Reading mode: Light Dark

LR4 to LR CC library question

Go to last post
S

Smitty1

Guest
I currently still use LR4. It does the job (alongside PSE).

However, I'm running the numbers and see for around 50 more dollars per year I could just get the PS+LR CC bundle versus upgrading every 2 years.

I think PS has some handy features and such that PSE struggles to handle.

So my question is, with my LR4 formatted image library, If I switch to LR CC is the library/catalog 'formatted' or 'encoded' in some way where I would not be able to load it in LR 4, 5, or 6 standalone in the future?

I remember moving from LR3 to 4 the library I had at the time had to be 'converted' or 'formatted' in a certain manner by LR4. So this has me wondering.

That is, once I switch to CC does my multi-year expansive LR library end up stuck in a CC format where I can never use it in a standalone version of LR? I know the actual DNG files are untouched, and it is more the settings for each. But I'd rather not lose those.. that is a lot of editing work to go through should it ever become lost.
 
Last edited:
Solution
D
Smitty1 said:
So my question is, with my LR4 formatted image library, If I switch to LR CC is the library/catalog 'formatted' or 'encoded' in some way where I would not be able to load it in LR 4, 5, or 6 standalone in the future?
Click to expand...
4 & 5 yes, 6 no.


When you upgrade LR it upgrades the catalog to match. These catalogs are not backwards compatible because the newer version often includes features that aren't in the previous version. So the LR6/CC catalog will not work with LR 4 or 5.

However LR6 and CC are effectively the same program. Although LR6 does not have the dehaze sliders that CC has, it does have the code to interpret them and display the adjustments. So your LR CC catalog will open in LR6 if you were to swap from CC to the perpetual...
Smitty1 said:
So my question is, with my LR4 formatted image library, If I switch to LR CC is the library/catalog 'formatted' or 'encoded' in some way where I would not be able to load it in LR 4, 5, or 6 standalone in the future?
Click to expand...
4 & 5 yes, 6 no.


When you upgrade LR it upgrades the catalog to match. These catalogs are not backwards compatible because the newer version often includes features that aren't in the previous version. So the LR6/CC catalog will not work with LR 4 or 5.

However LR6 and CC are effectively the same program. Although LR6 does not have the dehaze sliders that CC has, it does have the code to interpret them and display the adjustments. So your LR CC catalog will open in LR6 if you were to swap from CC to the perpetual license LR6.
 
Solution
In addition to what Dan said, if you discontinue your CC subscription, you can no longer use the develop (and map) modules, but you still have access to the library module where you can convert your pictures to jpegs or tiff files, etc. including all the edits you have done. And you can make additional edits using the quick edit tools in the library module (and create books or print, etc.).
--
- Bill
 
If you discontinue CC, can you still import new photos?
 
Smitty1 said:
... I'm running the numbers and see for around 50 more dollars per year I could just get the PS+LR CC bundle versus upgrading every 2 years...
Click to expand...
IMO the $50/year is not unreasonable. Many people spend much more than that (on an average annual basis) on GAS (camera upgrades, fancy essential attachments, etc.)
Member said:
...with my LR4 formatted image library, If I switch to LR CC is the library/catalog 'formatted' or 'encoded' in some way where I would not be able to load it in LR 4, 5, or 6 standalone in the future?...
Click to expand...
I'm not really a fan of DNG, but it may mitigate this problem. DNG stores edits in the file and is readable by Adobe programs. I believe LR4 will handle DNG. If you convert to DNG and edit that file, you are saving your edits for future reference. If (big IF) DNG becomes more widely used, you won't be locked into Adobe programs any more.

DNG does have some drawbacks. After every editing session, the DNG file is overwritten. It's a new file. It therefore has to be backed up again. (You currently have to back up your LR catalog and/or XMP files regularly to save your edits). You may lose some of the original proprietary EXIF data from your raw file if DNG doesn't know how to handle it. (Most of what you will lose is probably of limited utility).

If you want to go this route, I'd highly recommend researching DNG so you understand it before committing to it. Also, don't delete your original raw files after converting to DNG.

I looked into DNG a bit and documented what I found online. It's probably not complete, but you might be interested in looking into some of the links.

Loading…

www.uglyhedgehog.com
 
dwight3 said:
Smitty1 said:
... I'm running the numbers and see for around 50 more dollars per year I could just get the PS+LR CC bundle versus upgrading every 2 years...
Click to expand...
IMO the $50/year is not unreasonable. Many people spend much more than that (on an average annual basis) on GAS (camera upgrades, fancy essential attachments, etc.)
dwight3 said:
...with my LR4 formatted image library, If I switch to LR CC is the library/catalog 'formatted' or 'encoded' in some way where I would not be able to load it in LR 4, 5, or 6 standalone in the future?...
Click to expand...
I'm not really a fan of DNG, but it may mitigate this problem. DNG stores edits in the file and is readable by Adobe programs. I believe LR4 will handle DNG. If you convert to DNG and edit that file, you are saving your edits for future reference. If (big IF) DNG becomes more widely used, you won't be locked into Adobe programs any more.

DNG does have some drawbacks. After every editing session, the DNG file is overwritten. It's a new file. It therefore has to be backed up again. (You currently have to back up your LR catalog and/or XMP files regularly to save your edits). You may lose some of the original proprietary EXIF data from your raw file if DNG doesn't know how to handle it. (Most of what you will lose is probably of limited utility).

If you want to go this route, I'd highly recommend researching DNG so you understand it before committing to it. Also, don't delete your original raw files after converting to DNG.

I looked into DNG a bit and documented what I found online. It's probably not complete, but you might be interested in looking into some of the links.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user_page.jsp?upnum=1419
Click to expand...
I think I tested this theory once. Created a DNG raw file in one version of LR and read it into another previous version of LR. The file could be read into the old version of LR, and the edits that the old version supported were also present, but edits using features not supported by the old version were missing. Better to convert to TIFF if you want to preserve your edits.
--
- Bill
 
billythek said:
...I think I tested this theory once. Created a DNG raw file in one version of LR and read it into another previous version of LR. The file could be read into the old version of LR, and the edits that the old version supported were also present, but edits using features not supported by the old version were missing. Better to convert to TIFF if you want to preserve your edits.

--
- Bill
Click to expand...
Thanks. I haven't tried it. I'm happy with CC and plan on continuing with it. I don't use DNG because I don't really see any advantage. I don't buy the "future proofing" claims, particularly on a format that isn't universal, despite being around for many years. IMO, nothing can be future proof. The best you can do is "future resistant".

If you save your edits in a TIFF, you can read it with an older LR version. The thing you lose then is the history, i.e. the list of what edits you used in LR. (Since I don't use DNG I don't know if the history is saved in that file).
 
Last edited:
dwight3 said:
dwight3 said:
...I think I tested this theory once. Created a DNG raw file in one version of LR and read it into another previous version of LR. The file could be read into the old version of LR, and the edits that the old version supported were also present, but edits using features not supported by the old version were missing. Better to convert to TIFF if you want to preserve your edits.

--
- Bill
Click to expand...
Thanks. I haven't tried it. I'm happy with CC and plan on continuing with it. I don't use DNG because I don't really see any advantage. I don't buy the "future proofing" claims, particularly on a format that isn't universal, despite being around for many years. IMO, nothing can be future proof. The best you can do is "future resistant".

If you save your edits in a TIFF, you can read it with an older LR version. The thing you lose then is the history, i.e. the list of what edits you used in LR. (Since I don't use DNG I don't know if the history is saved in that file).
Click to expand...
I wasn't really asking about this.. but thanks all the same.

I shoot Pentax. It outputs DNG files 'natively' SOOC. So the whole thing seems a bit moot for me. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
w
Next unread
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top