Adobe details OS support for next version of Lightroom

Don't see how using LR locks you into anything. LR editing is completely non destructive; if you are worried about losing all your edits its simply a matter of doing an export into whatever format you want.

And actually if you look at PS from a cost perspective (and you do regular updates), LR/PS has never been cheaper. Considering how much most people on here spend on photo equipment, $10/month is pretty cheap. I used to spend a lot more than that per month on chemicals/paper.

But of course your mind is made up so limit yourself to whatever works.

You don't lose your edits anyway. If you are on CC and discontinue the subscription you can still use all of the LR functions except the Map module and most of the Develop module. So you lose nothing and can still export, organise, etc. http://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-promises-access-to-lightroom-photos-even-after-subscription-ends/

"Your logic escapes me."

Under your logic you would never do anything because in five years time it might be different. I am interested in getting the most out of my images now.

On my machine (Intel 4790K OC'ed to 4.4GHz, Asus Sabertooth Z97 motherboard, 2x8Gb 1866 DDR3 RAM), I notice that it does use all cores at 100% only when exporting, but it does not really utilizes all cores effectively for image rendering.

The below article tested both Lr4 and Lr5, and found that "Lightroom was only using 30% to 60% of the CPU." Their test results also suggested that to speed up Lightroom, "the only thing that is going to boost speeds is a faster single core overclocked processor."

http://www.slrlounge.com/lightroom-lr5-lr4-hardware-performance-test-review/

Exactly.. You get the same LR within CC and perpetual so why pay the CS price when you can get at the very least, two applications for less a year than one?

The CC package as a whole is updated frequently enough to where it's worth the money, at least for me. I do use the whole spectrum of CC ranging from not only PS but all the video editing, audio editing, web development and photo editing.

Even the minimalist photographer will have at least Photoshop on their belt and at 9.99 a month for the Photography CC Suite? That's less than what you pay for a CS version AND you get Photoshop which is upgraded more frequently and is worth the price alone.

So to answer your question, LR has had incremental updates since it's release and Photoshop has had incremental and a move from CC to CC 2014.

Photographers will spend hundreds if not thousands on their gear, but yet they can't spend a measly 9.99 a month for two programs. Sheesh.

You are right, I've spent a lot of money on my equipment, including 4x5" back in 90's. But I did not noticed any need for extra payment for any features - important or not. This camera was manufactured once, and is "as is" without any "service fee". It was up to me to include new features (rollfilm holder, lens, Polaroid holder). I don't understand, why I have to be forced to pay for items I don't want/need - and this includes hardware as well as software.
Going back to my question: what essential feature (excluding ACR update) CC delivered You since CS? 3D printing? Rounded corners? fake T/s that can be done by a free plugins? Looking forward for Your answer.

I think this is the exact negative perception people have in regards to software; that added features are what drives upgrades or is most important.

Version 5 of Lightroom has been updated multiple times with version updates in order to fix bugs, add a slight feature or two, or improve on current features, and YES that includes updating ACR to support your new camera, typing in "support Nikon 123456" is not what happens. There is actual programming that's involved in doing that.

It was all done free. Was it done in a timely manner? That could be debatable, but the fact is people want everything cheap, now and at 100%. They don't realize that it takes people that work and receive income as well in order to produce the software we use today.

So before you launch into a negative squabble about what useful or useless features they may have added that is worthy of your hard earned money, ask yourself what you actually did get for your measly 150 bucks or whatever you paid for it.

Thank You.
I receive Your answers as "there were no important for me features introduced in cc since Cs", which doesn't surprise me.
The only "advantage" of Cc for most people is that it is "only" $10/month.
Btw, nothing was done free in upgrades. Only upgrade was not charged at the time of release.
And finally: I did not launched lr4 nor upgraded it since I started to use different program, which works for me better.

string, how old are you? 12?

Only 9, but thanks for asking!

Thought so...

What's really funny is a 9yr old can find stuff (and understand it) on the Adobe site that you can't... maybe you can get one of your kids to figure it all out for you?

string, the joy of noise making

If the book module in Lightroom allowed custom page sizes and custom photo layouts, it would not be limited to what Blurb or other photo book programs offer. You could create your custom book and then send it to your photo book company of choice as full bleed pages that could include different layouts. Adobe could continue to include templates for Blurb or others in case the user wants to use those companies. However, it does not make sense that Lightroom has a book module that can only be used with Bllurb.

It *really* screams on my Mac Pro with a 1TB SSD. As in, the renderings are for all intents and purposes instantaneous.

LR is still available as a standalone product. As far as being outrageously expensive... PS/LR is $120/yr... how in your world is that more expensive than upgrading standalone products every year?
Like seriously, do people just make stuff up to B^$#& about on here?

Expensive?
What LR are you talking about man?

CC Photography Plan is just $120/year for LR + PS.
Which is more affordable than previous standalone+upgrades.

It IS expensive for LR only, I think this is what Manuel meant.
Not everybody needs PS.

ihv: that's EXACTLY what I meant. In Europe the monthly subscription for Lr only is €12,29, which amounts to €147,48 per year. As a standalone programme, Lr could be purchased for €129,00. In my books that was less expensive than €147,48, though I accept some people might think otherwise...

The new price will remain stable (if Adobe wants to keep their customer base) and is in fact an excellent deal. Office remains a better deal, but Adobe finally got it right. 10 bucks for the latest Photoshop and Lightroom is cheap. And as others have mentioned, the price up upgrading even one of the apps every two years is as high ... and of course upgrading both tips you back to the rental as the cheapest way to go. Now, for those who don't want the latest versions, the costs will feel outrageous. But then, you probably have what you need so no need to complain.

I've been doing a lot of research on Adobe's website. Turns out Lr is still available as a standalone product. It is very hard to find it, though, and someone seeking for Lr can easily be fooled into thinking only the CC app is available. (How cunning!)
I was wrong, then. Thanks for the constructive replies. I really need a programme that opens the TIFF black and white scans from my film rolls. DxO doesn't, but Lr does.

@ ManuelVilardeMacedo

"very hard to find"

Accessing the site from the U.S, it's on the main Lightroom page in a prominent box right next to the boxes for Creative Cloud Complete and Creative Cloud Photography Plan. Just scroll down to the buying options. Maybe it's different if you're accessing the site from Europe?

graybalanced: of course. It's just that I wanted to download the trial version. You need to log on to Creative Cloud to try Lr. Ultimately that was what misled me into thinking the standalone version wasn't available anymore.

IAPX, just curious - what cameras You use are not compatible? Hassy or something else? On my own, I mix different cameras from different manufactures, but none of them is exotic enough to be not supported by the co1.

It is only superior if you can work with it and it does what you need it to do. I find the C1P workflow to be convoluted, slow and counterintuitive. Of course that might change if I invested more time in it, but I know LR and C1P does not give me better results so why would I.

For me and my purpose, it is clearly not superior. If it is for you, more power to you. This is why it is good to have choice. And it is equally bad to make blanket statements such as yours presented as facts when indeed they are individual opinions.

C1P isn't superior, it is just another raw processing software. It is a bit slow and clunky compared to LR but it's a matter of taste I guess. They both do pretty much the same thing when processing raw files.

But what makes Lightroom really stand out is an ecosystem of useful third party products around it.

For example, what I can do with RNI Films for Lightroom in two clicks is just not achievable for C1P users. There is no such tool for C1P.

Only personal old habits and lack of knowledge in other products can make C1P superior.

My father is stronger then yours!

Sanna, there are styles for c1p. Both free and commercial. Just FYI.
To discuss lr/c1p/others one should give them a serious trial. I've been using lr3 and lr4 for over a year. Nothing was to be done to get fine colors for me (Nikon user). Even tried x-rite passport, with xr and adb software. It was vert difficult to get this look that I got from cnx2. I disliked cnx2 for lack of serious batch mode.
Then i tried c1p. it is different tool than lr. habbits from lr doesnt work, but after some time You will find that it has many strong points - both in iq and workflow.

..except LR is already memory intensive in its current version and Windows 32 bits OS limits your usable memory. Hence the move to a 64 bit to allow access to more memory.....

@Arne
Yes and no. Adobe could bet on Debian/Ubuntu which is the largest umbrella of Linux end users (including Mint, SteamOS and many other spin-offs).

Yes, it would be discriminating to other Linux distros, but it would be the same thing Steam has done. They chose the Ubuntu codebase minus their garbage GUI. No reason for Adobe not to do the same. That would be a consolidation, I guess.

The Squire is right. The sentence needed the future subjunctive, which is "were". (Sorry to be a pedant!)

What makes you want Lightroom on Linux when you have such a gorgeous Terminal app?

Lightroom isn't based on PS code at all. It's largely written in a different language. Hyperthreading wouldn't help much.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but lack of efficient HT implementation is a matter of missing of the proper scheduling algorithms-so it is rather fault of an OS vendor, not the CPU manufacturer.

Lightroom is not based upon anythings WITHIN photoshop.

Lightroom is nothing more then then the Adobe Camera RAW Module with some added catalogue functionality.

ACR is already a separate module to Photoshop. The RAW editing module of ACR is 100% the same thing as the editing module within LR. The only difference between the two is its looks and the lack of the cataloging option in ACR.

@ Just a Photographer

re: "nothing more than Adobe Camera Raw with some added catalogue functionality"

First, I think the catalog functionality is a pretty big thing -- finding and managing pictures is no small task -- but there's a lot more to Lightroom than that. There's a whole publishing and sharing platform as well, which I use quite a lot.

That's correct but about "cheaper" I don't know. I have been getting Lightroom and Photoshop for the last year at $10 a month and I'm pretty happy with that. I may change my tune if the pricing goes up. :)

@ babart

Well the main problem is how do you continue once the price goes up ? And you can be sure that it will go up once adobe has a big enough captive base.

SantaFeBill,

re: your question

I think the clue they are referring to is the product name -- in his post, the Lightroom product manger, Sharad Mangalick, revealed that the next release will be called Lightroom 6. It's evidently not being called Lightroom CC. When the CS Suite apps went exclusively to the creative cloud they were all renamed with a "CC" suffix.

Get a decent system?

Runs just fine on my i7 iMac with 32Gb RAM.

"you'll need a new "decent system" for every new LR version since 4"

Exaggerate much?

I agree, I like the catalog/library feature but it would also be nice just to file | open and work on a file ad-hoc without having to import it or worry about it being a broken link in the catalog later.

Sometimes I'll use Photoshop CC just for something quick and ad-hoc

Question. If you have kept away from it for ages how can you comment on the performance? I have used it since version 1 and if I contrast finding the images and them doing something with them it is a very quick process. As t the applications performance I use a 2012 Macbook Pro with a solid stare drive and it works very well even though all my files on a NAS I access over Gigabit Ethernet

Because he probably follows the same path as I - install a trial version, then delete in disgust.

Maybe you just need a new computer....

@ marc petzold
Sorry, but knocking a current piece of software because its slow on a processor from 2008... need I say more?

>That damn catalogue everything thing,

It would be tolerable if it was an optional method of image file access to the generic file system navigation provided by the operatin system. But as it stands, it's insanity.

There are those that keep their application software and their image repository on one and same computer, and for them "catalogue everything" might work. But with multiple computers with application software, and multiple, "mountable" data repositories this model of data organization and access quickly breakes down.

Karlwunsch, try Raw Therapee - it's a way good RAW Editor for Linux you'd get - and OpenSource, so free, too. GUI is close to Lightroom, but without that catalogue feature.

http://rawtherapee.com

Another great one is Dark Table, DT in short - which is only avialable for Linux, not for Windows, but also for OSX. RT in fact is avialable for Linux, OSX and Windows.

Dark Table 1.6 is current, and RT 4.2.1 at stable status...it's quite good, if not better than RT....well, it depends what you'd personally prefer.

http://www.darktable.org

The only thing on Linux i'm waiting for aeons is 16bit TIF support with GIMP.

I think Adobe would argue that is has those features with the Photoshop "plug-in".

Creative Cloud Photography Edition is a great deal in my opinion.

HDR sucks IMV - I have yet to see a normal looking image produced that way, so as far as I am concerned that is one thing it doesn't need.

MPA1 - that probably means you *have* seen HDR images that were normal-looking, but since they didn't stand out, you didn't notice. Because technically, many of the best film darkroom professionals employed HDR-like techniques (masked and blended multi exposures) to make what we consider "normal" photos.

@marc petzold
Thanks for the tip! Lightroom/Elements is the last things that ties me to Windows. I wish I could cut the cord and get rid of that terrible OS, but due to the lack of L/E on Linux I need to use Windows parallel to my standard Linux work.

I'll look ti up, but I don't expect anything will come for free with the same full feature set Lightroom has.

Linux has a 1.7% desktop market share and many of those users are on Linux because they hate paying for software or don't like evil corporate overlords. The market is tiny.

I think OS/X is all the Unix you could hope for from Adobe.

It will be when you get a new camera that your current version of LR won't support. Adobe knows how to get you to upgrade.

You can make good pictures with film if you like..!

To be fair, it is possible to use the free DNG converter to use files from new cameras with older versions of LR... complicates the import process though.

Me, I love it. Lr and Ps for $120 a year. Constant updates.

Caerolle, all good software manufacturers provide constant upgrades.

The photographic community that I know and speak to on a regular basis are all very happy with the subscription business model. Many more people that I know are using PS now than were using it before when it required a large up front investment. I assume that's what you mean j900.

The community I know likes the new subscription model.
More updates for lower price.

From Reuters Dec 2014.
"The company said it expected an adjusted profit of34-40 cents per share on revenue of $1.05 billion-$1.10 billion for the first quarter ending Feb. 28. "

"Analysts on average were expecting 39 cents per share in profit on $1.10 billion in revenue, according to Thomson ReutersI/B/E/S."

"Adobe's fourth-quarter net income rose to $73.3 million, or14 cents per share, from $65.3 million, or 13 cents per share, a year earlier."

"Excluding items, the company earned 36 cents per share, higher than the analysts' estimate of 30 cents per share."

"Revenue rose to $1.07 billion, while analysts had expected$1.06 billion."

... goodness how they are suffering from the droves of people who are never going to use their software again!!!! I wish all my investments 'suffered' that much.