# Lightroom 6 discontinued?



## dpc (May 16, 2017)

I decided to look into purchasing Lightroom 6 from the Adobe site this afternoon. I couldn't find it listed anywhere on the site without doing a search. When I did, I found it listed (April 26, 2017 was posting date given) but the download links were inactive and, in fact, the prices were blanked out. I suppose this means Adobe has officially discontinued this software in the interests of CC. Anyone have any info about this? Maybe I've missed something along the line. If so, forgive me for posting this.


----------



## stochasticmotions (May 16, 2017)

If it is, I hope they will support it for a while still....just bought it 6 months ago. I don't want to have to move to another product but I'm not going to monthly payments. Will have to look back into the other options again..On1, darktable....any others out there that people have found to be good enough?


----------



## colinu (May 16, 2017)

Lightroom 6 is still available on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65237578-Photoshop-Lightroom-6/dp/B00VWCKJVA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494970327&sr=8-1&keywords=lightroom+6


----------



## LordofTackle (May 16, 2017)

At least on the german adobe site it is still available, with price info, though every time I visit the site they make it harder to find the standalone version....one could think they do this on purpose :

-Sebastian


----------



## Roo (May 17, 2017)

I found it available on the Australian site by searching the products. I switched to the US site and it's the same - the last listing on page 2 of the most popular products for US$149.


----------



## dpc (May 17, 2017)

I just tried it again. Went to official Adobe site. Searched for Lightroom 6. Download site came up. All the pricing is blotted out and all the download buttons are inactive.


----------



## Click (May 17, 2017)

That's a stupid decision from Adobe.


----------



## Roo (May 17, 2017)

dpc said:


> I just tried it again. Went to official Adobe site. Searched for Lightroom 6. Download site came up. All the pricing is blotted out and all the download buttons are inactive.



Yes I checked again and it's still on the products page but it just takes you to Lightroom CC page with no option to buy outright. It doesn't sound very good at all but, looking at their launch history, maybe they're about to go to version 7.


----------



## SPKoko (May 17, 2017)

You might want to try this procedure:

https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/download-install-single-app-Lightroom-6.html


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 17, 2017)

With multiple alternatives that will satisfy the average LR user, Adobe may have made a poor business decision. 

In the Lightroom environment, they are not the only game in town. 

Not being a PS user, I can't opine on PS.


----------



## GammyKnee (May 17, 2017)

Click said:


> That's a stupid decision from Adobe.



Financially it's probably a smart move. But I don't like it one little bit.


----------



## dpc (May 17, 2017)

SPKoko said:


> You might want to try this procedure:
> 
> https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/download-install-single-app-Lightroom-6.html




Thanks for this! I was able to find an active purchase part of the site. Even after signing in with my Adobe ID and password, however, and following the various 'links', actually locating the Lightroom 6 download proved a very convoluted process that it is very easy to miss even for a diligent searcher. In my view, if Adobe sells the software as a standalone option, they should advertise it clearly. If, as is obviously the case (unless their web designers are less than competent, which isn't the case), they would much rather you subscribe, then they should advertise a subscription's advantages but present a clearly available standalone option. Otherwise they should simply discontinue Lightroom 6 and have done with this charade. Yes, the option is there still, but it is hardy clearly marked. The very attempt to find it on their website is so cumbersome, almost impossible, it's clear they want to throw potential purchasers off the scent. This shows no respect for their customers and, in my view, is marketing at its worst.

I may not bother buying Lightroom 6 after all. I use Lightroom 5, so I'm not sure the upgrade is really worth the money and I'm really annoyed by their marketing. As far as the future is concerned, I have other options. I use DXO OpticsPro 11 which I like, especially for its noise reduction. I also have Affinity Photo which is cheap for what you get. Luminar and onONe are other options. CaptureOne is overly pricey and I don't like the interface (I had a demo once). The fact is, I've used Lightroom in its various iterations for years and have become accustomed to its workings. I like it. I might be tempted to subscribe to Adobe if they had a Lightroom only plan, but I've never used PhotoShop and am not willing to pay for a product I'll likely never take advantage of. On top of that my upgrade cycle has been fairly long, so paying out a monthly subscription has no attraction for me.


----------



## LordofTackle (May 17, 2017)

dpc said:


> SPKoko said:
> 
> 
> > You might want to try this procedure:
> ...



Exactly. They really want to bury the standalone version. On their homepage they are already pretty good at it. 
And I don't want to pay more in yearly subscriptions than I had to pay for the upgrade from LR5 (I don't use PS at all). Now if they offered just LR for subscription, for at least half the current price, that may change my mind. 
IMHO, the upgrade from LR5 to 6 is not exactly worth it. In fact, I would be still using LR5 if I didn't had to upgrade because I bought a new camera whose RAW files weren't supported by LR5. 

-Sebastian


----------



## Orangutan (May 17, 2017)

LordofTackle said:


> I would be still using LR5 if I didn't had to upgrade because I bought a new camera whose RAW files weren't supported by LR5.



If you're willing to deal with a bit of hassle you don't have to upgrade LR for new cameras: Adobe has a free tool to convert any Canon raw file to DNG, which you can then import into older versions of LR. I did this for about a year with LR4 before buying standalone LR6.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html


----------



## SteveM (May 17, 2017)

I updated from 5 to 6 a couple of months ago purely so I can see my 5D MklV and G9X files without converting to dng. There were no new features that interested me. I wonder if version 7 will be a long time in coming (if at all) as there is little on the table to offer in it. 
I use Capture One as well, and it meant keeping the original Raw file, and a dng to view in Lightroom, as Capture One doesn't read the dng files without a loss in quality. Now everything is in proprietory Raw.


----------



## LordofTackle (May 17, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> LordofTackle said:
> 
> 
> > I would be still using LR5 if I didn't had to upgrade because I bought a new camera whose RAW files weren't supported by LR5.
> ...



Yep, I'm aware of this solution. I considered it for a short time, but I just don't want to convert all my raw files to DNG. I prefer to work with the canon raw files 
So in the end, it was worth to me the approx. 70€ update cost for LR6, but I would have chosen another solution if subscription would have been the only choice..

- Sebastian


----------



## dpc (May 17, 2017)

LordofTackle said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > LordofTackle said:
> ...




When I checked out the standalone download link this morning, I didn't see any upgrade option. It looked like you had to buy the full version even if you have version 5.7. I'll have to check again.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 17, 2017)

dpc said:


> When I checked out the standalone download link this morning, I didn't see any upgrade option. It looked like you had to buy the full version even if you have version 5.7. I'll have to check again.



They don't make it easy. Go here:

https://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/software._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_photoshopcollection.html

Click the "Buy" link for Lightroom 6.

Change "I want to buy" from "Full" to "Upgrade".

Change "I own" to "Lightroom 5.x".

Continue as you'd expect, price is $80. You'll need to supply your 5.7 license key at some point, though I don't remember when.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 17, 2017)

I'd avoid buying LR 6, its likely that support ill end soon, if not already. Although I resisted buying the photographer plan initially, I finally did and find that purchasing a 1 year prepaid card for $80 or 90 when on sale at B&H is a good deal, less than I'd spend on upgrading LR and Photoshop every 2 or 3 years.

It seems like software providers are changing to the rental plan, Internet security, and now, most of the password managers. I just bought a 7 year prepaid rental for mine which covers all of my devices. It was actually less expensive that way.


----------



## LordofTackle (May 17, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd avoid buying LR 6, its likely that support ill end soon, if not already. Although I resisted buying the photographer plan initially, I finally did and find that purchasing a 1 year prepaid card for $80 or 90 when on sale at B&H is a good deal, less than I'd spend on upgrading LR and Photoshop every 2 or 3 years.
> 
> It seems like software providers are changing to the rental plan, Internet security, and now, most of the password managers. I just bought a 7 year prepaid rental for mine which covers all of my devices. It was actually less expensive that way.



Well, CC Photo costs 10€/month in germany, that's already 120€ a year! I paid 80€ for the upgrade to LR6, which I will probably use for at least another 2-3 years - free of another charge! It might be worth that much money for you if you use both LR AND PS. But if you use only LR that's vastly overpriced, IMHO.
As I already mentioned in an earlier post, I might consider the cloud option if there's a reasonably priced version for only LR! For maybe 2-4€ per month (considering that PS was always way more expensive than LR). 
Also, I've never seen those nice discounts you get at B&H, for example, in Germany.

-Sebastian


----------



## Orangutan (May 18, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I finally did and find that purchasing a 1 year prepaid card for $80 or 90 when on sale at B&H is a good deal, less than I'd spend on upgrading LR and Photoshop every 2 or 3 years.



As I, and others, have said before, there is nothing wrong with Adobe offering subscriptions. The problem is the lack of a perpetual license option. Some have made the claim that it's not feasible to offer both, but the arguments in support have been, at best, very feeble.



> It seems like software providers are changing to the rental plan, Internet security, and now, most of the password managers. I just bought a 7 year prepaid rental for mine which covers all of my devices. It was actually less expensive that way.


On the other hand, I expect to start serious consideration of third-part and open-source options. I do not want to rent software.

For a person whose business is images, it makes sense to pay rental to have the most current version of the software. For amateurs who do not need the latest features, it does not.


----------



## dpc (May 18, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I finally did and find that purchasing a 1 year prepaid card for $80 or 90 when on sale at B&H is a good deal, less than I'd spend on upgrading LR and Photoshop every 2 or 3 years.
> ...




I certainly agree that Adobe is quite within its rights to offer whatever option or options it wishes. The problem for me is what I consider the bizarre way they're treating Lightroom 6. If they don't want people to buy it, if they want to push everyone interested in their products toward the subscription model, they should just discontinue offering 6. If they plan to sell it, they should make accessing it easily available. If they continue to sell 6 but fail to make accessing it easy on their website, they just annoy their customers. It makes absolutely no sense to me. It must to them in some odd way.

I'll continue using Lightroom 5 as long as I can. I don't have an unsupported camera at the moment. If I get one, I'll just use DXO OpticsPro 11 which really is very good. I can export from it in DNG format and then import that into Lightroom if I want. It would be nice to use the native Canon RAW files but I can live with DNG.


----------



## Orangutan (May 18, 2017)

dpc said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Adobe claims DNG conversion is lossless, so developing from DNG would not create any inherent degradation of image quality. Take that FWIW.


----------



## dpc (May 18, 2017)

I use DNG now both as output from DXO OpticsPro 11 and for Fuji files from Iridient X-Transformer. I usually process both further in Lightroom 5. I'm absolutely no authority on whether there's IQ degradation with DNG or not. I can only say I haven't seen anything that suggests there is. 8)


----------



## LDS (May 18, 2017)

dpc said:


> if they want to push everyone interested in their products toward the subscription model, they should just discontinue offering 6. If they plan to sell it, they should make accessing it easily available. If they continue to sell 6 but fail to make accessing it easy on their website, they just annoy their customers. It makes absolutely no sense to me. It must to them in some odd way.



I'm quite sure Adobe would discontinue the perpetual licenses if they didn't offer a way to get some money from bundling LR and Photoshop Elements with other products. Bundling a perpetual license may still have more appeal to customers than as 12 month subscription. Thereby try to deceive new customers into buying the subscription as much as you can, while keeping the product somewhat "alive", and maybe avoid some users going to Affinity, Darktable, etc. Marketing is a dark art...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 29, 2017)

SteveM said:


> as Capture One doesn't read the dng files without a loss in quality.



It _should_...


----------



## SteveM (May 29, 2017)

Affinity is surprisingly good, not a DAM system (only works on a single photo at a time) but couple it with photo mechanic and your own folder tree on the hard drive and you're away.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 29, 2017)

I use Affinity Photo instead of PS now, but I wouldn't use it as my primary Raw converter - very much a work in progress there.

Photo Ninja is the way to go, IMHO.


----------



## ScottyP (May 30, 2017)

I have LR5 now, and I'll be watching carefully when the 6d2 comes out, to see if LR6 will create a RAW translator for it. 

Assuming the 6d2 clears the pretty low bar I am setting for it (AF about as good as an 80d, and a continuance of the use of red illuminated AF points 6d1 already uses, not the black ones of recent 5d's) I am buying one. I would certainly want it to work in LR without a tortuous work-around. 

I do not use PS, nor any of the mobile or movie apps they bundle in CC. I am not a pro, so I have a hard time justifying the $120/year license and I worry it will only go up in the future. 

Here's their mistake though: I am in LR because I spent years learning it and I have tens of thousands of images in it. They MIGHT be able to compel me into at least trying CC, but how are they expecting to lure NEW amateur users in without any smaller initial commitment option like permanent purchase versions or at least a cheap LR-only license. 

They are reaping a short term cash flow increase by leaning on existing, invested customers in this way, but aren't they risking becoming irrelevant to new customers? I understand the short term profit; I actually bought some Adobe stock knowing it would increase cash flow, but I don't think new casual users will want to be forced to license PS to get LR. .


----------



## SteveM (May 31, 2017)

Always had my suspicions Lightroom would go 'subscription' only....it may not of course, still time for a release. However, because of these suspicions I never tied myself to using a DAM system, I just have a well thought out folder tree on the hard drive, and of course, sadly, no keywords.
I got curious and tested 6 Raw Converters today (a lot lot cheaper than lenses and bodies to acquire...and potentially more fun).
I always expose for the highlights and used a picture that was deliberately 2/3 stop over exposed - any more than that in all 3 channels and the highlights have gone for good - they go in the recycle bin.
All 6 converters very surprisingly gave good results, I personally wouldn't write any off because of my final result today, they were all very usable. I would probably (?) offer all the results to clients.
ACR, Lightroom and Capture One gave marginally better results - Capture One probably shading it. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that these 3 are good.
DXO was by far the most difficult to get working properly - my fault, I need to spend some time going through the user manual. Not sure if I'm entirely happy with those results yet. I bought this purely for DXO Prime which is extremely good.
Photo Ninja produced good results when converted, easy to learn and brought back the same level of highlights as the other converters. Unless I'm missing it, the software doesn't show the RGB values as you edit. That is a deal breaker for me. I want to see the RGB values of the brightest areas, I set them to roughly 235 each, then I know they will print with detail. That needs to be addressed quickly and it will be a good converter. Bought this for quick and good noise suppression - dxo prime takes 30-40 seconds per image, can't have that when I need to produce 300 photos quickly. The range of highlight is also poor. I maxed out the setting just to recover the 2/3 of a stop. If I wanted to make a sky more dramatic I'll need Photoshop as there's not enough range.
Affinity Photo, good enough result, quick to learn. 2 deal breakers this time for a Raw converter. No RGB values displayed, and no highlight clipping warning. Poor, and surely very easy to rectify I'd have thought. Also, I have a fast pc and it it 'lagged' after basic operations - they need a quicker engine. However, the other converters are poor at retouching, this is a real Photoshop contender. I wanted an alternative to Photoshop for cloning, healing, content aware etc - this is amazing. For £48 you can't really say no, just get another Raw converter.
Should I choose not to rent Photoshop in the future, the day will come no doubt when my CS6 will be incompatible with the current Windows platform. Should this happen I now have a workflow that would remove Adobe if I wished. Don't get me wrong, Adobe ACR/ Photoshop is seriously good at everything it does....and fast, very fast, and that is important
Photo Mechanic for the cull, Capture One as a Raw Converter supported by Affinity Photo for any retouching. I can never wrap my head around why people spend thousands of pounds/dollars/euros on lenses and the latest camera body which is little better than the existing one, and truly skimp on software, yes, Capture One is expensive - and there is a reason for that.
I had 2 hours spare today to do this, I apologise if I missed how to turn on clipping warnings and RGB values. Underexposed pictures are another story for another day, with iso invariance that is becoming less of an issue than blown highlights.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 31, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> I have a hard time justifying the $120/year license



$10 a month isn't much, Scotty - I can't really think of many examples of getting so much for so little...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 31, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> but aren't they risking becoming irrelevant to new customers?


Simply isn't happening - despite all the noise on the interwebs about subscription, it would appear that _a lot_ of users are fine with it; and people coming in new will never have known anything different.


----------



## SteveM (May 31, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> SteveM said:
> 
> 
> > as Capture One doesn't read the dng files without a loss in quality.
> ...



Sorry Keith, I missed your reply. There is a quality loss. I'd read it somewhere and so I emailed Captue One directly. No loss if dng straight from camera, but converting to dng via Adobe converter will add noise apparently, colour and tonality may be off as well....they may be, they may not be. It is generic apparently, and a may or may not scenario. Most of this is quoted directly from their reply.

As a result of this I don't process dng in Captue One.

Never delete the original Raw file, save them on an external hd if necessary.


----------



## SteveM (May 31, 2017)

On reflection, I can't see Lightroom going subscription yet. Too many would probably jump to Capture One. You don't jump in the water with the sharks circling.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 31, 2017)

ScottyP said:


> I have a hard time justifying the $120/year license



Then don't buy it.

I struggle to see the problem here. There is a $10/month plan that offers you tools that most people serious in photography find pretty much essential. If you can't justify $10/month for this then that's fine. 

But complaining about this in a photography forum on a site dominated by people who regard themselves as serious in photography is a little pointless.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (May 31, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > I have a hard time justifying the $120/year license
> ...


The upgrade to Lightroom 6 cost me £59 in April 2015 - so my investment has cost £2.36 per month so far, and I continue to receive value for every additional month that I use it. I am not interested in Photoshop, so why would I want to pay £10.10 per month just for the same product?
There is no information about how the cost of CC will increase so how do I know what I am committing myself to in the future? A cost of £10 a month or more might not be a problem now but as I am approaching retirement it soon will be. I see no point in committing myself to a cost that I might be unable to afford, especially as I can continue to use Lighroom 6 for as long as it supports my camera and lens collection.
This is typical of the way large corporations behave when they believe that they hold an unassailable position in the market and it is not a strategy that I wish to support.


----------



## emailfortom (May 31, 2017)

I shoot sports for a living and find that Lightroom, alone, is sufficient for my needs. 

On a personal level... I prefer to give my business to a vendor that provides "options" rather than a single "required" solution. Also, I can't recall if this is correct or not but wasn't one of the LR cloud versions super buggy...resulting in a few days of downtime? 

Should Adobe discontinue LR6 (standalone version) I think I would strongly consider moving to something else.


----------



## cayenne (May 31, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > I have a hard time justifying the $120/year license
> ...



I consider photography in a serious manner, and I too VERY much dislike the *rental* paradigm of software.

I mean...what's the price new of LR standalone..somethink like maybe $160 or so?
Well if you buy it, that's 16 months at $10/mo and you've paid it off...but with rental, well...you keep paying and paying and paying.....

And Adobe just does *not* provide so many upgrades over a year and a half that justify keeping paying for it.


----------



## Halfrack (May 31, 2017)

cayenne said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > ScottyP said:
> ...



But you're forgetting it's not 'just' LR, that you're getting Photoshop as well for that $10/month. Here's what Adobe has released into the 2015 CC product: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new-cc-2015.html and the 2017 list is a link off that page.

It's a pain, but really, when you think about how much software piracy was going on with the Adobe suite, I'm ok with the subscription trade off.


----------



## mnclayshooter (May 31, 2017)

Related, but not directly on topic - I have CC through my employer (on their computer), but for home use, I still have LR 5.7... I've held off, as LR 5.7 does everything I need it to, for the most part. 

My question: When the CC license expires, what are you left with? A bunch of RAW files (without any edits applied?), .jpgs/tiff's with edits applied - if you've exported them, and some .lr files storing your settings/edits? In other words, your working RAW files are essentially useless unless you keep paying the subscription? (for example, if you want to maintain several different crop ratios, mono/color versions etc without exporting each permutation as a TIFF/jpg)? Am I not understanding it correctly? or does LR CC continue to function to export the photos that you've modified, you just can't add any new ones somehow? 

What I'm trying to ask is, what happens when the license expires?


----------



## SteveM (May 31, 2017)

mnclayshooter said:


> Related, but not directly on topic - I have CC through my employer (on their computer), but for home use, I still have LR 5.7... I've held off, as LR 5.7 does everything I need it to, for the most part.
> 
> My question: When the CC license expires, what are you left with? A bunch of RAW files (without any edits applied?), .jpgs/tiff's with edits applied - if you've exported them, and some .lr files storing your settings/edits? In other words, your working RAW files are essentially useless unless you keep paying the subscription? (for example, if you want to maintain several different crop ratios, mono/color versions etc without exporting each permutation as a TIFF/jpg)? Am I not understanding it correctly? or does LR CC continue to function to export the photos that you've modified, you just can't add any new ones somehow?
> 
> What I'm trying to ask is, what happens when the license expires?



found this on the Adobe site:

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.

Hope this allays some worries


----------



## cayenne (May 31, 2017)

Halfrack said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



Well, the thing with that is...as I understand it, Lightroom, Photoshop, etc...the CC versions were all cracked to be pirated after only a couple of days of CC.<P>
So, it really didn't do much to curb piracy of them as I understand it.

C


----------



## LordofTackle (May 31, 2017)

cayenne said:


> Halfrack said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...



Correct. I assume technically it's the same principle as with games: the software is virtually the same as the standalone, it just connects to the internet and checks whether you are allowed to use it. If not, then it's crippled. And as time has shown, no copy protection ever really prevented the cracking and illegal distribution of games/software.

So the only reason for Adobe to do this is because it's a veritable money printing machine!!
They claim it is because for better update s and so on, but there haven't been that much fancy upgrades, at least not for LR (can't speak for PS).

I used LR5 for 3 years before I had to switch to LR6 due to a new cam. Back then it cost about 120€. The CC subscription (LR+PS) is 10€ per month. So that's 360+€ right there, vs the 120€ one-time purchase.

The CC might be OK when you do photography as a job, but for me as a hobbyist it is just not acceptable to rent that software for so much money, especially when I have absolutely no need for PS!! So for now I will use the standalone as long as it is possible.

As I already stated earlier in this thread, I might change my opinion if a) Adobe provides a reasonably priced LR-only CC version (2-4€/month) and b) provides more and regularly new content/features.

-Sebastian


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jun 1, 2017)

SteveM said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > Related, but not directly on topic - I have CC through my employer (on their computer), but for home use, I still have LR 5.7... I've held off, as LR 5.7 does everything I need it to, for the most part.
> ...



It does, thanks.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 1, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> This is typical of the way large corporations behave when they believe that they hold an unassailable position in the market and it is not a strategy that I wish to support.


And luckily, you're under _absolutely no obligation_ to do so.

I really don't understand the need to contrive convoluted, moralistic justifications - it _always_ boils down to the money: it's fine that your personal cost/benefit threshold doesn't accommodate Adobe's direction of travel, but don't make it into a moral crusade against the evils of monopolistic big business.

Besides: although I haven't always been an Adobe user myself (I've always used converters other than Lightroom, and for years I used PaintShop Pro rather than PhotoShop) - and I'm not now (Photo Ninja and Affinity Photo) - I'd argue that the company has rather _earned_ its "unassailable" position.

And yet I was still able to walk away from Adobe with my kneecaps intact...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 1, 2017)

SteveM said:


> Sorry Keith, I missed your reply. There is a quality loss. I'd read it somewhere and so I emailed Captue One directly. No loss if dng straight from camera, but converting to dng via Adobe converter will add noise apparently, colour and tonality may be off as well....they may be, they may not be. It is generic apparently, and a may or may not scenario. Most of this is quoted directly from their reply.



Which Capture One version, Steve?

It used to struggle with colours of converted DNGs (it would always default to a crappy "Generic DNG" profile when presented with a converted DNG), and I was involved in many forum discussions on the subject on the Cap One forum back in the day.

But with Cap One 9, they made great play of the fact that the software would recognise the camera from which the converted DNG's files came, and apply the correct _camera specific_ profile:



> All previous versions of Capture One have an issue with converted DNG files. For Lightroom/CameraRAW photographers, who have converted their photo archive into DNG, there were no options to get the true colors with Capture One without extracting the original RAW file.
> 
> Capture One 9 works much better with DNG; the color is clear and realistic. There are still slight inequalities with image luminance, but, in general, DNG picture is quite close to the original RAW and with some images you will even find no difference.



I tested the claim heavily, and in my experience it was an accurate one - with DNGs converted by Lightroom or by the Adobe DNG converter, results were pixel-for-pixel identical for native Raws and DNGs converted from them.

The point is that in terms of the "information" contained in a file presented to Capture One, losslessly converted DNGs and native Raws _are_ identical - given this (and again, I've tested this stuff umpteen times over the years) it's hard to see there the additional noise would come from - I've never, ever seen that - and the DNG colour accuracy issue _has_ been addressed in recent Capture One releases.


----------



## jmontagu13 (Jun 1, 2017)

Maybe I missed this, but when I searched for it today, it is pretty clearly showing it's subscription only now.

"Lightroom is now only available through the Creative Cloud"

Here's a screenshot showing it as well.


----------



## LordofTackle (Jun 2, 2017)

hm, in germany it is still available.

Edit: same in the US. 149$
https://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/software._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_mostpopular.html?start=20


----------



## cayenne (Jun 7, 2017)

I"m still seeing it for sale in the US:

https://commerce.adobe.com/anyware/checkout/?clientId=adobe_com&countryCode=US&languageCode=en&marketSegment=COM&items%5B0%5D%5BofferId%5D=2FC5373F330D461A88A53B374D87F5BB&items%5B0%5D%5Bcs%5D=0


----------

