Lightroom TipsNews

News – Scott Posts About What He'd Like to See in Lightroom 4

If you haven’t stopped by yet, make sure you check out Scott Kelby’s blog today. I don’t want to spoil it too much but Scott wrote a really interesting post about what he’d like to see in Lightroom 4. Stop by and let him know what you think, if you agree or not, and any features that you think need to make it into Lightroom 4.



  1. Bob Federer 20 October, 2010 at 12:58 Reply

    I’d like to be able to brush in additional white balance values. This mostly happens outside where there’s bright sunlight and shadows and inside when mixed light is in the shot. I’d like to brush in warmer or cooler light temperatures to correct such images.

  2. Wes Cargill 30 August, 2010 at 11:30 Reply

    Hey Matt, I know I am fairly late in posting to this thread but better late than never, yeah?
    I am curious about the relationship between adjusting for exposure in Lightroom and adjusting during the shoot; specifically with exposure compensation. With the power of software like Lightroom, when does it become necessary to fine tune your exposure in the camera?

  3. Neil 17 August, 2010 at 09:30 Reply

    I know it is pretty easy to merge panorama’s from LightRoom in Photoshop, but it would we nice (and I think it is a pretty necessary function for a photo Editor) to be able to PhotoMerge photo’s directly in Lightroom.

  4. christian 17 August, 2010 at 03:05 Reply

    hey Matt,
    I shoot a lot of outdoors and a lot on mountains. I’m under the impression that it’s very hard to bring back the texture in the snow when overexposing. I focus on preserving the details in the bright areas in those situations. However I do agree on slight overexposing when there’s a lot in the photo that would need fill light in post later on. It’s best to keep that in mind and (over) expose according to that.

  5. Carolyn Fahm 15 August, 2010 at 22:44 Reply

    I read all the comments on Scott’s blog and was amazed to see that people are reporting slow performance even on 12 core Mega Macs. I was just about to add more RAM to my PC and am now holding off since none of my other applications needs it.

    If all the improvements were implemented I wonder if Photoshop would be reserved for special effects and digital art rather than photographic workflow. It was interesting to read the comments about Aperture, which, as a PC user, I have never seen. I am sure that Adobe had a bad weekend after seeing this blog thread.

  6. Boyan 15 August, 2010 at 13:32 Reply

    It was really disappointing to read this list of requested features, they looked really superficial and do not address any of the reasons why I dislike LR and do not use it at this time. Scott’s additions, if implemented, would do little to make LR a better photo-editing tool. Rather they will tend to produce bloatware that tries to be everything to everybody.

    I would much rather see expanded non-destructive editing capabilities so we don’t have to go to PS so often, and don’t have to keep creating new versions of huge files every time we do so. Every third-party filter that now exists in LR does nothing more than create a TIFF copy of the image, work on that,and then add it back to the LR catalog. I have not spent much time in LR so I could be wrong, but I believe that these third-party edits are not reversible.

    Writing the edit steps to a sidecar file is fine because it is fast and easy to proliferate across multiple images. How about giving the option of permanently writing them in the embedded JPEG preview of the original RAW file, even if it is not a DNG? We are then not tethered to LR for quick previews of a single image.

    There are quite a few other things like that… Sigh, I really want to like LR and have test-driven every preview, from the original public release to LR3, and have never found a reason to start using it. It just feels like a wrapper around PS’s capabilities that does not add enough new things to justify its price.

    • Sean Molin | Photographer 17 August, 2010 at 18:30 Reply

      While I agree with you, I still love Lightroom. It’s a double-edged sword as it keeps me out of Photoshop for about 90% of my images… but the fact that they say it’s designed to be part of a Photoshop workflow and I also think they need a better way to prevent making multiple copies of images and just stacking them together.

      I really like your ideas a lot. And would LOVE them… but what’s the better option? Just storing negatives in a folder? Aperture?

  7. ivan kann 14 August, 2010 at 01:25 Reply

    ok I can’t say that my english will be good but…
    few days ago you were showing how to make black or withe border with rounded corners… that is great…
    it would be nice to choose the color
    nice also to have a blur or fade function more efficient…

    and I have to say, Matt, Thanks this is a great blog…

  8. Steven 13 August, 2010 at 13:33 Reply

    I would like to see more accurate masking. Not necessarily full blown masking like PS but better than what er have now.

  9. lyle 13 August, 2010 at 12:29 Reply

    It would be clever for you guys to have your web-slingers build a survey of all these collected features and host it on one of your blogs so users could answer a half dozen questions about their use of LR (or interest in purchasing) and other tools they also use…. and then somehow rank the top 10 features of interest to them… The results would be a handy thing for a development manager to consider along with a shopping list…. just sayin’…

  10. John Swarce 13 August, 2010 at 10:42 Reply


    Make sure he knows about your wish for a movable post-crop vignette center! 😀

    My biggest gripe so far is having to save a new watermark if I change the positioning of an existing watermark! I could see saving a new one if I changed the font or wording.


  11. Jason Verly 13 August, 2010 at 09:30 Reply

    Great ideas from Scott. But Matt, you’re the one with the Lightroom Killer Tips – what about your wish list?

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *