Reading mode: Light Dark

What's with Adobe?

Go to last post
W

win39

Veteran Member
Messages
5,560
Solutions
7
Reaction score
831
Location
Long Beach, CA, US
Adobe has issued Lightroom and then an update to Lightroom in a couple of weeks. It is a Mac only Beta obviously concerned about the impact of Aperture. At the same time there is no update to ACR in Photoshop for the D200 with no concern at all for things like Bibble.
 
It's pretty obvious that there is a lot more potential market and certainly a lot more profit for an Aperture competitor than there is for any single camera no matter how popular. A dely in getting out any particular RAW converter won't make any real difference to Adobe's bottom line.

It also probably isn't even the same development team.

--
Ed C.
 
I doubt Apple has a version of Aperture for Windows coming out in the near future. The current version is MAC only.

Adobe is testing their new lightroom software with MAC only version for probably the same reason - to let the possible MAC aperture buyers out there that Adobe is not to be beated when it comes to digital imaging software ;-).
Marnix van Wijk said:
I think it's wiser to make a windows version now before the windows
users get on the apple boat en buy aperture... costy but very
tempting for me
--
Marnix van Wijk
http://www.marnixvanwijkfotografie.nl
Click to expand...
--
ShutterBugin
http://www.exposureproductions.smugmug.com

 
win39 said:
Adobe has issued Lightroom and then an update to Lightroom in a
couple of weeks. It is a Mac only Beta obviously concerned about
the impact of Aperture. At the same time there is no update to ACR
in Photoshop for the D200 with no concern at all for things like
Bibble.
Click to expand...
The delay in the release of ACR 3.3 final, which reportedly will include support for the D200, is frustrating to those of us who have the camera.

ACR 3.2 was released on Sept 28, 2004. Adobe had stated they were aiming for about 4 updates per year, so ACR 3.3 is due by now. Of course they do not charge for ACR per se, but it does require the latest version of the host software and there is the indirect cost of upgrading that.

Many D200 users are looking at Bibble and some will adopt it. With the short development cycles if digital SRLs these days, 2 years or less, a several month delay of camera support is a significant percentage of the useful life of the camera. Some users will expect better support from their raw converter software company.
--
Bill Janes
 
The current ACR is a Beta that expires on 1-31-06 (Photoshop reminded me of this today when I opened a NEF file). It was released in November. I heard in another thread that Adobe releases these on a quarterly cycle so we should be seeing a new ACR any day now before the end of January.
 
ACR 3.3 will simply offer support for newer cameras but will not offer any new features or improvements in current ACR tools. I would think if so there would be something on the Adobe web site but all I could find was the new features of CS2 over CS.

Gary
--
http://www.expecttowinphotos.com
 
The down load was made official yesterday. It is the official version of ACR 3.3 and has very specific instructions (that must be followed) on updating your ACR. It has all the features of 3.3 beta plus a couple of refinements.

Try it. You'll love it. Much faster, and better, than NC.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
 
Steve,

So improvements over 3.2 other than speed and more camera support? This weekend I will download and compare to some Bibble conversions I just did. I really am beginning to like Bibble but there really was nothing I did not like about ACR. The colors seemed more like Capture when using Bibble but I really need to do some actual side by side comparissons. If I can easily duplicate what I did in Bibble with ACR then I would be foolish to spend another $120. I have been using ACR since last summer but probably need to experiment a little more with it. Bibble has some interesting work flow options and I really liked working with the color tool, expecially saturation. Boosting the saturation made several average shots a lot more interesting and I admit I really have not used ACRs saturation tool much. I was hoping to find a converter that did a better job of sharpening and noise removal but I am now coming to the conclusion this is still best to be done using USM and Neat Image. I wanted to save some processing time. So another weekend making my wife angry because of spending so much time on the computer. LOL!

Steve, an unrelated question for you. Everything i have read indicates it is best to apply different sharpening to files to be used for web as opposed to files that will be printed. I think the reason is on the screen print sharpening may look a tad oversharpened. What has confused me is in one of Kelby's books he states when large files are reduced in size for the web detail is lost so stronger sharpening is needed which seems contradictory to other info i have read. Rather than ask you maybe I should just try resizing a sharpened folder to 1600 pixel long side (which is really not that small) to see how it looks on a monitor.

I debate about taking my finished folder that I would use for prints and simply resize to about 1600 long side size for web. I post to a sports internet fan site and with smugmug I can restrict the viewing size to discourage downloads by parents of athletes. I am using the larger size for the web because it seems like with Smugmug's slide show I get some sort of jagged edges or pixelization. It is not there when viewing in any other mode and large files seems to help, but I am still have the problem.

I do sell CDs to the parents. Another option I am thinking about is applying the right amount of sharpening for the web and if an athletes parent decides to by a CD then I can apply stronger sharpening to that folder. If I am making money don't mind doing the extra work. As I am typing this I am thinking out load and this will not work because I turn over all shots to the Sports Information Department so maybe I just have to run to different sharpening settings for full size and resized photos.

One of these days I will settle in on a workflow!

Gary

http://www.expecttowinphotos.com
 
win39 said:
Adobe has issued Lightroom and then an update to Lightroom in a
couple of weeks. It is a Mac only Beta obviously concerned about
the impact of Aperture. At the same time there is no update to ACR
in Photoshop for the D200 with no concern at all for things like
Bibble.
Click to expand...
Got it.
 
This is the wrong forum. Try the Adobe Lightroom forum:

http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/categories.cfm?forumid=72&catid=589&entercat=y
Marnix van Wijk said:
I think it's wiser to make a windows version now before the windows
users get on the apple boat en buy aperture... costy but very
tempting for me
--
Marnix van Wijk
http://www.marnixvanwijkfotografie.nl
Click to expand...
--
Michael
D200 photos: http://www.pbase.com/enthios/d200
most recent trip: http://www.pbase.com/enthios/winter2005
 
This is software for photography workflow, and its discussion is very relavent here in this forum, as MANY of us will be using it in the near future.

Can I see your official FORUM COP badge? Jeez bugger off
Michael Jardine said:
http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/categories.cfm?forumid=72&catid=589&entercat=y
Marnix van Wijk said:
I think it's wiser to make a windows version now before the windows
users get on the apple boat en buy aperture... costy but very
tempting for me
--
Marnix van Wijk
http://www.marnixvanwijkfotografie.nl
Click to expand...
--
Michael
D200 photos: http://www.pbase.com/enthios/d200
most recent trip: http://www.pbase.com/enthios/winter2005
Click to expand...
--
ShutterBugin
http://www.exposureproductions.smugmug.com

 
gary stepic said:
Steve,
Click to expand...
gary stepic said:
Steve, an unrelated question for you. Everything i have read
indicates it is best to apply different sharpening to files to be
used for web as opposed to files that will be printed. I think the
reason is on the screen print sharpening may look a tad
oversharpened. What has confused me is in one of Kelby's books he
states when large files are reduced in size for the web detail is
lost so stronger sharpening is needed which seems contradictory to
other info i have read.
Click to expand...
I always sharpen for use. It is OK to get rid of the AA gaussian blur with some slight pre-sharpening (.3, 150%, 0) but I certainly would do final sharpening relative to use. Huge prints (2' x 3') require very little sharpening where web images take quite a bit more. I would agree with Kelby.
gary stepic said:
I debate about taking my finished folder that I would use for
prints and simply resize to about 1600 long side size for web. I
post to a sports internet fan site and with smugmug I can restrict
the viewing size to discourage downloads by parents of athletes. I
am using the larger size for the web because it seems like with
Smugmug's slide show I get some sort of jagged edges or
pixelization. It is not there when viewing in any other mode and
large files seems to help, but I am still have the problem.

I do sell CDs to the parents. Another option I am thinking about is
applying the right amount of sharpening for the web and if an
athletes parent decides to by a CD then I can apply stronger
sharpening to that folder. If I am making money don't mind doing
the extra work. As I am typing this I am thinking out load and this
will not work because I turn over all shots to the Sports
Information Department so maybe I just have to run to different
sharpening settings for full size and resized photos.

One of these days I will settle in on a workflow!

Gary

http://www.expecttowinphotos.com
Click to expand...
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
 
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Of course, you're welcome to post here, but you won't get any Adobe people reading it here, and they are the ones who can respond to your issues. That's why I posted the link to their discussion board. Just trying to be helpful. Feel free to rant here, but if you want results, I would recommend the Lightroom forum.
Shutterbugin said:
Can I see your official FORUM COP badge? Jeez bugger off
Michael Jardine said:
http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/categories.cfm?forumid=72&catid=589&entercat=y
Marnix van Wijk said:
I think it's wiser to make a windows version now before the windows
users get on the apple boat en buy aperture... costy but very
tempting for me
--
Marnix van Wijk
http://www.marnixvanwijkfotografie.nl
Click to expand...
--
Michael
D200 photos: http://www.pbase.com/enthios/d200
most recent trip: http://www.pbase.com/enthios/winter2005
Click to expand...
--
ShutterBugin
http://www.exposureproductions.smugmug.com

Click to expand...
--
Michael
D200 photos: http://www.pbase.com/enthios/d200
most recent trip: http://www.pbase.com/enthios/winter2005
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top