# Lightroom 7 rumor



## jprusa (Sep 23, 2017)

https://photorumors.com/2017/09/18/adobe-lightroom-7-rumors/


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 23, 2017)

I'm just really happy and relieved there's going to BE a LR7. I was afraid they were going to force everyone to the cloud.


----------



## PRINZMETAL (Sep 23, 2017)

I have two big issues with LR and they are:
1. Slow import. If I have a lot of pictures to import I use Photo Mechanic which is wonderful. Many pros use this software because of the import speed and ability to add tags that comply with many publisher standards
2. Lack of improvements that are in PS that many photographers are forced to use both LR and PS. We are paying for both so the lack of porting these functions into LR is not a revenue issue for Adobe.

If the post is right about the next version of LR, the update will do little for me and to me it shows that Adobe is not close to their LR customer base. They could solve one of these issues rather easily by buying photo mechanic and integrating it into LR and PS.
Bp


----------



## Click (Sep 23, 2017)

...As long as LR7 is available as standalone version.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2017)

PRINZMETAL said:


> If the post is right about the next version of LR, the update will do little for me and to me it shows that Adobe is not close to their LR customer base.



Why would they do that when they're making record revenue: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33492.0

To be clear: I want LR to remain standalone, and to take on some additional PS features; however, they're unlikely to give that priority when the current business model is working for them. My guess is that they may have chosen to leave LR as standalone solely because it serves as a entry point to the CC subscription.

Maybe it's better to hope that Photomechanic adds features to achieve parity with LR, rather than the reverse.


----------



## dpc (Sep 23, 2017)

I'm not sure I care much about this. I'm certainly not interested in a cloud subscription. I am interested mildly in LR7 as a standalone product but I doubt I'll buy it. I do use LR 5.7 but am gradually moving away from it. I have a stable of products that work for me outside Adobe: DxO OpticsPro 11; Affinity Photo; Luminar; ON1 Photo RAW 2017. Overkill, I know, but I rather like fiddling with different products offering different experiences. I'm not a pro and I'm retired so I can diddle around without worrying about workflow efficiency much. Anyway, I do hope they keep LR in standalone but I suspect that Orangutan's suspicion that Adobe's keeping it alive as a come on for the subscription model may not be too far off the mark.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> To be clear: I want LR to remain standalone, and to take on some additional PS features



I don't. I want Adobe to go 100% subscription and revert to their early business model of working for professional image makers and creatives. I am fed up of the noisy tail wagging the dog, they should free themselves of the noisy minority (of revenue streams) and focus on actual professionals, if that prices them out of the amateur market so be it, there are plenty of alternatives for those that don't see the value in the products and options Adobe give.


----------



## mclaren777 (Sep 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't. I want Adobe to go 100% subscription and revert to their early business model of working for professional image makers and creatives. I am fed up of the noisy tail wagging the dog, they should free themselves of the noisy minority (of revenue streams) and focus on actual professionals, if that prices them out of the amateur market so be it, there are plenty of alternatives for those that don't see the value in the products and options Adobe give.



You're the first person I've seen who actually agrees with me on this.


----------



## ashmadux (Sep 23, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I don't. I want Adobe to go 100% subscription and revert to their early business model of working for professional image makers and creatives. I am fed up of the noisy tail wagging the dog, they should free themselves of the noisy minority (of revenue streams) and focus on actual professionals, if that prices them out of the amateur market so be it, there are plenty of alternatives for those that don't see the value in the products and options Adobe give.
> ...



Talk about naive.

Forever subscription....right. 

Revert to earlier biz model, support pros...

RIIIIIIIIGHT. That's some good stuff you guys are drinkin'.

People so easily fool themselves...all that sweet revenue thats coming in is not being invested in products...its just to fatten the shareholders. Thier job is to make money for shareholders, not get you the best possible products for your money. And fat chance with your dreams of supporting professionals...like when they tied raw and lens profile updates to app updates...what a great help! Camera raw is still using 2012 process versions..even though its going on 2018. Please tell us how much better adobe raw versions have gotten since they went subscription only?

Continue to cut your nose to spite your faces. What kind of lunatics would want another monthly bill...wtf.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2017)

ashmadux said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Businesses want monthly bills rather than a one off fee. It is 100% deductible and helps cash flow, it is a massive accounting benefit.

If I buy a $700 lens/software/capital expense it takes me three years for my business to offset that cost, effectively I loan my business money. If I lease that $700 lens/software/capital expense then my monthly payment is 100% deductible that year, I don't have to find the $700 and I don't have to effectively loan myself anything.

From a business standpoint monthly 'lease' payments are very important.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> If I lease that $700 lens/software/capital expense then my monthly payment is 100% deductible that year, I don't have to find the $700 and I don't have to effectively loan myself anything.



Can you seriously not deduct a $700 purchase? I don't have to amortize anything below $1,000 here. I guess our tax laws in Quebec are pretty reasonable after all...


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > If I lease that $700 lens/software/capital expense then my monthly payment is 100% deductible that year, I don't have to find the $700 and I don't have to effectively loan myself anything.
> ...



No. If it is a capital purchase, even if it is a $1, it takes between three and ten years depending on it's classification to amortize.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 23, 2017)

THey'd better work on performance. I had my month trial of C1P, and it is lickety split on my old machine when compared to LR. I'm very seriously on the fence in regards to C1P. It could save me the cost of a new laptop for a few more years yet.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



That makes me want to cry... curious where you're from?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > IglooEater said:
> ...



My business is registered in Florida.

As for C1P, I have heard so many good things about it, but every single time I have seen a demo it crashes. When you ask the power users about the crashes they just shrug and say 'yeh it crashes', I don't get that!

But the two programs are so different they suit, or not, users with different styles. If you are one that suits the C1P workflow it seems to have a lot of fans.


----------



## Batman6794 (Sep 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Even so, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around spending MORE money to get a deductible sooner being better for the business. Deducting something reduces your effective reported income by the amount, but the money it saves in the end is only the taxes on the amount, its not equivalent to the amount itself.

A business that actually saves money on this must have an unbelievably high tax rate, or is running on ridiculously thin margins to make having more money now and less over long run somehow worth it.

I think big businesses like it because it spreads the cost evenly over time. (Who care what the business looks like in five years these days. We've got to have a great report to the stock holders this quarter!)

The slight increase in cost is chump change to a large business, and the evening of expenses over time is priceless. I'm sure they're happy to pay a bit more for it.


----------



## Batman6794 (Sep 23, 2017)

But the two programs are so different they suit, or not, users with different styles. If you are one that suits the C1P workflow it seems to have a lot of fans.
[/quote]

Capture One does crash more than Lightroom, but I get far better results so I'm willing to put up with it. 

As far as the workflow style, I am not at all a fan of Capture One's out of the box workflow, but you can re-order and customize to your heart's content. It took me about 10 minutes to create a workspace that is better suited to how I think than anything else I've used.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Sep 23, 2017)

I use currently the 5.7 and I didnt switch to the subscription model and I will never switch to it.
If there is no LR7 as an update, I stay with 5.7. I don't plan to buy a new camera, where I might be forced to do something, maybe in 3 years...


----------



## Berowne (Sep 23, 2017)

davidcl0nel said:


> I use currently the 5.7 and I didnt switch to the subscription model and I will never switch to it.
> If there is no LR7 as an update, I stay with 5.7. I don't plan to buy a new camera, where I might be forced to do something, maybe in 3 years...



Convert to DNG and everything is fine. I use LR 5.7 and Photoshop CS5. Conversion is done with the Adobe DNG-Converter. Of course, the ARC of CS5 does not handle the RAW-Files of new Cameras, but this is no Problem. After DNG-Conversion there is no difference to my "old" *.CR2-Files.


----------



## Silverstream (Sep 23, 2017)

I certainly want those performance improvements. I have done as much as I can really on my end with a lot of the same things the source did from fast ram and lots of it to the SSD to of course a blazing CPU. It does help of course and make it somewhat workable. 
My other wish is that they would enable watermark on LR mobile sync and help make that gallery a better tool for letting our clients select the images they want. I use it here and there with certain clients now and it works but doesn't work as well as it could! Clients need to be able to not just "heart" or comment and image but should be able to rate it and then have an option to show only those rated. Then those actions need to be applied to the image and an alert sent to me that they have done so. That data must be stored locally with the catalog too as well as in the cloud to provide redundancy.


----------



## Talys (Sep 23, 2017)

Honestly, I don't know what all the griping about Lightroom as a subscription service is. $120 a year for 2 copies of LR + PS is a great (or at least very _fair_) price, and LR does get meaningful updates here and there. If you end up not using it much, just cancel the subscription on the next renewal and use some other RAW converter; there are plenty, and for Canon, you can always fall back to DPP, which is certainly usable.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2017)

Berowne said:


> davidcl0nel said:
> 
> 
> > I use currently the 5.7 and I didnt switch to the subscription model and I will never switch to it.
> ...



And this is one of the reasons I get so pissed at people getting mad at Adobe for what they do.

What other company makes and fully supports an entirely free program who's main use is enabling users to not upgrade their software?


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > To be clear: I want LR to remain standalone, and to take on some additional PS features
> ...


Maybe it's not. Maybe most of the revenue is from amateurs. Or maybe it doesn't matter to Adoabe -- revenue is revenue.



> they should free themselves of the noisy minority


Again, that's a large assumption.



> see the value in the products and options Adobe give.


I do see value...in PSCS6. Beyond that, not much. I'd stick with LR6 if I could just get raw support for it.

Adobe has to be careful: it's much too easy for an amateur-oriented competitor to grow up fast and take away market share.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Berowne said:
> 
> 
> > davidcl0nel said:
> ...



DNG is an open standard, I'm sure the camera manufacturers would do so if Adobe didn't. Anyway, it was a small piece of sugar to give customers time to make transitions to new software versions. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were to discontinue it in the next year. I'm not counting on it to be available forever. Even so, I don't relish the thought of doubling my storage needs for CR2 + RAW.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


1/ No, Adobe have released the numbers several times, amateurs/non subscription customers customers are a relatively small percentage of income. 

2/ No, the only people I hear go on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how terrible Adobe are are the people who "won't be held hostage" and "won't ever 'rent' software" etc etc. Sure there are lots of points raised by subscription users, but the noise comes from the 'perpetual license' crowd.

3/ That's because you don't use the newer tools every single day, if you did you'd see the cross platform work they have done. LR Mobile is a killer tool, synced Collections non Adobe (customers) can access and give feedback on is an amazing time saver. Heck simple things like a reference image in the Develop module saves hours of time getting images in a series balanced. Brush adjustments included on the gradient filter, dehaze, etc etc.

It's too easy to say I don't need this or that feature and not see the gradual improvements in each program and the cross platform inter operability they have made. I am no Adobe apologist, but they do keep improving the products and if they address the performance issues we now have running so many more images with ever larger pixel numbers they are doing pretty well for me.

3b/ They do give you RAW support, via the entirely free and fully supported DNG Convertor. And you moan about "doubling your storage space".... Good god!

4/ I don't care if they get competition, you will though, because any time any company gets close to Adobe they will realize the only way they can balance the books for ever developing software is a subscription model. No company can survive the fickle nature of periodic upgraders who will skip this generation or two because they 'don't see the value'.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> 1/ No, Adobe have released the numbers several times, amateurs/non subscription customers customers are a relatively small percentage of income.


If you have a link to that info handy I'd be interested to see them. Thanks.

BTW, I don't claim that your point of view is wrong, only that it's not the only valid one.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> DNG is an open standard, I'm sure the camera manufacturers would do so if Adobe didn't.



it is an open standard developed and paid for by whom? Adobe.

The camera manufacturers don't give a damn about software, let alone how you can use your old cameras with your new RAW rendering engine, get real! DPP keeps dropping then getting back support for no end of 'legacy' cameras.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"DNG is based on the TIFF/EP standard format" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative) If memory serves, they did it largely for their own benefit, hoping to create an industry-standard raw format. Nothing wrong with that, but I won't give them more credit than is due.



> The camera manufacturers don't give a damn about software, let alone how you can use your old cameras with your new RAW rendering engine, get real! DPP keeps dropping then getting back support for no end of 'legacy' cameras.




Why the anger? I'm an amateur expressing my preference, I've done you no harm. If Adobe hasn't given you what you want it's not my fault, just as I don't blame subscribers for destroying the perpetual license model that I prefer. I've said before (check my post history if you doubt) that subscription is fine for pros like you, bad for amateurs. If you're correct that the vast majority are pros then it makes (financial) sense that they ignore amateurs. I find those numbers a little hard to believe, just as I would find it hard to believe that most U.S. pickup truck sales are for business use.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 23, 2017)

Click said:


> ...As long as LR7 is available as standalone version.



Hopefully! It better be compatible with Win 7. It cost me about $1500 to upgrade my PC from Win XP last time.  I don't have issues with LR6, so LR7 would have to be a radical improvement and added features for me to bite. The only pisser about LR6 was I couldn't get time lapse to work.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 24, 2017)

Batman6794 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > IglooEater said:
> ...



I for one do understand. I would totally consider renting all my gear if I were in private's situation. I hate amortization, i hate it. I can't stand the state charging me taxes on money I've already spent. I'd pay a deal more were it just to give the finger to the state. It goes without saying that if I have to increase my credit margin to keep operating, I might as well pay more long term to pay less interest.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 24, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> My business is registered in Florida.
> 
> As for C1P, I have heard so many good things about it, but every single time I have seen a demo it crashes. When you ask the power users about the crashes they just shrug and say 'yeh it crashes', I don't get that!
> 
> But the two programs are so different they suit, or not, users with different styles. If you are one that suits the C1P workflow it seems to have a lot of fans.



Hmm well that's kind of nice to know... thank Private. It certainly corresponds to my style better, but to hear it crashes puts a chill in my bones.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 24, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Berowne said:
> 
> 
> > davidcl0nel said:
> ...



While I happen to be on the other side of the fence from you, that's a very fair point.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 24, 2017)

IglooEater said:


> THey'd better work on performance. I had my month trial of C1P, and it is lickety split on my old machine when compared to LR. I'm very seriously on the fence in regards to C1P. It could save me the cost of a new laptop for a few more years yet.


Same feeling, I went from Lr4 to 6 and the performance and stability were terrible. After trying On1, I must say the LR felt slow like a snail. As long as the LR7 is step forward in terms of performance I don't mind upgrading from LR6.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 24, 2017)

Talys said:


> Honestly, I don't know what all the griping about Lightroom as a subscription service is. $120 a year for 2 copies of LR + PS is a great (or at least very _fair_) price, and LR does get meaningful updates here and there.



I'll tell you what - I don't use PS - at all. It's just not necessary for basically anything outside of multi-image manual compositing, which I do something like 1 in 20,000 images. And PS is such a pain to use now that it's all for graphic artists that I actually prefer to use Elements for that instead. And $120 a year for just LR is a ripoff compared to an $89 upgrade every 2 years or so.


----------



## RGF (Sep 24, 2017)

PRINZMETAL said:


> I have two big issues with LR and they are:
> 1. Slow import. If I have a lot of pictures to import I use Photo Mechanic which is wonderful. Many pros use this software because of the import speed and ability to add tags that comply with many publisher standards
> 2. Lack of improvements that are in PS that many photographers are forced to use both LR and PS. We are paying for both so the lack of porting these functions into LR is not a revenue issue for Adobe.
> 
> ...



Let me add a third issue. 

Auto stacking sucks. It is based upon the difference in start time between 2 images - does not take into account the exposure time of the 1st image.

There needs be a smart stacking option.

HDR smart stacking
- Looks at the exposure settings, only change in the shutter speed, not both shutter speed and f stop.
- need to be taken in rapid succession (look at the end of 1 exposure and start of the next)
- ideally tries a quick alignment to confirm images should be stacked
- tracks the exposure of all the images in the stack to make sure HDR exposure series should not be repeated

Panoramic smart stacking
- looks at the exposure settings, no change in shutter speed or f-stop
- needs to be taken in rapid successive (look at the end of 1 exposure and start of the next)
- ideally tries a quick alignment to confirm images should be stacked

Just some thought starters


----------



## CanonCams (Sep 24, 2017)

RGF said:


> HDR smart stacking
> - Looks at the exposure settings, only change in the shutter speed, not both shutter speed and f stop.
> - need to be taken in rapid succession (look at the end of 1 exposure and start of the next)
> - ideally tries a quick alignment to confirm images should be stacked
> - tracks the exposure of all the images in the stack to make sure HDR exposure series should not be repeated



Do any programs do that?


----------



## Jopa (Sep 24, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Do you have a web site?


----------



## Berowne (Sep 24, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Berowne said:
> ...



There is no Need for doubling. Just delete the CR2-Files after conversion.


----------



## SteveM (Sep 24, 2017)

I wouldn't delete the Cr2 files as you never know what the future holds....put them on an external if necessary.
I spoke to capture one some months ago and they tell me that noise and color/tonal issues could (might or might not) be introduced with dng files when using Capture One software, maybe this could apply to other software from other manufacturers?
Using CS6, my 5D MklV isn't supported so I shoot the CR2 and a small jpeg for viewing purposes only in Adobe. I'll then process the CR2 in Capture One and export to Photoshop if necessary. This is getting less and less necessary as the Raw converters do a lot. Retouching is one obvious exception.
I deleted some CR2 files after converting to dng several years ago and I seriously regret doing that now.


----------



## Lee Jay (Sep 24, 2017)

SteveM said:


> I wouldn't delete the Cr2 files as you never know what the future holds....put them on an external if necessary.
> I spoke to capture one some months ago and they tell me that noise and color/tonal issues could be introduced with dng files.



They're liars. The data is not changed when converting raw to dng unless you choose to go to lossy dng.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 24, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > THey'd better work on performance. I had my month trial of C1P, and it is lickety split on my old machine when compared to LR. I'm very seriously on the fence in regards to C1P. It could save me the cost of a new laptop for a few more years yet.
> ...



Did you get any updates to 6? When I initially got the new 6, it crashed no less than every fifteen minutes, and corrupted half the images on a memory card. After an update a month or so after release, it got a lot better. It remains my only application that ever crashes, but that's not very often. I feel like it wants to crash, but is far too slow to ever get around to it. ;D


----------



## LDS (Sep 24, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> They're liars. The data is not changed when converting raw to dng unless you choose to go to lossy dng.



Sorry, you're wrong. Data are changed from the original RAW format to DNG own internal RAW format. How much changes depends on the algorithm used for a given RAW format. Some very specific RAW data not supported by DNG may be lost. Unless the source code for the processing is published, you have no way to know what changes, and you need to trust Adobe. You can embed the original RAW inside the DNG, but it means much larger files.

DNG is an "open" format, but it is patented by Adobe, and it's not a standard managed by an independent body (i.e. ISO), even if Adobe attempted to have it accepted. Till now, anyway, the format is fully controlled by Adobe alone.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 24, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> SteveM said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't delete the Cr2 files as you never know what the future holds....put them on an external if necessary.
> ...



My (vague) memory is that pixel data doesn't change, but metadata does, which could include color balance. Don't take this as settled truth.


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 24, 2017)

*CR2 file vs DNG*

I am not so confident that the results after conversion are the same, depending on the starting point.

I am of the opinion that a CR2 file processed in DPP ends up better than starting with the same CR2 file in Lightroom. Unfortunately, Lightroom can't apply the DPP edits, so the DPP edited file must be saved as a TIFF, which Lightroom can see. This approach is not practical for all images though. Nor are "RAW to DNG" or "TIFF to DNG" files the same.

Maybe, for those that have never used DPP and only work in Lightroom, the resulting DNG conversion would be "the same".

Far as I know, Canon does not license their RAW file details to Adobe.

A few others over at DPReview have experimented with the DNG output available from the Sigma sd camera, and it was not the same as processing the X3F file (Sigma RAW) within Sigma Photo Pro- the X3F file provided better results. This may be an extreme example, considering that Adobe does not support some X3F file formats at all, but it does show that there is a difference.

Given Canon's presence in the camera market, I do not see a point where being able to convert a CR2 file would ever be a concern. Even if the latest version of DPP doesn't read the files from a 4.2mp 1D, there is an earlier version of DPP out there- either on Canon's site or elsewhere.

I guess my point is that I do not see any advantage to converting CR2 files to DNG, short of using a legacy Adobe program that doesn't support a new camera model.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 24, 2017)

I don't mind the subscription model as such but it just shows what happens to innovation when it exists. There has been little or no significant improvement in Lightroom or Photoshop in 2 years. Photoshop has a terrible user interface and simple things are overly complex. They should at this stage be one unified pieces of software. Instead they are a mix of each other. Lightroom is very slow for what it does. Both are very bloated pieces of software. There is no business incentive to improve it as it's a cash cow. They've probably moved their developers to other software. Either that or they've run out of ideas on how to improve them.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 24, 2017)

I like Lightroom in general, and it's been my main photo organising/editing program for years. However, I don't feel they need to add any more features. Rather, like others, I'd just ask that it be made more stable and less of a memory hog. Some features are just not usable (like panorama stitch) because they eat up all spare HD space until the computer seizes up (I appreciate that probably isn't an issue for people with big HDs but this doesn't happen when using other programs to perform the same task); like others, I find importing with Lr very flakey and often many times slower than e.g. EOS Utility. Tbh unless the new version has some compelling feature, or is reviewed as much faster, I'll stick with the current version.


----------



## -pekr- (Sep 24, 2017)

Oh my, LR, subscriptions, professionals  As for me personally, I have nothing against subscription, although I can understand kind of "psychological insecurity" in I-am-not-owning-it point of view.

Adobe might have vital business, the question is, how many ppl do actually use LR. Remember - you buy it in terms of their subscription along with PS. I can also find only a Catalog and Develop useful. Well, maybe a Print module, if you are printing yourself.

Anyone trying to utilise LR's Book, Web or Slideshow modules just wastes his own time imo. With stuff like Smug/Zenfolio, Smart Albums/Fundy, I can't imagine any pro would use those LR modules.

Now back to Develop itself - have you tried on1? Luminar? Exposure X3 for styling your photos? Or even old good Nik? Or even our Czech Zoner? All those tools are being able to work with RAWs, non destructively and are actually much better in photo finalisation (effects stage). 

It would actually be nice to see some numbers, of how many ppl actually abandoned LR for some other tool/workflow.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 24, 2017)

There can be a difference between short term increase in cash flow and a long term good business decision. Adobe was able to put the screws to its existing clients by forcing them into the subscription model. I saw that was going to make money and I bought some Adobe stock, and it has made enough money to pay for their subscription for the rest of my shooting life, but I didn't subscribe. 

Existing users have invested lots of time becoming proficient in the Adobe software and have thousands and thousands of images processed and catalogued in the Adobe environment so they can be expected to go along with the subscription in large enough numbers to make it profitable for Adobe to compel them to do so. 

Not so new photographers not yet hooked on Adobe. Adobe needs an entry point for new users in order to get them into the Adobe world and to make that investment in learning the programs and to put those thousands of images into it so they too will be committed users and someday, some of them, subscribers. Lightroom is that entry point. If they raise the initial commitment by eliminating that friendly easy entry point I think they would find they are not attracting as many new users. Most people would think that would be bad business, even, you'd think, a vocal forum poster that evidently has disdain for amateur users.


----------



## TomDibble (Sep 24, 2017)

Lee Jay said:


> SteveM said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't delete the Cr2 files as you never know what the future holds....put them on an external if necessary.
> ...



No, unless your raw format is pixel based, which it is not. DNG conversion does lose data at the margins, which is unlikely to be critical, but keeping a second copy is cheap insurance.


----------



## RGF (Sep 24, 2017)

CanonCams said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > HDR smart stacking
> ...



I wish I could find a plug in to this. Adobe does not seem to be very interested in Smart Auto Stacking. There were some previously but they are no longer supported so this is doable.


----------



## CanonCams (Sep 24, 2017)

RGF said:


> CanonCams said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



Ah, ok.

Thought you knew of a program that would do it (EasyHDR, Photomatix etc)


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 24, 2017)

hehehe, apparently they gave up on being able to convert me (and many others) to their monthly rental pay cloud sh*t scheme. 

If it is good [performance & features] I may buy a license and upgrade from LR 5 ... but only IF 8)


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 25, 2017)

No part of this 'leak' is anything that couldn't be blindly guessed, and the way it's written makes it seem a helluva lot like a kid trying to be a big shot. You get this a lot from 'beta testers' in video games and computer hardware; doesn't surprise me someone would try it with photography.

Which is not to say that a new version of LR isn't coming (it's well overdue), but that this specific 'leak' sounds like some random posing.


----------



## yeahright (Sep 25, 2017)

Lightroom should become multi-user and network capable. At present (or I'm missing something) it is not (safely) possible for different users to work on the same Lightroom catalog stored on a network drive at the same time. Which really is ridiculous for 2017 and a company that offers cloud-only solutions.


----------



## LDS (Sep 25, 2017)

yeahright said:


> Lightroom should become multi-user and network capable. At present (or I'm missing something) it is not (safely) possible for different users to work on the same Lightroom catalog stored on a network drive at the same time. Which really is ridiculous for 2017 and a company that offers cloud-only solutions.



I would welcome it, but it would come with more complexity. SQLite is not really suited as a network multi-user database. LR would need to work with an external database server (which may be more complex to install and configure), and then implement required multi-user features (i.e. locking images while being edited - and remember one of the plus of LR is it can apply changes to more than one image at once).

For single users, the actual implementation is much simpler, requires less computer resources, and no configuration. Maybe Adobe could offer a separate, more expensive "Lightroom for workgroups" with more DAM features and multi-user features, but I don't really know how large it market could be. Maybe not large enough to justify it.


----------



## GammyKnee (Sep 25, 2017)

I really, really hope this rumor is true.

Very often I'm forced into a tiff export and PS edit simply because I have a lot of spot healing to do (e.g. plukes on a bodybuilder's back) - something that really slows LR to a crawl.


----------



## Diko (Sep 25, 2017)

The last part is SO weird....

_Converting to DNGs and 1:1 build preview – yet no true improvement to be observed. Even worse – now it asks for OK on DNG conversion in order to begin the 1:1 preview building which killing the computer._

Most probably that lamer hadn't ticked "don't show again".


----------



## yeahright (Sep 25, 2017)

LDS said:


> yeahright said:
> 
> 
> > Lightroom should become multi-user and network capable. At present (or I'm missing something) it is not (safely) possible for different users to work on the same Lightroom catalog stored on a network drive at the same time. Which really is ridiculous for 2017 and a company that offers cloud-only solutions.
> ...


It sure would be more complex on the developer side (not necessarily for the customer, if done right). But isn't the software supposed to be THE professional tool for that job? I am a hobbyist and I am missing the function for multiple people to work on the same set of photos; then how do actual professionals manage? Everybody just edits his or her own photos and stores them on the local drive? Is that the supposed workflow?


----------



## LDS (Sep 25, 2017)

yeahright said:


> It sure would be more complex on the developer side (not necessarily for the customer, if done right). But isn't the software supposed to be THE professional tool for that job? I am a hobbyist and I am missing the function for multiple people to work on the same set of photos; then how do actual professionals manage? Everybody just edits his or her own photos and stores them on the local drive? Is that the supposed workflow?



I wasn't talking only about some development issues which in the actual architecture will require what could be expensive changes. I was talking especially about installation, configuration and management issues. For example, a users would need to configure (and troubleshoot) database connections, there would be logins, permissions and workflow to manage. Easy for those with a good IT knowledge, much harder for those who are skilled in their digital imaging jobs - but not in IT.

For example if you really want a professional application it should allow to let user A only access catalog X but not Y and Z, or let the "sales" group search and export photos (with a subset of metadata, probably) but not edit them, and only those approved for sales, probably after copyrights and release forms have been checked also. It can quickly become complex on both sides, development, and management. Maybe those are functions an hobbyist is not interested in - IMHO only a few hobbyists are interested in a multi-user LR, which would be more expensive-, but they could become important in a commercial entity, because, yes, the software itself has to support the business needs.

For large shops, there are Digital Asset Management applications designed for their needs. Adobe sells Experience Manager with such functions, maybe there's little interest in investing to move Lightroom in that direction. Or maybe will happen, only Adobe knows...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 25, 2017)

mclaren777 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I don't. I want Adobe to go 100% subscription and revert to their early business model of working for professional image makers and creatives. I am fed up of the noisy tail wagging the dog, they should free themselves of the noisy minority (of revenue streams) and focus on actual professionals, if that prices them out of the amateur market so be it, there are plenty of alternatives for those that don't see the value in the products and options Adobe give.
> ...


Quite arrogant statement to make. Without those thousands of Amateurs the "Professionals" would not be getting the current features they have. I'm somewhere in the middle using the system for both professional use and amateur use. Speed is the biggest flaw of LR6 and hopefully they will make good on their promise. Cloud CC is fine with me although I back-up locally three versions you can never be too careful.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > mclaren777 said:
> ...



Respectfully, maybe you need to talk to your CPA about this.
I am able and have been able with my S-Corp, to write off those expenses you mentioned in FULL in the same year purchased. <P>
I've bought the canon 11-24 lens, a pretty pricey one at about $2300 for refurb. I wrote that entire amount in that same year of purchase. No problems.

I wish Adobe could manage to support dual abilities (CC and full license purchase)....seems they could get all the potential revenue streams that way....?<P>
But no, you should not just want leased software to write it off, you can fully write it and most other business expenditures off in full.....consult how you have incorporated yourself with your CPA, but I assure you it can be done quite legally.

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## TomDibble (Sep 26, 2017)

cayenne said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Businesses want monthly bills rather than a one off fee. It is 100% deductible and helps cash flow, it is a massive accounting benefit.
> ...



Indeed:



> Of course, there are always exceptions. Small businesses may be able to deduct the entire cost of a depreciable asset in the year it is placed in service instead of spreading the cost out over the life of the asset. This is known as a Section 179 deduction, after the section of the tax code that authorizes it. It also goes by the alias "expensing," because you get to deduct the full cost at once—just like you do for business expenses—rather than depreciating the capital asset over time.
> 
> For assets placed in service in the tax year, you can take a maximum Section 179 deduction of $500,000. The amount you can expense is reduced if you purchase more than $2,000,000 in eligible property during the year.
> 
> While the idea of taking a huge deduction right away may sound good to you, be careful, because there is a downside. If you sell an asset, you may have to recapture all or part of the depreciation deductions. (Recapture means reversing all or part of your earlier deductions by adding them back as income.)



From https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Small-Business-Taxes/Taking-Business-Tax-Deductions/INF12043.html#Depreciation

It seems pretty clear that you should be able to deduct that several-thousand-dollar lens in your US Federal taxes. And of course it also applies to $75 software updates. Ask your CPA of course.


----------



## TomDibble (Sep 26, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> 4/ I don't care if they get competition, you will though, because any time any company gets close to Adobe they will realize the only way they can balance the books for ever developing software is a subscription model. No company can survive the fickle nature of periodic upgraders who will skip this generation or two because they 'don't see the value'.



There are indeed a lot of companies moving to a subscription model.

Many (even most) of them, however, do it in a much more consumer-friendly manner than Adobe. For instance, in my day job I use a software development environment with a fairly hefty yearly subscription fee (around $700/year if I recall). The license terms there are that once you have paid the subscription for a year straight, you have a "perpetual license" for any major version (including later bug fixes) released until you end your subscription. Doing this keeps the company offering the software in the game of providing continual innovation and updates, because otherwise their users will stop paying and just use the software they already have a perpetual license for, and it keeps users paying because you don't get that perpetual license until you have paid a year's worth of subscription fees. That company is doing great business on this model, and has been doing so longer than Adobe has been running the CS program.

So, yeah, other companies may well switch to subscription model to have a constant stream of revenue coming in rather than post-release mass influxes which need to carry the company through the next big development cycle. That said, it is not at all a given that they will do so (up-front-purchase software thrived for a really long time before subscription models started being bandied about), and it is certainly not a given that the model chosen by any one company will be as user-hostile as Adobe's "stop paying and everything stops working" extortion model.


----------



## daphins (Sep 26, 2017)

TomDibble said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 4/ I don't care if they get competition, you will though, because any time any company gets close to Adobe they will realize the only way they can balance the books for ever developing software is a subscription model. No company can survive the fickle nature of periodic upgraders who will skip this generation or two because they 'don't see the value'.
> ...



This is the crux of it. Autodesk has a similar system where you lease software and own where you left off.

Adobe takes the propesteous step of affecting your IP after you discontinue a subscription. With Lightroom, they gimp your software. With Photoshop, Illustrator, or any other software try kick you out of it entirely.

It’s extortion. Give us money or you can’t access your IP.

ADObe can take a piss. I’d lease if I could own the last version I paid for, but until they do that I’m out.


----------



## dmtml (Sep 26, 2017)

TomDibble said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Haha, I was going to post the same article. Unless you're spending more than half a million per year on photo gear, you should be able to expense it all the same year.


----------



## bitm2007 (Sep 26, 2017)

Would LR speed improvements and just the features already available in LR CC, but not in LR6 (see link below) be enough to persuade you to upgrade to LR7 or switch from the Adobe CC Photography Plan to LR7 ?

http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop-lightroom/features.html

If that's the case I'm planning to do the latter, and will then be keeping my fingers crossed that there won't be any must have features added to LR CC, before I have recouped the price of the perpetual licence.


----------



## LDS (Sep 26, 2017)

bitm2007 said:


> Would LR speed improvements and just the features already available in LR CC, but not in LR6 (see link below) be enough to persuade you to upgrade to LR7 or switch from the Adobe CC Photography Plan to LR7 ?



The "performance improvements" you see in the link are those GPU-related introduced in both LR CC and LR 6 - which gave and are giving a lot of headaches to many users. Features available in CC only are those from 2015.1 onward (although cloud/web features may be available for CC only, IIRC).

I guess many hope LR7 will bring true and reliable performance improvements.

Till now, the only true new LR feature not available in LR 6 is the haze adjustment, and a few little improvements to filters. Nice to have, but not exactly killer features. Let's what will be added in LR7. CC subscribers will get LR7 as part of their subscription (the real question is if it will be still available standalone), they have no reason to switch to the standalone version.

Most of the development efforts looks to be have been aimed at LR mobile (which I have no use for since my "tablet" is a Surface Pro which runs the full LR).

Anyway there may be other reason to upgrade - LR6 will be no longer supported and will receive no bug fixes no new camera/lens profiles.


----------



## SteveM (Sep 26, 2017)

'Haze adjustment filter'. - it's taken a long time to add this feature to Photoshop/Lightroom. The renowned Bruce Fraser developed this as an action back in 2007, he called it a 'haze cutting brush' as he painted in the effect on a black mask. Good to have this feature built in I suppose, but something a little more original would be good as well.
His book on 'Image Sharpening' is very interesting......if you're into that depth I suppose.


----------



## sgs8r (Sep 26, 2017)

Hector1970 said:


> I don't mind the subscription model as such but it just shows what happens to innovation when it exists. There has been little or no significant improvement in Lightroom or Photoshop in 2 years. Photoshop has a terrible user interface and simple things are overly complex. They should at this stage be one unified pieces of software. Instead they are a mix of each other. Lightroom is very slow for what it does. Both are very bloated pieces of software. There is no business incentive to improve it as it's a cash cow. They've probably moved their developers to other software. Either that or they've run out of ideas on how to improve them.



Agreed. Improvements have been infrequent & minor since the subscription model started. Partly this may be because LR and PS are relatively mature products. Preserving revenue (as well as smoothing it) undoubtedly motivated Adobe to make the change since users would be more and more motivated to skip releases. This was almost unthinkable in the early days when there were major improvements even with "point" releases.

I also find the subscription cost very managable, given my level of usage (but not frustration). 
The main thing (actually the main 5 things) they could do is improve performance. I finally gave up several years ago and now use Photo Mechanic for initial grading and LR mainly for Develop (where I put up with the seconds it often takes to move between images). Overclocked quad core, 24 GB RAM, multiple SSDs, etc. were no real help. PM uses the embedded jpeg (I'm told) to do things so fast. I'm sure LR could do the same; I suspect they just don't bother because...hey, they don't have to. 

Importing is not a problem because I use a card reader and Windows explorer to copy images off the card(s); then importing into LR goes much faster. I build minimal previews on import, then build 1-1s only for the select images (which, like everything in LR, takes a while---I usually go make dinner). If I move folders around, I do it in Explorer, then browse for the missing folders in LR. You can see the theme---whenever possible, do things outside LR. Eventually, I may find a way to replace it entirely.


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Sep 26, 2017)

No real problems with the subscription model(plus Canon software), not overly expensive, works well enough in my agin neanderthal hands. However, I think Apple might have missed the Ark, with Aperture. Full Disclosure: "I learned it first".


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 26, 2017)

Interesting.........

Stand alone, or subscription.......

I have subscription at home, I have stand-alone at work..... both have their benefits......


----------



## daphins (Sep 27, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > To be clear: I want LR to remain standalone, and to take on some additional PS features
> ...



I guess it's true what they say......"There's a sucker born every minute"


----------



## bvukich (Sep 27, 2017)

daphins said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



I guess it's true what they say... "Cost of doing business" 

10 minutes into the first paid gig of the year, and I've paid for the entire year of the CC photography plan. You go ahead and keep crying about a monthly expense that costs less than a really cheap lunch, and I'll keep laughing at you.


----------



## daphins (Sep 27, 2017)

bvukich said:


> daphins said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



You can keep raving about the benefits of paying more for a product in perpetuity that's seen little to no development over the last 4 years and I'll keep laughing at you.


----------



## bvukich (Sep 27, 2017)

daphins said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > daphins said:
> ...



Pay more? Lightroom + Photoshop for ~$100/yr. Unless you only upgrade every 8+ years, it's LESS expensive to do the subscription.


----------



## lidocaineus (Sep 27, 2017)

You know what would be great? More competition from software that didn't crash, didn't slow down after multiple edits, and leveraged GPU acceleration properly, from pretty much the beginning. *cries about Aperture*


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 27, 2017)

bvukich said:


> Pay more? Lightroom + Photoshop for ~$100/yr. Unless you only upgrade every 8+ years, it's LESS expensive to do the subscription.



well, my last Lightroom license [LR 5] cost me 75 €. I generally update every 2nd major version [meaning change in 1st digit of app version]. 

I neither need nor want Photoshop. Absolutely hate its age-old User Interface and the keyboard shortcuts I can never remember ... just make me puke. :

I want LR 7 "LITE" *without catalogue database* but with everything in it needed to work on stills images. Nothing more, nothing less. As a perpetual license to serve me the next 4-5 years. Would be willing to pay up to 99 €/USD for it.


----------



## bvukich (Sep 27, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > Pay more? Lightroom + Photoshop for ~$100/yr. Unless you only upgrade every 8+ years, it's LESS expensive to do the subscription.
> ...



That's an argument I can sympathize with. If all you want/use/need is LR, then you're essentially re-buying it every year with CC, which is crappy. And hopefully if they ever were to remove the perpetual licensing option for LR, they would compensate with a LR only CC option. But even as I sympathize, I can't help but thank it's such a tiny cost already, that I don't understand the level of outrage that presents itself every time the subject comes up.


----------



## SteveM (Sep 28, 2017)

I'm content with the software I use, but out of curiosity I've been reading a little about ACDSee Ultimate. It's classed as an all in one solution, Lightroom and Photoshop in one package, and is said to be as fast as Photo Mechanic for viewing. FStoppers seemed impressed with it overall. It has a 30 day free trial. 
Priced competitively with Lightroom ($149 for perpetual licence), but not available on Mac.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 28, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I want LR 7 "LITE" *without catalogue database* but with everything in it needed to work on stills images. Nothing more, nothing less. As a perpetual license to serve me the next 4-5 years. Would be willing to pay up to 99 €/USD for it.



A combination of Adobe Camera Raw software and GIMP may give you all that you need, for free.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 28, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I want LR 7 "LITE" *without catalogue database* but with everything in it needed to work on stills images. Nothing more, nothing less. As a perpetual license to serve me the next 4-5 years. Would be willing to pay up to 99 €/USD for it.
> ...



GIMP user interface makes me puke even more than PS ...


----------



## bitm2007 (Sep 29, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I'm fed up with the lack of new development modes feature in Lightroom CC (nothing of an use to me for almost two years), so I am planning to switch back to a perpetually licenced LR7 (if possible), for use in conjunction with Affinity Photo (which looks like a genuine Photoshop killer for my uses), for a one of payment of £48.99 ($66)

https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/


----------



## LDS (Sep 29, 2017)

bitm2007 said:


> I'm fed up with the lack of new development modes feature in Lightroom CC (nothing of an use to me for almost two years), so I am planning to switch back to a perpetually licenced LR7 (if possible), for use in conjunction with Affinity Photo (which looks like a genuine Photoshop killer for my uses), for a one of payment of £48.99 ($66)



I'm afraid that as long as LR is sold standalone, Adobe doesn't want it to move into PS territory too much. If it sold only together, there may be less reasons not to overlap them more. It is true for a pure photographic work many of PS features are useless.


----------



## bitm2007 (Sep 29, 2017)

LDS said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm fed up with the lack of new development modes feature in Lightroom CC (nothing of an use to me for almost two years), so I am planning to switch back to a perpetually licenced LR7 (if possible), for use in conjunction with Affinity Photo (which looks like a genuine Photoshop killer for my uses), for a one of payment of £48.99 ($66)
> ...



Totally agree, if Lightroom goes CC only I'd happily renew my subscription on the assumption that new features will be added on a more frequent basis. If not, I see little value in renewing my subscription as nothing ground breaking is likely to happen for the foreseeable future. If that's the case I'm struggling to justify paying £10 a month for the Adobe Photography Plan until LR8 arrives, when I can get LR7 (assuming there is one) and Affinity Photo for less than £150 on perpetual licences.


----------



## hoodlum (Sep 29, 2017)

*Confirmed by Adobe*

https://twitter.com/AdobeCare/status/913407774469521408


----------



## LDS (Sep 29, 2017)

bitm2007 said:


> Totally agree, if Lightroom goes CC only I'd happily renew my subscription on the assumption that new features will be added on a more frequent basis. If not, I see little value in renewing my subscription as nothing ground breaking is likely to happen for the foreseeable future.



I wasn't promoting one model or the other. I was just seeing it from an Adobe perspective - as long as LR for one reason or another has to be available standalone, Adobe will be careful not to let it eat into CC revenues too much with too many features that make PS less useful.

The day Adobe decides it has no longer reasons to sell it standalone, it may "hybridize" the two products much more, without fears the cheaper one may eat the more expensive one.

But the existence of Affinity Photo and other tools may tell Adobe it could be better to still sell a standalone LR - although it will need to stay competitive as well. I'd like to be a fly and listen to some Adobe meetings....


----------



## SteveM (Sep 29, 2017)

As I've commented earlier, there isn't only Affinity there is 'ACDSee Ultimate' - a one stop solution. Were I as unhappy as some appear to be with Lightroom/subscription model, I would be looking very closely at this.


----------



## bitm2007 (Sep 29, 2017)

SteveM said:


> As I've commented earlier, there isn't only Affinity there is 'ACDSee Ultimate' - a one stop solution. Were I as unhappy as some appear to be with Lightroom/subscription model, I would be looking very closely at this.



I am aware that there are other options out there that will probably for-fill my photo editor needs. Affinity Photo just stands out due to it's PS like interface and tools, but I will take a good look at what else is available if I ever reach the point where I end my Adobe Photography Plan. That point could be pretty soon, if the next version of Lightroom isn't subscription only.


----------



## bitm2007 (Sep 30, 2017)

But the existence of Affinity Photo and other tools may tell Adobe it could be better to still sell a standalone LR - although it will need to stay competitive as well. I'd like to be a fly and listen to some Adobe meetings....  [/quote]

Personally i'm viewing Photo Affinity more as a PS alternative (with a familiar interface and tools), than a Lightroom competitor (where I do 90%+ of my post processing). If I ever do switch away from LR, it's most likely to be in the direction Capture One, who also currently offer a perpetually licenced option. This along with LR will go subscription only IMO, it's a matter of when, not if.


----------



## SteveM (Sep 30, 2017)

bitm2007 said:


> But the existence of Affinity Photo and other tools may tell Adobe it could be better to still sell a standalone LR - although it will need to stay competitive as well. I'd like to be a fly and listen to some Adobe meetings....



Personally i'm viewing Photo Affinity more as a PS alternative (with a familiar interface and tools), than a Lightroom competitor (where I do 90%+ of my post processing). If I ever do switch away from LR, it's most likely to be in the direction Capture One, who also currently offer a perpetually licenced option. This along with LR will go subscription only IMO, it's a matter of when, not if.
[/quote]

Whilst I mostly use CS6, for a variety of reasons I also use Capture One (they currently offer both perpetual and subscription method) and ironically I bought Affinity a while ago out of curiosity for its retouching ability as Capture One doesn't have this. For me, I find the Affinity Raw Converter lacking, but the retouching excellent. So I have an alternative workflow should I ever need it.
I am very curious about ACDsee, pricey, but maybe you get what you pay for.....and slightly cheaper as a package than Capture One plus Affinity. 
There is also a new kid coming to the block with 'Luminar' (to be released soon on pc), this has only previously been available on Mac. Don't know what it's like.
As a Raw Converter on its own I also like DXO.
However, it's good to have these choices, and they must be selling product to still be in business, I suspect that is due to them offering perpetual licences.
Without this competition I honestly believe the Adobe subscription plan would currently be $/£20 per month and who wouldn't pay it? ....where would you go?
So, I will continue using CS6 (cc for those on subscription) until whatever Windows platform I am using won't support it anymore, then I'll move to Capture One plus Affinity probably.
I don't see them all going subscription for a long long time as this is likely where their business is coming from, the fact they offer perpetual licences. How many of these offered strong competition when Photoshop could be bought on a perpetual licence?


----------



## SteveM (Sep 30, 2017)

As a footnote to the above, I used to upgrade with every new iteration of Photoshop (from version 7), there genuinely was a serious improvement each time. When CS6 was reached, in my opinion, Photoshop/ACR was just so good the only reason to upgrade was for new camera support when you upgraded your camera. Cameras now are just so good.....
When the 7D mklll comes out, that will likely be my last camera for a long long time, and therefore my last paid software upgrade.


----------



## deorum (Sep 30, 2017)

Perhaps stupid question but here it goes.

If im a subscriber in Lightroom CC now, do i get free the update to LR 7.0 ?

Thank you


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 30, 2017)

deorum said:


> Perhaps stupid question but here it goes.
> 
> If im a subscriber in Lightroom CC now, do i get free the update to LR 7.0 ?
> 
> Thank you



CC users get all updates automatically, there are no model numbers per se, you just get everything perpetual license users get plus a lot more. Well you get the choice, if you don’t want an upgrade you can choose to not install it.

Like most app’s you can set preferences to auto update, tell me when there is an update or manually look for updates.


----------



## bitm2007 (Sep 30, 2017)

deorum said:


> Perhaps stupid question but here it goes.
> 
> If im a subscriber in Lightroom CC now, do i get free the update to LR 7.0 ?
> 
> Thank you



You won't get a free upgrade to LR 7.0 (if it's released), you would however be able to download the creative cloud version (probably Lightroom CC2017.0 or CC2018.0) for free.

Lightroom 5, Lightroom 6 etc is/was the term for the perpetually licenced version of Lightooom, CC followed a year and a dot number is used for the subscription release.


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 2, 2017)

Adobe confirm that Lightroom 7 will be released this year tweet.

https://photorumors.com/2017/09/30/this-is-the-deleted-tweet-where-adobe-confirmed-that-lightroom-7-will-be-announced-this-year/


----------



## cayenne (Oct 3, 2017)

bvukich said:


> daphins said:
> 
> 
> > bvukich said:
> ...



Well, considering the sever lack of truly meaningful improvements or advances of LR and PS, I would posit that upgrading every 8 years would be about right...if THAT often.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 3, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 3, 2017)

cayenne said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > daphins said:
> ...



Well that depends on how you value the improvements they have made. 

Personally I use LR Mobile on the iPad and can't imagine not using it now, automatic syncing of images, adjustments, keyboarding, ratings etc is a massive time saver for me. Also now Apple have opened up a 100% RAW workflow that plays well with LR Mobile if you travel and don't want to take a laptop it is a killer system. 

Of course if you don't use or want functionality like that then those improvements hold little value. But it is entirely untrue to say there are no meaningful improvements development and upgrading, how relevant those changes might be to you personally is up for discussion, but the blanket crap you guys come out with is just pathetic.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 4, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > bvukich said:
> ...



Yeah, to each his own.

The web enabled stuff, isn't something I'd use. When I sit down to edit photos or video for serious work, I'm in front of a real, full blown computer as my workstation. Now...I do "play" a little on my iPad pro, with Affinity Photo and now I'm dabbling with Procreate, but those are usually just something for me to play with and keep from being bored while on a flight or at a restaurant waiting on friends, etc.

When I was speaking to the lack of innovation and new improvements on CC for PS or LR...I was talking about the main apps themselves that you'd run on a real computer....such as engine speed improvements, possibly cleaning up the interface a little...get rid of some redundancy...new tools....meaningful improvements to existing tools, etc.

That being said...I'm starting to be of the thought that a tool like PS....likely is close to EOL as a development platform...and is something that is doing into maintenance mode. I mean, what more really can anyone think of having it to do? I'm wondering if there are really any breakthrough improvements to be made as far as innovation with Photoshop?

If that is the case....and maybe Adobe knows this....they HAD to put it in rental mode, as that if no new real compelling reasons to buy PS/LR itself (not the small adjunct mobile add ons)...there would really be no compelling reason for people to keep upgrading the perpetual license....

Smart move for them, but maybe not so much for the customer.

But your mileage may vary. And everyone has their own workflow that works best for them, and I'm sure the mobile stuff proves convenient and invaluable to some workflows, yours for example.

So, what do I know? I'm just publishing my ponderings while on work breaks.

But that's how I see it.


C


----------



## Diko (Oct 5, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> 1/ No, Adobe have released the numbers several times, amateurs/non subscription customers customers are a relatively small percentage of income.
> 
> 3/ That's because you don't use the newer tools every single day, if you did you'd see the cross platform work they have done. LR Mobile is a killer tool, synced Collections non Adobe (customers) can access and give feedback on is an amazing time saver. Heck simple things like a reference image in the Develop module saves hours of time getting images in a series balanced. Brush adjustments included on the gradient filter, dehaze, etc etc.
> 
> 4/ I don't care if they get competition, you will though, because any time any company gets close to Adobe they will realize the only way they can balance the books for ever developing software is a subscription model. No company can survive the fickle nature of periodic upgraders who will skip this generation or two because they 'don't see the value'.



On 1/ Could you be so kind to provide some more recent links?

On 3/ Exactly. Even have been using it with clients.

On 4/


----------



## hoodlum (Oct 5, 2017)

It looks like Lightroom 7 is only a couple of weeks away now.

https://photorumors.com/2017/10/05/final-build-of-the-new-adobe-lightroom-released-for-testing/


----------



## Diko (Oct 5, 2017)

TomDibble said:


> It’s extortion. Give us money or you can’t access your IP.


and 


TomDibble said:


> So, yeah, other companies may well switch to subscription model to have a constant stream of revenue coming in rather than post-release mass influxes which need to carry the company through the next big development cycle. That said, it is not at all a given that they will do so (up-front-purchase software thrived for a really long time before subscription models started being bandied about), and it is certainly not a given that the model chosen by any one company will be as user-hostile as Adobe's "stop paying and everything stops working" extortion model.



Sit down and relax. 

https://media.giphy.com/media/umBCKOohjIpNe/giphy.gif



> 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. Access to Lightroom mobile workflows will also cease to function. We hope this meets the expectations of our customers and we look forward to an ongoing dialog.


 *Source*


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 7, 2017)

cayenne said:


> Yeah, to each his own.
> 
> The web enabled stuff, isn't something I'd use. When I sit down to edit photos or video for serious work, I'm in front of a real, full blown computer as my workstation. Now...I do "play" a little on my iPad pro, with Affinity Photo and now I'm dabbling with Procreate, but those are usually just something for me to play with and keep from being bored while on a flight or at a restaurant waiting on friends, etc.
> 
> ...



I wasn't talking about "web based stuff". I was talking about tools that make my workflow faster and easier. I can go away for a weekend or a week, or three, shoot RAW to my hearts content, load it all onto the iPad and then cull, keyword, rate etc etc on the plane or in the hotel all before I even get back to a 'main editing workstation'. This can save hours or even days of work, and I can do quality edits and send them out whilst still away if I want or need to. 

LR Mobile is not a 'web based plaything' it is a practical tool for many working photographers.

That is a meaningful and useful new feature. As I said I understand not every user will get the same use out of any new feature, but to say there aren't any is plain wrong.

As to your point about new features in the main apps, there have been plenty, though again if you don't use them or don't know they are there they have little value. Things like reference mode in the develop module is a huge time saver for shoots with varying light sources where you want consistency, I can't imagine processing a wedding without the feature now. If, however, you process one independent image at a time then the feature has zero value. 

Like all features in anything, they have different values to different users. I am happy with the additions to the apps and the development Adobe put into the CC photographers package, like DR in cameras I look forwards to more, but am happy with what I have and marvel at where we have come from.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I wasn't talking about "web based stuff". I was talking about tools that make my workflow faster and easier. I can go away for a weekend or a week, or three, shoot RAW to my hearts content, load it all onto the iPad ...



in theory yes. In practice no. Not enough memory. And difficult to get [a large number of] RAW images from camera onto iDevice. 

Personally I don't and will never touch a RAW file on a mobile device like phone or tablet. Even most notebook do not have screens that would allow for anything I'd call "quality edits".


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't talking about "web based stuff". I was talking about tools that make my workflow faster and easier. I can go away for a weekend or a week, or three, shoot RAW to my hearts content, load it all onto the iPad ...
> ...



Well I actually use it in practice, but what do I know?

And again, I am not talking 'quality edits', I am talking about the time consuming culling, rating, keywording etc that can take days after a decent trip, along with relatively simple edits to output as online jpegs.

As for screen quality, we get up our own butts about that a bit, if I am going to output electronically then the iPad screen I am using to cull is probably as good a screen as anybody who will be viewing them will have. Sure I can piss about on a 100% Adobe RGB 10 bit behemoth for print, and I will, but I don't need that for a lot of the time consuming work I do on my images and anybody that believes they need that for online output really doesn't have a clue about color management.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Well I actually use it in practice, but what do I know?
> *And again, I am not talking 'quality edits'*, I am talking about the time consuming culling, rating, keywording etc that can take days after a decent trip, along with relatively simple edits to output as online jpegs.
> ...



sorry private, but it appears you got a bit confused about what you wrote 2 posts earlier ... 



privatebydesign said:


> I wasn't talking about "web based stuff". I was talking about tools that make my workflow faster and easier. I can go away for a weekend or a week, or three, shoot RAW to my hearts content, load it all onto the iPad and then cull, keyword, rate etc etc on the plane or in the hotel all before I even get back to a 'main editing workstation'. This can save hours or even days of work, *and I can do quality edits* and send them out whilst still away if I want or need to.



While agreeing to some extent with you statement re. screen quality. Initial sorting and culling and keywording may be feasible. I find it easier to rate/delete directly in camera, since a transfer of many RAW images from camera to an iPad is not something I'd like to do on the road. As far as "edits" go, well I cannot see doing anything approaching "quality edits" on an iPhone or even an iPad. 

And when a notebook is along, one can run the regular full version of Lightroom. No need for all that "mobile version / Adobe cloud stuff". It is "unnecessary/not useful" for many (most ?) LR users. 8)


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Well I actually use it in practice, but what do I know?
> ...



No I'm not confused. I can do quality edits I am more than happy with on an iPad, but I come from a slide background and my travel images rarely need more than a levels and slight crop. But many of you get up your own butts about your edits so I can understand not wanting to do what is needed to your images on an iPad. My point was editing is a small percentage of my time in LR and Adobe, contrary to the point that had been made, do add functionality and improvements, not everybody finds each feature useful to them, but the fact there are features added on a fairly regular basis disproves the initial point they didn't and I was illustrating that they didn't.

So in brief
Forum: Adobe don't add any new features.
Me: Yes they do how about LR Mobile and reference mode in the Develop module?
Forum: I don't find that useful, so they don't add new features.
Me: That's not my point, my point is even if you don't like the new feature (which I do) then your point of them not adding new features is wrong.
Forum: But I can't do quality edits on that screen.
Me: What? That's not the point, the feature has been added.
Forum: You are contradicting yourself.
Me: Adobe added features, you said they didn't. You are factually incorrect.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 8, 2017)

private: i come from kodachrome 64 positives myself and cannot see anything even remotely close to "quality edits" on an iDecice/mobile Lightroom Adobe whatever ap. screen too small and not good enough. full stop.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> private: i come from kodachrome 64 positives myself and cannot see anything even remotely close to "quality edits" on an iDecice/mobile Lightroom Adobe whatever ap. screen too small and not good enough. full stop.



Here you go again, if it doesn't fit your needs it must not fit anyones.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 8, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > private: i come from kodachrome 64 positives myself and cannot see anything even remotely close to "quality edits" on an iDecice/mobile Lightroom Adobe whatever ap. screen too small and not good enough. full stop.
> ...



Exactly.

And as I have already said, even if you don't value the editing capabilities the culling, keyboarding and rating is a massive timesaver for many with a mobile workflow.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 8, 2017)

no it is not (just) me. It is me and many others. Of course your personal mileage may vary.

@private: not sure, what camera/s you are using. I know that transferring many [hundreds] RAW images even from a rather low res camera like my EOS 5D III onto an iPad takes hours, not minutes. No matter whether 
A. via cable with Canon-stupid USB 2.0 interface on 5D 3 or 
B. shooting onto SD card [which is a huge compromise on 5D 3] via SD-reader adaptor thingie. 
iDevice needs to be hooked up to electricity otherwise battery will run out before data transfer is completed. 

And only after that transfer the reviewing, rating, culling and "quality edits" can start. 

So again, I see the entire "mobile Lightroom stuff" as more or less useless in practice - especially when working with RAW images. Not even to think about working with 40-50MP raw images.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> no it is not (just) me. It is me and many others. Of course your personal mileage may vary.
> 
> @private: not sure, what camera/s you are using. I know that transferring many [hundreds] RAW images even from a rather low res camera like my EOS 5D III onto an iPad takes hours, not minutes. No matter whether
> A. via cable with Canon-stupid USB 2.0 interface on 5D 3 or
> ...



As always you see problems not solutions.

I shoot 1DX MkII's so USB 3, I use the Apple Lightening to USB 3 Camera Connector, still not fast but connect the two, go have dinner or something to eat and the transfer is done. 

But as I keep saying the attractiveness of a particular feature is irrelevant, not every feature will work for every user, that is the nature of mature software with a wide user base (just look at any new feature added to a camera!), but to say Adobe don't keep adding features is factually incorrect.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > no it is not (just) me. It is me and many others. Of course your personal mileage may vary.
> ...



true. And I know, Adobe will not make their software exactly to my needs. However, many other features and packing *all* photo-relevant functionality into only 1 piece of software instead of multiple products with different user interfaces and different areas of overlap [LR, PS, Bridge, ACR, PS Elements, ..] would be much more useful to me (and many other users) than mobile/cloud whatever stuff. Or Adobe could have solved the massive performance problems that affect many (most?) LR users instead of developing the mobile app stuff which is only useful to a minority of users. A case of wrong priorities ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 8, 2017)

Sure, I'd love LR to accept all the file types Bridge does as I output to print for pdf's often and LR can't then see the finished work. Everyone will always have personal priorities. I wish LR sharpening was a 1/10 as good as PS sharpening, but it isn't, etc etc.

My entire point was Adobe do keep developing the software and adding features, nothing more. People that say they don't, even if they are features they won't use/don't want, are factually incorrect.

When did they add the reference mode in the Develop Module? The brush to the gradient tool? The expanded Lens Corrections panel with auto upright and level correction? The Dehaze slider? 

The improvements are real and constant. Is there stuff to still gripe about? Sure! But saying they don't do anything is just stupid.


----------



## RGF (Oct 8, 2017)

Interested in seeing how well the internet version LR works.


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 8, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Sure, I'd love LR to accept all the file types Bridge does as I output to print for pdf's often and LR can't then see the finished work. Everyone will always have personal priorities. I wish LR sharpening was a 1/10 as good as PS sharpening, but it isn't, etc etc.
> 
> My entire point was Adobe do keep developing the software and adding features, nothing more. People that say they don't, even if they are features they won't use/don't want, are factually incorrect.
> 
> ...



Adobe deem 15 Lightroom CC 2015 features introduced since the 5th of October 2015 worth a mention on the new features page of their website, 12 of those are for mobile/Apple devises. For those not interested in Lightroom's mobile features it's been slim pickings for the last couple of years. 

https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop-lightroom/features.html

I'm hoping for improvements to Lightroom's sharpening features as well, along with noise reduction enhancements. I've also heard from Capture One Pro users, that LR's highlight detail recovery is lagging well behind their RAW processor of choice, a new processing version could be the answer here.


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 8, 2017)

RGF said:


> Interested in seeing how well the internet version LR works.



Are you referring to Adobe Project Nimbus ? That sounds interesting, a fully-featured RAW image editor with the full capabilities of Lightroom, where processing takes place in the cloud with each user getting 1TB of picture space. 

https://www.spidersweb.pl/2017/10/lightroom-7-classic-nimbus.html

https://petapixel.com/2017/07/25/adobe-project-nimbus-leaked-lightroom-cloud/


----------



## LDS (Oct 9, 2017)

bitm2007 said:


> Are you referring to Adobe Project Nimbus ? That sounds interesting, a fully-featured RAW image editor with the full capabilities of Lightroom, where processing takes place in the cloud with each user getting 1TB of picture space.



If you're complaining LR is too slow, what you don't really need is to add network latency to every change you make. Even an high speed connection doesn't ensure you get low latency for a given server. That depends on many other factors, beyond the link speed between you and your ISP.


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 9, 2017)

LDS said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you referring to Adobe Project Nimbus ? That sounds interesting, a fully-featured RAW image editor with the full capabilities of Lightroom, where processing takes place in the cloud with each user getting 1TB of picture space.
> ...



No, I'm one of the lucky one's who never had an issue with LR's speed (despite only having an i5 PC and a i3 laptop).


----------



## Diko (Oct 10, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> no it is not (just) me. It is me and many others. Of course your personal mileage may vary.
> 
> @private: not sure, what camera/s you are using. I know that transferring many [hundreds] RAW images even from a rather low res camera like my EOS 5D III onto an iPad takes hours, not minutes. No matter whether
> A. via cable with Canon-stupid USB 2.0 interface on 5D 3 or
> ...



I cull jpg previews on 10'' tablet instead on 3'' DSLR screen. I mainly look for composition, crop and focus. Everything else can be finally achieved with RAWs on my workstation LR unless it's personal private work.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 16, 2017)

Slightly off topic....

But, while I've said I'm not much on using the "web" features of LR/PS.....I would think that if you were using the newer iPad Pro....that with its high rez screen...if you were culling and doing some work mobile, it should prove to be good enough for that, no?

I've actually been pretty blown away on the image quality of the newer iPad Pro...I got the 10.5 version and the image it presents it pretty amazing, IMHO.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2017)

cayenne said:


> Slightly off topic....
> 
> But, while I've said I'm not much on using the "web" features of LR/PS.....I would think that if you were using the newer iPad Pro....that with its high rez screen...if you were culling and doing some work mobile, it should prove to be good enough for that, no?
> 
> I've actually been pretty blown away on the image quality of the newer iPad Pro...I got the 10.5 version and the image it presents it pretty amazing, IMHO.



That's exactly what I said pages ago, and got ridiculed for it by you and others! I do use the 12" iPad Pro and use LR Mobile for culling, keyboarding etc, it is an amazing time saver for me and I am sure many others. Image quality on the iPad is, also as I said pages ago, very high and probably higher than most people will see on their desktops or devices.


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 17, 2017)

Adobe will be announcing a new generation of Creative Cloud apps in their keynote speech at Adobe Max on Wednesday (see link below). Hopefully this will accompanied by a new perpetually licensed version of Lightroom (7 or possibly 2018)

https://max.adobe.com/


----------



## cayenne (Oct 17, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Slightly off topic....
> ...



Hi Private....

I wasn't one of those ridiculing you for using the iPad, I was actually posting this to take your side on this, that is you had the newer, higher end iPad Pros...it should prove valuable for culling due to its good resolution.


My previous posts were merely saying I didn't find much value in web versions of apps like LR, etc for my main work on stuff.

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 18, 2017)

No Lightroom 7 perpetual offering

"Lightroom 6 is the last stand-alone version of Lightroom that can be purchased outside of a Creative Cloud membership. There will not be a Lightroom 7 perpetual offering. Lightroom 6 will remain for sale for an undetermined amount of time, but will no longer be updated with camera support or bug fixes after the end of 2017. Lightroom 6.13 with support for the Nikon D850 will be released on October 26th, 2017"


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 18, 2017)

Canon users can continue using whichever version of lightroom or photoshop they now use. DPP will bulk convert a entire directory of raw images or just a single image to a tiff file (CR2 files are just compressed tiff files with some additional flags for camera settings). As far as I am aware, all versions of LR & PS can use tiff files, clear back into the 1990's for PS.

There is no loss of quality or ability to edit the files.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 18, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon users can continue using whichever version of lightroom or photoshop they now use. DPP will bulk convert a entire directory of raw images or just a single image to a tiff file (CR2 files are just compressed tiff files with some additional flags for camera settings). As far as I am aware, all versions of LR & PS can use tiff files, clear back into the 1990's for PS.
> 
> There is no loss of quality or ability to edit the files.



yes, BUT ... i would need some of those future 40TB disks to do that. TIFF is just a freaking unwieldy file format. ;-)


----------



## snoke (Oct 22, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon users can continue using whichever version of lightroom or photoshop they now use.



IFF never buy new camera/lens OR don't care profile.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 22, 2017)

snoke said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Canon users can continue using whichever version of lightroom or photoshop they now use.
> ...



Adobe, unlike any other software company I know of, provide free fully supported programs to negate buying new software and make your own. Indeed I find my profiles to be vastly more accurate than Adobe's.


----------

