Adobe's Lightroom 5 beta gets perspective correction, improved editing functions
Adobe on Monday announced the launch of a free public beta for Photoshop Lightroom 5, the next version of the company's digital photo management and editing software, which adds advanced features like a new Healing Brush and an Upright Tool.
The Lightroom 5 beta gives users a one-click auto perspective correction tool, more robust healing options, and the ability to create off-center vignettes. Adobe based the feature set that it added to this version of Lightroom off commentary and feedback from the Lightroom community.
The improved Healing Brush allows users to heal or clone aspects of images using brush strokes. A new "Visualize Spots" tool can also point out dust spots from a camera's sensor, allowing for easier removal.
The beta also adds a Radial Filter, allowing users to apply Lightroom's local adjustment attributes to a circular mask. A new Upright feature automatically levels horizons, straightens buildings, and corrects askew lines. The software also allows users to edit offline images by storing a smaller Smart Preview version of the image, with edits made to that image automatically applying to the original once reconnected to Lightroom.
Interested users can download the free Lightroom 5 beta from Adobe Labs. In order to take advantage of the beta offer, users must create an Adobe account or sign in with an existing account.
The Lightroom 5 beta gives users a one-click auto perspective correction tool, more robust healing options, and the ability to create off-center vignettes. Adobe based the feature set that it added to this version of Lightroom off commentary and feedback from the Lightroom community.
The improved Healing Brush allows users to heal or clone aspects of images using brush strokes. A new "Visualize Spots" tool can also point out dust spots from a camera's sensor, allowing for easier removal.
The beta also adds a Radial Filter, allowing users to apply Lightroom's local adjustment attributes to a circular mask. A new Upright feature automatically levels horizons, straightens buildings, and corrects askew lines. The software also allows users to edit offline images by storing a smaller Smart Preview version of the image, with edits made to that image automatically applying to the original once reconnected to Lightroom.
Interested users can download the free Lightroom 5 beta from Adobe Labs. In order to take advantage of the beta offer, users must create an Adobe account or sign in with an existing account.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoffdino
And here we are... still waiting for Aperture 4, or Aperture X, or the New Aperture. It was once an exciting program aimed at the pros and photography enthusiasts. Now it's just a dead piece of software with a monochrome interface and 3 year old feature sets.
I own both but far prefer working in Aperture, though that's 99% because I was entrenched in it for years before getting a copy of LR and it's just a herculean effort to change over completely. I could never give a lesson in LR but I do in Aperture all the time. But half of Aperture's tools are like using sidewalk chalk when I want to be using a fine quill, and the more I force myself to explore LR the more I feel like switching and sacrificing the superior (for me) workflow of Aperture. Haven't explored this beta yet for how much is really useful to me, but may be a full on LR user by May.
I can't see the next version of Aperture really being a gamechanger with respect to winning over those who are frustrated by the aspects that are too lacking for their personal working style. Only by completely overhauling the brushes and adding new functions that would kill the need for so much round-tripping to TIFFs for outside apps (which isn't a big deal for some but it adds so much bloat) could I see them holding on to the serious image work.
At $80 everyone who can use it has it, including LR users, but at the moment I'm much less entranced by it as a great deal for $80 than I would be if it were a great program for $250. It's still just the former.
I share your frustration and sometimes am baffled at the direction that Apple took their software. A great program has its cost, the return is in the value. If it sold for $300, then what? Lots of software sell for more. Photoshop is $700. Creative Suite starts at $1300. It's part of the cost of doing business.
I used Aperture for years, starting with version 1.5, and kept using it, ignoring Lightroom until last year—the summer when Apple gave its pro users the birdie. No new Mac Pro, no New iMac, no Aperture 4. I switch to Lightroom 4, and despite struggling with its notoriously difficult UI, finally got a acceptable workflow for myself. I sometimes look back at Aperture, and miss it's clean UI and efficient interface. But no one at Apple seems to give a **** about pro users anymore. Final Cut Pro X was often used as the poster child for pro-neglect at Apple. But for me, it started with the Xserve, and the trivialization of pro software. They cater too much to the prosumers, adding features that have little relevance to the real pros.
Originally Posted by zoffdino
I share your frustration and sometimes am baffled at the direction that Apple took their software. A great program has its cost, the return is in the value. If it sold for $300, then what? Lots of software sell for more. Photoshop is $700. Creative Suite starts at $1300. It's part of the cost of doing business.
Your point is what, Aperture is too cheap?
No new Mac Pro, no New iMac, no Aperture 4.
They're making a Mac Pro, you JUST EFFING GOT A NEW IMAC, and there's no reason to believe there won't be an Aperture 4. Come off it.
But no one at Apple seems to give a **** about pro users anymore. Final Cut Pro X was often used as the poster child for pro-neglect at Apple. But for me, it started with the Xserve, and the trivialization of pro software.
Again with the lies and FUD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Your point is what, Aperture is too cheap?
They're making a Mac Pro, you JUST EFFING GOT A NEW IMAC, and there's no reason to believe there won't be an Aperture 4. Come off it.
Again with the lies and FUD.
His point is indeed that. By pricing the app at $60, they are essentially targeting those for whom $300 isn't worth it. Those would be pro-sumers or just those who want more than iPhoto. As a result, they don't need to do much to appeal to that crowd. The result: No love for the pros, those who would gladly pay $300 or more if it did all that they hoped.
What does a new iMac have to do with the Mac Pro? The iMac is a consumer machine, the Mac Pro is targeted towards professionals (or consumers with really deep pockets). Can you put two hard drives in an iMac and do RAID-0 striping? In fact, you used to be able to; the new update took that away. How about 4 drives for striping & mirroring? How about 12 cores? ECC RAM? The latest iMacs (and even Macbook Pros) are now performing on par with what is supposed to be the top of the line machine. The point of a Mac Pro is that it should handily outperform all others.
The complaints on the delays for Aperture 4 are completely merited. Those who make a living using these tools see them falling behind vis-a-vis the competition. Do you convert all of your work, retrain, and switch? Do you wait patiently? For how long before the lack of [insert time-saving or quality-enhancing feature here] isn't worth it? As you wait, will the next version be some half-hearted release that ultimately fails to match the competition?
There is no lies here, no FUD, just a proper understanding of the needs of a professional.
Originally Posted by barthrh
The result: No love for the pros, those who would gladly pay $300 or more if it did all that they hoped.
Talk about flawgic.
What does a new iMac have to do with the Mac Pro?
Nothing. But as he specifically mentioned it, it seems odd that he'd also ignore the fact that one was just released and pretend that it wasn't.
The complaints on the delays for Aperture 4 are completely merited. Those who make a living using these tools see them falling behind vis-a-vis the competition.
I'll be first to agree that as many updates as possible is best, but can it be said that Aperture is "behind" in that regard? What has changed between then and now that has become "vital" to the industry?
I'm still on LR2.3 and it's fine for what I need... but I have to admit I'd love an Upright Tool ;~)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'll be first to agree that as many updates as possible is best, but can it be said that Aperture is "behind" in that regard? What has changed between then and now that has become "vital" to the industry?
It has nothing to do with any of that. Nothing has changed, especially Aperture, which has ALWAYs lacked certain functions. For starters not having any lens distortion compensation filter (as LR has) means a round trip to TIFF and 3rd party software. Noise reduction and sharpening are both hugely inferior to LRs. I need to roundtrip and use 3rd party for both for critical use in Aperture. Not in LR. Aperture's noise reduction and blurring filters are nearly useless. Like tossing the picture in a puddle and blending in the result. No controls of any value. As I already mentioned, the brush-in filter functionality of Aperture, which arrived late, is badly conceived and is fine for basic adding and subtracting of filters and blending to taste but lacks any control over the tools other than size and softness. Any time you need accurate filtering within a carefully tuned area it's off to TIFFland. See my previous sidewalk chalk analogy. Sidewalk chalk is fun stuff and you can do lots of things in an image program where the tools are like that. But not all the time. Need to brush within a selection for accurate sharp edges? Sorry, no can do. Make a TIFF and round trip to something else. Oh, but there's a "detect edges" box you can check. Nope, have no idea what programmer did that one. Gets you 30% when you need to get 95% there. Nope.
There. Those are some specifics. I won't bore everyone with the rest. Just go to any photographer's forum and catch up.
And it has nothing to do with how many updates something has. And it has nothing to do with Apple selling it too cheaply and it should be 3x the price. Apple just gave us a great app, dropped the price to $80 and has been saying since then "It's a great $80 app. That's what it is" and left it at that. I guess I need to repeat: This very good $80 app will get many people very far and other people almost far enough, and other people kind of halfway there. I would love for there to be a great RAW DAM/editor from Apple, and $300 would be fine if it's a great program. Otherwise, it is what it is. Gets me 3/4 there 3/4 of the time.
That's a well thought out assessment. I'm in no position to question most of that, so I'll just agree.
Hound Apple with feature requests in all forms (their forums, the official request files, etc.) and demand improvement!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Your point is what, Aperture is too cheap?
They're making a Mac Pro, you JUST EFFING GOT A NEW IMAC, and there's no reason to believe there won't be an Aperture 4. Come off it.
Again with the lies and FUD.
No clue again to what you are talking about huh? Please post your reasons why there will be an Aperture 4... Right, there are none...
Quote:
Originally Posted by barthrh
His point is indeed that. By pricing the app at $60, they are essentially targeting those for whom $300 isn't worth it. Those would be pro-sumers or just those who want more than iPhoto. As a result, they don't need to do much to appeal to that crowd. The result: No love for the pros, those who would gladly pay $300 or more if it did all that they hoped.
What does a new iMac have to do with the Mac Pro? The iMac is a consumer machine, the Mac Pro is targeted towards professionals (or consumers with really deep pockets). Can you put two hard drives in an iMac and do RAID-0 striping? In fact, you used to be able to; the new update took that away. How about 4 drives for striping & mirroring? How about 12 cores? ECC RAM? The latest iMacs (and even Macbook Pros) are now performing on par with what is supposed to be the top of the line machine. The point of a Mac Pro is that it should handily outperform all others.
The complaints on the delays for Aperture 4 are completely merited. Those who make a living using these tools see them falling behind vis-a-vis the competition. Do you convert all of your work, retrain, and switch? Do you wait patiently? For how long before the lack of [insert time-saving or quality-enhancing feature here] isn't worth it? As you wait, will the next version be some half-hearted release that ultimately fails to match the competition?
There is no lies here, no FUD, just a proper understanding of the needs of a professional.
Thank you for putting him in his place...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd
It has nothing to do with any of that. Nothing has changed, especially Aperture, which has ALWAYs lacked certain functions. For starters not having any lens distortion compensation filter (as LR has) means a round trip to TIFF and 3rd party software. Noise reduction and sharpening are both hugely inferior to LRs. I need to roundtrip and use 3rd party for both for critical use in Aperture. Not in LR. Aperture's noise reduction and blurring filters are nearly useless. Like tossing the picture in a puddle and blending in the result. No controls of any value. As I already mentioned, the brush-in filter functionality of Aperture, which arrived late, is badly conceived and is fine for basic adding and subtracting of filters and blending to taste but lacks any control over the tools other than size and softness. Any time you need accurate filtering within a carefully tuned area it's off to TIFFland. See my previous sidewalk chalk analogy. Sidewalk chalk is fun stuff and you can do lots of things in an image program where the tools are like that. But not all the time. Need to brush within a selection for accurate sharp edges? Sorry, no can do. Make a TIFF and round trip to something else. Oh, but there's a "detect edges" box you can check. Nope, have no idea what programmer did that one. Gets you 30% when you need to get 95% there. Nope.
There. Those are some specifics. I won't bore everyone with the rest. Just go to any photographer's forum and catch up.
And it has nothing to do with how many updates something has. And it has nothing to do with Apple selling it too cheaply and it should be 3x the price. Apple just gave us a great app, dropped the price to $80 and has been saying since then "It's a great $80 app. That's what it is" and left it at that. I guess I need to repeat: This very good $80 app will get many people very far and other people almost far enough, and other people kind of halfway there. I would love for there to be a great RAW DAM/editor from Apple, and $300 would be fine if it's a great program. Otherwise, it is what it is. Gets me 3/4 there 3/4 of the time.
Game, set, match: jlandd.... Best post and slam ever....
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
Please post your reasons why there will be an Aperture 4... Right, there are none...
You must be joking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You must be joking.
Should I chalk this up to, you have zero point zero clue?
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
Should I chalk this up to, you have zero point zero clue?
Prove there will be a new [product name]. Oops, you can't. Guess there won't be a new [product name].
My stars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Talk about flawgic.
I'll be first to agree that as many updates as possible is best, but can it be said that Aperture is "behind" in that regard? What has changed between then and now that has become "vital" to the industry?
I don't think the logic is flawed in the least. By positioning the price in a certain way, you attract a certain market. Those new customers may not have the same needs but may represent a higher revenue opportunity; therefore, you cater to that group. Nothing wrong with it economically, but it does alter the nature of a product. You can't possible argue that Aperture at $60 does not have a *lot* more pro-sumer or casual users. It's possible that pros no longer hold the majority of the votes.
No feature is "vital". People survived just fine with Photoshop 6. However, cost of labour is by far the primary factor for a professional. If new tools have been created that make something that used to take x hours not take x * 0.5 hours, it's "behind" in the eyes of a pro. Other tool improvements, such as noise reduction algorithms or cloning/healing algorithms, may yield substantially better results. As a pro you need to consider the cost of transitioning to more productive or effective tools against the benefits you gain from them.