[Class A]

Lightroom 6 was the last version that was available without entering a subscription deal.

Unfortunately, recently yet another feature became unavailable. Following the loss of the map functionality and the ability to directly upload photos to Facebook, now it is the built-in face recognition that quit working.

Apparently, even the ability to create virtual copies is said to crash LR6 now.

Just a heads up what "perpetual license" means when it comes to Adobe. With the vast majority of other companies it means that the software will continue to work as is, save incompatibilities introduced by new operating systems. Adobe's Lightroom 6, on the other hand, with its dependence on time-limited third-party licenses, just keeps falling apart on its own.

[Paul the Sunman]

I have recently switched from LR to ON1 as the license I was using lapsed and the subscription model doesn't appeal. Although LR has a few advantages, overall, ON1 is much more powerful, so I'm not missing Adobe at all.

Features randomly collapsing is not acceptable.

[Digitalis]

I will expand upon this further later on but at some point someone has to ask: Do subscriptions really make software better?

In my lengthy experience with software there are examples of suites where the cost of ownership is a considerable investment* and while those editing and control suites offer good quality support and the product itself works well and has many useful features that cannot be found anywhere else. Photoshop however has been around for a very long time, and many of its features can be found and replicated with similar functionality in other apps and suites that cost considerably less produced by Corel, Serif, Phase one, Autodesk.

* $1000 a year for a single basic licensed standard edition. Quality Audio production software isn't cheap.

[HoodedOne]

The subscription is the reason why I stopped with LR (user since LR1). Now I’m happy with DXO Photolab.
I recently started up my old system (mac mini) for LR6, to use it for scanning negatives with a dslr and Negative Lab Pro.

[Rondec]

Mine still seems to work OK, but I don't use a number of the features mentioned above. It may be that down the road my wife chooses to go with a subscription Lightroom. This last year was not a good year from a wedding photography standpoint and it wouldn't make sense to pay 10 dollars a month for it right now, but maybe next year will be better.

Adobe sort of has folks over a barrel. The issue is more efficiency than anything else. If you are used to the software, it is just easier to keep using it than to learn a different piece of software, even if it is more expensive.

[Gray]

I don't use Lightroom's 6.14's Google maps integration, but I do know that there is a way to restore the map functionality in Lightroom 6.
I use virtual copies every day in Lightroom 6 and they still work fine.

[BigMackCam]

I know folks here must get tired of me saying this, but open source options - especially RawTherapee and Darktable for raw conversion, and GIMP for editing - have improved hugely in the last few years. Yes - there are things Lightroom does better or easier so far as raw conversion goes, and yes - Photoshop is a lot more polished, but there are things the open source options do better too. For professional use, I understand why Adobe products continue to lead, especially in terms of efficient workflow, and why other paid alternatives are probably better for professionals who don't want to use Adobe... but for us amateurs, it's really worth accepting the few compromises and inconveniences in open source alternatives. My experience has been that they're extremely capable if you take a little time to learn how to use them properly. That's the hardest part - migrating to a new tool set. Honestly, though, I believe its worth the effort...

[gatorguy]

I know folks here must get tired of me saying this, but open source options - especially RawTherapee and Darktable for raw conversion, and GIMP for editing - have improved hugely in the last few years. Yes - there are things Lightroom does better or easier so far as raw conversion goes, and yes - Photoshop is a lot more polished, but there are things the open source options do better too. For professional use, I understand why Adobe products continue to lead, especially in terms of efficient workflow, and why other paid alternatives are probably better for professionals who don't want to use Adobe... but for us amateurs, it's really worth accepting the few compromises and inconveniences in open source alternatives. My experience has been that they're extremely capable if you take a little time to learn how to use them properly. That's the hardest part - migrating to a new tool set. Honestly, though, I believe its worth the effort...

Fully agree.

Full disclosure I did finally add the Adobe subscription early last year after resisting it for some time, in truth too long. Stubbornness more than anything since I seriously abhor this rush to subscription models that more and more providers are pushing, but I've no idea what those of us in a (semi)professional setting can do about it.

I used the final standalone versions of both CS and LR until it was no longer tenable. It was becoming increasingly problematic with Photoshop files provided by customers so biting the bullet and moving to the subscription model was the only rational choice. Fortunately I had an extra seat for the home install too or I wouldn't be using it there. With that said I have current versions of On1 and DxO and neither of them so far are perfect replacements for LR. DxO makes a great plug-in for certain tasks (and I did end up upgrading to v.4) but falls short of LR. Other than speed of some operations, and sometimes less than clear menus I do like a lot about On1 even if it's taken years now for them to finally have what I consider a fully-usable package for semi-professionals. Major kudos to On1 for one immediately obvious advantage over LR. On1's DAM being browser based is so much easier to manage than Lightrooms which requires importing into specific catalogs. But since LR isn't costing me anything (for home) that's where most of my photography work is still done.

[macman24054]

I have recently switched from LR to ON1 as the license I was using lapsed and the subscription model doesn't appeal

I've been using ON1 for about 2 years and do not miss LR at all. In fact, I find ON1 much more full featured.

[othar]

I am still satisfied with LR 5.7.1 adding Hugin (for stitching) and PaintShop Pro 2019 (for more advanced editing) in the mix I can't think of a good reason to switch to the subscription model as a mere photography enthusiast either.

[texandrews]

I think a great deal depends on what environment you are in. I now have subscriptions to Adobe through work---and I can see advantages to it now. Would I do this for my personal work alone, both incidental and my serious artwork? Possibly not. If my pro work was entirely independent? Possibly not.

But in my situation it's not just photography, but also DAMS work and interfacing with several other departments in the museum, all of which are Adobe. So in this case, alternatives are really less good for various workflow reasons. I do have to use them occasionally for the final deliverable(s), but overall it's an easier workflow if we're all in the same boat.

[Ontarian50]

I understand the rationale behind griping about Adobe's subscription model. It's hard to shell out money for something you can't really see or touch. As for myself, I enjoyed renting videos from the local store and returning the disks, but I've never liked the idea of paying to rent a downloaded stream (especially since they don't match the fidelity of a BluRay).

But I've had the basic Photoshop/Lightroom subscription for a few years now, replacing my old copies of CS3 etc. I pay about $150 CDN a year for the software (and don't really use Lightroom all that much), and it's been nice to have it up to date - sort of. I'm conservative with my computer equipment, and don't have the latest and greatest. But when the newer 2019 Photoshop version came out, my computer couldn't download it as I didn't have the newer OS. And it bugged me to be subscribing to have the latest software, without actually being able to get it.

So, I got a newer computer that could run High Sierra, and downloaded the newer Photoshop.... and then they went and updated it to the 2020 version that wouldn't run on High Sierra. A new graphics card later, and I was able to run Catalina, and then get back up to date. So far, so good.

As for the subscription cost, people gripe about paying monthly or yearly for a bunch of data they can't see on their hard drive. But those same folks will think nothing about dropping $150 on some lens filter they use only once or twice a year. At least they can ooh and ahh with the unboxing, and imagine all the cool shots they will now be able to take. When I think back to the days when Photoshop alone was close to $1,000 (and it was only up to date for what, a year or so?) I think the subscription is a bargain.

And I'll repeat the point I've made before, but subscription made a huge amount of sense for Adobe. Far, far, far too many photographers would brag about having the latest and greatest Photoshop version, while I was still nursing my CS3. But far too many of them had pirated copies, which wasn't good for Adobe. Renting it out, month by month, has kept things a lot more honest out there, and I can't blame them.

[Class A]

Renting it out, month by month, has kept things a lot more honest out there, and I can't blame them.

Digital rights management and financials are two orthogonal topics.

One can write software that phones home every time you use it but still sell a perpetual license. There is no technical reason why the billing needs to be subscription-based in order to make software harder to pirate.

[stevebrot]

Apparently, even the ability to create virtual copies is said to crash LR6 now.

Such might be apparent to PetaPixel, but not on my machine. I am a LR 6.14 user and virtual copies are working just fine. As for facial recognition and Google map integration, you don't miss what you don't use. Ditto for FB upload.

FWIW...the Leica tether plug-in has died on my install. I am crushed.


Steve

(...perpetual license ≠ eternal life...)

[BigMackCam]

I understand the rationale behind griping about Adobe's subscription model. It's hard to shell out money for something you can't really see or touch. As for myself, I enjoyed renting videos from the local store and returning the disks, but I've never liked the idea of paying to rent a downloaded stream (especially since they don't match the fidelity of a BluRay).

But I've had the basic Photoshop/Lightroom subscription for a few years now, replacing my old copies of CS3 etc. I pay about $150 CDN a year for the software (and don't really use Lightroom all that much), and it's been nice to have it up to date - sort of. I'm conservative with my computer equipment, and don't have the latest and greatest. But when the newer 2019 Photoshop version came out, my computer couldn't download it as I didn't have the newer OS. And it bugged me to be subscribing to have the latest software, without actually being able to get it.

So, I got a newer computer that could run High Sierra, and downloaded the newer Photoshop.... and then they went and updated it to the 2020 version that wouldn't run on High Sierra. A new graphics card later, and I was able to run Catalina, and then get back up to date. So far, so good.

As for the subscription cost, people gripe about paying monthly or yearly for a bunch of data they can't see on their hard drive. But those same folks will think nothing about dropping $150 on some lens filter they use only once or twice a year. At least they can ooh and ahh with the unboxing, and imagine all the cool shots they will now be able to take. When I think back to the days when Photoshop alone was close to $1,000 (and it was only up to date for what, a year or so?) I think the subscription is a bargain.

And I'll repeat the point I've made before, but subscription made a huge amount of sense for Adobe. Far, far, far too many photographers would brag about having the latest and greatest Photoshop version, while I was still nursing my CS3. But far too many of them had pirated copies, which wasn't good for Adobe. Renting it out, month by month, has kept things a lot more honest out there, and I can't blame them.

Digital rights management and financials are two orthogonal topics.

One can write software that phones home every time you use it but still sell a perpetual license. There is no technical reason why the billing needs to be subscription-based in order to make software harder to pirate.

Yes, Microsoft has machine-specific licensing of Windows 10 without the need for a subscription model. I'm not sure whether it utilises a one-time check with servers upon installation, or if it's a regular "phone home" approach, but it works and works well... and if you replace your PC, so long as you have the license key provided with your copy of Windows you can transfer that license to your new PC easily. I'm sure Adobe could have done something similar... but, they didn't, and lost a number of us as customers accordingly. I suspect overall, though, they've made more than enough money through the new model that a few lost customers doesn't really impact them.

Here in the UK, the cheapest plan is GBP £9.98 per month. That gets you either LR only with 1TB cloud storage, or LR + PS with 100GB. A year's subscription would cost me more than I paid for my digital LR6 stand-alone copy through Amazon UK. Assuming three years useful life of the stand-alone product (which I'd say is very conservative), the subscription model is at least three times more expensive for me, and keeps increasing for every month I use it after that.

Could I afford it? Yes, sure. I just choose not to spend that kind of money when I can get broadly equivalent functionality and performance at lower or minimal cost. I don't expect others to agree with my point of view or choice... I'm just doing what works for me. Nor am I complaining about Adobe... they've chosen their path for business reasons, and I'm certain it's working well for them commercially. When all's said and done, Adobe's in business to make money, and I've no doubt it's making more through subscriptions. Arguably, though, it's also helped other software companies who still offer stand-alone licenses, as they'll see an increase in sales...