Skip to main content
F
FeedbackCommunityMember
Inspiring
April 20, 2011
Open for Voting

P: More sophisticated slideshows please

  • April 20, 2011
  • 17 replies
  • 528 views

I was asked to post this commentary here having first posted it in Help for Slideshow; I think they didn't want to deal with me. But, here goes. The Slideshow module is probably the most important sharing component of your program for those of us choosing not to print and file photos. Yet, and in spite of its few "canned" graphics, it seems to lack many useful edit features; at least ones equal to the quality of pictures that Lr3 can help produce. 1. Though Lr3 allows movie clips to be imported, "slideshow" will not play them as part of a combined show. 2. Although a soundtrack can be added, adjusting play time is by means of a primitive slider. 3. Sountrack only allows one track to be imported. That's probably okay if one knows how to create a track somewhere else (Garage Band, et. al.) and import it for longer shows with subtle shifts in content or, if one is willing to put up with a loop that may not match the show in length. 4. The soundtrack does not mate to the show which means the show cannot be stopped and restarted because the soundtrack defaults to the beginning regardless of the image one has stopped at; this is a pain in the @$$ for the editing process because it means one must run a complete show each time a make minor adjustments of timing, as may be required; and that can mean many hours if the show is anything like 20 minutes.
I am sure that I am not alone in wanting to share my high quality, Lr3 images on a high quality TV or digital projector, where a small group can see the show together. I don't wish to print images or books of images to pass around and later have to store. And, I don't want to use the default "iphoto," "iDVD" program combo, which allows movies and stills in the same show and easier adjustments to match images to a soundtrack. Why? Because it is a weaker aid to creating quality images to begin with and the quality is lost when transferred to a DVD.
So help us out here. Fix these problems or . . . maybe I just don't know how to get at what's already available in Lr3 and you can tell me. Some of us want our albums on DVD with all the bells and whistles and we want the tools to make them as rich an experience as possible.

Thanks for your patience.

J. Naughton

    17 replies

    Show previous replies
    B
    Butch_M
    Inspiring
    April 21, 2011
    John ... can't say I disagree with you ... though, "panels" and "modules" are quite different ... I was more interested in the ability to add specific purpose modules to Lr ... like a printed book/album design module created by Adobe or a third party developer ... something fully integrated and seamless for adding functionality to a parametric workflow ... as an option, rather than a "you must take this or nothing" situation ...

    In fact if a video module could be offered, it sure would settle the dust on that argument we have seen in the forums in the recent past ...

    Either way ... I think this is a good point of discussion ... on how LR could be customized and tailored to specific uses/genres in the field ...
    john beardsworth
    Community Expert
    john beardsworthCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    April 21, 2011
    "Aperture 3's features in this area is but a modest goal to achieve in area of combining images, motion and soundtrack ... Unfortunately, the only reason I have Aperture 3 installed..."

    Exactly. It's not the only or first program with timelines, multiple tracks and Ken Burns effects, but you can guess what I was thinking of in my initial comment.

    The module stuff here is a (faintly ludicrous) diversion. Lightroom's strength is as a single integrated product - "here are a few related bits of code, build your own workflow" is not quite the "simplify photography from start to finish" ethos. Remove existing modules or make them optional purchases and (a) users would never come across features that they didn't originally want but then subsequently find they can use, and (b) the pressure is off Adobe getting them right. Hey, I don't use keywording, says someone - why should I pay for those two panels?
    B
    Butch_M
    Inspiring
    April 20, 2011
    I have to say ... I am in agreement (or at least open to discussion) with most all the ideas shared here ... In fact ... I thought that was the impetus of the module component concept of the original LR design ... so that other modules could be added and some modules could either be turned off or ignored ...

    While I do make use of most of the modules ... some I use much, much more of than others ...

    The slideshow feature is one I definitely could make more use of if it had even a few more capabilities ... Aperture 3's features in this area is but a modest goal to achieve in area of combining images, motion and soundtrack ... Unfortunately, the only reason I have Aperture 3 installed, is for book making and slideshows ... I really hate having to bounce back and forth from LR-A3 and back all the time ...

    The current feature of rendering a simple fade between images with a single audio file ... really isn't a feature ... it's hardly worth the space the code takes up on the drive ... when you consider what some very modest and affordable third party options are capable of ...

    The ability to to create a truly artistic slideshow from within the LR UI would go a long way in keeping a tidy library of images ... sure it is quite easy to export a set of jpeg files and use other options that may be more suited for the task ... but who needs all that clutter created? ... and quite often, those other options are complete overkill from a feature/learning curve factor ... Like Goldilocks, I'm looking for something "Just right" ... and wouldn't it be great to have a friendly tool that plays nice with all the other LR features?

    As per a couple of other topics here ... is this a case of Adobe opening up the SDK for Module additions created by third parties? Not sure what the best route is ...but I would indeed welcome some improvement to the Slideshow Module ...

    For me ... the current slideshow is useless ... either eliminate the feature all together ... or give us something that we can use to add value to our products ...
    areohbee
    areohbee
    Legend
    April 20, 2011
    Not a hi-jacking - but an explanation and related suggestion. If slideshow was an independent module I was paying for, I would be rooting for all sorts of different improvements, including the ones referenced by OP. As it stands, I'll vote for no slideshow improvements. I think people with strong desires for slideshows should consider supporting a separate module for it, as a possible way to get what they want. It seemed relevant to me.

    Summary:
    ------------
    - I totally disagree with this FR, as long as slideshow is built-in and does not satisfy my critical needs.
    - If slideshow was a separate module however, I'd be rallying for these improvements, along with others...
    john beardsworth
    Community Expert
    john beardsworthCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    April 20, 2011
    Oh yeah, let's discuss breaking LR into individual modules!
    areohbee
    areohbee
    Legend
    April 20, 2011
    Personally, I'd like to see Lightroom divided into modules with independent charges:

    e.g.

    - Lr Core: includes lib+dev module $250
    - slideshow module +$50
    - print module +$50
    - web module +$50
    - photobooks module +$50
    - faces module +$50
    - places module +$50
    (with bundle discounts...)

    This way, Adobe could invest more in different modules, and get paid for it, yet users who don't use certain features don't have to pay for them. So bickering about whether faces & places & photobooks should take higher priority than dev tools, could be replaced by bickering over the price of the modules...

    I mean, right now I don't use the slideshow module, so I won't vote for any improvements except the ones that would make it usable to me, and if *those* were ever granted, *then* I'd like to see a lot of these other improvements, *and* I'd be willing to pay extra for it, since I could retire my existing slideshow software.
    john beardsworth
    Community Expert
    john beardsworthCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    April 20, 2011
    Totally agree. There needs to be a timeline so each image's duration can be controlled, and multiple sound clips. Exporting as a standalone needs to be more shrinkwrapped and obvious. And Ken Burns effects (for those that want it).
    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
    Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices