RE: Lightroom (was Re: Adobe Photoshop CS3 update)
Peter, I am perfectly comfortable where I am. I don't consider anything
that I said as putting myself out on a limb. What I am doing is making sure
as best I can, that others don't buy LR thinking it is a Digital asset
management program even if it claims to be. In a limited capacity it is for
RAW and small JPEGs. It even does a fine job of letting you edit in PS (PS 7
I don't print often with LR but certainly tried its functionality. I have
Image Print, Q Image, QTR, and the old Epson drivers.
I did make a typo there but Gawain has already cleared that up and expanded
on LR short fall. I not only bought LR for its processing capabilities, but
for the claims at cataloging your photos.
I already print with Cones' Sepia set of Peizotone inks and have been doing
so for four or five years. I haven't tried his newer K6 or K7 inks. I am
however, currently in testing on another set of inks that I believe will be
everything those are and perhaps more. Time will tell.
Happy printing! And now back a getting out of Dallas for T day,
Happy belated Thanksgiving Day. We had a great time.
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75226
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Marshall [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:13 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Lightroom (was Re: Adobe Photoshop CS3 update)
> I wasn't the guy who slagged off LR, which for many people is a great
> program (not perfect, but what is.)
> If you put yourself out on a limb like that expect a few people to saw
> through it.
> Print with Photoshop - its fine. LR links to it perfectly. Why should I
> want to print from LR when I've software that does it better? Helps if
> you've got a RIP, especially for b/w of course.
> >NOT meant to be used by Fine Artist withfile that exceed 100000 pixel.
> I don't understand this at all. Most of my files in LR are 10,000,000
> pixels or larger, no problems. The largest I use regularly are for
> printing at 24x16", but larger files are not a problem. Your experiences
> just don't seem to match up with mine or with others who are using the
> With a monitor properly profiled an your printer profiled for the paper
> and inks you are using, things work fine for colour. To get the best b/w
> you need to take a look at Jon Cone's offerings and print using QTR or
> some other RIP (I use Bowhaus.) Its all there, all working fine so long
> as you take a little trouble to set it up. Better matt prints than I
> could ever make in the darkroom - better than platinum too. Gloss is
> more or less there too with the latest papers - higher DMax than silver
> but perhaps surfaces could still be improved. But 18 months since I last
> felt I needed to go in the darkroom.
> Peter Marshall - Photographer, Writer: NUJ
> >Re:PHOTO http://re-photo.co.uk
> My London Diary http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
> London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
> The Buildings of London etc: http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
> and elsewhere......
> Eric Neilsen wrote:
> > Peter, Condemnation is a bit strong. I don't recall reading in the ads,
> > hearing Adobe tell us that this was NOT meant to be used by Fine Artist
> > file that exceed 100000 pixel. I don't recall them advertising that all
> > maximized PSD, a native Adobe format, would not be honored by this Adobe
> > program. I don't recall them saying large tif files would not be
> > Their focus ha without a doubt has been on processing RAW files for many
> > cameras. Great. But they were also strongly touting their file system,
> > for me has crashed several times.
> > One may not need flexibility in processing a variety of RAW files, and
> > may not be using the best conversion of those files. Perhaps, I should
> > said consider your purchase strongly, but I think don't may have gotten
> > their attention a bit faster.
> > What do I want to do with files? Keep track of all my image files, not
> > ones small enough to be exported by LR but those that have also been
> > on to make prints. The industry has a massive failing by catering to
> > that don't share a fine artist' needs. Apple, Epson, Adobe, MS have for
> > years been struggling with good integrated control over print engines.
> > Looking at pretty, and some not so pretty pictures on a screen is one
> > but having them come to life in print and be able to keep track of those
> > files is something else. This group is based on printing, not processing
> > files. This is where LR needs more help and development. I believe the
> > way to get the developers attention is to get the users from this side
> > the track to demand more complete packages for OUR needs.
> > Eric
> > Eric Neilsen Photography
> > 4101 Commerce Street
> > Suite 9
> > Dallas, TX 75226
> > http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> > http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> > Skype ejprinter
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Peter Marshall [mailto:email@example.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 4:18 AM
> >> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> Subject: Re: Lightroom (was Re: Adobe Photoshop CS3 update)
> >> Eric,
> >> I think you may be condemning it mainly for not being something it
> >> set out to be. It is a program for importing and processing RAW files,
> >> and creating a simple database of them.
> >> It can create 16 bit per channel TIFF files from these - which is the
> >> largest format needed. I regularly use it to create 50Mb '8 bit' TIFFs,
> >> as well as 'full size' very high quality jpegs at around 5-10Mb (both
> >> Adobe RGB for repro use and also for my own printing) and of course
> >> small sRGB jpegs for web use. It does these things several times faster
> >> than other software I own, and rather more conveniently. I just can't
> >> imagine what else you might want it to make from RAW files.
> >> I do think it has limitations as a database and I've had a few problems
> >> with very large databases, though it is currently doing fine with well
> >> over 50,000 images. But I suspect some of the problems I've had were of
> >> my own making and I think I really need to work out more how to use
> >> aspect of the program rather than blame it. I can live with it as it
> >> But it is great to be able to add IPTC data including keywords
> >> automatically on input, and it can make getting your images catalogued
> >> by other software more or less automatic.
> >> There are other features that I'd like to see in LR, and the release
> >> last week of a preview SDK to enable developers to work on plugins is
> >> great news for LR users - more significant than the relatively minor
> >> interface improvements in 1.3.
> >> The file browser in PS7 was useless - and I soon disabled it, though I
> >> understand it is better in later versions, so perhaps Adobe have learnt
> >> from their experience.
> >> I'd still advise any photographer using a camera that can shoot RAW to
> >> get LR.
> >> Regards,
> >> Peter