Raist3d

Lives in United States Canyon Country, CA, United States
Works as a Photographer & Game Developer (Programmer)
Has a website at http://raist3d.typepad.com
Joined on Dec 9, 2001
About me:

To continue loving video games, their programming while doing & improving my
professional photography, punish the guilty, reward the good, educate kids and fight for
all that is good. :-)

Comments

Total: 1808, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Raist3d: And why would anyone believe this when this was said before about Lightroom Stand alone?

Interesting point.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 19:40 UTC

And why would anyone believe this when this was said before about Lightroom Stand alone?

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 19:28 UTC as 53rd comment | 5 replies
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vik2012: Happy for you Rishi that you like the Adobe business model. But shouldn't that header have a "My" in the title? Because it is a little arrogant to suggest that your own preference for continuous fee paying is "the future" for your site visitors.

Perhaps a more customer-centric future will prevail, where Adobe do not get to charge most of us for a product and then pull our access to it when we stop paying them their indefinite charges. Bring on the ever-improving competition.

As the staff of DPR seem to be supporting Adobe's abandonment of the personal software user in favour of corporate subscribers, can we expect DPR to rebrand as an site aimed at corporations instead of the ordinary person with an interest in photography?

There's a certain "attitude" here more than simply saying "here's what I think, and here's where I think Adobe want go" vs "here's the future, and Adobe is just getting there for you, they know better."

If this doesn't make sense, trying reading your own article changing names of companies, perhaps modify a feature here or there, or give it to someone for reading you trust that hasn't seen it.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 05:40 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

Vik2012: Happy for you Rishi that you like the Adobe business model. But shouldn't that header have a "My" in the title? Because it is a little arrogant to suggest that your own preference for continuous fee paying is "the future" for your site visitors.

Perhaps a more customer-centric future will prevail, where Adobe do not get to charge most of us for a product and then pull our access to it when we stop paying them their indefinite charges. Bring on the ever-improving competition.

As the staff of DPR seem to be supporting Adobe's abandonment of the personal software user in favour of corporate subscribers, can we expect DPR to rebrand as an site aimed at corporations instead of the ordinary person with an interest in photography?

@Rishi- yes, there's definitively an attitude in this piece and in several of your responses. Basically you have said that people who do not see things as you do may be yielding to internet hysteria. I saw you have an argument about the future with someone that clearly told you how their workflow would not work under this right now- and even if you think that in a future that will be solved (and it probably will), it still doesn't make for a winning proposition for their business *today*.

Parts of your article are written as if you do not embrace the future- you must be a ludite and some of the so called points in solution are given almost as if it was Adobe's intent on you to do the work arounds you suggest with doesn't make any sense- borders a bit on insulting the intelligence of the reader.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 05:39 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

Manzur Fahim: OK.

So I wake up in the morning, I need to edit 10-20 photos and deliver them as soon as possible. Guess what? My ISP is having issues and there won't be internet for some time.

Local LR software - I can edit them all, and if internet is not back by then, take them to a cafe or a friends house or even at work and then send them to the client.

LR CC - Go to another place and start editing the photos for which is going to take a good amount of time, and maybe in the process I'll see not all photos were uploaded so can't really complete my work.

Good thinking, Adobe. The bigger you become, the dumber you become, the greedier you become.

@Rishi - A better question is how come LR CC doesn't have an option to simply always do things locally and never upload to the cloud. Why is Adobe *forcing you* to sync to the cloud whether you like that or not.

As for LightRoom Classic CC - again, that already has an expiration date :-)

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 05:32 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

richard cohen: I don't mind the subscription model if it is reasonably priced, and at $10/month (for now) I believe this is. The cloud storage 1tb limit is pretty small these days however, as I found out when I tried to load my photos onto the cloud...I have 1.1 tb, so I either have to pay up, or get my stored photos down...I'm taking the latter approach, but that is not a long term solution. The 'new' lr seems a bit like an advanced beta to me, with pretty limited functionality so far, but they will catch up. What I really don't like is how adobe basically just dumped this on all its users without much in the way of explanation. They should have put out a detailed video on the what/why concurrent with launch...

Again, classic is just going to go away. Why are you forced to upload to cloud anyway to use the product. What exactly could Adobe do now or later with my images? Terms of service can and do change over time.

Why even put yourself in a position of vulnerability where this could happen?

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 05:31 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

interstate22: So this is all because of cell phones? Yes your crazy

@Rishi- I am not sure how this is true of people using Apple Photos (talking about the more casual level). LightRoom or even raw editing doesn't strike me as what they would like to do or be involved with. And Photos has a lot of search tools too + no subcription fee.

Why in that case those people pay Adobe?

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 05:28 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: Why the heck do I "need" to convert to DNG to begin with???
For me, DNG stand for "Do Not Go there"! Or I "Do Not Give'a ..."

Very much every editor on the market, including the FREE ones, can handles RAW files without any problems.
There are countless alternatives at a fraction of Adobe's prices, or even FREE.

Invest in YOUR "Future", not in Adobe's.

@Rishi- I think you misunderstood what I tried to say (but then I probably wasn't as clear). What I meant is that picking the example of not using an option to not compress in a camera when the option is very straightforward (say Fuji lossless compressed vs uncompressed), doesn't strike me as a very valid compelling example for a benefit of what allegedly DNG does for you.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 05:25 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

springsnow: There are plenty of alternatives for Photoshop out there, but can somebody suggest an alternative to Lightroom?
:(

.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 05:16 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

azinheira: This is were they get you, Add your photos to the server and you will have to be paying forever to access all your photos .

Watt about if you stop paying?
Watt about if they close??
Were your photos will be??

Not for me sorry Adobe, I will have my storage drives to have my photos safe. And there's Other options on the market.

And what you will be forced for pragmatic purposes to keep paying, etc.

I mean Rishi- you suggested that one way to avoid the LightRoom CC to sync to the cloud was to block the access with your router(!). I really want you to think about that for a moment ;-)

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 05:14 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

azinheira: This is were they get you, Add your photos to the server and you will have to be paying forever to access all your photos .

Watt about if you stop paying?
Watt about if they close??
Were your photos will be??

Not for me sorry Adobe, I will have my storage drives to have my photos safe. And there's Other options on the market.

It's not about Adobe "being evil" - that's not really the issue though some may see it just that way. It's simply what they are offering, and the control you let them have with what they are doing of your photos. Plus whatever change of terms could change down the line.

You may be very comfortable trusting them- and that's your choice and fine, but please don't tell other people that simply differ in giving up certain control and having to pay certain amount of cash on a subscription basis the "oh you guys don't know any better" kinda attitude, particularly when some of those have needs and works on photographic domains you don't.

Clearly in all these discussions I have seen professionals telling you *how* that won't work (so not quite true you haven't had at least one very good example of workflows broken). And again, it's more than that- is about how you setup your photos and what kind of control you will have over them.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 05:11 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

cna: Rishi, I do not share your views.

For Adobe, the Cloud represents a good very opportunity to increase their revenues; after the introduction of subscription only applications, there is now on the horizon a fee to access your photos; the more photos you have, the more you pay, month after month; what a wonderful business model.

I could live with a subscription based application (I already have a CC subscription); I will never pay to store and access my photos.

And you say that there is no plan to stop Lightroom CC “classic” : remember when Adobe made the commitment, 3 years ago, to keep Lightroom as a standalone application with a perpetual license ?
Lightroom CC classic will be gone in 3-4 years (the planned obsolescence is already in the name of the product)

I’m currently evaluating Capture 1; so far so good; I will most certainly stop my CC subscription, and will keep my “old” LR6 for my exiting LR catalogs; the sooner the better.

@Rishi - Stop pushing LR Classic CC. This will go away. It's already the less available option on the website - just like the now killed stand alone LR we are talking about today.

Then you say "Some of you appear to believe that you must only store on the cloud with LR CC.

That is incorrect. You have an option to store all originals locally."

Well yes, but *you are forced* to upload to the cloud. What if you just *don't want to*. Why charge for that if you don't want that. Why have your (C) work on their system whether you like it or not. And what about the leverage this gives Adobe later for terms of service changes, pricing, using your photos, etc. Stuff that may not happen, but just like driving around with a car with no insurance, sure, an accident may not happen but....

And are you kidding me? Use an internet blocker as the feature-enabler to not upload to the cloud? Does this strikes you as an ideal user facing customer solution? What the heck man.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 08:40 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

turretless: "In other words, Adobe is trying to find a way to be Google or Apple Photos for the both the masses, and the enthusiasts/pros."
I'm sure everybody with Google Photos account will drop it immediately to switch to LR CC and give Adobe $10/month (for now). Who needs free if you can pay instead!

Except you can actually use Photos without having to upload to the cloud, work locally and no subscription. So looks like Apple charges for cloud storage- if you want that, but you are not forced to pay a subscription just to use Photos.

Of course, Adobe had a similar arrangement with LR Stand alone but they decided to kill that option, as we have just discovered. Eventually they will kill LR Classic CC too.

Finally, looks like Apple charges close to $10 a month for 2TB, not 1TB- so the price you quoted is not the same (though looks like it was 1TB until just recently).

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 08:31 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

BobWloo: Has anyone actually downloaded this release? The classic version is much faster and improves the user experience dramatically. Still playing with Lightroom CC....

Rishi- perhaps because whether LR is faster or not is not the issue of the sky falling under discussion :-)

Yes, you can have some better features mixed in with some cons, and the later could be a deal breaker even in spite of the better things for some people.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 08:29 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

freewill2008: Adobe seems to have forgotten that photographers like to travel. The cloud is a non-starter unless one is tethered to a high speed connection. I spend about half my time traveling in locations with barely enough bandwidth to share a text message. What am I going to do with a 16G memory card? Even if wireless had adequate bandwidth, its $10 a gig unless one has unlimited data.

@Rishi, OP - another question to ask- can you use LightRoom CC *without* having to sync your photos to Adobe's cloud? Is that an option? AFAIK you are *forced* to sync, whether you like to work locally or not.

But I welcome any corrections if this is not right ;-)

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 08:27 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: Why the heck do I "need" to convert to DNG to begin with???
For me, DNG stand for "Do Not Go there"! Or I "Do Not Give'a ..."

Very much every editor on the market, including the FREE ones, can handles RAW files without any problems.
There are countless alternatives at a fraction of Adobe's prices, or even FREE.

Invest in YOUR "Future", not in Adobe's.

But choosing a D850 in 14bit uncompressed seems like me shooting Fuji uncompressed when the option is there. I don't think that's a valid example. Agreed with Sony.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 08:21 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

azinheira: This is were they get you, Add your photos to the server and you will have to be paying forever to access all your photos .

Watt about if you stop paying?
Watt about if they close??
Were your photos will be??

Not for me sorry Adobe, I will have my storage drives to have my photos safe. And there's Other options on the market.

Classic will go away. It's not even worth mentioning for people with long plans to build long lasting libraries.

The whole "if you stop paying you'll have a year... " is what the terms say now and they are completely changeable by Adobe in the future as they see fit.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 08:17 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedWattlebird: Some dimwits try to compare a subscription model with Netflix or mobile
phone plan or coffee etc....

What ignorance.

I can stop a tv subscription and switch to another and it won’t affect any thing else at all. I can switch mobile phone plans anytime and keep my number etc.

With Lightroom it is different. The catalogue can not be easily ported to another software so Adobe know they are twisting your hand behind your back with the subscription model.

If I can’t buy a standalone, I’ll pirate.

Rishi- I don't think the OP is talking about that it is any harder, but the fact that it can be hard (as you are actually pointing out some of the issues) and that now you have to contend with the rules and terms of a subscription model and its implications (prices go up, you have to pay for that subscription, etc.)

So as you build more and more of your library, you are more locked into that subscription. He's basically saying this different from a subscription to something like Netflix where you simply stop paying, and can switch to another "channel" of interest.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 08:10 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

photoaddict: Just let me be sure... do I have to upload all my photos to the cloud with LR CC? Or it's just that you can upload selected albums or folders to the cloud?

@Rishi- you may look at it that way today but the other LR option that doesn’t do that forces me to. Subscription model and will most likely vanish in the future. In fact, it’s already the harder to find on the website. Sounds familiar, no?

There is no reason why Adobe couldn’t provide the program with a feature for the cloud *and* local storage. Now I say to you- look really at the future ;-). See where that leads.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 06:23 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (485 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedWattlebird: Some dimwits try to compare a subscription model with Netflix or mobile
phone plan or coffee etc....

What ignorance.

I can stop a tv subscription and switch to another and it won’t affect any thing else at all. I can switch mobile phone plans anytime and keep my number etc.

With Lightroom it is different. The catalogue can not be easily ported to another software so Adobe know they are twisting your hand behind your back with the subscription model.

If I can’t buy a standalone, I’ll pirate.

Lightroom Classic will go away in the future at any time. Stop pushing that.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 07:56 UTC
Total: 1808, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »