Adobe Lightroom 6 Information Update

[Lee Jay]

I'm having a hard time resolving your "don't hold your breathe" along with your statements that licenses are old thinking, and subscriptions are better.

You're right, it doesn't connect ... please take don't take the licensing part too seriously, I just felt that after a dozen of threads only ranting about CC licensing that I should deliver an inspiration :->. In any case, the main point is that LR6's hdr function won't save the low dynamic range of Canon vs. Sonikon!

Good thing it doesn't need saving.

 

[bergstrom]

Will this have batch rotate of images, CW or CCW? It would be really helpful when you take a pile of pictures, but you somehow forget or accidentally have the do not rotate in camera setting on and you have to rotate them manually, one by one.

 

[Lee Jay]

Will this have batch rotate of images, CW or CCW? It would be really helpful when you take a pile of pictures, but you somehow forget or accidentally have the do not rotate in camera setting on and you have to rotate them manually, one by one.

It has since version 1.

 

[nvettese]

The only *new* feature in that list is the panorama merging, no?

Marsu42: I hope for the opposite. Or at least I hope they keep the old scheme, which I much prefer.

I will not "rent" my software. Personally, I think the subscription model is a scam, and would definitely rather own what I am paying money towards. One day, you will no longer be able to afford the subscription, and then what?

 

[privatebydesign]

One day, you will no longer be able to afford the subscription, and then what?

In the case of Lightroom you will be able to open your library and see all your images with the edits you did before you stopped paying, you can export those images too. You won't be able to access the develop module to do new edits.

 

[cayenne]

Let me guess: installation requires OS X Yosemite in order to work?

Ooh...I'd not thought of that.

I hope not...I'm in the middle of some projects moving stuff between FCPX and Davinci Resolve, I finally have two versions that work together, and last time I upgraded, I had to go Mavericks which meant new FCPX which meant new Resolve....and took a few iterations to get versions of everything that worked and played well together.

I can't afford to be down right now..so, no upgrades on any for me at this time.

C

 

[bergstrom]

Will this have batch rotate of images, CW or CCW? It would be really helpful when you take a pile of pictures, but you somehow forget or accidentally have the do not rotate in camera setting on and you have to rotate them manually, one by one.

It has since version 1.

where??

 

[Zv]

Will this have batch rotate of images, CW or CCW? It would be really helpful when you take a pile of pictures, but you somehow forget or accidentally have the do not rotate in camera setting on and you have to rotate them manually, one by one.

It has since version 1.

where??

Ctrl + A (select all) then just hit the little arrow under the preview in Library module to rotate. You can also use the shortcut Ctrl + ] (clockwise) or Ctrl + [ (counterclockwise).

For Mac replace Ctrl with Command key.

A full list of shortcuts can be found here -
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/lightroom/using/WS18e2013dd74eab5fe275e2711d1b186fe9-8000.html

 

[Fatalv]

Never mind the features, but I do hope they'll have the courage to drop the "perpetual" licenses and switch to a pure subscription model!

The PS+LR deal is incredibly good, and the more people participate and don't cling to "buying" the software the cheaper the rates might get! What do you think?

This would be the worst possible "feature". If Adobe moves to only subscription models they will have lost me as a customer. I see no reason to add a monthly fee to my workflow. I've been happily using LR4 and if it wasn't for the panoramic and HDR features rumored to be coming I would skip LR6 as well.

 

[curby]

More of a bad thing is a bad thing.

I don't consider any algorithm inherently evil, so I'd disagree with your premise that facial recognition is a bad thing.

Regardless, stopping the adoption of advanced algorithms in publicly-available software leaves them solely in the hands of those shadowy organizations you are right to distrust. In cryptography we've long known that keeping algorithms secret does not advance understanding, or trust, or security.

Do we need more laws and oversight to rein in certain organizations? The case in support of that is pretty clear, but none of that's relevant to Lightroom.

Anyway the features list does seem rather sparse and filled with rehashes of existing features. It seems like a typical "top 10" list with 3-7 relevant items and fluff to pad out the list. If you only have two new features and two improved tools, brag about those. Watering down a short list with filler doesn't improve the list.

 

[Ivar]

This would be the worst possible "feature". If Adobe moves to only subscription models they will have lost me as a customer. I see no reason to add a monthly fee to my workflow. I've been happily using LR4 and if it wasn't for the panoramic and HDR features rumored to be coming I would skip LR6 as well.

This monthly fee has another catch - you can pay monthly but the minimum contract length is 1 year, when cancelled earlier you still have to pay 50% for the remaining period until the end of contract.

However I believe it will be most certainly available also with the perpetual option.

 

[Marsu42]

In any case, the main point is that LR6's hdr function won't save the low dynamic range of Canon vs. Sonikon!

Good thing it doesn't need saving.

Indeed, word is any photog who cannot handle any situation with an 11ev sensor is no good and should learn to shoot properly! Well, this or go to the Hogwarts School of Magic to learn to freeze the environment around you so you can hdr-bracket any scene with movement :->

In cryptography we've long known that keeping algorithms secret does not advance understanding, or trust, or security.

That's right, public disclosure of encryption algorithms is a success since the "Lucifer" cipher of IBM which was used for the NIST's DES. That's smart because they kept the decryption method hidden and where the only ones to quick-decrypt DES on their dedicated hardware :->

Another point to public trust into public ciphers by committee: How else could the NSA introduce a backdoor into the hardest cryptographic methods, it's not like people would take it directly from our big brother ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_generator#NSA_backdoor_in_the_Dual_EC_DRBG_PRNG

 

[curby]

No one ever claimed that public disclosure solves all issues. Any system can be gamed and examples exist where peer review has failed. But are you actually suggesting that you'd prefer a system where others could develop crypto algorithms in secret and mandate that you use them? Didn't think so.

EDIT: To elaborate, I'm curious why you cited those examples. Your sarcasm makes me think you're trying to poke holes in my argument for transparency and openness in the cryptographic community. Those examples don't argue against me, because it's obvious that a less transparent process would provide MORE opportunities for intelligence agencies or companies to influence development in their favor. On the contrary, we should be happy that openness allowed us to more easily detect these activities, correct the damage they've done, and learn from them to improve future developments. Hopefully that's something we can all get behind.

 

[Lee Jay]

Will this have batch rotate of images, CW or CCW? It would be really helpful when you take a pile of pictures, but you somehow forget or accidentally have the do not rotate in camera setting on and you have to rotate them manually, one by one.

It has since version 1.

where??

Select as many images as you want in the grid, click one of the rotate icons on the Toolbar.

 

[Marsu42]

EDIT: To elaborate, I'm curious why you cited those examples. Your sarcasm makes me think you're trying to poke holes in my argument for transparency and openness in the cryptographic community. Those examples don't argue against me, because it's obvious that a less transparent process would provide MORE opportunities for intelligence agencies or companies to influence development in their favor.

I 100% agree on this, and review by *competent* peers is the one thing that discovered my cited examples of cryptography manipulation. Alas, in the case of DES it was only suspicion for decades, the NSA was discovered quicker with their latest scheme only a few years after introducing their trojan horse algorithm.

The thing I'm arguing against is the popular fallacy that open source equals high quality (yo, u there, OpenSSL?) and that security by obscurity is a bad thing. Imho there's nothing wrong with obscurity once you have a solid foundation to build it upon and always assume the obscurity layer won't protect you.

That's why I think that...

Regardless, stopping the adoption of advanced algorithms in publicly-available software leaves them solely in the hands of those shadowy organizations you are right to distrust.

Is questionable. Do you really think the most hardened algorithms are public, like the facial recognition tech of LR6 is up to NSA standard? Do you trust your SSL connection or SHA hash of your digital signature with your life when trying not to be hit by a drone-based missile? It's true we're only up to this level due to fellows like Zimmerman, but my guess is that those shadowy organizations are still way ahead and will probably even expand their lead in the future.

 

[curby]

I 100% agree on this, and review by *competent* peers is the one thing that discovered my cited examples of cryptography manipulation. Alas, in the case of DES it was only suspicion for decades, the NSA was discovered quicker with their latest scheme only a few years after introducing their trojan horse algorithm.

The thing I'm arguing against is the popular fallacy that open source equals high quality (yo, u there, OpenSSL?) and that security by obscurity is a bad thing. Imho there's nothing wrong with obscurity once you have a solid foundation to build it upon and always assume the obscurity layer won't protect you.

Good to hear we're on the same page. The rule of thumb about security through obscurity often gets boiled down to "it's bad," but a more nuanced view is that it's an important part of a layered security model as you say.

but my guess is that those shadowy organizations are still way ahead

An appeal to authority isn't worth much*, but Schneier says that the Snowden documents (incl. those that haven't been published) suggest that the NSA has no fundamental cryptanalytic breakthroughs beyond what's public, and they have no computation breakthroughs beyond what's public.

Is questionable. Do you really think the most hardened algorithms are public, like the facial recognition tech of LR6 is up to NSA standard?

Getting back to LR facial recognition, it's likely not as sophisticated as what an intelligence agency would use ... which is all the more reason to not fear it in commercial photo management software. This started with me wondering what facial recognition in Lightroom has to do with overzealous intelligence agencies. From what we've talked about, not much!

* (1) Schneier could be in the dark about their current capabilities (2) he could be lying (3) the NSA still has a ton of supercomputers, and (4) NSA does a lot outside of breaking public crypto that's still cause for concern.

 

[Lee Jay]

Maybe I am paranoid for nothing but I just do not want any face recognition software anywhere near me.

Paranoid is right.

This would be local, not shared, and either way face recognition is far from the best way to track you.

 

[Lee Jay]

All that we do know is Adobe has said Lightroom 6 would be released some time in March, so we don’t have too long to wait.

Does someone have a link to where Adobe said that?

Hearing none, I think I'll assume Adobe never said that.

 

[3kramd5]

Maybe I am paranoid for nothing but I just do not want any face recognition software anywhere near me.

Do you own a mirror?

 

[NancyP]

Yep, Adobe might require Yosemite for Lr6. BIG update for me coming, with significant catalog reorganization and trimming first.