Is lightroom all Adobe hope it will be?

"Douglas." wrote in message

I bought the Original RawShooter Premium. About 3 month’s into ownership I gave up on it. It simply couldn’t develop shadow detail as well as the "Digital Photo Professional" Canon gave me with the camera.
I tried Lightroom beta and didn’t discover anything about it I thought might
make it worth the cost it would eventually be. Adobe fixed that when they started distributing it free to everyone who had registered their RawShooter.

So here I am, a month into ownership and thoroughly disappointed with a program which promised so much and delivered so little. I certainly agree that there is room for a stand alone RAW developer but this isn’t it.
I tried Silky Pix too. This has just as much teasing promise as Lightroom and delivers about the same disappointment.

The problem seems to be shadows and Canon RAW files. There is shadow detail
in the file. I can get it out with DPP. To some extent I can get at it with
ACR but both Lightroom and Silkypix both degrade the developed image in a way that makes using Photoshop to recover any more shadow detail impossible
because neither Lightroom or Silkypix pay attention to detail in shadow areas.

This may be all well and good for happy snappers but both of these programs
are targeting Professional photographers. Pros use shadows as an element of
a portrait and seek significant detail in dark areas. I never had a problem
with film but increasingly with digital images, more and more software developers are ignoring the art and concentrating on the shock. It’s not good enough.

Has anybody else discovered the murky depth of digital photography can’t come close to the finely defines shadow detail of a good portrait film?
Douglas
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com

maybe CANON has the better program as it has the best info on how to handle the Canon output??
and it’s comes with the camera, so why buy another program if DPP is working well?

FWIW My photographer thinks film was nicer too.
Digital capture is way closer to video in capture than the old 35mm transparency film.
I find it more contrasty, too hot in the highlights and not so detailed in shadows
it has improved over time so there is hope………………..

On 2007-03-16 03:08:57 -0500, "Douglas." said:

I bought the Original RawShooter Premium. About 3 month’s into ownership I gave up on it. It simply couldn’t develop shadow detail as well as the "Digital Photo Professional" Canon gave me with the camera.
I tried Lightroom beta and didn’t discover anything about it I thought might make it worth the cost it would eventually be. Adobe fixed that when they started distributing it free to everyone who had registered their RawShooter.

So here I am, a month into ownership and thoroughly disappointed with a program which promised so much and delivered so little. I certainly agree that there is room for a stand alone RAW developer but this isn’t it.
I tried Silky Pix too. This has just as much teasing promise as Lightroom and delivers about the same disappointment.

The problem seems to be shadows and Canon RAW files. There is shadow detail in the file. I can get it out with DPP. To some extent I can get at it with ACR but both Lightroom and Silkypix both degrade the developed image in a way that makes using Photoshop to recover any more shadow detail impossible because neither Lightroom or Silkypix pay attention to detail in shadow areas.

This may be all well and good for happy snappers but both of these programs are targeting Professional photographers. Pros use shadows as an element of a portrait and seek significant detail in dark areas. I never had a problem with film but increasingly with digital images, more and more software developers are ignoring the art and concentrating on the shock. It’s not good enough.

Has anybody else discovered the murky depth of digital photography can’t come close to the finely defines shadow detail of a good portrait film?
Douglas
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com

I’m going to sidestep how to best work on underexposed pictures and just deal with why they’re so hard to work on. When shooting, keep in mind that half of the data that is possible to capture in an image is in the brightest fifth stop. This means shoot to the bright side (being careful to not clip) if you intend to shoot and postprocess in RAW. You will be amazed at the detail you can recover in areas that look blown out. (If shooting jpeg, keep in mind its fewer bits will not allow it to stand up to postprocessing nearly as well as RAW, so shoot a more normal exposure.)

Conversely, the darkest fifth stop gets the least number of bits set aside for it, so when you’re trying to brighten those areas, they will come out looking the worst. So shoot bright, you can always bring your not so darks down to a darker appearance. Going the other way just doesn’t work very well – too much breakdown.

"Joe1" wrote in message

On 2007-03-16 03:08:57 -0500, "Douglas."
said:

I bought the Original RawShooter Premium. About 3 month’s into ownership I
gave up on it. It simply couldn’t develop shadow detail as well as the "Digital Photo Professional" Canon gave me with the camera.
I tried Lightroom beta and didn’t discover anything about it I thought might
make it worth the cost it would eventually be. Adobe fixed that when they started distributing it free to everyone who had registered their RawShooter.

So here I am, a month into ownership and thoroughly disappointed with a program which promised so much and delivered so little. I certainly agree that there is room for a stand alone RAW developer but this isn’t it.
I tried Silky Pix too. This has just as much teasing promise as Lightroom and delivers about the same disappointment.

The problem seems to be shadows and Canon RAW files. There is shadow detail
in the file. I can get it out with DPP. To some extent I can get at it with
ACR but both Lightroom and Silkypix both degrade the developed image in a way that makes using Photoshop to recover any more shadow detail impossible
because neither Lightroom or Silkypix pay attention to detail in shadow areas.

This may be all well and good for happy snappers but both of these programs
are targeting Professional photographers. Pros use shadows as an element of
a portrait and seek significant detail in dark areas. I never had a problem
with film but increasingly with digital images, more and more software developers are ignoring the art and concentrating on the shock. It’s not good enough.

Has anybody else discovered the murky depth of digital photography can’t come close to the finely defines shadow detail of a good portrait film?
Douglas
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com

I’m going to sidestep how to best work on underexposed pictures and just deal with why they’re so hard to work on. When shooting, keep in mind that half of the data that is possible to capture in an image is in the brightest fifth stop. This means shoot to the bright side (being careful to not clip) if you intend to shoot and postprocess in RAW. You will be amazed at the detail you can recover in areas that look blown out. (If shooting jpeg, keep in mind its fewer bits will not allow it to stand up to postprocessing nearly as well as RAW, so shoot a more normal exposure.)
Conversely, the darkest fifth stop gets the least number of bits set aside for it, so when you’re trying to brighten those areas, they will come out looking the worst. So shoot bright, you can always bring your not so darks down to a darker appearance. Going the other way just doesn’t work very well – too much breakdown.

yes an old friend used to always say overexpose, underdevelop it is the same theory I think

"Douglas." wrote in message

I bought the Original RawShooter Premium. About 3 month’s into ownership I gave up on it. It simply couldn’t develop shadow detail as well as the "Digital Photo Professional" Canon gave me with the camera.
I tried Lightroom beta and didn’t discover anything about it I thought might
make it worth the cost it would eventually be. Adobe fixed that when they started distributing it free to everyone who had registered their RawShooter.

So here I am, a month into ownership and thoroughly disappointed with a program which promised so much and delivered so little. I certainly agree that there is room for a stand alone RAW developer but this isn’t it.
I tried Silky Pix too. This has just as much teasing promise as Lightroom and delivers about the same disappointment.

The problem seems to be shadows and Canon RAW files. There is shadow detail
in the file. I can get it out with DPP. To some extent I can get at it with
ACR but both Lightroom and Silkypix both degrade the developed image in a way that makes using Photoshop to recover any more shadow detail impossible
because neither Lightroom or Silkypix pay attention to detail in shadow areas.

This may be all well and good for happy snappers but both of these programs
are targeting Professional photographers. Pros use shadows as an element of
a portrait and seek significant detail in dark areas. I never had a problem
with film but increasingly with digital images, more and more software developers are ignoring the art and concentrating on the shock. It’s not good enough.

Has anybody else discovered the murky depth of digital photography can’t come close to the finely defines shadow detail of a good portrait film?
Douglas
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com

—

Adobe is getting a lot of praise and a lot of flack for LR. You won’t get Adobe to say that it was a disappointment, just like you won’t get an Adobe fan to say it has some very major problems. Myself I find it to be a big disappointment, but have hopes that in a year or two when they have the very large number of bugs fixed and the much needed major missing features added that it will be pretty good. Right now, it is more of a curiosity than something to really use. Adobe may call it a 1.0, but it is really a beta and that is Adobe’s fault. They made major changes from beta 4.1 to beta 5 but didn’t release beta 5 for testing. This is why it is so flawed.

=(8)

On Mar 16, 8:08 am, "Douglas." wrote:
[snip]

The problem seems to be shadows and Canon RAW files. There is shadow detail in the file. I can get it out with DPP. To some extent I can get at it with ACR but both Lightroom and Silkypix both degrade the developed image in a way that makes using Photoshop to recover any more shadow detail impossible because neither Lightroom or Silkypix pay attention to detail in shadow areas.

[snip]

That is curious, because ACR and Lightroom share the same core raw conversion code, and ACR 3.7 is intended to respect Lightroom’s settings with the same rendering.

Are you changing something in the ACR versus Lightroom comparison?

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

KatWoman wrote:

I’m going to sidestep how to best work on underexposed pictures and just deal with why they’re so hard to work on. When shooting, keep in mind that half of the data that is possible to capture in an image is in the brightest fifth stop. This means shoot to the bright side (being careful to not clip) if you intend to shoot and postprocess in RAW. You will be amazed at the detail you can recover in areas that look blown out. (If shooting jpeg, keep in mind its fewer bits will not allow it to stand up to postprocessing nearly as well as RAW, so shoot a more normal exposure.)
Conversely, the darkest fifth stop gets the least number of bits set aside for it, so when you’re trying to brighten those areas, they will come out looking the worst. So shoot bright, you can always bring your not so darks down to a darker appearance. Going the other way just doesn’t work very well – too much breakdown.

yes an old friend used to always say overexpose, underdevelop it is the same theory I think

It’s not. Film reacts on light in a curved way. Overexposure combined with under development lowers the contrast, so it’s a way to make the film react differently.

A sensor reacts to light in a linear way. That is the reason why 50% of all bits are in the brightest stop, 50% of the remaining bits are in the next stop, etc. Exposing for the brightest stop means getting as many useful bits in your image as possible. But it doesn’t change the sensor respons line.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message
: On Mar 16, 8:08 am, "Douglas." wrote:
: [snip]
: > The problem seems to be shadows and Canon RAW files. There is shadow detail
: > in the file. I can get it out with DPP. To some extent I can get at it with
: > ACR but both Lightroom and Silkypix both degrade the developed image in a
: > way that makes using Photoshop to recover any more shadow detail impossible
: > because neither Lightroom or Silkypix pay attention to detail in shadow : > areas.
: [snip]
:
: That is curious, because ACR and Lightroom share the same core raw : conversion code, and ACR 3.7 is intended to respect Lightroom’s : settings with the same rendering.
:
: Are you changing something in the ACR versus Lightroom comparison? :
: —
: Barry Pearson
: http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
:
ACR and Lightroom could not possibly share the same core conversion code. Light room develops a raw file and ACR develop a raw file. If that’s "the same" then your theory might hold water.

Lightroom is RAWShooter Premium in drag which eventuated out of a developer’s dispute at Capture one. Very little has changed in how it processes a file and a lot has changed in how it looks and feels. Methinks if Adobe could have built this from ACR, they wouldn’t have spent as many millions as they did buying the RawShooter’s code.

Capture One was a defacto standard raw developer for a lot of Pro Photographers who adopted digital capture early. I never really warmed to it but respected it’s place in history. I did (for a while) warm to RawShooter and later to LightRoom until it got around to working with tricky images and images mainly in black regions…

Neither works well here but surprisingly ACR retains a lot of shadow detail post raw development and this can be further recovered/enhanced with Photoshop. This is why I’m so convinced, ACR and Lightroom do not share common code, just respect the setting each makes.

Douglas

On Mar 18, 6:34 am, "Douglas." wrote:
[snip]

ACR and Lightroom could not possibly share the same core conversion code. Light room develops a raw file and ACR develop a raw file. If that’s "the same" then your theory might hold water.

ACR and Lightroom DO share the same core raw conversion code. More specifically:

– ACR 3.7 was released for PS CS2 to match Lightroom’s rendering (note that) and XMP metadata, although it doesn’t have all the same sliders itself. It also supports the same set of cameras, and has similar support for DNG.

– ACR 4.x (for PS CS3) should also have all of the sliders and controls of the Lightroom Develop module, and should render the same. (The Beta version 4.0 has most of the same controls, but not clone / heal / red-eye).

Lightroom is RAWShooter Premium in drag which eventuated out of a developer’s dispute at Capture one. Very little has changed in how it processes a file and a lot has changed in how it looks and feels. Methinks if Adobe could have built this from ACR, they wouldn’t have spent as many millions as they did buying the RawShooter’s code.

[snip]

That isn’t the history. I believe the people who left Phase One / Capture One formed Pixmantec and designed Rawshooter. Lightroom was certainly designed, initially developed, and released at Beta, while those people were still at Pixmantec. Adobe acquired the assets of Pixmantec during the Beta phase of Lightroom, but the prime influence on Lightroom (hence ACR) is in the use of those people themselves. This shows in the design of some features such as the Recover, Fill, and Vibrance controls. I don’t believe that specific code was incorporated, although perhaps subroutines were.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message
: On Mar 18, 6:34 am, "Douglas." wrote:
: [snip]
: > ACR and Lightroom could not possibly share the same core conversion code.
: > Light room develops a raw file and ACR develop a raw file. If that’s "the
: > same" then your theory might hold water.
:
: ACR and Lightroom DO share the same core raw conversion code. More : specifically:
:
: – ACR 3.7 was released for PS CS2 to match Lightroom’s rendering (note : that) and XMP metadata, although it doesn’t have all the same sliders : itself. It also supports the same set of cameras, and has similar : support for DNG.
:
: – ACR 4.x (for PS CS3) should also have all of the sliders and : controls of the Lightroom Develop module, and should render the same. : (The Beta version 4.0 has most of the same controls, but not clone / : heal / red-eye).
:
: > Lightroom is RAWShooter Premium in drag which eventuated out of a : > developer’s dispute at Capture one. Very little has changed in how it : > processes a file and a lot has changed in how it looks and feels. Methinks
: > if Adobe could have built this from ACR, they wouldn’t have spent as many
: > millions as they did buying the RawShooter’s code. : [snip]
:
: That isn’t the history. I believe the people who left Phase One / : Capture One formed Pixmantec and designed Rawshooter. Lightroom was : certainly designed, initially developed, and released at Beta, while : those people were still at Pixmantec. Adobe acquired the assets of : Pixmantec during the Beta phase of Lightroom, but the prime influence : on Lightroom (hence ACR) is in the use of those people themselves. : This shows in the design of some features such as the Recover, Fill, : and Vibrance controls. I don’t believe that specific code was : incorporated, although perhaps subroutines were.
:

Yeah… You don’t get much for 25 million eh?
I suppose Adobe gave me a copy of Lightroom because I’m such a lovable bloke, then?
They gave it to me because I bought and paid for RawShooter just weeks before Adobe bought the program and this… Is the evolution of it.

But Hey… Don’t let fact stand in the way of a good story Barry.

Douglas

On Mar 18, 9:50 am, "Douglas." wrote:
[snip]

Yeah… You don’t get much for 25 million eh?
I suppose Adobe gave me a copy of Lightroom because I’m such a lovable bloke, then?
They gave it to me because I bought and paid for RawShooter just weeks before Adobe bought the program and this… Is the evolution of it.
But Hey… Don’t let fact stand in the way of a good story Barry.

The facts are as I stated. You can read here if you like:

9 January 2006:
"Adobe Press Release on Lightroom"
http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/adobe-press-release-on- lightroom/

9 January 2006:
"The Shadowland/Lightroom Development Story"
http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom -development-story/

13 June 2006:
"Lightroom Public Beta 3.0 for Mac Now Available" http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/13/lightroom-public-beta-3 0-for-mac-now-available/

26 June 2006:
"Adobe Acquires Technology Assets of Pixmantec ApS" http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/26/adobe-acquires-technolo gy-assets-of-pixmantec-aps/

You may want to listen to some of the podcasts (as I have) and learn more about the relationship between Lightroom and ACR:
http://idisk.mac.com/george_jardine-Public?view=web

Adobe gave free copies of Lightroom to people who had paid for Rawshooter because, by buying the assets of Pixmantec, they had terminated the further development of a product that people had paid for expecting a future. That is NOT evidence that any Rawshooter code was included in Lightroom.

Perhaps some Pixmantec code has been incorporated into ACR and Lightroom – but clearly after Public Beta 3.0, and I believe not for the next Beta either. (I haven’t heard of any such code, and I try to keep in touch on Adobe forums, etc). Because Adobe are synchronising ACR and Lightroom, partially with ACR 3.7, and more completely with ACR 4.x, and these are clearly forward developments of ACRs that have been available for years, it is clear that the core raw conversion code of Lightroom was derived from ACR originally, and its currently more evolved state is becoming shared with ACR 4.x.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message
: On Mar 18, 9:50 am, "Douglas." wrote:
: [snip]
: > Yeah… You don’t get much for 25 million eh?
: > I suppose Adobe gave me a copy of Lightroom because I’m such a lovable : > bloke, then?
: > They gave it to me because I bought and paid for RawShooter just weeks : > before Adobe bought the program and this… Is the evolution of it. : >
: > But Hey… Don’t let fact stand in the way of a good story Barry. :
: The facts are as I stated. You can read here if you like: :
: 9 January 2006:
: "Adobe Press Release on Lightroom"
: http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/adobe-press-release-on- lightroom/ :
: 9 January 2006:
: "The Shadowland/Lightroom Development Story" :
http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom -development-story/ :
: 13 June 2006:
: "Lightroom Public Beta 3.0 for Mac Now Available" :
http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/13/lightroom-public-beta-3 0-for-mac-now-available/ :
: 26 June 2006:
: "Adobe Acquires Technology Assets of Pixmantec ApS" :
http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/26/adobe-acquires-technolo gy-assets-of-pixmantec-aps/ :
: You may want to listen to some of the podcasts (as I have) and learn : more about the relationship between Lightroom and ACR: : http://idisk.mac.com/george_jardine-Public?view=web
:
: Adobe gave free copies of Lightroom to people who had paid for : Rawshooter because, by buying the assets of Pixmantec, they had : terminated the further development of a product that people had paid : for expecting a future. That is NOT evidence that any Rawshooter code : was included in Lightroom.
:
: Perhaps some Pixmantec code has been incorporated into ACR and : Lightroom – but clearly after Public Beta 3.0, and I believe not for : the next Beta either. (I haven’t heard of any such code, and I try to : keep in touch on Adobe forums, etc). Because Adobe are synchronising : ACR and Lightroom, partially with ACR 3.7, and more completely with : ACR 4.x, and these are clearly forward developments of ACRs that have : been available for years, it is clear that the core raw conversion : code of Lightroom was derived from ACR originally, and its currently : more evolved state is becoming shared with ACR 4.x.
:
: —
: Barry Pearson
: http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
:

All those links confirm is that Adobe have an aversion to giving credit to the origins of any product they put their name to. They do not confirm or deny your (or my) claims. My claim that LR is in fact RS in drag is based on the almost identical to RawShooter problem areas in LR and virtual freedom from these in ACR.

Logic tells me you can’t have a flaky developer that destroys shadow (and much) highlight detail in it’s developed image and still use the "Core Code" of an earlier program that does not have these issues. Probably no more or less plausible than your examples produced by the masters of spin.

The fact remains, Lightroom is starting to look like a Dud and unless Adobe do something about it’s "identical to RawShooter" …terrible handling of shadow detail, it is going to get a pasting from those who make a living using shadow detail in their work and paid for the program.

Douglas

"Douglas." wrote in message
….

Logic tells me you can’t have a flaky developer that destroys shadow (and much) highlight detail in it’s developed image and still use the "Core Code"
of an earlier program that does not have these issues. Probably no more or less plausible than your examples produced by the masters of spin.

….
Adobe certainly spins with the best of them, and you may have a point with the highlight issue, but I’m respectfully in agreement with Barry on this one, Douglas.

There’s an ongoing discussion of ACR on the adobe forums that has all the scuttlebutt. The latest ACR and Lightroom are acknowledged, by Knoll and others, to have the same code base. Another factor is that Lightroom was into public beta well before they acquired Pixmantec.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

"Mike Russell" wrote in message
: "Douglas." wrote in message
: : …
: > Logic tells me you can’t have a flaky developer that destroys shadow (and
: > much) highlight detail in it’s developed image and still use the "Core : > Code"
: > of an earlier program that does not have these issues. Probably no more or
: > less plausible than your examples produced by the masters of spin. : …
: Adobe certainly spins with the best of them, and you may have a point with : the highlight issue, but I’m respectfully in agreement with Barry on this : one, Douglas.
:
: There’s an ongoing discussion of ACR on the adobe forums that has all the : scuttlebutt. The latest ACR and Lightroom are acknowledged, by Knoll and : others, to have the same code base. Another factor is that Lightroom was : into public beta well before they acquired Pixmantec.
: —
: Mike Russell
: www.curvemeister.com/forum/
:
:
If the "code base" used in Lightroom is the future of ACR, then it certainly is timely for Canon camera owners to consider standardising on Canon’s own software as the only viable alternative for future RAW development of Canon images when one wishes to explore the murky depths of shadows.

Douglas

On Mar 19, 12:04 am, "Douglas." wrote:
[snip]

If the "code base" used in Lightroom is the future of ACR, then it certainly is timely for Canon camera owners to consider standardising on Canon’s own software as the only viable alternative for future RAW development of Canon images when one wishes to explore the murky depths of shadows.

The code base in Lightroom was evolved from ACR 3.x, and the code base in ACR 4.x will be the same as that of Lightroom.

I don’t believe Canon users will get worse results from ACR 4.x than they did from ACR 3.x. I don’t know whether they will get better results, but they will easier results.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

On Mar 18, 8:34 pm, "Douglas." wrote:
[snip]

All those links confirm is that Adobe have an aversion to giving credit to the origins of any product they put their name to. They do not confirm or deny your (or my) claims.

[snip]

I posted the DATES of those announcements & press releases to show you that Lightroom was well advanced before Adobe acquired the assets of Pixmantec.

For interest, the "Filing Date" for Adobe’s application to trademark "Lightroom" was 13 May 2004:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=7 8418515

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message
: On Mar 19, 12:04 am, "Douglas." wrote:
: [snip]
: > If the "code base" used in Lightroom is the future of ACR, then it certainly
: > is timely for Canon camera owners to consider standardising on Canon’s own
: > software as the only viable alternative for future RAW development of Canon
: > images when one wishes to explore the murky depths of shadows. :
: The code base in Lightroom was evolved from ACR 3.x, and the code base : in ACR 4.x will be the same as that of Lightroom.
:
: I don’t believe Canon users will get worse results from ACR 4.x than : they did from ACR 3.x. I don’t know whether they will get better : results, but they will easier results.
:
: —
: Barry Pearson
: http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
:
Barry,
The part about you response and Adobe’s spin doctors tales, I simply don’t comprehend is that I can develop a Canon 20D image in ACR (2.4) and bring out deep shadow detail as if it were just a part of the image – which should be the case with any developer.

When I attempt to do this with LightRoom or RawShooter, the results are terrible. They develop with a ‘screen’ of hatched lines in the areas ACR manages to pull detail from. ACR 2.4 is not what I would term a "Noisy developer of shadows " although it does create it’s fair share of noise in shadows. I don’t use ACR later than this because I don’t need to. Adobe say if 2.4 has my camera profile, that’s all I need. Even ACR is no match for DPP from Canon.

Now you can tell me for as long as you wish that ACR and LightRoom use the same "code base" but I’m here to tell you, Barry: "If it looks like a fish, smells like a fish and has scales, it gotta be a fish".

Personal experience is all that motivates my comments. I had hoped at the start to find another lone sole who paid hard cash for a program that never quite lived up to it’s expectations but promised greatness in the process of doing this. All I get is Adobe’s fan club trying to tell me what I see is not actually how it is. The end of it for me.

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message
: On Mar 18, 8:34 pm, "Douglas." wrote:
: [snip]
: > All those links confirm is that Adobe have an aversion to giving credit to
: > the origins of any product they put their name to. They do not confirm or
: > deny your (or my) claims.
: [snip]
:
: I posted the DATES of those announcements & press releases to show you : that Lightroom was well advanced before Adobe acquired the assets of : Pixmantec.
:
: For interest, the "Filing Date" for Adobe’s application to trademark : "Lightroom" was 13 May 2004:
: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=7 8418515 :
I files an application for a trademark in 2003. I am yet to develop the product for which I hold that trademark. Dates for these things are meaningless, Barry.

All Adobe did by registering a Trademark was prevent anyone else doing the same thing.
So, Barry …I have plans for an anti gravity machine and I registered my trademark to prevent other from taking the wind from my sails when my machine get’s off the ground.

Where’s the evidence?
So far it’s in what I discovered when I used one image with 6 different developers. Only two produced near identical results. RawShooter and LightRoom… Scales and fish thing, Barry.

On Mar 19, 2:37 am, "Douglas." wrote:
[snip]

Where’s the evidence?
So far it’s in what I discovered when I used one image with 6 different developers. Only two produced near identical results. RawShooter and LightRoom… Scales and fish thing, Barry.

Evidence for what? You have had material identified in responses to you that shows that Lightroom was already released at Beta 3.0 when Adobe acquired the assets of Pixmantec. Look at the dates of those documents! (I read them when they were first published – they really did come out on those dates). And if you had followed discussions in various Adobe forums, as Mike Russell and I do, you would never have begun your erroneous theory.

If you read the "Shadowland/Lightroom Development" document I identify, (published in January 2006, more than 5 months before the acquisition), you would discover that the first technology demonstrator for what eventually became Lightroom started in 2002, then gradually evolved over subsequent years. I’ve repeated the document list, with publication dates, below.

9 January 2006:
"Adobe Press Release on Lightroom"
http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/adobe-press-release-on- lightroom/

9 January 2006:
"The Shadowland/Lightroom Development Story"
http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom -development-story/

13 June 2006:
"Lightroom Public Beta 3.0 for Mac Now Available" http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/13/lightroom-public-beta-3 0-for-mac-now-available/

26 June 2006:
"Adobe Acquires Technology Assets of Pixmantec ApS" http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/26/adobe-acquires-technolo gy-assets-of-pixmantec-aps/

The podcasts reveal more about the relationship between Lightroom and ACR:
http://idisk.mac.com/george_jardine-Public?view=web

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

On Mar 19, 2:30 am, "Douglas." wrote:
[snip]

Personal experience is all that motivates my comments. I had hoped at the start to find another lone sole who paid hard cash for a program that never quite lived up to it’s expectations but promised greatness in the process of doing this. All I get is Adobe’s fan club trying to tell me what I see is not actually how it is. The end of it for me.

What Mike Russell and I are saying it NOT about the image quality from Lightroom. It is that Lightroom is not an evolution of Rawshooter. It is irrelevant whether Mike and I favour some Adobe products in any way, we are talking about published history.

It appears that you have a need to believe something that demonstrably is not true. If so, it means that no matter how much evidence I and others post here, you will continue to ignore it.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

Barry Pearson wrote:

On Mar 19, 2:30 am, "Douglas." wrote:
[snip]

Personal experience is all that motivates my comments. I had hoped at the start to find another lone sole who paid hard cash for a program that never quite lived up to it’s expectations but promised greatness in the process of doing this. All I get is Adobe’s fan club trying to tell me what I see is not actually how it is. The end of it for me.

What Mike Russell and I are saying it NOT about the image quality from Lightroom. It is that Lightroom is not an evolution of Rawshooter. It is irrelevant whether Mike and I favour some Adobe products in any way, we are talking about published history.

It appears that you have a need to believe something that demonstrably is not true. If so, it means that no matter how much evidence I and others post here, you will continue to ignore it.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

Barry

Its just dickhead Doug who’s always right 🙂

Barry Pearson wrote:

On Mar 19, 2:37 am, "Douglas." wrote:
[snip]

Where’s the evidence?
So far it’s in what I discovered when I used one image with 6 different developers. Only two produced near identical results. RawShooter and LightRoom… Scales and fish thing, Barry.

Evidence for what? You have had material identified in responses to you that shows that Lightroom was already released at Beta 3.0 when Adobe acquired the assets of Pixmantec. Look at the dates of those documents! (I read them when they were first published – they really did come out on those dates). And if you had followed discussions in various Adobe forums, as Mike Russell and I do, you would never have begun your erroneous theory.

If you read the "Shadowland/Lightroom Development" document I identify, (published in January 2006, more than 5 months before the acquisition), you would discover that the first technology demonstrator for what eventually became Lightroom started in 2002, then gradually evolved over subsequent years. I’ve repeated the document list, with publication dates, below.

9 January 2006:
"Adobe Press Release on Lightroom"
http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/adobe-press-release-on- lightroom/
9 January 2006:
"The Shadowland/Lightroom Development Story"
http://lightroom-news.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom -development-story/
13 June 2006:
"Lightroom Public Beta 3.0 for Mac Now Available" http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/13/lightroom-public-beta-3 0-for-mac-now-available/
26 June 2006:
"Adobe Acquires Technology Assets of Pixmantec ApS" http://lightroom-news.com/2006/06/26/adobe-acquires-technolo gy-assets-of-pixmantec-aps/
The podcasts reveal more about the relationship between Lightroom and ACR:
http://idisk.mac.com/george_jardine-Public?view=web

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message
: On Mar 19, 2:37 am, "Douglas." wrote:
: [snip]
: > Where’s the evidence?
: > So far it’s in what I discovered when I used one image with 6 different : > developers. Only two produced near identical results. RawShooter and : > LightRoom… Scales and fish thing, Barry.
:
: Evidence for what?

How much do Adobe pay you Barry?
Whatever Lightroom started life as is immaterial. It and RawShooter produce the same flaws in processing dark detail and ACR doesn’t. Any dumb fool can deduct from such information that even if LR and ACR have some common code, LR is polluted with RawShooter’s God awful dark detail processing and ACR is not plagued with this problem to the same extent.

Whatever you choose to try to push down my throat It doesn’t change that fact… Can you not see that?

Douglas

On Mar 19, 11:11 am, "Douglas." wrote:
[snip]

Whatever you choose to try to push down my throat It doesn’t change that fact… Can you not see that?

I joined this thread simply to make the point that Lightroom and ACR share the same core raw conversion code. I have provided sufficient evidence that Lightroom is not Rawshooter in drag.

No credible contrary evidence has been provided, for obvious reasons. Obviously similarity of image quality isn’t evidence!

I don’t use either Lightroom or Canon, and have no motivation to discuss image quality issues with those products.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/