# Is Lightroom Classic end-of-life?



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## Drdul

I'm sure that the "Classic" version is on the way out, but as you noted it won't happen overnight. Given how many features are still missing from the new "CC" version, I would expect that Classic has 2–3 years left. IMO Adobe needlessly scared users by changing the name to "Classic," but I'm not a marketing expert so what do I know!

My question in considering whether to switch to the new "CC" version at some time in the future is how Adobe will deal with the cloud issue. I don't want to pay Adobe $10 per TB per month to store my images in their cloud, as I already have a robust storage and backup system in place, and I'm not interested in editing 10-year old images on my phone. If the new "CC" version allows me to stay away from the cloud or only store a designated subset of my images in the cloud, then I would be happy to switch when all the missing features have been added. But if Adobe is going to force me to store all my images in the cloud then they better make it pretty cheap to do so or I'll be looking elsewhere.

Edit: Clarified the cloud storage price


----------



## Tony Jay

Sadly, I do not want to be held hostage to Adobe - I will not be taking up a subscription license when the time comes when I need a new version of DAM/image editing software upon acquisition of new cameras in the future.

I really do like Lightroom but what Adobe are offering currently leaves me cold - I do not need or want cloud storage - and I will not pay 3-4 times for the same application as I did for a standalone perpetual license.

So, again sadly, Adobe has pushed me out of the way, sidelined me, and the divorce will not be of my choosing.
I will have to consider other options and plan for the day that Lightroom 6.x becomes unusable...

Tony Jay


----------



## PhilBurton

Victoria Bampton said:


> Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)
> 
> Is Lightroom dying?
> 
> Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.
> 
> Adobe says it's not, but they said that about perpetual licenses, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...
> 
> ---
> 
> Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.
> 
> 
> Classic didn't get many new features
> 
> It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:
> 
> 
> It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
> It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
> You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?
> 
> Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.
> 
> 
> But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.



I'm going to guess that the codebase, the collection of all the lines of code, for Classic is in bad shape after 10 years and the decision was made to "rewrite in place" because a new codebase would be better for new features.  In that case, it is possible that LR CC could take on all the important functionality of Classic, notably a desktop usage paradigm.  I'm not sure I agree with the idea of releasing a half-baked LR CC, but at least I can construct a rationale for their decisions.  I can argue that if my guess is right, then they have to put on a brave face and not acknowledge that they will have a single product again in 2019 (?).  Otherwise, they might kill the sales potential of LR CC by admitting that it is an incomplete product.

The big risk to this strategy is the competition.  They are leaving their customer base very vulerable to being picked off by a new company with a good story and a promising development.

If my guess is wrong, and they have a different long-term strategy then I haven't a clue to their thinking, because I can't imagine what that strategy could be.  And alienating your existing customers is not a strategy for success.

Phil


----------



## clee01l

I think LR Classic is going to be frozen for future new feature development. Essentially EoL.  Like the perpetual, it will continue in its present form until such time that a.) Adobe fully populates the CC version with the missing features b.)Significant number of users abandon LR Classic in favor of the CC version. 
The biggest problem with the CC Cloud version is that Adobe has all of your images and now edits hostage Sure, you can make local copies but you will also need exports of your finished product.  With the previous LRCC2015 subscription, when the product subscription ended you still had your images and your edits in a Limited version of LR.


----------



## Gnits

I agree with Phil.  I have said on another post that Adobe should publish a roadmap for the next 18-24 months.  Fuji did that when they launched their new mirrorless product  and needed credibility with a new market . Sony did the same. It is appropriate now for Adobe to share their roadmap. Then, their most loyal and most knowledgeable users can help support and develop a new product instead of planning on what to do with obsolete and discarded Adobe products. (Lr Perpetual, Lr Classic, Creative Suite CS6). 

At the moment we have to pay Adobe for storage for us to beta test a new product.


----------



## PhilBurton

clee01l said:


> I think LR Classic is going to be frozen for future new feature development. Essentially EoL.  Like the perpetual, it will continue in its present form until such time that a.) Adobe fully populates the CC version with the missing features b.)Significant number of users abandon LR Classic in favor of the CC version.
> The biggest problem with the CC Cloud version is that Adobe has all of your images and now edits hostage Sure, you can make local copies but you will also need exports of your finished product.  With the previous LRCC2015 subscription, when the product subscription ended you still had your images and your edits in a Limited version of LR.


Cletus,

I'm afraid that you are right, absent a public commitment from Adobe to continue enhancements for Classic.  We need that commitment or else we as a group will simply migrate to other solutions.  I wold like to say that having investigated various DAM-only solutions about a year ago, I was not impressed with the alternatives to LR as a DAM.

Rikk, time to take back to your management the high degree of unhappiness/concern/opposition to their MAX announcements.

Phil


----------



## Jimmsp

Victoria Bampton said:


> Is Lightroom dying?
> 
> Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.



I can see them eventually integrating the current two approaches into one package - Lightroom Complete.
They can't expect that the majority of their users will want to store and work on everything that is stored in the cloud. The desktop and large monitors won't go away. The DSLR market will continue to grow their photo sizes to super large files, weighting down LR CC, and making a desktop solution the best way to go. But those of us who want a desktop solution also will carry a smart phone, and we will want the ability to catalog and work on both.

At the same time, the future of the bulk camera market is in the smart phone. There they will compete with a phone that can do intelligent post processing, making Lightroom CC a 2nd place product at best. Most of the smart phone folks that I know have zero interest in post processing a photo on their phone or on a tablet. They expect that their Smart phone will give them what they want and need. So Adobe won't be able to count on the smart phone market, and LR CC, for the majority of their revenue stream.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

clee01l said:


> The biggest problem with the CC Cloud version is that Adobe has all of your images and now edits hostage



You and others keep using that term, and I do not quite understand it.

I am reluctant to move all my images to the cloud for any number of reasons: it's not encrypted (by me), it's not documented in regards reliability, security, redundancy; it's expensive; it's slow.

But to hold hostage implies they will keep them and not give them back unless you pay.  How is that what they are doing? 

You pay, you use their storage. You stop paying they give you a YEAR to download your originals (free).   Try to find a U-store-it that will make you that deal.

I think it's bad they require you use their storage. I think it's bad you can't use 3rd party storage, or your own storage for synchronization.

But I just do not get the "hostage" term that I am hearing here and other forums from more than one person -- how do you figure that? 

Just as an aside, I used "Classic" tonight for the first time in real production, a double header softball game.  I still used Photo Mechanic as a front end, but the process of import, preview, review, edit, and post to my web site (a) worked without any issues, and (b) was considerably faster than it has been in the past. Maybe the end is in sight for Classic, but it is hardly showing signs of a terminal illness.  Mark Twain's quote seems relevant about premature reports.


----------



## sizzlingbadger

My guess is Classic will eventually go. The new Lightroom will have everything that Classic has by then with the option of cloud or local storage. (Hopefully)

I expect the current code base has become a bit of a monstrosity after all these years of development. A new code base built from the ground up with the current features in mind would be an advantage to everyone.


----------



## tspear

Victoria,

The name Classic, and the focused improvements really say a few things things; all of which say the product is EOL. 
The name Classic implies this is the end. Everything from Coke, the PGA and many other marketing examples can be given.
Second, the focus on what users have requested, they suddenly ignore their own vision and do what customers have asked for years? That means one of two items, they either have a new product/executive manager who has a customer focus, or they lost the product visionaries. 
Third, my perception of the improvements are low risk and a good step in the right direction of code cleanup which could potentially be shared with the other Lr CC team.

None of these are are deal killers. None of them are bad per se. Even the bad marketing and name confusion is just laughable, but really does not mean much in the grand scheme of things. Even the premature release of Lr CC, does not really bother me much. It really does broadcast where Adobe is thinking. Which I think is good.

Here is the problem. Look at Lr CC. Look at how the feature set is developed which depends on the cloud.
From the very tight integration and syncing features, which is very robust for a first release, Adobe has therefore invested significant resources in this endeavor and must consider it a core design choice. They have also made it clear, by the very rapid growth in features for Lr Mobile, the new Lr CC which is tightly tied to Lr Mobile, and the minimal improvement in Lr Classic, that Adobe believes a full cloud solution is the future. Therefore, Adobe has made it obvious that they are going to make all products very tightly tied to their version of the cloud.

Having spent days figuring out solutions, and then even more time getting everything out from being held hostage by Apple iTunes and Google Docs, I am not going to voluntarily sign up to be held hostage again. Especially when you consider I was not even paying Apple or Google a penny anymore just to maintain what they had already captured. 
Adobe is planning to not only charge for the software subscription, which I found of dubious value since I have no interest in Lr Mobile, and even less in Lr CC now, they want to charge me to store my photos? From a practical perspective, I am going to keep Office 365 which provides me 1TB of storage, why would I want to spend another $120 bucks a year at a minimum? It just does not make sense.

So, I am thankful for the rather ham-handed way Adobe has managed to release the latest release. This will give me time to find viable replacements, I likely will need to cobble together a few pieces of software to do it. It has also saved me a couple of years of continuing to learn Lr more advanced features and finally starting to learn Photoshop.

Tim


----------



## tspear

Ferguson said:


> You and others keep using that term, and I do not quite understand it.


The Webster dictionary definition of hostage:
_one that is involuntarily controlled by an outside influence _

Adobe is forcing not only a subscription to the software, but you then must either bastardize your workflow and give up the most important aspects of a DAM or must pay at least double the price just to store the images. Hence, the term hostage. 

Tim


----------



## Johan Elzenga

I think Victoria is right in her observations. Yes, Lightroom Classic will probably die one day, but not today, not tomorrow and not next year. There will be more updates, but eventually Lightroom CC will take over. Adobe knows that there are lots of photographers who have many terabytes of images and/or have slow internet connections, and they know that won't change anytime soon. So by the time they feel they can kill off Lightroom Classic, there probably will be some solution for that, like selective sync. And by that time an extra TB of cloud storage won't cost $10/month, but more likely $1/month. Adobe makes some bad decisions some times, but these people are not complete idiots.

This discussion reminds me of the DNG discussion, but where most people react very rational in that discussion, I see very irrational and emotional reactions now. Some DNG advocates say you need to convert your raw images to DNG _right now_, because maybe some day in the future they will not be supported anymore. Most people agree that _if and when that time comes_, you can convert those raw files. No need to worry about that _now_. But with the Lightroom Classic discussions I see all over the internet people are saying they will _immediately_ start looking for alternatives, just because Lightroom Classic _might_ be killed off in a few years from now...

Let's look at the facts: Adobe just released an upgrade that adds new stuff and deals with one of the biggest complaints people had for years. That doesn't sound like a half dead patient to me yet...


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Great feedback guys, keep it coming. I love that we can have a civilized discussion even though everyone has slightly different opinions.



clee01l said:


> With the previous LRCC2015 subscription, when the product subscription ended you still had your images and your edits in a Limited version of LR.



That applies to Lightroom CC too. Editing stops working, and it won't sync up to the cloud anymore, but it'll download from the cloud for a year to get your photos onto a local HD and you can still browse/export etc.



PhilBurton said:


> I'm afraid that you are right, absent a public commitment from Adobe to continue enhancements for Classic.  We need that commitment or else we as a group will simply migrate to other solutions.


They have made that commitment publicly Answering Your Questions on Lightroom CC, Lightroom Classic CC and More  Question is whether anyone trusts it.


----------



## johnbeardy

Victoria Bampton said:


> That applies to Lightroom CC too. Editing stops working, and it won't sync up to the cloud anymore, but it'll *download from the cloud for a year* to get your photos onto a local HD and you can still browse/export etc.



I was going to ask if you have ever seen that publicly documented, Victoria, and where. But I just found
Creative Cloud Photography plans | Common questions and under "What happens to my photos if I end my membership?"

Adobe will continue to store your original images for one year after your membership lapses. During that time, you can continue to launch Lightroom CC to download your original files from our cloud services.​
John


----------



## Gnits

Adobe publicly committed to Lr Perpetual. Enough said.


----------



## Umberto Cocca

I do not like completely cloud-based solutions.  I love to have the flexibility and possibility to store my data on the cloud. See what is happening with the WPA2 wireless security flaw, who knows how long it has been there, exploited by whom?
And we can expect that password cracking becomes much faster with the newly announced quantum processors.

If it is a home-based photographer user, who manages family and friends photo archives, then it is most likely a no-problem.  

But what if someone steals your latest Pulitzer shot you've been working for the past 2 months? (ok, now I am exaggerating a bit! )


----------



## tspear

@JohanElzenga
The issue for me is Adobe has clearly stated the direction they are going. It is not a direction I am interested in, and any solution they come up with to avoid using their cloud will will likely be very poorly thought out, or have other bad unintended consequences. The cloud aspect is way to central to how the system is designed to just casually turn it off.
Therefore, since I am still learning the tools from Adobe, why continue to invest?

@Victoria Bampton
The short answer is, no Adobe has no credibility. With Creative Suite, Adobe did a reasonably good job of announcing the subscription change a version or two ahead of time.
With Lr, Adobe has treated the customer base like a captured market (which it largely is) and been very misleading. There is nothing definitive I or likely others can point too as a technical lie, but the statements always implied one thing and left an out for the company. The problem is, Adobe has taken the "out" too many times and left an impression that they fail to follow through. This is a result of the super careful messaging the company does, and the customer base Adobe has.
A few example where Adobe has dramatically missed the message from the users and shown they likely do not really understand the at least vocal group here and elsewhere:
1. The debacle of the import dialog has not been forgotten
2. Two years of largely unseen improvements except stability fixes. The stability fixes are likely caused by poor testing or coding.
3. The 2GB backup warning problem? The very fact that made it into a production release signifies none of the developers or testers use a a large set of images. Which counters @JohanElzenga belief the company is aware that people have TB of images. If they knew people had TB of images, such a bug would never had made it out of development, let alone into testing and production.

I am sure there are more examples, but I am not sure I have seen any company miss manage or fail to understand the customer base since BlackBerry missed the SmartPhone market.

Tim


----------



## tspear

Gnits said:


> Adobe publicly committed to Lr Perpetual. Enough said.


I am 99%b sure they always left themselves an out. It was never open ended, but did imply it would exist for a while.

Tim


----------



## johnbeardy

Gnits said:


> Adobe publicly committed to Lr Perpetual. Enough said.



What Hogarty actually wrote is here : "Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely." That "indefinitely" is deliberately woolly - in any case people wouldn't have believed him if he had said "forever"! 

And while they might not _support_ LR6 after December, they could meet the letter of that statement by leaving LR6 _on sale_, available indefinitely.

John


----------



## MarkNicholas

Here is my guess. I think they will wait and see what happens before dividing future direction. If LRcc doesn’t take off then the longer LRcc Classic will survive. 

This is a huge change and I suspect there will be relatively few subscribers who adopt LRcc 100% and upload everything, particularly as we only get 20GB with our account and have to pay for more.

I can see it being a useful tool while you are on the road and for phone photos but I think it will take a long time (if at all) before the momentum shifts fully to LRcc.


----------



## Les Bessant

Victoria Bampton said:


> They have made that commitment publicly Answering Your Questions on Lightroom CC, Lightroom Classic CC and More  Question is whether anyone trusts it.



After {mumble} years working in IT, trusting any vendor isn't something I tend to do. But I think there's some hope in this statement:



> We know that for many of you, Lightroom Classic, is a tool you know and love and so it has an exciting roadmap of improvements well into the future. But please hold us accountable as we make updates in the following months and years to let us know if we’re meeting your expectations.



Would go a long way to reducing suspicions if they shared even edited highlights of the roadmap....


----------



## Johan Elzenga

johnbeardy said:


> What Hogarty actually wrote is here : "Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely." That "indefinitely" is deliberately woolly - in any case people wouldn't have believed him if he had said "forever"!
> 
> And while they might not _support_ LR6 after December, they could meet the letter of that statement by leaving LR6 _on sale_, available indefinitely.
> 
> John



Another thing is that Tom doesn't decide this. Maybe he fully intended to keep Lightroom out of CC at all, but he was first overruled when Lightroom was added to CC anyway, and recently he was overruled again when it came to keeping the promise to make Lightroom available via a traditional perpetual license.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

johnbeardy said:


> What Hogarty actually wrote is here : "Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely." That "indefinitely" is deliberately woolly - in any case people wouldn't have believed him if he had said "forever"!



Yeah, very wooly. Most people read it as forever, but the dictionary definition is an unspecified length of time.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

tspear said:


> The Webster dictionary definition of hostage:
> _one that is involuntarily controlled by an outside influence _
> 
> Adobe is forcing not only a subscription to the software, but you then must either bastardize your workflow and give up the most important aspects of a DAM or must pay at least double the price just to store the images. Hence, the term hostage.
> 
> Tim



But that argument (storage) only applies if you switch to the new Lightroom CC.  No switch, no hostage.

I think Adobe did a very unethical thing with dropping perpetual after promising it would remain "indefinitely" and if they try to take the out that "indefinite" is not definite, they know how people read that statement.  But I also do not see how not releasing a NEW version of perpetual holds anyone hostage either.  Those that changed to subscription decided to, those that bought "Perpetual" got it, and if they wanted it to keep forever they can (+/- it still running of course).  Call them liars perhaps, but hostage takers?

Now YES: If you decide to switch to CC, I think being a proprietary storage is bad.  But I still do not get the hostage comment -- it's like a supposed victim walking into a kidnappers den (do they have dens?) and saying "tie me up". 

And YES, I think that Adobe did us all a bad deed by not making Classic fully interoperable with the new Cloud thing, and I think it signals it is EOL eventually (but with a long, boring death scene).  

And my goodness, they could hardly have done a worse job on names (though I think a fair effort was put into explaining after the fact).

But hostage?  I just think it helps focus the debate to avoid hyperbole in an area where Adobe actually DID do something reasonably well -- for those who CHOOSE to subscribe, they left a very palatable method to access your archive, in my opinion.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## clee01l

Ferguson said:


> You stop paying they give you a YEAR to download your originals (free).


If you have a large image inventory, it will probably take a full year to download your originals. Then, what about the adjusted derivatives? With LR Classic if you stop your subscription, you still have alll of your originals AND local software to produce (export) derivatives as needed. This is what I mean by being held hostage. Perhaps kidnapped is a better term.  “We won’t kill the baby as long as you continue to pay ransom.”


----------



## Johan Elzenga

clee01l said:


> Perhaps kidnapped is a better term.  “We won’t kill the baby as long as you continue to pay ransom.”



I think 'daycare' is a better analogy. Adobe didn't steal that baby, you brought it to them.


----------



## PhilBurton

Les Bessant said:


> After {mumble} years working in IT, trusting any vendor isn't something I tend to do.



And having worked for many vendors (for enterprise information security, mainly) for {mumbley-mumble} years myself, I have often been the cause of this issue.  Not me personally, but my company overall.

Phil


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

clee01l said:


> If you have a large image inventory, it will probably take a full year to download your originals. Then, what about the adjusted derivatives? With LR Classic if you stop your subscription, you still have alll of your originals AND local software to produce (export) derivatives as needed. This is what I mean by being held hostage. Perhaps kidnapped is a better term.  “We won’t kill the baby as long as you continue to pay ransom.”



For those migrating to Lightroom CC, the good news is for the vast majority, internet upload speed is a small fraction of download.  So if it took 3 days to upload, it only might take 8 hours to download.  Now those who buy in and develop a huge archive in the cloud could have this sneak up on them a few gigabytes at a time, and be astounded when they try to download.

I think a far more interesting internet aspect is going to be people who do not really think about it, and are on metered services or cellular plans, and their $10 adobe bill gets over-shadowed by $150 internet bill unexpectedly.  Especially for mixed Classic/CC users, especially^2 for those with several devices -- you pay going up, then it comes back down and maybe more than once if you have multiple devices.

The edits issue is interesting.  The simplest option would appear to be to use Lightroom Classic (part of your subscription or add for $10 for a month depending), sync down to it, and then stop paying. You have Classic available to view/export your edits in full.   Maybe you can do it from Lightroom CC Desktop also, I have not tried, but Classic gives a familiar and more full featured way to manage it post subscription since it has print/export/plugins.

But honestly when someone is exiting the Adobe world, they likely want to cover that archive from parametric edits to real ones, and export as TIFF's.    Buy a lot of storage for that day, but it's also a viable option.  I wish someone else would reverse engineer Adobe edits so you could migrate to a new tool WITH non-destructive edits, but no sign of that on the horizon that I have seen.


----------



## mylesvk

My Lightroom story. Have had Lightroom from the beginning back in 2007. Photography is just a hobby. I am the keeper of the family photos. On Sept 24, I upgraded to LR 6 for $79. Yesterday, Oct 19th I decided I would take the plunge and go with the $9.99 subscription. I called Adobe at their 800 number told them my story and what i wanted to do. Adobe said  No Problem. I paid the $119 for the annual subscription, and they refunded  my $79. Now I have Lightroom Classic 7,  LR CC, LR for my iPad, and LR mobile. Many people are upset with Adobe and their subscription plans. I just thought to myself Lightroom is by far the Best out there, in the grand scheme of things nothing really comes close. So I decided to stay with what I know, what I am comfortable with, what took me years to learn.  $ 9.99 monthly is really a very small price to pay for the Best.


----------



## CloudedGenie

I have been collecting the “most original” versions of all my raw files (some straight file copies from the memory cards, others after being mangled by early versions of idImager) to weed out duplicates and find order after our earlier data loss when our old NAS RAID controller died. Between the iPhones uploaded to the PCs and iPads and cloud... that is a mess of its own... On top of that, I have scans of all my negatives and prints and now those of my mom and mother in law as well...

As I’m going through these files, I’m cleaning up the files using exiftool, making sure the local time and timezone is correct, and adding the new exif standard tags for these where possible. Because Lightroom doesn’t recognise the camera for video files (I have not checked to see whether that is still the case in Classic 7), I am keeping each camera’s files together. It also makes it easier to manage, because each camera had a start date where we bought it, and a last date wherafter if was sold or fell in disuse... within each camera’ directory, everything is organized in date folders.

I’ve been doing this simply to get everything ready for import into a new Lightoom catalog, allowing me to distinguish between “touched” and “untouched” camera originals going forward. 

Now I also want to make sure that any metadata changes I make will be written to the file — into standard xmp fields (especially for Face tagging, location tagging and approximate date estimates for scanned photos) instead of just the Lightroom database. That way, if “Classic” lives on and in future becomes part of some “Lightroom Complete” version, life will just go on... but if they decide to EOL “Classis” or kill it to force me to store my date primarily in the cloud, it will be much easier for me to migrate to another solution.

To me, sadly, “Lightroom Classic” does not sound like there will be any new development, other than bug fixes — i.e. end of line...


----------



## tspear

@Ferguson 
It is rather simple. Adobe had an implied promise with the software. You subscribe, we will provide improvements.
Now it is you subscribe, we will force you to also purchase our cloud storage.
You may not view it as being held hostage, but I do. The direction Adobe is going will make it harder to migrate to any other solution; they are planning to hold my data captive. I then lose access to it or I pay the ransom.

Is this a choice, technically yes. Just like technically Adobe did not lie that they will not have additional perpetual versions. 
So I likely will disagree with you not wanting it to be called being held hostage. I along with many others, like to support or use companies which continue to provide value. And they keep our business by providing value, not due to walls being placed around me or my data.

The end result, those that want to live in the Adobe garden, may. Those that want the ability to leave, probably should before the official EOL for Classic. Personally, I do not see a value in continuing to invest in Lr and provide Adobe hundreds of dollars that could be spent on other solutions. When the longer I wait, the more pictures I have, the more time I have in learning the tool, the more I have invested, the more painful it becomes to switch. In fact, this morning I canceled the auto-renew for my Photography Plan. I hope I have found a solution to the conundrum before my current subscription period runs out (either I accept the Adobe garden or I found an alternative solution).

Tim


----------



## tspear

mylesvk said:


> My Lightroom story. Have had Lightroom from the beginning back in 2007. Photography is just a hobby. I am the keeper of the family photos. On Sept 24, I upgraded to LR 6 for $79. Yesterday, Oct 19th I decided I would take the plunge and go with the $9.99 subscription. I called Adobe at their 800 number told them my story and what i wanted to do. Adobe said  No Problem. I paid the $119 for the annual subscription, and they refunded  my $79. Now I have Lightroom Classic 7,  LR CC, LR for my iPad, and LR mobile. Many people are upset with Adobe and their subscription plans. I just thought to myself Lightroom is by far the Best out there, in the grand scheme of things nothing really comes close. So I decided to stay with what I know, what I am comfortable with, what took me years to learn.  $ 9.99 monthly is really a very small price to pay for the Best.



The problem is not the $9.99 for Lr and Ps. 
The problem is the cloud. I am not willing to pay $30 bucks a month for Lr and Ps.
I am almost at 1TB of images, and I am getting ready to add a lot more from my wife which are not in my current library. This means the 2TB cloud package; it also likely means I need to upgrade and maintain a faster internet plan. So $10 for the software, plus $20 for storage, plus $40 for faster internet... Sorry, too rich for my blood, and by the very approach, I can foresee Adobe is going to make it harder to move away by embedding more in the cloud and not on the desktop. Just look at Sensi for an example...

Tim


----------



## mylesvk

anything Cloud for me with Adobe is incidental. I could some day become more acquainted with their Cloud offerings as they evolve. For now my LR Classic uses Smugmug. My entire catalogue is (published) to an account with Smugmug. Gotta tell you, Smugmug saved my tail on one occasion. think its $60  for unlimited storage of Originals


----------



## Johan Elzenga

tspear said:


> @Ferguson
> It is rather simple. Adobe had an implied promise with the software. You subscribe, we will provide improvements.
> Now it is you subscribe, we will force you to also purchase our cloud storage.



Why do you act like Adobe is holding a knife at your throat and forces you to go to Lightroom CC? Stick with Lightroom Classic! _If and when_ Adobe discontinues Lightroom Classic, _then_ you have every right to complain.


----------



## Woodbutcher

I liked Victoria's post.  Basically the new CC is not complete, ie key features not implemented yet.  Not being able to print is huge for me.  The ability to publish to a hosting site is huge to me.  These will be added as CC matures.  Eventually they will be close and then I'll consider moving over.  Or I'll look at other products.  Change is a constant in the tech world.  Meanwhile I'll start with some collections in Classic CC that I'll use for mobile just to see how that can fit into my workflow.  Yes, that means smart previews, but it is a good way to test for future transition.  I never really did that with mobile before other than testing.

But I'm not going to do anything drastic until I see the announcement from Adobe that says Classic is going away.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

JohanElzenga said:


> I think 'daycare' is a better analogy. Adobe didn't steal that baby, you brought it to them.


Oh Johan, you made me laugh out loud, and that's quite an accomplishment this week!


----------



## Jim Wilde

Sorry to have been away while all this was kicking off (not by choice, I assure you), but now that I'm back I thought I might add my own 2c.

Victoria has done a fine job trying to bring some much-needed objectivity to the various debating points, all of which were in danger of becoming one single confused emotional issue. Unfortunately, some of the following comments are showing that objectivity is still somewhat lacking in some areas. So, for the record:

For the perpetual license holder, this absolutely sucks, no question. We all get that, even those of us that have no issue with a subscription model. But there's *nothing* that we can do in this forum (or even using any available back channels) that will change that fact. Vent about it by all means (for now, but please not for much longer), though I would suggest to you that venting here is just a waste of your time and you'd get more of your message home on an Adobe forum. At some point those of you who are adamant that they'll never subscribe will need to stop venting and start deciding what you're going to do next, though the options are somewhat limited if subscription is off the table. If you do move to a different software supplier, choose wisely....you might not like subscription software but the market seems to love it, so no guessing who else might look at Adobe's success with that model and decide to try it themselves.

LR Classic: now there's a name. For the record, I thought the whole naming thing was bizarre, and still do. Agreeing with Johan I suspect this decision was taken way above Tom Hogarty's level. Unfortunately it's added even more confusion and intrigue, and opened the door to all the expected conspiracy theories. I'm not getting into that, but would just like to say for the current subscriber, nothing has changed. Johan has made some excellent points, and I agree with him that there is plenty of time for the "end-of-lifers" to take stock and make their exit plans. In the meantime we've got some substantial performance improvements in many areas (even better if you're on a Mac), and a handy-looking new tool (when I figure out how to best use it). We also get the funny new kid on the block (more about which below), a bit of storage cloud storage to test it, and all at no extra price. What's not to like about that?

Will there be more new features? I'm betting yes, if only for the fact that Camera Raw will no doubt continue to be developed and I'd expect to see those improvements feed back into Classic. Also, I'd expect to see more performance improvements, especially on Windows10. So I see no reason yet for some of the "doom and gloom" being offered up. Concern, for sure if you're minded that way. I'm not, by the way (not that it matters).

And then we come to the new kid, LRCC. Let's start by getting rid of the "hostage crisis"....I mean, seriously? None of the existing subscribers are being forced to use the cloud unless they VOLUNTARILY choose to do so. And I don't for one minute think there is any question of assets being held hostage, but if anyone actually thinks there's a risk that Adobe would somehow hold you to ransom once you've signed up and uploaded then I'd suggest you just walk away before you even start....guys, it really is as simple as that! The only people who might want to look carefully at the T&Cs are those signing up to the LRCC-only plan, for whom there is no choice other than to have the images in the cloud. For those users, Ferguson has already expressed his own reservations, and there will doubtless be others with similar concerns, but I guess there'll still be plenty in today's world who wouldn't give such issues a second thought. 

Has anybody used the new app yet? There's been a lot of stuff about it being rushed out too early, not ready yet, etc. And I'd agree if you're coming from the pro/power user perspective....it's not ready for that, IMO, and may never be ready for that segment (which would doubtless prolong Classic's life!). But I'm not entirely sure it was especially designed with those users in mind. I'm guessing that, initially at least, it was more to be aimed at all those users Adobe had in mind when they redesigned the Import module back in 6.2. I think that Adobe are betting that there's a (large) bunch of not-yet-affiliated users (both ILC and smartphone) who would welcome a top-quality image editor that also took away all the hassle of file/folder management. And when you put the whole ecosystem thing together, they are thinking that there's a lot of people going to want that. Time will tell, of course, but personally, I like it very much (the whole thing, not just the new LRCC desktop app), though it will be better with some hoped for additions (especially local peer-to-peer sync, for example). Selective sync I'm less bothered about, it can be done manually fairly easily if you still have Classic as part of the subscription. In short, I'll use it, especially looking forward to see how the AI stuff develops.....but it'll still be a long time before even this hobbyist would consider it a full replacement for Classic (did you read the feature comparison in Victoria's blog posts?). In the meantime I intend to carry on using Classic as my main desktop app, so all my images are still held and backed up locally. But as I've also got them uploaded to the ecosystem in full original form I've got all the benefits of the whole syncing and AI searching tools to play with as well. Which gives me choices and potential decisions further in the future.

I see that since I started typing this, there have been some additional good points being made, so thanks for those, guys. I'll end with a plea: I understand many of you have concerns, and even though I think some are misguided or misplaced they're obviously real to you. Many of the issues you've raised are totally outside our control or influence, and some of those issues we also share. But other than give your our own perspective, there's little more that we can do....Victoria's given you a host of information about the changes, and it would be really great to help her by starting to think about putting these more emotive issues away (because we can't fix them here) and start perhaps looking in more detail at the changes and how they might be used. Thanks for listening.


----------



## tspear

JohanElzenga said:


> Why do you act like Adobe is holding a knife at your throat and forces you to go to Lightroom CC? Stick with Lightroom Classic! _If and when_ Adobe discontinues Lightroom Classic, _then_ you have every right to complain.



You are missing my point. Even @Victoria Bampton says in her post that Lr Classic will go the way of the Dodo bird. If you want to continue with Lr at that point, you are forced into Lr CC. 
I can look at how Lr CC is being designed, sold and pitched. In addition, look at the core foundations of how it works and its dependencies. It revolves around the Adobe cloud. That is fine, that is a design choice Adobe has made. If I want to continue with Lr at such a point, I am forced into the cloud. So yes, they have a metaphorical knife at my throat. 
You will note, it is not just me that says this. This is being stated by all sorts of people on here who live and breathe software products for a living, or are software engineers. So far, I have yet to see any IT people who disagree with the fundamental analysis of the direction Adobe is going.

Adobe understands money, as long as they continue to get your money, they will not likely change. When they fear a loss of revenue, with out a replacement source of revenue, they will pay more attention. Therefore, if I continue to subscribe to the Photography plan I am:

Implicitly telling Adobe I am ok with the future direction they have selected. And I am not ok with it.
Based on simple math and accounting, my $10 bucks a month cannot fund the same level of growth as when there was just two products being supported. Now with three products being supported, there has to be less revenue to go around. The company can make some level of "investment", but I can pretty much guarantee which product will get short shrift. And it will not be Lr CC or Ps.
I am continuing to spend time and money for a product which I do not believe there is a long term path forward.
Hence, for me, I am 99% certain it is time to start looking for a new solution. 

One last minor point. The timing to me matches the import dialog fiasco, which many people thought was Adobe's first step to appeal to what was labeled the Selfie crowd. When the import dialog blew up; which was the first step to build a product for the "masses"; the solution put forward by some MBA was we will create a new product. Build it for the "masses" on the cloud, and then get everyone to migrate over.

Tim


----------



## Victoria Bampton

tspear said:


> Even @Victoria Bampton says in her post that Lr Classic will go the way of the Dodo bird.


No, I said IF it did. This is all purely theoretical, because it'll depend on the majority of users moving over to LRCC and Classic no longer having enough customers to be worth developing. 

There's no question, they ARE going subscription. But even the cloud-native LR CC app doesn't force you to upload all your photos - you can pause sync and not unpause it again.


----------



## OogieM

Ferguson said:


> I am reluctant to move all my images to the cloud for any number of reasons: it's not encrypted (by me), it's not documented in regards reliability, security, redundancy; it's expensive; it's slow. But to hold hostage implies they will keep them and not give them back unless you pay.  How is that what they are doing? You pay, you use their storage. You stop paying they give you a YEAR to download your originals (free).





clee01l said:


> If you have a large image inventory, it will probably take a full year to download your originals. Then, what about the adjusted derivatives? With LR Classic if you stop your subscription, you still have alll of your originals AND local software to produce (export) derivatives as needed. This is what I mean by being held hostage. Perhaps kidnapped is a better term.  “We won’t kill the baby as long as you continue to pay ransom.”



The issue with saving files externally is critical IMO. Try living in a rural area where even the cost of downloading updates to system software and apps can be huge. Plus the time. At our current upload speeds it would take me just over 6 months to upload only my existing photos to the cloud. Download is faster and that is not even counting any the stuff I am scanning, digitizing and editing for the historical society. 

A single one of the Historical Society collections will comprise approximately 3 TB of data once finished. That is the smallest collection. The others are still unquantified but that small collection consists of about 1500 images. There is one collection that is at least 5000 images and another that no one really knows how big it is. 

I also have major issues with the security, backups, copyright and other issues that everyone has mentioned. 

Going to just the feature set. I do a huge amount of stuff using smart collections. Without that option LR CC Cloud is useless to me. I wish the LR mobile app that will still work with Classic supported keywording, that is the most critical component of what I need to do. 

I am paying for the subscription and for that I do expect continued bug fixes and upgrades. But forcing me to the cloud is not an option.

Since in my case my primary use for LR is cataloging and metadata I may have more options compared to other folks. I could go with other museum cataloging software, (and in fact Adobe's actions have made me start a project to go out and investigate open source museum and image cataloging SW again) or worst case roll my own. As I mentioned in another thread the LR SQLite Database is fairly easy to deal with and if all I needed to do was deal with editing metadata, keywords and so on I could probably hack something to keep that part at least updating even when LR Classic is killed. For me the key is the database of information not the tool I use to edit, access and use it.

For me the actions of major corporations are forcing me more and more into moving everything critical to open source or at least things I can control and SW that allows me to import and export the critical data into many different formats to adapt to future SW tools.


----------



## OogieM

Ferguson said:


> FBut honestly when someone is exiting the Adobe world, they likely want to cover that archive from parametric edits to real ones, and export as TIFF's.    Buy a lot of storage for that day, but it's also a viable option.  I wish someone else would reverse engineer Adobe edits so you could migrate to a new tool WITH non-destructive edits, but no sign of that on the horizon that I have seen.


hmm the idea of reverse engineering the edits is intriguing...

As an aside what other cataloging and image management tools have non-destructive edits as an option?


----------



## tspear

Victoria Bampton said:


> No, I said IF it did. This is all purely theoretical, because it'll depend on the majority of users moving over to LRCC and Classic no longer having enough customers to be worth developing.
> 
> There's no question, they ARE going subscription. But even the cloud-native LR CC app doesn't force you to upload all your photos - you can pause sync and not unpause it again.



Touche, you did qualify it... 

Tim


----------



## Johan Elzenga

tspear said:


> You are missing my point. Even @Victoria Bampton says in her post that Lr Classic will go the way of the Dodo bird. If you want to continue with Lr at that point, you are forced into Lr CC.


And you're missing mine. First of all, Victoria did not say that. But even if she did, my point is that _by the time you have to make that decision_, the situation is probably quite different from what it is now. Lightroom CC will be much more capable. Storage will cost $1/TB rather than $10/TB. And if that still isn't enough for you to switch to Lightroom CC, then that's fine. There will be plenty of mature alternatives, like MacPhun Luminar. Apparently they are adding a DAM in 2018 that will read a Lightroom catalog. So maybe by the time you need to take that dreaded decision, you will be able to convert to Luminar in a way that is as easy as going from Lightroom CC2015 to Lightroom Classic.


----------



## tspear

JohanElzenga said:


> And you're missing mine. First of all, Victoria did not say that. But even if she did, my point is that _by the time you have to make that decision_, the situation is probably quite different from what it is now. Lightroom CC will be much more capable. Storage will cost $1/TB rather than $10/TB. And if that still isn't enough for you to switch to Lightroom CC, then that's fine. There will be plenty of mature alternatives, like MacPhun Luminar. Apparently they are adding a DAM in 2018 that will read a Lightroom catalog. So maybe by the time you need to take that dreaded decision, you will be able to convert to Luminar in a way that is as easy as going from Lightroom CC2015 to Lightroom Classic.



lol, and here is Macphun's response:
Lightroom Alternative? LUMINAR for Mac & Windows.

A small fast, nimble company. 

Tim


----------



## Conrad Chavez

Has anybody seen this yet? Adobe just published a post on their Lightroom Journal blog: Answering Your Questions on Lightroom CC, Lightroom Classic CC and More. It has responses to some of the issues in Victoria's original post; here are a couple of interesting excerpts (emphasis mine):


> *Is Lightroom Classic being phased out?*
> Lightroom Classic…is a tool you know and love and so *it has an exciting roadmap of improvements well into the future*. But please hold us accountable as we make updates in the following months and years to let us know if we’re meeting your expectations.





> *Does everything have to be synced to Lightroom CC or can users pick and choose what content syncs with the cloud?
> For this 1.0 release*, everything imported is intended to upload to Creative Cloud. We clearly understand that there are situations where a customer would not want all of their images uploaded to Creative Cloud so let’s talk about those situations and how we can address them.



The wording implies that selective sync might be part of a future CC update, so that maybe I could keep 4TB local, and only upload to the cloud those few albums I really do want to reach from any device. Of course we don't know what will really happen here, but if CC drops the requirement to store every image on Adobe servers that would change how a lot of people perceive the application. It would also remove the entire “hostage situation” argument.

Obviously, all of that doesn't provide hard answers and could raise more questions, but it’s more to think about.

If Adobe fulfills the positive implications of the statements above, the only reason to object would be the perpetual license issue. But I’m feeling more and more like that isn’t a real issue. I have piles of perpetual license disks that can’t be used anymore for one reason or another. Most often, it’s that the software stopped being developed and won’t run properly (or at all) on today’s combination of hardware and operating system. Yes, I even keep some old hardware around to be able to run some old applications, but enough years have gone by that a couple of those machines no longer boot properly, so at some point I have to find time to work out why and get them fixed.

I started thinking about what it would take to migrate away from Lightroom. The metadata is easy, XMP files or embedding. The develop edits are harder although at least Adobe Camera Raw would support them. The virtual organization (proprietary collections) is the hardest to migrate but could be addressed through keywords or another metadata field, or maybe another application’s migration tool could handle that.

But based on my experience with decades of abandoned perpetual license software, any other software I switch to would probably have the same issues down the road. Switching implies some faith that On1 or MacPhun are going to offer the same software in the same form and same pricing model 15-25 years from now, and I am not sure they can do that any better than Adobe has. So for now, I’m sticking with Classic and hoping Adobe lives up to their statement that Classic has an “exciting roadmap of improvements well into the future.”

Even then…it’s concerning to see that on the CC Photography Plan product page, Classic has been given so little space at the bottom that it looks like a footnote.


----------



## CloudedGenie

I see the "exiting roadmap of improvements for Classic" does not yet include being able to recognize the video files from my iPhones (with the EXIF data in the standard fields) as coming from an iPhone... it is still an "Unknown Camera" with an "Unknown Lens"...

Has anybody had a look at Lightroom CC to see if it can read the video camera file metadata?


----------



## Tom Hogarty

tspear said:


> You are missing my point. Even @Victoria Bampton says in her post that Lr Classic will go the way of the Dodo bird.



I'm not sure if there are any additional words I can say to reassure this group about Lightroom Classic.  Actions are more important than words so please hold us accountable while we continue to update LrClassic over time.  As I've mentioned publicly before our focus is performance, editing enhancements and features/functionality that have been strong customer requests over time(the new embedded preview workflow is a strong indication of that type of direction).  

Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems


----------



## tspear

@Tom Hogarty 
Glad to see you on here. I am cynical by nature, but I am hopeful for Adobe does right by the loyal customers.

Tim


----------



## Eric Bowles

It's great to see the input here.  I'm wearing multiple hats.  

As an Adobe shareholder, the company just announced positive earnings and is forecasting increased revenue growth over the next quarters - and the immediate response was a 15% rise in stock price.  That alone has paid for me to have a lifetime use of the Photographers plan plus some storage.  As a company, Adobe is doing very well and that supports ongoing development and investment. 

I can also wear the software/program management hat.  With any new product the initial 1.0 release is going to have compromises.  You have to deliver something that is good enough to attract attention and grow.  But there are features for future versions that are going to be left out of an initial release.  For field work and mobile editing, LR CC is a very good product.  Sometimes there is a whole module of features that is not included.  Cloud storage is still in it's relative infancy.  Storage will get cheaper, bandwidth will improve, and speeds will get much faster.  I fully expect to see selective synch with the catalog or catalogs spread over multiple storage platforms - computer, external drives or NAS, and cloud.  Multiple cloud platforms could be part of a future solution.

As a photographer, I'd like to expand use of cloud storage, but with a 6 TB archive it's impractical.  The new Nikon D850 is making that even more of a challenge as I've added 400 GB of images in the last 5 weeks and will be on a rate for 2-3 TB per year.  The decision to drop the perpetual license was not hard to see even three years ago.  If that's the direction of software in general, and Photoshop was already moved to the cloud,  you had to see it as a likely option.  

Cloud storage and cloud processing offers a lot of benefit.  It's not going to be free, but the model allows a lot of different tiers of access.  It pairs very nicely with Adobe's other products.  Longer term, there is no need to process images locally with the full image residing on the cloud.  You can simply use a smart preview or the equivalent, and let the cloud download or update as needed in the resolution needed.  The last thing I need is a 50 MB image on my mobile device, but I do want to be able to process that image using my mobile device and then use it on a computer back in the office.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## PhilBurton

Tom Hogarty said:


> I'm not sure if there are any additional words I can say to reassure this group about Lightroom Classic.  Actions are more important than words so please hold us accountable while we continue to update LrClassic over time.  As I've mentioned publicly before our focus is performance, editing enhancements and features/functionality that have been strong customer requests over time(the new embedded preview workflow is a strong indication of that type of direction).
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Hogarty
> Adobe Systems


Tom,

Welcome to the forum.

Nice to see that you have joined.  May I respectfully, if forcefully, suggest some mechanism whereby people on this forum can submit questions to you (in posts) and periodically you reply with answers that truly address the questions.  Yes, I know that I might be asking you to do things differently at Adobe than your fellow product managers, but direct engagement also gives you the power that comes with a true, indepth understanding of (part of) your marketplace.  Which leads to more market share and higher revenues, that's all.

I was just about to start a thread along the lines of,"OK, we're mad as hell, so what are we going to do about it," but your direct presence and participation is a better way to go.

Phil Burton


----------



## CloudedGenie

@Tom Hogarty ,

Welcome, I am glad to see you have joined. I fully support what @PhilBurton said.

Personally, I am not concerned with Lightroom being a subscription product only. Many (most) of the other software I use already utlize the same model. What I am not in the least interested in, is a system where my primary data resides in the cloud. Uploading a Smart Preview to the cloud, being able to do some metadata-editing while travelling or at lunch or fixing a photo so that it's good enough to post on Facebook, yes, but not for my main D800E raw file workflow.

However, as you said, actions are more important than words, and at the moment, all we have to go by are the *actions from Adobe*...

If I go to the Photography page on adobe.com, I see the massive blurb, video and download link for Lightroom CC (which used to be the name of the software I used to love to manage my photos...)
Scrolling down, it tells me that I can now edit my photos anywhere with the all-new Lightroom CC.
Scrolling down further, It has a pretty picture, telling me I can transform my images with Photoshop CC.

Then it has one line, no picture, just one line (in smaller font than the other headings)
"The Creative Cloud Photography plan also includes Lightroom Classic CC for desktop-focused editing"

That is all. Then it lists the three plans, again focused around the "all-new Lightroom CC"

Following the link in that one-liner gives you a one-page blurb about the "Classic" version and then invites you to "_*The future of photography. Here today. Introducing the all-new Lightroom CC*_."


----------



## IanW

I have last night upgraded my photographers plan to the new one. Using the new LRCC I can edit all the images presently residing as smart previews on Adobe’s cloud.

I really cannot imagine the pro’s & con’s of the future but my initial impression of LRCC is very favourable. I wish that LR mobile had feature parity with the new LRCC. This would be my foremost request.

As to the longevity of LR Classic, I have no idea but I would be disappointed if LRCC were to become as complicated as LR Classic. There is almost everything I need already in LRCC please don’t overload it with all the stuff in LR Classic I don’t need or use. Keep it simple.

If I keep all my photos on my hard drive as well as in the cloud will all my edits be synchronised to the images on my hard drive or only applied to the copies in the cloud ?

Could not the LRCC library in the cloud be synchronised with one on my hard drive ?

I really like the idea of having full-res files available to edit on my iPad Pro. In fact the synchronisation between my iMac and my iPad is the most attractive function of the photography plan and to extended that to full-res files is a very tempting prospect for me. 1TB storage is more than adequate for me so the LRCC only plan attracts me greatly.

I would just like someone to explain to me in plain, simple English how this will all work.

regards

Ian


----------



## retratosjuan

Alllll of this is why I’m moving to C1


----------



## IanW

I’ve tried C1 and the image processing is fantastic. In fact there’s something about the character of the images in C1 that I prefer to LR......but there is no synchronisation across devices and it is prone to crashing. It crashed on me after over a year of editing my images corrupting the database and losing me thousands of edits. I am now constantly scared when using it.
In ten years of using LR it has never crashed on me once. It is reliably solid.


----------



## themoose

I don't plan to use the cloud version of either, I'll stick with LR6. If it eventually dies then I'd look at other stand alone apps besides Adobe, already trying out other apps that I own. Adobe seems to put profit margins ahead of loyal users, much like other big companies such as Apple. I just upgraded my old MacPro3.1 to run High Sierra that Apple intentionally made obsolete a year ago.


----------



## OogieM

There is yet another issue that no one has mentioned. A cloud only option immediately eliminates existing users who use Lightroom to catalog, document and manipulate classified or restricted access photos, typically government agencies. I've done work for some of those folks, I have not yet asked my customers what they think of the whole Adobe moving to Cloud mess but I can tell you that right now they will NEVER put those images on any server not controlled by them and perhaps only in a machine in a SCIF!


----------



## Replytoken

I expected to hear the frustrations of many loyal and long time users about the announcement, but I am both surprised by some of the reactions of those in a bit closer orbit to Adobe (i.e. some moderators and gurus) and that Adobe actually headed in a direction that could cause such a reaction among those in close orbit.  No, I do not believe all of those in closer orbit are "fanboys", but they have been pretty loyal to Adobe over the years, and have generally been measured (or diplomatic) when expressing their displeasure with Adobe in the past.  To see some of the comments and reactions these past few days does make me wonder if Adobe has moved on to newer grounds.  I just cannot see a lot of professional photographers moving all of their images into the cloud (as we are hearing), and thought that Adobe would always cater to this market, not unlike they have catered to the PS market with  graphic professionals over the years.  Granted, v. 2.x of CC could allow storage locally or in the cloud, so there may be a future as the new version incorporates Classic feature sets, but it would be great if Adobe would make a commitment to those who want very limited access to the cloud for storage.  Interesting times!

--Ken


----------



## OogieM

PhilBurton said:


> I was just about to start a thread along the lines of,"OK, we're mad as hell, so what are we going to do about it," but your direct presence and participation is a better way to go.


I agree but I think the mad as hell thread still has merit. 

Actually I want one on what other software options exist for the 2 main types of work that Lightroom does now, cataloging/metadata and image processing. 

I'm personally more likely to move to something that does the task I need most, cataloging and metadata, but is open source because at least if it quits working I have some hope in hell of either programming the fixes myself or hiring a programmer to do it. 

Heck I'm currently reworking 30 year old FORTRAN code on my Mac. I've actually got it running now and it's working well but the input files are cumbersome to create so I'm working to add a graphical front end to make that task easier. There is no reason for software to go dead unless the developers refuse to keep it functioning. That's why I'm increasingly moving to Open Source for things that are critical functions for me.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Replytoken said:


> I expected to hear the frustrations of many loyal and long time users about the announcement, but I am both surprised by some of the reactions of those in a bit closer orbit to Adobe (i.e. some moderators and gurus) and that Adobe actually headed in a direction that could cause such a reaction among those in close orbit.  No, I do not believe all of those in closer orbit are "fanboys", but they have been pretty loyal to Adobe over the years, and have generally been measured (or diplomatic) when expressing their displeasure with Adobe in the past.  To see some of the comments and reactions these past few days does make me wonder if Adobe has moved on to newer grounds.  I just cannot see a lot of professional photographers moving all of their images into the cloud (as we are hearing), and thought that Adobe would always cater to this market, not unlike they have catered to the PS market with  graphic professionals over the years.  Granted, v. 2.x of CC could allow storage locally or in the cloud, so there may be a future as the new version incorporates Classic feature sets, but it would be great if Adobe would make a commitment to those who want very limited access to the cloud for storage.  Interesting times!



I think Tom just did, so that is not the point. The point is that nobody seems to be willing to even give him the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## PhilBurton

OogieM said:


> I agree but I think the mad as hell thread still has merit.
> 
> Actually I want one on what other software options exist for the 2 main types of work that Lightroom does now, cataloging/metadata and image processing.
> 
> I'm personally more likely to move to something that does the task I need most, cataloging and metadata, but is open source because at least if it quits working I have some hope in hell of either programming the fixes myself or hiring a programmer to do it.
> 
> Heck I'm currently reworking 30 year old FORTRAN code on my Mac. I've actually got it running now and it's working well but the input files are cumbersome to create so I'm working to add a graphical front end to make that task easier. There is no reason for software to go dead unless the developers refuse to keep it functioning. That's why I'm increasingly moving to Open Source for things that are critical functions for me.


Oogie,

How about this?  If anyone else supports the idea of this "mad as hell" thread, then I will start it.  I know how to ask for comments in a focused, actionable way, so if people want, I would collect and summarize these comments and then post them to the forum as an "open letter" to Adobe.  if someone else supports this idea.  But I don't want to go all negative on Adobe and accuse them of nefarious motives.


----------



## clee01l

Tom Hogarty said:


> I'm not sure if there are any additional words I can say to reassure this group about Lightroom Classic.  Actions are more important than words so please hold us accountable while we continue to update LrClassic over time.  As I've mentioned publicly before our focus is performance, editing enhancements and features/functionality that have been strong customer requests over time(the new embedded preview workflow is a strong indication of that type of direction).


 Thank you for taking the time and effort to comment to our user to user group. If you look at my record here, you will see that I have done more than anyone here in terms of user support to help Lightroom users and support Lightroom with the exception of Victoria herself.  I've done that without pay and as an enthusiastic volunteer. At one time, I was invited and participated in the LR user testing group the Victoria, Jim Wilde and others have been involved in behind the scenes.  I think my support of Adobe Lightroom speaks for itself.  If you are open to some constructive criticism, Please listen to what I have to say and respond.
The biggest failure that I see has been to manage user expectations.  The rollout of the two new versions of LR has been poorly received.  Perhaps universally. The fact that you are here, means that you at least recognize that.  All of the Photography blogs that I have read are negative. Your competition is using your new product release as an incentive to get customers to switch.  They should be using the "new" Lightroom as a measuring rod to attempt to measure up.  Your marketing of Lightroom has given them all the ammunition they need to take advantage of this marketing blunder on Adobe's part.
Note that I have called this a marketing blunder.  Adobe has failed to manage users expectations.  I would think that with the fiasco that followed the introduction of LR6/LRCC that Adobe would have learned  and made every effort not to repeat. 
Users don't like surprises. Yet without fanfare you spring on the public this new Lightroom and expect users to fall all over themselves.   You do this simultaneously with the cessation of the perpetual license.   You could have announced the discontinued the perpetual license six months ago and those users would have been prepared for the only options now available.  Now please address with me the two new flavors of LR.  Lightroom Classic is the only product that you have that meets everyone's functionality needs,  Yet it is being promoted like "last decade's" product.  Lightroom CC is not the Old LRCC But it is being promoted as the future for Lightroom.   What you have actually delivered is a Lightroom Mobile for Laptops and Desktops.  Lightroom Mobile for Laptops is not a bad product.  But in functionality it falls far short of the functionality that serious photographers need.  Lightroom Mobile for Laptops is a product aimed at the "Selphie" smart phone users. Worse, the two products are mutually exclusive.   You have subscription plans that include both Lightroom Classic and Lightroom Cloud, yet these two products do not communicate seamlessly if they communicate at all.   
If the plan is to integrate the two products.  Please say so. NO Surprises. If the plan is to replace the Classic with Lightroom Cloud, then say so, NO Surprises.  To replace Lightroom Classic is the implication from all of your new product advertising.
Recently Code42 abandoned the consumer cloud backup market product CrashPlan.  This happens often enough for the computer consumer to be wary of locking all of their data in Somebody else's cloud.  Unless you find away for Lightroom to maintain one foot in the cloud and another in the computer, you will lose market share.  Worse the prices that you are charging for cloud storage ($120USD/yr/TB) is much higher than buying that same storage and managing an image inventory locally (An *8 TB * external hard drive is less than the annual subscription for LightroomCC).
So to summarize:

I think it would be useful to undertake a new marketing effort to recharacterize the two new products for what they are Lightroom for Professionals and Lightroom Mobile for Laptops and Desktops. 
Another thing that you might do is provide an upgrade path for perpetual license holders (A year of Lightroom Classic for $79USD would be a reasonable upgrade offer for current perpetual license holders)
Do something unconventional for Adobe. Announce your future plans for Lightroom. If the plan is to integrate the two products. Go on record with that statement. If the plan is to replace the Classic with a fully functional Lightroom Cloud, then say so.  Remember, NO Surprises. Your users deserve to be treated fairly and with respect. 

Please note that any shortcomings attributed to Adobe are not technical they lie entirely at the feet of your Marketing Group.


----------



## Gnits

Cletus.  Well said. 

I cannot believe Adobe Marketing could be so stupid, but then I suppose, they have years of practice. 

Tom, please answer Cletus’s questions.... please.


----------



## Jimmsp

I'll second the request to address Cletus's points. These are well thought out.


----------



## OogieM

PhilBurton said:


> Oogie,
> 
> How about this?  If anyone else supports the idea of this "mad as hell" thread, then I will start it.  I know how to ask for comments in a focused, actionable way, so if people want, I would collect and summarize these comments and then post them to the forum as an "open letter" to Adobe.  if someone else supports this idea.  But I don't want to go all negative on Adobe and accuse them of nefarious motives.



I would like that. I agree the issues are more marketing but also some clear technical issues have not been addressed.


----------



## Replytoken

JohanElzenga said:


> I think Tom just did, so that is not the point. The point is that nobody seems to be willing to even give him the benefit of the doubt.


I have no beef with Tom.  I was happy that he advocated for a continuation of the perpetual version (and happy that he posted here).  But, as we can see how that turned out, I do not put much weight to Tom's statements as, IMHO, I believe that decisions are being made levels above Tom.  If Tom was actually calling the shots, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.  He is a technical genius, and a passionate advocate for photography, but in reality, he is coming across a bit more like a figurehead, and that is unfortunate.  What I would really like to see from Tom is to spearhead a full-on replacement for the desktop version of LR so Adobe can keep heading to where it wants to head with the current product and not take along those of us not interested in cloud-based solutions.  Is there not enough room for two product lines so that we do not have to worry about what the word "classic" means?  I wonder how this whole thing would have been received if they had left what is now called "classic" alone and launched the new CC product under another name other than LR?  I suspect that more people would have been receptive to the whole affair, and that they could have eventually mated up the two programs in the future (to some degree or another) when it made sense.

--Ken


----------



## MarkNicholas

Jim Wilde said:


> I'll end with a plea: I understand many of you have concerns, and even though I think some are misguided or misplaced they're obviously real to you. Many of the issues you've raised are totally outside our control or influence, and some of those issues we also share. But other than give your our own perspective, there's little more that we can do....Victoria's given you a host of information about the changes, and it would be really great to help her by starting to think about putting these more emotive issues away (because we can't fix them here) and start perhaps looking in more detail at the changes and how they might be used. Thanks for listening.


Jim, I thought one of the main purposes of this forum was for its members to express their opinions and thoughts relating to Lightroom. The major recent developments have clearly taken many members by surprise and some the posts are bound to be on the emotional side.
It’s important that we hear all opinions and that we don’t try to stifle healthy debate.


----------



## donrisi

I am, as usual, late to this party, but yes, I agree that the Lightroom we've all come to know and love (now called Lightroom Classic) is on its way out, in favor of a cloud based monster that will require us all to "rent" cloud space from Adobe.  A great lesson in how to make money -- create something that your customers cannot live without, and then milk them dry.  

It's coming and there's nothing we can do about it.


----------



## PhilBurton

Jimmsp said:


> I'll second the request to address Cletus's points. These are well thought out.


Me too.  Cletus said what I have been thinking, but better than I could have said it.  And I have to say that Cletus has been one of the most helpful people in this forum, to me personally.

I don't think Adobe can rely on a conventional "competitive analysis," a comparison of different products for the same purpose, to justify the assumption that most people will stay loyal to Lightroom.  Emotions are strong right now.

Tom, if you are reading this, please don't discount people's anger by assuming that will just pass with time.  it won't. You need to "break the rules" a bit to engage more directly with people in this forum.  Ask for forgiveness after the fact, not permission in advance.  Your justification is that if you say the right things, and back them up with actions, you can regain the confidence of an important part of your marketplace.  A few statements here and there in the forums will not be enough.  You need to engage on a daily basis if necessary.

By that, I don't mean that you should play tech support and respond to messages about how to make Lightroom do this or that, or why it is not functioning as expected.  You need to comb through the message threads that have been triggered by the MAX announcements, identify the key issues, and respond, point by point.  That does not mean "giving in" on every issue, but it does mean *you have to give people reasons to stay with Lightroom, and not to plan on an early migration.
*
Phil Burton


----------



## Deleted member 39308

Tom Hogarty said:


> I'm not sure if there are any additional words I can say to reassure this group about Lightroom Classic.  Actions are more important than words so please hold us accountable while we continue to update LrClassic over time.  As I've mentioned publicly before our focus is performance, editing enhancements and features/functionality that have been strong customer requests over time(the new embedded preview workflow is a strong indication of that type of direction).
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Hogarty
> Adobe Systems



Hi Tom,

I think a good example of commitment from Adobe would be to add support for Adobe's PSB file format into the Lightroom Classic catalogue. I was disappointed this was not in this year's major release and it has been a request open for over 7 years on the Photoshop Family feedback web site.

Lack of PSB file format support is a major issue for me in my workflow, PSB files are not accessible from Lightroom. If this gets added soon I will believe that Lightroom Classic is not in End of Life support mode.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

@Tom Hogarty, thanks for joining us and daring to stick your head above the parapet. That says a lot. It would be tempting for hide in Head Office with all this going on!

And thank you everyone for continuing this conversation in a polite non-attacking manner. There's a good cross-section of opinions in this thread, that fairly well represent the viewpoints of the wider audience.



PhilBurton said:


> it does mean you have to give people reasons to stay with Lightroom, and not to plan on an early migration.





Ad Astra said:


> If this gets added soon I will believe that Lightroom Classic is not in End of Life support mode.



So let me ask the same of everyone else...

*What exactly would have to happen for you to believe that LR Classic is not in End of Life support mode and restore your faith in Adobe?*

Let's be relatively realistic - let's assume they're sticking with the decision to end perpetual licenses (I know that's not popular, but it's been heading that way for years) and they're not about to throw away all the work they've done on new baby Lightroom CC app. They can't roll back the clock, but what do you think they should do next to allay your fears? What reassurance do you need?

I know some of you have already answered this, but it seems a much more productive direction in which to continue the conversation. Everyone knows everyone's upset, so you don't need your Mad as Hell thread Phil.


----------



## Gnits

This is just a quick brain dump.  

1. Marketing mess.... so needs a well considered marketing response
2. Aggressively tackle the list of good ideas in the Feature Requests.  Lots of good ideas that are years and years old.
3. Next release should concentrate on performance and usability.  I have a big long list of small items that would make a big difference to end user usability.
4. Fix the Book Module. Allow images and txt to be placed where the user wants and not constrained by templates. Open the book module to more than Blurb.
5. Improve the Import module.  My Lr Preprocessor puts Adobe Import to shame. This is not as big a job as it seems, but needs care and not just a dumbing down exercise. I would like Adobe to make my pre-processor redundant, rather than me making it a product for sale.
6. Do something which addresses the needs of the Pro User instead of modules and apps that appear to cater for the lowest common denominator.
7. What happened to the "Just Do It" programme.

I will consider this further and maybe come back with more considered ideas.


----------



## Jim Wilde

MarkNicholas said:


> Jim, I thought one of the main purposes of this forum was for its members to express their opinions and thoughts relating to Lightroom. The major recent developments have clearly taken many members by surprise and some the posts are bound to be on the emotional side.
> It’s important that we hear all opinions and that we don’t try to stifle healthy debate.


People join forums such as this for different reasons, Mark. I joined the forum back in 2010 because I was just starting to use my Lightroom 2 in a more serious way, so I was looking to other more knowledgeable users to pick up some tips. Gradually as my knowledge deepened I realised I had a knack and aptitude for helping others with their problems, so I stayed. As did many others. And under Victoria's leadership, this forum has become highly respected as a highly competent, warm and friendly place to come to for people looking for help. Personally, I'd just like to get back to that, especially when there's nothing I can do to fix this specific "issue", it's not a technical problem that we're good at dealing with. We share many of the same frustrations, though would perhaps use different rhetoric sometimes!  

I'm not trying to stifle healthy debate, but there's sometimes a fine line between "healthy debate" and "venting", and the latter is, while understandable, pretty pointless. What I desperately want to avoid is the great team here fighting with each other, we mustn't allow that to happen. Fortunately, Tom Hogarty's appearance in the thread seems to have created the opportunity for somewhat more focused discussion, which is good.

But when I see talk of a "Mad as Hell" forum being setup, then frankly I shudder. If we turn ourselves into another U2U then no doubt I for one won't be around much longer, but I'm hoping that won't happen. But that's not my call, it's Victoria's. Call it something more constructive, less negative, perhaps.


----------



## davidedric

@Victoria Bampton 

In my case, they don't have to do anything.  They live in a commercial world, and the future will be driven by marketing and not engineering.  Assurances are nice, but like all plans they are subject to change.  In the absence of a disaster, such as a sudden decision to withdraw licences, I am confident I will have time to reassess should I need to.  Classic is a better product than the one I am currently using happily - why would I rush to jump ship?

Dave


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Jim Wilde said:


> But that's not my call, it's Victoria's. Call it something more constructive, less negative, perhaps.



I agree completely Jim. Many people are upset, which is completely understandable because this is a huge change and it hasn't been communicated well. We've worked hard to make this forum a positive environment, where we can have grown up constructive conversations, and that's not about to change now. There are forums on the web where toddlers are encouraged to throw their toys out of the pram and rant wildly, but this isn't that place. We're all adults here, and all perfectly capable of sensible conversations, while acknowledging that emotions are running high right now. So thank you everyone for keeping it on track.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Victoria Bampton said:


> What exactly would have to happen for you to believe that LR Classic is not in End of Life support mode and restore your faith in Adobe?


I don't think Adobe can do much in the short run, apart from changing their website so that the photography plan isn't promoted as "The 'future of photography' and our wonderful Lightroom CC is that future and by the way, I almost forgot that we have something called Lightroom Classic as well". Apart from that, they'll have to live with the consequences of this bad PR-job. In my native language we have an expression that fits here well. It translates as follows: "If you burn your buttocks, you will have to sit on the blisters". Adobe clearly burned their behind, so now it hurts to sit down and watch the reactions.

Actions speak louder than words however. In the longer run the answer is simple. *Prove* that Lightroom Classic is not just in EOL support mode, but is actively developed further.


----------



## Jim Wilde

JohanElzenga said:


> I don't think Adobe can do much in the short run, apart from changing their website so that the photography plan isn't promoted as "The 'future of photography' and our wonderful Lightroom CC is that future and by the way, I almost forgot that we have something called Lightroom Classic as well". Apart from that, they'll have to live with the consequences of this bad PR-job. In my native language we have an expression that fits here well. It translates as follows: "If you burn your buttocks, you will have to sit on the blisters". Adobe clearly burned their behind, so now it hurts to sit down and watch the reactions.
> 
> Actions speak louder than words however. In the longer run the answer is simple. *Prove* that Lightroom Classic is not just in EOL support mode, but is actively developed further.


I was thinking about this, and from an existing Lightroom user I'd agree 100%. Problem is, if you're marketing to capture new users (especially those that the 6.2 import dialog was aimed at and some of those gazillions of potential users with a smartphone in their pocket) then what's up there now probably makes a lot more sense. Not palatable to us, for sure, but understandable (to me at least) nevertheless.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Jim Wilde said:


> I was thinking about this, and from an existing Lightroom user I'd agree 100%. Problem is, if you're marketing to capture new users (especially those that the 6.2 import dialog was aimed at and some of those gazillions of potential users with a smartphone in their pocket) then what's up there now probably makes a lot more sense. Not palatable to us, for sure, but understandable (to me at least) nevertheless.



I understand that this may be the explanation, but I still think it's wrong. There are basically two plans. The first plan is the new Lightroom CC and 1 TB of storage to use it. Fine by me. A good plan at a fair price. And that's the plan for all those iPhone shooters that Adobe wants to attract. No criticism from me about it.

The second plan is Lightroom Classic and Photoshop, the original photography plan. Now we get Lightroom CC as well and a small amount of storage space (20 GB) to play with it. _Isn't that what Tom almost literally said?_ But the website suggests otherwise. It suggests that this plan is also all about Lightroom CC, but if you are really so old fashioned that you want to use Lightroom Classic instead, then by the grace of Adobe you still can. That doesn't give people a lot of confidence in the future of Lightroom Classic and I can't blame them.


----------



## CloudedGenie

@Victoria Bampton

I have owned every version of Lightroom and Photoshop since it came out (and saw my original CS3 disk just the other day). I dutifully upgraded to CS4, CS5 and CS6 over the years... After buying The DAM Book, I followed PK’s workflow for many years, using idImager and BreezeBrowser and later iView Media Pro. As a Nikon shooter, NX and NX2 used to be miles ahead in terms of raw conversion.

Although I owned copies of the earlier versions, I only started using Lightroom as my primary DAM with Lightroom 4. NX2 still did a better job on my D200 files, but was dead, so I had to bite the bullet. Somewhere along the way, Photoshop became far too complicated for me to use for anything but the simplest tasks 

It is a pity that it appears that Adobe finds the needs of the new “mobile phone” generation of photographer (and I have thousands of mobile phone photos) more important than those of the long time loyal customers who understand the difference between folders and catalogs and collections and want more functionality, rather than “simplification” or dumbing down of the interface.

At present, there is nowhere to migrate to. The competition’s offerings are not mature enough yet. If Adobe is indeed planning on letting “Classic” die a slow death, assuming we will all accept the inevitable by then, I guess we will have 2-3 years. By then, a lot can change in the market.

I will focus on making sure my metadata resides in my files (or sidecars) in standard fields. I have conquered my fear of the command line and config files and embraced exiftool... I hope it won’t be necessary, but I will migrate, rather than move my library to the cloud.

As to rebuilding my trust that “Classic” is not EOL?

1. I guess it’s too late to rename “Classic” to something that at least sounds as if it has a future (whether it has or not). How about giving it equal exposure to the baby cloud app? Just so people actually know it exists? Or at least as much exposure as is being given to Photoshop on the “Lightroom CC” page?

2. Fix the metadata issues surrounding video files. I’m not asking for LR to become a video editor, but there are 5 year old requests hanging around to just recognise the camera (which is in the metadata).

3. Access to EXIF fields. There are numerous EXIF fields (e.g. subsecondtime) that is accessible by addins, but not by Lightroom. This is another piece of functionality that have been requested for years.

4. Some new functionality that is probably not that important for the “selfie” generation... Metadata fields to handle scanned photos from film, slides or negatives. Something like this, that is new, innovative (and not hard to do), would show we are not just in bug-fix and wait-for-baby-to-grow-up mode.

Christelle


----------



## CloudedGenie

JohanElzenga said:


> "If you burn your buttocks, you will have to sit on the blisters"



I love Dutch...


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

To Victoria's question, I think it might be best thought of as two parts:

1) Can Adobe convince us CLassic is not EOL?

2) Can Adobe convince us that regardless of eventual status, Classic will be well supported indefinitely

Honestly I think (1) is a done deal, there is literally nothing they can do, the message was sent clearly not by this release, but viewed in retrospect by having "the Could" design be inconsistent with Lightroom of the time.  This started years ago as LR Mobile was being designed, apparently.   We talk today as though "why didn't they take some time to make Classic fully compatible". I think that's too recent -- the more fundamental question is "Why was their cloud designed to be incompatible in the first place with their existing product".  Why were they not developed in parallel not for V7, but way back for V6 when The Cloud was in its infancy.

Because they had already decided on a long term vision, and a new LR was to take the place of the old. That's not changing IMO.

But... that phase out could be many, many years.  So Can Adobe convince us who like and use it that it will have a rich, innovative and supported decline? 

Sure.  But actions will have to do the speaking (I used the word "indefinitely" in (2) on purpose).

One last thought: Everyone is rightly focused on the Cloud Only restriction in LR CC and that being the prime distinction with Classic.  Here's how you might also view it: it's a trial balloon, a first negotiating position.  If enough people get over their "cloud" fears and sign on to proprietary storage they win. If enough people are prevented from moving due to that, they negotiate down and offer some partial-local-archive feature in the future, or cheaper archiving (a la Glacier from Google), or more Cloud features for backup/recovery... This is just their first offer in a long experiment.  They want to separate out how many people are willing to spend money on their cloud.  If the number who say "heck no, we won't go" is huge, they will back off. If enough majority go along... the rest of us are in trouble.

Follow the money if you want truth; words from marketing people are just alcohol tainted dreams given form.


----------



## tspear

I probably disagree with most of the posters on here. What seems to me is the direction Adobe is going is obvious.
Cloud focused, default to a simple flow UI, more consumer focused, and Lr Classic will be EOL at some point. The judgement call by Adobe is when does it make financial sense.
The business case for this direction is rather obvious, so Adobe could gain a lot of respect and trust by doing a few simple things.
1. State the long term goals, with a few metrics on how this will happen. E.g. we plan to continue to develop Lr Classic until Lr CC has the following functionality (plans may change due to market conditions).... Then update this every six months to a year until everything is done.
2. Publish a simplified roadmap for Lr CC which covers what features from Classic are the focus of the next release or two. Do not show your hand for anything but what will be ported...
3. Fix the marketing, as others have said.
4. Split the dev team. Have a group focused on customer driven items which are lower risk. Perform minimal testing, release a public beta. Fix newly caused bugs, then release it. Have a second team working on larger, more longer term items which follow your traditional flow. The first team should be able to do a release every month. The second should be at least once a quarter.
5. Answer Cletus's question
6. Be honest if the response blind sided you or if you expected push back.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## CloudedGenie

Just like I paid for three versions of Lightroom, watching it mature and grow, before I started using it (with my license fees supporting that development), I am not averse to doing the same with other promising product(s) that doesn’t bully me into “getting over my fear of the cloud”.

I have a 2TB Dropbox and 1TB OneDrive and some iDrive space. I have a lot of photos and other files on these drives. I am not afraid of the cloud, but I do not want my primary photo library in the cloud.


----------



## OogieM

As a farmer mad as hell is usually the first sign of a way to get to the constructive options. Not a venting but a specific signal to get out your shovel and fix it. Phrasing may be a bit at issue but the sentiment is both angry but how to fix.

To fix this Adobe needs to:

Fix the marketing faux pas Like NOW 
change the name of classic to something more appropriate like professional
provide a clear indication of how they will merge the 2 CC versions eventually
provide clear and obvious links and feature comparison lists of the 2 version on the top level of the LR page in Adobe's Web site​Provide a no-cloud or selective cloud option
I'd prefer a selective cloud only as a way to give access to a small device for some tasks​Provide a way to have at least access to what you finished even once you stop paying for a subscription
It's ok to require monthly payments for frequent updates and support but not ok to hold your data hostage by doing so
You don't need to be able to do more things in the develop module but you should NEVER lose your work just because you stop paying a monthly fee​Implement keywords in LR Mobile that will sync with Classic
Implement support for smart collections
Reverse the naming, we know and understand the terms collections changing it to albums doesn't provide any features and is confusing

That's my quick take, got to run, have an event I need to be at in an hour and still have sheep and guard dogs to feed, I'll post more later
​


----------



## Duncanh

Firstly thank you so much Victoria, your explanation of the changes/products has been superb as always.
I agree with comments about Adobe could do better managing expections by being more open with a long term product road map.
It’s all about expections, I come from a software developer background in business software and have no expections that any software can last forever in its present form (technology, new requirements, old spaghetti code) therefore I’m ok with the announcements.
As I see it LR Classic will of course eventually be replaced with the new LR CC but the way it needs to be done is that it’s timely and the replacement meets most users requirements otherwise it would not financially benefit Adobe.
To meet my requirements to move to LR CC I need:-
1. The same functionality as Classic (including folder structure and being able to rename file names which my understanding CC doesn’t do at the moment)
2. I do not have to keep any images on line (yes to have option to decide what you do hold online is great) I’m just in the processes of scanning years, years and even more years of old film, why the hell do I want to keep 100s and 100s of thousands of images in the cloud that go back 40 years that I would access once in a blue moon, I don’t often access many images from a year ago.
3. The new desktop CC software with all features works totally off line with only checking the licence the same as Classic does now.

If above is met then great I can move to nice new latest technology software that is an evolution compared to revolution.
To me the transition has to be handled “timely” meaning whilst I’m using Classic I can see where I’m going with Lightroom, if the path is not clear and/or I have doubts where I’m going with LR in the future or I feel I’m getting locked in I’ll change to a alternative solution sooner rather than later but I don’t want to as I love LR.


----------



## CloudedGenie

I was trying to make my test installation of baby "Lightroom CC" work... There seems to be a few things that are not so smooth if you are on the Creative Cloud subscription, rather than one of the Photography Plans...

However...

From the Photography page (with the video of the bright leaf on the dark background), I followed the link to "Learn & Support" that takes you to "Photography Tutorials". Everything is about the "All-in-one photo solution" using Lightroom CC with Photoshop CC. Not one single mention about the legacy old "Classic" version... Not even one...

I do not think Adobe could have made it any clearer that Classic has no future.


----------



## PhilBurton

Jim Wilde said:


> But when I see talk of a "Mad as Hell" forum being setup, then frankly I shudder. If we turn ourselves into another U2U then no doubt I for one won't be around much longer, but I'm hoping that won't happen. But that's not my call, it's Victoria's. Call it something more constructive, less negative, perhaps.



Jim (and Victoria),

With the recent themes in postings, there is no long a reason or justification for the "Mad as hell" theme I suggested.  My idea, had I done this thread, would have been to collect a list of issues and feature requests, in the same approach that I did earlier with the list I provided to Rikk Flohr.  

Victoria's post above can be an excellent vehicle for bringing out both product-related issues and market-related issues around LR.  The latter is important.  Words do matter, as in calling a product "Classic."  So I hope that everyone posts their answer to Victoria's question and that Tom compiles those responses.  Ideally, ideally, Tom would post a summary of those responses after a week or two, suitably organized.  Really ideally, Tom would even post a answer to selected responses.  

This forum is an invaluable resource for Tom.  I only hope he utilizes it well so this forum can engage with Adobe in a two-way conversation.  Or his management gives him the authority to utilize it well.   Words matter. 

Phil


----------



## clee01l

Victoria Bampton said:


> *What exactly would have to happen for you to believe that LR Classic is not in End of Life support mode and restore your faith in Adobe?*


I think I stated many of those when I addressed my response to Tom Hogarty. 

The first thing that needs to happen is for Adobe to step up and admit that their Marketing Group completely missed the target with their emphasis on an incomplete product that is Lightroom CC. This marketing failure follows on the fiasco that was the release of LR6.  It is clear that Adobe did not learn anything from the mistake that was the premature introduction of LR6 with a poorly supported GPU function and a disaster that presented itself as a new and improved Import function. Failing to own up to the shortcomings of Adobe Marketing, there is not much point to consider my points that follow.  

After publicly admitting that marketing mistake, Adobe needs to correct that impression, first on their website and second in their advertising.   There core Lightroom product remains for the foreseeable future to be Lightroom Classic  even if that future core product is going to be Lightroom Cloud.
Adobe then needs to publish a road map that promises that every feature in Lightroom Classic will be incorporated into Lightroom CC. It doesn't need to include a time table because users are going to remain skeptic of hollow promises and no one believes that Development timetable to be anything other than fiction.  Every feature in Lightroom Classic includes the Map module, the Book module, Slideshow and Print modules.  If this critical functionality can't be incorporated into Lightroom CC, then acknowledge this and develop additional Adobe apps that will deliver this functionality via the Cloud API. 
Perhaps the biggest marketing mistake has been the retirement of the Perpetual License concurrent with the announcement that the flagship product is being relegated to subordinate status.   As I said in my address to Tom. Adobe has known that the Perpetual license was going away for some time.  Hiding this fact from the customer based was another marketing blunder.  The perception intended to unintended is that Lightroom Classic is destined to suffer the same fate as Lightroom Perpetual.  The question becomes how to address that perception.  Some effort to restructure the Lightroom family stressing the importance of Lightroom Classic is necessary.  Next, Adobe needs to provide some encouragement to the remaining Perpetual License holders. I suggested to Tom that an Offer to upgrade to 1 year subscription to Lightroom Classic for the perpetual upgrade fee of $79USD would be a token olive branch.  If the remaining Perpetual License holder are indeed an insignificant number, the Adobe could well absorb the loss of $40 agains an annual subscription. 

The Pro and Pro-sumer market drives the innovation of LR. Adobe may see an untapped market in the Phone camera/selphie crowd, but recognize that Apple already has that market share and Adobe needs to offer more to claim a share of that market.  They won't achieve this by selling Cloud storage at prices that are prohibitive if you have a large inventory as many Pro and pro-supers do. That $10/TB/mo. is on par with Apple, Dropbox, Google and a little higher than Microsoft OneDrive.  And if you are a phone photographer, 1 TB may be all that you need.  When your camera produces 30-50 megapixels, One TB is inadequate.  And cloud storage for those professional cameras is financially out of reach.  This cloud storage impracticality needs to be addressed. A roadmap needs to incorporate some combination of cloud and local storage.  
The biggest shortsighted response for promoting Lightroom CC is the failure to recognize that most of the internet world does not enjoy the GigaBit interned speeds that Adobe sees in their offices.  Accommodations need to be made for photographers that don't stay at home and take photos in a studio. If Adobe wants to thoroughly test their cloud concept of Lightroom Everywhere, then they need to send their product testers to remote places like the US mountains and deserts like Big Bend National park, an African Safari or a trip to the Australian Outback. Just because Lightroom CC can work in SanJose CA, doe not mean that it is practical for rural America or elsewhere.
A failure of Adobe to adequately address these concerns will jeopardize my continued financial support.  If the future of Lightroom does not include support for the photographic work that I do that caused me to consider LR in the first place, then I truly need to look elsewhere to get those needs met.  Ultimately, Adobe does need to demonstrate to me that they value the photographic work that I and others like me rely upon Adobe Lightroom to deliver.


----------



## Deleted member 39308

Victoria Bampton said:


> So let me ask the same of everyone else...
> 
> *What exactly would have to happen for you to believe that LR Classic is not in End of Life support mode and restore your faith in Adobe?*
> 
> Let's be relatively realistic - let's assume they're sticking with the decision to end perpetual licenses (I know that's not popular, but it's been heading that way for years) and they're not about to throw away all the work they've done on new baby Lightroom CC app. They can't roll back the clock, but what do you think they should do next to allay your fears? What reassurance do you need?



Firstly many thanks to Victoria for allowing the open discussion and to Tom Hogarty for joining.

I can only describe how it feels to me as an end user:


It feels like Lightroom has been on life support for sometime now; there was no Lightroom 2017 and nothing much to speak of at last year's Adobe Max for Lightroom users. We were promised regular, small incremental feature updates when Creative Cloud came out, but now it looks like we are back to a two year development cycle. This feels like a broken promise.
I could be wrong, maybe Tom can comment, but the Develop module and Camera Raw use the same code base, possibly from a single development team. As such the new features in Lightroom Develop module are always welcome but they are not specific to Lightroom Classic. I see the other modules as where I gauge how much effort Adobe are putting into Lightroom.
I can understand the need for an easy to use solution for mobile users and Adobe obviously want to be part of this. Economics kick in and Adobe does not have unlimited supplies of developers so something has to give if development effort is moved to the new cloud Lightroom CC.
Not sure how this analogy will work outside the UK&I, but Adobe feels more like Ryan Air than Fuji Cameras in terms of customer service.

That's a long introduction so to answer Victoria's question it would help if Adobe:


Bring back regular feature updates to Lightroom Classic
Bring back the Just Do It regular fixes (i.e. not just new camera support updates)
Publish a road map of features planned for the next year
At a high-level describe how the development effort is split between Lightroom Classic and Cloud Lightroom e.g. is it 50:50 or 20:80?
Provide a written confirmation that Lightroom Classic will receive active development and new features at least until 2021.

Hope the above falls within the Forum guidelines.


----------



## LouieSherwin

Interesting discussion and thank you  Victoria for your summary.

What I see happening is that Adobe is going after the huge mobil market. This is what I see the new LR CC is all about, trying to get all those millions of mobil users with their devices using Adobe. However the technical problem is that the existing infrastructure (code base)  is too old and convoluted to be used going forward. So rather than wait until they can completely rewrite the application from top to bottom they have launched the new application with limited functionality but focused on the mobile only user.

This new application is clearly not useful to the traditional Lightroom user and so they have to keep supporting the old "Classic" version. What I expect is that as the new LR CC incorporates all the functionality of the "Classic" and eventually there will be no need to use or support the "Classic" code base. It is unknown at this time is how long that will take or whether this future version of LR CC will have all the features that I consider important. 

I am ambivalent about the automatic inclusion of cloud storage as part to the application. On one hand is a boon for handling storage issues on limited sized mobile devices. On the other hand I am concerned about security and privacy. I want to have a clear explanation from Adobe about their sharing of my private data before I glibly hand them all my photos. In any case I don't see that in the foreseeable future that  I will do away with storing the majority of my images on local disk.

Finally I think that one the things that makes this an emotional issue is that by buying into the Camera Raw/Lightroom ecosystem we have placed great faith in Adobe to protect our investment. There are maybe millions of person hours invested in creating our images using these excellent tools. The mere thought of the possibility of loosing that investment is threatening. It is an unfortunate consequence of our dependence on parametric editing that we do not "own" a key part of what we use make our images. 

I think that Adobe has been sensitive to this in the past and from Tom Hogarty's comment on this thread seems continue to be aware of this concern. 

In the meantime I will be moving on to Classic and continue to watch future developments.

-louie


----------



## PhilBurton

No need to everything that has already been written, so I'll add a few items.

1. Formalize a dialog between the members of this forum and Adobe.  Dialog, with meaningful responses from Adobe.  As on suggestion, set a date/time for a monthly or biweekly response from Adobe to issues.
2. Allow members of this forum to submit feature requests as part of the dialog.  
3. Adobe to publish lists of feature requests and allow forum members to comment and vote.  That said, we all have to recognize that features selected for implementation have to be based on a product strategy.  If a feature won't be implemented for strategy reasons, say so.
4. *Absolutely *commit to a local storage option for Classic, or its eventual replacement, for the long-term.
5. *Absolutely *commit that Classic will receive the same updates as the CC version, for LIBRARY, DEVELOP, and PUBLISH, except when technically infeasible.  How that is accomplished is  Adobe's decision of course.
6. Ask forum members how they would like to see a "hybrid" desktop/cloud system function for their workflow, so they can easily and seamlessly integrate phones, tablets, and a "travel laptop" with the home-based main Lightroom system for Lightroom ubiqity.  Use those responses as one driver of the product roadmap.
7. Emulate the Microsoft approach with open betas for Windows.


----------



## clee01l

JohanElzenga said:


> I understand that this may be the explanation, but I still think it's wrong. There are basically two plans. The first plan is the new Lightroom CC and 1 TB of storage to use it. Fine by me. A good plan at a fair price. And that's the plan for all those iPhone shooters that Adobe wants to attract. No criticism from me about it.


I can agree with most of that statement.  What I did was upgrade my plan to 1TB.  This gives me The Photography Plan that includes Lightroom Classic, Lightroom CC and Photoshop. This makes Lightroom Mobile/LightroomCC useful as a Web Based interface to my laptop.  Also all of that 1TB can now be sync'd back to Lightroom Classic. 
If you have noticed the Lightroom CC and 1 TB of storage plan Does not include Photoshop OR Lightroom Classic.  Further evidence that Adobe is more interested in the phone photo/selphie crowd.


----------



## Gnits

I do not mind if Adobe have a Pro product (Ie Classic) and a more consumer / phone product (Ie Cc). 

The fear is that Adobe will follow the Apple model  where ultimately their 'Pro' products (hardware and software) fade into insignificance or oblivion.


----------



## PhilBurton

Gnits said:


> I do not mind if Adobe have a Pro product (Ie Classic) and a more consumer / phone product (Ie Cc).
> 
> The fear is that Adobe will follow the Apple model  where ultimately their 'Pro' products (hardware and software) fade into insignificance or oblivion.


Gnits,

I think your fear is reasonable, but I would like to suggest that Adobe's "sweet spot" in the overall marketplace is professional creatives and businesses.

Look at the  Adobe Creative Cloud | Software and services for creative professionals.  Does this web page, and the products it promotes, appeal to the phone-camera users?

How about  Adobe Document Cloud ?

And there is also Marketing Cloud, Experience Cloud, Advertising Cloud and Analytics Cloud. 

Phil


----------



## Replytoken

Gnits said:


> I do not mind if Adobe have a Pro product (Ie Classic) and a more consumer / phone product (Ie Cc).
> 
> The fear is that Adobe will follow the Apple model  where ultimately their 'Pro' products (hardware and software) fade into insignificance or oblivion.


I would be happy to have their new product if they did not kill the old one.  And if the market for the classic product is not profitable for Adobe, then at least attempt to spin it off rather than kill it if they have any care about the photographic community.

--Ken


----------



## Man-Machine

Adobe - like virtually all companies in the digital field - thinks the future is in the mobile. I don't argue there.
Wether Classic will survive or not depends on if Adobe manages to lure the mobile crowd to use LR.
If not they'll go back to their old cash cow, Classic.
If they do Classic will certainly be discontinued at some point.
The coming years will show.


----------



## tspear

I just had a funny call, well I think it is funny, but my friend is really pissed. 
He and his wife are Apple aficionados, they always are upgrading and install the latest greatest of whatever without thinking stuff through. e.g. Apple removing Aperture on a release, iPhoto to Photos... So a big part of why the switched to Adobe was to avoid such problems.
They just got a new computer Thursday because the old one was low on space. Installed the new Lr CC, import a few thousand images, spend all day Thursday, Friday, and most of Saturday editing images from a recent trip. 
Now they decided the wanted to move over the catalog from the old machine, and print a series of images from the recent trip and the last trip for the in-laws. 
Well, Lr CC has no print, and Lr CC does not seem to have a good way to migrate the existing Lr 6 catalog (or there are warnings about losing what you have already loaded, his comments). 
As I see it, he has a few choices, none of which are very good.
1. Import the images into the old catalog and redo all the edits.
2. Import the catalog into Lr CC, and hope all the existing edits are not lost. Problem is he has 7TB of images. Not sure Adobe is ready for that one, and not sure he is willing to pay $70 a month for storage.
3. Live in a dual world until Adobe gets it act together.

I know this sucks for him, but I have to laugh at how the marketing screw up and timing just bit him on the but again. Does anyone have any suggestions for my friend who always fails to look before leaping?

Tim


----------



## CloudedGenie

tspear said:


> Does anyone have any suggestions for my friend who always fails to look before leaping?



Tell your friend Adobe believes modern people no longer print stuff, printing is for old folks... 

I would export the edited, cropped and sharpened photos as TIFF or high quality JPG, import those  into a new temporary catalog in LR6 and print from there...


----------



## clee01l

For printing, you can use the Edit function to open Photoshop and print from that app.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

.


clee01l said:


> For printing, you can use the Edit function to open Photoshop and print from that app.



If they have the Lightroom CC plan, they don't have Photoshop. Come to think of that: it's kind of cynical that Lightroom CC is the future of photography, can only use Photoshop as external editor, but you only get Photoshop if you subscribe to the plan that contains good old dying Lightroom Classic...


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## tspear

CloudedGenie said:


> Tell your friend Adobe believes modern people no longer print stuff, printing is for old folks...



rofl. 


clee01l said:


> For printing, you can use the Edit function to open Photoshop and print from that app.


good point. 

So they can print, now about those catalogs....

Tim


----------



## johnbeardy

Doesn't it just show how LRCC has been released without the bare minimum of features?


----------



## Replytoken

Man-Machine said:


> If not they'll go back to their old cash cow, Classic.


While I do not know for certain, I suspect that Classic is not nearly the cash cow that many other Adobe programs are.  This is what concerns me, as companies shed programs that are not core to their mission.  If Adobe find more "cloud surfers" than you could ever imagine for its new product, then losing the classic crowd is not really much of a financial hit to them.  Whether the potential reputational ding would hurt is another question.

--Ken


----------



## Replytoken

CloudedGenie said:


> Tell your friend Adobe believes modern people no longer print stuff, printing is for old folks...



I would say that this is funny, but I suspect that Adobe may have done research and found that those who print are a smaller and smaller share of potential customers.

--Ken


----------



## PhilBurton

Replytoken said:


> I would say that this is funny, but I suspect that Adobe may have done research and found that those who print are a smaller and smaller share of potential customers.
> 
> --Ken


If the real target for LR CC is the iphone crowd, then I agree.  Who gets prints from pictures on their devices?  The devices themselves serve as "albums."  But then Adobe massively confused the marketplace by calling the new product "Lightroom."  Also every other CC product is aimed at creatives who need powerful tools, including printing.

This new product belongs in a separate category along with "consumer" products like Photoshop Elements, not in the CC suite.

Phil


----------



## Replytoken

PhilBurton said:


> If the real target for LR CC is the iphone crowd, then I agree.  Who gets prints from pictures on their devices.  The devices themselves serve as "albums."  But then Adobe massively confused the marketplace by calling the new product "Lightroom."  Also every other CC product is aimed at creatives who need powerful tools, including printing.
> 
> This new product belongs in a separate category along with "consumer" products like Photoshop Elements, not in the CC suite.
> 
> Phil


There is a lot of logic to this, but I suspect that a marketer could say that non-techies might take some pride in saying that they use "Lightroom", a product used by "professional photographers".  Not unlike buying a re-badged Panasonic camera bearing the red dot and the Leica name.

--Ken


----------



## tspear

Replytoken said:


> There is a lot of logic to this, but I suspect that a marketer could say that non-techies might take some pride in saying that they use "Lightroom", a product used by "professional photographers".  Not unlike buying a re-badged Panasonic camera bearing the red dot and the Leica name.
> 
> --Ken



And that is where Lightroom Elements would have come into play. Just like Photoshop Elements....
Oh wait, that is logical and probably would have worked.

Tim


----------



## PhilBurton

Replytoken said:


> There is a lot of logic to this, but I suspect that a marketer could say that non-techies might take some pride in saying that they use "Lightroom", a product used by "professional photographers".  Not unlike buying a re-badged Panasonic camera bearing the red dot and the Leica name.
> 
> --Ken


Sure, but that result leads to a "cheapened" brand.  I could equally say that non-techies might be put off by a "professional/techie" product as being too hard to use.  Lots of people "just want to get results" without difficulty and a professional/techie product might seem to be too difficult to use.

Phil


----------



## Jimmsp

PhilBurton said:


> Sure, but that result leads to a "cheapened" brand.  I could equally say that non-techies might be put off by a "professional/techie" product as being too hard to use.  Lots of people "just want to get results" without difficulty and a professional/techie product might seem to be too difficult to use.
> 
> Phil



Most of the folks that I know that take photos with a phone or tablet *do not* want to do any post processing, period. They will take what the camera gives them, or what it quickly allows them to do with one click of a button, and they share that. Adobe's competition in this market is Apple, Samsung, and all the other smart phone manufacturers.
The few people that I know who do any post work on smart phone photos also have other cameras, generally dslrs, also do their post work on a desktop.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

Jimmsp said:


> Most of the folks that I know that take photos with a phone or tablet *do not* want to do any post processing, period. They will take what the camera gives them, or what it quickly allows them to do with one click of a button, and they share that.



I'm not sure if it is that they do not want to, or it is impractical now.  Look at the success of "filters" on some of the sharing services; admittedly those are not so much designed to make photos better as just different. But look at all the attention lately on smart camera processing.

You are absolutely correct speed is crucial, but if people could do the processing right then, in a few minutes, I think it is less clear whether the selfie generation would want to or not.


----------



## frozenframe

Jim posted what I was thinking while I was typing...

After reading all the previous posts, there's one thing about Adobe's new baby, LRCC (not classic), being geared toward the selfie/cellphone crowd, that just does not make sense to me. Most of my friends now take their photos with their phones. They _*do not*_ post-process them at all. It's just snap and share to FB. They don't have a clue what post-processing is. I wonder just how many of the masses are in that camp? If so, how could Adobe even consider them as a possible market to grab?

I was very, very disappointed Adobe chose this route. I had to cancel my photography bundle and revert to the perpetual for LR due to a temporary financial setback. I really liked being able to have PS available when I needed it, and did go to great lengths learning it. Thus when the time was right, I would again subscribe. I don't think that's going to happen now. It seems more than clear they are going to drop LR for the professionals, in favor of those that don't have a clue about photography, about what it takes to create, or make great images. To me, Adobe is no longer concerned with being the _*Industry Standard*_, the one used by top of the line professionals.

There's no way I could or would upload all my images to their or anyone's cloud. My internet is way too slow for that, and can not be upgraded to any faster speed. I don't trust them any further than I can spit. What would Adobe's position be if they got hacked, and some pro's photos got into the hands of the wrong people? I'm not just talking copyright issues, I'm talking about photos say of a model, and that image being used in a manner that is demeaning? The photographer will more than likely get sued. Can Adobe guarantee something like this will not happen? It just seems ridiculous to upload _my images_ to a cloud so I can then download them, to edit them, to cull them, or whatever. I decide what images I want on the internet, not some mega corp.


----------



## ech1965

Tom Hogarty said:


> I'm not sure if there are any additional words I can say to reassure this group about Lightroom Classic.  Actions are more important than words so please hold us accountable while we continue to update LrClassic over time.  As I've mentioned publicly before our focus is performance, editing enhancements and features/functionality that have been strong customer requests over time(the new embedded preview workflow is a strong indication of that type of direction).
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Hogarty
> Adobe Systems



( Please forgive my "Frenchy English" )

One way to (maybe) please the nostaligcs of the LR6 perpetual licence would be to have a new kind of subscription "LR Classic Only" priced according to the LR5 to LR6 upgrade:

* Only LR classic
* NO Photoshop
* NO LRWEB
* NO LRCC
* NO Cloud storage

ONLY the right to use an evolving LR Classic Software. for let's say 60€ a year. 

My 0.02€


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

ech1965 said:


> ( Please forgive my "Frenchy English" )


Just for the record anyone who can write "Frenchy English" already speaks better English than many natives. 


ech1965 said:


> One way to (maybe) please the nostaligcs of the LR6 perpetual licence would be to have a new kind of subscription "LR Classic Only" priced according to the LR5 to LR6 upgrade:


I believe it is a religious argument, not financial.

I will believe this when I see many of those with a record of being perpetually opposed to subscription step forward and say "yeah, well, if it cost less, I'm in".

So far I haven't seen that.  And honestly I think this battle is over and it's time to move on; the battle of the future will be over proprietary cloud, trust us to manage your data vs manage your own storage.  Or perhaps dumbed down vs technical sophistication.  I see lots of competitors fighting the last battle by stepping away from subscription, but I think this is a momentary thing; it just makes too much economic sense and subscription seems here to stay.

Look at everything else people use: they pay subscriptions for cars, housing, etc. (ok, there's a tiny fraction who pay up front, most people take a loan or lease and when it's paid off buy a new one). They pay-as-you-go for food, electricity, cell service.  Many, sadly, rent furniture (literally), or buy it on time.

The financially conservative aging population is shrinking; the instant gratification, worry about tomorrow the day after generation is where the money is (even if it's often their parent's money they are spending), and they just don't get this whole perpetual vs subscription argument.


----------



## ech1965

Ferguson said:


> Just for the record anyone who can write "Frenchy English" already speaks better English than many natives.
> 
> I will believe this when I see many of those with a record of being perpetually opposed to subscription step forward and say "yeah, well, if it cost less, I'm in".



I did not say it's too expensive, I said I'm willing to get LESS stuff for LESS money.

I'say it's a matter of being forced to pay for something you don't want/need.

I DO NOT WANT to be forced to pay for Photoshop nor any additional "stuff".

I JUST want to be able to keep using LR Classic. So I'd go for the subscription but only for the useful stuff.  

I'd like to "vote with my wallet" but right now there is no "votable" possibility.


Regards
Etienne


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

ech1965 said:


> I did not say it's too expensive, I said I'm willing to get LESS stuff for LESS money.
> 
> I'say it's a matter of being forced to pay for something you don't want/need.


I have a friend who goes on and on about buying Nikon DSLR's that do video.  He says he's paying for it and doesn't want or need it.

But the reality is that it is cheaper to manufacture one camera that does both than two cameras.

While software is a bit different, remember that Adobe's "cost" is mostly about cannibalization.  It costs them nothing to include Photoshop, unless it is preventing someone from buying it separately.  Someone has done a lot of math to figure out what they think the market tolerance is for price.

So the question is whether Adobe would bother with a $5 product; would enough additional people sign up who did not at $10 to offset the number who now pay $10 but would jump on $5 and give up photoshop.  That's the question someone hunched over query screens in their BI products figure out.  And my guess is a LOT of people would jump back to $5 as Photoshop is so complex they rarely use it.

So my guess is it won't happen.



ech1965 said:


> I'd like to "vote with my wallet" but right now there is no "votable" possibility.



Indeed, and that is precisely the problem with monopoly products, and why I keep hoping the competition steps forward.  I like Adobe, even if there were viable alternatives I likely would stay there.  BUT... competition would make Adobe accountable.  Right now users can shout and scream and moan but statistically very very few stop using their product.

That's the problem with a de facto monopoly.  We as users put adobe in a monopoly status; but now that they are there, it is really tough to sway them, we have no real (financial) leverage.


----------



## PhilBurton

ech1965 said:


> ( Please forgive my "Frenchy English" )
> 
> One way to (maybe) please the nostaligcs of the LR6 perpetual licence would be to have a new kind of subscription "LR Classic Only" priced according to the LR5 to LR6 upgrade:
> 
> * Only LR classic
> * NO Photoshop
> * NO LRWEB
> * NO LRCC
> * NO Cloud storage
> 
> ONLY the right to use an evolving LR Classic Software. for let's say 60€ a year.
> 
> My 0.02€



Votre anglais est très bon.

Phil Burton


----------



## PhilBurton

ech1965 said:


> ( Please forgive my "Frenchy English" )
> 
> One way to (maybe) please the nostaligcs of the LR6 perpetual licence would be to have a new kind of subscription "LR Classic Only" priced according to the LR5 to LR6 upgrade:
> 
> * Only LR classic
> * NO Photoshop
> * NO LRWEB
> * NO LRCC
> * NO Cloud storage
> 
> ONLY the right to use an evolving LR Classic Software. for let's say 60€ a year.
> 
> My 0.02€



Votre anglais est très bon.

Phil Burton


----------



## ech1965

PhilBurton said:


> Votre anglais est très bon.
> 
> Phil Burton


Merci !!!
Etienne


----------



## davidedric

I can't really see that the "selfie" market is Adobe's target audience. As I understand it, intelligent in-phone image enhancement is improving at such a rate it would be like chasing shadows.  Surely, it's to support transparent, work anywhere "real" photographers - though it feels to me like a long way to go.  I don't see posts from many who just use Lightroom, and reconstructing that surrounding ecosystem will also take time.

Dave


----------



## tspear

@ech1965 
Ton anglais est meilleur que mon français

Tim


----------



## IanW

I am one of those LR only users who does not even possess a mobile phone. After a few days using LRCC and continuing with LR Classic I am torn between the two.
I’ve used LR since the beginning and I’ve tried other software but only LR offers the completeness that I desire.
LRCC at this juncture doesn’t have sufficient features though I do like the idea of synchronising originals between my iMac and my iPad Pro.
LR Classic has a lot of stuff I have never used and some stuff I only use very infrequently. A simplified version would be attractive to me but I don’t think LRCC is it and certainly has a long way to go.
One obvious shortcoming for me to achieve a truly mobile workflow is the lack of feature parity between LRCC and LRmobile.
At this early point in time I find myself wavering between the two versions.
I only hope that Adobe realises that in software ‘one size fits all’ is not really practical and should not seek to converge the two.

Regards

Ian


----------



## Jim Wilde

IanW said:


> LRCC at this juncture doesn’t have sufficient features though I do like the idea of synchronising originals between my iMac and my iPad Pro.


You don't technically need LRCC to be able to upload originals, that can be done using LRWeb in a browser window (and has in fact been possible for quite a while). More about this type of more unconventional usage will be coming out in the next few days/weeks. In the last two days alone I've seen 4 members at least say they're working on their own variant.



> One obvious shortcoming for me to achieve a truly mobile workflow is the lack of feature parity between LRCC and LRmobile.



I assume you mean lack of feature parity between *Classic* and LRmobile? LRCC and Lrmobile are pretty close to full feature parity already.


----------



## IanW

I can upload originals if I import images to my iPad first. The originals then go to LR Classic via the cloud.

No I did mean LRCC and LRmobile. The latter does not include clone/heal or geometry (as it’s called in LRCC) to name but two.

Regards

Ian


----------



## PhilBurton

davidedric said:


> I can't really see that the "selfie" market is Adobe's target audience. As I understand it, intelligent in-phone image enhancement is improving at such a rate it would be like chasing shadows.  Surely, it's to support transparent, work anywhere "real" photographers - though it feels to me like a long way to go.  I don't see posts from many who just use Lightroom, and reconstructing that surrounding ecosystem will also take time.
> 
> Dave


Dave,

Here is an interesting post from B&H Photo, one of the largest photo (now video, computers, etc, etc) in the US.  If someone does want to edit their iphone pictures, Apple already provides some useful tools.  The iPhone Camera: More Than a Basic Point-and-Shoot


----------



## Jim Wilde

IanW said:


> I can upload originals if I import images to my iPad first. The originals then go to LR Classic via the cloud.
> 
> No I did mean LRCC and LRmobile. The latter does not include clone/heal or geometry (as it’s called in LRCC) to name but two.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Ian


Sure you can use your iPad, the point I was making is that if the originals are on your iMac it'd be a darn sight easier to drag and drop them into a browser window than to copy them over to the iPad....well, for me that would be, and would definitely be quicker.

Yes, I did say "close" to full feature parity, but they are certainly an awful lot closer than LR Classic and the mobile system are.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## IanW

I take your points Jim. 
I actually didn’t know you could use LRweb to upload originals. That gives me another option. Thanks.
I think the more I do with LRCC the more I’m realising just how restrictive LRCC only would be. After being impressed initially I am finding my preferences/requirements swinging back to LR Classic.
At present I am scanning my back catalog of negatives & slides and there is no way I could accomplish this task with LRCC only. No file renaming, folder organisation, export options, watched folder etc......

Regards
Ian


----------



## IanW

I take your point Jim.
I didn’t know I could upload originals via LRweb. So that’s another option. Thanks.
After being impressed initially by LRCC I am swinging back towards Classic.
I am currently scanning my back catalog of negatives & slides and certainly could not accomplish this very easily with LRCC alone. No file renaming, folder organisation, watched folder etc......

Thanks again for your input Jim

Regards

Ian


----------



## Diko

I say: Go to adobe.com forum and make suggestions if you want something to change. But don't look back.

Things always change. And change is good. Many people didn't liked those changes at first.Do you remember the PS 3, 4, 5... etc. Then came the CS (Creative Suite), man did I hated this change - it would always perplex me on the version number. And for what to show there are Illustrator and Designer. Now love Illustrator though not using it (that much). CC - after Cs 1,2 3... 6, CS 6 now seems old. We have the CC 2014, 15..18.

The only pain in the neck is actually the misunderstanding for the forking of LR. Now we are kind of babysittin' the LR's little brother, that way we tell it how we want it to behave. Neglect it and in later iteration we would not enjoy its improper behaviour at all.

For the moment it's clumsy the least (no adjustment sync is so stupid... copy/pasting to each separated photo like idiots), no sharp mask, no proper final sharpening, and many others I guess. But if we don't tell Adobe what we are missing, they "might" not change it. If I only complain - 1 in thousand wouldn't make them believe it is needed.

Many people are concerned about their RAW images on the NET - well guess what - each time you google - your preferences are known by everyone. Every time you wonder if you need something and look for it on the NET - there it is. The next day my facebook offers me to buy it for the weeks to come.

Every photo on instagram, every thought expressed on Facebook - is being recorded to the "Cloud of Things" - And it's cloudy there. No one knows who can and who will be looking at you and your virtual persona. As upset as we might be - the only thing left is to have our RAW files backed up and go on with the cloud thing. As long as it delivers for the right price. I am fine! How about you?

And is the Classic dead? Nah - Classics never die


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Diko said:


> Now we are kind of babysittin' the LR's little brother, that way we tell it how we want it to behave. Neglect it and in later iteration we would not enjoy its improper behaviour at all.



That’s a great analogy. I wish I’d thought of that! We can ignore it as the pesky little brother, or we can mould it into what we want it to become.


----------



## Jonathan Buckley

Regarding the pesky little brother analogy...

Yes, I agree, but I see a potential difficulty here.

Forgive the generalisations but if, after the dust has settled, the majority of heavy duty professionals stick with Classic for the time being and most early adopters of LRCC are the keen amateurs then I’m not sure that the Classic users will have the time or interest to monitor and help contribute their opinions to the future development of the 'little brother' LRCC - they’ll be too busy complaining about what is going on in Classic. So inevitably LRCC is more likely to be influenced by what the keen amateurs want. Some LR users who have been complaining about Adobe pandering to amateurs in recent LR updates may consider this a good thing but the danger is that this may drive the two programs further apart.

Of course that’s no bad thing for Adobe financially but it would be a shame as I can see that in the distant future LRCC could be developed into a great program for pros if the feature set is made comparable and all the issues of bandwidth/ flexible offline/online storage etc have become clear/been sorted. 

There is an undeniable truth that whilst the needs of enthusiasts and professionals overlap in major areas they are still very different in terms of workflow and functionality priorities which makes it hard to combine into one program  - hence all these changes.

So,trying to be positive, perhaps in the distant future Classic will have to be phased out but a new program will be released catering for pros but using what has been learned from the coding/structure of LRCC. I guess whether this happens or not will depend on the number of sales and subscriptions of the two programs which will show how much each market is worth. In the meantime anyone got any name suggestions?


----------



## tspear

Adobe I think has missed the basics when it comes to UI design.
Even the new Lr CC fails on this note.
If you want to cater to such a wide gamut of users, the UI needs the ability to be changed by the user. The company should provide a few defaults, but let the user drive it. See macphun workspaces for example. There are many others also which do this.
Such functionality is rather basic to a system, and a lot of effort to add later. No easy way to know if Adobe has done so, and it was incomplete for this release so not enabled.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Changeable workspaces do cause as much confusion as the benefits they create. Look at the number of people who lose panels in LR6, and they're only hidden!


----------



## rob211

Victoria Bampton said:


> Changeable workspaces do cause as much confusion as the benefits they create. Look at the number of people who lose panels in LR6, and they're only hidden!


Gee, even Bridge allows for workspaces, so I dunno if Lr CC should be stuck with Lr's modules going forward. They are gonna have to think about that; hard to add Maps without some significant changes. Which makes me worry that they could never get Classic's georeferencing into CC, as it would tax the interface, which is nice.

And that's why I think Classic should stay where it can manage the boring, ugly tasks that you maybe only do occasionally. Like say at import. All that metadata stuff, maybe publishing and printing, web, slideshows. Let CC do what it does best: synching, mobile, easy adjustment. Since the applications could easily exchange info via XMP sidecars I don't see what this couldn't work. Indeed, some of use have been using the classic (retro?) grandma-of-an-application Bridge for this. Maybe some of Classic will become like that.


----------



## mak65

When my LR6 perpetual no longer works with my OS or a new camera can't be recognized any longer -- so long Adobe.

I will not pay "perpetual" monthly fees for it.


----------



## Hoggy

mak65 said:


> I will not pay "perpetual" monthly fees for it.



What they at least ought to do is allow some sort of a fully-functioning perpetual 'escape clause' - for people that may have come into such a misfortune so as to not be able to afford a subscription any longer..  Say even after 3 or 4 years of subscribing, they get to keep a *FULLY functioning* snapshot of the current release they have, bugs and all -- and Adobe help-desk support for say, a month after that.

Chances are, that unless you're dead, you will still need a hobby - for us serious amateurs/hobbyists that maybe splurged on camera equipment they had no business buying in the first place.
For me, the availability of a fully-functioning perpetual version to fall back to _*was*_ that escape clause - a comfort to know that that would be a possibility if/when I can't afford to sell Adobe my soul any longer.

In the meantime, I notice that ON1 is gaining HDR and pano features in the next [2018] version - and they say they are working on stacks and virtual copies, too..  Something to take note of....  And they at least claim that perpetual will always exist -- not just indefinitely.
....  Could be an alternative to the continual sheep/cattle herding that Adobe IS doing: the Nooooo! -- well, ok, what are you going to do -- Here, please take my money Adobe, PLEASE!  -----  cycle, that they are for-sure counting on.  The people that have gotten to that last step apparently don't ever think something bad could happen to them - or they are rich enough to not have to worry (must be nice, I imagine).

(However, DO note that if you get a new camera that isn't supported in your perpetual v6, there is the possibility of converting to DNG.)


----------



## Johan Elzenga

rob211 said:


> Gee, even Bridge allows for workspaces, so I dunno if Lr CC should be stuck with Lr's modules going forward. They are gonna have to think about that; hard to add Maps without some significant changes.



Lightroom CC already has maps...


----------



## Hoggy

Victoria Bampton said:


> Changeable workspaces do cause as much confusion as the benefits they create. Look at the number of people who lose panels in LR6, and they're only hidden!



While that seems to be the case with Lightroom [Classic], there are not many people posting about the same regarding Capture One and it's configurable panels at Luminous Landscapes.  Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever even seen one at LuLa, at least - but I could be wrong of course.  And the main complaint regarding configurable panels with Photoshop seems to be that they don't stick after a restart (which I've had happen to me too, even with as few attempts at me trying to use it as _I_ have).

And considering the new 'LR CC' (aka Lightroom Elements) is, or should be, just catering to the selfie/more-advanced-happy-snapper crowd, a strong case could be made for that product sticking to static panels.  As one of the desperate hopes is that Classic can start concentrating more on features desired by professionals and serious enthusiasts, a strong case could now be made that LR Classic (aka REAL) could start acquiring features like configurable panels & modes.  .... Us big boys and girls should be able to handle it. 

ETA: Oh...  And considering the spaghetti code concern from earlier..  Wouldn't Photoshop itself be spaghetti code by now?  It's been around much longer than Lightroom Real, yet it's still here.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Yes, I think the panel disappearing problem is not a good comparison, because this is a pretty much undocumented feature. And because Lightroom is not supposed to be configurable, you won't expect that it is a little configurable after all. I've not seen any complaints about missing Photoshop panels either.


----------



## johnbeardy

The thing is, as with Photoshop in the past, C1's interface is so cluttered you simply have to configure your own panels. Saying it's an advantage is to make a virtue of necessity, isn't it? If Adobe do their job right with LRCC, there's no need for configurable panels - except maybe for a left handed workflow.

Remember, Hoggy, Photoshop has had a number of big rewrites. Also, I wouldn't exaggerate the issue of spaghetti code in Lightroom.

John


----------



## Hoggy

johnbeardy said:


> The thing is, as with Photoshop in the past, C1's interface is so cluttered you simply have to configure your own panels. Saying it's an advantage is to make a virtue of necessity, isn't it? If Adobe do their job right with LRCC, there's no need for configurable panels - except maybe for a left handed workflow.



I tend to be rather neutral on the configurable panels issue in Classic (I couldn't care less about Lightroom Elements)..  There are times when I think it might be nice, though.  Hopefully as technology progresses, Lightroom Classic could acquire more and more non-destructive tools similar to Photoshop - which might necessitate configurable panels/modes vs. having to scroll through dozens of collapsed panels [in solo mode] to get to something.

However, during my trials of C1 at dot releases, I did start liking the configurability a bit.  You can make it as uncluttered, or as cluttered as one would want.  Now as far as the menus being cluttered - well....that's another story.  It certainly does take getting used to, and it could definitely be more configurable - but the same might be said for many programs.

(And if you've ever used Directory Opus on Windows, you might see just how heavy configurability could make things confusing..  There is even an 'advanced' search box in preferences.   So that's the angle I'm coming from.  )



> Remember, Hoggy, Photoshop has had a number of big rewrites. Also, I wouldn't exaggerate the issue of spaghetti code in Lightroom.



I didn't know PS went through some big rewrites.  Hopefully we will be able to say the same for Classic....  Despite it's essential non-existence within the Adobe website. :(


----------



## tspear

johnbeardy said:


> The thing is, as with Photoshop in the past, C1's interface is so cluttered you simply have to configure your own panels. Saying it's an advantage is to make a virtue of necessity, isn't it? If Adobe do their job right with LRCC, there's no need for configurable panels - except maybe for a left handed workflow.
> 
> Remember, Hoggy, Photoshop has had a number of big rewrites. Also, I wouldn't exaggerate the issue of spaghetti code in Lightroom.
> 
> John




Not sure about C1; but I have designed multiple systems before and we built it with a configurable UI. Therefore, the default was just throw everything in; which was supper cluttered and ugly.

Tim


----------



## rob211

JohanElzenga said:


> Lightroom CC already has maps...
> 
> View attachment 9979



Yes, that's a good example of the difference between Classic and CC. CC has a "map." For photos that are already georeferenced. I dunno why they even bother. You can't do anything with it except go out to Google maps. One of Jeffrey Friedl's plugins does more; with that plugin you can go to any number of other maps, Google Earth, etc. It's literally as far from the Maps module in Classic as you could get and still be able to say "map" in a feature list, and shows how far off the mark CC is when it comes to metadata features. Anyone doing georeferencing is going to have to use other software.

CC's competitors do a much better job, say both Apple's Photos and Mylio. Both allow editing using the maps. Anyone having to do a lot of georeferencing still wouldn't choose those, but for just viewing or using already georeferenced images they are much better. Both have views where images are grouped by location. Given Adobe's hype of Sensei, you'd think it would leverage that to give say some nice calendar or place views, or sort by locations as Apple or Google does. Google will use its AI to put together little trip slideshows, complete with a map. Adobe's Sensei apparently doesn't have the smarts to do that. I had considered using CC for mostly galleries and sharing, as I've done with Google, Apple or Mylio. But it doesn't cut it for that, and this is one more reason why.

The thing that really irks is that if they had plugin support they'd never have to do much more than what they've got now; Mr Friedl has done it for them. I'd stay around after Classic if that's the case. If not, I'll have no choice but to switch again; I'd only moved back to Lr from Aperture after they implemented the Maps module. I suspect there may be lots of folks that heavily depend on certain, less used features in Classic like georeferencing (like says sports photographers or wildlife photographers who depend heavily on controlled keyword hierarchies. Adobe will loose them if Classic goes and the less sexy features like that never make it to CC. Another example would be the folks that use external controllers for Lr; I don't think that's available in CC and those things can cost a lot of money.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

I think so much of this discussion is premature. Lightroom CC is a 1.0 version that is out for one week now. Nobody knows whether or not it will support plugins in the future, or what it will be able to do by itself in the future. We only know what it can do today, and obviously that is not the same as 10 year old Lightroom Classic. Or Apple Photos or Mylio for that matter.


----------



## Duncanh

JohanElzenga said:


> I think so much of this discussion is premature. Lightroom CC is a 1.0 version that is out for one week now. Nobody knows whether or not it will support plugins in the future, or what it will be able to do by itself in the future. We only know what it can do today, and obviously that is not the same as 10 year old Lightroom Classic. Or Apple Photos or Mylio for that matter.



I definitely agree with that and also this thread is "Is Lightroom Classic end-of-life?" which is the most important thing to me. Should I be looking elsewhere? If Adobe doesn't clearly explain their roadmap for the two Lightroom versions it could end up being a self fulfilling prophecy with people not wanting to invest the time in Lightroom Classic in case it is not developed.  I've watched a couple of Topaz Studio webinars recently and have been quite impressed.  No DAM but at one of the webinars someone asked if they had any plans and they said yes but no timescales, this was before Adobe's announcement, I wonder now if they may think about it far more seriously and bring forward any plans they have.


----------



## PhilBurton

Duncanh said:


> I definitely agree with that and also this thread is "Is Lightroom Classic end-of-life?" which is the most important thing to me. Should I be looking elsewhere? If Adobe doesn't clearly explain their roadmap for the two Lightroom versions it could end up being a self fulfilling prophecy with people not wanting to invest the time in Lightroom Classic in case it is not developed.  I've watched a couple of Topaz Studio webinars recently and have been quite impressed.  No DAM but at one of the webinars someone asked if they had any plans and they said yes but no timescales, this was before Adobe's announcement, I wonder now if they may think about it far more seriously and bring forward any plans they have.


I hope that Adobe is reading all these threads and parsing out the reasonable points, and seriously contemplating how to respond.  These are not "normal times" for Adobe, so the "normal approach" of never publishing a roadmap will need to be changed.  I know that companies usually don't publish roadmaps (why tip off the competition?) but "usually" is not helpful here.

Phil


----------



## Duncanh

I come from a business software background and agree publishing a feature by feature roadmap isn't usually, as you say why tip off competitor and also tie yourself to prioritising features. But particularly when you are making big changes to a software product or developing another option in tandem often software houses will publish the reasons for the changes and where long term they are planning to go to ensure users don't fear they may be left behind and make other plans.


----------



## tspear

I think it interesting how people keep talking about how it will tip the hand of competitors.
Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, Intuit... All of them announce partial road maps; a year or more in advance for a lot of products.
Is it the complete story? no.
Is it things that will give the competitors a heads up? no.
Anyway, Adobe could release a lot of information to make people happy which does not give away anything. 
e.g. For Lr CC, what are the top three features to be added that already exist in Lr Classic?
For Lr Classic, what are the top twenty issues which have been requested?

Do not make it harder than it has to be.

Tim


----------



## Victoria Bampton

tspear said:


> Anyway, Adobe could release a lot of information to make people happy which does not give away anything.



At this point, I’m not sure how much people would listen or believe them. I think actions will speak louder than words. Watch them for 6 months or a year and see what they do, and make your decisions based on progress. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## tspear

Victoria Bampton said:


> At this point, I’m not sure how much people would listen or believe them. I think actions will speak louder than words. Watch them for 6 months or a year and see what they do, and make your decisions based on progress.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



A good part of credibility is matching actions to words. Right now, based on a multitude of factors, Adobe has little to no credibility or trust.
Effectively, no communication is a blind faith statement that says "trust us, you will like it".
Therefore, in six months if Adobe has new releases; Adobe will have not regained any credibility or trust. The reason is because there is nothing to measure against. 

Instead, the I am left guessing. If Adobe stays silent, and depends on the actions defining them, it will take years to regain any trust or accountability. I was an early adopter of the subscription plan. The lack of substantial changes or advancements, or new features over the three years, has left me rather jaded. I only renewed a couple of months ago because I did not take the time to research alternatives. If I can only go on the actions, and have nothing to effectively measure Adobe against, I would have to likely wait the equivalent of two normal product cycles. That is about four years, which means for Adobe to regain my trust, I have to give Adobe another $480; when I have already paid $360 for Adobe Lr 6. Somehow, that just leaves me wanting. It also leaves me questioning the value proposition. Adobe has some functionality I considered critical to my flow, but at that ongoing price point, I now have to ask the question, is it really that critical?

Minor point. I do not use Ps, and I doubt I ever will. If I need Ps, I probably need to take better pictures to start with (my cynical position as a hobbyist) hence, I never placed a value to Ps as part of the subscription plan.

Tim


----------



## johnbeardy

Will it take years, Tim, or a series of perfectly-deliverable, no-collateral-damage, highly-visible improvements in areas other than Camera Raw that demonstrate a bit of love for the product? It's not as if Adobe lacks choice of features that need a few finishing touches that make them feel polished. For example, these just-do-its might include:

A keyboard shortcut for Purple
When an image is loaded in Develop, change the grad/radial/brush icon if that image has that adjustment
Increase the number of most-recently entered values from 10 to 30
If a field is available as a smart collection criterion, make it available in Library Filter - that may be more difficult but imagine the title or caption field in the filter
I'm sure everyone can think of similar ones, but I'm trying to bring my knowledge of the data structure and SDK to bear. It's a matter of getting the most bangs for the development buck, and of attracting eyeballs. As I keep saying, where's the beef?

John


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## tspear

@johnbeardy 
Good point. Answer is I do not definitively know. For me Adobe has multiple problems. Beyond the naming fiasco, I was already in a bad mood about Lr because I had effectively paid $240 bucks for the dehaze function (three years = 360 - 120 purchase price). I know there were other improvements, such as the transform angle stuff which is mathematically really hard, but it is so rare that I need such functionality I mentally say "meh, so what?". 
The end result, I do not think I would be impressed with such low hanging fruit so quickly. 

Tim


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Or my absolute favorite: make Lightroom remember the selected image(s) when you toggle between different collections and/or folders. If they do that, I'll trust them indefinitely!


----------



## PhilBurton

johnbeardy said:


> Will it take years, Tim, or a series of perfectly-deliverable, no-collateral-damage, highly-visible improvements in areas other than Camera Raw that demonstrate a bit of love for the product? It's not as if Adobe lacks choice of features that need a few finishing touches that make them feel polished. For example, these just-do-its might include:
> 
> A keyboard shortcut for Purple
> When an image is loaded in Develop, change the grad/radial/brush icon if that image has that adjustment
> Increase the number of most-recently entered values from 10 to 30
> If a field is available as a smart collection criterion, make it available in Library Filter - that may be more difficult but imagine the title or caption field in the filter
> I'm sure everyone can think of similar ones, but I'm trying to bring my knowledge of the data structure and SDK to bear. It's a matter of getting the most bangs for the development buck, and of attracting eyeballs. As I keep saying, where's the beef?
> 
> John


Which is why I hope Adobe reaches out to this group to help with problem statements, feature definitions and prioritization.

Phil


----------



## johnbeardy

And that seems exactly the sort of thing that doesn't endanger the core system, but shows love and care. Even a pig looks better with lipstick!


----------



## rob211

I agree with tspear. And also that CC is in early days. But we paid subscription prices and at least for Lr didn't get much in return, at least in terms of the hyped improvements. Lr Mobile advanced quite a bit, and now CC, but that is a direction that I don't have much interest in. So although CC is new and yet to have as much as it may have in the future, I don't have as much faith in the direction this is going as when I initially subscribed.

And I had a contract when I subscribed: for the application I subscribed to—Lr—to be improved. Now maybe it isn't. Instead, CC will be improved. That wasn't what I signed up for. I'll give it a shot, but I'm looking over my shoulder at alternatives again.


----------



## Gnits

johnbeardy said:


> It's not as if Adobe lacks choice of features that need a few finishing touches that make them feel polished.



I agree 1000%.  I also have a list of small items which can make great improvements to usability.


----------



## Jimmsp

JohanElzenga said:


> Or my absolute favorite: make Lightroom remember the selected image(s) when you toggle between different collections and/or folders. If they do that, I'll trust them indefinitely!


I would have that on my written list if I kept one. That frustrates me quite often.


----------



## Hoggy

....  Or how about not immediately removing an image from view at the very moment it no longer meets a smart collection criteria.  That remains my sole use for dumb collections - to mirror a smart collection I might be working on.


----------



## PhilBurton

Hoggy said:


> ....  Or how about not immediately removing an image from view at the very moment it no longer meets a smart collection criteria.  That remains my sole use for dumb collections - to mirror a smart collection I might be working on.


So maybe, just maybe, this "crisis" over the two-headed release can be the catalyst for an improved working relationship between people on this forum and Adobe.

Issues like these should be addressed to Adobe, and they should have some kind of prioritized response to us.  Should...


----------



## johnbeardy

Hoggy said:


> ....  Or how about not immediately removing an image from view at the very moment it no longer meets a smart collection criteria.  That remains my sole use for dumb collections - to mirror a smart collection I might be working on.



I've suggested that to them many times, though I wonder if explaining it as "like Excel's manual recalculation mode" might have been a mistake!

John


----------



## Johan Elzenga

johnbeardy said:


> I've suggested that to them many times, though I wonder if explaining it as "like Excel's manual recalculation mode" might have been a mistake!



Just tell them to look at Apple Aperture. This is exactly what Aperture does. As long as the image is selected because you are working on it, it will not be removed when your work makes it no longer fit the criteria. As soon as you move to the next image, it will disappear. There are many things where Adobe should have stolen a few ideas from Apple Aperture.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

BTW, because 'Tom Hogerty' only appeared here once and is silent again, let me be very skeptic: Maybe Tom was never here and doesn't read this. Maybe Victoria created his account (with Toms permission) and copied and pasted (some of) his blog?


----------



## johnbeardy

But probably safer to avoid Apple's lawyers by saying Excel was the inspiration! I would just want the SC/filter refresh to be suspended until I hit a shortcut or move to another folder/collection.


----------



## johnbeardy

JohanElzenga said:


> BTW, because 'Tom Hogerty' only appeared here once and is silent again, let me be very skeptic: Maybe Tom was never here and doesn't read this. Maybe Victoria created his account (with Toms permission) and copied and pasted (some of) his blog?



It's not quite cut and paste, and I know that Tom does read comments in other forums, so why not this? Not everything is #fake.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

I hope he does indeed read this forum, because some good comments werd made.


----------



## Gnits

JohanElzenga said:


> Or my absolute favorite: make Lightroom remember the selected image(s) when you toggle between different collections and/or folders.



I fully agree and  regard this as a top priority.  I have suggested and explained many times why this can be a major improvement in terms of usability.

Slightly related but different.  
Right click in Library mode and select the option Go To Folder in Library.

This is a frequently used feature ... but missing an important subtlety.  The focus will change to image in the folder, but the corresponding folder highlighted in the left hand panel is only sometimes selected (is that a bug). Most of the time the focus seems to remain on the previous folder or collection.  If the left panel is open, the focus should move to the folder containing the image every single time (I repeat ....every single time... and not sometimes).


----------



## Gnits

JohanElzenga said:


> BTW, because 'Tom Hogerty' only appeared here once and is silent again,



1. Tom's Q and A was the questions Tom wanted to raise and answer.
2. Absolutely no sign of Tom answering any of the other comments/ questions on that thread.
3. I think it is shameful that Adobe have not posted release notes re Lr Classic on the Lightroom Journal.


I posted some hard hitting comments on the Lr Journal which, 5 days later, are still awaiting moderation.  I do not want to post them here in duplicate, but I will post them here eventually if they are not published on the Lr Journal. I suspect the use of one or two of my phrases may parallel the use of "indefinite" by Tom in regard to perpetual licences.

I have had time to think about this whole mess ... and I finally have concluded that "I no longer care what Adobe do".  Why should I get upset because of the actions of a massively profitable enterprise.


----------



## Hoggy

Gnits said:


> 3. I think it is shameful that Adobe have not posted release notes re Lr Classic on the Lightroom Journal.



Thanks..  I thought it was just me having difficulty finding them.  I kept looking high and low for them, to see if the AMD-GPU issues since 2015.10.1 had been resolved before installing.  Since I didn't find them, I just figured that they must have fixed it by now - so I uninstalled the old version. 

Thankfully, after what must have been 'background' housekeeping being done for a good while after converting the catalog - causing delays of ~30 seconds for each develop change - the speed still seems to be rather respectable, and still faster than 2015.10.1 & .12 with the disabled GPU.


----------



## clee01l

johnbeardy said:


> And that seems exactly the sort of thing that doesn't endanger the core system, but shows love and care. Even a pig looks better with lipstick!





JohanElzenga said:


> BTW, because 'Tom Hogerty' only appeared here once and is silent again, let me be very skeptic: Maybe Tom was never here and doesn't read this. Maybe Victoria created his account (with Toms permission) and copied and pasted (some of) his blog?


Tom’s one off post needs to be more than just a “drive by shooting”. I was hearten that my response asking for a reply was endorsed by several. If he does not reply, then this becomes another example of how to lose the trust of your customers.


----------



## Gnits

This thread should be required reading for all Adobe managers and an action plan generated to pro-actively address the issues raised and suggestions made.


----------



## Duncanh

YouTube interview with Tom Hogarty and Lightroom Product Manager Sharad Mangalick. Don't know if people have seen it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaBeeBUZvAg

Two separate teams, doesn't sound they see the two versions working together or synergy between them.
I can't say it made me feel that Classic is here to stay or will be developed much in the future.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Gnits said:


> This thread should be required reading for all Adobe managers and an action plan generated to pro-actively address the issues raised and suggestions made.



Well, of course we should not make ourselves bigger than we are. This is just an independent forum for Lightroom users. It has no official connection with Adobe, and anyone can join. You don't have to take na exam to prove that you really are the 'power user', or the 'advanced' user or whatever you filled in. So why should Adobe treat this forum differently than the many other forums? But if you do take the time to join and make a statement like Tom did, then I think it doesn't help much if you leave it with that and do not come back or show any sign that you've read the replies and are taken them seriously. We are talking about restoring trust...


----------



## clee01l

JohanElzenga said:


> So why should Adobe treat this forum differently than the many other forums?


I may have missed it, but did Tom or anyone else go to Adobe’s own forum and ask what Adobe could do to restore customer trust?  At least the complaints here about Classic/LRCC/perpetual have been civil and respectful.  I can’t say that about the posts I read on Adobe’s own forum.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

JohanElzenga said:


> BTW, because 'Tom Hogerty' only appeared here once and is silent again, let me be very skeptic: Maybe Tom was never here and doesn't read this. Maybe Victoria created his account (with Toms permission) and copied and pasted (some of) his blog?


LOL! We can't have you joining in with the naysayers!  I sent Tom a link to this thread just as he was getting on a plane, and he joined and personally posted a few hours later. I was surprised to see him post, as I thought he'd just read the thread. He's now back in the office and no doubt absolutely overwhelmed by all the stuff coming at him. Anything he says, beyond what he's already said, would no doubt need to go through a million meetings and other red tape, so I wouldn't expect a response for a bit (if at all - he may choose a more public response to reach a wider audience).


----------



## PhilBurton

JohanElzenga said:


> BTW, because 'Tom Hogerty' only appeared here once and is silent again, let me be very skeptic: Maybe Tom was never here and doesn't read this. Maybe Victoria created his account (with Toms permission) and copied and pasted (some of) his blog?


I honestly don't think so, unless Tom specifically told Victoria to cut-and-paste.

To is in a difficult situation.  He has to follow corporate guidelines for product planning, which for most companies means, "Say as little as possible, because otherwise you will be blamed when the release is late," and similar concerns.  He is also facing significant issues from (a part of) his customer base.  He has to follow corporate decisions, which he can't contravene.  These decisions include a cloud focus an subscription pricing.  It's a tough situation.

That all said, doing things "the regular way" is not going to cut it in this situation.  He should ask for forgiveness, rather than ask permission, to change his approach with customers.

Phil


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Gnits said:


> I posted some hard hitting comments on the Lr Journal which, 5 days later, are still awaiting moderation.  I do not want to post them here in duplicate, but I will post them here eventually if they are not published on the Lr Journal. I suspect the use of one or two of my phrases may parallel the use of "indefinite" by Tom in regard to perpetual licences.



No, some of mine are still in the mod queue too. Rikk (who I happened to have on Skype as I was reading this) just pinged Jeff to try to get them moving. They're just swamped by feedback right now. In many ways, it's a good thing, because it shows how passionate we all are about Lightroom.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Well, it's good to hear that Tom really read this thread and responded. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes right now. And to make one thing clear: personally I do not doubt that Lightroom Classic will be developed further. Not 'indefinitely'  perhaps, but at least for the next few years.


----------



## Hal P Anderson

Adobe hasn't entirely forgotten LR Classic. Here's a screen grab of a portion of an email they sent me:


 
That email didn't mention LRCC at all, although if you followed the link, that page talked about it at the bottom.


----------



## LouieSherwin

And the answer is...


----------



## LouieSherwin

Nobody really knows. Stay tuned and Adobe will surely keep us informed.

-louie


----------



## tspear

LouieSherwin said:


> Nobody really knows. Stay tuned and Adobe will surely keep us informed.
> 
> -louie



In four years, after you spend another $480.... 

Tim the cynic


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Hal P Anderson said:


> Adobe hasn't entirely forgotten LR Classic. Here's a screen grab of a portion of an email they sent me:
> View attachment 9994
> That email didn't mention LRCC at all, although if you followed the link, that page talked about it at the bottom.



I just got an email that describes two great new photography applications: Lightroom CC and Photoshop CC. Not a word about Lightroom Classic... :(


----------



## johnbeardy

They must think you're its target market, Johan


----------



## tspear

johnbeardy said:


> They must think you're its target market, Johan


At least we are at the point we can laugh about it (I hope).
What is interesting to me is the number of people I on other forums who are now looking to replace Lr, so far seems like a lot of noise but little concrete action. So maybe Adobe just hopes to weather the storm.

I have been having an offline discussion with one Lr user about protecting the portability of our digital assets; and part of the driver is Adobe's actions. The goal is to minimize vendor lock in, and also make it easier to share and pass on. So I started to focus on that aspect and have run across a tool called iMatch which has been around for almost twenty years which really only focuses on the DAM aspect and following documented standards. I have yet to install and play with it, but when you look closely at the company and the software from a review and forum perspective; it really is kinda interesting how many companies give lip service to standards but do not follow them. You see it with iMatch forums on how they have been adding special processing to handle what other vendors do which is non-standard. Really kinda interesting.

It has also been a mix of depressing from a wasted effort perspective, but also eye opening when you start to break down your requirements into nice to have, wish items, and required all based on the actual outputs you generate. I am totally starting to rethink my approach to the workflow I built based on John's excellent smart workflow. There is a fair amount of time consuming stuff I do in my workflow process, just because. Now I am wondering how much of that is useful.

Tim


----------



## Victoria Bampton

tspear said:


> So I started to focus on that aspect and have run across a tool called iMatch which has been around for almost twenty years



Oh wow, that's a blast from the past. I remember using that... probably nearly 20 years ago! We were still scanning film in those days!


----------



## johnbeardy

iMatch, described by a friend as "having a user interface so ugly only its mother could love it". Powerful though.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

johnbeardy said:


> They must think you're its target market, Johan



Well, they are 50% right.


----------



## clee01l

Victoria Bampton said:


> Anything he says, beyond what he's already said, would no doubt need to go through a million meetings and other red tape,


A simple acknowledgement that the concerns made in this thread are valid and that he would be taking these concerns to “a million Meetings” to get them properly addressed would give customers an indication that Adobe does value customers and wants to deliver products valued by customers.
There are too many start up competitors that do want to deliver what Adobe customers want for Adobe to ignore their large customer base.


----------



## Photocatseyes

To me classic only means that it is a base program, it means trust and continuity. It holds choice. If you prefer a cloud based workflow LRCC might be your choice, if you prefer a desktop workflow, use Classic. I use mobile and desktop versions of adobe products next to each other on all devices and have done so since a very long time, to me it sounds as if LRCC is a nice mobile sibling for desktop, and the perfect addition. I do travel a lot and take thousands of photo's on a trip, so going to LRCC only is not an option. I love the fact that I have LRCC on my mobile devices, and classic at home. It does not have to be or only, there is also both next to each other. So much harping going on right now... A bit dissappointing. I love updates to make applications better. Yes, it is catching up at first, but hey, pretty soon we will be used to it again and all will be well... To me the subscription plan works. Two visits to starbucks skipped for my adobe products is a valid choice for me. And I much prefer 10 dollar a month against a 600-700 dollar every two or 3 years if you want to stay updated with the latest versions.


----------



## Deleted member 39308

Out of interest I have just tried On1 Photo RAW 2018. I created a test Adobe PSB file in Adobe Photoshop and surprise, surprise, On1 Photo RAW can see it and catalogue it. We have been waiting seven years for Lightroom to support Adobe's own PSB file format and it is still missing in Lightroom Classic.

I have to use PSB files a lot in Photoshop so I am going to give On1 Photo RAW 2018 a more detailed investigation.


----------



## PhilBurton

Ad Astra said:


> Out of interest I have just tried On1 Photo RAW 2018. I created a test Adobe PSB file in Adobe Photoshop and surprise, surprise, On1 Photo RAW can see it and catalogue it. We have been waiting seven years for Lightroom to support Adobe's own PSB file format and it is still missing in Lightroom Classic.
> 
> I have to use PSB files a lot in Photoshop so I am going to give On1 Photo RAW 2018 a more detailed investigation.


Is that because ON1 can support various Photoshop features like layers and masks, etc?

Phil


----------



## rob211

tspear said:


> I have been having an offline discussion with one Lr user about protecting the portability of our digital assets; and part of the driver is Adobe's actions. The goal is to minimize vendor lock in, and also make it easier to share and pass on. So I started to focus on that aspect and have run across a tool called iMatch which has been around for almost twenty years which really only focuses on the DAM aspect and following documented standards. I have yet to install and play with it, but when you look closely at the company and the software from a review and forum perspective; it really is kinda interesting how many companies give lip service to standards but do not follow them. You see it with iMatch forums on how they have been adding special processing to handle what other vendors do which is non-standard. Really kinda interesting.
> 
> It has also been a mix of depressing from a wasted effort perspective, but also eye opening when you start to break down your requirements into nice to have, wish items, and required all based on the actual outputs you generate. I am totally starting to rethink my approach to the workflow I built based on John's excellent smart workflow. There is a fair amount of time consuming stuff I do in my workflow process, just because. Now I am wondering how much of that is useful.
> 
> Tim


In many ways there are a few aspects to the "lock in" problem.

The easiest one to solve IMHO is image metadata, since it's already standardized. That's a main reason behind that.

IMatch seems to be a great way to input metadata, as is Photo Mechanic. But IMatch is much better at the second part of metadata use, which is finding stuff in varied ways. Better than Lr in many ways.

But where it lacks is in stuff like publishing and of course the integration with Ps and adjusting tools. And no macOS version unfortunately.

As to storing the parameters of image adjustment themselves, the problem still lies in the fact most are proprietary. Even if one switches to DxO's PhotoLab or Affinity or whatever you've still got edits sunk into a format where you need the original program to make use of them.


----------



## CloudedGenie

Hal P Anderson said:


> Adobe hasn't entirely forgotten LR Classic. Here's a screen grab of a portion of an email they sent me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That email didn't mention LRCC at all



I got the email too. It is not about the software, It is flogging a book about the software! I guess there is not yet enough in Lightroom CC to write about...

I’ll wait for Victoria’s book..,


----------



## tspear

@rob211
I am finding the meta-data issue is the easiest one to solve.
Here is what I have found so far:
1. Workflow, I have built a pretty good workflow using the meta-data. No software I have found yet has an easy way to replicate from a user interface perspective; a few can do so.
2. A solid versioning system seems to be lacking in most solutions. Images really should be an abstract concept that you can attach one or more source files too. And then version the the source files, ideally being able to apply edits to any image set. (Missing from Lr also) 
3. From there you can track the image as you move it and all related files around; and round trip to/from Ps or other software.
4. Easy to use editor. Most of the editor's I have played with so far seem to copy Photoshop in terms of layout, which like GIMP was designed by an engineer in the 1980s....
5. Some way to keep files together (see versioning concept in point 2), where I can keep the original and the developed version from Lr together as a matched set. Sort of like the built in RAW+JPEG capability of Lr;

So the question is, will some vendor meet my requirements, or will I be stuck putting a hodgepodge solution together before/if I give up Lr?

Tim


----------



## johnbeardy

tspear said:


> So the question is, will some vendor meet my requirements, or will I be stuck putting a hodgepodge solution together before/if I give up Lr?



Welcome to the years before Aperture and Lightroom when each of us tried to string together a "workflow" from whatever apps you felt you needed, came across first, or could afford. They rarely looked similar, because back then developers couldn't just make Lightroom lookalikes. One app would usually talk pretty well to the next one, though you'd spend as much time figuring out important bits that didn't come across properly, like colour labels or ratings or accented characters. Your adjustments didn't show up in your cataloguing app - unless you used Nikon Capture or had adopted DNG - and printing or outputting more than one file at a time.... well, some of us managed. And of course, all these apps weren't cheap - this was a world where Photoshop's pricing set the standard. There's a reason why Aperture and Lightroom were so welcome!

John


----------



## tspear

johnbeardy said:


> Welcome to the years before Aperture and Lightroom when each of us tried to string together a "workflow" from whatever apps you felt you needed, came across first, or could afford. They rarely looked similar, because back then developers couldn't just make Lightroom lookalikes. One app would usually talk pretty well to the next one, though you'd spend as much time figuring out important bits that didn't come across properly, like colour labels or ratings or accented characters. Your adjustments didn't show up in your cataloguing app - unless you used Nikon Capture or had adopted DNG - and printing or outputting more than one file at a time.... well, some of us managed. And of course, all these apps weren't cheap - this was a world where Photoshop's pricing set the standard. There's a reason why Aperture and Lightroom were so welcome!
> 
> John



Yup. However the world has changed in many ways. More applications are compliant with standards when it comes to meta-data. The real proprietary stuff is the development magic. This is actually where Adobe shines the most. From a usability perspective, the development module of Lr is way ahead of any of the solutions I have played with so far. There are some tools which I think are more powerful, but they come with a complexity and learning curve. For example, I have been playing with DarkTable. wow, is all I got to say. The development tools seem way ahead of Lr in terms of capability, but the complexity!
Anyways, I have broken my requirements down to the following basic areas:
1. asset management, fundamental meta-data management
2. facial recognition (now questioning if instead I just need to tag the people as keywords)
3. basic image development that is within my skill now
4. advanced image development when I have time to learn (think tone curves, color chanels)
5. pano and hdr
6. output/publish

optional items:
1. version images
2. edit in XXX capability integration and tracking
3. direct links to FB, Mixbook, Blurb....

So for now, I am having fun looking around and seeing the current state, and a lot has changed since I did my replacement search for Aperture in 2013. A fair number of solutions pick off some boxes, so far I have not found one that hits them all. But what is most interesting to me, is that the open source Rawtherapee, DigiKam, and Darktable have advanced faster, and have added significantly more than any proprietary solution I have seen in the past few years. 

Tim

Tim


----------



## herb

I have come away with the opinion that Adobe, and Apple are not interested in having photographers that are not high volume users of their products.
Sincee the early days of Photoshop, then Lightroom, it was obvious that they are going to keep changing the products so as to keep the software engineers
busy, and to be able to raise money by selling the latest iteration.
We have reached a saturation point in digital cameras, where 90 plus percent of the photographers cannot use the full potential of their equipment, and
I suspect the same is true of Lightroom, never mind Photoshop.

These thugs are going to milk as much as they can out of their customers, until a revolt occurs.  Good idea to have an alternative processing plan.


----------



## CloudedGenie

Clearly Lightroom Classic is not dead. It's already had it's first update!


----------



## Replytoken

johnbeardy said:


> iMatch, described by a friend as "having a user interface so ugly only its mother could love it". Powerful though.


That was an understatement.  Are we going to consider Digital Light & Color next?  All this talk is depressing me and making me just want to sell all of my gear and go back to shooting film. 

--Ken


----------



## Roelof Moorlag

Replytoken said:


> All this talk is depressing me and making me just want to sell all of my gear and go back to shooting film


What enlarger you are going to use? And what film/developer combi? and what paper?


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## Replytoken

Roelof Moorlag said:


> What enlarger you are going to use? And what film/developer combi? and what paper?


Those choices have changed less in the last quarter century than LR has in less than 10.  I am sure I can figure it out without having to pay a subscription or turning over my images to somebody to place invisible tags without my consent.  Care to join me? 

--Ken


----------



## Roelof Moorlag

Replytoken said:


> Care to join me?


Hmmm, not sure. However, i do have saved all my equipment so i can start tomorow (if i can get the chemicals on time)


----------



## Replytoken

Roelof Moorlag said:


> Hmmm, not sure. However, i do have saved all my equipment so i can start tomorow (if i can get the chemicals on time)


Well, you either have more room for storage or were smarter than me.  When I sold most of my equipment, I think that I got paid about 10 cents on the dollar.  It was a sad day, as much of the equipment was relatively new and lightly used.  I do still have the CRT I purchased when I first set up my digital darkroom.  Can I call it "Classic" and see if anybody is interested in buying it, no subscription required. 

--Ken


----------



## PhilBurton

Roelof Moorlag said:


> What enlarger you are going to use? And what film/developer combi? and what paper?


I have an Omega B22 with Nikon enlarging lens, if you are interested.


----------



## rob211

In terms of organization, I find the issue of finding stuff the most critical. I can enter IPTC data and put stuff in folders and such, with say exiftool, or Photo Mechanic.

But finding it when it comes time to adjust the images, and to do that in batches, is much tougher without an Lr type product.

At work we were required to find lots of related documents, like PDF and Word docs, to keep together and use. In some ways that's easier, since you sometimes don't have to look at them in the way you do a photo. A text search suffices. Our favorite tool was Devonthink Pro (Mac), which is in some ways a DAM for any file, just without parametric editing. I could actually use that again for images, since it can index/reference them. It can find exif and IPTC. What it lacks are better ways to view images, but it would satisfy some requirements. And it would be nice if it could edit IPTC, esp keywords.

Graphic Converter (macOS) has a good browser and great stuff for entering data and metadata work, but is also kinda meh at finding stuff.

Plain old Mac Spotlight searches (especially with a better interface like Houdah Spot) can find IPTC, and with saved searches and smart folders one can find lots as well.

But still...nowhere near as convenient as Classic. And that's even before we get to the publishing options, and exporting.

But if Lr Classic goes to Lr Retro and then Lr Kaput we'll always have poor, neglected Bridge....


----------



## JimHess43

I guess I'm really naïve. I've watched Julienne Kost Video on YouTube where she explains the difference between the two new Lightroom programs and expresses Adobe's commitment to continued development of both versions. Anyone who has looked at the new Lightroom CC knows that there is a lot missing as far as develop tools are concerned right now. I believe that if Adobe expects us to accept Lightroom CC (the new one) as a serious tool it's going to have to evolve into something a lot more powerful than it is right now. So why panic? Let's let Adobe do it's thing and develop and enhance this new idea and see where it goes. In the meantime we have Lightroom CC Classic. Nobody has to make any decision right now. Nobody has to jump ship right now. There doesn't have to be an ongoing day after day debate on what Adobe is going to do and what we are going to do. At least I'm not going to get involved in it anymore. What does it accomplish? I don't know any more today about what the future will hold than I did when Lightroom CC Classic was introduced last week. Do any of you? Lightroom CC Classic is working fine on my computer. I don't need to sit here wringing my hands and wondering about what to do next when I've got a program that is functioning just fine. This whole debate has just become absurdly ridiculous, in my opinion.


----------



## Hoggy

JimHess43 said:


> I guess I'm really naïve. I've watched Julienne Kost Video on YouTube where she explains the difference between the two new Lightroom programs and expresses Adobe's commitment to continued development of both versions. Anyone who has looked at the new Lightroom CC knows that there is a lot missing as far as develop tools are concerned right now. I believe that if Adobe expects us to accept Lightroom CC (the new one) as a serious tool it's going to have to evolve into something a lot more powerful than it is right now. So why panic? Let's let Adobe do it's thing and develop and enhance this new idea and see where it goes. In the meantime we have Lightroom CC Classic. Nobody has to make any decision right now. Nobody has to jump ship right now. There doesn't have to be an ongoing day after day debate on what Adobe is going to do and what we are going to do. At least I'm not going to get involved in it anymore. What does it accomplish? I don't know any more today about what the future will hold than I did when Lightroom CC Classic was introduced last week. Do any of you? Lightroom CC Classic is working fine on my computer. I don't need to sit here wringing my hands and wondering about what to do next when I've got a program that is functioning just fine. This whole debate has just become absurdly ridiculous, in my opinion.



This is the complacency, "eh, well, what are ya gonna do", stage that Adobe is counting on during its herding practices.

By everybody raising a continual stink about it, there is hope of changing/keeping its progress in the right direction for our various needs...  Look at he import dialog fiasco..  We all changed its direction by doing so.

The reason it can be frightening is that photographs represent continuity in peoples lives, so we're naturally concerned when that continuity could be tampered with.  I don't want to switch to a new dam system when it would entail writing out thousands of massive tiff files in order to go go with, say, C1 or ON1.

While it's true that edits were hard to do in the analog era..  Digital is not going away, so therefore digital brings the advent that our prior edits can always be easily adjusted - again, without writing out massive tiff files.
And therefore it's why I also argue that a fully-functioning, perpetual 'escape clause' be available to those that may not always _need_ 'the latest and greatest' features by perpetually subscribing for the rest of their lives.
For those that say "but hardware and software changes", there will always be virtual machines.  It may or may not run faster, but at least such a person could use one to run a perpetual version, if they don't need the latest and greatest all the time.

For myself at least, I don't choose to take a 'defeatist' type of attitude toward all of this..  Whether it be proved fruitful or not.   But we have all changed Adobe's multi-billion dollar minds _before_, in their feverish quest for their Almighty dollar.


----------



## clee01l

JimHess43 said:


> Anyone who has looked at the new Lightroom CC knows that there is a lot missing as far as develop tools are concerned right now. I believe that if Adobe expects us to accept Lightroom CC (the new one) as a serious tool it's going to have to evolve into something a lot more powerful than it is right now.


That is probably a pretty fair assessment.  I see that Adobe made 3 mistakes and these together compounded into the fiasco that Adobe is trying to deal with.

Mistake Number 1 was to announce the end of the perpetual license concurrent with the release of the new product. If that announcement was made 6 months ago.  No one would have beed surprised.  everyone was expecting this.  And those grumblers that swear they will never be a subscriber would have been reasonably isolated from those complaining about the state of LRs future.
Introducing the Cloud only version of Lightroom CC (V1.0) as the future AND implying that it was complete and all that anyone would need. Even though that most of the functionality needed by many serious photographers is currently missing.
Introducing LR7 as an after thought, renaming it, poorly promoting it and inferring by the name that it too is destined to soon be sunseted like the perpetual license  that was just killed off. 
If these three events were introduced separately, Adobe would not be receiving the negative press that it is currently getting.


----------



## RikkFlohr

Reemerging:

Reading. Interested. Thoughtful.
but
not dismayed.

As Tom has asked, time is needed here. Exodus and panic serve no one.


----------



## JimHess43

I also believe that another big mistake Adobe made with the introduction of Lightroom 6 was trying to combine the Lightroom CC and Lightroom 6 in one installer and use one Creative Cloud application manager to try to manage both programs. They should have made Lightroom 6 truly a stand-alone program, completely isolated from Lightroom CC. Then we wouldn't have had complaints on the Adobe forums like, "I paid for the full program, so I should have all of the features." That issue came up every time a new feature was introduced in Lightroom CC. And update time was always a nightmare. It probably will continue to be.


----------



## CloudedGenie

johnbeardy said:


> Welcome to the years before Aperture and Lightroom when each of us tried to string together a "workflow" from whatever apps you felt you needed, came across first, or could afford. They rarely looked similar, because back then developers couldn't just make Lightroom lookalikes. One app would usually talk pretty well to the next one, though you'd spend as much time figuring out important bits that didn't come across properly, like colour labels or ratings or accented characters. Your adjustments didn't show up in your cataloguing app - unless you used Nikon Capture or had adopted DNG - and printing or outputting more than one file at a time.... well, some of us managed. And of course, all these apps weren't cheap - this was a world where Photoshop's pricing set the standard. There's a reason why Aperture and Lightroom were so welcome!
> 
> John



I just trawled through one of my backup drives, looking for a file I am certain must be there - I would not have deleted it under any circumstances... I think...

I bought my first DSLR (a Nikon D200) in April 2006. Before that I used my Pentax SLR and a Nikon Coolpix. In May 2006 I bought a license for IView Media Pro 3 (I believe I would have been using Nikon NX for RAW conversion). I also starting using a whole bunch of scripts from a guy with the name of John Beardsworth about two weeks later...For some reason, the name sounds vaguely familiar, @johnbeardy  I can't remember if I ever paid for those... if not, please let me know how much I owe you! 

Christelle


----------



## johnbeardy

All were free, Christelle, and I still get a few support requests for stuff from that period. I just can't hide with my surname!

John


----------



## tspear

CloudedGenie said:


> Clearly Lightroom Classic is not dead. It's already had it's first update!



Nah, that is more of a installation fix combined with other items they forgot... 

Tim


----------



## tspear

JimHess43 said:


> I guess I'm really naïve. I've watched Julienne Kost Video on YouTube where she explains the difference between the two new Lightroom programs and expresses Adobe's commitment to continued development of both versions. Anyone who has looked at the new Lightroom CC knows that there is a lot missing as far as develop tools are concerned right now. I believe that if Adobe expects us to accept Lightroom CC (the new one) as a serious tool it's going to have to evolve into something a lot more powerful than it is right now. So why panic? Let's let Adobe do it's thing and develop and enhance this new idea and see where it goes. In the meantime we have Lightroom CC Classic. Nobody has to make any decision right now. Nobody has to jump ship right now. There doesn't have to be an ongoing day after day debate on what Adobe is going to do and what we are going to do. At least I'm not going to get involved in it anymore. What does it accomplish? I don't know any more today about what the future will hold than I did when Lightroom CC Classic was introduced last week. Do any of you? Lightroom CC Classic is working fine on my computer. I don't need to sit here wringing my hands and wondering about what to do next when I've got a program that is functioning just fine. This whole debate has just become absurdly ridiculous, in my opinion.



So, you want to pay Adobe how much money to provide camera fixes and a few bug fixes while the majority of the revenue generated is used to justify the creation of a new application; for which you or may not have a use?
Not me. I would rather support a company which is going to develop stuff I actually use. I have paid for Lr subscription for four years, since 2013. Since that time, what functionality have I seen which I find useful? Lr 6 was released in 2015 and added facial recognition. Dehaze, and vertical alignment/transform. I am pretty sure that about covers it. I tried Lr web, and found it basically sucked at the time and further it has no place in my workflow. I do not use Lr mobile. I have no interest in Behenace, Folio... and all the other cloud stuff Adobe has been chasing.
I already hesitated to renew. In fact I let my subscription lapse in August; and was starting to search around for a replacement. Then work and life happened, I did not have time for a search. So I renewed in September. 
Now, based on the marketing disaster of a release, and the massive focus which Adobe has telegraphed over the past three years starting Lr Web, Lr Mobile, Import Box redesign culminating in the recent Adobe Max. And that I should via what, hope and prayer think that Adobe is NOT going in a direction that I do not care for?  Hence, why would I want to continue to pay them?
Basically, Adobe only continues to get my money for now because:
-- I was an idiot and did not buy the perpetual license back in 2013 and 2015. 
-- I did not make the time to prepare to switch to another solution
-- I was lazy, and Adobe had already captured my data (develop edits) so I was effectively a captured market

I am not going to make the same mistake for the next renewal. If Adobe has not shown real commitment for the desktop solution, and also done some form of mea culpa and matched the action with the words. I am very doubtful I will renew at that point. Even if I have to cobble together a solution.


Tim


----------



## tspear

RikkFlohr said:


> Reemerging:
> 
> Reading. Interested. Thoughtful.
> but
> not dismayed.
> 
> As Tom has asked, time is needed here. Exodus and panic serve no one.



Rikk,

Sorry, but this was obvious. Adobe has made multiple moves toward the cloud and a dumbed down interface over the past three years. They have either been met with a yawn, a grown, or push back. 
As for panic, you are correct for at least me. I have ten months till my current contract expires. But in terms of exodus; right now it is up to Adobe to earn my continued support. So far, Adobe has failed miserably in the value column for a subscription. 
What really sucks, is I may be forced to pay Adobe for a perpetual license while still paying for the stupid subscription. I am not going to get a new camera for a few years, my current camera is sufficient. With my new computer, Lr 6 is fast enough to live with. So if I do not find an alternative, or I do not think I will be ready to switch away from Adobe within the remainder of my contract; I than need to start running the numbers....
What a pain in the rear this is. My younger brother convinced me the subscription was the way to go, mostly based on the fact Ps was included. I have opened Ps once or twice, but never used it. I just do not have the time/energy to get into it. That was a bad move on my part.

Tim


----------



## Johan Elzenga

tspear said:


> Nah, that is more of a installation fix combined with other items they forgot...



Don't you have any sense of humor?


----------



## tspear

JohanElzenga said:


> Don't you have any sense of humor?



Generally yes. But I replied before my first cup of tea. (banging head on desk).
I really should only read the first hour or two... 

Tim


----------



## rhynetc

One thing I've learned living in an over-55 retirement community for a few years now:  We old guys like nothing better than complaining, especially  about something that requires accepting change, no matter how small!


----------



## PhilBurton

Hoggy said:


> This is the complacency, "eh, well, what are ya gonna do", stage that Adobe is counting on during its herding practices.
> 
> The reason it can be frightening is that photographs represent continuity in peoples lives, so we're naturally concerned when that continuity could be tampered with.  I don't want to switch to a new dam system when it would entail writing out thousands of massive tiff files in order to go go with, say, C1 or ON1.


Yes, and "switching costs" are usually higher than anticipated, especially with the entire LR catalog.


> And therefore it's why I also argue that a fully-functioning, perpetual 'escape clause' be available to those that may not always _need_ 'the latest and greatest' features by perpetually subscribing for the rest of their lives.


That's a great idea.  I wish Adobe would offer that, maybe only for "senior citizens."  They would have to learn about actuarial tables, but it would provide peace of mind, including for heirs.


> For those that say "but hardware and software changes", there will always be virtual machines.  It may or may not run faster, but at least such a person could use one to run a perpetual version, if they don't need the latest and greatest all the time.


True enough but show of hands.  How many people here know what a "virtual machine" is?   Excluding the "IT types" like tspear, gnits, cletus, johnbeardy, etc.


> For myself at least, I don't choose to take a 'defeatist' type of attitude toward all of this..  Whether it be proved fruitful or not.   But we have all changed Adobe's multi-billion dollar minds _before_, in their feverish quest for their Almighty dollar.


So true.  No Adobe strategy is pre-ordained, not in face of events.  The "perpetual forever" strategy got overturned.  In the face of user resistance, competition or just very negative public relations, companies do have to adjust.

Phil


----------



## PhilBurton

RikkFlohr said:


> Reemerging:
> 
> Reading. Interested. Thoughtful.
> but
> not dismayed.
> 
> As Tom has asked, time is needed here. Exodus and panic serve no one.


Rikk,

Glad to see you back. * It's not just time, it is statements of direction followed by actions that implement those statements*_. _ That combination will regain trust, and hopefully stem the potential losses. 

Right now, Adobe has completely lost control over the "narrative" about Lightroom's future.  And unless Adobe seriously re-engages, Adobe can't possibly regain some measure of control.  And the "narrative" is very powerful in influencing people's behavior.  The genie is out of the bottle, and no one can put it back, or behave like the genie is still in the bottle.

Phil


----------



## CloudedGenie

PhilBurton said:


> How many people here know what a "virtual machine" is? Excluding the "IT types" like tspear, gnits, cletus, johnbeardy, etc.



At least I know this one... It's when you install buggy old programs or dodgy downloaded trials on your husband's PC (because it's virtually yours as well) rather than your own so that your laptop isn't fried if something goes wrong...  

I'm definitely not an IT type... A virtual machine could be a solution so that you can at least access the files. Your virtual environment may be limited by memory, though, so on a large catalogue I expect it to be excruciatingly slow. The Synology NAS can serve VMs - we have not tested it yet. I would probably just keep the old laptop with the perpetual license installed if it wouldn't run on the new laptop...


----------



## clee01l

rhynetc said:


> One thing I've learned living in an over-55 retirement community for a few years now:  We old guys like nothing better than complaining, especially  about something that requires accepting change, no matter how small!


I've noticed this too.  I try hard not to be one of those guys.


----------



## 1361

PhilBurton said:


> How many people here know what a "virtual machine" is?
> Phil


Isn't that what allows me to use my computer with a Linux OS and lets me use windows as an application. I can use products like adobe that don't play well with Linux and keep windows and everything it uses off the internet while I'm still on the internet? Alas, no subscription model works in this atmosphere.


----------



## clee01l

1361 said:


> Isn't that what allows me to use my computer with a Linux OS and lets me use windows as an application. I can use products like adobe that don't play well with Linux and keep windows and everything it uses off the internet while I'm still on the internet? Alas, no subscription model works in this atmosphere.


Don't confuse WINE for a virtual machine  WINE is an emulator that allows Window programs to run on LINUX with out a license for the Windows OS.   A Virtual Machine allows you to install the Windows Operating System or LINUX or MacOS Inside your core OS.  Once you have a full Windows environment you can install Adobe CC App Manager and any Photography Plan app in your license.
I use VMWare's Fusion for MacOS to Run Windows on my MacOS.  I also have UBUNTU installed on a Virtual Machine on my Mac.


----------



## Gnits

CloudedGenie said:


> It's when you install buggy old programs or dodgy downloaded trials on your husband's PC (because it's virtually yours as well)


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## PhilBurton

We are up to 225 messages in this thread.

Is that some sort of record for this forum?
Have we beaten this issue to death?
Should we have started new threads for some of these messages?
Is anyone still unclear about the choice of Classic (awful name!) or LR CC?
Phil


----------



## clee01l

PhilBurton said:


> We are up to 225 messages in this thread.
> 
> Is that some sort of record for this forum?
> Have we beaten this issue to death?
> Should we have started new threads for some of these messages?
> Is anyone still unclear about the choice of Classic (awful name!) or LR CC?
> Phil


Number 2.
Maybe a separate forum for Grumblers.  One for those griping that there is no longer a perpetual license and another for those anxious about the future of Lightroom Classic.


----------



## Hoggy

clee01l said:


> Number 2.
> Maybe a separate forum for Grumblers.  One for those griping that there is no longer a perpetual license and another for those anxious about the future of Lightroom Classic.



Except 1 & 2 and 1 & 3 may overlap quite a bit.. (ETA:  Unless you were referring to just the 2 from the 2nd sentence.  )
But I do occasionally like beating a metaphorical dead horse, at times.


I think John B's humorous interjection on another forum is rather apt here, as well:
Monty


----------



## ocanannain

FYI --- Here's a comprehensive video demo of the new features in Lightroom Classic by a person who has been using the program for about a week. Conclusion: the upgrades are impressive. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uidB0VbI5rc


----------



## Hoggy

ocanannain said:


> FYI --- Here's a comprehensive video demo of the new features in Lightroom Classic by a person who has been using the program for about a week. Conclusion: the upgrades are impressive.



It seems like you might be experiencing the problems with posting links, that I just experienced as well...  I had to use the 'link' feature from the toolbar to get it through.  I don't remember that being a problem before, so something in the board software must have changed.

............

Anyhow, yes, the program on its own merit has gone through some rather impressive improvements in terms of speed, and the wonderfully useful range masking..  So, kudos to the coders on that!!  They deserve a HUGE raise in light of Adobe's multi-billion dollar profits!

It's just the marketing department, that, well... ...


----------



## ocanannain

Hoggy said:


> It seems like you might be experiencing the problems with posting links, that I just experienced as well...  I had to use the 'link' feature from the toolbar to get it through.  I don't remember that being a problem before, so something in the board software must have changed.
> 
> ............



I'm seeing the video fine in my Chrome browser, so I'm not seeing the problem.


----------



## Hal P Anderson

I see it fine on Firefox, as well.


----------



## Jimmsp

ocanannain said:


> I'm seeing the video fine in my Chrome browser, so I'm not seeing the problem.



Same here on a pc with Chrome.  Thanks for the post.


----------



## Hoggy

Hmm...  Then it must be something with Fx Nightly and the black (beta) forum skin. 

EDIT:  DOH!  It seems to have been that damn NoScript addon...  I'm starting to think that addon is more trouble than it's worth.  Just like when I tried it out long ago.
oops!


----------



## PhilBurton

Hoggy said:


> Hmm...  Then it must be something with Fx Nightly and the black (beta) forum skin.
> 
> EDIT:  DOH!  It seems to have been that damn NoScript addon...  I'm starting to think that addon is more trouble than it's worth.  Just like when I tried it out long ago.
> oops!


Hoggy,

I like to "armor up" my browser to limit cookies, banner ads, etc.  However, NoScript basically cripples modern websites that use scripts to display a page properly.  There is a tradeoff between excellent security and basic useability.  For complete security, disconnect your computer permanently from the Internet and never import any files on USB drives.  Sure it is safe, but at what cost?


----------



## Hoggy

PhilBurton said:


> I like to "armor up" my browser to limit cookies, banner ads, etc.  However, NoScript basically cripples modern websites that use scripts to display a page properly.  There is a tradeoff between excellent security and basic useability.  For complete security, disconnect your computer permanently from the Internet and never import any files on USB drives.  Sure it is safe, but at what cost?



Agree.  Although for me, the reason I installed the new NoScript WebExtension version was strictly for hopeful speed advantages - first, in the hopes of making Amazon at least relatively speedy.  <shudders>  Eww, I just hate going onto Amazon these days - just horrendously slow for many years now.


----------



## tspear

ocanannain said:


> FYI --- Here's a comprehensive video demo of the new features in Lightroom Classic by a person who has been using the program for about a week. Conclusion: the upgrades are impressive.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uidB0VbI5rc


So it boils down to the following.
1. New luminosity mask.
2. New color mask
3. New process engine, with unknown changes and consequences.
4. Performance improvements.

The selling point of s subscription is gradual releases instead of major releases. How has that held?

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hoggy

tspear said:


> So it boils down to the following.
> 1. New luminosity mask.
> 2. New color mask
> 3. New process engine, with unknown changes and consequences.
> 4. Performance improvements.
> 
> The selling point of s subscription is gradual releases instead of major releases. How has that held?



My guess is that if they actually hadn't decided to cut perpetual, long ago, then maybe they were having trouble deciding when to make that cutoff point for a new possible perpetual version.  And after deciding that even with the new Classic 7 improvements on top of the prior CC features, that it may not have been enough to consider it a 'groundbreaking' LR 7 -- that could have firmed up their decision to drop perpetual.  And now that that decision has [regretfully] happened, better new features could now happen at each 'point' release going forward without worrying about giving people 'too much' for a new perpetual version down line.

While that may be construed as a Good Thing, I hope they at least consider the idea of a fully functioning 'escape clause' after say, 3/4/5 years of subscribing.  That would in effect, count as a $360/$480/$600 perpetual version without having to delineate when to add which features for which major perpetual release.  Well, we can hope..


----------



## tspear

Hoggy said:


> My guess is that if they actually hadn't decided to cut perpetual, long ago, then maybe they were having trouble deciding when to make that cutoff point for a new possible perpetual version.  And after deciding that even with the new Classic 7 improvements, that it may not have been enough to consider it a 'groundbreaking' LR 7 -- that could have firmed up their decision to drop perpetual.  And now that that decision has [regretfully] happened, better new features could now happen at each 'point' release going forward without giving people 'too much' for a new perpetual version down line.
> 
> While that may be construed as a Good Thing, I hope they at least consider the idea of a fully functioning 'escape clause' after say, 3/4/5 years of subscribing.  That would in effect, count as a $360/$480/$600 perpetual version without having to delineate when to add which features for which major perpetual release.  Well, we can hope..


Yeah. I do not buy it.
Like dehaze, they could have added the new mask capabilities and the process engine without diverging the code base. Control access via the license manager. Not really that hard. The only one which is really problematic without diverging the code is the performance improvements. 
If Adobe is unable to make such smaller releases when they needed features to convince customers to switch to a subscription model and they were unable to deliver why should the situation have changed? 
In addition, I know a few people who did not know the perpetual model existed because it was effectively off the Adobe website two years ago, they are now pissed. So Adobe made this largely a self fulfilling prophecy.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gnits

clee01l said:


> One for those griping that there is no longer a perpetual license and another for those anxious about the future of Lightroom Classic.



While we had
1. demise of perpetual
2. rename to Classic
3. intro of CC Cloud

My biggest concern was the looming demise of Classic and a new CC Cloud which was not a fit replacement for the previous CC.

Wrap this up in a pile of Adobe PR amateurism and you have a recipe for angst.

Of most interest to me right now are...

a. Waiting for Tom to respond (he did invite us to ask questions, but has not answered any of them and my post is still awaiting moderation).
b. Release notes for Classic 1.1 and 2.0(if ever)
c. Release notes for CC Cloud 1. and 2.0 (when it happens)

In the interim, this thread reflects a casebook on how not to really turn off your most loyal customers and push them towards other horizons.


----------



## Deleted member 39308

We have had time to absorb and reflect on Adobe's announcements for Lightroom Classic and CC.

There are a number of well documented comments and concerns in this thread. I believe this forum and Victoria's support for Lightroom have the gravitas to merit a reply from Adobe.

On reading more about Lightroom CC I have concerns about the artificial intelligence (AI) being discussed and the development of Adobe Sensei.  I would not want Adobe, or any other company, running some AI program on my images and using machine learning to tag and do other unknown things with my images. As such I am firmly in the disk and folders approach and I am keen to understand Adobe's plans for the future of Lightroom Classic.


----------



## Replytoken

Ad Astra said:


> We have had time to absorb and reflect on Adobe's announcements for Lightroom Classic and CC.
> 
> There are a number of well documented comments and concerns in this thread. I believe this forum and Victoria's support for Lightroom have the gravitas to merit a reply from Adobe.
> 
> On reading more about Lightroom CC I have concerns about the artificial intelligence (AI) being discussed and the development of Adobe Sensei.  I would not want Adobe, or any other company, running some AI program on my images and using machine learning to tag and do other unknown things with my images. As such I am firmly in the disk and folders approach and I am keen to understand Adobe's plans for the future of Lightroom Classic.



I have to agree on both accounts.  Perhaps it might have come across better if Tom had just penned a letter and asked Victoria to post it.  Having him drop in and post and then leave everybody without a reply, whether he can provide one or not, just comes across in a less than ideal manner.

Regarding Sensei, I totally agree.  I need to read up more on it, but I am not especially pleased that when I am paying for a service, my files are not just scanned, but tagged in a manner that I have no ability to access or control.  This seems to being done purely for Adobe's sake, but I am more than happy to be pointed to more information about it that might cause me to see it differently.  If the service was free and this process was made clear, then I might take a different tune about the whole affair, although I still would not participate, but doing this to paying customers just does not seem like Adobe really has any of my interests or concerns at heart in this matter.

I initially thought that this whole affair would fully die down, but I keep seeing many articles about Adobe alternatives that are appearing on many mainstream photo websites, and they just keep coming.  I do wonder if this is going to eventually be seen as Adobe imitating Apple with dictating where the future is (pulling ports or changing standards on hardware) or if it will be Adobe imitating Coca-Cola with New Coke?

--Ken


----------



## PhilBurton

Replytoken said:


> I have to agree on both accounts.  Perhaps it might have come across better if Tom had just penned a letter and asked Victoria to post it.  Having him drop in and post and then leave everybody without a reply, whether he can provide one or not, just comes across in a less than ideal manner.
> 
> Regarding Sensei, I totally agree.  I need to read up more on it, but I am not especially pleased that when I am paying for a service, my files are not just scanned, but tagged in a manner that I have no ability to access or control.  This seems to being done purely for Adobe's sake, but I am more than happy to be pointed to more information about it that might cause me to see it differently.  If the service was free and this process was made clear, then I might take a different tune about the whole affair, although I still would not participate, but doing this to paying customers just does not seem like Adobe really has any of my interests or concerns at heart in this matter.
> 
> I initially thought that this whole affair would fully die down, but I keep seeing many articles about Adobe alternatives that are appearing on many mainstream photo websites, and they just keep coming.  I do wonder if this is going to eventually be seen as Adobe imitating Apple with dictating where the future is (pulling ports or changing standards on hardware) or if it will be Adobe imitating Coca-Cola with New Coke?
> 
> --Ken


Ken

It is entirely possible that Sensei is really about tagging files just for our use.  But without disclosures, the rumors and the "conspiracy theories" are running wild.

Phil


----------



## tspear

Ad Astra said:


> We have had time to absorb and reflect on Adobe's announcements for Lightroom Classic and CC.
> 
> There are a number of well documented comments and concerns in this thread. I believe this forum and Victoria's support for Lightroom have the gravitas to merit a reply from Adobe.
> 
> On reading more about Lightroom CC I have concerns about the artificial intelligence (AI) being discussed and the development of Adobe Sensei.  I would not want Adobe, or any other company, running some AI program on my images and using machine learning to tag and do other unknown things with my images. As such I am firmly in the disk and folders approach and I am keen to understand Adobe's plans for the future of Lightroom Classic.



I am less concerned about the AI. When you look at the examples, the AI really is about tagging stock photos. So if you are selling the images, it would be perfect.
But yeah, the fiasco did get me off my rear and start to re-evaluate staying with Adobe. So far I have learned there is no one product that can meet my current requirements. Have not done enough research to determine if I want to bolt together multiple software tools to meet my requirements.
In addition, I have penciled out the upgrade costs for multiple pieces of software over a period of five years. Which depending on software is either two or three cycles. So far the total cost is about the same as Adobe subscriptions. 

Tim


----------



## PhilBurton

tspear said:


> In addition, I have penciled out the upgrade costs for multiple pieces of software over a period of five years. Which depending on software is either two or three cycles. So far the total cost is about the same as Adobe subscriptions.
> 
> Tim



No surprise.  Whatever else Adobe did amateurishly, Adobe certainly did a "competitive analysis" of pricing.  That is a basic when doing pricing.

Phil


----------



## Replytoken

PhilBurton said:


> Ken
> 
> It is entirely possible that Sensei is really about tagging files just for our use.  But without disclosures, the rumors and the "conspiracy theories" are running wild.
> 
> Phil


Hi Phil,

It may also be for our use, but then why can't we edit the tags?  Especially if they are incorrect.  Somebody was able to post the tags from an image, and IIRC, several were incorrect.  Now perhaps AI works the odds and does not care if the tag is incorrect, but wouldn't it be better to have data that is more accurate?

--Ken


----------



## PhilBurton

Replytoken said:


> Hi Phil,
> 
> It may also be for our use, but then why can't we edit the tags?  Especially if they are incorrect.  Somebody was able to post the tags from an image, and IIRC, several were incorrect.  Now perhaps AI works the odds and does not care if the tag is incorrect, but wouldn't it be better to have data that is more accurate?
> 
> --Ken


Totally agree.  I can't understand the part about the user not being able to edit the tags?  Of course, I will stay with the Classic version of LR.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

Replytoken said:


> Hi Phil,
> 
> It may also be for our use, but then why can't we edit the tags?



Why would  you expect it to be purely for your use?  For every big player out there, the consumer is the product, you are not the customer.  Tell me facebook, google, twitter, instagram, amazon (drive), microsoft are not skimming photos you upload and compiling massive databases and trying to figure out how to capitalize on them. Not that it's all about photos, but unless it's a service where you encrypt it before handing off data, I bet there isn't a single big player not skimming it for info.  Sure... they promise "no personally identifiable data" and other anonymizing (am I a cynic for not believing them?). 

I'm surprised you would think any differently; or for that matter believe Adobe if they said they don't (from a sales/marketing type -- I might believe it if they published it clearly in plain language in their T&C's -- let me know when that happens   ).


----------



## Replytoken

Ferguson said:


> Why would  you expect it to be purely for your use?  For every big player out there, the consumer is the product, you are not the customer.  Tell me facebook, google, twitter, instagram, amazon (drive), microsoft are not skimming photos you upload and compiling massive databases and trying to figure out how to capitalize on them. Not that it's all about photos, but unless it's a service where you encrypt it before handing off data, I bet there isn't a single big player not skimming it for info.  Sure... they promise "no personally identifiable data" and other anonymizing (am I a cynic for not believing them?).
> 
> I'm surprised you would think any differently; or for that matter believe Adobe if they said they don't (from a sales/marketing type -- I might believe it if they published it clearly in plain language in their T&C's -- let me know when that happens   ).


Linwood, usually the consumer is the product when the service is free.  It also seems a somewhat different relationship when I am posting files for public consumption like my blog where I would expect a certain amount of exposure of my photos that would not be in my control.  Then I would expect that a lot could happen to my images.  It seems like Adobe is expanding into the social media business to a certain degree, and I find that a bit in conflict with the idea of them watching after my images in the cloud if I do not wish to share them, especially since I am paying them.  I use both Box and Dropbox for cloud storage and I would be curious to know if the contents of my files are scanned upon upload for AI/marketing purposes.


--Ken


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

Replytoken said:


> Linwood, usually the consumer is the product when the service is free.  It also seems a somewhat different relationship when I am posting files for public consumption like my blog where I would expect a certain amount of exposure of my photos that would not be in my control.  Then I would expect that a lot could happen to my images.  It seems like Adobe is expanding into the social media business to a certain degree, and I find that a bit in conflict with the idea of them watching after my images in the cloud if I do not wish to share them, especially since I am paying them.  I use both Box and Dropbox for cloud storage and I would be curious to know if the contents of my files are scanned upon upload for AI/marketing purposes.


Clearly the consumer is the product when you are getting it free, but why would one assume because you are paying that they would not still use you as data points? 

I just spent the last 10 minutes or so trying to find a clear and specific statement how Creative Cloud uses your photos without success.  Not saying it's not there, but it couldn't be readily had.  The general policy is here, and and it says for information on "certain apps and websites" to go here.   Those don't include Lightroom, but refer you to Terms of Use and License Agreements.  Terms of use sends you back to Privacy.  License Agreement for Lightroom also sends you back to Privacy.  There's no distinction I can see in Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic. 

It does say clearly:  As discussed more in Section 3 below, you retain all rights and ownership you have in your content that you make available through the Services.

In that section though it says: 

We require certain licenses from you to your content to operate and enable the Services. When you upload content to the Services, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sub-licensable, and transferrable license to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify (so as to better showcase your content, for example), publicly perform, and translate the content as needed in response to user driven actions (such as when you choose to store privately or share your content with others). This license is only for the purpose of operating or improving the Services.​
The "improving the service" is an interesting extension.  It is also this section which adds: 

Our automated systems may analyze your content using techniques such as machine learning. This analysis might occur as the content is sent, received, or when it is stored. From this analysis, we are able to improve the Services.​
And in turn refers you here.  That says they use: 

The computer may analyze your content when you send, receive, or store files using our cloud services. We do not access the files stored locally on your computer. We use data in your files, activity logs, and direct feedback from you to train and improve our algorithms.​
The machine learning FAQ then sends you back to the Privacy policy above.  It does say how you can opt out of Machine Learning.

But is Machine Learning the only issue -- there's also that out of "improving the service" which I see no clear way to opt out.  Is collecting usage data, where and when you take pictures, what cameras you use... is that game for "imrproving the service"?  Do you care? 

And honestly, given how deep you have to dig to get to the opt out section of this... is it really effective?  How many people will even THINK they might use it, and dig? 

I just don't find it surprising that we are the product for Adobe as well.  I think Microsoft is scanning all my email (they host it).   I think Google knows and uses every search I write -- my WIFE frequently gets ads for what I am shopping for within minutes of me starting to shop.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## Replytoken

Ferguson said:


> Clearly the consumer is the product when you are getting it free, but why would one assume because you are paying that they would not still use you as data points?
> 
> I just spent the last 10 minutes or so trying to find a clear and specific statement how Creative Cloud uses your photos without success.  Not saying it's not there, but it couldn't be readily had.  The general policy is here, and and it says for information on "certain apps and websites" to go here.   Those don't include Lightroom, but refer you to Terms of Use and License Agreements.  Terms of use sends you back to Privacy.  License Agreement for Lightroom also sends you back to Privacy.  There's no distinction I can see in Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic.
> 
> It does say clearly:  As discussed more in Section 3 below, you retain all rights and ownership you have in your content that you make available through the Services.
> 
> In that section though it says:
> 
> We require certain licenses from you to your content to operate and enable the Services. When you upload content to the Services, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sub-licensable, and transferrable license to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify (so as to better showcase your content, for example), publicly perform, and translate the content as needed in response to user driven actions (such as when you choose to store privately or share your content with others). This license is only for the purpose of operating or improving the Services.​
> The "improving the service" is an interesting extension.  It is also this section which adds:
> 
> Our automated systems may analyze your content using techniques such as machine learning. This analysis might occur as the content is sent, received, or when it is stored. From this analysis, we are able to improve the Services.​
> And in turn refers you here.  That says they use:
> 
> The computer may analyze your content when you send, receive, or store files using our cloud services. We do not access the files stored locally on your computer. We use data in your files, activity logs, and direct feedback from you to train and improve our algorithms.​
> The machine learning FAQ then sends you back to the Privacy policy above.  It does say how you can opt out of Machine Learning.
> 
> But is Machine Learning the only issue -- there's also that out of "improving the service" which I see no clear way to opt out.  Is collecting usage data, where and when you take pictures, what cameras you use... is that game for "imrproving the service"?  Do you care?
> 
> And honestly, given how deep you have to dig to get to the opt out section of this... is it really effective?  How many people will even THINK they might use it, and dig?
> 
> I just don't find it surprising that we are the product for Adobe as well.  I think Microsoft is scanning all my email (they host it).   I think Google knows and uses every search I write -- my WIFE frequently gets ads for what I am shopping for within minutes of me starting to shop.


Linwood, I appreciate you trying to trace down their statements/disclosures/disclaimers.  It sounded a bit like taking a trip down the rabbit hole!  I did a quick search about Box and Dropbox and found out the latter does look at file hastags and can use it for copyright violations identification.  As I said above, I am aware that we are sources of data, but not every company decides that mining is a part of their business (e.g Box).  I am not surprised by Adobe, but just as I choose to almost completely avoid Facebook and other social media companies because of their extensive mining, I suspect that now that Adobe seems to be going whole hog on data mining, I will probably look at them in that light that I had reserved for other companies.  I am not paranoid or a believer in conspiracies, but I do not wish to have a large profile on the web, and I try to limit how much my privacy gets mined.  I read an article the other day that stated that FB has more data on its users than the federal government does on its citizens.  If that is true, it seems just a bit concerning to me in light of what we have been learning about their recent business practices (regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum).  Thankfully, there still is Classic LR available and that may suit me fine if I stay with Adobe when I move forward in my use of newer software.

--Ken


----------



## Gnits

I do not like the idea of a machine tagging my images, so I am just going to avoid that scenario completely. In due course it may mean that I part ways with Lightroom and maybe Adobe. So be it.  I have given up worrying about it.


----------



## johnbeardy

If you want to opt out of the AI, see Adobe machine learning FAQ.

I am on the fence about auto-tagging's value. Surely it must be a holy grail, and wouldn't we just abandon keywording if AI could be 100% reliable? On the other hand, can it ever be 100% or even 90%? And doesn't one require certainty - have you found all the images that you are looking for, no more, no less? In Adobe's case, I sometimes wonder if AI's being deployed in the LR "ecosystem" (as opposed to the LR "world") as a largely-theoretical exercise. Where is practical stuff like reading text, or recognising car or plane models? Is its main role to cover up weaknesses in search features?

John


----------



## Gnits

johnbeardy said:


> And doesn't one require certainty -



For someone who has nothing or looking for an extra layer then I can see a possibility.

For me ... I would look for certainty and do not want a machine second guessing how I would like to tag an image.


----------



## CloudedGenie

johnbeardy said:


> I am on the fence about auto-tagging's value. Surely it must be a holy grail, and wouldn't we just abandon keywording if AI could be 100% reliable?



I think we are some way away from being able to trust auto-keywording — especially if I’m not able to modify or guide the keywords being assigned. 

As an example, I just look at the quality of the Face-tagging.... with some photos it’s pretty good, but others... Let’s just say I’ve been heard to tell the computer “Mate, now you’re just guessing!”  That’s after removing the paranormal ghosty faces visible in the shadows and muddy rims of my 4WD that strongly resemble my husband!

Christelle


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

Replytoken said:


> I did a quick search about Box and Dropbox and found out the latter does look at file hastags and can use it for copyright violations identification.



Maybe.  Dropbox is one of those that's interesting, as people consider it secure as it is encrypted, however as I understand it Dropbox is the sole custodian of the encryption keys, not you.  That means Dropbox can look inside of your files any time it wants, including scanning for copyright violations or viruses. That may be considered by some a goodness (both that they can recover your keys if lost, and also that they can detect viruses), but by others an intrusion and risk.

For Adobe, opting out of the AI aspect does not seem to opt out of "we can use your data to improve our services" sort of access, does it?  Only machine learning.  There's a very distinct difference in that and normal data skimming for marketing, analysis, etc.  Standard telemetry sort of data almost everyone gathers.

Personally the privacy issue is largely moot; I have almost all photos in online gallery, so all that info is already visible, and google has it all already I'm sure.  To me the significant aspect of this relative to Classic is the absolute requirement in LR CC that you MUST store all photos in THEIR cloud to use it at all. That to me sends a strong message of direction -- proprietary cloud, we have to hold all your photos.   LR CC can and does edit local copies.  There's nothing conceptually difficult to imagine they could have allowed it to have a toggle in addition to "keep local copies" to "not keep cloud copies", for local-only archiving.  Heck, they could even offer the cloud as a conduit -- synch to all my devices but not store in the cloud.  They could have also offered end-to-end user-controlled encryption so the cloud copies are not accessible to hackers (or Adobe).  

That they did none of those things frankly doesn't look like a V1 simplification (especially end to end encryption under your control), but a clear direction indicator.  Adobe wants your data in its (and only its) cloud in the future.  It's not (just) about privacy, it's about a land grab - they want to be your proprietary storage provider.

Did you see recent news articles that Amazon would not be significantly profitable without its cloud storage business.


----------



## johnbeardy

Ferguson said:


> a clear direction indicator. Adobe wants your data in its (and only its) cloud in the future. It's not (just) about privacy, it's about a land grab - they want to be your proprietary storage provider.



That's my sense too. What else will people pay for?

John


----------



## tspear

johnbeardy said:


> That's my sense too. What else will people pay for?
> 
> John



What I find interesting discussing this with my two older kids. Both in their twenties. 
A few years ago, it was sign up for this service at $5 a month, and this one at $10.... It got to the point they were spending $100+  a month each. Spotify, Pandora, Netflix, Steam, Hulu.... Then you add phones on top. They were pushing a couple hundred a month each on all this stuff. 
Now, they are going the other direction. They are dumping stuff where there is a large overlap, and plan to switch companies every year. e.g. My son likes some shows on Netflix and some on Hulu. He is now planning to alternate between the companies, looking for the latest one year promotion plan.

If Adobe thinks the images will be a sticky factor, the answer is no. My son had problems with his video card on his computer and a corrupted Windows registry last night. After fighting with it for a couple of hours and reading up on it online; he decided to wipe the machine and start over. He did not care about anything saved on the machine. My daughter on switching phones a few months ago, lost a couple years of images, just shrugged and moved on....

And this attitude seems to be common with their friends.

Tim


----------



## PhilBurton

johnbeardy said:


> If you want to opt out of the AI, see Adobe machine learning FAQ.
> 
> I am on the fence about auto-tagging's value. Surely it must be a holy grail, and wouldn't we just abandon keywording if AI could be 100% reliable? On the other hand, can it ever be 100% or even 90%? And doesn't one require certainty - have you found all the images that you are looking for, no more, no less? In Adobe's case, I sometimes wonder if AI's being deployed in the LR "ecosystem" (as opposed to the LR "world") as a largely-theoretical exercise. Where is practical stuff like reading text, or recognising car or plane models? Is its main role to cover up weaknesses in search features?
> 
> John


Until this AI can read the number on the side of a railway car or locomotive, it would not work for me.  And what if that number isn't actually visible in the photo, but I recorded it at the time of the photo?  Or how is their AI supposed to know that a street scene is in London as opposed to NY or Los Angeles?  Until Adobe can scan my brain, their AI will never work for me.


----------



## Hal P Anderson

PhilBurton said:


> Until Adobe can scan my brain, their AI will never work for me.


Give them a year or two. We'll all need to be wearing tinfoil hats.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

PhilBurton said:


> Until this AI can read the number on the side of a railway car or locomotive, it would not work for me. And what if that number isn't actually visible in the photo, but I recorded it at the time of the photo? Or how is their AI supposed to know that a street scene is in London as opposed to NY or Los Angeles?



You can get free or cheap software for video surveillance now that finds and reads license plates on cars, and depending on the venue (or ancillary databases you provide like employee plates) will then identify whose car it was for you.

WIth Google's street view database, identifying the street where a photo was taken is getting easier every day, but besides that look how many images have GPS embedded.  Or that people use file names or captions.

Clearly what is not there can't be seen, but drawing conclusions from context with massive amounts of data is easier than  you think. With enough data they may match the graffiti on the side to other photos of that car and know which one it is better than you, and besides, they have 423 surveillance camera shots of it in the last 3 hours also, making you obsolete.


----------



## Duncanh

I can't see AI tags working except for people who aren't interested in keywording. As photographers have all different interests and shoot different genres they will want different levels of keywords e.g. all I want is that there are flowers in the picture not what type they are but I'm into street photography and cityscapes where I want detailed breakdown of the type of scene/image which is not necessarily just subject  related .

Unless Lightroom CC offers to keep all images locally and *I* pick the ones I want to upload I will never use it. Nothing to do with Adobe learning all about me (too boring to be of interest) it's why keep gigabytes of data in the cloud when I only want say a couple of hundred images available on portable device(s).

My subscription renews mid next year, I'm already looking at other options. I'm finding some good processing options available it's the organisation, keywording and metadata browsing/searching that at the moment LR Classic is way out in front but two options I'm looking at are both saying they recognise LR users are looking for options and are working on the organisation side to match Lightroom. One option has already written a facility that will move all metadata to their software and created edited images being either tiff, psd or jpeg, nested keywording is what I believe they are missing at the moment.  I don't want to change but if Adobe's intentions are not clear by first quarter next year I'm off.


----------



## tspear

Duncanh said:


> My subscription renews mid next year, I'm already looking at other options. I'm finding some good processing options available it's the organisation, keywording and metadata browsing/searching that at the moment LR Classic is way out in front but two options I'm looking at are both saying they recognise LR users are looking for options and are working on the organisation side to match Lightroom. One option has already written a facility that will move all metadata to their software and created edited images being either tiff, psd or jpeg, nested keywording is what I believe they are missing at the moment.  I don't want to change but if Adobe's intentions are not clear by first quarter next year I'm off.



I have found actually that the old iMatch program is faster and more capable than Lr for meta-data management. In addition it is designed around the concept of using other software. Three downsides so far with it. One you need other software to handle editing. Second, does not support the complicated workflow I built on top of John Beardsworth Smartworflow. Third is the UI was designed in 1995 and has not changed very much. 

The next choice in terms of photo organization I am following closely is darktable.org Very capable, includes a full editing set. I do not know enough, but it looks like it actually surpasses Lr in terms of capability for developing the image. The downside, is the tool is more low level (I think), so it may end up being slower to use, with a few quirks in the UI thrown in.

I am also watching Macphun and Mylio. I have not had the time yet to look into Capture One, Affinity, Cyberlink PhotoDirector, or the Corel one.

Tim


----------



## Dick.E.Hoskins

What did Adobe do reasonably well? In the first hours of use of Classic LR it looked faster. A few days latter (no addition of images or major anything done) it is back to the same old slow LR. Using the shft or ctrl key to select images in a grid is very, very slow. Switching to Develop was sparky on day 1 but now worse than ever. The spot removal tool is slow (and getting slower) as well especially when trying to remove lots of little dust specks from a scanned 35mm slide. Lately I have been using bridge, camera raw and Photoshop which work very well. So far no slow down in those apps. All that said, then there is Windows 10 - I wish I had Windows 7 back. 

Victoria, I think you need to conquer new territory, expand your queendom and vanquish the  LR Kingdom Troglodytes who are the keepers of the ancient LR secret code. Secret, apparently, even to them...


----------



## LRList001

Ferguson said:


> Clearly the consumer is the product when you are getting it free, but why would one assume because you are paying that they would not still use you as data points?
> 
> I just spent the last 10 minutes or so trying to find a clear and specific statement how Creative Cloud uses your photos without success.  Not saying it's not there, but it couldn't be readily had.  The general policy is here, and and it says for information on "certain apps and websites" to go here.   Those don't include Lightroom, but refer you to Terms of Use and License Agreements.  Terms of use sends you back to Privacy.  License Agreement for Lightroom also sends you back to Privacy.  There's no distinction I can see in Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic.
> 
> It does say clearly:  As discussed more in Section 3 below, you retain all rights and ownership you have in your content that you make available through the Services.
> 
> In that section though it says:
> 
> We require certain licenses from you to your content to operate and enable the Services. When you upload content to the Services, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sub-licensable, and transferrable license to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify (so as to better showcase your content, for example), publicly perform, and translate the content as needed in response to user driven actions (such as when you choose to store privately or share your content with others). This license is only for the purpose of operating or improving the Services.​
> The "improving the service" is an interesting extension.  It is also this section which adds:
> 
> Our automated systems may analyze your content using techniques such as machine learning. This analysis might occur as the content is sent, received, or when it is stored. From this analysis, we are able to improve the Services.​
> And in turn refers you here.  That says they use:
> 
> The computer may analyze your content when you send, receive, or store files using our cloud services. We do not access the files stored locally on your computer. We use data in your files, activity logs, and direct feedback from you to train and improve our algorithms.​
> The machine learning FAQ then sends you back to the Privacy policy above.  It does say how you can opt out of Machine Learning.
> 
> But is Machine Learning the only issue -- there's also that out of "improving the service" which I see no clear way to opt out.  Is collecting usage data, where and when you take pictures, what cameras you use... is that game for "imrproving the service"?  Do you care?
> 
> And honestly, given how deep you have to dig to get to the opt out section of this... is it really effective?  How many people will even THINK they might use it, and dig?
> 
> I just don't find it surprising that we are the product for Adobe as well.  I think Microsoft is scanning all my email (they host it).   I think Google knows and uses every search I write -- my WIFE frequently gets ads for what I am shopping for within minutes of me starting to shop.



In Europe (EU), the new data protection act (GDPR) takes full effect in May 2018 (it is already partially in effect).  Brexit will not change the UK's compliance with GDPR (well, not in any material way).  Breaching the GDPR regulations looks like being very expensive.  Anyone allowing analysis of images of people without the subject's consent had better understand the implications of GDPR.  And if those images are of children, well the pain levels are likely to be very high indeed.  Be aware that the subject can demand that all copies are removed, and at very least has an absolute right to know where every copy is stored.


----------



## PhilBurton

Ferguson said:


> You can get free or cheap software for video surveillance now that finds and reads license plates on cars, and depending on the venue (or ancillary databases you provide like employee plates) will then identify whose car it was for you.
> 
> Clearly what is not there can't be seen, but drawing conclusions from context with massive amounts of data is easier than  you think. With enough data they may match the graffiti on the side to other photos of that car and know which one it is better than you, and besides, they have 423 surveillance camera shots of it in the last 3 hours also, making you obsolete.



How well is all that AI going to work with scans of B&W negatives from 1960, some underexposed or very grainy?

I think that Adobe's responses to all our concerns has to include a clear and reasonably complete statement of what their AI does today, and the product roadmap for the future.

Phil Burton


----------



## PhilBurton

LRList001 said:


> In Europe (EU), the new data protection act (GDPR) takes full effect in May 2018 (it is already partially in effect).  Brexit will not change the UK's compliance with GDPR (well, not in any material way).  Breaching the GDPR regulations looks like being very expensive.  Anyone allowing analysis of images of people without the subject's consent had better understand the implications of GDPR.  And if those images are of children, well the pain levels are likely to be very high indeed.  Be aware that the subject can demand that all copies are removed, and at very least has an absolute right to know where every copy is stored.


I was in Paris recently, visiting a cousin.  I wanted to do some street photography, and she warned me that I could get into big trouble if I photographed children.  Rather than test that idea, I did not take photos that included children.

Phil


----------



## clee01l

Richard Hoskins said:


> In the first hours of use of Classic LR it looked faster. A few days latter (no addition of images or major anything done) it is back to the same old slow LR.


I think there are memory leaks that need to be identified and fixed. This is not uncommon for a dot zero release. As these are reported, found and fixed, updates will improve the speed and performance. Patience, guinea pig...


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

clee01l said:


> I think there are memory leaks that need to be identified and fixed. This is not uncommon for a dot zero release. As these are reported, found and fixed, updates will improve the speed and performance. Patience, guinea pig...


Something is leaking but I really don't think it is memory, as I see no sign of significant growth (and with 64 Gig it would have to leak a lot to really run short).

I personally think it's leaking parallelism in some fashion, as what I see is over time the CPU percentage shrinks even though it is doing the same thing (e.g. publishing or extracting or preview build).  You can reproduce it easily, just build previews of a few thousand images and the rate drops steadily.  Adobe knows this, and has seen it for a long time, but it was not a priority to fix (since it didn't get fixed).

But I did a large shoot yesterday and had about 300 images I was editing, and had to restart lightroom every 30 minutes or so. It would get so bad I would have black screens and flashing screens going from develop to grid and back.

This has been there for a long time, and to me the lack of enough attention to get this fixed is a sign very much in keeping with the title of this thread -- Classic is just not important enough to bother fixing it.  Choose your reason - too hard to figure out, too much effort to fix, a fundamental part of LUA, a fundamental part of the LR design... whatever -- that these problems have existed for years and many releases speaks volumes for how much they care about Classic and those who use it.


----------



## Hoggy

Ferguson said:


> This has been there for a long time, and to me the lack of enough attention to get this fixed is a sign very much in keeping with the title of this thread -- Classic is just not important enough to bother fixing it.  Choose your reason - too hard to figure out, too much effort to fix, a fundamental part of LUA, a fundamental part of the LR design... whatever -- that these problems have existed for years and many releases speaks volumes for how much they care about Classic and those who use it.



Well, trying to be hopeful here..

I hope we don't cause a self-fulfilling prophecy regarding this.  By either jumping ship too soon, or just assuming it's end-of-life.

I would think Photoshop is still their flagship product - and right there in the title, is "Photo".  And whatever happens in the future, I would think there would still have to be something compatible with ACR.
Sooooo....  <shrugs shoulder>

There also must still be enough money in advanced Camera software for several other photo DAM-editing solutions to exist: ON1, ACDSee, Capture One, and some more new ones popping up.
Sooooo.... <shrugs shoulder again>


----------



## PhilBurton

CloudedGenie said:


> I think we are some way away from being able to trust auto-keywording — especially if I’m not able to modify or guide the keywords being assigned.
> 
> As an example, I just look at the quality of the Face-tagging.... with some photos it’s pretty good, but others... Let’s just say I’ve been heard to tell the computer “Mate, now you’re just guessing!”  That’s after removing the paranormal ghosty faces visible in the shadows and muddy rims of my 4WD that strongly resemble my husband!
> 
> Christelle


For a less-than-rosy view of AI, see this item from the NY Times.  Opinion | Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck. Here’s How to Move It Forward.

Phil


----------



## CloudedGenie

PhilBurton said:


> For a less-than-rosy view of AI, see this item from the NY Times.  Opinion | Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck. Here’s How to Move It Forward.
> 
> Phil



@PhilBurton, I have to agree with the NY Times opinion piece... it somewhat validates my reluctance to hand over control to a self-driving car (and not just because I may be a bit of a control freak myself)...

Back in 1993-1994 I developed some industrial pattern recognition techniques that were extremely successful for the application we used it in. It was based on the same building blocks as today’s neural neural networks with fuzzy logic rules representing the operator guidance. Everything we did was limited by the extremely fast reaction times we needed (50 ms) and the limited computing power (remember 640 K RAM and the additional 384 K extended memory....) The increased computing power made many more things possible, but the basic paradigm never shifted. And the problem with these black box models remain - you can not reliably extrapolate their results outside the training data...

It will be interesting to see where Adobe takes this, and how far it intends dragging its legacy application along...


----------



## tom manley

so im still sitting on the fence with this one... I've tried speaking to Adobe several times and they haven't exactly managed to convince me to stay with Adobe Products. Im debating signing up to the cloud and updating Lightroom from 5.7 to Lightroom Classic but am  not sure about the subscription here... Will my Lightroom 5 still remain on my system? so i can return to this at a later date - but basically it looks like i need to sign up indefinitely for as long as i keep an image archive - this puts me off doing so - as dont really want to be tied to one system... Unfortunately it does not look like Lightroom 6 is available as an upgrade from Adobe anymore so i am left weighing up my options - seriously thinking about switching to a different editing package altogether.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

tom manley said:


> so im still sitting on the fence with this one... I've tried speaking to Adobe several times and they haven't exactly managed to convince me to stay with Adobe Products. Im debating signing up to the cloud and updating Lightroom from 5.7 to Lightroom Classic but am  not sure about the subscription here... Will my Lightroom 5 still remain on my system? so i can return to this at a later date - but basically it looks like i need to sign up indefinitely for as long as i keep an image archive - this puts me off doing so - as dont really want to be tied to one system... Unfortunately it does not look like Lightroom 6 is available as an upgrade from Adobe anymore so i am left weighing up my options - seriously thinking about switching to a different editing package altogether.



With Classic you can sign up and it will look and feel quite similar, but have more features. To my mind it is much better (I've used each LR5 and LR6 and now Classic).

With Classic, you CAN keep your old LR5 on the machine (you may need to check under Advanced before letting Creative Cloud install Lightroom Classic, I hear they changed the default to not remove the old, but it originally was, though you could turn off that removal). 

With Classic, if you stop subscribing in the future, Adobe promises you can use it indefinitely to access your files, but can not do further edits in Develop.

On the downside:

With Classic in use, your lightroom catalog has been upgraded and you can no longer access the new catalog with LR5, so the benefit of keeping it around is slight.  The old LR5 catalog will still be there but will fall out of date quickly as you use classic, so while you can keep LR5 there, it is likely to be more confusing than helpful.

While Adobe says you can keep Classic and access your photos if you stop subscribing, the logistics of doing so are unclear, for example if you are no longer a subscriber and need to build a new computer and reinstall it.  I am not saying you cannot, just that all the reported focus I have seen has been on "stop paying and what happens" not "what happens much later still".  However, I think most would want, at that point, to export their images to TIFF's and move to a new platform entirely.  Plus Adobe has a lot of egg on its face with the "promise" of perpetual being withdrawn, and people worried whether this promise might be withdrawn as well later.

All that said -- while I'm way out in front on saying that the whole Classic/CC sends and end of life message for Classic, I think it's years away.  Those rushing to jump ship may be prescient, but to me the competition just has not shaken out by a LONG shot, and I think the risks in jumping ship now, versus riding out Classic for a fairly long time yet, are much higher. Do I trust Adobe to put the love and support into Classic that its audience deserves?  Not a whit.  But I do trust that they are getting a fair revenue stream from all the subscribers, and there will be no rush to kill it off. 

We have time.  Lots of time.  So Tom, if it were me, I'd go ahead and get Classic and enjoy the new features.


----------



## tspear

@Ferguson

My question is, why invest if you know it is not the long term solution? Why not support a solution, and advocate for it to add the features you need?

Tim


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## jms969

clee01l said:


> I think there are memory leaks that need to be identified and fixed. This is not uncommon for a dot zero release. As these are reported, found and fixed, updates will improve the speed and performance. Patience, guinea pig...



The problem is LR Classic CC 7.0 is not really a dot zero release...  It is ancient code that has had a few minor updates... :(


----------



## johnbeardy

jms969 said:


> The problem is LR Classic CC 7.0 is not really a dot zero release...  It is ancient code that has had a few minor updates... :(



Before the subscription model, it would certainly have been seen as a dot zero release. Half a dozen substantial new features.


----------



## CloudedGenie

tom manley said:


> Unfortunately it does not look like Lightroom 6 is available as an upgrade from Adobe anymore so i am left weighing up my options - seriously thinking about switching to a different editing package altogether.



@tom manley,

You can still buy the standalone version of LR6. I did it just last week as insurance (since I've been a subscriber since LR5) to make sure I am not forced into a solution I do not want to be part of.

Download and install Lightroom 6 (Single App license)

If you have a current Cloud subscription it will install as the 2015 CC version, but the catalog is backwards compatible with LR6 (a surprise I got). There are ways to force it to install using the serial number. I am currently working on a workflow that will allow me to keep both catalogs (CC2015/LR6 and Classic) up to date with the least amount of effort and double work...

Christelle


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

tspear said:


> @Ferguson
> My question is, why invest if you know it is not the long term solution? Why not support a solution, and advocate for it to add the features you need?
> 
> Tim



I get it, but I think people divide along lines where the post processing is an enjoyable part of the hobby, and testing and using new tools (and contributing to their growth with suggestions as well as money) is an end unto itself.  Fun.  I'm in that category of programming frameworks, networking tools and the like. 

And others, like me, for whom post processing is not something enjoyable so much as a necessary evil.  When I want to do photography a camera should be in my hand.  All the rest is necessary, but not fun.  I want to understand it as thoroughly as possible and be good at it, but that doesn't make it fun.

And LR Classic right now meets my need very well, and the "evil" part is fairly well minimized.  I'd prefer to wait until the alternatives are more mature and more complete before I spend the time migrating.  As migrating to any product involves pain, and to immature products even more so.

I guess, perversely enough, the "rental" aspect of subscription encourages me.  I don't have to make a big decision about investing heavily in a new release.  Just a few more months rental.  Kind of like renting a house when you know you need to relocate "soon" but are not sure when "soon" is.

But... absolutely, I think those who want to contribute to the growth of competition are doing us all a favor, even those who stay with Adobe as competition makes people work harder.  I get it. 

The one thing I disagree with is I think some people who have less innate reason for jumping ship are being stampeded a bit by all the end of life discussions, and we do them a disservice. Not that the discussions are not relevant, but I think there's more immediacy to the sense of doom and gloom, by far, than there should be.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

jms969 said:


> The problem is LR Classic CC 7.0 is not really a dot zero release...  It is ancient code that has had a few minor updates... :(


I believe there's a lot of re-engineering under the covers for performance we can't see, in the GPU requirements and framework shift, and also in parallelism.

I would expect more stability to come in the next release.  I think it remains to be seen if we will see significantly more performance, or (ever) see more functionality.


----------



## tspear

Ferguson said:


> I guess, perversely enough, the "rental" aspect of subscription encourages me.  I don't have to make a big decision about investing heavily in a new release.  Just a few more months rental.  Kind of like renting a house when you know you need to relocate "soon" but are not sure when "soon" is.



Actually if it was a month to month contract I would in a perverse way I would likely end up staying with Lr longer. However, it is a one year contract; which you just happen to pay monthly; with early termination fees. So it sort of encourages me to get off my but I and figure which way I am going to bet.

Since any migration should be well thought out and planned. This is not something that will happen quickly (at least in my case). So, starting the discussions now is critical. Especially when you consider the value of time. How much more time should I spend learning new things in Lr? How much is transferable to other tools?

I spent almost a year planning and executing my migration from Aperture to Lr. It required me to finish some organization stuff, move data to alternate fields (writing scripts to assist in the process) and eventually writing export scripts which I used to load the images into Lr. I can foresee the same thing happening with almost any other tool I migrate too.

Tim


----------



## tspear

Ferguson said:


> I believe there's a lot of re-engineering under the covers for performance we can't see, in the GPU requirements and framework shift, and also in parallelism.
> 
> I would expect more stability to come in the next release.  I think it remains to be seen if we will see significantly more performance, or (ever) see more functionality.



And this is one more example where Adobe is not properly executing a subscription model and providing incremental improvements for the past few years.

Tim


----------



## Johan Elzenga

jms969 said:


> The problem is LR Classic CC 7.0 is not really a dot zero release... It is ancient code that has had a few minor updates... :(





johnbeardy said:


> Before the subscription model, it would certainly have been seen as a dot zero release. Half a dozen substantial new features.


Compared to Lightroom 6 / CC2015.0 it is a dot zero release, but most new features have been thoroughly tested by Lightroom CC2015.1 to CC2015.12 users. The only really new and substantial features are the speed increase and range mask.


----------



## PhilBurton

tspear said:


> @Ferguson
> 
> My question is, why invest if you know it is not the long term solution? Why not support a solution, and advocate for it to add the features you need?
> 
> Tim


Tom,

Because nothing is pre-ordained when it comes to long-range planning for software.  If revenue continues to be strong for Classic, or if senior management changes, Classic could continue "indefinitely."  And there is no guarantee that your competitive switch product will survive.  Or that their promises about future development will come true.

For us the real issue isn't the survival of the current code base for Classic.  It is that either that Classic as is now or LR cloud code base enhanced to support Classic features is available.  *Of course, one of those Classic features is keeping all images on the desktop and not being forced to store images in the cloud. * Tom Hogarty?

Phil


----------



## jms969

Ferguson said:


> I believe there's a lot of re-engineering under the covers for performance we can't see, in the GPU requirements and framework shift, and also in parallelism.
> 
> I would expect more stability to come in the next release.  I think it remains to be seen if we will see significantly more performance, or (ever) see more functionality.



All of which should have happened in LR 4


----------



## jms969

johnbeardy said:


> Before the subscription model, it would certainly have been seen as a dot zero release. Half a dozen substantial new features.



I will put it this way, if a LR 6 to LR 7 perpetual upgrade was possible, there is nothing compelling in LR 7 that would have made me upgrade.


----------



## johnbeardy

jms969 said:


> I will put it this way, if a LR 6 to LR 7 perpetual upgrade was possible, there is nothing compelling in LR 7 that would have made me upgrade.



Obviously that is an individual judgement. But apart from Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View, Range Mask, what have the Romans ever done for us?

John


----------



## Duncanh

johnbeardy said:


> Obviously that is an individual judgement. But apart from Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View, Range Mask, what have the Romans ever done for us?
> 
> John


LOL, made me smile.

After looking at a few options (e.g. ON1, Topaz Studio, Darktable etc) I'm finding they are all busy developing new versions and have users finding bugs therefore I've decided to wait till end of first quarter next year to see the situation. It does look like others are adding features to match Lightroom Classic to entice LR users so hopefully Adobe will pull their socks up and recognise they can't take their customers for granted.  My subscription is due mid next year and as has been said before there's no hurry as Classic will be around for a few years even if not developed much more.


----------



## johnbeardy

Yes, a lot of these options are going after unsuspecting Lightroom users. Which reminds me of....

John


----------



## PhilBurton

Duncanh said:


> LOL, made me smile.
> 
> After looking at a few options (e.g. ON1, Topaz Studio, Darktable etc) I'm finding they are all busy developing new versions and have users finding bugs therefore I've decided to wait till end of first quarter next year to see the situation. It does look like others are adding features to match Lightroom Classic to entice LR users so hopefully Adobe will pull their socks up and recognise they can't take their customers for granted.  My subscription is due mid next year and as has been said before there's no hurry as Classic will be around for a few years even if not developed much more.


The ultimate in competition is a product that can import a LR catalog, including edits and collections, and extend catalog/edit/publish capabilities beyond what Adobe does.  Is such a product possible?  Of course, with software anything is possible?  

Is it likely, dunno.


----------



## Duncanh

I can’t see how anyone could import edits as they would have to corresponding to their own edits which won’t be the same. My understanding is that ON1 has written software that runs within Lightroom producing edited images with the option of them being jpeg, tiff or psd. They are running a public beta test of the latest version which is due for release very soon but users are finding loads of bugs.


----------



## jms969

johnbeardy said:


> Yes, a lot of these options are going after unsuspecting Lightroom users. Which reminds me of....
> 
> John



Unsuspecting lightroom users????  Hahahahahahahaha


----------



## PhilBurton

Duncanh said:


> I can’t see how anyone could import edits as they would have to corresponding to their own edits which won’t be the same. QUOTE]
> 
> _Soooo?! _ "Anyone else" could write a set of Lightroom-compatible edits.  SMOP, as I often heard.  Simple Matter of Programming.
> 
> Phil


----------



## Johan Elzenga

It's a little more than that. The demosaicing algorithms are proprietary for each vendor. That makes it very hard to match those using your own. To give you an idea how hard: even Adobe was unable to get a perfect match between Process Version 2 and Process Version 3. And they knew the algorithms inside out...


----------



## jms969

Duncanh said:


> I can’t see how anyone could import edits as they would have to corresponding to their own edits which won’t be the same. My understanding is that ON1 has written software that runs within Lightroom producing edited images with the option of them being jpeg, tiff or psd. They are running a public beta test of the latest version which is due for release very soon but users are finding loads of bugs.



While importing LR edits would not be a trivial matter, it would certainly be possible to import the basic edits from LR...  Not perfectly, but close enough.


----------



## jms969

JohanElzenga said:


> It's a little more than that. The demosaicing algorithms are proprietary for each vendor. That makes it very hard to match those using your own. To give you an idea how hard: even Adobe was unable to get a perfect match between Process Version 2 and Process Version 3. *And they knew the algorithms inside out...*



Or, maybe they didn't


----------



## tspear

You guys make it to hard.
For the vast majority of users you need to export the original, the final version and the develop steps. As long as you have the original and the final with the record of how you got to the final you can recreate it. But how often will you need to actually recreate it. Mostly the original, develop steps are to make you feel good. We really only use the final version...

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## MarkNicholas

Ferguson said:


> And others, like me, for whom post processing is not something enjoyable so much as a necessary evil.  When I want to do photography a camera should be in my hand.  All the rest is necessary, but not fun.  I want to understand it as thoroughly as possible and be good at it, but that doesn't make it fun.


Why don't you just let your camera produce the final result so that you do not have to post process / Raw develop ?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

MarkNicholas said:


> Why don't you just let your camera produce the final result so that you do not have to post process / Raw develop ?


Because photos need post processing, generally - straighten and crop almost all, exposure adjustments on many, white balance often depending on sport and whether the camera has flicker control. 

There are many tasks associated with photography one needs to do (and do well) in order to produce good results.  Doesn't make them fun.


----------



## Bernard

IMHO there are only two serious competitors to LR.
Capture one has very nice and powerfull editing tools, and a catalog not perfect yet but improving.
DXO has now local edits (U point technology acquired from Google) and working hard on a catalog feature.
Bernard


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## Zenon

I agree with that. I tried Capture and I liked it. I was going to get it but it didn't blow my socks off for $300. Beta 11 was released so another $100 upgrade pending. I even downloaded it again after getting the plan to be sure.

I found with careful editing in LR I could do as good as Capture for my needs. Sharpening is the most important thing to me. Capture has capture, detail and export sharpening. It also has palette that has clarity and structure. I liked that Capture offers the amount for export sharpening instead if 3 modes LR does. However there is some kind magic going on in LR's export process. Besides if I need crisper I have my own actions in PS for that.

What I noticed is Capture does everything out of the box so it is pretty much ready to export. Not sure how I feel about that. It does a very good job. That is what turned me off from DXO many years ago when I tried it.

The biggest complaint about Adobe it seems is colour being washed out. I have read but not sure if this is accurate but Adobe Standard does so be design. It is up to the user to tweak to taste or create a profile using something like passport. Just changing the profile to the cameras was a simple and effective fix. I wonder how much that effects new people when comparing.

Capture offers subscription so you don't if they drop perpetual licensing as well one day.


----------



## Zenon

Many (including myself) learned that you don't to use cloud storage with the plan which made difference. The new thing is fear that within 5 years or so Adobe will scrap Classic and morph it with CC, not allow local storage and force us to use the cloud to increase it's revenue base. This day and age you have to wonder if there is a little planned disinformation out there. 

I can't see that happening but there are some just don't trust Adobe. If it does I don't care as I'll just drop out of the plan if I still feel the same about cloud storage.


----------



## Bernard

C1 has layers, meaning you can do ALL edits locally, including TSL for ex. I don't think we will ever have that in LR.
Martin Evening has written an excellent article comparing C1 and LR in terms of editing (Photoshop user magazine, september 2016) .
Bernard


----------



## PhilBurton

Ferguson said:


> Because photos need post processing, generally - straighten and crop almost all, exposure adjustments on many, white balance often depending on sport and whether the camera has flicker control.
> 
> There are many tasks associated with photography one needs to do (and do well) in order to produce good results.  Doesn't make them fun.


True, and back in the film days, we did dodging and burning if we did our own printing.  I hated the cleanup after an evening of printing.  Not to mention having to reload every 36-38 exposures.

Phil


----------



## Zenon

Bernard said:


> C1 has layers, meaning you can do ALL edits locally, including TSL for ex. I don't think we will ever have that in LR.
> Martin Evening has written an excellent article comparing C1 and LR in terms of editing (Photoshop user magazine, september 2016) .
> Bernard



Well luckily for me I don't use layers. I can figure a lot out. I get the concept and tried but just could not get into it.


----------



## PhilBurton

Zenon said:


> Many (including myself) learned that you don't to use cloud storage with the plan which made difference. The new thing is fear that within 5 years or so Adobe will scrap Classic and morph it with CC, not allow local storage and force us to use the cloud to increase it's revenue base. This day and age you have to wonder if there is a little planned disinformation out there.
> 
> I can't see that happening but there are some just don't trust Adobe. If it does I don't care as I'll just drop out of the plan if I still feel the same about cloud storage.


I don't think that Adobe is that foolish, but if they were, they would lose a significant share of their base to that competitor or competitors that was willing to invest enough in their own product to present a viable alternative.


----------



## Zenon

PhilBurton said:


> I don't think that Adobe is that foolish, but if they were, they would lose a significant share of their base to that competitor or competitors that was willing to invest enough in their own product to present a viable alternative.



I agree. Adobe would be foolish to not leave that option open. They are sure trying and will try to encourage cloud usage.


----------



## clee01l

SLRLounge posted an article about the new PixelMator Pro app and crafted this very descriptive assessment of Adobe's current position.  I had to chuckle.  "Adobe has played their hand with the latest Creative Cloud update. Instead of the aces they hope photographers thought it would be, it ended up to be nothing better than a pair of jokers."


----------



## fsuscotsman

After listening to all of this, I'm of the opinion that anyone that doesn't take seriously the fact that Adobe doesn't care one whit about the users, especially if we aren't pro photographers. Companies make mistakes all the time, but this is just sheer arrogance. For people like us, this is an Edsel or New Coke, take your pick.


----------



## PhilBurton

fsuscotsman said:


> After listening to all of this, I'm of the opinion that anyone that doesn't take seriously the fact that Adobe doesn't care one whit about the users, especially if we aren't pro photographers. Companies make mistakes all the time, but this is just sheer arrogance. For people like us, this is an Edsel or New Coke, take your pick.


Or else someone's tragic mis-calculation based on complete lack of understanding of the customer base.  Arrogance, or just amateurism?


----------



## tspear

PhilBurton said:


> Or else someone's tragic mis-calculation based on complete lack of understanding of the customer base.  Arrogance, or just amateurism?


Nah, at Adobe like most companies they tend to hire good people. But from top down there is a specific message. Either a product manager has a vision of where to take the product, and/or it is being driven based on business models which are in theory based on market analysis.
 The problem is market based focus can often miss the current customer base.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## tspear

An interesting thread on the performance.

Import - Bug: Classic import process very slow specifically when using larger catalogues

This very likely shows neither the developers nor the testing teams had systems with large catalogs or an upgraded catalog. 
Since this issue is appearing for multiple users, it likely is not a one off situation. 

So is this just poor testing and development; or not providing adequate resources; or ....

Tim


----------



## PhilBurton

tspear said:


> Nah, at Adobe like most companies they tend to hire good people. But from top down there is a specific message. Either a product manager has a vision of where to take the product, and/or it is being driven based on business models which are in theory based on market analysis.
> The problem is market based focus can often miss the current customer base.
> 
> Tim
> 
> Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


If the customer base isn't included, then it is not, by accepted definition, a market analysis.  What you are describing is "market segmentation" and "market targeting," which is done after market analysis.  And the latter is the core issue we have all been upset about.

Phil


----------



## tspear

PhilBurton said:


> If the customer base isn't included, then it is not, by accepted definition, a market analysis.  What you are describing is "market segmentation" and "market targeting," which is done after market analysis.  And the latter is the core issue we have all been upset about.
> 
> Phil



Touche.

Tim


----------



## jms969

Bernard said:


> C1 has layers, meaning you can do ALL edits locally, including TSL for ex. I don't think we will ever have that in LR.
> Martin Evening has written an excellent article comparing C1 and LR in terms of editing (Photoshop user magazine, september 2016) .
> Bernard



Got a linky?


----------



## Zenon

I would not want it in LR. If I'm doing that type of work it is slow going and I won't be editing 500 files. I open onezies in PS for that. When I edit events and I need advanced stuff (which I really try to avoid) I transfer it to PS, edit and save it. Back in LR I flag the CR2, hide it under the new TIIFF then set it up so the flagged images are not exported.


----------



## Bernard

jms969 said:


> Got a linky?



Yes :  Magazine Photoshop User September 2016 USA: read online, download pdf free

Bernard


----------



## jms969

Bernard said:


> Yes :  Magazine Photoshop User September 2016 USA: read online, download pdf free
> 
> Bernard



Thank you very much


----------



## PhilBurton

Bernard said:


> Yes :  Magazine Photoshop User September 2016 USA: read online, download pdf free
> 
> Bernard


Were you able to download this magazine without having to provide a credit card number?  How?

Phil


----------



## Hoggy

PhilBurton said:


> Were you able to download this magazine without having to provide a credit card number?  How?



This might be a better link: http://4bcokm12bvu948gi7312gnab.wpe...uploads/2016/Lightroom vs Capture One Pro.pdf

I swear I read this somewhere else - not in a pdf - but I can't find it right now.


----------



## Bernard

PhilBurton said:


> Were you able to download this magazine without having to provide a credit card number?  How?
> Phil


No download, just reading


----------



## jerry12953

Hi,

I'm sure this question has been answered somewhere but it would be really helpful if someone could answer it for me here to save me doing a long search.

I've also tried having a long "chat" with Adobe but I don't think "Selwyn" knew what he was talking about.......

Personally I've no interest in photoshop so the cost of a subscription to LR is out of the question; I'm writing a blog post for the benefit of other people and want to make sure my facts are correct. So here goes -

What happens if you sign up to Classic CC and then after the first year decide not to renew your subscription? Can you go back to LR6 and, assuming you're still using a supported camera model, use it as before?

Many thanks in advance.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Yes, you can, but of course you will have to use the old catalog, which does not contain anything you did in the last year in Lightroom CC.


----------



## jerry12953

Oh yes, I hadn't thought of that. Neither had "Selwyn"..........

And of course there's nothing like that on the Adobe website for people who are thinking of signing up.

Talk about "short and curlies"


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

jerry12953 said:


> What happens if you sign up to Classic CC and then after the first year decide not to renew your subscription?
> 
> 
> JohanElzenga said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you can, but of course you will have to use the old catalog, which does not contain anything you did in the last year in Lightroom CC.
Click to expand...

There are lots of subtle issues here, so if you want your blog posting to be well researched, you might want to dive a bit deeper. There's the issue of the catalog as Johan mentions, but you can also use the Classic catalog (i.e. V7 not V6) and not use the Develop feature; in other words your photos are still accessible, you just cannot produce new edits. You can also export the photos afterwards to TIFF and use them in a different product (as well as LR 6).  Finally you can write metadata (xmp sidecards) and import them back into LR6 with possibly mixed results, since if you use LR7 features they may not show up properly in LR6.  I haven't personally tried the latter, but I THINK that LR6 will just ignore features it does not recognize as opposed to rejecting the Process version 4 XMP data (anyone tried it?).

It's a deep subject; if your blog isn't just a "let me say the same thing again", you might want to spend some time experimenting with the use cases and what works well and what doesn't for those who stop subscriptions.  Adobe has done quite a lot to give people a soft landing (in LR CC for example you get a year to download your photos). That doesn't take the sting out of "subscription only" for those who hate the idea of subscriptions, but it does reflect an attempt to mitigate the pain.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:


It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Writing metadata to files does indeed work. If you added a graduated filter with a range mask, then Lightroom 6 will pick up the filter but not the range mask adjustment. The process version is no problem.

But it even goes deeper than that. You assume that Lightroom Classic is used for one year and then the photographer decides to go back to Lightroom 6, but that is not necessarily the case. It's also possible that somebody migrates his catalog to Lightroom CC, and then after a year he changes his mind and wants to go back to Lightroom 6...


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

JohanElzenga said:


> Writing metadata to files does indeed work. If you added a graduated filter with a range mask, then Lightroom 6 will pick up the filter but not the range mask adjustment. The process version is no problem.
> 
> But it even goes deeper than that. You assume that Lightroom Classic is used for one year and then the photographer decides to go back to Lightroom 6, but that is not necessarily the case. It's also possible that somebody migrates his catalog to Lightroom CC, and then after a year he changes his mind and wants to go back to Lightroom 6...


Or worse, has been using a split between Classic and CC where some originals are in each place.

We're not in Kansas anymore, and I'm not sure there's a yellow brick road anywhere to be seen.


----------



## Jim Wilde

Ferguson said:


> There's the issue of the catalog as Johan mentions, but you can also use the Classic catalog (i.e. V7 not V6) and not use the Develop feature; in other words your photos are still accessible, you just cannot produce new edits.



IIRC, the Quick Develop panel in the Library module will still be available. Not as extensive as the disabled Develop module would be, but could still be quite useful.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Jim Wilde said:


> IIRC, the Quick Develop panel in the Library module will still be available. Not as extensive as the disabled Develop module would be, but could still be quite useful.



True, but I doubt how useful it would really be. You won't be able to use spot removal, for example.


----------



## jms969

Ferguson said:


> Or worse, has been using a split between Classic and CC where some originals are in each place.
> 
> We're not in Kansas anymore, and I'm not sure there's a yellow brick road anywhere to be seen.



I think the yellow brick road is just say no to lightroom and no to adobe, there are a number of other credible solutions...


----------



## Deleted member 39308

A suggestion for Victoria,

How about arranging a conference call with Tom Hogarty where Victoria asks Tom a range of questions about the future of Lightroom that have been posed on the forums and then make a recording available for people to play back? Video conference would be nice but audio only would still give a good way to discuss the questions posed. There are a lot of questions in this thread so an hour would be a good duration, 30 minutes may be a bit of push to get everything covered.


----------



## Cyndi25

Let's look at the word "Classic." 

I"m a classic at seventy-two. In other words, I'm closer to the ceiling than I am to the floor, and I'm on the way out.
Classic cars are old cars, not made anymore, nice to look at, but unavailable.
Classical era refers to ancient Greek and Roman. They haven't been with us since the eight and seventh BC.

Lightroom Classic will become the dinosaur of editing software. 

But, I agree with the idea that Adobe wants to make money. If they abandon Lightroom Classic, they will find a way to give us something else that will make us stay.

When Adobe came up with the subscription plan, I expected it to sink to the bottom of the sea, never to be heard from again. It didn't. It survived and thrived. It even came up with $9.99 a month solution for Photoshop and Lightroom. 

I had an interesting chat with the man who is head of Global Customer Service. I can assure you that Adobe wants to keep us happy.
I also can assure you that change is hard. All of us want to stay where we are because it is comfortable. When change happens we bitch and moan and threaten to leave. Have we forgotten the hullabaloo that accompanied the move to a subscription service?

If you start with the premise that Adobe wants to stay in business, I suggest we bitch and moan now and get it out of our systems. I don't think they have much competition in the space they've carved out for themselves. I think the other programs that are out there are not even stepsisters. I think they're cousins, five times removed. I remember how excited we were when a new function was added to Lightroom. If it was buggy, and it always was, we told them and they fixed it. Keep an open mind. If Lightroom is the dinosaur, then Lightroom CC is the baby. 

Does anyone believe that Adobe will throw out the old classic with the bathwater? I don't. Don't we all wish that we loaded up on Adobe stock? A year ago it was $104.12. Today, it's 181.97. If we aren't important to Adobe, and I believe we are, then their shareholders are.

Watch this video with Julianne Kost. Of course, she is giving us the Adobe line, but I believe her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=29&v=eDhzGtwNCGg

Point me in the right direction. Educate me about Adobe CC. I'm old and I don't have time to moan and groan or pretend that I can see into the future. 

I live ten miles from the Adobe headquarters. I'd be happy to stand outside, carrying a sign with our gripes. I don't feel like a hostage. I feel that I'm on a ride with Adobe.

I have faith in this company. Adobe, bring it on!


----------



## tspear

Cyndi25 said:


> Let's look at the word "Classic."
> 
> I"m a classic at seventy-two. In other words, I'm closer to the ceiling than I am to the floor, and I'm on the way out.
> Classic cars are old cars, not made anymore, nice to look at, but unavailable.
> Classical era refers to ancient Greek and Roman. They haven't been with us since the eight and seventh BC.
> 
> Lightroom Classic will become the dinosaur of editing software.
> 
> But, I agree with the idea that Adobe wants to make money. If they abandon Lightroom Classic, they will find a way to give us something else that will make us stay.
> 
> When Adobe came up with the subscription plan, I expected it to sink to the bottom of the sea, never to be heard from again. It didn't. It survived and thrived. It even came up with $9.99 a month solution for Photoshop and Lightroom.
> 
> I had an interesting chat with the man who is head of Global Customer Service. I can assure you that Adobe wants to keep us happy.
> I also can assure you that change is hard. All of us want to stay where we are because it is comfortable. When change happens we bitch and moan and threaten to leave. Have we forgotten the hullabaloo that accompanied the move to a subscription service?
> 
> If you start with the premise that Adobe wants to stay in business, I suggest we bitch and moan now and get it out of our systems. I don't think they have much competition in the space they've carved out for themselves. I think the other programs that are out there are not even stepsisters. I think they're cousins, five times removed. I remember how excited we were when a new function was added to Lightroom. If it was buggy, and it always was, we told them and they fixed it. Keep an open mind. If Lightroom is the dinosaur, then Lightroom CC is the baby.
> 
> Does anyone believe that Adobe will throw out the old classic with the bathwater? I don't. Don't we all wish that we loaded up on Adobe stock? A year ago it was $104.12. Today, it's 181.97. If we aren't important to Adobe, and I believe we are, then their shareholders are.
> 
> Watch this video with Julianne Kost. Of course, she is giving us the Adobe line, but I believe her.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=29&v=eDhzGtwNCGg
> 
> Point me in the right direction. Educate me about Adobe CC. I'm old and I don't have time to moan and groan or pretend that I can see into the future.
> 
> I live ten miles from the Adobe headquarters. I'd be happy to stand outside, carrying a sign with our gripes. I don't feel like a hostage. I feel that I'm on a ride with Adobe.
> 
> I have faith in this company. Adobe, bring it on!


Cyndi,

Nice perspective. Especially since I am headed home from my grandmother's 100th birthday party. I think you have a lot of time left!

I know three companies with a few hundred employees that have dropped Microsoft Office for either Libreoffice or Google Docs. Do either of these products match MS office? Nope, but they do 80% of what is needed for 10% of the cost.

Adobe is now in that situation. Before this poorly handled release I was already starting to question the value. Now I am questioning it even more, because there are very few features in the last few years which I would consider using. And the focus is mostly in directions I do not plan on ever using.
When I look at the competition, Adobe is no longer the only answer, and many companies come very close to meeting my requirements.

So, what has Adobe done for me for the 400 bucks I have paid so far? Dehaze? Skip all the mobile crap, I do not use it and I have exactly five images on my cell phone I use for caller ID. 

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## PhilBurton

Ad Astra said:


> A suggestion for Victoria,
> 
> How about arranging a conference call with Tom Hogarty where Victoria asks Tom a range of questions about the future of Lightroom that have been posed on the forums and then make a recording available for people to play back? Video conference would be nice but audio only would still give a good way to discuss the questions posed. There are a lot of questions in this thread so an hour would be a good duration, 30 minutes may be a bit of push to get everything covered.


Great idea. How about a webinar, with an option to submit questions in advance to Victoria as well as during the webinar.  Should Victoria do a poll to ask how many people would participate?  And, what time zone?  The webinar should be recorded so people who can't participate in the actual webinar can still view the event.  Personally, I think this webinar should be scheduled for two hours.

Phil Burton


----------



## PhilBurton

Cyndi25 said:


> Let's look at the word "Classic."
> 
> Lightroom Classic will become the dinosaur of editing software.


Not if Adobe wants us to be happy and continue to subscribe.


> But, I agree with the idea that Adobe wants to make money. If they abandon Lightroom Classic, they will find a way to give us something else that will make us stay.


IF Adobe is smart, they will "rebuild" LR Classic functionality in the web product, probably over several years.  That functionality of course includes desktop editing, of course.  Then they can announce that they have "merged" the products into "just Lightroom."


> I don't think they have much competition in the space they've carved out for themselves. I think the other programs that are out there are not even stepsisters. I think they're cousins, five times removed. I remember how excited we were when a new function was added to Lightroom. If it was buggy, and it always was, we told them and they fixed it. Keep an open mind. If Lightroom is the dinosaur, then Lightroom CC is the baby.


No competition, just ON1, CaptureOne, and Luminar. 


> Does anyone believe that Adobe will throw out the old classic with the bathwater? I don't. Don't we all wish that we loaded up on Adobe stock? A year ago it was $104.12. Today, it's 181.97. If we aren't important to Adobe, and I believe we are, then their shareholders are.


I believe that the CEO will do whatever he/she has to to "maximize shareholder value."  The large shareholders care about revenue and profits, not individual product lines.

The whole market is up this year.


> Watch this video with Julianne Kost. Of course, she is giving us the Adobe line, but I believe her.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=29&v=eDhzGtwNCGg


Julienne's job title is "Principal Digital Imaging Evangelist."  That means she is an effective and articulate spokesperson for the current product lines. That means she said what she is told to say, effectively.  That's not the same as actually formulating product strategy.


> Point me in the right direction. Educate me about Adobe CC. I'm old and I don't have time to moan and groan or pretend that I can see into the future.
> 
> I live ten miles from the Adobe headquarters. I'd be happy to stand outside, carrying a sign with our gripes. I don't feel like a hostage. I feel that I'm on a ride with Adobe.
> 
> I have faith in this company. Adobe, bring it on!


1. I'm not that much younger.
2. I live about 20 miles from Adobe HQ.
3. About six months ago, I managed to get the name of the LR product manager, and I sent him a message through LinkedIn.  No response.
4. I have not lost all faith in Adobe, else I would not still be active on this forum.  But I am watching with keen interest those people experimenting with alternatives.

Phil Burton


----------



## tspear

Like Phil, I have not lost all hope in Adobe continuing to be my goto photography solution.
However, it is no longer automatic. I am now evaluating other choices, and will continue to do so on a part time basis until either Adobe convinces me otherwise or I found a solution which meets my requirements.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## jerry12953

Ferguson said:


> There are lots of subtle issues here, so if you want your blog posting to be well researched, you might want to dive a bit deeper. There's the issue of the catalog as Johan mentions, but you can also use the Classic catalog (i.e. V7 not V6) and not use the Develop feature; in other words your photos are still accessible, you just cannot produce new edits. You can also export the photos afterwards to TIFF and use them in a different product (as well as LR 6).  Finally you can write metadata (xmp sidecards) and import them back into LR6 with possibly mixed results, since if you use LR7 features they may not show up properly in LR6.  I haven't personally tried the latter, but I THINK that LR6 will just ignore features it does not recognize as opposed to rejecting the Process version 4 XMP data (anyone tried it?).
> 
> It's a deep subject; if your blog isn't just a "let me say the same thing again", you might want to spend some time experimenting with the use cases and what works well and what doesn't for those who stop subscriptions.  Adobe has done quite a lot to give people a soft landing (in LR CC for example you get a year to download your photos). That doesn't take the sting out of "subscription only" for those who hate the idea of subscriptions, but it does reflect an attempt to mitigate the pain.



Thank you. I will try to get my head around all of that and amend the post as necessary. I don't reach IT/PP experts such as those that post  here, more like general photographers and some very peripherally involved with photography. So I simplification is the name of the game for me. I may use a term such as "functionality will be limited, including the loss of the develop module"; Does that sound OK?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

jerry12953 said:


> Thank you. I will try to get my head around all of that and amend the post as necessary. I don't reach IT/PP experts such as those that post  here, more like general photographers and some very peripherally involved with photography. So I simplification is the name of the game for me. I may use a term such as "functionality will be limited, including the loss of the develop module"; Does that sound OK?


I think so, others may have a more thorough awareness of all that happens and comment.  I think the problem is some subjects are difficult to simplify.  Adobe has tried to strike a balance between protecting its revenue stream / licenses, and accommodating users who decide to leave the fold.  It's a hot political issue, as many do not feel subscription is ever acceptable.  So whatever you say rather opens a can of worms where the technical details get lost in the emotions. 

The core of the situation really is that Lightroom is a non-destructive editor, or parametric editor.  It does not EDIT a photo so much as remember what it is you want done to it, and do those steps when you display or print or export. And these edits are in a proprietary "language", so you cannot take these editing steps and go to a new vendor with them and end up on par with where you were in Lightroom (you can take the final result in an exported TIFF that incorporates them).

This leads people to feeling that Adobe is holding their editing steps' implementation hostage (often they say they are holding their images hostage), and there's some truth in that, but its core is less to do with subscription and more to do with using proprietary editing.  If you have a perpetual license instead you have "perpetual" access, but in reality that is only as long as you can keep the program running.  In theory my old visicalc spreadsheets (if I could find them) could still be accessed by visicalc (if I had a copy still), but I could never get it running on today's windows.  The same ultimately is true of a "perpetual" lightroom.  Perpetual also holds you hostage, just its time frame is a LOT longer, as it lasts as long as you can keep it running.  IT guys running VMs and old software on simulated hardware may do that for 50 years; someone with an aging computer replaced by Best Buy may lose access to perpetual next week as they get their new computer because they can't figure out how to get it running and they are technophobes and stuck.  So all this debate is about how long "perpetual" is, at some level, and how it compares to paying subscriptions.

Sorry, I ramble....FWIW.


----------



## jerry12953

Ferguson said:


> Adobe has tried to strike a balance between protecting its revenue stream / licenses,



I looked that one up.

"Stellar year-on-year growth" of 26% (latest figures) & "record revenue of $1.84 billion in the third quarter of 2017." Not really protecting, as such, is it?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

jerry12953 said:


> I looked that one up.
> 
> "Stellar year-on-year growth" of 26% (latest figures) & "record revenue of $1.84 billion in the third quarter of 2017." Not really protecting, as such, is it?


Seems like they did a good job, but my point is that they could not very well say to subscribers "if you leave you can keep using it forever".   And they could have said "if you leave you it stops working completely, immediately", which is what most subscriptions do.  They chose a point  in between.

Remember in the US, it is the fiduciary duty of a company to maximize value for stockholders; there is no legal requirement to make customers happy, indeed if there is a choice between happy customers and profit to stockholders they violate the legal duty if they choose the former.  So really we need to blame Congress for software subscriptions.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Ferguson said:


> Seems like they did a good job, but my point is that they could not very well say to subscribers "if you leave you can keep using it forever". And they could have said "if you leave you it stops working completely, immediately", which is what most subscriptions do. They chose a point in between.


If you lease a product, you can often buy it at the end of the lease period for a reduced price. I think that is what Adobe should do: If you let your subscription end, you can choose between the current situation where Lightroom keeps working but without the Develop module and the Map module, or you pay a one time fee to keep a working copy (but no updates, of course). The only thing that still would not work (because of royalties) would be the map module.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Thank you everyone for all the feedback. I'm sure you've all given Adobe plenty to think about. Now we wait and see what Adobe does next... but that will no doubt take time.

In the meantime, it's time to close this thread and get back to the main aim of this forum which is "dedicated to the *support* of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom."

I understand that many have strong feelings on the changes, which is why I've let the venting and debates go on for a few weeks, but now it's time to get back to the constructive and positive atmosphere that makes this forum a happy place to be, even when the world is getting turned upside down. Adobe's own feedback forums are the best place for complaints and demands.


----------

