P: Lightroom Desktop: Ability to print

As a result I’ve decided to add more data to 4 g connexion 😉

I can’t believe at all it is not possible to use the layer and or an api apple offer to print something.
No sorry i can’t believe it.
It is possible to print with every computer since probably the first computer exists and now with this kind of software it takes year to develop something to print?
Seriously?
And for example speak about iOS capability. Apple offer iCloud sync capabilities. Why not use iCloud sync capabilities to sync watermark setting. Why?
Why do I need to parameters on my Mac., on my iPhone, on my iPad separately? Why?
Because as simple it is, it is not on top priority of adobe developers.
Just crasy but it is as it. Adobe knows better than we what we need.
For example Adobe decide it is not possible to find a photo with its name. Why ? Is it so hard to use offline search or string text search? It is simple but adobe décided again we do not need this feature. Such a basic feature. Resulting no possibility to search a photo when offline.

Yes, as you note, you can share to printers on mobile. That's the operating system doing that.

>  It seem pretty obvious that CC is not meant for the PC 

The desktop versions are much younger, whereas the mobile apps have been available for years. Desktop also has some features that mobile doesn't have yet, and vice versa. The long term aim is feature parity, but we're a way off from that yet.

The crazy thing is thanks to iOS sharing capability, you are able to print.
So why adobe is not able to use an apple API on osx to print a selected photo?
What is crazy about that?

I'm not a software developper but it seems apple offer this possibility : The AppKit Printing API - Apple Developerhttps://developer.apple.com/.../Printing/osxp_printingapi/osxp_pri...


We just want a simple print function but a weird export that ask us to find the file and to open it in an another soft then print it (Damn we are not all photographer but technical people and need simple and fast mobile solution).

This is unfair from adobe to let us pay and suffer so much restriction thanks to "baby" software.  

(I've renew my subscription but really I'm fade up to read this again and again)

Victoria- Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate that you took the time to understand our position. So here is an interesting fact. When I run CC on my Samsung tablet the share command offers 39 different sources I can share to. (onedrive, facebook, outlook, Kindle to name a few. Believe it or not it also lets me share to a printer. It appears the ability exists. The PC version of CC will only allow shares to Adobe or the local PC. Why are these programs so different on each platform? (a rhetorical question) It seem pretty obvious that CC is not meant for the PC 

"and then I'd save the edited photo and use any version of Lightroom" isn't that just a jpeg at the moment, or is dng+settings a perfect quality export/import path to CC Classic?

I'm afraid I can't give a timescale because Adobe doesn't preannounce their plans. I sincerely doubt the answer is never, but there's a lot of juggling priorities at this stage as it's still so very young.

Like you, the universal access is a big benefit in my workflow, so if I needed to print locally, I'd edit in CC as normal, and then I'd save the edited photo and use any version of Lightroom (even an old perpetual license) or Photoshop to print, and then throw away the exported files. Whether that would work in your workflow, only you can tell.

Victoria, that was a very thoughtful and responsive comment.

I work from several locations, so CC and universal access is very attractive as it solves my issue about how to see and work on photos in each place. But I still need to print, both for display and also for gifts and to enclose in notes. It would be helpful to know if printing in CC is “never” or “10 months out” or whatever so I can decide whether to invest my time in it. Perhaps you could share that with us.

Apologies if you found that comment to be glib, but I meant it entirely sincerely. A little background - I maintained a collection of local printers in a working studio environment 15-20 years ago, but moved to sending the files to pro labs. I'm no longer working in that environment, but still send photos offsite because for MY workflow, it's simpler.

Since you have a lovely printer like that, I completely understand why you'd be frustrated. The request has my vote, even though I wouldn't need it myself. 

> It seems that CC was designed for tablets and phones. 

Yes, that group of mobile photographers is the initial target audience, at least at this stage of development. And that target audience has less of a need for local printing compared to Classic's target audience. That may change in time, as it grows up, but right now this is not a replacement for Classic, and nor is it meant to be. 

> Perhaps a more honest approach would have been for Adobe to christen the new Lightroom CC as "Lightroom Elements." That way, nobody expects full features. 

Naming it Elements would limit its potential. It is still a baby at the moment, no question, but it'll grow up in time. 

You sound like you'd be better sticking with Classic, at least for now Mitch & Jim.

Hi Mitch, because duplicating all the old functionality is a huge job (and some of it shouldn't be duplicated). We are going through the same issues in our company with a new cloud based version - simply duplicating what you had before is definitely not the right answer, making the important things work better is what is important (and I think Adobe are doing this with CC). 

You can't 'finish' it without feedback, and you can't get the feedback without launching it.

Sure, you have to pay for more cloud storage, but the Adobe storage is not expensive compared to other applications, and it works very well.