The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm

[daws]

I think Adobe has stated that Lightroom will continue to be available to purchase and not limited to the CC deal.

I think the wording was along the lines of "not at this time".  If not exactly spoken, I think that is a part of a general feeling of loss of faith...at least on my part.

The issues of loss of faith, trust and credibility are at the core of the debate that has been going on all this week.

Given Adobe's recent actions there is, quite literally, no reason to trust that any statement they make about their products will be honored by them in the near, much less the long term, future.

[Isaac]

I am not less worried why should John Camp be.

Unlike you, John Camp says he would be "much less worried if Adobe made a simple statement..."

I said, not feasible to me.  Each can decide what they want to do.  If you wish to archive every version of every adjustment and virtual copy, etc. of your LR work that is your choice.

That's why I asked John Camp for clarification of his needs - you chose to answer for him ;-)

If I ever have the concern that I may need to be paranoid about LR ...

You don't feel that perhaps you already are? :-)

[jrsforums]

Unlike you, John Camp says he would be "much less worried if Adobe made a simple statement..."

It might help a bit if you quoted his full statement

John Camp quote post #52

I would be much less worried if Adobe made a simple statement: that they would guarantee that if you ever dropped out of CC, or if you ever moved to a place where CC was not available, that it would provide a DAM app that would allow you to extract all of your photos from LR/PS with all adjustments, flattened to TIFFs if necessary -- but not just one TIFF, but all the versions of an image for which you have adjustment files -- in a form that could be used to easily export them to another DAM app.

Back to your quotes...

That's why I asked John Camp for clarification of his needs - you chose to answer for him ;-)

I was responding to your "Exporting TIFF may be an additional step for your LR workflow -- but why do you suggest that step is "not feasible"?"  Which you had asked me a number of times in another thread...and alluded to in this thread.  That John or others have the same concern only, in my mine, reinforces my position.

You don't feel that perhaps you already are? :-)

I know that was meant to be humorous, but I probably am a bit paranoid....but you know what they say about paranoia....if you think someone is after you, they probably are.  In this case, if being concerned that corporate actions will effect personal "treasures" that I have, is paranoia....I have it.

I hope I come close to properly quote what someone posted "Faith comes in slowly walking but leaves in a horse gallop."

[John Camp]

One of the major problems John Camp has with all of this is that he's not interested in computers, has never been interested in computers, and doesn't plan to become interested in computers, but is stuck with them. John Camp wants computers to act like toasters, where you push the button, and the function is performed. It's undoubtedly possible possible to move several thousand unflattened images from LR and ACR to another piece of software, but John Camp doesn't know what that software might be, or how to operate it, and he really doesn't want to learn how, because he's got better things to do. He mistakenly trusted Adobe not to make a fundamental change in its operating conditions, so he'd only have to use learn these two pieces of software once, with lots of help from Luminous Landscape and Jeff Schewe, and with occasional upgrades. Now he's not only going to be required either to accept onerous conditions to continue using his prior software, or, locate and learn how to use what is likely to be a lesser piece of software. He's decided (tentatively) to do the following: to use LR4 as long as possible, while exploring other options; if no better options are found before LR4 goes obsolete, to upgrade to LR5 and continue to look for other options, and essentially, to trust that something acceptable will be found before LR5 goes obsolete. He doesn't believe there will be a stand-alone LR6; or at least, he can't trust Adobe to produce it.

Without unloading a large load of bullshit on him, John Camp would very much appreciate it if somebody could recommend stable companies that could provide him with (1) an easy-to-use raw processor that will handle both Panasonic m4/3 and Nikon D800 images and is of equal quality to LR; (2) a simple DAM program that will handle perhaps 10,000 images; and (3) a simple compositing program that will allow him create photo collages. John Camp thanks you. John Camp will now start reading the Aperture forum.

[tho_mas]

John Camp would very much appreciate it if somebody could recommend stable companies that could provide him with (1) an easy-to-use raw processor that will handle both Panasonic m4/3 and Nikon D800 images and is of equal quality to LR; (2) a simple DAM program that will handle perhaps 10,000 images; and (3) a simple compositing program that will allow him create photo collages.

I guess there is no company in the computer/software business that you really could call "stable" in the long run ...
As far as RAW processors go Capture One Pro is certainly worth a look (IMO much better than LR and also faster once you've learnt the software). RAW Developer (lately called "Iridient Developer") is also a great little piece of software (Mac only). Future proof? Neither more nor less than Adobe ...

Referring to flattened TIFs and so forth ... I do not trust software companies to live forever ... and/or to support certain file formats forever.
I do store all my RAW files (with Capture One settings) on 2 different mirrored RAIDs. In addition I also backup my selected RAW files on another disk and online*.
I do process my selected RAWs not to look like the final image but to get the full range of tonal values out of it (so ideally no clipped blacks and no clipped highlights) while still tuned to look similar to the final image I have in mind. If you want so... I do create a "look" in the RAW software but the first output mostly looks pretty "soft" (i.e. - lacks contrast and very high saturated colors... and of course the TIFs are processed without sharpening). Out of Capture One I do process 16bit TIFs with the camera profile embedded (again, this applies to my selected files... not all RAW files, of course). I also backup these "clean" TIFs on said 2 mirrored RAIDs and the extra disk.
Then I also do backup the edited TIFs with layers (Photoshop) on said 2 mirrored RAIDs and the extra disk. And I do backup the final images flattened on the same RAIDs, on the extra disk (together with the RAW files) and online. I also do store all the software installers of the respective versions of my RAW softwares and Photoshop. In addition I store an old WinXP computer and at least 1 Mac with Snow leopard and Mountain Lion installed (also WinXP installed alongside with VM Ware fusion on that Mac). Finally I do store 2 printed copies of my selected files (printed at native pixel size).

Often I asked myself if I may have a mental illness (exessive fear of loss or so).
But the latest announcement of Adobe encourages me to continue investing in hardware (RAIDs/disks, online storage, prints...) and to keep my complex workflow.

To make a long story short... rather than asking for a future proof software re-think your workflow (including backups...).

______________
* often one image consists of 4 or 6 captures (stiched). Since I mostly shoot with a tech cam & MFD you can add 4 (6 respectively) "LCC"-shots ("white reference" shots) to the same image.

[Isaac]

... and he really doesn't want to learn how, because he's got better things to do.

I do share that sentiment.

He mistakenly trusted Adobe not to make a fundamental change in its operating conditions...

You don't seem to have been alone in doing that, although it seems more like a mistaken assumption than a mistaken trust (unless Adobe Systems Inc. made a public commitment to that effect?)

... use LR4 as long as possible, while exploring other options; if no better options are found before LR4 goes obsolete, to upgrade to LR5 and continue to look for other options ...

Steady as she goes and keep a weather eye.

[Schewe]

He's decided (tentatively) to do the following: to use LR4 as long as possible, while exploring other options; if no better options are found before LR4 goes obsolete, to upgrade to LR5 and continue to look for other options, and essentially, to trust that something acceptable will be found before LR5 goes obsolete.

If I were making suggestions to John, I would suggest getting the upgrade to LR5 because, well, it will 1) provide superior raw image processing for raw files and 2) extend the time in which John can gauge the future and decide what to do. I think it would be short sighted to allow a knew jerk reaction to upset the apple cart until the industry has a change to react and Adobe has a chance to react to the reaction.

I understand John has had a shock to his system of belief...but it would be useful to not make any really important decisions while in a state of shock.

[dmcginlay]

... and then there are those who quietly take their money and go elsewhere - oops, I spoke too loudly, back to my state of Zen.

Don

[David Sutton]

One of the major problems John Camp has with all of this is that he's not interested in computers, has never been interested in computers, and doesn't plan to become interested in computers, but is stuck with them. John Camp wants computers to act like toasters, where you push the button, and the function is performed.

In the early 1970s I studied computer meteorology for a bit. We used punch cards and knocked out the tabs by hand with bent paper clips. The university's “portable” computer was the size of a volkwagen and was fed punched tape.
When I purchased my first laptop some five years ago I was quite looking forward to using it. But I was floored by how bad the operating system was (XP) and how poorly written the software. Thirty five years and so little progress. Marketed as a wonderful new world. Complete BS.
Just thinking about it makes me want to lie down for a year or two.
That's the tack I think I'll take on the Adobe issue.

[Isaac]

Thirty five years and so little progress.

Enough progress to allow you to entertain yourself, posting from your keyboard to other computer systems, to be viewed by a global audience moments later.

[David Sutton]

Enough progress to allow you to entertain yourself, posting from your keyboard to other computer systems, to be viewed by a global audience moments later.

How tiresome. How did you manage to extend a comment about the development of software like, say Wordpad, to the workings of the internet? I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

[John Camp]

... to allow a knew jerk reaction to upset the apple cart...

Are you saying John Camp is a knew jerk?

[Schewe]

Are you saying John Camp is a knew jerk?

LOL...obviously that was supposed to be knee jerk reaction, but since knew is a word, spell check didn't alert me to the improper usage :~)

As a writer your editor must sometimes come across some "interesting" words that are close but not at all correct. That seems to happen o me a lot!

Hopefully you knee what I meant?

[John.Murray]

With the rapid advancement of technology, file sizes, software capabilities it's no wonder people question a fundamental change in Adobe's licensing /distribution approach.  Make no mistake, Adobe is beholden to their stockholders, and this is purely a business decision; our concerns regarding long term data integrity / workflow have little, if anything to do with this.

I've always been impressed with Adobe's generosity - the dng standard is honestly, brilliant.  I've read concerns about LR getting caught up, but remember, Adobe has always provided the previous iteration of Camera RAW with its ability to create an XML sidecar file, all along.  Sure, not nearly as slick or convenient as LR, but its always been there, at no cost.

I've been sorely dissapointed at Adobe track record regarding security; of the top 3 most exploited application vulnerabilities across all OS platforms, Adobe owns 2 (Flash, Adobe Reader) - in fact one Court System here in Washington State (Thurston County) no longer accepts PDF filings!!!

What *really* bothers me about adopting a "subscription based" workflow, is the total dependance on:

1) Your connection -  I get the fact that Adobe only requires a 30 day "phone home" frequency, with a 90 day "tombstone".  I think adobe needs to adopt a "milestone" approach, where a paid subscription to a certain revision, is guaranteed offline execution...
2) Bandwidth - I'm in a rural area with a 5GB monthly cap
3) Adobe's security track record - frankly, it sucks - I'd feel much better if there was a public effort to improve it, as Oracle (java) recently announced.

Creative Cloud is not an option for me, my version upgrades (and 2 platform changes) since CS to CS5 are at an end.  I'll continue using LR and will upgrade to LR 5 ....

[dreed]

I've been sorely dissapointed at Adobe track record regarding security; of the top 3 most exploited application vulnerabilities across all OS platforms, Adobe owns 2 (Flash, Adobe Reader) - in fact one Court System here in Washington State (Thurston County) no longer accepts PDF filings!!!
...
3) Adobe's security track record - frankly, it sucks - I'd feel much better if there was a public effort to improve it, as Oracle (java) recently announced.

I'm a fascist when it comes to my computer security.

Image editor wants to connect to the Internet?

Nope! It edits and works with images. Request to connect to web server denied.

Rinse and repeat for every application, be it CD-ROM burning software, disk utilities, word processors, etc. I don't care if it is commercial ware or free ware. Want to phone home? Request denied. Security perimeter is maintained.

Why do I do that? Makes it that much harder for a hacker to compromise my system or use it for spam, etc.

If I need to interact with a foreign entity, give me a phone number to call and let me push phone buttons.

[Isaac]

How tiresome. How did you manage to extend a comment about the development of software like, say Wordpad, to the workings of the internet? I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

Your previous comment said nothing specific about what you thought was "bad", or how you'd obtained the source code of the software to determine that it was "poorly written", or where exactly you felt there had been "so little progress".

By all means make a sensible critique. On LuLa The Coffee Corner seems the appropriate place.

There is a tiny puzzle -- Why, 5 years ago, someone would buy a new Windows XP laptop when that OS had already been replaced by Windows Vista?

[jeremyrh]

John Camp will now start reading the Aperture forum.

I sympathise with the viewpoints expressed but would respectfully suggest that John not waste his time on Aperture, whose future seems every but as clouded as LR.

Wasn't it John Beardsworth who referred to DAM workflows as a series of affairs (maybe I misremember ...), and to advise against getting in too deep with any one? That advice now seems pertinent to the rest of the digital photography process. The only wa to avoid it is make prints - Adobe can' touch them!!

[john beardsworth]

Yup, that was one of mine though "a life of serial monogamy" was the line! Surprisingly for a company like Apple, Aperture no longer makes exit difficult - but the price of getting your metadata and organisation out of it is to duplicate all your files, or write metadata directly into raw files (forgetting Apple previous said not altering your raw files was a good thing about Aperture). Lightroom doesn't lock you in nearly as much - more hardware choice, metadata safely exported, and even your adjustments can be printed from another program (one advantage of DNG). So, John Camp, you're choosing between two potential loves, knowing neither will last forever, so why wouldn't you opt for the one offering the better prenuptial agreement that lets you keep what's yours?

[LesPalenik]

Enough progress to allow you to entertain yourself, posting from your keyboard to other computer systems, to be viewed by a global audience moments later.

Isaac, you are right about the entertainment possibilities.
However, in the old days the user interface was clear and simple, programs were lean and fast, and most importantly, they worked.

[Isaac]

... in the old days the user interface was clear and simple, programs were lean and fast, and most importantly, they worked.

By all means, start a topic in The Coffee Corner, and lay out your specific comparisons -- but please, spare us the golden age rhetoric.