My one annoyance when using it is having to import photos to have
them show up in Lightroom. When I export a photo to photoshop, work
on it and save it in the same folder as the original, it doesn't
appear in Lightroom unless I import it. So it's really easy to have
your main photo catalogue tool not showing some of the images it
should. Of course I may not be using it correctly...
James
On 25 Jan 2007, at 05:33, Stephen Scharf wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 24, 2007, at 6:24 PM, Listar wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 10:56:34 -0800
>> From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [OM] More Lightroom
>>
>> There is an interview here with the founder of the Lightroom project:
>>
>> http://since1968.com/article/187/
>>
>> It sort of confirms what I have felt, that these new apps are
>> primarily designed for photographers who bring in a couple thousand
>> images from a shoot and want to process and sift through them with as
>> little expenditure of time and attention as possible.
>
> That is absolutely correct. That was it's design brief. It was not,
> nor ever intended to
> be, a replacement or analog for Photoshop. Photoshop has a suite of
> photographically
> relevent tools, but it also has many tools intended for graphic
> artists, production
> folks (e.g. printers, CMYK separations, etc.) and illustrators.
> Lightroom was intended to meet about 80% of editing needs of
> photographers very quickly and in a streamlined way.
> Personally, I do have to screen, crop and edit through potentially
> thousands of images,
> and now that Lightroom is available, I can shoot in RAW and still get
> my work done.
> At my last race of the year, I was able to scan the day's shoot very
> quickly, make the
> appropriate edits and crops, and deliver a CD with the edited images
> to my PR manager
> the same day. Doing that in Photoshop would have been impossible.
>
>
>> I am still puzzled by the positioning of these apps, especially the
>> one from Adobe. I am sure that they intended it as a Photoshop for
>> photographers with the special features justifying selling it at the
>> same price. Why take a reduction in income? With the lower pricing of
>> Aperture making a $600 price impossible, Adobe has made a few noises
>> that Lightroom will just be another tool in the Adobe arsenal as if
>> they expect people to pop for both Lightroom and Photoshop. If so
>> there will probably be exclusive tools in each that will induce
>> people to buy both. I might be induced to switch from one expensive
>> tool to another if there is an easy transition like a competitive
>> upgrade price, but certainly not two expensive tools. The periodic
>> upgrade for PS is not too bad by comparison.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|