# Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 18, 2015)

```
<strong>Product Overview</strong></p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Master your digital photography workflow

</strong>Ranking, optimization and sharing – Lightroom together in one fast, intuitive application all tools dedicated to digital photography.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Bring out the best of each photo

</strong>Test your ideas freely with non-destructive tools – your original pictures remain intact. Lightroom lets you optimize every pixel of your photos, they were taken with a professional digital SLR camera or mobile phone.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Key features of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6</strong></p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Environment nondestructive

</strong>Unleash your creativity in a nondestructive editing environment that allows you to test your ideas freely. The originals remain intact and you can easily cancel your edits or save multiple versions of a cliché.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Advanced conversion feature black and white

</strong>Monitor closely the tonal qualities so essential to the black and white photos. Combine precisely the information of eight color layers in the grayscale conversion.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Development predefined settings

</strong>Save time by instantly applying the desired effect to your images.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left">Just save develop settings as a preset and apply them to other photos in a click. If Lightroom includes dozens of presets, thousands more are offered by third parties.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Face Recognition

</strong>Quickly find pictures of loved ones, even without metadata tags. You select a face on the photo, Lightroom and search the person it belongs to all of your other shots. Sort and group your photos by faces.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Sophisticated Healing Brush

</strong>Get best pictures with one touch. Set the brush size and move it according to specific plots. Unwanted items and other imperfections, including irregular shapes son type, magically disappear.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Upright (Vertically)

</strong>Straighten skewed images with a single click. The Upright tool (Vertically) analyzes the image and detects horizontal or vertical lines inclined. It can even recover images without horizon.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Merge to HDR

</strong>Create realistic or surreal images from high-contrast scenes. By merging HDR, you can easily combine photos with different exposures into a single HDR image.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Fusion panoramas

</strong>Realize XXL ultra detailed panoramas. Photo merge technology lets you merge multiple images, including raw files, to create panoramas out of the ordinary.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Performance gains

</strong>Import and refine your photos in record time. Lightroom leverages compatible graphics process to get you better performance, especially when you edit your images in the Develop module.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Sophisticated video slideshows

</strong>Create stunning slideshows combining still images, movies and music, and supplement them with pan and zoom effects, for example.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Optimized web galleries

</strong>Present your work in the most elegant web galleries, more attractive and interactive. The new models of HTML5 compatible galleries are supported by many browsers and mobile devices work stations.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Integration of online sharing

</strong>Easily publish images on social networks and sites for such as Facebook and Flickr. On some sites, you can even view the online comments on your images directly from Lightroom Library.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Creating photo books

</strong>Create beautiful photo books. Lightroom includes a large number of user-friendly catalog templates that you can now customize. Load them then printing a few clicks.</p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><!--more--></p>
<p dir="ltr" align="left"><strong>Original Post</strong></p>
<p>A listing for Adobe’s next version for Lightroom has appeared on the Amazon UK web site. The expected release is some time by March according to Adobe.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lightroom-EN-DVD-Set-65237515/dp/B00M3YAJ3O/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1424257469&sr=8-5&keywords=lightroom+6" target="_blank">See the Lightroom 6 listing on Amazon UK</a></strong></p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://photorumors.com/2015/02/17/adobe-lightroom-6-dvd-set-listed-on-amazon-uk/" target="_blank">PhotoRumors</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## blanddragon (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

Looks like they are forcing the last old OS users off the upgrade path too:_ 'Lightroom 6 will require Mac OS X 10.8 or above, or a 64 bit version of Windows 7, 8 or 8.1.'_ Probably about time. 

Reference: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/01/update-on-os-support-for-next-version-of-lightroom.html


----------



## siegsAR (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

What's the most relevant update with this version? Content aware tech.?

Perf. improvement is welcome no matter how small.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



blanddragon said:


> Looks like they are forcing the last old OS users off the upgrade path too:_ 'Lightroom 6 will require Mac OS X 10.8 or above, or a 64 bit version of Windows 7, 8 or 8.1.'_ Probably about time.



Well, as for Windows, x64 makes sense even with 4gb for memory as you can only use 3gb max with x86 operating system - and that isn't ideal for LR in any case, esp. if you happen to open your web browser at the same time. I don't see why there's such a fuss about it.

But I'm looking forward to LR6, I hope they fixed some of my major annoyances with it (like no way to extent the canvas). On the other hand, I expect they make sure there's a noticeable difference between LR and PS and won't put too many eggs in one basket.



siegsAR said:


> What's the most relevant update with this version?



One thing is sure, because ACR for PS already has it: extended mask editing, i.e. you can add or substract an area from a radial or linear mask with the brush. They could enable this in LR5 right now, but obviously want people to shell out some €€€ for it.


----------



## photodude (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

Does anyone have any insight on Adobe's upgrade policies?

I still have LR4. 

Will Adobe allow an upgrade from LR4 to LR6?

If not, Will they give me a free upgrade to 6 if I upgrade to 5 now? (I know they are likely to do that if I made a purchase of 5 now due to the short time to the new version release)

Prior to the PS-CC rental nonsense Adobe had announced that there would no longer be any generation skipping for PS upgrades but that policy was never implemented as CS7 never happened. I wonder if they are going to apply it to LR?


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

And just yesterday I was thinking it was about time for the next version of Lightroom... What a coincidence. Interested to see what will be added and refined.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



photodude said:


> Does anyone have any insight on Adobe's upgrade policies?
> 
> I still have LR4.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure, but I have CC, so i'm assuming that I will just get it like I do with photoshop. Also, i'm not sure what you mean by nonsense. CC is hands down the best deal i have ever seen in terms of software. $10/month for the best photo editing program out there with lightroom and other online resources.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

Here's hoping:

*GPU-based hardware acceleration
*Improved noise reduction tools like those found in DXO's tools
*Improved masking options
*Strip out the bloatware they've added (books)


----------



## Trevster (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I've been hoping that Lightroom 6 would be available soon.

I'm glad that they are not forcing the move to Windows 8, I looked at the Amazon UK page, and I only saw Win 8 listed. (I made the move to Win7 for Lightroom 5).

Really hoping that it doesn't require a monthly payment. That would be a deal breaker for me (as much as I want the upgrade) - not interested in either monthly payments or cloud storage.


- Trev


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I hope it has GPU support otherwise I have very little want to upgrade.


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

It will take some time yet for these old think ideas regarding deliberate feature crippling to wear away.
Yes, Adobe have stated that Lightroom will remain available as a standalone app. But they are not concerned about losing Cloud sales to it, and are adding features to Lightroom as quickly as they can be engineered. They would add photo-specific features to Lightroom only if they could, saving double-engineering them for two completely different products.
Photoshop doesn't need photographers, and Lightroom has crushed the competition. Cloud has eliminated the marketing balance act between the two as they are now bundled together for a ridiculously cheap price.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

CC is not "ridiculously cheap", but a nasty monthly rent that I will never accept. 
Especially since I won't ever touch Photoshop because of its totally un-intuitive 1980's style user interface. 

All I want and need is Lightroom. Stand alone, eternal license. One-time payment. Never paid more than max. 80 € for a LR license. I can decide myself if and when I want to purchase a generational "upgrade" ... or just skip it. 

For LR6 I'd like to get the same improvements as listed by 3kramd above:


3kramd5 said:


> Here's hoping:
> *GPU-based hardware acceleration
> *Improved noise reduction tools like those found in DXO's tools
> *Improved masking options
> *Strip out the bloatware they've added (books)


plus maybe some of that "content-aware" editing stuff.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

My big question: IS IT STAND_ALONE? 

I need to buy LR5 if this new LR6 is going to be cloud only. I gather that people who buy LR5 very late (within a month of LR6 release) are able to update free. I still haven't upgraded from Snow Leopard 10.6.8 (very stable) to Yosemite because of Apple's refusal to allow TRIM to run on third party SSDs (I upgraded my mid-2010 boot drive to a Samsung 512G SSD). I wasn't planning to buy a new computer until the next "tick" or "tock" processor generation (can't remember which one is next), which should be in August 2015, as my current MBP is running fine with the exception of a little screen degradation on the far left. .


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

It is ridiculously cheap compared to hardware, unless that's a self-made pinhole camera you're using.
And you're welcome, speaking for users like me who paid their share of support for the development of new technologies like content aware fill.


----------



## tss68nl (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



AvTvM said:


> CC is not "ridiculously cheap", but a nasty monthly rent that I will never accept.
> Especially since I won't ever touch Photoshop because of its totally un-intuitive 1980's style user interface.



Hmmm, that might be the most negative mindset I've seen in a long time. I get it that you don't want to pay a monthly fee, but at least considering my investments in pre-CC photoshop and lightroom versions it's cheaper to just pay the low monthly fee. Your choice to make but it doesn't make it "not ridiculously cheap" for all of us...

What I really don't get is the bash on the photoshop interface. I can't understand what you're complaining about... ? What's wrong with it, because I never experience anything close to that? Maybe it's the fact that most people use shortcuts? I'd think that it would get tedious if you have to pick everything from a menu. But then again, most users with a bit of experience use the shortcuts.

I hope they have fixed one thing.... the slow performance when it's running for a while. Seems some kind of memory leak that bogs it down after some hours of work with larger catalogs with LR5.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



AvTvM said:


> All I want and need is Lightroom. Stand alone, eternal license. One-time payment.



I seem to recall reading an Adobe person (though not an official spokesman AFAIK) stating that LR will continue to be offered in the retail/perpetual license flavor, at least for the next release cycle. 

I do suspect that more and more software companies will adopt cloud-based recurring payment platforms, though, if for no better reason than to combat piracy. When the time comes that I have to subscribe, I will do so. Until then, retail please


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Marsu42 said:


> Well, as for Windows, x64 makes sense even with 4gb for memory as you can only use 3gb max with x86 operating system - and that isn't ideal for LR in any case


Less even, unless Lightroom is Large Address Aware -- which I don't think 3 & 4 were. The limit for a 32 bit program running on any operating system without the flag set is 2GB per running process. Setting the flag requires a much greater attention to pointer arithmetic and other considerations that make it pretty cumbersome to use.

Obviously 2GB is woefully inadequate for image processing.


----------



## l_d_allan (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

Any info on whether there will be a new PV (process version)?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



l_d_allan said:


> Any info on whether there will be a new PV (process version)?



I'll be surprised if there isn't.


----------



## cerealito (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I guess I will wait and see what this new version has to offer before I buy Capture One.

8)


----------



## Snafoo (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



3kramd5 said:


> Here's hoping:
> 
> *GPU-based hardware acceleration
> *Improved noise reduction tools like those found in DXO's tools
> ...


One person's bloat is another's treasure. I like and use the Book feature, and I hope they not only keep it in (a certainty) but enhance it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Snafoo said:


> One person's bloat is another's treasure. I like and use the Book feature, and I hope they not only keep it in (a certainty) but enhance it.



Fair enough. Well even though it's running and utilizing resources, at least I can disable the pallet so I don't have to see it


----------



## infared (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

It's just fine the way it is!!!!!!!! :


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



GmwDarkroom said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, as for Windows, x64 makes sense even with 4gb for memory as you can only use 3gb max with x86 operating system - and that isn't ideal for LR in any case
> ...



Sure, but I was talking about the *os* - and with recent hardware, that's 3gb which allows for a ~2gb LR process as lots of things are loaded alongside with windows.

I did run LR3 x86 for some time, and with a smaller catalog it's perfectly usable - but as all drivers are available in x64 and win x64 provides additional security, imho there's little reason not to use it unless you're on a tablet with a cpu that doesn't support the amd64 extensions.


----------



## gsealy (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I will wait until they get the bugs out of version 6 before purchasing the upgrade. Usually toward the end of life cycle of a version there are some good deals. The current version, 5.7, does everything I need it to do. For me the best feature is 'synch,' which allows me to be really efficient when editing a time lapse set of photos.


----------



## emko (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

is something wrong? there is no public beta and its already almost March? this version must not have that much fixed/added.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



tss68nl said:


> Hmmm, that might be the most negative mindset I've seen in a long time. I get it that you don't want to pay a monthly fee, but at least considering my investments in pre-CC photoshop and lightroom versions it's cheaper to just pay the low monthly fee. Your choice to make but it doesn't make it "not ridiculously cheap" for all of us...



As you know, the CC bundle includes both LR and PS. I do not want PS. Only LR. € 12,99 a month are NOT cheap for LR only, when I can buy a full retail license for around € 80. 
"Really cheap" to me would mean ... Adobe LR CC at 99 cent a month - similar to what other "cloud apps" cost.

As far as PS is concerned, I really absolutely dislike everything about it ... namely 
* the whole editing concept requiring stacks of layers (what are those good for, LR works fine without them)
* tool palettes strewn all over the place, lack of a coherent menu system
* being forced to memorize dozens of keyboard shortcuts [I never use any except CTRL-C,V,F]
* use of bloated file formats - PSDs/TIFFs, instead of just RAWs and jpgs (as in LR)
* don't ever need 95% of the software's theoretical functionality [I don't do composites of any sort, no stacking, no HDRs, always work from just one single capture/RAW file] 
* absurd pricing level, especially for the 5% of functionality useful to me

Got no trouble whatsoever using Lightroom, since its UI is much more clear cut and intuitive (to me). And more similar to the UI in MS Office / Windows.


----------



## LDS (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Marsu42 said:


> Sure, but I was talking about the *os* - and with recent hardware, that's 3gb which allows for a ~2gb LR process as lots of things are loaded alongside with windows.



Actually, it's a bit more complex than this. 32 bit CPU can access more than 4GB of *physical* RAM (exactly how 16 bit ones could access more than 64K...), but different version of Windows put different limits for how much *physical* memory is actually usable, regardless of how much is installed (anybody interested can look here: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx).

Then, applications don't see *physical* memory. Each of them sees a *virtual* one. In a 32 bit system each application always sees 4GB of virtual memory (regardless of how much physical memory is installed) - just 2GB are usable by the application, the other 2 are used to "map" DLLs and other things that need a memory address. The /3GB switch allows for increasing the former at the expenses of the latter. 32 bit applications running on a 64 bit OS, can see up to the full 4GB of virtual memory.

Virtual memory is mapped to physical one (or even disk swap space) using some CPU features designed for that - since at least the Intel 80386.

The operating systems takes care of that (and managing virtual RAM requires RAM as well...), and manages its own RAM (separated from that used by applications by the CPU protection mechanism). How much physical RAM is available depends on how much is actually used by the OS and all running applications. If physical RAM gets scarce, the OS swaps some virtual RAM to disk, and it slow downs a lot applications that got memory swapped to disk.

But there are also other things that need a memory address. For example, video cards memory  To allow the system access the video card memory, it needs to be "mapped" to a memory address within the physical 4GB boundary, and this is made at the expenses of RAM. RAM could be "relocated" above the 4GB boundary by the hardware - but in doing so it can become inaccessible by some 32 bit OS. Thereby, the larger the video card memory, the more usable RAM is "wasted" (or the video card may use less memory than you bought if for...)

Another issue is how application use memory. Memory can become "fragmented", and an application may fail to get a memory block large enough when needed even if there is available memory, but it's not "contiguous". That can happen more easily when the virtual memory overall size is smaller - as it happens on 32 bit systems.

For memory intensive applications, today using a 32 bit system makes little sense.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



photodude said:


> Does anyone have any insight on Adobe's upgrade policies?
> 
> I still have LR4.
> 
> ...



I'd expect that you can upgrade to Ver 6, but the Adobe CC is a much better value since it includes photoshop.

I bought Adobe 4 for 70% off just before ver 5 came out, and got a free upgrade. There is always a risk. Once the new version is announced, free upgrades are cutoff.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

For those not currently on LR 5.5 and want a perpetual license vs. CC, they may want to consider purchasing LR5.5 as an alternative to the CC (software as a Service) paradigm. I initially was turned off by the cloud concept of purchasing software but recently bought the PS/LR CC bundle for $9.95/mo. You actually have to download and install PS/LR CC.

Adobe did something similar when they came out with CS6. If you had a version earlier than CS3, there was no upgrade option. You had to purchase the full product. Could happen with versions earlier than LR5 - don't know. Adobe will have to spell out the upgrade path for earlier versions. Bottomline: In essence, Adobe is saying earlier versions running on 32-bit OS platforms will not be supported in LR6.

I'm assuming that once you stop the monthly payment arrangement for CC, you still have the software on your machine - you just don't get any future updates/upgrades: 

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/what-happens-to-lightroom-after-my-membership-ends.html


$9.95/mo. really isn't a bad deal - just takes some getting used to versus the way we use to acquire software.




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> photodude said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have any insight on Adobe's upgrade policies?
> ...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I hope it comes out very soon so I can still use my student discount status. 

Has Adobe released any prices yet?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



emko said:


> is something wrong? there is no public beta and its already almost March? this version must not have that much fixed/added



On the contrary, I expect they did a major overhaul (thus the delay) and the product isn't beta-worthy, so they keep working on it with a closed testers group and stringent nd agreements. If they really did the rumored performance enhancements, imho they have to exchange a good deal of the legacy lua core for optimized c code.


----------



## t.linn (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



keithfullermusic said:


> i'm not sure what you mean by nonsense. CC is hands down the best deal i have ever seen in terms of software. $10/month for the best photo editing program out there with lightroom and other online resources.



I'm glad Adobe's rental scheme is working for you but that doesn't mean it works for everyone. It certainly doesn't work for me.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

This is how I acquired PS/LR CC. Your student discount is valid for the school term you are enrolled. I believe there was a question I had to answer when I purchased my subscription related to this. As long as the school you're attending is approved by Adobe for the discount and they can verify your enrollment -- you're good to go.

Also, if you're on CC now, when LR6 is available, providing the march release date doesn't slip, you should automatically receive the upgrade. You just need to log into CC once every 30 days. The desktop software will check for updates, etc. 



AcutancePhotography said:


> I hope it comes out very soon so I can still use my student discount status.
> 
> Has Adobe released any prices yet?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



AvTvM said:


> CC is not "ridiculously cheap", but a nasty monthly rent that I will never accept.
> Especially since I won't ever touch Photoshop because of its totally un-intuitive 1980's style user interface.



It's not that it has a 1980s interface that makes in un-intuitive since stuff like Deluxe Paint and basically EVERY single other paint program back in the 80s was about 100x more intuitive. Anything you wanted to do with the others you could basically just do. Not with Photoshop.

Yeah no rental model for me. I wonder how much Adobe paid the NYT today to publish an editorial praising the rental model as if it were just a regular un-biased article. On and on about how the rental model is loved by all and was created out of the goodness of Adobe for the common man, blah blah blah. Not a single PEEP about any hint of backlash or any negative aspects.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > CC is not "ridiculously cheap", but a nasty monthly rent that I will never accept.
> ...


Yep. I'll be holding onto my CS6 Copies for Along time. The only way adobe could strip them from my hands would be to update the .dng converter to no longer support newer camera and/or make LR-CC the only option. Both of which would officially bankrupt my trust for adobe.


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

Probably not going to see the public betas on Adobe products any longer - I don't see how that would really integrate with the cloud applications. That was really only a Lightroom thing, anyway, and uncommon with mature products.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



wtlloyd said:


> It is ridiculously cheap compared to hardware, unless that's a self-made pinhole camera you're using.
> And you're welcome, speaking for users like me who paid their share of support for the development of new technologies like content aware fill.



Thank yourself for the years you've been able to use it before the rest of us. It wasn't charity.


----------



## chauncey (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I might suggest that those that don't want/need Photoshop CC are those SOOC folks that are satisfied with
Canon's interpretation of their image and/or do not have the wherewithal to utilize stringent PP, it does take
the ability to undergo the learning curve. :


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

There's always GIMP -- AND its free:

http://www.gimp.org

For what its worth, unless end-users of these products actually complain en masse, or at least in significant numbers to influence Adobe's pricing model, I'm afraid the SaaS (Software as a Service) distribution model (aka Cloud) is here for the foreseeable future. 

Adobe's stock don't seem to be hurting any ... Sorry. Tried to copy the stock chart from the NY Times. I wasn't able to copy the entire chart for some reason.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



tss68nl said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > CC is not "ridiculously cheap", but a nasty monthly rent that I will never accept.
> ...



I've used computers since 1981, and PS has the worst user interface of any user application I've ever used. It's so bad that I use Elements 9 over CS6 just because the user interface is a little bit less horrible.

I would never buy the $9.99 bundle because it's a ripoff for those like me that don't use PS.


----------



## emko (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> tss68nl said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



yea the UI is so bad that's why GIMP and many other programs copy it.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

Tighter integration with PS makes it worth trying, but I'll need good reason to commit and at this stage I don't see the case. We'll see.

Jim


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



chauncey said:


> I might suggest that those that don't want/need Photoshop CC are those SOOC folks that are satisfied with
> Canon's interpretation of their image and/or do not have the wherewithal to utilize stringent PP, it does take
> the ability to undergo the learning curve. :



Wrong.

I post process every image I use, and none of them are with CS6 or CC. Only about 1 in 1000 are with PS Elements (only the ones requiring compositing). I use Lightroom only for the other 999.

And I started using PS in version 6.


----------



## quod (Feb 18, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yeah no rental model for me. I wonder how much Adobe paid the NYT today to publish an editorial praising the rental model as if it were just a regular un-biased article. On and on about how the rental model is loved by all and was created out of the goodness of Adobe for the common man, blah blah blah. Not a single PEEP about any hint of backlash or any negative aspects.


The only reason Adobe and others have moved to the "software as a service" model is to smooth earnings. From the standpoint of consistent revenue and stock price consistency, it makes sense. At least Lightroom has a nice analog in Capture One.


----------



## streestandtheatres (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I hope it fixes the sluggishness of Lightroom on retina iMacs. Great screen but lightroom is slower than on my retina MBPro.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

"At least Lightroom has a nice analog in Capture One."

It depends on what you want at least to get out of you RAWs.
On quite good exposed digital stuff it do`s no matter, so my experience with LS. 
The rest I drop to C1.

PSD- don't forget the reality behind the desing of the interface! Photoshop is still a absolute great tool for picture manipulation! Nothing compares to that! The rest of Adobe - I could drop anywhere ... so I am not in video production.


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I get just the tiniest bit upset when I read complaints about Adobe UI function, pricing scheme, features that are lacking, slooow functionality....and then I remember that you complainers are standing by your principles and not using these lousy ripoff products, and then I feel a lot better. :'(


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

For those Adobe standoffs that use Apples there is the new Affinity Photo, available as a free beta at the moment.

https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



lilmsmaggie said:


> I'm assuming that once you stop the monthly payment arrangement for CC, you still have the software on your machine - you just don't get any future updates/upgrades:



One month after you stop paying, the software no longer opens. I did not run the creative cloud app once for over a month, and it froze lightroom / photoshop. Sure, its there, but you can't use it.


----------



## miah (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I'm hoping we get user preferred GPS formats in Lr 6. Decimal Degrees are SO much easier to type and read.

Photoshop has a steep learning curve and isn't for everyone, but there isn't another product on the market that even comes close to its capabilities. I use it. I love it. And I have no problem paying a mere $9.99/month for the latest versions of Ps and Lr. 

Those who moan about the subscription model have never sat down and done the math: $9.99/month is CHEAPER than buying "stand-alone" versions every year or two or even three, divided by the months of use. That said, it does seem like Adobe should offer a less expensive subscription to Lr by itself, for those who don't need Photoshop.


----------



## Stone (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I'm still perfectly happy with PS CS6. 99% of my edits are done in LR these days and if I need to use PS, CS6 opens tiff files just fine. No CC for me, until CS6 is no longer a viable option with should be quite a few more years...


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> I would never buy the $9.99 bundle because it's a ripoff for those like me that don't use PS.



Is it? That seems highly subjective. I was on LR 3.5 a year or so ago. It was either pony up 100 bucks up front for a one time purchase... or just pay 10 bucks a month, locked in for one year. Roughly the same price. And if you look at is as having free upgrade insurance and access to photoshop... not sure "ripoff" is terribly accurate.

Especially look at the cost of photography? A cost of one good CPL would pay for this for a year. An extra speedlite? Or what people spend money on? Starbucks, cable television, over priced cell phone bills. Frankly 10 bucks a month for cutting edge photo editing software seems like good value.

With that said, I get it (at least psychologically). I used computers in the 80s as well. Long before the internet and buzzwords like SAS, it can be a generational thing. We like to own it, put our hands on it. I hear kids today don't even want to own their own music. Their fine just streaming whatever is available in the moment from "the cloud".


----------



## jthomson (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

Panorama stitching and HDR, looks interesting.
But what is flexible and more flexible printing?


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I was a CS3 user and needed to update PS and LR and really didn't want to have to pay AUS $1600 odd to buy CS6.
I too was against anything resembling a monthly fee, but eventually I thought I'd give it a go thinking the price would rocket up after 12 months, but it hasn't gone up at all, and I think I'm getting great value for my money.
The fact is that this system has been a gold mine for Adobe as lots of people who would never pay the price for PS now rent the entire Adobe suite, which, if you have use for these programs, is relatively even cheaper than just the photographer's package.

And if you don't want to rent, just buy Elements.


----------



## Al99 (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

A French Website has leaked the specs of the new Lightroom 6.
"Planned product is in pre-order, delivery from March 9, 2015"
HDR an facial recognition on board.

New Lightroom

And the best - no CC! 

Al


----------



## emko (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

Performance gains

Import and refine your photos in record time. Lightroom leverages compatible graphics process to get you better performance, especially when you edit your images in the Develop module.

Remember when Adobe said it was not possible and even if they did it there would be no performance gains?


----------



## LDS (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



quod said:


> From the standpoint of consistent revenue and stock price consistency, it makes sense.



Just it was the model used by most Unix vendors in the '70s and '80s - renting software and not selling it.
And it was one of the reasons PC software took off so fast.


----------



## LDS (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Luds34 said:


> It was either pony up 100 bucks up front for a one time purchase... or just pay 10 bucks a month, locked in for one year. Roughly the same price. And if you look at is as having free upgrade insurance and access to photoshop... not sure "ripoff" is terribly accurate.



Depends. Once you have a license, you pay only the upgrade price, not the whole price. For LR, actually an upgrade (in Italy) directly from Adobe is 73 euro (probably you can save something elsewhere). The CC PS+LR is 12.19 euro per month, which is 146 euro per year. If you don't use PS, you can save 73 euro per year, even if you upgrade every 12 months. Not a huge saving, true, but CC is not the only software you may need, and you may want to allocate those money somewhere else. I agree it's not a ripoff if you need both applications.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

here is a full list of upgrades: http://photorumors.com/2015/02/18/adobe-lightroom-6-leaked-online/#more-68084


certaibly looks like I will upgrade from LR4.x to this one. also for panorama stitching I will stick with Microsoft Ice rather than this one.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

like it!
* perpetual license available
* performance gains / use of GPU hardware
* better healing brush - selection of irregular shapes
* improved possibilities to control black&white conversion
* face recognition (as long as there is no cloud/internet/NSA backdoor involved)
* HDR directly in LR 
* panorama/stitching directly in LR

All of this makes it even easier to completely jettison Photoshop (or other software) for all of my photo PP requirements 8)

Will definitely buy the upgrade after a few weeks / first bug correcting update.


----------



## suburbia (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

wow HDR and Panoramic built in? I've just recently spent a small fortune on separate packages for those two tasks with messy export and re-import as a TIFF file back into Lightroom which can get confusing with workflow, file and library management whilst losing the power of working with RAW.

I have also struggled with getting the different packages to accurately cope with creating a HDR Panorama, trying both HDR > Panorama and Panorama > HDR workflows with unsatisfactory results so far (tried two different and respected panorama tools and two different HDR tools so far).

If this can be done accurately all within Lightroom then it might be the best release yet, although not sure how much we could expect the power/quality of these built in tools to be on a first release compared to the more established players out there. 

Having said that I guess the team has access to other Adobe resources such as Photoshop.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



suburbia said:


> I've just recently spent a small fortune on separate packages for those two tasks with messy export and re-import as a TIFF file back into Lightroom which can get confusing with workflow, file and library management whilst losing the power of working with RAW.



While it does not address your panorama issue, have you looked in to the LR plug-in called Enfuse? It does a nice job with focus stacking and exposure stacking. The best part is that it is easy. No awkward work flow.


----------



## bitm2007 (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



> If this can be done accurately all within Lightroom then it might be the best release yet, although not sure how much we could expect the power/quality of these built in tools to be on a first release compared to the more established players out there.



Dedicated software v Jack of all trades. I hope there's much more under the bonnet (hood) than the headline grabbing HDR and Panoramic stitching features.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Luds34 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I would never buy the $9.99 bundle because it's a ripoff for those like me that don't use PS.
> ...



LR upgrades are $79 every 1.5 to 2 years, or about $4.40 a month. So, yes, $9.99 a month is a ripoff for those, like me, that don't use PS. Note that I do use PS Elements, but the last upgrade cycle I skipped from version 3 to version 9, and got version 9 at Costco for about $80 or so. So, that's $80 every 6 years or another $1.11 a month. Would you pay $9.99 for something you like less than what you were paying $5.50 for? I'd call that a rip off.

Fortunately, LR will likely remain on perpetual license, at least for a while if not a long while.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> I've used computers since 1981, and PS has the worst user interface of any user application I've ever used. It's so bad that I use Elements 9 over CS6 just because the user interface is a little bit less horrible.
> 
> I would never buy the $9.99 bundle because it's a ripoff for those like me that don't use PS.



Consider yourself very lucky you've never had to use HP Quality Center.


----------



## bitm2007 (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



> LR upgrades are $79 every 1.5 to 2 years, or about $4.40 a month. So, yes, $9.99 a month is a ripoff for those, like me, that don't use PS. Note that I do use PS Elements, but the last upgrade cycle I skipped from version 3 to version 9, and got version 9 at Costco for about $80 or so. So, that's $80 every 6 years or another $1.11 a month. Would you pay $9.99 for something you like less than what you were paying $5.50 for? I'd call that a rip off.



If you purchase the latest full versions of Lightroom or Elements in the Black Friday or Cyber Monday sales, it often possible to sell your older versions on Ebay etc for a net profit after Christmas.


----------



## Skirball (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



AvTvM said:


> As far as PS is concerned, I really absolutely dislike everything about it ... namely
> * the whole editing concept requiring stacks of layers (what are those good for, LR works fine without them)
> * tool palettes strewn all over the place, lack of a coherent menu system
> * being forced to memorize dozens of keyboard shortcuts [I never use any except CTRL-C,V,F]
> ...



Nothing personal, but it's obvious that you're not very good in PS, nor do you really understand what it's for. Layers are the entire point, if you're not using layers, then there's little point to using PS. There's all kinds of work that requires layers, just because it's not something you do, doesn't mean it doesn't have its purpose.

As to the "outdated" interface. I guess those of us that have been using it for 20 years like that we know where everything is.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



So you consider $4.49 per month for the best imaging editing software on the planet a ripoff? That is idiotic.

I can understand not wanting it and not wanting to pay for it if you don't use it, but $4.49 for anything a month is not a ripoff. Consider that PS as a standalone was $650, that is over ten years of monthly payments of $4.49 with no upgrades.

Again, I can understand not using it and not paying for it, but it isn't a ripoff.


----------



## Skirball (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



I don't care for the subscription model, especially for a database program like Lightroom, but it's hard to deny that it's a good deal. I went from Photoshop 7, to CS2, to CS6... far from being a continual upgrader, and still, I spent far more than I would have with a monthly subscription.

My real problem with it is for LR. It's a database, and I don't want to lose access my database simply because I stop paying a subscription. Though I think it highly unlikely that they'll get rid of the perpetual option for LR. The price point is too low, and there's too much competition. They're trying to get the market of casual photographers, people who would never do a subscription model.


----------



## slclick (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

It's nice for once to have a critical piece of software that 'most folks don't consider needs too much of an upgrade. Good job Adobe!


----------



## Botts (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

I just hope the library management is more robust.

I far prefer LRs edits / processing over Aperture, but every photo winds up in Aperture for me anyways because it handles library management far better IMO.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Botts said:


> I just hope the library management is more robust.
> 
> I far prefer LRs edits / processing over Aperture, but every photo winds up in Aperture for me anyways because it handles library management far better IMO.



Can you be specific?

The only thing I liked about Aperture was that is shows AF point.


----------



## russ (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

Nancy- Just FYI on TRIM support... I've been using the paid version of Trim Enabler from Cindori. Works great even through developer preview versions of Yosemite. Yep, sucks that Apple doesn't support it natively but this is an easy workaround if you're willing to take the hit on reduced security of the kext signing being disabled.




NancyP said:


> My big question: IS IT STAND_ALONE?
> 
> I need to buy LR5 if this new LR6 is going to be cloud only. I gather that people who buy LR5 very late (within a month of LR6 release) are able to update free. I still haven't upgraded from Snow Leopard 10.6.8 (very stable) to Yosemite because of Apple's refusal to allow TRIM to run on third party SSDs (I upgraded my mid-2010 boot drive to a Samsung 512G SSD). I wasn't planning to buy a new computer until the next "tick" or "tock" processor generation (can't remember which one is next), which should be in August 2015, as my current MBP is running fine with the exception of a little screen degradation on the far left. .


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 19, 2015)

I have CC, but I also use 5 computers, so I'll probably also upgrade my permanent license so I can have ver 6 on 4 computers.


----------



## m (Feb 19, 2015)

That sounds like a very interesting feature list.
From how the HDR feature is advertised, it seems to support 32bit workflow, which sounds great.

I wonder if the GPU support works on older hardware.

So far, so good Adobe *thumbs up*


----------



## tahoetoeknee (Feb 19, 2015)

subscription software is the future, we all will have to accept it or use antiquated software, it not going to go away


----------



## lintoni (Feb 19, 2015)

tahoetoeknee said:


> subscription software is the future, we all will have to accept it or use antiquated software, it not going to go away


Or find open source alternatives...


----------



## mrgooch (Feb 19, 2015)

Reading the ad for LR6 it looks like what I already own 5.7. Nothing exciting at all.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



privatebydesign said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



Please explain how forcing me to pay for something I'll never use is NOT a ripoff.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Skirball said:


> My real problem with it is for LR. It's a database, and I don't want to lose access my database simply because I stop paying a subscription.



You won't.

This went largely under the radar:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/what-happens-to-lightroom-after-my-membership-ends.html

"With the latest update to Lightroom 5.5 I believe we’ve also addressed a lingering concern in the community: What happens to my photographs after my membership ends? With Lightroom 5.5, at the end of a membership, the desktop application will continue to launch and provide access to the photographs managed within Lightroom as well as the Slideshow, Web, Book or Print creations that we know many photographers painstakingly create."


----------



## Famateur (Feb 19, 2015)

I was wondering what Adobe could do (without eating too far into Photoshop features) that would make me want to upgrade from Lightroom 5.

> 32-bit HDR blending?
> Panorama stitching?
> GPU processing support?

I like it!!!

I already use LR/Enfuse for HDR and a separate third-party program for panoramas, but if I can do it all with native Lightroom features (effectively), I'll be thrilled.

For the HDR and Panos, I wonder if it will automatically group the RAW files that have been merged to reduce visual clutter. 

I'm guessing it will just create a new merged file, but it would be interesting if it merged HDR/panos as a non-destructive effect on a virtual file from the RAW files. Once merged, you could still tweak the processing of the individual input RAW files and see the result updated in the merged virtual copy. That would be sweet.

Face recognition will be cool -- as long as it's not through Google and/or connected to any third parties (especially government) or even Adobe, for that matter. I'd like it to just operate locally, leaving privacy intact.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to this release with some excitement!


----------



## jthomson (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



privatebydesign said:


> Botts said:
> 
> 
> > I just hope the library management is more robust.
> ...


Great plug-in gives AF points in lightroom


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 19, 2015)

mrgooch said:


> Reading the ad for LR6 it looks like what I already own 5.7. Nothing exciting at all.



Nope, zis is new (little that I need though except "performance gains", sigh):
* Face Recognition
* Merge to HDR
* Fusion panoramas
* Video slideshows
* Extended mask editing (already in ACR for CC)


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



AvTvM said:


> like it!
> * perpetual license available
> * performance gains / use of GPU hardware
> * better healing brush - selection of irregular shapes
> ...



It looks like adobe will be getting my money this year. Upgrade from LR4 ---- LR6 and its going to be a massive speed bump with GPU acceleration.


----------



## Skirball (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > My real problem with it is for LR. It's a database, and I don't want to lose access my database simply because I stop paying a subscription.
> ...



Very interesting. Thanks for that, looks like Adobe did listen. That provides a lot of comfort, in my opinion. Enough that I'll probably go CC once I feel I got my $600 out of CS6.


----------



## drs (Feb 19, 2015)

From LR5 to LR6 we had roughly 20 month. Even if one chose the $9.99 CC payment model, that is quite a lot for an update. (Let's say $5 for LR per month, equals $100, your perspective might vary of course)

The CC model is more expensive, looking back to my 22 years being an Adobe customer.

I hope they allow me to buy the upgrade, otherwise I'm not interested.


----------



## Skirball (Feb 19, 2015)

drs said:


> From LR5 to LR6 we had roughly 20 month. Even if one chose the $9.99 CC payment model, that is quite a lot for an update. (Let's say $5 for LR per month, equals $100, your perspective might vary of course)
> 
> The CC model is more expensive, looking back to my 22 years being an Adobe customer.
> 
> I hope they allow me to buy the upgrade, otherwise I'm not interested.



If you're only looking at it for Lightroom, then of course the subscription model is more expensive. It's when you add in $600+ Photoshop versions that it becomes economically beneficial.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



You are not and never have been forced to pay anything. But to consider $4.49 per month for the best image editing software on the planet a ripoff is idiotic.

You don't have to pay that extra $4.49 and if you get the functionality you want for $4.49 per month less, all power to you, be happy, but it is not fair to shout that Adobe are ripping you off when clearly they are not. Explain how selling a premium software program with unlimited upgrades included that is priced at less than a 10 year return on monthly payments is a ripoff.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



jthomson said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Botts said:
> ...



I know, I got it back then when it was posted.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Feb 19, 2015)

Unless the performance boost is lower than 100%, I am not interested to pay money for the Update.
HDR and Panorama are very good in other tools, I don't need another programm with 3 times more costs in memory or speed as Adobe always is...

(I also never understand how a PDF viewer of 80+MB and 10 seconds startup time is acceptable to anyone, if there are better programs...)

Lightroom photo editing features are quite good, yes, but the speed is a punch in the face.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



3kramd5 said:


> Snafoo said:
> 
> 
> > One person's bloat is another's treasure. I like and use the Book feature, and I hope they not only keep it in (a certainty) but enhance it.
> ...



It's taking up memory with the code, and perhaps some resource when it initializes, but it doesn't run per se, until you switch to it. Disable it from the pallet and it's consumption is quite small (couple of hundred MB I would guess)


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 19, 2015)

Bought a new MacPro last year. If they have rebuilt LR to take full advantage of OSX Yosemite, Quad Core Xenon Intel processors, Dual AMD FirePro 2GB GPUs, and 32 GB of DDR3 RAM then AMEN!!!


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



quod said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah no rental model for me. I wonder how much Adobe paid the NYT today to publish an editorial praising the rental model as if it were just a regular un-biased article. On and on about how the rental model is loved by all and was created out of the goodness of Adobe for the common man, blah blah blah. Not a single PEEP about any hint of backlash or any negative aspects.
> ...



I think it's a little more than that. It provides perpetual upgrades (which should lower your support costs), and it also means everyone upgrades ie you dont have the option to skip really. Not only did it smooth their revenue but it also makes it more predictable as people dont chose to skip a version or two....

And I think that is part of the issue for me. There are not really compelling features in CC vs CS6 for a photographer to use. Lightroom continues to offer photographers more, Photoshop by it's userbase may only offer some improvements. Certainly the whole continual upgrade really hasnt shown amazing benefit as the time it takes Adobe to develop their cool features negates that.

It's the same as the movie rental model or all you can eat restaurant. Pay one price and consume. The perpetual model lets me go "no thanks, not enough".

In terms of the pricing - as mentioned by others, if you had bought LR and you were sensible enough to buy an old version of PS and an upgrade (mine cost about £200 all-in), then the £10/month is more expensive. Massively? no.

A ripoff? Well only in so far as you cant do CC by itself on subscription and as I mentioned, there isn't the same impetus to offer photographers compelling upgrades, especially once you are locked in, and the number of stand-alone CS6 licenses dwindles....

if you've not got either of them, then it's a sensible proposition if you dont mind the "lock-in" of paying for features that do nothing for you....


----------



## pixyl (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



NancyP said:


> My big question: IS IT STAND_ALONE?
> 
> I need to buy LR5 if this new LR6 is going to be cloud only. I gather that people who buy LR5 very late (within a month of LR6 release) are able to update free. I still haven't upgraded from Snow Leopard 10.6.8 (very stable) to Yosemite because of Apple's refusal to allow TRIM to run on third party SSDs (I upgraded my mid-2010 boot drive to a Samsung 512G SSD). I wasn't planning to buy a new computer until the next "tick" or "tock" processor generation (can't remember which one is next), which should be in August 2015, as my current MBP is running fine with the exception of a little screen degradation on the far left. .



First, *does anyone know if the March 9th release date is a fact or just another rumor?*
(neither the Amazon link worked, nor did LR6 come up when searching the amazon site. And Adobe labs (I believe this is where beta versions have been available in the past) mentioned nothing about LR).

I'm also still on OSX 10.6.8 and using LR3 and need to upgrade both OSX and LR soon. I will however skip Yosemite (too many issues for now) and upgrade to OSX 10.9 Mavericks instead.

If the March 9th date can be confirmed I'd personally upgrade to LR5 right away (I don't want to risk LR6 being CC only) and I believe you're right about Adobe letting you get the latest version if you buy the previous one just before its release (within one month as far as I can recall).

As for TRIM supporting non-Apple SSDs in OSX Yosemite you need to install TRIM enabler (US$ 10) which, according to the site now works with Yosemite (albeit with some caveats). I've been using it for a couple of years myself in my 2010 Mac Pro which has two Samsung 830 SSDs, but with Snow Leopard.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



pixyl said:


> First, *does anyone know if the March 9th release date is a fact or just another rumor?*



Just a rumor.


----------



## FEBS (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



miah said:


> I'm hoping we get user preferred GPS formats in Lr 6. Decimal Degrees are SO much easier to type and read.
> 
> Photoshop has a steep learning curve and isn't for everyone, but there isn't another product on the market that even comes close to its capabilities. I use it. I love it. And I have no problem paying a mere $9.99/month for the latest versions of Ps and Lr.
> 
> Those who moan about the subscription model have never sat down and done the math: $9.99/month is CHEAPER than buying "stand-alone" versions every year or two or even three, divided by the months of use. That said, it does seem like Adobe should offer a less expensive subscription to Lr by itself, for those who don't need Photoshop.



Sorry, but I do not agree to your point that it is cheaper. If you buy a new version, then the next time you need only to buy an upgrade. You can also skip a version, because not every version is really bringing great new stuff that everyone needs. 

The other point is, never trust those big companies who are present on the stock exchange. They have only one drive and that's making profit for the shareholders, and not a single digit profit, but more then 10%. I am a Microsoft partner and implement ERP software. I started with subscription models about 4 years ago. At that moment, with big price advantages compared to the standard licenses, for end-user and partner. In mean time my price did increase by more then 85%. They just do what they want. You need to follow, so pay. It's not that kind of software to switch to another application. Partners and end-users are really mashed. The same for Lightroom and Photoshop. If you want to switch, you need to learn another application. You can reopen your raw of course, but all the changes which are saved in the library of Lightroom need to be exported, so hell of a job if you have a lot of photos.

I think we have no further choice in the future, however I don't feel comfortable with the situation seen my experience with Microsoft.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



miah said:


> I'm hoping we get user preferred GPS formats in Lr 6. Decimal Degrees are SO much easier to type and read.



Maybe, if you are not trained in writing them, but they are nowhere near as easy to find on a map or chart.


----------



## Tiosabas (Feb 19, 2015)

So will the merge tool support all types of merge like panorama and Brenizer or just panorama. Im definately upgrading from LR3. Looking forward to the advanced slideshow tools, hope I will never have use iMovie ever again.


----------



## GaabNZ (Feb 19, 2015)

Wow. I've just spent the last 20 minutes on live chat with someone from Adobe.

After reading this thread I am interested in upgrading my LR 4.4 and wanted to know if I have to have the LR5 version first.

I have CS6 stand alone and LR 4.4 stand alone and am not interested in paying a monthly subscription for something I already have, apart from the latest LR versions.

I'm only a hobby photographer and trying me best to learn and how to edit.

I found it quite difficult to find any upgrade option on the Adobe site apart from signing up to the creative cloud suite.

From my live chat I have now been given the page to update my LR version, which is what I was after. I then had another 10 minutes of being sold on joining the CC monthly subscription for the products I own in full, apart from the latest LR version.

The person didn't seem to understand I don't need to subscribe a monthly fee to something I already own the stand alone products for and was sending me links to sign up my monthly sub.

It was quite comical in the end haha.

All good though, and will be looking at what the new version of LR can offer me.


----------



## Skirball (Feb 19, 2015)

GaabNZ said:


> Wow. I've just spent the last 20 minutes on live chat with someone from Adobe.
> 
> After reading this thread I am interested in upgrading my LR 4.4 and wanted to know if I have to have the LR5 version first.
> 
> ...



Technically you don't have the latest Photoshop, there's been two major updates since then. We (the non-subscribers) can't access the latest version.

What was the upgrade link, to LR5 or LR6? You shouldn't need LR5 to upgrade to LR6, once it came out. If you got some sort of early link to LR6... well... what was that number again?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



privatebydesign said:


> Botts said:
> 
> 
> > I just hope the library management is more robust.
> ...



The only think I can think he means is that Aperture has a managed database option. Personally, that's not for me, if for no better reason than it doesn't work well with my backup strategy. For the short time I used Aperture, I managed the files myself in folders rather than allowing it to shove everything into a single amorphous blob.


----------



## GaabNZ (Feb 19, 2015)

I got the download to version 5. taking a gamble on the free update to 6 that was mentioned earlier in this thread


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Stu_bert said:


> It's taking up memory with the code, and perhaps some resource when it initializes, but it doesn't run per se, until you switch to it. Disable it from the pallet and it's consumption is quite small (couple of hundred MB I would guess)



I concur, it's probably insignificant relative to what else is going on. Really I just don't like to see non-photographic tools (file management notwithstanding) making their way into Lightroom. I remember when iTunes was a pretty decent player. When they added the store and later made it the lynchpin in the Apple device ecosystem, it just got painful to use. It's a little better in the current flavor, but man did it get bad. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to LR.


----------



## Skirball (Feb 19, 2015)

GaabNZ said:


> I got the download to version 5. taking a gamble on the free update to 6 that was mentioned earlier in this thread



Got it. Well, if you paid to upgrade to 5 then they'd most likely give you a free upgrade to 6, or refund, if it's released within 30 days from now.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 19, 2015)

Russ: re TRIM enabler from Cindori - thanks!!


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 19, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Stu_bert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Snafoo said:
> ...



It doesn't even take up memory unless you launch it. It takes up a little bit of hard drive space.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Russ: re TRIM enabler from Cindori - thanks!!



All SSD's bought from OWC don't need TRIM. I have been running several for years without issue.


----------



## pixyl (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> pixyl said:
> 
> 
> > First, *does anyone know if the March 9th release date is a fact or just another rumor?*
> ...



Ah, thanks.
Have Adobe usually just released new versions of LR without any warning, or do they let us know somehow a short time in advance? I'm sure they've had beta versions available for the public to try out in the past but I can't find any such thing for LR6.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



pixyl said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > pixyl said:
> ...



They often do beta versions, but they also don't release information in advance. So your guess is as good as anyone's.


----------



## jhaces (Feb 20, 2015)

Wow, lots of hate for subscription models in the thread 

I paid full price for LR2 and have been upgrading every time, and I still feel I've got a great deal considering I spend around 90% of my PP time in LR 8) 

I must say I'm super excited about the upgrade to LR6. I hope my workflow will be sped up with the GPU processing (since it's kinda frustrating to have a full beefed-up computer and have LR still lag at times). Also looking forward to trying the in-LR pano stitching (those TIFFS are annoying!) and see how it goes.

About the web module, does anyone really use that? I've found it super useless, specially compared to other solutions. Maybe in LR6 they'll give me an excuse to delve deep into the module (If anyone is a power-user of the web module please let me know, I might be missing something)

On a side note, I hope adobe gets its act together with the recertification process. It was weird seeing the LR5.n versions go up and still not have the cert ready until 5.4 if I recall correctly think.


----------



## LarryC (Feb 20, 2015)

With no Beta that I am aware of, I wonder if they plan to launch it to CC before they offer the stand alone? It might be a lot easier to roll out fixes that way, but it would also be another perk to the CC model.


----------



## JEL (Feb 20, 2015)

So I take it that LR6 will not support the use of LUTs?
(What options are available if one would like a raw-editor that support 3D-LUTs? I know Rawtherapee has an option, but I couldn't get it to work too well when I tested it)


And a side-note, since this thread is already full of talk about the subscription model; aren't those of you, who favor the monthly subscription model, afraid that adobe will slow down development, since they know you're paying the same amount each month regardless of how often they update the software? Adobe isn't really pushed to make the 'next' version far superior than the 'current', when they know you're already steady customers, are they? Isn't that a real risk? (Lazy development)


----------



## Botts (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



3kramd5 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Botts said:
> ...



The managed database is a big part of it, as is Apple's excellent Vault system for backups. I also far prefer how the keywording, folders projects, and smart albums function in Aperture. 

I find that the amorphous blob for me is more organized than the multiple LR libraries I find myself creating to handle items from multiple jobs. I can have multiple projects, folders, and ultimately jobs in the same Aperture library, whereas I find I can't separate jobs as well in LR.

I am excited by the new XXL pano option. Maybe it'll replace gigapano for me!


----------



## -pekr- (Feb 20, 2015)

Well, I would ditch features like web or slideshow for selective presets anyday. I mean - develop presets are just one click toys. They can't be stacked, painted to just some areas, nor is there an opacity setting for them. That would be really useful feature.


----------



## iKenndac (Feb 20, 2015)

Dear Adobe,

I've been hurt before. Every version of Lightroom since I started using it has promised performance upgrades. Every version of Lightroom has been disappointingly short on those goals. And yet I muddle through, taking a sip of my tea while you hang while applying a crop and rotate. I have a Mac Pro, damnit! 

Then, a few weeks ago, Apple released the Photos app. It's more Elements than Pro, but I gave it a whirl. 2,000 RAW files imported, and it's _fast_. Not "Oh, it's simpler so of course it'll be faster" fast, but _orders of magnitude_ faster. My photos scroll past in a buttery dream. Edits apply at 60fps as I drag the sliders. _This_ is what modern, GPU-accelerated photo editing should be like!

Photos has a surprising number of tools buried in it, and other than brushing in edits and virtual grads it has everything I need. "That's it", I thought, "I'm going to switch to Photos for a while to see how I get on." Perhaps it'll force me to learn to use real grads properly.

I returned to Lightroom 5 to find more photos, its terrible performance all the more noticeable after using something actually fast.

Then, Lightroom 6 comes along. GPU accelerated editing! Editable book templates! Panoramas! Honestly, Adobe, if you come through with these promises I'll never have to use another photo editing tool ever again.

But, I'm skeptical. I've been promised performance improvements before.

Ignore all the bickering about subscriptions vs. up-front purchases. Both have been around for years and it looks like both will be around for a while. Those still arguing about it clearly have nothing better to do. The rest of us picked the thing best for us and got on with it. Nobody cares which one I chose, and rightly so. 

I still love you Adobe, but my trust is thinning. _Please_ come through with the promises you've made with Lightroom 6. I beg you.


----------



## melbournite (Feb 20, 2015)

iKenndac said:


> Then, a few weeks ago, Apple released the Photos app.



Have I missed something? When was Photos for OSX released and where is it?


----------



## iKenndac (Feb 20, 2015)

melbournite said:


> Have I missed something? When was Photos for OSX released and where is it?



They released a developer preview — the combination of being a software developer by day and an amateur photographer by night finally paid off. General availability is later this spring. 

Info here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/02/05/apple-releases-developer-preview-of-iphoto-aperture-replacement-app-photos


----------



## melbournite (Feb 20, 2015)

iKenndac said:


> melbournite said:
> 
> 
> > Have I missed something? When was Photos for OSX released and where is it?
> ...



Thanks for sharing iKenndac. 

Having switched from Lightroom to Aperture 3 since it's release, as a pro photographer with many photos I don't want to do the switch back unless I really have to. A3 is still serving my needs well, it was ahead of it's time when released and I'm hoping it will continue to work for me till Photos becomes more advanced (assuming developers jump on board with plugins). That way my libraries and many adjustments stay in tacked in the transition to Photos when I'm ready to do so.

I can't see how developers won't jump onto this and help make it bigger and better than Aperture (and possibly competition to LR once again) - what do you think?


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Botts said:


> I find that the amorphous blob for me is more organized than the multiple LR libraries I find myself creating to handle items from multiple jobs. I can have multiple projects, folders, and ultimately jobs in the same Aperture library, whereas I find I can't separate jobs as well in LR.



Are you serious? You create multiple catalogs for a single job? I have every photo I've ever taken for every purpose in one LR catalog. There are so many ways to separate photos that I find I only use about a third of them.


----------



## iKenndac (Feb 20, 2015)

melbournite said:


> I can't see how developers won't jump onto this and help make it bigger and better than Aperture (and possibly competition to LR once again) - what do you think?



I really hope so. As of right this moment, Photos doesn't support editing plugins but we're only at the first preview and Apple has said on-record that they'll be supporting them. 

What neither Aperture or Lightroom have managed is having edit plugins that can slot into the native editing stack - you've always had to render a photo to TIFF or whatever for editing in the plugin, which destroys the ability to modify those edits later. I really hope the Photos system solves this.


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

iKenndac said:


> It's more Elements than Pro, but I gave it a whirl. 2,000 RAW files imported, and it's _fast_. Not "Oh, it's simpler so of course it'll be faster" fast, but _orders of magnitude_ faster. My photos scroll past in a buttery dream.



What are your settings - especially the preview generation one, on import? Are you creating DNGs? Are you applying any development preset and/or metadata/keyword? LR can do less or more while you're importing images. And its speed depends on that. Especially generating standard or smart previews can take a far longer time.

You should perform a comparison using compatible parameters - otherwise it becomes an apple to orange comparison...


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> Are you serious? You create multiple catalogs for a single job? I have every photo I've ever taken for every purpose in one LR catalog. There are so many ways to separate photos that I find I only use about a third of them.



It needs a switch from a "folder" mindset to a "database" one. In a database you don't really care how and where data are physically stored. You care about how to retrieve them with the proper "queries" when you need them, and let the database engine find and return them to you. Just, most computer users are used to the folder hierarchical format, but not to the database "flatter" structure, and its attribute-based search, although the latter is far much more powerful, when mastered.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Are you serious? You create multiple catalogs for a single job? I have every photo I've ever taken for every purpose in one LR catalog. There are so many ways to separate photos that I find I only use about a third of them.
> ...



LR has both, for people that prefer it either way. You can use folders (as most people do) and add collections, smart collections and keywords.

My suggestion is to use folders as primary, and keywords and EXIF data as secondary means of organizing in LR.


----------



## iKenndac (Feb 20, 2015)

LDS said:


> What are your settings - especially the preview generation one, on import? Are you creating DNGs? Are you applying any development preset and/or metadata/keyword? LR can do less or more while you're importing images. And its speed depends on that. Especially generating standard or smart previews can take a far longer time.
> 
> You should perform a comparison using compatible parameters - otherwise it becomes an apple to orange comparison...



Well, with Photos I didn't have to generate any previews at all - it imported my 2,000 RAW files (referenced) in about a minute, and I was immediately able to scroll around and edit with no slowdown.

In my LR I generate 1:1 previews on import. I would've had to wait an _age_ to have LR to generate 2,000 previews after import if I did the same test the other way around, something I didn't have to do with Photos. For all my other performance comparisons, I wait until LR has completely finished generating previews and whatnot before scrolling/editing/etc. Photos is still way faster.

Previews (with the exception of Smart Previews and the offlining benefits they provide) are basically a workaround for poor performance. This in itself isn't bad - many applications generate previews to improve performance. However, this should be a detail the user doesn't have to care about, and the number of "Should I generate 1:1 previews or smart previews of both?" articles online show that Adobe have failed in that regard. 

I'm sure Photos generates previews as well, but it's not something the users notices or has to care about - as long as your imaging pipeline is fast enough, previews won't matter all that much.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2015)

iKenndac said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > What are your settings - especially the preview generation one, on import? Are you creating DNGs? Are you applying any development preset and/or metadata/keyword? LR can do less or more while you're importing images. And its speed depends on that. Especially generating standard or smart previews can take a far longer time.
> ...



That's because it isn't rendering the images. It's just showing you the embedded JPEGs.



> In my LR I generate 1:1 previews on import. I would've had to wait an _age_ to have LR to generate 2,000 previews after import if I did the same test the other way around, something I didn't have to do with Photos. For all my other performance comparisons, I wait until LR has completely finished generating previews and whatnot before scrolling/editing/etc. Photos is still way faster.
> 
> Previews (with the exception of Smart Previews and the offlining benefits they provide) are basically a workaround for poor performance.



No, they're a way to show you the Lightroom-generated rendering, instead of the camera-generated rendering.


----------



## Zv (Feb 20, 2015)

JEL said:


> So I take it that LR6 will not support the use of LUTs?
> (What options are available if one would like a raw-editor that support 3D-LUTs? I know Rawtherapee has an option, but I couldn't get it to work too well when I tested it)
> 
> 
> And a side-note, since this thread is already full of talk about the subscription model; aren't those of you, who favor the monthly subscription model, afraid that adobe will slow down development, since they know you're paying the same amount each month regardless of how often they update the software? Adobe isn't really pushed to make the 'next' version far superior than the 'current', when they know you're already steady customers, are they? Isn't that a real risk? (Lazy development)



I've only had the subscription pack since late November and so far it's been pretty good. Now I get version 6 in a few weeks. Awesome. I assume they'll do lots of little updates to it before 7 so the answer is no I don't really care how long they take for the next big update. I hope they take their time and get it right rather than realeasing garbage every two weeks (reminds me of apples recent iOS updates). 

I'm more concerned they'll put the price up than the frequency of updates.


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> LR has both, for people that prefer it either way. You can use folders (as most people do) and add collections, smart collections and keywords.



You fail to understand how LR really works behind the scenes. A "folder", in LR, is really a "catalog", because LR needs to import image into first. You can create different catalogs - but unlike plain folders (and folders within folders), a catalog is a really database (that's why it is stored in a SQLite3 file).

Inside a catalog to each image it adds some attributes automatically (those it can read from EXIF data), others you can add yourself (keywords, rating, etc).

Then you can:

- Search images using those attributes
- Create "virtual folders" - the collections - on those attributes, they don't exist physically, they are generated, and an image can appear in different collections because it can have many attributes. Each collection is a "view" over your database.

Thereby creating multiple catalogs can make little sense unless you have a very good reason to do so - it can make sense for example to have a "personal" one, and a "professional" one if you want to keep really separated say, your family shots from those you make for your customers - maybe you don't want to show your personal shots to a customer by mistake. But LR is really designed to keep the number of catalogs to a minimum, and the use database features inside a catalog to organize and access images.

Database management systems - beyond LR - have been created because you can't really manage large amount of informations using simple folder/document hierarchies, and a database allows to perform complex search on data once properly "indexed" over attributes. Most document management system (including those handling a large number of images) are built on databases, not file system folder hiearchies.


----------



## iKenndac (Feb 20, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> No, they're a way to show you the Lightroom-generated rendering, instead of the camera-generated rendering.



You're missing my point - Lightroom _could_ be a lot faster than it is using their own rendering engine. Hopefully the claimed improvements in LR6 will allow this to happen.

I don't really see how you can make absolute statements about how Photos works without having used it. If you get the opportunity, you should give Photos a try. It's _incredibly_ fast.


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

iKenndac said:


> Well, with Photos I didn't have to generate any previews at all.



Did you try to set LR to use the embedded preview and then check its speed?



iKenndac said:


> In my LR I generate 1:1 previews on import.



Generating 1:1 previews means: 1) Access the whole RAW image 2) convert it - (target colors space is AdobeRGB), 3) Apply sharpening and noise reduction 4) Store it in the Catalog database.

You can control how the standard preview is genearated (i.e. quality and size) in "Catalog Settings" under the Edit menu.

Could Adobe improve speed? Probably yes, but the more you ask, the longer it takes.



iKenndac said:


> Previews (with the exception of Smart Previews and the offlining benefits they provide) are basically a workaround for poor performance.



No, do you believe you can always access and render RAW files on the fly - especially large ones - even with GPU support? Previews are essential to be able to display more than one image quickly. LR lets you choose what kind of preview you prefer, lower quality ones or higher quality ones, with of course a trade off between speed and quality on import.

What Photos does I don't know, but before performing speed comparisons, it would be fair to use the same settings.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> A "folder", in LR, is really a "catalog", because LR needs to import image into first.



No it isn't.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 20, 2015)

LDS said:


> Generating 1:1 previews means: 1) Access the whole RAW image 2) convert it - (target colors space is AdobeRGB), *3) Apply sharpening and noise reduction* 4) Store it in the Catalog database.



Same goes for "standard" previews - however, if you're smart you skip step 3 and use a import preset with zero nr and sharpening.

But this is indeed one of my major griefs with LR - it throws away the embedded jpeg preview of the cr2, so for quick browsing you have to use another app like Breeze Browser or similar. With my slow system, rendering all images as 1:1 just to check for focus is no option.


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> But this is indeed one of my major griefs with LR - it throws away the embedded jpeg preview of the cr2



If you set previews to "Minimal" or "Embedded & Sidecar" it will use the previews from the RAW file instead of generating one.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> Thereby creating multiple catalogs can make little sense unless you have a very good reason to do so - it can make sense for example to have a "personal" one, and a "professional" one if you want to keep really separated say, your family shots from those you make for your customers - maybe you don't want to show your personal shots to a customer by mistake.



I find performance takes a major hit as catalog size increases, even if it deletes rendered previews on a scheduled basis. Therefore I don't work in my master catalog. I create a new dedicated catalog for each individual shoot or day, depending on the situation. Once I've completed my culling/processing/exporting, I open my master catalog and import the new one to it. This way I rarely have more than a thousand photos within a working catalog.


----------



## Zv (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



3kramd5 said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > Thereby creating multiple catalogs can make little sense unless you have a very good reason to do so - it can make sense for example to have a "personal" one, and a "professional" one if you want to keep really separated say, your family shots from those you make for your customers - maybe you don't want to show your personal shots to a customer by mistake.
> ...



That's great .... until you try and gather images from different shoots into one space like say for example you want to find your best wedding shots to showcase to a client. Now you have to hunt around various catalogs and then re-import them all into one master one to create a central portfolio that you can edit. 

Yup. Know that from experience. 

4000+ images now in one catalog and no slow down. I read that it's a combo of things that slow down LR including how many of your images have been edited and how many local edits such as the adjustment brush you have applied. Liberal use of the brush slows down my laptop which is my biggest annoyance. Other than that it seems to handle several thousand images in the library fairly well. 

Edit - sorry I read your post wrong and see that you first do the culling then export then re-import leaving you with just the goodies but even then I think you can eliminate a step here by simply importing all, culling and then you're done.


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



privatebydesign said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > A "folder", in LR, is really a "catalog", because LR needs to import image into first.
> ...



Note the quotes. I never said it's a file system folder or the like. A "folder" is just a container for "documents" to be kept together for some reason.

In LR, the "documents" are the images, and the "container" is the catalog. What LR got rid of, is the hiearchical structure of "folders within folders", because such a structure is not flexible. You can open a single "folder" (catalog) at a time, exactly like in any file browser you can usually work on a single folder at a time (not many let you work on subfolders also at the same time, because it can be confusing for most users). Then you use the documents attributes to search, access, and organize them the way you like, without having an inflexible hierarchical structure like a file sytem has.

Back in the old days when document were really stored in folders within drawers, many complex "indexing and retrieval" techniques were developed to access them when a seach implied the need to access several documents across different folders and drawers, because a physical storage can't be multidimensional, and storing different copies in different hiearchies is not usually an option because it would require more space, and they could easily get "out of sync".

The first databases adopted the same hierarchical model. Then, one day (in the '70s), a man called Ted Codd, working than for IBM, proposed a radically different model, the "relational" one. In this model data are not linked (and seached) by parent/child strict relations only, but can be linked (and searched) using different relations based on the data "attributes".

For data that don't have a single search/access path, this method is far more flexible and faster. Actually, a file sytem is a hierarchical database. Where you can get lost, that's why most moder OS index it into a far more manageable database to allow for "find" queries based on file attributes like date, type, contents... in theory a far different file system could be designed, Microsfot thought about it - a file system based on the SQL Server engine.


----------



## Zv (Feb 20, 2015)

This is quite interesting - how do you guys use the export to catalog function? I tried making catalogs for various shoots but now I'm back to just one big daddy catalog. When it gets too big I export a chunk off. I have a 2010 - 2012 Catalog for example. 

I mainly use collections and collection sets to organize everything and leave folders the heck alone. Still not using keywords properly though. I'm not really a keyword kinda person. I find it laborious. Plus I always forget what I labelled an image as!! 

My collections are labelled by basically just the types of stuff I shoot. And I have one collection for portfolio.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > LR has both, for people that prefer it either way. You can use folders (as most people do) and add collections, smart collections and keywords.
> ...



Wrong. I guarantee I understand it way better than you do.



> A "folder", in LR, is really a "catalog", because LR needs to import image into first.



A folder in Lightroom is a referenced folder on your hard drive. LR imports only by reference - it doesn't import your images, it just creates a database of information about your images. They stay where they are. A catalog is an SQLITE database stored in a .lrcat file, along with a preview database in the same folder as the .lrcat file.


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



3kramd5 said:


> I find performance takes a major hit as catalog size increases, even if it deletes rendered previews on a scheduled basis.



Keep the catalog on a fast disk. SQLite is a file based database, and I do not know how LR configures it for caching and other parameters. If it has to access the disk often, and the disk is slow, it will slow down. Also, as the file get larger, on non SSD disk fragmentation can slow down access even more.

Also do you let Adobe "optimize" the catalog? It will "compact" and eliminate internal fragmentation. It's something SQLite needs to keep the best performance.

LR does a lot of catalog accesses, thereby keeping it "fast" is important to achieve the best performances.

Anyway your workflow can make sense, other photographers use a "staging" area to clean up before delivering to the final destination. I also sometimes use catalogs on my tablet when I'm working away from home - I create one with an ad hoc preset to tag automatically images for a given task on import, then when at home I import the catalog from the tablet to the main one.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2015)

LDS said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > But this is indeed one of my major griefs with LR - it throws away the embedded jpeg preview of the cr2
> ...



It only uses them until it generates its own.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



3kramd5 said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > Thereby creating multiple catalogs can make little sense unless you have a very good reason to do so - it can make sense for example to have a "personal" one, and a "professional" one if you want to keep really separated say, your family shots from those you make for your customers - maybe you don't want to show your personal shots to a customer by mistake.
> ...



I have two catalogs - a 200,000 image main catalog and an 800 image test catalog. I can't tell a difference in speed between them.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Zv said:


> 4000+ images now in one catalog and no slow down. I read that it's a combo of things that slow down LR including how many of your images have been edited and how many local edits such as the adjustment brush you have applied. Liberal use of the brush slows down my laptop which is my biggest annoyance. Other than that it seems to handle several thousand images in the library fairly well.



I'm sure it's a combination of a lot of things, but logically if things like quantity of local edits matter, then it will compound as catalogs grow.

Regardless, I notice it most significantly in large catalogs (which in my case = hundreds of thousands of images).


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > LDS said:
> ...



No, the container is the OS folder.



> What LR got rid of, is the hiearchical structure of "folders within folders", because such a structure is not flexible.



LR didn't do anything with folders. The folders shown in LR are the folders in the OS.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > I find performance takes a major hit as catalog size increases, even if it deletes rendered previews on a scheduled basis.
> ...



My master is on a slow disk (typical 7200RPM HDD), but if I move it to an SSD it doesn't improve noticeably. My workflow is now entirely on SSD (working catalogs and in-work files reside on SSD until I'm done with them).




LDS said:


> Also do you let Adobe "optimize" the catalog? It will "compact" and eliminate internal fragmentation. It's something SQLite needs to keep the best performance.



From time to time, yes.




LDS said:


> Anyway your workflow can make sense, other photographers use a "staging" area to clean up before delivering to the final destination.



Yah, that's basically how I do it. Trial and error to find the best solution.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> I have two catalogs - a 200,000 image main catalog and an 800 image test catalog. I can't tell a difference in speed between them.



Strange. Your experience is entirely different from mine.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > LDS said:
> ...



So what.

The image "documents" exist in exactly the same entity in LR and Aperture, both allow you to form your own folder structure or rely on the program to create a year-month-day based folder structure to contain the image "documents".

You can reference those images alone if you either apply specific exif on import or if you apply a year month day search.

Both programs work the same. You can use a more intuitive folder naming strategy that enables simple location outside the proprietary database, or you can throw your lot in with the database and rely on that to keep track of everything thereby letting go of the ability to make any image location unless you know the specific date the camera calender was set to for that image. 

I think most people find the more intuitive route more intuitive, but to be sure, you can make both programs work identically from an image "document", folder, database "catalog" point of view. Indeed it doesn't impact either program if you have 10,000 images one in each of 10,000 separate folders, or one folder with all 10,000 images in it. For technical reasons the later is rarely used because document/image extensions get repeated too frequently without further import management.


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> Wrong. I guarantee I understand it way better than you do.



And you're wrong here also. 



Lee Jay said:


> A folder in Lightroom is a referenced folder on your hard drive.



No. That's just an attribute in the catalog that tells LR where the image file actually is - I too would not attempt to load large images into a SQLite database - other databases would handle it without any issue, but would be fairly more expensive and large to install - also storing them in the file sytem lets them available from other applications that can't access the LR database.

Can LR open a file folder and display images or work on them like for example Photoshop or DPP do? No, it can't. What happens if you move a file outside LR? It is no longer in sync, because now the stored attribute points to the wrong position.

Nor LR has any "folder" physical structure inside the database. From the LR perspective, the "folders" it displays are just a kind of collection, created on the image path attribute.


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



privatebydesign said:


> Both programs work the same. You can use a more intuitive folder naming strategy that enables simple location outside the proprietary database, or you can throw your lot in with the database and rely on that to keep track of everything thereby letting go of the ability to make any image location unless you know the specific date the camera calender was set to for that image.



Ask yourself why people like Larry Ellison (Oracle) became very rich creating and selling database software. Beyond some amount of information, storing, searching and retrieving them becomes very time consuming and impractical using old methods. Whatever way you use to store files on a file sytem, you still need an "index" to access them. You can use a date folder structure, or a customer name, or whatever - you still need to remember it to access the image you need. Just, with a single dimension index like folders, you need to remember exactly that very attribute to retrieve it, and may not be always so simple.

On the other hand, a database let you assign more than one attribute, and search/group/retrieve on *any* of those. Say you have a folder hierarchy for weddings, another for travels, and another for cars. Often, in wedding there are some fancy cars, or you may find an interesting one while travelling. Now you want to retrieve all photos with a Rolls Royce. With folders only, it becomes a nightmare, no matter how you folder naming strategy was good. Using a database, it can be far quicker and easier.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



3kramd5 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I have two catalogs - a 200,000 image main catalog and an 800 image test catalog. I can't tell a difference in speed between them.
> ...



The reason for this mystery is that's a database. It depends on the amount of history, metadata and local adjustment you keep for the images, both can result in slow performance on a cat with a few images and vice versa. Of course the hardware plays a significant role, too.

I only realized this that selecting all images + "delete history" shrank my cat size to a quarter and resulted in a significant performance gain. Still, I guess a 200k cat wouldn't behave nicely on my 4gb dual core laptop with a slow hd.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Both programs work the same. You can use a more intuitive folder naming strategy that enables simple location outside the proprietary database, or you can throw your lot in with the database and rely on that to keep track of everything thereby letting go of the ability to make any image location unless you know the specific date the camera calender was set to for that image.
> ...



Look, you obviously know a great deal about databases, so what? My specific point was that both Adobe Lightroom, and Apple's Aperture work the same way, both at a fundamental level and a user customisable level, you have yet to point out how they differ. They are both database referencing systems, they both reference folders that contain images, the folder structure is cstomisable and entirely moot.

That you can force the folder structure to reflect a more intuitive layout in either program, weddings by couples names for example, but that doesn't stop you searching all weddings (or all images, or all images shot last year) for interesting cars in either system. Neither Aperture nor Lightroom will find any images with interesting cars in them if you don't tag the images with them in the first place.

I am not arguing the benefits of databases, if you do the tagging they are unbeatable, I am saying that both Aperture and Lightroom work the same way. If they do not, and you claim to have a very advanced understanding of this, explain how they are different.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



privatebydesign said:


> I am not arguing the benefits of databases, if you do the tagging they are unbeatable



Let me please meekly point out that the filesystem is basically a no-sql database, too - no little drawers to be found anywhere on your magnetic discs . So the question simply is at which point you store which data and how fast you can access/index it ... and LR is very fast handling vast amounts of data if you optimize your db now and then.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I am not arguing the benefits of databases, if you do the tagging they are unbeatable
> ...



The question really is how are Lightroom and Aperture different from a database point of view, LDS seems adamant they are.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. I guarantee I understand it way better than you do.
> ...



You're not saying something right. You're saying a folder in LR is a catalog. It isn't. It's what you said above - a database reference to the OS folder. That reference is in the catalog, the folder itself is not the catalog. The catalog only contains information about your images.

The issue came up when you said a folder was a catalog. It's not. An .lrcat file is a catalog (what Adobe calls their database). A folder is an OS folder (which itself is a conceptual thing, not a physical thing as well).


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



privatebydesign said:


> The question really is how are Lightroom and Aperture different from a database point of view, LDS seems adamant they are.



I see, please, don't let me interrupt you :->


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



IIRC, all images (names & attributes) are in a single table within SQLite, all folders are in another table. The folders table then has a link to the filesystem folder, allowing it to of course work with removable media. The preview is another table - I dont think it's in the image table, but is referenced. It then links to the cache on the filesystem.

If anyone is interested, I used SQLite Manager within firefox to browse the table structure - which you can do in read only and thus preserve integrity. Take a copy if you are paranoid.

I wanted to find a quick way to hack out a list of images in a folder, and whether they were part of a stacked set of images so I could pump that list into either external HDR or Pano tools. I couldn't find anything, so I just figured out by looking at the tables and wrote a few bits of SQL to extract it.

Leaving the DB to handle things is indeed fine, if you prefer. Personally I use both. Folders is quickest when I want to get to a specific photo set. Keywords is easier to compare across multiple sets, collections if you dont have too many keywords. LR and I'm sure Aperture don't force any paradigm on you, they give you multiple options and let you do what works best for you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The question really is how are Lightroom and Aperture different from a database point of view, LDS seems adamant they are.
> ...





But, if we don't make efforts to correct it then surely we all end up reading crap? Like 'lens compression' and 'crop camera reach advantage' and the 'necessity for Canon to beat, or at least equal, the DR of Sony otherwise they are dead'............. 

I'd rather make the effort, when I have the time, to grab the bull by the horns and take issue with those comments, if we don't CR will become the next Photo.net, a shadow of it's former self run by bullies like Spirer.

I don't care that somebody is wrong, I am too sometimes, I care that their inaccuracies go unchallenged.


----------



## Diko (Feb 20, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> *Environment nondestructive*


OK. We had that already....



Canon Rumors said:


> *Development predefined settings*


OK. We had that already....



Canon Rumors said:


> *Face Recognition*


How cool is that? Adobe LR comes to all teens will change *Instagram *with *LR *to publish in FB. Oh, wait. *FB *bought *Instagram*....



Canon Rumors said:


> *Sophisticated Healing Brush*
> _....... Unwanted items and other imperfections, including irregular shapes son type, *magically *disappear._


 And "*magically*" even more lag and slowdown appears! 



Canon Rumors said:


> *Merge to HDR*


Hope it can convert merge images to 32 bit as PS does it?... that would be interesting indeed.




Canon Rumors said:


> *Fusion panoramas*


 Now if Adobe again forgot about GPU. This stitching (especially with the new 50 MP images would be a true sadness. 



Canon Rumors said:


> *Performance gains*


I hope they do. <3

Otherwise it will be slow as snail/hell. With all old and all new features.


----------



## Diko (Feb 20, 2015)

*Marsu42*, What is aperture using?

*LR *is written quite a lot in *LUA *and uses *sqlite*. How is it *aperture*?


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



privatebydesign said:


> But, if we don't make efforts to correct it then surely we all end up reading crap? Like 'lens compression' and 'crop camera reach advantage' and the 'necessity for Canon to beat, or at least equal, the DR of Sony otherwise they are dead'.............



BTW, saying the 7DII or 70D doesn't have a reach advantage over the 1Dx is the same as saying the 5DS doesn't have a resolution advantage over the 1DX. You saying that too?


----------



## JClark (Feb 20, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Unleash your creativity in a nondestructive editing environment that allows you to test your ideas freely. The originals remain intact *and you can easily cancel your edits or save multiple versions of a cliché.*



Look, all of this database and subscription talk is fascinating, but I just like to make pretty images, and I'm thrilled to know that I can now save multiple versions my clichés 

I think I'll start with a hundred rock & sunset pix. Who's in with me?


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> No, the container is the OS folder.



It's just the location were the original file is stored. But without an entry in the catalog, a file is not contained in LR, even if other files in the same folder are. Only the Import module knows about real folders contents.

Feel free to open a Lightroom Catalog file using, for example, SQLite Spy, and you will see. All images are stored in the Adobe_images table, and in this table there is a reference to which file the image is contained. Actually, SmartPreviews works without this file, which needs not to be present.



Lee Jay said:


> LR didn't do anything with folders. The folders shown in LR are the folders in the OS.



No. The folder shown are the entries in the AgLibraryFolder and AgLibraryRootFolder tables in the SQLite database. In fact LR shows you the actual folder hierarchy only when you select "Import", otherwise shows you only what it knows is in its catalog. Also, "root folders" are shown as root entries regardless of their actual position in the file system. 

If Adobe wants, it would not be difficult to implement in LR the ability to reference images which are not stored in the file system - but in any other source, say, a web URL, a database, a mailbox... just let LR know how to retrieve the file associated to the image.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 20, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't care that somebody is wrong, I am too sometimes



Hear, hear :->



privatebydesign said:


> I care that their inaccuracies go unchallenged.



Actually, I'm with you there - I learn a lot not only by being smug, but by writing inaccuracies and then being corrected ... without writing them in the first place, you'd never know.



Diko said:


> What is aperture using?



No idea, I don't own a mac and aperture refuses to be run in a virtual machine as it requires a real gpu. But as it's discontinued anyway, who cares?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> Only the Import module knows about real folders contents.



Interesting. IIRC (I'll check when I get home, but I think this behavior is accurate), if I delete the contents of a given folder-within-lightroom, and then remove that folder from lightroom, the folder will be deleted from my file system, but ONLY if that folder is empty. If it's not empty, it doesn't get deleted. Does lightroom thus have some knowledge of folder contents not explicitly imported, or is it sending some IF command/query to the OS (IF the folder is empty delete it, otherwise don't)?


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Lee Jay said:


> A folder is an OS folder (which itself is a conceptual thing, not a physical thing as well).



Sorry, but OS folders are just a subset of the possible "folders". Do you know why Microsoft stopped calling them "directories", but used "folders" instead? Because a folder is not always a disk folder.
I have a software that organize documents in folders. All the documents are stored in a remote database, and actually the "folders" it displays to users are just a display of a attributes assigned to documents (it can easily switch to show other hierarchies, if you wish, say MS Office docs (and other applications), then the doc types, then the actual files). Those "folders" are not OS folders, nor locally, nor remotely. I can even display them in Windows Explorer, because the Windows namespace is larger than the file system you have on disk - and where you can plug-in your namespace extensions. There are some folders it displays, which actually don't exist in the file system. For the matter you could show your mailbox folders into Windows Explorer... but I guess this discussion is not adding anything for other readers, so it's better to stop here.
I'm just happy LR use a more abstract model than those used by file systems, it allows far better image management if you can exploit it.


----------



## miah (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



privatebydesign said:


> miah said:
> 
> 
> > I'm hoping we get user preferred GPS formats in Lr 6. Decimal Degrees are SO much easier to type and read.
> ...



Are you kidding me? I can type an N and a W as well as anyone, but why would I subject myself to having to type "37°39'47" N 105°49'45" W", as Lightroom 5 now requires, versus "37.663056 -105.829167". Both formats get you to the exact same spot on any map, but the latter is far, far easier to input. I'm sure this is why Google Earth and many other apps and GPS units use Decimal Degrees as their *default* GPS format--and why it's so unbelievable that Adobe has thus far forced us to use the anachronistic Degrees, Minutes, Seconds.

Either way, if you prefer typing ""37°39'47" N 105°49'45" W" have at it, all I'm asking Adobe to do is give us a Preference to choose the format each individual prefers working with.


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



3kramd5 said:


> Interesting. IIRC (I'll check when I get home, but I think this behavior is accurate), if I delete the contents of a given folder-within-lightroom, and then remove that folder from lightroom, the folder will be deleted from my file system, but ONLY if that folder is empty. If it's not empty, it doesn't get deleted. Does lightroom thus have some knowledge of folder contents not explicitly imported, or is it sending some IF command/query to the OS (IF the folder is empty delete it, otherwise don't)?



LR lets you delete from folder only what it is stored in its catalog. And you can remove items from its catalog without actually touching whatever is in the file system. LR does know images are linked to files in the file system (would be silly otherwise) - and can delete them also. But at least in Windows, attempting to delete a directory with files within may simply fail.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



miah said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > miah said:
> ...



Don't you estimate your travel time or pace based on the fact that a nautical mile is worth 1' of arc along a meridian. I always do...


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



miah said:


> Either way, if you prefer typing ""37°39'47" N 105°49'45" W" have at it, all I'm asking Adobe to do is give us a Preference to choose the format each individual prefers working with.



Actually, it would take very little to support both format inputs without even requiring a preference to switch between them. Just look at what the user typed, and treat it accordingly.


----------



## emko (Feb 20, 2015)

anyone think LR will have focus stacking as well?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. IIRC (I'll check when I get home, but I think this behavior is accurate), if I delete the contents of a given folder-within-lightroom, and then remove that folder from lightroom, the folder will be deleted from my file system, but ONLY if that folder is empty. If it's not empty, it doesn't get deleted. Does lightroom thus have some knowledge of folder contents not explicitly imported, or is it sending some IF command/query to the OS (IF the folder is empty delete it, otherwise don't)?
> ...



I like the way you reply to a question with a lot of unrelated mumbo jumbo without actually answering the question.

You have been asked several now, any chance of some relevant replies? (That was a rhetorical one by the way).


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



IMG_0001 said:


> miah said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Obviously he doesn't. It is the same with people that rely on GPS and those that had training on actual paper charts and maps and can find their way out of a paper bag without some AA batteries.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 20, 2015)

emko said:


> anyone think LR will have focus stacking as well



They'll save that for LR7  ... 

... and rightly so: I'm less than excited about LR6's announced hdr and pano functions. While it'll add a lot of "value" and fix Canon's dr problem :-> I very much doubt it'll come close to specialized stand-alone tools like Helicon, Photomatrix, Autopano and such. It's the same with their recent "upright" perspective correction, nice to have, but nowhere near DxO.


----------



## miah (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



privatebydesign said:


> IMG_0001 said:
> 
> 
> > miah said:
> ...



IMG_0001 was cleverly joking, you, privatebydesign, are simply rude. I continue to travel all over the world _sin_ GPS, but I prefer to catalog my photographs with location data attached. If you neither travel, nor choose to join the 21st century, nor have any desire to geolocate your photos, whatever, but don't denigrate my worthwhile comments about Adobe's upcoming Lr6 release--which last time I checked is what this thread is supposed to be about--with your condescending drivel.


----------



## emko (Feb 20, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > anyone think LR will have focus stacking as well
> ...



actually merge to HDR PRO is very very good you set it to 32bit and you then use ACR/Lighroom to edit it with a huge DR, now if LR does this all in LR and better it will be great


----------



## miah (Feb 20, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



LDS said:


> miah said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, if you prefer typing ""37°39'47" N 105°49'45" W" have at it, all I'm asking Adobe to do is give us a Preference to choose the format each individual prefers working with.
> ...



You make a good point. Rather than a Preference that would require one type of format input, it would be nice if Lr accepted any legitimate format input, then automatically converted it to a Preference-delineated format. That way when you're scanning over your meta-data, all the formats would be the same.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 20, 2015)

emko said:


> actually merge to HDR PRO is very very good you set it to 32bit and you then use ACR/Lighroom to edit it with a huge DR, now if LR does this all in LR and better it will be great



I don't deny it's useful, and I've converted some tripod hdr into floating point dng to use with LR5's high dr editing. It's just that as existing tools do just fine, it's nothing to get excited about for me... 

... UNLESS: The big question is if LR6's pano/hdr tools will break the raw workflow like external tools do. If Adobe manages to do stitching and hdr merging/fusing with "layers" of their acr'ed raw files you can still edit individually, that'd be great.



miah said:


> IMG_0001 was cleverly joking, you, privatebydesign, are simply rude.



Good ol' pdb might be very direct at times, but he's also very helpful. I guess there's a lot of different approaches to what is polite and what's not, and in this case the paper bag analogy made me laugh


----------



## emko (Feb 20, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > actually merge to HDR PRO is very very good you set it to 32bit and you then use ACR/Lighroom to edit it with a huge DR, now if LR does this all in LR and better it will be great
> ...



problem with the PS route is the massive TIFF files, maybe the built in LR HDR will not create any files other the preview? that alone would be nice, same with panoramas.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> miah said:
> 
> 
> > IMG_0001 was cleverly joking, you, privatebydesign, are simply rude.
> ...



 Some get it, some don't, I lose no sleep..............

I think I'll make that my profile picture for a week or two, Ermentrude needs a holiday ;D

P.S. I dropped Photomatix and Enfuse when PS did 32bit HDR, I will be very happy if LR gives me the same native functionality.


----------



## miah (Feb 20, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> miah said:
> 
> 
> > IMG_0001 was cleverly joking, you, privatebydesign, are simply rude.
> ...



Laugh? It might be funny if it were relevant. I was clearly pointing out the need for Adobe to give users a choice in how their GPS data is entered and displayed. PBD then rudely claimed that anyone desiring such an option must be directionally challenged. Oh well, I guess like taste--there's no accounting for "humor."


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2015)

miah said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > miah said:
> ...



I wasn't deriding your desire for choice, I was belittling this comment of yours


miah said:


> Decimal Degrees are SO much easier to type and read.



Really? _"SO much easier to type and read"_? I merely pointed out that that is not true for anybody with a little training and experience in reading and writing LatLong's. You took it the wrong way; I don't care; and Marsu saw the funny side, I am with Marsu on this one (I put ML on my M the other day too!). I wasn't saying there is no value in having the choice, I was saying anybody that finds one_ "SO much easier"_ than the other should probably get out more.

Oh, and there is still no "need" for Adobe to do anything of the sort.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Feb 20, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Russ: re TRIM enabler from Cindori - thanks!!
> ...



Not quite. The TRIM command is used by the operating system. The OS uses the TRIM command to communicate with the SSD. OWC Mercury SSD's don't need TRIM - However, Windows 7 and above enable TRIM by default. If you're replacing a HDD with a SSD on a system running an OS earlier than Win 7 -- you'll need to know some command line syntax to query the status: e.g. "fsutil behavior query DisableDeleteNotify." This command will return a status of either 1 or 0. 0 = TRIM is enabled. If the status = 1, you'll need to run another command to set it to 0 fsutil behavior set DisableDeleteNotify 0

But as I mentioned earlier, Win 7 and above TRIM gets enabled by default.

If you're running on Apple OS, don't know.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 20, 2015)

miah said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > miah said:
> ...



So much frothing over a vanity feature! :


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2015)

I'd love to see brush area selection improved. I'd like it to go beyond circular, elliptical and ovoid. Perhaps the ability to click an edge or boundary and pull the line in whatever direction you see fit in order to select only the section you wish to dodge/burn etc.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2015)

lilmsmaggie said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



Well maybe you should have referred to the original comment then. It was.......



NancyP said:


> ......I still haven't upgraded from Snow Leopard 10.6.8 (very stable) to Yosemite because of Apple's refusal to allow TRIM to run on third party SSDs (I upgraded my mid-2010 boot drive to a Samsung 512G SSD).......



The point was Apple don't support TRIM on non Apple SSD's after 10.6.8, but that is moot because OWC SSD's don't need or use TRIM, they use DuraWrite via their built in SandForce Processor.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Feb 21, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*

LR is a database. In essence, the LightRoom catalog contain "pointers" to the images. The images are not stored in the catalog. So, if you're performing file management activities, e.g. moving content, "within" LightRoom, LightRoom will make the corresponding changes/update to the OS file system. 

Where people get into trouble is when they go to the OS's file system (Windows Explorer, Finder etc.) to make changes instead of making those changes within LR Library module. Any file changes, moves, renames, etc. performed outside of LR, LR doesn't know about, which results in broken or nonexistent pointers and LR displaying ????





privatebydesign said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Feb 21, 2015)

I stand by my original response and the disclaimer re: Apple. I was simply pointing out that TRIM is a function of the Operating System, NOT the SSD. 




privatebydesign said:


> lilmsmaggie said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



lilmsmaggie said:


> LR is a database. In essence, the LightRoom catalog contain "pointers" to the images. The images are not stored in the catalog. So, if you're performing file management activities, e.g. moving content, "within" LightRoom, LightRoom will make the corresponding changes/update to the OS file system.
> 
> Where people get into trouble is when they go to the OS's file system (Windows Explorer, Finder etc.) to make changes instead of making those changes within LR Library module. Any file changes, moves, renames, etc. performed outside of LR, LR doesn't know about, which results in broken or nonexistent pointers and LR displaying ????
> 
> ...



We all know that, what I am asking is why LDS thinks the way Aperture works is fundamentally different because as I understand it they both work in exactly the same way, which is why my original comment, that was to Botts, was made. Meanwhile Botts never did give us specifics on why he thinks the the file management of Aperture is so superior to Lightroom.



Botts said:


> I just hope the library management is more robust.
> 
> I far prefer LRs edits / processing over Aperture, but every photo winds up in Aperture for me anyways because it handles library management far better IMO.



I can understand preferring the user interface of one over the other, or any other number of small details like the one I pointed out (AF points), but I was interested in what, specifically, he thought Aperture did differently to Lightroom on the file management side.

Context, supply the context and my comments are not anywhere near as abrupt as some people think.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2015)

lilmsmaggie said:


> I stand by my original response and the disclaimer re: Apple. I was simply pointing out that TRIM is a function of the Operating System, NOT the SSD.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I said, context. In context to the comment I was replying to my statement is entirely correct and gives NancyP all the relevant information she needs. There is no need for your _"Not quite"_ as a precursor to your additional comments about an entirely different operating system. Yes you are giving more information, but not to the NancyP comment to which I was replying.


----------



## Diko (Feb 21, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > What is aperture using?
> ...



I see. It used to "use" GPU. I've heard that they are preparing something new. Different from Aperture. Any ide what?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2015)

Diko said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Diko said:
> ...



Yes, Photos, a review to it was linked earlier in the thread. Here is the Apple page https://www.apple.com/osx/photos-preview/

It is a crossover between iPhoto and a dumbed down Aperture.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Feb 21, 2015)

Let's get the debate back on track after those nice digressions. 

I'm still on my old LR4.4 and skipped LR5 as, for as far as I could tell the main improvement was in some more filter and brush flexibility (assuming you have an old camera like I do). Now if LR6 continues on improving the masking options and the panorama tools are nice, I could be interested. Even more so considering it will still be available in perpetual license. Personally, although I understand that 10$/month is a good price compared to the old PS price, I find that 'software as a service' is unethical in the context of 'home users'. In a business context, it is akin to outsourcing, which has its own evils but is justifiable on the basis of flexibility. However, in a 'personal use' context, it is just the software counterpart of planned obsolescence in physical goods. It forces a casual user for whom an older version might be perfectly suitable to pay upfront, on a monthly basis, to be 'forced' to upgrade. For someone who might use the software only a few hours a month, or even a few hours a year, it is non-sense...

Oups, wrong debate again...


----------



## jhpeterson (Feb 21, 2015)

*Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon*



Trevster said:


> I'm glad that they are not forcing the move to Windows 8, I looked at the Amazon UK page, and I only saw Win 8 listed. (I made the move to Win7 for Lightroom 5).
> Really hoping that it doesn't require a monthly payment. That would be a deal breaker for me (as much as I want the upgrade) - not interested in either monthly payments or cloud storage.
> 
> - Trev


+1
I just upgraded to LR5 eight months ago. I'd put it off because I was using Windows XP. Finally I pulled the trigger on a custom-built Windows 7 desktop with 16GB memory and SSD.
Monthly payments and cloud storage also would kill the deal for me.


----------



## markesc (Feb 22, 2015)

Does anyone know what state of the art machine Adobe assumes the average user owns vs. the machine they use to show off the updates to the Porsche driving senior execs at Adobe? 

One could probably, I'm guessing, spend $15k on a new computer with everything one can imagine, and LR would probably still take JUST as long to rotate/crop an image vs my pos dell 8500 I paid $800 for 3 years ago 

I'll stick with paying here n there vs. having yet another thing to subscribe to, that will also increase in cost. Call me old school, but not a fan of the renter-ship society. Netflix, and paying stupid comunist cast is enough....


----------



## climber (Feb 22, 2015)

In LR 6, I would like to see some new filters for star trails photography. Expecially "gap filling" function. I know that StarStaX has that option, but it does not take RAW files. And also with StarStax is hard to exclude trails that are made from airplanes. In Photoshop this is easy with Lighten blending mode and black color on a mask.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 22, 2015)

climber said:


> In LR 6, I would like to see some new filters for star trails photography. Expecially "gap filling" function.



You're trying to discuss features - don't you realize no one cares? Can we please get back to ranting about the subscription model  ?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 22, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> climber said:
> 
> 
> > In LR 6, I would like to see some new filters for star trails photography. Expecially "gap filling" function.
> ...



wrong. Throughpout most of this thread we have been discussing LR features. Both existing features and desired features. Most importantly *improved performance*. 

And criticism of the Adobe uncreative cloud supscription/rental model does not qualify as ranting, but is an absolutely legitimate complaint against Adobe's rip-off attempts of clients who have no desire whatsoever to rent, purchase or use Photoshop in addition to Lightroom. 

It is about high time that with release 6.0 Adobe hopefully delivers a stand-alone Lightroom, that makes it unnecessary for photographers to use PS or any other PP software in addition to LR. I have been waiting a rather long time for exactly such a COMPLETE PP software FOR STILLS PHOTOGRAPHERS.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 22, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> It is about high time that with release 6.0 Adobe hopefully delivers a stand-alone Lightroom, that makes it unnecessary for photographers to use PS or any other PP software in addition to LR. I have been waiting a rather long time for exactly such a COMPLETE PP software FOR STILLS PHOTOGRAPHERS.



I've been using nothing but Lightroom for post processing since version 1.4 (except for compositing).


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 22, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> And criticism of the Adobe uncreative cloud supscription/rental model does not qualify as ranting, but is an absolutely legitimate complaint against Adobe's rip-off attempts of clients who have no desire whatsoever to rent, purchase or use Photoshop in addition to Lightroom.



Of course it qualifies as ranting because it is not what Adobe are asking of you. If you want LR as a standalone perpetual license you can buy it, if you don't want PS then don't buy it, if you don't want the subscription model or CC don't sign up. 

How exactly is that "ripping you off"?

If, to use Lightroom, Adobe forced you to rent software you didn't want then they could be accused of pressuring you, if your old LR catalogs no longer opened unless you signed up and paid for a subscription license that had to include PS, and you didn't want it, then they could be accused of ripping you off. But they are not doing anything like that, so take your vitriol laden hate messages somewhere where complete lies and fabrication are accepted and encouraged, maybe Fox News?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 22, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > And criticism of the Adobe uncreative cloud supscription/rental model does not qualify as ranting, but is an absolutely legitimate complaint against Adobe's rip-off attempts of clients who have no desire whatsoever to rent, purchase or use Photoshop in addition to Lightroom.
> ...



If existing, perpetually licensed versions of LR ceased to function in the wake of a new cloud model, that would be a ripoff, and further an actionable one. 

Only offering new versions of LR as a package (which isn't happening as far as I can tell) isn't a ripoff, as they are not and can not force people to subscribe. It's the same thing when people complain about what "canon gives us" in a new model. Canon doesn't give a way anything, customers either buy what they're selling, or they don't.

Personally, while I RARELY use PS, I'd easily pay the nominal fee of $10/month for the package. It's an exceptional deal that I'm actually a bit surprised they offer.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 22, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Of course it qualifies as ranting because it is not what Adobe are asking of you. If you want LR as a standalone perpetual license you can buy it, if you don't want PS then don't buy it, if you don't want the subscription model or CC don't sign up.



Well let's see whether LR 6 really comes as standalone perpetual license. Nothing confirmed or announced yet. 
And LR 7, 8, 9.

Btw ... if you classify my ever so slightly critical previous posting as "hate-laden vitriolic etc." to you, you must truly be living in a pink pony fairy-land. I'd strobgeky advice you to NOT follow any news, most definitely not on Fox. 

Actually, come to think about it ... i do hate adobe quite a bit ... ever since they bought my preferred raw converter supplier (RAW Shooter/Pixmantec) from the market, only to get rid of a competitor who would otherwise by now be offering a raw workflow software version 6.0 that would leave all those clunky, fat and slow adobe apps in the dust and relegate adobe to the status of failed former it-companies i wish on them. 

There you have a little rant with a small dose of vitriol and heartfelt hate. Now i will be banned. O my god!


----------



## jcarapet (Feb 22, 2015)

I don't care whether they use the subscription or standalone version. I just care that the next versions UI doesn't lock up after every photo import or 10 minutes of editing work. This has been annoying me to no end the last few months.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Feb 23, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> climber said:
> 
> 
> > In LR 6, I would like to see some new filters for star trails photography. Expecially "gap filling" function.
> ...



A perpetual licence qualifies as a feature for me. But the ultimate feature would certainly be a Canon Rumours tab where you could follow your favourite forum topics while editin without having to navigate to another application. That would certainly help that loath LR sluggishness.


----------



## Skirball (Feb 24, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> It is about high time that with release 6.0 Adobe hopefully delivers a stand-alone Lightroom, that makes it unnecessary for photographers to use PS or any other PP software in addition to LR. I have been waiting a rather long time for exactly such a COMPLETE PP software FOR STILLS PHOTOGRAPHERS.



How is it not already? Because it can't do layers? Or pixel-level editing? You're not asking for a standalone photo editor, which LR is, you just want Lightroom to be Photoshop, which it isn't. LR5 already bridged the gap far more than I expected them to with the changes to the healing brush and localized editing. If you want to edit pixels then you need Photoshop. If you want to composite you need photoshop. But Lightroom is more than capable to do all the "developing" of a traditional stills photographer, and much much more.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 24, 2015)

Skirball said:


> How is it not already? Because it can't do layers? Or pixel-level editing?



My one major grief is that you cannot extend the canvas, i.e. on rotate there's no way to heal-fill an area, you *have* to delete the part that is rotated out of the rectangle. The same goes for fixing a too tight framing. This is stupid because after a trip to a pixel editing app (converting raw->tiff, doh) and adding some space around the shot LR's heal/clone brush works just fine for this purpose.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Feb 24, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > How is it not already? Because it can't do layers? Or pixel-level editing?
> ...



Canvas extension would be a nice feature! Or possibly support for non-parallelogram canvas shape, although that would be somewhat specific and might allow for use by people with dubious tastes to express themselves more freely...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 25, 2015)

IMG_0001 said:


> Canvas extension would be a nice feature!



Btw the lack of canvas extension results in a really strange behaviors: If you do some aspect ratio or perspective correction with automatic "upright" or with the manual lens correction sliders, you get white parts on the edges of the frame *you cannot touch or fill* and have to crop away. Doh.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 25, 2015)

Maybe i was a bit unclear at first. I do not want LR to be everything that PS is. I kust want it to be everything a photographer needs. Lightroom = complete software package for photographers, PS = package for graphics and other imaging users. I was bemoaning the long time it took until adobe is finally approaching this state with LR 6. only now adding HDR capability to LR for example. 
Re. Canvas extension I don't know whether those proprietary raw file format(s) would allow for it or not. I do not want to convert raws to tiff or psd file format, but keep them as CR2s. The real issue here might be all those different raw formats, instead of one universal, open, powerful "super raw" format. And no, DNG does not look like it's the right solution. Otherwise everybody would already be using it.




Skirball said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > It is about high time that with release 6.0 Adobe hopefully delivers a stand-alone Lightroom, that makes it unnecessary for photographers to use PS or any other PP software in addition to LR. I have been waiting a rather long time for exactly such a COMPLETE PP software FOR STILLS PHOTOGRAPHERS.
> ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 25, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Re. Canvas extension I don't know whether those proprietary raw file format(s) would allow for it or not. I do not want to convert raws to tiff or psd file format, but keep them as CR2s.



Maybe I'm wrong, but in LR you aren't really viewing the raw, you're viewing a raster of the raw with myriad processing selections. I think it would be possible to support canvas extension without a file type change. It would just be "not from RAW" in the areas outside the native frame.


----------



## Skirball (Feb 25, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > How is it not already? Because it can't do layers? Or pixel-level editing?
> ...



Sure, but if we took a poll I'd bet we get a long list of wants that could be put into Lightroom. Put all those together, and you have Photoshop.

LR was designed as a database management program, along with the tools to non-destructively "develop" your photos, in a traditional sense - exposure, colors, gradients, white balance, sharpening, cropping, B&W, etc. They've gone beyond that in adding things like the new healing tool and localized adjustment because it's so frequently used by photographers. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great they put that feature in, one of the best additions in awhile. But it blurs the line between non-destructive LR and pixel-level PS. And you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. I get what you're saying, you could use the healing tool that's already there to draw in the boarders, but at that point you're creating pixels, and I just see that as PS territory. Not to mention, I can only imagine what it would require to do that non-destructively.

They're welcome to put all the features they can in LR (providing it doesn't slow it more). I'm certainly not against that. But I don't see criticizing it as being a lousy program for doing something it was never designed to do.


----------



## Skirball (Feb 25, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Maybe i was a bit unclear at first. I do not want LR to be everything that PS is. I kust want it to be everything a photographer needs.



But that's just it, we all have different needs. Add them all together and you get an extremely comprehensive, complicated program - called Photoshop. Lightroom was designed to be streamlined.

The HDR is a fair point, at this point it's considered a basic tool of the modern photographer. Probably something I never noticed because I just don't care for it much. When I do do HDR I usually blend it with several layers, manually, to get a non-HDR look. And at that point I'm already 7 layers deep in Photoshop. But I know many people that use Enfuse in LR to get the look they want, so hopefully LR6 will eliminate that need.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 25, 2015)

I see the combined needs of all photographer users still as a comparatively small subset of the full PS gamut. 
And yes, for my needs LR5 and now LR6 covers pretty much everything i want. All i said, was it took adobe a long time and 6 releases to get to this point. They could have delivered it much earlier - already in LR 2 or 3 - but did not, just to "protect PS sales".


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 25, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I see the combined needs of all photographer users still as a comparatively small subset of the full PS gamut.



How do you figure that? The only parts of PS that seem truly unrelated to the "photographer" would be the press-related components, e.g. CMYK support. Even compositing is used (in legitimate ways) by many photographers these days. Can you provide some examples of features of PS that photographers definitely don't need?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 25, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I see the combined needs of all photographer users still as a comparatively small subset of the full PS gamut.
> ...



Any image where you start from a blank canvas (instead of photographic capture/s) and all steps involved to create them. Don't ask me what those are in detail, i've never done it. But the graphics experts i know all contend it is quite a bit.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 25, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Anything the graphics experts can do to a canvas without a photo, a photographer can do to a canvas with a photo. It sounds like what you really mean is not so much "needs of all photographers" but what's needed to process a photo (including multi-exposure images) into an end-product that would be called a "photographic work" rather than a "graphic" work. I guess that could be legitimate, but I think there's a lot of cross-over of photographers who do a wee bit of graphic design, and graphic designers who do a wee bit of photography.


----------



## Jeffrey (Feb 25, 2015)

Just think how many more books Scott Kelby can sell every time there is a new version of LR!

As for me, shooting is my joy; post processing is not something I find enjoyable to do.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 25, 2015)

Skirball said:


> I get what you're saying, you could use the healing tool that's already there to draw in the boarders, but at that point you're creating pixels, and I just see that as PS territory. Not to mention, I can only imagine what it would require to do that non-destructively



It wouldn't take much, but it would likely bog down a catalog like nobody's business.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Feb 25, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> IMG_0001 said:
> 
> 
> > Canvas extension would be a nice feature!
> ...



Yeah, that is pretty much my experience too. However, I would need to admit that many of the shots I would have wanted to straigthen had quite complex borders that could have been a serious challenge to 'heal' after a canvas extension...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 25, 2015)

Skirball said:


> And you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.



Sure, and for me the differentiation between LR and PS is that the latter is designed for photo compositing and layering to support a full-fledged dtp app like Indesign or do posters on its own complete with typography.

I find that an extended heal by canvas extension is absolutely in the scope of LR, and as argued being to forced to throw away image data just because you rotate the image can be improved for sure.



Skirball said:


> But I don't see criticizing it as being a lousy program for doing something it was never designed to do.



Did I ever do that? I think LR is one ever the best programs ever, I have no idea what I'd do without the speed, bulk editing and cataloging. The latest healing features in LR5 make it even better as I often have to replace small parts like a leaf of grass that caught too much flash light, and that was a pain with LR4's circular-only healing. Ends Adobe commercial


----------



## zim (Feb 25, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I see the combined needs of all photographer users still as a comparatively small subset of the full PS gamut.



Yes, for me PSE with soft proofing and 16bit support would be exactly that, never going to happen though.


----------



## Abn0021 (Feb 26, 2015)

Jeffrey said:


> Just think how many more books Scott Kelby can sell every time there is a new version of LR!
> 
> As for me, shooting is my joy; post processing is not something I find enjoyable to do.



Very true. 

It's odd and inverse for me. I do video professionally (with photos tacked on). I hate postproduction with video, but love post production when it comes to photos.


----------



## emko (Feb 27, 2015)

Lightroom 6 HDR https://images-tv.adobe.com/avp/vr/bf606b2a-9fed-4c01-831b-919191f54a52/ab842d11-1a93-4b5f-881a-322defc10a23/adee3c2a-e270-4f84-8ec9-84cafccc596a_20150130032106.1280x720at2400_vp8.webm?PID=3485381

Looks like it makes a .DNG also you can see the face recognition function icon, same with panorama so looks like those rumors are correct.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 28, 2015)

emko said:


> Looks like it makes a .DNG



I couldn't spot it, way too fast moving and too stylish people for me  but do note that "dng" doesn't necessarily mean "raw dng", but there's also the demosaiced flavor which is essentially a tiff.


----------



## emko (Feb 28, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like it makes a .DNG
> ...



fast moving? its there for a long time and its on the last frame so you can just let the video and end look, it says 
MOST_2014_08884_2-HDR.dng

doesn't dng have a good compression?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 28, 2015)

emko said:


> fast moving?



You youngsters  ... and I wan't only talking of the slide speed, but the average hipness of the media folk people in the video.



emko said:


> doesn't dng have a good compression?



Sure, I'm all in favor of dng and even the lossy flavor. It's just that dng is often confused with raw files - so I just wanted to make sure this slide doesn't mean LR6 can assemble raw files into another raw dng like the 5d3 in-camera hdr feature can.


----------



## emko (Feb 28, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > fast moving?
> ...



i have a 5d3 all it does it lets you keep the bracketed shots as raw and it saves a jpg of your HDR or am i missing something. 

But yea anything that can compress well that does not lose that much IQ or is lossless is better then a massive tiff file, that's the current way i do HDR with lightroom using HDR PRO from photoshop.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 28, 2015)

Yes, your camera is limited to 16bit files, even RAW, and the jpegs are a tiny 8bit file, not enough to deal with true wide DR multiple shots, Lightroom can process and store 32bit files which are big enough to cover a much wider DR range.

Lightroom has the potential to generate much better blended HDR images.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 1, 2015)

emko said:


> i have a 5d3 all it does it lets you keep the bracketed shots as raw and it saves a jpg of your HDR or am i missing something.



It does?! Sorry, in this case I have to stand corrected. I tried the 5d3 several times including the hdr function in shops, but obviously I go this wrong. In theory, it's quite possible to merge several raw files into another raw file, Magic Lantern does it for their dual_iso feature.

On my 6d, I never use in-camera hdr as it's crippled to force-delete the source files (raw or jpeg).


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 1, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > i have a 5d3 all it does it lets you keep the bracketed shots as raw and it saves a jpg of your HDR or am i missing something.
> ...



That's not how dual-iso works. Dual iso changes the iso line-by-line when reading out the sensor so it's a single exposure. You do need a post processing tool (cr2hdr) to extrapolate the values to smooth the transitions. Otherwise you end up with a picture that looks interlaced due to difference in exposure between the lines.

People are using dual-iso because it's a single exposure and not a post bracketing merge or several photos. I use it for handheld 1:1 macro pictures to avoid blown highlights when using a flash and 1/400s shutter speed.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 1, 2015)

koenkooi said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > In theory, it's quite possible to merge several raw files into another raw file, Magic Lantern does it for their dual_iso feature.
> ...



Right, I faintly remember someone else mentioning ML and dual_iso on CR before now and again 

My point is that dual_iso outputs a raw file, and not a demosaiced jpeg or whatever. It's true that dual_iso is based on interlacing rather than stacking exposures, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be possible to hdr-merge several raw files into another raw. It's not like the raw data is a black box as oss software raw converters exist. My guess it's that simply no one has found it worth the hassle - or there are problems I cannot think of right now.


----------



## AlexB (Mar 2, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> *Performance gains*
> Import and refine your photos in record time. Lightroom leverages compatible graphics process to get you better performance, especially when you edit your images in the Develop module.



Finally! Hope this solves the performance issue.


----------



## bitm2007 (Mar 5, 2015)

> Digital photography software | Download free Adobe Lightroom 6 trial
> Create amazing images from challenging high-contrast scenes. New HDR Merge
> in Lightroom 6 lets you combine two or more photos taken with different ...
> http://www.adobe.com/be_en/products/photoshop-lightroom.html
> -210k



I just searched the Adobe.com website for Lightroom 6 and came across the quote above. Unfortunately the link takes you to LR5.


----------



## Skirball (Mar 5, 2015)

bitm2007 said:


> > Digital photography software | Download free Adobe Lightroom 6 trial
> > Create amazing images from challenging high-contrast scenes. New HDR Merge
> > in Lightroom 6 lets you combine two or more photos taken with different ...
> > http://www.adobe.com/be_en/products/photoshop-lightroom.html
> ...



Looks like they fixed it, now it takes you to a 30-day trial of LR6. Sweet! Thanks!


----------



## bitm2007 (Mar 5, 2015)

> Quote
> 
> Digital photography software | Download free Adobe Lightroom 6 trial
> Create amazing images from challenging high-contrast scenes. New HDR Merge
> ...



It's still taking me to LR5


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 5, 2015)

bitm2007 said:


> I just searched the Adobe.com website for Lightroom 6 and came across the quote above. Unfortunately the link takes you to LR5.



Of course, there is no "Lightroom 6" so it'll simply show the result for "Lightroom" rather than an ugly 404 not found page.

Plus Adobe *might* have it already in some meta-tags to prevent 3rd party sites grabbing the keyword for commercial purposes. That's why I grace CR with a lot of search hits by writing:

*Lightroom 7*

:->


----------



## pixyl (Mar 9, 2015)

Well, it's March the 9th and still no LR6 
So I guess we can forget about that rumor.

Since there's no beta version around (as has been in the past), is it likely this will take a very long time or could it be that they've stopped with public betas, leaving beta-testing to the selected few?


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 9, 2015)

pixyl said:


> or could it be that they've stopped with public betas, leaving beta-testing to the selected few?



I guess so. Adobe already has shortened or skipped the the rc-time in previous 5.x releases. They might have found that a public beta doesn't result in a significant number of better bug reports, but just users complaining about "why can't I convert my old catalog already"?


----------



## pixyl (Mar 9, 2015)

Too true 
Still, don't things like this (LR6 beta version has been issued) leak out to the public pretty easily? Might seem like it'll be a while before we see LR6. Hope someone can prove me wrong.


----------



## iKenndac (Mar 9, 2015)

Adobe's releases tend to come out of the USA, and in the USA the day is only just beginning - I feel you're throwing in the towel a little too early. Adobe may well prove you wrong by releasing LR6 later today.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 9, 2015)

I was told a few days after we posted March 9, 2015 that it was wrong. However, we just went with the date that appeared on Amazon. I should have probably amended the post to reflect that.


----------



## Jan (Mar 9, 2015)

On the amazon.co.jp leak, the 20th of March was stated...


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 9, 2015)

pixyl said:


> Still, don't things like this (LR6 beta version has been issued) leak out to the public pretty easily?



You would think that any group larger than 3 people cannot keep a secret. However, with Adobe being a beta-tester probably is like winning the lottery, and I guess they're rather careful about the selection. People like that won't want to loose their standing (next to being sued because of the nda). And what do beta testers have to gain by leaking the date to some blog site?

Last not least their public beta testers circle might not be larger than a hundred people as they'll do a lot of testing in-house, it's not like Windows.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 9, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> pixyl said:
> 
> 
> > Still, don't things like this (LR6 beta version has been issued) leak out to the public pretty easily?
> ...


I used to be a beta tester for them and it's not like they give you that kind of detail. It's the typical process - here's the new release. Use it and report bugs on some form within XX days (usually 30). Another version comes out and you do it again. There's always an expiration date on the beta releases, but it doesn't always correspond with the release date.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 9, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I used to be a beta tester for them and it's not like they give you that kind of detail. It's the typical process - here's the new release. Use it and report bugs on some form within XX days (usually 30). Another version comes out and you do it again. There's always an expiration date on the beta releases, but it doesn't always correspond with the release date.



Interesting - it's pretty rate to hear from people doing software testing for the big players. How were you honored with this task & did you do it for free (and why not anymore )? In which phase did you test LR, as early as buggy alphas or only later on with feature-complete beta releases?


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 9, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I used to be a beta tester for them and it's not like they give you that kind of detail. It's the typical process - here's the new release. Use it and report bugs on some form within XX days (usually 30). Another version comes out and you do it again. There's always an expiration date on the beta releases, but it doesn't always correspond with the release date.
> ...


I was active on Adobe's User-to-User forums and corresponded with some of their developers for Photoshop and Indesign, the two apps I beta tested. The testing was unpaid (though they gave me a discount or something on the final version). Most other beta testing I've done was for a free version of the final software... 

The reason I don't do it anymore is because they select a new group each time (outside of the core people) and they didn't ask me to do it again. The betas I tested were generally pretty good, but the new features would often be slow (because they had so much logging turned out and the code wasn't optimized) or buggy since it was new or unfinished.

I have never liked LR and have always found it slow and painful to use in comparison to PS, but this new version sounds like one I'll give a try, especially if the stitching tool is something special.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 10, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> The betas I tested were generally pretty good, but the new features would often be slow (because they had so much logging turned out and the code wasn't optimized) or buggy since it was new or unfinished.



Thanks for the information, interesting to know in what state and at what stage they do public beta testing.



mackguyver said:


> I have never liked LR and have always found it slow and painful to use in comparison to PS, but this new version sounds like one I'll give a try, especially if the stitching tool is something special.



There are so good panorama tools out there I really cannot feel excited here about LR6 - though it certainly provides good value over AutoPano as that's the commercial choice. The upside of LR6 would be that it keeps the raw workflow, i.e. you probably can still do adjustments to the source images even after stitching them unlike exporting as tiff to a 3rd party tool.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 10, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> There are so good panorama tools out there I really cannot feel excited here about LR6 - though it certainly provides good value over AutoPano as that's the commercial choice. The upside of LR6 would be that it keeps the raw workflow, i.e. you probably can still do adjustments to the source images even after stitching them unlike exporting as tiff to a 3rd party tool.


I haven't bothered to invest in a AutoPano or another tool, but I find myself doing more pano work these days. The PhotoMerge in PS is good, but not great. I guess I have panos on my mind... Right now I'm working on a huge pano inspired by one of your countrymen, Peter Langenhahn. The background alone is 30 photos and I have 350 photos to go through to pull out the action shots that I'm going to composite into it. The background stitched quite well because my tripod/pano bracket was very level, but adding the elements into it is proving quite tedious. I hope it will be worth the effort when I'm done!


----------



## NancyP (Mar 10, 2015)

That's pretty interesting. I took a look at the different stadia, and the penny didn't drop until the horse-jumping arena - waaay too many horses to have been there at one time. The biathlon stadium was interesting.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 10, 2015)

NancyP said:


> That's pretty interesting. I took a look at the different stadia, and the penny didn't drop until the horse-jumping arena - waaay too many horses to have been there at one time. The biathlon stadium was interesting.


I think it's pretty cool work, too, and I like the crazy number of tennis balls on the court. Doing it indoors in controlled lighting (like most of his) is so smart. I'm dealing with major headaches trying to correct for lighting and other changes over the 30-60 minutes I shot.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 10, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I haven't bothered to invest in a AutoPano or another tool, but I find myself doing more pano work these days.



I dunno about PS, but if you're serious about pano stitching you should really have a look at autopano. It's "the" fire & forget solution that assembles your handheld shots you have snapped around the scenery just like that, including exposure adjustment, color correction & hdr blending.

They just released the rc trial of v4 with enhanced anti-ghosting which means you can brush-select the moving parts you want to preserve, ideal for shots like on the site you linked. Autopano blows everything else out of the water I ever tried, the different projection modes alone are worth it... and I didn't even mention virtual tours or 360 degrees panos. No, I don't work for Kolor


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 11, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't bothered to invest in a AutoPano or another tool, but I find myself doing more pano work these days.
> ...


I might give it a try, but at 199 Euros, it's still a bit pricey for me given that I don't do panos all the time. The strong US dollar makes it a bit less painful, however as is now ~$220 vs $300 just six months or so ago.

EDIT: I bought it.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 11, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


I've been using it for about 4 years. Love it!


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 11, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


Cool, I'm excited to try it out. They seem to have great service, too. I emailed them some questions before buying and got several responses back within a few minutes of each email I sent. Since the release candidate came out yesterday, I guess I'll go ahead and start out with version 4.


----------

