# Transition from standalone to CC



## erudolph (Oct 18, 2017)

Operating System:10.12.6

Lightroom Version: LR 6.12
_(Please go to Help menu > System Info to double check the exact version number)_
Having read all your emails this morning, Victoria, I'm prepared to transition to CC.  But I'm worried that this is going to cause me a bunch of downtime.  Some questions I have:  will my custom Profiles be automatically transferred to the CC version?  Will other customizations and preferences bet transferred?  Can I continue to run the standalone version?

thanks for any help with this,
Ed


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Oct 18, 2017)

Are you planning to go to the Cloud (CC) version, or to Classic.

The transition from LR6 to Classic is fairly simple (it will produce a new catalog, the old remains, the old program remains, but it is a BAD IDEA to use the old once you move, as there is only one copy of the images and the two catalogs get out of sync). 

The transition from LR6 to CC (the pure cloud offering) is a far, far more significant step, and I would recommend you not do it quickly.  Instead my recommendation (and this is not exactly Adobe's) is to: 

- Stop syncing your LR6 if you are at all (if it's perpetual I think this is moot)
- Export a small portion of your catalog along with images to a new location, where everything is isolated from your LR6 install.  Perhaps even do it on a different computer.
- IMport that to CC (Cloud), and experiment to your heart's content.
- When done delete everything, clean out the cloud, and start over with whatever you want to do.

The CC (Cloud, not classic) is like a whole, new, completely different system in some ways.   Treat it with the same respect you would moving to a competitor's product, not like a version upgrade.


----------



## tspear (Oct 18, 2017)

@Ferguson has a good suggestion here.
So I am planning on playing with the cloud version on my work computer while waiting for compiles.
Based on my reading of the docs, I am not impressed with the direction Adobe is going. My take is Adobe has hired a few to many people from Apple; who make the assumption are users are dumb and everything must be within their protected kingdom.

Tim


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Oct 18, 2017)

@Tim, oh, come on, Apple doesn't assume users are dumb, they just do not care what their users think.  

Bear in mind if you have CC 2015.x now and ARE using Lightroom Mobile and syncing, there is only one cloud -- so even if on a different computer it may interact with your existing Lightroom.  If you are sync'ing.  It's why I suggest people finish up all LR Mobile edits and clear out the cloud entirely before they start using the new CC, and turn off sync on their existing production LR catalog(s). 

There is only one "cloud" and it's the same one LR Mobile used/uses (for any given Adobe account).


----------



## tspear (Oct 18, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> @Tim, oh, come on, Apple doesn't assume users are dumb, they just do not care what their users think.
> 
> Bear in mind if you have CC 2015.x now and ARE using Lightroom Mobile and syncing, there is only one cloud -- so even if on a different computer it may interact with your existing Lightroom.  If you are sync'ing.  It's why I suggest people finish up all LR Mobile edits and clear out the cloud entirely before they start using the new CC, and turn off sync on their existing production LR catalog(s).
> 
> There is only one "cloud" and it's the same one LR Mobile used/uses (for any given Adobe account).



I do not use any Lr mobile. I have all that crap turned off. I tried it briefly and found it was more complicated and a hassle to try and integrate into my workflow than it was worth. Since I still have to work, my vacations tend to only be a week at a time. In which case, I can wait until i get and load everything up on the desktop version.
Plus, I pay pay for Office 365 which includes a 1TB of OneDrive. I have almost a TB of images, why would I pay Adobe another $120 a year? I get the money grab, but I think a lot of the companies are getting ridiculous.

Tim


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Oct 18, 2017)

The new CC version, not Classic, is an Adobe Cloud only Cloud.  You cannot use any other cloud storage with it, and you are REQUIRED to keep ALL images in the cloud (well, all images that you import into it). 

Classic can continue to operate with no cloud storage at all.

I haven't even seen pricing for people with 2+ Terabytes.


----------



## erudolph (Oct 18, 2017)

When installing LR from Creative Cloud, there is Classic and then there is "Other versions, 5.7.1"  Is the top level choice of Classic the most recent version that is not cloud based?


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 19, 2017)

tspear said:


> @Ferguson has a good suggestion here.
> So I am planning on playing with the cloud version on my work computer while waiting for compiles.
> Based on my reading of the docs, I am not impressed with the direction Adobe is going. My take is Adobe has hired a few to many people from Apple; who make the assumption are users are dumb and everything must be within their protected kingdom.
> 
> Tim


I'm not sure about the Apple hires, but I think that Adobe tried to do this major upgrade on the cheap.  

If I as a product manager had foisted these newly launched products that are basically incompatible with each other (separate catalogs!!!) on my customers, they would have revolted, and I would have had to answer to senior management.  More likely, my plan to launch incompatible products would have been rejected at a "project status review" meeting.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Lightroom 2019, or whatever it's called, will either be cloud-only or a single product for both environments.  The Adobe excuse that the cloud environment is so different than the desktop environment, that simply does not wash.

Further out on the same limb, i'm going to guess that the current standalone product sqlite database is such a mess, that Adobe decided it had to start over from scratch, hence the dual product release now.  People who are more technical than i am, who have played with sqlite, can confirm or not this guess.

Also, I wish Adobe would stop naming the product "Photoshop Lightroom."  PS and LR are different products, for overlapping but also somewhat different audiences.  If this naming reflects internal viewpoints or not, i don't know, but it's not helpful.

And I am going to tread _very carefully_ before deciding on an upgrade path.

Phil Burton


----------



## OogieM (Oct 19, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> Further out on the same limb, i'm going to guess that the current standalone product sqlite database is such a mess, that Adobe decided it had to start over from scratch, hence the dual product release now.  People who are more technical than i am, who have played with sqlite, can confirm or not this guess.


I am by no means an expert in SQLite, but I've been developing a very complex SQLIte database for my LambTracker program for 3+ years and as an educational opportunity I've played a lot in the LR database (on an isolated copy in case I really messed something up <G>) In my very novice opinion the LR database is actually fairly well designed, Not fully normalized but not bad and a whole lot better than the Quicken SQLite database that I've also played around in a lot. 

In terms of complexity my own sqlite DB for LambTracker is about twice as complicated as the one for LR and about 3 x more complicated than Quicken, but to be fair I'm trying to do a lot more things in my system including complying with federal reporting rules and detailed tracking that neither LR or Quicken is required to perform.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 19, 2017)

OogieM said:


> I am by no means an expert in SQLite, but I've been developing a very complex SQLIte database for my LambTracker program for 3+ years and as an educational opportunity I've played a lot in the LR database (on an isolated copy in case I really messed something up <G>) In my very novice opinion the LR database is actually fairly well designed, Not fully normalized but not bad and a whole lot better than the Quicken SQLite database that I've also played around in a lot.



Not being a database type, I relied on the assessments of other people, who mentioned that in some cases, a field entry was sql code rather than a value, in addition to the issues around normalization.  It is not surprising that after 10 years, Adobe would feel the need to rearchitect and rewrite the code.  "Technical debt," in the parlance of the developer community.  The longer you put off addressing technical debt, the more expensive the price to pay.

Phil


----------



## tspear (Oct 19, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> I'm not sure about the Apple hires, but I think that Adobe tried to do this major upgrade on the cheap.
> 
> If I as a product manager had foisted these newly launched products that are basically incompatible with each other (separate catalogs!!!) on my customers, they would have revolted, and I would have had to answer to senior management.  More likely, my plan to launch incompatible products would have been rejected at a "project status review" meeting.
> 
> ...



Without knowing about the actual product quality at this stage. 
I think Adobe has really only made two mistakes.
1. The names. OMG talk about a F*** up.
2. Not defining the future of how the products will eventual interact, merge or diverge.

The rest of your posit about the future may be viable, and is very defensible from a product/market perspective.

Tim


----------



## clee01l (Oct 19, 2017)

OogieM said:


> In my very novice opinion the LR database is actually fairly well designed, Not fully normalized but not bad and a whole lot better than the Quicken SQLite database that I've also played around in a lot.


I would support that assessment too. Based upon Table names,  the LR database started with a core set of functionality and newer functionality has been built with new tables as LR matured.  FWIW Face recognition was in the LR catalog database as early as LR 4 and maybe before that. Only fairly recently has the Face recognition interface been bolted on the interface.


----------



## OogieM (Oct 19, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> in some cases, a field entry was sql code rather than a value, in addition to the issues around normalization.


Could be, My own LR database isn't very big and I do very little in the develop module were I think that happens. My impression was that it was a pretty good working design that handled the large number of records fairly well.

Just looking at increases in computer power in 10 years makes it not unreasonable to update it. It's still pretty good as is though.


----------



## CloudedGenie (Oct 19, 2017)

tspear said:


> Without knowing about the actual product quality at this stage.
> I think Adobe has really only made two mistakes.
> 1. The names. OMG talk about a F*** up.
> 2. Not defining the future of how the products will eventual interact, merge or diverge.



I have to agree with Tim's assessment...
To me the name "Lightroom Classic" shouts "..the old version that we will have to keep around until we can get rid of without losing too many paying customers..." And while having my most current work in the cloud and always accessible sounds very attractive, I am not interested in a system where my primary library resides in the cloud rather that on a system I control. I have two Synology NAS units (one for backup only), and am uploading the most important files to online backup storage as well. at our upload speed, that will take months to complete.

In the near future we plan to return to Australia, and I just see myself sitting at the Pink Roadhouse in Oodnadatta watching the files from the Nikon D850 that Santa is bringing me this Christmas upload to Lightroom bit by bit... literally... And this may be the first (and last) internet connection we have for weeks... just NO.


----------



## tspear (Oct 19, 2017)

CloudedGenie said:


> In the near future we plan to return to Australia



May I ask why? SC seems almost as hot as Australia 
Visiting Australia is on my bucket list. But I need more vacation time (and money) to pull it off.

Tim


----------



## CloudedGenie (Oct 19, 2017)

tspear said:


> SC seems almost as hot as Australia



We're from Western Australia, so the humidity in SC (especially last week) is rough...  And if I look at the winter fur my cat has started growing, I guess we're in for the winter from the "The Day after Tomorrow" this year. He has not been wrong yet... 

As Australians with professional qualifications, it is easy for my husband and I to qualify for a special 2-year work visa (type E3) that is sponsored by an employer, but it has to be renewed every two years. Getting a green card and permanent residency in the US is not so easy. We decided at the outset that we would come over for a few years, and see where life takes us.

Although this is a beautiful country, with many really good people, I underestimated how homesick we were going to become! When we drove up to Wyoming for the eclipse, we came back via South Dakota (a bit of a detour, I know) and I thought the Badlands National Park was one of the most beautiful places in the country - I just felt at home.

With the weak Aussie dollar, it is a good time to visit now...


----------



## tspear (Oct 19, 2017)

CloudedGenie said:


> With the weak Aussie dollar, it is a good time to visit now...



I wish. If some side projects I am involved with come together, maybe summer 2018 (our summer that is), I could pull off a three week trip. But we shall see...

Tim


----------

