Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: vjbelle on May 11, 2017, 01:34:19 pm
-
I received a survey from a marketing group questioning my reaction to a new Photography plan and new pricing. Two new plans are being considered - one with an enhanced Lightroom only that would sync across multiple platforms and 1TB cloud storage -
Price $9.95 per month. The other plan would include both Lightroom and Photoshop without cloud storage for $19.95 per month. That is double the price of the current Photography subscription. There was no plan for Photoshop only. I'm sure others will receive the survey.
Victor
-
So basically it's a sub-text to double the subscription price for what we now receive. The community should come out loud and clear demanding an explanation why Adobe all of the sudden needs to double the subscription price for the same services we are now receiving. The consumer price index has nowhere near doubled since the time this plan was started. Are they putting twice the incremental effort into improving these applications? Do they have a particularly onerous component of costs inflating well beyond the CPI? What increased value for money should we be looking forward to? Does the survey give one the option to raise such questions, or is it an effort to whitewash a price increase?
-
I have both CS5 and CC installed but I keep using CS5 because I am used to it and I can find the functions I use most faster in it. I am sure there must be performance differences but for my uses I have not noticed any. Thanks for starting this thread: I don't use LR and it reminded me that I wanted to cancel CC's subscription.
Jack
-
I downloaded Affinity Photo the other day ($49.95 US for a perpetual license!!!). Looks pretty much like photoshop and it can be integrated into Lightroom. I'm staying with the perpetual license Lightroom as I've not gone into the subscription model and don't intend to. Adobe is making a big mistake here.
-
So basically it's a sub-text to double the subscription price for what we now receive. The community should come out loud and clear demanding an explanation why Adobe all of the sudden needs to double the subscription price for the same services we are now receiving. The consumer price index has nowhere near doubled since the time this plan was started. Are they putting twice the incremental effort into improving these applications? Do they have a particularly onerous component of costs inflating well beyond the CPI? What increased value for money should we be looking forward to? Does the survey give one the option to raise such questions, or is it an effort to whitewash a price increase?
So far I've managed to get along with CS6 and not give in to the temptation to move to the cloud, although there are certain reasons that I might take the leap at some future date. This information from Adobe is not a surprise to anyone I would think. Once in, one would tend to build all image enhancement and management around the Abode cloud I would imagine, so what better time for Adobe to take advantage and push up the prices? However, there are two other reasons I can think of for Adobe to reap as much profit as possible before the cloud perhaps gives way to a couple of other apps on the market now, Affinity Photo and Luminar. I have both apps to explore, but at this point I would still use PS exclusively. However, those two apps might be enough for many to steer away from Adobe in the near future. Just speculation on my part of course, but I think plausible at least. Of course there's also the contradiction to that thought. If Adobe is indeed feeling the pinch, perhaps this is not the best time to double the subscription price to those who have been loyal to the cause for some time. The two aforementioned apps are still in their infancy in many ways, but they certainly show signs of growth in a professional manner I believe. Just a few thoughts for a rainy day.
EDIT: Sorry Alan, your post obviously came in as I was writing, but we seem to be on that same path here.
Gary
-
So basically it's a sub-text to double the subscription price for what we now receive.
And so it begins ... trap set and about to be triggered. And as soon as it does Adobe gets dumped and Phase One and Affinity Photo start getting my cash.
Just saying
-
Well, before switching to other stuff, there is the consideration of all our LR files edited in raw format with XMP sidecars. Those, or those converted to DNG, need to be readable by whatever one switches into, otherwise it could be a mess. And there is the sacrifice of an integrated workflow from Develop to Print without converting a file. LR has some real advantages. Their new proposal may induce many users to buy the LR plan for 9.95 and drop Photoshop. For the number of times I need Photoshop, it may be worthwhile doing exactly that, especially as I have a legacy permanent license hanging around for some version or other that does anything I need that LR doesn't do.
-
I got one yesterday and used the comment spaces to let them know exactly how I feel about them doubling the price. Today I get an offer to get the whole CC boat of applications for a "Teaser" price that would revert to whatever the full price is one year from now, no thanks guys.
Kevin in CT
-
Well, before switching to other stuff, there is the consideration of all our LR files edited in raw format with XMP sidecars. Those, or those converted to DNG, need to be readable by whatever one switches into, otherwise it could be a mess. And there is the sacrifice of an integrated workflow from Develop to Print without converting a file. LR has some real advantages. Their new proposal may induce many users to buy the LR plan for 9.95 and drop Photoshop. For the number of times I need Photoshop, it may be worthwhile doing exactly that, especially as I have a legacy permanent license hanging around for some version or other that does anything I need that LR doesn't do.
I've always exported TIFFs to PS for further work. The same process works fine with Affinity Photo: http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2016/4/how-to-use-affinity-photo-as-an-external-editor-for-lightroom I just don't do enough to warrant paying the subscription price. We'll have to wait and see what happens if Adobe tries to eliminate the perpetual LR approach. I think that there are some enterprising software developers out there who are starting to see the crack's in Adobe's model.
-
The Adobe Photo subscription plan started out as a good deal. Actually, maybe a great deal. The idea of frequent updates along with a reasonable monthly price was very appealing. I certainly went for it after waiting a couple of months. For the most part it works well for me as I use both Lr and PS.
What's galling though is Adobe might be looking for more money for this plan now. Their updates over the last year have included a LOT of new bugs and ooopsies (a feature used to work fine but got screwed up in the update process).
Initially Adobe sold the subscription plans to the financial sector as a way to even out their revenue and it worked well. Wall Street was pleased and Adobe profits did well. I guess they're looking for more profits now.
I'm not going to panic over a survey though. If they didn't survey their customers we'd think they'd lost touch.
-
I've always exported TIFFs to PS for further work. The same process works fine with Affinity Photo: http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2016/4/how-to-use-affinity-photo-as-an-external-editor-for-lightroom I just don't do enough to warrant paying the subscription price. We'll have to wait and see what happens if Adobe tries to eliminate the perpetual LR approach. I think that there are some enterprising software developers out there who are starting to see the crack's in Adobe's model.
I almost NEVER export from LR to do further work in Photoshop. LR has become so capable it's almost never necessary and just creates file size bloat. I don't want to go back to rendering files and committing gobs of storage to TIFF or PSD. A great many people likewise. So abandoning this workflow would be a real issue, and of course Adobe knows it.
-
Well, before switching to other stuff, there is the consideration of all our LR files edited in raw format with XMP sidecars. Those, or those converted to DNG, need to be readable by whatever one switches into, otherwise it could be a mess. And there is the sacrifice of an integrated workflow from Develop to Print without converting a file. LR has some real advantages. Their new proposal may induce many users to buy the LR plan for 9.95 and drop Photoshop. For the number of times I need Photoshop, it may be worthwhile doing exactly that, especially as I have a legacy permanent license hanging around for some version or other that does anything I need that LR doesn't do.
My workflow doesn't lock me into Adobe, I keep my raws, all changes are made as tiffs, I generate jpgs as and when I need them deleting afterwards and my folder structures keep me straight.
As for switching all I would need to do is import my images files implace and start using a different raw editor and pixel masher.
-
So basically it's a sub-text to double the subscription price for what we now receive. The community should come out loud and clear demanding an explanation why Adobe all of the sudden needs to double the subscription price for the same services we are now receiving. The consumer price index has nowhere near doubled since the time this plan was started. Are they putting twice the incremental effort into improving these applications? Do they have a particularly onerous component of costs inflating well beyond the CPI? What increased value for money should we be looking forward to? Does the survey give one the option to raise such questions, or is it an effort to whitewash a price increase?
We live in a system of (mostly) free-market capitalism. Adobe can charge whatever they want and it should come as no surprise that their price should increase one day. Magazine subs have always been like this, cable subs, too.
What is surprising is the timing - just when some viable alternatives start to make waves, like Affinity Photo.
The Adobe Photo subscription plan started out as a good deal. Actually, maybe a great deal.
What's galling though is Adobe might be looking for more money for this plan now. Their updates over the last year have included a LOT of new bugs and ooopsies (a feature used to work fine but got screwed up in the update process).
Many would disagree with the notion of the subscription plan being a "good deal". It was a lousy deal from the start for anyone who does not want to be licked in to paying the piper in perpetuity.
-
Many would disagree with the notion of the subscription plan being a "good deal". It was a lousy deal from the start for anyone who does not want to be licked in to paying the piper in perpetuity.
+1
-
Many would disagree with the notion of the subscription plan being a "good deal". It was a lousy deal from the start for anyone who does not want to be licked in to paying the piper in perpetuity.
Actually, at the current pricing it's a pretty good deal when you compare it with what we used to pay on the 18 month update cycles for PS and LR - it came close to about 300 dollars for the two applications every 18 months, which is about 16 dollars per month. Now we are paying about 10 for the same thing. Increasing it to 20 is another story.
-
Apple is also playing with the idea to bring the rentmodel to the APP-store.
One reason is it is hard to make an upgrade system within the store; another is obviously easy profit.
So 'Affinity photo' may be for rent in the future like Adobes software.
Phil Schiller : http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/features/phil-schiller-upgrade-pricing-google-home-amazon-echo-swift-1690180
I think for many developers, subscription model is a better way to, go than try to come up with a list of features, and different pricing for upgrade, versus for new customers. I am not saying it doesn't have value for some developers but for most it doesn’t, so that's the challenge. And if you look at the App Store it would take a lot of engineering to do that and so would be at the expense of other features we can deliver.
-
Well, before switching to other stuff, there is the consideration of all our LR files edited in raw format with XMP sidecars. Those, or those converted to DNG, need to be readable by whatever one switches into, otherwise it could be a mess.
If you're writing to sidecars, CO picks up all the metadata (keywording,ratings etc). You will loose develop settings which will need to be recreated, but updating process versions in LR has similar issues.
For me LR perpetual is still the best option, but moving to CO would not be a major difficulty and it does add some good features that LR hasn't got.
-
You will loose develop settings which will need to be recreated, but updating process versions in LR has similar issues.
For me LR perpetual is still the best option, but moving to CO would not be a major difficulty and it does add some good features that LR hasn't got.
Well, thanks, but the Develop settings is the KEY, the heart, of photo editing; the rest of it - star ratings, keywords, etc, is secondary. I don't know about you, but for me, most of the "sweat-equity" in creating good post-capture photographs is the time invested in "Developing" them. Lose that and I've lost significant assets.
Whatever we think about the pricing and the changes to the pricing, there are obvious, major benefits to the integrated workflow within LR from Import to Print, and that between LR and PS whenever we need to leave the "raw" domain and render the image. We can't take that away from Adobe, and it isn't clear to me that this strength is easily or fully replicated outside those two applications. None of that, however, addresses any particular justification for doubling the price of the subscription. If they are really going to do this, my mind is open and I would like to know why. Is it to increase rate of return to investors, are corporate earnings insufficient to sustain investor interest, or will there be incremental customer benefits to such a move? Adobe's customer base is huge, it has a lot of derivative intellectual capital in a way locked-in with this company and it has been loyal for many years, so we deserve, at least, to understand the reasons for what they are obviously contemplating.
-
Well, thanks, but the Develop settings is the KEY, the heart, of photo editing; the rest of it - star ratings, keywords, etc, is secondary. I don't know about you, but for me, most of the "sweat-equity" in creating good post-capture photographs is the time invested in "Developing" them. Lose that and I've lost significant assets.
Quite right and Adobe has refined the LR workflow so that it works extremely well. For event photographers, the DAM features are extremely important (two women who worked for me several years ago in the pharma industry moved on to become event photographers and both rely heavily on that feature of LR).
Whatever we think about the pricing and the changes to the pricing, there are obvious, major benefits to the integrated workflow within LR from Import to Print, and that between LR and PS whenever we need to leave the "raw" domain and render the image. We can't take that away from Adobe, and it isn't clear to me that this strength is easily or fully replicated outside those two applications.
There are some very good raw converters available and the more I have used Affinity Photo the more impressed I am with it. You are right about the integration of the Adobe programs and that's something that is difficult to replicate. None of that, however, addresses any particular justification for doubling the price of the subscription. If they are really going to do this, my mind is open and I would like to know why. Is it to increase rate of return to investors, are corporate earnings insufficient to sustain investor interest, or will there be incremental customer benefits to such a move? Adobe's customer base is huge, it has a lot of derivative intellectual capital in a way locked-in with this company and it has been loyal for many years, so we deserve, at least, to understand the reasons for what they are obviously contemplating.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Adobe to disclose anything. Unless you have a seat on the project management team you are not going to find anything out. This is a typical case of a company being able to raise the price without anyone outside of a few people on LuLa complaining.
-
Don't hold your breath waiting for Adobe to disclose anything. Unless you have a seat on the project management team you are not going to find anything out. This is a typical case of a company being able to raise the price without anyone outside of a few people on LuLa complaining.
Very likely. And I'm trying to hold my breath over as little as possible these days. I'm just putting on the record what I think they SHOULD do, because we have an opportunity to make our views known and we should partake of that opportunity. There's nothing to lose and perhaps something to be gained - who knows for sure until it's all done.
-
<emotional rant>
I recall Adobe's attempt to introduce the new import dialogue. It only took the next 3-4 months upgrade cycle to switch back to the old one after the flashback. You create a bug, you fix the bug. What about the customer who has the fun to pay for all that - less new features, wasted release cycle? The same happened with the output sharpening bug with an extremely clumsy workaround and the fix only happened with the next upgrade cycle, not a single day earlier. They clearly are in no hurry. Would that only be because of high quality reasons!
Having a perpetual licence, I personally wouldn't upgrade if the feature set consisted only of what the CC had received (by the way the CC feature to fill in the frame for merged panorama by using the image distortion-stretching seems just underwhelming considering there is a solid technology to do the smart content aware fill).
</emotional rant>
-
P.S. in the NLE world there is a new star rising, Davinci Resolve. No rental, has had free updates from version 9 to 14, the coloring part was long used by Hollywood professionals.
The full package with a perpetual license?
299$!!!
that all has happened at the time Adobe Premiere has received a lot of bug and other complaints.
If anybody's interested, a review from an industry pro about Davinci Resolve: http://www.onerivermedia.com/blog/fairlight-part-1-the-dawn-of-a-resolved-era/
-
Good you identified this as an "emotional rant", as those are not likely to be balanced commentary and this one is no exception.
If you're going to rant, why not also rant about the new features they've introduced since the subscription program started and have proven themselves to be very useful. I'm thinking particularly of the new "Upright" feature, which I happen to think is brilliant, but there are others, as well improvements under the hood to existing tools. Yes, there have been several episodes of significant "glitches", which the company fixed, some faster than others; but as many have pointed out, without making excuses for any particular company, these products are very complex and errors can happen; as well new design concepts can be introduced with all good intentions, but fail with the clients. At least they do listen and sooner or later things get fixed. It's not all bad, so let's not get swept away. I really think it's worthwhile considering the pricing issue on its own merits, and just accept that on the whole these applications are very powerful and very good, some periodic technical issues notwithstanding.
-
Many would disagree with the notion of the subscription plan being a "good deal". It was a lousy deal from the start for anyone who does not want to be licked in to paying the piper in perpetuity.
I pay my paper and ink supplier in perpetuity. However, I do not like the suggested price increase.
And the idea of complaining about $10 - or even $20 - a month for PS and LR seems odd coming from guys like us who will gladly drop $2,000 for a lens, $3500 for a body, $5000 for a printer, and $10,000 for a trip to Labonzaland. Hell, I probably use $20 worth of ink each month with nozzle checks and black ink changes.
I would hate to do without Photoshop because I rely on the Focus Magic plugin and PS's sophisticated selection tools.
-
As I think about the survey I kind of got the impression that Adobe would maybe enhance the tools for Lightroom. I would be lost without the selective burn/dodge/saturation tool, the heal tool and the clone tool. The fact that I can easily do my editing on additional layers is also important. I don't use Lightroom at all so please correct if any of the above tools are available. Most other enhancements can be accomplished in raw processing (C1) and in post with Picture Window. Picture Window incorporates 'Color Mechanic' as one of their tools which I consider one of the most flexible/powerful color editing tools available. Nik Viveza comes in a close second for color editing but, as far as I know, its dead ended and sooner or later won't be compatible with PS.
Victor
-
If you are editing decent captures to begin with and you really know how to use LR, you don't need most of that other stuff for an extremely high percentage (like verging on 99) of all usual image editing requirements.
-
Lightroom is not perfect. Yes, I use it for all my work but it could perform better, take less RAM, add new features, etc. I do think it's a bit of a marvel though and rely on it for its content mgmt (catalog) capability besides editing, printing, etc.
I'm still waiting for the day that it does a good job demosaicing Fuji X-T2 files. Until it does I do demosaicing and sharpening of my RAF files with Iridient X-Transformer or Iridient Developer. That's an extra step but well worth it for me.
Lest I forget, the version I'm running is Lr CC 2015.10. That tells me that either they've got something in the hopper for 2017 or they just don't care that much about Lr. I have no idea which.
-
If you are editing decent captures to begin with and you really know how to use LR, you don't need most of that other stuff for an extremely high percentage (like verging on 99) of all usual image editing requirements.
By 'Decent Capture' I take it you mean that the shadows aren't blocked and the highlights aren't blown. From my point of view if those two parameters are met then the capture is 'Decent'. That certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't require editing and, maybe, selective editing which can be accomplished much easier in PS than Lightroom. If LR were to incorporate those tools (like selective dodge/burn) then I would be more inclined to try it.
Victor
-
I cancelled my subscription last month, having finally settled on a replacement. I'm now fully migrated to ACDSee Ultimate. I did buy Affinity Photo, I don't use it much.
-
By 'Decent Capture' I take it you mean that the shadows aren't blocked and the highlights aren't blown. From my point of view if those two parameters are met then the capture is 'Decent'. That certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't require editing and, maybe, selective editing which can be accomplished much easier in PS than Lightroom. If LR were to incorporate those tools (like selective dodge/burn) then I would be more inclined to try it.
Victor
Victor: You can do A LOT of selective editing in LR. How much experience do you have using the application on photos that need this kind of treatment? I'm doing it routinely. It has good masking capabilities and good controls for selective colour adjustments. It's not as heavily equipped with tools as PS is in these respects, but it is very capable in the hands of people who have mastered its capabilities.
-
I've moved to managing my image database with imatch, one click will send it to your photo editing software of choice which for me it's CS6 then I use the new qimage plug-in to print.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
-
Thank you, Mark, for pointing that out. I don't use LR so am very unfamiliar with its capabilities. Having said that, I would be lost/very unhappy without the 'burn/dodge/saturation' tool. If that tool's capabilities could be accomplished in LR I could be a convert.
Victor
Edit: I don't use PS for selective color editing as I find it clumsy or maybe I just haven't mastered that technique. I have long used 'Color Mechanic' as my color editor but it has been discontinued and is now incorporated into Picture Window which is one of the reasons I have purchased that stand alone program.
-
I was thinking it is a sort of sympotmatic for companies that grow huge and then transform somewhat ignorant as perceived by a set of users.
No denying, it's a great piece of software (I wouldn't be using it and commenting here otherwise) and for sure, looking at the stock they are moving in the right direction (for the time being).
However, there are popping out some voices here and there questioning the value and business practices, users looking more actively for alternatives.
I don't care much about "friendliness" of a company, but caring about users matters. In that respect, I think many agree here, Adobe is not high on the list.
Good you identified this as an "emotional rant", as those are not likely to be balanced commentary and this one is no exception.
If you're going to rant, why not also rant about the new features they've introduced since the subscription program started and have proven themselves to be very useful. I'm thinking particularly of the new "Upright" feature, which I happen to think is brilliant, but there are others, as well improvements under the hood to existing tools. Yes, there have been several episodes of significant "glitches", which the company fixed, some faster than others; but as many have pointed out, without making excuses for any particular company, these products are very complex and errors can happen; as well new design concepts can be introduced with all good intentions, but fail with the clients. At least they do listen and sooner or later things get fixed. It's not all bad, so let's not get swept away. I really think it's worthwhile considering the pricing issue on its own merits, and just accept that on the whole these applications are very powerful and very good, some periodic technical issues notwithstanding.
-
It has good masking capabilities and good controls for selective colour adjustments.
Sorry, but CO is far superior in this respect. It's the main reason I'll use CO in preference to LR for files needing selective colour adjustments.
Hardly any of LR's colour adjustments are usable in local selections.
-
Thank you, Mark, for pointing that out. I don't use LR so am very unfamiliar with its capabilities. Having said that, I would be lost/very unhappy without the 'burn/dodge/saturation' tool. If that tool's capabilities could be accomplished in LR I could be a convert.
Victor
Edit: I don't use PS for selective color editing as I find it clumsy or maybe I just haven't mastered that technique. I have long used 'Color Mechanic' as my color editor but it has been discontinued and is now incorporated into Picture Window which is one of the reasons I have purchased that stand alone program.
Victor, LR is very capable for dodging, burning and saturation edits.
-
Sorry, but CO is far superior in this respect. It's the main reason I'll use CO in preference to LR for files needing selective colour adjustments.
Hardly any of LR's colour adjustments are usable in local selections.
One can do a fair bit with colour in local selections with LR, but I agree the one area where LR could really stand improvement is in the range of tools available with local selections. Nonetheless, I usually find what they provide does the job for me, but more options providing more granularity would save a few trips to Photoshop.
-
One can do a fair bit with colour in local selections with LR, but I agree the one area where LR could really stand improvement is in the range of tools available with local selections.
Colour is the one area that CO walks all over LR. Both in overall and local areas.
It's another example of where Adobe have failed to improve the product and another product leads the way.
-
Colour is the one area that CO walks all over LR. Both in overall and local areas.
It's another example of where Adobe have failed to improve the product and another product leads the way.
Nope. Not systematically the case.
Martin Evening: LR vs CO (http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/Lightroom%20vs%20Capture%20One%20Pro.pdf)
or
Mark Galer (http://www.markgaler.com/lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro). Watch the video.
-
Martin Evening: LR vs CO (http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/Lightroom%20vs%20Capture%20One%20Pro.pdf)
or
Mark Galer (http://www.markgaler.com/lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro). Watch the video.
Both of those are about defaults. Once you start to look at detailed local editing or even more general tonal zones (shados/mids/highs) LR's options look pretty lame compared to the three way tool and color editor.
-
Both of those are about defaults.
Did you read Martin's article thoroughly? It goes well beyond defaults.
-
Did you read Martin's article thoroughly? It goes well beyond defaults.
But doesn't really delve into local editing.
An Adobe (paid) evangelist writing how wonderful LR is compared to CO is hardly an unbiased assessment. We can be pretty sure that if Adobe add all CO's colour editing options into LR he'll get paid to say how great they are and how users have been asking for them (which they have for years).
That they feel the need to write articles like this says they know well that CO have a great reputation in this area that they have trouble competing with it.
-
But doesn't really delve into local editing.
An Adobe (paid) evangelist writing how wonderful LR is compared to CO is hardly an unbiased assessment. We can be pretty sure that if Adobe add all CO's colour editing options into LR he'll get paid to say how great they are and how users have been asking for them (which they have for years).
That they feel the need to write articles like this says they know well that CO have a great reputation in this area that they have trouble competing with it.
This is the first I hear of Martin being a paid evangelist for Adobe. I didn't even know Adobe has paid evangelists, but I do know that Martin is a person of utmost integrity and objectivity. Would you care to share the proof you have that he is a paid evangelist?
I also strongly expect that if the LR team wanted to check-mate this or that feature in CO, they have every capability of doing so. The issue is whether they think it a priority or advantageous to do whatever. They know well what people including me, and many others more prominent than me, have recommended.
-
This is the first I hear of Martin being a paid evangelist for Adobe.
He's paid to speak for Adobe at events, he writes about Adobe products and gets paid for it, basically he earns from promoting Adobe products.
I also strongly expect that if the LR team wanted to check-mate this or that feature in CO, they have every capability of doing so.
From what I've read here in the past; What the LR team want to do and what Adobe allow them to do aren't always the same.
-
He's paid to speak for Adobe at events, he writes about Adobe products and gets paid for it, basically he earns from promoting Adobe products.
From what I've read here in the past; What the LR team want to do and what Adobe allow them to do aren't always the same.
I think it would be more correct to say that he earns income speaking ABOUT Adobe products. Is speaking about products necessarily promoting them, or is it more likely educating people about what they do and how to use them? I would think the latter. It takes a lot of time and effort to do this - I know from personal experience - so the time spent deserves remuneration. He is providing the community with considerable value-added and is highly respected for doing so. Adobe depends on numerous authors in the community to speak and write about their products; software developers usually put comparatively little effort into that, leaving it to others more capable and specialized in this kind of communication. There is a lot to be said for this and in no way makes him or others "paid evangelists". Frankly I think you are trying to unjustifiably impugn the reputation of one of the most upright and knowledgeable members of the digital imaging community in order to disparage a technical article and I find it deeply misguided and offensive. I'm cutting all further discussion with you along these lines. This thread is about the pricing of Adobe subscriptions and I think it should return to that subject.
-
Frankly I think you are trying to unjustifiably impugn the reputation of one of the most upright and knowledgeable members of the digital imaging community in order to disparage a technical article and I find it deeply misguided and offensive.
Technical evangelist, as defined by Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_evangelist)
"An evangelist promotes the use of a particular product or technology through talks, articles, blogging, user demonstrations, recorded demonstrations, or the creation of sample projects."
I'm not in any way disparaging Martin, just pointing out that he get paid to talk about and, effectively, promote their products.
Nothing wrong with that. Plenty of others here do the same.
This thread is about the pricing of Adobe subscriptions and I think it should return to that subject.
Not much to say about that really. Get people hooked, put the price up. It was pretty obvious it would happen from day 1.
Lightroom is a tiny and declining part of Adobe's empire.
-
Adobe has a number of "evangelists" who are employees. Evangelist is part of a job description at Adobe. Terry White is a good example of an Adobe Evangelist.
https://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/author/terry-white/
-
But doesn't really delve into local editing.
An Adobe (paid) evangelist writing how wonderful LR is compared to CO is hardly an unbiased assessment. We can be pretty sure that if Adobe add all CO's colour editing options into LR he'll get paid to say how great they are and how users have been asking for them (which they have for years).
That they feel the need to write articles like this says they know well that CO have a great reputation in this area that they have trouble competing with it.
I've got a few manuals ( on PS & LR ) by Martin Evening. I haven't noticed any Adobe 'evangelising' in them. His writing seems very measured, neither gushing about the product nor putting the boot in. If he thinks a feature really isn't worth bothering with he'll say so.
-
Martin Evening: LR vs CO (http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/Lightroom%20vs%20Capture%20One%20Pro.pdf)
Re-reading that it's interesting to quote from the last section;
"Capture One does outshine Lightroom in some respects though. The color editing sliders offer better fine-tuning control, particularly for skin tones. The Shadows and Highlights sliders have a greater range of tone control when editing regular dynamic range images. The new Luma Curve is useful for precise control of luminance and color contrast"
Which is what I said and you tried to disprove with your reference, own goal there Mark ;-)
-
Re-reading that it's interesting to quote from the last section;
"Capture One does outshine Lightroom in some respects though. The color editing sliders offer better fine-tuning control, particularly for skin tones. The Shadows and Highlights sliders have a greater range of tone control when editing regular dynamic range images. The new Luma Curve is useful for precise control of luminance and color contrast"
Which is what I said and you tried to disprove with your reference, own goal there Mark ;-)
I've just read the article: The takeaway seems to be that there isn't that much differences between the two & most photographers could get perfectly decent results from either.
Not defending Lightroom / Adobe here: I don't particularly like the subscription model & am sick of Adobe's half baked 'upgrades'.
-
Re-reading that it's interesting to quote from the last section;
"Capture One does outshine Lightroom in some respects though. The color editing sliders offer better fine-tuning control, particularly for skin tones. The Shadows and Highlights sliders have a greater range of tone control when editing regular dynamic range images. The new Luma Curve is useful for precise control of luminance and color contrast"
Which is what I said and you tried to disprove with your reference, own goal there Mark ;-)
I did say I wouldn't respond on this thread any longer, but on this one post it is appropriate that I do so regardless. I'm glad you have now really read that article and found that Martin is, after all, balanced and objective in reporting his findings.
When I pointed you toward that article, it was in response to your statement in reply 36: "Colour is the one area that CO walks all over LR. Both in overall and local areas." This is a rather sweeping generalization, and it brought back to mind that article of Martin's, in which he reported the findings of his research indicating that such generalizations are at the least very much open to question. That's all I was trying to establish. I have no problem with the fact that each application has its comparative strengths and weaknesses, because it conforms with my experience over the years.
I may just add as a general point about raw converters: there always have been a number of contenders at the forefront. The population changes over time, but some years ago I sat on a panel at Photo Expo in NYC - it was Andrew Rodney's "Iron Chef" panel setting the key contenders of the time to use their wares for working up a challenging photo supplied by a famous photographer. Both LR/ACR and CO were in contention, as was Apple's Aperture and one other, I forget the name. The most interesting outcome of this competition was how very closely all of them performed in the hands of the people who really knew how to use them, regardless that they had different algorithms and different interfacing for their tool sets. From that moment on I became yet more wary of broad generalizations about raw converters and remain so, especially after reading Martin's article which only reconfirmed my perspective. Everyone has their preferences of course - but I think a choice between them ultimately depends on three things: workflow preferences, particular features most important to the user, and finally price. Which latter I remind is what this thread was supposed to be about!
-
An Adobe (paid) evangelist writing how wonderful LR is compared to CO is hardly an unbiased assessment. We can be pretty sure that if Adobe add all CO's colour editing options into LR he'll get paid to say how great they are and how users have been asking for them (which they have for years).
So, am I an "Adobe (paid) evangelist" or a "Capture One (paid) evangelist?" I've been paid both by Adobe and Phase One...so does that make my opinion more or less valuable?
I helped Martin write that article because, well, unknowledgeable folks often only know the program they are using and self congratulate themselves by trying another program that in their novice hands doesn't do what their primary app does (or doesn't work in the same way). And I'm pretty sure he wasn't paid to say how much better ACR/LR was than C1 (although as an author I hope he was actually paid).
Anybody who says application "A" is better or worse than application "B" likely is barely competent in either application and is talking out of their hat.
Both ACR/LR and C1 are capable of really excellent results and the primary difference is in the expert level of the user. And anybody who knows the apps knows that.
But ya might wanna get off your high horse as it relates to being an "Adobe (paid) evangelist" somehow being a less valuable human. Martin is a straight shooter–which you would know if you knew him or read much of his writing. And his article is correct and on point. Either ACR/LR or C1 are really good raw pressing apps. C1 sucks for asset management and really sucks for printing–two things LR does a lot better (not perfect but a lot better). It should also be noted that ACR is simply an import plug-in module for Photoshop so if ya want compare ACR + Photoshop, pretty sure that combo can blow C1 out of the water. But that all depends on what you are doing–and your level of competence.
-
I helped Martin write that article because, well, unknowledgeable folks often only know the program they are using and self congratulate themselves by trying another program that in their novice hands doesn't do what their primary app does (or doesn't work in the same way).
Firstly you aren't credited with any contribution to that article. I read from this you might consider Martin is "unknowledgeable" as his primary expertise is Adobe products. I assume that's not your intention ? but maybe he really doesn't have any long term experience with CO ?
If you've helped him with the article I assume to you concur with the quote earlier from it ?
And I'm pretty sure he wasn't paid to say how much better ACR/LR was than C1 ....
In Photoshop user magazine ? pardon me for being a little cynical about that.
Maybe time to read what I've said, not what you think I might mean here Jeff.
I've a lot of respect for Martin and I've bought a lot of his books and your(pixel genius) products, but he's primarily an Adobe user from everything I've read.
Adobe haven't been terribly popular with their move to subscription software in photographic circles, but competitors like Serif and Phase are raising their game to compete and in some aspects starting to better Adobe. Whether Adobe can be bothered to keep being the leaders in this field is difficult to see at the moment, I get the impression that they're concentrating on their 'big data' web innovations as that will continue to be a growing and lucrative market compared to the relatively mature imaging products that can't continue to increase their returns to Adobe as in the past.
Your shares in Adobe will continue to be a good investment, but not because of their interest and innovation in the digital imaging market.
-
Firstly you aren't credited with any contribution to that article. I read from this you might consider Martin is "unknowledgeable" as his primary expertise is Adobe products. I assume that's not your intention ? but maybe he really doesn't have any long term experience with CO ?
Yeah sorry if I was unclear...I helped encourage Martin to do the article and helped dissect his test efforts. While Martin had used C1 he had never owned a Phase One camera. I helped translate C1 = LR functionality.
Also the concept of the two philosophical approaches of LR/ACR being a "normalized" vs "optimized" approach and how and why Thomas chose going for normalized. C1 for non-Phase cameras and ACR came out about the sam time and Thomas wanted all supported cameras to be treated the same. Phase being a camera company wanted to optimize because that was their approach with their own camera.
My shares of Adobe stock? You presume a lot more than you know...
(edited to fix quote error)
-
My shares of Adobe stock? You presume a lot more than you know...
I recall you mentioning you had stock in Adobe in the past here. No problem with that, probably a sound investment.
-
Well, one thing I think we can all agree on:
There has never been nor is there currently any such thing as Capture One evangelists.
-
So, am I an "Adobe (paid) evangelist" or a "Capture One (paid) evangelist?" I've been paid both by Adobe and Phase One...so does that make my opinion more or less valuable?
It makes it less impartial and thus in some aspects less valuable. You have a conflict of interest. I'm not for a moment suggesting any dishonesty on your part, and I have found your opinions valuable. I have a book of yours that has taught me a lot. However, evidence suggests that people paid by an organisation are more likely (subconsciously and unknowlingly) to have a more favourable opinion of the organisation than the average view. And neither you nor we will ever know if your opinion is skewed by any payments. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just answering your question.
-
Well, one thing I think we can all agree on:
There has never been nor is there currently any such thing as Capture One evangelists.
Yes, I think they call them Ambassadors.
-
Yes, I think they call them Ambassadors.
See.. I told ya so! ;D
-
It makes it less impartial and thus in some aspects less valuable. You have a conflict of interest. I'm not for a moment suggesting any dishonesty on your part, and in the past I have found your opinions valuable. I have a book of yours that has taught me a lot. However, evidence suggests that people paid by an organisation are more likely (subconsciously and unknowlingly) to have a more favourable opinion of the organisation that the average view. And neither you nor we will ever know if your opinion is skewed by any payments. Nothing wrong with that, I'm just answering your question.
When I see phrases like "evidence suggests", it makes me curious to wonder what evidence, from who, how conclusive it is and perhaps most importantly, how relevant to the particularities of the case at hand. Especially these days, we've learned not to take such vague allusions to wisdom at face value. Some of our forum members do have generally beneficial contacts and dealings with companies in the imaging industry, the nature of which is varied. For example, companies do pay people to provide professional advice, often in the context of alpha testing, and in so doing, tell them the truth during a product development cycle, whatever that truth may be. On the other hand, reputable companies do not pay reputable people to undertake product reviews for publication; that could be a conflict of interest and both sides understand this. The people who do this work get to see and learn things about the companies and their products and what considerations went into various aspects of product design that people not doing it don't know much about because they've never had the exposure; so when the people who really do know a thing or two share certain kinds of information that doesn't violate their NDAs, it cannot be assumed that this arises from some mysterious commercial variant of the Stockholm Syndrome. Honest and astute people know themselves and they know the technical basis of their observations, so to suggest that not only are they biased, but they don't even know they're biased is more than a bit rich - it's just disingenuous fog and has no necessary bearing on the value or objectivity of what's being said. I remind for the nth time - this started as a thread about subscription pricing, let's take it back there.
-
I remind for the nth time - this started as a thread about subscription pricing, let's take it back there.
Perhaps this thread has run its course and should close.
-
Perhaps this thread has run its course and should close.
Yes.
-
Honest and astute people know themselves and they know the technical basis of their observations, so to suggest that not only are they biased, but they don't even know they're biased is more than a bit rich - it's just disingenuous fog and has no necessary bearing on the value or objectivity of what's being said.
Oh, come now!
The tobacco industry could produce battalions of experts that could say quite honestly that smoking does not damage health. It wasn't true, but are you saying all their scientists were deliberatly telling untruths, that they understood that smoking is harmful but said otherwise? Or was it a matter of genuine scientific disagreement, and it was pure coincidence that all the tobacco industry scientists just happened, by chance, to take one view? Likewise the oil industry and the early days of the debate on anthropogenic global warming (when it still was a matter of debate).
As Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
-
Your analogies are irrelevant to the present context.
-
Your analogies are irrelevant to the present context.
OK, let's leave it there and disagree.
-
Agreed. :-)