[Serkevan]

-snip -

Agreed! I'd say that the most crucial advantage of Lightroom is that it's ridiculously beginner friendly. Getting decent results from basic adjustments requires about an hour of fumbling around and pressing buttons to see what they do. Of course it's still powerful and deep once you get to it (particularly when paired with Photoshop or so I'm told, but I don't have the patience for that ), but the simplicity and intuitiveness of the basic development controls paired with its very good catalogue system make it very easy to recommend.

Once I no longer have a student access I'll most likely move to either Raw Therapee or Darktable, though. I don't like subscription models in general .

[UncleVanya]

I got into a bit of a situation with Adobe myself. I was a cc subscriber but decided to unsubscribe after trying DXO and liking it. Adobe failed to cancel my yearly renewal despite my requests. Let’s just say my credit card company pulled the plug on their billing and I got rather angry emails. I was shocked when a year later I started getting emails asking me to come back. I haven’t.

As for user licenses, that’s a tough one. Either an all you can drink or per user can work, the key would be to make it cost neutral to change models if that’s their goal. Hidden costs like tracking user installs and licenses would be glossed over by Adobe but they’re real costs of moving to this model.

[Rondec]

I still use the last free standing Lightroom version (6?) and it is good enough for my purposes. the fact that Pentax allows you to shoot DNG raw means that even if my camera is not supported by my version of Lightroom, I can still use it and get third party color profiles from a place like Huelight and they seem to work well.

I just hate subscription models and, as others have mentioned in this thread, the free options have gotten really good. Raw Therapee's support of pixel shift, for instance, is miles ahead of Adobe's is.

[Belcik]

I still use the last free standing Lightroom version (6?) and it is good enough for my purposes. the fact that Pentax allows you to shoot DNG raw means that even if my camera is not supported by my version of Lightroom, I can still use it and get third party color profiles from a place like Huelight and they seem to work well.

I just hate subscription models and, as others have mentioned in this thread, the free options have gotten really good. Raw Therapee's support of pixel shift, for instance, is miles ahead of Adobe's is.

Could you please explain in few words this "huelight" color profiles ?

[The Squirrel Mafia]

I'm not a fan of subscription software. I stopped using Lightroom in 2015 or so. Once I got comfortable with RawTherapee, I never looked back. I got to use Lightroom a few days ago & it has now become very foreign to me. RawTherapee is much easier to use once you know what you're doing. I'm pretty much using open source software for just about everything now.

[Rondec]

Could you please explain in few words this "huelight" color profiles ?

The idea is that while Adobe does not support the K-1 II in Lightroom with custom made camera profiles, you can make your own. So you can buy custom made profiles for a variety of newer model and put them into Lightroom. Pentax Camera Profiles

(I own a couple of these and have been pleased with them, but your mileage may vary).

[BigMackCam]

I'm not a fan of subscription software. I stopped using Lightroom in 2015 or so. Once I got comfortable with RawTherapee, I never looked back. I got to use Lightroom a few days ago & it has now become very foreign to me. RawTherapee is much easier to use once you know what you're doing. I'm pretty much using open source software for just about everything now.

Same here, both in Linux and Windows... All my photo post-processing and library management is done with open source tools, my word-processing, spreadsheets, programming and web-browsing too. Things have come a long way in the last few years. The best part, aside from the occasional voluntary donation to the development teams, it doesn't cost me a penny...

[BarryE]

Same here, both in Linux and Windows... All my photo post-processing and library management is done with open source tools, my word-processing, spreadsheets, programming and web-browsing too. Things have come a long way in the last few years. The best part, aside from the occasional voluntary donation to the development teams, it doesn't cost me a penny...

I've never really got the open source model. Yes, the development intent is there, but support is where paid for services are likely to win out in the end. After a career in software it was the times I spent in support (and test) where I appreciated where so much time/money was being spent. Yes, paid for software companies fail, but the non-development tasks are factored in from the start. Open source depends too much on goodwill for me to make the investment in time, so Adobe's model frees me of these concerns.

I wonder if those who think £10 pm is too much are users of LR rather than PS? My workflow of Bridge-CameraRaw-Photoshop(often as smart objects) feels so smooth that re-learning a new method horrifies me. Guess I'm happily trapped with Adobe.

[jatrax]

The $10 / month photography bundle is very good value in my opinion and though I continue to monitor alternatives I have no reason to change. For me the cost is a business expense to start with and since Adobe is a customer as well, my earnings from them more than offset any cost for the software. In the past they have offered a coupon to stock contributors over a certain volume that gave you the photography bundle for free for that year anyway. No idea if they intend to continue that but it has been nice and made changing silly for me.

Adobe is the gold standard for a lot of reasons, primarily easy to learn and use software that continues to improve in meaningful ways. Their biggest downfall is that they do stupid things that make their customers mad enough to want to switch. I like their engineers, their management? Not so much......

[c.a.m]

Interestingly, the university has sent staff a list of alternative software to replace Adobe. In lieu of LR they suggest the free utilities RAWTherapee and Darktable, or commercial programs including Capture One Pro and ON1 Photo RAW. GIMP and many others are recommended instead of PS.

I think the real story here is how the university's costs will change to administer the image-processing functionality. We're not talking about individual, personal use of the software -- we're looking a large institution that needs tens of thousands of copies. Presumably, the university was satisfied with the CC subscription model until Adobe introduced per-user charges.

Diverting to free open-source programs such as RawTherapee could be a feasible work-around, but there might be additional costs for support and training. If the alternative commercial programs offer bulk-licensing/unlimited seat options, that would ease the administrative burden; otherwise each copy (in the tens of thousands) would need to be issued and tracked individually (maybe this is being done already). Furthermore, the budget might need to be distributed across the faculties and departments for individual use, or some sort of registration and tracking system would be required for a central function.

Compared to the revised Adobe pricing scheme, the university might save some money, which is a good thing. It would be interesting to see the cost analysis that led them to pull the plug on the Adobe products.

- Craig

[BigMackCam]

I've never really got the open source model. Yes, the development intent is there, but support is where paid for services are likely to win out in the end. After a career in software it was the times I spent in support (and test) where I appreciated where so much time/money was being spent. Yes, paid for software companies fail, but the non-development tasks are factored in from the start. Open source depends too much on goodwill for me to make the investment in time, so Adobe's model frees me of these concerns.

I wonder if those who think £10 pm is too much are users of LR rather than PS? My workflow of Bridge-CameraRaw-Photoshop(often as smart objects) feels so smooth that re-learning a new method horrifies me. Guess I'm happily trapped with Adobe.

To be clear, I don't have a problem paying for software, but I don't like subscription models. I like to buy something and own it, with the right to use it for ten days or ten years as I see fit. I paid exactly £100.05 for Adobe Lightroom 6 stand-alone version in 2015. I only once needed support from Adobe, but as an owner of stand-alone rather than subscription software, I only had access to their online forum for support - and it failed miserably. Still, I didn't expect much, and this in itself wouldn't have been enough to lose me as a customer. Rather, it was a combination of being forced into a subscription model and the total cost of ownership compared to stand-alone software. Over three years, a subscription would currently cost me well over three times what I paid for LR6. That it comes with other benefits is immaterial to me. I'd happily pay double what I previously paid for a stand-alone copy of Lightroom (if such a thing existed now), in return for an up-to-date product I own and can use as I wish for as long as I wish.

I tried several free trials of other paid-for raw tools before Darktable. None of them supported all of the cameras I own as well as providing the level of raw processing capability I was looking for, with a workflow and user interface I found appealing. Darktable, when I finally got around to trying it, came close enough, and so I stuck with it.

Darktable and RawTherapee are both long-established (in Darktable's case, 11 years), and they've gone from strength to strength in capabilities and refinement. There's generally a queue of developers waiting to be part of the distrubuted core development teams. I not certain what their motivations and rewards are, but presumably it's mostly the experience, growth and reputation from working on such software. As developers move on, others fill their shoes.

Well-established open source applications like these with large, enthusiastic user bases are highly unlikely to just disappear. Still, if they did, I'd find something else to use - either open source or paid-for stand-alone. I'm experienced enough with raw processing that I can now switch back and forth between tools - even those I haven't used before - and achieve more-or-less what I want after a little orientation, so if I need to switch from Darktable and/or RawTherapee in future, I'm OK with that. I doubt it will happen, though.

For those who get what they want from Adobe and are happy with the subscription model, I say "go for it". The tools are fantastic, and if they feel they're getting value for money, that's all that matters. I feel neither superior nor inferior in my software choices and reasons for them. Each to his or her own

[BarryE]

To be clear, I don't have a problem paying for software, but I don't like subscription models. I like to buy something and own it, with the right to use it for ten days or ten years as I see fit. I paid exactly £100.05 for Adobe Lightroom 6 stand-alone version in 2015. I only once needed support from Adobe, but as an owner of stand-alone rather than subscription software, I only had access to their online forum for support - and it failed miserably. Still, I didn't expect much, and this in itself wouldn't have been enough to lose me as a customer. Rather, it was a combination of being forced into a subscription model and the total cost of ownership compared to stand-alone software. Over three years, a subscription would currently cost me well over three times what I paid for LR6. That it comes with other benefits is immaterial to me. I'd happily pay double what I previously paid for a stand-alone copy of Lightroom (if such a thing existed now), in return for an up-to-date product I own and can use as I wish for as long as I wish.

I tried several free trials of other paid-for raw tools before Darktable. None of them supported all of the cameras I own as well as providing the level of raw processing capability I was looking for, with a workflow and user interface I found appealing. Darktable, when I finally got around to trying it, came close enough, and so I stuck with it.

Darktable and RawTherapee are both long-established (in Darktable's case, 11 years), and they've gone from strength to strength in capabilities and refinement. There's generally a queue of developers waiting to be part of the distrubuted core development teams. I not certain what their motivations and rewards are, but presumably it's mostly the experience, growth and reputation from working on such software. As developers move on, others fill their shoes.

Well-established open source applications like these with large, enthusiastic user bases are highly unlikely to just disappear. Still, if they did, I'd find something else to use - either open source or paid-for stand-alone. I'm experienced enough with raw processing that I can now switch back and forth between tools - even those I haven't used before - and achieve more-or-less what I want after a little orientation, so if I need to switch from Darktable and/or RawTherapee in future, I'm OK with that. I doubt it will happen, though.

For those who get what they want from Adobe and are happy with the subscription model, I say "go for it". The tools are fantastic, and if they feel they're getting value for money, that's all that matters. I feel neither superior nor inferior in my software choices and reasons for them. Each to his or her own

Yes, Mike, I agree each to their own. The Open Source model is good for supplying options and alternatives and it keeps companies like Adobe on their toes. Personally, having learnt and used Adobe software over many of their products I know I'd be mildly irritated if I couldn't move images and text from InDesign/PS/Illustrator without glitches. I'd feel rather lost. However, if I wanted to update my InDesign and Illustrator applications, then I'd have to spend £50pm, which isn't going to happen.

[texandrews]

It's not at all uncommon to charge on and FTE (Full Time Enrolled) pricing model, and in lots of ways it is far more fair, especially to smaller institutions---provided the people doing the pricing schedule have a clue. Here, I'd guess they don't---they would need to analyze who is really using the products and adjust accordingly. No way everyone at a Uni or even a college is going to be using the software, so the adjustments need to be granular and realistic, with some flat fee options as well. Adobe will try this again and fail again, but they will eventually accommodate.


I used to sell internet databases to the academic and public library/non-profit sectors, so I'm familiar with how these things can (and should) work. Selling itself is really not that hard when you have solid products. What makes it hard are: specific market conditions, which of course are very variable year to year; and the #@%&*+ suits who are not doing the actual selling and don't canvas their sales force about what can work. Typical corporate group-think.

[BigMackCam]

It's not at all uncommon to charge on and FTE (Full Time Enrolled) pricing model, and in lots of ways it is far more fair, especially to smaller institutions---provided the people doing the pricing schedule have a clue. Here, I'd guess they don't---they would need to analyze who is really using the products and adjust accordingly. No way everyone at a Uni or even a college is going to be using the software, so the adjustments need to be granular and realistic, with some flat fee options as well. Adobe will try this again and fail again, but they will eventually accommodate.


I used to sell internet databases to the academic and public library/non-profit sectors, so I'm familiar with how these things can (and should) work. Selling itself is really not that hard when you have solid products. What makes it hard are: specific market conditions, which of course are very variable year to year; and the #@%&*+ suits who are not doing the actual selling and don't canvas their sales force about what can work. Typical corporate group-think.

This is why I likened Adobe's stance to that of Oracle in the 2000s. I remember only too well the long-winded negotiations I conducted for a couple of financial institutions I worked with, trying to reach - and eventually succeeding in - deals with Oracle on cost-effective average (rather than peak) concurrent user licensing, and server licensing that fully took into account backup, failover and disaster recover status for many servers and connections. In fairness to Oracle, the account management and support teams I dealt with - most of whom I'd known for years, enjoying good business and (importantly) social relationships with many of them - were very good... tough but (ultimately) realistic, and prepared to work towards mutual compromise. As you point out, though, it sounds like Adobe wasn't close enough to the OP's scenario to structure a realistic and viable deal that would be beneficial to both parties. Hopefully, the loss of valued clients will sharpen up their practices in this regard...

[Paul the Sunman]

My original post concerned corporate/institutional licensing. However, many posters to this thread have expressed their dislike for Adobe's personal subscription model. I tend to agree. Although Aus$14.29/month for the Photography package is not prohibitive for me at the moment, once I retire (not many years off) I may not want to maintain it. I also wonder how many subscribers are still paying for it for some time after their deaths because they did not have the presence of mind on their death beds to cancel the subscription.

The above mentioned photography package includes PS and 1TB of cloud storage, neither of which I ever use. If LR CC were available separately at lower cost, it would be more attractive to me.

Currently, if you cancel a LR subscription, you still have access to your edited pictures, but can no longer edit them. Again, it would be more attractive if you could keep editing your old pictures, but could no longer import new ones.