September 24, 2006 9:00 PM PDT

Adobe Lightroom getting Pixmantec influence

A correction was made to this story. Read below for details.
Adobe on Monday plans to release a new beta version of Lightroom, for the first time injecting technology from the company's recent Pixmantec acquisition into the program for processing "raw" images from higher-end digital cameras.

Raw images provide greater quality than the standard JPEGs most cameras produce, but they must be converted--typically by hand--out of proprietary camera formats into widely used standard formats. Lightroom, which competes with software such as Apple Computer's Aperture, is designed to make that raw image processing easier.

Raw image processing involves a complex combination of image adjustments including tone curves, white balance, light temperature, tint and luminance smoothing. But Adobe has set an ambitious goal with its software.

"The maturity of the tools to work with raw files hasn't been there for the consumer-level photographers. Lightroom is the solution to making raw files as easy to deal with as any other format they're used to working with," said Dave Story, Adobe's vice president of digital imaging product development.

"The Photoshop team down the hall is kicking themselves: 'Why didn't we come up with this first?'"
--Dave Story, Adobe VP of digital imaging product development

To improve Lightroom, Adobe in June acquired a small company, Pixmantec, whose Rawshooter software was devoted solely to raw-image processing. One prominent element of Rawshooter is the "vibrance" adjustment to increase or reduce color strength, said Tom Hogarty, Lightroom digital imaging product manager.

Pixmantec's Michael Jonsson, an engineer who also worked on Phase One's Capture One raw processing engine, now is working with Photoshop creator Thomas Knoll to improve Adobe's raw image processing, Story said.

Lightroom overlaps somewhat with the much fuller featured Photoshop software, which has a raw image processing engine as well, but Lightroom is devoted to a much narrower job of organizing, labeling, processing and printing photos. Photoshop, in contrast, also can be used to combine images, retouch photos, and add text or special effects.

Adobe probably will release Lightroom 1.0 around the end of 2006 or early 2007, depending on beta feedback, Hogarty said. It will cost more than the consumer-oriented Photoshop Elements, which costs about $100, and less than Photoshop, which typically costs more than $600.

One big change in the new Lightroom beta is better performance, particularly for Windows users. "When you grab the develop sliders, things will be noticeably faster with beta 4," Story said.

Other changes include a new user interface for processing raw photos; new options for how files are organized on the hard drive; and the ability to move photos from one computer to another without losing the record of how the images were processed.

Another major change--letting a person extract details hidden in murky, dark areas--comes in the "curves" control, which governs the distribution of light and dark tones in an image. The new control lets users directly manipulate the histogram that describes the distribution of light and dark pixels to brighten or dim the image, and doing so simultaneously affects sliders that also can be used to control tones.

"Why not grab the histogram and move it around?" Story asked, adding that the Lightroom curves advance caused indigestion elsewhere at Adobe. "The Photoshop team down the hall is kicking themselves: 'Why didn't we come up with this first?'"

 

Correction: This story misidentified a programmer who worked on Adobe's raw image processing engine. The programmer is Michael Jonsson.

See more CNET content tagged:
Pixmantec, Adobe Lightroom, digital imaging, Adobe PhotoShop, Adobe Systems Inc.

10 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Costs MORE than Photoshop?
more THAN $600? Did I read it correctly? Or is this a mistake from the C|Net editor?
I always imagined the price to be BETWEEN $100 and $600...
Posted by aemarques (162 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE: COSTS MORE THAN PHOTOSHOP?
That's GOTTA be a typo. Seriously. My God, if it's more than $600 how do they ever expect to compete with Aperture, which sells for $300? I always thought it might cost more, but DOUBLE? Oh heck no! If that's the case, I'm out.
Posted by GRMacGirl (2 comments )
Link Flag
Yes, typo: costs less than Photoshop
Yes, you're right: The price tag will be more than Photoshop Elements and less than regular Photoshop. Thanks for the catch.
Posted by Shankland (1858 comments )
Link Flag
"&better performance, particularly for Windows users&"
"One big change in the new Lightroom beta is better performance,
particularly for Windows users. "When you grab the develop sliders,
things will be noticeably faster with beta 4," Story said."

Seems they forgot Mac users that got their business started. I have
used photoshop since version 1.x but for this reason, I can't wait
for Aperture to evolve into a full blown image editor so I can ditch
Adobe.
Posted by BobBobBobBobBobBobBob (49 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not sure of the interpretation
Reading the quote in the article, I get the impression it means that the Windows version had a bug that wasn't in the Mac version.
Posted by R. U. Sirius (745 comments )
Link Flag
"Seems they forgot Mac users"
The Lightroom Beta for Mac was released months ahead of the the Windows version. They were up to beta 3 before it was released.
And Lightroom for Windows was slow as molasses. If you moved a slider, it took forever to see changes, so you didn't actually know what worked.
And now the Adobe website is down, so I can't see if they sped it up.
Posted by cptmcnair (66 comments )
Link Flag
"Seems they forgot Mac users"
The Lightroom Beta for Mac was released months ahead of the the Windows version. They were up to beta 3 before it was released.
And Lightroom for Windows was slow as molasses. If you moved a slider, it took forever to see changes, so you didn't actually know what worked.
And now the Adobe website is down, so I can't see if they sped it up.
Posted by cptmcnair (66 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.