Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Moving on from Adobe, need some final Lightroom advice.  (Read 17974 times)
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2013, 09:39:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I have indeed been reading all of the threads here (and Michael's article from yesterday).  It is true that Thomas and I are not executives and therefore don't directly make business/pricing decisions.  This may not help the sentiment out there ... but here goes anyways: Thomas and I very much understand the concerns of photographers, especially the hobbyists and enthusiasts who don't need/want the full CC suite and just want to use Ps and/or Lr.  We know that there are lots of concerns about (1) price, both short-term and long-term, esp. for those who used to skip every other Ps version (upgrading on a relaxed schedule) (2) being "locked in" or "imprisoned" into an Adobe-only system, and (3) what happens should photographers choose to end their subscriptions (e.g., in terms of opening files, etc.).  This is actually easy for me to keep in mind, because before I joined Adobe as a developer I was a user and hobbyist photographer (still am).  So, while the two of us can't make any promises about how things will pan out, I can assure you that we are feeding these concerns directly to the executives at Adobe, including specific suggestions on how to make CC a much better situation for photographers.
Logged

rasterdogs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2013, 10:07:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I have indeed been reading all of the threads here (and Michael's article from yesterday).  It is true that Thomas and I are not executives and therefore don't directly make business/pricing decisions.  This may not help the sentiment out there ... but here goes anyways: Thomas and I very much understand the concerns of photographers, especially the hobbyists and enthusiasts who don't need/want the full CC suite and just want to use Ps and/or Lr.  We know that there are lots of concerns about (1) price, both short-term and long-term, esp. for those who used to skip every other Ps version (upgrading on a relaxed schedule) (2) being "locked in" or "imprisoned" into an Adobe-only system, and (3) what happens should photographers choose to end their subscriptions (e.g., in terms of opening files, etc.).  This is actually easy for me to keep in mind, because before I joined Adobe as a developer I was a user and hobbyist photographer (still am).  So, while the two of us can't make any promises about how things will pan out, I can assure you that we are feeding these concerns directly to the executives at Adobe, including specific suggestions on how to make CC a much better situation for photographers.

Eric, 

Well done and thanks.

It amazes me that the folks doing the work (fantastic work) express more support and concern than does Adobe management.

For longer than I want to reveal I've worked in high tech and have seen that companies get so big that they are brought down by their own presumptions.

Logged
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2013, 10:08:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I have indeed been reading all of the threads here (and Michael's article from yesterday).  It is true that Thomas and I are not executives and therefore don't directly make business/pricing decisions.  This may not help the sentiment out there ... but here goes anyways: Thomas and I very much understand the concerns of photographers, especially the hobbyists and enthusiasts who don't need/want the full CC suite and just want to use Ps and/or Lr.  We know that there are lots of concerns about (1) price, both short-term and long-term, esp. for those who used to skip every other Ps version (upgrading on a relaxed schedule) (2) being "locked in" or "imprisoned" into an Adobe-only system, and (3) what happens should photographers choose to end their subscriptions (e.g., in terms of opening files, etc.).  This is actually easy for me to keep in mind, because before I joined Adobe as a developer I was a user and hobbyist photographer (still am).  So, while the two of us can't make any promises about how things will pan out, I can assure you that we are feeding these concerns directly to the executives at Adobe, including specific suggestions on how to make CC a much better situation for photographers.

Eric,

Thank you very much for your statement.  Reasonably, I think that is all we can ask and I certainly appreciate your position as it pertains to the future direction Adobe may or may not take.

John
Logged

John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2013, 10:10:00 AM »
ReplyReply


It amazes me that the folks doing the work (fantastic work) express more support and concern than does Adobe management.

For longer than I want to reveal I've worked in high tech and have seen that companies get so big that they are brought down by their own presumptions.



It doesn't surprise me at all.  MANY large companies seem to lose sight of what got them there in the first place, hence your second point which I totally agree with.  When you have people calling the shots that are not in touch with the customer base, this is exactly what can happen.
Logged

Morris Taub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372



WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2013, 10:16:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I have indeed been reading all of the threads here (and Michael's article from yesterday).  It is true that Thomas and I are not executives and therefore don't directly make business/pricing decisions.  This may not help the sentiment out there ... but here goes anyways: Thomas and I very much understand the concerns of photographers, especially the hobbyists and enthusiasts who don't need/want the full CC suite and just want to use Ps and/or Lr.  We know that there are lots of concerns about (1) price, both short-term and long-term, esp. for those who used to skip every other Ps version (upgrading on a relaxed schedule) (2) being "locked in" or "imprisoned" into an Adobe-only system, and (3) what happens should photographers choose to end their subscriptions (e.g., in terms of opening files, etc.).  This is actually easy for me to keep in mind, because before I joined Adobe as a developer I was a user and hobbyist photographer (still am).  So, while the two of us can't make any promises about how things will pan out, I can assure you that we are feeding these concerns directly to the executives at Adobe, including specific suggestions on how to make CC a much better situation for photographers.

Eric, just wanted to thank you for your thoughts. It's a real joy to read what you wrote. After several days of nearly non stop negativity about adobe's policy changes, this brings some relief for me. I hope you and Thomas can push for some positive change. Good luck.
Logged

rasterdogs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2013, 10:18:07 AM »
ReplyReply

It doesn't surprise me at all.  MANY large companies seem to lose sight of what got them there in the first place, hence your second point which I totally agree with.  When you have people calling the shots that are not in touch with the customer base, this is exactly what can happen.
There may be a clue here. Internet research has revealed the favored beverage in the Adobe executive suite.   Wink
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5510


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2013, 10:19:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I've got around 3000 6MP Pentax Raw PEFs with ACR 4.6 generated .xmp side car edits. Which version of Lightroom (4 or 5) will read them if by chance I switch to Lightroom (which I'm now seriously considering)?

Either LR4 or LR5 will read your existing raw files and the .xmp sidecar files and import your PEFs into LR and respect (maintain) your settings and adjustments...but know this, ACR 4.6 is way, way old and you are likely going to find your old processing can now be updated and you'll be able to get a lot better results and image quality from you originals that you could with ACR 4.6. I would suggest trying the LR5 beta on some copies of your raw files (to be safe) and see what the new processing can do for you–particularly images whose scene is very high contrast. LR4 came with a brand new process version (2012) that can extract a lot more detail and texture from highlights and shadows.
Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2013, 10:37:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Is that really your perception or are you being swayed that the hype and rhetoric and doom & gloom that a few really strident users are screaming about?

Stop for a moment and contemplate what you think you know and compare it to the other side is claiming...

Look, Thomas Knoll who essentially single handedly bootstrapped this entire industry into existence is still working for Adobe...Eric Chan (MadmanChan here on LuLa) are still in control of the Camera Raw processing pipeline and added some cool new stuff in LR5.

Can you think for yourself? Are you making a decision based on logic and knowledge or are you reacting based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. Which the anti-Adobe group seems really good at doing (and jumping all over anybody who dares to take issue with the FUD).

Think for yourself...LR5 is a good, not great update–and the only product designed from the ground up for photographers. LR5 adds additional features and functionality that makes Photoshop even less required and needed on a 90/10 basis.

+1
I decided on good grounds to move to Lightroom a couple of years ago. The cloud of dust raised by the CC announcements does not change that.
Logged

Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3792


« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2013, 10:44:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Eric, just wanted to thank you for your thoughts.

Ditto.

Rest assured, we understand that you are as much a victim of the situation as we are. It brings back, not so fond, memories of my time as a vice-chairman of the Kodak Works Council, having to comment to the national press agency on a 7000+ layoff plan.

Keep up the spirit, and your good work.

Thanks,
Bart
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 01:31:53 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 520


WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2013, 10:47:25 AM »
ReplyReply

I have indeed been reading all of the threads here (and Michael's article from yesterday).  It is true that Thomas and I are not executives and therefore don't directly make business/pricing decisions.  This may not help the sentiment out there ... but here goes anyways: Thomas and I very much understand the concerns of photographers, especially the hobbyists and enthusiasts who don't need/want the full CC suite and just want to use Ps and/or Lr.  We know that there are lots of concerns about (1) price, both short-term and long-term, esp. for those who used to skip every other Ps version (upgrading on a relaxed schedule) (2) being "locked in" or "imprisoned" into an Adobe-only system, and (3) what happens should photographers choose to end their subscriptions (e.g., in terms of opening files, etc.).  This is actually easy for me to keep in mind, because before I joined Adobe as a developer I was a user and hobbyist photographer (still am).  So, while the two of us can't make any promises about how things will pan out, I can assure you that we are feeding these concerns directly to the executives at Adobe, including specific suggestions on how to make CC a much better situation for photographers.

I would also like to thank you Eric.  

I am no longer a working pro.  I am an American living in Germany now and my German is not good enough to feel comfortable with the level of communication that is needed to be successful.  Maybe I will return one to it one day.  For now, I shoot for myself as well as doing a portrait shoot or wedding as needed for family and close friends...all for free.  So, I will be sticking with LR, upgrading to LR5 as soon as it is available.  I will remain at CS5 as it does everything that I need to do outside of LR.  Heck, if my copy of Photoshop 4 would run in Windows 7 64 bit (will it?), I would probably be satisfied with it.  In other words, losing Photoshop is not a biggie to me since Lightroom has really stepped up to the plate for photographers. Other than adding text to a birthday card for family members, I have probably only sent an image into Photoshop maybe 4-5 times in the past year.  Lightroom 4 rocks.

Now for the future, I will surely have to look for an alternative to CS5...well maybe, who knows what Lightroom 6, or 7 will be like.  I will worry about that when the time comes.  If we could have a version of Photoshop Elements that has 16 bit layers etc, then I think that most photographers would be happy, I know that I would.  I have only briefly used Elements 1 just to check it out when it came with a scanner years ago, so I am not familiar with what is missing that I would use other than 16 bit layers, but I am sure that there may be a few other things, but not many for sure.  

I do not like the ramifications the CC/CS changes have made in my photographic life, but I do not fault Adobe for running their business the way that they wish to run it.  
Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1208



WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2013, 12:51:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Any version of LR will 'read' the RAW files.  LR will pick up the edits in the xmp files and render the image using the appropriate Process Version.  Despite PV2012 being the most current, LR still has previous Process Versions (2010 & 2003) available and is backward compatible with files processed in previous versions.

Thanks for the confirmation on that, Bob.

I think I'll wait for LR5 to come out and download a trial version to see how it flies on my 2010 Mac Mini.

I have CS5 PS/ACR and don't even use it because Bridge acts kind of funky and PS UI has changed to where I'll have to rearrange my saved "Workspace" and ACR's slider action feels kind of stiff with the preview responses a tad slow, but still better than Pentax's SilkyPix Raw converter which is clunkier than before and clearly uses hue flavors in their green/magenta+amber/blue WB selection that can't touch Adobe's Color Engine driven WB. I'm just so use to the color palette of ACE that's apparent across all their editing tools.
Logged
Gothmoth
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2013, 01:12:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Is that really your perception or are you being swayed that the hype and rhetoric and doom & gloom that a few really strident users are screaming about?

a few?
you should do a reality check from time to time.

you can spill your marekting blahblah on as much blogs and forums as you like.
it will not change the fact that we, the majority of customers (not adobe guys like yourself), don´t want the adobe cloud.

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

and what about opening old AE or Premiere projects when a customer decides to use different software?
today i can just install the adobe software again and open my old projects. not the case when i am on subscription.

there are a lot of unanswerd questions.. questions adobe can not answer as it seems.

but sure... adobe guys like you expect us to be just dumb cash cows and buy your overpriced books.

Quote
Can you think for yourself?

can you eat less?
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 01:20:53 PM by Gothmoth » Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1208



WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2013, 01:22:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Either LR4 or LR5 will read your existing raw files and the .xmp sidecar files and import your PEFs into LR and respect (maintain) your settings and adjustments...but know this, ACR 4.6 is way, way old and you are likely going to find your old processing can now be updated and you'll be able to get a lot better results and image quality from you originals that you could with ACR 4.6. I would suggest trying the LR5 beta on some copies of your raw files (to be safe) and see what the new processing can do for you–particularly images whose scene is very high contrast. LR4 came with a brand new process version (2012) that can extract a lot more detail and texture from highlights and shadows.

Crossed post on ya' there, Jeff.

Yeah, I've been waiting for the newly fixed Fill/Highlight edit induced edge halo artifacts in CS6/LR5 PV2012. And I've tried PV2010 in CS5 and noticed the opened up shadows and added highlight detail recovery but that edge halo thingy is what I wanted the most.

But I forgot to add that I'm running Mac OS 10.6.8 which of course I'm going to have to fork over more money to upgrade to a version that will run LR5 or CS6. The spending seems to never end and it's just pictures.

But that's the whole point about keeping up to date with the latest versions of all software and hardware, it prevents you from adopting the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" workflow philosophy. If I stick with that and the Mac Mini breaks either now or several years later, I'll have to replace it with something new, with new OS that won't run ACR 4.6 which is working fine for me.

And besides that I've actually had to re-edit quite a few ACR 4.6 images because I keep learning new ways of bringing out detail, clarity and depth playing around with those tools which I'll have to relearn and re-edit again in LR5. This has a lot to do with my eyes adapting during long edits trying to find the look while getting a feel for the tools. Raw is a gargantuan space to edit in. There are things I can bring out in an image that surprises me every time.

You don't know how many times I've gone back to images I've spent quite a long time getting to look good, get away for while and come back to 'em and ask..."What the hell was I thinking?"
Logged
shanly
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2013, 01:39:34 PM »
ReplyReply

...and (3) what happens should photographers choose to end their subscriptions (e.g., in terms of opening files, etc.). 

Hi Eric.  This quote from you is what is for me the key item. 

If when I stop paying I could still search for and open existing files, export/save them as flattened TIFFs, JPGs or DNGs (my choice) and print them then I would not have such a big issue with subscription.  Obviously, I could not do further editing or import or create new files.  This would apply to both LR and a photographer's version of PS CC.  BTW, being able to print is important because otherwise I lose all of my soft proofing adjustments and saved prints.

If these issues were addressed, then for me we're just arguing about price.  I believe strongly that I should be able to continue to access fully anything that I created while I was paying subscription.

We'll see what happens, but I'm very glad that you understand the requirements.

Cheers,

Selby
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2916


« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2013, 02:14:50 PM »
ReplyReply

If when I stop paying I could still search for and open existing files, export/save them as flattened TIFFs, JPGs or DNGs (my choice) and print them then I would not have such a big issue with subscription.

You choose when you stop paying. So what prevents you from first doing - "export/save them as flattened TIFFs, JPGs or DNGs (my choice) and print " - and only when you have completed those tasks, you finally stop paying and no longer have access PS CC ?
Logged
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2013, 02:26:05 PM »
ReplyReply

being able to export TIFF and JPG is all fine and well, but when you do you lose the RAW information.  DNG maintains that, but then you lose the edits you did in ACR and/or Lr.  To me, that's the problematic part of this concept.  You can have one, or the other.. but once you stop using the subscription service you ARE going to give up something.

With any luck, this will never come to pass as far as Lr is concerned.  We will see.
Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1208



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2013, 02:29:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining about Adobe or Apple or computers in general. I love this industry. I'm trying to point out the nature of the beast working in the fairly new digital processing pipeline ways of image making.

Our toil, time and effort and "creations" are constantly tied to a machine!

What the digital imaging support service industry doesn't seem to realize is what even hobbyist image creators deal with on an image by image basis that NO TUTORIAL/UPGRADE is going to fix or address which is the issue that humans were not meant to work their eye/hand coordination skills on this level of concentration.


Give you an example that's typical of what I deal with on an image by image basis. This is not meant to disparage Adobe but just to show the amount of time we hobbyist "image creators" have to spend on our end and why throwing additional options and features with upgrade after upgrade just makes digital image processing more frustrating and full of fear that all our time and effort will be held captive by not upgrading the machine.


Did a series of macro outdoor nature shots of leaves in which I liked the composition and color. No way to do a custom WB because the light kept changing and exposures varied. Finding something as simple as correct looking WB with these leaves took forever. I couldn't figure out what was wrong because the entire series of macros had various WB shooting at AutoWB. Choosing custom WB would not compensate for the changes. Out in the field a photographer is not always going to have a WB reference or even be able to control it so this is what I've been dealing with in the past week on this series of images...
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 02:31:05 PM by tlooknbill » Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2013, 02:36:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Probably would have been better, in a situation like that Tim, to shoot on a set WB - whether it was 'right' or not - that way you've got the same starting point for all images and it may be easier to tweak than with different starting points on all images.

But let's look at that situation a little more.  How would the film shooter have done it?  How would the film shooter have compensated in the same situation?  Daylight film?  OK.  That would work for some, but in changing light like you described not all.  Colour correction filters?  OK, which?  Changing filters every few minutes for the changing light?  That's pretty cumbersome and tedious isn't it?  And the correction filters aren't nearly as finely tuned as we can tune WB in the digital world.  So which is better? 

I think sometimes because we have more control with digital than we had with film we expect something closer to perfection.  We end up spending more time on the last few percentage points than it's worth. 
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5510


WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2013, 02:48:21 PM »
ReplyReply

can you eat less?

And this contributes to the discussion how?

BTW, I'm now going to start reporting this sort of crap to the monitors (Mike and Chris) so that the overall tone of these debates are not ad hominem attacks but have some useful content to discuss. So, do you have anything useful to say? If not, shut up...

And yes, I should loose weight...that's done by exercising more and yes, eating less.

:~)
Logged
shanly
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2013, 02:48:42 PM »
ReplyReply

You choose when you stop paying. So what prevents you from first doing - "export/save them as flattened TIFFs, JPGs or DNGs (my choice) and print " - and only when you have completed those tasks, you finally stop paying and no longer have access PS CC ?

Of course I could constantly output flattened TIFFs as I go along as insurance against either a price increase or a sudden change in my circumstances.  But why should I have to go through such a grind constantly when it is reasonable to be permitted access to what I have already done?  

It also doesn't answer the question about printing.  I'm supposed to make all the prints I may ever need?  I mention printing because it is reasonable to anticipate that given the current statements from Adobe, that it is possible that some future release of LR will be subscription only so I am also concerned about that possiblity.  Adobe only explicitly addressed LR5.  I do understand that doesn't mean that LR6 will be subscription only, but it does not rule it out either.  We'll all just have to wait and see.  

Of course, I could stop using the new soft proofing support in LR and go back to doing it in PS and flattening the resulting TIFF.  Seems a shame not to use functionality for which I have paid as a licensed LR customer.

Again, all I'm asking for (and Eric's post seemed to recognize this requirement) is access to what I've already paid to be able to do.  Don't lock me out from my existing work or impose a constant overhead on my workflow.

I have LR4 and CS6 and I just upgraded my desktop to the fastest I could get with Windows 7, so I'm ok for quite some time.  No panic, but I'd like to see where it's going and whether I should entertain getting a subscription later if I find the new functionality attractive.  

I will not buy a subscription if it completely locks me out of my files once I stop paying.  In that case, I'll have to incur the overhead of constant preparation to jump to another set of applications when the day comes that my workstation is beyond repair and the new version of Windows is not supported by LR4/5 and PS CS6.  Fortunately that day is likely long off, so again, no panic.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 02:59:31 PM by shanly » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad