Wait a second did I read this right, mmm I thought sharpening and noise reduction is clearly part of the work flow for photographers?
I'm shocked at this comment, and then the book says to go out and buy CS2/CS3 for this?
This is supposed to be a ''complete'' photographers tool which in my world means sharpening and noise reduction too. It's not like those powerful tools are not available to port over to LR from CS2.
I like LR a lot but not having powerful sharpening and noise utilities is like having a jigsaw with a dull blade!
Want to Sharpen Use CS2? Says Scott...
Yeah, well, Lightroom 1.0 came out in Feb and didn't get the chance to pick up on upcoming improvements with demosiacing, noise reduction and sharpening that will be coming in Camera Raw (and then Lightroom). So, technically, he's right now, but will be wrong soon.
Want to Sharpen Use CS2? Says Scott...
Excellent thanks Jeff, I have done scores of pics and it is really lame so I hope they beef this up sooner than later.
Oh, please you are so far behind on this. People have been complaining about
this since the first public beta and complain right up until it shipped and
are still complaining about it. Adobe may not want to admit it but they
boffed the pooch when they ignored this.
Robert
ACR existed long before the first public beta of LR. This is an ACR issue brought to the forefront by the fact that LR doesn't have the workaround that PS does - using the PS tools for sharpening and NR instead of ACR. I'm glad for this because it's one of the two main reasons I never used ACR, the other being useless workflow. LR fixes that problem and the upcoming improvements will (I hope) fix the other one.
''Oh, please you are so far behind on this.''
Who you talkin' to bud?
Since Lightroom depends on the Camera Raw pipeline, there was nothing Lightroom could do until the Camera Raw pipeline was (will be) updated. It's not like the Lightroom and Camera Raw engineers didn't already have a lot of work to do. Stuff gets worked on when there's time. Withe the ship of LR 1.0 and CR 4.0, there's now time. (and it's about time, ya know?)
What exactly happens to a pooch when it gets ''boffed''?
Paul
Same as a Budgie when it goes 'down the loo'.
Oh, please Jeff Adobe know at least a year ago if not longer than a 10,000
pixel limit wasn't going to cut it. Adobe had nothing but complaints about
Photoshop not supporting large enough files and finally had to do something
about. So Adobe knew full well the same was going to happen with ACR and LR
especially when they made it possible to edit non RAW images with them.
Adobe chose to ignore and now they can repeat the complaints.
Robert
As I see it, this has next to nothing to do with the ACR pipeline. Sharpening is necessary at the output stage, after reducing to the target size. At this point, camera raw shouldn't be involved any more.
Jakob Borg you are ingoring Bruce Fraser's three stages of Sharpening with that statement.
Bruce Fraser Article. Highly recommended reading.
(Thanks Jeff!)
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
Robert-
You seem to overlook that programming for extra large files involves tradeoffs in overall speed. As processors get way more efficient than they are now, I am sure we'll see that limitation lifted over time.
Thanks, John.
Don
Robert...get a clue bud.
Camera Raw's 10K limit (which has ZERO to do about imaging sharpening BTW-which IS the subject of this thread-but really seems to push YOUR buttons) has been there since Camera Raw 1.0 (released Feb, 2003). The Detail section of Camera Raw hasn't really been touched since then either. The Details section of the Camera Raw pipeline is what Lightroom depends upon for capture sharpening inside of Lightroom.
So, while Lightroom DID add output sharpening via the Print module, it depends upon (and requires) the Camera Raw pipeline for the rest of the image processing.
So, Robert? OH PLEASE YOURSELF (if you know what I mean?)
The best thing about RSP, and the adobe purchase, is that it exposed some of the ACR warts. Kudos to the users for pressing adobe to make ACR/Lr better. Kudos to adobe for responding, first with the vibrance, recovery and fill light, and hopefully now with the detail improvements.
I think a number of us wonder why adobe apparently needs to be ''convinced'' about these ''no brainer'' features. I think we have to get used to the fact that adobe has opened their kimona by admitting us early into the development process. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing :)
Jeff - perhaps adobe should buy one of the noise reduction specialists next, and that is an obvious gap in the current expertise. However, I think they may already have this expertise, as I was most impressed with the NR capabilities of RSP. This is an area where I would happily sacrifice speed for quality!!!
Rory
''I think a number of us wonder why adobe apparently needs to be ''convinced'' about these ''no brainer'' features.''
They don't need to be ''convinced'' but it would be useful to have more than 24 hours in a day...feature triage and development priorities won't satisfy everybody, all the time. And regardless of how ''big'' you think Adobe is, it's far smaller in terms of the talent pool needed to code this stuff as fast as users seem to expect it.
''The best thing about RSP, and the adobe purchase, is that it exposed some of the ACR warts.''
Uh, no...the best thing about the purchase was Michael Jonnson moving to San Jose, CA and getting to work with Thomas Knoll and Zalman Stern (those are the three guys who are basically writting the CR pipeline and DNG) as well as Mark Hamburg and the rest of the Lightroom engineering team. And they really don't need ''users pressing Adobe'', they just need the time it takes to do things right. These guys know their stuff but software doesn't get written by itself, ya know?
And don't let people like Robert fool ya-he's a developer and he knows this crap (or SHOULD know) as well as I do. Stuff takes time...hell, Adobe has just released the entire Creative Suite 3 with all new products as well as major upgrades to existing products (an estimated 80 million lines of code)...in the same general period that Lightroom was released. It ain't like these people have been sitting around on their butts, ya know.
Sorry John, I don't buy that either. If what you say was the case then Adobe
wouldn't have made the changes to Photoshop. The editing done in Photoshop
with channels, layers, etc. etc. has got to take way more processing power
than anything done in LR. Just how hard could it have been to add Unsharp
Mask to LR 1.0. How old is Unsharp Mask? I mean really. It isn't like we all
wanted something that NASA's computers would have a hard to handling.
Robert
Sorry, Jeff saying the limit was there since ACR 1.0 just makes it worse.
What Adobe can't see the forest for the trees. What about all of the spew on
the Podcasts about LR being a new program from the ground up. Can't be very
new if it still has a limit from a program that is what 4 or 5 years old
now.
Robert
''Can't be very new if it still has a limit from a program that is what 4 or 5 years old now.''
Well, you want Camera Raw and Lightroom to share capabilities and renderings? Then you need to use the same engine. And yes, the CR 4 engine is very new but with the same 10K limit it had in the begining since, in the begining there wasn't a compelling reason to go past 10K casue there weren't (and still aren't) any cameras capturing even 10K per side. So, any way you look at it, over 10K per side is still an edge case...the vast majority of users still don't shoot panos. The 10 K limit will, I suspect, be removed when there's a compelling reason-and CS3's AutoAlign and AutoBlend is a pretty compelling reason...
But, this still has ZERO to do with SHARPENING...so what's the point?
%26gt; ...CS3's AutoAlign and AutoBlend is a pretty compelling reason...
So is the fact that almost every compact camera has a pano mode and comes with stitching software.
No comments:
Post a Comment