# Lr Classic v 9



## Colin Grant (Nov 5, 2019)

Just wondering, is this latest Lr upgrade worthy of the jump to version 9?  For the first time I am starting to wonder if the subscription is really worth it. Had his been a traditional license I would probably have skipped this release. Or am I missing something? It has been known


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 5, 2019)

This isn't a 9.0 in the traditional sense, they just have to bump the number sometime otherwise we'll one day on version 7.94837  If you count up all the features they've added over the last 18 months - 2 years, that's the upgrade you'd have paid for.


----------



## clee01l (Nov 5, 2019)

Colin Grant said:


> Just wondering, is this latest Lr upgrade worthy of the jump to version 9? For the first time I am starting to wonder if the subscription is really worth it. Had his been a traditional license I would probably have skipped this release. Or am I missing something? It has been known



I think Adobe bumps up the version number whenever there is a change in the database structure. This has happened in every version number change since v1. The exception to this rule was v8 when going from v7 to v8 did not update the database structure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Califdan (Nov 5, 2019)

Well, I suppose it is a valid question whether or not the new features in 9.0 are worthy of a new major release number.  Personally, I think not.  Rather it seems to me that Adobe called this one 9.0 more based on the calendar than on the new feature set.  They always like to have something "big" to talk about at their annual convention and 8.x has been kicking around since October of last year - so time to bump up to the next major release number.  

Not sure which new feature or features required a new catalog structure change but that also could be a motivator for going with a major release rather than a dot release (I'm glad they didn't put a catalog structural change in a dot release as that would be quite a dramatic change in philosophy)

Other than new cameras and lenses, about the only thing that I find mildly interesting is the introduction of Content Aware technology.  Albeit, this is only being applied to edges in Merge to Panorama.   I would have been much more excited had they also introduced it in the Transform tools to the edges there and especially to the spot removal (cloning) tool.  But, at least it seems to be creeping in - and adding Content Aware technology to LR has actually been requested by users.   I would probably also be excited about Filter and Smart Collection support for depth maps if any of my cameras shot with that.   All the other new "features' are either in the "ho-hum" realm or the "who cares" realm and most of them I can't even recall them ever being even asked for in either this forum or the Adobe sponsored forums.    So, IMHO, disappointment that once again Adobe has chosen to ignore most popular requests from their users - many of which have been constantly requested for years and instead give us fluff.    Come on, how critical is filtering on collection color labels or clicking export presets one at a time if you need different versions of a set of images being exported compared to syncing keywords?


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Nov 5, 2019)

clee01l said:


> I think Adobe bumps up the version number whenever there is a change in the database structure.



No, Adobe now simply bumps the version number every year. This year there is a catalog upgrade too, last year there wasn't. They could also have chosen to call it Lightroom Classic 2020, with small updates to Lightroom Classic 2020.1, Lightroom Classic 2020.2 during the next year. That probably would have made more sense. But as usual, Adobe always prefers to go for the most confusing solution.


----------



## LouieSherwin (Nov 5, 2019)

What ever the reason when the major version number changes you have to re-register all your plugins from Jeffery Friedl.  It is not costly, you can do it for as little as one cent (1/100 us dollar) but it still is bit of a bother especially if you use more than a couple of his plugins.

-louie


----------



## DrBarryS (Nov 5, 2019)

LouieSherwin said:


> What ever the reason when the major version number changes you have to re-register all your plugins from Jeffery Friedl.  It is not costly, you can do it for as little as one cent (1/100 us dollar) but it still is bit of a bother especially if you use more than a couple of his plugins.
> 
> -louie


I agree.  I sure wish Jeffrey would change his method.   I dont mind paying, but I hate the rebuy process for  the 10 or so I have.


----------



## clee01l (Nov 5, 2019)

DrBarryS said:


> I agree. I sure wish Jeffrey would change his method. I dont mind paying, but I hate the rebuy process for the 10 or so I have.



If you pay him enough, he can cut you a license registration that is good for future LR versions and that never expires 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## camner (Nov 5, 2019)

Jeffrey has explained that there are reasons why bumping up the version number necessitates reregistration.  I don't remember the reasons, but given his "sales" model (pay what you want), I don't think it's related to income maximization.


----------



## LouieSherwin (Nov 5, 2019)

Truth be told it is a minor inconvenience for the value received.  

-louie


----------



## camner (Nov 5, 2019)

clee01l said:


> If you pay him enough, he can cut you a license registration that is good for future LR versions and that never expires
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Interesting. I've never seen that on his website.  Is that something he advertises somewhere, or is it "enquire, and you shall be enlightened"?


----------



## clee01l (Nov 5, 2019)

camner said:


> Interesting. I've never seen that on his website. Is that something he advertises somewhere, or is it "enquire, and you shall be enlightened"?



It is something that I worked out with Jeffrey a few years back. I have a license to all of his products (I provide support here for his plugins as a service to you and him.) I got tired of seeking an new license for each plugin every time LR changed versions. He made me a deal. Every year or so I send him $25 via paypal even though I don’t need to. 

Maybe I should not have mentioned my universal license, but the cat is out of the bag. I’d reckon that over the years I’ve paid him at least $100 perhaps more


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 6, 2019)

Colin Grant said:


> Just wondering, is this latest Lr upgrade worthy of the jump to version 9?  For the first time I am starting to wonder if the subscription is really worth it. Had his been a traditional license I would probably have skipped this release. Or am I missing something? It has been known


I'm not sure this aspect got touched on though... the question of whether or not 9 is "worth it" is somewhat irrelevant to the question of whether the subscription would be worth it.  Without the subscription you can't keep using 8.4.1 either.   Whether it's worth the $10/mo (+/- specifics and country) is something only you can decide.  But if you decide to keep it, I would argue that keeping up with the releases (maybe not immediately after release) is definitely worth it for both reasons of function and security, especially since there's no additional cost involved in staying current.  For stability reasons it may be worth always waiting a month or two before doing the update in case there's ever a .1 patch or revision or word of issues.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 6, 2019)

camner said:


> Jeffrey has explained that there are reasons why bumping up the version number necessitates reregistration.  I don't remember the reasons, but given his "sales" model (pay what you want), I don't think it's related to income maximization.


He wanted to make sure people weren't using really old plug-ins with newer LR versions, to avoid compatibility issues. I believe he's removed that restriction as of his latest releases.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 6, 2019)

Victoria Bampton said:


> He wanted to make sure people weren't using really old plug-ins with newer LR versions, to avoid compatibility issues. I believe he's removed that restriction as of his latest releases.


As a data point, I just recently installed Data Explorer version 178, upgrading from 140 (the latter from May 2017, the new dated Oct 24 2019), and the new one still requires repurchase.

I agree with others, given the minimum price it is not a big deal for something so useful. But if it's not about the money, it could simply require update without requiring money.   I can't see that rationale from a technical standpoint.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 6, 2019)

Ferguson said:


> the new one still requires repurchase.


Yep, it'll be LR10 that shouldn't.


----------



## clee01l (Nov 6, 2019)

Colin Grant said:


> Just wondering, is this latest Lr upgrade worthy of the jump to version 9?  For the first time I am starting to wonder if the subscription is really worth it. Had his been a traditional license I would probably have skipped this release. Or am I missing something? It has been known


I just read Tom Hogarty's interview article and saw something that I think explains the Lightroom update cycle.  When LR was sold as a standalone product, lots of new features were rolled into one huge advancement in app features and you paid to get the update.   Now new features are added incrementally in decimal releases.  Each new feature may or may not add functionality that appeals to every user.   And we need to take a look at the users themselves.   Tom Hogarty said (not exactly his words) that the future of Lightroom is going to be in appealing to and acquiring new users.    Lightroom Classic is a mature product.  There aren't (IMO) that many "bells and whistles" left to be added to appeal to experienced longtime users.  What is  left for existing LR users are features to enhance performance and to take advantage of new hardware and OS functionality.
I think  that eventually as Lightroom (cloudy) matures and matches Lightroom Classic features and functionalities the two products will merge into a single offering from Adobe again.
One of the biggest gaps in Lightroom (cloudy) is the lack of a print module.  Monday’s update provided the ability to send photos to White House Custom Color (WHCC) for printing.  To me this is the door to  other third party print apps to handle Lightroom images inside the computer.  And if you have a Photo Quality printer (like Canon or Epson) they already come with sophisticated print software that could be integrated into the Lightroom workflow but as if yet have not.

Some time ago I made the commitment to a LR Subscription.   The incentive to doing this was access to the Photoshop app which previously cost hundreds of dollars to upgrade and well over $1000 to purchase a license.   I also made a commitment to stay with Lightroom as a DAM too since there was (and still is) no product that can manage my images as does Lightroom. 
I have an annual subscription to Microsoft office for about the same as my Adobe subscription.   My use of Office is far less than my use (daily) of Lightroom.


----------



## Paul McFarlane (Nov 6, 2019)

I found the review Victoria did looking at what has changed with Classic since LR6 very interesting. It covers up to 8.3:

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/whats-new-lightroom-classic-since-version-6/
Like Cletus, I see a sub to MS for Office and a sub to Adobe just part of my essential working toolkit (and I don't use the Office apps anything like as much as PS and LR either!!!)


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 6, 2019)

clee01l said:


> I think  that eventually as Lightroom (cloudy) matures and matches Lightroom Classic features and functionalities the two products will merge into a single offering from Adobe again.
> One of the biggest gaps in Lightroom (cloudy) is the lack of a print module.


And third party plugins.


----------



## camner (Nov 7, 2019)

There has been good commentary here about various aspects of LR v 9, but I haven’t heard mention of any issues.  Have folks who have upgraded found the update to be stable and thus ready for prime time, or is this a “better wait for an update” situation (a la iOS 13)?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Nov 7, 2019)

So far I have had no issues.  My use is primarily to ingest, edit and publish with a plugin.  I made no real use of the new features yet, but I have not noticed that anything I do use is broken.

That said, one can never be faulted for waiting a month or three if you have no pressing reason to use a new release.   A nice aspect of Adobe's policy of lots of little bitesize releases is that there is rarely any real killer feature for which one cannot wait a while.


----------



## James Clay (Nov 7, 2019)

camner said:


> There has been good commentary here about various aspects of LR v 9, but I haven’t heard mention of any issues.



For anyone working with timelapse photography and LRTimelapse, Lr 9 has introduced an export process bug whereby any settings from 3rd party export plugins are ignored. Bug is described here on these forums and also over on the LRTimelapse forum here.

Anyone using LRTimelapse or other 3rd party export plugins might be better off sticking with 8.4.1 until this is resolved.


----------



## Zenon (Nov 7, 2019)

The major competitors like C1 and DXO update every Oct within a week of each other. Since I own DXO as well I read about all the complaints of how little was offered as well. C1 jumped from version 12 to 20. It is just business and I think Adobe just matches their competitors upgrade cycle. Makes them look like they aren't sitting around.  If someone is shopping around and look at LR they will see there are new upgrades every year. Although there may not be major upgrades we know we get them all year. Not everyone knows this. If I ran Adobe I'd do it. I'd call it 21 next year.       

Texture was huge for me and and it was mid year update. IMO you know what Adobe needs next? An AI NR option. NR Sensei. Keep the traditional method for fast developing. Out in forum land that is one of top gripes about LR and a reason to use a competitor. I'd welcome  it.        

I use one of Jeffery's plugin and while the upgrade is a pain it is well worth it. I knew it was coming.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Nov 7, 2019)

Zenon said:


> you know what Adobe needs next? An AI NR option. NR Sensei. Keep the traditional method for fast developing. Out in forum land that is one of top gripes about LR and a reason to use a competitor. I'd welcome  it.


Put in a feature request!


----------



## tspear (Nov 7, 2019)

@clee01l 

I did the same; around Lr 5. with Jeffery. 
In my case, I send him an Amazon gift card; with every major version change. No Paypal account... 

Tim


----------



## Colin Grant (Nov 5, 2019)

Just wondering, is this latest Lr upgrade worthy of the jump to version 9?  For the first time I am starting to wonder if the subscription is really worth it. Had his been a traditional license I would probably have skipped this release. Or am I missing something? It has been known


----------



## pedroadamastor (Nov 7, 2019)

Hi everyone,
I have an old Geforce210 on my Windows 10  that doesnt support directx12, so i cant run Lightroom Classic 9, i have to upgrade the GPU.
Can anyone advice me a new GPU for this new version of LR? (max $150)
Is it a big difference to use a sub $100 GPU with directX12 or a $300+ GPU? Where will i notice more diference?
Thanks a lot!


----------



## clee01l (Nov 7, 2019)

One thing to consider is that Additional VRAM adds to the price.   With LR there is probably a happy price point to VRAM ..   I’d suggest at least 4GB and preferably 8 GB of VRAM.


----------



## prbimages (Nov 7, 2019)

pedroadamastor said:


> I have an old Geforce210 on my Windows 10 that doesnt support directx12, so i cant run Lightroom Classic 9, i have to upgrade the GPU.


This is not strictly true, is it? My understanding is that you CAN run LR 9, you just WILL NOT get the benefit of GPU acceleration. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (I am not able to test this).


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Nov 7, 2019)

prbimages said:


> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (I am not able to test this).


I'm pretty sure you're right. I can't test it, either.


----------



## pedroadamastor (Nov 7, 2019)

prbimages said:


> This is not strictly true, is it? My understanding is that you CAN run LR 9, you just WILL NOT get the benefit of GPU acceleration. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (I am not able to test this).


You are right. I can open it, but when im on Library it takes more than 5 seconds to go from one photo to the next one.
(using raw photos from a canon 80D with an Intel i5-4690 CPU @ 3.50GHz and Samsung SSD).
In the Develop module its faster.
Will it fix this slow problem in the library module and even in the develop module if i change to a directx12 GPU?
Im already trying other alternative softwares but i really liked LR and i would prefer to keep working with it as i already have a lot of xmp files with the raws i developed.
Thanks for any advice.


----------



## Zenon (Nov 8, 2019)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Put in a feature request!



I will.


----------



## PhilBurton (Nov 8, 2019)

clee01l said:


> I think Adobe bumps up the version number whenever there is a change in the database structure. This has happened in every version number change since v1. The exception to this rule was v8 when going from v7 to v8 did not update the database structure.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It could be that Adobe "saves up" major new features for the next full-number release, which now seems to be on a yearly cadence.  A major new feature might require a database upgrade.


----------



## Chris Wimlett (Nov 9, 2019)

I've come to like the subscription model - it saves me having to budget for annual upgrades, then trying to decide whether to upgrade or not.  The only thing I'd like to see is the cost of additional cloud storage come down.


----------



## Colin Grant (Nov 9, 2019)

Sound words  Chris, and I agree re cloud storage.


----------



## Colin Grant (Nov 9, 2019)

Zenon said:


> The major competitors like C1 and DXO update every Oct within a week of each other. Since I own DXO as well I read about all the complaints of how little was offered as well. C1 jumped from version 12 to 20. It is just business and I think Adobe just matches their competitors upgrade cycle. Makes them look like they aren't sitting around.  If someone is shopping around and look at LR they will see there are new upgrades every year. Although there may not be major upgrades we know we get them all year. Not everyone knows this. If I ran Adobe I'd do it. I'd call it 21 next year.
> 
> Texture was huge for me and and it was mid year update. IMO you know what Adobe needs next? An AI NR option. NR Sensei. Keep the traditional method for fast developing. Out in forum land that is one of top gripes about LR and a reason to use a competitor. I'd welcome  it.
> 
> I use one of Jeffery's plugin and while the upgrade is a pain it is well worth it. I knew it was coming.


DxO does not, and never will apparently, support Fuji. That takes them right out of the game for me.


----------



## Chris Wimlett (Nov 9, 2019)

Colin Grant said:


> DxO does not, and never will apparently, support Fuji. That takes them right out of the game for me.



Yes, I'm in the same position re Fuji and DxO.


----------



## Paul McFarlane (Nov 9, 2019)

Chris Wimlett said:


> I've come to like the subscription model - it saves me having to budget for annual upgrades, then trying to decide whether to upgrade or not. The only thing I'd like to see is the cost of additional cloud storage come down.


Interestingly, I now see an option for '*Creative Cloud Photography plan with 1TB*' on my account (I'm on the Photography Plan 20Gb currently) that is just an extra £5 per month (still includes Classic, PS, Lightroom cloud) - not quite sure where Adobe are going with this, previously the extra store would have needed me to pay an extra £10/month to my knowledge. I checked by launching Lightroom Cloud, then in the top right (cloud) See Plans.


----------



## Chris Wimlett (Nov 9, 2019)

Unless it's changed I think the £14.98 is just for the first 12 months - I'd more than happy if it was a permanent price!


----------



## Paul McFarlane (Nov 9, 2019)

Chris Wimlett said:


> Unless it's changed I think the £14.98 is just for the first 12 months - I'd more than happy if it was a permanent price!


You're absolutely right, Chris, I just read the T&C's. Not so great then!!!


----------



## Zenon (Nov 9, 2019)

pedroadamastor said:


> You are right. I can open it, but when im on Library it takes more than 5 seconds to go from one photo to the next one.
> (using raw photos from a canon 80D with an Intel i5-4690 CPU @ 3.50GHz and Samsung SSD).
> In the Develop module its faster.
> Will it fix this slow problem in the library module and even in the develop module if i change to a directx12 GPU?
> ...



I'm not a computer wiz but I just got a new iMac. I was never able use the full graphics acceleration before so I just enabled it. I can move from file to file in both Develop and Library with no delays.


----------

