Lightroom’s Goals

Mark Hamburg

I’ve covered much of this in some of George Jardine’s Lightroom podcasts, but I decided it was worth writing something down for more general consumption and reference.

The Lightroom (née Shadowland) project had at its core the following goals. Some of them existed from the start. Others evolved as we went along. Interestingly, none of them are about photography. Photography proved, however, a good space in which to explore them.

Personality as a conscious part of software design

All products have a personality of one sort or another. That personality is at the heart of how the product works, what it feels like to use, etc. Sometimes that personality is relatively muted and/or buried behind other conventions. Sometimes it is directly in one’s face. Very often it is something that happens more or less by accident, but that accidental nature doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

One of the goals in Lightroom was to consciously think about the product personality we were trying to create with the expectation that a less accidental personality would induce a stronger emotional reaction in users. That stronger reaction can be both positive and negative. We knew that going in. The second part of this goal was to have enough passionate users to outweigh the detractors.

Elegance, Grace, and Style

We wanted Lightroom to seem elegant. To exhibit grace. To show an attention to style beyond the utilitarian aspect that dominated Adobe’s products up to that time. We wanted a richer UI experience.

We’ve been successful in many ways. At the same time, we are painfully aware that there are places where we could be yet more graceful or elegant.

Style is one of the key factors in revealing personality, and as with personality in general, a rich experience will appeal to some and alienate others. Given the number of Lightroom emulations, I see popping up, there’s evidently something appealing about the choices we’ve made.

Maximizing Power v Complexity

While traditional professional applications like Photoshop generally make some effort at coherency in their interfaces, they also tend to be completely ready to add complexity if that will lead to more power. On the other hand, consumer applications frequently throw out power to arrive at simplicity.

On Lightroom, we sought to maximize the power to complexity ratio. If a small bit of additional complexity opened up a lot more power for users, we would go for it. On the other hand, if the complexity was high and the increase in power was low, we would avoid it.

Have we always struck the right balance? No. There are places in the application where the feature set is more complex than the power it delivers merits. Sometimes this happened because we were seeking compatibility with other software. Sometimes this happened because we didn’t come up with an appropriately simple idea. As a demonstration, however, that power need not be complex and that relatively simple software need not be weak, I think Lightroom has generally been a success.

These goals will continue to guide us and photography continues to provide a good space in which to explore them.

39 Responses to Lightroom’s Goals

  1. Peter Kahn says:

    Hey Mark,I am a new user to Lightroom and am going through C. Orwig’s tutorial on Lynda.com. The product is just fantastic. Months ago, someone told me that they hardly use Photoshop anymore and I was just dumbfounded at the statement but now I can clearly understand how true that statement is. I think you and your team really hit a home run with Lightroom. This summer, I must have shot over 5,000 images; partly for a tour book that I am creating. I don’t think this project would even be feasible at the scale it has approached without Lightroom. Now, can you add masking?

  2. Nicolas says:

    “Style is one of the key factors in revealing personality”.You mean, LR is ALL about marketing??? ;o)From a mortal user point of view, I’d think it much more on the “maximize the power to complexity ratio” side.Thanks for these interesting hindsights![Personality is about more than marketing. To the extent that a car has a personality -- and I think most people would say it does -- it's something that you keep on interacting with long after the marketing message is over and done with. But yes, the power v complexity point was more dominant in our thinking. -Mark]

  3. Paul says:

    While I believe you made great progress in reaching your goals, you forgot a significant slice of the male population; those of us with deficient color vision. Having to keep the WB tool active to get RGB numbers makes LR less useful to me than it should be. There is lots of room to the left of “Histogram” in that display to offer dynamic RGB readings with the Zoom tool active, just as in Camera Raw.

  4. Niklas B says:

    “While professional applications like Photoshop generally make some effort at coherency in their interfaces…”Useful? Absolutely. But practical. Never. I have used Illustrator (since version 6), Photoshop (since version 3, not CS3) and now InDesign as my tools of trade. UI-wise they are Chaos Incorporated™ compared to elegant products such as Lightroom.I was hoping Photosjop & Co. would get a better interface with the CS3 release, but sadly no, they received only minor changes that really did not matter in the big picture. Sorry to break it to you, but your design team really need to shape up on your flagship products.Oh, and Lightroom is not for professionals? While I am an avid Aperture user I do love the Lightroom interface as well, the general speediness and multitasking (especially when exporting) are outta-this-world wonderful, the Clarity tool alone made me take it for another test drive (you have no idea how close I am to migrating from Aperture to Lightroom…). Even though the interface is easy to use I recommend Lightroom for professionals, not amateurs.[ I did not mean to imply that Lightroom was not a professional application. I guess I should change the wording in the blog post to "traditional application". -Mark ]

  5. jimhere says:

    I still prefer iView, because of the whole “save the Catalog” thing (which is not elegant because it creates clutter), but Microsoft is putting an end to all that.I always thought Lightroom looked like a Flash presentation made by high-schoolers with it’s Upper Right Nav Bar (I believe you call that “modules”). Aperture’s panels seems more like a pro-level app, although I prefer LR’s “curves” to AP’s “levels”.So of course it IS totally subjective. Lightroom is “elegant and exhibits grace” simply because you said so. Someone reading that would consider your statement, and for a moment at least, believe it. This blog post made me open LR for the first time in a month. So it IS marketing as Nicolas said.So for my iView replacement, Aperture has a more professional personality (plus nifty gadgets like the Light Table you can spread out on), and Lightroom has slightly better core functionality (because I’m a PS curves user) but a childish “feel”. Subjective, I know. You love it because it’s been your life for so long. From a business standpoint, I’ve given money to both Adobe and Apple, so no one is loosing there.If only the two could combine in an unholy marriage…[ As I said,the personality and style of an app aren't going to appeal to everyone, particularly if one pushes those issues hard as we did in Lightroom. -Mark ]

  6. Ales says:

    The Lightroom interface is elegant and it is excellent photographic tool; interface is not disturbing view on photos. The Photoshop interface was best –in the last century.

  7. I look at LR more for what it will become in the future. Combining asset management, RAW conversion, automated color editing, creative rendering and expedient output to the web is what makes me open LR instead of PS – but why not? I’m a photographer!

  8. Dan says:

    I spent a lot of time listening to the Jardine podcasts and the philosphies of you guys made me take a harder look at LR, being a 9-month Aperture user. Although I feel LR has a long way to go to match certain very important “pro” elements that Aperture beats you in (namely: file management, offline handling, 2nd monitor support, the constant annoyance of having to flip between Library and Develop to get visual feedback on things like ratings and othe metadata) Lightroom has me smitten with the actual process of editing images in a way that Aperture fails to do. At the moment I have my entire 10K photo library being shared by Aperture and LR and I will decide soon if a switch is worth it (re-corecting hundreds of selects I did in Aperture is daunting though I’ll likely export JPEGS and have the RAWs if I feel like re-doing any)

  9. Andy Glogower says:

    Any ideas why I often get this error message in Lightroom when trying to upload a web gallery…”unknown disk error?”

  10. Eric says:

    I think this personality thing is something that has given Apple a leg up on other software developers for a long, long time. Aperture, FinalCut Pro, and their other apps all exhibit this quality, and Adobe is very smart to catch on.I was a big booster of Aperture and couldn’t imagine Lightroom 1.0 beating them and making me switch. But you did. There are some holes where Aperture still shines (sorting and choosing photos – picks, rejects, etc.) but Aperture can’t touch Lightroom in what counted for me – the unity between Lightroom/Bridge/Photoshop for metadata and ACR.Good work! I’ve convinced several other departments at work to give Lightroom a shot.

  11. Antonio says:

    Lightroom is a great achievement! Although I was incensed by the beta going out to the Mac first, it was worth the wait. There are areas where I know you guys will go, adding free stacking and a true light table area (a la Aperture, sorry) Maybe a round of what would you add or take to lightroom? session, this early in the live of the software will make sure the development team stays true to the needs of the users? (not that they have done a bad job up to now!) At least you can rest assured that you have achieved elegance, for sure.

  12. Tim says:

    Could you give an example of what you think is elegant in LR and what needs improvement?Thanks[ A lengthy discussion probably needs another blog post rather than just a comment or two, but I'll try. Elegant: Single-click to zoom and browse. Lights out to focus on the image. Inelegant: Making selections via the filmstrip filters isn't smooth enough. -Mark ]

  13. Anand says:

    I am sorry to bust your bubbles, but I feel LR is a product that is half-baked.When I first heard about LR development and how it was being developed by Professional Photographers…I was excited.However, when it came out, it missed out on one of THE most fundamental part that should have been incorporated….Photo/File Management. No Archiving features and saving pictures offline.I never understood how come this was not there. For me, that was a big Failure.The other part where LR has failed is in its handling of resources. It is very slow. I mean, excruciatingly slow. I have a very fast computer..Core2Duo 7200 with 2gigs Ram and plenty of space. Also, when I run LR, I am usually not running anything else. ALso, my system is kept in tiptop shape…I know what programs are starting and what processes are running.In 2007, that is unacceptable. It is more so unacceptable when you asks us to upgrade memory…why don’t YOU make the programs more efficient and use memory in a smart way? Or is it the idea that since memory is cheap, just write the program and people will buy more?I am also not on Vista..XP Pro.So, until this is all done, stop updating with these minor fixes…revamp and start over with the core functions. Do not create a database that rivals the size of all my pictures??? What is that about?I am thinking this post will be deleted.[ You would be thinking incorrectly. If you'd used more profanity, maybe you'd be thinking correctly. -Mark ]

  14. Tim says:

    MarkThanks for the two examples of elegant/inelegant. That’s better than a longwinded treatise ;-). TAT is an example of elegant. Stacking would be elegant if I could use the scroll wheel on my mouse to shuffle thru a stack to view one pic at a time.[ Yeah, we're rather fond of how the TAT worked out. There's also one of my favorite hidden touches which is the behavior if use page down to walk through an image while zoomed 1:1. As for the scroll whell with stacks, I can see where that would be cool, but it could get "interesting" if you started out using the scroll whell over the grid to scroll. The question then would be whether the necessary disambiguation logic and behavior would feel sufficiently natural. -Mark ]

  15. Rory Hill says:

    MarkElegance and efficiency are the hallmarks of great programs, and why I have faith that Lr will evolve into what I need/want. The zoom/pan is a great example, because it is natural and intuitive – kudos on this!For more complex operations, such as the much debated localized editing, I can see where achieving an elegant and intuitive UI will be a great challenge.Something that I think would be useful is to embed explanations of all the “hidden” shortcuts and techniques in Lr, like the shortcuts you see with CTRL + /. Otherwise one has to read every book written on Lr to find functional gems, such as your example of Page Dowm while zoomed. Making all these tips available to the user will be another challenge to your goal of elegant design.RegardsRory

  16. Guntis says:

    Sorry but I disagree with the author regarding the elegance and style – Lightroom was beautiful when it was in beta 1 and 2 on Mac. Then by beta 3 it started to degrade. When Windows version finally appeared on the horizon, Mac version lost all of its appeal and became Windows’ sibling. At that point I gave up on Lightroom (I really hoped it will be the first beautiful Mac app from Adobe!) and chose Apple Aperture route. And I’m still happy with my choice. Sorry, but I can’t accept those rectangular Windows buttons in Mac applications… And Command+K for preferences. In all Mac applications it’s Command+, so why should I learn exceptions for Adobe? If Adobe can’t make buttons and shortcuts as they should be in Mac applications, then I’m choosing other products which can.[Lightroom uses Command+, for its preferences on the Mac. -Mark]

  17. Harvard Irving says:

    I look at LR more for what it will become in the future.No, you are looking at what you want it to become in the future. Whether Adobe actually goes in that direction or not is an open question.I like Lightroom too, and think it has great promise. But I have little faith in Adobe as a company anymore.You have to take it for what it is now. Betting on the future is a risky gamble. There’s every possibility that Adobe leaves the product mostly as-is, and improves it very little – resting on their laurels.There’s also the possibility they will make it worse as time goes by. You just don’t know with the strange way that Adobe is acting these days as a corporate entity. If the marketing people can mess with the name by sloppily adding “Photoshop” where it belongs – there’s really no end to what they can screw up.A friend went to an Adobe seminar a few weeks ago – and the Adobe rep was talking about buzzwords like “Business 3.0″ (riffing on “Web 2.0″) rather than actually speaking about Adobe’s core competence.That’s a very disturbing sign of the insanity of some of the people steering the corporate ship at Adobe at the moment.

  18. Gregory Wostrel says:

    Mark,Great post and insight into the ideas behind the scenes. I really love Lightroom. I started with the beta early on and switched to Aperture when it was released. However, for me it came down to the difference in the experience of editing: LR is simply better. Aperture has a number of features I miss but I also had a lot of performance issues with Aperture – ones that I was unable to solve – so I am in te LR camp and excited about what might develop (but keeping an eye on Apple).@Anand: I had some really bad performance issues with LR during the beta period, but very rarely now. I am quite pleased with the official release. Are you basing your opinion on the beta versions?

  19. JR says:

    I’m using the latest version and speed is still my main problem with it. I too have a well specified PC, but there is a night and day difference in speed, including the application switching times, using Bridge + ACR + CS3 vs. Lightroom alone. Every action has a very obvious 0.5-1 second lag that’s really disturbing. With a 5gig photo library loaded in, this gets worse. Why can ACDSee instantly load up my large JPEGs and LR not?My last minor gripe is that I don’t find LR’s sharpening usable, since it only shows up at 1:1. So I always have to go through CS3 anyway.It’s a shame because I REALLY want to like, nay, love LR. If it was just snappier, had NR capabilities like Noise Ninja and had a usable sharpness control, I’d never open CS3 again!

  20. Ollivier Robert says:

    Like many mac users, I started with the idea of using Aperture (and Aperture screencasts and demo I saw were impressive) but when I got my K10D and started shooting, Aperture/OS X did not support my DSLR, LR in the beta phase did so I started using LR, thinking I’d switch later. But you did 1.0. Even though it was still lacking things like catalogs, it was faster and easier than Aperture so I stayed and finally bougt it. LR 1.1 made it even more worth it so thanks.Like others, there are things I’d love to see in LR (2nd monitor support, vaults) but I don’t regret staying with LR at all. Thanks!

  21. Jarno says:

    Only two requests: I think lightroom would be very great with Lens corrections instruments. Fisheye and so on. Also with .NEF full support. You know what I mean.Good job, LR is very good. Thank you

  22. Leon Oosthuizen says:

    Hi Mark,I spent two excrusiating months on trialing Aperture and LR respectively a while ago. at first I though the two apps were basically the same, but I soon learned that they are worlds appart with some common features (not of equal functionality thoguh). the verdict: LR comes out tops.I’m a professional photographer and take trillions of shots – ok perhaps a couple less. LR is slightly less intuitive in the sorting and grading dept, but once you’ve got the hang of it, it offer more options with flagging.Apperture 1.5 seems to be a tad ahead with the cataloging part and sorting on the nifty light table for layout previews. the loop function (like in Bridge CS3) is works a charm. LR can pick up on that.I chose lightroom for its developing prowess – Apperture cant match that history of photoshop algorythms in a million years. colours are bang on target and LR UI feels like and extension of my fingertips.For people complaining about LR being slow – update to v1.2 if your .xmp is on. problem solved.As a photographer (who LR is directly aimed at) , I have a coupel of sugestions to make LR flawless:1) fix the edit in photoshop command: when I choose “with lightrom settings” I get a 240dpi image in photshop, not a 300 dpi one (any ideas?)[ 240ppi is Camera Raw's default and we didn't see a reason to change it. It's pretty much an arbitrary number until you go to print. -Mark ]2) dodge and burn tools. or history brush, seeing that there is already a history palette. this will help tons to make LR my complete digital darkroom.3) I use referenced files from where the are as I have four large and very full external harddrives. It would be nice to have a folders option like Google’s Picasa where you can choose to see the folder structure as it is on your hard drive for all the imported folders as if you were in Finderthe Librady and develop modules could be merged. that would eliminate the cuick develop phenomenon and save me shortcutting between two modules and 5 viewing modes.Thanks for a great and improving product. I cant wait to see what the next major upgrade will have up its sleeve.If you need someone who is brandloyal and eager to help improve your product, just let me know.Kind regardsLeon

  23. mrzizzy says:

    I’m BEGGING. PLEASE PROVIDE AN OPTION TO TURN OFF THE GIANORMOUS UNDO/REDO MESSAGE THAT APPEARS IN THE CENTER OF THE SCREEN.Make it smaller and move it somewhere less conspicuous. PLEASE.[What we really need to do is add separate support for a toggling undo in addition to multiple undo. Toggling undo is less in need of notification regarding what it's undoing. -Mark]

  24. Ian McNairn says:

    Mark,Insightful posting and useful info across the blog. Thank you.I have a few questions I haven’t been able to get answered elsewhere, and wondered if you could answer them, or if you could point at someone who might be able to?Tried Beta version of LR … got frustrated by import times of 30000+ images. Tested with a subset of my library and was very impressed. I am sure things are meaningfully improved now, so am about to retry LR … HOWEVER … in the interim, I have 38000+ images that are keyworded via Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (not a Pro’s tool I know, but still filled the gap well). Now to the question, about half of the images are JPG and writing EXIF info into JPGs works fine … thus can be imported and used in LR. The problem is with the ~15000 RAW (Canon 1DsMkII and 30D) images. Elements doesn’t appear to be able to create XMP Sidecar files, so how can I import my tagging/keywording information into LR ? I tried via Bridge, and understandably had no success either.Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  25. mrizzy says:

    Re: Undo/Redo. I agree with Mark’s comment that undo/redo needs less notification. Still the large fading undo/redo message seems like eye candy. I do want to know what I’m undoing if I keep going backward in history, but in some less conspicuous place where the message fading delay would not obscure my image. I’d also like a keyboard shortcut to move backward and forward through the history states without having to use the history panel. The history panel is more useful for jumping directly to a state than backing into it. Still is there something that can be done in the short term to move the undo/redo message or change the fade delay. Perhaps some hidden plist pref (on the Mac). Thanks

  26. Jauder Ho says:

    I’m sorry but Lightroom in it’s current form does not fall into the category of elegant applications for me. It could but not right now.First off, I would love to see a version of Lightroom (let’s call it Lightroom Lite) that does not do the DAM part. I use iView and would like to continue using that given that I have around 10,000 images in it already and another 10,000 still to process.Secondly, Lightroom is SLOOOOOOW. There should be no reason why this is so slow. I would hold up RawShooter as a great example of a great RAW processor for me. It had easy to use controls, shortcuts that were easy to remember and best of all intuitive to use. I feel that Lightroom has lost it’s way in an effort to be able to do everything.Unfortunately for me, RawShooter is EOL and does not support GPS EXIF for RAW files, if it were not for these two facts, I would still be happily using RawShooter for my processing. It’s fast and effective. I strongly recommend that Adobe take a hard look at what made RawShooter successful.Another example that I like to hold up as a model for good applications is pine (the unix based email reader). The underlying code is ugly and c-client is a monster but the fact is that pine allows you to enable more features as you feel more comfortable. The whole notion of having good factory defaults is very important.Lastly, as I have previously stated, it would be great if Lightroom allowed exports to relative directories. I.e. for each file, put the output in ../POST. This functionality was available in RawShooter and definitely helps a lot in organizing space.

  27. Phil says:

    I like lightroom and to work with it…but…1) i hope you will improve the edit-tools for developing images, for example with tools a la lightzone that allow selective editing (regions) and levels/stack a la photoshop adjustment tools2) unfortunately lightroom is useless, as long as it stays “colorblind” – even after calibrating the camera, the reds stay muted and wrong. Have a look here, how many people complain, and please, if you improve lightroom start here first:http://www.adobeforums.com/webx?14@@.3bc4c365/131I cannot understand how one can develop such a nice program with great features and leave image quality so far behind – treated really stepmotherly …. have a look at colors from breezebrowser, dpp or capture one …Philunfortunately it is unusable

  28. cascadehush says:

    My biggest frustration is the inconsistencies. The delete rejected photos function does 3 different things depending on what ‘mode’ you are in. So I continually have to switch in and out of modes. It makes the ‘collections’ function useless. Please could we have the option to have a consistent way of deleting photos, and a way of getting rid of the stupid dialog box which asks me if I really want to delete the files. Yes, I want to delete the files!

  29. Stew says:

    A very nice post.A bit late, but I’d like to disagree with Niklas B’s comment:”So of course it IS totally subjective. Lightroom is “elegant and exhibits grace” simply because you said so.”Not so.I’m not a professional photographer, but even I can see it in Lightroom. Elegance and grace are exhibited in software (or any designed tool) when the operations are fluid, efficient and follow a consistent pattern.You understand how to use a new toaster because the “make toast” lever on the side connects to “make my bread go down into the heater”. There’s no separate Power button because that would be redundant, inefficient and inelegant.Accountants who barely understood the personal computer quickly understood how to use Lotus 123 because (among other things) they were used to the grid metaphor from their ledgers. (I’m dating myself on that example!)In Lightroom, the ‘L’ key turns out the Lights, ‘D’ starts Develop, ‘G’ shows photos in a Grid, ‘I’ cycles through various Information displays you might want in Loupe or Develop modes. The position of the indicator on each sliders tell you how far along the range of possible values you are; you grasp that w/o having to know the min and max values. (Having made that example, maybe the progress bar for Importing and Exporting could show a bar on the far end so you know how close it is to being done w/o hitting the PC Start button to display the % complete???)Mousing over your photo with the zoom tool automatically displays the brightness (and other) values below the photo. You didn’t have to open a separate window to see them, they’re right there.I see a lot of elegance and grace in Lightroom, which make me more efficient and effective as a photographer. This was the biggest reason I bought Lightroom and rarely use PS Elements, which I’ve used and recommended for the past 4 years. In Elements, I hated switching from the Organizer to the Editor.

  30. Gordon Cole says:

    While I’m probably not as heavy a Lightroom user as many of the above posters, I’m frequent enough to be frustrated by what appear to be poor file management tools. The Library view simply doesn’t provide enough room to view large numbers of images at the same time on a 24″ monitor; nor does the catalog function permit the speedy access to files that a folder-based system does. I’ve used ACDSee Pro consistantly for file management; then using Lilghtroom to do the editing; but it would be far better if Lightroom combined the access speed and the ability to view large numbers of files simultaneously that ACDSee Pro provides. Having to use both programs makes some of the Lightroom capabilities less useful, as well. I’d like to see the option of using a directory/folder-based interface, as well as the current catalog-based one.

  31. Anand says:

    For Gregory,No, I have the latest updates.I am not sure why it crawls, but I have heard other people complain about that too. And I do not have all my pictures in one folder. They are in multiple subfolders.So, when is LR 2.0 coming with DVD/Network Archiving and Speeeeeeeeed?

  32. William R Wood says:

    I bought LR, love its concept but it is way too slow (including the new 1.3 update). Importing, viewing thumbnails, previews, keywording, etc; essentially everything in the Library mode is way too slow. I run ACDSee Pro and PhotoMechanic on my PC and both are super fast compared to LR. First and foremost, I need to see my images quickly so I can rank and keyword them. Until LR is as fast as ACDSee and PhotoMechanic, I simply cannot use it. We need speed! Thanks.

  33. Johannes says:

    Hello,I am a photographer and use Lightroom daily on my mac and are very happy with it.Some suggestions and wishes for future improvement:-Canon RAW files,specially at higher ISO values, seem to have small artifacts. Digital Photo Proffesional from Canon gives better, more grain-like, images. (I work mostly with the EOS 5D)-Support for a second display.-A selection option like the Aperture light table.-Support for selective editing.ThanksJohannes Abeling

  34. John Larson says:

    I am an Intermediate Amateur photographer who normally takes 50-100 photos a week, but when the grandkids are around, or am at a beautiful spot, will take 50-100 photos or more at a time. I shoot in RAW primarily and have done most of my editing in ACR 4.3.1 and CS3, or Capture NX. I have been constantly asking for a good reason to go to LR. About the only answer I get is, “I just like it,” or”It’s easier for me.” What I am looking for is what would I, considering the number of photos I take and the editing that I do, gain from going to LR? Thanks. (PS – the section on PUTV Episode 108 about LR was very emotive and the guys were excited about LR, but that was about it.)

  35. John Falkenstine says:

    My current decision is Adobe Lightroom or ACDsee pro v2, of which I am currently running a trial version on top of CS2. While I would like to make the jump to CS3 and Lightroom, the big hurdle in the way is Adobe’s marketing and sales dept. I am not allowed to run a 2nd try of Lightroom, even for a short period. Numerous existing software packages and suites purchased from Adobe appear to have little leverage in getting a decent price. Its that “golden rule” attitude which is the killer, not the software. BTW ACDsee Pro V2 is fun to use and I’m accustomed to the clunky interface.[John, I appreciate you sharing your decision process. I dont' want to contradict your frustration but in terms of trial and price: We've reset the clock on 30 day trials with every single update to the application. That's a total opportunity of 150 days of trial between 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.3.1. Lightroom was offered at $100 off of the $299 price for the first 3 months of availability and we've worked with NAPP and other professional associations to offer discounts on Lightroom. Overall we are trying to follow the golden rule by opening up the communication with the community through public betas, generous discounts and regular updates. -TH]

  36. Sam says:

    My friend was showing me Lightoom. As others have pointed out, it is slow and his database is already 500MB with only 50,000 images. Two requests for me though:1) Enhance the Library to help me manage which images have gone to which agencies and the status with each agency (submitted v active).2) Separate curve for each of the RGB channels. Use of the master channel is only for those who have minimal color correction skills – so right now, every image has to go through Photoshop anyway.Otherwise, keep the development going – the philosophy is a good one.

  37. Werbeagentur says:

    Thanks for the usefully informations here. Greetz from Germany for that, Werbeagentur

  38. it-brr says:

    To me, the support of a second display would be awesome [Try the Lightroom 2 beta on http://www.adobelabs.com. -TH]

  39. Barbara says:

    I do not have Lightroom yet. Should I wait until LR 2 comes out in the Fall or get it now and upgrade? I don’t want to have to relearn a lot of stuff because I am technically challenged as it is. Thanks.[Perhaps you could obtain guidance from other folks in the Lightroom beta forums on Adobe Labs.(Labs.adobe.com) My recommendation would come with some expected bias. Also, there is no published release date for Lightroom 2 so your estimate of Fall may or may not be correct. -TH]