My response was not that the delete dialogue was incorrect. Rather I was pointing out that in the response previously given in which the user was told that by deleting albums it would delete the photos within those albums was and remains an incorrect response. In order to delete photos from the Lightroom server, one must delete them one at a time. As you have astutely observed in your answer, in order for the user and copyright holder of the photos to delete them from the Adobe Lightroom server, the user must invest in hard drive space physically separate from the computing equipment on which Lightroom CC is installed, move all of the original copies of the photos to be deleted from the Lightroom server over to that newly acquired storage space, and then delete the photos from the Lightroom server. But why should the user and copyright owner of the photos have to do that? If I rent parking space for my car in New York City, and decide to stop renting the space and remove my car, would one reasonably expect the owner of the parking space to warn me that they would then also destroy my car, and any other car that I have owned that had ever been parked in that space regardless of where I currently have the car parked, or that I still own the car? Should I be required to rent another parking space for my car, move and hide my car there, terminate my lease, get a restraining order from the owner of the parking space, and then when I feel safe that all ties to the parking space owner have been cut, I might then feel safe about bringing my car out of hiding?
If one believes in the safety and superiority of cloud data storage (and that is of course a rather large and tenuous if ), the idea behind the creation of Lightroom CC is arguably a very good one. But the execution of that idea in the creation of Lightroom CC has been abysmally poor. It is in it's initial iteration a cloud-based programmers less than best attempt, and an end user's nightmare. To make it workable several things need to be done to it: a) create a clear and simple mechanism for the user to turn syncing on and off, b) give the user the ability to select which photos the user wants to upload to the Adobe server and then sync selectively to different hardware devices, and make it easy for the user to do so, c) as in the original "classic" versions of Lightroom, give the user a "delete menu" with choices to delete photos from the server only, from the device only, or from the server and all devices, d) get rid of the current user interface. Amateurs do not need dumbed down software with less instruction and only a few poor choices. Amateurs at anything need more help and better tools to get the results they want. And, amateur photographers universally want to become better photographers. If they wanted "amateur" software there is plenty of it available to them free or at less cost than the monthly subscription fee for Lightroom. Photographers are very opinionated people and creatures of habit. Their photographs are often as precious to them than their children. They fall into various camps as to which camera is the best, and, as I am sure you are aware, they are equally opinionated about the software they use to post-process their photos. Why should Adobe put itself in the position of trying to defend a product whose flaws are indefensible, while blaming the user for not understanding the instructions and putting the destruction of their photographs at risk? Wouldn't it be easier and wiser to simply and honestly fix the problems with Lightroom CC and make it into, what hopefully Adobe intended it to be all along?
1 Correct answer
95
Replies
(not really)
AdChoices