Lightroom 7 - "will appear later this year".

rob-nikon said:
My question would be if you went LR CC, what would happen to your cloud storage with all of your images stored there if you ended your subscription? I can't see adobe letting you keep cloud storage indefinitely for free.
Click to expand...
According to the information... if your photo library is stored on Creative Cloud and you decide to end your subscription? Adobe will keep the images in the cloud for one year after the membership finishes, during which you can use Lightroom CC to download the original files.
 
Eloise said:
According to the information... if your photo library is stored on Creative Cloud and you decide to end your subscription? Adobe will keep the images in the cloud for one year after the membership finishes, during which you can use Lightroom CC to download the original files.
Click to expand...
At least they give you some time to download (could take a while with my 3MB/s download speed) though that would mean you lost all of the edit data wouldn't it? unlike the classic version where the develop module stops but still shows those previous images as edited. Looks like my idea of never needing to size hi red jpegs isn't really a good one and I need to export then and file away otherwise the edits could just be lost at some point.
 
This is just my thinking... but to me it reads like Lightroom CC is taking on Apple Photos, while Lightroom Classic CC* is still aiming at those who would have favoured Aperture.

Note *: while patronising, I suspect renaming Lightroom to Lightroom Pro might have been a better name, though I suspect the naming to it as Classic does imply somewhere along the line the product will be discontinued and only “New” Lightroom will continue - to get to that point will need more local file management options alongside Cloud storage I think.
 
rob-nikon said:
What's to say in the future adobe see their profits plateau and they decide to end Lightroom classic and then LR CC is the only option with your subscription cost depending on the size of your image library, and adding photoshop is £x more as an addition.
Click to expand...

It's all about upsell isn't it?

With LR CC then they sacrificed some of the value of PS against the upsell of the subscription to LR users who might be attracted by incorporating PS into the offering. I think it's safe to assume that this increased the yield from their intellectual property estate very nicely.

So what's left? Add more services. I would guess that the rather clumsy renaming of Lightroom CC to Lightroom Classic CC gives us a sign of what is to come - they want to leverage the Lightroom brand going forward as Lightroom CC with a new set of features and charging matriix. Either greater reach to a new customer base or another layer for upsell.

They need to create something that makes them sticky for customers. It's the catalogue and edit history that offers one level of stickiness. Holding your images offers another.

Getting rid of the LR Standalone product line and simultaneously updating the catalogue mean that for those going forward there is not an easy route back to the last version of LR standalone. Coincidence? Well they'd argue this is about features and not control over the customer.

I used to use some accounting software that 'phoned home' to authorise itself every few months. The company changed hands and disabled the authorisation mechanism so over a period of a few months customers lost the use of their software. The new owner wanted to terminate the old software and get customers to pay for their software. Legal redress? In principle yes - in practice not worth it against the cost of change. The problem with the subscription is that you build up a closer dependency on the supplier - and it is their whim to change rules.

What is needed is some government regulation - a Consumer Services Act 2017 that makes sure that large dominant services suppliers can't take advantage.

Or in the absence of that consumers perhaps need to collectively organise themselves - a modern variant of unionisation perhaps.
 
Dryce said:
Getting rid of the LR Standalone product line and simultaneously updating the catalogue mean that for those going forward there is not an easy route back to the last version of LR standalone. Coincidence? Well they'd argue this is about features and not control over the customer.
Click to expand...
Actually... as far as I can tell they didn’t “update the catalogue” as much as creating a new catalogue from the old information and leaving the old version in place (need to look a bit deeper to confirm). Perhaps it did different because I told it to leave the old version of Lightroom in place.

The argument over features vs control of customers is a difficult one. I think it’s features, but the kind of features they are adding (convenience to process / edit anywhere) requires the cloud and the inevitably leads to control. It’s the same as Apple with closed garden environments ... protection vs control ... and the integration of macOS and iOS ... control and tie in vs integrated functionality to improve productivity.
 
Had a bit more time to look over the options and I will be using my already paid for LR6 for a few years then see what happens.
Does all I need and then twice as much again, just the dng converter thing to deal with if I buy an unsupported camera.

Do think its a bit greedy from Adobe, not like they don't make enough, up to competitors now to fill the void
 
rob-nikon said:
This has been my thinking for a while, I don't think I would make anywhere near enough use of photoshop to make CC cost effective for me. Like others I started with LR4 and have since upgraded to LR6. The problem for adobe is I'm the kind of person that doesn't make them enough profit having paid them around £160-170 in those 5 years. If had been subscription that would be £600 for 5 years. This changes seems to be around making more profit, they are a business after all, and not so much based around the user. I feel they have have done their sums and worked they potentially only need to turn only a small percentage of existing users to CC to break even, even if they lost half of users prior to CC introduction they would still make more profit than from the standalone only era. Since moving to Lightroom I've liked the workflow, much better than I used to have. I like only keeping the raws and Lightroom catalogue, and only exporting when I have a need to.

Sounds like to me if you use both photoshop and Lightroom the subscription is a great deal. If you use only Lightroom like me it's a lot harder to justify. The one thing I don't like about scription based deal is that they are partly tying you in because you lose that ability to edit images once you end the subscription. The other aspect is over time you are going to build up more and more data storage, something they can double your scription with once you hit a certain storage level. What's to say in the future adobe see their profits plateau and they decide to end Lightroom classic and then LR CC is the only option with your subscription cost depending on the size of your image library, and adding photoshop is £x more as an addition.


My question would be if you went LR CC, what would happen to your cloud storage with all of your images stored there if you ended your subscription? I can't see adobe letting you keep cloud storage indefinitely for free.
Click to expand...

You don’t have to store our images in the cloud. Classic CC stores the images on your hard drive. Syncing to the cloud is optional.
 
Lemaildetom said:
Such a bad news to me. I hate everything cloud related, I do not use a tablet or a smartphone. I have only one computer and a few backup hard drive. I hate paying monthly and I hate direct debit. Adobe are a bunch of idiots, I've been using LR since version 3. And I happily paid for a standalone version 6 which i am happy with but in a few years time when i'll have a new laptop, a new camera... I will have to find something else. This subscription only business is a lot of rubbish. I would have happily paid for a version 8 in a few years time...
Click to expand...
Exactly my opinion.
 
I'm quite happy with what they are doing at the moment. It's worth a lot more to me than £10 a month to be able to use this software. LR and PS go hand in hand for me. I couldnt do some of my photography without PS unless I paid for more specialist software and went through a new learning curve.

People have had good value from the standalone version for years so I don't see how they can feel too hard done by now that Adobe have decided to pull the plug on it.
 
architectfadi said:
Exactly my opinion.
Click to expand...
Hi, Also used L/R from way back and have L/R6 Stand alone, do not want to be cattle lead down a path someone else is trying to send me (in this case Adobe) so the question is to those who don't want to sit on a cloud where do we go from here? What other software can you get fot a photography sided person not interested in video just still images at a decent price or what software comes close or beats Adobe?
I do have L/r 6 and P/S CS6 along with On1 but never found On1 to be as fast as they say.
Russ
 
tijuana taxi said:
Had a bit more time to look over the options and I will be using my already paid for LR6 for a few years then see what happens.
Does all I need and then twice as much again, just the dng converter thing to deal with if I buy an unsupported camera.
Click to expand...
Agreed, Rich.
As @rob-nikon mentioned above I can see the day when the "Classic" version will be withdrawn. Not too many years down the line. I guess Adobe realise that LR is widely used, and once they get everyone sucked into a subscription mode then they will just closee all escape routes and hike the price. Just like they've done with CC.

I was thinking of going down the subscription route, but not at those prices. I'll use my old LR and DNG convertor. I have CS6 and that will suffice for a long time for the playing around that I do.

And I don't like the idea of them having control of my whole library.
 
If anyone is after a subscrption on the cheap, head to amazon where you can buy a year long sub for £99... or hold off and see if they do a deal on Black Monday!

I like the idea of cloud storage for my shots, but at £10 per TB per month its just not worth it compared to Amazon prime, where I get unlimited photo storage included in my yearly sub. £120 a year on top of the £120 for the Product is just excesive for a paltry 1TB.

For comparison, for £120 a year, you get Office 365 with 5Tb of storage from Microsoft... and I trust MS's security a lot more to not get hacked than I do Adobe..

I'd imagine Adobe are sitting on a mixture of Azure and AWS anyway.... it just smacks of profiteering to me on that front...
 
Last edited:
mickledore said:
Agreed, Rich.
As @rob-nikon mentioned above I can see the day when the "Classic" version will be withdrawn. Not too many years down the line. I guess Adobe realise that LR is widely used, and once they get everyone sucked into a subscription mode then they will just closee all escape routes and hike the price. Just like they've done with CC.

I was thinking of going down the subscription route, but not at those prices. I'll use my old LR and DNG convertor. I have CS6 and that will suffice for a long time for the playing around that I do.

And I don't like the idea of them having control of my whole library.
Click to expand...

I think quite a few may take this option, might be worth splashing fifty quid on LR6 upgrade before it goes. Personally found that dng lark got a bit tiresome and the dehaze plug in is really good.
Its also said changes were made to better support X-Trans III sensors, this is just anecdotal and not for the wormy artefactors to debate at great length.
 
Last edited:
Don't think this will end well for Adobe, it seems as though they want a piece of Apple and Google's cloud photo business.

If you stripped out Lightroom Classic, I can't see anyone wanting to pay for 'new' Lightroom CC/Mobile as is. Most people who want a cloud solution are already invested in Apple or Google, and Adobe don't really offer anything to tempt people away from that. The mobile editor isn't any better than Apple or Google's (free) offerings, and Snapseed is leagues ahead.

If they where going to launch a new cloud service, I would of expected them to have at least improved the mobile editor
 
keety said:
If anyone is after a subscrption on the cheap, head to amazon where you can buy a year long sub for £99... or hold off and see if they do a deal on Black Monday!

I like the idea of cloud storage for my shots, but at £10 per TB per month its just not worth it compared to Amazon prime, where I get unlimited photo storage included in my yearly sub. £120 a year on top of the £120 for the Product is just excesive for a paltry 1TB.

For comparison, for £120 a year, you get Office 365 with 5Tb of storage from Microsoft... and I trust MS's security a lot more to not get hacked than I do Adobe..

I'd imagine Adobe are sitting on a mixture of Azure and AWS anyway.... it just smacks of profiteering to me on that front...
Click to expand...

Profiteering, from a company? How bloody dare they!
 
tijuana taxi said:
The words they used were "an undetermined amount of time"
Click to expand...


I was referring to this -

"Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely" from May 2013, when LR5 was introduced. Note the "s" at the end of the second word.

Another phrase that comes to mind is

"short and curlies"

NB edited to correct date above.
 
Last edited:
Personally I wish they would do just a lightroom classic plan. I don't want or need PS and use older versions of elements for anything I can't do in LR. There's very little in PS for photographers that Elements doesn't have and a copy usually lasts me 3 years before I consider an update.
 
Whilst I understand the backlash from some people, this is the way software has been going for the last few years now and the way pretty much all of it will be shortly in my opinion, perpetual licenses will be a thing of the past. I've seen it in my industry over the past couple with CAD software providers encouraging people to change from perpetual licenses to subscription based plans. There is no point in fighting it or moaning about it, in our industry the ones who complain and don't embrace change are the ones who are left behind.

Back to Adobe, whilst it does cost extra on subscription, it's still not much expense per month when compared to the cost of pretty much anything else photography related, and there are advantages to the subscription model. Plus the alternatives are not up to the same standard from what I've seen.
 
Craigus said:
Back to Adobe, whilst it does cost extra on subscription, it's still not much expense per month when compared to the cost of pretty much anything else photography related, and there are advantages to the subscription model. Plus the alternatives are not up to the same standard from what I've seen.
Click to expand...
The trouble is, there are a lot of "it's still not much expense per month" things in life. I am on a low fixed income and I cannot begin to add another "it's not much" to my outgoings.
 
For what it's worth, and all the confusion they've caused with the naming.... Classic seems to be way faster than version 6. Which is what we all really wanted anyway.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
For what it's worth, and all the confusion they've caused with the naming.... Classic seems to be way faster than version 6. Which is what we all really wanted anyway.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've even enabled GPU acceleration again and it is much better. Previously it was very juddery with GPU accel. turned on.
 
Flashman said:
If you really don't want a subscription and want to stick two fingers up to Adobe... A perpetual license for Capture One Pro is a good investment.
Click to expand...
But not cheap.

I shall continue to use LR 6 stand alone, for as long as it supports my cameras.

I'm not interested in the extra faffing around unnecessarily converting to DNG, (and who knows losing what information in the process) to keep using any future camera I may own.

In the mean time, I shall be investigating OnOne Camera raw as an alternative.
 
Craigus said:
Whilst I understand the backlash from some people, this is the way software has been going for the last few years now and the way pretty much all of it will be shortly in my opinion, perpetual licenses will be a thing of the past. I've seen it in my industry over the past couple with CAD software providers encouraging people to change from perpetual licenses to subscription based plans. There is no point in fighting it or moaning about it, in our industry the ones who complain and don't embrace change are the ones who are left behind.

Back to Adobe, whilst it does cost extra on subscription, it's still not much expense per month when compared to the cost of pretty much anything else photography related, and there are advantages to the subscription model. Plus the alternatives are not up to the same standard from what I've seen.
Click to expand...

It might not be much extra per month, but you can't argue a £110 package that would have cost me £600 on subscription is a massive cost increase (as per my earlier post).

Also when you end the subscription they hold you to ransom by disabling features. Being held to ransom springs to mind.
 
odd jim said:
It might not be much extra per month, but you can't argue a £110 package that would have cost me £600 on subscription is a massive cost increase (as per my earlier post).

Also when you end the subscription they hold you to ransom by disabling features. Being held to ransom springs to mind.
Click to expand...

To be fair it's surprising that they still allow you to use it with disabled features as opposed to lock you out all together considering you're no longer paying for the software.
 
There are obviously two schools of thought here and for very good reason.

1) Those who use PS and LR for whom the subscription model at £10 pm is a pretty good deal.

2) Those who never use PS whom Adobe is forcing on to the subscription model in the medium term. £10 pm is NOT a good deal for them in any way.

I'm in Camp 2 and I agree with Jim above that I am being held to ransom.
 
odd jim said:
It might not be much extra per month, but you can't argue a £110 package that would have cost me £600 on subscription is a massive cost increase (as per my earlier post).

Also when you end the subscription they hold you to ransom by disabling features. Being held to ransom springs to mind.
Click to expand...

I cancelled my Sky subscription last year. I'm so p***ed off that I can't still can't watch sky movies or the programs I recorded previously with their box. This is outrageous!!
Profiteering I tell you!!!!!

Lightroom still allows you to use all of the cataloging features, even the quick edit tools so you don't suddenly loose your edits or years of cataloging. I think that's pretty decent of them.
 
Last edited:
ecoleman said:
Profiteering, from a company? How bloody dare they!
Click to expand...

I think you've missed the point, it's the fact they are charging £10 a month for a paltry 1TB of storage which is pretty appalling when cloud based storage is cheap as chips.. If they had put in say 4-5TB to match what MS offer then I'd probably take them up on the offer, but as it is I don't fancy spunking out an extra £40 a month to cover my needs...
 
keety said:
I think you've missed the point, it's the fact they are charging £10 a month for a paltry 1TB of storage which is pretty appalling when cloud based storage is cheap as chips.. If they had put in say 4-5TB to match what MS offer then I'd probably take them up on the offer, but as it is I don't fancy spunking out an extra £40 a month to cover my needs...
Click to expand...
The problem with your calculations over cost of cloud storage is that most companies calculate that while they may offer 1TB for 20p or even unlimited, they work on the basis that users will only use a small fraction. Once people use more storage costs will inevitably have to increase, it’s economics. Witness Amazon with their previous unlimited storage they have had to withdraw. £10 a month is around what many companies are charging for and ADDITIONAL 1TB.
 
Last edited:
Eloise said:
The problem with your calculations over cost of cloud storage is that most companies calculate that while they may offer 1TB for 20p or even unlimited, they work on the basis that users will only use a small fraction. Once people use more storage costs will inevitably have to increase, it’s economics. Witness Amazon with their previous unlimited storage they have had to withdraw. £10 a month is around what many companies are charging for and ADDITIONAL 1TB.
Click to expand...
Amazon prime is still unlimited for photos isn't it, limit is on video.
 
Amazon (partially, image files are still unlimited) withdrew it because people took the pees! Cloud storage is still extremely cheap due to the economies of scale... its just when people start backing up their 50TB hd film libraries to them it starts getting used up quicker than they thought!
 
I'm missing something here. Why is everyone so hung up on cloud storage? You pass your photos over to a company that you have no relationship with and no control over and for a paltry few £££ per month expect that they will always have your best interests at heart. Once in their domain your shots can finish up God knows where and as it will be well hidden in some long and rambling terms and conditions there is nowt you can do about it.
Anyone remember Fotopic? Arguably better than flickr in their prime. Just disappeared overnight and everything was lost. Who says it won't happen again?
Remember, as we have just seen with Adobe, these companies exist purely for commercial reasons, and their sole aim in life is to generate income. Once they start losing money they change things, and they don't really care about the collateral damage.
 
these companies exist purely for commercial reasons, and their sole aim in life is to generate income. Once they start losing money they change things, and they don't really care about the collateral damage.
Click to expand...

You don't run a business do you? If not, can I suggest you never do.
Are you honestly suggesting that Adobe should just allow everybody free/cheap use of their software even though it may be costing them money. Are you for real?

I bet you'd be playing a different tune if you were a shareholder.
 
Eloise said:
The problem with your calculations over cost of cloud storage is that most companies calculate that while they may offer 1TB for 20p or even unlimited, they work on the basis that users will only use a small fraction. Once people use more storage costs will inevitably have to increase, it’s economics. Witness Amazon with their previous unlimited storage they have had to withdraw. £10 a month is around what many companies are charging for and ADDITIONAL 1TB.
Click to expand...

Nope. Google offer 1TB for £7.99. Apple offer 2TB for £6.99

It's these companies that Adobe are competing with, and they need to give users a reason to switch from Apple Photos/iCloud or Google Photos/Drive.

People went with Lightroom after Apple pulled Aperture as they where (mostly) the only app in town for desktop. Now they're trying to gain entry into the mobile/cloud arena, they either need to be cheaper or better than the defaults of Apple and Google to get users to switch. They're neither at the moment.
 
Not sure if this has been covered.

But i'm under the impression that i can install the CC stuff on 2 machines. Which is fine, but do they restrict connections too?

For example:
1) I have a laptop and regularly work away which do all my editing on
2) My partner does editing on our home machine

Would there be any issues using the CC stuff at the same time on different connections (2 different IP addresses)?
 
markgodley said:
Not sure if this has been covered.

But i'm under the impression that i can install the CC stuff on 2 machines. Which is fine, but do they restrict connections too?

For example:
1) I have a laptop and regularly work away which do all my editing on
2) My partner does editing on our home machine

Would there be any issues using the CC stuff at the same time on different connections (2 different IP addresses)?
Click to expand...

You can use CC on up to two machines at any given time. If you try to login on a third you will be prompted to logout from one of the others before you are able to login.
 
I cannot pretend to have read every post so may have missed something but while there are several decent alternatives to PS so you can avoid subscription I am not aware of any alternative to Lightroom with its ( IMHO ) brilliant library system combined with the most used (?) parts of PS
 
ecoleman said:
I cancelled my Sky subscription last year. I'm so p***ed off that I can't still can't watch sky movies or the programs I recorded previously with their box. This is outrageous!!
Profiteering I tell you!!!!!

Lightroom still allows you to use all of the cataloging features, even the quick edit tools so you don't suddenly loose your edits or years of cataloging. I think that's pretty decent of them.
Click to expand...

But what if you've already paid for the software over and over? Then they disable it.

Damn right I'd be peeved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top