[Bubba]

Any of you Mac guys used this yet? Is it as good as it looks?

Can't wait for the Windoze version.

[Monolith]

sadly not yet bubba. downloaded the beta a while back and sadly my ibook G4 didn't have enough Ram (requiring 512 at least to work).
Will be very much interested in hearing how you get on with it though. It's a bit of a shame really, as it looks like it could run on far less than photoshop cs 2 and Illustrator demand, perhaps not even requiring use of the scratch disk. Is it supposed to be much use as a tool for optomizing images for the web en masse do you know?

[Bubba]

It would be perfect for mass operations such as that.

I like the fact that all it's editing is non-destructive. I've only watched the demo video, but it looks fantastic for digital photographers.

[jonas]

Lightroom is really, really good, and very easy to use as well. I use the free Beta version right now but I will buy it for sure when they release it properly.

Luminous landscape has a review http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/lightroom1.shtml

[Bubba]

This is about the only time I've ever wanted a Mac. Still, windoze version will be out before long

[jonas]

It seems to be a little bit like “It's gonna be done by Saturday… Tuesday… next week…  about a month… We're gonna bring it out when we're fuckin' ready, right?” for the windows version, no?

[Bubba]

Yeah, they're being a big cagey with a date, but then it's better to wait for something that works rather than something that's just been rushed out to please the crowds.

I'll be putting any photo-processing on hold until it's out though...

[jonas]

...oh yeah. I forgot. Even if Lightroom is a good deal faster than Photoshop or Gimp for photoprocessing it's still a good deal slower (but better) then iPhoto. I have a rather slow computer, so for most of my post processing I still use iPhoto. Only the photos I really care about get the full Lightroom treatment...

[Johnny Brown]

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/

All yours Bubbs. You didn't even have to weight a month. I think the site went mad yesterday but it might be calmer today...

[Bubba]

Thanks man

Will go get now...

[Johnny Brown]

Finally got a machine that can actually run this... amazing! Makes editing shoots a pleasure, has totally transformed my workflow. Can anyone offer an opinion on how aperture measures up to it? Bearing in mind Lightroom is in its 2nd beta version, whilst Aperture is on V1.5 now or summat...

[Bubba]

It's on beta 4 jb!

I've got it installed but haven't got round to really using it yet. Need to do so though because I've got a slew of holiday pics that need processing.

[Johnny Brown]

It's on beta 4 jb!

Isn't that only the 2nd windows version though? Rest assured I have the latest - its well brown.

[dave]

someone wanna explain to me what this is and why i should be looking at it?

I'm currently using CS2 and bridge. will switching from one to the other fuck me over? does lightroom read and write jpeg comments/keywords in the same place a bridge?

[Johnny Brown]

Just download it and you'll see. There are no switching fuck-over issues to worry about, other than why you didn't do it earlier.
I ain't never touchin no Bridge again - what a crock of shit, last month I processed a shoot of 100 RAW files with that crap, a major chore.

[dave]

well if you insist on shooting RAW.....

i've had a download and it looks OK. I'm not yet sold on this though - it seems to simplify soem things and yet overcomplicate others. I can't find any sharpening options in this other than a plain basic "sharpen" slider. Am I missing something? Also how do I do the equivalent of photoshops "proof colours" etc?

[squeek]

If that remains the case I doubt it will be marketed as a replacement for PS for serious photographers, perhaps just a browser

On a sidenote, is the photo browsing in the latest photoshop/lightroom any good?  Last time I used Photoshop it was awful.

[Johnny Brown]

perhaps just a browser/RAW processor designed specifically for photographers

That's pretty much what it is, with bells on - Gruff, as I said to Dave, try it. It doesn't affect anything else so you can just delete it if you don't like it. If you're shooting RAW its the best program I've used by a mile, and I don't batch process much either. I found bridge very slow and cumbersome, both for browsing and for using the RAW processor, to the extent I only used it when I had to. Lightroom makes the same tasks a pleasure - I've already been through almost my whole library just playing with different images. Simple things like maximising screen space (I don't run big screen resolutions because I want to see individual pixels at 100%), swapping between 100% and screen size with single mouse clicks, and the having a filmstrip at the bottom of the screen so you can quickly compare different pics - it even gives you the same section if you are working at 100%. Its also remarkably intuitive - I haven't needed a manual at all yet, which is probably a good job as there isn't one yet. The Readme file also hints that I haven't scratched the surface of what its capable of...

The big difference though, is non-destructive editing - at any time (months later) you can go back to the file, see how you treated it, either do the same again, tweak or revert to the original. Yeah I suppose this was possible in the old system but again - try it, you'll like it.

No, its not a replacement for Photoshop - like the old system you export files to photoshop for finishing. I wouldn't be surprised if more sophisticated sharpening and cropping options make it into the final version, though I don't expect layer functionality - to an extent that is not required due to the non-destructive system.

is the photo browsing in the latest photoshop/lightroom any good?

This is pretty much the debate. The latest version has the Bridge browser, which I think is crap. Lightroom is still in the beta stage, calling it a replacement for bridge is selling it short though.

[dave]

Dave, IMO not shooting in RAW is akin to getting your Woolies cheapo film developed in Max Spielman and throwing away the negs.

well its not really is it. its more like shooting a slide film that you like, sending it off to to be processed at a lab you trust and then sitll being able to tweak em afterwards if required. Shooting RAW is more like developing your own negatives in the bathroom with the windows boarded up.

RAW is fine if you wanna spend the time on it. I don't personally.

[Johnny Brown]

That's a crap analogy Dave. Its more like buying an SLR and then only shooting in program mode.

I don't shoot RAW all the time, far from it, jpeg is fine for a lot of stuff, but ignore it and you're missing a big part of digital's functionality. Having a Lightroom as a RAW converter has made a huge difference to my 'gumption factor' when shooting RAW though; if you are using Nikon's own I can imagine it seems more hassle than its worth.

[dave]

From what I gather you may get better image quality when viewed at 100% (like a 1m wide print), but is this noticable in prints of the kind of size that anyone really prints? I don't know because I can't be arsed to expend the time and money to do it myself. I can't believe there is any visible difference in images viewed to fit a computer screen or internet. What other benefits are there? white balance etc can be altered in jpegs after the event as well as RAW, though when you've got a camera with a screen on the back you aught to be able to get it near enough at the time. And I know you have some highlight recovery potential with RAW, but again is this worth the hassle, given since your camera display shows you if your highlights have gone in the first instance. Are the benefits good enough to justify the extra time and filesize (i.e. card and memory buffers filing up twice as fast). Plus as the megapixel counts drift up and in-camera jpeg encoding get better and better, won't the jpeg losses and artefacting become less and less significant? From everything i've seen of raw its not convinced me yet. if i was doing massive prints or being paid to fuck around with photos then maybe. I'd be genuinley interested to know what you guys perceive as the benefits and how they outweigh the cons.

As lightbox stands at the moment it might be great for raw, but most of the things I would want to do I would still have to use photoshop for. I have got no real problem using Bridge, but then I'm not trying to use it as a raw converter. I will still fuck about with lightbox though with an open mind, see if they improve it. Not convinced i would pay money for it unless I did a lot of raw (as I'm sure it does make RAW stuff easier if you say it does JB), but i'd probably be happy to crib an illegal copy off someone else for a rainy day. 

[Johnny Brown]

Dave, have you ever deleted what was almost a good photo cos it didn't quite come out? Focus issues aside - too light, too dark, excessive contrast? With RAW you can generally save these and turn them into something usable. Shooting in 12 bit colour (RAW) rather than 8 bit (jpeg) also gives you massive benefits when tweaking photos in PS. With jpegs its obvious when you've gone too far and the colour starts to go wack, with RAW you get a lot more leeway.

[dave]

cheers for the replies word.

I know that raw allows you to edit and salvage photoswithout "throwing away data", but again are the differences visible in print? JPG gives you a fair bit of leeway anyway, and when you can instantly review the images are we not better getting it right at the time. I know its not always possible, and in those situations maybe raw is better, I don’t know. if the main benefit of raw is in salvaging really badly exposed (several stops?) photos then I would say that's a pretty niche market, for specific situations rather than general use, since jpeg is fine for a lot of it.

If it’s a once in a lifetime event and you really need to recover photos a lot then raw is obvisouly the way to go. maybe we should just shoot raw when you can't be confident of nailing the exposure or in really difficult/impossible circumstances. I think it would be bad to always rely on raw rescuing though as routine. I want to keep as much as my photography happening out with the camera rather than sat in front of the computer at the moment, its more enjoyable. I got a dslr to help take better photos at the time, rather than for the ability to mess about after the event. I suppose its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, you pays your money you takes your choice etc etc.

I'm just worried that if I shot a lot of RAW I'd be causing myself a lot more work and expense for not much benefit. Are we just splitting hairs for the sake of it - if we're nitpicking a few pixels here and there would the time cost and effort not be better spent with a medium format camera and a scanner, and you get results with 10x the resolution of digital. will the small differences between raw and jpg going to pale into insignificance between the resolution of your camera now and the one you upgrade to in a few years? we could be worrying about nothing.

(Plus the cynic in me thinks that the photographic industry is pushing the RAW thing hard because they know full well to take advantage of it you're going to have to cough up for more $$$).

[Stu Littlefair]

Dave - I'm not sure I buy the line that RAW is any more effort than shooting JPEG. Yes, you'll need to fork out for or steal a decent RAW converter. After that though the converter will "apply" default processing to the RAW file in terms of white balance, sharpness, tone curve etc. Most RAW converters, and LightRoom is no exception, allow you to customise this default; in other words you can get back to the JPEG you would have had with the click of a single button.

On the other hand, RAW gives you much more leeway with difficult shots, particularly ones where the White Balance or Exposure is difficult. And yes, quite a lot of shots would look much worse if you applied the same corrections to the JPEGs. Example: climber in shadow with a bright background? Expose for the highlights, and bring the shadows up in the RAW converter. Sure you can do this with JPEG but RAW gives you potential to recover much deeper shadow areas. RAW is the future. Accept it.

[Johnny Brown]

Its like many things Dave, you won't know what you're missing if you never had it.