Lightroom: More sophisticated slideshows please

  • 24
  • Idea
  • Updated 5 years ago
  • (Edited)
I was asked to post this commentary here having first posted it in Help for Slideshow; I think they didn't want to deal with me. But, here goes. The Slideshow module is probably the most important sharing component of your program for those of us choosing not to print and file photos. Yet, and in spite of its few "canned" graphics, it seems to lack many useful edit features; at least ones equal to the quality of pictures that Lr3 can help produce. 1. Though Lr3 allows movie clips to be imported, "slideshow" will not play them as part of a combined show. 2. Although a soundtrack can be added, adjusting play time is by means of a primitive slider. 3. Sountrack only allows one track to be imported. That's probably okay if one knows how to create a track somewhere else (Garage Band, et. al.) and import it for longer shows with subtle shifts in content or, if one is willing to put up with a loop that may not match the show in length. 4. The soundtrack does not mate to the show which means the show cannot be stopped and restarted because the soundtrack defaults to the beginning regardless of the image one has stopped at; this is a pain in the @$$ for the editing process because it means one must run a complete show each time a make minor adjustments of timing, as may be required; and that can mean many hours if the show is anything like 20 minutes.
I am sure that I am not alone in wanting to share my high quality, Lr3 images on a high quality TV or digital projector, where a small group can see the show together. I don't wish to print images or books of images to pass around and later have to store. And, I don't want to use the default "iphoto," "iDVD" program combo, which allows movies and stills in the same show and easier adjustments to match images to a soundtrack. Why? Because it is a weaker aid to creating quality images to begin with and the quality is lost when transferred to a DVD.
So help us out here. Fix these problems or . . . maybe I just don't know how to get at what's already available in Lr3 and you can tell me. Some of us want our albums on DVD with all the bells and whistles and we want the tools to make them as rich an experience as possible.

Thanks for your patience.

J. Naughton
Photo of carol naughton

carol naughton

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 8 years ago

  • 24
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1122 Posts
  • 265 Reply Likes
Totally agree. There needs to be a timeline so each image's duration can be controlled, and multiple sound clips. Exporting as a standalone needs to be more shrinkwrapped and obvious. And Ken Burns effects (for those that want it).
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
Personally, I'd like to see Lightroom divided into modules with independent charges:

e.g.

- Lr Core: includes lib+dev module $250
- slideshow module +$50
- print module +$50
- web module +$50
- photobooks module +$50
- faces module +$50
- places module +$50
(with bundle discounts...)

This way, Adobe could invest more in different modules, and get paid for it, yet users who don't use certain features don't have to pay for them. So bickering about whether faces & places & photobooks should take higher priority than dev tools, could be replaced by bickering over the price of the modules...

I mean, right now I don't use the slideshow module, so I won't vote for any improvements except the ones that would make it usable to me, and if *those* were ever granted, *then* I'd like to see a lot of these other improvements, *and* I'd be willing to pay extra for it, since I could retire my existing slideshow software.
Photo of carol naughton

carol naughton

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
With a program as powerful yet easy to use at image altering and one that offers a separate but, apparently equal, slideshow feature, one's expectations are high. Given the resources and product features Adobe has elsewhere, Lr3 slideshow is a poor offering. Splitting the modules and making them each more robust might be an answer that would allow individuals to tailor their own photo application. As it is, I find myself limping along using Lr3, Garageband, Final Cut and way too much work around time to achieve what adobe appeared to promise in one location.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
I too use several applications along with Lightroom. I think of Lightroom as the hub of my workflow, not a "one-stop shop". If their intention is the latter, then they're not quite making it. I apologize if I've diverted your thread - but I can imagine Adobe saying to themselves "we just don't have the resources to do a kickin' slideshow module, along with everything else, come Lr4 - not for a $100 upgrade anyway". Seems worth consideration to charge more for a swingin' slideshow module, and hire a new employee or consultant to work on it if need be... I hear other great requests for things like built-in DLNA server (yeah, like that's ever gonna be built into Lr anytime soon without charging extra for it, or having it implemented by a plugin...). I mean if 3rd parties could write true module plugins (or any other tightly integrated plugins), then that would be another route, but at the moment, they can't...
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1122 Posts
  • 265 Reply Likes
"I think of Lightroom as the hub of my workflow, not a "one-stop shop". If their intention is the latter..."

See forum description: "Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® 3 .... edit, manage, and showcase your images from one shot to an entire shoot all from one blazing fast application."
Photo of paulwasserman

paulwasserman

  • 24 Posts
  • 9 Reply Likes
If you're serious about this please make it a separate post. I like the suggestion and I'm voting for it, but am NOT necessarily voting for separate modules.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
"If you're serious about this please make it a separate post" - I already did. Hopefully everyone understands *this* FR/Idea is for slideshow enhancement, not separate modules...
Photo of Butch_M

Butch_M

  • 292 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
I have to say ... I am in agreement (or at least open to discussion) with most all the ideas shared here ... In fact ... I thought that was the impetus of the module component concept of the original LR design ... so that other modules could be added and some modules could either be turned off or ignored ...

While I do make use of most of the modules ... some I use much, much more of than others ...

The slideshow feature is one I definitely could make more use of if it had even a few more capabilities ... Aperture 3's features in this area is but a modest goal to achieve in area of combining images, motion and soundtrack ... Unfortunately, the only reason I have Aperture 3 installed, is for book making and slideshows ... I really hate having to bounce back and forth from LR-A3 and back all the time ...

The current feature of rendering a simple fade between images with a single audio file ... really isn't a feature ... it's hardly worth the space the code takes up on the drive ... when you consider what some very modest and affordable third party options are capable of ...

The ability to to create a truly artistic slideshow from within the LR UI would go a long way in keeping a tidy library of images ... sure it is quite easy to export a set of jpeg files and use other options that may be more suited for the task ... but who needs all that clutter created? ... and quite often, those other options are complete overkill from a feature/learning curve factor ... Like Goldilocks, I'm looking for something "Just right" ... and wouldn't it be great to have a friendly tool that plays nice with all the other LR features?

As per a couple of other topics here ... is this a case of Adobe opening up the SDK for Module additions created by third parties? Not sure what the best route is ...but I would indeed welcome some improvement to the Slideshow Module ...

For me ... the current slideshow is useless ... either eliminate the feature all together ... or give us something that we can use to add value to our products ...
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1122 Posts
  • 265 Reply Likes
"Aperture 3's features in this area is but a modest goal to achieve in area of combining images, motion and soundtrack ... Unfortunately, the only reason I have Aperture 3 installed..."

Exactly. It's not the only or first program with timelines, multiple tracks and Ken Burns effects, but you can guess what I was thinking of in my initial comment.

The module stuff here is a (faintly ludicrous) diversion. Lightroom's strength is as a single integrated product - "here are a few related bits of code, build your own workflow" is not quite the "simplify photography from start to finish" ethos. Remove existing modules or make them optional purchases and (a) users would never come across features that they didn't originally want but then subsequently find they can use, and (b) the pressure is off Adobe getting them right. Hey, I don't use keywording, says someone - why should I pay for those two panels?
Photo of Butch_M

Butch_M

  • 292 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
John ... can't say I disagree with you ... though, "panels" and "modules" are quite different ... I was more interested in the ability to add specific purpose modules to Lr ... like a printed book/album design module created by Adobe or a third party developer ... something fully integrated and seamless for adding functionality to a parametric workflow ... as an option, rather than a "you must take this or nothing" situation ...

In fact if a video module could be offered, it sure would settle the dust on that argument we have seen in the forums in the recent past ...

Either way ... I think this is a good point of discussion ... on how LR could be customized and tailored to specific uses/genres in the field ...
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1122 Posts
  • 265 Reply Likes
Butch, my concern is less about adding new ones (why not?) and more about removing ones that are integral to the program's concept
Photo of Brian Chernicky

Brian Chernicky

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Just upgraded to LR 5 from LR 3. I'm floored that there still has never been any sort of meaningful update to the slideshow module.

Assume you want to make a slideshow for a funeral. (That's probably what most people actually do with slideshows anyway).

As it is now, if you want any sort of decent slideshow, your have to do it one photo at a time, in Photoshop or Premiere.

I would like to see some simple automated animations - such as the Ken Burns effect, directly in LR.

This functionality is already in Aperture. I'm unclear why Adobe would not make at least similar functionality, let alone better.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 385 Reply Likes
There are excellent slideshow apps which don't require one-photo-at-a-time. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Lr slideshow improved, but in the mean time, consider creating in specialized slideshow app, instead of Photoshop/Premiere...