Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • I hear ya - it’s a necessary evil. Every time my creative cloud subscription comes up I hold my breath and look the other way, but having access to the continuous updates is a nice thing. 😊

    • I initially fought the upgrade to the creative cloud versions but like @kwphot0 I like the continuous updates. I upgraded when I purchased my Fuji X-T2. There wasn't an option to add that camera to the old version of lightroom I was still using, and when I thought about buying the last standalone version or switching to the subscription model I decided to switch.

      I primarily use Lightroom so I have what they call the "Photography" option. Right now it is $9.99 a month and includes Lightroom, Lightroom Classic, Photoshop, and 20GB of cloud storage. I don't use the cloud storage with the exception of the photos I process with Lightroom (as opposed to the full Lightroom Classic) when I am traveling.

    • True that. The thought of all the re-learning of apps like Premier, Audition, Photoshop...it’s unthinkable.

      Back in the day, Adobe pressed us hard to sell SmugMug to them. I’ve always wondered what if we had? They said they were thinking about subscription models themselves. I would probably be a wealthy Adobe employee now.

    • With LR I'm OK with it now that they are updating things finally these last 2 years. There's still a long ways to go but at least with import/exports it can utilize your whole CPU now. If they can further optimize the preview creation and maybe even utilize the GPU there I'm totally cool with it because of the speed that I can edit a shoot in with it. Even on my Surface it's a totally usable experience and that's just a little i5 that's passively cooled. You can feel the lack of a dedicated GPU in the develop module but overall it's not half bad and I can get my work done on it.

      Photoshop has been a slow and steady improvement especially those times when I need to cut something out of a photo. What used to take most of an hour where it was much of an art to properly get it out and keeping a realistic look can now mostly be done instantly with just minor clean up needed in most cases. And the fill tool while not perfect in the right circumstances can help extend an image when a different aspect ratio is needed than initially thought. The same goes for the healing brush and its' improvements over the past 7 years since CS6.

    • Actually ... no. I'm quite a happy camper.

      I thought I would not like the subscription model at all, was reluctant till I got new hardware that necessitated, but it turns out I should have done it a lot sooner.

      I don't use Lightroom, so it seems I miss a main source of angst. I've been doing it the Photoshop way since v1.1 - but the rest of the ecosystem works pretty good for Ultragraphics.

      Illustrator is still referred to in the trade as 'Frustrator'. The Application Home Screens annoy me. But the interoperability between the main apps now saves me a fair bit of time.

      And the Fonts!

    • Even tho I have made the leap, the workaround for RAW files is using a DNG converter that Adobe offers....just an extra step that is a PIA but it is doable. I was working in CS6 and LR6 for as long as I could but due to client interactions it is no longer possible. Even tho I despise the subscription business model, the pill to swallow that seemed to be 5" in diameter has shrunk to .25" for ease of workflow. Also, the monthly gives me access to a gillion Adobe fonts that I can turn on or off and incorporate into my font manager with ease.

    • I am in the software business so I know all too well the value of a subscription to the company, but as an end user that has to buy one, I loathe having to pay forever for something--until the day I die--on a subscription. I resisted the CC subscription until late 2018 and finally signed up for the photography plan. I am glad there are alternatives that are getting better and better. Competition is always good for the consumer on many levels.

    • Apparently, we can all thank shareholders for the subscription model. It lessens the pressure and stress on Adobe when it comes to reporting quarterly sales numbers.

    • I use the stand alone version and glad I do, yes it will get out of date, and has, but the monthly billing doesn't do it for me, plus being on the road and not always having an internet connection can dramatically reduce the effectiveness of the CC version.

      This was why I recently downloaded the new Luminar 4, another standalone program with virtually all the capability of LR, if PS is your thing sadly this won't cut it

    • I too started with PhotoShop early on, 1.x something. Used Lightroom for a week or so but stayed with the heavy weight PS. Yet, I was late arriving to the complete digital camera/processing realm, sticking with film and scanning to digital format for post processing when not using the dark room. The greatly increasing cost of chemicals for soup was the final motivator.

      When the monthly subscription based, cloud storage, app appeared, I was completely turned off. I want to buy once and be done. And anything cloud has never appealed to me. I guess I'm too old, the son of a Depression (the Big One) child, so I like to own outright and keep my stuff close at hand.

      I stayed with the monthly subscription until Luminar 4 was released. 4 updated 3 to include cataloging and a host of other features. No, Luminar 4 can't touch PS, but, I do like the features it affords me. There are some shortcomings with the current version that the developers are aware of and hopefully fix with the next update. The one fix I want to see will be invoking CA correction for batch processing images. Currently, you have to wade through the menu tree for each image edited, a royal pain if working with a large batch!.

      Leica saves in DNG format and no issues working with the files in Luminar 4.

    • I've been mainly using GIMP as a PS substitute. Lightroom looks very attractive, but I stayed away due to the subscription. Luminar 4 looks interesting.

    • I'm a photo hobbyist and an advanced curmudgeon about software--I hate the subscription model and so far, I have not been assimilated into the CC cloud. I'm running perpetual license versions of CS5 and LR6, but I may be replacing my hardware soon and am mulling over my software options.

      I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has actually migrated from LR/PS to Luminar. Don't you lose all the raw conversion settings that you did with LR/ACR? What about keywords? I'm totally dependent on the metadata I've supplied over the years in LR to locate any given pic--my directory hierarchy contains no meaningful names--so I'm not sure I could convert my existing catalog.

    • I like luminar, it's fast and a clear interface. I loaded 48,000 photos from a nas into the luminar catalog and they dispaly, over wireless, quite fast.

      I have an old version of LR and it's slow and clunky. I have the nik plugins for Lr and that's the only reason I would keep it. I don't process photos too much, and find the nik plugins a godsend. one click and done. Teh silver efex b&w plugin is my favorite.

      I don't know if luminar has equivalent plugins available, will have to consult Google :)

    •  What about keywords? I'm totally dependent on the metadata I've supplied over the years in LR to locate any given pic--my directory hierarchy contains no meaningful names--so I'm not sure I could convert my existing catalog.

      keywording is on their roadmap but isn't yet implemented. It's a nice piece of software but, without keywords, isn't properly searchable.

      I won't buy it yet, will wait for keywording to be implemented and will do another trial then. It is much faster than LR and has enough basic options for me to edit my photos but the catalog features are still a little weak.