• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Dark mode now has a single preference for the whole site! It's a simple toggle switch in the bottom right-hand corner of any page. As it uses a cookie to store your preference, you may need to dismiss the cookie banner before you can see it. Any problems, please let us know!

Downloading RAW files to Lightroom on an iPad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, you can download raw files on an iPad, but Lightroom Mobile does not support raw files. It simply does not see them.
 
There is a work around, but it requires a good internet connection during traveling, and it requires that your home desktop computer stays on and Lightroom on that desktop is running all the time while you are traveling. Not really a setup I would use, but I thought I would let you be the one to decide that for yourself: RAW Photo import and editing on the iPad - it CAN be done!
 
Thank you Johan for your answers. I had come to the same conclusion but thought that I must be wrong.
It leaves me wondering at the value of having Lightroom Mobile, at least for me. I guess I will have to invest in a stand alone back-up and wait until I get home before processing my images.
 
Lightroom Mobile is a work in progress, so we may see raw support one of these days. The built-in camera app in LR Mobile for Android can shoot in DNG, so that's a small step. Right now LR Mobile is indeed of limited value. Personally, I think that Adobe has focussed on the wrong things for a while. They keep adding editing features, but they still do not support adding keywords and other metadata. To me, the ability to add metadata is much more interesting than editing images on a non-color managed tablet.

Adobe seems to focus more on selfie-shooters than on serious photographers these days. That does not only show in Lightroom Mobile, but also in Lightroom for the desktop. We still remember the disaster of the CC2015.2 update that was aimed at making Lightroom easier for newbees, and look at a new feature like 'Ken Burns' effects in slide shows. These effects are quite powerful if you can control them, so you can decide what effect is used for an image, and you can control the effect itself (how far does the zoom effect go, from where to where does the panning go). Apple Aperture could do that, but Lightroom only has an option to add random effects. Nice for selfie-shooters, totally useless for serious users. But let's be optimistic...
 
It's that 'perceived market' that worries me. It seems to be selfie-shooters and people using a phone to make pictures rather than a decent camera... I simply don't think you can make a 'one fits all' product. If Lightroom is good for selfie-shooters, it won't be good for me. That is exactly the reason why real photographers leave Apple Aperture for Lightroom, not for Apple Photos.
 
I have no doubt that sooner or later Lightroom Mobile will be able to process raw photos and will be used as a replacement for a laptop while travelling. So far, no matter how much some people think that's what it must be, it has not pretended to be that tool. See this article.

That doesn't mean it's not for serious users - there are other ways to use it and its sibling Lightroom Web.
 
That article is two years old exactly. A lot of things have changed since then, such as the iPad Pro with USB 3.0 connection. Only Lightroom Mobile didn't change much. I recently downloaded dozens of Sony A7R raw files (36 Mp!) to my iPad Mini. Granted, it was not that fast, but it's doable. I was also able to edit some of these raw images, so I could place a few on Facebook. But I could just not use Lightroom Mobile to do it...
 
It is hard to consider a mobile device suitable for a RAW image processor. The first area that it falls short is storage. With a storage capacity about the size of a camera card, you won't get many 36mp Raw images. These 64GB or even 128GB mobile devices need to use that capacity for RAM, OS Apps, possibly music and then anything left over can be used to store images from an external camera. i thought that I could use my iPad as a replacement for my laptop. I bought a card reader to transfer my camera images to the iPad. That plan fell through the first extended camera trip that I took with the iPad. I now have a MBP that runs LR but can't benefit from my LR catalog on my desktop computer or LR Mobile.
 
Last edited:
That article is two years old exactly. A lot of things have changed since then, such as the iPad Pro with USB 3.0 connection. Only Lightroom Mobile didn't change much.

Two years old but still basically true, Johan. I did say "I have no doubt that sooner or later Lightroom Mobile will be able to process raw photos". However, people aren't replacing tablets or phones so quickly, and Lightroom Mobile/Web has in fact changed plenty, just not in that direction.

If you had to buy a new iPad to process raw files, and not as well as on a real computer, would you really spend that extra money? A few might, plenty won't. I know I'm happier that they first broaden its capability.

John
 
Two years old but still basically true, Johan. I did say "I have no doubt that sooner or later Lightroom Mobile will be able to process raw photos". However, people aren't replacing tablets or phones so quickly, and Lightroom Mobile/Web has in fact changed plenty, just not in that direction.

And that was exactly my point. It seems to move in the direction of snapshooters and selfie-makers...
 
Personally, I think that Adobe has focussed on the wrong things for a while. ... To me, the ability to add metadata is much more interesting than editing images on a non-color managed tablet.

Adobe seems to focus more on selfie-shooters than on serious photographers these days. ... That does not only show in Lightroom Mobile, but also in Lightroom for the desktop.
Nice for selfie-shooters, totally useless for serious users. But let's be optimistic...

Johan,

You are describing a product strategy that seems seriously out of whack, mis-aligned. Selfie-shooters are probably less likely than the "average" to even use a PC or Mac, so Lightroom for PC or Mac is simply irrelevant to them. But even if they were inclined to use a desktop/laptop, they would not pay US $145 for the perpetual license or US $10 a month for the CC subscription, not when most iPhone apps cost under $10 or even $5.

On the other hand, judging by the pictures of members of this forum, I think "on average" we aren't selfie-shooters (unless using a tripod and self-timer.)

So if your comments and my observations are correct, the decision-making in Adobe these days is completely emotional and in need of "adult supervision."

Phil Burton
 
Maybe they are indeed. :)

Of course I am exaggerating a bit, but I do think that Adobe is leaning towards less serious photographers, for the simple reason that the photography market is like a piramid; the lower you go, the bigger it gets. If shareholders want continued growth, then it may be inevitable to go lower and move away from a professional product towards a more mainstream product.

And as far as Lightroom Mobile is concerned, I do see an emphasis on people using their phones as cameras. One of the last updates added a built-in camera, not raw-support, not support for adding keywords, not support for organizing your collections in sets, not support for selective sync (so you can sync different collections to your iPad and your iPhone), just to name a few much more useful features.
 
And that was exactly my point. It seems to move in the direction of snapshooters and selfie-makers...

Who use features like HSL and B&W with a targeted adjustment tool? Or Tone Curve? Or Dehaze? Who use Before/After comparisons, and clipping indicators? It may not have moved in the direction of processing raw files on devices unsuitable to be a laptop substitute, but plenty has changed.

I must admit, I am rather mystified by the addition of camera features!
 
The lack of colour management doesn't matter that much. You use LrM to get into the ballpark, which it does perfectly well, and then fine tune stuff when you're back chained to the desk.
 
The lack of colour management doesn't matter that much. You use LrM to get into the ballpark, which it does perfectly well, and then fine tune stuff when you're back chained to the desk.
 
Maybe they are indeed. :)

Of course I am exaggerating a bit, but I do think that Adobe is leaning towards less serious photographers, for the simple reason that the photography market is like a piramid; the lower you go, the bigger it gets. If shareholders want continued growth, then it may be inevitable to go lower and move away from a professional product towards a more mainstream product.

And as far as Lightroom Mobile is concerned, I do see an emphasis on people using their phones as cameras. One of the last updates added a built-in camera, not raw-support, not support for adding keywords, not support for organizing your collections in sets, not support for selective sync (so you can sync different collections to your iPad and your iPhone), just to name a few much more useful features.

John,

Couple more points. First, although the pyramid is bigger towards the bottom, as far as price is concerned, the pyramid is inverted. Second, think about the Adobe brand overall. What is the "promise of benefits" and to whom is that set of benefits targeted? It's creative professionals and serious amateurs. Adobe Creative Suite is like Microsoft Office for creative professionals, the standard. For those target market segments, the Adobe brand is very strong. Adobe even named their new delivery model Creative Cloud.

Now let's consider the average selfie-shooter. They probably never heard of Adobe. They have probably heard of Photoshop, as in, "The picture of that supermodel was Photoshopped to remove blemishes." The Adobe brand has little or no value for these people.

Putting in too many features for selfie-shooters risks brand value dilution and gives an opening to serious competitors. On1's preview announcement of their new RAW Editor could be a serious threat to Lightroom and even Photoshop.

I hope I wasn't being too much of a marketing geek here. :whistling:

Phil
 
John,

This is exactly my point. Adobe keeps adding editing features to Lightroom Mobile, but as long as there is no support for importing raw files, the only images you can edit are images you've shot on your iDevice, or images you've already downloaded to your desktop computer (and most likely already edited on that computer too). So who indeed is doing that? There is no "getting into the ballpark, and then fine tune stuff when you're back chained to the desk", because you can't download your (raw) images!

In that two year old blog post, Tom Hogarty talks about Lightroom Mobile being the 'point of entry' (my words), just like you talk about that right now. That's also what I would like to do on short trips: leave my laptop at home and use my iPad and Lightroom Mobile for some basic edits and perhaps upload an image or two to Facebook. And in the plane, I could use that travel time to add keywords and captions. Except I still can't do any of that. In that respect, nothing has changed.
 
John,

Couple more points. First, although the pyramid is bigger towards the bottom, as far as price is concerned, the pyramid is inverted. Second, think about the Adobe brand overall. What is the "promise of benefits" and to whom is that set of benefits targeted? It's creative professionals and serious amateurs. Adobe Creative Suite is like Microsoft Office for creative professionals, the standard. For those target market segments, the Adobe brand is very strong. Adobe even named their new delivery model Creative Cloud.

Now let's consider the average selfie-shooter. They probably never heard of Adobe. They have probably heard of Photoshop, as in, "The picture of that supermodel was Photoshopped to remove blemishes." The Adobe brand has little or no value for these people.

Putting in too many features for selfie-shooters risks brand value dilution and gives an opening to serious competitors. On1's preview announcement of their new RAW Editor could be a serious threat to Lightroom and even Photoshop.

I hope I wasn't being too much of a marketing geek here. :whistling:

Phil

What can I say? I couldn't agree with you more! But I also conclude that Lightroom Mobile now has a built-in camera, and no support for importing raw files. I rest my case.
 
Well, it certainly hasn't moved in that direction, but that suits me just fine. I just don't want to process new raw images on it, even more so when that would mean upgrading my perfectly-good 32Gb iPad to cope with a camera that shoots 38 megapixel files. For now, wanting it to be a laptop replacement is making the perfect the enemy of the possible.
 
Well, it certainly hasn't moved in that direction, but that suits me just fine. I just don't want to process new raw images on it, even more so when that would mean upgrading my perfectly-good 32Gb iPad to cope with a camera that shoots 38 megapixel files. For now, wanting it to be a laptop replacement is making the perfect the enemy of the possible.

So, out of curiosity: do you use it for more than just displaying images? Do you edit images? If so, do you edit often/sometimes/hardly ever? I do use LrM for displaying images, but I haven't done more editing than perhaps straighten a horizon once or twice.
 
Most of all I use Mobile for display and reviewing, Johan. So after a weekend when I might have shot 1500-2000 pictures, I return home and set up an import, sending new photos to a synced collection. Until the following day I just won't go near the main PC but will usually look at new pictures as they start appearing on the iPad or via Lr Web on my laptop. During that more casual reviewing, I'll often identify individual images and then apply initial adjustments and crops, similar to how Quick Develop is intended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top