Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Stephen Starkman on October 09, 2015, 08:44:28 pm
-
For what it's worth, if you haven't seen this yet:
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/lightroom-6-2-release-update-and-apology.html
- Stephen
(user since beta days)
-
It's a fine apology, and I'm willing to believe a sincere one as well. I'm still cynical enough to believe that the quick response was driven mostly by the large negative response to this release. Certainly this communication is significantly different in tone from some of the other releases coming from Adobe.
I'm hopeful that Adobe will take a much closer look at how this release was driven. Mr. Hogarty wrote, "Lightroom was created in 2006 via a 14 month public beta in a dialog with the photography community. In making these changes without a broader dialog I’ve failed the original core values of the product and the team." There apparently was no dialog with the community at large, at least I haven't heard anyone claim they were consulted. On the other hand, if I had been one of those consulted I sure wouldn't admit it now. (grin)
I'm also hopeful that Adobe will consider that listening to their "customers, educators and research team" didn't provide good feedback. Again, I'm cynical enough to believe that "customers" were those that called for technical support, "educators" were a very small subset of the people who write books and train users in LR, and "research team" were folks who used terribly flawed sampling techniques to try to define the future of the product.
Above all I'm hopeful Adobe will truly take this flawed release to heart. They should be very mindful that one of the more popular posts on photoshop.com regarding these issues, particularly the changed import function, congratulated the LR development team on their work and exclaimed that sales were up 15%. The poster signed it using "Capture One" What's sad for Adobe is that this implied threat of converting to a different product is coming closer to reality for many people.
-
Also see Sharad Mangalick's post on Oct 7 (he's senior product manager, digital imaging, Adobe) where he discussed the "context" of why changes were made to the import interface.
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/update-on-lightroom-2015-2-lightroom-6-2-release.html
So who did they consult with to rationalize the change? According to Sharad's post, first time users.
"We visited them in their homes..."
I can't help to think they should have visited more folks in their studios.
I do think Thom's apology is sincere.
-
I'm also hopeful that Adobe will consider that listening to their "customers, educators and research team" didn't provide good feedback. Again, I'm cynical enough to believe that "customers" were those that called for technical support, "educators" were a very small subset of the people who write books and train users in LR, and "research team" were folks who used terribly flawed sampling techniques to try to define the future of the product.
I agree ... it is more than apparent that the Lr Management Team did not receive enough data to base their decision making on. I fully understand that they really can't efficiently conduct a full public beta on each and every version of Lr ... but you don't have to be Einstein to realize that the pool of influence they are currently using in the private alpha and beta testing is likely not large enough and/or diverse enough to offer reliable data for them to consider.
This situation is rather predictable human behavior. When you facilitate the rise and support of a company to the point of such great success to the point the business becomes a pseudo monopoly, those in charge will develop a sense of superiority and a level of confidence that they can't make mistakes or misjudgments ... and if they do, they won't suffer any serious financial injury as they have a large enough customer base to withstand any short term repercussions.
I hope this situation truly does bring Mr. Hogarty and his team back to reality. Though, they have a huge task ahead of them to earn back the trust they squandered this week.
-
Personally I think it was a rather lame apology, where he seems to worry about failing to communicate why they were making the changes to the import module rather than admitting they broke many users workflows by removing functionality. I'm not totally convinced he really "gets" it yet and he only promised to talk, not to fix the immediate problem. One thing it totally clear and that is the lack of common sense in the Lightroom management.
-
If feedback was offered to a larger group of users I sure it would be more beneficial than the chosen few Alfa or beta testers whom have a work around for annoyances. I also think Adobe should put out a public poll by categories so users could vote on modules and what in the modules they want or what changes they would like to see to existing menu items. This would present Adobe with a list of clean up tasks and a list of most wanted new features. Imagine you been an Alfa tester or beta tester foe years how much support or time are really giving the new software changes, more than likely your just glancing at the latest changes.
For example in Photoshop WHY does Adobe refuse to let us change the color of PATH? Try pathing grey on grey! It's like pouring green water into a bucket of green water and trying to keep the green water your pouring in the bucket separate from what's in there already! What don't the engineers get about the need for a choice of colored paths?
-
If feedback was offered to a larger group of users I sure it would be more beneficial than the chosen few Alfa or beta testers whom have a work around for annoyances. I also think Adobe should put out a public poll by categories so users could vote on modules and what in the modules they want or what changes they would like to see to existing menu items. This would present Adobe with a list of clean up tasks and a list of most wanted new features.
They already have this in the feedback forums where you can vote on enhancements, or recently, on boneheaded changes. I don't remember seeing a lot of votes for dumbing down the import module. To be fair, they have gone ahead with some of the high vote items like face recognition.
I think the right approach is a combination of putting priority on highly requested items and giving the lightroom engineers a say in what they would like to add, as they have a unique perspective and have to do the work. They just need someone in management with some common sense to be the conductor.
-
They already have this in the feedback forums where you can vote on enhancements, or recently, on boneheaded changes. I don't remember seeing a lot of votes for dumbing down the import module. To be fair, they have gone ahead with some of the high vote items like face recognition.
Yes, there is a feedback forum ... but often it is putting the cart in front of the horse as with this instance, the team and management made drastic changes, then stuck their finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing.
As for voting for new/suggested features on the feedback forum ... your odds are better you would survive a round of Russian Roulette than have your voice heard ...
-
Personally I think it was a rather lame apology ...
I have my doubts too as to the true level of sincerity offered ... I'm sure Hogarty believes he is being sincere, but I have also witnessed him roll his eyes in the past when users ask him questions about product development and express their desires ... at times, one could easily interpret his expressions and body language ... and occasionally his words ... may indicate he isn't listening as closely or actually cares as much as he would have us believe ... or that we mere mortals just don't get it.
-
The more disturbing revelation in the post is that they released this with a known, but hard to reproduce "crasher" bug. Who signed off that decision? This is unacceptable in the context of a subscription service. Why should I have to research the Internet before deciding whether to take an update that is offered. Should I not have the right to expect that it meets some basic quality standards? This is especially true of mature software the Lightroom, where you should just expect tweaks and bug fixes (notable by their absence in this case) in a point release.
He also claims that they removed some little-used features in the desire to remove clutter, a laudable aim. But the fact that you ever change the eject card box, does not mean that it is little used.
I can appreciate that the import screen is daunting and hard to parse. It is exactly for such a scenario that Microsoft "invented" wizards. Once you have established your basic settings with the wizard, you would use either a simplified workflow based on them, or you could tweak using a full fat "scary" screen, before doing so. Simply Trying to put makeup and lipstick on the pig is not the answer.
-
Our customers, educators and research team have been clear on this topic: The import experience in Lightroom is daunting.
I wonder where removing lots of options was on the customer provided list of feature requests. I couldn't find it there.
What would have been the problem with a user preference driven import screen: one (for new/overwhelmed users) with less options like 6.2 and one (for heritage/more advanced users) as in 6.1 and earlier.
When I bought my 6.0 perpetual license several month ago I knew exactly what I bought, i.e. existing functionality, bug fixes and support for new cameras. Not getting dehaze was fair in my mind (despite the outcry of some users) but taking away functionality just feels wrong as part of that deal. An apology doesn't cut it, Adobe has to give back what I bought from them at that time.
-
...The import experience in Lightroom is daunting....
If the previous Import dialog was indeed so daunting, how did Lightroom ever attain it's current level of adoption? I am personally acquainted with several hundred Lightroom users who I have worked with, for and even trained many over the past decade. That group is not what I would refer to as Mensa all-stars by far. I don't say that to be insulting, only to reference that the average Lr user is mostly that a average person who care about their photography.
Secondly, if any new user who does find the Import dialog that troubling ... and after watching one of the fine video tutorials by Julianne Kost still doesn't get it ... No amount of UI redesign, simplification or feature removal is going to result in offering a feasible solution.
-
Having been a LightRoom user from the very first version, I would normally have done the update close to immediately, on the naïve assumption that it would consist only of minor bug fixes and perhaps slight performance improvements.
I now am most grateful to the Fates that I was away when 6.1 appeared, so I could read about the storm of protests when I got back. And 6.2 still seems to be seriously flawed.
Until and unless I read on LuLa that Adobe has restored the "little used" features and import dialog of 6.0, whether alone or as an option, I fear that 6.0 will be my last version of LightRoom.
I have no objection to a "LightRoom Elements" or "Beginner LightRoom" as a parallel product, but I don't want my LightRoom dumbed down to the kindergarten level.
-
Eric makes the point that I'm seeing here. Lightroom will have to be split into a Standard and Pro versions. Any attempt they make to meet the middle ground for both groups will fail miserably, as we have seen with this latest release. Adobe knows this, they are just playing out the current platform as long as possible. Be prepared for a jump in price to go to the Pro version... Maybe a network version would be included in the Pro options, but that is a huge leap from the current product and I'd not hold my breathe.
-
Secondly, if any new user who does find the Import dialog that troubling ... and after watching one of the fine video tutorials by Julianne Kost still doesn't get it ... No amount of UI redesign, simplification or feature removal is going to result in offering a feasible solution.
Spot on.
-
Secondly, if any new user who does find the Import dialog that troubling ... and after watching one of the fine video tutorials by Julianne Kost still doesn't get it ... No amount of UI redesign, simplification or feature removal is going to result in offering a feasible solution.
Well, kind of. I once opened the packaging for some IT equipment and there was a slip taped to it saying "If all else fails, try reading the instructions."
Many people don't read the instructions, nor watch the fine video tutorials. You could say they deserve all the trouble they get and maybe should rot in hell, but software providers can't take that attitude. They have to cater for all customers, including the ones that don't read the instructions. They can't afford to alienate new users, or they won't get sales.
I completely agree that it's very frustrating for experienced users to feel that a user interface and functionality have been dumbed-down for the hard-of-thinking. Adobe don't want to alienate experienced users either, or they lose the brand value of being a power-user's product.
Adobe has to try to steer a fine line in providing a multi-layer UI that is intuitive enough for those that don't read instructions while being powerful enough not to frustrate power users.
In this case, IMHO they probably failed on multiple levels, as Tom Hogarty's apology seems to accept.
-
For what it's worth, if you haven't seen this yet:
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/lightroom-6-2-release-update-and-apology.html
- Stephen
(user since beta days)
IMO, the "apology" is only for not communicating the import changes ahead of time, there is no indication that anyone at Adobe thinks there's anything wrong with the changes.
-
Adobe has to try to steer a fine line in providing a multi-layer UI that is intuitive enough for those that don't read instructions while being powerful enough not to frustrate power users.
Well ... Hogarty more or less admitted they made decisions based upon either incomplete or inaccurate criteria ... you'll excuse me if I also question their desire to attract a less capable market segment (their assessment, not mine) I am having great difficulty in recognizing the wisdom of making such sweeping changes to attract this segment. If these potential customers have no desire to delve into at least a modicum of proper training and/or self-education ... is this segment going to stand the test of time to stick with the process and contribute to Adobe's coffers over the long haul? Or are they going to lose interest in a relative short term and move onto the next fad? Are all these sweeping adjustments worthy of effort for the long term?
The list of folks I have met over the past half-century who were once "really into photography" and now could care less, is quite extensive. It is a constant moving target to keep this group's attention for more than a relative fleeting moment. Which doesn't bode well if Adobe paints themselves into a corner trying to lock them in.
It's rather silly to expect if new folks can't quite balance their bicycle that everyone else must use training wheels so as not to offend those who can't quite achieve balance due to a lack of effort.
In this case, IMHO they probably failed on multiple levels, as Tom Hogarty's apology seems to accept.
Sorry, but the more I ponder this 'apology' the more I doubt just how much Hogarty actually 'accepts' ... It's going to take more than a few words from anyone at Adobe for me to feel even remotely reassured that they have their current customers best interests at heart. There has been a developing pattern of behavior and decision making that is slowly spiraling in a downward fashion where they expect their customers to blindly follow them wherever they choose to go.
I begrudge no business the desire to grow their market segment. It's actually the obligation of every business. I can and do take exception when the method employed to achieve that goal is poorly implemented.
-
Adobe should make two versions.
Literoom for the hard of thinking and Lightroom for those who can take a lens cap off without needing instructions.
-
An "expert" checkbox, revealing the old interface (or something like it) would do the trick.
Jeremy
-
Adobe should make two versions.
Literoom for the hard of thinking and Lightroom for those who can take a lens cap off without needing instructions.
Careful what you wish for, it will be the moment that prices will go up for the not dumbed down 'Lightroom' version...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Careful what you wish for, it will be the moment that prices will go up for the not dumbed down 'Lightroom' version...
Not wishing for it.
However given the choice between paying for a cheaper crippled version or a non-crippled version, which would be the bigger waste of money?
-
An "expert" checkbox, revealing the old interface (or something like it) would do the trick.
Jeremy
Exactly! Adobe can't (shouldn't) break existing workflows. I've never seen them do such a poor job in this respect, and I've been a customer since 1990. A new low.
It's fine to move to a new UI but there's no excuse for removing legacy functionality.
-
It's fine to move to a new UI but there's no excuse for removing legacy functionality.
Yep ... ever notice the that there is a Use legacy check box in several areas of Ps like the Brightness Contrast Adjustment dialog?
Talk about little used features ... yet the don't slice and dice that dead weight.
That's what make me think there is much more to this mindset with the decision making at Adobe. It really seems completely out of touch at time.
-
Destination is clearly Lightroom Elements with in-App Purchases for the extra functions by those producing pictures other than to share on social networks.
Those trying to share their Lightroom Elements-generated pics on social networks will hit the brick wall that is the Publish command, or is it Export? There is a reason that Facebook bought Instagram.
-
OK, where's Schewe when we need him? Jeff, what be's the gig with this? It can't be a surprise to you. What do you think?
Rand
-
From my hugely biased point of view...
Most of what Adobe has done with LightRoom in the last two years shows they are primarily concerned with expanding their user base toward entry level photographers. Development of the kinds of advanced features, controls, and conversion quality that professionals and demanding enthusiasts want are eschewed in favor of features that appeal to the user that gets overwhelmed easily.
Capture One Pro on the other hand has been pushing even further in the direction of professional and advanced users. The most recent updates added features that qualify as borderline-obscure, unless they are needed for your workflow. For instance you can now build your output/destination folder based on tokens like "Image Folder" and "Session name" and "Star Rating" - a huge time saver for digital techs processing large jobs. The only complaint I consistently hear from users about Capture One is that it takes a while to learn or they had to take classes (https://digitaltransitions.com/event/training-events) before they really got it.
Frankly, if I were Adobe I would do the same thing. For every one pro/advanced user that wants control and quality there are ten entry-level users that want simplicity. That's where the money is for a software developer.
Fortunately, as long as Adobe focuses on this, Phase One will have a nice underserved niche. They don't need or even want to be the solution that 90% of the market uses. Being a small company they are more than fine with having the sliver at the top of the pyramid.
-
From my hugely biased point of view...
Capture One Pro on the other hand has been pushing even further in the direction of professional and advanced users. The most recent updates added features that qualify as borderline-obscure, unless they are needed for your workflow. For instance you can now build your output/destination folder based on tokens like "Image Folder" and "Session name" and "Star Rating" - a huge time saver for digital techs processing large jobs.
I can't remember how long you've been able to do that in Lightroom. I think Publish Services arrived in version 3. ;)
-
From my hugely biased point of view...
Most of what Adobe has done with LightRoom in the last two years shows they are primarily concerned with expanding their user base toward entry level photographers. Development of the kinds of advanced features, controls, and conversion quality that professionals and demanding enthusiasts want are eschewed in favor of features that appeal to the user that gets overwhelmed easily.
Hi Doug,
From my, having no particular stakes into either, point of view, I fully agree. The focus on generating revenue (almost at any expense) by Adobe, is obvious. Good for their short term investors, not all that good for loyal customers, especially in the long run.
Frankly, if I were Adobe I would do the same thing. For every one pro/advanced user that wants control and quality there are ten entry-level users that want simplicity. That's where the money is for a software developer.
Indeed, a no brainer, if one wants to make money instead of serving loyal customers, and their stock prices reflect the appreciation of the (short term) investors. But there are other stakeholders at play, the users, and they are increasingly getting confronted with the shadow side of things.
Perpetual license users (the ones who pay the full amount upfront) are left worse off, while the ones that can be financially drained for eternity (unsubscribing seems to be very difficult) are relativity pampered.
Fortunately, as long as Adobe focuses on this, Phase One will have a nice underserved niche. They don't need or even want to be the solution that 90% of the market uses. Being a small company they are more than fine with having the sliver at the top of the pyramid.
Indeed, although Phase One could do better if DNG file support were implemented (more) properly (I know it's not a real open standard). Consider the number of disgruntled Lightroom users who were sucked into the DNG workflow, that could be served. Also the non-support of other Medium format camera platforms seems rather shortsighted. In addition, there are several other aspects that could be improved significantly, e.g. better than bicubic resampling, and deconvolution sharpening, but that is also not handled very well by some of the competitors (but not all !).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Exactly! Adobe can't (shouldn't) break existing workflows. I've never seen them do such a poor job in this respect, and I've been a customer since 1990. A new low.
It's fine to move to a new UI but there's no excuse for removing legacy functionality.
I agree, except that I refuse to use the term "legacy" in this context...they just removed functionality, period.
"Legacy" gives too much ammunition to the hacks who....this is my fantasy, here.... have apparently conned the misguided Adobe management into some kind of 'growth agenda' whose main feature is dumbing it down in order to bring in the masses.
-
Frankly, if I were Adobe I would do the same thing. For every one pro/advanced user that wants control and quality there are ten entry-level users that want simplicity. That's where the money is for a software developer.
That sounds logical on the surface, however, can Adobe offer a consumer level product that can compete with free? There seems to be an endless list of photo management and image manipulation options that already offer extremely streamlined and simplified options for the beginner and fledgling photographer.
Heck, any novice who has a Macbook Air and an iPhone can already accomplish much of what Lr is capable of considering this segment of the market is very unlikely to be taking the time and effort to shoot RAW ... with Apple's free Photos app and a handful of free and/or low cost extensions, a novice can already accomplish what most jpeg shooters can do with Lr. Plus, they don't have to go through the hassle to create Smart Previews in order to share their images across devices.
Once again, I ponder, even if expanding the customer list is a priority, is this the segment of the market that is going to hang around for the long haul and ultimately prove worthy of the time and effort to 'simplify' Lightroom so they 'get it?'
-
That sounds logical on the surface, however, can Adobe offer a consumer level product that can compete with free? There seems to be an endless list of photo management and image manipulation options that already offer extremely streamlined and simplified options for the beginner and fledgling photographer.
Exactly....Lightroom is already basically a pared-down selection of features from Photoshop/ACR/Bridge. What would they peddle a subscription to "Lightroom Elements" for? 99 cents per month?
-
Exactly....Lightroom is already basically a pared-down selection of features from Photoshop/ACR/Bridge. What would they peddle a subscription to "Lightroom Elements" for? 99 cents per month?
I don't think your statement is accurate. LR offers a number of features that are not duplicated in Photoshop/ACR/Bridge. And I'm not talking about face recognition, the Map module, the Book module, or, God help us, the Web module. I don't use any of those "features."
As an example, it is far, far easier to print out of LR than Photoshop, at least if you want a quick and simple workflow using presets. I love just clicking on "Exhibition Fibre - 17x22 - B&W" to make all the necessary settings instead of having to drill down though multiple dialog boxes.
Another function LR provides that your triumvirate doesn't is DAM functionality. I need to provide 20-30 photographs to the folks who are running a workshop I'm attending in November. They want the photographs to get an idea of what and how I photograph, which is rather difficult because the workshop is a landscape workshop--and I don't normally photograph landscapes. I think I have a three or four landscape photographs in my catelog. They also want a selection of "missed shots," i.e. photographs that didn't work out for some reason (not technical mistakes). For some reason, every landscape photograph that I have has ended up in the missed shots selection. (grin)
Making those selections out of about 25,000 photographs is a misery, but it is much easier using the selection criteria, filters, and collections features in LR. Trying to do that with Bridge is something I don't even want to think about. What I'm sending has been drawn from several years of work. Digging through folder after folder is not very efficient.
At least I'm down to 48 selects, all in one collection, and I get to enjoy pruning eighteen of those in the next couple of days. However, that's simple. All I need to do is remove the rejects from the collection, and when I hit the magic number it's simple to export the files in the format they require, renaming them as I export.
I do dip into Photoshop, mainly to use the better "healing tools" and occasionally to do selection layers when I need to make very localized adjustments. But I do about 98% of everything in LR, and that's why I am unhappy with what Adobe thinks are the highest priorities in the evolution of the program.
-
While Tom Hogarty's apology does come across as a bit lame, the fact that there is a public apology at all speaks volumes. As an Adobe customer since Photoshop V2 and a current daily user of half a dozen or so CC apps, I have never seen such an immediate, planet-wide howl of pure anger in response to a software update.
Other than the odd mumble about the rather good local de-haze function the response across forums, lists, blogs and social media worldwide has been an emphatic thumbs down. The details and tales of personal misery have been comprehensive and broadly addressed so I won't detail my own rant.
The Adobe Lightroom team's code jockeys must be in round-the-clock damage control right now...the 6.2.1 release was unusually speedy. Roll-on a properly implemented 6.3 though I suspect it will be months away. In the meantime like so many others I've shuffled back to 6.1 until this debacle is dealt with.
-pw
-
It's fine to move to a new UI but there's no excuse for removing legacy functionality.
Why not? This happens all the time in software. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Change is constant. A tiny example: try resizing the taskbar in a recent version of Windows to zero height. You can't, because Microsoft realized that feature confused the heck out of inexperienced users in older version of Windows. So that legacy feature is gone. I suspect the vast majority of users do not miss it at all, to the extent it's now all but totally forgotten.
-
OK, where's Schewe when we need him? Jeff, what be's the gig with this? It can't be a surprise to you. What do you think?
I think the LR 2015.2/6.2 update sucks...I'm on a fall colors trip to the NE (ending in Acadia) and while I've updated to ACR 9.2, I left LR at 2015.1 for the express purpose that I can't easily make multi-camera import presets for the 3 cameras I'm shooting with. Yes, I knew what was coming and yes the beta testers warned Adobe that the new Import dlog sucks. But due to timing with Adobe MAX and other factors, the release was realized prematurely - which Hogarty admitted to. I view Tom's apology as a heart felt falling on his sword. How they fix Import is anybody's guess but I would vote for a Simple/Quick Import and an Advanced Import set of dlogs that returns ALL functionality to the advanced import. They already have the old and new code...the difficulty will be providing a UI for choosing and the code that allows both to work and that won't be easy but is something that needs to be done if they want me to use future versions.
-
Exactly....Lightroom is already basically a pared-down selection of features from Photoshop/ACR/Bridge. What would they peddle a subscription to "Lightroom Elements" for? 99 cents per month?
Hum, I guess you don't really understand Lightroom and why it was developed...sorry, LR is nothing like PS and Bridge. Completely different tool set.
-
Adobe might lean something from Camerabits 'Photo Photomechanic', ingest and captioning software which has no piers in professional sports and media circles.
For me the main thing that sucked with the old import dialogue box was the hidden folder names (left panel) - if I remember correctly you had to hover the curser over the folder to see the full name (poor inexcusable design), other than that it worked fine!
-
everywhere I read "we listen to customer feedback"...is this so?
Then why are the two Adobe forums filled up with costumer feedback (bugs, feature suggestions/requests/ideas etc.) and yet barely anything gets fixed or impemented?
Do the people at Adobe really have so much spare time that they can come up with such a "brilliant improvement" to LR as the new import dialog? Wow! There is an almost endless list of bugs and new features they could work on and make this application better...that's what would be called progress.
And back to my first sentence: when Jeff writes
the beta testers warned Adobe that the new Import dlog sucks
but they still chose to deploy it...so they obviously don't listen to their customers or their beta testers...
Hopefully Hogerty and many others at Adobe read this message by their good old mate Jeff Schewe:
...but is something that needs to be done if they want me to use future versions.
I think the LR 2015.2/6.2 update sucks...
that pretty much sums it up, really.
-
Hum, I guess you don't really understand Lightroom and why it was developed...sorry, LR is nothing like PS and Bridge. Completely different tool set.
This is usually the first hurdle new Lightroom users do not grasp before they plunge into using the application.
Then they get into a tangle and become frustrated. Adobe need to clearly stress the fact that Lightroom is not "Photoshop".
-
Maybe it's time to switch to capture pro?
-
New Import Dialogue - Inappropriate focus group?
Poor upgrade/update procedure.
Clearly, for experts and long time users of Lightroom, the behaviour prior to 6.2 should have been preserved - BY DEFAULT - and the new behaviour only presented for *NEW* installs.
-
From my hugely biased point of view...
Most of what Adobe has done with LightRoom in the last two years shows they are primarily concerned with expanding their user base toward entry level photographers. Development of the kinds of advanced features, controls, and conversion quality that professionals and demanding enthusiasts want are eschewed in favor of features that appeal to the user that gets overwhelmed easily.
Capture One Pro on the other hand has been pushing even further in the direction of professional and advanced users......
But seeing as Capture One is not prepared to support all cameras, why would anyone bother to commit time and effort to such crippled software?
I'd love a strong alternative to LR, but as C1 does not support all the cameras I currently have or may not support others ones I might purchase or need for work in the future, why would I even consider such a hobbled solution. If Canon or Nikon make a MFDSLR will C1 also ignore those bodies as they directly compete with Phase cameras?
Particularly annoying is that DNG is not supported. Only specific camera models.
-
Making those selections out of about 25,000 photographs is a misery, but it is much easier using the selection criteria, filters, and collections features in LR. Trying to do that with Bridge is something I don't even want to think about. What I'm sending has been drawn from several years of work. Digging through folder after folder is not very efficient.
Actually smart collections are in Bridge, as are various filtering options just like LR.
But Bridge can't find or show things on your HDs that are not connected, unlike LR's database way of working. A database is also much faster at looking through large numbers of files.
But yes, LR is not a merely pared down version of Bridge/PS/ACR. I moved from that paradigm of working at LR2 as LR had matured enough to be faster overall. And if PS is needed you can still open files into PS as before.
-
For me the main thing that sucked with the old import dialogue box was the hidden folder names (left panel) - if I remember correctly you had to hover the curser over the folder to see the full name (poor inexcusable design), other than that it worked fine!
That's also an issue within Lightroom. I use Jeffrey Friedl's configuration manager (http://regex.info/blog/2007-03-13/395) so I can read names of my folders. The standard max panel width truncates them in an unusable way, so I make the max panel width a lot larger. Also useful for getting longer sliders in develop module. :D
-
As already mentioned this update was really not a great one. For my use I can live with the new import dialog, but I can't see the progress compared to the old one. Only a poorly designed new one.
What I'm really annoyed about is how many times I need to force-quite Lightroom as it is non responding.
As I have said before, I think the Lightroom team is lacking leadership about where to take the product. Little progress has been made in the last couple of major releases. Lots of progress in the develop module which essentially comes from Camera Raw. If there is a strategy behind all this, at least I don't see it.
Update: Yesterday the update with the 2015.2.1 came and I have not experience any unresponsive situations since, but haven't used Lightroom much since the update.
Update 2: I just had to again force quit Lightroom as non responsive and using lots of cpu time.
-
Maybe it's time to switch to capture pro?
Except it also seems to have a disastrous bug (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104530.0) :(
-
As I have said before, I think the Lightroom team is lacking leadership about where to take the product. Little progress has been made in the last couple of major releases. Lots of progress in the develop module which essentially comes from Camera Raw. If there is a strategy behind all this, at least I don't see it.
Or maybe they're taking it too many places? Since the tie-in to CC they're spending a lot of their resources on the mobile stuff, probably at the expense of development to the core desktop application. While I guess there's a market for the mobile capabilities, it does seem like they're spreading themselves too thin.
-
But seeing as Capture One is not prepared to support all cameras, why would anyone bother to commit time and effort to such crippled software?
Along with their half baked support of DNG, I'm not going there. Now if these folks will consider support for all cameras and DNG, some of us might pay attention.
I'm super unhappy with how the LR team handled this release! But I'm not about to jump ship just yet. Still, super disappointed, the captain of this LR ship is lost at sea.
-
Along with their half baked support of DNG, I'm not going there. Now if these folks will consider support for all cameras and DNG, some of us might pay attention.
I'm super unhappy with how the LR team handled this release! But I'm not about to jump ship just yet. Still, super disappointed, the captain of this LR ship is lost at sea.
I very much disagree with the Adobe decision to support LR mobile at the expense of the current LR for advanced hobbyists and pros.
I know a lot of folks who take a lot of photos with their phones. They have little or no interest in doing any post processing of their photos, nevermind using something as complicated as LR.
Chasing that market is a losing proposition, imo.
-
I don't think your statement is accurate. LR offers a number of features that are not duplicated in Photoshop/ACR/Bridge. And I'm not talking about face recognition, the Map module, the Book module, or, God help us, the Web module. I don't use any of those "features."
Yes, you are correct...my statement is inaccurate due to omission---a decision I made in the cause of brevity. Sorry about that.
And, yes...the Print module is the one thing that makes Lightroom tower above it's competitors, in my view.
I'm not a power user or clever exploiter of Lightroom's DAM assets...it's basically Develop and Print for me.
-
Secondly, if any new user who does find the Import dialog that troubling ... and after watching one of the fine video tutorials by Julianne Kost still doesn't get it ... No amount of UI redesign, simplification or feature removal is going to result in offering a feasible solution.
I have been using Lightroom since the original Beta. It has serviced me well and I have been able to produce some (in my humble view) fine images with (argueably) less effort and pain than using some other applications.
That is not so say that I find Lightroom to always be "consistent", "sensible", "well-thought out". Or that I particularly like spending time in front of a training video instead of making images. If they can make "80% of users" more efficient (better images, less time spent, less frustration), I think that it is worth a slight annoyance for "20% of users" (such as having to change ways of working, having to do an extra "advanced" mouse click).
Would I be able to write a better application that Lightroom? Sure not. Are my opinions representative for any large subset of Lightroom users? I have no idea.
-h
-
I very much disagree with the Adobe decision to support LR mobile at the expense of the current LR for advanced hobbyists and pros.
I know a lot of folks who take a lot of photos with their phones. They have little or no interest in doing any post processing of their photos, nevermind using something as complicated as LR.
Chasing that market is a losing proposition, imo.
No question... 99% of phone users do not edit their photos. BTW.. the iPhone photo editor is quite good already. No need for external photo editors.
-
Since everyone here seems to be so very attached to the lost features, if I was a suit in Adobe, I'd get us to pay for them through in-App purchases.
(This seems to be a more likely way forward than getting back to the bread and butter of fixing long-standing bugs and JDIs and getting someone who knows what they are doing to address the now lamentable performance of the product.)
Anyway Adobe, like VW, the banks, and others now say that they realise that they have to work to regain our trust. Words that come easy ...
-
Hum, I guess you don't really understand Lightroom and why it was developed...sorry, LR is nothing like PS and Bridge. Completely different tool set.
Actually the problem is that I don't really understand(or have much need for) Photoshop. Sorry for any inaccuracy.
-
Actually the problem is that I don't know enough about the Photoshop universe, and have relied mostly on heresay and anecdotes. Sorry for any inaccuracy.
Thank you, Mr. Schewe, for giving your opinion on the Lightroom Import bruhaha.
-
I very much disagree with the Adobe decision to support LR mobile at the expense of the current LR for advanced hobbyists and pros.
I know a lot of folks who take a lot of photos with their phones. They have little or no interest in doing any post processing of their photos, nevermind using something as complicated as LR.
Chasing that market is a losing proposition, imo.
So what decision is that then? It's not initially pitched at "folks who take a lot of photos with their phones" but as an extension of LrDesktop. Some of us have experimented and found ways it is useful in that role. Not being present in that market is the losing propostion....
-
Yes, you are correct...my statement is inaccurate because I was thinking of the Develop module more than the overall program or it's DAM assets. Sorry for the inaccuracy.
And, yes...the Print module is the one thing that makes Lightroom tower above it's competitors, in my view.
I'm not a power user or clever exploiter of Lightroom's DAM assets...it's basically Develop and Print for me.
-
Some of us have experimented and found ways it is useful in that role. Not being present in that market is the losing propostion....
Agree with this, I also think it's more helpful to complain about what we don't like then about what we don't need.
I just hope Adobe realizes that not fixing the import dialog is a losing proposition for many folks as well.
-
Agree with this, I also think it's more helpful to complain about what we don't like then about what we don't need.
I just hope Adobe realizes that not fixing the import dialog is a losing proposition for many folks as well.
I think they do, but simply reversing the changes or providing alternative dialog boxes is only the knee jerk reaction. Do people remember which features have been removed in the past? Each removed feature needs considering for its own merits, and the right fix may be to leave the dialog box as now, and add corresponding features in a better place, Library (Move and the handling of duplicates, for instance).
-
I think they do, but simply reversing the changes or providing alternative dialog boxes is only the knee jerk reaction. Do people remember which features have been removed in the past? Each removed feature needs considering for its own merits, and the right fix may be to leave the dialog box as now, and add corresponding features in a better place, Library (Move and the handling of duplicates, for instance).
Not a bad thought in theory but in practice they have ruffled so many feathers and made so many unhappy campers that a knee jerk might be the best they can do to regain some trust. Secondly there are some items in the import dialog that belong nowhere else, with the most obvious (but not only) one "eject card after import". Also a lot of people don't like Adobe telling them "there is a different/better way to do that", maybe by first providing better instructions and warning about changes to come in the future they can create buy-in but they can't do it at the drop of a hat without any upfront communication.
-
Also a lot of people don't like Adobe telling them "there is a different/better way to do that"
Then they should remember that Lightroom has been that way since day 1....
-
I'm not a power user or clever exploiter of Lightroom's DAM assets...it's basically Develop and Print for me.
Ignoring the DAM aspect is not bothering with possibly LR's greatest strength, i.e. being easily able to find your photos and directly integrate that into the other modules.
-
Then they should remember that Lightroom has been that way since day 1....
But it was designed and aimed a lot better than it currently is, that is the difference.
LR in it's early days took a lot of feedback from experienced users which directly affected how it ended up.
No to mention Adobe was quite a different company then, one far more respected than it is now. It seemed to have moved from a company aiming to make the best tools, to one pleasing the shareholders regardless of the customer.
-
Then they should remember that Lightroom has been that way since day 1....
Maybe yes, but then it really was better and it were mainly additions to the tool-set. Looking at the outcry this time they made a few mistakes where communication is probably the least. Not listening to your experienced beta testers and removing useful options without any warning probably rank higher.
-
But it was designed and aimed a lot better than it currently is, that is the difference.
LR in it's early days took a lot of feedback from experienced users which directly affected how it ended up.
No to mention Adobe was quite a different company then, one far more respected than it is now. It seemed to have moved from a company aiming to make the best tools, to one pleasing the shareholders regardless of the customer.
No, the difference is that these are the kind of changes they might previously have road-tested in a public beta for a new full version, rather than put straight into a dot release. Plus users are far more likely go hysterical when something is taken away - even if they can't recall features that vanished before.
But yes, people are just using this to vent about other Adobe-related fears or their dislike of the subscription model etc.
-
Then they should remember that Lightroom has been that way since day 1....
That's only partially true. Indeed Lightroom was initially conceived and developed to do things differently ... However, Lightroom didn't become what it is today through pure blind loyalty to the Adobe Inc. logo or the Lr manager pontificating to his minions from on high ... It was the result of a teamwork effort where there was at least a modicum of respect by the developer for the end user.
In the beginning of that effort the success of Lr was based upon a somewhat mutual effort between developer and end user. More importantly, the end user had the ability, and trust in the developer, where they could witness what was being offered BEFORE it was finalized in an official release.
In those early days and subsequent versions, a large segment of the user base not only had the opportunity to test, appraise and further evaluate Lr then offer valuable feedback ... While at the same time Adobe had direct contact with a significant segment of their customers that allowed them to 'sell' their concept BEFORE the product ever hit the shelves. There were few surprises that were detrimental to established workflows, little, if any, arbitrary behavior by Adobe in this respect.
According to at least one source, it appears that v6.2 was shoved out the doors despite the advice of at least some beta testers. Which, even by Hogarty's own admission, goes against the grain of the original concept and philosophy of the original Lightroom paradigm.
So, no. The events of the past week or so really doesn't fall into, "They've always done it this way," classification.
-
But yes, people are just using this to vent about other Adobe-related fears or their dislike of the subscription model etc.
Wow ... So those folks have it all wrong? There is no reason to be disappointed with v6.2? This recent fiasco is not indicative of, or at least a partial realization of those 'Adobe-related fears' and doubts about the subscription model?
-
Wow ... So those folks have it all wrong?
To some extent, yes. Try talking sense to them and that's what one must conclude....
-
To some extent, yes. Try talking sense to them and that's what one must conclude....
Perhaps if Adobe wouldn't treat there customers like lemmings ... Their customers would have a more sensible attitude.
Adobe will collect as much money this month for their failed effort as when they do something well ... The corporation is not the aggrieved party in this discussion ... It's the folks you can't talk sense with who have been short changed. Yet you choose to conclude otherwise.
-
Perhaps if Adobe wouldn't treat there customers like lemmings ... Their customers would have a more sensible attitude.
Adobe will collect as much money this month for their failed effort as when they do something well ... The corporation is not the aggrieved party in this discussion ... It's the folks you can't talk sense with who have been short changed. Yet you choose to conclude otherwise.
Yeah, yeah, yeah....
-
Yeah, yeah, yeah....
I guess it is quite apparent that Hogarty is not the only one suffering from tone deafness or out of touch with the broader user base.
-
I guess it is quite apparent that Hogarty is not the only one suffering from tone deafness or out of touch with the broader user base.
No, just tired of listening to a cracked record, repeating the same old banalities.
-
No, the difference is that these are the kind of changes they might previously have road-tested in a public beta for a new full version, rather than put straight into a dot release. Plus users are far more likely go hysterical when something is taken away - even if they can't recall features that vanished before.
But yes, people are just using this to vent about other Adobe-related fears or their dislike of the subscription model etc.
Dear me John, you really do seem to be having like you are on Adobe's marketing payroll with regard to this.
People are justifiably really pissed off as their long established workflow is broken. If other things were removed and did not cause an outcry, then that suggests it was dealt with properly or as it was in the early days were done whilst LR was still being developed. The only thing I can recall being removed was how image filtering worked, but the replacement was better and LR was still quite new at the time. If they'd done it 10 years later then there would have been a big hoo-ha I'm pretty sure.
Saying the outcry is because of the subscription situation is simple facile. Both those who subscribe and those who do not are deeply annoyed.
There is good reason for the record number of complaints after only a few days on the Adobe forums and numerous people posting for the first time too.
Even the Lightroom Queen said not to upgrade, which was a first for Victoria Bampton, not to mention Jeff's comments above which should really get Adobe worried. If someone like Jeff is reconsidering LR....
Behaving in such a cavalier way on top of the fairly unpopular subscription model is however making people think even about how Adobe has changed as a company.
-
No, just tired of listening to a cracked record, repeating the same old banalities.
Yeah ... I can sympathize with your Adobe's discomfort when predictions come to pass ... very understandable under the circumstances.
-
Adobe might lean something from Camerabits 'Photo Photomechanic', ingest and captioning software which has no peers in professional sports and media circles.
I certainly feel the pain of the bazillion photographers across the planet who use all the functionality of Lr Import and I totally condemn the dumbing down. But I'm with you. I also use PhotoMechanic to ingest, sort, rank, caption, add metadata, keywords etc prior to Import in Lr. PhotoMechanic is a powerful & sophisticated app which Adobe could do well to study. But the PC-only Import app I really like is BreezeBrowser Download Pro. This has even greater capability than the Ingest function of PhotoMechanic.
So my workflow is ingest with BreezeBrowser Download Pro using its powerful options, then sort, rank, caption, add metadata, keywords etc in PhotoMechanic, then convert selects to DNG and then Import into Lr. It would be nice if one program did it all but this is rarely the case. Busy professionals need to take the line of least resistance to get jobs processed and delivered. In my case that means my files are passed through BB Download Pro, PhotoMechanic & DNG Converter before Lr Import. It's very fast and efficient.
Any formative plans I had to retire BB Download Pro & PhotoMechanic in favor of a 100% Lr workflow has now completely evaporated.
-pw
-
...
Adobe will collect as much money this month for their failed effort as when they do something well ...
There is a tempest in a teapot with this Import module thing and most of the discussion is infantile but... the statement above is right. That is what's wrong with a subscription system. The subscriber is tied and invested into a service and it's at the mercy of the publisher more so than perpetual licenses.
-
Something that should be very clear from this long chain are the differences in workflow used by various photographers. Something else that should be plain to see is that often those differences are driven not only by personal preference or experience, but by the type of photography.
For example, somebody said that using the import dialog to cull work was ridiculous because that should be done in Library after the import. (Might have been in a different chain, but the same topic.) For a relatively low volume shooter, that makes good sense. The landscape photographer who carefully chooses his tripod position and then uses Live View to focus isn't going to have nearly the same volume of photographs as the sports photographer who often shoots in bursts. The first photographer doesn't need to do a quick and dirty selection; the second photographer will have one or two thousand shots of which many do not need to be imported. Culling at import makes good sense and saves considerable time. This isn't a technical evaluation--is it in focus?--but rather a subject evaluation. It allows the sports photographer to quickly remove those shots where the referee is standing in just the wrong spot: right in front of action. Because referees (or rodeo clowns in my case) ALWAYS get in the way. Those lovely, oversized check marks in the middle of the darkened preview image, a feature of the new import dialog, seem to be taking lessons from those referees. They, too, seem to always be in the way.
Will that import dialog change get in the way of someone who imports everything? Nope, it probably wouldn't. What is a major frustration to one photographer wouldn't affect another's workflow.
Another suggested that the "move" option really isn't necessary. As one of my non-photographic pursuits I put out a church newsletter, and I often get photographs from others. These JPEGs are all over the map as far as quality, and very often I find that I need to do some minor tone mapping, particularly white balance, and cropping. Although there are a number of tools available to do this work, I've found it easiest to import them into a LR catalog, do my cleanup there, and then export the adjusted and resized images. Without the move option I would have to import and then remember to clean up the submitted images from where I stashed them. The move option makes my job much easier; I don't have to remember to clean up directories later.
Those are just two options that have been altered or eliminated in the new, improved import dialog. I find having to change my workflow to accommodate those changes extremely frustrating, particularly as I see no good reason for changing the import process in the first place.
Others have different reasons, some probably more valid than mine, to complain about the changes. For those photographers, this is not a "tempest in a teapot." The changes have very real impacts on the way that they work. Even if you don't use a specific feature doesn't mean that it's removal or modification doesn't have consequences for other photographers. Have the courtesy to understand that your views and needs may not match others. After all, __I__ don't use the Map module, the Slideshow module, the Web module, or the Book module. I wouldn't advocate dumping those just because I think they're a waste of space.
One last point. This controversy has nothing to do with the "subscription service." I have a perpetual license, and I'm impacted as much as any CC user.
Tom
-
There is a tempest in a teapot with this Import module thing and most of the discussion is infantile but... the statement above is right. That is what's wrong with a subscription system. The subscriber is tied and invested into a service and it's at the mercy of the publisher more so than perpetual licenses.
Tempest in a teapot? Really? I think that may be a significant understatement.
The furor over this issue supplanted the most popular post on the feedback forum that took over five years to reach that stature ... In only 6 days! Hundreds of users took the time to post their thoughts there about this issue. for many, it was there very first time to comment there on any topic.
The user reaction to v6.2/2015.2 was not the result of a small group of adjutators in tinfoil hats warning of the coming apocalypse .... It was in direct response to the quality and content of the product issued by Adobe. The response was of a magnitude unprecedented in the industry. It was not the result of a few trouble makers trying to create a straw man argument to belittle Adobe needlessly.
If anyone is troubled by the 'infantile' level of response to the situation, there is no one to blame other than Tom Hogarty and his co-workers that made the final decision to create and release that product. Perhaps if folks don't want to witness infantile feedback ... Maybe the decision makers at Adobe shouldn't treat their customers like children.
Some may question the severity of the situation over the past week ... But ... Had Adobe offered a more thoughtful, well-planned and properly vetted update ... The reaction from their customers would have been near stone cold silence by comparison.
-
No, just tired of listening to a cracked record, repeating the same old banalities.
I think we're talking about an issue that's about 6 days old here. And yes, I know you keep repeating that every function removed needs to be evaluated on its own merits (that's not a broken record yet ;)) but if Adobe isn't listening to it's own beta-testers the issue is that a lot of people don't have faith in the evaluation of what gets removed.
-
One last point. This controversy has nothing to do with the "subscription service." I have a perpetual license, and I'm impacted as much as any CC user.
Tom
Yes, and no. While both licensing models were impacted by the drastic changes in the Import dialog, it was precisely the subscription model that at least partially enabled Adobe to release v6.2/2015.2 in the state it was. With the protectionist income model, there is little to fear as far as loss of income. Especially over the near term. With so many customers locked into annual agreements, Adobe will see a fairly balanced bottom line regardless of what they produce or errors they commit.
I think it is safe to say, that if any of the decision makers had their next pay check riding on the success and acceptance of 6.2 like it was in the old perpetual license only days ... I don't think it would have left the building in the state we witnessed last week.
-
I think we're talking about an issue that's about 6 days old here. And yes, I know you keep repeating that every function removed needs to be evaluated on its own merits (that's not a broken record yet ;)) but if Adobe isn't listening to it's own beta-testers the issue is that a lot of people don't have faith in the evaluation of what gets removed.
At least my almost-broken record is relevant to the 6 day old issue and not just the warmed-up bitterness of a 3 times-spurned lover (Aperture and Apple's Photos app also dumped Butch). Beta testers can't say much about what they told Adobe (Jeff goes further than most feel comfortable) or about the response. They are often cautious and try to manage or contain their risks - ie if you're beta-testing Adobe software, you may not want to install beta El Capitan or rush to update OSX when it is released - so they may not have seen the instability problems caused by 6.2 being released so close to El Capitan's release. Nor do they see the evidence which led Adobe to make changes. But they do have longer to get over any shock, adapt aspects of their own workflow, and view change more rationally.
-
Quote from: Doug Peterson on October 11, 2015, 12:13:15 AM
From my hugely biased point of view...
Capture One Pro on the other hand has been pushing even further in the direction of professional and advanced users. The most recent updates added features that qualify as borderline-obscure, unless they are needed for your workflow. For instance you can now build your output/destination folder based on tokens like "Image Folder" and "Session name" and "Star Rating" - a huge time saver for digital techs processing large jobs.
I can't remember how long you've been able to do that in Lightroom. I think Publish Services arrived in version 3. ;)
You're completely missing the point John. Doug isn't talking about publishing services. He is referring to tokens that can pull some aspect of meta data from the image to automate an export destination or an import destination.
I.e Auto split images on import based on Date, Camera Serial Number, Location, Iso... etc etc into their respective folders
Or Auto split images into different folders based on their colour tag and star rating, file type (and more more more) on export.
You can educate yourself about it here..
http://blog.phaseone.com/how-to-automate-your-workflow-with-tokens/
It can save a busy studio / photographer an inordinate amount of time in their workflow, so its probably not a subject to poke fun at. A recent quote from a photographer attending one of my weekly webinars (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Events/Capture-One-webinars.aspx)...
"What really blew our minds was when we were shown that we could automate the export multiple recipes of images across a number of folders simultaneously (i.e.; one export group for web based images, a second for full-res JPG and a third for TIFF's). We did a rough estimate and figured out it should save us around six hours a week or roughly 39 days of additional computer time. "
And yes, this is a timely totally biased mention of Capture One on my part. Don't forget you can download a 30 Day Trial (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Downloads/Materials/Download-Capture-One-8.aspx) as well.
We even have an Eject Card option. ;)
David
-
You're completely missing the point John. Doug isn't talking about publishing services. He is referring to tokens that can pull some aspect of meta data from the image to automate an export destination or an import destination.
I.e Auto split images on import based on Date, Camera Serial Number, Location, Iso... etc etc into their respective folders
Or Auto split images into different folders based on their colour tag and star rating, file type (and more more more) on export.
Thank you, David, but I am getting the point - though I appreciate you may not understand why I mentioned publish services. It's because that's how one accomplishes those tasks with Lightroom. I just use a publish service (hard drive option) and as many smart and dumb collections as I wish to employ.
So I can split exports exactly as you describe, and I've been able to do so for the last 6 years.
-
Thank you, David, but I am getting the point - though I appreciate you may not understand why I mentioned publish services. It's because that's how one accomplishes those tasks with Lightroom. I just use a publish service (hard drive option) and as many smart and dumb collections as I wish to employ.
So I can split exports exactly as you describe, and I've been able to do so for the last 6 years.
From what I can see in Lightroom you can publish a 'Smart' collection of images to a folder on your hard drive. If so, thats about a 10th of whats possible in a Capture One recipe.
i.e I can sub divide my exports into different folders based on the metadata. Multiple dynamic folders in multiple locations.
Plus I can also manually create folders within the automated structure as well.
-
From what I can see in Lightroom you can publish a 'Smart' collection of images to a folder on your hard drive. If so, thats about a 10th of whats possible in a Capture One recipe.
Lightroom lets you set up published services that generate folders based on smart collections including conditional or nested criteria (have those in C1 yet?) with others based on purely-arbitrary groupings. That's been available since 2009.
i.e I can sub divide my exports into different folders based on the metadata. Multiple dynamic folders in multiple locations.
The dynamic aspect is good. On the other hand, is it necessary for many people? Those who want it just use one of the Lightroom plugins that have done similar jobs for the since about 2007.
Plus I can also manually create folders with the automates structure as well.
Fine, if that's what people want (some DAM authors would question its sense though). Lightroom just doesn't need those manually-created folders - you just filter and group irrespective of physical folder locations. But for 8 years it has been possible to implement import to folder by metadata criteria as a Lightroom plugin. If it had been wanted by Lightroom's far-bigger user base, I'm sure it would have been done by someone somewhere. I can't think of anyone, but put coding efforts there if you really think it's worthwhile.
Anyway, I don't dispute that C1 offers some features that aren't just different, but better than the nearest Lightroom equivalent. But I see Doug likens running C1 under El Capitan to "like eating wild mushrooms in the forest without knowing much about mushrooms. Most of the time it will be fine, but if you get a bit sick you only have yourself to blame." Maybe you've been trying that if you think this is a thread about promoting C1?
John
-
Lightroom lets you set up published services that generate folders based on smart collections including conditional or nested criteria (have those in C1 yet?) with others based on purely-arbitrary groupings. That's been available since 2009.
The dynamic aspect is good. On the other hand, is it necessary for many people? Those who want it just use one of the Lightroom plugins that have done similar jobs for the since about 2007.
Fine, if that's what people want (some DAM authors would question its sense though). Lightroom just doesn't need those manually-created folders - you just filter and group irrespective of physical folder locations. But for 8 years it has been possible to implement import to folder by metadata criteria as a Lightroom plugin. If it had been wanted by Lightroom's far-bigger user base, I'm sure it would have been done by someone somewhere. I can't think of anyone, but put coding efforts there if you really think it's worthwhile.
Anyway, I don't dispute that C1 offers some features that aren't just different, but better than the nearest Lightroom equivalent. But I see Doug likens running C1 under El Capitan to "like eating wild mushrooms in the forest without knowing much about mushrooms. Most of the time it will be fine, but if you get a bit sick you only have yourself to blame." Maybe you've been trying that if you think this is a thread about promoting C1?
John
Thank you for conceding that Capture One has indeed more powerful features for a professional user base, without requiring plugins.
Thats a good description of Capture One.
-
[Beta testers] are often cautious and try to manage or contain their risks - ie if you're beta-testing Adobe software, you may not want to install beta El Capitan or rush to update OSX when it is released - so they may not have seen the instability problems caused by 6.2 being released so close to El Capitan's release. Nor do they see the evidence which led Adobe to make changes. But they do have longer to get over any shock, adapt aspects of their own workflow, and view change more rationally.
1. Adobe ought to get Beta testers that are going to put the product through its paces, not just give it a gentle prod
2. El Capitan has been in Beta for months. Whether or not the Beta testers tested on the Beta, Adobe, whose product this is, ought to have done before shipping
3. In any case, Adobe chose to ship, for marketing reasons, knowing that the product was "crashy". That tells you all that you need to know about the relative priority that Adobe attaches to acquiring new subscribers over the needs of existing ones, for all the cant about customer focus, and the need to restore trust. The supposed tyranny of a revenue-driven 18-month upgrade cycle, to which the subscription model, was supposedly an answer has not gone away.
-
When I opened it up my first thought was, holy crap, Fisher-Price has now taken over Adobe system development.
It's so dumbed down feeling, and it took me a long, long time to figure out what to do to get what I wanted done. THAT is a huge sign of failure. No matter how much you may think you're improving things, if the mass of your core users now stumble to get work done, you've failed.
And as I opened it up again just now, I realized - what they've done is the equivalent of a camera maker saying, there's only one exposure mode now, P, and if you should happen to want to use Aperture mode or Shutter mode, you fossil, you can get to them in the menus...
-
Thank you for conceding that Capture One has indeed more powerful features for a professional user base, without requiring plugins.
Thats a good description of Capture One.
Thanks for twisting my words, David. My summary would be good but overpriced.
-
Thanks for twisting my words, David. My summary would be good but overpriced.
I just don't like misinformation around.
The Export capabilities of Capture One cannot be compared to Lightroom. Its two very different ways of solving a problem.
-
I just don't like misinformation around.
The Export capabilities of Capture One cannot be compared to Lightroom. Its two very different ways of solving a problem.
Well, as the misinformation is the claim C1 does something that isn't possible in Lr, it really doesn't justify you twisting my words.
Yes, two different ways of solving a problem (and non problems) that Lightroom has been solving since 2007-2009.
-
Well, as the misinformation is the claim C1 does something that isn't possible in Lr, it really doesn't justify you twisting my words.
Yes, two different ways of solving a problem (and non problems) that Lightroom has been solving since 2007-2009.
Ok John, Ok. :)
But I would still argue that Lightroom simply cannot do what Capture One does in terms of a power workflow of import / export. Plus I assume the photographer I quoted (who was using Lightroom) wasn't making his statement up.
But this is hijacking the thread, and I have no wish to behave badly, so bowing out now.
-
Ok John, Ok. :)
But I would still argue that Lightroom simply cannot do what Capture One does in terms of a power workflow of import / export. Plus I assume the photographer I quoted (who was using Lightroom) wasn't making his statement up.
But this is hijacking the thread, and I have no wish to behave badly, so bowing out now.
OK, peace. I don't dispute the honesty of his statement - but I doubt his knowledge of Lightroom. The grass is always greener....
-
Thank you for conceding that Capture One has indeed more powerful features for a professional user base, without requiring plugins.
Thats a good description of Capture One.
That is certainly not what John said.
Anyway, I don't dispute that C1 offers some features that aren't just different, but better than the nearest Lightroom equivalent. But I see Doug likens running C1 under El Capitan to "like eating wild mushrooms in the forest without knowing much about mushrooms. Most of the time it will be fine, but if you get a bit sick you only have yourself to blame." Maybe you've been trying that if you think this is a thread about promoting C1?
;D ;D
-
But I would still argue that Lightroom simply cannot do what Capture One does in terms of a power workflow of import / export. Plus I assume the photographer I quoted (who was using Lightroom) wasn't making his statement up.
But this is hijacking the thread, and I have no wish to behave badly, so bowing out now.
So how professional is a programme that doesn't even bother to support all cameras that pros may use?
Or not even support DNG files. Supporting a few cameras that use DNGs is not the same as supporting DNG before anyone tries to argue 1 does.
Why would any professional commit to a piece of software that may well not support camera equipment that he may purchase or may already have purchased?
I'd seriously consider C1 as an alternative for certain imagery, but not if I may end up being stranded with a camera whose files my software won't open.
-
At least my almost-broken record is relevant to the 6 day old issue and not just the warmed-up bitterness of a 3 times-spurned lover (Aperture and Apple's Photos app also dumped Butch).
Really, John? Was it Apple that released an update for Lightroom before it was properly tested? Was it Tim Cole that decided that come Hell or high water Hogarty would have something shiny to show off at Max? Was it my fault Hogarty chose to, and approved of, stripping so much functionality from the Import dialog without warning because he knows better than his users what they should use?
This whole issue, and any subsequent user response that you find disconcerting or unnecessarily repetitive is purely the result of Adobe's poor decision making. It's not my fault they produced an epic failure.
Eject After Import is gone. Do I care?
Seems you share Hogarty's cavalier attitude. Though, apparently more than a few of your fellow users ... who pay the same price you do for their software licensing ... seem to disagree with you on the arbitrary unannounced loss of functionality.
Or is it because v6.2/2015.2 reflects your personal vision for the app and you are now distraught that so many other users don't appreciate your vision for Lr? Are your feelings crushed that throngs of users didn't embrace this update?
You may have established yourself as a power user of Lightroom. You may have some good points on why certain methods and pathways offer better options for efficiency of workflow ... but by no means are you on this journey alone. There are a myriad of users and genres that employ Lr to an end. A one-size-fits-all attitude may not be the best method to please even the majority of users. These issues and my response to them that causes you so much discomfort is not the result of any effort on my behalf. You need to look elsewhere for the cause.
Like I said before. Had Adobe done their job properly, this thread and many others around the world like it, would have never existed.
If the skipping of the record on the turntable is truly annoying to you ... better make a call to San Jose, they are the ones who caused your annoyance. Not I.
-
Or is it because v6.2/2015.2 reflects your personal vision for the app and you are now distraught that so many other users don't appreciate your vision for Lr? Are your feelings crushed that throngs of users didn't embrace this update?
Same tired old record, Butch. Stop personalising it, please - isn't someone allowed to disagree with the herd?
-
Same tired old record, Butch. Stop personalising it, please - isn't someone allowed to disagree with the herd?
Sure, John, I'll stop personalizing the issue as soon as this other fellow does ...
At least my almost-broken record is relevant to the 6 day old issue and not just the warmed-up bitterness of a 3 times-spurned lover (Aperture and Apple's Photos app also dumped Butch).
Speaking metaphorically and hypothetically of course. Was it you that dumped the herd? .... or did the herd dump you? .... (Not associating the preceding expression with any specific individual living or dead. Any correlation of same is purely coincidental.) 8)
-
So how professional is a programme that doesn't even bother to support all cameras that pros may use?
Or not even support DNG files. Supporting a few cameras that use DNGs is not the same as supporting DNG before anyone tries to argue 1 does.
Why would any professional commit to a piece of software that may well not support camera equipment that he may purchase or may already have purchased?
I'd seriously consider C1 as an alternative for certain imagery, but not if I may end up being stranded with a camera whose files my software won't open.
Which cameras Jeremy?
Plus DNG support has been improving steadily in recent months. I.e we can now read the DNG 1.4 standard. Not just native DNG if you were not aware.
Improving that support more is an ongoing story which certainly isn't over yet!
D
-
Sure, John, I'll stop personalizing the issue as soon as this other fellow does ...
Speaking metaphorically and hypothetically of course. Was it you that dumped the herd? .... or did the herd dump you? .... (Not associating the preceding expression with any specific individual living or dead. Any correlation of same is purely coincidental.) 8)
No, nothing to do with me dumping a herd or a herd dumping me. I look at this a lot more coldly than you and the "I want my toys back" or "The End of the World is Nigh" gangs. For me Adobe can just restore one or two things like Eject, or maybe just set its default to auto-eject, and soon people will have adjusted and forgotten what's gone as readily as they have done in the past (well done, jjj, for getting one). Sorry if that lacks hyperbole.
-
I look at this a lot more coldly than you and the "I want my toys back" or "The End of the World is Nigh" gangs.
It is quite apparent by your choice of terms used to illustrate your point that you have a cold, and at times, low regard for at least some of your fellow users. I find great difficulty in equating any of the tools I have come to rely upon to generate my primary income as 'toys' ... While I can agree this situation is not the 'End of the World,' the result was the arbitrary breaking of existing and long-established personal workflows without explanation or notice .... which is not a trivial matter. I think more than a few folks are aware of the cold, callous and uncaring attitude from those who bestowed the awesomeness that was v6.2.
To you, the removal of the eject after import function is a trivial matter. Not so trivial matter for the technician working a large sporting event who has to deal with ingesting thousands of images from dozens of cards while on a tight deadline. In this situation your 'toy' that you feel is unworthy of inclusion is a valuable time saver for many other fellow users who had already PAID for that 'toy' ... Sure this same tech can bounce out of Lr to the Finder/Explorer and manually eject the cards ... but shouldn't our software solutions save us time and effort? Workarounds are not solutions, just more work.
Though who am I to question such superior intellect. Perhaps I should blindly accept whatever is offered by Adobe without question or without concern and become part of the 'acceptable' herd ...
-
Once again what could have been, and should have been, a mature discussion has degenerated into personal attacks and name-calling.
This topic is now locked.
Michael