Adobe & their RAW strategy...

The version of ACR that ships with PSE is a crippled version. It does not contain any of the advanced features that LR (or the full version of ACR that ships with Photoshop) contains.

Either buy an update for LR or use Adobe's free DNG converter and continue to process the files in your current version of Lightroom.

Dan Marchant said:

Dan Marchant wrote:

The version of ACR that ships with PSE is a crippled version. It does not contain any of the advanced features that LR (or the full version of ACR that ships with Photoshop) contains.

Either buy an update for LR or use Adobe's free DNG converter and continue to process the files in your current version of Lightroom.

Click to expand...

I would suggest "crippled" is a little strong. Yes the feature set is reduced. But, it depends on whether or not you would ever use those features. Also it needs to be kept in mind that with Elements you also have the Editor to make adjustments. It does not make total sense to duplicate the same features in both RAW and Editor, especially if you only use them infrequently.

Here is an article on the differences.

Although the feature set is different, it is actually the same plugin. It's the same way with camera raw 8 when running under Photoshop CS6. In that configuration camera raw will read all of the adjustments made in Lightroom. But the new features are not usable if you try to use camera raw from Photoshop. As I see it, the only time this would be a problem is if I open a raw file as a smart object with the intention of returning to camera raw from Photoshop. I have done that a few times, but really haven't found that I need it very often. I do all of my raw editing using Lightroom, and all of those adjustments are translated by camera raw when the image is sent to Photoshop. The same is true when the image is sent to Photoshop Elements.

How about using Photo Mechanic for file management? It is like Bridge on steroids. You can use it in conjunction with Lightroom or virtually any other program of your choosing. Once you get into Photo Mechanic, you won't miss Bridge. If you really want to divorce yourself from Adobe, seek a different raw convertor. My strong recommendation is Photo Ninja. Understand that you will still need a means to print, run slideshows, edit in layers etc, so I would hold onto Photoshop for as long as possible.

Rob

Robgo2 said:

Robgo2 wrote:

Understand that you will still need a means to print, run slideshows, edit in layers etc, so I would hold onto Photoshop for as long as possible.

Click to expand...

One would hope that some software company will pop into this opportunity to create a real competitor to PS. As it is the pickings are slim with only (perhaps) PaintShop Pro and PhotoLine. I am not aware of any other software that could conceivably replace it.

I don't understand why it is that so many people seem to be waiting around for Adobe to fail just because they don't like the new marketing strategy. Let's face it, people. The whole industry is changing whether we like it or not. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not switching to Photoshop CC or any of the Adobe CC programs. It isn't worth it to me. If I'm stuck with Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CS6, that's OK. I can do anything I need with what I have right now. But don't expect some other company to step up with a version 3 or 4 that will compete with Photoshop which has matured through 14 versions. They have changed their marketing strategy to maximize their profit margin. Many are criticizing them for doing that. But isn't that what any company must do? Times change. Software changes. And we must change too.

Jim Hess said:

Jim Hess wrote:

I don't understand why it is that so many people seem to be waiting around for Adobe to fail just because they don't like the new marketing strategy. Let's face it, people. The whole industry is changing whether we like it or not. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not switching to Photoshop CC or any of the Adobe CC programs. It isn't worth it to me. If I'm stuck with Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CS6, that's OK. I can do anything I need with what I have right now. But don't expect some other company to step up with a version 3 or 4 that will compete with Photoshop which has matured through 14 versions. They have changed their marketing strategy to maximize their profit margin. Many are criticizing them for doing that. But isn't that what any company must do? Times change. Software changes. And we must change too.

Click to expand...

Jim,

You are absolutely correct that we are not likely to see another program that can do all that Photoshop can do, but realistically, how many of us need or use all of Photoshop's functionality? A very small percentage on this forum, I should think. For the vast majority of us, layers and masking in addition to basic adjustment tools and printing would just about cover it. That and the ability to host any number of useful plugins. I don't think it should be all that difficult for clever software developers to meet those needs. More sophisticated PS users, OTOH, will most likely be bound to Adobe and their odious subscription plan for the foreseeable future. It may be good for Adobe's bottom line (or maybe not), but that does not mean that we have to like it.

Rob

Jim Hess said:

Jim Hess wrote:

I don't understand why it is that so many people seem to be waiting around for Adobe to fail just because they don't like the new marketing strategy. Let's face it, people. The whole industry is changing whether we like it or not.

Click to expand...

This just is not true. Yes, there is a powerful hype machine trying to make us believe in that. But the reality is that changes are not all in this direction: Linux and Open-Source movement have a huge impact (now used by Stock Exchanges, NASA, and almost all big companies). And after Snowden NSA leaks many businesses reconsider their usage of cloud computing:

Jim Hess said:

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not switching to Photoshop CC or any of the Adobe CC programs. It isn't worth it to me. If I'm stuck with Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CS6, that's OK. I can do anything I need with what I have right now. But don't expect some other company to step up with a version 3 or 4 that will compete with Photoshop which has matured through 14 versions.

Click to expand...

Yes, it will take some time - but I think that many photographers (e.g. landscape, architecture etc.) do not need all features of PhotoShop (true, designers need them). So producing an alternative good enough for _photographers_ is not that difficult.

Jim Hess said:

They have changed their marketing strategy to maximize their profit margin. Many are criticizing them for doing that. But isn't that what any company must do?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is true for public companies - they are responsible to their shareholders. Ideally, they would like to be able to get money for nothing. This is why consumers should be vocal - to protect their rights.

Jim Hess said:

Times change. Software changes. And we must change too.

Click to expand...

Yes, we should change - but by that I rather mean that we should be more vocal and spend more effort on protecting our rights.

I am not angry with Adobe's decision - like you said, it is their right to sell their software in any way they like. If they feel that they can raise the subscription price 400% in a year - fine, it is their right again. But at the same time it is our right not to be enthusiastic about CC and reject it, switching to other solutions.

Just like you, I plan to stay with CS6 and LR5 (hopefully, they will continue upgrading non-CC LR) for long time. I hope that Adobe is reasonable and if they see that there is big enough market for those who reject CC, they will release something like a somewhat stripped-down version of PhotoShop - something in between CC and PE.

Rob,

The rhetoric of this thread and similar others in this and other forums is getting old and monotonous. You say that it should be easy for a company to do that. But no company has done it yet, apparently. Photoshop is still king of the hill, like it or not. It isn't their fault that you don't use every feature. Adobe has released Photoshop Elements which may be, from their point of view, a program designed to do exactly what you are looking for. But, apparently it doesn't meet the needs of some. So your challenge to the software company is something like this: take Photoshop and throw out this list of features that "I" don't want and "I" will be happy. What happens if you don't include a feature that someone else absolutely needs? Another company? Another version? There are all kinds of alternatives out there now trying to do exactly what you are asking for. What is wrong with them? The fallacy in your thinking seems to me to be that you are expecting a company to create a tailor made program for you, disregarding anybody else's needs. And I don't believe that will ever happen. If you don't like Photoshop then choose something else. If it doesn't work just the way you want it to then start looking for plugins and other little add-on programs to do the rest of the work and make do. Or, be the person who creates the "perfect" photo editor, and make your own fortune.

And, if the process of creating that perfect program is so "easy" as you say, why is it that Adobe has to issue a release candidate to see if they are getting closer to fixing the problems that different users of having? You see, I don't have any of the performance issues that we read about. Lightroom runs perfectly on my computer. But for you or anyone else to create that perfect program, you have to design something that will run perfectly on every possible computer configuration that is out there, or design something that the whole configuration issue is completely transparent. Good luck!

Jim Hess said:

Jim Hess wrote:

Rob,

The rhetoric of this thread and similar others in this and other forums is getting old and monotonous. You say that it should be easy for a company to do that. But no company has done it yet, apparently. Photoshop is still king of the hill, like it or not.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it is extremely easy to get a pirated copy of it. I'd really like CC-version to be pirate-proof - then other companies would have more interest to compete. But Photoshop-CC protection has been broken in several hours after its release.

Making PhotoShop CC-only may be a lucky break for competitors, now they have a big enough potential market - honest people not willing to use a rented software.

Alex

There you go, Adobe haters. Go get your pirated copy of Photoshop CC. Then you can start complaining about Adobe again when they tighten up the security. How dare they interfere with your using their software for free. Rock on!

Jim Hess said:

Jim Hess wrote:

There you go, Adobe haters. Go get your pirated copy of Photoshop CC. Then you can start complaining about Adobe again when they tighten up the security. How dare they interfere with your using their software for free. Rock on!

Click to expand...

Please note that that I own CS6 and LR5 legally and never said that pirating software is moral. I just said that having piracy is in reality beneficial to Adobe (and MS, and many other companies) as it makes their products de-facto 'standard'.

I would _love_ Adobe to tighten up the security - this would be beneficial to their competitors.

And I am not an Adobe hater at all, just want to say that I don't like 'rental' model and have a right to say so. For some strange reason you honestly believe that anybody not liking it and stating obvious facts 'hates' Adobe and promotes piracy. Quite opposite - the pirates do not care about whether it is CC or not, it is honest people that care.

Alex

Jim Hess said:

Jim Hess wrote:

And, if the process of creating that perfect program is so "easy" as you say, why is it that Adobe has to issue a release candidate to see if they are getting closer to fixing the problems that different users of having? You see, I don't have any of the performance issues that we read about. Lightroom runs perfectly on my computer. But for you or anyone else to create that perfect program, you have to design something that will run perfectly on every possible computer configuration that is out there, or design something that the whole configuration issue is completely transparent. Good luck!

Click to expand...

Well, I never said it would be "easy". All I said was that I would like some company to step into the marketing opportunity that CC is offering to them. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing wrong with that statement. While I don't think that it would be easy it might not be too hard for a company like Corel to add 16 bit functionality to PaintShop Pro along with several other pieces of functionality.

I have never said on this forum or elsewhere that I think that Adobe is a bad company or that I think PS is a bad program. Quite the contrary. I think that the software is quite good and more than fills my needs. I upgraded to CS6 but do not wish to commit myself to continual monthly payments since I have no idea how high those might be. For the moment PS CS6 more than fills my needs.

As far as an alternative, if Corel marketed a reasonable alternative to PS, which for me would include real compatibility with PS psd files, 16 bit processing for raw images, free transform functionality and the ability to interface with many PS compatible plugins, I would think it would be a good alternative.

I personally think that Adobe's marketing strategy is quite clever of them and I expect them to make a bunch of money renting software to both corporations and new users. The fact that those of us who already have the product get the fuzzy end of the lolly pop is just how things go when companies change their marketing strategy. Such are the breaks and I am not whining about it. Only suggesting that some company might find the ability to step into the opportunity.

Jim Hess said:

Jim Hess wrote:

And, if the process of creating that perfect program is so "easy" as you say, why is it that Adobe has to issue a release candidate to see if they are getting closer to fixing the problems that different users of having? You see, I don't have any of the performance issues that we read about. Lightroom runs perfectly on my computer. But for you or anyone else to create that perfect program, you have to design something that will run perfectly on every possible computer configuration that is out there, or design something that the whole configuration issue is completely transparent. Good luck!

Click to expand...

Jim,

One of the biggest problems that Adobe has regarding Photoshop is its massive size. To call it a "behemoth" is a wild understatement. That is why it is such a huge chore for them to modify it in even the slightest way. New programs do not carry all the coding baggage that PS has accumulated over the years. Developers can start with a clean slate and work towards their goals in a much more direct fashion. I would imagine that Lightroom is starting to add a bit of paunch as well. Every new feature adds complexity, but I'm glad that it still works for you and many others.

Rob

Jim Hess said:

Jim Hess wrote:

Rob,

The rhetoric of this thread and similar others in this and other forums is getting old and monotonous. You say that it should be easy for a company to do that. But no company has done it yet, apparently. Photoshop is still king of the hill, like it or not. It isn't their fault that you don't use every feature. Adobe has released Photoshop Elements which may be, from their point of view, a program designed to do exactly what you are looking for. But, apparently it doesn't meet the needs of some. So your challenge to the software company is something like this: take Photoshop and throw out this list of features that "I" don't want and "I" will be happy. What happens if you don't include a feature that someone else absolutely needs? Another company? Another version? There are all kinds of alternatives out there now trying to do exactly what you are asking for. What is wrong with them? The fallacy in your thinking seems to me to be that you are expecting a company to create a tailor made program for you, disregarding anybody else's needs. And I don't believe that will ever happen. If you don't like Photoshop then choose something else. If it doesn't work just the way you want it to then start looking for plugins and other little add-on programs to do the rest of the work and make do. Or, be the person who creates the "perfect" photo editor, and make your own fortune.

Click to expand...

Jim,

Now where did I say that I don't like Photoshop or that I expect some other company to design a program expressly for me? What I did say is that the CC subscription model is odious, which is especially true for non-professional users. Why should we not resent being compelled to pay rent for a very mature program that is unlikely to see major improvements in the coming years? This model may or may not turn out to be good for Adobe, but it definitely is not good for us.

And although I do not expect a new editing program custom made for me, I do expect several programs that will meet almost all of the needs of the broad community of photographers. If Lightroom can replace PS for most purposes, then so can other programs, but perhaps using different technology. Those photographers who need more can always use Photoshop, that is if they can afford it.

Rob

All I can say is if it was that easy to create what you are looking for it would already have been done. And, as I have said previously, there is Photoshop Elements, Paint Shop Pro, just to mention a couple that I'm sure were designed to do just what you are asking for. Do they not fill the bill? And if not, what is missing? The alternatives are there. Go get one and use it.

Ron AKA said:

Ron AKA wrote:

Ron AKA said:

Dan Marchant wrote:

The version of ACR that ships with PSE is a crippled version. It does not contain any of the advanced features that LR (or the full version of ACR that ships with Photoshop) contains.

Either buy an update for LR or use Adobe's free DNG converter and continue to process the files in your current version of Lightroom.

Click to expand...

I would suggest "crippled" is a little strong. Yes the feature set is reduced. But, it depends on whether or not you would ever use those features.

Click to expand...

The OP is currently using Lightroom so I think it is safe to assume that they would indeed make use of those features which are included in LR but not PSE's ACR.

For the record PSE includes only the Basic panel, Detail panel and a cut down version of the Camera calibration panel. It is missing Spot removal, Graduated filter, the Adjustment brush, the entire Tone Curve panel, HSL/Colour/B&W panel, Split Toning, Lens Correction and the Effect panel.

Don't get me wrong. PSE is a useful pixel editor. I use it occasionally when I need to do something that LR can't do (layers, panoramas, composites etc) but it simply isn't a viable alternative to LR for developing RAW files. The whole purpose of shooting RAW is to get the best from your RAW files and you won't be able to do that with PSE's crippled feature set.

--
Dan
-
f/2.8 is a smaller number than f/22 in the same way that 100 is a smaller number than 20.
I am learning photo graphee - see the results at www.danmarchant.com

Jim Hess said:

Jim Hess wrote:

All I can say is if it was that easy to create what you are looking for it would already have been done. And, as I have said previously, there is Photoshop Elements, Paint Shop Pro, just to mention a couple that I'm sure were designed to do just what you are asking for. Do they not fill the bill? And if not, what is missing? The alternatives are there. Go get one and use it.

Click to expand...

For starters, Elements is not 16 bit and Paint Shop Pro is not for Mac. I do expect Corel (and probably others) to seize the opportunity provided them by Adobe's new subscription policy. And thinking about it realistically, Adobe probably considers PS as a product for design professionals and graphic artists, and they want to herd photographers into Lightroom. I happen to like PS and dislike LR, but I am in the minority. I plan to continue using CS6 for as long as possible and then survey the field for alternatives.

Rob

I rest my case. You ask for alternatives to Photoshop that just have the things that photographers need. I mention a couple of them, and you and I both know that there are others. Your immediate responses, "yes but this, and yes but that" these programs won't do the things that I need to have done. I doubt there will ever be a program that will be exactly and only what you need. You can have all the fun you want waiting for that perfect program to come along. There hasn't been one yet, and I suspect it will be a long, long time before there ever is one. You say it should be a simple task for a company to do a program for photographers. Several have, but none of them do just exactly what you need done. So it isn't just a program for photographers that you want, it's a program that has precisely the features that YOU need. Good luck. I won't bother to irritate you anymore.