ramarren Posted February 7, 2017 Share #21 Posted February 7, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Since I have friends who swear by the subscription business and have used their computers, yes indeed: you get all the same performance updates and bug fixes with the perpetual license as you do with the subscription license. You just don't get the added features. I neither love nor hate Adobe. They produce products that are pretty much the standard of the industry. I long ago learned that using the standards, good or bad, got work done. I'm not enthused about their pushing people to a subscription model, but I understand why they're doing it. It's cash flow, plain and simple. Whatever minor advantages accrue to the users are nothing compared to the enormous advantage there is to the company: getting a small check from a half million users every month is FAR FAR better for the business than getting a big check from those same users every 9 or 18 months. I don't see anything in that to make an analogy of "subscription firmware updates" vs "free firmware updates" of any particular meaning to it, presuming that there's no difference between the updates. If what you're saying is that the subscription updates might have additional features or whatever, well, I think Leica would sell a good number of subscriptions. Particularly if the additional features were what the users really wanted and Leica was simply looking for a way to fund their development. They'd certainly do the same bug fixes and performance updates, though, because NO tiered program like this would survive users discovering that the provider was fixing the bugs but only for paid users. Which is, in the reverse logic, the same reason why it is inconceivable that Adobe would do that. From what I see in the few M10 raw files I've mucked with, LR6.8 does a nice job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 Hi ramarren, Take a look here Lightroom with M10. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted February 7, 2017 Share #22 Posted February 7, 2017 It's cash flow, plain and simple. Whatever minor advantages accrue to the users are nothing compared to the enormous advantage there is to the company: getting a small check from a half million users every month is FAR FAR better for the business than getting a big check from those same users every 9 or 18 months. Duh...ya think? I'm shocked. I'm retired after working at senior levels of some major corporations, as well as running my own business. There are often better ways to conduct business, even profitably. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 7, 2017 Share #23 Posted February 7, 2017 Duh...ya think? I'm shocked. I'm retired after working at senior levels of some major corporations, as well as running my own business. There are often better ways to conduct business, even profitably. So if you feel that strongly about it, don't do business with Adobe. Simple. Why complain about it constantly? I'm retired after working at senior levels in three corporations, and running my own business, too. There are many ways to conduct business profitably. Unless it's your responsibility to make such choices in how to do business at a given company, it is most likely that you don't have all the information needed to understand their decisions fully. And they, like you, can always inadvertently make the wrong decision. Such is life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted February 7, 2017 Share #24 Posted February 7, 2017 Pot/kettle. I could provide a list of many your pet peeves/products and pet products/companies....repeated ad nauseam....including complaints about complaints that you just don't happen to share. It's called forum discussion, in this case about Adobe's LR offerings. If you don't like my comments, ignore me. Simple. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireboy Posted February 8, 2017 Share #25 Posted February 8, 2017 you can check out ON1 Software, they just introduced a new RAW editor for $119/USD perpetual license. Directly competing with lightroom. https://www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookedart Posted February 8, 2017 Share #26 Posted February 8, 2017 I think with Lightroom's performance still being as slow as it is, plus the forcing of cloud subscriptions will be cause for people to start seriously considering alternatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted February 8, 2017 Share #27 Posted February 8, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) no issues with LR speed here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted February 8, 2017 Share #28 Posted February 8, 2017 As I mentioned before in other threads, it's about time Leica developed its own basic raw converter, like canon does. You can export the images as 16bit tiffs and work on them further in any image editor you prefer. But basic raw conversion should be provided for free with any camera, and not as 90 days trial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted February 8, 2017 Share #29 Posted February 8, 2017 As I mentioned before in other threads, it's about time Leica developed its own basic raw converter, like canon does. You can export the images as 16bit tiffs and work on them further in any image editor you prefer. But basic raw conversion should be provided for free with any camera, and not as 90 days trial. Honestly, if you can afford a camera (even a Canon)...you can afford a good photo editor. Even if Leica provided a free RAW converter I would never use it when you have a tool like Lightroom available. LR is not a RAW converter, its your darkroom. Its simple to use, affordable and very powerful. If you haven't seen this, a great set of tips that also show the power of the software: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmXfFxjdp3CFWa1egQmUNo10XtJdNHoa2 The tax you paid on your M10 was more than you will spend on LR over the next 5 years. The purpose of using a program like LR vs a RAW converter is that you are working in RAW the entire time until the final conversion. Why would you want to convert out of RAW and work in another program? 16-bit tiffs are huge...why go thru all these extra steps and overhead to save a few dollars? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted February 8, 2017 Share #30 Posted February 8, 2017 I have spent so much money in cameras and lenses, and time in photography, that I dont see myself saving a few Euros in regards of software. I have experienced several times that the latest profiles can make quite a difference. Thats why I personally gave up and booked the LR and PS abo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
@ndy_ellis Posted February 8, 2017 Share #31 Posted February 8, 2017 Advice I was given was to learn PS because it is the industry standard and it just wins. I haven't invested the time to get beyond LR (or even exploit LR's full potential) but I have a subscription to CC and it is very painless. I think there were so many pirate copies of PS around that it is hard to criticse the SaaS model in this instance. Cloud services do mount up in cost when I peer at my statements through my fingers but this one is fundamental and I can't see me going back to the old licence model. I got a very good deal at £7.14 per month. That's three good quality takeway coffees in London Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted February 8, 2017 Share #32 Posted February 8, 2017 Honestly, if you can afford a camera (even a Canon)...you can afford a good photo editor. Even if Leica provided a free RAW converter I would never use it when you have a tool like Lightroom available. LR is not a RAW converter, its your darkroom. Its simple to use, affordable and very powerful. If you haven't seen this, a great set of tips that also show the power of the software: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmXfFxjdp3CFWa1egQmUNo10XtJdNHoa2 The tax you paid on your M10 was more than you will spend on LR over the next 5 years. The purpose of using a program like LR vs a RAW converter is that you are working in RAW the entire time until the final conversion. Why would you want to convert out of RAW and work in another program? 16-bit tiffs are huge...why go thru all these extra steps and overhead to save a few dollars? I think you misunderstood me in that it's not about the money. I had a yearly subscription in LR/PS but always preferred to use the simpler and faster PS elements. I am not a huge fan of post processing and more interested in taking photos rather than manipulating them in the computer. We all have different needs and skills, but mine don't include being a graphic designer. I think Leica does a nice job with the camera jpgs, esthetically more pleasing than adobe's interpretation. It would be nice to have a basic converter that emulates the camera jpg engine. Obviously your skills are much more sophisticated than mine but money is definitely not a concern so it's not necessary to make suggestions that I'm trying to save a few cents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Monkhouse Posted February 8, 2017 Share #33 Posted February 8, 2017 Capture One is seriously good software and I use it with an old Adobe CS4 (the dust removal tool is better) but Elements would suffice. When I asked CO if the they intended to move to subscription only they said no. CO has an updated version once a year and cost the equivalent of £8 per month. Regular tweaks and updates appear throughout the year. David... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted February 8, 2017 Share #34 Posted February 8, 2017 I think you misunderstood me in that it's not about the money. I had a yearly subscription in LR/PS but always preferred to use the simpler and faster PS elements. I am not a huge fan of post processing and more interested in taking photos rather than manipulating them in the computer. We all have different needs and skills, but mine don't include being a graphic designer. I think Leica does a nice job with the camera jpgs, esthetically more pleasing than adobe's interpretation. It would be nice to have a basic converter that emulates the camera jpg engine. Obviously your skills are much more sophisticated than mine but money is definitely not a concern so it's not necessary to make suggestions that I'm trying to save a few cents. As I mentioned before in other threads, it's about time Leica developed its own basic raw converter, like canon does. You can export the images as 16bit tiffs and work on them further in any image editor you prefer. But basic raw conversion should be provided for free with any camera, and not as 90 days trial. Yes, but what you are proposing is more complicated and carries more overhead. I do understand that LR isn't for everyone, but I just wanted to point out that its not complicated nor does it require any skills. My 10 year old daughter uses LR. The beauty of LR is that its as simple or complicated as you want it. The basic functions of importing RAW and converting to the file and size of your choice is stupid simple. Import, make small tweaks if desired (WB, exposure, sharpness) and click export. Far easier (and less overhead) than opening a free RAW converter and exporting TIFF, then opening another program to adjust and export. I would prefer Leica dedicate their limited resources to other things rather than making yet another crappy and free RAW converter. The files are .DNG...not hard to find a RAW converter if that workflow suits your needs better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 8, 2017 Share #35 Posted February 8, 2017 As I mentioned before in other threads, it's about time Leica developed its own basic raw converter, like canon does. You can export the images as 16bit tiffs and work on them further in any image editor you prefer. But basic raw conversion should be provided for free with any camera, and not as 90 days trial. I have tried every manufacturers' raw converter over the years, Edward, whenever available. None have ever been particularly good, or without so many other serious problems of compatibility and support that they simply aren't at all useful, and certainly not competiive to the independent software vendors' products. In most cases (even Nikon and Canon!) the software applications are jobbed out to third party vendors anyway. Leica should stay away from that mess and continue to do what they do best, which is make cameras and lenses, not consumer software applications. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted February 8, 2017 Share #36 Posted February 8, 2017 Capture One is seriously good software and I use it with an old Adobe CS4 (the dust removal tool is better) but Elements would suffice. When I asked CO if the they intended to move to subscription only they said no. CO has an updated version once a year and cost the equivalent of £8 per month. Regular tweaks and updates appear throughout the year. David... +1. And it's what I am by now habituated to. In several cases (e.g. Fuji files) they have worked harder and done a better job than Adobe chose to do (I'm sure Adobe could do anything they choose, but they seem to limit their investments in the smaller markets). Where I feel that Leica with the M10 has let us down is in letting Adobe be the only RAW file software developer they worked with before release. Others (Capture One, Iridient, etc...) have to figure stuff out on their own with no help from Leica, even though they contribute to Leica's market. What bothers me most is corrections such as the WarpRectangular opcodes, which the SL put into generally accessible form in their DNG files, not only for the SL zooms which definitely need these but also for M wides and R zooms and wides. I have no inside information on this but it appears that the opcode route is more powerful than the more restricted correction techniques that Adobe offers in their proprietary LR correction files that the M10 calls out. The opcode corrections can be calculated by the lens designers. Forgoing the opcode route may have saved the M10 team a little development cost but it plays into Adobe's "600 pound gorilla" lock on the market, which will eventually be to the detriment of all of us. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted February 8, 2017 Share #37 Posted February 8, 2017 I have tried every manufacturers' raw converter over the years, Edward, whenever available. None have ever been particularly good, or without so many other serious problems of compatibility and support that they simply aren't at all useful, and certainly not competiive to the independent software vendors' products. In most cases (even Nikon and Canon!) the software applications are jobbed out to third party vendors anyway. Leica should stay away from that mess and continue to do what they do best, which is make cameras and lenses, not consumer software applications. +1 Camera manufacturers writing raw file software is a truly terrible idea. Olympus also keeps proving this. The most natural strategy is for each manufacture to do what they are best at, and put some energy into keeping the other component markets as competitive as possible, so that their customers get access to the best choices. Adobe's strong position makes this part a challenge. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted February 8, 2017 Share #38 Posted February 8, 2017 I have to agree with the guys who mentioned C1. I find the color rendering and the general look of the files to be the most pleasing even at default settings. It's easily the best converter out there imho. However, my brain seems to be stuck with ACR, as this is what I have used since I started shooting raw in 2004. I have used it both in PS and PSE and really appreciate the controls layout and simplicity. I tried very hard to get comfortable with the workflow of C1 but I keep coming back to ACR, despite not liking the rendering so much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted February 8, 2017 Share #39 Posted February 8, 2017 I have to agree with the guys who mentioned C1. I find the color rendering and the general look of the files to be the most pleasing even at default settings. It's easily the best converter out there imho. However, my brain seems to be stuck with ACR, as this is what I have used since I started shooting raw in 2004. I have used it both in PS and PSE and really appreciate the controls layout and simplicity. I tried very hard to get comfortable with the workflow of C1 but I keep coming back to ACR, despite not liking the rendering so much. I just work the rendering, no matter what raw converter I'm using, until I get the results I'm pleased with. Once I learn how to do that, I can do it in a couple of minutes every time. I've tried to use Capture One a dozen times or more. Just like Silkypix and the Olympus raw converter, it fights me every time. So I've given up and don't bother with it. Lightroom doesn't get in my way and produces the results I want—that's all that matters to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Cole Posted February 21, 2017 Share #40 Posted February 21, 2017 re Image Editing - Does anyone know whether DNG files from M10 can be handled directly by older versions of Lightroom - specifically LR 3.6 - Grateful for any answers - Tony Cole Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.