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

[ButchM]

Ever heard of companies testing to see what problems users may be having? And despite being strung out on subscription income, they decide they need to revisit an existing tool/ in other words, it has f all to do with subscription models.

Ever heard of a customer having a choice not to compensate a developer for an update or upgrade the end user doesn't find beneficial or advantageous or otherwise unworthy of adoption?

Under CC, the end user has absolutely no influence over what is released. They must continue to pay for whatever is released, regardless if they find it useful or beneficial.

Under the perpetual license model, a user could skip a release and not incur any additional cost, unless or until the developer would release a version the end user does see merit in adopting. That is the difference between the licensing models.

You can choose to ignore the difference if you wish. That doesn't nullify my premise.

[john beardsworth]

That doesn't nullify my premise.

I don't doubt the premise as a generalisation, just its applicability to this case.

[jjj]

I see is as a move to get rid of folder-tree-structure way of thinking and just use the Database with the superior available tools. There is nothing that can be done with a folder structure that cannot be done better using the database tools.

You can't browse folders for a start.
You can't find things whose names you've forgotten, but can easily find when you glance through your folders.
You cannot use any software other than the database organiser [LR] to find stuff, in a database so no using a file browser like Bridge/Explorer/Finder to access any of your work.
Keywording your work so that is easily found is an awful lot of hard work.
Too many false positives with database collection searches in my experience make it unusable at times. Evernote is painful like that and LR can be too at times when items than have apparently zero relation to search appear.
Too many results for regularly photographed items can overwhelm simple keyword searching.
Files have to go in folders anyway, so why not do it neatly, it takes so very little effort, particularly compared to keywording files. I can find my work using any OS or any browser as well as via LR. Often faster via folders. Not to mention folder naming can be an excellent form of keywording in itself.

Using both well organised date/description folders allied with keywording is far superior to using either system on its own.

[Rhossydd]

Ever heard of companies testing to see what problems users may be having?

Maybe more importantly they should look at what their customers like and don't want changing.
Fixing 'problems' of novice understanding by changing the UI and functionality seems backwards to me.
Was the import dialogue really such a barrier to the adoption of Lightroom ?

[jjj]

I for one find that after using every release of Lightroom, there are still sections of the program that feels "clumsy". I.e. I have to spend more time figuring out how to get the job done than I feel I should have to.
 

Really ?? I've always found one of the key advantages of Lightroom is the ease and intuitive nature of the interface. As features have been added they've been easy to understand and quick to learn.

hjulenissen has a history of complaining that PS and LR are too difficult for him to understand. He also claimed to be a software engineer or similar at one point, which seemed remarkably at odds with his ongoing difficulties in learning basic software tools.

The "danger" of having a 20 year old program with a million features and a million (expert) users around the world is that it often becomes very hard to maintain the code base, to deliver new features, to streamline the user interface, to adapt to new platforms and formats without alienating the fan-base.

Apple do just that at times as it happens. And Adobe did that in one sense by introducing Photoshop Lightroom [its full name] as Photoshop simply didn't really work so well for photographers in the new age of digital shooting. A new and much better paradigm for a new way of working.

As an application matures (and its developers and existing users comprehension does), it is quite possible that one finds new, "better" ways of doing things. Better as in 1) Takes less manual effort, 2) Can be more easily understood by new users without consulting a tutorial 3) Is more consistent with how the applications generally behaves and how other applications on that/other OS behaves.
I like "boring" programs. I.e. programs that does not try to reinvent the wheel, but rather present the options that one would expect to see at a given place and time given our individual but still highly correlated experience with software products.

So basically you want programmes to never change paradigms or try to improve on decades old ways of working. Despite the fact you that these established things in themselves were supplanted previous ways of working and quite revolutionary in their own right.
What really needs to happen is people like yourself have to realise is that progress is only made by moving on from the antiquated way of doing things.
Also needing to use a tutorial/guide to have new much better ways of doing things is far better and easier than staying with old but rather crap ways of working. Afterall you only need to look at guide once, whereas you are stuck with the old slow way for ever.
Intuitive when used about software is mostly nonsense, because people almost always mean it's just like like something I used before.

[john beardsworth]

Maybe more importantly they should look at what their customers like and don't want changing.
Fixing 'problems' of novice understanding by changing the UI and functionality seems backwards to me.
Was the import dialogue really such a barrier to the adoption of Lightroom ?

So I hear. Existing users will adapt, and no doubt some stuff will come back.

[Rory]

2. Discourage use of the Import dialog as a culling tool. Get the pictures in Library and use its better review and metadata tools.

For a lot of volume shooters this was one of the main purposes of the import module.  Why would you want to take the time to import, build 1:1 previews, review and delete (a process that can take a long time) when you can simply pick the likely keepers and import.  I use PhotoMechanic and FastRawViewer, but I would have preferred to use Lightroom.  The only problem with was that Lightroom was a titch slow at displaying the embedded jpeg previews.  Wish they would focus on substance, like improving performance.

[jjj]

Also worth noting is the Victoria Bampton/Lightroom Queen on her blog post where she lists the changes in OP, she unusually recommends not upgrading to 6.2. Because it feels like a rushed release.

[ButchM]

For a lot of volume shooters this was one of the main purposes of the import module.  Why would you want to take the time to import, build 1:1 previews, review and delete (a process that can take a long time) when you can simply pick the likely keepers and import.  I use PhotoMechanic and FastRawViewer, but I would have preferred to use Lightroom.  The only problem with was that Lightroom was a titch slow at displaying the embedded jpeg previews.  Wish they would focus on substance, like improving performance.

Agreed ... if Adobe really, truly wished to offer improvements and enhancements to the import process ... they should have offered a method to cut down the time it takes to import a batch of photos. If I were Adobe, I would strive to develop my software so as to allow users to avoid the option of purchasing competing options like Photo Mechanic in order to meet strict deadlines .... eventually, the grass may indeed be greener on the opposite side of the fence and result in a costly (to Adobe) migration if PM would ever improve upon it's feature set to make it a more fully capable option to Lr.

Like offering the option to forego the creation of previews until a later point in the process by utilizing the embedded jpegs in the interim. Or the option to only import "tagged" images so as to better meet deadlines.

This is how PM, Aperture and several other options have been able to much more quickly import images. And something I recall that was requested on the Adobe Labs forum as far back as the Lr 2 public beta ... and many, many times since ... alas the request has fallen upon deaf ears as once Again, Adobe knows better than we users what is important to our workflow.

[jjj]

You have that quick preview option in Bridge as it happens. Been there a very long time now.

[ButchM]

You have that quick preview option in Bridge as it happens. Been there a very long time now.

Which is even more disconcerting as to why the capability is not available in Lr.

[jjj]

Indeed.
But don't assume those working on different parts of CC have anything to do with each other.

[ButchM]

Indeed.
But don't assume those working on different parts of CC have anything to do with each other.

But also don't assume that every Lr user also has Bridge/ACR available.

[john beardsworth]

For a lot of volume shooters this was one of the main purposes of the import module.  Why would you want to take the time to import, build 1:1 previews, review and delete (a process that can take a long time) when you can simply pick the likely keepers and import.  I use PhotoMechanic and FastRawViewer, but I would have preferred to use Lightroom.  The only problem with was that Lightroom was a titch slow at displaying the embedded jpeg previews.  Wish they would focus on substance, like improving performance.

Yes, I know, but even then Import remains a pretty crap place to review and compare images - eg where's a side by side comparison like in Library, how do you add a flag to one and not the other etc? Essentially this issue, and others like Move, are a case of Import being asked to be a workaround for failings elsewhere such as the lack of GPU-accelerated review of embedded previews in Library.

[Rory]

Yes, I know, but even then Import remains a pretty crap place to review and compare images - eg where's a side by side comparison like in Library, how do you add a flag to one and not the other etc? Essentially this issue, and others like Move, are a case of Import being asked to be a workaround for failings elsewhere such as the lack of GPU-accelerated review of embedded previews in Library.

I agree about the import module short comings you mention, but the premise that this should be done in the library is flawed: it is dumb to copy 1000 raw files to a hard disk when you only want the 50 that are in perfect focus.  One of the strengths of Lightroom is it's focus on intelligent and efficient workflows.  Whoever worked on the import module obviously did not get that memo.

[john beardsworth]

I agree about the import module short comings you mention, but the premise that this should be done in the library is flawed: it is dumb to copy 1000 raw files to a hard disk when you only want the 50 that are in perfect focus.  One of the strengths of Lightroom is it's focus on intelligent and efficient workflows.  Whoever worked on the import module obviously did not get that memo.

I'd say that while the 1000 are being copied to the hard disk (and backed up) in the background, in that same time you can be finding the 50 using the better review and comparison tools available in Library. You're also tending to assume exposures permit decisions to be made in Import. Yes for some high volume shooters, no for others. But there will always come a point where the user's needs for fast turnaround outweigh the advantages of better review/comparison tools and the ability to tweak exposures.

[Simon Garrett]

In principle I agree with all the grumbles about things being removed.  It's very irritating when a feature I remove disappears, or is made more difficult to use.

However, there are sometimes features that really are bad practice, and I'd support their removal even though lots of people swear on their sainted grandmother's grave how useful it is.  Sometimes such features just increase the risk of errors for everyone (including those that use them by mistake or ignorance).

An example in Photoshop is the many obscure colour management choices that might have had some historical use before colour management was fully implemented but are now a constant source of exotic and mysterious error.  You've only to browse forums to see the problems people get into with Photoshop colour management.  Lightroom has no options for colour management, and you can't get it wrong. 

In Lightroom I think Move during import can be dangerous.  Import can be a confusing and error-prone process.  By normal data management principles, one should assume that data is extremely fragile until there are at least two copies.  Best practice is not to mix importing with culling.  Cull on the camera, or import and then cull.  And unless you're the sort that likes Russian Roulette (or really doesn't care if photos disappear) I'd recommend not deleting from memory cards until the data is loaded onto a PC and backed up.  At the risk of upsetting people, and setting sainted grandmothers spinning in their graves, God rest their souls, I'm happy to see the back of Move in import. 

Now ducking for cover. 

[Rhossydd]

Lightroom has no options for colour management, and you can't get it wrong.

It has loads of CM options in various places and, yes, people do get it wrong.

[Simon Garrett]

It has loads of CM options in various places and, yes, people do get it wrong.

Hmm... well, in the Print Module you can choose print profile and rendering intent I suppose.  Can't think of any other.  However, I'm sure you're not going to say it has anything like as many CM options as Photoshop. 

[jjj]

But also don't assume that every Lr user also has Bridge/ACR available.

Well don't assume that I was, because I wasn't. 
I was just pointing out the fact that Adobe does what people ask for in another bit of software. So are perfectly capable of doing what people are requesting.