Will Lightroom 6 write CRAW for new 6d2?

[LDS]

Anyone know? I'd hate to be foreced onto the Adobe Cloud subscription service for buying a 6D2. And I am not prepared to use a work-around.

It has been explained over and over: the current release of LR gets support for new cameras RAW formats (unless they require wholly new support like Dual Pixel RAW) and lenses profiles, plus bug fixes, regardless if perpetual or subscription. Only the subscription gets new application features.

Older releases don't get nor cameras nor lenses updates anymore.

The current perpetual release is LR6.

Thereby, unless a new release is imminent, expect support for the 6DII and 200D in the next update, Adobe can't release then until models are officially available.

 

[jprusa]

Anyone know? I'd hate to be foreced onto the Adobe Cloud subscription service for buying a 6D2. And I am not prepared to use a work-around.

Just received update for Sony A9 a week or so ago, can't see why they would stop on a long awaited 6d2, but they will stop sometime but I would guess after you can't purchase it anymore.

 

[Antono Refa]

The current perpetual release is LR6.

If the previous perpetual release was indeed perpetual, wouldn't it be current as well?

 

[BillB]

The current perpetual release is LR6.

If the previous perpetual release was indeed perpetual, wouldn't it be current as well?

yes

 

[BillB]

Anyone know? I'd hate to be foreced onto the Adobe Cloud subscription service for buying a 6D2. And I am not prepared to use a work-around.

Just received update for Sony A9 a week or so ago, can't see why they would stop on a long awaited 6d2, but they will stop sometime but I would guess after you can't purchase it anymore.

For what it is worth, LR6 is still on sale at Amazon, either disc or download

 

[LDS]

The current perpetual release is LR6.

If the previous perpetual release was indeed perpetual, wouldn't it be current as well?

Perpetual refers to the license, not the release. Lightroom is sold under two different licenses.

Perpetual means the license doesn't expire, unlike CC which stops working, but read-only access, if the license is not renewed. You can still install, activate and use older releases under a perpetual license (as long the OS can run them, of course).

Both licenses have a current release, and older, non current, ones.

 

[daphins]

I see that quite differently.

Yep, I'm sure you do.

But it really isn't meaningfully different in any significant way.

In all cases, you've only got the "service" you're paying for while you continue paying for it.

Exactly the same as Creative Cloud.

It might feel different, because with the old Adobe model, you still have a piece of software that works if you don't upgrade; but that's only true until you buy a camera that isn't supported by it.

So - in fact - even in the old "pay once every couple of years" model, you were still locked in to regular payments to Adobe if you wanted to stay current and up to date.

It is meaninfuly different in a significant way. The services you pointed to offer services that are consumed an then gone. They're finite, and if you want more it has to be produced and a infrastructure has to be in place to deliver it to you. LR is not finite, it's a product you can buy and should be able to use until you decide to upgrade it. Once made its available in inimited quantities, doesn't expire, and doesn't run out. It's only useless when technology advances enough that hardware doesn't keep up, or you decide you neee a new feature and ipgrade. Adobe created an entirely arbitrary expiration date on its product. It's no different than if Apple programmed their laptops to blue screen exactly two years after being booted up to force you to buy a new computer.

Lightroom is a tool that people use as part of their workflow in creating their own intellectual property. If you pay a subscription you have access to your work. If you quit paying a subscription, you lose access to years worth of your own IP.

That's fine for someone who's working and can afford the subscription. It's NOT fine for people who dabble in LR and don't make a living from it, or people who retired and need access to the work they created, but aren't making money on it anymore. Adobe is extorting their photoshop, illustrator, and other customers by saying "if you don't pay us, you don't get access to the intellectual property you created".

In return they provide bloated software without any meaningful upgrades.

This was one-sided deal by Adobe. Benefited them while screwing their customers. They are now making money off of it after several years of low returns, so it appears to viable, but it's putting their customers first.

It's their prerogative, but it's also the perogative of their former customers to call it bullshit, and move on to new software. Many of us have. I've spent years creating my artwork. Adobe doesn't "own" anynof it, and I refuse to let them dictate whether or not I can access it. It's my living.

 

[daphins]

It's my understanding that Adobe updates the RAW reader for LR6 through patches.

Nope, every update is via a separate version-controlled software release of the whole programme.

We'll only know if Lr 6 will be updated to support the 6D Mk II, when/if it happens.

Not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing, but I get LR 6 updates for new cameras and lenses...

 

[Khalai]

Lightroom is a tool that people use as part of their workflow in creating their own intellectual property. If you pay a subscription you have access to your work. If you quit paying a subscription, you lose access to years worth of your own IP.

Small correction there - you can still access LR Library and export your files, even after subscription has expired, so technically you still have access to your files...

 

[privatebydesign]

Lightroom is a tool that people use as part of their workflow in creating their own intellectual property. If you pay a subscription you have access to your work. If you quit paying a subscription, you lose access to years worth of your own IP.

Small correction there - you can still access LR Library and export your files, even after subscription has expired, so technically you still have access to your files...

That's not a small correction! It strikes to the very heart of the complete misunderstanding so many people have after the uninformed knee jerk reaction to the subscription model. They are wrong and don't let the truth get in the way of their vocal opinions advising others.

But, if we are to gain any understanding of the problem, we should also consider the position Adobe were in before subscription. They were in real financial issues with an unsustainable revenue flow, so the 'choice' for them was no choice at all, they either went subscription and that only works (like health care) if the majority of users are corralled into it, or they went bankrupt.

 

[Khalai]

Lightroom is a tool that people use as part of their workflow in creating their own intellectual property. If you pay a subscription you have access to your work. If you quit paying a subscription, you lose access to years worth of your own IP.

Small correction there - you can still access LR Library and export your files, even after subscription has expired, so technically you still have access to your files...

That's not a small correction! It strikes to the very heart of the complete misunderstanding so many people have after the uninformed knee jerk reaction to the subscription model. They are wrong and don't let the truth get in the way of their vocal opinions advising others.

But, if we are to gain any understanding of the problem, we should also consider the position Adobe were in before subscription. They were in real financial issues with an unsustainable revenue flow, so the 'choice' for them was no choice at all, they either went subscription and that only works (like health care) if the majority of users are corralled into it, or they went bankrupt.

Perhaps. I still have a hope that LR7 will be also standalone product. I have a perpetual copy of PS CS6, recently purchased Affinity Photo & Design (for 65 € for both, no brainer there) so I have no need for their Photography Plan for as much as 140 €/year when last two LR upgrades were 75 € each in every 18 months or what the cycle was back then.

I will happily buy LR7 if it's standalone, but CC plan proves to be over two times more expensive for me while I gain basically nothing back. And that's what bugs me a lot.

 

[LonelyBoy]

That's not a small correction! It strikes to the very heart of the complete misunderstanding so many people have after the uninformed knee jerk reaction to the subscription model. They are wrong and don't let the truth get in the way of their vocal opinions advising others.

But, if we are to gain any understanding of the problem, we should also consider the position Adobe were in before subscription. They were in real financial issues with an unsustainable revenue flow, so the 'choice' for them was no choice at all, they either went subscription and that only works (like health care) if the majority of users are corralled into it, or they went bankrupt.

Careful there - not everyone who dislikes the subscription model had that misunderstanding. The truth is that I will not rent software. Ever. If Adobe goes to subscription-only I will switch to something else, including free if need be, or DPP. It is a non-starter on principle, and not because I am "uninformed".

Adobe's financial problems are their problems, not mine. That's how business works. If they've discovered that they can get more money out of people through subscriptions that's great for them, but I don't have to be a part of it.

Hell, over in another part of my life I use a program called PeriPedal to run my bicycle workouts instead of the much-more-popular TrainerRoad and Zwift because I will not pay $10/ month for mostly-static software.

 

[daphins]

Lightroom is a tool that people use as part of their workflow in creating their own intellectual property. If you pay a subscription you have access to your work. If you quit paying a subscription, you lose access to years worth of your own IP.

Small correction there - you can still access LR Library and export your files, even after subscription has expired, so technically you still have access to your files...

LR yes, Photoshop, Illustrator, and AfterEffects no. The Adobe eco-sphere is bigger than just LR, and I have 0 faith that Adobe honors this with LR going forward.

 

[daphins]

Lightroom is a tool that people use as part of their workflow in creating their own intellectual property. If you pay a subscription you have access to your work. If you quit paying a subscription, you lose access to years worth of your own IP.

Small correction there - you can still access LR Library and export your files, even after subscription has expired, so technically you still have access to your files...

That's not a small correction! It strikes to the very heart of the complete misunderstanding so many people have after the uninformed knee jerk reaction to the subscription model. They are wrong and don't let the truth get in the way of their vocal opinions advising others.

But, if we are to gain any understanding of the problem, we should also consider the position Adobe were in before subscription. They were in real financial issues with an unsustainable revenue flow, so the 'choice' for them was no choice at all, they either went subscription and that only works (like health care) if the majority of users are corralled into it, or they went bankrupt.

As posted above, the Adobe Ecosphere is larger than LR. You do in fact lose access to your photoshop, illustrator, and AE files after CC expires. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to not be able to access a digital painting that you spent weeks working on? Or not being able to access SE's that you painstakingly put together? Have you ever had to dig up a render that you did for a client years ago, only to learn that you can't access the photoshop files that contain the entourage? I'm haven't misunderstood a damn thing, and I'm not stupid. I'm an artist who's work crosses multiple platforms and was held hostage by Adobe when they decided that they had the right to lock me out of my intellectual property.

****** them. Since they went to CC their programs haven't advanced. They do routine maintenance and rake in money. It was a one-sided deal where they company saw a benefit and the customer got a worse product. I have no misunderstandings about Adobe. They've treat LR as a slight outlier in how they handle legacy access to their files. They also said they'd continue to have a stand alone LR, which gets less likely with each passing month.

I refuse to rent software. My art and my work is my own. Adobes entirely relplaceable. LR 6 was my last and likely final Adobe purchase. I had the CS 6 master collection, and have moved on to non-Adobe products. Other People can pay for their service, and that's their prerogative. However, there are a TON of legitimate reasons NOT to pay their extortion fee's and move on to other software that don include "misunderstanding" or "pushing a narrative".

 

[Khalai]

As posted above, the Adobe Ecosphere is larger than LR. You do in fact lose access to your photoshop, illustrator, and AE files after CC expires. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to not be able to access a digital painting that you spent weeks working on? Or not being able to access SE's that you painstakingly put together? Have you ever had to dig up a render that you did for a client years ago, only to learn that you can't access the photoshop files that contain the entourage? I'm haven't misunderstood a damn thing, and I'm not stupid. I'm an artist who's work crosses multiple platforms and was held hostage by Adobe when they decided that they had the right to lock me out of my intellectual property.

****** them. Since they went to CC their programs haven't advanced. They do routine maintenance and rake in money. It was a one-sided deal where they company saw a benefit and the customer got a worse product. I have no misunderstandings about Adobe. They've treat LR as a slight outlier in how they handle legacy access to their files. They also said they'd continue to have a stand alone LR, which gets less likely with each passing month.

I refuse to rent software. My art and my work is my own. Adobes entirely relplaceable. LR 6 was my last and likely final Adobe purchase. I had the CS 6 master collection, and have moved on to non-Adobe products. Other People can pay for their service, and that's their prerogative. However, there are a TON of legitimate reasons NOT to pay their extortion fee's and move on to other software that don include "misunderstanding" or "pushing a narrative".

As I stated earlier, I've begun to use Affinity Photo and Design. For their price (I paid 65 € for both) it's a no brainer. They can even open PSD/AI files, although full compatibility remains an issue for some effects or layers. For video, there is Da Vinci Resolve, for photos there is Capture One and others.

I like LR, I'm used to that workflow and catalogue options. But since I still have PS CS6 license, I don't need their Photography Plan for over a double price of a standalone LR licence. If they cease to offer LR as a standalone product, I'll simply have to look elsewhere for my future photograhy. It will be painful, but once the transition is done - farewell and good riddance...

 

[Mikehit]

LR yes, Photoshop, Illustrator, and AfterEffects no. The Adobe eco-sphere is bigger than just LR, and I have 0 faith that Adobe honors this with LR going forward.

The library module is a standalone unit on your computer and needs no input or support from Adobe. There is nothing to 'honour'. So you have plenty of scope for writing the metadata to the file and using that for another program.
If you choose to stop CC subscription you would be pretty dumb to not do this so you can process all photos with your preferred alternative program.

 

[SteveM]

I've used Photoshop for close to 15 years and it has made a major contribution to all the money I have made from photography. A brilliant product and still my first port of call for editing, though not my only option. However, were I new to photography with my first camera and first dip into digital editing I would not buy Adobe. The collective monthly 'drip' from my income is one I try to limit, so I would buy a perpetual licence of another product and there are a lot of very good Raw converters to choose from. And, as Adobe intelligently figured out, I doubt I would upgrading very often either as they are so good currently.
There are 2 exceptions that spring to mind, were I doing serious retouching and/or compositing then Adobe it would probably be.
Adobe once had virtually all new photographers in their pocket immediately....no other really viable option. I'm not sure that is the case now, the mere presence of so many other Raw converters, and they are hanging around, suggests some/many? new photographers are going elsewhere. Those new to photography are surely those you want on board for your long term survival. They are not getting the slice they used to get.
My opinions, I'm sure there are those who have different opinions, I just think cameras and software are so good now it is getting close to pointless to upgrade. I could see a 6D mkll user for instance, happily using that camera for 10 years or until it fell apart in their hands. I've been on board since the first 3 or 4 mp compacts and have watched all the changes and they are arguably less important than they used to be.

 

[Mikehit]

Where Adobe really wins out is combining rights management and opportunity for batch processing. Other programs are making headway in many respects (Photomechanic, Breezebrowser) but precious few put it all one package.
I am getting increasingly frustrated with LRs getting bigger and slower but I guess I am not really Adobe's target audience.

 

[Khalai]

Where Adobe really wins out is combining rights management and opportunity for batch processing. Other programs are making headway in many respects (Photomechanic, Breezebrowser) but precious few put it all one package.
I am getting increasingly frustrated with LRs getting bigger and slower but I guess I am not really Adobe's target audience.

THIS!

This bothers me more than anything. No matter how fast my PC is (and believe me, overclocked six-core from Intel, 32 GB RAM, GTX 1070 and PCIe SSD are far from being slow), LR is sometimes slow, laggy and I can't fathom why...

 

[Mikehit]

This bothers me more than anything. No matter how fast my PC is (and believe me, overclocked six-core from Intel, 32 GB RAM, GTX 1070 and PCIe SSD are far from being slow), LR is sometimes slow, laggy and I can't fathom why...

As I understand it, LR can only use 2 cores, so no matter how many you have it doesn't matter.