[stoppingdown]

Thank God for the JPEG format. 

 

RAW is indeed one of the best, simple and effective ideas in technology, but everything has to do with implementations (I mean, all the stuff for pp) is a can of worms.

[JJ_SO]

The price is 20$ for PS in it's different versions, LR in it's different versions and 1 TB of storage. Another TB would be another 10$.

 

At 1.4 TB I'd pay 360$ a year, if I'm not mistaken. Yet. Nobody knows how long Adobe waits with a price increase.

 

These prices do look small or cheap, but for a year...

 

And don't come up with "you don't have to use Cloud services". Right now, LR CC has an update for Nikon D850 RAW, LR Classic CC doesn't - these users have to wait until October 26th. With Capture One, I'm nearly one month working now with D850 RAW. After a while, there only will be LR CC (which was what LR Classic is now). No, the more I look into that move the less I feel attracted.

[Studor13]

After a while, there only will be LR CC (which was what LR Classic is now). 

 

That is possible but I doubt it.

 

The whole look and feel about the new LR CC is aimed at beginners. There is no RAW converter to start with.

 

If they have only LR CC in the future what would happen to LR Classic?

 

The LR experience and benefits is about LR Classic, not LR CC.

 

LR CC is for people like my wife who only wants to shoot JPEG and maybe post to Facebook. That is why you can't even print in LR CC.

[mike]

That is possible but I doubt it.

 

The whole look and feel about the new LR CC is aimed at beginners. There is no RAW converter to start with.

 

If they have only LR CC in the future what would happen to LR Classic?

 

The LR experience and benefits is about LR Classic, not LR CC.

 

LR CC is for people like my wife who only wants to shoot JPEG and maybe post to Facebook. That is why you can't even print in LR CC.

 

 

Interesting, I was just at the Silkypix site and they now have a JPEG only version too.

 

We're lucky there are still several other software players other than adobe in the photography world. Once it's paired down to 2 or 3 we're really going to be screwed. Once at this level of "competition" it is more profitable for them to essentially price fix. In the US we're down to 2 real ISP providers, most the other rent lines from them. The consequence is we have expensive internet that's slower than the rest of the worlds on average and the service sucks.

[toni-a]

Guys we are forgetting something very important, there are no real alternatives to Adobe products and they are abusing of their dominant position wonder why they aren't being sued like Microsoft a few years ago.

What they are doing is totally acceptable if they had true competition and there was alternatives, in the current status of the market what they are doing might be against European laws of competition

[JJ_SO]

Yes, there are alternatives. Everything else is just prejudice or lack of information.

 

And of course they are not sued - nobody has to buy Adobe, but Microsoft was abusing their highly dominant position as vendor of operating systems - here are only three different ones more or less wide spread. 

[mst]

I don't know about the windows side, but on the Mac, there are definitely alternatives. For editing, there is Affinity, as well as Pixelmator. Both work great.

Things are difficult when it comes to media libraries, though. However, C1 now has media lib functions, too. And you get a great raw converter on top.

Personally, I don't like software subscription too much, but if you want (or have to) use photoshop, then their photographer bundle, which is 9.95 EUR per month for PS CC and LR (both versions), is pretty great, IMO. Since there are a few things in PS I don't want to live without (like content aware image scaling), I happily pay those 10 bucks per month (even though I don't even use LR).

Compared to what I invested in the past in PS (initial investment and updates), it has not become more expensive for me.

However: I could have saved some money in the past by simply not upgrading, by just resisting the pressure created by Adobe's marketing or simply the gut feeling of not being up to date: the last time I checked (on Sierra, I think), CS 5.5 still worked. As does Aperture, still (on High Sierra). I'm also still happy with Office 2011 for Mac... which MS didn't even bother to test on High Sierra anymore

[Brightcolours]

PS CS6 does not work on Sierra, so I doubt 5.5 will? According to Adobe, you needed CC 2017. And that had huge issues in Sierra till they released 18.0.0.1 2 months later.

[Studor13]

Here are some alternatives to Lightroom:

Darktable

digiKam

RawTherapee

Affinity Photo

Shotwell

Polarr

ACDSee

LightZone

Corel PaintShop Pro

Snapseed

Capture One Pro

Apple Photos

photivo

Zoner Photo Studio

Hornil StylePix

Corel AfterShot Pro

Luminar

F-Spot

UFRaw

PicLab

FCorp Imaging

Digital Photo Prefessional

DXO OpticsPro

CyberLink PhotoDirector

ACDSee Photo Editor

ShiftN

Daminion

Sparkbox

Photo Supreme

Light Developer

Batch Image Editor

 

The list goes on. And many are free!

[stoppingdown]

Yes, lots of alternatives - even though in the end the relevant ones are probably only a handful.

 

As said above, the problem is the library function. For instance, Capture One Pro is an excellent RAW converter and editor, it has got a library, but no virtual collections.

 

In any case, I personally think I've plenty of time to choose. We will have still one more, last LR version, and I suppose it has no issues with High Sierra (I will upgrade to High Sierra around Christmas). This means that there should be more or less one year to carefully evaluate alternatives and then migrate.