Adobe Software

Bourbon Neat

Senior Member
Wow, what a fiasco at the adobe community. Went over there to see if there is any info on the metadata glitch we have seen here at this site. No luck with that. Alternatively I was entertained by a plethora of issues that folks are experiencing with the new Lightroom software. Very reminiscent of the healthcare marketplace rollout.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
The interesting thing about LR6, in comparison to what Adobe did with LR5, is that the beta testing for this was extremely limited, likely due to in part to their desire to push more people to CC instead of releasing a single version that is identical regardless if you go standalone or CC. LR5 had a widespread Beta over 3 or 4 months IIRC.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
Wow, what a fiasco at the adobe community. Went over there to see if there is any info on the metadata glitch we have seen here at this site. No luck with that. Alternatively I was entertained by a plethora of issues that folks are experiencing with the new Lightroom software. Very reminiscent of the healthcare marketplace rollout.

Do you have a link, please?
 

Bourbon Neat

Senior Member
Interesting read but it doesn't excuse what they have released to paying customers, a failure of one of their selling points. Here is a V8 engine that will rock your socks off but you can only use 5 of those 8 cylinders because the other 3 don't hold up to what we expected.

I purchased 5.7 stand alone version and things worked well enough but was missing the support for the new camera models. To get the latest cameras supported meant moving up to LR6 (with no other option from their end), however, this upgrade has brought various negative effects as noticed at the adobe support site.

A company can do as it wishes just as a customer can. Unfortunately in regards to stand alone software, adobe has chosen a swamp water approach. People will accept or reject the company when it takes a stand and only go the leasing route. However the rather underhanded route is to pretend to continue the stand alone option while jerking those customers around in a manner of twisting their arm to join cc.

How am I to go out on a desert weekend to shoot and process astro shots without internet access? Launching the stand alone version that I purchased will not launch until signing in to the adobe account. Maybe this will be resolved and maybe not but as a paying customer we expect a product to function properly, especially from a tried and true outfit like adobe. This not their first rodeo for sure.
 

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
Since I already had LR 5, I am tempted to drop the $9.99 a month and just use LR 5.7. I never use PS, and Bridge.....so I really don't need it. I think LR 6 is a joke, really. It's more like LR 5.7 1/2
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
I haven't pulled the trigger on my CC subscription to allow it to update my LR5.7 install to CC(LR6). Guess I'll continue to hold off for a few days/week.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
How am I to go out on a desert weekend to shoot and process astro shots without internet access? Launching the stand alone version that I purchased will not launch until signing in to the adobe account.
Lightroom 6 requires an always-on Internet connection to launch (serious question!)?

CC doesn't require me be online in order to use the applications so the idea that the stand-alone version of LR 6 does require this surprises me greatly.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Lightroom 6 requires an always-on Internet connection to launch (serious question!)?

CC doesn't require me be online in order to use the applications so the idea that the stand-alone version of LR 6 does require this surprises me greatly.

No it doesn't. I just rebooted my Mac, turned off WiFi and opened up and worked in LR with no issues. It requires a connection to install, and probably to work with the mobile app, but otherwise it's the same as before, it needs to phone home about once a month to verify payment continuity. My understanding is that LR will continue to work even after you cancel the CC subscription, but only the Library (and perhaps Print?) module.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
No it doesn't. I just rebooted my Mac, turned off WiFi and opened up and worked in LR with no issues. It requires a connection to install, and probably to work with the mobile app, but otherwise it's the same as before, it needs to phone home about once a month to verify payment continuity. My understanding is that LR will continue to work even after you cancel the CC subscription, but only the Library (and perhaps Print?) module.
Thank you; that makes more sense and is much more in line with what I would expect.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I think LR 6 is a joke, really. It's more like LR 5.7 1/2

So just how much needs to change to justify a new version number?! Here's what you have that you didn't before (and likely some more):
  • Rewritten to use your graphics processor
  • Additional recoding to greatly improve performance on other functions
  • Updated import modules allowing use of Collections immediately
  • HDR Merge
  • Pano Merge
  • Facial Recognition
  • Background processing on time consuming functions
  • Filter Brush for masking with Gradient Tools
  • Slideshow improvements
    • Pan & Zoom
    • Auto Sync to music
  • Mobile improvements allowing syncing to all Android devices

What the hell more do you want in order to justify updating version #'s?! You may not use half of it, but that doesn't mean it's not there, significant and useful for others. Heck, what did we get with LR5?! Perspective Correction, Radial Filter, Book Creation stuff. Not much more outside of enhancements to existing functions (don't believe me, watch JKost's video on 10 Hidden Gems in LR5). This is software that's being widely used by all levels of photographers, so did you think they were going to come out with an entirely new interface that was going to require everyone using it to relearn everything? Yeah, that would have sold a lot of copies.
 

Blacktop

Senior Member
So just how much needs to change to justify a new version number?! Here's what you have that you didn't before (and likely some more):
  • Rewritten to use your graphics processor
  • Additional recoding to greatly improve performance on other functions
  • Updated import modules allowing use of Collections immediately
  • HDR Merge
  • Pano Merge
  • Facial Recognition
  • Background processing on time consuming functions
  • Filter Brush for masking with Gradient Tools
  • Slideshow improvements
    • Pan & Zoom
    • Auto Sync to music
  • Mobile improvements allowing syncing to all Android devices

What the hell more do you want in order to justify updating version #'s?! You may not use half of it, but that doesn't mean it's not there, significant and useful for others. Heck, what did we get with LR5?! Perspective Correction, Radial Filter, Book Creation stuff. Not much more outside of enhancements to existing functions (don't believe me, watch JKost's video on 10 Hidden Gems in LR5). This is software that's being widely used by all levels of photographers, so did you think they were going to come out with an entirely new interface that was going to require everyone using it to relearn everything? Yeah, that would have sold a lot of copies.

That one I didn't know about,and it sounds interesting. I really have to check out a few vids on it this weekend.
 

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
So just how much needs to change to justify a new version number?! Here's what you have that you didn't before (and likely some more):
  • Rewritten to use your graphics processor
  • Additional recoding to greatly improve performance on other functions
  • Updated import modules allowing use of Collections immediately
  • HDR Merge
  • Pano Merge
  • Facial Recognition
  • Background processing on time consuming functions
  • Filter Brush for masking with Gradient Tools
  • Slideshow improvements
    • Pan & Zoom
    • Auto Sync to music
  • Mobile improvements allowing syncing to all Android devices

What the hell more do you want in order to justify updating version #'s?! You may not use half of it, but that doesn't mean it's not there, significant and useful for others. Heck, what did we get with LR5?!

Gee....I didn't think of all of that! I guess you're right again, Jake. Not being snarky...you definitely brought out more of what the new version really has contained in it. I should have waited, but I'm on the fence about whether to upgrade or not. I've already downloaded the file, just havn't installed it and activated it yet. I might as well go ahead since I'll need it anyway to be able to use any new equipment that might come my way. That's the bottom line. I would like to see some sort of Nik Tools kind of innovations. I know Adobe can't use Nik, but couldn't they use some kind of similar tools and innovations? I hate having to pay for two differing systems with each upgrade(s).
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
What I meant was Adobe can't copy anything Nik has created and then sell it as per copyright laws. I thought you smart guys could figure that out. Oz

But remember, Google has said that Nik upgrades (whenever they happen) will be free to everyone who owns it. onOne Perfect Effects 8 was nice, and the 8.5 improvements were better, but as soon as 9 came out it was pay out or be left behind.

Filters like those will always have their place, and there have always been ways to do similar work in Photoshop if you spend the time. Lightroom is meant to serve as the Digital Darkroom for photographers, and it really is. Need more and there are other tools for that, and LR is great at interfacing them with your workflow.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
That one I didn't know about,and it sounds interesting. I really have to check out a few vids on it this weekend.

This one is a little quirky. It's a brush tool within the gradient tool, so depending on what you're doing it doesn't mask as much as it allows you to apply a set of opposite effects to what the gradient tool does. I only started messing with it today, but it's a brush tool and not a pure masking tool, which I would have found more useful. That said, there's a strong possibility I'm using it incorrectly.
 
Top