LightRoom dilemma: switch from Classic to CC, and implications on spec of new Mac

[markbishopuk]

Currently I use LightRoom Classic on a 2019 iMac i9 upgraded to 40GB of RAM and have a library of about 3TB, much of it on an external SanDisk SSD. I back up to Google Drive and to another external SSD, which I keep in a different building to the iMac and main SSD.

The iMac is no longer receiving iOS upgrades to the latest version (thanks for members here confirming this to me in response to a previous question) and I'm worried that Adobe might soon stop updating LRC for legacy operating systems (this happened to my previous iMac, prompting the purchase of the i9 one in 2019). The launch of new Mac Minis and Studios last week has prompted me to consider making this change fairly soon.

I could buy a Studio with Pro, Max or Ultra processor and 48 or 64GB of RAM and say 8TB or storage, to allow for future growth, but it would be expensive. Alternatively I could buy the M6 iMac and switch to LR CC. However, I have some questions:

1) Would CC give me fewer features than LRC? I used to believe this was the case, but recently noticed that Generative Expand is available only in the Cloud version, not the Classic, which made me wonder if the cloud version is now the superior one

2) I can't see pricing for more than 1TB of cloud storage on the Adobe UK website. Does anyone know what it would cost for say 4 or 8TB, in GBP?

3) Are CC users able to get away with using lower-spec hardware, because the processing is done on the remote server? If so would the M6 Mac Mini suffice, or perhaps a MacBook Air or Pro?

4) How easy or hard is it to switch from Classic to CC? I'd need to upload all my library. Would all my edits be preserved?

 

[clee01l]

The Short answer is you should upgrade to a SiliconMac because your Intel Mac will no longer be upgrades and your INTEL Based apps will not work in Slicon Macs after MacOS 27.

1) Would CC give me fewer features than LRC? I used to believe this was the case, but recently noticed that Generative Expand is available only in the Cloud version, not the Classic, which made me wonder if the cloud version is now the superior one

Features like Printing Web, Book and Slideshow are not in Lightroom (The term "CC" was ambiguous and obsoleted years ago. Use Lightroom Mobile to reference the mobile version of Lightroom and Lightroom Desktop to reference the computer version of Lightroom.
Features like Generative Expand (available in Photoshop, Desktop and not Classic but I don't believe mobile) were not ready for Classic when the last update rolled out. I expect to see Generative expand in a future version of Classic.

2) I can't see pricing for more than 1TB of cloud storage on the Adobe UK website. Does anyone know what it would cost for say 4 or 8TB, in GBP?

You can add on additional storage but it is expensive. you would need to contact Adobe directly. The Lightroom Plan includes Classic and Desktop with 1TB but no Photoshop. The 20GB plan has been retired>. The Photography Plan is the Lightroom Plan but also includes Photoshop and there is an incremental price to get. the plan with Photoshop.
I found I could store about 15,000 images in 1TB of Adobe Cloud I use both Desktop and Classic because I want full size images in the Cloud to be available for my Adobe Portfolio website. I found about 15,000 images that were worthy of storing full size and migrated those from an abreviated master Catalog.
Lightroom Desktop has a Local feature that does not use a catalog but does store Lightroom edits in an XMP sidecar or XMP data block in the header. Images treated as Local do not sync across to all platforms But can be used to manage images in Desktop that you do not want stored in the CLoud.

3) Are CC users able to get away with using lower-spec hardware, because the processing is done on the remote server? If so would the M6 Mac Mini suffice, or perhaps a MacBook Air or Pro?

No Lightroom Desktop uses the same spec'd hardware as required by Classic. This is especially visible for Denoise and AI Masks.

4) How easy or hard is it to switch from Classic to CC? I'd need to upload all my library. Would all my edits be preserved?

In Lightroom Desktop there is an option to "Migrate" your Classic catalog. This will import all of your full size images to the Adobe Cloud and preserve all of your Classic edits. If you have more than 15,000 images, I'd recommend doing as i did and weed out any number of ancient images that did not measure up but were too good to throw away.

 

[Conrad Chavez]

4) How easy or hard is it to switch from Classic to CC? I'd need to upload all my library. Would all my edits be preserved?

All of your image edits should be preserved. How easily and smoothly the whole transition goes depends on what range of the Lightroom Classic feature set you use. I use many Lightroom Classic features outside the Develop module that Lightroom doesn’t have, especially in the Library and Print modules. I’d miss those.

Before committing fully, it’s probably best to do some tests: Upload your next shoot into Lightroom (not Classic) and see how your normal workflow goes. See what’s missing, and how much that matters. Or, maybe you find out you get along better with the design of Lightroom, as some do. You’d have nothing to lose by doing this test, because whether or not you decide to go forward with Lightroom, the next time you start Lightroom Classic it will download all original files and edits you have in the Lightroom cloud.

 

[markbishopuk]

Thanks. Based on these responses I'll stay with Classic. In which case I'd appreciate some advice on hardware upgrade:

• Mac Mini M5 Pro, MacBook Pro M5 Pro or Max, Mac Studio M5 Pro or Ultra?
• How much RAM?
• Spring for 8 or even 16TB internal SSD or go for the lowest-capacity option and stick with Sandisk or similar external SSD?

My approach is to upgrade only when hardware is no longer supported, so I want to build in capacity to cope as LR gains more features over time and allow for the possibility that camera upgrades will result in me handling larger files in the future (currently I have an OM System OM-1 mk2, which produces 12-bit RAWs, typically each around 17MB filesize)

 

[clee01l]

Thanks. Based on these responses I'll stay with Classic. In which case I'd appreciate some advice on hardware upgrade:

• Mac Mini M5 Pro, MacBook Pro M5 Pro or Max, Mac Studio M5 Pro or Ultra?
• How much RAM?
• Spring for 8 or even 16TB internal SSD or go for the lowest-capacity option and stick with Sandisk or similar external SSD?

My approach is to upgrade only when hardware is no longer supported, so I want to build in capacity to cope as LR gains more features over time and allow for the possibility that camera upgrades will result in me handling larger files in the future (currently I have an OM System OM-1 mk2, which produces 12-bit RAWs, typically each around 17MB filesize)

I think staying with Classic is a good choice. You can always compliment Classic with Desktop. In 2023, I got an M2 Ultra Mac Studio with 64GB of internal storage. It has served me well with Lightroom for nearly 4 years. We will wait and see what AI features included in MacOS27 do to my current specs. Typically Mac Studios start with 48GB of internal storage. This is more than enouugh to manage all of Lightroom's current needs. The only change I wish I had made when I got my iMac Studio was 2TB of internal disk space instead of 1TB.

Personally I think laptops are for those people that need portability and no need for external storage. Unless that is you, I recommend going for a Mac Studio or Mac mini. My Mac Studio runs 2 32" HDR monitors and one SDR monitor. With the Price of SSDs and storage capacity, External HDDs still are more than adequate especially with TB3/4/5 enclosures and ports. I have about 60TB of HDDs connected to my Mac Studio.

 

[Conrad Chavez]

I would say start by looking at a Mini or MacBook Pro with the M5 Pro (not M5 base) processor because of its solid midrange GPU. The new M6 Mac mini seems OK too, and would still be a dramatic upgrade over an i9 iMac. I think those would work for most people.

If you frequently process large batches, especially large batches with AI features, or your next camera will record higher than average megapixels (like 50MP or more), then you could consider the upgraded M5 Pro with 20 GPU cores, or the 32-40 GPU core M5 Max in a MacBook Pro or just-released Mac Studio base model. (Most photography workflows can’t take full advantage of the top-end M5 Ultra Mac Studio; that model is more for AI development, 3D, or advanced video editing/effects.)

Regarding Unified Memory, Lightroom Classic runs comfortably for me on a 36GB Mac for my 24-megapixel files, but I think it could perform well on 24GB. But again, if you work with higher megapixel files, or you want to keep other major applications open at the same time as Lightroom Classic (Photoshop open with layered files, a video editor, etc.) then more than 24GB is a good idea. But I think most users don’t need more than 48GB.

The internal SSD question is about how you manage your images. 1 to 2TB has worked for me so far because my cataloged photo/video originals are on a much larger external drive. I like this because if I upgrade the Mac I don’t have to buy an expensive internal storage upgrade every time, I just plug my external drive into the new Mac.

 

[Woodbutcher]

I just went with a 16" Macbook Pro, m5 Pro, 1tb ssd and 64gb memory. I only did 64gb because B&H had a special deal it was the same cost as 48Gb. My original plan was 48gb. I use an external 4tb ssd, velcrod to the back of the display for extra storage. Current month or two of images internal. rest external. and all backed up in a variety of ways and places.

 

[Woodbutcher]

Oh, and very happy. Upgraded from a 2019 Intel i9 MB Pro. Still using LR Classic because I print images from it.

 

[markbishopuk]

I just went with a 16" Macbook Pro, m5 Pro, 1tb ssd and 64gb memory. I only did 64gb because B&H had a special deal it was the same cost as 48Gb. My original plan was 48gb. I use an external 4tb ssd, velcrod to the back of the display for extra storage. Current month or two of images internal. rest external. and all backed up in a variety of ways and places.

Thanks. Yes, I'm coming down to two options: either MBP with a big enough SSD for a year's images, the rest on an external SSD attached via Thunderbolt to a Studio Display in my home office (an outbuilding) or a Mac Studio with a much bigger SSD. Former is more convenient as I can keep it in the house and also take it on location. Latter may be faster and more durable.

 

[clee01l]

Thanks. Yes, I'm coming down to two options: either MBP with a big enough SSD for a year's images, the rest on an external SSD attached via Thunderbolt to a Studio Display in my home office (an outbuilding) or a Mac Studio with a much bigger SSD. Former is more convenient as I can keep it in the house and also take it on location. Latter may be faster and more durable.

Ask your self this question: Do you really need portability? Laptops are a compromise in components and size to facilitate portability. If you need to hang an external Disk on it, that makes portability even more difficult. With a Mac Studio you get more ports (mine has about a dozen). You already have a Studio Display. A display is essential for a desktop. I have three displays (2 are 32" HDR).