Adobe at it again

[stevebri]

Just had this in an Adobe email...
'Learn how to share your Lightroom for mobile photo collection by creating personalized, web-based photo stories with Slate or slideshows with music using Premiere Clip.'

Errrrm haven't we been using Lightroom to produce our own web sites and slideshows...?

6/CC adds music to slideshows

Aren't forums chock full of Lightroom requests for development of both the web module and slideshow module...?

Do I need Adobe Premier to add sound to a slideshow....?  No

We all remember that great relationship we had back in the day... And with hindsight we know we should have made the split 6 months before we actually did...

Adobe really do make it hard to stay....

Still cannot upgrade to LR 6.5 on my machine, 6.1 is a joke as is CC
Sill happy with LR 5 thank goodness

[john beardsworth]

Yeah, who was asking Adobe to develop Lightroom anyway? Why didn't they just sit on their backsides and let Aperture take their market?

Sure, it's fun to rant, but note "web-based photo stories" and Premiere Clip. That's not the same as "using Lightroom to produce our own web sites and slideshows" or using "Premier".

[ButchM]

Why didn't they just sit on their backsides and let Aperture take their market?

I know you take great pleasure in the demise of Aperture, but be honest John, it wasn't the capabilities of the Lightroom Web and Slideshow modules that surpassed Aperture. Slideshows, along with creating books in Aperture kicked Lightroom's butt ... and still do, by comparison of head-to-head feature sets for those tasks.

[stingray]

Adobe seem to have unlimited resources to produce a pipeline of new apps, but never finish any app properly.

1. Slate and Portfolio are web type apps which use photos, but which expect us to re-type our Title and Caption information every time.  Flickr allows a user to have the option to use Title and Caption info.  So easily done. Just a few lines of code.
2. The Book Module design was flawed from the start and has not been fixed since. Inability to do the basics of freedom to place text or image on a page or template is unbelievable.
3. The Lr mobile app will not allow users edit the main metadata fields.
4. if I use InDesign for books then I have to create massive numbers of intermediate files and re-create them if I change any dimensions to get the sharpening correct.
5. I attempted to use Lr  Slideshow for a club presentation and abandoned it immediately because of lack of usability.  A pity, because Lr works on Windows and Mac and would have been a good option to standardise for club presentations.
6. Inability in Photoshop (a mature product) for a user to create their own custom panels.  This feature has been available in mainstream products for decades (think of Office or Autocad), but Adobe have not got the vision or inclination to grasp how useful and powerful such a feature might be.

Check out this link for the frustration of Lr mobile users in relation to metadata and keywording.

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/keywording_on_the_move?topic-reply-list[settings][page]=1&utm_campaign=new_comment&utm_content=topic_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=notification#topic-reply-list



I could go on.........     But what is the point.

[Rhossydd]

Inability in Photoshop (a mature product) for a user to create their own custom panels.

Possible, but it shouldn't really need an extra application to handle it.
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/configurator/

[ButchM]

Adobe seem to have unlimited resources to produce a pipeline of new apps, but never finish any app properly.

Precisely.

I am well aware that some folks consider mentioning such shortcomings as 'whining' ... but it sure would be nice for an interest with the resources available that Adobe can call to action, to see them actually cross the finish line in a reasonable fashion with the products they already sell ... before ... they branch out even further. It seems as though someone setting the action plan is suffering from ADHD.

It's not a matter of what some of us have mentioned is technically (or technologically) impossible. The capabilities exist or have existed elsewhere (for years in some cases) yet Adobe has decided to either ignore or dismiss such solutions as unworthy of their attention.

If we, who utilize these apps as a tool in generating our livelihood, would conduct our businesses in the same manner, how long could we last?

[digitaldog]

Slideshows, along with creating books in Aperture kicked Lightroom's butt ... and still do, by comparison of head-to-head feature sets for those tasks.

And the quality of the printing of books (from Apple). As someone who printed identical images as books from both products, Aperture quality was vastly superior to what LR/Blurb produced.

[ButchM]

And the quality of the printing of books (from Apple). As someone who printed identical images as books from both products, Aperture quality was vastly superior to what LR/Blurb produced.

I wouldn't know about Apple's book printing Andrew ... I have made hundreds of books/albums in but they were done in other print houses. The freedom to create custom page sizes, margins, gutters and bleeds is quite welcome. It was also nice to have dedicated book export plugins to export directly to top houses like Graphistudio. With Lr, you are stuck with Blurb or end up in export nightmare land trying to cobble together something that may or may not be useable elsewhere.

[digitaldog]

I wouldn't know about Apple's book printing Andrew ...

  I do 
All one has to do is send the same images to both Apple (through Aperture) and LR to see, Apple's doing a much better job. Just put the same image on the cover and inside a book. Two different press technologies are used. They ideally match closely. Not so much with LR/Blurb. But most people know how obsessive Apple is in terms of quality control.

[john beardsworth]

I know you take great pleasure in the demise of Aperture, but be honest John, it wasn't the capabilities of the Lightroom Web and Slideshow modules that surpassed Aperture. Slideshows, along with creating books in Aperture kicked Lightroom's butt ... and still do, by comparison of head-to-head feature sets for those tasks.

To be frank, you should try to stick to the topic, Butch. I didn't actually say a thing about relative merits or about Aperture's eventual disappearance, did I? The point was that just as Adobe couldn't afford to let Aperture take their market, the same applies to the apps which the OP doesn't understand.

[ButchM]

To be frank, you should try to stick to the topic, Butch. I didn't actually say a thing about relative merits or about Aperture's eventual disappearance, did I? The point was that just as Adobe couldn't afford to let Aperture take their market, the same applies to the apps which the OP doesn't understand.

I don't think I said anything about 'the merits about the apps which the OP doesn't understand' either. The point was, those new apps should not come at the expense of allowing existing apps to languish.

[stingray]

Possible, but it shouldn't really need an extra application to handle it.
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/configurator/

I am open to correction, but some time ago I tried to use the configurator referenced above......  to discover that Adobe had withdrawn support and itwould not work with current versions of Adobe product. It really exasperated me at the time, as another example of Adobe (in my view) behaviour as a company who provide lip service about looking after their customers.  Maybe there is a new version of this which I may be unaware of.

Also... I suspect this was a tool for a techie and not an end user panel configurator.

[stingray]

I am open to correction, but some time ago I tried to use the configurator referenced above......  to discover that Adobe had withdrawn support and itwould not work with current versions of Adobe product.

I have re-examined Adobe Configurator 4.  It does mention support for Photoshop CC.  I will explore further when i get a chance.

[john beardsworth]

I don't think I said anything about 'the merits about the apps which the OP doesn't understand' either. The point was, those new apps should not come at the expense of allowing existing apps to languish.

No, you didn't, because you quickly disappeared down the same old Aperture v Lightroom rabbit hole and tried to personalize things. Can Adobe really afford to fail to offer those apps once others have demonstrated there is demand in that area?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Adobe has decided to either ignore or dismiss such solutions as unworthy of their attention.... If we... would conduct our businesses in the same manner, how long could we last?

Very long. And prosperous.

[kirkt]

I am open to correction, but some time ago I tried to use the configurator referenced above......  to discover that Adobe had withdrawn support and itwould not work with current versions of Adobe product. It really exasperated me at the time, as another example of Adobe (in my view) behaviour as a company who provide lip service about looking after their customers.  Maybe there is a new version of this which I may be unaware of.

Also... I suspect this was a tool for a techie and not an end user panel configurator.

CC is the last version of PS to support panels that you can make with Configurator (Flash-based panels).  The standard for panels is now HTML and the resources for learning how to integrate the HTML, Javascript and JSX into a coherent, operating unit is scattered across the internet.  If you are actually interested in learning how to create panels (and extensions) in HTML for Photoshop and the other CC applications, you are in luck.  Davide Barranca has just released his e-book that goes into great, and much needed depth on the process and ties together the several facets of authoring extensions and panels for CC applications, with an emphasis on Photoshop panels.

http://htmlpanelsbook.com

kirk

[ButchM]

Can Adobe really afford to fail to offer those apps once others have demonstrated there is demand in that area?

You miss the whole point ... what good is it if I can make a decent slideshow on my iPad and NOT on my desktop using Lightroom? Can Adobe really afford to fail in that respect?

I know mobile is the wave of the future ... but wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have move images from our desktop to a tablet just to accomplish such a simple task?

[john beardsworth]

Clearly they can fail to do whatever you choose to define as a decent slideshow - and yes, I was surprised and disappointed a timeline didn't get added. 4k export seems the other significant gap. But such details aren't needed for decent slideshows as most people define them, and CC apps don't really come at the cost of features in Lightroom....

[chez]

And yet another thread of Adobe bashing. Must be a slow photo day or people just tired of kicking their dog. SIGH.

[digitaldog]

And yet another thread of Adobe bashing. Must be a slow photo day or people just tired of kicking their dog. SIGH.

I'm not bashing Adobe (here), simply pointing out that the print vendor(s) Apple uses produces better color reproductions than Blurb. Of course, one could ask, did Adobe pick the best vendor for book printing or, could they have provided a better mechanism for getting images out of LR in a print ready fashion? I think they could have. The ONLY reason I still have Aperture installed is to export images (in Adobe RGB (1998) not sRGB like LR) out of LR to import into Aperture for book printing.