Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Rory on October 13, 2015, 11:08:04 am
-
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?
-
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".
-
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.......
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
If they don't do it right, then we know we're all damned!
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
I'm really not sure that Lr has any future going by some of the discussion here. Really, if all people are interested is Raw development then the question needs to be asked, what does Lr have over Ps/ACR? Absolutely zip, IMHO. The tools that Aperture, and then Lightroom, bought to the table were intended to provide a single environment within which photos could be managed, catalogued, developed, and edited (how many people here know what "edited" means?). Aperture, with tools like the light table, comprehensive stacking, versioning and organizing, and the book editor provided a fantastic environment for working on a project. To risk the Wrath Of Schewe, I'd say that no pre-release screenshot of "Shadowland" I've ever seen indicated that Adobe had thought of anything even vaguely on those lines, and all the non-Develop Module stuff looked to have been rush built and bolted on in 6 months - and never improved since. But nevertheless, Lr has these tools, and since the competition has self-immolated, they're no longer second rate, and for me, they're mission critical. Slightly better NR at ISO 25,600? Not so much. Capture One, on the other hand, does not offer much beyond Develop - and yet, apparently, people are flocking to it. So, the conclusion must be that the market for the non-Develop stuff is very small, and therefore, the justification for Adobe to support 2 advanced/pro-level Develop-focused suites is very low. Hence, push the advanced crowd back towards Ps, and use the Lightroom brand awareness to create a new / replacement product to compete in the consumer market.
That's one way I could see it going. I hope I'm wrong. But also, having been an Adobe customer for years, long enough even to remember Adobe Fetch, Streamline, Dimensions, etc, I really don't think they are capable of winning in the consumer market. It's just not in the company's DNA - or what's left of it.
-
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.
And that's fine. Make the product better for those masses. But don't remove functionality of which 5 versions established workflows for existing customers. If that means a "dummy" and "expert" mode one selects, with "dummy" being the default, I'm OK with that. To break existing workflows is unforgivable. The product managers screwed up big time. I've never seen such an egregious example like this from Adobe so I'm worried a bit.
-
I am worried as well. I have everything based on LR, I am a full time professional shooter and a CC subscriber. Mr. Schewe is not even using the new update. The guy who writes the books is not using it and that tells us something. I spent time yesterday afternoon looking at Capture One tutorials.
-
The combination of DAM (cataloguing and labeling/ keywording/ collections) and parametric development in one application is attractive to me. Of course, those who do one-off jobs might not need the keywording and collection functions. I prefer parametric because I like saving snapshot versions and then returning later to decide which I like best - and not having a zillion physical files of the same RAW-source image to name, file, and find space for. Obviously being able to print is important, but the books and slides could have been optional and I would still be happily using, figuring that a plug-in could supply non-core function. Face recognition? Meh.
-
The product managers screwed up big time. I've never seen such an egregious example like this from Adobe so I'm worried a bit.
Too true ... but I was really taken aback (but not completely surprised) by the aloof, abrupt and out of touch initial response by Mangalick which more or less told us too bad, deal with it ...
-
And that's fine. Make the product better for those masses. But don't remove functionality of which 5 versions established workflows for existing customers. If that means a "dummy" and "expert" mode one selects, with "dummy" being the default, I'm OK with that. To break existing workflows is unforgivable. The product managers screwed up big time. I've never seen such an egregious example like this from Adobe so I'm worried a bit.
Well, though, that's the challenge.
If you NEVER remove features, and you support umpteen arcane-and-specific uses of the product, you end up with something that is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain and which you can never move forward. It is often necessary to "re-think" things and come up with newer, better, and sometimes simpler ways of doing something, and if you make a better product for 99% of users, and a worse product for 1% of users, that MAY be a compromise you're willing to take. That's the real challenge of things.
I mean, on the flip side, you could come up with something like Photoshop. Which for 99% of people is just unapproachable. I won't touch it, because if I go more than 30 days without using it, I forget many things I need to even get around in the product. It's a franken-app which is only usable by people who spend hours in it every day. Hell, I've seen some of the weirdest "recipes" ever for getting ideal results (my favorite ever was to increase saturation and contrast by duplicating the main layer, convert the duplicate to black and white, then double the saturation on the main layer and merge them). And most Photoshop users really feel more attached to the application BECAUSE it's so damned complicated and BECAUSE they went through 4 years worth of pain to get to be "experts."
That's a fair bit of a digression, but my point is that if you never remove functionality, and you never take what you've learned in 8 years of shipping a product and try to "re-think" some things, the product will end up being noticeably worse and more complex over time. The first implementation isn't always the best.
I'm not saying what they've done with the import dialog is an improvement, and I'm certainly not saying the way they rolled this out is excusable. But I _do_ think it's sensible to take analytics of how people _are_ using the product, and to try and make something that's more useful to more users. I think this is a great example of "good idea in principle, and terrible execution" more than anything else.
-
If you look at the last couple of releases, one has to question the competence of the lightroom developers and management. On the other hand, the lightroom community is passionate and vocal, and that may be the saving grace in the long run.
-
Well, though, that's the challenge.
If you NEVER remove features, and you support umpteen arcane-and-specific uses of the product, you end up with something that is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain and which you can never move forward.
Photoshop hasn't really had such issues, been around since 1990. Further, there's nothing arcane about the functionality that broke workflows (mine included) as a result of the new import dialog. So, sorry no, I'm not buying into that as an excuse.
-
I'm not saying what they've done with the import dialog is an improvement, and I'm certainly not saying the way they rolled this out is excusable. But I _do_ think it's sensible to take analytics of how people _are_ using the product, and to try and make something that's more useful to more users. I think this is a great example of "good idea in principle, and terrible execution" more than anything else.
I don't don't think anyone who is upset, annoyed or even outraged by what we received with v6.2/2015.2 believes that a developer should NEVER make changes to their offerings, even delete deprecated tools ... but if they wish to remove functionality that a good number of users have come to rely upon ... I think it would behoove the developer to be quite sure the analytics they are using to base their decisions upon is accurate and complete.
Even heavy users savvy in the intricacies of complicated solutions appreciate simplification ... after all, it really isn't the number of sliders a 'pro' invokes that is distinguishable from the average user ... it is why certain sliders were used and to what degree. Removing some of those sliders without warning based upon incomplete metrics is perilous at best.
-
A change to Lightroom that I would support is a redesign of the develop architecture to support layers, where each layer could be masked using the gradient, radial and brush tools, with all of the controls in the dev module available for each layer. I am not a fan of the duplication of edit controls, with many missing, for localized editing, as per the current design.
-
It is interesting to note who is not participating in these various threads on this topic.
I've been considering subscribing to PS/LRCC but not in any rush and now will wait. I'm at CS3 and LR 5.7 and can happily remain there for some time.
Perhaps LULA will post something on this authored by Jeff/Michael/Kevin?
-
Coming from someone who's processed most of my 3000 or so Raws and jpegs in ACR (CS3-CS5) and also finally bought Lightroom 4 just to check out PV2012 (still not sure I'm liking it on all images) LR's overall UI feels like it was designed by someone who tends to either make a lot of mistakes in editing or not sure of what they're seeing or is way too obsessive and not sure they like their results to the point they need a big sign (called a bezel for some strange reason) flashing right in the middle of the image to tell them what each little tweak stored in History state they performed.
And then the histogram reflects the internal data (not output) in %'s throughout the UI. Percentage of what? I don't need the curve tool telling me a point node is reflecting 37.8%. And then I have to set Soft Proof to ProPhotoRGB to get the black point to preview as it will appear in Photoshop and other color managed apps.
I'm so used to ACR's twiddle, tweak (command Z-Mac) twiddle tweak some more, save to xmp, open directly in Photoshop because the preview doesn't show exactly how it's going to appear downsized for the web (same as LR). And then open the image again and do some more tweaking. I don't need to be told everything I did and wonder if it is saved/embedded in xmp sidecar or in catalog and buried in a long history state list.
I still haven't gotten used to LR's workflow scheme. It's just too complicated.
-
It is interesting to note who is not participating in these various threads on this topic.
I've been considering subscribing to PS/LRCC but not in any rush and now will wait. I'm at CS3 and LR 5.7 and can happily remain there for some time.
Perhaps LULA will post something on this authored by Jeff/Michael/Kevin?
Jeff already commented in another thread saying his feedback during the testing was to NOT release the changed import dialog, but they "took that under advisement" and released it as-is. There are 7 or 8 threads that basically are saying the same thread, so I can see him being unwilling to comment in all of them ;-)
-
Jeff already commented in another thread saying his feedback during the testing was to NOT release the changed import dialog, but they "took that under advisement" and released it as-is.
Actually I said the other beta testers provided negative feedback but they went ahead and did it anyway....I also said I thought it sucked :~)
-
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.
Of course there are differences. And of course FCPX (or Lightroom 6.x) only breaks your workflow if you download it and install it. And I understand that you are incensed aout the subscription aspect of the Lightroom thing, but none of that changes the fact that this reminds me of the FCPX release. A lot. In speculating about the future of Lightroom, it seems useful to look at what followed that event. Can anything be learned from that? You seem to think not.
I think there is quite a lot to be learned, or at least quite a lot to be pondered. What I'm sure is to be learned is that big companies lie Adobe and Apple have different agendas than I do. So it is important not to let my workflow so depend on any one peice of software that I can't survive their taking a different direction. It's one of the reasons I've been exploring Capture One in the past year or so.
I'm not so sure I agree that Apple has "rectified their error." They've certainly improved the program, but it's in the direction they seemed intent on taking it in the beginning. They have the market power to do that. So does Adobe. And I don't have the market power ot do much about that. But I do have the market power to explore other options so I know where I can go if I have to choose a different way of getting my work done. I haven't user Photo Mechanic in a long time, but I'm interested in trying it again.
-
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.
This.
It's good to let them know you're unhappy, but better to know your options.
-
I don't earn any money from photography (likely never will) but was willing to spend $200 (CDN) on Aperture when I first bought it and also about $150 (CDN) on LR, which I haven't used much. It annoys the hell out of me when products are suddenly discontinued or drastically changed. (I know I don't have to upgrade right away but I also know that eventually I will have to.) I can imagine how much more frustrating it is for people who earn their income from photography and rely daily on those software tools.
But the fact is that $200 and $150 are trivial amounts of money. I spend more on gasoline every month and way more than that on groceries. I don't represent significant revenue to Apple or Adobe, so the odds of them caring what I think are slim. I think this may be more generally true.
The importance of these tools to individual users is far greater than their purchase or rental cost. That's partly why we like them but that's probably also why we don't have much clout when it comes to their re-design. I used to write software for a living and had enough trouble getting specs from a small in-house user base. I can't imagine trying to satisfy the needs of thousands of photographers world-wide; just look at the difference of opinion on this forum alone when it concerns to just the one Import function and how it's used.
But this is the pricing model we have and it brings some inescapable consequences. I certainly don't know how to improve things; I stupidly hoped that computers would be an appliance by now. But there is a difference between an appliance and a tool. We live in a world where we each are our own systems manager and that seems to mean being perpetually up to speed on software releases, or substitute programs from competitors, to prevent being caught out by a supplier's sudden design decision. I don't see this changing anytime soon.
-
Of course there are differences. And of course FCPX (or Lightroom 6.x) only breaks your workflow if you download it and install it.
Other than the fact that CC subscribers were contractually obligated to pay for the update to Lr 6.x and no one was compelled to reward Apple monetarily for FCP X or obliged to upgrade to achieve basic OS or integral peripheral support, yes, your analogy fits.
And I understand that you are incensed aout the subscription aspect of the Lightroom thing, but none of that changes the fact that this reminds me of the FCPX release. A lot. In speculating about the future of Lightroom, it seems useful to look at what followed that event. Can anything be learned from that? You seem to think not.
First, I am not incensed about the subscription model, merely aware of the potential issues the model poses for end users ... I have no illusions that the folks at Adobe can avoid the pitfalls such a model creates. I take no joy that my concerns came to fruition. But, yes, the overall resulting disappointment between the to instances have a similarity in outcome.
I think there is quite a lot to be learned, or at least quite a lot to be pondered. What I'm sure is to be learned is that big companies lie Adobe and Apple have different agendas than I do. So it is important not to let my workflow so depend on any one peice of software that I can't survive their taking a different direction. It's one of the reasons I've been exploring Capture One in the past year or so.
I whole heartedly agree. The lessons that such tools never last forever and their developers have a tendency not to handle delivering 'change' well ... speaks volumes for always having a workable Plan B at the ready as needed.
I'm not so sure I agree that Apple has "rectified their error." They've certainly improved the program, but it's in the direction they seemed intent on taking it in the beginning. They have the market power to do that. So does Adobe. And I don't have the market power ot do much about that. But I do have the market power to explore other options so I know where I can go if I have to choose a different way of getting my work done. I haven't user Photo Mechanic in a long time, but I'm interested in trying it again.
I too, don't think Apple may have fully rectified their misstep, but I do think they have been working diligently since the introduction of FCP X in 2011 to rebuild at least some of bridges that were damaged in the process. I am hopeful that Adobe will make similar attempts to that end as well for Lr going forward.
-
Maybe Adobe will address this by restoring Lightroom to it's original functionality and release a crippled version for the computer-challenged users they want to bring into the fold.
-
Other than the fact that CC subscribers were contractually obligated to pay for the update to Lr 6.x and no one was compelled to reward Apple monetarily for FCP X or obliged to upgrade to achieve basic OS or integral peripheral support, yes, your analogy fits.
Yes, you are obligated to pay for CC as long as you want to keep using it, but no, you are not reauired to install every update. And it seems that these changes were visited on non-subscription users who downloaded the updates as well. (I don't know that from my personal experience, just my understanding from other posts here.)
[offtopic/]
But here's the thing in the FCPX case: for any user of cameras using actively-evolving codecs, or that get frequent firmware updates, or that are buying new cameras, it is a very short time before you have to update your edit software if you are going to keep upgrading the camera firmware. Sure, you can transcode and use an off-line/online workflow, or transcode and never go back to the raw files, but if you want to keep working with you raw files in the edit system, you have to upgrade because they require an updated SDK in the edit software, and by EOLing FCP7 the same day they introduced FCP8, Apple put a lot of people inthe position where they would have to change their workflow the next time a camera came in that didn't work with the existing version. It was certainly as disruptive to as large a percentage of the user base as this Lightroom update. And the screams from the video forums were just as loud.[/offtopic]
But other than the off-topic bit, it seems we generally agree.
-
And that's fine. Make the product better for those masses. But don't remove functionality of which 5 versions established workflows for existing customers. If that means a "dummy" and "expert" mode one selects, with "dummy" being the default, I'm OK with that. To break existing workflows is unforgivable. The product managers screwed up big time. I've never seen such an egregious example like this from Adobe so I'm worried a bit.
Andrew (DigitalDog), I agree completely. Well said. Loss of three key options in the new import break (or severely complicate) my workflow. I was in the beta test land in '05 and a user ever since. I've developed an import wf that I've used since the first version shipped. Product improvements? Yes. Appeal to a greater audience? Why not? Remove professional or long standing features... ah, no. Just expose the appropriate UI to the appropriate audience. What is so surprising to myself (I'm not alone in this) is that the change made to Import (to make it "less daunting") doesn't really match up to the demographic for those using Develop. The new Import is just bolted on, the rest of the application does require "daunting" understanding. Mongrel I say - with a nod to the dog...
-
Coming from someone who's processed most of my 3000 or so Raws and jpegs in ACR (CS3-CS5) and also finally bought Lightroom 4 just to check out PV2012 (still not sure I'm liking it on all images) LR's overall UI feels like it was designed by someone who tends to either make a lot of mistakes in editing or not sure of what they're seeing or is way too obsessive and not sure they like their results to the point they need a big sign (called a bezel for some strange reason) flashing right in the middle of the image to tell them what each little tweak stored in History state they performed.
Eh? Struggling to recognise the programme you are describing. You seem to be taking things that people find really useful when doing creative work and painting them is really negative way.
Why is getting feedback as to what you just undid, a problem? If you quickly want to have a play with various setting or tweaks and then undo your experiment, you can easily see how far back you are going and get to stage you want, without having history panel open. Not all alterations are obviously visible.
I'm so used to ACR's twiddle, tweak (command Z-Mac) twiddle tweak some more, save to xmp, open directly in Photoshop because the preview doesn't show exactly how it's going to appear downsized for the web (same as LR). And then open the image again and do some more tweaking. I don't need to be told everything I did and wonder if it is saved/embedded in xmp sidecar or in catalog and buried in a long history state list.
I still haven't gotten used to LR's workflow scheme. It's just too complicated.
If you think simpler and easier is more complicated, no wonder you are confused. ???
-
I've forgotten where I saw it, but there is an ad with LRCC priced at $7.99 per month for new subscribers. Clearly the growth curve is faltering. Would the selfie crowd go for $7.99 and a simpler learning curve? I think I'm going to start exploring options.
-
I've forgotten where I saw it, but there is an ad with LRCC priced at $7.99 per month for new subscribers. Clearly the growth curve is faltering. Would the selfie crowd go for $7.99 and a simpler learning curve? I think I'm going to start exploring options.
1Year at $7.99/month +tax - https://creative.adobe.com/promo/CreativeLiveCCPP
These teaser offers will go on for awhile until the subscriber numbers reach criticality. Then subscribers are hooked and have no leverage going forward. If this Import change ruffled some feathers I can imagine what the future may bring. That is why a perpetual license always makes more sense from a consumer perspective.
-
What works for your clients...
A combination of Apple's Photos, Alien Skin 7.x, some Camera+, some Lightroom and an intuitive archivin application that would adapt to the connectivity available at the given moment to the camera, the studio and the client. LightRoom is somewhere in its early 30 per cent of its life curve. They need to focus.
-
Given the amount of negative coverage both on this forum and many others towards Adobe we have had no comment from the person who like most CEO's pass on the credit of success and take the blame for their company's failures.
Lightroom users are rightly concerned about the future direction of Lightroom given this latest release and are looking for answers, which ultimately is the CEO responsibility, although I think that is unlikely to happen in this case with Adobe CEO, Shantanu Narayen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78yigV0GYGQ
-D.
-
Eh? Struggling to recognise the programme you are describing.
If you think simpler and easier is more complicated, no wonder you are confused. ???
I'm only wondering by what LR UI designers went by to determine how they think a "pro" photographer works from an organizational and functional standpoint, Jeremy.
They appear to be obsessive compulsive with very short term memory considering all the nested options in menus and pop up panel reminders along with requiring a long list of history states they need to back out of that changes the preview if only they could see them over the flashing bezel.
Whoever LR was designed for I wouldn't want them to organize my walk-in closet. It would take them forever. This is my opinion of course, but, Jeremy, if you want to continue to ankle bite my points with no substantive feedback as you've been doing with me and others, that's your time and your problem.
-
I'm only wondering by what LR UI designers went by to determine how they think a "pro" photographer works from an organizational and functional standpoint, Jeremy.
As it happened, they consulted working pro photographers during Shadowland's development and then during the open beta of LR as it was now called, they rejigged a lot of things from the feedback they received.
They appear to be obsessive compulsive with very short term memory considering all the nested options in menus and pop up panel reminders along with requiring a long list of history states they need to back out of that changes the preview if only they could see them over the flashing bezel.
Whoever LR was designed for I wouldn't want them to organize my walk-in closet. It would take them forever. This is my opinion of course, but, Jeremy, if you want to continue to ankle bite my points with no substantive feedback as you've been doing with me and others, that's your time and your problem.
You really don't seem to like other people having a different opinion to you it would seem.
You also seem to have missed the fact that LR has been so very successful is because of its design and organisation.
So how do you think pros organise their work and why do you think that doesn't LR help with that?
Still really do not know what point you are trying to make with your criticism of LR history and how it works. Your sentence I put in bold may make sense to you, but grammatically it makes very little sense. So I can't understand what your problem with LR's UI is.
-
I'm only wondering by what LR UI designers went by to determine how they think a "pro" photographer works from an organizational and functional standpoint ...
What they went by was direct input and feedback from a very lengthy and detailed public beta process that was extremely well represented by professional photography interests ... as the vast majority of those early participants were indeed working pros and took full advantage of making their thoughts, observations and ideas known, directly to the engineers, team members and managers of the project.
In fact the initial marketing theme for Lr v1 was molded around the influence working pros had on the development of the product.
If the Lr UI is less than ideal in your assessment ... the fault is not completely at the hands of Adobe, it was the vast majority of your fellow users that helped guide the direction of the UI ... although, some of the folks at Adobe did hold steadfast to several elements.
-
When doing an import, I seem to be getting a sluggish "flash" of this "other" gui. It is a bit hard to describe, but it seems that either the gui flashes back and forth rapidly, and/or the change is so slow as to cause me clicking the button once more, causing unexpected visual stuff to happen on my screen.
Just like the HDR/pano modules seems to be borrowed from another team within Adobe, the Import thing does not seem to visually "belong" in Lightroom. While this may not be really important in the grand scheme, perhaps those designers did not talk much to the Lightroom team?
Changing anything in established software is painful. Experienced users will usually protest that they have to change their ways. Figuring out if the the change was _really_ better or worse long-term can only be really known after a large/representative amount of users have spent a considerable amount of time with the new version. Much rather "get it right" the first time. Easy to say, hard to do...
-h
-
Well put. Once you have a big system whether a software or an organisation, whatever move you make is likely to make a lot of people scream out loud. Also, you have the 'butterfly effect' where a small change can cause a big foobar down the line as...I don't know what but likely adresses go wrong and the software loses track of what it was trying to compute.
There are very few software makers who are starting from a clean slate any longer. Which makes me look with a lot of anticipation at the 'Photos' SW that Apple has integrated in its OS now. They had Aperture, let's not forget. they know how to achieve big things with limited processing power. They still are strong in video and music...somehow it goes against their nature not to have anything serious to offer in the realm of 'serious' photography (whatever that may mean).
My guess is they will launch the Aperture replacement in the next 18 months or so.
I would just so much like to have somebody big kick Adobe's gluteus...so hard!
-
Quote related to Apple:
...somehow it goes against their nature not to have anything serious to offer in the realm of 'serious' photography (whatever that may mean).
My feeling is that Apple is moving toward the masses and not supporting the professional, niche markets.
The big difference between Apple and Adobe is that Apple is primarily a hardware company and their software is a commodity to sell hardware. Adobe is a software company that does not want their products to become commodities where price is the deciding factor. They will maintain that position as long as their software supports professionals, is more comprehensive and more reliable than competition. If any competition shows up then they buy it.
That is my take on the situation.
-
As it happened, they consulted working pro photographers during Shadowland's development and then during the open beta of LR as it was now called, they rejigged a lot of things from the feedback they received.
What they went by was direct input and feedback from a very lengthy and detailed public beta process that was extremely well represented by professional photography interests ... as the vast majority of those early participants were indeed working pros and took full advantage of making their thoughts, observations and ideas known, directly to the engineers, team members and managers of the project.
In fact the initial marketing theme for Lr v1 was molded around the influence working pros had on the development of the product.
If the Lr UI is less than ideal in your assessment ... the fault is not completely at the hands of Adobe, it was the vast majority of your fellow users that helped guide the direction of the UI ... although, some of the folks at Adobe did hold steadfast to several elements.
I didn't see any evidence to back up what both of you just outlined since I wasn't there. If a software company is going to rely on feedback from a small group of professional photographers using old established proprietary pre-digital workflows, that's still going to be a VERY SMALL market to sell such a complicated app with that much UI clutter as well as sell to those who just want to organize and archive all their family photos.
Besides that the imaging market is so over saturated simplification in the form of less option and dialog box clutter IMO is the only future for LR. The import change and Hogarty apology thread IMO is the writing on the wall for LR on how to sell to future markets and that being primarily hobbyist photographers. And I'm not sure those folks like an app that rearranges their furniture about every year unless they like wasting time learning new and complex workflows with a myriad of nested options that require them to buy books to show them how to make it all work. And I'm not buying the Elements solution to appease that market either. A lot of the imaging meat is taken out of that app.
Why can't LR engineers include instructions for efficiency and time management workflow suggestions for each different pro market that has been proven to work. I realize school photo pros work different from wedding photogs who work different from event and fashion photogs. They most likely use multiple devices like ipads, smartphones, laptops, etc. to do and distribute their work which most likely accounts for all the nested complexity designed into LR. Not sure since I don't need to process, organize, archive 100,000 images for each client. That's still a small market to justify investing all that time making the app more complex because some pro photog decides they want to work differently.
-
I didn't see any evidence to back up what both of you just outlined since I wasn't there. If a software company is going to rely on feedback from a small group of professional photographers using old established proprietary pre-digital workflows, that's still going to be a VERY SMALL market to sell such a complicated app with that much UI clutter as well as sell to those who just want to organize and archive all their family photos.
Well we were there and so were an awful lot of other photographers giving their feedback.
What do you mean by LR's UI clutter? It's one of the most clutter free programmes I've ever used. See screengrab below.
As for those who just want to organise family photos, there are plenty of free/very cheap apps out there that can do that. LR isn't meant for them, it purpose was to serve the pro/keen photographer.
Why can't LR engineers include instructions for efficiency and time management workflow suggestions for each different pro market that has been proven to work. I realize school photo pros work different from wedding photogs who work different from event and fashion photogs. They most likely use multiple devices like ipads, smartphones, laptops, etc. to do and distribute their work which most likely accounts for all the nested complexity designed into LR. Not sure since I don't need to process, organize, archive 100,000 images for each client. That's still a small market to justify investing all that time making the app more complex because some pro photog decides they want to work differently.
Still really not sure what your complaint is or why you keep going on about nesting, but the main reason for LR's success is how easy it is to use by a wide range of photographers for a very broad range of tasks. You can use LR to organise your work in anyway you see fit, because nothing is forced upon you. How things are done will probably vary as much by individual photographer as type of photographer.
Personally I use a date description folder system, with multiple entries per day if needed and then add keywording to the images as well. BTW the folder description/file name is also the first stage of keywording process and may be all that is needed. That basic system can actually work for just about any kind photographer, the tweaking will be in how things like collections, smart or dumb are then arranged. Which is a very personal thing.
Though a wedding photographer may simply have a folder for each couple and that will be all the folder organising they ever need.
-
Quote related to Apple:
My feeling is that Apple is moving toward the masses and not supporting the professional, niche markets.
The big difference between Apple and Adobe is that Apple is primarily a hardware company and their software is a commodity to sell hardware. Adobe is a software company that does not want their products to become commodities where price is the deciding factor. They will maintain that position as long as their software supports professionals, is more comprehensive and more reliable than competition. If any competition shows up then they buy it.
That is my take on the situation.
I agree with you. Apple is after the consumer market which eclipses the professional market in a big way. They want to tap in all those iPhone photos being taken and make the management and more importantly the electronic distribution of those photos seamless. They don't give a rat's azz about being able to cull images while importing.
-
Just what Cloud is any Corporate Executive living on if they imagine that the iPhone/Selfie/Instagram crowd is ever going to use any computer-based image editing program — let alone one which requires the slightest degree of learning-time and effort?
If the Adobe Marketing team really believes that, they need to get out into public spaces, sniff the fresh air and get a dose of reality?!
-
Well we were there and so were an awful lot of other photographers giving their feedback.
That's not evidence as consensus for designing software UI that will be adopted and understood by a larger market than "pro" photographers. You keep side stepping my points about a broader market LR must appeal to. Unless you have evidence there is a huge population of pro photogs that can carry the cost/profit weight for the amount of energy spent by Adobe engineers to keep adding more complexity on top of the existing complexity, you don't have a convincing leg to stand on.
What do you mean by LR's UI clutter?
I've already described that in this thread several times. You even penned lame comebacks as arguments. I could provide screengrabs of all the obscurely worded warnings and instructions in dialog and preference panels that show up when the user intuitively does something not kosher by LR's way of doing things, but it's not worth it knowing you've already made up YOUR mind.
Tell you what, drag a Raw file from the desktop on top of the Develop or Library module and note the interface transforms into some weird collection of tabbed panels, stacked panels of drop down arrow bars and other stuff I've never seen before nor could understand and navigate out of that I had to just quit out of LR and restart just to get me back to the regular filmstrip interface mode.
For crying out loud if it's so ease of use and simply designed then why is LR4's User Guide pdf 205 pages long. We're just making pictures!
-
I could provide screengrabs of all the obscurely worded warnings and instructions in dialog and preference panels that show up when the user intuitively does something not kosher by LR's way of doing things,
That might be useful to see what you're attempting that is skewing your perception of the UI.
Having used LR since the first beta I can't recall ever having bumped into a 'you can't do that' error message.
For crying out loud if it's so ease of use and simply designed then why is LR4's User Guide pdf 205 pages long.
Given the need to explain the underlying concepts and functionality of every option available in the program, 205 pages seems pretty concise. My car has a 570 page manual and needs a second 120 page manual just for the radio unit.
-
Just what Cloud is any Corporate Executive living on if they imagine that the iPhone/Selfie/Instagram crowd is ever going to use any computer-based image editing program — let alone one which requires the slightest degree of learning-time and effort?
If the Adobe Marketing team really believes that, they need to get out into public spaces, sniff the fresh air and get a dose of reality?!
I know 3 people that use iPhones for their photos. I went to Prague with one and she used her phone to document the trip. She made a photo boom out of the images...using guess what...LR to crop and adjust the images.
Sure, the majority of phone shooters don't do anything but post onto the net...but with billions of people using phones for photography...I would think that market is much bigger than the professional photographer market...even if only say 5% of the phone shooters would process their images.
-
That's not evidence as consensus for designing software UI that will be adopted and understood by a larger market than "pro" photographers.
Actually that's what has happened. LR is very popular amongst photographers who are not professional.
It will never be popular with those who are not photographers, but fill up their phones with snapshots because that is a completely separate market.
You keep side stepping my points about a broader market LR must appeal to.
There is no 'must' there. That's just your opinion, based on what exactly?
Unless you have evidence there is a huge population of pro photogs that can carry the cost/profit weight for the amount of energy spent by Adobe engineers to keep adding more complexity on top of the existing complexity, you don't have a convincing leg to stand on.
Really? The fact that LR has managed to do exactly what you claim is impossible for nearly ten years completely undermines your argument.
Also this 'complexity on complexity' seems to be more about your inability to use LR than anything else
I've already described that in this thread several times. You even penned lame comebacks as arguments. I could provide screengrabs of all the obscurely worded warnings and instructions in dialog and preference panels that show up when the user intuitively does something not kosher by LR's way of doing things, but it's not worth it knowing you've already made up YOUR mind.
You've described nothing. You ranted several times very vaguely about LR and wrote long rambling run on sentences. Ones that that made zero sense due to a lack of punctuation and generally random grammar.
Tell you what, drag a Raw file from the desktop on top of the Develop or Library module and note the interface transforms into some weird collection of tabbed panels, stacked panels of drop down arrow bars and other stuff I've never seen before nor could understand and navigate out of that I had to just quit out of LR and restart just to get me back to the regular filmstrip interface mode.
Maybe you need to learn how to use LR properly before you start criticising it. ::)
Do you even use LR or know how to import images into LR? As it really doesn't sound like it.
For crying out loud if it's so ease of use and simply designed then why is LR4's User Guide pdf 205 pages long. We're just making pictures!
Have you even used LR?
LR organises your photos.
It can help you keyword images and add all sorts of useful info.
LR can process your photos and make infinite of variations of them.
It can make photo books.
LR can show you where you took you photos or you can tell LR where you took them.
You can make websites or online galleries and upload directly to them.
LR can place images online in places like Flickr.
It can make slideshows.
LR can print your photos
Lr can export images for a wide variety of uses...
.. and so on and so on.
So 205 pages isn't very much considering the huge range of abilities on offer. Never read the manual myself. Not needed to as I found LR pretty easy to use.
Maybe you need to use a programme like Apple Photos instead.
-
That might be useful to see what you're attempting that is skewing your perception of the UI.
Having used LR since the first beta I can't recall ever having bumped into a 'you can't do that' error message.Given the need to explain the underlying concepts and functionality of every option available in the program, 205 pages seems pretty concise. My car has a 570 page manual and needs a second 120 page manual just for the radio unit.
I agree completely.
By the way, the LR 6 pdf is 261 pages (thank goodness!)
I have used LR since the first commercial version, and it took me a while to get the hang of it, but I fully understood that it was suggesting a different workflow from PS. About the only thing about Photoshop that I wish LR had was the ability to move panels to a second screen and show them selectively. It's so easy to pop over to PS from inside LR on the very rare occasions that I need something that is only possible or easier in PS, that I am very happy with LR 6. (I haven't downloaded the disastrous "updates.")
Eric M.
-
I know 3 people that use iPhones for their photos. I went to Prague with one and she used her phone to document the trip. She made a photo boom out of the images...using guess what...LR to crop and adjust the images.
Sure, the majority of phone shooters don't do anything but post onto the net...but with billions of people using phones for photography...I would think that market is much bigger than the professional photographer market...even if only say 5% of the phone shooters would process their images.
I reckon the person you mention above is an extreme outlier. Anyone who eschews the complexity of a camera in favour of a phone with almost zero control over the image capture process, is unlikely to use software which is all about fine control.
Did you ask why she used LR, did she buy LR herself or did it belong to a partner? As fundamentally that's the only reason why my girlfriend uses LR, it's on my laptop that she also uses.
-
I have used LR since the first commercial version, and it took me a while to get the hang of it, but I fully understood that it was suggesting a different workflow from PS. About the only thing about Photoshop that I wish LR had was the ability to move panels to a second screen and show them selectively.
Being able to put develop panel on second screen is something many of us have asked for, but apparently the underling architecture means that is not possible.
You can however selectively show panels already. That's what the drop down arrow on each is for or you can hide them completely see screenshot below. Not sure why you would do that though, as they are all necessary at some point. You can also enable solo mode which means only the panel you click on is open - also shown in screenshot.
-
Being able to put develop panel on second screen is something many of us have asked for, but apparently the underling architecture means that is not possible.
I believe it is possible. As I understand it, the UI is based on Lua to help separate the UI from the programming - a basic design principle in modern software design. Lua is very popular in game design for this reason and is why Mark Hamburg chose to use it.
-
I seem to recall that people involved with LR, justified why customisation that people constantly ask for in LR couldn't be done because of the underlying set architecture.
-
I seem to recall that people involved with LR, justified why customisation that people constantly ask for in LR couldn't be done because of the underlying set architecture.
Phil Clevenger is the man behind lightroom's user interface, and he was pretty firm about having an interface that remained consistent. As you recall, this was quite hotly debated during the early days. I still feel that the 2nd screen implementation that was finally developed is pretty lame.
One of the strengths of lightroom was/is the insistence by Adobe that a concrete use case must be presented for any new feature. This is valuable because each feature is designed to carry out a specific task, like the split toning controls. This makes it easy to figure out how to make the changes you want to the image as opposed to photoshop.
However, this approach also has its weaknesses. By being so rigid in the design/implementation of lightroom, many creative opportunities have been lost in my opinion. An example is the dehaze control, designed to remove haze in landscapes. It is also an alternative contrast tool to clarity and turns out to have many uses as a localized tool, although I'm not sure that was why Adobe chose to add it in the first place. If Adobe had made an all inclusive design that would allow localized editing with any develop control I wonder what other creative capabilities we might have.
It is the same way with the UI setup. The Adobe resistance to change the UI is based on a philosophical belief rather than technical reasons.
-
You can however selectively show panels already. That's what the drop down arrow on each is for or you can hide them completely see screenshot below. Not sure why you would do that though, as they are all necessary at some point. You can also enable solo mode which means only the panel you click on is open - also shown in screenshot.
That's exactly what I do now, and I do waste (or spend) a considerable amount of time turning various panels on and off.
I find the current second screen implementation very lame indeed.
But that annoyance still isn't any where near enough of a bother to send me back to PS as my main image processor. Even with PS's better two-screen layout, the only way I'll go back to PS as a mainstay is if they really do screw up LR (which recently has seemed more likely than it has for years).
-
Phil Clevenger is the man behind lightroom's user interface, and he was pretty firm about having an interface that remained consistent. As you recall, this was quite hotly debated during the early days. I still feel that the 2nd screen implementation that was finally developed is pretty lame.
Yup sure is, buggy too. Bottom panel thing keeps popping up regardless of setting.
Fixed layout is a very engineer's point of view, one that is oblivious to how many creative people work and the variety of ways people need to work.
One of the strengths of lightroom was/is the insistence by Adobe that a concrete use case must be presented for any new feature. This is valuable because each feature is designed to carry out a specific task, like the split toning controls. This makes it easy to figure out how to make the changes you want to the image as opposed to photoshop.
There's been concrete cases for things that Adobe won't move on out of sheer stubbornness or unwillingness to admit they were wrong. The limited image files that LR will recognize, including ones PS creates is retarded. As is the half baked and really clunky recognition of video files. LR could be a very good grading/cataloguing tool for video, but....
Basically as a DAM, LR has an enormous flaw. It doesn't recognize all digital files. Now if you are managing assets for your photography work, you need to manage all your assets and not just some of them. The fact LR cannot edit them is irrelevant as LR cannot edit PSD files for example but allows you to open them into PS for such things.
However, this approach also has its weaknesses. By being so rigid in the design/implementation of lightroom, many creative opportunities have been lost in my opinion.
Yup....
It is the same way with the UI setup. The Adobe resistance to change the UI is based on a philosophical belief rather than technical reasons.
..and yup again. Not sure stubbornness is a philosophical stance though. ;)
-
That's exactly what I do now, and I do waste (or spend) a considerable amount of time turning various panels on and off.
Do which option of the three I suggested?
I'm not constantly reopening and closing panels any more than I do in PS, less mousing if anything which in my mind is a very good thing.
-
For crying out loud if it's so ease of use and simply designed then why is LR4's User Guide pdf 205 pages long. We're just making pictures!
Unfortunately for those folks who appreciate what Lr is capable of and took the time to learn to use the application, is why so many users are upset that Adobe attempted to simplify and make things less intimidating to new users.
Inherently, there is nothing wrong with the desire to streamline and simplify tasks that software like Lr can accomplish ... though that should not necessarily equate with a reduction of functionality.
I'm all for making any tools I employ easier to use ... b although I don't really think Lr, in it's current form factor is all that difficult to use. I've tried to discover alternatives that my answer my needs better and the only reasonable alternative that came close was Aperture which is no longer a viable option for the future.
When comparing User Guide PDF publications as a measure of difficulty for just 'making pictures' ... 205 pages may seem like a lot ... but Capture 1 weighs in at 180+ pages ... and refresh my memory ... does C1 offer dedicated facial recognition, maps, books or web modules ... I think the DX Optics Pro User Guide is only 85-90 pages but has far fewer options than Lr and the aforementioned Aperture 3 guide is a whopping 900+ pages.
I fail to see how Lr suffers from the weight of the page count of the user guide.
Don't get me wrong, I have and have had issues with where I disagree with the design and function choices Adobe has made for Lr ... but too difficult and intimidating for new users? I don't agree. One only needs to look at the throngs of long time users that made Lr so popular ... Many of whom thought $299 was a fair price for the full version perpetual license long before Adobe slashed it by half several years ago.
Too bad there wasn't this insightful input back in the formative stages where those involved apparently got it all wrong ... instead of an 11th hour revision.
-
They don't give a rat's azz about being able to cull images while importing.
That same group of potential users also expect their photo 'filters' to come in at a price of $1.99 or less ... they aren't in it to pay a monthly stipend to Adobe so they can grow their following on Instagram.
-
Could somebody here show how decimal percentages (i.e. 56.8%) readouts of each node in LR's point curve tool helps improve an image? The actual curve box interface is so small even on my HDTV resolution display I'm sure it's much smaller on 4K or Retina displays that it's difficult precisely placing and adjusting those nodes in order to make any headway on improving the image.
Please provide a screenshot of an actual image where this level of precision using the curve tool noticeably improves image quality including whether knowing the percentage number helps.
-
Could somebody here show how decimal percentages (i.e. 56.8%) readouts of each node in LR's point curve tool helps improve an image? The actual curve box interface is so small even on my HDTV resolution display I'm sure it's much smaller on 4K or Retina displays that it's difficult precisely placing and adjusting those nodes in order to make any headway on improving the image.
Please provide a screenshot of an actual image where this level of precision using the curve tool noticeably improves image quality including whether knowing the percentage number helps.
Is LR showing this info even an issue?
As for the detail, never needed it myself. But I'm sure some people when colour matching precisely for example could find it useful.
If you are bothered by LR's panels being too small, use this tool (http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-13/395) and you can make them as wide as you want. Makes LR much easier to use I find.
-
Is LR showing this info even an issue?
As for the detail, never needed it myself. But I'm sure some people when colour matching precisely for example could find it useful.
If you are bothered by LR's panels being too small, use this tool (http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-13/395) and you can make them as wide as you want. Makes LR much easier to use I find.
Clearly you're not the person to answer my question so just move on, Jeremy. I'm not interested in hacks to LR. It's slow enough as it is, I don't need to add another level of complexity to the underpinnings of LR's codec. And I quote from your linked page of such a tool...
Not Intended for Human Consumption
Before going further, I need to be very clear about one point: Adobe did not design these internationalization hooks to be exposed to the user. Yes, the door is not locked and so we can enter and rummage around, but it's at our own risk. We might find ourselves shocked at how messy the back closet is, and we might hurt ourselves by tripping over something, but in entering uninvited, we take full responsibility for any mishaps.
To the best of my knowledge, the worst that can happen in changing some of these parameters on our own is that Lightroom refuses to work until we undo the change, but for all I know, it may be possible to accidentally delete every file on your computer. I don't know. Consider yourself warned.
-
Clearly you're not the person to answer my question so just move on, Jeremy.
Clearly not interested in facts or help more like..
You don't seem to like any of the answers or help you get given by others. All you do is whinge that a programme most people find easy to use is appallingly designed and difficult to use and that Adobe must redesign it or die.
Taking a tongue in cheek warning about an LR tweak at face value, shows you really do need to lighten up.
-
Clearly not interested in facts or help more like..
You don't seem to like any of the answers or help you get given by others. All you do is whinge that a programme most people find easy to use is appallingly designed and difficult to use and that Adobe must redesign it or die.
Taking a tongue in cheek warning about an LR tweak at face value, shows you really do need to lighten up.
You keep putting words into my mouth. I never said LR's interface is appallingly designed. I said there's a lot unnecessary clutter of options within it's interface for an app that just processes, organizes and archives photos.
What the heck is whinge? Is that a misspelling?
-
What the heck is whinge? Is that a misspelling?
Bing tells me:
whinge
[(h)winj]
VERB
complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way:
"stop whingeing and get on with it!"
NOUN
an act of complaining.
-
Thanks, Eric.
Alternate points of view and observations on imaging software are often seen by Jeremy as complaining. Nothing one can do about his arrogance to others input. It's all about what he thinks is the correct way to view and offer opinions.
-
Sure, the majority of phone shooters don't do anything but post onto the net...but with billions of people using phones for photography...I would think that market is much bigger than the professional photographer market...even if only say 5% of the phone shooters would process their images.
Of your "5%", I would wager that 4.999% will only ever do any editing or cropping with an app. in the iPhone itself!
They are never going to cough-up $10 a month for Lightroom!
Your Prague friend: does she actually have her own copy of Lr or was she borrowing someone else's?
-
Of your "5%", I would wager that 4.999% will only ever do any editing or cropping with an app. in the iPhone itself!
They are never going to cough-up $10 a month for Lightroom!
Your Prague friend: does she actually have her own copy of Lr or was she borrowing someone else's?
She has her own...and is actually an accomplished PS user in her day job. My daughter uses a mirrorless P&S camera and uses Lightroom all the time. My wife who takes snaps...now mostly with her new IPad uses my Lightroom to organize her photos.
One of the obstacles many newcomers to LR is it's complexity. Maybe this is what Adobe was trying to address since everyone needs to go through the import function to get their images into LR. Maybe LR light is the answer or LR heavy with Pro's in mind...but there are billions of photos being taken daily that are just crying for a way to organize and manage them. I see this future application seamlessly integrated into the phones, allowing automated download from the phone to cloud storage and to have it automatically be available on the computer or tablet or whatnot to be sorted and organized...and right out of LR...be able to upload to whatever social media they want. This automated, seamless integration is where things will be heading.
-
She has her own...and is actually an accomplished PS user in her day job. My daughter uses a mirrorless P&S camera and uses Lightroom all the time. My wife who takes snaps...now mostly with her new IPad uses my Lightroom to organize her photos.
One of the obstacles many newcomers to LR is it's complexity. Maybe this is what Adobe was trying to address since everyone needs to go through the import function to get their images into LR. Maybe LR light is the answer or LR heavy with Pro's in mind...but there are billions of photos being taken daily that are just crying for a way to organize and manage them. I see this future application seamlessly integrated into the phones, allowing automated download from the phone to cloud storage and to have it automatically be available on the computer or tablet or whatnot to be sorted and organized...and right out of LR...be able to upload to whatever social media they want. This automated, seamless integration is where things will be heading.
While the concept of offering a less complex approach to image importation for Lightroom is a lofty and considerate goal ... it wasn't this aspect that so many traditional Lightroom users took exception with. I don't think anyone would have been upset had v6.2 offered solutions, rather than loss of function. The loss of multiple functions and features that, more than a few folks, had come to rely upon for at least a portion of their livelihood resulted in great concern.
I too wouldn't give a 'Rat's azz' about culling during import if all I had to do was add a few dozen 8-20MP jpegs vs. several thousand 24-36MP RAW files. Lr can pop in a boat load of jpegs in the time it takes to import a handful of RAW images. Unfortunately, the time savings I strive for during import can have a direct impact on the amount of cash I can stick into my wallet. Conversely, the novice hobbyist who is crying their eyes out seeking a solution to organize their images they took of their lunch at Applebees aren't really concerned with paying their mortgage with those images. So, yes, different, very legitimate concerns for both ends of the spectrum.
While it is in everyone's best interest that Adobe broaden their horizons, there can be a penalty for most everyone involved if those expansion plans for that goal are implemented poorly, as Hogarty and company learned the hard way very recently. They really shouldn't spite ANY of their users no matter how sincere and legitimate the original goal is considered to be.
-
While the concept of offering a less complex approach to image importation for Lightroom is a lofty and considerate goal ... it wasn't this aspect that so many traditional Lightroom users took exception with. I don't think anyone would have been upset had v6.2 offered solutions, rather than loss of function. The loss of multiple functions and features that, more than a few folks, had come to rely upon for at least a portion of their livelihood resulted in great concern.
I too wouldn't give a 'Rat's azz' about culling during import if all I had to do was add a few dozen 8-20MP jpegs vs. several thousand 24-36MP RAW files. Lr can pop in a boat load of jpegs in the time it takes to import a handful of RAW images. Unfortunately, the time savings I strive for during import can have a direct impact on the amount of cash I can stick into my wallet. Conversely, the novice hobbyist who is crying their eyes out seeking a solution to organize their images they took of their lunch at Applebees aren't really concerned with paying their mortgage with those images. So, yes, different, very legitimate concerns for both ends of the spectrum.
While it is in everyone's best interest that Adobe broaden their horizons, there can be a penalty for most everyone involved if those expansion plans for that goal are implemented poorly, as Hogarty and company learned the hard way very recently. They really shouldn't spite ANY of their users no matter how sincere and legitimate the original goal is considered to be.
I imported about 1500 images ( 36 mpix raw ) into Lightroom. Started the import off, went and did another errand and when the errand was complete...maybe 10 or 15 minutes, all my images were in Lightroom with previews...ready for culling. I then use the rating system and group them by rankings...the bottom ranking gets deleted.
I guess if you are used to culling during import...but I do deal with large number of files and don't see the need to cull during import. I rank...then review the lowest rank to ensure they need to be deleted...and with one quick command, delete all those lowest ranked images. Now not only are my images culled...but they are also ranked with the one's I feel would make prints having the highest rank. Works good for me, but I understand others have their ways.
-
I imported about 1500 images ( 36 mpix raw ) into Lightroom. Started the import off, went and did another errand and when the errand was complete...maybe 10 or 15 minutes, all my images were in Lightroom with previews...ready for culling. I then use the rating system and group them by rankings...the bottom ranking gets deleted.
I guess if you are used to culling during import...but I do deal with large number of files and don't see the need to cull during import. I rank...then review the lowest rank to ensure they need to be deleted...and with one quick command, delete all those lowest ranked images. Now not only are my images culled...but they are also ranked with the one's I feel would make prints having the highest rank. Works good for me, but I understand others have their ways.
Once again ... it isn't a matter of 'culling' during the import process per se, it is a matter of selecting only the select few (relatively speaking) images needed right this minute for immediate delivery so as not to waste precious time for images that, while still valuable enough to retain, are not needed immediately for client use.
This is where if Adobe would implement a request many of us have been asking for since shortly after v1 was introduced ... where Lr would only import images tagged in-camera ... just like Photo Mechanic has done for well over a decade and Aperture offered well over five years ago ... life could be simpler for a significant number of users.
Perhaps you should not judge the workflow of others by your own personal situation. Sure, 10-15 minutes might sound like a very short period of time ... and you have the luxury to run errands during the import, other folks may have much more pressing concerns. Sometimes it is relevant to consider the time constraints other folks must contend with.
What if you are working a Division 1 college football game with three other shooters? The group of four has accumulated a couple thousand images on four or more cards from the first half action. Now you only have a total of 15-20 minutes to select the cream of the crop of couple dozen images for an online news gallery and the early edition print run. You need to import, crop, process, caption and keyword (to AP style) and upload to your publication's server so you can return to the field to shoot the third quarter .... then you do it all over again at the end of the game so your publication can get the presses rolling for the late print edition and the followup stories on the online edition. ... then you do it a third time for the images captures from the post game celebrations or disappointment and the press conferences for the coaches and players.
Yep ... going through the entire workflow at least three full cycles in about as many hours.
I'm sure my clients and editors would love it if I told them they should hold the presses because I have to go run an errand while I wait for Lightroom to churn out thousands of previews I don't need because chez doesn't see the need to 'cull' during import ...
-
Once again ... it isn't a matter of 'culling' during the import process per se, it is a matter of selecting only the select few (relatively speaking) images needed right this minute for immediate delivery so as not to waste precious time for images that, while still valuable enough to retain, are not needed immediately for client use.
This is where if Adobe would implement a request many of us have been asking for since shortly after v1 was introduced ... where Lr would only import images tagged in-camera ... just like Photo Mechanic has done for well over a decade and Aperture offered well over five years ago ... life could be simpler for a significant number of users.
Perhaps you should not judge the workflow of others by your own personal situation. Sure, 10-15 minutes might sound like a very short period of time ... and you have the luxury to run errands during the import, other folks may have much more pressing concerns. Sometimes it is relevant to consider the time constraints other folks must contend with.
What if you are working a Division 1 college football game with three other shooters? The group of four has accumulated a couple thousand images on four or more cards from the first half action. Now you only have a total of 15-20 minutes to select the cream of the crop of couple dozen images for an online news gallery and the early edition print run. You need to import, crop, process, caption and keyword (to AP style) and upload to your publication's server so you can return to the field to shoot the third quarter .... then you do it all over again at the end of the game so your publication can get the presses rolling for the late print edition and the followup stories on the online edition. ... then you do it a third time for the images captures from the post game celebrations or disappointment and the press conferences for the coaches and players.
Yep ... going through the entire workflow at least three full cycles in about as many hours.
I'm sure my clients and editors would love it if I told them they should hold the presses because I have to go run an errand while I wait for Lightroom to churn out thousands of previews I don't need because chez doesn't see the need to 'cull' during import ...
Well...maybe Lightroom is not for you then...look at other solutions.
-
Well...maybe Lightroom is not for you then...look at other solutions.
Sorry ... but as an Adobe license holder for over 23 years for multiple seats ... you'll forgive me if I ignore your advice. I don't think it's unreasonable to seek additional features ... or retain the features I have already paid for ... I should go elsewhere because my needs don't fit within chez's guidelines? ....
-
Alternate points of view and observations on imaging software are often seen by Jeremy as complaining. Nothing one can do about his arrogance to others input. It's all about what he thinks is the correct way to view and offer opinions.
No constantly complaining and whinging as you do about LR is well, complaining and whinging.
Your posts comes across not as an alternative point of view which I have zero problem with, but are often full of barely comprehensible rants. Ones that only show you knew nothing about LR was created and possibly even less about how to use it.
I Like hearing alternative points of view. Constant negativity and carping however gets tedious. Try constructive, rather than destructive comments.
-
One of the obstacles many newcomers to LR is it's complexity.
Let's rephrase that more accurately.
One of the obstacles many newcomers to photography is its complexity.
Maybe this is what Adobe was trying to address since everyone needs to go through the import function to get their images into LR. Maybe LR light is the answer or LR heavy with Pro's in mind...but there are billions of photos being taken daily that are just crying for a way to organize and manage them.
The only way to do this is with some serious effort on the part of the person taking the photos. There is no shortcut. You need to put images into folder/collections/locations whatever than make sense to you.
I see this future application seamlessly integrated into the phones, allowing automated download from the phone to cloud storage and to have it automatically be available on the computer or tablet or whatnot to be sorted and organized...and right out of LR...be able to upload to whatever social media they want. This automated, seamless integration is where things will be heading.
This is already there with iPhones/iPads if you enable Photostream. You can already export/publish to numerous places inc social media from LR.
-
Well...maybe Lightroom is not for you then...look at other solutions.
So what else can do what LR does? i.e. efficiently organise your work and seamlessly integrate that with the processing, printing, exporting etc things you do with your photos.
-
This is already there with iPhones/iPads if you enable Photostream.
And ... if you have a Mac desktop with Photos OS X, which is a more than adequate organizational and processing option for an all, or mostly jpeg workflow to easily distribute your work to all your devices, quick exports to social media, etc. ... and it's FREE (or at least no additional expense unless you outgrow the base iCloud storage.)
-
And ... if you have a Mac desktop with Photos OS X, which is a more than adequate organizational and processing option for an all, or mostly jpeg workflow to easily distribute your work to all your devices, quick exports to social media, etc. ... and it's FREE (or at least no additional expense unless you outgrow the base iCloud storage.)
That free* setup will probably do all that the people who struggle with LR ever need.
*once you've paid the rather pricey Apple Tax that is.
-
I imported about 1500 images ( 36 mpix raw ) into Lightroom. Started the import off, went and did another errand and when the errand was complete...maybe 10 or 15 minutes, all my images were in Lightroom with previews...ready for culling.
What type of computer do you have? My skylake i7 6700 with SSD and 32GB RAM takes 5.5 seconds to create a 1:1 preview for a 36MP Nikon D810 NEF. That takes well over 2 hours to do 1500 ...
-
Well, at least it's nice to know someone can sell 1500 images in such a competitive market. Time is money and there's no better app than LR for ease of use in developing an efficient workflow. ::)
-
Well, at least it's nice to know someone can sell 1500 images in such a competitive market. Time is money and there's no better app than LR for ease of use in developing an efficient workflow. ::)
Who said anything about selling all those 1500 photos?
-
Well, at least it's nice to know someone can sell 1500 images in such a competitive market. Time is money and there's no better app than LR for ease of use in developing an efficient workflow. ::)
Well if your importing 2 selfies maybe. Thats what it seems to be aimed at now.
-
If they feel they need to simplify LightRoom, what the hell is Photoshop Elements for?
-
If they feel they need to simplify LightRoom, what the hell is Photoshop Elements for?
For people who find Photoshop too complicated or too much for their needs.
-
If they feel they need to simplify LightRoom, what the hell is Photoshop Elements for?
The fact is that Lightroom is not an alternative to PS or PS Elements. Lightroom is an alternative to Bridge and Adobe Camera Raw with some other bells and whistles e.g Web, Slideshow, Publish, Book features.
Adobe needs to change the name of the application to Adobe Lightroom and completely remove the reference to Photoshop.
-
I'm shocked by the vitriolic app- and personality-bashing going on here, all over a miscue by Adobe. First World problems, as they say.
Did anyone stop to think that this new and seemingly wretched 2015.2 CC version of LR was brought out just to make those of who use the stand alone version happier, given that we were passed over when B&W and Auto-Fog were added? ;)
Hopefully, the bugs will be ironed out for 7.0. I'm happy to wait.
BTW - Maybe nobody here actually prints photos, but the printing interface with LR is light years ahead of anything else. Although it is rather less-than-intuitive at times, it's a far cry better than PS.
-
BTW - Maybe nobody here actually prints photos, but the printing interface with LR is light years ahead of anything else. Although it is rather less-than-intuitive at times, it's a far cry better than PS.
A point that cannot be over stressed.
-
BTW - Maybe nobody here actually prints photos, but the printing interface with LR is light years ahead of anything else. Although it is rather less-than-intuitive at times, it's a far cry better than PS.
That's part of the problem with Lr ... If Adobe offered ALL the modules in Lr with full functionality and creative potential that they offer with the Print module, Lr would be a much better product.
-
That's part of the problem with Lr ... If Adobe offered ALL the modules in Lr with full functionality and creative potential that they offer with the Print module, Lr would be a much better product.
Agreed. But what LR does do well - cataloging, processing (developing) and printing - can't all be replicated with any other app as seamlessly.
-
That's part of the problem with Lr ... If Adobe offered ALL the modules in Lr with full functionality and creative potential that they offer with the Print module, Lr would be a much better product.
I'm sure there would still be bitching if your wish list were implemented. There is no perfect camera and no perfect raw converted/dam. We want software programs to adapt to our needs, but this usually is at the expense of the desires of others or developmental expense.
-
I'm sure there would still be bitching if your wish list were implemented. There is no perfect camera and no perfect raw converted/dam. We want software programs to adapt to our needs, but this usually is at the expense of the desires of others or developmental expense.
No bitching ... simply a statement of fact. Not all the modules in Lr receive the same level of attention to detail and open functionality that others have had from the very beginning. It's as though there is a split personality at play in the planning for future development.
Of course i don't actually expect pure perfection. If I did ... and my concerns actually had any possible influence ... Lr would be a much different tool ... ::)
What is baffling is how certain modules have been developed and/or implemented that I am disappointed with. Why some modules receive a much deeper level of refinement and others are included almost as an afterthought.
Would you find the Library beneficial if it only read .CR2 files and not .NEF files?
What if the Print module would only communicate with Epson printers and not HP or Canon?
I don't expect modules like Books or Slideshow to be perfect ... but it would be so much more useful if users could easily print a book with other vendors besides Blurb ... or build a slideshow that could use more than one 'sealed-in-the-can' dissolve transition .... or a 'one-size-fits-all' pan and zoom feature ...
It is almost certain that Lr would be measurably less popular if ALL the modules had similar limitations and restrictions.
-
No bitching ... simply a statement of fact. Not all the modules in Lr receive the same level of attention to detail and open functionality that others have had from the very beginning. It's as though there is a split personality at play in the planning for future development.
What is baffling is how certain modules have been developed and/or implemented that I am disappointed with. Why some modules receive a much deeper level of refinement and others are included almost as an afterthought.
Would you find the Library beneficial if it only read .CR2 files and not .NEF files?
What if the Print module would only communicate with Epson printers and not HP or Canon?
I don't expect modules like Books or Slideshow to be perfect ... but it would be so much more useful if users could easily print a book with other vendors besides Blurb ... or build a slideshow that could use more than one 'sealed-in-the-can' dissolve transition .... or a 'one-size-fits-all' pan and zoom feature ...
It is almost certain that Lr would be measurably less popular if ALL the modules had similar limitations and restrictions.
First, my reference to "there" was not directed to you, since your ideas were theoretically implemented.
I have stated many times that I wish the tools and modules were not fixed, allowing the user to customize the program to better fit there workflow. I agree that the Book and Slideshow could be improved; however, I go outside Lr to accomplish these functions.
But the reality is Adobe makes those decisions. We can state our preference, but not much more, short of moving to a new platform.
-
But the reality is Adobe makes those decisions. We can state our preference, but not much more, short of moving to a new platform.
The reality with a subscription model, if you don't add features and fix bugs, people will start unsubscribing. My wife loves Grays Anatomy, I think it's one of the dumbest shows I've spent 5 minutes watching. If Comcast only provided Grays Anatomy, I'd stop subscribing in a second. It's ironic that Adobe is clearly moving LR to a subscription model and like Photoshop, can't seem to come up with very interesting new features but interesting bugs. The Import dialog debacle in the last release is kind of a wakeup call.
-
The reality with a subscription model, if you don't add features and fix bugs, people will start unsubscribing.
An then what? I don't find Lightroom easy to replace. I just ran an evaluation of ACDSee and it is depressing what weaknesses they let slip in a release.
Lightroom has a great balance of sophistication, easiness and processing quality that I find very hard to replicate by other means.
Adobe must know this and they probably feel it gives them some leeway.
-
An then what? I don't find Lightroom easy to replace.
Indeed, it's a dilemma. It's a reason I keep LR5 around and a catalog I update along with LR6.
IF Adobe were to say, provide PV2016 which was as useful as the other PV updates, that would be a reason I'd keep moving forward. IF LR continues as it has with the release of 6, I will have to consider sticking with LR5 or find another solution. LR6 was by and large, unimpressive as an upgrade, filled with bugs and off hand I can't think of anything it does I'd miss moving back to LR5.
-
Indeed, it's a dilemma. It's a reason I keep LR5 around and a catalog I update along with LR6.
IF Adobe were to say, provide PV2016 which was as useful as the other PV updates, that would be a reason I'd keep moving forward. IF LR continues as it has with the release of 6, I will have to consider sticking with LR5 or find another solution. LR6 was by and large, unimpressive as an upgrade, filled with bugs and off hand I can't think of anything it does I'd miss moving back to LR5.
I think Adobe's problem is that they have by and large solved the question of processing pictures.
-
I think Adobe's problem is that they have by and large solved the question of processing pictures.
I'm sure Capture One would beg to differ as they claim superior image processing results.
-
I'm sure Capture One would beg to differ as they claim superior image processing results.
They all claim to be the best, of course!
There are improvements, sure, but getting more and more marginal. Personnaly, the day Adobe will have got the hang of fine details in X-Trans, I'll be set. But even so, the worthiness of my prints only depends on how I perform, not LR or the gear.
-
I'm sure Capture One would beg to differ as they claim superior image processing results.
Also quoting StephaneB: I think Adobe's problem is that they have by and large solved the question of processing pictures.
I have no doubt that there are other RAW processors that might do a better job than Lightroom. I can certainly believe that there are other applications that can do a better job at correcting lens aberrations, adaptively sharpen, drive a printer with amazing accuracy, and make a good cup of coffee.
But...
Lightroom, ignoring some of the recent "improvements," easily does it all from ingest to cataloging to processing to printing. It's a single package with a reasonably consistent UI. And it's "good enough." That's Lightroom's primary advantage: it does all that I need it to do and does it sufficiently well for my needs.
I understand that some photographers demand far more from their workflow than what Lightroom can offer. Heck, even I have a copy of DxO that I fire up on rare occasions. I might even dip into a plug-in or two--I might even use PS6 for certain things--but for the majority of what I need to do, Lightroom just works.
Notwithstanding the huge number of posts in this forum dealing with deconvolution sharpening, custom DNG profiles, and other such technical discussions, I'm willing to bet that the majority of photographers using Lightroom, enthusiasts and pros alike, would agree with me that it is "good enough."
I know there are competitors looking to get a slice of the pie. Capture One, for example, has made considerable changes. Even On1's recent release has added features to make it a more well-rounded solution. For me, though, the additions and changes have not been a compelling reason to invest the time to convert. Capture One, for example, seems to have their manual delivered mostly as videos. In my case this is a terrible way to instruct. On1's stuff doesn't really have a database backend...or at least not one that's as well integrated as Lightroom's solution.
At this time, there are only two reasons I'd seriously consider moving from Lightroom: the discontinuance of the perpetual license or Adobe so changing the UI to something else--the latest Import changes being an example--that I can neither tolerate nor easily adapt to.
The only reasons I can see upgrading to the next version of Lightroom would be additional camera support that I HAVE to have (grin), a threat that I could never upgrade again, or the addition of some really slick feature. The last would include far improved processing (remember, though, the current is "good enough" for me), improvement of the current functionality--such as making the book module much more flexible, or adding some new compelling feature that I can't live without.
I don't know that the processing pipeline is going to be improved much, apparently Adobe has decided improving the book, web, and slide show modules isn't a high priority, and for the life of me I can't figure out what else I'd need. Because of these reasons, the only way I'll update is to keep a current, perpetually licensed version on my hard drive to ensure that I can get the next current, perpetually licensed version when it comes out.
This isn't a very good answer to the question "Where should Lightroom go next?" But it is a personal agreement with the statement, "I think Adobe's problem is that they have by and large solved the question of processing pictures."
-
Personally I'd be happy if Adobe removed all the other modules and just left Library, Development and printing...and just focus on those. I have no needs for the likes of books or slide shows out of LR. I use other products for these purpose...products whose sole feature is either creating books or developing slide shows. I don't want LR heading towards a kitchen sink approach as when you do that you spread your resources thin, bloat your product and lose focus of what LR really is.
If I had a vote, i'd remove the peripheral modules and focus on the main ones.
-
Personally I'd be happy if Adobe removed all the other modules and just left Library, Development and printing...and just focus on those. I have no needs for the likes of books or slide shows out of LR. I use other products for these purpose...products whose sole feature is either creating books or developing slide shows. I don't want LR heading towards a kitchen sink approach as when you do that you spread your resources thin, bloat your product and lose focus of what LR really is.
If I had a vote, i'd remove the peripheral modules and focus on the main ones.
+1 :)
-
Also quoting StephaneB: I think Adobe's problem is that they have by and large solved the question of processing pictures.
that problem was solved by cell phones (with cameras) actually, not by Adobe at all...
-
Personally I'd be happy if Adobe removed all the other modules and just left Library, Development and printing...and just focus on those. I have no needs for the likes of books or slide shows out of LR. I use other products for these purpose...products whose sole feature is either creating books or developing slide shows. I don't want LR heading towards a kitchen sink approach as when you do that you spread your resources thin, bloat your product and lose focus of what LR really is.
If I had a vote, i'd remove the peripheral modules and focus on the main ones.
If all you want is the basics ... we had that long before Lightroom ... it was called the Bridge/ACR/Ps workflow. Some folks were looking for a bit more.
Fortunately for all Lightroom users, you don't get to decide which modules are the 'main ones' and which are the 'peripheral modules.'
Each user has a different workflow ideal and end goals for what they produce. If you care to look back ... Lr has always had more than just Library, Develop and Print. Adobe has always thought there should be more to Lr than just those three options.
-
An then what? I don't find Lightroom easy to replace. I just ran an evaluation of ACDSee and it is depressing what weaknesses they let slip in a release.
Lightroom has a great balance of sophistication, easiness and processing quality that I find very hard to replicate by other means.
Adobe must know this and they probably feel it gives them some leeway.
Yes, Lr is difficult to replace ... but that should in no way dictate that we users should not expect more from Adobe's efforts to further develop the products they offer.
Just because Lightroom and Adobe's products are popular, should not negate the fact that Adobe also has a responsibility to consider the input from their users on the future development. Nor should Adobe allow their success to build a false sense of grandeur and lead them to believe they don't have to be responsive those that pay their way.
It's quite obvious that Adobe will eventually force all users to adopt the subscription licensing model ... once they do, will you be willing to pay monthly ... from here to eternity ... for the same old capabilities in perpetuity ... or will you expect Adobe to further advance the progress of the software solutions they produce?
-
If all you want is the basics ... we had that long before Lightroom ... it was called the Bridge/ACR/Ps workflow. Some folks were looking for a bit more.
Fortunately for all Lightroom users, you don't get to decide which modules are the 'main ones' and which are the 'peripheral modules.'
Each user has a different workflow ideal and end goals for what they produce. If you care to look back ... Lr has always had more than just Library, Develop and Print. Adobe has always thought there should be more to Lr than just those three options.
Sure it has had those other modules for a long time and you can see how much Adobe actually values them...not much. Better to get rid of they are not valued. As they sit right now, they just take up space.
As far as Bridge being as capable as LR...not even close. I can say the same with book or slideshow software...they existed before LR was even released.
-
Sure it has had those other modules for a long time and you can see how much Adobe actually values them...not much.
That's the point ... there are a good number of customers that appreciate those other modules as evidenced by the comments shared on the Adobe Labs forum during past public betas and the U2U forum since ... forever.
The lack of enthusiasm for Adobe's interest in those modules should not be confused with a lack of interest that Lightroom users do not desire or are not interested in a Slideshow or Book module that is truly full featured and fully functional with a creative end. I contend, if Adobe would offer a better attempt ... those features would become as popular as your 'main ones' ... maybe even more so ...
Better to get rid of they are not valued. As they sit right now, they just take up space.
Good luck with that ... they tried to remove just a few features/capabilities in the Import dialog and all Hell broke lose ...
As far as Bridge being as capable as LR...not even close. I can say the same with book or slideshow software...they existed before LR was even released.
Never said Bridge was as capable as Lr ... I said their was a pared down workflow option existed prior to Lr that was not hindered by the 'peripheral modules' ...
If you don't like those extra modules ... maybe Lightroom may not be for you. Perhaps you should look at other options since you are not pleased with Adobe's offerings.
-
Good luck with that ... they tried to remove just a few features/capabilities in the Import dialog and all Hell broke lose ...
Exactly and for good reason. It would be suicide to remove modules, even if a few are rather lame compared to other products.
If we look at Adobe's history with both LR and for 25 years, Photoshop, removing features is slim to non existent (least we forget the last locked post on the subject of LR feature removal) :-X
-
If you don't like those extra modules ... maybe Lightroom may not be for you. Perhaps you should look at other options since you are not pleased with Adobe's offerings.
Nah...those other modules just sit there taking up memory...never used them, never had a need for them...but the rest of LR, library, develope and Print are great...glad they still enhance them.
Since you seem to need the book and slideshow modules and Adobe has no interest in them...maybe it is YOU who should look elsewhere.
-
Exactly and for good reason. It would be suicide to remove modules, even if a few are rather lame compared to other products.
If we look at Adobe's history with both LR and for 25 years, Photoshop, removing features is slim to non existent (least we forget the last locked post on the subject of LR feature removal) :-X
Ok...let's just let them slowly die on their stems like the fall leaves...just don't spend anymore resources on these niche functions...ones that are better done by many other products.
-
Nah...those other modules just sit there taking up memory...
Assuming by "memory" you are talking about RAM, what empirical evidence do you have to support this claim? For instance can you prove that LR allocates memory for all its modules at program startup? Or on the contrary does it dynamically allocate RAM if and only if the user actually uses that part of the program. The former seems ludicrous; the latter mundane.
-
Nah...those other modules just sit there taking up memory...never used them, never had a need for them...but the rest of LR, library, develope and Print are great...glad they still enhance them.
Since you seem to need the book and slideshow modules and Adobe has no interest in them...maybe it is YOU who should look elsewhere.
No, the concept of Lightroom is that the user shouldn't need to build a typical workflow by stringing together other apps. It's not intended to kill off Photoshop or InDesign or the likes of Fotomagico, but Adobe rewrote and added important features to Slideshow in Lr6, and I agree with Butch that they need to do more with Book to get more people choosing it. These modules take almost no memory until you use them - that's the point of the modular architecture. And yes, the complaints would be loud if they now removed entire modules.
The lesser-used modules would benefit from routes to high end apps - eg Slideshow export to Premiere Pro, Book to Indesign. Another element would be third party access such as is successful in Web, so imagine bringing features like Photographers Ephemeris to Map.
Andrew, move on....
-
those other modules just sit there taking up memory
If you're that concerned you can remove them yourself. It's been documented here in the past how to do that. You might save a few megabytes of drive space, but if that makes a difference to your system you have much bigger problems that should concern you.
I like and use the Map module a fair bit, I don't want it removed.
I've used the Book module, it's OK. I'd like to see it developed more and then I'd use it more.
I use the web module, it's occasionally useful, again I'd use it more if it was even better.
I've never used the Slideshow model, but one never used option on a menu is no annoyance.
-
I like and use the Map module a fair bit, I don't want it removed.
And a whole lot more useful than Adobe's implementation of face recognition.
I've used the Book module, it's OK. I'd like to see it developed more and then I'd use it more.
I use the web module, it's occasionally useful, again I'd use it more if it was even better.
I've never used the Slideshow model, but one never used option on a menu is no annoyance.
+1
And one can hide that 'never-used-menu-option' - right click on the menu bar, untick, and the annoyance is gone.
-
...It's ironic that Adobe is clearly moving LR to a subscription model and like Photoshop, can't seem to come up with very interesting new features but interesting bugs. The Import dialog debacle in the last release is kind of a wakeup call. [/font]
Wait... was not this subscription model motivated by bringing their customers a constant flow of new, inspiring features direct from the developers, free from the bureaucratic reigns of monolithic waterfall-developed and QA tested releases?
-h
-
Wait... was not this subscription model motivated by bringing their customers a constant flow of new, inspiring features direct from the developers, free from the bureaucratic reigns of monolithic waterfall-developed and QA tested releases?
-h
Yep ... that's how they put it ...
-
Nah...those other modules just sit there taking up memory...never used them, never had a need for them...but the rest of LR, library, develope and Print are great...glad they still enhance them.
Wow ... Adobe did something chez isn't fully behind and enamored with? Why I thought Adobe could never do anything chez would question ... is that sound I hear in the distance Hell freezing over? ::)
Who gets to decide which modules are niche? Do you ignore all the comments from other Lr users (maybe not here but at FM, the U2U forum or the feedback forum) that consider the database features of Library as unnecessary 'bloat' ... that they believe a simple browser would be more valuable? ... Or ... that according to some stories and polls I've seen over the years, that it is a minority of Lr users that actually print their own images ... a lot of casual users (which are the greater majority, by your own previous comments here and elsewhere) seem to be intimidated by the whole color management process and simply use commercial options for their printing needs rather than investing time and effort learning the Print module.
So ... if Adobe looks at allocating resources to save chez more 'memory' ... you'd be happy if they let such modules die on the vine? ... Or would you lobby for the further inclusion or development?
Since you seem to need the book and slideshow modules and Adobe has no interest in them...maybe it is YOU who should look elsewhere.
Unlike you ... I have never suggested that Adobe ignore the concerns, wishes and desires other users have for Lightroom. I have never once lobbied or requested the Lr Team allocate resources only on what I desire ... I don't pay the licensing fees charged to others, why should I get to dictate their desires and considerations?
You see ... it was Adobe, not me, not you and not any other single user, that included a Slideshow module with Lr ... that came from Adobe on Day One. My only contention is, if they are going to include a Slideshow module, they put forth the same effort and the same level of attention to detail they have done with Print, Library and Develop (even though the heavy lifting for Develop is done outside of Lr) By doing so, the overall value of Lr would increase exponentially. Which would make the app even more attractive to potential users ... likely more so than a revamped Import dialog would.
Likewise, the Book, Maps and Facial recognition were added after the fact .... by Adobe, of their own free will ... again, if they are going to include them ... they should be consistent ... They did a fair job with Maps ... but dropped the ball in significant and unexplainable ways with Book and Facial recognition.
The fact that Slideshow and Books may not be as popular, as you would like to think, is not a result of, most users do not wish to create slideshows or books in Lr ... it has to do with the less than stellar approach Adobe has placed upon those tools. I contend, if Adobe offered such options on par with say, Print ... both would see much more extensive use building a much more loyal user base.
But you go ahead ... tell your fellow users they are not worthy of attention by Adobe and their licensing fees are insignificant because chez is more concerned about saving his 'memory' than if his fellow Lightroom users have the tools they desire ... some of which were included by Adobe since Lightroom's inception.
-
No, the concept of Lightroom is that the user shouldn't need to build a typical workflow by stringing together other apps. It's not intended to kill off Photoshop or InDesign or the likes of Fotomagico for more control, but Adobe rewrote and added important features to Slideshow in Lr6, and I agree with Bruce that they need to do more with Book to get more people choosing it. These modules take almost no memory until you use them - that's the point of the modular architecture. And yes, the complaints would be loud if they now removed entire modules.
The lesser-used modules would benefit from routes to high end apps - eg Slideshow export to Premiere Pro, Book to Indesign. Another element would be third party access such as is successful in Web, so imagine bringing features like Photographers Ephemeris to Map.
Andrew, move on....
I don't believe in the kitchen sink approach where everything I ever want to do with an image needs to be done from a single application developed by the same group of resources. This leads to bloat wear and not the best in class in any of the modules. I'd rather have Adobe concentrate on the core modules and make them best in class rather than dilute their resources over a wide range of features and not excel at anything.
There are reasons why plugins like NIK are so popular...it is because their teams were focused on a single application and they excelled at it while the LR resources were scattered over a much larger feature space and lacked finness in any of them.
Why not add Video editing and production into LR? What about music editing and production? What about web design using your images...the sky is the limit...what makes slideshows and book designs any different.
Let's make this do-it-all...but nothing very well product...no thanks.
-
Nah...those other modules just sit there taking up memory...
Do you believe that is a significant issue given a typical 500G system drive? How many extra photos do you imagine suppressing those modules would allow you to store?
-
I don't believe in the kitchen sink approach where everything I ever want to do with an image needs to be done from a single application developed by the same group of resources. This leads to bloat wear and not the best in class in any of the modules. I'd rather have Adobe concentrate on the core modules and make them best in class rather than dilute their resources over a wide range of features and not excel at anything.
There are reasons why plugins like NIK are so popular...it is because their teams were focused on a single application and they excelled at it while the LR resources were scattered over a much larger feature space and lacked finness in any of them.
Why not add Video editing and production into LR? What about music editing and production? What about web design using your images...the sky is the limit...what makes slideshows and book designs any different.
Let's make this do-it-all...but nothing very well product...no thanks.
You might not believe in it, but that's the concept and it's been pretty successful. Stringing together "best of breed" apps came at the price of efficiency and consistency (ever tried transferring colour labels between apps?). But there will often come a point where your needs are so niche you'll need specialist apps.
Yes, why not add some more video editing into Lr? After all, Lr is aimed at aspirational photographers and their cameras shoot video nowadays. We can already trim video and add some global adjustments by a roundabout way (creating a preset from a JPEG capture frame), and I'd love to have local adjustments and spot healing too. But that strikes me as the limit. Music has no place - you can't create it with a camera. Web design, no, web output - obviously yes. It's not hard to define Lr's limits when you try.
-
I don't believe in the kitchen sink approach where everything I ever want to do with an image needs to be done from a single application developed by the same group of resources.
How long have you been using Lightroom? ... Do you have ANY clue about Lightroom's conception and introduction? Were you around, and did you participate in the early beta stages of Lr? Were you one of the 500,000 participants in that foundational, community-based project? If you were, you'd soon see how small and insignificant (not to mention, selfish) your view really is.
Thank goodness, we don't have to be bound by what you 'believe' ...
Still having great difficulty believing you found something Adobe did that is negative in scope. You usually have a very different attitude about such things. Very puzzling indeed.
-
You might not believe in it, but that's the concept and it's been pretty successful. Stringing together "best of breed" apps came at the price of efficiency and consistency (ever tried transferring colour labels between apps?). But there will often come a point where your needs are so niche you'll need specialist apps.
Yes, why not add some more video editing into Lr? After all, Lr is aimed at aspirational photographers and their cameras shoot video nowadays. We can already trim video and add some global adjustments by a roundabout way (creating a preset from a JPEG capture frame), and I'd love to have local adjustments and spot healing too. But that strikes me as the limit. Music has no place - you can't create it with a camera. Web design, no, web output - obviously yes. It's not hard to define Lr's limits when you try.
Why not music...after all I use music for my slideshows. Why not web design after all images are used for web design. Why arbitrarily limit the functions...once you open up the lid...let's get creative. Let's create this behemoth application that does everything...but does nothing well.
-
How long have you been using Lightroom? ... Do you have ANY clue about Lightroom's conception and introduction? Were you around, and did you participate in the early beta stages of Lr? Were you one of the 500,000 participants in that foundational, community-based project? If you were, you'd soon see how small and insignificant (not to mention, selfish) your view really is.
Thank goodness, we don't have to be bound by what you 'believe' ...
Still having great difficulty believing you found something Adobe did that is negative in scope. You usually have a very different attitude about such things. Very puzzling indeed.
Butch, I've been using LR from it's beginnings, so you don't need to beat your chest about being there from day 1. I know what it's like to try develop and maintain a product that has a very large breadth of functionality. It is hard to be experts in all the different fields from DAM, to image processing, to colour management, to printing...let alone having the expertise in slideshows, book creation etc...
It is extremely hard to compete against a product that just focuses on book creation or slideshow creation. You will have this big behemoth slow advancing product competing against small single focused products. You'll be sacrificing functionality and capabilities just to keep it with LR. Basically, it is what you are getting today...and it sounds like you don't like it.
I'd rather Adobe focus on integrating with 3rd party products and let these 3rd parties do what they do best. The best move Adobe ever did was develop the ability for 3rd parties to add fictionality to LR and the like of NIK etc... Have greatly expanded the usefulness of LR. That is what Adobe needs to focus on...not creating slideshow software...let the people who know all about slideshows take on that job.
The kitchen sink approach to products always leads to big complex slow products...always.
-
Why not music...after all I use music for my slideshows. Why not web design after all images are used for web design. Why arbitrarily limit the functions...once you open up the lid...let's get creative. Let's create this behemoth application that does everything...but does nothing well.
No, your "creative" is nothing of the sort. Lightroom has a logic to its limits, and I gave the logic which Adobe have consistently applied. Cameras can't create music, so support for music is limited to photographers using it in slideshows and web galleries. Designing web sites is a very different task from photographers using images in web galleries, which they can do. Most cameras nowadays do take video, so Lr already has basic editing features but is not going to be a video production environment.
-
Butch, I've been using LR from it's beginnings, so you don't need to beat your chest about being there from day 1.
Wasn't beating my chest ... just pointing out that Lr was NEVER intended to be a singular or limited tool. Some seem to forget that fact when it is convenient.
I know what it's like to try develop and maintain a product that has a very large breadth of functionality. It is hard to be experts in all the different fields from DAM, to image processing, to colour management, to printing...let alone having the expertise in slideshows, book creation etc...
So now you know more than Adobe? You don't think they knew what a larger breadth of functionality would entail. Suddenly you don't think they are capable of producing a solution that is both capable and efficient? When it comes to performance, it isn't the existence of or the invocation of Book and Slideshow modules that are holding back the application.
It is extremely hard to compete against a product that just focuses on book creation or slideshow creation. You will have this big behemoth slow advancing product competing against small single focused products. You'll be sacrificing functionality and capabilities just to keep it with LR. Basically, it is what you are getting today...and it sounds like you don't like it.
Perhaps you have too little faith in a company that exceeds $4B in annual revenue ... I personally don't think the task is that difficult for the likes of engineers that crunch the code at Adobe. I think they have plenty of talent, expertise and the resources to take on such tasks. What we have today where Books and Slideshow fall short is not due to the difficulty of the task ... or the result of a behemoth solution ... it is the lack of effort and the absence of a decision to offer a better product. There is a difference between ability and scope. Adobe has the ability.
I'd rather Adobe focus on integrating with 3rd party products and let these 3rd parties do what they do best. The best move Adobe ever did was develop the ability for 3rd parties to add fictionality to LR and the like of NIK etc... Have greatly expanded the usefulness of LR. That is what Adobe needs to focus on...not creating slideshow software...let the people who know all about slideshows take on that job.
Yes and No. There is expanding functionality and there is adding more work. Yes, you can invoke Nik and other options ... but you have to export a derivative file in order to do so. Which is why I would rather have internal modules in Lr so I would not have to export tens of thousands of images in the course of a year to make a book/album/slideshow ... I could work directly with my RAW image files and avoid all those extra files that must be tracked, cataloged and archived. Such workarounds are not solutions ... just more work for the end user.
The kitchen sink approach to products always leads to big complex slow products...always.
You would be wrong .... considering Aperture 3 had Face detection, Maps, Slideshows (on steroids) and a 'no limits' book design and exportation since 2010.
I could could do so much more in Aperture 3 without issue ... create kick @$$ slideshows and custom books/albums with fully manageable page dimensions, margins and bleeds that I could print anywhere in an app that only cost $80 and took up only 1GB of HD space. Aperture was also much faster to import, view and browse images than Lr has ever been. Too bad I have to now work with a lesser option ... (even more restricted and less functional if you have your way) with a v6 product that weighs in at 1.51GB.
The evidence doesn't support your premise. Too bad you have so little confidence in Adobe to offer a similar solution with similar results. I think they are more than capable.
-
Wait... was not this subscription model motivated by bringing their customers a constant flow of new, inspiring features direct from the developers, free from the bureaucratic reigns of monolithic waterfall-developed and QA tested releases?
Yup, that's the idea. If they don't, why subscribe?
-
Yup, that's the idea. If they don't, why subscribe?
Because people want to retain access to their own files + parametric adjustments?
I know that Adobe says that Lightroom remains functional after unsubscribing, but I'm not so sure about that when I hear about even perpetual license users being locked out of Lightroom if their firewall (or remote location) prevents LR from 'calling home'.
Otherwise it would be more economical to just subscribe for a month or so, then unsubscribe, and only after some time temporarily subscribe again to a stable upgraded/updated version.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Because people want to retain access to their own files + parametric adjustments?
And they can. Assuming they have a exist policy such as mine (LR5). Otherwise, that's proprietary Adobe data. Leave Adobe solutions, say goodby to those parametric adjustments. The same would be true of course from someone migrating from C1 to LR.
-
Yes, Lr is difficult to replace ... but that should in no way dictate that we users should not expect more from Adobe's efforts to further develop the products they offer.
Just because Lightroom and Adobe's products are popular, should not negate the fact that Adobe also has a responsibility to consider the input from their users on the future development. Nor should Adobe allow their success to build a false sense of grandeur and lead them to believe they don't have to be responsive those that pay their way.
It's quite obvious that Adobe will eventually force all users to adopt the subscription licensing model ... once they do, will you be willing to pay monthly ... from here to eternity ... for the same old capabilities in perpetuity ... or will you expect Adobe to further advance the progress of the software solutions they produce?
What makes LR difficult to replace is not that it is popular. What makes LR difficult to replace is that it is of high quality.
I am already on the subscription model. I use LR, PhotoShop and ProSite. I find it good value, certainly compared to the competition.
The last modifications to the import module triggered an alarm and made me re-evaluate the competition. It is not close.
-
What makes LR difficult to replace is not that it is popular. What makes LR difficult to replace is that it is of high quality.
That's purely a subjective view. The evidence is there are some very talented professional photographers who produce quite exquisite work that have never, ever used an Adobe product to do so. While that group is few in number, they do exist. Which is why I used the term 'popular' ... there are other options. How those options fit an individual users perspective is purely a subjective opinion.
-
Personally I'd be happy if Adobe removed all the other modules and just left Library, Development and printing...and just focus on those. I have no needs for the likes of books or slide shows out of LR. I use other products for these purpose...products whose sole feature is either creating books or developing slide shows. I don't want LR heading towards a kitchen sink approach as when you do that you spread your resources thin, bloat your product and lose focus of what LR really is.
If I had a vote, i'd remove the peripheral modules and focus on the main ones.
+1 :)
Just as well that selfish people like you two don't get one.
-
Sure it has had those other modules for a long time and you can see how much Adobe actually values them...not much. Better to get rid of they are not valued. As they sit right now, they just take up space.
As far as Bridge being as capable as LR...not even close. I can say the same with book or slideshow software...they existed before LR was even released.
Actually without the modules you think are unnecessary, they indeed very close indeed.
-
I don't believe in the kitchen sink approach where everything I ever want to do with an image needs to be done from a single application developed by the same group of resources. This leads to bloat wear and not the best in class in any of the modules. I'd rather have Adobe concentrate on the core modules and make them best in class rather than dilute their resources over a wide range of features and not excel at anything.
There are reasons why plugins like NIK are so popular...it is because their teams were focused on a single application and they excelled at it while the LR resources were scattered over a much larger feature space and lacked finness in any of them.
Why not add Video editing and production into LR? What about music editing and production? What about web design using your images...the sky is the limit...what makes slideshows and book designs any different.
Let's make this do-it-all...but nothing very well product...no thanks.
Looks like you've completely and utterly missed the point of LR and BTW you can already do web design in LR.
As for your other daft suggestions, LR is an image editor/manager and the current modules are all for dealing with image files and how they typically get used, nothing superfluous about any of them. Suggesting adding irrelevant things like music production is only underlying how you simply do not grok what LR is for.
The huge benefit of the the LR approach is that you can do most of what you need to do in one place, not having to roundtrip files back and for to other software.
Removing roundtripping is one of the best workflow improvements that can be made to any software where they are several different kinds of work that may be done with the files involved. If when laying out my book or website I realise that an image may need tweaking, I simply alter it in Dev module it and carry on without any faffing with the exporting of unnecessary duplicates and importing/replacing stuff and all the time consuming issues surrounding such an antiquated workflow.
I've been been learning Da Vinci's Resolve of late where integrating its high end grading and now full editing of video in one piece of software is like the transformation LR did for stills when it replaced the separate organisation and working with images paradigm that preceded it.
Resolve also has some neat grading tools that would be nice in to use with still images.
-
That's purely a subjective view. The evidence is there are some very talented professional photographers who produce quite exquisite work that have never, ever used an Adobe product to do so. ...
There are some very talented professional photographers who produce exquisite work that never enters the digital domain.
I don't see how that is relevant? The point is that LR is a quite efficient means of producing good results. Many professionals and dedicated enthusiasts can and choose to make something useful out of LR. Even someone like myself who do not spend many hours a day honing my photo skills (I have a dayjob) can make something useful out of LR.
Being able to cover that span is quite impressive. Which is not to say that the product is "perfect", or that certain features does not annoy a large proportion of their users.
I am sort of happy that it is not my job to design a LR competitor. At the same time I cannot help but wish that someone did. Someone with a strong vision and a keen photography interest/background. Someone that listened to all of my advice ;-)
If not, I would hope that at least Adobe would allocate sufficient resources (of the right kind) so as to continually improve their product. I don't mean adding "tick-in-a-box" features, but cleverly redesigning the fundamental workflow and efficiency as they learn new things about their users. Not because their designers thinks that it is cool to do something new, but because they have a genuine belief that it will make their users more productive and satisfied.
To me, consistency is essential. Any complex product (be it software or hardware) can benefit a lot from the collective assumptions that its (target) user base has. They could be Windows users where "ctrl+c" means "copy". Or they could be used to reading from left to right. Or they could come from the "Library" module to the "Print" module assuming that interaction with common elements is consistent. Really small things that (once you do it right) allows people to avoid thinking consciously about _how_ they interact, and rather spend their precious brain resources thinking about _what_ they want to do.
For many of us, the parametric image editor approach was a big change. One that caused confusion and (possibly) frustration. For a large percentage of us, this seems to have paid of in the long run: parametric editing does have some significant advantages.
-h
-
That's purely a subjective view. The evidence is there are some very talented professional photographers who produce quite exquisite work that have never, ever used an Adobe product to do so. While that group is few in number, they do exist. Which is why I used the term 'popular' ... there are other options. How those options fit an individual users perspective is purely a subjective opinion.
If they used Adobe products then it is possible that the work could be more exquisite? Alas they will never know. :(
-
There are some very talented professional photographers who produce exquisite work that never enters the digital domain.
I don't see how that is relevant?
It's relevant in the aspect that the 'art' is in the artist, not the specific tools the artist employs.
If they used Adobe products then it is possible that the work could be more exquisite? Alas they will never know. :(
My point wasn't that I don't think Lightroom is a very capable and worthy tool ... I wouldn't use it if it wasn't. Nothing lasts forever and we ALL should have an open mind and a functional Plan B approach at the ready.
My point was two-fold:
1. If we choose to believe that there are no other possible options or those options are unworthy of consideration, we are doomed to accept whatever Adobe ultimately decides to offer ... or not offer us.
2. When you walk into a high-end gallery and you see a painting on the wall that conveys a deep connection to the content ... do you invest much (or any) time mulling over what brand/model of brush the artist used?
-
If I were advising Apple, I might tell them that this might be a good time to re-introduce Aperture.
I wonder if the people working on After Shop Pro at Corel (formerly Bibble, I think) at Corel might also be smelling blood.
-
My point wasn't that I don't think Lightroom is a very capable and worthy tool ... I wouldn't use it if it wasn't. Nothing lasts forever and we ALL should have an open mind and a functional Plan B approach at the ready.
Words to live by.
Eight years and a half years is a long time for an evolving software to continue to be useful, without disastrous management decisions, such as the abandonment of the product's development to the marketing department.