So if we are done with LR, whats our choices?

Scoobert wrote in post #18481391
..., its all about the revenue.

Maybe not? Paying $10/month vs several hundred $s one time for only the 'old' stand alone PS version does give more people access to the programs, which doesn't have to be a bad thing? And ideally you also get LR & the updates without pain or problems? So maybe this is a good thing that Adobe is doing.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18481399
Maybe not? Paying $10/month vs several hundred $s one time for only the 'old' stand alone PS version does give more people access to the programs, which doesn't have to be a bad thing? And ideally you also get LR & the updates without pain or problems? So maybe this is a good thing that Adobe is doing.

I am not saying its a bad thing for everybody. If you actually have a need and use for photoshop or just have money to waste its great. For people who only used lightroom and purchased the standalone its a pure ripoff. Which are the people that are looking for other choices.
If you upgraded to LR5 the week it came out and then upgraded to LR6 you spent $79.00, over that same time on the subscription plan you would have given them $240. But ts only $10.00 a month just more than a couple happy meals.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18481399
So maybe this is a good thing that Adobe is doing.

The ones this is a good thing for is the shareholders and the only thing that would make them happier would be for you to be on their cloud.

So, is there a good Lightroom alternative with an equally good DAM on board?

Still plugging away with Aperture, even though it's EOL. Working fine on High Sierra, but that could change with the next update!

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18481411
So, is there a good Lightroom alternative with an equally good DAM on board?

Some have been suggesting ACDSee or Alienskin X3.

Thanks, DP. ACDSee for Mac is still in the Beta phase, I'll pass on that one. I never heard of Alienskin X3 before. Will look into that.

I just downloaded Neofinder, which is a DAM only app. I'm playing with it at the moment and it's pretty powerful. The demo is fully functional and they allow you to continue to use it for free but there is a limit of 10 catalogues then, which is more than I need anyway.

So if I have the DAM covered then I can use any good raw converter. I've looked at the latest version of DPP. That would be such a good alternative to Lightroom but after 5 minutes with it I run away screaming. Is it just me?

Scoobert wrote in post #18481391
They will kill it off, its called "classic" for a reason. They will get you into their cloud if there is no "classic" and you will go into it because you will already have all your images into their catalog, it will be seamless and easy.

Wow, I have no words... If you use any version of Lightroom you should know that having images "in the catalog" has zero to do with cloud service. It has zero to do with "image hijacking" or some kind of "new world order control". A comment like this makes me question if you even use Lightroom at all since you obviate don't understand the basic way Lightroom works.

Scoobert wrote in post #18481391
They had a steady source of income by adding very little work into having a standalone version.

Again, another uninformed comment. Software development doesn't work that way. It takes a lot of work to maintain a program to keep up with growing technologies both in software and hardware. Progress happens whether you like it or not and to stay in business you need to move with the progress.

Scoobert wrote in post #18481391
It's all about adobe wanting your data not just the subscription.

Again, I'm at a loss... So every cloud based service is only about controlling content? Do you think Adobe really cares about controlling your petty family pics, or my petty photos of junk, or anyone's petty images of every petty little thing we ask our cameras at? And in this grand scheme of things Adobe is maneuvering us into, what will they be doing with all these thousands of petty images? The world has absolutely no use for 99.9% of our worthless images now as it is, do you think Adobe will purposely sabotage their business model for control over worthless content? Really?

Scoobert wrote in post #18481391
Just like having a subscription provides more income to adobe than standalone, their cloud makes them even more money. You would be naive if you dont think they are going to to do what it takes to push people onto it and the easiest way to do it is going to be to end support for the old legacy "classic" program. Just like it was the fastest way to drive up subscription was to kill stand alone.
Because you are right, its all about the revenue.

If it was all about money then Adobe should be working so hard to bring the overall cost of their products down or make it financially easier to use them. 20 years ago I paid $1800 for the if Master Suite. It was a big cinch of change. In two years (or so) they had the CT version. I couldn't afford it. Now, at $10 I can very easily afford it and I get all the latest updates. How is that not a win?

-Duck- wrote in post #18481520
If it was all about money then Adobe should be working so hard to bring the overall cost of their products down or make it financially easier to use them. 20 years ago I paid $1800 for the if Master Suite. It was a big cinch of change. In two years (or so) they had the CT version. I couldn't afford it. Now, at $10 I can very easily afford it and I get all the latest updates. How is that not a win?

The thing is that if you dont need the suite, then it becomes expensive. They could come up with bracket prices for the amount of products you use, but 10 for the sake of simplicity.

who needs the whole suite?

$10 is a great deal if you use it all, however, who is to say that they wont raise prices over time? This $10 isnt a permanent number, like other subscriptions, it can go up in price.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18481511
Thanks, DP. ACDSee for Mac is still in the Beta phase, I'll pass on that one. I never heard of Alienskin X3 before. Will look into that.

I just downloaded Neofinder, which is a DAM only app. I'm playing with it at the moment and it's pretty powerful. The demo is fully functional and they allow you to continue to use it for free but there is a limit of 10 catalogues then, which is more than I need anyway.

So if I have the DAM covered then I can use any good raw converter. I've looked at the latest version of DPP. That would be such a good alternative to Lightroom but after 5 minutes with it I run away screaming. Is it just me?

I use Neofinder as an all-around terrific catalog and search tool for all of my files on my computers. One of the many nice aspects of Neofinder is that you can create a separate Library for your photos only, instead of a general library of all files on your machine, etc.

Worth the purchase.

kirk

-Duck- wrote in post #18481520
Again, I'm at a loss... So every cloud based service is only about controlling content? Do you think Adobe really cares about controlling your petty family pics, or my petty photos of junk, or anyone's petty images of every petty little thing we ask our cameras at? And in this grand scheme of things Adobe is maneuvering us into, what will they be doing with all these thousands of petty images? The world has absolutely no use for 99.9% of our worthless images now as it is, do you think Adobe will purposely sabotage their business model for control over worthless content? Really?

I think this is rather naive. There's a ton of information in that "worthless content". And it can be used to build profiles and those profiles can be sold. We are constantly being tracked and monitored online. Everything we do is registered, every like, dislike, search, shop we visit, products we look at, forums we visit, you name it. On the world wide web there is no privacy any more. Big data is big business and I find it rather far fetched to assume Adobe will not turn this in yet another way of making money.

The way I see the CC version of Lightroom is this: mobile phones and web-connected cameras now, in increasing numbers shoot raw and, if not, are capable of taking pretty high quality images for what they are. Phones are ubiquitous and I would wager that if someone kept track of how many images are added to the web-o-sphere on a daily basis, the majority by a huge margin would be from mobile phones. The CC version of Lightroom is targeted at these users - phones are connected to the web and can upload shots as they are taken. The editing tools are more than sufficient for what phone users need. Being able to grab shots off the "cloud" storage to a tablet or computer or apple TV or whatever is seamless. Cloud storage, although it costs money, frees up space on your phone for other crap. It is a no-brainer for Adobe to go this route. And yes, it does feel eerily similar to Apple's abandonment of the Pro user, with the heath of Aperture, the MacPro, etc. The mobile user is the revenue stream, so get off your elitist dSLR high horse and get used to it.

Adobe will use the data it collects however much it can get away with it - probably to train AI image processing, catalog and profile users, etc. That is where the money is anyway, not the subscription fees. If it can model you as a user and sell that profile to other marketing consumers, it will. Mobile phone users are the collection point for this data.

If Adobe abandoned the Classic, desktop version of LR without a replacement there would be hell to pay - don't sweat it.

Kirk

EDIT - What Levina said.

kirkt wrote in post #18481537
I use Neofinder as an all-around terrific catalog and search tool for all of my files on my computers. One of the many nice aspects of Neofinder is that you can create a separate Library for your photos only, instead of a general library of all files on your machine, etc.

Worth the purchase.

kirk

Yeah, I created a library for just my photos.
One thing I need to find out is how to get better quality thumbnails as they look bad now, very pixelated.

kirkt wrote in post #18481543
The way I see the CC version of Lightroom is this: mobile phones and web-connected cameras now, in increasing numbers shoot raw and, if not, are capable of taking pretty high quality images for what they are. Phones are ubiquitous and I would wager that if someone kept track of how many images are added to the web-o-sphere on a daily basis, the majority by a huge margin would be from mobile phones. The CC version of Lightroom is targeted at these users - phones are connected to the web and can upload shots as they are taken. The editing tools are more than sufficient for what phone users need. Being able to grab shots off the "cloud" storage to a tablet or computer or apple TV or whatever is seamless. Cloud storage, although it costs money, frees up space on your phone for other crap. It is a no-brainer for Adobe to go this route. And yes, it does feel eerily similar to Apple's abandonment of the Pro user, with the heath of Aperture, the MacPro, etc. The mobile user is the revenue stream, so get off your elitist dSLR high horse and get used to it.

Adobe will use the data it collects however much it can get away with it - probably to train AI image processing, catalog and profile users, etc. That is where the money is anyway, not the subscription fees. If it can model you as a user and sell that profile to other marketing consumers, it will. Mobile phone users are the collection point for this data.

If Adobe abandoned the Classic, desktop version of LR without a replacement there would be hell to pay - don't sweat it.

Kirk

EDIT - What Levina said.

I dont even need mobile LR for this, as long as my WB/exposure is relatively good, I can easily bulk transfer to my phone and onto FB in about a minute, it's real quick.

If this is already posted, sorry. This thread is growing quite a bit...

I was looking at the MacPhun site for Luminar and there's a bit on there that coming in 2018, Luminar will work with existing Lightroom catalogs.
No details about what that means exactly, but still might be better than starting over.

https://macphun.com/op​timizelr

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18481546
Yeah, I created a library for just my photos.
One thing I need to find out is how to get better quality thumbnails as they look bad now, very pixelated.

Check in the Cataloging tab of the preferences.

kirk