CMYK support for the library – I do a lot of conversions for clients and would really like to have them in the library.

3F / Hasselblad file support – I’d also like to be able to find these in the library and convert to DNG thru Lightroom

After spending 3 days pulling my hair out (with LR2 crashing, hanging system) going through tech support, forums, Q&A with many other photographers. I finally figured out the problem (again see my blog).

So, my question is. Is 2.0 worth paying for Beta software still? I say for the pros out there. Stick with 1.4 and wait for 2.1 update.
-jeff

- Softproofing: most definitely! Proof for web, for printer driver. The ability is there, they just need to program that hookup. Photoshop does it pretty easily. The engine’s built.

- Books: you’d think the creators of packages, Adobe, would have done this. Photoelements 2 had it, as a separate app. Just get that team into the LR3 team. Though, lets also make this module NOT load with LR. Have it be a button to call out to. Because think of it… you’re loading all those templates. Which BTW… lets do with the Web module. Have it load that stuff when we need it. Not into memory upon opening.

- Noise reduction; I’m blown away that 2.0 vers. really doesn’t approach it that great still. Must be a 3rd party contract deal that they have to work around.

- Light table: yes, I do say I miss the old slide days. Where I’d move my images to the top row which was my ‘picks’ and I can really compare better the 2nd, 3rd, 4th variables. We’re visual people, it works better for us that way.

- Shooting tethered: I’ve said in my life… Why would I need to shoot tethered? Then I had a restaurant client where we were shooting over 200 food shots. I had two sets going and that’s when I said. BOY, sure would be cool to be able to be tethered. YES! This should be a feature. Or at least a downloadable update…. It can’t be that difficult to do.

- Keyboard shortcuts change: how about the ability to change all the shortcuts. Or hey, edit your own sets. That’s possible!

- Place able graphics: would be nice to have it like an object that can be moved and them you ‘commit’ to it when processed. Multiple objects would be awesome but, if not possible, I make my object in PS and then have it available to LR.

Slideshow options:
Yes to everything. How about a simple timeline too. Something that every marker is the next photo and we can move that marker to the timing we want. Pull it from Premiere Elements, the cheap video app. That would solve 80% of everyone’s needs.

- That’s my wish and agreement. It’s geting there. Maybe LR2.5 will help us all.

In a nutshell, if you edit an image in LR, even using the sRGB color space, the image will not look anywhere near as good when viewed on a browser like Firefox or Internet Explorer, especially with regard to color quality and saturation.

In other words, if you shoot in sRGB, edit in sRGB, and export in sRGB … the image will look great in LR, will look great in Safari, will look great in iPhoto, will look great in Preview … but will dramatically diminish in color quality if viewed in Firefox or Internet Explorer.

If I set my color space to “Monitor RGB – iMac” in PhotoShop, then I get exactly what I see on-screen if I export a JPG and view it in web browsers or any other software.

This makes sense, because I guess I’m telling it, “Use the same color
space that my monitor uses.” So if I do my Photoshop work in
that color space, my exported JPG’s will look like they did to my eye
when I created them.

The first catch: LightRoom has no such option. It only has:
sRGB
Prophoto
Adobe RGB

The closest of those is sRGB, but we’ve seen how that loses saturation
and warmth when exported, compared to the monitor. So as far as I can
tell, there is no way to adjust something in LR and have it come out
looking in a web browser like it does on-screen during editing. This
is infuriating.

The second catch: If I did my work in Monitor RGB, and then later
wanted to make a print of the image, I may have sacrified some of the
potential quality by working in Monitor RGB which has less color range
apparently than Adobe or Prophoto. I could still convert it to one
of those and make a nice print (I’m assuming), but perhaps not quite
as nice as I could have made if I worked in one of those modes all
along. On the other hand, if I worked in one of those modes, my web
JPG’s would suck and that’s what I do with 99% of my images. But this
is a minor issue for me compared to the other.

I’m starting to conclude: There is no way to work on an image that is
destined for both web and print without basically doing the work
twice. Once adjusted for the web, and once adjusted for print.

And if I am working on an image for the web, I can get a very accurate
appearance in PhotoShop by using the Monitor color space. But in LR I
have no way of doing that. That’s the kicker. The best I can do in LR
is sRGB, then export to PhotoShop and adjust it some more until I get
the look I want. Which kind of defeats the purpose of being able to
do all this editing in LR!

I would love to hear from anyone who has an idea for how to fix this, or would love for Scott to work his magic with Adobe and get them to release an update that corrects this problem.