Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Hans Kruse on May 24, 2015, 08:04:27 am
-
I really don't want to be negative towards the Adobe teams working on the photography related products Lightroom and Photoshop, but given the comment in another thread that the HDR and Pano functions were developed by the Adobe Camera Raw team and given that I see only small enhancements besides this in Lightroom 6, I'm asking: What has the Adobe Lightroom team been doing for the last 2 years? I do know that use of GPU's were implemented but I assume that this is also the case in ACR and likely the ACR team has done the work.
This leads me to the thought that Lightroom as a licensed product should be discontinued in order to allow Adobe to do the logical merge of Lightroom and ACR into a single module that is used from both Lightroom and Photoshop and to get rid of the arcane UI of ACR and therefore allow a tighter integration between Lightroom and Photoshop.
The basic message is that I'm disappointed that there were not more new features in Lightroom 6. Lightroom 5 was even rather light on new features.
One "small" thing about both HDR and Pano in LR6 is that there is not even information about which pictures went into a merge, so basically both HDR and Pano were slammed onto LR6 without considering integrity features like the above.
I have added the compare list of features between LR5 and LR6 and LRCC. Not much in LR6 and most of the list for LRCC compared to LR5 was in LR5 with CC subscription.
Sorry Adobe, I'm not impressed ;)
-
I really don't want to be negative towards the Adobe teams working on the photography related products Lightroom and Photoshop, but given the comment in another thread that the HDR and Pano functions were developed by the Adobe Camera Raw team and given that I see only small enhancements besides this in Lightroom 6, I'm asking: What has the Adobe Lightroom team been doing for the last 2 years? I do know that use of GPU's were implemented but I assume that this is also the case in ACR and likely the ACR team has done the work.
This leads me to the thought that Lightroom as a licensed product should be discontinued in order to allow Adobe to do the logical merge of Lightroom and ACR into a single module that is used from both Lightroom and Photoshop and to get rid of the arcane UI of ACR and therefore allow a tighter integration between Lightroom and Photoshop.
The basic message is that I'm disappointed that there were not more new features in Lightroom 6. Lightroom 5 was even rather light on new features.
One "small" thing about both HDR and Pano in LR6 is that there is not even information about which pictures went into a merge, so basically both HDR and Pano were slammed onto LR6 without considering integrity features like the above.
I have added the compare list of features between LR5 and LR6 and LRCC. Not much in LR6 and most of the list for LRCC compared to LR5 was in LR5 with CC subscription.
Sorry Adobe, I'm not impressed ;)
And how do you know that LR6 and Arc are not developed by the same team? And why do you care if they were developed by different teams as long as the results end up in Lightroom?
People sometimes just like to complain. Much ado about not much.
-
And how do you know that LR6 and Arc are not developed by the same team? And why do you care if they were developed by different teams as long as the results end up in Lightroom?
People sometimes just like to complain. Much ado about not much.
If you look at the credits for Lightroom they are divided into different groups as attached. Are you impressed with the amount of new features in LR6?
If you think I complain because I like it you are coming to the wrong person. Actually I hate to complain. In fact I don't see this as complaining but rather to ask the obvious question that I'm sure many others are asking. Many also choose the attempt to shoot the messenger approach like you to divert the discussion. For LR5 I was not impressed but not write a post like this, but now for LR6 I really do feel there is a reason for it. If you disagree, fine with me, but it does not change the amount of features in LR6 to not me much besides what is coming from ACR.
Lightroom Mobile was added to LRCC while LR5, but this is a really scaled down version of Lightroom that I kind of like, but is still rather rudimentary.
I hope the reason for not much seen from the Lightroom team in the last two versions is because they are working on new stuff that will come later on. I somehow doubt it, but really hope so. And I hope Adobe cleans up the mess with Lightroom and ACR as mentioned. Therefore licensed LR must go.
-
People sometimes just like to complain. Much ado about not much.
How else will Adobe know whether they are meeting the needs/wants of its customers?
I agree with Hans. In every other Lightroom upgrade from v1 to v5, I have upgraded on the day of release. This time, because I am not interested in empty gimmicks like second-rate HDR or Pano, I have not found anything to persuade me to upgrade from v5.7 to v6.
Now, Adobe might be able to aggregate customer data to discover that, commercially, the v6 upgrade has been (or not been) a flop but merely aggregating data does not tell them why.
-
How else will Adobe know whether they are meeting the needs/wants of its customers?
I agree with Hans. In every other Lightroom upgrade from v1 to v5, I have upgraded on the day of release. This time, because I am not interested in empty gimmicks like second-rate HDR or Pano, I have not found anything to persuade me to upgrade from v5.7 to v6.
Now, Adobe might be able to aggregate customer data to discover that, commercially, the v6 upgrade has been (or not been) a flop but merely aggregating data does not tell them why.
I should probably clarify: I like the new HDR feature a lot and I like that the result of the blending is a DNG file. But this feature came from the Camera Raw team according to Schewe. And even more disappointing there was not even any integrity check built into LR6. I would like that so I do not accidentally delete RAW flles that are merged into an HDR and also know which files or virtual copies were merged. Since LR has a database that holds all the information about the pictures, I was expecting this.
So what I'm seeing is that the ACR team has done a great job. If team members are moved back and forth between the two groups I have no way of knowing. But even if that was the case I'm not impressed with LR specific enhancements in LR6. I hope there will be a focus on the message here rather than shooting back at the messenger. All are free, of course, to disagree but please state why you disagree.
-
What I get from your list of features, Hans, is that Adobe is trying to shepherd people into using the CC version of LR and at the moment they're using the "carrot" method.
Maybe they feel that they get a much better return or the business model is more sustainable or...?
-
What has the Adobe Lightroom team been doing for the last 2 years?
Given this is speculation as I'm not an Adobe engineer ;D, one area I'd suggest is Lightroom mobile. A waste of time IMHO.
-
[...] Lightroom mobile. A waste of time IMHO.
+1
Lightroom started life as an almost perfect amalgam of DAM and premium raw converter combined with the Print module. Wherever it goes in the future, I hope the Lightroom team don't lose sight of the 'lean and mean' moniker and keep the ethos of excellence as their guiding principle.
Better to be the yardstick by which others are judged rather than a second-rate jack-of-all trades.
-
People sometimes just like to complain. Much ado about not much.
People sometime just like to complain that not every customer believes that Adobe is pure perfection.
Customers are allowed to raise questions, express concerns and seek answers for the products and services they purchase.
-
I agree with many of your sentiments, Hans. While I am not ungrateful for the advancements made to Lightroom, I am also concerned about the decision making as to which features are developed and when they are added.
The attitude I am referring to is very apparent in Photoshop as well ... each new version cycle, reviewers and even self-described Adobe Evangelists often cite the advancements of ACR in Ps as the top features for a new version release.
Just look back at Terry White's videos for "My Top 5 Favorite Features in Lightroom 5" ... and his "My Top 5 Favorite New Features in Photoshop CC (2013)" ... the lists he presents are nearly identical.
Now that the subscription model seems to be the primary pathway forward, I don't think it's wrong to at least raise the question and discuss if we end users who are paying for these products and thus making future development possible ... if we are seeing the best effort and decision making from those we are rewarding with our hard-earned currency.
-
I fully agree with all that Hans said :
And the fact that the resulting HDR or Pano is at least not stapled automatically when returned into Lr ( by simply checking a box ) shows me that these function haven't developed for Lr, but were pretty fast integrated from ACR.
What if the version of Lr which has been published a few weeks ago ( CC or Lr6 ) wasn't really planned to be published, but was published due to the announcement of many sites. This could put pressure on Adobe to publish what they have ready - or almost ready - and in the near future Lr CC will be improved with the actual planned funtionalities. This would also put pressure on the people using a perpetual license cause they will not benefit from intermediate updates.
In Germany, we call this 2 flies with one slap killed !
-
What have the Romans ever done for us?
-
I personally think LR6 is the push towards subscription only as a company doesn't have to dazzle every couple of years with new features and as the OP, often dissatisfying existing users.
I've not used LR since early version two since I hated it. I just ipdated to the CC photo plan (for photoshop) and thought I'd give LR another try and I think its an amazing bit of software - couldn't be more happy with LR CC.
-
What have the Romans ever done for us?
Uhhh... the aquaduct?
I am a bit disappointed with the pano feature and overall performance, but if they can get those right in a not too distant release then I'll be happy with Lr6.
-
This leads me to the thought that Lightroom as a licensed product should be discontinued in order to allow Adobe to do the logical merge of Lightroom and ACR into a single module that is used from both Lightroom and Photoshop and to get rid of the arcane UI of ACR and therefore allow a tighter integration between Lightroom and Photoshop.
Better yet, how about Lightroom bundled with a new pixel editor that offered the Photoshop features (and only those features) that photographers still turn to Photoshop for. Stripped of the more esoteric functionality and complexity that other graphic artists require—esoteric from a photographic perspective, at least—it should be possible to equip this new pixel editor with a user agent whose controls were congruent with Lightroom's. ACR already does this: invoked from Lightroom it is Lightroom-like, invoked from Photoshop, it is ... ahhh ... not so nice.
As I recall, Jeff Schewe mentioned the possibility of something like this a while back.
-
I think it's a bit harsh criticising the lack of progress in 6 over 5.
The HDR feature seems to work pretty well and has a good hit rate IME.
The pano feature isn't as poor as some here would have you believe. When it works, it works well and delivers decent workable files.
The FR was frequently asked for too. It's just a shame it's not as well implemented as one would hope for.
GPU acceleration was also requested a lot, but seems to be pretty much a dead loss.
So the above seem 'version one' features that might come to maturity in future upgrades.
The last two upgrades have also been dirt cheap, so there's not too much to moan about on that score either.
The real disappointment has been the lack of the little improvements that could make the program more usable, but don't make great headlines.
I have added the compare list of features between LR5 and LR6 and LRCC. Not much in LR6 and most of the list for LRCC compared to LR5 was in LR5 with CC subscription.
There's absolutely nothing at all that appeals to me in the CC offering over the LR6 feature set, so I can't see why people think it's a strategy to move people to CC by adding compelling new 'CC only' features.
-
LR CC has the feel of a release forced for some other reason, probably to set a baseline for the split between the subscription and perpetual licenses. There was also a lot of fiddle about with the creative suite manager (having to log in and out at least twice to get to the update).
The OpenCL stuff is tricky, but there are plenty of open source programs that use it successfully, so it's not completely intractable. Expertise can be bought in, particularly to overcome the indeosyncracjes of the different implementations, notably Apple's. So I don't think that they can have spent 2 years playing with that.
Apart from .x.1 quick fix releases, I think that we are still on quarterly camera / lens releases, hoping that Apple continues to go after the amateur market and no one else does anything mould breaking, like Mylio.
-
I think it's a bit harsh criticising the lack of progress in 6 over 5.
The HDR feature seems to work pretty well and has a good hit rate IME.
The pano feature isn't as poor as some here would have you believe. When it works, it works well and delivers decent workable files.
The FR was frequently asked for too. It's just a shame it's not as well implemented as one would hope for.
GPU acceleration was also requested a lot, but seems to be pretty much a dead loss.
So the above seem 'version one' features that might come to maturity in future upgrades.
The last two upgrades have also been dirt cheap, so there's not too much to moan about on that score either.
The real disappointment has been the lack of the little improvements that could make the program more usable, but don't make great headlines.There's absolutely nothing at all that appeals to me in the CC offering over the LR6 feature set, so I can't see why people think it's a strategy to move people to CC by adding compelling new 'CC only' features.
Look here https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/features.html and see that HDR, Pano and GPU support came into ACR and then was plugged into LR6. My point in the original post was pretty clear on that. Therefore the point was basically about what was in LR6 besides what came from ACR. Not much.
-
Look here https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/features.html and see that HDR, Pano and GPU support came into ACR and then was plugged into LR6. My point in the original post was pretty clear on that. Therefore the point was basically about what was in LR6 besides what came from ACR. Not much.
As far as I am aware the Lightroom Develop Module improvements to Lightroom (including new raw camera support) are determined by the developments to ACR, so the cost would have always been upgrade LR or upgrade Photoshop CS. Now the option is subscribe to Photoshop CC or upgrade to Lightroom 6.
That's why my opinion is, when you subscribe to the CC Photographers package is you get Lightroom CC gratis. ( to wit there is no specific subscription in Adobe Creative Cloud to Lightroom per say)
-
I really don't want to be negative towards the Adobe teams working on the photography related products Lightroom and Photoshop, but given the comment in another thread that the HDR and Pano functions were developed by the Adobe Camera Raw team and given that I see only small enhancements besides this in Lightroom 6, I'm asking: What has the Adobe Lightroom team been doing for the last 2 years? I do know that use of GPU's were implemented but I assume that this is also the case in ACR and likely the ACR team has done the work.
This leads me to the thought that Lightroom as a licensed product should be discontinued in order to allow Adobe to do the logical merge of Lightroom and ACR into a single module that is used from both Lightroom and Photoshop and to get rid of the arcane UI of ACR and therefore allow a tighter integration between Lightroom and Photoshop.
The basic message is that I'm disappointed that there were not more new features in Lightroom 6. Lightroom 5 was even rather light on new features.
One "small" thing about both HDR and Pano in LR6 is that there is not even information about which pictures went into a merge, so basically both HDR and Pano were slammed onto LR6 without considering integrity features like the above.
I have added the compare list of features between LR5 and LR6 and LRCC. Not much in LR6 and most of the list for LRCC compared to LR5 was in LR5 with CC subscription.
Sorry Adobe, I'm not impressed ;)
I've waited to reply. All I can say is that I basically agree. If you have done HDR with PhotoMatrix Pro and made panoramas with PTGui (or even Microsoft's free ICE) then you realize LR has a long ways to go. The performance boost with a GPU has been close to nonexistent for many people, including me. It is a start, but not a complete product. And the Library functions have seemed to have been frozen for a long time.
V6 ?? More like v6 beta.
-
+1
Lightroom started life as an almost perfect amalgam of DAM and premium raw converter combined with the Print module. Wherever it goes in the future, I hope the Lightroom team don't lose sight of the 'lean and mean' moniker and keep the ethos of excellence as their guiding principle.
Better to be the yardstick by which others are judged rather than a second-rate jack-of-all trades.
Absolutely agree!
Bob.
-
the point was basically about what was in LR6 besides what came from ACR. Not much.
But that's irrelevant to those of us that don't have ACR. All I care about is what's new in Lightroom.
-
But that's irrelevant to those of us that don't have ACR. All I care about is what's new in Lightroom.
+1
And if you think there's not enough new stay with LR5, pretty simple until you get a new camera (and even then a conversion to .dng will save you)
I think what you are seeing is that LR (and also PS) are both approaching the top of their S-curve. PS wise for me this was already the case around CS2 or CS3 (and that's where I remained upgrade wise).
-
I've waited to reply. All I can say is that I basically agree. If you have done HDR with PhotoMatrix Pro and made panoramas with PTGui (or even Microsoft's free ICE) then you realize LR has a long ways to go. The performance boost with a GPU has been close to nonexistent for many people, including me. It is a start, but not a complete product. And the Library functions have seemed to have been frozen for a long time.
V6 ?? More like v6 beta.
A 'all in one package' like Lightroom will never reach the option a program has that was developed just for one purpose. But, this is not the reason of this thread.
-
I really don't want to be negative towards the Adobe teams working on the photography related products Lightroom and Photoshop, but given the comment in another thread that the HDR and Pano functions were developed by the Adobe Camera Raw team and given that I see only small enhancements besides this in Lightroom 6, I'm asking: What has the Adobe Lightroom team been doing for the last 2 years? I do know that use of GPU's were implemented but I assume that this is also the case in ACR and likely the ACR team has done the work.
This leads me to the thought that Lightroom as a licensed product should be discontinued in order to allow Adobe to do the logical merge of Lightroom and ACR into a single module that is used from both Lightroom and Photoshop and to get rid of the arcane UI of ACR and therefore allow a tighter integration between Lightroom and Photoshop.
The basic message is that I'm disappointed that there were not more new features in Lightroom 6. Lightroom 5 was even rather light on new features.
One "small" thing about both HDR and Pano in LR6 is that there is not even information about which pictures went into a merge, so basically both HDR and Pano were slammed onto LR6 without considering integrity features like the above.
I have added the compare list of features between LR5 and LR6 and LRCC. Not much in LR6 and most of the list for LRCC compared to LR5 was in LR5 with CC subscription.
Sorry Adobe, I'm not impressed ;)
I've been feeling the same Hans. Good you put it down for us in writing. I'm not enjoying the performance of Lr 6 either. Very buggy. I hope they can at least iron out all the usage problems in 6.1 if nothing else. I mean at least get that right if you're gonna release a new version via subscription. Wasn't that part of the promise. Lr 6 does seem to have been released too early. Not enough people working on the beta testing? Not enough money going to the team to get it done right? The chiefs now only focused on shareholder dividends and not the users who pay for and use the programs...
My gut feels like the zeitgeist of this new way forward, subscription, is not for the user but for the shareholders.
-
+1
Lightroom started life as an almost perfect amalgam of DAM and premium raw converter combined with the Print module. Wherever it goes in the future, I hope the Lightroom team don't lose sight of the 'lean and mean' moniker and keep the ethos of excellence as their guiding principle.
Better to be the yardstick by which others are judged rather than a second-rate jack-of-all trades.
Yes. Lr 5 was already starting to feel 'slow' and not as nice to use. Lr 6 is not a fun experience in the develop module for me. I'm starting to think about downgrading back to v5.
-
Yes. Lr 5 was already starting to feel 'slow' and not as nice to use. Lr 6 is not a fun experience in the develop module for me. I'm starting to think about downgrading back to v5.
My workflow is now something like this:
- import with Lr6 for newer cameras with "copy as DNG"
- get all the basic metadata done
- for pano's and hdr's, do them
- sync all metadata to disk
- quit lr6
- start lr4
- sync the dir tree and import photos plus metadata
- go to work on the images
-
I think my comment LR CC got a bit misunderstood... I'm not projecting that Adobe will take the licensed model away! Instead I'm suggesting that Adobe takes the licensed verison away and only provide the CC model so that Adobe can cleaup the mess of multiple UI's for the same thing and stop using resources to maintain both so we can get a better working environment and more stable and as well get new features.
Besides that I do think and would hope that Adobe gets some more and real competition so they can get up on their feet again! The only alternative to LR at the moment is in my view Capture One.
-
Instead I'm suggesting that Adobe takes the licensed verison away and only provide the CC model so that Adobe can cleaup the mess of multiple UI's for the same thing and stop using resources to maintain both so we can get a better working environment and more stable and as well get new features.
Besides that I do think and would hope that Adobe gets some more and real competition so they can get up on their feet again! The only alternative to LR at the moment is in my view Capture One.
That I don't understand - Lr6 and LrCC both have the same UI. CC updates are easily replicated with .dot releases in the Lr6 version.
Adobe doesn't need more competition, they need to catch up with the competition - take a 'sondage' of the pros on this forum and I think you'll find that there's a heavy weighting in favour of C1 v Lightroom - and not just because of IQ.
-
That I don't understand - Lr6 and LrCC both have the same UI. CC updates are easily replicated with .dot releases in the Lr6 version.
Adobe doesn't need more competition, they need to catch up with the competition - take a 'sondage' of the pros on this forum and I think you'll find that there's a heavy weighting in favour of C1 v Lightroom - and not just because of IQ.
I was referring to LR6 and ACR as in my original post.
So what do you think the sales of C1 is relative to LR?
-
Look here https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/features.html and see that HDR, Pano and GPU support came into ACR and then was plugged into LR6. My point in the original post was pretty clear on that. Therefore the point was basically about what was in LR6 besides what came from ACR. Not much.
Why does it matter to you who exactly implemented the features as long as if they get into Lightroom? Would it matter to you if Adobe bought some great new features and merged them into Lightroom. Would you be disappointed that the "Lightroom team" did not write them from scratch?
-
Why does it matter to you who exactly implemented the features as long as if they get into Lightroom?
I think that was pretty clearly written in the original post.
-
I think my comment LR CC got a bit misunderstood... I'm not projecting that Adobe will take the licensed model away! Instead I'm suggesting that Adobe takes the licensed verison away and only provide the CC model so that Adobe can cleaup the mess of multiple UI's for the same thing and stop using resources to maintain both so we can get a better working environment and more stable and as well get new features.
I hope they don't take the licensed option away, first because lots of people still want it and secondly because it doesn't take any resources to maintain it, and certainly not the resources that might make the PS and LR UI's look more the same.
My suggestion for Adobe would be to stop "pushing" everybody to the CC model and make finding and buying the licensed version on their website less complicated and more user-friendly.
-
So what do you think the sales of C1 is relative to LR?
Is this thread about dollars and cents or IQ ?
-
Not sure how many who have read or responded to this (great and relevant) thread are busy working pro's so I will add my 2c worth.
Luckily I am busy working and from that point alone LR6 is a complete waste of time in it's current 'beta' state..
To buggy, very 'half finished' no new processing engine and there is no way I would convert my existing catalogue to LR6. I cannot risk losing work, the type of work I shoot doesn't use pano or HDR, in fact with an MF back or D810 you don't need HDR.. I don't need face recognition either so although I upgraded to LR6 and installed it (I don't need or run CC)... LR6 is just sitting there unused, save for a quick 'test' catalogue I tested it with one slack Sunday.
I have been a long time supporter of Adobe and often spouted how over the years their S/W has been the gold standard by which others should be judged, especially in terms of release bugs, and giving us 'tools' almost before we thought of them.... (heal,patch tool... content aware fill etc...)
LR6 shocked me in so much as it gave us 'nothing' real, just a few sprinkles that 'might' apply to some... It does seem that it was a forced release, for whatever reason, and the obvious push for CC seems a little too one sided, more an immature money grab.
If you look at the last few iPhone updates and their 'own' map,,, it all smells very similar, too many number crunchers at the top who know very little about real users leading real lives... If we add Windoze 8 into that mix too......
As the famous saying goes....'if it ain't broke... don't try to fix it...'
From a fast, reliable work turnaround LR5.7 and PS5 work very well for me and long may it continue...
S
-
Adobe doesn't need more competition, they need to catch up with the competition - take a 'sondage' of the pros on this forum and I think you'll find that there's a heavy weighting in favour of C1 v Lightroom - and not just because of IQ.
I've not noticed any evidence to suggest that. You may find few non-Pros use C1, which is not the same thing.
LR is certainly way superior to C1 in my view for one single feature. They support all cameras. C1 doesn't support one camera I have despite it outputting DNG and being several years old, they also do not support Pentax MFDSLRs either, again despite them outputting DNG files. So no way would I invest in company who may not bother to support cameras I want to use.
Things like usability/quality of processing are irrelevant compared to that issue.
-
The basic message is that I'm disappointed that there were not more new features in Lightroom 6. Lightroom 5 was even rather light on new features.
Sorry Adobe, I'm not impressed ;)
I came late to this party (i.e. thread) but I feel the same. LR6 is really thin on new features, as was LR5 (and was selling at $79 new, or bundled free with camera products at the beginning of this year). LR6/LRCC discussion aside, there just isn't anything in the new version(s) to make people want to upgrade. It is not that Adobe has run out of things to do. The wish list for LR5, LR6, and now LR7 is (already) multiple pages long on this forum alone (and much larger on adobe's own forums).
Whether Adobe has laid off resources (quietly) or moved them to other products, I don't know, but I can tell that half-a-dozen brilliant fulltime engineers working for two years could have recreated LR from scratch (this is how much time 2 years is). So obviously something is not normal.
-
Especially disappointing for those of us (myself at least) looking for better image quality and performance rather than nifty features. 2 years and basically nothing.
-
Especially disappointing for those of us (myself at least) looking for better image quality and performance rather than nifty features. 2 years and basically nothing.
Agree entirely. For me, HDR and Panorama are nice little gimmicks that I may use occasionally, but far from the main thing which is Develop, Develop, Develop. And in Develop the global tone/color controls of PV 2012 are superb, but I was hoping for (and expecting) increased functionality in the local adjustments. The visible overlay in the Grad and Rad filters and the integration of Brush functions into those filters is very welcome, but I want expansion of the editing functions; such as local HSL and a second sharpener whose parameters are independent of the global sharpener - to name just two.
"Disappointing" may be a bit too mild.
-
Elied,
Could not agree more. Those are the kind of additions that would help. More features in the develop module. I would think the vast majority of users want to work on their pictures first. Then it would be nice to export, book module, and the rest. For all the time from LR4 to LRCC not many improvements that are useful to me.
Mike
-
LR is the one product that is available stand alone and as a CC version.
Both update strategies are in conflict.
That said, an update to a 2015 ACR/LR raw engine could be expected. I like the 2012 method but it has some problems with false detail and moiré IMO. (On the other hand it is still my preferred raw engine despite the raves about Capture one 8 and Iridient developer 3.)
Also it does not make sense that version 6 seems to be so buggy. And GPU support has always been a bit of a mess with Adobe; they can learn from others like the maker of ptGUI panosoftware in that respect.
-
Why does it matter to you who exactly implemented the features as long as if they get into Lightroom?
Yes, Hans spelled it out quite clearly.
If the bulk of new features and improvements actually come from the ACR Team ... exactly what did the Lightroom Team bring to the party for Lr 6? It's an honest question. As you can see from the responses, Hans (and myself) are not the only Lightroom users who have considered this question.
While we can see that Facial Recognition was added to Library, the return of multiple audio tracks (which has taken four full version cycles to get back) and a rudimentary pan and zoom feature in the Slideshow module and finally an update in the Web module (which basically hasn't seen much attention since v1) to replace the antiquated and obsolete Flash galleries. In the time it took to get these simple additions to modules that have been included in Lr since Day One ... Adobe had time to develop and add Maps, Books allowing multiple original modules to languish for several version cycles before addressing the finer details ...
This is the third full version cycle for Lightroom and we still can't do something so simple as create custom page sizes, margins and bleeds. Yet Adobe expects us all to pay them for such incredible progress and advancements.
For me, while I am not ungrateful for what has been offered. Collectively, if you look at the modules other than Develop ... what have been the goals and actual accomplishments of the Lr team itself? I'm not blaming the individual engineers that crunch the code ... but the management and accounting "teams" that dictate what the engineers are assigned to work on. Sometimes it seems as though they utilize a dartboard and a blindfold to establish their goals for module development and refinement.
As long as Adobe includes these other modules, I would like to see them offer the same level of enthusiasm and attention to detail in ALL the modules, not just the favorites. If Lightroom is to be a true workflow solution ... it would be nice if they would actually complete a current project before adding new features.
-
If the bulk of new features and improvements actually come from the ACR Team ... exactly what did the Lightroom Team bring to the party for Lr 6? It's an honest question. As you can see from the responses, Hans (and myself) are not the only Lightroom users who have considered this question.
There is a reason why the LR "Team" works differently than the "ACR Team" and it's because Thomas Knoll pretty much decides what the ACR engineers work. On the LR Team it's really the product managers and not the engineers that decide what's gonna go into LR.
I agree that more features and functionality should go into LR. In the past there were strong individuals who drove LR engineering but there isn't the same kind of leadership now :~(
-
In the past there were strong individuals who drove LR engineering but there isn't the same kind of leadership now :~(
Agreed and that's a huge concern for me! No one's really driving this ship forward IMHO.
-
There is a reason why the LR "Team" works differently than the "ACR Team" and it's because Thomas Knoll pretty much decides what the ACR engineers work.
That's quite evident because we have seen little difference in the pace or level of attention to detail when it comes to ACR or the Develop module. It may not be perfect, but development marches on as we are accustomed to seeing.
I agree that more features and functionality should go into LR. In the past there were strong individuals who drove LR engineering but there isn't the same kind of leadership now :~(
That revelation is both revealing and concerning. Since the very first consideration of "Shadowland" ... Lightroom was to always be much more than a RAW converter with a different UI and a dabbling of database oriented organizational options ...
I like to refer to the Print module as a good example. We have not seen much growth and expansion there. Mainly because whoever it was that created the actual product, as well as those supervising the project did a wonderful job. There really is little that module needs that could make it even marginally better ... though there are a few items that could be perfected further ... of which do seem to come at a glacial pace.
Then compare to how they painted themselves into a Blurb-only corner with the Book module ... One has to wonder if someone literally fell asleep at the wheel.
This attitude doesn't bode well for the future, especially noting the lack of a direct workflow solution competitor for Lightroom.
-
We have not seen much growth and expansion there. Mainly because whoever it was that created the actual product, as well as those supervising the project did a wonderful job. There really is little that module needs that could make it even marginally better ... though there are a few items that could be perfected further ... of which do seem to come at a glacial pace.
I think the team could come up with a number of useful additions to the Print Module which is today still worth the price of admission IMHO. I recall the steep pricing for ImagePrint, much of that functionality now built in LR.
Then compare to how they painted themselves into a Blurb-only corner with the Book module ... One has to wonder if someone literally fell asleep at the wheel.
Adobe clearly didn't see how large a task this was going to be and just passed this off to Blurb which was a mistake. They pretty much took the opposite route that Apple did with iPhoto and Aperture by taking full control over the print process from start to finish.
-
In my opinion he problem with Lightroom began when it was included into the CC suite. Formerly it was a standalone product which made money for Adobe, now it is just an add on to Photoshop which they will not have to take that much care on.
Robert
-
In my opinion he problem with Lightroom began when it was included into the CC suite. Formerly it was a standalone product which made money for Adobe, now it is just an add on to Photoshop which they will not have to take that much care on.
The hole in that theory is of course that LR 6 is still selling as a perpetual license. That and the fact that from an engineering standpoint the subscription model allows for more rapid development by engineering. It's just that those new features are slow coming.
-
The hole in that theory is of course that LR 6 is still selling as a perpetual license.
There seemed to be a lot of people having trouble upgrading the perpetual licence this time. Adobe aren't exactly extolling the perpetual licence option any more.
That and the fact that from an engineering standpoint the subscription model allows for more rapid development by engineering. It's just that those new features are slow coming.
That doesn't make much sense really, does it ?
-
There seemed to be a lot of people having trouble upgrading the perpetual licence this time. Adobe aren't exactly extolling the perpetual licence option any more.That doesn't make much sense really, does it ?
They certainly didn't make it as easy or as discoverable as they could of, agreed.
As for Jeff's comments about speed of development, it's entirely possible considering that they (Adobe) don't have to roll out multiple new features at once, on a regular (about 18 month) cycle for one. They certainly don't have to time this with other products in the CC suite (that must have been a nightmare, like training cats to swim).
-
... now it is just an add on to Photoshop which they will not have to take that much care on.
That is purely an "Eye of the Beholder" ... assertion. I have a feeling there are a significant number of Lr users subscribing to the CC Photography Package that relate to Ps as the "add on" application.
-
That is purely an "Eye of the Beholder" ... assertion. I have a feeling there are a significant number of Lr users subscribing to the CC Photography Package that relate to Ps as the "add on" application.
True for me. I use LR as my desktop and PS only on the minority of images (5-10%) for which I need more post processing that LR can do.
However, whether Adobe regard LR as the add-on I can't say!
-
There must always be a trade off in a parametric editor between functionality and performance (I am thinking about the Develop module). Obviously where the balance sits is hardware dependent, but as I hear comments about sluggish behaviour in Lr6/CC2015 I wonder whether that is also influencing what features are added. I have stayed on subscription 5.7 for now - for my use there is no compelling reason to upgrade.
Dave
-
Now that LR6 has landed and did not bring much on the table, it could mean the real improvements may come to the CC version making the CC subscription more attractive.
That could be a managers decision..
-
Now that LR6 has landed and did not bring much on the table, it could mean the real improvements may come to the CC version making the CC subscription more attractive.
That could be a managers decision..
I know past performance is not a guarantee for the future, but when LR 5 was part of the subscription how many improvements were made to that version that were not implemented in the perpetual license version?
-
I wouldn't mind if more regular updates happen to the CC version and the same components are sold separately to perpetual license owners.
Provided I'm not forced to buy some mumbo-jumbo stuff to get a useful addition.
-
...... now it [LR] is just an add on to Photoshop which they will not have to take that much care on.
Robert
What an interesting way of seeing it.
For me it is the opposite - Photoshop (I still use CS6) is merely a plug-in for Lightroom, just like my Nik and Topaz plug-ins.
-
I know past performance is not a guarantee for the future, but when LR 5 was part of the subscription how many improvements were made to that version that were not implemented in the perpetual license version?
The answer was none. However, see this little video by Terry White (https://www.periscope.tv/w/V0cPdjIwNjUxN3wxNDUxNTUxMYFbiyes6Ik7qHBKrF7MjbJB1itH6ad_Il5SPcBDFxU-).
-
I missed that video :( What did Terry show?
-
To me, the addition of GPU support in LR6, which finally lets me see lag-free real-time changes on my 30" monitor as I move the development sliders, is well worth the upgrade price. Bummer not to have better X-Trans demosaicing, though.
-
The answer was none. However, see this little video by Terry White (https://www.periscope.tv/w/V0cPdjIwNjUxN3wxNDUxNTUxMYFbiyes6Ik7qHBKrF7MjbJB1itH6ad_Il5SPcBDFxU-).
To be fair Lightroom Mobile
-
I know past performance is not a guarantee for the future, but when LR 5 was part of the subscription how many improvements were made to that version that were not implemented in the perpetual license version?
Although Lightroom 5 was installed by the cloud tool of the subscription, it was not fully included in the cloud version and therefor could not be updated apart from the regular version. This feature just came with the real CC version which is now based on a different update mechanism than the perpetual version.
-
To be fair Lightroom Mobile
Point taken.
-
To be fair Lightroom Mobile
IMHO (which has been noted before), a huge waste of engineering time and effort. LR Mobile is a prefect example of no one leading LR development and instead creating a solution in search of a problem. People inside Adobe seeing the onslaught of mobile devices and deciding there is a new, expanded market for the product, not the needs of it's current user base.
Kind of akin to the huge waste of engineering time spent at X-rite with their silly TrueColor app that is supposed to but doesn't 'calibrate' an iPad. Meanwhile, the core group of users who spent money on their high end package continue to see glacial speed of new features and bug fixes.
-
IMHO (which has been noted before), a huge waste of engineering time and effort. LR Mobile is a prefect example of no one leading LR development and instead creating a solution in search of a problem. People inside Adobe seeing the onslaught of mobile devices and deciding there is a new, expanded market for the product, not the needs of it's current user base.
Kind of akin to the huge waste of engineering time spent at X-rite with their silly TrueColor app that is supposed to but doesn't 'calibrate' an iPad. Meanwhile, the core group of users who spent money on their high end package continue to see glacial speed of new features and bug fixes.
In the beginning I was more positive, but since there has been little update to LR Mobile and only global adjustments. It also seems LR needs to synch all photos every time LR is updated which is really annoying. So I more or less have stopped using it.
-
To me, the addition of GPU support in LR6, which finally lets me see lag-free real-time changes on my 30" monitor as I move the development sliders, is well worth the upgrade price. Bummer not to have better X-Trans demosaicing, though.
Yes, however the GPU support came from ACR. No other GPU support was added like e.g. for preview generation which would be a fairly obvious benefit.
-
In the beginning I was more positive, but since there has been little update to LR Mobile and only global adjustments. It also seems LR needs to synch all photos every time LR is updated which is really annoying. So I more or less have stopped using it.
And the entire workflow is nonexistent. Download raws from card to desktop machine, wait to create smart previews, upload them to a cloud, download to your mobile device before you even start working? Give me a break. By the time this is done so you can 'edit' poolside, I've finished the work on the desktop device. Or I'll just take my vastly more powerful MacBook Pro pool side without any of the work needed just to get them into a mobile device. This is an effective use of engineering for the majority of LR users? I think not.
Now look at LR6. GPU is a mess although I'm glad Adobe is moving into that direction. Now they just have to make it work without all the bugs and then add GPU to other areas outside of Develop. Face Detection is a mess, you can't go back and add other faces after initial scanning. I do like how they implement it with keywords and I think at some point when they get it right, it will be very useful for finding images like Keywords. Pano? Done in ACR as discussed. So nothing earth shattering here. LR6 is what Adobe in the old days would call LR 5.5 at best. But I still love LR and while I'd like to see the progress of features improve at a faster pace and wish someone would drive the product forward, I'm sticking with it. As I said earlier, just the current functionality in the Print module is worth the price of admission.
-
In the beginning I was more positive, but since there has been little update to LR Mobile and only global adjustments. It also seems LR needs to synch all photos every time LR is updated which is really annoying. So I more or less have stopped using it.
I have seen messages in Lr Desktop where it's synching x images when it doesn't need to, but it looked like nothing was actually happening and I concluded that the message was incorrect. As for little update, I guess you've overlooked the change to rating and flagging, the presentation mode (hand your iPad to a smart teenager and know the bastard won't be able to edit your pictures), and all the related stuff in LrWeb?
To give a little example of how it can be useful, two weeks ago I was running a tethered shoot for a client here in London, but a couple of their people were stuck in Paris. In Lr6 the tethered dialog allows you to add new shots to a collection, so I chose one that I was syncing to LrMobile/LrWeb and shared it with them. They were able to see the pictures as we worked, choose ones they liked and review the adjustments I was making in response to the comments they'd entered. It would have been more fun for us to relocate to Paris, of course, but it's easy to dismiss LrMobile without appreciating what it is and how it can be used.
-
Can anyone tell me, what Terry has shown in his video?
-
That's the whole idea of a periscope, a sneak peek and then it's gone? Seriously, I'm just checking it wasn't a mistake and that I am free to say what I saw.
-
Can anyone tell me, what Terry has shown in his video?
Try this ... it was just posted to Terry's YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIJYL_AmqX0
-
Thanks, Butch. I had actually looked on Terry's site but hadn't thought of YouTube.
-
And the entire workflow is nonexistent. Download raws from card to desktop machine, wait to create smart previews, upload them to a cloud, download to your mobile device before you even start working? Give me a break. By the time this is done so you can 'edit' poolside, I've finished the work on the desktop device. Or I'll just take my vastly more powerful MacBook Pro pool side without any of the work needed just to get them into a mobile device. This is an effective use of engineering for the majority of LR users? I think not.
Exactly.
I don't know where the mindset is for planning out these new features ...
Just like they did with the Book module, they painted themselves into a corner with Lightroom Mobile and how they get Smart Previews to your mobile devices ... they MUST reside and be distributed by Adobe servers? Why bounce images thousands of miles to and fro to get images from one device to another when those devices spend the vast portion of their lifespan within relative proximity to each other? Why one of the gifted engineers or savvy product managers had to avoid a direct wifi transfer from one device to another is the most perplexing aspect I have ever pondered where it concerns Adobe decision making. Mind boggling, actually.
Under the circumstances, I find no distinct advantage to utilizing Lightroom Mobile in my daily workflow. It actually creates more work and effort than it saves. Utilizing the options I had in place for using my mobile devices as portable digital portfolios is even much more complete and efficient.
-
Looks like a weaker implementation of existing plugins. Here's one example:
http://www.kolor.com/neutralhazer/#start
Additional advancements for the landscape crowd, but little/nothing for the studio shooters.
Can we get some Live View tethering? Focus stacking? I'd like to see sharpening at various radii along the lines of this:
http://aescripts.com/fixel-detailizer/
-
As I said earlier, just the current functionality in the Print module is worth the price of admission.
Agreed. So good though, that they haven't touched it in two years!
The Library module, too is a 'pretty darn good' DAM application.
-
Additional advancements for the landscape crowd, but little/nothing for the studio shooters.
See above (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100604.msg824710#msg824710)
-
See above (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100604.msg824710#msg824710)
Dilettante stuff. :D
-
See above (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100604.msg824710#msg824710)
That's fine, John. I will investigate, it could prove useful.
None the less, I think you'd have to agree that relative to features for landscape shooters those for studio shooters fall well withing the little-to-none end of the spectrum.
-
It would have been more fun for us to relocate to Paris, of course, but it's easy to dismiss LrMobile without appreciating what it is and how it can be used.
That's awesome that Lr is capable of spanning the globe to include parties located elsewhere ... Too badd it can't reach a few feet through the ether when an internet connection is not available.
I had a job earlier this spring where we were on location where there was no internet access whatsoever. No cell signal. The closest telephone landline was over 50 miles away. Yet we had an ad hoc wifi network in use. The art director was very nearby but was not actually on several of the outdoor sets we were using.
In my case, Lightroom was just a bunch of useless ones and zeros occupying valuable storage space on my devices. So we went Old School with with an Eye-fi card and the ShutterSnitch app. The AD received constant feedback on how the shoot was progressing and could even shout out direction when we were in ear shot.
Now you may say my situation was a niche concern for Adobe ... it is a major concern for me as I have 6-8 such shoots per year under these circumstances ... but I would wager your situation of parties sprawled across the globe requiring live feedback is not that great in numbers either.
Anyway you look at it. The absence of a wifi option to dispense Smart Previews to Lightroom Mobile is a huge missing piece of the puzzle. And in intentional oversight IMHO.
-
None the less, I think you'd have to agree that relative to features for landscape shooters those for studio shooters fall well withing the little-to-none end of the spectrum.
I would agree, though I think it would be too long a haul to make it comparable with Capture One's tethered shooting solution (I love Capture Pilot). I don't see it as a landscape rather than studio tool, though the multi-user capability is another aspect that seems more for the latter group.
-
Anyway you look at it. The absence of a wifi option to dispense Smart Previews to Lightroom Mobile is a huge missing piece of the puzzle. And in intentional oversight IMHO.
I wouldn't be surprised to see direct wifi transfer introduced, probably with upload to Adobe's servers once you're connected. It would be good in more mundane situations than ours, but my reading is that getting the product established seems the higher priority, and I don't feel direct transfer is critical to that.
-
I think the team could come up with a number of useful additions to the Print Module which is today still worth the price of admission IMHO. I recall the steep pricing for ImagePrint, much of that functionality now built in LR. Adobe clearly didn't see how large a task this was going to be and just passed this off to Blurb which was a mistake. They pretty much took the opposite route that Apple did with iPhoto and Aperture by taking full control over the print process from start to finish.
If you are serious about making books or albums for clients, then Smart Albums (http://www.pixellu.com/) is a quite promising bit of software. More expensive than LR and only does one thing, but from what other users have said and the short time I played with it, it is a fantastic time saver so ideal for certain businesses. And not limited to Blurb either.
They are also very good at listening to what the customer wants and handling customer issues. I keep up with them on FB, as I may need their software if my business moves into album production and am impressed by their attitude.
-
That's awesome that Lr is capable of spanning the globe to include parties located elsewhere ... Too badd it can't reach a few feet through the ether when an internet connection is not available.
I had a job earlier this spring where we were on location where there was no internet access whatsoever. No cell signal. The closest telephone landline was over 50 miles away. Yet we had an ad hoc wifi network in use. The art director was very nearby but was not actually on several of the outdoor sets we were using.
In my case, Lightroom was just a bunch of useless ones and zeros occupying valuable storage space on my devices. So we went Old School with with an Eye-fi card and the ShutterSnitch app. The AD received constant feedback on how the shoot was progressing and could even shout out direction when we were in ear shot.
Now you may say my situation was a niche concern for Adobe ... it is a major concern for me as I have 6-8 such shoots per year under these circumstances ... but I would wager your situation of parties sprawled across the globe requiring live feedback is not that great in numbers either.
Anyway you look at it. The absence of a wifi option to dispense Smart Previews to Lightroom Mobile is a huge missing piece of the puzzle. And in intentional oversight IMHO.
The inability to do what you suggest is indeed baffling. And not that niche either I'd say. A very useful facility for studio type work, which is often not in a studio.
-
Yes, however the GPU support came from ACR. No other GPU support was added like e.g. for preview generation which would be a fairly obvious benefit.
Hans, I believe that you err in trying to depict a significant difference between the "development", e.g. the RAW conversion and enhancement sliders, between ACR and LR. Seems to me that all that work is done, pretty much, by one team.
-
Hans, I believe that you err in trying to depict a significant difference between the "development", e.g. the RAW conversion and enhancement sliders, between ACR and LR. Seems to me that all that work is done, pretty much, by one team.
Where do you get that impression from? All I'm saying is that the majority of enhancements in LR6 is coming from the ACR engine which is underneath LR6 and therefore is coming from the ACR team. I have no internal knowledge about how Adobe eventually shits people around between the teams. But it is fair to conclude that Lightroom as sch has been fairly at an almost standstill in terms of new functionality for years now. I would like to see this changed and this is the reason for my post.
-
knowledge about how Adobe eventually shits people around between the teams.
Freudian Slip :o
-
Freudian Slip :o
Ups ;D
-
But it is fair to conclude that Lightroom as sch has been fairly at an almost standstill in terms of new functionality for years now. I would like to see this changed and this is the reason for my post.
I wouldn't say development is at a standstill for modules other than Develop ... but it is very apparent that the decision making, attention to detail and openness of function is far different from what we see when it comes to ACR/Develop ... there is a considerable and noticeable difference in management styles that can be quite disconcerting.
-
What makes me wonder is that we discuss this topic on 5 pages and there is no statement of any member of Adobe, although many of them seem to read this forum, and I'm sure also ths thread.
-
What makes me wonder is that we discuss this topic on 5 pages and there is no statement of any member of Adobe, although many of them seem to read this forum, and I'm sure also ths thread.
While I know for a fact that Adobe people do surf the LuLa forums (I know because I got an email dinging my for what I said about the LR Team) the only Adobe person who is a regular member of LuLa is Eric Chan (MadManChan) and Eric has been pretty busy so not doing a lot of posting.
Other people from Adobe would be very, very reluctant to actually post here. People from companies end up getting a lot of grief here. I know of several people who have quit posting because of that. Can you imagine the grief Adobe would get regarding CC subscriptions vs perpetual licenses.
-
Other people from Adobe would be very, very reluctant to actually post here. People from companies end up getting a lot of grief here. I know of several people who have quit posting because of that. Can you imagine the grief Adobe would get regarding CC subscriptions vs perpetual licenses.
Ya think? Really: we're just a bunch of pussycats.
Seriously, as I'm sure you are well aware, there's a wide gulf between developers ("software engineering," or whatever we're calling it these days) and product managers (marketers, which in some circles has always been a pejorative, but they're usually the people who call the shots).
I've only dealt with Adobe as an end-user—both enterprise and, currently, personal—but my experience with many other software manufacturers is that the techies like to talk about what they are doing and the product managers prefer that the developers keep their blinkin' mouths shut. As one fairly senior software executive said to me more years ago than I prefer to admit, "the developers would give away the store if we let them" ... meaning that, because they're proud of the work they're doing, they would say more than corporate management would like. There is also a concern about "giving away futures," or revealing product plans that might or might not come to fruition.
That's where trusted intermediaries like you, Michael and Kevin (also Andrew Rodney?) can be useful. If you confine yourselves to asking questions about technical issues, I suspect even the marketing people will be comfortable with what the techies have to say.
I gather you have already interviewed Eric Chan again for your LR6 video. I hope Thomas Knoll is also willing to talk to you publicly. Please don't ask any questions about licensing arrangements. If you can get the developers to tell us a little more about what's going on "under the hood," it will be time well spent. As far as I'm concerned, the commercial arrangements are rather boring: they don't tell me anything about the best way to process my pictures.
-
Other people from Adobe would be very, very reluctant to actually post here. ... Can you imagine the grief Adobe would get regarding CC subscriptions vs perpetual licenses.
Indeed, they are rightfully reluctant as the folks who create the tech ... don't get to make the decisions about licensing and accounting policies, but would end up taking the heat for such issues.
-
People from companies end up getting a lot of grief here. I know of several people who have quit posting because of that. Can you imagine the grief Adobe would get regarding CC subscriptions vs perpetual licenses.
Adobe did have someone on LuLa specifically for that - forgot his name but he didn't hang around too long. 'Grief' ? Well the PhaseOne boys seem to handle it with grace, humour and aplomb.
-
Adobe did have someone on LuLa specifically for that - forgot his name but he didn't hang around too long. 'Grief' ? Well the PhaseOne boys seem to handle it with grace, humour and aplomb.
Yeah the guy from Adobe was trying to explain things last year but basically got run off. And the Phase One guy (David Glover I think) is a tech engineer (I think) but I've not seen him post lately. The guys from Capture Integration post but there was a thread somewhere here that launched into an attach on company individuals posting here...but in fact those guys handled very well. Not sure when the last time they posted though.
Sorry, but the anti-company nature of many posters here have driven company members away. Look in the mirror folks and ask yourself, are you part of the solution or the problem. If you want company poster back again, ya gotta behave yourselves.
-
While I know for a fact that Adobe people do surf the LuLa forums (I know because I got an email dinging my for what I said about the LR Team) the only Adobe person who is a regular member of LuLa is Eric Chan (MadManChan) and Eric has been pretty busy so not doing a lot of posting.
Other people from Adobe would be very, very reluctant to actually post here. People from companies end up getting a lot of grief here. I know of several people who have quit posting because of that. Can you imagine the grief Adobe would get regarding CC subscriptions vs perpetual licenses.
I haven't thought on Eric Chan who is software engineer when I wrote that, but more on Tom Hogarty who is to my knowledge product manager and whom I'm sure I saw here writing some time ago.
The last thing I want is to nail someone to the wall or cause more grief than he already has, but simply listen to arguments which could be mind changing because I'm sure this medal has more than two sides.
-
The last thing I want is to nail someone to the wall or cause more grief than he already has, but simply listen to arguments which could be mind changing because I'm sure this medal has more than two sides.
Well, I'll say this, Adobe product managers are no strangers to viewing the LuLa forums. But it's more about checking the pulse rather than trying to message a spin. And, that's all fine and good. But make no mistake, Adobe scours the web (all public posts, forums and blogs) to see what the "natives" are saying. And it does impact their decisions. So, making thoughtful and well articulated positions will help the cause. Making anti-Adobe type posts won't get much traction...
-
Sorry, but the anti-company nature of many posters here have driven company members away. Look in the mirror folks and ask yourself, are you part of the solution or the problem. If you want company poster back again, ya gotta behave yourselves.
There's no place for generic hate-messaging - on that I think we'd all agree. But when it comes to 'us' wanting the company poster back again, I think it's rather that they may wish to present their company in a better light given their recent, somewhat inept, PR skills.
And hiding behind your shirt tails when the CC fiasco blew up didn't put them (Adobe) in line for a bravery award. You took a lot of unwarranted shit, on their behalf, and they should have shown a modicum of gumption and crawled out from the safety of their corporate shelter.
Actions speak louder than words, but the lack of either tends to get embedded in people's subconscious for a long time.
-
... You took a lot of unwarranted shit, on their behalf, and they should have shown a modicum of gumption and crawled out from the safety of their corporate shelter.
Actions speak louder than words, but the lack of either tends to get embedded in people's subconscious for a long time.
There is some real world truth in what you say there if you take it for it's basic reference ... however ... It isn't folks like Eric Chan and Tom Hogarty that created the "PR fiasco" of late or made drastic policy changes in licensing or have the influence or power to rectify any of these concerns ... those that we can credit/blame for those decisions I think are at least a few rungs up on the totem pole at Adobe and really never ventured forth in the past on to participate in public forums ... other than possibly lurking.
It's a bit unfair the consider those few Adobe employees that have participated here in the past are guilty of cowardice under fire ... they didn't design the battle plan nor should they take the blame for or defend the actions of others over which they have no control.
It was the upper management of executives and accountants that created the firestorm ... not those with whom we may be familiar that share the tech side of things here in the past. Yet it would be those we know to have any affiliation with Adobe would definitely draw the ire from users ... not those who were truly responsible.
-
Are the Adobe management really such sensitive flowers that they cannot respond in an articulate manner to the myriad of people complaining about the recent difficulty in obtaining a permanent Lightroom licence? If they think that people are abusing their company they should say so (justifying their position, obviously), but there is a real problem with the way that they are currently trying to railroad people into taking out a subscription. I would love to hear what they have to say on this matter.
-
Are the Adobe management really such sensitive flowers that they cannot respond in an articulate manner to the myriad of people complaining about the recent difficulty in obtaining a permanent Lightroom licence?
Why should the respond, what would they gain? I'd like my HBO subscription to be half of what it is, I'd like my Verizion bill to be lower. Heck, I'd like the cost of gas to be 50 cents like when I was just learning to drive. I should write to each company along with each gas company and complain and have them explain to me, justify the cost?
If they think that people are abusing their company they should say so (justifying their position, obviously), but there is a real problem with the way that they are currently trying to railroad people into taking out a subscription. I would love to hear what they have to say on this matter.
Railroad? Who at Adobe is holding a gun to your head to subscribe.
If you don't like the subscription model, don't subscribe.
-
What I am saying is that if you wanted to buy a permanent licence for a new version of Lightroom, all you had to do was click Help, Updates. In the days when there was no CC version, this would allow you to buy a permanent licence for the new version. Now you are not shown that option - all you see is an invitation to join CC. That is what I mean by railroading. On Adobe.com, if you go to the Lightroom pages and click on the Buy button, you are taken to a page which tries to sign you up for CC. More disingenuous railroading.
What I am complaining about is that although it is still possible to buy a permanent licence, it is only by going through a non-intuitive series of menus that it is possible to do so. The permanent licence should be offered on an equal playing field with the CC version.
-
What I am saying is that if you wanted to buy a permanent licence for a new version of Lightroom, all you had to do was click Help, Updates.
Thanks for clarifying that. I think railroad is too strong a term but I do agree that Adobe did a very, very poor job of making the upgrades or perpetual license discoverable. They did a pretty poor job beta testing the product too. This seems to be the buggiest version since it's introduction.
-
Why should the respond, what would they gain? I'd like my HBO subscription to be half of what it is, I'd like my Verizion bill to be lower. Heck, I'd like the cost of gas to be 50 cents like when I was just learning to drive. I should write to each company along with each gas company and complain and have them explain to me, justify the cost?
You are not comparing like with like. Those are services with ongoing consumption of the product. LR, PS etc, once bought will continue to work on your computer as long as it works. And most probably a couple after that. Most items bought via monthly payments end up being yours after a while and if that was the case with Adobe products, I doubt there would have been so much fuss. Long term however, paying for CC costs more than buying CS and upgrading each cycle. Also I would like to be able to subscribe to a few CC products as opposed to just one or all of them. PS+ LR are I think good value, adding say just Premiere on it's own costs twice as much again, not such good value. May as well buy FCPX outright.
Railroad? Who at Adobe is holding a gun to your head to subscribe.
If you don't like the subscription model, don't subscribe.
Plenty of people would happily buy the products, but cannot as subscription is the only option. CC in UK costs $850 a year.
Out of curiosity I tried purchasing the full CC as it's still on offer to CS owners. Really difficult to do so as I have the photography plan and that confuses website.
-
Long term however, paying for CC costs more than buying CS and upgrading each cycle.
It does? I've seen the math presented where it's just the opposite. Of course we can argue about the length of the cycles.
Seems this is all water under the bridge. Maybe not yet with LR but certainly with Photoshop.
-
It does? I've seen the math presented where it's just the opposite. Of course we can argue about the length of the cycles.
Seems this is all water under the bridge. Maybe not yet with LR but certainly with Photoshop.
Someone did the maths on here for his business buying CC. Made a big and considerably negative impact on his bottom line for his design studio.
Don't forget that the photography bundle is much cheaper than all other options and only came out after a lot of negative press towards Adobe.
If Premiere + Prelude or Speedgrade for example was the same price, I'd add it. But at twice the price the PS+LR bundle is for just Premiere, I'll keep using my CS version. Don't use the rest of the suite very much anymore, so paying full whack for 14 or so programmes I won't use is a waste of money.
-
This seems to be the buggiest version since it's introduction.
A bit harsh ?
From what I've read most of the new features don't work as well as they should (no surprise really). When they work, great, when they don't, just carry on and don't worry.
There's no major bugs that cause crashes and/or destroy work and that's really important.
-
A bit harsh ?
From what I've read most of the new features don't work as well as they should (no surprise really). When they work, great, when they don't, just carry on and don't worry.
There's no major bugs that cause crashes and/or destroy work and that's really important.
Unlike Apple Photos and the Leica MM (http://petapixel.com/2015/05/23/leica-use-lightroom-until-apple-photos-is-cured-of-the-monochrom-dng-bug/).
-
A bit harsh ?
From what I've read most of the new features don't work as well as they should (no surprise really).
Not on this end. GPU support was slower, previews in Develop inaccurate and I'm seeing RGB values reported differently between LR5 and LR6. The later bug is really kind of a show stopper.
Face detection didn't do a great job, finding stuff that wasn't close to human, I can't rescan a folder. Very messy.
-
There's no major bugs that cause crashes and/or destroy work and that's really important.
Hasn't happened to me, but crashing has been reported often on the UtoU forum.
-
Regrettably the answer to the question is Lightroom Moblie.
Which is a complete waste of time and is a very long way from being used by "professional" photographers. (Professional = 100% of income from Photography)
I Photoshop world last year I went to a round table meeting that was supposed to be about Lightroom, During the talks all the people at the table wanted to talk about things they could use in Lightroom. The Adobe people kept turning the talking back to Lightroom Moblie, which had just been annouced. We gave them some feedback, but none of the ideas and case uses we talked about have yet to be implemented.
Because of the lack of advancement in Lightroom 5 and 6/CC, I have started looking back into the other converters light Capture One. I am heavily invested in Lightroom in time and money. I develop my own plugins from Lightroom and it would take a lot of work to switch. It has been a long time since I though Lr was heading in the right direction, version 3.
The only new feature useful to me is the ablity to paint back out the gradiant and radial filters, but ACR has had that feature for months!
I have been waiting years for Adobe to expand the database functionallty of Lightroom. I would pay thousands for a network server version!
When I go to a job I shoot multi gigabytes of images, I need a way to manage them. I don't need more consumer features to edit iphone images, like Lightroom mobile!
-
IMHO, Adobe is trying to make LR good for everything but as a result it is not the best for anything.
-
Regrettably the answer to the question is Lightroom Moblie.
Which is a complete waste of time and is a very long way from being used by "professional" photographers. (Professional = 100% of income from Photography)
I Photoshop world last year I went to a round table meeting that was supposed to be about Lightroom, During the talks all the people at the table wanted to talk about things they could use in Lightroom. The Adobe people kept turning the talking back to Lightroom Moblie, which had just been annouced. We gave them some feedback, but none of the ideas and case uses we talked about have yet to be implemented.
Because of the lack of advancement in Lightroom 5 and 6/CC, I have started looking back into the other converters light Capture One. I am heavily invested in Lightroom in time and money. I develop my own plugins from Lightroom and it would take a lot of work to switch. It has been a long time since I though Lr was heading in the right direction, version 3.
The only new feature useful to me is the ablity to paint back out the gradiant and radial filters, but ACR has had that feature for months!
I have been waiting years for Adobe to expand the database functionallty of Lightroom. I would pay thousands for a network server version!
When I go to a job I shoot multi gigabytes of images, I need a way to manage them. I don't need more consumer features to edit iphone images, like Lightroom mobile!
If I was Adobe, I would look at my customer market. How big do you think the market is for your type of application versus the consumer base that is going mobile everything? If I was running LR...I'd go towards where the money is.
I personally don't need the functionality you described...I'd call it a waste of Adobe resource, very much like you are calling LR mobile. Everyone has different perspectives and needs. If a product does not meet your needs, look at other products.
-
If a product does not meet your needs, look at other products.
Typical answer from you. You always seem long on advice, but extremely short on viable solutions.
I can't speak for any other user except myself. After nearly a quarter century of investing in Adobe software solutions ... my choces are to either accept the status quo without question ... or ... move on to other options?
Is that how a product grows or evolves to become a better solution for the userbase as a whole?
Whiile I am reluctant to make a move to another solution, I would do so in a heatbeat if another viable option would become available... but how does playing musical chairs with my workflow benefit Adobe?
It always seems your phisophy and advice to your fellow users is to accept whatever is offered without question, or shut up and move on. Do you not see the the fatal flaw in that perspective?
I would rather think Adobe actually values my opinion on certain matters ... and if they want to "go where the money is" they should pay a little closer attention to exactly where I am willing to invest that cash as I may be in what you consider a minority on some issues, I am not part of an insignificant group that Adobe can afford to shun our concerns out of hand ... as you would think they should do. That would result in a considerable sum of cash left on the table that could be part of their bottom line.
Too bad you don't think that sum is worthy of their consideration.
-
I can't speak for any other user except myself. After nearly a quarter century of investing in Adobe software solutions ... my choces are to either accept the status quo without question ... or ... move on to other options?
A major reason Adobe has been able to go down the subscription route, is the lack of viable professional alternatives to some key products. Or products that are anywhere near as good.
The video editing area has some good alternatives, but even then After Effects often tends to get used with them.
-
That's awesome that Lr is capable of spanning the globe to include parties located elsewhere ... Too badd it can't reach a few feet through the ether when an internet connection is not available.
I had a job earlier this spring where we were on location where there was no internet access whatsoever. No cell signal. The closest telephone landline was over 50 miles away. Yet we had an ad hoc wifi network in use. The art director was very nearby but was not actually on several of the outdoor sets we were using.
In my case, Lightroom was just a bunch of useless ones and zeros occupying valuable storage space on my devices. So we went Old School with with an Eye-fi card and the ShutterSnitch app. The AD received constant feedback on how the shoot was progressing and could even shout out direction when we were in ear shot.
Now you may say my situation was a niche concern for Adobe ... it is a major concern for me as I have 6-8 such shoots per year under these circumstances ... but I would wager your situation of parties sprawled across the globe requiring live feedback is not that great in numbers either.
Anyway you look at it. The absence of a wifi option to dispense Smart Previews to Lightroom Mobile is a huge missing piece of the puzzle. And in intentional oversight IMHO.
+1 to that. LR mobile would so much more useful if it could be useful offline. As it is LR mobile needs a fast internet connection as it sends and receives a lot of data for each image viewed and edited. Kind of defeats the purpose. A phone editing app which works offline together with a WD Passport Wireless with inbuilt card reader makes a feasible alternative to a laptop when one must travel light.
-
I really don't want to be negative towards the Adobe teams working on the photography related products Lightroom and Photoshop, but given the comment in another thread that the HDR and Pano functions were developed by the Adobe Camera Raw team and given that I see only small enhancements besides this in Lightroom 6, I'm asking: What has the Adobe Lightroom team been doing for the last 2 years? I do know that use of GPU's were implemented but I assume that this is also the case in ACR and likely the ACR team has done the work.
This leads me to the thought that Lightroom as a licensed product should be discontinued in order to allow Adobe to do the logical merge of Lightroom and ACR into a single module that is used from both Lightroom and Photoshop and to get rid of the arcane UI of ACR and therefore allow a tighter integration between Lightroom and Photoshop.
The basic message is that I'm disappointed that there were not more new features in Lightroom 6. Lightroom 5 was even rather light on new features.
One "small" thing about both HDR and Pano in LR6 is that there is not even information about which pictures went into a merge, so basically both HDR and Pano were slammed onto LR6 without considering integrity features like the above.
I have added the compare list of features between LR5 and LR6 and LRCC. Not much in LR6 and most of the list for LRCC compared to LR5 was in LR5 with CC subscription.
Sorry Adobe, I'm not impressed ;)
I agree Hans. LR, after a very promising start stalled around LR4 IMO. Your point that LR CC, LR6 and ARC all overlap and merging these 3 code bases would be far more efficient is of course correct. Provided there is strong competition in the market from C1 et al, at least some of these efficiencies should come back to us as customers rather than to the management and shareholders. It should come back to us as lower prices or better product.
But this is where things break down. Adobe convinced us that subscription would be a better model as it would allow them to stop piracy and we could all share the benefits. Like many I bought into this as the pricing was set at around the same level as I was spending in the long run on license upgrades of LR and PS. The promise was we would benefit through a better product. It is clear this promise has not been kept. For me LR CC current release is unusable due to it crashing every time I open a video file. LR Mobile which I rather like conceptually has very limited use in practice. The rate of progress is slower than it was on the perpetual license model. I will probably stop my subscription and revert to my old licenses until Adobe can get LR CC stable.
I know you like me and many others on this board have had long careers in business, engineering and software. In Adobe we recognize a company that is approaching a point so many successful technology companies arrive at. Where they become a more relevant or exciting to investors than customers. I for one hope they can get their mojo back as they have given us some great products over the years.
-
+1 to that. LR mobile would so much more useful if it could be useful offline. As it is LR mobile needs a fast internet connection as it sends and receives a lot of data for each image viewed and edited. Kind of defeats the purpose. A phone editing app which works offline together with a WD Passport Wireless with inbuilt card reader makes a feasible alternative to a laptop when one must travel light.
If that were its purpose. Though one day I expect it will take that role, it's just not intended to be a laptop alternative but more for other workflows that are already viable because of fast connections and hardware that's already up to the job. It's also pretty lame to dismiss it above (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=100604.msg825364#msg825364) as "consumer features to edit iphone images, like Lightroom mobile!" - working photographers do capture valuable photos on iPhones, and you can use LrMobile to show and tweak panoramas stitched from 16 38 megapixel originals too.
When LR was first launched, I also expected it would have a multi-user and networked capability after 2-3 versions, with a 4 figure price tag for the server version. Would they sell enough? Questionable, unless they did things like opening up the catalogue to other file types and competed with the bottom end of enterprise DAM, and only if enough small studios had the skills to run something like SQL Server or Oracle as the back end. But the world has moved on from that kind of solution, and it's gone online. The other day I gave an example of using LrMobile and LrWeb for one professional workflow involving multi-user capability (tethered studio work where some viewers were in another location), and nowadays a network server version isn't the only way to meet these teams' needs. It's worth thinking more imaginatively about the architecture behind LrMobile and LrWeb, what kind of data is passed to Adobe's servers, and where Adobe might go with their API. As in my tethering example, you've currently got multi-user ability to review, rate and flag, while Adobe's Creative SDK already allows app developers to access LrMobile data (if you can see past the consumer-oriented branding, look at Storehouse (https://www.storehouse.co/) and particularly at Snapwire (https://www.snapwi.re/subscriptions) which can make adjustments). So the foundations for multi-user capability are now in place, just not the old networked way. Is there a viable market for it though?
-
When LR was first launched, I also expected it would have a multi-user and networked capability after 2-3 versions, with a 4 figure price tag for the server version. Would they sell enough? Questionable, unless they did things like opening up the catalogue to other file types and competed with the bottom end of enterprise DAM, and only if enough small studios had the skills to run something like SQL Server or Oracle as the back end. But the world has moved on from that kind of solution, and it's gone online. The other day I gave an example of using LrMobile and LrWeb for one professional workflow involving multi-user capability (tethered studio work where some viewers were in another location), and nowadays a network server version isn't the only way to meet these teams' needs. It's worth thinking more imaginatively about the architecture behind LrMobile and LrWeb, what kind of data is passed to Adobe's servers, and where Adobe might go with their API. As in my tethering example, you've currently got multi-user ability to review, rate and flag, while Adobe's Creative SDK already allows app developers to access LrMobile data (if you can see past the consumer-oriented branding, look at Storehouse (https://www.storehouse.co/) and particularly at Snapwire (https://www.snapwi.re/subscriptions) which can make adjustments). So the foundations for multi-user capability are now in place, just not the old networked way. Is there a viable market for it though?
Implementing a multiuser environment should not be that complex and doesn't have to cost 4 figure price. You have free databases such as mysql and postgreSQL (an outstanding database) which can be setup even on a laptop. One thing is to have remote viewers or limited edition capability on a mobile device and another is to have a team concurrently editing different images (e.g a collaborative team where one user is importing images, another is selecting and creating collections, another user is editing and so on). I still don't see online as a viable option for handling large files unless you have gigabyte speed acces to the Internet (possible but expensive).
-
Implementing a multiuser environment should not be that complex and doesn't have to cost 4 figure price. You have free databases such as mysql and postgreSQL (an outstanding database) which can be setup even on a laptop. One thing is to have remote viewers or limited edition capability on a mobile device and another is to have a team concurrently editing different images (e.g a collaborative team where one user is importing images, another is selecting and creating collections, another user is editing and so on). I still don't see online as a viable option for handling large files unless you have gigabyte speed acces to the Internet (possible but expensive).
Pricing isn't simply driven by whether the database is free. Go into multi-user DAM, even at the small studio end, and you're competing with products with 4 figure prices because that's what the market bears. Also, once you're in that area, you very quickly get into complex multi-user workflows (eg work allocation, review processes) and you're not going to get much volume unless you address issues such as enterprise customers' existing use of databases like SQLServer and Oracle, and also the move towards off-site working.
-
Typical answer from you. You always seem long on advice, but extremely short on viable solutions.
I can't speak for any other user except myself. After nearly a quarter century of investing in Adobe software solutions ... my choces are to either accept the status quo without question ... or ... move on to other options?
Is that how a product grows or evolves to become a better solution for the userbase as a whole?
Whiile I am reluctant to make a move to another solution, I would do so in a heatbeat if another viable option would become available... but how does playing musical chairs with my workflow benefit Adobe?
It always seems your phisophy and advice to your fellow users is to accept whatever is offered without question, or shut up and move on. Do you not see the the fatal flaw in that perspective?
I would rather think Adobe actually values my opinion on certain matters ... and if they want to "go where the money is" they should pay a little closer attention to exactly where I am willing to invest that cash as I may be in what you consider a minority on some issues, I am not part of an insignificant group that Adobe can afford to shun our concerns out of hand ... as you would think they should do. That would result in a considerable sum of cash left on the table that could be part of their bottom line.
Too bad you don't think that sum is worthy of their consideration.
Butch, rather than quoting a snippet, I'd appreciate it if you would provide the full context. I was describing a niche usage of LR and in reality the vast majority of it's users don't need that functionality so I suggested if your workflow relies on this missing functionality, maybe they should look at other products that might provide it.
I'm also making the point that LR is NOT just targeted at professionals, but rather at the hugely much larger amateur market that is expanding. If you were managing LR, where would you aim your sites, at a small niche market or the vastly huge consumer market. I know exactly why resources are being used to focus onto the mobile platform...that is where the future revenue will come from. I manage products for a living. This would be a no brainer decision.
-
I know exactly why resources are being used to focus onto the mobile platform...that is where the future revenue will come from. I manage products for a living. This would be a no brainer decision.
I know it is never in good taste or a wise decision to engage in a discussion with a self-proclaimed anonymous expert on the internet ... but I think you are missing the mark on two major points.
1. Recent sales over the past year of DSLR (and other RAW capable cameras) are declining ... not growing.
2. PC sales (the integral unit for a Lr Mobile environ) have been in decline for much longer.
I was describing a niche usage of LR and in reality the vast majority of it's users don't need that functionality so I suggested if your workflow relies on this missing functionality, maybe they should look at other products that might provide it.
Wouldn't this advice also hold true for those folks who would like to see more mobile features in Lr. Shouldn't they look elsewhere to fulfill their needs? Why must Adobe ignore their traditional customer base in order to court a potential new group of customers who have no history of customer loyalty? Why must it be a zero sum game, an all or nothing approach?
I'm also making the point that LR is NOT just targeted at professionals, but rather at the hugely much larger amateur market that is expanding. If you were managing LR, where would you aim your sites, at a small niche market or the vastly huge consumer market.
If that is your assessment, you are basing it upon statistics from the distant past, not the recent facts or the projections of the near future. So I'll expand on my earlier points.
In the past year or more, Canon and Nikon (as well as the industry as a whole) have seen significant drop in unit sales of cameras capable of capturing and recording RAW format images. The number of new users, amateur or otherwise seems to have peaked or are actually starting to decline. We are quickly reaching a point of market saturation and maturation of mid and top tier cameras. The technical improvements are not as huge relegating previous models obsolete upon introduction of the latest and greatest.
If you are referring to the amateur jpeg shooting crowd, there are already a myriad of much more cost effective options already on the market. In fact several are free and don't require the burden of a PC to create Smart Previews to bounce off a server thousands of miles away just to get an image from your smartphone to your tablet.
Now, add to that equation that desktop and laptop sales have faltered for nearly a decade now. HP is holding steady while all the other top computer makers are showing declining units sales YOY except for Apple which has shown steady growth over the same period in unit sales of desktop and laptop models.
I fully admit I don't "manage products" ... I've just been a self employed business man in the photography field full time since 1975. I've learned a few things about the business world and where to seek out information on trends as well over the years. When it comes to Lightroom ... I'm just one of them there consumers you keep referring to and you like to point out my concerns are "niche" and the money in my pockets, after supporting Adobe for over 23 years, is of less importance to the bean counters in San Jose than that of potential new users? While I can relate to the aspirations of attracting new customers to the fold, turning your back on the tried and true loyal customers with decades of historical record of offering financial support to the cause is a recipe for failure for any business, larger or small.
-
In the past year or more, Canon and Nikon (as well as the industry as a whole) have seen significant drop in unit sales of cameras capable of capturing and recording RAW format images. The number of new users, amateur or otherwise seems to have peaked or are actually starting to decline. We are quickly reaching a point of market saturation and maturation of mid and top tier cameras. The technical improvements are not as huge relegating previous models obsolete upon introduction of the latest and greatest.
I think people are holding on to their cameras now much longer and at least this is what I'm seeing. I don't believe that the drop in sales of new cameras correlates that well with the number of users of Lightroom (and equivalent products).
-
I think people are holding on to their cameras now much longer and at least this is what I'm seeing. I don't believe that the drop in sales of new cameras correlates that well with the number of users of Lightroom (and equivalent products).
No, it has little to no impact on current number of users of Lightroom ... but it does directly correlate with the assertion of a "expanding amateur market" ...
The most recent market projections are not indicating continued growth in the advanced amateur RAW shooting sector.
-
No, it has little to no impact on current number of users of Lightroom ... but it does directly correlate with the assertion of a "expanding amateur market" ...
But that is also the segment with many alternatives, like Google's 'Auto Awesome' which automatically makes combinations, animations, movies,and improvements and variation of one's photos. Not necessarily an audience for Lightroom mobile.
Cheers,
Bart
-
One way of assessing the continued utility of Lightroom is in terms of the final product, the use of the image. Yes, there will be a number who use it to generate prints, but I cannot imagine that they are growing as fast as those that generate ephemeral images to share over social media or directly with friends and family.
It is, however, interesting that Google has just decoupled Photos from its social media platform, presumably because the sharing pictures over social media space is fully occupied by Facebook and Flickr, Instagram, et al. In Google's assessment there is a place for an online archiving and limited sharing service, perhaps sharing directly from whatever device you have with you. Apple would appear to have made a similar assessment.
Lightroom's is great for producing images for your own satisfaction, or for wedding photographers, for example, but, like the major DSLR makers, Adobe has not cracked making it easy to archive in the cloud, or share via the device that you have on you or selectively, never mind via social media. Yes, you can sort of do it with Mobile, but it requires too much pre-planning and it is very slow.
If you never needed to print, would you use Lightroom, or would you use Snapseed and Google Photos?
Yes, if you need that last ounce of quality, Lightroom provides a good raw converter. But it's like "is having the sharpest lens the key determinant of picture quality?". Answer is "no" because, although a certain basic level of sharpness is desirable, it is not sharpness that generates the emotional reaction to your image (unless you overdo it in post). But it is also not just image content that generates emotional reaction, it is also immediacy. Lightroom has some way to go before it can help you there.
-
I think people are holding on to their cameras now much longer and at least this is what I'm seeing. I don't believe that the drop in sales of new cameras correlates that well with the number of users of Lightroom (and equivalent products).
In fact compared to say 10 years ago, I'd say there is at least a 10 fold increase in amateur photographers. Sure we've seen a decrease double digit growth, but to say Adobe's market is shrinking is pretty naive.
As far as feeding the crowd that got Adobe where they are today...they have that crowd already as Butch attested to. If Adobe is to expand, they need to focus on new customer basis...and that new base is the current mobile everything crowd.
Butch, you don't manage products so this might be new to you...but just like in photography, as the market changes, so should the photographer. Why should this be any different for Adobe. Everything is going mobile and Adobe is heading that direction as well.
And I for one don't use mobile LR...don't see a need, but that does not mean I don't see a growing need for the general population.
-
And I for one don't use mobile LR... ... but that does not mean I don't see a growing need for the general population.
There is a growing need for having your pictures with you everywhere. The trouble is that Lightroom Mobile seems to be targeted at those that that shoot tethered sharing a few pre-determinable pictures as they shoot; it does not meet the needs of the population to which you refer in a practical way. I have just managed to upload 800 pictures from my Ipad to my Desktop using Lightroom Mobile. It took over a month.
-
There is a growing need for having your pictures with you everywhere. The trouble is that Lightroom Mobile seems to be targeted at those that that shoot tethered sharing a few pre-determinable pictures as they shoot; it does not meet the needs of the population to which you refer in a practical way. I have just managed to upload 800 pictures from my Ipad to my Desktop using Lightroom Mobile. It took over a month.
I would think it's just the initial steps into the mobile platform. I suspect we'll see more in the coming years.
-
There is a growing need for having your pictures with you everywhere. The trouble is that Lightroom Mobile seems to be targeted at those that that shoot tethered sharing a few pre-determinable pictures as they shoot; it does not meet the needs of the population to which you refer in a practical way. I have just managed to upload 800 pictures from my Ipad to my Desktop using Lightroom Mobile. It took over a month.
Depends on your internet speeds. I estimate that would take 2-3 hours, and I routinely upload around that number without thinking much about it.
It is certainly not targeted at those that shoot tethered. Don't be misled by the example I gave earlier - that was more a case of my noticing a small , thoughtful detail and taking advantage of it.
-
Depends on your internet speeds. I estimate that would take 2-3 hours, and I routinely upload around that number without thinking much about it.
Maybe you Americans are uniquely favoured by Adobe, but a 20Mbit up / 70Mbit down speed internet is about as good as you can get as a consumer here in Blighty.
-
Maybe you Americans are uniquely favoured by Adobe, but a 20Mbit up / 70Mbit down speed internet is about as good as you can get as a consumer here in Blighty.
Who are you calling an American? :)
-
Maybe you Americans are uniquely favoured by Adobe, but a 20Mbit up / 70Mbit down speed internet is about as good as you can get as a consumer here in Blighty.
I think you will find that John is here in the UK...
Anthony.
Ah, John I were typing at the same time... :D
-
Who are you calling an American? :)
I sit corrected. :-[
Now all I need to find out is how you get such good performance.
-
Butch, you don't manage products so this might be new to you...
chez ... your opinions never bother me ... but your veiled intellectual superiority drives me crazy.
Why do you so easily assume I have either no business acumen or am too ignorant to understand your premise?
No, I am not a bona fide "product manager" in the sense of it's reference to a software application development situation. You may think I have a lack of know-how or experience in the business world. I think you may be assuming too much. So please spare me your claim of intellectual superiority.
I have successfully managed the "product" I have been delivering my clients for over 40 years. I have done so by serving multiple generations of clients both personal and corporate. Including employing a full time staff of three employees as well as a number of part time and contract assistants as needed ... never once missing payroll. You don't accomplish that by ignoring the world around you. In that time frame my management skills were successful enough to support a family of five, pay off two mortgages ahead of schedule (one for my home, one for my studio.) send three kids to college without using grants or loans, two of them onto grad school, pay for three weddings and make substantial contributions to the college fund for my three grandchildren (so far) ... Of course this pales in comparison of a multi-billion dollar corporation, but it certainly entitles me to some credit for business acumen considering I was the sole decision maker for my business these past four decades. You were conspicuous by your absence when I was inclined to consider such sage advice. I wasn't able to achieve all of that by ignoring market trends or refusing to evolve in an ever-changing market.
I'm merely pointing out, that based upon the recent market indicators, if your assertion is correct, Adobe may not be preparing as wisely as you perceive they are. That my friend, may be new to you.
-
What is the job description of a product manager? What are they accountable for? How much authority do they have?
-
chez ... your opinions never bother me ... but your veiled intellectual superiority drives me crazy.
Why do you so easily assume I have either no business acumen or am too ignorant to understand your premise?
No, I am not a bona fide "product manager" in the sense of it's reference to a software application development situation. You may think I have a lack of know-how or experience in the business world. I think you may be assuming too much. So please spare me your claim of intellectual superiority.
I have successfully managed the "product" I have been delivering my clients for over 40 years. I have done so by serving multiple generations of clients both personal and corporate. Including employing a full time staff of three employees as well as a number of part time and contract assistants as needed ... never once missing payroll. You don't accomplish that by ignoring the world around you. In that time frame my management skills were successful enough to support a family of five, pay off two mortgages ahead of schedule (one for my home, one for my studio.) send three kids to college without using grants or loans, two of them onto grad school, pay for three weddings and make substantial contributions to the college fund for my three grandchildren (so far) ... Of course this pales in comparison of a multi-billion dollar corporation, but it certainly entitles me to some credit for business acumen considering I was the sole decision maker for my business these past four decades. You were conspicuous by your absence when I was inclined to consider such sage advice. I wasn't able to achieve all of that by ignoring market trends or refusing to evolve in an ever-changing market.
I'm merely pointing out, that based upon the recent market indicators, if your assertion is correct, Adobe may not be preparing as wisely as you perceive they are. That my friend, may be new to you.
I guess you must know more about Adobe's business than Adobe. At least with your 40 years of experience...maybe you can consult to Adobe ???
Do you really think the Professional photographer market is the expanding market here....really. That is where you would put your resources at if you were managing LR? That would be your solution for revenue growth?
I can see why you are not a product manager. Of all facets of photography, the professional photography segments is the one in the most decline. The consumer segment has expanded 10 fold since digital while the professional segment has shrunk.
Now again, where would you direct the LR resources?
-
What is the job description of a product manager? What are they accountable for? How much authority do they have?
My overall responsibility is profitability and revenue growth of the products I look after. I have complete authority at driving the directions and establishing functionality. I get resources ( $$$ and people ) based on my revenue projections.
If I were running LR, I'd focus onto the consumer market. Professionals are already wrapped up...like Butch said where else can he go, and it's a shrinking market.
-
If I was running LR, I'd focus onto the consumer market. Professionals are already wrapped up...like Butch said where else can he go, and it's a shrinking market.
The other factor is, of course, the competition. There is little competition to Adobe in the professional market, apart from the likes of C1. In the consumer market you are competing with Apple and Google and a range of baggage-free startups such as Mylio. You (Adobe) have little experience in the consumer market. Adobe Elements is still for very keen amateurs who are prepared to take the time. Professionals, really.
So you could stick to your knitting, or you could try to take on the big boys / girls. If I were product manager, I'd go for the pros and try to make their experience as good as the consumer experience. Since neither of us in that position, we'll just have to see how well the Adobe product manager manages.
-
I guess you must know more about Adobe's business than Adobe. At least with your 40 years of experience...maybe you can consult to Adobe ???
You see this is where we always end up ... you read into a conversation that which does not exist.
I never said I knew more than Adobe when it comes to their business. I merely pointed out that current data points disputed your claim that the amateur market as it would pertain to Lightroom is not as likely to expand at anywhere near the growth rate of the past decade.
Do you really think the Professional photographer market is the expanding market here....really. That is where you would put your resources at if you were managing LR? That would be your solution for revenue growth?
Please point out where I ever stated that I thought the pro photographer market was expanding? Go ahead. I'll wait.
Now that you have exhausted all your valuable time in search of that which does not exist ... you may recall what I actually offered was why future development must be a zero sum game? A point which you ignored.
I can see why you are not a product manager.
Clearly stated as much from the beginning. But how do you arrive at the assumption that your product management skills are so different from mine? Do I not face the same tasks and must contemplate future possibilities in the market and choose wisely on how to succeed in achieving a goal by properly conducting research, seeking tools and making wise investments in time and capital? Or do you "product managers" possess some mystical ether that only super humans like yourself are worthy of utilizing and we mere mortals should never aspire to such lofty stature?
The consumer segment has expanded 10 fold since digital while the professional segment has shrunk.
Yes ... that is true for the past decade ... could you please point to empirical data that shows the same rate of growth for the coming decade? I'm not seeing it in my research ... it's showing a probable leveling off with some projections of decline ... keeping in mind my earlier point of establishing the criteria of cameras and users taking advantage of RAW processing ... can't see the likelihood of many jpeg shooters in need of Lightroom.
Now again, where would you direct the LR resources?
First, I never said I knew better than Adobe ... I only disputed your assertion about the expanding amateur market based upon recent data. Secondly I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket. I would finish what I started before venturing forth on new development. Even amateur consumers are not fond of incomplete and hamstrung software and are unlikely to stick around long if that mindset prevails for continued development.
-
Everything is going mobile and Adobe is heading that direction as well.
I don't believe that "everything is going mobile". If that was the case, HPC manufacturers should stop building large computing farms and rather focus on cell phone (apps).
Clearly, cell phones have become a lot more relevant to the average consumer, and PCs have become somewhat less relevant. That is not to say that the same must happen for niches like photographers or graphical artists, or that the trend will extrapolate forever.
-h
-
I don't believe that "everything is going mobile". If that was the case, HPC manufacturers should stop building large computing farms and rather focus on cell phone (apps).
Clearly, cell phones have become a lot more relevant to the average consumer, and PCs have become somewhat less relevant. That is not to say that the same must happen for niches like photographers or graphical artists, or that the trend will extrapolate forever.
-h
Clearly the Internet or some form of it has vastly surpassed any other form for sharing and displaying images taken by cameras. Clearly the majority of those images on the Internet are viewed through a mobile device. PC's are quickly fading as a means to view images.
You nailed it when you said professional photographers are niche markets, one that is shrinking as many consumers have their own cameras. That is precisely why LR is focusing on the mobile platform...it is the means for displaying images going forward.
-
You nailed it when you said professional photographers are niche markets, one that is shrinking as many consumers have their own cameras. That is precisely why LR is focusing on the mobile platform...it is the means for displaying images going forward.
Clearly, if that is indeed the case ... Adobe has adopted a very convoluted and complex means of getting those consumer images to their mobile devices. Currently it is a "go around the block to get across the street" methodology ... Once again, I'd like to point out ... if the Lightroom Team is pursuing the amateur consumer market, that market segment expects, if not demands, simplicity not complexity.
I have a portfolio app that I paid $1.99 to use with my original iPad five years ago ... as far as getting images from my Lr library to my current iPads and iPhones ... it's a pure piece of cake using that solution compared to Lr Mobile ... and I can do it over my private WiFi ... no Adobe servers involved. I really fail to see average consumers (even those that have their own camera) embracing a subscription fee only to be encumbered by a complicated system to do what should be extremely easy.
The amateur consumer market is flush with very viable, cost effective (as in entirely free) options. I would think in many ways, Adobe is late to the party if it is their desire to attend.
-
Clearly, if that is indeed the case ... Adobe has adopted a very convoluted and complex means of getting those consumer images to their mobile devices. Currently it is a "go around the block to get across the street" methodology ... Once again, I'd like to point out ... if the Lightroom Team is pursuing the amateur consumer market, that market segment expects, if not demands, simplicity not complexity.
I have a portfolio app that I paid $1.99 to use with my original iPad five years ago ... as far as getting images from my Lr library to my current iPads and iPhones ... it's a pure piece of cake using that solution compared to Lr Mobile ... and I can do it over my private WiFi ... no Adobe servers involved. I really fail to see average consumers (even those that have their own camera) embracing a subscription fee only to be encumbered by a complicated system to do what should be extremely easy.
The amateur consumer market is flush with very viable, cost effective (as in entirely free) options. I would think in many ways, Adobe is late to the party if it is their desire to attend.
Give them time. This is just the 1st incarnation...I'm sure we'll see much more mobile aware features from LR and other products. Companies that don't embrace this will be eliminated in the future.
As far as subscriptions go, you'll see all major software heading in that direction. The likes of Adobe, Microsoft, Oracle to name a few have fully embraced this concept. Others will follow. Five years from now, it will be the norm.
-
Give them time. This is just the 1st incarnation...I'm sure we'll see much more mobile aware features from LR and other products. Companies that don't embrace this will be eliminated in the future.
Once again you gloss over my point ... as far as the amateur consumer level customer is concerned ... when it comes to Lightroom, Adobe isn't a little bit behind ... they are so far back you can't see them in the rear view mirror ... when it comes to convenience and simplicity of use of Lr Mobile.
As far as subscriptions go, you'll see all major software heading in that direction. The likes of Adobe, Microsoft, Oracle to name a few have fully embraced this concept. Others will follow. Five years from now, it will be the norm.
I agree it will be the norm for those willing to pay for such solutions. However ... John Q. Public, amateur photographer with his own camera, won't be subscribing as long as there are so many inexpensive and free options available. No matter how good your product is ... if the masses can get good enough ... for free ... they won't be getting in line for any kind of perpetual payment. No matter if that licensing policy is the industry standard or not. It's going to be a near impossible sale to convince a novice to adopt a more complex solution that you never stop paying for, instead of staying with their current free and easy option.
I don't see the group you believe Adobe is targeting as the pathway to the future or how viable a bottom line enhancement they would offer over the long haul. Human nature and statistics indicate otherwise.
-
Once again you gloss over my point ... as far as the amateur consumer level customer is concerned ... when it comes to Lightroom, Adobe isn't a little bit behind ... they are so far back you can't see them in the rear view mirror ... when it comes to convenience and simplicity of use of Lr Mobile.
I agree it will be the norm for those willing to pay for such solutions. However ... John Q. Public, amateur photographer with his own camera, won't be subscribing as long as there are so many inexpensive and free options available. No matter how good your product is ... if the masses can get good enough ... for free ... they won't be getting in line for any kind of perpetual payment. No matter if that licensing policy is the industry standard or not. It's going to be a near impossible sale to convince a novice to adopt a more complex solution that you never stop paying for, instead of staying with their current free and easy option.
I don't see the group you believe Adobe is targeting as the pathway to the future or how viable a bottom line enhancement they would offer over the long haul. Human nature and statistics indicate otherwise.
Butch...show me these statistics you talk about. Show me how large the shrinking professional market is and then show me these stats regarding the consumer market...and don't forget the possible billions of middle class consumers arising from China and India. You throw around these "shrinking consumer market" concepts...but please provide the stats on both the potential size of the professional market and the potential size of the consumer market.
I know which one has shrunk in the last 10 years and which one has increased 10 fold.
Now Butch...please tell me where the biggest potential of future revenue and growth would come from?
-
Butch...show me these statistics you talk about. Show me how large the shrinking professional market is and then show me these stats regarding the consumer market...and don't forget the possible billions of middle class consumers arising from China and India. You throw around these "shrinking consumer market" concepts...but please provide the stats on both the potential size of the professional market and the potential size of the consumer market.
I know which one has shrunk in the last 10 years and which one has increased 10 fold.
Now Butch...please tell me where the biggest potential of future revenue and growth would come from?
Tell you what ... I'll show you my stats if you show me yours ... You haven't backed up one of your assertions on any forum topic ... ever. So spare me your demands. I'm not going to do your research for you.
If the "emerging" markets in China and India are so significant ... why are Canon and Nikon having such a rough go selling units in those markets. Even their low end DSLR models are not thriving in those markets. (You have checked out their sales reports for the past several quarters and fiscal year ... haven't you?) Yet that same Asian market is buying iPhones and Galaxy S phones faster than Apple and Samsung can spit them out. I'm sure those folks just can't wait to pay for new software from Adobe. Instead of using the free software and services from Apple and Google that come installed on their new devices.
Secondly, you once again gloss over the situation. Have consumers of ANY income class in Asia ever been willing to pay for software of any kind? And when did I say there was a shrinking consumer market? I said, the class of amateur photographer that would also own/use a camera and shoots in RAW format and would also consider Lightroom as a viable option is not an infinite or vastly expanding group ... and ... that recent sales figures of both cameras that are capable of recording RAW formats and PC sales of the hub component necessary for a Lr Mobile workflow are not thriving but in many cases falling significantly. The data is there. You only need to use Google and look for yourself. Check the recent quarterly and annual report from Nikon and Canon ... check the YOY unit sales from HP, Apple, Asus and Dell ... then after YOU have done your homework ... come back and share YOUR findings.
-
A very useful update for me is in the Slideshow module. You can export as a PDF, but now you can input the exact dimensions. Prior to that it would only output 16:9. Now I can quickly generate a nice PDF book to the proportions I need in a PDF. This is a great way to get a collection from a slideshow onto a phone or tablet, or in an email.
If only Adobe would allow us to control video export options, Why no 4k? What about different codec settings.
All in all I like this feature.,
-
Butch...show me these statistics you talk about. Show me how large the shrinking professional market is and then show me these stats regarding the consumer market...and don't forget the possible billions of middle class consumers arising from China and India. You throw around these "shrinking consumer market" concepts...but please provide the stats on both the potential size of the professional market and the potential size of the consumer market.
I know which one has shrunk in the last 10 years and which one has increased 10 fold.
Now Butch...please tell me where the biggest potential of future revenue and growth would come from?
Adobe's business is firmly aimed at the professional market, not the consumer one. Even CC is just a part of their overall product line which is even more business oriented.
Premiere and Ps Elements are minor products.
-
Clearly the Internet or some form of it has vastly surpassed any other form for sharing and displaying images taken by cameras. Clearly the majority of those images on the Internet are viewed through a mobile device. PC's are quickly fading as a means to view images.
You seem to be under the impression that the number of users or the number or image views equals significance or money in the bank. It does not. Only if you can make those customers actually pay something for your service (or make someone else pay for the privilege of "owning" those customers, or knowledge about the customers behavioral details). Sony sells a load of mobile phones, yet bleed money in their mobile division.
While the number of cell phones far out number the number of interchangeable-lens cameras out there, I tend to believe that it would be a bad business move by Canon or Nikon to stop doing enthusiast cameras and start making cell phones. Same thing with Adobe: don't drop a multi billion dollar market just because you hope to get a piece of a multi-multi billion dollar market. Particularly if that market is allready saturated with players that have more natural advantages than yourself.
You nailed it when you said professional photographers are niche markets, one that is shrinking as many consumers have their own cameras. That is precisely why LR is focusing on the mobile platform...it is the means for displaying images going forward.
In the grand scheme, everything is a niche. I see no signs that the number of pros/semi-pros/enthusiasts willing to buy a product like Photoshop are shrinking? Sales of "enthusiast" (i.e. relatively expensive) cameras have exploded in the last decade. While sales will (and does) stagnate after the inital rush of digital transitioners/rapid development, I don't believe that the interest/usage shows any sign of decreasing (thus, one might speculate that there is willingness to pay for good software).
Now, there is a real possibility that Adobe have a hard time coming up with compelling new features for enthusiast/pro photography software. I.e. that they consider Photoshop/Lightroom to be "mature" products, while "new markets" can give them a better return on investement. My inner cynic/conspiracy voice suggests that Adobe might use the CC thing to "force"*) customers into a pay-per-use model for software that will see less investements going forwards, while they re-invest those developers/... into new markets where they are underdogs but have some chance of grabbing a piece of the cake. The view that Adobe themselves does not see further opportunities to improve their core software to the point where people will pay the price is a depressive one.
-h
*) No-one is being forced into anything, but when you have a monopoly and/or a product that customers really prefer over the competition, you are in a position to dictate the licence terms.
-
I see no signs that the number of pros/semi-pros/enthusiasts willing to buy a product like Photoshop are shrinking? Sales of "enthusiast" (i.e. relatively expensive) cameras have exploded in the last decade. While sales will (and does) stagnate after the inital rush of digital transitioners/rapid development, I don't believe that the interest/usage shows any sign of decreasing (thus, one might speculate that there is willingness to pay for good software).
I very much agree and see no such signs either. If anybody has statistics to share in this regard that would be very interesting.
-
Sorry for this long post ... in advance.
I think Hans has struck a chord with his initial posting. I know and have met Hans, know his background. He is well qualified to make the remarks he did and thanks for striking that nerve for so many people.
I am not really that interested in how Adobe organise themselves. What I do care about is Lightroom as tool.
A. Personally, I think the Adobe development strategy works as follows:
> Decide to do something along the ratio of marketing needs 90% and existing user needs 10%.
> Allocate the budget.
> Complete 80% of the job.
> Revisit every 5-10 years.
B. Option A is bad enough. My bigger problem is that for release after release I have been seriously disappointed with what Adobe regards as its priority. There seems to be a serious disconnect between the Lightroom user who pays for a subscription and what Adobe want to do.
C. I feel short changed by the promise of ongoing updates.... I waited and waited and waited for Lr 6.... to be totally underwhelmed, and agree with Hans that most of the new features have their roots in Photoshop Camera raw.
D. Adobe give lip service to the concept of workflow.
D. What is worse... I am so used to this situation that I have stopped caring.
Now, When I hear the name Adobe mentioned, what comes to mind is Adobe 80%. Do a good job on the first 80% and then take 10 years to do the next 10%. The final 10% never has a chance. That has been my experience. That is what I think. I challenge Adobe to change my perspective.
Here is a list of things that came to mind, prompted by Hans post, as I was having a coffee this morning. These arrived in no particular order and are focussed on usability.
* Leave a folder and return... Why must I search thru 1000 images to find the image I was previously working on. Most people have at least one card full of images in a folder. Folders have regularly hundreds or thousands of images.
* Book module disaster.
*
* Cannot place text or graphic on a page or a template.
* Blurb lock-in. I have nothing against Blurb, just been locked in to Blurb.
* Cannot manage key metadata fields in Mobile version (title, caption, location). I have no interest in the Develop module on an iPad. If I need to develop I will bring a MacAir.
* I cannot see the colour profile of an image. [I have to do a round trip to PS or use a third party tool].
* Cannot customise keyboard shortcuts. Does Adobe not realise that I have one hand on a keyboard and another on a wand or mouse. I want to be able to get to my most frequent commands with a single key or really simple mouse click. I do not want to be dropping the wand to use two hands for a keyboard combination. Basic stuff. Not rocket science. Please think of the end user.
* File rename...cannot easily edit the existing file name manually... We have to write down the old file name, F2 to pick a rename template, just use a custom text and type back in most of the same characters again. This happens a lot because I want to remove the word Edit from a filename from a round trip to Photoshop. I am not complaining about Ps adding Edit to the name, that is useful, but I do not want to send a file to someone with the word edit in the filename. I have other reasons to change a file name as well.
* Cannot properly use metadata in the print module. I would love to properly place a Title under an image rather than a return trip to Photoshop or InDesign and the creation of a clutch of unnecessary intermediate files.
* Cannot create custom tool panels with our own favourite and most used commands.
* Cannot have more than a single folder or collection of images available as a window at the same time. This is lazy development of the highest order. All other decent apps I know will allow you have multiple windows inside the same app. Eg. PhotoMechanic. So much for using a database.
* I should have forward and back arrows, which bring me to the previous image viewed or edited. This is simple. You already remember the last image when I leave LR and return, why not when I leave a folder and return to that folder. Why not have this facility within a folder.
* Ability to lock an image from future edits. This is very simple and very useful. Make this lock flag searchable in library and in collections. There are workarounds to this but they are all clunky and do not really work. It is close to the top of the request list, and only there for 4 years.
These are just the thoughts which come to mind in relation to Lightroom. Please do not get me started on Photoshop, InDesign or other Creative Suite apps.
I have lost faith with Adobe a long time ago and will jump ship at the first opportunity. I have perpetual licences for Lightroom and Creative Suite 6, so can always revert to these when I want to edit pixels. I
Sorry for the long post, could easily make it twice as long, but I needed to get that off my chest. I am going back to finish my coffee now.
-
I very much agree and see no such signs either. If anybody has statistics to share in this regard that would be very interesting.
Don't have it on hand...but I've read articles regarding the professional photography market is on the decline. I've have witnessed that in my city. As far as enthusiasts go, yes there was a big boom during the last decade and this group will continue to drive the DSLR market. It is precisely this group that is also interested in the mobile / connectivity platforms as many have grown up during the internet age and expect such connectivity to exist. I'd say this group ( enthusiasts ) have very little need for a large remote access database functionality as was requested a few pages back, but have much more need to view image remotely and quickly post for other to view.
When I travel, I like to send images back to friends and family and typically copy images from my camera onto my Ipad, edit those images using a combination of apps and then e-mail them out to friends. I'd love to be able to integrate those images into LR and have those edits that I have done be available to me upon return home. This to me is a very exciting direction...to be able to edit and access images from anywhere using LR and to have those edits be automatically available on my workstation back home.
-
In terms of the comments that most of the new features have their roots in Adobe Photoshop Camera raw, there are reasons this has traditional been the case. Some (many?) LR users are Photoshop users too and there are PS workflows where the two must be on parity (Smart Objects is one example). I can understand why a LR only user might feel they are not getting a fair shake because we usually see new features in ACR first but Develop is ACR, with some features that don't even exist in ACR. If the ACR features are not useful to you, then I think it is valid to complain about that not necessarily what product gets what new feature first. In a prefect world, LR and ACR users would get treated the same and see the features appear at the same time. If LR got features first before ACR, the other group of users would complain so I don't know if there is a solution to make very one happy other than a release features at the same time.
No matter who gets what first, if a feature isn't useful to you, that's something to be concerned about. And with a subscription and the promise of new, regular features, getting said features that are of no use to you is disappointing. In the past, you could see what you're be getting for you money prior to updating and deciding if that was a good buy or not.
It's interesting that Adobe has shown a new feature in LR (DeHaze) rather than ACR so maybe they are trying to appease LR users? It's going to be a really useful new tool and of course, we'll see it in ACR if we see it in LR as again, at some point, Adobe needs the two to be on feature parity.
I agree LR6 may be the most under whelming update in it's history (LR5 wasn't far behind) and worse, LR6 is pretty buggy in areas I'm surprised were not detected prior to release.
-
Don't have it on hand...but I've read articles regarding the professional photography market is on the decline.
No one ever stated otherwise.
As far as enthusiasts go, yes there was a big boom during the last decade and this group will continue to drive the DSLR market.
Yes, that was the case for the past decade ... current sales figures are not holding that trend, plus Canon and Nikon have both offered much lower projections for the next few years than they had once hoped. You really should update your research before making such comments ... current trends are now indicating that the downward slump in the global economy is resulting in a change for industry sales ... there are new factors to consider. Simply repeating historical recollections of the recent past will not suffice to impact the future.
Since you seem to be too lazy to keep up to date and prefer to rely on old, outdated data, I've included some links so you can get caught up.
Quote from Canon 2014 Annual Report concerning the DSLR market:
"2014 Review
In the interchangeable lens digital camera category, unit sales declined year on year, impacted by a generally difficult market environment caused by weak economic trends, particularly in Europe and China." (I find their reference to the burgeoning middle class in China quite revealing ... don't you?)
source: http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2014/canon-annual-report-2014.pdf
Unit sales reported by Nikon of interchangeable lens cameras for fiscal year 2014 were down 1.23 million units and they are projecting even lower numbers for 2015 ... and don't expect to get back to their 2013 sales level until 2017.
source: http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/ar/pdf/nr2014/14annual_e.pdf (http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/ar/pdf/nr2014/14annual_e.pdf)
I'm sorry ... current information does not paint a future that is as bright for the coming decade as it was for the past decade and certainly are not indicative of an "expanding" market.
-
I agree LR6 may be the most under whelming update in it's history (LR5 wasn't far behind) and worse, LR6 is pretty buggy in areas I'm surprised were not detected prior to release.
I agree, the attention to detail level has dropped considerably since the era of Lr3-4.
-
No one ever stated otherwise.
Yes, that was the case for the past decade ... current sales figures are not holding that trend, plus Canon and Nikon have both offered much lower projections for the next few years than they had once hoped. You really should update your research before making such comments ... current trends are now indicating that the downward slump in the global economy is resulting in a change for industry sales ... there are new factors to consider. Simply repeating historical recollections of the recent past will not suffice to impact the future.
Since you seem to be too lazy to keep up to date and prefer to rely on old, outdated data, I've included some links so you can get caught up.
Quote from Canon 2014 Annual Report concerning the DSLR market:
"2014 Review
In the interchangeable lens digital camera category, unit sales declined year on year, impacted by a generally difficult market environment caused by weak economic trends, particularly in Europe and China." (I find their reference to the burgeoning middle class in China quite revealing ... don't you?)
source: http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2014/canon-annual-report-2014.pdf
Unit sales reported by Nikon of interchangeable lens cameras for fiscal year 2014 were down 1.23 million units and they are projecting even lower numbers for 2015 ... and don't expect to get back to their 2013 sales level until 2017.
source: http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/ar/pdf/nr2014/14annual_e.pdf (http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/ar/pdf/nr2014/14annual_e.pdf)
I'm sorry ... current information does not paint a future that is as bright for the coming decade as it was for the past decade and certainly are not indicative of an "expanding" market.
Butch, even in the current decline in DSLR sales, you have any idea how they stack up to the hey days of film camera sales. I'll give you a hint...sales today are better than the film days. So all this gloom and doom you are posting is nothing but fear mongering. Sure the sales are down compared to when DLSR's exploded onto the market...did you think they would continue their horrid pace?
Like I said, the current economic climate, as you so nicely highlighted, is causing a major impact on sales. Like any cycle, this will end and camera sales will once again pick up, along with stereo and other electronic equipment.
Nikon claiming they'll get back to 2013 sales figures in a few years is also a good sign. Take into account billions of potential customers in China and India which are starting to acquire disposable income and I'd say the market for new Adobe customers is quite good going forward.
I believe these new customers will expect connectivity and integration into the Internet and mobile devices. The days of the isolated workstation are going away like to dinosaurs. Our entire company has switched to laptops for all developers due to their mobility and to iPads or Surface Pro's for everyone else. Our products, very industrial and conservative, are all migrating to the mobile platform as that is what the customer based is used to. I don't see Adobe having any choice but to embrace mobile workflows.
-
Butch, even in the current decline in DSLR sales, you have any idea how they stack up to the hey days of film camera sales. I'll give you a hint...sales today are better than the film days. So all this gloom and doom you are posting is nothing but fear mongering. Sure the sales are down compared to when DLSR's exploded onto the market...did you think they would continue their horrid pace?
Like I said, the current economic climate, as you so nicely highlighted, is causing a major impact on sales. Like any cycle, this will end and camera sales will once again pick up, along with stereo and other electronic equipment.
Nikon claiming they'll get back to 2013 sales figures in a few years is also a good sign. Take into account billions of potential customers in China and India which are starting to acquire disposable income and I'd say the market for new Adobe customers is quite good going forward.
I believe these new customers will expect connectivity and integration into the Internet and mobile devices. The days of the isolated workstation are going away like to dinosaurs. Our entire company has switched to laptops for all developers due to their mobility and to iPads or Surface Pro's for everyone else. Our products, very industrial and conservative, are all migrating to the mobile platform as that is what the customer based is used to. I don't see Adobe having any choice but to embrace mobile workflows.
Where is your supporting data? Or do you formulate your assertions based purely on blind faith?
Support your position with a few facts please. Not empty rhetoric contorted to fit your opinion.
Or don't you practice what you preach? I would think a project manager of high esteem and accomplishment would have the links to such data quite handy ... considering you are a self-proclaimed expert on the subject.
I await your enlightenment.
-
Where is your supporting data? Or do you formulate your assertions based purely on blind faith?
Support your position with a few facts please. Not empty rhetoric contorted to fit your opinion.
Or don't you practice what you preach? I would think a project manager of high esteem and accomplishment would have the links to such data quite handy ... considering you are a self-proclaimed expert on the subject.
I await your enlightenment.
Here you go Butch...of note is that sales in 2014...even though they are down drastically from the hey days of DSLR sales...are still greater than the best ever year for film SLR sales. Other thing to note is the DSLR sales in the last 15 years have outsold film camera sales since cameras were first invented. That is a lot of new customers that have just entered the camera market. If I was a smart product manager, I'd be looking at what these new customers need and want from LR....not the old very small niche market from yesteryear.
Need more stats Butch or is that enough for you?
-
Here you go Butch...of note is that sales in 2014...even though they are down drastically from the hey days of DSLR sales...are still greater than the best ever year for film SLR sales. Other thing to note is the DSLR sales in the last 15 years have outsold film camera sales since cameras were first invented. That is a lot of new customers that have just entered the camera market. If I was a smart product manager, I'd be looking at what these new customers need and want from LR....not the old very small niche market from yesteryear.
Need more stats Butch or is that enough for you?
What stats? You didn't offer anything but words ... Where are your links to the supporting data? ... so far you have offered nothing but hearsay and your supposed recollection ... you can type anything, that doesn't mean it's true ... show me links to the actual data points that support your premise .... I'm growing weary of your tactics. You demand I back up my points ... yet you share nothing but your observations in return. I guess some folks are all show and no go. Isn't it time you walk the walk .... and skip the talk?
Not to mention you seem to have a general misunderstanding of the difference between sales and market growth.
-
What stats? You didn't offer anything but words ... Where are your links to the supporting data? ... so far you have offered nothing but hearsay and your supposed recollection ... you can type anything, that doesn't mean it's true ... show me links to the actual data points that support your premise .... I'm growing weary of your tactics. You demand I back up my points ... yet you share nothing but your observations in return. I guess some folks are all show and no go. Isn't it time you walk the walk .... and skip the talk?
Not to mention you seem to have a general misunderstanding of the difference between sales and market growth.
Here yeh be Butchy...take your time to digest.
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr200.pdf
-
Here yeh be Butchy...take your time to digest.
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr200.pdf
It appears to me the numbers indicate a downard trend for the past four consecutive years ... I know I am not as gifted as you are in these matters and I shouldn't question your superior evaluation ... But I wouln't think your supporting data backs up your claim of an expanding market .... but hey ... sure beat them there film camera sales from yesteryear though ... as if that matters.
-
It appears to me the numbers indicate a downard trend for the past four consecutive years ... I know I am not as gifted as you are in these matters and I shouldn't question your superior evaluation ... But I wouln't think your supporting data backs up your claim of an expanding market .... but hey ... sure beat them there film camera sales from yesteryear though ... as if that matters.
The potential market over the last 10 years is huge. Many new consumers entered the camera market when it went digital. Many of this potential market is untapped. The market has hugely expanded in the last 10 years...all potential customers if they get the right product.
So Butch you still have not answered my question to you. If you were in charge of LR, would you put your focus onto the declining professional market...which by the way you most likely have wrapped up in the CC bundle, or would you focus on this huge new consumer market and it's wants to go mobile. I'd love to hear your logic...if there is some.
-
* File rename...cannot easily edit the existing file name manually... We have to write down the old file name, F2 to pick a rename template, just use a custom text and type back in most of the same characters again. This happens a lot because I want to remove the word Edit from a filename from a round trip to Photoshop. I am not complaining about Ps adding Edit to the name, that is useful, but I do not want to send a file to someone with the word edit in the filename. I have other reasons to change a file name as well.
That's the faffy way to do it. The easy way is done by simply clicking on filename as seen in screenshot below. :)
[Oh and yes to lots of the the things you suggested]
-
The potential market over the last 10 years is huge. Many new consumers entered the camera market when it went digital. Many of this potential market is untapped. The market has hugely expanded in the last 10 years...all potential customers if they get the right product.
So Butch you still have not answered my question to you. If you were in charge of LR, would you put your focus onto the declining professional market...which by the way you most likely have wrapped up in the CC bundle, or would you focus on this huge new consumer market and it's wants to go mobile. I'd love to hear your logic...if there is some.
I've answered your question several times in this exchange ... it seems you have chosen to ignore the answer. Perhaps if you could step out of the past decade into the current one, you could recognizee where I addressed your question more than once.
You continually revisit that there was a market expansion over the past decade ... Everyone knows that. That point has never been in dispute. That was then. This is now.
Where we disagree is your prediction of how rapid, if at all, the market will continue to grow over the next decade. Your own numbers illustrate that the market has not grown over the past four years of record ... and by all indications that trend is not going to change direction any time soon. Apparently, you are content to ignore that fact as well.
-
* File rename...cannot easily edit the existing file name manually... We have to write down the old file name, F2 to pick a rename template, just use a custom text and type back in most of the same characters again. This happens a lot because I want to remove the word Edit from a filename from a round trip to Photoshop. I am not complaining about Ps adding Edit to the name, that is useful, but I do not want to send a file to someone with the word edit in the filename. I have other reasons to change a file name as well.
Actually, you can preset LR to use whatever filename format you desire. I've set my LR Preferences to use a combination of Filename and Copyname for the filename of externally edited images.
You can find this in Preferences>External Editing>Edit Externally File naming.
I hope this helps you some.
Alan
-
I've answered your question several times in this exchange ... it seems you have chosen to ignore the answer. Perhaps if you could step out of the past decade into the current one, you could recognizee where I addressed your question more than once.
You continually revisit that there was a market expansion over the past decade ... Everyone knows that. That point has never been in dispute. That was then. This is now.
Where we disagree is your prediction of how rapid, if at all, the market will continue to grow over the next decade. Your own numbers illustrate that the market has not grown over the past four years of record ... and by all indications that trend is not going to change direction any time soon. Apparently, you are content to ignore that fact as well.
You seem to be ignoring the segment I feel this growth will come from...the huge arising middle class of China and India which will drive consumer products for the next decade. I also mentioned this a few times...which it appears you either did not read or chose to ignore.
The 1st wave of DSLR sales was very predictable...always happens with new breakthrough technology. The 2nd wave is just arising now...give it 5 years and you'll see another wave of consumerism driven by China and India.
So...would you focus on the declining professional market that is currently wrapped up with the CC program or would you focus on the much larger consumer market. I still have not heard your answer or logic behind it.
-
You seem to be ignoring the segment I feel this growth will come from...the huge arising middle class of China and India which will drive consumer products for the next decade. I also mentioned this a few times...which it appears you either did not read or chose to ignore.
Do you actually read these threads you participate in or do you just simply repeat yourself ad nauseam. I actually adressed this specific point multiple times.
The 1st wave of DSLR sales was very predictable...always happens with new breakthrough technology. The 2nd wave is just arising now...give it 5 years and you'll see another wave of consumerism driven by China and India.
Once again, Old School predictions based on data from the past decade, not the current situation. The parameters have changed. Did you not read the annual reports from Nikon and Canon I linked for you? Their very own predictions for the Asian market do not indicate they expect such a significant growth for that market ... you know something they don't? I would wager they have a better idea, since they are actually based in ... Asia.
So...would you focus on the declining professional market that is currently wrapped up with the CC program or would you focus on the much larger consumer market.
Answered this multiple times. Go read it ... I've grown weary of repeating it. I'm surprised you aren't tired of asking.
I still have not heard your answer or logic behind it.
Simply because you are too lazy to go back and read it. You can't expect me to always spoon feed you the informtion. Sooner or later you are going to have to complete some tasks on your own.
-
Do you actually read these threads you participate in or do you just simply repeat yourself ad nauseam. I actually adressed this specific point multiple times.
Once again, Old School predictions based on data from the past decade, not the current situation. The parameters have changed. Did you not read the annual reports from Nikon and Canon I linked for you? Their very own predictions for the Asian market do not indicate they expect such a significant growth for that market ... you know something they don't? I would wager they have a better idea, since they are actually based in ... Asia.
Answered this multiple times. Go read it ... I've grown weary of repeating it. I'm surprised you aren't tired of asking.
Simply because you are too lazy to go back and read it. You can't expect me to always spoon feed you the informtion. Sooner or later you are going to have to complete some tasks on your own.
Lots of double speak as usual from you.
Humor me Butch. Please explain which segment you would address and your logic behind it. Should be easy as you said you've already addressed this so just cut and paste. I'd truly would like to hear your logic. I spelled out what I would do and why...why not do the same...concisely and to the point...not a rant.
-
Humor me Butch.
I've been doing that for about three pages already. ;D
I'd truly would like to hear your logic.
Then by all means read my earlier answers. Even a project manager should be able to handle that task on their own. I can lead a horse to water ... but the horse has to quench his thirst of his on volition ...
-
I've been doing that for about three pages already. ;D
Then by all means read my earlier answers. Even a project manager should be able to handle that task on their own. I can lead a horse to water ... but the horse has to quench his thirst of his on volition ...
I guess that is your answer then...like I thought, nothing concrete. Butch, you talk a lot but say very little. Surely you can summarize your view of where Adobe should take LR and your reasoning behind this. Personally, I'm tired playing this game with you. When you can't answer a simple direct question without a bunch of doublespeak...it's time to just ignore. I know you'll post a response to this post...it's in your nature to be the last heard...hopefully this last response actually has some substance. So...will it be substance from you or will you just want to be heard.
-
So...will it be substance from you or will you just want to be heard.
The substance was already presented several times. You simply refuse to recognize it. It's not my purpose in life to submit to your whims simply because you desire to be entertained. For goodness sake, you are capable of discovering and utilizing the "back" button on your web browser ... aren't you? It's really not that difficult.
-
Children. That's enough. >:( Turn off the light and go to sleep.
Or close your bedroom door so the adults don't have to hear your quibbling and continue your tiring argument in private.
-
Whiile I am reluctant to make a move to another solution, I would do so in a heatbeat if another viable option would become available...
Hopefully we start to see more competitors, some areas are being covered:
E.g. Adobe Premiere alternative, check out the comment (goes also towards Avid):
“Best of all, customers can install DaVinci Resolve Lite and use it on real projects for free. There is no monthly subscription, you don’t need to be connected to the cloud, and you don’t need to buy any proprietary hardware” - Grant Petty, CEO, Blackmagic Design
This NLE was already pretty serious for color grading, now with the upcoming 12th version it's becoming a fully featured NLE (i.e. mutlicam etc).
Then there is Affinity Photo (currently in beta and for the time being Apple only) which could replace Photoshop: https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/
I like Lightroom, though as pointed out by others looks like the engineering excellence has been imprisoned by marketing.
-
Re File Renaming.
Aduke.
I cannot find a winning combination. Maybe there is a combination I have not tried yet.
For example, File Name plus Custom Text will retain "Edit",HDR" etc in the original file name bit, which I want to avoid in some situations.
Also, I may have created long filenames when working with Ps, that I want to shorten if sending to a client.
If I use just custom text I have to re-write the full filename, but I do want to retain the original stub and have to remember it and then retype it. What is worse, it remembers the text from the last time I used it and there is a danger of apply this old text to the filename.
JJJ.
Brilliant... why did I not think of that sooner.
Getting back to the main point.
Lack Of Development focused on features for existing users.
F2 is the keyboard shortcut for changing the filename. Surely the optimum would be to use F2 and allow me edit manually the existing filename and then (if it suits better) to apply a formula.
In the meantime JJJ's suggestion will work a treat. Thanks to JJJ and Aduke.
Now, if the other ten items in my list had an easy fix.
-
In terms of the comments that most of the new features have their roots in Adobe Photoshop Camera raw, there are reasons this has traditional been the case. Some (many?) LR users are Photoshop users too and there are PS workflows where the two must be on parity (Smart Objects is one example). I can understand why a LR only user might feel they are not getting a fair shake because we usually see new features in ACR first but Develop is ACR, with some features that don't even exist in ACR. If the ACR features are not useful to you, then I think it is valid to complain about that not necessarily what product gets what new feature first. In a prefect world, LR and ACR users would get treated the same and see the features appear at the same time. If LR got features first before ACR, the other group of users would complain so I don't know if there is a solution to make very one happy other than a release features at the same time.
No matter who gets what first, if a feature isn't useful to you, that's something to be concerned about. And with a subscription and the promise of new, regular features, getting said features that are of no use to you is disappointing. In the past, you could see what you're be getting for you money prior to updating and deciding if that was a good buy or not.
It's interesting that Adobe has shown a new feature in LR (DeHaze) rather than ACR so maybe they are trying to appease LR users? It's going to be a really useful new tool and of course, we'll see it in ACR if we see it in LR as again, at some point, Adobe needs the two to be on feature parity.
I agree LR6 may be the most under whelming update in it's history (LR5 wasn't far behind) and worse, LR6 is pretty buggy in areas I'm surprised were not detected prior to release.
+1
-
Hopefully we start to see more competitors, some areas are being covered:
Yes there are several viable alternatives to many of Adobe's CC apps with the exception of Lightroom. From a workflow standpoint, currently there are no other options that can match the simplicity and ease of use that Lr can offer when going from import to delivered product. Since the abandonment of Aperture by Apple, there really isn't much choice. There also doesn't seem to be any fledgling enterprising folk looking to enter the fray at this point either.