> Prev
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Lightroom CC
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:20:23 -0400
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net fJ3oXd1GPpO7U9V+EMraawnbmvxBTpIZj63w7zgPcfCy0W86I9
Cancel-Lock: sha1:W/ktyguWVUwvGaLjZrxzvOreToA=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
The following are observations and comments on the new Lightroom CC
and not at all criticisms.  Each of us who use Lightroom have our own
workflow that we've become used to and a requirement to change that
workflow is usually not viewed well.  And, each of us has different
needs.

I have no particular need for, or interest in, access to LR from more
than one work station.  But, I downloaded LR CC and gave it a run.

Some of the differences between LR CC and LR Classic baffle me.  I
don't understand why Adobe created these differences.  

When shooting a series of photographs taken on the same outing, I
always open the first one, set certain things (Clarity, Vibrance, Crop
Size, and Lens Correction) and then Synch all the shots in that
import.  I can over-ride a synched setting, but I seldom do so.

In LR CC, there is no Synch command*.  The user can copy the settings
from that first image and paste it to the rest in the series to
accomplish the same thing, but I don't understand why Adobe changed a
workflow step that works to a different workflow step.  

My workflow includes naming each shot in a date format: 2017-10-23-01.
LR Classic has a drop-down that displays the thumbnails by File Name.
LR CC does not have that option.  There are options (eg:  Capture
Date, Modified Date), but that does not allow putting the images in
sequence desired.  

LR Classic allows me to display thumbnails in Grid with certain
information.  Mine shows file name above each thumbnail.  I have to go
to the small "i" to show the file name for each photo.  The info is
there, but the user has to look over to the panel and the screen is
reduced by the panel.

LR CC removes certain settings from the Basic panel and puts them in a
different panel.  Clarity is in Effects, for example.  No problem
really, but the person who using LR CC has to figure where things are
now and adjust.  There doesn't seem to be a good reason for that type
of change.  

If the function is there in both versions, then it would seem sensible
to have the interface as close as possible to the same on both rather
than make the users figure out where what is.

For the person who has frequent need to access their images away from
their home work station, LR CC will be a very valuable addition to
Adobe's stable.  I understand this.

I do wonder if that person will upload all of their files to LR CC or
just the more current files.  That 20 Gb free (CC Photography
subscribers, not full CC users) is not going to accommodate a lot of
users for all of their images.  That means that they will not being
going over to LR CC entirely, but will be using both versions.  And,
adjusting each time.

As their current images start to exceed the 20 Gb size, they'll have
to start moving images back to their home storage.

Adobe may fine tune LR CC as they get user input, but the above are
some conditions that I feel deserve comment.  Not criticism, but
comment.


*Well, there is "Synch", but it synchs the image with the cloud
storage file.



-- 
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:42:23 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <231020171242239586%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="396b8b33f5ba08f88289454dde684000";
logging-data="25311"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197eYxduG62sDZe5gibYsQh"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:veAQHl0/JDmH1hpvXXk0uvmQNQY=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

> LR CC removes certain settings from the Basic panel and puts them in a
> different panel.  Clarity is in Effects, for example.  No problem
> really, but the person who using LR CC has to figure where things are
> now and adjust.  There doesn't seem to be a good reason for that type
> of change.  
> 
> If the function is there in both versions, then it would seem sensible
> to have the interface as close as possible to the same on both rather
> than make the users figure out where what is.

the latest lightroom cc is a new app with different design goals, which
means there *will* be differences from classic.

classic is actually the update to lightroom 6 and previous cc, not the
latest cc. 

it's very unlikely that someone would be using both apps. 

	
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: android <here@there.was>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 18:54:40 +0200
Organization: the center
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <here-F93804.18544023102017@news.individual.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020171242239586%nospam@nospam.invalid>
X-Trace: individual.net 8AW5QFZRfILG8xyGCW6goQhn3waq8KDhP5irmz669EUdNoTFca
X-Orig-Path: here
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jF3610oHZD0RpgJrv3tG35/lzog=
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <231020171242239586%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article<5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > LR CC removes certain settings from the Basic panel and puts them in a
> > different panel.  Clarity is in Effects, for example.  No problem
> > really, but the person who using LR CC has to figure where things are
> > now and adjust.  There doesn't seem to be a good reason for that type
> > of change.  
> > 
> > If the function is there in both versions, then it would seem sensible
> > to have the interface as close as possible to the same on both rather
> > than make the users figure out where what is.
> 
> the latest lightroom cc is a new app with different design goals, which
> means there *will* be differences from classic.
> 
> classic is actually the update to lightroom 6 and previous cc, not the
> latest cc. 
> 
> it's very unlikely that someone would be using both apps.

They will probably be targeted to different audiences altogether after 
the New LR CC has matured a bit...
-- 
teleportation kills 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:47:19 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <231020171347193314%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020171242239586%nospam@nospam.invalid> <here-F93804.18544023102017@news.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="396b8b33f5ba08f88289454dde684000";
logging-data="24966"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18K6qWj7Pe3rbfm36Il0Vky"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QstLaiuMlk5bAVpDd4pjGvz24KI=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<here-F93804.18544023102017@news.individual.net>, android<here@there.was> wrote:

> > 
> > > LR CC removes certain settings from the Basic panel and puts them in a
> > > different panel.  Clarity is in Effects, for example.  No problem
> > > really, but the person who using LR CC has to figure where things are
> > > now and adjust.  There doesn't seem to be a good reason for that type
> > > of change.  
> > > 
> > > If the function is there in both versions, then it would seem sensible
> > > to have the interface as close as possible to the same on both rather
> > > than make the users figure out where what is.
> > 
> > the latest lightroom cc is a new app with different design goals, which
> > means there *will* be differences from classic.
> > 
> > classic is actually the update to lightroom 6 and previous cc, not the
> > latest cc. 
> > 
> > it's very unlikely that someone would be using both apps.
> 
> They will probably be targeted to different audiences altogether after 
> the New LR CC has matured a bit...

they definitely are targeted to different audiences. 

	
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:51:58 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:51:58 -0700
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/5.17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.1F9E63BE0268732B700007D2E2CF@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020171242239586%nospam@nospam.invalid> <here-F93804.18544023102017@news.individual.net>
Lines: 37
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-hU8VKaHk5lciSxAc+UzY7lCS68Yu6Aje/9QVwIJJr56PLOMHaioxqS32PxgONjTzXqYPGZMjyOe3xNP!xBn8xA4ocrlT0adfNoa/24JrNdXr4L52TWFRUscmQk2/7qfhiiR/LpjL694FVT7jFAioGeg2da2l!E+Z/fRGd918=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2487
Print Article
Forward Article
On Oct 23, 2017, android wrote
(in article<here-F93804.18544023102017@news.individual.net>):

> In article<231020171242239586%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>
> > In article<5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> ><tonycooper214@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >
> > > LR CC removes certain settings from the Basic panel and puts them in a
> > > different panel. Clarity is in Effects, for example. No problem
> > > really, but the person who using LR CC has to figure where things are
> > > now and adjust. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for that type
> > > of change.
> > >
> > > If the function is there in both versions, then it would seem sensible
> > > to have the interface as close as possible to the same on both rather
> > > than make the users figure out where what is.
> >
> > the latest lightroom cc is a new app with different design goals, which
> > means there *will* be differences from classic.
> >
> > classic is actually the update to lightroom 6 and previous cc, not the
> > latest cc.
> >
> > it's very unlikely that someone would be using both apps.
>
> They will probably be targeted to different audiences altogether after
> the New LR CC has matured a bit...

They are targeted to different audiences already.

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck 

	
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:56:48 -0400
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <7idsucp06l8olss3i3ut3m01pcee8ivpae@4ax.com>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020171242239586%nospam@nospam.invalid> <here-F93804.18544023102017@news.individual.net> <0001HW.1F9E63BE0268732B700007D2E2CF@news.giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net noS2oORw30DQ94yjyH1cHAHPMCRky6BXRXaXkmjVZeT4QK+s2z
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QFwuCZcAMJrCCKcUgxmNAYMLTiI=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:51:58 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>> > In article<5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
>> ><tonycooper214@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >
>> > > LR CC removes certain settings from the Basic panel and puts them in a
>> > > different panel. Clarity is in Effects, for example. No problem
>> > > really, but the person who using LR CC has to figure where things are
>> > > now and adjust. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for that type
>> > > of change.
>> > >
>> > > If the function is there in both versions, then it would seem sensible
>> > > to have the interface as close as possible to the same on both rather
>> > > than make the users figure out where what is.
>> >
>> They will probably be targeted to different audiences altogether after
>> the New LR CC has matured a bit...
>
>They are targeted to different audiences already.


Yes, they are targeted to different audiences, but that doesn't mean
that users of LR CC will still not be using LR Classic.

Consider the person with 30 Gbs of photos who chooses to upload 5 Gbs
of his photos to LR CC because these are the photos that he is most
likely to want available on LR CC, and he wants to leave free space
for new images.  

But, there may be occasion for him work with photos - anything from
editing to just exporting them - that were not uploaded to LR CC.  He
can either upload those photos to LR CC or work with them in Classic.
If it's a one-shot deal, rather than use his 20 Gb free space, he'll
work with them in Classic.

He can upgrade to the full CC membership and then have 100 Gb of
storage, but I'm thinking of the non-pro user who has a lot of images.
I could not upload all of my images with the 20 Gb restriction, and I
wouldn't upgrade when my external HDs and present system work just
fine.

The idea of "targeting" is to bring in new customers.  The potential
customer who felt that the current product doesn't suit their needs,
but the new targeted version does.  

The ideal, to me, is a new version that replicates, in most ways, the
current version so there is no significant difference to the user of
both.  I think Adobe could have accomplished this better.


-- 
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

	
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer03.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:49:01 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:49:01 -0700
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/5.17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.1F9E630D026849C8700007D2E2CF@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
Lines: 78
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-xSQ2cz86iHNjQSlqFCap54kXqb2p0Bwn4lO4Rzln0Rkvaka4frfPJZtWqbi2Tx2jPhvrJrRSPOikc6t!oLp/Pn25EHjtA2JWmr2t7LriH/h+Wbj3C4jAa94uJ039i2avr5nXhZ6KysICKCkjcyk4hDsFHXas!r1Uihv8nqjQ=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4603
X-Received-Bytes: 4725
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3735819768
Print Article
Forward Article
On Oct 23, 2017, Tony Cooper wrote
(in article<5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>):

> The following are observations and comments on the new Lightroom CC
> and not at all criticisms. Each of us who use Lightroom have our own
> workflow that we've become used to and a requirement to change that
> workflow is usually not viewed well. And, each of us has different
> needs.
>
> I have no particular need for, or interest in, access to LR from more
> than one work station. But, I downloaded LR CC and gave it a run.
>
> Some of the differences between LR CC and LR Classic baffle me. I
> don't understand why Adobe created these differences.
>
> When shooting a series of photographs taken on the same outing, I
> always open the first one, set certain things (Clarity, Vibrance, Crop
> Size, and Lens Correction) and then Synch all the shots in that
> import. I can over-ride a synched setting, but I seldom do so.
>
> In LR CC, there is no Synch command*. The user can copy the settings
> from that first image and paste it to the rest in the series to
> accomplish the same thing, but I don't understand why Adobe changed a
> workflow step that works to a different workflow step.
>
> My workflow includes naming each shot in a date format: 2017-10-23-01.
> LR Classic has a drop-down that displays the thumbnails by File Name.
> LR CC does not have that option. There are options (eg: Capture
> Date, Modified Date), but that does not allow putting the images in
> sequence desired.
>
> LR Classic allows me to display thumbnails in Grid with certain
> information. Mine shows file name above each thumbnail. I have to go
> to the small "i" to show the file name for each photo. The info is
> there, but the user has to look over to the panel and the screen is
> reduced by the panel.
>
> LR CC removes certain settings from the Basic panel and puts them in a
> different panel. Clarity is in Effects, for example. No problem
> really, but the person who using LR CC has to figure where things are
> now and adjust. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for that type
> of change.
>
> If the function is there in both versions, then it would seem sensible
> to have the interface as close as possible to the same on both rather
> than make the users figure out where what is.
>
> For the person who has frequent need to access their images away from
> their home work station, LR CC will be a very valuable addition to
> Adobe's stable. I understand this.
>
> I do wonder if that person will upload all of their files to LR CC or
> just the more current files. That 20 Gb free (CC Photography
> subscribers, not full CC users) is not going to accommodate a lot of
> users for all of their images. That means that they will not being
> going over to LR CC entirely, but will be using both versions. And,
> adjusting each time.
>
> As their current images start to exceed the 20 Gb size, they'll have
> to start moving images back to their home storage.
>
> Adobe may fine tune LR CC as they get user input, but the above are
> some conditions that I feel deserve comment. Not criticism, but
> comment.
>
> *Well, there is "Synch", but it synchs the image with the cloud
> storage file.

There is much in your observations I can agree with. Like you I can’t see 
changing my workflow to accomodate new LR CC, and I can’t see serious 
subscribers of the CC Photography plan making the leap. I have formed my 
opinion, and it is not for me.

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck 

	
From: Davoud <star@sky.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.szaf.org!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Davoud <star@sky.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 22:12:26 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 180
Message-ID: <231020172212265238%star@sky.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
Reply-To: aaa@bbb.ccc
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a7714dd6dae99d32cf30e15ac6d3d499";
logging-data="30152"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JXqs6Y3F/msC2j1AXBbYV"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.1 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yzVsGhGeqormNadshP6MOo2iG2c=
Print Article
Forward Article
Tony Cooper:
> The following are observations and comments on the new Lightroom CC
> and not at all criticisms.  Each of us who use Lightroom have our own
> workflow that we've become used to and a requirement to change that
> workflow is usually not viewed well.  And, each of us has different
> needs.

I have been in a secret underground bunker for some time as a beta
tester for Lightroom Classic CC and Lightroom CC. I thought of myself
as a representative of the advanced-amateur cohort. I bought Lightroom
when it first appeared and ran it alongside Aperture. I saw the
handwriting on the wall long before Apple discontinued Aperture and
transitioned to Lightroom for all of my asset management and
pre-processing well before Apple discontinued Aperture. 

Even so, I don't yet have a complete handle on how I will use the two
new apps together. I know how they work, learned some of Adobe's
thinking, even accepted the mistake Adobe made in naming the apps, but
I haven't settled on a personal workflow.

Executive summary: Your points make sense, but readers should bear in
mind that Lightroom CC is four days old. It's version 1. I doubt that
anyone has mastered all of the ins and outs at this point. much less
settled on a workflow. Let's see what it looks like a year from now.

> I have no particular need for, or interest in, access to LR from more
> than one work station.  But, I downloaded LR CC and gave it a run.

Why not give it a run! The new Lightroom CC is included in your
subscription. I have the need to run Lightroom and Photoshop from
multiple machines. I have a license for Adobe CC (all apps) on two
iMacs and a license for Adobe Photography Plan (Lightroom Classic CC,
Lightroom CC, and Photoshop) on two MacBook Pros.

For those who have a problem with the subscription scheme, tough luck.
Go elsewhere. Top-tier editing with Photoshop and now two versions of
Lightroom (three counting the mobile app) is an absolute bargain at
$9.99 per month, less for students and some others.

> Some of the differences between LR CC and LR Classic baffle me.  I
> don't understand why Adobe created these differences.

The important thing for people to understand is that Lightroom Classic
CC is the *same* Lightroom that they have known and loved, but with a
new and possibly confusing name and with improved performance and added
features. Nothing changes in file handling, including the ability to
send selected photos to the cloud for viewing and editing on your iPad.

Adobe took a lot of guff from beta testers in the Prerelease Forum on
product naming. In a nutshell, they gave the old app a new
name 

	
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:01:49 -0400
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <6gatucp2s2joku0vqb0d038r058q3f8uhh@4ax.com>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net lwGhmVRhegpszTEPe5Z4lATbOlB58lzIBfXIKn2y31j+AAkZWS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1iscE6p3ng99sBv5uCErSfN4oWU=
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
Print Article
Forward Article
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 22:12:26 -0400, Davoud<star@sky.net> wrote:

>Tony Cooper:
>> The following are observations and comments on the new Lightroom CC
>> and not at all criticisms.  Each of us who use Lightroom have our own
>> workflow that we've become used to and a requirement to change that
>> workflow is usually not viewed well.  And, each of us has different
>> needs.
>
>I have been in a secret underground bunker for some time as a beta
>tester for Lightroom Classic CC and Lightroom CC. I thought of myself
>as a representative of the advanced-amateur cohort. I bought Lightroom
>when it first appeared and ran it alongside Aperture. I saw the
>handwriting on the wall long before Apple discontinued Aperture and
>transitioned to Lightroom for all of my asset management and
>pre-processing well before Apple discontinued Aperture. 
>
>Even so, I don't yet have a complete handle on how I will use the two
>new apps together. I know how they work, learned some of Adobe's
>thinking, even accepted the mistake Adobe made in naming the apps, but
>I haven't settled on a personal workflow.
>
>Executive summary: Your points make sense, but readers should bear in
>mind that Lightroom CC is four days old. It's version 1. I doubt that
>anyone has mastered all of the ins and outs at this point. much less
>settled on a workflow. Let's see what it looks like a year from now.
>
>> I have no particular need for, or interest in, access to LR from more
>> than one work station.  But, I downloaded LR CC and gave it a run.
>
>Why not give it a run! 

I have openly declared that the major advantage - the ability to
access and work on images without being tied to the home workstation -
is not something that resonates with me.  That doesn't prejudice me in
reviewing working with the product, but it does make me a bit less
enthusiastic about learning a new workflow.

But, like many users of this type of app, I couldn't resist trying it
out.  

It can be tantamount to having lunch with Tom 

	
From: Davoud <star@sky.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Davoud <star@sky.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:17:43 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <241020172017437731%star@sky.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net> <6gatucp2s2joku0vqb0d038r058q3f8uhh@4ax.com>
Reply-To: aaa@bbb.ccc
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d3e41f23c570836007cf3c252dd8a5cf";
logging-data="1515"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BnLLPQdna5W88/dnTzDuK"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.1 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VKQXko+TiSUYMlzaHSr5fIEfFL8=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<6gatucp2s2joku0vqb0d038r058q3f8uhh@4ax.com>, Davoud:
> >Executive summary: Your points make sense, but readers should bear in
> >mind that Lightroom CC is four days old. It's version 1. I doubt that
> >anyone has mastered all of the ins and outs at this point. much less
> >settled on a workflow. Let's see what it looks like a year from now.

Tony Cooper:
> It can be tantamount to having lunch with Tom 

	
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin-spool!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:29:23 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:29:23 -0700
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/5.17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net>
Lines: 203
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-UWymO8pper4Fodnv7Ls3/D1l8IHurXiGCqL8iUsQTFobLuIJU2w4SfcOszg+B0B5Y5x8vxx8rl2ThtL!L1XsyDpS7iTRtRYhZB7LcCnQSI7ZGjF+UnmdD9yJTzmcPH3dnDURtGk53QRYS+Y3XcUviRNzbYDX!CFC4a28iRy0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 11718
Print Article
Forward Article
On Oct 23, 2017, Davoud wrote
(in article <231020172212265238%star@sky.net>):

> Tony Cooper:
> > The following are observations and comments on the new Lightroom CC
> > and not at all criticisms. Each of us who use Lightroom have our own
> > workflow that we've become used to and a requirement to change that
> > workflow is usually not viewed well. And, each of us has different
> > needs.
>
> I have been in a secret underground bunker for some time as a beta
> tester for Lightroom Classic CC and Lightroom CC. I thought of myself
> as a representative of the advanced-amateur cohort. I bought Lightroom
> when it first appeared and ran it alongside Aperture. I saw the
> handwriting on the wall long before Apple discontinued Aperture and
> transitioned to Lightroom for all of my asset management and
> pre-processing well before Apple discontinued Aperture.

I too have been a Lightroom user since day one, and I am a subscriber to the 
Adobe Photography Plan.

Due to your role as a beta tester, I am hoping you can provide some insight 
as to a few of the new Lightroom CC quirks. I will ask a question or two as I 
work through your reply to Tony.
>
> Even so, I don't yet have a complete handle on how I will use the two
> new apps together. I know how they work, learned some of Adobe's
> thinking, even accepted the mistake Adobe made in naming the apps, but
> I haven't settled on a personal workflow.

That is my dilemma, and after looking at this interview, I suspect that Adobe 
never intended for Lightroom Classic CC, and Lightroom CC to work together,
<>
>
> Executive summary: Your points make sense, but readers should bear in
> mind that Lightroom CC is four days old. It's version 1. I doubt that
> anyone has mastered all of the ins and outs at this point. much less
> settled on a workflow. Let's see what it looks like a year from now.

I believe that there are going to be frequent updates to refine the mobile &  
Lightroom CC workspace. I also understand that for the most part it will run 
as a separate entity to the Photography Plan LR Classic CC/ Photoshop CC 2018 
workspace.
>
> > I have no particular need for, or interest in, access to LR from more
> > than one work station. But, I downloaded LR CC and gave it a run.
>
> Why not give it a run! The new Lightroom CC is included in your
> subscription. I have the need to run Lightroom and Photoshop from
> multiple machines. I have a license for Adobe CC (all apps) on two
> iMacs and a license for Adobe Photography Plan (Lightroom Classic CC,
> Lightroom CC, and Photoshop) on two MacBook Pros.

I am trying to be fair, and intend to give it a good workout, but I have my 
original LR C CC/PS CC + Mobile apps workflow as a very imbedded, and for me, 
reflexive process. Due to that there is much I am not comfortable with when 
working with new Lightroom CC, both as a desktop, and on my iPad Pro.
>
> For those who have a problem with the subscription scheme, tough luck.
> Go elsewhere. Top-tier editing with Photoshop and now two versions of
> Lightroom (three counting the mobile app) is an absolute bargain at
> $9.99 per month, less for students and some others.
>
> > Some of the differences between LR CC and LR Classic baffle me. I
> > don't understand why Adobe created these differences.
>
> The important thing for people to understand is that Lightroom Classic
> CC is the *same* Lightroom that they have known and loved, but with a
> new and possibly confusing name and with improved performance and added
> features. Nothing changes in file handling, including the ability to
> send selected photos to the cloud for viewing and editing on your iPad.

That much I get.
>
> Adobe took a lot of guff from beta testers in the Prerelease Forum on
> product naming. In a nutshell, they gave the old app a new
> name‹Lightroom CC renamed to Lightroom Classic CC‹and they gave the new
> app the old name‹Lightroom CC. That has a lot of folks baffled and up
> in arms from the start. Beta testers were in communication with
> techies, not marketing wonks, and the techies insisted that the names
> were locked in and not subject to discussion. So be it. I'd have named
> the new app "Lightroom Mobile CC."
>
> The official forums are at
> <https://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom>. At that URL the
> Lightroom forum splits: "All-new Lightroom CC" and "Lightroom Classic
> CC." Adobe forums are worth joining, IMO. One thing you will find is
> knee-jerk reaction. People were declaring within *an* *hour* of release
> of the two new apps that Adobe would be out of business soon, Adobe had
> abandoned them, they were abandoning Adobe, you-name-it. It could be
> the naming issue, but some seemed not to realize that Lightroom Classic
> CC is just a new version of Lightroom and the new app, Lightroom CC,
> can be ignored by those who don't want their photos in the cloud for
> one reason for another, or, as I call them, "those who don't get that
> the mobility offered by the cloud is the wave of the future." All
> Lightroom CC photos are in the cloud; that's not optional. There is an
> option to keep them on a local drive as well. At the moment I'm feeding
> Lightroom CC (and thus, the cloud) selected photos from Lightroom
> Classic CC, so there is no issue for me; Lightroom Classic CC leaves
> your photos where you put them; cloud sync in Classic CC is optional,
> as it has been for some time. Remove the photos from the cloud, stop
> using Lightroom CC, and the photos remain in place in Lightroom Classic
> CC.
>
> There is no substitute for Photoshop, Linux GIMP fans notwithstanding
> (if they needed pro-level photo management and editing they wouldn't be
> on Linux!). There are a number of apps similar to Lightroom, but those
> of us who do not own $50k PhaseOne cameras are more likely to stick
> with the well oiled Lightroom-Photoshop machine than to switch to
> Capture One Pro, e.g., a subscription to which costs up to twice as
> much per month as the Adobe Photography plan. (Though I have been
> tempted to get a three-month plan for Capture One Pro @ $30 per month,
> just to see what the fuss is about.)
>
> I don't do knee-jerk. I'm not concerned that I haven't yet decided on a
> workflow for the two apps; there is no deadline, and with winter coming
> I'll have plenty of time on my hands. One thing I've had fun with in
> Lightroom CC is its ability to quickly create web albums, either flat
> or as web pages with a bit of formatting. Here's one such page from my
> MacBook Pro license
> <https://lightroom.adobe.com/shares/72305aa6d3e441f89b16bdaae95457d4&...
> and another from my iMac library
> <https://lightroom.adobe.com/shares/8f654d9fef354c428b68370c00e580c7&...
> Quick and dirty, great for showing clients, family and friends.
>
> Lightroom CC on an iPad Pro is neat-o. Seems to have virtually all of
> the editing features of Lightroom CC on the desktop. As iPads become
> more powerful, Lr for iOS will be awesome.

Lightroom CC on my 10.5” 512GB iPad Pro is somewhat different to the older 
Lightroom Mobile, but I have figured out many of the editing features 
including getting the selective editing to work to my expectations.

I have several issues with regard to the LR CC storage which you might be 
able to resolve for me.

As a subscriber, and user of the Classic Adobe CC Cloud storage I am familiar 
with having access to the Web interface, and the desktop Creative Cloud Files 
folder. Now that I am testing Lightroom CC, and have imported several RAW 
image files I can find no way to manage those files in the way that was 
possible before. No web access, and no Lightroom CC files folder. The test 
RAW files are not shown in my CC File storage.

Are there equivalent Lightroom CC Cloud file folders, or web access to manage 
that storage.

Not all of the Lightroom CC users are going to have a laptop to use when 
travelling, or even access to a desktop, just mobile devices.

My old Mac laptops, a 17” G4, and a 17” MBP are beyond supporting current 
Adobe products,I don’t have plans to buy a new laptop, a new desktop Mac, 
yes, new lenses, yes, but not a new MBP. So my travel computing are my iPhone 
and my iPad Pro. Unfortunately neither one of those will permit direct import 
of RAW files when using the Apple Camera Kit, or WiFi from my cameras. I can 
import JPEGs to the camera roll, and those are still auto imported to LR CC 
(mobile) and synced with my desktop, now LR Classic CC (would that be LR-C 
CC?) all without issue.

I can only import RAW files into new desktop/laptop LR CC with corresponding 
Smart Previews showing in my iPad for editing. So when on a road trip I have 
no way to move RAW files to the Lightroom CC cloud storage, and I am left 
with doing things the way I always have. That throws a wrench into the 
concept of storing all originals in the Lightroom CC Cloud.

I can see that I am probably going to have to use my ColorSpace UDMA for RAW 
backup on-the-road, and the old mobile system for on-the-road editing and 
sharing. That leaves RAW import into LR-C CC as something to do when I get 
home.
>
>
> Yes, the Photography Plan includes only 20GB of cloud space and the
> full plan includes 100GB. That's not a lot for people whose libraries
> run to terabytes. Even me, an amateur with a terabyte library.
> Additional space may be rented with the plan, up to 10GB, I believe it
> is. The full plan with the stock 100GB is $50 per month. With 2 TB it's
> $70 per month and with 10TB it's $150. The Photography Plan is $30 for
> 2TB, $110 for 10TB.

Does that 2TB for $30 include the cost of the basic Photography Plan?

I am more inclined to rent additional original plan storage.
>
> No, the Lightroom apps cannot sync to cloud services other than
> Adobe's. Users are free to back-up manually to any service they want,
> however.
>
> My advice: play with Lightroom CC, learn if it fits into your workflow.
> Don't give up on it after the first hour. If it's not for you, you
> haven't lost anything. Watch and see what it becomes in future. There's
> always the possibility that it will become nothing at all, if users are
> not ready for the cloud!

That is exactly what I am doing, and I intend to continue testing it. 
However, for now I just cannot see myself clear to fully adopt, or even 
integrate Lightroom CC into my workflow.

....but I am not going to throw it out just yet.

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck 

	
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:36:28 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:36:28 -0700
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/5.17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.1F9EFACC028BDA5270000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net> <0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 210
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-4uDkg3pRgCIFB49BtVhgHT62ZL4HsuyX0Ulbg88ALTGARBgZlamfrazA9/vzwj9bhscJxSh7PBYgM+K!tdoZPekxLI09s37qWBt38UQFf2w45b6SX0y1fIfFb8LRoCy/szdeB04lYNhb/gMECd5x+fZopMKF!4DL2HosbU0M=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 12281
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3245988160
X-Received-Bytes: 12527
Print Article
Forward Article
On Oct 23, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in article<0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>):

> On Oct 23, 2017, Davoud wrote
> (in article <231020172212265238%star@sky.net>):
>
> > Tony Cooper:
> > > The following are observations and comments on the new Lightroom CC
> > > and not at all criticisms. Each of us who use Lightroom have our own
> > > workflow that we've become used to and a requirement to change that
> > > workflow is usually not viewed well. And, each of us has different
> > > needs.
> >
> > I have been in a secret underground bunker for some time as a beta
> > tester for Lightroom Classic CC and Lightroom CC. I thought of myself
> > as a representative of the advanced-amateur cohort. I bought Lightroom
> > when it first appeared and ran it alongside Aperture. I saw the
> > handwriting on the wall long before Apple discontinued Aperture and
> > transitioned to Lightroom for all of my asset management and
> > pre-processing well before Apple discontinued Aperture.
>
> I too have been a Lightroom user since day one, and I am a subscriber to the
> Adobe Photography Plan.
>
> Due to your role as a beta tester, I am hoping you can provide some insight
> as to a few of the new Lightroom CC quirks. I will ask a question or two as I
> work through your reply to Tony.
> >
> > Even so, I don't yet have a complete handle on how I will use the two
> > new apps together. I know how they work, learned some of Adobe's
> > thinking, even accepted the mistake Adobe made in naming the apps, but
> > I haven't settled on a personal workflow.
>
> That is my dilemma, and after looking at this interview, I suspect that Adobe
> never intended for Lightroom Classic CC, and Lightroom CC to work together.

I forgot to add this YT URL:

<https://youtu.be/WaBeeBUZvAg>
>
> >
> > Executive summary: Your points make sense, but readers should bear in
> > mind that Lightroom CC is four days old. It's version 1. I doubt that
> > anyone has mastered all of the ins and outs at this point. much less
> > settled on a workflow. Let's see what it looks like a year from now.
>
> I believe that there are going to be frequent updates to refine the mobile &
> Lightroom CC workspace. I also understand that for the most part it will run
> as a separate entity to the Photography Plan LR Classic CC/ Photoshop CC 2018
> workspace.
> >
> > > I have no particular need for, or interest in, access to LR from more
> > > than one work station. But, I downloaded LR CC and gave it a run.
> >
> > Why not give it a run! The new Lightroom CC is included in your
> > subscription. I have the need to run Lightroom and Photoshop from
> > multiple machines. I have a license for Adobe CC (all apps) on two
> > iMacs and a license for Adobe Photography Plan (Lightroom Classic CC,
> > Lightroom CC, and Photoshop) on two MacBook Pros.
>
> I am trying to be fair, and intend to give it a good workout, but I have my
> original LR C CC/PS CC + Mobile apps workflow as a very imbedded, and for me,
> reflexive process. Due to that there is much I am not comfortable with when
> working with new Lightroom CC, both as a desktop, and on my iPad Pro.
> >
> > For those who have a problem with the subscription scheme, tough luck.
> > Go elsewhere. Top-tier editing with Photoshop and now two versions of
> > Lightroom (three counting the mobile app) is an absolute bargain at
> > $9.99 per month, less for students and some others.
> >
> > > Some of the differences between LR CC and LR Classic baffle me. I
> > > don't understand why Adobe created these differences.
> >
> > The important thing for people to understand is that Lightroom Classic
> > CC is the *same* Lightroom that they have known and loved, but with a
> > new and possibly confusing name and with improved performance and added
> > features. Nothing changes in file handling, including the ability to
> > send selected photos to the cloud for viewing and editing on your iPad.
>
> That much I get.
> >
> > Adobe took a lot of guff from beta testers in the Prerelease Forum on
> > product naming. In a nutshell, they gave the old app a new
> > name‹Lightroom CC renamed to Lightroom Classic CC‹and they gave the new
> > app the old name‹Lightroom CC. That has a lot of folks baffled and up
> > in arms from the start. Beta testers were in communication with
> > techies, not marketing wonks, and the techies insisted that the names
> > were locked in and not subject to discussion. So be it. I'd have named
> > the new app "Lightroom Mobile CC."
> >
> > The official forums are at
> > <https://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom>. At that URL the
> > Lightroom forum splits: "All-new Lightroom CC" and "Lightroom Classic
> > CC." Adobe forums are worth joining, IMO. One thing you will find is
> > knee-jerk reaction. People were declaring within *an* *hour* of release
> > of the two new apps that Adobe would be out of business soon, Adobe had
> > abandoned them, they were abandoning Adobe, you-name-it. It could be
> > the naming issue, but some seemed not to realize that Lightroom Classic
> > CC is just a new version of Lightroom and the new app, Lightroom CC,
> > can be ignored by those who don't want their photos in the cloud for
> > one reason for another, or, as I call them, "those who don't get that
> > the mobility offered by the cloud is the wave of the future." All
> > Lightroom CC photos are in the cloud; that's not optional. There is an
> > option to keep them on a local drive as well. At the moment I'm feeding
> > Lightroom CC (and thus, the cloud) selected photos from Lightroom
> > Classic CC, so there is no issue for me; Lightroom Classic CC leaves
> > your photos where you put them; cloud sync in Classic CC is optional,
> > as it has been for some time. Remove the photos from the cloud, stop
> > using Lightroom CC, and the photos remain in place in Lightroom Classic
> > CC.
> >
> > There is no substitute for Photoshop, Linux GIMP fans notwithstanding
> > (if they needed pro-level photo management and editing they wouldn't be
> > on Linux!). There are a number of apps similar to Lightroom, but those
> > of us who do not own $50k PhaseOne cameras are more likely to stick
> > with the well oiled Lightroom-Photoshop machine than to switch to
> > Capture One Pro, e.g., a subscription to which costs up to twice as
> > much per month as the Adobe Photography plan. (Though I have been
> > tempted to get a three-month plan for Capture One Pro @ $30 per month,
> > just to see what the fuss is about.)
> >
> > I don't do knee-jerk. I'm not concerned that I haven't yet decided on a
> > workflow for the two apps; there is no deadline, and with winter coming
> > I'll have plenty of time on my hands. One thing I've had fun with in
> > Lightroom CC is its ability to quickly create web albums, either flat
> > or as web pages with a bit of formatting. Here's one such page from my
> > MacBook Pro license
> > <https://lightroom.adobe.com/shares/72305aa6d3e441f89b16bdaae95457d4&...
> > and another from my iMac library
> > <https://lightroom.adobe.com/shares/8f654d9fef354c428b68370c00e580c7&...
> > Quick and dirty, great for showing clients, family and friends.
> >
> > Lightroom CC on an iPad Pro is neat-o. Seems to have virtually all of
> > the editing features of Lightroom CC on the desktop. As iPads become
> > more powerful, Lr for iOS will be awesome.
>
> Lightroom CC on my 10.5” 512GB iPad Pro is somewhat different to the older
> Lightroom Mobile, but I have figured out many of the editing features
> including getting the selective editing to work to my expectations.
>
> I have several issues with regard to the LR CC storage which you might be
> able to resolve for me.
>
> As a subscriber, and user of the Classic Adobe CC Cloud storage I am familiar
> with having access to the Web interface, and the desktop Creative Cloud Files
> folder. Now that I am testing Lightroom CC, and have imported several RAW
> image files I can find no way to manage those files in the way that was
> possible before. No web access, and no Lightroom CC files folder. The test
> RAW files are not shown in my CC File storage.
>
> Are there equivalent Lightroom CC Cloud file folders, or web access to manage
> that storage.
>
> Not all of the Lightroom CC users are going to have a laptop to use when
> travelling, or even access to a desktop, just mobile devices.
>
> My old Mac laptops, a 17” G4, and a 17” MBP are beyond supporting current
> Adobe products,I don’t have plans to buy a new laptop, a new desktop Mac,
> yes, new lenses, yes, but not a new MBP. So my travel computing are my iPhone
> and my iPad Pro. Unfortunately neither one of those will permit direct import
> of RAW files when using the Apple Camera Kit, or WiFi from my cameras. I can
> import JPEGs to the camera roll, and those are still auto imported to LR CC
> (mobile) and synced with my desktop, now LR Classic CC (would that be LR-C
> CC?) all without issue.
>
> I can only import RAW files into new desktop/laptop LR CC with corresponding
> Smart Previews showing in my iPad for editing. So when on a road trip I have
> no way to move RAW files to the Lightroom CC cloud storage, and I am left
> with doing things the way I always have. That throws a wrench into the
> concept of storing all originals in the Lightroom CC Cloud.
>
> I can see that I am probably going to have to use my ColorSpace UDMA for RAW
> backup on-the-road, and the old mobile system for on-the-road editing and
> sharing. That leaves RAW import into LR-C CC as something to do when I get
> home.
> >
> >
> > Yes, the Photography Plan includes only 20GB of cloud space and the
> > full plan includes 100GB. That's not a lot for people whose libraries
> > run to terabytes. Even me, an amateur with a terabyte library.
> > Additional space may be rented with the plan, up to 10GB, I believe it
> > is. The full plan with the stock 100GB is $50 per month. With 2 TB it's
> > $70 per month and with 10TB it's $150. The Photography Plan is $30 for
> > 2TB, $110 for 10TB.
>
> Does that 2TB for $30 include the cost of the basic Photography Plan?
>
> I am more inclined to rent additional original plan storage.
> >
> > No, the Lightroom apps cannot sync to cloud services other than
> > Adobe's. Users are free to back-up manually to any service they want,
> > however.
> >
> > My advice: play with Lightroom CC, learn if it fits into your workflow.
> > Don't give up on it after the first hour. If it's not for you, you
> > haven't lost anything. Watch and see what it becomes in future. There's
> > always the possibility that it will become nothing at all, if users are
> > not ready for the cloud!
>
> That is exactly what I am doing, and I intend to continue testing it.
> However, for now I just cannot see myself clear to fully adopt, or even
> integrate Lightroom CC into my workflow.
>
> ...but I am not going to throw it out just yet.

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck 

	
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.55.24.219 with SMTP id 88mr13942379qky.62.1508876853563;
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!z50no1554277qtj.0!news-out.google.com!v14ni69qtc.0!nntp.google.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:26:58 -0400
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <oso7mk010lu@news4.newsguy.com>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<231020172212265238%star@sky.net>
<0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
<0001HW.1F9EFACC028BDA5270000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p9625ba55a21e1cb054c84e175c60ebf299c20c3cf2508af6.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <0001HW.1F9EFACC028BDA5270000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
X-Received-Bytes: 1293
X-Received-Body-CRC: 373909048
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Print Article
Forward Article
On 10/24/2017 12:36 AM, Savageduck wrote:

<snip>

> I forgot to add this YT URL:
> 
> <https://youtu.be/WaBeeBUZvAg>
>>


If you are going to play with luminosity masking see what Greg Benz 
offers:m He also has some neat tutorials:

<https://gregbenzphotography.com/news/lumenzia-v4> Will get you started.


-- 
PeterN 

	
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.28.77 with SMTP id c74mr13083itc.55.1508876977447;
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!l196no5086593itl.0!news-out.google.com!p6ni16itp.0!nntp.google.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:29:13 -0400
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <oso7qr110lu@news4.newsguy.com>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<231020172212265238%star@sky.net>
<0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
<0001HW.1F9EFACC028BDA5270000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
<oso7mk010lu@news4.newsguy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pa798b70e3ba38a70bdac214fa4936887207561f0113278eb.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <oso7mk010lu@news4.newsguy.com>
X-Received-Bytes: 1473
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3862381467
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Print Article
Forward Article
On 10/24/2017 4:26 PM, PeterN wrote:
> On 10/24/2017 12:36 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> I forgot to add this YT URL:
>>
>> <https://youtu.be/WaBeeBUZvAg>
>>>
> 
> 
> If you are going to play with luminosity masking see what Greg Benz 
> offers:m He also has some neat tutorials:
> 
> <https://gregbenzphotography.com/news/lumenzia-v4> Will get you started.
> 
> 

J left off this link:

<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8G9ylL4I8GpRaJsSCrrzwPSmv68m...

-- 
PeterN 

	
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 17:28:10 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:28:11 -0700
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/5.17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.1F9FF5FB02C6B8CB70000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net> <0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com> <0001HW.1F9EFACC028BDA5270000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com> <oso7mk010lu@news4.newsguy.com>
Lines: 24
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-UK5rgIpMAJDvtbNk+bhFEZTpYYJfHOgZzsatjYjG+J0RRdu/RK3XNHaHc7n6EwDNtOe4X4EOcAePPif!6/L17x+z7f2DXk+xrPFbo2Fckdw2FGf5Z2x8leWgbxT5RVoi9jDCcNY05vJzBgM5YmPc5bXB/i+5!A/Vz4fCDfng=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 1786
Print Article
Forward Article
On Oct 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article<oso7mk010lu@news4.newsguy.com>):

> On 10/24/2017 12:36 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I forgot to add this YT URL:
> >
> > <https://youtu.be/WaBeeBUZvAg>
>
> If you are going to play with luminosity masking see what Greg Benz
> offers:m He also has some neat tutorials:
>
> <https://gregbenzphotography.com/news/lumenzia-v4>  Will get you started.

Interesting, but how did you get to luminosity masking in PS from my response 
to Davoud regarding Lightroom CC?

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck 

	
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.fr7!futter-mich.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news3
From: PeterN <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:35:09 -0400
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <osopoe0gog@news3.newsguy.com>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<231020172212265238%star@sky.net>
<0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
<0001HW.1F9EFACC028BDA5270000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
<oso7mk010lu@news4.newsguy.com>
<0001HW.1F9FF5FB02C6B8CB70000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pdfc63e8a0e76689be635cdff2fe5a95a83fca2706222f31d.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <0001HW.1F9FF5FB02C6B8CB70000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1357087771
X-Received-Bytes: 1867
Print Article
Forward Article
On 10/24/2017 6:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2017, PeterN wrote
> (in article<oso7mk010lu@news4.newsguy.com>):
> 
>> On 10/24/2017 12:36 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I forgot to add this YT URL:
>>>
>>> <https://youtu.be/WaBeeBUZvAg>
>>
>> If you are going to play with luminosity masking see what Greg Benz
>> offers:m He also has some neat tutorials:
>>
>> <https://gregbenzphotography.com/news/lumenzia-v4>  Will get you started.
> 
> Interesting, but how did you get to luminosity masking in PS from my response
> to Davoud regarding Lightroom CC?
> 

Although I have not tried it, the updated version of PS has "improved" 
luminosity masking.

-- 
PeterN 

	
From: Davoud <zerbatory@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.200.1.77 with SMTP id f13mr15539913qtg.4.1508888835150;
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.31.32.204 with SMTP id g195mr23431vkg.10.1508888835086; Tue,
24 Oct 2017 16:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!k31no1589302qta.1!news-out.google.com!v14ni126qtc.0!nntp.google.com!z50no1592501qtj.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=100.16.149.85;
posting-account=6WqhYQoAAACMdCzQVxYwfQLyvS-KfJs1
NNTP-Posting-Host: 100.16.149.85
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net>
<0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5349cae6-33eb-45ac-b04c-c71d6c3b8d32@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
From: Davoud <zerbatory@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:47:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 163
Print Article
Forward Article
Savageduck:
> Due to your role as a beta tester, I am hoping you can provide some insight 
> as to a few of the new Lightroom CC quirks. I will ask a question or two as I 
> work through your reply to Tony.

Davoud:
> > Even so, I don't yet have a complete handle on how I will use the two
> > new apps together. I know how they work, learned some of Adobe's
> > thinking, even accepted the mistake Adobe made in naming the apps, but
> > I haven't settled on a personal workflow.
 
> That is my dilemma, and after looking at this interview, I suspect that Adobe 
> never intended for Lightroom Classic CC, and Lightroom CC to work together,

That video was the first I heard that they weren't meant to be used together. Anything in Classic
can be synced to CC and appear in the cloud. Everything in CC appears in Classic. The two
applications can run simultaneously on your Mac. But they're not meant to be used together. Go
figure.

> I am trying to be fair, and intend to give it a good workout, but I have my 
> original LR C CC/PS CC + Mobile apps workflow as a very imbedded, and for me, 
> reflexive process. Due to that there is much I am not comfortable with when 
> working with new Lightroom CC, both as a desktop, and on my iPad Pro.

It's hard to argue against non-life-threatening personal preferences.

> Lightroom CC on my 10.5” 512GB iPad Pro is somewhat different to the older 
> Lightroom Mobile, but I have figured out many of the editing features 
> including getting the selective editing to work to my expectations.

> I have several issues with regard to the LR CC storage which you might be 
> able to resolve for me.

> As a subscriber, and user of the Classic Adobe CC Cloud storage I am familiar 
> with having access to the Web interface, and the desktop Creative Cloud Files 
> folder. Now that I am testing Lightroom CC, and have imported several RAW 
> image files I can find no way to manage those files in the way that was 
> possible before. No web access, and no Lightroom CC files folder. The test 
> RAW files are not shown in my CC File storage.

> Are there equivalent Lightroom CC Cloud file folders, or web access to manage 
> that storage.

Not understanding that. Firstly, there is only one cloud; whether the photos got there by manually
syncing Lightroom Classic or automatically from Lightroom CC or the mobile app, they're available in
all three apps. You can edit and delete photos from the cloud using CC or the mobile app. For your
protection, however, photos deleted from the cloud will not be deleted from the Classic app; they
remain on your HD.

> Not all of the Lightroom CC users are going to have a laptop to use when 
> travelling, or even access to a desktop, just mobile devices.

And that's where CC for mobile comes in.

> My old Mac laptops, a 17” G4, and a 17” MBP are beyond supporting current 
> Adobe products,I don’t have plans to buy a new laptop, a new desktop Mac, 
> yes, new lenses, yes, but not a new MBP. So my travel computing are my iPhone 
> and my iPad Pro. Unfortunately neither one of those will permit direct import 
> of RAW files when using the Apple Camera Kit, or WiFi from my cameras. I can 
> import JPEGs to the camera roll, and those are still auto imported to LR CC 
> (mobile) and synced with my desktop, now LR Classic CC (would that be LR-C 
> CC?) all without issue.

I have a 17" MBP from April 2012 that can run the new Adobe CC apps well enough!

> I can only import RAW files into new desktop/laptop LR CC with corresponding 
> Smart Previews showing in my iPad for editing. So when on a road trip I have 
> no way to move RAW files to the Lightroom CC cloud storage, and I am left 
> with doing things the way I always have. That throws a wrench into the 
> concept of storing all originals in the Lightroom CC Cloud.

I'm not sure I get that. I just did all of the following to reconfirm: put an SD card into the iPad
Pro adapter, imported a Canon raw photo to Camera Roll (no direct import to Lr that I can discern,
unfortunately), imported the photo into Lightroom CC for iOS. Raw is preserved. Moments later the
raw photo was in Lightroom Classic CC and in Lightroom CC on my iMac, still in raw format. Editing
the raw in Lightroom Classic CC or in Lightroom CC on the Mac or iPad writes the changes to the
cloud in text format. The changes stay with the raw file and are applied in Lightroom Classic as
well. The changes are non-destructive, however; to make them real, open the file in Photoshop and
save as a tiff or what-have-you.

> I can see that I am probably going to have to use my ColorSpace UDMA for RAW 
> backup on-the-road, and the old mobile system for on-the-road editing and 
> sharing. That leaves RAW import into LR-C CC as something to do when I get 
> home.

Again, if you have sufficient bandwidth you can have those raws waiting for you in Lightroom Classic
CC when you get home.

> > Yes, the Photography Plan includes only 20GB of cloud space and the
> > full plan includes 100GB. That's not a lot for people whose libraries
> > run to terabytes. Even me, an amateur with a terabyte library.
> > Additional space may be rented with the plan, up to 10GB, I believe it
> > is. The full plan with the stock 100GB is $50 per month. With 2 TB it's
> > $70 per month and with 10TB it's $150. The Photography Plan is $30 for
> > 2TB, $110 for 10TB.
 
> Does that 2TB for $30 include the cost of the basic Photography Plan?

Yes, the whole shebang, apps and cloud space. To see for yourself, log in to your account at
adobe.com, select Manage account, select Manage plan, then select Switch plan. Then you will see the
options. The Photography Plan is the first item on the menu, or use the arrows to see the options
for other subscription type. Under the prospective plan select the amount of storage you want in
order to see pricing for various amounts of storage, from one to 10 TB.

 
> I am more inclined to rent additional original plan storage.

If you're going to do that, i.e., if you are going to put more into the cloud via Lightroom Classic
CC, you *might* want to give further consideration to how you could use Lightroom CC to optimize
your use of the images in the cloud.

> > My advice: play with Lightroom CC, learn if it fits into your workflow.
> > Don't give up on it after the first hour. If it's not for you, you
> > haven't lost anything. Watch and see what it becomes in future. There's
> > always the possibility that it will become nothing at all, if users are
> > not ready for the cloud!

> That is exactly what I am doing, and I intend to continue testing it. 
> However, for now I just cannot see myself clear to fully adopt, or even 
> integrate Lightroom CC into my workflow.
 
> ...but I am not going to throw it out just yet.

It might sound like I'm talking up, or shilling for, Lightroom CC. The reality is that I do not know
if it will be useful for me or not. At this instant in time it is a solution seeking a problem.
Tomorrow it could be essential to me. 

	
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:37:26 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:37:26 -0700
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/5.17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.1FA0225602D11E2570000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net> <0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com> <5349cae6-33eb-45ac-b04c-c71d6c3b8d32@googlegroups.com>
Lines: 194
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-BgZjxAYxeZTZNpvX6HL57khf8nXx44ga4hLGh3XAFQ+fn7T68g/jggL6pg7the6gKR5bhphWOlMfHEq!SWM9BMvYRbpPChO/cy++sQorr5SBpXtMMRa0roJUfIDik0gBVVqlSiCykHvWe+OD/4UmR8YlQ1b2!ufgDCZJ+0ME=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 10955
Print Article
Forward Article
On Oct 24, 2017, Davoud wrote
(in article<5349cae6-33eb-45ac-b04c-c71d6c3b8d32@googlegroups.com>):

> Savageduck:
> > Due to your role as a beta tester, I am hoping you can provide some insight
> > as to a few of the new Lightroom CC quirks. I will ask a question or two as
> > I work through your reply to Tony.

Thank you for a decent, rational response.

> Davoud:
> > > Even so, I don't yet have a complete handle on how I will use the two
> > > new apps together. I know how they work, learned some of Adobe's
> > > thinking, even accepted the mistake Adobe made in naming the apps, but
> > > I haven't settled on a personal workflow.
>
> > That is my dilemma, and after looking at this interview, I suspect that
> > Adobe never intended for Lightroom Classic CC, and Lightroom CC to work together,
>
> That video was the first I heard that they weren't meant to be used together.
> Anything in Classic can be synced to CC and appear in the cloud. Everything
> in CC appears in Classic. The two applications can run simultaneously on your
> Mac. But they're not meant to be used together. Go figure.

There seems to be a disconnect, and a little confusion at all levels, both at 
Adobe, and out in the wild among the current, and potential users.

>
> > I am trying to be fair, and intend to give it a good workout, but I have my
> > original LR C CC/PS CC + Mobile apps workflow as a very imbedded, and for
> > me, reflexive process. Due to that there is much I am not comfortable with when
> > working with new Lightroom CC, both as a desktop, and on my iPad Pro.
>
> It's hard to argue against non-life-threatening personal preferences.
>
> > Lightroom CC on my 10.5” 512GB iPad Pro is somewhat different to the older
> > Lightroom Mobile, but I have figured out many of the editing features
> > including getting the selective editing to work to my expectations.
>
> > I have several issues with regard to the LR CC storage which you might be
> > able to resolve for me.
>
> > As a subscriber, and user of the Classic Adobe CC Cloud storage I am
> > familiar with having access to the Web interface, and the desktop Creative Cloud
> > Files folder. Now that I am testing Lightroom CC, and have imported several RAW
> > image files I can find no way to manage those files in the way that was
> > possible before. No web access, and no Lightroom CC files folder. The test
> > RAW files are not shown in my CC File storage.
>
> > Are there equivalent Lightroom CC Cloud file folders, or web access to
> > manage that storage?
>
> Not understanding that. Firstly, there is only one cloud; whether the photos
> got there by manually syncing Lightroom Classic or automatically from
> Lightroom CC or the mobile app, they're available in all three apps. You can
> edit and delete photos from the cloud using CC or the mobile app. For your
> protection, however, photos deleted from the cloud will not be deleted from
> the Classic app; they remain on your HD.

I understand that there is only one Creative Cloud. However, it seems that 
for the purposes of this trial offer for PP subscribers, we have our PP 20GB 
CC storage which I have been using since 2014, and a separate “hidden” 
20GB of upgradeable Lightroom CC storage which can only be managed through LR 
CC.

>
> > Not all of the Lightroom CC users are going to have a laptop to use when
> > travelling, or even access to a desktop, just mobile devices.
>
> And that's where CC for mobile comes in.
>
> > My old Mac laptops, a 17” G4, and a 17” MBP are beyond supporting
> > current Adobe products,I don’t have plans to buy a new laptop, a new desktop Mac,
> > yes, new lenses, yes, but not a new MBP. So my travel computing are my
> > iPhone and my iPad Pro. Unfortunately neither one of those will permit direct
> > import of RAW files when using the Apple Camera Kit, or WiFi from my cameras. I can
> > import JPEGs to the camera roll, and those are still auto imported to LR CC
> > (mobile) and synced with my desktop, now LR Classic CC (would that be LR-C
> > CC?) all without issue.
>
> I have a 17" MBP from April 2012 that can run the new Adobe CC apps well
> enough!

My 17” MBP is of 2008 vintage. It is running a 2.93 GHz Core 2 Duo, with 
4GB of DDR3, 500GB HDD, and it can go no further than OS X 10.5.8.

It runs PS CS5 and LR 2 (version 2.7).

>
> > I can only import RAW files into new desktop/laptop LR CC with corresponding
> > Smart Previews showing in my iPad for editing. So when on a road trip I have
> > no way to move RAW files to the Lightroom CC cloud storage, and I am left
> > with doing things the way I always have. That throws a wrench into the
> > concept of storing all originals in the Lightroom CC Cloud.
>
> I'm not sure I get that. I just did all of the following to reconfirm: put an
> SD card into the iPad Pro adapter, imported a Canon raw photo to Camera Roll
> (no direct import to Lr that I can discern, unfortunately), imported the
> photo into Lightroom CC for iOS. Raw is preserved. Moments later the raw
> photo was in Lightroom Classic CC and in Lightroom CC on my iMac, still in
> raw format. Editing the raw in Lightroom Classic CC or in Lightroom CC on the
> Mac or iPad writes the changes to the cloud in text format. The changes stay
> with the raw file and are applied in Lightroom Classic as well. The changes
> are non-destructive, however; to make them real, open the file in Photoshop
> and save as a tiff or what-have-you.

I have just checked that again. I am currently using a Fujifilm X-T2 and 
X-E2. The X-E2 RAF files show for import without issue. So the X-E2 is OK.
However, the X-T2 RAF file previews do not show in the Camera Roll, but do 
sync to LR CC. This is workable, but makes the selection of individual X-T2 
RAF files practically impossible. At best a workaround kludge which is time 
consuming, or a blind import of all the X-T2 RAF files. The X-T2 does not 
appear to be supported by iOS11, this is annoying considering the X-T2 was 
released in April 2016. I shoot RAF+JPEG with RAF going to SD card slot #1, 
and JPEGs to SD slot #2.

Here is what the connected X-T2 SD card screen looks like. The visible 
preview is an in-camera processed jpeg.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/q9egmza3kmxp5su/SC-101.png>

This is what the X-T2 RAF looks like in the Camera Roll.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh9qe80qp74nt5l/SC-102.png>

....and here is the succesfully synced X-T2 RAF in LR CC.
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vyjd0kwy17yoj7/SC-103.png>
>
> > I can see that I am probably going to have to use my ColorSpace UDMA for RAW
> > backup on-the-road, and the old mobile system for on-the-road editing and
> > sharing. That leaves RAW import into LR-C CC as something to do when I get
> > home.
>
> Again, if you have sufficient bandwidth you can have those raws waiting for
> you in Lightroom Classic CC when you get home.

I should have sufficient bandwidth to make the Tx/sync when at the on the 
road homebase/residence/(h)(m)otel for RAW files. Otherwise, the purchased 
broadband should be sufficient for JPEG sync, leaving the RAFs for home.
>
>
> > > Yes, the Photography Plan includes only 20GB of cloud space and the
> > > full plan includes 100GB. That's not a lot for people whose libraries
> > > run to terabytes. Even me, an amateur with a terabyte library.
> > > Additional space may be rented with the plan, up to 10GB, I believe it
> > > is. The full plan with the stock 100GB is $50 per month. With 2 TB it's
> > > $70 per month and with 10TB it's $150. The Photography Plan is $30 for
> > > 2TB, $110 for 10TB.
>
> > Does that 2TB for $30 include the cost of the basic Photography Plan?
>
> Yes, the whole shebang, apps and cloud space. To see for yourself, log in to
> your account at adobe.com, select Manage account, select Manage plan, then
> select Switch plan. Then you will see the options. The Photography Plan is
> the first item on the menu, or use the arrows to see the options for other
> subscription type. Under the prospective plan select the amount of storage
> you want in order to see pricing for various amounts of storage, from one to
> 10 TB.

Great!
>
> > I am more inclined to rent additional original plan storage.
>
> If you're going to do that, i.e., if you are going to put more into the cloud
> via Lightroom Classic CC, you *might* want to give further consideration to
> how you could use Lightroom CC to optimize your use of the images in the
> cloud.

OK! I am still in test mode, so I will see how that works out.
>
> > > My advice: play with Lightroom CC, learn if it fits into your workflow.
> > > Don't give up on it after the first hour. If it's not for you, you
> > > haven't lost anything. Watch and see what it becomes in future. There's
> > > always the possibility that it will become nothing at all, if users are
> > > not ready for the cloud!
>
> > That is exactly what I am doing, and I intend to continue testing it.
> > However, for now I just cannot see myself clear to fully adopt, or even
> > integrate Lightroom CC into my workflow.
>
> > ...but I am not going to throw it out just yet.
>
> It might sound like I'm talking up, or shilling for, Lightroom CC. The
> reality is that I do not know if it will be useful for me or not. At this
> instant in time it is a solution seeking a problem. Tomorrow it could be
> essential to me.

That is what I feel right know. I have my current preference for the original 
workflow, but I don’t want to completely reject LR CC now, only to find 
later that it is going to be a useful tool.

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:58:04 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <241020172158041355%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net> <0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com> <5349cae6-33eb-45ac-b04c-c71d6c3b8d32@googlegroups.com> <0001HW.1FA0225602D11E2570000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f1a6efeb24f0a2a62193864b944e3b0a";
logging-data="29416"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19P64sHRjHNhJgOv1ZTFm9g"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+ekJ8t0ESIVcLF//cReLcRNsPdw=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<0001HW.1FA0225602D11E2570000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > I have a 17" MBP from April 2012 that can run the new Adobe CC apps well
> > enough!
> 
> My 17 

	
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:40:31 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 19:40:32 -0700
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/5.17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.1FA0312002D4955D70000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net> <0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com> <5349cae6-33eb-45ac-b04c-c71d6c3b8d32@googlegroups.com> <0001HW.1FA0225602D11E2570000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com> <241020172158041355%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Lines: 41
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-WbOEzFnAGv+aEzY1hBe/xPP4WmJecVL4IBKyoX3eymJ9SKLoLrKh4I8BUm0OJA6J+SjNuo9IbOes/WC!4eIjjzX0hOkMK7n5bEIw/zPrZQDoeppnWnhWGn9mHXV/hk7YyOOs/CM2K9tofQHIzIicE11UurTU!jiTKT0GaFnY=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2693
Print Article
Forward Article
On Oct 24, 2017, nospam wrote
(in article<241020172158041355%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<0001HW.1FA0225602D11E2570000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>  wrote:
>
> > > I have a 17" MBP from April 2012 that can run the new Adobe CC apps well
> > > enough!
> >
> > My 17² MBP is of 2008 vintage. It is running a 2.93 GHz Core 2 Duo, with
> > 4GB of DDR3, 500GB HDD, and it can go no further than OS X 10.5.8.
>
> yes it can.
>
> a 2008 macbook pro supports 10.11.

While I should have been able to update to 10.6, to 10. 8 at least, fot some 
reason that has not been possible. I have it right here next to my desktop 
and I haven’t been able to update macOS to 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.0, or 
10.11, while my 2010 iMac is running fine under 10.12.6.

The other issue is it is maxed out with 4GB DDR, and running PS CC + LR, and 
an updated OS is going to make things a tad asthmatic.

....but I can still run MTNW on it If I need to.
>
>
> replace its hd with an ssd and it will actually run reasonably well.
>
> or get something newer.

That is the real solution, but I really wouldn’t get much use out of a 
laptop these days. So it is the iPad Pro and a new desktop Mac for me. The 
steam driven MBP remains charged and used occassionally when the need, or 
inclination arises.

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 23:08:12 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <241020172308123817%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net> <0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com> <5349cae6-33eb-45ac-b04c-c71d6c3b8d32@googlegroups.com> <0001HW.1FA0225602D11E2570000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com> <241020172158041355%nospam@nospam.invalid> <0001HW.1FA0312002D4955D70000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f1a6efeb24f0a2a62193864b944e3b0a";
logging-data="21810"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Loi35pBKMfLQe3xF0ODJV"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nJ5Y1F1onzMz3GtnvGJZ6yNZjJA=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<0001HW.1FA0312002D4955D70000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > > > I have a 17" MBP from April 2012 that can run the new Adobe CC apps well
> > > > enough!
> > >
> > > My 172 MBP is of 2008 vintage. It is running a 2.93 GHz Core 2 Duo, with
> > > 4GB of DDR3, 500GB HDD, and it can go no further than OS X 10.5.8.
> >
> > yes it can.
> >
> > a 2008 macbook pro supports 10.11.
> 
> While I should have been able to update to 10.6, to 10. 8 at least, fot some 
> reason that has not been possible. I have it right here next to my desktop 
> and I haven 

	
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 22:34:31 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:34:31 -0700
From: Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Hogwasher/5.17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0001HW.1FA03DC702D78C9970000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net> <0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com> <5349cae6-33eb-45ac-b04c-c71d6c3b8d32@googlegroups.com> <0001HW.1FA0225602D11E2570000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com> <241020172158041355%nospam@nospam.invalid> <0001HW.1FA0312002D4955D70000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com> <241020172308123817%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Lines: 72
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-SFsmGQr5iaCdZLshfSTDe/O4j2saoELPJ/uRhrgs6J7jI4IGGpqFh9zhXvmIyNdX6FeKXLIvkbP2x/5!0jW3nSoK+VGvdE2sMIzuQOF7gU9/8Lhlg+hMLFTF/iv3OZuQWf9r0q2jHMcmAAgP5d/tOh+LV+V9!enZGrg15JaI=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4241
Print Article
Forward Article
On Oct 24, 2017, nospam wrote
(in article<241020172308123817%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<0001HW.1FA0312002D4955D70000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>  wrote:
>
> > > > > I have a 17" MBP from April 2012 that can run the new Adobe CC apps well
> > > > > enough!
> > > >
> > > > My 172 MBP is of 2008 vintage. It is running a 2.93 GHz Core 2 Duo, with
> > > > 4GB of DDR3, 500GB HDD, and it can go no further than OS X 10.5.8.
> > >
> > > yes it can.
> > >
> > > a 2008 macbook pro supports 10.11.
> >
> > While I should have been able to update to 10.6, to 10. 8 at least, fot some
> > reason that has not been possible. I have it right here next to my desktop
> > and I haven¹t been able to update macOS to 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.0, or
> > 10.11, while my 2010 iMac is running fine under 10.12.6.
>
> why not? what happened when you tried?
>
> > The other issue is it is maxed out with 4GB DDR,
>
> 4 gig is the official max, but it should support 6 gig.
>
> > and running PS CC + LR, and
> > an updated OS is going to make things a tad asthmatic.
>
> a little known remedy for asthma is an ssd.
>
> > ...but I can still run MTNW on it If I need to.
> >
> > > replace its hd with an ssd and it will actually run reasonably well.
> > >
> > > or get something newer.
> >
> > That is the real solution, but I really wouldn¹t get much use out of a
> > laptop these days. So it is the iPad Pro and a new desktop Mac for me. The
> > steam driven MBP remains charged and used occassionally when the need, or
> > inclination arises.
>
> it's still worth updating the os, which is free

I am not sure where my 10.6 disc is, I will have to dig it up as that is a 
minimum requirement for 10.7 &  10.8. My iMac update path leaped from 10.6 SL 
to 10.9 Mavericks. So I have downloads of 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, &  10.12.6. I 
have yet to move to High Sierra on my iMac.
>
> as for putting money into it, an ssd is the best bang for the buck and
> will be a huge boost in performance.
>
> a 512 gig ssd is around $100ish these days, which is the same capacity
> as what's in there now. 256 gig would be slightly less but not enough
> less to justify the lower capacity.

It is something to consider as an upgrade project for the old MBP, but for 
now when I compare the 17” MBP with the 10.5” 512GB iPad Pro with regard 
to physical dimensions, and weight, along with the ability to fit in either 
my ThinkTank Retrospective, or Domke 803 bag the MBP loses the simple 
carry-on test.The iPad slips into either bag without any noticable weight 
penalty, and I can carry any of my Fujifilm mirrorless kit I choose to in a 
bag which passes as a ”personal item”.

If I am driving, that is a different matter.

-- 

Regards,
Savageduck 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:01:19 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <251020170001195035%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <231020172212265238%star@sky.net> <0001HW.1F9EF923028B76B970000B61B2CF@news.giganews.com> <5349cae6-33eb-45ac-b04c-c71d6c3b8d32@googlegroups.com> <0001HW.1FA0225602D11E2570000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com> <241020172158041355%nospam@nospam.invalid> <0001HW.1FA0312002D4955D70000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com> <241020172308123817%nospam@nospam.invalid> <0001HW.1FA03DC702D78C9970000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f1a6efeb24f0a2a62193864b944e3b0a";
logging-data="3189"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TFoc7TqfDY79SlwGzRbUP"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GL1ydQi2OuIM3W5SKp+G1Zqovmc=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<0001HW.1FA03DC702D78C9970000C53C2CF@news.giganews.com>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > > That is the real solution, but I really wouldn1t get much use out of a
> > > laptop these days. So it is the iPad Pro and a new desktop Mac for me. The
> > > steam driven MBP remains charged and used occassionally when the need, or
> > > inclination arises.
> >
> > it's still worth updating the os, which is free
> 
> I am not sure where my 10.6 disc is, I will have to dig it up as that is a 
> minimum requirement for 10.7 &  10.8. My iMac update path leaped from 10.6 SL 
> to 10.9 Mavericks. So I have downloads of 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, &  10.12.6. I 
> have yet to move to High Sierra on my iMac.

10.6 is only a minimum requirement because you need to be able to
access the app store in order to download 10.7 and later.

since you can access the app store from your imac and have already
downloaded the installers, you don't actually need 10.6.

however, 10.5->10.11 is too big of a jump for migration assistant, so
unless you want to wipe and start over (which you most likely do not),
you'll need to migrate to something in between, such as 10.8 or 10.9,
and then migrate from that to .11. 

> > as for putting money into it, an ssd is the best bang for the buck and
> > will be a huge boost in performance.
> >
> > a 512 gig ssd is around $100ish these days, which is the same capacity
> > as what's in there now. 256 gig would be slightly less but not enough
> > less to justify the lower capacity.
> 
> It is something to consider as an upgrade project for the old MBP, but for 
> now when I compare the 17 

	
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:33:39 +0000
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 2XBOdTofMzsvEnIleIpc9QkKV6lpP/QFtXY+0vP4AIegYjI/4i
X-Orig-Path: squidward.local.dionic.net!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1ioIYjWiEmFAsMcAE6oSoDNMSs4=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.3.0
In-Reply-To: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Print Article
Forward Article
On a tangent, but under the same topic:

I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.

It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).

I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects 
are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have 
instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.

The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.

This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to 
run LR Classic well (Windows on a VM is painful).


My only concerns (apart from not being able to find out how to do a 1:1) 
are:

1) The import is a bit vague - can I be sure it got all of them?

2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management 
anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the 
colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff? 

	
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: android <here@there.was>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 12:05:06 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <here-7CBC8C.12050529102017@news.individual.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
X-Trace: individual.net Cna6vHW4BiCZKQX5RQug+Q8AtWorxIXVgTw9k6p6I/umhHfdBF
X-Orig-Path: here
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XkdZsyGGAJVdoqG/9ISKdmMonK0=
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
 Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> On a tangent, but under the same topic:
> 
> I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.
> 
> It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).
> 
> I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects 
> are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have 
> instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.
> 
> The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.
> 
> This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to 
> run LR Classic well (Windows on a VM is painful).
> 
> 
> My only concerns (apart from not being able to find out how to do a 1:1) 
> are:
> 
> 1) The import is a bit vague - can I be sure it got all of them?
> 
> 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management 
> anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the 
> colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?

Why don't just get with program and get a used Mac Mini? Cost less than 
an iPad Pro and speaks Unixese just like your Linux computter...
-- 
teleportation kills 

	
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:02:28 +0000
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <46ehce-uqe.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
<here-7CBC8C.12050529102017@news.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 3qEXKJAWxq1CgxIp5xGxJASC/zOqnk2GyzrTt1B1PHnx7oQWa8
X-Orig-Path: squidward.local.dionic.net!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uBgxDi96W2eQT+2rbTg3S2hvr9o=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.3.0
In-Reply-To: <here-7CBC8C.12050529102017@news.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
Print Article
Forward Article
On 29/10/17 11:05, android wrote:

> Why don't just get with program and get a used Mac Mini? Cost less than
> an iPad Pro and speaks Unixese just like your Linux computter...

Because it's not portable like a pad... 

	
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: android <here@there.was>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:18:49 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <here-833B39.18184929102017@news.individual.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <here-7CBC8C.12050529102017@news.individual.net> <46ehce-uqe.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
X-Trace: individual.net leDHdojr8QtlU12TmVbqlg7N4YVK3loSEae6ZLbx79F/6O5pc6
X-Orig-Path: here
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zb7Zhm4Mi8MeEqWz3XRPeq8xMAc=
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<46ehce-uqe.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
 Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> On 29/10/17 11:05, android wrote:
> 
> > Why don't just get with program and get a used Mac Mini? Cost less than
> > an iPad Pro and speaks Unixese just like your Linux computter...
> 
> Because it's not portable like a pad...

You did mention running Adobe CC in Windows Virtual on a Linux 
computer...
-- 
teleportation kills 

	
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.informatik.hu-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 19:16:14 +0000
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <u0mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
<here-7CBC8C.12050529102017@news.individual.net>
<46ehce-uqe.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
<here-833B39.18184929102017@news.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net t1UunE9kxZmZAoBdaTZZvAMjByvbYi8a6EK23MkjATPRkCoA5k
X-Orig-Path: squidward.local.dionic.net!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:92RTwC3WxMJWfKN1wYx9GvSM6lE=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.3.0
In-Reply-To: <here-833B39.18184929102017@news.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
Print Article
Forward Article
On 29/10/17 17:18, android wrote:
> In article<46ehce-uqe.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
>   Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 29/10/17 11:05, android wrote:
>>
>>> Why don't just get with program and get a used Mac Mini? Cost less than
>>> an iPad Pro and speaks Unixese just like your Linux computter...
>>
>> Because it's not portable like a pad...
> 
> You did mention running Adobe CC in Windows Virtual on a Linux
> computer...
> 

Yes indeed. But having given up on that as a bad idea, I'm looking to 
the future :) "With a clean slate, what would be best for me..." 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 13:24:33 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <291020171324336888%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <here-7CBC8C.12050529102017@news.individual.net> <46ehce-uqe.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="165483f2a3a2da85db80fc3ac9d07d60";
logging-data="22945"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18PZ8E86TCKhpIaq72AnwL3"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kY9vyARsTRZfRZwUNnVQCXbJbr0=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<46ehce-uqe.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> 
> > Why don't just get with program and get a used Mac Mini? Cost less than
> > an iPad Pro and speaks Unixese just like your Linux computter...
> 
> Because it's not portable like a pad...

neither is your linux system.

if you want portable, then get a macbook pro, with its wide gamut
dci-p3 display.

you can still get an ipad pro. 

	
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.unit0.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:03:08 +0000
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <c7ehce-uqe.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
<here-7CBC8C.12050529102017@news.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net gF0D7cctqlw/tqOZrFTECwx5ODoygUqmleLQf6x485F3uzYAGk
X-Orig-Path: squidward.local.dionic.net!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZEPbR3/2Qz6tAUrcg07DccMceAg=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.3.0
In-Reply-To: <here-7CBC8C.12050529102017@news.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
Print Article
Forward Article
On 29/10/17 11:05, android wrote:
> In article<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
>   Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> 
>> On a tangent, but under the same topic:
>>
>> I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.
>>
>> It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).
>>
>> I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects
>> are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have
>> instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.
>>
>> The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.
>>
>> This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to
>> run LR Classic well (Windows on a VM is painful).
>>
>>
>> My only concerns (apart from not being able to find out how to do a 1:1)
>> are:
>>
>> 1) The import is a bit vague - can I be sure it got all of them?
>>
>> 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management
>> anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the
>> colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
> 
> Why don't just get with program and get a used Mac Mini? Cost less than
> an iPad Pro and speaks Unixese just like your Linux computter...
> 

Anyway - the programme from Adobe seems to be "web and mobile" 

	
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news-2.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: android <here@there.was>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:18:50 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <here-9EB9B4.18185029102017@news.individual.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <here-7CBC8C.12050529102017@news.individual.net> <c7ehce-uqe.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
X-Trace: individual.net KJlaPgYrEqAesf8k0DkbggFijn4JD+4qcRmlNIbYCsZgiRtHf4
X-Orig-Path: here
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Asl7U/R2Ef6vSy/4LvIz9ymlkqY=
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<c7ehce-uqe.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
 Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> On 29/10/17 11:05, android wrote:
> > In article<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
> >   Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> On a tangent, but under the same topic:
> >>
> >> I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.
> >>
> >> It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).
> >>
> >> I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects
> >> are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have
> >> instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.
> >>
> >> The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.
> >>
> >> This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to
> >> run LR Classic well (Windows on a VM is painful).
> >>
> >>
> >> My only concerns (apart from not being able to find out how to do a 1:1)
> >> are:
> >>
> >> 1) The import is a bit vague - can I be sure it got all of them?
> >>
> >> 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management
> >> anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the
> >> colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
> > 
> > Why don't just get with program and get a used Mac Mini? Cost less than
> > an iPad Pro and speaks Unixese just like your Linux computter...
> > 
> 
> Anyway - the programme from Adobe seems to be "web and mobile"

Why are you talking about running it in a Windows WM then?
-- 
teleportation kills 

	
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 19:17:03 +0000
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <f2mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
<here-7CBC8C.12050529102017@news.individual.net>
<c7ehce-uqe.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
<here-9EB9B4.18185029102017@news.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 4cSJUzKr2xrZUueFCzlblg8xoDFXtHRw3ECHaaPBHGr4iRwDxw
X-Orig-Path: squidward.local.dionic.net!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yh/tbv0kP/+fLUwTTY8JErAz9A0=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.3.0
In-Reply-To: <here-9EB9B4.18185029102017@news.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
Print Article
Forward Article
On 29/10/17 17:18, android wrote:

> Why are you talking about running it in a Windows WM then?
> 

That was the past. Gave that up as a bad job. My attempts to work with 
that predated the recent web/mobile product launch. 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:21:14 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <291020170921140906%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="165483f2a3a2da85db80fc3ac9d07d60";
logging-data="17033"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/RMBop3JFoWVPXKe+8mfgj"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+A+NokE8wDWHbQlG5cjYOmWg8hc=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> On a tangent, but under the same topic:
> 
> I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.
> 
> It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).
> 
> I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects 
> are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have 
> instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.
> 
> The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.

they're even better in the native app.

> This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to 
> run LR Classic well

then it's time to upgrade to a desktop operating system so you can use
state of the art software, not just lightroom.

> (Windows on a VM is painful).

anything windows is painful, but not because its running in a vm.

what are you using for a vm? 

> My only concerns (apart from not being able to find out how to do a 1:1) 
> are:
> 
> 1) The import is a bit vague - can I be sure it got all of them?

the import is not vague.

> 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management 
> anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the 
> colour rendering? 

it's as faithful as your colour management.

if you can't calibrate it, then it's not faithful at all.

the browser is not in the way, since it uses the colour calibration
information.

> Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?

no. lightroom runs on mac and windows, along with a lot more that is
unavailable for linux.

linux is fine for servers, but for desktop use, it's a disaster. 

	
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.fr7!futter-mich.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:07:26 +0000
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <efehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
<291020170921140906%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ALxfaXlSqzwIaVQc4KwVqw1sxzE3xQ+IlYxlZCeIlPuFq+YGL2
X-Orig-Path: squidward.local.dionic.net!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:69yfw1KPWdbZnToriJcz+zY3GSE=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.3.0
In-Reply-To: <291020170921140906%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4019914748
X-Received-Bytes: 3355
Print Article
Forward Article
On 29/10/17 13:21, nospam wrote:
> In article<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts
><tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> 
>> On a tangent, but under the same topic:
>>
>> I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.
>>
>> It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).
>>
>> I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects
>> are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have
>> instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.
>>
>> The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.
> 
> they're even better in the native app.
> 
>> This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to
>> run LR Classic well
> 
> then it's time to upgrade to a desktop operating system so you can use
> state of the art software, not just lightroom.

Problem: I use Linux for my work. I have no other desktop or laptop.

> 
>> (Windows on a VM is painful).
> 
> anything windows is painful, but not because its running in a vm.
> 
> what are you using for a vm?
> 

Linux.

>> My only concerns (apart from not being able to find out how to do a 1:1)
>> are:
>>
>> 1) The import is a bit vague - can I be sure it got all of them?
> 
> the import is not vague.

It's a little unclear to me.

>> 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management
>> anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the
>> colour rendering?
> 
> it's as faithful as your colour management.
> 
> if you can't calibrate it, then it's not faithful at all.
> 
> the browser is not in the way, since it uses the colour calibration
> information.
> 
>> Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
> 
> no. lightroom runs on mac and windows, along with a lot more that is
> unavailable for linux.
> 
> linux is fine for servers, but for desktop use, it's a disaster.
> 

Actually, it's very solid. Where it falls down is precisely this task - 
but only this task, for me.

However, for my workflow at the moment, it's looking like LR Web+Mobile 
are actually very good.

When it comes to retouching, I might consider a dedicated native 
solution with a Mac in it, but I can't justify that right now (I could 
just about justify an iPad for other reasons). 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 13:24:34 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <291020171324346936%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170921140906%nospam@nospam.invalid> <efehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="165483f2a3a2da85db80fc3ac9d07d60";
logging-data="22945"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WnhGWn8GbW4EhAW5a7lgM"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gRz2cD/7ysbY2AWzI0QbBWCYBHU=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<efehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> >> On a tangent, but under the same topic:
> >>
> >> I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.
> >>
> >> It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).
> >>
> >> I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects
> >> are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have
> >> instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.
> >>
> >> The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.
> > 
> > they're even better in the native app.
> > 
> >> This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to
> >> run LR Classic well
> > 
> > then it's time to upgrade to a desktop operating system so you can use
> > state of the art software, not just lightroom.
> 
> Problem: I use Linux for my work. I have no other desktop or laptop.

you shouldn't be mixing work and play on the same system.

and if you do get a mac, you can continue to do whatever you're doing
in linux given that the mac is unix under the hood, along with running
state of the art apps such as photoshop and lightroom and much more.

if you choose windows, you'll need two systems, or have to deal with
dual-booting.

> >> (Windows on a VM is painful).
> > 
> > anything windows is painful, but not because its running in a vm.
> > 
> > what are you using for a vm?
> > 
> 
> Linux.

linux is not a vm.

the usual vm hosts are vmware or virtual box.

windows runs quite well in vmware, and at native speeds for almost
everything, including lightroom. 

where a vm is not suitable is for something like high end gaming, but a
true gamer would have a gaming system anyway.

alternately, dual-boot into windows, but that's a huge pain in the ass.

> >> Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
> > 
> > no. lightroom runs on mac and windows, along with a lot more that is
> > unavailable for linux.
> > 
> > linux is fine for servers, but for desktop use, it's a disaster.
> 
> Actually, it's very solid. 

i didn't say it wasn't solid. i said it's a disaster for desktop use.
the sheer lack of quality software is very limiting.

> Where it falls down is precisely this task - 
> but only this task, for me.

then you're lucky.

there is a *lot* of software not available for linux.

> However, for my workflow at the moment, it's looking like LR Web+Mobile 
> are actually very good.

indeed they are, and much better than anything available on linux.

> When it comes to retouching, I might consider a dedicated native 
> solution with a Mac in it, but I can't justify that right now (I could 
> just about justify an iPad for other reasons).

a mac is less expensive than an ipad pro. 

	
From: Davoud <star@sky.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Davoud <star@sky.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:56:04 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <291020170956045868%star@sky.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
Reply-To: aaa@bbb.ccc
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="60d3d627a918a1ff12cc3b1d44514564";
logging-data="31272"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/mJCw+9hsg3mGjybXOuPcI"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.1 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+MMN8uVhgcxG70p5oru7xD52bz4=
Print Article
Forward Article
Tim Watts:

> On a tangent, but under the same topic:
> 
> I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.
> 
> It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).
> 
> I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects 
> are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have 
> instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.
> 
> The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.
> 
> This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to 
> run LR Classic well (Windows on a VM is painful).
> 
> 
> My only concerns (apart from not being able to find out how to do a 1:1) 
> are:
> 
> 1) The import is a bit vague - can I be sure it got all of them?
> 
> 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management 
> anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the 
> colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?

I don't do "Mac vs. whatever" and I'm *not* dissing your Linux system
in any way. But if you're really into photography what you described
above is a crying need for a 27" iMac. The display is phenomenal.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:57:18 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <291020170957180758%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="165483f2a3a2da85db80fc3ac9d07d60";
logging-data="29153"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YVcPt/o5twbOMF9r46CK3"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PFFV0OhB9fuleD9BnwSvJXm6uqs=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <291020170956045868%star@sky.net>, Davoud<star@sky.net>
wrote:

> > On a tangent, but under the same topic:
> > 
> > I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.
> > 
> > It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).
> > 
> > I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects 
> > are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have 
> > instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.
> > 
> > The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.
> > 
> > This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to 
> > run LR Classic well (Windows on a VM is painful).
> > 
> > 
> > My only concerns (apart from not being able to find out how to do a 1:1) 
> > are:
> > 
> > 1) The import is a bit vague - can I be sure it got all of them?
> > 
> > 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management 
> > anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the 
> > colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
> 
> I don't do "Mac vs. whatever" and I'm *not* dissing your Linux system
> in any way. But if you're really into photography what you described
> above is a crying need for a 27" iMac. The display is phenomenal.

indeed it is. 

	
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!87.79.20.101.MISMATCH!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: android <here@there.was>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 15:08:44 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <here-0A6A4F.15084329102017@news.individual.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net>
X-Trace: individual.net bwZqEhwsUTyp5sEgagxmbwFXpxxntAcM8JKurAkM9SlQVapqdf
X-Orig-Path: here
Cancel-Lock: sha1:edLMUgAAaakX3Kmuar32XT1saqs=
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <291020170956045868%star@sky.net>, Davoud<star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Tim Watts:
> 
> > On a tangent, but under the same topic:
> > 
> > I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.
> > 
> > It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).
> > 
> > I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects 
> > are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have 
> > instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.
> > 
> > The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.
> > 
> > This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to 
> > run LR Classic well (Windows on a VM is painful).
> > 
> > 
> > My only concerns (apart from not being able to find out how to do a 1:1) 
> > are:
> > 
> > 1) The import is a bit vague - can I be sure it got all of them?
> > 
> > 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management 
> > anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the 
> > colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
> 
> I don't do "Mac vs. whatever" and I'm *not* dissing your Linux system
> in any way. But if you're really into photography what you described
> above is a crying need for a 27" iMac. The display is phenomenal.

I had a looksie at the global centre, I live there Mac Premium Reseller 
and I was not impressed. They had several units standing there and the 
displays looked at tad shady. A Mini with a good third party display is 
the prefered budget solution.

<https://lassetretusen.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/manhemi.png> :-))

Just got myself a new to me mini that can chew more RAM... I'm busy now 
soo I'll have to do the migration at a later date.
-- 
teleportation kills 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 10:29:37 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <291020171029377131%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net> <here-0A6A4F.15084329102017@news.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="165483f2a3a2da85db80fc3ac9d07d60";
logging-data="12335"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Js7BJpBZ0KU+I1dSZyj3M"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6lVJ+q+EJuncEQ2Wg/XGW3bdoUk=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<here-0A6A4F.15084329102017@news.individual.net>, android<here@there.was> wrote:

> > > 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management 
> > > anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the 
> > > colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
> > 
> > I don't do "Mac vs. whatever" and I'm *not* dissing your Linux system
> > in any way. But if you're really into photography what you described
> > above is a crying need for a 27" iMac. The display is phenomenal.
> 
> I had a looksie at the global centre, I live there Mac Premium Reseller 
> and I was not impressed. They had several units standing there and the 
> displays looked at tad shady. 

that's not a very good environment in which to judge.

> A Mini with a good third party display is 
> the prefered budget solution.

but nowhere near as good, and not much cheaper either. 

	
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer02.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.fr7!futter-mich.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 17:09:25 +0000
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 1zQl7vIrOKuEbCTEqZVVBAZuUYr6aYP7rMonoF4vBTTD7dIFDf
X-Orig-Path: squidward.local.dionic.net!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DqXM+VhysI3ixuzgvObG83ETK4M=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.3.0
In-Reply-To: <291020170956045868%star@sky.net>
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2836720536
X-Received-Bytes: 2575
Print Article
Forward Article
On 29/10/17 13:56, Davoud wrote:
> Tim Watts:
> 
>> On a tangent, but under the same topic:
>>
>> I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.
>>
>> It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).
>>
>> I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects
>> are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have
>> instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.
>>
>> The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.
>>
>> This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to
>> run LR Classic well (Windows on a VM is painful).
>>
>>
>> My only concerns (apart from not being able to find out how to do a 1:1)
>> are:
>>
>> 1) The import is a bit vague - can I be sure it got all of them?
>>
>> 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management
>> anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the
>> colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
> 
> I don't do "Mac vs. whatever" and I'm *not* dissing your Linux system
> in any way. But if you're really into photography what you described
> above is a crying need for a 27" iMac. The display is phenomenal.
> 

I'm kinda waiting to see what Apple bring out next. It's either going to 
be a MacBook Pro (which is recently re-released) or something else.

I'd really like a Mac Mini v2 - something that is small, utilises the 
same screen and keyboard as my other systems but has been refreshed to 
have a decent CPU and loads of RAM. 

	
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: android <here@there.was>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:20:25 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <here-3DC3DE.18202529102017@news.individual.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net> <5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
X-Trace: individual.net daeb35rlwY3fS9FIyTwl6ANN4bf13JhPeUlmmBCazoAd4PHS3s
X-Orig-Path: here
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XGahy4hJpXrV9p/T+1Knc8taKYM=
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
 Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> On 29/10/17 13:56, Davoud wrote:
> > Tim Watts:
> > 
> >> On a tangent, but under the same topic:
> >>
> >> I just had a very quick play with Lightroom Web.
> >>
> >> It's looking rather promising. I imported some photos (jpg and Lumix RAW).
> >>
> >> I'm stuck in how to get a 1:1 preview to check focus, but other aspects
> >> are looking good. Being able to basically organise stuff and have
> >> instant access via the web and LR Mobile is cool.
> >>
> >> The editing facilities are pretty cool for a web app too.
> >>
> >> This is from someone who uses Linux and does not have the facilities to
> >> run LR Classic well (Windows on a VM is painful).
> >>
> >>
> >> My only concerns (apart from not being able to find out how to do a 1:1)
> >> are:
> >>
> >> 1) The import is a bit vague - can I be sure it got all of them?
> >>
> >> 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management
> >> anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the
> >> colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
> > 
> > I don't do "Mac vs. whatever" and I'm *not* dissing your Linux system
> > in any way. But if you're really into photography what you described
> > above is a crying need for a 27" iMac. The display is phenomenal.
> > 
> 
> I'm kinda waiting to see what Apple bring out next. It's either going to 
> be a MacBook Pro (which is recently re-released) or something else.

If you're getting a MBP then skip them mobile apps! :-))
> 
> I'd really like a Mac Mini v2 - something that is small, utilises the 
> same screen and keyboard as my other systems but has been refreshed to 
> have a decent CPU and loads of RAM.
-- 
teleportation kills 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 13:24:34 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <291020171324346977%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net> <5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="165483f2a3a2da85db80fc3ac9d07d60";
logging-data="22945"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196ELsP6Kgnb1ICc6DrFEwO"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:546881/F3fVa4lN+n5gc0q/JSZI=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> >> 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management
> >> anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the
> >> colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
> > 
> > I don't do "Mac vs. whatever" and I'm *not* dissing your Linux system
> > in any way. But if you're really into photography what you described
> > above is a crying need for a 27" iMac. The display is phenomenal.
> > 
> 
> I'm kinda waiting to see what Apple bring out next. It's either going to 
> be a MacBook Pro (which is recently re-released) or something else.

the imac pro is next, expected in a couple of months.

next year will likely have refreshes to the rest of the lineup, quite
possibly with a few surprises, although those who closely watch the
industry have a pretty good idea of what's coming.

> I'd really like a Mac Mini v2 - something that is small, utilises the 
> same screen and keyboard as my other systems but has been refreshed to 
> have a decent CPU and loads of RAM.

the mac mini nearly 15 years old. it's well past v2. 

	
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 19:19:34 +0000
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <67mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net>
<5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
<291020171324346977%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net zvhSHXh1ZhRlVfZLz0mnvAtPMypa0s+IZceqtYDdPkYSYo4Tqj
X-Orig-Path: squidward.local.dionic.net!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3UOapLWyTzOpS3omzYCTFOCjL9w=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.3.0
In-Reply-To: <291020171324346977%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-GB
Print Article
Forward Article
On 29/10/17 17:24, nospam wrote:
> In article<5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts
><tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management
>>>> anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the
>>>> colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
>>>
>>> I don't do "Mac vs. whatever" and I'm *not* dissing your Linux system
>>> in any way. But if you're really into photography what you described
>>> above is a crying need for a 27" iMac. The display is phenomenal.
>>>
>>
>> I'm kinda waiting to see what Apple bring out next. It's either going to
>> be a MacBook Pro (which is recently re-released) or something else.
> 
> the imac pro is next, expected in a couple of months.
> 
> next year will likely have refreshes to the rest of the lineup, quite
> possibly with a few surprises, although those who closely watch the
> industry have a pretty good idea of what's coming.
> 
>> I'd really like a Mac Mini v2 - something that is small, utilises the
>> same screen and keyboard as my other systems but has been refreshed to
>> have a decent CPU and loads of RAM.
> 
> the mac mini nearly 15 years old. it's well past v2.
> 

Sorry - I meant v2 figuratively. I have no idea what version it is - I 
meant "the next one". 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 16:14:52 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <291020171614520054%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net> <5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020171324346977%nospam@nospam.invalid> <67mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="165483f2a3a2da85db80fc3ac9d07d60";
logging-data="7061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18jW4R8Hknx+YKY41xqE2EO"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VOfSixxO/OHU6qFa4BcMfQZv+Xs=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<67mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> >> I'd really like a Mac Mini v2 - something that is small, utilises the
> >> same screen and keyboard as my other systems but has been refreshed to
> >> have a decent CPU and loads of RAM.
> > 
> > the mac mini nearly 15 years old. it's well past v2.
> 
> Sorry - I meant v2 figuratively. I have no idea what version it is - I 
> meant "the next one".

the next one might be very different. that could be good, irrelevant or
bad.

what do you want that isn't there now? 

	
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 19:20:46 +0000
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <e9mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net>
<5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
<291020171324346977%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net a4Xl5viG/EA19pnTXElevgYKqRpSqPd0yu+PD1cJi6ilAxtIOc
X-Orig-Path: squidward.local.dionic.net!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:spyISbo8+alxiHY4K47VDZ+pdcI=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.3.0
In-Reply-To: <291020171324346977%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-GB
Print Article
Forward Article
On 29/10/17 17:24, nospam wrote:
> In article<5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts
><tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> 2) Colour tuning the screen... Linux is not great at colour management
>>>> anyway and now we have a browser in the way too. So how faithful is the
>>>> colour rendering? Do we need to go to an iPad Pro to really review stuff?
>>>
>>> I don't do "Mac vs. whatever" and I'm *not* dissing your Linux system
>>> in any way. But if you're really into photography what you described
>>> above is a crying need for a 27" iMac. The display is phenomenal.
>>>
>>
>> I'm kinda waiting to see what Apple bring out next. It's either going to
>> be a MacBook Pro (which is recently re-released) or something else.
> 
> the imac pro is next, expected in a couple of months.
> 
> next year will likely have refreshes to the rest of the lineup, quite
> possibly with a few surprises, although those who closely watch the
> industry have a pretty good idea of what's coming.

Yep. I'm holding out with web/mobile to get my catalogue in order (never 
have, it's a big job). When the time comes to do some serious 
retouching, hopefully there will be all new choices from Apple. 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 16:14:51 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <291020171614510017%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net> <5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020171324346977%nospam@nospam.invalid> <e9mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="165483f2a3a2da85db80fc3ac9d07d60";
logging-data="7061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yxXRX9GW25DgfwjC34yPW"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q5WeKjQdBbb+tsX4qTHxc2qx7i4=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<e9mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> >>
> >> I'm kinda waiting to see what Apple bring out next. It's either going to
> >> be a MacBook Pro (which is recently re-released) or something else.
> > 
> > the imac pro is next, expected in a couple of months.
> > 
> > next year will likely have refreshes to the rest of the lineup, quite
> > possibly with a few surprises, although those who closely watch the
> > industry have a pretty good idea of what's coming.
> 
> Yep. I'm holding out with web/mobile to get my catalogue in order (never 
> have, it's a big job). When the time comes to do some serious 
> retouching, hopefully there will be all new choices from Apple.

what's wrong with the current choices? 

	
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 20:45:26 +0000
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <68rhce-2rp.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com>
<3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net>
<5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
<291020171324346977%nospam@nospam.invalid>
<e9mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
<291020171614510017%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ni/FmlJLxyItP/O8TLar3Qkw2+yGQDs1NjxFzFBMbd3UtWaPHM
X-Orig-Path: squidward.local.dionic.net!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WsTgk2rtauCOnNLIFGdhHdnuPj8=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.3.0
In-Reply-To: <291020171614510017%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-GB
Print Article
Forward Article
On 29/10/17 20:14, nospam wrote:
> In article<e9mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts
><tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> 
>>>>
>>>> I'm kinda waiting to see what Apple bring out next. It's either going to
>>>> be a MacBook Pro (which is recently re-released) or something else.
>>>
>>> the imac pro is next, expected in a couple of months.
>>>
>>> next year will likely have refreshes to the rest of the lineup, quite
>>> possibly with a few surprises, although those who closely watch the
>>> industry have a pretty good idea of what's coming.
>>
>> Yep. I'm holding out with web/mobile to get my catalogue in order (never
>> have, it's a big job). When the time comes to do some serious
>> retouching, hopefully there will be all new choices from Apple.
> 
> what's wrong with the current choices?
> 

Nothing if I went for an iPad or MacBook Pro. OTOH, a Mini might be 
good, if there's a decent refresh - so I'm holding out to see what 
happens :) 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 16:48:15 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <291020171648150222%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net> <5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020171324346977%nospam@nospam.invalid> <e9mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020171614510017%nospam@nospam.invalid> <68rhce-2rp.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="165483f2a3a2da85db80fc3ac9d07d60";
logging-data="23579"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UYyV2pFNyDpKgkFXqb4Ru"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tZd6wZipEDMSFZtjxE/Qd2lf69c=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<68rhce-2rp.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> >>>>
> >>>> I'm kinda waiting to see what Apple bring out next. It's either going to
> >>>> be a MacBook Pro (which is recently re-released) or something else.
> >>>
> >>> the imac pro is next, expected in a couple of months.
> >>>
> >>> next year will likely have refreshes to the rest of the lineup, quite
> >>> possibly with a few surprises, although those who closely watch the
> >>> industry have a pretty good idea of what's coming.
> >>
> >> Yep. I'm holding out with web/mobile to get my catalogue in order (never
> >> have, it's a big job). When the time comes to do some serious
> >> retouching, hopefully there will be all new choices from Apple.
> > 
> > what's wrong with the current choices?
> 
> Nothing if I went for an iPad or MacBook Pro. OTOH, a Mini might be 
> good, if there's a decent refresh - so I'm holding out to see what 
> happens :)

that doesn't answer the question.

the current mini as well as the previous version are very compelling
products. 

what do they not do that you want? 

	
From: android <here@there.was>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: android <here@there.was>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 16:01:01 +0100
Organization: the center
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <here-68E5C1.16010103112017@news.individual.net>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net> <5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020171324346977%nospam@nospam.invalid> <e9mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020171614510017%nospam@nospam.invalid> <68rhce-2rp.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>
X-Trace: individual.net XGgg/M6ueRziJPMSXD7Chggi6TPjfpNqyBCeiC8a9XxIT/kHkO
X-Orig-Path: here
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RrjjmKpzT/YllBmneY6HTdQaTq4=
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<68rhce-2rp.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
 Tim Watts<tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:

> On 29/10/17 20:14, nospam wrote:
> > In article<e9mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts
> ><tw_usenet@dionic.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm kinda waiting to see what Apple bring out next. It's either going to
> >>>> be a MacBook Pro (which is recently re-released) or something else.
> >>>
> >>> the imac pro is next, expected in a couple of months.
> >>>
> >>> next year will likely have refreshes to the rest of the lineup, quite
> >>> possibly with a few surprises, although those who closely watch the
> >>> industry have a pretty good idea of what's coming.
> >>
> >> Yep. I'm holding out with web/mobile to get my catalogue in order (never
> >> have, it's a big job). When the time comes to do some serious
> >> retouching, hopefully there will be all new choices from Apple.
> > 
> > what's wrong with the current choices?
> > 
> 
> Nothing if I went for an iPad or MacBook Pro. OTOH, a Mini might be 
> good, if there's a decent refresh - so I'm holding out to see what 
> happens :)

an educated but foolproof guess is that a new Mini comes after the new 
Pro when that modular system hits the shelfs. Holding your breath in 
anticipation could damage your health though...
-- 
teleportation kills 

	
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Lightroom CC
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 11:03:45 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <031120171103454863%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <5j2suctcn6mfirfs403pekdhlh584vc90o@4ax.com> <3dngce-gr5.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020170956045868%star@sky.net> <5jehce-72f.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020171324346977%nospam@nospam.invalid> <e9mhce-8hl.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <291020171614510017%nospam@nospam.invalid> <68rhce-2rp.ln1@squidward.local.dionic.net> <here-68E5C1.16010103112017@news.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8f0ad8b6e5e4c30afa8a484798c0278d";
logging-data="13313"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18N7uyikE/H+LthVqVh0ySG"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zH/CvXvA5EUARo/qzl53pQTf/dM=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<here-68E5C1.16010103112017@news.individual.net>, android<here@there.was> wrote:

>  Holding your breath in 
> anticipation could damage your health though...

is that what happened to you?