Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 21, 2011, 09:00:32 am
-
http://www.ononesoftware.com/
-
I'm a bit skeptical, but I plan to give it a whirl. Thanks for posting the link.
Eric
-
$160 for the software; why would I want to pay this if I already have PS & LR? I can't see this doing anything novel unless you only had LR and even then it's not clear that this has any advantages.
-
$160 for the software; why would I want to pay this if I already have PS & LR? I can't see this doing anything novel unless you only had LR and even then it's not clear that this has any advantages.
Agreed. And even then, wouldn't you get more bangs for your bucks by buying PS Elements?
John
-
$160 for the software; why would I want to pay this if I already have PS & LR?
From what I understand, the advantage may be to be able to tweak the layers in a layered TIFF or PSD from the plugin, without having to do the round trip to PS.
The 160$ question is : is the plugin faster to launch and easier to use than PS? ::)
Agreed. And even then, wouldn't you get more bangs for your bucks by buying PS Elements?
Do Layers for LR and PSE allow for adjustment layers in 16bits?
-
Good point - I don't think Elements 9 does. OTOH you can do a lot more if you're willing to go 8 bit.
-
$160 for the software; why would I want to pay this if I already have PS & LR? I can't see this doing anything novel unless you only had LR and even then it's not clear that this has any advantages.
Well, there are a lot of people who only have Lightroom and Aperture. In that event, $160 for the ability to do limited compositing may be useful. If you had Photoshop (even an older version) then you would have to look at the relative value. I would prolly choose to upgrade Photoshop to be current vs buying a plug-in (about $199 for the CS5 standard upgrade).
But the preview is free to try...
-
You've gotta wonder if Adobe will add layers soon as well. A product like this should hurry them right along..
-
You've gotta wonder if Adobe will add layers soon as well.
Not very likely...they have an app for that, Photoshop.
-
Not very likely...they have an app for that, Photoshop.
Exactly. We need to muck up LR to be more like Photoshop while not concentrating on the things it needs more than layers? I think Jeff is spot on, the money is better spent upgrading to the later version of Photoshop so at least ACR is on parity for use of Smart Objects (and new, useful functionality such as Content Aware Fill etc). I don’t want LR to be Photoshop.
-
Exactly. We need to muck up LR to be more like Photoshop while not concentrating on the things it needs more than layers? I think Jeff is spot on, the money is better spent upgrading to the later version of Photoshop so at least ACR is on parity for use of Smart Objects (and new, useful functionality such as Content Aware Fill etc). I don’t want LR to be Photoshop.
Well.. I can't argue there are more important features needed than layers, but I don't think this will preclude layers from becoming a feature in Lightroom anymore than more complete databasing/indexing in Bridge won't become inclusive in Photoshop.
Photoshop is much more than LR, but as image editors I think we'll see the subsets of image editing features merge closer, rather than remain separate.
And I don't think Adobe's main target with LR is those who use both PS and LR together. It appears to me LR is slowing becoming a more complete stand alone imaging program, in which case layers will be necessary to compete. I think it's a natural progression.
Of course these decisions are the subject of interesting discussions in Adobe's marketing department.. would love to be a fly on the way and watch the power plays as different team member's influence changes..
-
An interesting number to throw into the equation: apparently, only 16% of Photoshop users are photographers. I would suspect that the number for Lightroom is closer to 90-100%
-
An interesting number to throw into the equation: apparently, only 16% of Photoshop users are photographers. I would suspect that the number for Lightroom is closer to 90-100%
That is an interesting number. Where do you get them? I'm always interested in sites that list useful stats.
My take on this is only a guess based on observation.. the other guys might be part of Adobe's test team and have more inside knowledge. But if they're right I've got to wonder what the heck Adobe is thinking.
Here's a strange one. I put up two online image editors on my site. Both by the same company, but one is an easy menu driven editor anyone's grandmother could use, and the other a more advanced familiar feeling PS like editor. It's a small footprint flash based editor.. but it does layers and they're easy to use. So anyway, feedback has been positive, remarks like "I use LR and don't want to spring for PS so I find your online image editors very useful for the layers...." are starting to become more common. I originally didn't add them to my site for the layer capability, but rather so those traveling in SEA and who left their laptops at home and are utilizing internet cafe's.. could have editing tools available during their travels. But no one is mentioning that use. ???
-
That is an interesting number. Where do you get them?...
I remember seeing the 16% on the internet. The LR percentage is my wild guess.
-
Of course these decisions are the subject of interesting discussions in Adobe's marketing department.. would love to be a fly on the way and watch the power plays as different team member's influence changes..
Product marketing doesn't drive development...product management and engineering design does.
Since Lightroom uses a raw processing pipeline for it's processing, the "concept" of a layer based editing is foreign to such a pipeline. While there may be ways to incorporate multiple image editing in such a pipeline, it won't be based on a layers paradigm as we know it in Photoshop. It would be more a mask based composite more like what's in the Adjustment Brush now.
The power plays do occur...but while Mark Hamburg left Adobe for MSFT, he left MSFT and returned to Adobe. He has great influence and vision (he started Lightroom/Shadowland) and made a decision early on that LR would be a workflow based raw processing DAM application. Dwelling for great periods of time on single images (or composites) is simply not what Lightroom was designed for. It's designed for working through many images...the way LR has been developed was intentionally very divergent from Photoshop.
I'm not saying Lightroom might not see a compositing module but it won't look anything like Photoshop's layers. Panos and HDR are far more likely than compositing.
-
...only 16% of Photoshop users are photographers.
Actually, I think the number is lower...
-
Actually, I think the number is lower...
You are probably correct... it must be my faulty memory.
I do remember some dude posted something about it some time ago, so I went back and searched for it ;):
... guess what, photographers make up less than 10% of the Ps user base...
-
Yesterday April 20th I attended a Webinar put on by OnOne Software.
The guest speaker was Seth Resnick who is a huge user of Lightroom and gives traing on using it.
That Webinar maybe found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTV3O9rCqA
Toward the end of the Webinar Seth gave a short demo with OnOne Perfect Layers in Lightroom.
On Monday Apirl 25th 9-10am Pacific time he is giving a full Webinar using OnOne Perfect Layers via Lightroom.
http://www.ononesoftware.com/webinars/
I surely do not know much about this Perfect Layers, however if someone like Seth Resnick is holding Webinars there must be something good about this software.
-
Product marketing doesn't drive development...product management and engineering design does.
Since Lightroom uses a raw processing pipeline for it's processing, the "concept" of a layer based editing is foreign to such a pipeline. While there may be ways to incorporate multiple image editing in such a pipeline, it won't be based on a layers paradigm as we know it in Photoshop. It would be more a mask based composite more like what's in the Adjustment Brush now.
The power plays do occur...but while Mark Hamburg left Adobe for MSFT, he left MSFT and returned to Adobe. He has great influence and vision (he started Lightroom/Shadowland) and made a decision early on that LR would be a workflow based raw processing DAM application. Dwelling for great periods of time on single images (or composites) is simply not what Lightroom was designed for. It's designed for working through many images...the way LR has been developed was intentionally very divergent from Photoshop.
I'm not saying Lightroom might not see a compositing module but it won't look anything like Photoshop's layers. Panos and HDR are far more likely than compositing.
What drives marketing, development, and engineering is at best a circular chicken/egg thing. What can be marketed, and can be developed, will be marketed if the numbers are favorable. Sometimes engineering produces that which can be directly marketed, or developed and marketed.. so many ways this can go. But with a defined market and a 'developing' product the marketing guys are very much into the decision making process. There are very few engineers calling the shots these days. But none of that really matters, I think we can agree that if there is a huge call for LR to have layers, or layer like capabilities, and it will increase their market share/profits, then we'll have layers or layer like capabilities in LR.
Is layers at the raw level an engineering impossibility or an engineering problem yet to be solved? And when it's solved will it work like layers in PS or will it just provide the same capabilities achieved differently? I don't know enough to speculate, but from a business standpoint I'd guess when they do solve the issue, and it looks like the plug-in in the OP has went a ways to doing just that.. they'll call it layers and people will accept it. For no other reason than because people know what layers are, what they do, and how they want to use them. It's solid marketing. UNLESS the new way offers significant benefits/advantages that warrants new terminology, which will result in more market share/profits.
Your knowledge of LR's development is interesting. It helps us understand why we've seen some features and not others, and like you said, what we might see first in the future.
Yet, I've observed a big call for layers in LR and I can't see the ignoring it forever. We've all started projects with specific goals and intents, only to see them refined and developed along the way. There are many examples.
Personally I use both.. and C1pro and more. I'd rather see them put more effort into database speed and efficiency, make it more stable/reliable, and take better advantage of newer hardware (more cores, RAM, SSD technology, hybrid tech, etc) to make our existing experience faster and more satisfying. I import images into PS all the time, almost as a matter of course, and just having layers, or HDR, or Pano's.. would not change my workflow. I'd still do these things in PS. So far it seems that with actual imagine editing tools, most everything in PS works better for me. I'd like to see CA handled much better though.. on par with C1 would be nice.
It would be soooo interesting to be that fly on the way and watch how these decisions are made.. we can all guess how such decisions are made in other companies.. but I want to know about this one.. :)
-
Hi,
My view is that if it can be done parametrically that it is nice to have it in Lightroom. If the plugin does involve conversion to bitmap image I may see less benefit.
Best regards
Erik
Exactly. We need to muck up LR to be more like Photoshop while not concentrating on the things it needs more than layers? I think Jeff is spot on, the money is better spent upgrading to the later version of Photoshop so at least ACR is on parity for use of Smart Objects (and new, useful functionality such as Content Aware Fill etc). I don’t want LR to be Photoshop.
-
My view is that if it can be done parametrically that it is nice to have it in Lightroom. If the plugin does involve conversion to bitmap image I may see less benefit.
Totally agree. That said, does anyone know? I can’t see how it can’t be using rendered data, unless this is the first plug-in to access the raw processing engine inside LR (which I seriously doubt). And it does this in Aperture too right? So it seems its got to be a rendering to bitmap trick. If so, not useful to anyone who happens to own Photoshop.
-
There are very few engineers calling the shots these days.
With regards to Lightroom and in particular, you're wrong. Adobe is very entrepreneurial and engineering (or what the engineers WANT to do) plays a much bigger role than you would think. There's this guy named Thomas Knoll you know, same guy that coauthored Photoshop? He literally owns control over Camera Raw and the Camera Raw pipeline inside of Lightroom. If Thomas wants to do something, he does it. If he doesn't want to do something, he doesn't. Any major conceptual change to the Camera Raw pipeline (such as adding layers) would go through him. The thing about Thomas is he is so consistently right in the decisions he makes. He's a touchstone for Adobe (not to mention being a sacred cow–in a good way). If you can't convince Thomas that doing something is the right thing to do, you simply have no traction...
-
Hi,
My view is that if it can be done parametrically that it is nice to have it in Lightroom. If the plugin does involve conversion to bitmap image I may see less benefit.
Best regards
Erik
Lightzone is a good example of how it can be (or should be) done (except of course that it was done in Java) -> http://www.lightcrafts.com/lightzone/
-
"I don’t want LR to be Photoshop."
My sentiment exactly, I hope that they will continue to improve the adjustment brushes and as Schewe mentioned, possibly something in the panoramic area. HDR wouldn't be bad though. I've had PS for a long time but LR makes it fun again.
-
I just did this using Perfect layers, It is a 4 image focus stack, I am by no means an accomplished Photoshop or layers guy at all. Also this is the first time I ever attempted a focus stack. I am well enough pleased. Basically I lined up the 4 images with the move tool, and used the masking brush to reveal the in-focus areas of each layer.
When the images are sent Perfect Layers they are saved back to Lightroom as a PSD. It was easy enough to use the program but it was a bit slow on my PC.
I did sit through most of the OnOne tutorials which I found helpful.
It seems to me anyway to be a good addition to Lightroom especially for simple things like blending a few layers.
Edit: the shot taken with a 100mm macro lens & 68mm of extension tube, the flower is about 10mm across.
-
I have been following this "annoucement" from onOne and dismissed it right away. I have CS5 & LR3 so I saw no need for the product. But at the end of a youtube webinar(on the Develop Panel in LR3)given by Seth Resnick just this last week, he had a "treat"(his expression) about the lightroom layers. At about the 50 minute mark he starts a brief demo and announced that he would be doing a webinar of the product next monday(25 April 2011).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTV3O9rCqA
-
May I recommend: http://regex.info/blog/2011-04-23/1753
-
May I recommend: http://regex.info/blog/2011-04-23/1753
Interesting post but why would Seth Resnik be doing tutorials on this (if true)? Is the money too good to pass up?
-
Interesting post but why would Seth Resnik be doing tutorials on this (if true)? Is the money too good to pass up?
Don’t know. I see nearly zero value in the product based on its current price point. At say $59, OK sure. Its got to be significantly less than Elements (which does more) and be a product that someone who has neither Elements or Photoshop feels they need.
I will say, he hype machine on this product has been excessive.
-
Maybe we're all being fooled and the real idea is to generate so much bad publicity that everyone knows who onOne are? You know, the Charlie Sheen or Lindsay Lohan strategy.
-
... why would Seth Resnik be doing tutorials on this (if true)?
Since Seth is the one saying it(on the youtube video @ ~ the 50:09 minute mark) I've got to believe he'll be doing it. Why(money aside) is indeed the question.
-
So another interesting data point. Plug-in author Jeffrey Fridel, who’s produced some very useful products has decided to give a layers in LR type product a go:
http://regex.info/blog/2011-04-25/1755
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/layers
Quote:
— Jeffrey's “Photoshop Layers” Lightroom Plug —
It's slow and a bit kludgy — definitely not “Layers in Lightroom” — but unlike other external-editor solutions like the hyped app, this plugin allows for a non destructive workflow.
With it, you build a persistent link between images in Lightroom and layers in a new Photoshop PSD that's added to your Lightroom catalog. You can edit that new PSD pretty much as you like... add new layers, resize, crop, transform, mask, add text layers, run actions and filters, edit pixels, etc.
But the key here is that if you make subsequent edits to the originals in Lightroom, those edits are reflected through the Photoshop edits and back into the composite in Lightroom..
Some might call this a “game changer” . I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it'll sure be handy at times.
The plugin page explains it more, but all in all, this plugin might be described as:
“ A slow but mostly-effective way to get a somewhat layer-like experience in a Lightroom non-destructive workflow by using Photoshop as an external rendering engine. ”
It's still very beta, so I'm looking for feedback of all kinds, including how you find it useful, where it's not quite enough to be useful, etc.
How much I work on this in the future depends on the kind of feedback I get. If you think it'll be useful for you, let me know, and if you think it's a waste of time, let me know that too. (The first reply I got from the first group of friends that I released it to was “not worth the effort”, but I disagreed, so here we are.)
Frankly, the method I've come up with for this plugin could be used with Perfect Layers (and other editing applications) if some relatively-small hooks were added to them and their companion Lightroom plugins, and so if OnOne is watching, here's your chance to have your product actually come close to living up to its hype. That would be a good thing for the Lightroom community, so I hope you do. It took me one afternoon.
-
Since Seth is the one saying it(on the youtube video @ ~ the 50:09 minute mark) I've got to believe he'll be doing it. Why(money aside) is indeed the question.
I haven't asked Seth yet (I will) but my assumption is that since Seth has really committed to a Lightroom workflow, a solution that allows light duty layers within Lightroom without needing Photoshop is attractive. Knowing Seth, I rather doubt Seth would ever do anything just for the money...
-
I haven't asked Seth yet (I will) but my assumption is that since Seth has really committed to a Lightroom workflow, a solution that allows light duty layers within Lightroom without needing Photoshop is attractive. Knowing Seth, I rather doubt Seth would ever do anything just for the money...
I just watch the Webinar today from Oneone where Seth Resnik did a demo using Perfect Layers. He did mention during this Webinar that he was going to use Perfect Layers in his workflow. The demos he did where pretty interesting. He did make the point this current free version is just a Public View so there may be some problems that could occur. If you view: http://www.ononesoftware.com/support/1744/ there is a list of upcoming features that will be available in the final version.
-
He did mention during this Webinar that he was going to use Perfect Layers in his workflow.
Why is the $64K question, pretty sure Seth has Photoshop <g>.
-
With regards to Lightroom and in particular, you're wrong. Adobe is very entrepreneurial and engineering (or what the engineers WANT to do) plays a much bigger role than you would think. There's this guy named Thomas Knoll you know, same guy that coauthored Photoshop? He literally owns control over Camera Raw and the Camera Raw pipeline inside of Lightroom. If Thomas wants to do something, he does it. If he doesn't want to do something, he doesn't. Any major conceptual change to the Camera Raw pipeline (such as adding layers) would go through him. The thing about Thomas is he is so consistently right in the decisions he makes. He's a touchstone for Adobe (not to mention being a sacred cow–in a good way). If you can't convince Thomas that doing something is the right thing to do, you simply have no traction...
I'd be happy to be wrong on this one. My personal view is I think market driven products more often than not result in a compromised product. Yet, it would be an exception. And I do believe as products mature they're often taken in directions not originally intended.
Still not interested in panos or hdr inside LR though.. :) I'd just like to see what the function they have already, work better, and take better advantage of the newer hardware.
Oh.. and it wouldn't bother me if they discontinued the Mac version and put all their efforts into the PC version either.. ;D
-
I downloaded the public beta to use with LR 3.4 on my MacPro 8-core, 32GB RAM.
It's actually a very nice program. It's easier to use than Photoshop so I think that it enhances the LR-only workflow. The results are very good.
That said, I already own PS CS5 so the idea of spending $160 on the Layers plugin is not justified for the few times that I need it. But it may be worth the investment if I don't see the need to pay for the next PS upgrade. That's unlikely for me, but for many LR-centric users, it may be a good choice.
You still end up with a new PSD file with the plug in. It would be much cooler if the program accomplished it's mission completely in metadata so that you don't end up with more giant files to manage. If that were the case, then I think more folks would buy the plugin, even those who already own PS.
Now if they add perspective correction as a plugin and combine it with the layers plugin, I'm a definite buyer. Just for the convenience alone.
Cheers.
Bud
-
I downloaded the public beta to use with LR 3.4 on my MacPro 8-core, 32GB RAM.
It's actually a very nice program. It's easier to use than Photoshop so I think that it enhances the LR-only workflow. The results are very good.
That said, I already own PS CS5 so the idea of spending $160 on the Layers plugin is not justified for the few times that I need it. But it may be worth the investment if I don't see the need to pay for the next PS upgrade. That's unlikely for me, but for many LR-centric users, it may be a good choice.
You still end up with a new PSD file with the plug in. It would be much cooler if the program accomplished it's mission completely in metadata so that you don't end up with more giant files to manage. If that were the case, then I think more folks would buy the plugin, even those who already own PS.
Now if they add perspective correction as a plugin and combine it with the layers plugin, I'm a definite buyer. Just for the convenience alone.
Cheers.
Bud
Did you check the Jeffrey Friedl plugin? http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/layers#5
It's still an early version but the fact that you can merge layers in Photoshop CS5 as smart objects and go back and reeedit the original pictures in Lightroom and later update the layers and maintain you other edits in the PSD file is really cool. I wish that we at some point get a facility in Lightroom that can create a new object in Lightroom that is a composite of other objects and that can be edited and entirely as metadata. I doubt this will happen anytime soon (if ever ;) ). Until then a more polished version of Jeffreys plugin is definitely a very smart (pun intended :) ) way to do things.
Did you know that you can do perspective correction under lens correction? Go to manual and use the vertical, horizontal and rotate sliders. It works pretty well.
-
Did you check the Jeffrey Friedl plugin? http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/layers#5
It's still an early version but the fact that you can merge layers in Photoshop CS5 as smart objects and go back and reeedit the original pictures in Lightroom and later update the layers and maintain you other edits in the PSD file is really cool.
I agree, I’ve played with it and think its way, way more useful than the OnOne plug-in over hyped by Kelby on his blog. For one, you do retain a true non destructive workflow. You can bounce back and forth from LR and Photoshop all while keeping the parametric edits, update the stuff in LR etc. Next, if you are one of those people who like to work with Smart Objects in Photoshop, don’t use CS5 but use LR3, no issues as all the processing is done by LR not ACR. IOW, if you had CS4 and LR3 and wanted to re-edit your raws in a Smart Object, the new functionality in LR (PV2010, Lens Correction) can’t be used with the SO as ACR 5 in this case is older. With Jeffrey’s plug-in, not an issue. And there’s no way should the product ship, it will be anything but a fraction of the cost of the other Layers Plug-in which is ONLY useful for people without Photoshop or Elements. In fact if you are in that boat, just buy Elements.
OnOne needs to lower the price way below Elements for one. And they need to tone down the Kelby marketing rhetoric even more. About the only good thing to come from that hype feast was Jeffrey creating this plug-in which allows those who want to do their parametric edits in Develop instead of ACR (or have older versions of ACR).
-
I agree, I’ve played with it and think its way, way more useful than the OnOne plug-in over hyped by Kelby on his blog. For one, you do retain a true non destructive workflow. You can bounce back and forth from LR and Photoshop all while keeping the parametric edits, update the stuff in LR etc. Next, if you are one of those people who like to work with Smart Objects in Photoshop, don’t use CS5 but use LR3, no issues as all the processing is done by LR not ACR. IOW, if you had CS4 and LR3 and wanted to re-edit your raws in a Smart Object, the new functionality in LR (PV2010, Lens Correction) can’t be used with the SO as ACR 5 in this case is older. With Jeffrey’s plug-in, not an issue. And there’s no way should the product ship, it will be anything but a fraction of the cost of the other Layers Plug-in which is ONLY useful for people without Photoshop or Elements. In fact if you are in that boat, just buy Elements.
OnOne needs to lower the price way below Elements for one. And they need to tone down the Kelby marketing rhetoric even more. About the only good thing to come from that hype feast was Jeffrey creating this plug-in which allows those who want to do their parametric edits in Develop instead of ACR (or have older versions of ACR).
Andrew,
Isn't this what is great about the current state of software development? LR users who have PS can use Jefferey's software and those who don't have options. I like what Jefferey has done, I just wish he hadn't resorted to flame throwing at Kelby. For all of Kelby's shortcomings, he has helped 10 of thousands of photographers with his books and training seminars. Years ago, Scott saw a need and filled it. He is a talent and great marketer; and a good writer who knows how to communicate. Those of us who have moved from film to digital owe much to those who have published educational PS books. Your book is within arms reach as I write this.
As to Perfect Layers, there is a market for the product or OnOne wouldn't have wasted its time and money on it. Those who can work quickly and efficiently in PS are fewer than we think and most are probably not photographers. If Perfect Layers works for those who adopt it, then money well spent. Those of us who don't see the value will keep our money. Not sure why Jefferey needed to dump on others. I guess that's what happens when egos collide.
-
The trouble is, James, that Scott & co came very close to being deceptive (others wouldn't be so kind). Proper professional advice would have been along the lines of here's an interesting product that's rather over-priced and not quite what they say it is, and you non-PS folks should buy Elements if you want the feature. Instead it was an "awesome" "game-changer" and a very half-hearted attempt to laugh off the criticism as a syntax issue.
"As to Perfect Layers, there is a market for the product or OnOne wouldn't have wasted its time and money on it. " Well, the road is littered with all sorts of misconceived turkeys too!
John
-
I like what Jefferey has done, I just wish he hadn't resorted to flame throwing at Kelby.
I’m with Jefferey, Kelby deserves it, lost about any credibly I had for him after the blog post, the nonsense he then spouted on “The Grid” (see: http://regex.info/blog/2011-05-04/1761), taking banner ads for the product he was hyping, sending out his minions (RC, Matt) to defend his position etc. All he had to say was “I got caught up in the excitement of the product, I wasn’t clear on what it did in the blog, let me clarify...” he didn’t. Just the opposite, he continued to over hype the product and get darn nasty with anyone who might disagree with the position. He doesn’t dealing with people who disagree with him to the point that a discussion to come to mutual understanding is a goal.
For all of Kelby's shortcomings, he has helped 10 of thousands of photographers with his books and training seminars.
By selling them goods. And that’s fine too. The same could be said of Fraser, Schewe, Caponigro, Reichmann, Eismann. The differences are those guys all have far more credibility in my book, a nearly zero BS factor unlike Kelby, and will admit when they are wrong or learned something new. They are willing to have an open, mature discussion.
He is a talent and great marketer; and a good writer who knows how to communicate
I’d agree with point on 100% and less so for point B. The problem is, a lot of this must have gone to his head because he’s become the PT Barnum of digital these days. Its unnecessary.
As to Perfect Layers, there is a market for the product or OnOne wouldn't have wasted its time and money on it.
I have nothing negative to say about the OnOne other than the price point they appear to aiming at is simply ridiculous compared to what you can get elsewhere providing more functionality. At $49, I think its wonderful. I have nothing negative to say about OnOne’s products or people (some I know). They got suckered by Kelby a bit in terms of giving him credit for this product in large part, for letting him foam at the mouth about it on his blog and elsewhere and for probably getting suckered into a non realistic price point for what the product provides (or will provide).
If Perfect Layers works for those who adopt it, then money well spent.
At $160 a pop? I have serious doubts. But that’s not the issue. The issue really isn’t “if its right for you buy it”, its about someone so many respect for deeds of the past, spewing marketing nonsense at that audience then totally dismissing anyone who questions the appearance of marketing BS, belittling anyone who questions the clothing of lack thereof on the emperor.
-
delete dupe post
-
The trouble is, James, that Scott & co came very close to being deceptive (others wouldn't be so kind). Proper professional advice would have been along the lines of here's an interesting product that's rather over-priced and not quite what they say it is, and you non-PS folks should buy Elements if you want the feature. Instead it was an "awesome" "game-changer" and a very half-hearted attempt to laugh off the criticism as a syntax issue.
"As to Perfect Layers, there is a market for the product or OnOne wouldn't have wasted its time and money on it. " Well, the road is littered with all sorts of misconceived turkeys too!
John
I don't disagree with you, other than you might consider me a non-PS guy. I'm coming back to LR from CaptureOne and I'm very comfortable using PS. I also have no desire to buy Perfect Layers. My obviously improperly stated point is Scott Kelby is a self promoter who found his niche and people like it. Apparently, unlike many here, I never put Scott on the same integrity level as I do many who post on this site. But, the fact is people like him and few of them will ever read Jeff's rant, let alone change their opinion. However, they might use a better layer application. These rants sound like sour grapes. IMO, Jeff was preaching to the choir.
As to price, OnOne can charge what ever they want. Software is pretty much a buyer-beware product. If they are willing to pay the price and use it, then they got value. Maybe not in your opinion, but you didn't buy the product. Also, why are you surprised or upset at the hype? That is Scott's specialty, and maybe he really believes in this product. I don't know, he doesn't call em.
-
As to price, OnOne can charge what ever they want. Software is pretty much a buyer-beware product. If they are willing to pay the price and use it, then they got value. Maybe not in your opinion, but you didn't buy the product. Also, why are you surprised or upset at the hype? That is Scott's specialty, and maybe he really believes in this product. I don't know, he doesn't call em.
I agree with your points. But the disappointment here is that so many go to Scott and his blog (or books, or lectures etc) to get opinions that are supposed to be good for them, not the other way around. We have a product that has Scott’s hand in it (he and OnOne make a big deal that Scott was involved with the product and design). We then hear uber hype about it (its a game changer). We witness banner ads on this and other Kelby blogs and sites for the product. When people ask, at the current suggested price point, why this product is worthwhile instead of say Elements (which does more, cost less), there’s blow back and its ugly blow back too. People go to Kelby and expect somewhat unbiased, useful advise. That’s not his driving motive any more. Its about making bucks. That is what’s most disappointing here. He could have said he was involved, proud of the product and got caught up in the excitement and wrote a blog post that should have been reviewed and edited. That’s the response from a lot of comments calling him out. He got pissy. He got his employees pissy too. Matt made it sound like the comments were uncalled for (the bit about Layers IN LR being a semantically incorrect wording, everyone is over reacting). If you look at the various ‘negative’ comments, most were just asking the boys to reflect on what they wrote and reduce the marketing BS, the opposite happened.
-
The problem is, a lot of this must have gone to his head because he’s become the PT Barnum of digital these days. Its unnecessary.
I have nothing negative to say about the OnOne other than the price point they appear to aiming at is simply ridiculous compared to what you can get elsewhere providing more functionality. At $49, I think its wonderful. I have nothing negative to say about OnOne’s products or people (some I know). They got suckered by Kelby a bit in terms of giving him credit for this product in large part, for letting him foam at the mouth about it on his blog and elsewhere and for probably getting suckered into a non realistic price point for what the product provides (or will provide).
At $160 a pop? I have serious doubts. But that’s not the issue. The issue really isn’t “if its right for you buy it”, its about someone so many respect for deeds of the past, spewing marketing nonsense at that audience then totally dismissing anyone who questions the appearance of marketing BS, belittling anyone who questions the clothing of lack thereof on the emperor.
I certainly agree that Scott has become the PT Barnum of digital these days. I don't think it's a problem though. He is giving the masses what they want. If not Scott, then somebody else.
Time will tell whether they priced the product right. I'm sure they know their customers better than I do. If they are wrong, the price will drop or the product will be scraped.
Integrity takes a lifetime to build and can be thrown away in a second. His audience will decide whether he is credible or not. It is in his interest to promote good products. As more peal off because they view him through the same prism as you, his popularity will diminish. He will either change or consider those "defectors" as a cost of doing business.
-
I agree with your points. But the disappointment here is that so many go to Scott and his blog (or books, or lectures etc) to get opinions that are supposed to be good for them, not the other way around. We have a product that has Scott’s hand in it (he and OnOne make a big deal that Scott was involved with the product and design). We then hear uber hype about it (its a game changer). We witness banner ads on this and other Kelby blogs and sites for the product. When people ask, at the current suggested price point, why this product is worthwhile instead of say Elements (which does more, cost less), there’s blow back and its ugly blow back too. People go to Kelby and expect somewhat unbiased, useful advise. That’s not his driving motive any more. Its about making bucks. That is what’s most disappointing here. He could have said he was involved, proud of the product and got caught up in the excitement and wrote a blog post that should have been reviewed and edited. That’s the response from a lot of comments calling him out. He got pissy. He got his employees pissy too. Matt made it sound like the comments were uncalled for (the bit about Layers IN LR being a semantically incorrect wording, everyone is over reacting). If you look at the various ‘negative’ comments, most were just asking the boys to reflect on what they wrote and reduce the marketing BS, the opposite happened.
I agree with you. But, if he is not listening to criticism, then let it go. He will change or somebody else will fill the whole he left in the digital world, to keep with the hyperbole theme.
-
I certainly agree that Scott has become the PT Barnum of digital these days. I don't think it's a problem though. He is giving the masses what they want.
Well the reason I consider him PT Barnum is due to his famous quote about suckers. I try not to consider myself one, maybe that’s why his more recent attitude rubs me the wrong way. If the masses listening to Kelby enjoy being thought of and treated like suckers, or really are suckers and don’t know it, not much I can do for them. There was a time I had far more respect for the guy and his organization, now I have distanced myself as much as possible from it because of my opinion of their lack of integrity. Maybe I’m naive. I think one can promote, market, make money and help people at the same time but its a fine line to walk. And if you cross the line and get called out for it, maybe address the issue.
There’s also some real questionable Kelby slants towards the technology being taught that I find surprising and disappointing (the entire “soft proofing doesn’t work, if your prints are too dark, just lighten the files”). Basically it seems, the disseminating information has to be distilled in 7 or less easily digestible steps, aimed at an MTV attention deficit mind set.
Integrity takes a lifetime to build and can be thrown away in a second.
So true.
-
I bought a couple of his books a few years ago and found his zany sense of humour OTT. It got in the way of anything meaningful he had to say. For that reason I haven't read his blogs. The best description of him that I have read is. A business man writing books for Photoshop. :(
-
As a rule, Photoshop books are pretty dry. Kelby reaches those who are at the low end of the learning curve with his light, humorous approach. His style is not to our liking, but he reaches a whole different audience and his sales attest to that. Funny thing, I became familiar with him when I first moved to digital. I was surprised when he released his first in a series of how to photography books--no idea he fashioned himself a photograph. I'm certain his connection to Moose Peterson and other pros is more about money than his photographic skill. Now-a-days, pros have to do more than sell beautiful pictures, they need to do seminars, webinars, and photo expeditions. Kelby is a conduit to a large, untapped audience. Can't blame them, they've got to eat and Kelby delivers.
-
Can't blame them, they've got to eat and Kelby delivers.
And afterwards, this lady come onto the scene to finish up <g>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiz42ffF3tY
-
And afterwards, this lady come onto the scene to finish up <g>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiz42ffF3tY
Who knows, Kelby might be the Colon Lady to his followers. Everybody needs a healthy colon. I'm thinking he gives some people irritable bowel syndrome. ;D