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.

 

[tspear]

Tell your friend Adobe believes modern people no longer print stuff, printing is for old folks...

rofl.

For printing, you can use the Edit function to open Photoshop and print from that app.

good point.

So they can print, now about those catalogs....

Tim

 

[johnbeardy]

Doesn't it just show how LRCC has been released without the bare minimum of features?

 

[Replytoken]

If not they'll go back to their old cash cow, Classic.

While I do not know for certain, I suspect that Classic is not nearly the cash cow that many other Adobe programs are. This is what concerns me, as companies shed programs that are not core to their mission. If Adobe find more "cloud surfers" than you could ever imagine for its new product, then losing the classic crowd is not really much of a financial hit to them. Whether the potential reputational ding would hurt is another question.

--Ken

 

[Replytoken]

Tell your friend Adobe believes modern people no longer print stuff, printing is for old folks...

I would say that this is funny, but I suspect that Adobe may have done research and found that those who print are a smaller and smaller share of potential customers.

--Ken

 

[PhilBurton]

I would say that this is funny, but I suspect that Adobe may have done research and found that those who print are a smaller and smaller share of potential customers.

--Ken

If the real target for LR CC is the iphone crowd, then I agree. Who gets prints from pictures on their devices? The devices themselves serve as "albums." But then Adobe massively confused the marketplace by calling the new product "Lightroom." Also every other CC product is aimed at creatives who need powerful tools, including printing.

This new product belongs in a separate category along with "consumer" products like Photoshop Elements, not in the CC suite.

Phil

 

[Replytoken]

If the real target for LR CC is the iphone crowd, then I agree. Who gets prints from pictures on their devices. The devices themselves serve as "albums." But then Adobe massively confused the marketplace by calling the new product "Lightroom." Also every other CC product is aimed at creatives who need powerful tools, including printing.

This new product belongs in a separate category along with "consumer" products like Photoshop Elements, not in the CC suite.

Phil

There is a lot of logic to this, but I suspect that a marketer could say that non-techies might take some pride in saying that they use "Lightroom", a product used by "professional photographers". Not unlike buying a re-badged Panasonic camera bearing the red dot and the Leica name.

--Ken

 

[tspear]

There is a lot of logic to this, but I suspect that a marketer could say that non-techies might take some pride in saying that they use "Lightroom", a product used by "professional photographers". Not unlike buying a re-badged Panasonic camera bearing the red dot and the Leica name.

--Ken

And that is where Lightroom Elements would have come into play. Just like Photoshop Elements....
Oh wait, that is logical and probably would have worked.

Tim

 

[PhilBurton]

There is a lot of logic to this, but I suspect that a marketer could say that non-techies might take some pride in saying that they use "Lightroom", a product used by "professional photographers". Not unlike buying a re-badged Panasonic camera bearing the red dot and the Leica name.

--Ken

Sure, but that result leads to a "cheapened" brand. I could equally say that non-techies might be put off by a "professional/techie" product as being too hard to use. Lots of people "just want to get results" without difficulty and a professional/techie product might seem to be too difficult to use.

Phil

 

[Jimmsp]

Sure, but that result leads to a "cheapened" brand. I could equally say that non-techies might be put off by a "professional/techie" product as being too hard to use. Lots of people "just want to get results" without difficulty and a professional/techie product might seem to be too difficult to use.

Phil

Most of the folks that I know that take photos with a phone or tablet do not want to do any post processing, period. They will take what the camera gives them, or what it quickly allows them to do with one click of a button, and they share that. Adobe's competition in this market is Apple, Samsung, and all the other smart phone manufacturers.
The few people that I know who do any post work on smart phone photos also have other cameras, generally dslrs, also do their post work on a desktop.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

Most of the folks that I know that take photos with a phone or tablet do not want to do any post processing, period. They will take what the camera gives them, or what it quickly allows them to do with one click of a button, and they share that.

I'm not sure if it is that they do not want to, or it is impractical now. Look at the success of "filters" on some of the sharing services; admittedly those are not so much designed to make photos better as just different. But look at all the attention lately on smart camera processing.

You are absolutely correct speed is crucial, but if people could do the processing right then, in a few minutes, I think it is less clear whether the selfie generation would want to or not.

 

[frozenframe]

Jim posted what I was thinking while I was typing...

After reading all the previous posts, there's one thing about Adobe's new baby, LRCC (not classic), being geared toward the selfie/cellphone crowd, that just does not make sense to me. Most of my friends now take their photos with their phones. They do not post-process them at all. It's just snap and share to FB. They don't have a clue what post-processing is. I wonder just how many of the masses are in that camp? If so, how could Adobe even consider them as a possible market to grab?

I was very, very disappointed Adobe chose this route. I had to cancel my photography bundle and revert to the perpetual for LR due to a temporary financial setback. I really liked being able to have PS available when I needed it, and did go to great lengths learning it. Thus when the time was right, I would again subscribe. I don't think that's going to happen now. It seems more than clear they are going to drop LR for the professionals, in favor of those that don't have a clue about photography, about what it takes to create, or make great images. To me, Adobe is no longer concerned with being the Industry Standard, the one used by top of the line professionals.

There's no way I could or would upload all my images to their or anyone's cloud. My internet is way too slow for that, and can not be upgraded to any faster speed. I don't trust them any further than I can spit. What would Adobe's position be if they got hacked, and some pro's photos got into the hands of the wrong people? I'm not just talking copyright issues, I'm talking about photos say of a model, and that image being used in a manner that is demeaning? The photographer will more than likely get sued. Can Adobe guarantee something like this will not happen? It just seems ridiculous to upload my images to a cloud so I can then download them, to edit them, to cull them, or whatever. I decide what images I want on the internet, not some mega corp.

 

[ech1965]

I'm not sure if there are any additional words I can say to reassure this group about Lightroom Classic. Actions are more important than words so please hold us accountable while we continue to update LrClassic over time. As I've mentioned publicly before our focus is performance, editing enhancements and features/functionality that have been strong customer requests over time(the new embedded preview workflow is a strong indication of that type of direction).

Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems

( Please forgive my "Frenchy English" )

One way to (maybe) please the nostaligcs of the LR6 perpetual licence would be to have a new kind of subscription "LR Classic Only" priced according to the LR5 to LR6 upgrade:

* Only LR classic
* NO Photoshop
* NO LRWEB
* NO LRCC
* NO Cloud storage

ONLY the right to use an evolving LR Classic Software. for let's say 60€ a year.

My 0.02€

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

( Please forgive my "Frenchy English" )

Just for the record anyone who can write "Frenchy English" already speaks better English than many natives. :cool2:

One way to (maybe) please the nostaligcs of the LR6 perpetual licence would be to have a new kind of subscription "LR Classic Only" priced according to the LR5 to LR6 upgrade:

I believe it is a religious argument, not financial.

I will believe this when I see many of those with a record of being perpetually opposed to subscription step forward and say "yeah, well, if it cost less, I'm in".

So far I haven't seen that. And honestly I think this battle is over and it's time to move on; the battle of the future will be over proprietary cloud, trust us to manage your data vs manage your own storage. Or perhaps dumbed down vs technical sophistication. I see lots of competitors fighting the last battle by stepping away from subscription, but I think this is a momentary thing; it just makes too much economic sense and subscription seems here to stay.

Look at everything else people use: they pay subscriptions for cars, housing, etc. (ok, there's a tiny fraction who pay up front, most people take a loan or lease and when it's paid off buy a new one). They pay-as-you-go for food, electricity, cell service. Many, sadly, rent furniture (literally), or buy it on time.

The financially conservative aging population is shrinking; the instant gratification, worry about tomorrow the day after generation is where the money is (even if it's often their parent's money they are spending), and they just don't get this whole perpetual vs subscription argument.

 

[ech1965]

Just for the record anyone who can write "Frenchy English" already speaks better English than many natives. :cool2:

I will believe this when I see many of those with a record of being perpetually opposed to subscription step forward and say "yeah, well, if it cost less, I'm in".

I did not say it's too expensive, I said I'm willing to get LESS stuff for LESS money.

I'say it's a matter of being forced to pay for something you don't want/need.

I DO NOT WANT to be forced to pay for Photoshop nor any additional "stuff".

I JUST want to be able to keep using LR Classic. So I'd go for the subscription but only for the useful stuff.

I'd like to "vote with my wallet" but right now there is no "votable" possibility.


Regards
Etienne

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

I did not say it's too expensive, I said I'm willing to get LESS stuff for LESS money.

I'say it's a matter of being forced to pay for something you don't want/need.

I have a friend who goes on and on about buying Nikon DSLR's that do video. He says he's paying for it and doesn't want or need it.

But the reality is that it is cheaper to manufacture one camera that does both than two cameras.

While software is a bit different, remember that Adobe's "cost" is mostly about cannibalization. It costs them nothing to include Photoshop, unless it is preventing someone from buying it separately. Someone has done a lot of math to figure out what they think the market tolerance is for price.

So the question is whether Adobe would bother with a $5 product; would enough additional people sign up who did not at $10 to offset the number who now pay $10 but would jump on $5 and give up photoshop. That's the question someone hunched over query screens in their BI products figure out. And my guess is a LOT of people would jump back to $5 as Photoshop is so complex they rarely use it.

So my guess is it won't happen.

I'd like to "vote with my wallet" but right now there is no "votable" possibility.

Indeed, and that is precisely the problem with monopoly products, and why I keep hoping the competition steps forward. I like Adobe, even if there were viable alternatives I likely would stay there. BUT... competition would make Adobe accountable. Right now users can shout and scream and moan but statistically very very few stop using their product.

That's the problem with a de facto monopoly. We as users put adobe in a monopoly status; but now that they are there, it is really tough to sway them, we have no real (financial) leverage.

 

[PhilBurton]

( Please forgive my "Frenchy English" )

One way to (maybe) please the nostaligcs of the LR6 perpetual licence would be to have a new kind of subscription "LR Classic Only" priced according to the LR5 to LR6 upgrade:

* Only LR classic
* NO Photoshop
* NO LRWEB
* NO LRCC
* NO Cloud storage

ONLY the right to use an evolving LR Classic Software. for let's say 60€ a year.

My 0.02€

Votre anglais est très bon.

Phil Burton

 

[PhilBurton]

( Please forgive my "Frenchy English" )

One way to (maybe) please the nostaligcs of the LR6 perpetual licence would be to have a new kind of subscription "LR Classic Only" priced according to the LR5 to LR6 upgrade:

* Only LR classic
* NO Photoshop
* NO LRWEB
* NO LRCC
* NO Cloud storage

ONLY the right to use an evolving LR Classic Software. for let's say 60€ a year.

My 0.02€

Votre anglais est très bon.

Phil Burton

 

[ech1965]

Votre anglais est très bon.

Phil Burton

Merci !!!
Etienne

 

[davidedric]

I can't really see that the "selfie" market is Adobe's target audience. As I understand it, intelligent in-phone image enhancement is improving at such a rate it would be like chasing shadows. Surely, it's to support transparent, work anywhere "real" photographers - though it feels to me like a long way to go. I don't see posts from many who just use Lightroom, and reconstructing that surrounding ecosystem will also take time.

Dave

 

[tspear]

@ech1965
Ton anglais est meilleur que mon français

Tim

 

[IanW]

I am one of those LR only users who does not even possess a mobile phone. After a few days using LRCC and continuing with LR Classic I am torn between the two.
I’ve used LR since the beginning and I’ve tried other software but only LR offers the completeness that I desire.
LRCC at this juncture doesn’t have sufficient features though I do like the idea of synchronising originals between my iMac and my iPad Pro.
LR Classic has a lot of stuff I have never used and some stuff I only use very infrequently. A simplified version would be attractive to me but I don’t think LRCC is it and certainly has a long way to go.
One obvious shortcoming for me to achieve a truly mobile workflow is the lack of feature parity between LRCC and LRmobile.
At this early point in time I find myself wavering between the two versions.
I only hope that Adobe realises that in software ‘one size fits all’ is not really practical and should not seek to converge the two.

Regards

Ian

 

[Jim Wilde]

LRCC at this juncture doesn’t have sufficient features though I do like the idea of synchronising originals between my iMac and my iPad Pro.

You don't technically need LRCC to be able to upload originals, that can be done using LRWeb in a browser window (and has in fact been possible for quite a while). More about this type of more unconventional usage will be coming out in the next few days/weeks. In the last two days alone I've seen 4 members at least say they're working on their own variant.

One obvious shortcoming for me to achieve a truly mobile workflow is the lack of feature parity between LRCC and LRmobile.

I assume you mean lack of feature parity between Classic and LRmobile? LRCC and Lrmobile are pretty close to full feature parity already.

 

[IanW]

I can upload originals if I import images to my iPad first. The originals then go to LR Classic via the cloud.

No I did mean LRCC and LRmobile. The latter does not include clone/heal or geometry (as it’s called in LRCC) to name but two.

Regards

Ian

 

[PhilBurton]

I can't really see that the "selfie" market is Adobe's target audience. As I understand it, intelligent in-phone image enhancement is improving at such a rate it would be like chasing shadows. Surely, it's to support transparent, work anywhere "real" photographers - though it feels to me like a long way to go. I don't see posts from many who just use Lightroom, and reconstructing that surrounding ecosystem will also take time.

Dave

Dave,

Here is an interesting post from B&H Photo, one of the largest photo (now video, computers, etc, etc) in the US. If someone does want to edit their iphone pictures, Apple already provides some useful tools. The iPhone Camera: More Than a Basic Point-and-Shoot

 

[Jim Wilde]

I can upload originals if I import images to my iPad first. The originals then go to LR Classic via the cloud.

No I did mean LRCC and LRmobile. The latter does not include clone/heal or geometry (as it’s called in LRCC) to name but two.

Regards

Ian

Sure you can use your iPad, the point I was making is that if the originals are on your iMac it'd be a darn sight easier to drag and drop them into a browser window than to copy them over to the iPad....well, for me that would be, and would definitely be quicker.

Yes, I did say "close" to full feature parity, but they are certainly an awful lot closer than LR Classic and the mobile system are.