# Who is Lightroom CC for?  I don't get it.



## reidthaler

I teach Lightroom (now Lightroom Classic) and I don't who Lightroom CC is for.  If you have a dedicated camera, you'll want Classic.

If you shoot only on a smartphone, then for $4.99/month, you can get selective adjustments and a web gallery on your that you can share.  What is the appeal of downloading limited software?  How do you add images to CC if not through your phone?

What am I missing?

Thanks,


Reid


----------



## PhilBurton

reidthaler said:


> I teach Lightroom (now Lightroom Classic) and I don't who Lightroom CC is for.  If you have a dedicated camera, you'll want Classic.
> 
> If you shoot only on a smartphone, then for $4.99/month, you can get selective adjustments and a web gallery on your that you can share.  What is the appeal of downloading limited software?  How do you add images to CC if not through your phone?
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Reid


Reid,

To your question, I'm guessing that for the smartphone-only crowd, Lightroom CC does what they want and need, and they may not have issues with missing features.  I can say that my kids, unlike me, don't believe in actually printing images, as just one example.  or if they need a print, they send the image to a print service.

As for _me_, I don't get it either.  

My question, in light of a recent thread about performance:  You seem to have a pretty old P5-generation motherboard for your PC, with only 8 GB RAM.  Are your running Win 7 64?  How good is LR performance on your system?

Phil Burton


----------



## Johan Elzenga

I think there is a crowd between dedicated photo amateurs c.q. professionals and smartphone shooters. I think a large part of that crowd feels that Lightroom Classic is not only overkill, but also too complicated (look at how often we het 'missing photos' questions here). And I think that a large part of that crowd wants simple synchronisation across all devices, something Lightroom Classic does not offer. A kind of 'Apple Photos on Steroids'. That's the group that Lightroom CC is for.


----------



## Jim Wilde

reidthaler said:


> I teach Lightroom (now Lightroom Classic) and I don't who Lightroom CC is for.  If you have a dedicated camera, you'll want Classic.
> 
> If you shoot only on a smartphone, then for $4.99/month, you can get selective adjustments and a web gallery on your that you can share.  What is the appeal of downloading limited software?  How do you add images to CC if not through your phone?
> 
> What am I missing?



Lightroom CC is a complete system, spanning desktop, phones, tablets, and the web, centred on the cloud. You can import pictures into ANY of the entry points, though the desktop app is probably the easiest and quickest.

It certainly isn't for smart-phone only users, and I think you and Phil would be very surprised at the number of pros who have embraced some part of the system, and factored it into their workflow. 

But if you have no need or interest in any part of that system then clearly Classic is all you need.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

Bear in mind the age-old quote "of what good is a newborn baby".

I don't get it either and do not use it, but it's very much a product in its infancy.  I think them will tell whether Adobe makes it more generally useful to "normal" lightroom users (whatever that means).  

In particular there are deep policy divides at present, notably the requirement that ALL images be in the cloud to use it.

But... it's a very, very early version of the product.  I think the question will be much more interesting in a year or three, when it has near parity of editing features, and some definitive direction on "cloud" requirements.


----------



## clee01l

Before the current release of Lightroom came out, there was a mobile app called Lightroom Mobile.  It only ran on portable devices like smart phones and other devices that use the same portable operating systems.  I wanted Adobe to develop a mobile version that would run on my laptop.   Well, they did and they called it and all of the other formerly Lightroom Mobile apps,  Lightroom CC.  When looked at in that context, it is easy to understand where Lightroom CC for a “real computer” fits in


----------



## PhilBurton

Ferguson said:


> Bear in mind the age-old quote "of what good is a newborn baby".
> 
> I don't get it either and do not use it, but it's very much a product in its infancy.  I think them will tell whether Adobe makes it more generally useful to "normal" lightroom users (whatever that means).
> 
> In particular there are deep policy divides at present, notably the requirement that ALL images be in the cloud to use it.
> 
> But... it's a very, very early version of the product.  I think the question will be much more interesting in a year or three, when it has near parity of editing features, and some definitive direction on "cloud" requirements.


If there is parity of features with Classic, then CC becomes (maybe with local storage) the replacement for a separate Classic product.

If CC is aimed at a different market segment, then there is no need for feature parity.  Rather, there is a need to optimize CC for that segment, along the lines that Johan describes above.

Phil


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

PhilBurton said:


> If there is parity of features with Classic, then CC becomes (maybe with local storage) the replacement for a separate Classic product.
> 
> If CC is aimed at a different market segment, then there is no need for feature parity.  Rather, there is a need to optimize CC for that segment, along the lines that Johan describes above.



Agreed.  

I believe pairty is coming in terms of most editing features, as both are based under the covers on ACR, and all that is involved in parity there is (a) desire, and (b) GUI changes.

I think parity may never arrive in terms of some specific Classic features, such as hierarchical keywords.  They are not supported by "the cloud" that Adobe has designed; it really has nothing to do with the UI or ACR.  Why they decided that I do not know, but to me it indicates those types of features will never migrate.  There are not a lot of them.

There are three great unknowns to me: Does Adobe want CC to replace Classic, what will they do about 3rd party plugin access, and what will they do about the cloud requirements. These are intimately tied together, I think.

But to the original question: I think judging the utility of CC purely based on current features is a mistake.  If you are looking at long term purpose, at least envision it with (almost) all the editing features of Classic, and speculate from there.


----------



## PhilBurton

Ferguson said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I believe pairty is coming in terms of most editing features, as both are based under the covers on ACR, and all that is involved in parity there is (a) desire, and (b) GUI changes.
> 
> I think parity may never arrive in terms of some specific Classic features, such as hierarchical keywords.  They are not supported by "the cloud" that Adobe has designed; it really has nothing to do with the UI or ACR.  Why they decided that I do not know, but to me it indicates those types of features will never migrate.  There are not a lot of them.
> 
> There are three great unknowns to me: Does Adobe want CC to replace Classic, what will they do about 3rd party plugin access, and what will they do about the cloud requirements. These are intimately tied together, I think.
> 
> But to the original question: I think judging the utility of CC purely based on current features is a mistake.  If you are looking at long term purpose, at least envision it with (almost) all the editing features of Classic, and speculate from there.


Ferguson,

As usual, your posts are idea-rich. 

If I were in charge at Adobe, I would include in my long-range plans a code-base merge of Classic and CC.  Makes no sense to implement features twice.  That is my take on your first unknown.  For the second unknown, I have to think that having third-party plug-in support is a huge asset for Adobe (as well as a competitive barrier).  Just my assumption of course.  For the third, your guess is as good as mine, maybe better than mine.  At the right price (free), I would be more willing to use a cloud-only product.

You are also right about judging CC on current features.  There are always "early adopters" who will try anything new.  Those early adopters are probably the ones now using CC (and giving $$$ to Adobe).

Phil


----------



## reidthaler

PhilBurton said:


> Reid,
> 
> To your question, I'm guessing that for the smartphone-only crowd, Lightroom CC does what they want and need, and they may not have issues with missing features.  I can say that my kids, unlike me, don't believe in actually printing images, as just one example.  or if they need a print, they send the image to a print service.
> 
> As for _me_, I don't get it either.
> 
> My question, in light of a recent thread about performance:  You seem to have a pretty old P5-generation motherboard for your PC, with only 8 GB RAM.  Are your running Win 7 64?  How good is LR performance on your system?
> 
> Phil Burton



I haven't updated by signature on the forum ( I might not know where the setting is)  I'm running a current rig with and i7 and 16 GB of RAM.  Otherwise, Lightroom would still be starting up...


----------



## reidthaler

Thanks all for the thoughtful responses.

To answer my own question, I've thought about it and think that Lightroom CC is a transitional version and eventually Classic may be merged into it.  I think that smart previews will be uploaded and you could access  Lightroom from any browser.  When you want to export, the servers would connect the smart preview with you full resolution original on your computer.  Just a thought.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

reidthaler said:


> I haven't updated by signature on the forum ( I might not know where the setting is)


Upper right corner. Hold your cursor over your name and a drop down menu will appear.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

reidthaler said:


> To answer my own question, I've thought about it and think that Lightroom CC is a transitional version and eventually Classic may be merged into it.  I think that smart previews will be uploaded and you could access  Lightroom from any browser.  When you want to export, the servers would connect the smart preview with you full resolution original on your computer.  Just a thought.



I think their strategy for where the original images go is key.  Classic is purely local (well, natively), and CC is purely Cloud (it downloads full images but it considers the cloud the master and requires all images go there). To me it's probably less about storage dollars per se, and more about control - with originals in the Adobe (only) cloud, new tools, features and such can be cloud delivered -- not just access the image in the cloud from your device, but the cloud itself delivers the service, whatever that service is (printing, web sites, archival, facial recognition, copyright registration for you, etc.).  To the user it becomes easy to do "X" in the cloud with Adobe, and progressively harder to do it locally or in some other provider's cloud.  Will this kind of tighter-tie to the user be so attractive to Adobe they push it aggressively, or will they allow people to just have periodic affairs with Adobe while dating other vendors as they can more easily in Classic.


----------



## PhilBurton

Ferguson said:


> I think their strategy for where the original images go is key.  Classic is purely local (well, natively), and CC is purely Cloud (it downloads full images but it considers the cloud the master and requires all images go there). To me it's probably less about storage dollars per se, and more about control - with originals in the Adobe (only) cloud, new tools, features and such can be cloud delivered -- not just access the image in the cloud from your device, but the cloud itself delivers the service, whatever that service is (printing, web sites, archival, facial recognition, copyright registration for you, etc.).  To the user it becomes easy to do "X" in the cloud with Adobe, and progressively harder to do it locally or in some other provider's cloud.  Will this kind of tighter-tie to the user be so attractive to Adobe they push it aggressively, or will they allow people to just have periodic affairs with Adobe while dating other vendors as they can more easily in Classic.


If either Lightroom product is completely cloud-centric, then local processing power and RAM becomes much less important.  However, there is always the issue of response time working with local files vs. cloud-based files.  And the issue of cost can't go away.

But since Adobe hasn't released any sort of statement about the long-term future of Classic, we really don't know what is their strategy.  We can only speculate (which we all are doing a lot).  The only indication we have is that Adobe seems to be stressing performance enhancements for Classic.  Since I don't have any interest in CC, I can't speak to that product.

Phil


----------



## Johan Elzenga

'Cloud-centric' is just the storage part, at least for now. Lightroom CC also runs locally and so its speed also depends on your local processor and the amount of RAM in your computer.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

PhilBurton said:


> The only indication we have is that Adobe seems to be stressing performance enhancements for Classic.  Since I don't have any interest in CC, I can't speak to that product.


Well, don't read too much into the attention, a lot (most?) of the attention is in the ACR components and rendering, which they can use in it and 3 or so other products.


----------



## reidthaler

JohanElzenga said:


> Upper right corner. Hold your cursor over your name and a drop down menu will appear.



Yes, I've been on that page before, but don't see an Edit option


----------



## Johan Elzenga

reidthaler said:


> Yes, I've been on that page before, but don't see an Edit option



Just click on what you want to edit. This is what I see:


----------



## reidthaler

Thanks! I've been wanting to do that for years!


----------



## PhilBurton

Ferguson said:


> Well, don't read too much into the attention, a lot (most?) of the attention is in the ACR components and rendering, which they can use in it and 3 or so other products.


Even so, there is a non-trivial cost to test the ACR changes in each productr that incorporates those changes.  And some of those changes could have been driven by Lightroom.  

I know that's not quite the same as a formal statement from Adobe along with a product roadmap, but it is an indication that they are investing in Lightroom Classic for now.  I take this investment as a sign they are not about to discontinue Classic.  

Yes, I still would like that statement from Adobe.  The silence is deafening, especially after all the_ sturm und drang _after the announcements last October.  I still think it's a mistake on their part to not make such an announcement.  The availability of the 7.2 update would be a great time.  If they don't, it's a missed opportunity.

Phil


----------



## Conrad Chavez

reidthaler said:


> I teach Lightroom (now Lightroom Classic) and I don't who Lightroom CC is for...What am I missing?


I’m another user here who spends most of my time in Classic because it does what I need, and CC doesn’t. Yet I think I understand at least part of the appeal of CC to some users.

For one thing, I think there’s a large potential market in small business/self-employed users. Image-based social media (Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook, etc.) is a critical part of many small-business marketing plans, and that means generating and posting images several times a week. If you run a bakery or farm, you’ll post an image of whatever’s fresh or in season. If you run a boutique, you’ll post the latest fashion. Restaurants and bars post the specials of the week, artists and craftspeople post their latest creations, etc.

Their main business is not photography, but they need lots of photography. And they need to take it themselves, not have an expensive photographer on retainer to hang around the shop every other day. They are often not on their computer, so anything that enables a complete shoot-edit-post workflow on mobile devices alone is a plus. This makes Lightroom CC a potential solution. Every photo imported into LR CC is available on your phone, your computer, your tablet, or a web browser on a friend’s computer if you sign into CC. (Unlike Classic, where if you’re away from your computer, you cannot get to a Lightroom image unless you remembered to sync it to the cloud.) It doesn’t matter which device you remembered to bring with you: All your LR CC photos are available to be polished up and posted directly to social media or a blog.

There is an ecosystem aspect beyond Lightroom. On mobile devices, LR CC photos can be imported directly into Adobe Creative Cloud Express (formerly known as Adobe Spark) apps to quickly generate three types of high quality template-based social media posts: An image combining text with graphics (Spark Post), a blog-style story (Adobe Creative Cloud Express Page (formerly known as Adobe Spark)), or an animated video story (Spark Video). None of these requires a computer.

On many forums, people ask about replacing their laptops with iPads. The Adobe mobile ecosystem makes this somewhat more realistic.



reidthaler said:


> How do you add images to CC if not through your phone?


One way is through a cable such as the Camera Connection Kit for iPhones/iPads, or the Android equivalent. But if you have one of the newer cameras with wireless, that’s another option. I recently learned how to wirelessly transfer raw photos in bulk from my “real” camera to the iOS Files app on my iPad, then import those into Lightroom CC for initial editing on that iPad. Without a computer, I was able to post an edited image from an event within minutes of taking a raw file with a camera (not a phone). And those raw images automatically sync to my desktop computer for final edits on a calibrated display.

Again, despite everything I just wrote, I am still a die-hard Classic user. But recently there have been times where the ability to use much of Lightroom on the go, without a computer, has taught me how the Lightroom CC ecosystem could be of great value to some, especially those who must spend much of their work day away from their computer.


----------

