How can Lightroom be improved?
Apr 10, 2020 05:21:38 #
Sergey wrote:
It would bee nice if you could put your library on... (show quote)
Oops - there's that catalog issue again
. I've only ever had one device (my PC) with Lightroom on it, but isn't there a way to synchronise your various devices? I still get prompted to "Get started with Lightroom Mobile". See also Photomac's response under FTn's last post for a possible answer.
As for your server suggestion, my guess is that Adobe see Lr as a single user application since it will typically be hobbyists (i.e. private users) or independent professionals that use it. As you say, "it'd complicate things", and how many people would benefit from it.
Apr 10, 2020 05:27:29 #
FTn wrote:
OK, I'm going to take the high road here and go back to the studio.
- FTn
- FTn
If you've been using Lr for any length of time, Adobe will occasionally ask for your suggestions. That'll be your chance to tell them about the importance that tethering has for you.
Apr 10, 2020 05:44:49 #
Photomac wrote:
........My main problem with LR over the years is to just loose a whole shoot...... they are there and months later or a year later they are just gone......
I think most of us have had experiences of Lr doing strange and apparently random things, hence the oft-seen "Help - Lr has lost my files!" (not always due to user error).
Apr 10, 2020 06:06:26 #
pep9454 wrote:
......I only go into PS when I need layers and difficult selections to be made......
I suppose that means better selection tools would be on your wish list.
Another advantage of layers that I haven't seen mentioned is for doing cloning in difficult circumstances (tricky shape against a tricky background for example).
It speaks volumes that you've been a user of Lr for a decade and Ps for three decades yet you still have to refer to books to help you understand and use Lr. You say all the user needs to do is learn and understand Lr - my guess is that you'd be struggling to find good examples of users that understand Lr well. And I suspect that problems with Lr are not all down to user error.
Thanks for the various references and links.
Apr 10, 2020 10:32:48 #
R.G. wrote:
I occasionally get invited by Adobe to suggest ways that Lightroom could be improved. Are there any features that you would like to see in Lr?
Your suggestions for improvements?
Your suggestions for improvements?
Not a feature request but can you get them to look at the licence model? I understand why users have to be logged in periodically to ensure that it is a valid licence so have no problem with that - a great product needs to prevent theft as best it can, and to ensure it is only installed on 2 systems.
But the cost is high for some amateurs on fixed incomes (which comes to us all with retirement, and will be a big issue I foresee with the commercial impact of Covid-19 over the next months and probably years.)
All I want is Lightroom classic and photoshop classic- no web, no interchangeability between installations on windows, apple, android, ipad etc. I realise that this is very important to professionals but not to me, and I suspect many others.
Hence something that was paid annually at about 1/2 the price would be just right and stop me looking at other apps to reduce costs. I don't care if the apps periodically check to see I have a valid 1 year licence/ update but just want to reduce costs and have just he apps I want. Once the 1 year licence expires then it reverts to an evaluation copy. This would save money and Adobe as they don't have to process the payments more than once a year
Apr 10, 2020 11:04:45 #
dave.m wrote:
Not a feature request but can you get them to look at the licence model?......
I don't have Adobe's ear (as far as I know
), but you never know who's looking in......I think that Adobe are expecting us to be so bowled over by the mere 10$/month that we don't care if it's a one size fits all. Who knows - they might even be offended if we question their generosity by asking for a more economical version with less features
.Apr 11, 2020 12:24:38 #
Just a final comment inspired by comments elsewhere. It would be nice to choose whether to edit in RGB colourspace or LAB colourspace. I suspect that professionals and those who prefer a natural look would prefer the LAB colourspace.
Apr 11, 2020 21:14:14 #
Sergey wrote:
It would bee nice if you could put your library on... (show quote)
I've placed my library on a shared volume with no problems, I never ever opened the catalog on more than one machine at a time but LR lets me store my library wherever I want. Another way you could accomplish this would be to save your catalog within your local Google Drive folder (or sharepoint of your choosing) which would then be synced to your Google Drive cloud and then synced to your other editing station - again, only ever use one at a time and I would expect at least a 1 minute delay for the sync to occur.
Apr 12, 2020 17:16:27 #
R.G. wrote:
I occasionally get invited by Adobe to suggest way... (show quote)
Make sure only people that have open minds get it - most of the bad rep that LR gets comes from comments made by people who have zero to minimal experience with it.
Apr 13, 2020 03:33:28 #
Gene51 wrote:
Make sure only people that have open minds get it - most of the bad rep that LR gets comes from comments made by people who have zero to minimal experience with it.
It may be most, it may be some, but whatever the truth is, there are at least some who are adequately competent but who have nevertheless had problems because of the lack of user friendliness that Lr has in some areas. Not to mention the fact that Lr can't claim to be glitch-free (there are quite a few who can testify to that). Complaints about the catalog don't come exclusively from novices, and comments about the need to read up on it extensively before you even start are a recurring theme. If it wasn't for its strengths in other areas, Lr wouldn't be considered as a top ranking product.
What can Adobe claim for Lr beyond the core editing capabilities that can be found in ACR? It would come down to the catalog for the most part (although there are extensive options for things like exporting and importing, synchronising, calibration and the like). Why don't Adobe offer a simpler version that focuses more on photo editing and charge less for it? Because it would highlight the fact that with Lightroom the customer is paying that premium price tag mostly for the catalog capabilities.
Apr 13, 2020 21:00:21 #
R.G. wrote:
.....Why don't Adobe offer a simpler version that focuses more on photo editing and charge less for it? Because it would highlight the fact that with Lightroom the customer is paying that premium price tag mostly for the catalog capabilities.
premium price tag? When I was purchasing version upgrades I was getting it for $80 a year and then buying PS Express for another $60 (as I recall) when each would annually go on sale. Sometime I got it through the School I worked at for the discount rate but I think full price was something like $120 - I was thrilled with the low price compared to $600 (or more) for Photoshop...
When the subscription of $10 a month came along it was an easy switch as I was spending roughly that for the 2 packages every year anyway... AND I get the full Photoshop package in the bargain though it's power is mostly wasted on me :)
Apr 14, 2020 03:20:21 #
sloscheider wrote:
premium price tag?..... - I was thrilled with the low price compared to $600 (or more) for Photoshop.....
If you compare it to that sort of price then yes, it's going to look good. But what if you compare it to Affinity, Luminar, On1, PSP and others which can be had for less than £80 (in some cases a LOT less). And your prices must be a bit outdated. Just before Adobe introduced the subscription versions, Lightroom was selling for £120 or thereabouts, and I believe Elements (non-sale price) was in a similar price bracket.
$10 per month is $120 per year, every year. If your main interest is photo editing, Ps is an impressive but largely unnecessary inclusion. One way or another there are much cheaper options, and the bottom line is that Lr is basically a well featured version of ACR with a comprehensive catalog system added on. If Adobe were to sell a version of Lr that had a Windows-centric file management system and was cheap enough to compete in the current photo editing market, it would highlight what I said earlier - the catalog system is mainly what justifies Lr's price tag. That's something that'll look good only when you compare it to other expensive options like Capture One.
Apr 14, 2020 04:54:55 #
R.G. wrote:
If you compare it to that sort of price then yes, ... (show quote)
You’re reinforcing the stereotype of a Scotsman. 😜🤪
Apr 14, 2020 05:32:05 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
You’re reinforcing the stereotype of a Scotsman. 😜🤪
Careful with my money? Absolutely
.(Rough translation - I like a lot of bang for my bucks
).Apr 14, 2020 09:00:00 #
R.G. wrote:
It may be most, it may be some, but whatever the t... (show quote)
That sounds like you are a bit jaded. How much cheaper should it be?
The price of $10 includes Photoshop, Bridge and Lightroom -
Lightroom doesn't offer any editing capability that is different than ACR - it is only better organized and faster - intended for production work.
It is NOT an image finishing package. It is a parametric editor - intended for heavy lifting, not for fine detail editing with brushes, layers, blend modes, channels, masking, etc etc etc. It's like buying an F150 as a daily commuter and complaining it is too big, too bulky and it uses to much gas. You should have bought a Prius, but then you wouldn't be happy trying to get stuff home from Home Depot.
Once you appreciate the difference between a raster editor (PHotoshop and others) and a parametric editor- (Lr, ACR, Capture One, DXO Photolab, On1 Raw etc etc etc) you'll better understand why Lr doesn't offer the tools you are looking for. This is why PS exists, and why you will NEVER see the tools you want in Lr (or any other raw converter). There are some "hybrid converters that seem to offer layering and slightly more accurate masking while editing a raw image, but it is not the same as doing that work in PS.
$10/mo is pennies compared to what CS6 Extended + Lightroom 4 cost at the time - something like $1200. You don't realize how good you have it these days.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.