- 2 Posts
- 0 Reply Likes
Posted 2 years ago
- 3 Posts
- 2 Reply Likes
- 1 Post
- 3 Reply Likes
- 2 Posts
- 5 Reply Likes
I really need that softproofing & printing function.
If there's no change anywhere near soon, I'll opt out of my plan and switch back to Lightroom Classic CC...
- 172 Posts
- 81 Reply Likes
Or maybe in a revision 2.0 of CC?
If somebody knows, please share, because you care
- 20 Posts
- 13 Reply Likes
- 20 Posts
- 13 Reply Likes
- 13 Posts
- 1 Reply Like
- 172 Posts
- 81 Reply Likes
Sooooo strange
- 1 Post
- 2 Reply Likes
When will a printing module be added to Lightroom CC?
- 1 Post
- 2 Reply Likes
- 172 Posts
- 81 Reply Likes
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
Why no Word from Adobe?
- 1 Post
- 3 Reply Likes
WTF ADOBE - I give you $$$ every month and now I get nothing but edit and STORAGE! I don't want a workaround! I want a PRINT FEATURE - Abobe has definitely gone backwards. GRRRRR
- 1 Post
- 1 Reply Like
Photoshop CC coming to iOS (surely a print feature will come with)
For me it’s a matter of which comes first as I solely work in iOS and LR is the only logical DAM. AP may change that, I would migrate instantly if they beat Adobe to the punch because all their products are first class... but with PS CC coming out I would drop Aff Photo and go with a seamless integration workflow in adobe.
Which ever comes first really.
- 1 Post
- 1 Reply Like
Looked at this over 12 months ago and still the same problem ! Moving back to classic
- 5 Posts
- 2 Reply Likes
It's for the purpose of printing, of course, that I wish to send the highest resolution file to a pro printing service, but I can get only jpegs and DNGs + settings, which I am really not sure how they're going to be processed. Thanks!
Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion
- 4937 Posts
- 1918 Reply Likes
- 5 Posts
- 2 Reply Likes
Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion
- 4937 Posts
- 1918 Reply Likes
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
What I don't understand is why Adobe is silent about this - IMHO they should either:
1. Say that they aren't going to put a print / export module in because it's designed that way and explain their logic
2. Say that they are going to put these features in (even if it's not imminent).
best
- 6 Posts
- 6 Reply Likes
What are you all using as a work-around? I'm on a Mac and a total newb to printing.
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
I'm using both Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic but leading with Lightroom CC.
I'm on a Mac as well, and if you have the photographer's subscription then you can load classic - it will sync with the collections in CC and has a fine print module.
Alternatively (perhaps easier) you can right click on an image in classic and chose 'Edit in Photoshop' this will also allow you to print.
So - there are ways around it, but it's still stupid!
best
Jonathan
- 6 Posts
- 6 Reply Likes
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
Could you 'save to' a full sized jpg file and then print that in Preview (which does quite a good job of printing).
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
- 6 Posts
- 6 Reply Likes
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
- 12 Posts
- 5 Reply Likes
When this finally comes to Lightroom CC, I hope you keep and improve on the good bits.
Being able to print with the same level of control from the iOS app would be incredible. Not sure what is possible, but something like that would be a game changer. :)
- 13 Posts
- 1 Reply Like
- 3 Posts
- 1 Reply Like
- 4 Posts
- 3 Reply Likes
Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion
- 5040 Posts
- 1967 Reply Likes
The forum can make the dates look a little wonky. LR CC was only released October a year ago. But it's a popular request.
- 20 Posts
- 13 Reply Likes
- 3 Posts
- 1 Reply Like
- 21 Posts
- 3 Reply Likes
At a minimum, I will need to be able to make layout templates and select paper profiles within Lightroom CC.
- 172 Posts
- 81 Reply Likes
Is a print function is so hard to implement?
is it implemented in iOS version probably with embedded functionality of IOS. Why not in Mac OS ?
Will this be implemented or not?
Why no statement from an official?
- 3 Posts
- 2 Reply Likes
- 3 Posts
- 1 Reply Like
Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion
- 4852 Posts
- 1879 Reply Likes
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
- 5 Posts
- 2 Reply Likes
- 3 Posts
- 3 Reply Likes
- 5 Posts
- 2 Reply Likes
Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion
- 4852 Posts
- 1879 Reply Likes
Adobe will have some fairly significant stats on this, which will be a big factor in the decisions they've made so far. The main target audience for CC is not the same as the target audience for Classic, at least at this point of time.
Personally I can't remember the last time I printed a photo locally, since local or online labs do a good and economical job without needing to maintain a photo quality printer. If I did need to, I'd just send it to Photoshop, or save as Original+Settings to import into a temporary Classic catalog.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be pleased to see it added. But I'd put things like a Trash facility, better export options and saved searches ahead of it on my own priority list. Everyone's workflow is different, so your priorities may be different.
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
Yes indeed - tell me about it! as a camera tester and a software developer I'm only too aware of this (and like Radu I have no illusions about the complications of this). On the other hand I would have thought that most photographers would need one of the features missing from CC.
My own conclusion is that despite recommendations it's quite okay to run both applications (CC and Classic) parallel as long as you really understand what they're doing. That means that the improved filtering / book module / printing / exporting and other features not yet in CC can be used when needed.
- 4 Posts
- 2 Reply Likes
Ontopic: I thought Adobe would be faster with delivering left out features like printing and exporting. Now I'm not angry about Adobe not adding that basic functions - I knew that I don't get printing or exporting at the time I opted for the CC only subscription. I just hoped to get it soon. I guess most CC users who complain about missing features like printing are in the same boat now - nobody ever gave word THAT or WHEN those features will be added. If one is angry, it can only be because of disappointment.
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
I pay for the Photographer's thingy, with 1Tb of online storage (I think it's 12.50GBP a month). Yes - if you create a collection in CC it'll appear in Classic (but not the containers).
it seems to work pretty well - both programs download source files, but perhaps that isn't a bad thing.
. . and of course you then have all the background advantages of Classic, with the foreground advantages of CC
- 3 Posts
- 2 Reply Likes
Having to hop back-and-forth between two apps to get the functionality of one well-designed app seems kludgy at best. One would expect a company with the resources of Adobe to be able to share code libraries between apps, especially when those apps share a fundamental purpose (managing a library of image files).
Perhaps a more honest approach would have been for Adobe to christen the new Lightroom CC as "Lightroom Elements." That way, nobody expects full features.
In hindsight... that's unfair to Photoshop Elements. It has built-in print functionality.
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
Actually, whilst I agree that Victoria's 'last time I printed a photo' is a bit glib - CC is a 'built from ground up' application, and sharing libraries would be a kludge at best. In the end this will be good for all of us, the pain is now.
One of the main reasons I moved to CC was because of the processor power needed by CC (so so much less than classic). Processing images on my iPad Pro I can work for 8 hours with CC (on a plane for instance), whereas with classic on a MacBook Pro one is lucky to get an hour.
I'm sure that CC is the early stages of our future, but certainly I can't be doing with the missing stuff (exif searching / printing / book module / etc.) but it seems that one can reasonably successfully run Classic as a backup for what's missing in CC (even if Adobe don't recommend it)
.
- 20 Posts
- 13 Reply Likes
If they even think of eliminating the desktop (Classic) I will be totally done with Adobe.
The whole idea of LR was the catalogs and file control.
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
- 20 Posts
- 13 Reply Likes
Not buying any of it yet.
- 14 Posts
- 8 Reply Likes
You can't 'finish' it without feedback, and you can't get the feedback without launching it.
Sure, you have to pay for more cloud storage, but the Adobe storage is not expensive compared to other applications, and it works very well.
Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion
- 4852 Posts
- 1879 Reply Likes
Since you have a lovely printer like that, I completely understand why you'd be frustrated. The request has my vote, even though I wouldn't need it myself.
> It seems that CC was designed for tablets and phones.
Yes, that group of mobile photographers is the initial target audience, at least at this stage of development. And that target audience has less of a need for local printing compared to Classic's target audience. That may change in time, as it grows up, but right now this is not a replacement for Classic, and nor is it meant to be.
> Perhaps a more honest approach would have been for Adobe to christen the new Lightroom CC as "Lightroom Elements." That way, nobody expects full features.
Naming it Elements would limit its potential. It is still a baby at the moment, no question, but it'll grow up in time.
You sound like you'd be better sticking with Classic, at least for now Mitch & Jim.
- 3 Posts
- 3 Reply Likes
I work from several locations, so CC and universal access is very attractive as it solves my issue about how to see and work on photos in each place. But I still need to print, both for display and also for gifts and to enclose in notes. It would be helpful to know if printing in CC is “never” or “10 months out” or whatever so I can decide whether to invest my time in it. Perhaps you could share that with us.
Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion
- 4852 Posts
- 1879 Reply Likes
Like you, the universal access is a big benefit in my workflow, so if I needed to print locally, I'd edit in CC as normal, and then I'd save the edited photo and use any version of Lightroom (even an old perpetual license) or Photoshop to print, and then throw away the exported files. Whether that would work in your workflow, only you can tell.
- 5 Posts
- 2 Reply Likes
- 20 Posts
- 13 Reply Likes
- 172 Posts
- 77 Reply Likes
So why adobe is not able to use an apple API on osx to print a selected photo?
What is crazy about that?
I'm not a software developper but it seems apple offer this possibility : The AppKit Printing API - Apple Developerhttps://developer.apple.com/.../Printing/osxp_printingapi/osxp_pri...
We just want a simple print function but a weird export that ask us to find the file and to open it in an another soft then print it (Damn we are not all photographer but technical people and need simple and fast mobile solution).
This is unfair from adobe to let us pay and suffer so much restriction thanks to "baby" software.
(I've renew my subscription but really I'm fade up to read this again and again)
Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion
- 4852 Posts
- 1879 Reply Likes
> It seem pretty obvious that CC is not meant for the PC
The desktop versions are much younger, whereas the mobile apps have been available for years. Desktop also has some features that mobile doesn't have yet, and vice versa. The long term aim is feature parity, but we're a way off from that yet.
- 172 Posts
- 77 Reply Likes
No sorry i can’t believe it.
It is possible to print with every computer since probably the first computer exists and now with this kind of software it takes year to develop something to print?
Seriously?
And for example speak about iOS capability. Apple offer iCloud sync capabilities. Why not use iCloud sync capabilities to sync watermark setting. Why?
Why do I need to parameters on my Mac., on my iPhone, on my iPad separately? Why?
Because as simple it is, it is not on top priority of adobe developers.
Just crasy but it is as it. Adobe knows better than we what we need.
For example Adobe decide it is not possible to find a photo with its name. Why ? Is it so hard to use offline search or string text search? It is simple but adobe décided again we do not need this feature. Such a basic feature. Resulting no possibility to search a photo when offline.
- 172 Posts
- 77 Reply Likes
Victoria Bampton - Lightroom Queen, Champion
- 4852 Posts
- 1879 Reply Likes
> Because as simple it is, it is not on top priority of adobe developers.
And yes, prioritization is the crux of the matter. Like everything in life, there are limited resources, and they're trying to balance the needs of a wide range of customers. Of course that doesn't make it any less frustrating when that's the missing feature is the one you need.
- 172 Posts
- 77 Reply Likes
Anyway for a cloud centric solution the way Adobe offer with CC, everything this way should be possible or at least on top priorities.
But once again, I'm okay with you, ressources are not unlimited. Nevelseles, as a simple customer, we sometimes just asking if those ressources are efficiently used or to stay positive, we are wondering about what's in the pipe. Thats the big question in fact.
But finally and it is the more important, we are hopping those limitation are not just a case study of segmentation (marketing) to catch some news customers (with CC) and not allow existing customer (from classic) to switch from classic to CC.
- 2 Posts
- 0 Reply Likes
Please...
Related Categories
-
Lightroom Desktop (Cloud-based)
- 2294 Conversations
- 960 Followers