Film dino
David Chong
http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/01/09/adobe.debuts.lightroom/
.....You're all probably aware of "Lightroom" by now & it's somewhat OT (digital workflow)
.....You're all probably aware of "Lightroom" by now & it's somewhat OT (digital workflow)
Last edited:
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Looks good to me.
I'll be playing with it this morning.
I'll be playing with it this morning.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I had a slow day at work yesterday, so downloaded the beta and spent a lot of time with it.
Good: Looks pretty; supports R-D 1 raw files (warning: that was the only actually rangefinder-relevant content in this post!)
Not so good: Drastically incomplete feature set makes the beta unusable for serious work (especially the lack of crop and straighten tools, both of which are present in free-with-CS Adobe Bridge.)
Disappointing: No really new thinking in the product (unlike Apple's Aperture, which is controversial but at least shows original thought about dealing with the real-world tasks in a working photographer's workflow.) Basically, all Adobe has done is combine some of the functions of DNG Converter, Bridge, and Elements -- they haven't really improved anything about how a photographer works with these functions.
Example: one of the most important things a photographer does after shooting is go through the photos, group them by subject, pose, etc., and select the best shot(s) out of each group. Aperture has rethought this process and provided a useful new function (group by time), metaphor (stacks) and tool (loupe) to make it easier. With Lightroom, you have to group your shots manually, evaluate them via the same old clunky "ranking" metaphor as in Bridge or iView, and have to switch from the multi-shot "compare" view to a single-image "loupe" view in order to check details. There's really nothing new or improved here.
On the positive side, what little it does, it does fairly quickly. And Lightroom was programmed with a fully "pluggable" architecture (all its features are separate plug-ins) so maybe Adobe will add some genuinely useful new functionality if they get enough critical feedback.
For now, though, Lightroom doesn't do anything you can't do in Bridge, does most of what it DOES do less well, and doesn't do a number of essential things that Bridge DOES do. Obviously, for now, I'll keep watching Lightroom for updates, but I'm going to have to stick to Bridge for real work.
Good: Looks pretty; supports R-D 1 raw files (warning: that was the only actually rangefinder-relevant content in this post!)
Not so good: Drastically incomplete feature set makes the beta unusable for serious work (especially the lack of crop and straighten tools, both of which are present in free-with-CS Adobe Bridge.)
Disappointing: No really new thinking in the product (unlike Apple's Aperture, which is controversial but at least shows original thought about dealing with the real-world tasks in a working photographer's workflow.) Basically, all Adobe has done is combine some of the functions of DNG Converter, Bridge, and Elements -- they haven't really improved anything about how a photographer works with these functions.
Example: one of the most important things a photographer does after shooting is go through the photos, group them by subject, pose, etc., and select the best shot(s) out of each group. Aperture has rethought this process and provided a useful new function (group by time), metaphor (stacks) and tool (loupe) to make it easier. With Lightroom, you have to group your shots manually, evaluate them via the same old clunky "ranking" metaphor as in Bridge or iView, and have to switch from the multi-shot "compare" view to a single-image "loupe" view in order to check details. There's really nothing new or improved here.
On the positive side, what little it does, it does fairly quickly. And Lightroom was programmed with a fully "pluggable" architecture (all its features are separate plug-ins) so maybe Adobe will add some genuinely useful new functionality if they get enough critical feedback.
For now, though, Lightroom doesn't do anything you can't do in Bridge, does most of what it DOES do less well, and doesn't do a number of essential things that Bridge DOES do. Obviously, for now, I'll keep watching Lightroom for updates, but I'm going to have to stick to Bridge for real work.