No stand alone LR7

Scott M wrote in post #18475500
No, the main reason is not pirated software, the main reason is a continual guaranteed revenue stream. It's a lucrative model, and is being adopted by numerous industries.

Personally, I will be looking for an alternative to Lightroom, which I have been using for many years. I did not upgrade to LR6, but was planning on upgrading to LR7 when it came out. Since Adobe has decided not to sell LR7, I will have to move on. The subscription model is not attractive to me.

Exactly. If you want to know the impetus for any corporate decision, look for the money. Adobe must honestly believe more money lies in CC. They won't find any of mine there.

I have been using DPP 4 off and on since I bought my 80D (LR5.7=no support). I finally upgraded to LR6 for convenience. I won't pay Adobe every month for convenience. DPP 4 just got a bunch more appealing. Pretty sure DPP will always support my Canon camera(s).

have been very happy with CaptureOne for years.

will be moving pixel editing away from Ps CS4 to Affinity Photo very soon.

i was afraid i might have to break down and go with CC. So glad there is now a strong alternative.

Wilt wrote in post #18475409
Adobe is taking advantage of the fact that the average person cares little about 'spending $10 every month for life', as they fail to realize the fact that that doing so is

1. $600 over 5 years
   
2. $1200 over 10 years
   
3. $6000 sent to Adobe over a lifetime (20yo to 70 yo)
   

and that if you could get 4% annual interest (which -- before the Great Recession -- was a common passbook savings interest rate from a bank), compounded even monthly (rather than typical daily compounding), you could have accumulated over $16000 in lost money at the end of 50 years, when not spent under a monthly subscription model!
So much for, "It's only $10 per month"

But that is a snivelling amount compared to not spending $3 per weekday on a cup of coffee at Starbucks...over $59000 at the end of 40 years.
So much for, "It's only $3 per day":

So if you bought a standalone version of LR plus a standalone version of PS and upgraded them every 4-5 years, how much would that cost?

I look forward to seeing your sums.

john crossley wrote in post #18475527
So if you bought a standalone version of LR plus a standalone version of PS and upgraded them every 4-5 years, how much would that cost?

I look forward to seeing your sums.

Not directed at me, but here is my story. I started using LR with v3. I paid $10 for it at Indiana University Bookstore. Ditto version 4. I paid full retail ($139?) for v5. I upgraded from 5.7 to 6 for $79. So far, I've been using LR for about 7 years. Total cost: $238. Seven years of CC subscription: $959.04. Huge expense? No. Unnecessary expense? Certainly. No thanks. The CC version existssoley to line the pockets of Adobe. I'll use v6 until I buy a camera it does not support. Then back to DPP. It does everything I need to do, and the price is pretty darn good.

john crossley wrote in post #18475527
So if you bought a standalone version of LR plus a standalone version of PS and upgraded them every 4-5 years, how much would that cost?

I look forward to seeing your sums.

~$699 for PS and $100 for LR every few years? Ah, if only Photoshop were not so 16-bitly amazing at what it does. Users of only LR, I can see not bothering with this.

Myself, I am worried about the renaming of 'Lightroom' into' Lightroom Classic.' One step onwards, and it is 'Lightroom Legacy?'

Ps was about 300-400 bucks and maybe 150-199 for an upgrade, if i recall.

I always skipped a version ... seems like I was upgrading every 4 years. Pretty sure Ps 4 was my first purchased version, know I had 5.5 and then 7, then CS4

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18475508
So, what do most of you do? Upload the CR2 files and then work on them?

I use the CR2 files and don't convert to DNG. I don't get the point of converting them. Converting can't improve the data, but could conceivably lose data. My current CR2 files will work with my current LR and will always be accessible with Canon's own software.

Archibald wrote in post #18475537
I use the CR2 files and don't convert to DNG. I don't get the point of converting them. Converting can't improve the data, but could conceivably lose data. My current CR2 files will work with my current LR and will always be accessible with Canon's own software.

The only advantage of converting to DNG is if someone wants to continue to use an older version of LR that Adobe no longer updates. Someone with a perpetual LR license could at least continue to use the software even if they get a new camera. This, of course, assumes that Adobe will continue to update the DNG converter.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18475442
... The main reason? pirated software, .....

This was what Adobe told their share holders. I feel this was naive at best and all out fib being more likely.

First, the PS Subscription only was cracked and in the wild in less than 24 hours after release. 2nd the numbers that these companies use to suggest how much they lose to piracy are complete and utter fabrications inflated to such a magnitude to try and make a point that is simply wrong.

ie: The VAST majority of pirated copies of any software, but in particular a difficult to learn high end product like Photoshop or 3D apps, etc,. in are the hands of people that aren't using them. Software or "warez" collectors download everything, toy with some, and actually use almost none of it.

Saying to your board that every pirated downloaded copy of Photoshop costs Adobe $400.00 is untrue, full stop. They weren't potential customers to begin with.

The real reason to go subscription from a financial P.O.V. was to get more money out of customers that waited to pay for upgrades after two or more full versions, because upgrading to some required a solid improvement of function or performance to warrant the outlay.

Meanwhile, as I and others kicked and screamed and ranted trying to get Adobe to provide the upgrades to PSCS that would truly improve it, they remained hopelessly and laughably behind in keeping up with the evolving hardware, and thus offered reasons to upgrade on the order of three to four full versions apart!

davinci953 wrote in post #18475545
The only advantage of converting to DNG is if someone wants to continue to use an older version of LR that Adobe no longer updates. Someone with a perpetual LR license could at least continue to use the software even if they get a new camera. This, of course, assumes that Adobe will continue to update the DNG converter.

Tried that with the 80D and LR5.7. It is one GIANT PITA. I automated the process and it was still annoying. I used DPP instead, until I upgraded to LR6. Not upgrading to a subscription. When the time comes, I see what software is available. One thing I know, I won't use ANYONE's subscription service. I'll shoot JPG first.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18475508
....

So... stupid question: can Capture One Pro read my .dng files or are they Adobe proprietary files? ...

It should, but as mentioned, why bother. .dng has yet to be adopted as a standard by anybody other than Adobe,. so no guarantee that in 5 years the only thing that reads .dng may be a subscription only Adobe app.

My raw files stay as RAW files.

If I were concerned that RAW files would become unusable, I can also keep the tiff and or jpegs I make. However the demise of RAW compatibility has been brought up for over a decade, and to date, it just has no happened.

Lastly, Capture One is being mentioned a lot in this thread. Remember that Capture One was a fully developed RAW converter years before LightRoom came out

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18475508
So, what do most of you do? Upload the CR2 files and then work on them?

Yes, absolutely.

None of my apps opens DNG files (as none is Adobe's). Inversely, I have no problems with CR2 files.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18475508
Cool.

I've been using Lightroom and Photoshop for a few years now.... well, truth be told, mostly Lightroom in combination with the Nik Suite.

A few days ago, someone sort of warned me about converting all my RAW files to .dng. I took their advice seriously. Who knows, I might end up with Capture One Pro some day.

So... stupid question: can Capture One Pro read my .dng files or are they Adobe proprietary files?

I don't know for sure but I'm sure it would.

I read a few books on Lightroom and Photoshop when I first got into it. All of them, without exception, suggested converting everything to .dng, including the authors who didn't work for Adobe directly. I was too naive to read between the lines. Of course, they'd all make the recommendation. At the time, I knew they knew more than I did so I just blindly followed their suggestions for my initial set-ups.

So, what do most of you do? Upload the CR2 files and then work on them?

I'm not sure but I think it should read DNG. I upload CR2

I don't convert to DNG as a matter of course, I just stay with the camera produced RAW file. I would consider converting to DNG to stay with an older version of software, but I would also be very sure to keep the original files archived. I do though generate DNGs for other reasons. I have used both the Lr merge to Panorama, and HDR options, and in one case merged the HDR DNGs to a Panorama too. I also use ML's DualISO feature, which requires that you first pre-process the image to a DNG before conversion. Those DualISO DNG conversions seem to end up almost twice the size of the original CR2.

One issue that rather annoys me about DPP4 is the fact that I have to still keep DPP3 on the computer, since it can't read my old 300D's CRW files, or for that matter the CR2's from my 20D. At least it shows the previews, so I can at least see what images I can't process. Who would think that Canon would drop support for older cameras from their own software. None of the third party programs have done that.

I recently stated that DXO didn't support DNG, but that was V9, V11 supports both out of camera DNG files, and those converted using the Adobe converter, as long as you don't use the compressed format. It can't read the DualISO converted images though, hence my misunderstanding, from looking at blank files.

Alan

I process all my "keepers" so I keep the converted .dng file, a .tiff and the .jpg that results as well. But I think, based on what I've been reading on POTN that I should consider just importing the CR2 files themselves with no conversion. It's a mouse click.