# direct link to ADOBE 6.13 perpetual lic



## TommyLee (Oct 26, 2017)

Here is a direct link to the downloadable installer for the 6.13 update: 
http://swupdl.adobe.com/updates/oobe/aam20/win/AdobeLightroom-6.0/6.13/setup.zip

but
be careful...I think.. they installed - without my permission ... a trial 
(extended the trial period...for their own reasons) 
that's one of the many reasons I dont like having their backdoor on MY computer...

when I went to see if an update was avail.. it ALMOST got me to let it push me into the cloud...it seemed..
and would change/wipe something..

I am not sure because I hit cancel.. then I found the abouve link on FredMiranda forum.. and I downloaded it/expanded... and it installed 6.13....

it felt like I was being tricked the WHOLE WAY.. until I downloaded and installed from someone else's link here / above

I thought it might help someone who was a little unsure/confused like me..

the NEXT UPGRADE to this will be ? NUTTIN' ? .....Luminar Sky-something? / fill in your choice...
Lightroom based on a program they purchased a long while ago .. is a good program.. it did all I need 
...once a week as a hobbist photo guy..
but
Adobe has driven me off with pitchforks ... is how I feel.

your opinion/mileage may vary

good luck...this forum is a wonderful place
thanks for that help I get .... all you helpful folks...
and thanks to Fred Miranda poster 'Vcook' for the link


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 27, 2017)

No one is driving you off, you can keep using the software until a new OS refuses to run it any longer. 

Unfortunately, the alternatives tend to be more expensive than the Adobe Photographer Plan, and you will have to purchase multiple pieces of software from different parties and hope they will not conflict with each other too badly. They too stop updating versions every year or two and require that you buy a update if you want upgrades to new cameras or new features. You can't win. 

In your case, consider Photoshop Elements, it may be just what you need as a infrequent user. Its missing a DAM, but then so are all the others.


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 29, 2017)

it seems my feeling of being nearly 'tricked' .. into a cloud version 
...were a true sense of what they were about to do ... as reported here:
... accidentally on purpose .. 
https://petapixel.com/2017/10/26/adobe-updater-deletes-lightroom-6-heres-get-back/

just sayin'.... I could see this about to happen

....
for me...
this behavior and their un-support for the perpetual lic... 
really does tend to ... drive me off

oops - I did it again... behavior I M O

ELEMENTS is not enough for me...
I need better software/control than that...


----------



## Talys (Oct 29, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> They too stop updating versions every year or two and require that you buy a update if you want upgrades to new cameras or new features. You can't win.



Well, everyone's gotta eat


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 29, 2017)

Talys said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > They too stop updating versions every year or two and require that you buy a update if you want upgrades to new cameras or new features. You can't win.
> ...



but over-eating is epidemic ... small, quality portions are the answer


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 29, 2017)

TommyLee said:


> it seems my feeling of being nearly 'tricked' .. into a cloud version
> ...were a true sense of what they were about to do ... as reported here:
> ... accidentally on purpose ..
> https://petapixel.com/2017/10/26/adobe-updater-deletes-lightroom-6-heres-get-back/
> ...



Many use the batch conversion feature in DPP to convert a entire folder of imported CR2 files into TIFF files which edit just like a RAW file in Lightroom. They may be stripped of the propritary Canon Extensions, but only DPP reads those anyway. The original CR2 is still untouched and can be archived.

If you like DNG, it also is a TIFF file, but includes Adobe extensions and can be compressed. I don't use it because of the side cars generated.

CR2 files are basically TIFF files that have a large number of propritary Canon flags added, and then are compressed using lossless compression. A jpeg at reduced size is also included in the compressed wrapper.


----------



## Talys (Oct 29, 2017)

TommyLee said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Adobe is an American company. Have you seen the size of a meal at a US Olive Garden?


----------



## Joules (Oct 29, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Many use the batch conversion feature in DPP to convert a entire folder of imported CR2 files into TIFF files which edit just like a RAW file in Lightroom.


Are you sure of that?

Maybe DPP handles TIFF in some weird way, but a TIFF that is exported from a CR2 by Lightroom CCC as uncompressed 16 bit TIFF and than imported again definitively doesn't edit just like it's original. What data was clipped on the histogram at the time of exporting is lost in the TIFF and can't be brought back. Does DPP do something different here, or am I missing something?


----------



## LDS (Oct 30, 2017)

Joules said:


> Are you sure of that?
> 
> Maybe DPP handles TIFF in some weird way, but a TIFF that is exported from a CR2 by Lightroom CCC as uncompressed 16 bit TIFF and than imported again definitively doesn't edit just like it's original. What data was clipped on the histogram at the time of exporting is lost in the TIFF and can't be brought back. Does DPP do something different here, or am I missing something?



Anytime you undergo through a transformation you may lose something, depending on the target format characteristics and algorithm used. For example, what color space did you use while exporting TIFFs? RAWs have their own gamut, and LR will map it into its own internal modified ProPhoto RGB colors space, which is quite large. When you export RAWs to TIFFs for editing, I'd choose a color space large enough to minimize losses, which could be amplified by editing.

I'd use sRGB and AdobeRGB only as final output spaces, depending on what they will be used for (screen display or printing).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 30, 2017)

Joules said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Many use the batch conversion feature in DPP to convert a entire folder of imported CR2 files into TIFF files which edit just like a RAW file in Lightroom.
> ...



I've never heard of files being exported from DPP as having a issue. Exporting Files from Lightroom depends a lot on your settings and edits you may have made. DPP Merely uncompresses the cr2 file does its demosaicing process and outputs a tiff file. I'm not sure if you can automatically apply any other changes during the batch process. 

I've used the batch conversion only a few times on occasions where I was among the first to receive a new model and Adobe did not yet support it. 

Try it and see. I think its a slow cumbersome process, but you only do it once as part of your image processing workflow. It might be possible to do it automatically if you can find the command for DPP.


----------



## Joules (Oct 30, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've never heard of files being exported from DPP as having a issue.


It's not that they have issues, but as I understand the TIFF format it isn't similar enough to CR2 to be used for editing in a similar way. A TIFF doesn't store as much information as a RAW file because it clips data beyond the black and white point. And DPP's conversion feature seems to apply quite heavy editing (Probably the pciture style the image was taken with?) from what I can see.

I did the test myself. I selected a picture I took recently in DPP4 and used file -> convert and save and used TIFF 16bit as the file type. The other settings I left on default to imitate the batch conversion settings. Then I loaded this TIFF and the original CR2 into LR CCC and took three screenshots of three different edits:

a) Normal - No edits, just default Lightroom settings
b) Plus2 - Exposure pushed by 2 stops
c) Minus2 - Exposure pulled by 2 stops

In my eyes, the TIFF behaves very different from the RAW. More different even than the TIFF I exported from Lightroom, since that didn't have the picture style applied.

But I might misunderstand the TIFF format or the settings to be made. If so, let me know, as I often get frustrated with Photoshop when opening my files from LR into PS, since that uses TIFF files internally and Smart Objects miss many helpfull features like auto align layers.

Edit: By the way, the image is part of a sequence of bracketed shots that I wanted to merge to an HDR. That's why it looks so terribly exposed.


----------



## LDS (Oct 31, 2017)

Joules said:


> I did the test myself. I selected a picture I took recently in DPP4 and used file -> convert and save and used TIFF 16bit as the file type. The other settings I left on default to imitate the batch conversion settings.



What were the defaults? You can set a picture style in DPP, and I would use Neutral or Faithful, or you'll see probably different colors compared to the LR demosaicing process and Adobe Standard camera profile.

Also, as said, the output color space mattes, if your default is sRGB colors may change slightly depending on the rendering intent.

I tried with a sample image (unprocessed in DPP, picture style Neutral, working color space Wide Gamut RGB) and the TIFF and LR image are slightly different, but not as much as yours. The TIFF is a little darker and has more contrast, it has better tonal ranges in highlights (an overcast sky), but less in deep shadows. The LR images is better in the shadows, but the sky is more uniform. The histograms are similar, but with some clearly visible differences.


----------



## Joules (Oct 31, 2017)

LDS said:


> Joules said:
> 
> 
> > I did the test myself. I selected a picture I took recently in DPP4 and used file -> convert and save and used TIFF 16bit as the file type. The other settings I left on default to imitate the batch conversion settings.
> ...


Good point. I don't use DPP usually, so thanks for pointing out those settings.

With those same settings applied, the two files look much closer when imported into LR and viewed side by side with the default settings. They also behave more alike, but the TIFF is still not as flexible as the RAW. It offers no way to bring back what's beyond the clipping points. And that's mostly why I'm shooting RAW.

But I'm not needing it anyway, i just jumped into the conversation because I got a little frustrated with the TIFF vs Smartobject affair when using Photoshop recently.


----------



## LDS (Oct 31, 2017)

Joules said:


> Good point. I don't use DPP usually, so thanks for pointing out those settings.



Did you also embedded the color profile into the TIFF (there's an option in the export dialog)? LR interprets images without a profile as sRGB, and doesn't allow to set another one.



Joules said:


> They also behave more alike, but the TIFF is still not as flexible as the RAW. It offers no way to bring back what's beyond the clipping points. And that's mostly why I'm shooting RAW.



16bit TIFFs allows for a lot of levels, but that depends on what the demosaicing and export process put into the TIFF.



Joules said:


> But I'm not needing it anyway, i just jumped into the conversation because I got a little frustrated with the TIFF vs Smartobject affair when using Photoshop recently.



IIRC LR can also use PSD files to edit in Photoshop, although I don't how much it would differ from using a TIFF - the good thing about smartobjects is they retain the non-destructive editing capabilities of LR/ACR.

Still exporting a TIFF from LR will yield a slightly different result than DPP, their processing pipelines are still somewhat different. You can still open RAWs directly in PS trhough ACR - it will read LR edits if they have been saved in a sidecar file.


----------

