Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Goodlistener on April 02, 2008, 11:05:17 pm
-
Apparently Adobe has announced a public Beat of Lightroom 2.0 today. How did Adobe handle the cost of upgrading from say Photo Shop CS2 to Photoshop CS3? Are they going to ask me for money?
-
Yes. A bunch of it.
-
Yes. A bunch of it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186615\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL - in Adobe's defence - they have actually stated that they have not 'yet' decided on final pricing [or at least they are not 'yet' ready to disclose it]
I would imagine there will be a smaller upgrade charge for existing 1.x users however.
-
In general it costs money to upgrade whenever the first digit of the version number changes ...
-
I would guess maybe $99 to upgrade--about a third of list price for LR.
--John
-
I haven't tried the beta yet but from what I have read about new features it had better be fairly cheap. It looks like a lot of the "new" stuff are things that should have been in 1.0 like dual monitor support. I think they kind of rushed it out to stave off sales of Apperture and are now adding the missing stuff back in.
-
I haven't tried the beta yet but from what I have read about new features it had better be fairly cheap. It looks like a lot of the "new" stuff are things that should have been in 1.0 like dual monitor support. I think they kind of rushed it out to stave off sales of Apperture and are now adding the missing stuff back in.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. The localised editing is proper version two fair but the rest feel like point release updates.
Even the enhanced CS3 functionality is a little smoke and mirrors. Correct me if I'm wrong but all it looks to be doing is passing the RAW files + parameters to the Camera Raw plugin in a "quiet" mode. Which means PS has to be kept bang up to date with LR for any of this to work correctly.
-
I have no quarrel with a modest upgrade cost but shouldn't beta testers be rewarded as well?
-
Not on a public beta. (This is a public enough beta.)
The reward (in theory) is the ability to give feedback on the product before it is released.
-
I agree. The localised editing is proper version two fair but the rest feel like point release updates.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't agree re: these features:
--Dual monitor support
--30,000 pixel limit
--Revised Metadata browser (whether you like the change or not, probably was a fair amount of work)
--Smart Collections
--Improved output sharpening based on PK Sharpener algorhythms
When you add these all up, plus localized corrections, I think this merits a 2.0 designation. Of course, if they just had soft proofing...
--John
-
I don't agree re: these features:
--Dual monitor support
--30,000 pixel limit
--Revised Metadata browser (whether you like the change or not, probably was a fair amount of work)
--Smart Collections
--Improved output sharpening based on PK Sharpener algorhythms
When you add these all up, plus localized corrections, I think this merits a 2.0 designation. Of course, if they just had soft proofing...
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To me the first 2 should have been in the initial release. 3 is a HoHum as is 4.
5 is a valueable addin if it works as well as Photokit.
If you look at what Apple added in 2.0 and the free 2.1 Adobe has not come up with a 2.0 yet.
-
If you look at what Apple added in 2.0 and the free 2.1 Adobe has not come up with a 2.0 yet.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For those of us on Windows, that is kind of a moot point. Do you use Aperture rather than LR? If so, why? If not, why not?
--John
-
I don't agree re: these features:
--Dual monitor support
--30,000 pixel limit
--Revised Metadata browser (whether you like the change or not, probably was a fair amount of work)
--Smart Collections
--Improved output sharpening based on PK Sharpener algorhythms
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would be surprised if any of these were major tasks development wise (1, 2 and 4 especially so). Depends how many hands Adobe has on it and if corporate is willing to back up the production team and push it to greatness - it COULD be so very very good. Which is why I'm disappointed they see this as a full release, regardless of Aperture.
-
I don't agree re: these features:
--Dual monitor support
--30,000 pixel limit
--Revised Metadata browser (whether you like the change or not, probably was a fair amount of work)
--Smart Collections
--Improved output sharpening based on PK Sharpener algorhythms
When you add these all up, plus localized corrections, I think this merits a 2.0 designation. Of course, if they just had soft proofing...
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
or..... Adobe is looking for another cash infusion through its periodic upgrades.
We'll have to decide if 2.0 is actually worth paying $99 (or whatever) to upgrade to
-
For those of us on Windows, that is kind of a moot point. Do you use Aperture rather than LR? If so, why? If not, why not?
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I actually use both. I originaly bought Aperture when it was released and got a free copy of LR because I had bought (I forget what the software was called but Adobe bought them) When I got my Leica M8 LR supported it so I started useing it more and more. Don't get me wrong I really like LR and use it on my PC notebook but after upgradeing to Aperture 2.0 I find I get better conversions and I like the workflow. There are a few things I still like better in LR but for now I mostly don't have to round trip to PS where with LR I do. I am wondering if Adobe are holding back on LR features as they may not want to step on PS sales. In the end I probably will upgrade it but I think they at least need to put softproofing in it.
-
Don't get me wrong I really like LR and use it on my PC notebook but after upgradeing to Aperture 2.0 I find I get better conversions and I like the workflow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Better conversions in what way? Sometimes I wish I had a Mac so I can see how the other half lives... but as a die hard PC owner for 25 years it is hard to make a change. Every time I play with a Mac I am not impressed (not Mac bashing, just my impression).
--John
-
Better conversions in what way? Sometimes I wish I had a Mac so I can see how the other half lives... but as a die hard PC owner for 25 years it is hard to make a change. Every time I play with a Mac I am not impressed (not Mac bashing, just my impression).
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186878\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not sure we can be truly objective in answering your question because conversions are subject to personal taste and preference. My two take aways are: The initial Aperture 2 conversion is closer to that of Capture NX (D3, D300 NEFs) which I consider better. I find the color and tone a little more pleasing when compared to a Lightroom 1.3 conversion.
Still, I can get pretty good results in both LR and Aperture. I'm normally an advocate of pick one tool, stick with it and maximise your knowledge and understanding. I'm convinced that switching from one to the other ultimately dilutes knowledge and capability. That said, despite being a very satisfied LR user I am very impressed with Aperture 2. I'll revise my opinion when the final release LR 2.0 is available. Aperture 1.0 was a joke making LR 1.0 a shoe-in. The game has changed.
-
I suppose one could point out that the software released as a Beta yesterday was described very carefully as unfinished and indeed, lacking features that will be in the release version.
It was clear to me that it was more of a rough sketch, released for comment and tire kicking.
So I really don't see the point in starting to be critical of its lack of features when you are not aware of the eventual feature set. I don't see the point of complaining about a price that hasn't been set.
I don't see the point in joining in on the discussion of what the next version of Lr will be, or will cost when the only point of view you can have is based on speculation and opinion unless you join in the spirit of cooperation and creativity that has characterized the entire Lr project.
I see a lot of good will on Adobe's part.
-
Curious no one has mentioned 64bit support. This plus Smart object support round-tripping into CS3 makes this a compelling upgrade, at least for me.
-
I see a lot of good will on Adobe's part.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see a lot of goodwill in the LR team. I'm yet to be convinced by Adobe as a whole. LR was almost stillborn. For some time to come I am convinced LR's talented engineers will be constrained by segment overlap and the fear of canibalisation. Adobe's senior managers are responsible for balancing this equation.
Apple failed to deliver with Aperture v1 to point that many believed they had completely lost interest. Well see what they come up over the next 12-18 months. What is for sure is that they are only limited by technical challenges and the amount of resources Apple are willing to commit.
Things are very interesting right now.
-
I see a lot of goodwill in the LR team. I'm yet to be convinced by Adobe as a whole. LR was almost stillborn. For some time to come I am convinced LR's talented engineers will be constrained by segment overlap and the fear of canibalisation. Adobe's senior managers are responsible for balancing this equation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186889\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That would be a shame if LR was hobbled by fear of losing PS sales. More competition (e.g., Aperture) should help to limit that problem.
--John
-
"LR was almost stillborn."
I just don't understand this attitude. I have used Lr since the second I got my hands on it - and it has been a delight to edit my 12,000 RAW files with it.
I use Ps as well - on every photo that I consider portfolio worthy. I will no doubt continue to use Ps for all the things that it does well - but I will organize and process most of my material in Lr. If Lr grows to include all the things that I take a trip to Ps for I will eventually abandon Ps - but I don't think that Lr is heading in that direction.
As for comparisons with Aperture - I'm pretty much out of that loop being a PC user. PCs represent a huge part of the marketplace. Aperture may be a better solution for Mac users. I don't know.
-
Better conversions in what way? Sometimes I wish I had a Mac so I can see how the other half lives... but as a die hard PC owner for 25 years it is hard to make a change. Every time I play with a Mac I am not impressed (not Mac bashing, just my impression).
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186878\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can't really explain the difference but they just look better to me. Last summer I did a couple of weddings for friends, I used both my M8 and my 5D and took basically the same shots with both cameras. I shot about 1100 images at each wedding. When I did sample prints and gave each couple dvd's of the images to choose for printing both couples chose about 75% M8 images. Both cameras produce excellent images and I use both extensivly but yet there is something about images from the M8. It is the same difference I now find with Aperture 2 and LR 1.3. I can't really describe it but as of right now to me Aperture has the edge. That could very well change as LR 2 comes closer to release. As far as Mac V Pc I actually work as a software developer and consultant on PC's. I bought a Mac because of Aperture and although I hadn't used a MAc in about 20 years I must admit I prefer it for my photography and video stuff. I have three Dell workstations running and a 21" M2010 Dell notebook that I use for work and a 24" iMac and recently a Macbook for my photo stuff. When friends ask me now what to buy for their home PC's I tell them buy a Mac.
-
"LR was almost stillborn."
I just don't understand this attitude. I have used Lr since the second I got my hands on it - and it has been a delight to edit my 12,000 RAW files with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you misunderstand my point. I largely share your delight in LR. I originally purchased Aperture 1.0. I know only too well how good LR 1.x is.
I was making the point that there was a time when Adobe were 'reluctant' to bring Lightroom to market despite the efforts of the LR team.
-
ahh. Now I understand what you meant. Thanks.
-
. I think they kind of rushed it out to stave off sales of Apperture and are now adding the missing stuff back in.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have similar thoughts. Their timing being a big giveaway. Rather underwhelmed by the new features. Needs far more additions to warrant a left to the decimal point number increase IMHO. Still has a rather rudimentary watermark for example. The new feature of interest to me is the burn and dodge tool. Maybe worth $25 for the upgrade.
-
Do photographers get free upgrades to the new version of their camera?
-
Do photographers get free upgrades to the new version of their camera?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As a matter of fact as far as software (firmware) yes we do. That is not the point of the discussion. I don't think anyone is saying to not pay for upgrades. I am saying that the upgrades in 2.0 seem a bit light to me. Dual monitor support should have been in 1.0. I have only just started playing with the beta and I have not found it to be a milestone that warrants a major upgrade price. Apple just came out with an Apperture 2.1 update where they included a dodge and burn plugin for free, mind you the 2.0 release was not free.
-
I see a lot of goodwill in the LR team. I'm yet to be convinced by Adobe as a whole. LR was almost stillborn. For some time to come I am convinced LR's talented engineers will be constrained by segment overlap and the fear of canibalisation. Adobe's senior managers are responsible for balancing this equation.
Apple failed to deliver with Aperture v1 to point that many believed they had completely lost interest. Well see what they come up over the next 12-18 months. What is for sure is that they are only limited by technical challenges and the amount of resources Apple are willing to commit.
Things are very interesting right now."
I think the future of Lightroom will be the same as for Camera Raw; rolled into PS. This could be a good idea if this new version of PS - PS for Digital Images, lost some bulk by omitting the graphic artist features. It would be unbeatable having LR plus full PS editing in one package. The suits at Adobe will make this happen at some time because of the above mentioned marketing problems for Adobe.
-
I suppose one could point out that the software released as a Beta yesterday was described very carefully as unfinished and indeed, lacking features that will be in the release version.
It was clear to me that it was more of a rough sketch, released for comment and tire kicking.
So I really don't see the point in starting to be critical of its lack of features when you are not aware of the eventual feature set. I don't see the point of complaining about a price that hasn't been set.
I don't see the point in joining in on the discussion of what the next version of Lr will be, or will cost when the only point of view you can have is based on speculation and opinion unless you join in the spirit of cooperation and creativity that has characterized the entire Lr project.
I see a lot of good will on Adobe's part.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello,
Here is the big Confusion
Now the thing is that in one of the 'LR2 overview' by Ian Lyon's says that LR2 Beta release is 'feature complete' so the final release will not surprise you with any much needed major features.
Where as, one of the video demo from Julieannne Kost says
Beta is feature incomplete and final version may have many new features.
So it is not clear whether LR2 Beta is feature complete or not. If it is feature complete, then considering it as a major release is quite unjustifiable as LR still falls back on PS for things like 'Soft proofing' and claiming as 'complete work flow solution' for photographers is not justifiable.
AjantaKVS
-
Hi
I was hoping for tethered from this new version but no mention of it.
Denis
-
Hi
I was hoping for tethered from this new version but no mention of it.
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Me too. I would like LR to handle my images from the get go. But sofar it ain't happening. Aperture does it quite nicely but up until now I have been dragging my feet to switch over to avoid a capture workflow ping pong match. I had great hopes Adobe would soon follow suit. Needless to say I am very disappointed with this upgrade. Mainly because it is being considered major with a missing link.
We'll see when they put a price tag on it what my decision will be.
-
What baffles me (and that's easy) is why I have to organise and mess about with my files in Lightroom and then if I want to print them properly I have to have another Adobe product costing £500 to print them from. How everyone puts up with this lack of soft proofing in Lightroom I do not comprehend, and now they have the cheek to say they had to make difficult decisions and left soft proofing out. Come on guys the program will still be missing the most important addition in version 2 and you want to pay them more money. Adobe put in soft proofing, make the program stand alone for printing, if it takes two months longer so be it, or are you running out of money?
There are several reasons it's not being included.
They don't now how to do it!
They still want to sell photoshop to photographers!
They need a major item to include in version 3!
They don't like me?
Frank
-
Here is some additional information about features (or lack thereof) in LR 2.0. This is a quote from Dan Tull, LR QE on the LR 2 Beta forum:
"I can give you one other reason that there's no archival/backup features in this version. The conversion from the old (and largely incoherent) shoots model that predated the folders panel was largely cosmetic in version 1 and the subsequent dot releases. The machinery under the hood needed some significant rework. The bad news is that most of these changes are not readily apparent*. The good news is, the new foundation is a far better one on which to build asset management features (like archive and backup) in the future.
I can't promise when or what will be delivered in the future (if I knew, which I don't, I couldn't tell you anyway), but I thought it might help to understand the dearth of such features this time around.
* One thing some folks might notice is that there are some significant improvements in the ability of LR to deal with folders going on and offline due to storage on NAS or external disk drives."
--John
-
Here is some additional information about features (or lack thereof) in LR 2.0. This is a quote from Dan Tull, LR QE on the LR 2 Beta forum:
"I can give you one other reason that there's no archival/backup features in this version. The conversion from the old (and largely incoherent) shoots model that predated the folders panel was largely cosmetic in version 1 and the subsequent dot releases. The machinery under the hood needed some significant rework. The bad news is that most of these changes are not readily apparent*. The good news is, the new foundation is a far better one on which to build asset management features (like archive and backup) in the future. <snip>
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187339\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't care about the underlying mechanisms if the part I use doesn't change. If the changes make for better features in the future, then I'll be happy to pay for them in the future.
The local adjustments feature is worth quite a bit to me; I would upgrade for that alone. Dual screens is also good.
I shoot four digital cameras -- an M8, a Nikon D300 and D3, and a Leica P&S. I may lack sensitivity to the color vibrations, but I have not yet found anything that I can do in the Nikon software that I can't get out of Photoshop/Lightroom pretty quickly. May be different for batch processing, which I don't do. On the whole, I find LR/PS conversions to be pretty good.
More scaling/sizing facilities in preparing a jpg for web use, or just for e-mailing it, would also be nice.
I have four Apples (two iMacs, a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro) and honest to god, if I could only coordinate a multi-unit breakdown so I could justify starting over, I'd go back to PC. Not to start off on a rant, or anything, but Apple is a little fascist state and anything the glorious leader doesn't want, you don't get. The 30-inch cinema screen *is* excellent -- using anything else is like looking through the viewfinder on a Canon Rebel. However, I bought one of the 20-something-inch cinema screens (22? 23?) two or three years back (the lucite one), and I find you can't even plug them into the new Mac Pro without a $100 converter that's about the size of a loaf of bread. Apple obsoleted (if that's a verb) a very expensive display that only a couple of years ago was state-of-the-art. They've pulled other stuff like that over the years, and seriously, if I get to the point where everything needs an upgrade, I may do a big favor to Michael Dell.
Don't even get me started about the number of USB ports on even high-end Macs...
JC
-
LR was almost stillborn.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186889\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That really seems hard to believe, considering the way that photographers have taken to using Lightroom.
-
What baffles me (and that's easy) is why I have to organise and mess about with my files in Lightroom and then if I want to print them properly I have to have another Adobe product costing £500 to print them from. How everyone puts up with this lack of soft proofing in Lightroom I do not comprehend, and now they have the cheek to say they had to make difficult decisions and left soft proofing out. Come on guys the program will still be missing the most important addition in version 2 and you want to pay them more money. Adobe put in soft proofing, make the program stand alone for printing, if it takes two months longer so be it, or are you running out of money?
There are several reasons it's not being included.
They don't now how to do it!
They still want to sell photoshop to photographers!
They need a major item to include in version 3!
They don't like me?
Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am totally withn you in the bafflement. Hearing that LR 2.0 would not have soft-proofing prompted me to finally try out Aperture. Aperture did lose, though: It hung on me several times, the interface is cramped and hard to read (totally un-Mac-like), after initial import I could only import one folder at a time, and it does not have chromatic aberration fixing at all. It also helped that I sped up LR by putting the catalog on a separate disk from the raw files. But I probably won't upgrade until there's soft proofing.
-Lars
-
That really seems hard to believe, considering the way that photographers have taken to using Lightroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Adobe almost canned it. Apple's release of Aperture helped them see that canning it wasn't the best plan, given someone saw a need for a product in the space.
-
Curious no one has mentioned 64bit support. This plus Smart object support round-tripping into CS3 makes this a compelling upgrade, at least for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you mind explaining what that means? if somebody tells me that I'm going to get 64 bit support I might say I don't need my bits in a support... But such a bad joke would demean the quality of the discussion. More seriously, I understand 8, 16, 32 and 64 bit OS. More bits means more instructions per CPU cycle, means more work accomplished in a given amount of time. But what does this mean to me as a photographer in post-production?
-
Who are we kidding. We all know that we are going to upgrade as I'm sure that the price will be worth it. We're addicted. We just can't help ourselves.
Bud
-
Do you mind explaining what that means? if somebody tells me that I'm going to get 64 bit support I might say I don't need my bits in a support... But such a bad joke would demean the quality of the discussion. More seriously, I understand 8, 16, 32 and 64 bit OS. More bits means more instructions per CPU cycle, means more work accomplished in a given amount of time. But what does this mean to me as a photographer in post-production?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187826\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
64 bit means that LR will be able to use more than 4GB of memory. This should give you better perfomance when you're dealing with large images.
-
Hi
I was hoping for tethered from this new version but no mention of it.
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes as it stands I have to go through the BS with DPP+EOS utility where you have to use a bug work around just to launch Canon's worthless software.
I would also like to have CMYK conversions towards the LR catalogue as I still have some legacy magazine files that I need to be catalogued in LR too.
-
64 bit means that LR will be able to use more than 4GB of memory. This should give you better perfomance when you're dealing with large images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187876\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lets hope they are smart with the database underlying LR and that it will also benefit from 64 bit support as the search capability is a bit of an achilles heel once you get decently large collections.