Author Topic: Newbie on the block looks set to rock the world ... (Read 23420 times)

Carol Haynes · « **on:** May 27, 2006, 07:09 PM »

Well maybe not quite yet but this looks really cool ...

Adobe is developing a new product called AdobeLightroom and it is currently open to public beta but unfortunately at the moment only for Macs.

This prog looks set to be just about as flexible as anything I have seen out there and they are rapidly responding to beta users requests for features.

There will be a Windows beta (you can sign up to be told when it is available) and I will definitely be one of the first to download it!!

Check it out here: http://labs.adobe.co...hnologies/lightroom/

There is also a great set of onscreen videos on that page worth checking out to see what is available see http://labs.adobe.co...ies/lightroom/video/

I guess this will be at Adobe prices but it looks REALLY cool.

mouser · « **Reply #1 on:** May 27, 2006, 07:17 PM »

i'll wait to hear nudones comparison of this to acdsee.
the interface looks fancy but i don't see anything really new.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2006, 07:49 PM »

Have a look at video 2 - it has all of the RAW image processing capacity of PhotoShopCS2 plus some more, and add to that you canapply all the same options to other formats too !!

The huge plus to my way of thinking is that everything you do in this app is completely non-destructive - it doesn't touch your original files at all. All editing and correcting that you do is stored as scripts within the database and only applied as you output a fresh copy to load in Photoshop. This all happens transparently so it means you can edit and change a photo and save copies of it without ever altering the original in any way at all (whilst still retaining all the processing you have worked out). It is really cool and ACDSee doesn't do anything like this.

The other really cool feature is the library organisation. You can leave all you images in the folders they are in at the moment or allow the app to reorganise everything (the way you want because it is completely customisable). Either way the internal organisation for the app is held in its own relational database meaning that you can organise your photos into 'shoots' and 'collections' as you want, apply multiple tags really easily (by drag and drop) etc. To me this gives real multidimensional flexibility (and not just a tree structure like most othe picture browser setups including ACDSee).

Don't get me wrong - I have bitten the bullet and upgraded to ACDSee Pro not so long ago, and they seem to ironed out the problems I experienced before but Lightroom looks to have the potential to make ACDSee look like DOS compared to Windows.

Maybe I am getting overexcited (especially since I haven't played with it) and doubtless it will be horrendously expensive (which will be really frustrating as a lot of the RAW workflow functionality is from code lifted straight from Adobe Bridge which I already have).

mouser · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2006, 09:54 PM »

The huge plus to my way of thinking is that everything you do in this app is completely non-destructive - it doesn't touch your original files at all. All editing and correcting that you do is stored as scripts within the database and only applied as you output a fresh copy to load in Photoshop. This all happens transparently so it means you can edit and change a photo and save copies of it without ever altering the original in any way at all (whilst still retaining all the processing you have worked out).

ah well that is a great idea. and i have to admit i know nothing about these image programs and raw files, so ignore me

nudone · « **Reply #4 on:** May 28, 2006, 01:40 AM »

i was expecting lightroom to be just a beefed up version of adobe bridge but from what Carol has mentioned it sounds like something that could well replace ACDSee for me.

if lightroom is going to work with vector images like the bridge then i'd be tempted to use it - if lightroom is going to be as quick to load as acdsee then i'd almost certainly use it.

i wonder how ACD Systems will respond to it when they bring out the next version of ACDSee?

nudone · « **Reply #5 on:** May 28, 2006, 03:37 AM »

i've had a closer look at lightroom and now understand that it's not really a replacement for adobe bridge, whether it is something i'd use instead of ACDSee i'm not sure.

if i was a professional photographer, or someone that had a lot of photographs (i mainly have non photo type graphics) then i can see the appeal of lightroom. it's going to have a very slick interface and just the right set of tools for dealing with photographs. no doubt you will be able to use it for all your image management needs for viewing and cataloging with the right file types.

f0dder · « **Reply #6 on:** May 28, 2006, 03:42 AM »

It looks very nifty indeed, kinda makes you want a high-end digital camera. I don't have the cash or the photo snapping skills though, so I'll just sit here and smile a bit at the nifty interface. I'm usually not too happy with Adobe products, but this one looks like it's done right.

Will probably require a monster CPU though, and do paging even with a gig of ram, but that's just how adobe products work

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #7 on:** May 28, 2006, 05:27 AM »

Interesting the first demo movie says it doesn't need a beefed up CPU - he actually describes the computer he is using a stanrd laptop. Now I know that can mean anything but it is lightening quick on his machine. Presumably there is a fair bit of caching going on to acheive those speeds - certainly the contact sheet printing is pretty much instant because it uses cached files.

I do think this is aimed at the photographer so if you want to use other types of file then it probably won't be the solution you are looking for. The best features (by far) is the total transparency of use for JPEGs, TIFs, BMPs, and RAWs (first time I have seen this in any package) plus the totally non-destructive nature of its use.

Cloq · « **Reply #8 on:** August 13, 2006, 09:06 AM »

I am wondering when will software companies starting developing self contained apps. I hate having to hunt down where an application stores its various parts and pieces. It would be great if an application would just install everything it needs into its installation folder. Double click and it runs, don't like it, delete the folder. end of story.

dang.. sorry didn't mean to go off on a tangent, but adobe apps are known for doing this big time.

JavaJones · « **Reply #9 on:** August 22, 2006, 03:25 PM »

What's interesting is that applications *used to be* largely self-contained. There was a big move away from that, I think partly driven by Microsoft, but I've never fully understood it. These days everyone wants apps that don't write to the registry and, ideally, can run off of thumb drives or are otherwise largely self-contained. What was Microsoft's reasoning, does/did it make sense, did something change so that it no longer makes sense, and what really is the best way forward? Discuss!

- Oshyan

mouser · « **Reply #10 on:** August 25, 2006, 07:57 AM »

i sincerely hope in the future that we put an end to this Install hell we have now.

"Installing" a program should mean simply copying its directory to a Programs directory, nothing more. It would then automatically appear on whatever kind of start menu is used. Uninstalling should be as simple as deleting it.

f0dder · « **Reply #11 on:** August 25, 2006, 09:15 AM »

i sincerely hope in the future that we put an end to this Install hell we have now.

"Installing" a program should mean simply copying its directory to a Programs directory, nothing more. It would then automatically appear on whatever kind of start menu is used. Uninstalling should be as simple as deleting it.
-mouser (August 25, 2006, 07:57 AM)

How do you handle per-user settings, then? There's several ways to go about that, each with different backup strategies as well...

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #12 on:** August 28, 2006, 12:27 PM »

Acorn Computers solved these problems years ago - the RiscOS operating system stored all related stuff for an app in a single special folder (say !Painter for the Painter program - the ! indicating it was an application folder). Double clicking the folder loaded the application and installation was as simple as copying the application folder to your hard disc. Installing plugins or extra setting just meant copying stuff into the folder. When an app started a text file (!Boot) in the folder was executed to start the app (a bit like a DOS batch file) which ensured required modules were installed (equivalent of DLLs) with a simple cammand such as:

RMLOAD 230 Modulename

where 230 is the version required and the modulename is a given module stored in the app folder. If a version of Module name is already loaded in memory the version numbers are compared and if it is older the memory version is replaced, if it is newer it is used without reloading.

It was a very quick and easy way to install programs. To uninstall you just delete the app folder.

mouser · « **Reply #13 on:** August 29, 2006, 02:33 AM »

actually i understand that mac osx is close to this ideal..

Perry Mowbray · « **Reply #14 on:** August 29, 2006, 08:41 AM »

Didn't microsoft announce something like this some time back??? $:-\$

edit: Found it here

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #15 on:** August 31, 2006, 09:06 AM »

Perry I'm not sure what you are referring to (as the thread has diverged somewhat).

Your link seems to point to software that combines bitmap and pixel in one package - but that really isn't what LitghtRoom is about - it is about a professional workflow solution for RAW file processing and building catalogues of images. (Well at least they are the primary aims but there are others too).

I presume when LightRoom goes to a full release version with will integrate with Adobe Design CS3 products.

elpresi · « **Reply #16 on:** September 06, 2006, 04:58 AM »

Hi Carol,
although not a catalog/organization program,
this is a really interesting jpeg-tiff-raw browser/converter with non-destructive 16bit editing (including vectorial selection and layered tools):
http://www.lightcraf.../products/lightzone/

and the linux version is free:
http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/

Perry Mowbray · « **Reply #17 on:** September 06, 2006, 06:18 AM »

Hi Carol:

Your link seems to point to software that combines bitmap and pixel in one package - but that really isn't what LitghtRoom is about - it is about a professional workflow solution for RAW file processing and building catalogues of images. (Well at least they are the primary aims but there are others too).
-Carol Haynes (August 31, 2006, 09:06 AM)

Ah, probably true. What caught my attention what the similarity of using layers for effects without altering the base image. I should have read further...

- Perry

pao · « **Reply #18 on:** September 28, 2006, 01:39 PM »

FYI: Lightroom (now Photoshop Lightroom) Beta 4 is released on Mac/Win, with (near) feature parity between the two. Seems quicker than Beta 3 from my short tests. Favorite feature added to Windows: Lights Out. I'll get the chance to play with it more extensively on Sunday once I've done a new shoot (Petit Le Mans is Saturday!) and might do a preview mini-review since it doesn't look like anyone else has tackled it.

See Carol's original post for the download link.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #19 on:** September 28, 2006, 02:10 PM »

Yep - I got the email too - and yes it does seem quicker. A major improvement too is that the Windows version is now functionally identical to the Mac version (the previous Win beta was a few steps behind the Mac version).