> Against: > Can be a little slow on some machines: I've been using it on > my laptop, with > an external drive as the file location. No doubt it would be > faster with a > more powerful CPU and a more grunty HD. > Resource hogger: don't try this with a small memory machine!
I store my originals on an external drive. I've ordered more memory for my PC ready for v1. I haven't had huge problems with memory management with the beta, but it could certainly use more. > At the moment, the Beta version lacks some tools, such as > red-eye removal. > This will improve. > No perspective control. > No layers, no selective editing possible. > No shadows/highlight control, although "Fill Light" and > "Recovery" work well > and are nearly equivalent. Don't care about red-eye removal. Layers, selective editing etc. are not really what Lightroom is about, in my opinion. I've read several reviews online where people pan it basically because it's not Photoshop. They complain about the Photoshop features that Lightroom doesn't have, as if Adobe should be writing Photoshop again. Maybe they should, but Lightroom is a different creature entirely. Don't complain about leopards not being walruses. I haven't really used layers in Photoshop, but as far as I understand them, you can go back through your edits in Lightroom using the history panel and selectively undo, redo them, to achieve much the same thing. You can also set up your own curves so you can apply the same thing to different photos. The important thing is not 'Lightroom doesn't have feature X or feature Y' - that's concentrating too much on particular solutions. Instead it is 'how do you solve problem X or problem Y?'. If you look at the problem that layers is supposed to solve, I'm sure you will find something in Lightroom that solves it, probably better than Photoshop in many cases. By my reckoning that's the approach the Lightroom designers have taken. One of the reasons why it's developing into such a good system is that Adobe seems to have approached the problem definition and requirements capture very well, by looking at the processes photographers use, at what problems they have to deal with rather than what features they ask for - identified by watching them work, and talking to them about it. This is a better approach than taking a list of every feature everyone has ever mentioned and shoe-horning it in without regard to genuine need or how people really work. It looks to me like a good example of user-centered design. > > I think I've decided on a new workflow: previously, because [...] > > Anyone else thinking along the same lines? I have set up 2 folders, Camera Raw and Scanner Raw, to receive the pictures from the different sources. Scanner Raw receives tiff files. >From then on the workflow is the same, which I really appreciate. I don't see any particular value in saving as DNG, and I don't 'flatten' the edits into a new master file. Instead I save the output for web or print - much the same as you, I think. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
