# Lightroom 6 Release Date? Any Updates?



## beckstoy (Mar 26, 2015)

Has anyone heard anything? I'm looking forward to the stitching perameters... =)

Any news would be appreciated. All I can find is "March 2015" and we're almost into April.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 26, 2015)

beckstoy said:


> Has anyone heard anything?



Experience tells us: if you can't google it, you won't find it on CR :->



beckstoy said:


> I'm looking forward to the stitching perameters... =)



I guess you're in for a disappointment, other than the added "value" I cannot imagine LR will come close to dedicated stitching apps like AutoPano.

In any case, let's hope they'll drop the outdated "purchase" option with LR6 once and for all in favor of the low price subscription model


----------



## distant.star (Mar 26, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> In any case, let's hope they'll drop the outdated "purchase" option with LR6 once and for all in favor of the low price subscription model



Naked provocation!


----------



## emko (Mar 27, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> beckstoy said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone heard anything?
> ...



umm why not? why does something have to be dedicated to be good? i use PS pano without issues so i can't see whats the need for another program.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 27, 2015)

distant.star said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, let's hope they'll drop the outdated "purchase" option with LR6 once and for all in favor of the low price subscription model
> ...



Some people just can't hear the truth :->


----------



## Jan (Apr 1, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


This has nothing to do with truth. Please accept that there are people who prefer to purchase the software rather than renting a right to use it, and stop provocation.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 1, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Some people just can't hear the truth :->



I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Some people confuse truth with opinion.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2015)

Jan said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



So it's provocation now just to voice my honest and sincere opinion? Some people...


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 1, 2015)

I hope its a good update. I really like Lightroom.
I hope the adjustment brush / content aware moves up to the standard of Photoshop CC.
I'd love if they made printing more simple. I can find that frustrating at times.
I'm sure the interface could be simpler and more intelligent.
The book creation is only so so too.
I'd like if some of the blur filters from Photoshop CC could be incorporated.
Personally I'd prefer the pay model than the subscription but I think "I hear the sound of inevitability".
In fairness to Adobe I think they've set a reasonable starting price. Whether that's sustained I don't know.
Relative to the cost of camera gear it appears good value.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 1, 2015)

I would be ecstatic if LR 6 would simply render RAW previews quickly full screen, similar to what Photo Mechanic does. I'm putting off spending $150 on Photo Mechanic which makes the initial culling of 1000's of RAW images efficient compared to the ultra slow snails' pace of Lightroom previews. (I'm not holding my breath though.)


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 1, 2015)

On the slow Previews - Is that Lightroom or your PC.
I moved to a new laptop and it seems to run alot more efficiently.
I found lightroom getting more and more bloated and RAM hungry.
16GB of seems to help alot and the processor is probably faster.


----------



## weixing (Apr 1, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Jan said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...


Hi,
For those who need Photoshop, monthly subscription might be a good option, but for those only need LR, purchasing is a better and cheaper option. 

Anyway, I think people just want to have alternative to choose from whether subscription model or purchase model.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I would be ecstatic if LR 6 would simply render RAW previews quickly full screen, similar to what Photo Mechanic does.



Image browsers usually don't render the raw, but use the jpeg thumbnails that are in every cr2. These are perfect for a quick selection of "in focus or not", but LR simply ignores them.



Hector1970 said:


> On the slow Previews - Is that Lightroom or your PC.



Both. To minimize the results in a hilarious rendering time on slower computers, ways out of this are ...
a) to hope for a render speed boost in LR6 (probably in vain)
b) use a custom import presets that uses zero sharpening & nr
c) pre-select the shots in camera or with an image browser that uses the existing thumbnails (see above)


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 1, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> On the slow Previews - Is that Lightroom or your PC.
> I moved to a new laptop and it seems to run alot more efficiently.
> I found lightroom getting more and more bloated and RAM hungry.
> 16GB of seems to help alot and the processor is probably faster.



*Marsu* already covered it but the slow preview thing has been a major complaint about LR for years. Just do a Google search on the subject. Or search for Photo Mechanic reviews. It's definitely NOT the computer, it's LR ignoring the embedded jpg and also not being written to optimize previews quickly. It's long past due to be fixed/improved.

As an IT guy, I have a love/hate relationship with Adobe. In general, many Adobe products seem great from the end user perspective. But from the IT developer gearhead perspective, Adobe products are bloated, cobbled together and band-aided pieces of crap with respect to efficient and well written code. It's amazing their stuff works at all. Their installers sometimes don't work correctly (Creative Suites), and with every release the size of the program grows exponentially. (That's a dead giveaway right there.) Seriously, Lightroom almost has a larger install file than Microsoft Office! This is why I give any release from Adobe a wide berth for the first few weeks before I install it because it has a high probability of causing more problems than it solves after it's installed. Until they release the fixes a month later. And even then....


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 1, 2015)

I think it is generally a good idea not to get anything (hardware or software) as soon as it comes out. The concept of releasing a final functioning product seems to be dropping in priority.

Get it out quick and we will fix it later, may work for the company, but not the consumer.

Electronics and software are like minefields, I much prefer when someone else goes first. ;D


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 1, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Some people just can't hear the truth :->
> ...


+1


----------



## Skirball (Apr 1, 2015)

Jan said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > distant.star said:
> ...



Not only is it opinion, not truth, it's incorrect. As noted above, it's only a "low price option" for those that need both Photoshop and Lightroom. It's nowhere close to cheaper if you only use Lightroom. Or if you value owning your software instead of renting it.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 1, 2015)

Skirball said:


> Jan said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Example: I received discounted full version copy of Lightroom in a package deal last November. Push the numbers around on individual prices all you want but I chose to value the cost of the Lightroom disc I received to be about $35. I sold it to a up and coming teenage photographer for $50. And I normally buy it or suggest it to others at a discount price of around $89. Heck, even the standard retail price has dropped over the years. I think it is currently about $140 for a download version on Amazon. Given the fact that upgrades are free and I've used this software for well over 5 years, I think the subscription price would be quite expensive however you choose to compare it. Just my opinion!


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 1, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> I guess you're in for a disappointment, other than the added "value" I cannot imagine LR will come close to dedicated stitching apps like AutoPano.


Marsu, you sold me on AutoPano and I have to say, it is an excellent tool. I still haven't had time to complete my massive crazy action pano with it, but for other stuff, it's much better than PS.


----------



## Skirball (Apr 1, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Jan said:
> ...



Yeah, they lowered the price for LR4, and it was enough to make me give it a try and eventually buy it. Pretty sure I paid $100 and that was close to 3 years ago now. Skipped LR5, and will probably buy LR6 whenever they release it. But that'd put it at about $33/year for me. Of course, I use PS and paid $600 for CS6, so the CC plan would have saved me money, but that wasn't the point. But I'm guessing Marsu is just trying to stir the pot; there's no reasonable explanation for wanting subscription only. Regardless, I don't think Adobe would be that stupid, they'd lose considerable market share if they took LR to subscription only.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you're in for a disappointment, other than the added "value" I cannot imagine LR will come close to dedicated stitching apps like AutoPano.
> ...



Glad you found it "worth it". We don't know how LR6 will perform, but I'm kind of disappointed Adobe seems to push LR into the direction of a all-inclusive good-for-everyone app, including mobile, web and whatnot.

I'd rather have they'd simply stick to optimizing and debugging the core functionality, i.e. lossless raw processing with superior library management. Listening to LR plugin authors, the LR sdk is still buggy and mediocre and if Adobe would put some work there, we'd see some more useful plugins that are actually designed for LR (and not PS plugins with a LR interface).


----------



## NancyP (Apr 2, 2015)

I solicited photography April Fool's Day jokes on another forum, and some wiseguy provided :

"Lr 6 shipping!"


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 2, 2015)

My laptop almost came alive at night to kill me after my last big batch processing. I'm waiting for LR6 to see if there is some GPU leveraging that can be done, and will build a box based off of that. Thinking 32gb RAM, 3x SSD's, 8+ cores, 2 PCIe based cards and maybe a PCIe SSD.


----------



## Skirball (Apr 2, 2015)

Halfrack said:


> My laptop almost came alive at night to kill me after my last big batch processing. I'm waiting for LR6 to see if there is some GPU leveraging that can be done, and will build a box based off of that. Thinking 32gb RAM, 3x SSD's, 8+ cores, 2 PCIe based cards and maybe a PCIe SSD.



Sounds like overkill for just LR, but sounds nice. Why 3+ SSD? And why are you waiting for LR6 to build it? At this point any good Intel chip has more than enough integrated graphics for LR. And even if you wanted to add a discrete GPU, that's the beauty of desktops, you can just add it in afterwards.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 2, 2015)

Skirball said:


> Halfrack said:
> 
> 
> > My laptop almost came alive at night to kill me after my last big batch processing. I'm waiting for LR6 to see if there is some GPU leveraging that can be done, and will build a box based off of that. Thinking 32gb RAM, 3x SSD's, 8+ cores, 2 PCIe based cards and maybe a PCIe SSD.
> ...


If so, then my desktop is major overkill for LR4. Still want LR6 though LR4 was already swift on my system.


----------



## Skirball (Apr 2, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Halfrack said:
> ...



As do we all. And LR4 is plenty swift on my quad core 4770k, 16 gb RAM, Single SSD with HDD storage. YMMV.

I don't fault people for wanting the fastest system they can, especially if they're putting 8+ hours a day behind it. And if you're doing large batch processes, then it can have a significant impact on productivity. I'm just providing an alternative point of view. It seems there's a fair amount of people on these forums that pour money into systems that make an insignificant impact on their work flow. Which, again, is fine, if that's what they want. But it snowballs into others reading it and thinking they need true 8 core processing with an array of SSDs and as much RAM as they can, just to run LR smoothly. It's really not that intensive of a program. I'm not saying you or Halftrack fit this category, you may very well know what you need. But many don't, and long for the top end simply so that their system is "swift as possible".


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 2, 2015)

Skirball said:


> Jan said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



You never own adobe's software; you perpetually license it. I'm looking more into the CC option even though I don't really care much about photoshop. Currently I have two perpetual licenses, one for OS X and one for Windows. But with CC, I can install on multiple platforms with just the one license.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 2, 2015)

Skirball said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Skirball said:
> ...


Digital rot is less on desktops than laptops also. So many more options to work with and building a premium system now, in 4 years will be a mid-range system and in 6 years, will be antiqued for upgrades.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 2, 2015)

I bought an iMac Retina, upgraded with the 4.0 GHz I7 and higher end graphics card, just in the hopes of speeding up sorting in Lightroom.

Somewhat in vain. I still have to wait for previews to render. Not as long, but still at a very unacceptable speed. And this with the fastest chip available.

It is much faster when outputting batch files. It's a speed demon for that. But for sorting files, it's still too much of a wait. The software is clearly poorly written. Probably has some legacy 68K code in there or something.  I'm pretty sure it's not using all four cores when importing and rendering. It's ridiculous. I spent $3,500 on the latest computer and the rendering is still a slog. Ridiculous.

But the screen is awesome.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 2, 2015)

Stephen Melvin said:


> I bought an iMac Retina, upgraded with the 4.0 GHz I7 and higher end graphics card, just in the hopes of speeding up sorting in Lightroom.
> 
> Somewhat in vain. I still have to wait for previews to render. Not as long, but still at a very unacceptable speed. And this with the fastest chip available.
> 
> ...


I have always found the previews so bad that I refuse to use LR even though it's free to me in my CC subscription.

Photo Mechanic (which I use and is available on PC & Mac) and Breeze Browser (PC only, I think) both have free trials and are worth giving a spin. I was impressed with both, but prefer some of PM's features.


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 2, 2015)

Skirball said:


> Halfrack said:
> 
> 
> > My laptop almost came alive at night to kill me after my last big batch processing. I'm waiting for LR6 to see if there is some GPU leveraging that can be done, and will build a box based off of that. Thinking 32gb RAM, 3x SSD's, 8+ cores, 2 PCIe based cards and maybe a PCIe SSD.
> ...



Honestly, because the limiting factor is the SATA protocol & controllers and I'm not paying for an all PCIe setup:

SATA1 - 256gb OS/CC Apps/catalog
SATA2 - 512gb Photos
SATA3 - 256gb scratch disk (may swap to PCIe)

I'm also waiting to see if the AMD A series (8 cores + 4 GPUs) plus 2 more ATI cards will churn more data.

I killed my laptop doing a pano, my first gigapixel+ image. 3 high, 26 wide, using the Hasselblad -50 with the HTS (coolest thing in photography IMHO). Shift up 15mm, center, shift down 15mm, rotate 5 degrees, repeat.

Here's a 2% scale of the 24" tall image - I can only do a full pano when I stitch together 2 tiff's, not their original backing PSB's (over 18gb between the 2 files). The full tiff is just over 94,265 x 13,299. The second image is a crop in at 100% on the second major tower from the left, still under construction. I'm resolving rebar...


----------



## Skirball (Apr 2, 2015)

Halfrack said:


> Honestly, because the limiting factor is the SATA protocol & controllers and I'm not paying for an all PCIe setup:
> 
> SATA1 - 256gb OS/CC Apps/catalog
> SATA2 - 512gb Photos
> SATA3 - 256gb scratch disk (may swap to PCIe)



Can you see a difference in a setup like this, with your work? I looked into the standard 4 drive recommendation back when I built my desktop, and I couldn't find any actual data on it. It seemed like it was mostly a recommendation from back in the HDD days. I originally just had a 512 gb main drive with OS/Photo Programs/WIP/Scratch, and then a giant HDD for storage. I ended up putting in a 60 gb scratch, only because it was given to me free. I didn't see any performance difference, but I'm not working on docs anywhere near the size you are. My PSB's are usually in the 2 - 5 gb range, and it's mostly because of layers, not document size.


----------



## wtlloyd (Apr 2, 2015)

Used to use BreezeBrowser and Downloader Pro. Then Raw Shooter. Got a free copy of Lightroom v1 from Adobe to owners of Pixmantec Raw Shooter, when they bought the company and shut it down, incorporating some of the tech in Lightroom. That was a very decent thing Adobe did.
Using Lightroom solely to import and cull/rate. It is slow.
Lately, I am importing off the card into Lightroom, with metadata copyright info the only preset applied. Then I have gone back to using BreezeBrowser Pro to cull my shots. I then go back into LR and sync the folder, allowing the deleted shots to be removed from the catalog. Works great, saves time.
If Adobe don't fix the speed issues in LR6, perhaps by allowing us the option to sort/cull/rate using the embedded jpeg, then I will stay with my new workflow.

I really want a live histogram with pixel readouts for evaluation between shots in the Library.


----------



## emko (Apr 3, 2015)

wtlloyd said:


> Used to use BreezeBrowser and Downloader Pro. Then Raw Shooter. Got a free copy of Lightroom v1 from Adobe to owners of Pixmantec Raw Shooter, when they bought the company and shut it down, incorporating some of the tech in Lightroom. That was a very decent thing Adobe did.
> Using Lightroom solely to import and cull/rate. It is slow.
> Lately, I am importing off the card into Lightroom, with metadata copyright info the only preset applied. Then I have gone back to using BreezeBrowser Pro to cull my shots. I then go back into LR and sync the folder, allowing the deleted shots to be removed from the catalog. Works great, saves time.
> If Adobe don't fix the speed issues in LR6, perhaps by allowing us the option to sort/cull/rate using the embedded jpeg, then I will stay with my new workflow.
> I really want a live histogram with pixel readouts for evaluation between shots in the Library.



who ever is programming Lightroom has no idea what they are doing, for example pressing and holding left or right keyboard key should move quickly just show the image as fast as possible without slowing down the movement speed. Seriously windows photo viewer can move between pictures faster then LR.


----------



## Al99 (Apr 3, 2015)

*New release date *rumor on a Dutch Website.

Meanwhile, the offer has been removed from the shop! But you can find screenshots on differnet rumor sites.

The release should start on 21st April.
We'll see, all the other dates were wrong, so only time will tell, if the new one is correct. ???
It's a pitty, that Adobe didn't announce anything.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 3, 2015)

Al99 said:


> *New release date *rumor on a Dutch Website.



Amazing how easy it is for any website to get global inbound links just by posting a date, correct or not


----------



## Diko (Apr 6, 2015)

Check my conversation *here*

And here is a recent post of mine, can't remember exactly the link to the topic ))


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 6, 2015)

Skirball said:


> Halfrack said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, because the limiting factor is the SATA protocol & controllers and I'm not paying for an all PCIe setup:
> ...



It makes a difference, especially when you consider that Photoshop loves scratch a little too much. Having to read and write to the same controller/sata channel is a bottleneck, so splitting the photos from the scratch helps, and the way Windows uses files and paging (disabled, but still) adding in another drive doesn't hurt things.

The 3 drive method does amazing when dealing with spinning platter hard drives - those are really limited as to their physical I/O operations.


----------

