No stand alone LR7

Still using v 5.7. Guess that clinches a change is on the way. Been doing trial on acdsee new version but still prefer capture one. Only thing holding back is $$$$ right now. But either way bye Adobe

Any editor should be able to open a dng file as it a published standard from Adobe.

Bassat wrote in post #18475547
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.

I'm sure with a high number of files, converting to DNG is no walk in the park.

This may be helpful to some.

https://www.lightroomf​orums.net …-need.32874/#post-1217244

I have been running 5.7 for a while and was going to upgrade to LR6 until I seen in the rumors that they were going to release a 7, so I waited. Seems like that was a waste of my time.

Still dont know if I should upgrade and keep LR until it doesnt support what ever camera i choose when i replace this 5diii or take that money and move it over to capture 1.
Since I have never been on capture 1 I dont know how long they go between upgrades where you have to pay for the upgrade. My fear is I spend 300 on it and in 3 months they go to version 11.

But at the same time I dont want to give another dime to adobe, seems like a pure sleazy money grab from them and a game I really dont want to play.

Also dont bother commenting on the link in the OP if you have ANYTHING critical all to say about adobe not offering a stand alone. Your comment will just be "awaiting moderation" forever. Yet another CS move by them. "Join the Discussion", unless you have anything bad to say. We will just censor those remarks.

Stupid question.

I have standalone LR 5.7.1. If I buy LR6 license upgrade ($79 USD) with the intention of installing it on another system, does it phone home during installation and invalidate the LR5 license key? I assume the installer is the full version as in previous LR5 versions and can be installed on a new box without LR5 present (?).

Lee

Scoobert wrote in post #18475715
I have been running 5.7 for a while and was going to upgrade to LR6 until I seen in the rumors that they were going to release a 7, so I waited. Seems like that was a waste of my time.

Still dont know if I should upgrade and keep LR until it doesnt support what ever camera i choose when i replace this 5diii or take that money and move it over to capture 1.
Since I have never been on capture 1 I dont know how long they go between upgrades where you have to pay for the upgrade. My fear is I spend 300 on it and in 3 months they go to version 11.

But at the same time I dont want to give another dime to adobe, seems like a pure sleazy money grab from them and a game I really dont want to play.

I am struggling with the same decision -- either upgrading from LR5.7 to LR6 to get me through the next few years, or moving on now. The only camera I am considering purchasing right now is a Canon EOS M 5 as an upgrade to my original EOS M, so LR6 could last me for quite awhile. I just hate giving any more money to Adobe under these circumstances.

For people like me who are Lightroom users only (no Photoshop), this move by Adobe becomes a significant difference in cost. In my case, I purchased the full version of LR 4 about 6 years ago for less than $100 (can't remember exactly how much) and then later bought the LR5 upgrade for $75. I had planned on spending about $80 on a LR7 upgrade that would probably last me at least another 3 years. So, over 9 years I would spend about $250 on Lightroom. Using Adobe's subscription model, essentially the same software would cost me $1,080. To anyone who doesn't think the only reason Adobe is doing this is for the money, I have this bridge I want to sell you.

What Adobe is missing in their calculations is that most of the Lightroom users with a calculator will now be switching to a competitor's product, so instead of that $120 per year subscription they will be getting nothing from us when they could have kept us around at $80.

Hopefully there will be enough of an outcry that Adobe will change their stance and offer a standalone version 7. I am not counting on that happening, but will wait awhile before buying anything just in case.

No it should not invalidate the older version. I stared with LR4, upgraded to 5, and finally 6. I ran the CC Photography bundle for about 2 yrs, before dumping the CC plan, and going just with the perpetual LR6. Each time I upgraded LR, I kept the previous version for a short time just in case things didn't go well for the newer one. So you should be ok with what you're doing.

I won't be dumping LR6 for sometime. I've become so accustom to using it, and will not be needing to abandon it. However I did have to drop the subscription, so no more PS. Instead I've purchased Affinity Photo. Since I do most of my PP in LR, it seems to fill the PS void for my needs.

For my use, a LR replacement would need to include a DAM, I rely heavily on this.

I agree with Scott, hopefully their revenue fall off enough for their shareholders to notice how they messed up not continuing to provide a perpetual license. However when they provided the Photography bundle, it caused a lot of people (me included) to cave to the subscription. The problem with them loosing more people, there's not additional cost to those already using CC, unless you want to increase your storage space. It will be a year or two before the perpetual license crowd dropping will show up on their radar. JMHO

frozenframe wrote in post #18475891
No it should not invalidate the older version. I stared with LR4, upgraded to 5, and finally 6. I ran the CC Photography bundle for about 2 yrs, before dumping the CC plan, and going just with the perpetual LR6. Each time I upgraded LR, I kept the previous version for a short time just in case things didn't go well for the newer one. So you should be ok with what you're doing.

I won't be dumping LR6 for sometime. I've become so accustom to using it, and will not be needing to abandon it. However I did have to drop the subscription, so no more PS. Instead I've purchased Affinity Photo. Since I do most of my PP in LR, it seems to fill the PS void for my needs.

For my use, a LR replacement would need to include a DAM, I rely heavily on this.

Thanks.

Actually the real reason for switching to subscription isn't more money or piracy .... it is regular cashflow. Developing a new version of a software package is expensive and the closer it gets the more sales of the current version drop off. Then you get a massive surge in income which again starts to decline over the next 18 months until the next upgrade.

It is much better (meaning it keeps shareholders happy) to have income spread more evenly across the year and to be able to accurately predict revenue.

MCAsan wrote in post #18475631
Any editor should be able to open a dng file as it a published standard from Adobe.

DNG is not yet a standard and it doesn't seem to be moving in that direction with any speed. DNG today is still a file format. It's based on the TIFF6 standard but there are variations out there. One of the negatives for DNG are that different manufacturers have implemented differently and not all are the same. Also, if you are working with different raw processors like DPP, Adobe, Capture-1, once you convert the raw, you loos the ability to do raw editing across platforms unless you embed the raw file. Doing that though greatly increases the file size.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18475897
Actually the real reason for switching to subscription isn't more money or piracy .... it is regular cashflow. Developing a new version of a software package is expensive and the closer it gets the more sales of the current version drop off. Then you get a massive surge in income which again starts to decline over the next 18 months until the next upgrade.

It is much better (meaning it keeps shareholders happy) to have income spread more evenly across the year and to be able to accurately predict revenue.

What do the shareholders think when the powers that be step on their collective weenies? You know, like thinking this entire thing is a good idea.

gjl711 wrote in post #18475900
DNG is not yet a standard and it doesn't seem to be moving in that direction with any speed. DNG today is still a file format. It's based on the TIFF6 standard but there are variations out there. One of the negatives for DNG are that different manufacturers have implemented differently and not all are the same. Also, if you are working with different raw processors like DPP, Adobe, Capture-1, once you convert the raw, you loos the ability to do raw editing across platforms unless you embed the raw file. Doing that though greatly increases the file size.

Not yet? More like not EVER. Does anyone but Adobe use this?

Bassat wrote in post #18475935
Not yet? More like not EVER. Does anyone but Adobe use this?

DNG is widely supported on multiple platforms and by many programs.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18475897
Actually the real reason for switching to subscription isn't more money or piracy .... it is regular cashflow. Developing a new version of a software package is expensive and the closer it gets the more sales of the current version drop off. Then you get a massive surge in income which again starts to decline over the next 18 months until the next upgrade.

It is much better (meaning it keeps shareholders happy) to have income spread more evenly across the year and to be able to accurately predict revenue.

Yes, companies love the guaranteed continual money model. In this case, though, Adobe is getting that continual cash flow and also more than quadrupling the price of their software for Lightroom-only users.