What new features in Lightroom 6 ?

[bitm07]

With Adobe Photoshop Lightoom 6 expected to be released later this year, what new featured would you like to see in the new version ?.

[markalanthomas]

Zero chance that Eric Chan doesn't know that Adobe needs to do something about Lightroom's poor thumbnail scrolling, and I'll wager every apologist in this forum that Lightroom will get GPU accelleration. It may require a rewrite of something, but it will get it.

[TheDigitalDog]

markalanthomas wrote:

Zero chance that Eric Chan doesn't know that Adobe needs to do something about Lightroom's poor thumbnail scrolling, and I'll wager every apologist in this forum that Lightroom will get GPU accelleration. It may require a rewrite of something, but it will get it.

How they do it isn't important. That it is done is important. In terms of the comments about Aperture or iPhoto "smoking" LR, in terms of thumbnail scrolling, I find that to be true too. I'm running a pretty fast MacBook Pro maxed out in RAM.

[gswarbrick]

'Stated that' <> 'explained why'. The only possible explanation is poor architecture on Adobe's part that they have taken a decision not to improve. There is absolutely no way that Lightroom written to properly use GPUs would not be quicker than Lightroom using the CPU. None. At all.

[Keith Reeder]

It's hard to retrofit GPU support into code though - it's entirely possible that Lr6 will have a codebase designed from the ground up to maximise our graphics cards.

[Todd Shaner]

gswarbrick wrote:

There is absolutely no way that Lightroom written to properly use GPUs would not be quicker than Lightroom using the CPU. None. At all.

This may be true, but there are interdependencies that Adobe has no control over. This includes GPU driver issues that only manifest themselves under very specific HW/SW/OS platform scenarios. Even with a complete redesign of LR there are bound to be issues. Here's an example of an issue that currently exists with PS CC due to GPU acceleration "interdependencies:"

Re: Strange sRGB soft-proofing behavior

Here's another one concerning 30 bit color support in PS CC. I see the same issue on my PS CS6 Windows 7 system that fully supports 30 bit color (NEC PA272w + Nvidia Quadro 600). It works properly at Zoom View settings of 64% and higher and drops back to 24 bit color at 63% and lower View settings. This means when viewing a typical full-size camera file in "fit" view mode 30 bit color does not work!

Re: PS cc and 30 bit

[bob frost]

Isn't it about time this thread was closed, and a new one opened for LR7?

Bob Frost

[johnhawk666]

‌Good idea, if it means we won't have to keep jumping to the end of this very long thread.

[Geoff the kiwi · Accepted solution]

Robert Frost wrote:

Isn't it about time this thread was closed, and a new one opened for LR7?

Bob Frost

Bit hard to know what to ask for in Lightroom 7 when 6 is not out yet....

But quite happy to lock this...

[bob frost]

gswarbrick wrote:

'Stated that' <> 'explained why'. The only possible explanation is poor architecture on Adobe's part that they have taken a decision not to improve. There is absolutely no way that Lightroom written to properly use GPUs would not be quicker than Lightroom using the CPU. None. At all.

That all depends on which 'slow' feature of LR you are talking about. Some may be speeded up by use of parallel processing in the GPU's many processors; others may not - they just need a faster processor.

Bob Frost

[areohbee]

dj_paige wrote:

image quality is one of the primary concerns of Adobe when deciding how to improve Lightroom

Regarding image quality, I think some improvement in the global defringe tool is in order - sometimes defringed photo looks different but not better, due to the strange stuff defringing leaves in it's wake.

[bitm07]

I would also find a method of correcting distortion and vertivals in only part of an image useful.   At present I have to export to Photoshop and use the transform tool on a selection for this, as the Lens Correction panel in Lightroom only works globably.

[bob frost]

If past release timing is anything to go by, we should be seeing what is in LR6 as a beta in April, and then the full release in June! So only a few weeks to go.

Bob Frost

[bitm07]

Lightroom 1 Released  February 07

Lightroom 2 Released  July 08

Lightroom 3 Released  March 10

Lightroom 4 Released  March 12  (Beta Jan 12)

Lightroom 5 Released  June 12  (Beta April 12)

The shortest period between previous releases is 15 month (LR4 - LR5).  I therefore would not expect to see Lightroom 6 to be released until September at the ealiest (July for Beta). 

[dj_paige]

I think that's a typo for LR5 (it should say June 13)

[bitm07]

Yes dj_paige you are correct

It should read

bitm07 wrote:

Lightroom 1 Released  February 07

Lightroom 2 Released  July 08

Lightroom 3 Released  March 10

Lightroom 4 Released  March 12  (Beta Jan 12)

Lightroom 5 Released  June 13  (Beta April 13)

The shortest period between previous releases is 15 month (LR4 - LR5).  I therefore would not expect to see Lightroom 6 to be released until September at the ealiest (July for Beta). 

[bob frost]

I thought LR was on a 18month release schedule, but had now switched to a 12 month release schedule. But I may be wrong.

Bob Frost

[bitm07]

I've heard that rumor as well, but as far as i'm aware there hasn't been any form of official announcement.   So like all other rumors i'm taking it with a pinch of salt.  If true April would be the most likely month for a Beta release.

[elie-d]

I doubt that Adobe would ever commit publicly to a firm schedule and risk being forced to release a buggy version before it is ready.

[bitm07]

elie-d wrote:

I doubt that Adobe would ever commit publicly to a firm schedule and risk being forced to release a buggy version before it is ready.

Agreed, but Adobe do release Photoshop Elements almost a year to the day after pervious versions.

My point is that there is nothing bar an unsubstantiated rumor that Lightroom is moving to a 12 month release schedule. Personally i'm hoping that this does not happen, as shorter releases generally mean leaner releases.

[AnOpticalView]

Hi

     I agree with your comments but the worse part of an ADOBE one year release schedule is they ABANDON the old version and ONLY the new version supports new cameras.  This is especially true for Photographers in the know that almost exclusively use RAW files as you cannot use the newer Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and are obliged to convert to DNG format.

     The issue is that ADOBE are rather 'Up themselves' as a company and arrogant to boot.  Historically pride comes before a fall and this is true of software companies if they longterm abuse cutomers and force them down paths they do NOT want to go (Creative Cloud).  I strongly suspect many companies are ploughing extra investment into image manipulation development areas to prepare to rival and perhaps better ADOBE's offering?  Meanwhile ADOBE do rule the roost but I was very impressed with the free GIMP software that used to be nerdy but is now more accessible.  Still not easy to use but powerful.

regards

Ian

[Keith Reeder]

DumbMarine wrote:

     I agree with your comments but the worse part of an ADOBE one year release schedule is they ABANDON the old version and ONLY the new version supports new cameras.

Every single Raw converter, and every single software company that provides such software, does exactly - and I do mean exactly - the same thing.

Historically pride comes before a fall and this is true of software companies if they longterm abuse cutomers and force them down paths they do NOT want to go (Creative Cloud).

Nobody is "forced" down paths that don't want to go down - not with CC or anything else.

[AnOpticalView]

If every RAW converter does exactly the same thing then why are new releases made by ADOBE and these ven beta -tested.  Lol this just is not accurate.  Different Raw import and conversion programs treat raw data the same but how they do it is quite different.  Go do some research on COREL Aftershot, RAWTherapee, etc etc.

If you have Lightroom 4 but Photoshop CS6 (as I do) they do not even comfortably talk to each other and this forum has many posts on the issues?

Why am I getting a feeling that this 'official forum' is a denial machine for ADOBE?

Thanks for the reply though

[TheDigitalDog]

DumbMarine wrote:

If every RAW converter does exactly the same thing then why are new releases made by ADOBE and these ven beta -tested.

Every raw converter doesn't do exactly the same thing.

If you have Lightroom 4 but Photoshop CS6 (as I do) they do not even comfortably talk to each other and this forum has many posts on the issues?

Can you explain? Talk to each other? Do you understand the differences between Export and Edit In within LR4 and what's happening with CS6 and ACR? The issue's are usually when someone has an older version of LR vs. Photoshop and attempt to use Edit In instead of Export. The older version of Photoshop and thus it's older version of ACR are not on feature parity with LR which makes a call to ACR to render the raw when using Edit In. Just Export, let LR render the TIFF using it's newer engine. No talking issues if that's what you're referring to (mismatch in version parity).

[Keith Reeder]

Andrew Rodney wrote:

Every raw converter doesn't do exactly the same thing.

Eh? The "same thing" here is software developers not adding new camera support to old versions of the software.

Of course they all do that.

Good luck getting Lr 2, Bibble 3, Optics Pro 5, Capture One 4 - etc, etc, etc - to read Nikon D610 Nefs natively!

A lot of "point missing" going on in this thread, eh?

[Keith Reeder]

DumbMarine wrote:

If every RAW converter does exactly the same thing then why are new releases made by ADOBE and these even beta -tested.

What on earth has that question got to do with anything?

Fact: no Raw converter providers retrospectively add new camera support to superseded, "expired" versions of their software.

None.

Go ahead - find one that does.

You really don't "get" this stuff, do you?