Comments on: Lightroom is to Photographers what Photoshop is to Photographs http://regex.info/blog/2007-05-24/468 Not a photo blog. A personal blog with photos. Mon, 21 May 2012 16:37:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Rodolfo Gamberale http://regex.info/blog/2007-05-24/468#comment-9166 Rodolfo Gamberale Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:26:39 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-05-24/468#comment-9166 I've had Lightroom for several months and I regret to say that, while quite good at processing raw files, it lacks many functions that a photographer like me desires: - first of all: BROWSING (the use of the library approach makes browsing very clumsy and almost impossible) - second: geometric corrections. No way to correct lens distortion, barrel or pincushion, no way to correct perspective. Only solution is to go to Photoshop, if one has it - third: a minimalist interface without buttons and icons (a la Windows). Commands are sometimes difficult to find. Background color is also questionable. - last but not least: price. The recent ACDSee Pro 2 is very capable and quick at picture processing, raw included, but is also a very good browser, and is cataloging capabilities are excellent. It costs about five times less than Lightroom 1.2. I’ve had Lightroom for several months and I regret to say that, while quite good at processing raw files, it lacks many functions that a photographer like me desires:
- first of all: BROWSING (the use of the library approach makes browsing very clumsy and almost impossible)
- second: geometric corrections. No way to correct lens distortion, barrel or pincushion, no way to correct perspective. Only solution is to go to Photoshop, if one has it
- third: a minimalist interface without buttons and icons (a la Windows). Commands are sometimes difficult to find. Background color is also questionable.
- last but not least: price. The recent ACDSee Pro 2 is very capable and quick at picture processing, raw included, but is also a very good browser, and is cataloging capabilities are excellent. It costs about five times less than Lightroom 1.2.

]]> By: Peter http://regex.info/blog/2007-05-24/468#comment-4695 Peter Thu, 24 May 2007 13:23:07 +0000 http://regex.info/blog/2007-05-24/468#comment-4695 I think I noticed somewhere here that you catalogue all your images - umpty thousands - in Lightroom? How effective/efficient is that - could you find a particular image quickly in, say, five year's time, i.e. without relying on memory? Is it a matter of using lots of keywords? <span class='jfriedl'>I think that by definition, I'd have to say no, as I'd still have to remember the keywords. :-) Some of the beta testers are big keyworders and are gaga about the upcoming 1.1. release, but I don't use keywords much. I organize the pictures in a YYYY-MM/DD-description/* hierarchy, and a memory about the rough date and the description of the event are generally enough for me to find something quickly. —Jeffrey</span> At present I process in Lightroom, edit metadata in XnView and, for the time being, catalogue images in IMatch. I also find Copernic Desktop Search quite handy, since it indexes image metadata; but I feel the work doesn't really flow at all! An overview of your Lightroom workflow would make an interesting subject for your blog. Peter I think I noticed somewhere here that you catalogue all your images – umpty thousands – in Lightroom? How effective/efficient is that – could you find a particular image quickly in, say, five year’s time, i.e. without relying on memory? Is it a matter of using lots of keywords?

I think that by definition, I’d have to say no, as I’d still have to remember the keywords. :-) Some of the beta testers are big keyworders and are gaga about the upcoming 1.1. release, but I don’t use keywords much. I organize the pictures in a YYYY-MM/DD-description/* hierarchy, and a memory about the rough date and the description of the event are generally enough for me to find something quickly. —Jeffrey

At present I process in Lightroom, edit metadata in XnView and, for the time being, catalogue images in IMatch. I also find Copernic Desktop Search quite handy, since it indexes image metadata; but I feel the work doesn’t really flow at all!

An overview of your Lightroom workflow would make an interesting subject for your blog.

Peter

]]>