P: Support for native full-screen mode on macOS

Seriously?

You have to "vote" against something so "trivial"? ... if the idea is as mundane and superfluous as you deem it is ... won't it die it's own agonizing death as Linux support has without any effort from you?

How about we let the merits fall where they may ... negativity for any feature request is belittling another's view ...

I was never a fan of a Maps module... or Face Recognition (both VERY popular with many users of Lr) ... though I have NEVER actively opposed such measures ... because they ARE important to some users ... Who am I to decide if they should be implemented? ...

Especially since it is such an insignificant number of users who participate here ..

Considering that TH mentioned there were 300,000 participants in the Lr4 beta ... the top feature in this forum has only 208 votes ... That alone should direct further development of Lightroom as we know it?

I think we DESERVE so much more ...

Shouldn't you spend your time PROMOTING those features that YOU find important ... rather than diminishing the features that others find important? Won't the rankings here take care of themselves without your input?

@Butch_M Oh, I do think Adobe have to be careful not to settle for "good enough" features, and they haven't seemed so sure footed over the last couple of years. I might add my own doubts about various moves towards software as a service, or spawning extra products like Edge and Mush, sorry Muse (Dreamweaver for dumbos?).

But I wouldn't characterize my post as "lobbying" against this IMO "insignificant" feature to protect others. That opportunity cost is always in the background, of course, but I'm just not that impressed by Lion's full screen app feature and would add a -1 to this thread if the forum software made it possible. It's just a bonus that not chasing this particular rabbit frees up resources to (hopefully) benefit all users.

@8510810: Ok, I will not argue with you about distribution of macs because our experiences clearly vary (which is not at all surprising!) and I think it will lead nowhere.

I understand your point, but I still feel it makes a lot more sense participating in the relevant discussions concerning the appropriate points you have just named (so of which I would expend as much energy trying to push for as I do for this) rather then talking down other discussions.

In the end, this is your point of view and hopefully Adobe have a more objective point of view. We are trying to help them by these comments, are we not?Hopefully they are tracking all of these requests and making notes and that is the basis for future improvements. Surely 100 people saying what they *like* is more valuable then 50 people saying what they like and other 50 people saying *i don't like that*.

If this is not your thing, let it be and push for your own thoughts and ideas.

John,

Not necessarily ... I'm just getting tired or hearing all the excuses as to why we can't have something ... and folks finding fault with requests about "wasting" resources ...

I mean c'mon ... look at the past year or so ... Adobe lays off 700 employees ... adopts a "you MUST upgrade EVERY version" policy or pay full price ... then adds a Blurb only book feature to Lr ... then drops the price significantly ... why?

I'm all for saving money, but if resources are indeed so drastically limited that so many folks feel the need to lobby against "insignificant" feature requests in order to protect their interests ... I don't get it.

I would have been very willing to upgrade to Lr4 ... and pay the full traditional price ... but as it stands, I am having great difficulty finding enough reason to upgrade ... because unlike prior versions, there isn't much there to significantly improve my workflow. Sure the Develop module is "better" ... but not enough that I would consider Lr 3.6 to be a dog or so inferior as to be a detriment to my livelihood ...

Issues like the comments in this thread are not making great strides in my confidence that Adobe has my best interests at heart ... nor does it raise my hopes for what lies ahead ...

@9137396. I never said unimportant. I said as a Mac and Windows user I wasn't 'even lukewarm'. It is important to for Adobe to know and Users to state when they think a niche feature is receiving disproportionate attention at the expense of fixes and augments which benefit the whole of Lightroom users.

I teach hundreds of people a year in Lightroom. I can tell you that I count the logos on the back of the laptops and 50% is generous. In last Tuesday's class 14 PCs 3 Macs. Sometimes it is 50-50 but seldom does Mac exceed the PC crowd. I can also tell you from my one-on-one with individual photographers and my consulting work with larger workflow studios that Notebook sized machines are much rarer as a production level tool than desktop-based computers. In those professional work environments where I consult, screen real estate is not at a premium.

As to your question: What do I think they should concentrate on?
Hmm... Let's see
1. Making all metadata filterable
2. Robust keywording improvements including merging
3. Relative Presets
4. Slideshow needs major work
5. Expanding Publish Services into Web-Module-based Galleries
6. Eraser for the Gradient tool
7. Cropping using the Layout overlay
8. Crop Presets
9. Robust Text handling in Print, Slideshow and Web
10. Second screen augments to include Develop module and tool palettes
11. Different shapes for brushes and spot removal
12. Live view in tethering
13. Smarter stacking for HDR, Pano, Focus Sets, Time lapse,

Just off the top of my head I would trade any one of those features a Full-screen Mac App view. I have no ax to grind with Mac, their users, or their feature sets. I use a Mac everyday (on a Macbook) and I seldom even take LR to full-screen via the [F] key.

Above all, I want a program that speeds and improves the workflow of all users-not just a select few. That is they way I feel resources should be allocated.

I think this really boils down to thinking that supporting a platform in its entirety is either trivial or essential. I think that the new features that Lion is presenting are really amazing and, in a typical Apple way, are making slow and steady progress involving real change and new useful paradigms in UI. Adobe refuses to cooperate because they have their own ideas. I guess I can't blame them - they did achieve a lot and their work is, overall, impressive. Understanding doesn't equal agreeing though, and in my eyes they are setting themselves up for a failure.

So Butch, would you put full screen mode ahead of having any individual one of those shortfalls brought up to our satisfaction? Even if these core features, and slideshow too, were significantly closer to what we might want, I would still find it very hard to put something as platform-limited and IMO trivial as full screen even on the bottom of a "nice to have" list.

Not to mention that Adobe relishes in the fact they can tout that the majority of Apple owners use Lightroom over Aperture ....

Rikk, I really don't understand your urge to proclaim your indifference here. I think both arguing for and against the topic can be very constructive, but saying it is unimportant really does't get anyone anywhere. Feel free to ignore this thread.

Mac is a minority. Generally that is true. Mac has a larger share of photographers, most definitely. And 50%? You have your experience - I can share mine. From all the professional photographers, graphic designers and illustrators I know not a single one uses Windows as their primary machine. This is *my* experience. I also know 3D artists who use photoshop and they use windows. So there is some Win users, but within my area (London) this number is very low.

I think Adobe should also think ahead a little. Not all Apple computers are running Lion at the moment. But they will eventually. And many many people who have windows computers will be running Lion soon because they are just about to upgrade. If you look at the next generation of designers and photographers - the people who are studying now - how many are using a macbook? Again I can only share my own personal point of view, but from the three major universities in London I have access to I dare say an *absolute* majority.

Numbers and statistics are very tricky. They can be so deceiving. So what I would like to see from Adobe is an honest response that includes both numbers and their analysis and rationale. (Yeah thats never gonna happen - I realise that.) If we are such a minority please tell us so. I will understand. But what I see at the moment from their side just feels like arrogance and indifference.

Anyways - in a totally friendly and not-hostile-at-all manner - what do you think should they concentrate on? I personally would love to see a deeper (not necessarily total) unification of shortcuts across all of Creative Suite.

//Kind of an afterthought - there are so many things that I want more then fullscreen. I was really hopeful when Superstition came out, but so underwhelmed in the end. And I actually think the lack of fullscreen was a last straw. "They still didn't fix A,B,C,D,E... and they didn't even add fullscreen. Bah!" Essentially my problem is not with the lack of fullscreen but with unwillingness or inability to walk towards the user. They build from top down, adding to features that occasionally, sometimes can save you 10 minutes of work. But if they took time to consolidate, and really optimised the usability (and not just for a long time Photoshop user) I would save so much more time. Every day. And I wouldn't feel like I am being robbed of my money every time there is an upgrade...

Rikk ... while the numbers for this request may be insignificant in your view, the use of Lion and it's successors will increase over time, not decrease ... Whatever happened to Adobe being on the leading edge instead of taking on the role of a follower? The comparison of this request which is less than a year old to the request of Linux support which is decades old, is a bit of a leap to bolster your viewpoint.

Unfortunately, Adobe has chosen your recommendations to an extent ... compare the feature set for slideshows and books in Aperture 3 ... don't you think Lightroom users would appreciate and benefit from similar capabilities? Alas, Adobe has ignored such development. So what we are experiencing is not likely a shortage of, or mis-directed resource allocations for niche users ... it looks more like indifference ...