Quitting LR5 Cloud - possible problems going to regular version?

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by bob_estremera, Feb 19, 2014.

  1. Adobe just doubled the price of my Photoshop and LR5 Cloud subscription. I want to cancel the subscription before the new price goes into effect. I will replace PS with Elements because I mostly use PS for the clone and healing tools now that LR has gotten so powerful and full-featured.
    But there might be a dilemma.
    I have a bunch of backed up LR5 Catalogs that I've been creating while using LR5 Cloud version. I also have a regular old 'paid' version of LR4 that I'd been using and I also have an upgrade DVD to LR5 that I have NOT YET installed (because I've been using the cloud version).
    Here's the question: If I install the LR5 upgrade disk as if I never had the cloud version, will there be some kind of a conflict because LR5 is already loaded on my computer? Or, should I uninstall my current LR5 Cloud completely and THEN install the upgrade DVD?
    If this is successful, will the regular non-subscription version of LR5 (the upgraded one) read the current LR5 catalogs?

    And, is there a chance that if I do uninstall the Cloud LR5 and use the non-subscription version, that the Adobe pinger, or whatever it is, will detect the non-subscription LR5 and somehow make it inoperable like they would if I just stopped paying on a LR5 subscription?

    Thanks for the help. Bob
     
  2. Good question. I would think they have different setups and they have different licensing terms and useages, so I can't see why, but I don't see a problem with unistalling it first. I'd make sure I have my Cats backed up regardless.
    I never did understand the CC versions unless one HAS to do a monthly payment to afford it. Even then there are financial alternatives.
     
  3. The CC subscription chickens are coming home to roost. I hope it works out for you.
     
  4. Adobe is still offering the PS/LR package for 9.99us per month or 12.95euro until the 31st March. Whats going on with adobe are these just introductory pricing that increase when the year is up.
     
  5. Definitely know the fine print and do your research before you buy and get hooked into a payment plan. Sounds more or less like they are resorting to trickery and going the route of cable companies.
     
  6. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    Are you guys saying that Adobe implied that their introductory offer pricing persisted for ever? That's not the impression I got- though I can't say I noticed what prices would apply after the intro pricing ceased-but then I didn't take up their offer so I was probably less assiduous because of that.
     
  7. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    LR5 is a perpetual license, I don't see the problem. There is no LR5 cloud version, yes, you download the installer from 'the cloud' but install on your HD with a perpetual serial number.
    Further, stick with one Catalog, KISS.
     
  8. Andrew, I do only have one catalog. Just different backup dates of the same one. But there IS a Cloud LR5. I've got it. They can kill it at any time if I don't pay, just like the PS Cloud version. Am I wrong?
    And yes Daniel, since I can probably use elements for the only thing I use PS for anymore (cloning/healing) and I have a regular version of LR5 ready to go, I am prepared to bail on this whole Cloud thing if the threat of escalating prices continue.
     
  9. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I do only have one catalog. Just different backup dates of the same one.​
    Then the backup's are moot and unnecessary.
    But there IS a Cloud LR5. I've got it. They can kill it at any time if I don't pay, just like the PS Cloud version. Am I wrong?​
    I think so.... Photoshop and maybe Photoshop+LR have some subscription but you can purchase a perpetual license for LR, just like Photoshop CS6. It's yours to use until you decide you want to upgrade or move on.
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=971838&is=REG&A=details&Q=
     
  10. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    And there's this:
    http://blogs.adobe.com/richardcurtis/?p=1192
    Upgrade, Purchase or Creative Cloud Subscription
     
  11. Bob (OP) brought up an interesting point. I imagine that to be safe, it might be a good idea to export all of the images to another folder or HD. I never did like the idea of keeping all of my edits in a database, for other reasons. But, never underestimate the incentive for a software provider to lock you in, and hold you hostage to their software. Guess I’ve been around long enough to be suspicious of everyone, and generally cynical.
     
  12. Stanley Beck.... +1
     
  13. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I imagine that to be safe, it might be a good idea to export all of the images to another folder or HD. I never did like the idea of keeping all of my edits in a database, for other reasons.​
    I'm not sure what you are proposing or why. Where the images reside isn't an issue. Might as well put them all on one dedicated drive with the other LR files necessary. Makes backup and movement to other machines so simple. The database is the database. It might as well live with the images but it's not necessary and yes, you need to back that up too. And not using the silly LR backup which only partially handles all the necessary data. The edits can be within each document too! Just work with DNG. The edits are proprietary so moving to another solution isn't going to do much good here, you'll start from scratch unless you render the edits into a TIFF or similar before moving on. Edits within rendered images (JPEG, TIFF etc) are stored within those documents but again are proprietary.

    The edits in a Photoshop doc (smart objects, layers, blends etc) are also proprietary. They live within the documents but don't provide you any insurance that they can be further edited if you leave the Adobe path. So in my mind, a DNG or TIFF with layers are the same in terms of backup, archiving, ability to get to your edits. Where they are stored doesn't change any of that.
     
  14. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I never did like the idea of keeping all of my edits in a database​

    In addition to what Andrew writes, you can also save all your edits to XMP sidecars.
     
  15. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    +1 to Jeff said. Everyone should be writing to xmp (as
    they work)
     
  16. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    You can't not save some data as XMP (or embedded into a DNG). Some of this important data is saved as a sidecar XMP but some is saved only in the LR database. Examples are Virtual Copies, Pick flag, History, Collections (smart and dumb). Adobe treats raws as 'read only' so all these edits have to go somewhere, either sidecar XMP or directly into the data container while some data is saved within the LR database.
    Now as to having Auto save XMP on or off, your call. It used to slow everything way down but now, on a decent machine, you can't really tell the saving is affecting performance. There are times you may not want to save the data to the document (you don't want to force a backup on that entire document). LR indicates if there is a need to save the XMP data, you can select and save them manually.
     
  17. The only safe way to keep them and not be locked in in any way with Adobe is to save all the RAW imaages and tiffs of the edited images in an archive under your control. If any of the tiffs don't work for you in the future, then you have the RAWs to re-edit with whatever program you're using at the time.
    You're rolling the dice with any leftover Proprietary Adobe edits or files. You'll never know what changes Adobe will make in the future to block access. Aditionally, if you make edits with CC version, the perpetual version may not have the ability to access those edits. The perpetual version won't be forward accessible.
     
  18. +1 Jeff
    +1 Alan
    As far as subscription, I'm not sure what Adobe plans to do, but with prices already going up, Expect the same tactics cell phone and cable companies use....But wait, Photoshop doesn't have too much of direct competition, yet. So expect Adobe to keep the rates low enough to not force new competition, yet high enough to milk as much as possible being the lone giant users need.
     
  19. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    You're rolling the dice with any leftover Proprietary Adobe edits or files.​
    Yes but this has been true since version 1 and you could substitute any other software manufacturer name for Adobe above and this would be true.
     
  20. Alan, I do that now. I save my original NEF files to a DVD, my edited RAW files are in the DNG format, and the DNG and TIF are saved to several hard drives. The only problem is if for some reason I would not be able to go back and edit my DNG files, they have been renamed, and that makes locating the original NEF a bit more time consuming. Had I known that support for DNG was so limited, I would have stuck with the NEF and the xmp files.

    Good point, Phil.
     
  21. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    The only problem is if for some reason I would not be able to go back and edit my DNG files, they have been renamed...​
    That should have no bearing on the ability to edit them. And if locating them is a problem, you need to use LR to make that easier for you (there is the ability to make a Smart Collection that finds all DNG's, even variants of DNGs).
    Had I known that support for DNG was so limited, I would have stuck with the NEF and the xmp files.​
    Limited in what way? All the edits, even the various DNG profiles as well as a large, rendered JPEG of the processing can all be contained within the DNG.
     
  22. You're rolling the dice with any leftover Proprietary Adobe edits or files.
    Yes but this has been true since version 1 and you could substitute any other software manufacturer name for Adobe above and this would be true.​
    That's not the same thing. If you have a purchased version, whatever version it is, then you are making changes with it and Adobe cannot take it away. It's a lifetime purchase. You wouldn't be making changes with later editions because you never purchased those. So yes it that sense it's like other software.
    However, if you edit with CC, and then stop the subscription, you no longer have access to the program for those image files with those CC edits. You're screwed.
     
  23. You're rolling the dice with any leftover Proprietary Adobe edits or files.
    Yes but this has been true since version 1 and you could substitute any other software manufacturer name for Adobe above and this would be true.​
    That's not the same thing. If you have a purchased version, whatever version it is, then you are making changes with it and Adobe cannot take it away. It's a lifetime purchase. You wouldn't be making changes with later editions because you never purchased those. So yes it that sense it's like other software.
    However, if you edit with CC, and then stop the subscription, you no longer have access to the program for those image files with those CC edits. You're screwed.
     
  24. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Alan, I do that now. I save my original NEF files to a DVD, my edited RAW files are in the DNG format, and the DNG and TIF are saved to several hard drives. The only problem is if for some reason I would not be able to go back and edit my DNG files, they have been renamed, and that makes locating the original NEF a bit more time consuming. Had I known that support for DNG was so limited, I would have stuck with the NEF and the xmp files.​
    It's never too late to return, Stanley. You just described my old workflow. I recently made my life simpler by cutting out the dng conversion process and went back to nef and xmp. I now have more time, more hard drive space, burn less dvd's, have more freedom with software choices, and best of all, no more proprietary Adobe format. Use nefs and tiff, not dng and psd!
     
  25. Eric, I'm using PS CS5, and it won't open my D7100 NEF files. Adobe is no longer supporting CS5. Even if PS CS6 is still available under the previous license agreement, and even as they claim that they will continue to support it (for how long?), I can't see myself upgrading, when the next stop is obvious - CC. So, for now, I'm stuck with the DNG until the other software fills the void (which it seems to be doing). I have no intention of using Light Room, now or at anytime in the future.
     
  26. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    If you have a purchased version, whatever version it is, then you are making changes with it and Adobe cannot take it away.​
    Adobe can't take them away, but if you decide to move to another product, you're stuck so to speak with proprietary processing which has been true since Photoshop 1. So if you're a CC subscriber you better play your cards right if you move on. If you own CS6, it should run fine until you do something to break that (upgrade hardware, and OS, later today you'll see how that could affect you, even if you are using CS6 and own that software).
    However, if you edit with CC, and then stop the subscription, you no longer have access to the program for those image files with those CC edits. You're screwed.​
    By your own doing (and poorly), yes. Now if you save them as a flatted TIFF, so such issue. Or you bought CS6.

    It's like Stanely's dilemma with DNG. He has a camera that isn't supported in an old version of Photoshop and he doesn't want to upgrade. He doesn't want to use another Adobe product (LR) nor at this time another converter, he must like ACR. So he's fixed the issue by converting to DNG. He may not like that but it's the best alternative for him. You need an exit strategy if you're going to move from proprietary processing (or proprietary data) outside that proprietary process.
     
  27. I think I'm going to shoot film.
    But seriously, for most of my edits that I care about, I've output to TIFF. I have very little in the way of layered PS files. As long as I have my original RAW's, I'm OK.
    I have grown to really love LR but I can really see Adobe taking advantage of that loyalty by putting everything in the Cloud and squeezing us year after year because we will have spent years creating a workflow, collections, keywords, etc. that will be a monumental pain the a_ _ to walk away from or replicate in another software.
     
  28. Bob, Film doesn't help unless you plan to print chemically. I shoot MF. But once I scan it, I'm have to deal with digital post processing. Of course I purchased LR3, soon to use LR5, and Elements 12. So I'm not beholden to Adobe beyond the original lifetime purchase.
    Now I'm wondering whether it is a lifetime purchase. I never read the license. Can they pull that too in the future?
     
  29. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Stanley, now I see. I'll be in the same boat soon with CS6 as my two newest cameras are the D3s and the rx100.
     
  30. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I'll be in the same boat soon with CS6 as my two newest cameras are the D3s and the rx100​
    Gosh, upgrade and subscribe or convert to DNG? What a dilemma! Or just move completely past an Adobe workflow for those raws. And all thanks to D3 and rx100 raw's being proprietary when in fact, the differences between them and other raw's are tiny (they are after all, just based on a TIFF).
    At least with CS6, ACR will be updated for newer cameras and bug fixes but no new features. More details coming...
     
  31. The whole software industry in incestuous. One company feeds off of the changes of another. I bought LR5 to update LR3. But I can't use it as it requires Windows 7 or 8 and I'm running Vista. It just so happens my computer is failing so now I'm upgrading so I'll be able to use LR5. Microsoft loves the changes that companies like Adobe make. And the Adobe's of the world love it when Microsoft updates their Windows or the camera manufacturers come out with new cameras so they can update their products. And on and on it goes.
    Companies on both sides love it because each change by either side brings in more business to both sides.
     
  32. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    The whole software industry in incestuous.​
    Cable, wireless cell, (fill in the blank) is different? This is a simple proposition: either what you are paying for is worthwhile or it's not. Too bad the photo business doesn't have such hooks, many here would be raking in the $$.
    I bought LR5 to update LR3. But I can't use it as it requires Windows 7 or 8 and I'm running Vista.​
    Who's fault is that? Or to put it another way, should software advance at the cost of not supporting older operating systems and hardware? Should consumers check all this out before they order an upgrade (answer, yes). I've got software that cost far more than all the perpetual licensed Adobe products combined that can't run on anything past OS X 10.5. And so I have an inexpensive MacBook bought on E-bay to run them as I make money with that expensive software. Would I prefer it be able to run on the current OS and hardware? Yes. Welcome to the real world. I can't run Live Picture which at the time cost $5000 on anything but OS9.
    Microsoft loves the changes that companies like Adobe make. And the Adobe's of the world love it when Microsoft updates their Windows or the camera manufacturers come out with new cameras so they can update their products. And on and on it goes.​
    None of these awful companies force you to upgrade, that's your call. Either the 'business' proposition make sense and you upgrade or you don't.
    Companies on both sides love it because each change by either side brings in more business to both sides.​
    They only love it when customers make such moves, but only the customer can make such an advance. In theory I have old Mac's that can run old operating systems that could run Photoshop 2.5 (still have the floppies). I have zero desire to run Photoshop 2.5!
     
  33. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Gosh, upgrade and subscribe or convert to DNG? What a dilemma!​

    It is. I'm not sure how a reasonable person can fail to notice it.
     
  34. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    It is. I'm not sure how a reasonable person can fail to notice it.​
    So you'll do what? S&*t or go blind is a poor option.
     
  35. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    DxO Pro, Capture 1, Photo Mechanic...And with John Nack moving to Google this month along with Google's wishes to be number 1 in the photo world, not many are still concerned about Adobe being the only horse in town.
     
  36. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    And with John Nack moving to Google this month along with Google's wishes to be number 1 in the photo world, not many are still concerned about Adobe being the only horse in town.​
    Don't hold your breath, until something is real, it's just speculation. And don't forget that Mark Hamburg did the same dance and ended back at Adobe. The only people who know what or why John is at Google is John and Google. Look at all Google has accomplished with Nik....
    Not many are still concerned or not you? Best to speak only for yourself, not others.
     
  37. I'm wondering how many photos are most people really concerned with? I mean, you may have thousands of photos. But how many are really valuable to sell? Do you nreally need to edit these again? How many could get by with saving as tiffs?
     
  38. Re. the problem with not being able to open RAW files from the latest cameras, I find it quite interesting that a little free program, IrfanView, which doesn't get (and might not deserve) a lot of respect, opens the D7100 RAW files with no problems. Of course, about all it will let you do is convert to jpg. However, I find it useful for browsing RAW files that neither PS Bridge nor Windows Explorer will display.
     
  39. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    But how many are really valuable to sell? Do you nreally need to edit these again? How many could get by with saving as tiffs?​
    I have tens of thousands of raws yes. I have many hundred that are rendered as I desire from raw. As to revisiting the raws, it depends. The difference in rendering quality between PV2003 and PV2012 is significant! Do you ever go back to your neg's and reprint them? If so, you'd want to keep the raws and possibly revisit the edits. But you could just as easily go to another raw converter, completely ignore the original proprietary Adobe edits and start from scratch. Your call. And this has nothing to do with selling in my case. It's about options and control.
     
  40. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    I have tens of thousands of raws yes.​
    Now things are making sense...
    Look at all Google has accomplished with Nik....​
    Yes, the best mobile editor is now free and on all platforms - Snapseed for all is bad thing? You don't use Google + and Picasa, you've concluded no one else does? Mobile computing and mobile photography is the future. Some newer Windows and Android mobile phones now offer raw, more to come soon and the raw option will be a standard. And where's Adobe during the pioneering days of this "disruptive innovation"? Crickets. Not even a cheesy mobile app that's worth mentioning
    Don't hold your breath, until something is real, it's just speculation.​
    Perhaps friend him on FB and/or add him to your G+ circles before guessing.
    Turbulent times, the horizon is changing. Google Chrome OS is the fastest growing OS and is about to over take OSX for second place in the desktop market. Here's some interesting links on raw photos uploaded to Google and editing in the cloud
    http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2013/09/25/raw-photos-in-the-cloud-now-on-google/
    http://www.androidcentral.com/google-dramatically-improving-raw-photo-uploads-supporting-over-70-camera-models
     
  41. Alan, some people shoot family, at home, in school and on vacation. Some people shoot weddings and events. Some people shoot for fine art and gallery sales. Some people shoot for stock. What you shoot doesn't necessarily represent the needs of all photographers. And what was mentioned above, yes, I do want to re-edit many photographs, because software has improved, and my use of the software has improved, and I often see the shortcomings of both the software and my editing when I look at my photos from 10 years back. The objective is always the same - to get the best photo possible.
     
  42. Stanley: I agree with you. Everyone's needs are different. I was just trying to get an idea how big of a problem this is? For example, you say that you would re-edit many photos when software is improved. How many would you say that involves? Would you work from the original RAW image with the updated software or would you try to edit the old edits?
     
  43. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Yes, the best mobile editor is now free and on all platforms - Snapseed for all is bad thing.​
    Best is a personal opinion of yours, free is good but buying a company, giving their product away for free isn't saying much nor illustrating any improvement over the product, just the price. I have zero need for Snapseed. I don't use Picasa. Mobile photography may be the future, I live in the present and the iPhone I use does the job I expect of it as does the supporting OS and tools that cost me zero.
    Perhaps friend him on FB and/or add him to your G+ circles before guessing.​
    I don't use FB and I have zero reason to friend him, we've been real friends long before FB existed! I've known John since he arrived at Adobe. I'm a alpha tester for Photoshop, John was the product manager. Don't know the number of times we've dined together, meet up at the various conferences etc. And the one who's guessing is you sir. I'm in a much better position to know what he's up to, and as I said, speculation, something you're doing a very good job at isn't useful to anyone but the speculator!
    We're getting way OT here. But again, if you want to extrapolate what might happen down the road, don't get upset if we ignore what is a faith based forum post. Those that know can't say, those that do know will not say.
     
  44. Alan, what I would edit depends upon what the circumstances are. If it is one that I like, and would like to show or frame, or if I have a client that wants it, yes, I would re-edit if necessary, to make it as good as possible. The re-editing would be for things like noise reduction, highlight detail, color balance, contrast or sharpness, for example. I would not likely re-edit to manipulate the image. I would go back to my RAW files if possible. DNG RAW files can be reset to start with what came out of the camera. NEF can be reset also, simply by deleting the xmp sidecar file. Re-editing a tif or jpg would be my last choice.
     
  45. On the re-editing front, for images that I have LR edits but that I haven't saved to a TIFF, I would be fine with starting again with Adobe replacement software, whatever that might be. Edits are so subjective anyway and workflows are pretty efficient that starting from scratch isn't the worst thing I can imagine. I work on images one at a time, black and white almost exclusively and I don't batch. So it's kind of fun for me to sit down and 'see' how to approach an original image with new software. I just got the NIK collection and it's a great little road of discovery to see what each RAW file can be, even if I'm starting over. Really, when you compare the workflow pre-digital with now, this is such a piece of cake. You can see what I do here; www.bobestremeraphotography.com
     
  46. "DxO Pro, Capture 1, Photo Mechanic...And with John Nack moving to Google this month along with Google's wishes to be number 1 in the photo world, not many are still concerned about Adobe being the only horse in town."


    My thoughts exactly. Unlike CS6, there are several viable alternatives to Lightroom that will get the job done. For me, Lightroom does everything I need but I would put my money on Google eventually releasing a product that rivals CS6 in the years ahead. If/when Adobe decides to go to a CC only plan with Lightroom, I will leave them for someone else as soon as my current version no longer performs as I need it to, or becomes outdated. I have no problems with them offering CC options, but oppose it being the sole way of doing business. Many others obviously feel the same. I have no need for 95% of the updates Adobe releases, so CC does nothing for me in that regards.
    Many people learned a thing or two back in 2008 about putting everything on a monthly payment plan and building a business/lifestyle based on a continuous funneling of money to an outside entity on everything from houses to smaller everyday purchases. My philosophy is that I should budget for it, buy it outright, and own it for as long as it does what I require it to do.
     
  47. While I'm basically satisfied with Lightroom I can see Google offering a viable alternative simply by beefing up Picasa.
    Picasa is much quicker than Lightroom for navigating zillions of photos. I had to break myself of the habit of using Picasa to sort through my freshly uploaded photos and deleting the bad ones. It was screwing up my Lightroom catalog. But, dayum, Lightroom feels like a slug compared with Picasa for this simple task.
    On the flip side, Picasa lacks serious raw processing capabilities. No competition with Lightroom there. Picasa lacks: good white balance correction; noise reduction; lens corrections including light falloff and chromatic aberration.
    Picasa was a pretty nifty JPEG editor for basic fixes a few years ago but its special effects are really dated now. Mobile apps for editing are much more interesting.
    But Picasa's speedy navigation and increasingly seamless online interface, combined with powerful raw processing could make it a formidable alternative to Lightroom.
     
  48. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    My philosophy is that I should budget for it, buy it outright, and own it for as long as it does what I require it to do.​

    I'm with you, Daniel. I just bought LR5 back in the Fall and with the changing times, the CS6 and LR are probably the last cd's/dvd's I'll own from Adobe.
    DNG RAW files can be reset to start with what came out of the camera.​

    I'd double check this info, Stanley. Andrew Rodney stated once that when you convert to dng from nef, you bake in some edits that removes editing flexibility in the future. This is not the case with nef and sidecar xmp's. If you can swing it, I think it is safer to purchase software and stay updated in order to work only with your nefs.
    But Picasa's speedy navigation and increasingly seamless online interface, combined with powerful raw processing could make it a formidable alternative to Lightroom.​

    And Lex, there's geo tagging and face recognition...It's freaky and Orwellian when it ties into Google maps and image search. But Google rarely keeps anything a secret in terms of development and then launches a surprise to the market. They instead persistently drop bead crumbs with their direction and have clearly stated they plan to be the worlds leading photo editing choice. And doing it in the cloud. I wasn't surprised when they bought Picasa. Or when they bought Android. Or Nik. I wouldn't be surprised to hear one day they have bought a respectable raw processing software company either. DNG, imo, is irrelevant today
     
  49. , there's geo tagging and face recognition...It's freaky and Orwellian when it ties into Google maps and image search.​
    How does that work and what does it do?
     
  50. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    DNG RAW files can be reset to start with what came out of the camera.

    I'd double check this info, Stanley. Andrew Rodney stated once that when you convert to dng from nef, you bake in some edits that removes editing flexibility in the future.​
    Stanely is correct, you've misunderstood whatever I wrote.
    There is proprietary metadata the camera can create that can't be understood outside the manufacture’s converter. It can be embedded into the DNG via private tags yet it is still proprietary and all 3rd party raw converters will ingore it. Questionable if this metadata is even useful but if you feel it is, this isn't a DNG vs. NEF discussion, you HAVE to use the camera manufacturer's converter to use that data.
    Outside the manufacturer's converter, NEF, CRW, DNG, what Stanely wrote is correct. DNG is raw, raw is raw, read only, edits are proprietary to each converter, you can always start from scratch.
     
  51. Eric, the reason there is a question about editing Nikon NEF files with third party software is that, if I’m not mistaken, Nikon doesn’t share its file structure information. For third party software to edit them, the files have to be reverse engineered, so there may be some interpretation as to what Nikon’s intention is. Nikon software would probably be the best editor, but I just don’t like their software.
     
  52. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Eric, the reason there is a question about editing Nikon NEF files with third party software is that, if I’m not mistaken, Nikon doesn’t share its file structure information.​
    Exactly, it's proprietary. Has zero to do with DNG, as I pointed out, that data could be embedded into a private tag. Now IF Nikon's software supported DNG, that data could be accessible to Nikon's software as well as the NEF. They don't, so the this proprietary metadata has absolutely no use outside of the manufacturer's raw converter. The format (NEF or DNG) is immaterial.
     
  53. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Eric, the reason there is a question about editing Nikon NEF files with third party software is that, if I’m not mistaken, Nikon doesn’t share its file structure information. For third party software to edit them, the files have to be reverse engineered, so there may be some interpretation as to what Nikon’s intention is. Nikon software would probably be the best editor, but I just don’t like their software.​
    Yes, I understand this to be laws of our photo-verse....has anyone contested them here, Stanley? I'm not sure why you are stating known facts?
    Andrew has cited words from another source that "The DNG format makes backwards compatibility possible in several different ways. Sometimes this is done without any loss of quality, and sometimes it requires “baking in” some of the changes to the raw file, which does remove some flexibility to re-edit your files."

    He wasn't clear, when pressed, what those changes are or what flexibility is at stake. He also wouldn't admit in one of his pro-dng/anti-nef epic rants that this "baking in changes" and losing editing flexibility is a non-issue with nef's. Converting to dng isn't free...I'd proceed with caution
     
  54. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    He wasn't clear, when pressed, what those changes are or what flexibility is at stake. He also wouldn't admit in one of his pro-dng/anti-nef epic rants that this "baking in changes" and losing editing flexibility is a non-issue with nef's. Converting to dng isn't free...I'd proceed with caution​
    No further clarity would aid in your understanding or lack thereof of the very simple point repeated above. I'll repeat again: DNG is raw. Raw is raw. DNG allows any proprietary data that only the manufacturer's converter to be added into the container. That data is by and large completely useless to most of us, but if you feel it's so important, you can only use it in the manufacturer's converter. Rant(?) and facts are over, you either get those facts or you wish to continue to ignore and act the fool concerning this topic.

    And yes, converting NEF to DNG is totally free in all senses of the term, a term you may further wish to ignore which is fine with the rest of us living in a fact based world.
     
  55. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    "The DNG format makes backwards compatibility possible in several different ways. Sometimes this is done without any loss of quality, and sometimes it requires “baking in” some of the changes to the raw file, which does remove some flexibility to re-edit your files."
    Convert to Lossy DNG, the above is true, that DNG isn't raw but if you understand the potentials of DNG, which clearly you do not, you'd see that a totally rendered image, a JPEG can be stored within a DNG. Try it in LR! You can save a PSD or TIFF as a DNG too. That isn't raw data. Convert raw to DNG properly, that DNG is raw data, period. Lossy DNG = loss of quality, get it champ? And yes of course, with a camera raw converted to a standard (non lossy) DNG, you can start from scratch like any other raw file because that DNG contains raw data.
     
  56. Can Adobe re-license pdf files? I'd hate to think that all my texts and scans I archived in pdf could become unrecoverable in the future.
     
  57. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Can Adobe re-license pdf files?​
    I can't see why not, it's their format (like TIFF, PSD, PSB and DNG). TIFF and DNG are openly documented formats that require no licensing (today) for use.
     
  58. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Stanely is correct, you've misunderstood whatever I wrote.​
    (eyes gloss over) I suppose I didn't misunderstand what you wrote after all. And you still can't tell us what manufactures data is thrown out and more importantly, that we may want that discarded data at some point in the future when software improves. Are you able to tell us yet what raw data is baked-in with the dng conversion or what editing flexibility we lose in the process? No.
    It isn't free. You don't get something for nothing.
     
  59. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    (eyes gloss over) I suppose I didn't misunderstand what you wrote after all.​
    That's obvious.
    And you still can't tell us what manufactures data is thrown out and more importantly, that we may want that discarded data at some point in the future when software improves.​
    Any proprietary metadata that only the manufacturer converter can use is unavailable outside their converter. Simple as that. Raw is raw, what about that do you not understand?
    Are you able to tell us yet what raw data is baked-in with the dng conversion or what editing flexibility we lose in the process? No.​
    There is no baked in process of the raw data, raw is raw. The so called flexibility you lose is the same with all 3rd party converters, proprietary processing only the manufacture converter supplies. That's true for NEF or DNG.
    It isn't free. You don't get something for nothing.​
    It is free, there is no cost. It cost time to convert, but probably only you would sit there, stare at the progress dialog instead of doing something else, then complain you paid to wait for DNG conversion. Further, if the camera manufacturer just saved this for you in the first place, you wouldn’t wait a lick. But we've been though this. The point that brought up DNG in this post was your incorrect statements (again) to Stanley about starting over the raw process. He is correct, you are not. Nothing new in this topic however.
     
  60. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    Unlike CS6, there are several viable alternatives to Lightroom that will get the job done.
    This is surely why Adobe will most likely continue to offer a perpetual version of Lightroom. There are (for now) no true alternatives to Photoshop; and most of the other "Creative Cloud" software is "industry standard," with alternatives not acceptable to professional users. So Adobe can get away with forcing their captive users into the rental model, or whatever other terms and conditions they decide to dictate. If you don't like it, that's tough.
    But as long as there are viable alternatives to Lightroom (e.g., Apple Aperture) that are offered with a perpetual license, Adobe will have to make an exception for that product because they lack the monopoly power to force users to rent it. We can only hope that at least some of the people who are unhappy with Adobe are software developers, who can channel their outrage into making GIMP a viable competitor to Photoshop.
    For what it's worth, I'm sticking with CS5. I see no benefit to renting Photoshop CC, or to buying a CS6 upgrade. CS6 doesn't offer me much, and it apparently remains available only to let Adobe slowly and gently twist the arms of Photoshop users who remain reluctant to embrace rental. When it's time to get a new camera, I'll have to consider whether I want to jump on the DNG bandwagon, buy Lightroom, or perhaps consider a non-Adobe raw converter.
     
  61. I'm also sticking with CS5e and LR3. I just wish issues like this got press in the general financial/consumer news like the Delta miles program is this week. Hell I'm still waiting on Bill Gates to drive across the 520 bridge and refund me my $85 I wasted on Windows ME.
     
  62. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Adobe just doubled the price of my Photoshop and LR5 Cloud subscription.​

    I got an email this week for $9.95 CC subscription with PS and LR5. I already have CC (through a different email address) but you should call Adobe and ask why they are offering it at a lower price. I've found that works with a lot of businesses.
     
  63. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    I got an email this week for $9.95 CC subscription with PS and LR5.
    I got the same email. Next to the "US$9.99 per month" after the "join now" button is a little asterisk. (The email mentions "US$9.99" twice before this, but without an asterisk.) If you scroll down to the bottom of the message and read the tiny type to which that asterisk points, you'll see a paragraph headed "Renewal" that says "After the first 12 months, Adobe will automatically renew your contract based on the current price of the offering."
    In other words, the $9.99 is a teaser. Once you're hooked for a year (and you have to commit to a full year's rental, although it's billed monthly), they can jack up the rent to whatever they decide best serves the shareholders. Evidently a lot of people didn't see the asterisk or the fine print, and were snookered into believing that the $9.99 rent would be permanent rather than a one-time teaser rate. It is, of course, perfectly legal thanks to that asterisk and the tiny type. But it's behavior reminiscent of the banks that used teaser rates to sell sub-prime mortgages and caused the Great Recession. I suppose that if you're a monopoly like Adobe, you don't have to be concerned about ethics or pixxing off your customers.
    Again, I hope that at least some people who are now outraged about being snookered are software developers who can channel their anger at Adobe into making GIMP a viable competitor to Photoshop.
     
  64. Are you guys saying that Adobe implied that their introductory offer pricing persisted for ever? That's not the impression I got- though I can't say I noticed what prices would apply after the intro pricing ceased-but then I didn't take up their offer so I was probably less assiduous because of that.​
    Adobe were very careful not to make this claim in an official capacity, but it was a pretty widespread impression, fueled by Adobe bloggers and the usual suspects:
    http://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/introducing-the-photoshop-photography-program/
    'To be clear, $9.99 is not an introductory price. It is the price for those of you who sign up by December 31, 2013.'
    http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2013/11/a-new-deal-for-all-photographers-photoshop-lightroom-for-9-99mo.html
    'As before, the intention is not to get you in at $9.99/mo., then crank up the price after a year. $9.99 is the expected ongoing price.'
    http://scottkelby.com/2013/adobe-announces-a-much-better-deal-for-photographers-than-i-was-expecting/
    'So, how long does that price hold?
    Forever! (OK, Adobe didn’t use the word “Forever” because there’s no way their lawyers would ever let them do that, so this is just me talking, but my understanding is they will hold that $9.99 rate for anyone who gets in on the program before that cutoff date, as long as they stay as subscribers. If they drop off at some point, and they want to come back into the program, they’ll have to come back at the regular price of $19.99. Again, that’s not Adobe talking, that’s just my understanding, but that is my understanding. That being said, I can’t image that in the year 2525, if man is still alive, that it won’t shoot up to $11.00 or $12.00 a month, but I believe they plan on holding it there for the foreseeable future).'
     
  65. "Adobe just doubled the price of my Photoshop and LR5 Cloud subscription. I want to cancel the subscription before the
    new price goes into effect. "

    The Photography Bundle has only existed since last fall and the price is fixed for the first year so I'm having a difficult time
    understanding how the price could have changed for you???
     
  66. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    A viable Photoshop alternative is getting some great
    reviews

    http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/02/12/hands-on-
    affinity-photo-throws-down-the-gauntlet-to-photoshop-
    at-least-on-the-mac/
     

Share This Page