Andrew, from your article:

quote:

I tried to convince this new Lightroom user that he should remove his Photoshop bias and try working with the controls in the order provided. If at such a time he can�t produce the desired color and tone appearance, then we might investigate if this is indeed a flaw in the application (not likely with the pretty smart Adobe engineers) or if there�s a flaw in the usage of the toolset. Its often the later. Suggesting that curves in Photoshop and Lightroom should operate identically fails the logic tests because the source data is so different as is the final image processing. You can see the same disconnect if you play with the exposure tools on a Raw in Lightroom versus the Exposure or Shadow/Highlight tools on a rendered image in Photoshop. The tools may have the same name, yet the processing and results are often significantly different.

Another bias I�ve seen is the idea of being very casual in handling your raw rendering and �fixing� the image later in Photoshop. There�s a kind of macho mentality, (or maybe its just due to familiarity), that cause some users to dismiss rendering the best possible image data before using Photoshop. This is the old �I�ll fix it in Photoshop� mindset. Never forget GIGO: Garbage in, garbage out! The result of edits applied in Lightroom and ACR is a totally new image, from either an existing rendered image (TIFF, JPEG) or better, raw. Edits are applied on high-bit linear data using the greatest color gamut from the raw data. It therefore makes sense to do all the heavy lifting, in terms of producing the desired color appearance, with such tools, long before you even consider launching Photoshop.

I understand what you're saying, and have gotten some excellent raw conversions using the LR2 beta, BUT:

The whole import/export paradigm is a huge time waster and a tremendous resource hog, that's difficult to reconcile with my actual image library. I don't understand the need for a separate library than the one I already have, it just seems incredibly redundant to me.

The interface still looks and mostly works like a 1980's DOS video game. LR2 is an improvement over LR1 in that sense, but that's like comparing 1989 to 1991.

I don't understand why the underlying code and even some of the good elements of the UI for raw conversions etc. can't be incorporated into Bridge, which is a much more logical, very direct way of working with images than Lightroom is by far.

Basically, I'd like to able to open a raw file in Bridge and tweak it without opening Photoshop/ACR. It can't be that difficult and would save me loads of time and trouble to access the good features of LR without having to waste time and disk space with the import/export nonsense required to use it.

Then again, if Adobe did that they wouldn't be able to milk their users for an additional $400, so maybe I just answered my own question...

Point being, they could easily make Bridge do almost everything that Lightroom can do. The result would be a much better integrated, faster, more simplified workflow.

Lightroom, to me, is an answer to a question that nobody asked. Bridge was a great idea and still is, there wasn't any reason to re-invent the wheel.

And like I said before, it would be a tremendous loss if they stopped improving Bridge and ACR in order to force sales of Lightroom. If Adobe is heading that way than please, at least give us an option to use Lightroom like we currently use Bridge, and don't force us into creating a confusing and wasteful "sidecar" image library like it does now.

quote:

Point being, they could easily make Bridge do almost everything that Lightroom can do.

You have answered your own question. LR is already here.

ACR or Bridge as you call it, has most of the options that LR has (someone else can list them) except they are on different tabs and spread out through other menus and not easily accessible. In LR you have 4 modules (you can use them all how you like or not at all); Library (sorting, rating and keywording), Develop (C.C.'ing, image modifications), Slideshow (creating slideshows), Print (printing) and Web (creating web galleries). These four modules run the gamut of options that can be applied to RAW files(applied as well to tiffs, psd, and jpgs) that BOTH Photoshop/Bridge and the ACR plug in offer. LR far surpasses the PS/ACR plug in for ease or use when it comes to sorting/editing, building collections and even using it as a simple DAM.
Kevin there is so much to show you when it comes to the advantages of LR over PS/Bridge its hard to put it all down in words. I too was highly skeptical like you when LR 1 beta came out and disliked it immensely but now with V2 and dual monitor support, keywording (keyword collections), rating, filtering and finding my images has never been faster or easier. I shot 700+ images the other day,imported, keyworded, adjusted, sorted, edited and created a web gallery all in about an hour.
Yes, the old way of dragging them in or doing a DNG convertor session would have worked, as well as sorting/rating them in Bridge, then opening them all or in groups in ACR and applying c.c.'s and adjustments. Then I would have to select my picks in Bridge and create my web gallery (hoping that indeed all my selects were in the one folder, something LR cures with the Collections feature), using up precious PS resources and memory. All this and my images haven't been catalogued in any way by Bridge except for maybe building a cache but in no way a database.
With LR I import my files, convert them to DNG, keyword and apply metadata all in one initial step. Once they are imported my assistant can start flagging rejects immediately in the Library module while I continue shooting. This continues till the end of the day when I sort through and label the remaining files, c.c and apply any other changes in the Develop module. If it is a multiple day shoot or I want to include images from other locations, I can create a "quick collection" or a regular collection, then reorder them and output a stylish web gallery (so many cool galleries being created by 3rd parties that is not an option for PS). All done, and my files are all placed within this DAM that I can now take with me on the plane and look through, flag and create more collections without have the files on my laptop (25,000 files and the catalogue is 466mb). I am way more efficient than I ever was. I can have LR doing 3 or 4 tasks at once (keywording, web galleries etc) and I can be doing the heavy work in PS; something I never had before LR came along.
Yes, the UI takes a while to get use to and there are things like hot key shortcuts not being the same as PS that drive me mad, as well as no CAPTURE CONTROL but for the most part I am very satisfied and now only use PS to do layers and true image manipulations.

Skin,

It's the negatives in the last sentence you mention that irk me.

"UI takes a while to get use to and there are things like hot key shortcuts not being the same as PS that drive me mad, as well as no CAPTURE CONTROL"

Ya but the speed of it all and the file manage outweigh them.

>The interface still looks and mostly works like a 1980's DOS video game. LR2 is an improvement over LR1 in that sense, but that's like comparing 1989 to 1991.

Import is most certainly not robust! I hope we'll see this addressed in version 3.

Bridge can't do what LR does as its just a simple browser and has no database functionality. Its not even written in the same language. So saying "they could make Bridge do this or that" is anywhere as simple as it sounds.

IF you don't want any database functionality, then Bridge+ACR should serve you well. ACR and LR.'s develop module will always share the same processing pipeline and options (well, more or less).

The other thing is, many LR users don't understand the role and use of Quick Develop in Library. They think its a lame, develop module with training wheels when in fact, its not designed to operate like Develop but rather a quick way to move many images into a decent viewing condition for possible future work in Develop. There's also a big difference between applying edits in QD versus Develop as one's a relative and the other an Absolute set of adjustments. Designed for different tasks.

skinshooter, thanks, but like I said already, all those things are fine, it just isn't for everybody. As I've said, and I'm a quick study, I've spent countless hours with the LR2 beta trying really hard to make it work for me but it mostly just gets in the way.

FWIW, my shoots are in the dozens of images, not hundreds plus, so the sorting process (and asset management) is much easier for me than high volume shooters like yourself. Like I said earlier, I'm a ruthless self-editor who can make quick decisions and permanently delete things I don't like or need before moving on. The raw's I don't like don't even make it to the backup drive, I wipe them on first look.

For people who don't have that luxury because their clients won't let them, or don't have enough confidence to do it right away, then I can see more value in what it can do to manage high volume situations like yours, and many other photographers. If it works for you than great!

I probably could use the database aspect of it though, but don't absolutely -need- it, and I see no ideological reason that it couldn't be added to Bridge, technical reasons aside. I can batch in metadata presets and keywords pretty well in Bridge, though searching and sorting by keywords isn't quite there. I could use that but...

...I'd much rather be doing that with the actual shoot files instead of a rendition of them in another place! That's really my main problem with LR and some other asset managers I've tried. I don't fully understand why one can't do all that with the actual images instead of having to render a separate catalog of sorts and reconcile the two. Slows me down.

And ya, I got your laptop on a plane analogy, but that's what pocket drives are for! Besides, I'd rather watch a movie or just sleep on a plane than do actual work anyway.

What would be ideal for me is a Bridge that can do much of what Lightroom offers, without the import process and extra folders and file structures it creates. As for using the manipulation tools on any file in LR, which is very cool, why not add that to Bridge or even into PS?

IOW, getting back to what Andrew said, it might be technically difficult to add some of these things to Bridge and make some other changes to smooth out it's workflow (functions are still scattered all over the place - merging ACR directly into it without invoking Photoshop - would be a real good start).

And the overall look, feel, and intuitiveness of it really is pretty bad. Even if it worked the way I want it to work (directly on the images etc.), from a design standpoint it's just awful. Even Microsoft Expression (previously known as iView Media Pro) looks better and is easier to figure out, though it also has the dreaded import/export drama that baffles me.

And of course it has no RAW conversion so I don't use it, I'm just saying. On top of LR's powerful feature set is an ugly, clunky, very dated UI, that looks like something Fisher Price would make if they were really into black.

quote:

UI takes a while to get use to and there are things like hot key shortcuts not being the same as PS that drive me mad, as well as no CAPTURE CONTROL

That too! Why??

quote:

I probably could use the database aspect of it though, but don't absolutely -need- it, and I see no ideological reason that it couldn't be added to Bridge, technical reasons aside. I can batch in metadata presets and keywords pretty well in Bridge, though searching and sorting by keywords isn't quite there. I could use that but...

...I'd much rather be doing that with the actual shoot files instead of a rendition of them in another place! That's really my main problem with LR and some other asset managers I've tried. I don't fully understand why one can't do all that with the actual images instead of having to render a separate catalog of sorts and reconcile the two. Slows me down.

I think searching a relatively small catalog is far faster than searching large folders full of high-res or raw images. Which is why I assume Bridge's search functions are useless (referring to CS2 -- haven't tried keyword searching in CS3). But considering that Bridge should only have to search the XMP files for keywords, I don't quite understand why it's so slow.

quote:

IOW, getting back to what Andrew said, it might be technically difficult to add some of these things to Bridge and make some other changes to smooth out it's workflow (functions are still scattered all over the place - merging ACR directly into it without invoking Photoshop - would be a real good start).

From Bridge, you can open ACR without opening PS by pressing CTRL+R on any selected images.

The reason why I switched to LR was solely for its raw converter. When PS CS3 was released with the same raw conversion engine, I was a bit pissed at Adobe in the order they released these products, since I wouldn't have bothered purchasing LR if I already had PS CS3 (I was still getting used to LR's interface at the time). Now, I'm actually quite happy with LR. The interface did take some getting used to, but now it's a seamless part of my workflow. The only time I open Bridge nowadays is to browse folders that aren't a part of my catalog.

One function I wish LR had was the ability to open two windows simultaneously so I can toggle back and forth between the two (like I can with Bridge).

quote:

But considering that Bridge should only have to search the XMP files for keywords, I don't quite understand why it's so slow.

Actually, I take that back. The only times I recall using Bridge to search for images included folders with high-res TIFFs. Maybe it is faster with raw files (with XMP sidecars).

>From Bridge, you can open ACR without opening PS by pressing CTRL+R on any selected images.

You can actually host ACR in Bridge and Photoshop at the same time, essentially working with two different Raws at once.

quote:

From Bridge, you can open ACR without opening PS by pressing CTRL+R on any selected images.

I did not know that.

quote:

You can actually host ACR in Bridge and Photoshop at the same time, essentially working with two different Raws at once.

Or that.

Thanks!