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

Cool! Thank you, Kirk.

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

http://www.darktable.o​rg/about/features/

Charlie wrote in post #18481526
This $10 isnt a permanent number, like other subscriptions, it can go up in price.

Tell that to the people who used to pay $.10 for a loaf of bread. I've seen bread go from $.79 to over $2.00 just in 30 years. You're telling me people should not go up on their prices to keep up with inflation because they don't want to pay for a service? These are all ridiculous arguments. Adobe has stayed at the $10 month price point for three programs* (now four) for half a decade.

* Lightroom (Classic), Photoshop, Bridge and now the new Lightroom CC

Of course it can go up. So can the price of anything else, and they do. Expect it. It just boggles the mind that somehow people expect the rules to be different for them than anyone else. I've gone up on my prices in my own business. Did some people complain? Sure. Did it cause me to think, "gee, people are upset with me. Maybe I shouldn't raise prices and just cinch my belt and settle for less in my life. I'm sure the electric company, phone company, insurance company, my wife and kids, the bank holding my mortgage, my landlord for my studio and everyone else I am accountable for will understand." Not one second. I did what I needed to do to maintain profitability. As a matter of fact, we are raising prices again because we have to.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18481540
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.

You are so missing the point. You have images "in the cloud" everywhere already. Why aren't you concerned with those? Dropbox is probably one of the most common services used by photographers. Any image hosting site is cloud. Any social media sharing site is cloud. You mean to tell me you do not post any information on the internet? The internet is cloud based technology. Your images hosted on any service is controlled and spread throughout many server systems controlled by any number of corporations.

The only way you can have your images 'hijacked' is if you upload ALL your images to some sketchy company and delete any vestiges of those files from your own system and then throw caution to the wind by not monitoring what that company does with your data.

I take it you don't use credit cards? That's cloud based information. How about your automotive licensing information? All your banking and financial information? All cloud based. And the funny thing about those examples... YOU have no control over that information. It's YOUR information you put out there. People have to stop with this "hijacking of images" crap. It's just too ridiculous to do so.

kirkt wrote in post #18481543
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..

Hate to break it to you, but Google has been doing this exact thing for years. Far longer than Adobe's perceived threat.

-Duck- wrote in post #18481520
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.

Again nothing but a way to turn it into a argument. Is adobe paying you to be this blinded ?

They are already spending the time, money and effort on the software already. Adding very little cost to that same software to make a stand alone version is what I was refering to you. You know that, but then you couldn't twist it into an argument for the poor down trodden, impoverished and oppressed adobe.

-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?

WOW, you are one of the biggest shills and trolls I have ever seen. Are you really this obtuse or just pretending to be to create arguments?

Adobe does not care one bit about what the data is and you Mr. Obtuse know this. Its not about what the content is its simply having control over it. WHEN adobe kills "classic" many will move onto their cloud. Once there you will pay what ever amount adobe says you will for their storage and use.

Only the second person I have ever had to put on the ignore list in years here. So you can make more paragraphs about how the great adobe is doing people a favor by ripping them off but I wont see them. But the troll (or paid shill) in you will continue to make arguments in a thread called IF NOT LIGHTROOM, whats our choices? So why not give us all a break and stick to the topic on hand.

IE What products can the people who dont want to be ripped off by adobe move too?

I'm embarrassed to say after all the griping I caved. Like I said perhaps in another thread it took a year to warm up to LR and another few to fine tune and get it the way I wanted it. I did a bunch more tests with Capture and frankly there was just no knock your socks off difference for me. It is very good but not $300 worth anyway. I read on another thread what happens if they go full subscription. They are already offering it.

LR classic install was seamless, took less than 5 minutes to open and picked up my old catalogue, presets and defaults. Same for my laptop. I'll give a year and see. I just paid the whole amount as I figure to upgrade both LR and PS would have cost as much. It is like nothing changed expect for Adobe's meat hooks and now I get Dehaze. I do have the 3rd party one on LR6. Have not explored the other new things yet.

I'm working on my desktop and external drives and I have not even seen the word cloud. I don't even know how to send any images to the free 20 gigs and I won't use it anyway so I don't care. I'm not even going to download LR CC. I wish I could sell it lol.

I guess I should switch the Process to version 4 for my future imports. I have it set up in my defaults to auto apply.

At this site they said it would wipe out LR6 and to uncheck the box but when I opened it was unchecked. Perhaps Adobe changed the default setting because they were getting complaints. I'm on hold with Adobe support as I don't see this option with PS CC. I don't want it CS6 deleted either. However I do see and option to download CS6.

https://www.lightroomf​orums.net …lightroom-6-cc2015.32894/

-Duck- wrote in post #18481655
The only way you can have your images 'hijacked' is if you upload ALL your images to some sketchy company and delete any vestiges of those files from your own system and then throw caution to the wind by not monitoring what that company does with your data.

So? How do you know what Adobe does/will do with all the data in their cloud? You don't. Companies like Facebook and Google use their user data in ways they shouldn't. Why do you think Adobe would be any different?

Well actually no, I don't use credit cards. I also don't use Dropbox. Online I try to protect my privacy as much as possible. Yes, I post my images on flickr and here on POTN and that's pretty much it. I decided years ago that I would allow my images to float around. I don't care about that much. What I do care about is trackers who follow me around and build a profile of me, based on my journeys on the internet. I protect myself against those as much as I can by using browser plug-ins and proxy's. I also don't use Google. And I'm not on social media. So I do what I can.

You may think that the whole world wide web is one big cloud and in a way that's true. But if it is, then that is one huge pool to fish in; everything is dispersed, so finding data is hard. Hence the use of trackers. But those can be stopped. Having everything in a specific cloud however, makes it much easier to retrieve information. And I as a user can do nothing to protect myself against it. So if e.g. Adobe taps into the info included in the images in the Adobe Cloud, it will have specific information about the gear of the photographers, the locations they shoot at and have full access to all the keywords. That is the kind of information that advertisers pay very nice money for.

monty28428 wrote in post #18479190
I don't remember what I paid for Capture one pro 8... but the upgrade to 10 was only $99.

Correct, and you can skip updates, and still pay $99.00, and they are not always yearly.

Let's discontinue the argument that is predicated on the idea that we all have the same needs and do the same thing.

This is simply not true, and makes ones argument invalid, all sides should understand this, so why continue?

Scoobert wrote in post #18481723
AWHEN adobe kills "classic" many will move onto their cloud. Once there you will pay what ever amount adobe says you will for their storage and use.

I can't see Adobe killing off LR Classic and forcing their users to move everything to the cloud, it just wouldn’t work for most people. I have just uploaded ONE image to the Adobe cloud and it took FIFTEEN minutes to upload. To upload my entire Lightroom catalogue would take one and a half YEARS. I don’t believe Adobe are that naive.

Scoobert wrote in post #18481723
IE What products can the people who dont want to be ripped off by adobe move too?

But why are you being ripped off by Adobe. A standalone version of Lightroom costs about £150. A standalone version of Photoshop would cost about £700. If you upgraded both of these every 5 years that would be another £425 approx. In total that would cost you about £1275 for about 9 to 10 years usage. Paying a subscription at the current rates would cost you £1200 for the same period. The advantage of the subscription is that you will always have access to the most up to date version of the software.

Inflation has not being included for obvious reasons.

ummm wow, 11 pages, and not one mention of CS-6?
I have LR4, ON1, and CS6 ... paid one price for the LR and CS6, and the ON1 was some sort of promo?
MORE then I need lol ...

john crossley wrote in post #18481796
I can't see Adobe killing off LR Classic and forcing their users to move everything to the cloud, it just wouldn’t work for most people. I have just uploaded ONE image to the Adobe cloud and it took FIFTEEN minutes to upload. To upload my entire Lightroom catalogue would take one and a half YEARS. I don’t believe Adobe are that naive.

But why are you being ripped off by Adobe. A standalone version of Lightroom costs about £150. A standalone version of Photoshop would cost about £700. If you upgraded both of these every 5 years that would be another £425 approx. In total that would cost you about £1275 for about 9 to 10 years usage. Paying a subscription at the current rates would cost you £1200 for the same period. The advantage of the subscription is that you will always have access to the most up to date version of the software.

Inflation has not being included for obvious reasons.

You are using the misguided impression that I want photoshop, or want to pay for it. But with the new plan you have no choice. That would be like stopping to buy a newspaper every morning. Then one morning you go to buy your paper and it went from $1.00 a new price of $5.00. But you get a Bangladesh fashion magazine valued at $7.00 thrown in. They are saving you money, they are giving you a discount. Doesn't matter if you didnt want it, have a need for it or cant even read Bengali. They are making a killing forcing you to take something you didnt want and couldnt sell you before. You would have zero problem with that, right? I mean you would be defending the paper because they are giving out such a great deal, right?


LR3 was $129.00 and even if you use the current price of $79.00 upgrade to each new version the day they were released you would have a total of $366.00 dollars spent. You know how much that would be if we ONLY paid the 10 bucks a month that is so cheap? $1080.00 What a deal only a $714.00 difference for having instant updates.

You know from a company that is so into improvements that even though quad core processors have been out for 8 years cant figure how to make a program run any faster on a 5Ghz 6 core chip then they could on a Pentium 4. Also with the subscription plan improvements will come along at an even slower pace. They are in no rush to fix bugs or make improvements, why would they be you are already paying.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18481771
So? How do you know what Adobe does/will do with all the data in their cloud? You don't. Companies like Facebook and Google use their user data in ways they shouldn't. Why do you think Adobe would be any different?

Well actually no, I don't use credit cards. I also don't use Dropbox. Online I try to protect my privacy as much as possible. Yes, I post my images on flickr and here on POTN and that's pretty much it. I decided years ago that I would allow my images to float around. I don't care about that much. What I do care about is trackers who follow me around and build a profile of me, based on my journeys on the internet. I protect myself against those as much as I can by using browser plug-ins and proxy's. I also don't use Google. And I'm not on social media. So I do what I can.

You may think that the whole world wide web is one big cloud and in a way that's true. But if it is, then that is one huge pool to fish in; everything is dispersed, so finding data is hard. Hence the use of trackers. But those can be stopped. Having everything in a specific cloud however, makes it much easier to retrieve information. And I as a user can do nothing to protect myself against it. So if e.g. Adobe taps into the info included in the images in the Adobe Cloud, it will have specific information about the gear of the photographers, the locations they shoot at and have full access to all the keywords. That is the kind of information that advertisers pay very nice money for.

That's my point. The majority of people complaining about what they perceive Adobe will do with their data don't bother protecting themselves from other similar companies. Digital footprints are constantly tracked and you have to be a very active participant to take measures against that tracking. Data tracking is how pretty much every major corporation does business. They need to know who, what, when and where their products and services are most effective. The only real way to avoid all that is to be "off grid" as they say.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18481794
Let's discontinue the argument that is predicated on the idea that we all have the same needs and do the same thing.

This is simply not true, and makes ones argument invalid, all sides should understand this, so why continue?

Yes we all have different needs, I need Photoshop for photo based cartoons, I don't think I would need more than Lightroom or similar if I only did fairly straight photography. Others have vastly different needs than I do and they may well prefer the output of other editors or find them more intuitive. So yes all arguments should start from the premise of others having different needs and wants.