Lightroom: Go back to LR2's user friendly adjustment brushes

  • 1
  • Idea
  • Updated 7 years ago
  • (Edited)
Although I own LR 3 and now 4.1, I've been using LR 2.7 as it is still faster than those 2 on RAW files.

Additionally, I use adjustment brush a lot and the way it was in LR 2 is SOOO much better and more user friendly. I can't find a single reason why you changed the layout. With LR3+ there's more clicking with the menu, each time you want to use a brush.
With LR2, you just click on the adjustment brush and then I can keep cycling through different brushes as I am working on the image. Each time I do so, they work independently and lowering the values of say Exposure, does not lower the values of say Clarity. Each setting is saved and I can use the same amounts for similar images.

With LR4 I can't do that. Doesn't seem like LR4 remembers anything.

QUESTION:IDEA:
Perhaps you can release an update where controls can be changed to LR2 style. That would help a lot.

2nd Idea: Perhaps you can release an update for LR2 and 3 users to allow them to use all the new cameras and you can charge for the update. Not everyone wants to play with the new software and especially because new ones are not necessary better or faster. You can charge $ for the update. Personally, I am willing to pay full price of LR4 JUST so I don't update to it. I have no desire to relearn again and use software that is inferior(for my purposes) to the older version.

I really hope you will consider it.
---

Current system: win7,16gb,amd 1090t
Photo of dmitri markine

dmitri markine

  • 20 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
  • frustrated

Posted 7 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 335 Reply Likes
You can always use the DNG Converter. It is free and you can keep using your Version 2.x with any file regardless of how new the camera is.
Photo of jdv

jdv, Champion

  • 728 Posts
  • 56 Reply Likes
FWIW, I'll take the superior image handling in Lr 3 and 4 any day of the week. Any other problems you mention are solvable with a little work.
Photo of dmitri markine

dmitri markine

  • 20 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Rikk,
DNG is not Raw. Let's not open a debate on what's better RAW or Jpeg or DNG vs RAW.

John: Can you explain without being so vague? I've been using PS since '99 and LR since the first week it was out. And I do photography full time and spend over 100 hours every month editing images. I'd like to think I am not completely clueless about the use of the programs.

I can assure you that I am not the only one who feels this way. Every time I talk to fellow photographers there are many who feel the same way. Especially those who do a lot of editing.
You can visit my website in my profile to see what kind of editing is done to my images.
Photo of Rikk Flohr

Rikk Flohr, Champion

  • 1373 Posts
  • 335 Reply Likes
Dmitri, I never said it was-nor did I say it was better or worse. I offered it as an option to continue using 2.x with new cameras. What you do with that is up to you.

Hopefully lots of people will agree with you and +1 your feature request. It may be considered then. Myself, I will agree with John.
Photo of dmitri markine

dmitri markine

  • 20 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
:( I am afraid then my ideas won't be considered, if that's the way it is done here. Most people like new stuff,even if it's not better(that's why you see a lot of people upgrading to betas and the latest gear all the time- not because they need it but because they want it!). Also, most don't care enough or use LR enough to care or notice certain things. Because I spend so much time at it, I always notice small details.

There are so many other things I have to make it better,but I just don't have time to sit and write them all in - as others, I just don't care enough and learn to live with them.

LR is one of the greatest things for photographers though so I definitely love it,despite some problems.
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 14528 Posts
  • 1881 Reply Likes
Dmitri,

This site works better with individual requests. I converted the request to cover the aspect of changes to the adjustment brush.

New camera support is provided to legacy versions through the DNG converter. I explain why here: http://feedback.photoshop.com/photosh...

Like it or not, that's the landscape of camera file formats at the present time.

Not sure what you're saying about DNG/JPEG/raw. DNG is an openly specified raw image file format.
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
dmitri, LR4's adjustment brushes have some MAJOR advantages over those in LR 2 and 3. The ability to brush a change to white balance is a great thing to have if you shoot in mixed lighting. Same thing with noise reduction.

The old system in LR2 saved presets for you automatically on the buttons. That was the good news. The bad news is you only had those, and you could easily make the buttons do something completely unrelated to their labels by saving weird settings into them. In LR3 and 4, you can save brush presets explicitly and you can call them up explicitly. It's different and it's a little slower (drop down versus buttons), but it's also less confusing (you can name them and the names should always match what they do) and more capable (you can have as many as you want, and they can do many more things).
Photo of dmitri markine

dmitri markine

  • 20 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Jeffrey, I've been always told that DNG is lossy format because files converted to it come out about 20-25% smaller. If it's not correct for some reason, I'd like to know that. I tried googling,but everyone seem to have their own opinion on this but who is correct?

Lee, LR4 being able to have presets saved and called up is great news. If there's a way to save them to a keyboard key, that would be REALLY good and solve this issue for me(aside from the slowiness aspect of LR4.) If it is possible to assign certain keys, please let me know..

If not, I would really-really hope this would be the next fix. The menu style is not very comfortable for fast editing/switching between different brush presets. I do weddings and deal with 600-1000+ images at a time and 6-10 seconds wasted at the end results in hours of lost time at the end...
Photo of Lee Jay

Lee Jay

  • 990 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
"If it's not correct for some reason, I'd like to know that."

It's not correct. The newest version of DNG has a lossy-compressed option, but it's new and only an option. DNGs storing raw files have always been losslessly compressed. The reason they've often come out smaller is because of a removed or reduced size embedded JPEG preview.

Presets are selected via a dialog. This is the same as LR3.
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 14528 Posts
  • 1881 Reply Likes
Dimitri,

What Lee Jay said.

DNG files are smaller because they use lossless compression. There is no data/image quality loss.

I have a lot of information here: http://adobe.ly/ACRandDNG
Photo of Butch_M

Butch_M

  • 292 Posts
  • 112 Reply Likes
The answer here is to contact your camera manufacturer and demand they offer an option to save a camera standard RAW file ... don't care if it is DNG or otherwise .... Regardless if we had a standard image file structure, developers like Adobe wouldn't have to invest so much time and effort into re-inventing the wheel for each new camera introduced ... Place the blame where it belongs ... not where it is convenient.