Rongnongno Loc: FL

Well, I think this is doubtful. It may have been moved for some reason within another feature. I remember the big deal about refine edge. They moved the damn thing and effectively made it less intuitive for those who were used to find it under refine edge. Now it is all under one sweep 'Select and mask'.

Another non sense we had to deal with was the 'smart object' touted by experts as the second coming when it already was used, just not as default when opening a raw file. At the time I got flack from stating that Adobe was selling BS. Funny enough now to open an ACR modified file you have the open default set as 'Open' and if you use 'Shift-Open', it goes into 'Open as smart object'. You can change the default but the point of that argument was that Adobe was misleading folks onto touting a new feature that wasn't. The real so-called feature was the 'default. Really big fracking deal.

All this to say... Bull-crap when it comes to fast evaluations from folks who do not explore what is really going on. 'I do not see it as an option so it is gone...'

Oh, yeah, we also saw that in the tool palette. It was reorganized in a way that some tool were gone. bzzzt! Disappearing act! Reality? The tools were still there, you simply had to enable them.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

That was removed from Lightroom CC, these tools are still in Lightroom Classic CC. The feeling is, features will be added to LR CC to duplicate everything in Lightroom Classic CC.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Vince68 Loc: Wappingers Falls, NY

Watching the video Adobe included with the email I received from them gives the impression they are more concerned with people that use smart phones to take photos, as that is what the video shows, a person taking pictures with his smart phone, then adjustments being made. The interface appears to be completely redesigned, not at all resembling the old Lightroom I am used to using. I have resisted using the CC version to this point and was hoping Adobe would continue with its standalone version, but that is not to be. I'll continue using LR6 and will upgrade to LR6.13 when it is released on 10/26/17. I will probably look at other options to replace Lightroom at this point I guess. I think Adobe will lose a lot of people that prefer the standalone version with this move, but may gain other users as well to take their place.

Thats just my 2¢ and opinion for whats its worth.

JPL

I agree with you, but at the same time I think this has some advantages. It will make it easier for others to develop and sell standalone programs. I know it will take some time, but probably within 2-3 years there will be a good standalone program or two that will replace lightroom for many users.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Actually I just read a couple of additional articles. Lightroom cc is in fact light and designed more towards tablets and mobile devices as well as the desktop and will not contain the features I mentioned. Lightroom Classic will be closer to what we had on our desktop with v6, but possibly with a somewhat simplified interface. I'm not sure what if any functionality has been removed from that version. From the latest I've read apparently both versions of Lightroom are now available in the same subscription plan, so you can pick and choose.

However for me, $10 a month for Lightroom, when I'm not using Photoshop, is not cost effective. That would be $300 for the approximate two-and-a-half-year lifespan of the new version. Previous versions had a lifespan of approximately two and a half years. When I upgraded to version 6, it was less than $100. So, I will live with Lightroom 6 until I can figure something else out. I'm a bit disappointed, but not surprised. Its not the end of the world.

Quantus5

Maybe I'm mistaken -- but aren't there already at least to "standalone" competitors to Lightroom, i.e. PP software that is more like Lightroom than Photoshop.

The two that I am aware of are Capture One and AfterShot Pro 3.

So if you want to move away from Lightroom, no need to wait 2-3 years. :-)

btw: I'm not familiar with either of these packages, but have heard a lot of good things about both. From what I've seen and heard they both seem to be viable alternatives to Lightroom. Personally, I don't do a lot of batch processing of photos -- which these packages both excel at. (I'm a PaintShop Pro user -- so more into the Photoshop-type photo editor.)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It does. It just won't be updated with the raw profiles for new cameras after 2017. After that, once you buy a new camera (announced in 2018, and most likely late 2017) you will have to use ONE OF the new Lightroom CC (2018) applications, or Photoshop (2017) or DNG Converter, or someone else's software (Your camera manufacturer's software is the best place to start.)

If your camera didn't come with a CD or DVD of software, check the manufacturer's website for downloads.

jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

I think Affinity Photo already is a good standalone program. It just doesn't organize worth a s***.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

I was a CC subscriber until last month, mainly for PS, which I used increasingly LESS over the years as LR's editing tools were expanded and improved, and as I just needed to do less pixel level work. I determined that Elements will do the pixel level stuff I still need to do, without the monthly fee.

I have used the standalone version of LR for at least the past 5 years or so, and did NOT move to the CC version when I subscribed for PS. I was afraid that some day Adobe would stop selling LR as a standalone, and I'd be stuck paying the subscription fee forever or have to find some other product to move to. (I'm feeling really smart right now, which doesn't happen much any more.) So I stayed on standalone LR. And bought standalone Elements. I upgraded to LR6 recently when I got a new camera whose RAW files weren't supported in LR5, and I didn't want to have to use ACR for those files before importing them into LR. That was a convenience feature that I decided was worth the cost.

For now, and until I get a new camera whose RAW files are not supported in the final version of LR6, I'm good to go with my standalone apps. And even after that I'll be able to function as long as ACR is available to convert RAW files into something LR6 can deal with. (Maybe someday OSX will evolve to the point LR6 won't run under it, but given my advancing age I'm not too concerned . . . )

Still, I think I'll start looking around at other management and editing options. I have a pretty functional (for my specific purposes) work flow under LR now, so any different software would have to be pretty special to be worth the trouble to switch. But it will at least be interesting, and maybe even fun, to look.

It may not matter to Adobe, but I doubt I would EVER have looked at any other LR competitor if they had left open the door to ongoing updates to a standalone package. My objection to the CC is not so much the cost as that once you're in it your choices are pay or (more or less) get out right now. With a standalone product I would expect, and would pay, an ongoing cost for upgrades IF they offered perceived value, but if not it will be MY choice to continue to use the product as it then stands, for as long as it makes sense to me to do so.

whitewolfowner

You got that right and blood sucking is exactly what it is.

whitewolfowner

Yes it does. If you have a new camera and lightroom 6 does not support it, then get the free download for the Adobe DNG converter (Adobe's RAW format). I convert all my files to DNG.

whitewolfowner

A lot more than that, actually more than 50% of your income if your not wealthy and it comes in three forms, the biggest rip off in the history of man; insurance companies, the medical world and the government.

Hammer Loc: London UK

Its not the cost its the principle . I use CC and pay and agree that its good value , however its the principle . They have gained the market and are free to do as they please , but they are now abusing their position . There is no reason why they should not sell the product and charge for the updates . This would give them the same income but also giveth consumer the choice . How long before Adobe require access to and use of your data . Its abusive.

bioteacher Loc: Brooklyn, NY

[quote=PGHphoto]So I guess we should get in the habit of converting manufacturer raw files to dng when the manufacturers push out a new raw format.[/quote

One of the problems with DNG files is that they are double the size of RAW (CR2) files