Adobe Launches Carousel App and Photo Service for Mac and iOS

[carts44]

Geolocation Data

does anyone know if the photos will retain their geolocation data. For possible future 'places' view like on the 'photo' app

 

[gertruded]

All the corporations are trying to "monitize' the internet and change "free" to "pay". It will not work and most of these ventures will fail.

Be careful about putting your children's baby pictures out on the internet as some crazy will accuse you of child porn.

 

[johngordon]

Just been having a look at the free trial, and to be fair it does look pretty good (aesthetically). Its very iOS looking, and I like the subtle canvass like backdrop, just as I like the similar backdrop to the Notification Centre.

It seems to work pretty well - I dropped a few photos in on the iMac, and they appeared pretty quickly on the iPhone.

I think a major downside is that is only seems to order photos by date, so you get a scrollable, horizontal row for each day you have photos from. I would have thought it would be useful to retain any existing organisation of photos, such as albums, folders etc.

 

[spazzcat]

How is this different from iCloud?

 

[GiantSteve]

Just get MyPics and use Picasa where you can store your photos for free... and not just for 30 days

 

[Piggie]

Just been having a look at the free trial, and to be fair it does look pretty good (aesthetically). Its very iOS looking, and I like the subtle canvass like backdrop, just as I like the similar backdrop to the Notification Centre.

It seems to work pretty well - I dropped a few photos in on the iMac, and they appeared pretty quickly on the iPhone.

I think a major downside is that is only seems to order photos by date, so you get a scrollable, horizontal row for each day you have photos from. I would have thought it would be useful to retain any existing organisation of photos, such as albums, folders etc.

Always annoys the hell out of me when apps order photo's by their own method. by date (as you said above) or equally stupid the was Apple sort them by the date they were taken.

I always want to sort photo's out by their name. Everyone understands and can use the alphanumeric method.

Even if you go to it's most basic method that works so easy.

001 - Me at the bar
002 - Chatting up girlfriend
003 - taking girlfriend upstairs
004 - having drinks with the new lady
005 - getting all cosy now, bit of kissing
006 - gone to take a shower
007 - back in the bedroom, she's in bed
008 - pull back the sheets to get in with her
009 - OMG what's that between her hairy legs?
010 - now running from bedroom!

You see, that's easy to understand as a manner of sorting.

 

[Thunderhawks]

So...what is the deal here? Editing photos through cloud service? Or just storing them?

Clouds...are scary ;(

I've looked at clouds from both sides now,
From up and down, and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall.
YOU really don't know clouds at all.

 

[lostgear]

OK so I;ve got a Lightroom Catalogue and photo folder that is getting on for 300Gb, including some raw's from my 5d that are about 50Mb. Are Adobe going to store all of those in the cloud for me

Nice, but I better start uploading them now if I want to view them before xmas

 

[skinned66]

It's not worth the price for me.

 

[carmenodie]

Adobe must be getting high off their own supply!
I ain't paying no effing subscription fee for that BS!

 

[frozencarbonite]

OK so I;ve got a Lightroom Catalogue and photo folder that is getting on for 300Gb, including some raw's from my 5d that are about 50Mb. Are Adobe going to store all of those in the cloud for me

Nice, but I better start uploading them now if I want to view them before xmas

That's an interesting question. As cameras and cell phone cameras get better and better, the file sizes of the images will increase. Are these cloud services going to be able to handle these large photo libraries? That's a lot of data to entrust to a cloud service.

I would feel safer burning them to discs and physically cataloging the discs. But then you don't have to convenience of searching. Buying a few large external drives would be the best way.

 

[alent1234]

That's an interesting question. As cameras and cell phone cameras get better and better, the file sizes of the images will increase. Are these cloud services going to be able to handle these large photo libraries? That's a lot of data to entrust to a cloud service.

I would feel safer burning them to discs and physically cataloging the discs. But then you don't have to convenience of searching. Buying a few large external drives would be the best way.

storage is cheap these days along with data deduplication

 

[pcharles]

Nice Idea, Shame About The Price

I like the idea of cloud storage and have been using it for a while now with Dropbox, MobileMe, Mozy, and now iCloud.

The idea of a dedicated photo storage space should be appealing to certain people, but to those of us who already use a system, the price point for entry is going to be a bit steep when you compare it to some of the alternatives.

The thirty day trial will be nice, but it is hard to imagine what kind of offering would trigger me to spend $99 per year when I already have some of this functionality with Dropbox, Mozy, and iCloud.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Dead app already.

 

[Jeaz]

Downloaded it and gave it a try and sorry Adobe, but this is far from good.

The Mac app is quite easy to use, but that's pretty much since it has no features almost.
Yes, you can do some filters and editing on the pictures, but you can't arrange them in anyway, Carousel only sorts it by date, and that's it. You can't group them and give them a name, like Vacation.
And while 59 bucks per year for unlimited storage is ok, 99 is not, considering that this offers less than the combo of iPhoto and Flickr, and costing twice as much.

No, back to the drawing board Adobe. It's a shame, this could have been a good solution, it's just really bad at the moment.

 

[iSimx]

What a disappointing app. At least it should have more functionality similar to Lightroom and that would have been a good reason to purchase it. But on subscription??? no thanks. Adobe can keep their carousel.

 

[DotCom2]

Yet ANOTHER subscription service???
A little ding here, a little ding there...pretty soon you're talkin' really money!
NO THANKS!

 

[MarkNY]

What's needed is something like iTunes Match for iPhoto, where not just the media is stored in the cloud, but all of the library settings. When iCloud was revealed, I assumed this functionality would be one of its selling points. Surprised it's not there.

 

[Hammie]

As a Lightroom user, I was excited about it... until I saw the price and the comments above.

Maybe in a few years they'll get it right.

 

[JCanfield]

storage is cheap these days along with data deduplication

Deduplication only works when there is duplicated information. Even if you have hundreds of people taking the same picture of the same place - assuming that they are all taking the picture from the same point at the same instant - given differences in White Balance, formats (TIFF vs. JPEG vs Camera RAW) and any of the other variables that the photographer/camera can set, there's very little duplicated information...

The place I work stores TIFFs as part of the workflow. We've tried various schemes to reduce our storage needs and haven't come up with anything yet that gives more than a couple percent advantage. And, no, they can't be stored as JPEG or any form that uses (potentially) lossy compression.

 

[tigres]

Hey , just bring back Gallery.

kthnx

 

[tivoboy]

maybe

So, this MAYBE would be worth it, if it stayed at the 59$, IF it had some ability to push/stream/display to an apple tv.

IF there was some iphoto integration (Which most likely won't happen)

Basically, IF they made it a better MM gallery replacement they might have something on their hands - but then apple could just re-implement gallery into icloud and BOOM no more market.

 

[jeremyschultz]

Does anyone know if it integrates with lightroom?

From what I remember, it does not. It works with JPEGs only so if you're a prosumer user who uses RAW images and Lightroom, then this is probably not for you. I haven't installed Carousel on my iPad yet though, so maybe things have changed. I saw it a month or two ago in a press demo.

Others have asked what "the same powerful photo-processing technology that's used in Adobe Photoshop® Lightroom" means, I'm pretty sure that means Carousel uses the same algorithms Lightroom uses for photo display, noise reduction and such. Carousel doesn't share the same UI as Lightroom.

Jeremy

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Seems like a "me too" product. Adobe is a little late to this game and they are the photo editing "home" team.

$59 is still too much for photo storage when their are less expensive options. Even iCloud (with it's Photo Streaming) is $40 for 20GB, and that's not exactly a bargain.

As far as iOS photo editing apps go there are plenty of great ones for a few bucks if you really want to edit on a small screen. So other than the Adobe name I'm not sure what the pull here would be.

I do hope that people that use these cloud services use them as a remote back up and not main storage. The way these services are constantly changing it's going to be a bear when one of these companies gives a 90 day cancelation notice and people are left scrambling (not unlike iDisk now) or the price gets jacked up to a small ransom.

 

[vetman35]

Sorry all I could think of is Logan's Run

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSnLU9nyFSA