Why do we all end up using Lightroom?

Bob_A wrote in post #17094873
I've also been trying out the demo for the last couple of days. So far I'm really unimpressed with the UI. It's like a program written in the 90's.

I'll give it a shot though, but since I'm not unhappy with the results I'm getting from LR, including NR I doubt I'll be switching. It's not terribly expensive though, so who knows.

I'm coming to a similar conclusion and even realization.

Looking closer at C1 in other places, most arguments come from an ability with C1 to get a better result than LR WITHOUT plugins. The thing is that with plugins, I get a what I want out of LR, and I honestly don't mind the plugins.

The interface on C1 is a bit difficult for me to use. I suspect it will be better if I can learn it, but I do think it is pricey enough that I'm not willing to take money that could otherwise be put towards a new lens or other item.

I really liked C1 for single images but never cared for it as a mass editor. Same for Silky Pix. I used DPP and photoshop for years. I never liked DPP's resizing algorithms. I think Adobe does a better job so I would convert to TIFFS and open in PS for final editing. It was a PP nightmare not to mention the file sizes. The reason I did that was because I never liked Adobe colours but they have really come along way in the last several years. With a little help from members here to fine tune the red and blue primaries on the Camera Calibration tab helped as well.

Ever since switching to LR I figure my editing time has been cut in half. I think the export page is outstanding. I just finished editing last saturdays wedding and it was a breeze. The camera profiles I have set up and all the presets give me a bit of a creative edge all in one package. Never liked LR's clone/heal tool for advanced work so I still import into PS for that. Out of about 600 images I had to export maybe 10 for that. The only other time I exported was to use the tilt-shift filter for a handful of shots. It took two trials to warm up to it but at at this point I can't imagine switching. For my hobby shots I still use DPP - TIFF to PS or PS only. I still prefer to have complete control of output sharpening which LR does not offer.

I was not sure about the everyone using LR statement when I first read it. I agree the marketing is very good but I don't care - it works for me. I'm sure if I explored other software or went back to DPP and spent more time at it I could make improvements but at this point I don't really want to.

^^ I applaud your ability to use SilkyPix for more that 30 seconds before erasing it completely from your computer. You have an iron will.

kirk

"It works, and there is lots of information on it out there." seems to be one of the biggest reasons for LR's popularity.

It has a very functional and lean workflow once you get accustomed to it, and it integrates beautifully with other tools.

Not to mention that it is relatively cheap as far as quality software goes, and backed by a proven company with a long standing track record of staying alive and continuing development of their product lines.

Luckless wrote in post #17098287
"It works, and there is lots of information on it out there." seems to be one of the biggest reasons for LR's popularity.

It has a very functional and lean workflow once you get accustomed to it, and it integrates beautifully with other tools.

Not to mention that it is relatively cheap as far as quality software goes, and backed by a proven company with a long standing track record of staying alive and continuing development of their product lines.

i agree with this. Its why i use it. Accessibility, affordability and functionality. Once that no longer applies I will look elsewhere. I am curious about Capture1 though. Might do a trial run of it and see how it works.

That said, even though I do subscribe to the Ps/Lr $9/month thing, Im still bitter about that. So far its proven to be very functional, and I have not had a single issue, so I guess I cant complain

gnome chompski wrote in post #17100136
i agree with this. Its why i use it. Accessibility, affordability and functionality. Once that no longer applies I will look elsewhere. I am curious about Capture1 though. Might do a trial run of it and see how it works.

That said, even though I do subscribe to the Ps/Lr $9/month thing, Im still bitter about that. So far its proven to be very functional, and I have not had a single issue, so I guess I cant complain

I'm annoyed by the subscription too. I still have old copies of the software, so I guess I'll be okay if I stop making money to pay for the subscription. But the problem I for see is if I start doing something else and stop the subscription, I can't work on my photos in the future unless I pay the subscription fee for a month to play with my shots.

Do you think CC will let you work on image files created while you were unsubscribed?

Sure, check out C1. But the problem at this point in time is that, IMO, this entire thread is extremely ill-timed. We are now three weeks into LR 5.6 - the chances are strong that in another month or so we will see a 6.0 Public Beta and a 6.0 final release at the beginning of November. Who knows what that will bring to the table? LR development from 2 to 3 and 3 to 4 were major advances that set benchmarks in the industry. LR 5 was not of that ilk, with essentially only one new tool which was actually only a variation on the code for an already existing tool (don't get me wrong, I love the Radial Filter and use it constantly), another that I never use (Upright) and improved functionality for a few others. Consider also the negative feelings around cloud based subscription software and Adobe's need to regain more favorable market positioning, and it is not unreasonable to have high expectations for LR 6. I wouldn't want to opt for a fairly substantial investment ($150 at current sale price) in C1 today on the basis of a comparison with LR 5.6 only to discover a month from now that LR 6 is what I really want. Once it has been released and is stable and keeping it longer than a month will require pulling the plastic from your pocket, that will be the time for surveying the selection of goodies for sale - C1, DxO, PhotoNinja, RPP, etc. - and deciding what serves your interests best.

Thinking out loud: I wonder if C1's half-price sale is because their "industrial espionage" has made them apprehensive of LR 6. That would be nice.

tzalman wrote in post #17100943
Sure, check out C1. But the problem at this point in time is that, IMO, this entire thread is extremely ill-timed. We are now three weeks into LR 5.6 - the chances are strong that in another month or so we will see a 6.0 Public Beta and a 6.0 final release at the beginning of November. Who knows what that will bring to the table? LR development from 2 to 3 and 3 to 4 were major advances that set benchmarks in the industry. LR 5 was not of that ilk, with essentially only one new tool which was actually only a variation on the code for an already existing tool (don't get me wrong, I love the Radial Filter and use it constantly), another that I never use (Upright) and improved functionality for a few others. Consider also the negative feelings around cloud based subscription software and Adobe's need to regain more favorable market positioning, and it is not unreasonable to have high expectations for LR 6. I wouldn't want to opt for a fairly substantial investment ($150 at current sale price) in C1 today on the basis of a comparison with LR 5.6 only to discover a month from now that LR 6 is what I really want. Once it has been released and is stable and keeping it longer than a month will require pulling the plastic from your pocket, that will be the time for surveying the selection of goodies for sale - C1, DxO, PhotoNinja, RPP, etc. - and deciding what serves your interests best.

Thinking out loud: I wonder if C1's half-price sale is because their "industrial espionage" has made them apprehensive of LR 6. That would be nice.

And given Adobe's track record you can expect version 6 to be completely broken full of bugs and utter misery until it is close to "end of life" by which time it will be in a usable state with bugs fixed and few complaints...
(True for EVERY Adobe product to date.)
-> Which then really begs the question what you are paying for... - Because you are getting pre-alpha software when you first pay for the new release, Alpha with the first update, beta with the second and then beta 2 or a release candidate with the third...

As to Capture One:
I doubt they spy on Adobe - why would they? (Given they have the better RAW processor anyway. - If you look at the company and its owners, spying would seem even more weird.)
I would rather think they want to temp people away from Adobe who need to decide between ditching an unreliably company and staying with said unreliable company.

agedbriar wrote in post #17100908
Do you think CC will let you work on image files created while you were unsubscribed?

Sure, do you think LR CC examines the Exif creation date and excludes old photos? And I assume that it will read and use the catalog from the previous period, but just to be safe it would be prudent to have saved the edits to xmp as well, which a resurrected LR CC would certainly use.

As for the opposite situation, usage of photos imported and edited during the subscription period, Adobe has said,

The statement does not specifically mention the Export function, but since it does refer to only the Develop and Map modules as becoming non-functional, it is reasonable to suppose that previously edited Raws can be exported to tif with the editing applied and new editing done in any other pixel editor

I have been using LR since 2.0 and in all that period can remember only one bug (involving exporting web sized images) which had an easy work around and was promptly fixed. It has always run well and speedily on three different computers. I have used other Adobe products since 1998 and have seen only reliability. Of course you will now tell me that I am the one-in-a-million lucky guy who has miraculously walked between the rain drops.

Ah, what charming naiveté. They have no interest at all in what their major competitor, and overwhelmingly the market leader, is up to. That must be because they have sole possession of the magic key to bug-free software and superb Raw conversions that can never be improved upon.

Always refreshing to find a man that deals in proven, indisputable facts rather than the wishy-washy "maybes" and "sometimes" the rest of us are plagued with.

tzalman wrote in post #17100996
I have been using LR since 2.0 and in all that period can remember only one bug (involving exporting web sized images) which had an easy work around and was promptly fixed. It has always run well and speedily on three different computers. I have used other Adobe products since 1998 and have seen only reliability. Of course you will now tell me that I am the one-in-a-million lucky guy who has miraculously walked between the rain drops.

Ah, what charming naiveté. They have no interest at all in what their major competitor, and overwhelmingly the market leader, is up to. That must be because they have sole possession of the magic key to bug-free software and superb Raw conversions that can never be improved upon.

Always refreshing to find a man that deals in proven, indisputable facts rather than the wishy-washy "maybes" and "sometimes" the rest of us are plagued with.

There are lot of reports of issues with Adobe software when new - check the web.
It is pretty much known that Adobe software when released is not fit for release and only becomes usable a few versions down the line.
My personal experience with Lightroom 4 was also abysmal - but 4.4.6 worked. - When I bought (wasted 60 pounds...) on their Lightroom 5.4 the experience wasn't any better - but 5.5 improved. ... I'd rather not know how the previous version worked.
Adobe's track record on Adobe Reader is also rather bad... they cleaned up their act once to start the same misery process again...
What is rather weird is how Adobe seems to get away with it...

As to spying: It is not common business practice in most of the world.
Its is also a very funny allegation when apparently the US government has to spy for their companies so that they can gain an unfair advantage for their products which would otherwise not sell... (see Snowden revelations...)

As to buy free software: Well, it exists - TeX is considered to be bug free. In the unlikely event that you find one (which you want) you should email the creator as he set out a reward for bugs.
Side note: TeX is free open source which is how it has become bug free - enough well versed users that have helped develop it.

tzalman wrote in post #17100961
Sure, do you think LR CC examines the Exif creation date and excludes old photos? ...

Hi Elie,

Mine was just a bit of black humor, coming from someone who can afford to follow this thread from a position of 'splendid isolation'.

agedbriar wrote in post #17101058
Hi Elie,

Mine was just a bit of black humor, coming from someone who can afford to follow this thread from a position of 'splendid isolation'.

Too dark for me, I guess. I'm more in the direction of "barbed sarcasm".

Of all your argument for, the only 2 things I wish LR has is 1) GPU Acceleration 2) content aware/actual clone stamp tool.

All the rest LR works just fine for me.

Btw I think adobe CC is a marketing ploy and a gimmick too lll