Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Moving on from Adobe, need some final Lightroom advice.  (Read 21280 times)
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2013, 03:01:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something about this whole thing but...

Supposedly Lr5 will be a perpetual license..at least.  Now let's assume Lr6 is not.  Okay, I don't suppose there is anything MAKING us upgrade to Lr6 if that's the case correct?  Furthermore, anything we have done in Lr5 (or earlier) would not be an issue since we have Lr5 still. 

Cons

1.  We could miss out on some really useful processing tools as a result.  That being said, I have no issues with the processing tools in Lr4 PV2012 and in fact more is possible than I ever reasonably hoped for.  Net result for me, no big deal.  I'm quite sure I could keep processing images into the future with Lr5 and be reasonably satisfied.
2.  Support for newer cameras.. ahh, now THAT could be an issue, assuming Adobe stopped adding camera support for newer cameras.  In that case you could possibly be forced either jump on board the LrCC bandwagon, OR move to another processing tool from another vendor.
3.  Operating system upgrades.  Hmm, I suppose it's possible that Lr5 won't run on Windows 9.  Ok, but again, I'm quite satisfied with Windows 7 and frankly, photography is the only reason I tend to upgrade those things anyway.


Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1264



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2013, 03:07:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.

It's not about right, Bob. It's about the nature of human perception in its relation to the tools the editor has to use to make it look the way they want. As I said picking any fixed or custom WB wasn't going to mitigate what this visual phenomenon does to the editing process.


Also this is not about my lack knowledge of digital image capture and processing. I know how to process images. I've done it on 3000 Raws and about 300 jpegs accumulated over 7 years. I'm confident I've developed a command of editing tools seeing I've been editing images since 1998 starting with PS4.


This was only an example to give an idea to the digital imaging support services industry of the amount of work involved for users of their systems and software where the more the users accumulate volumes of images the harder it is to keep upgrading from a logistics standpoint. Wedding photographers often shoot 3000 Raws in one event. I can't imagine what they have to go through in an upgrade both hardware and software.

This industry is suppose to be helping us reduce our work load not adding to it by constantly thinking we need newer features to do to images that we don't NEED to do.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 03:16:30 PM by tlooknbill » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3048


« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2013, 03:18:30 PM »
ReplyReply

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?

That's asking to use the functionality provided by the software, after choosing to no longer pay to use the software :-)


It also doesn't answer the question about printing.

Presumably you would acquire some other software that allows you to print TIFF before you stop paying.
Logged
jrp
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2013, 03:32:46 PM »
ReplyReply

... 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.

Thanks for this, which shows more empathy / insight into this segment of the market than any of the other material that the Adobe execs / customer advocates have put out.

I can see that from the boardroom Powerpoint presentation they might think that they have dealt with the the hobbyist photographer segment by keeping Lightroom and Photoshop Elements out of the cloud.   That will be a fair judgement for a significant proportion of photographers, even semi-professional ones.  For my part, as an amateur, I nevertheless use actions, Lab mode, and Photoshop's retouching features, eg, some of which pros would use (eg, retouchers) and some of which they won't (because they would be too time-consuming in a high volume commercial workflow).  I go back to old images in a way that someone doing weddings, or processing a shoot for a particular client would probably do much less.  I also don't have an income flow to match the proposed cloud expenditure flow.  

Yes, Adobe need to fund further development, but I have also invested time in learning the tool and, perhaps, even contributed to the ecosystem that makes the tool attractive to others, from which Adobe benefits.

I sometimes upgrade every release and sometimes not, depending on whether I value the new features on offer.  Under the proposed model, I don't really know what I am buying, other than what I already have.

The fundamental problem seems to be that someone like me wants to be able to stop paying without being put in a worse (but not necessarily better) position than if I continued to subscribe.  Unfortunately this is diametrically opposed to the desire of Adobe to have me as a perpetual income stream, which they have chosen to do by offering only terms that leave me without access to the tool that I have been using, if I do not continue to subscribe.  

What is needed is some sort of hire-purchase option that allows me to stick where I am, if I have subscribed for long enough to pay for what has been developed.  This is the position that I would be in if (as seems to be the best option at the moment) I stick with CS6.  If Adobe allowed that for future releases, for subscribers that had put in a year's worth of payments, say, then I for one would be happy.  The problem with the current model, from my perspective, is that I can't hire-purchase a future release; I can only enter into into an open-ended commitment, if I don't want to end up worse off at some point (ie, I can only hire it).  This makes me reluctant to invest more of my time and energy in the tool.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2013, 04:30:27 PM »
ReplyReply

  Okay, I don't suppose there is anything MAKING us upgrade to Lr6 if that's the case correct? 

Unless you actually want to buy a new camera in the future and have it supported by LR.
Logged

John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2013, 04:46:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Unless you actually want to buy a new camera in the future and have it supported by LR.

yes, that is one of the points I covered if you got that far in my post
Logged

shanly
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2013, 04:54:47 PM »
ReplyReply

That's asking to use the functionality provided by the software, after choosing to no longer pay to use the software :-)

What I'm asking for is (ironically) fairly similar to the situation with Adobe Acrobat and Adobe Reader.  I just want to read my files that contain changes that I paid to be able to do.  By all means, disable edits or any changes other than flattening layers (so I can read it with something else).  We need a PS Reader, and maybe an LR Reader (a rough analogy but it makes the point).
Logged
s4e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2013, 05:12:11 PM »
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.
Thank you Eric,

One option could be to make a pixel editor specific for working together with Lightroom and photographs. For each evolution of Lightroom you could reduce this editors functionallity...

I use 20% of Photoshop and can live without updating this application. Still I'm extremly unhappy because this action show what your company are able to do to their customers. If Adobe did something simmilar with LR the situation is very different because all my work and metadata is stored in the database...

Look forward to see the result of your internal discussions. We know you and Thomas are not responsible for this error from Adobe.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5542


WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2013, 05:18:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I can see that from the boardroom Powerpoint presentation they might think that they have dealt with the the hobbyist photographer segment by keeping Lightroom and Photoshop Elements out of the cloud.   That will be a fair judgement for a significant proportion of photographers, even semi-professional ones.  For my part, as an amateur, I nevertheless use actions, Lab mode, and Photoshop's retouching features, eg, some of which pros would use (eg, retouchers) and some of which they won't (because they would be too time-consuming in a high volume commercial workflow).  I go back to old images in a way that someone doing weddings, or processing a shoot for a particular client would probably do much less.  I also don't have an income flow to match the proposed cloud expenditure flow.  

If you were to imagine an app that would be more than Elements, but less than Photoshop in terms of functionality, exactly what do you think it would need to have as a minimum feature set?

You mention Actions (or automation), Lab & retouching but you would presumably want 16 bit, channels, layers, selections, masks, paths, soft proofing, printing, a full range of color and tone correction (presumably as adjustment layers), Photoshop type filters like blur/sharpening, etc. You would need things like resize/resample, cropping & rotation, right?

So, leaving those items in as assumptions, what else in Photoshop could you live without?

Could you live without type?, Video? 3D? (I assume so). What about CMYK? What about History?, What about Bridge? (the reason I mention Bridge is presumably you would be using Lightroom for browsing and management). There would need to be some sort of brushing functionality, but I doubt you would be much besides simple brushes with softness/opacity and no brush effects, right?

Would you want the Blur gallery and Puppet warp? Liquify? What about editable keyboard shortcuts? (which was a huge engineering effort which is also why LR doesn't have it yet).

What about color management? LR's color management is simple but works well. But you would need to do color conversions, right?

So, what would be needed to create a Photoshop for Photographers that would be designed as a pixel editing companion to Lightroom?

I'm only playing blue sky dreaming here...but Eric has said that he and Thomas are interested in doing something on behalf of photographers (because they are both photographers to) and remember, Thomas was the guy who started this whole industry with his brother John...(even though when it started it wasn't really designed and intended for photographers per se).

So, it would be useful to get a list of must haves, nice to haves but not required and a list of shouldn't haves.

I'll start a new topic with this as a jump off point in a new thread with a couple of caveats...I will be on my best behavior but will tolerate zero ad hominem attacks...I think there needs to healthy debate and exchange of information without an anti-anthing slant. I would hope the tone could be such that Eric would feel comfortable engaging and provide useful feedback that could be taken back to Thomas and Adobe and even other 3rd party developers...

Thoughts?

So, if you have any thoughts, post them in the other thread and lets keep the hard stuff out.
Logged
rgg195
Guest
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2013, 05:55:55 PM »
ReplyReply

A few other thoughts. It's probably not helpful to presume that people are "not thinking for themselves" just because they are deeply concerned about the direction Adobe, the company that they have invested their time and money in, is heading. In the a similar manner, end users like me, should not presume the people who made their livelihood from teaching and supporting Adobe products are not able to "think for themselves" and are just towing the company line.

As for all the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) out there now, I think the major source of it, to be fair, is based on the actions of Adobe, not the end users.

Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #50 on: May 10, 2013, 06:01:12 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not about right, Bob. It's about the nature of human perception in its relation to the tools the editor has to use to make it look the way they want. As I said picking any fixed or custom WB wasn't going to mitigate what this visual phenomenon does to the editing process.


Also this is not about my lack knowledge of digital image capture and processing. I know how to process images. I've done it on 3000 Raws and about 300 jpegs accumulated over 7 years. I'm confident I've developed a command of editing tools seeing I've been editing images since 1998 starting with PS4.


This was only an example to give an idea to the digital imaging support services industry of the amount of work involved for users of their systems and software where the more the users accumulate volumes of images the harder it is to keep upgrading from a logistics standpoint. Wedding photographers often shoot 3000 Raws in one event. I can't imagine what they have to go through in an upgrade both hardware and software.

This industry is suppose to be helping us reduce our work load not adding to it by constantly thinking we need newer features to do to images that we don't NEED to do.

That's why I put 'right' in quotes, Tim.  Because it is a subjective matter.  And I'm not questioning your knowledge or skill.  Not at all. Just trying to add another perspective.

WRT hardware/software upgrades, I don't feel your pain.  Probably that's because I'm a Windows user rather than Mac.  There's some discussion in another thread about the Mac OS upgrade/software compatibility problems.  I've got several 10s of thousands of RAW files in my LR catalogue (approaching 100k at this point, and that's a small catalogue by some measures).  I've been through upgrades from LR2 to LR3 to LR4, Elements 2 to PS CS to CS3 to CS5 to CS6, an upgrade from WinXP to Win7 on one machine then a migration of everything to Win7 on a new machine.  My only issue was the switch from PV2010 to PV2012 and, initially, not fully appreciating the changes in the two process versions which, unlike the change from PV2003 to PV2010, meant I shouldn't automatically update older images to the new PV.  That's a user issue, not a hardware/software issue.  I don't think it's incumbent on software developers like Adobe to have to adjust their development process to the unreasonable demands of a company like Apple.  Apple doesn't play well with others in the sandbox.  That's well known. That lack of flexibility is just something that Apple users have to accept.
Logged
Pogo33
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #51 on: May 10, 2013, 06:35:41 PM »
ReplyReply

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 a hard time believing that the Senior Management at Adobe really comprehend the financial consequences of their decision. Let's take a really simple example. Today, I watched to promo video by Moose Peterson, a "photographer" on the new Wacom Cintiq 13HD 13.3" Interactive Pen Display (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jo6XYLZB3Lk. This is a video demonstrating the ease with which a Photographer could use the tablet in ACR, import the image  into Photoshop and save it as a PSD file. LR was not used once. I suspect the specifics of the tablet are designed more around PS but assume that it could also be used in LR. I do, however, find it interesting that Moose used ACR and PS. Now I had to chuckle. How many photographers do you think will purchase this product in this climate given the focus on PS? Two weeks ago, I would have given the 13HD a serious look, even at almost $1,000.00 because I, like Moose could see the value of adding it to my carryon along with my MacBookPro our fall trip to Tuscany; not now. But more seriously, how many photographers are going to save their work as a PSD file? It is even more a legacy file than my old DCR files. At least there are other programs that I can access these files with.

So, like the person I quoted, it is all about ownership and the ability to continue to access our work without being held hostage.
Logged
HSakols
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


« Reply #52 on: May 10, 2013, 07:40:29 PM »
ReplyReply

The sky is certainly falling.   
Logged
HSakols
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


« Reply #53 on: May 10, 2013, 07:48:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I think Adobe just needs to pause and visualize.  Maybe they should take a more Buddhist approach to the whole thing.   I wonder what Jerry would have said about this whole THING? Maybe Neil can enlighten all of us?  Sorry I know I'll regret this but I couldn't resist. Adobe wouldn't do this if we just went outside once in a while. Thomas Help!!!!
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3048


« Reply #54 on: May 10, 2013, 07:53:18 PM »
ReplyReply

By all means, disable edits or any changes other than flattening layers (so I can read it with something else).  We need a PS Reader, and maybe an LR Reader (a rough analogy but it makes the point).

Depends on the detail of how LR is written, but a LR Reader might be quite awkward to do. Essentially it would be a new product, that had to be updated and kept in-sync with LR.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #55 on: May 10, 2013, 08:53:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a hard time believing that the Senior Management at Adobe really comprehend the financial consequences of their decision. Let's take a really simple example. Today, I watched to promo video by Moose Peterson, a "photographer" on the new Wacom Cintiq 13HD 13.3" Interactive Pen Display (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jo6XYLZB3Lk. This is a video demonstrating the ease with which a Photographer could use the tablet in ACR, import the image  into Photoshop and save it as a PSD file. LR was not used once. I suspect the specifics of the tablet are designed more around PS but assume that it could also be used in LR. I do, however, find it interesting that Moose used ACR and PS. Now I had to chuckle. How many photographers do you think will purchase this product in this climate given the focus on PS? Two weeks ago, I would have given the 13HD a serious look, even at almost $1,000.00 because I, like Moose could see the value of adding it to my carryon along with my MacBookPro our fall trip to Tuscany; not now. But more seriously, how many photographers are going to save their work as a PSD file? It is even more a legacy file than my old DCR files. At least there are other programs that I can access these files with.

So, like the person I quoted, it is all about ownership and the ability to continue to access our work without being held hostage.

You can't be serious.  You really don't think the Adobe execs considered or understood the impact of this change?

The tablet can be used with any application, not just PS or LR.  It's simply a screen extension with a touch interface.  I can do the exact same thing with an Android tablet and a free app.

Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #56 on: May 11, 2013, 08:21:24 AM »
ReplyReply

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.

:~)

I also have to exercise more and eat less....and agree it is awful to criticize people like that (such as "pigs fly" in another thread, which was pointed at me...remember?)

I hope your reporting goes both ways.  I have notice more dialog and less attacking in this thread and others, such as 'What if Thomas decided...".  I think this is due to BOTH sides of the dialog maintaining dignified responses.  I laud your attempt to keep these dialogs civil...again, on both sides.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 08:27:34 AM by jrsforums » Logged

John
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1211


« Reply #57 on: May 13, 2013, 03:20:52 PM »
ReplyReply

That is one of the basic reasons you never rely on one company or software to manage your files, NEVER! You create "logical" hierarchy folders and you stick to that.
Lightroom doesn't really get in the way of you doing this, so it should be easy for those that didn't dump a bunch of images on a drive and rely on metadata alone.
(I can see applications being made now, that will read the metadata and start creating and moving files to folders to get you out of such a mess).

LR5 sounds like an enhancement upgrade which I will happily purchase when available for the reasonable price of $59-79.
I will use any tool that fits my use WITHOUT going cloud!
I'll go Gimp before I go cloud. I urge others to take this stance if you expect to have any say or control in how your applications work.

If you can move from Adobe, the sooner you do it the better!  DxO is an excellent Raw developer that I would have preferred if they supported PhaseOne and Leaf digital backs. They don't!
The big issue many people don't realize is that they DON'T need a DAM built into the raw developing part of a software as LR offers. In fact it is BETTER to keep them separate! ...the load and speed of the apps work, the engineering in how resources are used, and how they further develop the Library vs the Develop side. And in extreme cases like this....Where people slowly lose control of their files.
There are a number of image managers that do a great job; Photo Supreme/ID Imager,  ACDSee, Portfolio, Photo Mechanic, iMatch, etc Many others that may work just fine.
These specific applications are designed to manage and do more and continue what they do, MANAGE. You can read a bunch of my posts over the years regarding this topic.

The more you are in Adobe, the harder it will to remove yourself when the time comes...From the direction they are headed, it looks like they will take any measure to cut off their licensing agreements as a purchase, and lock you in to a monthly service that they will control and lower(as it is now), and raise prices as they please from feature or technology demands that come in the future. Enslaving you of how the software is used. That is why cloud service to begin with is a bad idea from many users standpoint over the long run.
I can surely see people doing the math now and saying "sure it makes sense" (months rental vs purchase). Wait til Adobe's coast is clear and they see that they can in 3 years change the plan and lock you in...Then all a sudden your Roll Over minutes will expire and you just lost the advantage of the service...oh shux!

I can see COREL making a come back with Adobe's CC move. I don't know of any other colleague or studio that welcomes cloud services. Coerl Paint is one I used over a decade back, It was very good, and had additional features at the time(nozzles).
(FYI, Corel even has a rather interesting Raw developer called AfterShot Pro).

Most people stay with Adobe, as it integrates with other Adobe apps that are often needed (PDF, Indesign, Illustrator, etc), At least I did.
I am glad I have somewhat current licenses of CorelSuite(13, 15?), as I see me switching to that as soon as my PS CS5 is no longer supported by my OS :-) I hope that is a long time to come.

I still on a daily basis need to use Capture One6 pro/7, ACDSee 6pro, Photoshop CS5. I also use LR4(soon 5) a great deal on my personal work, and even manage work files in LR (along with looking up files via ACDSee, as LR is too blind and stupid to let you "browse" or know when new files are in your folders; Major FAIL).

Having said these things....Surely, there are many things I still prefer LR for on the way it allows us to manipulate the images in Develop mode, There is no better and familiar(carry over from Photoshop) app that does this that I know of.... and even a few ease of use features on Metadata side and file export handling.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 03:28:22 PM by Phil Indeblanc » Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
mkfitz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #58 on: May 13, 2013, 03:29:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I have not used PS for at least two years (believe it or not latest version of PS is CS).  I get along fine with LR and various plugins such as the Nik plugins.  I really like LR but if Adobe ever makes that supscription only it will be bye, bye Adobe.

I had been waiting for Adobe to develop iPad apps that can work with LR as they have PS.  I thinks it's great that they recently demoed a possible iPad app for LR.  However, it's a no sell for me if it's going to be tied into the cloud.  Not trying to see conspiracies where they don't exist, but is a good a way for Adobe to gradually pull LR users into the cloud and hook them with a subscription only model in the future.

Michael.
Logged
werner from aurora
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21



« Reply #59 on: May 13, 2013, 04:02:01 PM »
ReplyReply

   Like everyone else, my reaction to Adobe has been equally frustrating. I use LR4, PS5 and was going to upgrade to PS6 and LR5. Now I just don't know. (it will take a while for the sour taste to get washed out) I love LR4, and don't really want to relearn another program.
 The interesting thing about all this is that I have really begun to think about the longevity of my files and how I save them. An issue that has always been on the back of my mind, but never really in the forefront.
   The irony of all this is in the end, maybe Adobe just did me a favour by slapping me with a wake up call. No matter which program I choose to use in the future the issue will always remain regarding proprietary files and readability. It has now become just as important as file manipulation.
  The world continues to evolve!
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 04:14:02 PM by werner from aurora » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad