[Barry Pearson]

I liked face recognition being added to LR 6, but it is so slow and buggy that I got really frustrated with Adobe, even before they went to the rental model that I also refuse to join.

I know many people choose not to subscribe to CC. I can understand some reasons, for example they can't afford it. (I won't try to guess what your refusal is based upon. That is your business, not mine. I certainly wouldn't expect you to explain or justify your decision to me!)

But I can't understand the objection some people raise to the concept of subscribing to, or renting, software products. I find it convenient to budget a long way ahead for updates, and to have a year by year trickle of enhancements and bug clearances. And, of course, the products are being developed and supported continuously, so paying for them continuously is a match. (I'm speaking from experience during my career in the UK computer industry). And every few months I get extra benefits (and sometimes extra products) that I never expected. For example, I'm currently experimenting with the new Cloud-based Lightroom CC, in case it is something I can exploit.

And I certainly can't understand how some people let their objection in principle stand in the way of being able to use the Industry Leading products, which are accompanied by a huge 3rd-party industry providing extra products and services (some free) not supplied by Adobe. I am (perhaps selfishly) focused on my own photographic interests. I'm one of more that 12 million subscribers. (i subscribe to the full CC, not just the photography CC). The subscription scheme is demonstrably successful for Adobe, and they won't do anything silly to scare people away or inhibit more people from subscribing.

So in summary, are there any interesting options for local face recognition in a DAM?

Lightroom Classic CC!

[mlaird]

But I can't understand the objection some people raise to the concept of subscribing to, or renting, software products.

The reason I refuse to rent Adobe software is because it is a rental; as soon as you stop paying, you have no more access to the software or more importantly, all the data you created with it. If it were a subscription like a magazine, I would at least still have the last "issue" of the software that I paid for, but would of course, give up all the future "issues." Other companies have actual subscriptions where you keep getting upgrades as long as you subscribe, but you stick on the last version at the time you let the subscription lapse. Why can't Adobe do that?

A secondary reason is that I am not a professional user, so I can't justify the increased expense. $120 per year is a lot more than I had been paying for perpetual licenses for LR.

[Wheatfield]

The reason I refuse to rent Adobe software is because it is a rental; as soon as you stop paying, you have no more access to the software or more importantly, all the data you created with it.

This isn't true about data. All your data (files) are still on your hard drive and can still be accessed. If you are concerned about proprietary formats, save the images you have worked on as 16 bit tiffs.

If it were a subscription like a magazine, I would at least still have the last "issue" of the software that I paid for, but would of course, give up all the future "issues." Other companies have actual subscriptions where you keep getting upgrades as long as you subscribe, but you stick on the last version at the time you let the subscription lapse. Why can't Adobe do that?

That would be great for the consumer, rent the software for a couple of months, stop paying and have the software for 40 bucks. Can you see why by doing this they may as well let people keep pirating?

A secondary reason is that I am not a professional user, so I can't justify the increased expense. $120 per year is a lot more than I had been paying for perpetual licenses for LR.

I never have figured out where this attitude comes from.
A professional has to justify every expense based on the needs of his or her business. An amateur just has to justify expenses based on "do I want it and can I afford it?".
A hobbyist can justify whatever he wants, a professional has to justify it within his/her business model.
The constraints on the pro are much more severe.
When I was shooting professionally, any time I decided I wanted to add something to my equipment I had to sit down and decide how often it would be used and how long it would take to amortize. If I could justify it based on my business needs, I would then see if I could pull enough funds out of the business to buy it.
As an amateur, its much easier, I don't have an accountant to keep happy.

[Barry Pearson]

The reason I refuse to rent Adobe software is because it is a rental; as soon as you stop paying, you have no more access to the software or more importantly, all the data you created with it

Not true!

If you stop paying, Lighroom still partly works on your PC, but with some bits disabled.

Disabled: Develop module. Map module (because Adobe pays royalties for this). I think synchronisation with other components of CC.

Still working: Library module, including Quick Edit. Slideshow module. Print module. Web module. Import. Export. Edit in external editor. (Hence keywording, etc).

(I'm not sure about the Book module or Publish Services. And I assume that there will be no further updates! But perhaps all you would have to do legally is renew your subscription every few years to get the updated version?)

In other words, someone who does most of their editing in (say) Photoshop Elements might hardly notice that some bits don't work. It is still a DAM!

I'm surprised that more people haven't realised that starting a subscription then ceasing to pay it leaves them (legally) with some goodies "for ever" with no further payments. Or perhaps they have realised, but for some reason are keeping quiet about it!

[NatureSeeker808]

Another AfterShot/PaintShop Pro user, I've been using it a number of years. I don't do a lot in post, just raw development and minor adjustments. I also have the free download of DxO 11 Pro that I use on occasion.

Edit: One thing that gripes me about Coral is all the ads. Open the program and get an ad, email after email about special offers, pop-ups, etc.

Ditto on the annoying ads, but if you're using the latest
version of both PS and AE, you won't see them until an upgrade is available (which of course, they're pitching ads to you for) I still enjoy the ease of use and predictable results (as high quality IMHO as with Adobe products, but as I only am a casual user, and don't drive an income from my photography, you should take my opinion as such).... however it's simple to just unsubscribe from the weekly spam emails. These days I probably use RT for 80% of my
raw processing (which accounts for most of the time I spend working on an image, as my PS workflow highly automated, ie; macro-based, wheras RT is a more thoughtful endeavor)

[Oakland Rob]

The reason I refuse to rent Adobe software is because it is a rental; as soon as you stop paying, you have no more access to the software or more importantly, all the data you created with it. If it were a subscription like a magazine, I would at least still have the last "issue" of the software that I paid for, but would of course, give up all the future "issues." Other companies have actual subscriptions where you keep getting upgrades as long as you subscribe, but you stick on the last version at the time you let the subscription lapse. Why can't Adobe do that?

A secondary reason is that I am not a professional user, so I can't justify the increased expense. $120 per year is a lot more than I had been paying for perpetual licenses for LR.

As others have noted, Adobe does do that, although you certainly do lose access to parts. And in addition to losing Develop and Maps and synching from Classic to the cloud and hence mobile devices, you also lose the cloud storage. Adobe sez:

What happens to my photos if I end my membership?
Lightroom CC: Adobe will continue to store your original images for one year after your membership lapses. During that time, you can continue to launch Lightroom CC to download your original files from our cloud services.

Lightroom Classic CC: You'll still have access to all your photos on your local hard drive through Lightroom for the desktop. You can continue to import and organize photos as well as output your edited photos through Export, Publish, Print, Web, or Slideshow. Access to the Develop & Map modules and Lightroom for mobile are not available after your membership ends.

And you've still got Bridge, etc. But note that Ps will be kaput.

As for work you've done, any standardized metadata (IPTC etc) can be stored in the files and won't be lost. Face locations might be, and some other stuff that also isn't standardized, like picks. But note that it's far more likely another product will support Lr's metadata than some other software. Eg, Photo Mechanic, Graphic Converter, Fast Raw Viewer, etc can all deal with Adobe's scheme for hierarchical keywords.

For adjustments you've done, the move outta Lr or Ps (or any other software) is dependent on how you saved that data. As noted above, you can always save your work as big ol' TIFFs. That problem exists even with Affinity, Capture One, etc. Some software can read a lot of Adobe's stored info, for example in PSDs. Mylio can read a lot of Lr's adjustments. And so on. It's not a problem unique to Lr, or even to image software.

When you buy a license (which is what Adobe and most everyone else sells, whether time-limited or not) you buy a certain set of things. In addition to use, upgrades up to a certain point, usually undefined in a perpetual license. I have a "perpetual" license to Capture One, an older version, and it no longer even starts up. Support for it was halted for my system quite a while ago. So although I have that "magazine issue," I can't read it and it's of no use to me. There are only a few developers I'm aware of who give perpetual upgrades as part of their license and of course whether they can deliver depends on whether they still exist. You see that even more obviously with apps on mobile perhaps.

As also noted, if the expense is too much (and it is... I sorta wish Adobe would unbundle Ps and make it cheaper) then I'd consider open source stuff. There is great support here for RawTherapee, and although it IS quite complex with some help from Pentax users one can get the basics down. DigiKam is open source and has some organizational chops. There are others. Or just take advantage of Adobe and keep using Lr past the trial date...you'll get nag notices, but still. Or just use Bridge in perpetuity.

[disconnekt]

For me, as someone who's on a tight budget, I can't afford ~$10 a month to use a photo-editor or deal with un-subbing/re-subbing whenever I do/don't have the money, so I'd rather save up & spend $50 bucks once on a editor (eg Affinity Software) that can do 90% of what I need it to do and be able to use it when I need it, then upgrade when I have the money to do so.

[mlaird]

This isn't true about data. All your data (files) are still on your hard drive and can still be accessed. If you are concerned about proprietary formats, save the images you have worked on as 16 bit tiffs.

I'm concerned about keywords, the history of all my edits, being able to adjust those edits, etc. I realize my images themselves will always be available, and the end result of prior editing can be exported and saved. It's the details of the work to create those final images that I still want to access and manipulate.

That would be great for the consumer, rent the software for a couple of months, stop paying and have the software for 40 bucks. Can you see why by doing this they may as well let people keep pirating?

Other companies simply impose a minimum subscription period before one is allowed to keep the perpetual license upon deciding not to renew. Adobe could say you have to subscribe for 12 or 18 months if you want to be able to run your last subscribed version indefinitely. This would be palatable to me, even if more expensive than what I had been paying.

I never have figured out where this attitude comes from.
A professional has to justify every expense based on the needs of his or her business. An amateur just has to justify expenses based on "do I want it and can I afford it?".

Have you never heard of a limited budget for hobbies? A pro can estimate the revenues brought in and weigh that vs. the expense of the software, and can justify an expense based on the extra revenue he will earn. A hobbiest only gets to spend money, and only has so much to devote to each part of each hobby. Budgets are generally far tighter for hobbies than for one's profession!

[Barry Pearson]

I'm concerned about keywords, the history of all my edits, being able to adjust those edits, etc. I realize my images themselves will always be available, and the end result of prior editing can be exported and saved. It's the details of the work to create those final images that I still want to access and manipulate.

Quick Develop will still be available in the Library module. (And titles, captions, keywords).
Also available: Import, Export. Edit in external editor. Slideshow module. Print module. Web module.

(I think also Book module and Publish Services, but I'm not sure).

Edit:

Lightroom 6 is still available with a perpetual licence.
The free DNG Converter enables Lightroom 6 to be used for new cameras.

[Wheatfield]

I'm concerned about keywords, the history of all my edits, being able to adjust those edits, etc. I realize my images themselves will always be available, and the end result of prior editing can be exported and saved. It's the details of the work to create those final images that I still want to access and manipulate.

That is available to you if you drop your subscription to Lightroom.

Other companies simply impose a minimum subscription period before one is allowed to keep the perpetual license upon deciding not to renew. Adobe could say you have to subscribe for 12 or 18 months if you want to be able to run your last subscribed version indefinitely. This would be palatable to me, even if more expensive than what I had been paying.

This is what they are doing. Stop paying your CC subscription and a few options get turned off but the core program, the parts that do what you want keep working.
You could give them a 1 month payment and be done with it, and you would have the core program for as long as you want. Have you not checked into this at all?

Have you never heard of a limited budget for hobbies? A pro can estimate the revenues brought in and weigh that vs. the expense of the software, and can justify an expense based on the extra revenue he will earn. A hobbiest only gets to spend money, and only has so much to devote to each part of each hobby. Budgets are generally far tighter for hobbies than for one's profession!

You have obviously never worked as a professional photographer. I have. You are not correct in your assessment.

If you are taking up hobbies you can't afford, then that is something you need to be looking at, but as a hobbyist, all you need to do to justify a purchase is to decide you want it and can afford it. If you can't afford your hobby, take up one that isn't as expensive.

As a working pro, I had to account for every nickel I wanted to spend on equipment, and for the most part I had to work a second job not related to photography to ensure there was food on the table. That is the reality of the majority of pro photographers.
Pro photographers aren't out there buying every new piece of equipment to come along. Most are using several generations old gear, scouring the used market for deals, and praying that their car will start to get them to their next gig.

The "pro" camera market is not driven by pro photographers, it is supported by well heeled amateurs who can afford and are willing to buy thousands of dollars worth of new equipment. Were it not for amateurs and hobbyists, the "pro" equipment market would not exist.

[Mikesul]

I really wish there was a viable alternative to Lightroom but I have not found it. I have tried almost all of them. I use Capture One and DXO but they are only partial solutions. On1 is still a little rough.

[Barry Pearson]

For me, as someone who's on a tight budget, I can't afford ~$10 a month to use a photo-editor or deal with un-subbing/re-subbing whenever I do/don't have the money, so I'd rather save up & spend $50 bucks once on a editor (eg Affinity Software) that can do 90% of what I need it to do and be able to use it when I need it, then upgrade when I have the money to do so.

I really wish there was a viable alternative to Lightroom but I have not found it. I have tried almost all of them. I use Capture One and DXO but they are only partial solutions. On1 is still a little rough.

I think it is always worth identifying whether the requirement is primarily editing, or primarily managing images, or both.

If my main requirement were editing images, in fairly small numbers per week, without particular long-term administration needs for them, I probably wouldn't see the point in Lightroom. (Perhaps not Photoshop either). There are plenty of good perpetual-licence editors around, and both Lightroom and Photoshop have steep learning curves.

But I have over 140,000 [sic] images in my Lightroom catalogue, and I doubt whether there are alternative that are nearly as good for that management task. And since I have Lightroom, (from the first version), it has been worth becoming fluent with its Develop module. Fortunately, I'm comfortable with the subscription scheme. So I'm getting the product(s) I want at what I consider to be a reasonable (to me) price.

People differ massively, which is why there sometimes heated debates about this. It is possibly for everyone to be right, for them, while perhaps thinking most other people are wrong!

Edit:

I wonder how many people are aware that Adobe's Bridge is now "free for life with no subscription"?

[Mikesul]

Good analysis, Barry. That is exactly the problem. If I just want to clean up a few photos and be done CO is fine. But the long term cataloging function of LR is often a life saver and very useful if you like to go back and rework or reuse older photos or just see what you used specific cameras or lenses for in the past. And, of course, the editing doesn't have to be relearned as with other programs after you have been using LR for awhile.

[LensBeginner]

*snip*
Edit:

I wonder how many people are aware that Adobe's Bridge is now "free for life with no subscription"?

Never managed to make it work on my PC, and never managed to understand why it won't work...

[emalvick]

Agreed. But one thing I didn't see in that article which I'm still looking for is face recognition without my pictures going out to "the cloud." The "cloud" is really just some big company's servers, where they can do who knows what with my data, and based on Facebook's misuse of supposedly-private data, I don't trust anyone to keep my data protected. I liked face recognition being added to LR 6, but it is so slow and buggy that I got really frustrated with Adobe, even before they went to the rental model that I also refuse to join.

So in summary, are there any interesting options for local face recognition in a DAM?

IMatch is quite along in development of such a feature, but not using face recognition (yet), I've not tested it out; I think it may only be in a closed beta anyway. But, it does look like it is coming, and the developer is huge on privacy. The feature will have the ability to use the web, but not a requirement.

That being said, I would think there may be a few other options out there, but I don't know. I use IMatch because of a lot of other features, but I am intrigued by the potential for face recognition and even automatic keywording (which is what the feature in IMatch really is for).

-Erik