Lightroom 7 rumor

[IglooEater]

THey'd better work on performance. I had my month trial of C1P, and it is lickety split on my old machine when compared to LR. I'm very seriously on the fence in regards to C1P. It could save me the cost of a new laptop for a few more years yet.

Same feeling, I went from Lr4 to 6 and the performance and stability were terrible. After trying On1, I must say the LR felt slow like a snail. As long as the LR7 is step forward in terms of performance I don't mind upgrading from LR6.

Did you get any updates to 6? When I initially got the new 6, it crashed no less than every fifteen minutes, and corrupted half the images on a memory card. After an update a month or so after release, it got a lot better. It remains my only application that ever crashes, but that's not very often. I feel like it wants to crash, but is far too slow to ever get around to it. ;D

 

[LDS]

They're liars. The data is not changed when converting raw to dng unless you choose to go to lossy dng.

Sorry, you're wrong. Data are changed from the original RAW format to DNG own internal RAW format. How much changes depends on the algorithm used for a given RAW format. Some very specific RAW data not supported by DNG may be lost. Unless the source code for the processing is published, you have no way to know what changes, and you need to trust Adobe. You can embed the original RAW inside the DNG, but it means much larger files.

DNG is an "open" format, but it is patented by Adobe, and it's not a standard managed by an independent body (i.e. ISO), even if Adobe attempted to have it accepted. Till now, anyway, the format is fully controlled by Adobe alone.

 

[Orangutan]

I wouldn't delete the Cr2 files as you never know what the future holds....put them on an external if necessary.
I spoke to capture one some months ago and they tell me that noise and color/tonal issues could be introduced with dng files.

They're liars. The data is not changed when converting raw to dng unless you choose to go to lossy dng.

My (vague) memory is that pixel data doesn't change, but metadata does, which could include color balance. Don't take this as settled truth.

 

[danski0224]

CR2 file vs DNG

I am not so confident that the results after conversion are the same, depending on the starting point.

I am of the opinion that a CR2 file processed in DPP ends up better than starting with the same CR2 file in Lightroom. Unfortunately, Lightroom can't apply the DPP edits, so the DPP edited file must be saved as a TIFF, which Lightroom can see. This approach is not practical for all images though. Nor are "RAW to DNG" or "TIFF to DNG" files the same.

Maybe, for those that have never used DPP and only work in Lightroom, the resulting DNG conversion would be "the same".

Far as I know, Canon does not license their RAW file details to Adobe.

A few others over at DPReview have experimented with the DNG output available from the Sigma sd camera, and it was not the same as processing the X3F file (Sigma RAW) within Sigma Photo Pro- the X3F file provided better results. This may be an extreme example, considering that Adobe does not support some X3F file formats at all, but it does show that there is a difference.

Given Canon's presence in the camera market, I do not see a point where being able to convert a CR2 file would ever be a concern. Even if the latest version of DPP doesn't read the files from a 4.2mp 1D, there is an earlier version of DPP out there- either on Canon's site or elsewhere.

I guess my point is that I do not see any advantage to converting CR2 files to DNG, short of using a legacy Adobe program that doesn't support a new camera model.

 

[Hector1970]

I don't mind the subscription model as such but it just shows what happens to innovation when it exists. There has been little or no significant improvement in Lightroom or Photoshop in 2 years. Photoshop has a terrible user interface and simple things are overly complex. They should at this stage be one unified pieces of software. Instead they are a mix of each other. Lightroom is very slow for what it does. Both are very bloated pieces of software. There is no business incentive to improve it as it's a cash cow. They've probably moved their developers to other software. Either that or they've run out of ideas on how to improve them.

 

[scyrene]

I like Lightroom in general, and it's been my main photo organising/editing program for years. However, I don't feel they need to add any more features. Rather, like others, I'd just ask that it be made more stable and less of a memory hog. Some features are just not usable (like panorama stitch) because they eat up all spare HD space until the computer seizes up (I appreciate that probably isn't an issue for people with big HDs but this doesn't happen when using other programs to perform the same task); like others, I find importing with Lr very flakey and often many times slower than e.g. EOS Utility. Tbh unless the new version has some compelling feature, or is reviewed as much faster, I'll stick with the current version.

 

[-pekr-]

Oh my, LR, subscriptions, professionals As for me personally, I have nothing against subscription, although I can understand kind of "psychological insecurity" in I-am-not-owning-it point of view.

Adobe might have vital business, the question is, how many ppl do actually use LR. Remember - you buy it in terms of their subscription along with PS. I can also find only a Catalog and Develop useful. Well, maybe a Print module, if you are printing yourself.

Anyone trying to utilise LR's Book, Web or Slideshow modules just wastes his own time imo. With stuff like Smug/Zenfolio, Smart Albums/Fundy, I can't imagine any pro would use those LR modules.

Now back to Develop itself - have you tried on1? Luminar? Exposure X3 for styling your photos? Or even old good Nik? Or even our Czech Zoner? All those tools are being able to work with RAWs, non destructively and are actually much better in photo finalisation (effects stage).

It would actually be nice to see some numbers, of how many ppl actually abandoned LR for some other tool/workflow.

 

[ScottyP]

There can be a difference between short term increase in cash flow and a long term good business decision. Adobe was able to put the screws to its existing clients by forcing them into the subscription model. I saw that was going to make money and I bought some Adobe stock, and it has made enough money to pay for their subscription for the rest of my shooting life, but I didn't subscribe.

Existing users have invested lots of time becoming proficient in the Adobe software and have thousands and thousands of images processed and catalogued in the Adobe environment so they can be expected to go along with the subscription in large enough numbers to make it profitable for Adobe to compel them to do so.

Not so new photographers not yet hooked on Adobe. Adobe needs an entry point for new users in order to get them into the Adobe world and to make that investment in learning the programs and to put those thousands of images into it so they too will be committed users and someday, some of them, subscribers. Lightroom is that entry point. If they raise the initial commitment by eliminating that friendly easy entry point I think they would find they are not attracting as many new users. Most people would think that would be bad business, even, you'd think, a vocal forum poster that evidently has disdain for amateur users.

 

[TomDibble]

I wouldn't delete the Cr2 files as you never know what the future holds....put them on an external if necessary.
I spoke to capture one some months ago and they tell me that noise and color/tonal issues could be introduced with dng files.

They're liars. The data is not changed when converting raw to dng unless you choose to go to lossy dng.

No, unless your raw format is pixel based, which it is not. DNG conversion does lose data at the margins, which is unlikely to be critical, but keeping a second copy is cheap insurance.

 

[RGF]

HDR smart stacking
- Looks at the exposure settings, only change in the shutter speed, not both shutter speed and f stop.
- need to be taken in rapid succession (look at the end of 1 exposure and start of the next)
- ideally tries a quick alignment to confirm images should be stacked
- tracks the exposure of all the images in the stack to make sure HDR exposure series should not be repeated

Do any programs do that?

I wish I could find a plug in to this. Adobe does not seem to be very interested in Smart Auto Stacking. There were some previously but they are no longer supported so this is doable.

 

[CanonCams]

HDR smart stacking
- Looks at the exposure settings, only change in the shutter speed, not both shutter speed and f stop.
- need to be taken in rapid succession (look at the end of 1 exposure and start of the next)
- ideally tries a quick alignment to confirm images should be stacked
- tracks the exposure of all the images in the stack to make sure HDR exposure series should not be repeated

Do any programs do that?

I wish I could find a plug in to this. Adobe does not seem to be very interested in Smart Auto Stacking. There were some previously but they are no longer supported so this is doable.

Ah, ok.

Thought you knew of a program that would do it (EasyHDR, Photomatix etc)

 

[AvTvM]

hehehe, apparently they gave up on being able to convert me (and many others) to their monthly rental pay cloud sh*t scheme.

If it is good [performance & features] I may buy a license and upgrade from LR 5 ... but only IF 8)

 

[aceflibble]

No part of this 'leak' is anything that couldn't be blindly guessed, and the way it's written makes it seem a helluva lot like a kid trying to be a big shot. You get this a lot from 'beta testers' in video games and computer hardware; doesn't surprise me someone would try it with photography.

Which is not to say that a new version of LR isn't coming (it's well overdue), but that this specific 'leak' sounds like some random posing.

 

[yeahright]

Lightroom should become multi-user and network capable. At present (or I'm missing something) it is not (safely) possible for different users to work on the same Lightroom catalog stored on a network drive at the same time. Which really is ridiculous for 2017 and a company that offers cloud-only solutions.

 

[LDS]

Lightroom should become multi-user and network capable. At present (or I'm missing something) it is not (safely) possible for different users to work on the same Lightroom catalog stored on a network drive at the same time. Which really is ridiculous for 2017 and a company that offers cloud-only solutions.

I would welcome it, but it would come with more complexity. SQLite is not really suited as a network multi-user database. LR would need to work with an external database server (which may be more complex to install and configure), and then implement required multi-user features (i.e. locking images while being edited - and remember one of the plus of LR is it can apply changes to more than one image at once).

For single users, the actual implementation is much simpler, requires less computer resources, and no configuration. Maybe Adobe could offer a separate, more expensive "Lightroom for workgroups" with more DAM features and multi-user features, but I don't really know how large it market could be. Maybe not large enough to justify it.

 

[GammyKnee]

I really, really hope this rumor is true.

Very often I'm forced into a tiff export and PS edit simply because I have a lot of spot healing to do (e.g. plukes on a bodybuilder's back) - something that really slows LR to a crawl.

 

[Diko]

The last part is SO weird....

Converting to DNGs and 1:1 build preview – yet no true improvement to be observed. Even worse – now it asks for OK on DNG conversion in order to begin the 1:1 preview building which killing the computer.

Most probably that lamer hadn't ticked "don't show again".

 

[yeahright]

Lightroom should become multi-user and network capable. At present (or I'm missing something) it is not (safely) possible for different users to work on the same Lightroom catalog stored on a network drive at the same time. Which really is ridiculous for 2017 and a company that offers cloud-only solutions.

I would welcome it, but it would come with more complexity. SQLite is not really suited as a network multi-user database. LR would need to work with an external database server (which may be more complex to install and configure), and then implement required multi-user features (i.e. locking images while being edited - and remember one of the plus of LR is it can apply changes to more than one image at once).

For single users, the actual implementation is much simpler, requires less computer resources, and no configuration. Maybe Adobe could offer a separate, more expensive "Lightroom for workgroups" with more DAM features and multi-user features, but I don't really know how large it market could be. Maybe not large enough to justify it.

It sure would be more complex on the developer side (not necessarily for the customer, if done right). But isn't the software supposed to be THE professional tool for that job? I am a hobbyist and I am missing the function for multiple people to work on the same set of photos; then how do actual professionals manage? Everybody just edits his or her own photos and stores them on the local drive? Is that the supposed workflow?

 

[LDS]

It sure would be more complex on the developer side (not necessarily for the customer, if done right). But isn't the software supposed to be THE professional tool for that job? I am a hobbyist and I am missing the function for multiple people to work on the same set of photos; then how do actual professionals manage? Everybody just edits his or her own photos and stores them on the local drive? Is that the supposed workflow?

I wasn't talking only about some development issues which in the actual architecture will require what could be expensive changes. I was talking especially about installation, configuration and management issues. For example, a users would need to configure (and troubleshoot) database connections, there would be logins, permissions and workflow to manage. Easy for those with a good IT knowledge, much harder for those who are skilled in their digital imaging jobs - but not in IT.

For example if you really want a professional application it should allow to let user A only access catalog X but not Y and Z, or let the "sales" group search and export photos (with a subset of metadata, probably) but not edit them, and only those approved for sales, probably after copyrights and release forms have been checked also. It can quickly become complex on both sides, development, and management. Maybe those are functions an hobbyist is not interested in - IMHO only a few hobbyists are interested in a multi-user LR, which would be more expensive-, but they could become important in a commercial entity, because, yes, the software itself has to support the business needs.

For large shops, there are Digital Asset Management applications designed for their needs. Adobe sells Experience Manager with such functions, maybe there's little interest in investing to move Lightroom in that direction. Or maybe will happen, only Adobe knows...

 

[jeffa4444]

I don't. I want Adobe to go 100% subscription and revert to their early business model of working for professional image makers and creatives. I am fed up of the noisy tail wagging the dog, they should free themselves of the noisy minority (of revenue streams) and focus on actual professionals, if that prices them out of the amateur market so be it, there are plenty of alternatives for those that don't see the value in the products and options Adobe give.

You're the first person I've seen who actually agrees with me on this.

Quite arrogant statement to make. Without those thousands of Amateurs the "Professionals" would not be getting the current features they have. I'm somewhere in the middle using the system for both professional use and amateur use. Speed is the biggest flaw of LR6 and hopefully they will make good on their promise. Cloud CC is fine with me although I back-up locally three versions you can never be too careful.