Previous news story    Next news story

Adobe publicly confirms stand-alone future for Lightroom

By dpreview staff on May 15, 2013 at 16:34 GMT

Adobe Product Manager Tom Hogarty stressed that Adobe has, 'no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future.' The statement, made in light of the overwhelming response to Adobe's Creative Cloud announcement last week, was made during a Google+ Hangout today in which both Hogarty and Lightroom PM Sharad Mangalick responded to audience questions.

What did Adobe say about Lightroom and CC subscription?

Predictably, the first question at the hangout was about the future of Lightroom. Hogarty tried to ease concerns about Lightroom's future: 'Basically we have no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future. We have plans to make Lightroom available in its current form pretty much indefinitely.' And, while he wouldn't use the word 'forever,' he confirmed that he meant 'for the foreseeable future.'

Hogarty stressed Lightroom was distinct from Creative Suite: 'We can confirm that Lightroom is still going to be a bit different [from software such as Photoshop and In Design]- we don't plan on adding any Creative Cloud-specific features that you would only get if you were a subscriber to Creative Cloud.' Instead, he said, the team was 'investigating cloud-based offerings that are not specifically part of the Creative Cloud. We're looking at cloud-based workflows.' These are the examples previewed on Scott Kelby's online show 'The Grid,' which could be offered 'incrementally to the Creative Cloud or outside the Creative Cloud.'

Is Camera Shake Reduction coming to Lightroom?

Meanwhile Mangalick responded to demands for Photoshop's new 'Camera Shake Reduction Tool' to be added to Lightroom: 'We're currently looking at ways of leveraging cutting-edge technology for all our customers - we're still trying to figure out how to get that into a Raw processing pipeline.'

'I'd love to see it,' he added, but confirmed 'it won't be in Lightroom 5.'

Download the Lightroom 5 public beta from Adobe Labs

698
I own it
12
I want it
31
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 615
1234
JackFM
By JackFM (11 months ago)

Adobe gross income in 2012 of about 4 000 000 000$
CC = about 500 000 people x 60$ x 12 months = 360 000 000$
Less than 10 percent of sales, where they see success?
90 percent of the people chose the boxes...

5 upvotes
cfh25
By cfh25 (11 months ago)

Let's dream of a future headline:

"Google launches Adobe Collection for $149"

4 upvotes
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (11 months ago)

By the way: I have still ot received Google's announced free Upgrade offer to the whole Nik suite! Not that it matters much, for me this would mean Sharpener 3, Dfine and HDR 2.

1 upvote
Tomskyair
By Tomskyair (11 months ago)

Keep on dreaming if you think Google bought Nik for their photographic software running on Mac OSX or Windows. All they were after is Snapseed Mobile. If I'd be a software developer in the Nik team I'd be looking for a new employer right now before Google s**tcans the entire product range in "focusing our efforts". As this is what they usually do after acquiring some innovative small developer.

"Don't be evil", I honestly think that this is one of the greatest deceptions of today's digital world. But still so many people just fall for it.

2 upvotes
photo_rb
By photo_rb (11 months ago)

If Adobe made practically all their income from advertising, they too could offer their complete collection for $149.
Maybe that's what they should do...Photoshop for free but have popup ads while you are editing photos. :-)

0 upvotes
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (11 months ago)

Google and Adobe of course have something in common. In both cases a strong competition would benefit us all.
There is also something they have not in common: I will continue using Google ... :-)

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (11 months ago)

This is off-topic but I received the full NIK collection in my email, without even requesting it. Just showed up. Frankly, this worried me more than what Adobe is up to because I really like the NIK applications.

0 upvotes
lbuclk=
By lbuclk= (11 months ago)

Adobe publicly confirms stand-alone future for Lightroom......Yeah riiiiiight.

3 upvotes
Dafffid
By Dafffid (11 months ago)

Shame that Lightroom still has one of the worst UIs ever designed. I'd use Bridge (suitably customised) over it any day, but I guess my Adobe days are numbered either way. Unless the cloud idea bombs and they get some decent management in to rescue what is still potentially a great product.

6 upvotes
GabrielZ
By GabrielZ (11 months ago)

Good! I'm very - very pleased to hear that Lightroom will not become subscription only for the foreseeable future...it was really worrying me, so I'm now extremely relieved by Adobe's clarification on the subject.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Toermalijn
By Toermalijn (11 months ago)

You really think they won't change minds as they please?!

4 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (11 months ago)

guys please let us thank stu 5.. he spend the last 6 hours here replying to your concerns.

if he is not a payed adobe employee he sure is the last adobe fanboy here.
and that deserves a thank you!!

and when adobe decides to make LR only available through the cloud (they sure can come up with some excuse in the future) .... you know who to thank.... again.

7 upvotes
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (11 months ago)

Thank you Stu!

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

lol. Well actually I have not been sitting here for 6 hours. Just had a browser window tab open whilst getting photoshoots off to clients, exporting from Lr Beta 5, uploading to Dropbox, making appointments to visit others clients and generally getting on with photography work and web design (No I don't use Dreamweaver before i get accused of that).

0 upvotes
davids8560
By davids8560 (11 months ago)

"Resistance is futile."

-Traditional Borg Greeting

3 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (11 months ago)

The only reason, is the Gimp. If you want an all-in-one program, then "digikam". Both Gimp, and digikam work on any platform. Optionally: The new Debian 7 (STABLE) OS is out now. It's the best foundation, and not just for servers.

Why not? Do all, and then decide. Beware of the myths. Be open. Make wise choices; because this is freedom. Don't miss it. Don't misuse your freedom.

If anyone is extremely nontechnical (and that's OK), you only need a technical friend to help you, on your (easy; but needs wise selections) install, and not for the actual, daily usage. So along with your fluid, dynamic, never outdated, stable, total software system base+, upgraded (comprehensive like none other), and to everything your Debian 7 can do, you also get no future costs, as well. Stop the ongoing flow of your cash, to closed software. Debian can do all, of what you need, and even better. You only need the will, to keep try a different app. Don't forget, you always have 24/7 online forums, to help.

1 upvote
Lea5
By Lea5 (11 months ago)

I tried Gimp a couple of years ago and didn't like it at all.

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (11 months ago)

Ah yes DigiKam the only decent free raw converter, of the 5 or 6 I've tried, but then I couldn't delete the tiff files from my Windows computer.

So DikiKam still needs some work.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (11 months ago)

Corel reaction to Adobes CC:

"As you’ve probably noticed, big changes are underway in the high-tech industry at large, and more specifically in the graphics software world. Earlier this week, Adobe announced that it will discontinue the boxed version of Creative Suite and move exclusively to a subscription-based model (AKA Creative Cloud). This means that going forward, the only way to keep up-to-date with the latest offering from Adobe will be by paying monthly fees. When you stop paying, your products will stop working.

At Corel, we strongly believe in giving users the choice to purchase your software the way you want. For many of you, we know that the preference is to purchase a box or download version of our products in what is called a “perpetual license”, i.e. in a way that gives you the right to use the product forever without having to pay anything extra.

Read more...

http://corelblogs.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/corel-is-all-about-giving-users-choice/

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

And here is the important bit:

For the foreseeable future, we will continue to sell the box version of Corel software in stores, through online partners and on our website.

Adobes wording:

'Basically we have no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future.

So just like Adobe no guarantee in their wording at all. In fact Corels wording is worse than Adobes.

3 upvotes
40daystogo
By 40daystogo (11 months ago)

Stu, power corrupts. It is likely that any corporation, led and managed by human beings, cannot resist the temptation of becoming feudal dictators, if given a monopoly. That's why the US has a limit of 2 year presidential terms. I have no doubt that if Corel were ever to ascend to pole position, I can't see them doing no evil.

1 upvote
Lea5
By Lea5 (11 months ago)

Well, that interpretation is a little bit vague I think.

If the rumor is true and Corel works on Paint Shop Pro for MAC's like it did for DRAW, amateurs and people without a big wallet will find a new home. I still use the Creative Suite CS6 Production Premium and I will work with it for a couple of years until something new hits the market.

Interesting times...

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Lea5 Draw is NOT available on Macs.

0 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (11 months ago)

Draw is not available on mac, but i can be used on mac.
No problem.

3 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Yes whilst running a different OS. Far from ideal. If Adobe suggested doing that people would be jumping up and down and ranting on here... sorry forgot people are doing that already.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

But Corel has not already screwed us. Adobe has.

1 upvote
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (11 months ago)

Pixelmator is a program developed by two (2) brothers. Hey, let's be realistic there, please. How many people at Adobe are developing Photoshop?!
If instead of criticising a team of two persons for willing to live their dream we actually support them, maybe they'll hire two more coders and bring fixes and features as you need them. :)
Even then, guys, c'mon, it's incomparable what such small teams must now endure under the pressure of disappointed Photoshop fans. It's not their fault many of you didn't support them before – it was simply unrealistic that such a small team can address all ends a big program you'd love to have requires.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Their problems stem back to last year and CC was announced the other week so they have had plenty of time to sort things out. If there are only two of them coding, they are running the company on a shoes string and not giving it the support it needs. They need to expand and if they can't afford to you have to ask what there future will be.

0 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (11 months ago)

Photoshop was also created by two brothers...

0 upvotes
ecm
By ecm (11 months ago)

I just don't believe you any more, Adobe. You've shown your true stripes.

I suspect it's not going to be all that long before we'll be given a choice - between "Pro" LR CC that has all the bells and whistles, and standalone "LR Elements" for us amateurs you said you don't want using Photoshop CC.

Good thing I'd already started to move away from Adobe products - the only one I use with any regularity any more is LR 3.6. Don't worry, it'll soon be replaced; no more non-pros getting their dirty little fingerprints on YOUR products, right?

7 upvotes
ranalli
By ranalli (11 months ago)

So I guess the solution here is to stick with PS CS6 indefinitely(how often will I ever need BS features like motion blur removal) and only upgrade LR as I really need to get the RAW support for exporting into Photoshop.

1 upvote
King Penguin
By King Penguin (11 months ago)

I use PS Elements.......what's the future for this?

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

There is no change. There is no point making a program that is so cheap to purchase CC.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (11 months ago)

Switching to other software that has curves adjustmet :)

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

For $12 you could have unlocked the feature on Ps Elements.

http://simplephotoshop.com/elementsplus/index.htm

0 upvotes
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (11 months ago)

@MARIN.. http://www.pl32.com/index.php

0 upvotes
Bram de Mooij
By Bram de Mooij (11 months ago)

I want updates as less as possible. As long as my cameras are supported I will be happy. No clouds for me, unless it is free. This is all possible now. With or without Adobe.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

That is fine if it suits you but others want to see progress and get more out of their files.

1 upvote
Bram de Mooij
By Bram de Mooij (11 months ago)

Correcting blurry files ?

Progress is now at a level, that it is not really progress anymore. I think Adobe sees that too. Still they want people to upgrade / update.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

They have made huge improvements in recent years to noise reduction, input sharpening, highlight recovery, DR, CA, perspective control (applying it quickly, try Lr beta 5 for that). I think a lot of people find this progress useful.

1 upvote
Lea5
By Lea5 (11 months ago)

In this case I have to agree with STU

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (11 months ago)

well adobe has catched up to other noise reduction software... so much is true.

i still think special sharpening and noise reduction plugins do a better job then adobes tools.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Yes some might but it is the best all in one package for it. I work on very tight deadlines sometimes, ie hours to turn stuff around for PR use and that is when plugins are far too slow to use if your working on say 40 or 50 photos edited down from a few 100. Plus I have found the more I use the NR in Lr combined with sharpening the better the results get.

1 upvote
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (11 months ago)

Decent noise removal was available in photoshop even 10 years ago with help of plugins:)

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Yes and plugins are slower to use when working on several photos compared to using Lightroom 4 or 5.

1 upvote
SemperAugustus
By SemperAugustus (11 months ago)

Guys ....don't feed the Adobe trolls, Stu 5 and GW... simply ignore them... they are called Adobe Community Professionals...or ACP. Adobe paid shills whose entire job is to spread FUD ..

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

I am certainly not being paid by Adobe and I am not a Adobe Community Professional. This is exactly my point regarding things getting made up on this forum thread.

2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (11 months ago)

and how do we know your not lying stu?

you spend all your days here defending adobe.
so you either jobless or payed by adobe.. what is it?

the cloud evenagelist from adobe IS writing here at DPR.
i suspect there are a lot more adobe employees here.

3 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Professional photographer who can multi task with a tab open on his browser.

0 upvotes
DRNottage
By DRNottage (11 months ago)

Adobe flexes their monopoly muscle and it smacks of extortion. Extortion aimed at loyal and professional users. Disgusting. Lightroom I will reluctantly continue to use, but they can take their "CC" and shove it. Just another Big Brother ploy spun as being for "your benefit." BS!!

0 upvotes
lenseye
By lenseye (11 months ago)

I don't trust Adobe as far as I can throw Adobe...

3 upvotes
cgarrard
By cgarrard (11 months ago)

This is just an attempt at disaster maintenance, that is all. Nothing guaranteed here, and I wouldn't believe them now if they gave absolutes. Trust has been broken Adobe, too late, and you'll never get it back from this guy. I'm sure I'm not alone.

-C

12 upvotes
awb1000
By awb1000 (11 months ago)

I only use Photoshop on occasion, so I see no value for me in this. I had been thinking about moving from Aperture to Lightroom, but that's off the table now.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Why?

0 upvotes
40daystogo
By 40daystogo (11 months ago)

Stu (Adobe employee), here's why:

Lightroom does not modify your files. Instead, Lightroom stores the edits to each file in its LR database.

If you cannot open the LR datase, then your years of edited photographs are un-openable. Sure, you have the RAW files and JPEGS, but none of the artistic edits that you made over the years.

If Adobe shifts LR exclusively to CC -- which, despite their craftily-worded assurances that LR won't be CC-only for the foreseable future, the expression "foreseeable" probably amounts to 3-4 years in CEO-speak. In other words, if LR ever does go CC-only, and the people here refuse to pay, then the above scenario kicks in.

Is that understandable, Stu?

The only reassurance Adobe could give is to say LR will "never" go CC-only, but, no, they didn't say that. They used a spin-crafty expression "for the foreseeable future".

Stu, if a woman said to you, "Stu, I will marry you for the foreseeable future", is that forever, Stu?

8 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

40daystogo I am well aware of that. Exactly the same as Aperture which as a program has a far less certain future.

Like other companies Adobe update the Raw profiling systems over time so if you are going back to an old file you processed you are going to want to use the latest new conversion available anyway. Also any person with a good complete backup system will make 16bit tiff backups as well of important files.

The wording they use is not crafty. It is the type of wording that other software companies like Corel have already used. I doubt Mac users were that happy when they dropped Mac support a while ago.

1 upvote
Danny
By Danny (11 months ago)

Stu, stop fighting for a company that takes the Mickey with it's users.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Danny I will say what I like. Reality is there are loads of pro users out there already using CC that are very happy.

2 upvotes
awb1000
By awb1000 (11 months ago)

Why? I'm not a professional and am not interested in another monthly fee from anybody. The spectre of a future subscription fee is enough to scare me off. For me, it would be like a membership to a gym that I hardly ever use after February.

2 upvotes
Tomskyair
By Tomskyair (11 months ago)

And they'll probably lose about ten times as many users by their latest move. Not to mention the major shipwreck they caused to their overall credibility and faith into their honesty.

We'll see whether those elitist "pros" willing to subscribe to Adobe's hostageware scheme are going to pay the bill at the end of day.

I'm really looking forward to these people's posts here that the latest increase for CC from 99 to 129$ per month is taking things "a little bit over the top".

It's all about the last laugh...

1 upvote
40daystogo
By 40daystogo (11 months ago)

Stu, all companies are crafty if they are run by crafty CEOs.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Tomskyair even if that happened it makes little difference as it is a business expense.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

40daystogo a company does not have to have a CEO to be crafty.

0 upvotes
jm67
By jm67 (11 months ago)

"it makes little difference as it is a business expense."

That's a standard response I've seen in a lot of forums that I take offense at. A lot of people, Adobe included, seem to think that because you run a business (I for e.g. wedding (mainly) photographer), do not need to gripe about prices of software, cameras, computers etc. because I can simply "write it off". So very wrong. The trick to running a successful business is to spend as little as possible while getting the highest return. Lease a Honda, not a Ferrari. Just cause you can write it off, doesn't make spending loads of cash justifiable. Have to admit though, I'd love to drive from gig to gig in a Ferrari.

3 upvotes
Alternative Energy Photography

I am multi-platform. Fixed.

Meant to be a reply to Stu in the thread below.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
SemperAugustus
By SemperAugustus (11 months ago)

"Adobe Product Manager Tom Hogarty stressed that Adobe has, 'no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future." ...

Tom, the last time I checked you worked for your CEO, who can override you ANYTIME with no warning, just like he did to all PS users. You can promise anything, he can always say that 'he' , God himself did not say such a thing.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
9 upvotes
vin 13
By vin 13 (11 months ago)

Not exactly a guarantee is it?

5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

and no other company have offered a guarantee either.

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (11 months ago)

well it´s a bit different with adobe don´t you agree?

fool me once...

3 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

No I don't Henry M. Hertz. Corels wording the other day was very similar. Apple I have far less trust in software wise to develop it and keep it going.

0 upvotes
Danny
By Danny (11 months ago)

Adobe lost all it's credits, thanks to the big boys who pulled the whole Adobe-circus into the abyss. Who is going to trust a company that pulled this trick upon it's users? Why? What have we done to them? I have been nothing but good to Adobe and supported them for more than 17 years.. All the money I invested in Photoshop, even though the upgrades where pretty much useless after CS2. And this is what we get, CC or go to hell? Is my money no good anymore? You only want me if you can milk me out every month, year in year out, slightly raising the costs? Adobe, what have you done? This ship has already started to sink.. and who is going to stop it?

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

All the people that have already signed up for it which is much greater than the amount of people complaining. The majority of Pros don't understand what all the fuss is about as they see CC saving them money and time. It's not Adobes fault if you saw the upgrades after CS2 as useless. Lots of people are making use of them which includes Ps E users as well as a lot of those updates filtered into that program as well.

2 upvotes
Gregm61
By Gregm61 (11 months ago)

Anyone who has tried the sharpening and noise filtering in ACR of Photoshop CS6 knows CS2 is ancient history. It's even clearly much improved compared to ACR in Photoshop CS5. I'm just as upset as anyone regarding the new pricing strategy, but anyone that says CS6 is not an improvement over CS2, CS3, CS4 or CS5, has their head in the sand.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Gregm61 it's always a pleasant surprise when applying noise reduction to an older Raw file that you processed under the old noise reduction system and see at least a 'stop' of difference.

0 upvotes
Gregm61
By Gregm61 (11 months ago)

Yep, I stopped using my Noiseware plugin with CS5 it was so much improved, and CS6 one-upped it even more.

1 upvote
glacierpete
By glacierpete (11 months ago)

Stu are you saying you have access to Adobes internal sales data ??????? You should disclose you are working for Adobe.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

glacierpete the figures are public. Adobe has already said what they are and you would know this if you read all of the content of press releases.

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

"All the people that have already signed up for it which is much greater than the amount of people complaining. " It's also much much smaller than the user base that has NOT signed up for it.

2 upvotes
Atlasman
By Atlasman (11 months ago)

As far as I'm concerned, Photoshop and Lightroom are one.

I don't like companies that curtail my choices.

I like the concept of ownership, (license or otherwise).

I just purchased AfterShot Pro!

5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

curtail my choices as in it is not multi platform.

0 upvotes
Alternative Energy Photography

I am multi-platform. Fixed.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Yes but AfterShot Pro is not multi platform and will not be as Corel have already said so.

0 upvotes
AlexAmsterdam
By AlexAmsterdam (11 months ago)

I have years of Photoshop behind me, on Windows only. Now I also have a Macbook. Untill now: PS on my Mac: too expensive. And suddenly - after enlisting for CC at US9.99 p.m. for the first year - I have PS on my fast Mac and my fast WinPC! Multiplatform!

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

That's a lie there Stu. Corel have already said porting to Mac is back on the table as an option. And as you can run Windows on Mac everything is multi platform anyway.

0 upvotes
SemperAugustus
By SemperAugustus (11 months ago)

'no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future.' ....and we 'believe' you.....

10 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Well it is what they have said from the start.

0 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (11 months ago)

I'm always amazed at how people whine about the price of software and also how people try to vilify software companies for trying to earn a profit. LR is $149 for Pete's sake!....and it's a great product. I'm happy they are not making it a subscription. I wouldn't like that at all, but even before the cloud/subscription subject came up, people are always disparaging software companies, as if they're trying to take over the world and enslave everyone. Get a grip people. I'm content to pay the $149 full purchase and $79 upgrade price for something like this. LR is a great product for me. I really don't care what the hell they do with my $ after I give it to them. I'm happy with the product. :-)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

The voice of reason.

2 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (11 months ago)

or a voice of another ADope addict...

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (11 months ago)

No. I just understand that Adobe has employees who get paid to work on the product and the company must earn money to pay those people. $149 is extremely reasonable for such a good product...and the $79 upgrade price is even better. If there was some other product I liked better for less money or even free, I would switch. But there isn't, so I stay and the price I have to pay for the product is fine with me.

There are too many conspiracy theories around here.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
7 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Henry M. Hertz maybe he has read what Adobe has actually said rather than the loads of miss-information on this thread about what Adobe supposedly said.

0 upvotes
SemperAugustus
By SemperAugustus (11 months ago)

D200
I don't think anybody has a problem with buying LR for $149, it is the "perpetual-rent-ONLY" approach what is unacceptable.

3 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (11 months ago)

Well, don't listen to me. I actually like my D600 too. So maybe I'm crazy ;-)

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (11 months ago)

there is no missinformation.
there is guessing what adobe will maybe do in the future, sure.

and there ARE adobe acolytes like you stu.
some are paid employees by adobe, some just brainwashed.
they try to make good PR on blogs and forum... but with not much success these days.

2 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (11 months ago)

I understand, Semper. But Adobe said they don't want to make LR subscription only. So, that's what I based my comments on...knowing that.

P.S.
I have no loyalties to Adobe. If another product came along that I like better and the price was ok with me, I'd switch. I really don't care who makes LR. I use it because I like it and the price is reasonable. That's all :-)

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
40daystogo
By 40daystogo (11 months ago)

People understand what Adobe are saying at face value - but what people are saying is that Adobe is capable of speaking half-truths, which really don't amount to a hill of beans. In other words, the suspicion is that Adobe has left enough vagueness in their spin-release for them, years later, to turn around and do the exact opposite and say, "No, we never promised that". It's quite sly, because the vagueness is intended to calm the rioters in 2013, but the wording has been vetted by Adobe management to give a way out in the future. Anyone who can't see the slyness in Adobe's wording probably are still in college, and haven't experienced the cut-throat ruthlessness of the corporate world.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Henry M. Hertz comments on this thread are full of misinformation. Some things that have been given as facts are simple not true.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

40daystogo the same vagueness is there from other companies as well if you choose to read it.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (11 months ago)

Stu, Adobe made a shift in a huge suite of products that has major implications for photographers and many other creative disciplines. Nobody begrudges them their profit, but if you look at their earnings you'll notice they aren't a poor company. In fact, they're very rich. The new pricing scheme will make them richer while providing no further motivation to work hard at providing improved products. They see the growth curve slowly losing momentum and instead of adapting to the market they have decided to adapt the market to them. Relationships are based on trust and they have made a decision that many interpret as a slap in the face, an indication that our business and needs are unimportant to them. Not only that, but they frame the change in a way that is an obvious exaggeration. Can't concentrate on two software lines? One that is subscription and one that is one time purchase??? Selling two different types of license doesn't strike me as all that difficult.

1 upvote
Alternative Energy Photography

"I don't think anybody has a problem with buying LR for $149, it is the "perpetual-rent-ONLY" approach what is unacceptable."

I agree, and I think it is reasonable to expect that Adobe will do "rent only" thing for Lightroom and all other products.

"40daystogo the same vagueness is there from other companies as well if you choose to read it."

No sir! The vagueness is suspicious from Adobe because they have already tried to force you and me and God and everybody into "rent only". They are the ones who are most suspicious at this time because they have a history of suspicious behavior.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

And so do other companies like Corel and Apple when it comes to software.

0 upvotes
robert1955
By robert1955 (11 months ago)

There is not much vagueness in the Adobe statements above, but many choose not to believe what Hogarty said.
For the longer future there are but two certainties: death and taxes

0 upvotes
epo001
By epo001 (11 months ago)

"no plans" is corporate shorthand for "no plans we are prepared to announce just yet".

10 upvotes
Per Inge Oestmoen
By Per Inge Oestmoen (11 months ago)

The forerunner of this sinister Cloud Computing software rental system was Product Activation.

Now it is time to reject any and all software that is in any form or fashion tied to the manufacturer after its acquisition.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

3 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (11 months ago)

Adobe acts like if LR has the same value and features as Photoshop.
They only forget that LR is nothing more then the ACR module that is already being shipped together with PS.

Who is going to believe Adobe anymore after their untrusty behavior towards their loyal customers that don't need every PS update or don't have the money for their cloud subscription.

12 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

It's a lot more than that if you actually use the program every day.

2 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (11 months ago)

The more You use it, the more you depend from adobe.

2 upvotes
Glen Barrington
By Glen Barrington (11 months ago)

"They only forget that LR is nothing more then the ACR module that is already being shipped together with PS."

I'm continuing forward on my plans to move away from Lightroom, but even so, anyone who says THAT has clearly never used Lightroom. I think it (the move) needs to be done, but it will be darned hard to replace, and will require some changes to the way I do things. It will be painful I suspect.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Gregm61
By Gregm61 (11 months ago)

In terms of image processing, creating the final image, that IS all Lightroom is. All that other "stuff" I neither need or want.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

But lots of people do Gregm62. The program was not just made for one person.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (11 months ago)

and if you want a great (thought a bit slow, but quality has it´s price) RAW converter:

http://www.picturecode.com/index.php

it pulls details out of my RAW files no other RAW converter is able to.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

And look how poorly they have treated people using their old product. Dropped it after not updating it for ages and then only give a small discount to people to upgrade to a new program.

0 upvotes
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (11 months ago)

Stu, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Noise Ninja was good as it was.

5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

RobertSigmund it had fallen behind hens why I stopped using it. The profiles were not getting updated for cameras that were coming out. The NR was no longer the best around.

0 upvotes
glacierpete
By glacierpete (11 months ago)

I think the upgrade from NoiseNinja to PhotoNinja for $79 iso $129 is not a bad offer. NoiseNinja 3 is now included in PhotoNinja. I really love the detail this new converter pulls out of my raws. With 16GB RAM it is fast IMHO

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (11 months ago)

don´t know if it was posted before but anyway.. can´t be posted often enough:

http://www.corel.com/corel/pages/index.jsp?pgid=14900014

7 upvotes
communicat
By communicat (11 months ago)

Oh excellent. I did not know they had created a welcome page ;)

I've been testing their Lightroom type option Aftershot Pro. Seems to work even better than Lightroom! Well, it seems to have a better workflow, anyway.

Corel, you need to add support for Fuji X cams.

4 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Oh what a surprise, Corel don't have time of money to develop the program for Mac users and expect you to use Boot Camp. Your workflow would be so slow then if you had deadlines to meet it is not even worth considering.

0 upvotes
Danny
By Danny (11 months ago)

Something tells me they are working around the clock for an OSX version. As long as it have 16bit and CMYK support I am in.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Danny that is my whole point they have said they are NOT working on a OSX version and don't intend to. Just saying use Bootcamp.

Basically they don't have the money or a large enough team of developers to develop into a cross platform program. They are just too small a company which is what I thought from the beginning.

0 upvotes
SemperAugustus
By SemperAugustus (11 months ago)

This is awesome!!! will place the link in my blog and MeetUp Group...

0 upvotes
Danny
By Danny (11 months ago)

@Stu 5

Stu, we will survive without Photoshop, without Lightroom, without Illustrator, without Adobe. Everything will turn out just fine. The world will be a better place without these people. And I am not talking about the quality people behind the software, I am talking about the big boys with the cigars who puzzled on the CC-plans, the big boys who just gave the whole circus away and pulled Adobe into the abyss.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Danny Adobe will not be going anywhere. The numbers complaining are far too small.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Henry M. Hertz... no.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (11 months ago)

stu--

Corel has Aftershot, that runs on Mac.

0 upvotes
Danny
By Danny (11 months ago)

Stue, the reason why you are here is that the 'numbers' complaining have become LARGE. Adobe employees like you are trying to calm down the crowd to prevent any further collateral damage. (Funny how users have become 'numbers', that's exactly what's wrong with this picture, isn't it?) You and I both know this show getting worse and worse. People are no fools, people are no numbers, people are you and me, individuals, and no numbers that can be manipulated by fake spam e-mails from Adobe with these quotes from 'numbers' telling how great CC really is. Wake up man, it's not going to happen.

2 upvotes
Danny
By Danny (11 months ago)

Oh Adobe.. what have you done. What have you done to yourself.

16 upvotes
tornwald
By tornwald (11 months ago)

I don't need Lightroom, I need a standalone Photoshop.
Screw Adobe, I'm done with them

11 upvotes
adrianf2
By adrianf2 (11 months ago)

Very glad I bought Pixelmator a few weeks ago, for a ridiculously low price. It was upgraded a couple of days ago - for nothing of course.

I don't know if it's adequate a replacement for Photoshop, but it seems to have many of the features of Lightroom, and is comparatively easy to use with a great interface and support.

8 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

It's not a Raw converter in the same way Lightroom is. Plus it is full of bugs just read some of the very poor online reviews. Does not have anywhere near the same amount of features that Ps has either and if you need those features you are stuck.

0 upvotes
adrianf2
By adrianf2 (11 months ago)

From a detailed review of PS, Pixelmator and Gimp:

"Photoshop is the overall winner, but Pixelmator is very close behind. GIMP didn’t put on a great show.

General users, amateur designers, and amateur photographers should get Pixelmator. It has lots of great standard-level features; a decent selection of pro-level features; and is a beautiful, fast app."

Have you ever used these products that you keep slagging?

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Yes.

adrianf2 the update to the program has huge Ram use issues. It's all over the internet. There are graphic card issues for some users that have been known about since the end of last year and the developers have a reputation for not getting back to you when there is a problem. Read all the bad comments on the Apple App store.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (11 months ago)

Pixelmator is program developed by TWO brothers. Hey, let's be realistic there. How many people at Adobe are developing Photoshop?!
If instead of criticising a team of two people for willing to live their dream we support them, maybe they'll hire two more coders and bring fixes as you need them. :)
Even then, guys, c'mon, it's incomparable what such small teams must now endure under the pressure of disappointed PS fans.

1 upvote
Octane
By Octane (11 months ago)

Here is a thought. So far Adobe has limited support to the latest RAW support to the most recent version of Photoshop and Lightroom. BUT at the same time it always kept it's DNG converter available up to date and free. Unless they completely go crazy and abandon their free and open DNG format, this option should be available in the future.
For those who will stay with their current version of Photoshop but still want to use the latest cameras, they can use the latest version of the DNG converter, convert all raw files to DNG which then should load fine into older version of Lightroom and Photoshop.

5 upvotes
wlad
By wlad (11 months ago)

Lightroom is dirt cheap ($99) and does a great job in terms of general mass processing of pictures - the "free" DNG converter would cost much more in the end - it would cost precious time.

0 upvotes
gefrorenezeit
By gefrorenezeit (11 months ago)

I would jump to DNG only with a gun pointed to my head.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (11 months ago)

photo ninja costs more then LR but is superiro when it comes to demosaicing. the detail rendering and color rendering is amazing.

i wonder that DPReview has not made an article about it.
but then adobe is sure putting more money into ads...

http://www.picturecode.com/index.php

2 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (11 months ago)

I'd rather be shot then using Adobe's DNG.
Even that gun won't help...

4 upvotes
Terje H.
By Terje H. (11 months ago)

It takes years to build confidence and trust. It takes seconds to tear it down.

Adobe, you used those seconds well!

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
30 upvotes
mseawell
By mseawell (11 months ago)

I love Lightroom. I really do but this is something bigger. Everyone needs to realize Microsoft, Apple, Google and other huge corporations are watching this with interest. If Adobe "succeeds" what will stop Microsoft, or Apple from doing the same with the OS? Nothing. So if you want your digital life I suggest you send Adobe a message and from what I'm reading you are. I have no problem with a company trying to make money but after weighing the pros and cons I believe the end user is the big loser. I will continue to use Lightroom but now I 'm now forced to consider my options. I hope Adobe is listening.

19 upvotes
CyberAngel
By CyberAngel (11 months ago)

That is a very scary scenario, indeed!
It's not only about ADope doing wrong,
but it's giving a bad example to everyone in the business
The line must be drawn here!

3 upvotes
Yanko Kitanov
By Yanko Kitanov (11 months ago)

Adobe knows that people see LR as a RAW convertor and Photoshop as a complete image processing suite.
Adobe knows well that LR is inferior to many other RAW convertors.
Adobe knows that Photoshop is unmatched for further post-processing.
Adobe also knows that Artists keep their work close as a precious item and don't store it on Big brother's unpredictable cloud.

Walking around the subject and not discussing these facts means Adobe considers Us - it's clients not Partners, but a revenue source and not an intelligent one.

Such strategy will take Adobe down fast...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
14 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Adobe are not saying you have to keep your files in the cloud. You keep them on your hard drive just like before.

Also in many ways Lightroom is superior to other Raw converters which is why it dominates the market. No other Raw converter program works as well with Ps.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (11 months ago)

Stu, online collaboration is a much vaunted feature of the new CC. Storing images online isn't required, but that's the huge creative ability, the ease of which you can share with others and collaborate, they are using as a big selling point. I'm sure there are those who value that. And there are many who don't. Lightroom dominates the market? Because it works well with PS??? Funny because my ACR works great with PS, too.

1 upvote
jsc909
By jsc909 (11 months ago)

This isn't much of an offer for anyone using LR with PS, didn't adobe already confirm that new ACR features that are offered in Lightroom 5 will not be supported in Photoshop CS6? So even if you keep LR as a standalone product, the pressure will be in to join the cloud for PS CC or break your LR-PS workflow.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Why? You export the files as a .PSD from Lightroom 5 into Ps CC and make your adjustments, close the file down which brings it back into Lightroom 5 just like you did before. It makes no difference. You are either using Lr or Ps to make the Raw adjustments. You don't use both of them to make the non destructive adjustments to the same Raw file.

0 upvotes
jsc909
By jsc909 (11 months ago)

Stu - for some jobs this introduces an extra step and an additional file. Ok to do once, twice.... But the workflow will be less effective than having the ACR in PS and LR in sync. Under the flow you describe you can't go back and change the original LR adjustments without making a new file and redoing the PS editing.

0 upvotes
jsc909
By jsc909 (11 months ago)

My mistake ....you can't do that if you do any edits in PS anyway. But there are some (limited) workflows where your workaround means creating an unnecessary file - specifically ones where you open the file in photoshop but do not edit it. (E.g. open the file to save in a particular output format, or to paste it into another file). I am happiest when LR and PS ACR are in sync.

0 upvotes
don_van_vliet
By don_van_vliet (11 months ago)

So this means we will have the choice between a crippled perpetual license version, or a CC version with all the bells and whistles?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

No it does not mean that at all. Both versions will have the same features. How the CC Lr version interacts with CC Ps could have benefits but that is a totally different thing.

0 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (11 months ago)

Stu, he's saying LR is a crippled version of PS....but it's the only way to get a perpetual license.

0 upvotes
toni2
By toni2 (11 months ago)

I don't see why lightroom is different from photoshop. It's exactly the same thing: with lightroom is you have CC and don't pay month suscription, you can't open your lightroom catalog, and with photoshop if you have CC and don't pay month suscription, you can't open your .psd files.
The only difference is that in photoshop there are no real choices. And with lightroom, you can choose camera one, dxo, photo ninja...

5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

You can use a bought version of Lightroom with a CC version of Ps if you want to. It is as simple as that. That way you can open your catalog up.

0 upvotes
ENicolas
By ENicolas (11 months ago)

I clicked that Gimp icon for the first time in ages today....

12 upvotes
OzarkAggie
By OzarkAggie (11 months ago)

There's always SageLight - $40.

2 upvotes
ysengrain
By ysengrain (11 months ago)

"Adobe Product Manager Tom Hogarty stressed that Adobe has, 'no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future.'".

Error !! the right sentence is: Adobe Product Manager Tom Hogarty stressed that Adobe has, 'no plans YET to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future.'

12 upvotes
Andrei Nicoara
By Andrei Nicoara (11 months ago)

And at the same time stated that some features (Camera Shake Reduction) will not be available in LR5.
Maybe in a future version, maybe as a Creative Cloud-only feature.

Even if LR will be available in a perpetual licencing model the pressure to move to CC will be forever present.

3 upvotes
vincent__l
By vincent__l (11 months ago)

I doubt that Adobe gives a damn about Lightroom. If you look at the retail price of LR compared to Photoshop, or the other CS tools, you realize what pays the executive salaries at Adobe.They claim to have about 12 million customers for CS which must account for a large portion of their $4.5B annual revenue. They can sacrifice LR just to try to calm the angry masses.

2 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (11 months ago)

Who needs camera shake reduction?

Use a tripod or use a higher ISO to get the speed that you need.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Andrei Nicoara he did NOT say camera shake reduction might only be available only in CC version of Lr. He also said both versions of Lr will have the same features.

0 upvotes
Mister J
By Mister J (11 months ago)

Hard luck Adobe - you're off my radar from now on.

As for Lightroom, it's Aperture for me.

7 upvotes
TheEye
By TheEye (11 months ago)

Adobe is completely off my list of acceptable companies, joining Bank of America, AT&T and Electronic Arts. Bye-bye!

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
14 upvotes
gefrorenezeit
By gefrorenezeit (11 months ago)

Mr Hogarty, here in plaing english for you: i started to use Aperture a few days ago. You can keep LR where it belongs.....

Sincerly, a p**** off artist

8 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

So now your are enjoying a program 3 generations behind Lightroom that produces worse results which might not even have a future from a company that shows not commitment to developing it much and keeps their users totally in the dark.

1 upvote
davidrm
By davidrm (11 months ago)

Er, 3 generations? Not sure how you work that out. Even less so when Adobe updates stuff as mandated by beancounters, regardless of new features, and Apple updates stuff when they have a sufficient amount of new features to warrant it. Lr5 has almost nothing significant in it (much like many Ps updates, and as for Fw, that goes beyond insulting) . If Adobe made Aperture, it would already be called "Aperture 5" - with exactly the same features. But more bugs.

0 upvotes
Archer66
By Archer66 (11 months ago)

DPR, why was this posted as "Other news" and not as "Software news" ??

1 upvote
40daystogo
By 40daystogo (11 months ago)

Adobe, let me explain it simply so you can understand.

Adobe, you think all you've done is made Photoshop a bit more expensive, but can't understand why the masses are rebelling. You don't get it.

There is nothing more sacred to digital artists than their data files. The single biggest fear of digital artists is that, years later, somehow they cannot use and edit the files that represent their lifetime's artistic work.

It was always a fear we thought would never happen, since we entrusted our files to the biggest player (Adobe) who wouldn't go away. Then suddenly Adobe turns around and uses that monopoly to hold us to ransom.

What Adobe have done is tantamount to holding a knife to the throats of our children, wives, mothers -- and not just held the knife there, but pressed a little into the flesh to draw blood. Adobe, do you now understand what you have done, and why the outcry is so great? It's because you, Adobe, have threatened the future-access to our own artistic data files.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
37 upvotes
Andrei Nicoara
By Andrei Nicoara (11 months ago)

^^ this
This is the biggest fear people have regarding the subscription model. Stop paying and your past work becomes inaccessible.

This fear was also present when the hardware evolved between CDs, DVDs, tape backup, BlueRay, but people knew that if they kept the reader things would be fine.

What Adobe does is rent the reader. And when you stop paying your work can become unavailable.
I think this disadvantage will overshadow any new (amazing or not) feature Adobe brings to the CC model.

7 upvotes
40daystogo
By 40daystogo (11 months ago)

Adobe, according to this article, think that the masses will be appeased if they just allow read-but-no-edit access to our files if we stop CC. Nonsense. People want to EDIT their files.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57583817-92/adobe-mulls-creative-cloud-tweaks-for-long-term-file-access/

3 upvotes
Barbu
By Barbu (11 months ago)

If you need to edit your photos once and then forget, fine. It's like renting a car: you used it to transport you from the airport to the city, and there you give it back.
But you must be really, really stupid to perpetually rent a car, years on end. Even if it were like a subscription where you would always get the nicest sedan, it's still not your car and you can't use it anymore the moment you stop.
We want to BUY a piece of software, and have an option to upgrade when we want; we don't like being forced to pay until death, on the promise that "we will make it better". We pay for your software NOW, and we will pay again WHEN (and if) you make significant advancement with it.

1 upvote
garyknrd
By garyknrd (11 months ago)

I personally do not have any use for them now. Great program, but without support and availability it is useless to me. Availability not associated with the cloud that is.
Just not interested.

5 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (11 months ago)

Cloud is another word for external storage. It is not meaningful to store valuable data with a marketing organization that changes course of action every half year on a whim.

Subscriptionservices like CC subtract from your workflow and bottomline. It buys a couple of ever increasing terabytes of storage.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 615
1234