Another Lightroom/Adobe discussion

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’m way ahead of you, and was already prepared for the end of the perpetual license version, which I addressed here long ago.

 

Jeff

Jeff, Can you please post the pointers to what you said about preparation for eventual end of license. I am so heavily invested in LR (now Classic) and want to know what others are thinking.

 

Edit: I see that you are talking about perpetual license. I moved to subscription license (Classic CC) starting this year after contemplating for 2 long years. From a business perspective I do see why Adobe would like to end the perpetual license and freeze development there. For a consumers like us, there is only change in payment plan and uncertainty about what will happen when we start paying. I did some research and it seems that everything except develop module will keep working even if you end subscription. This is not outrageous (pay monthly to get develop module activated again).

Edited March 6, 2018 by jmahto

[Jeff S]

Jeff, Can you please post the pointers to what you said about preparation for eventual end of license. I am so heavily invested in LR (now Classic) and want to know what others are thinking.

 

Edit: I see that you are talking about perpetual license. I moved to subscription license (Classic CC) starting this year after contemplating for 2 long years. From a business perspective I do see why Adobe would like to end the perpetual license and freeze development there. For a consumers like us, there is only change in payment plan and uncertainty about what will happen when we start paying. I did some research and it seems that everything except develop module will keep working even if you end subscription. This is not outrageous (pay monthly to get develop module activated again).

The handwriting was on the wall long ago regarding Adobe’s end to their support for perpetual license users. Among other things they made it increasingly diffificult to even find and pay for simple plan upgrades. This was compounded by no longer providing the standalone plan with all new features available to CC users.

 

Initial signals against LR Classic continuity already seem in place....the naming is confusing and, perhaps cynically, seems intentional, maybe to eventually simplify and merge the CC plans. But that’s a ways off as long as the new CC plan has inferior controls.

 

But I do understand Adobe’s reasons for going to a subscription model. And, for now, the software suits my needs at a reasonable price. But if and when frustrations mount, or if the value equation changes, or cloud storage is required, I’ll say goodbye to Adobe.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[frame-it]

really? i thought the new subs version will store the metadata on the cloud..with no access unless one pays monthly

 

"in Lightroom CC, your photos are stored in their full resolution centrally in the cloud, and synced with your computers and devices when you’re working on them. You can migrate your catalogs from Lightroom Classic CC to Lightroom CC. When you do so, Lightroom CC brings in each of your photos included in the catalog and uploads it to the cloud in its full resolution for access across multiple devices and computers. Later, to save on disk space, you can even consider deleting those photos from the local storage on your device."

 

I did some research and it seems that everything except develop module will keep working even if you end subscription. This is not outrageous (pay monthly to get develop module activated again).

[jmahto]

really? i thought the new subs version will store the metadata on the cloud..with no access unless one pays monthly

 

"in Lightroom CC, your photos are stored in their full resolution centrally in the cloud, and synced with your computers and devices when you’re working on them. You can migrate your catalogs from Lightroom Classic CC to Lightroom CC. When you do so, Lightroom CC brings in each of your photos included in the catalog and uploads it to the cloud in its full resolution for access across multiple devices and computers. Later, to save on disk space, you can even consider deleting those photos from the local storage on your device."

There is enough confusion regarding cloud version and non cloud version. I was talking about LR Classic that is what we had been used to (everything on our own server) but with a monthly rental subscription.

 

The cloud version LR CC is in infancy with limited features right now (also monthly subscription). The transfer of catalog to cloud is not feature compatible (CC doesn't have collections and keyword hierarchies for example). This is why I think cloud version is to attract newer users with lighter needs.

 

I work in enterprise software and we are also trying to create cloud software and attract new users (that's where growth is), at the same time trying not to lose existing users. I see lots of parallels here.

 

I don't know when and whether Adobe will support only the cloud version of LR. But it is not different than any other software business. In Enterprise world we are on the hook for supporting perpetual license since customers may maintenance fee. Even that ends after few years. There is no commitment for Adobe to keep supporting it or releasing upgrades to any product. Same with other software companies. At the end it is business.

Edited March 7, 2018 by jmahto

[Exodies]

You can use LR Classic CC with a local catalogue and DNG files and have copies in the cloud which sync automatically. This gives you access from any of your computing devices.

As for keyword hierarchies in LR CC, the cloud computed search feature makes keywording, apart from the most fastidious kind, irrelevant. (I realise that the most fastidious keywording will be rife amongst the forum)

 

While money is pouring in for Classic CC and CC I don’t see any need for Adobe to abandon one branch. Perpetual licence software gets abandoned, not subscription software.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Exodies

[willeica]

On another thread (on LIM's half case grip), I mentioned my challenges with LR and Mark Lyka (love your pseudo-last name!) agreed. I was about to respond but thought it would get lost in the title of that thread.

 

I'm asking those with more experience to help out here. I began using LR last week after some free YouTube lessons. This is very good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bECi0ZQAB34&index=1&list=PLllFqBuTM0WKjdQXb5XXKEMQmjseqic1J&t=0s

 

and now have Kelby's book. A couple of months ago, I got elements on sale and am struggling with its most challenging possibilities: I need to get a book on it.

 

What I'm thinking I understand about Adobe is the following:

LR has good, fast tools, for post-processing but is substantially a file management and workflow system.

Photoshop is the place to do extremely complex pixel-level manipulation and creations

Elements is effectively a photoshop-lite program allowing for multiple layering (like photoshop, but which does not seem possible in LR).

 

I have not worked through Kelby yet, but I'm sensing that, yes, there are ways of manipulating parts of a file in LR so that it approximates some of the outcome of photoshop or elements, and that it is a faster way for most of us to work.

 

But my first--very ignorant--take on LR is that the available tools that most of us use, while good, are not exceptional. That free applications like snapseed on your phone can do approximately the same. Right, LR has the Q's lens profile and that might help marginally for dng files, but that:

1. to create a real delta between LR and (say) snapseed, you need to apply LR's most advanced features

2. you are substantially paying for LRs file management system.

 

I'd love to hear what those with more than one week's experience in LR have to say. :-)

 

I find it difficult to advise other intelligent adults about what constitutes 'good value'. What might be good value for me might not be good value for you and vice versa.

 

When I started using Lightroom about 7 or 8 years ago, I bought a book by Kelby about the subject. I looked at one or two paragraphs in it and never used it again. It is now well out of date, of course. The following is more of an 'advice to self' but if you want you can consider using some or all of it.

 

Using post processing software is like riding a bike or driving a car. The more you use it, the better you will find it. Avoid what you call 'extremely complex pixel-level manipulation and creations'. Treat your images as 'photos' or 'pictures' and not as 'files'. Reserve that term for groups of images or folders of images. For me nothing in digital photography can surpass the thrill of opening and examining a yellow box of recently Kodachrome slides.

 

I use the Classic CC version of Lightroom as my main post processing software and Photoshop CS5 for the odd occasions when Lightroom is not enough. I have not ventured into the CC version of Photoshop, which I have, as I find that CS 5 is enough for my requirements. I used to use Nik filters a lot and still do a bit, but a lot of the features of Nik can now be replicated in Lightroom. Fujifilm images can be subjected to various 'film effect' treatments in Lightroom. It is a pity that the same cannot be done for Leica DNG images. Ultimately, for most amateurs the main thing is to create images that you are satisfied with yourself. You are your own 'client' which is not the case with professionals who have completely different sets of requirements including pleasing paying clients and managing large numbers of images.

 

As for Adobe, their main objective is make as much money as possible and they will do whatever suits them in pursuit of that goal. I am a bit of a 'hold out' on the cloud as I don't need to have access to my photos from a multitude of locations, but that might change over time. Just like Adobe, I suit myself. The strong hold that Adobe has on the market is not healthy, of course, and some stronger competition would be welcome. Maybe, someday Adobe will have a 'Kodak moment'.

 

William

[jmahto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For accessing my photos over cloud, I simply export selected pictures from LR to dropbox which I can access from anywhere. Interested in knowing what others are doing.

[LocalHero1953]

The only time I want access from more devices than my desktop PC is when travelling, when I have a Surface Pro. It would be helpful to upload to the cloud while travelling and download them all to the PC when home, but I rarely have a fast internet connection in hotels etc, so I don't bother. When home, I transfer the whole lot to the PC across our home network.

 

The other thing about travelling is that a Surface Pro (or Macbook Air, ipad etc) does not have a screen big enough for easy appraisal and complex editing, so I'd rather do most of my culling and editing work at home than on the go. 

 

All this means that I have no real need for cloud storage at a day to day level. OTOH, all my images are backed up on the cloud (Crashplan).

[plasticman]

While money is pouring in for Classic CC and CC I don’t see any need for Adobe to abandon one branch. Perpetual licence software gets abandoned, not subscription software.

Adobe has a long history of rationalizing their software range. Anyone who thinks that their particular tool of choice is somehow protected from this relentless process is fooling themselves.

 

Having two parallel Lightroom software development teams working on different versions of what they definitely aim to be just one platform is simply not going to last.

 

Expect to see new features coming to the non-classic that somehow never make it to the Classic CC platform as the first sign that Adobe are beginning their usual manoeuvring to get people to shift to the slimline version. After a while, enough users will have migrated for them to effectively kill development of Classic CC.

Don’t forget there were plenty of buyers for the perpetual license version, who were very keen to throw money at Adobe for a new version - just not as much money as Adobe could get from the subscription model. The same pattern will repeat itself.

[LocalHero1953]

I could see myself considering Lightroom CC (non-Classic), but not if the requirement was to pay to store all my images on Adobe's cloud. Too much of a monopoly for me.

Edited March 7, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[Exodies]

From the LR CC support site:

Lightroom CC intelligently manages your photos for you, so that your photos don’t fill up your hard drive space. This allows you to have available and work on the photos important to you, even if there is not enough room on your hard drive for all of your photos. You can always view all of your photos in Lightroom CC, even if the original file is not stored on your hard drive.

 

In the Local Storage preferences, you have the option of changing how much of your available disk space Lightroom CC is allowed to use. Originals are always backed up to the cloud. You have the options to store a copy of all originals and smart previews on your computer’s hard drive as well.

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, I saw that. But the subscription package for LR Classic CC, LR CC and PS only includes 20Gb cloud storage. Not enough for me for travel for a couple of weeks. If I want 1TB, I would have to pay double.

[jmahto]

Yes, I saw that. But the subscription package for LR Classic CC, LR CC and PS only includes 20Gb cloud storage. Not enough for me for travel for a couple of weeks. If I want 1TB, I would have to pay double.

This is why I think LR CC is meant for new users with light usage. I would be interested to know the profile of CC users. Anybody shooting RAW will fill 20GB very easily. Even smartphone users need bigger internal storage than that on their phone.

 

edit: But then I know some friends of mine store their images on Google photos but they do that for sharing/backup convenience and not for image editing (they are not RAW shooters). Profile of LR CC users is a mystery to me. Certainly I am not one of them.

Edited March 8, 2018 by jmahto

[LocalHero1953]

I decided that I won't be able to grumble about Adobe without actually trying the new Lightroom CC (which comes as part of the Photographers' subscription package, along with 20Gb cloud storage).

I installed and fired it up (on Windows 10, with a 27" monitor). I was already signed in through Adobe CC, and no further login was needed.

 

It runs as an app on my local PC, working on local copies of images - so I'm not trying to send editing commands across the internet. I tested it by disabling my wifi: LR continued to run and edit photos locally.

 

Right at the start it asks where the money is sorry, where your photos are, so I fed it about 20 that happened to be on an SD card from my CL, which it immediately uploaded to the cloud. As I edited photos, the "syncing" symbol showed continuously, so my photos in the cloud will be up to date.

 

Adobe makes a big play about how this is a new clean interface. Well, it is a bit: most tool and other functions are not on view: you have to click on Light to see the exposure, highlights etc sliders, and Detail to get to noise and sharpness, similar to LR Classic, but this principle goes much wider and deeper. In LR Classic and PS I tend to work with quite a lot of commands on view, because I have the space on screen. With LR CC, the default seems to be that commands are tucked away to maximise the screen space for your image. I'm not sure if this is good or bad, just unfamiliar at present.

 

Some of the familiar terminology has changed: Collections are now Albums. And the tools have been reorganised, for the better: 'Light' replaces 'Basics', but only includes luminance tools; 'Colour' now includes white balance, saturation and vibrance and colour adjustments; 'Effects' is now Clarity, Vignette, Dehaze and Grain, etc

 

So, it's a new app with a new, but mostly familiar interface. At present the main difference from LR Classic is that the basic storage place for your images and edits is in the cloud, thereby allowing you (and colleagues, if you have them - collaborative working may be a big objective for Adobe) to access and edit them from multiple devices. You can store 'originals' on your local device, but I haven't looked at whether edits are stored locally; if so, how; whether such local 'originals' may be managed and edited independently by LR Classic; whether local 'originals' can be organised in folders from within LR CC in the same ways as LR Classic

 

I don't need access to all my images across multiple devices, and I certainly don't want to pay for cloud storage of all my photos, so LR CC is not aimed at me. I'll continue to explore it, and see if it has a place for management of images while travelling - I suspect 20Gb will not be enough cloud storage for that.

Edited March 8, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[LocalHero1953]

To answer a couple of my own questions:

- LR CC will store 'originals' in a folder on your local device, but these are actually original dng/jpg as imported, and contain no edits.

- You can, however, save your images to a local folder with the options of 'JPG' and 'Original + Settings'. The latter includes non-destructive edits, and the files can be imported into LR Classic CC. So there is a way to reverse out of LR CC into LR Classic CC if you want to.

- I have had no trouble using LR CC to open all my images on a separate device (a Surface Pro); I didn't expect trouble, but it's good to be sure!

 

I have realised that, as well as the desktop app (Lightroom CC), you can also manage and edit all your images directly on the web through your browser (Chrome in my case). The interface looks similar but not identical to the LR CC desktop app. I haven't checked the functionality of this yet, but it is an obvious option for Adobe to offer.

 

There is also a phone app to try out. Not for detailed image editing, I suspect.

Edited March 8, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[Jeff S]

LR CC has fewer tools and less editing control than LR Classic... no camera calibration panel, no auto mask or color masking tools for local adjustments, no panoramic photo merge, etc, etc. At least they recently added the tone curve, which was initially omitted. And I don’t think there’s any support for plug-ins. Various other features are lacking, as covered elsewhere.

 

Dumbed down... for now.

 

Jeff

Edited March 8, 2018 by Jeff S

[LocalHero1953]

LR CC has fewer tools and less editing control than LR Classic... no camera calibration panel, no auto mask or color masking tools for local adjustments, no panoramic photo merge, etc, etc. At least they recently added the tone curve, which was initially omitted. And I don’t think there’s any support for plug-ins. Various other features are lacking, as covered elsewhere.

 

Dumbed down... for now.

 

Jeff

Indeed. I can see no reason why they shouldn't be added to the desktop Lightroom CC in the near future though - I suspect it's just a matter of working through the coding. Another thing missing is support for add-ins, except Photoshop. So no use of Nik etc. (sorry - just noticed you already said this)

 

The web interface is much more limited - I can't see any local adjustments in my explorations so far.

Edited March 8, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[jmahto]

To answer a couple of my own questions:

- LR CC will store 'originals' in a folder on your local device, but these are actually original dng/jpg as imported, and contain no edits.

- You can, however, save your images to a local folder with the options of 'JPG' and 'Original + Settings'. The latter includes non-destructive edits, and the files can be imported into LR Classic CC. So there is a way to reverse out of LR CC into LR Classic CC if you want to.

- I have had no trouble using LR CC to open all my images on a separate device (a Surface Pro); I didn't expect trouble, but it's good to be sure!

 

I have realised that, as well as the desktop app (Lightroom CC), you can also manage and edit all your images directly on the web through your browser (Chrome in my case). The interface looks similar but not identical to the LR CC desktop app. I haven't checked the functionality of this yet, but it is an obvious option for Adobe to offer.

 

There is also a phone app to try out. Not for detailed image editing, I suspect.

Thanks for doing actual hands on... this actually looks promising. LR CC seems to be serious tool (at least the direction is to be a serious player). What I don't know is that why there is limit to 20G which is not much and users may not want to pay extra for more storage. Of course they may tweak the pricing later to attract more users.

 

For now, the storage is cheap and I don't mind having pictures on my local server. I will certainly be keeping an eye on LR CC development.

[Richardgb]

With all the unease, at least in certain quarters, about Lightroom going to subscription-based and using the cloud (compared to stand-alone version and local storage), I wonder if Leica have had any thoughts about offering different post-processing software to purchasers of new cameras? (The cynic in me wonders what mutual back-scratching is going on between Leica and Adobe...)

 

Is it time for Leica to cease offering LR and let users make their own minds up about which post-processing software to choose? Arguably this may make the cameras a little cheaper...

 

Should Leica offer an alternative, and if so, which?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[willeica]

Yes, I saw that. But the subscription package for LR Classic CC, LR CC and PS only includes 20Gb cloud storage. Not enough for me for travel for a couple of weeks. If I want 1TB, I would have to pay double.

 

This will ultimately be about renting cloud space. It is not only Adobe that are pushing this, but Apple, Google, Microsoft and others as well. Leica is a relatively small player compared to those companies and could not hope to compete. Life nowadays is all about the 'upsell', I'm afraid. Some people, like myself, are 'hold outs', but in the longer term this game is only going in one direction. All of this has been enabled by the development of digital and communications technology and arguing over the details of this will make little difference in the long run, unless someone comes up with workable alternative solutions, which seems unlikely. This process started with the introduction of the first digital cameras over 20 years ago.

 

William