No more Lightroom perpetual licence

[davidedric]

Have a read here:

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/end-o...room-licenses/

Dave

[xpatUSA]

Have a read here:

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/end-o...room-licenses/

Dave

Gotta love Adobe's marketing, Dave!

Examples:

"2015.1 – Dehaze tool which magically removes atmospheric haze from photos with a single slider"

As if no-one here knows how to do that with Levels in any app, Adobe or not.

"2015.6 – Guided Upright tool for correcting tilted or skewed perspectives in your photos by drawing lines on your photo."

Gee, wow, not found in just about any editor on the planet? . . .

"if you like the idea of moving to the cloud-native app"

'In' terminology to make you feel like you're in the Knights Templar or the Illuminati, but which makes me want to throw up, TBH. I'm hoping nobody here is fooled by that little ploy . .

Well, my stomach's still heaving from the term "Creative Cloud", marketing-speak at it's finest (immediately shortened down the "CC" so none of them outsiders know what it means!)

I'd better leave it at that, eh?

I remember when LR was introduced and I made a firm decision never to buy it and actually stuck to it.

Sorry about the above rant to all those who swear by all things Adobe . . .

[Manfred M]

"2015.1 – Dehaze tool which magically removes atmospheric haze from photos with a single slider"

As if no-one here knows how to do that with Levels in any app, Adobe or not.

Actually it is a fairly sophisticated algorithm that affects micro-contrast. It's far more subtle than changing levels. Some other software also implements it (Serif Affinity, if I remember correctly).

[billtils]

Sorry about the above rant to all those who swear by all things Adobe . . .

There are those who swear at Adobe ...

[xpatUSA]

Actually [the Dehaze tool] is a fairly sophisticated algorithm that affects micro-contrast. It's far more subtle than changing levels. Some other software also implements it (Serif Affinity, if I remember correctly).

I had no doubt that it wasn't as simple as my sarcy post implied.

The point for me is that the mighty Adobe invents and trumpets a tool which can be easily (IMHO) replicated by a step or two in RawTherapee or the GIMP and that they offer it as "new" (marketing ploy #1) presumably to entice us up into the "cloud".

No thank you, sez Ted.

What bothers me about these various one-click or one-slider wonders is that anyone with an ounce of common sense can do the same thing with what they already have . .

. . I'm under fire on another site for daring to suggest that Sigma's 'fill light' is reproducible in any other app.

[Manfred M]

I had no doubt that it wasn't as simple as my sarcy post implied.

The point for me is that the mighty Adobe invents and trumpets a tool which can be easily (IMHO) replicated by a step or two in RawTherapee or the GIMP and then they offer it as "new" (marketing ploy #1) presumably to entice us up into the "cloud".

No thank you, sez Ted.

Fine Ted. There are people out there that proudly avoid Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, Nikon, Canon, etc. and wear it as a badge of honour.

That is a personal choice.

On the other hand, I do have a problem when someone does not return the same courtesy to others who disagree and use products put out by these companies.

I started using a number of Adobe products when I took photography courses at the local college and have found no reason not to continue using them. There was no choice as Photoshop was the required industry standard software that everyone had to use.

[xpatUSA]

There are people out there that proudly avoid Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, Nikon, Canon, etc. and wear it as a badge of honour.

That's not really what I try to do personally but I can see how posts like mine come across to others of a more conventional mind-set.

I do find it disturbing when some de facto standards like "Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, Nikon, Canon", not to mention DXoMark, become the only arbiters of image quality to the extent that outsiders are ignored or belittled.

On the other hand, I do have a problem when someone does not return the same courtesy to others who disagree and use products put out by these companies.

Please accept my apologies re: courtesy. There is no doubt that Adobe is the "elephant in the room" along with Canikon, etc., of course.

So folks like myself who use minority stuff should indeed tread warily here and indeed courteously when suggesting that there is other stuff that can do as well, if not better. Point taken.

Thanks for the warning, I will be more careful to avoid mentioning minority stuff in future.

[Black Pearl]

I pay monthly for my mobile phone, the house phone, our broadband, TV services etc etc etc so I have no issue what so ever paying monthly for my photography software. My camera gear isn't madly expensive but it still cost a few thousand pounds so £10 per month is an utterly meaningless amount for the smooth workflow and huge capability of the Adobe CC package.

I updated last night and couldn't be happier as LR is significantly faster, I get a few more features and even the Mobile app (which is amazing) has got an upgrade......all without any extra cost.

[Donald]

So folks like myself who use minority stuff should indeed tread warily here and indeed courteously when suggesting that there is other stuff that can do as well, if not better. Point taken.

Thanks for the warning, I will be more careful to avoid mentioning minority stuff in future.

I think, deliberately or not, you miss the point.

I championed the GIMP for many years, bit did not paint Adobe as the big monster nor suggest those using it were effectively stupid in doing so. I never got any criticism for doing so.

If people want to make a point out how well a 'minority' piece of software performs, they are perfectly entitled to do so. But not at the cost of suggesting that folk who use the known brands are wrong in doing so.

[billtils]

But not at the cost of suggesting that folk who use the known brands are wrong in doing so.

Well said Donald. We're now at the point where there are many more than adequate software (and hardware) options for pretty well everything anyone would like to do. Which ones we choose will reflect many, many things and involve subjective and objective choices, but there's no absolute right or wrong.

[xpatUSA]

I think, deliberately or not, you miss the point.

I championed the GIMP for many years, bit did not paint Adobe as the big monster nor suggest those using it were effectively stupid in doing so. I never got any criticism for doing so.

Just so's we're clear about these extra implications, folks. I have never intentionally suggested that those who use Adobe are "effectively stupid"!

If people want to make a point out how well a 'minority' piece of software performs, they are perfectly entitled to do so. But not at the cost of suggesting that folk who use the known brands are wrong in doing so.

Equally, I have never intentionally suggested that people who use "the known brands" are "wrong in doing so".

If the new LR de-hazing tool is truly unique with effects impossible to replicate by other methods, so be it and I'll withdraw from the discussion.

I'll get my coat . . .

[Stagecoach]

Gotta love Adobe's marketing,

From the article by Victoria Brampton, Lightroom Queen, that Dave linked to.

"So are the new features worth having? Since Lightroom 6.0, the major new features have included:

2015.1 – Dehaze tool which magically removes atmospheric haze from photos with a single slider movement."

Is that Adobe marketing, I don't think so at all.

[davidedric]

Manfred, do you have any idea why it tends to introduce a blue cast? I find that difficult to correct: desaturaring the blues also washes out the genuine blues. DxO 's version doesn't seem to have that issue, at least with my limited testing.

Dave

Actually it is a fairly sophisticated algorithm that affects micro-contrast. It's far more subtle than changing levels. Some other software also implements it (Serif Affinity, if I remember correctly).

[xpatUSA]

From the article by Victoria Brampton, Lightroom Queen, that Dave linked to.

"So are the new features worth having? Since Lightroom 6.0, the major new features have included:

2015.1 – Dehaze tool which magically removes atmospheric haze from photos with a single slider movement."

Is that Adobe marketing, I don't think so at all.

I stand corrected.

Adobe said:

Adobe Camera Raw ships Dehaze, Merge to HDR and Panorama

We know that a large portion of our customers also rely heavily on Adobe Camera Raw to perfect images non-destructively. Versions 9.0 (shipped in April) and version 9.1 (available today) includes major updates to Adobe Camera Raw.
Introducing Dehaze: Many outdoor scenes have some amount of haze due to atmospheric conditions. Dehaze is a feature for removing haze/fog from pictures. It is based on a physical model that tries to estimate the amount of light transmission and how it varies across the picture. The user can then control how much haze to remove by adjusting a slider. This feature can also be used in the other direction to increase the amount of haze.

Quite sane really and no marketing-speak at all.

To atone for my sin, here's a good link about De-Haze which includes a most informative video from Adobe MAX 2014.

http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-phot...og-dehaze.html

[Manfred M]

Manfred, do you have any idea why it tends to introduce a blue cast? I find that difficult to correct: desaturaring the blues also washes out the genuine blues. DxO 's version doesn't seem to have that issue, at least with my limited testing.

Dave

I don't Dave, but that being said, I understand the limitations of the tool and tend not to push it to the limits. Other tools in photo editing tools also produce strange effects when pushed hard (try pushing Saturation or Vibrance all the way to the right).

I find that desaturation or in Photoshop applying a local colour correction can be used to fix this issue,

[DanK]

So folks like myself who use minority stuff should indeed tread warily here and indeed courteously when suggesting that there is other stuff that can do as well, if not better.

Not at all. There is no reason to tread lightly, and it's helpful to learn of alternatives that are as good--and more helpful, actually, to learn of things that are better. However, there is usually no reason to belittle the more common tools.

And while I am not a fanboy of Adobe, I don't think it is unreasonable for them to trumpet additions to their software, even when these are features that other software has. What you were quoting was not actually Adobe marketing, by the way; it was just a partial chronological list of features added to Lightroom in recent revisions.

[Pippan]

Not at all. There is no reason to tread lightly, and it's helpful to learn of alternatives that are as good--and more helpful, actually, to learn of things that are better. However, there is usually no reason to belittle the more common tools.

And while I am not a fanboy of Adobe, I don't think it is unreasonable for them to trumpet additions to their software, even when these are features that other software has. What you were quoting was not actually Adobe marketing, by the way; it was just a partial chronological list of features added to Lightroom in recent revisions.

Maybe so, but I think Ted has a point. 'Magically'? It would've sounded a lot less like marketing-speak if they hadn't added that (unnecessary) word.

[DanK]

So, they market? What company doesn't? Do you own a car, for example? Do you avoid car manufacturers that use hype in their ads? And while I don't think the dehaze tool is "magical," I did find it quite remarkable when they introduced it, well worth pointing out to users.

I'm interested in what this and other software can do for me and others, which is why I urge Ted to keep posting about "minority" products. And I am frankly interested in the new features that Adobe adds--some of them anyway--regardless of the adjectives they use.

[rpcrowe]

I HATE ADOBE - but I love their products...

Adobe Photoshop is wonderful and just keeps getting better and better.

I am an avid user of Adobe Bridge.

Although I personally prefer Bridge + Camera RAW + Photoshop to Lightroom, I realize that Lightroom is, in fact, a very viable program.

I HATE ADOBE because of the many glitches that I have found in their business practices. See my post for an example Adobe CUSTOMER SERVICE is an oxymoron

I like GOOGLE also but, that doesn't mean that I approve of them abandoning NIK Software