Adobe Lightroom for iPad Likely Coming Soon With Cloud Syncing and $99 Subscription Fee

[a.jfred]

The negative comments here come mostly from people who are not the target group anyway. This software is aimed at professional photographers and enthusiasts. These are people who have already spent several thousand dollars on their equipment and who are willing to make a certain additional investment to get good results from their photos. Or do you think people spend $5000 on camera, lenses, filter, tripods, etc. and then complain that they can't get this app for $4.99?

I bet that the people who comment here that they want to buy the app for $4.99 have never shot a single RAW image in their life anyway, so why should Adobe care about their opinion? And yes, there are lots of people who don't want subscription based software. Still, Adobe appears to be making a lot of money. Why is there such a discrepancy between comments and reality? Because complainers are always more vocal.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'd be one of those.

I'm an enthusiastic hobbyist. I spend good money on my glass & my equipment, but I also research & buy what I can afford. And yes, I'd rather spend hundreds to thousands on good equipment (and then practice, practice, PRACTICE) to get it right the first time, than spend hundreds to thousands on a post-production piece of software to hide problems. Don't get me wrong: I'm not against post-production. I shoot exclusively RAW. I have for the last 4 years now, which means every single one of my photos needs some amount of post-processing to convert to a format I can display on the web.

I have CS4. I have a newer camera. CS4 does not support the raw files for the newer camera, despite the fact that Adobe's updated RAW support. I'd have to drop about a grand on CS5 (note: CS6 wasn't out yet, when I upgraded my camera) if I want native support. Really, all I need is Photoshop & Bridge, but I can't purchase those 2 separately. I shouldn't have to upgrade a program that works perfectly just because Adobe refused to allow CS4 to get the Camera RAW update.

So what do I do? I use the converter, convert my .NEF file to a .DNG for processing, and use that. At the least, I still have the original .NEF file. It's not a perfect solution, but until UFRAW updates to be a little more user-friendly, it's what'll have to do.

Now, I wouldn't expect much from a $4.99 iPad app. One-time $99 charge? Okay, I can deal with that, but it'd better be able to give me the moon & stars. $99 a year? Forget it.

 

[kalsta]

I think Apple have it right with pricing. Adobe can go suck one.

Final Cut X, Aperture, Logic are a fraction of a price they used to be so more people are happy to pay for them. The Adobe software was ludicrously overpriced so merely encouraged piracy and CC is priced too high too.

I've been very negative about Adobe in this thread, but when making comparisons with Apple, we should keep in mind that Apple still makes its money on hardware. The genius of Apple's steady eroding of prices (its own software prices, and software generally due to the App Store's early and enduring 'race to the bottom'), is that Apple can afford do do it, because Apple makes such a huge markup on its hardware.

By contrast, Adobe is a software company, and is now in the challenging position of trying to cling to the glory days of old where people paid hundreds or even thousands for a single app. I don't think professionals are completely immune to the realities of the changing marketplace, so Adobe has to adapt somehow. Having said that, it never ceases to amaze me how much some businesses are prepared to throw into the 'cloud', and perhaps that's why Adobe has tried to jump on the cloud bandwagon, even if it's in name only. I happen to think it's the worst way they could have responded to the challenge, but time will tell.

 

[kalsta]

I have CS4. I have a newer camera. CS4 does not support the raw files for the newer camera, despite the fact that Adobe's updated RAW support. I'd have to drop about a grand on CS5 (note: CS6 wasn't out yet, when I upgraded my camera) if I want native support. Really, all I need is Photoshop & Bridge, but I can't purchase those 2 separately. I shouldn't have to upgrade a program that works perfectly just because Adobe refused to allow CS4 to get the Camera RAW update.

I hear you! It reminds me very much of how, years ago, MYOB used to try and get me to upgrade by withholding updates to the taxation tables—data which was provided for free by the Australian Tax Office. If their software and updates were worth the price of admission (they weren't) they wouldn't need to stoop to such tactics. (MYOB is a company I dislike even more than Adobe if you hadn't already guessed.)

Now, I wouldn't expect much from a $4.99 iPad app. One-time $99 charge? Okay, I can deal with that, but it'd better be able to give me the moon & stars. $99 a year? Forget it.

Amen!

 

[hugodrax]

Maybe if the subscription was $1.99.. but hell no at $99.00. I hate the way software is going today.. the internet killed software.. everything is in app purchase this or subscription that

it looks like we are going back to 1980s software pricing.

Where 1000 dollar prices were the norm for apps.

 

[Krazy Bill]

The problem with this $99 announcement is it's made in a "general consumer" forum filled with Annie Leibovitz wannabes. (And also filled with iPad users at that. )

Welcome to the changing cost of running a business folks. You do make money with your photography, right? If not, Adobe wants nothing to do with you. You enthusiasts will just have to use something else.

I am currently on the LR/PS subscription for $10/month and couldn't be happier. I've been using these applications for years on PC's and Macs and have spent fortunes on them anyway. I really don't mind Adobe trying to generate a consistent revenue stream - it makes perfect business sense and afterall, it is Lightroom. Now, if Apple tried this with Aperture though... LOL!

That said, I'm curious as to how this affects us current subscribers (Not that I'd use a freaking "iPad" to process RAW files anyway).

 

[lk400]

From Adobe's Q42013 investor conference call:



So, I'd say no, they're not losing money. For me, as a design professional, CC has been great, but I can fully understand it's a difficult choice for someone who likes to occasionally dabble in design/graphics/video. You'd be better off using non-Adobe software in those cases, I think.

There's obviously 2 sides to the equation. You are quoting revenue numbers. What's their net profit?

 

[mtneer]

I have CS3/CS4 (I think even CS5?) on my other machine. So it's not really an issue. It's not like most of the stuff isn't backwards compatible.

All Adobe needs to do is release a forced update which will stop all prior standalone versions from going past the splash screen without a CC subscription.

 

[Jessica Lares]

All Adobe needs to do is release a forced update which will stop all prior standalone versions from going past the splash screen without a CC subscription.

They wouldn't do that though. That's illegal.

 

[convergent]

I am a semi-pro photographer and heavy Lightroom user. I would love to be able to use my iPad for Lightroom work, but I fail to see how this will ever be possible with no way to handle storage. It really needs an SD slot, or some way to easily connect to storage devices. I certainly don't want to have to copy all my image masters onto the iPad to work on them... that would be crazy.

 

[thekev]

Since when? It's been a few years since I've bought and sold Adobe software, but when I did, Adobe had a PDF form you could download for the very purpose of transferring ownership. Attached FYI.



Not at all. What I took away from it was that some of the Adobe apologists on this forum are really clutching at straws here to justify this forced subscription nonsense.

I'm not really one of the Adobe apologists. I just edited the old post with a strikethrough and updated note. It's weird because I know I read through their EULA, even if it was some time ago. I'm still on CS6 personally. For smaller projects it's not like some of these guys couldn't use Krita or Gimp. If possible I will avoid migrating to the subscription model. I used to upgrade every other version or so. Then they made it harder to do that with the full creative suite and jammed in ".5" releases. Now they're on a perpetual payment model, and it doesn't necessarily mean bug fix patterns will be any smoother. Just fyi though, they aren't the only ones who moved to some kind of maintenance model. Look at Autodesk and The Foundry for reference. Both have high upfront purchasing prices, followed by maintenance models.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I'm not a 'pro' photographer, even though I'm proud of some of the pictures I've taken over the years.

The idea of paying $99.00 per year for an app on a device that, as others have noted, has no way to be calibrated, has limited storage, and screen resolution, etc... is user abusive. Sorry...

My other opinion is that I hope this 'subscription model' doesn't sweep the app store like the 'In-app Purchases' disease has. We could all name apps that would jump on this somehow (Shazam) just to 'extract' more money from their users. Let's all hope it stops quickly, and that those that use that mode of sales see their sales hovering near zero.

 

[krravi]

One more dagger in Aperture users gut!

 

[soulbot]

I didn't know syncing a bit of metadata was too complex for iCloud. Are you a developer? And as a customer, do you think it's worth $99 per year? I guess the market will decide if that's what it is.

No, I'm not a developer. I'm a photographer and the editor for one of the busiest wedding photographers in Hawaii. (At last count, months ago, I had already moved passed the 200,000-edited-images landmark.) I manage 3 workstations, moving LR catalogs across the LAN daily. Also, several months ago I migrated my own, 40,000-image personal library from Aperture 3 to Lightroom 4. So I feel pretty confident to talk about the hurdles involved here.

You're right, moving a (little) bit of metadata from app-to-app isn't that big of a deal. Because some of the data in question is standardized. So if you want to migrate things like keywords, copyright data, ratings and such—between apps—you're probably alright. However, even ratings start to get tricky. In the case of Aperture vs. Lightroom, for example, a "reject" is considered a form of rating in Aperture. While in Lightroom a rejection is not a rating it's a "flag". So right there, even with the simple, standard stuff, there's room to start losing data.

The bigger issue comes with things that can not ever migrate. If you start organizing folders and sub-folders (Collections) in Lightroom, there is no way that iCloud could make sense of this stuff. As soon as you touch the Exposure slider (and all others) in Lightroom then Aperture, iCloud, Capture One, _______ would have no idea what that means. Now you're talking two different "languages" and there's no translation between it and some-other-app's version of the same thing.

Point being: of the massive list of attributes that could be considered "metadata"… only a tiny portion of that stuff can move around and be made sense of from app to app.

iCloud is not the tool for this job. (Unless the job is shuttling around flattened JPEGs, abandoning the non-destructive nature that an app like LR and/or Aperture offer.)

Is the price right? Not for me. Sure I get it: you're a pro—you've already got a $20,000 camera bag, what's another $100? Well, considering that LR outright is $150, the mobile app for $100 is a little too much I think. But when we talk about a RECURRING $100 for eternity… no thanks. I'm out.

It's so very close to working w/o the subscription nonsense. Almost three years ago a dude posted a video running Lightroom on a jailbroken iPad. Between that, and a catalog that lived on Dropbox, you would have all the necessary pieces right there. That could theoretically handle exactly what this Mobile Lightroom is going to do. And this (non-existent solution) would be free. Oh well...

The next best thing is PhotoSmith. Same concept. One time fee. I could be down with Adobe's Mobile LR app, but the price is north of my comfort zone. An adequate app exists for much less $. Besides, anything outside of LR's Library module starts to become questionable on a display that I can't properly calibrate.

 

[Larry-K]

I'm willing to bet the iPad Air is more accurate than your display:

http://www.displaymate.com/Tablet_ShootOut_3.htm

Yeah, you'd lose that bet, now please explain "100% Color Gamut".

 

[StevieD100]

Nice try Adobe but

I'm not a Professional Photographer but I do take lots of images. 20K+ last year.
One day's shooting could be 500+ shots. On a D800 that is 80Mb * 500 or approx 40Gb.
How could LR on an iPad handle that little lot? I really don't get it.

My recent trip to Northern Sweden I shot close to 200Gb worth of pictures.\

Then we get onto the subject of subsctiption services.
I use LR4 + CS6 on my MBP. I will NOT, repeat NOT sign up for any subscription service.
Hell would have to freeze over before I relinquish the ability to edit my own work. Many of my fellow wildlife photographers feel the same and we are looking for alternatives to Adobe products.
Adobe are trying to alienate a good proportion of their customer base.
Carry on guys. The only result will be in Chapter 11 for you in the long run.

 

[Renzatic]

Yeah, you'd lose that bet, now please explain "100% Color Gamut".

Actually, he's more than half right. The 10" iPad displays are excellent out of the box, and make for great color proofing monitors.

 

[Larry-K]

They wouldn't do that though. That's illegal.

Let 'em do it, that'll be a class action lawsuit to remember.

 

[Larry-K]

Actually, he's more than half right. The 10" iPad displays are excellent out of the box, and make for great color proofing monitors.

It's not about being pretty, it's about being accurate and fully integrated into a workflow.

 

[Renzatic]

It's not about being pretty, it's about being accurate and fully integrated into a workflow.

I never said anything about pretty. At 96% coverage, they run the sRGB gamut as well as any $700+ IPS monitor, and produce a crystal clear, color accurate image right out of the box. Hence the bit about them being excellent devices for color proofing.

Though you're right about not being able to easily integrate into any normal workflow. That's a failing of iOS I hope Apple addresses...er...one of these days.

 

[Larry-K]

I never said anything about pretty. At 96% coverage, they run the sRGB gamut as well as any $700+ IPS monitor, and produce a crystal clear, color accurate image right out of the box. Hence the bit about them being excellent devices for color proofing.

Though you're right about not being able to easily integrate into any normal workflow. That's a failing of iOS I hope Apple addresses...er...one of these days.

So it's not quite as good as the lowest common denominator RGB format on a cheap monitor?

I don't know what you're color proofing but I can't run my business like that.

 

[Renzatic]

So it's not quite as good as the lowest common denominator RGB format on a cheap monitor?

I don't know what you're color proofing but I can't run my business like that.

If you run exclusively with wide gamut NECs and a crap ton of $2000 Eizos, you probably won't be impressed all that much. But sRGB isn't the lowest common denominator, but the standard among standards, and depending on who you talk to, might be the only one truly worth working with.

The iPad has a perfectly capable display.

 

[tmroper]

[/COLOR]

I'm not a Professional Photographer but I do take lots of images. 20K+ last year.
One day's shooting could be 500+ shots. On a D800 that is 80Mb * 500 or approx 40Gb.
How could LR on an iPad handle that little lot? I really don't get it.

Yes, for that kind of work, the iPad really needs to be able to easily work with files on an external hard drive. I know power is a concern, but SSDs would solve that issue. Then LR might be able to handle things with its Smart Previews (I haven't tried using those yet though).

 

[Larry-K]

If you run exclusively with wide gamut NECs and a crap ton of $2000 Eizos, you probably won't be impressed all that much. But sRGB isn't the lowest common denominator, but the standard among standards, and depending on who you talk to, might be the only one truly worth working with.

The iPad has a perfectly capable display.

Perfectly capable for what? The reference was to "Color Proofing", what's being proofed? I'm sure the display is fine for a lot of things, I'm not convinced color proofing, at least not color proofing in the professional vernacular, is one of those, and I doubt that was its intended function when it was designed.

Since we're talking about using Lightroom, we're talking about RAW images, and that means significantly more visual data is available than can be displayed in sRGB, let alone 96% of sRGB (or whatever the iPad Air's true Gamut is). It would only depend on who you were talking to, if you were talking to someone who's color blind, or limits their use of color to that reduced range.

Yes, sRGB is the lowest common denominator for monitors, that's its entire reason for existence. "Standard among Standards"? That's pretty lofty prose for a color space that hacks off blues and greens. I suppose we could consider 8 bit indexed color, not much use for that with a RAW converter, but if you can find something else that fits that description, please feel free to share.

 

[gatearray]

it looks like we are going back to 1980s software pricing.

Where 1000 dollar prices were the norm for apps.

To be fair, $1000 in 1985 is equivalent to $2200 in today's money.

http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1000&year=1985

 

[Renzatic]

Perfectly capable for what? The reference was to "Color Proofing", what's being proofed? I'm sure the display is fine for a lot of things, I'm not convinced color proofing, at least not color proofing in the professional vernacular, is one of those, and I doubt that was its intended function when it was designed.

Since we're talking about using Lightroom, we're talking about RAW images, and that means significantly more visual data is available than can be displayed in sRGB, let alone 96% of sRGB (or whatever the iPad Air's true Gamut is). It would only depend on who you were talking to, if you were talking to someone who's color blind, or limits their use of color to that reduced range.

Yes, sRGB is the lowest common denominator for monitors, that's its entire reason for existence. "Standard among Standards"? That's pretty lofty prose for a color space that hacks off blues and greens. I suppose we could consider 8 bit indexed color, not much use for that with a RAW converter, but if you can find something else that fits that description, please feel free to share.

No, sRGB covers the range of colors most commonly seen by the human eye in nature, though it only accounts for roughly 60% of the max range the human eye can see. AdobeRGB ramps up more heavily into green, and only slightly more into blue. I think altogether it accounts for 30% more colors across the spectrum.

Though AdobeRGB isn't preferable across the board, it all depends on what you're working with. If you're in print, Adobe is the way to go, because it tends to accurately portray the way an image looks onscreen to the way it prints (I think this might have something to do with CMYK conversion), and yes, the final images do have bolder colors. No consumer monitor out there, high end or low, can match the color quality of a good magazine print.

But if you work with digital, anything digital, you're working with and designing around sRGB. Webpages? sRGB. Movies? sRGB. TV shows? sRGB. ebooks? sRGB. The reason for this is because sRGB is the standard for everything digital, and when you convert an image shot and edited in AdobeRGB down to sRGB, you end up with relatively washed out, less vibrant colors than it would've been if you worked with sRGB to begin with.

So if you're working with print, no. An iPad won't be all that great for you, as it can only display around 70% of the AdobeRGB spectrum. But if you're working with something ultimately meant to be consumed through a TV, monitor, or movie screen? It's perfectly fine, since it can accurately display colors in sRGB as well as any high end monitor.

edit: Got a couple links to back me up...

Here

And Here