# Can my images stored in the Adobe cloud be accessed by non-Adobe apps?  or even the OS?



## PhilBurton (Oct 20, 2017)

*Operating System:* Windows or Mac, not important

*Lightroom Version:*  The new CC product
_(Please go to Help menu > System Info to double check the exact version number)_

*Question or Description of Problem:
As much as I like Lightroom, I have a workflow that includes another product, and potentially additional products in the future.  If I commit (and that's the word) to Lightroom CC, am I committing to an Adobe-only workflow?

Can an image in Adobe's cloud be accessed by the OS (Windows or Mac)?  Or by another app running on one of these platforms?

Turning the question around, can I use Lightroom CC with Microsoft's or Amazon's cloud?

Vendor lock-in went out of fashion 20 years ago.  Users want the ability to create their own solution combining products from different vendors, all of whom are committed to "open systems."

Phil Burton*


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Oct 20, 2017)

My guess is No. It looks like one of the design ideas of Lightroom CC is that the users can't shoot themselves in the foot by messing about with images outside of the app. I think we'll need to stop telling users that "the files aren't *in* Lightroom."


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 20, 2017)

If you have the originals set to store on your computer, they're just in a dated folder structure, so yes you could access them. I wouldn't recommend messing with them, but if you needed to get to them, you could.

You can't currently access them with MS or Amazon's cloud, but we've seen examples of external companies using Adobe's not-yet-fully-public API to access your photos in Adobe's cloud with your permission (I think it was Animoto). That would be a very logical way of expanding Lightroom CC, rather than Adobe building a bunch of modules. Imagine going to the Blurb website, and using their tools to build a book, with the photos pulled directly from your Adobe cloud. Any company could tap into it, giving photographers a much wider choice of book companies, printers, slideshows, etc.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 20, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> If you have the originals set to store on your computer, they're just in a dated folder structure, so yes you could access them. I wouldn't recommend messing with them, but if you needed to get to them, you could.
> 
> You can't currently access them with MS or Amazon's cloud, but we've seen examples of external companies using Adobe's not-yet-fully-public API to access your photos in Adobe's cloud with your permission (I think it was Animoto). That would be a very logical way of expanding Lightroom CC, rather than Adobe building a bunch of modules. Imagine going to the Blurb website, and using their tools to build a book, with the photos pulled directly from your Adobe cloud. Any company could tap into it, giving photographers a much wider choice of book companies, printers, slideshows, etc.


Victoria,

If that is the future, is the API-based approach the new version of plug-ins?

While this approach sounds nice, it would work only for those apps with sufficient development effort to work with that API, and not all the "little" apps done by one person.  Up to now, we have had "open standards" based on file types, e.g. RAW, TIFF, JPG.  This potential Adobe approach would negate file-type standards.

Phil


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 20, 2017)

One or the reasons why you can't store the Lightroom CC photos anywhere else in the cloud is that cloud storage is not only for safety and convenience reasons. Certain technology, such as Adobe Sensei, runs in the cloud.


----------



## johnbeardy (Oct 20, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> If that is the future, is the API-based approach the new version of plug-ins?



Very hard to know. The Creative SDK is the umbrella program for iOS/Android/Web access to assets uploaded to CC or to LR. It allows reading and writing of photos.

However, progress has been microscopic, and only a month ago Adobe killed off a large element on the web side. The "not-yet-fully-public API" shows every sign of being kicked not just into the long grass but into the next state! There's a growing sense of "not invented here", and you never know what they'll discontinue next.



PhilBurton said:


> While this approach sounds nice, it would work only for those apps with sufficient development effort to work with that API, and not all the "little" apps done by one person.



I don't know about that. I keep toying with the idea of learning iOS and seeing what I can do, but given what I said above, why would I or anyone else?

John


----------



## Eric Bowles (Oct 20, 2017)

Victoria makes a great point about API.  With that approach, there is no need to "Move" RAW files to edit and use them.  The file that moves is simply the output or export file.  A low res export for use on social media is much smaller and faster than a full size output for Blurb.  And there is no need for me to download a file from LR CC and then upload it to Blurb.  Just let Me make the edits and have LR and Blurb communicate directly.  I'm in the way if I'm uploading and downloading files.


----------



## johnbeardy (Oct 20, 2017)

The point is good, but it needs an API that isn't overrun with archaeologists....


----------

