Lightroom 6

[OreoCookie]

If Adobe was in business to make progress, I would agree with you. Actually, they would agree with you. I already do. I tend to like changes so long as they are improvements.

Just to be clear (and facetious): you're claiming Adobe isn't in the business to make progress?

Making big changes to a program is a risk. It may not be to Adobe, but would you want to be the project manager that oversaw a large drop in sales even as one of your competitors dropped out of the market?

Users do not care about sales managers, but if you look at how things work, this is how you quietly and suddenly lose your market leadership position. This is how Adobe InDesign superseded Quark Xpress as the go to solution for DTP. There was a lot of animosity against Quark as a company, and some of Adobe's moves have angered the creative community (although I would not go as far as claiming that the levels of discontent are similar). Just have a look how relieved people were when they found out that Lightroom 6 was available as a “traditional software package” rather than subscription only. In certain areas the reluctancy to be this risk-taking project manager have cost Adobe (e. g. in the html5 editor arena, because they stuck to Flash for too long).

Just to be clear: I agree with you, but I feel this is more a problem of incentives amongst the management than anything else. Apple overcompensates a little at times, e. g. when they shoot slightly off course with FCP X.

 

[v3rlon]

Just to be clear (and facetious): you're claiming Adobe isn't in the business to make progress?

Users do not care about sales managers, but if you look at how things work, this is how you quietly and suddenly lose your market leadership position. This is how Adobe InDesign superseded Quark Xpress as the go to solution for DTP. There was a lot of animosity against Quark as a company, and some of Adobe's moves have angered the creative community (although I would not go as far as claiming that the levels of discontent are similar). Just have a look how relieved people were when they found out that Lightroom 6 was available as a “traditional software package” rather than subscription only. In certain areas the reluctancy to be this risk-taking project manager have cost Adobe (e. g. in the html5 editor arena, because they stuck to Flash for too long).

Just to be clear: I agree with you, but I feel this is more a problem of incentives amongst the management than anything else. Apple overcompensates a little at times, e. g. when they shoot slightly off course with FCP X.

I am absolutely not facetious when I say that Adobe is not in business to make progress. They, like most businesses, are there to make money. Some form of progress generally results in money, but this is not always the case.
(Betamax, HD DVD, and so on, even Microsoft versus Apple, or Commodore or Atari for that matter: I believe MS was the WORST option we got out of 16 bit computing).

Users do not care about sales managers (or project managers), but project managers care very much about themselves. "We were a little slow on getting in front of the market, but have changes in place that should show a correction next quarter," sounds a lot better than "We felt it was time to go in a radically new direction, and the backlash by a small but extremely vocal opposition amongst our conservative users has us being lampooned on SNL and sales are down markedly," when trying to keep your job that feeds your family.

But I do agree that refusing to take risks is terrible also. It just 'feels safer,' and so a lot of organizations live there. It is why the small companies are so much better at innovative ideas. It is also why a lot of them fail. It IS a risk, after all, and they do not have Apple/Adobe/Microsoft dollars in the bank to keep themselves afloat.

 

[VirtualRain]

Bizarre logic.

I think people understand context, and thus Develop means to develop the photo. Why would someone using Lightroom, a known photo development and management tool, think they would be making an app?

It was an attempt at humour ("Develop" being from the days of film, and most people not having touched that in 15 years... but anyway). It wouldn't kill them to call it the "Adjustment" module now would it?

I don't expect much in terms of the UI changing, for a lot of reasons. People are now entrenched in LR, making a change will certainly upset the apple cart. We Aperture convertees are having issues with that, I'm not sure if everyone hates it (or at least as learned to live with it).

I would love an improved ACR, but I'm not expecting that. We've seen others show that they can easily pull out more detail sharpness, and accuracy of an image, Adobe certainly can improve this one area instead of adding flashy improvements.

OF the improvements that were leaked, I am impressed. It does look like a solid upgrade, the purchase option is there and that's great as well.

It seem like HDR and Panoramas are tricking down from Photoshop to LR... an obvious strategy... introduce a cool feature in Photoshop and then a year or two later, bring it to LR.

Once Adobe settles on a paradigm, they don't seem to ever want to shift so my guess is that they'll stay put. They might move stuff around occasionally or "modernize" the look but real UI/UX changes are few/far between (in my opinion). Adobe is ubiquitous and, for better or worse, they're the ones people compare other apps to so they won't likely lead the UI change revolution.

Agreed, hence my further attempt at humour by linking the 25-year Photoshop promo graphic... it shows the UI for that app hasn't changed much in 25 years. It's great job security for those graphic professionals that have invested in learning it, but it's not doing Adobe any favours in terms of attracting new customers (particularly consumers) to their suite.

----------

I understand that there are people who prefer to work in modules (weird and wicked minds! ), but I think a lot can be done by customization, giving people more choice.

THIS!!! It's software for FFS!... not carved in stone. How about make it customizable and win some new customers?!?!

 

[skaeight]

Agreed, hence my further attempt at humour by linking the 25-year Photoshop promo graphic... it shows the UI for that app hasn't changed much in 25 years. It's great job security for those graphic professionals that have invested in learning it, but it's not doing Adobe any favours in terms of attracting new customers (particularly consumers) to their suite.

This makes me feel good about selecting LR as my DAM. It will be here. People make their living with LR and PS. People were making their living with Aperture, but Apple doesn't know how to be a steward of such applications. They have no qualms with drastically changing said applications or killing them. As can be seen Adobe has completely the opposite track record, which again I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. They actively maintain their applications and slowly move them in the direction they want them to go. Apple let Aperture atrophy to the point where all they could do was take it out behind the shed and shoot it.

 

[VirtualRain]

This makes me feel good about selecting LR as my DAM. It will be here. People make their living with LR and PS. People were making their living with Aperture, but Apple doesn't know how to be a steward of such applications. They have no qualms with drastically changing said applications or killing them. As can be seen Adobe has completely the opposite track record, which again I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. They actively maintain their applications and slowly move them in the direction they want them to go. Apple let Aperture atrophy to the point where all they could do was take it out behind the shed and shoot it.

Good point, and definitely a strong one in favour of Adobe and against Apple's pro software tools.

 

[skaeight]

Good point, and definitely a strong one in favour of Adobe and against Apple's pro software tools.

How much longer will we be able to use Apple Pro Software tools in the plural form?

Which is next Final Cut or Logic?

 

[VirtualRain]

How much longer will we be able to use Apple Pro Software tools in the plural form?

Which is next Final Cut or Logic?

Exactly. How long before they are replaced by "Videos" and "Audio"

 

[skaeight]

Exactly. How long before they are replaced by "Videos" and "Audio"

And how long before all 3 of those are replaced with "Media"?

 

[MCAsan]

And how long before all 3 of those are replaced with "Media"?

And Media as will run in the Apple car they will release in 5 or so years along with the basic app named Transport.

 

[skaeight]

And Media as will run in the Apple car they will release in 5 or so years along with the basic app named Transport.

Ha, ya it will be too hard to use FCPX while driving, hence the need for "Media." Also, I'm imaging there probably won't be many available options on the Car.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Ha, ya it will be too hard to use FCPX while driving, hence the need for "Media." Also, I'm imaging there probably won't be many available options on the Car.

You'll have to select your options at purchase, as the RAM will be soldered on the car.

 

[skaeight]

You'll have to select your options at purchase, as the RAM will be soldered on the car.

Don't worry iFixit will have a tear down - but it will void your warranty!

 

[MCAsan]

Think of the Progressive Insurance commercials of Flo driving an iCar.

 

[OreoCookie]

This makes me feel good about selecting LR as my DAM. It will be here. People make their living with LR and PS. People were making their living with Aperture, but Apple doesn't know how to be a steward of such applications. They have no qualms with drastically changing said applications or killing them. As can be seen Adobe has completely the opposite track record, which again I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. They actively maintain their applications and slowly move them in the direction they want them to go. Apple let Aperture atrophy to the point where all they could do was take it out behind the shed and shoot it.

I don't know if it's as simple as that, and I think Adobe's approach is letting things atrophy in different ways. Not evolving a product is also a form of stagnation. And eventually they'll be overtaken by someone else, and they'll have no chance to make up the lost ground. With Photoshop, they already have serious competitors (one of them being Lightroom), and by competitor I mean applications which are more than powerful enough for a large part of the Photoshop user base. Ditto for web development.

 

[maflynn]

I I think Adobe's approach is letting things atrophy in different ways. Not evolving a product is also a form of stagnation.

I think you're going to be hard pressed to justify a position that Lightroom or photoshop are stagnate products because Adobe is letting some features sit there updated.

While its possible that a company can possibly unseat Adobe, that doesn't mean their products are stagnate. Apple lets products whither on the vine, Adobe has been and continues to update their product line consistently and constantly. just because they may not be addressing feature that you or even I may want translates into stagnation.

Do they have the best RAW conversion tool or editing tools or DAM? Individually probably not, but combined - yes, its probably the best most rounded tool for photographers out there, imo.

Does LR6 address all the things I want, no, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say they're guilty of letting things whither or stagnate.

Apple is guilty of this, don't project apple's philosophy and approach to Adobe. Two different animals.

 

[OreoCookie]

I think you're going to be hard pressed to justify a position that Lightroom or photoshop are stagnate products because Adobe is letting some features sit there updated.

Regular updates are not necessarily an indication of progress, just look at Microsoft Office, that also gets regular updates and up until now has seen only iterative improvements (even though some glaring problems hadn't been fixed). Office's (and in large part also Adobe's) saving grace was the lack of proper competition – up until now. I'm sure Adobe is adding features to, say, Photoshop regularly, but it is so mature that many people don't actually feel the need to upgrade because their needs are covered by, say, Photoshop CS4 or CS6.

Microsoft needed a kick in the rear end until they saw the need to completely rethink the interface of Office, and it's based on the interface for, yes, Office for iOS (at least that was the ginny pig). They did pretty much exactly what Apple was criticized for, the iOS-ification of applications, meant as an insult (“dumbing things down”) rather than an opportunity to get rid of cruft accumulated over decades and allowing one to reimagine interfaces with the hind sight of all that we've learnt in the meantime. How long until traditional Adobe apps get such a treatment? It'll have to come eventually, not least because for some creative things, tablets are really handy.

 

[skaeight]

Regular updates are not necessarily an indication of progress, just look at Microsoft Office, that also gets regular updates and up until now has seen only iterative improvements (even though some glaring problems hadn't been fixed). Office's (and in large part also Adobe's) saving grace was the lack of proper competition – up until now. I'm sure Adobe is adding features to, say, Photoshop regularly, but it is so mature that many people don't actually feel the need to upgrade because their needs are covered by, say, Photoshop CS4 or CS6.

Microsoft needed a kick in the rear end until they saw the need to completely rethink the interface of Office, and it's based on the interface for, yes, Office for iOS (at least that was the ginny pig). They did pretty much exactly what Apple was criticized for, the iOS-ification of applications, meant as an insult (“dumbing things down”) rather than an opportunity to get rid of cruft accumulated over decades and allowing one to reimagine interfaces with the hind sight of all that we've learnt in the meantime. How long until traditional Adobe apps get such a treatment? It'll have to come eventually, not least because for some creative things, tablets are really handy.

The addition of GPU acceleration to LR 6 alone is progress. The other features are icing. They're moving their DAM forward. That's a HELL of a lot more than Apple has been able to say since 2010.

 

[VirtualRain]

The addition of GPU acceleration to LR 6 alone is progress. The other features are icing. They're moving their DAM forward. That's a HELL of a lot more than Apple has been able to say since 2010.

GPU acceleration is much needed. In my recent performance comparison of LR5 with a few other apps like Aperture and Capture One on a 4K screen, it left a lot to be desired (although not nearly as horrific as Canon's DPP software LOL).

If Adobe can make LR6 as smooth on 4K as Aperture was, it will be a strong contender for me.

Edit: The irony of this is that Aperture, the most neglected DAM of all time, was actually the best performer (by a significant margin).

 

[skaeight]

Edit: The irony of this is that Aperture, the most neglected DAM of all time, was actually the best performer (by a significant margin).

I agree. They basically got that for free though because Core Image is built into the OS. Which again makes this market wide open for a Pixelmator like DAM solution -and it also makes me that much more upset with Apple that they discontinued Aperture - how much work could it really have been to maintain the product?

Despite how happy I am with LR at the moment (especially once LR 6 is released), I'd strongly consider switching to a solution that was based on Core Image because of how good those frameworks are.

 

[Traverse]

It does look like a solid upgrade, the purchase option is there and that's great as well.

For people who know LR better than me, how long does one version usually last in terms of OS X support?

I'm wondering if the subscription or an outright purchase will be better, but I don't know if LR is like VMWare and Parallels that sometimes require a new purchase after two OS X updates or so.

 

[maflynn]

Regular updates are not necessarily an indication of progress, just look at Microsoft Office,

But we're not talking about Microsoft. We're discussing Adobe, I fail to see how they are supporting and improving the product you take the position they are guilty of some form of stagnation.

 

[r.harris1]

I don't know if it's as simple as that, and I think Adobe's approach is letting things atrophy in different ways. Not evolving a product is also a form of stagnation. And eventually they'll be overtaken by someone else, and they'll have no chance to make up the lost ground. With Photoshop, they already have serious competitors (one of them being Lightroom), and by competitor I mean applications which are more than powerful enough for a large part of the Photoshop user base. Ditto for web development.

Very much agreed. And to add to that, to me, Adobe doesn't really have a strong growth model. It relies on a fairly narrow market segment for its photography and video products, which will only grow so fast. I would guess that a large percentage of Aperture users who have been thinking of moving to LR have done so. Other products of theirs like InDesign are more heavily utilized in a corporate environment so that growth will expand and contract as market conditions dictate. Their web dev products have a ton of fantastic competition, as was pointed out. They're not actively after the Soccer Moms and Dads, really. My opinion is that they're going to hit a wall with growing through subscription at some point and there continues to be amazing products coming along to give them a run for their money. And the ground is littered with companies who had been around for decades and then...weren't.

While I don't think Adobe is going anywhere soon, they'll definitely need the next big product with a growth market and it's not clear to me that they're the right company for the job.

 

[v3rlon]

I think you're going to be hard pressed to justify a position that Lightroom or photoshop are stagnate products because Adobe is letting some features sit there updated.

While its possible that a company can possibly unseat Adobe, that doesn't mean their products are stagnate. Apple lets products whither on the vine, Adobe has been and continues to update their product line consistently and constantly. just because they may not be addressing feature that you or even I may want translates into stagnation.

Do they have the best RAW conversion tool or editing tools or DAM? Individually probably not, but combined - yes, its probably the best most rounded tool for photographers out there, imo.

Does LR6 address all the things I want, no, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say they're guilty of letting things whither or stagnate.

Apple is guilty of this, don't project apple's philosophy and approach to Adobe. Two different animals.

Adobe abandons products just like any other software company. IF something is perceived to not be making money, it withers on the vine.
Fireworks, Flash, Illustrator (at least according to some), anything on Linux, and that is just off the top of my head. They are certainly working on eliminating right of first use and software ownership in general.

 

[OreoCookie]

But we're not talking about Microsoft. We're discussing Adobe, I fail to see how they are supporting and improving the product you take the position they are guilty of some form of stagnation.

I think the analogy is very apt, actually: Office and many Adobe products are perceived as the de facto standard and cash cow for the companies, they have both received regular updates, but due to the maturation these new features touch typically very few users. And both are switching to a subscription model. Office, however, is being rewritten and reimagined from the ground up, though. So the type of stagnation you've seen in both product lines is kinda similar. The upcoming version of Office is the first one in a long time that is peaking my curiosity. To be clear, I don't think Adobe will abandon what makes them money, so stagnation does not mean abandonment.

Edit: The more I think about it, the better the analogy becomes: both companies struggle to extend beyond their existing customer base, tablets and smartphones in Microsoft's case, less professional users in Adobe's.

 

[FredT2]

For people who know LR better than me, how long does one version usually last in terms of OS X support?

I'm wondering if the subscription or an outright purchase will be better, but I don't know if LR is like VMWare and Parallels that sometimes require a new purchase after two OS X updates or so.

It's not so much a problem of OS support as it is support for new cameras. When a new version of Lightroom comes out, the previous version will not support new cameras, because they depend upon updates to ACR, and Adobe doesn't make those updates to previous Lightroom versions. One can get around that by converting RAW files to DNG, however.