Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.8 Now Available, Adds EOS M5 Support

[Keith_Reeder]

i will think of adobe now every time i pass one of the many formerly popular and roaring night clubs and bars that are bankrupt and closed now, because they got out of touch with their clients, they did not play the music we wanted to hear, asked too high admission fees and prices for drinks, and had too arrogant doormen during their heyday.

Yeah - except that Adobe's running the one nightclub in town which is not only making money hand-over-fist, but which doesn't care if you ever come through the door...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Adobe will lose many customers like me. They may not care now, but they will cry after us when it is too late and their market

Well done - you win the prize for being the millionth person to post of that meme: I've been reading it for years, and yet Adobe is making more money than ever.

You're simply not as important to Adobe as you apparently are to yourself...

 

[AvTvM]

You're simply not as important to Adobe as you apparently are to yourself...

I'm rather glad it is that way. Imagine if it was the other way round. ;D




And very soon Adobe can kiss my a*s. bye bye LR. bye bye flash player ... ;D

 

[Otara]

The trial will be available in a couple of weeks - but they had a beta programme running for a while before Affinity 1.5 for Windows was released.

And it's excellent: so much so that even though I have no problems whatsoever with Adobe, its software or its subscription pricing, I'll be cancelling the Adobe Photography plan in the next couple of days.

I rarely use Lightroom any more (mainly using Photo Ninja these days), and now I have something that does everything that PhotoShop does for me.

So I simply have no need to maintain my financial relationship with Adobe.

And yes, I'm explaining this in plodding detail because I imagine that the Adobe-bashers on here simply won't be able to comprehend such a decision, coming as it does without the slightest bit of anti-Adobe angst...

Thank you, Ill take alook at Photo Ninja too, but a new take on Photoshop would be interesting to me. But more because I hardly use PS than to save money.

 

[YuengLinger]

Adobe does care. Any company cares about negative vibes in social media and forums. Our justified rants here HURT Adobe and their reputation directly. Even though the impact may not be felt or reflected in profits immediately.

At the beginning, yes. But the same group of photographers ranting on and on inside the echo chamber of a forum doesn't do the damage you think it does. Adobe is a corporation, and just like any other, the only thing that matters is the bottom line. Crying and whinging while continuing to pay Adobe money does nothing.

They may not care now, but they will cry after us when it is too late and their market share has plummeted.

Exactly — they will care when they start to lose money. Not before.

Yes, and they do not and never have seen the home/hobbyist market as one they are particularly interested in. They don't care about perpetual license because they decided it was not good for their business model, they have been proven right. Four years ago Adobe were in serious trouble, their business model just wasn't working with unpredictable revenue streams and hard to manage releases, not any longer, their market capital has tripled in five years, they are not hurting, they are not listening to you, they don't give a S___. They are listening to their core customers, the creative business users, they are constantly updating the suite in ways that make a difference to those users, mobile, cross platform integration, building apps, making cross platform websites and media, video, vector graphics etc etc etc.

Again, you are shouting outside a nightclub to change the music, the DJ doesn't care, he cares about the people who are paying to stay inside the club and their friends who also like the music and see the value for them.

Took a while to recover my wits from the amount of illogic here! Adobe long courted individual, enthusiast photographers. They had their own line of Adobe published entry-level books, they partnered with Kelby for more books and for conventions...And then, with the subscription based model, suddenly lowered the price barrier for millions more "hobbyists." And Elements? Yes, it may have been a mass market stripped down version to satisfy the rabble, but it was also designed to give those more interested a taste, a tease, an example of what the full featured product could do. You make it sound as if it is an esoteric software for a select few photographers and photo-editors!

You can rewrite history, but anybody who has been using PS since the first CS version or before know the market was wide, varied, and huge.

I've complained about problems consumers face with the subscription model--and that includes the high-end customers. The subscription model has suddenly made the product affordable for millions more photographers, dabblers, but it also is a model for complacency on the part of Adobe, as fixes and improvement just aren't nearly as important when customers are locked in with the LR catalog (more brilliant marketing, great business move) and thousands of layered PS CC images that cannot be re-edited once the subscription is on hold. Sure, in a ruthless, cold-eyed business sense, this is all very effective, cheers...

When the subscription model started, you and your friends at Adobe were touting it as great for consumers. In the short term this was true. So why did you use to shout about how many more "dabblers" would be able to play with PS, but now insist it was never intended for a mass market?

 

[tron]

Allow me to post an Adobe related technical question here in order to avoid creating a new thread:

Is there a way in photo editing products to convert settings from one vendor to another. Can we import
Adobe settings to DXO, Canon DPP etc and vice versa?

 

[privatebydesign]

Allow me to post an Adobe related technical question here in order to avoid creating a new thread:

Is there a way in photo editing products to convert settings from one vendor to another. Can we import
Adobe settings to DXO, Canon DPP etc and vice versa?

No.

However if you write your settings to sidecar files (XMP) then some of them will be honored by the next program.

 

[tron]

Allow me to post an Adobe related technical question here in order to avoid creating a new thread:

Is there a way in photo editing products to convert settings from one vendor to another. Can we import
Adobe settings to DXO, Canon DPP etc and vice versa?

No.

However if you write your settings to sidecar files (XMP) then some of them will be honored by the next program.

Thanks for answering. Yes I assumed .xmp files. So honored by the "next program" means that these setting will be able to be imported/translated/whatever to future releases of DPP, DXO ? Even some settings and even in the future it's nice.

 

[AvTvM]

Thanks for answering. Yes I assumed .xmp files. So honored by the "next program" means that these setting will be able to be imported/translated/whatever to future releases of DPP, DXO ? Even some settings and even in the future it's nice.

??? I would not have any use for files, in which my settings/edits on RAW images are only "honored" at 10%, 25%, 50% or 80% ... and the rest not. If not 100% are carried over, I have to start all over anyways. I would then prefer to start from scratch, with clean files.

As far as I know, even simply converting native format RAWs (eg. Canon .CR2) into DNG format prior to applying an settiings will already lose some information.

In effect, one loses all previous work and effort when switching from one RAW converter / image processor to another. That's one of the main reasons Adobe has so many people by their balls.

 

[LDS]

Is there a way in photo editing products to convert settings from one vendor to another. Can we import
Adobe settings to DXO, Canon DPP etc and vice versa?

It's not so easy, because each vendor may use different algorithms for image processing, which could be a company "secret" (or even patented). Some settings could be almost "easy", i.e. white balance, other could be much more complex, i.e. sharpening. Lightroom itself supports different "processes", because some algorithms have been replaced by newer ones, which don't work the same way. A different application may try to read settings and apply what looks to be deliver the same result, but IMHO it's just an approximation and a starting point, when possible.

That's why, IMHO, it's better to develop and refine a workflow with a set of well known tools, even if not the best in every feature, than jump from a tool to another chasing "perfection".

 

[tron]

Thanks PBD, AvTvM and LDS for your replies.

 

[cayenne]

Is there a way in photo editing products to convert settings from one vendor to another. Can we import
Adobe settings to DXO, Canon DPP etc and vice versa?

It's not so easy, because each vendor may use different algorithms for image processing, which could be a company "secret" (or even patented). Some settings could be almost "easy", i.e. white balance, other could be much more complex, i.e. sharpening. Lightroom itself supports different "processes", because some algorithms have been replaced by newer ones, which don't work the same way. A different application may try to read settings and apply what looks to be deliver the same result, but IMHO it's just an approximation and a starting point, when possible.

That's why, IMHO, it's better to develop and refine a workflow with a set of well known tools, even if not the best in every feature, than jump from a tool to another chasing "perfection".

I'd not heard this....what information do you lose exactly when you move from RAW (i.e. canon's native RAW) to .DNG?

Thanks,

cayenne

 

[AvTvM]

I'd not heard this....what information do you lose exactly when you move from RAW (i.e. canon's native RAW) to .DNG?

Don't have a specific list, but any [proprietary] data fields in Canon's .CR2 that are not covered in .DNG format.
Not sure, how essential the "translation loss" is, but I do recall conversion to DNG is not "lossless". One of the reasons (other than Adobe) I never went down the DNG route ...

 

[Maiaibing]

I'd not heard this....what information do you lose exactly when you move from RAW (i.e. canon's native RAW) to .DNG?

Don't have a specific list, but any [proprietary] data fields in Canon's .CR2 that are not covered in .DNG format.
Not sure, how essential the "translation loss" is, but I do recall conversion to DNG is not "lossless". One of the reasons (other than Adobe) I never went down the DNG route ...

Yup. Same here. Also, no reason to think DNG will laster longer than Canon's CR2. DNG cannot handle the 5DIV dual pixel. Who knows what else will come in the future? So you'll end up with a mixed bunch of file formets. What a mess. Overall, DNG conversion just adds a layer of complexity and uncertainty for no material gain whatsoever.

 

[cayenne]

I'd not heard this....what information do you lose exactly when you move from RAW (i.e. canon's native RAW) to .DNG?

Don't have a specific list, but any [proprietary] data fields in Canon's .CR2 that are not covered in .DNG format.
Not sure, how essential the "translation loss" is, but I do recall conversion to DNG is not "lossless". One of the reasons (other than Adobe) I never went down the DNG route ...

Yup. Same here. Also, no reason to think DNG will laster longer than Canon's CR2. DNG cannot handle the 5DIV dual pixel. Who knows what else will come in the future? So you'll end up with a mixed bunch of file formets. What a mess. Overall, DNG conversion just adds a layer of complexity and uncertainty for no material gain whatsoever.

Hmm..well, I'd in the past year started bringing my images in as DNG's...so that while working with Lightroom, the edits I made would be kept in the DNG file along with the image, rather than having to generate and keep up with side car files in order to keep my edits if something happened and I restored from disk, etc.

I figured one file would be better than trying to keep up with two of them....or did I get something wrong there?

TIA,

cayenne

 

[LDS]

Hmm..well, I'd in the past year started bringing my images in as DNG's...so that while working with Lightroom, the edits I made would be kept in the DNG file along with the image, rather than having to generate and keep up with side car files in order to keep my edits if something happened and I restored from disk, etc.

Someone likes to avoid it exactly because that means the next incremental backup would need to backup the whole DNG and not the far smaller sidecar file. If you only perform full backups on fast media is not a big issue, incremental backups on slower media could suffer from it. Rewriting a sidecar file is also quicker, but fast disks may make it irrelevant but for very large DNGs.

 

[LDS]

I'd not heard this....what information do you lose exactly when you move from RAW (i.e. canon's native RAW) to .DNG?

May depend on the DNG converter used, and DNG format, but the real details only Adobe knows, if you use its converter.

Some specific Canon metadata may be lost. The RAW data are converted to the Adobe format, but that's AFAIK what happens anyway in memory when you edit a file in Lightroom (but the original RAW is never modified, though).

 

[AvTvM]

I'd not heard this....what information do you lose exactly when you move from RAW (i.e. canon's native RAW) to .DNG?

May depend on the DNG converter used, and DNG format, but the real details only Adobe knows, if you use its converter.

Some specific Canon metadata may be lost. The RAW data are converted to the Adobe format, but that's AFAIK what happens anyway in memory when you edit a file in Lightroom (but the original RAW is never modified, though).

exactly. i also prefer to let adobe only create sidecar recipe files rather than converting my raws or messing around in undocumented adobe ways with them.

 

[cayenne]

Hmm..well, I'd in the past year started bringing my images in as DNG's...so that while working with Lightroom, the edits I made would be kept in the DNG file along with the image, rather than having to generate and keep up with side car files in order to keep my edits if something happened and I restored from disk, etc.

Someone likes to avoid it exactly because that means the next incremental backup would need to backup the whole DNG and not the far smaller sidecar file. If you only perform full backups on fast media is not a big issue, incremental backups on slower media could suffer from it. Rewriting a sidecar file is also quicker, but fast disks may make it irrelevant but for very large DNGs.

Well, my problem was.....after using LR for about 2+ years, I found that it didn't automatically create those side car files...you had to manually click some buttons in LR to get it to generate them.

So, going forward I went with DNG.....and when I find time, going back through all images to try to find which ones need side car files generated.

My problem is too...I archived some earlier ones off the main disk...and they have no side car files and not sure what to do with those as they are likely not in catalog any more.

Hey...you have to start learning somewhere.



cayenne