Since the cloud based Lightroom WILL import to cloud, and in fact by their FAQ stops if your current cloud account runs full, to import that session would then require up to 96 GB in the cloud. Each photo at 40-50 MB, and with bracketing spewing out 3-5 of those image files on each button click, it can fill up rather easy. Think “Classic car”.)īut for any professional photographer, Lightroom CC (new cloud based) is utterly useless.Ĭoming home from a session/travel/hike, my most-used camera without even thinking of swapping memory cards holds 96 GB. (“Classic” gives the impression of “no longer made/maintained, on its way out in a year or 2, was great once”. They then unfortunately renamed the original Lightroom CC to “Classic”, which was a serious mistake and ticked off professionals. The new simplistic Lightroom CC is merely Adobe’s desktop compliment to the already existing “Lightroom CC” for Android and iPad. (Free to download/use with the basic adjustments, but really just a marketing vehicle to sell the paid adjustments.) That is how it works these days. There is no money in “free”, unless it pushes a customer towards a high chance for an up-sell. (One problem with pure snapshot users is that they are used to “free”… ![]() Adobe really, really wants their money, because that is where the bulk of the billions of simpler photos are being taken.Ī customer base of merely “real photographers”, or “the millions of slightly serious people making snapshots”. The new Lightroom CC (which I will never use) is merely Adobe trying again to hone in on the phone crowd, trying to make a slightly upgraded (paid) photo editing for the crowd that might otherwise use Google and Picasa or similar. Topaz Studio on an iPad or similar tablet might be a nice toy to have, but Topaz is not priced for the “take family photos with my phone” crowd.Īs far as “the cloud is where the industry is going”? No.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |