Provide a way to create new pages completely from scratch by laying out the position of the picture frames and text frames instead of using just the provided templates. I like to do my own layouts that match the text.
Also can we have double page layouts where they are linked and cannot be broken apart.
Lightroom is a fantastic tool in my workflow, and it would be great if there would be an easy way to create custom sized books. I'm printing most of the photos with an epson 4800 in different formats, or using other services than blurb (as probably most of lightroom users). So now - it is extremely inconvenient trying to modify the .lua profiles or exporting the photos to other applications like acdsee fotoslate.
Adding this simple 'custom size book' feature would improve lightroom as a tool for many photographers and book designers.
The integration with blurb is fantastic, but you are limiting your great book module to a blurb book module, which for most users doesn't make sense.
Is it possible to include 'custom sized books' option in the near update to lightroom?
I would love to have a better book module in lightroom. I offer wedding albums to clients and like to completely stay within lightroom to edit the album. I wish there was a way to build your own templates and put photos anywhere. I also would like the option to export as a spread instead of individual pages.
What I don't get is why Adobe and Blurb went half-$!@$%.
1. You've limited book options. Not all sizes are in there.
2. You sort of allow custom layouts, but not really. You can make the layout smaller only and you can only adjust it from the center.
3. Yeah, the PDF option???? Who's that for?
Besides that, it's such a convenience to make a book in LR.
I can only assume a proper Book Module will limit sales of InDesign. I use InDesign, but can see massive advantages to having a proper Book module inside of Lightroom. Alternatively, I would gladly pay for a new module or application which did a proper job of providing book generating features, where I do not have to generate intermediate jpgs and sharpen them correctly for the final output size.
I sense Adobe got the design wrong at the start, but there has been multiple opportunities to correct this by now, therefore I feel Adobe are happy to leave the book module crippled.
A statement from Adobe on their plans for the Book module might be helpful.
The only new feature I see myself using with CC 2014, despite the fanfare, is the rating option in Lightroom mobile and then only occasionally. Adobe's implementation of the Book Module has been a lost opportunity. With 90% of the effort invested! why Adobe do you not finish it properly.
Yeah, good thoughts.
If you're gonna do it, do it right. Otherwise don't offer it at all.
If you're worried about InDesign, then just scrap the book module.
Bigger issue is that Adobe really has no competition right now.
I wish Aperture kept it going and offered a comprehensive system for Pro photographers with the ability to design books for all the major vendors built in as well as fully functioning plug ins for all the online gallery site.
Adobe is now just trying to sell to everyone and is losing sight of the larger picture for pros. That's just my opinion and I am very frustrated.
I have deep skills in application development for small medium and global enterprises. It saddens me to the core that Adobe give lip service to the principle of efficient workflow, but mostly they talk the talk, not walk the walk. I can outline so many examples. They go to the 95% in so many areas and then jump on the next fashion wave before they finish a job properly.
I will await the next release of Lightroom before commenting any further.
I agree Matthew ... why the Book module had to be tied to ANY vendor is beyond comprehension?
Repeating the same sentiments I shared earlier in this thread ... over two years ago! ...
How successful would Lr have been if it could only process RAW images from a single camera maker? Print only to a single brand of printer? Export from the Web module to code that could only be utilized by one brand of browser? ...
Yet, Adobe, and the Lightroom Team seem to believe they did no wrong with their development of the Book module and we should all rejoice, accept and embrace a Blurb only option.
And there are those folks who consider Apple a "walled garden" ... In Aperture, I ALWAYS had the option and capability to create custom page sizes. Custom templates and export pages to jpeg, tiff or PDF ... That's freedom for the end user to choose whatever firm they wish to print their book.
It's time Adobe remove the unwise, self-imposed limitations they have placed on the Book module and Lightroom users.
I find it utterly amazing and disappointing that a company that can do so many things extremely well ... fail so miserably in other instances. Why they don't place the same level of direction, purpose and expectations on all their projects is purely perplexing and extremely disappointing.
Butch - There are really only 3 options for Adobe short of them opening their own printing lab. One is to create an output file for each "blessed" lab that is in a proprietary structure of that lab's specifications (the approach taken by Adobe for only Blurb, so far). The second option is to out put pages in an open format such as PDF, TIFF, JPG or some other universally understood file type for the industry. And, third is to create their own format (like they did for PDF and PSD), publish it and let any print lab that desires business from LR users to figure out how to make books from that format.
Now, Commercial SW development is a costly endeavor and before any company invests in major development efforts they must convince themselves they will get a positive return on that investment. In addition, if they can get another company to foot part of the cost, so much the better. So, I imagine, the Adobe folks said "do we really think that we'll sell enough Lightroom licenses that would not otherwise have been purchased to offset the cost of developing our own file type in addition to the cost of developing the Book Module itself?" No.
OK then what about recouping the cost of the Module if we output to PDF or TIFF or JPG? Well, that's a better proposition but probably still not a profitable one considering the cost of developing the Book Module itself..
So, what about getting a third party to foot a bunch of the development cost? Well that sounds good but how do we convince them to do that? Well, we'll have to cut a contract with them that we won't do the same thing with any of their competitors for a certain number of years. Maybe then their potential new business would be attractive enough to chip in a significant amount of development dollars.
So, boys and girls, that's probably what they did, and is why we're stuck with ONLY blurb + PDF in the book module. BTW PDF can be used as an input file for some other publishers.
What will it take to get custom page capability at this point? I assume we'll have to wait for the exclusion clause of the Blurb contract to expire then see if another company steps up to the plate with enough development dollars to fund the implementation of custom pages - Again, for another exclusivity period.
Does what I'm saying make sense? I'm saying this not from any direct knowledge but as an IT executive of over 40 yeas - Including 5 years at Adobe itself (Mid 90's) and a good sense of how these things play out.
Sorry ... your analogy is pure poppycock. Did Adobe have to open a printing lab for their other apps? Seriously? You expect me to accept that as the situation?
Did they have to invent their own line of inkjet printers so they could develop the Print Module? See how ridiculous that sounds?
The only "proprietary" constraints of individual print houses are page , margin and bleed dimensions ... all other apps ever developed by Adobe in the print publication industry offer this capability. It is nothing new or extremely costly to create. If it were ... there would be considerably less available in many of their current offerings.
Adobe can create documents with text and graphics in other apps .... like say InDesign, Acrobat, etc. ... and export files from those very apps that then can be utilized by a near infinite number of print houses? It's done every day for millions of customers by thousands of print houses. Yet, you expect me to believe it far to costly and difficult to do so in Lightroom?
I don't know for a fact, but I would wager the the very document that Lightroom exports to Blurb for printing is exactly an industry standard PDF. Additionally any PDF page can be converted to a high quality jpeg ... which either file type is what is used by EVERY high end photo album and book print house in the industry that serves wedding and portrait photographers.
I'm sorry ... but the solution is definitely not super expensive, intricate and near impossible rocket science.
The Book module should have NEVER been constrained to a single vendor. There was no legitimate reason to do so. Period.
Any difficulty Adobe is experiencing in this instance is self-imposed by choice ... not by circumstance of incredible difficulty.
I totally agree with you that the only reason I can come up with for the absurd decision is either Adobe is receiving a kickback from Blurb for every book printed .... or that Blurb underwrote the development of the module.
Either way ... as long as we can not set our own document page sizes, margins and bleeds ... the Book module is of little to no use to a great many Lightroom users that wish to offer their clients products other than Blurb. Hence, those users are being cheated for they pay the same rate for the software as other customers.
If my concept of the situation is off the mark ... Please explain how Apple was able to offer both in-app ordering and custom exporting for ordering from the vendor choice in Aperture more than 5 years ago ... Is Apple really that much better at software development than Adobe? (The last question is of course rhetorical to prove a point.)
I see we agree that there is probably a monetary "Arrangement" between Adobe and Blurb involved in the issue. I extend that thought to include some sort of exclusivity agreement for a period of time.
LR does allow PDF output of books which, as you correctly point out opens the door to other companies.
I don't particularly concur with your opening paragraphs though. A print lab is a somewhat different animal than a home printer. Not that the printing is inherently different but the interface between the author and publisher is. With a home printer, they've pretty much standardized the data stream format (post script?) across all platforms and vendors and this works pretty well for printers connected directly or through LAN's to the computer.
However, I'm not sure the situation is as uniform in the commercial publishing business - I'm not saying it isn't, I just don't know.
But however you slice it, there must be a fundamental underlying reason that Adobe has not chosen to improve their first version of the book module by allowing additional output formats, dynamic book sizing, custom layouts, or even multiple print lab vendors. In my experience, whenever a corporation makes decisions to either do something or, as in this case, not do something it is either based on contractual requirements (e.g., agreement with Blurb) or they just don't see a positive return on investment - or not "as positive" as something else they want to do like implementing the CC.
Getting the document data to the printer is no different for a commercial printer than it is for someone printing to their own LAN connected printer ... Actually, a commercial printer will in all likelihood have tighter integration than most casual Lr users ...
The ability to export PDF and/or Jpeg files from the Book module is a cruel joke ... of as long as the user can not stipulate page dimensions ... it is an exercise in futility to prepare files for a non Blurb process.
I'm just surprised that ... 1) Adobe won't publicly admit they struck a deal with Blurb. 2) They actually think we are so stupid not to realize it is indeed the situation.
Either way. Blurb isn't receiving a direct profit from me ... and I'm growing more reluctant to trust Adobe to offer tools I can actually depend upon.
In fact, the only modules I have turned on in Lr are Library, Develop and Print ... not because I wouldn't be inclined to use the others ... but in their current sate, they are utterly useless for my needs.
Will there be an update that will allow Lightroom to be more flexible with the page layout? I know that BookWright has very flexible design options that are lauded by reviewers, it be great to have that in Lightroom. I am paid to create books for people and would love to be able to do it properly through Lightroom.
I understand that Lightroom doesn't want to give custom page sizes because then Blurb would lose their exclusivity. However, once we are using Blurb why cant we have all the design options that the real Blurb has? Why go only halfway and leave the a great idea unfinished?
Adobe, why oh why haven't you introduced a flexible Book module? The forums are full of this complaint. I don't use LR book module as it doesn't allow for flexible text and photo layouts. One should be able to create a page layout to suit the purpose. I have to rely on outside sources for my books. If your Book Module stats are down, that's why.
A more flexible book module would have been much more useful than other features in version 6 like face recognition.
Why is Adobe giving priority to promoting Blurb instead of giving customers the ability to create book pages with custom page sizes and custom layouts that can be printed with other suppliers?
Could we have the ability to take Lightroom's page layouts and be able to move around the photo cells? I love the layouts that we are given but sometimes I need to move a picture over to make the book balance. I know that Blurb's software gives you this ability, so I would love if we could have it too.
Adobe should admit that it was a mistake to continue offering a book module that can only be used with Blurb. This is like restricting printing to a single print service.
It would be very simple to add basic flexibility for defining book page sizes and custom layouts, at least as already offered in the print module.
Is Abobe's relationship with Blurb more important than Abobe's customers?
I don't understand.
Adobe should put customers first. If they have an exclusive agreement with Blurb, they should renegotiate a different arrangement.
I don't mind the option of sending files directly to blurb, however, Lightrrom customers should have the option of selecting custom book pages in case they want to print the book in a different way.
They may not have an option to get rid of Blurb. I honestly don't really mind Blurb, but I do want a workable layout. We will just have to hope they take care of this.
I'm pretty sure that they have some sort of a deal with blurb. I now think of it as the "Blurb Module" and it helps me. As a blurb module it does do extra stuff that makes it helpful. But as a book model it is very disappointing and does not serve much if any real purpose. As a new user who reads what is in Lightroom, like I did when I started this thread, it is frustrating, as I had expectations of being able to design a book or album in Lightroom.
Maybe instead they could just change the name and stop advertising it as if it is something that a pro could use for a client, and make it more of an extra that someone might use if they happen to want to make their own little book, or to make a quick on screen demo for a client of what their book might look like, then it would be pretty cool.
1. I use InDesign but would prefer to do books in Lightroom for lots of workflow efficiency reasons.
2. I am not overly concerned re Blurb, but I agree ... it should be called the Blurb module.
3. My personal nickname for Adobe is Adobe 80%. Adobe do a good job doing the first 80% and then get lost and take another 10 years to do the next 10% and so on. So, so many examples across the entire creative suite.
4. I am depressed as usual that the Book module has been left literally "on the shelf".
5. It is clear that a lot of effort went into the initial book module, a pity its overall template design was so badly flawed and misconceived.
6. A lot of good stuff under the hood in Lr6 / CC. The only new feature I see useful is the panorama merge, clever to hold the details in a dng file. As this was already in Photoshop, most of the new features are badly needed improvements in the core architecture of Lr. Having waited patiently so long for a new release, I have to say I am disappointed.
7. I do not use the Book module. Lots of people I know avoid this module also.
8. I can create really good pdf's. word docs, html pages using Microsoft MailMerge with Word or Publisher. It is really simple to create a page template and merge with a file created by John Beardsworth Lightroom plug-in called ListView. This does a good job for me of placing images on a page with professionally formatted Title, Caption, Date,Time, Copyright info relative to the image. To me this is a sad workaround. Adobe could so easily do the right thing here.
9. I still do not understand why the mobile version does not allow me enter metadata and lock an image if I am happy with its current status from further developments. This is real usable stuff.
I suspect many people who are serious about books already have InDesign. I would be happy to pay for a pro version of Lightroom which had a functional book module. Also, I would happy to purchase a dedicated Book app.
So, I will set the alarm clock for another 2 years or so and see what the next version will bring.
186
Replies
AdChoices