Thoughts on Browser + DAM + Editor

Comments

11 comments

  • Avatar
    Steven Ralser

    Another thing that photographers need to do is printing.  LR seem to have solved this problem reasonably well.  The Dam should be able to do decent printing especially some kind of output sharpening that will automatically change depending on the size of the image and the paper type (glossy/matte)

     

  • Avatar
    Julia Kot

    Hey guys, 

    Thanks for sharing this with us! I'll pass this info to our devs for their consideration. 

  • Avatar
    Sherwood Botsford

    Printing should not be part of the DAM.

    The ability to print, or get a file to be ready to print needs to be part of the package somewhere.

    Printing is a whole different can of worms, one of several cans on getting reproducible colour on various devices. The whole process is 'colour management'  Start here:  https://www.colourphil.co.uk/colour-management-intro.shtml

    Printing should be another module.  Do it in a way that at the lower levels it's like a photoshop export plugin -- there's a well defined calling procedure for that.

    Then, if it's any good it becomes a separate product that you can sell to Affinity users, Capture 1 users.

    On the flip site:  MANY programs print.  Canon handles printing with a photoshop plugin, at least.  (Demonstrating that a printing export module is possible.)

     

     

  • Avatar
    Fernando Ariznavarreta

    I don't agree, printing should be a module of the program, like it is in LR.

    Users have been promised a LR replacement.

     

    If you are going to be a LR killer people expects a common interface from were you can manage all aspects of your photo workflow, from importing to organization to editing and finally printing or even generating albums.

     

    And of course I don't want a Ps plugin or a affinity plugin, as I don't want to count on that software, I want Luminar to do a decent work in that aspects too, as I was promised, and not having to buy each piece of software or module.

     

    That should be different modules of the program that you access when needed and loaded in memory when you access them.

     

    Photoshop is not LR, it is not even a photo editor, it was a design program than with time develop in a photo editor with some other basic features.

     

    Depending on printers software for printing is not an option for the common photographer.

     

    Many programs print, few do it well.

    It is not just outputiting the image to the printer, it is soft proofing, it is scaling correctly the image to the printer dpi, and to the desired size without loosing details in the image (with the appropiate interpolation algorithms)  converting color to printer capabilities and ink/paper profile... you cannot count in  Canon's softeare to do that as it would just provide Canons paper profiles.

  • Avatar
    Dayo Akanji

    "Users have been promised a LR replacement" No, they have not been! The bane of all PP programs today is the hordes of LR users trying to get them all to be made as LR clones.

    To the Luminar Devs, please please please DO NOT make the mistake of trying to turn Luminar into a monolithic LR clone.

    - Keep the simple and elegant single window approach

    - Resist all attempts to introduce "Modules" and the like

    - Make any DAM, or whatever is not CORE to editing an image, as separate applications

     

     

  • Avatar
    Sherwood Botsford

    This ties into the "More than one way to skin a cat" approach.

    The opposite of monolithic is modular.  A well done modular design means you can choose what modules have pallets on your screen.  You can choose how big they are, and where they sit on the screen.  


    A modular system simplifies maintenance.  Each module's code is separate, and each has a well defined interface with the core.

    You should have the choice of doing things in multiple ways:  E.g. I should be able to have a key combo to bring up a pallet or tool, do whatever, and dismiss it.  Or I should be able to access it through a menu.  Or, for tools I use offten, assign it to a tool ribbon.  This allows you to configure the program to your workflow.

  • Avatar
    Fernando Ariznavarreta

    Dayo, you should visit the skylum page.... Yes users have been promised a lightroom killer.

     

    It does not mean a lr clone, but a set of modules that has the same functionality.

     

    A modular program may be coposed of separate executables or sets of dll libraries that load in memoty when you use them.

    What users do not expect is a set of different program with scarce interaction among them.

    If you do not want a module or do not need it just do not use it.

    A modular program do not has to have a clutter interface.

    On1 is n example, you can select the module you want to use an the interface of the module appears on screen

    The editor interface of luminar can remain basically the same, while they add a dam module, a printing module, etc

  • Avatar
    Tim Trim

    You really should try Capture One if you have yet to - will import your Aperture library and has similar catalogue features, and the proofing feature is excellent. The passage of time shows just how good Aperture was. Unfortunately it (Aperture) now crashes often and has to validate my library often so it was time to move on! Clearly Photos is never going to cut it.

    C1 is expensive but I believe worth it. Not really for people who like over-processed gimmicky photos. The quality of images you can produce quickly is superb.

    I've yet to try and use Luminar via its edit in feature - but hopefully this should round trip as a PSD.

  • Avatar
    Dayo Akanji

    I get you both, Fernando & Sherwood, but in the end, these so called modular programs are simply one big program that forces users down a certain workflow path.

    LR pioneered this "modular" approach btw and the so called modular paradigm used by LR and ON1 is not actually modular in any way. A setup where you have to acquire all "modules" or none, is not actually modular but monolithic and therein lies the issue.

    In a true modular setup, users would have a basic frame and have the choice to add elements to this. So using LR as an example, if you could decide not to add their DAM or Print "modules" and just go with the post processing part for instance, then you would really be using a modular setup.

    If Macphun could pull something like this off, it would be just fine with me but the monolithic option with faux modules is probably the path of least resistance for them.

    I am eagerly waiting to see what they do with the DAM and really hope they knock things out of the park with it but given my fears and in order to maintain the true modular setup that I currently use, where I pick and choose what I use for each part of my workflow, I am keeping ON1 going (the so called modules are just parts of a post processing flow) and I have started to try RawTherapee.

    Just as a matter of side interest, I was really excited about LR went it came out and was one an early eager user of the original LR beta back in Jan 2006. I was chuckling looking back at how excited I was in this post: http://forums.popphoto.com/showthread.php?399624-Apple-Aperture-Adobe-Strikes-Back!&s=fdddf05eb508191143060d62fa506fe1.

    Yet, in the end, I could never adopt it because I could see it was setup to hijack workflow and tie me into a specific ecosystem and I really value the freedom of choice the my modular setup has given me over the years. I have changed my primary PP tool a few times but all the DAM work I have done since 2004 is still intact exactly as set up because it has never been tied to the PP tool.

    I similarly jumped on Luminar back in 2016 as it looked like a cool drop in replacement for Capture NX2 even though a few PP related things where not there and it was as slow as molasses. Now the speed block has been broken and it seems on the threshold of moving into great things. I only hope this potential is achieved.

    i am pragmatic enough of course to realise that commercial success, which is very important, might need going down a route a purist might not want. I suppose we just have to trust the decision making of the team!

  • Avatar
    Fernando Ariznavarreta

    Nothing obliges you.

    You can use LR as your DAM and Luminar as your editor if you don't like future DAM of skylum.

     

    But let other people have their alternative to LR as promised.

    You don't have to push the Print buttom if you don't like it or the Album creation.

    I like having a quality way for printing from LR, and was promised to have that functionality in Luminas in the future, as a LR killer.

    If you need something extra you always have the option to use the program you think fits your needs.

     

    Programs are not bigger for having all that options, if they are well designed, they are divided in dll and modules not loaded if they are not needed.

     

     

  • Avatar
    Sherwood Botsford

    And if the UI is configurable, you set up the tools you need. 

    There are features in Aperture that I've never used.  There are panels in Photoshop that my reaction was, "Who wanted this?"  I've never done a stack focus.  Or an HDR.

    Having mutliple ways to do things.

    One of the photoshop features I love:  I can either have open files in tabs, or I can tile.  Recently I was creating header images for my newsletter.  I change the background image each month.  Create the image then import and adjust logo, newsletter title, and issue.  That's hard to do in tabbed view.  But in tile view it's drag and drop layers.

    For all it's faults, Photoshop often has several ways to do something.  This is important as it gives more flexibility to user's work flow.

Please sign in to leave a comment.