# Where the Hell is LR6???



## ctrvs666 (Apr 6, 2015)

Anybody out there that knows? I hope it isn't subscription only.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 6, 2015)

ctrvs666 said:


> Anybody out there that knows? I hope it isn't subscription only.



Probably the software itself is finished they're still making up their minds about the licensing model. From what I've seen 'round the net, almost all modern people are in favor of the cheap subscription model and consider "purchasing" a piece of software obsolete.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 6, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> almost all modern people are in favor of the cheap subscription model and consider "purchasing" a piece of software obsolete.



In this one regard, I proudly proclaim myself "pre-modern!" Buy once, use forever.


----------



## lintoni (Apr 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > almost all modern people are in favor of the cheap subscription model and consider "purchasing" a piece of software obsolete.
> ...


Totally agree, no way that I'd be using a Cloud based editor/developer - my internet access is via a 3G tablet.


----------



## Wick (Apr 6, 2015)

In this one regard, I proudly proclaim myself "pre-modern!" Buy once, use forever.
[/quote]

Except, of course. you can't. i don't think you're using Lightroom 1. To keep up with new cameras and new capabilities you have to upgrade. And that costs at least as much as the $9.95 deal photographers get on two software packages. You really can't use a piece of software forever.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 6, 2015)

Wick said:


> > In this one regard, I proudly proclaim myself "pre-modern!" Buy once, use forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course. you can't. i don't think you're using Lightroom 1. To keep up with new cameras and new capabilities you have to upgrade. And that costs at least as much as the $9.95 deal photographers get on two software packages. You really can't use a piece of software forever.



I doubt anyone really believes the contrary. Of course, the DNG converter does extend the life of an older version of the software. It's an issue of having control of my budget and my devices: if I have an old camera and don't need anything more than LR4 (as I currently have) I can keep it as long as I like. At some point I'll outgrow it and decide whether to buy LR6 or some new product that has become available.

With a subscription I'm paying for current use, but I'm also pre-paying for features that may be introduced later. With a purchase model, I can pay for the existing features I want. I'm not claiming it's double payment, but it can force me to pay for features I don't want/need. A simpler way to say it is that it's a constant stream of revenue for Adobe, but not a constant stream of incrementally-improved benefit to me. Lastly, the argument that the subscription is such a good deal (so long as they don't increase the price) is really an argument that previous versions were drastically overpriced.


----------



## Jan (Apr 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> I doubt anyone really believes the contrary. Of course, the DNG converter does extend the life of an older version of the software. It's an issue of having control of my budget and my devices: if I have an old camera and don't need anything more than LR4 (as I currently have) I can keep it as long as I like. At some point I'll outgrow it and decide whether to buy LR6 or some new product that has become available.
> 
> With a subscription I'm paying for current use, but I'm also pre-paying for features that may be introduced later. With a purchase model, I can pay for the existing features I want. I'm not claiming it's double payment, but it can force me to pay for features I don't want/need. A simpler way to say it is that it's a constant stream of revenue for Adobe, but not a constant stream of incrementally-improved benefit to me. Lastly, the argument that the subscription is such a good deal (so long as they don't increase the price) is really an argument that previous versions were drastically overpriced.


Exactly my thoughts. I own my 400D now since 2006 and I'm still feeling confident using it although I consider grading up to the 760D. I'm not the type of person that needs a new DSLR every year so I won't need a new LR every year either. Or rather I can decide myself at what point a need a new LR.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 6, 2015)

A person connected to the Adobe-verse has stated his opinion (not as fact) that there will be a standalone option. He could be wrong, but he has in the past been one of the zillion people in the credits.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 6, 2015)

.
Yes, WHERE is LR6?

Apparently, no one here knows.

I'd like to try it; hoping for some improvements over what is already a superb program.


----------



## bitm2007 (Apr 6, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> Yes, WHERE is LR6?
> 
> Apparently, no one here knows.
> ...



Adobe maintains a policy of not announcing release dates in advance. Anyone who knows is prohibited by nondisclosure agreements to say anything, and anything else is pure conjecture. Adobe did however state on January 21st that they "are hard at work on the next major release of Lightroom".


----------



## Click (Apr 6, 2015)

lintoni said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



+1 Same here.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 6, 2015)

What's the hurry?


----------



## Frodo (Apr 6, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> ctrvs666 said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody out there that knows? I hope it isn't subscription only.
> ...



I tire of people like Marsu hijacking threads and pushing their views. And suggesting that if you do not like the subscription model you are not "modern".

I'm looking forward to LR6, having owned the program since pre-LR1 days ("Rawshooter"), especially the HDR function.


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 6, 2015)

Wick said:


> Except, of course. you can't. i don't think you're using Lightroom 1. To keep up with new cameras and new capabilities you have to upgrade. And that costs at least as much as the $9.95 deal photographers get on two software packages. You really can't use a piece of software forever.



No, but you can use it long enough that it's cost effective to buy instead of rent software. 

I've been using LR4 since I picked it up on a slickdeal around $79 April of 2012. Had I been paying for $10/month for CC I'd be at $360 currently. I don't use photoshop so how is this "modern" subscription based method better to me as a consumer? 

LR5 didn't have enough features I deemed worthy of my $$ to upgrade. LR6 has promise with HDR/Pano so I may make the jump. If LR6 is subscription only I will find new software to edit in. I'm guessing there are lots of others in a similar situation.

Edit: Multiquote failed.


----------



## bitm2007 (Apr 6, 2015)

> I'm looking forward to LR6, having owned the program since pre-LR1 days ("Rawshooter"), especially the HDR function.



Assuming there is an HDR function. It's been mentioned in numerous rumors, but the release dates stated were incorrect, so what's to say that the spec is correct ?.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 6, 2015)

lintoni said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



FWIW, it isn't a cloud-based editor like Google Docs (or whatever they're calling it now).

Lightroom must still be installed directly on your computer. It merely communicates monthly to verify the license is current. You can sync data, but it isn't mandatory.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > almost all modern people are in favor of the cheap subscription model and consider "purchasing" a piece of software obsolete.
> ...


Some like leasing a car for years and stay with the newest models. Forbid something happens and they can't pay the lease and now, don't have a car and all that money wasted.


----------



## lintoni (Apr 6, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


Thanks for clarifying that for me. 
Still not interested!


----------



## RGF (Apr 6, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > almost all modern people are in favor of the cheap subscription model and consider "purchasing" a piece of software obsolete.
> ...



really. Version 1 of every software package. Are you running DOS? CP/M?

$10 a month for a license, which you run on your computer, can readily move to a new computer, supports your new cameras, allows you to switch platforms (PC <-> Mac), has new features, only needs to connect to the web every 30 days to renew you license, after that you can disconnect from the web for another 29 days.


----------



## RGF (Apr 6, 2015)

Frodo said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ctrvs666 said:
> ...



Another raw shooter. +1 agree.


----------



## bluemoon (Apr 6, 2015)

lintoni said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > lintoni said:
> ...



my understanding is that if the license expires, you still have the functionality of viewing and exporting all your files, you just can't edit them any more. 
This was the primary concern for most (being locked out of their files when the license expires), so Adobe has done a good job of addressing the issues. 
Also, in case you travel and don't have internet access, full suite will work up to six months without talking to adobe and verifying. 'not sure if the PS/LR package is the same, but I would guess it is. . .

pierre

pierre


----------



## TAW (Apr 6, 2015)

Most of the time I wait to upgrade but I have a huge project from my son's 5th grade class that involves over 10k photos (not just my photos - everyone's photos - 30 kids & 45 parents) over a three week period. His school is a full immersion school (English speaking kids being taught in Spanish since age 3) and the last year (5th grade), they travel to a Spanish speaking country (Merida, Mexico in the case of his class) and live with another family with a similar aged child as well as attend the local school. It is really cool, true immersion... Then they take a week plus and go on cultural trips with their parents... I have a book about 75% finished but filling the holes has proven challenging and facial recognition would be a HUGE help! I've got to get all the kids, parents... Hopefully facial recognition is in LR6 and they release in the next few weeks otherwise I am going to be spending a lot of time looking through pictures! :-[


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 7, 2015)

bluemoon said:


> my understanding is that if the license expires, you still have the functionality of viewing and exporting all your files, you just can't edit them any more.
> This was the primary concern for most (being locked out of their files when the license expires), so Adobe has done a good job of addressing the issues.
> Also, in case you travel and don't have internet access, full suite will work up to six months without talking to adobe and verifying. 'not sure if the PS/LR package is the same, but I would guess it is. . .



I can get LR6 (when it comes out) for $80. That's 10 months of license fees, which will last me at least 2, possibly 3 years. I have PS6, which is more than I need for the foreseeable future. Cloud is not cost-effective for my needs. For true pros I can see that it makes sense: just as you'd have studio rental, regular equipment replacement and/or insurance costs, advertizing costs, $10/month is nothing and (in the US) you can write it off as a business expense. For me, $10/month means unnecessary money out of my hobby account.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> I can get LR6 (when it comes out) for $80.



Are you sure about that? I haven't seen anything official that the previous pricing structure will stay in effect. I don't doubt it, just haven't seen it.

I bit the bullet recently and signed up for CC. I like the ability to use LR on both my mac and my windows box with only one license. But if I don't like it, I'll just re-activate my standalone LR5 license and revert to to photoshop CS2. 120 bucks is in the noise relative to other photography costs, so if it is a failed experiment, no big deal.


----------



## pwp (Apr 7, 2015)

Where is LR6? Look up...it's in the cloud.

-pw


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 7, 2015)

Frodo said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ctrvs666 said:
> ...



Hijacking a "Where the Hell is LR6???" thread is hardly possible, it's the nth thread with the very same subject and spam by default, plus the op mentioned the licensing model himself. 

In any case, I'm not trying to push my view, just stating the obvious truth that subscription is the future for smart people :->


----------



## lintoni (Apr 7, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


Hey Marsu, you're not still running a 32bit machine, are you?

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


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> I can get LR6 (when it comes out) for $80. That's 10 months of license fees, which will last me at least 2, possibly 3 years. I have PS6, which is more than I need for the foreseeable future. Cloud is not cost-effective for my needs. For true pros I can see that it makes sense: just as you'd have studio rental, regular equipment replacement and/or insurance costs, advertizing costs, $10/month is nothing and (in the US) you can write it off as a business expense. For me, $10/month means unnecessary money out of my hobby account.



That's how I feel also. I am not a pro and I don't use LR every day. I am in the middle of a move and I have not used LR in about 3 months. That's how it is when photography is a hobby. A hobby is always at the bottom of the priority list. 

But, I simply don't understand some people's position that only one option is acceptable.

If you like the monthly plan, use it
If you like the purchase plan, use it

I am just glad that so far the customer still have the choice.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 7, 2015)

lintoni said:


> Hey Marsu, you're not still running a 32bit machine, are you?



Nope, even my good ol' laptop has 4gb memory so an x64 os is beneficial (even though it was not installed by the manufacturer). I guess the only systems running x86 and rightly so are tablets and embedded windows devices.

Did you note: Even Firefox is now officially available as x64 (beta channel), who would have thought!


----------



## lintoni (Apr 7, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Marsu, you're not still running a 32bit machine, are you?
> ...


Good news about Firefox...official general release due this year, at last!


----------



## Zv (Apr 7, 2015)

RGF said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



+1 my thoughts exactly. Of course it's not suitable for everyone and that's why they'll probably still have the perpetual license. Money is money and Adobe will take it from er .... Both ends! (Sorry!)


----------



## Wick (Apr 7, 2015)

Zv said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



I can easily understand the pre-modern position, however you never really own software technically. You only own a license. In that sense you are renting the software whether for a one time price, or over time. I have found many of the new features well worth the price. The lens correction, wide angle adaptation, ACR as a filter, Smart Objects and others I can't think of right off, have become part of my daily workflow. I wouldn't want to go back to versions without them. I understand that others don't agree.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 7, 2015)

Wick said:


> I can easily understand the pre-modern position, however you never really own software technically. You only own a license. In that sense you are renting the software whether for a one time price, or over time.



This is been fought in the courts in the EU and the consumers won - you *do* actually own the software and can sell it on just like a piece of furniture. Microsoft et al were outraged, but there you are.

Still, it probably doesn't make that much of a difference since since newer os versions are made be be incompatible with older apps, i.e. "planned obsolescence". And in any case most folks want the shiniest version of Word like 2013 and cannot imagine tying with 2007, we know this effect from dslrs like Rebels.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 7, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Wick said:
> 
> 
> > I can easily understand the pre-modern position, however you never really own software technically. You only own a license. In that sense you are renting the software whether for a one time price, or over time.
> ...



It has also been fought in the US courts, and Autodesk won: you can't re-sell it like a piece of furniture.

Even if you can re-sell it (Adobe specifically allows it for non-educational seats), you don't own it, as you have to use it within the scope of the license agreement. If you owned the software, you could install it on as many machines as you wanted to. 

For the purposes of discussing perpetual vs expiring licenses, though, the distinction matters little.


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 8, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> In any case, I'm not trying to push my view, just stating the obvious truth that subscription is the future for smart people :->



Well, I guess I'll continue to let you "smart people" spend their money this way. There is nothing smart about wasting money by needlessly tossing it at Adobe… It's an obvious truth that subscription is not the future for smart people that don't need Photoshop.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 8, 2015)

Fatalv said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, I'm not trying to push my view, just stating the obvious truth that subscription is the future for smart people :->
> ...


Marsu has a sense of humor, don't take the "smart people" comment literally. Smart people are aware that even smart people are predictably irrational, and so what may seem like a good deal (subscription) doesn't always sustain when you do the arithmetic of a perpetual license with skipped versions. E.g. I went from CS3 to CS6, skipping 4 and 5 entirely, saving a lot of money.

To repeat (yet again) what I've said before: for pros who use these products regularly to make a living it probably does make sense to have the newest/best of everything. The subscription model is mostly a jab at amateurs and semi-pros.


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 8, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



I'm agreeing with you. As per my first post I'm in your shoes having picked up LR4 for $79 and been happily using it since


----------



## fcc56 (Apr 8, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Probably the software itself is finished they're still making up their minds about the licensing model. From what I've seen 'round the net, almost all modern people are in favor of the cheap subscription model and consider "purchasing" a piece of software obsolete.



Perhaps this should really be "all post-modern people"? Although, in a recent essay I haven't yet read, Fredric Jameson apparently suggests that with the advent of the notion of the "singularity", the post-modern may now be obsolete.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Marsu has a sense of humor, don't take the "smart people" comment literally.



Thanks for recognizing  ... as I've worked as a programmer in the past I have some insight into the software business and have made several real and elaborate posts about this matter previously. Point is, it's not as easy as it seems as development and licensing model are interconnected (example: rolling release or "wait for the next big features that'll make you pay for an upgrade").

I'm just amazed that in each LR6 thread ppl don't really seem to care about the software itself but the matter quickly degenerates to dynamic range dribble so I cannot help but to troll a little by now 



fcc56 said:


> Perhaps this should really be "all post-modern people"?



Afaik at least in architecture, we're at the state of post-post-post modern by now :->


----------

