Adobe updates Lightroom Classic, adds a new texture slider and new Canon camera & lens support

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,278
552
Thanks Mt. Spokane for doing some added research into this. Unfortunately, I suspect the Adobe haters will continue to spread fake news. But, those who care about the facts and fairness will be able to see that this is more complex than portrayed on this forum.
Its difficult to get people to research and understand the issues, and Adobe's POOR Communication skills mean that their Insiders like Victoria Brampton are left to clarify what its all about.

I don't expect everyone to even try, sometimes our minds are closed, but at least there is a opportunity to better understand it, even if you are a Adobe hater, at least criticize them for what they are actually doing, it makes you look smarter.
 
Reactions: unfocused

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,167
373
Which company is threatening to sue its customers? As far as I know, Adobe isn't. Adobe is saying that the owner of certain intellectual property related to the Dolby technology is complaining that certain Adobe software infringes the IP, and Adobe is trying to manage that situation by making sure people use a version of Adobe's software which is not the subject of dispute.
+1
And NO-ONE as far as I can see is even saying that even Dolby does have a case to sue. Adobe is informing people that Dolby MAY take action on old software whose use MIGHT infringe Dolby's copyright. There are significant obstacles to Dolby taking such action even if they chose to - would they be willing to bear the shitstorm that would come their way? Would a court even give it the time of day? Would a jury find in Dolby's favour?

IMO Adobe is merely covering their butt to if Dolby does take action Adobe's customers cannot in turn sue Adobe for not informing them there was a way of avoiding it.

This is unfortunately a sign of modern litigious times where companies work on the 'we had better tell people just in case something may happen at some point in the future no matter how ridiculous is may sound at the moment'.
 
Reactions: unfocused

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,928
312
I understand it, disagree with it.
Do you feel that way with physical property in addition to intellectual property? In other words, if you got duped into buying stolen goods, and they were positively identified, do you think you should be able to continue using them because you bought them?
 

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
238
102
Do you feel that way with physical property in addition to intellectual property? In other words, if you got duped into buying stolen goods, and they were positively identified, do you think you should be able to continue using them because you bought them?
I think the person who stole it should either cover the cost or pay me to return it, not just forcibly remove it. This isn't some petty criminal, its a large corporation that is making 'record profits'.
 
Last edited:

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
238
102
Its difficult to get people to research and understand the issues, and Adobe's POOR Communication skills mean that their Insiders like Victoria Brampton are left to clarify what its all about.

I don't expect everyone to even try, sometimes our minds are closed, but at least there is a opportunity to better understand it, even if you are a Adobe hater, at least criticize them for what they are actually doing, it makes you look smarter.

if it is correct that its only some cloud, subscription which can be corrected with an update they provide for free then then it does change things. Though it was a bad PR move. Dolby is known (which I mentioned before ) to be quite litigious, but Adobe should've done a better job than saying we're not allowing you to use your old software and you might get sued if you don't stop using it
 

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
238
102
I’m asking about whether you view IP differently than physical property and, if so, why?
yes? physical property and EULAs are quite different. your bicycle maker or house builder doesn't get to change terms on you or prevent you from modifying your purchased items... software makers do? how you use your home or your flashlight or your lawnmower is generally up to you ? your bicycle doesn't constantly phone home to see if you're allowed to use it?

look I can and could go on a long time about this, and we're way off topic.. I don't hate adobe .. If what Mt. Spokane said is correct, my annoyance at them is less about this particular incident. I dislike their subscription model and I see this as a symptom of it, but I think this is an industry wide issue, not just Adobe.
 
Last edited:

koenkooi

EOS RP
Feb 25, 2015
265
127
yes? physical property and EULAs are quite different. your bicycle maker or house builder doesn't get to change terms on you or prevent you from modifying your purchased items..
There was a case here in the Netherlands where an architect successfully sued to stop a remodel on a building he designed. Can't find an english link this early on saturday, so: dutch newspaper. So even in the case of purchased items it's not that simple.
 

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
238
102
There was a case here in the Netherlands where an architect successfully sued to stop a remodel on a building he designed. Can't find an english link this early on saturday, so: dutch newspaper. So even in the case of purchased items it's not that simple.
do you really want to continue on an extremely off topic example and force us all to read dutch? - apologies, this probably came off badly, what I meant was that this is a canon camera rumors site and we're way off topic by a long shot and while the site owner is patient, I think we owe him to get back to talking about canon cameras and related items.
 
Last edited:

nitram

EOS M50
Jun 14, 2018
38
12
Switzerland
Asides from the licensing discussion, can anyone tell whether the texture slider is pretty much just a simplified version of sharpening for small detail with the radius, detail and masking selector options?
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,422
444
119
As some of us are actually interested in the ownership details of physical works of art it is pertinent to point out that if you buy a print of an image you are not buying the copyright. Seems obvious but it is a very relevant example where there are IP rights attached to a physical object. A person who buys a print from me cannot legally copy that print and sell it, they can legally sell the one print that was sold to them.

‘Ownership’ is not as clear cut as initially thought.
 
Reactions: 3kramd5

IWLP

EOS T7i
Feb 15, 2011
72
0
From reading Adobe's information, it looks like positive "Texture" adjustments perform the same micro-contrast adjustments the Clarity slider used to perform before it was moved to the HDR/insane contrast/kiss-goodbye-to-subtlety slider it now is.

In other words, actually useful for most of what I'm looking to do with such a control.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,928
312
As some of us are actually interested in the ownership details of physical works of art it is pertinent to point out that if you buy a print of an image you are not buying the copyright. Seems obvious but it is a very relevant example where there are IP rights attached to a physical object. A person who buys a print from me cannot legally copy that print and sell it, they can legally sell the one print that was sold to them.

‘Ownership’ is not as clear cut as initially thought.
Yes. Same with book, movies, music, etc. It seems that, for society in general, the internet has largely damaged views on theft. “It’s just bits,” right?

It is unfortunate if a consumer with good intentions uses software with some unauthorized IP, much like it is unfortunate if someone buys a stolen car unknowingly.

yes? physical property and EULAs are quite different. your bicycle maker or house builder doesn't get to change terms on you or prevent you from modifying your purchased items... software makers do? how you use your home or your flashlight or your lawnmower is generally up to you ? your bicycle doesn't constantly phone home to see if you're allowed to use it?
Connectivity makes it easier to enforce the law, sure.
 
Reactions: snappy604

koenkooi

EOS RP
Feb 25, 2015
265
127
From reading Adobe's information, it looks like positive "Texture" adjustments perform the same micro-contrast adjustments the Clarity slider used to perform before it was moved to the HDR/insane contrast/kiss-goodbye-to-subtlety slider it now is.

In other words, actually useful for most of what I'm looking to do with such a control.
I tried it out on a few pictures of insects and the +40-+60% range works wonders on things like hairs on bees.
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,275
293
Southeastern USA
From reading Adobe's information, it looks like positive "Texture" adjustments perform the same micro-contrast adjustments the Clarity slider used to perform before it was moved to the HDR/insane contrast/kiss-goodbye-to-subtlety slider it now is.

In other words, actually useful for most of what I'm looking to do with such a control.
Is it possible that the Clarity slider is very little different in intensity than years ago, but your taste, your processing skills have evolved, and you now perceive it as too harsh?

Or do we have an old version for side by side comparison?

I ask because, when I first started using Lightroom, nearly eight years ago, I liked to apply Clarity to almost every shot. Then somebody asked me, "Do you always use Clarity?" And I looked at my images, thought about them, and soon started easing back, eventually using it for many landscapes and still-lifes, but rarely for people.
 
Reactions: snappy604
Aug 1, 2017
291
166
My three stages of Clarity use in lightroom. There are probably more but I'm just up to stage 3.

  1. Clarity really makes my pictures pop
  2. Clarity sucks. It makes my pictures too nervous and busy
  3. Positive and negative clarity are awesome tools when used selectively to enhance or reduce the mid tone contrast of specific areas of an image.
 
Last edited:

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,167
373
Is it possible that the Clarity slider is very little different in intensity than years ago, but your taste, your processing skills have evolved, and you now perceive it as too harsh?

Or do we have an old version for side by side comparison?

I ask because, when I first started using Lightroom, nearly eight years ago, I liked to apply Clarity to almost every shot. Then somebody asked me, "Do you always use Clarity?" And I looked at my images, thought about them, and soon started easing back, eventually using it for many landscapes and still-lifes, but rarely for people.
Concidentally, I was wondering the same thing only last week: I tweaked the clarity and thought 'Whoa! That's garish. What's happened?" I was not sure if the tool had changed because it was always touted as something that tweaks midtones to improve apparent sharpness, then I wondered if it depends on the starting image in that to get a difference on an image that has good lighting, and good small-detail contrast you need to use it more heavily. But I could not escpe the feeling it was not what it used to do.
Then as soon as I used the texture it immediately felt to me that it was what Clarity used to be like. But maybe there is some auto-suggestion coming in. Whatever is happening, I really like the effect of the texture slider.
 
Reactions: CanonFanBoy