Adobe haters, I have a question for you

[tijuana taxi]

You keep the unedited Raw files, but all the editing will disappear.

Not according to Lightroom Queen

Lightroom Classic
While you have all your original photos held locally, all your edits are stored non-destructively in your catalog. Of course you could export all of your edited photos to standardized formats before canceling your subscription, but that’s hardly ideal. So what do you do?

Here’s the good news! If your subscription expires, you can continue to use Lightroom Classic excluding the Develop module, Map module and mobile sync. Photoshop also stops working, of course.

Yes, you read that correctly! You can import new photos, add metadata, organize them, search for specific photos, do rough edits using Quick Develop, apply Develop presets, create books, slideshows and web galleries, email and publish photos on social media, export and print your edited photos… nothing is lost!

And if you later decide you want to subscribe again, then the main Develop module, Map module and mobile sync are unlocked and you can again use Lightroom Classic to the full.

 

[john.margetts]

Surely it doesn't delete the previously edited files in your catalog

Not edited files that have been exported, no. But your Raw conversions are just a list of instructions attached to the Raw file. Without Adobe's Raw converter, you cannot make use of those instructions. And, of course, your catalogue is now useless without the software.

 

[nandbytes]

Its about a tenner a month albeit for a 12 month contract, don't have to cough up in one lump though.
https://commerce.adobe.com/checkout/email/?items[0][cs]=0&items[0][id]=08823B2E8361CE018F9A2C51CF489283&ctx=acom&cli=adobe_com&co=GB&lang=en&promoid=322TBYRX&mv=other

My point wasn't the price. It's that you can't just stop paying if you don't want it any more. Your are stuck for an entire year which is long time.

 

[john.margetts]

Not according to Lightroom Queen

Lightroom Classic
While you have all your original photos held locally, all your edits are stored non-destructively in your catalog. Of course you could export all of your edited photos to standardized formats before canceling your subscription, but that’s hardly ideal. So what do you do?

Here’s the good news! If your subscription expires, you can continue to use Lightroom Classic excluding the Develop module, Map module and mobile sync. Photoshop also stops working, of course.

Yes, you read that correctly! You can import new photos, add metadata, organize them, search for specific photos, do rough edits using Quick Develop, apply Develop presets, create books, slideshows and web galleries, email and publish photos on social media, export and print your edited photos… nothing is lost!

And if you later decide you want to subscribe again, then the main Develop module, Map module and mobile sync are unlocked and you can again use Lightroom Classic to the full.

OK, you can continue to export your files after your subscription ends. Adobe don't seem to mention most of your list, though.

 

[tijuana taxi]

OK, you can continue to export your files after your subscription ends. Adobe don't seem to mention most of your list, though.

Doesn't mean its not true though

 

[LeeRatters]

I do wish it wasn't just subscription only. Wouldn't say I hate them for it though....

 

[myotis]

OK, you can continue to export your files after your subscription ends. Adobe don't seem to mention most of your list, though.

Adobe, for some time, have said that only the map and develop modules, and mobile sync are disabled. see below for one early explanation:

[note]: We recently updated to Lightroom 6.0. When you’re subscription ends in Lr CC / Lr6, you will continue to have access to the Library, Slideshow, Web, Book and Print Modules as described below.

Since the launch of the Creative Cloud, Adobe has engaged in an ongoing dialog with the photographic community. We’ve tackled mobile workflows, provided ongoing enhancements and lastly, provided a membership plan tailor made for all levels of photographers. With the latest update to Lightroom 5.5 I believe we’ve also addressed a lingering concern in the community: 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.

Adobe Lightroom

blogs.adobe.com

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I got rid of my Adobe subscription back in May after 5 years of subscribing to Adobe CC. I now use Affinity Photo instead of Photoshop and On1RAW instead of lightroom. I do not regret my decision one bit.

I tried on1raw but found it a little bit rubbish. It seemed to be all about the presets and felt less refined than some of the free software. I downloaded a free version of Luminar 3 which I use occasionally for batch edits. I find I don't really crave a LR substitute too much as I've traversed the Affinity learning curve and can do most things happily on that. But yeah, really like affinity. Learning to use it has really improved my editing skills.

 

[Marc]

Adobe, for some time, have said that only the map and develop modules, and mobile sync are disabled. see below for one early explanation:

[note]: We recently updated to Lightroom 6.0. When you’re subscription ends in Lr CC / Lr6, you will continue to have access to the Library, Slideshow, Web, Book and Print Modules as described below.

Since the launch of the Creative Cloud, Adobe has engaged in an ongoing dialog with the photographic community. We’ve tackled mobile workflows, provided ongoing enhancements and lastly, provided a membership plan tailor made for all levels of photographers. With the latest update to Lightroom 5.5 I believe we’ve also addressed a lingering concern in the community: 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.

Adobe Lightroom

blogs.adobe.com

I stopped my subscription a couple of years ago when I started a break from photography. I lost access to the develop module in LR but I could still use the Library and all my raw edits were still there. I've recently restarted my subscription and was able to pick up where I left off.

 

[myotis]

I stopped my subscription a couple of years ago when I started a break from photography. I lost access to the develop module in LR but I could still use the Library and all my raw edits were still there. I've recently restarted my subscription and was able to pick up where I left off.

So, exactly as Adobe said on their blog. Good to have it confirmed from someone on here however, and not just from other forums.

 

[Bristolian]

I'm certainly not an Adobe hater, although I've never been a fan of the subscription model even though I appreciaten they were probably losing money prior to that due to the numbers of pirate copies of PS that were doing the rounds. I have been a subscriber for several years but as I approach retirement I want to buy a package outright rather than have to think about can I afford the subscription on my pension?

Towards this end I have purchased On1 Photo RAW and am getting to grips with learning that - in fact I can already get results equal to LR but the methodology is different. The software has the facility to read the edits that have been made in LR or PS and replicate that in On1, so there's no need to re-edit images ... thank God! On1 doesn't have DAM but as I have always used a fairly logical system for storing images on my PC that's not such a bit deal for me.

 

[ancient_mariner]

On1 doesn't have DAM but as I have always used a fairly logical system for storing images on my PC that's not such a bit deal for me.

It doesn't import & keep a database in the same way, but it does allow full keywording of images (and should read LR keywords, star ratings etc).

 

[Bristolian]

It doesn't import & keep a database in the same way, but it does allow full keywording of images (and should read LR keywords, star ratings etc).

Sorry, yes, I should have expanded my comment to include that information. Indeed LR keywords and ratings are read too

 

[FujiLove]

I don't understand why people constantly bitch and moan about Adobe. If you consider something is too expensive for the benefit it provides to you, or is too expensive for you full stop (a Ferrari, a Macbook, dinner at the Ritz, a big house in the country, a Tidal subscription, or Adobe software).......just don't buy it!

It's really not complicated. There are lots of choices out there, so use something else if you think they're a better fit for you.

(I wonder if there are threads on here where people bitch about Spotify and demand they provide them with CDs?!)

 

[nandbytes]

I don't understand why people constantly bitch and moan about Adobe. If you consider something is too expensive for the benefit it provides to you, or is too expensive for you full stop (a Ferrari, a Macbook, dinner at the Ritz, a big house in the country, a Tidal subscription, or Adobe software).......just don't buy it!

It's really not complicated. There are lots of choices out there, so use something else if you think they're a better fit for you.

(I wonder if there are threads on here where people bitch about Spotify and demand they provide them with CDs?!)

unfortunately there isn't a solution that better fits me.
they got in me into the software with a perpetual license system and then changed the model to a subscription model. i find that disingenuous. I didn't mind when they had both models running in parallel, i am fine with that.
if it was always a subscription model i may have never signed up to it. I would have never developed my workflow around it.

once again (for me at least) it's NOT about about affordability. its about business ethics and treating your long loyal customers fairly which seems to be a dying concept these days. people have an almost anything goes attitude as long as they can sell it and make money.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I don't understand why people constantly bitch and moan about Adobe. If you consider something is too expensive for the benefit it provides to you, or is too expensive for you full stop (a Ferrari, a Macbook, dinner at the Ritz, a big house in the country, a Tidal subscription, or Adobe software).......just don't buy it!

It's really not complicated. There are lots of choices out there, so use something else if you think they're a better fit for you.

(I wonder if there are threads on here where people bitch about Spotify and demand they provide them with CDs?!)

I don't see many here bitching about the cost - only the model Adobe use. If they revert to conventional software sales then they'll likely pick up more customers. Is that difficult to understand?

 

[FujiLove]

once again (for me at least) it's NOT about about affordability. its about business ethics and treating your long loyal customers fairly which seems to be a dying concept these days. people have an almost anything goes attitude as long as they can sell it and make money.

I don't see many here bitching about the cost - only the model Adobe use. If they revert to conventional software sales then they'll likely pick up more customers. Is that difficult to understand?

Like it or not, we live in a capitalist society where the one and only aim of every company is to maximise profits. Anything else which a company looks like it's doing (being 'green', being nice to customers etc.) is a calculation based on maximising profit. In fact, I believe it's still against company law (in the UK) for a director to knowingly damage profits/potential profits. They can be taken to court by shareholders. Adobe simply calculated that the subscription model would maximise profits, and judging by how the company has performed over the last few years, they were absolutely right. A business decision which loses customers, but increases profits in the long term is—in this world we live in—the correct business decision.

That's not moral, or right, and I personally hate the way the corporate world works because it's absolutely trashing the planet, but it's the society we live in. Don't hate on Adobe, vote for a different sort of government, because that's the only way to change things like this.

 

[nandbytes]

Like it or not, we live in a capitalist society where the one and only aim of every company is to maximise profits. Anything else which a company looks like it's doing (being 'green', being nice to customers etc.) is a calculation based on maximising profit. In fact, I believe it's still against company law (in the UK) for a director to knowingly damage profits/potential profits. They can be taken to court by shareholders. Adobe simply calculated that the subscription model would maximise profits, and judging by how the company has performed over the last few years, they were absolutely right. A business decision which loses customers, but increases profits in the long term is—in this world we live in—the correct business decision.

That's not moral, or right, and I personally hate the way the corporate world works because it's absolutely trashing the planet, but it's the society we live in. Don't hate on Adobe, vote for a different sort of government, because that's the only way to change things like this.

What different sort of government?
Doesn't really exist as far as I see.
Can't even get our voting system reformed from the FPTP system. So when the most basic thing about the system can't be fixed because regardless of who in power they think the same way what big change can we hope for.

 

[Retune]

Personally, I find it far too much effort to hate Adobe. Equally, I'm not really terribly bothered when somebody disses the utterly ruthless business models of the global megacorporations I still throw money at (Hi Amazon!). These companies can look after themselves. But this is a thread about what people think about Adobe, so we should expect criticism. Adobe switched to the rental scheme because they knew they'd make a lot more money. People were skipping upgrades that for many did not add significant features they were interested in. There's very little I use in PS CS6 that I couldn't have done with the CS3 version, or for that matter in PS7 from 2002. Piracy is often cited as another justification for the change, though the move to CC doesn't seem to have stopped the software crackers, as a quick Google search will reveal. Above all, Adobe had a near monopoly to exploit at the high end. Most of the professionals who used the full power of their software on a daily basis weren't going to switch away from the software they'd spent all that time learning, even where there were reasonable alternatives (which in some cases there weren't), and Adobe knew it.

 

[myotis]

I don't see many here bitching about the cost - only the model Adobe use. If they revert to conventional software sales then they'll likely pick up more customers. Is that difficult to understand?

Except, hasn't the opposite happened and user numbers increased. I know I've seen numbers for this but can't find any now

I'm certainly a new user since the subscription because I never felt I could afford to pay for Photoshop outright.

As an aside, according to Jeff Schewe, less than 10% of Adobe customers are photographers, so what photographers think may not match the views of the other 90+ percent of their customers.

 

[nandbytes]

Except, hasn't the opposite happened and user numbers increased. I know I've seen numbers for this but can't find any now

I'm certainly a new user since the subscription because I never felt I could afford to pay for Photoshop outright.

As an aside, according to Jeff Schewe, less than 10% of Adobe customers are photographers, so what photographers think may not match the views of the other 90+ percent of their customers.

its certainly more useful and better value for people who need/use both LR and PS.
for folks like me who only want LR, its also forcing me to pay for software i don't want which is the other bit I don't like..... along with the useless 20GB storage.

Adobe Portfolio might be of some use but I haven't tried it yet...

 

[ancient_mariner]

Except, hasn't the opposite happened and user numbers increased. I know I've seen numbers for this but can't find any now

There seem to be a number of people here who would buy a new permanent license copy of LR if it were available, but refuse to do so because we don't like the renatl model.

Don't hate on Adobe, vote for a different sort of government, because that's the only way to change things like this.

Lots of us voting against the system here.

FWIW I work for a company that chooses an ecological solution wherever available, whether it's the electrical supplier or the recyclable waste that goes with biotech.

 

[Pound Coin]

Like it or not, we live in a capitalist society where the one and only aim of every company is to maximise profits.

Luckily, that isn't true.

 

[myotis]

There seem to be a number of people here who would buy a new permanent license copy of LR if it were available, but refuse to do so because we don't like the renatl model.

I'm sure there are, but my suggestion was that they were picking up more customers than they were losing, and making more profit, so I can't see them being all that concerned about those they have lost.

 

[nandbytes]

I'm sure there are, but my suggestion was that they were picking up more customers than they were losing, and making more profit, so I can't see them being all that concerned about those they have lost.

They have indeed made more profit with the subscription model

 

[Marc]

If they revert to conventional software sales then they'll likely pick up more customers. Is that difficult to understand?

I'm pretty sure that those running a multi million pound company like Adobe will know which method brings them the most customers.

 

[nandbytes]

I'm pretty sure that those running a multi million pound company like Adobe will know which method brings them the most customers.

I don't think that's always true, otherwise no multi million pound company would fail

but generally speaking though, they are probably better qualified than arm chair experts at making business decisions

 

[Marc]

I don't think that's always true, otherwise no multi million pound company would fail

Hence the "like Adobe".

 

[nandbytes]

reminded of the this skit, though not entirely on-topic:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ss-59fi4nM

 

[myotis]

its certainly more useful and better value for people who need/use both LR and PS.
for folks like me who only want LR, its also forcing me to pay for software i don't want which is the other bit I don't like..... along with the useless 20GB storage.

Adobe Portfolio might be of some use but I haven't tried it yet...

Yes, I agree that if you only want LR, its less good value as the stand alone license was relatively cheap (but the sub is still cheaper than any other Adobe program, we photographers got a special deal, compared to all their other customers).

I'm not that fussed at having LR, even though I still use it fairly regularly, but I do want PS and may well take advantage of Adobe portfolio.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm sure there are, but my suggestion was that they were picking up more customers than they were losing, and making more profit, so I can't see them being all that concerned about those they have lost.

I can't comment on that, having not seen the data, but Adobe's present business model has certainly aided the success of other image processing companies by driving customers to them - perhaps I should be grateful?

I've no doubt they are making more from their system for now, but times and people change.

 

[myotis]

I can't comment on that, having not seen the data, but Adobe's present business model has certainly aided the success of other image processing companies by driving customers to them - perhaps I should be grateful?

I've no doubt they are making more from their system for now, but times and people change.

So amazingly a win-win for the photography processing software industry

 

[Lensflare]

The second line is about the software checking with Adobe that your subscription is up to date. If it is not, the software stops working. This is my big complaint with subscriptions. Once you have edited a lot of photographs, you lose all that work if you stop paying so you have to pay for ever, not just a year.

I didn't realise that.

I have eschewed ANY and ALL 'Cloud' based anythings. If you entrust your work to someone else for storage, be prepared for them to hold you to ransom for it at some stage. Don't believe me? Just look at what photobucket and Flickr, probably others I don't even know about, they have done exactly that.

If you want total control and security, use your own storage. A 6TB plug in hard drive (I will not use wifi connection for that) is less than £100, I have just bought another one.

As for 'renting' software - not on your nelly. Not ever. I have still got my Nikon NX2 which is a great editor, (as opposed to design programme) for my Nikon camera output. It will also work with any jpegs. I can't see the need to upgrade from the D4s and my compact is still producing front covers (P7800) so why do I need to get a different one?

People seem to get sucked into the newer is better all the time. That is how the marketing men justify their existence. RESIST.

 

[keef32]

My point wasn't the price. It's that you can't just stop paying if you don't want it any more. Your are stuck for an entire year which is long time.

If you are in some sort of hardship and can't make the payments you can contact them and they will cancel it for you for free... I've done it before when I was having issues with an employer paying me.,, Signed back up a couple of months later, They even offered to match the payments I was on before the hardship

I stopped my subscription a couple of years ago when I started a break from photography. I lost access to the develop module in LR but I could still use the Library and all my raw edits were still there. I've recently restarted my subscription and was able to pick up where I left off.

I had exactly the same thing with mine, everything accessible and in the same place while it was cancelled, then back again when I re signed up.


My main gripe is that you cant change the payment day.... and thats not even a massive issue

 

[myotis]

I didn't realise that.

Just for clarity the text you bolded is incorrect, you do lose some features (including the main editing tools), but Adobe still allow you to access and print your edited photographs and use the catalogue. Full details have been provided in several posts in this thread

And unless you "choose" to use the cloud based version of LR, which I haven't even installed, you don't need to store anything in the cloud when using LR or PS.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Adobe are the masters of the graphics world.
Indesign more or less killed Quark xpress. the previous leader in the layout field.
Illustrator cleaned out the drawing world.
And photoshop did much the same for photography and pixel level retouching
When it came to raw processing they bought the best one available at the time.
Lightroom was a comparative late comer and drew together a DAM , with their raw processor and non destructive retouching, and an output engine.

Since then they have added just about every other branch of imaging and digital manipulation used by the digital world.
EVERYBODY hate a big boy. You do not need a reason.

However Adobe is still by far the nearest thing to a complete system and is the defacto standard used in the professional world.

There are other specialist suppliers out there, that attract segments of the top end of the market, but they are considerably more expensive and very difficult to learn to use.

At the low cost end, Affinity are making a name for them selves, but lack both a satisfactory raw processor, and they do not have a Dam or equivalent to lightroom. however they are attempting to make a largely non destructive form of Photoshop.

If anything Photoshop has become too complex for anyone to master fully. every time you think you have it sorted they introduce further complications.
This often means not just learning something new, but having to relearn many things that led up to that point.

 

[Retune]

Personally, I find it far too much effort to hate Adobe.

I take that back. Here is a good reason to despise Adobe and their predatory business model. This morning I noticed they have changed their policy about activating older versions of CS. A few years ago, they shut down the activation servers for CS and CS2, but provided new installers that did not require online activation. More recently, they did the same thing for CS3. I've commented positively about this sensible policy in the past, and was able to obtain an activation-free version of CS3 Design Standard to replace my original installer. Now I see that the alternate installers have been removed:

Adobe Creative Suite archive

Looking for Creative Suite installers for CS2, CS4, or CS6? We no longer provide installers for Creative Suite apps. Find archived Creative Suite user guides.

helpx.adobe.com

Instead of the helpful advice about obtaining the alternate installers (now consigned to the Adobe Memory Hole along with most of the pre-CC stuff), they just say:

"Creative Suite 2 and 3: You can no longer reinstall Creative Suite 2 or 3 even if you have the original installation disks. The aging activation servers for those apps had to be retired."

You can read some patronising comments about the change in policy from an 'Adobe Community Professional' in this and similar threads:

I'm trying to activate my boxed version of CS3 on my Powe...

I'm trying to activate my boxed version of CS3 on my Powermac G5 running OSX 10.5.8. I began an Adobe support case in November and was told all is fine and a replacement/updated serial number is something Adobe readily supplies via a link. When we tried the wizbang adobe link it was not...

community.adobe.com

This means that anyone who purchased CS3 in 2008, didn't grab the activation-free installer when it was available, and now needs to re-install is out of luck, whether it's a standalone copy of Photoshop, one of the packages like Design Standard, or even the full £2000 'Master Collection'. Your investment is simply gone. How is this even legal? Is it legal?

The more recent CS4-6 installers are also no longer available, except perhaps if you purchased directly from Adobe and have them in your account. If you lost them, too bad. Updated T&Cs suggest that the free Adobe accounts CS users will have signed up for may also be deleted if they are no longer 'active' (I'd suggest logging in regularly if you depend on CS, at least until Adobe decides to nuke these accounts too). The CS4-6 activation servers are still up, for now. If this is how Adobe is behaving these days, I wouldn't bet on activation-free installers for CS4-6 ever being made available when the servers are inevitably taken down.

 

[Furtim]

Unfortunately, it becomes uneconomic to support old stuff, it's not just the software industry, it's just a fact of business. Specifically, with Software, you never owned the software, you only ever purchased a licence to use the software, and that licence will have had conditions covering the period of support.

It's annoying in this case because, even without a change locally (ie same PC, same operating system version, same everything), it's stopping, but in reality, this only affects a tiny proportion of people who are likely to have moved their own goalposts by upgrading OS / Hardware etc.

The unfortunate reality is it's not possible to support the older stuff effectively while progressing on with the new. To do so dilutes the focus on progression - there's clearly a balancing act to be done here - how long is reasonable to maintain support? It's been supported for over a decade - that's not terrible in my opinion.

 

[Retune]

Unfortunately, it becomes uneconomic to support old stuff, it's not just the software industry, it's just a fact of business. Specifically, with Software, you never owned the software, you only ever purchased a licence to use the software, and that licence will have had conditions covering the period of support.

It's annoying in this case because, even without a change locally (ie same PC, same operating system version, same everything), it's stopping, but in reality, this only affects a tiny proportion of people who are likely to have moved their own goalposts by upgrading OS / Hardware etc.

The unfortunate reality is it's not possible to support the older stuff effectively while progressing on with the new. To do so dilutes the focus on progression - there's clearly a balancing act to be done here - how long is reasonable to maintain support? It's been supported for over a decade - that's not terrible in my opinion.

I once had a query about a Leica product from the 1930s or 40s. I emailed them and, without missing a beat, they asked me the serial number so they could give me the appropriate support.

Adobe is a global megacorporation with a market cap of a quarter of a trillion dollars. Some people might think it wouldn't be too unreasonable to ask for simple help with a product that might have cost £2000. But this isn't about active support, which hasn't been provided for CS for a long time. It's about not enforcing a mechanism that Adobe had deliberately included to prevent installations without their permission. They had originally done the right thing by releasing activation-free versions. The web pages that provided modified installers in exchange for your licence keys were already in place. The cost of keeping them up must have been absolutely trivial.

CS3 worked perfectly well on W10 when I tried it a few months ago, so Windows users are being deprived of a viable product they paid for. Mac users on older hardware have an even worse problem - CC is not compatible with their computers, but they may be locked out of the working software they purchased.

I suspect someone who missed the boat on the activation-free installers might do well at the Small Claims Court for the purchase price of the software they have now been deprived of. It wouldn't be the first time that the egregious retrictions claimed by EULAs were not compatible with actual consumer law.

 

[robj20]

I tried the free version of Capture One and thought it was loads better than Lightroom.
I found I could basically apply Auto on import and it produces photos that are much closer to how I like them, therefore saving me ages.
Not to mention I can pay a one of fee and have the software for life, not a fan of subscription.