The Future of Lightroom

[Rory]

I wonder what direction Lightroom will move in the future in the aftermath of the import module debacle.  Will it still move in an Apple-like direction with a dumbed down interface and lost functionality to appeal to the selfie crowd?  Will we continue to see bug ridden releases?  Will we see a focus on fixing known shortcomings like the limitations to the book module?  A better, more comprehensive SDK?  More competent engineering resources applied to the product?

[David Mantripp]

I fear that the market is proving less and less attractive for this type of application.  The type of photographer that needs, and will pay for, sophisticated applications is being displaced by photography-as-commodity.  We've already seen a taste of this with Apple dumping Aperture - which, in some areas, is still superior to anything else on the market - with Photos. Presumably Apple's bean counters did not believe that Aperture at $79 could provide more ROI than Photos at $0.  It looks like Adobe's are following the same reasoning.  The "Add Photos" dialog has all the visual clues of Flickr/500px while the new Import looks like it fell off Mylio.  Maybe the reasoning is that they've sucked dry the standard DSLR guy/gal revenue stream, and to survive they need to pull in the smartphone crowd.  It looks that way, although it also looks pretty ham-fisted.  As a new convert, or rather returnee, to Lr, I am shocked by the contrast in quality between the Develop and Print modules, and everything else.  In particular, the Library module hardly seems have changed since v1, and it is badly lacking in several key areas. 

I fear that Adobe will invest in over-simplicity, in sharing, in auto-super-selfie mode, but not in geeky stuff like DAM or publishing tools.  Maybe not, but I can't see much of a sustainable business plan, within the context of Adobe, in focussing largely on us "serious photographers".

[DickKenny]

Couldn't agree more. On every front, the photo industrial complex is groping for answers to 'the camera you always have with you'. One avenue is to satisfy the millions snapping away on their mobiles with almost total disregard for the quality of outcome. That is bound to change, influenced by the offerings to come from Apple, Google; and yes, Adobe - amongst many others present and future.

After all, those photographic enthusiasts still alive and kicking, already have all the post processing they might ever need. 

Discuss.......

[jrp]

The face recognition feature is another feature that indicates the direction of travel.  Rather than making the application faster and less buggy, they are trying to make it more comparable to less specialised users.

Unfortunately, this is a misconceived strategy, as such users will discover that they can get photos in and edit them but sharing them will remain an unreachable goal.  Do you export them, publish them, use a plug-in, with or without using a collection, smart or otherwise?

Similarly, the printing dialogue will blow the mind of anyone not willing to do a bit of study.

The answer is that you would use a different application, which shares without you having to think about it.

[ButchM]

Couldn't agree more. On every front, the photo industrial complex is groping for answers to 'the camera you always have with you'. One avenue is to satisfy the millions snapping away on their mobiles with almost total disregard for the quality of outcome. That is bound to change, influenced by the offerings to come from Apple, Google; and yes, Adobe - amongst many others present and future.

After all, those photographic enthusiasts still alive and kicking, already have all the post processing they might ever need. 

Discuss.......

Yes the times are a changing ... but not necessarily for the better for established photographers and developers of photographic software solutions.

DSLR sales are stagnant, though, human beings are capturing more images than ever before in history. The masses are not shooting RAW. They are not the group most likely to pay more than a cursory, token price for software with the capabilities of Lightroom. These folks are accustomed to receiving free or low-cost solutions that already distribute the images they capture with the camera they already have and they are not encumbered with Import, Develop or Export ... they simply capture, filter and share ... Which is why I have doubts that customizing a solution the likes of Lr to better meet the needs of this group is the best method for success.

[NancyP]

Lightroom is too complicated for the non-motivated user. I don't care how far you dumb it down, you will still have Too Many Options for the casual user. Most phone snap-shot takers are not going to putz with a zillion sliders and curves to get what they want. They want to click an "optimize this photo" button. Most phone snap-shot takers would rather plunk down $0 to $30.00 once for a basic app. More sophisticated phone photographers already know something about Lr and want full Lr , if only for the DAM features.

[seamus finn]

Re Lightroom: I'm afraid we 'serious' snappers are fast becoming an extinct species.

From Adobe's business viewpoint, their dumbing down probably makes sense and will appeal to the so-called selfie-type global crowd, a colossal market -  but, Jesus, for the rest of us, true supporters of Adobe over all those years through thick and thin who put them where they are today, to be let down like this without even a word of warning is truly  beyond comprehension.

 It's an outrageous abdication of their duty of care to their existing customers who, once upon a time, when they saw the word ADOBE, knew it stood for something special. Now I'm not so sure.

The scary thing is that this may be the thin end of the wedge. Is there any long-standing Adobe customer out there who doesn't feel a sense of abandonment?

[ButchM]

The scary thing is that this may be the thin end of the wedge. Is there any long-standing Adobe customer out there who doesn't feel a sense of abandonment?

Let's hope not. Though I am skeptical too about the future ... I want to see how Adobe handles the update coming later this week. That should be a fair indication of what may come.

[seamus finn]

Lightroom is too complicated for the non-motivated user. I don't care how far you dumb it down, you will still have Too Many Options for the casual user. Most phone snap-shot takers are not going to putz with a zillion sliders and curves to get what they want. They want to click an "optimize this photo" button. Most phone snap-shot takers would rather plunk down $0 to $30.00 once for a basic app. More sophisticated phone photographers already know something about Lr and want full Lr , if only for the DAM features.

Well, let's have a Lightroom Elements set-up - as light as you like, ultra light, phone apps and every other damned immediate device  imaginable that sings and dances into the future  - and Adobe would make another fortune in the process. But what about us1

 

[seamus finn]

If they don't do  it right, then we know we're all damned!

[D Fuller]

This Lightroom release reminds me a lot of Apple's initial Final Cut Pro X release. It broke the workflow of every serious FCP7 user and couldn't even import projects from FCP7. All this with no warning to the user base at all, but rather with great fanfare about how they were "revolutionizing" video editing.

Today, some 2+ years on, many pros still won't forgive or trust Apple with their business, some pros think FCPX is the best thing ever, quite a few 3rd parties have developed solutions to things Apple still hasn't programmed into FCPX, and Premiere and Avid gained market share. My take is that Apple is trying to grow the next generation of film makers -- ones who have never edited any other way but on a computer, but instead, come from web/phone apps and gaming. What's intuitive to them is very different from what is intuitive to me.

I don't have a crystal ball on Adobe's path with Lightroom, but it will be interesting -- and telling -- to see what Tom has to say later this week. Is Adobe doing the same thing as Apple? Perhaps, but is there any money in casual shooters? It's hard for me to see that group paying more than $5/month, but there are an awful lot of 'em.

Maybe it's reasonable for pros who need faster, better import workflows to buy other programs for that, but if that's Adobe's position, they should embrace that and say it out loud. And they ought to know why they're breaking their users' workflows. If they don't, then they are far more clueless than I give them credit for. So the troubling thing is that knowing that, they went ahead with this release anyway. And the telling thing will be what they say and _do_ next.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ButchM]

This Lightroom release reminds me a lot of Apple's initial Final Cut Pro X release. It broke the workflow of every serious FCP7 user and couldn't even import projects from FCP7. All this with no warning to the user base at all, but rather with great fanfare about how they were "revolutionizing" video editing.

You are missing some key points in your comparison here. While I am in no way defending Apple's FCP X fiasco, for they handled it extremely badly ... there is a huge difference between the two situations.

1. FCP X is not now, nor has it ever been, offered as a subscription where users were locked into at least an annual agreement and likely feel compelled to update in order to benefit from new camera RAW support and more or less be forced to accept other shortcomings as a result.

2. FCP X did not break any existing workflows as adoption of FCP X was purely voluntary. Users could trial the app before purchasing and their previous versions of FCP were still as capable as before FCP X was introduced. Adobe Lr CC users were stuck paying for the effort of creating v6.2/2015.2 regardless of the outcome.

3. Adobe Lr CC subscribers will not get a refund or a pass for the month because of this debacle. While no one was forced to incur additional expense because FCP X came on the scene.  FCP X has also received some remarkable and totally free updates over the past couple of years in their effort to remedy their past difficulties and lost sales Apple has experienced in losing market share. Adobe's income won't see any measurable change for Oct. 2015.

I will say, today, FCP X is a much different experience and I'd be lost without it. Though it took some time for me to feel confident about moving forward with it.

I hope Adobe is willing rectify their error as well.

[jeremyrh]

I wonder what direction Lightroom will move in the future in the aftermath of the import module debacle.  Will it still move in an Apple-like direction with a dumbed down interface and lost functionality to appeal to the selfie crowd?  Will we continue to see bug ridden releases?  Will we see a focus on fixing known shortcomings like the limitations to the book module?  A better, more comprehensive SDK?  More competent engineering resources applied to the product?

Dunno, but it underlines that you always need an exit strategy - what do you do when LR no longer meets your needs, either as a result of changing, or by not existing any more.

[ihv]

I don't believe LR is going to the direction to attract snapshot casuals/selfie crowd. Simple as that - most apps already exist in that space and are completely for free or just a few $ powerful enough for all the fun, one just couldn't imagine a room for rental.
I don't see a monstrously slow software, yet with a solid expertise, to approach lightweight and free and mindlessly easy to use software.

[hjulenissen]

Lightroom is too complicated for the non-motivated user. I don't care how far you dumb it down, you will still have Too Many Options for the casual user. Most phone snap-shot takers are not going to putz with a zillion sliders and curves to get what they want. They want to click an "optimize this photo" button. Most phone snap-shot takers would rather plunk down $0 to $30.00 once for a basic app. More sophisticated phone photographers already know something about Lr and want full Lr , if only for the DAM features.

I agree. "The masses" will never touch anything like Lightroom.

Now, they may or may not appreciate some cloudy/ipad-y thing that Adobe might make, but it would seem that it would be simpler for Adobe to design that from scratch.

Say that Lightroom currently appeals to some segment consisting of (roughly) a range spanning from advanced compact camera and system camera users to specialized professionals. How much growth potential is there in this segment? (new users? Apple Aperture converts?) How much are these users willing to pay per month, and how much developer cost is needed to keep them paying?

-h

[Robert Roaldi]

Even if the number of casual photographers increases, it doesn't necessarily mean that the number of more advanced ones go away. The lesser apps for the casual picture-taker don't seem to generate much income, it appears to me, given that they're free or nearly so. I am sure I am missing something, but there must still be money to be made from the semi-pros and pros. Am I wrong?

That must have been one advantage of film. No matter who the picture-taker was, you needed labs and the labs made money. Once LR5 or Aperture, or whatever, achieves some level of usability and sophistication, upgrading the product probably meets more and more resistance from users, who feel less and less reason to upgrade. So the vendors have to introduce semi-artificial reasons to force upgrades (some of which may of course make good sense).

I use Aperture, originally paid $200 or so for it. I thought that was fair. I believe that before disappearing, the last purchase price was $80. I can understand why that development decreases Apple's interest in the product.

Don't know where this is heading. Products like Pixelmator and AfterShotPro (formerly Bibble) may end up taking the place of LR and Aperture for non-pro but semi-advanced photographers. Products like Photos from Apple just aren't good enough. Odd that large corporations may choose to abandon that market, since you'd think that they'd be the ones who could most easily afford the resources to develop code for it. Large monopolies might just naturally lead to dumbing down, can't help themselves. Maybe they end up with roomfuls of M.B.A.s who keep asking why are we spending money for this small market? If that's how it turns out, screw 'em.

[CatOne]

Products like Photos from Apple just aren't good enough.

I'm curious why you say this, for casual photographers. Photos does a GREAT job of syncing. It's incredible, so long as you're using a Mac and you're using iOS.

Image editing capabilities are "OK," but the latest version brought 3rd party plugin support, and there are some already. The main thing it doesn't have is local editing, but I don't know how common that is for the "average" person.

I use Photos now for anything shot on my iPhone, and I use it for my selects to show off on iOS devices and my Apple TV. And the sync is great, and nothing like the train wreck that is Lightroom Mobile (because the F if I'm going to subscribe to Creative Cloud).

Have you used Photos, or do you just assume it's sub-par because you read opinions of those who are comparing it feature-for-feature with Aperture? Certain Photos is FAR behind Aperture from an asset-management perspective but very few (albeit very vocal) Aperture users _really_ used its asset management functionality.

[Robert Roaldi]

Bad grammatical structure. I meant that Photos is not good enough (or does not seem to be at the moment) for more advanced users. I didn't mean it was inadequate for casual users. Sorry.

[IanSeward]

I wonder what direction Lightroom will move in the future in the aftermath of the import module debacle.  Will it still move in an Apple-like direction with a dumbed down interface and lost functionality to appeal to the selfie crowd?  Will we continue to see bug ridden releases?  Will we see a focus on fixing known shortcomings like the limitations to the book module?  A better, more comprehensive SDK?  More competent engineering resources applied to the product?

Thom Hogan tells all:
 analysts. Adobe spent a lot of time outlining their growth and income targets (20% compound annual growth through 2018), then gave fiscal 2016 forecasts that were below what most analysts at the meeting were predicting ;~). Still, to grow at the rate Adobe is forecasting, they need many more customers, period. That means that they have to make successful products such as Lightroom reach out to even more customers. Ones that might be put off by a “daunting” import process. 

Ian

[ButchM]

Bad grammatical structure. I meant that Photos is not good enough (or does not seem to be at the moment) for more advanced users. I didn't mean it was inadequate for casual users. Sorry.

Even for advanced users ... especially those shooting jpeg ... using OS X Photos as the anchor app for free then adding Affinity Photo (one time $50 fee) to use as an extension (Affinity Retouching) directly in Photos app or as an 'edit in' external app for even more capabilities and you have a pretty full force option that can handle the vast majority of needs and advanced amateur photographer. Certainly a much more convenient, affordable and less intimidating option than when most veteran digital photographers ventured forth a decade or two ago.

In my mind it sure beats the hassles of the expense, learning curve and workarounds to get images where you want them and don't really require or desire the workflow enhancements Lr. offers.