Lightroom Classic set to disappear?

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Capture One, DxO Photolab, Luminar and ON1 are evolving (quite fast), but Lightroom is frozen... 

Interesting article:

https://luminous-landscape.com/adobe-why-have-you-forsaken-us/

[Jeff S]

I’ve stuck with Adobe (now LR Classic) for the past 10 years (supplemented by ImagePrint).  But if and when they mandate cloud storage, I’m out.  I’ve been casually reading about alternatives, but he’s not the first to make me concerned that more serious efforts to find an alternative might be necessary at some point.  Adobe did the same with standalone (perpetual license) LR.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[erudolph]

After reading the Luminous-Landscape article this morning, I had the name reaction as @Jeff S.  Like Jeff, I also print using ImagePrint rather than the LR print module.  But I have been depending on LRs DAM and also on its capabilities in saving most image corrections as database entries rather than having to save modified files, as I did in the days before Lightroom, when Photoshop was my main application.

From my limited experience with DxO and C-One, they are not as quick as Adobe to support Leica, and I see that as a problem.  I am hoping a viable and equal alternative to LR comes along and that the transition, when and if necessary, will not be difficult. 

[LocalHero1953]

It's worth doing your own investigation and assessment before taking the opinion of one pissed-off blogger. And the grass is always greener on the other side. As one who prefers to use Lightroom (the former CC version), I would love to have some of the tools available to Lightroom Classic - ability to print? range masks? batch renaming of files? book design? I use Lightroom with my images in the cloud because it gives me most flexibility for displaying and distributing images to others, which is important to me, but I keep LR Classic for the print module alone.

You need to look hard at his grumbles before agreeing they show a trend to push you and your images online. The Adobe Photographers' subscription packages have been unchanged as far as I can recall for more than a year, and there there have been no significant functional updates to Lightroom that haven't been rolled out first or simultaneously to Lightroom Classic. He complains about the attention Adobe gives to its other products, but Adobe has always had more packages than just PS and LR - it's not new.

I can understand those who don't want a subscription package, though I'm content with it (though I wouldn't complain if it were cheaper). And we can all speculate about what Adobe might do in the future with its products. But a bit of evidence wouldn't go amiss.

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

It's worth doing your own investigation and assessment before taking the opinion of one pissed-off blogger. And the grass is always greener on the other side. As one who prefers to use Lightroom (the former CC version), I would love to have some of the tools available to Lightroom Classic - ability to print? range masks? batch renaming of files? book design? I use Lightroom with my images in the cloud because it gives me most flexibility for displaying and distributing images to others, which is important to me, but I keep LR Classic for the print module alone.

You need to look hard at his grumbles before agreeing they show a trend to push you and your images online. The Adobe Photographers' subscription packages have been unchanged as far as I can recall for more than a year, and there there have been no significant functional updates to Lightroom that haven't been rolled out first or simultaneously to Lightroom Classic. He complains about the attention Adobe gives to its other products, but Adobe has always had more packages than just PS and LR - it's not new.

I can understand those who don't want a subscription package, though I'm content with it (though I wouldn't complain if it were cheaper). And we can all speculate about what Adobe might do in the future with its products. But a bit of evidence wouldn't go amiss.

One needn’t rely on the blogger for concern.  Adobe said the standalone LR version was safe, amidst concerns, then abandoned it.  Similar concerns arose immediately with regard to LR CC, which is a subscription product, but not necessarily where Adobe is headed.  I gladly pay my subscription fee for it, but I’d be foolish to have confidence that Adobe won’t encourage, and ultimately force, users to move to cloud storage (which LR CC doesn’t require).

BTW, ImagePrint rocks for printing, with many advantages over the LR print module.  I use LR and IP together for an ideal print workflow.  But I won’t be forced to the cloud.

Jeff

 

[andybarton]

I thought that the desktop version of Lightroom had only just been updated this week. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The misconception here is that an update must be a massive one once in a while. The point of the subscription model is that there are multiple smaller updates over time. Having said that, I too would refuse a mandatory cloud-based system.

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, andybarton said:

I thought that the desktop version of Lightroom had only just been updated this week. 

As Jaap notes, there are fairly frequent updates to LR CC and CC Classic.  When standalone LR 6 was in its latter stages for Adobe support, the CC (subscription) plan received updates (often just a feature or two) that the standalone package did not, although the latter still received some updates, including new camera/lens profiles.  With the move to CC and CC Classic (the latter being the replacement for the standalone plan), both received all the updates, small and large, on a continuing basis. There's a prompt in the LR browser indicating any update available for download.  The concern expressed here is that the CC Classic version might be dropped.

Jeff

Edited November 14, 2019 by Jeff S

[LocalHero1953]

9 hours ago, Jeff S said:

One needn’t rely on the blogger for concern.  Adobe said the standalone LR version was safe, amidst concerns, then abandoned it.  Similar concerns arose immediately with regard to LR CC, which is a subscription product, but not necessarily where Adobe is headed.  I gladly pay my subscription fee for it, but I’d be foolish to have confidence that Adobe won’t encourage, and ultimately force, users to move to cloud storage (which LR CC doesn’t require).

BTW, ImagePrint rocks for printing, with many advantages over the LR print module.  I use LR and IP together for an ideal print workflow.  But I won’t be forced to the cloud.

Jeff

 

Yes, one should always have an alternative plan for when your favourite supplier chooses to no longer supply you (Leica R series?). But my point was that the article referred to had little more to add to the fears often expressed about Adobe, and just fitted the pattern of a common type of grumpy internet blog. 

One thing Adobe has really screwed up is its naming policy: between Lightroom, Lightroom CC, Lightroom CC Classic, Lightroom Classic and 'standalone Lightroom', it has left everyone totally confused about what people are talking about. 'CC' has now been officially dropped: we have only Lightroom Classic and Lightroom. As if anyone noticed the change.

We've had the discussion about IP vs LR before. IP solves problems I just don't have, at a cost, so I stick with LR (Classic).

[zeitz]

I'm going to commit heresy again.  Lightroom standalone was doomed to failure because of the attitudes we see on many forums.  "I'll show Adobe.  I'm not going to pay $9.99 per month ransom.  I'll just use standalone, and I'll never update it."  How often have we read that?  Without users buying updates, there is no reason for Adobe to sell standalone anymore because there is no earnings stream to pay programmers to update it.  Adobe absolutely knows its earnings from LR standalone, LR Classic and LR Cloud.  When the earnings don't pay for the product and its support, the product gets dropped.  It's that simple.  Many companies, including Apple and Microsoft, make significant earnings from cloud storage; Adobe surely wants its piece of that business.  Adobe offers a vast array of industry standard software to graphics professionals.  Adobe is not going to ruin its market if cloud storage is not wanted.  But if Lightroom Classic user numbers dwindle, Lightroom Classic will be discontinued too.  I pay my $9.99 per month, but I don't use Lightroom ever.  Us folks who use Bridge/ACR/Photoshop and not any version of Lighroom, and there are many of us, are actually aiding the ultimate fate of Lightroom.

[Exodies]

I would be happy if Adobe only provided for cloud storage. The stress involved in providing ones own disk space is enormous but I do it anyway because I don’t know how to put a price on it (the stress). I would be more relaxed if I didn’t have to balance (stress + work + cost) of home disks vs (cost) of cloud.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, zeitz said:

I'm going to commit heresy again.  Lightroom standalone was doomed to failure because of the attitudes we see on many forums.  "I'll show Adobe.  I'm not going to pay $9.99 per month ransom.  I'll just use standalone, and I'll never update it."  How often have we read that?  Without users buying updates, there is no reason for Adobe to sell standalone anymore because there is no earnings stream to pay programmers to update it.  Adobe absolutely knows its earnings from LR standalone, LR Classic and LR Cloud.  When the earnings don't pay for the product and its support, the product gets dropped.  It's that simple.  Many companies, including Apple and Microsoft, make significant earnings from cloud storage; Adobe surely wants its piece of that business.  Adobe offers a vast array of industry standard software to graphics professionals.  Adobe is not going to ruin its market if cloud storage is not wanted.  But if Lightroom Classic user numbers dwindle, Lightroom Classic will be discontinued too.  I pay my $9.99 per month, but I don't use Lightroom ever.  Us folks who use Bridge/ACR/Photoshop and not any version of Lighroom, and there are many of us, are actually aiding the ultimate fate of Lightroom.

The counter argument is that they could continue to get an income stream from the standalone LR, to support future development, by selling it to new users. After all, we don't subscribe to cameras, yet we keep getting upgrades.

Edited November 14, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[iRandom]

I've felt that the standalone version has been on it's way out since the renaming to LR Classic and the introduction of the cloud-based solution. My belief is that at some point Adobe is going to decide that it is not worth the cost to maintain both solutions. The feature set of LR has been coming along nicely, but I've decided that if I'm going to need to go to something that requires cloud storage that I'll just go with iCloud since I already have it. I'm moving toward Photos+Luminar+Pixelmator. It is certainly not for everyone, but I've found that it works for my needs. Especially given that Photos has the best support for the iPhone camera features and I'm finding that the iPhone now makes up the bulk of my casual shooting with my dedicated camera (Q2) only being used for special occasions and when I want the superior quality. I haven't opened LR in a couple of months now and I've found that I'm OK with that so my plan is to not continue my subscription when it comes up for renewal at the end of the year.

[Keith (M)]

I have used LR since LR2 (and PS from v4), currently I have the CC/LR Classic subscription. Every once in a while I'm tempted to revert to a purchased stand-alone solution (I've tried Luminar and ON10, plus Capture One 11 (Sony only)).  Will download a trial full version Capture One 12 to try out the features that are not available in the 'Sony only' version.  Apart from the fact that this old dog would have to learn new tricks, a concern is how (or indeed if) equivalent lens profiles as applied in LR and PS can be applied in the alternative programmes.

Anyway, I just checked on the Adobe website to check out what cancelling my monthly subscription involves. Good job I looked!

Am I eligible for a refund?

Annual subscription (paid monthly)

If you cancel within 14 days of your order, you receive a full refund.

If you cancel after 14 days, your service will continue until the end of that month’s billing period, and you will be charged an early termination fee of 50% of your remaining contract obligation. For example, if you have 5 months of your contract left when you cancel and you pay $20/month, you have to pay 50% of the $100 remaining balance = $50 early termination fee.

My annual renewal point is August, so Adobe would apply an early termination fee of circa £45 were I to cancel now.  Hmmm.

[zeitz]

6 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The counter argument is that they could continue to get an income stream from the standalone LR, to support future development, by selling it to new users. After all, we don't subscribe to cameras, yet we keep getting upgrades.

If there had been an adequate stream of new users, LR standalone would still be available.  But even for a new sale, the buyer is no longer a customer when the attitude is "version x.x.x is all that I need; I'm not buying any upgrades or I'll skip a few upgrades".  I would expect that photo processing software sales, for non-prosumer/professions, are seeing the same decrease as cameras in this category.  The vast majority of people using smart phones don't typically don't even know what Lightroom is.

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, iRandom said:

I've felt that the standalone version has been on it's way out since the renaming to LR Classic and the introduction of the cloud-based solution. My belief is that at some point Adobe is going to decide that it is not worth the cost to maintain both solutions. 

Adobe stopped updates to LR 6.14 two years ago.

https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2017/12/6-14-now-available-last-perpetual-update-of-lightroom.html

Jeff

[iRandom]

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Adobe stopped updates to LR 6.14 two years ago.

https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2017/12/6-14-now-available-last-perpetual-update-of-lightroom.html

Jeff

Poor wording on my part. By standalone I meant the subscription based legacy desktop version - i.e. what I believe is now called LR Classic. I fully expect this version to eventually ride off into the sunset the same as the perpetual license version. 

[Jeff S]

4 minutes ago, iRandom said:

Poor wording on my part. By standalone I meant the subscription based legacy desktop version - i.e. what I believe is now called LR Classic. I fully expect this version to eventually ride off into the sunset the same as the perpetual license version. 

Gotcha...’standalone’ and ‘perpetual license’ are commonly used interchangeably here... but I blame Adobe for all the naming confusion.  I hope you’re wrong, but I’d bet you’re right.  Likely just a matter of time.

Jeff

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, zeitz said:

[...] The vast majority of people using smart phones don't typically don't even know what Lightroom is.

Oh, they do... They download the free Lightroom Mobile app...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[zeitz]

Google tells me 3,500,000,000 smart phones are in use.  If just 1% of them used Lightroom, there would be 35,000,000 Mobile Lightroom users.