Lightroom: is Lightroom specifically restricted from from 'borrowing' certain tools and technology from Photoshop for marketing reasons?

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 7 years ago
  • Answered
  • (Edited)
This is a question for the the Lightroom team that I have a feeling won't get answered :) But we'll see. Are you specifically restricted from from 'borrowing' certain tools and technology from Photoshop for marketing reasons? I know the relationship between the two has often been visually represented as a Venn diagram (with Bridge as the 3rd circle) but of course, the more LR borrows the feature that make photoshop key for photographers, the less we may be compelled to buy it.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not asking in the cynical sense. It makes perfect sense although other reasons could be that LR prioritized not over complicating the interface etc etc.

Some of the no-brainer features (in my personal opinion) that could just be migrated and instantly make LR substantially more powerful: Clone/Healing brush, Soft Proofing (with slight better implementation), Content Aware fill, Layers... probably half a dozen other.

Once again, this is not meant to be cynical, rather, it's about expectation setting.
Photo of BenD

BenD

  • 25 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes

Posted 7 years ago

  • 1
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1042 Posts
  • 241 Reply Likes
You shouldn't be cynical (what about local adjustments for example?) but equally you shouldn't expect features such as layers to be copied from Photoshop just because they are in Photoshop.
Photo of BenD

BenD

  • 25 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
I'll have to double check... but I think I said I was NOT being cynical--twice in fact (was that cynical?).

John... my question is not if I should or should not expect things to be in LR just because they're in PS... clearly I should not expect that nor do I. The question has more to do with understanding the degree to which marketing drivers play a role in the future development of LR and what the degree of integration between PS and LR development actually is.
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1042 Posts
  • 241 Reply Likes
Double bluffing your cynicism? Hopefully not!

You're probably not going to get too big an insight into marketing drivers, which change over time anyway (remember when Aperture was the Photoshop killer, when DSLRs didn't shoot video etc).

That's why I'd point you to how easily one can look back over LR1-3 already and see quite a few features that have caused people to forego Photoshop upgrades or to go for Elements instead. There's not a lot of evidence of holding back stuff to protect existing markets - more of having done as much as they can with a small development team - and there's more evidence of technical issues (eg coming up with a good softproofing implementation) and assessment of what photographers want (do they really want softproofing anyway?).
Photo of BenD

BenD

  • 25 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
Your speculation is entirely valid--as speculation. And I'm not really holding out hard and fast evidence because I'm not really accusing anybody of anything. It's a valid question as it relates to the staging of implementation of certain technologies which already exist under the Adobe roof. And the only part of my question that I'll admit being cynical about is whether or not the only people that can actually answer it, will.

I don't necessarily disagree with your opinion. I'm just curious if it's fact.
Photo of john beardsworth

john beardsworth

  • 1042 Posts
  • 241 Reply Likes
I am not speculating, just pointing you to how past behaviour is evidence answering your underlying concern. Maybe somewhere you'll be able to find an official denial of holding back, and an explanation of how priorities are set - you know the Lightroom Journal?
Photo of Dan Tull

Dan Tull, Employee

  • 172 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
I can't speak to marketing reasons (because I'm a developer on the testing team, so I don't hear much about those aspects), but one big reason is simply because the two apps are so different.

For one thing, features in Photoshop are generally modeled around destructive (pixel altering) operations and Lightroom is non-destructive. Mapping features between those two models involves some very careful engineering. Also, under the hood, the two apps share remarkably little, so even if their UI/workflow and image editing designs weren't significantly different, feature sharing wouldn't always be as straightforward as you might expect.

Combine that with constrained resources, a relatively small team, and a host of other (non-imaging focused) feature demands and you get a situation where a lot of apparently applicable features don't cross the chasm.

So while I can't answer the question, I will say for as many discussions as I've heard related to cool imaging features for Lightroom, I can't recall any that ended due to concerns about having that feature in LR being a threat to Photoshop.
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 14004 Posts
  • 1718 Reply Likes
I've lived on both sides of the fence (Engineering and Product Management/Marketing) and my experience is similar to Dan's. His answer is pretty well sums it up.
Photo of BenD

BenD

  • 25 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
Makes sense. Thanks for the reply. I retract my cynicism :)
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 14123 Posts
  • 1761 Reply Likes
I'm glad Dan's comment made sense. It's an honest answer to an honest questions. Since you seem satisfied with it, I've marked the thread as answered.
Photo of BenD

BenD

  • 25 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
Yes please do... In fact his answer makes realize that I asked the wrong question... that being, 'what are the most significant bottlenecks to implementing pre-existing Adobe PS feature into LR'.
In any case, I look forward to all the future iterations for LR, a tool that I cannot imagine living without at this point. Your and Dan's openness is greatly appreciated.
Photo of Dan Tull

Dan Tull, Employee

  • 172 Posts
  • 38 Reply Likes
Glad the answer was helpful! I try to be as open as possible with customers and Adobe in general and the LR team in particular tend to be supportive of that approach.
Photo of Rob Cole

Rob Cole

  • 4831 Posts
  • 382 Reply Likes
My opinion: Although Adobe would probably not withhold features from Lightroom to attempt to "motivate" photographers to buy Photoshop, its legitimate to consider that features that already exist in Photoshop proper could be the last to make it into Lightroom. I mean if you think about it from a Lightroom point of view, having content-aware fill would be great, but then from a Photoshop point of view, it would now be in both ACR parametrically *and* Photoshop proper (destructively), hmmm.... -how does that work out for Photoshop? - no problem from a Lightroom user point of view, but from an Adobe point of view, they might want to choose other features for ACR out of Photoshop considerations (and that's what we'll get in Lightroom).

I mean, I really doubt Adobe is eager to implement layers parametrically in ACR, since those layers would not integrate well with the bitmap layers in Photoshop.

Present design of Lightroom: develop module is a thin wrapper around ACR, which is a front-end for Photoshop. As long as this fundamental relationship exists, there *is* a barrier to Photoshop features migrating to Lightroom. I wouldn't exactly call this a marketing conspiracy, but that doesn't mean its not real...