Comments on: The Lightroom Conspiracy http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/the-lightroom-conspiracy/ Online Photoshop Lightroom Tutorials and Tips with Matt Kloskowski Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:08:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Walt Sorensen http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/the-lightroom-conspiracy/#comment-4294 Walt Sorensen Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:12:17 +0000 http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/?p=852#comment-4294 To Nick, You missed my point. LR is low cost compared to other software that truly is broken. My alliteration to Revit was about what a real rip off is. Unlike Revit, LR does 99% of what adobe says it does. For the price it is well worth it. Go read jkost.com and learn what LR is truly about. I hope by now you have updated to 2.4 and got some of the fixes you complain about. LR is great if you understand what it is for. To Nick,

You missed my point. LR is low cost compared to other software that truly is broken. My alliteration to Revit was about what a real rip off is. Unlike Revit, LR does 99% of what adobe says it does. For the price it is well worth it. Go read jkost.com and learn what LR is truly about.

I hope by now you have updated to 2.4 and got some of the fixes you complain about. LR is great if you understand what it is for.

]]> By: Nick http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/the-lightroom-conspiracy/#comment-4293 Nick Mon, 06 Oct 2008 05:39:17 +0000 http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/?p=852#comment-4293 To Walt Sorensen. NONSENSE! I do NOT claim I have paid "good money" I HAVE! Here in England Adobe. and others, continue to "rip-off" the consumer with massively inflated prices. They have absolutely no cohesive answer when asked why! Revit MEP 2009? Completely irrelevant! Why is this important to me? Your argument is flawed! LR 2.0 costs $99.0 in the USA, £92.82 in England! Work it out, thats a con! LR 2.0 was/is unfit for purpose. That is unacceptable, period! To Walt Sorensen. NONSENSE!

I do NOT claim I have paid “good money” I HAVE!

Here in England Adobe. and others, continue to “rip-off” the consumer with massively inflated prices. They have absolutely no cohesive answer when asked why!

Revit MEP 2009? Completely irrelevant! Why is this important to me? Your argument is flawed!

LR 2.0 costs $99.0 in the USA, £92.82 in England! Work it out, thats a con!

LR 2.0 was/is unfit for purpose. That is unacceptable, period!

]]> By: alex http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/the-lightroom-conspiracy/#comment-4292 alex Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:07:58 +0000 http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/?p=852#comment-4292 thanks matt & scott for all your work. thanks matt & scott for all your work.

]]> By: Walt Sorensen http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/the-lightroom-conspiracy/#comment-4291 Walt Sorensen Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:59:54 +0000 http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/?p=852#comment-4291 To Nick who claims he has paid "good money" go look at Revit MEP 2009 from autodesk. That program still has major problems and is missing core content that users have to make or live without. Some users complain that at $5,695 per license they are beta testing. That's good money. If we paid that much for LR or PS I could understand the anger, but at $299 for LR we have little to complain about. We get a bargain for a great tool. I praise adobe for providing a great program at an affordable price! To Nick who claims he has paid “good money” go look at Revit MEP 2009 from autodesk. That program still has major problems and is missing core content that users have to make or live without. Some users complain that at $5,695 per license they are beta testing. That’s good money. If we paid that much for LR or PS I could understand the anger, but at $299 for LR we have little to complain about. We get a bargain for a great tool. I praise adobe for providing a great program at an affordable price!

]]> By: Walt Sorensen http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/the-lightroom-conspiracy/#comment-4290 Walt Sorensen Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:47:46 +0000 http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/?p=852#comment-4290 Is it just me, or is this a chicken or the egg issue? CS3 came first, so people jumped to LR. Now LR2 is first, so people Jump to CS4. I think far too many people think of LR as just a fancy version of ACR or bridge. I guess the concept of Asset managment is far to new for people to grasp. Is it just me, or is this a chicken or the egg issue? CS3 came first, so people jumped to LR. Now LR2 is first, so people Jump to CS4.

I think far too many people think of LR as just a fancy version of ACR or bridge. I guess the concept of Asset managment is far to new for people to grasp.

]]> By: Lisa Epp http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/the-lightroom-conspiracy/#comment-4289 Lisa Epp Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:25:55 +0000 http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/?p=852#comment-4289 After reading your post, watching the video and reading these comments... right now I'm really very happy having not updated either LR or CS3. LOL. I'm plugging along, very happily. :) After reading your post, watching the video and reading these comments… right now I’m really very happy having not updated either LR or CS3. LOL.
I’m plugging along, very happily. :)

]]> By: Chris Belyea http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/the-lightroom-conspiracy/#comment-4288 Chris Belyea Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:40:34 +0000 http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/?p=852#comment-4288 Matt, thanks for the link to the video. Both you and Scott made complete sense of a rather 'unusual' situation Matt, thanks for the link to the video. Both you and Scott made complete sense of a rather ‘unusual’ situation

]]> By: Nick http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/the-lightroom-conspiracy/#comment-4287 Nick Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:42:39 +0000 http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/?p=852#comment-4287 I have written several times about LR 2.0, 1. I have paid good money, and I expect this product to work properly. It doesn`t! 2. Arrogant and incompetent customer support, from Adobe (UK), have not exactly endeared me to the company. 3. Unless Adobe release a version that does work, I am considering asking for my money back. 4. John Nack`s rather silly comments concerning Aperture really did sound like the comments of a desperate or stupid man I am sure John isn`t stupid, but again, these comments did not endear many people, including me, to Adobe. 5. With little or no competition, Adobe can treat people in any way they want. They release sub-standard products and frankly, no matter how angry we are, they do not care, and because we all have nowhere else to take our money we are all completely cornered! 6. If Adobe recognise the way many of us feel, if they release software at reasonable prices that actually work and if they improve their customer support massively then I will be the first to support them. I am not holding my breath! Nick I have written several times about LR 2.0,

1. I have paid good money, and I expect this product to work properly. It doesn`t!
2. Arrogant and incompetent customer support, from Adobe (UK), have not exactly endeared me to the company.
3. Unless Adobe release a version that does work, I am considering asking for my money back.
4. John Nack`s rather silly comments concerning Aperture really did sound like the comments of a desperate or stupid man I am sure John isn`t stupid, but again, these comments did not endear many people, including me, to Adobe.
5. With little or no competition, Adobe can treat people in any way they want. They release sub-standard products and frankly, no matter how angry we are, they do not care, and because we all have nowhere else to take our money we are all completely cornered!
6. If Adobe recognise the way many of us feel, if they release software at reasonable prices that actually work and if they improve their customer support massively then I will be the first to support them.

I am not holding my breath!

Nick

]]> By: captain spin http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/the-lightroom-conspiracy/#comment-4286 captain spin Tue, 30 Sep 2008 03:06:11 +0000 http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/?p=852#comment-4286 I too am having terrible trouble with LR2 RC1 on my IMac (24inch-10.5.5). I am having freeze-ups, system freezes, weird catalogue issues, it is just scary. This must be fixed and soon. I have talked to Apple help and Adobe help with really no solutions other than rebuilds and reverting to older versions. I think I will avoid LR as much as possible until this sorts out. I too am having terrible trouble with LR2 RC1 on my IMac (24inch-10.5.5). I am having freeze-ups, system freezes, weird catalogue issues, it is just scary. This must be fixed and soon. I have talked to Apple help and Adobe help with really no solutions other than rebuilds and reverting to older versions. I think I will avoid LR as much as possible until this sorts out.

]]> By: Peter http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/the-lightroom-conspiracy/#comment-4285 Peter Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:46:31 +0000 http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/?p=852#comment-4285 Hi Matt, Great to get things aired out, on the table and to hear both sides of the discussion. I do have a question for Adobe guys that maybe you or Scott can pass on. Why can't the layouts of the various panels in Lr and Camera raw be exactly the same if they in fact do the same functions ? I use both Lr and Camera Raw and I find it frustrating to have to scan the various panels to find a specific adjustment that is being driven by the exact same engine. Let me give you an example(s) - the local adjustment brush - in Lr 2.0 the brush add and erase are in different locations than in the new Camera Raw. Camera raw has toggles for mask and points. Just to mention a few. I see no apparent reason as to why the development panels are not layed out and operate the exact same way in both programs. For those who choose to use both Adobe products, a consistent interface would seem to make sense. Your thoughts as to why the two interface design teams are not talking to each other. Thanks Hi Matt,

Great to get things aired out, on the table and to hear both sides of the discussion.

I do have a question for Adobe guys that maybe you or Scott can pass on.

Why can’t the layouts of the various panels in Lr and Camera raw be exactly the same if they in fact do the same functions ?

I use both Lr and Camera Raw and I find it frustrating to have to scan the various panels to find a specific adjustment that is being driven by the exact same engine.

Let me give you an example(s) – the local adjustment brush -

in Lr 2.0 the brush add and erase are in different locations than in the new Camera Raw. Camera raw has toggles for mask and points. Just to mention a few.

I see no apparent reason as to why the development panels are not layed out and operate the exact same way in both programs.

For those who choose to use both Adobe products, a consistent interface would seem to make sense.

Your thoughts as to why the two interface design teams are not talking to each other.

Thanks

]]>