krötenblender
Well-known
The question, of course, is how similar exactly the two implementations have to be, to be usable or acceptable. I don't think, that many people are able to see toggles in the least significant bit of a 16-color-channel of a RAW-picture. Other image-manipulations might be easier to see, of course. But I think, there is less to be afraid of, than many think (me included...
)Besides that, most people (IMHO) edit a picture once and then reach a final state of it. So it would be acceptable to migrate to a different DAM/Developer-Tool by importing the original files the the final edited version and have some symbolic connection between them in the new tool, so that one knows, what came from what. Even better, if the history of edits could be saved as a protocol from LR (this is possible AFAIK), so that one can try to match that with the tools in the new SW, if needed. - My LR catalogs contain currently about 60k different images: I think, there are less than 100 which I edited multiple times. I could probably live with the inability to further edit finished images from LR.
PKR
Veteran
willie_901
Veteran
An obvious necdessity.
At the same time, this has nothing to do with LR Classic CC. With LR Classic CC.he ability to leave the Adobe ecosystem is unrestricted. For final renderings in LR Classic CC, just export a high-quality JPEG or a TIFF.
You already have the original out-of-camera JPEGs and, or raw files. If you want to modify a LR rendering with your new, non-Adobe platform you can re-render them there.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
So, for S&G i purchased Luminar. After a couple of introductory videos i like it.
Processed my first B&W and was impressed.
Untitled by vinny morrissey, on Flickr
Processed my first B&W and was impressed.
Untitled by vinny morrissey, on Flickr
willie_901
Veteran
Just more FUD propaganda.[1]
I maintain it's extremely hard to see a future where one is forced to keep their photos anywhere but where they prefer to keep them. It is absurd to imply photographers will be "consigned" to do anything they won't want to do.
Our archive options include:
- negatives and transparencies in notebooks or file cabinets
- prints and self-produced books of various forms
- digital source files (raw) and rendered images (JPEG, TIFF, etc) on an assortment of local media
- storage at off-site locations (relatives/friends homes, safety deposit boxes
- cloud storage solutions
I happen to use all of the above to some degrees as I deem appropriate. I can't think of single reason why others can't implement a system that they prefer.
I use LR Classic and PS CC. I store nothing in Adobe's cloud. I store backups of rendered and original images and files in Amazon's Cloud. If Amazon's Cloud fails the least of our worries will be our photography backups. Amazon Web Services (cloud solutions) has more than 1 million active business, government and non-profit customers in 190 countries. Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud have significant global customer bases as well.
Obviously, professional photographers could be required by their employer or by contractual agreements with clients to use cloud services. But they are also free to find another job, not sign a contract or find a profession that is not immersed in digital technologies.
1/ Fear, Uncertainty, Death
willie_901
Veteran
I'm still being billed $9.99 per month. I have not received a price increase notice.
willie_901
Veteran
Yes.
Except I doubt Adobe wants to sucker anyone. A large number of people actually want to execute some sort of image manipulation with smartphone JPEGS and share photos privately with friends and family members.
The recent, and confusing, changes in product branding simply eliminates the restriction of these activities to mobile devices.
It will be a long time before LR is a practical alternative to LR Classic. Customers would have to upgrade to a higher level of ISP bandwidth (if available). Home network (intranet) performance levels are too diverse. Many customers would also have to upgrade their home intranet as well.
Eventually ISP and home network performance and quality will increase. After all, many of us were using DSL with wired-only home networks a couple of decades or so ago. In the future consumer attitudes will change.
Kent
Finally at home...
After some days of playing around with the final version of Luminar 2018 (WIN 10, i7, 8GB), I must say that this version is still in "beta"-mode. It is pretty slow, slower than LR, and it crashed at the third photo I was editing.
None, I repeat NONE of my other application has ever crashed that way on my system.
They have pushed an update already, like 2 days after the initial release! This is either a sign for a prompt reaction or proof for a premature market launch.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Apple Photos recently added “edit in…” and Affinity is now compatible with that. It makes Photos a pretty compelling library system, though some people are still going to find it lacking in customizability and flexibility.
Pixelmator is planning to release its “Pro” version soon, and I’m interested in the possibilities of that as a photo editor as well.
Pixelmator is planning to release its “Pro” version soon, and I’m interested in the possibilities of that as a photo editor as well.
c.poulton
Well-known
I've pushed the button on the purchase of Luminar 2018 as my version of Aperture is a little suspect at the moment. It's not as stable as it used to be and crashes when using the healing tool.
I'm not sure whether to wait for the DAM module due for release sometime in 2018 (?) or bite the bullet and migrate my Aperture library over to Photos. Using Photos alongside Luminar as an extension pretty much covers me however Photos DAM isn't quite there yet.
I'm not sure whether to wait for the DAM module due for release sometime in 2018 (?) or bite the bullet and migrate my Aperture library over to Photos. Using Photos alongside Luminar as an extension pretty much covers me however Photos DAM isn't quite there yet.