Here is something I never thought I’ll see, but sometimes the real world provide the most awesome nuggets. In their most recent newsletter, Adobe wanted to highlight some Lightroom features. Their way of doing so was to basically say that you don’t need to worry about anything camera related. Just fix it all with Lightroom later.
The title of the newsletter was “New benefits added to your Creative Cloud Photography plan“, so I reread the thing, really slowly now, here is the actual text from the newsletter:
Shoot now, fix later with Lightroom CC.
Don’t worry about perfect camera settings and lighting. With Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC, you can lighten, darken, sharpen, and more after you take the photo.
no, really.
This got me thinking if adobe realized how offensive this text may be to the majority of the photographers who are using their software. I mean, we share countless advice here on the blog about setting the right exposure, composition, lighting. We do that because most photographers care.
Comments to this advert ranged from slightly entertained, like “does it matter if we keep the lens cap on” or “Adobe even apply this to their products now: ‘release them, fix later’” ; through educating: “nothing can retrieve clipped highlights“; to plainly offended “You know what! Don’t even take the photo. Google the scene and download right to your computer“.
If you click the Get Started button, you get a similar message, removing the importance of actually taking the photograph right:
Streamline your shooting style with Lightroom
Let Lightroom take the worry out of photography so you can focus more on capturing the moment and less on getting camera settings just right. (See how, 4 min)
I am not really sure who wrote the copy for this ad, but I think they should actually be writing copy for After Effects.
[Adobe newsletter | h/t Réjean]
P.S. if you don’t want to click the newsletter, we got a screenshot for you here.
I am not a photographic genius, but when I started on an exercise created by Mike Johnston (The Online Photographer) called an OCOLOY (one camera, one lens, one year), I encountered an insurmountable problem with Lightroom… The files that my scanner produced were no longer supported by the version that I had bought, but were supported by version 2… I asked for a copy of version 2, since that was what I needed… This took hours of ‘internet chat’, and I got nowhere.
I asked for my money back and began to investigate other offerings.
I stumbled across something called Iridient Developer… No, that didn’t work with my files either, but I sent an email to the help desk, and a bloke called Brian Griffith emailed me back by return and asked for a couple of my files. I sent them to him and he said that yes these were not supported currently, but he would endeavour to put them in to the next update.
I thought that this was good service, even though he had only said that he would endeavour to help. So I bought the product, since it worked with my digital camera files and the promise was there for my scanner files. I also realised that I was talking to the actual programmer who had created the product… THE HORSE’S MOUTH!
Three weeks later, I received an email in which Brian told me that his program now supported my ancient Nikon scanner files.
I have since learned that the Iridient “workflow” is easy to understand, since it doesn’t try to hide anything from the user… Take a file, read it with Iridient, make the changes that you want and save it… The file is no longer an Iridient file.
Oh, and removing footballers, or moving lamp posts is not even possible, I don’t know how some professionals would cope, but as an amateur, I am happy.
Now that is service, and not only does the product HELP the photographer, it does not promise to replace the photographer, like the offer from Adobe.
Sure photographers know to get it right in camera, but don’t they give it too much importance.
As often it depends, notably of the type of photography they are doing.
Considering the exposure, RAWs are a bit like the analog Black&White films, they can take a lot of abuse. The exposure accuracy is mostly important if you shot JPEG only as it was when transparency film were used.
Considering the focus, a lot of the photographs that made the history of street photography and documentary photography are not so sharp.
“Focusing on the moment” is a great advice, even if not so much useful for still photography, and even landscape photography.
Adobe’s content aware watermark remover shows exactly how much they care about pictures or photographers. Adobe cares about subscriptions.
What do you think Anthony Gross
Or don’t shoot crappy photos to start with
Exactly!
Here’s a idea, learn how to shoot and use your camera!
agreed… what takes seconds to do in camera can take hours if not days to almost get the same effect in post.
I wish another company would compete with Adobe. They come up with great technologies, but they keep catering to the enthusiasts instead of the professionals. Export for web has become “legacy”?!?! Professionals apparently are a legacy in the minds at Adobe.
Capture One?
start as an enthusiast, end up as a professional
I stopped using Photoshop over 5 years ago and now only use it to watermark my work and maybe re-size for the internet.
Adobe is adjusting/appealing to a market of shooters coming over from phones and filters.
They have to appease that crowd. As an experienced photographer, this message isn’t for you. And that’s okay.
Definitely okay, but they still charge the rest of us for a professional product and no longer deliver.
I only retouch skin and create logos occasionally so there’s a lot in pp I don’t get into. What has been removed or forgotten in the suite?
i have zero problem with this. Why would I care if someone takes a crap photo and fixes it later. And why are Adobe wrong to point out their software can fix various problems.
I think anyone who might be worried about this probably has insecurity issues.
Then add a crappy Instagram or Prisma filter and make yourself think you are artist and a craftsman.
Really I don’t have a huge problem with however they want to sell it. I’m secure in my own process. I don’t use Lightroom. Don’t use anything cc. I also purposefully shoot in a way that, if not processed will look crappy. I have my in camera contrast set very low and have in camera sharpening set at a point where I can tell in camera if my focus is spot on. Both of those intentionally produce crappy photos if you DON’T process them but I shoot RAW.
With that said they clearly are aiming their ad at snapshooters, not people who shoot with thoughtful intent.
Well, they are right. Lots of people do this. When you have a hammer you use it.
If they didnt have the amateurs buying thier product en masse then it would be more expensive for the people that are buying it anyways. Quit the complaining.
Exactly what I was saying :)
sounds like pathetic photographers crying again….
Slow news day…
Editor- understand the context and the message they are forwarding. Don’t just dig into the words and make your own sentimental mindless judgement about a wonderful and powerful software. This is a crappy article. Guess you don’t have enough ideas to write….
“Photoshop is there to cut diamonds, not polish turds.”