Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 on: Today at 04:03:24 PM 
Started by myotis - Last post by myotis
You can get some thoughts, "from the horses mouth" as the saying goes, from Adobe at the link below.

I'm not sure if the "horses mouth" has been all that reliable in the past, not that I'm suggesting what I have say is any more reliable.  But I don't think companies can really make "long term" promises as they need to adapt to the market, and Adobe have implied this in the link.

In spite of an earlier commitment to a perpetual license model for LR, they suggest in the link that they to responded to customer demands by moving away from it. And they give a similar message about LR Classic, saying they are committed to providing the Classic version, unless they decide its something customers don't want.

Which is exactly what you would expect a successful company to do. Balance what is needed to run an effective business along with producing a product that enough people want to buy, which will include steering the customer towards the product you want sell.



 on: Today at 04:02:35 PM 
Started by ButchM - Last post by Ethan Hansen
Or their servers get hacked and your stuff is "appropriated",

Luckily Adobe has proved they know how to secure their systems. Oh. Wait. They haven't. Good point. Perhaps Adobe can explain why a photography business should feel comfortable storing their second most valuable assets - after the photographers themselves - with a company whose approach to security (Flash or Acrobat anyone?) has been lackadaisical at best.

I suspect, for the market theatre aiming at with the new “LR CC” they needed a new, simpler design.  A PhD system, as in Push Here Dummy.  Time will tell if they meet their objective. 

And there, I suspect, is where the friction between Adobe's approach and working photographers arises. Lightroom's beginning was promising, coming as a single application that could work with the proprietary RAW formats foisted off by each camera vendor. It was a breath of fresh air after the horrors of Nikon Capture, etc. The pro digital market pales in comparison to the prosumer, hence the approach John aptly calls PhD.

I am less concerned about the SAAS subscription approach Adobe looks to use - that's proven too profitable to resist - than I am with the forced cloud uploads and the implicit assumption that your images are only rented from Adobe. If you are using Lightroom to review, cull, and process images from a commercial shoot the last thing one typically wants is cloud storage. 1TB of storage space? A single shoot can fill that and then some. Even assuming you have screaming on location internet speeds please explain why I want to transfer thousands of images to Adobe that will quickly prove useless or redundant.

I just hope another developer sees and quickly exploits the tremendous opportunity Adobe has handed them.

 on: Today at 04:02:03 PM 
Started by Sharon VL - Last post by Sharon VL
Alan, I've tried the tube method but this paper creases so easily. I'm pretty discouraged.

 on: Today at 04:00:20 PM 
Started by davidgp - Last post by Enrico M
... Will they come up with a DAM LR type of program?  I don't know but I'm prepared to wait and see....

John Beardsworth' 'Open Directly' allows you to use Lr as a DAM (that is all the modules, just NOT Develop) So use Affinity, C1 etc as a direct replacement for the Develop module. Works even when you discontinue subscription.

Also, depending on what plugins you have, it's possible to access external apps through the 'Edit in..' command which is under the 'Library' module as well as 'Develop'.

But yes, the downside is that it'll probably increase your TIFF file count but that seems like a small price to pay given the alternative. In fact, when Lr subscription supports the new HEIF format, nothing stopping one ceasing the subscription model and retaining 'good & useful' functionality ...

 on: Today at 03:59:45 PM 
Started by ButchM - Last post by Alan Goldhammer
That's also a marketing game, and why Adobe developed the DNG format.
And only Leica AFAIK adopted DNG for output; all the other mfrs stayed with proprietary formats for RAW files.

 on: Today at 03:58:07 PM 
Started by Sharon VL - Last post by Alan Goldhammer
I share your pain!!  I haven't found a Hahnemuhle paper (I use several of their matte papers) yet that doesn't suffer from that same problem (mostly use 13x19 inch cut sheets).  The only thing to suggest which is what I do is to reverse roll it onto a cardboard mailing tube (mine are 4 inches in diameter) with a sheet of archival paper over the surface.  You need to do various timings to see what works out best.  In terms of gloss surface papers, I've found that Museo Silver Rag has the least curl.  they company has new owners now and I don't know whether newer batches of paper are still curl resistant.  Unfortunately it is a warm paper and not Baryta.

 on: Today at 03:55:58 PM 
Started by ButchM - Last post by Mark D Segal
Curious.  Why don't camera manufacturers provide a standard RAW interface code so you don't have to upgrade your editing program every time they release a new camera?

That's also a marketing game, and why Adobe developed the DNG format.

 on: Today at 03:54:27 PM 
Started by ButchM - Last post by Mark D Segal
Alan, when they stop supporting local processing between one section of my hard drive and another, that is the day I move on to something else. I'm not worried about it. There will always be options and enough transition time to manage the changeovers.

 on: Today at 03:53:49 PM 
Started by davidgp - Last post by pegelli
Ok....hogloff did car still didn’t work 😀

I stated the camera analogy did not work with the software discussion.

A child can figure out that cameras hold higher value when they are new and have more competitive function, than years later when new competing offerings come available.  Also, you have the business and manufacturing dynamics of volume production and then clearing inventory.  In addition, used versions of the same product come available and are in completion to new product.

 One of this is fair or unfair or in anyway related to the software discussion or its business dynamics.
Some of the "new" features introduced are becoming available or better in competing products (for instance in the C1 straightening functions). Therefore they are worth less as time progresses.

And secondly, can you engage in a discussion without insults or disparaging comments, they don't impress me and only tell what kind of person you really are  :P

 on: Today at 03:52:02 PM 
Started by davidgp - Last post by Mark D Segal
If you look at the list value-added-features, it's blindingly obvious that photographers are not their prime customer base

Better brush organization
Access Lightroom Photos **
Brush stroke smoothing
Exclusive brushes from Kyle T. Webster
Variable fonts
Quick Share menu
Curvature Pen tool
Path improvements
Copy and paste layers
Enhanced tooltips
360 panorama workflow
Properties panel improvements
Support for Microsoft Dial
Paste as plain text
Support for HEIF **
Select and Mask improvements **

And so much more
Also includes: Performance and stability improvements, ability to save large files faster, better face detection for Face-Aware Liquify, better Content-Aware Crop and Content-Aware Fill on edges, and more.
See full release notes ›

That list is mainly relevant to Photoshop, not Lightroom, and you are correct that Photoshop has a much larger user base than photographers.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10