# I just read LR8 is out



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

I see an update but haven't installed it.


----------



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

Yep. Version 8 is now on my desktop. There was a list of changes I should have copied. I wonder if they corrected contrast in Auto Tone. PS CC update as well but probably just for ACR.


----------



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

I see the blog is already out. I should have known.


----------



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

New version of PS CC as well. PS 2019 - version 20.  Looks Iike you have to install your plugins. The Generator is empty.


----------



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

If anyone is using Jeffrey Friedl's plug-ins there are updates for LR8.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 15, 2018)

Zenon said:


> If anyone is using Jeffrey Friedl's plug-ins there are updates for LR8.


If I remember correctly, Friedl licenses his plug-ins by major release.  New major release --> pay for the plug-ins all over again.  So this "major release," which seems like just LR 7.6 to me, will generate a lot of work for him.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 15, 2018)

Zenon said:


> Yep. Version 8 is now on my desktop. There was a list of changes I should have copied. I wonder if they corrected contrast in Auto Tone. PS CC update as well but probably just for ACR.


It's probably too early to tell if Adobe will continue the pattern of a new major release to coincide with their MAX conference, but if so, we will get a major release every October, whether the term is meaningful or not.

Phil Burton


----------



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

PS CC was not just an ACR update.


----------



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> If I remember correctly, Friedl licenses his plug-ins by major release.  New major release --> pay for the plug-ins all over again.  So this "major release," which seems like just LR 7.6 to me, will generate a lot of work for him.



I just checked. It is a trial basis. I just got them about a month ago and the donation for each one was pretty generous. A dollar for each will do this time.


----------



## nwmoments (Oct 15, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> If I remember correctly, Friedl licenses his plug-ins by major release.  New major release --> pay for the plug-ins all over again.  So this "major release," which seems like just LR 7.6 to me, will generate a lot of work for him.



Yep - and having just purchased a Friedl plugin within the last two days - annoying - oh well. His tools are very good so the annoyance is not on him, just the timing of it.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 15, 2018)

anwmoment said:


> Yep - and having just purchased a Friedl plugin within the last two days - annoying - oh well. His tools are very good so the annoyance is not on him, just the timing of it.


Just to be clear, re-registration of Jeffrey's plug-ins can be renewed for as little as 1 *cent* (same as registering it the first time).


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 15, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> It's probably too early to tell if Adobe will continue the pattern of a new major release to coincide with their MAX conference, but if so, we will get a major release every October, whether the term is meaningful or not.
> 
> Phil Burton



It looks fairly likely that they’ll bump the number yearly now, but it’s not a “major release” anymore because we get new features every couple of months. It’s just that version 7.99999 would sound a bit silly!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

That would lol. I hated writing LR Classic CC out every time but that would be easier.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 15, 2018)

Jim Wilde said:


> Just to be clear, re-registration of Jeffrey's plug-ins can be renewed for as little as 1 *cent* (same as registering it the first time).



Sure, but considering the pricing on other plug-ins, he should be getting at least US $10 per plug-in, and as much as US $25 for a few of them.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 15, 2018)

Victoria Bampton said:


> It looks fairly likely that they’ll bump the number yearly now, but it’s not a “major release” anymore because we get new features every couple of months. It’s just that version 7.99999 would sound a bit silly!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Victoria,

I had naively assumed that Lightroom Classic would remain at version 7 for a long time.  Silly me.  A name with the year would also make sense, but I'm guessing that the new release would have to be called Lightroom 20*19*.

Phil Burton


----------



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

I gave him $25 for each one the first time. If it had been a year I'd do it again. Bulk Develop changed my entire workflow and simplified things for me.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 15, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> I had naively assumed that Lightroom Classic would remain at version 7 for a long time.  Silly me.  A name with the year would also make sense, but I'm guessing that the new release would have to be called Lightroom 20*19*.


Yeah, whatever they choose will be fairly meaningless. Releasing a 2019 version in 2018 is a bit weird, but a 2018 would sound out of date quickly. The numbers aren’t really visible in the apps any more, so they’re only really used for tech support on forums like this. Most people have no idea of the version numbers of their apps.


----------



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

This happens so seldom I forgot what the best option is. If we go back to a perviously edited file should we switch to Process Version 5? Just to see I imported a file that had been previously imported and it opened on 5.


----------



## nwmoments (Oct 15, 2018)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Yeah, whatever they choose will be fairly meaningless. Releasing a 2019 version in 2018 is a bit weird, but a 2018 would sound out of date quickly. The numbers aren’t really visible in the apps any more, so they’re only really used for tech support on forums like this. Most people have no idea of the version numbers of their apps.



And of course, we don't want to emulate Microsoft by using a year/month formula


----------



## tspear (Oct 15, 2018)

anwmoment said:


> And of course, we don't want to emulate Microsoft by using a year/month formula


Actually a fair number of software systems I use such as Ubuntu linux use that.
Makes it very easy to determine realise. E
G. 16.04.5 is the fifth patch of the April 2016 release. It would make a lot of sense for Adobe to go that way.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 16, 2018)

I think it would be less confusing if Adobe just called the products "Lightroom for Desktop (CC)"  and "Lightroom for Cloud (CC)"  As Victoria says, the version number or whatever is fairly meaningless.

Microsoft now has "Office 365" which is their monthly subscription for Office.  The consulting firm I just stopped working for had that service, and that included all the familiar Office Desktop apps.  In other words, "subscription" does not equal "cloud."  

I do like the fact that Adobe has a two month cadence for Lightroom.   I just wish they would publish some sort of roadmap or issue a detailed statement of direction.  Geek alert ON:  Four two week sprints.  I don't need to see the backlog of all epic and user stories.   Geek alert OFF.  

Phil


----------



## tspear (Oct 16, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> I do like the fact that Adobe has a two month cadence for Lightroom.   I just wish they would publish some sort of roadmap or issue a detailed statement of direction.  Geek alert ON:  Four two week sprints.  I don't need to see the backlog of all epic and user stories.   Geek alert OFF.
> Phil



nah, they are following the Microsoft cruise control model. Daily/weekly builds. When perceived stable, release.... 

Tim (could not resist)


----------



## Zenon (Oct 16, 2018)

I have admit that one reason why I was not interested in LR7 was because the word cloud was in the name. It wasn’t until I started to investigate I learned it was just like LR6 with a sync option.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 16, 2018)

tspear said:


> nah, they are following the Microsoft cruise control model. Daily/weekly builds. When perceived stable, release....
> 
> Tim (could not resist)


I know you could not resist, but there is this little thing called "enough new features to justify a release."  Also, considering the problems with the most recent Windows 10 release, I'm not sure that Microsoft understands the meaning of, "stable."  And certainly not "bug free."

Phil (who just had to respond)


----------



## tspear (Oct 16, 2018)

PhilBurton said:


> I know you could not resist, but there is this little thing called "enough new features to justify a release."  Also, considering the problems with the most recent Windows 10 release, I'm not sure that Microsoft understands the meaning of, "stable."  And certainly not "bug free."
> 
> Phil (who just had to respond)



lol, that is why I said perceived stable... Plus after that debacle last October they had to "appear" like Classic was getting some TLC.

Tim


----------



## Zenon (Oct 15, 2018)

I see an update but haven't installed it.


----------



## Zenon (Oct 16, 2018)

I know the word debacle has been mentioned but I don't know why I was fine with it. The term CC didn't work for me but it only took about ½ to figure out the differences between the both when I decided to check it out. I didn't know all the details but I never had any issues distinguishing between the two. I pretty much knew right away I was not going to install LR CC until I was ready for it.  A little more to the name like Phil suggested may have prompted me to look at it sooner.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 16, 2018)

tspear said:


> lol, that is why I said perceived stable... Plus after that debacle last October they had to "appear" like Classic was getting some TLC.
> 
> Tim


Tim,

The debacle last October was their product naming and messaging.  I'm not sure what can top that one.  Of course, if Adobe doesn't continue to enhance Classic, then they risk losing subscribers to competitors.  

I just wish I could sit in on some of the product strategy meetings at Adobe.  Or, else, if I could submit questions to Adobe management, and get complete, clear, and honest answers.  When pigs fly, at supersonic speeds.

Phil


----------



## tspear (Oct 16, 2018)

Phil,

No further point in re-hashing history. I am just glad Adobe seems to have been giving Classic some TLC. 
Enough at this point, that I have stopped actively building out an alternative without Adobe.

Tim


----------



## Zenon (Oct 16, 2018)

I don't know about anyone else but I think everything is a little faster.  Adobe did something.


----------



## Zenon (Oct 16, 2018)

Did they do anything to the Detail window or the  exporting ? I'm exporting older files updated to process 5 and they seem to look sharper and cleaner. I may just wanting to see that. Hard to tell.


----------



## Zenon (Oct 17, 2018)

Big high ISO difference between Process Versions 4 and 5.   ISO 32,000 and I only changed the version. 1st image is version 4. I didn't do any additional editing with the original.


----------



## tspear (Oct 17, 2018)

Zenon said:


> Big high ISO difference between Process Versions 4 and 5. ISO 32,000 and I only changed the version. 1st image is version 4. I didn't do any additional editing with the original.


Yes. Version 5 fixes the purple color on high ISO.

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


----------



## Zenon (Oct 17, 2018)

Sometimes you wonder how much of an improvement was really made. Pretty significant for me as I'm not afraid to shoot high ISO. I never tried to fix it and if it noticeably  affected my final result I'd use Canon's software. Then again how often do push you 32,000 ISO crops that much. Gives the overall image a richer look. Maybe that was what I seeing in  1600 ISO shots because my guess it may be all relative.


----------

