Update on Lightroom 2015.2 / Lightroom 6.2 Release

edknuff

5d3
Apr 3, 2012
20
0
49
Los Angeles
Northbird said:
Click said:
LDS said:
Translated: "we watched some clueless users who never bought LR before and they were unable to select a folder and import photos. So we had to dumbsize the experience low enough to allow them find their own photos, while irritating long time users with a new, slow, childish user interface".
Bingo!
;D ;D ;D Excellent!!!

Yup my thoughts exactly.
 

intuition

I'm New Here
Sep 30, 2012
14
0
dadohead said:
I know privatebydesign will roll his eyes when (or if) he reads this, but it is an apt time to bring up the whole subscription model issue again. Bear with me.
...
I don't understand why subscription boosters can't see the arguments of perpetual license boosters. We're not saying one or the other; as a perpetual user, subscription is great. Have at it! Just don't take the disc out of my hand. Indeed, Adobe's original stated intention was to have them operate side-by-side for three years. They reneged on that (well, sort of; you can still quietly buy CS6 from Adobe today which is another reason those demos are comparing the new versions to CS6). Subscription or perpetual license, take your pick; does that seem so impossible? At the very least it will help keep Adobe honest.
While I agree on your entire post, we might be missing the major cause and effect relation here. Perhaps it is the dwindling revenue stream due to disgrunted perpetual license holders that makes them look into how to get new users into the subscription plans? So our weapon of holding back revenue because Adobe fails to put a proper product update to the market may only lead to even worse upgrades? I wish it is not like that, but when Adobe publicly says only the use case of new users were considered it seems pretty obvious.

This is QuarkXpress all over again. One would wish someone at Adobe knew their own history. Indesign could only succeed in the market because Quark mismanaged their professional users. My whole industry just stopped upgrading Xpress after 3.3 and jumped ship to Indesign after 6 years of not paying for Quark upgrades.
 

CTJohn

EOS RP
Feb 24, 2012
249
4
AvTvM said:
There is a major issue for new users with LR. But it is not the import screen per se. The difficulty stems from the totally wretched, unintuitive Adobe LR concept, specifically having to IMPORT any image file first into a strange LR catalogue instead of just OPENing the file displayed in a file folder to edit it.

Adobe is unnecessarily doubling up on what the Operating system already does!

Imagine if Microsoft Office users would have to "import" every single document into an MS Word or Excel CATALOGUE first, rather than just to OPEN the file and start working on it!

Or - after inserting 2 new slides into a Powerpoint presentation one would not just click on "SAVE" but have to "EXPORT" the file.

Adobe forces an exotic workflow, strange naming of actions and user interface on users that makes it an utterly un-intuitive experience. Worst in Photoshop, but also LR is unnecessarily "difficult".

Adobe should abolish the catalogue from LR. Edit data goes into the xmps, metadata goes into file headers and all the catalogueing is done by windows or mac OS. Like with any other program. Users would then just open files, save them or rename them. Easy, simple, straightforward.

Having to IMPORT at all is the true source of confusion re. iMPORT for new LR users. It is not stupid/n00b users fault, it is solely Adobes fault. Adobe software is ROGUE and off-track both in the Windows world and in mac OS land. The more i see of this Adobe sh*t the more it pisses me off.
Absolutely correct. I've used Lightroom for several years, and tried to explain the catalog to my very computer literate son a couple months ago. It was a wasted effort, and I realized at that point how stupid the structure of Lightroom is.
 

LDS

EOR R
Sep 14, 2012
1,608
171
AvTvM said:
There is a major issue for new users with LR. But it is not the import screen per se. The difficulty stems from the totally wretched, unintuitive Adobe LR concept, specifically having to IMPORT any image file first into a strange LR catalogue instead of just OPENing the file displayed in a file folder to edit it.
Although I agree that the database workflow makes it harder to understand to some computer used who never used a database before, although most of them use one without knowing - i.e. Facebook and the like, where you still "import" - ooops - "upload" your contents. Many multimedia server work alike.
It's strange people can't grasp databases, because our brain works very much alike them. We can access memories in many different ways, using very different "tags/keywords" and "relationships", not just following a single, "monodimensional" path like a file system does (a file system is after all a very simple form of a hierarchical database).

It's also one of the LR innovations. Unlike say, DPP, LR is both a digital assets management system, and an image editing tool within a single product. Many of the image management features of LR would not work without the underlying database. If you managed documents within the file system, soon LR would get out of sync, and searches, collections, etc. would not work anymore. Some users don't use these features and would be more comfortable in a simpler applications, others, especially those with thousands and more photos, could find them very useful.

Whoever tried to manage even a simple workflow for Word/Excel/Powerpoint documents (and many others) knows you can't really rely on them and file system storage only. It just becomes a mess very soon. You need a document management system, which is a database, where you need to import document first. And yes, it may mean you first import, then "check out" a powerpoint presentation, add two slides, and then "check in" again into the system. It's the only sensible way to know where a document is, how it was modified, and so on.

Adobe never exploited it yet, but how LR works mean it could also work with a remote repository accessed by more than one user at a time, avoiding conflicts.

And is import really the issue? My main issues when I used LR first time were understanding sharpening controls, using effectively the adjustment brush, and how to obtain a decent print. Because unluckily lazy users made lazy and mean companies remove good comprehensive manuals, I did the only sensible thing to do: I bought what looked a good book about LR (in my case it was Martin Evening's The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book - The Complete Guide For Photographers) and eventually understood how to use LR proficiently enough.

I understand, for example, proper sharpening require some knowledge why an image requires sharpening, how sharpening works, and how to select thereby the proper one for a given image and a given result. I do not expect a big "SHARPEN!" button doing all the work for me, especially since the application can't know what I'm aiming for. Otherwise, it's just like a camera with just a "P" setting and nothing else.

I really do not expect to be able to use any system or software moderately complex without any learning and training. This doesn't mean software could be sloppy and deliver ugly, unusable interface, but an oversimplified interface could be ugly and unusable as well as a very complex one.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
CTJohn said:
AvTvM said:
There is a major issue for new users with LR. But it is not the import screen per se. The difficulty stems from the totally wretched, unintuitive Adobe LR concept, specifically having to IMPORT any image file first into a strange LR catalogue instead of just OPENing the file displayed in a file folder to edit it.

Adobe is unnecessarily doubling up on what the Operating system already does!

Imagine if Microsoft Office users would have to "import" every single document into an MS Word or Excel CATALOGUE first, rather than just to OPEN the file and start working on it!

Or - after inserting 2 new slides into a Powerpoint presentation one would not just click on "SAVE" but have to "EXPORT" the file.

Adobe forces an exotic workflow, strange naming of actions and user interface on users that makes it an utterly un-intuitive experience. Worst in Photoshop, but also LR is unnecessarily "difficult".

Adobe should abolish the catalogue from LR. Edit data goes into the xmps, metadata goes into file headers and all the catalogueing is done by windows or mac OS. Like with any other program. Users would then just open files, save them or rename them. Easy, simple, straightforward.

Having to IMPORT at all is the true source of confusion re. iMPORT for new LR users. It is not stupid/n00b users fault, it is solely Adobes fault. Adobe software is ROGUE and off-track both in the Windows world and in mac OS land. The more i see of this Adobe sh*t the more it pisses me off.
Absolutely correct. I've used Lightroom for several years, and tried to explain the catalog to my very computer literate son a couple months ago. It was a wasted effort, and I realized at that point how stupid the structure of Lightroom is.
How is the structure "stupid"?

Databases have many significant advantages over file-based systems. If LR were file based, it would be far less powerful.
 

distant.star

EOR R
Jan 19, 2011
1,813
0
USA
wetracy.smugmug.com
.
I believe Adobe sees Lightroom as a database program with an image manipulation program attached to it.

I suspect most users see it as an image manipulation program with an attached database program they can largely ignore.

The conflict between those two perceptions causes a lot of problems for both sides.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
distant.star said:
.
I suspect most users see it as an image manipulation program with an attached database program they can largely ignore.
You think most people just open, edit, export, and forget? That sounds so preposterous to me... essentially treating LR like Adobe camera raw only, like using photoshop but not bridge. But you may be right, perhaps hence Adobe adding in a "look at your entire storage system" import mechanism.

I have several hundred thousand photos in my main archival catalog. If Lightroom worked like MS Word, it would be unmanageable.
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
3kramd5 said:
distant.star said:
.
I suspect most users see it as an image manipulation program with an attached database program they can largely ignore.
You think most people just open, edit, export, and forget?
YES! This is exactly the way I'd like to use LR. As a raw converter + image file editor. I have about 200.000 raw images so far, adding between 15k and 20k every year. Everything is sorted nicely into well-named folders. Ever since MS opened up on the earlier 8.3 naming convention this is quite easy and well structured.

My top folder structure is by year (YYYY) and within year folders are named YYYYMMDD_name_of_event_or_scene_captured.

If Lightroom would write the keywords I assign into each file [RAW and if i SAVE that raw after editing as jpg, the keywords should also go into the header of the jpg file. EXPORTING is something my counrty does really well, shippping stuff to other parts of the world. On my PC I OPEN files, I EIDT theam, and then I SAVE them otr use SAVE AS ....

MS Windows search is also much since Win 7 and allows me to easily find keywords in file headers. It works with all my Excel files, my Powerpoint presentations, m,y Word documents. Just not with my RAWs. Those need to be IMPORTED and EXPORTED and what the heck.

And if I want to find all images with Unckle Bob or Auntie Ruth in them, I can use free of charge Picasa Image Editor. It has an absolutely astounding FACE RECOGNITION. Works miraculously well, without a fat CATALOGUE, without IMPORT screens and EXPORTS to China or the cloud [although with Google you have to reyll be careful not to use the Picasa web albums, otherwise Uncle Bobs images are all over the web).

In conclusion: anno 2015 there is no need whatsoever for a freakin' fat, cludgy and unwieldy Lightroom database any longer. Adobe cannot even call a "database" a databse, but needs to call it a frekin' "CATALOGUE" ... fully in line with all their other weirdo, non-standard, ultra-proprietory ways.

Yes, I do dislike the basic LR approach. It reminds me of Microsoft Outlook - that black sheep of all MS Office apps. Microsoft handling of Word, Excel, Powerpoint are intuitive to me. MS Outlook is not intuitive - it is a big, bloody mess because of that stupid convoluted, mega-fat Outlook.pst file [probably also some database]. I would greatly prefer having each item just as a file [raw files, jpgs as well as every single email-message] in named folders. That way I am in charge, not some software supplier! I do know, where specific data resides on my system [logically, not physically]. Adobe and Apple and increasingly MS try to hide everything from users and make us all mere tenants on our own hard- and software, rather than landlords. Of course, tenants have to pay monthly rent. That's the grand scheme Adobe is pushing on us. And I am pushing back. :)

Whether Adobe will be successful with their strategy remains to be seen. As far as I am concerned, I use LR 5.7 as long as I don't buy new cameras and will then re-evaluate available software options. Luckily there are other options - not least Canon's own DPP.

RANT END.

What I do like about LR [ever since LR 3] is having to just use 1 program for RAW conversion and image edits. I purchased Photoshop once, opened it once, and deleted it from the disk. Totally unusable. LR is usable as an image editor. Anything I cannot do with it - don't care. Luckily I am just an amatuer and don't have to "beautify" faces and skin or "liquify" body fat ... beyond recognition. :)
 

LDS

EOR R
Sep 14, 2012
1,608
171
AvTvM said:
My top folder structure is by year (YYYY) and within year folders are named YYYYMMDD_name_of_event_or_scene_captured.
That's just one dimension to search for. My images have far more "tags" attached, and needs thereby far more ways to be searched for. My file system structure is just based on dates. Everything else is looked for using LR search capabilities.

AvTvM said:
MS Windows search is also much since Win 7 and allows me to easily find keywords in file headers.
Yes, it does use a database too, and being able to make a full text index, can take up 1/3 of the indexed files size. Moreover, it doesn't understand the full EXIF/IPCT data LR understands. Nor the keywords hierarchy or geospatial info. There have been several plans to turn file systems into full databases to broaden their search capabilities.

AvTvM said:
In conclusion: anno 2015 there is no need whatsoever for a freakin' fat, cludgy and unwieldy Lightroom database any longer.
Face it: the larger the data, the better a database is. There are a few companies that became extremely rich selling database systems. Even on your smartphone, many information are stored in a SQLite db just like LR does.

AvTvM said:
Yes, I do dislike the basic LR approach. It reminds me of Microsoft Outlook - that black sheep of all MS Office apps.
Outlook/Exchange handle far more than email messages, and in far more complex ways. They are a huge success for Microsoft. Really, I couldn't manage my daily workflow with a less powerful application.

That said, I understand someone found databases too difficult to use, and can do without. Maybe Adobe could split the image management system from LR and sell it separately. I'd buy it anyway, because I got tired of handling images through a file system long ago - I even wrote my own database before using LR.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
A big part of your (AVTVM) complaint seems to be what the function is called.

Export is a far more appropriate term than save. LR isn't writing to your files, it's writing metadata. If you open something in Photoshop and save it, you're changing the file. Save as will make a copy. Neither describe what LR does when you export (though save as is certainly closer, but "new from" is best).

Open isn't necessarily accurate either, since there is no flip side (close). You don't "open" a file when you drag it to a folder in Windows, and it makes as little sense to call it open when you load data into LR.

However it is easy enough to think of import as open and export and save, no?

In any case, would you prefer to use Windows or OSX folders to manage files/names/locations/metadata/etc? If so, why use Lightroom at all? Use a standalone raw converter. Personally, the database approach makes significantly more sense (even though I manually manage folder structure), and it allows more functionality than a folder system (virtual copies, collections, copy/paste of develop settings, offline editing, etc).


Outlook is more akin to the single blob option of aperture than to Lightroom. LR doesn't package image data in an amorphous archive file, it uses the OS's basic file management system.
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
3kramd5 said:
In any case, would you prefer to use Windows or OSX folders to manage files/names/locations/metadata/etc?
If so, why use Lightroom at all? Use a standalone raw converter.
1. Yes.
2. The only reason I use LR is that it works for me as not only a RAW converter but also as my one-stop image editing program. I only shoot raw, and I only edit RAWs. No edits on other filetypes, most definitely not on jpgs. My whole workflow only uses 2 filetypes: RAWs and jpgs, which I really treat like paper prints in the old days (=output only) and the "recipe" .xmp files LR creates. I'd prefer LR to write my keywords, EXIF, IPTC data into those .xmps - Windows would certainly be able to search and find the stuff within those - provided Adobe did it in a "standard", non-proprietary way.

What i do not like is the fat catalogue/database in LR and all the ramifications that database has. It really only doubles up on what MS Windows could handle on its own - administration of files and associated metadata. The LR approach may have been necessary at the time of LR 1.0 but with Win 7, 8 10 definitely no longer needed.

The catalogue (or horribile dictu - multiple catalogues!) is the primary source of the many LR's performance issues and software bugs and the main source of confusion for many (potential) LR users. Adobe has correctly identified that IMPORT (into database) stuff as an obstacle to using LR. But they applied the wrong fix. They should have dumped the database altogether, eliminating the need for imports ... rather than dumbing down the "import" functionality.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
I imagine if they dumped the database they'd see people dump their product en masse.

I used to use photoshop camera raw and manage as standalone files with discrete xmps. Lightroom was revolutionary for my workflow.

Funny how two people can have diametrically different experiences.
 

emko

EOS 80D
Sep 15, 2012
195
0
CTJohn said:
AvTvM said:
There is a major issue for new users with LR. But it is not the import screen per se. The difficulty stems from the totally wretched, unintuitive Adobe LR concept, specifically having to IMPORT any image file first into a strange LR catalogue instead of just OPENing the file displayed in a file folder to edit it.

Adobe is unnecessarily doubling up on what the Operating system already does!

Imagine if Microsoft Office users would have to "import" every single document into an MS Word or Excel CATALOGUE first, rather than just to OPEN the file and start working on it!

Or - after inserting 2 new slides into a Powerpoint presentation one would not just click on "SAVE" but have to "EXPORT" the file.

Adobe forces an exotic workflow, strange naming of actions and user interface on users that makes it an utterly un-intuitive experience. Worst in Photoshop, but also LR is unnecessarily "difficult".

Adobe should abolish the catalogue from LR. Edit data goes into the xmps, metadata goes into file headers and all the catalogueing is done by windows or mac OS. Like with any other program. Users would then just open files, save them or rename them. Easy, simple, straightforward.

Having to IMPORT at all is the true source of confusion re. iMPORT for new LR users. It is not stupid/n00b users fault, it is solely Adobes fault. Adobe software is ROGUE and off-track both in the Windows world and in mac OS land. The more i see of this Adobe sh*t the more it pisses me off.
Absolutely correct. I've used Lightroom for several years, and tried to explain the catalog to my very computer literate son a couple months ago. It was a wasted effort, and I realized at that point how stupid the structure of Lightroom is.
yes its so stupid? especially when you CAN USE Bridge a file system browser with Adobe Camera RAW lol come man, if you really did know what Lightroom is then you would know it cataloging database with ACR.
 

emko

EOS 80D
Sep 15, 2012
195
0
AvTvM said:
3kramd5 said:
distant.star said:
.
I suspect most users see it as an image manipulation program with an attached database program they can largely ignore.
You think most people just open, edit, export, and forget?
YES! This is exactly the way I'd like to use LR. As a raw converter + image file editor. I have about 200.000 raw images so far, adding between 15k and 20k every year. Everything is sorted nicely into well-named folders. Ever since MS opened up on the earlier 8.3 naming convention this is quite easy and well structured.

My top folder structure is by year (YYYY) and within year folders are named YYYYMMDD_name_of_event_or_scene_captured.

If Lightroom would write the keywords I assign into each file [RAW and if i SAVE that raw after editing as jpg, the keywords should also go into the header of the jpg file. EXPORTING is something my counrty does really well, shippping stuff to other parts of the world. On my PC I OPEN files, I EIDT theam, and then I SAVE them otr use SAVE AS ....

MS Windows search is also much since Win 7 and allows me to easily find keywords in file headers. It works with all my Excel files, my Powerpoint presentations, m,y Word documents. Just not with my RAWs. Those need to be IMPORTED and EXPORTED and what the heck.

And if I want to find all images with Unckle Bob or Auntie Ruth in them, I can use free of charge Picasa Image Editor. It has an absolutely astounding FACE RECOGNITION. Works miraculously well, without a fat CATALOGUE, without IMPORT screens and EXPORTS to China or the cloud [although with Google you have to reyll be careful not to use the Picasa web albums, otherwise Uncle Bobs images are all over the web).

In conclusion: anno 2015 there is no need whatsoever for a freakin' fat, cludgy and unwieldy Lightroom database any longer. Adobe cannot even call a "database" a databse, but needs to call it a frekin' "CATALOGUE" ... fully in line with all their other weirdo, non-standard, ultra-proprietory ways.

Yes, I do dislike the basic LR approach. It reminds me of Microsoft Outlook - that black sheep of all MS Office apps. Microsoft handling of Word, Excel, Powerpoint are intuitive to me. MS Outlook is not intuitive - it is a big, bloody mess because of that stupid convoluted, mega-fat Outlook.pst file [probably also some database]. I would greatly prefer having each item just as a file [raw files, jpgs as well as every single email-message] in named folders. That way I am in charge, not some software supplier! I do know, where specific data resides on my system [logically, not physically]. Adobe and Apple and increasingly MS try to hide everything from users and make us all mere tenants on our own hard- and software, rather than landlords. Of course, tenants have to pay monthly rent. That's the grand scheme Adobe is pushing on us. And I am pushing back. :)

Whether Adobe will be successful with their strategy remains to be seen. As far as I am concerned, I use LR 5.7 as long as I don't buy new cameras and will then re-evaluate available software options. Luckily there are other options - not least Canon's own DPP.

RANT END.

What I do like about LR [ever since LR 3] is having to just use 1 program for RAW conversion and image edits. I purchased Photoshop once, opened it once, and deleted it from the disk. Totally unusable. LR is usable as an image editor. Anything I cannot do with it - don't care. Luckily I am just an amatuer and don't have to "beautify" faces and skin or "liquify" body fat ... beyond recognition. :)
Sound's like you don't know what your talking about, if you want just file system? use bridge and ACR why would you want to change Lightroom into Bridge? everyone else wants a cataloging system with ACR and that is exactly what Ligthroom is.
 

emko

EOS 80D
Sep 15, 2012
195
0
3kramd5 said:
I imagine if they dumped the database they'd see people dump their product en masse.

I used to use photoshop camera raw and manage as standalone files with discrete xmps. Lightroom was revolutionary for my workflow.

Funny how two people can have diametrically different experiences.
If they dumped the database it would be another Adobe Bridge i don't get why people who don't want a database don't use Photoshop with ACR or Bridge with ACR?
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
emko said:
3kramd5 said:
I imagine if they dumped the database they'd see people dump their product en masse.

I used to use photoshop camera raw and manage as standalone files with discrete xmps. Lightroom was revolutionary for my workflow.

Funny how two people can have diametrically different experiences.
If they dumped the database it would be another Adobe Bridge i don't get why people who don't want a database don't use Photoshop with ACR or Bridge with ACR?
Photoshop costs significantly more.
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
3kramd5 said:
emko said:
3kramd5 said:
I imagine if they dumped the database they'd see people dump their product en masse.

I used to use photoshop camera raw and manage as standalone files with discrete xmps. Lightroom was revolutionary for my workflow.

Funny how two people can have diametrically different experiences.
If they dumped the database it would be another Adobe Bridge i don't get why people who don't want a database don't use Photoshop with ACR or Bridge with ACR?
Photoshop costs significantly more.
I bought a PS license once, but don't want to use it. Horrible user interface. Very bloatrd. Lots of features i don't need or understand. I am no graphics or pre-print expert. I dont like apps that heavily rely on keyboard shortcuts. Can never memorize them. Massive learning curve involved. Not interested and not willing to make the effort. De-installed it. Never touched ACR or Bridge, found the looks of it totally counter-intuitive.

Using LR was easy - coming from Raw Shooter and DPP. It does what i want: o ly 1 app to allow not only raw conversion but also extensive global and local edits - directly on raws. No messing around with complex layers and masks, quite intuitive slider concept. But i don't like the totally un-intuitive database aspects of it. To me it is an outdated, overly bloated software model. Windows search is reasonably good by now. No duplication of database needed ... for me. Imports, exports - foreign trade. Image File editing: open and save ... For me.
 

stoneysnapper

EOS 80D
Feb 24, 2011
105
0
51
Stonehaven, Scotland
.2.1 solved nothing, it is still incredibly buggy, completely unusable imo, thankfully I haven't update to .2 on my iMac but trying to work on images on my macbook which has .2.1 is utterly useless.
 

emko

EOS 80D
Sep 15, 2012
195
0
stoneysnapper said:
.2.1 solved nothing, it is still incredibly buggy, completely unusable imo, thankfully I haven't update to .2 on my iMac but trying to work on images on my macbook which has .2.1 is utterly useless.
i am guessing these issues are Mac only so far 6.2 is working perfectly fine on win10 after 10 hour marathon editing