First one out of LightRoom 1.0

[cdifoto]

Trial Version. :p

Dunno if it's good or bad but here it is. I'm liking this program. It lags on my desktop at times but overall it's not bad.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/wintosix/2007-02-19-002.jpg

[forno]

Fantastic pic Don:D

Did you do the border in lightroom or PS?

havent got my head around the workflow as yet, then again I havent spent more than 10 minutes on it and havent hit F1 yet either

[cdifoto]

The border and little watermark in the bottom right corner is my usual Photoshop action. I also ran USM 10/50/0 for a hint of contrast and 100/.3/0 for sharpness when I resized.

LR 1.0 seems like a good program overall. Some stuff confuses me like the cloning...it's a really weird system they have & not straightforward like DPP and PS.

[NewTekBuzz]

Nice pic.
I wish LR would do a boarder! Just uninstalled that beta and installed the 30 day trial... I think I might buy it.... can you resize for web?

Tim

[cdifoto]

Nice pic.
I wish LR would do a boarder! Just uninstalled that beta and installed the 30 day trial... I think I might buy it.... can you resize for web?

Tim

You can crop and export to jpeg at any size you want. I haven't looked around for a direct resize option yet though.

[boog]

Not to beat a dead horse, but has anyone received and email from adobe over free download? Nice pick Don. We got aout first snow of the year on Friday and never got a chance to shoot any pics. I had to work all weekend:mad: . Don, could you explain that first USM you did for contrast. 10/50/?(can't remember) I don't believe I heard of that before. thanks.

[LoveOfSelene]

Really Nice Photograph Don!!!

I've had problems with the beta versions laging my laptop so I stoped using it. If you did try the beta do you think that they improved with the 1.0?

[RichNY]

Great image Don. I've gotta believe every non Mac user is going to want to be running Lightroom.

Q. Did your Exif data such as the particular lens you took the image with and what styles your camera was using come thru in the raw conversion the way it does with Canon's software?

[XaiLo]

Not to beat a dead horse, but has anyone received and email from adobe over free download? Nice pick Don. We got aout first snow of the year on Friday and never got a chance to shoot any pics. I had to work all weekend:mad: . Don, could you explain that first USM you did for contrast. 10/50/?(can't remember) I don't believe I heard of that before. thanks.

He is refering to:
1. the percentage effected
2. the pixel radius effected
3. the pixel threshold effected
by the filter

[cdifoto]

Not to beat a dead horse, but has anyone received and email from adobe over free download? Nice pick Don. We got aout first snow of the year on Friday and never got a chance to shoot any pics. I had to work all weekend:mad: . Don, could you explain that first USM you did for contrast. 10/50/?(can't remember) I don't believe I heard of that before. thanks.

The email hasn't gone out yet as far as I've heard. This trial version is the real deal, ie no limited functionality and is good for 30 days though. The USM is as XaiLo explained.

Really Nice Photograph Don!!!

I've had problems with the beta versions laging my laptop so I stoped using it. If you did try the beta do you think that they improved with the 1.0?

Not really a great shot y'all so don't lie. I'm no Bluedog and will never claim to be. Or try for that matter. :D The trial only lags in some places like importing images and a few processes. I don't have a megafast desktop computer though either and it's getting on in years. 2.16GHz AMD Athlon/2GB RAM/Slow-Azz FSB. I also tried to multitask. LightRoom said "program not responding" a couple times but it always came back. It didn't crash crash...but I can't blame Adobe for that. I have other programs that do the same on this machine but don't on my better spec'd laptop.

Great image Don. I've gotta believe every non Mac user is going to want to be running Lightroom.

Q. Did your Exif data such as the particular lens you took the image with and what styles your camera was using come thru in the raw conversion the way it does with Canon's software?

Probably will if they try it out. It seems bloated (but not heavy ie bogged down ie slowed) with features I'll never use but there are a lot of handy tools in there too. EXIF was indeed transferred when I converted. Styles I didn't pay much attention to actually. They don't support Picture Styles directly though (ie no drop down to select one like you have in DPP) - at least not that I found - so I don't think any of that is added. It would be difficult for Adobe to try to incorporate all the styles of every manufacturer out there...

Makes me wish my desktop was newer and faster though. But a lot of programs make me feel that way.

[cdifoto]

I wanted to add one really nice thing is the actual lens (right down to the brand if readable) used is listed out in LightRoom. I'm sure this is already in the tutorials and such but I thought it was a nice touch. You can also sort images by metadata, including lens/body used.

Unfortunately the Tokina didn't register by brand but the Focal Lengths did.

20467

20468

[boog]

Thanks xailo, I probably wasn't very clear with question. I know what the numbers represent. I was just curious about the high radius number of 50 with the percentage effected only being 10. I don't believe I've ever set my radius higher than 3.0.

[cdifoto]

Thanks xailo, I probably wasn't very clear with question. I know what the numbers represent. I was just curious about the high radius number of 50 with the percentage effected only being 10. I don't believe I've ever set my radius higher than 3.0.

You'll have to ask Jamison why it works the way it does. He recommended 20/50/0 which I sometimes use but typically don't have to go that high anymore, with 10 being sufficient and not even always necessary.

[aparmley]

I've read that RSP owners should expect an E-mail by the 23rd. I downloaded the trial version yesterday morning before work, but I haven't had any time to mess around with it. Quite honestly, I'm tired of installing a new application, pointing it to all my photos and waiting a day or so for it to map them all (seems that this is done every year or so. I just want to find an application finally that I like and one that I can grow with and that will grow with my library. I've been hoping this will be my library management/RAW converter application - but I'm just a little lazy in getting around to importing all my files.

[boog]

Is that to be used on landscaping photos only or any shot? I assume if Jamie said to try, it can be used on portraits as well.

[cdifoto]

Is that to be used on landscaping photos only or any shot? I assume if Jamie said to try, it can be used on portraits as well.

It's meant to kind of de-haze images due to the AA filter.

[coldrain]

Trial Version. :p

Dunno if it's good or bad but here it is. I'm liking this program. It lags on my desktop at times but overall it's not bad.

It is good! Very nice colours and contrast... a very nice landscape photo :).

[RichNY]

I wanted to add one really nice thing is the actual lens (right down to the brand if readable) used is listed out in LightRoom. I'm sure this is already in the tutorials and such but I thought it was a nice touch. You can also sort images by metadata, including lens/body used.

Unfortunately the Tokina didn't register by brand but the Focal Lengths did.


Did the Tokina register by brand in DPP?

It looks like it is missing the same type of information that DPP has that Aperture is also missing- stuff like what metering mode an image was taken with.

I just recently loaded DPP and saw this stuff and it helped me understand why certain pictures were so poor- I was in modes that I didn't realize I'd been using. I hope that Aperture/Lightroom will begin to support this information so I don't have to keep using DPP to 'understand' and learn from my shots.

[cdifoto]

It is good! Very nice colours and contrast... a very nice landscape photo :).

Thanks coldy! I wasn't so sure how it'd be since...well I kinda hate pictures like this. LOL.

Did the Tokina register by brand in DPP?

It looks like it is missing the same type of information that DPP has that Aperture is also missing- stuff like what metering mode an image was taken with.

I just recently loaded DPP and saw this stuff and it helped me understand why certain pictures were so poor- I was in modes that I didn't realize I'd been using. I hope that Aperture/Lightroom will begin to support this information so I don't have to keep using DPP to 'understand' and learn from my shots.

The exposure mode doesn't display in the LightRoom panel but it does go into the EXIF itself, which you can view (at least in Windows) simply by right clicking on the image and viewing advanced properties. Unfortunately in THAT EXIF there is no specific lens information, just focal length.

[RichNY]

The exposure mode doesn't display in the LightRoom panel but it does go into the EXIF itself.

Meaning you've got to go back and view it with DPP? To me this is a real shortcoming of both applications- I was amazed as to the information I'd been missing since I started shooting.

[cdifoto]

Meaning you've got to go back and view it with DPP? To me this is a real shortcoming of both applications- I was amazed as to the information I'd been missing since I started shooting.

You don't need to go back to DPP. I'm not familiar with Apple OS but read my post above. In Windows you simply right click the image in regular ol' explorer (no fancy program) and can see your EXIF:

20471

At any rate there is no perfect EXIF viewer yet but if you're like me you almost always shoot in Manual so it's moot. And if you think about it, it's the settings that matter for a given shot, not what exposure mode was used to obtain them. The settings are available in both views. The focal length itself is available in both. The lens used is available in LightRoom. The exposure mode is available in picture viewer/explorer.

Like I said, that's for Windows. You'd have to see what equivalent is available in Apple OS because I know nothing about it other than the logo is a fruit.

[coldrain]

Mac OS X, Don... not Apple OS :p

Or I will start saying Microsoft OS too :D

[adam75south]

i like lightroom, but have only used the editing part. haven't even began to use the organizing. god knows i need to. so what makes it different than bridge?

[cdifoto]

i like lightroom, but have only used the editing part. haven't even began to use the organizing. god knows i need to. so what makes it different than bridge?

I'm not the one to ask. I've only ever used DPP, RSP, and now this.

[cdifoto]

Mac OS X, Don... not Apple OS :p

Or I will start saying Microsoft OS too :D

Ok Mac OS. Proves how much I know about it. You can say Microsoft OS if you want. :D

[jamison55]

Don,

have you tried the tools out with jpegs yet? I know a couple of big name wedding photogs that switched back to shooting jpeg once they got lightroom, and have been thinking of trying it out myself while it's still cheap. I'm mostly interested in the speed and functionality of the workflow...

[cdifoto]

Don,

have you tried the tools out with jpegs yet? I know a couple of big name wedding photogs that switched back to shooting jpeg once they got lightroom, and have been thinking of trying it out myself while it's still cheap. I'm mostly interested in the speed and functionality of the workflow...

Actually I haven't even thought of it. But I might do that. Supposedly functionality is the same so it might make large RAWs rather moot.

I'll make it a point to shoot in RAW+Large JPEG shortly to see what happens with the same image file.

[aparmley]

Don,

have you tried the tools out with jpegs yet? I know a couple of big name wedding photogs that switched back to shooting jpeg once they got lightroom, and have been thinking of trying it out myself while it's still cheap. I'm mostly interested in the speed and functionality of the workflow...

Jay-muh-sahn

I'm looking forward to going back and editing jpegs before I shot RAW correcting things like WB especially because the WB-dropper works for jpegs as it has traditionally for RAWs.