# Adobe Lightroom for iPad Coming Soon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 18, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/adobe-lightroom-for-ipad-coming-soon/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/adobe-lightroom-for-ipad-coming-soon/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>It appears Adobe accidentally leaked Lightroom for iPad before the official announcement. It looks like the app will be a cloud subscription of $99 on an annual basis.</p>
<p>There may be other purchase options when it officially launches.</p>
<p>Adobe’s marketing for Lightroom for mobile is “Take Lightroom anywhere.” According to an Adobe employee, the software will have a lot of the same features currently in Lightroom for desktop.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/lightroom1.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-15547" alt="lightroom" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/lightroom1-575x343.jpg" width="575" height="343" /></a></p>
<p>Source: [9to5] via [<a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2014/01/17/adobe-lightroom-ipad/" target="_blank">MR</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## friedrice1212 (Jan 18, 2014)

99$ per annum? LR5 is 149$ one-time for PC... I don't understand this pricing.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 18, 2014)

Dave_NYC said:


> friedrice1212 said:
> 
> 
> > 99$ per annum? LR5 is 149$ one-time for PC... I don't understand this pricing.
> ...



It's the New Way(tm), SaaS (aka renting your software). Probably has some online storage to sync so you don't need it all locally, although I tend to think that's a bad idea since you won't always have a connection. Especially not in the field.


----------



## Botts (Jan 18, 2014)

I really hope that this is going to be included with Creative Cloud!

Also, the software renting is sometime tax beneficial as it is a 100% write off each year.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jan 18, 2014)

Yes. I posted about this earlier... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19135.0. 

$99 a year is too much IMO...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 18, 2014)

friedrice1212 said:


> 99$ per annum? LR5 is 149$ one-time for PC... I don't understand this pricing.


That's another possible leak, you may not be able to buy LR6, just rent it. Since my LRcc allows two computers, I'm wondering if a ipad can be one of them.

BTW, does LR5 run on your ipad??


----------



## archiea (Jan 18, 2014)

What I'm looking for is:

1) access to eyefi or like tech to access album of streaming images. Pretty much the import model that references the album of the uploaded images via wifi. 

2) ability for LR to cloud sync catalogs. meaning changes you do in LR ipad to be updated in desktop. The idea is that you can set it to a mirror mode so that you can bounce between two live sessions.. not realtime, but that sync will be maintained. 

3) JPG/highspeed mode... meaning that you upload your jpg from your raw+jpg's. (too bad you can't do raw + SRaw) You select your picks, priorities, flags and metadata from the ipad. Maybe even ballpark some exposure/color/presets. You get home, load up your card, load up the catalog from the cloud (copied locally for speed) and you already have the selects you did on the road. Perhaps Eyefi or LR can do a pixel skip thing where they load every other pix from a RAW transfer to give you a half rez RAW without rendering. That way you can do color and have low bandwidth

4) support for slideshow directly from ipad to an external display via airplay/appleTV or some hardwired display. 

5) some sort of screen calibration for the ipad? not sure how this would be done.. perhaps some sort of compatibility with third party screen calibration? The idea is to bypass the default, contrasty and blue ipad display and load an appropriate LUT for the ipad screen for photography. Only operation within Lightroom, of course, but thats all you would need. 

Pipe dream? Pie in the sky? High as a Kite? Hope not!


----------



## archiea (Jan 18, 2014)

friedrice1212 said:


> 99$ per annum? LR5 is 149$ one-time for PC... I don't understand this pricing.



Its not supposed to make sense... just make Adobe richer! ;D

My concern isn't the annual upgrade... well it should just be $79..damn thing shouldn't be more than the current upgrade price. My problem is the necessity to always be connected to the Adobe Borg Collective to do anything with their software. I believe the current model is that it has to talk to adobe every 60 days or else you're officially a pirate. The irony of course is that the actual pirate version will circumvent this likely, making this just an inconvenience to the user and effectively zero impact on piracy. 
People often countered this by saying the likelihood of not having wifi access in two months is slim. But I offer you an equivalent situation: Imagine if my canon had to talk to canon every two months or else it doesn't work anymore. Doesn't seem like you own it any more. Yes software is licensed, not "owned" .. . so that license is effectually only good for 2 months.. 

Yet folks with the crack would likely enjoy trouble free operation.

As a paying customer of my software, this pisses me off.


----------



## jrista (Jan 18, 2014)

A yearly cost of $99 is WAY too much. Adobe has their pricing model jacked way up to 11, and they don't seem to realize it. The average cost of owning Adobe products in the past was a fraction of what it costs today for the average photographer and freelancer. While it maybe as cost effective for monstrous corporations, Adobe is seriously alienating their long term loyal individual customers with this inane pricing model. The per-app prices should be $3 - $5 per month, with maybe a few key apps like Photoshop at around $10 per month (simply because of the sheer volume of functionality they provide, which is indeed rather extensive).

If Adobe sticks with these ludicrous prices, someone is going to realize there is a massive and growing population of potential consumers for high quality products in the photographic editing segment, and they are going to deliver the goods at a reasonable price, at a rather massive long term cost to Adobe's bottom line. There is no way Adobe makes enough off of the big corporate users to support their business model if they lose the majority of their individual customers...which really begs the question: 

_Why are they trying to suck us dry like this? _

It really doesn't make sense...


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 18, 2014)

More like take LR nowhere. After the current versions outlive their usefulness i will no longer use adobe products. Sorry to see LR take a cloud model.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> A yearly cost of $99 is WAY too much. Adobe has their pricing model jacked way up to 11, and they don't seem to realize it. The average cost of owning Adobe products in the past was a fraction of what it costs today for the average photographer and freelancer. While it maybe as cost effective for monstrous corporations, Adobe is seriously alienating their long term loyal individual customers with this inane pricing model. The per-app prices should be $3 - $5 per month, with maybe a few key apps like Photoshop at around $10 per month (simply because of the sheer volume of functionality they provide, which is indeed rather extensive).
> 
> If Adobe sticks with these ludicrous prices, someone is going to realize there is a massive and growing population of potential consumers for high quality products in the photographic editing segment, and they are going to deliver the goods at a reasonable price, at a rather massive long term cost to Adobe's bottom line. There is no way Adobe makes enough off of the big corporate users to support their business model if they lose the majority of their individual customers...which really begs the question:
> 
> ...



Perhaps it's just a teaser. Then they'll offer it for 4.99/mo and people will think what a great deal that is since it's a discount from the 99/year. :


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 18, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Sorry to see LR take a cloud model.



Where does it say that???


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 18, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to see LR take a cloud model.
> ...



99 is just the beginning. Wait until you need that sharpening module only offered as an in-app add-on.


----------



## jrista (Jan 18, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



An in-app microtransaction that costs $9.99 itself.


----------



## jrista (Jan 18, 2014)

I would point out, for those of you who want Lightroom on the go, that you can already have it. Not only that, you can have the full Lightroom. Just get a Windows 8 Pro tablet (not Windows 8 RT, you need the full Windows 8). I currently use a Surface Pro, and I have both Lightroom and Photoshop installed on it. I can use it out in the field for countless hours so long as I don't forget to bring along my charging block and my AC converter for my car. The Surface Pro includes a stylus, which is actually a very intuitive way of working with these apps small controls on the high density screen...and I actually find it is a bit more productive stylusing my way through LR than mousing my way through it on the desktop. You have all the simultaneous multi-input capabilities as well, so you can switch between using stylus, touch, and kb/touchpad at will, so you can always use your most productive device to perform commands, move through the UI, etc.

Anyway...for those who don't want to drop $100 a year on an iPad app that is sure to be a shadow of the full LR, especially if you already own an LR license, just pick up a Windows 8 tablet. Dell now has one that has a screen resolution with a higher density than the iMac laptop retina displays, and it's competitively priced, for those who want a really nice device to do their photography work with. The Surface Pro 2 should also be a pretty nice device, with its improved battery life, as it also included the stylus.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 18, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



Oh, I get it now. You're just making stuff up.


----------



## jrista (Jan 18, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Do you pay much attention to the modern world of apps? In-app microtransactions for addons of one kind or another are all the rage. Zynga, for example, is famous for employing microtransactions in their games, to the great financial detriment of the players who become addicted to them. It's how some app developers have raked in hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for apps that cost a mere few bucks or are even free...and it is certainly no longer limited to just games.

I wouldn't say he is just making stuff up. It's a real-world thing that is becoming far more common, and with Adobe's apparent unquenchable greed as of late, it isn't surprising to hear this brought up as a potential concern. At some point, I fully expect Adobe to figure out that they could make even more money off their already tapped customers by employing microtransactions...and they will probably find an effective way of restructuring their products to take full advantage of the concept. Whether that happens now, with Lightroom for iPad, or at some later date, is yet to be seen...I suspect a later date, but I do expect Adobe to jump on the bandwagon at some point.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 18, 2014)

The usual sales model for iPad apps is to sell a very high number at low unit price.


----------



## mustafa (Jan 18, 2014)

What has this to do with Canon?


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 18, 2014)

mustafa said:


> What has this to do with Canon?



Truly nothing, but I will try to find a "link" between iPad and Canon ..

Lightroom for iPad is boring,

Really exciting would be an iPadX which allows to run Max OSX and Windows and all the SW which is available like Lightroom, DxO or *Canons DPP or EOS Utility (very helpful)*.

I gave up to wait for an iPadX and bought a 2nd hand Fujitsu Stylistic for 300 bucks + an 256 GB SSD for 200 bucks with 6 hrs of battery life (12 hrs with an extended battery) - not as stylish as an iPad but works and has a built-in sd card reader + large and bright display (13"). 

By the way: I hate the strategy to have 5 or 7 software versions for different operating systems with different licensing schemes in a world where it is possible to run a Windows, OSX or some linux on a smartphone sized computer.


----------



## DanielW (Jan 18, 2014)

I am myself waiting for Aperture 4 to be released so I can make a choice.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 18, 2014)

LR for iPad sounds really good ... if it is anywhere near the feature set of LR5, $99 is a very reasonable price ... where I live right now, that's less then the price of a Big Mac + Coffee ... neither of them are good for my health, so, I'm sure I can forego 1 Big Mac & a Coffee every month to pay for the LR iPad subscription ... even if they double the price I will simply forego 2 Big Macs and 2 cups of coffee every month ... that way I might even be able to extend my life by a few minutes longer, to capture a beautiful sunset or a sexy lady ... then edit it on my iPad with LR, take a good look at my work, be proud of it and then die like a proud peacock ;D


----------



## m (Jan 18, 2014)

That's one expensive BigMac for sure.

On the other thread, it sounds like the price is for the cloud service.

Windows tablet, install the real thing?


----------



## LDS (Jan 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> I would point out, for those of you who want Lightroom on the go, that you can already have it. Not only that, you can have the full Lightroom. Just get a Windows 8 Pro tablet (not Windows 8 RT, you need the full Windows 8).


Exactly. You can take advantage of the "two installation" allowance in the Lightroom license and install it both on your main PC and the tablet, without having to buy a second license ($99 a year for a more limited Lightroom? Crazy price).
I've been using it on a Surface 2 Pro (the 8GB version) and it works pretty well (sure, an 11" screen may be a little to small, but the iPad is not larger, and has no digitizer). Moreover the display can be calibrated as well using a standard calibration tool.
It has a full USB port so you can tether the camera and use it also with EOS Utility for live view and remote shooting without the need of special cables and/or hacks and 3rd party apps. Being an USB 3.0 port is also very quick to import pictures in Lightroom using a card reader.


----------



## Zv (Jan 18, 2014)

Seems a bit pricey unless we get the full version which I guess might work on the new iPad air but the older versions might struggle. For an app that is a lot. And you have to pay that yearly too. I have an iPad but am not that desperate to have post processing on the go. My iPad is 64GB so if wouldn't even hold a fraction of my library or catalogue anyway. Do they provide some kind of cloud storage to go with it??

Throw in tethered shooting functionality and half the price and it might have a use. 

Note Snapseed is free and does a pretty decent job.


----------



## zim (Jan 18, 2014)

LDS said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I would point out, for those of you who want Lightroom on the go, that you can already have it. Not only that, you can have the full Lightroom. Just get a Windows 8 Pro tablet (not Windows 8 RT, you need the full Windows 8).
> ...



You two are talking way too much sense for this thread stop it now


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



Like I said, he made it all up. Even if this leak is real it says nothing about in app purchases or about LR adopting a cloud model.


----------



## pinktech (Jan 18, 2014)

I'm not a pro on assignment and I hate bringing a computer on vacation. If they price it fairly, it sounds like a great idea. I hope it's real and will be included in the $9.99/month photographers plan. If not, I might be willing to pay a little more ($5/month maybe, or a onetime special price for subscribers) for the convenience of not having to schlepp around an expensive MBP to do cataloging, key wording and a few quick edits while on the road. Snapseed, et al are great for edits, but don't catalog or keyword. Which lake was that, St. Who's church, what was her cousin's name, get that stuff entered while its fresh in your memory, and then get back to the beach/tour/party. Save the heavy lifting for home.

Wish it could be a Universal app. I use the iPhone camera all the time, esp. for geotagging; iPad camera, not so much, um, at all.


----------



## captainkanji (Jan 18, 2014)

I don't really see the point of this. Will it work with RAW, and how to get RAW transferred onto the iPad? I already have snap seed for free. I OWN Lightroom 4 for my PC. I don't see the benefit of renting software, but this has been covered a lot already.


----------



## jrista (Jan 18, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> LR for iPad sounds really good ... if it is anywhere near the feature set of LR5, $99 is a very reasonable price ... where I live right now, that's less then the price of a Big Mac + Coffee ... neither of them are good for my health, so, I'm sure I can forego 1 Big Mac & a Coffee every month to pay for the LR iPad subscription ... even if they double the price I will simply forego 2 Big Macs and 2 cups of coffee every month ... that way I might even be able to extend my life by a few minutes longer, to capture a beautiful sunset or a sexy lady ... then edit it on my iPad with LR, take a good look at my work, be proud of it and then die like a proud peacock ;D



It's not $99. It is $99/year. Big difference. One can buy LR5 and use it and sit on it for a couple years or more, getting more and more value out of the product, all for a single up-front cost of $149 (or $79 for upgraders, which is even better!) This iPad app is a subscription product...so it isn't $99, it is $99/year. It's the "/year" part that pisses people off.


----------



## jrista (Jan 18, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



He didn't make it up. He is speculating. There is a difference there. And as I said, it is no surprise, given Adobe's trend of life sucking everlasting fees for their application use. It seems very logical that Adobe would do something like microtransactions for microfeatures at some point. I'm not saying they WILL do it right away with this app, but it isn't just making stuff up, it's conjecturing about the future of Adobe customers and how costly it will be to stick with Adobe products.


----------



## iMagic (Jan 18, 2014)

Dont forget 30% goes to apple. Still expensive though.


----------



## Brand B (Jan 19, 2014)

captainkanji said:


> Will it work with RAW, and how to get RAW transferred onto the iPad?



Importing RAW onto an iPad works the same as importing JPEG. I assume you'd use the USB or SD card - dock/lightning adapters to connect the camera and import them into LR just like you do with the iOS photo app.


----------



## Zv (Jan 19, 2014)

Brand B said:


> captainkanji said:
> 
> 
> > Will it work with RAW, and how to get RAW transferred onto the iPad?
> ...



Surprisingly the iPad seems to handle RAW files just fine. I use the USB to lightning cable and then connect the camera directly to the iPad. Upload is simple. No additional codecs or upgrades required (unlike windows) it can display the RAW file as a JPEG preview. The issue will be memory space. Even the 128GB versions will fill up soon so it's really only good for light editing and then transfer the files to your PC / MAC. I've never tried that though but it should be a case of just plug in and drag and drop. 

Also the question remains how those files will sync with your existing library? You could have a separate Lightroom mobile catalogue that you click on. Then you could merge or import that catalogue to your existing library? Or will it have some kind of cloud sync?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 19, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



So apparently you didnt even read the original CR post...and i quote

"It appears Adobe accidentally leaked Lightroom for iPad before the official announcement. It looks like the app will be a cloud subscription of $99 on an annual basis."

Nuff said.


----------



## ashmadux (Jan 19, 2014)

Well, all the great thinkers out there that cant see the forest for the trees, and find that subscription software is a "great deal"- the chickens are coming home to roost. You guys made you own bed.

Subscription ipad sofftware....lol

Let all the photo sheep go ahead and purchase this.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 19, 2014)

East Wind Photography said:


> So apparently you didnt even read the original CR post...and i quote
> 
> "It appears Adobe accidentally leaked Lightroom for iPad before the official announcement. It looks like the app will be a cloud subscription of $99 on an annual basis."
> 
> Nuff said.



That isn't about the existing LR application. Maybe you should reread your quote.


----------



## JRPhotos (Jan 19, 2014)

I know that this topic is for the ipad but this comment is more for the Adobe saas in general. I hate it, for me I'd rather buy the DVD and be done with it... most people can't afford that type of model where you pay monthly.


----------



## Badger (Jan 19, 2014)

If this could serve as a replacement for Everpix, which I loved, and miss, AND perhaps cost $50 a year, I might spring for it.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > LR for iPad sounds really good ... if it is anywhere near the feature set of LR5, $99 is a very reasonable price ... where I live right now, that's less then the price of a Big Mac + Coffee ... neither of them are good for my health, so, I'm sure I can forego 1 Big Mac & a Coffee every month to pay for the LR iPad subscription ... even if they double the price I will simply forego 2 Big Macs and 2 cups of coffee every month ... that way I might even be able to extend my life by a few minutes longer, to capture a beautiful sunset or a sexy lady ... then edit it on my iPad with LR, take a good look at my work, be proud of it and then die like a proud peacock ;D
> ...


I am quite aware that it is $99/year and I have no problem with it and it does not pi$$ me off, coz that is less than 1 Big Mac & a Coffee per month for me. Initially I was not very happy about Adobe's subscription model, but when I calculated what I've paid for Adobe software since 2007, the subscription model actually works out *far cheaper* than "owning" it (as I've always upgraded to newer versions as and when they released CS & LR), so I now prefer the subscription model. Besides, I waste a lot more than $8.25 a month buying all kinds of cheap camera accessories that I never use after the first try, I am sure I can stop wasting some of it and pay for Adobe subscription. Since I am a salaried person and not a businessman paying smaller amounts every month works out lot easier for me than to pay a big lump sum. I understand that it may not work well for people who like to use the same software for several years and get great mileage out of it ... I guess they are justified in being pi$$ed off about the subscription model.


----------



## jrista (Jan 19, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



You may be part of the rarer few who upgraded with every version. If you used to spend more, then more power to ya with the subscription model. 

Personally, I tended to skip a version or two before upgrading. Most of my graphic design and artist friends would skip as many versions as they could and still get a decent upgrade price. With version skipping, buying licenses was quite a bit cheaper...and more often than not it was easy enough to skip since few of the new features were really useful or critically necessary to the niche of any given artist. Photographers might get compelling enough features every couple versions, classical artists might get a new feature every two to three versions, graphic designers probably benefited most from more frequent updates, but most of the ones I've known still skipped (just too costly on a sporadic freelance salary). 

Now, once I get my freelance thing going full steam, it won't be all that terrible to rent Adobe software for $50 a month. The problem is that if the freelancing dries up for a while, I won't be able to afford $50 a month...and I'll LOSE ACCESS. It's the losing access bit that is the most irksome part of Adobe's new rental modal, even though the prices still feel too high. The thing Adobe doesn't seem to get is that even though a freelancer isn't necessarily able to work every single month of the year, they still create works. I'll always be creating new photography, doodling new logos and creating new web site designs. I'll always need the tools, however I may not always be able to afford the rather astronomical price. Losing access after a month is just a bad dig at freelancers...kind if like Adobe saying "GTFO" to all of us. Do they care? Are freelancers important to Adobe? Really hard to tell...

Personally, I cut out random expenditures on fast food (and pretty much everything else) about a year ago, so I don't really have any "cheap" things I buy each month to compare the price to. I only spend money on new photography or astronomy stuff when I have saved up the money for something I really intend to use, so I don't really have any random monthly expenditures there either. I periodically buy new ink and paper for my printing...however I'm usually just as irked about the cost of 14ml of ink as I am about the cost of Adobe software rental.  ;D

The only real basis for comparison is the cost of the full Lightroom, which is still $149. You can buy a license for LR and sit on it for years (usually, the time between camera body upgrades, which is the only REAL reason you MUST upgrade...in order to get support for your cameras' new sensor.) At a list price of $149 for the _full _version of LR which can be amortized over anywhere from two to four years, $99 per year for a *less capable* iPad app is kind of like a slap in the face, doesn't it? It certainly feels that way to me. Especially since I'm currently renting Photoshop CC and LR 5 for $9.99 a month...that is a HELL of a lot more functionality for quite a bit cheaper than Lightroom iPad for $99 a year. Again, feels like a slap in the face. 

If they were asking for $99 a year for full LR functionality, that isn't quite as bad, but it's still worse than the PS CC + LR5 deal for $10 a month.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 19, 2014)

jrista said:


> Especially since I'm currently renting Photoshop CC and LR 5 for $9.99 a month...that is a HELL of a lot more functionality for quite a bit cheaper than Lightroom iPad for $99 a year. Again, feels like a slap in the face.
> 
> If they were asking for $99 a year for full LR functionality, that isn't quite as bad, but it's still worse than the PS CC + LR5 deal for $10 a month.


I would like to pay less if I could, after all I am not allergic to money  ... I do agree that it is expensive in comparison to what Adobe is offering currently for $9.99/month ... but again the $99/year thing is still a rumor at this stage, so lets wait and see what materializes eventually. If it does turn out to be a fact then it better be darned good.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 19, 2014)

I can't say I'm too optimistic about the processing capabilities of the iPad. Let's remember that LR is meant for batch processing.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 19, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> I can't say I'm too optimistic about the processing capabilities of the iPad. Let's remember that LR is meant for batch processing.


True ... but iPads/tablets, with each new version will only get more powerful and better ... eventually we should be able to have some powerful processing power from these portable devices. This is just the beginning.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 19, 2014)

If you bought a windows tablet, you already have LR.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 19, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't say I'm too optimistic about the processing capabilities of the iPad. Let's remember that LR is meant for batch processing.
> ...



I'd rather have an app to connect the iPad to a computer and use it as second screen. The one thing I like is the pixel density, useful for the determination of critical focus.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 19, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...


There are lots of apps that can do it.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jan 19, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



Check out air display 2. One of many out there.


----------



## Badger (Jan 19, 2014)

Did you guys see this? It is the Adobe LightRoom project manager discussing with Scott Kelby last year what we might expect from LightRoom on an iPad.

Adobe Sneak Peek - RAW processing on a Tablet - plus Q&A with Tom Hogarty - The Grid: Episode 94


----------



## Badger (Jan 19, 2014)

Turns out you wouldn't have the entire RAW file on your iPad (unless you wanted it), but instead you would have a representation. He was clear that it would not be a .jpeg either. You could then edit the picture and the INSTRUCTIONS (text file) of what you did to that picture would find it's way back to your actual LightRoom file that lives on your computer. 
I for one am very interested but more at the $49.99/yr price point.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 19, 2014)

Badger said:


> Did you guys see this? It is the Adobe LightRoom project manager discussing with Scott Kelby last year what we might expect from LightRoom on an iPad.
> 
> Adobe Sneak Peek - RAW processing on a Tablet - plus Q&A with Tom Hogarty - The Grid: Episode 94


I remember watching this episode ... but at that time didn't think in terms of this kind of service, now it all makes sense ... thanks for reminding and sharing.


----------



## LDS (Jan 19, 2014)

> True ... but iPads/tablets, with each new version will only get more powerful and better ... eventually we should be able to have some powerful processing power from these portable devices. This is just the beginning.


You may have missed they are already there. Just, they don't run iOS or Android, but Windows 8. You can easily find tablets with Intel i5 or even i7 processors, the same you find in your laptop, and with 8GB of memory, enough to run Lightroom fully. Just avoid the cheap Atom/2GB ones - of course they are not up to the task.
The only limits (beyond price) may be how long a battery charge last, the screen size (although 12"-13" tablets are coming also), the gamut of the screen itself, but they are not worse than the average laptop (and often better, given most Windows tablets have higher resolutions than many laptops). But when needed you can also connect them to an external monitor and work there.
Windows 8 on tablets may be still a work in progress as a pure consumer tablet OS, but if you need to work also with applications like Lightroom, it's there and it works.


----------



## Badger (Jan 19, 2014)

Thanks for all the advise on Windows tablet. 
I am not remotely interested. Would rather spend the money on lenses.

Watching the demo, it was done on an iPad 2. It seems Adobe might be thinking and going in a different direction from the speculation here.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 19, 2014)

LDS said:


> You may have missed they are already there. Just, they don't run iOS or Android, but Windows 8. You can easily find tablets with Intel i5 or even i7 processors, the same you find in your laptop, and with 8GB of memory, enough to run Lightroom fully. Just avoid the cheap Atom/2GB ones - of course they are not up to the task.
> The only limits (beyond price) may be how long a battery charge last, the screen size (although 12"-13" tablets are coming also), the gamut of the screen itself, but they are not worse than the average laptop (and often better, given most Windows tablets have higher resolutions than many laptops). But when needed you can also connect them to an external monitor and work there.
> Windows 8 on tablets may be still a work in progress as a pure consumer tablet OS, but if you need to work also with applications like Lightroom, it's there and it works.


No I haven't missed .. I have tried the Samsung & Sony versions and did not like them much ... when it comes to size vs performance, the tablets are not really there yet ... if they have enough power they tend to be heavy, if are light they tend not to have enough power for software like Lightroom/PS ... for me the ideal weight is the iPad, when the processing power in a an iPad (or similarly sized/weight android or windows tablet) allows me to work with a full featured LR/PS then I will consider that being "have arrived", till then they are not "already there".


----------



## LDS (Jan 20, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> to size vs performance, the tablets are not really there yet ... if they have enough power they tend to be heavy,


So heavy cameras and lenses are OK if they are powerful, but if a tablet weights a little more for the same reason is not? Sure, I would also like a 100g EOS 1Dx with a 150g 70-200/2.8 lens... but I wouldn't mind to carry a little heavier tablet (instead of an even heavier laptop), it it allows me to work with the right tools in the field.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

LDS said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > to size vs performance, the tablets are not really there yet ... if they have enough power they tend to be heavy,
> ...


That is correct!


----------



## Jester (Jan 20, 2014)

Tee-hee. Finally, the problematic of proprietary software, combined with pursuing a growth-based economic model in a saturated market comes to a head.

Let's face it: in terms of features, LR has been stagnating for years, though always on a very high level. As with so many software suites, LR's core features are good the way they are, and apart from little tweaks here and there and expanding support for new camera models, there are no real incentives to purchase a "new" version of LR. People are good with what they have, so the market is pretty saturated.

In a growth-based economic model, however, companies such as Adobe need to expand constantly and keep selling ever more copies. Since the ordinary sale of copies does not appear to work any longer, they will inevitably look for new ways - and more often than not end up with nasty ones.

The cloud-based "rent-your-software" appproach is such a nasty new way. While marketing is trying to rub into our brains the many "advantages" of this approach, it's pretty clear that for the user, there aren't any. Cloud-based software amounts to no more than the dispossession and disenfranchisement of the user. It is no longer for the user, but for the companies to decide:


 how much users have to pay. Just imagine you bought an old, non-cloud version of LR. After several months of use, you get an e-mail from Adobe, telling you to either a) pay an additional fee or b) stop using the software. Clearly, you'd flip them the bird and continue to use the software; after all, you've bought a licence to use the software without any limits to the duration of use and without the obligation to pay them any additional fees.
 if, and when, and how the software is upgraded (or crippled). Imagine there is a new (and possibly malicious) privacy agreement or a new (and possibly malicious) feature you don't want in your software. Likewise, the company could decide to remove features you liked, possibly to re-sell them to you later for an additional fee. With locally-run software, you are free to choose whether you want to ignore the upgrade/new terms of use/mutilation of your software and continue to use it in its old configuration. With cloud-based software, this choice is typically taken away from you.
 if and how long users may use the software. Imagine Adobe decides to discontinue LR and promote a new product - let's call it BrightRoom. With a locally-run copy of LR, you could just ignore BrightRoom if it doesn't appeal to you and carry on using your discontinued LR. If you run a cloud-based LR, you do not have this choice. The company may bar you from using your software simply by taking the servers offline - either because they want to avoid costs, or because they want to force you to switch to BrightRoom. The same applies to a scenario where Adobe goes bankrupt. Your ability to use your cloud-based software is tied to the financial well-being of the company - if the company goes belly up, so does your software.

To sum up, this is not so much a question of whether a piece of software has the right price tag on it. It's about the liberties a user ought to have in using a piece of software. If I spend money on a piece of software, I expect to be able to use it independently of its producer, that is: how I want, where I want, as long as I want and to whichever purpose I want. Cloud-based software is designed to take these liberties away from the user: you don't "buy" or "own" software, but rather rent it while being at the complete mercy of a corporation. If we do not want this to become a wide-spread phenomenon, cloud-based software should not be supported. There are many non-cloud, free software alternatives to LR (Darktable probably being the most popular). These alternatives may not come with the same comfort as LR (yet) - but that's a small price to pay if the software respects your rights in return.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 20, 2014)

Jester said:


> There are many non-cloud, free software alternatives to LR (Darktable probably being the most popular). These alternatives may not come with the same comfort as LR (yet) - but that's a small price to pay if the software respects your rights in return.


I did not know about Darktable ... sounds interesting, will install and give it a try this weekend ... thanks for sharing. For the record I like the Adobe cloud based service and have no problem in "renting" their software for now, if something changes in the future, I have no problems in dumping them or any other software company, in favor of another that can meet my needs ... just like I dumped my iPhone in favor of Note 3, because Apple does not make the screen size I want. We live in 2014, dumping any company is relatively easy, so I am not scared or overly concerned by what Adobe is doing at the moment. I already have Aperture 3, (which I use occasionally), if and when Apple comes with version 4 and it is better than the Adobe's offering, I'll dump LR in a heart beat.


----------



## jrista (Jan 20, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > You may have missed they are already there. Just, they don't run iOS or Android, but Windows 8. You can easily find tablets with Intel i5 or even i7 processors, the same you find in your laptop, and with 8GB of memory, enough to run Lightroom fully. Just avoid the cheap Atom/2GB ones - of course they are not up to the task.
> ...



You need to give Surface Pro a try. Microsoft did a damn good job on their first tablet, and the Pro 2 seems to be better...little bit lighter, MUCH longer battery life, etc. The screen is great, very high density, although I have not yet tried to calibrate it. It is slightly heavier than an iPad, but it is WAY lighter than even the smallest laptop. Complaining about the weight of something like a Surface Pro is like complaining that your highly fuel efficient hybrid car isn't as efficient as the entirely electric car your neighbor got...the electric car that can't actually climb hills at faster than five mph, and requires you do periodically dump highly toxic car batteries into the environment when they end up needing to be replaced (i.e. not so environmentally friendly in the long run). The hybrid is still vastly superior in terms of efficiency than your previous car, and given the fact that it can still RACE up hills, it was a damn good buy!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 20, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Jester said:
> 
> 
> > There are many non-cloud, free software alternatives to LR (Darktable probably being the most popular). These alternatives may not come with the same comfort as LR (yet) - but that's a small price to pay if the software respects your rights in return.
> ...



I admit that dumping my iPhone for a note 3 was sweet. I have no regrets about it but I've also dumped adobe in a sense that they will not get another dollar from me.


----------



## LDS (Jan 20, 2014)

Jester said:


> many non-cloud, free software alternatives to LR (Darktable probably being the most popular). These alternatives may not come with the same comfort as LR (yet) - but that's a small price to pay if the software respects your rights in return.


The issue with such kind of software in this area is how many cameras, lenses, printers, etc. they are able to test the application with. Adobe has the resources to test and support all major brands, work with major companies (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) to ensure best compatibility, take advantage of the experience of professional photographers, and has an extensive knowledge in image processing - and can pay good developers. Also, some FOSS projects unless backed by some commercial interests, may stop suddenly, if developers move to something else, and are not replaced by someone with enough skill.
For a professional photographer, and even an advanced amateur, after all the software cost is just a tiny fraction of the expenses, and an hassle-free software (install - and use, no issue configuring in whatsoever) with a large industry support may be well worth its price. And why a software is expensive at $99, and a lens or a camera is almost not at $2499? Just because we perceive a different value in a "soft" asset compared to an "hard" one?
That said, I do not like the "cloud" model too much, especially when I have in-house resources that doesn't require me to use systems outside. Nor I like the rent-a-software model, it was common in the past (a lot of Unix software was rented with yearly fees, and those costs was one of the reasons of the PC ascent), and is being reintroduced. Again, it could be ok for pros, less for "occasional" users.


----------



## Jester (Jan 20, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I did not know about Darktable ... sounds interesting, will install and give it a try this weekend ... thanks for sharing.



You're welcome! 



LDS said:


> For a professional photographer, and even an advanced amateur, after all the software cost is just a tiny fraction of the expenses, and an hassle-free software (install - and use, no issue configuring in whatsoever) with a large industry support may be well worth its price.



Nawww, please don't reduce my posting to the pricing question again... particularly because I have addressed that in some detail. 



Jester said:


> To sum up, this is _not_ so much a question of whether a piece of software has the right price tag on it. It's about the liberties a user ought to have in using a piece of software. [...] Read the rest


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 21, 2014)

jrista said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > LDS said:
> ...


My wife has the Surface Pro 2 (she just got it last weekend) ... I like that it can be hooked up to the tv at home, and work with the same device (with good processing power) that I use throughout the day without turning it off ... I have been using a small lg notebook which is permanently connected to my living room tv (making it my "DIY smart TV" ... sort of), but I don't take that everywhere due to its slow processing power and it is always connected to a power source. But at the moment I am not very keen on switching back to Microsoft ... first priority is to get the ZEISS 24-70 f/4 lens, Sony 10-18 f/4 lens (which works as an incredible 12-18mm full frame lens on the Sony a7) and the new Tamron 150-600 VC ... *if *after that, I still have some money left over I might get the surface pro 2 (or maybe they'll release a version 3 by that time... lets see) ... thanks for the suggestion though.


----------



## ClayStevens (Jan 21, 2014)

99 Annual is too dear. I thought it was one time cost when I first saw this news.


----------



## Badger (Jan 21, 2014)

> 99 Annual is too dear. I thought it was one time cost when I first saw this news.



To be clear, none of us have actually seen or touched this software. If it is similar to what was telegraphed and demoed last year on an iPad 2, all this discussion about processing power and carrying RAW files around will be rendered (get it, rendered) moot. As to the price, that also hasn't been announced but I am also really hoping it won't be $99/yr but you can rest assured that it will be a reoccurring subscription fee.


----------



## LDS (Jan 21, 2014)

Jester said:


> Nawww, please don't reduce my posting to the pricing question again... particularly because I have addressed that in some detail.


It all come down to this - it's price that matters, nothing else. Most people are not interested in affirming "freedom rights" or "ethical rights" when using a tool - and for most people software is just a tool. What most people look at what is the "TCO" of a given tool. People using it for their professional job are interested only in compatibility with industry standards, ease of use, support, outcome quality, time spent learning/using the tool to obtain a given result so they can earn as much money as they can - the quicker you finish an assignment, the earlier you can switch to the next one.
Amateurs may be still interested in ease of use, documentation available (books, courses, etc.), compatibility with their gear, "feel good factor" ("I'm using a pro tool!") and price. Only a handful are interested in some kind of "holy war" against the "software powers".
As long as the price is perceived "right", most won't care if the software is not open, if they need to pay a yearly fee or not, and so on. After all most photo professionals are using Apple products, which are among the closest and most pricey around, and no one complains because they know they will get their job done easily and quickly. And most people using open source tools don't do that because of the "freedom", but just because they have not to pay for them. Software is not a political issue, it's just a tool. And like most tools, price is one of the main factor to choose one or another. Sure, bad commercial practices could kill a good software if the users find them too restrictive or unpractical.
Otherwise all we should be using instead a Canon camera (another closed system totally controlled by Canon), some free, open source cameras, maybe built with a Raspberry Pi and some sensor inside a wooden box with home made lenses (I've friends who build their own telescopes, why don't photographers build their own lens for "freedom"?), and an open source capture software...


----------



## Badger (Jan 24, 2014)

Photoshop World Las Vegas 2013 Keynote

Watch from 39:00


----------



## Ripley (Jan 24, 2014)

Badger said:


> Photoshop World Las Vegas 2013 Keynote
> 
> Watch from 39:00



Good stuff! 

And for the nay sayers... watch that and please enlighten us if you know of anyone else that is even close to that kind of product offering or tech.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 24, 2014)

Badger said:


> Photoshop World Las Vegas 2013 Keynote
> 
> Watch from 39:00


WOW ... awesome 8) ... thanks for sharing. At 46:24, he says "you"ll be seeing these products later this year or early next year", if I'm not wrong he said that in September 2013, so within the next few months, we should be seeing its release ... I'm excited and ready to sign up for $99/year.
I cannot think of any other company that is able to provide the kind of advanced tech and advanced thinking that Adobe is putting forward for photographers.


----------



## Badger (Jan 24, 2014)

Despite my whining, I will probably step up and pay for this especially if the file sizes are in fact 2-3% of the original RAW file. It just seems cool and seamless. Will wait and see


----------



## TeenTog (Jan 25, 2014)

I'm a huge fan of Lightroom, I think it's fantastic. I would hate to see it go solely subscription-based, I was waiting until LR6 to upgrade from 4...... hopefully adobe still has those like me in mind :-\


----------



## jrista (Jan 25, 2014)

TeenTog said:


> I'm a huge fan of Lightroom, I think it's fantastic. I would hate to see it go solely subscription-based, I was waiting until LR6 to upgrade from 4...... *hopefully adobe still has those like me in mind* :-\



Might want to prepare yourself...by the time LR6 rolls around, I suspect it will be fully subscription based.


----------



## Badger (Feb 9, 2014)

> Might want to prepare yourself...by the time LR6 rolls around, I suspect it will be fully subscription based.



I was just thinking about my decision to go LightRoom vs. Aperture back in the day. My decision back then was guided by the fact that LightRoom would work on my then G4 eMac and Aperture would not. Fast forward to today, and it looks to me like 80-90% of the users here are using LightRoom. I don't hear much about Aperture here. So, if Adobe has cornered the market, I just can't see a business scenario where they buck the trend and threaten their installed base. I can see subscription being added as an option, but to totally rid of stand alone? I don't see it.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Feb 9, 2014)

Long live the desktop, you know, the computers that actually make all the content for iPads and smart phones.

If Adobe goes all subscription, I'll grumble my way back to DPP and not look back. People who want to edit photos on a 9 inch screen are masochists.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 10, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> People who want to edit photos on a 9 inch screen are masochists.


WOW!  ... I can understand that it does not meet your needs, but calling everyone (who will benefit from that feature) "mascohcists" is a highly opinionated and utterly ignorant comment.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 10, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> Long live the desktop, you know, the computers that actually make all the content for iPads and smart phones.
> 
> If Adobe goes all subscription, I'll grumble my way back to DPP and not look back. People who want to edit photos on a 9 inch screen are masochists.



Im aleady starting to work my way off of adobe products. Ive been using some alternatives and have not even opened PS or LR in about 3 weeks. Im finding it a little bit of a pain trying to get used to alternative workflows. However it hasnt hampered my post development or timelines.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > People who want to edit photos on a 9 inch screen are masochists.
> ...



Agreed. Wow.


----------

