Is Lightroom 1.3 commercial quality yet?

I blindly rushed out and purchased Lightroom when it first came out (i.e., v1.0) -- bought Scott Kelby's Lightroom book and jumped in head first. It didn't take long to determine that Lightroom v1.0 wasn't a viable product, so I removed it from my computer and resumed using Bridge CS3. I'm still somewhat confused as to what is so much better about Lightroom than Bridge/Camera RAW, but I'm curious to give Lightroom another try -- after all, I did *pay* for this unusable software! Is it worth me reinstalling Lightroom and upgrading to 1.3 to check it out again?
Regards,
Greg

Interesting responses. Sorry that I didn't provide specifics as to my workflow. Here goes:
- I process several hundred images at a time.
- I pull the images off my datacard with Bridge CS3, rename the files, and stamp them with metadata -- this is all automated via Bridge CS3. I'll also add keywords if necessary at this point from Bridge. I didn't see any discernable difference between Lightroom and Bridge.
- I rank/review the pictures, delete the duds, and pick the keepers. Again, this functionality looked the same between Lightroom and Bridge.
- I then use ACR to make adjustments to white balance, exposure, contrast, color, etc. The amount of "automation" in this step depends on the batch of photos. For example, for batches with the same lighting, I can adjust white balance on one photo and with 2 clicks I can update the white balance on the rest of the photos from bridge. As best as I can tell, ACR is the same as Lightroom's Develop module. The sliders are the same, listed in the same order, etc.
- For pictures that require photoshop edits, I'll launch them in photoshop directly from bridge, make my edits, and save. I'd have to do the same thing if I were using Lightroom.
- When all edits are done, I'll review them in Bridge's slideshow mode. Slideshow is primarily for me -- I don't have to show a slideshow to clients, so I don't really need a "prettier" slideshow mode than Bridge already provides.
- I don't print very many of my pictures. When I do print, I just print them from Photoshop directly to my Epson 3800 -- they turn out great. Ironically, I've seen people that think Lightroom's Print module is amazing, and I've seen people that think Lightroom's Print module stinks.
- I don't have a need to generate web galleries of my pictures. If I did, I know that Photoshop can do this. Maybe Lightroom's Web module is better? Again, I've seen very polarized opinions about this as well.
- If I need JPEGs, I just convert the images from Bridge via the Image Processor command (which invokes Photoshop).
And there you have it -- a high level view of my workflow.
It's been a while since I used Lightroom 1.0, but I'll try to remember the specifics that led me to my comments about 1.0 not being a viable product. (Although, I suspect I wouldn't have received this same reaction back in the 1.0 days -- almost everybody was complaining about the quality of the product.)
- Overall quality/stability was poor. I have a s/w engineering background and felt that the 1.0 release was definitely a bit premature.
- Performance was awful. When I would drag a slider in the Develop module, it would take a few seconds for the screen to update. ACR had the same sliders, but without the sluggishness.
- There was some other weird quirk about the linkage between Lightroom/Photoshop that escapes me at the moment. Not sure if I posted anything to this forum about it.
Regarding the "try before you buy" comments, I find these reactions somewhat humorous. You guys are reacting as if Lightroom were your mom and I just insulted your mom. If Lightroom really is your mom, then I truly am sorry for offending you. :) My first real Photoshop experience started with CS2. My impression of Adobe was VERY high. I also happen to think very highly of Scott Kelby and his NAPP organization. When Lightroom came out, Scott Kelby was making so much noise about how amazing and groundbreaking Lightroom was -- this really caught my attention. Given this, along with my high regard for Scott Kelby, I just jumped into Lightroom. Only after using the tool for several weeks and then finally reading the reaction to 1.0 on this forum did I realize that I had made a mistake. I simply removed Lightroom from my computer and resumed using Bridge CS3. Now that there have been 2 relatively major releases to Lightroom, I'm just trying to determine if the quality/performance of Lightroom has improved to the point where I should give it another try. Yes, this is subjective; however, I can't possibly be the only person out there that was underwhelmed with Lightroom 1.0. Just looking for someone else who shared a similar 1.0 experience as I had that has maybe given 1.3 a try. Sorry if I offended anybody because I didn't like Lightroom 1.0.
Regards,
Greg

Similar Messages

Do iPhone photos sync to Lightroom Mobile in Original Quality or Smart Preview?

From my iPhone, I want to get the original (high quality) photo from my camera roll into Lightroom on my desktop. Currently, I am doing this by having Dropbox read my camera roll, and using WiFi, sync all new photos to a Dropbox folder. Then, when I launch Lightroom on my desktop, I have watch folder setup that imports all new photos sync'ed from Dropbox into Lightroom.
I recently downloaded Lightroom Mobile, which has the ability to import any new photos from the camera roll directly to Lightroom Mobile. I have set this up to sync to Lightroom on my desktop with my Lightroom Mobile. From what I have read online though, Lightroom Mobile only syncs "smart previews", not the original image. This make sense for RAW files as they are huge, but what about regular JPEGs?
My question is, if someone sets up Lightroom Mobile to sync in this way (from iPhone camera roll -> Lightroom Mobile -> Lightroom Desktop), does it sync the original (high quality) photo to your desktop, or just a Smart Preview? I am wondering if I can now eliminate the Dropbox syncing, and just use Lightroom Mobile instead.

When you import photos from your camera roll via Lr Mobile, then the original will be synced to Lr Deskop. But when you open up the photo in Lr Mobile you will see a smaller kind of smart preview. Hope that answers your question. - Guido

Will HDV create a commercial quality SD DVD?

This is a question for HDV users:
I'm thinking of going HDV, but wanted to make sure of one thing:
Will an SD DVD from a HDV camcorder have the approximate quality of a commercial purchased DVD movie, resolution/sharpness-wize?
If not, do you know exactly why?
If so, could you describe your basic workflow (capture presets, encode presets). Thanks!

Will an SD DVD from a HDV camcorder have the approximate quality of a commercial purchased DVD movie, resolution/sharpness-wize?
Oh, he11 no! If this was a serious question, it's time for a reality check.
Why not? An HDV camera cannot produce anywhere near the quality of those used in commercial films. Most still shoot on film, which all by itself would blow away the quality of any dinky HDV camcorder. Next, the lenses they use probably cost more than your car ... due to their quality. No HDV camcorder can even come close.
They go to extremes getting the lighting just right for every scene shot ... a good DP and LD are worth their weight in gold. Not to mention the skills of the rest of the crew.
Then they edit in pro, non-compressed (or only slightly compressed) formats, not highly compressed formats like HDV. They're color graded by specialists that make a good living at what they do. And then their compressed by highly talented compressionist, working scene-by-scene to get the perfect compression rate for each and every scene. And last, but certainly not least, the DVDs a replicated (not burned) from a glass master.
You're trying to compare apples to dead fruit flies. HDV is the very low-end of HD ... designed for and used by consumers camcorders and a few prosumer camcorders.
Now with all that said, with good lighting and good camera skills, you can get surprisingly good images from many HDV camcorders. But you should keep your expectations realistic.
-DH

Lightroom 4.1 low quality image in develop module

Hi all, i have a macbook pro with retina display, in my lightroom 4.1 the images in the library look normal but when i go to develop module the image is blurred and very low quality. In settings the rendering are high quality 2048 1:1
Any way to fix this? Also in my external monitor i notice this thing with minor loss.

This probably won't help you but the preview settings don't affect the Develop module. In Develop the image is rendered from the raw data.
Are you seeing this with raw files? JPEGs? Is it a huge camera file?

Lightroom 3 Slide Show Quality Issues Anyone?

I am experiencing slideshow quality issues with LR 3.2 using Canon 5D MKII 21 Mp RAW files. My Canon Digital Rebel 6 Mp RAW files produced high-quality slideshow PDFs using LR1 and LR2. The 5DMKII RAW files produce soft PDF imaging, regardless of preview rendering or slide show export settings in LR3, and I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING! I then went back and tried doing a LR3.2 slideshow PDF with my Digital Rebel 6Mp files and they are much higher resolution, regardless of the settings in LR 3.2 – The exact opposite of my 5DMKII slideshows. Go figure, the 6Mp images are superior in LR 3 slideshow than the 21Mp 5DMKII images!
I developed a simple work around that improves the quality of slideshow PDFs when using larger Mpixel file images:
1)      Select the images you want use for your slideshow and export them to JPEG, sRGB, 80-100% Quality, Resize to fit: 1536 x 1024 Resolution, NO Output Sharpening
2)      Import the 1536 x 1024 JPEG files and place them into a collection, sort their order, and add caption or title information if needed.
3)      Open the collection in Slideshow Module and select a template you like, or create your own custom template.
4)      Play the slideshow and let it create previews when prompted. Adjust slideshow template settings until happy with the layout.
5)      When finished with the slide show template, save as it as a ‘New Template’ for future use.
6)      Next select ‘Export PDF Slideshow,’ Quality 80-100, Width 1600, Height 1200, and Save.
7)      View the slideshow ‘Full Screen’ in PDF reader. It should have much higher resolution than normal slideshow export when using > 8 Mp files.
It takes a few extra steps, but not much additional time to create slideshows using this method.
Adobe must be aware of this problem, and probably does not apply sharpening to files >8Mp for PDF slideshow export to correct for over sharpening of Portrait images. This is just a guess! If you export RAW images to full size JPEGs and use these JPEG files to create a PDF slideshow, the Portrait images will look over-sharpened in Adobe reader! Using my work around process, the landscape and portrait images appear fairly uniform in sharpness, even though the portrait images are 2/3 the resolution of the portrait images ( 1024 x 683 versus 1536 x 1024). This is one of the issues Adobe needs to correct with the Slideshow Module PDF Export program module.
That must be hard to do! Let’s see, who is the developer of Acrobat and PDF format…Oh I forgot it’s ADOBE! As a 45-year veteran of the computer technology industry I've seen worse things, but this is very disappointing when you consider Lightroom is now a “mature” version 3 generation program! Yes, Separate slideshow programs are available, but why should you need to use one if all you want is “basic” slideshow capability!

After much trial and error I discovered using the 'Widescreen' template provided in the slideshow module provides very sharp imaging for PDF export. I haven't tried video export, but I would assume it is similar. I cannot explain why this is, because even when I change the guides from 0px to say 60px (i.e. no longer widescreen fill) the images are sharper than using any other template.
Try using 'Widescreen' template. Then try adjusting the guides using 'Widescreen’ template, and save as a new user template. I have no idea why it makes a difference, but it does!

Photoshop & Lightroom on iPad photo quality

I am wondering why went to editing a photo through Photoshop on my iPad, the quality of the photo decreases dramatically? Wondering if I'm doing something wrong. Thanks

No PSE won't run on iPad but there are Photoshop Apps
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/adobe-photoshop-touch/id495716481?mt=8
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/adobe-photoshop-express/id331975235?mt=8
Cheers,
Neale
Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children
If this post or another user's post resolves the original issue, please mark the posts as correct and/or helpful accordingly. This helps other users with similar trouble get answers to their questions quicker. Thanks.

Why can't I resize my wallpaper before I set it? It automatically zooms in close causing the image to lose quality, yet it won't let me zoom out before setting the wallpaper? Help me?

If you can manage to help me, I will be forever in your debt, either email on
[email protected]
or
[email protected]
many thanks.
Ollie.

Have you tried editing the photo to lower resolution?
You will get those email addresses spammed. Not a good idea to publish them, and unnecessary.

Exporting photos from Lightroom that are good enough quality for a photography website.

I am doing a website for a photographer client that need to showcase their images in a rotating gallery that will be about 1/2 the page so pretty big. She gave me all the photos in FULL size which meant that they were excellent quality and looked amazing on my computer at home as I have fast internet and they all loaded up in seconds. Only problem, when I tried it on a different internet source that wasn’t as speedy, they took so long to load that the next one would start, hence no images ever being visible. This is not good as not everyone will have as fast internet as me and it’s pointless if no one can see her work.
She then exported them for web, using the normal settings that she usually would, leaving them around 200-600KB which loads up nice and quickly, but the quality just don’t do the photo’s justice AT ALL!
I am wondering if anyone has any suggestions of the setting to use to export them from lightroom so that the quality is still next to perfect, but they are small enough so that they load up in a reasonable time on the web.
Each photo displays for 5 full seconds before alternating.
Thank you in advance and if you have any further suggestions, I would love to hear them.

You need to use export settings similar to this:
Quality setting should be at least 60, but you can sometimes get away with less. (smaller file size)
But if you need to export a lot of images, do them all at 60, and re-export as necessary. If you for instance see blockiness in a clear blue sky, increase quality until it goes away.
Color space must be set to sRGB.
Set the required size in pixels, using Long edge is quite convenient. Whatever you enter in the resolution box doesn't matter - web browser ignore ppi.
Experiment with Screen sharpening to find the setting that works best. Standard usually works OK, but it depends on the sharpness of the original.
Set Metadata to Copyright Only, this keeps file size down.

World of trouble with Lightroom

From what I've been reading, a lot of people seem happy with lightroom 1.0
It's giving me a world of trouble.
1. Sometimes it just crashes while importing a big folder of raw images. And when it doesn't crash, it takes forever.
2. I get outofmemory errors all the time
3. It seems unworkably slow...maybe I'm just not used to it.
4. When I'm importing from a memory card, there is no way to convert to .dng and have a full-sized image preview made at that time?
5. If I set a label in lightroom, using a .dng file, then later open the file with bridge, the label won't show up.
6. There are tons of interface glitches/annoyances. Like the annoying flaps on the side pop open when you don't want them to, then you have to wait for them to go away. When you use the key command to reject an image (X key), you can't just press (x) again to unreject it. You can't even do control-x or alt-x you have to get the mouse and click the stupid reject flag. And the flags don't show up in the loupe view...in fact there is very little info in the loupe view. So when you are looking at an image, you have to take your eyes away from it to see what the label is, what the flag is, etc.
I'm using XP x64...I don't know if this is a factor with the memory leaks and performance, but this really feels like beta software still. It doesn't feel like lightroom is ready for primetime yet!

It is quite obvious by now that the Lightroom modules when run on the PC platform, with the exception of the 'Develop' module, are pretty much broken and should be used minimally.
The 'Develop' module is great, I have NOTHING bad to say about it, but the modules around it pretty much stink. And virtually nothing about it has to do with the PC platform itself.
As I keep saying, I love the 'Develop' module, but the 'Library' module is so full of bugs and shortcomings that it is best avoided. Specially from a professional perspective... it may be adequate for amateurs and their needs, but the glitches and workarounds make it pretty much unusable as a professional tool.
I guess I should justify my statements:
a) File Ingestion - Downloading files is slow since it does a simultaneous import, which builds up the database and therefore is slow. When you have to download several cards with several hundred photos and do picks on deadline, you don't have time to be waiting around for Lightroom to build previews. Solution: Download using the OS drag and drop or a dedicated tool like "Downloader Pro", and do your initial selection and sorting with a separate sorting package of your choice. Only after you have whittled down the photos using a different tool should you consider importing into the Lightroom database.
b) File renaming. Again, amateur at best when compared to even a cheap tool like BreezeBrowser.
c) File organization, tagging, etc. Unless you generate 100% previews, it is unusably slow. You need 100% previews if you will be considering detail during your sort. And generating all 100% previews takes forever and results in a HUGE ligrary... if you are sorting JPEGs, you end up with a thumbnail collection larger than you original photo collection! So the solution is: IMPORT ONLY FINAL CHOICES INTO THE LIGHTROOM LIBRARY. Use Lightoom only for significant 'keepers'. Do your initial ingestion and sorting using almost anything else.
Once you get the actual photos that you want to adjust into the Library, and no more, then the program starts to really shine.
The stability is somewhat better on the Mac platform (I use both platforms), but the same issues of ingestion time, renaming, 100% preview building exist. They are part of the program core design.
(Slideshow and HTML generators are not even worth considering at this time, they are so limited when compared to so many other options available. I can not comment on the print module, since it does not do "print to File", provide soft-proofing, allow output to specific profiles, etc... so it too is fairly limited for 'pro' purposes, and utterly useless if you output to commercial printing systems.)

Photo editing capabilities: Lightroom vs Photoshop/Photoshop Elements

Hi,
I have a question about the features in lightroom. I'm not yet a photoshop user so I hope people can understand if I don't use the right terms. It seems from the web site that lightroom is a photo editor and a image file organizer. If I don't need a image file organizer is there any reason to buy lightroom instead of photoshop or photoshop elements. Does lightroom have image editing features that are not in photoshop elements or not in the full version of photoshop?
Thanks
Message title was edited by: Brett N

Thanks again. I think the biggest concern that I have at this point is how this catalog transfer process will deal with my PSE images that I have stored offline on DVDs. Let me explain...
To save disk space, my process is to import RAW files into PSE Organizer, tag them, rate them, then move the images to a DVD. This allows me to see the image as a large thumbnail in the Organizer, complete with all the tags, but keeps the huge files off my hard drive and puts them on inexpensive, reliable media. Then, if I ever need to access the full image, I simply put in the DVD and the full image is instantly available, where it can be moved back to the harddrive if needed for edits or printing. I probably have 30 or so DVDs of images and the PSE organizer tracks all of them flawlessly. I've even moved .psd files to DVD to free up harddrive space, and the Organizer still lets me know that I have that offline .psd file available and also the name of the DVD of where it lives. I love this approach... keeping the big image files separate from the catalog (especially images that I rarely need access to, but don't want to remove from the catalog). I'd say 80% of my Organizer catalog is comprised of these offline images and having only the thumbnails in the catalog works great for me.
From your earlier replies (#9 and #13 above), it sounds like Lr won't transfer these thumbnails when I move the PSE Catalog to Lr. If I need to move ALL of those offline images to my harddrive before I do the "Upgrade Catalog" command, that will be a huge problem. I simply don't have the free space available. So Ideally, I want to transfer the thumbnails, tags, metadata, and offline file location information from my PSE Organizer catalog to the Lr Organizer, and I would like to do that without having to load DVDs. Is this possible? If not, I haven't been able to find any procedure outlined anywhere that addresses this specific situation... Can it be done one DVD at a time? Thanks.

When will we have Lens Cast Calibration in Lightroom

Hi,
I do postproduction all the time for a couple of other photographers. They send me the raws and I develop them. My favourite tool to do this is Lightroom, especially since the quality improvement in version 3.
However, I often work on architecture shots that were done with a digital back on a technical camera (TC), mainly PhaseOne and Hasselblad backs. All these backs suffer heavily from colour casts when used with wide-angle lenses on TC's, due to the strong inclination of the lightrays on the sensor.
These images have to be developed in the raw software of the respective brand, CaptureOne for the Phase backs, and Phocus for the Hasselblads.
Both have a special function to analyse the cast of a separate image which has to be shot each time with a translucent white cap on the lens.
These casts are then perfectly filtered out, and one can carry on with the rest of the development of the raw file. But this has to be done within Capture1 or Phocus, 'cause you can't export a DNG with the lens cast corrected. You can of course export a Tiff to Lightroom, but then you loose the whole dynamic range of the raw.
It's this feature that I'm really missing in Lightroom. I prefer using Lightroom, because I use the local adjustment (gradients and brushes) all the time.
None of this is possible in CaptureOne or Phocus, a shame really. I wrote to the developers of CaptureOne to ask for local adjustments and it took me 6 mails before the good man understood what I was talking about. Don't they look at Lightroom?
So Adobe developers, if you could add Lens Cast Correction (or Scene Calibration as it is called in Hasselblad's Phocus), you have the best RAW program in the world, and I can finally dish all these other brand-infected stuff from my hard disk.
Steven

Pixelbound, Adobe, Rob & Ssprengel
What about this
Scenario
Take 2 images, from as close a standpoint, ie with camera on the tripod etc.
1 is the original image,
2 is the one through the white lens cap.
You now have the colour cast from centre to corners in the capped image as a reference to work from.
All that needs to be done - I guess in photoshop - is to remove the colour as referenced by the capped image from the shot.
Simple in photoshop - like everything is - a plugin / mask / reverse biased logarithmic flip flop or what ever.
The process in lightroom would most definitely be a develop setting - where one image would be the reference and this could then be applied to one or a selection or all the images.
As Ssprengel remarked, this is specalised and probably many people would not need it. Then many people did not want the lens correction, and the number of posts and discussions about that are rising most days.
Rob, one for your sleepless nights
subtracting R,G,B on a pixel by pixel basis from an image, very very simple to do surely.... I'm sure Pixelbound would be impressed, and another notch on your bedpost of plugins for lightroom.

How do I tether the Nikon D810 to Lightroom 5.6?

How do I tether the Nikon D810 to Lightroom 5.6? I'm getting "No camera detected", but Nikon Capture 2.18 is reading the camera. Thanks!

See the link below for camera models supported in Lightroom for tether capture.
Tethered camera support in Lightroom
The D810 is not yet supported.
Adobe uses the Nikon SDK to prepare support for new camera models. The link below shows the camera models for which a SDK has been issued by Nikon. The D810 is not yet on that list.
Nikon Imaging | SDKダウンロード

Low quality export for stop motion animation stills from Canon 5D Mark ii

Thank you very much beforehand to anyone who is willing to look through this issue, it's been a long and frustrating process so far...
I am attempting to put together a stop motion animation in Final Cut Express but my exports are always either low quality, or medium quality and stretched. I am shooting on a Canon 5D Mark ii set to take pictures at 21M 5616x3744 [999] (though I'm not entirely sure what the 21M or 999 mean).
When I first assembled my stills (unedited or altered in any way) and exported, it looked like this:
A relatively drastic loss in colour and quality. This was achieved exporting through quicktime conversion using the following settings:
Compression Type: H.264
Compressor Quality: Best
Size: 1920x1080 HD
Preserve aspect ratio using: Crop
Deinterlace source video: unchecked
Unhappy with the result, I went through hours of testing and researching which only yielded a result after I discovered the control-Q Easy Setup menu. I tried setting up as an apple intermediate codec using HDV-Apple Intermediate Codec 1080i60 at 29.97 fps. I kept the export settings the same as above, but knowing that I was now working with a canvas that keeps to the 16:9 proportions, I tried cropping one of my stills in photoshop to fit that 16:9 ratio.
I then imported my 16:9 cropped still and an unedited JPEG version from my camera and exported the resulting 10 second video. The result was better quality, but still noticeably degraded from the original stills. More importantly, both the cropped 16:9 and the unedited JPEG were stretched out of proportion as seen below (16:9 version):
Of course I forgot to note the original settings on Easy Setup so I can't figure out how to get back to the original lower quality, yet undistorted image (not that I want to do that). I tried numerous different sizes for the export including changing the Crop (when necessary) setting to letterbox. Nothing worked.
The canvas, however, immediately looked 100% better after switching the Easy Setup to HDV-Apple Intermediate Codec 1080i60 at 29.97 fps. It held the improved quality without distorting the image:
I'm not sure if there's any hope of having a great image quality, but at very least I would like to be able to export at the decent quality of the second screenshot without the stretching and cropping.
I need to have this resolved ASAP for work, I've already wasted too much time here. Any help is so appreciated, I'll be active in providing whatever additional information that I can to responders, though please keep in mind that I'm relatively new to all this, I don't know where to find everything

I've decided just to try to get back to the export that I showed in the first screenshot. That result came before I started tampering with the Easy Setup. Like I said, when I changed the setup the canvas quality improved drastically and the dimensions seemed to fit much better, but the export was vertically stretched and cropped. I just reset my FCE settings and it turns out the default setup is DV-NTSC, but it's giving me a terrible quality still...
I just want to get back to that second screenshot's quality.. Could someone suggest what I should switch the easy setup to for importing stills from my Canon 5D Mark ii to yield the right results?

Finally! A halfway decent print from Lightroom!

I'm using a Canon i900D and I simply could NOT get a decent print out of Lightroom when I was consistently getting perfect color out of PSE5 and ACDSee fotoSlate. I had been using Canon Ink and paper and the driver that came with the printer on my XP system.
Though I had no reason to suspect my driver since it was performing well with other printing programs, out of desperation, I checked to see if my driver was up to date. I was a generation old,they had a driver specifically for Win XP. So I installed the new driver and that appeared to make all the advice everyone here has been giving to actually work.
In LR, I am manually setting the profile - PR1 for cannon glossy PR1 for Canon Photo Paper Glossy Plus with perceptual rendering intent. (I tried relative but preferred perceptual)
In the printer control program, The printer properties are set high print quality with manual color adjustment. On the manual color adjustment screen, color balance area, magenta is at -20 and intensity is -12 (I was having trouble with consistently too much magenta and too dark), other sliders are in the middle(i.e. set to zero). I have Enable ICM checked.
This gets me very close to what I see on the screen. Though it isn't absolutely perfect, it is close enough that it will work for my purposes.
My advice is even though you are 'absolutely certain' there is nothing wrong with your driver, double check. My apologies for thinking you guys were totally insane.
I still think LR printing is weird though. It just shouldn't be this hard to get a quickie print.

well,
u should not have to work on your printer to get a descent result. after facing the same differences as all of us between lightroom and PSCS2, i decided to try it in a way that is in some way undoubtable.
i purchased a gretag macbeth eye one match 3 set for about 1000 EUR, and calibrated my macbook pro 2.33 with my printer i9950.
after getting the perfect print profile from the software i loaded it in lightroom and selected it in PSCS2.
no adjustments in the printer dialog, nor in lightroom or PSCS2 regarding the printer.
PSCS2 prints a perfect print. with perfect i mean perfect. beautiful black and white with strong blacks and great whites. color prints with perfect colors, exactly like i see them on my display.
lighgtroom, using the same printer profile, does not print the colors, like PSCS2.
u can see this clearly in BW prints, where the whites get a light green touch.
so the question is, if there is a way of treating the raw files (for example better preview rendering quality) to help lightroom reach the PSCS2 quality. perhaps lightroom is still weakly programmed in regard of color spaces conversion.
did anybody try already any raw treatment workarounds?
best regards
charalambos
daddyworx.com

Syncing Labels from Lightroom to Bridge and vice versa.

The labels in Lightroom over-ride those in Bridge and vice versa. I have matched the descriptions of the coloured Labels between Lightroom 2.0 and Bridge, yet when I assign eg. a Green Label in Lighroom and then open Bridge, the Label appears White. If I select those White Labels in Bridge and make them Green, then return to Lightroom and Sync the folder, those formerly Green Labels are converted to White.
Same thing happens with the Reject Flag in Lightroom. It appears as a White Label in Bridge, which I can understand and wouldn't be a problem, were it not for other Coloured Labels in Lightroom displaying as White in Bridge.
Any one have an explanation for this and more importantly a solution. Thanks.

I think you have to assign the exact same name to what the colors represent in both Bridge preferences and in Lightroom preferences.
I don't even remember what the default names Adobe assigns to each of them. I changed the words to the right of the Label colors to read "Red", "Yellow", "Green", "Purple", etc.
When in Lightroom I have to "Save Metadata to File" and then when I browse to that folder in Bridge I see the correct Label color.

Is Lightroom 1.3 commercial quality yet?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for