# Which Lightroom version for me?



## clee01l

*Operating System:* MacOS 10.13.x

*Lightroom Version:*  LR Classic 7.0
_(Please go to Help menu > System Info to double check the exact version number)_

*Question or Description of Problem: *I've got about 1.5TB of images in my LR catalog.   I could probably  delete half of the image inventory  But that means having to revisit 36000 images to decide which to keep and which to toss. 
I want to be able to work MY workflow from either my iMac at home or my MBP on the road. I want to be able to import images from either machine.   It is not clear to me if Lightroom Creative Cloud Photography plan with 1TB ‎ will let me do this   If I go for the 1TB plan, what happens to my catalog?  How would my MBP access the images in my Master catalog?  Can I keep the files I don't want to move to the cloud locally in a LR catalog on my iMac.   I could care less about iPhones/Android/iPad Lightroom mobile.  These will never fit into my workflow.  
So who can tell me if I can seamlessly work my image from either the iMac or the MBP?
Who can tell me how to migrate my LR Classic to LRCC?  Can I selectively decide which images are cloud based if I make the commitment?  

Adobe continues to mis-manage users expectations.  A change of this magnitude should really come with more preparation of the user base for the change.  Dropping a surprise release is only good if ALL of the user base benefits from the change.  My subscription gets renewed in November,  There will need to be a lot of benefit in LR for me to continue. So far, I'm not seeing it. I already have a license for On1 PhotoRAW and Affinity, but none of these offer the power for image management like the LR database. But I can always go back to managing images by folders.


----------



## Ian.B

LOL; if you don't know the answer to your question I'm not sure anyone will 
Yep; totally agree about 'what were they thinking'. I have often had the thought LR  has gone about a far as it can as the present LR -- I have never wished for more than Lr5. There are a some good programs coming up snapping at adobe's heals --- on1 is close but too far away --- Luminar could be more interesting if they add a good DAM system (they are promising it] --- ACDsee also has some useful toys, although like all other programs we seem to lose something we are used to and feel we need. I think Adobe could do a lot worse than boosting Elements with the old Cs3; the most advanced PS I had or needed. 

Bit off topic: how did you get on in the flood Cletus? Last i heard you needed to move (??) . It's off the news radar down here.


----------



## Gnits

Cletus, I sense that ultimately you will be the only person able to answer your questions, probably with a fair investment in testing and exploring multiple scenarios. The problem I see is this is likely to remain a moving target for several years to come, as successive releases of Classic and Cloud are implemented.

I have mixed views on this whole strategy. I agree with your thoughts above re mismanagement of user expectations, but feel that Adobe had to do something. Creating two Lightroom universes is not something I am happy with, as I feel their handling of a single universe leaves a lot to be desired.

My background is in designing and implementing large scale enterprise level complex systems. In this case, I personally am not prepared to put the time and effort and risk into the testing required to tick all the boxes I need. If you want to do that then fair play to you. I may decide to dip my toe in the testing of Lr Cloud at some stage, but not on version 1.0. If Adobe want to pay me to do that then I would be happy to bring my experience of testing complex systems to the table, but am saying this tongue in cheek as it is such an unlikely scenario. I make the point because it reflects the investment in time I would need to make, which is not a viable option for me with my current commitments.

I do sense that in due course Lr Classic will follow Lr Perpetual and will be allowed to decay, gracefully or ungracefully. My contingency in that situation , if I cannot feel safe using Lr will be to use something like PhotoMechanic to filter and rate my images and use Photoshop or a competing product such as Affinity to get a finished image file. A scenario I would not look forward to.

I am pleased to see the work gone into using the built in jpgs and or raw plus jpgs to speed up the culling process, but for the life of me I do not understand why this was not done years and years ago.  I can only assume a Lr architect on the original team blocked such a developement for emotional / conceptual / legacy reasons rather than dealing with the reality of the problem this created.

I am a little clearer this morning, in Dublin, on the Lr Classic/Cloud  lineup, but like you I have more questions than answers. In a few weeks I will test Lr Classic and probably wait for Lr Cloud ver 2.1 to arrive before forming a view or getting into what will be a replacement product, whether I like it or not.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

You can migrate a Lr Classic catalog to Lr CC, so if you don't want to migrate everything, you could save a selection as a new catalog and migrate that one. I'm not sure if you can repeat this and migrate a catalog in several chunks this way.

Personally I would stick to Lightroom Classic and the way you have been working till now. Lightroom CC will grow, but at the noment it is far too limited for a seasoned Lightroom user. To give you a small list of what you'd be missing: smart collections, hierarchical keywords, color labels, HDR, panorama, publishing services, just to name a few things.


----------



## Gnits

How is printing going to work in the new Lr Cc ??


----------



## johnbeardy

No doubt Adobe would say that it's coming, but yes, it's incredible that they would launch this program without it.


----------



## davidedric

Lightroom does the majority of what I want, out of the box.  When it doesn't, there is a very large ecosystem of plug-ins and add-ons that will.  For me, that is key, and if that is not possible under a Cloud version, then I can't see going down that route.

In a way, this is just another spin of the client/server wheel (I'm sure some of us remember the way the boundary shifted around with developments in processing, storage and comms).  From the perspective of someone who routinely works from a single place, as a single user, the Classic configuration makes the most sense, but I can readily see the solution is different for someone who wants to work from multiple locations.

It seems there are (at least) two communities with different needs who can be best served by different products, and I hope Adobe keeps both.

Dave


----------



## Victoria Bampton

johnbeardy said:


> No doubt Adobe would say that it's coming, but yes, it's incredible that they would launch this program without it.


I'm not so sure about that. A lot of the initial target audience never print anything, or they'd send stuff to online labs. I can't remember the last time I printed a photo on a proper printer! I'd expect it to come, but I'm not convinced it was that bad a priority decision.


----------



## johnbeardy

I agree to some extent, but there's not even a dummy-level File > Send to Email command, so I guess the bar is set pretty low. I just expect more from Adobe, certainly when something's apparently "built for professionals and enthusiasts" (press release). 

John


----------



## Gnits

johnbeardy said:


> I agree to some extent, but there's not even a dummy-level File > Send to Email command, so I guess the bar is set pretty low.



Maybe Adobe will fill this gap by providing a "Cloud Print Service" along the lines of the Blurb Book service !!!!


----------



## clee01l

Ian.B said:


> Bit off topic: how did you get on in the flood Cletus? Last i heard you needed to move (??) . It's off the news radar down here


I’ve been an apartment since September. We’ve just started to make minimal repairs on our house and when done we will move back in. This is only a temporary solution. Our house was valued only for the lot (i.e. a tear down). And lot values are now about 60% of pre-flood.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

Cletus, personally I think the question you should be asking is why do you want to migrate ANY of your photos to the cloud. 

I think if you migrate part (e.g. export a portion of the catalog and then migrate it), and come back later the next group will be an import not a migration.  Emphasis on "think". 

But my question about, despite the smiley, is serious -- I think people happy with LR6/2015 need to answer it before they bother migration, now.  A few months from now, or at version 1.1, after the dust settles... maybe.  But if no good reason, do not move your production catalog.

If you want to play, play -- migrate a tiny portion and plan to delete it all later.

But be happy with the new Classic while other people suffer through the growing pains in the Cloud.


----------



## clee01l

Gnits said:


> I do sense that in due course Lr Classic will follow Lr Perpetual and will be allowed to decay, gracefully or ungracefully.


I see this as inevitable too.  I’ve been a loyal Adobe customer for about 10 years. Freely putting in a lot of time here and elsewhere to support the product.  I am seeing end of life for the Lightroom that I need.  As such, I am beginning to think that my time needs to be focused on moving away from Lightroom Classic.


----------



## clee01l

clee01l said:


> who can tell me if I can seamlessly work my image from either the iMac or the MBP?
> Who can tell me how to migrate my LR Classic to LRCC? Can I selectively decide which images are cloud based if I make the commitment?


While I’ve gotten a lot of “me too” and a lot of commiseration, no one has been able to answer these basic  questions. I’m certain that there are those on this forum that have been involved in the beta testing.  And I would hope that they could provide the answers. If they can’t, can anyone?


----------



## tspear

Victoria Bampton said:


> I'm not so sure about that. A lot of the initial target audience never print anything, or they'd send stuff to online labs. I can't remember the last time I printed a photo on a proper printer! I'd expect it to come, but I'm not convinced it was that bad a priority decision.



Sorry Victoria, that is funny. 
The press releases state this is a professional and enthusiast application. I know you are stuck in the position of trying to defend a product and decisions which you did not make. But still, basic printing functionality is a checkbox item. 
This is just one more example of Adobe product management not actually discussing anything with the target customers and building this in a vacuum. Sort of like the whole marketing fiasco. Just the name, Classic means they want to kill it off. 
Further, when you read the release notes on Classic, they are getting the low hanging fruit that has been complained about for years. There is no real focus on pushing the product forward. The combination of these two, screams they are planning on killing off Classic. It is just a question of time. 
The problem for Adobe is there are many people like me who have made the same choices, I have been a CTO for over a decade at mid size companies. I do this for a living. You also have Phil, Fergeson, Cletus... many others. Adobe screwed up big time, many of the retired enthusiasts I have met are former IT workers. We know the game. 
For those who are retired already, they just have to determine if Adobe will let them run out the remainder of their photography hobby before the price point kills it. For others like me who are still learning the product, it has become time to re-evaluate if we want to continue trying to learn Adobe.

Tim


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

clee01l said:


> While I’ve gotten a lot of “me too” and a lot of commiseration, no one has been able to answer these basic  questions. I’m certain that there are those on this forum that have been involved in the beta testing.  And I would hope that they could provide the answers. If they can’t, can anyone?



Seamlessly is a strong word but in the new LR CC has a nearly identically GUI and features on all platforms, and yes, you can work on the same image anywhere, any time, subject to connectivity and bandwidth.

When you MIGRATE to LR CC (cloud), whether from LR6/2015 or Classic, you are moving ALL images that are in the catalog into the cloud.  It makes a local copy (you need a LOT Of space) and starts uploading to the cloud, and shortly thereafter it also starts bringing the images back down on any connected LR CC programs where you have local storage selected.  This can take a long time as most people's upload speed is slow, and can also run into a lot of storage issues as you need your original catalog (and images), and a new copy for staging upload.

The migration is designed as a one time thing; it then de-activates sync on the Classic catalog (I think) and expects you to use the Cloud version only (LR CC not Classic).  

Un-doing all this requires breaking the sync and deleting the cloud to start over.

AS far as I know incremental migration is not supported, and could only be done by then importing new images into the cloud separately.  I have not tried to see if they would accept XMP files to carry edits out as well, as a partial workaround.

Adobe's paradigm for this is "people with modest catalogs can just move to the cloud and forget their catalogs forever". 

If you do not follow that paradigm, you are blazing your own trail to some extent.


----------



## johnbeardy

clee01l said:


> As such, I am beginning to think that my time needs to be focused on moving away from Lightroom Classic.



I feel it's more a matter of reviewing what you are doing, just in case Adobe do as one may fear.

Years ago I likened DAM to a life of serial monogamy, with one theme being that while you're committing to one relationship you know that one day you will want to leave it and take all that's yours, like having a prenup! For example, should one depend as much on collections, when keywords would be more portable? It also means more "playing around" - testing the alternatives that are fluttering their eyes in your direction. 

John


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

Cletus, just to elaborate a bit more.  If you want to learn about the CC offering, my suggestion is this, if it fits:

- Finish up any current LR Mobile editing and such, and get everything safely in your LR6/2015 catalog.
- Delete the cloud entries so you are not using the cloud at all.
- Turn off sync on your LR6/Classic if it's on
- Export a smallish portion of your catalog to a new location, including images, so it is completely isolated from your production catalog.  Maybe even move it to a separate computer (the LR Classic software is not needed on that computer just the catalog).
- Migrate that test catalog up to the LR CC, experiment to your heart's content, but treat it all as throw-away.
- When done experimenting, delete everything in the cloud and start over, migrating your entire catalog if you choose to go that way.

Trying to stay with production work in both environments is possible but is going to be a real serious exercise in frustration.  It's built to move into -- not commute back and forth.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

clee01l said:


> While I’ve gotten a lot of “me too” and a lot of commiseration, no one has been able to answer these basic  questions. I’m certain that there are those on this forum that have been involved in the beta testing.  And I would hope that they could provide the answers. If they can’t, can anyone?



*Who can tell me if I can seamlessly work my image from either the iMac or the MBP?*
Yes, you can.

*Who can tell me how to migrate my LR Classic to LRCC?* 
Lightroom CC has a 'Migrate Lightroom Catalog' menu.

*Can I selectively decide which images are cloud based if I make the commitment?*
You can of course export a selection from Lightroom Classic to a new catalog and then migrate this catalog to Lightroom CC, but I'm not sure if you could repeat that with a second selection without removing the first one from the cloud again.


----------



## tspear

clee01l said:


> I see this as inevitable too.  I’ve been a loyal Adobe customer for about 10 years. Freely putting in a lot of time here and elsewhere to support the product.  I am seeing end of life for the Lightroom that I need.  As such, I am beginning to think that my time needs to be focused on moving away from Lightroom Classic.



Keep us updated. I can understand if we need to move this off the current forum.
Based on the number of choices for cloud storage and backup solutions. I really want one that is file based, has no local database (or can be rebuilt on demand without loss of data) and can be used on multiple machines via replication of files via MS OneDrive, Google Drive, DropBox.... 
I am willing to accept a startup performance hit for scanning if needed.
If there was a good parametric editor we could integrate with, a solid DAM system does not seem supper hard to develop. Could be a fun group project, assuming there is a good library to manage the meta-data in the images.

Tim


----------



## Johan Elzenga

clee01l said:


> I see this as inevitable too. I’ve been a loyal Adobe customer for about 10 years. Freely putting in a lot of time here and elsewhere to support the product. I am seeing end of life for the Lightroom that I need. As such, I am beginning to think that my time needs to be focused on moving away from Lightroom Classic.



It's amazing what one single word can do. If they had called it 'Lightroom Professional', would you have felt the same way?


----------



## jjespdk

clee01l said:


> I already have a license for On1 PhotoRAW and Affinity, but none of these offer the power for image management like the LR database. But I can always go back to managing images by folders.



Have you tried Capture One Pro 10? So nice it is... I am considering leaving Adobe, if the new classic CC is not much better than the old version. And also if I feel that we only will have the Cloud version in near future and Adobe is leaving the classic behind, or increase the pricing.... I will not have my files in the cloud, and not be able to work without internet connection! 
This is the last chance Adobe!


----------



## johnbeardy

Nicer default colours, for what little the default is worth? An interface so cluttered you are forced to customize it. A poor print UI? Catalogues that have stability problems with more than a few thousand pics? But the one thing I really like in CaptureOne is the focus mask.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

jjespdk said:


> I am considering leaving Adobe, if the new classic CC is not much better than the old version. And also if I feel that we only will have the Cloud version in near future and Adobe is leaving the classic behind, or increase the pricing....



The new is better (how much depends on what you wanted and the definition of "much").

You will not have only the cloud version in the "near" future, I would expect it to be many years as lots of existing users, paying a monthly subscription - why would Adobe kill a revenue stream that costs it nothing to keep going.  Now if the Cloud version ends up "better", and all us old die hards (its not for me either) start switching... well, then your rationale may have changed also. 

And so far the pricing looks reasonable.  I am surprised you get the new CC version for free (with the existing $10 subscription). 

I think Classic will die from neglect eventually, but it's not anytime in the near future.  There is a lot of time to see how CC matures.  It's a V1 product.  Worry about V3 time.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

tspear said:


> Sorry Victoria, that is funny.
> The press releases state this is a professional and enthusiast application. I know you are stuck in the position of trying to defend a product and decisions which you did not make. But still, basic printing functionality is a checkbox item.
> This is just one more example of Adobe product management not actually discussing anything with the target customers and building this in a vacuum. Sort of like the whole marketing fiasco.



It's version 1.0 of a professional and enthusiast app. Remember back to the first releases of Lightroom on 2006? Not even a crop tool. In a program built for professional photographers?  

There were discussions with a whole range of customers, and print was not top of their priorities.  High, but not top. 

I will agree they've overhyped their target audience in the press releases, considering this is 1.0 though. There's no way it's ready for most pros.



tspear said:


> Just the name, Classic means they want to kill it off.
> Further, when you read the release notes on Classic, they are getting the low hanging fruit that has been complained about for years. There is no real focus on pushing the product forward. The combination of these two, screams they are planning on killing off Classic. It is just a question of time.


If they're killing it, there's no point them bothering with low-hanging fruit though, right?  I agree, it probably will get killed off eventually... but not before all the customers have another viable Adobe product to move to, and that will be at least a few years yet. They overhype their marketing, like most marketing departments do, but they wouldn't still be in business if they were making decisions like that.


----------



## clee01l

*Operating System:* MacOS 10.13.x

*Lightroom Version:*  LR Classic 7.0
_(Please go to Help menu > System Info to double check the exact version number)_

*Question or Description of Problem: *I've got about 1.5TB of images in my LR catalog.   I could probably  delete half of the image inventory  But that means having to revisit 36000 images to decide which to keep and which to toss. 
I want to be able to work MY workflow from either my iMac at home or my MBP on the road. I want to be able to import images from either machine.   It is not clear to me if Lightroom Creative Cloud Photography plan with 1TB ‎ will let me do this   If I go for the 1TB plan, what happens to my catalog?  How would my MBP access the images in my Master catalog?  Can I keep the files I don't want to move to the cloud locally in a LR catalog on my iMac.   I could care less about iPhones/Android/iPad Lightroom mobile.  These will never fit into my workflow.  
So who can tell me if I can seamlessly work my image from either the iMac or the MBP?
Who can tell me how to migrate my LR Classic to LRCC?  Can I selectively decide which images are cloud based if I make the commitment?  

Adobe continues to mis-manage users expectations.  A change of this magnitude should really come with more preparation of the user base for the change.  Dropping a surprise release is only good if ALL of the user base benefits from the change.  My subscription gets renewed in November,  There will need to be a lot of benefit in LR for me to continue. So far, I'm not seeing it. I already have a license for On1 PhotoRAW and Affinity, but none of these offer the power for image management like the LR database. But I can always go back to managing images by folders.


----------



## Gnits

I think the printing issue is symptomatic of an architectural issue in terms of a central server app and printers and printer drivers working via the Internet. I expect the solution will be a rendering module to create PDFs, which can then be printed locally. Printing high quality images from PDFs is not a trivial exercise and knowledge is needed to configure compression, colour management, profiles  and lots of other PDF settings not required for typical office documents.


----------



## johnbeardy

Lightroom beta was very much an emergency release, and it was a free beta. This is more considered, polished, less of a rush job. So I don't really buy the 1.0 excuse. A funny story is that I heard the excuse a lot at an Aperture pre-release event back in 2005, and when that didn't silence objections the facilitator said "this is Apple, imagine when Aperture gets to version 3"....

We have also seen with Lightroom that while feature gaps might get filled in, if a feature is released in a dumbed down or clunky state, it's unlikely to be less dumbed down over time.

John


----------



## tspear

Victoria Bampton said:


> If they're killing it, there's no point them bothering with low-hanging fruit though, right?  I agree, it probably will get killed off eventually... but not before all the customers have another viable Adobe product to move to, and that will be at least a few years yet. They overhype their marketing, like most marketing departments do, but they wouldn't still be in business if they were making decisions like that.



Actually the low hanging fruit is generally a good way to lower costs. You can often assign junior or new developers to such tasks, because these are less core to the product. They nibble around the edges of the core system so tend to be of lower risk. The result, if managed well, is most users think the system is still being pushed forward, but you have stopped all long term projects improvements. And the technical deficit increases along with the associated technical debt; but this gives you the breathing room for the new product to be built. Further, small low hanging fruit is the easiest to interrupt and shutdown when the final choice is made to axe the project. The senior staff get moved to the new product, with a couple of token old guy/gals left behind to mentor the new junior developers. I have done this multiple times for projects which had a few million users. 

I have no issue with Adobe making such a choice. It is the correct business decision; the problem is the direction they have chosen likely means I have no interest. I do not want to be forced into everything in the Adobe cloud, and that is the obvious direction they are headed. If the database was in the cloud and you could use any file based cloud service, I would jump on board in a second. But having spend countless hours getting away from Apple iTunes and Google Docs; I am very leery of any company trying to hold my stuff hostage. No thanks. Not interested. 
In addition, having dealt with relatives that went all in on a digital cloud solution (think FB, do not ask), then passing away... the offspring lost a lot. This makes backup and continuity even more problematic. I have no illusions my kids will be interested in pictures of my friends and some locations they never visited with me, but I assume they may be interested in pictures of their mother (and maybe myself too!).

So now, it comes down to do I want to continue to invest in being held hostage? Or do I try and cobble together a series of other products to do what Lr does? Or do I say WTF and give up photography and join the selfie crowd and find something else to do with my free time? 

Tim


----------



## davidedric

Early days.  As a CC user not interested in mobile, I am a bit better off (or will be, when I decide to install) today than I was yesterday, and I certainly haven't lost anything.  I will wait and see if these dire prognostications will occur.

In the meantime, I am not going to throw away some years of learning to search and install another product (or set of products, if you include the plug-ins I use) and start over.

Dave


----------



## Victoria Bampton

tspear said:


> They nibble around the edges of the core system so tend to be of lower risk.


The Performance changes don't look like nibbling round the edge. They're messing with code that hasn't been touched for years. Performance is the main thing people have clamored for for the last few years, and they're finally addressing it. Should they have done it years ago? Yes. But better late than never in my book.


----------



## tspear

Victoria Bampton said:


> The Performance changes don't look like nibbling round the edge. They're messing with code that hasn't been touched for years. Performance is the main thing people have clamored for for the last few years, and they're finally addressing it. Should they have done it years ago? Yes. But better late than never in my book.



I disagree. Look at where the performance changes are located. For example, the import dialog.
All the changes I have read of so far do not touch the core database structure, the Library module, the Develop module, the rendering engine....


Tim


----------



## johnbeardy

I don't think you are right there, Tim. The Import-related changes are indeed isolated, new code inserted to run after the Import dialog closes, but the other preview building and caching is affecting existing processes that are important to the user experience.

Something like the Title Is Empty criterion is certainly tinkering around the edges, welcome as it is.

John


----------



## clee01l

JohanElzenga said:


> It's amazing what one single word can do. If they had called it 'Lightroom Professional', would you have felt the same way?


 Yes, I would.  This product called Lightroom CC appears to be the flagship going forward. Yet it is so much an incomplete product from Lightroom Classic (or what ever you want to call it.)  There are too many missing important functions (printing, Smart Collections Keyword hierarchy to name a few).  Looking at Adobe's product history and hard headed decision that the cloud is the only future, first with CS6, then LR6 EoL.
As much as I would like to be about to work my image inventory from which ever machine (iMac, MBP or even Windows), having my images stored by someone like Adobe continues to hold me hostage to their product.  I don't care how fast your internet is today, you can't quickly access 2TB of images as quick as you can locally.  Furthermore, at the prices Adobe is charging annually to host your data, I can buy a new hard drive each year, storing my data locally and still come out ahead. 
Then there is the security of back-up.  If you can recall recently, Code42 abandoned their consumer backup market forcing those of us that were happy with Crashplan to find other alternatives (none of which seem to be as good as what Code42 was offering). There is no assurance that Adobe will not abandon the consumer cloud offering leaving you and me high and dry just as Code42 did. 
I don't mind Adobe having a copy of my Master images like the Smart DNGs.  I do object to having my master images held hostage by Adobe. And don't give me the BS about keeping a local copy.  If I need to keep a local copy,  I have even less of a reason to keep a copy in the Adobe cloud.


----------



## JimHess43

Let's put the idea of the images in the cloud aside for a moment. Have any of you tried using the new Lightroom CC as the primary software for editing images, loading images from the hard drive? I did it on a few tonight, and what a nightmare. If that is what Adobe is going to present as the flagship software then I'm going somewhere else for sure. This Lightroom CC isn't bad as a touchup program for work that has already been pretty much finished with what I call the "real" Lightroom that I have been using for years. But I won't  be saddled with that new mess as my primary software. And I would never pay $10/month for it. Okay, it's a version 1.0. Adobe should be charging at the most  $1/month for it.


----------



## Gnits

I agree with both Cletus and JimHess43 comments just posted.

In my opinion, the new Lightroom Cc Cloud should be called Lightroom Xxx Beta, (replace Xxx with a marketing term of your choice) and be offered as beta software for the next 12 months until it has been proven and all the key components in place.  I think it is a major mistake to call the current version Classic and deceitful to call the new version Lightroom Cc.

But then Adobe seem to luxuriate in shooting own goals. 

I am prepared to walk from Adobe completely if Classic hints at becoming 'Legacy' and the new usurper fails to provide a reasonable path forward. No matter what happens I will NOT be loading my digital assets to Adobe. 

I have a Capture One Licence, Perpetual Licenses for the full Creative Suite and like what Affinity are doing. I like and have promoted Lr in the past, but sense the urge to do that may wane going forward.

Interesting times.  I think Adobe should publish a roadmap of the functionality they will include in Lr over the next 24 months and at what point it might make sense to migrate from Classic to the new CC and still retain local data store.


----------



## PhilBurton

JimHess43 said:


> Okay, it's a version 1.0.



I disagree.  It is NOT a version 1.0.  Version 0.5 is more like it.  I just had a chance to review Victoria's helpful comparison table, and I was amazed/gobsmacked yet again about all the missing functionality.

It is really a "proof of concept" to demonstrate the concepts of access from all devices plus cloud-centric workflow.

Adobe would never publish a 24 month roadmap.  It would be very useful to competition and also open Adobe up to ridicule when the miss dates or don't do all promised features.

Phil


----------



## clee01l

Ferguson said:


> If you want to play, play -- migrate a tiny portion and plan to delete it all later.


I've taken your advice.  I exported a 6000 image catalog of all of my "Process complete" and >★★★ images.  With my near Gigabit internet, (in LRs words) "this may take a while"  It is 30% complete after an hour.

On thing that I've seen is that LR CC is nothing more than a MacOS version of the LRMobile app for iOS


----------



## Rose Weir

My download rate is 5mbps at max -for a few moments....and the upload is rarely above kb rates. Windows Patch Tues and Version upgrades are painful sessions when the download is interrupted or corrupted. There are many internet users outside urban areas who are limited to satellite towers. Rural residents are in 3rd world status when it comes to internet connection. The cloud concept is of no use to me. So it would appear that checking for alternate products would be a wise action. It is doubtful that the 'Classic' will disappear very quickly so there is time to check out the alternatives.
Rose


----------



## Hal P Anderson

As has been mentioned elsewhere in the forum, by the time Classic becomes untenable, the alternatives will likely be vastly different than they are today. Any research you do now will probably need to be redone.


----------



## tspear

Hal P Anderson said:


> As has been mentioned elsewhere in the forum, by the time Classic becomes untenable, the alternatives will likely be vastly different than they are today. Any research you do now will probably need to be redone.



Why? Also, if you know it is EOL, why wait? The longer you wait, the more you have to unlearn on the new software, the more you have to data migrate...

Tim


----------



## Hal P Anderson

Sure, but that isn't the question I was answering. If you want out NOW, then now is the time to do your research, but Rose wasn't in that much of a rush.


----------



## Rose Weir

Hal: as to 'not in a rush'....this is true. I had expected the Adobe Lightroom management to continue. I can understand the company being attracted to the concept of being in the 'leading technology pack' and perhaps they have researched the population numbers in urban centres but for everyone to be in on this 'cloud setting' is way,way into the future for many users. My internet connection just quit this morning and its sunny; usually it quits when it rains. Fortunately,I wasn't  updating .
Its more of a 'mental attitude' along the lines of the phrase 'This too shall pass'....except translate that to mean this raw conversion db management may be impermanent. I doubt that this 'classic' will receive upgrades etc over the next 5 yrs....so its a 'wait and see' while keeping alert to alternative choices.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

tspear said:


> Why? Also, if you know it is EOL, why wait? The longer you wait, the more you have to unlearn on the new software, the more you have to data migrate...


EVERY software product will have a sunset and eventual EOL.  It's all about "how soon" not "if". 

There's a pretty strong argument to be made that a lot of the new contenders who look very promising as an Adobe competitor are, well, new.  Small.  Certainly lacking the bankroll that Adobe has available.  I think it is also almost certain some of them will just fail, and if history teaches us anything, it is not always those with a bad product who fail, but often good products with inadequate funding or business management.  I think there's a serious risk of jumping ship to a new product that actually dies a company-death before Adobe kills Classic.

I WANT there to be a viable competitor to Adobe.  But I think those jumping ship now, early, may be premature not because Classic will not (eventually) die, but because of the immaturity of competing products.

Note here I'm not talking so much about Lightroom-the-editor, but Lightroom-the-end-to-end-workflow-tool-and-editor.

There are people who love looking around and trying software products - go for it.  It helps the competition and that's good.  I just think there's a vast audience here who just wants to edit their photos and move on, and I hate that we may collectively be stampeding them to a premature exit.


----------



## Eric Bowles

It looks pretty clear to me that having a way to integrate workflows and catalogs would be useful.  I would not be surprised at all to see that as a next step.  Let me decide what I want on the cloud - or at least exclude certain destinations.  That should not be that hard.  Right now eliminating that issue makes for a clean rollout targeting mobile customers.

I'd go slow on leaving Adobe since they now have two potential paths and the possibility those paths can be integrated.  Adobe has laid out a direction that covers the future market pretty well.

To be honest, I'd like a strong cloud based storage solution in place of personally buying and maintaining external hard drives and backups.  Amazon or Adobe should be able to provide secure, inexpensive cloud libraries and backup cheaper than me.  One my RAW files are on the cloud, I don't have to worry.  Put my LR backups on the cloud as well.  I'd probably spend $300-500 per year for cloud backup if it was practical with the speed issues resolved.  There is no need to download the entire file - just the portion needed for a given function.  Thumbnails and previews are small - it's the entire file that takes time.   Processing can take place virtually so RAM is no longer an issue.


----------



## JimHess43

After sleeping on it, I have decided not to jump ship and go looking for other products just yet. Lightroom Classic is what I am accustomed to and it works fine on my computer. Since it was just introduced it isn't going to fade away tomorrow. And I always have Photoshop/Camera Raw to fall back on. I like the Camera Raw engine. I don't like the Camera Raw interface as well as Lightroom, but I can use it if I have to and I don't have to learn something new from the ground up. I'm too old to do that, and have too many other things in my life to worry about right now. I just wish Adobe would think a little bit before they market something new. In my opinion, the new Lightroom CC is pretty bad. I can't imagine why anyone would pay to use it right now.


----------



## tspear

Ferguson said:


> EVERY software product will have a sunset and eventual EOL.  It's all about "how soon" not "if".
> 
> There's a pretty strong argument to be made that a lot of the new contenders who look very promising as an Adobe competitor are, well, new.  Small.  Certainly lacking the bankroll that Adobe has available.  I think it is also almost certain some of them will just fail, and if history teaches us anything, it is not always those with a bad product who fail, but often good products with inadequate funding or business management.  I think there's a serious risk of jumping ship to a new product that actually dies a company-death before Adobe kills Classic.
> 
> I WANT there to be a viable competitor to Adobe.  But I think those jumping ship now, early, may be premature not because Classic will not (eventually) die, but because of the immaturity of competing products.
> 
> Note here I'm not talking so much about Lightroom-the-editor, but Lightroom-the-end-to-end-workflow-tool-and-editor.
> 
> There are people who love looking around and trying software products - go for it.  It helps the competition and that's good.  I just think there's a vast audience here who just wants to edit their photos and move on, and I hate that we may collectively be stampeding them to a premature exit.



Lr has been "ahead" of the competition for a decade. That issue is not likely to go away no matter when.
The state of the market has not really changed since I first started looking at digital asset managers. Note: I separate digital asset management from photo editing. Lr for me is more about asset management then editing. 

Tim


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

Eric Bowles said:


> One my RAW files are on the cloud, I don't have to worry.



So why would you not worry if they are in the Cloud? 

I am not really speaking of hacks (though that's a possibility) but: 

- You accidentally delete the image, can you get it back? 

- Software bug deletes the image and you do not notice for a while (anyone remember when a Lightroom release just randomly wiped out a folder when you ran it the first time?)

- Bit rot hits, and your best image from 2016 that has been untouched in the cloud is suddenly corrupt

What worries me about Adobe's Cloud is they are silent on all issues relating to redundancy, versioning and point in time restore (or any restore), security, and reliability.   Maybe they are incredibly careful and good; maybe they are some off-shore, out-sourced, on-the-cheap junk.  How would we know?


----------



## clee01l

tspear said:


> Why? Also, if you know it is EOL, why wait? The longer you wait, the more you have to unlearn on the new software, the more you have to data migrate...
> 
> Tim


On1 and affinity are not mature products. Hopefully by the time LR Classic is ended, they will be. Perhaps Adobe will wake up and find away to merge LR Classic and 
Lightroom CC. If they did that, it might not be necessary to abandon LR completely. 
Waiting but not sleeping might be a reasonable direction to take for the near term.


----------



## clee01l

tspear said:


> I separate digital asset management from photo editing. Lr for me is more about asset management then editing.


Yes, me too.  With LR Classic, you can integrate just about any photo editor into your workflow.  With LR CC it seems to limit asset management to One cloud based scheme with the focus on photo editing.  I can’t use my current workflow with LRCC even if color labels were present and smart collections were available.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

clee01l said:


> Perhaps Adobe will wake up and find away to merge LR Classic and
> Lightroom CC. If they did that, it might not be necessary to abandon LR completely.



All issues of naming and subscription and reassurances and such to the side, I think this is the clear message adobe sent.

There's no reason they could not make them inter-operate from the beginning.  They CHOSE not to.  To me that sends quite a message.

I still believe there is no hurry, indeed many of us might not outlive "Classic".  But there's a real message embedded in not making them work and play fully together.


----------



## clee01l

*Operating System:* MacOS 10.13.x

*Lightroom Version:*  LR Classic 7.0
_(Please go to Help menu > System Info to double check the exact version number)_

*Question or Description of Problem: *I've got about 1.5TB of images in my LR catalog.   I could probably  delete half of the image inventory  But that means having to revisit 36000 images to decide which to keep and which to toss. 
I want to be able to work MY workflow from either my iMac at home or my MBP on the road. I want to be able to import images from either machine.   It is not clear to me if Lightroom Creative Cloud Photography plan with 1TB ‎ will let me do this   If I go for the 1TB plan, what happens to my catalog?  How would my MBP access the images in my Master catalog?  Can I keep the files I don't want to move to the cloud locally in a LR catalog on my iMac.   I could care less about iPhones/Android/iPad Lightroom mobile.  These will never fit into my workflow.  
So who can tell me if I can seamlessly work my image from either the iMac or the MBP?
Who can tell me how to migrate my LR Classic to LRCC?  Can I selectively decide which images are cloud based if I make the commitment?  

Adobe continues to mis-manage users expectations.  A change of this magnitude should really come with more preparation of the user base for the change.  Dropping a surprise release is only good if ALL of the user base benefits from the change.  My subscription gets renewed in November,  There will need to be a lot of benefit in LR for me to continue. So far, I'm not seeing it. I already have a license for On1 PhotoRAW and Affinity, but none of these offer the power for image management like the LR database. But I can always go back to managing images by folders.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Ferguson said:


> So why would you not worry if they are in the Cloud?



I think he missed the first 'N' and meant to say '*N*one of my RAW files are in the cloud'.


----------



## PhilBurton

Ferguson said:


> There's no reason they could not make them inter-operate from the beginning.  They CHOSE not to.  To me that sends quite a message.
> 
> ...  But there's a real message embedded in not making them work and play fully together.


I agree that the separate catalog situation is very frustrating.  And it's possible that it was lack of resources to write the necessary code so enable interoperability.

It's also possible that Adobe will use the Lightroom CC and its catalog design as the eventual home for Classic functionality.  Either explanation could have the same result.

Real issue:  Adobe needs to issue a statement about future directions with enough detail to address our concerns.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

PhilBurton said:


> Real issue:  Adobe needs to issue a statement about future directions with enough detail to address our concerns.



Real issue: They did, but nobody believes them anyway.


----------



## PhilBurton

JohanElzenga said:


> Real issue: They did, but nobody believes them anyway.


Johan,

Then Adobe needs a "get well" plan to rebuild trust.  What actions by Adobe would be necessary, in your opinion?


----------



## Johan Elzenga

PhilBurton said:


> Johan,
> 
> Then Adobe needs a "get well" plan to rebuild trust.  What actions by Adobe would be necessary, in your opinion?



I think that's a tough question, and I don't have all the answers. But one thing they must clearly do is take Lightroom Classic out of that footnote on the Adobe website, and give it the attention it deserves if they don't plan to abandon it anytime soon. Right now, I can't blame anyone for thinking that after seeing how Lr Classic is (not at all) promoted on the Adobe site. It’s all about ‘the future of photography’ and how that is this wonderful new Lightroom CC.

The second thing I would do is introduce a ‘Photographers Basic’ plan, especially for Lightroom 6 users. That plan would be just Lightroom Classic, nothing else. No Photoshop (Lightroom 6 users didn’t have Photoshop so they either don’t need it or found something else that suited them), and definitely no Lightroom CC or cloud storage. Just bare bones Lightroom Classic, to show that Adobe cares about those photographers too and cares about Lightroom Classic too.

An finally, actions speak louder than words. Lightroom Classic 7.1 must not take many months to materialize, and must contain real new features, not just bugfixes and new camera/lens support. And preferably it should be available before Lightroom CC 1.1 comes out.

That may restore some trust.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

JohanElzenga said:


> The second thing I would do is introduce a ‘Photographers Basic’ plan, especially for Lightroom 6 users. That plan would be just Lightroom Classic, nothing else. No Photoshop (Lightroom 6 users didn’t have Photoshop so they either don’t need it or found something else that suited them), and definitely no Lightroom CC or cloud storage. Just bare bones Lightroom Classic, to show that Adobe cares about those photographers too and cares about Lightroom Classic too.



Well, that's nice thought, but honestly the perpetual license guys seemed far more focused on it philosophically as a subscription, than on the cost.  Yes, some talked about the cost, but the overall sense I got was "subscription" vs "perpetual". I find it hard to believe a $5/mo plan goes very far to solving that problem.  But maybe.



JohanElzenga said:


> An finally, actions speak louder than words. Lightroom Classic 7.1 must not take many months to materialize, and must contain real new features, not just bugfixes and new camera/lens support. And preferably it should be available before Lightroom CC 1.1 comes out.



So that presents an interesting question -- was the "performance" aspect of 7 a major feature?

is another significant improvement in performance "real new feature"?

I'd love to see them pick up some of the performance they left behind by being rushed to market to make Max, and would consider significant improvements adeqate as "real new features" for 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and quite a while (emphasis on "significant" here). 

Thoughts?


----------



## clee01l

Ferguson said:


> There's no reason they could not make them inter-operate from the beginning. They CHOSE not to. To me that sends quite a message.


In a prior life I was a program developer.  There are lots of valid reasons that these do not interoperate from yesterday. 
First the program focus was to address performance in the new product called Lightroom Classic.  All indications are that they have succeeded here. Trying to nail a Web centric product onto a mature system such as Lightroom would have been at cross purposes to the goals to improve LR performance. 
Second the cloud based product has been built upon the foundation of Lightroom Mobile (on a different platform). It should have efficiency in new development that are not obtainable immediately.  To that extent, they have chosen to release a product that has some glaring functionality missing.  LR7 did not burst forth with all of the functionality when LR1.0 first came out.  So It is reasonable to expect "big things" for Lightroom CC (cloud) in the future.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

clee01l said:


> In a prior life I was a program developer.  There are lots of valid reasons that these do not interoperate from yesterday.
> First the program focus was to address performance in the new product called Lightroom Classic.  ...



I think you need to go back further. This is supposition not something I know, but...

I think Lightroom CC has been on the drawing boards a long time, and Lightroom Mobile was the beginning.  The architectural decisions, like how keywords would work, were made a long time ago, and (again, supposition) are baked into how the "cloud" is designed, as there are smarts in the cloud.

They decided (I think) to break with the Classic model a long time ago, when they first built LR Mobile, smart previews, etc.  The first rounds of that could certainly have supported the same metadata model as then-Lightroom, but they chose otherwise.

Companies like this do not just work on one version in isolation.  They have a roadmap. The question is not "should they have made the Classic compatible with the Cloud" but "why did they design the Cloud to be incompatible with Lightroom?"


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Ferguson said:


> Well, that's nice thought, but honestly the perpetual license guys seemed far more focused on it philosophically as a subscription, than on the cost.  Yes, some talked about the cost, but the overall sense I got was "subscription" vs "perpetual". I find it hard to believe a $5/mo plan goes very far to solving that problem.  But maybe.



Perpetual has ceased to exist. That ship has sailed. A bare bones Lightroom Classic plan for $5 a month ($60 per year, so comparable with a two year upgrade perpetual license cycle) may not be acceptable for people who think subscription is unacceptable at any cost, but at least it shows that Adobe cares and that Adobe doesn’t try to force people into subscription *and* cloud storage. See the conspiracy theories elsewhere in this forum.



Ferguson said:


> So that presents an interesting question -- was the "performance" aspect of 7 a major feature?
> 
> is another significant improvement in performance "real new feature"?
> 
> I'd love to see them pick up some of the performance they left behind by being rushed to market to make Max, and would consider significant improvements adeqate as "real new features" for 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and quite a while (emphasis on "significant" here).
> 
> Thoughts?



Better performance is definitely a feature if you ask me. Lightroom has already become bloatware, so we don’t need new features just for the sake of having new features. There are a lot of features right now that are pretty useless, because they were implemented in a half-baked way. I certainly don’t want to see more of that, just to show that at least _something_ is new.

Take the ‘Ken Burns effect’ in the Slide show module, for example. Added in Lr 6. That is a nice effect to spice up a slide show, but you have to be able to control it. In Lightroom, all you can do is turn it on, but the effects are completely random. That makes it utterly useless for anything but the most basic holiday snaps show, and something I would gladly trade in for things that do matter. And speed is one of those things.

But more speed is not enough. People tend to get used to that quite quickly. A new computer is blazingly fast the first few days. Less so in two weeks, and after two months you hardly notice it anymore. If really useful new features aren’t added in 7.1 and 7.2, then Tom can write as many blogs and forum messages as he likes and Julienne Kost can record as many videos she likes, but nobody will believe a word they say.


----------



## PhilBurton

Well said, Johan.

Phil


----------



## tspear

JohanElzenga said:


> Perpetual has ceased to exist. That ship has sailed. A bare bones Lightroom Classic plan for $5 a month ($60 per year, so comparable with a two year upgrade perpetual license cycle) may not be acceptable for people who think subscription is unacceptable at any cost, but at least it shows that Adobe cares and that Adobe doesn’t try to force people into subscription *and* cloud storage. See the conspiracy theories elsewhere in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Better performance is definitely a feature if you ask me. Lightroom has already become bloatware, so we don’t need new features just for the sake of having new features. There are a lot of features right now that are pretty useless, because they were implemented in a half-baked way. I certainly don’t want to see more of that, just to show that at least _something_ is new.
> 
> Take the ‘Ken Burns effect’ in the Slide show module, for example. Added in Lr 6. That is a nice effect to spice up a slide show, but you have to be able to control it. In Lightroom, all you can do is turn it on, but the effects are completely random. That makes it utterly useless for anything but the most basic holiday snaps show, and something I would gladly trade in for things that do matter. And speed is one of those things.
> 
> But more speed is not enough. People tend to get used to that quite quickly. A new computer is blazingly fast the first few days. Less so in two weeks, and after two months you hardly notice it anymore. If really useful new features aren’t added in 7.1 and 7.2, then Tom can write as many blogs and forum messages as he likes and Julienne Kost can record as many videos she likes, but nobody will believe a word they say.


A lot of small cosmetic issues, combined with a dedicated focus on completing features or fixing bugs would help.
Even switching to an open beta platform would help. Go to a monthly open beta release and let willing users test the changes fixes, not under NDA. Then release the version every two months. 
Not hard to manage or do.
At the same time, start a dedicated group to refactor code into a shared library with Lr CC. On some trailing schedule as features are shared between the products announce it. Same idea as Bridge and the ACR engine.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## PhilBurton

clee01l said:


> In a prior life I was a program developer.  There are lots of valid reasons that these do not interoperate from yesterday.
> First the program focus was to address performance in the new product called Lightroom Classic.  All indications are that they have succeeded here. Trying to nail a Web centric product onto a mature system such as Lightroom would have been at cross purposes to the goals to improve LR performance.
> Second the cloud based product has been built upon the foundation of Lightroom Mobile (on a different platform). It should have efficiency in new development that are not obtainable immediately.  To that extent, they have chosen to release a product that has some glaring functionality missing.  LR7 did not burst forth with all of the functionality when LR1.0 first came out.  So It is reasonable to expect "big things" for Lightroom CC (cloud) in the future.


Cletus,

I was never a software developer, but as a product manager, I have done my share of "markitectures."  I may be a bit naive here, but I use several backup/synchronization products that treat the web as just another storage location, along with local storage and network drives.  There is nothing magical about the web.  Forty years ago, we called that "time sharing."  And then we had "client-server computing" or "network computing."  The program logic can be separated from the storage subsystem.

If Adobe is saying the opposite, I think they are trying to divert us from other issues because the CC product was released prematurely.

Also, the marketplace has changed since LR 1.0 was released.  What was the competition back then? Nikon Capture NX?  And very hard to use DAM software like idimager.  it's 2017, and user expectations about the minimum functionality of a photo product have changed, because the competition has changed.

Yes, I am being a bit harsh on Adobe, but they need to face reality.

Phil


----------



## tspear

PhilBurton said:


> Cletus,
> 
> I was never a software developer, but as a product manager, I have done my share of "markitectures."  I may be a bit naive here, but I use several backup/synchronization products that treat the web as just another storage location, along with local storage and network drives.  There is nothing magical about the web.  Forty years ago, we called that "time sharing."  And then we had "client-server computing" or "network computing."  The program logic can be separated from the storage subsystem.
> 
> If Adobe is saying the opposite, I think they are trying to divert us from other issues because the CC product was released prematurely.



It has to be designed from the start to support multiple storage systems. Bolting this on later will almost always cause problems. 
In this case, it does not appear as if Adobe planned for other storage systems.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------

