More signs Canon and Adobe are collaborating

The main problem with the subscription model is that it charges the same regardless of user. That means that most casual users will opt out.

For example, I used to purchase a new or updated version of Lightroom every 4-5 years, only when I would add new equipment needing profiles. I don't use or need the latest and greatest features otherwise, and so the total cost vs. usability was good for me.

A professional photographer might be much more interested in the latest features and needs to stay current on equipment profiles. So this person is willing to pay for regular updates. In the purchasing model, the heavier user pays more.

Under the subscription model, the professional is getting a break while I'm being asked to pay more than I'm willing for the software. I made one last purchase to LR6.14 when I added a Sony system. I'll use this software for as long as I can, and if I ever need something newer I will abandon Adobe and look to a new RAW converter.

One other point as to why people don't like the subscription model - I don't keep jpeg files. I keep only RAWs along with the processing metadata in LR. Every once in a while I need an image for something, go back into the catalog and blow off a jpeg for that use. I don't like the idea of my entire file and processing being operated on software I don't own and that I could actually lose access to. At that point I'd have tens of thousands of RAW image files to re-process if I want to use them again. No.......I want to directly own the software.

The subscription model is just one business plan but a some vendors move to a subscription model, they open the market for others who are willing to keep the you buy/you own model. For instance tired of paying for Lightroom, there are dozens of alternatives some better than LR. OnOne, DxO, Capture One, just to name a few, do the same function and are not yet subscription licensed. I have found that that is true for pretty much anything that moves to subscription.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18990579
The main problem with the subscription model is that it charges the same regardless of user. That means that most casual users will opt out.

That also applies to buying a CD/DVD.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18990579
For example, I used to purchase a new or updated version of Lightroom every 4-5 years, only when I would add new equipment needing profiles. I don't use or need the latest and greatest features otherwise, and so the total cost vs. usability was good for me.

You don't have to update to the latest version if you don't want to.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18990579
One other point as to why people don't like the subscription model - I don't keep jpeg files. I keep only RAWs along with the processing metadata in LR. Every once in a while I need an image for something, go back into the catalog and blow off a jpeg for that use. I don't like the idea of my entire file and processing being operated on software I don't own and that I could actually lose access to.
At that point I'd have tens of thousands of RAW image files to re-process if I want to use them again. No.......I want to directly own the software.

You don't lose access to your files.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18990579
The main problem with the subscription model is that it charges the same regardless of user. That means that most casual users will opt out.

For example, I used to purchase a new or updated version of Lightroom every 4-5 years, only when I would add new equipment needing profiles. I don't use or need the latest and greatest features otherwise, and so the total cost vs. usability was good for me.

A professional photographer might be much more interested in the latest features and needs to stay current on equipment profiles. So this person is willing to pay for regular updates. In the purchasing model, the heavier user pays more.

Under the subscription model, the professional is getting a break while I'm being asked to pay more than I'm willing for the software. I made one last purchase to LR6.14 when I added a Sony system. I'll use this software for as long as I can, and if I ever need something newer I will abandon Adobe and look to a new RAW converter.

One other point as to why people don't like the subscription model - I don't keep jpeg files. I keep only RAWs along with the processing metadata in LR. Every once in a while I need an image for something, go back into the catalog and blow off a jpeg for that use. I don't like the idea of my entire file and processing being operated on software I don't own and that I could actually lose access to. At that point I'd have tens of thousands of RAW image files to re-process if I want to use them again. No.......I want to directly own the software.

The last stand-alone version of Phoptoshop cost about £800 and the last stand-alone version of Lightroom cost about £200 that is a total of £1000 for the two items of software. At the current subscription rate of £10 per month £1000 equates to an 8 years 4 months subscription period.
In that same period using stand-alone software and upgrading once or maybe twice at about £500 for the upgrade you would end up spending between £1500 and £2000.

Also, ever since I have being subscribing to Adobe CC I have NEVER paid the full subscription price, the last time I renewed my subscription it cost me £80 for the year.

john crossley wrote in post #18990645
You don't have to update to the latest version if you don't want to.

One of the advantages to the subscription model is that you are always able to run the latest. My point is that since I don't typically care, this doesn't really appeal to me. The only thing that drives me to updates is when I buy a new body that my older LR version cannot read.

If I lose LR, I still have 20,000 RAW images but I'd no longer have all the edits I made to them in LR. Not unless I did a one time jpeg export and lived with the jpegs. This is the number one problem for in me in either going with a subsciption or going to a different RAW editor. I'm stuck with the fact that I have RAW image files from 2006 through 2019 all edited in LR. The only way to access those edits is in LR. You want to load thousands of RAWs into capture one and start straightning horizons? I don't.

If I go to a subscription, I'm kind of signing up for life so long as I want to keep the ability to access those edits. I don't like that idea.

I don't use Photoshop. So I'm only buying LR. I've paid $3.57 per month for it so far, and that number keeps falling so long as I can run version 6.14.

And they can't take version 6.14 away from me if I stop paying, so I have permanent access to my 20,000 edits.

I realize this isn't really forever. It's plausible that operating systems 20 years hence might not be able to run LR 6.14. I'm not going to maintain an archaic system forever for just that reason. But I'd rather manage that eventual issue vs. signing on to software that I have to pay for on an ongoing basis or else lose access.

I OWN Windows 10 and I OWN LR 6.14, and so long as I can build a machine that will run them, I can access my edits.

Though I pay for a Photoshop CC sub, I do 90% of my PP in Camera RAW. I might then touch up the sharpening in Photoshop and add my sig to anything I plan to 'publish' or share. I never use LR.

When I am finished, I have a folder with the original RAW files, along with the .xmp sidecars (therefore all the edit info), plus the JPEG versions in a subfolder.

Were I to abandon Adobe tomorrow, I would retain all of my RAWs, all of my adjustment data and all of the JPEGs - on my own drives.

Because I don't use LR I don't understand why those who do worry about losing their .xmp and JPEG files, should they switch to another program.

How/why would that happen?

JeffreyG wrote in post #18990987
...If I lose LR, I still have 20,000 RAW images but I'd no longer have all the edits I made to them in LR. Not unless I did a one time jpeg export and lived with the jpegs. This is the number one problem for in me in either going with a subsciption or going to a different RAW editor. I'm stuck with the fact that I have RAW image files from 2006 through 2019 all edited in LR. The only way to access those edits is in LR.

Don't some of the alternative RAW editors use LR and/or PS sidecar files successfully, such as RawTherapee
and/or darktable? I thought I'd read about such compatibility within one of these, at least.
There must be others out there which can do this, if not the ones I've mentioned.

I've been trying to find my way around both the programs I mentioned, simply because CS6
can't support 5D4 files natively, and both programs are free. They're both amazingly feature-rich,
with darktable in particular offering a slew of settings and adjustments which are far beyond
my understanding.

I can't speak of their ability to use sidecar files, however, simply because I've never enabled them.
I've always opened RAW files as a copy to PS, then made any saves to a JPG.
And I've only done this so that I might revisit my images in their original state,
with the potential to apply any newer techniques I may have learned about
along the course of time. This method seems to have served me rather well
as I learn more about the other alternatives to the Adobe stronghold.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18990987
If I lose LR, I still have 20,000 RAW images but I'd no longer have all the edits I made to them in LR.

You are misunderstanding.

If you stop subscribing to LR you lose access to the Develop module but not the Library module or your existing edits.

You can not edit new images or re-edit old ones* but you can still view the edited version in the Library and export new JPG/TIFF versions of those edited images whenever you need them.

* Actually you can do a few minor tweaks because the quick edit panel in the Library module is still active.

Update: I just took a proper look at the quick edit panel for the first time ever and realised that it isn't minor tweaks. You can't do local adjustments but you can use autotone and make global adjustments to WB (Temp and Tint) Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, Blacks, Clarity, Vibrance and even apply any of your user created presets - so I could continue to turn all my images into B&W using my existing presets.

I do think that the discussion is missing the point here. If they are really talking AI here then the computation will most likely happen 'in the cloud'. They need lot's of pictures where people decided (labelled) which are bad and which are good. Which in turn is then used to cull your pictures. A picture with a puppy in it will most likely be treated differently then a landscape and a night time photo has other 'optimal' exposure then a daylight photo. Contrary to what is happening now, this indeed constitutes as a 'service' and I am not surprised that they want a service fee for that. This shows that Adobe is making their first step into AI territory and I don't think that is the end of it. Automatic labeling, face recognition, AI aided background cleanup (e.g. remove fence) or replacement, .....

Auto (which also called Sensei) is also AI based. It was trained by using thousands of professional edits. Lightroom Classic 9 is on my desktop and I can use Auto if I'm not connected to the internet.

This new culling feature is a plug-in that will reside on your system, not the cloud. The paragraph I posted in italic specifically says "Lightroom Classic experience". It is impossible to put actual files in the cloud using LR Classic. I have been using LR Classic for or over 2 years and I don't have a single file in the cloud.

Also you can use LR classic for 30 days without the internet. 100 days of you pay annually. People who get this plug-in will have to be able to use it when not connected.

I should have said that when the new Auto (Sensei) was released in version 7 the contrast was dropping far too much. In version 8 that was corrected and by what I read it is being continually trained. That will be passed on in future updates and not annually. LR is updated continually these days. I expect the same will happen to the culling plug-in. I may not know because if I have to pay for it I'm not getting it. I don't really need it.

drmaxx wrote in post #18991122
I do think that the discussion is missing the point here. If they are really talking AI here then the computation will most likely happen 'in the cloud'. They need lot's of pictures where people decided (labelled) which are bad and which are good. Which in turn is then used to cull your pictures. A picture with a puppy in it will most likely be treated differently then a landscape and a night time photo has other 'optimal' exposure then a daylight photo. Contrary to what is happening now, this indeed constitutes as a 'service' and I am not surprised that they want a service fee for that. This shows that Adobe is making their first step into AI territory and I don't think that is the end of it. Automatic labeling, face recognition, AI aided background cleanup (e.g. remove fence) or replacement, .....

The Canon AI technology might actually be worth something if its base AI model that they trained learned from your specific choices so that the model could be biased toward your evaluation style and preferences - otherwise, it is choosing that it thinks is "correct" without any idea what you think is correct. Your choices are replaced by the choices that the AI model has learned from the data that it has been fed. If there are objective criteria that drives the choices (i.e., in-focus subject versus out-of-focus subject) then the model may work well - but if your artistic choices are not recognizable to the model, then it will not choose the "correct" images.

In the end, I am not sure what this technology is meant to accomplish (the AI culling tech). How long does it take to cull 1000 images? Not long, especially with a tool like Fast Raw Viewer. It would be interesting to see how long the Canon AI culler would take to choose keepers in a batch of 1000. I suppose there has to be a threshold kee[er rate setting (like specifying the number or percentage of keepers the AI model is supposed to aim for) that would require additional processing from the model (i.e., multiple passes to cull progressively to reach the user-specified target keeper rate). And, because we are human, the first thing I would do after the model spit out its results is check them, which means I would have to review all of the images to see which ones the model kept and which it rejected, which is essentially the process of culling that I could do the first time without the model.

kirk

Spencerphoto wrote in post #18991007
Though I pay for a Photoshop CC sub, I do 90% of my PP in Camera RAW. I might then touch up the sharpening in Photoshop and add my sig to anything I plan to 'publish' or share. I never use LR.

When I am finished, I have a folder with the original RAW files, along with the .xmp sidecars (therefore all the edit info), plus the JPEG versions in a subfolder.

Were I to abandon Adobe tomorrow, I would retain all of my RAWs, all of my adjustment data and all of the JPEGs - on my own drives.

Because I don't use LR I don't understand why those who do worry about losing their .xmp and JPEG files, should they switch to another program.

How/why would that happen?

You wouldn't 'lose' your xmp sidecar files, but you would lose the ability to read them because only ACR can read them (I'm not even sure that you could even import them into LR, maybe) - so, when I switched to Capture One (mostly for hardware/usability issues with ACR and not liking LR), I had to restart finishing all of my RAWs again.

For me, that kinda works, since I have relatively few, and I was at a point where I wanted to start re-finishing a lot of my older photos since I'd better learned post-processing/etc., but it's understandable that such a process would be laborious for anyone with a 20k+ RAW collection.

Of course, if you export everything to JPG, the JPG remains as good as it ever was, but you better hope that you don't end up wanting to do something else with the file sometime down the road like I did.

Unfortunately, although with Capture One you can either buy a licence or subscribe (they offer both options), even with the licence you have to authenticate over the web on a recurrent basis to keep access. I'm not sure what it will mean for the long-term use of the program, but it does make me feel a bit safer that I'm not investing too much time on edits that I might lose access to if I decide on unsubscribing from a service.

Think Canon will be exclusive with PS or open to other PP software, i.e. Capture One?