Adobe Photoshop Lightroom

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John McWilliams, Mar 9, 2007.

  1. LIGHTROOM-

    It's shipped, released, and for the last few weeks I have been testing
    and using Lightroom. It's good, eventually could be superb. Not ready
    for network or multi-user use yet, it's on for a free 30 day trial.

    It's pretty much a streamlined RAW processor with a database structure,
    and there are also a lot of tutorials out there to give a boost up the
    learning curve, which isn't huge. Lots of depth for a product only a few
    years old, still some bugs to work out.

    I like it a lot, and wonder how many here have taken a real look at it?

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John McWilliams

    Lionel Guest

    On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 21:30:52 -0800, John McWilliams
    <> wrote:

    >LIGHTROOM-
    >
    >It's shipped, released, and for the last few weeks I have been testing
    >and using Lightroom. It's good, eventually could be superb. Not ready
    >for network or multi-user use yet, it's on for a free 30 day trial.
    >
    >It's pretty much a streamlined RAW processor with a database structure,
    >and there are also a lot of tutorials out there to give a boost up the
    >learning curve, which isn't huge. Lots of depth for a product only a few
    >years old, still some bugs to work out.
    >
    >I like it a lot, and wonder how many here have taken a real look at it?


    Being a purchaser of RawShooter Pro, I got a freebie copy of Lightroom
    1.0 a couple of days after it was announced. it seems to work okay,
    but I'm finding it fairly clunky by comparison to RS Pro, which suited
    my RAW processing style perfectly. One of the things I liked most
    about RS Pro was being able to churn through a batch of RAW photos,
    hitting 'convert' on each, & going to the next while the conversion
    happened in the background. Lightroom just doesn't seem to handle that
    anywhere near as smoothly.


    --
    W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
    . | ,. w ,
    \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Mar 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "John McWilliams" <> wrote:
    > LIGHTROOM-
    >
    > It's shipped, released, and for the last few weeks I have been testing and
    > using Lightroom. It's good, eventually could be superb. Not ready for
    > network or multi-user use yet, it's on for a free 30 day trial.
    >
    > It's pretty much a streamlined RAW processor with a database structure,
    > and there are also a lot of tutorials out there to give a boost up the
    > learning curve, which isn't huge. Lots of depth for a product only a few
    > years old, still some bugs to work out.


    Uh, that's "for a product only a few _DAYS_ old"...

    > I like it a lot, and wonder how many here have taken a real look at it?


    I like it a lot, too. It's got everything one needs in a raw converter, even
    dust removal, rotation and cropping (for dizzy photographers such as
    myself), and vignetting correction (for FF users and folks with cheap
    consumer DX lenses). It would be nice if the sharpening happened _after_
    noise reduction, but the sharpening is remarkably free of halos
    (halleluiah!). Fill light, highlight rescuing, and vibrance work _better_
    than in RSP (antoher loud halleluiah!).

    It's a tad sluggish though. But nothing a 4GHz quad CPU PC with 16 GB of RAM
    and four large, fast, internal disk drives wouldn't fix, though. Pity no
    such PC exists...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 9, 2007
    #3
  4. John McWilliams

    Lionel Guest

    On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:53:16 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >"John McWilliams" <> wrote:
    >> LIGHTROOM-
    >> It's pretty much a streamlined RAW processor with a database structure,
    >> and there are also a lot of tutorials out there to give a boost up the
    >> learning curve, which isn't huge. Lots of depth for a product only a few
    >> years old, still some bugs to work out.

    >
    >Uh, that's "for a product only a few _DAYS_ old"...


    Eh? It's been under development for about a year, & the 1.0 release
    was weeks ago.

    >> I like it a lot, and wonder how many here have taken a real look at it?

    >
    >I like it a lot, too. It's got everything one needs in a raw converter, even
    >dust removal, rotation and cropping (for dizzy photographers such as
    >myself), and vignetting correction (for FF users and folks with cheap
    >consumer DX lenses). It would be nice if the sharpening happened _after_
    >noise reduction, but the sharpening is remarkably free of halos
    >(halleluiah!). Fill light, highlight rescuing, and vibrance work _better_
    >than in RSP (antoher loud halleluiah!).


    Yeah? Other than the highlight recovery, they seem about the same as
    RSP to me.

    >It's a tad sluggish though. But nothing a 4GHz quad CPU PC with 16 GB of RAM
    >and four large, fast, internal disk drives wouldn't fix, though. Pity no
    >such PC exists...


    It's performing reasonably well for me on a Dual 3.4GHz Xeon (2MB
    cache version) with 4GB of fast RAM.

    --
    W "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them."
    . | ,. w ,
    \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, Mar 9, 2007
    #4
  5. John McWilliams

    frederick Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > It would be nice if the sharpening happened _after_
    > noise reduction, but the sharpening is remarkably free of halos
    > (halleluiah!).


    Hmmmm...
    I'm just thinking about Capture NX and wondering whether when converting
    a raw file it makes any difference whether the NR is done after or
    before sharpening - either in which order the software deals with a
    conversion, whether it's kind of "absorbed" in to the whole demosaicing
    raw conversion process, and whether the order in the user selects
    workflow matters. My gut feeling is that it makes no difference.
    Like Lightroom, Capture NX sharpening is superb. But it's still a
    clunky bastard of a program to navigate compared to the version of
    Lightroom I trialed.
     
    frederick, Mar 9, 2007
    #5
  6. "frederick" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> It would be nice if the sharpening happened _after_
    >> noise reduction, but the sharpening is remarkably free of halos
    >> (halleluiah!).

    >
    > Hmmmm...
    > I'm just thinking about Capture NX and wondering whether when converting a
    > raw file it makes any difference whether the NR is done after or before
    > sharpening - either in which order the software deals with a conversion,
    > whether it's kind of "absorbed" in to the whole demosaicing raw conversion
    > process, and whether the order in the user selects workflow matters. My
    > gut feeling is that it makes no difference.


    Sharpening aggravates noise. Unless it has a threshold setting, and even
    then that only helps for relatively low-noise images. So you want to apply
    sharpening to the noise reduced image when any noise is present; trying to
    noise reduce sharpening-aggravated noise is going to just lose more detail.
    For ISO 100 dSLR images this isn't an issue. But it becomes an issue at some
    ISO for any camera.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 9, 2007
    #6
  7. "Lionel" <> wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>I like it a lot, too. It's got everything one needs in a raw converter,
    >>even
    >>dust removal, rotation and cropping (for dizzy photographers such as
    >>myself), and vignetting correction (for FF users and folks with cheap
    >>consumer DX lenses). It would be nice if the sharpening happened _after_
    >>noise reduction, but the sharpening is remarkably free of halos
    >>(halleluiah!). Fill light, highlight rescuing, and vibrance work _better_
    >>than in RSP (antoher loud halleluiah!).

    >
    > Yeah? Other than the highlight recovery, they seem about the same as
    > RSP to me.


    Fill light in RSP reduces highlight contrast as well, so having those
    separate is a big improvement, I think. Vibrance in LR seems more subtle
    than in RSP; in RSP anything over about 10 was off the wall, but the whole
    range of the control seems useful in LR. Also, I think the histogram is more
    accurate in LR than in RSP, i.e. when you export a file and look at it in
    Photoshop, RSP often needs more levels adjustment that I thought reasonable.

    But the halleluiah and it's loudness were largely for not losing anything; a
    slight improvement on something good is superb news when one was worrying
    that one might be moving backwards.

    >>It's a tad sluggish though. But nothing a 4GHz quad CPU PC with 16 GB of
    >>RAM
    >>and four large, fast, internal disk drives wouldn't fix, though. Pity no
    >>such PC exists...

    >
    > It's performing reasonably well for me on a Dual 3.4GHz Xeon (2MB
    > cache version) with 4GB of fast RAM.


    That's good to hear. My PC is a single CPU 3GHz/2GB system, and LR takes
    painfully long to load an image. This is worse in Develop than in Library,
    so the trick is to (do what you are supposed to and) use Library mode for
    looking through things. In particular, Library mode gets to 1:1 view much
    faster than Develop mode when you first switch to a different image.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 9, 2007
    #7
  8. Lionel wrote:
    > On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:53:16 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> "John McWilliams" <> wrote:
    >>> LIGHTROOM-
    >>> It's pretty much a streamlined RAW processor with a database structure,
    >>> and there are also a lot of tutorials out there to give a boost up the
    >>> learning curve, which isn't huge. Lots of depth for a product only a few
    >>> years old, still some bugs to work out.

    >> Uh, that's "for a product only a few _DAYS_ old"...

    >
    > Eh? It's been under development for about a year, & the 1.0 release
    > was weeks ago.


    And I was counting the time to include the pre-public beta; it was the
    public beta on Mac which went on for about a year, and about 7 months on
    PCs.
    >
    >>> I like it a lot, and wonder how many here have taken a real look at it?

    >> I like it a lot, too. It's got everything one needs in a raw converter, even
    >> dust removal, rotation and cropping (for dizzy photographers such as
    >> myself), and vignetting correction (for FF users and folks with cheap
    >> consumer DX lenses). It would be nice if the sharpening happened _after_
    >> noise reduction, but the sharpening is remarkably free of halos
    >> (halleluiah!). Fill light, highlight rescuing, and vibrance work _better_
    >> than in RSP (antoher loud halleluiah!).

    >
    > Yeah? Other than the highlight recovery, they seem about the same as
    > RSP to me.
    >
    >> It's a tad sluggish though. But nothing a 4GHz quad CPU PC with 16 GB of RAM
    >> and four large, fast, internal disk drives wouldn't fix, though. Pity no
    >> such PC exists...

    >
    > It's performing reasonably well for me on a Dual 3.4GHz Xeon (2MB
    > cache version) with 4GB of fast RAM.


    It's quite decent on a MacBookPro, 2 Gigs RAM. There are things that can
    be done to avoid "congestion" if the app is processing bunches of files.

    One interesting aspect between the betas and release v1 is that sidecars
    are done away with for all but RAW files. So even JPEGs can be edited
    non-destructively and the edit data and metadata written into the
    headers. Same for TIFFs, which is not surprising, and DNGs.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 9, 2007
    #8
  9. John McWilliams

    nsag Guest

    I see Lightroom as Adobe crippleware.
    A limited raw converter.
    A display/organization program with features available elsewhere, for free
    in many instances.
    I cannot understand the price tag Adobe has placed on it.
     
    nsag, Mar 9, 2007
    #9
  10. John McWilliams

    Saguenay Guest

    "nsag" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
    LAfIh.6465$...
    >I see Lightroom as Adobe crippleware.
    > A limited raw converter.
    > A display/organization program with features available elsewhere, for free
    > in many instances.



    We are waiting for this looooong list.
    Better each one has at least the same features than Lightroom, or we will
    laugh.
    Don't forget, they must work with both: RAW **and** JPG.



    > I cannot understand the price tag Adobe has placed on it.
     
    Saguenay, Mar 9, 2007
    #10
  11. Barry Pearson, Mar 9, 2007
    #11
  12. John McWilliams

    frederick Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "frederick" <> wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> It would be nice if the sharpening happened _after_
    >>> noise reduction, but the sharpening is remarkably free of halos
    >>> (halleluiah!).

    >> Hmmmm...
    >> I'm just thinking about Capture NX and wondering whether when converting a
    >> raw file it makes any difference whether the NR is done after or before
    >> sharpening - either in which order the software deals with a conversion,
    >> whether it's kind of "absorbed" in to the whole demosaicing raw conversion
    >> process, and whether the order in the user selects workflow matters. My
    >> gut feeling is that it makes no difference.

    >
    > Sharpening aggravates noise. Unless it has a threshold setting, and even
    > then that only helps for relatively low-noise images. So you want to apply
    > sharpening to the noise reduced image when any noise is present; trying to
    > noise reduce sharpening-aggravated noise is going to just lose more detail.
    > For ISO 100 dSLR images this isn't an issue. But it becomes an issue at some
    > ISO for any camera.
    >

    Yes, but I suspect raw converter may not do sharpening then nr as
    separate operations - for example to produce a bitmap internally from
    the raw image, use something like USM on that bitmap, then NR before
    saving as a tff or jpg. From what I see of Capture NX, the order
    doesn't matter. The old rawshooter NR was pretty good, but I never
    liked the sharpening.
     
    frederick, Mar 10, 2007
    #12
  13. John McWilliams

    Routemeister Guest

    Like many, I bought Rawshooter Pro and got my free copy of Lightroom. I
    went back and reviewed the rationale for sharpening in RSP, which I believe
    also applies to Lightroom. The sharpening is primarily to regain edge
    acuteness that was lost in the demosaic process. It's not intended to be
    the only sharpening applied, since there are no controls to make it output
    specific, as there are with USM in Photoshop.

    I find the vibrance control very useful, also the highlight recovery feature
    and the fill light, which is applied only to the shadows. The flexibility
    to define shadow and highlight in the histogram is useful too.

    Unfortunately, the lens-centric adjustments are incomplete - which makes the
    crop feature useless in many cases. I find that perspective correction is
    needed in many of my shots as well as rotation. Both of these corrections
    (+ barrel/pincushion distortion correction ) need to done before cropping,
    which often offsets the lens axis from the image center. Rotation
    correction in Lightroom isn't very elegant anyway compared to the tools
    available even in Photoshop Elements. For now, Lightroom is superb tool for
    color adjustment and enhancement, But I still need to finish the editing job
    in Photoshop.


    ...
    > LIGHTROOM-
    >
    > It's shipped, released, and for the last few weeks I have been testing and
    > using Lightroom. It's good, eventually could be superb. Not ready for
    > network or multi-user use yet, it's on for a free 30 day trial.
    >
    > It's pretty much a streamlined RAW processor with a database structure,
    > and there are also a lot of tutorials out there to give a boost up the
    > learning curve, which isn't huge. Lots of depth for a product only a few
    > years old, still some bugs to work out.
    >
    > I like it a lot, and wonder how many here have taken a real look at it?
    >
    > --
    > John McWilliams


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
    It has removed 8554 spam emails to date.
    Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
    Try SPAMfighter for free now!
     
    Routemeister, Mar 10, 2007
    #13
  14. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Lionel" <> wrote:


    >> It's performing reasonably well for me on a Dual 3.4GHz Xeon (2MB
    >> cache version) with 4GB of fast RAM.

    >
    > That's good to hear. My PC is a single CPU 3GHz/2GB system, and LR takes
    > painfully long to load an image. This is worse in Develop than in Library,
    > so the trick is to (do what you are supposed to and) use Library mode for
    > looking through things. In particular, Library mode gets to 1:1 view much
    > faster than Develop mode when you first switch to a different image.


    You can force it to build Previews when you're not using it, and turning
    off "automatically write XMP to files" can speed things up. (It'll still
    be writing changes to the db)

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 10, 2007
    #14
  15. Routemeister wrote:
    >
    > Unfortunately, the lens-centric adjustments are incomplete - which makes the
    > crop feature useless in many cases. I find that perspective correction is
    > needed in many of my shots as well as rotation. Both of these corrections
    > (+ barrel/pincushion distortion correction ) need to done before cropping,
    > which often offsets the lens axis from the image center. Rotation
    > correction in Lightroom isn't very elegant anyway compared to the tools
    > available even in Photoshop Elements. For now, Lightroom is superb tool for
    > color adjustment and enhancement, But I still need to finish the editing job
    > in Photoshop.


    Rotation correction as in 90 degrees, or as in straightening horizons?
    Both are dead simple. I do cropping at the same time as any adjustments
    to level.

    I pretty much don't [need to] do barrel or pincushion correction, so I
    can't comment on those controls.

    It's hardly just an adjustment/enhancement tool. It batch processes
    better than anything I've seen, and is a full asset manager for images.

    --
    John McWilliams

    please reply after trimming extraneous material..
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 10, 2007
    #15
  16. David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >
    > "John McWilliams" <> wrote:
    >> LIGHTROOM-
    >>
    >> It's shipped, released, and for the last few weeks I have been testing and
    >> using Lightroom. It's good, eventually could be superb. Not ready for
    >> network or multi-user use yet, it's on for a free 30 day trial.
    >>
    >> It's pretty much a streamlined RAW processor with a database structure,
    >> and there are also a lot of tutorials out there to give a boost up the
    >> learning curve, which isn't huge. Lots of depth for a product only a few
    >> years old, still some bugs to work out.

    >
    > Uh, that's "for a product only a few _DAYS_ old"...
    >
    >> I like it a lot, and wonder how many here have taken a real look at it?

    >
    > I like it a lot, too. It's got everything one needs in a raw converter, even
    > dust removal, rotation and cropping (for dizzy photographers such as
    > myself), and vignetting correction (for FF users and folks with cheap
    > consumer DX lenses). It would be nice if the sharpening happened _after_
    > noise reduction, but the sharpening is remarkably free of halos
    > (halleluiah!). Fill light, highlight rescuing, and vibrance work _better_
    > than in RSP (antoher loud halleluiah!).
    >
    > It's a tad sluggish though. But nothing a 4GHz quad CPU PC with 16 GB of RAM
    > and four large, fast, internal disk drives wouldn't fix, though. Pity no
    > such PC exists...
    >


    I have no complaints with my Core2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz x 2) with 4GB DDR2-800
    (4-4-4-12) and 750GB of disk space. No problems with the software at all (as
    far as performance goes).

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Mar 12, 2007
    #16
  17. "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> It's a tad sluggish though. But nothing a 4GHz quad CPU PC with 16 GB of
    >> RAM
    >> and four large, fast, internal disk drives wouldn't fix, though. Pity no
    >> such PC exists...


    > I have no complaints with my Core2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz x 2) with 4GB
    > DDR2-800
    > (4-4-4-12) and 750GB of disk space. No problems with the software at all
    > (as
    > far as performance goes).


    1. What size (MP) images are you converting? (12.7MP here)
    2. How long does it take to see the 1:1 view (with no "Loading" displayed)
    when you switch between images in the Develop module? (8 to 10 seconds here
    on a 3Ghz/2GB 1-CPU machine).

    Now that I'm getting used to it, this bit is the only major problem
    (although Develop in general could be a tad faster); Loupe view at 1:1 in
    Library mode is quite zippy. But switching between images in Develop is
    grossly slow.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 12, 2007
    #17
  18. On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:41:52 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
    <> wrote:

    >David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >>
    >> "John McWilliams" <> wrote:
    >>> LIGHTROOM-
    >>>
    >>> It's shipped, released, and for the last few weeks I have been testing and
    >>> using Lightroom. It's good, eventually could be superb. Not ready for
    >>> network or multi-user use yet, it's on for a free 30 day trial.
    >>>
    >>> It's pretty much a streamlined RAW processor with a database structure,
    >>> and there are also a lot of tutorials out there to give a boost up the
    >>> learning curve, which isn't huge. Lots of depth for a product only a few
    >>> years old, still some bugs to work out.

    >>
    >> Uh, that's "for a product only a few _DAYS_ old"...
    >>
    >>> I like it a lot, and wonder how many here have taken a real look at it?

    >>
    >> I like it a lot, too. It's got everything one needs in a raw converter, even
    >> dust removal, rotation and cropping (for dizzy photographers such as
    >> myself), and vignetting correction (for FF users and folks with cheap
    >> consumer DX lenses). It would be nice if the sharpening happened _after_
    >> noise reduction, but the sharpening is remarkably free of halos
    >> (halleluiah!). Fill light, highlight rescuing, and vibrance work _better_
    >> than in RSP (antoher loud halleluiah!).
    >>
    >> It's a tad sluggish though. But nothing a 4GHz quad CPU PC with 16 GB of RAM
    >> and four large, fast, internal disk drives wouldn't fix, though. Pity no
    >> such PC exists...
    >>

    >
    >I have no complaints with my Core2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz x 2) with 4GB DDR2-800
    >(4-4-4-12) and 750GB of disk space. No problems with the software at all (as
    >far as performance goes).



    I guess I need to try more RAM. I have the same processor as you but
    only 2GB DDR2. On mine it's a bit sluggish. On my neighbor's IMAC Core
    Duo, it's a dog.
     
    Oliver Costich, Mar 12, 2007
    #18
  19. David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >
    >> I have no complaints with my Core2 Duo E6600 (2.4GHz x 2) with 4GB
    >> DDR2-800
    >> (4-4-4-12) and 750GB of disk space. No problems with the software at all
    >> (as
    >> far as performance goes).

    >
    > 1. What size (MP) images are you converting? (12.7MP here)


    10.2 ... from my Nikon D200. Also, played with some scanned TIFFs from my old
    slide film ... these were 100+MB.

    > 2. How long does it take to see the 1:1 view (with no "Loading" displayed)
    > when you switch between images in the Develop module? (8 to 10 seconds here
    > on a 3Ghz/2GB 1-CPU machine).
    >

    I don't know, I didn't really notice any delays that caused me to "twiddle my
    thumbs". I could actually try it out and post back here I suppose.

    > Now that I'm getting used to it, this bit is the only major problem
    > (although Develop in general could be a tad faster); Loupe view at 1:1 in
    > Library mode is quite zippy. But switching between images in Develop is
    > grossly slow.


    I will give it a shot and see if I suffer similar performance issues. Having
    said that, I can state unequivically that my DUAL-CORE will stomp a 3GHz single
    core (that is what I upgraded from .. a 3.0GHz P4 HT with 1.5GB RAMBUS1066 ...
    533MHz FSB). And, my box is running Windows Vista Ultimate x64 for that added
    resource drain effect so sought after by the masses.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Mar 12, 2007
    #19
  20. Oliver Costich <> wrote:
    >
    > I guess I need to try more RAM. I have the same processor as you but
    > only 2GB DDR2. On mine it's a bit sluggish. On my neighbor's IMAC Core
    > Duo, it's a dog.


    RAM Performance will also have a significant effect. Like I said, I am
    running 4GB DDR2-800 (4-4-4-12). Asus P5W DH Deluxe mainboard as well ....
    nice fast board, but I NOT overclocking any hardware at this time.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Mar 12, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. wayne

    Adobe Lightroom for photographers in public beta

    wayne, Jan 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    313
    wayne
    Jan 9, 2006
  2. sharjo23
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,585
  3. Adobe Photoshop Lightroom

    , Nov 14, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    287
    Hebee Jeebes
    Nov 17, 2006
  4. Digital Photography Now
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    335
    Digital Photography Now
    Mar 26, 2007
  5. GMD

    Tutorial for Adobe Photoshop Lightroom

    GMD, May 6, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    347
    Hal Lowe
    May 7, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page