Adobe should have named the new consumer-oriented program "Lightroom Express CC" and the professional program "Lightroom Professional CC" instead of Classic.
By choosing to name the new cloud-by-default Lightroom as "Lightroom CC", Adobe is implying that this is the primary app and the way forward, and that "Lightroom Classic CC" is for the "get off my lawn" clueless old timers who cling to the past and refuse to acknowledge the future (the fantasy future anyway). There's probably strong cross-over between cloud-centric evangelists and those that believe wireless Internet connections to be superior to wired ones. Wireless connections and tablet devices are cute for consuming content, but professionals prefer real computers and the reliability and bandwidth of wired connections. In the same vein, we need programs that understand our workflow and use the full power of our device and its interfaces (lots of keyboard shortcuts, please) to enable us to efficiently process photos.
Different tools are most appropriate for different jobs. I wouldn't expect a carpenter to build a house using only a manual screwdriver, nor would I expect a cruise ship to connect to the Internet with a hardline connection. Tablets are nice for viewing content and playing videos; not making content. I doubt Adobe's developers do their programming on a tablet. Cell phones are nice for communication and impromptu photography; DSLRs/MILC cameras are best for intentional photography. Cloud storage can be useful to share files with people outside of your network; it is not a viable backup solution, nor should any competent business rely on it for primary storage.
Adobe's core competency is supposed to be creating professional software for professional users, see: Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere Pro, and until now Photoshop Lightroom. Apparently, some idiot on Adobe's executive team hasn't realized that "Cloud everything" is on its way out, and further failed to understand that
cloud storage doesn't make sense for uploading lots of large files, and furthermore, that consumers generally don't want to pay for software, that, from their perspective, is no better than the free Instagram app.
Adobe doesn't need to ruin a professional program to dumb it down to try to appeal to people who don't even want to use it (if they barely want to learn to use their smartphone, they won't want to learn your software no matter how stupid-simple you make the interface, and they definitely won't pay for it, unless it has a lot of gimmicky auto-magic features). The hobbyists and professionals, who actually pay the monthly fee, and who want to create consistent high-quality photos and videos, use Lightroom as a professional-grade program to manage their photo library and guide their workflow, and use dedicated cameras and computers with local storage and maybe some local network storage.
Using my workflow as an example, I transfer photos from my Canon 80D camera's SD card to my laptop, sometimes in the field, using Lightroom. When I get home, I then cull the photos to remove the worthless ones and then further select the photos that are deserving of further processing. Eventually, after I've processed the photos, export the ones worth sharing to JPG, and maybe print a few. I zip the export folder and upload it to a cloud (not Adobe) host for client download. I transfer the completed project to my network storage server with a drag-drop operation within Lightroom.
I don't need to transfer my photo library of photos to the Internet because there's no benefit in doing so. Nowhere in my workflow (which is probably similar for most professionals) was there a need for me to sync multiple gigabytes of files to the Internet. I don't need to sync across multiple devices, but if I do, I'll do it within my LAN. Why would anyone want to sync slowly sync all of their files to the Internet (possibly using a slow cell phone or public wifi connection) for no benefit? Are there really that many paying users who want to experience the pain of cost and latency from Internet syncing their photo libraries? It doesn't work well with Microsoft OneDrive and tiny Office documents; professionals definitely won't tolerate this when working with large files.
I don't need Adobe's cloud as a backup solution, either. Why would I want to wait to upload and download terabytes of data and pay outrageous fees for the privilege? A professional photographer should understand how to use hard drives to create a reliable local, high bandwidth backup scheme.
I don't need Adobe Portfolio, either. As a competent IT professional, I'd be ashamed to rely on a cookie-cutter service to coddle me and host my website.
4
Replies
AdChoices