Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: maxgruzen on May 07, 2013, 08:58:02 pm

Title: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: maxgruzen on May 07, 2013, 08:58:02 pm
It seems there is to be two versions of Lightroom. The subscription version will be full featured and contain all the new goodies and the purchase and own it version will be a dumbed down version without all the features. Screw Adobe. What a bunch of back stabbing greedy corporate SOB's.All my years of using their products. Who could have imagined they would turn on their customers like this. I'm off to Capture One where I started years ago. I will never buy another Adobe product if I can help it.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: maxgruzen on May 07, 2013, 09:12:14 pm
Installed Mountain Lion last week so I could use LR5.  LR5 is no longer in my future.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: madmanchan on May 07, 2013, 09:18:19 pm
Out of curiosity, where did you read there will be two versions of Lightroom?

As far as I'm aware, there is currently one version of Lightroom 4.4, and there will be one version of Lightroom 5 -- and neither will be subscription-based.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Schewe on May 07, 2013, 09:24:16 pm
It seems there is to be two versions of Lightroom. The subscription version will be full featured and contain all the new goodies and the purchase and own it version will be a dumbed down version without all the features.

Your information is totally false...I can understand being pissed about the Photoshop CC thingie, but it's totally wrong to paint Lightroom with that same brush.

To be honest, it's sad that misinformation and FUD is being spread...look, you do what you want to do...that's your prerogative, but it would be foolish if you base you decision on totally bogus info. You should do yourself a favor and be sure what you THINK you know is actually true.

And yes, what you stated is totally bogus...now, re factor your decisions.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: maxgruzen on May 07, 2013, 10:24:25 pm
What assurances can our readers have that Lightroom will not become a subscription-only option?

[Bryan O'Neil Hughes] Lightroom is for photographers. And the Lightroom team is very aware of the reaction by photographers to Photoshop CC. We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option but we do envision added functionality for the CC version of Lightroom.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Schewe on May 07, 2013, 11:12:15 pm
[Bryan O'Neil Hughes] Lightroom is for photographers. And the Lightroom team is very aware of the reaction by photographers to Photoshop CC. We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option but we do envision added functionality for the CC version of Lightroom.

Added functionality related to being able to be able to sync to "the cloud" and see images on all your devices is what Bryan was talking about (note Bryan doesn't work on Lightroom, he works on Photoshop). Bryan was not talking about core DAM or image processing features being added to a cloud version that won't be on the perpetual license version.

Do you have multiple devices you want to send your images, image settings to? This would be a type of cloud based feature that wouldn't work without a cloud service...
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: dreed on May 08, 2013, 07:43:10 am
Do you have multiple devices you want to send your images, image settings to? This would be a type of cloud based feature that wouldn't work without a cloud service...

Why do I need the cloud to use the LR catalog in my desktop computer from my tablet or phone?

I just realised that there are two different cloud services being referred to here.

Jeff, I suspect that you are referring to "Cloud Storage", where you can access your images from anywhere that there is an Internet connection.

What Adobe are looking to sell with the iPad version of LR that uses a cloud is "Cloud Compute" (which may or may not also have "Cloud Stoage.")

Or at least that is how I understand what has been talked about.

If I use Amazon's Cloud Drive today for storage, yes it will be slower than local disk but it will give me Internet backups of files, even a LR catalogue. In terms of access speeds, Adobe's cloud is unlikely to be any faster than Amazon's for reading/writing files. But more importantly, I don't need a special version of LR to use Amazon Cloud. Ultimately, the same data needs to be sent to/from the cloud so an Adobe Storage Cloud will not have anything special to offer there.

However given what I've seen of how LR uses cache directories locally on computers, it needs a few extra smarts to work effectively with cloud based storage services.
Title: Two Versions of Lightroom -- no "cloud computing" is involved AFAIK
Post by: BJL on May 08, 2013, 12:21:58 pm
From all I have read, there is no cloud computing nor mandatory cloud storage involved with Adobe's "Creative Cloud"; even the iPad demo was doing all the raw image processing on the iPad itself.  AFAIK, all that Creative Cloud provides is some _options_ for syncing of data and storing and sharing of files.

As the the Adobe VP's comment that
Quote
We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option but we do envision added functionality for the CC version of Lightroom.
I am inclined to believe Jeff Schewe's innocuous interpretation, but with the current PR disaster reaching "Netflix" proportions in the anger, misinterpretations, and loss of trust, Adobe representatives should become a lot more careful in their choice of words!
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Pelao on May 08, 2013, 12:55:27 pm
Added functionality related to being able to be able to sync to "the cloud" and see images on all your devices is what Bryan was talking about (note Bryan doesn't work on Lightroom, he works on Photoshop). Bryan was not talking about core DAM or image processing features being added to a cloud version that won't be on the perpetual license version.

Do you have multiple devices you want to send your images, image settings to? This would be a type of cloud based feature that wouldn't work without a cloud service...

That is a little reassuring. Even so, it would be useful to have some clarification directly from Adobe. Added functionality could indeed simply refer to items directly related to the cloud. Without some clarification from Adobe, it could equally refer to a CC version of LR that has enhanced DAM or editing features. The statement isn't definitive without clarification from the company.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Schewe on May 08, 2013, 01:01:41 pm
That is a little reassuring. Even so, it would be useful to have some clarification directly from Adobe. Added functionality could indeed simply refer to items directly related to the cloud. Without some clarification from Adobe, it could equally refer to a CC version of LR that has enhanced DAM or editing features. The statement isn't definitive without clarification from the company.

LR5 hasn't shipped yet and any cloud features are down the road. So at this point it's all speculation-even from Adobe as it relates to LR5 and future versions.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Pelao on May 08, 2013, 02:54:46 pm
LR5 hasn't shipped yet and any cloud features are down the road. So at this point it's all speculation-even from Adobe as it relates to LR5 and future versions.

Fair enough. Makes sense. Thanks.

It would be better for customers, and therefore Adobe, if they could be a bit clearer, especially given the statement in that interview. Adobe clearly have a product strategy. That's good. A strategy to clearly communicate the changes would help; that unclear statement caused unnecessary confusion.

Fun times.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: hjulenissen on May 08, 2013, 03:57:43 pm
Perhaps the good people at Adobe should prepare an event like this a little better? You know, let the Photoshop people talk to the Lightroom people and all of them talk to the people with their head up in the cloud, make some nice phrases and assurances so as to avoid annoying their customers any more than necessary?

-h
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Pogo33 on May 08, 2013, 06:54:13 pm
Added functionality related to being able to be able to sync to "the cloud" and see images on all your devices is what Bryan was talking about (note Bryan doesn't work on Lightroom, he works on Photoshop). Bryan was not talking about core DAM or image processing features being added to a cloud version that won't be on the perpetual license version..

Jeff: I am a great fan of yours, purchased your last book as well as the videos. However, in the "DPReview" interview with Adobe VP of Creative Solutions, Winston Hendrickson and Bryan O'Neill Hughes, Mr. Hendrickson said "We expected a higher degree of this type of reaction from the hobbyist photographic community because currently there's not a lot of photography-specific value in our subscription products. That's why we've taken the unusual steps of Tom Hogarty's appearance on The Grid [a Scott Kelby webisode] showing potential Lightroom CC features and the Photoshop Sneak Peek where we showed new features like Camera Shake reduction."

From Mr. Hendrickson's comment, I take it that there is more planned for Lightroom CC than just cloud processing. Further I cannot believe that Adobe will include features in LR that are in the Photoshop ACR/CC. They want their subscription money and as Mr. Hendrickson says "there is not a lot of value" to this community.....There may not be too many takers for your LR5 video.....
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: John Cothron on May 08, 2013, 07:31:55 pm
I won't be hasty until all the facts are out, but I'm NOT a fan of cloud based anything, including storage of my raw files OR having to use software based on it.  Wrongly or rightly I like MY things where I can put my hands on it if need be, and not under any sort of control from a third party. I know quite a few people, including photographers, that feel the same way.  I'm certainly not saying the people that would choose to participate in something like this are wrong, but it is not my philosophy.   I hate to say it because I've used Lr since ver. 1 and haven't ever seriously looked in another direction, since its inception.  If I were forced to operate in the "cloud" in any way.. I would seriously have to look at other options.

**EDIT:  It might be advantageous for those interested in operating via the cloud to have that option, but if the folks from Adobe are paying attention.. please consider carefully before removing the ability for users to keep everything local and outside of a subscription service.  My suspicion is you will find the "newest, latest, and greatest" might not work so well for you from a customer satisfaction standpoint.  Make your product the best available, raise prices if you must.. but don't force your customer base into a this way or the highway decision.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: madmanchan on May 08, 2013, 08:02:43 pm
FWIW, there's an updated FAQ on the Lightroom Journal blog:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/

Specifically:

Quote
Q. Will I still be able to purchase Lightroom 5 outside of the Creative Cloud

A. Yes. Lightroom 5 will continue to be available as a standalone product, available for purchase as an Electronic Software Download(ESD) or as a boxed product with a traditional perpetual license.

 

Q. Will there be a different version of Lightroom called Lightroom CC?

A. No.

 

Q. Will there be features of Lightroom 5 that are exclusive to Creative Cloud members?

A. No.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 08, 2013, 08:28:37 pm
FWIW, there's an updated FAQ on the Lightroom Journal blog:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/

Specifically:
Quote
Q. Will there be features of Lightroom 5 that are exclusive to Creative Cloud members?

A. No.


Hi Eric,

I really appreciate your involvement in shaping the future for Adobe (as far as a single individual can), and your participation in various theads here at LuLa.

However, from the "unusual steps of Tom Hogarty's appearance on The Grid [a Scott Kelby webisode]" that I saw via DPReview, I got the distinct impression that some of the future features are specific to the availability of a wireless tablet connection, and exclusive to Lightroom CC version subscribers. Which made sense for that limited (although increasing) fragment of photographic output.

I wouldn't be sad to be corrected if my interpretation was not correct.

Cheers, and keep up your good work,
Bart
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Simon Garrett on May 08, 2013, 08:37:33 pm
Eric,

I read Tom Hogarty's comments, and I don't doubt them, but they're about LR5. 

My concerns are a longer term.  When CC was launched, there was no mention of it becoming "compulsory"; users could choose a subscription or perpetual-licence model.  Then, bang!  Having lost the ability to upgrade 3 versions ago, then CS disappears altogether, and for single-product users the price goes up markedly (50% for those that upgrade each time, over 500% for those that used to upgrade every 3 releases). 

LR5 will be a stand-alone, perpetual licence product, I trust you!  But what about LR6?  LR7? 

Should I really be making a long-term commitment to LR, and then find in 18 months time that LR6 is CC only (and more expensive)? If that's in doubt, I want to start planning my exit strategy now. 

I do believe what you and Tom are saying, but my trust in Adobe has taken a real knock over this. 
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: maxgruzen on May 08, 2013, 09:11:59 pm
Simon I think you already know the answer to that question. No one at Adobe is talking about LR6. Adobe has proven that its all about the money.....not exactly a socially responsible company. Kind of like garment factories in Bangledesh! By the way, Disney will no longer allow its products to be made in non socially responsible factories period, and Adobe's customers will no longer care to do business with it also.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: rasterdogs on May 08, 2013, 11:25:28 pm
Eric,

I read Tom Hogarty's comments, and I don't doubt them, but they're about LR5. 

My concerns are a longer term.  When CC was launched, there was no mention of it becoming "compulsory"; users could choose a subscription or perpetual-licence model.  Then, bang!  Having lost the ability to upgrade 3 versions ago, then CS disappears altogether, and for single-product users the price goes up markedly (50% for those that upgrade each time, over 500% for those that used to upgrade every 3 releases). 

LR5 will be a stand-alone, perpetual licence product, I trust you!  But what about LR6?  LR7? 

Should I really be making a long-term commitment to LR, and then find in 18 months time that LR6 is CC only (and more expensive)? If that's in doubt, I want to start planning my exit strategy now. 

I do believe what you and Tom are saying, but my trust in Adobe has taken a real knock over this. 

I've been a PS user for over 15 years.
As LR capabilities have evolved I've found myself using PS less frequently. I decided not to upgrade to the latest version of PS choosing to abandon using it. I'm glad I did that. 

The CS cloud tools look to be excellent but are far too expensive for me to consider.
If/when LR moves to a cloud only subscription basis I'll find other tools. I won't be happy to abandon Adobe products all together but subscription only as it is currently configured is far too expensive to be a value proposition for me. CS in the cloud only and the way it is being communicated, implemented and priced does nothing to give me any sense of confidence in Adobe as a business. 

The ungraceful manner in which they have announced/implemented/priced the move to the cloud leads me to believe that I'm not important to them as a customer. Caveat emptor.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Vladimirovich on May 09, 2013, 12:45:10 am
Eric,

I read Tom Hogarty's comments, and I don't doubt them, but they're about LR5. 

My concerns are a longer term.  When CC was launched, there was no mention of it becoming "compulsory"; users could choose a subscription or perpetual-licence model.  Then, bang!  Having lost the ability to upgrade 3 versions ago, then CS disappears altogether, and for single-product users the price goes up markedly (50% for those that upgrade each time, over 500% for those that used to upgrade every 3 releases). 

LR5 will be a stand-alone, perpetual licence product, I trust you!  But what about LR6?  LR7? 

Should I really be making a long-term commitment to LR, and then find in 18 months time that LR6 is CC only (and more expensive)? If that's in doubt, I want to start planning my exit strategy now. 

I do believe what you and Tom are saying, but my trust in Adobe has taken a real knock over this. 

and why do you ask Eric - he is a technical person and not a manager/marketing, isn't he... and there is no doubt that LR6 will be only subscription based too, it just happened that LR5 was a little ahead and Adobe wanted to try the full switch on simply lesser amount of CS users
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Schewe on May 09, 2013, 01:59:21 am
and there is no doubt that LR6 will be only subscription based too, it just happened that LR5 was a little ahead and Adobe wanted to try the full switch on simply lesser amount of CS users

And you know this how? Have you talked to Tom Hogarty? Have you talked to Winston Hendrickson? I have...and I think there is a strong likely hood that Lightroom will be a part of CC but not dropped as a perpetual license option..,yes there may be interesting and compelling optional functionality only available when cloud enabled...but the way I read the tea leaves, those will be enhanced cloud functionality, not impacting LR's core functionality of import, process and output.

There is a lot of doubt that LR5+ (meaning 6, 7 and beyond) will be CC only–in my mind.

Do you have any shred of evidence to the contrary?

Care to share it?

Or is this just you speculating?
(and trying to spread FUD).
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: hjulenissen on May 09, 2013, 02:29:26 am
Simon I think you already know the answer to that question. No one at Adobe is talking about LR6. Adobe has proven that its all about the money.....not exactly a socially responsible company. Kind of like garment factories in Bangledesh! By the way, Disney will no longer allow its products to be made in non socially responsible factories period, and Adobe's customers will no longer care to do business with it also.
People seems to tend to be idealists when it comes to other peoples investments, while they are pragmatic when it comes to their own investments. People will turn to the streets to protest against blood-sucking corporations, but when they purchase an air ticket, a pair of trousers etc, they will base their decision mostly on what is good for them.

People don't buy shares because they want to be nice to the photographers of this world. They buy shares because they want to want to have food on the table when they retire, or to finance the kids education or whatever. If the shares gives a lower return than possible, they won't be happy. Would you? How much of your retirement would you be willing to give up in order for a company like Adobe to pursue anything but the goals that they deem most profitable?

Now, the company executives, the board and the share owners may have more or less realistic ideas about what strategy will maximize the return on the shareholders investment. They may be stupid. There may be insentives that are irrational for the owners. The bosses may be corrupt. But I don't think that they deserve a flogging for "being all about the money".


My guess is that Photoshop is mature enough (i.e. they have problems introducing must-have improvements) that many users don't need to upgrade very often (other than if forced by OS upgrades and/or camera upgrades). Adobe realize this, and they want to ensure that they have a steady stream of income in years to come based on the initial investment in making a great, seemingly indispensible industry-standard image editor. I don't know if this will work out for them. Being a tech person myself, I tend to prefer market stragegies based on technical superiority: make Photoshop/Lightroom/... as good as possible. If you do, many people will be willing to part with sufficient cash that you will be profitable.

I don't believe that developing CC and CS versions alongside each other would be that much of a burden. I do, however, think that releasing 4 stable minor releases each year is considerable more of a burden than releasing 1 larger release each 1.5 year. Worst case, they could release dot releases as CC and major releases as CS (CS would sync up with CC every e.g. 18 months). I think it has more to do with stable, predictable income and "forcing" those upgrading every 5 years to pay more or get lost.

-h
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Vladimirovich on May 09, 2013, 02:34:18 am
And you know this how? Have you talked to Tom Hogarty? Have you talked to Winston Hendrickson? I have...

and ?

is moving to subscription only model more profitable for Adobe than keeping both subscription and perpetual models ? yes, it is - otherwise why make such a move.

and why what is profitable for CS will not be profitable for LR ? LR crowd is actually more captive than ACR/PS crowd, because LR was specifically designed to enslave the users.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Schewe on May 09, 2013, 02:40:45 am
and ?

And, you didn't respond to any of my questions in a reasonable manner...perhaps English isn't your primary language? Re-read what I said and translate it a couple of times and see if you can understand what I asked you...

Again, do you have any facts or are you just spreading FUD?

Be honest dooode...or be gone.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Vladimirovich on May 09, 2013, 02:49:13 am
Be honest dooode...
and that is from a person who says "Anti-CC crowd" instead of correct "Anti-CC only crowd"... how about a mirror ?
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Schewe on May 09, 2013, 03:02:48 am
and that is from a person who says "Anti-CC crowd" instead of correct "Anti-CC only crowd"... how about a mirror ?

I'm looking in a mirror right now...I'm fine with what I see. You?
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: JRSmit on May 09, 2013, 03:55:15 am
Seems to me that quite a few people around the world needs to develop an understanding of the very large container concept of "the cloud". In fact using this forum is using a cloud service, lula does not own this infrastructure and software needed to provide this forum. It is a cloud service! Is it THE CLOUD , no it is not it is just a subset of the total cloud concept. As far as i understand Adobe, their cloud concept is about: subscription to use their software, being still on your own hardware; file sharing and file storage, both of them are not mandatory, you can do your own file storage and sharing. But if you use dropbox, google drive or any other file sharing you are actually using a cloud service. Now Adobe and individuals both focus on the main driver: added value. I cannot flog Adobe for doing that. Going into the cloud is a shift in paradigm for adobe and its community of users. Thus as a paraphrase: them gong into the cloud creates a cloud, making the whole thing pretty invisible. I hope the dust settles quickly, and all i can hope for at the moment is that it turns out to be a good move of adobe. At the end of the day, my move to lightroom a few years ago was simply because it provided to me the most added value, leaving the previously used solutions in the dust. It still is on the whole the best solution for me today, and looking forward to the LR5 functionality.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Jim-St on May 09, 2013, 05:14:00 am
Just been watching Tom Hogarty's performance on The Grid and his explanation of how a CC/ LR workflow could go: basically it's a no-brainer that raw processing on an iPad will be best done parametrically, and sync'd through some cloud or other between iPad app and desktop LR. Just what we need? Could be!

So I'm not going to go near a PSCC - simply won't be cost-effective for the little  time I spend in PS nowadays - but  I would be seriously interested in something that let me do tone, colour, presence, crop, key wording etc on Smart Previews on a train somewhere, then find all that work  done when I get home to LR.
Question remains how much this will cost. Here I  think we'd have to hope to see some competition, maybe from Aperture and iCloud... after  all, Aperture's pricing seems able to impact on LR's
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom - FUD?
Post by: rasterdogs on May 09, 2013, 10:53:01 am
FUD  ???
Sure there's FUD. For me the FUD is significantly related to Adobe's actions, pricing, and communications.
As a mere hobbyist photographer and a 'loyal' Adobe customer for ~ 15 years I do have some uncertainty.

This statement from Adobe's Winston Hendrickson does give me pause to consider my continuing use of LR.
"We expected a higher degree of this type of reaction from the hobbyist photographic community because currently there's not a lot of photography-specific value in our subscription products."
Maybe I don't get the intended meaning of this statement but for me it has a tinge of 'let them eat cake'. I've always thought of myself as an Adobe customer

He then goes on to outline the current pricing of LR and Elements as primary tools that hobbyists use. This is all fine but when I reflect on the investment I've made in PS and collateral books and video tutorials over the years I'm not so sanguine about my future use of any Adobe products. As a (now former) PS user the evolution of Adobe's business model on that front gives me pause to consider the future and my use of LR.

I will certainly modify/harden my LR workflow with the consideration that I may need to abandon LR in the future.
I will go back to a folder structure that is less abstract and less dependent on LR's excellent DAM aspects.
I will now output any files I want to keep as TIFF's.

I will investigate Aperture/Capture One in much greater detail.

I will limit my expenditures on LR collateral training books and video tutorials. I will limit my expenditures on LR plug-ins unless they also work with other tools.

I'm disappointed in the way Adobe has managed the move to the subscription only use of their tools. I'm skeptical that they have much consideration for me as a customer.
Caveat Emptor.
Title: PS CC is $240/year; not great, but not as high as some are thinking
Post by: BJL on May 09, 2013, 11:12:51 am
Simon,

    though I agree with the complaints about price for people who are not "every day" users of PS, you seem to be looking at the $50/month price of a a bundle of multiple CC products, many of no relevance to photography. The subscription rate for PhotoShop alone is $240/year.

... for single-product users the price goes up markedly (50% for those that upgrade each time, over 500% for those that used to upgrade every 3 releases).
I do not see how upgrading every three releases gets the price down to $40/year, which is what it could have to be for $240/year to be a 500% increase.
Title: Re: PS CC is $240/year; not great, but not as high as some are thinking
Post by: rasterdogs on May 09, 2013, 11:33:01 am
Simon,

    though I agree with the complaints about price for people who are not "every day" users of PS, you seem to be looking at the $50/month price of a a bundle of multiple CC products, many of no relevance to photography. The subscription rate for PhotoShop alone is $240/year.
I do not see how upgrading every three releases gets the price down to $40/year, which is what it could have to be for $240/year to be a 500% increase.
I just finished a chat session with Adobe sales trying to get a clear/er understanding of the cost.  There was a certain level of ambiguity in that communication but as best as I was able to understand the pricing goes up to USD 50.00 per year after the first year 'introductory' pricing.

I didn't think it was possible but this is as convoluted as trying to understand the cost of my cell phone service. :o
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom - FUD?
Post by: Isaac on May 09, 2013, 11:43:28 am
As a mere hobbyist photographer and a 'loyal' Adobe customer for ~ 15 years I do have some uncertainty.

My guess is that you have been an Adobe customer because (for what you were willing to pay) you considered their products best suited your needs.

Once you inflate that into being a 'loyal' customer, you also inflate the move to other products into being a 'disloyal' customer ;-)


... but when I reflect on the investment I've made in PS and collateral books and video tutorials over the years I'm not so sanguine about my future use of any Adobe products.

Haven't you already had the return on that investment over the last 15 years?


I will go back to a folder structure that is less abstract and less dependent on LR's excellent DAM aspects.
I will now output any files I want to keep as TIFF's.

That's been working just fine for me.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom - FUD?
Post by: rasterdogs on May 09, 2013, 12:07:20 pm
My guess is that you have been an Adobe customer because (for what you were willing to pay) you considered their products best suited your needs.

Once you inflate that into being a 'loyal' customer, you also inflate the move to other products into being a 'disloyal' customer ;-)


Haven't you already had the return on that investment over the last 15 years?


That's been working just fine for me.

Ok I'm just a customer and I'm getting a clearer understanding of what the means to Adobe.

And no, the ROI that I've made in learning Adobe products is now a dead end for me.

Good to hear that it is working fine for you, congratulations. Hopefully that will continue well into the future.   ;)


Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: John Cothron on May 09, 2013, 12:08:08 pm
It's interesting to see the different views, but I still see the overall concept pretty simple.  I UNDERSTAND that Lr5 will not be subscription based, but like others I wonder about Lr6, or 7.  No, they aren't considering those right now, but it would seem from some of the comments I've seen here that at least conceptually a subscription based service is in the works..otherwise why make a reference to it?  Testing the waters?

Adobe got to where it is by being innovative, as well as providing its customer base those tools they both needed and ASKED for.  While I fully understand there are those that see the advantages, and want.. a subscription based service, it seems to me there are also a significant number of others that don't want that at all and in fact would choose to go elsewhere to avoid it.

Keep being innovative but also keep listening to your customer base.  The minute you do what "you think is right" and it differs from what your customers want.. the tide turns.  All companies are run by the numbers to some extent, but long term health will be generated when you support your customers.  Unless you are an accounting firm, accountants shouldn't be deciding what direction a product takes just based "on the numbers".  No offense to accountants at all, nor do I have any specific reason for thinking that's the influence taking place at Adobe... but it IS eerily similar to what I've seen take place at other corporations well outside of software and/or photography.
Title: PS only will be $240/year; avoid confusion with the price of the full suite
Post by: BJL on May 09, 2013, 12:41:40 pm
There was a certain level of ambiguity in that communication but as best as I was able to understand the pricing goes up to USD 50.00 per year after the first year 'introductory' pricing.
No: as I tried to say already, that $50/month is what the price for the whole suite of multiple programs will be after an initial discount rate of $30/mo for current CS owners. The subscription price for PhotoShop only is set at $20/month, with no indication that this is a special introductory rate. It is the "Single application" price for "Full version of one desktop application" in the list at http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.edu.html
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom - FUD?
Post by: Isaac on May 09, 2013, 01:25:59 pm
Good to hear that it is working fine for you, congratulations. Hopefully that will continue well into the future.

Hopefully someday there'll be standards for hierachical keywording and detected faces.
Title: Re: PS only will be $240/year; avoid confusion with the price of the full suite
Post by: rasterdogs on May 10, 2013, 01:26:58 am
No: as I tried to say already, that $50/month is what the price for the whole suite of multiple programs will be after an initial discount rate of $30/mo for current CS owners. The subscription price for PhotoShop only is set at $20/month, with no indication that this is a special introductory rate. It is the "Single application" price for "Full version of one desktop application" in the list at http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.edu.html

So I gotta wonder why the sales person I chatted with kept directing me to the $30/month deal when I kept reiterating that I was only interested in PS.  I tell you it was just like visiting the Verizon store.  I'll pass, thanks.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: maxgruzen on May 10, 2013, 10:28:37 am
I think part of anger at Adobe has to do with the general way in which the corporate world and the 2% keep sucking me dry. My buying power keeps being diminished; Sequester has hit me hard, and it is a struggle for me and most of the middle class to stay afloat. Verizon wants more, Direct TV wants more, gas is more, electricity is more, and now adobe whats to suck me dry so they can make a bigger profit. They have a right to set whatever price they want so I really have no claim here, but I will never lose the feeling that they have stabbed me in the back after so many years of being a client. If Adobe succeeds in this scam, every software maker will jump on the band wagon and go to a subsription service. It will soon cost me hundreds of dollars a month to run my computer. I kid you NOT. Everyone in the industry is watching this and it is time for those who lead to make their voices heard........Michael?
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Pogo33 on May 10, 2013, 11:34:15 am
FWIW, there's an updated FAQ on the Lightroom Journal blog:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/

Q. Will there be a different version of Lightroom called Lightroom CC?

A. No.

I take the comments from Adobe Senior management seriously. I think in this climate one needs to and it seems to me that people are talking from both sides of their mouth. Earlier I quoted Mr. Hendrickson who said very specifically that Tom Hogan was showing "the potential of Lightroom CC." Mr. Hendrickson is the man, VP of Creative Solutions. Tom Hogan is a Manager. Everyone concedes that LR will be part of CC of which it will consist as part of the subscription offering. The real question, will there be differences? Here the double speak gets more complicated.

Mr. Hogan has assured us that there will be no differences in his blog post as quoted above. In the same interview at DPReview.com, Brian Hughes is quoted as saying that "We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option but we do envision added functionality for CC members using Lightroom." Even Mr. Schewe implied the same thing above and Mr. Hogan, in his next post at his Lightroom Journal said when talking about ACR8 (which should also refer to LR5) "No new features or functionality will be available in ACR to Photoshop CS6 customers as part of those updates. (No Upright, advanced healing brush or radial filter, etc.)  I don’t have a timeline for how long this camera raw support will continue for Photoshop CS6 but I want to be consistent with our past policy of providing raw support for currently shipping products."

Historically, ACR has matched the Development module in LR. Will ACR8CC (the one with the Upright, advanced healing brush and radial filter) continue to be part of LR5 or will that only be a part of LRCC? How will important functionality like camera shake reduction be added to ACRCC without it being added LRCC? Will all of these updated features be added to LR5 or beyond? Again, Mr. Schewe and others seem to imply there will be subscription differences from the purchase products. The more that management and Adobe loyalists talk, the more the cloudy the picture gets confusing.

So let me say a final thing. What Adobe has done is just stunning. I have been in business and in retail for 40 years. Never have I seen a major organization actively alienage a significant segment of its customer base and from Mr. Hendrickson's words, he doesn't care; "there's not a lot of photography-specific value in our subscription products." Further, because we are views as having little value, the organization is relegating us to more mundane products like LR and Elements. I just wonder how many other individuals are out there like me who purchased the Creative Suites that will not do so now. It is an interesting world that Adobe has created and it will make a wonderful Business School study.

BTW; the sole issue is ownership. "I will not be involved in a software product where I don't have perpetual rights to what acquire. There are a "lot" of ways that Adobe could have handled this issue, with buy-out-rights, major update purchase options, etc. If Adobe wants to flat line their revenue stream, fine, but give us an opportunity to own what we pay for.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Schewe on May 10, 2013, 12:12:51 pm
Historically, ACR has matched the Development module in LR. Will ACR8CC (the one with the Upright, advanced healing brush and radial filter) continue to be part of LR5 or will that only be a part of LRCC? How will important functionality like camera shake reduction be added to ACRCC without it being added LRCC? Will all of these updated features be added to LR5 or beyond? Again, Mr. Schewe and others seem to imply there will be subscription differences from the purchase products. The more that management and Adobe loyalists talk, the more the cloudy the picture gets confusing.

Just to be perfectly clear, I don't speak on behalf of Adobe...everything I say is my own opinion and should not be confused with an official Adobe position.

Yes, stuff is confusing because, well, it's now Fri and the announcement was only on Mon. There is a lot of histrionic debate raging and it's really hard for people to parse the language of various statements by various people trying to make things more clear.

As it relates to LR5 and ACR 8 in CS6, it should be clear that:

LR5 is going to remain a perpetual license product while also part of the full CC package of apps.

LR5 will need ACR 8.x in order to rasterize an image into PS CS6 while maintaining the LR5 edits (unless you have LR5 do the rendering–which will always be an option as an export).

ACR 8.x will run in PS CS6–which is a bit of a new thing because in the past ACR was version specific. But, while ACR 8.x can process and render LR5 settings, you will not have the LR5 and ACR 8 functionality when hosted by CS6. For that you'll need PS CC.

Winston and other Adobe people have said there is no plan on making LR a CC only product (and I believe them) but that it's likely that CC members will get enhanced cloud options for sharing and integrating with the cloud. Does this mean a whole new set of processing features? I don't think so...if there is new CC integration, it might come as a CC type of LR plug-in much like the Facebook plug-in is now.

What I don't see happening is a different set of processing tools and adjustments that would make LR and CC versions different. The core set of modules and processing tools would be the same.

The above is what I think and know...but is not coming from Adobe. Eric Chan made a useful post (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78214.msg627516#msg627516) in a different thread (it's really hard to keep all these threads straight) that you might read.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: madmanchan on May 10, 2013, 01:15:23 pm
Quote
Never have I seen a major organization actively alienage a significant segment of its customer base and from Mr. Hendrickson's words, he doesn't care; "there's not a lot of photography-specific value in our subscription products."

I think this is a misinterpretation of Winston's remarks.  My reading of this is that Winston is actually acknowledging that a limitation of the current CC subscription offerings is that they don't offer photography-specific value.  He actually does care and wants to create a better offering for photographers, but what's been publicly announced so far during Adobe MAX doesn't address that.  This is not a good situation and he understands that.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: John Cothron on May 10, 2013, 04:59:51 pm
My interpretation is much like Eric indicates above.  It seems to me the statement is more about the value of the cloud to photographers, moreso than the value of the photographers to Adobe.

I wonder though, with Lr being as complete as it is, and let's face it.. it is a very capable tool for photographers, how much real value is in Ps for photographers?  I know, that many still use ACR/Ps for their workflow, whether that be out of familiarity or something else I have no idea.  For me personally, I almost never use Ps.  There are three reasons I will take an image to Ps.

1.  Stitching
2.  HDR - which I've done exactly ONCE, and even then for the forming the composite image, then editing back in Lr.
3.  Cloning something out of an image that you don't want to be there.  Even with the new tools in Lr5, I find Ps to be more functional in this area.

In a sense, I spent a very significant sum for a piece of software (in my case Ps5) that I almost never use.  For photographers, has Ps reached the point of bloat?  It's a great piece of software, don't get me wrong, and it performs wonderfully for the things its capable of.  For most photographers however, I would think many of its tools are overkill.  Then again, I may be in the minority where my use of Ps is concerned.

A bigger question, what exactly could Adobe add to Ps to make it even more appealing to the market it serves now? Outside of photography.  Perhaps, this cloud concept is a result of "where do we go now?".  While not a Ps expert by any means, I still find it impossible to think of something I would want Ps to do that it doesn't already do.  If that is indeed the case, what would be the incentive for many to move to..Ps7?  I would think this is something that has crossed Adobe's mind(s) as well.. and as many have stated, the cloud offers a continuous revenue stream which somewhat mitigates that crisis.

However, I see a HUGE market (myself included) for a version(or perhaps another product) that addresses the basic things photographers use Ps for now.  I would certainly pay for a piece of software that allowed me to do the things I mentioned above, that didn't have the seemingly limitless other tools that I just don't need.  One, it should be more economical than a full version of Ps.  Two, it does offer things that are more difficult to achieve in something like Lr due to the way Lr works.  Before anyone mentions it...Elements doesn't cut it.  It COULD, but it will not work with 16 bit files (last I checked) so that knocks it out of the running quickly.

I'm thinking out loud, and may be rambling..lol.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: rasterdogs on May 10, 2013, 06:06:51 pm
My interpretation is much like Eric indicates above.  It seems to me the statement is more about the value of the cloud to photographers, moreso than the value of the photographers to Adobe.

I wonder though, with Lr being as complete as it is, and let's face it.. it is a very capable tool for photographers, how much real value is in Ps for photographers?  I know, that many still use ACR/Ps for their workflow, whether that be out of familiarity or something else I have no idea.  For me personally, I almost never use Ps.  There are three reasons I will take an image to Ps.

1.  Stitching
2.  HDR - which I've done exactly ONCE, and even then for the forming the composite image, then editing back in Lr.
3.  Cloning something out of an image that you don't want to be there.  Even with the new tools in Lr5, I find Ps to be more functional in this area.

In a sense, I spent a very significant sum for a piece of software (in my case Ps5) that I almost never use.  For photographers, has Ps reached the point of bloat?  It's a great piece of software, don't get me wrong, and it performs wonderfully for the things its capable of.  For most photographers however, I would think many of its tools are overkill.  Then again, I may be in the minority where my use of Ps is concerned.

A bigger question, what exactly could Adobe add to Ps to make it even more appealing to the market it serves now? Outside of photography.  Perhaps, this cloud concept is a result of "where do we go now?".  While not a Ps expert by any means, I still find it impossible to think of something I would want Ps to do that it doesn't already do.  If that is indeed the case, what would be the incentive for many to move to..Ps7?  I would think this is something that has crossed Adobe's mind(s) as well.. and as many have stated, the cloud offers a continuous revenue stream which somewhat mitigates that crisis.

However, I see a HUGE market (myself included) for a version(or perhaps another product) that addresses the basic things photographers use Ps for now.  I would certainly pay for a piece of software that allowed me to do the things I mentioned above, that didn't have the seemingly limitless other tools that I just don't need.  One, it should be more economical than a full version of Ps.  Two, it does offer things that are more difficult to achieve in something like Lr due to the way Lr works.  Before anyone mentions it...Elements doesn't cut it.  It COULD, but it will not work with 16 bit files (last I checked) so that knocks it out of the running quickly.

I'm thinking out loud, and may be rambling..lol.

Having seen an example of Jeff's pixel wrangling on the LR4 LULA video I can see there is real value in using PS for those who have the chops and want the greatest range of interpretation for their images. In my use of PS I've never reached that skill level.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: s4e on May 10, 2013, 06:15:54 pm
My interpretation is much like Eric indicates above.  It seems to me the statement is more about the value of the cloud to photographers, moreso than the value of the photographers to Adobe.

I wonder though, with Lr being as complete as it is, and let's face it.. it is a very capable tool for photographers, how much real value is in Ps for photographers?  I know, that many still use ACR/Ps for their workflow, whether that be out of familiarity or something else I have no idea.  For me personally, I almost never use Ps.  There are three reasons I will take an image to Ps.

1.  Stitching
2.  HDR - which I've done exactly ONCE, and even then for the forming the composite image, then editing back in Lr.
3.  Cloning something out of an image that you don't want to be there.  Even with the new tools in Lr5, I find Ps to be more functional in this area.

In a sense, I spent a very significant sum for a piece of software (in my case Ps5) that I almost never use.  For photographers, has Ps reached the point of bloat?  It's a great piece of software, don't get me wrong, and it performs wonderfully for the things its capable of.  For most photographers however, I would think many of its tools are overkill.  Then again, I may be in the minority where my use of Ps is concerned.

A bigger question, what exactly could Adobe add to Ps to make it even more appealing to the market it serves now? Outside of photography.  Perhaps, this cloud concept is a result of "where do we go now?".  While not a Ps expert by any means, I still find it impossible to think of something I would want Ps to do that it doesn't already do.  If that is indeed the case, what would be the incentive for many to move to..Ps7?  I would think this is something that has crossed Adobe's mind(s) as well.. and as many have stated, the cloud offers a continuous revenue stream which somewhat mitigates that crisis.

However, I see a HUGE market (myself included) for a version(or perhaps another product) that addresses the basic things photographers use Ps for now.  I would certainly pay for a piece of software that allowed me to do the things I mentioned above, that didn't have the seemingly limitless other tools that I just don't need.  One, it should be more economical than a full version of Ps.  Two, it does offer things that are more difficult to achieve in something like Lr due to the way Lr works.  Before anyone mentions it...Elements doesn't cut it.  It COULD, but it will not work with 16 bit files (last I checked) so that knocks it out of the running quickly.

I'm thinking out loud, and may be rambling..lol.

I agree. This editor could be part of Lightroom (optional).
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: John Cothron on May 10, 2013, 06:16:53 pm
Having seen an example of Jeff's pixel wrangling on the LR4 LULA video I can see there is real value in using PS for those who have the chops and want the greatest range of interpretation for their images. In my use of PS I've never reached that skill level.

I admit, I did use his "progressive sharpening" technique on an image that I was never completely happy with, due to focus and diffraction.  It definitely made a significant improvement.  Having said that, had I taken more time when I took the image I wouldn't have needed it :)  Still, it's a HUGE investment for the number of times I actually use it.  Obviously it was worth it to me at the time, but if I had to subscribe to it continually that would change the value for me.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: Schewe on May 10, 2013, 06:23:21 pm
However, I see a HUGE market (myself included) for a version(or perhaps another product) that addresses the basic things photographers use Ps for now.  I would certainly pay for a piece of software that allowed me to do the things I mentioned above, that didn't have the seemingly limitless other tools that I just don't need.  One, it should be more economical than a full version of Ps.  Two, it does offer things that are more difficult to achieve in something like Lr due to the way Lr works.  Before anyone mentions it...Elements doesn't cut it.  It COULD, but it will not work with 16 bit files (last I checked) so that knocks it out of the running quickly.

I'm thinking out loud, and may be rambling..lol.

Thinking out loud is good...I suggest to check out a new topic I started with the title: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now... (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78240.0)
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: John Cothron on May 10, 2013, 06:26:39 pm
Thinking out loud is good...I suggest to check out a new topic I started with the title: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now... (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78240.0)

LOL.. I just did, and added my post from here.
Title: Re: Two Versions of Lightroom
Post by: EKJellytoes on May 13, 2013, 03:07:44 pm
I notice that many of the "newbies" have taken a liberal, socially-engaged side of this issue while most of the "big old guns" have taken the opposite, more conservative side of the question.

I beleive, based solely on past experience on this planet, that in the end Adobe will do everything in it's power to maximize it's profits and crush it's competition....and in the future it will pursue the CC-version exclusively due to the ROI vs. that from perpetual license down-load or worse, box editions. The cost savings added to higher renenue stream are just too compelling to ignore from a corporate perspective.

And remember, none - not one - of the Adobe products was ever created to aide or benefit you or I in any way, shape or fashion, except as a collateral benefit to the desire to make money! If - IF - the photgraphic community benefits and buys the product great....but if they choose to go elsewhere then fine because the new business model is clearly designed to make money from other revenue streams  -  not serving the amateur photographer. This prime purpose of business, making money, always seems to amaze and anger many people who talk about social responsibility and of course that old saw your Mothers taught you about "sharing".

Now it could come to pass that when the population of this little blue-marble reaches, oh say 20-billion, that human nature will change and "socially responsible sharing" will replace "greedy rabid capitalism"....but I rather doubt that will ever come to pass...besides we will all be dead and gone and to "H" with all of them.