Skip navigation
This discussion is locked

Lightroom 4 beta #1 test complete - final results.

Jan 31, 2012 1:11 PM

  Latest reply: Dave Merchant, Feb 27, 2012 9:12 PM
Replies 1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 2:56 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    Lightroom's new basic control set is defined by the need for Revel compatibility, not to provide maximum control for professionals and picky users like me.

     

    No, actually it isn't...not sure where you got that faulty info...the ORDER that the controls are is has been influenced by Mark Hamburg (the founding engineer on Lightroom and Revel) for use in Revel minus the Whites and Blacks...but LR4's controls and Revel's controls really aren't the same (for example, Revel only processes JPEGs, not raws).

     

    Look Rob, you simply don't know anything about the internal development of Lightroom. Saying these things shows your ignorance...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 3:45 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob,

     

    In order to be able to discuss with you, could you PLEASE, backup your claims with some examples, shown here publicly. You apparently have some findings, but without example, I can neither understand nor reproduce anything what you say.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 3:50 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    No, actually it isn't...not sure where you got that faulty info...the ORDER that the controls are is has been influenced by Mark Hamburg (the founding engineer on Lightroom and Revel) for use in Revel minus the Whites and Blacks...but LR4's controls and Revel's controls really aren't the same (for example, Revel only processes JPEGs, not raws).

     

    Maybe Rob got his "faulty" info from Eric who wrote:

    "Another aspect of the design is that only the first 4 sliders -- Exposure thru Shadows -- are available in one of our other products, and so maximizing the usefulness of just these 4 without relying on Whites/Blacks was important.  And of course, consistent rendering and interoperability of the products was also important."

     

    He also wrote "...Lr itself is a standalone product.  But there are other Adobe products and consistent rendering across products is important to us and to our customers.  So, our design for the new controls in PV 2012 had to keep this in mind."

     

    So your information seems to be the "faulty" one to me.

     

    BTW, what professional body has deemed Mark Hamburg's education as being compliant to an "engineering" standard? I have a feeling that many "engineers" in the LR team (past and present) are just programmers as opposed to professionally accredited engineers. Not being a proper engineer need not imply lack of talent, but I have a feeling that the term "engineer" is used inflationary in the context of LR development.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 3:57 PM   in reply to tgutgu

    tgutgu wrote:

     

    In order to be able to discuss with you, could you PLEASE, backup your claims with some examples, shown here publicly.

    Have you seen the example in this thread:

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/4179562

    ?

     

    Seems to show that a small and quick set of adjustments with PV2010 take a very long time to reproduce with PV2012.

     

    Disclaimer: I haven't looked at this example in detail, but it may be what you are looking for.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 4:43 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    Maybe Rob got his "faulty" info from Eric who wrote:

    "Another aspect of the design is that only the first 4 sliders -- Exposure thru Shadows -- are available in one of our other products, and so maximizing the usefulness of just these 4 without relying on Whites/Blacks was important.  And of course, consistent rendering and interoperability of the products was also important."

     

    And what part of Eric's quote says Lightroom has had it's processing dictated by Revel? It hasn't..."consistent rendering and interoperability of the products" also goes along with Camera Raw...Rob thinks he knows what goes on in LR dev, he doesn't.

     

     

    TK2142 wrote:

    BTW, what professional body has deemed Mark Hamburg's education as being compliant to an "engineering" standard?

     

    Uh huh...you're joking right? Google him...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 7:50 PM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:

     

    BTW, what professional body has deemed Mark Hamburg's education as being compliant to an "engineering" standard? 

     

    Let's see ... I Googled "Mark Hamburg" and received 78,100,000 results ... with the vast majority of refernces pointing to Adobe, Photoshop and Lightroom ...

     

    I Googled TK2142 and received 13,200 results with the first page containing links to Turkish airlines, ebay and more or less gibberish.

     

    Perhaps before you question or otherwise attempt to sully the credibility of someone very publicly linked to an endeavor ... you could legitimize your own identiy beyond a vauge collection of alpha-numeric symbols ...

     

    Until then, Mr. Hamburg's contributions to the cause will carry considerably much more weight than your comments here ....

     

    This whole thread is such a waste of server space ...

     

    IF Mr. Cole had expressed his findings and opinions as succintly and concisely as he did in his most recent contribution to this thread ... without his prior offerings of conjecture, speculation and editorializing his own self-proclamied importance ... there would be little to no contraversy on the matter.

     

    There is no doubt that Lr4b and pv 2012 is NOT perfect ... I don't think anyone involved expected the beta to be so ... however, the incredulous contempt shown by some over those who are offering the opportunity for us to test Lr4 is beyond comprehension.

     

    BETAS ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE PERFECT! If they were, there would be no purpose whatsoever for public beta testing. Betas are a starting point so the engineers may receive feedback to enable them to fine-tune for the final relaese. Expecting more, or placing too much importance on the findings of individual testers goes far beyond the intended means ...

     

    The issue here are not about the credibilty, motives or work environment of those Adobe employees tasked with presenting the software ... it is for us to test, evaluate and trial the capabilities of the software as presented, then report back our issues, problems and concerns after putting it through the paces ... anything more that we may want to offer beyond that is pointless and counter to the cause. Whether or not we as individuals question particular team members as "qualified" for their job titles is meaningless ... I'm sure Adobe doesn't make a habit of hiring "posers" to work on such important projects.

     

    Beta testing feedback should be based upon results, or the lack thereof and not emotionaly induced narrative ... so if you want to question Adobe staff selction, their academic or professional accreditation, you actually may want to consider another venue for that cause. ... And ... if you want to proclaim your own sel-importance you may be better off joining the blogoshpere and take your chances there to make an impact ... because thumping on Mr. Hamburg and Mr Chan here ... ain't gonna getcha very far ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 11:00 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    And what part of Eric's quote says Lightroom has had it's processing dictated by Revel?

     

    No one claimed it was "dictated by Revel". Eric's statement, however, clearly states that the function of the "Highlights & Shadows" sliders was influenced by compatibility considerations and since ACR will have "Whites & Blacks" controls, that leaves Revel to be the influence.

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    It hasn't..."consistent rendering and interoperability of the products" also goes along with Camera Raw...

    No alignment between LR and ACR is necessary as the former's Develop module is essentially just a UI for the latter.

     

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    Uh huh...you're joking right? Google him...

     

    No, it wasn't a joke. It was a question. And none of the Google results -- I went through that exercise before I asked -- tell me what education Mark Hamburg has enjoyed and whether that education satisfies the requirements of the Washington Accord. Of course you can call someone an "engineer" but that doesn't make them one.

     

    Again, someone not being an engineer doesn't imply that they are bad at what they are doing, not at all, but AFAIC, you should not refer to someone as an "engineer" unless said person has been certified to be an engineer by a professional engineering organisation.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2012 2:20 AM   in reply to TK2142

    ...even if being a computer science engineer myself, is it really relevant to the discussion?

    I can't see the point in that, apart from being offensive.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2012 5:26 AM   in reply to PaoloAvezzano

    PaoloAvezzano wrote:

     

    I can't see the point in that, apart from being offensive.

    Sorry, I didn't mean it to be offensive.

     

    I repeatedly said that not being an engineer doesn't imply that one is bad at what one is doing, so I don't know why my question is being perceived as being offensive.

     

    I just keep reading people using the term "engineer" and wonder whether they actually mean "programmer" or "developer".

     

    If I had written that from what I have gleaned from the Adobe LR podcasts that Thomas Knoll comes across as someone who really knows what he is doing, while this is much less the case for Mark Hamburg, then I would have understood that someone said this could regard this as being "offensive". But I didn't. I merely asked a question about whether Jeff Schewe is correct in referring to Mark Hamburg as an engineer.

     

    Just because someone does things an engineer could do, doesn't make them an engineer. FWIW, a pure computer scientist has a qualification, but isn't an engineer either.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2012 6:05 AM   in reply to TK2142

    Jeff probably just uses the term because it sounds butch.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2012 6:19 AM   in reply to TK2142

    From Wikipedia...

    An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical problems. Engineers design materials, structures, machines and systems while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, safety and cost.[1][2] The word engineer is derived from the Latin roots ingeniare ("to contrive, devise") and ingenium ("cleverness").[3][4]

    Engineers are grounded in applied sciences, and their work in research and development is distinct from the basic research focus of scientists.[2] The work of engineers forms the link between scientific discoveries and their subsequent applications to human needs.[1]

     

    The key item seems to be the work they do in applying solutions.

     

    To my knowledge there is no licensing requirement or board accreditation required to be called a software engineer.

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,386 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2012 8:41 AM   in reply to Butch_M

    Butch_M wrote:

    Let's see ... I Googled "Mark Hamburg" and received 78,100,000 results ... with the vast majority of refernces pointing to Adobe, Photoshop and Lightroom ...

    Why not look at the Lightroom AND Photoshop splash screens for a hint.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 10:19 AM   in reply to TK2142

    TK2142 wrote:g offensive.

     

    If I had written that from what I have gleaned from the Adobe LR podcasts that Thomas Knoll comes across as someone who really knows what he is doing, while this is much less the case for Mark Hamburg, then I would have understood that someone said this could regard this as being "offensive". But I didn't. I merely asked a question about whether Jeff Schewe is correct in referring to Mark Hamburg as an engineer.

     

    Yes,,,Mark is a software engineer....but he's actually much more than that. He was the #2 engineer to work on Photoshop with Thomas. He has been named an Adobe Fellow. He was the founding engineer and designer of Lightroom. Many of the functions in Develop came directly from Mark such as; HSL/Grayscale, Parametric Curves, Split Tone. Thomas was impressed enough with Mark's work to incorporate those functions into Camera Raw. Mark left Adobe for a while to work on UI and usability at MSFT but came back to Adobe. Rather than go back to work on Lightroom, he decied to do a consumer app–Revel.

     

    Mark has always thought that ACR/LR has had too many controls (ironic since he added 24 HSL controls) so when he worked on Revel, he decided to try to distill a lot of functionality into less controls. But trying to understand the team's motives from the outside is a waste of time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2012 4:20 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    To be honest: I love every aspect of the PV2012 algorithm. But, as you all stated, that's personally. For me it works.

    It's also easy for me to reproduce the colors EXACTLY as they should be in real life.

     

     

    - I calibrated my monitor with the X-Rite i1 Display Pro

    - I took a photo of the X-Rite ColorChecker Passport, with the lighting exactly as my calibrated Sekonic 758-DR Lightmeter told me

    - I profiled the photo of the ColorChecker Passport and applied the profile

    - I verified the custom white balance (although I already custom made it in camera via the Passport)

    - I downloaded and opened this PDF: http://www.babelcolor.com/download/RGB%20Coordinates%20of%20the%20Macb eth%20ColorChecker.pdf

     

     

    - I adjusted all the controls 'till the numbers matched in LR4 with this settings:

    Exposure: 0,00

    Contrast: -33

    Highlights: 0

    Shadows: 0

    Whites: 0

    Blacks: +25

    Clarity: 0

    Vibrance: 0

    Saturation: 0

    Tone Curve: Linear

     

     

    The values on my ColorChecker matched the values in the PDF. Of course, it looks more dull. I saved those settings as a new preset. I applied it on other images with the ColorChecker (with different backgrounds but every image with perfect light metering) and the values were consistent as stated in the PDF.

     

     

    I calibrated my screen at D65 2.2 and have calibrated norm lights in my post processing rooms. Comparing the ColorChecker with my calibrated screen and the adjustments in LR4 gives me an exact match.

     

     

    PV2012 gives me a good and flexible starting point, I'm happy with it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 1:32 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    From:"Rob Cole

    So, if you toy with both process versions, and include a point curve

    manipulation in the PV2010 version and make a snapshot of it, then switch

    to PV2012 and back to PV2010 via the snapshot, then you'll lose your point

    curve. I haven't verified whether the problem is saving or restoring the

    snapshot, so it could be the same problem would occur if snapshot was

    saved in Lr3 - dunno.

     

     

    Isn't that why LR has virtual copies? So that you can play with a different

    develop process without upsetting your existing one?

     

    Bob Frost

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 5:59 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    If it is truly a bug, I am sure it will be fixed....though I, personally, would not put it high on the priority list unless it's root cause effected other items.  I cannot imagine the many will be effected by it after the initial "playing" with the new release.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 6:18 AM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    Andrew Rodney wrote:

     

    Why not look at the Lightroom AND Photoshop splash screens for a hint.

     

    Andrew, that would be way too obvious ... I just wanted to contrast the search results for a well-known individual who has been a integral component in the development and production of Photoshop and Lightroom ... to ... an anonymous forum poster fixated on the credibility of a job title ... which really has little to do with this discussion or the advancements in the Lr product ...

     

    Why some think it more important to focus on speculation and conjecture ... or the personal motivations of Adobe employess ... rather than the software itself escapes me ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 7:00 AM   in reply to Butch_M

    All versions of Lr have had locally adaptive tone mapping, since the very beginning.  (e.g., Fill Light, Recovery, and Clarity in PV 2003 thru 2010 do this already)   Users may not have been technically aware of this fact, but it is true.  In Lr 4 we have updated the technology.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 8:20 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    A follow up question for Eric,

     

    Putting aside the technology, can you explain whether LR makes a different creative assumption than LR3 in terms of a starting point. For instance it's apparent, and many have commented on the highlight recovery change. While it can be argued that LR4 develop controls may ultimately provide the same or greater range of aesthetic control, I'm keen to know whether your default "treatment" has changed.

     

    Let's say I like to shoot high key and don't mind some blown highlights. Will achieving that look be at odds with LR4's default assumptions, and require more effort to achieve?

     

    I believe this is related to Rob's questions. As a workflow product initially conceived to address volume (in contrast to PS's pursuit of ultimate creative expression for individual images) it is completely legitimate to be concerned about the throughput implications of the develop changes and whether the starting creative assumptions of LR4 are harder to undo than those of LR3. To be clear I'm not asking about the "zeroed baseline" that was discussed in other threads, I accept the fact that assumptions have to made, I just want you to characterize the assumptions of the LR4 process relative to LR3, if in fact they are different.

     

    thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 8:47 AM   in reply to VeloDramatic

    Do some testing.  Blown highlights stay blown.  Highlights that are not blown, do not show as blown at starting point.  You can "blow" them out, with increased controls.

     

    John

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 9:11 AM   in reply to VeloDramatic

    If you want to blow highlights, you can still do so in Lr 4 Beta (via +Whites), and it is actually easier to accomplish with fewer side effects in most cases compared to earlier versions (e.g., Lr 3).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 9:21 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    The high key highlight scenario was just an example to illustrate the overall question about LR4's creative assumption vs LR3.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 9:36 AM   in reply to VeloDramatic

    No changes in creative assumption.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 9:47 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 5:42 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Believe it when we see it!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 5:49 PM   in reply to Photo_op8
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 6, 2012 6:32 PM   in reply to jrsforums

    jrsforums wrote:

     

    False alarm... :-)

     

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/4189984#4189984

     

    He likely ran low on fish ... or posting directly in the thread is the new PM ...

     

    I'm sure he will clarify though ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 8, 2012 5:35 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Now he answers his own posts!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 8, 2012 6:18 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    ROb...

     

    WIth all respect....you are not helping yourself....or us, for that matter.

     

    TYpe 1, type2....category 1,2,3,4......?????

     

    MAybe it is just me, but I have no idea what you are talking about....without some illustrative examples.

     

    ALso...what is the reference to a "Beta#2"?  Do you have some knowledge the rest of us do not have?  I have no idea, but if I were a betting man, I would suspect....sort of a last second "Oh, sh*t"....beta2 will be LR 4.0

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,386 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 9, 2012 3:40 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Thank goodness, the final word on the final results and something to smoke too. We can now all move on to making and processing images, hurrah!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 9, 2012 4:52 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Rob Cole wrote:

     

    I have already prepared myself that the same will not be the case with PV2012, assuming no significant changes are made before final release...

     

    Reasons that's a stupid decision:

     

    - First, the obvious.  You have a big assumption in there, that's already known to be wrong.

    - Second, you've spent years and years getting used to and comfortable with PV2010 and PV2003.  You've spent only weeks messing with PV2012.  You can't expect to learn all the tricks that quickly.

    - Third, any tiny amount of experience you've obtained from the last weeks has been marred by a little bit of beta-itis.

    - Fourth, you haven't been trying very hard to following the workflow suggestions you've been given.  Once you do (if you do), you may find your conclusions were wrong.

    - Lastly, it's not necessary to duplicate the "look" of PV2010 if you can get an equivalently good or superior but different look in PV2012.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (1)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points