Wishlist and speculating on Lightroom 5

[hamish niven]

Any news, ideas thoughts of the next iteration of Lightroom?

Message title was edited by: Brett N

[areohbee]

Pbeck1 wrote:

5. If needed, use Whites to further adjust the brightest tones (white point)

6. If needed, use Blacks to further adjust the darkest tones (black point)

7. I can then circle back to any slider to fine tune the adjustments.

I think this is how most tutorials would have beginners do.

However after some experience you may find (I did) that it is best not to wait til the end to adjust whites and blacks. Why? I've found that I regularly end up with +whites of 20, 30, or 40, or so... - this can not wait until the end. Likewise, it is not unusual for me to end up with -blacks of 20, 30, 40, or more... - this can not wait either. My experience has been that if I try and defer and/or minimize adjustment of blacks and whites that I would often end up with values for exposure and/or contrast that were too high, which is a problem it sounds like you may be running into.

Consider shift-double-clicking whites before adjusting exposure, and shift-double-clicking blacks before adjusting contrast. (or shift-double-clicking whites and blacks before adjusting exposure and contrast...). Or just click auto-tone then adjust everything top down.

R

[Pbeck1]

The only slightly confusing bit for me was point 3 in the list:

3. Use highlights to recover blown out highlights and set highlight brightness.

When she says “and set highlight brightness” does she mean “or increase highlight brightness”? I’m a bit confused there as it can be read more than 1 way, i.e. it could also mean that you use the highlights slider just to recover highlights, and once recovered that point is then set.

[areohbee]

In general, it's best to use +whites for increasing highlight brightness, and -highlights for recovering blown highlights and reducing highlight brightness. Why? because that allows full use of dynamic range whilst preserving highlight detail. Note: there are some photos where highlight detail is not desirable, in which case consider doing just the opposite - it's all about choosing the trade-offs that are most optimal for any given photo. PS - it's worth keeping in mind the role of -contrast in debrightening and decompressing highlights too. Also, with the introduction of highlights and shadows to the locals, one can drive the globals a little harder then attenuate locally, or conversely, ease up on the globals and strategically amplify with the locals, or a little of both.

There are cases when -whites is appropriate, but I recommend exhausting other possibilities before resorting to it, since it tends to dullify. Of course, if what you want is dullness, e.g. some foggy shots or something, it could be just what the doctor ordered. And also the dulling effect of -whites can be somewhat compensated via +contrast (and/or +exposure), so what to do depends on the shot and your goals - so not a hard-n-fast rule... As I said, I almost never use +highlights on raws, jpegs are a different story...

I recommend, if you want to take full advantage of Lightroom, that you shoot and process raws instead of jpeg.

Not sure what this has to do with Lr5, but hope it helps nevertheless..

Cheers,

Rob

[areohbee]

Pbeck1 wrote:

The photos look ok & I'm getting better and realising when i've gone a bit too far with the exposure slider now. The midtones of my photos seem nicely brightened now, but i can't help noticing when looking at the images that the areas that should be white are falling short of being white, and in fact seem a little dull. So i have nicely brightened mid tones but with dull whites.

Answer: +whites

And if that brightens the top end too much, then -exposure -highlights +shadows.

Exposure: aim is to brighten (shadows and) midtones without overshooting the whites too much (if overdone, will contribute to overly compressed highlights).

Whites: aim is to fine tune white point and upper highlights, but since it affects whole tone curve, it may require compensatory adjustments to do the job (if overdone, will contribute to overly compressed white tones).

-highlights can help to some extent with those jammed up highlights/whites, but when overdone has it's own malflictions - so at some point it may be best to drop exposure and/or contrast to easy up on highlight compression. if -exposure makes mids/shadows too dim, then +shadows. if -contrast results in too much loss of "contrast", then -blacks and/or +clarity to go with it (and maybe +vib/sat).

Note: I rarely use +highlights with raw files, although I do use it sometimes when processing jpegs. Why? because the raw data has lots of info up near the clipping point to work with, whereas the jpeg has scant little. So, with raws I often do +whites -highlights (-exposure +shadows), to accomplish what I might do to jpeg with simply +highlights.

Note2: PV2012 has a unique way of dealing with top-most highlight tones (whites), and you may not get exactly what you want up there - e.g. search for the post titled "White Mud" in the Camera Raw forum.

Sorry for continuing off-topic discussion...

R

[D Fosse]

The thing is that it's adaptive, so it's really different from image to image. The sliders don't perform the same fixed operations.

As for me, I was a bit uncomfortable with the old basic panel, since I found it difficult to visualize what the sliders were supposed to do. Recovery, fill light...I just couldn't relate to that (and recovery in particular didn't really work as advertised). So I tended to rely on Photoshop for the final touches, using smart objects and lots of adjustment layers, ending up with massively complex files.

Highlights, shadows, whites and blacks - that I can understand. And on top, PV 2012 is so effective that I now usually finish the image in Lightroom, never even touching Photoshop except in special cases. It's a huge relief, and it has made my life a lot simpler.

Actually I believe Lightroom has made me a better photographer. Knowing the image will end up in Photoshop sooner or later, it's so tempting to get lazy and say "I'll fix that later" instead of taking the trouble to get the lights right, physically remove disturbing elements, in short get it right in camera. The final image always benefits. And, it turns out, takes less time.

[AlanUniqueName]

Pbeck1,

I don’t mean to butt in, and I claim little expertise, but it is my understanding (when I last looked) that elements will only save files in 8 bit mode and if you do shoot RAW (or end up doing so) then transitioning to elements you will lose fine grained detail and quality.    For example, a 14 bit RAW sensor has 16384 shades of Red, but in 8 bits it is only 256 shades of Red – same for Blue and Green.    It is a bit like buying a quality ruler and erasing all the subdivisions so only inches (or cm) are shown – far worse actually!

How relevant this is to you is a personal choice but worthy of consideration before adopting it as a standard way of working.     

My advice would be to do as much as possible of the “development” in LR and only use Elements as the final “creative” steps or distraction removal where beyond the capabilities of LR.

Alan.

[Pbeck1]

Hi Alan

If all my photos that i have to work with are Jpegs, are they not all 8 bit images anyway? If so, does it then not matter if Photoshop re-saves then as 8 bit jpegs?

[Beat Ungricht]

Hi

Yes, i would like to have a few new features in LR 5:

• Working as a team on a Lightroom Database on the network. It is very difficult to manage in a team thousands of images with LR.
• Drag and Drop Image directly from the LR Library into other Dokuments. Would be great with drag-and-drop preferences.
• the photobook could be improved very much
• With LR 4 I had to change my Notebok so I can continue to work with a decent speed. I really hope that LR 5 takes no more resources than LR 4!
• It would be great, a new replace or fill-in tool to have, which allows you to edit parts of the image better
• I would tend to have more image editing in LR instead of using Photoshop. The simple non-destructive method in LR is just awesome. So many times I must have access to the original, and am grateful to be able to do without many different versions of the image.

Thank you! I'm waiting eagerly for a new version

Beat

[johndhelms]

I love LR and have been using it as a major part of my workflow as a full time photographer for several years.

On many things, I'm even willing to modify my workflow a bit (gasp!) to integrate more into LR.

Two things that would help me:

- Ability to utilize facial recognition tags, something that google's free picasa has done for years.  Imagine how helpful this would be after shooting a large event (can you show me all the photos of Aunt Hilda), sports (did you get any better ones of my son Timmy), etc.  If you haven't used picasa's feature, it's pretty slick and predits/suggests tags to relieve you of having to independently click/tag each one.

- Secondly is just general speed/memory/efficiency improvements which I'm sure are a large part of any major upgrade.

[johndhelms]

Found my request here also:

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/face_recognition_in_lightroom

[terrysbh]

FACIAL RECOGNITION.... PLEASE !!!!  

[D Fosse]

FACIAL RECOGNITION.... PLEASE !!!!

Maybe it's time to split Lightroom into professional and amateur editions, along the lines of Photoshop and Elements.

Some of us use this software to make a living. What we need above all is reliability, speed and efficiency, and that's where we want the engineers to spend their time and resources. Anything that takes away from that is bloat.

I can only speak for myself, but face recognition is about the last thing in the universe I need from Lightroom. I know where I can find Aunt Hilda; that's what keywords are for. Keywords have one big advantage over any hypothetical face recognition feature: it's 100% reliable.

I googled "face recognition" just to find out what all the fuss is about. What I found is that it's basically used in security systems, where people line up nicely for a full frontal shot (and don't smile). What happens if that person turns away slightly, with a big fat grin? Here's what happens: it doesn't work.

Picasa has it, fine. Use Picasa.

[Keith Reeder]

What twenty_one said, +1,000,000.

Keep toys and gimmicks like facial recognition in the likes of Picasa, which is a perfect place for it.

[johndhelms]

I am a full time professional and facial recognition is totally different from keywords.  The biggest advantage to picasas' recognition is the ability to accurately predict names that go with faces in the images - something that can't be done with keywords.  I have not had issues with the people needing to be smiling or not, and have gotten good results even with partial side shots, etc. 

Think events on a big scale - when I shoot something huge for a big client that has a shot list of dozens or 100+ VIP clients that need specific shots, facial recognition saves my team literally hours of work.

[Jay Mitchosky]

Godspeed to twenty_one and Keith_Reeder.  We don't need superfluous features.  We need speed.  I know it's a dead horse that I'm kicking but I'd willing shell out a full upgrade for zero new feature additions in lieu of an architecture overhaul that dramatically increases operational performance.  No waiting, no lagging, immediate response.  Right now for volume I use a combination of Photo Mechanic, ACR and Lightroom and it's still faster than using LR on its own. 

[Butch_M]

twenty_one wrote:

Maybe it's time to split Lightroom into professional and amateur editions, along the lines of Photoshop and Elements.

I disagree ... maybe it's time for Lr to become truly modular.

Offer a base option that only has the Library, Develop and maybe the Print module ... then let the marketplace drive the other modules as options (Slideshow, Maps, Book and Web) that could be added to the base configuration in a ala carte fashion. That way, the sales of those other "unimportant" or "amateur" modules would either grow or die based upon actual sales and not perceived unimportance.

That way we could get past the ... "Idon'twantAdobewastingtimeonthatfeaturesonobodyelseshouldhaveiteither," statements that seem to NEVER end.

The user base for Lr is broad and diverse, especially since the price drop with v4 ... the constant input by a few folks that want to focus on Adobe ignoring legitmate requests for additional useful functionality because they fear they will result in undue harm from their existence or development of those features is getting extremely tiresome.

We don't all have the same requirements, desires or aspirations for our individual workflow ... I think it's high time that some folks show a bit more tolerance ... because it was Adobe that offered much more than a RAW processor even with the very first beta of "Shadowland" ... err I mean Lr. For many users it was precisely because of those additional features that many users adopted Lr as the centerpiece of their workflow. Those folks should not be ignored out of the misconception that others will needlessly suffer.

[D Fosse]

Butch_M wrote:

... the constant input by a few folks (...) is getting extremely tiresome

Well, I could turn that right around.

The point I'm trying to make is that we're talking about priorities. These fancy new gizmos aren't for free - they cost engineering hours (lots of them). You seemed to complain loudly about lack of D600 tethering support in another thread. Case in point. All your arguments seem to boil down to how hard can it be. Just do it. Well, somebody has to do the work.

Another case in point: I just got Photoshop CS 6, and was immediately appaled not only at the number of old bugs still left unfixed, but new ones that were clearly introduced through sheer carelessness. I can hear them: We don't have time for that. We need to finish background saving by may - everybody wants that. I for one don't want Lightroom in the same situation.

I realize I'm probably on the losing end of this battle. Bug-free doesn't sell. Gee-whiz does. But I just wanted to cast my vote, and I don't think I'm alone.

[Butch_M]

I whole-heartedly agree that we shouldn't suffer from endless bugs and repeated lack of corrections of existing problems ... at the same time, reasonable thinking folks should not expect additional development to cease either. Point releases are for such corrections. If they are not being corrected during the life span of a version ... there is a much deeper issue than resources. Version releases are for improvements, expansion of existing features as well as the addition of new features. With the exception that Adobe has done a somewhat fair job of providing RAW support for new cameras between version releases.

My point was why should your vote for something, must be equated as a vote against what other users may request? ... Doesn't quite sound fair to me ... When I advocate timely support for thethering new cameras, it's not a request to halt other work ... We ALL pay hard-earned cash for software ... therefore we ALL should be heard without attempts of being stifled when our requests or concerns don't happen to meet each other's priorities ... there is always room for improvement ... if not and Adobe either can't or won't put forth the resources to answer the needs of their customers, perhaps they should not have ventured forth with the Lr paradigm. I, for one, will not be satisfied if a version release is only bug fixes and repairs of the previous version. Otherwise, there really isn't a reason to upgrade. I'm not going to pay twice for something I should have received in the first place ... it then becomes the time to seek out other options.

twenty_one wrote:

All your arguments seem to boil down to how hard can it be. Just do it. Well, somebody has to do the work.

Yep ... when it comes to tethering support in Lr, that's exactly correct ... I'm not sure about you ... but my clients expect results ... not excuses ... I'm very sure Adobe won't accept excuses when it comes time for me to purchase their wares ... they demand cold, hard cash ... so if they want my cash ... I want more results and fewer excuses.

[D Fosse]

OK, some of that is fair enough. But this isn't about how things ought to be. This is about how reality works. And empirically, fancy new features do come at the expense of regular maintenance. They really do. I've seen it in the past five PS versions.

And just for the record, I define "bug" very narrowly: Anything that I'm the only one seeing, is not a bug. That's a system problem. And bugs by nature are subtle, or they would have been caught. Anything major, like a crash, is something else.

A bug-fixing release, nothing new, would get my money if there's a lot of them and it's software that my living depends on. So what we're discussing here is where do you put the threshold. How much is it worth to get that new feature. For me, the answer to facial recognition is simple: nothing. If it was free, I'd take it.

And while we're on the subject of how hard can it be: How hard can it be to do some research before buying a new camera?

[Keith Reeder]

twenty_one wrote:

And empirically, fancy new features do come at the expense of regular maintenance. They really do.

Yep, there's absolutely no basis for gainsaying this - you just have to look at the mess that is AfterShot Pro (previously Bibble) to see the evidence of it: its devs happily spent time on trivial and irrelevant bells and whistles like an "improved plugin SDK", all the while resolutely ignoring years-old show-stopping bugs like broken highlight recovery; appalling demosaicing; image corruption when using the embedded Noise Ninja noise reduction; and dysfunctional white balance.

[AlanUniqueName]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

twenty_one wrote:

And empirically, fancy new features do come at the expense of regular maintenance. They really do.

Yep, there's absolutely no basis for gainsaying this - you just have to look at the mess that is AfterShot Pro (previously Bibble) to see the evidence of it: its devs happily spent time on trivial and irrelevant bells and whistles like an "improved plugin SDK", all the while resolutely ignoring years-old show-stopping bugs like broken highlight recovery; appalling demosaicing; image corruption when using the embedded Noise Ninja noise reduction; and dysfunctional white balance.

Keith,

I'm not disagreeing with your statements, but I'm not sure an outlook of bundling "it's devs" as a monolithic entity is a correct one.
I suspect not all team members will have the necessary skills or knowledge for coding on the development pipeline and so spending time on SDK or other DAM aspects might not be the cause of distraction from those issues you are implying.    I suspect the same may be true of the LR team.

Alan.

[Keith Reeder]

Butch_M wrote:

but my clients expect results ... not excuses ...

What did they have to say when they found out that you'd bought and chosen to start using, in a production environment, a camera that everybody knew wasn't supported by your "must-have" software?

Blaming Adobe for this, your screw-up, is an excuse - a poor one, and a deeply unprofessional one.

[Butch_M]

Keith_Reeder wrote:

What did they have to say when they found out that you'd bought and chosen to start using, in a production environment, a camera that everybody knew wasn't supported by your "must-have" software?

Blaming Adobe for this, your screw-up, is an excuse - a poor one, and a deeply unprofessional one.

Oh Keith ... I knew you would seek me out and pull that old, tired question out of your bag again .... too bad you really can't come up with some fresh material ...

Is it really wise and prudent to plan your equipment purchases solely based upon Adobe's release schedule? Or is it wise to buy old technology just so a software developer can work at a snail's pace? While I consider Adobe's products quite good overall ... they are not the center of the universe. You can get the job done without them if need be.

You see what I did when I needed to tether with my D600, I fired up Aperture 3 and shot the job ... and still do since I still can't do so in Lightroom ... for you see some software developers don't seem to have a problem offering solutions at a reasonable pace or think my needs are trivial.

You may consider what Adobe provides as "must have" ... but I would no sooner rely upon a single software solution than I would show up to shoot a wedding with one camera, one lens, one flash, one memory card and one set of batteries ... I hold my clients in a much higher regard than to allow a single vendor to dictate to me what my needs and desires are. It's called redundancy ... one can't be too safe when your livelihood is at stake ... Why anyone would gather all the gear it takes to conduct business and rely on a single "must have" software solution is beyond comprehension. Though I won't stoop to your level and call you "deeply unprofessional" for not doing likewise.

I really like Lightroom, I wish I could depend upon it for all my needs but I also refuse to be held hostage to it when it can't meet those needs. For that reason, I'm not too proud to do whatever it takes to serve my clients. Largely because, if I do my best, before I depress the shutter release, you'd be surprised just how unimportant that "must have" software can be. But of course, as you always do ... you'll find fault with that ...

[D Fosse]

what I did when I needed to tether with my D600, I fired up Aperture 3 and shot the job

Well then, excuse me, but what is the problem? You have tethering software, fine. You do know that Nikon's offering, Camera Control Pro or whatever it's called, is not exactly free either?

You really need to take responsibility for your own working environment instead of blaming everybody else.

[Butch_M]

twenty_one wrote:

You really need to take responsibility for your own working environment instead of blaming everybody else.

What the heck is that supposed to mean? ... I thought I made it clear, I have taken care of my own working environment ... the fact I had to seek out an alternate option should be of concern to Adobe. It would concern me if my clients had to seek other options if I fell short of the mark and they no longer trusted my ability to come through for them ... wouldn't that bother you?

I'm not blaming "everybody" ... just disappointed in Adobe's chosen pace to respond. You shouldn't get so emotional and take it so personally (unless you are responsible for coding the tether function in Lr) ... we're just discussing software here ...

Gee whiz ... too bad you and Keith weren't around 38 years ago when I opened my studio ... all this wisdom could have been put to good use ... How have I ever made it this far without your input is quite amazing? ... Guess I have been doing it all wrong. Thanks for setting me straight. I could have met with disaster without your expert insight.