Lightroom 7 - "will appear later this year".

[ecoleman]

Here you go. For all those that think £10/month is poor value

Macphun arming themselves for the war against 'Lightroom Classic' - DIY Photography
https://apple.news/AakMEucCTPU-vBognkE7ilQ

 

[odd jim]

Here you go. For all those that think £10/month is poor value

Macphun arming themselves for the war against 'Lightroom Classic' - DIY Photography
https://apple.news/AakMEucCTPU-vBognkE7ilQ

It's not thinking it's poor value, it's knowing.

I go back to my usage of LR over 5 years and still going strong.

Would you pay £110 or £600 for the same thing given the choice? Honest answers only! (And the difference between 4.4 and the latest version of 6 would make no odds to me).

It's like buying a TV from Brighthouse [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

I’ve not done anything in depth. But I upgraded to Lightroom Classic CC, imported as I would before (including adding to a collection / album which was set to sync). The photos appeared in Lightroom Mobile as before. I can also access them in “New” Lightroom CC.

As I understand it in terms of importing the difference is that Lightroom Classic CC uploads a compressed DNG smart preview to the cloud, while Lightroom CC will upload the original RAW file.

However does it work the other way round? For example, when I am on holiday I will upload my photos for to the iPad and start editing, this it turn uploads the full Raw file to the Cloud and downloads to my iMac.

I have been spending at bit of time contemplating the announcement and if they can get all the features into the new LR CC (full cloud based platform) then this could allow for a fairly good workflow. Ie Photos imported into LR, Raw uploaded. Edit Raw and Export finished JPEG into local folder, leaving the Raw stored for all eternity, “just in case”. A bit like storing all your negatives in a shoebox and keeping your printed photos in a photo album

 

[Eloise]

It's not thinking it's poor value, it's knowing.
I go back to my usage of LR over 5 years and still going strong.
Would you pay £110 or £600 for the same thing given the choice? Honest answers only! (And the difference between 4.4 and the latest version of 6 would make no odds to me).

The “problem” with your (and for that matter Adobe’s) costing is that you are ignoring that it includes Photoshop (and Adobe are ignoring that not everyone wants Photoshop).

 

[Gaz J]

Don't upgrade, don't use it, it's your choice Jim. And what is poor value for money for you is good value for many others including me. It's the same as me struggling to understand why people pay £45 a month for a phone. Why, when a £10 sim only deal does most of what the £45 deal does. It's my hobby. £10 a month is nothing. Buying the papers every weekend costs me more than that.

As to what happens in the future, well I will worry about that when the time comes.

I've got a disc of the last stand alone PS and LR 6 and I've got capture one pro so if it ever gets silly I will have some options. I will probably load LR 6 onto my laptop and update it to the latest one. I've also got LR 5 on my desk top which I use occasionally.

 

[odd jim]

Don't upgrade, don't use it, it's your choice Jim. And what is poor value for money for you is good value for many others including me. It's the same as me struggling to understand why people pay £45 a month for a phone. Why, when a £10 sim only deal does most of what the £45 deal does. It's my hobby. £10 a month is nothing. Buying the papers every weekend costs me more than that.

As to what happens in the future, well I will worry about that when the time comes.

I've got a disc of the last stand alone PS and LR 6 and I've got capture one pro so if it ever gets silly I will have some options. I will probably load LR 6 onto my laptop and update it to the latest one. I've also got LR 5 on my desk top which I use occasionally.

The thing is I'm so disappointed they've done this without giving the user the choice. I've been a user and fan of LR for so long, it's all part of my photographic process. Moving away from it is not something I want to do. I don't see why they can't offer both still, so I can update to the latest version after 5-6 years and not buy it 6 times over, and those such as yourself who get more out of it via CC.

It worked fine that way.

 

[ecoleman]

It's not thinking it's poor value, it's knowing.

I go back to my usage of LR over 5 years and still going strong.

Would you pay £110 or £600 for the same thing given the choice? Honest answers only! (And the difference between 4.4 and the latest version of 6 would make no odds to me).

It's like buying a TV from Brighthouse [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

I have a choice and I’m choosing to pay £10/month because it’s my hobby, I enjoy it and LR and PS are still the best tools out there. I’ve tried others but always come back to Adobe.

I’ve just bought a new house and between packing, moving and now redecoration and a garage conversion, I haven’t touched my camera since the end of August. I’m still happily paying my CC subscription. I’m not complaining because I’m not using it at the moment.

 

[ecoleman]

The thing is I'm so disappointed they've done this without giving the user the choice. I've been a user and fan of LR for so long, it's all part of my photographic process. Moving away from it is not something I want to do. I don't see why they can't offer both still, so I can update to the latest version after 5-6 years and not buy it 6 times over, and those such as yourself who get more out of it via CC.

It worked fine that way.

Probably because it’s just not cost effective for them to continue with that model. The majority of people have switched up o CC and when I say the majority I’m talking professionals which is LR and PS target market.

 

[Eloise]

The thing is I'm so disappointed they've done this without giving the user the choice. I've been a user and fan of LR for so long, it's all part of my photographic process. Moving away from it is not something I want to do. I don't see why they can't offer both still, so I can update to the latest version after 5-6 years and not buy it 6 times over, and those such as yourself who get more out of it via CC.

Presumably their sales figures for Lightroom 6 (standalone) vs Photographer’s CC package indicated most people are happy with the CC offering. They have “offered a choice” for a few years; they obviously think most users are happy with CC.

 

[ancient_mariner]

This can only push people toward competitors. Now if On1 can manage to import a LR catalogue with edits intact into Photoraw I suspect they will have a large and ready market.

I've been using a copy of LR5 for the last 3 years, and can't see me wanting to upgrade until I get a camera that's incompatible, at which point I'll probably leave the Adobe universe.

 

[Eloise]

This can only push people toward competitors. Now if On1 can manage to import a LR catalogue with edits intact into Photoraw I suspect they will have a large and ready market.

I've been using a copy of LR5 for the last 3 years, and can't see me wanting to upgrade until I get a camera that's incompatible, at which point I'll probably leave the Adobe universe.

I suspect that Adobe know that... and they feel the lost customers are irrelevant...

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Personally I still think that Adobe have one of the biggest advantages over the competition and that is the ability to work on the same image over multiple platforms, they just need to ensure that they don’t take too long migrating the more advanced features from “Classic CC”

 

[Paul W. H]

I don't get this "It's only £10.00 per month", when it's ANOTHER £10.00 per month on top of everything else.

I'm 68, no mortgage, a pensioner on a fixed income and getting bugger all interest on my savings because of low Interest rates which is helping others with subsidised mortgages.

My wife and I both enjoy our photography and will happily pay £100.00 (ish) every couple of years or so to keep upto date with Lightroom which works out at £4.00 (ish) compared to £10.00 per month.

We have been using Lightroom since version 3 and are not interested in The Cloud or Photoshop.

 

[Eloise]

I don't get this "It's only £10.00 per month", when it's ANOTHER £10.00 per month on top of everything else.

My wife and I both enjoy our photography and will happily pay £100.00 (ish) every couple of years or so to keep upto date with Lightroom which works out at £4.00 (ish) compared to £10.00 per month.

We have been using Lightroom since version 3 and are not interested in The Cloud or Photoshop.

Then you are not (any more) Adobe’s target market. Look at the alternatives - Capture One, early next year MacPhun Luminare, if you have a Mac then Photos, etc. Or stick with LR6 until it breaks, then reassess. No one is forcing you to upgrade / subscribe. Lightroom might no longer be suitable for some people it was... (with all due respect) get over it!

 

[Nawty]

All this (not really relevant) bickering aside, has anyone used the new LR Classic in anger, does it live up to the promise of being much faster?

I've installed it but not had anything to edit or play with...

 

[odd jim]

Then you are not (any more) Adobe’s target market. Look at the alternatives - Capture One, early next year MacPhun Luminare, if you have a Mac then Photos, etc. Or stick with LR6 until it breaks, then reassess. No one is forcing you to upgrade / subscribe. Lightroom might no longer be suitable for some people it was... (with all due respect) get over it!

Sorry, this is rubbish. You can tell someone who has used LR for years it's not for them because the pricing strategy has changed.

 

[odd jim]

Then you are not (any more) Adobe’s target market. Look at the alternatives - Capture One, early next year MacPhun Luminare, if you have a Mac then Photos, etc. Or stick with LR6 until it breaks, then reassess. No one is forcing you to upgrade / subscribe. Lightroom might no longer be suitable for some people it was... (with all due respect) get over it!

Sorry, this is rubbish. You cant tell someone who has used LR for years the software is no longer for them because the pricing strategy has changed.

 

[tijuana taxi]

I don't get this "It's only £10.00 per month", when it's ANOTHER £10.00 per month on top of everything else.

I'm 68, no mortgage, a pensioner on a fixed income and getting bugger all interest on my savings because of low Interest rates which is helping others with subsidised mortgages.

My wife and I both enjoy our photography and will happily pay £100.00 (ish) every couple of years or so to keep upto date with Lightroom which works out at £4.00 (ish) compared to £10.00 per month.

We have been using Lightroom since version 3 and are not interested in The Cloud or Photoshop.

Look on the bright side your pension will go up next year by far more than any workers wages, free bus travel, free scrips and Christmas bonus (as my old ma always called it) to name but a few benefits
Pensioners are doing better than anyone in this harsh financial climate, tea rooms are banged out with retirees as are the shops.

To be honest it's harder for those with a mortgage and family, no savings to get interest on, so sorry my sympathies lie elsewhere.

 

[rob-nikon]

I suspect that Adobe know that... and they feel the lost customers are irrelevant...

I think you right and as I mentioned previously in the thread adobe have done their sums and worked out losing some LR only users won't be so bad with not much loss in profit. As shown in this thread many amateurs don't buy every version of LR. Even if you had purchased LR4 at full price and LR5 & LR6 at the upgrade price you would have paid out around £230 whereas subscribing for just lightroom would have been £600 over those 5 years. That means adobe can lose at least 60% of those users without losing too much profit.

I can see the benefit of CC especially if you are a pro, £10 a month for both LR and PS is fantastic value. The value of CC to each person does depend on personal circumstances, some will see it as a great deal and some not. If adobe offered a LR Classic with mobile only package (basically the same £10 package but without photoshop CC) at around half the price of the current LR CC classic package they would likely get more of the LR only standalone users signed up. I for one would likely sign up for that.

 

[Paul W. H]

Look on the bright side your pension will go up next year by far more than any workers wages, free bus travel, free scrips and Christmas bonus (as my old ma always called it) to name but a few benefits
Pensioners are doing better than anyone in this harsh financial climate, tea rooms are banged out with retirees as are the shops.

To be honest it's harder for those with a mortgage and family, no savings to get interest on, so sorry my sympathies lie elsewhere.

It will be even harder when Interest rates go up, I can remember 15.00% rates for a while and we survived

 

[Eloise]

Sorry, this is rubbish. You cant tell someone who has used LR for years the software is no longer for them because the pricing strategy has changed.

I didn’t say Lightroom is no longer for them... I said Adobe don’t see them as a target market. A subtle but important difference.

It’s the same gnashing as there was when Apple stopped developing Aperture... but everyone coped. Either they stuck with the last version, or moved to something else! Nothing you have now is going to stop working.

 

[odd jim]

I didn’t say Lightroom is no longer for them*... I said Adobe don’t see them as a target market. A subtle but important difference.

Well, you said no longer suitable which I read slightly differently.

But either way I agree with the above, in that Adobe are treating a lot of loyal consumers with contempt.

 

[mal robb]

I have a current Office suite and only paid once for it.

If you bought a perpetual license then it will not be the current version. The benefit of subscription services is that it is an evergreen service and new services are added all the time so there is value in that

 

[odd jim]

If you bought a perpetual license then it will not be the current version. The benefit of subscription services is that it is an evergreen service and new services are added all the time so there is value in that

It was the latest version when purchased a few months ago off the shelves of PC World (the subscription copy was exactly the same product). But really, how many times to you really need to update to new versions of Word and Excel??

 

[Eloise]

It was the latest version when purchased a few months ago off the shelves of PC World (the subscription copy was exactly the same product). But really, how many times to you really need to update to new versions of Word and Excel??

Why do you think Microsoft is pushing software as a service...

 

[tijuana taxi]

This is getting daft, its some software we are discussing not scrapping the NHS or something equally horrendous.
With all the s*** that's going on lately this is hardly worth the data it takes to post it

That's it for me on this subject, more important things to think about such as what to have for dinner tomorrow

 

[odd jim]

Why do you think Microsoft is pushing software as a service...

It's not a service, software is a product.

But as a wild guess I'd say to rinse as much cash from us as possible?

 

[odd jim]

This is getting daft, its some software we are discussing not scrapping the NHS or something equally horrendous.
With all the s*** that's going on lately this is hardly worth the data it takes to post it

It's a discussion, the same could be said for any thread here. No ones getting hot under the collar or anything.

Feel free to plan your dinner for tomorrow or something.

 

[Ste_S]

Personally I still think that Adobe have one of the biggest advantages over the competition and that is the ability to work on the same image over multiple platforms, they just need to ensure that they don’t take too long migrating the more advanced features from “Classic CC”

The competition is now Apple and Google, and you can indeed edit photos across multiple internet connected devices with their products, and have been able to do so for some time.
Google's mobile editor (Snapseed) is already far ahead of Cloud Lightroom and it pretty much gives Classic Lightroom a run for it's money. Apple are seemingly taking an interest in Photos again with beefing up the editor on each release.

Adobe really missed a trick. They should of launched with a fully featured Cloud Lightroom app instead of launching with a direct port of the mobile/web interface to desktop.

 

[odd jim]

The competition is now Apple and Google, and you can indeed edit photos across multiple internet connected devices with their products, and have been able to do so for some time.
Google's mobile editor (Snapseed) is already far ahead of Cloud Lightroom and it pretty much gives Classic Lightroom a run for it's money. Apple are seemingly taking an interest in Photos again with beefing up the editor on each release.

Adobe really missed a trick. They should of launched with a fully featured Cloud Lightroom app instead of launching with a direct port of the mobile/web interface to desktop.

Snapseed giving Classic LR a run for its money? I take it you mean on mobile platforms?

 

[Deleted member 49549]

So what of the competition? I understand there are 2 DAM / raw editor options for me (a mac user) - On1 Photo Raw and Capture 1 PRO. What are their DAM aspects like? Has anybody experience of using either and can compare the library / organisational aspects of them with Lightroom?

For me it is time to take a serious look at alternatives. It appears that adobe are heading totally to the cloud and for me to get all my photos into Lightroom CC will cost £30 / month.

 

[Eloise]

For me it is time to take a serious look at alternatives. It appears that adobe are heading totally to the cloud and for me to get all my photos into Lightroom CC will cost £30 / month.

You don’t need anything “in the cloud”. Lightroom Classic CC works just like Lightroom 6 in that everything is stored locally with smart previews uploaded (without it appears using any of your 20GB cloud storage) if you want and select the album to upload to allow editing via mobile app / Lightroom CC on the desktop. That costs £10 per month including Photoshop.

 

[droj]

I think that the economic argument has been expressed already. And who needs the latest always? For me, if a camera's raws weren't supported, I'd go the dng route. I've done it before, it's no big deal.

Apart from technical need, some of us may have notions of sustainable outgoings relative to other commitments and income. And as time passes, other providers will step up to the mark.

My reservation is that I like to keep my raws, and LR archives their adjustments for re-visiting. At least some of those adjustments wouldn't migrate to another app.

What are we talking about, essentially? The politics of consumerism? Or the quality of experience, of life?

 

[Fuji Dave]

For folk who bought LR6 Standalone I think that adobe should carry on updating LR6 for good as people were good enough to give their cash to buy it, so dobe SHOULD repay that thanks by keeping it updated imo.

 

[tonybassplayer]

On a slightly different but more practical point of view.

Assuming you purchase the new CC package and have it at home/work on a desktop or laptop but then go on holiday with your phone and iPad.

How do you actually load the raw files up to the cloud via a typical iPad or phone ?

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

On a slightly different but more practical point of view.

Assuming you purchase the new CC package and have it at home/work on a desktop or laptop but then go on holiday with your phone and iPad.

How do you actually load the raw files up to the cloud via a typical iPad or phone ?

Make sure you have decent wifi connection. Although I say it with tongue in cheek, in all seriousness dependant on the camera, this is a must. My Raw files are circa 45-55mb!!

 

[Dryce]

If you bought a perpetual license then it will not be the current version. The benefit of subscription services is that it is an evergreen service and new services are added all the time so there is value in that

I have a personal subscription on a desktop and laptop and my employer has perpetual licences.

All seem to get updates. And the Office 365 systems I have don't always update consistently.

It's not something I would worry or care about this idea that Office 365 updates as much of a tangible 'feature',

 

[Lemaildetom]

The reel problem for me is that all my photo since 2009 are in lightroom catalogues. If i want to relook slightly at some edit and/or re-export jpeg, i can always go back do this very simply.

But as soon as LR standalone will not be supported anymore, all my processing done in LR will be lost. I'll have to go back to the raw files with another software or get stuck with the final jpg output. So in a way because i depend on LR in my habitude of processing (which could be changed). But most importantly because i depends on LR for an easily accessible/reworkable archived. This will leave me with the only choice of paying a subscription.

And this is not something i want to have to do.

 

[Dryce]

I think you right and as I mentioned previously in the thread adobe have done their sums and worked out losing some LR only users won't be so bad with not much loss in profit.

Software doesn't wear out. So the only way you get users to upgrade perpertual licences is by adding new features. That gets tougher and tougher. And you risk putting in the effort and users not paying for upgrades.

It's not a problem that the software vendors suddenly discovered - they realised the issue a couple of decades ago.

The risk to the consumer is that once on a subscription the software vendor isn't quite as incentivised to develop the software. So new versions become less frequent and fewer new benefits. This also may coincide with the technology maturing so the opportunities to add new features are lower.

Adobe have benefited from the subscription programme. The risks to the existing customer base are that they start to try and leverage further growth. Now it looks on the surface as if their strategy is to widen the market for Lightroom CC. New customers will take priority over old customers. Insurance companies and telecoms companies and banks all tend to offer better deals to new customers than existing ones. Adobe is / will be no different. Because it's entirely logical - moreso when you dominate the market and the customer tie in is so strong.

 

[ecoleman]

I don't get this "It's only £10.00 per month", when it's ANOTHER £10.00 per month on top of everything else.

I'm 68, no mortgage, a pensioner on a fixed income and getting bugger all interest on my savings because of low Interest rates which is helping others with subsidised mortgages.

My wife and I both enjoy our photography and will happily pay £100.00 (ish) every couple of years or so to keep upto date with Lightroom which works out at £4.00 (ish) compared to £10.00 per month.

We have been using Lightroom since version 3 and are not interested in The Cloud or Photoshop.

Subsidised mortgage? I moved back to the UK on 2004. I could never afford to buy a house whilst working (well nothing I was prepared to make my family live in). I’ve been self employed for 8 years and only now have I managed to convince a bank I’m good for a mortgage. I’m 46 have just put down a large chunk of my savings and will still be paying my mortgage when I’m your age. Don’t you dare tell me my mortgage is being subsidised.

Suck it up. If you can’t afford it anymore. Find another product.