roblarosa: I love these people that buy $3000 full frame cameras and $1500+ lenses and then complain about an $80 upgrade that is purely optional.
LR 4 still works! New cameras that will come along and won't be supported by LR4 can always be processed through the FREE DNG converter. Get a grip, people!
Each camera actually has a unique raw structure that needs a lot of work to fit into the ACR engine (and a different set of work per process version). If camera vendors decided to embrace the (open source) DNG format it would be much, much easier. Adobe actually do a champion effort of making all these (propitiatory I might add) formats work in a single app.
JavaJones: I'm really struggling to understand the justification for a book module given the response to the face recognition issue: "'Face recognition is very important to some', he says, 'but irrelevant to others.'" So, kind of like a book module then?
I'd be shocked if making expensive photo books is more popular and of greater interest than face recognition, which can be useful to *anyone* who takes photos of people Anyone who says they have no use for it is likely to change their mind if they get a chance to work with a *well-implemented* system.
If Adobe is thinking about professionals and their cell phone pics with the geotagging module, clearly they're not so concerned with targeting a minority of the market. How many people are really editing their *cell phone* pics in LR?
My guess is they made a deal with Blurb, let's say 15% of all revenue from books made in LR4. Blurb gets promotion, Adobe gets extra cash. We get a module useful only to a minority of people. Win!
But surely if Adobe is making money from the books, then people must be creating and buying them, therefore there must be a big need?
If the Module is "useful only to a minority of people" then they won't be making much money will they?
It is in their interests to make LR as compelling to as many people as they can and you can be sure they have a much better idea of what people have been asking for than you or I.