• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Stop struggling with Lightroom! There's no need to spend hours hunting for the answers to your Lightroom Classic questions. All the information you need is in Adobe Lightroom Classic - The Missing FAQ!

    To help you get started, there's a series of easy tutorials to guide you through a simple workflow. As you grow in confidence, the book switches to a conversational FAQ format, so you can quickly find answers to advanced questions. And better still, the eBooks are updated for every release, so it's always up to date.
  • Dark mode now has a single preference for the whole site! It's a simple toggle switch in the bottom right-hand corner of any page. As it uses a cookie to store your preference, you may need to dismiss the cookie banner before you can see it. Any problems, please let us know!

Are you thinking of switching to the Creative Cloud?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JimHess43

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
377
Location
Richmond, UT
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
I switched to the $10/month photography program yesterday. I retired, and it's easier to budget $10/month than come up with the upgrade price. The installation went very smoothly. It will have my Photoshop CS6 intact, so I'm now using it as my secondary editor if needed. I took the time to uninstall my standalone Lightroom and reinstalled from the cloud. Information that I received from the Adobe forums that this was necessary in order to be running under the right license. Others have had problems, and this has been the common solution. After Lightroom was installed I expected to have to search for my catalog. Not so. I double clicked on the desktop icon and Lightroom opened my catalog to exactly where I left off. My Nik plug-ins and my Canon Print Studio Pro plug-in were in place and usable. I had to copy the Google and PSP folders from the Photoshop CS6 plug-ins folder to the Photoshop CC plug-ins folder in order to have the Nik plug-ins and Print Studio Pro available. But that was very simple. All in all, I was impressed with the transition and look forward to using some of the new features in Photoshop as well as getting Lightroom upgrades as they become available.
 
Last edited:
LR Mobile uploads are limited to lossy DNG (Smart Previews). The CC storage was initially 20GB grandfathered for initial subscribers and reverted to 2GB upon renewal. You can store any file type in the CC Storage (even catalog files) However to exceed the 2 GB limit gets very expensive, you need to move up to the Single App plan @ $20USD per month just to get 20GB.

Behance and AdobeRevel offer cloud storage more affordable but each has negatives associated with the storage.

I think it's fair to say that for xtorage one needs to look elsewhere... 20, 50, 100... MB doesn't cut the deal when you're dealing with fotos...

But it's understandable... Offering a 10 buckz subscription for LR and PS, included updates is a sweet deal for a photographer... Expecting a cloud storage that reachez 1TB included would be... Well... To %%%%%%% awesome lol
 
Hello,

I bought a standalone license few years ago and i recommand LR to my friends in the standalone version.
The issue is: where can we buy and download a full version of LR 5.x with a standalone version ?

Thanks
Regards
 
The subscription model doesn't appeal to me at all. I'm quite happy to carry on using the version of Photoshop I have (CS6) as it does all I need for photography, although I previously upgraded regulrily, but I look forward to buying LR upgrades, it is worth it to my mind, if it went the subsciption only route it'd lose me
 
if it went the subsciption only route it'd lose me

Completely understand - a lot of people feel that way. Out of interest, what would you move to?
 
Completely understand - a lot of people feel that way. Out of interest, what would you move to?

To start I would stick with what i've got as long as possible, I think LR 6 is a safe bet for quite a while for me, it should already support the new canons, (the only major upgrade Im considering) so it wouldn't be until next year earliest that there would be a problem. If Im wrong then I would just have to use DPP to get tiffs into LR or use DNG, either way the subscription model is a brick wall AFAIC.

I hope LR 7 is offered a s a perpectual license too as I really like LR and the direction is going.

There are alternatives, none as good as LR I admit, but I do hope it's not a decision I'll have to make. I'll be sad if it comes to it.

I can get to where I need to get with my photos without LR already if I had to, but LR is more convenient. I'm sure you and Adobe are perfectly aware of current and upcoming (in beta) competition
;)
 
With no inside knowledge at all, it seems logical to me that Adobe will persist with a standalone version.

This is all about maximising revenue (or rather, profits). Logic is that Photoshop "CC" is predominantly used by professionals in various fields, and who are likely content with the subscription model. Elements, in contrast, is predominantly used by amateur photographers, many of whom will rarely upgrade, and so Elements stays in the perpetual licence camp. Lightroom is used extensively by both professional photographers and amateurs, so it makes sense to have both types of licence available. It would be possible for the two versions to diverge, to "encourage" people into the subscription camp, but the extra support costs are unlikely to make that attractive.

Dave
 
I examined my spending on software over the last 5 years and came to the conclusion that the CC route was as cheap as purchasing outright if I was to ensure having the latest software automatically updated. So I took out a 12-month subscription with which I’m happy so far but will reconsider the deal at the end of the year.
 
Adobe has stated clearly that they will continue a LR perpetual license. However long this lasts, no one (probably not even Adobe) can say. As long as licensing is a separate function inside the executable code that permits a 30 day trial, a license renewed every 30 days or a perpetual license, there will only be a single version of LR. What I think will happen and any added functionality in the next release of LR may show LR moving toward Creative Cloud features and Creative Cloud integration. While these features and functionality will be present in the perpetual license, the perpetual license user won't be able to take advantage of them with out a subscription. Still these features will be there as an inducement to become a subscriber.

As for becoming a subscriber, the Photographer's bundle at $120USD per year is only a small increase to a $150 LR license upgraded at $80 annually. With that small price difference, the subscriber gets Photoshop. If you look at bundling perpetual licenses for LR & PSE manually, there probably is no price advantage to a perpetual license.

Now I have a question, why the resistance to a subscription? There is no viable alternative to LR and no migration path away from an extensive LR catalog. If your prior work has locked you into LR, why not subscribe? A Photographer's Bundle at $10USD/mo. is not much different in price than a couple of trips to Starbucks each month. Or any other addictive vice that you might have.
 
2 lattes a month, people - or a pint and a half, if you prefer. And it's every bit as important as the hardware.
You never did "own" your software, you just didn't bother to read the licensing agreement and ignorance is bliss, I guess.
 
What holds me off at the moment is the fact that adobe will provide LR 6 only for a 64 system... Since i still use 32 I'm not to keen to subscribe and up my system to 64....
 
Adobe has stated clearly that they will continue a LR perpetual license. However long this lasts, no one (probably not even Adobe) can say. As long as licensing is a separate function inside the executable code that permits a 30 day trial, a license renewed every 30 days or a perpetual license, there will only be a single version of LR. What I think will happen and any added functionality in the next release of LR may show LR moving toward Creative Cloud features and Creative Cloud integration. While these features and functionality will be present in the perpetual license, the perpetual license user won't be able to take advantage of them with out a subscription. Still these features will be there as an inducement to become a subscriber.

As for becoming a subscriber, the Photographer's bundle at $120USD per year is only a small increase to a $150 LR license upgraded at $80 annually. With that small price difference, the subscriber gets Photoshop. If you look at bundling perpetual licenses for LR & PSE manually, there probably is no price advantage to a perpetual license.

Now I have a question, why the resistance to a subscription? There is no viable alternative to LR and no migration path away from an extensive LR catalog. If your prior work has locked you into LR, why not subscribe? A Photographer's Bundle at $10USD/mo. is not much different in price than a couple of trips to Starbucks each month. Or any other addictive vice that you might have.

From a personal perspective, I am always on the latest and greatest. So if the math is basically even between subscriptions and upgrading a perpetual license. Shrug, whatever.
From a business perspective, I normally skip releases, so this raises my costs. Not something I would appreciate.
Last point, I have not even installed Photoshop yet, and I probably will not for a couple years. So this is wasted money....

Tim
 
You never did "own" your software, you just didn't bother to read the licensing agreement and ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Indeed we never owned the software. Instead we licensed the software perpetually. A license of Photoshop CS or CS2 is not supposed to expire, even if the activation servers are switched off; once the software is activated it is perpetually licensed and, at least in theory, if the machine where it is installed stops working I am supposed to be able to reinstall it.

The trouble with the subscrpition model is that it introduces a valid until date, valid until the date you stop paying. I am afraid sooner or later we are all going to stop paying at which point the software is no longer valid and stops being fully functional. Vint Cerf calls this the digital dark ages and champions the concept of the digital vellum. A digital vellum with software with limited functionality because subscription are no longer available is only partially useful.

In my honest opinion, the subscription model makes digital conservation a very difficult task.
 
You never did "own" your software, you just didn't bother to read the licensing agreement and ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Indeed we never owned the software. Instead we licensed the software perpetually. A license of Photoshop CS or CS2 is not supposed to expire, even if the activation servers are switched off; once the software is activated it is perpetually licensed and, at least in theory, if the machine where it is installed stops working I am supposed to be able to reinstall it.

The trouble with the subscrpition model is that it introduces a valid until date, valid until the date you stop paying. I am afraid sooner or later we are all going to stop paying at which point the software is no longer valid and stops being fully functional. Vint Cerf calls this the digital dark age and champions the concept of the digital vellum. A digital vellum with software with limited functionality because subscription are no longer available is only partially useful.

In my honest opinion, the subscription model makes digital conservation a very difficult task.
 
Indeed we never owned the software. Instead we licensed the software perpetually. A license of Photoshop CS or CS2 is not supposed to expire, even if the activation servers are switched off; once the software is activated it is perpetually licensed and, at least in theory, if the machine where it is installed stops working I am supposed to be able to reinstall it.

The trouble with the subscrpition model is that it introduces a valid until date, valid until the date you stop paying. I am afraid sooner or later we are all going to stop paying at which point the software is no longer valid and stops being fully functional. Vint Cerf calls this the digital dark ages and champions the concept of the digital vellum. A digital vellum with software with limited functionality because subscription are no longer available is only partially useful.

In my honest opinion, the subscription model makes digital conservation a very difficult task.

Actually, likely makes it easier. Software companies with subscription models generally are more financially stable. Also, you find they tend to do more incremental releases, which tend to keep them more tightly tuned to the customer base. As a result, they are less likely to make huge functional bets which fail and then bankrupt the bottom line. Just imagine a small company which made Microsoft Bob; would they still be in business?

Tim
 
Indeed we never owned the software. Instead we licensed the software perpetually. A license of Photoshop CS or CS2 is not supposed to expire, even if the activation servers are switched off; once the software is activated it is perpetually licensed and, at least in theory, if the machine where it is installed stops working I am supposed to be able to reinstall it.

The trouble with the subscrpition model is that it introduces a valid until date, valid until the date you stop paying. I am afraid sooner or later we are all going to stop paying at which point the software is no longer valid and stops being fully functional. Vint Cerf calls this the digital dark age and champions the concept of the digital vellum. A digital vellum with software with limited functionality because subscription are no longer available is only partially useful.

In my honest opinion, the subscription model makes digital conservation a very difficult task.

Ownership of a perpetual licensed software isn't really secure, in my opinion. You own a license for software that eventually becomes obsolete and totally unsupported by the maker of the software. You don't have access to new features. In order to get support and new features it's necessary to upgrade to a new license that will eventually become obsolete and unsupported. So you are always playing leapfrog in order to maintain software. I like the subscription model. It's true, I don't "need" the Camera Raw filter. I don't "need" the shake reduction filter. But having those features as well as always having access to the latest Lightroom certainly makes postprocessing a lot easier. I accept the fact that subscription software really goes against the grain of some users. And that's fine. But, in my opinion, owning a perpetual license for software isn't the panacea that it might seem to be on the surface.
 
It concerns me that some people seem so concerned to 'convert' non subscribers to subscribers even when they make no gain from it ( at least not directly).

I don't like the subscription model. The reasons have already been stated by many in many places, but if you're really interested think of it this way - it feels the same as if you had been buying a car model of your choice all your life and then suddenly you were only able to lease them. I don't like it - it's pretty simple.

I know it's software not hardware but you can blame Adobe for supplying it in a a big box
 
Last edited:
It concerns me that some people seem so concerned to 'convert' non subscribers to subscribers even when they make no gain from it ( at least not directly).
They must be shareholders of companies offering subscription models, or at least get a commission. I am just joking of course but sometimes it does sound that way.

It concerns me that some people seem so concerned to 'convert' non subscribers to subscribers even when they make no gain from it ( at least not directly).

I don't like the subscription model. The reasons have already been stated by many in many places, but if you're really interested think of it this way - it feels the same as if you had been buying a car model of your choice all your life and then suddenly you were only able to lease them. I don't like it - it's pretty simple.
I couldn't write better. A subscription is committing to lease a car indefinitely without an option to buy. Why anybody would think that software is the only industry where this is acceptable defies logic?

Having said this, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the subscription model, my grandfather had a National Geographic subscription, when I was growing up I greatly enjoyed reading those magazines and looking at the amazing maps; it probably got me interested both in photography and maps. When he stopped paying the subscription, I still enjoyed the magazines and maps because he "owned" them. National Geographic did not take the magazines away or impose a restriction whereupon the maps could no longer be read.
 
Obviously, there is no right answer. Whatever works for you works for you. Personally, I like the subscription plan. If you don't like it, that's fine. But nobody is going to convince anyone differently by dragging this debate on and on. Just do what makes you feel secure and comfortable.
 
Actually, likely makes it easier. Software companies with subscription models generally are more financially stable. Also, you find they tend to do more incremental releases, which tend to keep them more tightly tuned to the customer base. As a result, they are less likely to make huge functional bets which fail and then bankrupt the bottom line. Just imagine a small company which made Microsoft Bob; would they still be in business?

Tim
I don't care about Adobe's, Microsoft's, Apple's, or any company's financial stability. I don't wish then bad neither, I use the 3 of them and hope they do well.

I care about my own financial stability, about been forced to consider that somehow I need to magically find a way to generate an extra £8.57 a month, £102.84 per year forever to keep enjoying my photography. I'll rather find a different vendor.

By the way please don't forget that Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Google, and even Oracle where startups in 1990s which aren't that far away.
 
The one thing to bear in mind is a change Adobe made a few months ago, that even if a subscription (or trial) does expire, all is not lost. The Develop module, Map module and mobile sync stop working, but the rest carries on as normal. So no one's 'locked in', which had clearly and understandably been a major concern for many.
 
The one thing to bear in mind is a change Adobe made a few months ago, that even if a subscription (or trial) does expire, all is not lost. The Develop module, Map module and mobile sync stop working, but the rest carries on as normal. So no one's 'locked in', which had clearly and understandably been a major concern for many.
I am aware about this, but could I go back to Vint Cerf's digital dark age - please see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31450389 - and ask your opinion, as a respected photographer and long term expert user of Lr and other Adobe software?

Imagine somebody comes up with the photographic equivalent of "Las Meninas" or "The Storm on the Sea of Galilee" using the Adobe Creative Cloud and in 50 years or a 100 years somebody decides to look at how that photograph was made; so they open up Lightroom and all they can see is that photograph was shot ISO 100, 20mm, f/2.8 1/4000 sec using a particular camera and a particular lens and that, in addition, they did further editing in Photoshop. There is no information visible regarding any the PV and Lr develop settings because the Development module is locked. We don't know if they layers because we cannot run Photoshop.

How does it sound to you? How does it sound to you that future generations might not be able to see how we worked as photographers because an inflexible subscription model has locked away the inner workings of several decades of work?

I am really curious about your opinion on this.
 
Okay, imagine that somebody in 50 years or 100 years wants to see how that photograph was made. What do you think the chances are that the software that made the changes will even be usable in the operating systems of the day? Operating systems keep dropping off the backend every time there's a new release of Lightroom. If it was a raw file, and you to the time to write changes to XMP, there might be something that will read that file.
 
Obviously, there is no right answer. Whatever works for you works for you. Personally, I like the subscription plan. If you don't like it, that's fine. But nobody is going to convince anyone differently by dragging this debate on and on. Just do what makes you feel secure and comfortable.
It is good we agree on this. The next problem is that Adobe is leaving the subscription non-believers with no or very restrictive options. If Adobe tightly integrates any new Lr 6 functionality with the Creative Cloud, subscription non-believers like myself are left with 2 options: forcibly convert or figure out and exit strategy. They started the process with Lightroom Mobile and yesterday's FT interview with Adobe's CEO clearly indicates that Adobe is burning all the boats with regards to desktop software.

For the first time since I got Lr instead of Capture One, I am forced to look at an exit strategy and I am not liking it a bit as I have over 10,000 in the Lr catalog.

Okay, imagine that somebody in 50 years or 100 years wants to see how that photograph was made. What do you think the chances are that the software that made the changes will even be usable in the operating systems of the day? Operating systems keep dropping off the backend every time there's a new release of Lightroom. If it was a raw file, and you to the time to write changes to XMP, there might be something that will read that file.
This is whole point of what Vint Cerf refers to as the digital vellum, the digital vellum should be able to bypass that. I have a lot of respect for Mr Cerf. Watching that interview is worth while.
 
It concerns me that some people seem so concerned to 'convert' non subscribers to subscribers even when they make no gain from it ( at least not directly).

I don't like the subscription model. The reasons have already been stated by many in many places, but if you're really interested think of it this way - it feels the same as if you had been buying a car model of your choice all your life and then suddenly you were only able to lease them. I don't like it - it's pretty simple.

I know it's software not hardware but you can blame Adobe for supplying it in a a big box
No one is trying to convert (at least I'm not). I'm just trying t understand the resistance to a subscription plan. I know I was resistant until I figured out that Adobe was willing to throw in Photoshop for essential what I was paying to keep LR and PSE current and PSE was always falling short in the functionality department. Previously upgrades to PS were ~$600 every two years and upgrades to the $300 LR license were $99 about every 18 months.

Given the choice of buying a new car on the installment plan and watching it depreciate in value, versus leasing and getting a new car every year, makes leasing a pretty attractive option. This is basically what Adobe is doing for LR/PSCC. IF LR6 is really being released next month I am looking forward to receiving my copy as a part of my subscription.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top