Update on Lightroom 2015.2 / Lightroom 6.2 Release

emko

EOS 80D
Sep 15, 2012
195
0
AvTvM said:
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 To me it is an outdated, overly bloated software model.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.
you don't have to use Photoshop just open bridge its a file system browser and then just right click on a raw file and open it up with Adobe Camera Raw and it will be exactly the same as Ligthroom development options.
Lightroom was made for cataloging with ability to use ACR on the images, so suggesting that Adobe should remove the database is crazy since they already have products that do exactly that. Then you have many other programs that process RAW without cataloging some are even free in fact you also have a FREE RAW processor its on the CD that came with your CANON camera.

Database is not bloated system its a DATABASE its basically used for cataloging data and it does THIS EXTREMELY WELL its the reason we have MYSQL,SQL etc that run basically all the websites. You are comparing Windows search to a database? are you joking you want to have to type all your searches? Rating:>2 Star windows response "Working on it" yea that's very effective well since its not a database it wont be its a file system. Imagine wanting to find all pictures tagged with "sky,sunset" that have 3 stars or more and are shot with a 35mm lens? your telling me its easier to use a filesystem?
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
emko said:
.. in fact you also have a FREE RAW processor its on the CD that came with your CANON camera.
I know. Used Canon DPP for along time but found its editing functionality too limited. That's what I really like in Lightroom - it was (and probably still is) so much more powerful as an image editor. Global and even more importantly local edits. Have not used DPP in a long time.What pisses me off about DPP is the mess cAnon created with the split between versions 3 and 4 and suppot/no support for diefferent Canon EIOS cameras. I want only one version of a RAW-capable, reasonable powerful yet intuitive to use image editing software - for all my cameras. What I don't need is a doubled up file management system and database -neither in Lightroom nor the one in Bridge.
 

emko

EOS 80D
Sep 15, 2012
195
0
AvTvM said:
emko said:
.. in fact you also have a FREE RAW processor its on the CD that came with your CANON camera.
I know. Used Canon DPP for along time but found its editing functionality too limited. That's what I really like in Lightroom - it was (and probably still is) so much more powerful as an image editor. Global and even more importantly local edits. Have not used DPP in a long time.What pisses me off about DPP is the mess cAnon created with the split between versions 3 and 4 and suppot/no support for diefferent Canon EIOS cameras. I want only one version of a RAW-capable, reasonable powerful yet intuitive to use image editing software - for all my cameras. What I don't need is a doubled up file management system and database -neither in Lightroom nor the one in Bridge.
"Never touched ACR or Bridge, found the looks of it totally counter-intuitive."

So you like Lightroom that is using ACR because it looks good? but you don't like lightroom because its a database? Counter-intuitive? its exactly the same all the sliders everything except the graphical look of it.




so you don't like ACR because its not as good looking makes no sense to me man.
 

LDS

EOR R
Sep 14, 2012
1,593
164
AvTvM said:
those .xmps - Windows would certainly be able to search and find the stuff within those
Just, nor Windows nor OSX probably ever will. They are generic OS, and are not interested to manage all those image specific stuff (but maybe as a generic text blob). It will make their own index/search functions more complex, and users will complain as well. Windows has already simplified too a lot of its file management features over the years. Because most users don't like to be overwhelmed by too many metadata about their files. Nor the search UI will add all the complexity to look for specific image data. Anyway, indexing was added because (many) users aren't able to proper store their files in the file system, and tend to scatter them around. So the OS creates a searchable database of them, automatically "importing" each file - up to the point I have to disable it for folder where a lot of file activiy happens and indexing them is useless, or it impacts performance.

Moreover, now they are obsessed with "cloud storage", expect local file systems get far less attention and features. And especially, I'd like to avoid that all my metadata and searches are sent to the "mothership" as Windows 10, for example, attempts to do (not that Adobe may not tempted too)...

A dedicated application like LR can implement all the specific management features which users needs, in a UI dedicated for the specific task of managing digital image assets. Do you believe Windows (or OSX) cares if an image has a property/model release form or not?

AvTvM said:
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.
Believe me, without a database LR would become even slower and buggier - it would have to guess what happens behind its back, and software is never good at guessing. People will move and delete files, then complain LR doesn't work... there's a reason often in mobile devices users are forbidden to mess with the file system. Also, a database is designed to ensure data are "consistent". They can ensure several changes to them happens as a whole (from a consistent state to another), or don't happen at all. Simply writing to files usually can't ensure that, and if something goes wrong, the state is inconsistent and you need a backup to recover.
 

Mr Bean

EOS 7D MK II
Sep 15, 2012
555
5
Australia
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 uninstalled 6.2 and reinstalled 6 which took 15-20min. It kept the preferences during the uninstall, so the reinstalled version runs like it always did before the upgrade.
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
emko said:
so you don't like ACR because its not as good looking makes no sense to me man.
1. Does ACR offer ALL the image editing functionality of LR? Global and local adjustments? Gradients, replace tool, distortion/keystone adjustment etc. ? I always thought ACR is only the straightforward RAW converter engine with little or no image editing functionality - as opposed to LR?
2. Does ACR work free-standing - without PS? I thought it can only be had as the RAW-conversion module in PS (or in LR)?
 

Ian_of_glos

EOS RP
Jun 12, 2012
249
32
England
Mr Bean said:
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 uninstalled 6.2 and reinstalled 6 which took 15-20min. It kept the preferences during the uninstall, so the reinstalled version runs like it always did before the upgrade.
Well I also uninstalled v6.2, re-installed v6.0 then v6.1 and all the lost functionality is restored. However the software download took nearly 4 hours. I guess a number of other people were reverting to the old version at the same time.
 

Kristofgss

EOS 80D
Aug 6, 2012
124
0
LDS said:
One of the main issues for first time LR users, is LR doesn't simply "open" their photo files, like PS or many other tools. It doesn't work simply with files on disk but in the import dialog. Then it works within its database, where it has "links" to actual image data somewhere on disks. People used to other complex software may find it easy, others won't. Some people have issues to manage the disk tree structure too.
I am definitely one of those people. I usually use photoshop for editing, but occasionaly do something in raw and use lightroom for processing, but that entire catalog database thingy drives me nuts. I don't want to catalog my images, I simply want to open, convert to jpg and save. The only option I found to do that is to put the images I want in a separate folder, add it to the catalog, process and save the images, remove the catalog again and start over next time. I would have loved the editing abilities on just the windows file structure without any catalog like photoshop does. (or word, or basically any other product)
 

Stu_bert

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 29, 2011
559
1
London, UK
AvTvM said:
emko said:
so you don't like ACR because its not as good looking makes no sense to me man.
1. Does ACR offer ALL the image editing functionality of LR? Global and local adjustments? Gradients, replace tool, distortion/keystone adjustment etc. ? I always thought ACR is only the straightforward RAW converter engine with little or no image editing functionality - as opposed to LR?
2. Does ACR work free-standing - without PS? I thought it can only be had as the RAW-conversion module in PS (or in LR)?
Yup, ACR is the develop module effectively within LR. ACR has none of the DAM functionality that LR has.

ACR is part of Photoshop, I dont believe it is free standing....
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
Stu_bert said:
AvTvM said:
emko said:
so you don't like ACR because its not as good looking makes no sense to me man.
1. Does ACR offer ALL the image editing functionality of LR? Global and local adjustments? Gradients, replace tool, distortion/keystone adjustment etc. ? I always thought ACR is only the straightforward RAW converter engine with little or no image editing functionality - as opposed to LR?
2. Does ACR work free-standing - without PS? I thought it can only be had as the RAW-conversion module in PS (or in LR)?
Yup, ACR is the develop module effectively within LR. ACR has none of the DAM functionality that LR has.

ACR is part of Photoshop, I dont believe it is free standing....
Thanks for the confirmation. Just as I thought, ACR is no possible free-standing substitue for LR.
 

Stu_bert

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 29, 2011
559
1
London, UK
AvTvM said:
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.
Lightroom is a DAM & Editor as I said in the previous post. The DAM side is heavily reliant on a SQL DB, which is more efficient than individual files. But I still keep the XMP in sync as a fall back position. The DAM side allows you to

- Create collection of images across any photo you have. I use it to maintain all my best pictures, but they never move from their original location
- Allows you to apply edits across multiple photos, again in any location. One of the simplest methods I use is if I notice I have gunk on my sensor, then I can edit them all at once.
- Allows me to search based on the metadata. Windows search does the same. It's not doing it in real-time, it has an index function which stores the metadata in a database of sorts, and then it searches the index. Or you can let it search every file in which case it's a lot slower.
- Lets me maintain keywords about images, so I can see every picture of a Lion i've taken over the past 10 years and compare them.
- Lets you rate pictures using any number of methods, and then either cull them or promote them.


Import/Export ?

Export is there as everything LR does is non-destructive. Export is Save. But it's more powerful as you can batch things up, apply different attributes, integrate your pictures into flick, facebook or wherever. Or you can chose to just look at the developed photo in LR without ever having to save a version of it and it takes up considerably less space. Export is when you want that photo outside of LR (bar printing). If you dont need a TIF or JPEG version, and go from RAW to print, then you may never need export.

Import - honestly most of the time I bypass it. Once I have my photos on my filesystem, I right click on the root folder and tell it to synchronise. Every time i change photos in that filesystem, I do the same. If I want to add specific previews or metadata, I can do that via the same dialog.

But lightroom does not control my filesystem, nor my pictures. I do that. I refresh the database through import so I can manage my library - 120K images in the main library, 40K images in other library. I like to have separate libraries, other people prefer one.

If you just want to edit a handful of pictures and you're not interested in managing your collection. No worries. Lightroom is probably an overkill. Put CaptureOne and DxO Optics Pro in the same category. Photoshop ironically is closer to your requirements, but it is indeed more complicated initially and a lot more expensive. But if you kept to bridge & acr and just used photoshop to do the save, then it probably would do most of what you want.

Horses for courses at the end of the day...
 

Lee Jay

EOS 7D Mark II
Sep 22, 2011
2,125
86
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!
Then you're missing like 90% of the functionality.

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.
Raw files are proprietary. They'll only write dates and times into them. JPEGs, DNGs and so on do get everything written into their headers, including keywords, if that's what you want. But you said above you don't want LR to manage anything so I'm not sure why you would want that.

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.
I tried Face Recognition from several different programs, and Picasa was the worst of the bunch.

Works miraculously well, without a fat CATALOGUE, without IMPORT screens and EXPORTS to China or the clou [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.
You do realize, I hope, that Windows Search, Google Search and all the others use a database, don't you? Probably not.

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. :)
What you are essentially saying is that you like having a database, but you don't want to know that you have a database.
 

emko

EOS 80D
Sep 15, 2012
195
0
Stu_bert said:
AvTvM said:
emko said:
so you don't like ACR because its not as good looking makes no sense to me man.
1. Does ACR offer ALL the image editing functionality of LR? Global and local adjustments? Gradients, replace tool, distortion/keystone adjustment etc. ? I always thought ACR is only the straightforward RAW converter engine with little or no image editing functionality - as opposed to LR?
2. Does ACR work free-standing - without PS? I thought it can only be had as the RAW-conversion module in PS (or in LR)?
Yup, ACR is the develop module effectively within LR. ACR has none of the DAM functionality that LR has.

ACR is part of Photoshop, I dont believe it is free standing....
Yea when you open the RAW file it will open Photoshop and then ACR you can do all the same editing like Lightroom and save your image to any file format etc with your edits .xmp. You don't have to touch anything in Photoshop other then the close bottom if ACR is all that you wanted to use.

If you use bridge witch is just a file browser like windows explorer with it you can make ACR open without Photoshop i use bridge to mass edit time lapse raws with ACR.

But them suggesting Adobe to remove the DAM functions in Lightroom is never going to happen that is exactly the purpose of Lightroom. If Adobe didn't want a DAM anymore they would make us go back to ACR there would be no point in having 3 ways to get to ACR.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
Lee Jay said:
What you are essentially saying is that you like having a database, but you don't want to know that you have a database.
I think what he is saying is:
1. He likes the generic OS file system regardless of whether it is purpose-built for managing photography, which may include a number of file types the OS has no knowledge of*.

2. He wants a standalone ACR which will open file-based RAW files, and generate (to refrain from using the e-word) sidecars and jpegs when he clicks save.

He wants none of the database functionality of LR, and none of the layers/masking/per-pixel manipulations/etc of photoshop.



*Windows will preview my .CR2s, but not my .ARWs, for example.

emko said:
But them suggesting Adobe to remove the DAM functions in Lightroom is never going to happen that is exactly the purpose of Lightroom.
Ding ding.
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
Thanks for all the hints and explanations to everyone.
Using ACR and/or bridge is no option, as they require PS, which I de-installed and will never again install.

I'll keep working with - or against? :p - LR 5.7 but will not purchase LR 6 or rent CC. Once I buy a new camera not supported by LR 5.7 any more, I'll say goodbye to Adobe software.
 

KBStudio

EOS T7i
Oct 24, 2013
64
0
www.kimbrunstudio.com
Update to LR CC 2015 2.1 and it still locks up when trying to quit the program. Attempting to quit out of LR causes it to going to a "Not Responding" loop. The only way out is to "Force Quit". This is the same behavior as LR CC 2015 2. This is occurring on a Mac OS 10.10.4.

The Soft Proofing bug is still there. So they only fixed the minimum necessary to get us off their backs?

Otherwise seems stable.
 

Stu_bert

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 29, 2011
559
1
London, UK
KBStudio said:
Update to LR CC 2015 2.1 and it still locks up when trying to quit the program. Attempting to quit out of LR causes it to going to a "Not Responding" loop. The only way out is to "Force Quit". This is the same behavior as LR CC 2015 2. This is occurring on a Mac OS 10.10.4.

The Soft Proofing bug is still there. So they only fixed the minimum necessary to get us off their backs?

Otherwise seems stable.
That's interesting as sometimes i get similar behavior on Windows. One wonders if the problem is then the LUA interpreter or something in the LUA code which causes the issue. Fortunately LR 5 & 6 are more robust at being terminated unexpectedly and recovering the catalogue, but I still regularly select those images whose metadata has changed and write those to the XMP. That and weekly backups should ensure I am safe.

Thanks for testing. I might give it a whirl and see if they still have the memory leak. Funny I reported it on their bug tracking site, and no acknowledgement from Adobe, no request for further information. Disappointing.