I'm not sure how many consumers will pay $5.99 per month when there are less expensive alternatives. Apple offers Photostream and stores the last 1,000 shots you took. Dropbox offers the Camera Upload feature and expands storage the more you use it. There is absolutely a need for this type of service, but is there a market? Especially at the price? Flickr offers a nice iPhone app and a terabyte of storage for free. Backup and sync is a major issue for these consumers. The goal of Revel is to target people (and families) who take pictures with their phones. (All metadata is preserved and visible if you export the file.) And there are no hooks from Lightroom or Photoshop into Revel. You can't see any keywords or metadata that is attached to the file. The current version of Revel only supports JPGs, not RAW files.
Adobe revel mac pro#
In it's current form, Revel is not intended for same pro audience as Creative Cloud. More than a few folks online have wondered why Revel isn't included in Creative Cloud, but I think the answer is pretty simple. (The free trial for the first month gives you unlimited uploads.) A Revel membership is not included in a Creative Cloud membership. If you are going to seriously use Revel, you'll need to pay $5.99/month for the premium level that includes unlimited uploads. The apps and basic service is free and allows you to upload 50 pictures a month.