Does Adobe LR Classic mean that Adobe sees no growth in classical cameras?

[dreed]

It took a while to nut it out but when I stop to think about it, Adobe's direction with Lightroom is both loud and clear.

First, while Adobe has been posting news about ever increasing profits from its business model change to subscriptions, there is no information available about what the individual product takeup has been. It is therefore quite plausible that (say) Photoshop and other products have been leading the charge but others (such as Lightroom) are either stagnant or falling.

Who are the predominant users of Lightroom? Photographers with dedicated cameras, typically interchangeable lens cameras. The sales figures for ILCs has been in constant decline for a number of years, therefore betting the future of a product (such as Lightroom) on the future of a shrinking market segment seems rather foolish if you adopt a long vision. This is why I believe Adobe have created "Lightroom Classic" - it is a reflection of what will become a classical way of taking a photo (using a dedicated camera). It is also a reflection of what level of growth Adobe foresee in that segment of the market.

To stay relevant to the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of cameras in mobile phones, Adobe needs a new product to sell to people to help them manage and publish images. That product is Adobe Lightroom CC. I do not see this application as one that targets users of ILCs as the raw files, not to mention method of photography are inappropriate for cloud. Yes, there are some romantic notions around Lightroom cloud for sharing but I cannot see this as being the raison d'etre for that product.

From other comments that I've read on the 'net, it would seem to me that Adobe is trying to get itself into the publishing path on phones. This would mean that your workflow would be the following: use your phone's camera to take an image, edit in Lightroom, publish to instagram/facebook. If I fast forward to far enough in the future, after taking an image with my phone's camera, I then use Lightroom to tag it before sharing with co-workers or family that are also connected to the cloud. How does a reporter on the street get an image that they just snapped with their phone back to the editing desk and in front of the right eyes quickly? Using Adobe Lightroom CC.

It may not be a thought to cherish very highly but my take on "Lightroom Classic" is that in Adobe's eyes, the place of the "traditional" camera is fading quickly from our lives. Professionals will continue to use them but the average Joe on the street? I don't see this move by Adobe as them backing John Smith continuing to own (or desire) a dedicated camera of any description.

[Mark D Segal]

I think you're right that photography has taken off in new directions where cameras and printers don't figure; but this applies to much of the growth of the industry; there will still continue to be a huge base of the photography market wherein people continue to use cameras and make prints. That base may grow much more slowly, or it may stagnate, or it may decline, but it will remain very large; in these circumstances I see Adobe continuing to serve both traditional and innovative market segments. I think you are correct that they are positioning themselves particularly for the latter, which makes sense, but I don't see them abandoning the traditional market as they do this; i.o.w. - not a zero-sum game.

[hogloff]

Today there are more ILC than there ever was in history. As long as Adobe continues to improve LR classic, they will have a large customer base. A bigger concern goes to camera manufactures as they only survive by selling new cameras which have been declining over the years.

[Mark D Segal]

"ILC" ? Decode please.

[john beardsworth]

Interchangeable lens cameras - defined in the first post. New to me too.

[Mark D Segal]

Oh - ya - sort of; now that I reread it. Thanks.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Most of what I see on my travels is either people using cell phones or non-ILCs (e.g., fixed lens cameras).  Certainly with phones they are shooting JPGs and most likely also with fixed lens cameras.  For these people Photoshop is superfluous and even LR would mainly be used for organizing images since the amount of work that can be done on a JPG is limited both by the file and user.  I think when one looks at camera sales numbers (Thom Hogan does a very good job on this for Nikon cameras over on his website) what Dreed says in the first post is where things are at.  My daughter was in Monterrey CA this past weekend and I told her that they should go visit Point Lobos, the site of some famous photographs.  The next morning I get several texts with some nice images from her Android phone.  If you asked her what LR is she would reply, 'that's something my dad uses.'  This is the sad truth and I think the Adobe Cloud version of LR is oriented towards this type of user.  They don't need to make it feature rich as those uses don't really need what we are used to.

[Alan Klein]

There are dozens of free cell phone editing programs. Why would anybody pay for a subscription?

[ButchM]

There are dozens of free cell phone editing programs. Why would anybody pay for a subscription?

Exactly. Apple offers what is becoming a very feature rich option with the Photos app for iOS and macOS that is free and allows for all your Camera Roll images (those captured on iPhones and iPads) to be available to users via iCloud at no additional cost to the user. Though they do offer additional cloud storage ... for example 2TB is $9.99 per month and no fee for the software as it comes as standard. Throw in the fact that the Photos app is extensible with most all popular photo plugins and stand alone apps just as Lightroom can utilize ... I find it difficult that many folks that use their smartphone as their main camera of choice will be seeking out Adobe's offerings. Keeping mind, this same demographic are folks that think a one time fee of $1.99 is too high a price for a phone app.

[Mark D Segal]

There are dozens of free cell phone editing programs. Why would anybody pay for a subscription?

Well if you (or any one else for that matter) think editing photos on your cell phone is a satisfactory replacement for using Lightroom on a computer, the whole discussion about subscriptions becomes rather moot.

[rdonson]

In answer to the subject of this thread: NO

I believe that what we're witnessing are the changes wrought not just by mobile devices like smartphones and tablets with cameras but also the ubiquity of internet access, cloud storage and AI like Adobe's Sensei.  The fact that the smartphones and tablets have cameras may be inconsequential.  Apps like Lr Mobile and Lr CC are likely best used for culling a day's work for professionals.  The editors may select the best from those submitted.  Final editing is likely to require a color calibrated display.   

There are a lot of professional photographers who move around the world constantly as part of their work. 

Also keep in mind that while Adobe has been working on the mobile end of this for about 3 years it's not nearly over.  I think we can expect more movement in this direction over the next 3 years as well. 

[luxborealis]

Well if you (or any one else for that matter) think editing photos on your cell phone is a satisfactory replacement for using Lightroom on a computer, the whole discussion about subscriptions becomes rather moot.

True - but have a look at “Polarr” for iPad. A workshop participant showed it to me while I was teaching LR and she could keep up with almost everything I was doing, processing-wise including gradient masks. No, it wasn't a replacement, but it is certainly feature-rich for a free version and piles more for just $6.99 CDN.

In many ways, the use of Lightroom has become the new Darkroom in distinguishing more serious photographers from snap shooters, but casual photographers have a far richer set of options without going to LR (or into the darkroom).

[rdonson]

AFAIK Lightroom is still the king when it comes to DAM for photographers.  MacPhun will have something to compete sometime in 2018 but will it stack up well?

[pearlstreet]

I don't think this will be a big hit for Adobe. Mobile users have a ton of apps like vsco and snapseed to process their photos. Amazon offers unlimited free photo storage with their prime account. I don't see who is going to want it unless it is amazing.

I use my Lightroom ipad app a lot but I won't be using Lightroom cc.

[Mark D Segal]

AFAIK Lightroom is still the king when it comes to DAM for photographers. ........

Have you had a good look at Photo Mechanic?

[john beardsworth]

Have you had a good look at Photo Mechanic?

Good though PM is at the little it does, "DAM for photographers" has to mean more than merely being a glorified Finder/Explorer that's fast at showing embedded previews?

[Mark D Segal]

Good though PM is at the little it does, "DAM for photographers" has to mean more than merely being a glorified Finder/Explorer that's fast at showing embedded previews?

Have you used it or read the Manual to see what else it does besides showing previews? Have you looked at its image sorting and keywording capabilities compared with what LR's Library Module does? It's main drawback is that it's not integrated with other applications, but it has quite powerful image management tools.

[john beardsworth]

I've used it for at least 12 years, Mark, and I did say it's good at what it does.But it's just a browser, cannot show what raw files look like in their adjusted state (unless you use DNG) which is important for photographers, doesn't safeguard your image archive by cataloguing your work, and so on. While it can be part of a DAM for photographers workflow, I just wouldn't consider it to be one in itself.

[Mark D Segal]

I've used it for at least 12 years, Mark, and I did say it's good at what it does.But it's just a browser, cannot show what raw files look like in their adjusted state (unless you use DNG) which is important for photographers, doesn't safeguard your image archive by cataloguing your work, and so on. While it can be part of a DAM for photographers workflow, I just wouldn't consider it to be one in itself.

Yes I agree - great application but it does have those limitations. As I've said elsewhere, it would be very challenging, if not impossible just now, to replicate what LR does in any other single application on the market.