I just bought Lightroom 3 (final), but I can't find how to search for and download user-created (or Adobe) lens profiles. All of the discussions I've seen refer to a search function in CS5, which I don't have. I also didn't see anything in the LR help file.
All of the discussions I've seen refer to a search function in CS5, which I don't have.
Yes, at this moment on-line profiles are only available via Photoshop's Lens Correction plug-in.
I also didn't see anything in the LR help file.
So why aren't they available for LR3 users to download and manually install?
And I don't think there is anything of use in the help file you refer to, certainly not at that address.
I wasted an hour searching too! What's the point of a 'user community' if lightroom 3 users are locked out of the project because they don't have ps5? Call it what it is: "a PS5 user community".
Look it all just seems half arsed to me, a nice idea - poorly implemented and at this point in time, disappointing!
Please note that the team was very clear from the start that enabling online search capability for LR users is a requirement to complete the workflow of the entire lens correction eco-system. The team just ran out-of-time for the scheduled LR ship date. That said, the team is certainly working on a solution.
Well, I guess what I'm asking for is a lifebelt until the lifeboat finally arrives.
It seems to me that creating a few zip files and a download page is the kind of job that would only take minutes and would make almost every user and potential user of the software feel you were caring for them rather than making them feel left out as I and I think others do at the moment.
I hear you adobe team and I understand that you have constraints within which you have to operate. My complaint has more to do with Adobe managements decision to launch this half baked and with no access to Lightroom 3 users. Honestly, what were they thinking? (eyes turned to the sky and hands thrown in the air). You're timeline is just too vague for those of us left smarting and out of the loop. No doubt DxO's recent release of 60 additional optics correction modules will spur you on though - yee haa!
How are the lens profiles packaged and installed, does anyone know? Is it possible to just download and install the file similar to a plugin or something? I'm following Peter's lead here and if the lens profile installation is straight forward, perhaps we could create an unofficial repository somewhere as a stop gap measure? Any suggestions where? i.e. file upload / download / lots of bandwidth facilities etc.
To be clear, Adobe never claimed that online access to community-created profiles would be accessible within LR 3, or even accessible to LR 3 users. I understand that is a desirable feature, and I understand the LR 3 user frustration at not being able to access those profiles, but frankly it was never in the scope for the very limited engineering time available for the lens corrections project CR 6.1 and LR 3.0. And I don't believe we ever advertised or suggested in the early previews of the feature for CR 6.1 / LR 3.0 (e.g., Tom's video on YouTube) that such a thing was in the cards.
What we did say was that there would be a handful of profiles to start with, plus the ability to create your own profiles. This we have done.
I have also said here that Adobe plans to continue to roll out additional support for lenses. I stand by that. But please be aware it will take time, like camera support. It'll happen, but it won't be overnight.
Regarding community-generated profiles for LR 3 users, I understand that this is requested, i.e., it's a feature request being taken seriously by Adobe.
Dear Adobe staff, please read your own getting started page: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lensprofile_creator/
In particular, point 8 which states:
8. Submit the lens profiles that you have created for your lens from inside the Lens Profile Creator to share with the rest of the user community.
You may want to re word the part of this statement in bold to something like "to share with the PS5 community (note Lightroom 3 users are blocked from using this feature at this time).
This discussion is all about what you have implied, clearly some of us have been confused by your intentions.
You are a very bitter person. Have you even tried to do a profile? It's really not that hard, you should try it. You have a wonderful tool at your hands that afaik nobody else offers. I have some lenses that I'd like profiled but can't do it myself because I no longer own them, yet you won't see me crying blaming Adobe for not delivering. Yes it's unfortunate, but there's a simple workaround: do it yourself. 5 minutes for a prime, 1 hour for the 28-300. You should try it.
Bitter? No, just a bit dissapointed.
I'd love to be able to write an entirely positive review, as I've supported LR since the start and recommended it to literally thousands of photographers in the pieces I've written about it.It's good that LR3 has several of the features I've long been asking for, but here's one that isn't quite there yet, and frankly it's more than hard to see why Adobe haven't already made the community profiles available on the web site.
I have read the instructions that come with the kit. There is also the matter of target size, and the quality of profiles... Obviously photographers are going to have to make profiles for unusual glass, but I'm using mainly lenses in the current range of one of the two major makers. I'd expect there already to be profiles made and available for CS5 users, so what point is there in me making what would probably be an inferior one?
Isn't it very silly to suggest we all go and do our own when it would be so easy and simple for them to be shared - and I've suggested a way of doing it that would almost certainly be quicker for Adobe to set up for us all than making a single profile for a zoom and have virtually zero maintenance.
But if a sharing scheme was set up that worked for LR users I'd be willing to consider making and contributing one if I have a lens that isn't included, possibly it might even be for one of those lenses you've got rid of.
Hard to see what your problem is really.
I don't have a problem, really. Underwhelmed does. Let's look a little bit of recent history:
- LR3 beta came out. New raw decode. Not much else (for me, anyway). Terrible bugs (for me, anyway).
- LR3 beta 2 came out. New NR to go with the new raw decode. Not much else, really, just some bug fixes. None of "my" bugs were fixed, fwiw.
- PSCS5 came out. There was the new lens correction, as a FILTER. Swell idea, but not perfect.
- A HUGE outcry from the public like I've never seen it (on an Adobe product anyway), pretty much demanding that this be added to LR3 as well. Would it make sense? Totally. Would it make sense to have it early on in the raw pipeline, and not as a filter? Totally (even though at that time Adobe voices claimed the contrary).
I mean, people, let's be realistic: LR3 was never _designed_ to have this feature. It was added as an afterthought, very shortly before the app was meant to ship (just remember when the LR3b2 was set to expire). I'm sorry to see that it's not perfect. Heck I'd wish for a better lens profile UI than I even get in CS5, that's hardly a UI, that's something that MS would vomit in a day. But it works. And just as much as they somehow managed to move the correction into the raw pipeline in a month, I am sure they can, and will, add the download to an update. The alternative would be clear - slip the release, which would be bad for us users, and (thanks to accounting) for them.
My bug (importing of ~60 images consistently takes more than an hour), which I reported in LR3b1, is still here, and I will say that it's quite annoying. A feature that I have built my entire workflow around - show me pictures that I'm trying to import but which are already in the catalog - is gone, and I have to re-think my entire workflow. Maybe I am just not as passionate as other critics, but I simply mentioned both in the appropriate fora, and moved on looking for workarounds, just as I did with the XMP bugs introduced in 1.3 (and still not fixed). It's easier that way, trust me.
On the topic of lens profiles - yes, some common ones didn't ship. What's your alternative? DXO. I was a DXO customer, but not anymore. In one afternoon I profiled 24L, 24L2, 35L, 50L, 200L, 28-300L. Took a bit over two hours all in all. At least the wide Ls are something "that should just ship with the product", but I swear I can do either lens faster than writing this response. Are the profiles perfect? Far from that. But they are good enough for my use, they make the images "better" than I had with LR3b2, and until someone comes with a sophisticated profile, they are good enough. In some instances - such as the 200L - I don't need sophistication: 9 shots is all it took, because I shoot it always and only wide open at around 7m distance, so that's what I did with the targets. One minute of work. That's why I keep telling people - go try it. It's really easy.
I understand and can respect the time constraints that were involved with including this feature with the original release of LR3, and I am hopeful that this will be added as an update. I, like others, wonder why an interim solution involving a fairly simple webpage can't be implemented? Or even a sub-forum here where users could post profiles they create.
Duh! phototrek, of course I have a problem, that's what I'm doing here, and to be honest I was having a bit of fun, not being bitter. You've missed the point entirely, read this thread through properly please. My comments are about what I believe Adobe has implied, not delivered and what it could easily deliver (in at least some kind of stop gap manner), if it had the will. As I said in the post above, at least make it clear in the documentation and advertising and stop confusing / disappointing users. I don't want to stuff around making my own lens profiles at this point in time, which is why I went looking for user created files in the 'user community' as advised in point 8 on the adobe labs getting started page.
Forums are an effective (and cheap) way for Adobe to monitor users opinions and they invite us to do just that. "Adobe Forums provide an interactive online environment for vibrant discussion of Adobe products and related topics, where Adobe users exchange questions, offer ideas and suggestions, and share tips and tricks." I think this thread falls under the 'vibrant discussion' and 'ideas and suggestions' headings pretty well, you label me as bitter, I hope you're not suggesting that I shouldn't express my disappointment in this matter?
The reality is, opinions cut it all ways. A few staff (and people like you perhaps) may get their noses out of joint when the product, policy or, as in this case, the implementation/access is critiqued, but this is a function of the forums is it not? I'm questioning all of this because I believe that there's a confusing message to LR3 users. If they (adobe) take a breath and look at it properly, they might see that they're getting some good feedback here.
Looking at the bigger picture, Adobe has to ask itself if they could have done this better don't you think? If they don't bother, then they're ultimately no different from the likes of arrogant old Microsoft (don't mention Vista, don't mention Vista). And yes, perhaps in the long run all that Adobe is really interested in doing is playing the 'trickle feed features/teaser' game, so they'll hold off doing this properly until LR4? It's their prerogative, they are the boss of LR after all, but they should at least make it clear.
b.t.w. phototrek, I have no problem ingesting 100's of raw files in under 10 minutes into LR3, I find it really quick. Your problem may be with your system and not LR at all?
First, my apologies for not recognizing your whining as what it truly was - humor. Now that you told me, I'm laughing, too.
As for my import issue: I didn't say it _always_ happens, but it _reliably_ happens when I drag & drop images from another app. The same task works flawlessly in 1.x and 2.x. I have posted a stack sample along with my original complaint, Engineering said that there was clearly a problem with the database code, and that was the last I've heard. Aside of having a 100% reproducible case, and having sent them a system profile and app stack trace, there's little that I can do, other than offering further info if they tell me what they need. I need to find a workaround until then, such as doing this particular type of import overnight.