ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

News and Reviews > Image Manager Shootout

Newbie on the block looks set to rock the world ...

<< < (2/4) > >>

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.

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  :P

Carol Haynes:
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.

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.

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! :D

- Oshyan


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version