Lightroom 7 rumor

[Talys]

Honestly, I don't know what all the griping about Lightroom as a subscription service is. $120 a year for 2 copies of LR + PS is a great (or at least very fair) price, and LR does get meaningful updates here and there. If you end up not using it much, just cancel the subscription on the next renewal and use some other RAW converter; there are plenty, and for Canon, you can always fall back to DPP, which is certainly usable.

 

[privatebydesign]

I use currently the 5.7 and I didnt switch to the subscription model and I will never switch to it.
If there is no LR7 as an update, I stay with 5.7. I don't plan to buy a new camera, where I might be forced to do something, maybe in 3 years...

Convert to DNG and everything is fine. I use LR 5.7 and Photoshop CS5. Conversion is done with the Adobe DNG-Converter. Of course, the ARC of CS5 does not handle the RAW-Files of new Cameras, but this is no Problem. After DNG-Conversion there is no difference to my "old" *.CR2-Files.

And this is one of the reasons I get so pissed at people getting mad at Adobe for what they do.

What other company makes and fully supports an entirely free program who's main use is enabling users to not upgrade their software?

 

[Orangutan]

To be clear: I want LR to remain standalone, and to take on some additional PS features

I am fed up of the noisy tail wagging the dog

Maybe it's not. Maybe most of the revenue is from amateurs. Or maybe it doesn't matter to Adoabe -- revenue is revenue.

they should free themselves of the noisy minority

Again, that's a large assumption.

see the value in the products and options Adobe give.

I do see value...in PSCS6. Beyond that, not much. I'd stick with LR6 if I could just get raw support for it.

Adobe has to be careful: it's much too easy for an amateur-oriented competitor to grow up fast and take away market share.

 

[Orangutan]

I use currently the 5.7 and I didnt switch to the subscription model and I will never switch to it.
If there is no LR7 as an update, I stay with 5.7. I don't plan to buy a new camera, where I might be forced to do something, maybe in 3 years...

Convert to DNG and everything is fine. I use LR 5.7 and Photoshop CS5. Conversion is done with the Adobe DNG-Converter. Of course, the ARC of CS5 does not handle the RAW-Files of new Cameras, but this is no Problem. After DNG-Conversion there is no difference to my "old" *.CR2-Files.

And this is one of the reasons I get so pissed at people getting mad at Adobe for what they do.

What other company makes and fully supports an entirely free program who's main use is enabling users to not upgrade their software?

DNG is an open standard, I'm sure the camera manufacturers would do so if Adobe didn't. Anyway, it was a small piece of sugar to give customers time to make transitions to new software versions. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were to discontinue it in the next year. I'm not counting on it to be available forever. Even so, I don't relish the thought of doubling my storage needs for CR2 + RAW.

 

[privatebydesign]

To be clear: I want LR to remain standalone, and to take on some additional PS features

I am fed up of the noisy tail wagging the dog

1/ Maybe it's not. Maybe most of the revenue is from amateurs. Or maybe it doesn't matter to Adoabe -- revenue is revenue.

they should free themselves of the noisy minority

2/ Again, that's a large assumption.

see the value in the products and options Adobe give.

3/ I do see value...in PSCS6. Beyond that, not much. 3b/ I'd stick with LR6 if I could just get raw support for it.

4/ Adobe has to be careful: it's much too easy for an amateur-oriented competitor to grow up fast and take away market share.

1/ No, Adobe have released the numbers several times, amateurs/non subscription customers customers are a relatively small percentage of income.

2/ No, the only people I hear go on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how terrible Adobe are are the people who "won't be held hostage" and "won't ever 'rent' software" etc etc. Sure there are lots of points raised by subscription users, but the noise comes from the 'perpetual license' crowd.

3/ That's because you don't use the newer tools every single day, if you did you'd see the cross platform work they have done. LR Mobile is a killer tool, synced Collections non Adobe (customers) can access and give feedback on is an amazing time saver. Heck simple things like a reference image in the Develop module saves hours of time getting images in a series balanced. Brush adjustments included on the gradient filter, dehaze, etc etc.

It's too easy to say I don't need this or that feature and not see the gradual improvements in each program and the cross platform inter operability they have made. I am no Adobe apologist, but they do keep improving the products and if they address the performance issues we now have running so many more images with ever larger pixel numbers they are doing pretty well for me.

3b/ They do give you RAW support, via the entirely free and fully supported DNG Convertor. And you moan about "doubling your storage space".... Good god!

4/ I don't care if they get competition, you will though, because any time any company gets close to Adobe they will realize the only way they can balance the books for ever developing software is a subscription model. No company can survive the fickle nature of periodic upgraders who will skip this generation or two because they 'don't see the value'.

 

[Orangutan]

1/ No, Adobe have released the numbers several times, amateurs/non subscription customers customers are a relatively small percentage of income.

If you have a link to that info handy I'd be interested to see them. Thanks.

BTW, I don't claim that your point of view is wrong, only that it's not the only valid one.

 

[privatebydesign]

DNG is an open standard, I'm sure the camera manufacturers would do so if Adobe didn't.

it is an open standard developed and paid for by whom? Adobe.

The camera manufacturers don't give a damn about software, let alone how you can use your old cameras with your new RAW rendering engine, get real! DPP keeps dropping then getting back support for no end of 'legacy' cameras.

 

[Orangutan]

DNG is an open standard, I'm sure the camera manufacturers would do so if Adobe didn't.

it is an open standard developed and paid for by whom? Adobe.

"DNG is based on the TIFF/EP standard format" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative) If memory serves, they did it largely for their own benefit, hoping to create an industry-standard raw format. Nothing wrong with that, but I won't give them more credit than is due.

The camera manufacturers don't give a damn about software, let alone how you can use your old cameras with your new RAW rendering engine, get real! DPP keeps dropping then getting back support for no end of 'legacy' cameras.

Why the anger? I'm an amateur expressing my preference, I've done you no harm. If Adobe hasn't given you what you want it's not my fault, just as I don't blame subscribers for destroying the perpetual license model that I prefer. I've said before (check my post history if you doubt) that subscription is fine for pros like you, bad for amateurs. If you're correct that the vast majority are pros then it makes (financial) sense that they ignore amateurs. I find those numbers a little hard to believe, just as I would find it hard to believe that most U.S. pickup truck sales are for business use.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

...As long as LR7 is available as standalone version.

Hopefully! It better be compatible with Win 7. It cost me about $1500 to upgrade my PC from Win XP last time. I don't have issues with LR6, so LR7 would have to be a radical improvement and added features for me to bite. The only pisser about LR6 was I couldn't get time lapse to work.

 

[IglooEater]

If I lease that $700 lens/software/capital expense then my monthly payment is 100% deductible that year, I don't have to find the $700 and I don't have to effectively loan myself anything.

Can you seriously not deduct a $700 purchase? I don't have to amortize anything below $1,000 here. I guess our tax laws in Quebec are pretty reasonable after all...

No. If it is a capital purchase, even if it is a $1, it takes between three and ten years depending on it's classification to amortize.

Even so, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around spending MORE money to get a deductible sooner being better for the business. Deducting something reduces your effective reported income by the amount, but the money it saves in the end is only the taxes on the amount, its not equivalent to the amount itself.

A business that actually saves money on this must have an unbelievably high tax rate, or is running on ridiculously thin margins to make having more money now and less over long run somehow worth it.

I think big businesses like it because it spreads the cost evenly over time. (Who care what the business looks like in five years these days. We've got to have a great report to the stock holders this quarter!)

The slight increase in cost is chump change to a large business, and the evening of expenses over time is priceless. I'm sure they're happy to pay a bit more for it.

I for one do understand. I would totally consider renting all my gear if I were in private's situation. I hate amortization, i hate it. I can't stand the state charging me taxes on money I've already spent. I'd pay a deal more were it just to give the finger to the state. It goes without saying that if I have to increase my credit margin to keep operating, I might as well pay more long term to pay less interest.

 

[IglooEater]

My business is registered in Florida.

As for C1P, I have heard so many good things about it, but every single time I have seen a demo it crashes. When you ask the power users about the crashes they just shrug and say 'yeh it crashes', I don't get that!

But the two programs are so different they suit, or not, users with different styles. If you are one that suits the C1P workflow it seems to have a lot of fans.

Hmm well that's kind of nice to know... thank Private. It certainly corresponds to my style better, but to hear it crashes puts a chill in my bones.

 

[IglooEater]

I use currently the 5.7 and I didnt switch to the subscription model and I will never switch to it.
If there is no LR7 as an update, I stay with 5.7. I don't plan to buy a new camera, where I might be forced to do something, maybe in 3 years...

Convert to DNG and everything is fine. I use LR 5.7 and Photoshop CS5. Conversion is done with the Adobe DNG-Converter. Of course, the ARC of CS5 does not handle the RAW-Files of new Cameras, but this is no Problem. After DNG-Conversion there is no difference to my "old" *.CR2-Files.

And this is one of the reasons I get so pissed at people getting mad at Adobe for what they do.

What other company makes and fully supports an entirely free program who's main use is enabling users to not upgrade their software?

While I happen to be on the other side of the fence from you, that's a very fair point.

 

[Chaitanya]

THey'd better work on performance. I had my month trial of C1P, and it is lickety split on my old machine when compared to LR. I'm very seriously on the fence in regards to C1P. It could save me the cost of a new laptop for a few more years yet.

Same feeling, I went from Lr4 to 6 and the performance and stability were terrible. After trying On1, I must say the LR felt slow like a snail. As long as the LR7 is step forward in terms of performance I don't mind upgrading from LR6.

 

[Lee Jay]

Honestly, I don't know what all the griping about Lightroom as a subscription service is. $120 a year for 2 copies of LR + PS is a great (or at least very fair) price, and LR does get meaningful updates here and there.

I'll tell you what - I don't use PS - at all. It's just not necessary for basically anything outside of multi-image manual compositing, which I do something like 1 in 20,000 images. And PS is such a pain to use now that it's all for graphic artists that I actually prefer to use Elements for that instead. And $120 a year for just LR is a ripoff compared to an $89 upgrade every 2 years or so.

 

[RGF]

I have two big issues with LR and they are:
1. Slow import. If I have a lot of pictures to import I use Photo Mechanic which is wonderful. Many pros use this software because of the import speed and ability to add tags that comply with many publisher standards
2. Lack of improvements that are in PS that many photographers are forced to use both LR and PS. We are paying for both so the lack of porting these functions into LR is not a revenue issue for Adobe.

If the post is right about the next version of LR, the update will do little for me and to me it shows that Adobe is not close to their LR customer base. They could solve one of these issues rather easily by buying photo mechanic and integrating it into LR and PS.
Bp

Let me add a third issue.

Auto stacking sucks. It is based upon the difference in start time between 2 images - does not take into account the exposure time of the 1st image.

There needs be a smart stacking option.

HDR smart stacking
- Looks at the exposure settings, only change in the shutter speed, not both shutter speed and f stop.
- need to be taken in rapid succession (look at the end of 1 exposure and start of the next)
- ideally tries a quick alignment to confirm images should be stacked
- tracks the exposure of all the images in the stack to make sure HDR exposure series should not be repeated

Panoramic smart stacking
- looks at the exposure settings, no change in shutter speed or f-stop
- needs to be taken in rapid successive (look at the end of 1 exposure and start of the next)
- ideally tries a quick alignment to confirm images should be stacked

Just some thought starters

 

[CanonCams]

HDR smart stacking
- Looks at the exposure settings, only change in the shutter speed, not both shutter speed and f stop.
- need to be taken in rapid succession (look at the end of 1 exposure and start of the next)
- ideally tries a quick alignment to confirm images should be stacked
- tracks the exposure of all the images in the stack to make sure HDR exposure series should not be repeated

Do any programs do that?

 

[Jopa]

If I lease that $700 lens/software/capital expense then my monthly payment is 100% deductible that year, I don't have to find the $700 and I don't have to effectively loan myself anything.

Can you seriously not deduct a $700 purchase? I don't have to amortize anything below $1,000 here. I guess our tax laws in Quebec are pretty reasonable after all...

No. If it is a capital purchase, even if it is a $1, it takes between three and ten years depending on it's classification to amortize.

That makes me want to cry... curious where you're from?

My business is registered in Florida.

As for C1P, I have heard so many good things about it, but every single time I have seen a demo it crashes. When you ask the power users about the crashes they just shrug and say 'yeh it crashes', I don't get that!

But the two programs are so different they suit, or not, users with different styles. If you are one that suits the C1P workflow it seems to have a lot of fans.

Do you have a web site?

 

[Berowne]

I use currently the 5.7 and I didnt switch to the subscription model and I will never switch to it.
If there is no LR7 as an update, I stay with 5.7. I don't plan to buy a new camera, where I might be forced to do something, maybe in 3 years...

Convert to DNG and everything is fine. I use LR 5.7 and Photoshop CS5. Conversion is done with the Adobe DNG-Converter. Of course, the ARC of CS5 does not handle the RAW-Files of new Cameras, but this is no Problem. After DNG-Conversion there is no difference to my "old" *.CR2-Files.

And this is one of the reasons I get so pissed at people getting mad at Adobe for what they do.

What other company makes and fully supports an entirely free program who's main use is enabling users to not upgrade their software?

DNG is an open standard, I'm sure the camera manufacturers would do so if Adobe didn't. Anyway, it was a small piece of sugar to give customers time to make transitions to new software versions. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were to discontinue it in the next year. I'm not counting on it to be available forever. Even so, I don't relish the thought of doubling my storage needs for CR2 + RAW.

There is no Need for doubling. Just delete the CR2-Files after conversion.

 

[SteveM]

I wouldn't delete the Cr2 files as you never know what the future holds....put them on an external if necessary.
I spoke to capture one some months ago and they tell me that noise and color/tonal issues could (might or might not) be introduced with dng files when using Capture One software, maybe this could apply to other software from other manufacturers?
Using CS6, my 5D MklV isn't supported so I shoot the CR2 and a small jpeg for viewing purposes only in Adobe. I'll then process the CR2 in Capture One and export to Photoshop if necessary. This is getting less and less necessary as the Raw converters do a lot. Retouching is one obvious exception.
I deleted some CR2 files after converting to dng several years ago and I seriously regret doing that now.

 

[Lee Jay]

I wouldn't delete the Cr2 files as you never know what the future holds....put them on an external if necessary.
I spoke to capture one some months ago and they tell me that noise and color/tonal issues could be introduced with dng files.

They're liars. The data is not changed when converting raw to dng unless you choose to go to lossy dng.