-
FCP-X “Lightroom for video”
-
I don’t think you should view Prelude’s database functions at the same level as Lightroom, FCP X or FC Server. It’s really a logging/transcoding/pre-edit application with the ability to inject metadata into a clip. This carries over into Premiere Pro. In that sense it’s more like a standalone version of Avid’s AMA or even Avid Media Log or FCP “Log & transfer”.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
So if I understand all the responses from people who know more about this than I do …
It seems that my original contention that when Apple re-invented FCP from Legacy to X, they may have incorporated a bit of the same philosophy that Adobe employed in adding Lightroom to their lineup.
What impressed me about the Lightroom product what that a wide range of working professoinal photographers who are more concerned with volume and productivity than micro-control and perfecting – can be more productive and save a lot of time and grief by doing more work in Lightroom – since it’s oriented less toward making one thing “perfect”, and more towards making it easy for photographers to create and manage more content, more quickly – whilst maintaining the ability to improve that content easily over time.
(that said, the demo guy was able to make some pretty deep changes to his images and ended up with some extremely “publishable” finals directly out of Lightroom.)
Obviously Photoshop remains in the still industry for those who need or want total control for the “last forever” types of content that must be as perfect as possible prior to release. But Lightroom seems to have earned a place in the workflow of many photo pros because it concentrates on the tasks most commonly done for most images in volume production situations.
That seems important to me, since I’m rapidly seeing clients interested in creating videos to feed the web rather than TV or cinema – any therefore prioritizing “get it done and out there quick – then go back and refine it as needed”.
Again, I’m just thinking on the page, here. But watching an approach sweep an established industry as Lightroom appears to be doing in the still photography world caught my attention last week.
Thanks to those here who have helped me understand the context.
I appreciate the points of view and the discussion.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
-
[Oliver Peters] “I don’t think you should view Prelude’s database functions at the same level as Lightroom, FCP X or FC Server. It’s really a logging/transcoding/pre-edit application with the ability to inject metadata into a clip. “
Seconded.
-
Bill,
I think you are missing the image manipulation horsepower of Lightroom (and Aperture for that matter). LR is a powerful image manipulation tool on par with Photoshop. It’s just that it is geared towards photographic adjustments, not graphics or compositing. If you only work with photos, you never really have to touch LR. In addition, there’s a plug-in architecture that currently supports a lot of popular tools, like Magic Bullet Looks, DFT FilmStocks and TIffen Dfx. These same statements are all true of Aperture as well. New in LR4 is the limited ability to review, trim, adjust and transcode video files.
Here’s a link to a recent review I wrote:
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “What impressed me about the Lightroom product what that a wide range of working professoinal photographers who are more concerned with volume and productivity than micro-control and perfecting – can be more productive and save a lot of time and grief by doing more work in Lightroom – since it’s oriented less toward making one thing “perfect”, and more towards making it easy for photographers to create and manage more content, more quickly – whilst maintaining the ability to improve that content easily over time.”
I guess I see Lightroom a little bit differently. I think Lightroom is all about workflow — a product designed specifically around photographers’ professional needs, not a product designed specifically to favor speed over control.
Traditionally, a photographer takes a bunch of pictures, edits them down to a smaller set of selects, and makes technical and sometimes artistic corrections to the images before delivering them.
This may sound almost ridiculous, but prior to Lightroom & Aperture, there was really no software specifically for photographers. You had to use some combination of a DAM/catalog/browser like Portfolio or Bridge along with a raster editor like Photoshop — none of which are purpose-built for photography.
Lightroom encompasses everything a photographer might do in a darkroom; you’ve got negative storage, browsing and selection (like with a light table), and development and printing. The toolset accommodates all the traditional needs of a photographer, but ends there (no airbrush or magazine layout, for example). The toolset exploits computers’ strengths where possible (database!) but is fundamentally geared around the same workflow as photographers have been using for decades.
[Bill Davis] “Obviously Photoshop remains in the still industry for those who need or want total control for the “last forever” types of content that must be as perfect as possible prior to release. But Lightroom seems to have earned a place in the workflow of many photo pros because it concentrates on the tasks most commonly done for most images in volume production situations.”
The photographer’s final deliverable is very often a source for another creative professional (designer, art director, editor), and that’s where Photoshop comes in.
Paint, retouch, compositing, graphics — these are all tasks where Photoshop excels.
Of course, unless your deliverable is a single image, Photoshop is not the end if the line, either. It may go from there to InDesign for print, Ae for motion graphics, Pr/FCP/whatever for editorial, Dreamweaver/Edge/Muse/whatever for web, etc.
[Bill Davis] “Again, I’m just thinking on the page, here. But watching an approach sweep an established industry as Lightroom appears to be doing in the still photography world caught my attention last week. Thanks to those here who have helped me understand the context. I appreciate the points of view and the discussion.”
Lightroom is sweeping the industry, and in my opinion, that’s because its approach is a digital version of the approach that photographers have always taken to their work.
I’m struggling with how to compare it to FCPX. On the one hand, FCPX fundamentally does the same stuff that any other NLE does. On the other hand, the way that FCPX wants to do it is a bit different than anything else.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Jeremy Garchow] “On a separate note, has anyone here transferred their collection from Aperture to Lightroom? How was that process?”
My wife is a photographer. Last year, she joined the exodus from Aperture to Lightroom.
The move is pretty easy on the library side. RAW adjustments don’t translate, so you must rasterize them if you wish to preserve them.
https://lightroomsolutions.com/articles/migrating-from-aperture-to-lightroom-where-do-i-begin/
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “Lightroom encompasses everything a photographer might do in a darkroom; you’ve got negative storage, browsing and selection (like with a light table), and development and printing. “
Yup.
The best comparison of Lightroom to a video program would not be an NLE, but a color grading app, like Resolve.
-
[Michael Griggs] “The best comparison of Lightroom to a video program would not be an NLE, but a color grading app, like Resolve.”
In terms of image control, yes, but in terms of workflow, I disagree.
Color grading is usually the last step of video post-production, whereas Lightroom is the first step in still post-production, before the image is retouched, composited, or used elsewhere (web, video, print). Lightroom has loads of editorial functionality (image selection, not image modification) that are not present in a dedicated color grading app.
I think a product like SCRATCH Lab might be a better comparison from a workflow perspective, because it’s designed for dailies workflows. SCRATCH allows you to stack multiple takes for a shot within a single construct for comparison purposes, and it allows for look development before the footage is ever imported into an NLE.
But this is still not a perfect comparison — and there may not be one, since photos and video, for all their similarities, are still very different.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “I think a product like SCRATCH Lab might be a better comparison from a workflow perspective”
Ok, you got me there. Workflow is quite different.
To Bill’s original point/question, is FCPX akin to LR….I think it’s a definite NO.
You could say any program that is non-destructive/database oriented is comparative to X’s metadata-tagging etc approach. But isn’t that really just oversimplifying any app that uses a computer’s strengths?
To speak to the difference/relationship between LR and Photoshop, I would say that compares better to a Premier/AE workflow…you edit (organize, color correct/stylize) in Premier/Lightroom, and for more intensive and specific work on a shot or picture, you would go to Photoshop/After Effects. (Obviously they can all be used individually or as a group.)
-
[Oliver Peters] “PS: And the reason Lightroom dominates is because Apple has given all signals of having lost interest in Aperture. It’s simply a vehicle to sell iMacs and MacBook Pros. They haven’t been keeping ahead with the feature set. Meanwhile Adobe keeps making Lightroom better.”
There’s another point of discussion that came up over and over among photographers I know — Aperture defaults to a managed library, where it stores all your photos for you in a single monolithic bundle that is not meant to be manipulated in the Finder, whereas Lightroom works with your disk/folder structure.
This is a point that has come up here before with respect to FCP7 vs FCPX, and Lightroom is interesting here in that it shows that you can still have a fully managed catalog (media database) and have direct Finder/Explorer-level access to your file structure.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up