Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why is this a good thing?  (Read 20991 times)
jdemott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« on: January 10, 2006, 05:23:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Obviously, there have been various file organization/viewing/sorting/database programs in the market for some time, ranging from shareware up to expensive database programs designed to support entire workplaces.  This has been a gaping hole in Adobe's product lineup--until recently, users have been practically forced to use a third party program to find and convert the files they are opening into Photoshop.  With the introduction of Photoshop CS2, Adobe brought us Bridge and ACR, which finally offered the promise of making Photoshop a complete product.  I, for one, was looking forward to seeing ACR and Bridge improved over successive generations as part of Photoshop.

Now it appears that Adobe's strategy will be to "unbundle" the file organization and raw conversion features into a new product so users will have to pay separately for them.    Photoshop users who need raw conversion or file organization (a group that  probably includes almost all Photoshop customers) will also have to buy Lightroom.  Presumably, ACR and Bridge will be left to wither and die as orphans without full support from Adobe.

Ah, but I hear the marketing pitch from Adobe--we are just responding to the needs of professional photographers, many of whom really want nothing more than a simplified set of tools to handle all their editing needs along with their file intake and retrieval.  Michael seems to be repeating that thought when he says: "For a large percentage of photographers, Lightroom will likely provide all of the image management and processing capability that one could wish. But for others, only Photoshop's advanced capabilities and sophisticated features will suffice. Some will love one, and hate the other. Many will use both. It's all about choices."  Right--Adobe is going to sell a new, simple product so that many of its best customers can choose to no longer to buy its flagship product, Photoshop?        It is ironic that some of the marketing pitch for Lightroom is that this product does everything many photographers need.  Only a few months ago, Jeff Schewe was posting on this site mocking the claims by Nikon that a product like Capture provides all the editing capability that many photographers need.  And now he has joined the cheering for Lightroom which makes essentially the same claim for an even more limited set of editing tools.  I think he was right the first time.

I hope I'm wrong, but to me the writing on the wall says that Adobe has a new strategy to leverage off the Photoshop monopoly and get customers to pay more for functionality that should all be included in Photoshop.
Logged

John DeMott
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2006, 06:47:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure I care.  I'm looking forward to RSP improving.  There aren't that many pictures I need to send to photoshop now.  (RAW converters are SO much nicer than they used to be.)
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2006, 07:04:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Now it appears that Adobe's strategy will be to "unbundle" the file organization and raw conversion features into a new product
Unfounded speculation here. First, there were very few organizing features in Bridge. It was pretty much OS-level stuff with a few added benefits (such as ranking, renaming, raw conversion, etc). For me, my image managing remained in the Finder (or Explorer on PC) since those are faster than Bridge for most work.

The second part is the idea of unbundling. This part is complete speculation which I'll address in a moment.

Quote
Presumably, ACR and Bridge will be left to wither and die as orphans without full support from Adobe.
Yes, very much presumably. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bridge will go away or that the Raw conversion ability in it will be removed. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.
Quote
Q. Does it replace Bridge?
A. In short, it depends on what you're doing and how you like to work. Some shooters will want to use Lightroom together with Photoshop much as they use Bridge today. For them having an interface that's 100% tuned to a photography workflow, plus Lightroom's unique features, will mean they use it in place of Bridge. For others, however, the broad range of capabilities in Bridge (e.g. integration with the Suite, previewing PDF and InDesign docs, talking to workgroup management tools, etc.) will make it a better choice some or all of the time. That means we plan to keep enhancing Bridge's photography workflow chops. You'll be able to mix and match the tools to suit your needs.
Emphasis added.

Quote
Right--Adobe is going to sell a new, simple product so that many of its best customers can choose to no longer to buy its flagship product, Photoshop?
The market demands a product like Lightroom and so Adobe is making it and they will sell it. This is not difficult to understand. There are people who are reluctant to buy PS due to it's size and complexity. Many never buy it or buy it reluctantly thinking they have to. Those types never upgrade.

By selling a product that many people want and can use easily, customers will be happy and even enthused by new releases. Chances are that they will be more likely to purchase upgrades regularly thus brining in a new revenue stream that could surpass that they currently get from reluctant PS purchasers.

Your idea of LR being a bad idea since it'll take away from PS sales is about as ill thought out as saying RRS should not sell cheaper ball-heads such as the B-40 because that'll mean they'll sell fewer of their top-end B-55 ball-heads.

People buy more when they can buy what they want and what suits their needs and not when they feel forced into buying something that they'll not fully utilize.

Quote
Only a few months ago, Jeff Schewe was posting on this site mocking the claims by Nikon that a product like Capture provides all the editing capability that many photographers need. And now he has joined the cheering for Lightroom which makes essentially the same claim for an even more limited set of editing tools. I think he was right the first time.
Do you even know what these two programs do, how they perform or what Mr Schewe was even talking about? Or did you come up with that just based on what Nikons PR department said and the bullet-point list for LR?
Logged
StephenS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29



« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2006, 07:51:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I really welcome Lightroom, and am excited by it's potential. Once Adobe nails the feature set and improves some interface behaviours, I can see it supplanting Bridge/Camera RAw/Photoshop for much of my workflow.

I understand that after the app is finalized and the SDK becomes available, then 3d parties can add/integrate new modules. This may provide a perfect approach for something like PhotoKit Sharpener.

In the longer term, I'd like to see some sort of integration between a future version of Bridge and Lightroom. If Bridge could access/share Lightroom's databases and call upon Lightroom's enhanced Develops then I see a very slick integration that offers workflow choice and power.

In the meantime, I'm basing this on 2 frustrating hours running Lightroom on my wife's 12" Powerbook that barely meets minimum requirements. 4 freezes/crashes out of 6 attempted user sessions...one crash causing the entire UI to vanish when next launched (I re-installed after trashing all prefs an the db).

Jeff, I suppose we're all alpha testers now! (well, not quite, but close!)

Stephen
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2006, 08:13:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Only a few months ago, Jeff Schewe was posting on this site mocking the claims by Nikon that a product like Capture provides all the editing capability that many photographers need.  And now he has joined the cheering for Lightroom which makes essentially the same claim for an even more limited set of editing tools.  I think he was right the first time.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Since my name was mentioned, I assume I'm justified in jumping in here...Nikon Capture VS Lightroom right now, Lightroom wins...Nikon Capture is a light duty raw processing app, Lightroom is a database driven digital asset management application with raw processing, slideshow and pretty heavy duty printing capability thrown in. Can you even print out of Nikon Capture?

I'll take the liberty of cross posting a post I made in the Lightroom forums (cause I'm too lazy to just re-write it here)

------------
Lightroom is a database driven digital photo tool that is particularly well suited to do metadata edits of images (primarily RAW but with similar controls and functionality with tif and jpg) and move those photos from import through either export or output ASAP.

Photoshop is a pixel based editing tool that is particularly well suited to the editing of actual pixels. Photoshop, without Camera Raw can't even open RAW images...there is no current method in Photoshop/Camera Raw to apply the exact same edits to RAW and tiff/jpgs. The RAW controls of Camera Raw can't easily be applied by using Photoshop's image adjustment controls.

Lightroom is designed for doing things that photographers need done...Photoshop is designed for things that digital imaging artists need done. There is a HUGE difference. Lightroom will never be the image compositing/retouching tool that Photoshop is and Photoshop, because of it's size and feature set can never be the workflow tool that Lightroom can be.

I love Photoshop...I'm real good in Photoshop...I love Lightroom too but for different tasks (and for different reasons). You need to get your head around the fundimental differences betweem a pixel editor (Photoshop) and a workflow tool (Lightroom).

Also, because Bridge is an image browser (yeah, it's got a lot more) it is NOT a database driven digital asset management tool. Bridge will always serve all of the apps in Creative Suite with even more functionality in the future for InDesign, Illustrator and others-not just Photoshop. It looks like the original Photoshop Browser, because that's where it came from and it's first incarnation, Bridge 1.0 is just that-it's currently best used with Photoshop...which is a pixel editor.

Lightroom, as simple as it may look now, is potentially _FAR_ more but for a smaller segment of the user base that is served by Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign. Digital imaging artists, retouchers, web artists, graphic designers, video artists, digital illustrators, prepress pros-all the groups that make up Photoshop's user base may not have any use for Lightroom. That's fine...Photoshop will continue and serve all of those groups.

Digital photographers-those people dealing with hundreds or thousands of digital captures however may find that Lightroom serves their purposes perfectly (if they pitch in and help Adobe develop the tool set and features they need).

Your choice really, pitch in and help design your dream workflow app, or just keep doing what you do in Bridge/Photoshop. But, at this point Lightroom ain't going away-Adobe has made the committment to photographers to develop it. So...what do you want it to be?
----------------

So, if you want to make a difference and help design your OWN digital imaging app, spend some time in the [a href=\"http://labs.macromedia.com/technologies/lightroom/]Lightroom Forums[/url]...
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2006, 09:35:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So, if you want to make a difference and help design your OWN digital imaging app, spend some time in the Lightroom Forums...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So, will there be any app left to design by the time the windows version comes out?

Hmmm...  Off to pixmantec.  I think I need to brutalize their suggestion forum.

And why hasn't microsoft crushed you people into a windows first mentality?  Monopolies just aren't what they used to be.  Rockefeller must be rolling over in his grave.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4896



« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2006, 09:37:09 PM »
ReplyReply

For once Jeff you're much more polite than I would have been.

Michael
Logged
hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 730


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2006, 10:00:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe,Jan 11 2006, 02:13 AM
Since my name was mentioned, I assume I'm justified in jumping in here...Nikon Capture VS Lightroom right now, Lightroom wins...Nikon Capture is a light duty raw processing app, Lightroom is a database driven digital asset management application with raw processing, slideshow and pretty heavy duty printing capability thrown in. Can you even print out of Nikon Capture?

Can image adjustments to photographs that are "processed" in  Lightroom be preserved as separate adjustment layers, or are the files single layer files that need to be opened in PS to do that type of layer-based editing? If it's the latter, it sounds to me that it is "just" a raw processor with some additional capabilities such as an integrated database, slide show generator and print center. Would it not make more sense to incorporate into Lightroom the core capabilities of PS that photographers use to labor over a single, exceptional file in order to produce the very best file for print output(rather than a huge number of pretty good files where the emphasis is on volume rather than quality).
Logged

jdemott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2006, 10:01:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I knew I would attract some flack when I posted my thoughts.  With some luck, a few people close to Adobe will at least register the concerns I expressed.

Quote
There is no evidence whatsoever that Bridge will go away or that the Raw conversion ability in it will be removed. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.

I didn't claim to have evidence, just concerns, which I continue to feel are valid.  (FWIW, Bridge doesn't have raw conversion ability, but ACR does.)   If Adobe continues to make ACR and Bridge available as part of Photoshop and continues to improve them as aggressivesly as it does Lightroom, then I will be a happy customer.  As I said, I hope I'm wrong.

Quote
Do you even know what these two programs do, how they perform or what Mr Schewe was even talking about? Or did you come up with that just based on what Nikons PR department said and the bullet-point list for LR?

I've been using Nikon Capture for over three years and ACR since it first became available.  My knowledge of Lightroom is very limited (as is most people's), but I know its raw conversion aspects are based on the ACR engine.  I have studied quite a few of the descriptions and tutorials on Lightroom (including those on Schewe's website) so I think I understand pretty well what it can and can't do.  In particular, it appears that Lightroom (like Capture) cannot do masking, partial selections, layers (although both have some ability to do non-destructive edits), blending modes, or painting and cloning.  

I am happily unaware of what the Nikon and Adobe marketing and PR departments serve up unless it is thrust in front of me, such as has been the case with Jeff Schewe's postings about Nikon Capture or the current hype about Lightroom.  So, I'm a somewhat satisfied user of both Capture and Photoshop, no more.  What's your agenda?

Quote
Since my name was mentioned, I assume I'm justified in jumping in here...Nikon Capture VS Lightroom right now, Lightroom wins...Nikon Capture is a light duty raw processing app, Lightroom is a database driven digital asset management application with raw processing, slideshow and pretty heavy duty printing capability thrown in. Can you even print out of Nikon Capture?

Jeff, I assumed that you would see the post and I am glad you responded.  I well understand that Lightroom has a database backed file organization and retrieval capability, something that is not available in Capture.  I don't mean to question the value of that--for some users it could justify a significant extra cost.  However, when you posted several months ago, your focus was on the comparison between Photoshop and Capture as editing programs.  I believe the thrust of your comments (which I haven't reviewed recently but with which I posted a clear endorsement at the time) was that Capture is not a competitor to Photoshop as an editing program and that Nikon's claims to the contrary were nonsense.  Perhaps the whole point here is that we are comparing apples and oranges--Photoshop vs Capture as an editor, PS wins hands down; Capture vs ACR as a raw converter for NEF files, Capture wins;  Lightroom vs Capture as a database, Lightroom wins, of course.  

My concern is that Adobe's marketing position that Lightroom is a complete solution for some significant segment of professional photographers doesn't seem credible (not because of the database capabilities but because of the weak editing capabilities) which leads me to question what is really going on.  If I can get continual improvement and support in file organization and raw conversion in PS without buying another program I will be a happy customer.

FYI, you can print from Capture including with color profiles, but I don't use it for that purpose often since my workflow usually takes me through Photoshop anyway.
Logged

John DeMott
jdemott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2006, 10:04:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For once Jeff you're much more polite than I would have been.

Perhaps that should be instructive to you.
Logged

John DeMott
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2006, 10:07:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And why hasn't microsoft crushed you people into a windows first mentality?  Monopolies just aren't what they used to be.  Rockefeller must be rolling over in his grave.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nobody gives a hooey about MS anymore. The NYT has an [a href=\"http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/columns/powergrid/15456/index.html]interesting article[/url] on that very subject actually. It seams Bill just isn't as interested these days in killing all of the competition.

Anyway, LR started it's life on the Mac as this PSN article indicates.
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2006, 01:04:45 AM »
ReplyReply

My current tools of choice are Capture One Pro and Photoshop CS (not CS2).  While I like CO's workflow and quality of RAW development, Phase One's antics with their user base over the past couple of years really make me nervous.

I'm rooting for ACR and LR to have a powerful RAW development capability, so I can have strong alternatives to CO on BOTH Windows and OS X platforms (I have a PC desktop and a Mac Powerbook, it's a long story).  Powerful image management is also a big attraction to me.

Paul
Logged

Jason Cory
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2006, 12:34:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree.

If Lightroom's editing functionality is not hugely extended before the final version is released, I don't really see how this program can be the one-stop solution for a reasonable segment of photographers. I have a Windows computer and haven't tried LR for myself, but, unless I've missed something, it lacks many basic capabilities. Michaels's article says that Adobe realizes that the lack of Crop and Rotate tools in the Beta version is serious, but what about Dodge/Burn, sharpening, cloning, etc?

I would much rather see Photoshop grow to incorporate the image management functionality and interface of LR than have to add yet another expensive piece of software to my workflow that will, at best, serve me as a pretty dashboard for Photoshop.

I'm not forgetting, of course, that this product is in Beta. It would be great to find in a year's time that LR has become a photographer's Photoshop. My crystal ball, though, says it will be much, much less.

And what premium price will we pay for this "professional" tool that should be bundled with the next version of Photoshop?

Jason
« Last Edit: January 12, 2006, 12:35:45 AM by Jason Cory » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8211



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2006, 05:32:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since my name was mentioned, I assume I'm justified in jumping in here...Nikon Capture VS Lightroom right now, Lightroom wins...Nikon Capture is a light duty raw processing app, Lightroom is a database driven digital asset management application with raw processing, slideshow and pretty heavy duty printing capability thrown in. Can you even print out of Nikon Capture?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

No doubt that Lightroom is a promising product that has the potential to deliver good value to many photographers.

The information you provide about Lightroom is also very valuable for those who are using the product or considering using it when it will have matured some more.

What I don't get is why you would even bother trying to convince us that you are providing objective information on the market value of Adobe products against the competition?

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2006, 06:58:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What I don't get is why you would even bother trying to convince us that you are providing objective information on the market value of Adobe products against the competition?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Can you reference somewhere where I have _EVER_ indicated that it's my aim to provide "objective" anything? I aim to provide MY opinion...you can take it or leave it.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8211



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2006, 07:29:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can you reference somewhere where I have _EVER_ indicated that it's my aim to provide "objective" anything? I aim to provide MY opinion...you can take it or leave it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you for the clarification Jeff.

Some "keynote speakers" try to step back and provide an objective analysis of the market players, and your profile might have misled some passers by in thinking that you are in such a neutral position.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2006, 08:38:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I share many of John DeMott's concerns, and I think most reasonable Photoshop users would also be concerned at *possible* unbundling of key parts of Photoshop.  Those concerns may prove to be unfounded if Bridge / ACR development continues alongside Lightroom, but at the moment, I worry that features that could have been included in Photoshop might be reserved for Lightroom in order to make that product as distinctive as possible.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 730


WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2006, 08:45:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thank you for the clarification Jeff.

Some "keynote speakers" try to step back and provide an objective analysis of the market players, and your profile might have misled some passers by in thinking that you are in such a neutral position.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55822\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The battle lines have been drawn here between Apple and Adobe and their respective partisans/agents(think of the Empire Strikes Back), and it will be absolutely fascinating to watch how this plays out in the marketplace. Hard to handicap the battle for supremacy, though based upon their track records, Apple seems to be a better bet to succeed in creating an elegant, user friendly interface. What I do know is that we will all benefit from the intense competition.
Logged

method
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2006, 09:16:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Remember that Bridge has a wider remit as well. It is used across the whole Creative Suite to manage much more than images, so it may still have relevance even if there is another tool more aimed at Photographers.

Richard

Quote
I share many of John DeMott's concerns, and I think most reasonable Photoshop users would also be concerned at *possible* unbundling of key parts of Photoshop.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2006, 12:37:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What I do know is that we will all benefit from the intense competition.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55826\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, and that's the cool thing about all this...finally photographers are getting some love not only by Adobe but Apple as well.

Just so you all know, the guy who was primary engineer on Aperture used to work for Adobe on Premier who left to go to Macromedia (ironically) to develop Final Cut Pro. When Apple bought FCP (supposedly to keep MSFT from getting it) he went to Apple. The fellow who is developing Lightroom-at Adobe (Mark Hamburg) is still friends with with the engineer at Apple (Randy-whose last name I now forget). They exchanged emails (Mark congratulating Randy) when Aperture was released-I haven't heard of Randy has comunicated with Mark after the launch of Lightroom. But they are all hanging out around San Francisco for Macworld so I wouldn't be surprised if they ran into each other.

It's a much smaller industry than most people realize...Apple is only about 10 minutes or so from Adobe (although at rush hour it can be a LOT longer). MSFT however, is a plane ride away-one of the reasons I think MSFT doesn't play as well with others :~)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad