Author Topic: No perpetual license for Lightroom 7 (Read 18051 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **on:** October 18, 2017, 12:01 »

Lightroom as we knew it is now Lightroom Classic. Lightroom 6.x will get new camera updates through the end of 2017 and then it's history. Photography plans are increasing in price if you need more than 20GB of online storage.

dpReview

Imaging Resource

Lightroom Queen

CNET

The Verge

Ars Technica

TechCrunch

The Next Web

Photography Life

The Phoblographer

Engadget

Outdoor Photographer

Lightroom Killer Tips

Adobe page with plan options

If you do buy into the subscription plan, there's a apparently a $14.99 deal for the 1TB storage plan for a while (and realistically, 20GB is useless for anyone but a hobby photographer if you really do want to go with the new Lightroom Lite (they're not calling it that) )

Note that Adobe says that Lightroom Classic CC is still in active development, but my gut says the writing is on the wall for it as they have a new code base for the new Lightroom Lite

Some follow up articles about Lightroom*

Adobe's answers to LR announcement questions (comments invited)

Interview with Tom Hogarty on LR split and futures

Death by Subscription

What Just Happened to Lightroom? (On1 blog - they clearly have an interest as On1 Photo RAW, now in beta 2, is a competitor)

Adobe's Photography product manager on use of online photographs - presumably those stored by customers online plus those in Adobe Stock - to fuel Adobe Sensei features. Certainly gives Adobe a reason to want more content online for it to use for its own purposes, not just store for customer retrieval...

An older article - March 2017 - where Adobe's CTO talks about the role of data in developing Sensei. Data includes imagery plus features used by "pros" (not sure how they obtain or categorize users)

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #1 on:** October 18, 2017, 13:18 »

They've been moving everything to the cloud so this shouldn't be a surprise. When standalone Photoshop disappeared Lightroom wasn't far behind.

The thing I'm most worried about moving forward is getting pushed into the cloud and then getting squeezed. They're reporting records profits as of right now. Eventually the cloud/subscription model will plateau which means they'll need to find ways of posting more record financial gains to make shareholders happy. That will absolutely come from raising prices. It's probably already baked into their plan. So that lovely $9.99 per month I'm paying for Lightroom/Photoshop will slowly become $10.99, then $12.99, then $15.99 then $19.99, and so on. Or they'll just decide to "sunset" the $9.99 plan.

I'm already poking around at alternatives to Adobe. Hopefully by the time they start slowly raising the temperate to boil us frogs some decent options will be available.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #2 on:** October 18, 2017, 13:45 »

Here is the Petapixel link with demos of their new Luminosity/Color masking feature:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/18/bye-bye-lightroom-hello-lightroom-cc-faster-lightroom-classic/

It is definitely interresting to have such option directly on RAW files.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #3 on:** October 18, 2017, 14:04 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 18, 2017, 13:45

Here is the Petapixel link with demos of their new Luminosity/Color masking feature:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/18/bye-bye-lightroom-hello-lightroom-cc-faster-lightroom-classic/

It is definitely interresting to have such option directly on RAW files.

Both of which are already in Capture One Pro, which is what I've switched to, as part of their local adjustment layers

Zero Talent · « **Reply #4 on:** October 18, 2017, 14:27 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 18, 2017, 14:04

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 18, 2017, 13:45
Here is the Petapixel link with demos of their new Luminosity/Color masking feature:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/18/bye-bye-lightroom-hello-lightroom-cc-faster-lightroom-classic/

It is definitely interresting to have such option directly on RAW files.

Both of which are already in Capture One Pro, which is what I've switched to, as part of their local adjustment layers

Then I must say: Thank you C1Pro for driving up the progress with this feature!

Competition is great!

PhotoBomb · « **Reply #5 on:** October 18, 2017, 15:16 »

Frankly I hate Lightroom. I wish I didn't have to pay for it in my subscription. I like to shoot tethered and it has cost me hours of wasted time and money trying to make that program work.
I don't like the way is stores and catalogs files I am content just using PS and Bridge.
As soon as they raise the price I'm out and will find something else that works for me.

stockastic · « **Reply #6 on:** October 18, 2017, 16:29 »

LR "Classic" will probably see little new development. Any big new features will be in the subscription version. Standalone LR is now a dead end. I'm increasingly happy I switched to Capture One a couple of years ago. IMHO, it's much superior.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #7 on:** October 18, 2017, 16:59 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 18, 2017, 16:29

LR "Classic" will probably see little new development. Any big new features will be in the subscription version. Standalone LR is now a dead end. I'm increasingly happy I switched to Capture One a couple of years ago. IMHO, it's much superior.

IMHO, it can't be "much superior"

but I respect your preference for C1, since we all built our workflows around a specific set of tools best suited for our needs.

Anyway, this announcement is actually very good news for LR users and I believe there is a good way forward with the current LR+PS combo.

Mantis · « **Reply #8 on:** October 18, 2017, 18:21 »

They won't hang on to Classic for too long and that will force every user to the cloud. You want to do a 1200 image 40mp raw time-lapse in LR you will have to upload those to the cloud. That means you will have to pay extra for storage to do that. The cloud version doesn't work from your hard drive so you will now be faced with additional costs just to be able to edit your work. Deal killer. If they end up dumping Classic, as I suspect they will, LR Time-lapse is in trouble.

I wen't to Jo Ann's Adobe link and I can't seem to even find a link to the Classic Lightroom.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #9 on:** October 18, 2017, 19:05 »

Try Capture One Pro, Lightroom feels like a toy compared to it. Especially the user interface.
Capture one is has a much more professional feel, good functioning, and quite costumizable interface.

Of course there is no one perfect solution, there some little things that are better in Lightroom. And it it always takes lot of effort to get used to a new RAW development program, and sometimes you just end up with very different looking images than before

stockastic · « **Reply #10 on:** October 18, 2017, 20:13 »

"Classic" sounds just a bit patronizing, doesn't it? Like it's just the thing for all us old fools who can't figure out this "cloud" stuff. Maybe they'll make all the controls and fonts bigger, to accommodate our failing eyesight.

They might as well have called it "Lightroom for Losers" because that's how they'll treat it going forward.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #11 on:** October 18, 2017, 20:52 »

Quote from: stockastic on October 18, 2017, 20:13

"Classic" sounds just a bit patronizing, doesn't it? Like it's just the thing for all us old fools who can't figure out this "cloud" stuff. Maybe they'll make all the controls and fonts bigger, to accommodate our failing eyesight.

They might as well have called it "Lightroom for Losers" because that's how they'll treat it going forward.

It is amazing to see how a really useful improvement is treated with so much negativity!
All you say is just a bunch of malarkey.

Since when an improvement is the sign of an inexorable death?

I recommend you to do your homework first: go and listen to what Adobe has to say, before jumping to such ludicrous conclusions.

https://youtu.be/eMSNcM7C0UE

Let me transcribe some of it for you:

"....if two LR desktop apps may be seem confusing initially, there is a need for both cloud centric AND desktop centric photography workflows and Adobe is committed to developing LR Classic alongside with LR CC.
We know that many of our photographers are completely satisfied with their current LR Classic workflow. We understand the realities of high volume workflows, limited internet connectivity and workplace security requirements .... we know that some photographers will chose to stay with their LR Classic workflow. And that's fine. That's why LR Classic will remain a high priority and a high investment area for the team"

So I'll rather go with this very clear statement, instead of paying attention to naysayers who see doom and gloom everywhere, even when, objectively, there is only clear progress to be seen.

For what I know, C1 can very well go bankrupt before LR classic is phased out.
Anyway, when that time will come, we'll analyse and decide.

Chichikov · « **Reply #12 on:** October 19, 2017, 05:11 »

Quote from: Mantis on October 18, 2017, 18:21

They won't hang on to Classic for too long and that will force every user to the cloud. You want to do a 1200 image 40mp raw time-lapse in LR you will have to upload those to the cloud. That means you will have to pay extra for storage to do that. The cloud version doesn't work from your hard drive so you will now be faced with additional costs just to be able to edit your work. Deal killer. If they end up dumping Classic, as I suspect they will, LR Time-lapse is in trouble.

I wen't to Jo Ann's Adobe link and I can't seem to even find a link to the Classic Lightroom.

As I have understood it will be officially distributed after the 28th.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #13 on:** October 19, 2017, 06:22 »

I'm still using PSD 6 and I guess LR 6 is as far as I'll go with that too.

Anyone switched from LR to Capture One?

Zero Talent · « **Reply #14 on:** October 19, 2017, 06:39 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 19, 2017, 05:11

Quote from: Mantis on October 18, 2017, 18:21
They won't hang on to Classic for too long and that will force every user to the cloud. You want to do a 1200 image 40mp raw time-lapse in LR you will have to upload those to the cloud. That means you will have to pay extra for storage to do that. The cloud version doesn't work from your hard drive so you will now be faced with additional costs just to be able to edit your work. Deal killer. If they end up dumping Classic, as I suspect they will, LR Time-lapse is in trouble.

I wen't to Jo Ann's Adobe link and I can't seem to even find a link to the Classic Lightroom.

As I have understood it will be officially distributed after the 28th.

I upgraded PS, Bridge and LR Classic yesterday and tested the new luminosity/color masks.

Nice upgrade!

I had to re-install a few 3rd party plugins, but I'm happy to see that all of them are compatible with the new version.

I can also confirm LR is visibly faster.

Chichikov · « **Reply #15 on:** October 19, 2017, 08:20 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 19, 2017, 06:39

Quote from: Chichikov on October 19, 2017, 05:11
Quote from: Mantis on October 18, 2017, 18:21
They won't hang on to Classic for too long and that will force every user to the cloud. You want to do a 1200 image 40mp raw time-lapse in LR you will have to upload those to the cloud. That means you will have to pay extra for storage to do that. The cloud version doesn't work from your hard drive so you will now be faced with additional costs just to be able to edit your work. Deal killer. If they end up dumping Classic, as I suspect they will, LR Time-lapse is in trouble.

I wen't to Jo Ann's Adobe link and I can't seem to even find a link to the Classic Lightroom.

As I have understood it will be officially distributed after the 28th.

I upgraded PS, Bridge and LR Classic yesterday and tested the new luminosity/color masks.

Nice upgrade!

I had to re-install a few 3rd party plugins, but I'm happy to see that all of them are compatible with the new version.

I can also confirm LR is visibly faster.

Oh yes, I see it in the Creative Cloud app. (Did not see it yesterday evening)

Mantis · « **Reply #16 on:** October 19, 2017, 08:26 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 19, 2017, 08:20

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 19, 2017, 06:39
Quote from: Chichikov on October 19, 2017, 05:11
Quote from: Mantis on October 18, 2017, 18:21
They won't hang on to Classic for too long and that will force every user to the cloud. You want to do a 1200 image 40mp raw time-lapse in LR you will have to upload those to the cloud. That means you will have to pay extra for storage to do that. The cloud version doesn't work from your hard drive so you will now be faced with additional costs just to be able to edit your work. Deal killer. If they end up dumping Classic, as I suspect they will, LR Time-lapse is in trouble.

I wen't to Jo Ann's Adobe link and I can't seem to even find a link to the Classic Lightroom.

As I have understood it will be officially distributed after the 28th.

I upgraded PS, Bridge and LR Classic yesterday and tested the new luminosity/color masks.

Nice upgrade!

I had to re-install a few 3rd party plugins, but I'm happy to see that all of them are compatible with the new version.

I can also confirm LR is visibly faster.

Oh yes, I see it in the Creative Cloud app. (Did not see it yesterday evening)

I installed the new version but told it to keep the old files (in the advanced tab). Now, LR keeps telling me to update the software and when I go in to do that it tells me I am updated. Only way now is to uninstall and reinstall.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #17 on:** October 19, 2017, 10:10 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on October 19, 2017, 06:22

I'm still using PSD 6 and I guess LR 6 is as far as I'll go with that too.

Anyone switched from LR to Capture One?

http://www.microstockgroup.com/software/capture-one-pro-vs-lightroom-plus-fuji-xt-2-raw-conversion

Yes. It's great software but some LR users may miss features - will depend on your activities in LR. As I am focused almost solely on developing images, I'm fine (I keyword in Photoshop for example), but you'd need to check your workflow. There's a lot of video how-to stuff on their YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgJWICGMzzvXk2wIgqxVEQ

I do still use LR 6.x for my older RAW files (I have them cataloged going back to 2002) for the moment - for as long as I can keep LR 6.x running as my OS upgrades allow.

Anyone looking for Lightroom alternatives can also take a look at Luminar and Aurora from MacPhun. Not as full featured as Capture One Pro, but seems like a very approachable UI - I have the 14 day trials and will check them out just to see if they add anything I can use

http://www.digitalbristles.com/adobe-dropped-shoe-lightroom-subscription/

wds · « **Reply #18 on:** October 19, 2017, 13:57 »

So Capture 1 Pro is $300 US if I understand correctly? That's 30 months worth of Lightroom/PS subscription all at once. Plus I'm sure in 30 months C1 will have upgrades that cost $$$. While I hate the idea of never ending payment subscriptions...$300 seems pretty steep!....Then there is always the possibility that C1 will go subscription only in the future.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #19 on:** October 19, 2017, 14:28 »

Speaking about LR alternatives, has anyone tried ON1 Photo Raw?

Their approach to RAW processing looks interresting, their feature list is comprehensive and their permanent license is $120 (- expected black Friday discounts)

Astonished · « **Reply #20 on:** October 19, 2017, 15:58 »

Too bad Capture One doesn't support Fuji GFX or Hasselblad X1D or any other medium format except their own Phase One

RCerruti · « **Reply #21 on:** October 20, 2017, 03:53 »

Not yet updated to the 'classic'. I just wonder, if they will make this obsolete and force you to work on the cloud, they will lose a good amount of customers around the world, and here is why:
I live in a city in northern Italy and I have one of the best Internet connections you can get for a reasonable non-corporate price, which is higher than what I pay for LR+PS subscription. I can upload up to 20 Mb/s. I'm sure in many places the situation is even worse.
I'm a sport photographer hiring other photographers for a few important events. In those cases I get over 1TB of images taken in a few days around Italy. It means I would need more than a week to upload at full speed the images to the cloud, before starting to work! Completely impossible to accept! I think I'm not the only one.

I've heard very good things about C1pro, and - even if I don't like many things about LR - I don't think I will ever be able to give up its amazing speed in working parallel batches on hundreds of similar files. How is this feature in C1pro?

Chichikov · « **Reply #22 on:** October 20, 2017, 06:38 »

For those who are looking for a good DAM alternative to the C1 images management, there is Daminion standalone https://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/how-to-get-started-with-daminion-standalone--cms-27198

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #23 on:** October 21, 2017, 02:22 »

Upgraded to LR6 last week, still using CS6, I just dont want to commit to monthly payments for cloud services. I dont like it one iota

Chichikov · « **Reply #24 on:** October 21, 2017, 08:32 »

I have made the upgrade to Lightroom Classic.
I must say that I am not happy at all!
Adobe has made a very bad work this time: all is very very slow.

Not only me by the way: https://forums.adobe.com/message/9905229#9905229

Dodie · « **Reply #25 on:** October 21, 2017, 08:37 »

Please excuse my ignorance but what is Lightroom classic? I am so confused with all these versions.

I have Lightroom 6.0 standalone and now, reading this thread I thought I check for updates if Lr 6 is going away.
The only update is Lightroom CC (2015.12)/6.12 (This update to Lightroom CC includes bug fixes and new camera support.)
Is Lightroom CC and Lightroom 6 the same thing?
I don't want subscription, so can I update to Lightroom CC (2015.12)/6.12 without paying a subscription?

This is what I see on Adobe site:

Quote

Get the latest features and bug fixes by simply updating Lightroom to the latest version.
What is the most current version?

Lightroom CC/Lightroom 6

The latest/most current version of Lightroom CC is 2015.12 and Lightroom 6 is 6.12.

I just want to be sure.

Dodie · « **Reply #26 on:** October 21, 2017, 08:46 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 21, 2017, 08:32

I have made the upgrade to Lightroom Classic.
I must say that I am not happy at all!
Adobe has made a very bad work this time: all is very very slow.

Not only me by the way: https://forums.adobe.com/message/9905229#9905229

That is why I am afraid to update. What was your previous version?

Chichikov · « **Reply #27 on:** October 21, 2017, 09:14 »

^ 6.12, and always worked perfectly.
I was just expecting something faster, but it is the exact contrary

Some operations like importing are maybe faster (not sure) but this is not where I need the application to be faster; I need it to be faster when using the develop module.
(Thinking to go back with time machine)

–––––
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/lightroom-cc-vs-lightroom-classic/

Dodie · « **Reply #28 on:** October 21, 2017, 09:45 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 21, 2017, 09:14

^ 6.12, and always worked perfectly.
I was just expecting something faster, but it is the exact contrary
Some operations like importing are maybe faster (not sure) but this is not where I need the application to be faster; I need it to be faster when using the develop module.
(Thinking to go back with time machine)

–––––
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/lightroom-cc-vs-lightroom-classic/

Thank you. So now you have LR classic CC.
I've read that article before and it messed my head even more. So this is not true:

Quote

Lightroom Classic CC (a.k.a. Lightroom-As-We-Knew-It) is the unchanged Lightroom we have grown to depend on. So, that’s good news. Lightroom Classic CC will also work better than ever.

I'll try to update from LR 6.0 to 6.12 and if something goes wrong I still have the DVD to reinstall. I almost never use LR, I hate programs that organize for me, so I can't lose much.

Thanks again.

Dodie · « **Reply #29 on:** October 21, 2017, 11:10 »

I made the update and it managed to mess up my entire system. Lr doesn't even start. The web is full of complaints about this so, take care! Adobe doesn't bother to list the system requirements.
Now I can start uninstalling and reinstalling.
He/l with Adobe.

Mantis · « **Reply #30 on:** October 21, 2017, 12:57 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 21, 2017, 08:32

I have made the upgrade to Lightroom Classic.
I must say that I am not happy at all!
Adobe has made a very bad work this time: all is very very slow.

Not only me by the way: https://forums.adobe.com/message/9905229#9905229

Also a lot of complaints on Photoshop CC 2018. Very slow and clunky and brushes like the Healing Brush take 10 or more seconds to work.

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/healing-and-spot-healing-brush-lag

Dodie · « **Reply #31 on:** October 22, 2017, 05:18 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 21, 2017, 09:14

I was just expecting something faster, but it is the exact contrary

The update changes everything Adobe on your computer, Bridge, Camera raw, PS, Premiere. Plus, the creative cloud exe. was welcoming me as a new cloud member. This could be the reason (or maybe not) for the slowdow, anyway, I didn't ask for it so I uninstalled it immediately.

I updated two machines, an i7 with win 10 which worked and my older, still running win 7 where the LR update didn't work but changed all the rest.
I don't see any slow down yet, I see the interface has changed on adobe programs but I had no time to experiment yet.

I mostly wanted the update for the Panasonic profile which Adobe says it is there but it is not.

Chichikov · « **Reply #32 on:** October 22, 2017, 06:53 »

^
Maybe I did not understand well, but I believe that the new LR version needs Windows 10, and 16 GB RAM is recommended.

Well I am on Mac and I have (different) problems too.

This post (with graphs), on the Adobe forum, reflects my experience (the end is very close to what happened to me):
https://forums.adobe.com/message/9906105#9906105

Pauws99 · « **Reply #33 on:** October 22, 2017, 07:16 »

I call a "Verschlimmbesserung"

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #34 on:** October 22, 2017, 08:43 »

I haveLR 6.0 so I wont update to 6.12 then.

To be honest, I havent noticed any performance results or crashes with LR 6

Dodie · « **Reply #35 on:** October 22, 2017, 09:49 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on October 22, 2017, 08:43

I haveLR 6.0 so I wont update to 6.12 then.

To be honest, I havent noticed any performance results or crashes with LR 6

Well, honestly I don't see the poit to update but as I already lost half the day researchig, I'll share my findings for others, maybe interested.

I compared the updated LR with the old one on two computers and this is the result:

Though system info says the new one is LR 6.12 still

- no new camera or lens profiles
- only one of the new features show, it is called "transform"
- no dehaze, no new presets

As I said before the new one is on Win 10, the old one is on Win7 professional (64-bit)

These are just my results, others could be luckier.

In case it is helpful to anyone, according to Adobe the update can be installed on wIN 7 SP1(64-bit) and newer,
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/system-requirements.html

It's CC that needs the Microsoft Visual C++2015 Redistributable (64 & 86-bit) system update to be installed.

This is the error message I get on Win 7:

Quote

Error when launching

The program can't start because api-ms-win-crt-runtime-l1-1-0.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.

https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/kb/vc2015_update.html

So I'll just keep the LR 6.0 on Win 7, I don't want to mess with my OS for nothing.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #36 on:** October 22, 2017, 12:14 »

These days I never update any software until I really have to as 95% of the time the incremental improvements are not worth the angst and I let the early adopters do the user acceptance testing

Dodie · « **Reply #37 on:** October 22, 2017, 12:27 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 22, 2017, 12:14

These days I never update any software until I really have to as 95% of the time the incremental improvements are not worth the angst and I let the early adopters do the user acceptance testing

That is a very healthy idea, it was my intention too when I asked the question here. Not much help though.
Not to mention that now, all the sudden, my mail is full with CC "kind offerings", emails.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #38 on:** October 22, 2017, 15:56 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 18, 2017, 14:04

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 18, 2017, 13:45
Here is the Petapixel link with demos of their new Luminosity/Color masking feature:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/18/bye-bye-lightroom-hello-lightroom-cc-faster-lightroom-classic/

It is definitely interresting to have such option directly on RAW files.

Both of which are already in Capture One Pro, which is what I've switched to, as part of their local adjustment layers

I downloaded C1 pro trial version, but I'm unable to find the luminosity mask feature. I couldn't find any tutorials related to it. Can you please indicate where is this feature hidden?

Quote from: Chichikov on October 21, 2017, 09:14

^ 6.12, and always worked perfectly.
I was just expecting something faster, but it is the exact contrary
Some operations like importing are maybe faster (not sure) but this is not where I need the application to be faster; I need it to be faster when using the develop module.
(Thinking to go back with time machine)

–––––
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/lightroom-cc-vs-lightroom-classic/

Have you tried to disable the GPU option? I remember this was a problem some time ago. If your video card is not powerful enough, you can be better off by just using the just the processor.
I have a decently expensive video card and my develop module is visibly faster, while the library module is significantly faster.

Quote from: Mantis on October 21, 2017, 12:57

Quote from: Chichikov on October 21, 2017, 08:32
I have made the upgrade to Lightroom Classic.
I must say that I am not happy at all!
Adobe has made a very bad work this time: all is very very slow.

Not only me by the way: https://forums.adobe.com/message/9905229#9905229

Also a lot of complaints on Photoshop CC 2018. Very slow and clunky and brushes like the Healing Brush take 10 or more seconds to work.

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/healing-and-spot-healing-brush-lag

I tested the healing brush. It is no different than before, instantaneous, nothing like the video presented.

Mantis · « **Reply #39 on:** October 22, 2017, 16:22 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 22, 2017, 15:56

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 18, 2017, 14:04
Quote from: Zero Talent on October 18, 2017, 13:45
Here is the Petapixel link with demos of their new Luminosity/Color masking feature:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/18/bye-bye-lightroom-hello-lightroom-cc-faster-lightroom-classic/

It is definitely interresting to have such option directly on RAW files.

Both of which are already in Capture One Pro, which is what I've switched to, as part of their local adjustment layers

I downloaded C1 pro trial version, but I'm unable to find the luminosity mask feature. I couldn't find any tutorials related to it. Can you please indicate where is this feature hidden?

Quote from: Chichikov on October 21, 2017, 09:14
^ 6.12, and always worked perfectly.
I was just expecting something faster, but it is the exact contrary
Some operations like importing are maybe faster (not sure) but this is not where I need the application to be faster; I need it to be faster when using the develop module.
(Thinking to go back with time machine)

–––––
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/lightroom-cc-vs-lightroom-classic/

Have you tried to disable the GPU option? I remember this was a problem some time ago. If your video card is not powerful enough, you can be better off by just using the just the processor.
I have a decently expensive video card and my develop module is visibly faster, while the library module is significantly faster.

Quote from: Mantis on October 21, 2017, 12:57
Quote from: Chichikov on October 21, 2017, 08:32
I have made the upgrade to Lightroom Classic.
I must say that I am not happy at all!
Adobe has made a very bad work this time: all is very very slow.

Not only me by the way: https://forums.adobe.com/message/9905229#9905229

Also a lot of complaints on Photoshop CC 2018. Very slow and clunky and brushes like the Healing Brush take 10 or more seconds to work.

https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/healing-and-spot-healing-brush-lag

I tested the healing brush. It is no different than before, instantaneous, nothing like the video presented.

Same here.

Dodie · « **Reply #40 on:** October 22, 2017, 16:47 »

Guys, take care, there is much more misery to this update, I find them gradually as I go to use things like:

Adobe has deactivated most of my other media programs, even deleted the shortcut icons from the desktop.
I like win 10's Movies & TV app, it plays 4k video very well but now it is deactivated, something with the rootkit on the error message.

I have all my stuff on external drive and I cannot open a single video.
Also Infranview vanished and who knows what else.

This was a brand new i7 with OS and all programs newly installed, now it is full of garbage.
Thanks god I created a restore point before the update and restored the system but now LR doesn't open, instead there is a login window to my Adobe account, each time I open it and it demands internet access. After I log in it says that I have 30 days free trial, hear that, to my own perpetual copy, that is outrageous.

Adobe pushes everyone to the cloud with this update, what a scam.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #41 on:** October 22, 2017, 16:54 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 22, 2017, 15:56

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 18, 2017, 14:04
Quote from: Zero Talent on October 18, 2017, 13:45
Here is the Petapixel link with demos of their new Luminosity/Color masking feature:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/18/bye-bye-lightroom-hello-lightroom-cc-faster-lightroom-classic/

It is definitely interresting to have such option directly on RAW files.

Both of which are already in Capture One Pro, which is what I've switched to, as part of their local adjustment layers

I downloaded C1 pro trial version, but I'm unable to find the luminosity mask feature. I couldn't find any tutorials related to it.

Terminology varies product to product. The feature in C1 Pro is to create a mask (for a local adjustment layer) from a selection in the color editor.

https://help.phaseone.com/en/CO10/Editing-photos/Local-Adjustment.aspx#item17

https://fstoppers.com/education/how-create-adjustment-layers-based-color-capture-one-9-103450
If you look at tutorials on using the (up to 16) layers for local adjustments and using the Color Editor, you'll have what you need. It isn't highlighted as new in version 10 because it was introduced in version 9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-KkdyxuNFk

Zero Talent · « **Reply #42 on:** October 22, 2017, 17:20 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 22, 2017, 16:54

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 22, 2017, 15:56
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 18, 2017, 14:04
Quote from: Zero Talent on October 18, 2017, 13:45
Here is the Petapixel link with demos of their new Luminosity/Color masking feature:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/18/bye-bye-lightroom-hello-lightroom-cc-faster-lightroom-classic/

It is definitely interresting to have such option directly on RAW files.

Both of which are already in Capture One Pro, which is what I've switched to, as part of their local adjustment layers

I downloaded C1 pro trial version, but I'm unable to find the luminosity mask feature. I couldn't find any tutorials related to it.

Terminology varies product to product. The feature in C1 Pro is to create a mask (for a local adjustment layer) from a selection in the color editor.

https://help.phaseone.com/en/CO10/Editing-photos/Local-Adjustment.aspx#item17

https://fstoppers.com/education/how-create-adjustment-layers-based-color-capture-one-9-103450
If you look at tutorials on using the (up to 16) layers for local adjustments and using the Color Editor, you'll have what you need. It isn't highlighted as new in version 10 because it was introduced in version 9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-KkdyxuNFk

Thanks, Jo Ann!
I was able to figure out the color masking tool from the first 2 tutorials you referred to.

However, this NOT a luminosity mask. It is a color mask. As I said, I found nothing about luminosity masking in C1.

The new LR Classic has both. Moreover, the color masks, as well as the luminosity masks, are also applicable to local adjustments, like the gradient, brush or radial filters, while, from what I see, C1 has only a global color masking feature.

Desintegrator · « **Reply #43 on:** October 22, 2017, 17:54 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 22, 2017, 17:20

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 22, 2017, 16:54
Quote from: Zero Talent on October 22, 2017, 15:56
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 18, 2017, 14:04
Quote from: Zero Talent on October 18, 2017, 13:45
Here is the Petapixel link with demos of their new Luminosity/Color masking feature:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/18/bye-bye-lightroom-hello-lightroom-cc-faster-lightroom-classic/

It is definitely interresting to have such option directly on RAW files.

Both of which are already in Capture One Pro, which is what I've switched to, as part of their local adjustment layers

I downloaded C1 pro trial version, but I'm unable to find the luminosity mask feature. I couldn't find any tutorials related to it.

Terminology varies product to product. The feature in C1 Pro is to create a mask (for a local adjustment layer) from a selection in the color editor.

https://help.phaseone.com/en/CO10/Editing-photos/Local-Adjustment.aspx#item17

https://fstoppers.com/education/how-create-adjustment-layers-based-color-capture-one-9-103450
If you look at tutorials on using the (up to 16) layers for local adjustments and using the Color Editor, you'll have what you need. It isn't highlighted as new in version 10 because it was introduced in version 9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-KkdyxuNFk

Thanks, Jo Ann!
I was able to figure out the color masking tool from the first 2 tutorials you referred to.

However, this NOT a luminosity mask. It is a color mask. As I said, I found nothing about luminosity masking in C1.

The new LR Classic has both. Moreover, the color masks, as well as the luminosity masks, are also applicable to local adjustments, like the gradient, brush or radial filters, while, from what I see, C1 has only a global color masking feature.

When you make a new masked layer you can adjust every parameter on that, including exposure, brighness, contrast, white balance.. you just have to make sure you're using the sliders on the "local adjustments" tab (it has the icon of a brush)

Zero Talent · « **Reply #44 on:** October 22, 2017, 18:44 »

Quote from: Desintegrator on October 22, 2017, 17:54

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 22, 2017, 17:20
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 22, 2017, 16:54
Quote from: Zero Talent on October 22, 2017, 15:56
Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 18, 2017, 14:04
Quote from: Zero Talent on October 18, 2017, 13:45
Here is the Petapixel link with demos of their new Luminosity/Color masking feature:

https://petapixel.com/2017/10/18/bye-bye-lightroom-hello-lightroom-cc-faster-lightroom-classic/

It is definitely interresting to have such option directly on RAW files.

Both of which are already in Capture One Pro, which is what I've switched to, as part of their local adjustment layers

I downloaded C1 pro trial version, but I'm unable to find the luminosity mask feature. I couldn't find any tutorials related to it.

Terminology varies product to product. The feature in C1 Pro is to create a mask (for a local adjustment layer) from a selection in the color editor.

https://help.phaseone.com/en/CO10/Editing-photos/Local-Adjustment.aspx#item17

https://fstoppers.com/education/how-create-adjustment-layers-based-color-capture-one-9-103450
If you look at tutorials on using the (up to 16) layers for local adjustments and using the Color Editor, you'll have what you need. It isn't highlighted as new in version 10 because it was introduced in version 9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-KkdyxuNFk

Thanks, Jo Ann!
I was able to figure out the color masking tool from the first 2 tutorials you referred to.

However, this NOT a luminosity mask. It is a color mask. As I said, I found nothing about luminosity masking in C1.

The new LR Classic has both. Moreover, the color masks, as well as the luminosity masks, are also applicable to local adjustments, like the gradient, brush or radial filters, while, from what I see, C1 has only a global color masking feature.

When you make a new masked layer you can adjust every parameter on that, including exposure, brighness, contrast, white balance.. you just have to make sure you're using the sliders on the "local adjustments" tab (it has the icon of a brush)

I got that, but again, this is NOT luminosity masking. It is just a local adjustment, not very much different than what LR already had.
In other words, it means that you will still have to manually select the edge of the mountain with a brush, if you only want to darken the sky.
You can forget about that when you have a dark tree against bright sky (or some dark hair against a bright background). Masking will be very tedious and imperfect, even if the tool has a decent edge detect feature.

On the other hand, luminosity masking is allowing you to modify all the parameters you mentioned, but selectively, only for highlights, darks or the luminosity range you need.

Watch this new LR Classic tutorial: https://youtu.be/SFuHYJvBXIQ to understand what I'm talking about.

I also recommend to watch some of Jimmy McIntyre's tutorials on Youtube to understand the broad luminosity masking concept and the logic behind it.

While Jimmy's tools offer maximum flexibility in Photoshop, LR Classic is bringing a lot of that inside LR (especially useful when combined with 32bits processing).
This nice upgrade doesn't make Jimmy's tools obsolete, because we might still want to layer different files, for a more elaborate masking

Meanwhile I also checked ON1 RAW. They come much closer to the RAW luminosity masking concept than C1 Pro 10.
ON1 offers the option to apply any local adjustments only to the highlights, midtones or the darks and to adjust their luminosity range.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #45 on:** October 22, 2017, 21:05 »

Quote from: Mantis on October 22, 2017, 16:22

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 22, 2017, 15:56

I tested the healing brush. It is no different than before, instantaneous, nothing like the video presented.

Same here.

Correction: I can actually see a lag, indeed. Not annoying, but definitely there.

Brightontl · « **Reply #46 on:** October 24, 2017, 10:57 »

I have been working on the new Lightroom Classic CC and I like it a lot.
Here are my impressions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uidB0VbI5rc

Zero Talent · « **Reply #47 on:** October 24, 2017, 12:23 »

Quote from: Brightontl on October 24, 2017, 10:57

I have been working on the new Lightroom Classic CC and I like it a lot.
Here are my impressions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uidB0VbI5rc

You look so serious but you are funny at the same time.

So how is you tango skill, today?

Brightontl · « **Reply #48 on:** October 24, 2017, 13:06 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 24, 2017, 12:23

Quote from: Brightontl on October 24, 2017, 10:57
I have been working on the new Lightroom Classic CC and I like it a lot.
Here are my impressions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uidB0VbI5rc

You look so serious but you are funny at the same time.
So how is you tango skill, today?

Thanks,
the thing is that it takes two to tango :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIACd2fMQFs

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #49 on:** October 24, 2017, 14:43 »

I took a look at trial versions of Luminar and ON1 Photo RAW just to see how they measure up. Bottom line is that there are some nice features but both have issues for my workflow that rule them out.

More details and some samples here (not full reviews, just a quick look primarily at the quality of the output, without which all the rest of the nice UI doesn't much matter to me)

http://www.digitalbristles.com/on1-luminar-quick-look/

Brightontl · « **Reply #50 on:** October 24, 2017, 14:55 »

I don't understand.
I made a search and I see that Capture One is £236!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought it was a free program and still I would not understand why I should use it

Zero Talent · « **Reply #51 on:** October 24, 2017, 15:14 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 24, 2017, 14:43

I took a look at trial versions of Luminar and ON1 Photo RAW just to see how they measure up. Bottom line is that there are some nice features but both have issues for my workflow that rule them out.

More details and some samples here (not full reviews, just a quick look primarily at the quality of the output, without which all the rest of the nice UI doesn't much matter to me)

http://www.digitalbristles.com/on1-luminar-quick-look/

Jo Ann, are you sure you removed all sharpening and detail enhancements when you did these tests? I can't believe ON1 (or any Raw processor for that matter) can create that awful grainy output. If so, I agree with you it looks very bad. I'll try to check and compare how it works on Canon sensors. Maybe it is only a Fuji thing, who knows.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #52 on:** October 24, 2017, 15:16 »

If you read a bit further you'd see I did try with my 5D Mk II files and saw better results from ON1 with those (Chromatic Aberration was still a problem, but all that crunchy mess was gone). I have masses of CR2 files to test with, but I mostly care about Fuji RAW going forward and some software doesn't handle the Xtrans sensor files well

Zero Talent · « **Reply #53 on:** October 24, 2017, 15:26 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 24, 2017, 15:16

If you read a bit further you'd see I did try with my 5D Mk II files and saw better results from ON1 with those (Chromatic Aberration was still a problem, but all that crunchy mess was gone). I have masses of CR2 files to test with, but I mostly care about Fuji RAW going forward and some software doesn't handle the Xtrans sensor files well

Yes, I see that now.

Nevertheless, your C1 process shows sharpening symptoms and this is why I'm asking how much sharpening and detail enhancements you have on all these samples.
See my attached crop: it shows a clear white contour around that rock. Isn't that because of sharpening?

Those flowers on the last to C1 examples also look sharpened to me.

I'm saying that because we should only compare the RAW development capabilities. The sharpening, detail enhancement and noise reduction features are important but I would treat them separately from Raw development.

k_t_g · « **Reply #54 on:** October 24, 2017, 22:24 »

I wish there was a really great alternative to Illustrator.

And don't point me to Inkscape. The last time I tried it, some of the features did not play well with Illustrator.

Chichikov · « **Reply #55 on:** October 25, 2017, 05:50 »

Quote from: k_t_g on October 24, 2017, 22:24

I wish there was a really great alternative to Illustrator. And don't point me to Inkscape. The last time I tried it, some of the features did not play well with Illustrator.

What about Affinity Designer?
https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/

k_t_g · « **Reply #56 on:** October 25, 2017, 22:44 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 25, 2017, 05:50

Quote from: k_t_g on October 24, 2017, 22:24
I wish there was a really great alternative to Illustrator. And don't point me to Inkscape. The last time I tried it, some of the features did not play well with Illustrator.
What about Affinity Designer?
https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/

I'll check it out. Thanks a bunch.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #57 on:** October 26, 2017, 19:50 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 24, 2017, 15:16

If you read a bit further you'd see I did try with my 5D Mk II files and saw better results from ON1 with those (Chromatic Aberration was still a problem, but all that crunchy mess was gone). I have masses of CR2 files to test with, but I mostly care about Fuji RAW going forward and some software doesn't handle the Xtrans sensor files well

Jo Ann,

I compared C1 vs LR vs On1 vs DPP (with deconvolution) with no sharpening, no noise reduction and no detail enhancements.

If we are interested in comparing only the RAW development capabilities, Canon's DPP with deconvolution beats all its rivals, hands down, with crisp and contrasty renditions.

Otherwise, I find On1 sharper than LR and C1, while LR might only be marginally better than C1, after eye hurting pixel peeping, but I rather say no difference.
I also find C1 rendition a little warmer than all the other 3 versions.

See for yourself in the attached side by side comparisons (upper right corner of a photo @100% zoom).

1. C1 vs LR

Zero Talent · « **Reply #58 on:** October 26, 2017, 19:51 »

2. C1 vs On1

Zero Talent · « **Reply #59 on:** October 26, 2017, 19:51 »

3. C1 vs DPP

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #60 on:** October 26, 2017, 21:25 »

For the benefit of other people looking at your samples, you should probably say what the RAW files are. I assume Canon from the mention of DPP, but which camera?

After switching to Fuji earlier this year, it was clear that handling those RAW files provided challenges to some RAW converters, so my comparisons are inevitably going to be different from yours (or anyone else's with Sony or Nikon or ...)

I'm not sure what is the best way to make comparisons, but I think as a photographer, I want to see the best a developing program can produce and not argue about which sliders or options got me to the desired end result. I wouldn't use any RAW converter software with no enhancements, so I didn't show those samples.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #61 on:** October 26, 2017, 21:45 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 26, 2017, 21:25

For the benefit of other people looking at your samples, you should probably say what the RAW files are. I assume Canon from the mention of DPP, but which camera?

After switching to Fuji earlier this year, it was clear that handling those RAW files provided challenges to some RAW converters, so my comparisons are inevitably going to be different from yours (or anyone else's with Sony or Nikon or ...)

I'm not sure what is the best way to make comparisons, but I think as a photographer, I want to see the best a developing program can produce and not argue about which sliders or options got me to the desired end result. I wouldn't use any RAW converter software with no enhancements, so I didn't show those samples.

Sure: this photo was made with a Canon 5D Mark III and a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 II lens.

Setting those sliders to 0 is, in my opinion, a way to normalize the comparison of the "raw" RAW conversion algorithm.
When we start pushing sliders, it becomes hard to compare apples with apples, since 1 sharpness unit in C1 might be different than 1 unit in LR. It is easy to go overboard and negatively impact an image, especially when we experiment with a new tool. Even default settings might result in different absolute sharpness levels.

Setting all these sliders to zero represents the starting point, the foundation we start to build on, once we start pushing sliders.

It is a much more lengthy and tedious process to compare the sharpness algorithm, the noise reduction algorithm or clarity algorithm between different tools.
This is why, I guess, it only comes down to personal preferences, after all.

PS. Too bad only Canon is currently offering this powerful deconvolution algorithm!
I wonder if there is a patent protecting it. Or maybe the algorithm requires some proprietary, hard to be reverse engineered knowledge of the camera, lens, focal length and aperture combo.
Hopefully, future cameras will be powerful enough to perform this deconvolution, in the body, to offer this level of purity as standard RAW output.

Chichikov · « **Reply #62 on:** October 27, 2017, 10:43 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 26, 2017, 21:45

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 26, 2017, 21:25
For the benefit of other people looking at your samples, you should probably say what the RAW files are. I assume Canon from the mention of DPP, but which camera?

After switching to Fuji earlier this year, it was clear that handling those RAW files provided challenges to some RAW converters, so my comparisons are inevitably going to be different from yours (or anyone else's with Sony or Nikon or ...)

I'm not sure what is the best way to make comparisons, but I think as a photographer, I want to see the best a developing program can produce and not argue about which sliders or options got me to the desired end result. I wouldn't use any RAW converter software with no enhancements, so I didn't show those samples.

Sure: this photo was made with a Canon 5D Mark III and a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 II lens.

Setting those sliders to 0 is, in my opinion, a way to normalize the comparison of the "raw" RAW conversion algorithm.
When we start pushing sliders, it becomes hard to compare apples with apples, since 1 sharpness unit in C1 might be different than 1 unit in LR. It is easy to go overboard and negatively impact an image, especially when we experiment with a new tool. Even default settings might result in different absolute sharpness levels.

Setting all these sliders to zero represents the starting point, the foundation we start to build on, once we start pushing sliders.

It is a much more lengthy and tedious process to compare the sharpness algorithm, the noise reduction algorithm or clarity algorithm between different tools.
This is why, I guess, it only comes down to personal preferences, after all.

PS. Too bad only Canon is currently offering this powerful deconvolution algorithm!
I wonder if there is a patent protecting it. Or maybe the algorithm requires some proprietary, hard to be reverse engineered knowledge of the camera, lens, focal length and aperture combo.
Hopefully, future cameras will be powerful enough to perform this deconvolution, in the body, to offer this level of purity as standard RAW output.

Agree and disagree

Pushing the sliders is one thing, but the way the various softwares act when you push them is another thing.
Pushing a slider in the position to obtain the best result in Lightroom and pushing the corresponding slider in the position to obtain the best result in Capture one can give you very different results, best/similar/worst. Then it depends of the software and of the slider.
Some sliders can give a better absolute result in one software than in an other software, and this is what is important: the best final result that you can reach.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #63 on:** October 27, 2017, 11:34 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 27, 2017, 10:43

... this is what is important: the best final result that you can reach.

Definitely!
And "the best final result" requires a very good understanding and experience with ALL tools, to get a solid grip on all their subtleties. Some of Jo Ann's examples show over-sharpening symptoms or have the details or clarity sliders pushed too far (in my opinion) for a fair comparison.

In a way, all settings we use on top of the "zero normalization" starting point are impacting the technical image quality. For example: the sharpness slider is only creating the illusion of a more crisp image, when in fact information is lost around the edges to make the image pop. Some details are sacrificed and discarded, to emphasize other details. But the overall "best final result" looks better.

It is very likely that, starting from the specific "raw" RAW conversions, an expert in both LR and C1 will be able to achieve virtually the same "best final result", by using different values for various sliders.

Moreover, even if DPP gives the best technical raw "RAW conversion" by far, the lack of competitive features makes DPP only a curiosity, since much better "final results" can be achieved with other tools, even with inferior "raw" RAW conversion engines.

cobalt · « **Reply #64 on:** October 27, 2017, 16:46 »

I was just going to look into Lightroom, but I really don't need the cloud.

For that I have apples iphoto, I add finished files or jpgs if I want to use them across multiple devices.

I would like to have a good photo database that allows easy keyword and iptc editing and some basic image manipulation.

Would capture one and their Media database be a good alternative?

I absolutely don't want my main daily software to be subscription based. I already pay my regular share to Apple computer, that is enough.

I edit my files with old versions of Photoshop Elements, that is more than I need usually and I still have CS6 on an older computer.

For filters etc...I work with apps on my tablet or phone.

As a database programmalternative to lightroom, what would you recommend?