Sneak Peak "Dehaze" LR CC Feature

[jjj]

I wonder how the workflow with Photoshop looks like if the features of Lr 6 are different from the one of Lr CC and ACR.

Well if you have a current version of PS, then you also have LR CC. So no problems there.
If you have LR6 and a older version of PS that does not have the same version of ACR as LR6 then you won't be able to open images as smart objects to retain full raw editability into PS.

[Robert-Peter Westphal]

Probably the same way they handled the adjustment brush in the Gradient and Radial overlays ... ACR had them when ready ... Lr received it with v6.

Ok, and how does an image look in Lightroom after saving it in ACR and resyncing the metadata in Lr ?

[ButchM]

Ok, and how does an image look in Lightroom after saving it in ACR and resyncing the metadata in Lr ?

The adjustments are still there at the metadata level Lr and would be included when you print or export, though, you can't edit them in Lr. If you need to make adjustments to settings only available in ACR, you would have to return to Ps/ACR to make them.

[Robert-Peter Westphal]

The adjustments are still there at the metadata level Lr and would be included when you print or export, though, you can't edit them in Lr. If you need to make adjustments to settings only available in ACR, you would have to return to Ps/ACR to make them.

That would mean that the function itself is included into Lr6, but the slider are not available, so Lr can identify and interpret the settings, but you cannot alter them unless you send the image back to ACR.
So Lr 6 and CC have to be updated at the same time ? Or, and this would be more intersting, all new functions will be there from the beginning and are made visible in Lr at the 'flavor' of Adobe's product manager for Lr.

[ButchM]

That would mean that the function itself is included into Lr6, but the slider are not available, so Lr can identify and interpret the settings, but you cannot alter them unless you send the image back to ACR.
So Lr 6 and CC have to be updated at the same time ? Or, and this would be more intersting, all new functions will be there from the beginning and are made visible in Lr at the 'flavor' of Adobe's product manager for Lr.

This is all based upon the assumption that Ps CS6 will continue to receive updates to ACR. I have no information on this ... but I seriously doubt Adobe will continue this policy much longer ... it's been over two years since the CC only pathway was adopted.

[Schewe]

This is all based upon the assumption that Ps CS6 will continue to receive updates to ACR. I have no information on this ...

PS CS6 can already use ACR 9 and I'm pretty sure Adobe will continue allowing CS6 users to use updated ACR 9.x at least for as long as Adobe keep selling CS6. On that issue, I don't how long they will continue to do so.

[luxborealis]

When he says that it will be in LR CC I'm sure what is meant is that it will be in ACR with Photoshop CC and therefore it will come to LR CC....

It's all about marketing. Adobe doesn't seem interested in selling copies of LR6 as they want us all to drink the CC Kool-Aid, so they specifically only mention LR CC and choose not to mention availability in LR6. If it becomes available in LR CC, those of us still using LR6 will get it in some future update (LR6.x), no doubt.

[Schewe]

It's all about marketing. Adobe doesn't seem interested in selling copies of LR6 as they want us all to drink the CC Kool-Aid, so they specifically only mention LR CC and choose not to mention availability in LR6. If it becomes available in LR CC, those of us still using LR6 will get it in some future update (LR6.x), no doubt.

No, they've been pretty clear...Lightroom CC (2015.1) will get Dehaze, LR 6.x will not. You'll have to wait till LR 7. It's the difference between subscription vs perpetual licenses. I guess some people seem hellbent on disbelieving the fact that subscription can get new features and perpetual can not.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

No, they've been pretty clear...Lightroom CC (2015.1) will get Dehaze, LR 6.x will not.

Well that's pretty clear then, with the lack luster performance of the few additional features that were added since 2 years of LR5 updates, LR6 perpetual licence version is not very interesting to upgrade to.

You'll have to wait till LR 7.

Well that may be a long wait, if it ever materializes (given Adobe's attempts to not sell LR6).

It's the difference between subscription vs perpetual licenses. I guess some people seem hellbent on disbelieving the fact that subscription can get new features and perpetual can not.

Wasn't it you, who told us that it was too inconvenient for Adobe to run 2 build versions of maintenance/bugfixes/updates, with a subscription and a perpetual license model, and that that was the reason Adobe dropped perpetual licenses (rather than generating more money for less innovation due to a mature product)? If that's still the position, then it suggests that LR6 is the last version with perpetual license, which makes it even less interesting to upgrade to (hardly any new features and none to come) and invest time in ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Schewe]

Wasn't it you, who told us that it was too inconvenient for Adobe to run 2 build versions of maintenance/bugfixes/updates, with a subscription and a perpetual license model, and that that was the reason Adobe dropped perpetual licenses (rather than generating more money for less innovation due to a mature product)? If that's still the position, then it suggests that LR6 is the last version with perpetual license, which makes it even less interesting to upgrade to (hardly any new features and none to come) and invest time in ...

Yes, I explained why subscription vs perpetual versions were different regarding the Creative Suite. But Adobe decided to bite the bullet and do a dual code for Lightroom. Are you complaining about that?

While they could not do a dual code for each and every Creative Suit (cause there are a lot of CS apps) the fact that they did do a subscription and perpetual licenses for LR is now somehow a bad thing?

Again, Adobe has stated over and friggin' over that there is no plan to cease doing a perpetual license of LR but the fact that they have kept to their promice is now suspect? Really?

Just how anti-Adobe are you?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yes, I explained why subscription vs perpetual versions were different regarding the Creative Suite. But Adobe decided to bite the bullet and do a dual code for Lightroom. Are you complaining about that?

While they could not do a dual code for each and every Creative Suit (cause there are a lot of CS apps) the fact that they did do a subscription and perpetual licenses for LR is now somehow a bad thing?

No, but unlike most sheeple I tend to plan ahead, and contingency planning is getting more and more important when commercial parties try to gain control over the abilities to operate one's activities (by remotely enabling/disabling the use of e.g. software, either intentionally of accidentally).

Again, Adobe has stated over and friggin' over that there is no plan to cease doing a perpetual license of LR but the fact that they have kept to their promice is now suspect? Really?

Absolutely. Their current attempts to deliberately obstruct people from finding the perpetual license version, but rather force them into using the subscription version is telling. This change in policy of not maintaining LR6 in the same way as LR CC, is also not good news. I'm not talking about mobile capabilities (they won't work anyway without their cloud support), but feature enhancements. It's Adobe who are feeding the suspicion, not the users of perpetual licenses, let's be clear about that. We can only observe what they are presenting us, and based on that the writing seems to be on the wall ...

Just how anti-Adobe are you?

Since you asked, I'll answer you, I didn't bring it up. I use some of their products on a daily basis, in fact I processed more than a thousand images last weeks with Photoshop, and have many more thousands to be done. It's Adobe who began to irritate and obstruct me in my endeavors and cut into my bottom line. Remember the requirement for users to upgrade to CS6, which I did) or otherwise a future upgrade to CS7 perpetual license would not be possible? That's when they started getting unbelievable and untrustworthy. Then the increased cost for a subscription (even more for Europeans who at the time had to pay some 30% more for a software download due to the exchange rate), compared to a sensible upgrade cycle (I've now paid 1/3rd for my latest purchased licenses than a subscription would have cost me). Subscribing for 3x the price it would have otherwise cost, is not a good deal (even if monthly payments, which cost more, would seemingly ease the pain a bit).

And now this deliberate obfuscation for those who want to buy a perpetual LR6 license, and a change in policy to no longer maintain identical versions of LR6 (except cloud related functionality) for the different license versions, which adds cost to their own operation (and why does ACR have support for the 5Ds/5DS R and Lightroom not)? Let's keep the facts straight, please, it's Adobe who began dealing me (and those who I advise and many others) bad cards, not the other way around.

Cheers,
Bart

[luxborealis]

And now this deliberate obfuscation for those who want to buy a perpetual LR6 license, and a change in policy to no longer maintain identical versions of LR6 (except cloud related functionality) for the different license versions, which adds cost to their own operation (and why does ACR have support for the 5Ds/5DS R and Lightroom not)? Let's keep the facts straight, please, it's Adobe who began dealing me (and those who I advise and many others) bad cards, not the other way around.

Well said, Bart. In fact the only reason I'm still using Adobe at all is because of the time investment I've made in thoroughly learning LR and the legacy of images I have with LR-generated XML files. I try my utmost NOT to need PS as I refuse to buy into a license that perpetually ties me to Adobe. When I do need PS-like work done, I'm using Affinity beta - it's not quite a mature product, yet, but it's coming close. Go Serif go!

How much do I "hate" Adobe - well, now you know.

I respect your views, Jeff, and the position you are in as an advisor to Adobe, but Adobe's business model, while sound from a business perspective, sucks for us small guys. The problem is that many people still think of large corporations as serving the needs of their public, when the underlying reality is that they serve themselves first, as their shareholders/owners would expect. Sometimes that self-serving bit rises to the surface as it has with CC, no matter how Adobe wants to paint it (or, in this case, Photoshop it) as better for faster updates. They could do the same thing by releasing a 6.x version, but they won't because they want to frustrate all of us into converting to CC. Shameful obfuscation.

[digitaldog]

How much do I "hate" Adobe - well, now you know.

Then your solution is easy, stop using any/all Adobe products and provide them income. Simple.
For those who don't hate Adobe and have no such issues, again, the solution is simple.
If bitching and moaning makes you feel better, you did so, happier?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Then your solution is easy, stop using any/all Adobe products and provide them income. Simple.
For those who don't hate Adobe and have no such issues, again, the solution is simple.
If bitching and moaning makes you feel better, you did so, happier?

Why do Adobe apologists keep missing the point? Terry didn't say he hated the Adobe products, but he (like myself) doesn't like their policies to get more (of my) money for less benefits, and the deliberate harassment of loyal customers who simply want to buy a (perpetual) license.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Why do Adobe apologists keep missing the point? Terry didn't say he hated the Adobe products, but he (like myself) doesn't like their policies to get more (of my) money for less benefits, and the deliberate harassment of loyal customers who simply want to buy a (perpetual) license.

We're not Adobe apologists, we're Adobe customers by our own choosing. Why do admitted Adobe haters keep missing the point? I don't like some of the policies of Comcast or Verizion or Adobe, it doesn't stop me from using the products because for me, the benefits far outweigh my dislike for certain policies. If you don't feel that way, no one is forcing you support those companies with your hard earned money. Move on. Bitch and moan and get it off your chest and do something about it besides bitching and moaning. Continuously and endlessly.

[Rendezvous]

To keep it on topic instead of arguing about policies...

When are we likely to see this feature being available?

[digitaldog]

When are we likely to see this feature being available?

Perhaps... http://prodesigntools.com/new-adobe-cc-2015-release.html

[Schewe]

Why do Adobe apologists keep missing the point?

Yeah, ya know I was all set to lash out about this until I realized, I'm not sure if you were lumping me into this category...in case you weren't, never mind.

If you were then may I point out that I'm not an "Adobe apologist" but somebody who actually knows what's going on and tries to explain it to regular people. I've been critical of Adobe's policies (something some find convenient to ignore or forget), but it seems when I try to explain what Adobe's policies are and why they are, I'm somehow labeled an "apologist"? Really?

You may want to get into a different line of work cause FUD isn't a good long term employment strategy. Just sayin'

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Yeah, ya know I was all set to lash out about this until I realized, I'm not sure if you were lumping me into this category...in case you weren't, never mind.

Correct, I'm not lumping you into that category.

If you were then may I point out that I'm not an "Adobe apologist" but somebody who actually knows what's going on and tries to explain it to regular people. I've been critical of Adobe's policies (something some find convenient to ignore or forget),

Exactly, and that's why you do not fit in that category.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Here (attached) are some examples from already available DeHazing solutions. I used the landscape image from Kolor's Neutralhazer plugin as comparison, under the fair use / review assumption. The Topaz Labs Clarity plugin is not specifically designed to dehaze, but it can still do a pretty decent job if one uses specific settings to address the haze.
The Photoline Dehaze function that was added to version 19 also looks promising, but I need to get a bit more familiar with Photoline to create a representative sample of its capabilities.

When the Adobe Dehaze feature is available, it would be nice if an example from the same image can be added to this comparison.

Cheers,
Bart