# Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming This Week?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 20, 2015)

```
It looks like we’ll see Adobe Lightroom 6 this week, most likely tomorrow if the speculation is correct.</p>
<p>From Scott Kelby</p>
<blockquote><p>OK, for us, things don’t get much bigger than this — now, unfortunately I can’t tell you actually what it is that’s coming Tuesday, but it’s SO BIG that we’re doing <strong>FOUR</strong> free live Webcasts on Tuesday and you’re invited (if you’re a photographer, you’re going to want to be there to see and talk about this big secret thingy).</p></blockquote>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://scottkelby.com/2015/something-really-big-is-coming-tuesday-for-photographers-and-were-all-over-it/" target="_blank">Scott Kelby</a>]</p>
```


----------



## zim (Apr 20, 2015)

Really? a big secret thingy! wow, not trying to DRive interweb footfall in any way


----------



## cayenne (Apr 20, 2015)

Hey, the main thing to me is...KEEP IT AVAILABLE as a *stand alone licensed product*...not CC only.<P>
I just am not ready yet (if ever) to *rent* my software.


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 20, 2015)

Very much looking forward to big performance improvements from GPU acceleration. Finally we may have a LR that can really take advantage of things like the MacPro


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 20, 2015)

cayenne said:


> Hey, the main thing to me is...KEEP IT AVAILABLE as a *stand alone licensed product*...not CC only.<P>
> I just am not ready yet (if ever) to *rent* my software.



Pretty sure Adobe has already made their decision--but I feel the same as you.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 20, 2015)

cayenne said:


> Hey, the main thing to me is...KEEP IT AVAILABLE as a *stand alone licensed product*...not CC only.<P>
> I just am not ready yet (if ever) to *rent* my software.



While I agree, I don't think that every Light Room discussion needs to rehash this. We have had several threads discussing this and I feel we have covered the opinions of both sides of the argument. 

Let's talk about the software and what it does instead of how we will pay for it.


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 20, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, the main thing to me is...KEEP IT AVAILABLE as a *stand alone licensed product*...not CC only.<P>
> ...



Ok, but in fact I will NOT pay for it if it is a software rental. If that is the case, and this "big announcement" broadcast hoo-ha is going to be Kelby spinning and shilling it, with a big smile and a tub of petroleum jelly, I lose respect for Kelby too.


----------



## m (Apr 20, 2015)

It took them long enough.

I hope it won't be too expensive given the big fuzz they are making about it.


----------



## dhr90 (Apr 20, 2015)

Good timing, I've just bought a laptop and was considering an upgrade to lightroom 5...


----------



## Zv (Apr 20, 2015)

Sure Kelby, whatever.

Was there this much faffin' about with previous versions of lightroom? I had my hopes up the last time we heard similar rumors and nothing happened. 

I bet they bring it out when I'm on my vacation and I'll get back to CR and it will be old news by then and everyone will be bored of it! ;D


----------



## VeloDramatic (Apr 20, 2015)

New functionality is always welcome but if LR6 doesn't seriously address the performance issue with accelerated processing/rendering, I'll be disappointed. My file volume gets bigger while client turnaround time gets smaller. LR needs to help... in fact that was its raison d'etre. I hope the GPU rumors prove accurate.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 20, 2015)

I need EOS-M3 raw support to be included. It is not even in the DNG converter as of yet (v.8.8).


----------



## distant.star (Apr 20, 2015)

VeloDramatic said:


> New functionality is always welcome but if LR6 doesn't seriously address the performance issue with accelerated processing/rendering, I'll be disappointed. My file volume gets bigger while client turnaround time gets smaller. LR needs to help... in fact that was its raison d'etre. I hope the GPU rumors prove accurate.



I agree. I just got a new computer, and I got a decent video card solely in anticipation of this.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 20, 2015)

distant.star said:


> VeloDramatic said:
> 
> 
> > New functionality is always welcome but if LR6 doesn't seriously address the performance issue with accelerated processing/rendering, I'll be disappointed. My file volume gets bigger while client turnaround time gets smaller. LR needs to help... in fact that was its raison d'etre. I hope the GPU rumors prove accurate.
> ...



Funny, I didn't know I was configured to use this in Photoshop until one day when my GPU got de-configured and Liquify was a total pig. It will be great if LR takes advantage of it.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 20, 2015)

http://photorumors.com/2015/04/20/adobe-lightroom-cc-to-be-announced-tomorrow/

no idea, if it's true. But if it is CC / pay every month cloud only, that will be it for me. I'd then move my RAW stuff over to Capture One.


----------



## K (Apr 20, 2015)

LR6 desperately needs GPU acceleration.

I run the latest generation Intel i7 cpu and it gets sluggish at times. That is unacceptable on cutting edge hardware. This is RAW photo editing, not intensive 3D applications.

DXO on the other hand runs much faster - but I dislike their interface. DXO is useful for their advanced distortion correction tools and noise reduction. The rest of that software is mediocre at best.


It was rumored there would be GPU support. If so, that alone will be worth it.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 20, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> http://photorumors.com/2015/04/20/adobe-lightroom-cc-to-be-announced-tomorrow/
> 
> no idea, if it's true. But if it is CC / pay every month cloud only, that will be it for me. I'd then move my RAW stuff over to Capture One.



I'm not a fan of "rented software", but let me explain some things about CC.

First, the PS/LR bundle is $9.99 a month or $119.88 a year. That's right, you can pay for a whole year at a time, not once a month.

Second, Adobe's branding is seriously misleading. It's not cloud software, it's local software. It's installed locally, run locally, and you don't need a web connection to run it. In fact, there are even ways to do CC on stations that have no web connection, though this requires some special stuff. It's only "cloud software" in the sense that it's updated frequently and that it calls home to verify licensing at defined intervals.

For people who use PS, it's a great deal - it's much cheaper than PS was alone if you upgraded every version.

For people who use only LR, it's really only a 2x rip-off compared to perpetual licensing upgrades if you do them all, and about the same as LR upgrades cost before LR's price was cut in half.


----------



## t.linn (Apr 20, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > http://photorumors.com/2015/04/20/adobe-lightroom-cc-to-be-announced-tomorrow/
> ...



You're right of course but I think the true objection to "rentalware" is that Adobe has you on the hook FOREVER.


----------



## t.linn (Apr 20, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, the main thing to me is...KEEP IT AVAILABLE as a *stand alone licensed product*...not CC only.<P>
> ...



I appreciate the fact that this issue has been discussed to death but it is still a relevant topic when a new version is announced and there is some ambiguity about the form in which it can be purchased. I'm not going to get too excited about discussing any new features until I know it will be available as a stand alone purchase.


----------



## grainier (Apr 20, 2015)

CC? Did not Adobe swear that LR will be kept standalone? Whatever. I switched to DPP and never looked back.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 20, 2015)

grainier said:


> CC? Did not Adobe swear that LR will be kept standalone? Whatever. I switched to DPP and never looked back.



Are there means to batch update and work efficiently on large numbers of photos in DPP? Admittedly I have not used it in years...


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 20, 2015)

Jamesy said:


> grainier said:
> 
> 
> > CC? Did not Adobe swear that LR will be kept standalone? Whatever. I switched to DPP and never looked back.
> ...



Curious about this as well. I vaguely remember using DPP before ACR for the 5DMK3 was out and thinking how painful editing something as large as wedding would be in DPP… If it's gotten better I might need to take it out for a spin again


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 20, 2015)

grainier said:


> CC? Did not Adobe swear that LR will be kept standalone? Whatever. I switched to DPP and never looked back.



LR 5 is available in perpetual as well as CC licensing. The promise was that perpetual would be available (not solely) "indefinitely".


----------



## keriboi (Apr 20, 2015)

Im already on the yearly photoshop/lightroom plan.
Will I get a free upgrade? how does it work?


----------



## Bruce Photography (Apr 20, 2015)

Jamesy said:


> I need EOS-M3 raw support to be included. It is not even in the DNG converter as of yet (v.8.8).



I thought when we started to pay for software by the month for CC and Lightroom, we'd see more timely camera raw updates for new cameras. I'm waiting for the D7200 (I know this is a Canon forum so thank you in advance for sharing). This issue of always having to wait for camera raw support for Canon and Nikon is getting tiresome. Can we postpone our monthly payments???? NO. Since sensors are so similar in pixel counts the Camera Raw update for a specific camera could be done from Adobe Labs much quicker than the main release with all the nifty fixes and features. I'm suggesting incremental releases between the main release that would be for just new cameras such as the M3 but since we are paying Monthly I expect Monthly updates just for new cameras to Camera Raw (no other fixes that might destabilize the release). The final release of Camera Raw could still be done on a 3 month schedule with the normal Beta releases for testing from Adobe Labs.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 20, 2015)

t.linn said:


> You're right of course but I think the true objection to "rentalware" is that Adobe has you on the hook FOREVER.



Well, something has changed recently on that front as well.

Most of LR is now free. That's right...

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

"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. The Develop and Map modules have been disabled in order to signal the end of the membership and the need to renew in order to receive Adobe’s continuous innovation in those areas."

So, not paying doesn't mean losing access, just losing ability to do new development work and geotagging.


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 20, 2015)

+1 I started with LR 3, then 4, now 5. I have Photoshop CC. With upgrading each year in LR I was already spending $80, plus my monthly fee for PS. What's nice about CC is that I can install all my software on 2 machines. I have PS on my MacPro at home and a Window 7 machine at my office. Everything is locally installed and run. 

Sure, I'd rather a standalone LR product, but it's not the way Adobe is going. Every business would prefer constant cash flow. This is the way to do it so they have a more fiscally stable company that can continue to produce bad-ass software. Think how many people out there buy ONE edition of PS or LR and then sit on it for years and years.... 

PS was over $600 to purchase, so I was running a 10 year old copy until CC!!! That was 10 years of me running on old tech and 10 years of Adobe not getting my money. Now Adobe is happy and i'm happy. I know it's not for everyone, but vote with your wallet and fire them if you'd prefer something else.

;D



Lee Jay said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > http://photorumors.com/2015/04/20/adobe-lightroom-cc-to-be-announced-tomorrow/
> ...


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 20, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> +1 I started with LR 3, then 4, now 5. I have Photoshop CC. With upgrading each year in LR I was already spending $80, plus my monthly fee for PS. What's nice about CC is that I can install all my software on 2 machines.



The LR perpetual license allows you to install it on two machines - a desktop and a laptop. Since many use laptops as desktops now, I suppose that's allowed too.


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 20, 2015)

Canon and Nikon don't just hand those specs over to Adobe the day they come out, ya know? Believe me, they put them out as fast as they can figure out what the hell they are.



Bruce Photography said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > I need EOS-M3 raw support to be included. It is not even in the DNG converter as of yet (v.8.8).
> ...


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 20, 2015)

I've got it on two different OS desktops. I dont think they distinguish



Lee Jay said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > +1 I started with LR 3, then 4, now 5. I have Photoshop CC. With upgrading each year in LR I was already spending $80, plus my monthly fee for PS. What's nice about CC is that I can install all my software on 2 machines.
> ...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Apr 20, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> I'd then move my RAW stuff over to Capture One.



Yeah - like Phase One isn't going to move to the same subscription model:
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Online-Store/PurchaseDetailsPage.aspx


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Apr 20, 2015)

t.linn said:


> You're right of course but I think the true objection to "rentalware" is that Adobe has you on the hook FOREVER.



If you like their software, that's _every bit as true_ of the non CC model.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 20, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > +1 I started with LR 3, then 4, now 5. I have Photoshop CC. With upgrading each year in LR I was already spending $80, plus my monthly fee for PS. What's nice about CC is that I can install all my software on 2 machines.
> ...



However, if you run Windows and OSX, you need two perpetual licenses. CC allows cross-platform with the single license.


----------



## davidcarlyon (Apr 20, 2015)

keriboi said:


> Im already on the yearly photoshop/lightroom plan.
> Will I get a free upgrade? how does it work?



Yes, whenever a new version comes out, the CC software should notify you that an update is available, and ask if you'd like to install it now. If you don't see the notification, just go under Help/Check for Updates, or you can find your CC program panel thing.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 20, 2015)

.
What about grocery stores? Every time you go there you have to pay them again!!

Seriously, people arguing over $10 month seems ludicrous to me. You can't go to a bar and buy a couple of drinks for $10. I can't get a decent pizza for $10. Hell, a movie and popcorn are well over $10 now. If you've paid the price for a camera that can deliver RAW files, $10 month to you should be petty cash.

And Adobe is giving you LR AND PS for $10 month. They should get some kind of medal of honor for doing that!


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 20, 2015)

At the grocery store i get fresh food every time. I don't have to pay for yesterday's apples again and again. 
And i dont need or use PS. I hate the guts of its clumsy 1980s style user interface.
I want to buy, not rent. I will not rent. No matter what LR can do, I will definitely move away from adobe and LR, if it is CC/monthly rental only. Probably back to DPP, if Capture One also moves towards rental, as somebody pointed out a few posts above.




distant.star said:


> .
> What about grocery stores? Every time you go there you have to pay them again!!
> 
> Seriously, people arguing over $10 month seems ludicrous to me. You can't go to a bar and buy a couple of drinks for $10. I can't get a decent pizza for $10. Hell, a movie and popcorn are well over $10 now. If you've paid the price for a camera that can deliver RAW files, $10 month to you should be petty cash.
> ...


----------



## jeffpoker (Apr 20, 2015)

Switching to CaptureOne 8 for 300$, that's approximately 2 1/2 years of CC subscription.
And in 2 1/2 years, you'll pay another 100$ for upgrading to CaptureOne 9. That's IF they don't switch to subscriptions as well.

For 10$ you get Lightroom + Photoshop. Not such a bad deal IMO.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 20, 2015)

VeloDramatic said:


> New functionality is always welcome but if LR6 doesn't seriously address the performance issue with accelerated processing/rendering, I'll be disappointed.



I dunno, I find LR amazing as it is - don't forget the huge heap of data it has to juggle around when doing the lossless post-processing actions. These have to be re-applied every time on top of the decoded raw, they're not burned in or layered like in PS.

Same goes for metadata handling, anyone having some experience with databases knows that high speed is not a given for such heaps of searchable metadata. Sure if they'd replace LUA with C it'd be still faster, but in this case I have to be the Adobe fanboi.



distant.star said:


> And Adobe is giving you LR AND PS for $10 month. They should get some kind of medal of honor for doing that!



They probably realized that with the whole world using PS (in some payment mode or another) $10 is more than $0 :-> ... but again I cannot help to comment on the fact that the licensing model is *not* about only money but about *development*.

PS has a rolling release and you get updates regularly, but with "paid" software they have to withhold features to sell the next big release. Why do folks figure the extended mask editing mode of ACR 8.6 is in PS, but disabled in LR5 (yes, imported raw files from PS work in LR!)?


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 20, 2015)

People using tools like PS and LR are largely professionals, which means they are much more likely to upgrade with each new product generation than casual and/or amateur users. PS as a standalone was $600. Upgrades (every year or two) came at $300-400. Now it's $9.99 a month and you get updates and upgrades as they deliver. It's a WAY better deal staying on top of Adobe's newest features. Now they will throw LR in with that. Buying those two pieces of software would be $750 if both still sold like that today. Then another $400-$500 every time you upgrade to the newer version. Sorry, I don't see how $119/yr is a bad deal by comparison. These are critical tools for all our work. $119/yr is nothing for vital organs. Plus I can freely move them to any two machines I want regardless of OS.


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 20, 2015)

LR is amazing as it is, but it's been sorely lacking in being able to take advantage of modern workstations many in their professional audience own. LR prefers higher top core speed over multiple cores with lower speeds. It's why LR benchmarked better on an iMac with 3.5Mhz i7 processors than the monster MacPro 6-8 core+ machines with each core only have top speed of about 2.2 to 2.5 Mhz plus HUGE GPUs. It wasn't the computers. It was the software. Now it looks like they finally re-wrote the code to start gobbling up extra cores and GPUs. That should be a major difference especially in the Develop Module. I often throw a DVD or BluRay movie on my second monitor while I'm editing, and it's noticeable many times. It's cuz LR trying to draw everything from 1-2 cores and not even looking a the GPU which is sitting there bored to tears. Even when I'm not running anything else but LR (and I occasionally have PS running in tandem too), I should still be getting faster performance with all the headroom in my base model MacPro. I can't wait to see what it does tomorrow when I download it.



Marsu42 said:


> I dunno, I find LR amazing as it is - don't forget the huge heap of data it has to juggle around when doing the lossless post-processing actions. These have to be re-applied every time on top of the decoded raw, they're not burned in or layered like in PS.
> 
> Same goes for metadata handling, anyone having some experience with databases knows that high speed is not a given for such heaps of searchable metadata. Sure if they'd replace LUA with C it'd be still faster, but in this case I have to be the Adobe fanboi.
> 
> PS has a rolling release and you get updates regularly, but with "paid" software they have to withhold features to sell the next big release. Why do folks figure the extended mask editing mode of ACR 8.6 is in PS, but disabled in LR5 (yes, imported raw files from PS work in LR!)?


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 20, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> And Adobe is giving you LR AND PS for $10 month. They should get some kind of medal of honor for doing that!



Well, LR is an $89 upgrade about once every 18 months. That's about $5 a month. So, for those of us who don't use PS, a $10 a month plan is a doubling of cost.

I find PS to be so bloated with stuff designed for graphic artists that it's pretty much unusable for photographic stuff. I've used Elements 9 for years, and the last time I used it on a photograph was about two years ago (I use LR for everything but compositing and I don't have to cut and paste heads very often). So why should I be forced to pay for PS (which I wouldn't likely install) even if the total cost is pretty low?


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 20, 2015)

Well given that this new LR release is supposedly coming with in house HDR merger and panoramic stitching in RAW... plus I hear rumors of even content aware fill .... THAT would almost entirely negate any use I have for PS currently. Those things are the only time I go into it. That would be pretty huge for me not to have to export a TIFF from LR into PS to work on.



Lee Jay said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## distant.star (Apr 20, 2015)

.
More confirming tomorrow...

http://petapixel.com/2015/04/20/lightroom-cc-will-be-announced-tomorrow/


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 20, 2015)

BTW, it doesn't have to be this way. I use Cakewalk SONAR for audio editing, and they have just gone to a subscription model. However, after...I think it's one year, could be two...if you stop your "subscription", you still own and have full functionality of whatever version you ended with. You simply don't get any more updates. So it's more of a payment plan, then rent to own. I do not have a problem with that model at all.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 20, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Sure, I'd rather a standalone LR product, but it's not the way Adobe is going. Every business would prefer constant cash flow. This is the way to do it so they have a more fiscally stable company that can continue to produce bad-ass software. Think how many people out there buy ONE edition of PS or LR and then sit on it for years and years ...
> 
> PS was over $600 to purchase, so I was running a 10 year old copy until CC!!! That was 10 years of me running on old tech and 10 years of Adobe not getting my money. Now Adobe is happy and i'm happy. I know it's not for everyone, but vote with your wallet and fire them if you'd prefer something else.
> 
> ;D



There are those who like pay-as-you go software pricing, those who are ambivalent and those who elect to not participate, preferring a perpetual license. Every one of them is right, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

Adobe appears to be betting that enough of its user base will, whether willingly or begrudgingly, migrate to the pay-as-you go model. And some won't; in fact, they never will. So in this situation, you will still have people who "buy one edition of LR and then sit on it for years and years," with the distinction being that Adobe will _never_ get another sale out of them. So they will thrive, wither or continue to exist on the relative success of their pricing strategy. It will be interesting to watch.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 20, 2015)

Funny, a large fraction of the posts here can be summarized as "LR was clearly intended for X, and X wants..."

I believe the customer should decide if it's an appropriate thing to have. If LR6 releases without a perpetual license option I'll try to move back to DPP.


----------



## krjc (Apr 20, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> Seriously, people arguing over $10 month seems ludicrous to me. You can't go to a bar and buy a couple of drinks for $10. I can't get a decent pizza for $10. Hell, a movie and popcorn are well over $10 now. If you've paid the price for a camera that can deliver RAW files, $10 month to you should be petty cash.
> 
> And Adobe is giving you LR AND PS for $10 month. They should get some kind of medal of honor for doing that!



A++   ;D


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 20, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



It's even less if you skipped LR5. LR4 had all the features I needed and I decided the upgrade to LR5 wasn't worth it feature wise. I've been using LR4 for 3 years. Hardly worth the CC license which would have totaled $360 and counting…

If anything give Adobe a medal when they continue to release both versions and let the consumers decide.


----------



## RGF (Apr 20, 2015)

krjc said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Totally agree.

$10 / month is a great deal for both LR and PS. Subscription service significantly helps adobe manage their work load.


----------



## Jeffrey (Apr 20, 2015)

Assuming Adobe tries to wring the last Dollar out of us and make us subscribe to Lightroom, I'll be spending time becoming proficient in Capture One. Leaving Adobe will make me a very happy guy!


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 20, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .And Adobe is giving you LR AND PS for $10 month. They should get some kind of medal of honor for doing that!



If they can profitably offer such great prices on the subscription model, it just means they overcharged for the perpetual license versions before.


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 20, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .And Adobe is giving you LR AND PS for $10 month. They should get some kind of medal of honor for doing that!
> ...



But I don't want PS. Just leave me the choice of LR only please, and as purchaseware, not rentalware.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 20, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



That was part of my point: people keeping harping on about Adobe giving us this "good deal," but they're shoving it down the throats of people who can decide for themselves what's a good deal.


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 20, 2015)

The funny thing is if all computer software went to subscription based models I'm pretty sure people would be upset. 

I can see it now… $10/month just to have an operating system, $5/month to stream/play/transcode video, $5/month iTunes to play music, sync/update cell phones, $10/month to use Microsoft Office, $20/month for tax software/book keeping… etc. etc.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 20, 2015)

Well, I like to use a laptop in places where I may not have immediate web access, and I don't like the idea of software that calls home at odd intervals and stops working if it can't get a connection. I could deal with paying a subscription fee once a year that keeps the software on for a whole year - just as April 15 is for Uncle Sam, April 22 could be Adobe Day.

But, I do tend to be l-a-t-e adopter. I don't have Lr5. Still on Lr4 - with Canon 60D and 6D. I was planning on getting the 7D2 but I decided to get a special lens last month and will get the 7D2 "eventually". The truth is that I don't go birding as much as I used to - I am doing more landscape and macro - and need for an excellent AF system is really only for the birding. The 6D has primitive AF that never seems to get a chance to work - I like manual focus on those lenses that have decent focus throw. So, I don't really need to upgrade until I have a new camera with a codec that Lr4 doesn't have. Would I update sans new camera if the Lr6 was a speed demon? Yep, but that we don't know yet. Lr5's only advantage over Lr4 seems to be that it covers the 7D2.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 20, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Lr5's only advantage over Lr4 seems to be that it covers the 7D2.



Even so, you can download Adobe's free raw to DNG converter, and continue to use LR4. It may not have full support for all the features of the 7D2, but you can still work with the raw file. (downside is double space usage: CR2 + DNG)


----------



## chasinglight (Apr 21, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> What about grocery stores? Every time you go there you have to pay them again!!
> 
> Seriously, people arguing over $10 month seems ludicrous to me. You can't go to a bar and buy a couple of drinks for $10. I can't get a decent pizza for $10. Hell, a movie and popcorn are well over $10 now. If you've paid the price for a camera that can deliver RAW files, $10 month to you should be petty cash.
> ...



Well praise the lord! Who knew Adobe was doing such charity! And probably not even making a dime for their trouble *sarcasm if you can't tell* The problem is that for many (at least me) shelled out cash for photoshop cs6 and LR before CC came out. So until Cs6 is outdated I feel no compelling reason to throw out the software I paid for in lui of software that I have to continue to pay for. Additionally, now that after 3 years Adobe has graced us with an update to LR worth getting I want it without strings attached.


----------



## drs (Apr 21, 2015)

If it is subscription only: Good Bye Adobe. 

It is as simple as that. Period.


----------



## Otara (Apr 21, 2015)

Fatalv said:


> The funny thing is if all computer software went to subscription based models I'm pretty sure people would be upset.
> 
> I can see it now… $10/month just to have an operating system, $5/month to stream/play/transcode video, $5/month iTunes to play music, sync/update cell phones, $10/month to use Microsoft Office, $20/month for tax software/book keeping… etc. etc.



At those prices, sure. But that wouldn't be the price, and there would be alternatives if the price got too high. You might as well say everyone would be pretty happy with subscription if the alternative was $1000 for the OS, $400 to play videos, etc, etc.

Otara


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Lr5's only advantage over Lr4 seems to be that it covers the 7D2.



Just the radial filter and paintable brushes were plenty for me.


----------



## emko (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Lr5's only advantage over Lr4 seems to be that it covers the 7D2.
> ...



that and Upright and Smart Previews


----------



## MiamiC70 (Apr 21, 2015)

I don't need PS and have been waiting for LR6 for a while. 
However, I "refuse" to rent software so either it's perpetual or I find another option. 
Adobe is screwing customers, businesses and chanel partners with this CC B.S. 
And this boys and girls is why we pirate.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 21, 2015)

Jeffrey said:


> Assuming Adobe tries to wring the last Dollar out of us and make us subscribe to Lightroom, I'll be spending time becoming proficient in Capture One. *Leaving Adobe will make me a very happy guy!*



Odd, why wait to see whether you can buy a perpetual license for something you don't want to use rather than just doing the thing that which will make you happy?


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

MiamiC70 said:


> And this boys and girls is why we pirate.



No it's not. Piracy was rampant before CC ever existed. People pirate because of poor upbringing leading to a lack of ethics.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 21, 2015)

MiamiC70 said:


> I don't need PS and have been waiting for LR6 for a while.
> However, I "refuse" to rent software so either it's perpetual or I find another option.
> Adobe is screwing customers, businesses and chanel partners with this CC B.S.
> And this boys and girls is why we pirate.



No, you "pirate" because you're a thief. You steal something other people worked to create, something you're probably not smart enough to create yourself. The people who spend their precious time working to create useful intellectual property deserve to be properly compensated. Shame on you!


----------



## Falcon64 (Apr 21, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



Incorrect. Lightroom perpetual license is not platform specific the way Photoshop is.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 21, 2015)

Falcon64 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Weird, I thought it was. My mistake.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 21, 2015)

The beginning of the end... Lightroom now a creative cloud version. Another Adobe attempt to drain all of your blood. I abandoned Adobe when CC model came out. 

I now use Dxo optics pro for most editing. Bleed once and then go on with your life.


----------



## benperrin (Apr 21, 2015)

MiamiC70 said:


> And this boys and girls is why we pirate.


Actually, I would estimate that the subscription model has stopped a lot of piracy. Before CC you'd have to pay a massive lump sum (way over $3000 here in Aus) if you wanted the creative suite . $50 a month has made it a lot more feasible for many people. I personally know a few people who stopped pirating when the subscription model was released. I'm all for choice and believe that lightroom should continue to be offered as a standalone product. That being said I'm sick of all these people bitching an moaning over $10 a month for an amazing set of products (PS and Lightroom). $10 a month is extremely easy to save in other areas. Stop complaining.


----------



## MiamiC70 (Apr 21, 2015)

Not about the money. I will gladly buy a perpetual license for LR6. However, I will not be forced to rent my software.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> The beginning of the end... Lightroom now a creative cloud version.



LR has been on CC for quite a while. It's still *also* available as a perpetual purchase.


----------



## VirtualRain (Apr 21, 2015)

Lightroom users are bizarre... on the eve of a major new release and so far all we have is 5 pages of debate over payment models.

I've been using Capture One Pro for awhile now and I rarely see anyone complain or even discuss the price or payment models... ever... never mind on the eve of a major new version. (and C1 is twice the price of LR and they offer both payment models - but without Photoshop).


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

VirtualRain said:


> Lightroom users are bizarre... on the eve of a major new release and so far all we have is 5 pages of debate over payment models.
> 
> I've been using Capture One Pro for awhile now and I rarely see anyone complain or even discuss the price or payment models... ever... never mind on the eve of a major new version. (and C1 is twice the price of LR and they offer both payment models - but without Photoshop).



The biggest reason I never bought CO after I trialed it was their totally screwed up pricing model at the time. I never trialed it again.


----------



## grainier (Apr 21, 2015)

Jamesy said:


> grainier said:
> 
> 
> > CC? Did not Adobe swear that LR will be kept standalone? Whatever. I switched to DPP and never looked back.
> ...



They have this thing called "recipe" which is a custom collection of processing settings one can apply to a selection of files. Sadly, this is not included in their batch processing. Admittedly I am not not working with huge amount of files like weddings, but DPP seems to be more nimble than LR4, which was the last version I tried.


----------



## Fatalv (Apr 21, 2015)

Otara said:


> Fatalv said:
> 
> 
> > The funny thing is if all computer software went to subscription based models I'm pretty sure people would be upset.
> ...



No one knows what the numbers would be. And Alternatives? Not likely for the OS. Look at how long it's taken to have alternatives. For the past what, 20+ years it's been Linux/Unix, Mac OS, or Windows. Considering how long it's taken Linux / Mac OS to become widely adopted as general desktop machines I don't see anything else creeping up anytime soon. 

As for the others, sure there will be alternatives. That's exactly my point. I'll be jumping off the LR ship as will loads of others. The perpetual license won't work as the only option.


----------



## grainier (Apr 21, 2015)

Fatalv said:


> No one knows what the numbers would be. And Alternatives? Not likely for the OS. Look at how long it's taken to have alternatives.


Adobe is the company that has been taking out alternatives for years.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 21, 2015)

grainier said:


> Adobe is the company that has been taking out alternatives for years.



Exactly. Along with other similar moves, Adobe purchased the entire Pixmantec company / team just to kill off their excellent RawShooter software, which was head and shoulders better than Lightroom 1.0 when it finally appeared. And of course much better than Canon DPP was back then. I would greatly prefer being able to use RawShooter 5.0 today rather than being left with sluggish bloatware Lightroom by bloated, sneaky, greedy, competition-killing Adobe trying to force me into monthly rental payment schemes for a piece of software that i could purchase for as little as 80 bucks every two or three years. Or i just got it for free with a new camera.


----------



## RGF (Apr 21, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .And Adobe is giving you LR AND PS for $10 month. They should get some kind of medal of honor for doing that!
> ...



Perpetual licenses are expensive to manage. Release everything at once is high inefficient use of resources.


----------



## Aramir (Apr 21, 2015)

In the Netherlands there is already an review online at Eoszine. Now if you only could read Dutch...In the article there is no mention of an subscription based model only.. So; there is still "hope"..(for those who want an standalone version..) http://www.eoszine.nl/608964/Nieuw-Lightroom-CC.html


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 21, 2015)

Aramir said:


> In the Netherlands there is already an review online at Eoszine. Now if you only could read Dutch...In the article there is no mention of an subscription based model only.. So; there is still "hope"..(for those who want an standalone version..) http://www.eoszine.nl/608964/Nieuw-Lightroom-CC.html



Thanks! If I understand correctly as non-Dutch speaker, the major news are:
* Face Recognition 
* Panorama/Stitching from multiple RAWs into a .DNG file
* HDR - also from RAWs into a .DNG file 
* brush-functionality added to both "linear graduated filter" and "radial filter"
* plus some minor stuff re. slideshows etc. 

Does it say anything regarding using GPU (graphics card) to boost LR performance?

And what does this mean:


> komt Adobe op 21 april 2015 toch weer met een nieuwe versie. Niet als versie 6, maar als onderdeel van hun Creative Cloud.



"Creative Cloud only", correct? :


----------



## Kristofgss (Apr 21, 2015)

komt Adobe op 21 april 2015 toch weer met een nieuwe versie. Niet als versie 6, maar als onderdeel van hun Creative Cloud.
Means: Adobe brings on april 21st 2015 again a new version. Not as version 6, but as part of their creative cloud.
So yes, it'sz subscription-based, not standalone.


----------



## Kristofgss (Apr 21, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Does it say anything regarding using GPU (graphics card) to boost LR performance?


 Zo kan deze nieuwe versie de processor van de grafische kaart gebruiken (GPU) om sommige taken nog sneller af te wikkelen (Voorkeuren, Prestaties).
Translates to
This new version can use the processor of the graphics card (GPU) to handle some tasks even faster (preferences, performance)


----------



## Aramir (Apr 21, 2015)

Kristofgss said:


> komt Adobe op 21 april 2015 toch weer met een nieuwe versie. Niet als versie 6, maar als onderdeel van hun Creative Cloud.
> Means: Adobe brings on april 21st 2015 again a new version. Not as version 6, but as part of their creative cloud.
> So yes, it'sz subscription-based, not standalone.


I'm not totally shure there is only a subscription based cc version: if you look at the pictures you see LR6 mentioned. Off course they tested a trial/beta version and there could be changes into a cc only version. We have to waite: today we will know....


----------



## pwp (Apr 21, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> grainier said:
> 
> 
> > Adobe is the company that has been taking out alternatives for years.
> ...


You're right, RawShooter was a brilliant piece of software. The reality is that Adobe bought Pixmantec because it wanted to quickly bring a product to market that would match or eclipse Aperture. All the IP, development and key personnel went straight into the development team for LR. The first public release beta of LR's raw converter was pretty much RawShooter in a new skin. With the obvious extras.

Anyone (including myself) who had a license for RawShooter got a free license for LR1 which I've been perfectly happy with ever since, including all the upgrades. With Adobe able to get behind the project with development budgets that would have been a pipe-dream for Pixmantec's Kenneth Laerke and Michael Jonsson, and photographers have been the winners.

-pw


----------



## pwp (Apr 21, 2015)

Just to complete the Pixmantec/Rawshooter history, Adobe bought RawShooter and the rights to the name Pixmantec. Pixmantec continued as a fully fledged company, renamed to Irudis Software. They went on to sell an competent Final Cut Pro (FCP7 and FCPX) plugin called Tonalizer VFX Pro. 

Not sure where they're at in 2015 as references to them all seem to stop on 2012. They were smart guys.

-pw


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 21, 2015)

pwp said:


> You're right, RawShooter was a brilliant piece of software. The reality is that Adobe bought Pixmantec because it wanted to quickly bring a product to market that would match or eclipse Aperture. All the IP, development and key personnel went straight into the development team for LR. The first public release beta of LR's raw converter was pretty much RawShooter in a new skin. With the obvious extras.
> 
> Anyone (including myself) who had a license for RawShooter got a free license for LR1 which I've been perfectly happy with ever since, including all the upgrades. With Adobe able to get behind the project with development budgets that would have been a pipe-dream for Pixmantec's Kenneth Laerke and Michael Jonsson, and photographers have been the winners.



I beg to differ a bit here. Adobe never used the RawShooter engine for Lightroom 1.0 Although they inititially said they would, it soon became evident, that Adobe had acquired Pixtmantec solely to take the strongest competitive RAW-Converter (RawShooter) off the market. This also caused quite a bit of frustration amongst the Pixmantec team. 

Yes, RawShooter Professional owners did receive a free license to LR 1.0 from Adobe. I gave my free license away immediately, as soon as I discovered how weak LR 1.0 was compared to RawShooter. For lack of alternatives back then I went back to using Canon DPP and only switched again, when Adobe brought out LR 3.0. 

If Adobe moves LR to "rentalware only", I will keep LR 5.6 to not loose all the previous work I've done on my RAWs. But I will niot process any new captured RAWs, but switch to another software - probably again to Canon DPP, since it has the best colors of all RAW converters (for Canon RAWs) and because Capture One seems to be on the "rentalware-track" as well, as somebody has pointed out earlier in this thread.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Apr 21, 2015)

OK. Soo... no new process version, same sharpening algortithms and noise reduction. Meaning still not as crisp, detailed rendering compared to C1, Iridient, DPP etc. In other words - no IQ improvements?
Added: music, face-recognition, HDR and panorama-stitching. And forced to subscription only.

Way to go Adobe. Sign me up! Twice! :-\


----------



## zim (Apr 21, 2015)

memoriaphoto said:


> OK. Soo... no new process version, same sharpening algortithms and noise reduction. Meaning still not as crisp, detailed rendering compared to C1, Iridient, DPP etc. In other words - no IQ improvements?
> Added: music, face-recognition, HDR and panorama-stitching. And forced to subscription only.
> 
> Way to go Adobe. Sign me up! Twice! :-\



But but but it’s SO BIG that Mr Kelby is doing FOUR free live Webcasts!!!
I'm peeing my panties in anticipation.........


----------



## charlesa (Apr 21, 2015)

Who even uses Lightroom?  Bridge and Photoshop are fine enough for me!


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 21, 2015)

charlesa said:


> Who even uses Lightroom?  Bridge and Photoshop are fine enough for me!



For a lot of people that's probably the case, but there is NO WAY I could cope without LR. I do weddings and events, so often times I have thousands of pictures in one event that I quickly want to mass edit, rate, group, etc.

Also, when you open things in PS you can a massive TIFF file. That reason alone makes me want to use LR as often as possible.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 21, 2015)

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2482234,00.asp

OK, there seems to be a stand-alone version at USD 149,- 



> Lightroom CC is now available as part of an Adobe Creative Cloud Photography subscription ($9.99 per month) or as the equivalent standalone $149 perpetual-license Lightroom 6 application. But the single purchase option won't include syncing photos to Adobe's mobile apps, such as Lightroom Mobile, Slate, and Voice.



As far as all that associated mobile junk and bloatware is concerned - I don't care. Would actively NOT use it, even if I had it. To me editing RAWs on any of today's mobile devices is just ridiculous. I'd rather shoot jpg and take files straight out of cam.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 21, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> charlesa said:
> 
> 
> > Who even uses Lightroom?  Bridge and Photoshop are fine enough for me!
> ...



exactly! I don't use PS and will never do any edits that cannot be done in LR (or DPP). And I only work with 2 file types: "slides/positives" [.CR2] and "virtual prints" [.jpg]. Keep it simple, keep it straight. TIFFs, PSDs ... hell, no! ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

pwp said:


> You're right, RawShooter was a brilliant piece of software. The reality is that Adobe bought Pixmantec because it wanted to quickly bring a product to market that would match or eclipse Aperture. All the IP, development and key personnel went straight into the development team for LR. The first public release beta of LR's raw converter was pretty much RawShooter in a new skin. With the obvious extras.



Nothing you just said was correct.

Adobe bought RSP/E to get the *one* developer. That didn't work out, and he left Adobe sometime later. LR was in development long, long before that purchase.

Read this so you know the real story: http://www.photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development-story/


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

charlesa said:


> Who even uses Lightroom?  Bridge and Photoshop are fine enough for me!



Bridge is one of the worst pieces of software I've ever used, and PS is such bloatware that it's pretty much unusable for processing large amounts of photos.

I haven't used PS for photo processing for a decade, despite owning CS6 and using CC for a while.


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Apr 21, 2015)

I'm Still looking around and haven't seen the update yet. CC (creative Cloud) did have an update this morning. 
I wonder if we will be able to delete LR 5.7.1 after you download LRCC ?? That's would save some disk space, but id want to keep the xmp files.

on another note. I see a lot of talk here about $9.99/mo usd. You do realize that price is for 1 year onlycorrect? After your first year , you will pay $49.99/mo usd. . $599.88/year. Is it worth it? yes and no. Could I be able to do what I do without After effects and PSCC. LR5? no. Could I buy them separate? yes , for $1100 maybe? that's a little over two years worth and I would them be at least one update behind, if not two. For someone with a business its a no brainer really. For a hobby, well...each person has to decide. I feel like im back in the initial debate when CC first came out. Actually I really only have one complaint. That is: If there is a discount to new members, why cant there be a similar discount to your loyal customers for the next year? maybe a 5% discount renewal over Christmas from " Your friends at Adobe" . But once your in, you're in and they don't have to discount. Either way im just fortunate that I have a job and can subscribe, else id just have to buy an old version or go somewhere else. I do appreciate the genius they have created.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 21, 2015)

charlesa said:


> Who even uses Lightroom?  Bridge and Photoshop are fine enough for me!



And you think that what is good enough for you must be good enough for everyone else?

Self-centered much these days?


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 21, 2015)

Based on their huge sales numbers I'd say no one uses it, yeah... 



AcutancePhotography said:


> charlesa said:
> 
> 
> > Who even uses Lightroom?  Bridge and Photoshop are fine enough for me!
> ...


----------



## charlesa (Apr 21, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> charlesa said:
> 
> 
> > Who even uses Lightroom?  Bridge and Photoshop are fine enough for me!
> ...



I meant it in jest, it obviously has its uses!


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

StoneColdCoffee said:


> on another note. I see a lot of talk here about $9.99/mo usd. You do realize that price is for 1 year onlycorrect?



Incorrect.


----------



## sanj (Apr 21, 2015)

charlesa said:


> Who even uses Lightroom?  Bridge and Photoshop are fine enough for me!



I am with you. Bridge. CS RAW and Photoshop are enough for me. But sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder if DPP or Capture 1 provide better IQ...
I also understand why some people swear by Lightroom. Each to his own.


----------



## Skirball (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> StoneColdCoffee said:
> 
> 
> > on another note. I see a lot of talk here about $9.99/mo usd. You do realize that price is for 1 year onlycorrect?
> ...



Pssst. You noticed that they announced today that the perpetual license remains? You can take the thorn out of your side now.


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> StoneColdCoffee said:
> 
> 
> > on another note. I see a lot of talk here about $9.99/mo usd. You do realize that price is for 1 year onlycorrect?
> ...



Incorrect? You got me all excited. So I called up Adobe hoping I could quit paying $49.99 a month for CC . I could effectively cancel CC, but im on a year commitment. which they could drop. Then I could go to the photographers package @ 9.99/month (LR and PS- in which bridge would be included, so she says) and then purchase single program like After Effects for $19.99/month. that is 29.98/month.
I wouldn't have premier pro or acrobat or media encoder, but I think that is built in AECC. So yes and no. $20/ month savings. IF I purchased PrCC then im right back where I was before. So effectively, to each his or her own in his or her own situation.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

Skirball said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > StoneColdCoffee said:
> ...



My side? I know the perpetual license is still available. I just pointed out the above claim is wrong - $9.99 is not an introductory price for the first year, it's the price "forever" (until they change it). It's not introductory.


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 21, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Let's talk about the software and what it does instead of how we will pay for it.



Really? 

Consider writing in the Camera and Lens forums that people should stop talking about how much the gear costs and only focus on specs and what the cameras do. 

Sorry but this point of view does not make any sense. Price is and remains a really important part of the product. And moving to software rental worries a lot of people for very good reasons.

There is one single reason companies want to do this: to squeeze more money out of our pockets.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 21, 2015)

We've been rumoring about LR6 for too long. Let's get started on LR7 !


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...




Lee I think he was talking about my side. But I see where you both are coming from. yes, if you do sign up for the 9.99 (photographers package) it stays at 9.99 youre right. But like I said, if you can get by on two programs. all the better for you. If you need more than two, you go to the 49.99. Skir.. its not a big thorn..its a mere flesh wound ;-)


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I'm not a fan of "rented software", but let me explain some things about CC.



Let me explain some additional things about CC:

1) Lots of people - actually most Lightroom users - cannot get the 9.99$ bundle. That's only in the US (maybe also Canada). Most users have to pay more - many much more.

2) Adobe makes it very clear that 9.99$ is a promotional price. Its not the standard price (set at 14.99 or 15.99 I forgot). You can pray the promotion is forever. But in the real world the bean counters have already calculated exactly how many people they want to swallow the bait before - UPS! Promotion time is over. That's how promotions work.

I use the bundle myself - because I needed to upgrade my old PhotoShop. But I think very carefully about the downstream costs - such as the day Adobe says your only way back to a stand alone license is a new full license (they already prepared this move).


----------



## Famateur (Apr 21, 2015)

I usually read every post in a thread before adding my opinion, but I don't need to read beyond "Lightroom CC will be available as a $149 standalone product" to say, "Yea!!!!! Thank you, Adobe!!!!!!!!" 

I was dreading the possibility of Lightroom 6 moving entirely to the subscription model. Now I'm relieved and excited to upgrade.

On the downside, this seems like Adobe is easing what might be roadmapped as an inevitable transition away from standalone licensing for Lightroom. Please both sides of the subscription issue now, but move it all to the cloud with the next full version. Hoping that won't happen...


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> 2) Adobe makes it very clear that 9.99$ is a promotional price.



Wrong. They made this the "permanent" price.

Adobe Makes $10 Photoshop CC 2014 Photography Plan Permanent
http://prodesigntools.com/creative-cloud-photography-plan.html
https://forums.adobe.com/message/5701018?PID=2159997#5701018

"Ill try to be really clear, since there is so much confusion on this. If you join the Photoshop photography program, the monthly price for that program may change in the future (up or down). *We don't have plans to change the price*, but just like all of our other prices for our services and products, the prices may change in the future.

You are not guaranteed that the price you pay per month will be $9.99 forever. It may go up, it may go down.

Unlike some of our other Creative Cloud promotions, where you get an introductory price for a year, and then after a year, it goes up to the regular price, the price for the photography bundle is the regular price. So, once you have been a member via the Photography program a year, your price does not automatically go up.."


----------



## tss68nl (Apr 21, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> Adobe makes it very clear that 9.99$ is a promotional price. ... bla ... - UPS! Promotion time is over. That's how promotions work.



Let's get this straight: in my contract there is stated that when you start your license in the promotional period, that price will not be changed to the normal price ever. There may however be a pricing indexing on the normal price which will then be applied to your promotional price as well.

Generally, I got upset by the idea of leased software, when way back Microsoft and Adobe started talking about the business model. I feared frequent updates killing piracy, while demanding very high monthly fees to their software. However, seeing for this insanely low pricing you get Photoshop and Lightroom including all updates, this was a very easy choice for me. I am seriously getting tired about these endless rants of people moaning they don't want to pay $10 a month. Go back to pirating then, it still works.

I find it hard to believe that adults with a dayjob can't afford $10 a month for something they crave. If you do not have a dayjob, you have more important things to worry about than getting worked up over a piece of software.


----------



## RGF (Apr 21, 2015)

If software licenses were like cars, you can lease a car for $300 / month for 36 months or buy one for $30,000.

In PS/LR terms, $10 / month lease or buy $1000. Now which would you pick.

Please do not quibble about the exact numbers. The point is the lease / buy equation for s/w gives a real break to the purchasing. If you had to pay full retail every time you got a new copy (vs upgrade cost), how many people would still complain about the $10 / month payment.


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Adobe makes it very clear that 9.99$ is a promotional price.
> ...


no...correct, like I said. its for a 2 program option.. If you want LR & PS then yes, you are correct it never changes. but if you want more than the package they offer, then no.. you will be paying. 

The new Creative Cloud Photography Plan includes the latest and greatest full desktop releases of both Photoshop CC and Lightroom 5 <~~ this is what you are saying. 9.99 a month for forever. 
If you want the bundle like what I was talking about. you will join the 49.99 a month plan after you pay 9.99 the first year..


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

StoneColdCoffee said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



You're backpedaling. The $9.99 bundle talked about in this thread is the Photography Bundle. The only current promotional offer is $29.99 for all of CC versus $49.99 regular price, but that's not the one being talked about in this thread or the one you mentioned in your post. You mentioned the $9.99 one, which is the "permanent" (i.e. non-promotional) price for the photography bundle.

There are 16 CC apps. I use one of them so even the 2-app photography bundle is too much for me.


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Wrong. They made this the "permanent" price.
> 
> Adobe Makes $10 Photoshop CC 2014 Photography Plan Permanent
> "Ill try to be really clear, since there is so much confusion on this. If you join the Photoshop photography program, the monthly price for that program may change in the future (up or down). *We don't have plans to change the price*, but just like all of our other prices for our services and products, the prices may change in the future.



Well... I don't even have to say its both correct and accurate because you offered the quote that says its not going to last.

This was discussed to death at the time when Adobe made their infamous statement. And the discussion lead to the "clarification" above because Adobe got very worried that they had locked themselves into a price they were not planning to keep. Everyone can read the qoute and do their own thinking. Its exactly like when Microsoft said that upgrading to WIN10 would be "free". Well.. except its only free the first year.

The only reason why they dropped "promotional" was that Adobe tried to "force" customers into subscription mode (wonder why????) by originally saying the price would go from 9.99 up to 19.99 is you did not hurry and sign up before DEC 31, 2013. They have never let go of the possibility to raise the price at will and to their choice.

I do not care one iota if they dropped calling it promotional or not. That's irrelevant. Its clear that they can - and therefore will - raise the price as soon as enough people are subscribing.

Now someone here thinks they got a deal for life for 9.99. I have asked for a qoute. Let's see...


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 21, 2015)

tss68nl said:


> Let's get this straight: in my contract there is stated that when you start your license in the promotional period, that price will not be changed to the normal price ever. There may however be a pricing indexing on the normal price which will then be applied to your promotional price as well.



Please quote that from your license.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 21, 2015)

tss68nl said:


> I find it hard to believe that adults with a dayjob can't afford $10 a month for something they crave.



Perhaps because you are confusing being able to afford something and being willing to pay it. Many people *can* afford to pay the monthly fee, but do not see the advantage to them for doing so. Other people do see an advantage to them to pay the monthly fee. 

I do not understand why people here have such a hard time accepting that different people have different needs and viewpoints.

Some people here are professional photographers who use Adobe products every single day, seven days a week, as a tool that helps make them a living. For those people the CC is probably a good choice

But there are some people here who photography is a hobby and may not use Adobe products even once a month. I am in the process of moving and I have not used LR in over three months (life happens!). For those people the subscription plan may not be a good choice.

Who is right?

Both types of photographers are right and have an opinion on which payment option may be right for them. 

Of all the worthless stuff photographers can argue about, whether someone prefers a subscription or a more traditional license must rank near the bottom on the importance scale.


----------



## Zv (Apr 21, 2015)

There was a brief moment where someone talked about features, some of it was in Dutch but it seemed like the conversation was headed somewhere. 

And now we're back to talking about the price, even though there will be a perpetual license. What are we arguing about? 

It costs money either way. Choose one that suits you and stop trying to convince others. 

It's like saying "renting a house is bad! Don't do it! If you stop paying you'll get evicted!" thanks captain obvious.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 21, 2015)

This subscription discussion is getting ridiculous. You can have a forum post on CR about flashes for macro photography and within a few comments you have people complaining about Adobe's subscription model.

LR IS STILL A STAND ALONE PRODUCT!!! Why do people keep talking about it?


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> LR IS STILL A STAND ALONE PRODUCT!!! Why do people keep talking about it?



Because gillions of people claimed that LR6 would be CC only. And they were wrong.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 21, 2015)

I heard that using Light Room will reduce the DR of the image by 0.5 stops but only for Canon cameras.


No I can't back that up, but it is more interesting than rehashing subscription issues. ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > LR IS STILL A STAND ALONE PRODUCT!!! Why do people keep talking about it?
> ...



No. Because gillions of people were and had to be worried any LR update may be the last and final one available as a perpetual license. 

As a software buyer I have little issue with software renters except those renters constantly telling me, how great renting is. Especially renting LR plus PS, even though I only want to buy and use LR. 

PS: I am going to upgrade from LR5 and buy LR 6. GPU support + HDR + pano stitching are features I am looking forward to. Face reco I am rather hesitant. No need to make NSA and assorted secret services' work any easier.


----------



## tss68nl (Apr 21, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Perhaps because you are confusing being able to afford something and being willing to pay it. Many people *can* afford to pay the monthly fee, but do not see the advantage to them for doing so. Other people do see an advantage to them to pay the monthly fee.



Well then, seeing there is still a 'pay once, live happily ever after'-option for Lightroom, I can't see why people that *can* afford wouldn't *want* to afford it. For the same amount they buy the pay-once option. It's their choice to make, and a luxury certainly not to moan about on these forums.

It's the constant bitching and moaning about the CC licensing model with each and every Adobe announcement that really gets on my nerves. It's not discussing any of the content or anticipation of a new product anymore, it's just pitiful.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 21, 2015)

tss68nl said:


> It's the constant bitching and moaning about the CC licensing model with each and every Adobe announcement that really gets on my nerves. It's not discussing any of the content or anticipation of a new product anymore, it's just pitiful.



Oh I agree. I made that point back on page 1 and here we are on page 9 and little of any significance concerning the actual functionality of the product has been discussed.


----------



## lopexo (Apr 21, 2015)

Anyone getting error message when trying to install it via the CC installer? It got downloaded to 47%, then started to extract and then failed (error 7) with no details.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > keithfullermusic said:
> ...



Do you give your catalog to NSA? That's where face recognition data is stored.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 21, 2015)

Well, all you renters ... would you buy or rent your house / apartment, if purchase price was just 10.9 monthly rates? 8)

Perpetual Subscription price for LR 6 in Germany in Adobe Store: € 129,71 
LR CC monthly plan: € 11,89 *12 = € 142,68 
break even: 10.9 monthly payments.
all numbers including 19% Value Added Tax (VAT) 







Yes, the rental scheme also includes PS. But like I said, I don't need nor want PS.


----------



## lopexo (Apr 21, 2015)

It is here, but can't finish the installation.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 21, 2015)

ooops ... looks like a Creative Error ... on the Creative Cloud. 

I will purchase LR 6 on a DVD. Costs exactly the same as download. And it will work forever. 
http://www.amazon.de/Adobe-Photoshop-Lightroom-WIN-MAC/dp/B00O8KHUJM/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1429632777&sr=8-5&keywords=lightroom+6


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

People should read this:

http://www.lightroomqueen.com/whats-new-lightroom-cc-6-0/


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> People should read this:
> 
> http://www.lightroomqueen.com/whats-new-lightroom-cc-6-0/



Thanks for posting this link. This is really nice stuff. Allows people to understand what exactly LR 6 will give them.


----------



## RGF (Apr 21, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I heard that using Light Room will reduce the DR of the image by 0.5 stops but only for Canon cameras.
> 
> 
> No I can't back that up, but it is more interesting than rehashing subscription issues. ;D



Only in the stand alone version. In the subscription version the DR is actually increased by 0.5 stop.


----------



## switters (Apr 21, 2015)

Lightroom CC is not appearing in the updates list in my Adobe Application Manager. I am on the Photoshop Photography Program (For CS3+ customers)‎, which I believe should include both Photoshop CC and Lightroom CC? It's an older plan but I think it was grandfathered in.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 21, 2015)

switters said:


> Lightroom CC is not appearing in the updates list in my Adobe Application Manager. I am on the Photoshop Photography Program (For CS3+ customers)‎, which I believe should include both Photoshop CC and Lightroom CC? It's an older plan but I think it was grandfathered in.



give it some time. i'm in the same boat as you - see it on the site, but not in the update manager.


----------



## gwsexton425 (Apr 21, 2015)

I attempted to download Lightroom CC at about 9:25am (PT). I received an error - failed to download. I quit CC and reopened, and Lightroom CC was missing. I'm thinking they took it down, since there was likely some sort of bug. I'm sure we'll see it up again very soon.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Apr 21, 2015)

Same here. Installation started, then some weird error after 47% asking me to reboot my computer for no apparent reason. Did that and then...gone! When I try to install again, my existing Lightroom 5 starts (!!) 

This is promising!


----------



## DeBo32 (Apr 21, 2015)

Any news on different upgrade pricing or student/teacher pricing?


----------



## drs (Apr 21, 2015)

I'm glad they allow both ways. (Apple's Aperture replacement [?] "Photos" is certainly not more than a joke compared to Lr, so I'm a little bit relieved. But the search for an Adobe replacement continues.)

Thanks to everyone, in so many fora, to post their opinions: It was pretty clear where the majority was.


----------



## switters (Apr 21, 2015)

Anyone out there with a 5K iMac? Has the performance improved?


----------



## Zv (Apr 21, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Well, all you renters ... would you buy or rent your house / apartment, if purchase price was just 10.9 monthly rates? 8)
> 
> Perpetual Subscription price for LR 6 in Germany in Adobe Store: € 129,71
> LR CC monthly plan: € 11,89 *12 = € 142,68
> ...



You're forgeting LR Mobile is also part of the package. Something you don't get with the perpetual licence.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

Zv said:


> You're forgeting LR Mobile is also part of the package. Something you don't get with the perpetual licence.



I'm still searching for something to do with LRMobile that would help me in any way.


----------



## McBrad (Apr 21, 2015)

Like other have experienced, it let me download it and then gave me an error. Now there's not an option to download it.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 21, 2015)

Looking forward to upgrading (standalone), especially for the pano and HDR features. Crossing fingers on improved performance overall.

---

At the risk of perpetuating the pricing debate, comparing CC to leasing a car kinda falls flat for me. I can't imagine having a car payment every month...for a car I don't even get to keep. I'm the kind of person that buys a reliable used car that's a few years old for a fraction of the cost of new. I pay up-front, owning the car free-and-clear from day one. I keep the car for many years (choosing not to upgrade in the interim). 

Is my used car as new and exciting as what people are leveraging themselves to buy new (or leasing to never own)? No. But it suits my needs as well as it did when I bought it. If I encounter financial difficulty, I don't have the fear of my car being repossessed -- it's mine. I get that most people don't mind a car payment and consider it a normal part of life -- they'd rather have shiny and new because they can afford it (for now?).

Will I ever lease a car? Nope. Do I complain about dealerships leasing cars? Nope. Do I have a problem if other people like to lease cars? Nope. To each their own. If I couldn't buy a used car and the only option was to lease one forever, would I complain? Absolutely!!!

As long as a standalone license is available, I don't really care who likes or dislikes the CC model. If standalone goes away, I'd probably look for an alternative to Lightroom. That would suck, but business will do what the market will bear, and I'm not an island a market unto myself. 

If CC proves to be more profitable, then it would be silly for Adobe not to do it. That's when I buy some stock in Adobe...and go find a different RAW processing software with a standalone license.


----------



## m (Apr 21, 2015)

DeBo32 said:


> Any news on different upgrade pricing or student/teacher pricing?



I would also like to know the upgrade price.
But there are only full licenses available.

The kelby announcement mumbo jumbo does not load, probably cannot handle the traffic.

This release is a joke!


----------



## Zv (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> People should read this:
> 
> http://www.lightroomqueen.com/whats-new-lightroom-cc-6-0/



THIS!!!! Finally! Thanks! Loving these new features! ;D


----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 21, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > keithfullermusic said:
> ...



According to Kelby Sites' FAQ, LR 6 is the last stand-alone version. All new features only in CC though one presumes bug fixes and camera support will stay in LR6. I cant get back to the livecast - keeps dying.

For anyone interested, B&H have a special offer on a year's cloud subscription....


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

m said:


> DeBo32 said:
> 
> 
> > Any news on different upgrade pricing or student/teacher pricing?
> ...



$79 for any previous version.

Add it to your cart like you are buying the full non-upgrade version. There is a link in the cart to modify and under that is the upgrade option.


----------



## weilin (Apr 21, 2015)

looks like there will be a LR6 (US website)

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom/versions.html?promoid=KSKCX


----------



## slclick (Apr 21, 2015)

Boy they're really making it tough to find out how to upgrade as opposed to full purchase but I figured it out. Not buying though, I'll let the first round frenzy pan out and see what I'm missing here on Le Forum.


----------



## Zv (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > You're forgeting LR Mobile is also part of the package. Something you don't get with the perpetual licence.
> ...



OK it's not for everyone but I did find a use. When you sync a collection to LR mobile you can then rate the images on an iPad or other device. Particularly good for proofs. 

I hand it to my girlfriend and she quickly picks which ones I should print (without her having to get off the couch!). 

Could work with a client too. Instead of lugging your laptop to the client you just take your iPad or whatever and they could pick their faves. Then you could even do a quick edit there and then to give them an idea of what you could do. You can even export and share the image if they need it. 

Basically use it as a mobile version of library module and quick edit. 

I wish they'd add a upload via wifi option so I can go from 6D straight to Lightroom Mobile while I'm on holiday and get started on rating images.


----------



## m (Apr 21, 2015)

DeBo32 said:


> Any news on different upgrade pricing or student/teacher pricing?



The upgrade is 79$.

Follow the instructions found here:
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/whats-new-lightroom-cc-6-0/


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

Zv said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



The reason this doesn't work for me, is that I check for focus and motion blur during the rating process. Since the mobile app uses reduced resolution images, this is not possible.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 21, 2015)

Zv said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > People should read this:
> ...



+1 Thanks, Lee Jay.

Here's a particularly exciting part (what I was hoping for on one of the previous LR6 rumor threads):

"This is better than using Photoshop or other software, because *the resulting DNG file still has the editing flexibility of the original files*, even if they were raw files."

Most excellent.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 21, 2015)

i'm watching the creative live thing and they said adobe is having issues with their servers (go figure), so try back in a few hours.


----------



## m (Apr 21, 2015)

Famateur said:


> Here's a particularly exciting part (what I was hoping for on one of the previous LR6 rumor threads):
> 
> "This is better than using Photoshop or other software, because *the resulting DNG file still has the editing flexibility of the original files*, even if they were raw files."
> 
> Most excellent.



But it only does 16bit HDR, the article claims this is enough:


> The resulting files are 16-bit floating point DNG files, which can easily hold the full HDR contrast range.


I'm not sure.

It got asked in the kelby thing and they said it's 32bit.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 21, 2015)

m said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a particularly exciting part (what I was hoping for on one of the previous LR6 rumor threads):
> ...



I noticed that and wonder why Adobe didn't do 32-bit. If I recall correctly, Photoshop merges to 32-bit TIFF. I'm guessing it's either a limitation with DNG or product differentiation from Photoshop.

I'm still happy the feature is there and hope 16-bit will be sufficient...


----------



## Famateur (Apr 21, 2015)

m said:


> I'm not sure.
> 
> It got asked in the kelby thing and they said it's 32bit.



Just saw this last part of your comment. I hope it's 32-bit!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 21, 2015)

DeBo32 said:


> Any news on different upgrade pricing or student/teacher pricing?



http://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/buy/students.html?sdid=KKQRV&kw=semgeneric&skwcid=AL!3085!3!48137515462!p!!g!!lightroom%2520student&ef_id=VR1m4wAABRS3Z8hN:20150421180631:s

All you have to do is type Adobe Lightroom Student in the Googles. ;D


----------



## sleepnever (Apr 21, 2015)

I love how every "See how it works" video at http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom/features.html is broken.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

Famateur said:


> I noticed that and wonder why Adobe didn't do 32-bit.



Because 16 bit is half the size (these files are huge anyway) and does the job. It's 16 bit floating point which can hold 30 stops of DR, so it's fine.


----------



## drs (Apr 21, 2015)

I can't find an upgrade offer, only $149 for a full version!? 

What do I miss? ...or is Adobe really that evil to push the CC stuff that hard?


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

drs said:


> I can't find an upgrade offer, only $149 for a full version!?
> 
> What do I miss? ...or is Adobe really that evil to push the CC stuff that hard?



Put the full version in your cart, go the cart and modify the purchase to the upgrade version.

And, yes, they are really pushing hard to drive away their customers.


----------



## Khalai (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> drs said:
> 
> 
> > I can't find an upgrade offer, only $149 for a full version!?
> ...



I'll wait for boxed version anyway - call me odd, but I like the boxes with discs inside. However I always download the newest version and just use the code from the box


----------



## m (Apr 21, 2015)

Famateur said:


> m said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure.
> ...



Well kelby says it's 32bit and when you merge (to HDR or pano) you get a dng file out of that.
Wikipedia says DNGs can handle 32 bit.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed that and wonder why Adobe didn't do 32-bit.
> ...



But Lee Jay, we both know that 30 stops of dynamic range is just not enough! Anything less than that is Adobe needlessly crippling Lightroom...  :-X


----------



## Famateur (Apr 21, 2015)

My upgrade download is complete. Another win for standalone? Sounds like the CC folks are hitting release-day snags with their downloads.

Gonna wait to install until I've backed-up my catalog as I've read that the changes made to it will not be backward compatible with 5.7. 

We'll see how it goes!


----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 21, 2015)

Famateur said:


> My upgrade download is complete. Another win for standalone? Sounds like the CC folks are hitting release-day snags with their downloads.
> 
> Gonna wait to install until I've backed-up my catalog as I've read that the changes made to it will not be backward compatible with 5.7.
> 
> We'll see how it goes!



Upgrade goes to a new file and does not modify the old format. Mine is upgrading the catalogue as we speak - 100K photos, lol.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 21, 2015)

m said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > m said:
> ...



Kelby is wrong if he says that. HDRs produce 16 bit floating point files (which are both fine and half the size).


----------



## Stu_bert (Apr 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> m said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



The HDR files offer +/-10 stops of exposure in the develop module. Just tried it
The Pano only offers +/- 5 stops, as per normal dev
Both are DNG files.

Hope this helps.


----------



## drs (Apr 21, 2015)

Khalai said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > drs said:
> ...



Thank you. Using the Adobe website for my shopping spree since the mid '90s, but I never had so much trouble finding a way to buy what I want. 
The first "Buy Now" button only leads to CC. Yuck.
After 20 clicks or so, in the lower area of the page, the full version. Without your help, I would have even tried it.
So, I got the $79.90 in the cart. Finally. Not to be biased, but that feels desperate from Adobe. I can't help it. I hope the CEO finds a new job and things become more flexible again. (Wishful thinking, I know...)

Yes, with all that web-dependency stuff, a hard copy feels just good. (I had CC for close to a year, but I honestly used more often my CS6 Master Suite, than committing to it, so I pulled the plug: I'm not a subscriber, that I know now)

Thanks again for the reply and help, really appreciated.


----------



## Lars (Apr 21, 2015)

drs said:


> Thank you. Using the Adobe website for my shopping spree since the mid '90s, but I never had so much trouble finding a way to buy what I want.
> The first "Buy Now" button only leads to CC. Yuck.
> After 20 clicks or so, in the lower area of the page, the full version. Without your help, I would have even tried it.
> So, I got the $79.90 in the cart. Finally. Not to be biased, but that feels desperate from Adobe. I can't help it. I hope the CEO finds a new job and things become more flexible again. (Wishful thinking, I know...)
> ...



Yes... They are making the LR 6 *really* hard to find. Practically every link leads to LR CC. It really makes it clear what Adobe prefers, what they will make the most $$$ on.

I'm really looking forward to the Panorama, HDR, and face detection features, so I will definitely upgrade in the next couple of weeks.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 21, 2015)

Btw: They've released dng converter 9.0 as well, it's handy to quickly convert cr2s outside Lightroom and has more features like reduced resolution lossy: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/new.jsp


----------



## drs (Apr 21, 2015)

Lars said:


> drs said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you. Using the Adobe website for my shopping spree since the mid '90s, but I never had so much trouble finding a way to buy what I want.
> ...



I hope you find what you need. Enjoy!

For Panorama-work (which I do since the '90s) -- I use PTGui, for HDRi (with real 32bit/float, as PTGui) Photomatix since nearly a decade, and face detection is not needed here at all, the opposite is the case. I would upgrade more to have something faster, the export function in Lr5 is super slow. We will see how it goes. (I do a lot of VFX, so 16bit half-float is not really cutting it for me and DNG is not really a common format in my area of expertise)


----------



## Famateur (Apr 22, 2015)

This upgrade has been laborious, to say the least.

Finding the Upgrade option in checkout was quite a challenge. Then I get it downloaded, but the installer says that it didn't detect any qualifying products on my computer (even though Lightroom 5.7 is currently installed). It prompted me for a serial number for the old product, but my original box is at another location, and my electronic backup of product keys is on another machine, also at another location.

Solution:

1. Launched Lightroom 5.7
2. Help > Lightroom Registration > Followed prompts to register.
3. Went to C:\ProgramData\Adobe\Lightroom
4. Opened "Lightroom 5.0 Registration.lrreg" in Notepad
5. Copied full serial number and pasted into upgrade install prompt.

Success!!!

Hope this helps someone...


----------



## andrewflo (Apr 22, 2015)

Lightroom CC upgrade went super smooth for me. Everything working as it should.

Was most excited for the HDR merge and faster overall performance.

Only used it for about 20 minutes but overall feels like performance improvements are subtle. If no one told me it was supposed to be faster, I may not have even considered it.

And the HDR merge is decent. Creates smaller file sized DNGs than the TIFFs of LR/Enfuse and Photomatix.

It's definitely slower then LR/Enfuse but I think I like the results slightly better. Looks more natural. And having everything built straight into LR now is more convenient.


----------



## Lars (Apr 22, 2015)

drs said:


> Lars said:
> 
> 
> > Yes... They are making the LR 6 *really* hard to find. Practically every link leads to LR CC. It really makes it clear what Adobe prefers, what they will make the most $$$ on.
> ...



I'm sure your workflow generates superior results.  I'm not a pro, just an enthusiast who likes to play around with panoramas. The tools I have used (free tools or PS Elements photo merge) have forced me to export to 8 bit images, so this DNG solution will be a great step up. And being able to create an HDR panorama is a great bonus.

And since I do take a lot of family related photos, face tagging will be a great for me.

I do agree that the Lr5 export has always been criminally slow, but at least it is a background process. I'm hoping for speed improvements in general.


----------



## nutcaser (Apr 22, 2015)

I get tired of paying for Adobe software over and over. I was a user of Phase 1 software at one stage as well. Now - I just load free DPP -4 and be done with it. The algorithms are all the same anymore anyway. Canon knows its code as well as anyone. I can see if you NEED the most efficient workflow for professional output. I'm an amateur so I have no opinion on that aspect.


----------



## rush (Apr 22, 2015)

After running Update I have *two versions* of Lightroom - Lightroom 5.7.1 and Lightroom CC (2015).







The Creative Cloud App doesn't let me uninstall Lightroom 5.7.1  How can I remove it now?


----------



## Zv (Apr 22, 2015)

rush said:


> After running Update I have *two versions* of Lightroom - Lightroom 5.7.1 and Lightroom CC (2015).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Control Panel > Programs > Uninstall a program.


----------



## rush (Apr 22, 2015)

Zv said:


> rush said:
> 
> 
> > After running Update I have *two versions* of Lightroom - Lightroom 5.7.1 and Lightroom CC (2015).
> ...



I have a mac..

And another question why I have two versions now?


----------



## PureClassA (Apr 22, 2015)

Mac? Then go to Finder, Applications, Lightroom 5, Delete.


----------



## niels123 (Apr 22, 2015)

Would the standalone dvd of lightroom that you can purchase on amazon also require an internet connection to work? I consider to purchase it and use it on a pc that is not connected to the internet.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 22, 2015)

niels123 said:


> Would the standalone dvd of lightroom that you can purchase on amazon also require an internet connection to work? I consider to purchase it and use it on a pc that is not connected to the internet.



This new version of Lightroom comes in two flavors: 
* Lightroom 6 [standalone version] and 
* Lightroom CC [creative Cloud version] 

LR6 may require a one-time internet connection during/after installation for verification of serial number. But once installed and "authorized", LR 6 will run without Internet connection. Just like LR 5.


----------



## Roo (Apr 22, 2015)

No problems buying the software but installing is a pain. It gives me the option to login to my Adobe account during installation but what's the point? It doesn't automatically add my new serial number nor the serial numbers of the products I already own. I then didn't recognise the other versions of lightroom I have installed so I had to go dig out the old license.


----------



## niels123 (Apr 22, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> niels123 said:
> 
> 
> > Would the standalone dvd of lightroom that you can purchase on amazon also require an internet connection to work? I consider to purchase it and use it on a pc that is not connected to the internet.
> ...



And what if you do not want this one-time internet connection and keep the pc 100% off the internet at all times?


----------



## Zv (Apr 22, 2015)

niels123 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > niels123 said:
> ...



Well, I guess you're boned.


----------



## Zv (Apr 22, 2015)

rush said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > rush said:
> ...



One is Lightroom 5 (the old one) and one is Lightroom 6 AKA Lightroom CC (the new one). Strange question since you JUST ASKED how to remove one of them!!

Edit - I presume you meant "why did Adobe not uninstall the old one when I updated?" The answer could be that some people might want to keep the old version if they don't like the update. This way you can compare.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 22, 2015)

Zv said:


> niels123 said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



No, there's a procedure for that.

Call Adobe customer support.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 22, 2015)

Anyone having any issues with the update? I just installed Lightroom CC but nothing happens when I try to run it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 22, 2015)

Famateur said:


> I'm still happy the feature is there and hope 16-bit will be sufficient...



I've experimented back and forth with different bit depths, and for everything I've tried 32bit fp is way over the top.

The sweet spot really seems to be what openexr did all along - 16bit fp. This allows even for very rigorous post-processing of gradients w/o any visible loss of iq (well, I haven't seen any yet). On the other hand 32bit fp results in ridiculous file sizes, combine that with 50mp of the 5ds and do the maths...


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 22, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> Anyone having any issues with the update? I just installed Lightroom CC but nothing happens when I try to run it.



Nevermind, found the answer... signing out and back in to Creative Cloud. :


----------



## Famateur (Apr 22, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still happy the feature is there and hope 16-bit will be sufficient...
> ...



Good to know, thanks! I'm all for smaller file sizes when possible.


----------



## thedman (Apr 22, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> I do not care one iota if they dropped calling it promotional or not. That's irrelevant. Its clear that they can - and therefore will - raise the price as soon as enough people are subscribing.
> 
> Now someone here thinks they got a deal for life for 9.99. I have asked for a qoute. Let's see...



Name a single product on earth that is guaranteed to never, ever go up in price.


----------



## Zv (Apr 23, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > niels123 said:
> ...



Aha! I suppose you could call them if you had a phone. But what if you want to go full hermit and are incommunicado? That was how I was interpreting the question.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 23, 2015)

Zv said:


> Aha! I suppose you could call them if you had a phone. But what if you want to go full hermit and are incommunicado? That was how I was interpreting the question.



;D 

On a more srious note ... while I was not the one asking for it in this thread ... I very much sympathize with the idea of running at least one PC totally standalone, unconnected to any network whatsoever. 

And as far as software licenses go, I would hugely prefer owning (not renting) licenses for all software I use without having to first call the software manufacturer before I can even start using the software or even worse, going through crappy and bothersome "activation procedures" or being required to provide occasional or constant internet connection for that software to "call home". 

And I know, I am not alone in this.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 23, 2015)

Just thought I'd give a quick update...

I'm really digging the HDR and Pano features. They take a bit of time on my system, but the results are excellent. I'm going back through a bunch of old bracketed series that I never got around to merging. This is fun...

The biggest pano I've made so far used 21 portrait orientation images in a single row. It pretty much brought my computer to its knees, but I left it alone, and 10 or 15 minutes later, I had a 113MP pano of some of the landscape near Arches National Park.

I might just have to carve out some time this weekend to shoot something new, just to use these features. 

On the downside, I'm not sure if I like the trade-off (on my system, anyway), of slightly better Develop module performance for noticeably slower Library module performance. We'll see how it goes. I might need to suck it up and buy the extra 8GB of RAM and SSD I was planning to add.

Anyway, I'm glad I upgraded.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 23, 2015)

Famateur said:


> Just thought I'd give a quick update...
> 
> I'm really digging the HDR and Pano features. They take a bit of time on my system, but the results are excellent. I'm going back through a bunch of old bracketed series that I never got around to merging. This is fun...
> 
> ...



Any sense why the library module is slower? I have 16GB and SSD already on a i7-3630 quad core. Is the Lib module slower on LR6 than LR5?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 23, 2015)

Jamesy said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Just thought I'd give a quick update...
> ...



Is facial recognition running?


----------



## Famateur (Apr 23, 2015)

Jamesy said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Just thought I'd give a quick update...
> ...



I'll see if I can find the reference, but I thought I read somewhere that the GPU support improved performance in the Develop module, but caused things to render more slowly in the Library module. That's been my experience, though it's not enough to make me revert to 5.7. My laptop isn't the most powerful, but isn't bad: Core i7-4712HQ at max of 3.3Ghz, 8GB RAM. Doubling the RAM and moving to SSDs will probably help some.


----------



## deleteme (Apr 23, 2015)

Zv said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



If you need an internet connection to verify the SN it will be a first for LR. AFAIK, LR is the only one of my Adobe products that does NOT need online authorization/verification.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 23, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



Great question. That was the first thing I tried to check, but it wasn't immediately clear if it was enabled or not. When I click the People icon, it has a button to [Start Finding Faces in Entire Catalog] and another button to [Only Find Faces As-Needed]. I haven't clicked either button, so I'm assuming face recognition is off, but that could be incorrect. Can't seem to find any options relating to it in the Preferences dialog...


----------



## Famateur (Apr 23, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


> If you need an internet connection to verify the SN it will be a first for LR. AFAIK, LR is the only one of my Adobe products that does NOT need online authorization/verification.



I have the standalone/desktop version, and it required me to create an Adobe ID and log in with it during installation and subsequently on application start-up. If there's a way to get around having to be signed-in, I'd be interested...


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 23, 2015)

Famateur said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Jamesy said:
> ...



Click on the activity center (identity plate). You can pause it in there. There is a catalog preference for it.


----------



## Zv (Apr 24, 2015)

Not noticing much of a performance boost with GPU acceleration on. Tried switching it off and seemed to make no real difference. Maybe the sliders in Develop module were a bit snappier than before, but really only the basic module. All else is the same. The brush is still laggy. 

Running it on a 2010 Sony Viao with 8Gb RAM, 1.7Ghz and SSD. Could be the laptop is the limiting factor.


----------



## climber (Apr 24, 2015)

I have Macbook pro (Late 2013, 16 GB Ram, SSD, 2.6 GHz and NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M). Here is my experience...

I tried to open the same (already edited) image in new LRCC and the old LR5. The image has a lot of different gradients, brushes and other local adjustments - really a lot.

When I open, let say one gradient filter and try to change it, in LR5, the change needs a lot of time to be visible. Exactly the same change on the same gradient filter in new LRCC is immediate.

The same goes let say with cropping. If I try to re-crop the fully edited image (with lots of local adjustments) in LR5, it is painfully slow. But in LRCC it is much faster.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 24, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Click on the activity center (identity plate). You can pause it in there. There is a catalog preference for it.



Thanks Lee Jay -- I probably wouldn't have found it otherwise!

Face detection is off. Scrolling through my library (only about 5K images, total), it seems noticeably stuttered and lagging here and there. I don't spend a lot of time in the Library module, so not a big deal to me. Just something I noticed...


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 24, 2015)

Famateur said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Click on the activity center (identity plate). You can pause it in there. There is a catalog preference for it.
> ...



Interesting about the speed of the Lib module. Traditionally it has always been faster to cruise through the catalogue using the Lib rather than Dev module because the Dev module renders the images differently. I am sure if Lib is slower at the moment it will be addressed by Adobe.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 24, 2015)

Jamesy said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



On all of my computers, Library is about the same as it has always been.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 24, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Jamesy said:
> 
> 
> > Famateur said:
> ...



Could be just my computer. I did a 127MP pano from 24 20MP source images last night, and it took nearly an hour to merge.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 24, 2015)

When I open my library module, it takes almost a minute maybe more for the image counts in my various folders appear. There are currently just 60K images, so its not huge. I turned off GPU processing, and it went back to normal with it taking a few seconds at most.

I am puzzled as to why this happens, but perhaps its rendering images slowly? I've set it to use the embedded jpegs for thumbnails. At any rate, GPU processing is off until it gets fixed. I had planned to upgrade to a faster Video card, but I'm now wondering if that would help.


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 24, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> When I open my library module, it takes almost a minute maybe more for the image counts in my various folders appear. There are currently just 60K images, so its not huge.



Only once though, right? I've seen that issue as well.



> I turned off GPU processing, and it went back to normal with it taking a few seconds at most.



Interesting.


----------



## LarryC (Apr 24, 2015)

i7 4770K, 16gb ram and win 8.1 with a library of only ~20K images and everything seems about the same as far as speed for me. I face-detected 5K images on Wed and it took 5-10 minutes. No big deal and it was kind of fun to play around with it, but it's not a big productivity improvement for me.

I use Win gadgets to monitor GPU, CPU, HDD and network all the time and it's very interesting to see how frequently the GPU is now accessed, though to be honest I don't really see a big improvement in slider, brush or gradient response. Maybe I'll see improvements elsewhere.

The HDR, which I tried, is "OK", but I'll stick with Nik. I haven't tried the pano, but I use PSCC for that so there's nothing in this feature for me.

What I really don't get is the Adobe business model that is pushing everyone to the CC model, which I use and am very happy with, but that is only financially practical for users of both PS and LR. And if that's the subscription you have, and PS is part of your workflow, what's the big advantage of putting a toned down pano and HDR in LR?

Overall, I think this major version is reflecting Adobe's interest in mobile platform users. I don't really see any real improvements in productivity and image processing. I'm a bit disappointed in this version.


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 25, 2015)

LarryC said:


> The HDR, which I tried, is "OK", but I'll stick with Nik. I haven't tried the pano, but I use PSCC for that so there's nothing in this feature for me.
> 
> Overall, I think this major version is reflecting Adobe's interest in mobile platform users. I don't really see any real improvements in productivity and image processing. I'm a bit disappointed in this version.



+1 Would not even have considered getting LR6 it if not part of my CC "plan".


----------



## Jim Saunders (Apr 25, 2015)

My 0.02 on it is that it is a sound upgrade from LR4 but not as strong a case as an upgrade from LR5; my list of things missing, no offense if they've been mentioned already:

A proper watermark editor
Sorting, grouping and individual deletions of history entries
Selective application of HSL changes
A button to show all edit pins
A function to lock the navigator open, I can't tell you how many times I've inadvertently collapsed it

That said the integral HDR seems to be on-par with PS CS6, although on one attempt it appears that the new image is added after the source images to the catalog, but not to the current collection.

So... call me whelmed, not over, not under. If it was a half-price upgrade like the previous versions I'd be more enthusiastic about it.

Jim


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 25, 2015)

Jim Saunders said:


> My 0.02 on it is that it is a sound upgrade from LR4 but not as strong a case as an upgrade from LR5; my list of things missing, no offense if they've been mentioned already:
> 
> A proper watermark editor
> Sorting, grouping and individual deletions of history entries


I think the people who want this either don't understand what the history panel is or don't know how to use it. The catch, I think, is that it's the same name as the history panel in PS, but the one in LR is an entirely different thing. Personally, I'd probably be up for the removing the damned thing since it seems to confuse so many people.


> Selective application of HSL changes
> A button to show all edit pins


Somthing wrong with the current one ("H")?


> A function to lock the navigator open, I can't tell you how many times I've inadvertently collapsed it


Since LR 1 I've never done that once, and you're the first person I've seen request this.


----------



## Famateur (Apr 26, 2015)

LarryC said:


> The HDR, which I tried, is "OK", but I'll stick with Nik. I haven't tried the pano, but I use PSCC for that so there's nothing in this feature for me.



The big deal for me is that the resulting merged file is a DNG (that and I don't have or use Photoshop  ).


----------



## Jim Saunders (Apr 26, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > My 0.02 on it is that it is a sound upgrade from LR4 but not as strong a case as an upgrade from LR5; my list of things missing, no offense if they've been mentioned already:
> ...



Are you like this to everyone you meet?

Jim


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 27, 2015)

Jim Saunders said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Jim Saunders said:
> ...



I do it all the time. It's really easy to do when you go to toggle the view size. It's an annoyance, but not as significant to me as other things (like: don't prompt me to sync with every newly-created catalog). 

Naturally, what's more annoying to me may be less so to you. That's the problem with these types of tweaks.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Apr 27, 2015)

Jim Saunders said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Jim Saunders said:
> ...



Don't take it personally Jim. You get responses of all types here. Just try to get .04 out of your .02 and call it a day. . I personally dislike LR with a passion and use other tools now. I was hoping for more out of this version. I may take the 30 day trial just to see for myself but so far it seems like a ho hum upgrade from LR5.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 27, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> > A function to lock the navigator open, I can't tell you how many times I've inadvertently collapsed it
> 
> 
> Since LR 1 I've never done that once, and you're the first person I've seen request this.



I keep the Navigator closed, I only use it once every few months. Where I have a issue is in the side panels closing too easily, I'd go for a lock for them, I virtually never use full screen. My monitor is big enough to see the image with them open.


----------

