Complaint about new LR upgrade releases

[nbirkett51]

I do not understand what Adobe is doing witt Lightroom.  Today, they released a new product (the cloud-based version of LR) and updates to the current version of LR.  So what do they do?

They give the new product the name of the old product.  And give a new name to the old product.

As a result, no-one knows what programme is being discussed when we talk about 'Lightroom CC'.

The new CC is a crippled piece of software which seems to have a limited function. I, along with many other users, have no interest in having all of my photos placed in the cloud.  This reduces security and increases the risk of privacy violations.  If I take 1,000 new photos (40-80GB), it will take up to 20 hours of continuous use of my Internet upload stream to get them to the cloud.  And, many of those photos will be throw-aways that have no need to be on the cloud.  That wastes my bandwidth and, in many cases, could lead to users being forced to pay for additional bandwidth.  And, the functionality offered by the new CC are also very limited compared to the previous CC.

Because of the bizzare naming convention, many people will upgrade to the new CC without realizing that are are getting a new software package with limits.  This is confusing to users.

The name switch also leaves the impression for new users that the 'Classic' is 'old stuff' which is less powerful and useful than the new CC (which is far from the truth).  It also leaves the impression that it may not continue to be supported by Adobe (despite the comments today that it will be develop in parallel).  How long before the Classic version gets dropped from the line-up?

I will be looking closely at alternatives such as Capture One and DxO Optics Pro.

At a minimum, Adobe should have retained the name 'Lightroom CC' for the update of the current product and named the new one something like 'Lightroom web' or 'Lightroom Lite'.

I urge Adobe to look closely at the confusion this is causing.  And, at the anger I am seeing in users who object strongly to the new CC's cloud-based model.

[DdeGannes]

See if this article clears the fuzz.

The Future of Lightroom

[nbirkett51]

I've seen and read that article.  Personally, I am also clear of the 'fuzz'.

My point is that Adobe's new model will be causing confusion for the large number of users who don't care enough to come to forums like this or read up on detailed web pages explaining software releases.

Lightroom CC should have continued with that name. The name should not have been switched to a new and inferior product which also forces cloud uploading.  New users and others will be confused by this.  I almost have to wonder if the renaming was a deliberate ploy by Adobe to force accidental enrollment in their new product to make user numbers look good (I must be wrong, right:))

[baz_stott]

I absolutely agree with you. I have just made the mistake of purchasing Lightroom 6 having been told by Zane on the help desk that after updating to version 6.12 it would be able to read the .arw RAW files from my Sony camera.

IT CAN'T

Not only that but the update process actually deleted the installation of Lightroom and I had to start all over again.

SNAFU!

[John Waller]

updating to version 6.12 it would be able to read the .arw RAW files from my Sony camera.

Which model Sony camera exactly?

There's no mystery to which version supports which camera. Supported cameras are listed here:

Cameras supported by Camera Raw

[baz_stott]

Hi John,

The camera in question is Sony's new RX10M4. It is listed in the 'supported cameras' list but Lightroom v6.12 will not read them.

[99jon]

Your new camera will be supported on 26 October when  Lr6.13 is released.

[baz_stott]

Oh really? Am I supposed to believe that?

I was told by JeffreyOD and 'Zane' at the help desk that version 6.12 would do it and the camera is listed in the 'supported cameras' section.

Jeffrey OD is shown as STAFF, Zane is an employee at least, why are they wrong and you right? Forgive my bluntness but I'm a bit 'T'd' off with Adobe at present.

[baz_stott]

PS: I wouldn't have bought Lr if I had known about this debacle.

[99jon]

If you can’t wait until 26^th then please request a refund. Click the link below, sign-in and wait for the page to fully load.

1. Choose Account Issues
2. Choose Adobe ID and signing in
3. Scroll to the bottom of the page and choose - Show me my contact options
4. Click Chat

https://helpx.adobe.com/contact/support.html

[baz_stott]

Since your 'invitation' to go for a refund I have been online to your chat room. I have now spent over 6½ hours trying to get this crap to work. Your so-called help desk can't and I can't. the last chat chap did a runner and left me waiting for a new connection to a 'special team'. That was 45 minutes ago ~ I'm still waiting.

What an abysmal bunch of incompetents you all are.

Now I'll have to get out and old style envelope and write to the UK ceo because you lot are incapable of helping.

Bye...

[baz_stott]

and your idiot help desk has ****** up Google Chrome for me.

DON'T ANYONE LET THE CHAT ROOM HAVE CONTROL OF YOUR SYSTEM.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Baz, you're talking to users like yourself. There's no need to call us incompetent, when we're trying to help you. We're not Adobe staff.

The support systems will be very busy today because practically every application Adobe offers has been updated in the last 24 hours. You may prefer to wait a day or so to save yourself some waiting time.

The support staff you spoke to were mistaken - humans do occasionally make mistakes - but your new camera will be supported in your Lightroom version on 26 October. You can use them in Lightroom today by using the free DNG converter to convert them to DNG format. https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html

[baz_stott]

Sorry! blowing off at those people that work for Adobe. There is no other way of contacting them - I gave up after 1 hour of waiting for the chat room to respond. If they are that busy you have to ask yourself why?

The people in the chat rooms won't read this blog but perhaps my feelings will get back to them.

I have deleted Lightroom and will not spend another penny on Adobe stuff.

I promise; this is my last entry...

[N J A]

Have you seen the article over on DPReview called "RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model"? You'll get a good idea from the masses of feedback - all from keen photographers - about their utter hatred of Adobe's CashCow subscription model. They only used Lightroom because it could be purchased without having to sign up to Adobe's revolting subscription plan.

[Indyboosler]

"Have you seen the article over on DPReview called "RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model"? You'll get a good idea from the masses of feedback - all from keen photographers - about their utter hatred of Adobe's CashCow subscription model. They only used Lightroom because it could be purchased without having to sign up to Adobe's revolting subscription plan." THEY are the reason the subscription model exists (ie people who buy once and never upgrade). When I started using photoshop about 25 years ago... it was $1000. That you can get Photoshop and Lightroom for $10 a month today is a freaking bargain. And $50/month for all adobe apps! Unreal. I am more than happy to shell out $50/month for what I get.

[nbirkett51]

This thread was not intended to be a complaint about the subscription model.  I pay for the subscription and agree that it is a reasonable approach, as long as new updates do get released. My low monthly fees pay for the on-going development work.  I am also OK with the 'pay once' approach but the cost should be higher (I remember paying well over $1,000 for CS5).  However, once you pay that much larger fee, it seems reasonable that Adobe should not expect more money from you unless they provide a new release with upgrades, etc. because your initial payment is covering your share of the programme development costs.  So, in my view, both models can work.

The purpose of this thread was to address the introduction of the second Lightroom programme with it being tied to a mandatory cloud upload that would force people to place photos on-line rather than work from their personal computer and local copies.  And, force them to pay very high monthly storage rental fees that they don't need for their work. And, impose excessive Internet transfer costs for the uploading. And, the inappropriate (almost deceptive) re-naming and advertising used when the products were released.  That is a very different issue than whether the subscription model is acceptable.

Can we please not conflate these two issues?

[David_Illig]

Knee-jerk reaction. You'll become accustomed to the naming and you'll forget you ever complained about it. And that is the truth.

[nbirkett51]

Nah - not knee-jerk.  Rather, a reaction to a future that I don't want to see.

Classic will be gone. Adobe will take the paternalistic view that they know best about what should be in the cloud, denying us our right to make those decisions.  We will all be forced to the new version, losing the ability to maintain local copies of our photos as our primary source material.  Cost will go up: I can buy a 4TB drive for use on my local computer for about $150, a one time purchase.  I believe that Adobe is charging $9.99/month for 1 TB of extra cloud storage (the dollar amount may be wrong but it is a monthly cost). If my cost is right, then the extra 3TB I would need to store 4TB of photos will cost me $360 per year.

I prepared to pay a monthly fee for the software.  But, I would object to being forced to pay high monthly fees to store my photos in a medium that I don't want to use when I could store them locally.

This ain't a knee-jerk reaction.

[David_Illig]

Classic will be gone. Adobe will take the paternalistic view that they know best about what should be in the cloud, denying us our right to make those decisions.  We will all be forced to the new version, losing the ability to maintain local copies of our photos as our primary source material...This ain't a knee-jerk reaction.

But it is idle speculation. Do you also suppose that Adobe will come into our homes and offices and seize our hard drives?

I will tell you this, however. It's not just Adobe. Cloud computing is the wave of the future. The cost of remote storage will decrease, not increase. I feel for those in rural areas who lack high-speed Internet, but they have to take that up with local and state regulators—force the providers to service rural areas with fiber or other high-speed wires as the cost of doing business in the cities.

[nbirkett51]

But it is idle speculation. Do you also suppose that Adobe will come into our homes and offices and seize our hard drives?

That is not what I said.  If Adobe switches LR so that it only works with uploads to the Cloud, then I am forced to use the cloud if I want to edit photographs.  They don't need to come into my home.  But, they are dictating how I will have to work.

There are also legal and ethical issues with storing photos on the the cloud.  I work in the medical field and use Adobe products to create graphs, charts, images, etc. for publications.  The terms of the ethical approval of my work prevent me from storing much of my work on external servers, even those housed within my university.  Using an Adobe server would not be allowed, particularly if it is in a different country (I live in Canada).  This concern escalates with the new software Adobe will be using to scan and flag the content of my photos.  Similar issues apply to other types of images (e.g. photos of crime scenes, commercial photography of children).

I will tell you this, however. It's not just Adobe. Cloud computing is the wave of the future. The cost of remote storage will decrease, not increase. I feel for those in rural areas who lack high-speed Internet, but they have to take that up with local and state regulators—force the providers to service rural areas with fiber or other high-speed wires as the cost of doing business in the cities.

Again, you are not responding to what I said.  I have no objection to the cloud.  It serves a useful purpose.  But, I must be in charge of my data to decide what information of mine will be posted in the Cloud.  People need to retain control over what is posted.  If Adobe had allowed users of the new LR CC to select what images to post on the cloud, I would have no issue with their model.  But, demanding that every image must be posted to the cloud is intrusive and inappropriate.

[Indyboosler]

As someone who uses Lightroom on an iMac and MacBook Pro - the ability to have both machines read the same catalogue is long overdue. That said, as the OP noted, the new version is crippled and it looks like for now I have to use BOTH versions. Case in point, no more publish actions. Sure you can upload to facebook and what not. But I run a website and I have publish actions set up to save photos to a specific size and place on my computer.  LR REALLY needs to bring back the folder structure. It's a start, but it has a LONG way to go. Overall on a scale of 1-10: 3

[ProDesignTools]

From Tom Hogarty today on Adobe's Lightroom blog:

Answering Your Questions on Lightroom CC, Lightroom Classic CC and More

[nbirkett51]

The blog helps but doesn't address all of the concerns.  Its utility also depends on whether Adobe does what it says.  I have posted a comment on the blog.

I did see that Tom indicated that Adobe might address concerns over the forced uploading of all photos to the cloud.  If user control can be implemented, it will eliminate some of the most worrying concerns and make the changes more palatable.  We'll see how they respond.

BTW, I personally have no objection to the subscription model.  It is the other aspects of the current release which are upsetting me.

[ProDesignTools]

Great. Stay tuned; moments ago I just talked with Tom at MAX, and he said he would be getting back to the post to address questions as soon as he was able.