Subscription Pricing--and now what?

[andix]

After 10 years of LR, starting from the first beta, it's now time to switch.

The subscription model and force to use their cloud is a clever move to make more money with the existing customer base. But this is not future proof for me, as I don't want to get locked in. (plus price is at least 3x p.a.)

A quick test surprised me already. Both C1 as well as DXO seem to deliver superior image quality compared to LR6.13.
That's a good start! But I struggle with the workflow so far, especially DXO seems to be comparatively slow.

So:
CaptureOne or DXO, or other options? Thoughts?

Many thanks,

Andi

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Maybe they are all there, but an Amazon service like AWS would have several white papers detailing the integrity checks, and more than likely exposing them in an API/SDK where one could make use of them for validity checks.

I don't remember seeing a request for this on the feedback forum. Get some votes on it and they might get moving.

 

[tspear]

Tim,

So maybe a Lightroom competitor will acquire iMatch?

I'm not saying that writing DAM software is rocket science. It isn't. But I can tell you that getting the requirements right, for a range of users with different needs and different skill levels, and then producing something easy to use for all users, that isn't so easy. I've looked at iMatch, and to be honest, I'm put off by the "idiosyncrasies" that you find in all one-person software companies. (No different with Photo Supreme.) And what happens if he gets hit by a bus?

Phil Burton

Mario actually has a thread on that subject. The interesting thing about iMatch is the application really is based on open standards. It even has tools to help you convert non-standard meta-data to standard. Since this is a "purchased" not subscription software, if Mario is ever hit by a bus; you likely have a couple of years before you run into issues with the ability of the software to run on a new machine. So at that point you switch. One of the interesting ideals/statements from Mario is that you never should expect to use the same software/company forever. The result is, everything should be open as much as possible, and you own the data, and follow standards as much as possible to allow for easy transitions, because they will occur.

Tim

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

The issue with developing a DAM from scratch is not just about difficulty in developing a DAM, but satisfying the installed base. If you are PM, you have a large and very demanding base -- speed, speed, speed and while you are at it don't change my workflow as I don't have time to fool with learning anything new; it's a tool not an end in itself, and it meets their needs fine so "leave me alone" will be the chorus. I do not envy them that task. Not that familiar with iMatch, but my impression is their installed base is much smaller, and probably more in the creative (i.e. got more spare time) area.

Consider if Adobe tried to change the workflow in LR substantially (not talking cloud, but the underlying stuff) -- hundreds of plugin developers would go nuts, many users would be lost and screaming.

This follows through to rollout -- developing a DAM is easy compared to then getting 3rd party plugins interested (the chicken and egg problem of attracting customers needing plugins, and plugin developers wanting an audience), but then as you do you get demands from every quarter for compatibility with some other product/feature. Your life goes from development to patching and accommodation and support, and stops being fun.

Not saying it won't happen... I think it will. But it's not easy, because it's not just about development.

Old joke:

Doubter who finally meets God and asks "But Lord, one thing that always bothered me and made me doubt -- how could you possibly create the World in only 6 days?"

God: "Easy, I did not have an installed customer base to satisfy".​

 

[PhilBurton]

The issue with developing a DAM from scratch is not just about difficulty in developing a DAM, but satisfying the installed base. If you are PM, you have a large and very demanding base -- speed, speed, speed and while you are at it don't change my workflow as I don't have time to fool with learning anything new; it's a tool not an end in itself, and it meets their needs fine so "leave me alone" will be the chorus. I do not envy them that task. Not that familiar with iMatch, but my impression is their installed base is much smaller, and probably more in the creative (i.e. got more spare time) area.

Consider if Adobe tried to change the workflow in LR substantially (not talking cloud, but the underlying stuff) -- hundreds of plugin developers would go nuts, many users would be lost and screaming.

This follows through to rollout -- developing a DAM is easy compared to then getting 3rd party plugins interested (the chicken and egg problem of attracting customers needing plugins, and plugin developers wanting an audience), but then as you do you get demands from every quarter for compatibility with some other product/feature. Your life goes from development to patching and accommodation and support, and stops being fun.
y
Not saying it won't happen... I think it will. But it's not easy, because it's not just about development.

Old joke:

Doubter who finally meets God and asks "But Lord, one thing that always bothered me and made me doubt -- how could you possibly create the World in only 6 days?"

God: "Easy, I did not have an installed customer base to satisfy".​

Ferguson,

If you haven't yourself been a product manager, then you certainly have good friends who are. Good illustration of your points. Applel has made changes in iOS in the way you close down an app, from major release to major release, and there are many threads complaining about the change.

You omitted one point: "I don't have the time to read documentation longer than N minutes," N = 0, 1, 2, maybe 3. (So the user interface has to be very intuitive, to encourage experimentation and learning.)

You are also right about the installed base for an iMatch competitor, Photo Supreme. Very small group of active users on the forum. Very willing to tolerate bugs, a confusing and undocumented user interface, etc. Not that Lightroom has a perfect user interface, it doesn't, but it is way better than the one for Photo Supreme.

Another challenge for product managers. Given everything you have written about users, find a way to improve the product based on user requests (and strong competitors).

At iMatch, Mario has it easy. For some requests, he has stated that he simply won't do them for some reason which I found questionable.

Phil Burton

 

[tspear]

At iMatch, Mario has it easy. For some requests, he has stated that he simply won't do them for some reason which I found questionable.

Phil Burton

Ran into this issue with Darktable; they just flatly said no on a feature I would want.
Still I prefer that to Adobe who just does not answer.

Tim

 

[rob211]

Tim,

So maybe a Lightroom competitor will acquire iMatch?

I'm not saying that writing DAM software is rocket science. It isn't. But I can tell you that getting the requirements right, for a range of users with different needs and different skill levels, and then producing something easy to use for all users, that isn't so easy. I've looked at iMatch, and to be honest, I'm put off by the "idiosyncrasies" that you find in all one-person software companies. (No different with Photo Supreme.) And what happens if he gets hit by a bus?

Phil Burton

True. But look at Aperture; it got hit by a bus too and it had many cooks.

I have no idea what IMatch's numbers are, but I'm gonna guess it isn't huge. There just doesn't seem to be a market for the boring organizational end of image processing. Capture One, probably Lr's best competitor, bought into DAM features, and was (and is) rather slow to improve them, vs other aspects of C1 which go to its heart, like session/tethering and adjusting image content. The only hot activity in the organizational end is connecting and synching with the cloud, a la Mylio or Lr CC.

 

[PhilBurton]

True. But look at Aperture; it got hit by a bus too and it had many cooks.

The Apple bus was driven by corporate strategy. A few years ago, Apple dumbed down Final Cut Pro.

I have no idea what IMatch's numbers are, but I'm gonna guess it isn't huge. There just doesn't seem to be a market for the boring organizational end of image processing. Capture One, probably Lr's best competitor, bought into DAM features, and was (and is) rather slow to improve them, vs other aspects of C1 which go to its heart, like session/tethering and adjusting image content. The only hot activity in the organizational end is connecting and synching with the cloud, a la Mylio or Lr CC.

I must agree with your here. Photo Supreme, while a very strong DAM, also has some rudimentary developing features, that are apparently enough for some of the people active on that forum.

I think another issue that there is a lot of value for a DAM for workgroups and enterprises. While Adobe has corporate plans with pricing for the rest of Creative Cloud, Lightroom is strangely absent. If you search for corporate DAMs, there are many, many products available, including some aimed at very specialized audiences.

I'm not going to open up yet another can of worms as to why LR isn't being developed as a corporate solution.

Phil Burton

 

[andix]

Just started CO trial and run several tests with a Nikon D4 and Leica M.

So far, I am quite impressed by CO 11. Image quality (raw rendering) seems to be significantly better in the details than LR.
If I compare at 100% zoom. Impressive!

So far, I struggle mainly with catalog usage. I use LR a lot to manage my photos. LR easily manages 100 thousands of images, structured along time and keywords.
Don't quite get how this works in CO.

CO 11 has, btw, one big advantage over LR: the new layers are amazing, even way better than in PS.

 

[Zenon]

I trialed Capture twice and I think I can produce just as good an image using LR when you take the time to sharpen and compare after export. I did find the capture, detail, export, structure and clarity and worked with them using Capture. Capture is more aggressive at export sharpening so you have to be careful about halos and artifacts. More aggressive in other areas as well.

I have read some tidbits that Capture has not been updating for OS updates in the last few years turning into an annual upgrade, particularly with Windows. You might want to do some research.

I noticed Capture is geared toward a finished product. It automatically applies the camera's colour profile, sharpening, NR, etc. Some found the reds a little hot and the colours little saturated. Not sure if you noticed that but I didn't mind it too much. It was pretty close to what I liked but the reds were little warm. Easy to fix.

With LR I have set up sharpening, NR, lens correction based on ISO and are in the Default settings. Now with the new Auto improvements in basic window I can get a similar import to export workflow like Capture if I want to. Sometimes I shoot charities, etc. Less work for me.

I really liked Capture and almost went for it but learned I did not have to use cloud storage with LR Classic so I decided to go with the plan. If Adobe ticks me off I'm 20 seconds away from the cancel plan button.

So yes it can be tough to decide. The cloud thingy was the deal breaker for me. I like to maintain a choice with that one.

Good luck with your trial.

 

[Zenon]

Forgot to say that when I was testing it I had heard there may be an upgrade to Capture. If I had purchased it then I may have been outside the range for the free upgrade. Another $100. I don't mind $10 a month. I paid for the whole year and forgot about it.

 

[rob211]

I was a Phase one customer but stopped renewing, in part because the organizational end was sub-par. I also had issues with their system of online verification of the program, which kept failing for me. Probably idiosyncratic to my computer at the time, but still annoying. And it's more expensive than Lr with of course no Ps. If I did work that took advantage of the sessions and features like the mark-up they just introduced maybe I would have stuck with it. The lack of mobile support these days would be another strike against it though. But it's a good program.