# Compatible with plugins & more storage



## quicky (Oct 18, 2017)

*Hi guys,*

*while I'm still waiting for the new Lightroom to install on my machine I was wondering if Adobe mentioned anything about backward-compatibility with plugins and templates? E.g. I'm using Excire to analyze my images, I guess this won't work with the new version.

Another thing that worries me, right now my images are taking roughly 5 TB space. I guess I could squeeze this a lot but I might have a hard time getting it down to 1TB. Of course I will never need all images in the cloud but to my understanding it means that if you like to manage the image with the new Lightroom it has to go to the cloud. Or does Adobe offer additional storage if needed?

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Cheers,*

*quicky
*


----------



## thejasonhowell (Oct 18, 2017)

You're installing the new Lr? I wish I were installing the new Lr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## quicky (Oct 18, 2017)

Hi Jason,

It's available now. You can install it as well 

Thanks to Victoria's comparison chart. My first question has already been answered. No plugin-support. So for now I'll stay with classic, but what about more storage? Did anyone hear about any options from Adobe?


----------



## Drdul (Oct 18, 2017)

Apparently more storage is $10 per terabyte.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 18, 2017)

We will see this confusion over and over in the time to come. It depends on what you call 'the new Lightroom'. If you mean '*Lightroom CC*', then the answer is no. You can't use plugins at all in that application. If you mean *Lightroom Classic CC* then the answer is yes, most plugins will run fine. It's a similar upgrade as the Lr5 to Lr6 upgrade was.


----------



## tspear (Oct 18, 2017)

JohanElzenga said:


> We will see this confusion over and over in the time to come. It depends on what you call 'the new Lightroom'. If you mean '*Lightroom CC*', then the answer is no. You can't use plugins at all in that application. If you mean *Lightroom Classic CC* then the answer is yes, most plugins will run fine. It's a similar upgrade as the Lr5 to Lr6 upgrade was.



I am pretty sure the dropped the CC on the classic going forward. So you had Lightroom 2015 CC which became Lightroom Classic.

Tim


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Oct 18, 2017)

tspear said:


> I am pretty sure the dropped the CC on the classic going forward. So you had Lightroom 2015 CC which became Lightroom Classic.



Nope.  That would make too much sense.  Here's how it appears now on my system:

Adobe Lightroom Classic CC     << new version of old lightroom
Adobe Lightroom CC     << New cloud-centric software 
Adobe Lightroom     << My old Lightroom 2015.12 version (i.e. LR 6 but I've got the subscription).

It's really like three card monte -- keep your eyes on the cup with the ball, do not look away, do not be distracted...


----------



## tspear (Oct 18, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> Nope.  That would make too much sense.  Here's how it appears now on my system:
> 
> Adobe Lightroom Classic CC     << new version of old lightroom
> Adobe Lightroom CC     << New cloud-centric software
> ...



That is hilarious. And will lead to a marketing nightmare. 

Tim


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Oct 18, 2017)

tspear said:


> That is hilarious. And will lead to a marketing nightmare.


Well, it's not the Marketing people who will take the support calls and spend the first 30 minutes trying to figure out what product the user is using.

Imagine what the help postings in various forums will look like for a while.


----------



## tspear (Oct 18, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> Well, it's not the Marketing people who will take the support calls and spend the first 30 minutes trying to figure out what product the user is using.
> 
> Imagine what the help postings in various forums will look like for a while.



I wonder if the support team can cross bill the marketing department.
Thinking of that, do you think the marketing team knows the applications are not the same? 

Tim


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 18, 2017)

It's TAFKAL (The Application Formerly Known As Lightroom).


----------



## fsuscotsman (Oct 18, 2017)

My question is: can I use Adobe Lightroom CC << New cloud-centric software and not buy my storage from Adobe? If yes, that's great. If not, I'm done as I am a hobbyist and not paying a fortune for file storage.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Oct 18, 2017)

fsuscotsman said:


> My question is: can I Adobe Lightroom CC << New cloud-centric software and not buy my storage from Adobe? If yes, that's great. If not, I'm done as I am a hobbyist and not paying a fortune for file storage.


No.  Emphatic no.  It is intimately tied to Adobe's Cloud, a lot of the intelligence is in the cloud.

If you are a hobbyist with < 1TB of storage the cost is not terrible (another $10/mo over the regular price of the software).  I have not heard pricing for more storage.

To me it was a disappointment that they locked you into the cloud, not just only Adobe, but Cloud is a REQUIREMENT.  You cannot (for example) keep only your recent photos in the Cloud and archive older ones locally (using only the new product).  They took the philosophy all the way -- the cloud is where things live, period; their cloud, only their cloud, and no where else (you can keep a COPY locally, but the master is in the cloud).


----------



## fsuscotsman (Oct 18, 2017)

Additional cost is 

2 TB for $20 per month
5 TB for $50 per month
10 TB for $100 per month
For people here I don't see much use for this version.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Oct 18, 2017)

fsuscotsman said:


> For people here I don't see much use for this version.


I think it's worth noting a lot of people come here to sync systems while travelling, or on remote shoots, etc. There may be people whose editing needs are more modest, but their mobility needs are a priority, that will find the new one a complete replacement.

I am not one of them.  But I think they exist.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 19, 2017)

fsuscotsman said:


> For people here I don't see much use for this version.



I've been using the new LRCC as my primary system for a long time now, and at first, it felt very limited. These days, I actually prefer it, other than some features that I still have to skip back to Classic for (merge, tone curve, stuff I expect to be added soon). It's not for everyone though. You need fast internet, and not too many photos. 

Classic's not going away anytime soon, and Adobe's not under the illusion that its advanced Lightroom users will switch.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Oct 19, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Classic's not going away anytime soon, and Adobe's not under the illusion that its advanced Lightroom users will switch.


There is an advantage of the subscription model in this case, and reason to worry less for those more aligned with Classic.  in a subscription model Adobe gets revenue continually for an older product into which they have to put relatively little effort (note things like features in ACR get shared, so Classic users benefit from CC new features). 

If Classic were pure perpetual, and also a relatively static product with little new development, people would not upgrade. Adobe would see it as a dead end revenue wise, and be apt to kill it entirely.

With subscriptions, if they kill Classic, there's some number of people who stop paying each month.  Adobe knows to the person who they are -- they are the ones with subscriptions that are not using the cloud.  Even if it's just a few thousand people, it becomes pointless to actually kill the product off, as it's a few tens of thousands of dollars they get for pretty much no ongoing investment.

So as long as it has even a pretty small customer base (worldwide though being numerous), I would expect it to stay alive and (at a low key) supported.


----------



## tspear (Oct 19, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I've been using the new LRCC as my primary system for a long time now, and at first, it felt very limited. These days, I actually prefer it, other than some features that I still have to skip back to Classic for (merge, tone curve, stuff I expect to be added soon). It's not for everyone though. You need fast internet, and not too many photos.
> 
> Classic's not going away anytime soon, and Adobe's not under the illusion that its advanced Lightroom users will switch.



No, but the writing is on the wall. And this really sort of sucks; I last year finished the migration to Lr and Smart Workflows. I also started to get into more of the middle tier editing capabilities. I was looking forward to working on getting into tone curves and other items next year. 

Since September, my step-son has been taking a digital photography course, and I have been showing him some of the basics of Lr.  However, we discussed this last night. His teacher is recommending students look at Lr alternatives for future projects in class. I cannot blame him.

Tim


----------



## quicky (Oct 19, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> You need fast internet, and not too many photos.



Hi Victoria,

But if I understood it right than this would mean you're using two versions of Lightroom: Lightroom CC for your limited new images and LR Classic to keep the photos which you've developed until the new version came out, right?
Not being able to move all existing images with the existing development-settings to Lightroom CC is a showstopper. This is in addition to the fact that I wouldn't be able use Excire, WP/LR and some of Jeffrey Friedl's plugins anymore.

Having the images in the cloud with the need of a fast internet-connection wouldn't bother me though.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 19, 2017)

quicky said:


> But if I understood it right than this would mean you're using two versions of Lightroom: Lightroom CC for your limited new images and LR Classic to keep the photos which you've developed until the new version came out, right?



No, I've got everything everywhere, using a slightly messy "foot in both camps" workflow I wouldn't recommend in a hurry.


----------



## fsuscotsman (Oct 19, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I've been using the new LRCC as my primary system for a long time now, and at first, it felt very limited. These days, I actually prefer it, other than some features that I still have to skip back to Classic for (merge, tone curve, stuff I expect to be added soon). It's not for everyone though. You need fast internet, and not too many photos.
> 
> Classic's not going away anytime soon, and Adobe's not under the illusion that its advanced Lightroom users will switch.


 
I don't see how that this can work for the "serious" photographer as, as I understand it, the new cloud version doesn't use RAW, and it uses downrezzed jpegs.Is that correct? I shoot nothing but RAW now.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Oct 19, 2017)

fsuscotsman said:


> I don't see how that this can work for the "serious" photographer as, as I understand it, the new cloud version doesn't use RAW, and it uses downrezzed jpegs.Is that correct? I shoot nothing but RAW now.


Not true at all.  It is perfectly happy with raw and uses the same ACR engine as the desktop system (you just cannot control some aspects of ACR yet in LR CC.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 20, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Classic's not going away anytime soon, and Adobe's not under the illusion that its advanced Lightroom users will switch.



Victoria,

How do you know about the future of classic and Adobe's thinking.  I can only hope you are right.  Too bad Adobe did not retain perpetual licensing.

_The more I learn about Lightroom CC, the more reasons I have to never even consider it_.  No printing, flat keywords, no plug-ins, lock-in to their cloud with no option for local storage, no real interoperability or workflow between the two programs, separate catalogs, what were they thinking?  Were they thinking?  I'm firmly in the camp of using the Classic product now and for the foreseeable future.  But if a competitor comes along with an interesting alternative, I will pay more attention now than I would have before the MAX announcements.

Someday this release will become a "case study" in business schools.  So many self-inflicted wounds and unforced errors, starting with the naming scheme.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 20, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> How do you know about the future of classic and Adobe's thinking.


You know how and you know why you won't get an answer to that.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 20, 2017)

JohanElzenga said:


> You know how and you know why you won't get an answer to that.


Johan,

No harm in asking.  If nothing else, this entire imbroglio has indicated that some members of this forum are under NDA to Adobe and others are not.

I've been on this board for maybe two years now, and I've never seen the level of anger and vitriol directed at Adobe that I am seeing now.  And that is not good.

Phil


----------



## quicky (Oct 18, 2017)

*Hi guys,*

*while I'm still waiting for the new Lightroom to install on my machine I was wondering if Adobe mentioned anything about backward-compatibility with plugins and templates? E.g. I'm using Excire to analyze my images, I guess this won't work with the new version.

Another thing that worries me, right now my images are taking roughly 5 TB space. I guess I could squeeze this a lot but I might have a hard time getting it down to 1TB. Of course I will never need all images in the cloud but to my understanding it means that if you like to manage the image with the new Lightroom it has to go to the cloud. Or does Adobe offer additional storage if needed?

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Cheers,*

*quicky
*


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 20, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> Johan,
> 
> No harm in asking.  If nothing else, this entire imbroglio has indicated that some members of this forum are under NDA to Adobe and others are not.
> 
> ...


It’s definitely not good, and it must have been so predictable for anyone who had prior knowlegde (but could not talk about it because they were under NDA). That must make it extra frustrating for these people to see that all their predictions were correct.  And -assuming that Victoria is one of them- your question only rubs it in deeper.


----------



## tspear (Oct 21, 2017)

JohanElzenga said:


> It’s definitely not good, and it must have been so predictable for anyone who had prior knowlegde (but could not talk about it because they were under NDA). That must make it extra frustrating for these people to see that all their predictions were correct.  And -assuming that Victoria is one of them- your question only rubs it in deeper.


Actually, based on the supremely bad roll out and how this seems to have an even worse reception than the import dialog box. I wonder if anyone raised red flags, I have read a couple dozen posts by people who obviously had early access. All of them talk about how the new app has X features, is really solid, and is great within its own eco system. But not one stated how it has been integrated to existing workflows. Sort of like this is something on the side. If you are that close to it and think of it that way, and you are not IT oriented it would be easy to miss.
The posts I have read which seem to take Adobe to task the most are by prosumers who are still in IT or retired from IT. I really did not know how many of there are out there. A lot of the professionals just seem pissed at Adobe and have generally simple scathing comments about how Lr CC is just incomplete.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## clee01l (Oct 21, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> I've been on this board for maybe two years now, and I've never seen the level of anger and vitriol directed at Adobe that I am seeing now.


Then you probably were not around for the fiasco that was the release of LR6.0/LRCC2015.0


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 21, 2017)

clee01l said:


> Then you probably were not around for the fiasco that was the release of LR6.0/LRCC2015.0


No I wasn't.  What happened then?


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 21, 2017)

I think Lightroom 6 / CC2015.0 wasn't a big problem, the new and supposedly easier import dialog (6.2 / CC2015.2) reminds me very much of this fiasco however.


----------



## Gnits (Oct 21, 2017)

For people who have been into Lr since the first beta this fiasco has an oh too familiar ring to it. 

My background is heavy duty IT, but I deal with a lot of photographers.  I am always gobsmacked that for professionals, who deal with images every day, their ability to use basic laptop tools to present their images in the best light is so remarkable poor.  However, after the regular Adobe fiascos we have experienced,  I can understand those who are not so tech savvy been frustrated to a level well above IT professionals, who have a background in trouble shooting this stuff.


----------

