow as I imported more photos into it that it becamse completely unusable.
/Ira
/Ira
Bryan Lee
Expat Street Photographer
First thing is thanks for all the answers and taking the time to type them out.
I dont understand or Im possibly misreading here but is light room some kind of archiver to?
I dont understand the concept of loading images into it and then not retrieving them to store at another location.
If you process images then move them how can it slow down the speed of the computer and as far slowing things down how can it slow down anything with 2 gigs of ram, I would think 2 gigs of ram should be more than enough to keep it from bogging even with it maxed out.
Like Allan, It looks like I will be getting this when I get my new computer, it seems to be a kind of shotgun wedding of sorts. I will be happy to hear back from anyone who has been using the beta to see how they like Lightroom 1.0
I dont understand or Im possibly misreading here but is light room some kind of archiver to?
I dont understand the concept of loading images into it and then not retrieving them to store at another location.
If you process images then move them how can it slow down the speed of the computer and as far slowing things down how can it slow down anything with 2 gigs of ram, I would think 2 gigs of ram should be more than enough to keep it from bogging even with it maxed out.
Like Allan, It looks like I will be getting this when I get my new computer, it seems to be a kind of shotgun wedding of sorts. I will be happy to hear back from anyone who has been using the beta to see how they like Lightroom 1.0
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Bryan,
I have only played with the beta 4. I tasked myself with using it for an entire event (after I had already delivered the proofs for it using my usual methods), and while I ran into some learning curve issues, I learned a lot. But others have used it more.
No. It saves files in one space, or imports them from existing spaces, as most other programs do. You still need to have your own archiving system as a backend to store these to more secure locations.
Think of the images as being loaded into a library, which is more pointers to the files than the files themselves. Then you lay actions and edits onto that image as associations, rather than as actual changes to original file. In this sense, it _preserves_ the image, but it does not archive it.
LR and Aperture do a LOT of raw conversion on the fly. This takes up both RAM And processing power. I am going with 4GB of ram on an Intel Core 2 Duo (at least, unless AMD comes out with a comparable performer in the meantime).
I hope that helps.
allan
I have only played with the beta 4. I tasked myself with using it for an entire event (after I had already delivered the proofs for it using my usual methods), and while I ran into some learning curve issues, I learned a lot. But others have used it more.
Bryan Lee said:
No. It saves files in one space, or imports them from existing spaces, as most other programs do. You still need to have your own archiving system as a backend to store these to more secure locations.
Think of the images as being loaded into a library, which is more pointers to the files than the files themselves. Then you lay actions and edits onto that image as associations, rather than as actual changes to original file. In this sense, it _preserves_ the image, but it does not archive it.
LR and Aperture do a LOT of raw conversion on the fly. This takes up both RAM And processing power. I am going with 4GB of ram on an Intel Core 2 Duo (at least, unless AMD comes out with a comparable performer in the meantime).
I hope that helps.
allan
venchka
Veteran
I use it to tweak scans from the minilab. It's ok. BUT! $200 for what? Exposure and contrast adjusting? Lightroom should be Photoshop's front end. I reckon Adobe juggled a price increase for CS3 off to Lightroom.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I haven't decided yet, I'm still fumbling around with it. I wonder if they can turn off Beta4 when the LR1.0 comes out. That may cause me to lose interest.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I shoot a Nikon DSLR and I really prefer the Nikon NX RAW converter.
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
I like Lightroom, but as a mac user with 2 displays, I vastly prefer Aperture.
If I had a PC I'd find Lightroom very appealing.
I've used all of the LR betas, BTW, from 1.0 to 4.1.
If I had a PC I'd find Lightroom very appealing.
I've used all of the LR betas, BTW, from 1.0 to 4.1.
Bryan Lee
Expat Street Photographer
Allan, Thanks for your detailed answers, and everybody thanks for input which was all good and considerable.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Bryan - glad I could help.
Others - bear in mind that LR and Aperture are both designed for people doing digital _shooting_. Using it with scans just isn't as useful. You're talking on the fly RAW conversions, layered actions without destructive editing to the RAW files, etc.
And there are other converters out there - RAWShooter, and Capture NX, which have both come up - which are arguably better and in some cases proven better re: actual conversion quality. But they are not complete workflow products.
That doesn't mean LR and Aperture are compelling for everyone, but for some it's an almost all-in-one solution other than hardcore editing of a few things.
allan
Others - bear in mind that LR and Aperture are both designed for people doing digital _shooting_. Using it with scans just isn't as useful. You're talking on the fly RAW conversions, layered actions without destructive editing to the RAW files, etc.
And there are other converters out there - RAWShooter, and Capture NX, which have both come up - which are arguably better and in some cases proven better re: actual conversion quality. But they are not complete workflow products.
That doesn't mean LR and Aperture are compelling for everyone, but for some it's an almost all-in-one solution other than hardcore editing of a few things.
allan
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
Lightroom is still far from a release version in my opinion. There's to many things that make it dependant to CS2....
It's better than Bridge..I hate Bridge but after you finish an image in LR...it saves it as a Tiff....I save all my images to PSD so I am forced to use CS2...it seems that CS2 can live without LR but thwe reverse is not true....
I loaded it directly from Adobe before the Beta was released...use it still and like it but I don't want to pay $199.99 and up to be a beta tester...the first release will be exactly that.......
With DNG converter, Camera Raw, Bridge and Photoshop.....LR is really just a fancy plug in....I also run Noise Ninja and The Image Factory B&W Converter and have yet to get LR to be able to use either one.....
When they get it right...I'll buy it, till then....I keep an eye out.......don
It's better than Bridge..I hate Bridge but after you finish an image in LR...it saves it as a Tiff....I save all my images to PSD so I am forced to use CS2...it seems that CS2 can live without LR but thwe reverse is not true....
I loaded it directly from Adobe before the Beta was released...use it still and like it but I don't want to pay $199.99 and up to be a beta tester...the first release will be exactly that.......
With DNG converter, Camera Raw, Bridge and Photoshop.....LR is really just a fancy plug in....I also run Noise Ninja and The Image Factory B&W Converter and have yet to get LR to be able to use either one.....
When they get it right...I'll buy it, till then....I keep an eye out.......don
wintoid
Back to film
I'll get a free copy of Lightroom as a result of my purchase of RSP (back before Capture One supported the RD1s). As I love Capture One, I will probably sell the sealed copy of Lightroom to a UK RFFer.
nksyoon
Well-known
Here's a detailed preview of LR 1.0:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_31/essay.html
http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_31/essay.html
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
Nick,
Thanks for the link. I've been usig LR since it first came out and the review for the 1.0 Version is very....stimulating......thanks again....don
Thanks for the link. I've been usig LR since it first came out and the review for the 1.0 Version is very....stimulating......thanks again....don
willie_901
Veteran
I pre-ordered Lightroom. I find it is very useful for scanned negatives.
gareth
Established
I bought Rawshooter about a year ago. I thought those who purchased Rawshooter would get a free copy of lightroom. Is that still happening, and yes I'm still using the same e-mail address but I haven't heard a thing for ages.
Not tried the trial version, not much time for messing about with stuff.
Yes I would like something that gives me more RAW options. I shoot 100% RAW for my digital work, it's a bind having to switch to another piece of software just to do basic finnishing work to an image. So yes it sounds appealing.
Not tried the trial version, not much time for messing about with stuff.
Yes I would like something that gives me more RAW options. I shoot 100% RAW for my digital work, it's a bind having to switch to another piece of software just to do basic finnishing work to an image. So yes it sounds appealing.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
M4streetshooter said:
"Stimulating"??? This isn't going to be something I'm going to be embarrassed to view at work, is it?
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
jlw said:
awwww geeze.......at 57 I get stimulated easilly........fortunately for both of us...it's either woman or cameras....don
p.s. my Harley gets me going too.....
T_om
Well-known
Lightroom 1.0 should be a bit faster than the betas, even the Beta 4 dots, at least that is what I am hearing from testers. Code has been optimized, etc. We will see I guess.
Like Dave Sang above, I shoot weddings, all RAW, and need a comprehensive processing tool. So far I have been very impressed with Lightroom.
Since I shoot Canon digital equipment, 5D's and 10D's, I have been using Canon's DPP as it gave me the best skintones of all the converters I tried. I bought RAW Shooter Premium last year because the ONE thing DPP does not do well is highlight recovery. RAW Shooter Premium was good at that. Lightroom is as good or better.
Plus, a bonus I just found out about was that the files from my assistant/second-shooter are MUCH easier to color match to my own with Lightroom than with DPP.
That alone would make me buy the program if I were not getting it for free.
My (older) computer runs Beta 4, but at a pretty leisurely pace. I am hoping the code in the V1.0 release runs faster. I was hoping to put off a computer upgrade this year. Lightroom is so good though, that if necessary I'll bite the bullet and upgrade now so I can use it this wedding season. The time it will save me will pay for the upgrade.
Tom
Like Dave Sang above, I shoot weddings, all RAW, and need a comprehensive processing tool. So far I have been very impressed with Lightroom.
Since I shoot Canon digital equipment, 5D's and 10D's, I have been using Canon's DPP as it gave me the best skintones of all the converters I tried. I bought RAW Shooter Premium last year because the ONE thing DPP does not do well is highlight recovery. RAW Shooter Premium was good at that. Lightroom is as good or better.
Plus, a bonus I just found out about was that the files from my assistant/second-shooter are MUCH easier to color match to my own with Lightroom than with DPP.
That alone would make me buy the program if I were not getting it for free.
My (older) computer runs Beta 4, but at a pretty leisurely pace. I am hoping the code in the V1.0 release runs faster. I was hoping to put off a computer upgrade this year. Lightroom is so good though, that if necessary I'll bite the bullet and upgrade now so I can use it this wedding season. The time it will save me will pay for the upgrade.
Tom
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm holding out for the version Adobe are releasing for underwater photography ... I think it's called 'Bathroom' 