Jump to content




The above adverts really do help Fotozones. Please click on them if they are relevant to you. Not seeing them? Just exclude Fotozones from your ad blocker. Thanks!


Photo
- - - - -

LR Frustrations


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#21 helioer

helioer

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 667 posts
  • LocationHelsinki

Posted 24 January 2013 - 20:10

I agree with you Ann. Batch processing does not replace human eyes and manual work for pictures taken in real life shooting environment. Probably pictures taken in controlled environment like a studio shoot could be processed in batch. I use batch only in conversions of already manually processed photos - resizing, color space changes and similar.

Edited by helioer, 24 January 2013 - 20:22 .

Erkki

D3s, D3, D200, D70
FX: Nikon 14-24/2.8G, 24-70/2.8G, 28/1.8G, 70-200/2.8G VR, 300/2.8G VR, 60/2.8D+105/2.8D micro, 85/1.4D, 16/2.8D, 50/1.4G, 500/8 reflex C, Sigma 8/3.5 EX, 12-24 EX, 150/2.8 OS EX...
TC: TC-14 E II, TC-17 E II, TC-20 E III
DX: 10.5/2.8, 18-70, 18-200
4*SB800's, R1C1 kit with 3*SB-R200, YN-622 kit (TX+4*RC)...


#22 nfoto

nfoto

    Fierce Bear of the North

  • Administrators
  • 16,649 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 24 January 2013 - 20:30

There is no contradiction between batch processing and individual treatment of files. So the disagreement is over a non-exisiting issue.

(this of course assumes the software has a properly implemented workflow, but that is a prerequisite anyway)
Bjørn

#23 Ann

Ann

    Professional Photographer

  • Life Member
  • 10,160 posts
  • LocationNew York State
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 25 January 2013 - 23:05

The way that I work is to Batch as many files as possible that will need similar processing in ACR;
Synchronise SELECTED settings among a number of my loaded files;
then work down the loaded files applying such changes and ratings as may be desirable to individual files.
Close them out (with the corrections saved to a Central Database and NOT to Suitcase .xml files) and move on to the next several hundred.

At a later stage, I re-open my chosen .nefs in ACR; refine their pre-existing settings as needed; and open them as 16-bit ProPhotoRGB Smart Objects directly into Photoshop for final editing and output.

I Save my edited Layered files as Master PSDs in addition to making duplicates for Saved for Web JPEGs or any other version which I need for a particular purpose.

It's a very fast and efficient way to work and uses a combination of Batching and Individualized processing in a very effective and speedy manner.

#24 Andrea B.

Andrea B.

    Lost in the Desert

  • Administrators
  • 11,096 posts
  • LocationNuovo Jersey
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:38

I'm one who hopes Photo Ninja gets a few additions because it is one of the best raw converters I have ever used and I've used quite a few of them. PN does need a batching option. However, presets can be created and saved and that helps a bit. I haven't quite figured out the PN illumination slider which can be set to be interactive with the exposure slider. But it seems to work wonders on some photos by brightening things up without blowing things out. "-)

I'm running 64-bit Photo Ninja on a weenie little MacBook Air with a mere 4GB of RAM while simultaneously running Photo Mechanic, Photoshop Elements 11 and Capture NX2. So I can't understand why so many folks need 16-32GB RAM? Windows maybe??

Photo Ninja seems quite fast to me. It takes a second to process some of the raw settings but the saves are a great deal faster than NX2 because one can only save to TIF or JPG. Naturally I save to TIF so that if I do need something like Highpass Overlay sharpening or dust bunny clone outs, I can take the TIF into NX2 or PSE11. Photo Ninja saves the edits to NEFs in a subfolder so you can reopen the NEF for additional edits. There is some option to save edits to the TIF also, but I haven't investigated that yet.

No one ever mentions other raw converter/editors like Iridient Developer (on version 2 now, very nice). Nor does anyone ever mention the freebie Photivo which has every tool known to mankind (or editorkind).

I ingest and name with Photo Mechanic which has superb naming string options. Then I cull, rank and view with Photo Mechanic. From it I can send a NEF to any one of several raw converters which I have added to the Photo Mechanic list.

I'm still bummed about Bibble which I used to use about 1/3 of the time along with NX2.

Andrea B.
UltravioletPhotography.com


#25 Alan7140

Alan7140

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 5,621 posts
  • LocationTasmania, Australia
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:43

With all the unintentional and frankly unwanted experience I am getting with a wide variety of processing programs in the chase for a proper X-Pro1 solution, I really bemoan the attempts at batch settings and processing, none of which has come close to the speed and efficiency of Adobe Bridge/ACR. I just wish Adobe had properly sorted the X-Pro1 processing before releasing it and assuming their preferred wax-in-ears stance that follows a ballsup these days.

#26 Ann

Ann

    Professional Photographer

  • Life Member
  • 10,160 posts
  • LocationNew York State
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:00

Fred:
I suspect the problem is that the ACR team is very small and highly specialised and, with limited time and resources available, have to concentrate on creating Profiles for the more widely-used cameras and lenses.

I don't think that the X-Pro1 falls into that category yet?

Also, it uses a non-Bayer sensor which is totally different from either Nikon's or Canon's which probably means that the amount of time and effort that is needed to provide suitable profiles for the Fuji is out of all proportion to the number of people who need the profiles. SilkyPix were probably the only company which Fuji could find who were willing to even try?

Most of the other builders of RAW converters seem to be following the same path with regards to the Fuji sensor too.

Edited by Ann, 26 January 2013 - 04:01 .


#27 schwett

schwett

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,226 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 26 January 2013 - 04:05

^ the irony, of course, is that silkypix did a terrible job of it!

with the addition of the x-trans sensor to the latest x100, the user base will grow and hopefully adobe will make the big investment required to properly demosaic it using the triangulation approach described on a few technical posts about the x-trans. right now everyone is just using kludges, it seems, and trying to cover over them with various amounts of filtering, blurring, smearing, etc.
http://photo.sfmthd.org/ [under construction]

#28 Alan7140

Alan7140

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 5,621 posts
  • LocationTasmania, Australia
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:22

Fred:
I suspect the problem is that the ACR team is very small and highly specialised and, with limited time and resources available, have to concentrate on creating Profiles for the more widely-used cameras and lenses.

I don't think that the X-Pro1 falls into that category yet?


Ann, it would have been better, if that were the case, had the ACR team had not put out anything at all. What they did put out in the interim (see, I'm being optimistic here) is almost single-handedly destroying the reputation of the X-Pro1 with the masses before it has even had time to gain a proper foothold, because people are blaming the camera and not the software (of course Adobe can't be wrong, being the universal company they are). It is truly rotten software, and Adobe should have withdrawn it a long time ago.

I'd consider, like yourself, that I know a thing or two about photography and cameras, and yet it is without a word of a lie that I say I prefer to shoot with the X-Pro1 over the D3s, and by a good margin, even though this processing problem exists. The 16MP of the Fuji, with its wonderful film-like renditions, simply makes it something exceptional. I actually thought the other day that perhaps I should get a D4, just to give me the same handy 16MP file size, but I've been truly spoilt by this non-Bayer camera, and I think I would be less enchanted with the D4 than expectations would have me hope as a consequence - it's not the 16MP, it's the randomness of the array and the resulting files which look like I had film, not a sensor loaded in the camera, only that it is the film we were all hoping for back in the '70's and '80's when manufacturers were still in film-research mode.

Don't get me wrong, the D3s is a superb camera and it gives consistently good results, no question. It is also better featured, faster, has good AF, etc etc, and could even be used as a lethal weapon in a fight, all features which the Fuji is lacking in, but there is just something about the X-Pro1 that has given me that same thrill in taking photographs that I used to get when trying to get my first Hasselblad to work properly for me over 40 years ago. To have been involved full-time for so long in photography and to now have something, even at this late stage, which reignites the thrill and the passion I had for the game all those years ago is a truly exciting thing, and I just can't get enough of it. I never walk out of the door without it, even if I'm just doing a paper run.

#29 Ann

Ann

    Professional Photographer

  • Life Member
  • 10,160 posts
  • LocationNew York State
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:57

I would lay the blame on the shoulders of Fuji for shipping the camera before they had developed the necessary software to support it.

SilkyPix were obviously not up to the task and it seems that none of the other software manufacturers are finding themselves able to do it or are they not interested in investing their own time and money on doing what Fuji themselves should have paid for?



#30 schwett

schwett

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 1,226 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:05

I would lay the blame on the shoulders of Fuji for shipping the camera before they had developed the necessary software to support it.

SilkyPix were obviously not up to the task and it seems that none of the other software manufacturers are finding themselves able to do it or are they not interested in investing their own time and money on doing what Fuji themselves should have paid for?


or, what fuji was actually *unable* to do. speculation and wishful thinking aside, remember that there is currently no solution which does not produce some kind of artifact which is readily visible at 1:1. one can certainly debate the merits of adobe or capture one's smeary method versus dcraw's zippery jaggedy dithery-edge method, but they're both flawed. both problems more or less go away when you resample the image in half, or simply make a print less than about 18" wide, which is why some have claimed (not quite correctly) that the camera doesn't really deliver 16 megapixels of detail. fortunately i didn't buy the camera for that kind of thing - i have nikon gear for that - but it's frustrating.

i have to completely disagree with the opinion that adobe should have simply omitted it. if adobe had done that (at fuji's request or not), i would have returned the camera. i'd rather have good results for screen and small print use through my normal and very efficient and satisfying workflow than marginally better results through another painful and ineffecient process.
http://photo.sfmthd.org/ [under construction]

#31 Ron Scubadiver

Ron Scubadiver

    Advanced Member

  • POTW Committee
  • 6,486 posts
  • LocationHouston, Texas
  • Edit my pics?:Ask Me

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:00

I find Lightroom to be too slow for D800 files. However, Bridge/ACR is quite fast. As far as Fuji files go, I think the problem is Fuji is not sharing any information. This is typical of the camera manufacturers and their proprietary formats, but in Fuji's case the data is so different nobody understands it yet. I think the good performance of dcraw is a happy accident and Adobe needs to look at what is going on there and reverse engineer it, absent any help from Fuji.
See my photography at http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com/

#32 jramskov

jramskov

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,524 posts
  • LocationAarhus, Denmark
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:35

I have been using Bibble and then AfterShot since 2005 and have been one of the core beta testers. It was the oldest independent raw converter and the first to show a decent work-flow concept.

You have to wonder why Corel bought Bibble in the first place?

I'm just a humble amateur that switched from Capture One to LR some time ago after a recommendation from a friend. I'm also a previous Bibble user, but some time after the release of Bbible 5, I dropped it. I'm currently reading through an ebook about LR4 (http://craftandvisio...oom-4-unmasked/ in case anyone is interested). I have continued to use LR4 mainly because the raw converter continues to impress me, though I have read good things about the latest Capture One release.

I generally like LR, though I do agree with most of your complaints and I hope you have submitted the suggestions to the LR team. My biggest complaint is probably performance. I have a mid 2009 MBP, upgraded to 8GB ram and SSD. Sadly in regards to LR, it's processing power I lack. Of course, a 3 year old laptop isn't exactly top of the line anymore, but I wish the LR team would spend some time optimising the algorithms with speed in mind perhaps by using the graphics card through OpenCL / OpenGL. I've read that's quite complicated to do with LR though :(
Joergen Ramskov
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. [Douglas Adams]

#33 afx

afx

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 5,418 posts
  • LocationMunich, Germany
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 27 February 2013 - 13:48

You have to wonder why Corel bought Bibble in the first place?

Absolutely no idea. From what we see right now it is a completely idiotic waste of money move.

I have continued to use LR4 mainly because the raw converter continues to impress me, though I have read good things about the latest Capture One release.

I really really hate Adobe. I wanted to go the C1 route. But LR easily wins the contest in terms of detail it can extract and available image adjustments. The UI of C1 I think is more efficient, logical and user friendly though.

I generally like LR, though I do agree with most of your complaints and I hope you have submitted the suggestions to the LR team.

What is the official channel for that?

My biggest complaint is probably performance.

Yup, it takes two seconds or more to switch D700 images while at full screen. On a quad Phenom with plenty of RAM.
AfterShot will do that in less than a second...

but I wish the LR team would spend some time optimising the algorithms with speed in mind perhaps by using the graphics card through OpenCL / OpenGL. I've read that's quite complicated to do with LR though :(

The problem with OpenCL or other GPU mechanisms is that you then have an additional bottleneck.
So to make that worthwhile, the operation not only needs to be faster than on the CPU but also fast enough to cover the overhead of using the GPU.
If done wrong your final speed will decrease. Been testing that often enough with the latest AfterShot. Some people report a speed increase, for me it is a decrease.

cheers
afx

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
My latest book: The AfterShot Survival Guide  
sRGB clipping sucks and Adobe RGB is just as bad  Still no clue how to take decent pictures though, see afximages.com ;-(

#34 jramskov

jramskov

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,524 posts
  • LocationAarhus, Denmark
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 27 February 2013 - 14:23

Absolutely no idea. From what we see right now it is a completely idiotic waste of money move.

It seems like they bought it and then nothing...

I really really hate Adobe. I wanted to go the C1 route. But LR easily wins the contest in terms of detail it can extract and available image adjustments. The UI of C1 I think is more efficient, logical and user friendly though.

I have no particular reason to hate Adobe.

What is the official channel for that?

From what I can gather, this is the place: http://feedback.phot...hotoshop_family

I might be wrong though.

Yup, it takes two seconds or more to switch D700 images while at full screen. On a quad Phenom with plenty of RAM.
AfterShot will do that in less than a second...

That's one of my main gripes - reviewing shots, switching between images. It's just too slow.

The Phenom family, isn't that (just like my Intel Core Duo) getting a bit old? I'm not very familiar with AMD CPU's anymore.

The problem with OpenCL or other GPU mechanisms is that you then have an additional bottleneck.
So to make that worthwhile, the operation not only needs to be faster than on the CPU but also fast enough to cover the overhead of using the GPU.
If done wrong your final speed will decrease. Been testing that often enough with the latest AfterShot. Some people report a speed increase, for me it is a decrease.

You need a fast GPU of course and it is far from everything that the GPU is optimal for, but my experience with it in C1 is quite positive. I have seen it in Photoshop as well and there it made quite the difference too.

Edited by jramskov, 27 February 2013 - 14:24 .

Joergen Ramskov
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. [Douglas Adams]

#35 afx

afx

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 5,418 posts
  • LocationMunich, Germany
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 27 February 2013 - 14:27

From what I can gather, this is the place: http://feedback.phot...hotoshop_family

THX

The Phenom family, isn't that (just like my Intel Core Duo) getting a bit old? I'm not very familiar with AMD CPU's anymore.

So what. Other apps are significantly faster on it....
And I can run AS on netbook screens where LR bluntly refuses to run.

cheers
afx
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
My latest book: The AfterShot Survival Guide  
sRGB clipping sucks and Adobe RGB is just as bad  Still no clue how to take decent pictures though, see afximages.com ;-(

#36 jramskov

jramskov

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 2,524 posts
  • LocationAarhus, Denmark
  • Edit my pics?:Yes

Posted 27 February 2013 - 14:51

So what. Other apps are significantly faster on it....
And I can run AS on netbook screens where LR bluntly refuses to run.


That's what you get when you want to to a quick reply - you post something not well thought through :)

The fact that it's not the latest and greatest CPU doesn't matter in this regard, it was merely curiosity from my side. LR is certainly slow compared to AS.
Joergen Ramskov
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. [Douglas Adams]

#37 Ann

Ann

    Professional Photographer

  • Life Member
  • 10,160 posts
  • LocationNew York State
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 27 February 2013 - 14:51

I loathe and detest the Lr UI (and their abominable Library system too!) with a passion.

However, the fully fledged Photoshop Bridge to ACR allows me to use the same underlying engine which Lr employs in a far more speedy and efficient manner.

ACR's Interface (unlike the abomination of Lightroom's UI) is cleanly laid-out and image processing is both fast and efficient with the added ability of being able to open any RAW file directly into Photoshop as a Smart Object. Also, ACR continues to be developed, improved and updated on a very fast-paced track and each new update (about four a year on average) always astounds me with its new tools and capabilities.

This software is not particularly cheap but you can now rent it with a Subscription to Photoshop for less than $20 per month and as far as I am concerned, ACR and Photoshop have no equal.

#38 Dave Rosser

Dave Rosser

    Advanced Member

  • Life Member
  • 664 posts
  • LocationThornbury, near Bristol

Posted 27 February 2013 - 19:24

I loathe and detest the Lr UI (and their abominable Library system too!) with a passion.

However, the fully fledged Photoshop Bridge to ACR allows me to use the same underlying engine which Lr employs in a far more speedy and efficient manner.

ACR's Interface (unlike the abomination of Lightroom's UI) is cleanly laid-out and image processing is both fast and efficient with the added ability of being able to open any RAW file directly into Photoshop as a Smart Object. Also, ACR continues to be developed, improved and updated on a very fast-paced track and each new update (about four a year on average) always astounds me with its new tools and capabilities.

This software is not particularly cheap but you can now rent it with a Subscription to Photoshop for less than $20 per month and as far as I am concerned, ACR and Photoshop have no equal.

It's what you're used to. Having just started using Photoshop (took your advice and took out a subscription) I find my views on Lightroom and ACR interfaces are the exact opposite to yours. :prankster: .

#39 Ann

Ann

    Professional Photographer

  • Life Member
  • 10,160 posts
  • LocationNew York State
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 27 February 2013 - 19:59

Probably!

:)

But the Lightroom Interface's KiddyPix cutesy fussiness and sheer clutter; its ridiculous insistence on adding all files to its own Library (rather than just letting me access my files directly from any HD via Bridge); its inability to provide Keyboard Shortcuts to cycle between Tools and Panels (as you can in ACR) are causes of utter frustration for me.

I never use Apple's iPhoto Pictures Library for similar reasons.

Seriously, persevere with ACR, and learn to use Keyboard Shortcuts, and your speed, ability and efficiency in processing will advance rapidly by giant leaps.

Promise you!

:)

#40 Ann

Ann

    Professional Photographer

  • Life Member
  • 10,160 posts
  • LocationNew York State
  • Edit my pics?:No

Posted 27 February 2013 - 20:38

I have just installed Lr 4.4 RC to see what might have changed.

At least the user now has a few KBSCs for some tools in Lr.

But I am still horrified to find that Camera Calibration is placed in the bottom panel of the Develop module when this is the FIRST decision that the User should make because different kinds of photograph might respond better to a different choice of Camera Profile.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



Receive a FREE CAMERA BAG from Think Tank Photo


An appeal to all Fotozones visitors: please help me to keep this site going by starting your gear purchases using any one of the affiliate links shown below:

Amazon.com | Amazon.co.uk | Amazon.de | Adorama.com | thinkTank Photo | DigitalRev.com | OWC | B&H or Donate via PayPal

Starting your shopping here doesn't cost you anything more, but by using the links above (or any others found on the site) you are advising the affiliate that you support this website. This results in a small commission that helps with the running costs. If your preferred outlet isn't among those listed above you can also support the site by making a donation of any amount via PayPal (no PayPal account required). Any donation will be most appreciated.