Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: pearlstreet on November 11, 2017, 02:42:16 pm
-
For some reason, when I click on a picture in lightroom, instead of zooming in, it goes to a full two-monitor black screen with the picture not zoomed. I have to click on my second monitor to get it to go back. Not sure why it is doing it or how to get it to stop. I must have clicked something without knowing it.
Help! Please. ;D
-
Never mind... a restart fixed it.
-
There seem to be some "random" errors occurring. Just few minutes ago out of the blue when flipping through the pictures fullscreen every 3rd or 4th picture blacked out. After closing and restarting the programm ("app" if you want, cannot get used to the word outside mobile) everything went fine again ...
-
Yes, I'm having refresh issues going through the filmstrip. It will flash photos briefly that I had looked at a couple of minutes before.
-
Here it doesn't go black screen. But every so often the screen will sort of shift/flicker downward and freeze for a few seconds (hard to describe). It seems to intermittently get triggered by starting to move a slider.
-
I'm also seeing instances where the filmstrip thumbnail remains insolently grey. Multiple directory changes and image selections sometimes solves it. Sometimes not and I restart LR.
Windows 10 system.
-
All sounds like Lightroom still has issues with graphic cards.
-
It will be interesting to learn in the fullness of time whether these kinds of issues result from the programming running ahead of the hardware many people have for using it, or whether it is another instance of testing that hasn't been comprehensive enough to net-out most of these issues before the software is issued. Adobe depends on a wide user base of beta testers to catch most of this kind of stuff, but perhaps still not as comprehensive as one would optimally like it to be. It takes a lot of time for volunteers to do this effectively.
-
Mark, it seems more likely their programming is running far behind in detecting and configuring Lr to properly use the hardware in the computers.
-
Mark, it seems more likely their programming is running far behind in detecting and configuring Lr to properly use the hardware in the computers.
I don't think so. Adobe employs awfully bright people who know the hardware very well and what it allows them to do. I suspect it's more likely that the application is taking advantage of certain newer processing capabiities that many people just haven't migrated to, and that incoherence is causing some people to have performance issues. But I can't be sure about that.
-
Overall performance for me is considerably slower on a windows 10 machine, 3.4Ghz or 4.0Ghz, 32GB of ram, catalog on separate SSD besides C, Asus boards. 4GB Nvidia graphics cards GTX970
With open CL enable on or off, very sluggish, for pano creation, or HDR, HDR seems worse, up to 3 minutes to go from the start to total finish with 3 D850 images.
As far as the programmers and writing to newer products that are not being taken advantage of, I am curious what those are as LR has IMO never worked with the speed that Adobe CC has with the graphics card enabled. And I really can't think of too much besides a newer PC and graphics card as windows 10 constantly updates itself.
Overall the speeds are considerably slower for me on Classic and I may drop back to CC LR for now.
Edit: I finally gave up on this and rebooted. I also changed the deghosting from medium to none and things speed up quite a bit. I still sometimes get a totally black screen when LR is putting together the HDR, for about 4 to 5 seconds, then it finishes and all is normal.
Paul Caldwell
-
I don't think so. Adobe employs awfully bright people who know the hardware very well and what it allows them to do. I suspect it's more likely that the application is taking advantage of certain newer processing capabiities that many people just haven't migrated to, and that incoherence is causing some people to have performance issues. But I can't be sure about that.
Mark, I respectfully disagree until I find something to convince me otherwise. If they detected the hardware on the computer their software should be able to adapt to what it finds. Assuming that specific hardware exists without testing for it is bad practice.
-
I am finding the new lightroom classic to be super buggy. I'm getting errors, it no longer easily transfers a file to edit in photoshop constant flashes and random photos. I'm going to contact Adobe tomorrow.
-
Mark, I respectfully disagree until I find something to convince me otherwise. If they detected the hardware on the computer their software should be able to adapt to what it finds. Assuming that specific hardware exists without testing for it is bad practice.
Ron, it can be the case that in designing software changes to take advantage of updated computer systems and capabilities, the algorithms perform less well on older systems. There are compromises because it's too difficult to write and maintain programs to perform optimally whatever the computer configuration from X years back. I suspect we may be seeing a bit of that here. At least I wouldn't dismiss this possibility out of hand.
-
I am finding the new lightroom classic to be super buggy. I'm getting errors, it no longer easily transfers a file to edit in photoshop constant flashes and random photos. I'm going to contact Adobe tomorrow.
Could you refresh on what vintage computer and OS you are using? This is not good news on the face of it. Do keep us informed of what you learn.
-
Ron, it can be the case that in designing software changes to take advantage of updated computer systems and capabilities, the algorithms perform less well on older systems. There are compromises because it's too difficult to write and maintain programs to perform optimally whatever the computer configuration from X years back. I suspect we may be seeing a bit of that here. At least I wouldn't dismiss this possibility out of hand.
Mark, I guess it depends on the word “optimal”. I can’t speak to Windows machine but it’s fairly straightforward for a programmer to query the graphics hardware on a Mac. If Lr requires certain attributes such as amount of VRAM or graphic card models they shouldn’t enable the graphics card for performance in Lr. That might save a lot of grief for users.
-
Could you refresh on what vintage computer and OS you are using? This is not good news on the face of it. Do keep us informed of what you learn.
Mark, I have a custom built computer. Intel i7 six core processor. 32 gb of ram. Windows 10.
-
Data point: i7, 64 gigs, first rate graphics card, Windows 10 (Machine built by Puget Systems)
LR Classic CC is running more quickly, BUT I am also having an occasional weirdness pop up randomly. E.g. on one launch of LR the menu bar at the top was all messed up and "stacked up" on itself. A close and re-launch straightened it out. There have been other instances where a close and re-launch has sorted other odd things out. Prior to "Classic" LR ran with perfect stability on this machine. Performance was good - though I must say that "Classic" does run a bit more quickly (e.g. zooming in on images, and switching from Library to Develop module with a single image in the window.)
So, IMO, there are a few bugs to sort out.
Rand
-
I've got a few Smart Collections that went bad. Zero number next to the name (odd), clicking produces a 'loading....' that never loads.
-
Mark, I have a custom built computer. Intel i7 six core processor. 32 gb of ram. Windows 10.
That may be the issue. Custom-built computers are one-of-a-kind and however standard intel/Windows systems are there are differences from component to component. Adobe tests with well known computer lines, but cannot guarantee that there is not an issue on some custom combination of hardware/firmware systems. Custom computers are bleeding edge - been there, done that. :)
-
Mark, I guess it depends on the word “optimal”. I can’t speak to Windows machine but it’s fairly straightforward for a programmer to query the graphics hardware on a Mac. If Lr requires certain attributes such as amount of VRAM or graphic card models they shouldn’t enable the graphics card for performance in Lr. That might save a lot of grief for users.
We don't know what else may be involved. Anyhow, it is beginning to sound as if there are some performance issues with this version. Perhaps best to wait longer before installing.
-
That may be the issue. Custom-built computers are one-of-a-kind and however standard intel/Windows systems are there are differences from component to component. Adobe tests with well known computer lines, but cannot guarantee that there is not an issue on some custom combination of hardware/firmware systems. Custom computers are bleeding edge - been there, done that. :)
Windows recognizes and registers all video drivers. Unless one is using on board CPU video (unlikely for a photographer) there are only two games in town NVIDA and AMD. LR should be able to detect this and adjust appropriately. I might be incorrect but I think LR uses the Open GL standard. I build my own workstations from commercially available components and high end builders such as Puget Systems do the same. This is an issue that falls square on the engineers at Adobe.
-
Windows recognizes and registers all video drivers. Unless one is using on board CPU video (unlikely for a photographer) there are only two games in town NVIDA and AMD. LR should be able to detect this and adjust appropriately. I might be incorrect but I think LR uses the Open GL standard. I build my own workstations from commercially available components and high end builders such as Puget Systems do the same. This is an issue that falls square on the engineers at Adobe.
I would be reluctant to blame anyone till knowing what's really going on. There may be causes that haven't been determined.
-
I would be reluctant to blame anyone till knowing what's really going on. There may be causes that haven't been determined.
I know you want to be sympathetic to Adobe but there are common standards for graphics processor implementation. It's also easy to detect which unit is employed on a particular computer. Macs are probably easier to deal with as they have standardized components. However, as I noted in my earlier post, WindowsOS registers all hardware and it is all recognizable. One can argue that Adobe releases software far to early and should do more of an outreach to the beta testers to identify issues. We have had the promise of GPU acceleration for several years now and have yet to see a smooth implementation. If computer game companies can exploit every performance advantage of GPUs in a market that is massive, Adobe ought to be able to do the same in a more limited marketplace.
-
I know you want to be sympathetic to Adobe but there are common standards for graphics processor implementation. It's also easy to detect which unit is employed on a particular computer. Macs are probably easier to deal with as they have standardized components. However, as I noted in my earlier post, WindowsOS registers all hardware and it is all recognizable. One can argue that Adobe releases software far to early and should do more of an outreach to the beta testers to identify issues. We have had the promise of GPU acceleration for several years now and have yet to see a smooth implementation. If computer game companies can exploit every performance advantage of GPUs in a market that is massive, Adobe ought to be able to do the same in a more limited marketplace.
Actually you don't "know" because I have no interest in being "sympathetic" to any software provider for anything. The issue has nothing to do with personal feelings - it is purely a technical matter and NOBODY participating in this discussion obviously knows for sure what's going on under the hood or why.
-
I had it built by Ava direct. It's all pretty standard parts so it should be all right.It's been great with lightroom until this last update.
-
Actually you don't "know" because I have no interest in being "sympathetic" to any software provider for anything. The issue has nothing to do with personal feelings - it is purely a technical matter and NOBODY participating in this discussion obviously knows for sure what's going on under the hood or why.
I think we're just wondering how long you are going to continue to give Adobe the benefit of the doubt Mark. My gut tells me LR Classic is short on competent resources, otherwise we would not be seeing the ongoing issues release after release after release.
-
Actually you don't "know" because I have no interest in being "sympathetic" to any software provider for anything. The issue has nothing to do with personal feelings - it is purely a technical matter and NOBODY participating in this discussion obviously knows for sure what's going on under the hood or why.
What is “under the hood” of anyone’s computer is usually unique, which is the problem any builder of complex software has to deal with in their test bucket and beta program.
Whether “standard” system or custom built, each board is different, different mix of components, even within ‘same’ board, but slightly different level or because of mix of components from different suppliers. Good board design tries to allow for these differences, but timing and signals can vary.
Then add the level of drivers for each of these board components. These change over time...are they at original level, updated some, at current level? Is the board timing different for different supported processors? What cards have been added, with what drivers and levels? What software, with or without their own drivers?
When you think of the number of different permutations and combinations of hardware and software you realize quickly that there is NO “standard” to test to. There are only a most probables. You try to cover most of them while knowing there is no way you could ever cover all of them....not enough time, money, or people.
-
I think we're just wondering how long you are going to continue to give Adobe the benefit of the doubt Mark. My gut tells me .....
You shouldn't waste your time wondering about such nonsense, because when I' ve KNOWN that Adobe was responsible for an issue I've said so loud and clear on this website. I don't trust my gut. I know of one politician who said he trusts his and it's gotten him into lots of trouble but if you want to trust yours it's your call - each to his/her own (gut) 😀. It's late at night for me now; over and out.
-
Comparison data is HERE (https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Lightroom-Classic-CC-is-it-faster-than-CC-2015-1065/) courtesy of Puget Systems. As others have noted already HDR and Pano actions are slower than the older version of LR. Regarding GPU acceleration, they don't comment on that. System requirements are HERE (https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/system-requirements.html) as published by Adobe. The GPU standards are clear and it's up to Adobe to craft their software in accordance with the standards in the same way as they would compile the program under MacOS or WinOS. I don't have a dog in the fight as I'm waiting for the dust to settle with both Affinity Photo and MacPhun to see if they come up with a DAM model comparable to LR before deciding whether and what to upgrade to from LR6.
-
Comparison data is HERE (https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Lightroom-Classic-CC-is-it-faster-than-CC-2015-1065/) courtesy of Puget Systems. As others have noted already HDR and Pano actions are slower than the older version of LR. Regarding GPU acceleration, they don't comment on that. System requirements are HERE (https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/system-requirements.html) as published by Adobe. The GPU standards are clear and it's up to Adobe to craft their software in accordance with the standards in the same way as they would compile the program under MacOS or WinOS. I don't have a dog in the fight as I'm waiting for the dust to settle with both Affinity Photo and MacPhun to see if they come up with a DAM model comparable to LR before deciding whether and what to upgrade to from LR6.
I don’t know, but the things I want faster are. The few times I do an hdr or pano I could stand the change, but I may or may not use LR for them. DNG creation I NEVER use.
Puget Conclusion:
So is Lightroom Classic CC actually faster than Lightroom CC 2015.12? In most cases, yes, it is significantly faster! There are a few times it stumbled, but the fact that generating previews was up to four times faster is very impressive. On average, we saw the following performance changes with Lightroom Classic CC:
Import 100 images 15-90% faster
Convert 100 images to DNG 20% slower to 6% faster
Export 100 images Up to 28% faster
Generate 100 Smart Previews 230% to 370% faster!!!
Generate 100 1:1 Previews 240% to 420% faster!!!
Develop Scroll 50 photos
(No Smart Previews) 30% to 75% faster
Develop Scroll 50 photos
(With Smart Previews) 14% slower to 2% faster
HDR Creation Total 15% to 25% slower
Panorama Creation Total Up to 20% slower
-
I have a custom computer from Puget (Win 10/64, SSD for primary drive, NVidia graphics, plenty of memory) which is a couple of years old. Everything works fine for me, but haven't tested pano/HDR yet as I don't use those very often.
-
That's pretty much my setup John. My machine has been super dependable but this new Lightroom is not as stable on it. Adobe support said they are working on bug fixes now so I guess I'm not the only one.
-
I don’t know, but the things I want faster are. The few times I do an hdr or pano I could stand the change, but I may or may not use LR for them. DNG creation I NEVER use.
Puget Conclusion:
So is Lightroom Classic CC actually faster than Lightroom CC 2015.12? In most cases, yes, it is significantly faster! There are a few times it stumbled, but the fact that generating previews was up to four times faster is very impressive. On average, we saw the following performance changes with Lightroom Classic CC:
Import 100 images 15-90% faster
Convert 100 images to DNG 20% slower to 6% faster
Export 100 images Up to 28% faster
Generate 100 Smart Previews 230% to 370% faster!!!
Generate 100 1:1 Previews 240% to 420% faster!!!
Develop Scroll 50 photos
(No Smart Previews) 30% to 75% faster
Develop Scroll 50 photos
(With Smart Previews) 14% slower to 2% faster
HDR Creation Total 15% to 25% slower
Panorama Creation Total Up to 20% slower
This and your previous post are factual and make a lot of sense to me. The evidence indicates it's a mixed bag with some things working better, some things working less well and yet, from what Sharon learned, other things just needing to be fixed. One real dilemma is to know when to launch - what is "prime time" - or in other words - how much "beta testing" will happen amongst the customers versus how much before then. The other real dilemma is that changing software features and algorithms often involves (I've learned from discussions with some developers) compromises, so there are judgment calls about which compromises are worthwhile on the whole. The value of a forum like this one (and even more so the Adobe forums) is to bring out the issues, so both Adobe and other users can be made aware of them as they think of upgrading. Personally, I'm not chafing at the bit to upgrade, but I respect the early adopters for what they bring to the table. Very helpful.
-
It is a public secret that Adobe software is very buggy and that is mainly due feature bloat in all of their products. Using non-standard hardware is very common on Windows and most of my software runs fine regarding of the hardware it is on. Furthermore, self-built computers are using components based on standards, and in general also the same kind of components that you will find in a Mac or Linux computer. I am an avid gamer and almost all gaming rigs are custom built and this doesn't hamper performance (although one system might perform better than the other for a certain game). Gaming happens to be one of the applications that pushes systems most, so if game developers manage to optimize, why doesn't Adobe?
Furthermore, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that Adobe is essentially forking Lightroom into two branches: Lightroom Classic and Lightroom CC. This essentially means that their resources, including engineering and testing, are now split. This makes me believe, regardless of what Adobe says (they are not known for keeping their word), that Classic (and the name is a clear indicator) is now in maintenance mode with a much smaller team. I wouldn't say it won't get any new features or updates, but the code base isn't going to chance significantly, major UI update full revision. That full revision has already arrived: it's called Lightroom CC. And I believe their strategy is similar to what Apple did with Final Cut Pro > Final Cut Pro X and Aperture > Photos (although it can be contested to what extend they succeeded with Photos, unlike Final Cut Pro X which is now a very solid feature rich application). This means that over the next few years, Lightroom CC will involve into a more feature-rich product in line with Adobe's vision on modern image management and development. Ultimately, the product will be better for it and Adobe will reach a bigger audience (if their value proposition is good enough vs Apple Photos / Google Photos).
This blog by Peter Krogh is an interesting read http://thedambook.com/lightroom-innovators-dilemma/ and I believe he nailed it in his analysis. I believe Adobe is doing the right thing but I also think they have been milking existing customers for far too long. And I also think you can correlate the drop in big updates to Lightroom with the start of the development of Lightroom Mobile (what is now CC).
TLDR: I still think that overall Lightroom Classic is still the most holistic and complete DAM/Developer with some great features, an open plug-in infrastructure and overall good image quality (but both Capture One and DxO get more out my images, so I use Lightroom mainly as DAM and DxO as developer). Essentially you're paying Adobe $100-$120 a year for Camera updates, unless you make good use of Photoshop in the package.
-
This and your previous post are factual and make a lot of sense to me. The evidence indicates it's a mixed bag with some things working better, some things working less well and yet, from what Sharon learned, other things just needing to be fixed. One real dilemma is to know when to launch - what is "prime time" - or in other words - how much "beta testing" will happen amongst the customers versus how much before then. The other real dilemma is that changing software features and algorithms often involves (I've learned from discussions with some developers) compromises, so there are judgment calls about which compromises are worthwhile on the whole. The value of a forum like this one (and even more so the Adobe forums) is to bring out the issues, so both Adobe and other users can be made aware of them as they think of upgrading. Personally, I'm not chafing at the bit to upgrade, but I respect the early adopters for what they bring to the table. Very helpful.
I might have also waited, but had just done a clear build of my photo system due to a old faulty MB, so was pretty sure I’d have no “twisted, mixed up, driver conflicts, etc”. Classic came up clean. Only ‘glitch’ was it recognized new Nvidia 1080 as DirectX, not OpenGL. Not sure I should have, but I changed it and has been working clean, no crashes or blackout, and speeded....though with new board and cpu I cannot say which caused speed up....guessing both.
-
I might have also waited, but had just done a clear build of my photo system due to a old faulty MB, so was pretty sure I’d have no “twisted, mixed up, driver conflicts, etc”. Classic came up clean. Only ‘glitch’ was it recognized new Nvidia 1080 as DirectX, not OpenGL. Not sure I should have, but I changed it and has been working clean, no crashes or blackout, and speeded....though with new board and cpu I cannot say which caused speed up....guessing both.
Pretty sure that DirectX is correct. This is the standard most games are written for and why folks purchase NVIDIA GPUs.
-
It is a public secret that Adobe software is very buggy and that is mainly due feature bloat in all of their products. Using non-standard hardware is very common on Windows and most of my software runs fine regarding of the hardware it is on. Furthermore, self-built computers are using components based on standards, and in general also the same kind of components that you will find in a Mac or Linux computer. I am an avid gamer and almost all gaming rigs are custom built and this doesn't hamper performance (although one system might perform better than the other for a certain game). Gaming happens to be one of the applications that pushes systems most, so if game developers manage to optimize, why doesn't Adobe?
I'm just curious as a WinOS user and builder of computers what is a good example of "non-standard" hardware.
-
Pretty sure that DirectX is correct. This is the standard most games are written for and why folks purchase NVIDIA GPUs.
Understand what you say about games. Adobe, however, of the need for OpenGL in their spec requirements for LR.
I have not gotten a good answer on leaving it at DirectX or forcing to OpenGL.
-
Understand what you say about games. Adobe, however, of the need for OpenGL in their spec requirements for LR.
I have not gotten a good answer on leaving it at DirectX or forcing to OpenGL.
NVIDIA probably set the default to DirectX as most buyers are gamers and that's what they need. NVIDIA support OperGL as shown: https://developer.nvidia.com/opengl I'm sure that the Adobe prompt you mentioned was a message to switch the GPU over manually (I don't know if it can be done automatically by LR; it sounds like no).
-
NVIDIA probably set the default to DirectX as most buyers are gamers and that's what they need. NVIDIA support OperGL as shown: https://developer.nvidia.com/opengl I'm sure that the Adobe prompt you mentioned was a message to switch the GPU over manually (I don't know if it can be done automatically by LR; it sounds like no).
Alan does this mean I should download and use one of the drivers from that link? My card is an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti which is on that list.
Thanks, Sharon
PS: I got burned on the name brand computer models when I bought my first desktop pc - a top of the line Compaq that couldn't run photoshop because of a bottleneck in how it used ram. I wish there had been social media then, Compaq would have replaced it.
-
Alan does this mean I should download and use one of the drivers from that link? My card is an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti which is on that list.
Thanks, Sharon
PS: I got burned on the name brand computer models when I bought my first desktop pc - a top of the line Compaq that couldn't run photoshop because of a bottleneck in how it used ram. I wish there had been social media then, Compaq would have replaced it.
I'm hesitant to advise you on this one. I have a GTX960 that I believe auto adjusts to the application depending on whether it uses DirectX or OpenGL. I would ask the person/company that build your workstation.
EDIT ADDED: Also that page is focused on developers. See the first part of this page: https://developer.nvidia.com/opengl-driver and it refers you to the consumer site to get the latest drivers. I use GeForce Experience and that automatically downloads drivers. As I noted, your system builder can give you the best advice.
-
Thank you, Alan.
-
It is a public secret that Adobe software is very buggy and that is mainly due feature bloat in all of their products. Using non-standard hardware is very common on Windows and most of my software runs fine regarding of the hardware it is on. Furthermore, self-built computers are using components based on standards, and in general also the same kind of components that you will find in a Mac or Linux computer. I am an avid gamer and almost all gaming rigs are custom built and this doesn't hamper performance (although one system might perform better than the other for a certain game). Gaming happens to be one of the applications that pushes systems most, so if game developers manage to optimize, why doesn't Adobe?
Furthermore, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that Adobe is essentially forking Lightroom into two branches: Lightroom Classic and Lightroom CC. This essentially means that their resources, including engineering and testing, are now split. This makes me believe, regardless of what Adobe says (they are not known for keeping their word), that Classic (and the name is a clear indicator) is now in maintenance mode with a much smaller team. I wouldn't say it won't get any new features or updates, but the code base isn't going to chance significantly, major UI update full revision. That full revision has already arrived: it's called Lightroom CC. And I believe their strategy is similar to what Apple did with Final Cut Pro > Final Cut Pro X and Aperture > Photos (although it can be contested to what extend they succeeded with Photos, unlike Final Cut Pro X which is now a very solid feature rich application). This means that over the next few years, Lightroom CC will involve into a more feature-rich product in line with Adobe's vision on modern image management and development. Ultimately, the product will be better for it and Adobe will reach a bigger audience (if their value proposition is good enough vs Apple Photos / Google Photos).
This blog by Peter Krogh is an interesting read http://thedambook.com/lightroom-innovators-dilemma/ and I believe he nailed it in his analysis. I believe Adobe is doing the right thing but I also think they have been milking existing customers for far too long. And I also think you can correlate the drop in big updates to Lightroom with the start of the development of Lightroom Mobile (what is now CC).
TLDR: I still think that overall Lightroom Classic is still the most holistic and complete DAM/Developer with some great features, an open plug-in infrastructure and overall good image quality (but both Capture One and DxO get more out my images, so I use Lightroom mainly as DAM and DxO as developer). Essentially you're paying Adobe $100-$120 a year for Camera updates, unless you make good use of Photoshop in the package.
Hard to know where to begin with this:
(1) Sorry, the secret is so public I've never heard it before, but maybe that's just naive me.
(2) What is feature bloat? One person's bloat is another person's useful feature. Aimless criticism with no objective merit.
(3) What makes you so sure you can compare gaming with Adobe image editing software? Do you know the inner programming of each well enough to sustain this kind of generaliztion?
(4) How do you know they didn't bring more staff on for managing the application split?
(5) How do you know they even need more staff for this? (You wouldn't unless you worked for them and then you wouldn't be allowed to write this stuff.)
(6) How do you know Classic is in "maintenance mode" - do you sit at the Board table where such decisions would be made?
(7) What do you mean by "milking customers for far too long"? You don't think all those customers who don't like being milked for "far too long" would have left them by now? There are options. People decide what is worthwhile and vote accordingly with their choices. Seems the value proposition hasn't failed either them or most of the customers yet. But this is open for on-going evaluation.
(8) If you were to make a catalog of the all the improvements and additions to LR since the time it was first launched up to this very version you wouldn't be saying we are only paying for camera updates. It's just factually wrong. But again, what matters henceforth is the rate of improvement going forward and their attention to minimizing serious bugs with new launches, matters we can evaluate over time.