Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: Will you move to Capture one
Yes - 16 (36.4%)
No - 28 (63.6%)
Total Voters: 44

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Two Versions of Lightroom  (Read 8585 times)
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2108


« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2013, 12:15:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Never have I seen a major organization actively alienage a significant segment of its customer base and from Mr. Hendrickson's words, he doesn't care; "there's not a lot of photography-specific value in our subscription products."

I think this is a misinterpretation of Winston's remarks.  My reading of this is that Winston is actually acknowledging that a limitation of the current CC subscription offerings is that they don't offer photography-specific value.  He actually does care and wants to create a better offering for photographers, but what's been publicly announced so far during Adobe MAX doesn't address that.  This is not a good situation and he understands that.
Logged

John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2013, 03:59:51 PM »
ReplyReply

My interpretation is much like Eric indicates above.  It seems to me the statement is more about the value of the cloud to photographers, moreso than the value of the photographers to Adobe.

I wonder though, with Lr being as complete as it is, and let's face it.. it is a very capable tool for photographers, how much real value is in Ps for photographers?  I know, that many still use ACR/Ps for their workflow, whether that be out of familiarity or something else I have no idea.  For me personally, I almost never use Ps.  There are three reasons I will take an image to Ps.

1.  Stitching
2.  HDR - which I've done exactly ONCE, and even then for the forming the composite image, then editing back in Lr.
3.  Cloning something out of an image that you don't want to be there.  Even with the new tools in Lr5, I find Ps to be more functional in this area.

In a sense, I spent a very significant sum for a piece of software (in my case Ps5) that I almost never use.  For photographers, has Ps reached the point of bloat?  It's a great piece of software, don't get me wrong, and it performs wonderfully for the things its capable of.  For most photographers however, I would think many of its tools are overkill.  Then again, I may be in the minority where my use of Ps is concerned.

A bigger question, what exactly could Adobe add to Ps to make it even more appealing to the market it serves now? Outside of photography.  Perhaps, this cloud concept is a result of "where do we go now?".  While not a Ps expert by any means, I still find it impossible to think of something I would want Ps to do that it doesn't already do.  If that is indeed the case, what would be the incentive for many to move to..Ps7?  I would think this is something that has crossed Adobe's mind(s) as well.. and as many have stated, the cloud offers a continuous revenue stream which somewhat mitigates that crisis.

However, I see a HUGE market (myself included) for a version(or perhaps another product) that addresses the basic things photographers use Ps for now.  I would certainly pay for a piece of software that allowed me to do the things I mentioned above, that didn't have the seemingly limitless other tools that I just don't need.  One, it should be more economical than a full version of Ps.  Two, it does offer things that are more difficult to achieve in something like Lr due to the way Lr works.  Before anyone mentions it...Elements doesn't cut it.  It COULD, but it will not work with 16 bit files (last I checked) so that knocks it out of the running quickly.

I'm thinking out loud, and may be rambling..lol.
Logged

rasterdogs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2013, 05:06:51 PM »
ReplyReply

My interpretation is much like Eric indicates above.  It seems to me the statement is more about the value of the cloud to photographers, moreso than the value of the photographers to Adobe.

I wonder though, with Lr being as complete as it is, and let's face it.. it is a very capable tool for photographers, how much real value is in Ps for photographers?  I know, that many still use ACR/Ps for their workflow, whether that be out of familiarity or something else I have no idea.  For me personally, I almost never use Ps.  There are three reasons I will take an image to Ps.

1.  Stitching
2.  HDR - which I've done exactly ONCE, and even then for the forming the composite image, then editing back in Lr.
3.  Cloning something out of an image that you don't want to be there.  Even with the new tools in Lr5, I find Ps to be more functional in this area.

In a sense, I spent a very significant sum for a piece of software (in my case Ps5) that I almost never use.  For photographers, has Ps reached the point of bloat?  It's a great piece of software, don't get me wrong, and it performs wonderfully for the things its capable of.  For most photographers however, I would think many of its tools are overkill.  Then again, I may be in the minority where my use of Ps is concerned.

A bigger question, what exactly could Adobe add to Ps to make it even more appealing to the market it serves now? Outside of photography.  Perhaps, this cloud concept is a result of "where do we go now?".  While not a Ps expert by any means, I still find it impossible to think of something I would want Ps to do that it doesn't already do.  If that is indeed the case, what would be the incentive for many to move to..Ps7?  I would think this is something that has crossed Adobe's mind(s) as well.. and as many have stated, the cloud offers a continuous revenue stream which somewhat mitigates that crisis.

However, I see a HUGE market (myself included) for a version(or perhaps another product) that addresses the basic things photographers use Ps for now.  I would certainly pay for a piece of software that allowed me to do the things I mentioned above, that didn't have the seemingly limitless other tools that I just don't need.  One, it should be more economical than a full version of Ps.  Two, it does offer things that are more difficult to achieve in something like Lr due to the way Lr works.  Before anyone mentions it...Elements doesn't cut it.  It COULD, but it will not work with 16 bit files (last I checked) so that knocks it out of the running quickly.

I'm thinking out loud, and may be rambling..lol.

Having seen an example of Jeff's pixel wrangling on the LR4 LULA video I can see there is real value in using PS for those who have the chops and want the greatest range of interpretation for their images. In my use of PS I've never reached that skill level.
Logged
s4e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2013, 05:15:54 PM »
ReplyReply

My interpretation is much like Eric indicates above.  It seems to me the statement is more about the value of the cloud to photographers, moreso than the value of the photographers to Adobe.

I wonder though, with Lr being as complete as it is, and let's face it.. it is a very capable tool for photographers, how much real value is in Ps for photographers?  I know, that many still use ACR/Ps for their workflow, whether that be out of familiarity or something else I have no idea.  For me personally, I almost never use Ps.  There are three reasons I will take an image to Ps.

1.  Stitching
2.  HDR - which I've done exactly ONCE, and even then for the forming the composite image, then editing back in Lr.
3.  Cloning something out of an image that you don't want to be there.  Even with the new tools in Lr5, I find Ps to be more functional in this area.

In a sense, I spent a very significant sum for a piece of software (in my case Ps5) that I almost never use.  For photographers, has Ps reached the point of bloat?  It's a great piece of software, don't get me wrong, and it performs wonderfully for the things its capable of.  For most photographers however, I would think many of its tools are overkill.  Then again, I may be in the minority where my use of Ps is concerned.

A bigger question, what exactly could Adobe add to Ps to make it even more appealing to the market it serves now? Outside of photography.  Perhaps, this cloud concept is a result of "where do we go now?".  While not a Ps expert by any means, I still find it impossible to think of something I would want Ps to do that it doesn't already do.  If that is indeed the case, what would be the incentive for many to move to..Ps7?  I would think this is something that has crossed Adobe's mind(s) as well.. and as many have stated, the cloud offers a continuous revenue stream which somewhat mitigates that crisis.

However, I see a HUGE market (myself included) for a version(or perhaps another product) that addresses the basic things photographers use Ps for now.  I would certainly pay for a piece of software that allowed me to do the things I mentioned above, that didn't have the seemingly limitless other tools that I just don't need.  One, it should be more economical than a full version of Ps.  Two, it does offer things that are more difficult to achieve in something like Lr due to the way Lr works.  Before anyone mentions it...Elements doesn't cut it.  It COULD, but it will not work with 16 bit files (last I checked) so that knocks it out of the running quickly.

I'm thinking out loud, and may be rambling..lol.

I agree. This editor could be part of Lightroom (optional).
Logged
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2013, 05:16:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Having seen an example of Jeff's pixel wrangling on the LR4 LULA video I can see there is real value in using PS for those who have the chops and want the greatest range of interpretation for their images. In my use of PS I've never reached that skill level.

I admit, I did use his "progressive sharpening" technique on an image that I was never completely happy with, due to focus and diffraction.  It definitely made a significant improvement.  Having said that, had I taken more time when I took the image I wouldn't have needed it Smiley  Still, it's a HUGE investment for the number of times I actually use it.  Obviously it was worth it to me at the time, but if I had to subscribe to it continually that would change the value for me.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5471


WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2013, 05:23:21 PM »
ReplyReply

However, I see a HUGE market (myself included) for a version(or perhaps another product) that addresses the basic things photographers use Ps for now.  I would certainly pay for a piece of software that allowed me to do the things I mentioned above, that didn't have the seemingly limitless other tools that I just don't need.  One, it should be more economical than a full version of Ps.  Two, it does offer things that are more difficult to achieve in something like Lr due to the way Lr works.  Before anyone mentions it...Elements doesn't cut it.  It COULD, but it will not work with 16 bit files (last I checked) so that knocks it out of the running quickly.

I'm thinking out loud, and may be rambling..lol.

Thinking out loud is good...I suggest to check out a new topic I started with the title: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...
Logged
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2013, 05:26:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Thinking out loud is good...I suggest to check out a new topic I started with the title: If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now...

LOL.. I just did, and added my post from here.
Logged

EKJellytoes
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #47 on: May 13, 2013, 02:07:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I notice that many of the "newbies" have taken a liberal, socially-engaged side of this issue while most of the "big old guns" have taken the opposite, more conservative side of the question.

I beleive, based solely on past experience on this planet, that in the end Adobe will do everything in it's power to maximize it's profits and crush it's competition....and in the future it will pursue the CC-version exclusively due to the ROI vs. that from perpetual license down-load or worse, box editions. The cost savings added to higher renenue stream are just too compelling to ignore from a corporate perspective.

And remember, none - not one - of the Adobe products was ever created to aide or benefit you or I in any way, shape or fashion, except as a collateral benefit to the desire to make money! If - IF - the photgraphic community benefits and buys the product great....but if they choose to go elsewhere then fine because the new business model is clearly designed to make money from other revenue streams  -  not serving the amateur photographer. This prime purpose of business, making money, always seems to amaze and anger many people who talk about social responsibility and of course that old saw your Mothers taught you about "sharing".

Now it could come to pass that when the population of this little blue-marble reaches, oh say 20-billion, that human nature will change and "socially responsible sharing" will replace "greedy rabid capitalism"....but I rather doubt that will ever come to pass...besides we will all be dead and gone and to "H" with all of them.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad