Two new versions of LR released

BigAl007 wrote in post #18475995
My image folders contain about 1 TB of master files, and on my current connection, which is the fastest available in my location I get about 1 MB/s in upload speed, so that is about 10^9 seconds worth of upload time, running constantly. 10^9 seconds is 31 years and change.

I think your math is a bit off. My upload speed is about 5 Mbps (mega BITS per second) and I was able to upload about 1.1 TB of data to Crashplan in about a month running 24/7.

mike_d wrote in post #18476830
I see subscriptions in the same category as furniture rentals or payday loans. "Oh, it's only $10/mo!" Yeah, F O R E V E R.

5 year cost:

Purchase LR on day 1 then every 2.5 years thereafter- $150 x 2 = $300

Subscribe - $10 x 60 = $600

Catch it on sale and its only $50, so only $100 for 5 years...

And yes, I know, you are spending money to make money, but the first 2 examples could also be used in that respect in some fashion...

and lets be honest here. Improvements are going to continue to be incremental in LR, to much, and you start to remove the need for PS for all but the more demanding edits. Heck, my last few shots I never had to leave LR for editing. The same reasoning they use to cripple certain abilities in PSE. The improvements (i.e. turning back on those things they crippled) are usually small enough that you can easily skip 2 or even 3 releases before its worth while to upgrade.
The software as a service is heavily tilted toward Adobe, it guarantees them a steady cashflow, what business wouldn't love that...
which is fine, they are a private company and are certainly allowed to do that.
My point is this, offer both tracks, if SAS is as great as they want us to believe, then folks will naturally sign up. Why basically make it mandatory..? And yes, that is the direction it is going if you want the latest version. Generally once companies/folks start doing that, the red flags go off in my brain.

The ability to do edits on multiple devices is great (once the raw's are uploaded of course), but as I stated previously, that's a non-starter for me...and I have to agree that a solid majority of folks using LR are more of the part-time pro/amateur variety, than the full-time high end type.

Only time is going to tell if this is a great move, or a major screw up on their part. IF, they were the only game in town, then they would have nothing to lose. As I said, competitors WILL step in the vacuum that Adobe is creating. Some already are..

mike_d wrote in post #18476865
I was able to upload about 1.1 TB of data to Crashplan in about a month running 24/7.

just one month, lets see, at my data cap of 65gig/month, that would take me let's see...17 months...., as long as I was the only one online...with a family..uh, don't think so.

And Adobe wants you to upload your raws to their server....lmao

digirebelva wrote in post #18476867
Catch it on sale and its only $50, so only $100 for 5 years...

And yes, I know, you are spending money to make money, but the first 2 examples could also be used in that respect in some fashion...

and lets be honest here. Improvements are going to continue to be incremental in LR, to much, and you start to remove the need for PS for all but the more demanding edits. Heck, my last few shots I never had to leave LR for editing. The same reasoning they use to cripple certain abilities in PSE. The improvements (i.e. turning back on those things they crippled) are usually small enough that you can easily skip 2 or even 3 releases before its worth while to upgrade.
The software as a service is heavily tilted toward Adobe, it guarantees them a steady cashflow, what business wouldn't love that...
which is fine, they are a private company and are certainly allowed to do that.
My point is this, offer both tracks, if SAS is as great as they want us to believe, then folks will naturally sign up. Why basically make it mandatory..? And yes, that is the direction it is going if you want the latest version. Generally once companies/folks start doing that, the red flags go off in my brain.

The ability to do edits on multiple devices is great (once the raw's are uploaded of course), but as I stated previously, that's a non-starter for me...and I have to agree that a solid majority of folks using LR are more of the part-time pro/amateur variety, than the full-time high end type.

Only time is going to tell if this is a great move, or a major screw up on their part. IF, they were the only game in town, then they would have nothing to lose. As I said, competitors WILL step in the vacuum that Adobe is creating. Some already are..

If I were making money off photography, I wouldn't have a problem paying a subscription to keep my money-making tools up to date. But I don't and I really resent the entire software industry's push toward subscriptions. I'm sure the "own nothing" millennials eat it up but I consider it digital serfdom. The manor lord can take it all away on a whim.

I don't use Photoshop. I'm 95% Lightroom with the occasional trip to Photoshop Elements, which I only upgrade every 2-3 versions.

I've heard good things about Capture One's raw conversion but have also heard it's asset management falls far short of LR. LR has served me well but I've avoided CC since I know once you get on that treadmill, there's no going back. The new CC Cloud is a non starter for me since it looks like a less capable product than LR6 and I have no need or desire to edit raw files on a 5" screen.

My current plan is to stay with LR6 until a camera upgrade forces me to make a choice.

digirebelva wrote in post #18476883
just one month, lets see, at my data cap of 65gig/month, that would take me let's see...17 months...., as long as I was the only one online...with a family..uh, don't think so.

And Adobe wants you to upload your raws to their server....lmao

Do you ever get the feeling this stuff is developed in a bubble? I'm sure the people inside Abobe have unlimited warp speed connections to the data center across town so it's no big deal. Out in the real world where people have slow connections and bandwidth caps (which are becoming more common), moving large amounts of data across WAN links is a problem.

mike_d wrote in post #18476898
Out in the real world where people have slow connections and bandwidth caps (which are becoming more common), moving large amounts of data across WAN links is a problem.

Yes they are, I keep reading tech articles where ISP's (small/large) are starting to implement cap's on broadband...With camera/video files getting larger with every new camera release, more video streaming etc..it's going to get interesting to see where this goes. Adobe and others may soon find themselves as advocates for either no cap's or larger cap's then the ISP's want to give...why..because those caps could easily hurt the path Adobe is now on...
The 2 conflicting paths will meet somewhere in the future...

One other point,
In this era of everybody gets hacked including credit bureaus, 4 star generals, and the NSA, why would I trust THAT kind of Data to Adobe?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18477081
One other point,
In this era of everybody gets hacked including credit bureaus, 4 star generals, and the NSA, why would I trust THAT kind of Data to Adobe?

WHAT?????


HOW could you not trust adobe?

It's not like they get hacked and let out 38 MILLION passwords.

oh wait
https://www.theverge.c​om …rds-photoshop-source-code

Im wondering why people would dump so much stuff into the cloud for editing. At most ill have the two latest sets of photos uploaded. But they arent my only copy as the main photos are sitting in my regular LR library. I dont think ill ever fill up their capacity or even come close.

peeaanuut wrote in post #18477108
Im wondering why people would dump so much stuff into the cloud for editing. At most ill have the two latest sets of photos uploaded. But they arent my only copy as the main photos are sitting in my regular LR library. I dont think ill ever fill up their capacity or even come close.

Agreed. I have no interest in putting my raw files (or most other files) on somebody's cloud.

There is no way I will trust my photos on the Adobe cloud.

I expect that at some point you will have no choice if you want to continue using Lightroom and/or Photoshop. Eliminating perpetual licenses will just be their first step. The next will be to force everything into the cloud and charge you more $$$ for the privilege of doing so. Their strategy is to generate as much guaranteed continual revenue as possible, so this will be their course of action.

Bassat wrote in post #18476554
Lose us, lose a BIG portion of your current revenue stream.

...I really don't think you've been paying attention to the direction Adobe's revenue stream has been heading.

https://petapixel.com …nearly-2-billion-quarter/

Adobe has already "lost most of you guys." It was a blip. Look where revenue was in 2011, just before creative cloud was launched, look what happened in 2013 when they went most of their product line went cloud only. Revenue from perpetual-licence lightroom would only be a fraction of the revenue pre-2011. Look at the revenue now. How much of a "big portion" of the revenue stream do you really think Adobe are going to loose?

Here's my math on the question of cost. Everything we buy for our photography has a cost, we just normally don't think about how it breaks down by month.

Photography Creative Cloud = $10/month (at this point, who knows what will happen in the future)

Canon 5D MKIV = $2,900 - use it for 10 years then sell it for $500 = $2400 cost / 120 months = $20/month.

Lenses might cost less, 1D bodies will cost more per month.

Good post processing capability is easily worth 1/2 the monthly cost of what a nice camera body is worth for me. And the software keeps improving. A camera body stays the same.

bpalermini wrote in post #18478545
Here's my math on the question of cost. Everything we buy for our photography has a cost, we just normally don't think about how it breaks down by month.

Photography Creative Cloud = $10/month (at this point, who knows what will happen in the future)

Canon 5D MKIV = $2,900 - use it for 10 years then sell it for $500 = $2400 cost / 120 months = $20/month.

Lenses might cost less, 1D bodies will cost more per month.

Good post processing capability is easily worth 1/2 the monthly cost of what a nice camera body is worth for me. And the software keeps improving. A camera body stays the same.

This difference is that I choose when or if to buy a new piece of gear and can buy used to save money. Software subscriptions are a never ending treadmill of payments. Adobe isn't doing this because it's good for their customers.