Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Wishlist and speculating on Lightroom 5

Jan 14, 2013 5:35 PM

Tags: #lightroom #5

Any news, ideas thoughts of the next iteration of Lightroom?

 

Message title was edited by: Brett N

 
Replies 1 2 3 4 Previous Next
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 8, 2012 1:49 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    Standard response - "those who know can't say, and those who do say don't know".

     

    But feel free to chat about what you'd like to see!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 8, 2012 2:26 AM   in reply to hamish niven
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 8, 2012 2:37 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    Sure. As Victoria said, feel free to chat about what you'd like to see.

     

    Can be useful to trigger ideas. And Adobe reads them.

     

    As for what is definitely planned per your original post: due to NDAs no-one can say until LR5 is released.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 8, 2012 3:07 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    What they will actually do I believe is fix one or two things, then add

    1 or 2 new features that will make people want to buy the new version,

    whether it works well or not. That's how companies work now, and V4 of

    LR is testament to that.

    Mine is virtually unusable but I can't get it fixed and can't get a

    refund....

    V5 is so far off my radar I can tell you.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 8, 2012 3:46 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    I'm actually very happy with what 3.6 offers, which  is why I'm sticking

    with it now.

    If V4 had even the same performance as V3.6, but the extra features, it

    would have imho been a winning programme.

    As you said lets wait and see but I won't be rushing to upgrade in the

    first year of V 5 now

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 8, 2012 9:19 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    hamish niven wrote:

    rather "Give us some more info" from Geoff the Kiwi the other week, then nothing, but I expect he's busily researching my questions..... (tumbleweed rolls across the deserts of NZ)

    Bump your thread then.  There's a lot of traffic running through these forums, and it can be easy to miss a reply.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 8, 2012 4:13 PM   in reply to hamish niven

    hamish niven wrote:


    There were some noises the other week about a new RAW processing program which seemed to be lightning fast and started the images with a pleasing default.

     

    Which one?

     

    I did notice PhaseOne has released a new version (7) of CaptureOne recently, which they are claiming has a new raw engine. Their marketing for the new version seems squarely aimed at Lr to me... - I haven't tried it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2012 2:25 PM   in reply to hamish niven

    This may be what Rob was referring to.  See the August 9 entry in John Nack's blog for additional links.

     

    http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2012/08/adobe-mit-team-up-on-halide-a-new -imaging-language.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 11, 2012 9:27 PM   in reply to hamish niven

    Not to come off as sounding harsh - but this is how it's going to sound.

     

    My apologies..

     

    But, Kiwi Geoff is the nicest guy on the planet... spends HOURS AND HOURS AND COUNTLESS HOURS helping those of us LR deficient..

     

    He simply doesnt have the TIME to have a life and answering questions to what he doesn't have answers to. Like you said, you are well aware of N.D.A's... Geoff won't risk his community expert status by offering anything to the contrary.

     

    He reads  thousands of posts here and on I believe at LEAST 2 other forums that he is part of - whether it be via the forums OR those who happen to ask question directly... He helps all that he can who have literal needs for help and understanding. 


    I hope Hamish, you were trying to be funny with your tumbleweed comment...


    Without Geoff I would have been in big trouble many times. (Victoria and Rob Cole too)  and the countless others who VOLUNTEER in other boards and forums, they do it simply because of their passion for photography and desire to help others. Not to metion these 3 help without being contrary, rude, obnoxious, sarcastic and just plain rude as alot of people are...

     

    Geoff has personally spent HOURS with me on cataloging and keywording alone.

     

    So, since your issue is just that of wishes and frustration - he won't and  can't 'fake' any more information than he's already shared with you.

    On top of  ' I CANT TELL YOU ANYTHING'..

     

    Your wishes are noted and TONS have people (several of those are my wishes as well...) we have made those requests just as you have and Adobe is WELL aware of our requests. I'd say a few of them will be addressed about 1/3 and then by LR7 we'll be using something else.

     

    And, at that time, LR will be 700$

     

    Kim Siebert

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 12, 2012 1:26 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    Very interesting Hamish. I'll be interested to hear how it goes when you try it. I'll probably be using Lightroom til the day I die (or Adobe dies), but I can't help but be interested in how the alternatives stack up.

     

    PS - I agree Lr4 is very very hard to beat, and I think Adobe knows it, as do most of their customers.

     

    Cheers, Rob.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 12, 2012 2:36 AM   in reply to Rob Cole

    PS - I agree Lr4 is very very hard to beat, and I think Adobe knows it, as do most of their customers.

     

    as individual user software, I agree completely.

     

    However, I do see a clear space for a (perhaps second-tier, more expensive) product that should be intercompatible with LR to the extent possible: a multi-user-accessible DAM in the LR "mould" - obviously with a different DB platform involved to enable that. Not necessarly an enterprise scale system, just sufficient for 2-5 people to share an image library sensibly. LR Pro, group edition.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 10, 2012 3:56 PM   in reply to richardplondon

    Building on your idea, forget LR 5, I'd like the next single user edition of LR5 to be called LR4(PWV) for 'properly working version'. I have a dream: of a programme that doesn't feel the need to sweat the hardware to within an inch of its life, but stays comfortably within the performance limits of current hardware. I have a dream of a piece of software that gets properly fixed before moving on to the next dispiriting fail that tries to do too much, and then that gets fixed before moving up to the next dismal, miserable improvement.

     

    I originally joined the computer rat-race many years ago with an 8286 and a magnificent 40mb HD. I now have a machine that is a 100 times more powerful, running a 100 times more slowly than the 8286 - a veritable 64-bit Ferrari doomed to drive endlessly down the congested streets of London.

     

    I know it's the way of the world to tolerate the paying customer endlessly whining about the flawed software we get delivered to us. But once, just once, I wish stuff got fixed before moving onwards and upwards.  Lightroom 4 is an astonishingly joyless and demoralising experience. Spare me LR5.

     

    Hate the thing, just hate it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 11, 2012 10:35 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    hamish niven wrote:


    There were some noises the other week about a new RAW processing program which seemed to be lightning fast and started the images with a pleasing default.

     

    Photo Ninja, perhaps?

     

    If so: yeah, it's OK (no, that's unfair - it's good), but it's not definitively "better" in IQ terms than Lr; and it's limited in functionality terms (which I don't mind, actually).

     

    I actually bought a copy despite the reservations I expressed in the thread on here about it (it can still give pink recovered highlights, no matter how well it's driven - Lr is better there) because I actually prefer converters that are just converters, and PN has some really clever stuff going on in the background in the way it handles exposure adjustments. It does indeed make for a very good starting point on most images; but it's still not better than Lr, it's just different - I prefer some results from it, some from Lr.

     

    At least it's given me the motivation to give Capture One (and the company behind it) the boot once and for all...

     

    Back on topic: I would love an "Lr 5 Lite" without DAM capability - just a converter. Yes I know it can be said that Lr 5 Lite = ACR, but it'd be a damn' sight cheaper to go from Lr 5 to Lr 6 (when we get there) than from Photoshop 6 to Photoshop 7 (or whatever increments apply by then) in order to stay current.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 11, 2012 10:37 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    hamish niven wrote:

     

    I hear you Edwin

    LR PWV would actually be every users wish and dream, ok apart from the few who's machines are for some reason working perfectly.

     

    It's more like those few that, for some reason, are having problems.  Most people aren't.

     

    I have LR4 on three different machines, and it works fine on all of them.

     

    It would still be helpful to figure out why it's such a problem on some people's machines.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 11, 2012 10:42 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    It's more like those few that, for some reason, are having problems.  Most people aren't.

     

    Yep, this.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 11, 2012 1:39 PM   in reply to Keith_Reeder

    i agree with Hamish We need :

    • the speed issues : very important
    • the clone / heal issues
    • the speed issues : very important
    • the streamlining issues
    • the speed issues
    • relative presets : good
    • More Photoshop like clone/healing/content aware brushes in Lightroom! : i agreee but is this possible with concept of Lightroom ?
    • Multi-User / Multi Computer (Shared catalog on a network) : yes good : the actual process is to slow for working alone on a catalog !!
    • Photoshop/Lightroom: Provide preference and preset syncing via the cloud! (Brushes, Actions, Tools, Workspaces, etc) : good
    • Better keyword management:  yes to apply several at the same time via a flotting panel on an other screen ( inside the workspace is not productive )
    • We have now, with the years undreds of keywords and presets to manage and even on a 30“ this is a nightmare to manage and apply we need a better modern "metaphore" of this
    • The Lightroom interface was good 5/6 years agoo but we need something more productive than this tools on the 2 sides !!!

              The tools are too much focused on the side of the window

    • Display camera focus information ( is it possible ?)
    • Lightroom: Allow for keyboard shortcut customization : this is the minimum we can get since 4 version !!!

     

    • Better Preset Organization (sub-folders, tag, search) : a must have : the foler style we have is a night mare
    • Lightroom: Colour coding folders and collections to simplify navigation & cataloging

     

    • Lightroom: Ability to create custom book templates/sizes from scratch
    • Lightroom: Better Library Module performance : a minimum expected from a pro software !!!!
    • Lightroom: Ability to lock photos. Please protect me from myself! : good
    • Lightroom: Gradient Eraser Request : good idea

     

    i will ad stack of different version with different presets : ability to activate a set of presets for a group of files inside eg a folder or dynamic folder,  and get an other version with other presets with a single clic not by making virtual copies and having undreds of copies with have to magage every where !!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 11, 2012 3:02 PM   in reply to hamish niven

    When discussing performance, consider posting some example performance stats.

     

    I mean, one person's "too slow" may be another person's "fast enough", or one person's "slow" may be a little or a lot slower than another person's "slow"...

     

    Lr4 works OK for me, but I dunno whether yours is slower, or you are just unhappy with like performance.

     

    What percentage of users have decent performance vs. percentage with poor performance? - depends on how you define "decent" and "poor"...

     

    Don't get me wrong: I understand if you don't want to elaborate further now, but just express your displeasure and let Adobe sort it. Still, every time somebody mentions it, I can't help but wonder...

     

    e.g. One person chiming in about poor performance - turned out their chief complaint was dev module loading time upon first use; others: Lr spins the beach-ball/blue-donut for several seconds every time any dev slider is touched - big difference, IMO.

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 11, 2012 3:38 PM   in reply to Rob Cole

    Hi Rob,

    As a fully paid-up whiner, I must say, a strange, reluctant torpor descends on me when it comes to 'defining' the performance of my LR4/Hardware.  The behaviour is so gross, not micro, not even macro, but so gross that finely honed, operational, quantified definitions simply aren't where it's at for me. 

     

    Boot up LR4 with a freshly maintained catalog into an 8GB 64-bit environment with shiny, fast, freshly defragged HD with 50% free space, having killed off all other reachable processes on my computer and it starts off merely 'turgid'. Warming to its task and ten minutes later it is slowing to hour-glass pace, ten minutes after that it is claiming to be unresponsive (yes, I know!) and ten minutes after that, it's time to shut down, re-boot, start again.  I sometimes leave stuff in my cameras for a whole week because I can't face the prospect of 'working' with such a deeply aversive, unpleasant system.

     

    I'd like to come at it a different way. It appears that 'some people' maybe a few, maybe the majority, have happy smiling faces that last the whole day long when working with LR4.  I would like these sunlit uplands for myself. I'm wondering if there is a list of LR4/Hardware combinations that don't cause LR4 to cripple/be crippled by the hardware.  I'm hoping that if there's an answer it isn't 'buy a Cray'.

     

    1. So, is PC or Mac the better environment or do both platforms suffer equally?

    2. Is there a particular hardware spec that always works, or is it more random and capricious than that, i.e. people with exactly the same rig have widely differing experiences?

    3. Are there known brands to avoid at all costs because they always fail? e.g. because maybe they slipped into their machines some small, innocuous piece of normally harmless proprietary hardware which wreaks havoc with highly strung LR4 and isn't fixable by Adobe.

     

    Which leads me to my revised wish list for LR5.

    I'd still like it to be LR4 PWV. Don't bother to fix it Adobe, if it were fixable, you would have done it by now, so let it go son. Instead, provide a certified list of hardware combinations that are absolutely guaranteed to work.  Then 'some people', maybe the few, maybe the many, can abandon hope, bury their crushed dreams, and get on with the business of whingeing, mewling, puking and grieving over their loss, before getting over it and buying a certified machine.

     

    Just saying :-)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 11, 2012 6:16 PM   in reply to edwin ludicrous

    Hi edwin,

     

    Abnormal behavior is usually caused by some combination of Lr "bugs" (or insufficient robustness) and system "configuration" compatibility/health type stuff (as opposed to hardware compatibility) - there is no machine guaranteed to run it based on specs.

     

    Having it slow down after using for only a short while is definitely "abnormal" behavior. I can usually run mine for days with no slowdown (although occasionally I have to restart if it cops a mood... - and sometimes it restarts for me ;-}).

     

    I always recommend stripping  machine down to bare essentials, (hardware and software/background services), updating drivers, checking ram and disks, deleting (or renaming temporarily) all Lr data files, re-installing OS and Lr... - to see if it'll work when the machine is lean, up-to-date, as healthy as possible, and everything fresh. If it still doesn't work well, then I dunno... - check for some clue in the system logs I guess... I would also start Lr with the -traceback switch and run it via a compatible debugger, since that will show you if Lr is enduring unusual errors...

     

    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/925598

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 12, 2012 6:05 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    hamish niven wrote:

     

    Maybe that is why it was cheaper - cos they knew it provided a poor user experience with unacceptable performance.

    If any of these minute-long delays that have been reported by some were happening on any of Adobe's internal test machines, they would have fixed them before release (reproduction is the key to bug fixing).  They don't happen on any of my Windows machines, they don't happen on my friend's mac.  They don't happen on the majority of machines out there.  They happen on a few, and there isn't enough information to figure out which ones or why.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 12, 2012 6:10 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    i don't think any one at Adobe work really in real production with there prodcut !!

     

    That's why they should find better beta tester !!!

    i am on the list they neve contact me !!!

     

    Will move to competitors never mind

     

    if this continue Lightroom will be used only for cataloging already developped files from an other raw capable software !

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 12, 2012 7:08 AM   in reply to raffi2

    raffi2 wrote:

     

    i don't think any one at Adobe work really in real production with there prodcut !!

     

    You're basing that on nothing but making it up.  You have no real information at all, of course.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 12, 2012 9:46 AM   in reply to hamish niven

    hamish,

     

    -------------------------------------------------

    I was not suggesting that people strip their systems down to bare bones and then use them that way. The point of the exercise is to rule out a bunch of things that the problem is not, or is caused by. Armed with such information, one can then take the next step(s).

     

    Note: Suggesting there are things one can do to get it running better is NOT the same as implying fault of user or machine, nor does it imply Adobe need not participate in ultimate remedies. Please do not misunderatand. - you *MUST* consider the context/purpose (software as a given entity - not changeable by users: what can ya do to get it running as well for you as it is for some), in order to properly interpret the term "cause" in the preceding paragraph.

     

    - If ya don't have the time/skill/inclination... - then you are at Adobe's mercy to solve for you, (or you have to use a different product) - I get that.

     

    Short story: I used SageTV for a while because it worked on my machine - BeyondTV didn't (I probably could have gotten BeyondTV working, but I didn't try very hard, since I had a working alternative). Then when I rebuilt my machine, SageTV no longer worked, but BeyondTV did, so I switched. This sort of thing is really not unique to Lightroom. I probably could have gotten SageTV working on the rebuilt machine, if I persisted - in this case: switching was path of least resistance... - I realize there is more resistance when switching raw converters - still, my point: one can often get stubborn software running better if one tries hard enough. Perhaps a new phrase: Software whisperer, or to bring it closer to home: Lightroom whisperer - yeah: I like that... .

    ---------------------------------------------------

     

    That said, I do not know Lightroom's future. Current implementation / design: Lightroom as lua-wrapped version of ACR, (plus value-added..), which Photoshop more than Lightroom dictates features of (the ACR part I mean, not the "lr-value-added" parts).

     

    It will probably always be that, since any new multi-user, redesigned thingy is likely to be released as a completely new product, I'm guessing.

     

    I predict Lr5 will be, to Lr4, as Lr3 was to Lr2... - they'll try to leverage the existing infrastructure as much as possible, change only strategically, optimize and get it running as well as they can, and voila: Lr5. - it won't be Lr4 PWV. I could be wrong, but that's my prediction.

     

    I tend to agree with those who interpret the drastic price reduction as evidence that Adobe is not planning to pump tons more resources into it, au contrare: to eek what they can, and concentrate on other things... - also consider that Lr4 emerged in a very difficult economy: partial explanation, not excuse...

     

    Summary: Keep expectations for Lr5 low, and don't assume Adobe will redesign Lr5 to eliminate any fundamental flaws - lest you be disappointed. It'll probably work just great for some folk, and for others: not so much - around n' around we go: the wheel keeps on turning...

     

    PS - This is all speculation without inside info.

     

    My desires for Lr5? - same as my desires were for Lr4: see Adobe feedback site...

     

    Rob

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 12, 2012 8:59 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Maybe i have no informations, maybe i have !

     

    But if you think 5 minutes how the workflow and performance is i am not sure they are !

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 12, 2012 12:42 PM   in reply to hamish niven

    Personally, I'd pay full upgrade price for complete emphasis on new architecture that burns with speed and efficiency.  Better use of multiple cores and GPU acceleration and whatever magic mojo software engineers do.  Zero extra features, pure performance enhancement and I'd happily shell out the cash.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 21, 2012 2:33 PM   in reply to hamish niven

    Levels tool, would be nice. I think 50% of the time a simple and fast slide on a dedicated levels tool would be all that an image needs, rather than having to muck about with all the sliders of the basic's panel (which quite frankly can take ages to get right sometimes). I would argue that the basics panel should instead be called the 'advanced panel' and used for treating the other 50% of the images that are in need of something more than just a levels tool.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 21, 2012 2:45 PM   in reply to Pbeck1

    You can use tone curve like levels if you really want to.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 21, 2012 2:52 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Hi Lee, Thanks for the reply.

     

    Yes, i find myself using the tone curve as a levels tool substitute half the time, but it does lack dedicated black and white point sliders and easy to read numbers. I'm talking about a levels tool similar to Photoshops.

     

    p.s i'm just an amature photographer taking pictures of my family, & although i shoot in both jpeg and raw, i mostly throw the raws away and keep the jpegs (unless there's some major exposure problem that needs fixing). You might ask why am i using Lightroom then? It's because i love the non-destructive aspect to it, being able to go back in the future and change anything (inc crop etc).

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
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