Creative Cloud 2018 out!!!

[Ann]

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.

     

[Mike G]

Well said Ann, you have answered my rant very eloquently.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[MFloyd]

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):


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 Nissilä]

@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.

[Les Olson]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Les Olson]

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.

[charlie]

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. 

[MFloyd]

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.

[CS]

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

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Ann]

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.

[Ann]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.