[narlus]

pre-introductory offer @ adobe's site, save $100 from the release price (apr 30) of $300.

has anyone used this yet? what does it do better/differently/in addition stuff you can already do in ACR/C1 and Bridge?

 

[Transcend]

Nothing, in my opinion. It tacks some small organizational features on to processing. They aren't even close to worth $100 in my opinion, and the layout of the actual application leaves a lot to be desired. I have a feeling it was designed not for professionals or people who know what they are doing, but for soccer mom who got a DSLR for christmas.

It didn't impress me much at all.

 

[narlus]

well one thing which caught my eye is non-destructional jpg edits; they must have a sidecar file where changes are kept?

but i don't work in jpg much.

 

[Transcend]

well one thing which caught my eye is non-destructional jpg edits; they must have a sidecar file where changes are kept?

but i don't work in jpg much.

While that IS a nice feature, who works on their originals when they shoot jpeg? I still wouldn't do it just to be safe, so I guess the point is kinda moot. I guess it'd be handy if you want to make adjustments, save for one style, and make another adjustment in another style, color, BW, sepia, high contrast etc

 

[Toshi]

i've been using lightroom since it was released as a beta as my raw conversion program. i'm going to buy it as soon as i figure out how to get edu pricing, or when my beta expires, whichever comes first

 

[Transcend]

I actually just fired it up and grabbed the latest build to explain what my issues were (I hadn't used it in a bit; since beta 3.2). It seems that the latest build (4.1) is MUCH snappier than before, and has cleared up most of the issues I had.

The sharpening is still a bit odd and not very straitforward, and the way the program is broken down is still very strange (seems like some adjustments aren't where you'd think they should be), but all in all I now like it. Version 1 will be shipping in about a week, so I will probably pick it up and give it a shot.

God knows, it can't be worse than aperture.

 

[maxyedor]

Honestly, I've tried most every peice of software in this catagory and they all seem worthless. Aperture, Lightroom, P1 Capture Pro, PhotoMechanic, they all seem incredibly cumbersome and slow to me. All of them seemed to add to the time it takes to edit through a shoot without adding anything to my images. I realize I'm probably the oly person on the planet, but I like Bridge, it's a little bit of a memory hog, but still runs reasonably quickly on my laptop and plenty fast on my G5. I also use IVeiw media for general orginization and running slideshows. I still havn't quite figured out why I would need something like Aperture or Lightroom, the only benifit they seem to offer is non destructive editing, wich I allready have working into my workflow, and the loupe tool, wich Bridge CS3 has and it's still next to useless.

The new Bridge CS3 beta that I've been using has speed-up significantly and the RAW conversion is much smoother and has a better interface IMHO. Now I just need to wait for the full version to come out and I'll be switching to Intel Macs wich should be plenty fast for the next few years.

 

[Transcend]

Given the choice, I would use absolutely any program BUT bridge. Ugh, that program is a mess.

My choice still remains Iview & C1.

 

[maxyedor]

Given the choice, I would use absolutely any program BUT bridge. Ugh, that program is a mess.

Any particular reason why, not doubting you or anything, but it seems like a pretty comon sentiment, but every time I ask why all I ever hear is "because Bridge sucks" wich isn't all that insightfull.

Another question that I can never get a real answer to, I like that I can see thumbnails, click them and they open in ACR or in P-shop, and it's easy to rename and caption, what cool features do other types of workflow software have that I'm missing out on?

 

[Transcend]

I hate bridge because even on my mac pro it is annoyingly slow (it has to catch up to me), the default auto adjustments are annoying and not intuitive to get rid of, I don't like the layout, and don't like that i can't batch process to multiple formats like I can in C1.

As for cool features, I can't think of many. I just like how intuitive C1 is, how I can layout the application anyway I want to (all menu bars are customizeable, position of thumbnails, toolbars etc). I can batch process multiple images to multiple formats with the press of a single button - including watermarking, cropping and resizing. So if I want a Tiff for procesing for print with 3 sizes of jpeg for web and Cd portfolio, some with watermarks, some without and in different colorspaces - I can do that. All with 1 button as long as I have preset my different formats in advance. You do this once and then you are off. I just select what preset custom outputs I want with a check box, then select all the images I want and hit apple-d. Come back 3 minutes later and my 10 images are now 40, sorted neatly into session folder, seperated by size and renamed and re colorspaced for their intended usage.

 

[PatBranch]

I'm going to download the C1 trial tonight. I'm probably going to buy it with an extreme 3. How does that work? Does the card come with a keycode for the downloaded version?

 

[PatBranch]

When I zoom in past 100% in C1, the pics are really pixelated and it's hard to see differences in adjustments. Is it supposed to be like that?

 

[Transcend]

When I zoom in past 100% in C1, the pics are really pixelated and it's hard to see differences in adjustments. Is it supposed to be like that?

Um, you just said you are zooming past 100%...that should answer your question right there.

 

[PatBranch]

My images are 3504wx2336t. In photoshop, the image at 16.7% is about 6-7" wide. At 100%, it's probably about 3' wide.

In C1 at 100%, it's about 8" wide. Shouldn't I be able to zoom in more, to even true/PS 100% and get a clear image?