Help with Statistics (Lightroom)

[Ysarex]

OK, I know that Lightroom is the most used photo editing software -- no contest. My problem is how do I know that. I need to reference some stats from some where and Google is not helping me. No matter how I word the search all Google will do is give me cr*p like PC Mag's 10 best photo apps.

Any one who knows a source I can reference, than you very much.

Joe

 

[alexis.alvarez]

Try using this to search: "most popular photo editor software -best"

 

[JonA_CT]

I tried looking on my academic databases and couldn't find sales or usage data either. I'm sort of not surprised...especially as far as subscription rates go for CC, it's probably proprietary information.

I know it depends on definitions, but I think someone could probably argue that Instagram is the most used photo editor, as it's usage probably blows away Lightroom, although I know that's not what you mean.

 

[KmH]

I would be astonished if Lightroom was the most used photo editing application, period.
Unless you add a qualifier like - most used photo editing application by people that ..........

 

[Ysarex]

I would be astonished if Lightroom was the most used photo editing application, period.
Unless you add a qualifier like - most used photo editing application by people that ..........

Sorry, I meant Pro-level photo editing application. I wasn't referring to things like phone software, etc.

Joe

 

[KmH]

Yes, Adobe's Lr and Ps are the pretty much recognized as the industry standard but as mentioned I doubt Adobe has ever published such proprietary info.

I know a lot of pros that have Lr but instead regularly use an enterprise grade Raw converter/image database management application other than Lr.
Lr's inability to open more than 1 catalog at a time, or to be simultaneously accessed by a network of computers are serious shortfalls.
Someone may have conducted a survey, but surveys are easily manipulated to deliver a predetermined outcome.

 

[freddy21]

Try this. Percentage of pro users of Lightroom by a verifiable source.

 

[Ysarex]

Try this. Percentage of pro users of Lightroom by a verifiable source.

Thanks, but that was then -- I needed now.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Try this. Percentage of pro users of Lightroom by a verifiable source.

Thanks, but that was then -- I needed now.

Joe

Yes I would agree with that. 2009 was a long time ago in photographic terms. Lightroom really gained a lot of steam after 2009. I got my first copy of Lightroom back in 2012.

 

[Ysarex]

Try this. Percentage of pro users of Lightroom by a verifiable source.

Thanks, but that was then -- I needed now.

Joe

Yes I would agree with that. 2009 was a long time ago in photographic terms. Lightroom really gained a lot of steam after 2009. I got my first copy of Lightroom back in 2012.

My need has passed (I was involved in an argument). I think I have a fairly good sense of what's going on in the industry and I can't believe that LR isn't the dominant photographer's go to application for both image management as well as image processing. And I'd argue that LR merits that position which it achieved in 10 years. LR was released in 2007. No other single application comes close (among photographers) and that includes LR's big brother Photoshop.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Try this. Percentage of pro users of Lightroom by a verifiable source.

Thanks, but that was then -- I needed now.

Joe

Yes I would agree with that. 2009 was a long time ago in photographic terms. Lightroom really gained a lot of steam after 2009. I got my first copy of Lightroom back in 2012.

My need has passed (I was involved in an argument). I think I have a fairly good sense of what's going on in the industry and I can't believe that LR isn't the dominant photographer's go to application for both image management as well as image processing. And I'd argue that LR merits that position which it achieved in 10 years. LR was released in 2007. No other single application comes close (among photographers) and that includes LR's big brother Photoshop.

Joe

This forum has one particular member who constantly uses every opportunity to bash Lightroom, and to incessantly repeat a misleading half-truth about the parity between ACR, Photoshop,Adobe Bridge, and Lightroom. Constantly repeating that the development engine in a ACR is the same one used in Lightroom is disingenuous at best. Omitting the many easy-to-use quick fast and efficient image correction and adjustment tools that Lightroom has developed does no-one a favor. My feeling is that the industry as a whole has shifted from Photoshop and its emphasis of adjusting at the pixel level, to quick, easy, efficient adjustment of large numbers of images, using Lightroom.

 

[Ysarex]

My feeling is that the industry as a whole has shifted from Photoshop and its emphasis of adjusting at the pixel level, to quick, easy, efficient adjustment of large numbers of images, using Lightroom.

That was basically the argument I was having. And that was my position. And with very good reason as it's the better (more effective and efficient) way to work. Yes, we will always still need to clone out an occasional lamppost.

LR's dominance in the industry validates that position. And with Derrel backing me up; that settles that

Joe

 

[Derrel]

I would be astonished if Lightroom was the most used photo editing application, period.
Unless you add a qualifier like - most used photo editing application by people that ..........

....are invited to do educational seminars on CreativeLive.com,every week, 52 weeks a year
.....Speak at huge photo conventions, like WPPA
.....give seminars, talks, and lectures at PPA events across the United States
.....have large YouTube channels with hundreds of thousands of loyal subscribers
.....have a mindset that revolves around the twenty-teens,and are not ostalgiac for the 1990's

There is MUCH, much more to Lightroom than the "development engine" aspect that the one poster constantly references in attempt to disparage Lightroom or to cast doubt on the app. What about Lightroom presets? What about the adjustment brush tools Lightroom has? What about the actual on-screen windows and interface options that LR has, and that each individual user can custom-tailor?

What about the sheer speed, ease, and efficiency that LR is built around and geared toward? I used Photoshop since version 2.5 in the late 1990's...I "got into ACR" and automated image batch processing in 2007, and even bought "THE book" about ACR....I got the British fellow's software and used Automator software to record multi-step processes, so I could automatedly do complex import and adjustment and re-sizing routines using Photoshop: using routines I built myself, or borrowed from other Automator users.

But...once in 2012 I got Lightroom, within weeks, I was avoiding Photoshop's work flow ideas, and the PS app itself, for weeks at a time. Both apps are made by Adobe. I do not understand this continued denial of how fantastic Lightroom has become, and what it can do for actual "photographers".

 

[smoke665]

Being new to LR, PS and Bridge (I had avoided them because of a bad experience with Adobe previously), I found LR a little confusing. PS was more in line with the Corel PS version I had been using, so I drifted more toward it. Once I learned to use Bridge for file management and quick view, I just found myself unwilling to explore LR. Especially since I've developed a pretty good working library of Actions, Scripts, and Batch operations in PS.

I'm still trying to use LR, though I find it confusing, and the ability to make adjustments on a non-destructive layer in PS has a lot of advantage for me. Maybe once I become more familiar with it, I'll think it's the greatest, but for now I have a workflow that works for me.

 

[Ysarex]

Being new to LR, PS and Bridge (I had avoided them because of a bad experience with Adobe previously), I found LR a little confusing. PS was more in line with the Corel PS version I had been using, so I drifted more toward it. Once I learned to use Bridge for file management and quick view, I just found myself unwilling to explore LR. Especially since I've developed a pretty good working library of Actions, Scripts, and Batch operations in PS.

I'm still trying to use LR, though I find it confusing, and the ability to make adjustments on a non-destructive layer in PS has a lot of advantage for me. Maybe once I become more familiar with it, I'll think it's the greatest, but for now I have a workflow that works for me.

LR is a parametric editor. Parametric editing takes the concept of non-destructive editing further than PS. With a parametric editor non-destructive editing is fully realized such that anything done in the way of an edit can be surgically and singly undone. And this is accomplished without the need to save huge secondary files that consume resources. If you can do it parametrically it's the better way to go.

Joe