# Comparing Features Between Lightroom Classic and Lightroom CC



## clee01l (Oct 22, 2017)

PhotographyLife has done a fair and unbiased look at the two new LR products.  There is a nice table that does a good job of summarizing the two versions and I recommend that you read the article for a better understanding of the two products.
Lightroom Classic vs Lightroom CC


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Oct 22, 2017)

The table is very illuminating.  A lot of people have focused on specific issues like printing, but there are some more fundamental aspects that this helps flush out.  Lack of plugin support is a great one -- one reason Classic is so powerful is 3rd party contributions, and I think it will be very interesting to see how much Adobe opens the door to 3rd parties to access the Cloud and add value.  Also, at least today, the inability to export images in a more editable format (e.g. 16 bit TIFF) is a real limitation, and one I had not noticed (of course you could still bring Classic into the mixture, download all to there, and export from Classic; the same workaround is available for many of these shortcomings, albeit "workaround" is certainly the operative word).


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 22, 2017)

We already have our own far more comprehensive comparison list: Lightroom CC vs. Lightroom Classic - Which Do I Need? | The Lightroom Queen


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Oct 22, 2017)

An interesting discussion point is the question "Can you store the originals locally?". They say yes, you can store the originals locally (and have a backup of them in the cloud). Adobe would probably say that the originals are in the cloud, and you can save a backup of them locally.


----------



## clee01l (Oct 22, 2017)

Ferguson said:


> I think it will be very interesting to see how much Adobe opens the door to 3rd parties to access the Cloud and add value.


I believe Victoria has reported that there is a, not yet public, API that one third party is accessing. This seems to me to be the way to add the necessary functionality to LRCC.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 22, 2017)

clee01l said:


> I believe Victoria has reported that there is a, not yet public, API that one third party is accessing. This seems to me to be the way to add the necessary functionality to LRCC.



Yeah, that seems like the most logical way to go. Loads of functionality without loads of overhead. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## clee01l (Oct 22, 2017)

Jim Wilde said:


> We already have our own far more comprehensive comparison list: Lightroom CC vs. Lightroom Classic - Which Do I Need? | The Lightroom Queen


I see Victoria's table now.  Unfortunately, the Decision Tree was a bit much to wade through and I only gave the table a quick glance.  
Note if you will that I did reference it as fair and unbiased.  Unfortunately, I see Victoria, whose livelyhood is dependent upon Adobe's success with Lightroom, as not an unbiased disinterested party.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 22, 2017)

clee01l said:


> Unfortunately, I see Victoria, whose livelyhood is dependent upon Adobe's success with Lightroom, as not an unbiased disinterested party.



I'm surprised at that, shocked even. Sure, if she was comparing Lightroom with On1 or Capture One or whatever, it would be more difficult....but comparing one Adobe product, Lightroom (which she knows more about than anyone I know, present company included) with a new Adobe product to which she has probably been exposed more than most non-Adobe employees, how on earth does that make her unbiased? On the contrary, I would say she is eminently better qualified to give an unbiased opinion than anyone who might only been using the new tools for less than a week.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 22, 2017)

clee01l said:


> I see Victoria's table now.  Unfortunately, the Decision Tree was a bit much to wade through and I only gave the table a quick glance.
> Note if you will that I did reference it as fair and unbiased.  Unfortunately, I see Victoria, whose livelyhood is dependent upon Adobe's success with Lightroom, as not an unbiased disinterested party.



Could you perhaps point out something in that post that could be considered biased? It’s a comparison chart of features between 2 Adobe products, so as far as I know, it’s just down to facts. 

Yes, my livelihood is based on supporting Lightroom users. That’s never been hidden. However I’d hope you, of all people, would know me well enough by now to know that I’ll point out Adobe’s flaws as often as I point out the benefits. Someone who was just trotting out the party line would not have warned users not to jump into upgrading, but perhaps you skipped past that part too. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## johnbeardy (Oct 22, 2017)

Without making any allegations.... Some of the No entries against "Classic" could be construed as negative - when that feature would simply make no sense to it. Storing originals, for example. NA rather than No? You might also add some information about which features require the user to be online - Access Originals, and Search.

John


----------



## tspear (Oct 22, 2017)

@Victoria Bampton
I have to admit, this roll out and the associated changes have put people like you on the firing line more than I have ever seen with any product. I am a private pilot, and pilots as a general rule are Type A personalities.  So even when companies like Navworx screwed up, the community advocates did not get as lambasted as you have been trying to defend something that is myself and many others seem to view as fundamentally un-defensible.

I wish you all the best, and hope everything works out ok. In the meantime, this roll out actually has caused me to rethink some aspects of photography.
Starting with, do I really need a DAM? I am starting to realize I spend significant time putting in all sorts of meta-data, that I have never used. I also went with a complex workflow to put in all the meta-data I never use...
Oh well. I guess it is was a needed wake up call.


Tim


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 22, 2017)

johnbeardy said:


> Without making any allegations.... Some of the No entries against "Classic" could be construed as negative - when that feature would simply make no sense to it. Storing originals, for example. NA rather than No? You might also add some information about which features require the user to be online - Access Originals, and Search.
> 
> John


Great, let me know if you find any others. I was aiming to keep things fairly binary on both sides. I’ll update those in the morning. Always happy to receive constructive feedback.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 22, 2017)

johnbeardy said:


> Without making any allegations.... Some of the No entries against "Classic" could be construed as negative - when that feature would simply make no sense to it. Storing originals, for example. NA rather than No? You might also add some information about which features require the user to be online - Access Originals, and Search.
> 
> John


I’m looking ... which storing originals line John?


----------



## johnbeardy (Oct 22, 2017)

"Originals downloaded on demand" - no, you don't need to. "Originals automatically downloaded" switches the Yes and No between columns.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 22, 2017)

tspear said:


> @Victoria Bampton
> trying to defend something that is myself and many others seem to view as fundamentally un-defensible.



I wouldn’t have made some of the decisions that have been made. However, in the interest of Lightroom users, the best I can do is try to do is report the changes and attempt to cut through some of the confusion, so people can make an informed logical decision, rather than make an emotional decision based on FUD. The aim of my blog posts has been to do exactly that, and slow down the emotional reaction. I’m not perfect, so I don’t do that perfectly, but I try to see things from both sides. Mainly from the photographers point of view, because I’ve been that side of the fence a lot longer. I fight the side of users behind the scenes, but when the decisions are made, the best I can do is explain the changes that have been made. I don’t gain anything out of all this. Adobe will continue making money, and I will continue teaching photographers, whether about Adobe software or something else. It would be easy just to go to ground until this all blows over, but the time and effort I put into helping users is about helping users. I’m working 18 hour days to help confused worried people the best I can. Even if my books were finished, I wouldn’t be pushing them right now. That wouldn’t be fair. People need to understand the options and make the right decisions for them.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 22, 2017)

johnbeardy said:


> "Originals downloaded on demand" - no, you don't need to. "Originals automatically downloaded" switches the Yes and No between columns.



Fixed originals downloaded on demand! Thank you John! I’m too sleep deprived to risk messing anything else up tonight!!

I’m being blind....where are you seeing originals automatically downloaded?


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 22, 2017)

clee01l said:


> I see Victoria's table now.  Unfortunately, the Decision Tree was a bit much to wade through and I only gave the table a quick glance.
> Note if you will that I did reference it as fair and unbiased.  Unfortunately, I see Victoria, whose livelyhood is dependent upon Adobe's success with Lightroom, as not an unbiased disinterested party.


Cletus,

While I see your point, Victoria also has to maintain the "integrity" of this forum as independent of Adobe and serving its users' interests. I trust Victoria more than say Julienne Kost or Laura Shoe or Viktor at PhotoTraces.


----------



## tspear (Oct 22, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I will continue teaching photographers, whether about Adobe software or something else.



Well, if Adobe drives us away, I hope we pick the same software. You have been very good and gracious with your knowledge.

Tim


----------



## rob211 (Oct 22, 2017)

I don't get all the sturm und drang, but perhaps I should start worrying if Ms. Brampton changes her moniker to "the Lightroom CC Queen." 

And biased? I'm not worried. I've never seen anything here (or indeed on most other sites where people make money with Lr education and such) that indicates she'd pull punches. Indeed, some users fall prey to fanboyism more often than the people who make a living, in whole or part, on Adobe products. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 23, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> Cletus,
> 
> While I see your point, Victoria also has to maintain the "integrity" of this forum as independent of Adobe and serving its users' interests. I trust Victoria more than say Julienne Kost or Laura Shoe or Viktor at PhotoTraces.



Phil, for the record, Laura is a non-Adobe independent in the same way as Victoria. Personally, I trust the integrity of both of them.


----------



## johnbeardy (Oct 23, 2017)

rob211 said:


> I don't get all the sturm und drang, but perhaps I should start worrying if Ms. Brampton changes her moniker to "the Lightroom CC Queen."



Not the Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic CC and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom CC [pause for breath] Queen?


----------



## johnbeardy (Oct 23, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I’m being blind....where are you seeing originals automatically downloaded?



Sorry, I was unclear. I meant you might add another line. Of course, one could go on forever inserting extra lines, but my thought is that this is an important quality of "Classic" and shows how the two apps might work together.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 23, 2017)

LOL thanks for the support guys. It means a lot. 

John, gotcha, will do, thanks.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 23, 2017)

tspear said:


> Well, if Adobe drives us away, I hope we pick the same software. You have been very good and gracious with your knowledge.


Let me know where you end up Tim!


----------



## Gnits (Oct 23, 2017)

Jim Wilde said:


> Phil, for the record, Laura is a non-Adobe independent in the same way as Victoria. Personally, I trust the integrity of both of them.



And I also.  

Both have made a fabulous contribution to the Lightroom Community.  The fact that Adobe have created confusing products is neither Laura's or Victoria's fault and both end up in the front line dealing with an Adobe mess. Fair play and well done.


----------



## clee01l (Oct 22, 2017)

PhotographyLife has done a fair and unbiased look at the two new LR products.  There is a nice table that does a good job of summarizing the two versions and I recommend that you read the article for a better understanding of the two products.
Lightroom Classic vs Lightroom CC


----------



## tspear (Oct 23, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Let me know where you end up Tim!


Likely no where quick. I renewed CC almost 2 months ago, so I am stuck paying for 10 months. 
I probably will continue researching my choices (I already started), then make a plan, and start executing it next summer.
At this point, I am likely to just go into a defensive mode. Stop learning anything new in Adobe; focus on how to port my digital assets to a new platform and manage them.
One of the things I like the most about Lr is actually one of worst things when looking for a replacement. That is the ability to create a workflow based on smart collections with logical steps. This seems likely the hardest capability to replicate.

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk


----------



## johnbeardy (Oct 23, 2017)

tspear said:


> @Victoria Bampton
> ...trying to defend something that is myself and many others seem to view as fundamentally un-defensible.



I deploy a vocabulary of words like "amazing", "surprising", "brave" to describe things I don't like, or phrases like "I can't believe" or "I'm not defending", "they obviously think it's a good idea". It's quite fun.

BTW as recently as 3 years ago I've worked at trade shows directly for Adobe UK. Could easily happen again. Adobe are more relaxed than many companies about criticism, fair or otherwise.

John


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Oct 23, 2017)

Absolutely. The whole idea of this site is to present helpful facts unencumbered as much as possible by the kinds of emotional reactions a lot of members have shown over the last little while. It's a stressful time, but the sky isn't about to fall, and Adobe hasn't shown any real lack of commitment to LR Classic. This new release supplied some non-trivial, long-requested benefits, and it's the most bug-free major release I've ever seen. 

People are falling for marketing hype and letting it upset them.This isn't a good way to live. If you are suddenly faced with existential anxiety over what Adobe's marketing department has done, it's your business, and there are lots of things you can do about it, but whinging here or impugning the integrity of other members of the Forum shouldn't be one of them.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 23, 2017)

Jim Wilde said:


> Phil, for the record, Laura is a non-Adobe independent in the same way as Victoria. Personally, I trust the integrity of both of them.


Jim,

Thank you for the correction.

Phil


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 23, 2017)

Hal P Anderson said:


> Absolutely. The whole idea of this site is to present helpful facts unencumbered as much as possible by the kinds of emotional reactions a lot of members have shown over the last little while. It's a stressful time, but the sky isn't about to fall, and Adobe hasn't shown any real lack of commitment to LR Classic. This new release supplied some non-trivial, long-requested benefits, and it's the most bug-free major release I've ever seen.
> 
> People are falling for marketing hype and letting it upset them.This isn't a good way to live. If you are suddenly faced with existential anxiety over what Adobe's marketing department has done, it's your business, and there are lots of things you can do about it, but whinging here or impugning the integrity of other members of the Forum shouldn't be one of them.


Hal,

Emotional angst, maybe more than necessary, yes.  Impugning the integrity of another member of this forum, I haven't seen that and I (and I'm sure others) would bring that to Victoria's attention right away.

Phil


----------



## Jim Wilde (Oct 23, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> Impugning the integrity of another member of this forum, I haven't seen that and I (and I'm sure others) would bring that to Victoria's attention right away.


 
Careful, Phil....you might have to report yourself! I assume you didn't realise that Laura Shoe is also a member of this forum, LOL.


----------



## clee01l (Oct 23, 2017)

Hal P Anderson said:


> impugning the integrity of other members of the Forum shouldn't be one of them.


Can I set the record straight?  What seems to have upset some folks is that I said that Victoria's posts were biased by her livelihood being tied to Adobe.  I said nothing about her integrity which is above reproach.   IMO bias is unavoidable.  I have biases, you have biases. We all do as much as we might like to think we are above influence. 
The topic here is comparing the different features of Lightroom Classic and LightroomCloud.  I would hope that we can return to the topic of this conversation.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 23, 2017)

Jim Wilde said:


> Careful, Phil....you might have to report yourself! I assume you didn't realise that Laura Shoe is also a member of this forum, LOL.


Oh. 

Jim,

I was trying to be positive about Victoria.


----------



## PhilBurton (Oct 23, 2017)

clee01l said:


> Can I set the record straight?  What seems to have upset some folks is that I said that Victoria's posts were biased by her livelihood being tied to Adobe.  I said nothing about her integrity which is above reproach.   IMO bias is unavoidable.  I have biases, you have biases. We all do as much as we might like to think we are above influence.
> The topic here is comparing the different features of Lightroom Classic and LightroomCloud.  I would hope that we can return to the topic of this conversation.


I think we all share the bias that a picture isn't done when we press the shutter button.  Post-processing is needed.  We can all agree on that.  After that, we will disagree.  My bias is that I am basically an analytical person.

I'm happy that we don't all agree on everything.  It's the disagreements that prove illuminating.

Phil


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Oct 23, 2017)

I appreciate all the support guys, thanks. Let's get back to talking about Lightroom, shall we?


----------



## tspear (Oct 23, 2017)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I appreciate all the support guys, thanks. Let's get back to talking about Lightroom, shall we?



nah, we should see if we can make you blush 
Thanks for answering the Windows Explorer question on the Adobe Lr Forum. I will test it when I get home tonight.

Tim


----------



## OogieM (Oct 26, 2017)

PhilBurton said:


> I think we all share the bias that a picture isn't done when we press the shutter button.  Post-processing is needed.  We can all agree on that.



I'm not entirely sure I can agree with that.  

I tend to use my cameras, originally film, now digital and often just a phone, as if they were Polaroids. Whatever I want to do I do in the camera but do little if any post processing. My bias is that post processing can be used to hide or mask lack of skills. Someone who can create a wonderful image without any editing is IMO a more skilled photographer than one that can get a great image from lower quality inputs. I aspire to create good images without need for any post processing but have miles to go to get to even serious amateur levels of skill in that arena. Most of the post processing I do is to scale or change resolution to fit certain output media. The front image of our farm web site of the ewes and lambs in pasture was taken in 2012 with a Canon Powershot and is totally un-retouched. It was cropped to fit the format for the front page but that is it. That is what I aspire too, I only rarely get there. 

For historical scanning the only processing is done at scan time to try to capture as much of the original information as possible in the digital copy. In fact there is specific guidance for archivists NOT to do any significant editing that changes the image. In the past post processing has been used o edit out historical figures (see Russia for prime examples) and cropping to eliminate critical details that change the meaning of the picture. So I aspire to preserve the historical images as they are in all their glory without editing. 

That's also why I am far less concerned about LRs nondestructive editing. I so rarely use it that I can get buy with a very small feature set in that area. The benefit for me of LR is the cataloging features.


----------



## clee01l (Oct 26, 2017)

OogieM said:


> I tend to use my cameras, originally film, now digital and often just a phone, as if they were Polaroids.


For a camera to take a JPEG, you need to adjust the settings in the camera BEFORE the image is in the viewfinder.  The camera makes post processing adjustments to the RAW data based upon the settings that you chose or the default settings that the camera manufacturer chose.  Those settings are the average settings for the average lighting conditions for the average photo. If you want to settle for average photos then you need go no further.  If you want above average image photos you get a camera that permits you to control the shooting parameters and develop the "darkroom" skills to produce an above average photo.


----------



## OogieM (Oct 26, 2017)

clee01l said:


> For a camera to take a JPEG, you need to adjust the settings in the camera BEFORE the image is in the viewfinder.  The camera makes post processing adjustments to the RAW data based upon the settings that you chose to the default settings that the camera manufacturer chose.  Those settings are the average settings for the average lighting conditions for the average photo. If you want to settle for average photos then you need go no further.  If you want above average image photos you get a camera that permits you to control the shooting parameters and develop the "darkroom" skills to produce an above average photo.


I don't disagree with that. However, I also see excellent pictures from cameras with little or no ability to do much  "in camera" adjustment. Some of the success is clearly luck but I believe a lot of the difference is skill. I believe there was a class/expedition with National Geographic photographers that focused entirely on how to get great pictures from a cell phone camera, which however good they are getting, is still rather limited. I know there have been several pros take these simple point and shoot cameras and prove that the skill is not the equipment, it's the operator. Can you often make a picture better with post processing? Absolutely. But I wouldn't say it's a requirement or that no picture is ever done until that post processing has been completed. It all depends on your goals for your photography.


----------



## Gnits (Oct 26, 2017)

Examples  below.   You have to see the final print on good paper to really see the difference. This screen grab does not do justice to the final result.

Actual Jpg out of the camera. No adjustments.




After Raw conversion and post.





You can set up your camera in advance to be able to optimise your jpgs for a particular scenario, but in fast changing light at dawn in the semi dark is not the time to be making such adjustments.


----------



## Hoggy (Oct 27, 2017)

OogieM said:


> I'm not entirely sure I can agree with that.
> 
> I tend to use my cameras, originally film, now digital and often just a phone, as if they were Polaroids. Whatever I want to do I do in the camera but do little if any post processing. My bias is that post processing can be used to hide or mask lack of skills. Someone who can create a wonderful image without any editing is IMO a more skilled photographer than one that can get a great image from lower quality inputs. I aspire to create good images without need for any post processing but have miles to go to get to even serious amateur levels of skill in that arena. Most of the post processing I do is to scale or change resolution to fit certain output media. The front image of our farm web site of the ewes and lambs in pasture was taken in 2012 with a Canon Powershot and is totally un-retouched. It was cropped to fit the format for the front page but that is it. That is what I aspire too, I only rarely get there.
> 
> ...



The difference here though, is that when just using these in-camera jpegs - the camera has in fact, literally done the post processing itself.  No matter how little or how much control the jpg-only camera allows, it is ALWAYS done regardless.

When shooting raw-only, NO processing has been done after the fact - and therefore all raws look flat..  Because you need to do this [post-]processing yourself.  One may or may not do better than the camera's own post-processing, but post processing does NEED to get done either way, lest people like flat photos.


----------

