Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => Article Discussions => Topic started by: Jonathan Cross on May 07, 2020, 01:53:41 pm
-
This is a somewhat depressing article in its predictions of what Adobe may do. All I can say about a cloud based Lightroom is that they may find it does not sell as well as they want. My reasons for writing this are embedded in the article. Firstly the time it would take to upload all the images one has. Secondly the time to upload, say 100GB of images from a project. As pointed out fibre to house fast broadband is not universal, and not in many rural or even suburban areas. Then there are those of us who are uncomfortable about the cloud. There is the story of a mother who lost all her photos of the first 2 years of her child's life when cloud storage went wrong. Yes she should have backed up, but if you have backup discs, why go to the cloud rather than one more HD? Small SSDs that are formatted for both PC and Mac are very portable. Having got used to transfer rates on and off external portable SSDs, cloud speeds would drive me nuts.
Perhaps it is time to go back to good old film. Just like a print, it is nice to have something physical in my hands as I find it difficult to read a HD with my eyes!
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
I have no idea what Adobe might do, but for myself I think it unlikely that they will mandate a move to the cloud such that their software won't work unless all images are in the cloud to begin with. They would lose huge credibility within more professional or at least dedicated photography circles because imposing cloud requirements would make it impossible for many to continue using the software, not when one has terabytes or more of captures going back years. And everyone using other Adobe programmes like Premiere or In Design - and that's a very large number of businesses - would start looking at alternatives, fearing that something similar might happen to them. My guess is that it is more likely that Adobe will apply 'nudge' by making cloud usage progressively more attractive, but not obligatory. On-disk Lightroom users won't be abandoned but to an extent they will be left behind.
My own issue here is that Lightroom has become progressively more and more unwieldy so I am looking at alternatives, for example one fast metadata come initial curation program like Photomechanic allied to a superior RAW converter like DxO Photolab or Capture One. Add in a DxO plugin like Siver Efex and a a couple of the newer Topaz AI offerings like Denoise and I really won't need Lightroom (or the whole Adobe RAW stack) anyway.
-
I still have to find some proof that the demosaicing of LR is so much less than that of C1 and DXO especially when developed with better detail.
My experience is that C1 and DXO are not better nor worse. In some occasions they are better in some occasions worse.
The idea that LR CC will stop within some years is never backed up by some 'evidence'.
However the moves that Adobe has made in the past going to a subscription model indicates that you never can be sure...
The LR interface has some flaws but for developing series of Raw files i find it to be quite simple and transparant. ( i don't use the damm)
This transparancy of what is happening to the raw file is less tranparant in C1 and DXO in my opinion. But maybe it is my lack of experience.
I like to know what i am doing.
-
I dropped LR when they announced the subscription version. I hate subscriptions, but the main reason was that I knew from my experience as a software engineer that a "subscription model" means the end of real innovation and development.
Marketing and accounting people love it because they want stable and predictable revenue. Developers hate it because it puts them perpetually on a short timeline. Big ideas for new capabilities or improvements go nowhere because they can't be implemented in time for the next micro-release; it's hard to do anything major with the code, that might take a year or more, while keeping it from showing up in the intervening releases.
And the big one, of course: why bother with big, expensive and risky development when those users are going to pay you anyway... especially if they have a shunt in a vein that ties them to your storage servers...
The product becomes a fossil and the best developers tend to move on.
-
This is a somewhat depressing article in its predictions of what Adobe may do.
Don't be depressed. Those who actually KNOW what Adobe is up to are not posting what they are going to do; we are under NDA and take them seriously.
Those who want to depress you and speculate, will make up stories you should just ignore.
IF and when you hear from people inside of Adobe, or outside of Adobe under NDA, but who have permission to tell you facts about the product, go ahead and listen. Otherwise, don't.
-
Don't be depressed. Those who actually KNOW what Adobe is up to are not posting what they are going to do; we are under NDA and take them seriously.
Those who want to depress you and speculate, will make up stories you should just ignore.
IF and when you hear from people inside of Adobe, or outside of Adobe under NDA, but who have permission to tell you facts about the product, go ahead and listen. Otherwise, don't.
But I was thinking of a plan
To dye one's whiskers green,
And always use so large a fan
That they could not be seen.
So, having no reply to give
To what the old man said,
I cried "Come, tell me how you live!"
And thumped him on the head.
- Lewis Carroll
Just a virtual, metaphorical thump of course.
-
While Dan makes some good points in his article about the various options available, trying to “divine” Adobe’s plans is pure speculation without substance.
I was an early adopter of the LR subscription model and I have no regrets. None!
I’ll stick with Andrew’s points.
I do my own printing with an Epson SC P800 and I’m happy with my results. I have no need to print larger that 17x25. I do make 13x38 panos from the P800. Long ago when I had Windows I used Qimage with great results. Now that Qimage supports MacOS I may go back to it.
I am a photography enthusiast, not a pro, and I have loved photography from film to digital over the last 50+ years. I also love my Fuji X-Trans gear and am looking forward to B&H telling me my X-T4 has shipped.
My $0.02
-
I dropped LR when they announced the subscription version. I hate subscriptions, but the main reason was that I knew from my experience as a software engineer that a "subscription model" means the end of real innovation and development.
Marketing and accounting people love it because they want stable and predictable revenue. Developers hate it because it puts them perpetually on a short timeline. Big ideas for new capabilities or improvements go nowhere because they can't be implemented in time for the next micro-release; it's hard to do anything major with the code, that might take a year or more, while keeping it from showing up in the intervening releases.
And the big one, of course: why bother with big, expensive and risky development when those users are going to pay you anyway... especially if they have a shunt in a vein that ties them to your storage servers...
The product becomes a fossil and the best developers tend to move on.
Interesting that you think that the subscription model conflicts with the implementation of big ideas, you are probably right.
I agree with you that the subscription model takes away the need for development other than comply with current camera's and operating systems.
It is certainly true with Adobe photoshop - not much happening there. (MS Word!)
But it only works until other software developers stand up and have better software at a better price.
C1, DXO, and others are competitive to LR as are some other programs that can be used to replace Photoshop.
So in the end if Adobe gets too lazy they will be too late and loose revenue and the costumer.
LR has improved in field of speed and added some interesting features in the last years, probably they needed to do that.
LR glues the costumer with the Damm that is hard to abandon. At the moment however there is not much to complain since the subscription model is not expensive.
That is not the case with the other adobe programs- i would expect them to loose costumers there.
For me in the pre-subscription period I got a package that stimulated me in learning more adobe programs- because of the subscription-change not anymore.
-
I dropped LR when they announced the subscription version. I hate subscriptions, but the main reason was that I knew from my experience as a software engineer that a "subscription model" means the end of real innovation and development.
Again:
"All generalizations are false, including this one." -Mark Twain
Next, perhaps the software you developed fell into that camp. Those of us how have subscribed to LR, Photoshop and other parts of the suite and continue to subscribe know the cost to benefit ratio of what we purchase. At least one of us here knows what's actually coming in terms of innovation and development from Adobe. The rest can speculate. Or dismiss Adobe as not developing the product(s) based on a lack of actually using the products because they don't subscribe to the products. If you have only imagined it, you haven't experienced it. ;)
The subscription model specifically for Adobe has been a HUGE success in terms of number of subscribers year after year from introduction. Those subscribers do so because what they pay for is beneficial as an expense. Some of us who've subscribed have actually experienced the newer and useful (to us) features. Or we wouldn't continue to subscribe.
If anything, subscription demands more from developers since one un-subscribe if the cost to ratio doesn't work for each customer.
Case in point: I had every movie channel subscription and found I wasn't watching (even in a pandemic) that much TV. I kept HBO, no problem unsubscribing from ShowTime and saving $6 a month. IF (big IF) ShowTime took up the next Game Of Thrones series would I switch it back on? You bet. ShowTime didn't deliver enough value at $6 a month FOR ME. I could afford that extra expensive, I didn't see the need to do so.
Not everyone subscribing to the Adobe suite or ShowTime is getting duped on the subscriptions!
-
LR glues the costumer with the Damm that is hard to abandon.
You don't seem to be aware that IF you stop subscribing to LR, the DAM continues to operate. That all modules EXCEPT Develop and Maps operate. Or that Adobe could easily have stopped ALL modules from working and gluing you to the DAM. They didn't do that. Consider that fact.
-
I was slightly disappointed that the article didn’t reference any of the freeware/open source options and how/if they’re comparable to commercial products. While open source may not be suitable for the pro user they can be worthwhile for the budget constrained (I.E. students, or retirees). With that in mind I’ve been pretty happy using digiKam for image management and RawTherapee for Raw processing.
-
Adobe could stop making any updates to LR, except support for new cameras and lenses, and keep charging the subscription fee and I, and I am sure, most users would happily continue to pay the fee. The price of the subscription is a tiny part of the overall cost of maintaining a digital photo lab — ‘cause LR is just that: an amazing replacement for the darkroom with a cataloguing system thrown in for free.
When I went ‘digital’ I used a Bridge/ACR/PS workflow, and that was fine. Then I tried LR3 — and viewed the Reichman/Raber/Schewe tutorials — for me, LR does pretty much everything that I need and I am happy to pay my fees to Adobe. I have the subscription for the full CC (ps,Lr, InDesign, etc) for rather reasonable cost.
As to the future: nothing you have on any digital device or the cloud will last for more than a few decades or be useable on a future platform. You want your images to be viewable? Print them
-
I downloaded DXO Photolab 3.2 (again, checked it out a year ago). First image I tried was from a beach in Oregon taken at 145 mm focal length. Some of the foreground was, consequently, not in focus. Lightroom and Capture One handled that area gracefully. At default settings one of the small rocks (about 6 inches) in the foreground had an obvious halo around it. So much for good sharpening. I selected another image from 12 years ago of fall color in the background, lake in the foreground and reflection of Fall Color in the lake. Have never printed that image because I couldn't get it to look like I remember it. Both LR and DXO didn't do the job (and both were similar). Went to Capture One and finally got the image looking good and made a nice print.
Summary: I did benefit from the article because it reminded me how good Capture One can be. Still prefer Lightroom overall. DXO Photolab came in a distant third. I will continue to experiment with it, but so far don't see the benefit over the LR/C1 combo.
-
I've used LR for years (now "Classic"). If LR Classic goes defunct, even if I can still use it for DAM, will another non-Adobe program be able to read the edits I've done in LR develop module? Obviously no issue w TIFs that were saved from another editing program but 75% of my 10s of thousands of files are "adjusted" .dngs. Will DxO or Capture One import the files w LR changes intact?
-
I've used LR for years (now "Classic"). If LR Classic goes defunct, even if I can still use it for DAM, will another non-Adobe program be able to read the edits I've done in LR develop module? Obviously no issue w TIFs that were saved from another editing program but 75% of my 10s of thousands of files are "adjusted" .dngs. Will DxO or Capture One import the files w LR changes intact?
ALL raw processing from all raw converters are proprietary so no.
-
I've used LR for years (now "Classic"). If LR Classic goes defunct, even if I can still use it for DAM, will another non-Adobe program be able to read the edits I've done in LR develop module? Obviously no issue w TIFs that were saved from another editing program but 75% of my 10s of thousands of files are "adjusted" .dngs. Will DxO or Capture One import the files w LR changes intact?
Other apps attempt to read those edits, but won't interpret them precisely. LR will continue to work after the end of a subscription and you can output files from it. But unlike raw files, DNGs have an embedded preview that you can update with LR, and a number of other applications (eg PhotoMechanic) can output from that preview. That's true even if you don't have any Adobe apps on a computer.
Now, let's turn things around. Can we say that of other apps?
-
Not everyone subscribing to the Adobe suite or ShowTime is getting duped on the subscriptions!
It's not a bad product. As a former developer and geek, I like to get new and exciting stuff every now and then. But some users don't want that at all - they're satisfied with the current version, and don't want the hassle and expense of a new release. They'd just like bugs fixed and performance enhanced. I get it.
I think most users would agree that in the last few years the pace of innovation for PS and LR has pretty much slowed to a crawl. But now Adobe is starting to really feel the heat of competition and they certainly have the money to respond, if they choose.
If you're a beta tester or other 'insider' I don't doubt that Adobe has been telling you that Big Things are Coming, you may even have seen some of them, but for the rest of us it's just vapor, until it isn't.
-
I think most users would agree that in the last few years the pace of innovation for PS and LR has pretty much slowed to a crawl.
I understand you assume and believe that. Despite no evidence from ”most users” and the evidence of the Adobe subscription numbers. ;D
If you're a beta tester or other 'insider' I don't doubt that Adobe has been telling you that Big Things are Coming, you may even have seen some of them, but for the rest of us it's just vapor, until it isn't.
Telling not so much. Actually providing; yes.
-
...I like to get new and exciting stuff every now and then.
I think most users would agree that in the last few years the pace of innovation for PS and LR has pretty much slowed to a crawl.
Shiny new stuff can be exciting but I’m not looking for that buzz.
I have PS and Lr and it enables me to do a LOT. I don’t feel like they’ve slowed to a crawl. I still supplement with other apps though. Some that enable me to do things easier or quicker and some that enable me to do things I find painful. Luminar 4.2 is an example for me.
I don’t expect PS and Lr to be the end all/be all. I do expect them to improve and strive for leadership but I’m not going to bury them yet.
-
You don't seem to be aware that IF you stop subscribing to LR, the DAM continues to operate. That all modules EXCEPT Develop and Maps operate. Or that Adobe could easily have stopped ALL modules from working and gluing you to the DAM. They didn't do that. Consider that fact.
No I did not know that-
Do you mean you can still actively use the DAM; add new photos to it and use it as desired after the payments to adobe stop?
I was only refering to the possible difficulty to import the DAM into another kind of DAM
-
As Andrew might have put it, you can't go into Develop or Map, and you can't sync with LrMobile. You can do everything else.
Adobe use standard metadata to avoid locking you in. It's perfectly possible to migrate to another app with all your keywords, other metadata, and even adjustment data. Can you say the same for its competitors?
-
No I did not know that-
Do you mean you can still actively use the DAM; add new photos to it and use it as desired after the payments to adobe stop?
Again, all modules except Develop and Maps operate after you end your subscription. Library continues to operate (the Dam) and you can still even use Quick Develop!
-
OK - clear good to know.
-
I must thoroughly agree with Dan about his gloomy prediction regarding LR. Any time a company adds the appellation "Classic", it usually means "so to be discontinued". That was my instant thought when Adobe revised the name. Stupid, arrogant idiots. I find most of the software/cloud developers think EVERYONE has 1Gb and higher speeds because they do. though I travel for my work and am nominally based in NYC, I chose to live in a very rural area. The downside is 8Mbps is my "fast" internet download. hold on, it gets better, 756Kbps is my whopping upload speed. And Adobe thinks I'd use Lightroom CC and upload my images? I'd never upload all my images anyway. My average week long job is 500-750GB. But I think Dan alluded to it well. Adobe is hoping to cash in on cloud storage and make you pay the price -- especially if it can force you to do so.
As a result, I have been updating concurrently my Capture One, DxO Photolab and OnOne. I have tried to become more conversant in all those so that the day Adobe pulls the plug (not much longer now) I have alternatives. Pity. I've worked with LR since beta in 2006. (I owned the precursor software Adobe bought and used as the basis of Lightroom, RAW Shooter.) I use LR for most of my personal, fine art printing as well as all my RAW processing before taking an image into PS. I agree that at this point, DxO is one of the best alternatives, though I haven't printed from it. Capture One is pretty kludgy (I liked it better when I used it pre-Lightroom). The outlier is On1 Photo Raw. It's improved greatly, though I still have reservations about it's color. It also has the ability to import and LR catalog, with Develop settings and all.
Alas poor Lightroom, I knew you well....
-
Like Dan, you're listing the obvious downsides of the cloud-dependent "Lightroom", a different program, ignoring changes in Classic Lightroom that indicate long term investment, and making this confusion fit your prejudice about the word "Classic". And garnishing this hit job with fake facts*.
I cannot defend Adobe's naming shenanigans, but last time I looked Coke was still the product they tried to sideline as "Classic".
John
* Adobe did not base LR on RawShooter. Its first public beta was over 6 months before the acquisition.
-
The author clearly has a personal preference for DxO, which is fine, but should not extend to writing complete nonsense. The U-Point approach is a interesting approach, but to imply that this is the only way to do local adjustments is ridiculous. Capture One has extensive, almost overwhelming local adjustment ability through layers, and very similar targeting to U-Point with luminance masking (which is actually more tuneable than the Nik approach). Lightroom similarly has advanced local adjustments, with, again, luminance and color range masking (it would be nice if Lr could make it more obvious when a photo has local adjustments applied, though). Both of these existed well before DxO acquired Nik and bolted U-Points into PL.
And there was plenty more misrepresentation in there. Sorry, but this article is simply not up to standard of "Lula Classic". Disappointing.
-
Like Dan, you're listing the obvious downsides of the cloud-dependent "Lightroom", a different program, ignoring changes in Classic Lightroom that indicate long term investment, and making this confusion fit your prejudice about the word "Classic". And garnishing this hit job with fake facts*.
I cannot defend Adobe's naming shenanigans, but last time I looked Coke was still the product they tried to sideline as "Classic".
John
* Adobe did not base LR on RawShooter. Its first public beta was over 6 months before the acquisition.
Re: Adobe and RAW Shooter, from Adobe's release:
Pixmantec is a privately held company headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark and currently ships the RawShooter® line of digital photography software products. Adobe plans to integrate Pixmantec raw processing technologies into Lightroom™ and wherever customers will be working with raw files.
So, yes, I misspoke the timing, but I remember the feeling that Lightroom was inferior in some of it's handling of RAW (highlights in particular) and that the later release mimicked RAW Shooter.
As for "Classic", Coke only relented on "Classic Coke" because "New Coke" was widely ignored by the public. If I remember correctly, they stopped production on "Classic Coke" in 1985 or so. The New Coke was cheaper to make since it was made with corn syrup rather than cane sugar. (Again, if memory serves me well.) Finally they brought back the "old" Coke and called it "Classic".
A good example of Adobe pulling the plug on desktop vs web app is easy to see. I loved Muse. Adobe was gung-ho for it -- an easy drag and drop web designer, minimal coding. Diehard coders love Dreamweaver. I hated it. (I've had a web site since the mid-90's and had to teach myself HTML. No templates out there then. Though I had a web site, some of my AD clients weren't allowed to use the web!) For 5 or 6 years, Adobe was all in on Muse. Until it wasn't. development ended in 2018, and tech support ended in March. Adobe now pushes a collection of web (Spark and Portfolio) and the not really suitable XD as replacements for what was a unique, well like program.
-
Re: Adobe and RAW Shooter, from Adobe's release:
Pixmantec is a privately held company headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark and currently ships the RawShooter® line of digital photography software products. Adobe plans to integrate Pixmantec raw processing technologies into Lightroom™ and wherever customers will be working with raw files.
Yes, and this was done AFTER LR was released so John's correct: Adobe did not base LR on RawShooter. Its first public beta was over 6 months before the acquisition.
As for "Classic", Coke only relented on "Classic Coke" because "New Coke" was widely ignored by the public.
Like the idea that anything called "Classic" spells its doom should be ignored? :P
I use Muse too, it still runs just fine.
-
The U-Point approach is a interesting approach, but to imply that this is the only way to do local adjustments is ridiculous. Capture One has extensive, almost overwhelming local adjustment ability through layers, and very similar targeting to U-Point with luminance masking (which is actually more tuneable than the Nik approach). Lightroom similarly has advanced local adjustments, with, again, luminance and color range masking (it would be nice if Lr could make it more obvious when a photo has local adjustments applied, though). Both of these existed well before DxO acquired Nik and bolted U-Points into PL.
The point is more that, if Adobe DOES kill off Lightroom (as we know it for desktop), DxO is an excellent alternative. I have owned C1 since it was first introduced for the EOS 1D. I just updated to the latest version of C1 20. DxO's approach is more straightforward, in my mind, and easier to use than C1's. Lightroom is my benchmark and still my preferred and favorite, though I much prefer the noise handling and sharpening in DxO. Certain jobs, I'll "round robin" images from Lightroom to DxO PL and back to Lightroom and then any final tweaking in PS.
-
Like the idea that anything called "Classic" spells its doom should be ignored? :P
I use Muse too, it still runs just fine.
My favorite music is "classic" rock, so, in a way, yes it does spell "doomed". My wife teases me that the only bands I like are "dead bands". ;D
And yes, Muse runs just fine. But it's still dead software. But what I love about Windows, I can run LOTS of dead software if I want. Excuse me, Classic software. ;D
-
Re: Adobe and RAW Shooter, from Adobe's release:
Pixmantec is a privately held company headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark and currently ships the RawShooter® line of digital photography software products. Adobe plans to integrate Pixmantec raw processing technologies into Lightroom™ and wherever customers will be working with raw files.
So, yes, I misspoke the timing, but I remember the feeling that Lightroom was inferior in some of it's handling of RAW (highlights in particular) and that the later release mimicked RAW Shooter.
As for "Classic", Coke only relented on "Classic Coke" because "New Coke" was widely ignored by the public. If I remember correctly, they stopped production on "Classic Coke" in 1985 or so. The New Coke was cheaper to make since it was made with corn syrup rather than cane sugar. (Again, if memory serves me well.) Finally they brought back the "old" Coke and called it "Classic".
A good example of Adobe pulling the plug on desktop vs web app is easy to see. I loved Muse. Adobe was gung-ho for it -- an easy drag and drop web designer, minimal coding. Diehard coders love Dreamweaver. I hated it. (I've had a web site since the mid-90's and had to teach myself HTML. No templates out there then. Though I had a web site, some of my AD clients weren't allowed to use the web!) For 5 or 6 years, Adobe was all in on Muse. Until it wasn't. development ended in 2018, and tech support ended in March. Adobe now pushes a collection of web (Spark and Portfolio) and the not really suitable XD as replacements for what was a unique, well like program.
You're still just bolstering a perfectly-understandable prejudice with dodgy facts, barely-relevant analogies, and ignoring contrary evidence about continued Classic development.
If Muse is an analogy, it works equally against your expectations for Classic Lightroom. Adobe killed the newer, dumbed down app, Dreamweaver's still going, and maybe that will happen with Cloudy Lightroom? Muse failed because its market was those who found DW too difficult and they were no longer designing their own sites - they are using customisable cloudy solutions like SquareSum, Wix, and Spark, Portfolio etc, even social media.
But Muse just isn't relevant, while Coke shows how it's naive to base your case on Adobe's product naming acrobatics. It's reasonable to ask the question of "Classic", but the evidence doesn't back it up.
-
Lightroom and Photoshop are fantastic pieces of software. But, like any software, it's easy to see how the pace of innovation slackened and slowed as the products matured. The "core" features of those products mostly made their appearance in the earlier releases.
You can imagine the consternation of the product manager of LR or PS once they had hit version four or five. "What the hell do we add now, to keep people buying the next new release?"
"Oh, wait! We'll do a subscription model! We'll sell the narrative of constant, continuous improvement!"
Ten bucks a month ain't all that much. And, really, when you total it all up it isn't all that different from the periodic, major-version releases we used to see back in the day. And so it's really not a surprise that so many photographers simply shrugged at the new model.
Alas, if you put the feature set of either program into a matrix, and truly scrutinize what you got, when... you'll see a clearly declining value proposition.
Now, having already captured much of the serious-photographer market, Adobe has set its eyes upon the vastly larger smartphone-in-every-pocket universe. True, cloud storage will suck for Sally, the wedding photographer, just back from an event. But it'll work just dandy for Suzie and her Saturday night selfies!
Me, I just said no.
I stopped at LR 6, the last standalone version. And was finally pushed to an inflection point last fall when Apple released Catalina - the first MacOS version that removed support for legacy 32-bit apps. Turns out that although Lightroom and Photoshop are both 64-bit apps - and have been for awhile - the installer that Adobe provides is 32-bit. Alrighty then.
After using LR and PS for literal decades, I have nothing but fondness for them. But Adobe long ago got too big for its britches.
And after six months I can say that Capture One is both an able replacement as well as an elegant piece of software in its own right, software that brings to bear its own singular strengths.