What’s gone in Lightroom CC 2015.2 and Lightroom 6.2 ?

[Rory]

Rory, why don't you cease questioning my honesty and focus on criticising my arguments? It is not "essential to any volume shooter", just to those volume shooters with certain time pressures, as evidenced by the success of PhotoMechanic (which I sometimes use) and by its niche market presence.

LR was meeting my needs before v6.2 except I would have preferred it to be faster displaying the jpeg previews.  All I wanted was for LR import previewing to be as fast as pretty near any other image viewer on the market.  I want to see the preview and zoom to 100%.  I want to minimize the number of images I push through the "bottleneck", as I often only want to import about 5% of the images.  I do not want to wait almost two hours for LR to generate 1:1 previews to adobe's specs when they already exist.  I do not want to add 40GB of files to my SSD, only to turn around and delete 38GB a few hours later.  I guess I'm just superficial enough to be attracted to the opportunity to eliminate all this extra, unnecessary activity.

[john beardsworth]

What I don't understand is my fellow user(s) lobbying against my idea and spend so much time trying to convince me how insignificant my concerns are?

Which fellow user(s) is/are lobbying against that idea? Can someone not say they doubt the need is widespread enough? What idiot would try to convince you of anything?

[jrp]

What should happen to Lightroom is that (a) there should be a big heave on removing the well-known long-standing bugs that pervade it, and (b) it should be properly performance tuned. It is, after all, supposed to be a professional tool, even if Adobe think, mistakenly, that its appeal can be broadened.

The incentives on Adobe to do that are small, as this won't attract new users (unless it gains a reputation for speed, which seems unlikely to happen).

Instagram has several orders of magnitude more pictures on it than the main stock libraries, for example, so you can see the attraction, for Adobe of going after a broader audience.

But if you wanted to attract casual users, you wouldn't start from Lightroom. It is not designed to do the job that the masses want to achieve: getting pics up on the net painlessly.  Indeed understanding the options for getting pictures out of it is even trickier than for those for getting them in.

The other pressure that will lead to further stagnation is that the main develop process seems to be being reused in the new video / special effects applications that Adobe sells. This means that changing the code base is a bigger deal than it would have been if it was used only in ACR / Lightroom.

Instagram has several orders of magnitude more pictures on it than the main stock libraries, for example, so you can see the attraction, for Adobe of going after a broader audience.

[john beardsworth]

But if you wanted to attract casual users, you wouldn't start from Lightroom. It is not designed to do the job that the masses want to achieve: getting pics up on the net painlessly.

You "wouldn't start from Lightroom Desktop", perhaps. Have you even looked at Lightroom Mobile which went "freemium" last week?

You also need to note what Adobe say are the people they are aiming to attract with the recent changes to Lightroom Desktop: "....people passionate about photography and who use their cameras as a creative outlet.  In short, their motivations share the same motivations as people who already love Lightroom."

[James R]

Like Butch, I don't use LR Book, Map, and Web mods; and don't turn the on.  Complaining about LR it not worth the time, since it is Adobe's vision and C1Pro is a viable option.  I do think it is time for Adobe to examine its UI.  It is dated, rather clunky, and slow. 

C1Pro is designed for fit a photographer's workflow, where LR locks the workflow by grouping tools in subsets (such as Basic).  IMO, it would be nice if Adobe would allow the photographer to setup the Library and Develop modules in a way that fits their workflow.  Also, Adobe has floating tools in PS, why not LR. 

LR is still a decent program, but it can be better with a little TLC.  BTW, I doubt any of my wishes will ever see the light of day.

[Simon Garrett]

I continue to pay for PV2012 ... which I already paid for  ... in 2012. I have paid for a Book module I can't use because I use vendors that have different page sizes, margins and bleeds than does Blurb and Adobe in all their wisdom doesn't think I am worth the effort to allow customization of same.

I also pay for a Maps module I do not need or use. I have paid for a facial recognition module I don't really need and I have been paying for a nearly useless Web module since it's inception.

That's the way of it, I'm afraid.  Every software package I use has featues I don't want, but it's unrealistic to expect that vendors will provide a sort of deli approach to package only those features one wants - and it certainly wouldn't be cheaper. 

Not once have I ever complained about the creation of. or the continued development of these modules (expect for my well documented complaints about hamstringing the Book module) or lobbied against their development or inclusion as I know there are many other users who do find value in them.

Quite right not to complain, as it's actually reducing the price of the package for you by widening the appeal of it (or at least, that's what Adobe will be planning; whether they achieve it is another matter). 

Why is it too much to ask for a few lines of code to assist me, and while a niche group, more than a few other like-minded Lr users, to have the ability to import only locked images? How many lines of code and how many years would it take Adobe to develop the feature? Heck, I was able to do this 5 years ago in Aperture without issue? If Apple could accomplish the task, how difficult must it be to offer? Why is it too complicated or unreasonable to ask my software provider of choice to serve my needs?

Perhaps you're not a software developer?  Those "few lines of code" are probably much more than you think.  More to the point, every additional "few lines of code", every extra option is an additional ongoing maintenance load.  Every feature has the potential to interact with every other feature, requires checking for every new release and is a potential source of future bugs.  With good design that feature interaction shouldn't happen, but it's surprising how often it does. 

More than that: it's a source of confusion for users.  It's another way for users to screw up.  I'm not defending Adobe for their botched attempt at what they intended to be a simplified UI, but I can understand their objective.  The various forums are full of comments from users that have tied themselves in knots by selecting the wrong option somewhere, and possibly clicking the "don't warn me again" option when LR asks "are you sure you want to do this?". 

A common example: when ACR is out of step with Lightroom, you chose "Edit in Photoshop", LR warns you, and if you choose "Open anyway" (usually a bad choice) and "don't warn me again" you have a mysterious source of inexplicable errors some time in the future.  I've lost count of the number of forum posts by people tripped up by that. 
 
Edited to add: Clearly extra features are good as they may attract more users, and bad as they increase ongoing maintenance costs and risk confusing users.  I wasn't criticisting ButchM's choice of features, only pointing out that there's always a hard balance to be struck by a software provider. 

[john beardsworth]

C1Pro is designed for fit a photographer's workflow

So is Lr's. It just takes the view that it's important that tools are in a known location.

[jrp]

You mean Lightroom Desktop. Have you even looked at Lightroom Mobile which went "freemium" last week?

Yes.

[john beardsworth]

Yes.

Then look at it again.

[James R]

So is Lr's. It just takes the view that it's important that tools are in a known location.

Known location is fine; however, that "known location" may not be the best fit for all photographers.  I prefer to create customizable workspaces; float the histogram; improved color control tools (along the line of C1Pro); implement a version of layers; maybe allow for quick crops during the Library culling process; just to name a few things. 

I get a sense that Adobe has decide that the LR UI doesn't need improvement.  To me, that attitude stifles creativity.

[john beardsworth]

I get a sense that Adobe has decide that the LR UI doesn't need improvement.

You say that after the last week?

[jjj]

I continue to pay for PV2012 ... which I already paid for  ... in 2012. I have paid for a Book module I can't use because I use vendors that have different page sizes, margins and bleeds than does Blurb and Adobe in all their wisdom doesn't think I am worth the effort to allow customization of same.

I also pay for a Maps module I do not need or use. I have paid for a facial recognition module I don't really need and I have been paying for a nearly useless Web module since it's inception.

Not once have I ever complained about the creation of. or the continued development of these modules (expect for my well documented complaints about hamstringing the Book module) or lobbied against their development or inclusion as I know there are many other users who do find value in them.

Shame more people don't realise that what is not important to them, may be important or even essential to others. Nice to see someone having a wider perspective than the usual whinging about feature bloat. i.e. things I don't need

The book module is indeed pants. Rather useless for pro work and it seems to be aimed at those who don't really care too much how things are laid out or who prints it. Maybe a forerunner of the recent import module now with hindsight.

[ButchM]

Which fellow user(s) is/are lobbying against that idea? Can someone not say they doubt the need is widespread enough?

What is the doubt based upon? More conjectured and faulty data points misread by the powers that be at Adobe. Indeed the past couple of weeks have been enlightening in that respect.

I can concur that the group of folks who would embrace and utilize the capability I suggest ... but it should be pointed out when I share media rooms with 100-150 fellow shooters at major college and pro sporting events ... they all, without question are always seeking more efficient methods to accomplish more in less time. And there are hundreds of such events just in the U.S. on any given Saturday ... let alone the rest of the week.

Now if anyone thinks Adobe is not up to that task or incapable of seeing the potential ... fine I stand corrected and really should be looking for another solution for my niche interest.

What idiot would try to convince you of anything?

That sir is a two-way street ... 

[jjj]

So is Lr's. It just takes the view that it's important that tools are in a known location.

Actually it was laid out the way it is to try and get people to work in a certain order. However seeing as Calibrate is at bottom of Develop panels not the top, they mucked that bit up.
Not to mention creative types work far more randomly than logical engineering/programming types.

Also if you customise a programme yourself, then the same applies regarding consistent location. Because you aren't going to rejig the layout every time you open it. I completely customise PS and Premier for example and it's much easier using them, because it's my layout suitable for my needs.
Programmes that allow customisability allow people to work in the way that suits their particular needs and as all needs are different fixed layout can cause issues. No idea why programme makers are so arrogant to assume their fixed way of working will suit millions of different customer's needs. Not to mention they get rid of a whole heap of complaints about the UI.
One of the very first programmes I ever used was Corel Draw back in the early 90s and I've yet to use another programme as good as that with regard to being able to customise the workspace to suit your own needs. A vastly underrated programme because of snobbery - it was found on PCs and not Macs therefore must be rubbish. Many of those Corel UI ideas I feature requested a lot over the years for PS With time, most of them have been implemented. One of the final ones is coming in a forthcoming version of PS - about 20 years later.

LR gets away with the lack of customisation to an extent as the default layout is so much better than many other programmes. However if it had a default layout done as poorly as Bridge, then LR would be far, far less popular than it is now. Bridge's dreadful and ugly default UI is a mjo part of why people do not use or like it. But at least you can alter Br to something very useful, but even then some fixed UI elements are in somewhat useless locations.

[jjj]

Then look at it [Lightroom Mobile] again.

Is it still as lame as Adobe's usual mobile offerings?
I tried it a while back and meh!
I just had a look at Photoshop Fix. Starts by playing a video very loudly and then wants to you to sign in before you can even try things out. Dear me, not a good way to start.

Native Instruments who are about as monolithic and sluggish as Adobe when it comes to improving their desktop product, when they did a mobile version of Traktor it was a complete revelation.
They fully embraced the new platform and started completely from scratch. The Ui for Traktor on iOS is be a textbook example of how to adapt to new paradigms. Rather than being a weak version of the desktop programme, it's possibly even better. Particularly impressive considering the much smaller real estate on a phone/tablet.

[ButchM]

Perhaps you're not a software developer?

Of course I am not a software developer. That is what I have been paying Adobe for for well over 22 years. I take photos and deliver them to clients. Adobe develops software I can use to simplify and enhance that task. That is the partnership we have developed over the past couple of decades.

Those "few lines of code" are probably much more than you think.  More to the point, every additional "few lines of code", every extra option is an additional ongoing maintenance load.  Every feature has the potential to interact with every other feature, requires checking for every new release and is a potential source of future bugs.  With good design that feature interaction shouldn't happen, but it's surprising how often it does.

Poppycock. Pure and simple.

If the feature had never, nor does not now exist elsewhere in complex environments ... sure I might buy your theory that it's just too difficult for Adobe to accomplish. Too bad you place such strict limitations on the abilities of a multi-billion dollar enterprise that hires some of the brightest minds in the industry today. Too bad they have such limited resources and personnel incapable of handling such challenges or complicated tasks.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing excuses why something can't be done. I've been self employed for over 40 years. If I offered similar line of lame excuses to my clients every time they came to me for a solution ... I'd have folded and failed miserably long ago. It's every business' responsibility to solve problems for their clients.

Plus ... I'm not asking Adobe to do something gratis for me ... I'm more than willing to pay for my tools. I have never expected something for nothing.

Matter of fact, I suggested several times in the early going that if they wished to design Lr in a modular fashion ... they should offer the base Lightroom starter - Library, Develop and Print ... then the other modules could be add-on supplements (in-app purchases if you will)  ... even open the SDK to third party modules for genre specific needs that users seek options for that Adobe may not wish to pursue. That way, Adobe can keep Lr the focal point for more users ... and users don't have to hit up options like PM for certain uses.

That way, the user metric that means the most .... actual sales figures for the add-on modules would dictate more accurately the market share level of investment for further development of those offerings ... then there would be little doubt where to apply resources instead of shoving a one-size-fits-all swiss army knife monstrosity down every users throat insisting that is what they need and deserve.

[James R]

You say that after the last week?

John,

I was offering my opinion, which i've held since v5.  I don't think I was being confrontational, just partaking in a conversation. BTW, the latest upgrade, at best, just reaffirmed my position. 

[jjj]

Poppycock. Pure and simple.

If you had been a software developer, you certainly wouldn't say that.
Adding stuff to older software can be difficult at times, even if it may seem incredibly simple.

If the feature had never, nor does not now exist elsewhere in complex environments ... sure I might buy your theory that it's just too difficult for Adobe to accomplish. Too bad you place such strict limitations on the abilities of a multi-billion dollar enterprise that hires some of the brightest minds in the industry today. Too bad they have such limited resources and personnel incapable of handling such challenges or complicated tasks.

Whether others have implemented such a feature is almost immaterial. Could these other engineers introduce it to say LR7 of top of the current legacy code is the more pertinent comparison.

One thing thing that software should do is take a lead from web design which when done properly content is entirely independent of layout, i.e. the UI
So for software, they should separate features  from the UI code wise. As I have come across when beta testing, some interface updates that are very difficult to do because of how it impacts on other aspects of how the software operates. Which always struck me a poor way of doing things. But some programmes have origins a long way back when people were still trying to work out how to do all this new stuff.
I seem to recall aspects of LR's UI are 'compromised' because of how it was initially conceived and without a complete rewrite cannot be changed.

[Rory]

One thing thing that software should do is take a lead from web design which when done properly content is entirely independent of layout, i.e. the UI
So for software, they should separate features  from the UI code wise. As I have come across when beta testing, some interface updates that are very difficult to do because of how it impacts on other aspects of how the software operates. Which always struck me a poor way of doing things. But some programmes have origins a long way back when people were still trying to work out how to do all this new stuff.
I seem to recall aspects of LR's UI are 'compromised' because of how it was initially conceived and without a complete rewrite cannot be changed.

Lightroom UI is Lua based for this very reason.

[Simon Garrett]

You say:

Of course I am not a software developer.

But when I explain the problems that unintended feature interaction can cause software developers, and the ongoing cost that even trivial (to the user) new features can cause, you say:

Poppycock. Pure and simple.

I strongly recommend that you don't ever learn more about software development, lest you should be embarrassed by that comment!