Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: ButchM on October 18, 2017, 09:27:19 am
-
"Lightroom 6
Lightroom 6 is the last standalone version of Lightroom that can be purchased outside of a Creative Cloud membership. There will not be a Lightroom 7 perpetual offering. Lightroom 6 will remain for sale for an undetermined amount of time, but will no longer be updated with camera support or bug fixes after the end of 2017. Lightroom 6.13 with support for the Nikon D850 will be released on October 26, 2017."
as per Tom Hogarty's blog post here: https://blogs.adobe.com/photoshop/2017/10/introducing-lightroom-cc-lightroom-classic-cc-and-more.html (https://blogs.adobe.com/photoshop/2017/10/introducing-lightroom-cc-lightroom-classic-cc-and-more.html)
-
"Lightroom 6
Lightroom 6 is the last standalone version of Lightroom that can be purchased outside of a Creative Cloud membership. There will not be a Lightroom 7 perpetual offering. Lightroom 6 will remain for sale for an undetermined amount of time, but will no longer be updated with camera support or bug fixes after the end of 2017. Lightroom 6.13 with support for the Nikon D850 will be released on October 26, 2017."
as per Tom Hogarty's blog post here: https://blogs.adobe.com/photoshop/2017/10/introducing-lightroom-cc-lightroom-classic-cc-and-more.html (https://blogs.adobe.com/photoshop/2017/10/introducing-lightroom-cc-lightroom-classic-cc-and-more.html)
That sucks >:( , but it might save me some money as well :)
I guess you can always get LR6 to open newer cameras raw files by converting to dng.
So my upgrading to a CC version will probably wait until a new major release (7, 8 or 9.....) will have enough new features to make it worthwhile.
Currently the new LR features useful to me are coming at such a snail's pace that I guess I can do everything I need with LR6 for a long time.
-
That sucks >:( , but it might save me some money as well :)
I guess you can always get LR6 to open newer cameras raw files by converting to dng.
So my upgrading to a CC version will probably wait until a new major release (7, 8 or 9.....) will have enough new features to make it worthwhile.
Currently the new LR features useful to me are coming at such a snail's pace that I guess I can do everything I need with LR6 for a long time.
New release is out: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=121083.0 , not sure if it has enough features for you to upgrade or look to another place for an standalone app.
LR6 camera support will be only until end of this year, after that no more updates, I read it in one of the links I post in the previous thread...
-
LR6 camera support will be only until end of this year, after that no more updates, I read it in one of the links I post in the previous thread...
I managed a long time with LR3 (because of a Windows XP machine) but was able to open newer camera raw files by first converting to dng (using the Adobe dng converter) and then LR3 would open these dng's even though it would not open the camera raws. Do you think that workflow with a few extra steps will no longer be feasible in the future?
-
So my upgrading to a CC version will probably wait until a new major release (7, 8 or 9.....) will have enough new features to make it worthwhile.
Currently the new LR features useful to me are coming at such a snail's pace that I guess I can do everything I need with LR6 for a long time.
The new 7 has significant performance improvements, and you get all the extra features that subscribers got over the last 2-3 years.
-
I managed a long time with LR3 (because of a Windows XP machine) but was able to open newer camera raw files by first converting to dng (using the Adobe dng converter) and then LR3 would open these dng's even though it would not open the camera raws. Do you think that workflow with a few extra steps will no longer be feasible in the future?
It will be, if you want.
-
I managed a long time with LR3 (because of a Windows XP machine) but was able to open newer camera raw files by first converting to dng (using the Adobe dng converter) and then LR3 would open these dng's even though it would not open the camera raws. Do you think that workflow with a few extra steps will no longer be feasible in the future?
I think that will be still work. Lightroom 7 incroporates a new process version, if you convert your images with Adobe DNG Converter to PV2012 (PV3 in the new adobe nomenclature) it will be fine. I suppose.
-
Lightroom 6 is the last standalone version of Lightroom that can be purchased outside of a Creative Cloud membership. There will not be a Lightroom 7 perpetual offering.
Sad, but not surprising.
Hopefully the folks at Serif (Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer) will start developing their planned DAM application sooner rather than later. They now have another incentive. They are probably close to updating their current applications which should bring those feature-rich applications to a pretty mature state in a relatively short time, for both Mac and Windows platforms. So that might give them a bit more time to also focus on their version of a DAM system.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think that will be still work. Lightroom 7 incroporates a new process version, if you convert your images with Adobe DNG Converter to PV2012 (PV3 in the new adobe nomenclature) it will be fine. I suppose.
The new process version is mainly because of the range masking feature - which is good BTW. It's mainly a data compatibility thing rather than a new version.
-
The new process version is mainly because of the range masking feature - which is good BTW. It's mainly a data compatibility thing rather than a new version.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Lightroom 6 will be able to read DNG with PV4 (the new process version), it was like that when adobe upgraded from PV2010 to PV2012. At least, DNG Converter always asks you about Camera RAW version compatibility.
-
So the CC crowd get improvements in;
"Application launch time
Preview generation including in Standard, 1:1 and Minimal previews
Import selection workflow with “Embedded & Sidecar” preview option (tips here)
Switching between Library and Develop Module
Moving from photo to photo in the Develop Module
Responsive brushing"
None of which have been a problem for me, so still no reason to sell my soul to subscription.
Glad I've got a licence for Capture One.
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Lightroom 6 will be able to read DNG with PV4 (the new process version), it was like that when adobe upgraded from PV2010 to PV2012. At least, DNG Converter always asks you about Camera RAW version compatibility.
Roughly right, but I wanted to make the point that there isn't a completely new process like PV2010 to PV2012, more a data thing.
-
So the CC crowd get improvements in;
"Application launch time
Preview generation including in Standard, 1:1 and Minimal previews
Import selection workflow with “Embedded & Sidecar” preview option (tips here)
Switching between Library and Develop Module
Moving from photo to photo in the Develop Module
Responsive brushing"
None of which have been a problem for me, so still no reason to sell my soul to subscription.
Glad I've got a licence for Capture One.
Some of those speed improvements are dramatic. I see a 4x faster generation of standard previews, for example, and the embedded/sidecar workflow is great (a bit clunky). You would also have got all the things added since 6.0. But it is sad to see Adobe go subscription-only.
-
So the CC crowd get improvements in;
"Application launch time
Preview generation including in Standard, 1:1 and Minimal previews
Import selection workflow with “Embedded & Sidecar” preview option (tips here)
Switching between Library and Develop Module
Moving from photo to photo in the Develop Module
Responsive brushing"
None of which have been a problem for me, so still no reason to sell my soul to subscription.
Glad I've got a licence for Capture One.
You missed the new masking feature that allows one to make selections by colour and tone range. To my mind, and Adobe always does it - this is the one new "killer feature" that makes the upgrade worthwhile.
On the commercial side of it, I've been on CC since near the beginning and the whole system has been performing well, so I can't complain about it. Of course this argument is age-old by now so there is nothing new to say about it, however, for the record, I came to the conclusion long ago that all is well as long as we can maintain our subscriptions, but if for whatever reason we cannot, I would have liked to see Adobe create an option to convert our last subscription version into a fully functional perpetual version. I'm aware of the gaming risk, but smart developers as they are can design safeguards against that.
-
You missed the new masking feature that allows one to make selections by colour and tone range. To my mind, and Adobe always does it - this is the one new "killer feature" that makes the upgrade worthwhile.
I like it. Not too complex, but does a useful job well. Make sure you try the Alt/Opt button when you drag a slider. I prefer the Luminosity option, but Color Range allows you to Shift click colour points.
-
Thanks for the insight and advice John. I won't be getting into this for several weeks, but I'll likely report back any other useful observations I come up with. I like to give new application versions a settling-in period before I adopt.
-
So the CC crowd get improvements in;
"Application launch time
Preview generation including in Standard, 1:1 and Minimal previews
Import selection workflow with “Embedded & Sidecar” preview option (tips here)
Switching between Library and Develop Module
Moving from photo to photo in the Develop Module
Responsive brushing"
None of which have been a problem for me, so still no reason to sell my soul to subscription.
Glad I've got a licence for Capture One.
+1 on all counts.
I got the dehaze presets and hardly use them, I don't like the way the rendering of the dehaze function works (darks become too black and compensating with the blackpoint/shadow sliders don't yield attractive results) so for me it's not worth paying for a continuous slider.
Only thing that I might actually use more is local white point/black point adjustments, but not worth paying such a premium for.
Speed is fine on my system
Currently my perpetual licence upgrade cost (from 5 to 6) stands about 1/4 of the CC subscription, since I don't need updated Photoshop features, CS2 or CS3 is more than enough for me.
Adobe just missed my € 75 (or more) for the next perpetual LR upgrade, but I guess they won't lose sleep over that.
However I won't either especially since less upgrades also makes for less bugs ;)
-
You missed the new masking feature that allows one to make selections by colour and tone range. To my mind, and Adobe always does it - this is the one new "killer feature" that makes the upgrade worthwhile.
Nice feature, but simple to do in Capture One now.
Where are all the other features people have been asking for for years ? More efficient keywording, a book module as good Blurb's free package, not having to wait ages for CT adjustments.
That isn't enough to see me commit to paying monthly for the rest of my life at whatever rate Adobe choose to screw out of people.
-
Roughly right, but I wanted to make the point that there isn't a completely new process like PV2010 to PV2012, more a data thing.
Ok, so we shouldn't expect things like better demosaicing algorithm like when upgrading from PV2010 to PV2012, right? Just the performance and support for the new masks filters.
-
Thanks for the insight and advice John. I won't be getting into this for several weeks, but I'll likely report back any other useful observations I come up with. I like to give new application versions a settling-in period before I adopt.
Never a bad idea, Mark, and in this case the main changes aren't a matter of adding in new features that may be discrete from the rest of the code.
Instead there is lots of performance tuning which interferes with existing code, hopefully for the better. eg I see standard previews generated 4 times faster than in 6.
The new Embedded/Sidecar stuff also depends on physical elements of a system, such as card readers or drives. It tries to balance importing quickly (multiple threads) with the human need to see photos arriving in shooting order rather than simply the order in which they make it to Lightroom, plus possible sidecars (files of various sizes). I feel it is a bit clunky, especially if you are importing directly from the card and your raw files have low res embedded previews and full res JPEG sidecars. It works, but I have a few uncertainties at times.
John
-
Ok, so we shouldn't expect things like better demosaicing algorithm like when upgrading from PV2010 to PV2012, right?
Yes, nothing that radical. They are updating those algorithms without changing the PV - certainly with Fuji last year.
-
Sad, but not surprising.
Hopefully the folks at Serif (Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer) will start developing their planned DAM application sooner rather than later. They now have another incentive. They are probably close to updating their current applications which should bring those feature-rich applications to a pretty mature state in a relatively short time, for both Mac and Windows platforms. So that might give them a bit more time to also focus on their version of a DAM system.
Cheers,
Bart
Yes this would be a good thing as it would provide some competition for Adobe. I'm still on stand alone LR6 and pretty much use Affinity Photo rather than Photoshop for those times I need to do something more. The problem with subscription services is that the price can always be increased and once you are locked in options are limited. Anyway, we've been over all this many times in the past.
-
This is a situation where Capture One could grab a lot of new customers. What an invitation from Adobe.
I hope they revise their decision not to support the GFX. I would leave Lightroom and switch to C1 if they would.
-
This is a situation where Capture One could grab a lot of new customers. What an invitation from Adobe.
I hope they revise their decision not to support the GFX. I would leave Lightroom and switch to C1 if they would.
Heard this same arguemrnt when adobe first introduced their CC plan...rats will be jumping off the sinking Adobe ship. They now have record customers and revenues. Who would have thunk that?
-
Heard this same arguemrnt when adobe first introduced their CC plan...rats will be jumping off the sinking Adobe ship. They now have record customers and revenues. Who would have thunk that?
I don't think Adobe breaks down their sales figures to the degree of granularity to be able to say what photographers are doing. Remember a lot of graphic arts pros use the entire Creative Suite package and that is where Adobe makes the big money.
-
Heard this same arguemrnt when adobe first introduced their CC plan...rats will be jumping off the sinking Adobe ship. They now have record customers and revenues. Who would have thunk that?
Correct. The threat is as much from the likes of Apple and Google.
For a reflective look at today's announcements, see Peter Krogh's post http://thedambook.com/lightroom-innovators-dilemma/
-
For people who think that rushing in to Capture 1 would be a better solution, if you like their payment conditions better that's fine; and technically no question it's a fine application, but before making that decision I would suggest a careful read of Martin Evening's recent comparative analysis; it's very insightful: Martin Evening LR vs C1 (http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/Lightroom%20vs%20Capture%20One%20Pro.pdf); perhaps now that newer versions of both are available an update would be very interesting.
-
Correct. The threat is as much from the likes of Apple and Google.
For a reflective look at today's announcements, see Peter Krogh's post http://thedambook.com/lightroom-innovators-dilemma/
I read this and don't believe it's reflective of much of anything. For those of us who do most of our work at home, regular LR is all that we need. To put everything up on the cloud may be beneficial to some but how many? Maybe folks that are out JPG shooting and want to post right away but then there are other ways to do that. Is LR becoming the Instagram of photo apps?
-
For people who think that rushing in to Capture 1 would be a better solution, if you like their payment conditions better that's fine; and technically no question it's a fine application, but before making that decision I would suggest a careful read of Martin Evening's recent comparative analysis; it's very insightful: Martin Evening LR vs C1 (http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/Lightroom%20vs%20Capture%20One%20Pro.pdf); perhaps now that newer versions of both are available an update would be very interesting.
Interesting also in that it appears in a publication that supports Adobe PS and LR. I own several of Martin Evening's books and they are very good but his boat is tied to the Adobe ship. I've read from a lot of those who post on LuLa that they like C1. I'm not rushing out to buy either product right now as my needs are met with the current LR6 stand alone. unless I buy a new camera (unlikely) LR6 is OK going forward. I already own Affinity Photo which is a fine product and things I cannot do in LR can be done there.
-
I read this and don't believe it's reflective of much of anything. For those of us who do most of our work at home, regular LR is all that we need. To put everything up on the cloud may be beneficial to some but how many? Maybe folks that are out JPG shooting and want to post right away but then there are other ways to do that. Is LR becoming the Instagram of photo apps?
Really? Not reflective of the wider market trends? You have to stand back from the detail and look at the bigger picture. Sure, for many of us regular LR is the best solution with some mobile syncing, and the new LRCC is dumbed down and strangely feature-incomplete. But just like I like using Dropbox to have stuff on my Mac/PC/iPhone/iPad/browser, I can see the basic attraction of having all my originals available anywhere.
It's other things that stand in the way of this ideal world. Not bandwidth for me, though that will apply to some, fewer year by year. I'm not looking to entrust the safekeeping of my photos to any third party, and there is a big hole in Adobe's offering (so big I am surprised it is being launched). But surely anyone can see the attraction of having your stuff anywhere?
-
Interesting also in that it appears in a publication that supports Adobe PS and LR. I own several of Martin Evening's books and they are very good but his boat is tied to the Adobe ship.
Shoot the messenger if you don't like the message? Martin uses P1 cameras.
-
Interesting also in that it appears in a publication that supports Adobe PS and LR. I own several of Martin Evening's books and they are very good but his boat is tied to the Adobe ship. ...............
Ya, but I'm not concerned about any of that - who published the article, whether his boat is tied to any ship and yada yada - instead I suggest just read the article, make up your mind whether the methodology is good and hence whether the conclusions are reasonable, and I'd enjoy your technical feedback on that. As for me, there's only so many conspiracy theories a day I can cope with, so this isn't going to be one of them, because I did read the article back then and as I recall it, I didn't see any obvious issues with it, but that's just me, others may think otherwise, who knows :-).
-
For people who think that rushing in to Capture 1 would be a better solution, if you like their payment conditions better that's fine; and technically no question it's a fine application, but before making that decision I would suggest a careful read of Martin Evening's recent comparative analysis; it's very insightful: Martin Evening LR vs C1 (http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/Lightroom%20vs%20Capture%20One%20Pro.pdf); perhaps now that newer versions of both are available an update would be very interesting.
I think Martin’s article is well worth the read. I also agree with his comment towards the end of the article:
“Capture One’s philosophy is to produce a more optimized look that doesn’t necessarily require further editing. This may have led to the perception that Capture One is sharper and punchier, but in reality, neither program is inherently better than the other when it comes to actually working on your images and adjusting the settings to suit individual tastes.”
He outlines an 8 step process which will allow LR to achieve similar results to C1. However, I have found that fact that C1 enables me, in martin’s words “to produce a more optimized look that doesn’t necessarily require further editing.”, is very beneficial as it saves time.
I used LR since V1 and periodically used to look at other software. The reality was I opened the new software, went "ugh!, what the hell" when confronted by a strange looking UI, pushed a few sliders and spent time trying to work as if I was in LR and then closed the program and went meh! I have been Adobe or nothing for more years then I care to remember
It was only when I seriously looked at alternative software, motivated by Adobe's move to rental that I recognised that there were in fact better ways of doing things. It is also not all about raw conversion quality, UI is important. I used to spend my life scrolling up and down the LR UI interface, or working in solo mode and clicking tabs, and constantly switching between Library and Develop and think nothing about it - that is just how it is.
However, once you experience and use software with a customisable UI it is hard to go back.
For example, with C1 you have a unified workspace with Develop and Library combined, not having to switch between develop and library actually took some getting used to and I even set the short key to give me a grid view in C1, then eventually asked myself why?? Who wouldn't want to be able to choose which tools they see in develop or the order they are in, or design their own workspace for when they are concentrating on key wording / rating?
Having a choice between importing the files into catalogues or simply working on the files in Session mode - staggering concept when you have only used Adobe software. So you work in sessions but you don't have the advantages of a catalogue? Not with C1. Ok finished with the session you have culled, rated, key worded, developed your keepers, exported your selects to your selects folder etc. OK, just import the session in a few clicks into your master catalogue.
The point is that when you look at alternative software you have no idea of its potential outside of what your existing software does and how it does it. You have no idea of how much of a workflow advantage a customisable UI, choose your own key board shortcuts, etc. can give unless you gain "real" experience with the new software. That takes effort and is the reason Adobe puts so much effort into gaining initial market share.
-
I don't think this thread is about LR vs. C1 in terms of speed, user friendlyness or results. Both are very capable programs which can achieve (similar) outstanding results if you know how to work them and both have their warts, strength and weaknesses.
It's more about pay once and know what you get or pay forever (not knowing how much) for a promise of "improved" functionality in the future without an easy way out.
For me as a simple amateur I'll avoid the latter option as long as I can, but everybody has to make their own choice in that.
However I hoped Tom Hogarty would have kept good on his word to keep LR perpetual licences going for further updates and his dry "matter of fact" announcement today without any recognition of a change of direction vs. past statements doesn't in my mind bode well for future cost of the CC licence fees as well as the sunset option once you decide to stop the ongoing licence arrangement. I hope I'm wrong, but this move doesn't give me a comfortable feeling and certainly doesn't motivate me to step into the CC option quickly.
Btw, I thought Adobe would be OK with some critical remarks regarding this move on their blog, however my entry (essentially my first post in this thread) is still "awaiting moderation" and I wouldn't be surprised if it is deleted by tomorrow. Another reason for me not to start paying more money to this company when I have no idea when and how I can stop it without a serious impact on how I process my raw files.
-
I don't think this thread is about LR vs. C1 in terms of speed, user friendlyness or results. Both are very capable programs which can achieve (similar) outstanding results if you know how to work them and both have their warts, strength and weaknesses.
It's more about pay once and know what you get or pay forever (not knowing how much) for a promise of "improved" functionality in the future without an easy way out.
It's more complicated than that. C1 is $300 and you get free upgrades for life. this does not include major releases which will cost more or you can do it just like LR and go the subscription route. I assume the 'free upgrades' are support for new cameras.
However I hoped Tom Hogarty would have kept good on his word to keep LR perpetual licences going for further updates and his dry "matter of fact" announcement today without any recognition of a change of direction vs. past statements doesn't in my mind bode well for future cost of the CC licence fees as well as the sunset option once you decide to stop the ongoing licence arrangement. I hope I'm wrong, but this move doesn't give me a comfortable feeling and certainly doesn't motivate me to step into the CC option quickly.
This was not surprising to me at all.
Btw, I thought Adobe would be OK with some critical remarks regarding this move on their blog, however my entry (essentially my first post in this thread) is still "awaiting moderation" and I wouldn't be surprised if it is deleted by tomorrow. Another reason for me not to start paying more money to this company when I have no idea when and how I can stop it without a serious impact on how I process my raw files.
To paraphrase what was said on the 'Coffee Corner', it's Adobe's Blog and they can moderate the way they want. If you save all your processed work as TIFFs you can exit the subscription model any time you want without any issues.
-
I think the dpreview article sums up my position very well; https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/5431017013/rip-lightroom-6-death-by-subscription-model
"Adobe is turning its back on a certain type of enthusiast photographers: those users who enjoy and care about their photography enough to buy Adobe's products, but don't need to edit 'in the field' or have clients to justify the ongoing cost of subscription software."
Their loss, I was happy to pay for upgrades.
-
The student price for Lightroom and Photoshop seems reasonable - $10 mo. or $120 yr.
I have two college students in my house so I can take advantage of them - they sure take advantage of me! ;)
-
The student price for Lightroom and Photoshop seems reasonable - $10 mo. or $120 yr.
I have two college students in my house so I can take advantage of them - they sure take advantage of me! ;)
That's just the going rate for LR / PS CC for everyone. I would think students would get a better rate.
-
... But just like I like using Dropbox to have stuff on my Mac/PC/iPhone/iPad/browser, I can see the basic attraction of having all my originals available anywhere.
Except there are reasonable solutions ... at least as compared to the current state of Lightroom CC offering ... that are the same or less expensive, in fact, some that are nearly or mostly free that don't entangle the end user in paying a monthly stipend in perpetuity.
For example, an advanced hobbyist could get by with the iOS and macOS Photos App and maybe Affinity Photo or the forthcoming Pixelmator Pro for a very significant savings that includes all your images on all your devices. Many of these options have been available for some time. Adobe is actually late to the party.
-
Sad, really" I’ve invested 10years into Lightroom, purchasing upgrades each time, even teaching it at the College level. But I’m not about to invest the next 20+ years into perpetual CC licensing. Adobe can kiss my a**!
-
That's just the going rate for LR / PS CC for everyone. I would think students would get a better rate.
Students/educators get a discount on the entire CC package (all apps) but pay the same as everyone else for the LR/PS Photography bundle
-
It's obvious Adobe doesn't care about the amateur or even the serious photographer. If you're 25, you're going to lease a product for 40 years at $120 a year or $1200 over each ten-year period. To edit a picture? You need the files in the cloud? You can buy a 2 TB drive for under $100. Businesses and schools will make up the bulk of Adobe earnings. Adobe will leave the one-shot photo buyer who upgrades once in a while to other manufacturers. Pricing to buy upgrades is too low and most of the features are now available. Really, what more are they going to do to make you spend money? But now that your locked in, then subscription makes sense if you can write it off. It's similar to AutoCAD for architects and engineering firms. But those firms have to exchange plans so they all would need Autocad software to overlay their individual work. Not so with photos so Adobe is taking a bigger risk. But it makes sense anyway because it's worked for PS and their other programs. They spent years locking people into their programs. Now they can collect royalties while sitting on their butts. Great business if you can get it.
-
Another thing I just thought about. As your photo data base grows, you'll eventually have to buy more cloud storage. So, Adobe will become a cloud storage service in addition to a photo editing service, all at a monthly charge, forever. It'll be like marriage without being able to get a divorce.
-
Another thing I just thought about. As your photo data base grows, you'll eventually have to buy more cloud storage. So, Adobe will become a cloud storage service in addition to a photo editing service, all at a monthly charge, forever. It'll be like marriage without being able to get a divorce.
Indeed... and 1TB is really tiny.
Would keep me alive for 2-3 months perhaps?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's more complicated than that. C1 is $300 and you get free upgrades for life. this does not include major releases which will cost more or you can do it just like LR and go the subscription route. I assume the 'free upgrades' are support for new cameras.
This was not surprising to me at all.
To paraphrase what was said on the 'Coffee Corner', it's Adobe's Blog and they can moderate the way they want. If you save all your processed work as TIFFs you can exit the subscription model any time you want without any issues.
Fortunately (for the cameras I use) the C1 licence is 1/6th of the cost you mention. If it were as high as you say I might look at it differently. For me C1 is much cheaper than LR however neither one-time cost have stopped me from buying regular updates (I've been with LR since version 1). It's mainly the "open ended" subscription model I don't like.
The way the communication was handled didn't surprise me either (based on their track record), it's just me who would have hoped for something better. Nothing major, just another bit of proof of where their priorities lie.
And yes, they can manage their blog as they want, but it's up to me to buy their products or not. The way I vote (with my feet) there is depending on what company I think they are. Currently they are not getting any more from me based on the business model they chose and the poor communication surrounding that change.
"Retracting" from LR CC by converting to TIFF's is a PIA and not without issues in my mind, I think a combination of LR6 perpetual and C1 is a much easier strategy.
-
In corporate culture, anytime anything is labeled "Classic", that's code for "on the back burner until eventual replacement". Why else would Lightroom become Lightroom Classic, the connotation being "this is your grandfather's software that will be phased out...get on board with the future"? If this is not the plan, why would Adobe not continue calling Lightroom "Lightroom" and call the new one something else, even "Lightroom Cloud"? Four years ago, Adobe went subscription. Four years from now, they will probably go cloud-only. Keep your options open.
Lloyd
-
Except there are reasonable solutions ... at least as compared to the current state of Lightroom CC offering ... that are the same or less expensive, in fact, some that are nearly or mostly free that don't entangle the end user in paying a monthly stipend in perpetuity.
For example, an advanced hobbyist could get by with the iOS and macOS Photos App and maybe Affinity Photo or the forthcoming Pixelmator Pro for a very significant savings that includes all your images on all your devices. Many of these options have been available for some time. Adobe is actually late to the party.
So Adobe does need to get a move on and show up at that party, even if it doesn't arrive first.
What surprises me is that they've chosen not to play to their strengths with LRCC. Maybe they believe their strong suit is Adobe Camera Raw and they don't need to do much beyond strapping another new UI onto it. But given their status at the top end of image editing, I find it hard to believe that they have released LRCC in such a feature-incomplete state, unable to print or send as email, and with such limited metadata / organisation features. Hey, we're giving you Sensei AI - you you don't need all that meta - what did you call it? Fine, but did you know that LRCC's search doesn't work if you're offline? All this oversimplification wouldn't seem so odd if they were launching LRCC as "Lightroom for Dummies", but their press release says "built for professionals and enthusiasts". It's as if one part of Adobe knows their strengths, but the other has only had the resources / time to release something way below what one would expect.
John
-
Just caught up with this. To say I am disappointed is an understatement. I have just been on the UK Adobe website and it seems LR will cost just under £10 a month or £120 per year. I have LR6 standalone and am happy. I do not want to go to the cloud as I want to keep my images on my hard drives (with backups and archives) not keep them somewhere else that I do not know and wonder if someone else could use them without my permission. I do not trust that they will not disappear or that there will not be a password problem that renders them inaccessible.
As far as I am concerned LR is a mature product and I just want it to be updated to ensure that if I change my camera body, LR will read the RAW files. £120 per year for that, no way. I will keep LR6 until I get a new body and then think what to do.
I resent a major supplier trying to manipulate the market like this. The nightmare scenario is that in the future we could have to pay a subscription to view/print even jpegs and tiffs. Perhaps we should return to hard copy and there could be a future after all for slides, negatives and prints!
Jonathan
-
Another thing I just thought about. As your photo data base grows, you'll eventually have to buy more cloud storage. So, Adobe will become a cloud storage service in addition to a photo editing service, all at a monthly charge, forever. It'll be like marriage without being able to get a divorce.
You've got it, that's their model, it was already obvious when they first went subscription. It's similar to how McDonald's changed, from selling fast-food to 'selling' franchise agreements with land/locations.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It's similar to how McDonald's changed, from selling fast-food to 'selling' franchise agreements with land/locations.
I'm not a fan of subscription-limited software, but it's nothing like that at all - that's just prejudiced nonsense.
John
-
Just caught up with this. To say I am disappointed is an understatement. I have just been on the UK Adobe website and it seems LR will cost just under £10 a month or £120 per year. I have LR6 standalone and am happy. I do not want to go to the cloud as I want to keep my images on my hard drives (with backups and archives) not keep them somewhere else that I do not know and wonder if someone else could use them without my permission. I do not trust that they will not disappear or that there will not be a password problem that renders them inaccessible.
As far as I am concerned LR is a mature product and I just want it to be updated to ensure that if I change my camera body, LR will read the RAW files. £120 per year for that, no way. I will keep LR6 until I get a new body and then think what to do.
I resent a major supplier trying to manipulate the market like this. The nightmare scenario is that in the future we could have to pay a subscription to view/print even jpegs and tiffs. Perhaps we should return to hard copy and there could be a future after all for slides, negatives and prints!
Jonathan
I think this quote by Richard Butler (DPRevue) needs serious consideration:
In my look back at my excitement surrounding the development and launch of Lightroom v1.0, I said I felt that the subscription model "runs counter to the longevity benefit of building a database around my images". I stand by that.
Ian
-
I think this quote by Richard Butler (DPRevue) needs serious consideration:
In my look back at my excitement surrounding the development and launch of Lightroom v1.0, I said I felt that the subscription model "runs counter to the longevity benefit of building a database around my images". I stand by that.
I don't think it's worth quoting something without citing the exact source, Ian, when the quote doesn't make sense. v1.0 never had a subscription model, and I'm not sure it was ever suggested.
I would agree it's risky to accept a subscription model that disables the database after the end of the subscription, but Adobe don't offer that model.
-
That's just the going rate for LR / PS CC for everyone. I would think students would get a better rate.
Yep, you're right. I guess students get a good break, though, when buying "All Apps" - $20 vs. $50.
-
.................. while sitting on their butts. ....................
Except that's not what they're doing.
Let's not conflate the marketing issue with the engineering side. Seriously good people are working hard, brilliantly and earnestly on the latter, improving the application with every release notwithstanding the occasional screw-ups that do happen and do get resolved.
-
In corporate culture, anytime anything is labeled "Classic", that's code for "on the back burner until eventual replacement". Why else would Lightroom become Lightroom Classic, ...............
Lloyd
When a company introduces a sister product that has many similarities to the original product some renaming is necessary to avoid confusion. I have a different take on the word "Classic". To me it means "what was there before". And things that are "classic" in this sense can have long-term staying power, like classical music for those who appreciate it. "Classic" gives me comfort that my computer-based application has a recognized place in the repertoire and it is here to stay. I don't need cloud-based photo editing or storage and even if circumstances changed and I were to find it useful, I wouldn't think it safe/reliable to grow dependent on it. The day Adobe rips out the "Classic" version, I'll be looking for viable alternatives.
-
I perfectly understand why "Classic" rings alarm bells, and "Pro" might have sent out a more positive message.
But don't forget that while "Classic" is infamous thanks to Coca Cola, it was "New Coke" that went down the drain and "Classic" that is still around.
John
-
I perfectly understand why "Classic" rings alarm bells, and "Pro" might have sent out a more positive message.
But don't forget that while "Classic" is infamous thanks to Coca Cola, it was "New Coke" that went down the drain and "Classic" that is still around.
John
EXACTLY
-
Sad, really" I’ve invested 10years into Lightroom, purchasing upgrades each time, even teaching it at the College level. But I’m not about to invest the next 20+ years into perpetual CC licensing. Adobe can kiss my a**!
Why? Since you paid for all LR updates...doesn't the subscription just make this easier?
-
It's obvious Adobe doesn't care about the amateur or even the serious photographer. If you're 25, you're going to lease a product for 40 years at $120 a year or $1200 over each ten-year period. To edit a picture? You need the files in the cloud? You can buy a 2 TB drive for under $100. Businesses and schools will make up the bulk of Adobe earnings. Adobe will leave the one-shot photo buyer who upgrades once in a while to other manufacturers. Pricing to buy upgrades is too low and most of the features are now available. Really, what more are they going to do to make you spend money? But now that your locked in, then subscription makes sense if you can write it off. It's similar to AutoCAD for architects and engineering firms. But those firms have to exchange plans so they all would need Autocad software to overlay their individual work. Not so with photos so Adobe is taking a bigger risk. But it makes sense anyway because it's worked for PS and their other programs. They spent years locking people into their programs. Now they can collect royalties while sitting on their butts. Great business if you can get it.
Yes...and isn't it nice that the service might be available for all those years. Switch over to another tool and watch them go away after 5 years. How many tools out there have just disappeared...Aperture being one. How much will it cost you to switch your entire image base from a proprietary system once they decide to turn off the lights. Do you really think all these wannabe upstarts will be around in 5 years, let alone 40?
-
Except that's not what they're doing.
Let's not conflate the marketing issue with the engineering side. Seriously good people are working hard, brilliantly and earnestly on the latter, improving the application with every release notwithstanding the occasional screw-ups that do happen and do get resolved.
Adobe had to make real changes to get us to buy an upgrade. You weren't going to shell out extra money for small incremental changes. So they had to invest in software that really made a difference. Once you're on a monthly plan, and they have your charge card on file, you've forgotten about the monthly charge and really don't think of better editing software. Adobe just has to make small changes to make it seem like they're doing something and to keep up with other editing programs. Their R&D may be in other areas but not much in editing. They'll sit on their butts collecting dividends.
-
EXACTLY
If the direction of travel, to cloud is not obvious by now then...
Remember when Tom Hogarty said "there will always be a perpetual version of LR".
I moved to C1Pro when they announced LRCC, as it was obvious what was going to happen. Even when the LR product manager Mr Hogarty was denying it.
Everyone is free to use whatever software they like, they just should not be surprised by what Adobe are doing.
Ian
-
Adobe had to make real changes to get us to buy an upgrade. You weren't going to shell out extra money for small incremental changes. So they had to invest in software that really made a difference. Once you're on a monthly plan, and they have your charge card on file, you've forgotten about the monthly charge and really don't think of better editing software. Adobe just has to make small changes to make it seem like they're doing something and to keep up with other editing programs. Their R&D may be in other areas but not much in editing. They'll sit on their butts collecting dividends.
Alan, please, let us not conflate fact with speculation. I have been on their photography plan since it started and seen a continuous flow of new features that perform remarkably well, improvements to existing features as well as certain efficiency improvements, notwithstanding some temporary technical glitches I have not hesitated to evaluate and write about in some depth. I reject conspiracy theories and idle speculation; I'd prefer to play by the evidence, so let's just see what happens over the coming years. This field is becoming increasingly competitive, a good thing for us consumers, and because of this, if I were a betting man (which I am not) I strongly suspect they will not just sit back and collect royalties. If they do that, they will go the way of other rentiers of yesteryear - one doesn't remain a passive Lord in the Castle for very long these days, but now I'm speculating, so I'll leave it at that.
-
Yes...and isn't it nice that the service might be available for all those years. Switch over to another tool and watch them go away after 5 years. How many tools out there have just disappeared...Aperture being one. How much will it cost you to switch your entire image base from a proprietary system once they decide to turn off the lights. Do you really think all these wannabe upstarts will be around in 5 years, let alone 40?
Yes that's the problem with digital. Will it be possible to read jpegs, tiffs and raws in 40 years? If it is not possible then our recorded visual history will have disappeared. If a Betamax video surfaces now can it be viewed anymore?
Jonathan
-
If the direction of travel, to cloud is not obvious by now then...
Remember when Tom Hogarty said "there will always be a perpetual version of LR".
I moved to C1Pro when they announced LRCC, as it was obvious what was going to happen. Even when the LR product manager Mr Hogarty was denying it.
Everyone is free to use whatever software they like, they just should not be surprised by what Adobe are doing.
Ian
If you do, your memory is playing tricks. He (carefully?) used the word "indefinitely", which doesn't mean the same thing.
Anyway, it's hard to claim to have been misled if you never believed "always" in the first place.
-
Yes...and isn't it nice that the service might be available for all those years. Switch over to another tool and watch them go away after 5 years. How many tools out there have just disappeared...Aperture being one. How much will it cost you to switch your entire image base from a proprietary system once they decide to turn off the lights. Do you really think all these wannabe upstarts will be around in 5 years, let alone 40?
LR is a mature product. What do you expect them to give you over a ten year period that's worth $1200 or 1200 Euros? If you include PS with 1TB cloud, the price goes to $20 a month, double, or $2400 in ten years. If you need more cloud as you photo library grows, the price goes even higher. Adobe's become as cloud service. Maybe they'll cover my washer and drier for another $30. :)
The only reason this works for them is because they got you locked into a product. From the users' end, it makes no point to pay monthly forever other than it's too expensive or complicated to switch. That's the name of the game. It has nothing to do with advantages to the customer. It's all about a business plan and corporate profits. The customer gains little while paying a lot more for the same product.
-
I have been on their photography plan since it started and seen a continuous flow of new features
Really? a continuous flow of new features ??
From what I've read there's very little of significance between LR6 and CC, just a few minor additions and tweaks.
LR6 is a great program that'll I'll continue to use for as long as I can. It's disappointing that it's now going to be set in stone and not developed further, but it's fine for me now and I've no particular intention to buy a newer camera that won't be supported.
I would have spent more on upgrades, but now I won't have to. I think that's a win here.
-
If the direction of travel, to cloud is not obvious by now then...
Remember when Tom Hogarty said "there will always be a perpetual version of LR".
I moved to C1Pro when they announced LRCC, as it was obvious what was going to happen. Even when the LR product manager Mr Hogarty was denying it.
Everyone is free to use whatever software they like, they just should not be surprised by what Adobe are doing.
Ian
Of course they had this in their plans all along. But now they got gobs of clients already in CC making it more difficult for them to change products.
-
Really? a continuous flow of new features ??
From what I've read there's very little of significance between LR6 and CC, just a few minor additions and tweaks.
LR6 is a great program that'll I'll continue to use for as long as I can. It's disappointing that it's now going to be set in stone and not developed further, but it's fine for me now and I've no particular intention to buy a newer camera that won't be supported.
I would have spent more on upgrades, but now I won't have to. I think that's a win here.
Many new features are really glitz that you use once and don't use again. Do you really need to replace your cell phone every two years? I still can't hear the guy speaking at the other end. And can your Facebook friends really see the difference in your photos?
LR is a mature product. If you can't edit with it, then the original OOC shot is probably too poor to bother with.
-
Yes that's the problem with digital. Will it be possible to read jpegs, tiffs and raws in 40 years?
TIFF and JPG will certainly be readable for an extremely long time. I'm also now sure that support for most RAW formats will be available too.There is a critical mass of these files now that makes support inevitable. Whilst the data is regularly archived from media to media, it's possible to keep it accesible. I'm sure many of us have some old data that would have started once on a floppy and has been repeatedly transferred and is still accessible on contemporary media.
Look back at format support in document files and it's pretty universal.
If a Betamax video surfaces now can it be viewed anymore?
Yes, at the moment, but that's a different proposition.
Magnetic media is in a continuous slow state of decay, is difficult to copy and is reliant on it's mechanical construction to be playable. Then you have to have mechanical playback machines that have a limited life, playback heads simply wear out after enough tape has passed over them and there's few spare parts now.
It's already got to the point that there's more recorded 1" video material in storage in the UK than there is head life of the machines to play them back.
-
LR is a mature product. What do you expect them to give you over a ten year period that's worth $1200 or 1200 Euros? If you include PS with 1TB cloud, the price goes to $20 a month, double, or $2400 in ten years. If you need more cloud as you photo library grows, the price goes even higher. Adobe's become as cloud service. Maybe they'll cover my washer and drier for another $30. :)
The only reason this works for them is because they got you locked into a product. From the users' end, it makes no point to pay monthly forever other than it's too expensive or complicated to switch. That's the name of the game. It has nothing to do with advantages to the customer. It's all about a business plan and corporate profits. The customer gains little while paying a lot more for the same product.
You didn't answer my question. You are looking at this 40 year timeframe. Do you believe the wannabees will be there with you for 40 years, or would you need to switch maybe 10 times to different products in those 40 years, moving your 40 years of images ( if even possible ) to these new applications. What in your mind is the cost of moving from one application to another, learning new processes and possibly not being as productive.
-
Really? a continuous flow of new features ??
From what I've read there's very little of significance between LR6 and CC, just a few minor additions and tweaks.
Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View aren't minor.
-
The only reason this works for them is because they got you locked into a product. From the users' end, it makes no point to pay monthly forever other than it's too expensive or complicated to switch. That's the name of the game. It has nothing to do with advantages to the customer. It's all about a business plan and corporate profits. The customer gains little while paying a lot more for the same product.
Nope. You are not locked in to a product. There are options now and there will be options in the future. Maybe inconvenient and a bit messy to switch, but that's different from being locked in.
Whether one is paying "a lot more" is circumstantial - for some people yes, for others no, it depends what you use. But it's just not true that the product is the same. Each version has new features, improvements to existing features and some performance enhancements.
-
Really? a continuous flow of new features ??
From what I've read ...........
Yes really. Don't just read. Use. For example, the new selection tools in LR7 should be very useful. Dehaze and Upright have been great additions to previous versions. The changes made to the performance of the existing tool set with the upgrade of process versions have been beneficial. All that said, I'm waiting a few weeks for the dust to settle before updating, as I've learned from past experience that early adopters do face some teething risks.
-
Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View aren't minor.
YMMV
I've tried dehaze (it can be added via presets) and it seems to just make things a bit contrasty almost like localised clarity, not really much use at all.
Boundary warp ? never needed that.
Guided Upright ? the existing tools work OK, but the auto functions like level/auto/full never seem to really get it right.
Reference view ? again, not something I can see having any need for.
Sorry John, but these additions really are just minor niche bits.
-
Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View aren't minor.
Correct. They are extremely useful.
-
Yes that's the problem with digital. Will it be possible to read jpegs, tiffs and raws in 40 years? If it is not possible then our recorded visual history will have disappeared. If a Betamax video surfaces now can it be viewed anymore?
Jonathan
Unfortunately, that’s a bad analogy. Reading jpegs, tiffs, raws are not dependent on physical devices. The software to read and interpret them is available in many similar, but different forms (programs). One can expect these forms to survive as long as people use, and pay, for them (Pay being a key word for all those who are trying to get it for free).
The only problem with Betamax not surviving is the copy encryption. Without it, the data would have been easy to move to surviving devices shush as VHS, DVD, etc.
-
You didn't answer my question. You are looking at this 40 year timeframe. Do you believe the wannabees will be there with you for 40 years, or would you need to switch maybe 10 times to different products in those 40 years, moving your 40 years of images ( if even possible ) to these new applications. What in your mind is the cost of moving from one application to another, learning new processes and possibly not being as productive.
For the pro who can't be bothered with the relatively small cost to do business, CC makes sense. But for the amateur, it's a lot of money for little product. One thing that might be interesting is what other manufacturers might do in the future. They too could use a rental/cloud plan, but at less cost than Adobe. That would keep Adobe's price down. It might get interesting actually to see what happens with competition. Different companies could offer more cloud space for your other data. Editing itself is going to be fairly standard, like a bar of soap. All car manufacturers have pretty much the same features although there's always those who will or need to get additional power. But for the average driver or photographer, most editing programs will do the job. It's not worth $1200 or $2400 every ten years.
-
YMMV
I've tried dehaze (it can be added via presets) and it seems to just make things a bit contrasty almost like localised clarity, not really much use at all.
Boundary warp ? never needed that.
Guided Upright ? the existing tools work OK, but the auto functions like level/auto/full never seem to really get it right.
Reference view ? again, not something I can see having any need for.
Sorry John, but these additions really are just minor niche bits.
Glitz.
-
YMMV
I've tried dehaze (it can be added via presets) and it seems to just make things a bit contrasty almost like localised clarity, not really much use at all.
Boundary warp ? never needed that.
Guided Upright ? the existing tools work OK, but the auto functions like level/auto/full never seem to really get it right.
Reference view ? again, not something I can see having any need for.
Sorry John, but these additions really are just minor niche bits.
They are not minor niche bits. Sometimes the Auto Upright tools work very well, sometimes not. Then you use the Guided Upright which is excellent. For the kind of work I do it has saved countless trips to Photoshop. And Dehaze, if you know how and when to use it, is a wonderful tool, especially in conjunction with other tools, it's a superb addition to an already very capable tool set.
-
If you do, your memory is playing tricks. He (carefully?) used the word "indefinitely", which doesn't mean the same thing.
Anyway, it's hard to claim to have been misled if you never believed "always" in the first place.
+1 Fully agree John. The business forces around providing a perpetual license, which brings in little revenue yet continues to drain $$s and resources to support, will just not work, except as a necessary transition period.
-
Unfortunately, that’s a bad analogy. Reading jpegs, tiffs, raws are not dependent on physical devices. The software to read and interpret them is available in many similar, but different forms (programs). One can expect these forms to survive as long as people use, and pay, for them (Pay being a key word for all those who are trying to get it for free).
The only problem with Betamax not surviving is the copy encryption. Without it, the data would have been easy to move to surviving devices shush as VHS, DVD, etc.
Betamax and data encryption is what sometimes happens when companies get too cute trying to lock in their customers. On the other hand, we have Windows and Apple and now Adobe. So it does work. Thirty years ago in my business, I sold service on fire alarm system in commercial office buildings. These were proprietary systems that only my company could maintain. I kept the monthly service charge as high as I could get but lower than the point where it paid for the building owner to replace the system. So what Adobe is doing is nothing new. But it has nothing to do with concern for the customer, only maximizing profits.
-
So Adobe does need to get a move on and show up at that party, even if it doesn't arrive first.
John
My point was, arriving late to the party puts Adobe far behind in attracting those photographers who already have a well-established 'images on all their devices' method that costs them much less or even zero. It would seem to me that growth in that segment needs more than a half-ready solution.
-
My point was, arriving late to the party puts Adobe far behind in attracting those photographers who already have a well-established 'images on all their devices' method that costs them much less or even zero. It would seem to me that growth in that segment needs more than a half-ready solution.
Which is roughly what my second paragraph said.
-
My point was, arriving late to the party puts Adobe far behind in attracting those photographers who already have a well-established 'images on all their devices' method that costs them much less or even zero. It would seem to me that growth in that segment needs more than a half-ready solution.
I think we need to use care in discussing the offerings, of which there are 3:
* For photographers that want an all-in-one plan that offers the full benefits of the Light room CC service plus the transformative power of Photoshop, the Creative Cloud Photography plan with 1 TB includes Light room CC, Light room for mobile and web, Photoshop CC, Adobe Spark with premium features, Adobe Portfolio, and 1 TB of cloud storage ($19.99/month, but available at $14.99/month for the first year for existing Creative Cloud Photography customers).
*Light room CC has also been added to the existing Creative Cloud Photography plan with an additional 20 GB of storage to help users get started on the new service. This plan remains at $9.99/month and includes Light room CC, Light room for mobile and web, Light room Classic, Photoshop CC, Adobe Spark with premium features, Adobe Portfolio, and 20 GB of cloud storage. Creative Cloud All Apps members also have access to the new Light room CC service.
*The all-new Lightroom CC plan addresses the needs of photographers who want a cloud-based photography service for editing, organizing, storing and sharing their photos from wherever they are, and includes Light room CC, Light room for mobile and web, Adobe Spark with premium features, Adobe Portfolio, and 1 TB of cloud storage ($9.99/month).
I believe the new LR Cc plan is intended to go after the people you are talking about. How Adobe attracts them, a month is Co per able for 1TB storage, so the software is essentially “free”.
While talking price, I was happily surprised that the existing price did not change.
-
This is interesting, by Thom Hogan (http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/digital-photography-softwar/lightroom-fragments.html).
I'd add what concerns Adobe it seems there is no certainty.
"I'm worried a bit about Lightroom CC. Clearly Adobe, Apple, and Google all want us to store our photos on their server and run their software on those images from any device (in the case of Apple, any iOS or Mac device). The implication in Lightroom CC is that someday Lightroom Classic CC is not the priority at Adobe. It might not happen for a long time, but I can see Adobe shifting emphasis on new abilities from Classic CC to CC at some point, in order to consolidate their position in the cloud.
You can see this already on Adobe's site. Go ahead, try to find details on Lightroom Classic CC. The "Lightroom" product position takes you to Lightroom CC ;~). Moreover, everywhere you can get to a Lightroom Classic CC page on the site, you'll see "the future of photography...Lightroom CC" and be offered to learn more, which takes you to the Lightroom CC pages and information. The Adobe press releases all mostly identify Lightroom CC as the big takeaway. "
-
You can see this already on Adobe's site. Go ahead, try to find details on Lightroom Classic CC. The "Lightroom" product position takes you to Lightroom CC ;~). Moreover, everywhere you can get to a Lightroom Classic CC page on the site, you'll see "the future of photography...Lightroom CC" and be offered to learn more, which takes you to the Lightroom CC pages and information."
He's right. On the Lightroom home page (http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop-lightroom.html) it's all about "Lightroom CC", and you have to know you are looking for the Photography Plan. When you go to the Photography Plan page (http://www.adobe.com/uk/creativecloud/photography.html) it's also all about "Lightroom CC" and only at the bottom is a "The Creative Cloud Photography plan also includes Lightroom Classic CC for desktop-focused editing."
If Adobe want to make people nervous, they're going about it the right way!
John
-
You can see this already on Adobe's site. Go ahead, try to find details on Lightroom Classic CC. The "Lightroom" product position takes you to Lightroom CC ;~). Moreover, everywhere you can get to a Lightroom Classic CC page on the site, you'll see "the future of photography...Lightroom CC" and be offered to learn more, which takes you to the Lightroom CC pages and information. The Adobe press releases all mostly identify Lightroom CC as the big takeaway. "
Sure, one would expect this with the release of a new product. They want it noticed big-time. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.
-
Sure, one would expect this with the release of a new product. They want it noticed big-time. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.
I am with you Mark. It is what I meant when I said I did not know how they would attract the new users, which they need to.
If the new CC significantly increases revenue and “classic” revenues drop, then we might have cause for concern.
-
Sure, one would expect this with the release of a new product. They want it noticed big-time. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.
Well, I see an analogy with the perpetual licence. Very hard to find on their website when LR6 came out and now at the next incarnation it's gone.
I don't think it's an isolated incident, it's obvious what Adobe thinks the fate of "classic" is, they just haven't told us yet but reading between the line it seems clear to me.
-
Sure, one would expect this with the release of a new product. They want it noticed big-time. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.
It has nothing to do with the release of a new [product. The purchase plan for LR for desktop has always been hard to find on their web page and marginalized since PS and LR CC came out years ago. It's not something new that happened because LR is now a CC product by itself. Also, "Classic" will be a dead product with no support and no new sales in a few years. My guess is they'll keep Elements for amateur editors. They might even add the cloud for Elements as well.
-
Well, I see an analogy with the perpetual licence. Very hard to find on their website when LR6 came out and now at the next incarnation it's gone.
I don't think it's an isolated incident, it's obvious what Adobe thinks the fate of "classic" is, they just haven't told us yet but reading between the line it seems clear to me.
Hey Pieter, we finally agree on something. :)
-
it's obvious what Adobe thinks the fate of "classic" is, they just haven't told us yet but reading between the line it seems clear to me.
I don't think it's obvious and it's not clear to me because I have no inside knowledge of what they are planning to do; but I expect that "classic" will be here for a long time to come. If they discontinue it in an effort to force me onto "cloud computing", it's goodbye Lightroom.
-
Also, "Classic" will be a dead product with no support and no new sales in a few years.
You have absolutely no way of knowing this unless a senior executive of Adobe told you so, which I highly doubt.
-
It has nothing to do with the release of a new [product. The purchase plan for LR for desktop has always been hard to find on their web page and marginalized since PS and LR CC came out years ago. It's not something new that happened because LR is now a CC product by itself. Also, "Classic" will be a dead product with no support and no new sales in a few years. My guess is they'll keep Elements for amateur editors. They might even add the cloud for Elements as well.
As LR CC is currently designed, I think there are few current LR/PS user would be happy with the lack of control over the physical organization of the data base. Where LR first came out in beta, there was a similar organization, which was changed due to the vocal complaints of the testers.
Many people use LR/PS as their base, while using DxO, CP1, and other tools. I doubt the new CC will support that, not the intended audiences interested in it.
The current Classic will survive based on licenses. I suggest Adobe will continue efforts of enhancements so that the “cash cow” is not killed.
-
You have absolutely no way of knowing this unless a senior executive of Adobe told you so, which I highly doubt.
Well that's my opinion. It's based on the fact that you have to be Sherlock Holmes to find the LR licensed product on their web page for the last four years.
-
... Thirty years ago in my business, I sold service on fire alarm system in commercial office buildings. These were proprietary systems that only my company could maintain. I kept the monthly service charge as high as I could get but lower than the point where it paid for the building owner to replace the system. So what Adobe is doing is nothing new. But it has nothing to do with concern for the customer, only maximizing profits.
Fascinating! What was good and fine for you is now evil for others?
I have news for you... the business of business is to make money for its shareholders. At least in free, frowing economies.
-
Well that's my opinion. It's based on the fact that you have to be Sherlock Holmes to find the LR licensed product on their web page for the last four years.
Pretty slim basis for a conviction.
-
Hey Pieter, we finally agree on something. :)
Feels great Alan ;)
-
You have absolutely no way of knowing this unless a senior executive of Adobe told you so, which I highly doubt.
Nobody knows, every statement on the future of "LR classic" is speculation. Only if Tom Hogarty said it will stay "indefinitely" I would be doubtfull ;) and it's my speculation that the fact it's hard to find on the website is a sign (like it was with perpetual licences).
-
Nobody knows, every statement on the future of "LR classic" is speculation. Only if Tom Hogarty said it will stay "indefinitely" I would be doubtfull ;) and it's my speculation that the fact it's hard to find on the website is a sign (like it was with perpetual licences).
I think Adobe's position is pretty clearly stated here: Hogarty (https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2017/10/answering-your-questions-on-lightroom-cc-lightroom-classic-cc-and-more.html)
-
Of course Adobe wants to push things towards cloud computing because there is more money to be made there. the can tack on storage fees to the subscription price. I don't know whether Adobe is creating their own data farm or whether they are leasing space from the big players such as MSFT and AMZN. I've been using Amazon Simple Storage for several purposes over the past several years because it is the cheapest and most reliable cloud storage site that I could find. I think right now I pay just over $2/month for storage. The one factor that nobody has mentioned is that cloud storage is great IF you have a really fast Internet connection. Uploading images to the cloud, although simple, can take a lot of time unless you have speed. Remember download speeds are usually much faster than upload speeds so watching streamed movies and shows from Netflix, Amazon, or other sources is a piece of cake compared to waiting for hundreds of D810 images to upload. Obviously once they are uploaded things should be OK but you better hope your cloud provider has build in redundancy so that files are not lost or corrupted.
What if you are out in the field and want to start working on images in the cloud model of LR. Do you think it will be easy to upload files? Do you think a hotel is going to allow you to corral all of their bandwidth? There are some practical issues here that have not been discussed.
I'm not necessarily pleased about the loss of the perpetual license version of LR. I could care less what "indefinitely" means. My only complaint is that I am now being forced into paying a monthly charge for a tool that may or may not be upgraded with tools that are useful. The changes between LR1 and LR6 were pretty much profound between major versions though less so between LR5 & LR6. Some people have already commented on the utility of some new things that have been implemented in the current subscription model. That's fine too but again no guarantee that things will continue apace moving forward. Adobe has you by the cojones and can do what they want. It is nobody's interest to see a monopoly prevail as we have ample history what happens when that occurs.
My hope is that this move will spur companies such as Serif to move forward with their own DAM program to accompany Affinity Photo so that we do have increased competition.
-
If Adobe want to make people nervous, they're going about it the right way!
John
John ... just how long are the marketing team and upper management going to get away with these semantic snafu's?
For a company with all the resources they have available, there is no logical explanation for how they are doing things. It seems as hard as they try ... even after extensive surveys and research ... they just don't seem to be capable of grasping common sense when they choose product naming conventions or basic comprehensive product web design.
The vast majority of confusion that has occurred over the past day, can be laid at the feet of the 'Einstein' in charge of marketing. It's like they are still soundly asleep at the wheel and have no clue about human nature let alone their traditional customer base.
-
I don't think it's obvious and it's not clear to me because I have no inside knowledge of what they are planning to do; but I expect that "classic" will be here for a long time to come. If they discontinue it in an effort to force me onto "cloud computing", it's goodbye Lightroom.
I recall that same sentiment being shared about perpetual licenses right after Adobe introduced CC. 'A long time to come' could be years measured by the fingers on one hand ... and a digit to two left over.
-
Adobe has you by the cojones and can do what they want. It is nobody's interest to see a monopoly prevail as we have ample history what happens when that occurs.
Well Alan, I don't know how you feel about your cojones, but I don't feel that Adobe has me by mine - but then again I may just be operating at an exceptional level of insensitivity or naivete, time will tell. :-)
Back to serious, I agree with you in one sense - uncertainty about what they will do going forward. The truth is we just don't know. But then again, nothing is guaranteed except death and taxes. But that said, there is competition, we do have options and the structure of the industry will continue to evolve. I'm not too concerned, because the evidence of how they are managing the Photography Bundle has on the whole been pretty good.
-
I recall that same sentiment being shared about perpetual licenses right after Adobe introduced CC. 'A long time to come' could be years measured by the fingers on one hand ... and a digit to two left over.
As I just suggested to Alan, we don't really know. It's all speculation. My own speculation is that we will have many years of the "Classic" option. But if I'm wrong I may be one of the first people to adopt another platform that would be resident on my hard drive along with all my photographs.
-
I think Adobe's position is pretty clearly stated here: Hogarty (https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2017/10/answering-your-questions-on-lightroom-cc-lightroom-classic-cc-and-more.html)
Isn't that the guy who also said perpetual LR licences would continue for upgrades as long as he was the product manager?
How many times does he think he can fool his customers, for me once is enough :P
-
Isn't that the guy who also said perpetual LR licences would continue for upgrades as long as he was the product manager?
How many times does he think he can fool his customers, for me once is enough :P
No he said "indefinitely" and John has already given us the dictionary meaning of the word which means not forever.
-
I am now being forced into paying a monthly charge for a tool that may or may not be upgraded with tools that are useful.
You don't have to buy into it. If LR6 works for you now, just stay with it and enjoy not having to upgrade :-)
-
No he said "indefinitely" and John has already given us the dictionary meaning of the word which means not forever.
Alan, I think he said two things, and used both the term indefinitely as well as "as long as I am the product manager", at least that's what digitaldog posted here earlier.
Same fellow and same blog where he wrote:
Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?
A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely.
Didn't he say it would be perpetual as long as he was the product manager too? ???
-
You don't have to buy into it. If LR6 works for you now, just stay with it and enjoy not having to upgrade :-)
That's exactly what I am doing. But I will also be looking at Affinity Photo.
-
Sure, one would expect this with the release of a new product. They want it noticed big-time. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.
First, they came for the Aperture users. But I wasn't an Aperture user, so I didn't care...
Then, they came for the Lr 6 users, but I subscribe to CC, so I didn't care...
etc.
(tongue in cheek, by the way)
-
The vast majority of confusion that has occurred over the past day, can be laid at the feet of the 'Einstein' in charge of marketing. It's like they are still soundly asleep at the wheel and have no clue about human nature let alone their traditional customer base.
140 characters can completely change the news agenda, so maybe it's all a clever way of getting people talking about nothing else?
-
140 characters can completely change the news agenda, so maybe it's all a clever way of getting people talking about nothing else?
Pulease, let's not go there! :-)
-
Unless I missed it on this thread nobody addresses the other advantage of cloud computing - performance. Adobe can provide very powerful image processing by rendering images in their server farms. Scott McNeil's dictum "the network is the computer" is real now. This has the potential to offer performance gains not achievable on your average desktop.
-
nobody addresses the other advantage of cloud computing - performance.
Until you want to work somewhere with no internet connection.
-
Fascinating! What was good and fine for you is now evil for others?
I have news for you... the business of business is to make money for its shareholders. At least in free, frowing economies.
I never said it was evil. In fact, I think it was brilliant on their part. I wish I owned some Adobe stock when they did it. But, that doesn't mean it's good for the users. Spending a lot more for the same product doesn't seem like an advantage to me. The argument that Adobe did this for their user base is just silly. It was all about maximizing profit and extending the life of a mature product that would have declining sales going forward.
They could have offered the Cloud as an add-on to "classic" LR. Then those who need that could buy it. The rest of us could ignore it at no additional cost. But they didn't do it that way. They forced everyone to go to the cloud as an excuse to provide a monthly fee for LR that you pay for the rest of your life. Alimony's cheaper.
-
I never said it was evil. In fact, I think it was brilliant on their part. I wish I owned some Adobe stock when they did it. But, that doesn't mean it's good for the users. Spending a lot more for the same product doesn't seem like an advantage to me. The argument that Adobe did this for their user base is just silly. It was all about maximizing profit and extending the life of a mature product that would have declining sales going forward.
They could have offered the Cloud as an add-on to "classic" LR. Then those who need that could buy it. The rest of us could ignore it at no additional cost. But they didn't do it that way. They forced everyone to go to the cloud as an excuse to provide a monthly fee for LR that you pay for the rest of your life. Alimony's cheaper.
First, they have not forced anyone to go to the cloud. The ol’ Photographer’s bundle is still available, as is, for $9.99.
I suspect, for the market theatre aiming at with the new “LR CC” they needed a new, simpler design. A PhD system, as in Push Here Dummy. Time will tell if they meet their objective.
I also suspect, that they will support Classic as long as there are enough users paying the fee. That, of course will depend on function they provide vs competitive offerings....normal business dynamics.
-
Until you want to work somewhere with no internet connection.
Or you have poor connectivity,
Or their servers get hacked and your stuff is "appropriated",
Or they have prolonged outages from denail of service attacks,
Or, or, or for whatever reason you lose access to your photos or become shutr out of using the application.
Thanks - I'll be a "stick in the mud" and carry on doing it all locally.
-
They forced everyone to go to the cloud as an excuse to provide a monthly fee for LR that you pay for the rest of your life. Alimony's cheaper.
No they have not forced every one to go to the cloud. The application remains in your hard drive along with the photos - at least with the Classic version, and they are allowing you to carry on working with the latest perpetually licensed version without paying another cent - it's just that people who do that won't get the new features available with the subscription based upgrades. And if alimony is cheaper Alan, it doesn't say much for the negotiating skills of the recipient! :-)
-
Thanks - I'll be a "stick in the mud" and carry on doing it all locally.
Until they stop supporting it as they have LR6 stand alone!!! ;D ;D
-
Curious. Why don't camera manufacturers provide a standard RAW interface code so you don't have to upgrade your editing program every time they release a new camera?
-
First, they came for the Aperture users. But I wasn't an Aperture user, so I didn't care...
Then, they came for the Lr 6 users, but I subscribe to CC, so I didn't care...
etc.
(tongue in cheek, by the way)
Funny!
Ian
-
Alan, when they stop supporting local processing between one section of my hard drive and another, that is the day I move on to something else. I'm not worried about it. There will always be options and enough transition time to manage the changeovers.
-
Curious. Why don't camera manufacturers provide a standard RAW interface code so you don't have to upgrade your editing program every time they release a new camera?
That's also a marketing game, and why Adobe developed the DNG format.
-
That's also a marketing game, and why Adobe developed the DNG format.
And only Leica AFAIK adopted DNG for output; all the other mfrs stayed with proprietary formats for RAW files.
-
Or their servers get hacked and your stuff is "appropriated",
Luckily Adobe has proved they know how to secure their systems. Oh. Wait. They haven't. Good point. Perhaps Adobe can explain why a photography business should feel comfortable storing their second most valuable assets - after the photographers themselves - with a company whose approach to security (Flash or Acrobat anyone?) has been lackadaisical at best.
I suspect, for the market theatre aiming at with the new “LR CC” they needed a new, simpler design. A PhD system, as in Push Here Dummy. Time will tell if they meet their objective.
And there, I suspect, is where the friction between Adobe's approach and working photographers arises. Lightroom's beginning was promising, coming as a single application that could work with the proprietary RAW formats foisted off by each camera vendor. It was a breath of fresh air after the horrors of Nikon Capture, etc. The pro digital market pales in comparison to the prosumer, hence the approach John aptly calls PhD.
I am less concerned about the SAAS subscription approach Adobe looks to use - that's proven too profitable to resist - than I am with the forced cloud uploads and the implicit assumption that your images are only rented from Adobe. If you are using Lightroom to review, cull, and process images from a commercial shoot the last thing one typically wants is cloud storage. 1TB of storage space? A single shoot can fill that and then some. Even assuming you have screaming on location internet speeds please explain why I want to transfer thousands of images to Adobe that will quickly prove useless or redundant.
I just hope another developer sees and quickly exploits the tremendous opportunity Adobe has handed them.
-
Unless I missed it on this thread nobody addresses the other advantage of cloud computing - performance. Adobe can provide very powerful image processing by rendering images in their server farms. Scott McNeil's dictum "the network is the computer" is real now. This has the potential to offer performance gains not achievable on your average desktop.
Perhaps. Investigate the cost of purchasing the processing equivalent of a reasonably well equipped image editing computer as a cloud service with AWS, Google, or Azure. It isn't cheap. The main benefit is if you are running applications that scale well, require many processing nodes, and have a well defined workflow. Optimizing single images does not fit with this paradigm.
-
And only Leica AFAIK adopted DNG for output; all the other mfrs stayed with proprietary formats for RAW files.
Pentax too.
-
Luckily Adobe has proved they know how to secure their systems. Oh. Wait. They haven't. Good point. Perhaps Adobe can explain why a photography business should feel comfortable storing their second most valuable assets - after the photographers themselves - with a company whose approach to security (Flash or Acrobat anyone?) has been lackadaisical at best.
And there, I suspect, is where the friction between Adobe's approach and working photographers arises. Lightroom's beginning was promising, coming as a single application that could work with the proprietary RAW formats foisted off by each camera vendor. It was a breath of fresh air after the horrors of Nikon Capture, etc. The pro digital market pales in comparison to the prosumer, hence the approach John aptly calls PhD.
I am less concerned about the SAAS subscription approach Adobe looks to use - that's proven too profitable to resist - than I am with the forced cloud uploads and the implicit assumption that your images are only rented from Adobe. If you are using Lightroom to review, cull, and process images from a commercial shoot the last thing one typically wants is cloud storage. 1TB of storage space? A single shoot can fill that and then some. Even assuming you have screaming on location internet speeds please explain why I want to transfer thousands of images to Adobe that will quickly prove useless or redundant.
I just hope another developer sees and quickly exploits the tremendous opportunity Adobe has handed them.
It's useful to not conflate two separate issues here: (A) Cloud Computing and (B) the subscription model. (B) is here to stay whether you use the Cloud service or not, and as long as the Classic version of the application remains available, we may continue to use it, paying nothing if it is LR6 (but no upgrades), and a monthly fee if subscribed to the latest classic version on the subscription plan.
-
Luckily Adobe has proved they know how to secure their systems. Oh. Wait. They haven't. Good point. Perhaps Adobe can explain why a photography business should feel comfortable storing their second most valuable assets - after the photographers themselves - with a company whose approach to security (Flash or Acrobat anyone?) has been lackadaisical at best.
And there, I suspect, is where the friction between Adobe's approach and working photographers arises. Lightroom's beginning was promising, coming as a single application that could work with the proprietary RAW formats foisted off by each camera vendor. It was a breath of fresh air after the horrors of Nikon Capture, etc. The pro digital market pales in comparison to the prosumer, hence the approach John aptly calls PhD.
I am less concerned about the SAAS subscription approach Adobe looks to use - that's proven too profitable to resist - than I am with the forced cloud uploads and the implicit assumption that your images are only rented from Adobe. If you are using Lightroom to review, cull, and process images from a commercial shoot the last thing one typically wants is cloud storage. 1TB of storage space? A single shoot can fill that and then some. Even assuming you have screaming on location internet speeds please explain why I want to transfer thousands of images to Adobe that will quickly prove useless or redundant.
I just hope another developer sees and quickly exploits the tremendous opportunity Adobe has handed them.
Agree 100%.
-
Luckily Adobe has proved they know how to secure their systems. Oh. Wait. They haven't. Good point. Perhaps Adobe can explain why a photography business should feel comfortable storing their second most valuable assets - after the photographers themselves - with a company whose approach to security (Flash or Acrobat anyone?) has been lackadaisical at best.
And there, I suspect, is where the friction between Adobe's approach and working photographers arises. Lightroom's beginning was promising, coming as a single application that could work with the proprietary RAW formats foisted off by each camera vendor. It was a breath of fresh air after the horrors of Nikon Capture, etc. The pro digital market pales in comparison to the prosumer, hence the approach John aptly calls PhD.
I am less concerned about the SAAS subscription approach Adobe looks to use - that's proven too profitable to resist - than I am with the forced cloud uploads and the implicit assumption that your images are only rented from Adobe. If you are using Lightroom to review, cull, and process images from a commercial shoot the last thing one typically wants is cloud storage. 1TB of storage space? A single shoot can fill that and then some. Even assuming you have screaming on location internet speeds please explain why I want to transfer thousands of images to Adobe that will quickly prove useless or redundant.
I just hope another developer sees and quickly exploits the tremendous opportunity Adobe has handed them.
Ethan, the point is that no one is forced to go to the cloud version. Also, it is for a different market the the photog who fills up 1TB in a single shoot.
-
Until they stop supporting it as they have LR6 stand alone!!! ;D ;D
How long do you want them to support it without you paying a dime?
-
Luckily Adobe has proved they know how to secure their systems. Oh. Wait. They haven't. Good point. Perhaps Adobe can explain why a photography business should feel comfortable storing their second most valuable assets - after the photographers themselves - with a company whose approach to security (Flash or Acrobat anyone?) has been lackadaisical at best.
Well haven't credit card companies and banks been hacked into and identify stolen. I suppose you don't use a bank nor a credit card, huh?
I would think credit card companies and banks should have much higher security in place than Adobe subscriptions.
-
I am less concerned about the SAAS subscription approach Adobe looks to use - that's proven too profitable to resist - than I am with the forced cloud uploads and the implicit assumption that your images are only rented from Adobe. If you are using Lightroom to review, cull, and process images from a commercial shoot the last thing one typically wants is cloud storage. 1TB of storage space? A single shoot can fill that and then some. Even assuming you have screaming on location internet speeds please explain why I want to transfer thousands of images to Adobe that will quickly prove useless or redundant.
I just hope another developer sees and quickly exploits the tremendous opportunity Adobe has handed them.
Again...Adobe is NOT forcing you to store anything off of your own hard drive. They give you an option...just like you have today if you want to use some of the cloud storage that is out there for your backups. Why don't people read what Adobe is providing before lambasting them.
-
Again...Adobe is NOT forcing you to store anything off of your own hard drive. They give you an option...just like you have today if you want to use some of the cloud storage that is out there for your backups. Why don't people read what Adobe is providing before lambasting them.
What Adobe is currently providing in the form of reading is 404 errors for almost all Lightroom CC FAQ pages except for the home page marketing fluff. Installing the new version, perusing the EULA and all on-disk documentation consistently shows that (1) Cloud storage is not optional (2) images automatically are uploaded upon import and (3) Adobe is even thoughtful enough to let you keep local versions of each image after upload.
Adobe is lambasting itself.
John: True enough Adobe is not forcing anyone to upgrade. If however, you foresee purchasing a camera made after the last update to the standalone version you likely won't be able to use Lightroom as a one stop shopping image editor. And yes, LR is no longer geared at the pro market. That's exactly what I said in my initial post. Adobe is opening the door to a competitor; my hope is that other vendors seize the chance.
-
What Adobe is currently providing in the form of reading is 404 errors for almost all Lightroom CC FAQ pages except for the home page marketing fluff. Installing the new version, perusing the EULA and all on-disk documentation consistently shows that (1) Cloud storage is not optional (2) images automatically are uploaded upon import and (3) Adobe is even thoughtful enough to let you keep local versions of each image after upload.
I'm sorry...but you have lost me. Don't know what exactly you are trying to say.
-
He is trying to say he didn’t do due diligence.
Ethan, suggest you read this set of posts from page one. Follow the links posted.
-
Well John, snotty reply aside, I did read Mr. Hogarty's blog post. It was one of the first sources I checked after reading announcements in the blogosphere. Per the official, Adobe sanctioned blog Lightroom CC is "Cloud Based—Everything you do in Lightroom CC is synced to the cloud. This means that you can access and work with your photos from any device (including multiple computers), and can easily share photos with others. All of your photos and all of the work that you do with them will be automatically backed up all the time."
Unless you have an insight to Adobe's definition of the words Everything, any, and "all the time" that differ from standard dictionary usage, my read is that Lightroom CC backs up everything to the cloud. All the time.
What little documentation is included in Lightroom CC makes the explicit point that LR is now a cloud-native application. The source image now lives on an Adobe server, with copies distributed to connected devices. File sizes are altered depending on available local storage. If you choose, you can keep full sized versions on a local computer. Cloud uploads ... those ain't optional. I also attempted further due diligence by reading Adobe's site, but as I mentioned above, most of the LR FAQs point to nonexistent pages.
Adobe has accomplished quite a feat. They made LR CC unusable for many people who pay the bills through their images. A combination of unknown security risks, the impossibility of uploading a full shoot of images through an internet connection before the next shoot begins (again, I'm assuming photography is your business rather than just a weekend hobby), and the sheer inefficiency of placing all those images in the cloud is baffling.
We actually do store huge amounts of images in the cloud as it provides redundant backups in case of disaster. If working remotely, pulling files from AWS can also be faster than copying them from our in-house storage. Storage costs are in line with what Adobe charges for LR cloud with the important differences that (1) we only store images that are useful - the vast majority are culled first, and (2) all images are encrypted on before they leave our computers so even if Amazon gets hacked all the bad guy will have are files with 256 random character names that are unreadable.
If your interest in photography is editing your happy snaps then Lightroom CC is a reasonable idea. Good for you. That appears to be where Adobe gauges the market to be and I assume they are correct. That does not mean that a working photographer will feel the same excitement about the direction LR has gone in his or her fizzy bits.
-
What little documentation is included in Lightroom CC makes the explicit point that LR is now a cloud-native application. The source image now lives on an Adobe server, with copies distributed to connected devices.
That's what Lightroom CC does–everything is in the cloud. Lightroom Classic CC is the old non-cloud based desktop application that maintains all files locally on the hard drive, not in the cloud.
Two different apps, two different markets. It's very likely that the Lightroom CC app that is cloud based will be of little interest and use for LuLa members.
-
Hi,
You may be a bit negative. For one thing the cloud solution is good enough for billion dollar companies storing essential data, on the other side it gives you full and total backup.
As far as I understand you can still have your files locally and I would pressume that Adobe has put some real work into cashing mechanisms to make the platform workable.
But, we now have Lightroom Classic which is the original concept. Subscription includes both.
Best regards
Erik
Well John, snotty reply aside, I did read Mr. Hogarty's blog post. It was one of the first sources I checked after reading announcements in the blogosphere. Per the official, Adobe sanctioned blog Lightroom CC is "Cloud Based—Everything you do in Lightroom CC is synced to the cloud. This means that you can access and work with your photos from any device (including multiple computers), and can easily share photos with others. All of your photos and all of the work that you do with them will be automatically backed up all the time."
Unless you have an insight to Adobe's definition of the words Everything, any, and "all the time" that differ from standard dictionary usage, my read is that Lightroom CC backs up everything to the cloud. All the time.
What little documentation is included in Lightroom CC makes the explicit point that LR is now a cloud-native application. The source image now lives on an Adobe server, with copies distributed to connected devices. File sizes are altered depending on available local storage. If you choose, you can keep full sized versions on a local computer. Cloud uploads ... those ain't optional. I also attempted further due diligence by reading Adobe's site, but as I mentioned above, most of the LR FAQs point to nonexistent pages.
Adobe has accomplished quite a feat. They made LR CC unusable for many people who pay the bills through their images. A combination of unknown security risks, the impossibility of uploading a full shoot of images through an internet connection before the next shoot begins (again, I'm assuming photography is your business rather than just a weekend hobby), and the sheer inefficiency of placing all those images in the cloud is baffling.
We actually do store huge amounts of images in the cloud as it provides redundant backups in case of disaster. If working remotely, pulling files from AWS can also be faster than copying them from our in-house storage. Storage costs are in line with what Adobe charges for LR cloud with the important differences that (1) we only store images that are useful - the vast majority are culled first, and (2) all images are encrypted on before they leave our computers so even if Amazon gets hacked all the bad guy will have are files with 256 random character names that are unreadable.
If your interest in photography is editing your happy snaps then Lightroom CC is a reasonable idea. Good for you. That appears to be where Adobe gauges the market to be and I assume they are correct. That does not mean that a working photographer will feel the same excitement about the direction LR has gone in his or her fizzy bits.
-
In Lr6, subscription model, Adobe maintained that even if you terminated your subscription, Lr would continue to work… just NOT the Develop module. Is that still the case ?
-
Yes.
-
OT: At times, I feel compelled to read through the entire, and in Adobe's case that is a helluva lot, legal mambo jambo for a good laugh. ADOBE GENERAL TERMS (2017v1) Page 9 of 12
KNOCK KNOCK.... Adobe Security, open the door!
;D
13.1 Adobe may, at its expense and no more than once every 12 months, appoint its own personnel or an independent third party (or both) to verify that Customer’s use, installation, or deployment of the Products and Services (or other Adobe Technology used in conjunction with the Products and Services) comply with the terms of this Agreement.
13.2 For On-premise Software and any Distributed Code, the verification will require Customer to provide within 30 days of request (A) raw data from a software asset management tool of all On-premise Software and Distributed Code installed or deployed by or at the direction of Customer, including installation or deployment on servers owned by Customer or provided by third parties; (B) all valid purchase documentation for all On-premise Software and Distributed Code; and (C) any information reasonably requested by Adobe.
13.3 Any verification may include an onsite audit conducted at Customer’s relevant places of business upon 7 days’ prior notice, during regular business hours, and will not unreasonably interfere with Customer’s business activities.
13.4 If the verification shows that Customer, its Affiliates or third-party contractors of Customer or its Affiliates are deploying, installing or using the Products and Services (or other Adobe Technology used in conjunction with the Products and Services): (A) beyond the quantity that was legitimately licensed; or (B) in any way not permitted under this Agreement, so that additional fees apply, Customer must pay the additional license fees and any applicable related maintenance and support fees within 30 days of invoice date. If use, deployment, or installation exceeds 5% of that which is permitted under this Agreement, Customer must pay Adobe’s reasonable costs of conducting the verification, in addition to paying the additional fees.
-
Now, apart from "Julia Küchler", a fashion photographer I had never heard about before, who became part of the German Adobe advertisement, I wonder about other Pro's in the business, say conflict zone photographers.
Let aside, the proposed added value of features, what guarantee do I have, apart from my own Web connectivity, that I am able to access 24/7 without any interruption? I suppose there is no guarantee whatsoever or it is rather vague and full of possible liability exclusions. I stand to be corrected.
Put is this way, what added value benefit does Adobe cloud propose here compared to using my OSX Server VPN?
-
Let aside, the proposed added value of features, what guarantee do I have, apart from my own Web connectivity, that I am able to access 24/7 without any interruption? I suppose there is no guarantee whatsoever or it is rather vague and full of possible liability exclusions. I stand to be corrected.
Like every contract for such services?
But there are important contractual angles to a pure LRCC/LRM/LRW workflow that I don't think are adequately covered by the general terms. It's not like when Auntie Jane the Photographer dies and you can examine her hard drive. So I am trying to get answers from Adobe on a couple of things that are implicitly part of the contract.
One is what exactly happens when you stop subscribing - what happens to your originals uploaded to their cloud? I haven't yet seen where Adobe says "you have x days' grace to download them" or "here's a tool to help you download everything that's yours." What about any titles, captions or other metadata? Where is this stated when you sign up?
Another is what happens when the subscriber dies? Can next-of-kin gain access to his or her photos? How and for how long? It's taken us 18 months to finalise our late father's estate (even with both of us having relevant expertise), so 30 days' grace wouldn't be enough. In any case, how would the next-of-kin know that the family photos or the valuable IP is in Adobe's cloud? Is there a provision for a subscriber to record the next-of-kin so they are reminded annually? Where is this stated when you sign up?
Put is this way, what added value benefit does Adobe cloud propose here compared to using my OSX Server VPN?
It does less, but does it without you needing to know what one is.
-
Another is what happens when the subscriber dies?
Issues like this become really important and intractable. However it effects a much wider range of companies than just Adobe. The problem is already hitting headlines, at least in the UK, with Apple's approach to the issue. One would have hoped that Adobe would have learnt from that bad publicity and at least had some sort of policy statement available.
It will become more complex too as cloud data becomes not just 'private data' but a financial asset. What happens if a photographers goes bankrupt and the insolvency practitioners needs to assess financial assets ?
All of this when dealing with amorphous global corporates and assets that are spread across the globe in unknown locations.
There's a lot to be said for a hard drive under the bed.
-
Important, intractable, international, often overlooked.
Thanks for mentioning insolvency. When I mentioned "valuable IP" I was thinking along the same lines, but I agree that it's something that needs clarity. In fact at one stage of my accounting career I was one of those practitioners!
-
How long do you want them to support it without you paying a dime?
LR6 is a dead product. Support simply means being able to install LR on your computer and have them activate it without issues. You have paid for the product and should be able to use it for as long as you like.
For example, I am using a database from the 1990's on Win 10 FCU without problems.
Ian
-
Again...Adobe is NOT forcing you to store anything off of your own hard drive. They give you an option...just like you have today if you want to use some of the cloud storage that is out there for your backups. Why don't people read what Adobe is providing before lambasting them.
At this moment in time. Remember "LR perpetual will always be available" - Tom Hogarty Product Manager LR.? PSCS6?
Ian
-
In Lr6, subscription model, Adobe maintained that even if you terminated your subscription, Lr would continue to work… just NOT the Develop module. Is that still the case ?
As I have read, both Develop and Map modules won't work following termination of a subscription.
-
On another website there is a report in favour of these changes. The author however quotes that his upload speed to the cloud is 1MB/s! This means 20 to 30 seconds for just one raw image. Uploading 100 images will take between half an hour and an hour. No way! It may be okay for urbanites with fast fibre, but for many of us in the country or suburbs or out on the road it is not good news.
Jonathan
-
At this moment in time. Remember "LR perpetual will always be available" - Tom Hogarty Product Manager LR.? PSCS6?
The above is relevant to what I wrote OT about 'Classic' in another thread.. So please forgive if it's a little bit out of context. But I gots to vent in a more appropriate thread for venting. >:( (ETA: Many linefeeds are just refusing to go through for me on this site.)
"Sooo... Given [a current ongoing problem with AMD GPU acceleration], as well as the change to pure RansomWare, on top of the indicative/predictive(?) 'hard to find anything about Classic on Adobe's website' issue -- I'm kinda out while I consider on whether to switch to something that's not going to be RansomWare. Adobe ****ABSOLUTELY NEEDS**** to offer an option to keep a current snapshot if deciding/needing to stop paying the ransom.. One where the edit and map modules still work, of course - say, after having subscribed for such and such a time period.. I'm sure someone smarter than me could figure out the details. Only then, will people feel a bit more confident in sticking with Adobe at this point. I'm currently on CC, but I think it's thoroughly despicable how they've reneged on their 'promise' of keeping a perpetual version - that was always a safety net for me until now.
The biggest reasons why I wouldn't switch to something like C1 [right now] is the horrendous catalog speed, no scene-referred HDR and panorama [DNG], no map module, and lousy support for DNG. There are many others, of course, but those are probably the biggest for me - as being on the serious amateur/hobbyist side. There's also ON1 raw and ACDSee, but there are similar issues with those. It's tough deciding, when all one's past images are already edited in the Adobe non-destructive engine instructions - of course the same could be said if I was using one of the others.
<sigh> They really NEED to make it possible to keep a current snapshot if they're going to switch to pure unadulterated RansomWare.. Again, with ALL the working features of a perpetual version.
"
-
At this moment in time. Remember "LR perpetual will always be available" - Tom Hogarty Product Manager LR.? PSCS6?
Not true - unless you can link to where that statement was made. Prove it, if you can.
See what he actually wrote here (https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html) : "Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."
-
On another website there is a report in favour of these changes. The author however quotes that his upload speed to the cloud is 1MB/s! This means 20 to 30 seconds for just one raw image. Uploading 100 images will take between half an hour and an hour. No way! It may be okay for urbanites with fast fibre, but for many of us in the country or suburbs or out on the road it is not good news.
Jonathan
I commented on this earlier. I have a good fiber optic Internet connection but remember that when one does a speed test it's really a synthetic number and not what the real speed is. I remember doing my first cloud back up about five years ago. I had about 200MB of data to up load and it took about six full working days to get it uploaded. Now that connection was slower by about a factor of three than what I currently have. The cloud service back up will work for those who have real fast service but that comes with a big price tag and you need to figure that into the price going forward. Right now I get 30Mb/sec upload speed for about $40/month. If I move to the Adobe cloud LR, my real costs become about $60/month when I include the Internet provider fee. This is perhaps OK if one can write this off on taxes as a business expense.
I'll leave aside the security issues as those can be dealt with through encryption of your images assuming Adobe allows that feature (Amazon Simple Storage doesn't care if things are encrypted or not, that is up to the application one is using for upload to choose).
Finally, one LuLa member said "How long to you want them to support it without spending a dime?" I already responded that I was willing to pay an upgrade fee for a new stand alone version of LR that offered new tools. the only support for legacy LR that is really needed is for new cameras and I doubt that is a big engineering feat for Adobe to accomplish.
-
At this moment in time. Remember "LR perpetual will always be available" - Tom Hogarty Product Manager LR.? PSCS6?
Ian
Yeh...and the sky is really falling. What guarantee do you have any other software will be supported forever? None...so enough of the chicken little attitude.
-
Yeh...and the sky is really falling. What guarantee do you have any other software will be supported forever? None...so enough of the chicken little attitude.
It doesn't have to be supported, as long as you can run it (without ongoing monthly fees) it's fine by me.
I would have liked a perpetual LR7, but for the time being a running (but unsupported after YE 2017) perpetual LR6 will do fine.
And calling out Adobe officials on spreading deceiving information has nothing to do with "chicken little", and neither has defending them "no matter what".
There's no need to be derogatory to people you don't agree with, simply disagreeing will do fine.
-
Well John, snotty reply aside, I did read Mr. Hogarty's blog post. It was one of the first sources I checked after reading announcements in the blogosphere. Per the official, Adobe sanctioned blog Lightroom CC is "Cloud Based—Everything you do in Lightroom CC is synced to the cloud. This means that you can access and work with your photos from any device (including multiple computers), and can easily share photos with others. All of your photos and all of the work that you do with them will be automatically backed up all the time."
Unless you have an insight to Adobe's definition of the words Everything, any, and "all the time" that differ from standard dictionary usage, my read is that Lightroom CC backs up everything to the cloud. All the time.
What little documentation is included in Lightroom CC makes the explicit point that LR is now a cloud-native application. The source image now lives on an Adobe server, with copies distributed to connected devices. File sizes are altered depending on available local storage. If you choose, you can keep full sized versions on a local computer. Cloud uploads ... those ain't optional. I also attempted further due diligence by reading Adobe's site, but as I mentioned above, most of the LR FAQs point to nonexistent pages.
Adobe has accomplished quite a feat. They made LR CC unusable for many people who pay the bills through their images. A combination of unknown security risks, the impossibility of uploading a full shoot of images through an internet connection before the next shoot begins (again, I'm assuming photography is your business rather than just a weekend hobby), and the sheer inefficiency of placing all those images in the cloud is baffling.
We actually do store huge amounts of images in the cloud as it provides redundant backups in case of disaster. If working remotely, pulling files from AWS can also be faster than copying them from our in-house storage. Storage costs are in line with what Adobe charges for LR cloud with the important differences that (1) we only store images that are useful - the vast majority are culled first, and (2) all images are encrypted on before they leave our computers so even if Amazon gets hacked all the bad guy will have are files with 256 random character names that are unreadable.
If your interest in photography is editing your happy snaps then Lightroom CC is a reasonable idea. Good for you. That appears to be where Adobe gauges the market to be and I assume they are correct. That does not mean that a working photographer will feel the same excitement about the direction LR has gone in his or her fizzy bits.
I was a bit curt (sorry). However, what I said still seems to be true.
Did you read Hogarty’s second post? What about Laura Shoe’s or The Lightroom Queen posts on announcement and comparison between LR CC and LR Classic. Also, Julianne Kost’s YouTube video?
All these would info that what CC is, and is not, and that Classic is, essentially, the Lightroom we have today.
It appears you only installed and tested the new CC. Therefore your comments are not a surprise.
-
It doesn't have to be supported, as long as you can run it (without ongoing monthly fees) it's fine by me.
I would have liked a perpetual LR7, but for the time being a running (but unsupported after YE 2017) perpetual LR6 will do fine.
And calling out Adobe officials on spreading deceiving information has nothing to do with "chicken little", and neither has defending them "no matter what".
There's no need to be derogatory to people you don't agree with, simply disagreeing will do fine.
Have you considered, that at the time, the Adobe official (and board, etc) really had no idea what the future decision on perpetual would be?
Have you ever had a service or product which you offered and customers were buying and for any reason had to stop in and had disappointed customers.
When licensing started, I am sure no one really knew how it would succeed. Many here were never going to use it. Some did, some didn’t.
Those who stayed with LR6 essentially stopped being customers of Adobe. Many, as stated, tried other offerings. Who knows what Adobe’s market analysis showed of the market for “LR7” vs not offering and how it affected the bottom line vs the other and new offering? Particularly as the “LRx” timeline had extend quite a bit from what had been ~18 months, which significantly changes the economics.
-
Have you considered, that at the time, the Adobe official (and board, etc) really had no idea what the future decision on perpetual would be?
Of course I have considered that and it's probably even what happened. However if you haven't got anything to say (because you don't know) don't say it
Have you ever had a service or product which you offered and customers were buying and for any reason had to stop in and had disappointed customers.
Not in the sense you are asking the question. Yes in a sense that there were unavailabilities of product based on things beyond our control (eg. raw material unavailability/plant outages/weather events impacting production or logistics), but we never decided to stop producing/selling something because selling the same thing another way (eg. leasing it) or via a different channel made us more money. However the business I worked in was company to company, not company to consumers directly.
When licensing started, I am sure no one really knew how it would succeed. Many here were never going to use it. Some did, some didn’t.
Those who stayed with LR6 essentially stopped being customers of Adobe. Many, as stated, tried other offerings. Who knows what Adobe’s market analysis showed of the market for “LR7” vs not offering and how it affected the bottom line vs the other and new offering? Particularly as the “LRx” timeline had extend quite a bit from what had been ~18 months, which significantly changes the economics.
I'm sure many (incl. me) would have stayed happy customers of Adobe had they offered a LR7 perpetual licence. I personally would even have accepted a (reasonable) price hike over their historic upgrade price of 75 €. By the way, I still have licences with Adobe for LR6 (and earlier) and CS3 (and earlier). In those licence terms there's obligations on both parties, so even if I don't buy one of their products today (or subscribe to a service) I still am a customer of them.
-
Have you ever had a service or product which you offered and customers were buying and for any reason had to stop
They haven't had to stop producing it, they've chosen to stop producing it.
Those who stayed with LR6 essentially stopped being customers of Adobe.
No, they still own licences and I'm sure most would be very happy to keep being customers and buying upgrades as they have in the past.
-
Adobe is a business who's main goals are to make money...like most businesses out there. It's very obvious to me that if a perpetual license of LR 7 would have made them buckets of money...they would have released it. It seems to me that the number of perpetual licenses being sold just did not justify to keep it going compared to the subscriptions. I know from their investor relations information, the subscriptions and revenue has been exceeding their expectations for some time.
Maybe it's just the silent majority of photographers have moved onto the subscription model and there just is not enough perpetual model photographers to justify keeping the model going.
Bottom line, people need to decide their direction and head that way...
-
Bottom line, people need to decide their direction and head that way...
Yup, fully agree. Since I saw it coming (for the reasons you mention) the implementation of my strategy started today
see my previous answer to you (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=121083.msg1006265#msg1006265)
Actually there's nothing I needed to do, even saved the € 75+ upgrade cost to LR7 perpetual :)
-
Like every contract for such services?
But there are important contractual angles to a pure LRCC/LRM/LRW workflow that I don't think are adequately covered by the general terms. It's not like when Auntie Jane the Photographer dies and you can examine her hard drive. So I am trying to get answers from Adobe on a couple of things that are implicitly part of the contract.
One is what exactly happens when you stop subscribing - what happens to your originals uploaded to their cloud? I haven't yet seen where Adobe says "you have x days' grace to download them" or "here's a tool to help you download everything that's yours." What about any titles, captions or other metadata? Where is this stated when you sign up?
Another is what happens when the subscriber dies? Can next-of-kin gain access to his or her photos? How and for how long? It's taken us 18 months to finalise our late father's estate (even with both of us having relevant expertise), so 30 days' grace wouldn't be enough. In any case, how would the next-of-kin know that the family photos or the valuable IP is in Adobe's cloud? Is there a provision for a subscriber to record the next-of-kin so they are reminded annually? Where is this stated when you sign up?
It does less, but does it without you needing to know what one is.
Not sure where I saw it ... but I saw it stated at least twice in my travels on various sites/blogs since the announcement that LRCC images uploaded to Adobe servers would be available for download by the customer for up to one year after a subscription expires. There was also the mention of a forthcoming download utility for this purpose.
-
Adobe is a business who's main goals are to make money...like most businesses out there. It's very obvious to me that if a perpetual license of LR 7 would have made them buckets of money...they would have released it. It seems to me that the number of perpetual licenses being sold just did not justify to keep it going compared to the subscriptions. I know from their investor relations information, the subscriptions and revenue has been exceeding their expectations for some time.
Maybe it's just the silent majority of photographers have moved onto the subscription model and there just is not enough perpetual model photographers to justify keeping the model going.
Bottom line, people need to decide their direction and head that way...
Agree.
The other thing a lot of people do not realize is there are significant real cost associated with releasing a new perpetual license (such as LR7). First, there is the package creation, test, and release. On going, is the need for separate support for this package, particularly as time goes on the the package continues to diverge for the evolving licensed version.
This cost needs to be weighed against the opportunity projected releasing the product. Obviously. It didn’t make the cut.
-
Not sure where I saw it ... but I saw it stated at least twice in my travels on various sites/blogs since the announcement that LRCC images uploaded to Adobe servers would be available for download by the customer for up to one year after a subscription expires. There was also the mention of a forthcoming download utility for this purpose.
Yes, I've since found Creative Cloud Photography plans | Common questions (https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/faq/CCPp.html) under "What happens to my photos if I end my membership?"
Adobe will continue to store your original images for one year after your membership lapses. During that time, you can continue to launch Lightroom CC to download your original files from our cloud services.
So it seems that Adobe expect that the next-of-kin would know they have to access a computer with LRCC and be able to log into the user's account. What could go wrong?
-
The other thing a lot of people do not realize is there are significant real cost associated with releasing a new perpetual license (such as LR7). First, there is the package creation, test, and release. On going, is the need for separate support for this package, particularly as time goes on the the package continues to diverge for the evolving licensed version.
This cost needs to be weighed against the opportunity projected releasing the product. Obviously. It didn’t make the cut.
I wouldn't exaggerate it though. The software is the same and the subscription-limited features are probably hidden by code that checks whether a variable has been set. Dehaze is a good example.
-
I commented on this earlier. I have a good fiber optic Internet connection but remember that when one does a speed test it's really a synthetic number and not what the real speed is. I remember doing my first cloud back up about five years ago. I had about 200MB of data to up load and it took about six full working days to get it uploaded. Now that connection was slower by about a factor of three than what I currently have. The cloud service back up will work for those who have real fast service but that comes with a big price tag and you need to figure that into the price going forward. Right now I get 30Mb/sec upload speed for about $40/month. If I move to the Adobe cloud LR, my real costs become about $60/month when I include the Internet provider fee. This is perhaps OK if one can write this off on taxes as a business expense.
I'll leave aside the security issues as those can be dealt with through encryption of your images assuming Adobe allows that feature (Amazon Simple Storage doesn't care if things are encrypted or not, that is up to the application one is using for upload to choose).
Finally, one LuLa member said "How long to you want them to support it without spending a dime?" I already responded that I was willing to pay an upgrade fee for a new stand alone version of LR that offered new tools. the only support for legacy LR that is really needed is for new cameras and I doubt that is a big engineering feat for Adobe to accomplish.
A one-time charge for adding RAW files for new cameras to "Classic" would be fair, let's say $10-$20. If they're providing support, they should get paid. Of course, that would defeat Adobe's "hook" to get you to switch to CC. So in their mind, they wouldn't want to do anything that would allow you to keep using Classic even if they could get paid for it. Their business plan is ramsomware, a perpetual rental agreement.
-
What happens to all the edits when you cancel CC? Do you only get jpegs or tiffs? Do the edits and ability to make edits have to be re-started with Classic? Or, can you pick up with classic where the edits with CC left off. I believe it's the former. So it's kind of like not wanting to drop your health insurance when you have a pre-existing condition. You'll be up a creek without a paddle.
-
I wouldn't exaggerate it though. The software is the same and the subscription-limited features are probably hidden by code that checks whether a variable has been set. Dehaze is a good example.
Thanks! I was just about to say that. I think all too often it seems people think that they're 2 completely separate versions. (And seriously - how many people still buy software in boxes.. I probably haven't done so for over 20 years.)
Still, Adobe really ought to do something about allowing a current snapshot after x many years [with Classic CC].. With access to ALL features/modules, should one not be able to afford the continuing ransom for decades on end - just to be able to see where their photos were taken on a map, or touch up some older edits. Having such an escape route as perpetual has been a comfort - until now.
-
A one-time charge for adding RAW files for new cameras to "Classic" would be fair, let's say $10-$20. If they're providing support, they should get paid. Of course, that would defeat Adobe's "hook" to get you to switch to CC. So in their mind, they wouldn't want to do anything that would allow you to keep using Classic even if they could get paid for it. Their business plan is ramsomware, a perpetual rental agreement.
Exactly. Those of us who still use 'perpetual' LR6 are no unwilling to pay Adobe a reasonable fee. It is Adobe who want to push everyone into the subscription model so that they can monetize future income. they also tie you down by disabling the develop module should you decide to cancel your subscription, it's a very clever business model.
-
Thanks! I was just about to say that. I think all too often it seems people think that they're 2 completely separate versions.
Still, Adobe really ought to do something about allowing a current snapshot after x many years [with Classic].. With access to ALL features/modules, should one not be able to afford the continuing ransom for decades on end - just to be able to see where their photos were taken on a map, or touch up some older edits. Having such an escape route as perpetual has been a comfort - until now.
What about only disabling the import function and stop all upates/new camera support when you cancel your subscription? That basically lets you work on all images taken and with the tools you got while paying the licence.
For me that would be a condition that I could see myself entering into a subscription model. I would be OK with that, even if they ask a reasonable minimum subscription time (1-2 years) before you're allowed to pull out
-
What about only disabling the import function? That basically lets you work on all images taken while paying a licence and not add any more after you stopped.
For me that would be a condition that I could see myself entering into a subscription model.
Seriously, this is the idea of the year award!!! Not sure how easy it would be to implement however.
-
What about only disabling the import function? That basically lets you work on all images taken while paying a licence and not add any more after you stopped.
For me that would be a condition that I could see myself entering into a subscription model.
That would at least be a start. But what if the person wasn't able to afford it any longer due to job loss or disability. And especially regarding the latter, what if photography could be an eventual source of income for them, but in the meantime are not able to resume paying the ransom and are SOL.. They may have to scrounge/borrow enough for a perpetual license of some other software, but therefore also breaking the continuity of their entire image collection in the process.
-
What about only disabling the import function and stop all upates/new camera support when you cancel your subscription? That basically lets you work on all images taken and with the tools you got while paying the licence.
For me that would be a condition that I could see myself entering into a subscription model. I would be OK with that, even if they ask a reasonable minimum subscription time (1-2 years) before you're allowed to pull out
That's not part of Adobe's plan. They're like the Roach Motel. Once you go in, you can't get out.
-
Why? Since you paid for all LR updates...doesn't the subscription just make this easier?
Do the math! Beyond that, though, the concept of subscription software just doesn't sit right with me. We're not talking about disposable magazine's here; processing is part of the photography equation. Could you imagine Nikon or Canon moving to that model? I don't rent my hardware; what real benefit is there to renting my software, especially when, in the last few years, LR has not changed appreciably. The benefit is all Adobe’s; it’s their way of milking an already mature product.
-
Do the math! Beyond that, though, the concept of subscription software just doesn't sit right with me. We're not talking about disposable magazine's here; processing is part of the photography equation. Could you imagine Nikon or Canon moving to that model? I don't rent my hardware; what real benefit is there to renting my software, especially when, in the last few years, LR has not changed appreciably. The benefit is all Adobe’s; it’s their way of milking an already mature product.
Many photographers rent specific gear for a shoot. Many people lease cars rather than buy them. Many people rent the accommodations rather than buy them. With the depreciation of some photo gear...a subscription model might work very well. Right now I have a couple of cameras that I could not give away...depreciated from $2500 to basically $0.
-
Many photographers rent specific gear for a shoot. Many people lease cars rather than buy them. Many people rent the accommodations rather than buy them. With the depreciation of some photo gear...a subscription model might work very well. Right now I have a couple of cameras that I could not give away...depreciated from $2500 to basically $0.
So are these people renting gear perpetually on end, or are there breaks? Are these people no longer able to change/edit the images they made with that rented gear, once they are no longer renting it?
...............
Yet another analogy that would be personal to me (but may/could be a more equivalent analogy) is making DIY liquids for my vaporizers (aka e-cgigs ). If my recipe calculator were suddenly available by rental only (under an 'Adobe Plan'), I would no longer be able to change ingredients (i.e. flavorings) or percentages of ingredients of MY OWN recipes that I made while renting the software - or see when (map data) they were last made. In what world does any of this make any sense at all.
Also in the DIY analogy, all my recipes would be in the one program. If I decided to stop paying the ransom, I would lose continuity when switching to another non-RansomWare recipe calculator. And because I couldn't create ('import') any new recipes after that, what are the chances that I would have wanted to start using such a program to begin with had I known.
....................
I suppose the DIY e-liquid recipe calculator could be applied to a cooking recipe calculator if people might not understand the e-liquid calculations that are needed -- I guess think of halving or doubling recipes on top of adding or removing ingredients, as well as updating instructions.
-
... To compound the problem as far as non-destructive image editing databases go, the ARE NO true equivalents in editing instructions between programs. At least with the DIY analogy, there could possibly be ways to import the old data one-to-one if someone were to write the converter. Non-destructive image editing database -- not even possible (or probable).
-
So are these people renting gear perpetually on end, or are there breaks? Are these people no longer able to change/edit the images they made with that rented gear, once they are no longer renting it?
...............
Yet another analogy that would be personal to me (but may/could be a more equivalent analogy) is making DIY liquids for my vaporizers (aka e-cgigs ). If my recipe calculator were suddenly available by rental only (under an 'Adobe Plan'), I would no longer be able to change ingredients (i.e. flavorings) or percentages of ingredients of MY OWN recipes that I made while renting the software - or see when (map data) they were last made. In what world does any of this make any sense at all.
Also in the DIY analogy, all my recipes would be in the one program. If I decided to stop paying the ransom, I would lose continuity when switching to another non-RansomWare recipe calculator. And because I couldn't create ('import') any new recipes after that, what are the chances that I would have wanted to start using such a program to begin with had I known.
....................
I suppose the DIY e-liquid recipe calculator could be applied to a cooking recipe calculator if people might not understand the e-liquid calculations that are needed -- I guess think of halving or doubling recipes on top of adding or removing ingredients, as well as updating instructions.
Once you stop paying the lease payments on your car...it will be taken away. Once you stopped paying your monthly phone bill, it will be cut off. I don’t get your point...stop any subscriptions and it’s service ends.
-
Once you stop paying the lease payments on your car...it will be taken away. Once you stopped paying your monthly phone bill, it will be cut off. I don’t get your point...stop any subscriptions and it’s service ends.
Those things are not databases.
-
Those things are not databases.
No, but they are subscription services that you don't have access to once you stop the subscription...just like CC. But unlike the car that you lease, you still have your images when you stop your subscription to do whatever you want with them.
-
Those things are not databases.
Once you stop paying for LR subscription, the database keeps a running. Or it did with the last subscription product. Develop and Maps; not so much.
-
That's not part of Adobe's plan. They're like the Roach Motel. Once you go in, you can't get out.
Very funny. And ridiculous of course.
-
At this moment in time. Remember "LR perpetual will always be available" - Tom Hogarty Product Manager LR.? PSCS6?
So much for trusting that source of info.
-
Very funny. And ridiculous of course.
Reminds me of Col. Klink - "Very eenteresting......... but foolish?" :-)
-
Once you stop paying for LR subscription, the database keeps a running. Or it did with the last subscription product. Develop and Maps; not so much.
While true, wouldn't it render one's prior Develop work useless? Or is it still possible to export to e.g. TIFF with the existing (frozen) develop settings?
Cheers,
Bart
-
...
Or is it still possible to export to e.g. TIFF with the existing (frozen) develop settings?
Yes, you can print, export, etc. like always. You can even perform basic subtle tweaks with the Quick Develop controls in the Library Module. You can no longer import or use the Develop or Map modules. Not sure if you can create new slideshows or books but you can export and print existing works and even Web galleries.
-
Yes, you can print, export, etc. like always. You can even perform basic subtle tweaks with the Quick Develop controls in the Library Module. You can no longer import or use the Develop or Map modules. Not sure if you can create new slideshows or books but you can export and print existing works and even Web galleries.
You can still import new images. What you can't do is use Develop, Map, or sync with LRMobile.
Slideshow, books etc will work.
-
You can still import new images.
Sorry, thought I read somewhere that Import was turned off too. Very interesting ...
-
While true, wouldn't it render one's prior Develop work useless? Or is it still possible to export to e.g. TIFF with the existing (frozen) develop settings?
Pre Lightroom Classic,
- if you terminated a subscription, just the Develop module was disabled , the other Print, Book, Library etc modules all worked.
- You could export TIFF's and render all your 'Develop' work.
- Now, apparently, they'll disable the Maps module too (need confirmation on this one ?)
- What you can, could (and I 'm guessing) will still be able to do is use 'Edit In' (available with a right-click in both the Develop and Library modules. All your Lr plug-ins will still function ( exporting files to external editors as set in Preferences)
-
Pre Lightroom Classic,
- if you terminated a subscription, just the Develop module was disabled , the other Print, Book, Library etc modules all worked.
...
- Now, apparently, they'll disable the Maps module too (need confirmation on this one ?)
No, Maps has been disabled too since 6.0 (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/what-happens-to-lightroom-after-my-membership-ends.html) . The only things you can't do are go into Develop, go into Maps, or sync to/from LrMobile. Everything else should work.
-
No, Maps has been disabled too since 6.0 (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/what-happens-to-lightroom-after-my-membership-ends.html) . The only things you can't do are go into Develop, go into Maps, or sync to/from LrMobile. Everything else should work.
So does Quick Develop work, then?
-
Yes, as do presets, David. Notice the emphasis I put on "go into", and then just see how much latitude Adobe are giving people.
-
No, Maps has been disabled too since 6.0 (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/what-happens-to-lightroom-after-my-membership-ends.html) . The only things you can't do are go into Develop, go into Maps, or sync to/from LrMobile. Everything else should work.
So does Quick Develop work, then?
-
I did say yes.
-
Pre Lightroom Classic,
- if you terminated a subscription, just the Develop module was disabled , the other Print, Book, Library etc modules all worked.
- You could export TIFF's and render all your 'Develop' work.
- Now, apparently, they'll disable the Maps module too (need confirmation on this one ?)
- What you can, could (and I 'm guessing) will still be able to do is use 'Edit In' (available with a right-click in both the Develop and Library modules. All your Lr plug-ins will still function ( exporting files to external editors as set in Preferences)
"Edit in" is also disabled when the subscription ends.
-
"Edit in" is also disabled when the subscription ends.
No surprise as that would prevent using an external photo editor and maintain the LR database feature for new images.
-
"Edit in" is also disabled when the subscription ends.
I don't think that's true. Can you point to anywhere where it is documented?
-
According to this https://lightroomkillertips.com/happens-cancel-lightroom-cc-subscription/, nothing will work in the Develop Module and everything will work that is in the Library Module, which would presumably include "Edit In". But I couldn't find anything granular enough to specify what happens with "Edit In" when accessed from the Library Module. Maybe someone with experience of cancellation can join-in here. However, even if it does work, it's a crummy solution for people who don't want to bloat their drives with rendered files and need to go back to Photoshop or some such for editing their photos. Losing the elegance and convenience of the raw workflow would be a real downer for me. It would probably be preferable to convert them all to DNG and work in C1, if C1 will recognize all the stored adjustments in the DNG.
-
Mark, the restriction is on going into the module. Edit In will work without doing so.
I'm pretty certain of this, and did test it for myself in the past. As I feel I know the answer, I'm not willing to test it again.
-
Mark, the restriction is on going into the module. Edit In will work without doing so.
I'm pretty certain of this, and did test it for myself in the past. As I feel I know the answer, I'm not willing to test it again.
OK that's good to have confirmed. And no, I wasn't suggesting that YOU in particular test this - I had in mind any person who had cancelled their LR subscription plan. This may be of comfort to some people but I would find it unsatisfactory as I am really enjoying the merits of the raw workflow.
-
I know you weren't singling me out, but I am pretty certain that I have precisely stated the restrictions. But it would be interesting to hear from anyone who has cancelled - testing is one thing, doing it is another. And you never know what detail the bastards changed when you weren't looking.
-
................And you never know what detail the bastards changed when you weren't looking.
Or sometimes even if you were :-)
-
Whatever access they give you today after canceling your subscription, doesn't mean you'll have tomorrow. Look what they changed in "classic" after making promises.
-
Whatever access they give you today after canceling your subscription, doesn't mean you'll have tomorrow. Look what they changed in "classic" after making promises.
Show me one product that guarantees anything in the future. Seems like all you are doing is just looking at the situation with a glass half empty. Maybe best to focus on your new plans rather than constantly complain...might be more productive for you.
-
Show me one product that guarantees anything in the future. Seems like all you are doing is just looking at the situation with a glass half empty. Maybe best to focus on your new plans rather than constantly complain...might be more productive for you.
................
Are you secretly paid by Adobe to defend them no matter what is said? I sincerely apologize if not, but it just tends to come across that way in these threads of late... ;D
-
This is the point at which this thread risks closure because personal attacks are coming into play. In the interest of the standards of discussion members of this foreign would like to see maintained, I suggest you stop it and get back to the issues. That said, as far as I can tell, there's not much more to be said about this topic. It's been picked over to death.
-
It's been picked over to death.
Yeah, I tend to agree.. I'm rather exhausted, myself. :)
...........
But whatever might or might not happen in the future regarding Classic and CC, I would at least hope the option always remains to keep all your images local.
-
Show me one product that guarantees anything in the future. Seems like all you are doing is just looking at the situation with a glass half empty. Maybe best to focus on your new plans rather than constantly complain...might be more productive for you.
What you're failing to understand here is that lots of people have lost any trust they had in Adobe.
It shouldn't really come as a shock, they've been messing around customers since the chaos of the upgrade policy back at CS4.
They're just out to screw as much money out of people as possible with no loyalty to customers in return.
LR 6 & PS CS4 are a great products I'll continue to use, but I don't want subscription software and I don't trust Adobe, so if they stop working sometime in the future I'll just find other solutions. Affinity is already a replacement for PS, CO can be for LR, maybe even better products will arrive before LR6 stops working.
-
What you're failing to understand here is that lots of people have lost any trust they had in Adobe.
It shouldn't really come as a shock, they've been messing around customers since the chaos of the upgrade policy back at CS4.
They're just out to screw as much money out of people as possible with no loyalty to customers in return.
LR 6 & PS CS4 are a great products I'll continue to use, but I don't want subscription software and I don't trust Adobe, so if they stop working sometime in the future I'll just find other solutions. Affinity is already a replacement for PS, CO can be for LR, maybe even better products will arrive before LR6 stops working.
Everyone has to make decisions that are right for them. What you must realize is that many are very happy with their Adobe tools and just use them day in, day out. I personally don't feel Adobe screwed me and if or when they do, I'll just look at a different solution without doing a bunch of whining on the net.
-
Everyone has to make decisions that are right for them. What you must realize is that many are very happy with their Adobe tools and just use them day in, day out. I personally don't feel Adobe screwed me and if or when they do, I'll just look at a different solution without doing a bunch of whining on the net.
I don't feel screwed either, and I mention this because my situation is probably the same as that of a great many other customers. If I remember correctly, when we were on the 18-month upgrade cycle of perpetual licenses, Photoshop was about USD 200~250 to upgrade, and LR another USD 80. So round-figures about USD 300/18 months, or 16.67/month. Now I'm paying 9.95/month, so it's actually a good bit cheaper with room to spare in case I'm over-stating those old upgrade costs (but I think not). This is the most fair comparison to make - the cost of being to date on the old versus the new schemes. It is not an apples to apples comparison to add the variable of "not wanting to be up-to-date". That of course is another option one had with perpetual licenses, but it becomes an apples to oranges comparison because it throws in that extra variable of choice whether to upgrade. My experience was always to upgrade (after a settling-down period) because there have always been enough attractive new features or performance improvements with each release to make it worthwhile.
-
I don't feel screwed either, and I mention this because my situation is probably the same as that of a great many other customers. If I remember correctly, when we were on the 18-month upgrade cycle of perpetual licenses, Photoshop was about USD 200~250 to upgrade, and LR another USD 80. So round-figures about USD 300/18 months, or 16.67/month. Now I'm paying 9.95/month, so it's actually a good bit cheaper with room to spare in case I'm over-stating those old upgrade costs (but I think not). This is the most fair comparison to make - the cost of being to date on the old versus the new schemes. It is not an apples to apples comparison to add the variable of "not wanting to be up-to-date". That of course is another option one had with perpetual licenses, but it becomes an apples to oranges comparison because it throws in that extra variable of choice whether to upgrade. My experience was always to upgrade (after a settling-down period) because there have always been enough attractive new features or performance improvements with each release to make it worthwhile.
Mark, I think your economic analysis is right for Lightroom + Photoshop. However if it's Lightroom only (I use CS3 and it's more than enough for the very few PS tweaks I do) the 18 month upgrade cycle cost is much cheaper than the subscription. (75 vs ~180 €). If they would have a Lightroom only subscription for 3 €/month I might be tempted.
I also don't feel screwed, Adobe can sell/lease their product as they see fit. It's up to us as customers to vote with our feet whether we can support their sales model or not. My only beef with them is that their communication is very poor, mostly BS and certainly not forthright.
-
Mark, I think your economic analysis is right for Lightroom + Photoshop. However if it's Lightroom only (I use CS3 and it's more than enough for the very few PS tweaks I do) the 18 month upgrade cycle cost is much cheaper than the subscription. (75 vs ~180 €). If they would have a Lightroom only subscription for 3 €/month I might be tempted.
I also don't feel screwed, Adobe can sell/lease their product as they see fit. It's up to us as customers to vote with our feet whether we can support their sales model or not. My only beef with them is that their communication is very poor, mostly BS and certainly not forthright.
This is my thinking as well, particularly when one can by a stand alone license for Affinity Photo. I would gladly have a LR Classic only subscription.
-
So it comes down to a money issue? I always thought the subscription was the real issue. Surely you can dig deep and find the extra money to support your hobby, your passion. I'm retired and have no income coming in but I'd rather give up my coffee...which equates to a lot more than $10/month, or give up the glass or two of wine ever so often than to give up my Adobe subscription. I get much more enjoyment out of my hobby than I do that cup of coffee.
Money like time is all a priority of how you spend them. I would think if you analyze where your money is sent, you would find an area that eats $10/month that is less of a priority for you...and just move that money to the adobe subscription.
-
So it comes down to a money issue? I always thought the subscription was the real issue. Surely you can dig deep and find the extra money to support your hobby, your passion. I'm retired and have no income coming in but I'd rather give up my coffee...which equates to a lot more than $10/month, or give up the glass or two of wine ever so often than to give up my Adobe subscription. I get much more enjoyment out of my hobby than I do that cup of coffee.
Money like time is all a priority of how you spend them. I would think if you analyze where your money is sent, you would find an area that eats $10/month that is less of a priority for you...and just move that money to the adobe subscription.
Everything is a money issue, I'm really surprised you are only now realizing that. The 1$ for LuLa is a money issue (which I happily pay). 10$ per month of which ~75% is for something I don't need and would not use is too much, especially if stopping the subscription also disables the 25% I would probably have continued need for. Allthough my resources are limited I would not have to stop any coffee or wine to pay for an Adobe subscription, but I just think the current deal doesn't meet my cost/benefit hurdle and the problems I would encounter after stopping the subscription seriously weigh on the benefit side of that equation.
In the past assuming an 18 month upgrade cycle I paid a little ove 4€/month average (forgetting the 30 month upgrade cycle from 6 to 7) but I always have the choice of at some point stopping the upgrades and still retaining full functionality of what I had. So a subscription would have to be cheaper than that since I'm losing a major portion of the functionality when I stop.
-
This is my thinking as well, particularly when one can by a stand alone license for Affinity Photo. I would gladly have a LR Classic only subscription.
Me too.
Thanks for expressing my thoughts so well Pieter and Alan.
And yes: at my stage in life money is an issue, as I expect it is for many of us amateurs who have been loyal Adobe users since well before CS1.
-
It's not about whether you could afford it. It's about getting overcharged and locked into a product that is difficult to get out of once you've been with it for a while. You feel like someone's twisting your arm, like you have a sword hanging over your neck.
-
It's not about whether you could afford it. It's about getting overcharged and locked into a product that is difficult to get out of once you've been with it for a while. You feel like someone's twisting your arm, like you have a sword hanging over your neck.
Over-charged relative to what? What is the objective criterion by which you know you are being "over-charged"?
BTW, it is not difficult to get out of. There are several ways of doing this, as others have explained. But if you don't like it, you don't need to get into it in the first place.
I just don't see where the arm-twisting is or what sword is hanging over our necks. They have a product, those are the terms on which they are selling it; buy it if you like it, don't buy it if you don't, or think you can do better without. It's kind of that simple.
(typo corrected)
-
It's not about whether you could afford it. It's about getting overcharged and locked into a product that is difficult to get out of once you've been with it for a while. You feel like someone's twisting your arm, like you have a sword hanging over your neck.
Seriously?
-
They have a product, those are the terms on which they are selling it; buy it if you like it, don't buy it if you don't, or think you can do better without. It's kind of that simple.
I agree.
I think this article is good in stating other available options Best pro photo-editing software apps for Mac (https://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/mac-software/best-pro-photo-editing-software-apps-for-mac-2017-3642413/)
I left Lightroom early on. I bought Lightroom 1 and upgraded to Lightroom 2 then switched to C1. For retouching I still use Photoshop CS3 that is still good enough for my needs, but most of the work I do in C1 (I am on version 9). If / when macOS (I am still on El Capitan on my Mac Pro) will no longer support CS3 I will most likely switch to Affinity Photo for pixel based retouching but maybe C1 (also a mature software like Lightroom) will at that time be able to handle that too (wishful thinking). For printing I use Mirage that uses Adobe Color Matching Module.
In my opinion we spend way too much time "on the hunt" because of all the available choice. Please see this TED talk from a philosopher from my country to see what I mean: Our unhealthy obsession with choice (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRXCxJGQ4KY)
My point being stick with what works best for you until it works and does a good job for the price that is right for you.
-
Yep I don't rent my software! My money my choice bye bye Adobe.
-
Over-charged relative to what? What is the objective criterion by which you know you are being "over-charged"?
* I bought LR 2.5 half a years ago for 75€ as an upgrade which makes 2€ per month this far.
* I rarely use PS-type of application, but just to get me covered I got Affinity Photo for 40€.
* For me personally, I don't feel the CC updates have been influential (useful on occasions yes), even more so after that long delay for the current major release, I'm rather disappointed (not taking into account there is no more perpetual licence). Moreover, this last update matches my personal idea of what happens when there is no intent to upgrade as the money just flows in. Keep it enough (barely) up to date is what I perceive. I was one of those who never had any speed issues and that is apparently the biggest feature for the new release, with the addition of range filter. The CC updates in between I don't care of.
I'm having no issues people liking subscription and especially from businesses perspective that seems like a good deal.
While I have got paid from time to time, photography is only a hobby and sometimes longer breaks happen.
Another monthly bill on top of other bills is not that minor after all in total, considering that would not have been a priority payment.
Anyway, good luck for those with the subscription.
-
If anything, I believe that we've been under-charged. If Apple had maintained the price of Aperture such that it made it worth their while to continue support, I and many others would be better off. Dropping the price of niche pro (or semi-pro) software to the levels of mobile phone apps (free or nearly so) makes no sense to me. It pretty much guarantees that support for very capable software will eventually disappear. The market for those products is small to begin with, so price wars make no sense to me. I don't want cut rate software. The thing is that even at its most expensive, Aperture was only $300 or so, far less than any camera+lens combo I use. LR was comparably priced, I believe, I bought LR5 and can't remember what it cost.
People spend more on coffee!
$300 is a non-issue, given what you get for the money. IMO, the entire world has gone mad. Nothing good is cheap, why pretend.
What is the point of a race to the bottom? All it does is limit choices.
-
People spend more on coffee!
I only have one cup a day and that's home brewed so I'm not one of those Starbucks junkies.
-
I only have one cup a day and that's home brewed so I'm not one of those Starbucks junkies.
I'm of Italian ancestry, I have to have 2 or 3 cappuccinos per week or I lose my privileges. (I don't go to Starbucks either.)
-
Besides.. Starbucks is nasty, horrible, bitter than hell crap-coffee. It's no wonder they have to put all kinds of other stuff in it in order to cover that up and make it somewhat palatable.
-
Please see this document by Adobe Financial Analyst Briefing October 2017 (https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/investor-relations/pdfs/adobe-financial-analyst-briefing-slides-18OCT2017.pdf)
Here you will find that:
- Adobe expects more than 40% new CC subscribers
- Adobe sees its market expansion in the field of photography as the number of photo hobbyist grow, as there will be new mobile paid offerings and premium cloud service
- Adobe sees a total of 5.7 billion USD of its CC market expansion by 2020 due to photo hobbyist growth, Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop Elements migration to the CC, new paid mobile users and premium photo services
Adobe's revenue from CC in 2014 was 0.7 billion USD from perpetual licences and 1.1 billion USD from subscription and in 2017 it is 0.2 billion USD from perpetual and 4 billion USD from subscription.
-
So what are you saying? A lot of people do seem content with Adobe's direction, don't you think?
-
So what are you saying? A lot of people do seem content with Adobe's direction, don't you think?
Yes.
And they (Adobe) will migrate also the Photoshop Elements to the CC, which currently is about 100 € per a perpetual license. They will also add new paid mobile apps (similarly C1 has a paid Capture Pilot app) and premium photo services (I think they mean cloud storage here).
Also I am saying that photo hobbyist are an important part of Adobe CC's customer base and that in 2020 there will be no Adobe perpetual licenses left. I could go as far to say that I think that in 2020 they will integrate the Lightroom Classic into the Lightroom CC.
IMHO Adobe's CC will have (in 2020) the majority of "serious" iPhone shooters, who are willing to pay for the iPhone apps, almost all photo hobbyist (like 90%) and approx. half to two thirds of the pro market (the rest will go to C1). I think all other players (like Affinity) in this market will have only marginal market shares in this photography pie.
To summarize, the photo software market will consolidate with only 2 major players (Adobe and C1) and a handfull of underdogs. Just my opinion, of course.
Disclaimer: I am a C1 user, but have previously used Lightroom 1 & 2. My interest in this topic is strictly analytical.
-
I don't disagree too much with your speculations, though I might push the timeframe back a few years.
Would you not consider Apple and Google to be major players in the photo software market, especially for the phone side of the market? I'd suggest you are perhaps putting too much emphasis on paying for editing software, and not enough on the storage - which is where the big players seem to see the money. P1 is a bit of an outlier as its main business is probably hardware (I don't think they disclose a hardware/software split).
-
I'd suggest you are perhaps putting too much emphasis on paying for editing software, and not enough on the storage - which is where the big players seem to see the money.
You are correct. I was looking only at the editing software. I think that for serious photo amateurs, semi professionals and professionals cloud storage is a non issue, because they prefer local storage with backups. At this time.
P1 is a bit of an outlier as its main business is probably hardware (I don't think they disclose a hardware/software split).
You are probably right. Hardware of course is their main business as they ofer C1 DB free for the users of their digital backs. However, in their Annual Report 2016 (https://regnskaber.cvrapi.dk/99698871/ZG9rdW1lbnRsYWdlcjovLzAzLzNiL2JkLzgyLzIxLzFlNmEtNDJjNC04MDlkLTVkYTk3ZTYwNTg0MA.pdf) they claim that their main customers are professional photographers and serious photo enthusiast of both buying their full camera systems and looking only for their C1 software. They state that their market share is approx. 60% of the market for high-quality digital camera systems in the professional market.
For me, going with C1 was a personal choice due to buying into entry level digital Medium format. Let this be enough on C1 as not to go off topic.
-
You are correct. I was looking only at the editing software. I think that for serious photo amateurs, semi professionals and professionals cloud storage is a non issue, because they prefer local storage with backups. At this time.
But much less so if we're looking to your 2020 or my 2025? And right now, how true is it anyway?
Sure, only yesterday I was waiting for a friend's Lightroom catalogue to upgrade and showed him Adobe's new LRCC and their storage plan. We had a good laugh! With roughly 700000 raw files in LR he'd be paying Adobe at least £1200 a year for up to 10Tb cloud storage, which seems a non starter. Yet who says it is all or nothing? In his case he works in a number of European locations at this time of year and he can see the value of having originals from current jobs available wherever he may be. Yes, one can set up remote access, VPN etc, but these cloud storage solutions are turnkey. With the phone user end of the market, cloud storage is almost expected, and for the higher end it's already useful, if expensive - at this time.
-
A couple of videos well worth watching that address a number of the questions and issues being raised in our discussions:
Matt Kloskowski (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srITtceOCL4)
Tom Hogarty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaBeeBUZvAg)
-
A couple of videos well worth watching that address a number of the questions and issues being raised in our discussions:
Matt Kloskowski (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srITtceOCL4)
Tom Hogarty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaBeeBUZvAg)
Matt tells me he doesn't believe in soft proofing. >:(
Tom tells me LR will have a perceptual license indefinitely. >:(
I'll pass on both but thanks!
-
Matt tells me he doesn't believe in soft proofing. >:(
Tom tells me LR will have a perceptual license indefinitely. >:(
I'll pass on both but thanks!
I know what you mean, but I watched the content of both videos before recommending them here and I recommended them because I think the content is useful.
-
I know what you mean, but I watched the content of both videos before recommending them here and I recommended them because I think the content is useful.
Did Tom state anything we should accept as factual long term?
-
Did Tom state anything we should accept as factual long term?
Every one's individual judgment-call. Watch the video and decide what you think it safe to trust or not trust. I came away with the impression that they intend to keep developing LR Classic. We'll see.
-
On the journey from LR2 to LR6 I reckon I have spent roughly £100 every 2 years on average. In the UK LR Classic is £9.99 per month. That works out at more than 100% up! I am also finding lack of detail on the Adobe website. I will not use Classic if any images go to the cloud; I also want to be able to select what I import from a shoot. I copy from my camera card to my hd, do some selection, and then import, doing a further cull in LR. I keep the images on my hd in case I decide later I now like them, even if they have been culled from LR in the first instance. That is the way I work with LR6. Even if I can swallow the price increase, I need certainty that I can continue the same workflow. I cannot find out from the Adobe website if that is the case, so they have not got any chance of getting me on the hook yet.
Jonathan
-
I am also finding lack of detail on the Adobe website. I will not use Classic if any images go to the cloud;
.........
I cannot find out from the Adobe website if that is the case, so they have not got any chance of getting me on the hook yet.
And to me, that remains the scariest part of all... It mirrors the perpetual situation so precisely.
OTOH, wouldn't the same feature set of camera raw need to be supported for Photoshop, indefinitely? Since ACR and Classic (aka Real) share the same core, that could be a ray of hope for Classic.
-
y.
OTOH, wouldn't the same feature set of camera raw need to be supported for Photoshop, indefinitely? Since ACR and Classic (aka Real) share the same core, that could be a ray of hope for Classic.
Keeping in mind that ACR is merely a Photoshop plugin. It could be replaced/updated separately from Lightroom at any given point, if the powers that be should ever decide that is a path they wish to choose.
Remember that Adobe doesn't ever have any plans to change anything ... until they do.