A Lightroom user’s experience

Software

Guest writer Roy Hammans shares his experience with Adobe’s Lightroom

Roy Hammans writes a guest column today on his experiences with Lightroom with some Aperture comparisons. You can see Roy’s fine photography here.

I downloaded the beta of Adobe Lightroom as soon as it became available last year because I was looking for a good Digital Asset Management package. I’d been an avid Rawshooter user (which Adobe bought and absorbed into Lightroom) since that came out, but lately had not used it so much as I found its image management features limited. It also didn’t easily integrate with the Adobe products I was using (Photoshop and InDesign, mainly).

I ran the Lightroom beta on my Windows PC for a few months and was convinced that it would work for me, even with the few rough edges in the pre-release version – which were mostly smoothed out in the final release. I liked the way Adobe gave users the opportunity to use it and submit feedback – and that they acted on that feedback. It does need lots of RAM though, 1GB minimum, and a fast processor – Pentium 4 minimum in my view for Windows PC users.

I bought the full version as soon as it was available and have not been disappointed. It handled just about everything I threw at it and I found I was opening Photoshop less and less. I could process large photo-shoots in a fraction of the time I had done previously.

Then, after ten years of PC use, I moved (back) to using a Mac when Photoshop CS3 came out earlier this year. Lightroom installed on my Intel Core Duo iMac straight out of the (same) box. Unlike all the other Adobe products, this one is multi-platform, Mac or PC on the same CD.

Ninety percent of the images I make now are processed entirely in Lightroom, unless I need to add masks, special effects or use other Photoshop tools. Opening in Photoshop directly from Lightroom works like a dream, and whether you are shooting RAW files (as every serious user should), or JPGs, your original image file is left completely untouched, of course. When I need to use Photoshop, editing a copy (with Lightroom adjustments) is the most common path I take and Lightroom automatically links the edited copy with the original (although this is optional) stacking it next to the original in the lightbox view.

Ah, the views: the five modules – Lightbox, Develop, Slideshow, Print, Web – pretty much follow a logical work-flow similar to that used in the days of film. Moving between the modules is quick and painless, mouse or keyboard driven, as are most of the Lightroom commands. Aperture lets you do anything at any time, which many claim is an advantage, but I actually like the concept of ‘views’ as you can say “Right, I’ve finished processing, now lets move on to print a ‘contact sheet’ or create a web page.” As an inveterate ‘fiddler’ I need to close an operation and move on. Anyway, you can always go back at any stage and make changes, which is echoed through the workflow without further intervention.

Here are screenshots of the five ‘views’ offered by Lightroom:


The Library view


The Develop view


The Slideshow view


The Print view


The Web view

It works even better on the Mac than it did on my Windows PC, but that’s probably due to the 2GB RAM and faster processor. The real joy however is that I could, if I wanted to, keep the database (which is where Lightroom stores all its activity) and all my images on an external hard drive, shared between the Mac and the PC. I’ve tried this and it works. Of course, I can’t run Lightroom from the same database simultaneously on both platforms (why would I want to?) but I can open it on either machine, see exactly the same image library, with same image manipulations, and work on whichever platform I want.

After getting the Mac I did try out both Aperture and Capture One which, together with iView, provided a very solid image processing and storage environment. There was nothing I could do in these that I couldn’t do in Lightroom however – and it just seemed a lot easier to work in Lightroom as it feels like a 21st century interface; Aperture is still a bit ’20th century’ and reminds me of Excel.

Aperture is a good program for sure, but to my mind it’s lacking the responsive development and improvements we’ve seen in LR. I’ve trained a few non-photographers that need to handle a lot of images using Lightroom and they have all found it easy and intuitive. I don’t think they would take to Aperture as quickly.

There appears to be a lot more ‘mousework’ needed with Aperture, moving around between icon groups that are fitted into every available piece of screen real estate, selecting, adjusting, moving around constantly. One major difference that many consider a handicap for Lightroom is the inability to separate the menu palettes and drag them onto a second screen. I certainly do this in Photoshop, but have never felt the need to do it in Lightroom – but then I am working on a wide screen and like everything in one place.

Version 1.1 of LR offers several features that give it an edge over Aperture, in my view. Speed has to be first on the list, with background tasking used extensively – but it does of course depend on how big your image library is – and the speed of your processor. The Clarity tool has to be next; sure you can do pretty much the same in Photoshop using a combination of local and mid-tone contrast enhancement, but it takes a bit of work. The Tone Curve and dynamic click-and-drag adjustment – very cool. The plug-in architecture – many folk have already produced a raft of new develop presets and web page modules that you can just load and run (for free). Finally, although I much prefer to work on Macs, an awful lot of people still use Windows and I have recommended Lightroom to many of them. I can’t do that with Aperture.

Better sound

Sound

Not just for QTVRs

Good sound in a computer system is a nice thing to have, especially if you are interested in making QTVR pictures with sound or generally regard sound as part of the picture making experience. For those still in their first childhood I suppose these make for louder explosions with computer games – a genre, I confess, that leaves me in despair of the future of mankind.

Looking back on the Apple Macs I have owned, each has had sound worse than its predecessor. The iMac G4 ‘screen-on-a-stick’ came with decent separate speakers, and had so-so sound quality. The iMac G5 has downward pointing speakers, dictated by the slimness obsession at Apple, and had poor sound quality. The iBook G4 had upward pointing speakers – poor quality but not bad for the small size. And finally, the sound quality of the miniscule rear-facing (what were they thinking of?) speakers in the MacBook is simply execrable. Little volume and what there is comes out horribly distorted.

I checked around and the dominant approach seems to be USB-powered external speakers. These leave me unimpressed on paper as the maximum power they can generate, based on the modest current delivered over USB, cannot be great. Chat boards mostly concur. Then I chanced upon the Logitech Z-4i.

These come with a woofer/amplifier and two separates for mid-range and treble. A separate wired controller permits adjustment of the overall sound level and includes a small knob for adjusting the level of the woofer only. Neat and it works. If you like boom, crank it up. But it’s the power specs that matter here, for a device driven from the earphone outlet. Logitech states that each satellite can output 8.5 watts RMS, with the massive woofer putting out up to 23 watts RMS. That’s power!

In use they will play louder than most users will ever need and the quality white finish matches the MacBook perfectly. These are not remotely portable, but that’s the trade-off for good sound. The bulky woofer enclosure can be placed out of the way (mine is under my desk) as low notes are non-directional. The satellites go either side of your monitor. Plug these in and the MacBooks wretched, nasty little speakers are automatically switched off.

Recommended, especially at the $70 price (that’s about $69.95 more than Apple spent on the MacBook’s speakers) – an outstanding value. They come with a two year warranty and my listening to Horowitz playing Chopin’s Barcarolle as I type is as it should be. The rumble of the low notes on his magnificent Steinway Model D concert grand is not far from the real thing. True, the Steinway would be nice to have but is a tad spendy at $100,000+! Plus there’s the waiting list to endure …. still, I did get to touch it when it toured through Los Angeles a few years ago. Horowitz had two in his Fifth Avenue apartment in New York!

Snags? None so far.

Aperture and Lightroom

Lightroom

Comments invited

I have always been pretty harsh on Photoshop in this journal, complaining about what has to be one of the worst user interfaces (after the IRS’s forms, I suppose) on the planet. Adobe’s case is not helped by the wonderful user experience offered by Aperture. Assuming the user has good hardware, of course.

I tried a very early beta of Lightroom a while back – encomiums to Adobe for adopting a user testing approach, in contrast to Apple’s arrogance in this regard – and found nothing to get excited about. I had been using Aperture for a while at that point.

Times change and Lightroom is now on the market for purchase, after an extended beta testing period of many months. I do not have the time to really get into Lightroom (and my happiness with Aperture doesn’t especially incent me in this regard!) so it would be interesting to hear from Lightroom users, especially if they have experience with Aperture, how the applications compare.

Thanks.

Follow up:

Here is a guest piece from Roy Hammans describing his experiences.

Photojournalism is dead

Photography

Because anyone can take a picture

It had been a lousy day in the market, I confess. America is sitting on $1 trillion of mortgages sold by the corrupt to the stupid, which will presage a recession. Maybe a depression. Wall Street is busy hiding the losses until year-end and even then auditors, judging by their stellar history (can you say Enron or WorldCom?), may well not notice that all that debt is being valued at 100 cents on the dollar.

Let’s face it. Wall Street is a professional contact sport and, like all professional sports, is rigged. You thought those nice young boys in the Tour de France were just taking their vitamins?

So when I sat down for my five weekly minutes of prime time news (I have only so much time to waste on fiction) what did I see? A bridge had fallen down in the mid-west and there were no CNN (the “Certainly Not News” channel) journalists on the spot to cover the event. Now this was an event made for ‘news’ reporting, for it had everything that a non-newsworthy event can have. Personalities, not issues, tragic loss of life, dramatic pictures, politicos with arms outstretched palms up, etc.

But what I saw was no less than startling. The first reports were accompanied by some incredibly dramatic still pictures. No, not from your local photojournalist (whom I define as someone taking newsworthy snaps for money) but by amateurs at the scene. They were mostly using cell phone cameras. I very much doubt they were paid. Likewise, all the ‘reporting’ was done not by reporterettes with breast implants and Botox lips, but rather by people who lived close by. And their reports were intense, focused and moving. They were not returning to New York that night to dine at a swanky restaurant. They have to live with this thing.

And, yes, there was no mention of the looming recession and the global tragedies it will bring.

So who needs photojournalists anymore?

Norman Parkinson: Portraits in Fashion

Book reviews, Photographers

Book review

Touring the ancestral manse the other day, it occurred to me to see which photographers’ work graced its many walls. Well, I found only three. Dozens of my own pictures (I like my work, so there), one signed by Lucien Clergue and two others. And those two are by the great photographer Norman Parkinson. My mum chose one, I the other. The one above has found its home on one wall or another for some thirty years now and with good cause. My mum’s choice happens to feature the same model.

The year is 1951. England has won the war and lost the peace. In his infinite wisdom, Ike had determined that America had better recapitalize Germany first for, given half a chance, the bastards would try again. Poor old England would have to wait another thirty years before getting a leader who would fix things. But by then I had left her for the new world for there seemed to be nothing but despair to look forward to. (Note to voters: Elect more women).

This picture speaks to my youth and to England’s end of empire. The sophisticated woman holding the umbrella in that offhand manner is Wenda Rogerson. The wool suit is by the fabulous Hardy Amies – the last couturier to dress the Queen properly. And the location is a tired Hyde Park Corner, one know well to me. There is no traffic. The sky is grey. The blasted, leafless tree speaks of darker times. Yet Rogerson’s demeanor shows that resolute will and quiet determination which speaks so highly of the British back then.

Years later (I was born in the year Parkinson took the picture) I would come to know the spot well as my nanny frequently wheeled me through Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, two locations that would feature heavily in my first book of pictures. These are magical places.

In the late ’40s and early fifties, when women were ladies and hands wore gloves, there were but two supermodels as the modern vernacular would have it. One was Wenda Rogerson, the other Lisa Fonssagrives. Now while your chances of being recognized as a great fashion photographer are undoubtedly better if you are homosexual, these two magnificent women showed it need not be so. Rogerson became Mrs. Norman Parkinson and Lisa Fonssagrives married Irving Penn. Both marriages lasted. And Penn often photographed Rogerson, with Parkinson returning the favor with Fonssagrives.

It’s an interesting comparison. At one end of the spectrum the severe, carefully controlled, studio lit and never less than original Penn, who continues to this day, aged 90. At the other, the electric Parkinson, his snaps seemingly unposed, the model invariably outdoors, an impressionistic vision. And never less than original. The classical and the romantic. In earlier times the comparison was between Ingres and Delacroix. Later Degas and Monet. And in the fifties it was between Penn and Parkinson.

It is unfair to refer to Parkinson’s work as fashion photography. Certainly, beautful women, clearly much loved by the photographer, are in all his pictures. And yes, the fashions are there to be seen. But what is also there is a perfect sense of timing and composition, rivalling Cartier-Bresson at his best but a whole lot more fun to look at. I don’t know about you but I would far rather spend my time gazing at pictures of the world’s great beauties than looking at snaps of fat guys jumping puddles.

One of the best ways to explore Parkinson’s work is in the book Norman Parkinson – Portraits in Fashion where his work is set out in decades. Sadly, the faded color originals have not been corrected (a poor editorial decision) but the sense of the work remains undiluted. And you wonder why I like his work? Well, just look at that outrageous cover.

If this book is not in your library I have but two words for you: “Why not?”