# Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 8, 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=""></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="">Tweet</a></div>
Adobe has <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/lightroom-mobile.html?PID=3485381" target="_blank">officially announced the long expected Adobe Lightroom mobile version</a> for iPad.</p>
<p><strong>Features</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Sync mobile edits, metadata and collection changes back to the Lightroom catalog on a Mac or Windows computer.</li>
<li>Automatically import images captured on an iPad and sync back to a Lightroom catalog on the desktop.</li>
<li>Work on images, even when your iPad is offline, for a truly portable experience.</li>
<li>Sync photos between Lightroom 5 and Lightroom mobile; synced photos can also be viewed from any Web browser.</li>
</ul>
<p>Lightroom for iPad is included in the Photoshop Photography Program that also includes Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CC</p>
<p><a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/lightroom-mobile.html?PID=3485381" target="_blank">Download Lightroom Mobile</a></p>
<p>Camera RAW 8.4 & Lightroom 5.4 were also released.</p>
<ul>
<li>Adobe Lightroom 5.4: <a href="http://www.anrdoezrs.net/click-3006718-10503029?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobe.com%2Fsupport%2Fdownloads%2Fdetail.jsp%3FftpID%3D5740" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Macintosh</a> | <a href="http://www.dpbolvw.net/click-3006718-10503029?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobe.com%2Fsupport%2Fdownloads%2Fdetail.jsp%3FftpID%3D5741" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Windows</a></li>
<li>See more about <a href="http://www.kqzyfj.com/click-3006718-10503029?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.adobe.com%2Flightroomjournal%2F2014%2F04%2Fcamera-raw-8-4-and-dng-converter-8-4-now-available.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Adobe Camera Raw 8.4</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://photorumors.com/2014/04/08/adobe-lightroom-for-ipad-released/" target="_blank">PR</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## adhocphotographer (Apr 8, 2014)

Glad it is included in CC... I will have a play with this for sure!


----------



## m (Apr 8, 2014)

Not available as standalone app


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 8, 2014)

Broken for me. I added the app to my iPad and then upgraded to LR 5.4 on my PC and started to sync a few photos via Collections and I keep getting the message:

"Sync has been turned off. This appears to be a backup catalog which may be out of date with Lightroom mobile."
To make this your sync catalog, go to: Edit > Preferences > Lightroom Mobile and click the "Delete All Data" button to start fresh.

I have done this numerous times and am getting nowhere. A tad buggy out of the blocks, me thinks!


----------



## DFM (Apr 8, 2014)

No, sorry. Lr Mobile is only available for customers with an active subscription (CC or the PS/Lr Photography Program). Perpetual licenses of Lightroom cannot sync with it.



m said:


> Not available as standalone app


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 8, 2014)

DFM said:


> No, sorry. Lr Mobile is only available for customers with an active subscription (CC or the PS/Lr Photography Program). Perpetual licenses of Lightroom cannot sync with it.



and why is that? We have paid for our perpetual LR licenses too,. FU arrogant Adobe! 

And do take note: I will not rent your software or join an annual pay subscription model ... ever, no matter what you do. And if you push me and if no better software alternative becomes available, I will revert back to Canon DPP to process RAWs.


----------



## Vivid Color (Apr 8, 2014)

I think it is a marketing mistake not to make Lightroom mobile as a stand alone app. It could've become their gateway product.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 8, 2014)

Same argument in the past week with the release of Office for iPad - you need to step up and buy an Office365 license.

Weird. I reverted back to a backup catalog from last night and LR still seemed stuck trying to sync my original files. I deleted the mobile catalog again and synced some RAW files rather than the original TIF and PSD's which I had in existing collections.

Got it working - will try it out and see how it goes. They will definitely need to fix the DB sync issue I was experiencing as something is gummed up in the sync process for sure.


----------



## mustafa (Apr 8, 2014)

Let's hope this kicks loose a cross-device Aperture mega-application. Apple has all the tools, and huge advantages with iOS7/OS X integration and a massive iPad population. All it needs is some assertiveness, and possibly persuasion from its customer base - us!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 8, 2014)

I have Lightroom 5 I dont have or want CC or PS/Lr subscription. Adobe forced its customers to accept a monthly subscription for CC and now is trying to do the same with Lr by making the mobile version subscription only. 

As Im completely Apple I will in future move to Aperture it already works on iPad and Im not forced into a monthly subscription unlike my daughter who uses CC. professionally.


----------



## Zv (Apr 8, 2014)

I see. It's like that is it? Good news for Creative Cloud subscribers but all the other poor fools are screwed. 

Question - if I give in to CC and pay the monthly subscription and later down the line I say "nah, I wanna go back to LR4" could I do that? Not sure how it works.


----------



## yorgasor (Apr 8, 2014)

It says this will import photos taken with the iPad... but it would be more useful to sync photos from my 5D3 to my ipad, do touch ups in the field with the iPad and then sync with my computer when I get home. Is that a possible use case? I assume I'd need to buy some accessory to transfer files that way since there's no SD or CF slot on the iPad. I'll have to do some more investigation with this as it seems like a cool workflow option.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 8, 2014)

yorgasor said:


> It says this will import photos taken with the iPad... but it would be more useful to sync photos from my 5D3 to my ipad, do touch ups in the field with the iPad and then sync with my computer when I get home. Is that a possible use case? I assume I'd need to buy some accessory to transfer files that way since there's no SD or CF slot on the iPad. I'll have to do some more investigation with this as it seems like a cool workflow option.



You can buy the Photo Import dongle for iPad, careful with third party knockpoffs - not all of them work. You import photos into your filmroll and then they are on the iPad - I don't know if you can import them into LR on iPad though. I have not yet encountered an import feature - it appears to sync with MAC/PC Collections instead. I have also not found a selection method beyond Pick/Unflag.

The workflow you describe would be awesome. Shoot, upload to iPad, quick selections/edits and then upload to mothership but I don't think the mobile version is there yet.


----------



## bitm2007 (Apr 8, 2014)

> and why is that? We have paid for our perpetual LR licenses too,. FU arrogant Adobe!



It's the clearest indication yet that the full version of Lightroom will be subscription only in the future.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 8, 2014)

bitm2007 said:


> > and why is that? We have paid for our perpetual LR licenses too,. FU arrogant Adobe!
> 
> 
> 
> It's the clearest indication yet that the full version of Lightroom will be subscription only in the future.



No, it isn't. One has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 8, 2014)

Um, not NO, but HELL NO. Doesn't sync with non-CC Lightroom? What an insult.
And yet again I laugh. Chuckle. Shake head. _No Android version_. Why? Well, sorry to be so negative here but... 

_[ALERT: BEGIN RANT]_

I'm a techie but I don't do Apple. It's too expensive for pretty hardware and a locked in ecosystem. The devices are great but Apple isn't. And Apple stuff isn't as perfect as people who have never used it think because many who do use Apple stuff sugar coat the experience. They refuse to admit any faults exist whatsoever, even when they do complain they immediately excuse the problem or decide the problem isn't significant. (I've never quite understood this but Apple has always had the best Kool-Aid ever made. They've got their market _HOOKED_!)

And now we have yet another example of how using Apple just sucks more money out of your wallet thanks to Adobe, Apple's long time buddy. Yes, I know Adobe practices aren't technically Apple's doing but their ecosystem is becoming very similar. And so Microsoft, Adobe, et al all see the Apple consumer as a spendthrift that will keep spending to get the maximum limited functionality that they crave with Apple products. That's why they feel comfortable testing their subscription model on them first, in an ecosystem that is already designed to be a steady revenue stream.

Ironically for me, the iPad Air is the first iPad I have even considered plunking down $800 outrageous bucks for and so this new LR app got my attention. Then I read all the built-in LR limitations and subscription details and I lost all interest. Just like every other time, I learn that I will be forced to spend, spend, spend to get the functionality I want, if it is even possible. Apple has so many roadblocks to productivity and versatility that I gave up years ago trying to use their products because I wasn't willing to conform to their narrow vision and be punished for trying to expand past it or work around it.

Apple products are primarily designed to generate revenue for Apple, not provide user functionality as a primary function. Every single thing is built to drive you to stay online, buy Apple media content, apps and hardware accessories in a vain attempt to reach an unreachable goal of usability. Unless your usage goal fits within the Apple model of limited use which includes consuming media content, buying apps, web surfing and checking email, you will be disappointed. Even something as simple as setting up an iPad to sync a Google Calendar (instead of or in addition to the Apple Calendar) often results in problems. Apple rarely admits to bugs and problems and often takes forever to admit or issue fixes. Their support is disappointing, esp for what they charge for their products.

_[END OF RANT]_

I'll continue to support the alternative Nexus, Kindle and Nook tablets that offer more functionality, better and more versatile hardware and a more diverse and supportive ecosystem. It's no wonder that Android overtook Apple years ago in market share. Once ver 4 arrived, the Android OS really started to shine.

Again, I think there is a reason why there is no Android version designed like this. It's on purpose people.

Sorry again for the RANT but it really irks me that I could get a lot of anything else (tablets, camera equipment, moving vehicles) that provide much more use for what Apple thinks I should spend for a simple tablet device. And slowly Adobe is working on getting more of my wallet as well. So I choose to vote with my wallet and say NO! (And try to convince others to do the same.) Grrrr!!


----------



## odoketa (Apr 8, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > > and why is that? We have paid for our perpetual LR licenses too,. FU arrogant Adobe!
> ...



That seems... optimistic. If you could subscribe to LRM on its own, then maybe they would have nothing to do with one another. The fact that one cannot get LRM without also buying some version of CC (products I don't want) would seem to point towards Adobe planning to force everyone into some version of a subscription model. I see no reason they wouldn't put LR6 or LR7 in that same boat. If you accept the basic premise that the subs have increased their revenue (looking at their quarterly numbers they haven't, but they also haven't decreased, and they continue to add new subscribers, which points to them starting to grow again probably in Q2 - certainly their stock price says the plan is working), then there's no reason to think they wouldn't move all products to the subscription model. They just need to find a price point.

If I were a betting man, I would say LR7. But then I would reflect, and remember that Adobe always moves faster than I expect, and say LR6. We'll see.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2014)

odoketa said:


> ...would seem to point towards Adobe planning to force everyone into some version of a subscription model.



I don't think Adobe has made a secret of their desire to do that...


----------



## David Hull (Apr 8, 2014)

It appears to be absolutely worthless if you are not part of the Adobe Creative Cloud game or pay them $10/month to use it. I thought it might work as a stand alone app but apparently not did I miss something?


----------



## arbitrage (Apr 8, 2014)

I've had a play with it very briefly. I just happened to subscribe to CC last week when the 9.99 was available for people who don't own previous PS versions. You can add from the iPads camera roll which means you can also use a camera connection kit and add to the camera roll and then into the LR Mobile app. You have to go to the collections screen and then there is a settings button on the lower right of each collection thumbnail and you get the option there to add from the camera roll.

Adjustments are fast and you can do all the adjustments in the main basic area of LR but not the Detail or any of the others. You can crop and you can do very quick flag and rejects by just swiping up or down respectively. It immediately syncs back your changes to LR on your home computer if you are connected to internet. You can tell it to use 3G or not if you have 3G iPad.

In LR on your computer you can only sync from your collections pane and only base level collections can be selected (you can't select an entire collection set in one click) also you can't select individual pictures to sync (at least so far I can't find a way) so it may make more sense to make a dedicated collection for syncing and then reorder back at home?? Sync is fairly slow, I did 180 photos and it took at least 15-20 mins to get them all up to the iPad.

First impressions: somewhat useful for me...maybe....I will need to see if I can move files directly from memory card onto iPad and into LR but I can't see that working very well if you haven't already loaded the raws on your main computer/drives. It would end up being just a jpeg that would get synced and wouldn't have any relation to the raw file that you may import later at home??


----------



## wtlloyd (Apr 8, 2014)

"I'm a techie but I don't do Apple. It's too expensive for pretty hardware and a locked in ecosystem."

Ya, that locked-in ecosystem might be a solid reason the mobile app is limited to iOS at this time, doncha think? I rather doubt Adobe is going to stop there, iPad is a shrinking market, android and win8 tablets are storming the gates.

"And now we have yet another example of how using Apple just sucks more money out of your wallet thanks to Adobe, Apple's long time buddy. "

Don't see that at all. Jobs littered the roadway, trying to stall Adobe market share - very much a love-hate relationship, an uneasy partnership at best. See "Flash". 
Thomas Knoll remarked that they lost 2 million man hours of work when Apple decided Carbon wouldn't do 64bit.

"Apple products are primarily designed to generate revenue for Apple, not provide user functionality as a primary function."

Commerce must work differently on your planet.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 8, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> odoketa said:
> 
> 
> > ...would seem to point towards Adobe planning to force everyone into some version of a subscription model.
> ...



All software companies want a subscription model and they always have since the beginning of time.

The only thing stopping "Software as a Service" in the past was limited connectivity. Today, always-on high speed Internet and connectivity saturation ('The Cloud') has made all kinds of subscription based models feasible. As much as I hate the idea, it will likely be a reality and unavoidable in the near future. My concern is not the model itself but the inevitable lack of value for the consumer once most companies have subscriptions in place and then fail to provide quality and good ROI for the revenue stream they receive on a constant basis. Most people fail to consider the long term cost of a subscription model and so the provider is able to mask their poor product/service/support behind a low monthly cost model. Just look at how much you like your local cable provider to get a taste of this. That is a good example of charge first (raise rates) and provide better value, service or ask permission later, if at all.


----------



## drs (Apr 8, 2014)

I canceled the CC -- I'm not a subscriber -- that I know now, but I have had to try it.

It is too sad that ADOBE forces us to leave them alone, or pay (until "you" die). 

Old arguments, I know, but no new options.

CC=Closed Chapter -- After two decades I'm stuck with Cs6 Master Suite.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 8, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> "I'm a techie but I don't do Apple. It's too expensive for pretty hardware and a locked in ecosystem."
> 
> Ya, that locked-in ecosystem might be a solid reason the mobile app is limited to iOS at this time, doncha think? I rather doubt Adobe is going to stop there, iPad is a shrinking market, android and win8 tablets are storming the gates.



You're right, I don't think they will stop with Apple. I just know they wouldn't be as successful _starting_ this strategy if they tried it with the Android market initially.



 wtlloyd said:


> "And now we have yet another example of how using Apple just sucks more money out of your wallet thanks to Adobe, Apple's long time buddy. "
> 
> Don't see that at all. Jobs littered the roadway, trying to stall Adobe market share - very much a love-hate relationship, an uneasy partnership at best. See "Flash".
> Thomas Knoll remarked that they lost 2 million man hours of work when Apple decided Carbon wouldn't do 64bit.



Good point. But Adobe software isn't Flash. Totally different division. Adobe Flash truly sucks and I actually applauded Jobs for telling it like it is and standing up to Adobe on this point. I wish Flash had gone away years ago but there simply hasn't been a good enough alternative for universal web content yet. Javascript is also a huge problem but yet again, until a decent alternative can replace it, Javascript will continue to exist and receive security updates into infinity.

It's another odd fact of the Apple media world that so many negatives about Apple fail to make headlines. Many, many software companies were badly burned or put out of business by Apple's merciless App Store rules and arbitrary decisions about whether or not an app would be "allowed" to enter the sacred realm. This is one of the reasons I hate Apple so much. They not only abuse their consumer, they crucify their development community. It borders on criminal how many developers have been burned by Apple with little or no explanation. While hundreds of 'Fart Apps' would make it into the app store right away, truly productive apps that required hundreds of man hours to build would be summarily denied with no explanation putting some app developers out of business before they made a penny betting on Apple.



wtlloyd said:


> "Apple products are primarily designed to generate revenue for Apple, not provide user functionality as a primary function."
> 
> Commerce must work differently on your planet.


I don't understand your comment ???

On my planet, the Apple ecosystem is designed around consumption of all things Apple using all Apple hardware through the Apple App Store, iTunes Store, Apple Online and Retail Stores, etc. Or they receive other money from licensing and patents. They directly or indirectly discourage or downright punish any attempt to get around that using other software, apps, services or devices. If all else fails, they just sue the crap out of you for just about anything they can dream up.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 8, 2014)

arbitrage said:


> You can add from the iPads camera roll which means you can also use a camera connection kit and add to the camera roll and then into the LR Mobile app. You have to go to the collections screen and then there is a settings button on the lower right of each collection thumbnail and you get the option there to add from the camera roll.



Tried this and it works well - thanks for pointing it out! Have not tried to import the film roll collection in my PC yet, I will have to wait until later to try that out.

Are you the same Arbitrage from FM?


----------



## chmilar (Apr 8, 2014)

Zv said:


> Question - if I give in to CC and pay the monthly subscription and later down the line I say "nah, I wanna go back to LR4" could I do that? Not sure how it works.



Here is the problem with going on to CC and then quitting (and reverting back to LR5, LR4, Photoshop CS6, etc.):

Any file that you worked on and saved from CC will contain adjustments, filters, layers (for PS) that do not exist in the older version of the application. When you try to open the file in the older software, one of two things could happen:

1) File will load but the unknown adjustments will be thrown away.
2) File will not load because it is from an "unknown or incompatible version".

Someone who is on CC and also has a copy of LR4 or 5 could test this out by applying an adjustment that is exclusive to CC, and then see what happens when opened in the older one.

One serious problem with CC is that, when you quit the subscription, you do not get to keep the latest version. With the old upgrade scheme, whenever you decided to quit upgrading, you always kept the last one you paid for, and your files remained usable. This is why I have opted not to subscribe, and continue to use LR6 and PS CS6 (which do everything I need).


----------



## Zv (Apr 8, 2014)

arbitrage said:


> I've had a play with it very briefly. I just happened to subscribe to CC last week when the 9.99 was available for people who don't own previous PS versions. You can add from the iPads camera roll which means you can also use a camera connection kit and add to the camera roll and then into the LR Mobile app. You have to go to the collections screen and then there is a settings button on the lower right of each collection thumbnail and you get the option there to add from the camera roll.
> 
> Adjustments are fast and you can do all the adjustments in the main basic area of LR but not the Detail or any of the others. You can crop and you can do very quick flag and rejects by just swiping up or down respectively. It immediately syncs back your changes to LR on your home computer if you are connected to internet. You can tell it to use 3G or not if you have 3G iPad.
> 
> ...



Thanks this is useful info. For travel this could work as a "shoot - edit - share" solution on the go. I suppose tethering is out of the question? That would seem like an Apple limitation. I hate the lack of connectivity on the iPad. It's like the perfect screen for tethered shooting but I can't use it!


----------



## wtlloyd (Apr 8, 2014)

"I don't understand your comment ??? "

Ya, sorry, I can be a right jerk anytime, but particulary before the coffee kicks in...

I'm a PC/Android user as well, my loathing for all things Apple goes right back to the late '80s. I couldn't understand people not seeing a huge corporate behemoth lurking behind the cute adds and twee design...so many small startups were working on PC architecture, I saw the diversity and independence as a very good thing. My 1st computer was an AST386...

Completely agree on Flash and Java, looking forward to seeing their diminished use in website design.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 8, 2014)

chmilar said:


> This is why I have opted not to subscribe, and continue to use LR6 and PS CS6 (which do everything I need).


For now...
The next upgrade of Canon to say the 5D4 will require a Camera RAW upgrade that would likely only be available on the new CC platform regardless of whether or not they make LR a CC only subscription.

The majority of the features I use in LR and PS could be served with older versions but you fall into the trap of needing an update to support a filter or new device. I limped along with my 5D3 two years ago and I was running LR3 at the time and needed to upgrade to LR4 which at the time involved a new laptop (2k later). For months I converted files to DNG and then imported them - no tethered shooting, etc...

My point is, software has built in obsolescence and Adobe and Microsoft to name a few have adopted this model. If we want the new features we will need to pony up (or pirate) otherwise we can revert to our old perpetual licences or find open source variants.


----------



## Zv (Apr 8, 2014)

chmilar said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Question - if I give in to CC and pay the monthly subscription and later down the line I say "nah, I wanna go back to LR4" could I do that? Not sure how it works.
> ...



I see. So once you start paying the subscription you're basically tied to it for life. The only issue I have with that model is if they jack up the price somewhere down the line. Think I'll stick with what I have.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 8, 2014)

Zv said:


> Thanks this is useful info. For travel this could work as a "shoot - edit - share" solution on the go. I suppose tethering is out of the question? That would seem like an Apple limitation. I hate the lack of connectivity on the iPad. It's like the perfect screen for tethered shooting but I can't use it!



My point exactly (about Apple's built-in limits), which is why I use other tablets with the same or better screens and more connectivity, etc. Not to mention media card slots, etc.

And honestly, if I were going to spend $800 on a Apple tablet, that kind of money could likely be better spent on an ultralight touchscreen tablet/laptop hybrid which are getting so good that they are beginning to make more sense as a better alternative to an expensive limited tablet. Check out the newest Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro for $1000 - $1200. It's very nice and extremely versatile. Compare that to the $800 Apple tablet that you still have to buy a keyboard cover for and all kinds of other gizmos to expand its limited storage and connectivity.


----------



## chmilar (Apr 8, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> chmilar said:
> 
> 
> > This is why I have opted not to subscribe, and continue to use LR6 and PS CS6 (which do everything I need).
> ...



I agree. At some point in the future, it will be necessary to find alternatives outside of Adobe's products. I think this is preferable to getting locked into a CC subscription. More pain and effort in the short-term, but better in the long.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 8, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> chmilar said:
> 
> 
> > This is why I have opted not to subscribe, and continue to use LR6 and PS CS6 (which do everything I need).
> ...



Which is why many talented coders continue to hack around these scams so people have a choice.

It's a shame that greed is (and always has) driven the software corporate structure. I'm all for developers being compensated but the software industry seems to be slowly following the incredibly flawed anti-piracy model of the RIAA/MPAA that intentionally burns everyone in a vain greedy attempt to lock people into spending tons of money for questionable value of products and services.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 8, 2014)

chmilar said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > chmilar said:
> ...



*chmilar*, you hit the nail on the head! If more folks would simply...

- NOT Pre-Order overpriced or questionable products
- WAIT a few months to force the manufacturer or developer to lower/change their unfair price or pricing scheme/model
- SHARE and COMMUNICATE their true opinions for the manufacturer or developer to see and consider

... then I think companies would think more carefully how ridiculous they are when it comes time to ask for money for their products and how they attempt to manipulate the consumers to get it.


----------



## tntwit (Apr 8, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I'm a techie but I don't do Apple.



Actually, I think most techies 'don't do Apple' since Android offers more customization. I think it is actually the non-techies that like Apple for it's simplicity.



RustyTheGeek said:


> And Apple stuff isn't as perfect as people who have never used it think because many who do use Apple stuff sugar coat the experience.



No company or product is perfect and Apple is no different. What I find entertaining is how many people love to hate Apple. If you were to base a buying decision on opinions from certain sites on the internet on Apple, you would probably never buy any. Specifically check out the opinions of forum posters on Phone Arena. Most people there would have you believe that the iPhone and iPad are horrible products that only a 'stupid comsumer' - iSheep as they like to call them - would ever buy. 

So while it may be true that some Apple users sugar coat the experience, there are plenty of Apple haters that will give you a very poor impression of the products that is just as far from reality.



RustyTheGeek said:


> Apple products are primarily designed to generate revenue for Apple, not provide user functionality as a primary function.



All companies products or services are designed to generate revenue - that's what keeps them in business and if said products or services didn't "provide user functionality as a primary function" the company wouldn't be successful for very long. I think we can agree that Apple has had some success.




RustyTheGeek said:


> I'll continue to support the alternative Nexus, Kindle and Nook tablets that offer more functionality, better and more versatile hardware and a more diverse and supportive ecosystem.



I have and love the Kindle Fire, but it has been widely considered to be nothing more than a portal for Amazon sales and it is very limited due to Amazon locking down the Android system it is based on. Nothing wrong with that and I knew it going in, but considering your opinion about Apple only making products to drive revenue, I am surprised you would be interested and supportive of the Kindle. I do suspect, though, that you may have hacked yours and use it beyond the intentions Amazon had in mind - but maybe not.

To clarify, I had 2 Android phones (my wife still has hers) and now have an iPhone 5c and an iPad Air, so I have used both OS. I think they are both good systems with different strengths and weakness like anything else. For someone like yourself, Android is no doubt the better choice for most of what it seems you like to do.


----------



## lastcoyote (Apr 8, 2014)

arbitrage said:


> I've had a play with it very briefly. I just happened to subscribe to CC last week when the 9.99 was available for people who don't own previous PS versions. You can add from the iPads camera roll which means you can also use a camera connection kit and add to the camera roll and then into the LR Mobile app. You have to go to the collections screen and then there is a settings button on the lower right of each collection thumbnail and you get the option there to add from the camera roll.
> 
> Adjustments are fast and you can do all the adjustments in the main basic area of LR but not the Detail or any of the others. You can crop and you can do very quick flag and rejects by just swiping up or down respectively. It immediately syncs back your changes to LR on your home computer if you are connected to internet. You can tell it to use 3G or not if you have 3G iPad.
> 
> ...



Funny I just subscribed to the CC Photoshop Photography Program in the last few days too. 
I was going to explain the iPad camera roll import thing but you've saved me the trouble 
I've had a quick play and think it's pretty good. No problems here with syncing. I just simply created a collection called iPad dedicated for my camera roll imports.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 8, 2014)

lastcoyote said:


> I just simply created a collection called iPad dedicated for my camera roll imports.


Does that Collection sync back up to your PC? If the Collection does not exist on your main LR PC does it create it for you and then transfer the images from the iPad?


----------



## lastcoyote (Apr 8, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> lastcoyote said:
> 
> 
> > I just simply created a collection called iPad dedicated for my camera roll imports.
> ...



I believe I created it in LR on my PC and it then popped up in LR on my iPad. I then imported from my camera roll using LR on my iPad and these then appeared in the collection on my PC. 

I've only tested it this way so far. So not sure what would happen if you create a collection on the iPad first. I get the feeling you may still have to create it on your PC LR too because you have to set the collection to be a synced one.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 8, 2014)

lastcoyote said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > lastcoyote said:
> ...



Makes sense. I will try this later today once I am near my home LR PC.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 8, 2014)

tntwit said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > And Apple stuff isn't as perfect as people who have never used it think because many who do use Apple stuff sugar coat the experience.
> ...



*tntwit*, I appreciate your balanced and positive replies. I think all of your replies to my points are good points and while I sound like an Apple hater, I'm not a hater per se, simply a disgusted and disappointed observer of an Apple ecosystem that I think could be so much better if it wasn't so expensive, intentionally limited and deceptive. In other words, Apple marketing is all about how positive and ideal they are on the surface but once a consumer buys in, they begin to learn how deep the money hole goes for limited benefit. I've helped a lot of clients try to get Apple stuff to work the way they would like (after switching from other platforms) and often they eventually give up and return to the other platforms after learning the sad reality that all things Apple is not the nirvana they were misled to believe.

Not to say that Apple stuff hasn't improved over the years and slowly become more productive. They are much better than they used to be. But Apple the company hasn't changed at all. In fact, the larger Apple gets, the more draconian and litigious they become.

I try (sometimes in vain) to explain what you have said: If you want a simple and limited experience that is easy to use but inflexible, buy Apple. Apple will make you happy as long as you do things their way.

With regard to Apple being successful locking people into their ecosystem for revenue compared to other companies, I respectfully submit that other companies products are much cheaper initially and they don't sue what seems like the entire world at the same time they fleece the consumers within their ecosystem. Amazon makes it pretty clear their tablet is a portal device. And the Nook tablets allowed the Google Play Store app last year to make it mostly universal. Google Nexus is of course not tied to anything. Apple also seems to think that everyone copies them at everything and while that is partially true, it's not nearly as true and Apple would like to think. It's sad to watch Apple sue so often over so many petty issues regarding names, images, trademarks, fonts, logos, devices, patents, URLs, or whatever they can imagine is theirs by some kind of divine right. It's not the ecosystem model that I mind, it's the way Apple does business that I get tired of along with the poor support of their products down the line. This is what most folks don't hear about until they own the products for a while. While the Apple of the '80's was exciting and revolutionary, the company they evolved into is simply a huge greedy bully.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 8, 2014)

*As I WTFU and look back on my posts, I guess I got waaaay too far off topic in this thread beating a dead horse.

Sorry folks! This is me... STHU. :-X*


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Apr 8, 2014)

I'm willing to try Lightroom mobile on my iPad. Would be good to see if it's a viable tool to improve my workflow...I personally hate carrying my laptop(s) to on location shoots.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 8, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> I think it is a marketing mistake not to make Lightroom mobile as a stand alone app. It could've become their gateway product.



Yup. Right now I'm just looking for any way to get a mobile computer to edit photos, whoever comes up with that first wins.

Somehow I expect Canon will get DPP to mobile before anyone else puts out a decent standalone program. Of course with all the X86 tablets coming out now I may well just abandon ARM devices altogether.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Apr 8, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Vivid Color said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is a marketing mistake not to make Lightroom mobile as a stand alone app. It could've become their gateway product.
> ...



You could run LR 5 on a Windows Surface Pro. I've used Premiere Pro and After Affects on a Surface Pro, though memory and RAM are a bit of an issue...and rendering is god awfully long. LR 5 is fine, though it gobbles up RAM pretty quickly. But if you absolutely need it on a tablet it's there.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 8, 2014)

David_in_Seattle said:


> You could run LR 5 on a Windows Surface Pro. I've used Premiere Pro and After Affects on a Surface Pro, though memory and RAM are a bit of an issue...and rendering is god awfully long. LR 5 is fine, though it gobbles up RAM pretty quickly. But if you absolutely need it on a tablet it's there.


A buddy of mine has run LR and PS on one of the EEE ASUS tablet with the built-in Wacom display for on location use - pretty handy indeed. I am sure the more recent Surface devices are way better than the older ASUS boxes.

Once these tablets are a serious contender as a desktop/laptop replacement I will likely step-up but although they are small they still have poor battery life and are heavy compared to an iPad or Android tablet.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Apr 8, 2014)

I'm a Techhie and I 'do' Apple..... hate Android and linuxy type systems....... 4 years of 'converting' to Apple.... never a virus or sign of one in all that time!!


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 8, 2014)

odoketa said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > bitm2007 said:
> ...



"Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?

A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 8, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> "Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?
> 
> A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."
> 
> http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html



Indefinitely: "for an unspecified period of time"

In other words it will be available until they decide that it won't, which may be sooner than you think.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 8, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> lastcoyote said:
> 
> 
> > Jamesy said:
> ...


I just synced the iPad to my main LR PC and low and behold LR created a new Collection Set and under that was the new Collection I created today along with the four images I had gathered from the film roll. It placed the actual images here on my PC:
{HDD}\Lightroom\Mobile Downloads.lrdata\*.*

My third party camera kit card is broken - I guess IOS 7 disabled it, therefore I cannot test out importing a series of .CR2 files to the film roll, creating a collection and importing them. It should work though. That should provide a decent onsite workflow selection process as you can swipe up or down on an image to flag it a Pick/Unpick or Reject.


----------



## lastcoyote (Apr 8, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > lastcoyote said:
> ...



Oh that's good then. Yeah I noticed the mobile downloads folder too. 
Out of interest what name did it create for the collection set?


----------



## arbitrage (Apr 9, 2014)

I just ran another test. Created a new collection on my iPad in LR mobile and named it LR Mobile Test. I added 6 photos from my iPads camera roll and copied 3 photos from the other collection I synced out of LR this morning. It automatically synced this new collection into LR on my laptop and it showed up as a Collection Set (so top hierarchy) with the photos in it. Now going to see where it actually placed the photos on my laptop's HD.

Next I will try to add some RAW files to the iPad via the camera connection kit and see what happens to them in LR and with syncing.

Another update: So yes as noted below LR makes a top level collection set called "From LR Mobile" within that set is the collection I created called "LR mobile test".

Now I loaded some images from my camera into the iPad photo app from the camera connection kit. I loaded some jpegs and some raw files. The iPad can read the raw files as it usually can but when you open the LR app it doesn't see the raw files only the jpegs. I then had to edit that file in the iPad photo app and then move it to its own new folder and then it showed up as available to import into LR mobile. So not a good solution for RAW file management.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 9, 2014)

lastcoyote said:


> Oh that's good then. Yeah I noticed the mobile downloads folder too.
> Out of interest what name did it create for the collection set?


It created the same named Collection Set as Arbitrage - it is called 'From Lr mobile' and the files are placed on the HDD here:
Collection set #1: {HDD}\Lightroom\Mobile Downloads.lrdata\{random_dir_name1}\*.*
Collection set #2: {HDD}\Lightroom\Mobile Downloads.lrdata\{random_dir_name2}\*.*


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 9, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> David_in_Seattle said:
> 
> 
> > You could run LR 5 on a Windows Surface Pro. I've used Premiere Pro and After Affects on a Surface Pro, though memory and RAM are a bit of an issue...and rendering is god awfully long. LR 5 is fine, though it gobbles up RAM pretty quickly. But if you absolutely need it on a tablet it's there.
> ...



Check out the Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro. i7 CPU, 8G RAM, 256 SSD, ultra-high res display (3200×1800 at 13.3" (276 ppi), higher than retina) and great battery life. Reviews are mostly great except the ultra high resolution is actually almost a negative it's so high. Great for photos though! It's about $1000 or $1200 from Best Buy depending on whether you want the i5/4G/128 version or the i7/8G/256 version.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/lenovo-yoga-2-pro-review-you-say-you-want-resolution/


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2014)

For all those whining, wailing, and gnashing their teeth at Adobe, again. 

If you want a really cool LR syncing iPad App get Photosmith, I have used it for years.


----------



## oneguywithacamera (Apr 9, 2014)

Don't forget about Capture One if you're looking to get out from under Adobe's thumb. They have a pretty sweet Capture One Pilot app for iOS that is actually useful for producing images, something that Lightroom Mobile seems to be lacking. 

I moved to LR 3 when it came out to 4, then when this whole creative cloud business started - back to Capture One. It's not perfect, I still prefer LR for a DAM application, but as a raw converter that has longer-term camera support (more than ACR anyway) and updates it's second to none.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 9, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Check out the Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro. i7 CPU, 8G RAM, 256 SSD, ultra-high res display (3200×1800 at 13.3" (276 ppi), higher than retina) and great battery life. Reviews are mostly great except the ultra high resolution is actually almost a negative it's so high. Great for photos though! It's about $1000 or $1200 from Best Buy depending on whether you want the i5/4G/128 version or the i7/8G/256 version.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/03/lenovo-yoga-2-pro-review-you-say-you-want-resolution/


That looks pretty sweet hardware wise


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> For all those whining, wailing, and gnashing their teeth at Adobe, again.
> 
> If you want a really cool LR syncing iPad App get Photosmith, I have used it for years.


This looks like a very interesting app and quite capable - more so than the LR mobile app.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> DFM said:
> 
> 
> > No, sorry. Lr Mobile is only available for customers with an active subscription (CC or the PS/Lr Photography Program). Perpetual licenses of Lightroom cannot sync with it.
> ...



+1


----------



## tntwit (Apr 9, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> ...while I sound like an Apple hater



Just so you know, I was rather careful not to call you a 'hater'. 8)



RustyTheGeek said:


> and they don't sue what seems like the entire world at the same time they fleece the consumers within their ecosystem.



This is one way in which Apple is not perfect. I think they would be better off focusing their time, money and energy on product innovation instead of lawsuits. Whether Samsung is right or wrong, when you're at the top the competition is going to go after your market share. They are not going to sit still. Apple needs to focus on moving forward, not worrying about the competition copying what they did in the past, particularly in a field that changes so fast and the past is rapidly irrelevant.

And yes, they are expensive, really too expensive. It disturbs me that they charge $100 for each bump in storage when storage is so cheap. It disturbs me that the iPad 2 lived so long for so much money. I think Macs are incredibly expensive, though I am thinking about one at some point. But I do think they make a good product (not perfect) and it's really a personal choice if the cost is worth it for all the pros and cons.

That said, Samsung isn't shy about what they charge for their top tier products and even Amazon cranked up the price of the Fire HDX from the HD to a level I don't think they are worth.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > DFM said:
> ...



Why are they arrogant? And how does that justify FU?

It is their software, they can choose to license it how they like, if you don't like the terms then just don't buy it but there is no point to talking like that to an actual Adobe representative. He isn't going to take you seriously if you talk like that, thanks for blowing any chance we have of reasonable dialog with Adobe here now.


----------



## tntwit (Apr 9, 2014)

Janbo Makimbo said:


> I'm a Techhie and I 'do' Apple..... hate Android and linuxy type systems....... 4 years of 'converting' to Apple.... never a virus or sign of one in all that time!!



I really don't know what the demographics are for each type of user, it was really just a guess based on observation. 

Our IT department has one guy who is very pro Windows - he has the Windows phone, a Surface Pro and a rather healthy dislike for Apple.

We have another guy who loves Apple - iPhone, iPad, etc. 

I don't know what the IT manager likes, but she was looking at him like he was crazy when he was joking around and praising Apple.

Like I said, it really amuses me how strongly people will defend one system over the other. It is the Ford Chevy argument of the tech world.


----------



## tntwit (Apr 9, 2014)

On topic, any opinions on whether it is better to use the iPod SD adaptor vs a WiFi card?

The WiFi card would be one less step, but I think it would be rather slow by comparison, particularly with RAW (I'm assuming LR Mobile supports RAW). I would like to try a WiFi card but I hear a real mix of good and bad about them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2014)

tntwit said:


> On topic, any opinions on whether it is better to use the iPod SD adaptor vs a WiFi card?
> 
> The WiFi card would be one less step, but I think it would be rather slow by comparison, particularly with RAW (I'm assuming LR Mobile supports RAW). I would like to try a WiFi card but I hear a real mix of good and bad about them.



I have much better luck with the Camera Connector Kit than either an Eye-Fi card or a Canon WFT.


----------



## tntwit (Apr 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I have much better luck with the Camera Connector Kit than either an Eye-Fi card or a Canon WFT.



Which iPad and I assume iOS7?

I heard some people were having issues with the connector kit and I don't recall if it was the iPad Air they were blaming or iOS7.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2014)

tntwit said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I have much better luck with the Camera Connector Kit than either an Eye-Fi card or a Canon WFT.
> ...



1st iPad and OS 5.1.1. Forget wireless RAW files, though you can do them, technically, the only way I will do them is via the WFT via FTP to Photosmith, EyeFi cards are very slow for RAW's and just not worth it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I never knew adobe understood the concept of "reasonable dialog". : : :


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 9, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Well we will never find out here now will we? The first comment to them, within four minutes, was FU, hardly an effective way of engaging anybody. If I was a corporate rep assigned this forum I'd report back that they (us) are not worth any time or effort.

I choose not to do the CC thing, and am happy with the cost of that, not getting the latest features is, as far as I am concerned, very reasonable. Besides, as I have already linked to, there are very good and established LR Mobile competitors.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I guess Adobe ignored the massive backlash and took light on my +1. Good for them.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> tntwit said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Funny you guys are discussing connectivity and the iPad. I remember back in the old iPad 1 days when most folks couldn't get the Camera Connector Kit to even work and if they did, it was dead slow and killed the battery very quickly.

This is part of the reason I was/am so irritated with Apple and iPads. I really really really wanted to use an iPad for photography from day 1. It was never a realistic option due partly to limited connectivity and partly due to lack of decent apps. There was just no way to get photos on an iPad out in the field that was even remotely useful. You had to use iTunes. What a joke. At least these days there is the ability to use WiFi to some extent.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 9, 2014)

tntwit said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > ...while I sound like an Apple hater
> ...



Yeah tntwit, I really appreciate you not jumping to conclusions with my rant. I try to be objective with technology but I also try not to be taken in by marketing and pretty lights and elegant surfaces. Technology should make things better and provide productivity, not just look nice. I applaud Apple for many things. They stomp the competition with their ingenuity, innovation and the simplicity and functionality of their interfaces. There are good reasons why they are a leader. Grandparents can use their products with ease. So can most of the rest of us. Their downfall is their pompous arrogance and insistence on total control along with their ruthless corporate attitude. And over the last couple years, they have become stagnant. Steve Jobs was a master visionary and great at many things including being a perfectionist and demanding excellence. But his downside was his ego and the way he took competition so personally. He needed more Wozniak to offset his Jobs.

I have owned Apple products in the past, I have clients that have or do own Apple products. I may own another Apple product some day. I had an iPhone. Now I have an Android. My wife still has an iPhone. We have various electronics around the house, some Apple, some Android, some Windows, some Linux, etc. But overall, if I am going to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on something that is overpriced, I'll buy another camera, lens or photography item. At least I can get most of my money back when I sell it down the road and it probably won't fail on me or be easily damaged.


----------



## lastcoyote (Apr 9, 2014)

Although I'm a user that has subscribed to Adobe's CC Photoshop Photography Program and feel that this particular £8.49/$9.99 'limited offer' (note the exclamation marks) is actually half reasonable, I do feel peoples pain and annoyance towards the CC model.....however I will say that I get the feeling that we are going to see this type of thing (essentially the 'rental' of software) more and more from the big software companies. It's the whole 'cloud' concept thats pushing it and it seems that's the way everything is going. I guess we just have to lump it and move with the times.....or do we? or am I just talking baloney


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 9, 2014)

Adobe and Lightroom and I go back many years. 
Up to 2005 I used Canon DPP. Then I discovered Pixmantec Rawshooter, spent 99 Euro on the premium version in April 2006 and three months later Adobe acquired the technology assets of Pixmantec, only to take Rawshooter off the market. Adobe did issue me a free license to Lightroom 1.0, which I briefly tested only to find out it was totally inadequate compared to what I was used to from Rawshooter. I went back to Canon DPP as RAW Converter and various Non-Adobe programs for photo editing. When Lightroom 2.0 came out, I gave it a try and found it useful. So I purchased the license, and subsequently also the ones for LR 3, 4 and 5. 

I find it arrogant of Adobe, to cut me and all other non CC users off using from using Lightroom on our mobile devices, even when we are holding perpetual licenses to LR. I do not want anything "for free" from Adobe. I would be ready to PAY EXTRA for the Lightroom Mobile APP ... if it delivers, what I would like out of it and if we are talking about a sensible one-time payment .. lets say anything from 3,99 to 9,99 USD/Euro - in line with regular mobile APP prices. 

As long as Adobe is denying their paying Lightroom customers full use of the program - both on PCs and in conjunction with mobile devices - and just to try to force us into their subscription / cloud model they can go f*ck themselves. I strongly resent all and any implications the Adobe CC model brings about: 
* the ongoing subscription payment requirement
* "cloud" exchange and storage per se (I do not put images "into anybody's cloud ... they reside solely on hardware devices under my full, direct and utter control, where I and nobody else sets the rules of use) 
* the fact, that countless hours of your own work on your own images will be lost, should you ever decide to stop paying and end usage of the Adobe creative cloud 

So until Adobe enables EVERY paying LR user to also use LR on mobile devices I will continue to say: FU Adobe! 



privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 9, 2014)

I find DPP perfectly adequate for most needs. Of course it is not as powerful as Lightroom etc., but it does the job, nicely and efficiently. Every picture I take starts its life in DPP, and I do have Lightroom but will not be upgrading to the CC version (yet).

Of course eventually we will all have 5D Mark IVs, 1D X Mark IIs, and dare I say it a 7D mark ii (or iii  ), plus new lenses etc and Adobe's technology will move forward just as quickly, so eventually we may not have a choice of upgrading, but need to out of necessity.

Adobe are a business and I can see their logic.

What I really, really do not get is why I, or anyone else, would want this on their phone. I never edit anything on my phone.


----------



## winglet (Apr 9, 2014)

It's fascinating to see the almost pathological level of emotion certain posters have against this company or that one. If you're so convinced one way or another that Android is better than Apple, then don't buy the Apple products, give your money to Samsung, vote with your wallet, no one cares. Likewise in reverse for the Apple fanatics. But spare us the lecturing please. For all the mocking that Apple "fanbois" receive, it's interesting to note that in this thread most of the hysterics are coming from disgruntled Win/Android users. Enough already - message received. Can we move on to the real point of here, to review LR Mobile? I'm sure Adobe will eventually release a version for Android, once they figure out how to support it on countless diverse hardware and software versions. Such is the downside of all that "choice".

Kudos to those who have tried to steer back on course. In that vein, I also agree that there are much better mobile options for syncing with LR. Photosmith has been mentioned.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 9, 2014)

Well, DPP may be adequate to handle some needs. unfortunately not my needs. And unfortunately it is in no way competitive to what Lightroom offers. Yes, DPP is free of charge, so no problem there. But ... 

LR gives me what I always wanted: "one-stop-shopping for everything I want do with my images". 

Only one software to purchase, learn and keep current. Both powerful and reasonably intuitive to use. Only 2 file formats involved: RAW ["digital slide / positive"] and .jpg ["digital prints"]. No bloated TIFFS, no proprietary multi-layer .psd files, no complicated software with multi-month learning-curves, no absurdly outdated 80's style user-interface, no functions targeted solely at graphics professionals or print shops ... 

And no more need for single-trick pony software apps just to import images, rename images, add and edit EXIF/ IPTC metadata, tag images, sort, organize, catalogue, show, share and edit them. 

LR has allowed me to cut all the post-processing software clutter. One seamless workflow. All editing directly on the RAWs, but totally non-destructive. Since LR 4 with the ability to also apply local adjustments, not just global ones. Everything handled in one window, rather than separate windows popping open for different types of image editing and manipulation. Excellent de-noising. Fully automatic correction for all my lenses, if and when desired. 

As I am not interested in creating composites or doing extensive pixel-level manipulations or CGI content I have no need for other post-processing software whatsoever. LR does it all. Yes, there are still improvements possible, but LR 5 is pretty darn "close to perfect" for me. 

Therefoe, I do not want to revert to a mere RAW-processor like DPP or Capture One or SilkyPix. I want ONE "stills images handling program". Unfortunately LR is the only sensible software option currently available to me [thanks to Adobe killing off Pixmantec and others]. Aperture ... I do not use Apple Macs. And all other programs I have tried are either subpar or total overkill relative to my requirements. 

This is why I have paid the license fees for every version of Lightroom so far. I am willing to pay for it in the future. I am also willing to pay a reasonable little extra money to use it on a mobile device as well. 

But I am not willing to move to Adobes creative cloud/subscription-based model. 



 expatinasia said:


> I find DPP perfectly adequate for most needs. Of course it is not as powerful as Lightroom etc., but it does the job, nicely and efficiently. Every picture I take starts its life in DPP, and I do have Lightroom but will not be upgrading to the CC version (yet).
> 
> Of course eventually we will all have 5D Mark IVs, 1D X Mark IIs, and dare I say it a 7D mark ii (or iii  ), plus new lenses etc and Adobe's technology will move forward just as quickly, so eventually we may not have a choice of upgrading, but need to out of necessity.
> 
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 9, 2014)

winglet said:


> ....
> Kudos to those who have tried to steer back on course. In that vein, I also agree that there are much better mobile options for syncing with LR. Photosmith has been mentioned.



While I appreciate Photosmith being mentioned .. it is no solution for what I [and presumabley many others] would like to do.

I would like to buy = SPENDING MONEY  for the following:

1. a Canon hi-end mirrorless EOS [FF sensor, roughly "5D IV equivalent"] with 2014-style .ac WIFI in it

2. flawlessly working image transfer (including RAWs) directly from camera to iPad. .AC protocol WIFI is fast enough to do this. if extra batteries are needed, I am prepared to buy some and carry them along

3. fully functional Canon "EOS Remote" app for iPhone and iPad ... offering full remote control functionality exactly like camranger today, but without need to carry along an extra piece of hardware 

4. Mobile Lightroom sans creative cloud from Adobe to run on my iPad and in a pinch also on my iPhone. With full sync to LR on my desktop PC. I would use it to select, rate images, to delete failed shots, to add metadata to images [IPTC, tags] and - occasionally - to do minor editing on some images [straightening, cropping, contrast, minor WB, de-noise, sharpening when & as required] - on location or "on the go" ... while I am still away from my desktop PC. 

So, essentially I want to cut out the need to carry along a notebook. 

But nobody is offering what I would like to buy ... not yet.


----------



## bitm2007 (Apr 9, 2014)

> LR has allowed me to cut all the post-processing software clutter. One seamless workflow. All editing directly on the RAWs, but totally non-destructive. Since LR 4 with the ability to also apply local adjustments, not just global ones. Everything handled in one window, rather than separate windows popping open for different types of image editing and manipulation. Excellent de-noising. Fully automatic correction for all my lenses, if and when desired.



If Lightroom does go the way of the cloud i'm planning to take a serious look at Cyberlink PhotoDirector 5. Lightroom users will feel instantly at home with it's development module, i've haven't had a serious look at whats under the bonnet (hood) yet however.


----------



## DFM (Apr 9, 2014)

There will always be arguments about whether the consumer products (Lr, Elements, etc) will go 'subscription only' in future, and Adobe can't do more than to say there are no plans. There really aren't, it's not something the target customers would accept. Maybe in 30 years when the entire concept of 'installing' something is dead and buried the idea will be forced upon us all, so Adobe cannot say "never".

Right now with LR Mobile version 1, all the data flows through Adobe's network, and there's a lot of it. I do understand people are angry about having to subscribe to get the app working (personally I didn't think it was a good idea), but it's not ad-funded and there are real costs to keep the thing operational. By all means complain about it, Adobe do take note of feedback. That's what people like me are here for - I don't mind being shouted at.

..and when I'm shooting on location I run Lr5 on a Surface Pro; quite frankly it's much better. I can shoot tethered, develop stuff and hand off the final results to a client while they're watching. I'd also suggest using a small laptop in the same way; the Surface is overpriced for what it is but I got the thing for testing, and forgot to give it back..


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 9, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> tntwit said:
> 
> 
> > On topic, any opinions on whether it is better to use the iPod SD adaptor vs a WiFi card?
> ...


I have an old Eye-fi Pro X2 8GB that was given to me on a shoot last year and I just got it setup this morning and I transferred both JGP and RAW to the 'Camera Roll' on the iPad, not withstanding speed of transfer, it works great.

That said, I went into LR Mobile, created a new collection and added the new photos to the collection. The RAW images were not visible to LR Mobile, only the JPG's.

Summary: RAW images in Camera Roll but not selectable for import into LR Mobile
Anyone else having this issue?

A bit of topic, another thing I noticed is that the images transferring from the Eye-fi card to the Camera Roll get renamed coming into the iPad - anyone else experience that?
EDIT: It seems this is a function of the iPad Camera Roll API: http://forums.eye.fi/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=8715


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 9, 2014)

winglet said:


> It's fascinating to see the almost pathological level of emotion certain posters have against this company or that one. If you're so convinced one way or another that Android is better than Apple, then don't buy the Apple products, give your money to Samsung, vote with your wallet, no one cares. Likewise in reverse for the Apple fanatics. But spare us the lecturing please. For all the mocking that Apple "fanbois" receive, it's interesting to note that in this thread most of the hysterics are coming from disgruntled Win/Android users. Enough already - message received. Can we move on to the real point of here, to review LR Mobile? I'm sure Adobe will eventually release a version for Android, once they figure out how to support it on countless diverse hardware and software versions. Such is the downside of all that "choice".
> 
> Kudos to those who have tried to steer back on course. In that vein, I also agree that there are much better mobile options for syncing with LR. Photosmith has been mentioned.



Yeah, message received. :-[ I'll accept most of the blame for going off topic and I actually already said that further up. I got a little carried away. Sorry!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 9, 2014)

*1st, I want to say how much many of us appreciate a representative from Adobe participating in this forum, watching this thread and sharing input to help answer questions and provide feedback.*



DFM said:


> There will always be arguments about whether the consumer products (Lr, Elements, etc) will go 'subscription only' in future, and Adobe can't do more than to say there are no plans. There really aren't, it's not something the target customers would accept. Maybe in 30 years when the entire concept of 'installing' something is dead and buried the idea will be forced upon us all, so Adobe cannot say "never".



Thanks for the insight. I suspect the Adobe stockholders will demand this subscription model be forced upon us all much sooner than 30 years. From the consumer standpoint, it appears to already be happening. The subscription model has been the holy grail of the software developer industry since the beginning of the industry. That and total control against piracy.



DFM said:


> Right now with LR Mobile version 1, all the data flows through Adobe's network, and there's a lot of it. I do understand people are angry about having to subscribe to get the app working (personally I didn't think it was a good idea), but it's not ad-funded and there are real costs to keep the thing operational. By all means complain about it, Adobe do take note of feedback. That's what people like me are here for - I don't mind being shouted at.



I'm glad you have a thick skin!  While I know you didn't design the product, sending all the data through the Adobe network is quite silly if you ask me. If the goal is to sync images with a local LR database on a local computer, why go to through the Internet unless the local connection doesn't exist? There should be a way to set it to "local port only", "local network only", "cloud based" or have a connection priority setting since a lot of folks just want to put images on the portable device in the field from the camera and then sync with their computer when they are back home. A cloud only connection would be useful for social media while away from home but a lot of photographers don't need that if you ask me. I think many folks get the feeling when they try to use products like this that the designers don't quite understand what photographers want or need.

Sorry but with regard to the CC model payment requirement and needing revenue to fund the project... respectfully... that's ridiculous. Launching a new product successfully requires taking chances and accepting some revenue loss in the short term. Crippling the adoption of a new product by restricting the ability to use it based on a payment structure sends the wrong message to the loyal (already paying) honest user and invites negative assumptions about the company in general.

A ver 1 product with limited functionality and bugs doesn't deserve to be paid for yet anyway. Wouldn't it be easier/more productive/better PR to just make ver 1 of this product free and see how many people jump on it, help test it, provide positive feedback to you and then require payment in the next more useful and stable version?



DFM said:


> ..and when I'm shooting on location I run Lr5 on a Surface Pro; quite frankly it's much better. I can shoot tethered, develop stuff and hand off the final results to a client while they're watching. I'd also suggest using a small laptop in the same way; the Surface is overpriced for what it is but I got the thing for testing, and forgot to give it back..



I totally agree. A local connection is the best way to do this. Then only upload selected images to the cloud as an option if needed/desired later. Hence my statement above about not sending the data through the cloud unless necessary. Keep it local. Why can't the iPad product simply do the same thing? Oh wait..... that's right.... the iPad doesn't have a connection port that enables tethering! (Except their proprietary connector that Apple won't allow to be used for connecting things unless it's a keyboard or iTunes! Nice.) But there's still an ad-hoc WiFi signal... ah crap. The camera doesn't have WiFi. Oh well, thanks anyway Apple. After several years, still no useful standard ports on an iPad.

Elsewhere in this thread I suggest using a Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro which is similar to the Surface Pro. These hybrid tablet/laptops are finally getting light enough and affordable enough to offer a good alternative to a tablet.


----------



## DFM (Apr 9, 2014)

Indeed it is, but in the iDevice world it's simpler to get into an app's sandbox via the Internet. Bouncing through iTunes or an ad-hoc LAN, iOS does like to 'optimize' files whether you want it to or not. This is an early stage of development, lots of things including 'local' sync methods are possible in future versions, it all depends on what users ask for. http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family is the place to make your suggestions and complaints, both equally welcome.



RustyTheGeek said:


> While I know you didn't design the product, sending all the data through the Adobe network is quite silly if you ask me.


----------



## arbitrage (Apr 9, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > tntwit said:
> ...



Yes, I also can confirm that RAW images are not visible to LR Mobile. Now after a day of playing with LR Mobile, I have concluded that it is next to useless for my workflow. Others hopefully will find a way to make it useful for them.

The only use I have of it is to create a Collection in LR for my best photos and have that synced to the iPad to easily show people my photos on the go.

I had also considered using it after a days shooting and syncing up the shoot and then using the comfort of the iPad on the couch to sort and reject my photos. However, there is no key wording function in LR mobile and I usually shoot 500-1000 pics a day (BIF) and reject about 80-90% so it would always take a long time to upload all of those images and really not be worth it in the end. I also would have used it to maybe do my edits but since I can't do all the Detail edits or set colour space or lens corrections it means I'd have to revisit every file in LR to finish them off...not worth the time either for me.

As of now, LR Mobile is just a glorified portfolio app for me. I hope others can find some use for it. I'd be interested to know what workflow others envision for it as maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## bitm2007 (Apr 9, 2014)

> I do understand people are angry about having to subscribe to get the app working (personally I didn't think it was a good idea), but it's not ad-funded and there are real costs to keep the thing operational



I find it hard to believe that operational costs are the true issue here. If they were Adobe could have offered the app as an optional paid add on to all Lightroom 5 licencees or as a stand alone retail version.


----------



## photo212 (Apr 9, 2014)

1) Photoshop on an iPad? Might as well skip PS and use Instagram filters to post process your images. I'm unlikely to convince Apple to make a 30" iPad, so it seems I'll stay with my desktop to edit images.

2) I do not always connect to the internet, so the CC thing is a pain for me. If I go off somewhere for months, why do I need to check back in with Adobe when I'm paying the bill? Makes zero sense, and I will not pursue the CC scheme. Their reasoning is twisted, and not based on real numbers.

3) Anyone examine the data throughput to Adobe to see how much you end up paying if not on WiFi but using 3G? More costs involved?

4) The second year is five times the price? And Adobe expects you to fulfill the contract for the first year regardless of usage? Automatic renewal? If you are off the grid then or get the notices routed to your junk folder, you might be looking at the second year contract buy out plan (50% of the remain contract). $300 to say, "No, thanks"?


No, thanks.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 9, 2014)

bitm2007 said:


> > I do understand people are angry about having to subscribe to get the app working (personally I didn't think it was a good idea), but it's not ad-funded and there are real costs to keep the thing operational
> 
> 
> 
> I find it hard to believe that operational costs are the true issue here. If they were Adobe could have offered the app as an optional paid add on to all Lightroom 5 licencees or as a stand alone retail version.



+100 
exactly! 

Free for the current "beta" version and later on anywhere between 1,99 to 9,99 for the real thing with full functionality, includuing RAWs and "local connection" without any need to be on CC.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 9, 2014)

photo212 said:


> 1) Photoshop on an iPad? Might as well skip PS and use Instagram filters to post process your images. I'm unlikely to convince Apple to make a 30" iPad, so it seems I'll stay with my desktop to edit images.
> 
> 2) I do not always connect to the internet, so the CC thing is a pain for me. If I go off somewhere for months, why do I need to check back in with Adobe when I'm paying the bill? Makes zero sense, and I will not pursue the CC scheme. Their reasoning is twisted, and not based on real numbers.
> 
> ...



Pretty much what I've always thought too.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 9, 2014)

DFM said:


> ... lots of things including 'local' sync methods are possible in future versions, it all depends on what users ask for. http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family is the place to make your suggestions and complaints, both equally welcome.



how about starting a well-designed poll thread on this forum and asking you to then forward results directly to those responsible Adobe?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> DFM said:
> 
> 
> > ... lots of things including 'local' sync methods are possible in future versions, it all depends on what users ask for. http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family is the place to make your suggestions and complaints, both equally welcome.
> ...


Seems to me that if Adobe is interested in feedback, it's not too hard to search the web, find threads like this one, copy and paste the relevant bits into a short synopsis and present it to those that need to see it internally. I assume that is what happens (or should) anyway if Adobe is truly looking for opinions and feedback in this day and age.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 9, 2014)

arbitrage said:


> Yes, I also can confirm that RAW images are not visible to LR Mobile. Now after a day of playing with LR Mobile, I have concluded that it is next to useless for my workflow. Others hopefully will find a way to make it useful for them.
> 
> The only use I have of it is to create a Collection in LR for my best photos and have that synced to the iPad to easily show people my photos on the go.
> 
> ...


I am with you - the current intro version of LR Mobile is lacking for my workflow too. I would primarily be interested in doing the initial triage of images, ratings and keywording (beyond the pick/unpick/reject mode). Actual edits are fun but I don't foresee a big need to do this type of editing on an iPad.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Apr 9, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > DFM said:
> ...



Let's be frank, companies spend little time and resources reading through all the forums on the internet about the pros and cons of their software, because at the end of the day customers vote with their wallet. If the product doesn't sell, then they're gonna make changes. I.E. MS's failure to gain any notable marketshare in mobile and tablets led to the firing and consolidation of their mobile and Xbox divisions. The Netflix debacle with separating their DVD and digital streaming services - they quickly reversed that decisions when they lost over a million subscribers in a quarter.

Now feedback from big clients is probably more reliable than reading anonymous posts on forums such as these. I work for a pretty large corp that buys a company wide user license from Adobe for CC. An actual Adobe rep frequently hosts personal training and feedback sessions for their various apps. They specifically ask us for our feedback and how they can improve the product. Heck, they even give us access to alpha versions of their software to allow our developers to check for security issues before it goes to beta (Acrobat and Flash are the primary examples).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 9, 2014)

Here is my Adobe feedback, Goodbye Ive bought my last version of Lightroom subscription is not for me. Hi Phase One Capture One looks better everyday.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2014)

arbitrage said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Look in to Photosmith, it is very good and has multiple ways of working with RAW or accompanying jpegs.


----------



## Frfun (Apr 10, 2014)

Paying a monthly subscription fee for software makes about as much sense as leasing a car. Ask just about any good financial advisor. Pisses me off that they alienate those of us who buy their software outright. LR5 is likely the last boxed version of LR that we will see.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 10, 2014)

Frfun said:


> Paying a monthly subscription fee for software makes about as much sense as leasing a car. Ask just about any good financial advisor. Pisses me off that they alienate those of us who buy their software outright. LR5 is likely the last boxed version of LR that we will see.



Unless you are a business (just ask any good financial adviser), and that is where Adobe sell the vast majority of their software. The fact that the majority of the forum members don't fit the business model that aligns with Adobe's core and majority customer base is a side issue. That they changed their ideas to give keen photographers a way to get the latest and greatest software for a very reasonable price (especially when you compare it to the cost of the lenses and bodies that are talked about all the time here) seems to be forgotten in the fury.

Look, you can still use your perpetual license, they still update RAW for LR for free, but they said they were not going to add features to it, so why bitch every time they do what they said they were going to do? They added a new feature to LR CC, LR Mobile, so what? If you want it pay for it, it is theirs to sell, it is your choice to buy or not.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 10, 2014)

Frfun said:


> Paying a monthly subscription fee for software makes about as much sense as leasing a car. Ask just about any good financial advisor. Pisses me off that they alienate those of us who buy their software outright. LR5 is likely the last boxed version of LR that we will see.


I agree and I hate the subscription model because it locks you in for eternity. If you slow down your use someday and photography is less of a hobby, what are you going to do when you want to view your extensive photo inventory down the line? Paying $$ each month just to have access to your images and their edits is not what I signed up for when I committed thousands of images to a Lightroom catalog and the Adobe DNG format.

This opinion is based on pure assumption at this point. I pray that LR stays a standard software license product if for only the fact that it is an organizational database tool first and foremost.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 10, 2014)

I dont agree that Adobe main customer base is business it maybe where it makes the most money but hundreds of thousands of copies of Photoshop Elements are sold on Amazon, at Costco etc. every year and thousands of Camera Club members globally use this with Lr these are not generally sold to "professionals" but to amateurs and Im sure Adobe would miss the profits they generate. 
Canon themselves have been bundling Lr5 with the purchase of 5dMKIII and 6d cameras a subscription model going forwards would mean a time limited period to hook you in or using alternatives. 

Its quite easy for Adobe to adopt a subscription service for professionals and a purchase option for consumers, consumers by and large require fewer elements of the package hence why Adobe do Photoshop Elements the same could be said for Lr.


----------



## bitm2007 (Apr 10, 2014)

> I dont agree that Adobe main customer base is business it maybe where it makes the most money but hundreds of thousands of copies of Photoshop Elements are sold on Amazon, at Costco etc. every year and thousands of Camera Club members globally use this with Lr these are not generally sold to "professionals" but to amateurs and Im sure Adobe would miss the profits they generate.



Next time that you are at a camera club ask how many members use Photoshop, then how many paid for it. Most members are amazed when I inform them that I only use genuine Adobe software.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 10, 2014)

bitm2007 said:


> > I dont agree that Adobe main customer base is business it maybe where it makes the most money but hundreds of thousands of copies of Photoshop Elements are sold on Amazon, at Costco etc. every year and thousands of Camera Club members globally use this with Lr these are not generally sold to "professionals" but to amateurs and Im sure Adobe would miss the profits they generate.
> 
> 
> 
> Next time that you are at a camera club ask how many members use Photoshop, then how many paid for it. Most members are amazed when I inform them that I only use genuine Adobe software.



LOL! Yeah, unfortunately this is fairly common. I think people think they are clever when they manage to get around paying for software. Sort of like many feel when they get around paying some taxes or something. As an IT guy, I am asked from time to time to hack software to get it for free for someone. While I don't mind the occasional double install of MS Office for an otherwise honest and legal home user, I cringe when people just assume that stealing software is something I don't mind doing for them. Esp for good software like Lightroom that is often priced under $100 when you find the deals. And some folks qualify for academic pricing and don't even realize it. My son owns my copy of Photoshop and Lightroom. I don't make profit from my photography and I'm taking pictures of my sons' activities most of the time anyway.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 11, 2014)

jeffa4444 said:


> I dont agree that Adobe main customer base is business it maybe where it makes the most money but hundreds of thousands of copies of Photoshop Elements are sold on Amazon, at Costco etc. every year and thousands of Camera Club members globally use this with Lr these are not generally sold to "professionals" but to amateurs and Im sure Adobe would miss the profits they generate.
> Canon themselves have been bundling Lr5 with the purchase of 5dMKIII and 6d cameras a subscription model going forwards would mean a time limited period to hook you in or using alternatives.
> 
> Its quite easy for Adobe to adopt a subscription service for professionals and a purchase option for consumers, consumers by and large require fewer elements of the package hence why Adobe do Photoshop Elements the same could be said for Lr.



Well you might not, but that just shows your lack of knowledge, it is not a fact. It isn't difficult to find articles, even interviews with Adobe management, that back up the fact that it is predominantly a pro program supplier.

http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-ceo-were-off-to-a-good-start-with-subscriptions-q-a/
http://www.macworld.com/article/2042386/adobe-creative-cloud-subscriptions-hit-700-000.html

Further, Adobe is a publicly traded corporation, it has a market value that is totally unrelated to its actual product, it is valued on how well it is performing in real time by non photographers who are only interested in company performance and financials, as can be seen by their share price. By any measure they are doing well, they really don't care about the give away Elements programs or the camera manufacturer bulk buys for bundling, they care about the multi thousand dollar business licenses and how they can keep those people happy and, more to the point, how they can best serve those core customers and subsequently keep getting income from those businesses on a regular basis.


----------



## Frfun (Apr 12, 2014)

I don't doubt that their subscription service may work well for a business, but not for those of us who would like to use the product for hobby or non-money making use. Obviously there are very passionate opinions on both sides. I'll continue to use it so long as I can buy LR outright, but when that time ends, I will have to explore other products.


----------



## bitm2007 (Apr 12, 2014)

> I don't doubt that their subscription service may work well for a business, but not for those of us who would like to use the product for hobby or non-money making use. Obviously there are very passionate opinions on both sides. I'll continue to use it so long as I can buy LR outright, but when that time ends, I will have to explore other products.



What's needed is a product aimed at serious enthusiasts, that fills the yawning specification gap between the business/professional orientated Photoshop CC and the beginner orientated Photoshop Elements. This forum and many others have run numerous threads to this effect in the past, but I doubt that Adobe will ever find such a product financially appealing. The Adobe Photographers Program is probably the best option we will get, sadly the subscription model is not for me. So it's the perpetual version of Lightroom for as long as possible for me as well.


----------

