|
Zero One posted:Lightroom CC is now a full cloud/mobile app Yeah I hope this isn't a first last step for the old full-fat desktop LR, having to bung whole complete cards of RAW files into and out of the  isn't my idea of fun. Also I hope the Full LR to mobile sync is still in place, I found it useful for proofing/culling on my iPad and getting client feedback / final say on shots quickly and easily.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Is it still going to sass me about only being able to sync one catalog to the  ?The online storage being tied to specific plans is kind of a dick move too. The software should be at a set rate and the storage should be an add-on cost. edit - they also need to clarify what actually gets saved in the cloud. is it still all smart previews? does it do anything to manage my raw files anymore or is that on me? xzzy fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Oct 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
The most concerning part isquote:The new version for PC and Mac has an all-new, simplified interface with streamlined sliders, presets and quick-adjustment tools, and some of the features in the old version of Lightroom CC are missing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
I'm tempted to make a second adobe account and use a free trial because there are way too many unanswered questions on the workflow for me to jump in with a new subscription and realize I hate everything about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Allow me to be the first to say gently caress all this cloud bullshit
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Especially when raw images are big, and the 10mbit upstream most people have at best is not the best way to move a 64gb card. I like the integration to online services, but not everyone needs their entire workflow based around "what if you decide to edit on a machine that isn't yours in the middle of the dessert" mindsets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
In the overview video for the new LRCC and LR Classic CC (LRCCC?) they specifically state that LR Classic is sticking around and they recognize that there are workflow requirements (large image volume, local storage, file security/stability concerns, etc.) that make LR Classic a priority. I plan on thoroughly ignoring LRCC, except as a raw camera app for my iPhone. I'm more excited about Process Version 4... or I would be if I could figure out if there were any differences from V3 besides the new masking options. Is it too much to hope for Capture One-tier highlight/shadow recovery?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
handy comparison: https://www.lightroomqueen.com/lightroom-cc-vs-classic-features I think all of us will be sticking with Lightroom Classic based on the feature comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
I'm scared.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
 Things Lightroom Can't Do posted:Multiple catalogs That's only part of the list. It also only exports sRGB jpegs. Who would pay to use that? Anyone willing to give up those features is probably content with just using instagram filters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
It would make more sense if Lightroom Classic was called Lightroom Professional (Edit: Or they should have called new Lightroom "Lightroom Elements") But I still can't see who would pay to use the features of new Lightroom CC. It's too advanced for most cell phone photographers and not advanced enough for anyone with a DSLR. The mobile app... fine, I get it. But the desktop app is odd. Zero One fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
According to that page, there are three packages (plus I guess the $60 'everything except Adobe Stock' package). $9.99 for Ps, Lr Classic, Lr CC and 20GB of cloud storage $9.99 for Lr CC and 1TB of cloud storage $19.99 for Ps, Lr Classic, Lr CC and 1TB of cloud storage. I don't see the value of the second one at all. You aren't just losing half of the functionality of Lr, you are losing all of Ps too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I'm tempted to make a second adobe account and use a free trial because there are way too many unanswered questions on the workflow for me to jump in with a new subscription and realize I hate everything about it. So I've been playing with Lightroom Classic. Nothing much seems to have changed features wise but it does feel much faster. I don't think anyone should be afraid of updating from the previous version to this one. polyester concept posted:The most concerning part is I think this is talking about new Lightroom. Not Classic. Classic looks and works the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Does this mean there won't be any more standalone versions of LR?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
I think a more important question is just how much more poo poo will we have to eat from Adobe before someone comes up with a replacement for LR? Affinity Photo is good enough to replace Photoshop, Affinity Designer is a perfectly capable substitute for Illustrator. Neither have any subscription plans and crippled feature sets for people who don't want a part of them. You pay once, you get your software and that's how I like it. Adobe's development efforts seem to be focussed entirely on designing new and shittier ways to squeeze more money out of us. So who wants my money? SirRobin fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:According to that page, there are three packages (plus I guess the $60 'everything except Adobe Stock' package). Ah now it makes sense. They want $20 of our money, not $10. loving Adobe. It’s been 2 decades of being the absolute worst development company on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Well, I updated to Lightroom Classic and it doesn't recognize my Lightroom 6 license anymore. I was under the impression that I could continue to use my existing license. Please don't tell me I have to buy Lightroom again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Lightroom 6 is not Old lightroom C, so you don't get new LR CC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
SirRobin posted:I think a more important question is just how much more poo poo will we have to eat from Adobe before someone comes up with a replacement for LR? Affinity Photo is good enough to replace Photoshop, Affinity Designer is a perfectly capable substitute for Illustrator. Neither have any subscription plans and crippled feature sets for people who don't want a part of them. You pay once, you get your software and that's how I like it. Capture One looks pretty good. They do perpetual licenses too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Since I’m still in the process of learning Lightroom I honestly think I’m out. It’s the standard and has the largest collection of info and tutorials, same with photoshop, but nothing adobe does makes any sense and the subscription system is garbage. I can’t be convinced to stick with it because of it’s status anymore. It can’t be too hard to find LR and PS alternatives that I like.
Kilometers Davis fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Well, I updated to Lightroom Classic and it doesn't recognize my Lightroom 6 license anymore. I was under the impression that I could continue to use my existing license. Please don't tell me I have to buy Lightroom again. Saw this on reddit, comments have a workaround for getting a fresh LR6 install if you don't have a CD for it on hand: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/77d3c0/do_not_upgrade_lightroom_6/ It's basically a wipe and reinstall, but they have a link to download the installer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
SirRobin posted:I think a more important question is just how much more poo poo will we have to eat from Adobe before someone comes up with a replacement for LR? Affinity Photo is good enough to replace Photoshop, Affinity Designer is a perfectly capable substitute for Illustrator. Neither have any subscription plans and crippled feature sets for people who don't want a part of them. You pay once, you get your software and that's how I like it. I picked up Affinity Photo when I got my x100f precisely because it was a fixed cost. I know how I am when learning something (I’ll dive in headfirst for a week or two, ignore it for a month or two, and then come back to it slowly over time) and I just couldn’t justify the monthly cost, knowing there are going to be months when I ignore it completely. With that being said, it sucks to learn on a tool that isn’t industry standard because finding tutorials is a lot tougher, which discourages learning. Vicious loving cycle, that is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:I picked up Affinity Photo when I got my x100f precisely because it was a fixed cost. I know how I am when learning something (I’ll dive in headfirst for a week or two, ignore it for a month or two, and then come back to it slowly over time) and I just couldn’t justify the monthly cost, knowing there are going to be months when I ignore it completely. Yeah, the network effect is strongly on Lightroom's side. And what Lightroom does well, it does VERY well. There are a dozen competitors out there, but none of them have really cracked it yet. And if they did, would it really help them at this point? I chose to go Lightroom back during the Lightroom vs Aperture days, because it would support me if I ever reverted back from Mac to PC (I didn't) or if Apple got fickle (they did). I figured that by going with the same people who made Bridge, ACR and Photoshop, I'd have a stable platform for as long as I wanted. I'm suddenly forced to reconsider that stability. You don't name a product 'classic' if you intend to care a lot about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
There are enough alternatives to Lightroom that I could migrate to something different pretty easily. The real anchor is Photoshop, I use that for so much stuff I'm not sure I could live without it. If I never visit gimp.org again I will die happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Yeah my issue is I know LR and feel I can do some decent quick edits and exports for whatever the use is in a matter of a frew mins. I just want the 9.99 a month Lightroom where I have local files I have my own offset backup solution, I'm not a big fan of putting poo poo on the cloud.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
For what it's worth, Lightroom Classic -does- seem to be speed-boosted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
thetzar posted:You don't name a product 'classic' if you intend to care a lot about it. Coca Cola tried this tack once....
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Saw this on reddit, comments have a workaround for getting a fresh LR6 install if you don't have a CD for it on hand: Yeah, I figured out what was going on myself last night. I couldn't get an installer for 6.12, though my Adobe order history for LR6 fortunately had a link for a 6.11 installer. Once I uninstalled the Creative Cloud app, Lightroom's update check defaulted to using the older Application Manager and was able to give me the 6.12 update without pulling the rug out from under me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Theophany posted:Capture One looks pretty good. They do perpetual licenses too. Capture One is my preferred photo doohickey but they do make you buy it again every major release if you want to keep updating. About the only thing its missing for my workflow is a decent spotting tool and better masking for adjustment brushes. LR does a lot better there. Pretty sure its spotting tool is really just Photoshop's content aware fill which is voodoo magic. Edit: If you own an Alpha series Sony camera you can get it for next to nothing. Sauer fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Syrinxx posted:Allow me to be the first to say gently caress all this cloud bullshit this right here
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
This might be a dumb question, but what is the easiest way to make something into a silhouette?
GrandpaPants fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Oct 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Try using Luminosity Masks. You'll probably still end up getting some of the foreground as well but you'll have less to unselect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Try using Luminosity Masks. You'll probably still end up getting some of the foreground as well but you'll have less to unselect. This advice and video were awesome, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Bracketing Graduated nd filter Lightroom nd filter
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:This advice and video were awesome, thanks! There's this whole sub-genre of landscape photography that uses luminosity masks combined with gradient masks to take things to far and make purposely fake looking shots; they call it Iterative Gradient Selective Masking, but their toolset is still pretty useful for difficult masking situations. Here's another example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
I'm sure this question gets asked a lot and has no absolute answer, but I'm just starting to learn post processing so I figured I'd ask: If I really like the look of certain filmstock like Portra 400, is it wrong / bad to process a digital photo to get a similar look? I don't mean adding fake noise / borders / scratches etc., just playing around with curves adjustments to approximate things like contrast, saturation, and hues. I'm still learning how to do things the "right" way, so it's hard for me to contextualize some aspects of post outside of (badly) trying to replicate things that I like the look of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:I'm sure this question gets asked a lot and has no absolute answer, but I'm just starting to learn post processing so I figured I'd ask: You should just do whatever you want. There are certain groups of people who love that film-edited look for digital photos, and there are groups that would think you're a horrible poseur. So just show your photos to the right group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
I'm looking at getting a scanner to scan in my Instax photos and eventually some negatives once I get my Spotmatic going again. I've seen recommendations for both the Epson V550 and V600. But when I'm comparing the two the only obvious difference the V600 has is better support for OCR or something (which I honestly couldn't give a poo poo about). Am I missing something because it seems like the V550 would fit my needs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
The v600 is a v550 with whatever ArcSoft PhotoStudio is included. I like my v550 for scanning medium format negatives. Does 35mm well enough for internet use but I wouldn't print anything from its scans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Sauer posted:The v600 is a v550 with whatever ArcSoft PhotoStudio is included. I like my v550 for scanning medium format negatives. Does 35mm well enough for internet use but I wouldn't print anything from its scans. Yeah for 35mm I was mostly looking at scanning for archival/internet use. Though I am curious to know why not to use the scans for print (unless it's a format size vs. DPI sort of thing).
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 02:36
|
|