LR Classic v CC - An Explanation from Martin Evening

http://www.photoshopfo​rphotographers.com/lig​htroom/LRCCC.pdf

This should explain the two new versions of LR - from Martin Evening, a cogent and hopefully complete explanation of what each version is, does and requires.

kirk

Thanks!

Yeah, thanks for posting that. Makes for a good read.

If you want an alternative product that does range masking (luminosity and color) look at On1 Photo RAW 2018. It is now in beta. I have used it to do range masking.

MCAsan wrote in post #18482191
If you want an alternative product that does range masking (luminosity and color) look at On1 Photo RAW 2018. It is now in beta. I have used it to do range masking.

Given that the effectively paid for beta release of the 2017 version managed to not introduce many of the promised features, and that they now require you to pay again because it's the "new" 2018 version. With some of the promised 2017 stuff STILL missing, from what I can see, I'm sorry by I think On1 really need to sort themselves out and prove that they can actually deliver a FULL product.

Actually a computer program that lacks the ability to save your work so that you can go back to it later isn't really ready for beta, let alone being a paid product. So in that respect the 2017 version wasn't even ready to be a beta when released as a paid product. So if I have to pay for an update every year, just to get promised functionality, where is that better than Adobe's subscription model.

Alan

Here is an interview with Tom Hogarty regarding the two versions of LR and some verbiage about the future of the products. Whatever.

https://youtu.be/WaBee​BUZvAg

kirk

I read the article. It offers a better understanding of LR Classic vs. LR CC. It does not mention the fact that a subscription model of LR is still a GINORMOUS cost increase for snappers like me. If Adobe does not offer a version of LR7 I can pay for in a 'one and done' fashion, I'll move on.

Bassat wrote in post #18482503
I read the article. It offers a better understanding of LR Classic vs. LR CC. It does not mention the fact that a subscription model of LR is still a GINORMOUS cost increase for snappers like me. If Adobe does not offer a version of LR7 I can pay for in a 'one and done' fashion, I'll move on.

Start formulating Plan B.

kirk

kirkt wrote in post #18482513
Start formulating Plan B.

kirk

I keep my DPP4 updated, and work in it from time to time. DXO is also giving away a version of Optics Pro for a short time. Its different, and does not come with a file management system, but it does seem to work well. The link to the DXO download was in another thread. I'll copy it here, if I can find it.

EDIT:
Found it: http://www.dxo.com/us/​practicalphotography
Good until 11/30/2017. Certainly worth the download, if you ask me. Comes with a PDF manual. Handy.

Bassat wrote in post #18482537
I keep my DPP4 updated, and work in it from time to time. DXO is also giving away a version of Optics Pro for a short time. Its different, and does not come with a file management system, but it does seem to work well. The link to the DXO download was in another thread. I'll copy it here, if I can find it.

EDIT:
Found it: http://www.dxo.com/us/​practicalphotography
Good until 11/30/2017. Certainly worth the download, if you ask me. Comes with a PDF manual. Handy.

I did not even notice that after installation. I just found the PDFs in the Help folder. Thanks for the information. I haven't played with the program yet, but having a user guide will probably entice me more to give it a try versus just mucking around on my own.

"Ginormous"?? It's $10 a month!!

If you're not a working photographer, Apple Photos comes free with MacOS and does an awful lot. I don't know of any included options for Windows..

Bassat wrote in post #18482503
I read the article. It offers a better understanding of LR Classic vs. LR CC. It does not mention the fact that a subscription model of LR is still a GINORMOUS cost increase for snappers like me. If Adobe does not offer a version of LR7 I can pay for in a 'one and done' fashion, I'll move on.

I am a happy Photography plan user but it is obvious to me that, while the price is great for those who use LR+PS, it isn't good for the many photographers who only use LR.

The problem is that the bigger a company gets the bigger their customers have to get. Eventually it becomes uneconomical to support small, single package customers... especially when that entails maintaining a separate SKU of the product.

Personally I think they should update Photoshop elements to include the full ACR/LR RAW processor alongside the cut down PS. That would be the perfect package for photographers.

ShotByTom wrote in post #18482831
"Ginormous"?? It's $10 a month!!

If you're not a working photographer, Apple Photos comes free with MacOS and does an awful lot. I don't know of any included options for Windows..

Ginormous INCREASE. I recently bought LR6 for $79. If I use that for 3 years, I've spent an average of $2.20 a month for it. If I want LR7 @ $10/month, that same 3 years will cost me $360. That bothers me. I spend more on lottery tickets. It's not the cost, it's Adobe thinking I'm going to roll over and take it dry that smokes my goat. There are alternatives. To me, this seems like a great time explore them. I have the latest version of DPP, and now a free version of Optics Pro. May as well check them out.

Just for giggles, my wife tried LR4 or 5 for about 2 minutes. She still prefers to do what she does with Picasa 3. Not everyone needs/wants a complete photo processing program. Besides, if I can live without LR7, I can buy another 6-pack every month. Thanks, Adobe! Free beer!

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18482842
I am a happy Photography plan user but it is obvious to me that, while the price is great for those who use LR+PS, it isn't good for the many photographers who only use LR.

The problem is that the bigger a company gets the bigger their customers have to get. Eventually it becomes uneconomical to support small, single package customers... especially when that entails maintaining a separate SKU of the product.

Personally I think they should update Photoshop elements to include the full ACR/LR RAW processor alongside the cut down PS. That would be the perfect package for photographers.

Methinks your logic is a bit askew. Wrigley is still one of the biggest players in the chewing gum market. One pack at time. You make just as much money making $1 off of 10,000,000 sales as you do making $1000 off of 10,000 sales.

BTW, I'm still using PSE 12. I've seen no reason to upgrade in any of the newer versions. Maybe that is why Adobe thinks I should give them $10/mo.

Bassat wrote in post #18482915
Methinks your logic is a bit askew. Wrigley is still one of the biggest players in the chewing gum market. One pack at time. You make just as much money making $1 off of 10,000,000 sales as you do making $1000 off of 10,000 sales.

My logic is fine, it's your understanding of business that is askew. Chewing gun is in no way a valid comparison for high end computer software. gum is mass produced on an assembly line. The product they sold five years ago is the product they sold this year and will be what they sell next year.

Gum production is infinitely more scaleable than software development. If you want twice as much gum you just double the number of machines. There is an initial cost involved but beyond that the gum production doubles. Software is in no way the same. I know because I spent 20+ years working in software development. You can't simply double output by adding double the number of engineers because the more engineers you have the more time they have to spend communicating and therefore less time actually developing (gum machines don't need to communicate to make gum. You just turn them on and they make gum).

Gum production is also automated and the staff that do work there are lower paid manual workers. Software development has no automation. The staff that work there are highly paid skilled staff and the more you add the more support staff you need to add, which is why, as I said in my previous post, the bigger the company gets the more expensive it becomes to run and therefore, the more it needs to earn per customer.