Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Printing Part IV – Software Part 1 – raw converters and editors.  (Read 3669 times)

Jonathan Cross

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 645

This is a somewhat depressing article in its predictions of what Adobe may do.  All I can say about a cloud based Lightroom is that they may find it does not sell as well as they want.  My reasons for writing this are embedded in the article. Firstly the time it would take to upload all the images one has.  Secondly the time to upload, say 100GB of images from a project.  As pointed out fibre to house fast broadband is not universal, and not in many rural or even suburban areas.  Then there are those of us who are uncomfortable about the cloud.  There is the story of a mother who lost all her photos of the first 2 years of her child's life when cloud storage went wrong. Yes she should have backed up, but if you have backup discs, why go to the cloud rather than one more HD?  Small SSDs that are formatted for both PC and Mac are very portable.  Having got used to transfer rates on and off external portable SSDs, cloud speeds would drive me nuts. 

Perhaps it is time to go back to good old film.  Just like a print, it is nice to have something physical in my hands as I find it difficult to read a HD with my eyes!

Best wishes,

Jonathan
Logged
Jonathan in UK

mecrox

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
    • My Online Portfolio

I have no idea what Adobe might do, but for myself I think it unlikely that they will mandate a move to the cloud such that their software won't work unless all images are in the cloud to begin with. They would lose huge credibility within more professional or at least dedicated photography circles because imposing cloud requirements would make it impossible for many to continue using the software, not when one has terabytes or more of captures going back years. And everyone using other Adobe programmes like Premiere or In Design - and that's a very large number of businesses - would start looking at alternatives, fearing that something similar might happen to them. My guess is that it is more likely that Adobe will apply 'nudge' by making cloud usage progressively more attractive, but not obligatory. On-disk Lightroom users won't be abandoned but to an extent they will be left behind.

My own issue here is that Lightroom has become progressively more and more unwieldy so I am looking at alternatives, for example one fast metadata come initial curation program like Photomechanic allied to a superior RAW converter like DxO Photolab or Capture One. Add in a DxO plugin like Siver Efex and a a couple of the newer Topaz AI offerings like Denoise and I really won't need Lightroom (or the whole Adobe RAW stack) anyway.
Logged
Mark @ Flickr

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4393
    • Pieter Kers

I still have to find some proof that the demosaicing of LR is so much less than that of C1 and DXO especially when developed with better detail.
My experience is that C1 and DXO are not better nor worse.   In some occasions they are better in some occasions worse.

The idea that LR CC will stop within some years is never backed up by some 'evidence'.
However the moves that Adobe has made in the past going to a subscription model indicates that you never can be sure...

The LR interface has some flaws but for developing series of Raw files i find it to be quite simple and transparant. ( i don't use the damm)
This transparancy of what is happening to the raw file is less tranparant in C1 and DXO in my opinion. But maybe it is my lack of experience.
I like to know what i am doing.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

jimh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
    • Jim H Photo

I dropped LR when they announced the subscription version.  I hate subscriptions, but the main reason was that I knew from my experience as a software engineer that a "subscription model" means the end of real innovation and development. 

Marketing and accounting people love it because they want stable and predictable revenue. Developers hate it because it puts them perpetually on a short timeline.  Big ideas for new capabilities or improvements go nowhere because they can't be implemented in time for the next micro-release; it's hard to do anything major with the code, that might take a year or more, while keeping it from showing up in the intervening releases.   

And the big one, of course: why bother with big, expensive and risky development when those users are going to pay you anyway... especially if they have a shunt in a vein that ties them to your storage servers...

The product becomes a fossil and the best developers tend to move on. 
« Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 01:08:27 pm by jimh »
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20675
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/

This is a somewhat depressing article in its predictions of what Adobe may do. 
Don't be depressed. Those who actually KNOW what Adobe is up to are not posting what they are going to do; we are under NDA and take them seriously.
Those who want to depress you and speculate, will make up stories you should just ignore.
IF and when you hear from people inside of Adobe, or outside of Adobe under NDA, but who have permission to tell you facts about the product, go ahead and listen. Otherwise, don't.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

jimh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
    • Jim H Photo

Don't be depressed. Those who actually KNOW what Adobe is up to are not posting what they are going to do; we are under NDA and take them seriously.
Those who want to depress you and speculate, will make up stories you should just ignore.
IF and when you hear from people inside of Adobe, or outside of Adobe under NDA, but who have permission to tell you facts about the product, go ahead and listen. Otherwise, don't.

But I was thinking of a plan
    To dye one's whiskers green,
And always use so large a fan
    That they could not be seen.
So, having no reply to give
    To what the old man said,
I cried "Come, tell me how you live!"
    And thumped him on the head.

- Lewis Carroll

Just a virtual, metaphorical thump of course.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2020, 01:29:41 pm by jimh »
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263

While Dan makes some good points in his article about the various options available, trying to “divine” Adobe’s plans is pure speculation without substance.

I was an early adopter of the LR subscription model and I have no regrets. None!

I’ll stick with Andrew’s points.

I do my own printing with an Epson SC P800 and I’m happy with my results. I have no need to print larger that 17x25.  I do make 13x38 panos from the P800. Long ago when I had Windows I used Qimage with great results.  Now that Qimage supports MacOS I may go back to it.

I am a photography enthusiast, not a pro, and I have loved photography from film to digital over the last 50+ years. I also love my Fuji X-Trans gear and am looking forward to B&H telling me my X-T4 has shipped.

My $0.02
Logged
Regards,
Ron

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4393
    • Pieter Kers

I dropped LR when they announced the subscription version.  I hate subscriptions, but the main reason was that I knew from my experience as a software engineer that a "subscription model" means the end of real innovation and development. 

Marketing and accounting people love it because they want stable and predictable revenue. Developers hate it because it puts them perpetually on a short timeline.  Big ideas for new capabilities or improvements go nowhere because they can't be implemented in time for the next micro-release; it's hard to do anything major with the code, that might take a year or more, while keeping it from showing up in the intervening releases.   

And the big one, of course: why bother with big, expensive and risky development when those users are going to pay you anyway... especially if they have a shunt in a vein that ties them to your storage servers...

The product becomes a fossil and the best developers tend to move on.
Interesting that you think that the subscription model conflicts with the implementation of big ideas, you are probably right.
I agree with you that the subscription model takes away the need for development other than comply with current camera's and operating systems.
It is certainly true with Adobe photoshop - not much happening there. (MS Word!)
But it only works until other software developers stand up and have better software at a better price.
C1, DXO, and others are competitive to LR as are some other programs that can be used to replace Photoshop.
So in the end if Adobe gets too lazy they will be too late and loose revenue and the costumer.
LR has improved in field of speed and added some interesting features in the last years, probably they needed to do that.
LR glues the costumer with the Damm that is hard to abandon. At the moment however there is not much to complain since the subscription model is not expensive.
That is not the case with the other adobe programs- i would expect them to loose costumers there.
For me in the pre-subscription period I got a package that stimulated me in learning more adobe programs- because of the subscription-change not anymore.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20675
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/

I dropped LR when they announced the subscription version.  I hate subscriptions, but the main reason was that I knew from my experience as a software engineer that a "subscription model" means the end of real innovation and development.
Again:
"All generalizations are false, including this one." -Mark Twain

Next, perhaps the software you developed fell into that camp. Those of us how have subscribed to LR, Photoshop and other parts of the suite and continue to subscribe know the cost to benefit ratio of what we purchase. At least one of us here knows what's actually coming in terms of innovation and development from Adobe. The rest can speculate. Or dismiss Adobe as not developing the product(s) based on a lack of actually using the products because they don't subscribe to the products. If you have only imagined it, you haven't experienced it. ;)

The subscription model specifically for Adobe has been a HUGE success in terms of number of subscribers year after year from introduction. Those subscribers do so because what they pay for is beneficial as an expense. Some of us who've subscribed have actually experienced the newer and useful (to us) features.  Or we wouldn't continue to subscribe.
If anything, subscription demands more from developers since one un-subscribe if the cost to ratio doesn't work for each customer.
Case in point: I had every movie channel subscription and found I wasn't watching (even in a pandemic) that much TV. I kept HBO, no problem unsubscribing from ShowTime and saving $6 a month. IF (big IF) ShowTime took up the next Game Of Thrones series would I switch it back on? You bet. ShowTime didn't deliver enough value at $6 a month FOR ME. I could afford that extra expensive, I didn't see the need to do so.

Not everyone subscribing to the Adobe suite or ShowTime is getting duped on the subscriptions!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20675
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/

LR glues the costumer with the Damm that is hard to abandon.
You don't seem to be aware that IF you stop subscribing to LR, the DAM continues to operate. That all modules EXCEPT Develop and Maps operate. Or that Adobe could easily have stopped ALL modules from working and gluing you to the DAM. They didn't do that. Consider that fact.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

HarveyM43

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 48
Re: Printing Part IV – Software Part 1 – raw converters and editors.
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2020, 12:09:46 pm »

I was slightly disappointed that the article didn’t reference any of the freeware/open source options and how/if they’re comparable to commercial products. While open source may not be suitable for the pro user they can be worthwhile for the budget constrained (I.E. students, or retirees). With that in mind I’ve been pretty happy using digiKam for image management and RawTherapee for Raw processing.
Logged

JeanMichel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 524
Re: Printing Part IV – Software Part 1 – raw converters and editors.
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2020, 01:25:29 pm »

Adobe could stop making any updates to LR, except support for new cameras and lenses, and keep charging the subscription fee and I, and I am sure, most users would happily continue to pay the fee. The price of the subscription is a tiny part of the overall cost of maintaining a digital photo lab — ‘cause LR is just that: an amazing replacement for the darkroom with a cataloguing system thrown in for free.

When I went ‘digital’ I used a Bridge/ACR/PS workflow, and that was fine. Then I tried LR3 — and viewed the Reichman/Raber/Schewe tutorials — for me, LR does pretty much everything that I  need and I am happy to pay my fees to Adobe. I have the subscription for the full CC (ps,Lr, InDesign, etc) for rather reasonable cost.

As to the future: nothing you have on any digital device or the cloud will last for more than a few decades or be useable on a future platform. You want your images to be viewable? Print them
Logged

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1185
Re: Printing Part IV – Software Part 1 – raw converters and editors.
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2020, 01:46:35 pm »

I downloaded DXO Photolab 3.2 (again, checked it out a year ago).  First image I tried was from a beach in Oregon taken at 145 mm focal length.  Some of the foreground was, consequently, not in focus.  Lightroom and Capture One handled that area gracefully.  At default settings one of the small rocks (about 6 inches) in the foreground had an obvious halo around it.  So much for good sharpening.  I selected another image from 12 years ago of fall color in the background, lake in the foreground and reflection of Fall Color in the lake.  Have never printed that image because I couldn't get it to look like I remember it.  Both LR and DXO didn't do the job (and both were similar).  Went to Capture One and finally got the image looking good and made a nice print.

Summary:  I did benefit from the article because it reminded me how good Capture One can be.  Still prefer Lightroom overall.  DXO Photolab came in a distant third.  I will continue to experiment with it, but so far don't see the benefit over the LR/C1 combo.
Logged

Robcat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 148
Re: Printing Part IV – Software Part 1 – raw converters and editors.
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2020, 04:56:53 pm »

I've used LR for years (now "Classic"). If LR Classic goes defunct, even if I can still use it for DAM, will another non-Adobe program be able to read the edits I've done in LR develop module? Obviously no issue w TIFs that were saved from another editing program but 75% of my 10s of thousands of files are "adjusted" .dngs. Will DxO or Capture One import the files w LR changes intact?
 
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20675
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Printing Part IV – Software Part 1 – raw converters and editors.
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2020, 05:01:48 pm »

I've used LR for years (now "Classic"). If LR Classic goes defunct, even if I can still use it for DAM, will another non-Adobe program be able to read the edits I've done in LR develop module? Obviously no issue w TIFs that were saved from another editing program but 75% of my 10s of thousands of files are "adjusted" .dngs. Will DxO or Capture One import the files w LR changes intact?
 
ALL raw processing from all raw converters are proprietary so no.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Printing Part IV – Software Part 1 – raw converters and editors.
« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2020, 06:10:19 pm »

I've used LR for years (now "Classic"). If LR Classic goes defunct, even if I can still use it for DAM, will another non-Adobe program be able to read the edits I've done in LR develop module? Obviously no issue w TIFs that were saved from another editing program but 75% of my 10s of thousands of files are "adjusted" .dngs. Will DxO or Capture One import the files w LR changes intact?

Other apps attempt to read those edits, but won't interpret them precisely. LR will continue to work after the end of a subscription and you can output files from it. But unlike raw files, DNGs have an embedded preview that you can update with LR, and a number of other applications (eg PhotoMechanic) can output from that preview. That's true even if you don't have any Adobe apps on a computer.

Now, let's turn things around. Can we say that of other apps?
Logged

jimh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 60
    • Jim H Photo
Re: Printing Part IV – Software Part 1 – raw converters and editors.
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2020, 08:04:57 pm »


Not everyone subscribing to the Adobe suite or ShowTime is getting duped on the subscriptions!

It's not a bad product.  As a former developer and geek, I like to get new and exciting stuff every now and then.  But some users don't want that at all - they're satisfied with the current version, and don't want the hassle and expense of a new release.  They'd just like bugs fixed and performance enhanced.  I get it.

I think most users would agree that in the last few years the pace of innovation for PS and LR has pretty much slowed to a crawl.  But now Adobe is starting to really feel the heat of competition and they certainly have the money to respond, if they choose.

If you're a beta tester or other 'insider' I don't doubt that Adobe has been telling you that Big Things are Coming, you may even have seen some of them, but for the rest of us it's just vapor,  until it isn't. 

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20675
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Printing Part IV – Software Part 1 – raw converters and editors.
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2020, 08:10:56 pm »

Quote
I think most users would agree that in the last few years the pace of innovation for PS and LR has pretty much slowed to a crawl. 
I understand you assume and believe that. Despite no evidence from ”most users” and the evidence of the Adobe subscription numbers.  ;D
Quote
If you're a beta tester or other 'insider' I don't doubt that Adobe has been telling you that Big Things are Coming, you may even have seen some of them, but for the rest of us it's just vapor,  until it isn't. 
Telling not so much. Actually providing; yes.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Re: Printing Part IV – Software Part 1 – raw converters and editors.
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2020, 10:04:24 pm »

...I like to get new and exciting stuff every now and then. 

I think most users would agree that in the last few years the pace of innovation for PS and LR has pretty much slowed to a crawl.


Shiny new stuff can be exciting but I’m not looking for that buzz.

I have PS and Lr and it enables me to do a LOT.  I don’t feel like they’ve slowed to a crawl.  I still supplement with other apps though.  Some that enable me to do things easier or quicker and some that enable me to do things I find painful.  Luminar 4.2 is an example for me.

I don’t expect PS and Lr to be the end all/be all.  I do expect them to improve and strive for leadership but I’m not going to bury them yet.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4393
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Printing Part IV – Software Part 1 – raw converters and editors.
« Reply #19 on: May 12, 2020, 06:47:51 am »

You don't seem to be aware that IF you stop subscribing to LR, the DAM continues to operate. That all modules EXCEPT Develop and Maps operate. Or that Adobe could easily have stopped ALL modules from working and gluing you to the DAM. They didn't do that. Consider that fact.

No I did not know that-
Do you mean you can still actively use the DAM; add new photos to it and use it as desired after the payments to adobe stop?

I was only refering to the possible difficulty to import the DAM into another kind of DAM

Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up