Adobe updates Lightroom Classic, adds a new texture slider and new Canon camera & lens support

pknight

EOS T7i
Jun 10, 2012
68
8
Are you sure? Victoria Bampton (The Lightroom Queen) wrote "perpetual licenses are all still authorized exactly as before. This change only affects subscriptions".

I wouldn't be surprised anyway if Adobe tries to take advantage of some FUD to sell more subscriptions.
This warning only applies to the subscription CC version. The perpetual Creative Suite and other stand-alone licenses are, as Victoria says, are not affected. You can use PS 6 until you die!
 

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
257
120
Your feeling is misplaced. It's not Adobe but some court that may decide that what you thought was yours legally belongs to Dolby.
Disagree. Adobe made it centrally controlled, silly perpetually you dont own this terms and possible to shut down on you aaaand they also may have used dolby"s software in violation of dolby's probably equally nasty terms (Dolby is known to be highly litigious)
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,357
746
Disagree. Adobe made it centrally controlled, silly perpetually you dont own this terms and possible to shut down on you aaaand they also may have used dolby"s software in violation of dolby's probably equally nasty terms (Dolby is known to be highly litigious)
Disagree. You never really own any software that may violate a 3rd party patent. Even if the software is written by you and you don't know about the existence of the patent.
 

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
1,967
125
Perhaps people need education about how license agreements work, and how they differ from ownership.
Well, at the very least, I think we can see a stark difference from the old days when you bought physical copies of the install media, or even downloaded it to a computer that had no requirements for it to constantly "phone home"....that once it was in your possession and used by your systems, NO company could retroactively tell you to delete it or had any control of its use on your systems....nor could they delete it.

Sure it was a license, and there were restrictions on how many systems you could use it at a time, etc..BUT, it was never even a consideration that you might HAVE to delete or stop using it. It was yours to use a long as you had a computer to use it on....ie. the perpetual license, once you bought it.

C
 
  • Like
Reactions: snappy604
Mar 28, 2019
2
0
Unless I missed it in a previous update, this also brings support for Tethering to the EOS R. It crashed twice in 5 minutes, so still buggy... but when it was working it was blazing fast! Gotta love that USB 3.0 port.
I gave it a quick test to see if it recognized the camera, which it did. Hopefully I avoid this crashing you speak of.
 

CJudge

EOS M50
Mar 22, 2019
30
36
Ireland
www.colin-judge.com
I gave it a quick test to see if it recognized the camera, which it did. Hopefully I avoid this crashing you speak of.
From what I can tell, the crashing happens if a) you disconnect your cable from the camera before closing the tether mode or turning off the camera, and b) if the camera auto-powers down due to prolonged inactivity. Otherwise, it seems to be smooth, although it takes a moment to detect the camera at the beginning of tethering.

That's my experience anyway! But I'm delighted that it's working, and hopefully support for Helicon Remote will be on the way soon too.
 

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
257
120
Disagree. You never really own any software that may violate a 3rd party patent. Even if the software is written by you and you don't know about the existence of the patent.
I understand it, disagree with it.


As a publisher yes you could be compelled to stop using it. As a buyer if it never phoned home they couldn't force you to stop using it and it wouldn't be worthwhile.

Today that is not true and it's been based on a frustrating licensing scheme software companies developed to squeeze money out of you. Imagine if your car suddenly was taken from you because of a patent dispute on the tires. It is the responsibility of the creator / manufacturer to be properly licensed, not the buyer.
 
Last edited:

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
741
108
I understand it, disagree with it.


As a publisher yes you could be compelled to stop using it. As a buyer if it never phoned home they couldn't force you to stop using it and it wouldn't be worthwhile.

Today that is not true and it's been based on a frustrating licensing scheme software companies developed to squeeze money out of you. Imagine if your car suddenly was taken from you because of a patent dispute on the tires. It is the responsibility of the creator / manufacturer to be properly licensed, not the buyer.
When you say "they" couldn't force you to stop using it, who is "they"? If software infringes someone's intellectual property, the owner of that intellectual property could stop you using it, even though you purchased a perpetual licence to use it (or, for that matter, even if you bought the software including the intellectual property in it outright) in good faith and without knowing that the software infringed someone else's intellectual property. That is the case whether the software "phones home" or not. I understand that practically it may be difficult/impractical for the intellectual property owner to find everyone using the software and stop them if the software doesn't have to phone home, but legally the situation is the same. It is not just the publisher which can be stopped from using software which infringes someone else's IP.
 

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
741
108
its always nice to see companies suing their customers.
Which company is threatening to sue its customers? As far as I know, Adobe isn't. Adobe is saying that the owner of certain intellectual property related to the Dolby technology is complaining that certain Adobe software infringes the IP, and Adobe is trying to manage that situation by making sure people use a version of Adobe's software which is not the subject of dispute.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,151
386
So do all T&C's now transfer risks to the purchaser - "we messed up but its now your problem unless you upgrade with us".
Well, you could ask Adobe to give you the upgrade required by their mistake and then sue them if they didn't do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: snappy604

Bennymiata

EOS 6D MK II
Since the update, Lightroom Classic will not allow me to export my photos.
Every time I try to export the photos I've worked on, it tells me the folder I'm trying to export to is not writeable.
I've tried lots of different folders and different drives, but it keeps telling me the folder is not writeable.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to fix it?
Adobe Help is useless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jprusa

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
453
257
Which company is threatening to sue its customers? As far as I know, Adobe isn't. Adobe is saying that the owner of certain intellectual property related to the Dolby technology is complaining that certain Adobe software infringes the IP, and Adobe is trying to manage that situation by making sure people use a version of Adobe's software which is not the subject of dispute.
As I understand it from a five minute google search, the nature of the dispute is that Dolby believes Adobe was under-reporting the number of CCloud clients using software with their IP. They had an agreement on fee-per-disk-sold but couldn't reach a fee agreement for cloud based users who might have a suite of apps. Adobe resisted an audit of their accounts by Dolby and Dolby subsequently accused Adobe of acting in bad faith and sued. Adobe has since written the Dolby code out of their current apps and is trying to limit their exposure to a big settlement by forcing everyone to stop using the Dolby included apps. Let's not pretend they are worried about their customers getting sued. They are worried about the extent of the damages they might face in a settlement since they would be knowingly collecting monthly fees on software with Dolby IP without an agreement with Dolby to do so.

So, as a result of their inability to work this out amicably, customers who require an older version of CC software (my 2008 mac pro print server?) can no longer use it. Plenty of blame to go around.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,524
753
So, as a result of their inability to work this out amicably, customers who require an older version of CC software (my 2008 mac pro print server?) can no longer use it. Plenty of blame to go around.
Here is a link that provides some answers including how to get a complient version for those who cannot run the latest CC. It also clarifies many of the false information going around, due to the poo communications from Adobe.

 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
453
257
Here is a link that provides some answers including how to get a complient version for those who cannot run the latest CC. It also clarifies many of the false information going around, due to the poo communications from Adobe.

Thanks MSP. I read that. I think I'll keep the print server from phoning home to Adobe for a bit while I sort it out. I may be OK. I like printing directly from Photoshop but maybe it's time to take another look at my workflow. I run an older version of OSX on that box and I'm not sure it's worth the effort of rebuilding the system just for Photoshop.

It's easy for web commentators to say everyone should just update but many long time Adobe App users have legacy hardware and software that can make that difficult to impossible. I have firewire audio interfaces that only run on that system. Adobe and Dolby should have found a way to sort this out IMO.
 
Last edited:

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
257
120
When you say "they" couldn't force you to stop using it, who is "they"? If software infringes someone's intellectual property, the owner of that intellectual property could stop you using it, even though you purchased a perpetual licence to use it (or, for that matter, even if you bought the software including the intellectual property in it outright) in good faith and without knowing that the software infringed someone else's intellectual property. That is the case whether the software "phones home" or not. I understand that practically it may be difficult/impractical for the intellectual property owner to find everyone using the software and stop them if the software doesn't have to phone home, but legally the situation is the same. It is not just the publisher which can be stopped from using software which infringes someone else's IP.
Adobe did the alleged infringing, not the customer and it can be fixed by adobe paying the licensing. You dont accidentally include a bunch of code of that complexity without being aware of the consequences. Adobe should be penalized, not the customer. Adobe can and should correct the infringement at their own cost, not try to save themselves at the cost of their customers.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,524
753
Adobe did the alleged infringing, not the customer and it can be fixed by adobe paying the licensing. You dont accidentally include a bunch of code of that complexity without being aware of the consequences. Adobe should be penalized, not the customer. Adobe can and should correct the infringement at their own cost, not try to save themselves at the cost of their customers.
The arguement is about the count of Adobe CC subscribers using the licensed Dolby software, check into it and you will see that assumptions being posted are way off. Dolby wanted to go thru Adobe's records and Adobe refused and wrote them out of current software.
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,999
1,354
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Here is a link that provides some answers including how to get a complient version for those who cannot run the latest CC. It also clarifies many of the false information going around, due to the poo communications from Adobe.

Thanks Mt. Spokane for doing some added research into this. Unfortunately, I suspect the Adobe haters will continue to spread fake news. But, those who care about the facts and fairness will be able to see that this is more complex than portrayed on this forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee