[Buffy]

I still use CS6. It's more difficult to install on newer versions of macOS but with a little tweaking it installs and then works normally.

Thanks to this thread I just bought a permanent license for Lightroom 6. I would happily move away from Adobe--and I did try DxO Optics Pro at one point--as long as my various plugins are compatible.

Although I still mainly use an elderly MacPro I have come to realize that Apple may not make another machine worthy of my scarce dollars and I'll need something on Windows or Linux.

[BigMackCam]

I left Microsoft and Adobe at the same time...

Previously, I was running Windows 10 as my OS, with Lightroom 6 stand-alone for library management and RAW development, Nik collection for occasional effects, and Elements 14 for occasional editing.

I'm now running Linux Mint 18.3 on both my laptop and desktop PCs, with no Windows dual-boot. For post-processing I'm using a combination of digiKam 5 (library management), Darktable 2.4.4 (RAW development) and GIMP 2.8.16 with various plug-ins (for final editing and effects).

It has taken a bit of time and effort to migrate and learn new ways to do things, but overall I'm much happier with my new setup. In most situations where I feel Lightroom did a better job (colour noise reduction being one example), I end up quickly learning a new way to achieve even better results in Darktable (the Equalizer module is absolute genius - just superb). There are a few isolated places where Lightroom is better, IMHO, but mostly I prefer Darktable... so, on balance, I'm glad I made the move.

The Windows versions of Darktable and GIMP are very good, so moving to Linux wasn't essential, but I'm very glad I did so. It runs quicker, feels "leaner", is easier to administer / back-up / restore etc., and all of my applications - from office to media and photography processing - are essentially free, save for any donations I might choose to make

[mee]

I've yet to find a solution off the LR wagon. But LR6 still supports every single product I own so it isn't an issue thus far. But I don't see anything suitable on the market to replace it either.


I've tried every known product on the market for Windows and they are all lacking something.. either a feature, or the rendering of that feature, or the GUI layout is too much of a mess.

So I think it is better to just wait a couple years and see what comes down the line.. surely by then a lot of the known standalone products will have matured and others might be on the market.

[Wheatfield]

I purchased the last LR and PS that could be purchased, They serve me. Are there new features released for subscription users only that I might like to have, Yes. Am I tempted to subscribe? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Adobe's business model, to collect thousands of dollars for a product they once sold for a few hundred is disgusting. Wonder what their business plan is for upping the price of subscribing after a first year "special introductory rate?"

The problem Adobe had that brought them to the subscription model was the 9 users out of 10 that stole the software rather than purchasing the software.

[boriscleto]

I purchased the last LR and PS that could be purchased, They serve me. Are there new features released for subscription users only that I might like to have, Yes. Am I tempted to subscribe? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Adobe's business model, to collect thousands of dollars for a product they once sold for a few hundred is disgusting. Wonder what their business plan is for upping the price of subscribing after a first year "special introductory rate?"

LR and PS are still $9.99/month in the US and have been for years. That now includes 20GB of cloud storage, as the old Lightroom is now Lightroom Classic and the new version of the app is all about the cloud...My hunch is that Adobe will be taking the Apple route and pushing everything to the cloud. It was announced at Apple's WWDC that Adobe products are going to be in the App Store when 10.13 comes out, right now it is limited to Elements...Microsoft Office is going to be as well, and that is cloud based now...Revenue in the future is going to be made by charging for cloud storage...

[emalvick]

I jumped to DxO a few years ago, pretty early in the LR6 cycle. I was using LR6 but quickly grew to dislike it and the fact it was left behind (the first indicator that Adobe really had no intent on a perpetual model for LR despite what they stated). DxO has generally been easier for me. If I need a pixel editor, I now go to Affinity photo; I need this type of editing for about 2% of my photos. I have tried On1 and Luminar and might buy them to support my use of DxO if they grow a bit more from where they are at.

For DAM, I've used IMatch for the past 15 years, so I had never used LR directly for that purpose, and it has always made it easier to use different RAW processors over the years shifting from Silkypix, Rawtherapee, LR, and now DxO over the past 15 years, mostly using LR and DxO over the past 12.

[Schraubstock]

Hi
I guess you are unable to open RAW files ?
If so, there maybe a solution not too many people know of. I am using PS CS6 and to open the latest RAW files I use a product called MetaRaw by "the Plugin Site". It intercepts Raw files when they are opened and converts them on the fly within seconds to open in CS6 and I am sure it works with LR. Meta Raw future proofs your system, and is constantly updated by by "The Plugin Site" as soon as Adobe issues a new Raw converter. I am using this plugin for a number of years now and it works super and it is blazingly fast.

The "Plugin Site" has a number of other plugins and the one I use most is "Focal Blade" I think you will have to look very hard to find anything better.

If in doubt, e-mail Harald Heim at the PuginSite (it is his little company) and seek advice, he is a friendly German genius.


The Plugin Site - MetaRaw


Cheers

[wm_brant]

I went to Darktable on Linux.

I've run Linux at home for about 7 years, but I have used WIndows at work since Windows 3.0. I prefer Linux for any number of reasons, but it mostly boils down to the fact that - for me - Linux gets the job done with minimal hassle. And at minimal cost.

After buying my first serious digital camera - a K-1 - I bought Windows for my 8-core home desktop and got a Lightroom/Photoshop subscription... but I was never really happy with running Windows 10 at home. Or with Adobe and Lightroom.

I only had maybe 18 months experience with Lightroom, so I did not have so much time invested in learning Lightroom that I was hesitant to walk away.

I found some good (for fee) Darktable tutorials by Riley Brandt that got me up to speed on Darktable and other open-source photo tools and I've never looked back. I cancelled my Lightroom subscription and reinstalled Linux.

I made the switch about about four months ago, and I'm perfectly happy with my decision.

[BigMackCam]

The problem Adobe had that brought them to the subscription model was the 9 users out of 10 that stole the software rather than purchasing the software.

I understand that must have played a part... But I suspect there's more to it. Specifically, with the subscription model they're generating, and can forecast, on-going revenue streams from each subscriber.

I bought LR6 stand-alone and Photoshop Elements 14 in 2015, and didn't buy a single additional Adobe product or service since, as the software did most of what I wanted very well. There was very little incentive for me to spend more money, and no way for Adobe to know if I would or wouldn't do so in future (and if I would, when that might be). If I'd used Lightroom CC instead, they'd know I would be spending a certain amount every month, and that I'd be very unlikely to cancel that subscription. My business, however small, would be all but guaranteed. Revenue forecasting, therefore, becomes much easier for them.

I think I'd have paid around twice the amount in subscriptions over that three year period than I did for my one-off purchases. Of course, as a subscriber I'd have received numerous benefits - additional and new functionality, camera and lens profiles, cloud storage, etc... But those only have value if I'd actually use them.

I can see customer benefits with the subscription model, but only for those making frequent, regular use of the software and facilities on a monthly basis. For those like me who might use it a great deal one month, then very little the following month, it's a tough sell (unless money is no object).

From a selfish point of view, I'm actually pleased Adobe switched to the subscription-only model. If they hadn't, I probably wouldn't have looked into changing my OS and post-processing software, and in my case the move was beneficial.

[victormeldrew]

The problem Adobe had that brought them to the subscription model was the 9 users out of 10 that stole the software rather than purchasing the software.

I don't think even Adobe are dumb enough to believe the '1 pirate = 1 lost sale' propaganda. Even if they managed to prevent piracy by this tactic (which of course they haven't) those 9/10 users are not remotely likely to just buy the software instead. A large proportion of them simply cannot afford it, another huge chunk just wanted it for a one-off or casual use and can't justify spending hundreds for what they intend to do. A small proportion might stump up the cash, but not remotely all. Regardless, all of them are still using pirated copies - regardless of the paywalls, sign-ins, call-homes and other hurdles they put in the way of their paying customers, you can get the latest full version, including ongoing updates, right now...without all that faff, free of charge. It is only their paying customers who have suffered any inconvenience from this move.

If they move to online-only apps, they will have more of an impact on piracy. And even more angry customers looking for cheaper, easier ways to do the same job. The pirates might have to move on to a different app, but none of it would help their bottom line.

No, their intentions had nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with moving those customers who only purchased upgrades when they needed them onto an enforced upgrade path with continuous unending payments.

[Wheatfield]

I understand that must have played a part... But I suspect there's more to it. Specifically, with the subscription model they're generating, and can forecast, on-going revenue streams from each subscriber.

I bought LR6 stand-alone and Photoshop Elements 14 in 2015, and didn't buy a single additional Adobe product or service since, as the software did most of what I wanted very well. There was very little incentive for me to spend more money, and no way for Adobe to know if I would or wouldn't do so in future (and if I would, when that might be). If I'd used Lightroom CC instead, they'd know I would be spending a certain amount every month, and that I'd be very unlikely to cancel that subscription. My business, however small, would be all but guaranteed. Revenue forecasting, therefore, becomes much easier for them.

I think I'd have paid around twice the amount in subscriptions over that three year period than I did for my one-off purchases. Of course, as a subscriber I'd have received numerous benefits - additional and new functionality, camera and lens profiles, cloud storage, etc... But those only have value if I'd actually use them.

I can see customer benefits with the subscription model, but only for those making frequent, regular use of the software and facilities on a monthly basis. For those like me who might use it a great deal one month, then very little the following month, it's a tough sell (unless money is no object).

From a selfish point of view, I'm actually pleased Adobe switched to the subscription-only model. If they hadn't, I probably wouldn't have looked into changing my OS and post-processing software, and in my case the move was beneficial.

When something like 90% of the users of your product have stolen it, and nothing seems able to deter this, it's only natural for the company to clamp down. I found myself upgrading pretty frequently when I decided to stop being a pirate and start purchasing Photoshop.
Specifically, I bought every iteration of the CS series of Photoshop and Lightroom, so I suspect that for me the subscription model would be pretty much a wash moneywise.
I do wish when I bought CS6 that i hadn't cheaped out. I should have sprung for the entire suite rather than the vanilla version. There are some features I would like to have that I will need to go to the CC version for if I decide they are a must have.
So far I haven't gone to the CC versions, as the standalones are (mostly) doing what i want.

---------- Post added 06-19-18 at 11:52 AM ----------

I don't think even Adobe are dumb enough to believe the '1 pirate = 1 lost sale' propaganda. Even if they managed to prevent piracy by this tactic (which of course they haven't) those 9/10 users are not remotely likely to just buy the software instead. A large proportion of them simply cannot afford it, another huge chunk just wanted it for a one-off or casual use and can't justify spending hundreds for what they intend to do. A small proportion might stump up the cash, but not remotely all. Regardless, all of them are still using pirated copies - regardless of the paywalls, sign-ins, call-homes and other hurdles they put in the way of their paying customers, you can get the latest full version, including ongoing updates, right now...without all that faff, free of charge. It is only their paying customers who have suffered from this move.

If they move to online-only apps, they will have more of an impact on piracy. And even more angry customers looking for cheaper, easier ways to do the same job. The pirates might have to move on to a different app, but none of it would help their bottom line.

No, their intentions had nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with moving those customers who only purchased upgrades when they needed them onto an enforced upgrade path with continuous unending payments.

Using this logic, It's OK to steal a Ferrari if you can't afford it. Sorry, I'm not buying into that logic, nor am I buying into the strawman that you've set up about 1 pirate = 1 lost sale. It comes down to protection of property rights and not enabling thievery.


If it results in some sales, then they are ahead compared to doing nothing and having more and more people bypass the purchase option when it's just as easy (and far cheaper) to go the pirate route and pay nothing. If they annoy some people, they are probably the people who would have stolen the software anyway. I'm not in the business of appeasing thieves, and I don't believe Adobe, or any other business should be.
Thievery is creeping horse dung. If you set yourself up as a patsy, word gets around pretty quickly, and suddenly every man and his dog are at your door waiting to rip you off, and all of a sudden even the people who would have bought from you are stealing what you have to sell.

I've kicked a few serial abusers of policy out of my store because I am not willing to move from being taken advantage of to being outright stolen from. Are these "customers" unhappy about having their desires for free stuff unfulfilled? Absolutely they are.
Do I care? Not a whit. People who steal from your business are affecting your bottom line no matter how you look at it. Thieves cost the honest people money, as it's the honest ones who are paying for the shrinkage.

In the case of Adobe, the price of Photoshop was based on the cost of development plus a desired profit margin divided by the number of products they projected selling during the life of the product. This is how all businesses set prices.
If all the customers who stole Photoshop had paid for it instead, the price for everyone would have been lower. It really is that simple. Even if the customers who could have afforded it but chose not to because they were able to get it for free, the unit price would have been much lower.

I'm one of those people. I was well able to afford the 4 versions of Photoshop that I was using illegally, but I chose the dishonest route because it was cheaper. Why buy what I can steal, when the theft allows me to buy what I cannot steal with no hardship? I eventually woke up and changed my ways, but not before being part of the problem.

Imagine if you are in the business of selling cars and 90% of the inventory you bring in dissapears off the lot, never to be seen again. That leaves you with 10% of your inventory to make enough to stay in business. Exactly what do you think you are going to have to do to the price of what you have left to make a profit?
It really doesn't matter if the 9 out of 10 cars stolen wouldn't have been purchased anyway, the fact is, they are lost revenue, and in order to stay in business, you need to make that revenue back up. Since all you have is cars, that revenue has to be made up by selling fewer cars at a greatly increased price.

I know, you are going to come back and say a car is far different from a DVD with some software, but the principle is exactly the same. Your business projects a certain amount of sales, and those sales are being eroded seriously by thieves. In order to stay afloat, you have to charge the honest people more for your product.

If you enable theft, then you are going to lose sales. It's really that simple.

[victormeldrew]

steal...thievery....stolen ...thieves...Thievery...stealing...stole...steal...Thieves...stole...steal...steal...stolen

I know, you are going to come back and say a car is far different from a DVD with some software, but the principle is exactly the same.

Not at all. I see you have also fallen for the 'piracy=theft' propaganda as well. They are not remotely the same thing. Theft is to deprive another of ownership, copyright infringement is a whole other matter, and a civil matter rather than a criminal one. To equate the two is nonsense.

If I could click a button and get a copy of my friends Ferrari, would that be the same as stealing one from someone else? No, not remotely. Just because the entertainment industry has spent decades ramming ads down our throat trying to convince us that it is the same thing, doesn't make it so.

[LaurenOE]

There is no escape from Adobe. You might be able to get by with one "best of breed" but nothing beats the integration of the Creative Cloud Suite. There are lots of niggles, but basically, bow down and acknowledge our Adobe masters. Every single month...I pay Adobe.

[BigMackCam]

There is no escape from Adobe. You might be able to get by with one "best of breed" but nothing beats the integration of the Creative Cloud Suite. There are lots of niggles, but basically, bow down and acknowledge our Adobe masters. Every single month...I pay Adobe.

LOL I'm with the freedom fighters who believe otherwise, but on Christmas Eve we can come out of the trenches, play football, exchange gifts, and compare post-processing results

[LaurenOE]

LOL I'm with the freedom fighters who believe otherwise, but on Christmas Eve we can come out of the trenches, play football, exchange gifts, and compare post-processing results

I wish it could be different...but Adobe pretty much monopolized the creative workflow.

As I am typing this...I am editing something in Premiere, putting into the video some .mogrt custom lower thirds that I also made in After Effects...I jump over to Lightroom to create a .jpg from a RAW file from both my Sony cameras and maybe one or two from my Pentax K1 for a cool subtle zoom in on a transition scene. As the soundtrack keeps changing, I jump out into Audition, make a multitrack audio file that is from a specific mixdown so I can make it the exact length...I import the mixdown into Premeire. When ready, I fire up Adobe Media Encoder and render off the file(s).

Adobe can handle all the file types and codecs that I need.

So in real world professional workflow - I just touched 5 applications - while I am typing on Pentax forums on a Windows machine that is built by me.

Without Adobe...I can't survive, eat, get a paycheck.