Following Adobe’s announcement of two new versions of Lightroom, there has been some confusion about the exact purpose of each one. Many photographers on Adobe’s subscription plan are looking forward to using the new version of Lightroom and gaining the most recent feature set. But, which one is the new version? The two new options are called “Lightroom Classic” and “Lightroom CC,” and they’re quite different from one another. In fact, I suspect that many photographers won’t even use Lightroom CC at all, and they’ll stick entirely to Lightroom Classic. Below, I’ll outline the differences between the two.
Table of Contents
1) The Naming Headache
For more than two years, Adobe has offered both Lightroom 6 and Lightroom CC on the market. At first, the only difference was that Lightroom 6 was a standalone, perpetual-license product, while Lightroom CC was part of Adobe’s Creative Cloud subscription model. Over time, Adobe started adding some features to Lightroom CC that didn’t (and still don’t) exist in Lightroom 6 — things like the dehaze tool and local adjustments to the “whites” and “blacks” sliders.
A few days ago, Adobe announced an update to continue the Lightroom line: Lightroom Classic. This is the update to both Lightroom 6 and the original Lightroom CC. The interface on Lightroom Classic is exactly the same as the interface in the older versions of Lightroom. This is the upgrade that we all expected — a very traditional continuation of Adobe’s current product line.
On the other hand, the new Lightroom CC is entirely different. It has very little to do with any product that Adobe has created in the past (although it does use Adobe’s Camera RAW tools for post-processing, just like Photoshop and Lightroom have done before). It is, essentially, a brand new piece of software meant for a totally different purpose.
If you were using Lightroom CC prior to October 18, you’re now using Lightroom Classic. You can add on an additional subscription to the new Lightroom CC, which is its own, separate thing.
So:
- The new Lightroom Classic: An upgrade everyone expected, with the same interface as prior versions of Lightroom, and some new features
- The new Lightroom CC: An unexpected product with a different target audience, strangely given the same name as one of Lightroom’s earlier, normal releases
2) Comparing Features Between the New Lightroom Products
| Feature | Lightroom Classic | Lightroom CC |
|---|---|---|
| Options upon import | Same as in prior Lightroom releases | Limited; only “Add to album” |
| Organize with folders | Yes | No |
| Organize with collections | Yes | Yes, but called albums |
| Smart collections | Yes | No |
| Rename photos | Yes | No |
| Artificial intelligence keywording | No | Yes |
| Face recognition | Yes | No |
| Flags and stars | Yes | Yes |
| Color labels | Yes | No |
| “Basic” panel adjustments | Yes | Yes, in a different order than usual |
| Clarity and dehaze adjustments | Yes | Yes |
| Tone curve adjustments | Yes | No (Update: Yes, released December 12) |
| HSL panel adjustments | Yes | Yes |
| Split toning adjustments | Yes | No (Update: Yes, released December 12) |
| Sharpening and noise reduction adjustments | Yes | Yes |
| Lens corrections | Yes | Yes |
| Camera calibration panel | Yes | No |
| Adjustment history | Yes | No |
| Soft proofing | Yes | No |
| Compare, survey, and reference views | Yes | No |
| Local adjustments (brush, gradient, radial tools) | Yes | Yes |
| Healing tool | Yes | Yes |
| Merge HDRs | Yes | No |
| Merge panoramas | Yes | No |
| Edit full-resolution images on mobile devices | No | Yes |
| Edit on mobile devices at all | Yes, but only as smart previews; Lightroom mobile | Yes |
| Map module and geotagging | Yes | No |
| Tethered capture | Yes | No |
| Printing module | Yes | No |
| Book, web, and slideshow modules | Yes | No |
| Images must be on Adobe’s cloud server | No | Yes, if you want to use CC’s unique features |
| Edits on one device instantly sync to others | Yes, but only smart previews and Lightroom mobile | Yes |
| Plugin support | Yes | No |
| Original photos backed up to the cloud | No | Yes |
| Create snapshots | Yes | No |
| Create virtual copies | Yes | No |
| Create actual copies | Yes | No |
| Sync settings | Yes | No |
| Color and tonal adjustments on video | No | Yes |
| Original files can be stored locally | Yes | Yes — click “Store a copy of all photos locally” |
| Can be split into multiple catalogs | Yes | No |
| Edit unlimited photos without extra cost | Yes | No — 1TB storage limit before price increase |
| Greatest magnification to view photos | 11:1 | 2:1 |
| Secondary screen | Yes | No |
| Export file types | JPEG, TIFF, DNG, PSD, Original | JPEG |
| Export color space | sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto | sRGB |
| Export with watermark | Yes | No (Update: Yes for iOS version only, released December 12) |
| Price | $9.99 per month with Photoshop | $9.99 per month with 1TB cloud storage |
Basically, Lightroom Classic really is “classic.” If there’s something you’ve been able to do in prior versions of Lightroom, you can do it in Lightroom Classic as well.
Lightroom CC is very streamlined and doesn’t offer as many advanced options. To me, the organizational side of things seems to mimic Apple’s “photos” app for the iPhone in many respects. It lets you add photos to different albums, search via artificial intelligence keywords, and edit full-resolution photos on your phone. It also doesn’t have a huge learning curve; it should be pretty easy for most people to figure out what’s going on.
Even though Lightroom Classic has more advanced editing features, some of the good ones made their way to Lightroom CC as well. That includes things like local adjustments, for example, which are a must-have for advanced editing. Lightroom CC also has an artificial intelligence keyword search tool, which is an useful way to find a set of photos with the same subject. For example, consider this image, with a search for “cactus”:
3) Who should use Lightroom Classic?
Are you an advanced photographer? Have you used Lightroom before in the past? If so, Lightroom Classic is the obvious path for your work.
It simply has a much wider net of features. As nice as the artificial intelligence keyword search in Lightroom CC can be, most professionals will care more about things like plugins, multiple catalogs, fully-fledged develop features, watermarks, and so on. Lightroom Classic fills the same market segment as all the prior versions of Lightroom did.
Target audience:
- Advanced or professional photographers who have used Lightroom in the past and appreciate its in-depth feature set.
4) Who should use Lightroom CC?
Adobe markets a lot of the new features of Lightroom CC, but they don’t really say who the target audience is. However, I think that there is a clear target audience, and it’s not who you might expect.
In many ways, Lightroom CC can seem overly slimmed-down. It doesn’t have many features that photographers consider valuable, or even necessary for professional work. Yet, I would argue that one of the biggest benefits of Lightroom CC is that it doesn’t offer many of these advanced features. And that’s because Lightroom CC’s biggest target audience isn’t advanced photographers — it’s photographers who aren’t paid to take pictures, and value ease of use more than overall technical capability or features.
For example, beginners don’t need the option to export photos in ProPhoto or Adobe RGB color spaces, because it’s likely to cause more harm than good. The same is true for exporting as TIFFs or PSD files — the target audience for Lightroom CC can and should only be exporting as sRGB JPEGs.
In that sense, Lightroom CC competes more with Apple Photos than it does with something like Capture One or Lightroom Classic. It has a very consumer-oriented design and feature set to make the learning curve as easy as possible, while still containing fairly advanced editing and organizational features.
Does that mean advanced photographers would never use Lightroom CC? Actually, there are some circumstances where I see Lightroom CC as holding a distinct advantage even for professionals.
For example, if you do a lot of social media marketing, you’ll want the ability to edit videos on the go (i.e., behind-the-scenes smartphone videos). Lightroom CC can do that, and Lightroom Classic can’t.
I can see YouTube creators and iPhoneographers relying on the relatively advanced post-processing abilities of Lightroom CC to post quick content in the field. That’s also true for editing your social-media-targeted photos on a desktop, then seeing the finalized edits immediately on your phone (and ready for instant export on the go).
In short, Lightroom CC is built for mobile creators, in addition to more casual photographers. If you’re an advanced photographer who doesn’t use your phone as an integral part of your brand and marketing strategy, I can’t think of many cases when Lightroom CC makes as much sense.
Target audience:
- Casual, hobbyist photographers who want an easy-to-learn, yet surprisingly powerful, post-processing app for multiple-platform editing.
- Professionals with an active social media or YouTube presence who consistently create/share content on the go, especially with smartphones.
5) Pricing
The pricing for Lightroom Classic is exactly the same as usual — $10/month with Adobe’s photography package, which also includes Photoshop. This package also now includes Lightroom CC, but only with 20GB of cloud storage, which won’t be nearly enough for most photographers. It’s meant to give you a taste of the product rather than act as functional software for most uses.
If you want to upgrade that 20GB of storage to 1TB, you’ll have to pay an additional $10/month, taking the total price up to $20/month. Or, if you don’t need Lightroom Classic and Photoshop, you can get just Lightroom CC and 1TB of cloud storage for $10/month. And, 1TB might not be enough for your uses, either. (Although I will emphasize that I don’t expect most professional photographers to host their entire library on Lightroom CC, even if they find it to be a valuable product — instead, my impression is that it’s meant for hosting content that you specifically plan to take, edit, or export on your phone.)
You can purchase any of these plans here:
6) Conclusion
A lot of professionals will look at the feature set for Lightroom CC in disbelief. No watermarks on export? No plugin support, virtual copies, history panel, or even color labels?
But the biggest target audience for Lightroom CC — casual photographers — neither needs nor wants most of those things. Photographers who do want them will prefer Lightroom Classic, instead. Even professional social media photographers who do use Lightroom CC are likely to use it in tandem with Lightroom Classic rather than on its own.
Personally, in a strange sense, I think I’m more likely to get Lightroom CC in the long run than Lightroom Classic. That’s because I would never rely on a subscription catalog software for editing my main photos (as I’ve already covered), so Lightroom Classic is completely out of the cards. However, if I eventually shift toward doing a lot of social media marketing and mobile photo/video, Lightroom CC actually fills a void in the market. I’m not saying that I will buy it — at least for now, I’m not planning to — but that it’s an entirely separate entity from what we’ve seen before, and photographers are only beginning to come up with creative ways to use it.
So, although the press release caused some confusion, I can see why Adobe split Lightroom into two parts. Perhaps they should have adjusted their naming convention (something like “Lightroom CC” for the main program and “Lightroom Social” for the new one would make more sense to me), but there’s a reason why both products exist. They fill different segments in the market with less overlap than you might expect.
I understand why they are doing this, but the Lightroom CC isn’t at all compelling to me.
If I wanted a software like this I would use free (not considering the cloud storage) Apple Photos, which I use for managing my final pictures & iPhone captures. It has a similar feature set, arguably even better design, much better sync options (at least in Apple ecosystem) and performance.
My RAWs will stay in Lightroom CC Classic, however I am a bit nervous now I seen the dead of Lightroom 6. I am not switching now but will keep my eyes open for alternatives.
Mirek, I think you summed up the thoughts of many photographers! Lightroom CC has its uses, but I suspect that most of this website’s readers (and just advanced photographers in general) won’t find it especially useful.
As for Lightroom Classic, I’m simply not going to buy a subscription cataloging product, period. The price isn’t the main issue. Instead, the biggest problem is that that if Adobe ever does something unworkable with Lightroom — say, makes it a cloud-only software, or abandons it completely — your photos won’t be able to leave the system. And if Adobe does decide to raise their prices, you either abandon ship (leaving behind all your edit history, and likely your photo organization), or pay the extra price. Not something I’d ever join, whether it costs $20/month, $10/month, or $0.99/month.
Spencer, terrific write up. I both enjoyed it and learned much. Noting in your final comments that you will not pay a subscription for a cataloging product, you especially hit a nerve with me. I am not a pro but over time I have become much more particular about my photo quality. I was about to order Lightroom CC, then they make this change and I am back to confused again! Regardless, I had been using Picasa over the years, then they switched to Google photos as you no doubt know. I uploaded an album to Google Photos I was not too concerned with to test features and found that if I wanted to download back to my PC, I was able to do so one photo at a time but not the entire album! They also came back to me in very small jpeg size…….someone told me that they since changed it so one can download the full album. Don’t know if the small jpeg problem was addressed.
Regardless the idea of losing photos to the cloud and not maintaining control is out for me! Am afraid that this could be the future for Lightroom. I was leaning toward Lightroom Classic…… Which cataloging program are you using or will you be using in lieu of Lightroom for your cataloging of photos, and will it be used in conjunction with Lightroom or will it be stand alone? Must one store the photos with Adobe in the cloud if using Lightroom Classic?
I’m not yet certain which one I’ll use. Capture One is leading the way at the moment, but I haven’t started testing it yet.
For now, and maybe a year or so at most, I’m just going to keep using Lightroom 6 while I test out other options. Even once I do purchase another product, I’ll still need to refer back to LR6 from time to time to edit my old photos (since the alternative is exporting them as TIFFs for the new software, which won’t keep the edit history embedded).
If you’re using Lightroom Classic, you do not need to store your photos on Adobe’s cloud servers. They can stay on your computer’s hard drive just like normal, and you don’t need internet access to edit them.
I have been using LR perpetual since V1, and I, too, am very concerned with potentially losing all the effort put into cataloging and editing photos if LR ever goes fully cloud or ceases to exist (which, for me, would include if they raised the price too high). I will probably hold onto LR6 for as long as practicable.
As an aside, I have used Adobe Acrobat since V2. I don’t use it a lot, but on occasion. Now you can’t get a perpetual license any more. Not worth it to me to pay subscription. I bought a competing product. Am I going to have to do the same with LR?
If you’ve done the right things you won’t lose much from what you describe. Lr won’t just stop working one moment. DNGs, xmp, keywords, the exporting process etc. will allow you to migrate to other software. Perhaps you just haven’t been in that position before. I have. I think you are being a bit paranoid here.
That is fair — and I don’t expect Lightroom to just stop working one moment.
But I’ll offer this scenario as a counterpoint. Say that you take an amazing photo, open it in Lightroom, and spend a while editing it properly. Along the way, you add some sharpening as well. Then, a few months later, Adobe decides to make Lightroom a cloud-only software, which doesn’t work for you, since you know you won’t always have internet access when you’re trying to edit a photo. So, you naturally decide to jump to another program.
At that point, you have a couple choices with regards to the amazing photo you took. Either, you can export that photo from Lightroom as a DNG or TIFF file, embedding all the edits, and then opening the photo in another software. Or, you can re-edit the original RAW file in your new software, which would take some extra time (especially if you have several such photos). So, you elect to export all your photos as DNGs.
Shortly after you quit Lightroom, you realize that the sharpening you applied several months back was way too harsh. However, there is no “anti-sharpening” slider in most software. How do you undo the sharpening? Quite simply, you can’t. You don’t have access to that photo’s edit history. Your only options are to pay for Lightroom again (which doesn’t have a one-month subscription offer, so you’d need to pay a full year’s price), or to re-edit the photo from scratch.
That’s what worries me about subscription cataloging software. By definition, you’ll lose some of your edit history or data if you ever quit the software package. As someone who puts a lot of time and effort into post-processing my images, that simply isn’t something I’m willing to deal with, no matter the monthly price of the software. It’s not a price issue at all — it’s that Adobe might go in a direction I don’t like, forcing me to quit the software and losing access to the edit history of my entire library.
The tips you bring up make a lot of sense, and I suspect that many people will use them down the road, assuming that they do eventually quit the Adobe ecosystem.
Not sure I understand why the edits are so important. Once a photo has been properly edited, it should be saved as a jpeg for eternity. As a precaution, one would also save the unprocessed original. Both these files can always be migrated to another software for archiving and (the raw) for processing. While I understand the idea of resuming the processing of an already processed photo in principle, I do not see its practical value?
For some photographers, they won’t be important. This is a difference of workflow thing — it’s not universal one way or another. For me, the way I work, I consider it essential to have access to all those edits. I frequently go back and delete/modify local adjustments in a way that would be difficult or impossible to undo from the processed TIFF.
If I am not mistaken, in the scenario, when you do not want to pay any longer, Lightroom becomes read only – which means you probably would keep access to the photos history, as well. I am not sure, but it is a point worth checking.
> That’s what worries me about subscription cataloging software. By definition, you’ll lose some of your edit history or data if you ever quit the software package.
Isn’t that true for all software?
A few more things for your chart, Spencer:
Lightroom CC has no map module or geotagging (nor web or book modules for that matter, but location data is extremely important to me), no tethered capture, and most importantly–NO PRINTING. Of course, you could export and print with another app, but that’s pretty lame in my opinion.
Thank you, Aaron, I’ve added those points!
Totally agree with all that was said. I will add that I expect we will see lots of migration of different features to the new LR app (since that is what it is). I see this as an opening salvo. I think I will use it for my cell phone photography and not worry about upload/download speeds for RAW files. Yes, it can do those things and Adobe is talking about those capabilities, but for now, too slow to really use, except in a pinch or if you have broadband and want an extra copy in the cloud for some selects while on the road. Mostly, I will use it for what it is intended. Once again, Adobe is saying one thing but dong another. This is not for professionals although, who knows, down the road some things pros need will be useful in the new app.
By the way, since I turned 60 this year, I was thinking of renaming myself as “Mike Davern Classic”. This is not to be confused with “Mike Davern Social” who lives on Facebook and somehow appears to be somewhat younger and 20lbs lighter in weight. Just an FYI.
Awesome analysis!
Ha. Very good!
I have the $10 photography plan and have domfor years. From what it says on the Adobe website I should just have 20GB of storeage, but it clearly says I have 1TB when I load up the new Lightroom CC. I have PS and LR Classic and LR CC and 1TB for just $10. Having spoken to one of my friends, he confirmed the same thing. Anyone else? I’m worried it’s a sneaky ploy to get me to go over the 20gb limit and then in a month’s time I’ll get an email saying “you now need to pay $20/month”
Dan, that’s the first I’ve heard of this, but it definitely seems like an issue. You might want to contact Adobe directly.
I do know that Adobe is running a promotion for existing CC users to get one year of the 1TB bundle at a better price ($15/month), but that doesn’t seem to be what you’re experiencing.
Your article is spot on. Why would I want to use a new program that does not have all the features I currently use? Adobe got it backwards in my opinion, they should have made Lightroom Classic (hate the rename) the program that works across all devices. I think the one year special ($15/month) is what the regular price should be. I’ve not seen that special advertised. As a long time Adobe user one thing I know for sure…they will do what ever they want.
I found this CC/Classic distinctions, a bit confusing – another forum member kindly pointed this out to me. Even after having used LR since 2009 (maybe I am too old and/or have never been that bright) – but during the sign up process for “Classic” ( reasoning, it’s the devil I think I know) seemed that one must be careful in order to avoid inadvertently signing up for more cloud space and paying more.
If you already had more than 20gb in the cloud, I’ve had it confirmed it’s not a bug. They’re being nice. ;-)
Thank you for adding this, Victoria! And thanks for all the articles on Lightroom as well — they’ve been very helpful.
I tend to disagree that CC version is for casual photographers. In my opinion, Lightroom CC is the future and classic will eventually be retired once all of its features ported into the new app.
BTW HSL is there hidden in color tab. Click the Color wheel and it will appear.
Thank you, Salis, I fixed the HSL references!
I agree that Lightroom CC looks to be Adobe’s focus in the future. However, for now, I really see it as targeted toward casual photographers. You can’t even add watermarks, export as TIFFs, or use third-party plugins. For many pros, those are fundamental must-haves.
Eventually, most likely, Adobe will add those features — but, for now, it feels like they’re just dipping their toe in the water.
I will add that Lightroom CC is quite useful for culling and cropping. My scenario: Desktop w/ LR CLASSIC. Always import to Desktop. Add newest job/project to a collection then sync with Adobe. Cull & crop on my 13” Macbook Laptop without the hassle of my portable HD connected via usb c dongles and adapters disconnecting when I move an inch or two. Get the real editing done on the Desktop with LR Classic. Adobe’s Photography Plan includes both CC and Classic. I wish Adobe kept the keyboard shortcuts uniform across the two versions. i.e Crop in Classic is the ‘R’ Key. Crop in CC is the ‘C’ key.
Also. If you only import to LR Classic then the 20GB is more than enough. Importing to LR CC will cause the high res file to be uploaded to the cloud but importing to LR Classic and then syncing to the cloud as a collection will result in only the Smart Preview to be uploaded to the cloud. I currently have 6500 images synced from LR CLASSIC to LR CC and usage is a whopping 25 megabytes! 1 quarter of 1 Gigabyte.
Agreed
Very helpful overview and discussion, Spencer. I was already sure to not get involved in the CC model for LR Classic, and now your table convinced me that I will never get “LR Social” either. (Great naming suggestion – Adobe should pay you a healthy sum and start using it!)
To me, LR Social almost feels like a plug-in to LR Classic, but I can see now why LR Social exists. However, what I can’t fathom is how Adobe can justify to it’s longtime Classic users to leave out the innovative features such as AI tagging. I hope for the Classic users that this will eventually trickle down (up?) to what I consider the “full” application…
Thank you for your clarifying article on the subject. I was not aware of this change and name confusion. This adds to the range of all of Adobe’s different package solutions and confusing naming of these.
I have used Lightroom for many years and converted to CC Photo for approx. 2 years ago. My experience so far is that Photoshop is not used at all and I feel that I pay too much for just the rights to Lightroom. Would love to have a license that gave me ongoing upgrade and storage for just Lightroom Classic.
As an avid enthusiast for landscape photography, I have learned to appreciate the possibilities in Lightroom. Particularly the combination of organizing the image quantity, with import and labeling, as well as the powerful adjusting tools that are now available. One of the reasons I upgraded to a version that gave me Photoshop, was the possibility of focus stacking. However, I have not used this after a few tests.
Another great article from Photography Life.
I wonder if you guys are planning to write more articles / tutorials on Capture One? From what I’ve seen it is a very capable software but I’m used to LR. I’m wondering what the learning curve is?
Personally, I’m still on LR 5 and I was excited about the upcoming release of LR but I’m very disappointed about the fact that Adobe dropped the perpetual licence. I an way, we should have seen it coming since they didn’t release all the new features in LR 6 perpetual. But I’m still pissed about there decision. I don’t want a subscription program and even if I did, 12 Euro per month is way to expensive (I’m not a pro photographer).
Prior to this change I was considering moving from the standalone Lightroom 6 to Lightroom cc. This included Portfolio, an attractive addition for a non professional who likes to display his work. The Photography option with Lightroom Classic seems no longer to include this. I say ‘seems’ as even Adobe representatives are unclear. If it is the case, it’s a considerable downgrade.
It still says that it is available with the photography 9.99 bundle from the portfolio page, but only on a yearly subscription basis. Take that for what it’s worth, since it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Adobe can change their mind at a second notice.
I was thinking about that bundle for that reason also, but I just do not trust Adobe at all, so I won’t be going that way after all.
so you still can’t purchase lightroom classic outright as stand alone?
It appears not. Adobe likes the subscription based model.
I had a quick look at the new Lightroom CC before uninstalling it, because I couldn’t see any Metadata or Plug-in feature, which rules out its use with the LensTagger component that I frequently use to help identify photos taken with non-native adapted lenses on mirrorless systems.
I’m sure I’m not going to be alone in offering a hearty” Thankyou!” for all the work you (and others) have put in to sort out a wholly unnecessary confusion caused by Adobe’s ridiculous name game. At one point I was seriously considering just walking away from digital as I don’t want to live in the cloud but now I think I will go with LR Classic for a while. I’ve only been using LR for about a year and I dont really want to tackle something else new just yet. I’ll simply make sure to export a good quality jpeg of anything I feel proud of. Just in case…
It did occur to me that Adobe’s extra efforts to push LR CC could just be because it is a new product – newer in some ways than its name suggests (silly, silly marketing department). Then I realised that it could also be because they have identified cloud storage as their new cash cow. If they can only get enough users signed up to CC the demand for storage is going to grow indefinitely with no further effort required on the part of Adobe. Professional photographers might generate lots of data but the casual snapper, as I recall, keeps everything…
Cynical? Me?
Agreed – not a Cloud inhabitant myself – last night I signed up or bought a year prepaid subscription of Classic desktop version and once everything downloaded, removed “…all previous versions…” a new LR icon appeared and a lens profile for my new Nikon 28mm f/1.4e! Impressed or maybe just relieved but it felt good to be editing again…. Today I saw the charge on my credit card – okay – but tonight there was a question mark on my new LR icon and it would not open. I went back to the Adobe website, clicked a few things on my profile and another icon appeared – not far from last night’s new icon still with its distinguishing question mark. When the new icon worked, I removed the previous “new” icon. All this leads me to believe it will be easy for Adobe to retire and/or neutralize LR Classic even for one who does not live on the Cloud.
Spencer:
Thank you for your research on this. I currently use Lightroom 6, not the subscription version (I, too, have an aversion for paying for a perpetual license of any software). Am I correct in understanding that Lightroom 6 inherits the same upgrades to Lightroom CC (the old, online version now named Lightroom Classic, not the new one)? In particular, I’m thinking of the dehaze sliders and photo stacking feature.
Thanks,
Al Gentile
If you’re talking about the standalone Lightroom 6, it doesn’t get any new features. It looks like there will be one or two more updates to it, but, unless Adobe pulls a rabbit out of their hat, the only new additions will be support for recent cameras and lenses, such as the D850. In order to get any features like dehaze, you would need to pay the subscription price and get the new Lightroom Classic CC. Hope that helps!
Their announcement specifically stated that all Camera updates to Lightroom 6 will end as of end of 2017.. Which means that as of in about 6 weeks, anyone with a Lightroom 6 will never be able to upgrade to a better camera as no more camera updates will happen to the stand-alone version.
Perhaps the new version could have been called Lightlightroom / Lightroomlight!
I don’t care about payment and the strings attached debate, I care only about speed performance. So I will try and update to the classic version. Not much left to loose I guess because performance was annoying slow.
I’ve just re-installed LR5. Blazing fast compared to CC (pre-Classic). PS CS6 is way faster than PS CC 2018 too.
I’ve been demoing classic over the week-end(NOT uninstalling 6.12), it does seem marginally faster for certain task, but it does suffer from stability issues not present with 6.12 (had quite a few freezes, slow response and hangup, all of which I do not get with 6.12).
I did leave the graphic card acceleration ON(running a GTX 1060 6GB, latest driver), and it did pickup the preferences from my previous install which I did not change. Still, not that impressed, even moreso since I care nothing for the 1 or 2 new features that have been sprinkled on. Only thing nice is that it natively open file from a D850 without having to convert to DNG.
Thanks Spencer. I’m trying to build a system for lightroom looking at the intel 7740 processors but am hearing that the new lightroom might use more cores than the old version. Do you think it makes sense to go with a 6 core i7 with a lower clock speed and more pci lanes or is it still better to go with the highest overall clock speed?
The new one does appear to allow you to use more cores — as far as I can tell, that seems to be one of the main ways they have increased Lightroom’s speed. I really can’t say for certain which of the two machines you suggested will be faster. However, it is never a bad idea to go for higher clock speed, since it will help out on all tasks, not just ones that can take advantage of multiple cores. But I’m definitely not the right person to answer this question, as I haven’t tested speed on any machine with this new version, so don’t take my recommendation as certainty.
Obviously Adobe does not seem to introduce any more stand alone version I was hoping to get a new version like Lr7 as I still use lr5.
I understand many things are on cloud bases and that may be the way things are, but I do not like Adobe forces us toward subscription base only and leaves us no choice. People already have many subscription based other services like phones, cable, etc. in life. I feel I do not want any more than I have now as a hobby photagrapher. I believe many people feel the same.
I do not think I will switch to subscription based Classis or cc. Well, after reading this article, I will most likely I get Lr 6 while I start looking for other alternatives to get out of Lr some day soon.
Obviously Adobe does not seem to introduce any more stand alone version I was hoping to get a new version like Lr7 as I still use lr5.
I understand many things are on cloud bases and that may be the way things are, but I do not like Adobe forces us toward subscription base only and leaves us no choice. People already have many subscription based other services like phones, cable, etc. in life. I feel I do not want any more than I have now as a hobby photagrapher. I believe many people feel the same.
I do not think I will switch to subscription based Classis or cc. Well, after reading this article, I will most likely I get Lr 6 while I start looking for other alternatives to get out of Lr some day.
Wonderful clarifying article Spencer, I really enjoy your posts BTW. Lo and behold yesterday I didn’t see LightRoom CC as an option on my iMac “CC” Menu Bar so I didn’t think it came with my LightRoom Classic CC, but it’s there today and I’m installing it now for future investigation.
I still don’t know if LightRoom Classic CC is my permanent home for Raw processing, but I’m a Capture NX2 refugee that owns a pair of D500, so I had to have something over the last 18 months (other than Capture NX-D which has its own quirks that I haven’t got my head around either ;-).
I probably need to get better at LightRoom Raw conversion and editing so I can more fully approximate what NX-D does for RAW conversion – then I’d be happy.
It would help if Adobe was smart enough to have not named the new version the same as the old version while giving the old version a new name. That is very confusing! And, on the page you pictured www.adobe.com/produ…troom.html is also confusing because under “Find the plan that’s right for you.” it shows the photography plan and describes that it “Includes the all-new Lightroom CC, 20GB of cloud storage, Lightroom Classic CC, and Photoshop CC US$9.99/mo. which makes it sound as if you get all of those when actually there is a choice. It is a choice between the new Lightroom CC and 20 GB of storage OR Lightroom Classic CC and Photoshop CC. And, if you want the storage added to a Lightroom/Photoshop plan or some other combination it will cost extra.
I also called their chat line and the person I was connected with knew absolutely nothing about what I wanted to know which was, if I just want to continue with what I now have do I just update Photoshop CC and the Lightroom CC (old name and version) which I now have. He offered me everything except what I wanted. I finally just gave up.
I was reluctantly going to purchase stand alone Lightroom for a new computer a clean start and completely offline. clearly Adobe is happy to change at a whim and bully customers into a tame herd of monthly fee payers. Thanks for saving me from that choice.
You’ve probably covered this elsewhere, but I’m confused about whether I should continue to use Photoshop Elements or a Lightroom product. I used Lightroom in the past, but lost the software in a hard drive crash (and wasn’t able to reload the software). I’m a casual user – I’m not a professiona, I take lots of pictures, but don’t have the inclination or time to do a lot of heavy duty editing on a lot of pictures. I understand the essential differences between Lightroom and the Elements product (changes being in a software file rather than in the photo file), but there is a lot of overlap. Are there complementary features that would justify paying for both, or is one or the other sufficient? (While I like the ongoing upgrades available in the subscription model, I dislike it for the same reason Adobe likes it – I don’t like providing an ongoing income stream for Adobe by having it leach onto my credit card.
I should note that I use Elements 13 now and am weighing whether to upgrade to the current version. (I also could use a recommendation on a good YouTube or other tutorial for using these products. There are many features I don’t use or can’t find when I’m trying to find them, or that I can’t figure out. The whole thing with Layers – which I understand is a basic Photoshop concept – is a mystery to me – I don’t get it or when I would want to use it. But I digress).
At the heart of what is objectionable about Adobe’s decision to discontinue an outright, purchasable version of Lightroom is this basic issue: does the photographer own and control his full work product, in perpetuity? I believe that should be a given, and it must include not only the images and data that one inputs initially into the program, and not only the end result, but also the result of all intermediate steps that one has taken to operate on individual images, and, in the case of a DAM program, the overall catalog/database structure.
The only way to insure that is for the photographer to own a copy of the program. Adobe’s program leasing arrangement is unsatisfactory on so many levels: uncertain future terms that it may impose; uncertain future costs; possible loss of access on a temporary basis if online validation of current paid-up status is impossible; and possible permanent loss of access to one’s archive should the company cease operations for any reason.
In addition, the New Lightroom CC’s tight linkage to the cloud and all that implies in terms of insecurities, data transmission issues, and storage costs, makes it a non-starter for me, no matter what conveniences it may offer now or in the future.
Thanks, Spencer, for your comprehensive comparison of the capabilities of the two halves of Adobe’s Lightroom fork — but I don’t consider either product satisfactory.
The insecurity we all face with Digital Asset Management is that programs com and go. I used to use Aperture but never managed to organise the files well with it anyway. I am wary of all DAM software unlesss it embeds key metadata directly into the file info. If I enter keywords with Lightroom (something it has some good shortcuts to help you with) the data is in the Lightroom database. It does not appear, however, in the actual file information if I go dierectly to the actual RAW file (using Finder/Explorer). I therefore prefer to continue to use Photomechanic, which does have some very good features which make entering IPTC keywords and other metadata.
I continue to use Lightroom CC as my organiser but I feel much more comfortable knowing that my keywords which make searching and organising possible DO NOT depend on Adobe or anyone else. The crucial metadata I now record is readable by other programs and even by the operating system.
That is what really counts. As it stands I like much of what Lightroom does but not enough to make it the pivot point around which all my workflow and DAM rotates. ,
And you all laughed when we lamented the passing of Aperture. :-)
Aside from its neat black dress, the differences in a practical use between CC and (new) Photos app are only slight. I’d like to see a similar comparison between CC and some of the other ‘lesser’ lights in the DAM and Develop arena.
And who wants to pay for 3TB of Raw files when drives are so inexpensive. And if I need to travel, a GoodSync copy and I’m away.
I think the real missing story of course is if I stay with Classic, how many more years before I have to migrate again, like I did from AP3, when Adobe and the web-world make that an imperative.
For me, it’s the littel “No” in some of the CC columns that are the really interesting ones, folders, smart collections, rename, second screen. Etc. The things that I bash away withe everyday.
i might have missed it but does it do DNG conversion?
Hello future!
Looks like in Lightroom Classic switching between edited/before now is more slow than before, also spot removal, adjustment brush, while import/export is faster. Does anyone have similar experience?
Thank you, this is a very useful article. Have to say, I was totally confused before I read your content!
But for us Pro Photographers with terabytes of photos already edited and organised in LR, CC is not an option – at least not right now. Where can i save all my edited photos? And how expensive will it be to store terabytes of photos online in the Adobes Cloud? I am very dissapointed with Adobe not intending to update LR Classics camera settings after 2017…it leaves us Pro photographers with no other choice, than to keep using Classic and at the same time look for an alternative, that offers camera updates and being able to save locally instead of only in the cloud.
If we use lightroom CC on a laptop to download photos in the field and allow the AI Sensei to do its work, will I be able to transfer the photos with all the tag words generated and photo adjustments in Lightroom CC to Lightroom Classic on my desktop computer?
No, I don’t believe that is possible. The AI Sensei doesn’t add keywords to photos — it just lets you search for keywords. Take a look at this discussion: feedback.photoshop.com/photo…e-are-they
It is NOT possible.. Their FAQ specifically state that you should pick one tool or the other. Either Lightroom CC or Lightroom Classic CC.
Don’t try to use both the Cloud and the desktop version as this will duplicate all your work. The two do not interact.
While I would be happy to use Lightroom CC as I am not a professional, what concerns me is that Adobe seems to think that everyone has access to superfast broadband and consequent upload speeds. I live in rural England with a broadband upload speed of 0.3 mb/sec. While I only have 100GB of photos, Lightoom CC will take (if my maths is correct) nearly 4 days of solid uploading to get my photos into the cloud. During this time nobody else will be able to use the internet as uploading kills the connection for everyone else.
Perhaps I can transfer my photos to a portable drive and upload from work instead with our 10 mb/sec connection and hope my IT guys don’t notice!!
IT guys who don’t notice 100 GB exceptional data volume are not much worth… :) Take care. Also, your problem is only partly solved as new pictures also need an upload, no?
True. Luckily I work closely with them and I pay the bills for our internet so hopefully they will let me. However your point about new pictures is valid. It will be an ongoing issue until my village gets fibre installed.
Yeah Andrew, and what happens after your village would get fibre installed? One simple issue with your ADSL router or whatever technical stuff is needed to access YOUR pictures on THEIR servers – or do you expect the continuous exchange from your PC to their servers as quicker as from your PC to your HD? Except for people constantly on the road and travelling I simply fail to see any advantage to trust this company. No memories anymore how much passwords were stolen? What if the next attack on Adobe’s servers encrypts your files? Sure, a lot people will say now “that can’t happen” – hopefully this people are ready to help if it has happened…
It’s unfortunate that Adobe has taken such a selfish attitude.
Here where I live, the internet, besides being slow, is unstable, which makes it impossible to use the CC system.
In your opinion, which software replaces the LR and maintains the same quality of editing, considering that I do not make a point of organizing my files in catalogs.
É lamentável que a Adobe tenha tomado uma atitude tão egoísta.
Aqui onde moro, a internet além de lenta é instável, o que impossibilita a utilização do sistema CC.
Na sua opinião, qual software que substitui o LR e mantém a mesma qualidade de edição, considerando que não faço questão de organizar os meus arquivos em catálogos.
Xiaomi launched its latest products Including Electric Scooter in Pakistan.
peeky.pk/xiaom…-pakistan/
Well, the one thing that Adobe’s update did for me was to green light the purchase of Capture One.
Don’t get me wrong. I’ve used Lightroom for years and have a full subscription to Adobe CC ( I use some of their other apps as well: Audition, Premiere Pro, After Effects, etc. ) but I want to be fully comfortable with an alternative in the event Adobe goes full stupid and ceases updating the desktop version of Lightroom to focus on their cloud offering. ( I don’t do cloud. Cloud is nothing more than hardware you don’t own, maintain or control. )
Yeah, I know. Adobe has assured us they won’t do such a thing, but then they also said they wouldn’t force Lightroom into a subscription model either. :|
Best to have an option before you have a few terabytes of raw files sitting on an Adobe server that becomes infeasible to move due to its size.
Better managed hardware I don’t have to buy?
Bring it! I will happily embrace this future and it’s a bargain.
The point is that you have no control over your files once they are uploaded to the cloud.
Here is one, at least at this point, unlikely example: If Adobe suddenly decides that 10 percent of your photos will be used for their stock photo services, you might be able to opt-out. But there is no guarantee that they won’t use your photos anyway, and you have no way to stop them from doing it.
In my opinion it is just not clever to transfer control over my photos to a company that has proven repeatedly that statements and guarantees just last as long as the shareholders agree. And even if you believe that they only act in your best interest, the latest hacks of accounts and servers world wide, should caution you enough not to upload your photos without at least encrypting them. After all, your photos are your revenue, if they are online for free, you are done.
Thanks!
You made it clear on the spot! I made my choice.
Great efficient article!!!
JM
I don’t see that video editing is available. Perhaps this is a hardware thing? Does anyone else see it?
Hi Steve, that is a good question. I included that in this comparison because I’ve seen it from a few sources (including Lightroom Queen: www.lightroomqueen.com/light…-features/, but I don’t shoot video and haven’t actually used it myself. I assume that you’re checking Lightroom CC rather than Lightroom Classic?
Spenser,
Great review and really helps to clarify the differences between Lightroom CC and CC Classic. I think I’ll pass on CC for the reasons you list and because I’m sure that Adobe’s plan is to force as many of us on the Photography Plan to migrate from Classic to CC by expanding CC’s features, then abandon Classic just as they’ve done to Lightroom 6.
As far as whom Adobe is targeting for Lightroom CC, here’s a video I received after roll-out wherein Julieanne Kost explains their idea of the typical users for each version. www.youtube.com/watch…ubs_digest.
It appears to me, as you say, that they’re targeting casual photographers using their smartphones to upload photos to social media, but also more serious photographers who want to do some editing on the road and have those edits available when they get back to their home or office. At any rate, I’m still convinced that they’ll abandon Lightroom Classic after future upgrades make Lightroom CC equivalent or more robust.
Exactly, and it’s long overdue.
Anyone know what happens if I am subscribed to the photography plan with its 20GB storage cap and I try to synch more than 20GB of RAW images that I have imported to my iPad while off the grid back to LR Classic on my desktop when I reconnect? Does the 20GB cap act as a roadblock to using the iPad for backup in this way? I know Adobe says synching smart previews in the other direction doesn’t count toward the cap but I can’t seem to find anything definitive on how it works in terms of synching originals via the cloud rather than storing them there.
Like others I’m opposed to the subscription model but if I can’t even synch my originals without upping the data cap that is a total deal breaker for me.
Their FAQ on the product announcement had that question. If you have exhausted your plan storage, no more will go up. No sync. AND that also means that with the new Lightroom CC you can no longer edit any photos not uploaded. They never leave your local PC, which cannot be edited with Lightroom CC.
It is a sales mechanism to get you to buy more of their very expensive cloud storage.
Yes, you’re nearly spot on with your views.
The market that Lightroom CC – and all other tech – avoids is those who are getting fed up with tech.
I’d be quite happy with a stripped down Lightroom that works faster and takes up less memory. I do not have the money or wish to incur the pain of buying a new laptop with more capacity to take an unnecessary upgrade. The same applies to a camera with even more pixels (I wouldn’t thank you for a D850). I avoid social media and the cloud like the plague. Which why the likes of Adobe and Apple are beginning to p1ss me off big style.
I just want nice and simple tech that does what it’s supposed to do reliably and at a sensible price and is capable of lasting me for a reasonable period of time so that I can concentrate on the images.
In fact I want to feel about tech as I feel when I see a 15 year old BMW 3-series glide on by in lovely condition just able to keep on going and going. When the likes of Apple can makes things like that I’ll consider giving them some respect. But until then …
I do wonder whether tech companies realise how many people there are out there that they are alienating. Or perhaps the grey £ is irrelevant to them. Indeed perhaps it is. In which case it’s time to spend more time with my acoustic guitars. At least Taylor and co make things worth treasuring. Bit like my old Pentax ESII, bought 2nd hand, lasted 14 years.
Hi Spencer,
I think there is much more to this change than this article covers. I also view these changes very positively. This change is about three big things – changing to a cloud based workflow, performance, and getting out from under Lightoom Classic’s bloated code base.
If you have ever used Lighroom Mobile on an Ipad Pro, you understand the reason immediately. All your photos can easily and rapidly be shared across all your devices. It has reasonably powerful editing features and it is FAST. I have the latest top end Surface Pro (17, 16gb etc.) and regular Lightroom feels lethargic in comparison. Lightroom CC is merely an extension of this paradigm that happens to run on fast laptops and desktops. Lightroom CC is blazing fast on my Surface Pro. Think of it like running a phone app on an I7 processor with SSD storage.
Further, Adobe will rapidly add features to Lightroom CC, eventually bringing it functionally to parity with with Lightroom Classic Light – but with better cloud integration and on top of a much newer, much smaller, and much faster codebase.
It’s the future, it’s overdue, and Adobe deserves praise for taking this step.
I agree. The mobile aspect is huge. All your photos on all your devices all the time is extremely powerful. Additionally, the workflow of editing photos in photoshop in the Lightroom CC seems to be more straight forward.
Like someone else mentioned, I think Lightroom CC is not for casual users but marketed for professionals/enthusiast. Casual users can get some of these features on cheaper one-time fee apps (no storage included). What I see happening is Adobe jacking up the price of CC slowly as they add features from classic into it, thereby justifying the price increase. Then they will drop classic completely once the migration is complete and give us one product only as before at a higher price. The argument then is going to be that you can get all of these for 4 cups of coffee per week.
My fundamental issue with Adobe Lightroom not being standalone is that everything has to be done over the internet and even after downloading the software and having it for a full year you still don’t own it. This is especially a pain for people owning the same equipment for years. Also, for the people that say less than a cup of coffee per week, I got my Lightroom for GBP 69 and have had it for two years now and my last purchase was for five years ( i don’t remember how much now). So to go from 69 to 10/month that is an 85% increase in price for me.
Even if you look at expensive one-time fee software such as capture one ($299) over the lifetime of two years you pay $6.2/month for it and you own it for life. Yes, Adobe is cheaper than my cell phone bill, and my water bill and my electric bill and lots of other monthly bills, but as a hobby software it is not convincing me that it is worth a subscription.
Just my two cents.
Hi Konstantin,
I agree this is where Adobe is headed in terms of Lightroom CC being the future and they will increase the price. However, I have a much different perspective with regard to owning the software. Having used Lightroom Mobile (very similar to Lightroom CC, same codebase) on the Ipad Pro the performance improvement is massive. Things happen instantaneously. Put that same code on any mid-level laptop / desktop and it will FLY. That means not having to upgrade your computer just to run a program like Lightroom Classic.
The downfall of this is the potential bottleneck of a slow internet connection. I doubt that will be an issue, as an upgraded Lightroom CC will use the local file system, just like Lightroom Classic does now. Bottom line, you will get much better performance with similar features and better cloud integration. It’s a win in my opinion.
So if you have the full CC subscription not just the Photography bundle, what do you get? Both? and the 1tb storage?
I would like something clarified Morten said on his comment – Lightroom Classic will not support camera updates. I have not seen this stated elsewhere. I have assumed that Adobe has a market for both Classic and CC. Has Adobe actually stated 2017 is the end of camera updates.
Very helpful article- thanks.
Adobe’s announcement stated that camera updates will END at the end of 2017. Yes.
BUT. This is for Lightroom 6, which will be the last non-subscription based software version. The perpetual license version they are now no longer willing to support.
Camera updates will still be done to Lightroom CC Classic (non-cloud/desktop subscription version), which they claim will still exist “for the foreseeable future”. Knowing Adobe, unless we all revolt, that will probably only last 1-2 years.
This is bad enough to start looking for alternatives.
Ok, 10$ a month is probably reasonable for professionals who use Photoshop as well.
But I’m neither pro nor do I use PS. So pay 100$+ per year just for Lightroom? No thanks.
$177.33
I’ll say that again: $177.33.
That is the quote for Adobe stock at the current moment. If you think Adobe cares about what a community like this one has to say you’re missing the point. They have and continue to return shareholder value. They get an enormous amount of “good will” from the investment community; the Price to Earnings ratio is 55 and change. They recently announced their guidance for the next period, it was very ambitious and their stock jumped 7% on the news. I own some of the stock, indirectly, as part of a fund I own shares in. The company that offers that fund owns 7% of adobes shares. That gives them a say in things, a big say in things, when the adobe board of directors meets and the direction the company is going is planned.
The criticism of Adobe and the direction the company has taken is nothing new. This has been going on for a few years now. They currently enjoy a 28% operational margin. That’s not Apple in terms of margin (adobe is just a little bit more than rounding error as compared to Apple in absolute cash flow and returns), but it’s nothing to be ashamed of either. Adobe is doing OK, actually much better than just OK.
I let my subscription to CC photography lapse last month and had stoped using Lightroom a few months before that. I decided to move on from Lightroom for reasons that have nothing to do with subscriptions or the way the company operates. I was maintaining my catalog for the catalogs sake and that was having a negative impact on the images I was making. For me, the creative vision was lost in the catalog and returning to a more ‘process the image for a specific purpose’ (one that I had in mind before the camera came out of the bag) approach has been useful.
Everyone is different and your needs and how the tools you use helps or hinders your process is uniquely individual. Pick tools that support what you want to do but don’t dump a tool out of anger or some pollyannish sense that you are going to punish Adobe for their misdeeds.
Great discussion and thanks to all for the opinions. One thing I can’t understand is if its agreed that at least for now, the new LR CC is for the casual picture taker (I won’t even use the term “photographer”), the person who uses his phone as the main camera to take pictures of the vacation, the kids, the picnic, the dog, etc, etc, who doesn’t want a steep learning curve, just the basics to clean up some pictures and share them…why include it with Photoshop, one of the highest learning curve pieces of software out there? Either there is something wrong with this business model, or, indeed, LR Classic will soon be extinct and some new LR CC will become available as functions are added that may not be compatible with previous LR versions.
I don’t use the subscription model, however I do foresee the death of LR as we know it. Last week I downloaded the free version of Capture One Pro 10 and am not too happy about the amount of time it takes to fine tune a photo as compared to my LR 5. And frankly I also like the end results from LR a tad better than C1. I wish some hacker would come along and simply back-engineer LR Classic and become the new Adobe.
Well I am student whose hobby is photography. There is no cost-justification model for me to continue with Lightroom – its not my business, its not my way of earning an income, it is (was) just fun to use. Shame they didn’t think of the student and propose a daily use/cost model or a discount for the student. Will be looking for an alternative.
This decision by Adobe is just the last bit of motivation I needed to ditch Lightroom and Photoshop for good. I Just do not understand why I should upload my photos to a cloud I have no control over. It just doesn’t make sense. I upload them, develop them and then I download them again?? No thank you.
I also do not believe that they will support Lightroom Classic for too long. This is why I tested alternatives for the last two days and I think I finally found what I was looking for:
I will most likely use DxO Photo Lab as my Lightroom replacement and Affinity Photo to replace Photoshop. The only thing I could not find an alternative for is the Map feature. I love geotagging my photos and to have a world map that shows me all the places I took photos in. The only thing I found so far is Geosetter, but the newest version is from 2011 and it does not seem to be developed any further. Does anyone have a recommendation? I would really appreciate it!
Photo Mechanic will allow you to set the GPS location from a GPS track or manually, and view images on a map. The limitation is you can only view one photo at a time on the map.
As DxO has, more or less, no ability to manage metadata Photo Mechanic will take care of that.
The thing I like about the combination of PM and DxO is the metadata is in a XMP sidecar file and the “development” settings are in the DOP sidecar. It keeps your metadata clean if you decide to move to something else for RAW conversion.
John,
Thank you for the tip, I will check out PM! I also installed DigiKam today, I just need some time to really test it. I like the map feature already, it shows all my photo locations as thumbnails or markers as an overlay on Google Maps.
Just an FYI you can still buy Lightroom 6 standalone. Anyone got any reasons why I shouldn’t get this?
One good reason is that Adobe specifically stated that Lightroom 6 will be the last version of the stand-alone product, and that IT WILL NOT receive any camera updates after the end of 2017. (So in about 6 weeks, your purchase would be obsolete. :-) )
Excellent piece of work Spencer Cox. Thanks. The discussion points are good, yet very disturbing. I see Adobe’s attention to stockholders as the road we’re on and it will mean LR users like me who’ve used the product as a main tool in business are going to be in a world of hurt when Adobe decides to cease operation of LR Classic. Pro users use tethering, plug-ins, keywording, catalog function, search capability, editing capability and a host of other operations in our daily workflow. We have hundreds of thousands of image files in LR. Something worth considering is the cost of getting hundreds of thousands of RAW files, many in the 16-50 megapixel size, onto the Cloud and, if we ever wanted, getting them all off again. All this reminds me of how Quark Express owned the graphic design software business and got very arrogant. Adobe came along with InDesign and took the whole market. Most here don’t remember pre-2006 and the birth of LR. There were half a dozen image database software solutions out there. Adobe came along with LR and it was a better/more complete product and it took over. It appears we all need to be watching the DXO, Affinity products and making ready to migrate once again to the product that serves us and less a stockholder group.
I posted something a few days ago and since I do not see it, I will try again because I have strong feelings about subscription SW and being coerced into keeping my copyrighted images on some server in some cloud that I have no control over.
I know Adobe does not care about the users of its SW as much as it cares about the shareholders its stock. It has decided to keep its intellectual property in the corporate vault. In ten or fifteen years, it will probably be hard to find a computer system that will run CS 6 and LR 6. That is obviously their plan and it is also their right to do it.
I have been working with PS since Version 6, that came before Version 7 and all of the CS and now the cloud versions, I have been using LR since its Beta days. I paid for PS Version 6 and paid for every upgrade that came along up to and including CS6. Likewise with LR. When Adobe first said that they were going to subscriptions, one of the listed reasons, were that people were not upgrading to every new version. Thanks a lot Adobe.
As a loyal paying customer, I realized then that loyalty was a one way street. There is an old saying, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”
So, “So long Adobe.” I should have bought your stock, but I will not rent your SW. January 2, 2016 Stock Price $76.67 November 3, 2017 Stock Price $182.30.
Being a inveterate SW buyer I had purchased Capture One SW around version 6 and have bought the upgrades all along, but seldom used the SW. I just recently upgraded to Capture One 10 and that is going to be my digital management and RAW processing tool for the foreseeable future. It is a much better and stronger featured product than LR by far, IMHO. And its mine, bought and paid for.
Good luck to both sides of the equation.
I’m so very confused…I want to use an iPad for the following.
Take pictures and download them to my mac as normal.
Using a iPad USB adapter and USB stick transfer my selected pictures to my iPad pro.
Sit in front of the TV and edit some pictures.
When edit is complete transfer the finished edited pictures back to my Mac for printing.
Unfortunately I do not have a good enough internet connection to use the cloud. I live in the country with limited access. I do have a local network but I understand that is not supported at this time. It looks like a physical connection via usb/sd card or cable is the only way.
I’m ok with that but I want to make sure my work flow concept will work before I buy the iPad pro.
Hi Chris,
Lightroom syncs over the Adobe Cloud, which means internet. It has been this way for some time with Lightroom (now named LR Classic) and Lightroom mobile. You need internet to sync images or edits with Lightroom between a desktop computer and a mobile device.
If you like to choose another editing solution: I’m not the one to strongly recommend alternatives, but for me personally after meticulously checking out different tools which are…
– iPad centered
– and have a desktop version as well
…these programs stood out from the crowd:
(please remember: my focus was full feature version on the iPad)
– Polarr as strong editing alternative to Lightroom (only the editing part of Lightroom!) -> pay one time for mobile + desktop
– Affinity Photo as editing alternative to Lightroom and Photoshop (layers, full .psd support etc.) -> separate purchase for mobile + desktop
– PhotoSync (2.99$ app) for seamlessly transferring infinite RAW images from or to the iPad / desktop without (!) internet, with full Camera Roll / Apple Photo support. It only needs WiFi, no internet, and it is very fast -> pay one time for mobile + desktop
However, this selection does not contain a cataloging system.
I’ve been interested in the ability to edit on the go with Lightroom CC, while storing my files on my desktop at home. Does anyone know if when you import raw files in Lightroom Classic CC and change the camera calibration when you import them if the chosen camera calibration will be applied to the smart preview and display the chosen calibration in Lightroom CC on a mobile device or laptop not running the Classic software? From what I can tell the Lightroom CC software is only capable of using Adobe Standard camera calibration.
Thanks,
Brian
To add to the confusion, my computer is installed with Lightroom 6 only.
So today I ran Adobe Creative Cloud app to update LR 6 (version 6.9). Guess what? There appears 2 offerings on the app:
(A) Lightroom Classic CC … “Update” button
(B) Lightroom CC (2015) … “Update” button [NOTE: this line was hidden until I pressed on an arrow button at (A), then it shows!!!)
Both were given “Update” buttons and the outcomes will be different.
If I chose to “update” (A), will it actually upgrade my perpetual license Lightroom 6 to the subscription based new Lightroom Classic CC? If this is true, it is a misleading way to make me upgrade from confusion.
If I chose to “update” (B), it actually updates my current Lightroom 6.9 to the new Lightroom 6.13.
So I finally chose the latter, which was to “update” (B). And then after completing the update, the button changes to “Open” which when I clicked on it, it open Lightroom 6!
So my point is, item (B) Lightroom CC (2015) is *not* Lightroom CC but Lightroom 6?
This is very confusing by Adobe. Regardless of the fact that I love to use LR and PS, I am now seriously looking at alternatives.
If I fill my camera on a days of shooting, I come back with 96 GB of RAW photos.. (not counting swapping memory cards)
D8xx cameras dump 40-50 MB per photo.
Their cloud solution is simply not viable for anyone but the Cell-phone photo crowd.
In addition, since I travel all the time, my Internet is always on my Verizon and AT&T wireless plans. No other Internet. Which means slow upload speeds, and limited GBs per month.
Uploading just one day’s photos would take many days (actually would not complete because the plans would exhaust).
Plus, they would never have a Cloud plan with enough storage.
Lightroom CC cannot edit anything locally on your system. All imports would automatically get uploaded only. Until you exhaust your storage plan that is, after which their FAQ state directly that no more photos can be uploaded or edited until you pay for a larger plan. (It is in their FAQ)
For anyone but the casual shooter, the Cloud based Lightroom CC is a total no-go.. Worst idea ever. Try my D8xx cameras and use bracketing, and their new solution blows right to the heavens.
Not even starting on the lack of sense in having all your photos “owned/controlled” by Adobe, under their “Adobe Sensei” scrutiny and analysis, and only available when you have a fast Internet connection. (Which in the US means living in a major city with a cheap supply of Fast and unlimited Cable Internet). A total nogo in most of all the smaller towns I visit across the US. And for people with only Wireless plans (travelers or rural) a complete impossibility.
Adobe has had some seriously bad ideas, and this one ranks right up there with the worst of them.
Time to look for non-adobe products. As their announcement stated they will support both Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic “for the foreseeable future”.. With Lightroom 5/6 (stand-alone) their “foreseeable” lasted what? 1-2 years?
The problem is that this “future” (everything in the cloud) only works in major city areas. For travelers (like me all over the US) and more rural areas, their simply is no way my 96 GB memory in my camera could upload all the photos to the cloud before time AND MY Wireless plans were exhausted.
Plus, they imply do not sell a storage plan large enough. Their storage plans are also HUGELY expensive compared to other cloud storage options.
Sticking EVERYTHING in the cloud is NOT the future. Especially not with the prices on large disk-drives dropping as it is.
Putting a fewer number of photos in shared cloud space for editing might be. But forcing all camera content onto the cloud, like Lightroom CC does, is most definitely not the current status, nor will it be the future. There is a reason that all Wireless providers without exception dropped their true “Unlimited” plans, and that Microsoft dropped their older “Unlimited” cloud storage.. The direction is the opposite of what you are thinking.
The target market for LR CC is the market of users who would use something like OneDrive + Windows Photos, iCloud + Apple Photos, or Google Photos (in Web Browser) for Photo Backup + Editing; not serious professionals (as a primary means for Photo Storage and Editing).
I see some photographers are using it as a sort of staging area for work sets that they want to be mobile, but I have heard of none who are even thinking about synching entire shoots with this app. This will have your ISP or Carrier throttling you every month.
It’s a consumer market play. Professionals are already subscribing to Creative Cloud plans of some sort, so Adobe has nothing to gain there. What they want, is to bring more consumers in – the way Microsoft has done with Office 365 by bundling things like OneDrive Storage, etc. into the package. In this case, being a Professional gives your opinion very little weight, because that’s a market Adobe already controls, practically speaking… They aren’t going to make any money off of you reg. LR CC, because the practicality of using it for the type of work a Pro does is pretty close to 0. This is why they just add it to the Photography Clan with 20GB Storage…
Where they WILL make money is with the Windows users who want something akin to Apple Photos and iCloud Photo Library signing up to this service… Or Apple/Google/OneDrive users who sign up so that they have a consistent UX across varying platforms (macOS, Windows 10, iOS, Android). This can actually save those users money indirectly, if they are picking devices based on the services they use (i.e. someone who has tons of Photos in iCloud is likely to prefer a MacBook to a Windows Notebook, or an iPhone to a Samsung, even though the hardware costs more…).
Personally, I think it’s a pretty raw deal. You don’t get much for your money, and as a Consumer I don’t really need or want Photoshop or the complexity of dealing with LR Classic’s management mess (mess for me, but amazing for Pros I’m sure).
So I’ll stick with Apple, and just use OneDrive to back up everything so that I can access it from Windows without Apple’s awful plug-in.
It’s virtually impossible to find any decent information/feedback about the *new* LR CC because they reused the name.
This has to be one of the dumbest things a software company has ever done.
I’m just not even considering the product, at this point. It is not worth the massive amount of time I’m going to waste trying to find enough information/feedback about it to make a decision.
The only reason I was interested in it, was because it was similar to Apple Photos, except it would work across platforms (increased platform mobility for me, and being able to do everything I can do on my iMac from my Windows Notebook).
But reusing the name is just madness. All they had to do was run a Google Search to see what a disaster this would be.
And they’re still using “CC” in the LR Classic CC name, so this will continue for the foreseeable future.
LR CC is nothing but Adobe Revel “redone,” so they should have simply reused that name for this new product (or called it LR Revel, or something).
Thank you for such a comprehensive review. I have tried both and found I in CC I was unable to use the shift click edit command in the basic edit window as I can in the classic – but perhaps they have added a different key commands in CC.
Great article…I do think you’re a little paranoid about Adobe and the subscription model…but only a little. I don’t trust Adobe either. I’ve been a subscriber to their photography bundle since pretty much day one. My biggest beef with Adobe isn’t the subscription, but it’s that they’ve basically made it clear that we faithful payers over the years are not going to ever get a powerful version of Lightroom that offers such great digital asset management and editing features—that works smoothly on expensive hardware. Even the “fixed” version LR Classic is still painfully slow, especially for culling. I would think they’d at least make culling an easier task. And I have a souped up PC that works great for gaming as well as video and photo editing!
I really appreciate your writeup here though, and how thorough you are. I’d like to offer a correction though, as LR CC does in fact allow split toning, at least on mobile. It’s available on the Effects panel. The biggest reason I can’t see myself switching to LR CC right now is that it doesn’t offer any calibration adjustments—it’s incredible the difference this makes with color photos—and I use it all time. LR CC mobile definitely has my favorite camera app built in too. I especially like how easy it is to level my phone when I shoot so I don’t have to correct perspective later. What is difficult is getting my photos from my Nikon D7200 into LR on my iPhone when I’m on the road. I have to make a couple of jumps, especially if I want the finished file to have a geotag before I post anything to Instagram. But Nikon is notoriously bad at making it easy to work with their gear unless you use THEIR software…which usually sucks pretty bad…as do their GPS devices, since they aren’t built in or plugged in to very good places.
Thank you, Lee! The split toning addition is brand new — Adobe only added it yesterday. Same with a few other items. I made updates to the chart to represent the new features. Thanks for the note, or I might not have caught it!
Thank you so much for your clarification and conclusions, they are most helpful. I’ve come late to the discussion, was traveling taking photos and using my Adobe LR in foreign countries with little wifi when the split occurred. I then came home at Christmas and started dealing with 100s of photos and used only enough time to get minimal stuff done. Once I had time I needed your clear explanation to continue. I’ll stay with classic, I know it and find it meets my meager needs. Thank you!
Thank you Spencer for a very thorough and intelligent comparison of the two products. You have clarified it completely for me as a graphic and book designer including Website design. I have been using the creative suite CS1 to CS6 and now CC and am just starting with Lightroom and moving away from Adobe Bridge to organise and manage my photo library assets. Thanks. Great Article. R.
Happy to help, Roman, glad you found it useful! Adobe didn’t make things easy on us with the naming convention, but that’s how it goes :)
For social media is not a valid usefulness of LR CC. It only publish to facebook, even no option to publish to groups and pages. For other media such as flickr, G+ and ig, have to download to local hard drive and upload again. Pure cloud base is not yet useful.
Great analysis of the differences. Speaking at very much an very amateur photographer I’ve enjoyed using Lightroom ‘Classic’ for many years as a way of cataloguing photos and completing simple fixes. The new interface looks very slick and would love to switch and get the advantages of the cloud storage.
This largest missing features from the cc version which would prevent me from moving across are:
– inability to RENAME PHOTOS. Whilst I use tagging as a key cataloging tool, renaming files (in particularly with the Lightroom template) ensures in a basic explorer view of files which include a std format which will allow me to easily identify when and where the photo was taken. Secondly leaves an option open to move to another platform in the future with the minimum of file names as a reference. Whilst there may be other key information attached to the file, at least it may reduce the pain of switching.
– SMAT ALBUMS. These are the cornerstone of putting photos into albums. Set up the smart preview (eg. best of Vietnam). Then just work away on the original photos and have the smart collection update to mobile devices. ps. found Jeffrey Friedi plugin yesterday which automates this process :)
Whilst I do use a number of other features such as publishing, these are very much “nice to do”
Thank you for clarifying the naming convention. My Fuji X-T2 raw files no longer work on LR5, I’m assuming due to an update to the X-T2 firmware. When I attempted to purchase and download LR6, I got an error message. After several failed download attempts, I finally asked for a refund. I too have an issue with the requirement to upload all of my photos to the cloud with Lightroom CC. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted !
Why would anyone want to put 50-100MB RAW files into the cloud is beyond me. For a casual user working with jpgs, why on earth would you ever want something this clunky and expensive? Social media use cases go beyond having a good looking photo. Sorry buy Adobe this product doesn’t have a fit anywhere. I’ll stick with Classic.
Hello
I found your site when searching for derails RE Lightroom CC vs Classic.
Great sight and signed up!
I am a Lightroom Classic CC user for many years having migrated from my LR6 version.
I have the $9.99 deal w LR Classic CC/Photoshop with Adobe and the Lightroom CC phone APP.
My question is:
How can I open, load, find the Lightroom CC version on my computer?
If I understood correctly I have that to use as well, is that correct?
Id like to get familiar with it to help others in their photo management maybe offering it as a good tool for the non pro but serious photo takers.
Thank you
Scott
Well. I think we live in a new time of photography. The old classic workflow is in my eyes over. We live in times of Instagram, Snapchat & Co and think it was a smart desicion of Adobe to change the way we used to edit pictures. All the other brands will follow. We live in a time of taking as less gear as possible when we hit the road. Taking an IpadPro / WifiHD / and WifiCamera. is the perfect soloution for Travellers and adventurer’s. Photography is about taking pictures, not processing in a complex, time-cosuming way.
I mean it’s already amazing what you can do with an iphone&Lr, and Im pretty sure things get better down the road.
All I can say is:
Just think different. In the end of the day your photos are faster and easier online as ever before. And truth to be told, todays target of digital photography is simply put- the internet. Leave that old fashion way of edit your pictures behind, it’s allready dead.
Think forward. Stay hungry, stay foolish.
Bottom line: Use Lightroom Classic if you are a pro or advanced amateur needing the range of features and control Classic offers.
Lightroom CC is a glorified phone app designed for faintly ambitious amateurs. Cloud storage of phone JPGs is huge at 1TB but meaningless for pros shooting RAW.
The ONLY advantage for a Pro using CC is the ability to sync images across platforms in different locations.
An excellent clarification, Thank you. I have the Photography Plan (plus Illustrator) and previously used Lightroom Classic for sorting, viewing and selecting.
However I now find that the updated version of Bridge (that comes with Photoshop) has such good preview and selection tools that I happily deleted Lightroom Classic and its cumbersome Catalogs. Camera Raw is so well-featured and versatile that my workflow now is Bridge > Camera Raw > Photoshop.
No need for Lightroom Classic (and I’m not an in-a-hurry social media photographer and so Photoshop CC is redundant for me),
An excellent clarification, Thank you. I have the Photography Plan (plus Illustrator) and previously used Lightroom Classic for sorting, viewing and selecting.
Great article. I naively thought that Help/Updates… in Lightroom 6.14 would, well, update the software. Of course it doesn’t do that any more, since 6.14 is the tombstone version. My selection of Help/Updates… over the past year or so apparently did nothing but update Lightroom Classic CC in my version of Adobe Creative Cloud. When I finally got around to clicking the “Open” button adjacent Lightroom Classic CC, it indicated that my catalog required updating. That made me nervous. I’m glad that I found this article before clicking that update button. Like some other commenters here, I’m going to hold off updating for as long as possible. I suppose that an additional concern might be an unavoidable operating system update (e.g. to Windows 10) that somehow ‘breaks’ Lightroom 6.14, forcing me to upgrade.
Hi
Great read.
To me the Lightroom Classic option would be preferable to me with 20GB storage.
I currently have a Standalone version but if I sign up the subscripition of LC Classic can I still not store my images and update locally ?
and if Adobe does pull Classic I’ll still have a local copy ? Am I correct on this ?
I may have to subscribe because if I plan to upgrade my camera to Nikon D500 my current version does not read teh NEF file and I am not a fan of converting to DNG to import.
Whatever you do, keep LR 6 installed on your machine! I have a subscription and update LR 6 when updates available.
It appears they have dropped updates to new RAW files such as those with the extension RW2 from my new LX100 II camera.
Imagine my surprise to see “Preview not available.”
From my subscription I installed the latest LR CC or Classic or whatever (!) and it did import the new RAW formats not supported by LR 6.
Now I have a problem. LR 6 is an old soft shoe for me, but I need to use the new LR to process RAW from my camera.
I don’t plan to use Adobe for photos. I have a 2TB Google Photos subscription for $10/month. It was only 1 TB, but as a long-time user they doubled my storage? I use a wonderful plug-in from www.newpproducts.com/ to upload my photos. Seamless integration with LR.
Adobe, are you listening to your power users? No reason to abandon your loyal non-cloud LR users…
Please date your articles so folks know whether it’s worth reading (more recent articles will be more accurate as to the present releases). Thanks.