Adobe Turns Lightroom CC Into a New Cloud Photography Service

[tech4all]

Am I understanding this properly...? The new Lightroom CC only allows you to store your photos and library/catalog on the cloud and no option for local storage?

They're making money hand over fist, why in the world would they choose to do that and decrease the money.

From a business perspective, subscriptions make sense. However personally, I do not like the that idea of subscriptions being the only way to "buy" software. Once you stop paying the subscription, you no longer have access to the software, and are no longer able to open your files (including design software like Photoshop, illustrator, InDesign, etc.). And considering how well the Creative Cloud is doing, from what I've heard, I don't think perpetual licensees are coming back anytime soon.

 

[jennyp]

Am I understanding this properly...? The new Lightroom CC only allows you to store your photos and library/catalog on the cloud and no option for local storage?

Lightroom CC yes, but the Lightroom "Classic" app is desktop/Mac-based as before.

 

[rocknblogger]

What happens if you need more than 1TB of storage? Do they follow the old iTunes Match model and basically you can't use their stuff.
[doublepost=1508332978][/doublepost]

With the name "Classic" I wonder for how much longer.

You can add more storage if you need it. I haven't checked out pricing yet but 1TB is a great start to include in the plan.
[doublepost=1508366276][/doublepost]

Been a paying customer since Lightroom 2, 3, 4, and 5. Didn’t even upgrade to 6 since I don’t see any new features being worth the price. But the problem is the RAW support for future cameras. It is annoying that every new camera needs an updated software to support it.

The key question here, is there another application that can substitute Lightroom on the desktop? Aperture was the option but it’s no more.

Note that Lightroom is not the same as Photoshop. There are plenty of Photoshop alternatives, but I don’t see any for Lightroom. If Adobe offered a Lightroom only subscription for like $5 a month, then I will bite. Don’t want to pay for Photoshop that I never use (and plenty of substitutes).

Photoshop stand-alone cost a lot of money, thus the subscription offer looks cheaper. Lightroom retail is less than $150, (less for upgrade), and if I don’t use any new cameras, I don’t see the need to upgrade. The subscription option for me becomes more expensive.

You can try ACDsee which is a Lightroom alternative and for better and faster import you can use PhotoMechanic. There's a bit of a learning curve but it's well worth it for especially if you want to get rid of Adobe products. PhotoMechanic is not cheap but worth every penny if you import a lot of photos. It's faster than anything else I've tried.

And to be clear I still use Lightroom but I use PhotoMechanic for all of my imports unless it's only 10-20 photos I'm importing. It's really a fantastic tool.
[doublepost=1508366521][/doublepost]

Given their continual focus on the mobile market and the cloud, I am wondering how long LR will be something that fits my needs. Yes they updated the "classic" lightroom,but it seems they'll be focusing their attention on the non-classic app more then the traditional LR application

I'll tell you what, Lightroom web is extremely impressive. I was very skeptical until I tried it a little earlier today and I was very impressed. I dare say it works as good if not better than the desktop version. It's fast and pretty lean but it still has all the same editing and processing tools and features. Very impressive!!

 

[dan9700]

2 things to note WHY isnt there Macbook Touch Bar support in either like photoshop big let down, and ive been testing both today and Classic CC still mucks up scrolling thru pics like takes a while to re acpect ratio and this is one maxed out 2017 macbook pro so thought that would be fixed, like clicking right arrow and scrolling thru pics doesnt smoothly go thru them like lightroom CC but yeah i like to edit albums then save and delete not back up to cloud, and with CC you only have small and full size export cant do 50% hmmm

 

[rocknblogger]

But for how long. If I’m paying a subscription I want to see regular updates. I also would burn through data caps way too fast if everything was stored in the cloud. Anyone have ideas of a good alternative to Lightroom? Preferably without a subscription.

See my comment above

 

[ErikGrim]

Check out Affinity Photo from Serif. I believe they have a trial version so you can check out whether it does what you need. It satisfies all my pixel editing needs. I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff PS does that Affinity Photo doesn't, but I've been really happy with the product.

I’ve been a Photoshop user since 1.0 and I am extremely impressed with Affinity Photo. It’s the first true Photoshop replacement and it sings on an iPad Pro.

 

[shaunp]

adobe needs to stop their subscription madness

Why? It's cheap and I get a copy of Photoshop with the subscription all for the price of 2 beers in London. Actually I take that back, I've often paid more than the LR + PS subscription price for two beers.
[doublepost=1508369137][/doublepost]

Been a paying customer since Lightroom 2, 3, 4, and 5. Didn’t even upgrade to 6 since I don’t see any new features being worth the price. But the problem is the RAW support for future cameras. It is annoying that every new camera needs an updated software to support it.

The key question here, is there another application that can substitute Lightroom on the desktop? Aperture was the option but it’s no more.

Note that Lightroom is not the same as Photoshop. There are plenty of Photoshop alternatives, but I don’t see any for Lightroom. If Adobe offered a Lightroom only subscription for like $5 a month, then I will bite. Don’t want to pay for Photoshop that I never use (and plenty of substitutes).

Photoshop stand-alone cost a lot of money, thus the subscription offer looks cheaper. Lightroom retail is less than $150, (less for upgrade), and if I don’t use any new cameras, I don’t see the need to upgrade. The subscription option for me becomes more expensive.

Try darktable - http://www.darktable.org/ Runs on Mac and Linux, and there's an alpha release for Windows too.

Or if you want a paid for version try Capture One

 

[roguedaemon]

You'd rather pay $600 up front like the old days than pay $600 over 5 years and get every update included along the way? I'll have what you're smoking!

Mate I bought Lightroom 6 stand-alone a year ago. It cost me AUD$150.
To get the Lightroom CC bundle for just ONE year, I’d have to pay AUD$180!!

Subscriptions services are hot trash unless you’re a student who needs to use it for a short time. But for any extended period of time, it’s a hard pass from me!
[doublepost=1508369774][/doublepost]

I’ve been a Photoshop user since 1.0 and I am extremely impressed with Affinity Photo. It’s the first true Photoshop replacement and it sings on an iPad Pro.

I really wish Affinity photo had library management features like Lightroom and Aperture, would make me instantly switch without a second thought!

 

[ErikGrim]

I really wish Affinity photo had library management features like Lightroom and Aperture, would make me instantly switch without a second thought!

It’s a Photoshop replacement, not a Lightroom/Aperture replacement

 

[tech4all]

Lightroom CC yes, but the Lightroom "Classic" app is desktop/Mac-based as before.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Dan From Canada]

I have been using Photoshop since the early nineties and am seriously looking for another program to edit my photos with.

Adobe has gone subscription crazy with their products to maximize profit at the expense of us who just want to BUY the program and update when we choose to.

Goodbye Adobe.
[doublepost=1508372713][/doublepost]

Deduct it as a business expense.

The only possible way to complain is if someone is a software pirate who doesn't earn money from it. In that case feel free to keep using a torrent copy of CS6 (with trojans included) and telling the world how amazeballs it is.

Oh brother, fear mongering or what?

Because I choose NOT to subscribe but prefer to buy my software I am a pirate?

Feel free to spread all the disinformation and fear that you like because none of it is true and people can see right through it.

 

[maflynn]

I'll tell you what, Lightroom web is extremely impressive.

It could be impressive, but I'm not willing to spend 20 dollars a month for it
[doublepost=1508373304][/doublepost]

However personally, I do not like the that idea of subscriptions being the only way to "buy" software.

I agree completely, I'm not a fan of them, I was pointing out how those companies are raking in the cash because of them.

 

[jettredmont]

So basically, $10/month per terabyte, no matter how many you need.

That's actually not too bad given current online storage rates, right in line with what Google Drive has been offering since 2014, although less storage for each $10 than what Apple offers in iCloud (2TB/$9.99). However, we'll have to see if Adobe brings their rates down (or more likely, quotas up) as other cloud storage providers do.

Edit: Also note that a longtime request from real photographers - a way to subscribe to just Lightroom, no PS - was also added. Essentially, for $10/month you get the 1TB of photo storage and Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic CC and all the mobile junk free. I'm not sure if I'll do that or not (I don't use Photoshop very often, but when I do it is a nice thing to have available), but this does seem to be an instance of Adobe listening to its customers on an issue.

IMHO, I'm pretty tempted with the offer to use this. Gives me more peace of mind by putting my photos into an offsite backup immediately and while I am working on them, and for the next year only $5 more per month (going up to $10 more per month at the end of 2018).

At the same time I absolutely hate how Adobe appears to have screwed the pooch on this announcement. I currently see an update to Photoshop, Lightroom CC (which had always been there), and Lightroom Classic CC (which is new, but really the old Lightroom CC with some upgrades). If the only difference between Lightroom CC (the new one) and Lightroom Classic CC is the cloud and stuff that that enables (object identification etc), I don't see why you would want it on the $10/month Photography plan with only 20GB of storage. Am I just installing a big ad for the more expensive service?

And which of the advertised features are in Lightroom Classic CC, and which require Lightroom CC? The web site is a total f*cking mess. The only thing I could find was a one-sheet of "new features" in Lightroom Classic that is at a uselessly high level ("Better performance" ... okay ...).

I'll be installing these on my photography iMac when I get home. We'll see what they look like at that point.

 

[rocknblogger]

It could be impressive, but I'm not willing to spend 20 dollars a month for it
[doublepost=1508373304][/doublepost]
I agree completely, I'm not a fan of them, I was pointing out how those companies are raking in the cash because of them.

I don't blame you. Subscriptions are not for everyone especially if you're not using it as part of your income.
You can however now subscribe to Lightroom only for $9.99 per month which includes the 1TB of storage and the new Lightroom CC which is the web version. You can also get the current $9.99 subscription that includes the new Lightroom CC (web), desktop Lightroom and Photoshop with 20GBs of storage. Or $19.99 that includes everything plus the 1TB of storage. So there really are more options than there were before.

 

[jettredmont]

Please read again my post.

I am not talking about the Classic Lightroom - I am talking about the new Lightroom CC with cloud storage.
[doublepost=1508344218][/doublepost]
Same to you.

Please read again my post.
I am mentioning Lightroom CC not Lightroom Classic.

I'll need to delve into the organization a bit more, but I see the same by-date organization Lightroom always defaults to, although that is metadata-driven so no dividing the events in a day up in that area. There is also the "Albums" area, but I hate the thought of needing to replicate the date->event hierarchy in Albums too. Importing photos is absolutely anemic for anyone familiar with Lightroom: no chance to apply presets, copyrights, etc.

I don't know. I think kissmo is 100% correct: this app is not intended for professional or even avid prosumer use yet. "Yet" is likely the operative word.
[doublepost=1508376534][/doublepost]

So, say I get the new Lightroom CC, my photos are uploaded to the cloud and say next year I choose to leave the platform. It would seem to me, that downloading large libraries nearing the 1TB mark, would be excessive. I'm not sure I want my library solely in the cloud. It basically locks me into using LR perpetually.

No, the cloud is the backup. You also store your photos locally, and edits get synced down locally as well.
[doublepost=1508377424][/doublepost]

This is VERY true for me as well. I have well over 100K images, all key-worded, categorized, put in collections etc. etc. I do editing, a fair amount of it, but a DAM is what I use and need more than anything.

While I've been using CC since the beginning, what I would really like to see is the ability to drop PS from the plan and either get more storage, or reduce the monthly cost. Even for some of the more advanced stuff I occasionally do, Lightroom does more than I ever need for editing and I admit it is the best DAM I've ever used, and I migrated from Aperture when that went defunct.

Agree completely on the first point. Consumers need DAM far more than pros, which is why software like CaptureONE et al are not useful to people with large family photo libraries. Seriously, go in a pro photographer forum and ask about locating or especially re-editing a photo from three years ago and they'll just give you blank (virtual) stares. A pro would never re-edit a photo from three years ago; that customer has already paid and moved on!

Anyway, on the second point, you are in luck. Adobe has two versions of the Photography plan - the same as before with 20GB of storage, Lightroom, and Photoshop; and a new one with just Lightroom but 1TB of storage. Both are $9.99/month. So, you can drop Photoshop and get more cloud storage instead.

Of course, as others have mentioned, while this is in line with Google Drive, that is definitely the "expensive" end of cloud storage. Apple's storage is half the cost, as is Amazon's (no more Unlimited Photos plan available). And, if you are an Amazon Prime subscriber anyway, you get "Unlimited Photos" (which does appear to include RAW files) for free with that subscription (thankfully someone above mentioned this; I'm going to have to see about backing up to Amazon now ...)

The more I see of the Lightroom CC "Cloud" stuff the less impressed I am. Seems very not-ready-for-primetime. I'm leaning back to sticking with the $10/mo Lightroom+Photoshop plan.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

That's the end of Lightroom then.
Glad all my edits are stuck in some proprietary databases that's being EOL'd so Adobe can chase a new revenue stream.

Guess how much $ Adobe will be getting from us in the future.

 

[deeddawg]

So there really are more options than there were before.

Yes, there are more options now than there were. Though if you don't like sauerkraut to begin with, having someone offer you three different variations of the dish really doesn't do anything for you.

As a consumer, I simply dislike SaaS and much prefer perpetual licensing models. Sufficiently so that I've already moved to an alternative product for my former Photoshop needs and have remained on LR6 standalone since Aperture went EOL. I will continue to use LR6 and look for an appropriate alternative, such as the potential DAM from Serif that we may see in mid 2018. As I have the standalone LR6 and don't anticipate any new camera body purchases in the next year, I have a bit of runway to work with.

 

[verniesgarden]

my big grip is that you can't seem to upgrade the storage if you have the full CC suite, it wants to "upgrade" you to a photography only plan... am i missing something?

 

[tech4all]

my big grip is that you can't seem to upgrade the storage if you have the full CC suite, it wants to "upgrade" you to a photography only plan... am i missing something?

The way I understand is that if you get "all apps," you get 100GB of cloud storage, which I assume includes the storage for Lightroom CC. To get more cloud storage, you have to "upgrade" to either the Photography or Lightroom CC 1TB plan. So if you need "all apps," you're stuck with 100GB of cloud storage? Or can you buy more storage if you're a Creative Cloud subscriber?

 

[verniesgarden]

The way I understand is that if you get "all apps," you get 100GB of cloud storage, which I assume includes the storage for Lightroom CC. To get more cloud storage, you have to "upgrade" to either the Photography or Lightroom CC 1TB plan. So if you need "all apps," you're stuck with 100GB of cloud storage? Or can you buy more storage if you're a Creative Cloud subscriber?

so far it's looking like if you have all the apps you are stuck at 100gb for photos and another 20gb just for your CC library. I'm planning to call customer service in the morning.

Really wish they'd provided the full suite subscribers with 1tb or least the option to get more.

 

[tech4all]

so far it's looking like if you have all the apps you are stuck at 100gb for photos and another 20gb just for your CC library. I'm planning to call customer service in the morning.

Really wish they'd provided the full suite subscribers with 1tb or least the option to get more.

Wow, it's almost like Adobe is saying once you use up your allotted space for Lightroom CC you can't more photos. Unless you can somehow download the photos and catalog locally to make more space, but that seems such as a hassle. Hopefully this is not the case. This is too much dependency on the "cloud" IMO. The options is nice for syncing, but don't take away local storage.

 

[verniesgarden]

Wow, it's almost like Adobe is saying once you use up your allotted space for Lightroom CC you can't more photos. Unless you can somehow download the photos and catalog locally to make more space, but that seems such as a hassle. Hopefully this is not the case. This is too much dependency on the "cloud" IMO. The options is nice for syncing, but don't take away local storage.

it's pretty frustrating, i appreciate the 100gb as opposed to 20, but let me pay for more if i need it.

 

[Doc C]

So much of this is above my head....
I went through the comments hoping to get some ideas but I’m not sure if I am more informed or more confused...

For the family that has multiple people taking pics with multiple devices, what is a good way to organize and store the pics? We don’t edit each pic, but rather, our habit has been to wait until we need a pic for something (a printed album, or whatever) then do just a bit of basic editing. Weirdly enough, Picassa seemed to work as we could search by date or by a particular person. Editing wasn’t great but the editor (me) is relatively incompetent with this stuff so lack of power features was probably a benefit.

Everything I look at now seems to either overkill, or not quite enough. We tried apple photos but while the face recognition was helpful, the way it forces you to organize things just didn’t work for us.
Is it worth looking at Lightroom again, or is there an alternative to consider?
I’d prefer not to have to spend hundreds of dollars, but if it will do what we need then I’m willing to reconsider.

 

[Chancha]

Or if you have a really crap ISP and bandwidth. If you live in rural USA, that is your lot. I have 300Mbs connection in my home. Go just 3 miles from my house and satellite is your only option, along with its data caps and weather sensitivity.

I am now in Hong Kong, having a 1000MBps optic fibre plan, frequently managed to get 100MByte/s+ using services like Google Drive, so I know my connection is not a bottleneck and in fact it is more than good.

However: This morning seeing the new Lightroom CC updates I immediately downloaded and tested it (I am a paying customer for the basic photography plan). And I can only get 2MByte/s upload speed to Adobe server while syncing inside the new LR CC. I cannot imagine managing my photo library with such dog speed, last time I checked they totaled about 10TBytes, mostly D800 36MP RAWs and even some Pentax 645 RAWs.

I just don't see the new CC being ready for any meaningful workflow, it is almost still at beta stage judging from this server speed and also the lack of features (no curves, cannot print, are you serious?). Adobe seems fully committed to the instagram millennials "content creator" crowd on top list.

 

[Analog Kid]

Timing on this couldn't be better. I'm reaching the end of my Capture One trial and it's not Aperture. The image editing is on a par, but the DAM capabilities are limited. It can't handle big libraries like Aperture does.

I've been thinking that avoiding Lightroom might have been guilt by association. I've not moved to Adobe's Creative Cloud because I find subscriptions to be reprehensible, but Lightroom had been maintaining a stand alone version...

Glad I didn't jump in.

And to those arguing that the only argument against subscription is piracy: find a different straw man, this one won't stand.