# Will Lightroom 6 write CRAW for new 6d2?



## ScottyP (Jun 29, 2017)

Anyone know? I'd hate to be foreced onto the Adobe Cloud subscription service for buying a 6D2. And I am not prepared to use a work-around.


----------



## daphins (Jun 30, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> Anyone know? I'd hate to be foreced onto the Adobe Cloud subscription service for buying a 6D2. And I am not prepared to use a work-around.



Will it read the RAW files?

It's my understanding that Adobe updates the RAW reader for LR6 through patches. No guarantees how long they'll do this, or when it'll come out, but I have LR6, and fully expect to be able to use it. If they don't bring compatibility to LR6, I'll find something out. I'll never pay adobe's extortion fee.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 30, 2017)

daphins said:


> It's my understanding that Adobe updates the RAW reader for LR6 through patches.



Nope, every update is via a separate version-controlled software release of the whole programme.

We'll only know if Lr 6 will be updated to support the 6D Mk II, when/if it happens.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 30, 2017)

daphins said:


> I'll never pay adobe's extortion fee.



The price of a couple of coffees a month...


----------



## Khalai (Jun 30, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> daphins said:
> 
> 
> > I'll never pay adobe's extortion fee.
> ...



I hate the idea of monthly SW subsciption. I don't see Adobe releasing major upgrades anymore. They just milk ther subsciptors while making bloated bugged software with snail-like upgrade cycle.

When Lightroom can't run smoothly on [email protected] with 32 GB RAM, GTX 1070 and NVMe SSD, something is simply not right...


----------



## james75 (Jun 30, 2017)

So are you saying that if I bought a 6dii, and started using lightroom 6, it wouldn't recognize the camera files? And there's no guarantees that there would be an update for it unless you go subscripotion? Well that would suck.


----------



## Khalai (Jun 30, 2017)

james75 said:


> So are you saying that if I bought a 6dii, and started using lightroom 6, it wouldn't recognize the camera files? And there's no guarantees that there would be an update for it unless you go subscripotion? Well that would suck.



Adobe DNG Converter is free, receives freqent updates for new cameras and DNG files will work with LR6 or even older just fine. Not the simplest or fastest solution, but definitely CC-free one.


----------



## ScottyP (Jun 30, 2017)

Buying the 6D forced me to upgrade from LR3 to LR4, I think it was. I have LR5 now and would probably get LR6 (or LR7 if that ever sees the light of day) in order to get LR to work with the 6D2's RAW files. 

I know all these upgrades have not been free either, but something about renting the software still sticks in my craw, and also I just don't use PS or any of the other things on the "cloud" anyway; only Lightroom.

Adobe have basically hidden the link to buy LR6. It can be found non their website but not easily. I worry that it will no longer be updated, and that there is no LR7 coming. 

I can't believe they would let all their customers who are willing to buy just LR have no option to do so. 

I think some non-professional photogs who are already invested in Lightroom, through the time spent learning it and also through all the 1000's of photos they have archived with the post processing done in LR, may be coaxed into buying the cloud license. 

What I don't think is going to happen is many brand new photographers picking up Lightroom, the entry level gateway to the Adobe universe, if it has to be in the form of an Adobe Cloud license, committing to that obligation forever and ever. There are just too many either purchase-able or even free alternatives available. They could be cutting off their supply of new customers.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 30, 2017)

james75 said:


> So are you saying that if I bought a 6dii, and started using lightroom 6, it wouldn't recognize the camera files? And there's no guarantees that there would be an update for it unless you go subscripotion? Well that would suck.



Not sure who you're asking, but at some point (known only to Adobe) Lightroom 7 will be released and Adobe will stop updating Lr 6. If Lr 7 comes out around now, or at any rate not long after the 6D Mk II's release, Lr 6 will be obsoleted, and finished as far as that body is concerned (unless you use the DNG converter). 

It has been this way forever - you can't expect Adobe (or any converter provider) to continue to retrospectively update obsolete versions of the software to support new cameras.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 30, 2017)

Khalai said:


> I hate the idea of monthly SW subsciption.



And yet you'll happily pay a "subscription" for your electricity, gas, water, phone service, internet provision, online image back-up, rent... 

It's an utterly illogical position.



> I don't see Adobe releasing major upgrades anymore



What's left for them to hang a major upgrade on?



> They just milk ther subsciptors while making bloated bugged software with snail-like upgrade cycle.
> 
> When Lightroom can't run smoothly on [email protected] with 32 GB RAM, GTX 1070 and NVMe SSD, something is simply not right...



Lr absolutely _flies_ (or flew: I don't use Lr now - not because of problems with performance or the subscription model, but simply because it's not my favourite converter) on my machine, which is modestly-specced in comparison. It's well-known that higher-specced machines _cause_ problems with Lr, and need more finessing with regard to processor affinities etc.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 30, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> I just don't use PS or any of the other things on the "cloud" anyway; only Lightroom.



Nothing here - not even Lr - is on the cloud.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 30, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> What I don't think is going to happen is many brand new photographers picking up Lightroom, the entry level gateway to the Adobe universe, if it has to be in the form of an Adobe Cloud license, committing to that obligation forever and ever.



And yet Adobe has just this month has reported its best quarterly results ever (part of an ongoing upward trend), attributed _significantly_ to CC.

_Far_ more people are OK with the subscription model than are against it.

Myself included.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 30, 2017)

Probably not. They've stopped selling the standalone software so it's hardly in their interests to keep supporting it with updates for new cameras.

So, you have five options.

1) Convert 6DII RAW to DNG before importing into Lightroom 6.
2) Use different software instead of Lightroom 6.
3) Buy an Adobe Cloud subscription and use Lightroom CC which will support the 6DII for sure.
4) Don't buy a 6DII.
5) Shoot JPEG.

Don't like the options? Well, that's about all you've got.


----------



## ScottyP (Jun 30, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't use PS or any of the other things on the "cloud" anyway; only Lightroom.
> ...



Not sure what you're talking about. The monthly Adobe creative cloud subscription is for a big package of about 6 things, among which are both Photoshop and Lightroom.


----------



## ScottyP (Jun 30, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > What I don't think is going to happen is many brand new photographers picking up Lightroom, the entry level gateway to the Adobe universe, if it has to be in the form of an Adobe Cloud license, committing to that obligation forever and ever.
> ...



I see that despite the pains I took to distinguish existing users from prospective new users (which I underlined) you missed my point. 

I said existing users will be coaxed into paying more by adopting the CC license. This has given Adobe a short-to-medium term cash flow boost. I actually anticipated that and bought a nice chunk of their stock a while ago, and it has performed very well for me. 

Just like any product, though, your old existing users retire or die, so you need a constant inflow of brand new users. In photography, that would mostly be people new to photography. People just jumping in to photography start out with small investments. They may start with the free Canon software, or with any number of other cheap software options. I do not think as many of them will sign on for a lifetime obligation of monthly payments as would have bought a purchase copy of stand alone Lightroom. And they don't already have a million image files processed in Lightroom so Adobe hasn't got that hook into them. If they never start out on Adobe they may never get hooked on it.


----------



## Khalai (Jun 30, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> And yet you'll happily pay a "subscription" for your electricity, gas, water, phone service, internet provision, online image back-up, rent...



I see that quite differently. For gas, electricity, water or cellular/web provider I actually feel I'm getting something. I'm already shifting from Adobe to Affinity (bought both Photo and Design, while I still have PS CS6 perpetual licence) for my non-photography work. Affinity seems like a company, which can use some support from enthusiasts and not full-time pro, their software looks quite interesting.

With LR, I have a love-hate relationship. Performance sometimes bugs me (on my rather strong workstation PC), but I really like that Library there. Develop is so-so, but it's more my laziness and conservatism to move to another software. I'm basically vendor-locked into .lrcat files with thousands of .cr2 files.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jun 30, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> And yet you'll happily pay a "subscription" for your electricity, gas, water, phone service, internet provision, online image back-up, rent...
> 
> It's an utterly illogical position.



Nope. I buy electricity, gas, water, phone, and internet one month of service at a time. The same for food - I buy groceries every week. What you're proposing would be more of a situation where you want to buy a car, but you're only allowed the option to lease. Ever. You can't just purchase the car and then own it. _That_ is illogical.

Lightroom is a product. It sits on my computer and runs. It is not a service that Adobe has to continually provide at their expense after I purchase it. It is not a product that is used up and needs to be continually replenished. Hell, Microsoft continues to put out updates for Windows with a one-time purchase fee, because I bought it and they maintain each version as necessary for the duration of the service life of the product. It is not unreasonable to expect the same of Adobe.

Or would you be ok if you couldn't own a camera body or lens and had to pay Canon per month, forever, for everything you had, and couldn't just buy it and own it forever? Or if you couldn't buy a house? There's an movement to turn all software into "services" and "subscriptions". I'm stunned how many people are ok with it. I don't want $10/month payments for literally everything in my life, even if you're ok with it.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 1, 2017)

Khalai said:


> I see that quite differently.



Yep, I'm sure you do.

But it really _isn't_ meaningfully different in any significant way. 

In all cases, you've only got the "service" you're paying for _while you continue paying for it_. 

Exactly the same as Creative Cloud.

It might _feel_ different, because with the old Adobe model, you still have a piece of software that works if you don't upgrade; but that's only true until you buy a camera that isn't supported by it.

So - in fact - even in the old "pay once every couple of years" model, you were still locked in to regular payments to Adobe if you wanted to stay current and up to date.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 1, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > I see that quite differently.
> ...



Granted, it's maybe just in my head.

But CC is actually more expensive. I have CS6, so I don't need PS CC. In EU, it's not 9.99 $ but over 12 € per month. Means almost 150 € per year. I've been paying around 75 € per LR upgrade in about every 18 months. So where exactly lies that CC advantage except being almost double the price per year?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 1, 2017)

I'm down to 02 days remaining on my LR subscription. I was hoping for a July 4 discount on the 1 year plan. Otherwise, I'll purchase 1 year from a online seller like B&H.


----------



## LDS (Jul 1, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> Anyone know? I'd hate to be foreced onto the Adobe Cloud subscription service for buying a 6D2. And I am not prepared to use a work-around.



It has been explained over and over: the current release of LR gets support for new cameras RAW formats (unless they require wholly new support like Dual Pixel RAW) and lenses profiles, plus bug fixes, regardless if perpetual or subscription. Only the subscription gets new application features.

Older releases don't get nor cameras nor lenses updates anymore.

The current perpetual release is LR6.

Thereby, unless a new release is imminent, expect support for the 6DII and 200D in the next update, Adobe can't release then until models are officially available.


----------



## jprusa (Jul 1, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> Anyone know? I'd hate to be foreced onto the Adobe Cloud subscription service for buying a 6D2. And I am not prepared to use a work-around.



Just received update for Sony A9 a week or so ago, can't see why they would stop on a long awaited 6d2, but they will stop sometime but I would guess after you can't purchase it anymore.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 1, 2017)

LDS said:


> The current perpetual release is LR6.



If the previous perpetual release was indeed perpetual, wouldn't it be current as well?


----------



## BillB (Jul 1, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > The current perpetual release is LR6.
> ...



yes


----------



## BillB (Jul 1, 2017)

jprusa said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone know? I'd hate to be foreced onto the Adobe Cloud subscription service for buying a 6D2. And I am not prepared to use a work-around.
> ...



For what it is worth, LR6 is still on sale at Amazon, either disc or download


----------



## LDS (Jul 1, 2017)

Antono Refa said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > The current perpetual release is LR6.
> ...



Perpetual refers to the license, not the release. Lightroom is sold under two different licenses.

Perpetual means the license doesn't expire, unlike CC which stops working, but read-only access, if the license is not renewed. You can still install, activate and use older releases under a perpetual license (as long the OS can run them, of course).

Both licenses have a current release, and older, non current, ones.


----------



## daphins (Jul 2, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > I see that quite differently.
> ...



It is meaninfuly different in a significant way. The services you pointed to offer services that are consumed an then gone. They're finite, and if you want more it has to be produced and a infrastructure has to be in place to deliver it to you. LR is not finite, it's a product you can buy and should be able to use until you decide to upgrade it. Once made its available in inimited quantities, doesn't expire, and doesn't run out. It's only useless when technology advances enough that hardware doesn't keep up, or you decide you neee a new feature and ipgrade. Adobe created an entirely arbitrary expiration date on its product. It's no different than if Apple programmed their laptops to blue screen exactly two years after being booted up to force you to buy a new computer.

Lightroom is a tool that people use as part of their workflow in creating their own intellectual property. If you pay a subscription you have access to your work. If you quit paying a subscription, you lose access to years worth of your own IP.

That's fine for someone who's working and can afford the subscription. It's NOT fine for people who dabble in LR and don't make a living from it, or people who retired and need access to the work they created, but aren't making money on it anymore. Adobe is extorting their photoshop, illustrator, and other customers by saying "if you don't pay us, you don't get access to the intellectual property you created".

In return they provide bloated software without any meaningful upgrades.

This was one-sided deal by Adobe. Benefited them while screwing their customers. They are now making money off of it after several years of low returns, so it appears to viable, but it's putting their customers first.

It's their prerogative, but it's also the perogative of their former customers to call it bullshit, and move on to new software. Many of us have. I've spent years creating my artwork. Adobe doesn't "own" anynof it, and I refuse to let them dictate whether or not I can access it. It's my living.


----------



## daphins (Jul 2, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> daphins said:
> 
> 
> > It's my understanding that Adobe updates the RAW reader for LR6 through patches.
> ...



Not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing, but I get LR 6 updates for new cameras and lenses...


----------



## Khalai (Jul 2, 2017)

daphins said:


> Lightroom is a tool that people use as part of their workflow in creating their own intellectual property. If you pay a subscription you have access to your work. If you quit paying a subscription, you lose access to years worth of your own IP.



Small correction there - you can still access LR Library and export your files, even after subscription has expired, so technically you still have access to your files...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 2, 2017)

Khalai said:


> daphins said:
> 
> 
> > Lightroom is a tool that people use as part of their workflow in creating their own intellectual property. If you pay a subscription you have access to your work. If you quit paying a subscription, you lose access to years worth of your own IP.
> ...



That's not a small correction! It strikes to the very heart of the complete misunderstanding so many people have after the uninformed knee jerk reaction to the subscription model. They are wrong and don't let the truth get in the way of their vocal opinions advising others.

But, if we are to gain any understanding of the problem, we should also consider the position Adobe were in before subscription. They were in real financial issues with an unsustainable revenue flow, so the 'choice' for them was no choice at all, they either went subscription and that only works (like health care) if the majority of users are corralled into it, or they went bankrupt.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 2, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > daphins said:
> ...



Perhaps. I still have a hope that LR7 will be also standalone product. I have a perpetual copy of PS CS6, recently purchased Affinity Photo & Design (for 65 € for both, no brainer there) so I have no need for their Photography Plan for as much as 140 €/year when last two LR upgrades were 75 € each in every 18 months or what the cycle was back then.

I will happily buy LR7 if it's standalone, but CC plan proves to be over two times more expensive for me while I gain basically nothing back. And that's what bugs me a lot.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 2, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> That's not a small correction! It strikes to the very heart of the complete misunderstanding so many people have after the uninformed knee jerk reaction to the subscription model. They are wrong and don't let the truth get in the way of their vocal opinions advising others.
> 
> But, if we are to gain any understanding of the problem, we should also consider the position Adobe were in before subscription. They were in real financial issues with an unsustainable revenue flow, so the 'choice' for them was no choice at all, they either went subscription and that only works (like health care) if the majority of users are corralled into it, or they went bankrupt.



Careful there - not everyone who dislikes the subscription model had that misunderstanding. The truth is that I will not rent software. Ever. If Adobe goes to subscription-only I will switch to something else, including free if need be, or DPP. It is a non-starter on principle, and not because I am "uninformed".

Adobe's financial problems are their problems, not mine. That's how business works. If they've discovered that they can get more money out of people through subscriptions that's great for them, but I don't have to be a part of it.

Hell, over in another part of my life I use a program called PeriPedal to run my bicycle workouts instead of the much-more-popular TrainerRoad and Zwift because I will not pay $10/ month for mostly-static software.


----------



## daphins (Jul 3, 2017)

Khalai said:


> daphins said:
> 
> 
> > Lightroom is a tool that people use as part of their workflow in creating their own intellectual property. If you pay a subscription you have access to your work. If you quit paying a subscription, you lose access to years worth of your own IP.
> ...



LR yes, Photoshop, Illustrator, and AfterEffects no. The Adobe eco-sphere is bigger than just LR, and I have 0 faith that Adobe honors this with LR going forward.


----------



## daphins (Jul 3, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > daphins said:
> ...



As posted above, the Adobe Ecosphere is larger than LR. You do in fact lose access to your photoshop, illustrator, and AE files after CC expires. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to not be able to access a digital painting that you spent weeks working on? Or not being able to access SE's that you painstakingly put together? Have you ever had to dig up a render that you did for a client years ago, only to learn that you can't access the photoshop files that contain the entourage? I'm haven't misunderstood a damn thing, and I'm not stupid. I'm an artist who's work crosses multiple platforms and was held hostage by Adobe when they decided that they had the right to lock me out of my intellectual property.

****** them. Since they went to CC their programs haven't advanced. They do routine maintenance and rake in money. It was a one-sided deal where they company saw a benefit and the customer got a worse product. I have no misunderstandings about Adobe. They've treat LR as a slight outlier in how they handle legacy access to their files. They also said they'd continue to have a stand alone LR, which gets less likely with each passing month.

I refuse to rent software. My art and my work is my own. Adobes entirely relplaceable. LR 6 was my last and likely final Adobe purchase. I had the CS 6 master collection, and have moved on to non-Adobe products. Other People can pay for their service, and that's their prerogative. However, there are a TON of legitimate reasons NOT to pay their extortion fee's and move on to other software that don include "misunderstanding" or "pushing a narrative".


----------



## Khalai (Jul 3, 2017)

daphins said:


> As posted above, the Adobe Ecosphere is larger than LR. You do in fact lose access to your photoshop, illustrator, and AE files after CC expires. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to not be able to access a digital painting that you spent weeks working on? Or not being able to access SE's that you painstakingly put together? Have you ever had to dig up a render that you did for a client years ago, only to learn that you can't access the photoshop files that contain the entourage? I'm haven't misunderstood a damn thing, and I'm not stupid. I'm an artist who's work crosses multiple platforms and was held hostage by Adobe when they decided that they had the right to lock me out of my intellectual property.
> 
> ****** them. Since they went to CC their programs haven't advanced. They do routine maintenance and rake in money. It was a one-sided deal where they company saw a benefit and the customer got a worse product. I have no misunderstandings about Adobe. They've treat LR as a slight outlier in how they handle legacy access to their files. They also said they'd continue to have a stand alone LR, which gets less likely with each passing month.
> 
> I refuse to rent software. My art and my work is my own. Adobes entirely relplaceable. LR 6 was my last and likely final Adobe purchase. I had the CS 6 master collection, and have moved on to non-Adobe products. Other People can pay for their service, and that's their prerogative. However, there are a TON of legitimate reasons NOT to pay their extortion fee's and move on to other software that don include "misunderstanding" or "pushing a narrative".



As I stated earlier, I've begun to use Affinity Photo and Design. For their price (I paid 65 € for both) it's a no brainer. They can even open PSD/AI files, although full compatibility remains an issue for some effects or layers. For video, there is Da Vinci Resolve, for photos there is Capture One and others.

I like LR, I'm used to that workflow and catalogue options. But since I still have PS CS6 license, I don't need their Photography Plan for over a double price of a standalone LR licence. If they cease to offer LR as a standalone product, I'll simply have to look elsewhere for my future photograhy. It will be painful, but once the transition is done - farewell and good riddance...


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 3, 2017)

daphins said:


> LR yes, Photoshop, Illustrator, and AfterEffects no. The Adobe eco-sphere is bigger than just LR, and I have 0 faith that Adobe honors this with LR going forward.



The library module is a standalone unit on your computer and needs no input or support from Adobe. There is nothing to 'honour'. So you have plenty of scope for writing the metadata to the file and using that for another program. 
If you choose to stop CC subscription you would be pretty dumb to not do this so you can process all photos with your preferred alternative program.


----------



## SteveM (Jul 3, 2017)

I've used Photoshop for close to 15 years and it has made a major contribution to all the money I have made from photography. A brilliant product and still my first port of call for editing, though not my only option. However, were I new to photography with my first camera and first dip into digital editing I would not buy Adobe. The collective monthly 'drip' from my income is one I try to limit, so I would buy a perpetual licence of another product and there are a lot of very good Raw converters to choose from. And, as Adobe intelligently figured out, I doubt I would upgrading very often either as they are so good currently.
There are 2 exceptions that spring to mind, were I doing serious retouching and/or compositing then Adobe it would probably be. 
Adobe once had virtually all new photographers in their pocket immediately....no other really viable option. I'm not sure that is the case now, the mere presence of so many other Raw converters, and they are hanging around, suggests some/many? new photographers are going elsewhere. Those new to photography are surely those you want on board for your long term survival. They are not getting the slice they used to get.
My opinions, I'm sure there are those who have different opinions, I just think cameras and software are so good now it is getting close to pointless to upgrade. I could see a 6D mkll user for instance, happily using that camera for 10 years or until it fell apart in their hands. I've been on board since the first 3 or 4 mp compacts and have watched all the changes and they are arguably less important than they used to be.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 3, 2017)

Where Adobe really wins out is combining rights management and opportunity for batch processing. Other programs are making headway in many respects (Photomechanic, Breezebrowser) but precious few put it all one package.
I am getting increasingly frustrated with LRs getting bigger and slower but I guess I am not really Adobe's target audience.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Where Adobe really wins out is combining rights management and opportunity for batch processing. Other programs are making headway in many respects (Photomechanic, Breezebrowser) but precious few put it all one package.
> *I am getting increasingly frustrated with LRs getting bigger and slower *but I guess I am not really Adobe's target audience.



THIS!

This bothers me more than anything. No matter how fast my PC is (and believe me, overclocked six-core from Intel, 32 GB RAM, GTX 1070 and PCIe SSD are far from being slow), LR is sometimes slow, laggy and I can't fathom why...


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 3, 2017)

Khalai said:


> This bothers me more than anything. No matter how fast my PC is (and believe me, overclocked six-core from Intel, 32 GB RAM, GTX 1070 and PCIe SSD are far from being slow), LR is sometimes slow, laggy and I can't fathom why...



As I understand it, LR can only use 2 cores, so no matter how many you have it doesn't matter.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > This bothers me more than anything. No matter how fast my PC is (and believe me, overclocked six-core from Intel, 32 GB RAM, GTX 1070 and PCIe SSD are far from being slow), LR is sometimes slow, laggy and I can't fathom why...
> ...



Seriously? Adobe? There are affordable eight-core procesors available (Ryzen R7 1700 or Intel i7-7820K), and LR can't use more than two cores as of now? This only strengthens my argument why would even Adobe deserve more money than I already paid them. I am still willing to upgrade to another standalone version for another 75 €, but moving to CC means that I'll find either other software or use Adobe DNG Convertor and use older LR version with DNG files.

Dammit, this infuriates me more than it should. Imagine buying the newest Mac Pro with eighteen core Xeon for thousands of dollars, only to use a small fraction of that power output...

Do you have any sources nearby at hand about that two core usage maximum for Lightroom? Thanks in advance...

Nevermind, found it: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/

Seems like six and eight cores are optimal for good performance, any more than that and no significant difference can be perceived...



> 1.Lightoom does not work well with multiple physical CPUs. When exporting photos, you do see a benefit from having a second physical CPU, but the efficiency drops like a rock. In most other cases you simply do not get a benefit from having multiple physical CPUs and for some actions like creating HDR and panorama photos you may actually see a small (~5%) drop in performance. This isn't as bad as we have seen in other applications like Photoshop where saw a 30-50% drop in performance with multiple CPUs, but we can safely say that multiple-CPU configurations are not ideal for Lightroom.
> 
> 2.Lightroom has a mix of single, light, and heavily threaded components. The parallel efficiency of the actions we tested ranged from nonexistent, to moderate, to fairly good. This makes it very difficult to determine a single CPU that will give you the best overall performance in Lightroom.
> 
> ...



There is even quite recent test with brand new procesors such as Skylake-X, Kabylake-X or Ryzen:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Lightroom-CC-2015-10-1-CPU-Comparison-Skylake-X-Kaby-Lake-X-Broadwell-E-Skylake-Ryzen-7-973/


----------



## LDS (Jul 3, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Seriously? Adobe? There are affordable eight-core procesors available (Ryzen R7 1700 or Intel i7-7820K), and LR can't use more than two cores as of now?



Users have to understand that adding cores can't magically improve performance. More cores improve performance only of tasks that can be execute in parallel (or performing different tasks at the same time) - but the task needs to be rewritten for parallel execution, it can't happen "automagically".

Tasks that may execute in parallel needs to be "orchestrated", and that adds an overhead too. There could be other reasons that can lead to bottlenecks when many cores are used concurrently for the same task. Scaling across multiple cores may not be linear, and sometimes using less cores may lead to better performance.

If a task can't be parallelized, you need a faster CPU (and faster memory), not more cores. 

There may be other technical reasons. For example a lot of LR is still developed in Lua, a language and execution environment, that may not be able to exploit fully multicore capabilities. Adobe could switch to a different technology which could allow for better exploiting of multiple cores, but this would be a deep rewrite of the product. Hope we didn't see an LR7 yet because of that.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 3, 2017)

LDS said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously? Adobe? There are affordable eight-core procesors available (Ryzen R7 1700 or Intel i7-7820K), and LR can't use more than two cores as of now?
> ...



You are of course correct, I was a little in a "rant mode". I am of course full aware of Amdahl's law and problems linked to parallelization. No magic bullet. What actually infuriated me was the mention, that Lightroom utilizes only two cores. Which would be sad, given that Intel is providing affordable Core i7 processors since Sandy Bridge, which was really really really long time ago (IT-wise).

Fortunately, I found (and linked in my post) sources that LR is able to utilize as many as 6-8 without too much diminishing returns. See my post above with links to PugetSystems.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 3, 2017)

Thanks for posting the link, Khalai. It is certainly good to see that LR has advanced on the multi-core/CPU side. 

One other thing I have found after much digging is that using GPU acceleration can slow things down but for reasons I have been unable to fathom this is not consistent.


----------



## derekmccoy (Jul 3, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Probably not. They've stopped selling the standalone software so it's hardly in their interests to keep supporting it with updates for new cameras.
> 
> So, you have five options.
> 
> ...



Well there is a 6th option, but I'm not sure it can't be discussed here.


----------



## LDS (Jul 4, 2017)

Khalai said:


> Fortunately, I found (and linked in my post) sources that LR is able to utilize as many as 6-8 without too much diminishing returns. See my post above with links to PugetSystems.



That post exactly suggest that higher clock CPUs perform better - and it's no surprise. While task that can be performed in batch/parallel mode (i.e. import, export) can take advantage of more cores more easily.

I'm quite sure Adobe can't ignore the need to improve performance - when possible - through the exploitation of available CPU and GPU cores, but it may mean complex changes to the product, and the need to cope with more variables - i.e CPUs from 2 to 10 or more cores (I guess not every customer is using an i7 or equivalent), and different GPUs.

Set too strict requirements, and you may lose customers. Broaden them too much, and the product may require too many compromises. Move the product upmarket, and its price will increase.

There are many drivers, not all of them pure technical ones.


----------



## awair (Jul 4, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > I see that quite differently.
> ...


Just because others "see it differently” doesn't invalidate their opinion.

Your comparison is ”invalid”... on a couple of points:
If you don't consume gas, electricity, water etc, you don't pay. So it's not a subscription. Also these services are necessities, and may not have an option for outright purchase.

CC, on the other hand, sits on your computer and regardless as to whether you use it or not, is billed - a fixed cost, every month.

When it comes to choosing how to spend, whether for leisure, business or life, we all have different criteria as to whether something is "worth it".

I would reconsider my "last lifetime camera purchase" (6D2/5D4), if it meant paying $100+ per year for supporting software.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 4, 2017)

I'm curious why we're even having this discussion here.

The best place to ask about Adobe's intentions are on their own forums. 

https://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom

and of course, someone has already asked

https://forums.adobe.com/message/9419972#9419972


----------



## LDS (Jul 4, 2017)

awair said:


> If you don't consume gas, electricity, water etc, you don't pay. So it's not a subscription. Also these services are necessities, and may not have an option for outright purchase.



Actually, more and more utilities are moving to "flat" payments as well - it's better for them, it ensures a steady cash flow instead of those pesky seasonal variations... especially when users have little or no choice.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 4, 2017)

LDS said:


> awair said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't consume gas, electricity, water etc, you don't pay. So it's not a subscription. Also these services are necessities, and may not have an option for outright purchase.
> ...



Citation? 

A flat electric bill would encourage waste. Some utilities do have levelized payments, where there is a flat monthly payment; however, it's reconciled over time to cover exact usage. This makes auto-payment easier, but does not affect the annual cost per unit energy.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jul 4, 2017)

awair said:


> Your comparison is ”invalid”... on a couple of points:
> If you don't consume gas, electricity, water etc, you don't pay.



Well I've never had a zero bill. There's always some kind of 'service maintenance charge' for a minimum monthly payment.

This whole argument is ludicrous though. Adobe are a commercial company. Of course they want you to pay more! 

You either pay the Adobe tax or you go use something else. Complaining about it does nothing.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 5, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> awair said:
> 
> 
> > Your comparison is ”invalid”... on a couple of points:
> ...



We can always complain _and_ go use something else. I like LR as long as it's purchasable, but the moment it goes subscription-only is the time I'll be investigating other options.

What are these forums about if not for arguing about things that are, in the greater sense, completely meaningless?


----------

