Lightroom "Classic"

stevebrot · 10-24-2017, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Kerrowdown

Has anybody here mentioned how much quicker the new Classic it seems to be?

No scientific measurements or stopwatches involved, just a feeling when using it.

Glad to know that they met that stated goal.

Steve

rangercarp · 10-24-2017, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by raider

I think the software looks promising and has lens profile although missing some lenses such as the 35mm macro.

I checked today and their is a profile for all of my lenses, but I don't like the fact that I have to lick the lens from a drop down menu instead of it being automatically populated. My 55-300 was the only one that automatically populated for me.

stevebrot · 10-24-2017, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by rangercarp

I checked today and their is a profile for all of my lenses, but I don't like the fact that I have to lick the lens from a drop down menu instead of it being automatically populated. My 55-300 was the only one that automatically populated for me.

I can't say for that version of LR, but it is possible in v5.7 to have a particular copy of a lens auto-detected to populate the profile corrections box. The steps:

Enable profile corrections in Lens Corrections/Profile
Pick the lens from the drop menus
Click the "Setup" drop menu and select "Save New Lens Profile Defaults"

That last step sets as "default" the particular lens/camera combination as recorded in the EXIF until overridden or set back to Lightrooms default (whatever that is).

Steve

rangercarp · 10-25-2017, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

I can't say for that version of LR,

The comment was about ACDESee not auto populating... unlike LR which does.

stevebrot · 10-25-2017, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by rangercarp

The comment was about ACDESee not auto populating... unlike LR which does.

Ooops! My bad! As for LR and auto-populating...sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the lens and LR version. It is not enough to simply have the profile present.

Steve

pid · 10-28-2017, 02:17 AM

a question:
does anybody know, if LR classic will support Pixelshift RAW developing now?

**Rondec** · 10-28-2017, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by pid

a question:
does anybody know, if LR classic will support Pixelshift RAW developing now?

I guess you mean with motion correction enabled? Because Lightroom 6 will develop Pixelshift Raws right now, you just get motion artifacts. My guess is that it doesn't because no one has mentioned it in the pixel shift threads on the forum.

pid · 10-28-2017, 04:38 AM

RAW Thearapie is not bad, but very uncompfortable and complicated. What can we do, to force Adobe to integrate the Motion Correction?

Class A · 10-30-2017, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by pid

What can we do, to force Adobe to integrate the Motion Correction?

Nothing.

Adobe forces the customer, not the other way round.

Sorry, I realise this is not helpful but I feel it describes the truth. They don't give some people the ownership options they like and have resisted requests to make LR more useful to portrait photographers for many, many years now, so that they can still maintain a clear delineation to Photoshop.

Adobe makes some good products (although they suck in some details, they are very useful overall), but their history shows that they will first and foremost look after themselves. They are not too dissimilar to Apple. If their stuff works for you, great. If not, you are out of luck.

Winder · 10-31-2017, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Class A

Nothing.

Adobe forces the customer, not the other way round.

Sorry, I realise this is not helpful but I feel it describes the truth. They don't give some people the ownership options they like and have resisted requests to make LR more useful to portrait photographers for many, many years now, so that they can still maintain a clear delineation to Photoshop.

Adobe makes some good products (although they suck in some details, they are very useful overall), but their history shows that they will first and foremost look after themselves. They are not too dissimilar to Apple. If their stuff works for you, great. If not, you are out of luck.

In Adobe's defense, at one time Photoshop was the most pirated software program in the world. It easier to understand why they are the way they are when you look at their history. I'm not agreeing with it, just pointing out one of the reasons they are the way they are.

**Oakland Rob** · 10-31-2017, 10:00 AM

I would lay more criticism at Pentax' feet than Adobe's.

If Pentax really wanted to sell the benefits of their pixel shift technology, they could provide a Photoshop plugin to deal with pixel shifted images, not just the horrid software they provide with the camera. But nope. Olympus at least provided a plugin for their version of the technology, although I don't think it does motion correction. But since it provides an index file it's easier to mask out motion than with Pentax images, although Rawtherapee does that perhaps best of all (did Pentac help with that project?).

rawr · 10-31-2017, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Oakland Rob

not just the horrid software they provide with the camera. But nope.

On a related note, I notice that even the 'full' Silkypix software itself (Silkypix Developer Studio Pro 8, not the basic version Pentax provides) doesn't fully support Pixel Shift either.

Quote:

For RAW images shot with “Pixel Shift Resolution”, several features such as a demosaicing sharpness are unavailable.

Supported digital cameras | SILKYPIX Developer Studio Pro8 | SILKYPIX

And Pentax is obviously quite close to the makers of Silkypix Pro. So Ricoh clearly do need to offer more support to developers who are working with pixel shift.

DeadJohn · 10-31-2017, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Winder

In Adobe's defense, at one time Photoshop was the most pirated software program in the world. It easier to understand why they are the way they are when you look at their history. I'm not agreeing with it, just pointing out one of the reasons they are the way they are.

I agree with you. Someone is probably going to reply "but Photoshop was too expensive and deserved to be pirated". Stupid opinions are not uncommon.

**BigMackCam** · 10-31-2017, 05:33 PM

As a brief aside, I'll just mention that I'm on day six (I think) of running Darktable under Linux, and it's really excellent. This isn't to criticise Lightroom in any way (other than the subscription model, which I personally don't like), or to call out Darktable as the best alternative, but merely to say that I personally believe there are other excellent alternatives I can now be very happy with. I'm not sure I'd have been able to say that even two or three years ago. But now...

Apologies for the interruption. I just wanted to leave this here...

ChristianRock · 11-02-2017, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

As a brief aside, I'll just mention that I'm on day six (I think) of running Darktable under Linux, and it's really excellent. This isn't to criticise Lightroom in any way (other than the subscription model, which I personally don't like), or to call out Darktable as the best alternative, but merely to say that I personally believe there are other excellent alternatives I can now be very happy with. I'm not sure I'd have been able to say that even two or three years ago. But now...

Apologies for the interruption. I just wanted to leave this here...

And you have used RawTherapee in the past, haven't you? How do you compare the two if you have? Both in terms of usability and results.

10-24-2017, 10:15 AM	#138
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by rangercarp I checked today and their is a profile for all of my lenses, but I don't like the fact that I have to lick the lens from a drop down menu instead of it being automatically populated. My 55-300 was the only one that automatically populated for me. I can't say for that version of LR, but it is possible in v5.7 to have a particular copy of a lens auto-detected to populate the profile corrections box. The steps: Enable profile corrections in Lens Corrections/Profile Pick the lens from the drop menus Click the "Setup" drop menu and select "Save New Lens Profile Defaults" That last step sets as "default" the particular lens/camera combination as recorded in the EXIF until overridden or set back to Lightrooms default (whatever that is). Steve

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Kiron 70-210mm f4 - the classic MF "zoomlock". One of the best!	marcusBMG	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	08-29-2017 05:03 AM
Switching between "classic" and "mobile" layout.	Mapleleaf-Mick	Site Suggestions and Help	4	09-13-2016 07:36 AM
How to batch move photos in lightroom from folder "old" to "new"?	raider	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	4	07-24-2016 07:54 AM
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--"	Jean Poitiers	Pentax Q	52	11-10-2013 06:25 AM
For Sale - Sold: Kiron 28-210mm f/4-5.6 In Excellent condition (AKN "Cult Classic")	jjdgti	Sold Items	13	01-25-2011 09:12 AM

10-24-2017, 08:36 AM	#136
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Kerrowdown Has anybody here mentioned how much quicker the new Classic it seems to be? No scientific measurements or stopwatches involved, just a feeling when using it. Glad to know that they met that stated goal. Steve

10-24-2017, 08:46 AM	#137
rangercarp Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Southern Michigan Posts: 437	Originally posted by raider I think the software looks promising and has lens profile although missing some lenses such as the 35mm macro. I checked today and their is a profile for all of my lenses, but I don't like the fact that I have to lick the lens from a drop down menu instead of it being automatically populated. My 55-300 was the only one that automatically populated for me.

10-25-2017, 07:17 AM	#139
rangercarp Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Southern Michigan Posts: 437	Originally posted by stevebrot I can't say for that version of LR, The comment was about ACDESee not auto populating... unlike LR which does.

10-25-2017, 11:34 AM	#140
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by rangercarp The comment was about ACDESee not auto populating... unlike LR which does. Ooops! My bad! As for LR and auto-populating...sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the lens and LR version. It is not enough to simply have the profile present. Steve

10-28-2017, 02:17 AM	#141
pid Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 567	a question: does anybody know, if LR classic will support Pixelshift RAW developing now?

10-28-2017, 02:28 AM	#142
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by pid a question: does anybody know, if LR classic will support Pixelshift RAW developing now? I guess you mean with motion correction enabled? Because Lightroom 6 will develop Pixelshift Raws right now, you just get motion artifacts. My guess is that it doesn't because no one has mentioned it in the pixel shift threads on the forum.

10-28-2017, 04:38 AM	#143
pid Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 567	RAW Thearapie is not bad, but very uncompfortable and complicated. What can we do, to force Adobe to integrate the Motion Correction?

10-30-2017, 07:19 PM	#144
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by pid What can we do, to force Adobe to integrate the Motion Correction? Nothing. Adobe forces the customer, not the other way round. Sorry, I realise this is not helpful but I feel it describes the truth. They don't give some people the ownership options they like and have resisted requests to make LR more useful to portrait photographers for many, many years now, so that they can still maintain a clear delineation to Photoshop. Adobe makes some good products (although they suck in some details, they are very useful overall), but their history shows that they will first and foremost look after themselves. They are not too dissimilar to Apple. If their stuff works for you, great. If not, you are out of luck.

10-31-2017, 07:10 AM	#145
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Class A Nothing. Adobe forces the customer, not the other way round. Sorry, I realise this is not helpful but I feel it describes the truth. They don't give some people the ownership options they like and have resisted requests to make LR more useful to portrait photographers for many, many years now, so that they can still maintain a clear delineation to Photoshop. Adobe makes some good products (although they suck in some details, they are very useful overall), but their history shows that they will first and foremost look after themselves. They are not too dissimilar to Apple. If their stuff works for you, great. If not, you are out of luck. In Adobe's defense, at one time Photoshop was the most pirated software program in the world. It easier to understand why they are the way they are when you look at their history. I'm not agreeing with it, just pointing out one of the reasons they are the way they are.

10-31-2017, 10:00 AM	#146
Oakland Rob Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Bay Area California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 798	I would lay more criticism at Pentax' feet than Adobe's. If Pentax really wanted to sell the benefits of their pixel shift technology, they could provide a Photoshop plugin to deal with pixel shifted images, not just the horrid software they provide with the camera. But nope. Olympus at least provided a plugin for their version of the technology, although I don't think it does motion correction. But since it provides an index file it's easier to mask out motion than with Pentax images, although Rawtherapee does that perhaps best of all (did Pentac help with that project?).

10-31-2017, 04:09 PM	#147
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Oakland Rob not just the horrid software they provide with the camera. But nope. On a related note, I notice that even the 'full' Silkypix software itself (Silkypix Developer Studio Pro 8, not the basic version Pentax provides) doesn't fully support Pixel Shift either. Quote: For RAW images shot with “Pixel Shift Resolution”, several features such as a demosaicing sharpness are unavailable. Supported digital cameras \| SILKYPIX Developer Studio Pro8 \| SILKYPIX And Pentax is obviously quite close to the makers of Silkypix Pro. So Ricoh clearly do need to offer more support to developers who are working with pixel shift.

10-31-2017, 04:44 PM	#148
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,833 Original Poster	Originally posted by Winder In Adobe's defense, at one time Photoshop was the most pirated software program in the world. It easier to understand why they are the way they are when you look at their history. I'm not agreeing with it, just pointing out one of the reasons they are the way they are. I agree with you. Someone is probably going to reply "but Photoshop was too expensive and deserved to be pirated". Stupid opinions are not uncommon.

10-31-2017, 05:33 PM	#149
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	As a brief aside, I'll just mention that I'm on day six (I think) of running Darktable under Linux, and it's really excellent. This isn't to criticise Lightroom in any way (other than the subscription model, which I personally don't like), or to call out Darktable as the best alternative, but merely to say that I personally believe there are other excellent alternatives I can now be very happy with. I'm not sure I'd have been able to say that even two or three years ago. But now... Apologies for the interruption. I just wanted to leave this here...

11-02-2017, 07:38 AM	#150
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by BigMackCam As a brief aside, I'll just mention that I'm on day six (I think) of running Darktable under Linux, and it's really excellent. This isn't to criticise Lightroom in any way (other than the subscription model, which I personally don't like), or to call out Darktable as the best alternative, but merely to say that I personally believe there are other excellent alternatives I can now be very happy with. I'm not sure I'd have been able to say that even two or three years ago. But now... Apologies for the interruption. I just wanted to leave this here... And you have used RawTherapee in the past, haven't you? How do you compare the two if you have? Both in terms of usability and results.