# Lightroom 2017?



## mcasan (Jan 21, 2017)

Anyone hear so much as a good rumor when we will just a Lr/ACR camera raw update   and/or  a Lightroom 2017 release?

Seems like CC photography releases are getting fewer, and contain less and less that is useful.   This slow pace has me looking for alternatives.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 21, 2017)

As you are on a subscription, what's in a name? For you, and update from Lightroom CC2015.8 to Lightroom CC2017 would not be different from an update from Lightroom CC2015.8 to Lightroom CC2015.9. We've seen that with Photoshop CC2017, which suggested much more than it delivered.


----------



## mcasan (Jan 21, 2017)

On CC subscription.   Personally what I never need is a Ps update.   I was looking for raw support for new cameras primarily and I never turn down any new features in Lr.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 21, 2017)

That's what I said. Because you are using the CC subscription version, it doesn't really matter to you whether the next update will be called CC2015.9 or CC2017. The difference would be just the name.


----------



## mcasan (Jan 21, 2017)

I am not sure how we got off on naming.....I am interested in content...or lack of it.     Need new raw file support in Lr and any new features would be a bonus.    But I am not hearing/seeing even a hint of anything new for Lr....just minor updates to Ps which I do not use.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jan 21, 2017)

The Photoshop updates are not minor - if you actually make the effort to try out the new features.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 21, 2017)

mcasan said:


> I am not sure how we got off on naming.....I am interested in content...or lack of it.     Need new raw file support in Lr and any new features would be a bonus.    But I am not hearing/seeing even a hint of anything new for Lr....just minor updates to Ps which I do not use.



Of course there will be updates with new camera support. Whatever they are called.


----------



## tspear (Jan 21, 2017)

I am hoping for a cheaper Lr only package. 
I never use Ps.


----------



## clee01l (Jan 21, 2017)

Presumably, a new version number of LR will include significant new functionality.  I expect there will be a LRCC2017 (if for no other reason than to keep the versions in sync with PSCC.)  An LRCC2017 will the introduce new functionality and for a standalone LR7 an upgrade fee.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 21, 2017)

clee01l said:


> Presumably, a new version number of LR will include significant new functionality.  I expect there will be a LRCC2017 (if for no other reason than to keep the versions in sync with PSCC.)  An LRCC2017 will the introduce new functionality and for a standalone LR7 an upgrade fee.



A new version of Lightroom will be just another update for CC subscribers. That is the whole idea about the CC subscription. You get all the new functions as soon as they are ready. So for CC subscribers there will be new things, but probably not more than in any point update. If there will be a perpetual version too, then that version will include all the point updates of CC2015.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Jan 24, 2017)

Yeah, what Johan said... if they are saving up major functionality for a new major release, and keeping it from the CC users, that seems at odds with their promises.


----------



## Mike-Photos (Jan 24, 2017)

I think the OP has asked a simple question making a simple point - we haven't received many new features at all in LR for a long time now.

To their credit, Adobe is the quickest with new camera support. But it kind of stops there.

Wasn't the justification for the subscription option that by creating a regular revenue stream we would be able to receive regular and real feature updates on a continuous basis?
We haven't had a new process version for years and years, which means that the rendering algorithm hasn't improved much either, and it's clear that other software has overtaken Lightroom in quality, at least with specific new cameras. For example, Adobe has officially admitted quality issues with Fuji X files for years now, and there's no relief in sight.
Lightroom is painfully slow compared to other software I use, and there are stability issues that I experience, probably caused by memory leaks. If they are not wanting to put more features in, at least make the software work better.

I was really hoping that the subscription model would be a win-win situation for Adobe and its customers. I just don't think that they have given us enough. Adobe claim their revenue and profits have doubled due to subscription services. What have we really received back from them?
One-person raw software companies are producing better RAW rendering results than Adobe! Does that make any sense???

Mike


----------



## tspear (Jan 24, 2017)

Mike,

Maybe you are not using the new features. I know I have. Dehaze, guides, improved Pano and HDR.... Map module is faster and more stable. I am sure there is more that I cannot recall off the top of my head.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Jan 24, 2017)

tspear said:


> Map module is faster and more stable.



Tim, those are good points, but this is a great example of Adobe having beaten down their audience for so long they look at "faster and more stable" as a feature.  

From my perspective, if I look back to the days of major releases and purchased software, we got more, faster (process improvements are a good example).  Now when we bought into the "give us a revenue stream and we will do more" I think it is unfair to say they have done nothing, but completely fair to say they have not done more. And I would argue even less.  Even basic bug fixes go un-addressed, or addressed very slowly (my example is a data-loss bug in voice memo imports -- affects only a few cameras so they ignored it, but it lost data for those who did, silently, and Adobe ignored it for about a year).

If someone could fill the workflow space, and also provide a better converter, I would be in line to jump ship.  I don't know what I do about tens of thousands of non-destructive edits (converting to TIFF to bake in would be a huge disk space impact).  But I just invested about $6k in building the fastest workstation I could for editing, and it is just barely tolerable on a good day in terms of performance.


----------



## tspear (Jan 24, 2017)

Ferguson,

Touche on the map module speed and stability. That is not so much a feature as a bug fix.


----------



## Mike-Photos (Jan 24, 2017)

tspear said:


> Mike,
> 
> Maybe you are not using the new features. I know I have. Dehaze, guides, improved Pano and HDR.... Map module is faster and more stable. I am sure there is more that I cannot recall off the top of my head.



Hi Tim
Yes, I use Dehaze. And I should have stated that my interests in Lightroom are focused exclusively on the Develop module. I don't do Pano, HDR, or use the Map module.
But really, great RAW conversion software should at least do great conversions, ever better conversions, and have ever better develop features. Especially when one looks at the competition.
I was really excited about the CC plan that included Photoshop, because I thought that at last Adobe wouldn't be competing with itself anymore. What I mean was that there would now be no need to stop processing enhancements in Lightroom because it would encroach on sales of Photoshop.
So, when Capture One and now OnOne offered true layers, I thought it would come to Lightroom. When Irident and Photo Ninja, et al, offered better RAW rendering than Lightroom I thought it was just a matter of time. Process version 2014 didn't happen, nor 2015, 2016, and now 2017, where is it? 2012 is a long time ago! But, it hasn't emerged. Double the profits, and we are not getting much improved rendering or processing or even speed. It just doesn't sit right.

Mike


----------



## tspear (Jan 24, 2017)

Mike,

Lr is first a digital asset management tool. If you want a pure development tool, then switch to Ps or Capture One.
When you consider the breadth of Lr, they have been adding features, however they are not features you happen to be interested in.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jan 24, 2017)

If people claim that one raw converter is clearly better than another, I always have to smile. Raw conversion is not an exact science, it's much more an art. Some raw converters use another approach than others, and depending on whether people like the initial results of that approach they often conclude it's 'better' or 'worse'. I'm not saying the Lightroom could not be improved, but the suggestion that Lightroom is far behind some others I take with a grain of salt, in fact with lots of grains of salt.

http://lightroomkillertips.com/brilliant-article-martin-evening-lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro/


----------



## Ian.B (Jan 24, 2017)

JohanElzenga said:


> If people claim that one raw converter is clearly better than another, I always have to smile. Raw conversion is not an exact science, it's much more an art. Some raw converters use another approach than others, and depending on whether people like the initial results of that approach they often conclude it's 'better' or 'worse'. I'm not saying the Lightroom could not be improved, but the suggestion that Lightroom is far behind some others I take with a grain of salt, in fact with lots of grains of salt.
> 
> http://lightroomkillertips.com/brilliant-article-martin-evening-lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro/



I think that  hit the nail  squarely on the head. The real editing experts would certainly tell a difference , however it's often the old story of a bad workman always blames his tools; or the workman has  not learnt how to get the most from his tools would be more correct. Editing is a life long learning curve and we mostly make it harder by using too many tools 
I also smile a bit at the "slowness" comments of LR even when I do have have dramas myself . We seem to be so impatient these days or  get so annoyed and frustrated because something needs an extra click haha 

As for LR, I'm still on LR5.7 as there doesn't seem much more in CC that I would use or need to use. Although I have not used it -- only because my computer cannot run it ; the new ON1 Raw reads OK on paper so to speak and I hope Adobe take notice of some of the stuff like layers and being (on paper) a more stand alone only program needed for photo editing . Or make a PS type plugin with only the stuff _photographers_ use regularly --- cloning / Liquify / some layer stuff seem to be the ones I use a bit. Some of that is available in small Elements but it's still very limited even when compared to my old CS2 . I certainly don't need a full size PS .
I would also rather pay $xxx dollars to then own the program even though I know it's very unlikely be  any  major dramas with Adobe sub system


----------



## Mike-Photos (Jan 24, 2017)

I didn't post to insert rival software evaluation into this discussion.

My point, and I believe the point of the OP, is simply that the pace of change in LR seems to have slowed down since the CC licensing versions. The main selling point was that we would get MORE, and more frequently, than before. This has not happened.
I only introduced talk of other software to illustrate that these competitive products are changing and improving far more than Lightroom (and not just catching up, but putting in features Lightroom does not have). It just feels that Adobe is sitting on its laurels a bit.

I can understand that for many users Lightroom is more than the Develop module. However, I could just as easily have been using Camera Raw as Lightroom. I don't because I prefer the Lightroom interface, especially with being able to have a full screen preview on a second monitor. Many of us use Lightroom as an excellent raw converter to process, and many times fully process, photos. It's the raison de entre of the software. Maps, Catalogs, Printing, are all based on the images that you manipulate.

It just feels like there is not much attention given to the Develop module anymore. Forget the conversion quality, here are a couple of simple issues:

1) The radial filter is a great tool, and one of its very useful features is to reverse it. Why not allow the adjustment brush to reverse? It's frequently easier to draw a mask over the area you don't want to process. Is this so hard to do?

2) Presets are wonderful, but they're not fully fleshed out and have not changed in a number of years. Why do I have to open a file in the operating system to establish which sliders a preset uses? if I want to update a preset, I don't know which sliders to include or not include.

Please, I'm not turning this into a feature request either! There are a gazillion feature requests. But these are just simple subtle enhancements, not even new features. So little love seems to be given to the Develop module.

Do you honestly think that if there were a rival raw converter with as large a following as Lightroom that the pace of change in the Develop module would be the same? What if a major rival found a way to substantially convert the Lightroom settings into their system, so that we don't lose all our legacy work when we convert? If Lightroom were bleeding users rather than increasing users, it would be very different. And the sad thing is, as I keep on saying, apologies, that Adobe promised us juicy updates and quick improvements because we were becoming permanent payers. Process 2012?

Mike


----------



## PhilBurton (Jan 24, 2017)

Mike-Photos said:


> I didn't post to insert rival software evaluation into this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mike,

IF, IF, IF some other company could reverse-engineer the Lightroom catalog and the various Lightroom Develop, Print, Web, etc, plus offer some features missing from LR and at a good price, then (you fill in the blanks.)

I've read that the Lightroom catalog is a real mess by database standards.  I've always assumed that situaion was due to sloppy programming and that Adobe would clean up all that "technical debt" over time.  But what if that mess is a form of user lock-in? 

Phil


----------



## Mike-Photos (Jan 25, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> Mike,
> 
> IF, IF, IF some other company could reverse-engineer the Lightroom catalog and the various Lightroom Develop, Print, Web, etc, plus offer some features missing from LR and at a good price, then (you fill in the blanks.)
> 
> ...



Hi Phil
I'm a software developer myself, of general purpose software such as Lightroom. By general purpose, I mean that the user base is made up of people using the software at different levels and for different purposes. For example with Word or Excel, most users don't touch even a fraction of the software's features.
I'm a similar kind of user of Lightroom. I don't use the catalog at all, partly because I don't trust it. I literally only use the Develop module. If Adobe could recognize and recover a crashed database like Microsoft can (mostly) recover a corrupt Word file, if I could test its integrity, if the database had transactional processing and recovery features like SQL, maybe it would be different. Writing solid database software is not easy.

I'm not alone in this, by the way, and not just in Lightroom. Many RAW converters don't have catalogs at all, or at least let you opt out of using them. They focus on image processing. One would just assume that Adobe are making so much money that the image quality pipeline received more love. 

I suppose I sound negative, but I'm not. I really enjoy the Lightroom Develop module, I use Lightroom pretty exclusively.

However, I think it could be much, much better, and sometimes the stupid memory leaks and slow processing rile me up so much I go out and (are you there Adobe), I go and purchase other software just to have a go with it. And on those forums, it's similar to here, experts in THEIR software showing how you can do whatever Lightroom does, and so much more. There's no real winner, it's just personal preference a lot of the time.

At some stage, I may indeed find something that is more suitable for me, and then I have to decide what to do about old photos - continue to pay Adobe in case I need to rework them, export them all as TIFFS, or just leave it and move on.

Mike


----------



## tspear (Jan 25, 2017)

Mike,

Lr uses SQL Lite for the database. You can actually open it and read it (just not when Lr is open). To me, I am guessing that Adobe has serialized a fair number of Lua objects directly into the database, this makes it rather "ugly" but can speed processing substantially. I would have preferred Adobe use a descent ORM so you could more easily port to full blown a full blown ACID compliant relational database. Heck MySQL could have been tweaked to meet the requirements 
Anyway, my take on the last two years has been more about stability then features. Yes, they have added a few features, but when i review the release notes I see more bug fixes and performance tweaks then anything else. I think this is a result of user comments/concerns over the past few years. Especially with larger and lower cost full frame DSLR pushing the image file sizes. For many of the software products/systems I have been involved with, most of performance changes are called enhancements and would not be released on a minor version or revision release. Instead they would have been queued for the next major release. For example, the read ahead cache processing....


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 26, 2017)

Mike-Photos said:


> It just feels that Adobe is sitting on its laurels a bit.



It certainly can feel that way, especially when there's newbies snapping at their heels. New software always progresses at a rate of knots. There's a number of issues involved. A lot of the codebase is many years old now, so there's a lot of work that goes into updating that old code to continue to work with new OS's and drivers. They can't advertise "yay, it still works" as a benefit, of course! You also mention Develop... the ACR team is very small (on purpose), and having to add GPU support for high res screens has taken a lot of their time. With the mobile work that's come about over the last few years, there's also been a lot of staffing changes, and it takes new team members time to get up to speed with software as complex as Lightroom has become. None of these are excuses, but it helps to understand a little of the background too.


----------



## clee01l (Jan 26, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> It certainly can feel that way, especially when there's newbies snapping at their heels. New software always progresses at a rate of knots. There's a number of issues involved. A lot of the codebase is many years old now, so there's a lot of work that goes into updating that old code to continue to work with new OS's and drivers. They can't advertise "yay, it still works" as a benefit, of course! You also mention Develop... the ACR team is very small (on purpose), and having to add GPU support for high res screens has taken a lot of their time. With the mobile work that's come about over the last few years, there's also been a lot of staffing changes, and it takes new team members time to get up to speed with software as complex as Lightroom has become. None of these are excuses, but it helps to understand a little of the background too.


This is something that is not fully understood by people that have not participated in large scale coding efforts.  Often this is not even understood fully by non coding management of development teams.


----------



## Gnits (Jan 26, 2017)

Having been responsible for many large scale deployments, I fully understand the challenges involved.

However, personally, I would have preferred if Adobe put more effort into getting the Desktop version to a better place and less effort on their mobile apps.  I can see a place for the mobile apps, especially in a few years time as hardware continues to evolve, but right now I simply ignore / do not use these apps.


----------



## Mike-Photos (Jan 26, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> It certainly can feel that way, especially when there's newbies snapping at their heels. New software always progresses at a rate of knots. There's a number of issues involved. A lot of the codebase is many years old now, so there's a lot of work that goes into updating that old code to continue to work with new OS's and drivers. They can't advertise "yay, it still works" as a benefit, of course! You also mention Develop... the ACR team is very small (on purpose), and having to add GPU support for high res screens has taken a lot of their time. With the mobile work that's come about over the last few years, there's also been a lot of staffing changes, and it takes new team members time to get up to speed with software as complex as Lightroom has become. None of these are excuses, but it helps to understand a little of the background too.



Hi Victoria
Thanks for taking the time to reply!
I do accept what you are saying. All things being equal, BUT all things are not equal. Adobe is making huge profits on the back of their subscriptions, and the big buy-in we were asked to do was precisely because a constant revenue stream would bring more updates quicker.
I understand fully the benefit of a small team. However, if the same small team are working on mobile and desktop, that's really inefficient. Mobile is a completely different platform, with no old code base to contend with. It's two different code bases.
So, two platforms and two code bases when you are making a pile of money deserves two different teams. The mobile app is just starting to get features that the desktop app has had for years. Does this mean we have to wait for the mobile capability to catch up with desktop before desktop can move forward? It just doesn't make sense!
In short, it's quite within Adobe's capabilities to develop mobile and to develop desktop at a far quicker rate.
From what you are saying, by the way, it sounds like Adobe should form another team and rewrite the old code from scratch. If the smaller competition can go as quick as they do relative to Adobe, maybe this is why.


----------



## Jimmsp (Jan 26, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> It certainly can feel that way, especially when there's newbies snapping at their heels. New software always progresses at a rate of knots. There's a number of issues involved. A lot of the codebase is many years old now, so there's a lot of work that goes into updating that old code to continue to work with new OS's and drivers. They can't advertise "yay, it still works" as a benefit, of course! You also mention Develop... the ACR team is very small (on purpose), and having to add GPU support for high res screens has taken a lot of their time. With the mobile work that's come about over the last few years, there's also been a lot of staffing changes, and it takes new team members time to get up to speed with software as complex as Lightroom has become. None of these are excuses, but it helps to understand a little of the background too.





clee01l said:


> This is something that is not fully understood by people that have not participated in large scale coding efforts.  Often this is not even understood fully by non coding management of development teams.



And you have not explicitly brought up testing. Having been a sr manager in a company that produced complex scientific instruments coupled with software that ran them as well as did the analysis of the measured data, I saw where complete testing of the final package often was the bottleneck to a good release. This certainly got more complicated as time went on and hardware changed (as in cameras) and computers and OS changed as well, and new software analysis features were conceived( eg into Develop).
Things that can be hard to fix and test might include introducing something new, like C,  to a package of A and B. A&B originally worked together. Now A works with C and B works with C, but A&B no longer work together if C is present. Every "final" fix needs a complete retest.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 26, 2017)

Mike-Photos said:


> However, if the same small team are working on mobile and desktop, that's really inefficient.



Nooooo, lots of teams (although that comes with its own challenges, of course). Off the top of my head: ACR, LR Desktop, LR mobile iOS, LR mobile Android, LR Web...


----------



## PhilBurton (Jan 26, 2017)

clee01l said:


> This is something that is not fully understood by people that have not participated in large scale coding efforts.  Often this is not even understood fully by non coding management of development teams.


So, so, so true.  Not to mention sales, finance, etc.  And every new platform, e.g. iOS, Android (and its many flavors) adds more challenges to maintain common and _consistent _functionality.

Phil


----------



## mcasan (Feb 14, 2017)

But forgetting major internal changes.....we are not even seeing frequent raw converter support for cameras that have been on the market for months.    If Macphun and On1 can do it....and DxO promises them by the end of this month, I find few valid excuses for Adobe.   It can't be a lack of revenue.


----------



## johnbeardy (Feb 14, 2017)

Huh? Camera support seems as prompt as ever. Fuji XT2 was supported on Day 1, for example.


----------



## Mike-Photos (Feb 15, 2017)

johnbeardy said:


> Huh? Camera support seems as prompt as ever. Fuji XT2 was supported on Day 1, for example.



Yes, even a naysayer like me agrees, Adobe have always been first most of the time with camera support.


----------



## mcasan (Feb 16, 2017)

Lr or ACR will not open the large high resolution raw file from the E-M1 II that was launched just before Christmas.  It will open the standard 20MP raw file.   So Adobe continues with "preliminary" support for E-M1 II.    So my workflow for now is Photo Mechanic to import, DxO Optics to do raw conversion plus lens corrections and other basic edits.   The output is a TIF or linear DNG, not a raw DNG, that I can send to any styling app like Luminar, Affinity Photo, Pixelmator....etc.     I wish I had the choice of staying with CC.....but until they at least complete the raw converter for my camera, they can't happen.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 16, 2017)

mcasan said:


> Lr or ACR will not open the large high resolution raw file from the E-M1 II that was launched just before Christmas.  It will open the standard 20MP raw file.   So Adobe continues with "preliminary" support for E-M1 II.



It'll be in 6.9, for sure. It's only a question of how long until 6.9's release, which I wouldn't expect to be too long. It missed full support in 6.8 because Olympus didn't send them a camera.


----------



## Jimmsp (Feb 16, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> It missed full support in 6.8 because Olympus didn't send them a camera.



A camera seems to be a rather critical missing component.


----------



## mcasan (Feb 16, 2017)

Thanks Victoria.    I am glad I don't have to wait on them any longer.


----------



## philmar (Feb 22, 2017)

Gnits said:


> However, personally, I would have preferred if Adobe put more effort into getting the Desktop version to a better place and less effort on their mobile apps.  I can see a place for the mobile apps, especially in a few years time as hardware continues to evolve, but right now I simply ignore / do not use these apps.



Clearly Adobe has focused it's programming efforts on getting NEW subscribers. The complexity they take on by making it available for mobile users positions the app to be useful for new users. There are lots of things they COULD do to improve the current program for it's current subscribers - e.g. I'd prefer they fix the damn memory leaks, make LR better access the power of GPU acceleration - but their efforts are shareholder driven....the changes are designed to siphon yet more new customers on to their CC subscription base.
So happy I still run LR 5.7. I have resisted their attempts to get me on to their CC model. Even their LR 6 has very few features I want: face recognition? I already have an HDR plugin. I see no reason to pay the upgrade fee. Once upon a time I waited with bated breath for the newest LR update. Now it is 'MEH'.
Adobe clearly isn't doing much to make my experience better - so i have remained with v5.7. But I see them working hard to get new people on to the CC subscription. That is their right.


----------



## mcasan (Feb 23, 2017)

Jimmsp said:


> A camera seems to be a rather critical missing component.



Actually all they should have needed is an SD card with sample files.    I wonder if Adobe will release an update just before Apple's March event.    I guess we know in the new few weeks.


----------



## mcasan (Feb 28, 2017)

I wonder if Adobe is holding off to release Lr 2017 around the time Apple will have their March (or April?) event?


----------



## clee01l (Feb 28, 2017)

mcasan said:


> I wonder if Adobe is holding off to release Lr 2017 around the time Apple will have their March (or April?) event?


I can't see where that would make any difference.  They did not make any special emphasis  on LR when Microsoft introduced the Surface Studio Last Fall.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Feb 28, 2017)

According to the rumours, that event will be about iOS mainly (iPhone, iPad, Apple watch), not about the Macintosh. That makes it even more unlikely that Lightroom CC2017 would be connected to it.


----------



## mcasan (Feb 28, 2017)

Sadly, I agree.   I guess I will give up CC for Lent.


----------

