On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bob W <p...@web-options.com> wrote: >> > Anyway, here's a >> > better one. You need a steamhammer for your work which >> involves driving >> > enormous piles into the ground. You also occasionally need >> to tap a tack >> > into a piece of wood. You complain because the steam >> piledriver is no good >> > at tapping little tacks into wood. >> >> That's still wrong: Lightroom isn't anything as crude as a >> piledriver. >> No one would reasonably expect to be able to use a piledriver for >> tapping little tacks. A reasonable photographer *would* like >> to be able >> to use a tool whose desirable features are raw conversion and image >> optimization for... just raw conversion and image optimization. > > These are just analogies, they're not meant to be taken literally. You don't > want me to get all literal all yo ass now, do you? The point I'm obviously > struggling to make is that the right tool for one job is not necessarily the > right tool for some other job, however similar they seem. It's largely a > matter of scale - a spreadsheet versus SAP for doing accounts perhaps. If > every software development organisation tried to please everyone all the > time, no software would ever get released, and if it did it would please > nobody - anybody with experience in software development should know that. > > Lightroom was designed in consultation with an awful lot of professional > photographers to do a particular job. As far as I can see it would make a > good case study in how to develop software. But like any other project it > had a scope - limits on what it would and wouldn't do. They've issued it to > great acclaim, and made changes in response to market use and further > experience. No doubt they will continue to do so, adding useful functions, > which might include what you want, but complaining about it not being able > to do something that it has never claimed to do and was apparently not > designed to do is an exercise in futility. > > Bob > >
Bob, Don't get the misunderstanding that I've got a hate-on for LR. I don't. In fact I think its a superb piece of software, although I wish that Adobe made a LR Elements that had a filebrowser instead of the Library so I could get a full-featured Adobe-based RAW converter without either buying the latest Photoshop or being forced into using the Library in LR (PS Elements doesn't expose all of ACR's abilities unlike LR or ACR in PS/Bridge so its not the answer). This entire thread started when somebody made a post implying that anyone who didn't use LR or a similar application was a silly twit who wouldn't understand the value of an application which significantly improved workflow and reduced work by massive amounts. I'm still trying to explain to him that for my requirements LR isn't a good fit as it adds more work rather than reducing the workload. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
