davidedric
Veteran Member
i'm afraid that you just dont know enough about Lightroom and its licensing to comment usefully.
Dave
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Adobe is determined to lose enthusiasts
- Thread starter Artifact
- Start date
Dave
So now I cannot even ask?
Ok.davidedric
Veteran Member
This statement is just plain wrong. Over and out.
emem
Senior Member
Very cute - but how about a discussion rather than just a put-down? I know little about Lightroom, beyond the fact it's awkward and clunky to use (compared to more recent and more intuitive software), so I, for one, would like to know how and why it's wrong.
robgendreau
Forum Pro
Sigh. Not wanting to add to the sarcasm, but before throwing shade on Lr, or any parametric image editor and DAM, one should know how they work.
So, in a nutshell, here goes.
First, take the metadata the ratings, tags (more properly keywords) and similar stuff like titles, instructions, locations info, copyright, model name, and so on. Most of that is standardized IPTC metadata that has been around AFAIK since before Lr. And it's completely interchangeable across computer platforms. Lr (and other DAMs) can store it in its database, or in the image file or its sidecar. Or both. Pretty much everything reads it, even Spotlight on the Mac. So you could lose Lr, drop dead, and your successors could fire up your computer, grab an image, and note that you'd titled it "gravestone suggestion" or something.
Some things aren't standardized in metadata. Like maker notes in exif. That sometimes includes ratings. Labels. Not all DAMs can do hierarchical keywords, but several have adopted Adobe's method (Graphic Converter, Mylio I think, Photo Mechanic, maybe Digikam, Xnview MP, iMatch I think, and probably others. Pick flags are often proprietary.
And while most all DAMs have albums, collections, or whatever they choose to call virtual folders, these are not interchangeable. But note that usually every aspect of a folder, album or collection hierarchy can be duplicated with either hierarchical keywords, or even flat keywords (tougher, since it requres a lot of AND-OR-NOT foo for searching).
Other unique to the program stuff includes editing history (maybe using layers in Ps is a better choice), virtual copes (maybe a real copy is necessary), and really unique stuff like publishing history in Lr, or say sessions in Capture One, and so on. But this stuff generally isn't as much a problem as the basic structure you've set up, and again, an awful lot of that can be essentially written into the files (a more robust solution anyway).
That then leaves the parameters themselves, the zeroes and ones of adjustments to the image content itself. Some of these can carry to other non Adobe programs from Lr, to say Mylio and Digikam. But it's rarer. And really uncommon for other PIE programs. So it's a problem for all of them. One can choose to export a "print" of the adjusted image, like a TIFF. Or even a JPEG; some of us have found that re-doing the raw processing and adjustments in newer software often is about as fast using a JPEG as a visual template. Sometimes it produces better results. But it can be a pain, as when say a wedding client requests prints from hundreds of already approved images.
TL;DR: Any time you switch from a program to another one there will probably be pain. It can be minimized at least for organization and finding things, but to preserve a look of the content itself one needs to generate lots of TIFFs or other output.
emem
Senior Member
So as I understand what you've written, most editing software is fairly "proprietary" in its approach to editing and saving of changes. The difficulty of saving editing changes and using them across products is more or less universal. But that would refer mostly to a RAW workflow? Until now I have stayed with JPG images, always keeping my originals and saving the edited version in a sub-folder. If I continued to do that, changing software would cause little pain or discomfort - yes?
The pain or discomfort, though, would be felt in having to re-assemble a database and catalogue from scratch. Is that a fair summary of your explanation?
EDIT:- PS, I've just checked the ACDSee site and ACDSee can now import a Lightroom database. Brilliant for those who would like to make the switch but are afraid of losing their collection already sitting in Lightroom.
--
Mike McEnaney.
The pain or discomfort, though, would be felt in having to re-assemble a database and catalogue from scratch. Is that a fair summary of your explanation?
EDIT:- PS, I've just checked the ACDSee site and ACDSee can now import a Lightroom database. Brilliant for those who would like to make the switch but are afraid of losing their collection already sitting in Lightroom.
--
Mike McEnaney.
Last edited:
Gerry Winterbourne
Forum Pro
Yes.
No. Regardless of the original file format editing changes its parameters: in raw those parameters are stored in a sidecar file so you can always ignore them and go back to the original if you want to; in JPG they are altered in the file itself so once saved you can't go back.
That's true but it's also true if you shoot raw. As long as you save the results of your editing they are yours forever whatever happens to the software.
BigBen08
Veteran Member
davidedric
Veteran Member
EDIT:- PS, I've just checked the ACDSee site and ACDSee can now import a Lightroom database. Brilliant for those who would like to make the switch but are afraid of losing their collection already sitting in Lightroom.
I have also checked. It can only import the standard meta data, as previously described. It cannot import your Lightroom edits
Although the Lightroom Catalogue (best to use it's real name) can be read easily, how Lightroom interprets it is proprietary and cannot. Further, because it is undocumented and proprietary, Adobe is free to change it any time it wants, and normally does so at major releases.
I have also checked. It can only import the standard meta data, as previously described. It cannot import your Lightroom edits
Although the Lightroom Catalogue (best to use it's real name) can be read easily, how Lightroom interprets it is proprietary and cannot. Further, because it is undocumented and proprietary, Adobe is free to change it any time it wants, and normally does so at major releases.
Jonsi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,331
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 9,199
That's his way of saying he doesn't know either.So now I cannot even ask?
Jonsi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,331
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 9,199
You're correct in that your ratings, edits, tags, etc are locked into the LR software. We see threads all the time from people wanting out of Adobe's rental and are hoping to take their work with them. But that stuff doesn't translate well into other programs because Adobe has made sure of it by keeping it proprietary. Though some editing suites like On1 Photo Raw have tools to integrate as much as possible from the Lr catalogs into their product. And it does a lot more, but that's a different thread. It's best not to get locked into anyone's proprietary library system in the first place. Most other programs offer their own version or let you use the operating system's folder structure.
As for "taken away" they will argue that's not the case at all. All your edits, tags, etc. are still there.... as if that's of any use besides printing.
Because people would cancel, sign-up, cancel, sign-up, cancel, sign-up.... saving money by only signing up when the upgrades are worth it then canceling again.
The desire for Adobe is revenue without the worry of providing upgrades worth purchasing. Revenue via yearly commitment is what they're counting on. Like someone else stated, it allows them to just sit back and relax. No need to innovate or be worried about income.
Other software provides new features that entice people to upgrade versions. With Lightroom most of the discussed updates ("all the updates are free!") are new camera profiles... for cameras most people don't own.
The other companies aren't just sitting back, comfortable, knowing they have subscribers whether they put the effort in or not... they are 3, 4, 7 year old companies providing product that competes and/or replaces the offerings from 36 year old Adobe.
Yikes.
Yes, for many of the reasons quoted above I also chose ACDSee - I think that it was hte cheapest version, as I only wanted the DAM facilities and was delighted to see how well it works with external editors.
Well worth the money, IMHO...
hemp0matic
Well-known member
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 96
Kind of funny actually, I never put it in that perspective. An EXCELLENT point and one I will consider. In my case, I'm on a fixed income and $10.00 a month isn't an outrageous sum by any means, but, it becomes a "death by 1000 cuts" scenario. Everyone wants a little piece of my tiny pie and it does add up.
There is another upside to the monthly fee. I paid for the full blown Capture One 10 that I was NEVER able to master, so unlike a subscription that I can discontinue, I paid for a program that I'm unable to use, AND just to ice the cake, the program was upgraded THE FOLLOWING DAY with no upgrade path rather than simply purchasing the new version. After a couple of months, if I don't like Lightroom, I just stop paying for it.
These days I use Mac Photos and the Photoscape X plug in. The price is right ($0.00) and and this point I don't need anything beyond what that combination delivers.
Jonsi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,331
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 9,199
You made that assumption without contacting them.
You would have received the upgrade.
No you don't. You're committed. Annually.
emem
Senior Member
……………….
I suggest you try Rawtherapee - it's a free (RAW or JPG) editor and quite comprehensive. Useful for more than basic tweaking. And the price is also "right" - ($0.00)
hemp0matic
Well-known member
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 96
Why would you make THAT assumption? Of COURSE I contacted them.
Jonsi
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,331
- Solutions
- 6
- Reaction score
- 9,199
I made that assumption because that's what they do.
You're saying you bought Capture One, then the very next day they released a new version, you contacted them and they said no....?
Just hard to accept knowing their reputation, and that others here have received the new version up to a month after they bought the previous.
emem
Senior Member
While you are correct in saying it doesn't import Lightroom edits, I'm not sure what you define as "standard" metadata (to me it implies the EXIF info attached to the original camera image). ACDsee actually imports Lightroom's Keywords, Ratings, Labels and Collections. A very useful thing for anyone wishing to escape from Lightroom.
When I used Lightroom some years ago, I found that my virus/malware scanner was taking forever to complete a scan. I eventually tracked the reason down to the Lightroom catalogue structure - hundreds of folders that had to be individually scanned. Why such an inefficient catalogue device was developed and continued by Adobe, I'll never know. And having to "import" images into the catalogue before you can work on them - what a stupid system. Why is it even like that? Totally unnecessary, as ACDsee has proven.
hemp0matic
Well-known member
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 96
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. They would not give me an upgrade. It may have been 2 or 3 days later for the sake of accuracy, but regardless, I paid for the Pro version and they would not GIVE me an upgrade from 10 to 11. I could purchase an upgrade.
davidedric
Veteran Member
Yes, I know because I read the same page as you. I agree it's useful, but for me it would be quite low down on what I would want for a good migration. YMMV of course.
That's because you don't have an IT background, I suspect. It's because it's a relational data base, which is the basis of most major commercial data handling systems. I won't bother with the history of why and how relational theory was developed, but contrary to what you think it's very efficient. It's why there is no perceptible drop in performance however big the Catalogue becomes.
It's a trade off I'm happy to accept, and I suspect something similar would be needed by most DAMs. I really can't see why folks make such a fuss about it.
Dave
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum