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.

 

[jms969]

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...

The problem is LR Classic CC 7.0 is not really a dot zero release... It is ancient code that has had a few minor updates...

 

[johnbeardy]

The problem is LR Classic CC 7.0 is not really a dot zero release... It is ancient code that has had a few minor updates...

Before the subscription model, it would certainly have been seen as a dot zero release. Half a dozen substantial new features.

 

[CloudedGenie]

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.

@tom manley,

You can still buy the standalone version of LR6. I did it just last week as insurance (since I've been a subscriber since LR5) to make sure I am not forced into a solution I do not want to be part of.

Download and install Lightroom 6 (Single App license)

If you have a current Cloud subscription it will install as the 2015 CC version, but the catalog is backwards compatible with LR6 (a surprise I got). There are ways to force it to install using the serial number. I am currently working on a workflow that will allow me to keep both catalogs (CC2015/LR6 and Classic) up to date with the least amount of effort and double work...

Christelle

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

@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

I get it, but I think people divide along lines where the post processing is an enjoyable part of the hobby, and testing and using new tools (and contributing to their growth with suggestions as well as money) is an end unto itself. Fun. I'm in that category of programming frameworks, networking tools and the like.

And others, like me, for whom post processing is not something enjoyable so much as a necessary evil. When I want to do photography a camera should be in my hand. All the rest is necessary, but not fun. I want to understand it as thoroughly as possible and be good at it, but that doesn't make it fun.

And LR Classic right now meets my need very well, and the "evil" part is fairly well minimized. I'd prefer to wait until the alternatives are more mature and more complete before I spend the time migrating. As migrating to any product involves pain, and to immature products even more so.

I guess, perversely enough, the "rental" aspect of subscription encourages me. I don't have to make a big decision about investing heavily in a new release. Just a few more months rental. Kind of like renting a house when you know you need to relocate "soon" but are not sure when "soon" is.

But... absolutely, I think those who want to contribute to the growth of competition are doing us all a favor, even those who stay with Adobe as competition makes people work harder. I get it.

The one thing I disagree with is I think some people who have less innate reason for jumping ship are being stampeded a bit by all the end of life discussions, and we do them a disservice. Not that the discussions are not relevant, but I think there's more immediacy to the sense of doom and gloom, by far, than there should be.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

The problem is LR Classic CC 7.0 is not really a dot zero release... It is ancient code that has had a few minor updates...

I believe there's a lot of re-engineering under the covers for performance we can't see, in the GPU requirements and framework shift, and also in parallelism.

I would expect more stability to come in the next release. I think it remains to be seen if we will see significantly more performance, or (ever) see more functionality.

 

[tspear]

I guess, perversely enough, the "rental" aspect of subscription encourages me. I don't have to make a big decision about investing heavily in a new release. Just a few more months rental. Kind of like renting a house when you know you need to relocate "soon" but are not sure when "soon" is.

Actually if it was a month to month contract I would in a perverse way I would likely end up staying with Lr longer. However, it is a one year contract; which you just happen to pay monthly; with early termination fees. So it sort of encourages me to get off my but I and figure which way I am going to bet.

Since any migration should be well thought out and planned. This is not something that will happen quickly (at least in my case). So, starting the discussions now is critical. Especially when you consider the value of time. How much more time should I spend learning new things in Lr? How much is transferable to other tools?

I spent almost a year planning and executing my migration from Aperture to Lr. It required me to finish some organization stuff, move data to alternate fields (writing scripts to assist in the process) and eventually writing export scripts which I used to load the images into Lr. I can foresee the same thing happening with almost any other tool I migrate too.

Tim

 

[tspear]

I believe there's a lot of re-engineering under the covers for performance we can't see, in the GPU requirements and framework shift, and also in parallelism.

I would expect more stability to come in the next release. I think it remains to be seen if we will see significantly more performance, or (ever) see more functionality.

And this is one more example where Adobe is not properly executing a subscription model and providing incremental improvements for the past few years.

Tim

 

[Johan Elzenga]

The problem is LR Classic CC 7.0 is not really a dot zero release... It is ancient code that has had a few minor updates...

Before the subscription model, it would certainly have been seen as a dot zero release. Half a dozen substantial new features.

Compared to Lightroom 6 / CC2015.0 it is a dot zero release, but most new features have been thoroughly tested by Lightroom CC2015.1 to CC2015.12 users. The only really new and substantial features are the speed increase and range mask.

 

[PhilBurton]

@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

Tom,

Because nothing is pre-ordained when it comes to long-range planning for software. If revenue continues to be strong for Classic, or if senior management changes, Classic could continue "indefinitely." And there is no guarantee that your competitive switch product will survive. Or that their promises about future development will come true.

For us the real issue isn't the survival of the current code base for Classic. It is that either that Classic as is now or LR cloud code base enhanced to support Classic features is available. Of course, one of those Classic features is keeping all images on the desktop and not being forced to store images in the cloud. Tom Hogarty?

Phil

 

[jms969]

I believe there's a lot of re-engineering under the covers for performance we can't see, in the GPU requirements and framework shift, and also in parallelism.

I would expect more stability to come in the next release. I think it remains to be seen if we will see significantly more performance, or (ever) see more functionality.

All of which should have happened in LR 4

 

[jms969]

Before the subscription model, it would certainly have been seen as a dot zero release. Half a dozen substantial new features.

I will put it this way, if a LR 6 to LR 7 perpetual upgrade was possible, there is nothing compelling in LR 7 that would have made me upgrade.

 

[johnbeardy]

I will put it this way, if a LR 6 to LR 7 perpetual upgrade was possible, there is nothing compelling in LR 7 that would have made me upgrade.

Obviously that is an individual judgement. But apart from Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View, Range Mask, what have the Romans ever done for us?

John

 

[Duncanh]

Obviously that is an individual judgement. But apart from Dehaze, Boundary Warp, Guided Upright, Reference View, Range Mask, what have the Romans ever done for us?

John

LOL, made me smile.

After looking at a few options (e.g. ON1, Topaz Studio, Darktable etc) I'm finding they are all busy developing new versions and have users finding bugs therefore I've decided to wait till end of first quarter next year to see the situation. It does look like others are adding features to match Lightroom Classic to entice LR users so hopefully Adobe will pull their socks up and recognise they can't take their customers for granted. My subscription is due mid next year and as has been said before there's no hurry as Classic will be around for a few years even if not developed much more.

 

[johnbeardy]

Yes, a lot of these options are going after unsuspecting Lightroom users. Which reminds me of....

John

 

[PhilBurton]

LOL, made me smile.

After looking at a few options (e.g. ON1, Topaz Studio, Darktable etc) I'm finding they are all busy developing new versions and have users finding bugs therefore I've decided to wait till end of first quarter next year to see the situation. It does look like others are adding features to match Lightroom Classic to entice LR users so hopefully Adobe will pull their socks up and recognise they can't take their customers for granted. My subscription is due mid next year and as has been said before there's no hurry as Classic will be around for a few years even if not developed much more.

The ultimate in competition is a product that can import a LR catalog, including edits and collections, and extend catalog/edit/publish capabilities beyond what Adobe does. Is such a product possible? Of course, with software anything is possible?

Is it likely, dunno.

 

[Duncanh]

I can’t see how anyone could import edits as they would have to corresponding to their own edits which won’t be the same. My understanding is that ON1 has written software that runs within Lightroom producing edited images with the option of them being jpeg, tiff or psd. They are running a public beta test of the latest version which is due for release very soon but users are finding loads of bugs.

 

[jms969]

Yes, a lot of these options are going after unsuspecting Lightroom users. Which reminds me of....

John

Unsuspecting lightroom users???? Hahahahahahahaha

 

[PhilBurton]

I can’t see how anyone could import edits as they would have to corresponding to their own edits which won’t be the same. QUOTE]

Soooo?! "Anyone else" could write a set of Lightroom-compatible edits. :thumbsup: SMOP, as I often heard. Simple Matter of Programming.

:speechless: Phil :speechless:

 

[Johan Elzenga]

It's a little more than that. The demosaicing algorithms are proprietary for each vendor. That makes it very hard to match those using your own. To give you an idea how hard: even Adobe was unable to get a perfect match between Process Version 2 and Process Version 3. And they knew the algorithms inside out...

 

[jms969]

I can’t see how anyone could import edits as they would have to corresponding to their own edits which won’t be the same. My understanding is that ON1 has written software that runs within Lightroom producing edited images with the option of them being jpeg, tiff or psd. They are running a public beta test of the latest version which is due for release very soon but users are finding loads of bugs.

While importing LR edits would not be a trivial matter, it would certainly be possible to import the basic edits from LR... Not perfectly, but close enough.

 

[jms969]

It's a little more than that. The demosaicing algorithms are proprietary for each vendor. That makes it very hard to match those using your own. To give you an idea how hard: even Adobe was unable to get a perfect match between Process Version 2 and Process Version 3. And they knew the algorithms inside out...

Or, maybe they didn't :whistling:

 

[tspear]

You guys make it to hard.
For the vast majority of users you need to export the original, the final version and the develop steps. As long as you have the original and the final with the record of how you got to the final you can recreate it. But how often will you need to actually recreate it. Mostly the original, develop steps are to make you feel good. We really only use the final version...

Tim

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkNicholas]

And others, like me, for whom post processing is not something enjoyable so much as a necessary evil. When I want to do photography a camera should be in my hand. All the rest is necessary, but not fun. I want to understand it as thoroughly as possible and be good at it, but that doesn't make it fun.

Why don't you just let your camera produce the final result so that you do not have to post process / Raw develop ?

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

Why don't you just let your camera produce the final result so that you do not have to post process / Raw develop ?

Because photos need post processing, generally - straighten and crop almost all, exposure adjustments on many, white balance often depending on sport and whether the camera has flicker control.

There are many tasks associated with photography one needs to do (and do well) in order to produce good results. Doesn't make them fun.

 

[Bernard]

IMHO there are only two serious competitors to LR.
Capture one has very nice and powerfull editing tools, and a catalog not perfect yet but improving.
DXO has now local edits (U point technology acquired from Google) and working hard on a catalog feature.
Bernard