[mtkeller]

I think this is the crux of the problem. This was asked beforebut but not answered. I don't use Adobe, so is it even possible to save edits to the cloud without additionally saving to your hard drive? If so, this is the only explanation I can think of. If it does require saving to the hard drive as well, then everything should be there intact. Adobe can't lock you out of your own locally stored files.

If the OP was only saving edits to the cloud, then this is 100% on them for not being stored locally or having backups. To this, I can only say good luck.

OP says "Lightroom Classic". That's the version that saves everything to your computer, although it can sync selected collections (edits plus smart previews) to the cloud. With Lightroom Classic, OP has Lightroom catalog file containing all edits as well as all source photos.

[Wheatfield]

"throwing shade" & "screeching like a queen in heat" . Think I can work out what you mean

I agree with you. Adobe had to do something to stop this revenue leakage, much like Microsoft and Office, and before that IBM who tied their customers into their mainframes. Building a subscription model allows businesses to plan and fund R&D. Providing they get it right both sides win and can both concentrate on building their businesses. Where it is problematic is where the customer is an occasional user and not committed for the long term. Guess Adobe reasoned the flack from "occasional" users would be offset by the steady revenue.

When they converted to the subscription model I was regular user of many of their creative suite products. I chose to stick with CS5 for these as the cost was too much. The photography subscription was very reasonable in comparison.

Apparently, prior to the subscription model, Adobe Photoshop was the most pirated software in the world, with eight or more out of ten installations having been pirated.
No company is going to tolerate that sort of abuse. I wish the crybabies would wake up to reality and stop their incessant whining about how mean old Adobe is evil because they think they have a right to make people pay to use their products.
It's ironic that people who will spend thousands on hardware to engage in their hobby balk at spending ten bucks a month for software that allows them to engage in that hobby.
I don't know if it's anger at having to pay for what was once easily stolen or what.

---------- Post added May 10th, 2021 at 03:52 PM ----------

OP says "Lightroom Classic". That's the version that saves everything to your computer, although it can sync selected collections (edits plus smart previews) to the cloud. With Lightroom Classic, OP has Lightroom catalog file containing all edits as well as all source photos.

I had Lightroom Classic, and now I'm on Lightroom CC. Everything is on my computer. Adobe isn't kidnapping anyone's babies and holding them for ransom.

[mtkeller]

I had Lightroom Classic, and now I'm on Lightroom CC. Everything is on my computer. Adobe isn't kidnapping anyone's babies and holding them for ransom.

There is no longer a product called "Lightroom CC". There is Lightroom Classic (the one whose icon has "LrC" on it) and there is "Lightroom" (icon just says "Lr"). Lightroom is the one that stores things in the cloud. Even Adobe's evangelists think their product naming is awful.

[Mooncatt]

It's ironic that people who will spend thousands on hardware to engage in their hobby balk at spending ten bucks a month for software that allows them to engage in that hobby.
I don't know if it's anger at having to pay for what was once easily stolen or what.

To be fair, it's a lot easier for a professional photographer to justify a subscription, than the many more hobbyists that are doing this on the side. Even if you take the piracy aspect out of the equation, most users would much rather pay once and be done until they are ready to upgrade on their own terms. Sure, I paid thousands on my current gear, but it's mine and will remain mine. I have purchased Topaz DeNoise, which again is now mine for good, even after the update period is over and I choose not to re-up the licence.

With subscriptions, there's never an end to the costs. If you can't make constant use of the product, it's just throwing money away, especially when there are quality free programs out there. So in my view, Adobe has relegated themselves to the realm of professional use only software, and former users are legit upset at being forced to rent it after having been owners.

[cpk]

I had Lightroom Classic, and now I'm on Lightroom CC. Everything is on my computer. Adobe isn't kidnapping anyone's babies and holding them for ransom.

Not quite true, Wheatfield. I too had Lightroom Classic (since its beginning I think) and switched to Lightroom a year ago. Lightroom downloads all my originals from the Cloud to my hard drive as specified in the Preferences; but the editing changes I make on the individual photos are not downloaded; they stay in the Cloud. An export would store the edited photo in a location of your choice.

There is no longer a product called "Lightroom CC". There is Lightroom Classic (the one whose icon has "LrC" on it) and there is "Lightroom" (icon just says "Lr"). Lightroom is the one that stores things in the cloud. Even Adobe's evangelists think their product naming is awful.

I just went through this in another forum after using the term "Lightroom CC". The CC can be confusing as Adobe messed up their product naming and used CC in a couple of slightly different contexts. Lightroom Desktop was suggested when referring to the desktop version of Lightroom; so we would have LR Classic, LR Desktop, LR Mobile, and, I guess, LR Web, the last three being Cloud based.

[mee]

OP says "Lightroom Classic". That's the version that saves everything to your computer, although it can sync selected collections (edits plus smart previews) to the cloud. With Lightroom Classic, OP has Lightroom catalog file containing all edits as well as all source photos.

Ah in that case all the files are indeed on your hard drive already, OP. And they aren't encrypted in some database or catalog either. They're literally in a folder you can copy and paste over anywhere or import into another software.

[Wheatfield]

To be fair, it's a lot easier for a professional photographer to justify a subscription, than the many more hobbyists that are doing this on the side. Even if you take the piracy aspect out of the equation, most users would much rather pay once and be done until they are ready to upgrade on their own terms. Sure, I paid thousands on my current gear, but it's mine and will remain mine. I have purchased Topaz DeNoise, which again is now mine for good, even after the update period is over and I choose not to re-up the licence.

With subscriptions, there's never an end to the costs. If you can't make constant use of the product, it's just throwing money away, especially when there are quality free programs out there. So in my view, Adobe has relegated themselves to the realm of professional use only software, and former users are legit upset at being forced to rent it after having been owners.

Actually this is incorrect. As a pro photographer I had to justify every penny I spent to my business plan, as a hobbiest, my justification process is do I want it and can I afford it.
Your opinion is your right, but in my opinion, it's dead wrong. A hobbiest will buy what he wants and can afford.
Former "owners" are few and far between, as the vast majority of users of the software, some 80% or greater, were what are politely known as thieves.
Please justify a person's right to be upset about having to pay to access the fruits of another person's labour.

---------- Post added May 11th, 2021 at 04:57 AM ----------

Not quite true, Wheatfield. I too had Lightroom Classic (since its beginning I think) and switched to Lightroom a year ago. Lightroom downloads all my originals from the Cloud to my hard drive as specified in the Preferences; but the editing changes I make on the individual photos are not downloaded; they stay in the Cloud. An export would store the edited photo in a location of your choice.



I just went through this in another forum after using the term "Lightroom CC". The CC can be confusing as Adobe messed up their product naming and used CC in a couple of slightly different contexts. Lightroom Desktop was suggested when referring to the desktop version of Lightroom; so we would have LR Classic, LR Desktop, LR Mobile, and, I guess, LR Web, the last three being Cloud based.

Ok. I don't know how you have things set up. I just upgraded to the subscription model of Lightroom and Photoshop.
My image files are all still stored on my hard drives, my catalogue is on my hard drive, and my software is on my hard drive. Turning off my router before turning on my computer does not alter my ability to do anything in Lightroom or Photoshop.
There appears to be a lot of dishonesty and hysteria surrounding Adobe's products right now.
I suppose if you want your stuff to be cloud based, they will do it for you, but my experience is that if you want your stuff on your hard drive, you can have your stuff on your hard drive.

[Mooncatt]

Actually this is incorrect. As a pro photographer I had to justify every penny I spent to my business plan, as a hobbiest, my justification process is do I want it and can I afford it.
Your opinion is your right, but in my opinion, it's dead wrong. A hobbiest will buy what he wants and can afford.

Even a hobbyist has to justify every purchase, just from a different perspective. I recognize that there are benefits to Photoshop, but as a hobbyist, I can't justify the ongoing cost. If I went pro, or even just as a side hustle, I would reconsider it, but even then it would additionally be based on what I get from it compared to what I'm currently using.

Former "owners" are few and far between, as the vast majority of users of the software, some 80% or greater, were what are politely known as thieves.
Please justify a person's right to be upset about having to pay to access the fruits of another person's labour.

I don't have to justify that, because I don't believe in theft. I even said as much in my earlier comparison, so trying to bring it up again is pointless. I will say that Photoshop is used by more than photographers. I belong to a community that is full of digital artists. When Adobe switched to the subscription route, there was a lot of vocal dissenters who left it for other programs. Their justifications are as I mentioned above. I don't doubt there was piracy, but that shouldn't overshadow the legit reasons for people being upset at the switch. The more popular/skilled artists that sold a lot of commissions sometimes switched to the rental route, but many (if not most) found other programs.

[mtkeller]

I don't have to justify that, because I don't believe in theft. I even said as much in my earlier comparison, so trying to bring it up again is pointless. I will say that Photoshop is used by more than photographers. I belong to a community that is full of digital artists. When Adobe switched to the subscription route, there was a lot of vocal dissenters who left it for other programs. Their justifications are as I mentioned above. I don't doubt there was piracy, but that shouldn't overshadow the legit reasons for people being upset at the switch. The more popular/skilled artists that sold a lot of commissions sometimes switched to the rental route, but many (if not most) found other programs.

Have you done a scientific study to support your claims? As you mention, the dissenters are quite vocal. Most of those who switched probably just did so quietly. If this were as disastrous for Adobe as so many people like to claim, Adobe would have had to backpedal. Instead, they’ve managed to maintain the same pricing since I first subscribed in 2014.

We’re also seeing other vendors who had been touting their “You own the software!” approach beginning down the Adobe path by offering subscription and perpetual licenses in parallel. The pricing they offer (relative to the features provided) is nowhere near as good as what one gets for the Adobe Photography plan. Within a couple of years, they will have switched to subscription only as well.

[cpk]

My image files are all still stored on my hard drives, my catalogue is on my hard drive, and my software is on my hard drive.

If your catalogue is on your hard drive, you are still in Lightroom Classic or, possibly, some combination of Lightroom Classic and the cloud version of Lightroom which can be done with care and some difficulty. My originals are stored on my hard drive in a location I specify in my preferences; but every time I edit a photograph it is taken from the Cloud. I have no .xmp files on my hard drive in my Cloud Photography directory and no catalogue; all edits are in the Cloud. I can export the original with its settings which then gives me the attached .xmp file. I do this when I want to edit the photograph in DxO or Affinity Photo; and then I import the edited version of the photograph back into Lightroom. This means that when I am in a coffee shop editing photos on my Surface tablet or Android device I am processing the original file, not a smart preview.

[Wheatfield]

Even a hobbyist has to justify every purchase, just from a different perspective. I recognize that there are benefits to Photoshop, but as a hobbyist, I can't justify the ongoing cost. If I went pro, or even just as a side hustle, I would reconsider it, but even then it would additionally be based on what I get from it compared to what I'm currently using.



I don't have to justify that, because I don't believe in theft. I even said as much in my earlier comparison, so trying to bring it up again is pointless. I will say that Photoshop is used by more than photographers. I belong to a community that is full of digital artists. When Adobe switched to the subscription route, there was a lot of vocal dissenters who left it for other programs. Their justifications are as I mentioned above. I don't doubt there was piracy, but that shouldn't overshadow the legit reasons for people being upset at the switch. The more popular/skilled artists that sold a lot of commissions sometimes switched to the rental route, but many (if not most) found other programs.

Maybe you should try to justify it. Photoshop was an expensive program when it was a standalone. IIRC, I paid somewhere around six hundred dollars for it, and then upgrades were another two to three hundred every year to two years.
The only way the subscription version is more expensive is if the user was stealing the standalone in the first place.

There really isn't a legitimate reason to be angry about the subscription version. If you weren't stealing Photoshop to begin with, you are probably paying about the same, or perhaps even less with the subscription model.

---------- Post added May 11th, 2021 at 08:44 AM ----------

If your catalogue is on your hard drive, you are still in Lightroom Classic or, possibly, some combination of Lightroom Classic and the cloud version of Lightroom which can be done with care and some difficulty. My originals are stored on my hard drive in a location I specify in my preferences; but every time I edit a photograph it is taken from the Cloud. I have no .xmp files on my hard drive in my Cloud Photography directory and no catalogue; all edits are in the Cloud. I can export the original with its settings which then gives me the attached .xmp file. I do this when I want to edit the photograph in DxO or Affinity Photo; and then I import the edited version of the photograph back into Lightroom. This means that when I am in a coffee shop editing photos on my Surface tablet or Android device I am processing the original file, not a smart preview.

I'll check into it. I just took the subscription service to Lightroom and Photoshop and installed them. I don't use the mobile programs.

[Mooncatt]

So being mad at renting vs owning = you must be a pirate. Got it. I'm out, as that wasn't the original topic anyway.

[house]

Piracy isn't theft. Its an absurd and inaccurate use of language. As far as I know it doesn't fall under theft anywhere on earth. You might as well call it murder or reckless driving.

I think piracy helped Adobe immensely as I pointed out in a post above. Piracy is how people learn and become addicted to the software. Those people would never pay the full price for private use and would have learned another less expesive alternative. Sames goes for businesses using pirated software. What happened is that everyone learned Adobe products and when they had the business case or got employed a legit copy was purchased. Those that have a business case are the only actual lost sales. It's one of the amazingly obvious things that people stuck in 19th century capitalism can't understand.

Because I'm certain piracy helped Adobe I'm very glad they've managed to reduce it. Already alternatives are becoming stronger. The bad blood caused by the subscription model is another huge cause of people abandoning Adobe. Subscription models are a holy grail of the last couple of years. Not just for software, everything should be a subscription. There are various economic reasons for this but none of those reasons are any good for consumers. It's just lock in and makes it more difficult for consumers to manage their costs.

Edit: A company with the revenue of Adobe should be able to produce much better software. A handful of people working for free in their spare time manage to pull off most of the functionality if not the polish. As with all companies the focus moves from improving the software to engineering the perfect upgrade path and lock in. Much like the market segmentation of Canon cameras for instance. My guess is that the man hours on marketing, financial set ups and most efficient artificial limiting of sofware completely dwarfs the engineering/software hours.

[JohnBee]

I used Lightroom for my photo processing for several years, but have now switched to ON1 and the LR Classic license I was using has lapsed. This meant I could no longer edit in LR, either old or new photos, but all my old edited photos were still viewable.

Until now. As of today, when I launch LR Classic I get a popup that gives only three options: buy LR Classic; start a 7 day free trial; or quit. There is no longer an option to view my thousands of previously edited photos. These are being held to ransom.

Does anyone else find this reprehensible?

The good news is that LR is none destructive and that all of your edits are saved in one database file.

With that said, one simple way to access and export your images would be to install VMware and setup a new LR trial - following this, you could then copy your original catalogs over and export your images - though, whatever you do; 'do not share your folders' between Windows and VMware, as that could be disastrous - in fact, I'd create a backup folder of your catalog beforehand just to be on the safe-side.

As for LR, the good news is that it has no impact on your original images and that an expired license would have no impact on those, though you I can understand why you would want your processed images and where this could be a problem.

And finally, one other more obvious solution, would be to activate your license for one month type thing, and export your images - may not be the best in-terms of playing-into Adobe's proverbial money machine, though one option nonetheless...

[Tesla]

I believe piracy is theft. It doesn't matter if piracy helped Adobe or not, it is wrong and illegal.

I personally don't like subscription software. It is just like streaming services. It might be cheap for one, but if you start getting others it adds up fast. If all my software on my computer was subscription based it would cost me hundreds a month.

While Adobe isn't for me, it works for others and there isn't anything wrong with that.