NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: elsa hoffmann on October 09, 2015, 05:50:35
-
Adobe Faces Harsh Backlash After Removal of Features and Stability Issues Plague Lightroom 2015.2/6.2
https://fstoppers.com/lightroom/adobe-faces-harsh-backlash-after-removal-features-and-stability-issues-plague-90776
-
Update Note:
Rolling back your Lightroom version from 6.2(the new, widely disliked one) to 6.1 or 6.0 is easy, at least on a Mac. Going back to 6.1.1 is all that is required to eliminate the new, oversimplified Import interface. I simply re-installed from the original 6.0 installer, and it's back to good.
I urge anyone who is at Lightroom 6.1 or earlier NOT to upgrade to LR 6.2 until they see a demo of the new Import Dialog.
They took away a large number of functions, selections and info that many users find invaluable.
Adobe state that they conducted a market research survey that consisted of placing Lightroom in front of people that had never seen it before, and then eliminated the functions that those people found confusing.
?
Apparently, if you try to import a file whose file number has been imported into Lightroom before, it will refuse to make the import.
For even mildly sophisticated users...a group that I'd count myself in...it is a disaster.
If Adobe doesn't fix the Import dialog, Lightroom could be terminal.
-
Dumbing down software apparently is the hottest trend these days.
Stability issues are hopefully easier to fix.
-
I agree, the latest update is a disaster. I'm stunned that they have deemed that ready, in the same way that Apple last year released OS X Yosemite with a very buggy network stack. It's like they didn't test it at all.
I will say though that the configuration change they mention has made it stop crashing for me:
1) Go to Lightroom > Preferences.
2) Click on the General tab
3) Uncheck “Show ‘Add Photos’ Screen”
4) Restart Lightroom
I have always limited my use of the import dialog to the minimum as it's unable to rename my files in a logical way. I copy my photos to a relevant folder on my laptop using the Finder and then use a rename tool (Better Rename) before I add them to LR.
The design changes are quite strange, it's been given a new look that's different from the rest of LR so now there's 3 different looks:
1) The main interface with the various modules (Library, Develop, etc.).
2) The Preferences panels and the Export panel.
3) The Import panel.
What a mess.
The Adobe CC application is also silly. It's basically become a commercial for "Adobe Stock". The primary feature of keeping check on updates to your programs, still isn't working. It seems the only way to get it to check for updates, is to logout and login again. It also ought to include a one click option to revert to the previous release. Shouldn't be too difficult to implement, but since they haven't even managed to implement update checking yet, I think it'll take a while.
/rant :)
-
Thanks for the heads-up. I will stick to the "old" version for now, which is silly because I subscribed to the CC edition to keep up with the updates.
-
I own Lightroom. In fact I have 3 licenses for different versions.
It is installed.
I find it confusing and distracting.
I do not use it.
My subscription to Photoshop just prolonged itself for another year.
I like it.
I use it daily.
Very to the point interface.
-
The import interface of Nikon Transfer is much alike the old LR 6.1
You can always use that and then add it to your catalog. Only one (small) step extra.
BTW I did not upgrade yet. :)
-
ok, thanks for letting us know
just saw today that there is an update available ... on LR and PS
and also an update for the stupid Adobe CC updater .. why on earth do they update that thing every time there is an update on one of the apps I care about is beyond my understanding, it takes as long or longer to update that part than LR or PS
not been able to import a second time a file with a name that has been imported before is a regression error not a feature removal, they are just trying a CYA response on us
-
I can't describe the technical underpinnings or complete extent of the "not being able to import previous file names" "bug". All I know is that it refused to do it for me in one instance, and that was enough.
My computer acquired the "CC updater" thing when I installed Lightroom 6, even though I don't have CC. I was able to uninstall the CC updater thing, while preserving the old Adobe AAM updater.
-
http://regex.info/blog/ (http://regex.info/blog/)
From Jeffrey Friedl's blog
“Metadata Wrangler” Plugin for Lightroom Can Now Add/Overwrite Metadata
-
I have been wondering how successful the move to CC (subscription) was for Adobe. In financial terms I mean.
I suppose the bit the bullet and it is working?
I am still sitting on CS6 - and although I am tempted at times - sanity prevails at this point.
We hear about unimpressed customers more than we should -
-
Distortion correction for the 50/1.2 and 20/3.5 UD : hallelujah.
As for the rest, I have yet to check.
-
i need one for the 35/1.4 ais,
dont use lr anymore never liked it anyway,
photoninja and photoshop cc :)
-
The new lens-corrections in ACR for older Nikkors:
20/3.5 UD
24/2.8 AI
50/1.2 AIS
50/1.4 AIS and SC Auto
50/1.8 AI
50/2.0 H Auto
105/2.5 P.C. Auto
Still a lot missing ;)
-
It is always best to actually check the Adobe lens correction profiles to see if they are useful. Some are better than others.
-
Yes, I am not always sure if they 'help'. Can sample variation have an effect?
-
re lens correction - see this thread I started
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1771.0.html
-
Correction of weird distortion is most useful. The 20mm Nikkors come to mind (wave distortion). Also the 50/1.8 AFS (low barrel, but increased sharply in the corners).
Interestingly, LR provides now a CV 40/2 profile with two variants: with, or without, close-up lens.
-
Yes, I am not always sure if they 'help'. Can sample variation have an effect?
Sample variation in Lightroom? Ha ha... sorry...bad joke.
I've never seen nor heard of lens assembly sample variation affecting distortion, which is what I use the Adobe lens correction for. Sometimes I leave the distortion in.
But, there's always a first time...
-
I installed the update for the update today, now ver. 2015.2.1 and no problems. Fortunately, I also had no problem with 2015.2.0, yet I do prefer the old import interface and wish they had left it alone. It is still a good idea to turn off the "Add Photos" screen - who needs it. I think they are trying to attract Photoshop Elements users with this kind of gimmick.
-
Adobe writes:
I think it’s important to provide some context to why we made changes to Import. Over the years we’ve done extensive studies of customers interested in Lightroom. The studies have been comprised of people passionate about photography and who use their cameras as a creative outlet. In short, their motivations share the same motivations as people who already love Lightroom.
We visited them in their homes, and asked them to install, launch and use Lightroom. Since this was their first interaction with Lightroom, we were interested in observing specifically where they encountered obstacles, and therefore where we needed to focus our attention.
Customers were universally unable to decipher the Import dialog without getting frustrated. Some people pushed forward, bolstered by spending time searching the web for help. They might have been successful in importing files, but they didn’t feel successful. Others gave up, deciding that Lightroom might not be the right product for them.
The previous Import experience literally made people push back from their computers in frustration. Keeping the existing Import experience isn’t an option, and we needed to evolve the Import experience.
They seem to have only studied new users, what about existing users and "advanced" users?
Link: https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html
They have also written an apology: https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/lightroom-6-2-release-update-and-apology.html
In our efforts to simplify the import experience we introduced instability that resulted in a significant crashing bug. The scope of that bug was unclear and we made the incorrect decision to ship with the bug while we continued to search for a reproducible case(Reproducible cases are essential for allowing an engineer to solve a problem).
I'll re-write that for you: "Management pressured us to release something we knew wasn't ready for release".
-
Crashing bugs seem always to eventually get fixed. I don't worry about them as a rule. Dumbing down, though, is very disappointing to the user.
This may mark the time when Lightroom went senile...time will tell.
-
Distortion correction seems OK with the 50/1.2 profile; here's a shot at f/5.6 (pavement detail in Sta Maria degli Angeli, Roma) taken at relatively short distance (body height, at an angle). I have not yet thoroughly tested the 20/3.5 profile, but I processed a couple of architecture shots and the result looked quite OK.
-
Adobe has already apologized for fumbling its latest Lightroom update, which was riddled with bugs and missing features. Now there’s a new story that’s putting a stain on Adobe’s image: a new test has found that the latest Lightroom is about 600% slower than its competitors.
http://petapixel.com/2015/10/13/lightroom-import-is-600-slower-than-competition/
-
So was the former version too. Not an issue for me. I also wonder- the card reader seems to be the limiting factor.
-
So was the former version too. Not an issue for me. I also wonder- the card reader seems to be the limiting factor.
Maybe the difference is that Lightroom importation involves several processes, e.g. file transfer, and file handling such as setting up the catalogue and rendering previews. The type of card and the reader make a huge difference, but I assume those parameters were kept the same. I'm not sure about Capture One, but I'm assuming that the comparison programs only transferred files. I'm also OK with the speed of transfer that LR is capable of but also suspect that each update of software and operating system results in a bit slower system than the previous.
-
Adobe has already apologized for fumbling its latest Lightroom update, which was riddled with bugs and missing features. Now there’s a new story that’s putting a stain on Adobe’s image: a new test has found that the latest Lightroom is about 600% slower than its competitors.
http://petapixel.com/2015/10/13/lightroom-import-is-600-slower-than-competition/
I am not surprised. The test was performed with 97 raw files from a Fujifilm X-T1; I know from personal experience with my X-T1 that for some reason importing these files is extremely slow compared to importing files from my Nikons including the D800e with 2.25 times the number of pixels.
Also the Adobe conversion quality is still lacking with the Fuji files, I use PhotoNinja instead.
-
My experience with LR is extremely limited and apparently should remain so. The comments below are of a general nature.
When you look through shots from a shooting session, the least important aspect has to be building previews for each and every file, and catalogue them. What one needs is the ability to go quickly through the file collection and if necessary, check those [few] files that hold a promise of further processing. Only the checked files should be worthy of "importing" and maybe renamed after specified criteria by the user and/or EXIF information. Thus, some vestiges of a functional file handling system have to be present. This is where PhotoNinja in its current incarnation fails badly.
I have little faith in monolithic applications so look instead for an optimised free-standing photo viewer to sort the session shots. Irfanview has a good reputation, but obviously there are more candidates.
-
I have little faith in monolithic applications so look instead for an optimised free-standing photo viewer to sort the session shots. Irfanview has a good reputation, but obviously there are more candidates.
Many photographers like Photo Mechanic http://www.camerabits.com/ for its speed, flexibility and "professional" tools. I have a plan of trying it out sometime in the near future.
-
i have been using fastStone image viewer for that since many years
http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm (http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm)
its free used on a non-professional base
-
I am a big fan of PhotoMechanic. It is far beyond my needs, but importing and reviewing are very fast and easy to use. It integrates well with other programs, including Photo Ninja and Photoshop.
Another interesting candidate is Fast Raw Viewer http://www.fastrawviewer.com.
-
I am a big fan of PhotoMechanic. It is far beyond my needs, but importing and reviewing are very fast and easy to use. It integrates well with other programs, including Photo Ninja and Photoshop.
Another interesting candidate is Fast Raw Viewer http://www.fastrawviewer.com (http://www.fastrawviewer.com).
I have barely tried PhotoMechanic a few times, it's incredibly fast. And one of the best features is extensive IPTC-support.
-
When you look through shots from a shooting session, the least important aspect has to be building previews for each and every file, and catalogue them. What one needs is the ability to go quickly through the file collection and if necessary, check those [few] files that hold a promise of further processing. Only the checked files should be worthy of "importing" and maybe renamed after specified criteria by the user and/or EXIF information.
FastRawViewer has been developed precisely with that in mind. It is also working on the raw, not on the embedded jpeg
-
I have only heard good things about MEchanic
-
FastRawViewer has been developed precisely with that in mind. It is also working on the raw, not on the embedded jpeg
If I have a lot of images to process I use FastRawViewer for culling.
First I put the images on my harddisk with Nikon Transfer which has more or less the same possibilities as LR import with changing filenames
I give the images I want to process 1 star, the deletes 3 stars and then import (add) everything into LR (with keywords).
Then selecting the 3 stars and change them to "x" and no star (press 'x' and '0'), then selecting 1 star and change them in "flag" and no star (press 'p' and '0'), generate previews for the flags.
The changing is only a few clicks and takes a minute or so. Culling is soooo much faster in FastRawViewer. :)
-
Photo Mechanic +1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
Everyone has heard me say it more than once, that PhoMech is stellar. It bears repeating, perhaps?
PhoMech's file naming feature is impressive. You can use all kinds of exif in the naming string, if desired. Also date formats, random numbers, and more.
PhoMech can display your choice of exif for each photo in the info panel. Or under the thumbnails.
It has excellent tagging, colour classing for culls and sorts. You can display contact sheets according to type (nef, jpg) or colour or a chosen exif variable. Favorite naming strings can be saved as presets. The IPTC/keyword stationery is easy to use and nicely laid out. There is a side-by-side comparison feature for choosing the best version of a photo.
For example, in folder contact sheet I tag the photos I want to work on, display in a tag-only contact sheet and then send each photo to my favorite converter/editor with a keystroke.
PhoMech also permits cropping and conversions from raw to jpg or tiff. And has a watermark tool. Very handy for quick web displays after the raw has returned from the editor.
There is a nice PhoMech forum for asking questions, and the PhoMech team is very responsive
I think they are working on a cataloguing feature, but that does not interest me currently.
(No, I am not affiliated with Photo Mechanic!!)
-
Latest news:
See http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/lightroom-62-import-update.html?PID=3485381
-
PhotoMechanic is OK, but its GPS tagging really sucks.
-
I wonder why so few photogs here use Capture One. I find it way better than LR.
-
I wonder why so few photogs here use Capture One. I find it way better than LR.
Or ... maybe they are not as vocal about it as some others.
-
Capture1 - I seem to recall it costs a pretty penny (when I checked about 2 - 3 years ago when moving away from Aperture)
add that to the cost of PS - it didnt make sense to me
-
Yes, 229 euro, for Capture1.
-
Far too pricey to add to PS for me. And I dont do pirate programs
-
Capture1 - I seem to recall it costs a pretty penny (when I checked about 2 - 3 years ago when moving away from Aperture)
add that to the cost of PS - it didnt make sense to me
It does cost its money, just like PS. But, it does what PS doesn't do (and vice versa).
However, if PS gives you what you want, don't change.
-
I wonder why so few photogs here use Capture One. I find it way better than LR.
When I got my first really nice, calibratable monitor, I looked at an earlier version of Capture 1...it was about three years ago.
Compared to Lightroom, it's facility for printing direct from C-1 compared unfavorably to Lightroom(and Aperture) at the time.
I did notice that C-1's default raw conversions of Nikon files looked really nice, especially the choice of color hues.
I'll look at it again in due course, I suppose.
-
PhotoMechanic is OK, but its GPS tagging really sucks.
I have to laugh because recently I have made so much good use of the GPS tagging in PhoMech. Using the PhoMech link to Google satellite maps I located the backyard of the summer house where I have photographed so many floral UV-signatures. I could even pinpoint within seconds where a particular flower was located. Another example - using Google satellite maps I found the exact patch of dirt at a rest stop on an Idaho freeway where I found an interesting Gumweed. This rest stop was not marked on any ordinary map, but it was easily recognizable on the satellite map.
It just now occurs to me that I should try out the PhoMech GPS for my Norwegian photos. (Which unfortunately are still sitting unsorted and unconverted. Although I did get the files names done.)
But this all goes to show you that software is a highly personalized thing.
-
It does cost its money, just like PS. But, it does what PS doesn't do (and vice versa).
However, if PS gives you what you want, don't change.
I am sure Capture 1 can do lots more for me - BUT financially it doesnt make sense.
-
I am sure Capture 1 can do lots more for me ...
I'm not sure Elsa, seeing what i see from you i'm seriously doubting that (that's of course meant as a compliment, just to be sure).
-
I'm not sure Elsa, seeing what i see from you i'm seriously doubting that (that's of course meant as a compliment, just to be sure).
;D ;D ;D ya right...
I understand Capture 1 is really good - but let me tell you - every time I do new photoshops tutorials - I learn something new in PS. and I swear I have the biggest library of tutorials this side of the equator.
-
Andrea: Photomechanic requires a GPX file instead of just adding the coordinate by clicking on the map shown. Now, that is plain stupid.
If there is any alternate way of doing the geotagging, it is well and truly buried in the user interface.
-
;D ;D ;D ya right...
No, no, really 8)
I understand Capture 1 is really good - but let me tell you - every time I do new photoshops tutorials - I learn something new in PS. and I swear I have the biggest library of tutorials this side of the equator.
I have the same. And PS covers a much larger domain in photography than C1. So, i've learnt my tricks and i stick to them.
-
Andrea: Photomechanic requires a GPX file instead of just adding the coordinate by clicking on the map shown. Now, that is plain stupid.
If there is any alternate way of doing the geotagging, it is well and truly buried in the user interface.
According to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wkk9f4EKXo you can actually add coordinate by clicking on the map. Disclaimer: I have not tried this myself :)
-
This does work well, but in the current version of PM, the same window also allows you to enter an address, which (in an urban location) makes it even quicker than dragging a considerable distance. I often use an address to get close and then refine by dragging on the map and clicking.
Some confusion is caused by the fact that, in a rare error of menu planning by Camerabits, there are two other places where PM gives access to GPS functions. If you want to use a GPX file, then you have to go into File>Import GPS Coordinates. If you want to view an image's location on the map, the easiest is to right click on the image and select Show Map. Once you realise this, it is very easy.
-
I was dumped directly into a window showing a map (displaying California ...) and asked for the GPX/GPS file to load. No clicking on the map possible. No help provided.
As I said, little help if more sensible approaches are buried deep into the user interface.
-
I was dumped directly into a window showing a map (displaying California ...) and asked for the GPX/GPS file to load. No clicking on the map possible. No help provided.
As I said, little help if more sensible approaches are buried deep into the user interface.
Not deep at all: Image > Set GPS coordinates. Works just like they show in the video.
Like Anthony said, PM has several spproaches to geotagging. You probably tried File > Import GPS Coordinates.
-
Opened the door to the wrong room, then ...
-
Yes, 229 euro, for Capture1.
But if you grab a magazine that has a license of an older one, you only pay the update price.
In Germany there is at least one magazine per year that has a license...
C1 is really good image wise.
There I/O on the other hand sucks major because they try to press you into a structure and having the adjustment info sidecars in subdirectories make various file management operations a pain in the ass.
cheers
afx
-
One thing C1 have that Lightroom doesn't, is OpenCL support. It makes it a lot faster to display the changes you make to an image. Here is an old article about it: http://blog.phaseone.com/processing-speedup-using-opencl-in-capture-one-pro-7/
-
This does work well, but in the current version of PM, the same window also allows you to enter an address, which (in an urban location) makes it even quicker than dragging a considerable distance. I often use an address to get close and then refine by dragging on the map and clicking.
This is most useful, and not only in urban locations. I tested it on some remote settlements without road connection (in far north Norway), and it found it immediately. The find address function is slightly intelligent also: I entered a small place called "Bogen" in Norway, but PM thought it was a city in Germany. I tried entering "Bogen Evenes" and it was spot on (Evenes being the municipality where Bogen is). Impressive. It is also possible to change the default GPS-location from Orlando, California, to wherever you want.
I have tried PM the last days, and it impresses me more and more. It's fast, highly customizable, well thought out, extensive support for keyobard shortcuts, and their help forum is one of the best I have seen.
-
It seems to me that this is getting off topic, I wonder whether someone should create a Photo Mechanic thread?
Until then:
1) Can it do face detection?
2) Does it make sense to use it if you're using LR?
-
For me, the big advantage of PM is its speed at all its tasks, particularly when importing and reviewing photos.
Here is Adobe guru Scott Kelby on the speed advantages of PM over LR. http://scottkelby.com/my-sports-photography-workflow-so-far/
Here is Zack Arias http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/photo-resources/workflow-photo-mechanic-to-lightroom-to-photoshop-to-delivery/
Both these references are a few years old, but I have heard nothing to suggest that the speed equation has moved in favour of LR.
PM cannot do face detection.
-
I can clearly see the advantage for sports shooters (the Scott Kelby article). The Zack Arias video doesn't seem to play here?
From what I understand from various other sites, the major advantage is how fast it is and indeed LR is slow at importing. I don't add much meta data (I'm just an amateur) or take that many photos. The advantage to me would be to use PM for importing, naming and sorting my photos, limiting the number of images I would import into LR. I'm basically never in a hurry, so while import speed is nice, it isn't critical for me. I'm personally more interested in seeing more usage of OpenCL or Metal to speed up rendering while editing photos in LR.
That said, I downloaded PM and will give it a try.
-
A bit of Bashing......
1- LR sucks big time
2- C1P Rocks
3- PM the fastest kid on the block
My workflow is to check overall shoot in PM, ingest and process in C1P and retouch in PS.
C1P color render and streamlined tools make working a breeze.
C1P added this unique tool which for people like me is awesome and only available in high end video software.
Check this out....
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Duke_1/C1_zpsspsirgs1.jpg)
Drooling optional 8)
P.S. I have no need for GPS tagging as I have their private numbers ;D
-
1) Why?
2) How noise reduction in C1P these days? I used it quite some time ago, but switched to LR, one of the reasons was shitty noise reduction.
-
1-Why? Because LR lost it's way.
They are cramming everything in there and it behaves like a merger of PS and Bridge.
It is slow, unfriendly and most of all the color rendition is not at the same level of C1P.
LR is borrowing PS functionality and in this case, why not use PS which does a better job.
Camera tethering sucks as well. In C1P you view the scene before hitting the shutter whether on your camera or in C1P window. You can even control it from an Iphone or Ipad if you like.
C1P color control is a whole new ball game.
Try C1P again. It is a one month free download.
2- I very very rarely touch Noise Redution in C1P but I can tell you that the tool has been revamped with the addition of a "Detail" slider on top of Luminance - Color and Single Pixel.
Most of my photography is at max ISO4000 and it is very well handled to the extent that I have to look for it as the files in C1P are clean.
In the extreme event of having a noisy pic. I use either Noise Ninja or Nik. But as I said, I have very little use for Noise reduction.
-
I agree with much of what you say. It's certainly not fast, which is why I for a long time have hoped they would implement OpenCL support would most certainly make the app much snappier. You could certainly argue that people could simply use Bridge and PS instead, but those are huge programs that can do everything. I've never learned to use PS, it's always seemed too big for me. LR is much more limited and it can more or less do what I need.
I don't use tethering, so not an issue for me.
The color controls makes my head spin :) I have never quite managed to wrap my head around handling color, perhaps I should go read a book sometime...
And last: Hasn't LR has always been a bit like a merger of PS and Bridge?
-
Yes, LR started off as photo processor and image organizer. But agree with Almass, it has become a very strange 'program'.
-
Yes, LR started off as photo processor and image organizer. But agree with Almass, it has become a very strange 'program'.
I'm too close to Lightroom to realize how it has become strange; It still processes and organizes.
If you are referring to Book, Slideshow, and Web...I keep those turned off. I never see them.
Library, Develop, Map, and Print seem to work fine.
-
Swiss knives have pros & cons, and worshippers & haters. I'm just a user, and I am pleased by those features I use (catalogue, keywords, pic processing). It is indeed slow
- at import : I don't care, doign just a few pics a time
- at display : bad. I often shoot 2-3 times per pic (precaution for MF imprecisions and camera shake, using low speeds most of the time). In that case, being able to quickly eliminate the worst ones requires quick switching. Too bad. So indeed, for culling, an alternative like PM sounds good.