Is Lightroom Classic end-of-life?

[Victoria Bampton]

Lots of people are expressing concerns about Lightroom being "on the way out". I've been mulling it over, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this logic (and to be clear, I don't have inside information in this)

Is Lightroom dying?

Since Wednesday's announcements, one of the main questions on everyone's minds is whether Lightroom (as we know it) is dying.

Adobe says it's not, but they also said they had no plans to remove perpetual licenses too, so can we believe them? I don't know what Adobe is planning, and none of us can foresee the future, but we can consider a little logic...

Firstly, what's causing the concerns?


Adobe released Lightroom CC

Yes, Lightroom now has a little baby brother. But Photoshop's had a baby brother for years without getting killed off, so that doesn't mean much.


They gave away Lightroom's name

That's more telling. They clearly see the new app as the future of Lightroom. But like any newborn baby, its current state gives few clues about how it will turn out when it grows up.


They called 'the old one' Classic

Some say that sounds like it's old and in its way out. Others think it's the dictionary definition of "of recognized and established value" or "traditional". The obvious solution would be to call it Pro, but that would suggest the new baby Lightroom wouldn't be suitable for Pros when it grows up. The fact they avoided that suggests they plan on making the new Lightroom CC suitable for pro workflows in future too. That's reassuring.


Classic didn't get many new features

It's true, it didn't get a long list of features. On the other hand, Lightroom users have been begging for performance improvements and bug fixes for years. They start working on these issues and now we're complaining? And why bother to work on these issues if they're planning to kill it off soon?


Learn from history

I can't foresee the future, although it would be a handy skill. We can, however, learn from what they've done in the past. Let's take Photoshop as an example. They announced that future versions would only be available on subscription, but they kept selling the perpetual license. Once the vast majority of users had moved to subscription, they then killed off perpetual. They've just done the same with Lightroom.


What can we learn from this? Adobe makes some weird decisions at times, but they are good at making money. They don't kill off a profitable part of their business until most customers have moved over to a new offering.


How does that help? Ok, let's assume that they're eventually going to kill off Lightroom Classic. History would suggest they wouldn't do that until they have a viable alternative for the majority of their customers. Not all, but most.


Now let's imagine that alternative-in-waiting is the new baby Lightroom CC app, all grown up. There are currently some major limitations that make it impossible for most users to migrate:

• It's lacking important features. That'll take time to develop, and they're looking to the community to learn which features are most important.
• It requires fast internet. Either the majority of the world needs superfast internet, which would take a long time, or they need some kind of selective sync, or local network sync, or...?
• You don't want some or any of your photos stored in the cloud, either for privacy or space reasons. Ok, selective sync again? Some kind of local storage only switch?

Once they've addressed those issues - and no doubt a few more besides - then potentially Lightroom CC could have tempted most of Lightroom's users, and they could be in a position to kill of Lightroom Classic.


But that couldn't happen overnight, so how long would it take? I don't know, but that same time span also gives other companies time to develop other applications.


My point? Even if we assume that Lightroom is on death row, there's no rush to make a decision about what's next. So many things can change in that time. Lightroom CC may grow up to be even better than Lightroom Classic (they must have learned a few lessons along the way!!) or another company may bring out a new superduper competitor.


I'm not saying that is or isn't going to happen - I don't know the future any more than you do - but even if we look at a worst case scenario of our beloved Lightroom being killed off someday, logically there's no reason to panic anytime soon.

 

[Replytoken]

Clearly the consumer is the product when you are getting it free, but why would one assume because you are paying that they would not still use you as data points?

I just spent the last 10 minutes or so trying to find a clear and specific statement how Creative Cloud uses your photos without success. Not saying it's not there, but it couldn't be readily had. The general policy is here, and and it says for information on "certain apps and websites" to go here. Those don't include Lightroom, but refer you to Terms of Use and License Agreements. Terms of use sends you back to Privacy. License Agreement for Lightroom also sends you back to Privacy. There's no distinction I can see in Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic.

It does say clearly: As discussed more in Section 3 below, you retain all rights and ownership you have in your content that you make available through the Services.

In that section though it says:

We require certain licenses from you to your content to operate and enable the Services. When you upload content to the Services, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sub-licensable, and transferrable license to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify (so as to better showcase your content, for example), publicly perform, and translate the content as needed in response to user driven actions (such as when you choose to store privately or share your content with others). This license is only for the purpose of operating or improving the Services.​

The "improving the service" is an interesting extension. It is also this section which adds:

Our automated systems may analyze your content using techniques such as machine learning. This analysis might occur as the content is sent, received, or when it is stored. From this analysis, we are able to improve the Services.​

And in turn refers you here. That says they use:

The computer may analyze your content when you send, receive, or store files using our cloud services. We do not access the files stored locally on your computer. We use data in your files, activity logs, and direct feedback from you to train and improve our algorithms.​

The machine learning FAQ then sends you back to the Privacy policy above. It does say how you can opt out of Machine Learning.

But is Machine Learning the only issue -- there's also that out of "improving the service" which I see no clear way to opt out. Is collecting usage data, where and when you take pictures, what cameras you use... is that game for "imrproving the service"? Do you care?

And honestly, given how deep you have to dig to get to the opt out section of this... is it really effective? How many people will even THINK they might use it, and dig?

I just don't find it surprising that we are the product for Adobe as well. I think Microsoft is scanning all my email (they host it). I think Google knows and uses every search I write -- my WIFE frequently gets ads for what I am shopping for within minutes of me starting to shop.

Linwood, I appreciate you trying to trace down their statements/disclosures/disclaimers. It sounded a bit like taking a trip down the rabbit hole! I did a quick search about Box and Dropbox and found out the latter does look at file hastags and can use it for copyright violations identification. As I said above, I am aware that we are sources of data, but not every company decides that mining is a part of their business (e.g Box). I am not surprised by Adobe, but just as I choose to almost completely avoid Facebook and other social media companies because of their extensive mining, I suspect that now that Adobe seems to be going whole hog on data mining, I will probably look at them in that light that I had reserved for other companies. I am not paranoid or a believer in conspiracies, but I do not wish to have a large profile on the web, and I try to limit how much my privacy gets mined. I read an article the other day that stated that FB has more data on its users than the federal government does on its citizens. If that is true, it seems just a bit concerning to me in light of what we have been learning about their recent business practices (regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum). Thankfully, there still is Classic LR available and that may suit me fine if I stay with Adobe when I move forward in my use of newer software.

--Ken

 

[Gnits]

I do not like the idea of a machine tagging my images, so I am just going to avoid that scenario completely. In due course it may mean that I part ways with Lightroom and maybe Adobe. So be it. I have given up worrying about it.

 

[johnbeardy]

If you want to opt out of the AI, see Adobe machine learning FAQ.

I am on the fence about auto-tagging's value. Surely it must be a holy grail, and wouldn't we just abandon keywording if AI could be 100% reliable? On the other hand, can it ever be 100% or even 90%? And doesn't one require certainty - have you found all the images that you are looking for, no more, no less? In Adobe's case, I sometimes wonder if AI's being deployed in the LR "ecosystem" (as opposed to the LR "world") as a largely-theoretical exercise. Where is practical stuff like reading text, or recognising car or plane models? Is its main role to cover up weaknesses in search features?

John

 

[Gnits]

And doesn't one require certainty -

For someone who has nothing or looking for an extra layer then I can see a possibility.

For me ... I would look for certainty and do not want a machine second guessing how I would like to tag an image.

 

[CloudedGenie]

I am on the fence about auto-tagging's value. Surely it must be a holy grail, and wouldn't we just abandon keywording if AI could be 100% reliable?

I think we are some way away from being able to trust auto-keywording — especially if I’m not able to modify or guide the keywords being assigned.

As an example, I just look at the quality of the Face-tagging.... with some photos it’s pretty good, but others... Let’s just say I’ve been heard to tell the computer “Mate, now you’re just guessing!” :laugh: That’s after removing the paranormal ghosty faces visible in the shadows and muddy rims of my 4WD that strongly resemble my husband!

Christelle

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

I did a quick search about Box and Dropbox and found out the latter does look at file hastags and can use it for copyright violations identification.

Maybe. Dropbox is one of those that's interesting, as people consider it secure as it is encrypted, however as I understand it Dropbox is the sole custodian of the encryption keys, not you. That means Dropbox can look inside of your files any time it wants, including scanning for copyright violations or viruses. That may be considered by some a goodness (both that they can recover your keys if lost, and also that they can detect viruses), but by others an intrusion and risk.

For Adobe, opting out of the AI aspect does not seem to opt out of "we can use your data to improve our services" sort of access, does it? Only machine learning. There's a very distinct difference in that and normal data skimming for marketing, analysis, etc. Standard telemetry sort of data almost everyone gathers.

Personally the privacy issue is largely moot; I have almost all photos in online gallery, so all that info is already visible, and google has it all already I'm sure. To me the significant aspect of this relative to Classic is the absolute requirement in LR CC that you MUST store all photos in THEIR cloud to use it at all. That to me sends a strong message of direction -- proprietary cloud, we have to hold all your photos. LR CC can and does edit local copies. There's nothing conceptually difficult to imagine they could have allowed it to have a toggle in addition to "keep local copies" to "not keep cloud copies", for local-only archiving. Heck, they could even offer the cloud as a conduit -- synch to all my devices but not store in the cloud. They could have also offered end-to-end user-controlled encryption so the cloud copies are not accessible to hackers (or Adobe).

That they did none of those things frankly doesn't look like a V1 simplification (especially end to end encryption under your control), but a clear direction indicator. Adobe wants your data in its (and only its) cloud in the future. It's not (just) about privacy, it's about a land grab - they want to be your proprietary storage provider.

Did you see recent news articles that Amazon would not be significantly profitable without its cloud storage business.

 

[johnbeardy]

a clear direction indicator. Adobe wants your data in its (and only its) cloud in the future. It's not (just) about privacy, it's about a land grab - they want to be your proprietary storage provider.

That's my sense too. What else will people pay for?

John

 

[tspear]

That's my sense too. What else will people pay for?

John

What I find interesting discussing this with my two older kids. Both in their twenties.
A few years ago, it was sign up for this service at $5 a month, and this one at $10.... It got to the point they were spending $100+ a month each. Spotify, Pandora, Netflix, Steam, Hulu.... Then you add phones on top. They were pushing a couple hundred a month each on all this stuff.
Now, they are going the other direction. They are dumping stuff where there is a large overlap, and plan to switch companies every year. e.g. My son likes some shows on Netflix and some on Hulu. He is now planning to alternate between the companies, looking for the latest one year promotion plan.

If Adobe thinks the images will be a sticky factor, the answer is no. My son had problems with his video card on his computer and a corrupted Windows registry last night. After fighting with it for a couple of hours and reading up on it online; he decided to wipe the machine and start over. He did not care about anything saved on the machine. My daughter on switching phones a few months ago, lost a couple years of images, just shrugged and moved on....

And this attitude seems to be common with their friends.

Tim

 

[PhilBurton]

If you want to opt out of the AI, see Adobe machine learning FAQ.

I am on the fence about auto-tagging's value. Surely it must be a holy grail, and wouldn't we just abandon keywording if AI could be 100% reliable? On the other hand, can it ever be 100% or even 90%? And doesn't one require certainty - have you found all the images that you are looking for, no more, no less? In Adobe's case, I sometimes wonder if AI's being deployed in the LR "ecosystem" (as opposed to the LR "world") as a largely-theoretical exercise. Where is practical stuff like reading text, or recognising car or plane models? Is its main role to cover up weaknesses in search features?

John

Until this AI can read the number on the side of a railway car or locomotive, it would not work for me. And what if that number isn't actually visible in the photo, but I recorded it at the time of the photo? Or how is their AI supposed to know that a street scene is in London as opposed to NY or Los Angeles? Until Adobe can scan my brain, their AI will never work for me.

 

[Hal P Anderson]

Until Adobe can scan my brain, their AI will never work for me.

Give them a year or two. We'll all need to be wearing tinfoil hats.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

Until this AI can read the number on the side of a railway car or locomotive, it would not work for me. And what if that number isn't actually visible in the photo, but I recorded it at the time of the photo? Or how is their AI supposed to know that a street scene is in London as opposed to NY or Los Angeles?

You can get free or cheap software for video surveillance now that finds and reads license plates on cars, and depending on the venue (or ancillary databases you provide like employee plates) will then identify whose car it was for you.

WIth Google's street view database, identifying the street where a photo was taken is getting easier every day, but besides that look how many images have GPS embedded. Or that people use file names or captions.

Clearly what is not there can't be seen, but drawing conclusions from context with massive amounts of data is easier than you think. With enough data they may match the graffiti on the side to other photos of that car and know which one it is better than you, and besides, they have 423 surveillance camera shots of it in the last 3 hours also, making you obsolete.

 

[Duncanh]

I can't see AI tags working except for people who aren't interested in keywording. As photographers have all different interests and shoot different genres they will want different levels of keywords e.g. all I want is that there are flowers in the picture not what type they are but I'm into street photography and cityscapes where I want detailed breakdown of the type of scene/image which is not necessarily just subject related .

Unless Lightroom CC offers to keep all images locally and I pick the ones I want to upload I will never use it. Nothing to do with Adobe learning all about me (too boring to be of interest) it's why keep gigabytes of data in the cloud when I only want say a couple of hundred images available on portable device(s).

My subscription renews mid next year, I'm already looking at other options. I'm finding some good processing options available it's the organisation, keywording and metadata browsing/searching that at the moment LR Classic is way out in front but two options I'm looking at are both saying they recognise LR users are looking for options and are working on the organisation side to match Lightroom. One option has already written a facility that will move all metadata to their software and created edited images being either tiff, psd or jpeg, nested keywording is what I believe they are missing at the moment. I don't want to change but if Adobe's intentions are not clear by first quarter next year I'm off.

 

[tspear]

My subscription renews mid next year, I'm already looking at other options. I'm finding some good processing options available it's the organisation, keywording and metadata browsing/searching that at the moment LR Classic is way out in front but two options I'm looking at are both saying they recognise LR users are looking for options and are working on the organisation side to match Lightroom. One option has already written a facility that will move all metadata to their software and created edited images being either tiff, psd or jpeg, nested keywording is what I believe they are missing at the moment. I don't want to change but if Adobe's intentions are not clear by first quarter next year I'm off.

I have found actually that the old iMatch program is faster and more capable than Lr for meta-data management. In addition it is designed around the concept of using other software. Three downsides so far with it. One you need other software to handle editing. Second, does not support the complicated workflow I built on top of John Beardsworth Smartworflow. Third is the UI was designed in 1995 and has not changed very much.

The next choice in terms of photo organization I am following closely is darktable.org Very capable, includes a full editing set. I do not know enough, but it looks like it actually surpasses Lr in terms of capability for developing the image. The downside, is the tool is more low level (I think), so it may end up being slower to use, with a few quirks in the UI thrown in.

I am also watching Macphun and Mylio. I have not had the time yet to look into Capture One, Affinity, Cyberlink PhotoDirector, or the Corel one.

Tim

 

[Dick.E.Hoskins]

What did Adobe do reasonably well? In the first hours of use of Classic LR it looked faster. A few days latter (no addition of images or major anything done) it is back to the same old slow LR. Using the shft or ctrl key to select images in a grid is very, very slow. Switching to Develop was sparky on day 1 but now worse than ever. The spot removal tool is slow (and getting slower) as well especially when trying to remove lots of little dust specks from a scanned 35mm slide. Lately I have been using bridge, camera raw and Photoshop which work very well. So far no slow down in those apps. All that said, then there is Windows 10 - I wish I had Windows 7 back.

Victoria, I think you need to conquer new territory, expand your queendom and vanquish the LR Kingdom Troglodytes who are the keepers of the ancient LR secret code. Secret, apparently, even to them...

 

[LRList001]

Clearly the consumer is the product when you are getting it free, but why would one assume because you are paying that they would not still use you as data points?

I just spent the last 10 minutes or so trying to find a clear and specific statement how Creative Cloud uses your photos without success. Not saying it's not there, but it couldn't be readily had. The general policy is here, and and it says for information on "certain apps and websites" to go here. Those don't include Lightroom, but refer you to Terms of Use and License Agreements. Terms of use sends you back to Privacy. License Agreement for Lightroom also sends you back to Privacy. There's no distinction I can see in Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic.

It does say clearly: As discussed more in Section 3 below, you retain all rights and ownership you have in your content that you make available through the Services.

In that section though it says:

We require certain licenses from you to your content to operate and enable the Services. When you upload content to the Services, you grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sub-licensable, and transferrable license to use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify (so as to better showcase your content, for example), publicly perform, and translate the content as needed in response to user driven actions (such as when you choose to store privately or share your content with others). This license is only for the purpose of operating or improving the Services.​

The "improving the service" is an interesting extension. It is also this section which adds:

Our automated systems may analyze your content using techniques such as machine learning. This analysis might occur as the content is sent, received, or when it is stored. From this analysis, we are able to improve the Services.​

And in turn refers you here. That says they use:

The computer may analyze your content when you send, receive, or store files using our cloud services. We do not access the files stored locally on your computer. We use data in your files, activity logs, and direct feedback from you to train and improve our algorithms.​

The machine learning FAQ then sends you back to the Privacy policy above. It does say how you can opt out of Machine Learning.

But is Machine Learning the only issue -- there's also that out of "improving the service" which I see no clear way to opt out. Is collecting usage data, where and when you take pictures, what cameras you use... is that game for "imrproving the service"? Do you care?

And honestly, given how deep you have to dig to get to the opt out section of this... is it really effective? How many people will even THINK they might use it, and dig?

I just don't find it surprising that we are the product for Adobe as well. I think Microsoft is scanning all my email (they host it). I think Google knows and uses every search I write -- my WIFE frequently gets ads for what I am shopping for within minutes of me starting to shop.

In Europe (EU), the new data protection act (GDPR) takes full effect in May 2018 (it is already partially in effect). Brexit will not change the UK's compliance with GDPR (well, not in any material way). Breaching the GDPR regulations looks like being very expensive. Anyone allowing analysis of images of people without the subject's consent had better understand the implications of GDPR. And if those images are of children, well the pain levels are likely to be very high indeed. Be aware that the subject can demand that all copies are removed, and at very least has an absolute right to know where every copy is stored.

 

[PhilBurton]

You can get free or cheap software for video surveillance now that finds and reads license plates on cars, and depending on the venue (or ancillary databases you provide like employee plates) will then identify whose car it was for you.

Clearly what is not there can't be seen, but drawing conclusions from context with massive amounts of data is easier than you think. With enough data they may match the graffiti on the side to other photos of that car and know which one it is better than you, and besides, they have 423 surveillance camera shots of it in the last 3 hours also, making you obsolete.

How well is all that AI going to work with scans of B&W negatives from 1960, some underexposed or very grainy?

I think that Adobe's responses to all our concerns has to include a clear and reasonably complete statement of what their AI does today, and the product roadmap for the future.

Phil Burton

 

[PhilBurton]

In Europe (EU), the new data protection act (GDPR) takes full effect in May 2018 (it is already partially in effect). Brexit will not change the UK's compliance with GDPR (well, not in any material way). Breaching the GDPR regulations looks like being very expensive. Anyone allowing analysis of images of people without the subject's consent had better understand the implications of GDPR. And if those images are of children, well the pain levels are likely to be very high indeed. Be aware that the subject can demand that all copies are removed, and at very least has an absolute right to know where every copy is stored.

I was in Paris recently, visiting a cousin. I wanted to do some street photography, and she warned me that I could get into big trouble if I photographed children. Rather than test that idea, I did not take photos that included children.

Phil

 

[clee01l]

In the first hours of use of Classic LR it looked faster. A few days latter (no addition of images or major anything done) it is back to the same old slow LR.

I think there are memory leaks that need to be identified and fixed. This is not uncommon for a dot zero release. As these are reported, found and fixed, updates will improve the speed and performance. Patience, guinea pig...

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

I think there are memory leaks that need to be identified and fixed. This is not uncommon for a dot zero release. As these are reported, found and fixed, updates will improve the speed and performance. Patience, guinea pig...

Something is leaking but I really don't think it is memory, as I see no sign of significant growth (and with 64 Gig it would have to leak a lot to really run short).

I personally think it's leaking parallelism in some fashion, as what I see is over time the CPU percentage shrinks even though it is doing the same thing (e.g. publishing or extracting or preview build). You can reproduce it easily, just build previews of a few thousand images and the rate drops steadily. Adobe knows this, and has seen it for a long time, but it was not a priority to fix (since it didn't get fixed).

But I did a large shoot yesterday and had about 300 images I was editing, and had to restart lightroom every 30 minutes or so. It would get so bad I would have black screens and flashing screens going from develop to grid and back.

This has been there for a long time, and to me the lack of enough attention to get this fixed is a sign very much in keeping with the title of this thread -- Classic is just not important enough to bother fixing it. Choose your reason - too hard to figure out, too much effort to fix, a fundamental part of LUA, a fundamental part of the LR design... whatever -- that these problems have existed for years and many releases speaks volumes for how much they care about Classic and those who use it.

 

[Hoggy]

This has been there for a long time, and to me the lack of enough attention to get this fixed is a sign very much in keeping with the title of this thread -- Classic is just not important enough to bother fixing it. Choose your reason - too hard to figure out, too much effort to fix, a fundamental part of LUA, a fundamental part of the LR design... whatever -- that these problems have existed for years and many releases speaks volumes for how much they care about Classic and those who use it.

Well, trying to be hopeful here..

I hope we don't cause a self-fulfilling prophecy regarding this. By either jumping ship too soon, or just assuming it's end-of-life.

I would think Photoshop is still their flagship product - and right there in the title, is "Photo". And whatever happens in the future, I would think there would still have to be something compatible with ACR.
Sooooo.... <shrugs shoulder>

There also must still be enough money in advanced Camera software for several other photo DAM-editing solutions to exist: ON1, ACDSee, Capture One, and some more new ones popping up.
Sooooo.... <shrugs shoulder again>

 

[PhilBurton]

I think we are some way away from being able to trust auto-keywording — especially if I’m not able to modify or guide the keywords being assigned.

As an example, I just look at the quality of the Face-tagging.... with some photos it’s pretty good, but others... Let’s just say I’ve been heard to tell the computer “Mate, now you’re just guessing!” :laugh: That’s after removing the paranormal ghosty faces visible in the shadows and muddy rims of my 4WD that strongly resemble my husband!

Christelle

For a less-than-rosy view of AI, see this item from the NY Times. Opinion | Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck. Here’s How to Move It Forward.

Phil

 

[CloudedGenie]

For a less-than-rosy view of AI, see this item from the NY Times. Opinion | Artificial Intelligence Is Stuck. Here’s How to Move It Forward.

Phil

@PhilBurton, I have to agree with the NY Times opinion piece... it somewhat validates my reluctance to hand over control to a self-driving car (and not just because I may be a bit of a control freak myself)...

Back in 1993-1994 I developed some industrial pattern recognition techniques that were extremely successful for the application we used it in. It was based on the same building blocks as today’s neural neural networks with fuzzy logic rules representing the operator guidance. Everything we did was limited by the extremely fast reaction times we needed (50 ms) and the limited computing power (remember 640 K RAM and the additional 384 K extended memory....) The increased computing power made many more things possible, but the basic paradigm never shifted. And the problem with these black box models remain - you can not reliably extrapolate their results outside the training data...

It will be interesting to see where Adobe takes this, and how far it intends dragging its legacy application along...

 

[tom manley]

so im still sitting on the fence with this one... I've tried speaking to Adobe several times and they haven't exactly managed to convince me to stay with Adobe Products. Im debating signing up to the cloud and updating Lightroom from 5.7 to Lightroom Classic but am not sure about the subscription here... Will my Lightroom 5 still remain on my system? so i can return to this at a later date - but basically it looks like i need to sign up indefinitely for as long as i keep an image archive - this puts me off doing so - as dont really want to be tied to one system... Unfortunately it does not look like Lightroom 6 is available as an upgrade from Adobe anymore so i am left weighing up my options - seriously thinking about switching to a different editing package altogether.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

so im still sitting on the fence with this one... I've tried speaking to Adobe several times and they haven't exactly managed to convince me to stay with Adobe Products. Im debating signing up to the cloud and updating Lightroom from 5.7 to Lightroom Classic but am not sure about the subscription here... Will my Lightroom 5 still remain on my system? so i can return to this at a later date - but basically it looks like i need to sign up indefinitely for as long as i keep an image archive - this puts me off doing so - as dont really want to be tied to one system... Unfortunately it does not look like Lightroom 6 is available as an upgrade from Adobe anymore so i am left weighing up my options - seriously thinking about switching to a different editing package altogether.

With Classic you can sign up and it will look and feel quite similar, but have more features. To my mind it is much better (I've used each LR5 and LR6 and now Classic).

With Classic, you CAN keep your old LR5 on the machine (you may need to check under Advanced before letting Creative Cloud install Lightroom Classic, I hear they changed the default to not remove the old, but it originally was, though you could turn off that removal).

With Classic, if you stop subscribing in the future, Adobe promises you can use it indefinitely to access your files, but can not do further edits in Develop.

On the downside:

With Classic in use, your lightroom catalog has been upgraded and you can no longer access the new catalog with LR5, so the benefit of keeping it around is slight. The old LR5 catalog will still be there but will fall out of date quickly as you use classic, so while you can keep LR5 there, it is likely to be more confusing than helpful.

While Adobe says you can keep Classic and access your photos if you stop subscribing, the logistics of doing so are unclear, for example if you are no longer a subscriber and need to build a new computer and reinstall it. I am not saying you cannot, just that all the reported focus I have seen has been on "stop paying and what happens" not "what happens much later still". However, I think most would want, at that point, to export their images to TIFF's and move to a new platform entirely. Plus Adobe has a lot of egg on its face with the "promise" of perpetual being withdrawn, and people worried whether this promise might be withdrawn as well later.

All that said -- while I'm way out in front on saying that the whole Classic/CC sends and end of life message for Classic, I think it's years away. Those rushing to jump ship may be prescient, but to me the competition just has not shaken out by a LONG shot, and I think the risks in jumping ship now, versus riding out Classic for a fairly long time yet, are much higher. Do I trust Adobe to put the love and support into Classic that its audience deserves? Not a whit. But I do trust that they are getting a fair revenue stream from all the subscribers, and there will be no rush to kill it off.

We have time. Lots of time. So Tom, if it were me, I'd go ahead and get Classic and enjoy the new features.

 

[tspear]

@Ferguson

My question is, why invest if you know it is not the long term solution? Why not support a solution, and advocate for it to add the features you need?

Tim