Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm  (Read 23529 times)
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759



WWW
« Reply #80 on: May 16, 2013, 01:49:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Yup, that was one of mine Wink 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?
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 01:55:00 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


WWW
« Reply #81 on: May 16, 2013, 02:24:58 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2781


« Reply #82 on: May 16, 2013, 11:35:55 AM »
ReplyReply

... 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.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #83 on: May 16, 2013, 12:34:08 PM »
ReplyReply

This is really funny.

Folks want a perpetual license? Try running the first Photoshop on Mac OSX. Sure the license states you can use this as long as you want, but I am not thinking that that is going to be the practice, not unless you are running MS-DOS.

As far as Lightroom. Personally, it is simply a beefed up Photoshop Elements. Pay your hundred bucks once and a while and upgrade. Go to Aperture. It does not really matter. Photoshop is really the tool for photographers.

What I am more concerned with is the expense of the CC model. For individuals, it is really expensive and your work becomes useless once the license expires. For large organizations, the model will be attractive. As a person that uses many of Adobe's applications, I might just have to start looking at alternatives, but it will be hard. With the Creative Cloud, Adobe becomes a service. Now it is whether I can afford the service.
Logged
Dave Millier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #84 on: May 18, 2013, 04:51:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not a photoshop user (though I have an ancient copy somewhere and an ancient copy of Elements and even LE) but I am a Lightroom user.  Lightroom has always been a fascinating product, combining what previously required multiple programs into one with a consistent UI and introducing an end to end non destructive workflow.

Great idea, but it came with one price:  if you buy into this approach, you give up all those in-between generations of tiffs you used to have wirth conventional editors. This has always been touted as a strength of LR, a great saving in storage and file management, and rightly so.

But it also brings the "eggs-in-one-basket" syndrome. Lightroom users basically have the original unprocessed raw files plus a database with a record of all the processing done on those raws (and all the keywording and the like). They don't actually have any physical edited files.  And there is no reason why they should: the whole ethos of Lightroom is non-destructive editing of the original raw with no need for any work-in-progress RGB renderings.  Your edits are simple a sequence of commands stored in a database which are run on the fly whenever you want to render and image into a print (or finished electronic file). This works so smoothly, it makes no sense to use lightroom as though it were photoshop and break this model by keeping "backup" rendered files with all the hassle involved in managing these files.

However, what Adobe have done by introducing this subscription model is break a trust. if you used LR on a large scale you know you are committed to this database driven editing model. You are in trouble if anything happens to LR because all of your work resides as nothing more than a remembered sequence of programming instructions associated with the RAW and only LR can run that program and render the file.  LR users need to have faith in Adobe to preserver this model or they risk losing everything.  And LR users are now left with the suspicion that Adobe might (probably will) at some point in the future use the same model with LR. And if they do this, it isn't just a case of the cost of software, it's all the hours you have locked up in the stream of commands saved in the LR database.  They will prevent you not just from using the software if you cease to subscribe but also they will deny you access to all your past work. Your work, the work you did with your skill and knowledge and labour. If Lightroom went to subscription it becomes ransomware.

Are you prepared to entrust 10000, 50000 or whatever images and all the work that went into this to Adobe's goodwill?  Are you going to go on increasing the size of that catalogue knowing what potentially be on the horizon? To my mind, the Photoshop subscription effectively kills the trust in Adobe and that kills Lighroom here and now as a viable product because, painful at it would be to bail at this point, I know that every single extra edit I make is increasing the hold they potentially have over me in the future.  This is a real shame because after initial scepticism, I have grown to like Lightroom a lot and have completely abandoned Capture One and Bibble and Picture Window Pro and the DAM product and the sharpening tools and the noise reduction programs and all the other software I had cobbled together into an intricate workflow.

It will be a blow to have to return to that kind of arrangement but to my mind a subscription model for Lightroom is functionally equivalent to losing your LR catalogue to a kidnapper: stop paying forever and you are left with years of unprocessed RAWs and nothing else.  I don't want my images to be under the control of a corporation who doesn't care about my images or me, I want them to be under my exclusive control because I do care.

Logged

My website and photo galleries: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #85 on: May 18, 2013, 07:15:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not a photoshop user...what Adobe have done by introducing this subscription model is break a trust...you are in trouble if anything happens to LR...LR users need to have faith in Adobe to preserver this model or they risk losing everything...to my mind, the Photoshop subscription effectively kills the trust in Adobe and that kills Lighroom here and now...I know that every single extra edit I make is increasing the hold they potentially have over me in the future...(and so on).

I must be missing something here. This line of talk seems melodramatic - if you don't use Photoshop. I am beginning to believe in mutating memes.

Like you, I am a Lightroom user, with, in my case, a few trips outside, mostly to plugins and specialist image processing software but also very occasionally, to Photoshop. I think it unlikely that Adobe will go to subscription only for Lightroom, because I trust them - to act out of self-interest. If I am wrong about that, I will have to consider my options. At that point I won't have lost anything. I will have access to the work I have done using the software I have done it with. I do revisit past work occasionally, but how much time does anyone have do that?

Future hardware and OS changes may be a problem, but not one caused by Adobe's changes to date or likely to be much increased by any future changes made by Adobe - they are already a historic and prospective problem resulting from the rapid rate of change in IT generally.

I expect there will be plenty of interesting options for me to choose between if I decide to abandon Lightroom, and plenty of strategies for jumping ship while minimizing losses.  And that assumes I haven't already jumped ship because my existing setup has been surpassed by other software - as happened when when I moved to Lightroom a few years ago.

This is all a real issue at the moment for Photoshop users and they have my sympathy and best wishes in influencing Adobe to modify their strategy or some of Adobe's best and brightest to do a new product as per Schewe's thread, but for Lightoom users - I should be so lucky as to have nothing worse to worry about, inside or outside photography.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2013, 07:32:33 AM by kencameron » Logged

markd61
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #86 on: May 19, 2013, 05:05:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I have heard a lot of anger and outrage from people across the net but almost entirely from non-pros.
I understand the annoyance at change and the uncertainty of the new model but as a pro myself this is a very trivial issue. I pay way more for  other subscriptions that do not make me any money at all.
If, for a reasonable sum of less than $100 a month I can make my solid, upper-middle-class living at photography I am not going to start complaining. I annually pay the state of California $800 for the privilege of having a corporation in this state. I pay my landlord $1500 a month for a studio that allows me to make many times that sum by not having to meet clients at Starbucks and shoot in the park. I pay for an internet connection fee that allows me to send and receive thousands of image files per month (thus saving my clients time, money and sales tax). And I pay ~$250 a month for several cell phones for my staff and myself that enable us to make more money than being limited to land lines and voicemail.

For me it is not an issue. I already lease SW from two other providers and have NEVER had an issues of connectivity or usability. In addition, updates and bug fixes arrive as they are developed and not at some special time when I then have to pay a lump sum for a number of bug fixes that I should have gotten much earlier.

But the storm of criticism of Adobe aside, the real test of whether they did the right thing for themselves and the shareholders is what happens to their earnings.

The fact is that whenever Adobe has introduced an upgrade a storm of protest erupts about the arrogance/greed of Adobe in asking $200 for the upgrade. This is always followed by a stream of indignant proclamations of  imminent departure from all things Adobe and the switching to (insert feeble cr@pware name here) and grave pronouncements of Adobe's demise.
But it never really happens.

Everybody moans about ethics and morality and the obligations of Adobe to its user base. I find it a little ironic that this same (self serving) metric is not applied to the other businesses in our country that are far more rapacious and indifferent to their workers and customers than Adobe has ever been. And this self righteous posturing is for a policy that affects their HOBBY?
When I hear about the steps all of you are taking to improve the lot of citizens and workers in this country and the world (I see you in your Bangladeshi shirt from Kohl's) then I might have a bit more sympathy for your hurt feelings.

« Last Edit: May 19, 2013, 05:08:58 PM by markd61 » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2781


« Reply #87 on: May 19, 2013, 07:51:55 PM »
ReplyReply

But it also brings the "eggs-in-one-basket" syndrome. Lightroom users basically have the original unprocessed raw files plus a database with a record of all the processing done on those raws (and all the keywording and the like). They don't actually have any physical edited files. ...

I don't want my images to be under the control of a corporation who doesn't care about my images or me, I want them to be under my exclusive control because I do care.

Me neither - so I have a half-dozen export presets which export jpegs at different sizes and degrees of output sharpening; and tiff without output sharpening, using different color spaces - and I use those export presets to create independent archive files.

(Of course, I also archive the usual Lightroom files.)
Logged
stevesanacore
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


« Reply #88 on: May 19, 2013, 09:00:54 PM »
ReplyReply


But it also brings the "eggs-in-one-basket" syndrome. Lightroom users basically have the original unprocessed raw files plus a database with a record of all the processing done on those raws (and all the keywording and the like). They don't actually have any physical edited files. 

I'm not sure who you speak for but I have every one of my final choices of all my shoots rendered as DNG, TIFF, and jpegs in many places. I'd be a bit nervous only keeping the raw files around which at some point may be obsolete with no software to render them. I've been using Tiff and jpegs since 1990 where RAW file specs change every year with every new camera release.
Logged

We don't know what we don't know.
Dave Millier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #89 on: May 20, 2013, 02:37:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Of course it makes sense to keep "spare tifs" around just in case, but for me the only reason I chose to use LR at all was to avoid all that. End to end workflow within a single program with non destructive editing, nice and neat and tidy. And this is the way the benefits of the program are often promoted, not least by LR gurus.  Pros may have a very different mindset, of course as they have a livelihood to preserve.
Logged

My website and photo galleries: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7903



WWW
« Reply #90 on: May 20, 2013, 05:55:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I have heard a lot of anger and outrage from people across the net but almost entirely from non-pros.

I don't think that this is correct. There is also a huge number of pro freelance designers who are at least as mad as amateur photographers.

The gap is no between pro and non pro, the gap is between corporate and non corporate.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2759



WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 20, 2013, 06:34:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I have heard a lot of anger and outrage from people across the net but almost entirely from non-pros.
I don't think that this is correct. There is also a huge number of pro freelance designers who are at least as mad as amateur photographers.
The gap is no between pro and non pro, the gap is between corporate and non corporate.
I agree - "non-pros" are often professionals in their own field and shouldn't be demeaned.

When I hear about the steps all of you are taking to improve the lot of citizens and workers in this country and the world (I see you in your Bangladeshi shirt from Kohl's) then I might have a bit more sympathy for your hurt feelings.
Maybe stick to discussing the point rather implying others are hypocrites on evidence little better than your own prejudices, and dress sense?
Logged

Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #92 on: May 20, 2013, 06:46:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe stick to discussing the point rather implying others are hypocrites on evidence little better than your own prejudices, and dress sense?

+1
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 20, 2013, 07:41:21 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
But they were lean simply because they did very little compared to modern software. Heck my phone can do stuff my first computer would be incapable of and does so quickly and easily too.
Editing images [which is what us lot on here do] is way easier, a lot more powerful and faster than it ever has been in the past.

Your argument is like saying the first calculators were better as they fewer buttons than later more useful/powerful calculators.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
David S
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #94 on: May 20, 2013, 08:23:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote:
"I have heard a lot of anger and outrage from people across the net but almost entirely from non-pros.
I understand the annoyance at change and the uncertainty of the new model but as a pro myself this is a very trivial issue. I pay way more for  other subscriptions that do not make me any money at all.
If, for a reasonable sum of less than $100 a month I can make my solid, upper-middle-class living at photography I am not going to start complaining. I annually pay the state of California $800 for the privilege of having a corporation in this state. I pay my landlord $1500 a month for a studio that allows me to make many times that sum by not having to meet clients at Starbucks and shoot in the park. I pay for an internet connection fee that allows me to send and receive thousands of image files per month (thus saving my clients time, money and sales tax). And I pay ~$250 a month for several cell phones for my staff and myself that enable us to make more money than being limited to land lines and voicemail."



Sounds fine for the moment but you will loose access to your life's work once you retire and decide to stop paying rent for your office, programs etc.

Dave S
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1917


WWW
« Reply #95 on: May 20, 2013, 09:22:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Sounds fine for the moment but you will loose access to your life's work once you retire and decide to stop paying rent for your office, programs etc.
Maybe people should remember that it will be (is) possible just subscribe for a month at a time to any of the packages. A month should be enough to reformat old work if necessary.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2781


« Reply #96 on: May 20, 2013, 11:29:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Of course it makes sense to keep "spare tifs" around just in case, but for me the only reason I chose to use LR at all was to avoid all that. End to end workflow within a single program with non destructive editing, nice and neat and tidy.

End-to-end workflow which, if you want an independent archive, includes export in suitable image formats. Your choice.
Logged
VidJa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #97 on: May 20, 2013, 04:57:33 PM »
ReplyReply

This whole discussion goes beyond the fact the Adobe is just another company. As we have seen in the past: if it doesn't work, nobody will buy it. If it does... fine.
For pro guys CC will just be an expense. For enthousiasts as myself...I either keep using LR4, maybe 5 and CS6 for the next 5 years or I will switch to an alternative in time. There is no pressure, just time...time to explore new paths.

The same happened with word processors. At work I have Office 2013. At home I still have Office 2003 that came  with a long gone PC, supplemented with Libre Office. I run Windows 7 and Ubuntu linux next to each other and I'm spending more and more time in linux. There will be a point when joe average tells the boss to get rid of the old monoliths for his day to day work if the replacing software delivers more than the corporate choice in terms of productivity. That point may be far away for Adobe, but their attitude already unleached so many alternatives than one of them is bound to surpass the whole CC thing. Which one and when remains unforeseen. The only alternative for Adobe is to become that alternative. My conclusion. They don't know it yet, but they jus gave themselve a big reason to accelerate their own development.

we will see......
Logged
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1223


« Reply #98 on: May 21, 2013, 05:40:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote:
"I have heard a lot of anger and outrage from people across the net but almost entirely from non-pros.
I understand the annoyance at change and the uncertainty of the new model but as a pro myself this is a very trivial issue. I pay way more for  other subscriptions that do not make me any money at all.
If, for a reasonable sum of less than $100 a month I can make my solid, upper-middle-class living at photography I am not going to start complaining. I annually pay the state of California $800 for the privilege of having a corporation in this state. I pay my landlord $1500 a month for a studio that allows me to make many times that sum by not having to meet clients at Starbucks and shoot in the park. I pay for an internet connection fee that allows me to send and receive thousands of image files per month (thus saving my clients time, money and sales tax). And I pay ~$250 a month for several cell phones for my staff and myself that enable us to make more money than being limited to land lines and voicemail."

I don't think anyone is arguing about the fact that business will not really notice this change - or perhaps they will but not in a detrimental manner.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #99 on: May 21, 2013, 05:45:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe people should remember that it will be (is) possible just subscribe for a month at a time to any of the packages. A month should be enough to reformat old work if necessary.
Reprocessing 40-50 years work in a month would be quite a challenge. No to mention the huge amount of HD space you'd suddenly need. And are you really never going to any creative work again just because you've retired?
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad