I don't like Lightroom

[NorthernFocus]

Are there any raw file formats that are not proprietary?

Isn't DNG considered the open source standard RAW format? Or as close as we come to one. As I understand it was created and patented by Adobe but is royalty free and has been made available to developers.

[Dave Humphries]

To (hopefully) clarify one aspect of some things Graham covered; if the RAW file is something other than DNG, the LR 'edit list' is actually stored in the database.
It being written to a sidecar file (as well) is an option that not everyone exercises, so if they don't and IF the database (LR catalogue) becomes corrupted and you haven't been backing it up because you were "not interested in all that stuff", you have the potential to lose the all work done on all your RAW files - that's gonna hurt (but you'll still have the files).

As Graham suggests using LR as an image editor alone is unwise, particularly if you do so without realising the implications of your actions in various settings, etc. you would indeed be better off with Elements and using ACR in that (Elements and PS CC always created the xmp sidecar file).


To further clarify what I said about opening an image file from LR in to PS CC as a Smart Object, if you do 'go back' to adjust the RAW settings, be aware that this will take you back to ACR, not LR - although you should be able to find your way around and the controls are named and 'do' the same things as you're used to in LR.

The above knowledge gleaned from being here and more recently watching LR training from Lynda.com as I am considering starting to use it myself - I currently use "Nikon Transfer" to import Nikon's "ViewNX" to organise and PS CC to process, but there are features of the import and organisation I think would be better in LR. I am happy with ACR to process RAW though, so not sure about that aspect.

HTH, Dave

[xpatUSA]

Isn't DNG considered the open source standard RAW format? Or as close as we come to one.

Unfortunately, camera manufacturers are not so enthusiastic as Adobe. Very few offer DNG as the camera's native raw format, if any. I think I read recently that Hasselblad has dropped the format.

So that leaves what is, for some, a major problem. That problem being that whoever writes a raw-to-DNG converter for a particular camera model has to either guess at the necessary decoding conversion matrices/tags or beg them from the camera manufacturer who might not be all that willing. That really means that a DNG converted to, say, JPEG will never be exactly the same as the manufacturer's (or anybody else's) camera-raw-to-JPEG image - in spite of Adobe's positive publicity.

Expanding on that a little: Of course the DNG will contain the four sensor-channel RGGB data just the same as does a NEF file, for example, but it's a question of what tag values or conversion matrix values are put into the DNG meta-data for use in conversion to a (normally RGB) image. If those values were not written by or provided by the camera manufacturer, you've got someone else's best guess as to how the output should look.

From my own POV, the Adobe raw-to-DNG converter ceased support for Sigma cameras after the SD14 model which is pretty old now. A private Company does provide conversion to DNG for later cameras but, since we're talking Foveon, they have to convert to Linear DNG - not the most popular DNG format with many Editors, e.g. RawTherapee.

As I understand it was created and patented by Adobe but is royalty free and has been made available to developers.

In a way, it is a pity that DNG has not met Adobe's expectations (universal acceptance) - the basic idea is sound enough, IMHO.

[Mike Buckley]

As Graham suggests using LR as an image editor alone is unwise

I rarely use Lightroom. However, when I do use it I'm very glad to have it for its capabilities that my primary image editor does not have. I have never used Lightroom's cataloging capabilities, as I always remove the image from the database immediately after exporting it. Works like a charm for me. How that workflow can be unwise is beyond me.

[NorthernFocus]

...How that workflow can be unwise is beyond me.

I suppose what is "wise" is in the eye of the beholder.

[GrahamS]

are there any raw file formats that are not proprietary?

dng

[rpcrowe]

Surely you're not suggesting that it is the user's responsibility to actually learn how to use that new software.

Why bother learning a new program when I am perfectly comfortable with another program, such as Adobe Bridge, that totally suits my needs?

[rpcrowe]

I originally purchased a copy of Lightroom because I wanted to get NIK Software. The software for Lightroom was less expensive, than NIK for Photoshop, because at that time Lightroom did not support layers. The NIK was an abbreviated set designed for Lightroom users.

I didn't really want to get into the nuances of Lightroom and, due to operator error, completely screwed up my filing system.

It was my fault, granted! However that didn't make me like Lightroom any more.

Fairly soon after that, Google purchased NIK and began selling it at a decent price (I think it was $250 USD). I picked up a copy of NIK and I was also able to get a bargain on one of the last boxed copies of Photoshop CS6 from Adobe which was getting rid of the boxed copies at bargain prices.

I now use Photoshop CC and am quite happy with Bridge to use in opening my images (Via Adobe Camera Raw) and saving those images where and how I want to save them, not how Lightroom decides they should be saved.

I have access to Lightroom since I subscribed to Photoshop CC. However, I have not even downloaded that program...

[Dave Humphries]

I rarely use Lightroom. However, when I do use it I'm very glad to have it for its capabilities that my primary image editor does not have. I have never used Lightroom's cataloging capabilities, as I always remove the image from the database immediately after exporting it. Works like a charm for me. How that workflow can be unwise is beyond me.

Indeed, Mike

But I didn't exactly say that - and you are exempted because you clearly do understand what you're doing.

[NorthernFocus]

...I now use Photoshop CC and am quite happy with Bridge to use in opening my images (Via Adobe Camera Raw) and saving those images where and how I want to save them, not how Lightroom decides they should be saved....

That's one of the biggest false impression of LR is that the user has no control over where the images go. LR puts the images where you tell it to put them. But if you don't tell it what to do, nor pay attention when importing them, then it puts them into default locations. If they are already on your computer it leaves them where they are. When you open the import screen in LR, all of that information is right there on the screen.

That said, the first time I used LR I had the same experience. I clicked the import button assuming that a dialog box would open asking where to put the files. Ooops. Then I had no idea where it put the image files. So I hunted them down in windows and moved them to where I wanted them. Then LR couldn't find them. GRRRRRRR

So I gave up and didn't go back for a couple of years...

[rpcrowe]

That said, the first time I used LR I had the same experience. I clicked the import button assuming that a dialog box would open asking where to put the files. Ooops. Then I had no idea where it put the image files. So I hunted them down in windows and moved them to where I wanted them. Then LR couldn't find them. GRRRRRRR

I am not as forgiving towards a program that I really don't need. If it is intuitive or fun for me to work with, then O.K. Or if, I really need the program, I am willing to put the hours or years into learning it. I have been learning Photoshop for years and it is well worth the trouble. It is just that Lightroom doesn't do anything for me, so why take the time to learn it?

This is about all I am going to say on this subject. Those of us who don't like or want Lightroom are in one corner and the LR enthusiasts are in the other corner. At the sound of the bell come out

[xpatUSA]

dng

A little too terse, Graham, I think.

Did you miss this:

I don't like Lightroom

Are you actually familiar with the DNG specification?

[Mike Buckley]

Those of us who don't like or want Lightroom are in one corner and the LR enthusiasts are in the other corner.

Therein lies the rub. It's so silly in my mind that so many people feel so strongly that they want so many people to agree with them. Personally, so long as I like or dislike using a particular program, I couldn't care less if anyone agrees with me. Instead, I just want everyone to be happy with whatever choice they make for themselves.

[Acorn]

Therein lies the rub. It's so silly in my mind that so many people feel so strongly that they want so many people to agree with them. Personally, so long as I like or dislike using a particular program, I couldn't care less if anyone agrees with me. Instead, I just want everyone to be happy with whatever choice they make for themselves.

You could not be more correct, Mike.

[DanK]

It's so silly in my mind that so many people feel so strongly that they want so many people to agree with them. Personally, so long as I like or dislike using a particular program, I couldn't care less if anyone agrees with me. Instead, I just want everyone to be happy with whatever choice they make for themselves.

Exactly right, Mike. The number of people whose choice in photo software is a concern of mine was one, last time I checked. However, there are people on this forum who aren't set and are looking for advice, and because of them, I think it is worth chiming in if someone posts something that you don't think is entirely accurate.

[Mike Buckley]

Completely agreed, Dan. There is lots of misinformation perpetuated here and at other websites, including that Lightroom can't be used without using its cataloging capabilities.

[NorthernFocus]

... there are people on this forum who aren't set and are looking for advice, and because of them, I think it is worth chiming in if someone posts something that you don't think is entirely accurate.

I was under the impression that was the point of a "learning forum". Otherwise the reply feature could simply be done away with.

I'm not sure how the discussion took this path. It seemed like a fairly sedate, balanced discussion that was going on. Perhaps an example of what a poor medium that textual "conversation" is without the ability to communicate the nuance of spoken language supplemented with facial expression, etc. We attempt to replace the latter with the emoticon but it is a poor substitute. Also context is lost to those who enter ongoing discussions without reading what came previously. Which can be daunting on long threads. But in any case, it certainly helps the blood pressure to come wearing rose colored glasses and assume that one's fellows have the best of intentions. And to lay the blame for any perceived offense to poor communication skills by one party or the other.

[Manfred M]

Therein lies the rub. It's so silly in my mind that so many people feel so strongly that they want so many people to agree with them. Personally, so long as I like or dislike using a particular program, I couldn't care less if anyone agrees with me. Instead, I just want everyone to be happy with whatever choice they make for themselves.

I agree, to a point and a simple like / don't l is purely emotional opinion and therefore not very useful to me when I want to learn about a particular product. Software is a product, just like a camera or computer, so if someone asks me for specific examples about, I find that can be useful. There are people out there that either love / hate companies, so not buying something just because they Adobe, Microsoft, Canon or Nikon products is just as bad as the Apple or Linux fan boys, who love these products "out of principle".

The other issue is ensuring the information is current. Issues that Lightroom v 1 and v2 had (catalog integrity being my main issue with those earlier versions) have now been resolved for the past two generations of the software. It's just like comparing an older generation lens with the same characteristics to the current model.

I will be the first to admit, my issues with Lightroom are somewhat specific to the way I work and the equipment I use. There are workarounds, so if I really wanted to use the software, I suspect I could manage. Fortunately for me, I have alternatives that do work better. For me the things I consider Lightroom's most serious shortcomings are for my needs:

1. The catalogue must be on the system drive - I have a SSD drive and because of the cost of these units I don't have a capacity drive, the only thing I have on my system drive is software. I have so many images that the catalogue fills up the drive and that is not something I find useful.

2. I use two networked NAS drives to store my images and two different computers to edit. Ideally I would be able to store the catalogue on the NAS and access it from either computer. Lightroom won't let me do that, so I would either have to save to DNG or xmp data and not use the catalogue functionality and use a different DAM tool.

3. The Lightroom user interface works well when you follow a top-down approach when using the Develop Module. I find I do not use the standard workflow as I find I will clip the highlights and / or shadows if I do, so I do a bit of back and for work as I tweak the image. I can't customize the user interface to suit my editing needs and in some cases (also a problem with ACR), I can't change some of the defaults (import sharpening, for instance, so I have to manually override these). The ACR tabbed setup is faster to use for my workflow. The Capture One user interface is quite customizable, so I am looking at moving in that direction away from ACR.

Anyone who has similar requirements to mine will likely run into the same shortcomings, while others might be fine with the restrictions.

[DanK]

I can't change some of the defaults (import sharpening, for instance, so I have to manually override these).

I think all you have to do is select an image in the develop module, set the sharpening to zero, and hit the alt key. The reset button at the bottom right will change to "set default." I may be wrong, but I think that will set the default sharpening to zero. I know I have done it before, but I am not certain his was how.

[Manfred M]

I think all you have to do is select an image in the develop module, set the sharpening to zero, and hit the alt key. The reset button at the bottom right will change to "set default." I may be wrong, but I think that will set the default sharpening to zero. I know I have done it before, but I am not certain his was how.

Adobe uses camera profiles to set these values, so pressing the <Alt> and hitting reset, just brings things back to the Adobe determined defaults, rather than zeroing out the values (which is what I want).