NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: Frank Fremerey on October 19, 2017, 11:15:03
-
Please post all comments & experience concerning the new release here!!!
-
version 2017.1.1
-
Whatever the number ...
it is Photoshop 19.0 Release & the very first version of Lightroom CC as a cloud based version in addition to "Lightroom CC classic" & Release 2018 of Adobe Creative Cloud for Teams...
-
And removal of the option of a perpetual licence for Lightroom; the D850 RAW update is the last for perpetual licence owners.
Affinity here I come.
-
Thom Hogan has suggested that LR perpetual is not the only unfavoured child: Adobe appears to see cloud-based processing as the future and to have limited enthusiasm for Lightroom Classic CC (http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/digital-photography-softwar/lightroom-fragments.html).
-
Please post all comments & experience concerning the new release here!!!
I'm more interested in alternatives as there's no perpetual licence for Lightroom anymore.
I don't want to get into a subscription model nor cloud-based processing.
-
I am very happy with the subscription model. I pay 8,99€ per month, I know Adobe thrives and keeps developing the application. They have to pay developers by moth and I pay them by month in return.
Earlier I had to shell out a bigger sum every other year just to buy some outdated suite that rarely got some updates and Adobe had trouble making ends meet.
Only thing I critizise is that Photoshop is cheap and that I cannot have Indesign for a little bit more. If I want Indesign I have to pay more than four times of what I have to pay today and I get lots of Software I just do not need. I never use Lightroom already, I nearly never use Bridge, I have the Illustrator license of an older Version and I do not install it because I do not use it.
I want Photoshop, Indesign and Acrobat for 15 a month. Would be a great deal. All the other stuff I do neither need nor want anyway....
-
Adobe has already gone to Subscription, so I propose we don't discuss Subscription vs. License in this thread.
I am a heavy LR user but like many have been frustrated by performance. Here are my observations on the new announcements:
* I do very much like being able to edit on multiple synced machines including iPad Pro. This necessitates some Cloud connections. I am not sure I like the way they did it. If I move to another tool, having mobile and desktop synced edits is the killer feature for me. (Your needs might be different)
* I don't think I like having all of my RAW files in the cloud, this is a change from their Smart Preview way. I have to think about this more. I need to have the RAWs somewhere to back them up. Would trust Amazon or Google more with my cloud files. In any cloud, backup flows are a key consideration.
* Simplified UI I like. Loss of key functions I don't like, hopefully these come back in
* I have been really liking LR iPad, so the new web version looks a lot like that, clean.
* I like the idea of my casual iPhone shots being integrated with my traditional collection. Making all images together, sort of like Mylio (http://mylio.com/) if you are familiar with that. I haven't tried this with the new LR but it looks like it is all more integrated. I think this was possible in LR Mobile already but had never tried.
* I think i read you can't Print from the new version, that may be just a short term limitation?
* I like the hypbrid cloud processing -- i.e. their behind the scenes indexing
* I like cloud software in general as the provider (Adobe) can more rapidly change things.
* I am now more interested in the integrated adobe Portfolio and Spark tools. Had not paid much attention to them. This new release makes the Adobe web ecosystem more interesting.
* On LightRoom Classic -- they have an import mechanism to mimic PhotoMechanic. I currently use PM to cull, so this could be a big win if it works. It has barely been talked about in the articles.
I have been debating leaving LightRoom for about two years. This changes the equation but too early to tell in which direction for me!
Would like to hear from other LR or ex-LR users.
Rob.
-
Adobe has already gone to Subscription, so I propose we don't discuss Subscription vs. License in this thread.
......
Not all, LR6 is standalone and no subscription needed.
They'll update camera/lens profiles until the end of this year and then stop.
Next week there will be an update which includes the D850. I guess that will be the last interesting one.
-
Being in the IT industry - the new rage is cloud based services, subscriptions. Not just with photo software, but with everything.
-
And removal of the option of a perpetual licence for Lightroom; the D850 RAW update is the last for perpetual licence owners.
Affinity here I come.
Hmm, I’m using PS CC now, but have been thinking about switching back to my old PS CS 6, which I still have somewhere :-). My D4s is not compatible with that version (ACR), but since I use Capture NX- D for my initial adjustments, I might end up with the PS CS6 after all.....
-
we are not perpetual so why should we need a perpetual license
-
People want to control their costs. If someone uses a camera for five years or more and doesn’t need updates to software, why should they have to pay for software changes that they don’t need? Many people have simple needs and older versions would work fine. Many people also prefer stability in their work environment; frequent changes in software can mean time is wasted learning around unnecessary changes.
-
People want to control their costs. If someone uses a camera for five years or more and doesn’t need updates to software, why should they have to pay for software changes that they don’t need? Many people have simple needs and older versions would work fine. Many people also prefer stability in their work environment; frequent changes in software can mean time is wasted learning around unnecessary changes.
If Adobe decides they do not want these customers anymore, someone else will step in.
Steve Jobs wanted to create a graphics suite "Photoshop Killer" but he is dead and I do see nothing in Tim Cook's pipeline....
-
I have installed all the updates i.e. Lightroom Classic CC, Lightroom CC, and Photoshop CC on my desktop (MacBook Pro 2016), and the new versions of Lightroom Mobile on both my iPad and iPhone. The major purpose of the two latter, is to do some basic editing (essentially, picture selection and reframing).
My old method of working i.e. major editing on the desktop and some basic (pre)editing on tablet etc, still works; I have now an additional Lr CC on my desktop which, for the time being, I don't find of much usage. But the interaction between cloud (Lr Mobile) and desktop (Lr Classic) seems to (continue to) work. In my case, the 20 GO of allowed cloud space is used only for storing the dynamic links which are automatically created, once you decided to make an album available to Lightroom Mobile from your Lr desktop application, and which takes about 6 GB out of the 20 GB for storing about 21'000 dynamic pictures.
First impressions of Lr Classic: not much of change except the new masking methods and the fact that everything goes even much faster. Small side remark: the process used by Lr is now called Version 4, replacing Version 3 (2012), and when you edit a 2012 version with the existing Lr, a small lightning arrow appears, when, If you click on, allows tu upgrade the picture to Version 4 (not of much usage, I believe).
For my working environment, no much changes, and I can continue to store my pictures locally, while benefitting from the Cloud environment to do remote selection end editing.
With regard to Ps CC (new version), no feedback for the time being; the only thing I tried, is the very powerful Sensei search engine, which allows you to search images without pre-stored keywords.
These are my first impressions. Maybe more to come.
PS: I have always chosen for the annual subscription model. Which costs me about 1(one)% of the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL VR I'm planning to buy ....
-
we are not perpetual so why should we need a perpetual license
The first reason is to avoid finding out what happens if you stop paying the subscription. At present the program will still open so you can access your files but not work on them, and you have 90 days to download your files from the cloud to your own machine, but that could change overnight.
The second reason is cost. Adobe has moved to the subscription model because their profit is greater. Since development and distribution costs are the same whether it is a subscription or a perpetual licence, the fact that they make more money from the subscription model means that at least some people are paying more for the same program.
The people who are paying more are the people who used to buy a perpetual licence and keep using the same version for years. For example, I am still using Photoshop Elements 11, which came out in 2012 and for which I paid $80 - $15 a year and going down. I upgraded to Lightroom 6 this year to handle D500 RAW, but as far as actual processing capability is concerned I was perfectly happy with LR5, which came out in 2013 and cost me $80 - $20 a year. The cheapest subscription I can get to LR is 144 euros a year.
Sure, if you were buying big PS for (IIRC) $700 and getting each new version as it came out the subscription model is no more expensive, and the subscription model suits professionals' accounting needs. But for casual users it is a poor deal.
-
If Adobe decides they do not want these customers anymore, someone else will step in.
I think the issue is too many customers (future customers not current) are picking Google Photos or Apple Photos. There are a lot of moving parts in the photo space but one thing is constant is the exponential growth of mobile editing and cloud storage. Adobe is not inventing this, Adobe is reacting to Dropbox, iCloud, google-everything. It's probably a matter of time that Amazon doesn't buy a photo editing tool and put it into their cloud (the only delay is probably Bezos is not that into photography!).
There are a LOT of new and maturing entrants on the photo editing side. Someone else stepping in on a Catalog based editing system that cloud syncs but doesn't force cloud.... I'm not sure anyone IS stepping into that space? You have browser based space occupied by PhotoMechanic and others. Maybe Capture One or On1 are moving there?
-
Many disagree with Adobe's business moves, but not all. I'm not going to take sides in this save to say that I'm going to be paying somebody for the use of their software. What's important to me is that I get the biggest reward for my money, and that includes a UI that I like.
Frankly, I don't see a significant difference in perpetual licenses and subscriptions if one intends to stay at the forefront of technology. Technology moves fast, there is no end to updates, upgrades, new versions, new competitors, etc. YMMV
-
If one wants to have the latest tech and if one needs a lot of features then yes, paying for the subscription is sensible. But a lot of people just want the tools to do the basic photo editing work, and not a lot of advanced features. Let’s say a photographer in India makes 500€/month. They may be shooting portraits and weddings with a D40x. Why would they want to pay a monthly fee for frequent software updates?
Adobe is doing it because it is easier to persuade people to pay in moderate but frequent pieces rather than in large chunks. But I doubt it is in the best economic interest of less affluent photographers or occasional shooters.
As for competitors, I am sure there are many. But Adobe have a dominant position nonetheless. E.g. Apple dumped Aperture even though they are the world’s most profitable business (and could easily have kept it) and Nikon/Nik’s Capture NX2 was terminated as well. I guess any of Adobe’s smaller competitors could just bite the dust and so people would not get updates for new OS versions etc. There needs to be a more balanced situation in the photo editing software market IMO, with several equally strong competitors.
-
Many disagree with Adobe's business moves, but not all. I'm not going to take sides in this save to say that I'm going to be paying somebody for the use of their software. What's important to me is that I get the biggest reward for my money, and that includes a UI that I like.
Frankly, I don't see a significant difference in perpetual licenses and subscriptions if one intends to stay at the forefront of technology. Technology moves fast, there is no end to updates, upgrades, new versions, new competitors, etc. YMMV
+1
-
I'm not really against the subscription.
The two biggest bummers are that the security of Adobe website is sloppy (my older account was hacked), and you cannot unsubscribe the account online. You have to call the support to unsubscribe. What an inconvenience!
****End of rant****
-
Adobe becoming a utility is old news by now. Before the subscription, because I used most of Adobe's products for other things, like video, Illustrator, Audition, and on and on, buying the Master Collection, which I had to, was probably more expensive and not updated as frequently. Like the water bill, now there is the Adobe bill. LOL.
I appreciate Adobe being there for me. It let's me do things I want to do, like this.
-
As for competitors, I am sure there are many. But Adobe have a dominant position nonetheless. E.g. Apple dumped Aperture even though they are the world’s most profitable business (and could easily have kept it) and Nikon/Nik’s Capture NX2 was terminated as well. I guess any of Adobe’s smaller competitors could just bite the dust and so people would not get updates for new OS versions etc. There needs to be a more balanced situation in the photo editing software market IMO, with several equally strong competitors.
I get what you're saying, and every camera I know of comes with software to at least do minor editing and convert RAW files to jpg or tif. I don't suspect that will ever bite the dust. Why could these hypothetical Indian portrait photographers not use this software then convert to tif and do further editing in an older version of photoshop that suits their needs?
-
Impressive Integration:
I charged-up my old iPad (a Series 2, I believe?) which runs on iOS 9.3.5 and found that the new Lr CC does run on it even though Adobe's listed platform-requirements firmly state that it won't.
The iPad took a while to pull my images from the Cloud (I have 60,000 or so of them sitting on the Cloud!) and all of the editing tools in Lr CC are fully operational on my iPad should I ever want to use it.
I edited a photograph on the iPad; synced it back to the Cloud; fired-up Ps CC 2018 . . .
and there is the image (which I had only just edited) sitting on the Start-up/Welcome Screen and also in the Search Panel.
Click on it and it opens in ACR with all of the ACR Sliders already in place to show the image in exactly the way that it looked in Lr CC on my iPad.
Then I opened Lr Classic CC.
Same thing: file has been updated and the Sliders are all set in the right positions to display the photograph to match the changes which I made in Lr CC (iPad).
THIS is the level of "Integration" that many people need!
And the edited image is immediately available for use in all of the other Adobe programs which I use.
------
There is no requirement to subscribe to or purchase any particular brand of software
IF you choose to buy an Adobe Creative Cloud Subscription you get four different programs and ways to process your RAW images; and you can use them interchangeably whenever you want to — depending on what is most convenient at the time.
In addition, the optional Cloud storage gives you access to any of thousands of your images from wherever you may be on the Planet at that moment.
The data stored on the Cloud is very compressed (basically a Smart Preview and the text in the metadata) so it uses about 1 MB per image. For the basic $10, a subscriber gets (in addition to the use of the software) 20 GB of free cloud storage which is sufficient for a lot of 1 MB images and will probably be sufficient for most people.
If you use Lr Classic CC, you would choose which particular files you wanted to Sync to the Cloud if you needed to stay within the 20GB limit.
(Put the selected files into Collections and Sync just those particular Collections to the Cloud.)
-----
Concerning "Indefinitely": that means for an undefined period of time.
Anyone who construed "Indefinitely" to mean "Infinitely" was being un-realistically optimistic!!
:)
-
....
The data stored on the Cloud is very compressed (basically a Smart Preview and the text in the metadata) so it uses about 1 MB per image. For the basic $10, a subscriber gets (in addition to the use of the software) 20 GB of free cloud storage which is sufficient for a lot of 1 MB images and will probably be sufficient for most people.
If you use Lr Classic CC, you would choose which particular files you wanted to Sync to the Cloud if you needed to stay within the 20GB limit.
(Put the selected files into Collections and Sync just those particular Collections to the Cloud.)
....
I have 21'000 images sitting in the cloud through Lr Mobile (smart previews only) and it takes 6 GB from my 20 GB allowance. ;)
-
I'll probably give something else a try. Luminar Windows Beta? Downloading....
-
I get what you're saying, and every camera I know of comes with software to at least do minor editing and convert RAW files to jpg or tif. I don't suspect that will ever bite the dust. Why could these hypothetical Indian portrait photographers not use this software then convert to tif and do further editing in an older version of photoshop that suits their needs?
The problem is that in a few years current OS versions will probably not run older versions of PS or LR (if Adobe won’t patch them to be compatible). That means that in 5-10 years, subscription is the only option that will work on a new computer. The clock is ticking.
Another problem is that internet access is not a given in many of the poorer parts of the world. And that presents difficulty for use of subscription use let alone cloud based services.
Camera manufacturers’ software is typically of very poor quality and usability.
-
I have 21'000 images sitting in the cloud through Lr Mobile (smart previews only) and it takes 6 GB from my 20 GB allowance. ;)
I read that SmartPreviews did not take up space allocation in the new scheme. I think I read it on PetaPixel, maybe in the comment thread.
-
Adobe becoming a utility is old news by now. Before the subscription, because I used most of Adobe's products for other things, like video, Illustrator, Audition, and on and on, buying the Master Collection, which I had to, was probably more expensive and not updated as frequently. Like the water bill, now there is the Adobe bill. LOL.
I appreciate Adobe being there for me. It let's me do things I want to do, like this.
phantastic image, Michael!!!
-
I feel Adobe offers a fair deal for the many people who have been unsing Adobe software illeally.
That is why they can now offer a subscription for sub 10 Dollars. Broaden the revenue base.
Metaphorically: 50% of jobs worldwide are informal (no tax, no social security, no worker protection, no environmental standards, no supervision by public experts) today, projected to become 90% of jobs in the course of the century. If we want a more just world, not only 10% of people should pay taxes. We should broaden the financial base and every body will have to pay less.
Adobe shows how this model works: legalize illegal users (I am quite positive these were more than 50% even in the money making industry, not just the hobbyists) and make them pay. Now the states should learn and follow.
Adobe makes more money, states should get more taxes
-
I'll probably give something else a try. Luminar Windows Beta? Downloading....
I’m very interested in your findings Thomas. Luminar looks a nice alternative. Next year they wil come with a DAM addition too.
-
Adobe becoming a utility is old news by now. Before the subscription, because I used most of Adobe's products for other things, like video, Illustrator, Audition, and on and on, buying the Master Collection, which I had to, was probably more expensive and not updated as frequently. Like the water bill, now there is the Adobe bill. LOL.
I appreciate Adobe being there for me. It let's me do things I want to do, like this.
Fantastic image, BEAUTIFUL colors!
-
So, how do I get images from Lightroom CC (the cloud app) back into a regular Lightroom (Classic) catalog so that I can use the edited images to make prints, for example? I know I can open the files in Photoshop CC but what if I want to print a batch of them from Lightroom CC?
Edit: ok, I figured it out. From Lightroom Classic, one has to select from the top left corner to sync this catalog and then after a while of waiting it displays the cloud photos in LR as "All Synced Photographs".
-
I'll probably give something else a try. Luminar Windows Beta? Downloading....
It crashed several times, without reason. I uninstalled the program. The file-open option is unworkable with NEF's. The very limited save-as options are not an advantage.
-
It let's me do things I want to do, like this.
Thank you for posting: that Photograph is amazing. I love the pinks and greens and I guess they are stamen dancing in the center of the flower. It's a miniature, magic world.
Dave Hartman
-
Adobe makes more money, states should get more taxes
No. Adobe's model is Adobe makes more money and does not pay tax. Adobe claims it has an effective tax rate of about 26%, but that is based on a US accounting requirement to include as a liability the tax they would owe on funds "permanently re-invested" overseas if those funds were repatriated to the US. In fact, in 2012 Adobe's tax rate was 6.9% (https://www.ft.com/content/6273646e-fb77-11e2-8650-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e6).
Adobe has, in the past, been careless about security. That creates two issues: (1) records of software subscribers are an attractive target for hackers because the personal data and credit card numbers are up-to-date, and (2) if your images are on the cloud and your account is compromised ransomware attacks are a threat. It would not only be the threat of losing images, but the threat of liability for illegal use of images - privacy breaches, eg.
-
Before you change all for better worlds, please, give some attention to this article from Thom Hogan ...http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/digital-photography-softwar/the-expensive-update.html
-
Before you change all for better worlds, please, give some attention to this article from Thom Hogan ...http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/digital-photography-softwar/the-expensive-update.html
Adobe's prices set the pace. Why would anyone expect its competitors to be a lot cheaper? Though some are: I can get Affinity - Thom's "best PS alternative" - for 55 euros as an outright purchase, and Affinity has not had a paid update since 2015. Plus, Thom's $8 a month is the US price, and Adobe has a long history of charging much higher prices to customers outside the US: eg, the cheapest PS subscription Adobe France will sell me is 288 euros a year, and their price gouging in Australia is notorious (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/02/dont-believe-the-adobe-price-cut-hype-its-still-gauging-you-silly/ and https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/05/creative-cloud-keeps-getting-more-expensive-in-australia/). The ability to prevent people outside the US avoiding its price gouging by buying a perpetual licence copy in the US is one reason Adobe likes the subscription model - they even go to considerable lengths to stop you finding out what the price is in other regions.
Above all, even if companies do try to conceal the real cost of their software by frequent paid updates, if you have an outright purchase those updates are not compulsory. You can decide whether you want the update or not, and if you don't you can continue to use the software without the trouble of changing to another program. If - when - Adobe increases your subscription price you either pay or go to the trouble and expense of changing to another program right now, whether right now is convenient or not.
-
I’m unfortunately reading a lot of crap regarding Lightroom and its new iterations! If you don’t want to use the web based version then don’t use the Lr Classic CC instead it ain’t rocket science after all is it!
And don’t forget Adobe is not a charity!
Also there isn’t a software system or programmer that hasn’t had a security leak of some sort or other come on people stop picking on Adobe, if you don’t wish to use the subscription method offered by Adobe then don’t, there is other software available!
Sorry about that rant over. :D
-
If Adobe was a charity it wouldn't buy it's competition.
-
we are not perpetual so why should we need a perpetual license
The thing is that nothing is permanent in a changeable and changing world.
It is precisely because nothing is permanent, that we need perpetual licenses.
That is why we need software that can be run with no time limit and with no need for subscriptions.
That is precisely why we need and should demand software that is user-controlled, that means copyable and re-installable on compatible hardware without any ties to the manufacturer and no need for "activation" after the acquisition of the license.
-
If I had been taken up into the clouds to be with Adobe it would not have been forevermore. I've had financial problems and now I'm paying a quadriplegic friend's internet so she can engage in her seasonal business and so she can complete a hybrid online collage class that is both online and has a once a week class room or campus workshop. Not only that but I recently bought her an economy smart phone. I would have had to drop CC and I may have to drop my own internet access.
I bought Nikon CaptureNX2 to lessen dependence on Adobe but Google gobbled NIK., etc.
Dave
-
The thing is that nothing is permanent in a changeable and changing world.
It is precisely because nothing is permanent, that we need perpetual licenses.
That is why we need software that can be run with no time limit and with no need for subscriptions.
That is precisely why we need and should demand software that is user-controlled, that means copyable and re-installable on compatible hardware without any ties to the manufacturer and no need for "activation" after the acquisition of the license.
You're free to create such software. Let me know how that business plan works for 'ya.
-
You're free to create such software. Let me know how that business plan work for 'ya.
It is difficult to understand why some are seemingly against user-controlled software.
User-controlled software does exist, and here are some few examples:
- OpenSuSE Linux operating system (one of many Linux versions, they are all basically equally good)
- Corel AfterShot Pro RAW converter. This is a commercial program which was unfortunately bought from Bibble by a software company that wanted to eliminate an inconvenient competitor. The point is not that the software must be free, the point is that it must be user-controlled.
- RawTherapee RAW converter
- Darktable RAW converter
- Cinepaint image editor
- GIMP image editor
Lastly; All Adobe Photoshop versions up to and including Photoshop 7.01 was activaton-free and can be backed up and installed whenever the user needs - with no ties to the manufacturer. The same is true for all Windows versions up to and including Windows 2000. These software versions may no longer be available or compatible with most recent hardware, but that does not invalidate the point which is the following: User-controlled software exists and has existed, and people have created and and still create such software. Moreover, they have made and still make money from it. As they should do.
-
It is difficult to understand why some are seemingly against user-controlled software.
User-controlled software does exist, and here are some few examples:
- OpenSuSE Linux operating system (one of many Linux versions, they are all basically equally good)
- Corel AfterShot Pro RAW converter. This is a commercial program which was unfortunately bought from Bibble by a software company that wanted to eliminate an inconvenient competitor. The point is not that the software must be free, the point is that it must be user-controlled.
- RawTherapee RAW converter
- Darktable RAW converter
- Cinepaint image editor
- GIMP image editor
Lastly; All Adobe Photoshop versions up to and including Photoshop 7.01 was activaton-free and can be backed up and installed whenever the user needs - with no ties to the manufacturer. The same is true for all Windows versions up to and including Windows 2000. These software versions may no longer be available or compatible with most recent hardware, but that does not invalidate the point which is the following: User-controlled software exists and has existed, and people have created and and still create such software. Moreover, they have made and still make money from it. As they should do.
I'm not against anything of the kind, so don't mischaracterize my words. OTOH, you had better check your sources because your statement that old Photoshop versions up to 7 were activation free is absolutely false. The activation codes were printed on the box that the software came inm and if you used them up you had to ask Adobe for more. BTDT!
-
There seems to be a lot of confusion everywhere about the two new Lightroom programs and the Cloud.
There are now two different ways of using the Cloud from Lightroom.
You can either Sync your files to the Cloud by syncing only the metadata plus a Smart Preview.
That method uses very small amounts of cloud-space — about 1 MB per image — and the image file (NEF or JPG) remains on your own HD. You can continue to edit over the internet and your edits will be added to the metadata.
If you elect to set your Synced Collections to be "Public", Lr generates URLs for those particular Collections (or multiples of them) which anyone to whom you give the URL can then view in a regular web browser.
This is an effective way of sharing images with selected individuals or clients.
Or you can choose to Upload the original image to the Cloud.
This method takes more Cloud-space but the full-resolution file can be downloaded from anywhere for further editing or printing.
You can then free-up space on your computer by moving another copy of the original to an off-line storage HD.
I use the former (Syncing) method because that is all that I need and some 70,000 images are only consuming 320 mb of my Cloud Space.
I should also add that there is absolutely no requirement to use Cloud storage at all unless you choose to do so — you only use the Sync function if you wish to.
You can just use Lr Classic CC on your own computer and keep all of your files there for editing, cataloguing or printing in exactly the same way that you did with the old CS6.
-
Well said Ann, you have answered my rant very eloquently.
-
Let's say that I've uploaded images to the cloud and made edits to them. If I sync a lightroom classic catalog with the cloud, the files in the cloud gradually pop up in my catalog. However, the location of the file is listed as "unknown". Now, if I delete the images from the cloud (to free storage), will the images synced from the cloud be located on my local drive, and if they are, where will they be located? If they're going to disappear from the local synced catalog after being deleted from the cloud, what is the correct procedure for bringing the edits from the cloud to the local classic catalog (which was not necessarily the way the images got into the cloud) in such a way that they affect my local files and are not lost?
If I undestand from Ann's explanation correctly, is it true that when syncing images to the cloud from a Lightroom Classic catalog (so that only the smart previews and metadata are in the cloud) then the edits made on any device on the images (or metadata) in the cloud would automatically appear in Lightroom Classic (provided internet connection is present)? If I then stop syncing the images with the cloud, will the changes made in the cloud remain in the local Lightroom Classic catalog so I don't lose the editing?
I noticed that only one catalog can be synced with the cloud. I can understand why they want to do it in this manner but it would then mean I'd have to have a separate catalog for work that is to be cloud synced. If I have many projects going on with their own catalogs I would like to be able to select which images from which catalog are seen in the cloud. And I don't want all the images in the cloud to be seen in all those Ligthroom Classic catalogs, but only ones that I choose.
I noticed that when uploading images to the cloud from desktop Lightroom CC (the cloud based application), copies of the originals appeared in AppData (so the images seemed to be in three places: the original files on my drives, copies of them in AppData, and then the cloud. I can't have this happen as space on my SSD is limited.
Thanks for your help.
-
Ann explained this very correctly. I'm using Lr Mobile since its inception for doing pre-editing (selection, reframing) and for tablet presentations; nothing changed with the new Lr Classic CC, Lr CC.
Here is my profile under Lr Mobile (Lr CC) as by default for the mixed usage of Lr Classic CC and Lr CC (Lr Mobile):
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4482/37834777741_11fdfbbfcb_c.jpg)
everything is in French, but you can see that one of the cursors is flagged to store only Smart Previews in the Adobe Cloud; and you can notice that each Smart Preview takes about 275k i.e. 6GB for 21'000 previews.
@ilkka: The usage of multiple catalogs has always been discouraged by Adobe. Personally, I have two main categories of collections: a professional and a personal one. But, off course, this doesn't solve your problem
-
@ilkka: The usage of multiple catalogs has always been discouraged by Adobe. Personally, I have two main categories of collections: a professional and a personal one. But, off course, this doesn't solve your problem
In my experience as there are more images in the catalog, browsing and editing gradually becomes slower. I haven't systematically studied this but it's my impression.
How does it work if you have hundreds of thousands of images in a single catalog? I don't have a single storage device that stores all my images (and much of the material is on network storage devices) so I cannot use a single catalog, either.
-
I should also add that there is absolutely no requirement to use Cloud storage at all unless you choose to do so — you only use the Sync function if you wish to.
You can just use Lr Classic CC on your own computer and keep all of your files there for editing, cataloguing or printing in exactly the same way that you did with the old CS6.
Yes, but the price of Lightroom Classic is more than 3 times the price of LR6 - in my case 144 euros per year vs 40 (and, yes, that is 50% higher than the US price). A 300% price rise is not OK.
And if there is confusion about whether you can opt out of cloud storage, Adobe is largely responsible, so it is reasonable to think it is what they want. If you search for "Lightroom" you get only the CC page: unless you search specifically for "Lightroom Classic" Adobe will not tell you it exists. Although there is no requirement to use the Sync function, there is a very strong push to do so: I don't know about people elsewhere, but I cannot get a LR Classic subscription without cloud storage, whether I want cloud storage or not. And the fact that cloud storage is optional now does not mean it will remain optional. LR Classic is being treated the same way as LR stand-alone, making it as hard as possible to find and buy, and the obvious conclusion is that LR classic will go the same way as LR stand-alone, and sooner rather than later.
-
Yes, but the price of Lightroom Classic is more than 3 times the price of LR6 - in my case 144 euros per year vs 40 (and, yes, that is 50% higher than the US price). A 300% price rise is not OK.
LR Classic a program with different performance class from LR6 so IMO it is ok to charge more since it saves time and frustration in the image review and selection process. In any case this is what monopolies do: they increase the prices when they get the chance. If you want something other than Adobe, use another software makers' products. But unless you're satisfied with free software you are likely going to be paying more since the other software are not as fully functioned as e.g. Lightroom Classic and Photoshop and so you will need to purchase/license multiple software products to be able to do everything.
And if there is confusion about whether you can opt out of cloud storage, Adobe is largely responsible, so it is reasonable to think it is what they want. If you search for "Lightroom" you get only the CC page: unless you search specifically for "Lightroom Classic" Adobe will not tell you it exists.
I did a google search for "adobe lightroom" and fourth on the list was Lightroom Classic. So it's not that bad. They just want to push the new program (because it's the new thing) but in the end they will go back to normal and promote what people actually can use. Cloud storage based applications is not something Adobe can just force since it is not what people can do their work on. It can be used as an accessory to it but not as a replacement for the desktop application. Similarly, smartphones and tablets cannot replace the laptop computer because for content production the latter is far superior. Those who don't produce new content may be happy with less, of course, but someone somewhere has to produce new content.
I think the cloud-based Lightroom may be a useful product 5-10 years down the road. Today it perhaps highlights some of the things that are possible in the future. I doubt people will store their originals in the cloud since the cost (of renting storage from the cloud) is too high, the transfers take too long, there is less control over your data, the applications perform only very limited functions and the images tied to the cloud are only accessible through the Lightroom application (instead of being accessible through any software). I can see the attraction as Adobe is looking to expand its business and cloud based services are in the vogue. However, in the end what people actually can use and what solves user problems are the software that succeeds.
-
If you want something other than Adobe, use another software makers' products. But unless you're satisfied with free software you are likely going to be paying more since the other software are not as fully functioned as e.g. Lightroom Classic and Photoshop and so you will need to purchase/license multiple software products to be able to do everything.
Who needs to do everything? I do 2/3 of my photography on film and 1/3 on digital, and I want to keep everything together. LR does three things for me: catalog, RAW conversion of digital files and adjustment of brightness and contrast for scanned negatives, and basic editing like rotation and cropping. I need a pixel editor because I always have dust spots to remove from scanned negatives, sometimes a lot; I use Photoshop Elements 11.
The catalog function I can replace with Nikon View, which is free. Scanning negatives rules out Nikon NX-D, which will only edit images created with a Nikon digital camera. If I shifted to digitising negatives with the ES-2 I could use NX-D, but the ES-2 plus negative holder is $200 or so. Better quality might be a reason to pay for the ES-2 but it is not worth it just to be able to use the free software.
The RAW conversion and negative adjustment and the pixel editing functions I have shifted to Affinity. It costs 55 euros, and has not had a paid update since first release two years ago. It is, overall, about as good as LR for processing RAW files - better at some things (colour rendition, eg), not as good at others (lens corrections, eg). Affinity is much better than LR for processing scanned negatives, which was a pleasant surprise - it is not something software reviews mention. It is better than PSE for dust spotting. I can round trip from View easily.
PSE 11 is 32 bit so I would have had to replace it next year anyway. PSE is not an option for subscription (!), so that would have had to be bought as a stand-alone.
So, no, I have not paid more to replace LR, and I get better function in one important respect.
-
If you elect to set your Synced Collections to be "Public", Lr generates URLs for those particular Collections (or multiples of them) which anyone to whom you give the URL can then view in a regular web browser.
This is an effective way of sharing images with selected individuals or clients.
Ann, thank you for your explanation!
Do you happen to know if clients would be able to rate photos in a public web gallery/collection?
I use the former (Syncing) method because that is all that I need and some 70,000 images are only consuming 320 mb of my Cloud Space.
...to store only Smart Previews in the Adobe Cloud; and you can notice that each Smart Preview takes about 275k i.e. 6GB for 21'000 previews.
Also, why do you suppose there is such discrepancy here? It seems you are both uploading smart previews only yet MFloyd is taking up much more space.
-
In my experience as there are more images in the catalog, browsing and editing gradually becomes slower. I haven't systematically studied this but it's my impression.
How does it work if you have hundreds of thousands of images in a single catalog? I don't have a single storage device that stores all my images (and much of the material is on network storage devices) so I cannot use a single catalog, either.
Ilkka, a catalog is one thing, but your image folders can be spread over multiple (external) drives. What could potentially be a problem, is that you are unable to host your catalog onto one single DD. But I would be very surprised: my Catalog sizes 40GB for 50'000 pictures; which means, if we extrapolate, that a 1TB DD could host a Catalog of about 1'250'000 pictures.
-
If anyone wants to know why Lightroom CC just look at these figures quoted from a Thom Hogan article:
"Let's put that in numbers for you to ponder. In the first quarter global smartphone sales were in the neighborhood of 380 million units. In the first quarter global shipments of dedicated cameras were 5.9 million units by the Japanese "
Adobe is going after the cell phone users too.
Also in Hogan's article a link to a Scott Kelby clip posted of the Adobe Max Keynote:
https://lightroomkillertips.com/need-see-video-new-lightroom-cc/
You can see the entire Hogan article here, http://tinyurl.com/ya7wluml
-
The problem is that Lightroom is unable to access images on network drives and that means I have to transfer the images on local drives for editing (after making space by moving some images to NAS). In practice I have the catalogs stored with the images.
Let’s say I have 200000 images of (on average) 45MB NEFs 10% of which are also stored as edited TIFFs (400MB size with two layers); that’s 17TB of image files. I would like to see how that single LR catalog handles that.
After 30 years I would expect to have 1-2 million images most of which will be larger in pixel count than these. Imagine transferring that wirelessly to the cloud and monthly costs from Adobe. I think Adobe’s plan is to lock the images into the cloud, only accessible through their software. With monthly fees increasing as the amount of storage required increases.
-
I use a single Catalogue but I divide images up into individually named Collections and then Sync each Collection individually to the Cloud.
If I make a Collection "Public", I receive a separate URL for that Catalogue which I can "Share" with only those who I want to be able to see those Photographs which are then shown as being in an Album.
I can also make images downloadable or not; and the Viewer can Rate them and add comments about individual images.
I have just checked and my Cloud is only using 319 MB of my allotted space.
I am still finding my way around in these new programs but this is where Mobile edits get stored: you can either use them or delete them.
Incidentally, I am using Lr to network by WiFi to other HDs attached to a distanced networked computer.
-
Surely one would cull images from storage on the Cloud that no longer require instant access from anywhere and simply keep back-ups of those old or secondary images on off-line HDs?
There is no need to keep everything on the Cloud and you can add and delete items whenever you like.
-
I doubt most cell phone camera users will pay more than a few € for software and that only as a single payment for the lifetime of the software.
As for photography related software costs overall, I have some software which is one time payment only (such as Helicon Focus for stacking or Gigapano Pro for stitching), some that are free and some that are subscription only.
I use DXO Optics Pro because it has more sophisticated and accurate distortion control profiles than other software I’ve used. Also it has probably the best extreme noise reduction (called PRIME) which is useful for ultra high ISO images (e.g. ISO 104200). Capture One Pro seems to have the best default color profiles for images that include faces and colourful fabrics. ACR/LR now have sophisticated masking. PS has my favorite healing tool and sharpening operations as well as excellent color management for printing. I also need Adobe PDF creation software (printer driver and Acrobat DC), Illustrator for posters (e.g. powerpoint can be used but illustrator automatically reads updated image files and uses the latest in documents). Occasionally I need to process videos (Premiere). LR I like for batch printing multiple images on larger paper and now it finally is fast enough for browsing as well. I use Nikon ViewNX-i to browse and initial selection of images and to check focusing (it shows the focus points that had been selected and fine tune settings). I don’t currently scan film but that’s another area where one software doesn’t do everything best and Nikon have ceased to support their scanner software which is extremely bad treatment of customers but I’m hoping to use cameras for digitization of film in the future.
It would be hard to remove Adobe software entirely from my workflow without having to make compromises somewhere. I would love to make do with less software but find that some features are better implemented in one software than others. To be honest my main gripe is that the different software do poor communication with each other regarding edits, keywords etc. and third party software tends to ignore camera specific details in the EXIF which I need. So this creates a chaos in image processing and management. There should be better communication and standardization of formats and information.
-
Surely one would cull images from storage on the Cloud that no longer require instant access from anywhere and simply keep back-ups of those old or secondary images on off-line HDs?
Yes, of course. But if it is as some say that "Classic" in Lightroom Classic means "end-of-life" and will be replaced by the new Lightroom CC, then such an option might not be available (from Adobe) in the future.
Use of smart previews in the cloud and editing using those is one thing of course and it may be very practical to some users. However, this doesn't work for me because I use one catalog per project and I might have different catalogs on different computers. If Adobe in the future allows more selective syncing (where images are not restricted to one catalog but can be any images anywhere) and if the original images can be downloaded with edits to a LR Classic catalogue on another computer then this is something I could use. At present you can upload images from any device using Lightroom CC but it is not clear to me how the originals will be recovered from the cloud, to continue editing using tools that permit printing etc. I do know that Lightroom CC allows an image to be opened in Photoshop CC and that's all good but what if I want a group of images, original NEFs and edit information to be downloaded for local storage and removed from the cloud?
Anyway, I do believe Adobe is trying to provide an improved service for photographers. However, always when there is a new major release, a lot of details are ... cloudy, to say the least. :)
-
>>>>>
But if it is as some say that "Classic" in Lightroom Classic means "end-of-life" and will be replaced by the new Lightroom CC >>>>
I am certain (and with some knowledge!) that this is utter, uninformed nonsense.
The naming of "Classic" was probably a mistake but was probably meant to convey "the Lr which you are accustomed to".
It is named "Classic" — no mention of "Legacy"!
Lr CC is a complete rethink of the earlier Lr Mobile: meaning that you can now use the Cloud as your Back-up (or as your HD) on which to store full-resolution images if you want to.
People who are travelling with just a Laptop might find this new Cloud Service extremely helpful and much more efficient than Dropbox.
-
The problem is that Lightroom is unable to access images on network drives and that means I have to transfer the images on local drives for editing (after making space by moving some images to NAS). In practice I have the catalogs stored with the images.
I have all My image files on a NAS server, and the catalogue on the local HD, so I wonder why you say that LR is unable to access files on a network drive?
Using LR Classic CC.
/Bent
-
Sorry, it double-posted!
The Server this end or NG's server seems to be in melt-down at the moment
-
I have all My image files on a NAS server, and the catalogue on the local HD, so I wonder why you say that LR is unable to access files on a network drive?
Using LR Classic CC.
/Bent
Hmm. Ok, it may be that it's not able to read a catalogue which is on NAS but the files themselves can be. However, then the information that governs the edits are in a physically different drive from the images themselves. If I make a copy of the image directory and want the edits to go with it for use on a different computer etc. do I also copy the catalog even though it includes images from different physical drives?
-
>>>>>
But if it is as some say that "Classic" in Lightroom Classic means "end-of-life" and will be replaced by the new Lightroom CC >>>>
I am certain (and with some knowledge!) that this is utter, uninformed nonsense.
The naming of "Classic" was probably a mistake but was probably meant to convey "the Lr which you are accustomed to".
It is named "Classic" — no mention of "Legacy"!
Lr CC is a complete rethink of the earlier Lr Mobile: meaning that you can now use the Cloud as your Back-up (or as your HD) on which to store full-resolution images if you want to.
People who are travelling with just a Laptop might find this new Cloud Service extremely helpful and much more efficient than Dropbox.
My CC window offers me Lightroom CC as an install and Lightroom Classic as an upgrade. What if I did both? Would I have 2 separate apps, and what are the ramifications of that?
The first word I saw about the new apps was an article on either Macworld or Appleinsider, that said CC was lacking many of the features of Classic. It claimed that some of those features will be added to CC in the future, but, no word on which features or when in the future we could expect them.
-
Carl, I installed both. The latter, Lr CC, with some reluctance, imagining that this would initiate the “big cloud migration” but this didn’t happen. However, you should have a look at the Sensei search engine (you have it also in the new Ps 2018); although not perfect yet; I tried “car accident” although not keyworded, Sensei was able to find the pictures (but not all) with a car accident into 50’000 pictures. Waw !
-
Hmm. Ok, it may be that it's not able to read a catalogue which is on NAS but the files themselves can be. However, then the information that governs the edits are in a physically different drive from the images themselves. If I make a copy of the image directory and want the edits to go with it for use on a different computer etc. do I also copy the catalog even though it includes images from different physical drives?
I've had my catalog (100k+ images) on a different drive than the image drives for years. From what I understand Lightroom supposedly runs faster this way, never did a comparison.
So yes, copying the catalog will transfer the edits and the directory. If an image drive is not hooked up to the computer it will be greyed out but you may still be able to navigate the file directory depending on what previews you have stored of the images. What I'll often do when transferring specific files from one machine to another is use the "export as catalog" and then click the "build/include smart previews" option. Then "import from another catalog" on the other machine. This will transfer all edits you've made and you do not need to transfer the actual image files to do so. And it works between Mac & PC.
-
Carl, I installed both. The latter, Lr CC, with some reluctance, imagining that this would initiate the “big cloud migration” but this didn’t happen. However, you should have a look at the Sensei searche engine (you have it also in the new Ps 2018); although nit perfect yet; I tried “car accident” although not keyworded, Sensei was able to find the pictures (but not all) with a car accident into 50’000 pictures. Waw !
Thanks, Christian. I have a lot to lean about 2 different versions, and how that works on my Macs, so I have not yet done anything with either of them. The Ps upgrade is on pause too, and I 'm still waiting for the High sierra .1 update before I upgrade to it. A lot of new stuff coming at me all at once.
Can't use plug-ins on Lr CC I understand, so no switching images back and forth between editors, at least for now.
-
>>>>
The first word I saw about the new apps was an article on either Macworld or Appleinsider, that said CC was lacking many of the features of Classic. It claimed that some of those features will be added to CC in the future, but, no word on which features or when in the future we could expect them. >>>
The authors of those articles (which I have not read) appear to be somewhat mis-informed.
It is not a matter of one Lr having features that the other one does not: it is simply that these are two very different programs and are designed for entirely different purposes although they do integrate very effectively with each other.
Lr CC was designed to be compact and to use a simplified UI in order to permit editing on devices which don't have separate keyboards.
You use Lr Classic CC for doing your editing and cataloguing (just as you did previously with Lr CC 2015 or CS6) and you can choose to Sync some of your Collections to the Cloud if you wish to.
Lr CC replaces the old Lr Mobile with a far more powerful application.
This one is meant for working directly with the Cloud and can be used either to store full resolution images on the Cloud or to merely synchronise the metadata and a Smart Preview as a tiny 1 mb file on the Cloud for sharing or for viewing from anywhere.
Lr Classic CC is for computer/desktop editing, cataloguing and filing.
Lr CC is for Internet work. It has additional modules which you install on all your Devices (iPads, Smart phones etc.) so that you can communicate between your Lr Cloud CC (on your desktop or laptop); all of your Devices; and your file-storage on the Cloud as well.
The Subscription entitles you to install both programs and many people will find it useful to do that.
This may have changed, but I believe that someone who has not previously had a subscription can "subscribe" and get full downloading privileges.
If you later decide that a subscription is not for you; and choose to cancel before 30 days have elapsed; I believe that Adobe will credit your Credit Card for the monthly installment which you paid but do check with Customer Support to get the current details about this.
(Those who have still been using CS6 might want to check this out.)
-
Thanks, Ann. I've had CC since it began, but I don't know that I would get much use out of the new app. I never edit on my iPad or iPhone, jut my desktop Macs, so it appears that I'm more a candidate to continue with Classic CC.
Now, it's confession time. I swear old age has not been kind to me. Anyway, my source for info wasn't from a magazine after all, it came in to my inbox from Victoria Bampton. She was the pointing out the differences and missing features. Here's a link to what she offered, http://tinyurl.com/y7cap979.
-
Victoria is one person who does know their stuff where Lightroom (all versions since its inception!) is concerned.
The on-line Blogs? Not so much!!
If you have no need for internet access to your images, there is no necessity to install Lr CC — although you might want to play with it a bit just to see what it does.
Uninstalling it again takes only a few seconds anyway.
These are two very different programs for different purposes so I wouldn't construe items as "missing" from a a particular version but more a question of it not being appropriate for that version.
That is why many people will install both Classic and Lr CC as well — so that they can use the right version for the task which they need to do.
-
The Sensei Search is remarkable but can also be amusing.
I asked it to find "Rhino" (I have a lot of photographs of them — both Black and White Rhinos).
Search found them and displayed them almost instantly; but it got a bit confused and displayed Hippos and Cape Buffaloes as well.
Then I asked for Black Rhinos and Search said it found only a Black Hole!
I believe that the Sensei technology actually learns as you you use it so it will be interesting to see if learns to distinguish between different kinds of Rhinos and not to get confused by Hippos who have been rolling in black mud.
-
If I make a Collection "Public", I receive a separate URL for that Catalogue which I can "Share" with only those who I want to be able to see those Photographs which are then shown as being in an Album.
I can also make images downloadable or not; and the Viewer can Rate them and add comments about individual images.
I've got a question maybe you can help me with. I just sync'd a collection from Classic LR to the cloud and made the collection public so it is a web gallery with a link. I logged out of adobe and pasted in the link so I could see the web gallery as a client would view it. Once I am logged out I am unable to "like" or make a comment on any images so a client would be unable to make selections or notes that are sync'd to the collection.
Am I missing something? Can only Adobe CC subscribers interact with a web gallery?
-
Charlie, the answer is already in Ann’s quote: by default, galleries are “view only” up to you to decide if they can be downloaded or allowed for comments.
-
No. Adobe's model is Adobe makes more money and does not pay tax. Adobe claims it has an effective tax rate of about 26%, but that is based on a US accounting requirement to include as a liability the tax they would owe on funds "permanently re-invested" overseas if those funds were repatriated to the US. In fact, in 2012 Adobe's tax rate was 6.9% (https://www.ft.com/content/6273646e-fb77-11e2-8650-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e6).
Adobe has, in the past, been careless about security. That creates two issues: (1) records of software subscribers are an attractive target for hackers because the personal data and credit card numbers are up-to-date, and (2) if your images are on the cloud and your account is compromised ransomware attacks are a threat. It would not only be the threat of losing images, but the threat of liability for illegal use of images - privacy breaches, eg.
Great. Uninstall Ad0be Software and you are done. No big deal!
-
The thing is that nothing is permanent in a changeable and changing world.
It is precisely because nothing is permanent, that we need perpetual licenses.
That is why we need software that can be run with no time limit and with no need for subscriptions.
That is precisely why we need and should demand software that is user-controlled, that means copyable and re-installable on compatible hardware without any ties to the manufacturer and no need for "activation" after the acquisition of the license.
I do not want to live forever and I do not want outdated hardware and software.
Life is a "Dynamic equilibrum" ... If you want to grab and fixate your luck it will break. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_equilibrium
Savour life while it is there, do not hold on things that pass. I pass you pass but we can have fun together before we die.
Think of software "from the tap" as "beer from the tap" ...you will pay per glass!
Next drink is on me!
-
Here is a link to an interview with Adobe.
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/5816515871/interview-adobe-will-absolutely-continue-investing-in-lightroom-classic
They say that you should choose one or the other (LR CC or LR Classic). But also that one can get the images from the cloud to LR Classic with edits, as I have found. But to me it is unclear if it just syncs the smart previews from the cloud or if the NEF images are also included locally in such a case, and if the latter, where they are stored. I'll try to figure this out.
-
Charlie, the answer is already in Ann’s quote: by default, galleries are “view only” up to you to decide if they can be downloaded or allowed for comments.
I get that by default they are private and view only. However once they are made public and the link is shared you must be signed in to 'like' a picture or comment on the picture, as far as I can tell anyway. And maybe this is because your name is attached to the 'likes' and comments as with social media interactions. The only options I can find for the gallery settings are in the attached screen grab, I see no option for turning on or off comments. If 'allow downloads' is turned on the images can be downloaded whether you are signed in or not.
EDIT: Having an Adobe ID is enough and being a subscriber is not necessary.
EDIT: I'm trying to find a way to make client selects sync to my catalog so they do not have to make a list of file names, looks like they will need an Adobe ID to do this.
-
I have been experimenting (fairly extensively!) over the past few days.
These are my notes — which may be useful to others:
Lightroom Classic CC
Create Collections in Lr Classic CC; right-click on the name of each Collection and Sync them to the Cloud.
Click in Top Bar to Make Public; then click on the generated URL (minute text next to the Make Public Button).
The Collection will open in your Web Browser (providing that you have installed Lr CC on your computer).
Click on any thumbnail to see the hidden icons for commenting, liking, or connecting to Facebook Etc.
Click on the Speech icon Bottom left corner for boxes for commenting and liking
———
Lightroom CC
(For Internet/Cloud Storage work this is far faster, easier and more efficient than using Classic)
Launch Lr CC and click on the Laundry-basket (?!) icon in the left margin;
All of your Synced Collections should be listed as Albums.
Double click one of your “Collections” (now an Album) to open it
Some Basic editing tools are available if you need them at this stage, and so are Rating stars, key-wording and viewing-order controls.
To publish the Album for viewing by others, Control Click on the Album’s name and choose view Share Album;
The Collection will open in your Web Browser (providing that you have installed Lr CC on your computer or on your devices.).
Click on any thumbnail to see the hidden icons for commenting, liking, or connecting to Facebook Etc.
Click on the Speech icon (in bottom left corner) for boxes for commenting and liking.
Adobe could have made this much easier to understand and use with a more clearly signposted work-flow and with labelled buttons instead of confusing icons which hide themselves (Cheshire Cat style!) in margins.
You can make Albums from inside Lr CC: Just create a new Album and drag-drop images from your Images folder into the Album.
Add, or remove, images at any time in the future.
--------
And you were absolutely right when you said people needed to be signed in to post comments. I think that registering for an Adobe ID is sufficient — they don't need to be a Subscriber.
Lr CC may work without an Adobe ID for people whose clients have social networking memberships (like Facebook and Google) but I don't use them so I can’t test that.
-
Adobe could have made this much easier to understand and use with a more clearly signposted work-flow and with labelled buttons instead of confusing icons which hide themselves (Cheshire Cat style!) in margins.
--------
And you were absolutely right when you said people needed to be signed in to post comments. I think that registering for an Adobe ID is sufficient — they don't need to be a Subscriber.
Lr CC may work without an Adobe ID for people whose clients have social networking memberships (like Facebook and Google) but I don't use them so I can’t test that.
I certainly agree, anyone smart enough to create Lr ought to be smart enough to make the UI easier to navigate.
The current trend for many companies to rely on Facebook, etc, as the sole location(s) of info for interested parties cuts out the very large portion of people that don't use social media, starting with you and me. It does not appear to me to be the best marketing idea to force clients to get an Adobe ID to view images. As a client, I for one, would reject that demand out of hand.
-
Anyone to whom you send the URL can see the images — even people without an Adobe ID.
It's just that they won't be able to post comments directly on the page and would have to communicate their comments separately (via email or phone) to the owner of the Album.
Getting an Adobe ID is no big deal anyway: they just need to have one's contact details — like every other on-line Service Provider does.
-
The current trend for many companies to rely on Facebook, etc, as the sole location(s) of info for interested parties cuts out the very large portion of people that don't use social media, starting with you and me. It does not appear to me to be the best marketing idea to force clients to get an Adobe ID to view images. As a client, I for one, would reject that demand out of hand.
Sometimes a shoot consists of thousands of images and there are hundreds of selects that the client will need to make. The ability to click a button that syncs with the photographers catalog and make notes directly on the image as opposed to writing down notes and making a list of file names that gets emailed to the photographer is something that I think most clients will welcome. It is streamlined, it saves time & money.
-
Check and see if Facebook lets them see, and rate, the images?
I suspect that FB members can sign-into FB and have access to the Comments section of the Gallery/Album without any need for an Adobe ID?
Probably Google members can sign-in with their Google ID as well?
My guess is that the ID sign-in was instigated for the security of the Gallery-owner.
I can't test this because I have always adamantly refused to join any Social Media because I would undoubtedly manage to offend someone because I hadn't commented favourably on their wallpaper!
-
I stand corrected, thanks for the info.
But, I'm not doing Facebook, etc. ;)
-
I tried using both Facebook and Google to sign in. It appears that Adobe finds the email address associated with Facebook/Google then redirects to the Adobe ID sign in page. If the email already has an Adobe ID it connects the accounts, not sure what that entails as I didn't do it, but it signs you in. If the email does not already have an Adobe ID associated with it they ask for your birthdate and then you are signed in and can comment and such, I believe with out having an adobe id.
-
So far what I've found pretty much aligns with Ann.
Some additional comment...
When uploading images into LR CC the Original Image files (NEFs, JPGs, etc) are uploaded to the cloud. I have not been able to find a way to turn this off and make LR CC only upload smart previews. There is also a web version of LR CC where seemingly all of the functionality of the program can ben made through a web browser. It can be accessed at Help > Lightroom CC for Web
When using LR Classic only smart previews are uploaded to the cloud and I have not been able to find an option for uploading the original files, not that I'd want to.
Whichever version of LR is used for uploading to the cloud, the images can be seen in both LR CC and LR Classic.
Web galleries are an excellent use for client proofing that will sync directly to your catalog streamlining the process for both the client and photographer. That said if comments and 'Likes' have been made to an image in a web gallery I can see that info in LR Classic but I can not see it in LR CC. However I can see it in LR CC for web. I am also unable to locate the "Album Settings" in LR CC but it is available in LR CC for web. I suspect these are bugs as I was able to access Album Settings in LR CC yesterday.
Seeings how I prefer to have only smart previews sync'd to the cloud I do not see myself using LR CC for anything more than culling images on my laptop when I am away from my desktop which has my primary catalog running on LR Classic.
-
When uploading images into LR CC the Original Image files (NEFs, JPGs, etc) are uploaded to the cloud. I have not been able to find a way to turn this off and make LR CC only upload smart previews. There is also a web version of LR CC where seemingly all of the functionality of the program can be made through a web browser. It can be accessed at Help > Lightroom CC for Web
You can choose (via the Prefs > Local Storage) in Lr CC whether you want to upload the Original to the Cloud or just a "Smart Preview Only" and keep the original only "locally".
There is a Cheshire-cat Blue button (in the bottom right-hand corner at the bottom of the Info Panel/Syn Status)
When using LR Classic only smart previews are uploaded to the cloud and I have not been able to find an option for uploading the original files, not that I'd want to.
That is correct. Classic does not upload the original file —only a SmartPreview+metadata.
Whichever version of LR is used for uploading to the cloud, the images can be seen in both LR CC and LR Classic.
Correct!
Web galleries are an excellent use for client proofing that will sync directly to your catalog streamlining the process for both the client and photographer. That said if comments and 'Likes' have been made to an image in a web gallery I can see that info in LR Classic but I can not see it in LR CC.
I am sure that is by Design. All of your assets (both photos and Albums) are in full view in Lr CC and you wouldn't want casual visitors being able to meddle with your files?! The Link gives them access only to the Browser version so they can't dig around in your private assets.
However I can see it in LR CC for web. I am also unable to locate the "Album Settings" in LR CC but it is available in LR CC for web. I suspect these are bugs as I was able to access Album Settings in LR CC yesterday.
Isn't this part of the same "privacy" thing?
Surely only the owner of the Device should have access into their own files through LC CC for Web?
Everyone else gets only Web Browser access to a publicly viewable area through the URL Link.
The Album Settings Panel is hidden under the Laundry-basket icon.
(I think the designer of the icon means it to look like a filing cabinet?!)
Screen shot showing location of Sync Status:
-
You can choose (via the Prefs > Local Storage) in Lr CC whether you want to upload the Original to the Cloud or just a "Smart Preview Only" and keep the original only "locally".
There is a Cheshire-cat Blue button (in the bottom right-hand corner at the bottom of the Info Panel/Syn Status)
My Local Storage preference does not show a smart preview only option, just the 'store a copy of ALL originals locally' as seen in the screen shot attachment below. And whether that is turned on or off I get the same display in the sync status of the info panel, original file is local and in the cloud (see right side of first attachment).
I am sure that is by Design. All of your assets (both photos and Albums) are in full view in Lr CC and you wouldn't want casual visitors being able to meddle with your files?! The Link gives them access only to the Browser version so they can't dig around in your private assets.
Right, visitors don't have access to my assets in LR CC or LR CC for web, nor would I want them to. They only have access to the web galleries I make and share with them. But if they make a comment in that web gallery I can not see that comment in my LR CC, I can only see it in the web gallery itself or in LR Classic.
The Album Settings Panel is hidden under the Laundry-basket icon.
They seem to have disappeared from mine? See left side of second screen shot. The right side is the LR CC for web and the little cog to the right of "San Diego" is the Album Settings. I can't seem to locate that in LR CC.
-
I am very puzzled by this but wonder if could have anything to do with Migrating your Catalogue to Lr CC from Lr?
I never Migrated because doing so seemed to imply that you wanted access to full storage and backup in the Cloud?
If that is the reason for the discrepancy between what we are both seeing, I don't know how one "un-Migrates".
I will see what I can find out but I suspect that you may have to call Customer Service to ask for a reset.
One way around it may be to uninstall and then re-install Lr CC?
-
I believe that Victoria Bampton said that once you migrate your catalogue there's no going back with the new versions. But, please verify that before making decisions.
-
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/using/migrate-to-lightroom-cc.html
>>>>
On the other hand, in Lightroom CC, your photos are stored in their full resolution centrally in the cloud, and synced with your computers and devices when you’re working on them. You can migrate your catalogs from Lightroom Classic CC to Lightroom CC.
When you do so, Lightroom CC brings in each of your photos included in the catalog and uploads it to the cloud in its full resolution for access across multiple devices and computers. Later, to save on disk space, you can even consider deleting those photos from the local storage on your device. >>>>
My guess is that you probably Migrated?
-
I have posted a question about the migration issue over on Adobe's boards.
No reply from there yet but meanwhile I am wondering if un-installing Lr CC totally, including its Prefs and your Lr CC catalogue, (but do save a copy in another place in case this doesn't work!) would un-couple the Migration?
Perhaps a visit to Time Machine would help?
-
I have not migrated the catalog in LR CC.
I was under the same impression that it would migrate the entire library to the cloud which is not something I'm interested in doing. I did update the catalog from the old LR to LR Classic which is required to do if I wanted to use LR Classic, as far as I can tell. But no migrations in LR CC.
It is the same behavior on both my PC (desktop) as well as my Mac (laptop).
All I've done in LR CC so far is create a few albums for testing purposes. I'll uninstall it from both machines and reinstall it to see if that changes anything.
That said when I look at the LR CC help pages there is no mention of smart previews either:
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/using/preferences.html
And I don't see any mention of Album Settings here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-cc/using/organize-photos.html
-
This was my question over at Adobe:
Meanwhile . . . if anyone knows how to UN-migrate from Lr CC, I have a colleague who is anxious for an answer.
I am wondering if un-installing Lr CC totally (including its Prefs and possibly his Lr CC catalogue) would un-couple the Migration?
-------
Rick Spaulding, Community Specialist
Hi Ann,
Yes, there is a way to delete your Lightroom Library. Before you do this be sure you have all your original images safely backed up because you will not be able to get them back.
That being said,
1. go to https://lightroom.adobe.com
2. Click on the Lightroom icon in the top left corner
3. Click on Account Info
4. Click the button in the middle of the screen that says "Delete Lightroom Library"
This will delete your images from all devices and the cloud.
I repeat, there is no going back so be sure you backed up your original images.
--------
(Emphasis is mine!!)
I hope that this helps.
-
I suppose the Library is LR CC terminology and the Catalog is LR Classic terminology.
Even though I hadn't migrated on LR CC I went ahead and deleted the Lightroom Library, uninstalled the programs & preferences and reinstalled everything.
It all behaves the same as before, still no option for uploading smart previews only and no Album Settings available in the standalone LR CC.
It is not a big deal as I will be using LR Classic for any syncing collections anyhow, but I do appreciate the help.
I will let you know if I discover anything.
-
Now you have me wondering how on earth I got my Lr CC to behave differently!
I will never know — unless I uninstall it and start all over again — at which point I will surely discover that I can no longer make CC work in a "Local and Smart Only" mode?!
What you might try is to make your Collections "public" (via Classic) and then access them from there into Lr CC — and then create a new Album in CC?
I think that was what I did but I can't remember now exactly how I did it.
-
A bit more experimentation and I discovered that:
If I originally created a Synced Collection in Lr Classic and then access it in Lr CC, I find that it's Sync Status is shown in Lr CC to be: Cloud = Smart Preview Only
BUT . . .
If I originally created a Synced Collection in Lr CC, I find that it's Sync Status is shown in Lr CC to be: Cloud = Original Backed-up
Digging around my HD, I then discovered:
ACR Cache = 366 MB
but . . .
Lightroom = 35.55 GB
Lightroom CC Saved Photos = 15.04 GB.
(These seem to be the local back-ups of the originals and trashing the contents of this folder doesn't appear to affect the operation of Lr CC)
Lightroom Library = 85.41 GB. (I believe this is only for Lr CC?)
Taking-up 100 GB on my laptop's 500 GB HD is not acceptable!
And this is all in addition to the space occupied by my original files on my networked HDs.
I am far better off if I use ACR instead of Lr (as I have always done) and mostly use Lr Classic for syncing to Cloud Smart Preview storage regardless of the convenience and speed of use of Lr CC.
I mostly prefer to make Galleries and host them on my own web site where I can either make them publicly available or limit access to them to only selected people.
I recently bought Juicebox Pro and use it as a separate stand-alone program (not in its Lr Plug-in mode) to build those Galleries. Bridge can no longer build Galleries; and I don't like the lack of options which are available for Gallery-creation in Lr Classic.
Once you build and Save a Custom Preset in Juicebox Pro, it takes very few minutes to populate and create each new Gallery and upload it to my Site.
------
Addendum:
I dragged the Lightroom Library item out of its folder which confirmed my guess that it was used only by Lr CC. Removing it, removed all content from Lr CC!! So I replaced it and that put all content back again.
So I have made a copy of Lightroom Library on another external USB drive so can always retrieve 85 GBs of space on my internal drive by trashing the working "Lightroom Library" (which is installed in "Pictures").
-
Yeah, I was starting to think your versions are different, not mine ;)
I asked why I only had access to Album Settings on the web version and Victoria answered "Some of the sharing settings are only currently available in the web interface", so seems to be normal operation.
A bit more experimentation and I discovered that:
If I originally created a Synced Collection in Lr Classic and then access it in Lr CC, I find that it's Sync Status is shown in Lr CC to be: Cloud = Smart Preview Only
BUT . . .
If I originally created a Synced Collection in Lr Classic and then access it in Lr CC, I find that it's Sync Status is shown in Lr CC to be: Cloud = Original Backed-up
Digging around my HD, I then discovered:
ACR Cache = 366 MB
but . . .
Lightroom = 35.55 GB
Lightroom CC Saved Photos = 15.04 GB.
(These seem to be the local back-ups of the originals and trashing the contents of this folder doesn't appear to affect the operation of Lr CC)
Lightroom Library = 85.41 GB. (I believe this is only for Lr CC?)
Taking-up 100 GB on my laptop's 500 GB HD is not acceptable!
And this is all in addition to the space occupied by my original files on my networked HDs.
Wait a second, you said the same thing twice!
But I think you meant Creating a collection in LR CC = The original gets backed up to the cloud. (?)
That is my experience.
Yeah I don't understand why LR CC makes a duplicate of the files, even when the originals are stored locally on the same machine. I did read somewhere that LR CC will delete these files if they have not been accessed in a while, maybe they expect that we will be deleting the files locally and only keeping them in the cloud so they hang on to some files for faster access(?) Maybe that is why we can change the amount of local storage space that LR CC will use(?) Either way it seems like an oversight and is a complete waste of hard drive space if the file is stored on the same hard drive twice. I asked, I'll let you know if anyone answers.
I don't see myself using LR CC except to cull images when I'm away from my desktop running Classic.
-
Wait a second, you said the same thing twice!
But I think you meant Creating a collection in LR CC = The original gets backed up to the cloud. (?)
Thank you for catching that! (It stems from being a lousy typist and using copy/paste far too often!).
I have now corrected the posting but my typing skill is a different matter.
I agree: I don't see myself using LR CC to create Albums very often either — unless I plan to leave that Album on the Cloud for only a short time.
Using Juicebox Pro to create Galleries and uploading them to my own web site seems to be a much better plan for me.
-
The first Update to the Lr Classic CC Upgrade has been posted.
(Bug-fixes apparently)
----
Added:
The update was also for correction to the way in which downloading works for the two different Upgrades:
Lr Cloud CC (Subscription) or the old stand alone Lr CS6.
-
I do not want to live forever and I do not want outdated hardware and software.
Life is a "Dynamic equilibrum" ... If you want to grab and fixate your luck it will break. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_equilibrium
Savour life while it is there, do not hold on things that pass. I pass you pass but we can have fun together before we die.
Think of software "from the tap" as "beer from the tap" ...you will pay per glass!
Next drink is on me!
1. The changeable nature of the world does not dictate that we must accept to be tied to Software-As-A-Service schemes, quite the contrary! Whether or not a piece of hardware or a software program is outdated, should be entirely up the the user to decide. Product Activation, Software-As-A-Service, planned obsolescence and artificially induced cessation of function are the results of the software companies' attempts at controlling us. An interesting point here is that the proprietary software makers who want to force us into Software-As-A-Service (SAAS) dependency also have lobbied politicians in order to ensure that we are forbidden to modify the proprietary software. In contrast, Open Source software can be legally modified and changed and tailored to any system at any time by you or me or anyone with the necessary skills to do so. That is to relate to change, and that is choice, in other words the direct opposite of SAAS schemes.
2. The world is indeed changeable and challenging all the time. We must relate to that. That is why we need robustness and resilience on all levels. That also implies that our daily tools and equipment must be free from any corporate control after the acquisition. That is why we need the empowerment we can get from personal computers that are user-controlled. That requirement means that the hardware must allow for the installation of software chosen by the user, and that the software programs including the operating systems must be copyable and capable of being installed at any time on compatible hardware and then capable of being run independent from the manufacturers for as long as the user wants.
3. An analogy between buying a glass of beer and paying for software or other non-consumables is mistaken and a classic fallacy. When you buy a beer and consume it, the beer is consumed and gone and consequently you need to pay more if you want more. This is not the case with computer software and all other things that are non-consumables. The drinking of a glass of beer consumes the beer. The use of a computer program does not consume or exhaust the software and its value.
-
I think you must have meant to post this in your other thread because it doesn't appear to have much bearing on the subject of this one?
-
FWIW, Adobe seems to extend the life of the standalone version a little...
https://www.dpreview.com/news/8524119909/adobe-will-release-the-last-update-to-lightroom-6-towards-the-end-of-the-year
-
One can always continue to use any of the Adobe software you have purchased forever — or until you are using a computer with a newer OS which no longer supports it.
(I still maintain a 2005 Mac Pro tower because there is one very old program which I love but which won't run on my newer machines.)
The CS6 Users have now received possibly the last update which they will get for CS6 (it includes support for D850 and, I believe, a few newer lenses too).
But that's it!
So those Users now have to decide whether they want to stick with CS6, buy a subscription to Creative Cloud, or buy something else entirely.
-
I discovered the answer to the question of where LR Classic stores original NEF images synced from the cloud (which had been uploaded into the cloud using LR CC).
At first everything looked fine as the files appeared along with adjustments made in the iPhone LR CC in the LR Classic catalog. However, I wanted to know where the originals had been downloaded to, and that was ... "unknown". Yesterday I discovered that there was in fact a subdirectory created by LR Classic to store the files and its name was "unknown". I thought "unknown" meant they were in an unknown location.. So all is well, you can get the originals with adjustments back from the cloud if you want to store them somewhere yourself. I expected this to be possible I was just concerned about the "unknown" location of storage. :) I think it would be better if the software asked where those files should be stored.
-
.....
The CS6 Users have now received possibly the last update which they will get for CS6 (it includes support for D850 and, I believe, a few newer lenses too).
But that's it!
So those Users now have to decide whether they want to stick with CS6, buy a subscription to Creative Cloud, or buy something else entirely.
According to Adobe there will be one last update at the end of the year.
Probably a few camera’s (A7RIII) and a few lensprofiles.
-
My downloads from the Lr CC Cloud are going into a folder called "Lightroom CC Saved Photos".
I first created that folder and then selected that destination in the Prefs.
-
Per Inge: You should really read Ben Falk if this is your hones opinion!
http://www.wholesystemsdesign.com/who-we-are
-
I just took the plunge. Updated to Lr Classic CC & Ps CC 2017, but I didn't touch Lr CC. Everything is faster on my new Mac Core i7. I tried Process v4 (current) on an old image and I think I like it better than Process v3 (2012), at least so far. Plugs-ins (NIK, Luminar, etc) all show as active, but the only one I tried was Ps. No problems to report, but before I get too excited, I'm still on Sierra. We'll see what happens with High Sierra when I see a .1 update and upgrade to it. 'Til then............
I did have a cloned backup on hand in the event things went badly with the update and the new catalogue.
-
I am so glad that the installation went smoothly.
Do make a point of going through the Prefs. — especially the settings in the Performance Tab.
And explore the new Settings in the Importing set-up: "Build Previews: Embedded and Sidecars"
Process 4 only really differs from Process 3 in that it has enabled Range Masking and is ready to support other new tools which may be developed in the future.
But Auto Toning has been adjusted from the previous version and you may want to build new Presets of your own as a starting point.
I would be in no hurry to "upgrade"(?) to High Sierra . . .
I am still resolutely using El Capitan.
-
I am so glad that the installation went smoothly.
Do make a point of going through the Prefs. — especially the settings in the Performance Tab.
And explore the new Settings in the Importing set-up: "Build Previews: Embedded and Sidecars"
Process 4 only really differs from Process 3 in that it has enabled Range Masking and is ready to support other new tools which may be developed in the future.
But Auto Toning has been adjusted from the previous version and you may want to build new Presets of your own as a starting point.
I would be in no hurry to "upgrade"(?) to High Sierra . . .
I am still resolutely using El Capitan.
If I was in a hurry I'd already have High Sierra, but I am interested in APFS which HS brings to the table. No APFS yet for those using spinners, it's all for SSDs so far, or so I've been told.
Everyone has their own reasons for which OS they prefer, but I like to stay current. That doesn't mean that I fall into the early adopter, or beta user class. El Cap is on the bottom end of sys prefs support for the new CC apps, so you'll be moving eventually. Perhaps as soon next Fall when HS's replacement drops support for 32 bit apps.
Thanks for the tip about the Lr Prefs, I've not yet looked into them.
I grabbed an old image, moved it into Develop, then went to the Process versions and switched back and forth using v4 and v3 which showed a definite difference in the image, which had been originally over exposed.
-
I only install anew version of OSX when my Apps require it and, so far, they don't.
I don't use any of Apple's own Apps but when Photoshop etc. require a newer OSX, I will probably only install the final version of Sierra.
It's always the compatibility between a new OSX and the Drivers for supplementary Hardware (Tablets, scanners, card readers and printers) which seem to cause the big issues and which always seem to take months before they eventually get fixed.
-
I only install anew version of OSX when my Apps require it and, so far, they don't.
I don't use any of Apple's own Apps but when Photoshop etc. require a newer OSX, I will probably only install the final version of Sierra.
It's always the compatibility between a new OSX and the Drivers for supplementary Hardware (Tablets, scanners, card readers and printers) which seem to cause the big issues and which always seem to take months before they eventually get fixed.
Well, Sierra is not in The App Store any longer, and it's not showing in my purchase history. The senior techs at AppleCare were taken by surprise by this move, and they offered to pay a local third party Apple vendor (Mac Media) to load Sierra back on one of my Macs after I wiped the drive in anticipation of getting rid of that Mac. They became involved for over 2 days when I bought 2 new Macs last month to replace 2 that I was getting rid of. They couldn't even get one of our 5 local Apple Stores to do it because "they don't like working on machines over 4 yrs old", according to the senior tech that i talked to. I'm not alone either, I know of other people that are missing Sierra from their App Store history. I've not seen any explanation of this behavior.
You might want to get the Sierra installer at your earliest opportunity, in case it becomes even harder to find than it is now. The second machine needed to have El Cap re-loaded, and that took a few hours to iron out with AppleCare, and they had to get an authorization even though it clearly shows in my App Store history. HTH
-
I haven't read all the 8 pages in this thread,
I have copied and pasted below, a recent entry from Brad Hill, about how to achieve a speedy route to see all preview files.
Hope it supplies a solution to some of the Cons that are being mentioned.
Most of those who use Adobe Lightroom for some part of their raw workflow probably know that Adobe updated the CC version(s) of Lightroom last week. In that process they split Lightroom into two versions - Lightroom Classic CC (for those in workflow with "locally" stored files) and Lightroom CC (for those working with images stored in "the cloud").
One of the things that has ALWAYS frustrated me with Lightroom is how darned long it takes to build previews (whether standard or 1:1, etc.). I typically had Lightroom build standard previews upon image import (to speed that process) but all that really did was delay the inevitable and slow down my image culling when I tried to view and/or compare images at 1:1 (as I waited for Lightroom to build 1:1 previews).
Anyway...for users of the new Lightroom Classic AND who shoot with the "latest" Nikon and Canon cameras you can cut this preview-building time to almost zero (really!). All you have to do is tell Lightroom to use "Embedded & Sidecar" previews when importing your files (you specify this in the File Handling portion of the Import dialog box). The embedded previews are those built by the camera itself and included within your raw files. Because the latest Nikons and Canons build FULL-SIZE embedded previews there is NEVER a need for Lightroom to take the time to build full-size (or 1:1) previews. So you can view previews of ANY of your images at 1:1 virtually instantly (i.e., right after import). And, when you do get around to culling your images and may want to view them at 100% (1:1) those previews are available instantly! Very fast. Very cool.
I have tested this feature with the Nikon D5, Nikon D500, and Nikon D850 and can confirm that each of those cameras DO have full-size embedded previews. At this point I can't say how many Nikon camera generations we can go back and still find that the previews that they produce are full-size. Sony, Olympus, and Fuji cameras don't produce full-sized embedded previews.
What if you want Lightroom-generated previews for editing (post-processing) purposes? Just go into Lightroom's Preferences dialog box and select the "General" tab and look for the checkbox beside this option: "Replace embedded previews with standard previews during idle time". And then check that box (it's unchecked by default). Because I process my raw files using Capture One Pro I have no need at all to replace those embedded previews with those generated by Lightroom (I use Lightroom only for image-ingestion and image management purposes including image culling, but not for image processing/editing).
Cheers...
-
Carl:
Fortunately, I already have the Sierra Installer saved on a HD: downloading the current installer is something I always make sure that I do before September rolls around each year.
It's very odd because Apple Store is currently showing "no new downloads available" and no screen promoting High Sierra either.
-
John:
Your comments were extremely helpful.
I primarily use a Bridge-hosted ACR workflow and will continue to use Lr Classic CC only for its Cloud-hosting and Mobile services — for which I have always made Smart Previews.
I haven't yet experimented to see if the Cloud can use an Embedded Sidecar from Lr Classic CC; or it it still needs to be fed a Smart Preview.
While Lr CC is fast and efficient, it does grab an awful lot of one's HD for its Library which is not so good for people who are high-volume shooters travelling with a laptop on extended trips!
-
New Lr versions available. Main feature is the Auto adjust button which works this time and is using Sensei, Adobe's Artificial Intelligence feature. The edit result doesn't corresponds entirely to my editing, but it offers a good and workable base for further editing.
Note: the old Auto was completely unworkable with e.g. systematic over-exposure.
-
Note: the old Auto was completely unworkable with e.g. systematic over-exposure.
Downloaded it yesterday, tried the new “auto” for fun, it still overexposed more than not on the images I tested it with.
-
Overexposure was OK with the 30 pictures I tested on; what I noticed, however, was the systematic contrast reduction (negative figure).
-
The sole reason for Auto is to provide a Starting Point for your editing — and no more than that!
Auto cannot know if the photographer deliberately "over" exposes (I do by +0.6 EV for most shots because I shoot only NEFs); or under-exposes.
Therefore, the first thing for the User to do is to move the Exposure Slider (actually a Brightness Slider to be technically correct) to give him his desired Brightness.
Then adjust any other sliders as you desire.
Sensei (Artificial Intelligence) is being built into the new algorithms and the idea is that Sensei uses AI to learn how an individual habitually adjusts his settings.
This science is still very much in its infancy and I shall be most interested in watching its progress.
-
New Lr versions available. Main feature is the Auto adjust button which works this time and is using Sensei, Adobe's Artificial Intelligence feature. The edit result doesn't corresponds entirely to my editing, but it offers a good and workable base for further editing.
Note: the old Auto was completely unworkable with e.g. systematic over-exposure.
Thanks for the "heads up", Christian. I don't have time to play with it right now but I did have time to do the update. Today we're heading out to our annual AMUG Christmas party.
-
Ann: I whish to be able to save a session edit after the fact like I can do in NX-D. As far as I know I can only use the macro recorder to define an action, and the recorder must be started before the fact. Sometimes I do not remember what exactly it was that I did. In short: I want to convert the"history" of the file into an "action" /macro to apply this in a batch.
I do not need sensei for that!
-
Frank:
I really can't help you with that because, although I do know how to use Lr, I don't actually use it but always use ACR instead.
[Lr actually infuriates me because it has non-reprogrammable KBSCs; inefficient bulk processing and Syncing; and a badly-designed and cluttered UI — but that's just me!!]
::)
Although I can save "Snapshots" of different versions of an edit in ACR, I seldom bother because simply hitting "Done", saves all Slider positions (and my other settings too) into the XMP (EXIF) so everything is as I left it when I next open my RAW nefs.
My normal practice is to leave all of my files as edited NEFs and only convert to PSDs when I have a need to output them for a specific purpose.
I never wish to revisit a step-by-step History from a previous ACR session.
Recording and saving Actions is something which I do only in Ps after I have Converted a nef to a psd.
I actually use very few Actions — mostly only for re-sizing; applying Output Sharpening; and Converting from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB for the Web.