[R J P]

Hey.

Ive been looking on the internet for an official release date for lightroom 6 but cant see a official date.

Does anyone have any idea of when it might be out?

I dont want to subscribe as it would mean paying around £100 every year when I am happy to pay for the license in one hit and then wait for the next release after that.

Rob

[Miguel]

Maybe around March as OS requirements were just announced.
At least for this release, LR remains a non-subscription retail product.

M

[Rondec]

I'm not sure what else they can add, except maybe to improve the clone/healing tool somewhat. Maybe incremental improvements in noise reduction?

[Miguel]

I think they can add lots of functionality.
A high resolution mode for working on 4-5K monitors, a much better clone tool, better soft proofing, Adding individual colors should be easier. Having a few configurable notes and fields in the metadata. HDR, stitching, some layers on a simple scale. Selectable distortion correction would be sweet too
I'm sure others smarter than me can come up with many more.

M

[Imp]

Are they even updating LR anymore? I thought they were leaving their software the way it is, and only updating the CC version

[wildlifephotog]

I was just reading that Lightroom 6 will only be for 64 bit systems. Claiming they want to leverage it's full potential.

[cxdoo]

They can improve performance. For example, use GPU.

[manntax]

a much better clone tool, better soft proofing, Adding individual colors should be easier.

These things should have been fixed or added to the previous version - they are simple bugged in 4-5x

For example, use GPU.

if they didn't use that it might explain the poor performance..

I am with lightroom now for 6 or 7 years , went through several upgrades or main retail editions just hoping for the performance get better. To no avail.. this product is simple inferior and I will not be upgrading nor buying anything similar from Adobe , instead looking elsewhere .. The buggy, sluggish 5th version simple killed it for me

[Tord]

These things should have been fixed or added to the previous version - they are simple bugged in 4-5x


if they didn't use that it might explain the poor performance..

I am with lightroom now for 6 or 7 years , went through several upgrades or main retail editions just hoping for the performance get better. To no avail.. this product is simple inferior and I will not be upgrading nor buying anything similar from Adobe , instead looking elsewhere .. The buggy, sluggish 5th version simple killed it for me

What are getting instead?!

I have an on/off relationship with my LR, but most of the time I keep my distance! I have tried to fall in love with Phocus, Hasselblad's free software, too. Very capable program, and, as far as i know, totally developed in-house, like Capture One.

I'll guess I'll stay with Aperture, till I can't use it any more (it isn't developed anymore, and is going to be replaced with something bought from other sources, sad to say).

[Miguel]

as far as i know, totally developed in-house, like Capture One

I assume you are referring to the image processing components?
Capture One's asset management components are based on iView Media Pro, and then bits from Microsoft.

M

[manntax]

What are getting instead?!

Not sure - for the moment I am managing with LR 5 but actively looking for something else. Besides I do not rely on their library module, instead having all photos organised in folders by medium, year, month and so on. Not to mention that I have only perhaps 1% of mu photos developed - rest are just loaded and wait for better times (or my retirement :P ).. I just cannot be bothered to wait 1 minute to load 16MP file with moderate adjustments and some clone / brushes applied, or with few seconds breaks (sic!) between application of every single spot removal !!!

LR was disappointing from beginning and buying the 5th was my last resort in order to keep using this software . With every single update I was hoping for some improvement in performance - but to no avail. And their implementation of brushes and spot removal tool is just ridiculously slow. on IMac 3.2Ghz + 16Gb ram and fast drive it works ok only with up to 6-10MP files, anything larger than that and it chokes, not to mention the 645Z file which I loaded once just to see how it would do - results were miserable, loading and refresh time is just stupidly slow.

Regrettably though, as I am very happy with the general idea of this tool - although visibly dumbed down purposely (to milk the customer more with further versions and minor additions of simplest things - which should be there in the first place ) - I would be happy with them if the performance with larger files was up to modern, fast paced living where people who have families and doesn't work for huge money as photogs, cannot be burdened with their poor development techniques ( silly scripted interfaces, heavy with graphics, slow algorithms of effects, not using GPU, poor logic in resolving the problem of buffering , poor implementation of brushes or cloning tool, etc.. ).

[savoche]

Not sure - for the moment I am managing with LR 5 but actively looking for something else. Besides I do not rely on their library module, instead having all photos organised in folders by medium, year, month and so on. Not to mention that I have only perhaps 1% of mu photos developed - rest are just loaded and wait for better times (or my retirement :P ).. I just cannot be bothered to wait 1 minute to load 16MP file with moderate adjustments and some clone / brushes applied, or with few seconds breaks (sic!) between application of every single spot removal !!!

LR was disappointing from beginning and buying the 5th was my last resort in order to keep using this software . With every single update I was hoping for some improvement in performance - but to no avail. And their implementation of brushes and spot removal tool is just ridiculously slow. on IMac 3.2Ghz + 16Gb ram and fast drive it works ok only with up to 6-10MP files, anything larger than that and it chokes, not to mention the 645Z file which I loaded once just to see how it would do - results were miserable, loading and refresh time is just stupidly slow.

Regrettably though, as I am very happy with the general idea of this tool - although visibly dumbed down purposely (to milk the customer more with further versions and minor additions of simplest things - which should be there in the first place ) - I would be happy with them if the performance with larger files was up to modern, fast paced living where people who have families and doesn't work for huge money as photogs, cannot be burdened with their poor development techniques ( silly scripted interfaces, heavy with graphics, slow algorithms of effects, not using GPU, poor logic in resolving the problem of buffering , poor implementation of brushes or cloning tool, etc.. ).

I fully agree that LR isn't speedy, but 1 minute to load an image?? My ageing 4 core 3.4 GHz i7-2600 and 12 GB RAM does that a lot faster with 24 MP images, and that's from a USB disk (the catalogue is an an internal drive, though). And I can't imagine LR for Mac being any slower than LR for Windows. If anything I'd expect the opposite. I'm on LR4, but unless 5 is a lot slower...

That said, there's lots of room for improvement. I have gotten used to the workflow of LR, but if I could find something faster for cataloguing and basic processing of images I wouldn't hesitate to switch.

[manntax]

I fully agree that LR isn't speedy, but 1 minute to load an image?? My ageing 4 core 3.4 GHz i7-2600 and 12 GB RAM does that a lot faster with 24 MP images, and that's from a USB disk (the catalogue is an an internal drive, though). And I can't imagine LR for Mac being any slower than LR for Windows. If anything I'd expect the opposite. I'm on LR4, but unless 5 is a lot slower...

with moderate adjustments and some clone / brushes applied,

As you see I wasn't talking about naked file - which indeed loads rather fast.. but it hardly is the point of such application, I am sure you agree

[MikePerham]

These things should have been fixed or added to the previous version - they are simple bugged in 4-5x


if they didn't use that it might explain the poor performance..

I am with lightroom now for 6 or 7 years , went through several upgrades or main retail editions just hoping for the performance get better. To no avail.. this product is simple inferior and I will not be upgrading nor buying anything similar from Adobe , instead looking elsewhere .. The buggy, sluggish 5th version simple killed it for me

I've been using Lightroom since V1 ...never had any problem. I run it on an i5 CPU, 3.33 GH, 64 bit system with 16GB of RAM. And yes, Adobe says V6 will be exclusively for 64 bit systems to max benefits.

[manntax]

I've been using Lightroom since V1 .

All depends how how are you using it and how one defines a word : 'problem' ...