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

[Overg]

Ok all nice,
Just tell me how to transfer the files to and from the ipad?
Since apple still inssist to not let the user any flexability regarding this matter, i cant see how ANY edit app can work smoothly.
And no, the cloud isnt a normal fast solution.
I can imagine the sync button like in the itunes, whe younpress it and have no idea what is going to happen...
Usually it ends with all the music, app, and pictures deleted.

 

[freeuser]

rent software, no thanks!

very usefull alternative:

Photogene:

https://itunes.apple.com/de/app/photogene-4/id363448251?mt=8

and Photosmith:

https://itunes.apple.com/de/app/photosmith/id427757668?mt=8

 

[phrehdd]

Sorry Adobe (not really) - I'll not join your pay to play game. I just look forward to when competitors offer product we can buy and CHOOSE when to upgrade if at all and people jump ship on you.

 

[kalsta]

Old versions actually sell? They won't run on as much new hardware. It's also against their licensing agreement, as it's a non-transferable license.

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.

If they're going to break the rules either way, they might as well either buy their own copy or just pirate it rather than tell themselves it's fine because they bought the disks. I don't condone piracy, so don't take that from statement.

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.

 

[kalsta]

Free. And limited!

Syncing ratings, flags, adjustments, collections and catalog info. across a mobile device and a desktop is radically different from syncing a "flattened" jpeg across devices. Night and day.

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.

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?

I am a professional designer. I'm only a very part-time photographer but I have done studio shots in raw 16 bits/channel. Sorry to burst your bubble.

But just for the record, I don't think I ever complained about the price Adobe charged for the Creative Suite in the US. My biggest complaints have always been (1) Adobe's Australia tax (which saw us have to pay over 50% more for downloadable software), and (2) trying to force us all onto the subscription model.

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.

I am not saying that I am happy with the pricing, but it's a matter of supply and demand. I guess those who don't want to pay for this service have great alternatives with a friendlier pricing scheme (strangely, none have been mentioned). If not, then it's a pointless discussion.

So what you're saying is, we should all just suck it up because Adobe is leveraging their partial monopoly to force us all into a model that we don't really want? Well good luck to you my friend. Personally, I believe in the power of the consumer to vote with their dollar, and I'm doing just that (in addition to voicing my frustration occasionally in forums like this). If more people did the same, Adobe would be forced to return the choice between desktop software that we can pay for once and use for as long as we like, and desktop software with a remote kill-switch and the never sleeping eye of Adobe, watching and ready to kill access to our non-backward-compatible files when we don't keep up regular payments to Adobe for the rest of our professional lives.

 

[Larry-K]

The iPad Air has 100% color gamut.

Besides, we all view images primarily on digital devices these days. The old school era of precisely calibrated color is largely irrelevant. Each screen and manufacturer has its own color skew and capabilities that make "accurate color" a misnomer.

Unless you're making coffee table books...
But honestly, how many people still work in print production?

I guess it's just me and several million other people, and I spend way too much of my time correcting things done by people who hold views similar to yours.

Please explain "100% Color Gamut".

 

[macs4nw]

$99.00 for an iPad app? Seriously? And 'per year'?

Uh, no... Hard sell? Stay tuned...

Creative professionals might pay those yearly fees, but no ordinary Joe Schmo will. I know, I know, these Apps are not aimed at the latter, but this whole notion of cloud based professional software, under the guise of having the latest software available anywhere and everywhere, seems like a well-calculated cash grab. And that is after paying thru the nose for Adobe's full suite of software.

 

[Lycanthrope]

They can **** right off...

I'm very happy with Aperture thank you, which was a one off cost of about the same (can't quite remember).

And Pixelmator is an excellent product that does everything I used to do on my cracked version of Photoshop, but I didn't pirate that Pixelmator, I bought it because it cost me €20, which is a great price; again, single shot...

 

[kalsta]

And Pixelmator is an excellent product that does everything I used to do on my cracked version of Photoshop, but I didn't pirate that Pixelmator, I bought it because it cost me €20, which is a great price; again, single shot...

No respect for downloading a pirated copy of Photoshop. Doesn't matter if Adobe charge $1000 per month and your left kidney, it still doesn't give us the right to steal. But glad to hear you're supporting and enjoying Pixelmator. I've heard good things about it.

 

[Dambuster43]

Adobe just invite piracy ....an iPad app at such an high price.
I have a few Adobe iPad apps, expecting them to develop and grow onto useful apps, I cannot remember any significant updates and they are a waste my money and device storage space. Photogene and a couple of other free apps are OK for quicky iPad tweaks.

 

[mikewren]

Photosmith FTW!

Everything that's in the Library module of Lightroom can be synced with, displayed and edited on iPad using Photosmith. Your total cost is $20 for the app, with $0/mo recurring. You own the software, and won't be hit with a cloud tax with Photosmith.

We're not really too keen on doing color corrections on uncalibrated displays, either, but to each their own.

It's great to have options - but for the mobile photographer that wants to avoid the cloud tax and edit their star ratings, keywords and other metadata whilst still in the field, and get all that invaluable information back to their Lightroom catalog, Photosmith is the only solution.

Yes, sync is incredibly difficult, or else there would be other solutions for integrating with Lightroom. For the past 2+ years, Photosmith has been the only method for syncing all your metadata with iPad.

AppStore.com/photosmith or photosmithapp.com for more information.


Disclosure: I'm a partner with the Photosmith team - And happy to answer any questions about the app or our future direction. Can you say native raw rendering on iPad?

 

[Macist]

Aperture of course links directly to Photostream, Final Cut X and various other Mac OS X features.

I wish Aperture would be updated to have some of the better feature of Lightroom. Lightroom is such an awkward, horrible piece of software compared to Aperture but it sure packs in the features.

 

[MentalFloss]

I am a professional designer. I'm only a very part-time photographer

So you are not part of the target audience for Lightroom.

So what you're saying is, we should all just suck it up because Adobe is leveraging their partial monopoly to force us all into a model that we don't really want?

No, I said that the target audience will have no big issue with paying that kind of money for this software, while the rest is complaining about the price of a software that they don't need. Or at least I don't get what a part time photographer wants with Lightroom on the iPad.

Reminds me of all those people who complain about how unbelievably expensive Adobe Photoshop CS is, when Photoshop Elements or gimp would be enough for them, while the people who actually need and use the advanced features have no problem with the pricing scheme of Photoshop CS, just as you said yourself.

And yes, subscription schemes suck, but the vast majority of professionals have usually bought every Adobe upgrade anyway.

Adobe is not stupid. Yes, their software is expensive, but the price is usually what they know the target audience will pay. Sure, they could lower the price from $99 by $50. then perhaps 10% more people will buy the software, but the profit dropped by $50 per license sold. How exactly would Adobe benefit from that?

Well good luck to you my friend.

I don't need luck here, as I am not part of the target audience either. When I do RAW develoment, I do it at home, with a good calibrated monitor.

Personally, I believe in the power of the consumer to vote with their dollar, and I'm doing just that (in addition to voicing my frustration occasionally in forums like this).

Of course, the consumer has the power to vote like that. And that is what is happening: Adobe is making lots of money with their software. They are making it from people who either need the software to do their job or who are so enthusiastic about their hobby that the fee paid to Adobe is just a minor item in their annual budget. In fact, compared to what enthusiasts and professionals used to pay for film in pre-digital times, $99 is nothing. That's what Adobe knows and these are the people who they are targeting.

I really wonder what the people who want Lightroom for $4.99 actually believe they would need it for. "Oooh, I just took this RAW image, I really need to develop it RIGHT NOW on the iPad, because the JPEG my camera produced simultaneously is not good enough for Facebook!"

----------

And Pixelmator is an excellent product that does everything I used to do on my cracked version of Photoshop, but I didn't pirate that Pixelmator, I bought it because it cost me €20, which is a great price; again, single shot...

And this is actually exactly proving my point: People want a pro software with pro features they will never use, and then they complain that they can't get that pro software for some ridiculously low price. At least there are people who realize at some point that there is cheap non-pro software that does everything they need.

If everyone who has a cracked Photoshop CS version on their hard drive instead downloaded gimp and donated $10 to the developers, then perhaps gimp would already be much closer to Photoshop CS in terms of features and quality.

 

[Nevaborn]

There is far too many elitists on here saying how they will get this as it's professionals and how only they are entitled to Photoshop. Despire the fact novody is complaining about actual price.

If they did a stadalone app that will be updated even with thr odd in app purchase for updates to support new iPads and it was $99 I would buy it. The desktop stuff is pricey compared to free or cheaper alternatives but again if just an outright release people will buy it.

It's this rent a software model people have issue with. I for one when I buy something I want it to be mine ! Especially when it is only a mobile version of desktop class software. That would be like iPhone Photoshop charging you $25 a year >.>

 

[brygruver]

Seems a bit odd.

1) iPad screens are good but no where near where they need to be for accurate color and lighting correction. So I can't see a pro ponying up $99 a year for something that doesn't really add value to workflow.

Actually even dating back to the original retina iPad, 3rd Gen, the displays have been pretty fantastic. Better than most laptops.

http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_ShootOut_1.htm

"Viewing Tests: What makes the new iPad really shine is its very accurate colors and picture quality. It’s most likely better and more accurate than any display you own (unless it’s a calibrated professional display). In fact with some minor calibration tweaks the new iPad would qualify as a studio reference monitor."

 

[Chupa Chupa]

This is where the rumored 13 inch "iPad Pro" comes in. If it's a killer screen that allows hardware calibration (which it should if it's really "pro", right?), it could be a killer Lightroom field editing machine. Maybe not a replacement for the desktop, but you could do a lot with proxy files.

Sure, but Adobe is still jumping the gun a bit since the iPad Pro doesn't exist yet and there is zero concrete information about features. It could be a true "Pro" machine, but the "Pro" moniker could also be marketing jargon to justify a higher price. Or it the "Pro" name could just be a fill in used by analysts. It could be the iPad Max and have a larger, but not color correction capable screen.

----------

Unless you're making coffee table books...
But honestly, how many people still work in print production?

Don't get ahead of the world. Print is fading but not dead yet. Believe it or not some people still get boat loads of full color catalogs in the mail. I wish Nordstrom would stop sending me so many myself.

----------

Actually even dating back to the original retina iPad, 3rd Gen, the displays have been pretty fantastic. Better than most laptops.

http://www.displaymate.com/iPad_ShootOut_1.htm

"Viewing Tests: What makes the new iPad really shine is its very accurate colors and picture quality. It’s most likely better and more accurate than any display you own (unless it’s a calibrated professional display). In fact with some minor calibration tweaks the new iPad would qualify as a studio reference monitor."

Yes, you make my point. I bolded the relevant portion of your quote.

 

[HAudidoody]

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?

Wrong. I have three Canon SLRs and seven lenses. It's about the value I'm getting. $99 a year or $2,000 outright. If I'm not getting value for my money, then I'm not going to spend the money.

A permanent license for PC Lightroom for a street price of $90 or $100 is good value. iPad Lightroom for $99 a year is not. It's that simple.

 

[e-coli]

Please explain "100% Color Gamut".

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

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

 

[kalsta]

So you are not part of the target audience for Lightroom.

Well, I haven't bought it, so perhaps you're right. My biggest gripe is with the subscription model itself, but I think you got that. Even if I was the target audience, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't pay $99 a year for the luxury of iPad syncing, just like I haven't subscribed to Creative Cloud for all those apps I do rely on.

And yes, subscription schemes suck, but the vast majority of professionals have usually bought every Adobe upgrade anyway.

Don't be so sure (unless you have actual stats to back up that statement.) As for me, there were times I went straight from one version to the next, but there were other times I skipped a version. The responsible thing to do in any business is to weigh the cost of an upgrade against the benefits of the upgrade. When I couldn't justify the cost, I skipped a version, and that enabled me to save quite a bit.

Of course, the consumer has the power to vote like that. And that is what is happening: Adobe is making lots of money with their software. They are making it from people who either need the software to do their job or who are so enthusiastic about their hobby that the fee paid to Adobe is just a minor item in their annual budget.

I see the future differently. I was around when Quark Xpress was the dominant page layout and design software in our industry. And I remember thinking what an arrogant company they were and how expensive their upgrade prices were. (By contrast, I really liked Adobe and its products.) And then one day a little product called InDesign 1.0 came out, and although it was far from perfect, the industry was ripe for change. I think Adobe is now that arrogant company, and their software is looking even older and dustier than Quark Xpress was back then—so no, I don't think their market dominance is assured at all, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an enterprising young company come through like a breath of fresh air one of these days and give Adobe a solid run for its money.

I really wonder what the people who want Lightroom for $4.99 actually believe they would need it for. "Oooh, I just took this RAW image, I really need to develop it RIGHT NOW on the iPad, because the JPEG my camera produced simultaneously is not good enough for Facebook!"

Oh sure, there's a bit of that. It's like those people who go out and buy shiny new boots and skis for their first foray into skiing (or you know, expensive new equipment for whatever the latest new activity happens to be), instead of starting with rental gear and seeing if they actually like it enough to keep at it.

If everyone who has a cracked Photoshop CS version on their hard drive instead downloaded gimp and donated $10 to the developers, then perhaps gimp would already be much closer to Photoshop CS in terms of features and quality.

In principle I absolutely agree. But sadly, some people have very little to no appreciation for what goes into the development of an app. The App Store and its ridiculously low prices must bear some of the blame here—it has spoilt us rotten, and created an expectation for high-quality apps to be cheap or even free. To some extent, open source has done that too. Some people are part of the 'give back to society' culture, but on the flip-side there are those who then see taking and receiving as their right and privilege.

 

[irishv]

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

It might not be too complex for iCloud, but it is too complex for Apple apparently. There is still no way to make edits on an ipad and sync those back to an aperture/iphoto library.

Pixelsync provided this functionality until the unified library structure broke the app.

I would assume apple is working on something, but it's been a long time coming. The Lightroom side already has photosmith and now an official Lightroom app. Aperture users still have nothing.

I'm no fan of the subscription model and $99 is definitely overpriced, but at least Adobe is actually putting out a product.

 

[David G.]

Well.... It's better than $400/year for Google Earth Pro.

 

[Navdakilla]

$99.00 for an iPad app? Seriously? And 'per year'?

Uh, no... Hard sell? Stay tuned...

Too expensive for sure

 

[a.jfred]

...or you save it out as a .png, .tga, or .bmp when you're done. You do lose the layers, but the final product is always yours.

If you're someone who does comic work, and you have similar panels but only need to change a couple of different things, losing layers is a deal-breaker; particularly if you have to go back years later and fix something or adjust something to change from a web-comic to print, or even change the type of print format you're having done.

I have a friend who's a graphic designer by day, and publishing her own comic. She uses Adobe at work, but at home? She's had to switch to ... I think it was Manga Studio, because she'd have to upgrade her 3-year-old computer before shelling out extra money for the Adobe suite (and she works for the local university, and gets a substantial discount) and then has several of the same problems that you mention above. She's used the Creative Suite for YEARS, but it's gotten to the point where even she's going "wait, all my stuff in the cloud? This is how much extra per month? Um, no."

----------

They've basically crunched some numbers and said only the pros are seriously paying for this stuff. And they NEED it.

Only the pros are seriously paying for their stuff because only the pros can seriously afford it; the non-pro-but-tech-savvy are (likely) pirating it or finding every which way they can to get around the 4-digit-price-tag.

 

[Macist]

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.

Remember many users of this software are freelances and not necessarily earning big money - the bulk of most 'graphic/web design and video' is pretty workmanlike stuff and modestly paid.

 

[Renzatic]

If you're someone who does comic work, and you have similar panels but only need to change a couple of different things, losing layers is a deal-breaker; particularly if you have to go back years later and fix something or adjust something to change from a web-comic to print, or even change the type of print format you're having done.

I have a friend who's a graphic designer by day, and publishing her own comic. She uses Adobe at work, but at home? She's had to switch to ... I think it was Manga Studio, because she'd have to upgrade her 3-year-old computer before shelling out extra money for the Adobe suite (and she works for the local university, and gets a substantial discount) and then has several of the same problems that you mention above. She's used the Creative Suite for YEARS, but it's gotten to the point where even she's going "wait, all my stuff in the cloud? This is how much extra per month? Um, no."

Yeah, I'll go ahead and say you all have a point about losing access to your previous work when you lose your subscription. It's not permanently lost, but I could see how having to resub to something to open your stuff again would be more than a little annoying.

I still don't think the software as a service platform is completely broken and evil, but I can see its downsides. Of which, that mentioned above is one of the most glaring.

Only the pros are seriously paying for their stuff because only the pros can seriously afford it; the non-pro-but-tech-savvy are (likely) pirating it or finding every which way they can to get around the 4-digit-price-tag.

Now this I don't agree with. The subscription service makes it easier for non-pros to gain access to the entire Creative Suite. If someone wants to use Photoshop legitimately, they only have to pay $30 for a month to month membership gain to access to it, $20 if they go for a full year subscription. Like I said earlier, that's the price of a good pizza once a month. Yeah, when you calculate the cost over the course of two years, you're spending a ton, but hell, you could say the same thing about your cable bill.