Lightroom: Help regarding leaving comments on a public collection

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 3 years ago
  • (Edited)
Merged

This conversation has been merged. Please reference the main conversation: Lightroom Mobile: Client commenting, rating and liking collections without Adobe ID

Am I missing something here? I recently made a public collection of photos so that my friends could leave comments on their favourite photos. Is it right that you can't leave a comment or like a photo unless you have your own Adobe login? This seems stupid. What if I was to send this link to a client to proof my photos for me and they can't give any feedback because they don't have an Adobe login. So ... am I missing something here? None of my friends or family can do anything without being asked to login?
Photo of Gary Proctor

Gary Proctor

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like

Posted 3 years ago

  • 1
Photo of Roelof Moorlag

Roelof Moorlag

  • 208 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
I made a second adobe id for this purpose so the client does not have to do it. Btw, it's free.
Your friends of family don't need to login for just looking at your pictures however.
(Edited)
Photo of Gary Proctor

Gary Proctor

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Thanks for your comment Roelof. A handy tip.
Photo of David Fabian

David Fabian

  • 78 Posts
  • 19 Reply Likes
I thought a while on this. Personally I'm in favor of having to create a ID (or something like that) to be able to leave a comment. Consider the trolls. If commentary were open and anonymous then the amount of hateful and negative comments would be enormous. By having to actually commit your name to a comment we can better understand the dynamics of what appeals to your viewers and make the comments helpful rather than hurting.
Photo of Gary Proctor

Gary Proctor

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Thanks for your response David. Personally I don't agree, I think you should at least maybe have the choice to allow anonymous/non-logged in people to either comment or like.
Photo of Kent Messamore

Kent Messamore

  • 49 Posts
  • 29 Reply Likes
I also do not agree David.  When you post a link that link is to who ever you want to send it to.  Typically you will only send it to a client or a small number of people you trust. Those you send it to can view the images without an Adobe ID.  If you want to comment you must have an Adobe ID.  I think Adobe is making a mistake here because in few cases are a client going to have an ID and that is probably also true to a small group of your friends .  The key is that the link you send is not a public  link, it is rather private.  The idea of creating a fake Adobe ID to send along is a work-around only, but it is not a good solution.
Photo of David Fabian

David Fabian

  • 78 Posts
  • 19 Reply Likes
Thank you for your thoughts on this . While we have the ability to share a collection publically, once shared, we cannot control where it goes from there. Consider that if we share with person "X" and it's public, Person X can report that to as many social media accounts as they, and their followers have access to. I'm not with Adobe and am a Security person by trade and often think the worst of people and what they can do. Photography is just a hobby for me so I view Adobe's design from that point of view.

I think that the LR mobile share was designed with the intent that a pro would be sending a link to a client (even with an already created ID) in hopes of understanding what the client wanted or adjected in a particular collection to garner (or complete) the sale. The work around of creating an Adobe ID for adding commentary or even viewing a Privately share collection is a feasible solution.

From a security point of view enabling a anonymous communications channel elevates the notion of commenting on a photo to a covert communications channel (for US Homeland Security) with the anonymity being the problem.

General feedback on a series of images would be better served through other means (500px, flickr, Facebook, G+, reddit, imgur,...etc.)

In my opinion, the original poster would be better served with flickr or even their own web site (Publish via Web module) with email commentary back to the owner and leave Adobe out of it.

Consider that the original poster created a series of images and agreed (terms of service through use of Lightroom) that people leaving commentary would have to create an Adobe ID (albeit potentially fake email addresses). It's Adobe servers that the poster is using and subject to their Terms of Service. If they don't like it they need to use another medium of their own choosing.

I don't want to get into a debate over Adobe's practices of anonymous vs known access to a LR published collection is a good or bad business practice because it is spelled out in the terms of service that we agree to to enjoy that functionality.

I just don't want the photographer to be diminished in their pursuit of their work, their style and feedback that would help them rather than anonymous bullying or hurtful comments.
I interpreted that establishing the identity of a commentator or reviewer is what the core issue of the original post was. If I am mistaken, please let me know.
Photo of Gary Proctor

Gary Proctor

  • 4 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Like Kent said above, a public collection isn't necessarily really public. It could be to ONE client, FOUR family members or TWENTY close friends. I can't see the harm in it being a simple tick box for the user to choose whether non-Adobe customers can 'like' or leave a comment on a collection. Surely you can't lose such a good function as this just on the risk that someone is going to abuse your work. What's the harm in letting us decide this with a simple tick box collection setting?

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.