If the release of on October 18th was, today marks the end of the end. Adobe has released the final standalone Lightroom, adding some bug fixes and camera and lens compatibility, but otherwise using the opportunity to encourage users to jump on the subscription bandwagon. To their credit, Adobe isn't hiding this fact.
They announced that this final update was coming, and today's update announcement notes state the facts plainly: Lightroom 6.14 is the last perpetual, standalone version of Lightroom. While you may continue to purchase and use Lightroom 6 with a perpetual license, Adobe will no longer provide updates to the software. Consider upgrading to the to get the latest updates in Lightroom Classic CC and the all-new Lightroom CC, and ensure that the software works with raw files from the newest cameras. As of today, Lightroom 6 becomes an 'unsupported product.'
Of course, that's okay if you plan to use it with a camera you currently own and don't intend to upgrade any time soon. Problems—or, rather, inconveniences—arise with your next camera purchase.
That camera won't be supported by Lightroom 6, and you'll be forced to use Adobe's before importing your images. Not to mention the OS compatibility issues that will inevitably arise as Microsoft and Apple continue releasing new operating systems. If that all sounds like too much of a hassle, and a Creative Cloud subscription is simply out of the question, it might be time to check out some of the popular alternatives that we've been and recently. To download the latest (and last) version of Lightroom 6. I went with ACDsee on Christmas day and uninstalled everything Adobe from my computer and cancelled subscription.
My thinking is if I have to use ACDsee maybe I'll learn it faster. It was 150 dollars.
Adobe subscription here in Ireland is 12.29 euro or approx 15 dollars a month. If in ten months I think ACDsee does not work for me I'll sign up again to Adobe, because despite the fact it's subscription and there's a lot of hate for Adobe on photo forums it's hard to fault the two punch Lightroom/Photoshop combi. Three days ago I downloaded 6.14 to update my 6.13 version of Lightroom 6. A little voice told me to make a backup. So far I was always confindent because I never had any trouble with Lightroom and updates so far. I made that backup, then I updated to 6.14. And guess what has happened?
Lightroom 6.14 refused to work and immediately crashed every time tried to start it. I am working with Lightroom since the first beta version came out. Nothing like that has happened so far.
Well, good to listen to that little voice. Old version 6.13 restored from TimeMachine Backup and I was back in business again. It felt a little bit like Adobe trying to 'nudge' people into their subscription system. Nice Christmas gift. OK, thats the final nudge for me to change to an other product because I am unwilling to pay monthly rents.
Or maybe a join-standard for RAW files where the image itself is standardized among camera manufacturers, but then there could be a second layer or side-car file that would let the manufacturer add additional data specific to the camera. But all image editors would at least be able to read the basic RAW file and extra basic image data from it. I think that would solve much of these problems. And yes, it would be nice if at the very least, each new camera (from the same mfr) didn't require updates to software. @Chucknet, A RAW file is very close to its sensor structure (Bayer, X-trans, Foveon). Creating a standard RAW format requires adding a software layer that pre-processes the image to output data in a format that is independent from the sensor structure.
Two options: - in-camera for ease of use. Drawback: have to choose between slower RAW burst rate or increased processing power (and power consumption). a conversion tool, provided by the camera manufacturer, that runs on the computer when transferring RAW files from the camera card to the computer. Advantage: no need to modify the cameras. Drawbacks: added processing time, but the conversion is automatic, and one different converter version for each supported operating systems.
But I am afraid you already found the true reason yourself: manufacturers want you to spend money in upgrading. What camera might you be using?
Nikon always have NEF. I believe Canon started with CIFF, then CR2, CRW, and CR.
Fuji also changed raw format file. Sony has SR and SRF which is derived fro TIFF. Pentax used to have PEF but changed to DNG to avoid maintaining their own PEF. I still have Photoshop file format that also owns DNG.
Of course Lightroom and Photoshop are owned by Adobe. I am aware that Adobe photo processing product is widely used and may have the lions share of the market. But not wanting to be a captive of Adobe, I started trying alternatives. Mucphun's(Luminar, HDR, Snapheal, Noiseless, Intensity), Picktorial, SmartPhotoEditor and NikCollections, etc.
I now use Picktorial, Luminar2018, and HDR2018 and have stopped using Adobe since 2015. These three post-processors supports DNG, TIFF, NEF, CRW,CR2, PEF, and just about every file formats.
These programs maybe added on to Lightroom, Photoshop, etc, or could be use as stand alone. @Sdaniella - Can you provide some more information on what you're talking about (how Adobe gatekeeps new RAW files). The need for updated / revised DNG converters is generally necessitated by something being different, like a change in the RAW file (even if the image portion of the file remains the same, the headers in the file could change-camera data stored along with the image data).
And sometimes camera mfr's change the algorithms they use in compressed RAW files here and there, and that alone would require some changes to the converters reading the file. I doubt that Adobe will go back to a standalone subscription. They know that major companies have a lot invested in them, and that the individual photographers here and there who jump ship don't put a huge dent in their revenues more than likely. Now, if there was a world-wide 'Adobe boycott' where half of all users boycotted Adobe, then maybe we might see the standalone license come back, Adobe knows that switching is hard for most people and organizations, so that's also why I don't see them going back to a perpetual license model.
And if anything, other companies, like PhaseOne and others have started offering subscriptions, so it's only time until they nix their standalone licenses too and force the subscription model on us. No, the government probably actually likes it, because you have to pay tax each month on your subscription. A one-time (or no subscription) say, on the $69 Affinity Pro software, means the government only gets, say, 10% of that, and it's a one time deal (they collect $6.90 from you ONCE until you buy the next version a few years later for example). Subscription-wise, you're paying (at 10% for Adobe Photographer's plan) $12 in sales tax each year, until you cancel. So, no I don't think they would ban it. They (the government and the IRS) enjoy the extra income each year, so if anything they'd be FOR subscription models, just as developers are.
Adobe's stranglehold has to end. The implication is beyond Adobe as many other software companies esp. In the creative and engineering field is have moved to subscription only model.
Unless Adobe is defeated and forced to bring back perpetual licenses the future looks really dark. Google should dump some money to create free and open source alternatives to Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom, Indesign and put Adobe out of it's misery. They already have a successful Android model to do it. Google should do it quickly before some Chinese company does it.
For the hobbyist photographers and independent media creators, something like this would probably work, but I doubt you'd get the major studios to switch over, because they are too invested in Adobe. And honestly, I think Adobe just uses consumer sales as icing on the cake. They are already making plenty of money from big photo studios and media creation studios, business marketing depts, etc, so while I think it would be a great idea, the effort might be a little fruitless. Because even if someone did manage to make a PS/LR clone that was compatible for much less, it would still take time to catch on to be mainstream enough to cause Adobe any significant harm. Google has sort of gone away from Photography as it seems, as it sold Nik collection, ended Picasa, and is revamping Photos (although, not getting rid of it, per-se).
So it seems Google is taking a step back in the 'photography' markets a bit. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong, but Google must look at the feasibility. Google invests regularly in open-source projects irrespective the their link with Google's core business (look up Google SoC).
Professionals may not use the alternatives but if it becomes good enough they will use it. Look at Blender 3D, it used to be hideous but now it gives many paid software run for its money (it's also supported by Google SoC, AMD etc). Earlier professional fonts were sold by only few foundries and they were exorbitantly expensive.
Google hired some of the best type designers and and made more than 800 professional grade fonts families free and opensource even for commercial projects! Then there's BlackMagic Design - they give away their professional Video Editor and Compositor software for free - it can be used for commercial projects.
The Adobe suit might have been cutting edge 15-20 years back but now it's not - it's just that Adobe has monopoly and they acquired and killed their competitors. Google can easily create free alternatives. I hate to say it, but the US economy is a bit different than the France economy (and government). Pretty much, we just had an 'increase' in taxes over the next 8-10 years for most people, disguised as a tax cut. But I won't go into that as it's not really part of the argument here. So yes, my claim was only applicable really to the US market, where the government likes to, and will, tax almost anything it can. France, and other parts of Europe might be different, as it is more than likely a case-by-case basis depending on the nation and i t's government (policies, taxation law,s etc).
I was speaking from the US standpoint, sorry. Before the inevitable complaints about LR 6.14 and the Spot Edit tool.
Remember that having any filters or image slider changes will slow the spot edit tool down to a crawl. Always do spot edits first. The spot edit tool will still lag if you do enough of them on a single photo though and that is where another destructive editor like CS6 is useful. I already updated to 6.14 and so far I noticed nothing nefarious or downgraded. Looks like they actually did fix the date bug (finally).
If you do not use Fuji stuff, DxO PhotoLab is a really solid raw converter. My images looked much better after switching from LR6.
In addition it is a good idea to manage photos in a different software than the one used for raw development. This allows switching one part, without loosing the other. I am quite shure, that Classic CC will die after Lightroom CC has got more skills. It looks like a common process used in the software industry to introduce a new generation while not being able to implement everything at once. C1 might be great after you get in it. It delivers great results from the start.
But they are the most expensive alternative. 300€ initial, 120€ and growing for each yearly update. You must deside whether it is worth it. If you need tethering, go here. But look first, whether your cam is not blacklisted, because it is a medium format.
Luminar I tried only once, but did not like it. I cannot remember, why. So I moved to DxO. At the end I payed also 280€ because I bought the full elite suite with filmpack and view point. But the incremental updates are cheaper and I expect the best integration of NIK Collection skills into a non destructive process in the future here. I purchased Luminar a few days ago with the FujiRumors coupon code.
When I did, I also decided to begin my migration to Affinity Photo, Affinity Designer and PDF Editor Pro. These are all now on my computer and replace Creative Suite 6. I'll use Lightroom 6 for tethering till Luminar provides a tethering solution. When that happens, it will end my relationship with Adobe that stretches back 15 years. I would also add that a few weeks ago an Adobe spokesman said that Lightroom desk top version would be available 'indefinitely' and many people pointed out that all that meant was 'for now.' Shame on Adobe for using weasel words. I am not against subscription software overall.
I have it in my business. My issue with something like LR you are held hostage forever if you want to view your images via the Catalog and see the edits you have made. I know you can export the edits to JPEG or whatever, but it kind of defeats the purpose of having Lightroom. It's not like say a business application, where once you are done with it, that's it.
Most people want to be able to access their photos for the rest of their lives. So going forward I might look at something else. The thought irks me paying for something simply to view images should I stop taking photography seriously down the track. Oh wow, no matter what you use you really should have jpeg or tiff versions of your better photos. Even if you plan to stay with compatible software for ever, things inevitably change in the computer world and there is a non-trivial chance you will find yourself going through those raw files again one day! I actually work the other way - I export and then re-import high quality jpg files( after I am happy with my edits, obviously) but store copies of the raw files on two hard drives so I can visit them again when better software turns up. All non destructive 'edited' images must be rendered with some software.
It is like a word document. It needs a viewer to view. And, eventually this software might be hard to run. Theoretically, there could be an open standard for non destructive edited images, with clear instructions on how to render them. Do not hold your breath though. And even so, they still needs to be rendered, and different softwares will do that differently, no matter standards. So - export to a standard file format, like JPEG or TIFF is a must if you want to view the images like it was supposed to look.
I do in fact have high res jpegs of my good files. What I really mean is, say you have taken the time to keyword your files. Or say like me you shot a wedding or event and want to revisit the files for further editing down the track. All I am saying is that once you are in the Eco system of subscription software you have serious challenges ahead of you if you utilise it to its maximum if you want to stop using it down the track.
Lightroom is a good example of that considering it is a database oriented piece of software. I don’t use Adobe CC.
I don’t want to pay a monthly fee. I’m still using LR 5. While my photography gets praise from people I’m not a pro. It makes no sense for me to pay the monthly fee. My question is that Adobe CC has to have a constant internet connection & quite frankly I don’t like that for a few reasons.
Does Adobe automatically upload photos your editing to their cloud? I don’t want to agree in the small print that Adobe owns my photos since I’m using their software. Is anything I’m speculating about true about Adobe? Your thoughts?
The other option is to do what guys who have old scanners that only can use old OS's like XP do. If you're willing to put aside GAS, stop spending money of new cameras every few years and confirm that the advance gear in 2017 is enough for your photographic needs for many years to come just setup a computer dedicate for photography with Windows 10 or OSX Sierra and keep that running for the next 15 years. Even if your computer breaks you'll be able to buy a replacement for dirt cheap in the future.
I don't support companies that do such practices. It would be like buying a TV antenna made from the parent company of ABC and the antenna is design to block signals from FOX. Not that it's a technical limitation of the antenna but they literally designed the antenna to not accept signals from FOX. Thats what this is like. Phase One actually wrote code to look into the EXIF information and block certain cameras. You want to support that then be my guest.
I just get a kick out off all the people who say Adobe are evil for using a cloud but Phase One are the good guys from purposely writing code to block certain cameras. Just hope Phase One doesn't start blocking Nikon and Sony as the 35mm full frame continue to catch up in the IQ war to medium format. @progo I already decided after being with CC for more than 4 years, I mean since it came out. I have a 4K UHD (10bit) monitor for a year now (I wasn't the first who had a 4K monitor, right?!), nVidia K2200, 2 xeon (16 logic cores), wacom tablet, 24GB, PCI SSD, etc.
I just can't understand why Adobe started to think about Photoshop's UI some months ago. Almost every update had to be updated again for fixing issues. More than four years it's enough for me.
My feeling is that those years they did almost NOTHING for Lr+Ps. Sometimes I was thinking (and I still do): 'Maybe photoshop was NEVER a round piece of software'. And that menu with 3D.
If I miss anything, it's Bridge;). Not much chance of forgetting it on here with any number of people willing to bang on endlessly every time the word Adobe appear on the site.
They are a profit making company and make decisions that they think will make them the most money. Maybe they are wrong in this case. I don't think they are. Out here in the real world when I chat to photography friends and club members those that used Adobe before are happy with CC and those that didn't still don't. Time will tell. In the meantime we all get bored to hell and back with having to pick out useful comments from the Adobe bashing. Yes adobe is in business to make $$ but to make money you need to get customers, then keep customers.if a customer feels put upon, or ignored.
If they feel that the service they support thru their dollars does not support them back in a manner they expect then customers leave. Eventually they actively look for competing products or services, Yes, many will stay even if unhappy because despite partial dissatisfaction, the software or service is still too valuable or unique in features to abandon. Even they will leave when possible.This is why any company wanting to stay profitable needs to cultivate a positive relationship with customers That's done by listening to customers and giving the best,most polished product they can.Lean fast code across modern cpu multicores. & I'm not sure adobe is doing all they can. Certainly releasing code they need to ask forgiveness for the next day that creates havoc,extra work, customer anger, and confusion. Well that's not a good look. At my workplace they rent Adobe Creative Suite, but are actively looking to get out of it as soon as possible, due to the silly cost.
And amusingly, when I start Illustrator or Photoshop, an Adobe questionnaire box sometimes appears, asking me on a 1 to 10 scale if I'd recommend Illustrator or Photoshop to someone else, and a box to suggest what they could do to make it better! I expect Adobe uses an automated bot to delete any replies that have a rating of 1, or 'CC', 'Cash Cow' or 'price' in the reply. @Jefftan the software isn't in cloud - it's sitting on your PC, only the licensing has to happen online (cloud). It's not really could computing - they are just using the 'cloud' to justify their ransomware/subscription model. Adobe CC was broken pirated as soon as it came out.
Many software companies enjoy (or perhaps encourage) piracy as it helps to spread their software. Adobe generally don't go after amateurs and students if they are using pirated software as they want to keep their software popular. But as soon as they start using it for professional purpose Adobe will be after them. @Sarah Yeah, I'd say my pictures turn out different with C1, and unfortunately, I usually like the LR result better.
Aside from missing lens profiles, C1's chromatic aberration tools are poor compared to LR. Purple fringing is easy to get rid of, but C1 doesn't do well with green or other colors. C1 also lacks the camera calibration profiles LR has, so if you like the look of your camera jpegs, there's no option to match that in C1. You are stuck with how they think the colors should look (unless you want to constantly manually adjust things). Sara - Lens profiles are hit or miss in LR.
At least in C1 you can totally disable them, not possible in LR (LR still maintains raw corrections that you cannot disable). If you're interested in the difference, I can show you shots from LR and either Iridient or C1 from Fuji 35/2 or 10-24. LR smears the corners horribly. Dehaze is nothing but a blue and cyan desaturate combined with clarity, very easy to replicate (with better results) manually in either program. I agree LR local adjustment is very nice, but C1 has layers and now transparency for these, which is also very nice!
I still have to learn if C1 can save brushes like LR. I do agree C1 isn't as good at removing CA (to whomever said that).
Both good programs no doubt. I would still be in LR but I grew tired of paying monthly and put serious time into C1 and it's paying off. Is 'trying' in quotes mean you are being facetious? You didn't really try?
I'm guessing that you have either been on LR a very long time and so it's hard to change muscle memory for shortcuts or you really had no ambition to try. Either way it's your choice and your loss or gain, depending. I have both but C1 really is much faster in every aspect on my computer. I use LR if I need to export larger images than the 250% limit of C1. If you really like LR then you should stick with it, there is no reason to change. Both are great programs. Sarah there's no arguing with someone's opinion (I mean, we can't say you're WRONG), but I think you're really stretching the truth on some things.
C1's local adjustments are different - because they're different, and you're probably not familiar with them as well as LR (I know I'm not), you call them an 'absolute nightmare', which is fairly called hyperbole. One can save a set of adjustments just like LR1 and then use that as a 'brush' in C1, it's just done a different way. One makes a universal set of adjustments (Say, +20 Contrast and +20 Clarity) and then saves that. Now, on local adjustments, you easily create a new layer, name it really quick, click the brush icon just below where you created the layer, and select your recipe from the recipe list (which you'll want to add to the local adjustments tab). Nice thing about C1, it's easy to do local sharpening/desharp for greater subject pop. Local sharp the subject, make new layer, copy mask, invert.done. My opinion is: now, after C1 and DxO Photolab are released, all RAW applications are near equal and its possible to work with them absolutely success and get great results.
C1 is best for get real professional results, DXO is also great application, LR is nice who want to use it, and even new Luminar is great software and I think after 1-2 years will be also near same as others. Yes DxO Photolab has not DAM, but C1 has Media Pro who very want it.
ACDSee Pro is also nice app, with great DAM. Also there are many absolutely great DAM apps. I don't want to say LR is bad soft, no, I just say there even better RAW converters who want to have them.
Adobe Lightroom 6 Raw Update
C1 is also not cheap soft, but no need to pay whole life. @brycesteiner For example, the right side of Lightroom shows nearly the best way to change the properties of your picture.
You begin on the top and end at the bottom. It's really straightforward, at least for me. Capture One hides everything on multiple views and I often search for specific points. There are things which are better on C1 (tethering f.e.) but mostly I prefer the way how Lightroom acts. Maybe only a personal taste. I don't like Adobe, I even nearly hate them, but they do one thing very nice: ergonomics in software.
Yes, you may be right. But in this case I find it quite perfect for my workflow.
Why change Lightroom if it fits? I admit I never quite customized Capture One for my needs as I decided very fast it's not my tool. There were a lot of things which bothered me. It's also very expensive compared to Lightroom, so I skipped it.
Download Lightroom 6 Free
Sometimes I look what's new in upcpming releases, but until now I don't see any reasons. I mostly use DXO and do the manual things in LR.
And if Adobe will not sell any standalone-versions in the future I will leave them for sure on the next body which is not supported by the last V6. Good thing is - photographers have many good and real working tools for process millions of photos fast and on very high quality. AS I said - even full free tools now are possible to use even for professional working and get same results, As customer I always think - we must not depend by one app, but always take best part and push manufacturers to develope own products fast. Look please to new DxO Photolab - they implemented Nik software inside new version and its work just great, look to new C1 - its possible to arrange on display same as LR and also get from it best colors (personally me working just with BW photos but I talk here in general), and full free Zoner Sutio can do full job too. LR is also great app! When looking at the costs, C1 isn't better at the moment.
PhaseOne doesn't Support older versions when they release a new one. So in the end you'll also have to pay 120€/year to use C1 on an actual system.
Rmember the Windows creators update? C1 v.9 didn't work anymore after this update, and they refused to update the Software, instead you had to buy C1 v.10. The same will happen with v.10 next year, when there is a new Mac OS available. Up until now there was no Major OSX Update, where C1 worked fine with. They always had to lelease a compatibility update for C1, but they don't do this for older versions. @Clayton1985 the theoretical advantage to skip a version isn't true for C1, at least for the last versions!
They just stop the support for older versions, when they release a new one (every year). It depends on your operating system if the old version of C1 will run from this point.
Windows example: C1 v.9 stopped working with the Windows 10 fall creators update. Instead of fixing it, you had to buy Version 10. Mac OS example: Basically with every new Major MacOS release (every year), the existing Version of C1 has problems to run properly, so it needs an update/bugfix. So in best case, you can use your older C1 version for 1 year and 9 Month. In the worst case, it's not even 1 month, because C1 sometimes has Problems with.x Updates of MacOS. For example the Update from OSX high Sierra X.1 to X.2 created Problems with C1.
And every new C1 Version costs you 120€, so in the end it's not a penny cheaper than Lightroom with PS.
Hello Chandu, the Lightroom 6/CC direct links above all work perfectly fine but you’ve got to carefully follow the important first, before clicking on any of the links above. If you don’t, then the links won’t work and you’ll get a “denied” message instead. If you’ve followed all those directions but are still having difficulties, then try a different web browser (like Chrome or Firefox), another computer, or a better Internet connection (use wired instead of Wi-Fi if possible). Also, make sure you’re not blocking or filtering anything with your browser(s) – like cookies, downloads, or any sites or URLs – or running utilities like Ghostery, AdBlock, or Disconnect. Turning those things off temporarily. Hope that helps!
I have no such option as described. I do not have GPU acceleration under setting as the instructions show.
I suppose you get that message if your video card is not fine for Lightroom. In my case they love each other apparently and I cannot see what the instructions says. However, in reducing my resolution now to 2560 x 1440 from what it was before (3840 x 2160) I now can work with both Lightroom and Photoshop fine and finally it updated as well. I think it is a video card problem frankly since they put through an upgrade for my video card (AMD) that is not compatible with my video card. But it updated to that regardless stupid. So AMD needs to come up with a fix (this is a beta software as they say but I had no options).
Thanks for your help! Hi, I’ve been running latest version of Lightroom 5. I bought a ‘photography’ CC subscription and installed it this morning.
I later saw an email come through from Laura Shoe’s blog regarding the recent changes to the import dialogue. I really liked being able to fully see the destination path and some other aspects of the previous version. My subscription has now activated the download of the latest versions of Lightroom and Photoshop. Can you tell me whether I can roll back my Lightroom CC sub to the version prior to the import dialogue changes which I believe is 6.1? If I can, how do I do it please? Many thanks, Perry P.S. I’m running a PC with Win 7.
Hi, I purchased the standalone Lightroom 6, but when I try to serialize the Lightroom CC that I had to download, it seems that I have to sign in to Adobe first. I finally got LR 6 running standalone, BUT if I sign out of Adobe (through the HELP menu), the next time I start Lightroom 6, I am asked to sign in to Adobe. I don’t want or need any part of the CC version or Creative Cloud or anything online, I just want to run LR standalone on my PC. If my Internet connection is down, does that also mean that I can’t start/run Lightroom? How can I use Lightroom 6 WITHOUT having to Sign in to Adobe to use it?