# Adobe Has Released the Last Perpetual Update of the Standalone Version of Lightroom



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 19, 2017)

```
This is sure to be a very sad day for a lot of photographers and Lightroom lovers that do not love the subscription based model of Adobe’s current software.</p>
<p><strong>From the <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/">Adobe Journal</a>:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>The goal of this release is to provide perpetual customers additional camera raw support, lens profile support and address bugs that were introduced in previous releases of Lightroom.  You should only update to Lightroom 6.14 if you are currently holding a license to our perpetual product.</p>
<p>Please note, there will be no additional updates after 6.14 for the perpetual, standalone version of Lightroom.  You can <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshop/2017/10/introducing-lightroom-cc-lightroom-classic-cc-and-more.html">check out this blog post</a> for more information when this was announced earlier.</p>
<p>As always, new cameras are supported for legacy versions of Lightroom, Photoshop, Bridge, After Effects, and Photoshop Elements through the <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html">free Adobe DNG Converter.</a></p>


<p>For native camera raw support and ongoing updates with new features<a href="https://theblog.adobe.com/announcing-december-update-lightroom/"> try out Lightroom Classic or Lightroom CC</a>. These features include <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/whats-new.html">color and luminance range masking and the new auto</a>.  This along with other future imaging and performance enhancements are automatically included with a membership.</p>
<p>Find the latest available downloads of Lightroom 6 <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/lightroom-downloads.html">here</a>. If you have a Creative Cloud plan of any type, you do not need to purchase Lightroom 6.</p>
<p>You can also find the new <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html">cameras</a> and <a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/supported-lenses.html">lens profiles</a> that are now supported with 6.14.</p>
<p>Thanks!</p></blockquote>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
</p>
```


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Dec 19, 2017)

Well, I guess it's better than nothing.  I'll never go to CC.
The grass is already greener on the other side of the fence.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 19, 2017)

I switched to the subscription version 3 years ago after spending money since the 1990's continually upgrading photoshop, and for lightroom since version 2 upgrading lightroom every version and photoshop every other version. I don't see it as a additional cost, I look for deals on a annual subscription and keep ahead of the cost.

I understand why some prefer the perpetual license, but other premium software often requires a $150 more or less upgrade every year to retain update capability.

The reason is simple, the employees of the companies need wages to live. There are no longer enough new people purchasing software for the first time to pay the wages.

However, there is a workaround for those who are not using the software daily and can spend a little extra time. DPP is free, and will batch convert raw images to tiff files that work in all versions of lightroom and photoshop. BTW, Adobe owns tiff as well. Unfortunately, not all photo software will accept tiff files, so that work around may not apply to some software.

There is a free older version of DXO - (digital optics pro 9), so that is another way to go if you convert raw files first.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 19, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Well, I guess it's better than nothing.  I'll never go to CC.
> The grass is already greener on the other side of the fence.


Another 2-3 years when I upgrade my camera its going to be bye-bye Adobe. Will try few other RAW editors before finalising on shift.


----------



## TommyLee (Dec 19, 2017)

EDIT: whoops I clicked on LR install.. back to 6.0...
now I am updating via the adobe website...

maybe I needed coffee first....

====

of course my new Canon 85L f1.4 I.S. is not covered in a profile......

*
do they allow lens profiles AFTER the end of perpetual update?*


----------



## drs (Dec 19, 2017)

We can run this version for a while. I'm certain other companies will step up and allow for a replacement.

I love Adobe products since a quarter century for my productions, but this dependency is not to my taste.


----------



## slclick (Dec 19, 2017)

This is it. I will give Skylum a whirl when it's matured but since I'm shooting with a currently supported camera and glass, it'll do.


----------



## snappy604 (Dec 19, 2017)

Will use LR for a while still since I invested the time to learn it, but it's sad and annoying. Thankfully competition is starting to show up.

Noticed Affinity Photo is on sale at moment, permanent license for about 6 months of CC subscription. I'm going to try it tonight.


----------



## slclick (Dec 20, 2017)

I am thinking of changing my mind. I currently have a Smugmug website and for the price of that I could have Adobe Portfolio, both Classic CC and CC, future updates and 20GB storage. Going to sleep on it.


----------



## blindcat (Dec 20, 2017)

20 GB Storage? Compared to my local storage this is a thumbnail cache ...
Very sad.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 20, 2017)

1. the license is not "perpetual". At best it is for an "indefinite, unspecified term". Until Adobe pulls all support for it ... or goes bankrupt (would not mind). 

2. Am currently on LR 5.7. Been thinking about updating to LR 6 ... but held off due to the inherent LR 6 performance issues and not much gain. 

3. Will not buy an already totally outdated LR 6 now, which is nerfed compared to cloud versions [no de-haze etc.] and most importantly: there is no chance now that LR 6 would support my next camera's RAWs - whatever camera that may be. 

4. will ride things out on LR 5.7 and hope for at least 1 alternative product to mature sufficiently to match my needs when i move to next camera. 

5. what i would like is basically a blend of Photo-Mechanic [for ingest, tagging, culling, keywording] and LR "Develop" module only [ACR with LR CC develop module user interface], sans all the other LR modules [dhave never used any of them] and especially without that disgusting, bloated LR database. 

6. If Adobe sees fit to bring such a software product to market and offer an indefinite license for it, they will get my business. Otherwise: not a single cent from me to them ... perpetually or until "kingdom come". 

Until then Adobe can go f*** themselves as far as i am concerned.


----------



## LDS (Dec 20, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> 1. the license is not "perpetual". At best it is for an "indefinite, unspecified term". Until Adobe pulls all support for it ... or goes bankrupt (would not mind).



The license is "perpetual" because it doesn't expire - you can use it as long as you wish, although without updates it may not work on a newer OS one day - but the license is still valid, the license is not a warranty.

The difference with a time-limited license or a subscription is that you have to keep paying to have the legal rights to use the product - up that parts or the whole product may stop working if you don't. It's a legal situation, not a technical one.



AvTvM said:


> 5. what i would like is basically a blend of Photo-Mechanic [for ingest, tagging, culling, keywording] and LR "Develop" module only [ACR with LR CC develop module user interface], sans all the other LR modules [dhave never used any of them] and especially without that disgusting, bloated LR database.



I use often the print module and the geolocation one. The latter one will not work well without a database. I also tag my photo extensively, and again, it won't work well without. But I also like hierarchical tagging, so the flat one oF a single file or CC doesn't fit my needs.

You see, people have very different needs...


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 20, 2017)

any sort of tagging can - and should really be - done in metadata header of file itself. And any decent OS should be able to provide any sort of view and search - including multi-tiered, hierarchical ones - on that metadata. No need for big fat duplicated database in an App.

You see, all sorts of different user needs could really be met a lot easier, simpler and faster than by way of an Adobe LR database.


----------



## LDS (Dec 20, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> any sort of tagging can - and should really be - done in metadata header of file itself. And any decent OS should be able to provide any sort of view and search - including multi-tiered, hierarchical ones - on that metadata. No need for big fat duplicated database in an App.



Not every file format has enough space to hold any user-defined metadata inside it. It also means you have to modify the file ever time you change the metadata. If the files are on a read-only area or support, this is impossible. It also means the whole file has to be backed up again. Also, there is a large chance to corrupt the file, it the format is not well documented (most RAW files are in this category...)

You may also want to keep some metadata separate from the image themselves, because they could be reserved, and not everybody able to access the image should be able to access them.

The OS database would be a generic database designed to cope with very different indexing needs. Not all files are image file - you will have text documents, spreadsheets, presentations, audio files, videos, etc. etc. all with different metadata and different search needs.

It will make searches less efficient, and it will also probably just index a subset of the metadata, because some are too specific and not used by the majority of users, so they won't spend resources to manage them. How many IPTC fields an OS manage? They don't manage the whole EXIF information either. Nor it could understand application specific needs.

Hierarchical tags will be a big issue when you modify the hierarchy - instead of a simple, quick change inside the database, you may need to modify a large number of files - if you can modify them.


----------



## slclick (Dec 20, 2017)

blindcat said:


> 20 GB Storage? Compared to my local storage this is a thumbnail cache ...
> Very sad.



True, I have redundant 4TB at home but the 20 GB is for web access across devices and I won't likely be using the CC module just the Classic on one machine. So I agree with your sentiment but it's not a factor for the Smugmug trade off, that storage size is not limited in the plan for the Adobe Portfolio images.


----------



## blobmonster (Dec 20, 2017)

I just bought Lightroom 6 to avoid subscription for at least a few years and facilitate purchase/ use of a new camera body over the next 12 months. There are some great features besides just the raw support for newer cameras. 

If I turn fully professional, I will pay for the subscription. But I can't justify such a high subscription cost as an amateur, especially not when it's bundled with non-Dropbox cloud storage. I understand employees have to pay bills, and I would happily pay a modest amount for raw updates to support newer cameras; this would allow hobby photographers to contribute and create without having to use beginner level or non-Adobe software.


----------



## nvettese (Dec 20, 2017)

Some companies are stepping up with great products, such as Capture One Pro, OnOne and now MacPhun who has begun pushing out software for Windows. All of this in order to take advantage of the users moving from Adobe products. I for one am looking to move. I am on the final version of LR Standalone, and I am using PS CS6. No more Adobe for me.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Dec 20, 2017)

It is true that if you bought the newest version every time or every other time (as someone stated they did), then a subscription model is likely no more expensive. But for people like me who shoot infrequently (and not as a living), it makes no sense. I use Photoshop Elements 12 (not Lightroom) and was disheartened when I recently traded in my 5D3 for 5D4 and found it would not read the RAW files. Thankfully I was able to download Adobe DNG converter and work from DNG files. It is an extra step, but I don't process RAW files very often so I have no need to change.


----------



## dpc (Dec 20, 2017)

This denouement has no effect on me. I have LR 5.7 but I haven't used it in a while. I've basically gone with DxO PhotoLab, which I like, and also have OnOne Photo RAW 2018 and Luminar 2018. I can't honestly say I miss Lightrooom at all.


----------



## IglooEater (Dec 20, 2017)

“This is sure to be a very sad day for a lot of photographers”

Well for me it’s kind of happy-ish. No way will my wife be happy with a subscription product, which means I have one more reason to look at other products. It’s actually kind of exiting to have a real need a valid excuse excuse to try out a bunch of other stuff.  In addition to overall dissatisfaction with Lightroom this will make a switch sentimentally very easy, albeit technically a pain.


----------



## mingyuansung (Dec 21, 2017)

Well. I am not a professional photographer to expense Adobe products any more. I am looking into replacement too. Sad to spend so much learning time, training, and books on Adobe products.


----------



## RGF (Dec 21, 2017)

blobmonster said:


> .But I can't justify such a high subscription cost as an amateur,



$10 /month vs $150 every 18 months for new version and then the cost of PS.


----------



## LDS (Dec 21, 2017)

RGF said:


> $10 /month vs $150 every 18 months for new version and then the cost of PS.



No, because upgrades costed less than the full product, you don't have to get each and every version, and many LR users don't use PS. So it could be $80-100 every three years or so compared to over $360. For some people it could be still a sensible difference. It's not a product aimed only to those who need to have always the latest $3-6K camera and lenses.

It also makes more difficult to buy it for gift. A gift that expires if you don't keep on paying doesn't look very good.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 21, 2017)

RGF said:


> blobmonster said:
> 
> 
> > .But I can't justify such a high subscription cost as an amateur,
> ...



rent payment every month. or purchase/no purchase for any number of months. and ohotoshop not needed or wanted here. bought it once, hated it for 1980s user interface, de-installed and will never again touch it. LR Develop module is all i want and use. dont see why i should pay monthly rent for forced bundle with photoshop. adobe should unbundle and offer 1 dollar/month LR only subscription as well ... then i might look differently at it.


----------



## mb66energy (Dec 21, 2017)

Because I like to own things or have unlimited access to a (software) tool was a standard in my life I never changed to some other license models. 

As someone who likes to take photos and maximize technical IQ besides the photographic quality I have always been fine with DPP which supports cameras and lenses very well.
With Linux I tried digikam. It was very slow on raw files but gave excellent IQ and has lots of parameters to get the most out of raw files.

I am glad to lean back and say: No unnecessary changes to perform.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 21, 2017)

although i only have RAW files out of Canon cameras DPP in its current state is no option for me. it lacks any possibility for local adjustments and has no adequate keystone correction - these 2 features are what i realky like, need and use in LR. 

if Canon would step up to the plate and implement these festures to bring DPP closer to LR develop module capabilities, i would happily use DPP and kiss Adobe goodbye forever. but ... stupid Canon.


----------



## mml4 (Dec 22, 2017)

I know- "Nothing is forever" but Adobe led us to believe they would continue to support the stand alone product. I bought the upgrade from 5 to 6 for $79 and have downloaded the 6.14 but will never pay Adobe for a monthly. I would rather subscribe to another provider than reward their dishonesty!!
Marc


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 22, 2017)

Hi Marc. 
With all due respect “led us (you) to believe” is not the same as “we promise to.....” 
Did they ever promise?

As for subscription, nope not as long as I can avoid it, (I might have to for Windows if that ever goes subscription) I have DxO Optics Pro and have just paid £55 for the update to DxO Photo Lab which now has local adjustments though not layers as far as I can see, I didn’t have to upgrade but I tried the month free trial of the new version and liked the improvements. 

Cheers, Graham. 
Seasons greetings and best wishes for the new year. 



mml4 said:


> I know- "Nothing is forever" but Adobe led us to believe they would continue to support the stand alone product. I bought the upgrade from 5 to 6 for $79 and have downloaded the 6.14 but will never pay Adobe for a monthly. I would rather subscribe to another provider than reward their dishonesty!!
> Marc


----------



## LDS (Dec 22, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Did they ever promise?



They made it looks they did, even if they really didn't:

"Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?
A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."

(https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html?red=a&tduid=c50e2ac889a1c6acb759e006d4d4c5ae&url=https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html)

Just "indefinitely" doesn't really means "forever", "infinitely", it means "for an unspecified period". It's a classic marketing weasel word.

That's why I don't trust them when they say LR "Classic" will be around in the future... especially since there was no reason to call it "Classic"...


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 22, 2017)

Hi LDS. 
Thank you for clarifying, yes indefinitely is definitely a misleading term, plus to me “Classic” means we are moving on! 

Cheers, Graham. 



LDS said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Did they ever promise?
> ...


----------



## snoke (Dec 25, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> With Linux I tried digikam. It was very slow on raw files but gave excellent IQ and has lots of parameters to get the most out of raw files.



Linux and MacOS have different choices - also darktable. Like lightroom.
http://www.darktable.org/

Not Windows.



RGF said:


> $10 /month vs $150 every 18 months for new version and then the cost of PS.



Price not same everywhere.
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html
USD 10,20,50 (Africa, Canada, Mexico too)

https://www.adobe.com/jp/creativecloud/plans.html
JPY 980,2180,4180 (USD: $9, $19, $37)

https://www.adobe.com/uk/creativecloud/plans.html
GBP 10,20,40 (USD: $13, $26, $53)

https://www.adobe.com/de/creativecloud/plans.html
EUR 12,24,60 (USD: $14, $28, $71)

https://www.adobe.com/au/creativecloud/plans.html
AUD 14,29,73 (USD: $11, $22, $56)
NZD like AUD.

https://www.adobe.com/in/creativecloud/plans.html
INR 676,1353,3382 (USD: $10, $21, $53)

Everyone download same files.


----------



## Click (Dec 25, 2017)

Chaitanya said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I guess it's better than nothing.  I'll never go to CC.
> ...



Same here.


----------



## RGF (Dec 25, 2017)

snoke said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > With Linux I tried digikam. It was very slow on raw files but gave excellent IQ and has lots of parameters to get the most out of raw files.
> ...



Do some of the international prices have taxes (VAT) included? I pay over $10 once the sales taxes are included.


----------



## greger (Dec 25, 2017)

I used Photoshop CS 5.6 last night because I wanted to add type to a project I was working on. Usually I use DPP for my raw files. I increase the contrast and sharpen. When saving I convert it to a Tiff and jpeg. The jpeg I use for sending the pic via email to friends. The Tiff I use in PS to print a copy. This is working fine for me,so Adobe gets no more money from me!


----------



## rworman (Jan 2, 2018)

So, I am wondering how Adobe and other "subscription" type providers will react when the large Internet backbone providers start charging them to keep applications running smoothly. Additionally how will subscribers react when the internet Providers adopt the "pay for data" plan options (so much for working on-line with large RAW files ) used by the cell providers? Both options are on the table now that "net neutrality" is gone.


----------

