Lightroom: Milestones (aka Smarter Previews)

  • 3
  • Idea
  • Updated 5 years ago
I like the idea of the smart previews, but it doesn't go far enough.

I'd like the ability to bake in changes for performance enhancement too, call it a "milestone", such that additional changes could be made faster, and then subsequently folded back into the original on a more leisurely basis.

For example, too much painting in Lightroom, brings it to it's knees.

But if a baked version got cached, and subsequent adjustments were applied to it instead of the original (e.g. raw), or (original) smart preview, I could continue applying paint (or other tweaks) - full speed ahead.

At some point additional brush strokes or whatever could be folded back in, but in the mean time - fast editing...

I haven't worked out the details, but ideally this would all be fully automated, but manual intervention would be OK with me too.

Rob
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 372 Reply Likes

Posted 5 years ago

  • 3
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
A smart preview isn't baked, and the likelihood of LR supporting a destructive workflow directly and internally is practically nil.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 371 Reply Likes
1. I know smart previews aren't baked.
2. I'm not suggesting a destructive workflow, I'm suggesting a caching enhancement.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 372 Reply Likes
To clarify: The idea is to save temporary rendered states (on disk, called "milestones" for the purposes of this thread) for better performance.

I mean, one can accomplish this now, manually, by:
* exporting an rgb copy.
* editing the copy instead (but NOT white balance, nor cam-cal/lens profile...).
* folding incremental adjustments back into the original at some point.

I'm suggesting native automation/integration in lieu of such manual steps.

R
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
Exporting an RGB copy and editing that is destructive. If you do that and then combine the results back to the original, you're assuming superposition holds, which it does for linear functions. LR's editing functions are not linear thus your edit-of-the-edit would not match your re-combined final. So you have two choices - a destructive workflow or results that don't match.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 372 Reply Likes
|> "LR's editing functions are not linear thus your edit-of-the-edit would not match your re-combined final."

OK, ya got me there, still - I stand by the concept even if some things would need to be ironed out...