Tag Archives: adobe

Reviews

The next stage for Lightroom

Adobe LightroomI am a happy user of Adobe Lightroom. It has helped me get a handle on my growing photo library. While it largely replicates the functionality of Adobe Bridge, it does so with a much better interface, and includes extra functionality that makes its price worthwhile. I do most of my photo processing in Lightroom these days, and don’t go into Photoshop unless I absolutely need it.

There are a few things that need to change in order for Lightroom to become a truly valuable addition to a digital photographer’s tool set. Sure, there are some small features that could be introduced here and there, and there are some bug fixes that need to occur as well. By and large though, what I see as the biggest needed improvement can’t be explained in a few words. It requires a more detailed explanation.

Say someone starts getting into photography in a serious sort of way. They begin editing their photos on their computer, and soon find, as they get into the several hundreds and thousands, that they need something to help them organize and manage their photos. Right? Well, say they get Lightroom. They’re happy campers now. They take more photos, and then even more. They can edit the meta-data, batch process photos, export for web and print, put together photo galleries, etc. It’s great!

Here’s where things start to get tricky though. As that photo library gets bigger, it needs to be moved off the primary computer, be it a laptop or a desktop machine. Its sheer size demands a large external device, and hopefully one that stores the data in redundant fashion, to guard against hardware failures. Well, no problem, they get a huge drive and move their photos onto it. That drive is connected via USB or Firewire, and they continue to work with Lightroom. Things are just peachy.

Guess what: at some point, that photographer will need to shoot on location. They’ll take a trip either out of town, or out of the country. If they don’t have a laptop already, they’ll need to get one, because every digital photographer knows they’ll very likely need to process some photos on location, away from home.

But guess where their photo library is? It’s at home, of course. So what do you think happens when you open Lightroom while you’re away from your photo library? Why, you can’t! It tells you drive X is not available. (I should specify this occurs when the Lightroom library is stored on an external device. You can, of course, store the library locally and the photos externally, but as the library gets bigger, you’ll run into space problems. I did.)

So what can you do? You can create a new photo library, import the photos into it, and work with them that way. But wait a minute? Where’s all that beautiful meta-data that you worked so hard at? Where’s your keyword database, with its hierarchical structure, so you can tag easier without having to remember all the keywords you’d want to use? Where are all your locations? Where are your collections? Nowhere. You have to start fresh, and then when you get home, you have to re-import those photos into your main library, then reconcile keywords, locations, etc. It’s just not pretty, and it’s not practical. And on top of that, you may run into certain import bugs…

What Lightroom needs is the ability to have a two-part library: a portable, main library, that travels with the machine where Lightroom is installed, and an archive library that can sit on an external device, or multiple external devices. This is NOT the same as the Vault concept one finds in Aperture. No, it goes far beyond that. The Vault concept is meant for backing up the photo library, but doesn’t address the problem of running out of space in the main library. It simply allows you to back up your work on multiple devices.

Hear me out, because I realize the concept I’m introducing is a bit complicated. The Lightroom user needs to have the ability to have access to all of their meta-data from all of their photos while traveling or while away from their main photo library. It doesn’t matter whether that person uses a laptop or a desktop. If they separate their computer from the external device that hosts their photos, they should still be able to have access to their photo library — everything but the actual photos which are to be found elsewhere.

Huh? Stay with me on this one. This isn’t the same thing as having your photo library on the laptop itself instead of the external drive. In that case, should you have your laptop with you, only the photos stored on the laptop will show up in the library, while the ones to be found on an external drive will not show up when you open Lightroom. But this points out two problems.

One, you’ll run out of space on your laptop very soon if you have a large library, even if you store the bulk of your photos elsewhere, because Lightroom builds either full-size previews, or fairly large ones (you decide this in the Preferences). Those previews are stored with the photo library, and if it resides on the laptop, the drive will fill up pretty soon.

Two, simply making those photos stored externally unavailable when Lightroom is separated from the external device doesn’t help you much. You need to be able to see at least the thumbnails, and have the meta-data available for searching, not crossed out or grayed out.

Let me outline the main points of my proposed functioning for the Lightroom library. Perhaps this will make it easier to understand:

  • A two-part library. A local/portable one, that holds all of the meta-data and thumbnails, plus a portable collection of photos that the photographer would like to have ready for processing and use no matter where they are. And the main/archive library, that holds a backup copy of the library’s meta-data and thumbnails, plus all of the photos that have been moved off the local/portable library.
  • Obviously, the ability to move photos freely from the local/portable library to the main/archive library, as needed. This would allow the photographer to decide which photos to keep local and portable, and move others to the archive in order to save space on the laptop or desktop that they’re taking with them on location.
  • The two-part library syncs the meta-data and thumbnails automatically and perhaps offers choices for conflicting data when the external device that holds the main/archive library is reconnected to the laptop/desktop.
  • Just to make things clear, the local/portable library would hold meta-data, thumbnails for all of the photos in the library, plus whatever group of photos the photographer decides to keep local. This would keep its size small and portable while allowing the user to view thumbnails for all of the photos in the library even when away from the archive library. They would even be able to do searches on the meta-data and update it as needed. The changes would sync when the archive would be re-connected. The photos stored in the archive would be marked by a special border or icon to let the user know they’re not available in their full size while the archive would be disconnected.

This is the sort of functionality I will expect from Lightroom. It would make it a truly powerful and portable piece of software. I know some people say that Bridge does the same things, but I’ve used both, and I like the Lightroom interface a LOT more.

Standard
Reviews

Bugs in Lightroom 1.2

The latest version of Adobe’s Lightroom, 1.2, introduced corrections for several issues such as XMP auto-write performance, Vista grid display errors, and noise reduction for Bayer-patterned sensors (the majority of digital sensors on the market user Bayer patterns in their color pixel distributions). It also introduced support for new cameras such as the Canon EOS 40D and the Olympus EVOLT E-510. The upgrade was a marked improvement upon 1.1 and 1.0, but I’ve noticed a few bugs:

  1. Time-shifted capture times don’t transfer properly on import from catalog to catalog. While on a recent trip in Romania, I took along my laptop but didn’t take my WD My Book Pro Edition II, since I wanted it to stay safely at home. (That’s where I keep my photo library.) I thought, no problem, I’ll just start a new catalog directly on my laptop, work with my photos there, and do a catalog to catalog import when I get home. In theory, that should have worked just fine — in practice, it was somewhat different. You see, I’d forgotten to set my 5D to Romania’s local time, and that meant that all of the photos I’d taken for the first few days lagged behind local time by 7 hours. I corrected those times by selecting those photos in Lightroom and choosing Metadata >> Edit Capture Time >> Shift by set numbers of hours. That fixed those times in the catalog on my laptop, but when I imported those same photos, I found out that very few of those corrected times transferred during the catalog import operation. What’s worse, the capture time for others was somehow shifted by seemingly random values to something else altogether, so I had to fix that as well.
  2. There’s an annoying and somewhat destructive color shift that takes place when I import photos into Lightroom. For a few moments after I open a photo, it’ll look just like it looked on my 5D’s LCD screen, but then Lightroom will shift the colors slightly as it loads and develops the RAW file. It seems to do less of it now than in version 1.0, but it’s still happening, and then it’s really difficult, if not impossible, to get my photos to look like they’re supposed to look. Canon’s own RAW viewer doesn’t do this, and neither does Microsoft’s RAW viewer.
  3. Batch-editing photos selected from the filmstrip (instead of the grid view) does not apply the actions to all of the photos, only to the first photo selected from that bunch. In other words, if I were to select the same group of photos in grid view and apply a set of modifications to all of them (keywords, etc.), these modifications would be applied to all of the photos selected. When the same group of photos is selected in the filmstrip, the modifications are not applied to all of them, only to the first selected photo. By the same token, if I select multiple photos from the filmstrip in develop view and apply a sharpening change to all of them, it doesn’t take. It only gets applied to the first selected photo.
  4. Changes to ITPC meta data are often not written to the files until Lightroom is restarted. For example, if I select a group of photos, and specify location information for them, Lightroom will not write that data to the XMP files right away. Instead, it’ll wait until I exit, then start Lightroom again. Only then will it start to write those changes to each photo’s meta data. I’m not sure why it’s like this, but it’s confusing to the user.

As frustrating as these bugs are — especially #3 — I can’t imagine working on my photographs without Lightroom. It’s made my life a whole lot easier, and it’s streamlined my photographic workflow tremendously. I can locate all of my photos very easily, and I can organize them in ways I could only dream about before. It’s really a wonderful product, and I look forward to future versions with rapt attention. I hope Adobe continues to dedicate proper focus to Lightroom as it goes forward with its market strategy.

More information:

Standard
Reviews

A tangible argument for working in RAW format

I photograph exclusively in RAW format these days — unless I happen to be using a camera that doesn’t have that capability. This post is a small but tangible example why shooting in RAW is a good thing.

Have a look at the photo below. That’s what happens when you combine dark streets, tall buildings and bright skies. It’s hard to get the exposure correctly, especially if you haven’t got the time to sit there taking lots of photos of the same thing while you adjust the aperture and shutter speed manually. If you expose for the shadows, you get an unpleasantly bright sky, like here. If you expose for the sky, you get really dark buildings, and then you can’t make out the details.

Overexposed sky

Fortunately, I can adjust the exposure of a photo (within limits) after the fact if I shoot in RAW. I can also make tonal adjustments much better than with a JPEG file. Here’s that same photo, post-processed. I only used Lightroom, no Photoshop here. (In case you’re wondering, I also made contrast and color saturation and luminance changes.)

Cafe 123

I was able to recover the highlights and even get a decent amount of detail in the clouds. Yes, you can tell the sky isn’t natural, but hey, it’s a whole lot better than a blown out highlight. And there’s still plenty of shadow detail.

If your camera lets you shoot in RAW, don’t hesitate, take the plunge. Yes, the files will be a little bigger, but you get a ton more creative capability in post-processing. And you don’t have to use Lightroom or Bridge if you can’t afford them. (I know Bridge is free but you need Photoshop or another Adobe app to get it.) Both Picasa and iPhoto will work with RAW files. One caveat about iPhoto: at the time of this post, it does NOT work with DNG files (Adobe’s own RAW file format). It does, however, work with Canon, Nikon and other RAW formats. Your camera may also have come with software that lets you develop and manipulate the RAW files. Get started exploring this new medium — it’s the equivalent of a film negative — and have fun improving your photography!

Standard
Thoughts

Some variety

I’m too tired to write a long, coherent post tonight. I worked late today and got home pretty much exhausted.

I’ve started using Adobe’s new Lightroom yesterday to postprocess my photos, and I like it more than Bridge/Camera Raw. It has a ton more options, not only for developing RAW files, but also features that I’d normally only find in Photoshop, like red eye removal and a really good healing brush. And the crop tool is much easier to use than the one in Camera Raw. Another benefit is that it can also work with JPG files, so I don’t have to open those in Photoshop for editing. That’s a huge plus, because I can do it all in a single application. So this means I get to open Photoshop a lot less these days, which is great, given how slowly it opens on my machine. Say, Lightroom opens up lightning fast compared to Bridge! And oh yeah, it does automatic conversion to DNG, whereas this was a manual operation in Camera Raw. That’s cool for me, since DNG’s turn out to be about 50-60% of the size of my regular RAW files. That means I need about half the storage. I’ll that that any day and run with it. I’ve got enough gizmos and wires on and under my desk.

I’m annoyed with Costco for changing their return policy. It basically does away with any serious differentiation between them and other retail chains. I wrote them an email to complain, and they responded that they have a new concierge service that offers tech support for the higher-priced items, and they also extend the manufacturer’s warranty to 2 years, but still, I miss their wonderful (and now defunct) return policy. Yes, I can understand that cheesy people would return used items and eat away at their profit margins, but I don’t do that stuff, and I really liked the extra peace of mind that their old return policy provided me for items like cameras, electronics and appliances.

You may notice (or not) that the Technorati buttons and links are gone from my site, except for one little unobtrusive link in the sidebar. I took them off today. Technorati’s pretty much been useless to me. It’s driven no traffic to my site according to my stats, and they’ve also managed to decrease my site rank with their latest “tweaks”. I don’t like that. And on top of it all, my site has been loading slower lately because it had to wait for their graphics and JavaScript to load. My browser would sit there for seconds on end, with “waiting for technorati…” in the status bar.

Talking about slow load times, I also took off the Twitter status box from the sidebar. Twitter’s been up and down more times than an elevator lately, and they’ve been another reason my site has been slow to load. It would take forever to bring up the little Twitter status message at times, and I had enough of that. So if you want to see what I’ve been twittering about lately, just bookmark my Twitter page or subscribe to my uni-feed. Or you could also create an account at Twitter and add me to your friends…

Say, this post is pretty long after all!

Standard
Thoughts

Photoshop erases EXIF and IPTC data when saving for web

Photoshop CS2A couple of weeks ago, after carefully editing the IPTC information for one of my photos in Photoshop CS2, I was shocked to find out that it disappeared when I used the Save for Web option.

I thought I was alone, till I discovered others are aware of this problem; see this Google search for plenty of links. Apparently using ImageReady to save the image preserves the EXIF data, but it does not preserve the IPTC data. Saving the image directly from Photoshop preserves both EXIF and IPTC data, but robs the user of examining and tweaking the quality and resolution of the JPG file before pressing the Save button. But, neither option preservers vendor-specific EXIF tags, like the ISO tag writen by Nikon cameras.

Seems to me users shouldn’t have to dance around Photoshop and ImageReady in order to preserve the vital information present in the EXIF and IPTC data of their photos. It’s pretty sad that Adobe hasn’t standardized the photo data options in Photoshop and ImageReady. Why is it that only ImageReady has the extra option for the meta data, and why does it only save the EXIF data instead of both EXIF and IPTC data? Furthermore, I can’t believe an easy option for preserving EXIF and IPTC data isn’t made available in the Save for Web option. Don’t tell me it’s because of file size, because I’m not going to buy that argument. A few kilobytes here and there simply don’t matter nowadays, and besides, users should be able to make that decision, not the software. And don’t tell me it’s too expensive to do it. Exifer is free.

Bottom line: we deserve to have the option to preserve the extra data in our photos.

Standard