Lightroom 6 vs Lightroom CC

[Richard Sheridan]

Hi guys, just stirring the murk here a little but I'm now needing to purchase my own copy of Lightroom and I'm trying to really balance out the pros and cons of choosing a disk copy of Lightroom 6 from Amazon.com or just going with Adobe Lightroom CC for $9.99/mo.

I know legal says we don't actually own the software, that we purchase the right to use it. But having dealt with licensing through my job in Government, I've grown immensely frustrated with the way Adobe does things. I know I'm not the only one. But I've tried doing my due diligence with reading the pros and cons and there are some in both flavors.

Having said that, I think it also comes down to what the community of Lightroom users in general feel towards each. So I've decided to create a poll for one week and I'm hoping that it will generate some nice, thoughtful discussion that will ultimately help me (and others like me) make the best choice for ourselves.

Thanks, Rich

 

[clee01l]

Welcome to the forum.
You need a third choice. "It Depends". There is no one right answer for all new users.
If you need the power behind PSCC and need the ability to add layers to the image, then a CC license can be useful If you are just starting out in post processing, then the perpetual license might be a good starting point. Especially if you know little about post processing. You can always change to the subscription later.
There is no difference in the code. It is the same program. Some features are unlocked with the subscription license And the subscription gets you access to Adobe Creative Cloud storage and LR Mobile synchronization features.

If you purchase the full version from Amazon, the price is between $140-$150USD for only LR6. Where as an annual Subscription for LRCC & PSCC would cost you ~$120USD for the first year. If in the next 6 months Adobe releases a LR7, the current price for an upgrade license would be another $80USD.

If you are going to be using LR a lot, and over several years, the subscription is a better deal even if you don't plan to use PSCC or LR mobile.

 

[Richard Sheridan]

Hi Clee, thanks for the help on this. Question for you... any idea if LR7 is close enough on the horizon? I use a fairly beefy PC at home with plenty of RAM, Plenty of CPU and SSD's but when i travel I have a Microsoft Surface Book so I could see using on both. Sounds like with either version, I can run LR on both machines. But it sounds like there's some filter or brush limitations from what reviewers at Amazon are posting about LR6. Still, you're right, if best bang for the buck is what we're talking about, then LRCC might be the better option. I just don't like the feeling of how invasive the Adobe ID requirement puts on a traditional software user (guess I'd better start changing with the times) and I'm also concerned about redundant network traffic that occurs when using Adobe Products. I could probably figure out how to disable some of that for bandwidth performance too. But really for this case, I'm curious what folks think and why and you're response has been a blessing.

 

[PhilBurton]

Hi Clee, thanks for the help on this. Question for you... any idea if LR7 is close enough on the horizon? I use a fairly beefy PC at home with plenty of RAM, Plenty of CPU and SSD's but when i travel I have a Microsoft Surface Book so I could see using on both. Sounds like with either version, I can run LR on both machines. But it sounds like there's some filter or brush limitations from what reviewers at Amazon are posting about LR6. Still, you're right, if best bang for the buck is what we're talking about, then LRCC might be the better option. I just don't like the feeling of how invasive the Adobe ID requirement puts on a traditional software user (guess I'd better start changing with the times) and I'm also concerned about redundant network traffic that occurs when using Adobe Products. I could probably figure out how to disable some of that for bandwidth performance too. But really for this case, I'm curious what folks think and why and you're response has been a blessing.

Richard,

Adobe doesn't disclose future product plans, at least not to the general public. No one in this forum or elsewhere can say with certainty that there will, or that there will not be a LR 7 release. And no one can say with any authority that because Adobe sells now Photoshop only as part of a monthly subscription, that they will follow the same approach with Lightroom, or not.

The only fact that we can all agree upon is that every "dot-release" of Lightroom CC will add functionality, which will not be available to people who are using LR 6 perpetual license.

Phil

 

[OldShooter]

IMO the fundamental question is: "Who is going to own your work?"

With a license, you will always* be able to browse and manage your library, edit or re-edit the photos, and perform all of the other functions that we use LR for. When Adobe (inevitably) drops the license option, you will not be able to process new RAW files that are incompatible with the last ones provided to licensees but the software will continue to work.

With a subscription, you are at Adobe's mercy when you stop paying. You certainly will not be able to edit or re-edit your own photos that are in your own library. Effectively, Adobe owns those. You will not be able to add to the library. Adobe may condescend to give you limited export functions or other limited capabilities but those will be subject to to change at the latest marketing manager's whim. You also will not be able to work at all with LR if you do not have web access for an extended period of time, as the software will not be able to check in with the mother ship for approval to run. What will "extended" be? Again, it is whatever the current marketing manager wants it to be. Your monthly cost to access your own photos will be whatever Adobe determines to be the price that maximizes margin dollars. There is no guarantee and no cap. Promises made regarding future cost and access will be subject to change, so not to be relied on.

The problem is that software these days has saturated the users with features. New features are mostly so arcane or trivial that customers aren't participating in the annual new-release/pay-for-the-upgrade dance. Hence software companies' ongoing revenue is at risk. Its the same reason you are seeing Windows slowly morph into a "software-as-a-service model," which is code for "subscription model." Apple will be along soon.

So your choice with LR is really: "Lock-in or not?"

*"Always" in computerese means "until your OS vendor changes something that kills your LR."

(BTW I just found this forum and joined as I am a longtime LR user. But I am preparing for the day that Adobe tries to lock me into their subscription model. Some very nice LR workalikes are emerging, like Capture One and ON1 RAW. That's where I'll be going. I will not cede control of my own work.)

 

[clee01l]

With a subscription, you are at Adobe's mercy when you stop paying. You certainly will not be able to edit or re-edit your own photos that are in your own library. Effectively, Adobe owns those.

Welcome to the forum.
It is necessary to clear up some misconceptions. If you stop your Adobe subscription, LRCC does not stop working. The Images in the catalog are still there. And you can still access your work. What you so lose access to is certain functionality (for instance the develop module), and (I think) the ability to add new images to the catalog (the Import Module).
If you have made a decision to leave LR, you make that decision because you are going to replace it with something else OR you are getting out of the photography business. If you are going to replace LR with something else, you still have your original images to process or reprocess with your new post processing software.

You have never ceded control of your own work. By unsubscribing, you give up the ability to use the Adobe Software for new work and nothing more.

 

[PhilBurton]

Welcome to the forum.
It is necessary to clear up some misconceptions. If you stop your Adobe subscription, LRCC does not stop working. The Images in the catalog are still there. And you can still access your work. What you so lose access to is certain functionality (for instance the develop module), and (I think) the ability to add new images to the catalog (the Import Module).
If you have made a decision to leave LR, you make that decision because you are going to replace it with something else OR you are getting out of the photography business. If you are going to replace LR with something else, you still have your original images to process or reprocess with your new post processing software.

You have never ceded control of your own work. By unsubscribing, you give up the ability to use the Adobe Software for new work and nothing more.

OldShooter,

Clee is right, as always.

All the DEVELOP work, all those edits, are specific to Lightroom. So if you use another RAW editor and you want to view your Lightroom DEVELOPed photos, you can't, unless you have done an export. If you want to make further changes, again, you can't. This statement is true of all the RAW editors, including Capture ONE and ON1 RAW.

By the way, I have seen numerous reports (on another forum) that Capture ONE sometimes mangles metadata imported from other photo software.

Phil

 

[Jim Wilde]

What you so lose access to is certain functionality (for instance the develop module), and (I think) the ability to add new images to the catalog (the Import Module).

Not quite accurate. Yes you would lose access to the Develop module, though you would still have access to Quick Develop in Library. You would also lose access to the Map module, and of course sync with LRmobile. You can, however, continue to import new images via the Import Module, and have access to all other Library features. Not sure if you could continue to update Lightroom to get new camera raw support and bug fixes. In theory you could, but I can't say for certain.

 

[OldShooter]

Yup. I'm all for clearing up misconceptions. Here is one: All three of your responses assume that there is something permanent about the way an expired LR CC subscription behaves. Misconception. The fact is that while a purchased license is fairly permanent, the Ts & Cs and the price of LR CC can be changed at any time. This afternoon? Sure. Next year? Sure. Some changes may not apply until a subscriber renews but the point is the same.

Regarding why someone would leave LR CC, I think you miss what will probably be the most common reason: price increases. I will bet you a Manny's steak against a McDonald's hamburger that there is a long range CC marketing plan that includes multiple price increases. Think about it: The incremental license is virtually 100% gross margin (aka profit). So they can double the price and, if they lose less than half of their subscribers, they have increased the total gross margin dollars going into the cash register. There are other considerations, like market share and strengthening the competition, that act as a brake on price increases but you can be absolutely sure that there are price increases coming. They may also be planning more egregious behavior for LR CC when a subscriber cancels. They are right now in a phase of building the subscription base, so they want the subscription to look as attractive as possible. When they enter the exploitation phase, things will be different.

Re "ownership of my intellectual property" I think that is a good metaphor but it is not exact. Suppose, for example, that the export function in an expired copy of LR CC ceases to work. Now who "owns" your processed images?

To answer the OP's question it is necessary to think about what can happen, not just what would happen under the current Adobe policy. And, basically, anything can happen with CC.

Re Capture ONE sometimes mangling metadata, that is to be expected. All of the workalikes are relatively immature and will have many bugs. That's one of the reasons I expect to stick with LR until the inevitable day comes.

Here are clips from their latest SEC Form 10-K:

... Adobe is in a unique position to capitalize on this opportunity by delivering rapid innovation to increase our customer reach, deepen engagement with communities
and accelerate long-term revenue growth by focusing on cloud-based offerings, which are licensed on a subscription basis....

... We anticipate that our sustained focus on a subscription model will continue to increase the amount of our recurring revenue that is ratably reported, driven by broader Creative Cloud adoption over the next several years. ...

...
To accelerate the adoption of Creative Cloud, we have focused on migrating existing users of our creative products from perpetual licenses to a subscription-based offering, ...

... Overall, our strategy with Creative Cloud is designed to enable us to increase our revenue with users ...

NB, there's nothing surprising about this and nothing really to be criticized. It's a company working to make money and one excellent way to make money is to develop cash cows and then milk them. My overall point is simple: I do not intend to be one of those cows and the OP may not want to be one either.

 

[tspear]

Oldshooter,

Everything you state and more can be done to either the perpetual or the subscription. They only protection you realistically have is to use a publish service to maintain a copy of all images including whatever state information you desire or not use the Adobe products at all.

In the mean time, I am going to go back to counting how many angels can fit on the end of a pin.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

All three of your responses assume that there is something permanent about the way an expired LR CC subscription behaves. Misconception. The fact is that while a purchased license is fairly permanent, the Ts & Cs and the price of LR CC can be changed at any time. This afternoon? Sure. Next year? Sure. Some changes may not apply until a subscriber renews but the point is the same.

But even if that were to happen, your software wouldn't spontaneously combust overnight. You'd still have the software on your computer, and you could still export all of your photos to a generic format. And let's be honest, everyone would unsubscribe instantly if Adobe started playing nasty or doing massive price increases - and they can't afford that much bad press.

 

[OldShooter]

Well, we'll probably just agree to disagree on this. Adobe can surreptitiously alter the functionality for expired subscriptions anytime the user loads a new release, major or point. So export can be deleted if they so choose and many would not realize it until they decided not to renew.

And, yes, they can't behave too badly without losing some customers. I expect it will be more like the happy frog that starts out in a pan of cool water, which is then slowly heated. For example, an 8% price increase every year more than doubles the price over ten years. You can steal a lot of salami by taking slices too small to fight over.

The beauty (to the vendor) of the lock-in is that "everyone" won't unsubscribe instantly. Most can't.

 

[davidedric]

I have no inside track on Adobe, but I do have extensive experience of application package implementation and management.

I have found that it is beneficial to be on the software supplier's preferred development path - beneficial to both the customer and the supplier. There does not have to be a conflict of interest.

That is one of the reasons, probably the main one, why I decided to go the CC route.

Dave

 

[clee01l]

Adobe can surreptitiously alter the functionality for expired subscriptions anytime the user loads a new release, major or point.

If your subscription expires, you don't get updates. Adobe can not access your computer without your permission and alter or remove the installed code that is on your machine. You can be cynical if you want, most people won't be. The subscription model is becoming the common way to distribute software. Microsoft Office 365 is sold this way too. You can either accept the product that the Software company offers, switch to a lesser product or write your own software.

 

[tspear]

If your subscription expires, you don't get updates. Adobe can not access your computer without your permission and alter or remove the installed code that is on your machine. You can be cynical if you want, most people won't be. The subscription model is becoming the common way to distribute software. Microsoft Office 365 is sold this way too. You can either accept the product that the Software company offers, switch to a lesser product or write your own software.

Hey, I manage software so it does not have to be a lesser product! In fact the products I oversee are often better!

 

[OldShooter]

If your subscription expires, you don't get updates. Adobe can not access your computer without your permission and alter or remove the installed code that is on your machine. You can be cynical if you want, most people won't be. The subscription model is becoming the common way to distribute software. Microsoft Office 365 is sold this way too. You can either accept the product that the Software company offers, switch to a lesser product or write your own software.

Sorry if I was not clear: Anytime a subscriber downloads any kind of an update, Adobe can change how that software behaves at the point where the subscription expires. Specifically, when the subscription expires, the software becomes seriously crippled. It has to be that way. If it was just a matter of missing updates then Adobe would have the same problem they have now: People not paying to get every update. People would just subscribe once in a while to get the latest update, then let the subscriptions expire or cancel them.

RE subscription being the way of the future, you are correct. (As I pointed out in my first post.) That doesn't mean that the subscription model is good for users. It isn't. It is a way to ensure future revenue for the vendors as their enhancements become less and less valuable to users. Office is an excellent lab rat for this; historically people wouldn't buy Office upgrades because they already had all the functionality they needed. Microsoft's primary tactic to force upgrades was to ensure file incompatibility between new and previous versions of Office. Then, to read documents from newer versions, otherwise happy users were forced to pay up. The EU put paid to this tactic a few years ago, forcing M$ to use open standards for documents (long, amusing story there, actually). So now they are pushing a subscription model to ensure their revenue stream. Essentially they have admitted that they have run out of upgrade ideas that have enough value that users will willingly pay for them. Windows will be the same way soon. Pay M$ every month or you won't be able to use your computer. It's the brave new world but I don't have to like it.

 

[PhilBurton]

Sorry if I was not clear: Anytime a subscriber downloads any kind of an update, Adobe can change how that software behaves at the point where the subscription expires. Specifically, when the subscription expires, the software becomes seriously crippled. It has to be that way. If it was just a matter of missing updates then Adobe would have the same problem they have now: People not paying to get every update. People would just subscribe once in a while to get the latest update, then let the subscriptions expire or cancel them.

RE subscription being the way of the future, you are correct. (As I pointed out in my first post.) That doesn't mean that the subscription model is good for users. It isn't. It is a way to ensure future revenue for the vendors as their enhancements become less and less valuable to users. Office is an excellent lab rat for this; historically people wouldn't buy Office upgrades because they already had all the functionality they needed. Microsoft's primary tactic to force upgrades was to ensure file incompatibility between new and previous versions of Office. Then, to read documents from newer versions, otherwise happy users were forced to pay up. The EU put paid to this tactic a few years ago, forcing M$ to use open standards for documents (long, amusing story there, actually). So now they are pushing a subscription model to ensure their revenue stream. Essentially they have admitted that they have run out of upgrade ideas that have enough value that users will willingly pay for them. Windows will be the same way soon. Pay M$ every month or you won't be able to use your computer. It's the brave new world but I don't have to like it.

OldShooter,

I think you are being overly mistrusting of Adobe, and unfair to them. Adobe can indeed change how LR CC would behave after you stop paying for a subscription, but they won't do that without publicizing the change. And, as Cletus explained, once you stop paying for a subscription, Adobe can't somehow change the behavior of the software already loaded on your system.

As for subscription models being bad for users, for businesses, cloud-based subscription services allow them to avoid the considerable hardware, software, real estate, and salary cost of running their own data center.

For Office365, you don't have to use it. You can still buy Office 2016 perpetual license. Microsoft Office 365 is not being a "lab rat" here. They are a "follower" and companies like Adobe are the "leaders." Microsoft also makes available for older versions of Office document convertors that allow the older version to read a document created on a newer version of Office.

One reason that vendors are moving to subscription models is that, for publicly traded companies, the same revenue from subscriptions results in a higher stock price than from one-time purchases.

Adobe and Microsoft are both profit-oriented companies. But neither one is nefarious.

Phil

 

[OldShooter]

I think you are being overly mistrusting of Adobe, and unfair to them.

I'm just expecting them to behave like any economically motivated entity. That's what their stockholders expect them to do, too. Trust and fairness have nothing to do with it.

Adobe can indeed change how LR CC would behave after you stop paying for a subscription, but they won't do that without publicizing the change. And, as Cletus explained, once you stop paying for a subscription, Adobe can't somehow change the behavior of the software already loaded on your system.

Actually, they could easily change the behavior of what is already bought and paid for, or of software with an expired subscription. If they wanted a class action suit, that is. There is no technical barrier if your computer is connected to the internet.

As for subscription models being bad for users, for businesses, cloud-based subscription services allow them to avoid the considerable hardware, software, real estate, and salary cost of running their own data center.

Apples and oranges. "Cloud" aka "time-sharing" aka "dumb terminals" has been around since the development of the GE 635 in the mid-1960s. Together with the MULTICS OS, GE (later Honeywell) and MIT pioneered most of what people think is "modern" technology: virtual memory, process swapping, hardware-enforced process isolation, etc. Thrashing, too! The location of the data, "cloud" or local, is completely independent of whether the software is sold via subscription or as a one-time license. What is today called "cloud" has been going in and out of vogue for fifty years and will probably continue to do so. The name and the hardware changes; the debate goes on.

For Office365, you don't have to use it. You can still buy Office 2016 perpetual license. Microsoft Office 365 is not being a "lab rat" here. They are a "follower" and companies like Adobe are the "leaders." Microsoft also makes available for older versions of Office document convertors that allow the older version to read a document created on a newer version of Office.

And your point is ??

One reason that vendors are moving to subscription models is that, for publicly traded companies, the same revenue from subscriptions results in a higher stock price than from one-time purchases.

I don't know that to be true but it may be. Your theory just underlines the fact that companies can make more money with a subscription model than by selling traditional licenses. Where do you think that money comes from?

Adobe and Microsoft are both profit-oriented companies. But neither one is nefarious.

I never said that they were "nefarious." A couple of months ago I watched and photographed a cheetah who was eating an impala that she had killed. There is no moral dimension to that. Eating impalas is what cheetahs do whenever they get the chance. Optimizing profits is what well-run companies do whenever they get the chance. It's up to the impalas and the consumers to keep an eye out. Which is what I am doing.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Ok, so I think we've done the pros and cons to death now, so it's time to close the thread.