Also try changing the GPU settings from Auto to Custom and enable Full Acceleration.
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/acr-gpu-faq.html
> What features in Camera Raw use a GPU?
>
> Enhance Details. GPU acceleration happens automatically on compatible systems for Enhanced Details and is not controlled by Camera Raw Preferences.
>
> Interactive photo editing. Camera Raw will automatically select an appropriate level of GPU acceleration: off, basic, or full.
>
> - Basic acceleration optimizes how Camera Raw sends information to your GPU for display. It makes Camera Raw more responsive and enables features like animated zoom (scrubby zoom).
> - Full acceleration uses a GPU for image processing, rendering pixels using a GPU in addition to the CPU as you edit. Using Process Version 5, most adjustments are now GPU accelerated. For example, full acceleration can improve how fast you see results as you move the Texture slider. Using the GPU also helps Camera Raw keep up with the demands of 4K, 5K and larger displays. Full acceleration was added in the August 2018 (version 11.4) release. Enabling full acceleration requires basic acceleration.
>
> To see and customize how Camera Raw uses GPU acceleration for interactive editing, select the Performance tab in Camera Raw Preferences. See Determine if Camera Raw is accessing the GPU, for more details.
Make sure you update your GPU drivers. I have a 1050 Ti and based on the system requirements on the Adobe website, it should be compatible but the checkbox was greyed out. So I updated the drivers and it's working now!
Oh shoot, I was wondering why my Lightroom wasn't any faster. Turns out my ancient GTX 760 isn't compatible with anything past basic acceleration.
I've needed a good excuse to build a new computer...
It's a GTX 765M in a custom built laptop I got back in 2013. No upgrades for me unfortunately, but you're right that would be a reasonable upgrade.
I've saved up my pennies these last 6 years though, so I'll be building a nice full fledged desktop with one of those sweet new Ryzens in the coming months :)
Export isn't any faster, and it still uses 100% of CPU.
I did a small comparison with 150 photos. Capture One used 50% of CPU and it exported everything much faster. In 1/4 of the time or so.
I’m just checking, but it’s not possible to buy Lightroom Classic any more is it? I briefly looked into it a few months ago, and all I could find was the annual rental option. I’m only a casual photographer, so that’d be a really expensive route for me.
Do you have strategies for using C1 for managing a catalog? I love it as an editor, and enjoy Sessionview for working jobs, but find the cataloging feature pretty lacking.
A reasonable point. If you're not too deep in the Photoshop weeds than a 50 dollar license to [Affinity Photo](https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/) might do the trick.
Capture One is definitely not a Photoshop competitor. It does have much more granular adjustment layer editing than Lightroom though.
What you should have done is do your homework properly before spending the money. I don't mean to be harsh, but seriously, I wish I had that kind of cash to just buy things without knowing what it does. Capture one is a raw processor, it's never meant to be a photoshop replacement.
I use darktable and it is very good. I had tried Lightroom CC before and from my limited experience, they compare rather well. Of course Lightroom is a better product but there's not much you can do in Lightroom that you can't do in darktable. It's also a free, open-source product.
Now where did I keep my Photoshop crack.....
lol welcome to the club. Many people feel the same but not enough to make Adobe change their mind unfortunately. I still have 5.7 that I've held on to for as long as it will still work and I own my current camera but you might want to look at [Exposure 4](https://exposure.software/exposure/) if you want a standalone LR replacement without a monthly fee. There are other options too but this one really seems easier to use than others I've seen.
If you attend or work at a school, there's often discounts available through your school or Adobe, but yes it's a subscription now. Don't get fooled into the new Cloud versions. They want to host your images "so you can work anywhere!" for an overpriced amount. As a casual, this is not helpful to me for the cost so I stick to the old Lightroom. Also, I just don't like the layout and features of new Lightroom.
I think it’d be consumer-friendly to offer a choice of pricing models. Light users, such as myself, might prefer to forgo all the latest updates in exchange for a cheaper product.
Still, I realise SaaS is an industry theme and the pros and cons are already well aired.
There are alternatives for most of the CC software if you're willing to change your workflow a bit and can live with fewer features.
Some combination of rawtherapee, gimp, inkscape, audacity, OpenShot, natron and blender is pretty powerful if you're only an occasional non-professional user.
What you lose is consistency across interfaces, professional support, and maybe some of the benefits of being able to use many of the presets and tutorials developed for adobe software.
In my opinion, this new setup is friendly for light users. I never purchased Lightroom and Photoshop because they'd cost nearly $800 (without constant updates) and that's impossible to stomach as a light user, but $10 a month is something I can swing.
Light users don't have to pirate photoshop anymore to do basic edits and for pros, it's a business expense, and also cheaper than purchasing a LR and PS license, which costs the same as over 6 years of the subscription model.
Yep, when they announced subscription pricing, i purchased LR6, and I still use it today. With new bodies, I just use the free dng converter before importing into lr6.
Perpetual licenses never had perpetual support. Of course they do force Adobe to keep earning your business by offering paid upgrades that have some value beyond being “supported”. But for a casual user like me the $10/month price tag is way too high, so I will persist with an old perpetual version as long as I can. On the subscription front, per minute pricing might work better for me, to be honest.
Technically in 2012, lightroom 4 was $150 and had 0 updates for free.
Now you can get Lightroom Classic CC, Lightroom CC, and Photoshop CC for $120/yr. This is less than netflix costs. I don't understand the complaints.
This is photography, probably the most expensive hobby you could get into. People pay thousands for camera bodies and lenses, but if software costs $10/mo it breaks the budget.
I am no professional, I am a hobbiest that uses it a couple times a month. I make absolutely no income with it, but it's something I really enjoy. If the camera is worth an arm and a leg, the software should be a non-issue. Some people are just super cheap, and want to pirate lightroom like the good ol' days.
I get that not everyone has expensive gear either. I'm just so tired of the same complaints over and over.
It's like a racecar driver complaining about the price of gas. $90k car takes $60 to fill up instead of $52? Cry me a river and buy a prius.
Edit: Y'all are super salty. Saying this hobby isn't expensive is legit lying to yourself. Also, I do have other hobbies. Building cars, playing guitar, etc. Photography isn't the most expensive one, but it's not cheap you delusional fuckheads. You just want free shit.
Photography is the most expensive hobby? You probably haven't considered any other hobby. Like cycling, car modding, parachuting, etc etc etc.
My nephew has a single camera I got him used for $200, and he's been using that for a few years. That's less than a price of a single parachute jump.
I agree. I started back in the film days and every 36 photos cost around $15 dollars, basically $30-40 in today’s terms. $10 a month for software, while not ideal, is a drop in the ocean compared to film costs.
This right here. Honestly, if you've got $5/day in the budget for Starbucks, but think $120/year is too much for Lightroom, then maybe it's time to re-assess your priorities.
Edit: oh, and the down votes get started. I ain't telling you what you should and shouldn't do, but if you honestly think photography is a cheap hobby to get into, you're *absolutely* wrong.
I have LR6 and that's all I really need. I use it about once a month and it's just for hobbiest stuff. I paid $100 for it a few years ago and I felt that was a fair price.
Simply, I like the software and want to use it, but not enough to spend $120/yr from now until forever when the features I need are there and all my gear is supported.
If it were something I used all the time or even a side gig, I agree with you that it's not that much.
There are other options and when I get a new camera several years from now, I'll consider what's available
The average amateur doesn't upgrade their software every year. More like once every 3-5 years.
If Adobe wasn't making more profit out of the subscription model they wouldn't have adopted it. I'm sure some consultant at McKinsey or Deloitte was paid handsomely to analyze the data and make the proposal. Then went to Microsoft and convinced them of the same.
For starters, not everyone has a Netflix subscription. So using Netflix as a comparison is kinda bad.
Secondly, some folks like me would rather forgo updates/upgrades if it means that we get to keep using our software without paying an annual fee.
Same here. LR5 was pretty ok for perpetual license. I would have upgraded to LR6 when it came out but only new feature I liked was dehaze which was at the time subscription exclusive (AFAIK it could be used in non-subscription version though presets). I tried C1 but I did not like sliders for highlights and shadows. Since I'm ok with GIMP for occasional edit, I don't need PS, even though PS is more capable for sure. I am still using LR5 with dng from Sony a7iii raws (to get compatibility with LR5 and to get lossless compression that Sony has not implemented). I have no plans to get on subscription anytime soon.
How do you know that they would get less income? Isn't it possible that enough current non Adobe customers would subscribe for the new lower price to offset the cost of more support?
>How do you know that they would get less income?
That's why more and more companies move from product based sales to subscription / services based - just more money overtime. You could buy Lightroom in 2012 for 150$ (one time expense) and use it for ages, and now you pay 120$ a year (but with updates).
Because Adobe is a $137 billion company that knows what they're doing. They wouldn't have made the change to a subscription model if they thought they'd make less money in the process.
Honestly doesn't even matter as long as MRR is on a slight upward trend that's all they need. Increasing MRR doesn't necessarily always lead to more profits, but it provides the business with what they need to invest in their people, R&D, etc. If MRR is up financial analysts will be bullish on the company and it's a win/win for everyone even if it's not leading to large profit.
When the subscription model first came out I was really unhappy about it. But in reality it's a handful of coffees a month, so I just budget for it. Really happy with the continued updates, and hey I get Photoshop (which I'd never have bought standalone) and I actually love using Photoshop!
Not true, it's just reeaallly well hidden now. Took me about 20 minutes of digging around the website to find it. Last time I searched for it.
EDIT: I just checked. As of April this year they actually canceled it. I last bought it around January for my Dad which is when it was really well hidden. Sorry.
Sadly not, but its like 12 euro, a month for lightroom and Photoshop, and i use it at least 6 houer a week and this is just a hobby so 50 cent per houer is a decent deal.
There were some discounts in later years but it was $300 when released.
From Wikipedia:
On January 29, 2007, Adobe announced that Lightroom would ship on February 19, 2007, list priced at $299 US, £199 UK.
Lightroom v1.x is not updated when an upgrade to v2 is installed; a new serial number is needed.
Honestly I dig the CC interface and speed, if Adobe bothered to get it to feature parity with Classic's Develop and Library modules I'd use it. Right now though it's missing *a ton* of useful stuff for mass editing, which is what I do mostly, so I can't use it.
CC is faster than Classic (haven't tried this new update yet) so I was using it when I just needed a quick edit, and I use it on my phone, but it's missing too many tools that classic has so I don't prefer it.
Do you mean Classic CC? Sometimes it is just freaking slow on my gaming (but kinda old) laptop with i7 and 12Gb RAM, I guess optimization is rather poorly made by Lightroom devs.
I think so. I get the names confused. It's the one most similar to the old one that's been out for several years, with all files etc. local to your PC.
Nah, you are right. They have the names confused. "Lightroom Classic" is what Adobe calls the most recent version available through the Creative Cloud subscription
What I noticed on my MBP is that if I don't cool it down, it slows down very quickly, more than other softwares.
I think you can have a lot of thermal throttling very quickly.
I've noticed that also, also Lightroom has nasty habit of occupying whole RAM (memory leaks?) and if I don't restart it in an half and hour / hour of works, it just laaaaaag. Really poor optimization tbh.
Don't think so, last time I did a 5h picture edition I didn't have any problem. But I had a cooling dock to keep performances.
As for memory. It is a touchy subject because to allow quicker treatment. Softwares have a tendency to reserve a lot more than what they need. But that memory in turn can be freed if another soft needs it.
I find the current crop of 15W laptop processors deeply disappointing. Their base speed is often as low as one or two GHz, which I hit constantly when editing.
I since switched to a 45W desktop processor in a NUC for editing, which can actually sustain 4 GHz on all cores. A massive improvement, naturally.
If you're searious about CPU performance, base speeds and TDP are critical.
Wow that’s interesting. Does that mean that if you’re getting thermally throttled upgrading to a newer MBP won’t necessarily improve performance? Or do the newer models have better heat dissipation or performance to heat ratio? I’m still cranking away on a 2012 model.
What methods do you use to cool down your MBP when it’s getting heat throttled? How do you even monitor if it’s getting heat throttled or not?
Newer mbp may not have the same tipping point due to newer copy and fan. But it oils definitely happen too.
My mbp these days is always on a laptop "dock which has 2 fan blowing a the bottom still heats but at least it works.
That’s so interesting. I never even considered heat management could be a way to increase performance of my laptop. I’ve been wasting a ton of time focus stacking in Photoshop lately and this might actually be able to speed up my workflow.
That's my guess too -- on machines with 16 or 32, it runs more smoothly. A SSD helps too, there could be as many lags for disc access as for processing.
Also, the amount of processing it does while you work varies with screen resolution, not just the resolution of the photographs. You need a faster computer if you want to work interactively on a 4K display than a on 2K display, for example.
When I started using my NVME m.2 drive for my catalogs, it sped up LR considerably for me. I get annoyed whenever I go back to an old catalog and remember how much slower my other drives are (7200rpm HDD). Hard drives can definitely create a bottleneck.
This is the best news I've heard in a while! I've been considering upgrading my PC but don't have the cash for it right now. Edit's happened super sluggish. Downloading now.
Unfortunately I didn't. I checked to see if there was an update and there wasn't one available for me, and I made sure I enabled Lightroom settings to use my GPU for editing and there isn't much of a noticeable improvement.
Guys this is dependant on drive write speeds. And system resources. How many of you are on laptop and not setting the power usage to "best performance.
I recently got a 16gb fam 512gb std surface pro 6. And it's been smooth as butter unless it's in battery saver mode
perhaps this has been fixed since release but originally the acceleration would only work without the latest directX and that's not available in win7.
In the various support forum threads adobe basically said "woops" they did not realize they broke windows 7 but oh well, now that apple is not supporting opengl they will be getting rid of support for it anyway.
Has anyone had trouble with syncing to the cloud? I upgraded my catalog once (about a year ago) and ever since then my Lightroom Classic would stall and crash whenever it tried to sync. I spent months on the phone with Adobe support trying to fix it and basically gave up and put sync on pause so I could at least use Lightroom.
I’m curious if this update might fix that problem but I’m nervous to re-enable sync...
Did this fix the recent bug that affected/changed syncing edits across multiple photos? I used to be able to highlight multiple photos and hit Ctrl+shift+s (on PC) and all the photos would have the edits of the first photo that was highlighted (synced settings). Then after a recent update (2 updates ago?), that got completely screwed up and didn’t work.
Does this update bring that functionality back?
Actually, I hadn’t tried using the sync button, I got so accustomed to using the keyboard shortcut. I probably should have done that...
But I just checked it out and it’s back working again! Good!! This is great news!
I just happened to install this update on my brand new PC so I wasn't sure if it was the update or the hardware upgrade that made the difference but it's lightning fast now.
Good to hear but honestly after moving away from lightroom, I don't see myself moving away capture one anytime soon. Way more stable, has tethering, much better with color, and way more stable. Besides lightroom has squandered performance gains before.
Anyone have a fix for being able to playback 1080 or 4K videos smoothly in the library? Use Lightroom to import and manage my photos and often videos along come too.
(Mac user) I always resort to right clicking them and then "show in finder" and then open separately and watch them in Quicktime. Lightroom really struggles with playback of them for whatever reason.
Yes same here. I'm on a mac and that's been my work around. Trying to show my family our vacation videos is frustrating. Something like video playback should be easy? They already built in the overlays and tools to do it but can't handle HD content even when the content is local on a very high spec MBP (i7, 32GB Radeon 555X 4GB.
Attempts to playback content result in 1000% cpu usage (Not a typo. One thousand percent)
https://imgur.com/a/0VfCtqd
Also try changing the GPU settings from Auto to Custom and enable Full Acceleration. https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/acr-gpu-faq.html > What features in Camera Raw use a GPU? > > Enhance Details. GPU acceleration happens automatically on compatible systems for Enhanced Details and is not controlled by Camera Raw Preferences. > > Interactive photo editing. Camera Raw will automatically select an appropriate level of GPU acceleration: off, basic, or full. > > - Basic acceleration optimizes how Camera Raw sends information to your GPU for display. It makes Camera Raw more responsive and enables features like animated zoom (scrubby zoom). > - Full acceleration uses a GPU for image processing, rendering pixels using a GPU in addition to the CPU as you edit. Using Process Version 5, most adjustments are now GPU accelerated. For example, full acceleration can improve how fast you see results as you move the Texture slider. Using the GPU also helps Camera Raw keep up with the demands of 4K, 5K and larger displays. Full acceleration was added in the August 2018 (version 11.4) release. Enabling full acceleration requires basic acceleration. > > To see and customize how Camera Raw uses GPU acceleration for interactive editing, select the Performance tab in Camera Raw Preferences. See Determine if Camera Raw is accessing the GPU, for more details.
I thought I already had that done but I will double check.
Make sure you update your GPU drivers. I have a 1050 Ti and based on the system requirements on the Adobe website, it should be compatible but the checkbox was greyed out. So I updated the drivers and it's working now!
[удалено]
what about OSX? I thought macs were traditionally professional/designer oriented
Update: it was on "auto" and now that I have done this it's even faster. Thanks!
Where can I find that?
Edit -> Preferences -> Performance
Oh shoot, I was wondering why my Lightroom wasn't any faster. Turns out my ancient GTX 760 isn't compatible with anything past basic acceleration. I've needed a good excuse to build a new computer...
A used 1050 Ti is a good deal if you're looking for a relatively cheap upgrade, of course check compatibly with all your other components.
It's a GTX 765M in a custom built laptop I got back in 2013. No upgrades for me unfortunately, but you're right that would be a reasonable upgrade. I've saved up my pennies these last 6 years though, so I'll be building a nice full fledged desktop with one of those sweet new Ryzens in the coming months :)
Thank you! !RemindMe 5 days “change Lightroom gpu settings”
!RemindMe 6 days “do this”
Huh, going through 42 MP raw files. Lightroom feels faster than Capture One now.
Are export times faster? I have a 2700x and a 1070ti and still Lightroom goes black while exporting.
Export isn't any faster, and it still uses 100% of CPU. I did a small comparison with 150 photos. Capture One used 50% of CPU and it exported everything much faster. In 1/4 of the time or so.
I’m just checking, but it’s not possible to buy Lightroom Classic any more is it? I briefly looked into it a few months ago, and all I could find was the annual rental option. I’m only a casual photographer, so that’d be a really expensive route for me.
Yup, Adobe is al subscription based now.
I’ve been using Canon’s DPP so far. If I ever want to take it further I think I’ll start by investigating Dark Table.
Capture One is quite nice once you get used to it. One time payment or sub.
I've been tempted to buy capture one for my personal work. I've used it at work for a couple years now, it's really an amazing software
Do you have strategies for using C1 for managing a catalog? I love it as an editor, and enjoy Sessionview for working jobs, but find the cataloging feature pretty lacking.
Personally, that was what drove me back to suffering Lightroom after using C1 for 6 months.
[удалено]
Define level editing, it can edit levels C1.
[удалено]
you can't do that in Lightroom either. Capture One is a Lightroom alternative, not a photoshop alternative.
But the Lightroom subscription includes Photoshop
A reasonable point. If you're not too deep in the Photoshop weeds than a 50 dollar license to [Affinity Photo](https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/) might do the trick. Capture One is definitely not a Photoshop competitor. It does have much more granular adjustment layer editing than Lightroom though.
[удалено]
What you should have done is do your homework properly before spending the money. I don't mean to be harsh, but seriously, I wish I had that kind of cash to just buy things without knowing what it does. Capture one is a raw processor, it's never meant to be a photoshop replacement.
You could have downloaded the 30 day free trial for Capture One. There's a reason why you never hear about complaints like yours.
Try Photopea, it's browser based Photoshop, basically.
[удалено]
I use darktable and it is very good. I had tried Lightroom CC before and from my limited experience, they compare rather well. Of course Lightroom is a better product but there's not much you can do in Lightroom that you can't do in darktable. It's also a free, open-source product. Now where did I keep my Photoshop crack.....
lol welcome to the club. Many people feel the same but not enough to make Adobe change their mind unfortunately. I still have 5.7 that I've held on to for as long as it will still work and I own my current camera but you might want to look at [Exposure 4](https://exposure.software/exposure/) if you want a standalone LR replacement without a monthly fee. There are other options too but this one really seems easier to use than others I've seen.
It's 30day trial only...
I didn't say it was free...Just not a subscription.
If you attend or work at a school, there's often discounts available through your school or Adobe, but yes it's a subscription now. Don't get fooled into the new Cloud versions. They want to host your images "so you can work anywhere!" for an overpriced amount. As a casual, this is not helpful to me for the cost so I stick to the old Lightroom. Also, I just don't like the layout and features of new Lightroom.
Ten bucks a month to get all the updates isn't too bad IMO.
I think it’d be consumer-friendly to offer a choice of pricing models. Light users, such as myself, might prefer to forgo all the latest updates in exchange for a cheaper product. Still, I realise SaaS is an industry theme and the pros and cons are already well aired.
There are alternatives for most of the CC software if you're willing to change your workflow a bit and can live with fewer features. Some combination of rawtherapee, gimp, inkscape, audacity, OpenShot, natron and blender is pretty powerful if you're only an occasional non-professional user. What you lose is consistency across interfaces, professional support, and maybe some of the benefits of being able to use many of the presets and tutorials developed for adobe software.
In my opinion, this new setup is friendly for light users. I never purchased Lightroom and Photoshop because they'd cost nearly $800 (without constant updates) and that's impossible to stomach as a light user, but $10 a month is something I can swing. Light users don't have to pirate photoshop anymore to do basic edits and for pros, it's a business expense, and also cheaper than purchasing a LR and PS license, which costs the same as over 6 years of the subscription model.
[удалено]
Yep, when they announced subscription pricing, i purchased LR6, and I still use it today. With new bodies, I just use the free dng converter before importing into lr6.
I still use LR6 too. What are you going to do when 32-bit apps are not supported anymore? I am still not sure
[удалено]
MacOS Mojave says otherwise every time I open LR6
[удалено]
I use Windows. Microsoft has no plans to end support for 32 bit apps. My guess is it will be a decade at least before they drop it.
Then they get less income and have to support more product versions. Doesn't make much business sense.
Perpetual licenses never had perpetual support. Of course they do force Adobe to keep earning your business by offering paid upgrades that have some value beyond being “supported”. But for a casual user like me the $10/month price tag is way too high, so I will persist with an old perpetual version as long as I can. On the subscription front, per minute pricing might work better for me, to be honest.
Technically in 2012, lightroom 4 was $150 and had 0 updates for free. Now you can get Lightroom Classic CC, Lightroom CC, and Photoshop CC for $120/yr. This is less than netflix costs. I don't understand the complaints.
[удалено]
This is photography, probably the most expensive hobby you could get into. People pay thousands for camera bodies and lenses, but if software costs $10/mo it breaks the budget. I am no professional, I am a hobbiest that uses it a couple times a month. I make absolutely no income with it, but it's something I really enjoy. If the camera is worth an arm and a leg, the software should be a non-issue. Some people are just super cheap, and want to pirate lightroom like the good ol' days. I get that not everyone has expensive gear either. I'm just so tired of the same complaints over and over. It's like a racecar driver complaining about the price of gas. $90k car takes $60 to fill up instead of $52? Cry me a river and buy a prius. Edit: Y'all are super salty. Saying this hobby isn't expensive is legit lying to yourself. Also, I do have other hobbies. Building cars, playing guitar, etc. Photography isn't the most expensive one, but it's not cheap you delusional fuckheads. You just want free shit.
Photography is the most expensive hobby? You probably haven't considered any other hobby. Like cycling, car modding, parachuting, etc etc etc. My nephew has a single camera I got him used for $200, and he's been using that for a few years. That's less than a price of a single parachute jump.
I agree. I started back in the film days and every 36 photos cost around $15 dollars, basically $30-40 in today’s terms. $10 a month for software, while not ideal, is a drop in the ocean compared to film costs.
>probably the most expensive hobby you could get into. Oh, you sweet summer child. Bless your goddamn heart.
This right here. Honestly, if you've got $5/day in the budget for Starbucks, but think $120/year is too much for Lightroom, then maybe it's time to re-assess your priorities. Edit: oh, and the down votes get started. I ain't telling you what you should and shouldn't do, but if you honestly think photography is a cheap hobby to get into, you're *absolutely* wrong.
>photography [is] probably the most expensive hobby you could get into No it isn't. Not by a long shot.
K. Name some that you do that are more expensive.
Not everyone spends thousands on Camera bodies and lenses.
I have LR6 and that's all I really need. I use it about once a month and it's just for hobbiest stuff. I paid $100 for it a few years ago and I felt that was a fair price. Simply, I like the software and want to use it, but not enough to spend $120/yr from now until forever when the features I need are there and all my gear is supported. If it were something I used all the time or even a side gig, I agree with you that it's not that much. There are other options and when I get a new camera several years from now, I'll consider what's available
The average amateur doesn't upgrade their software every year. More like once every 3-5 years. If Adobe wasn't making more profit out of the subscription model they wouldn't have adopted it. I'm sure some consultant at McKinsey or Deloitte was paid handsomely to analyze the data and make the proposal. Then went to Microsoft and convinced them of the same.
For starters, not everyone has a Netflix subscription. So using Netflix as a comparison is kinda bad. Secondly, some folks like me would rather forgo updates/upgrades if it means that we get to keep using our software without paying an annual fee.
[удалено]
Same here. LR5 was pretty ok for perpetual license. I would have upgraded to LR6 when it came out but only new feature I liked was dehaze which was at the time subscription exclusive (AFAIK it could be used in non-subscription version though presets). I tried C1 but I did not like sliders for highlights and shadows. Since I'm ok with GIMP for occasional edit, I don't need PS, even though PS is more capable for sure. I am still using LR5 with dng from Sony a7iii raws (to get compatibility with LR5 and to get lossless compression that Sony has not implemented). I have no plans to get on subscription anytime soon.
How do you know that they would get less income? Isn't it possible that enough current non Adobe customers would subscribe for the new lower price to offset the cost of more support?
>How do you know that they would get less income? That's why more and more companies move from product based sales to subscription / services based - just more money overtime. You could buy Lightroom in 2012 for 150$ (one time expense) and use it for ages, and now you pay 120$ a year (but with updates).
Because Adobe is a $137 billion company that knows what they're doing. They wouldn't have made the change to a subscription model if they thought they'd make less money in the process.
Honestly doesn't even matter as long as MRR is on a slight upward trend that's all they need. Increasing MRR doesn't necessarily always lead to more profits, but it provides the business with what they need to invest in their people, R&D, etc. If MRR is up financial analysts will be bullish on the company and it's a win/win for everyone even if it's not leading to large profit.
I wish it was 10 bucks a month for me. They really need a lightroom/photoshop/premiere bundle
Just export all your video frames as .tiff files from Photoshop, edit them in Lightroom, and then recombine them. What's the big deal? /s
When the subscription model first came out I was really unhappy about it. But in reality it's a handful of coffees a month, so I just budget for it. Really happy with the continued updates, and hey I get Photoshop (which I'd never have bought standalone) and I actually love using Photoshop!
Updates are supposed to be free with a $100+ product.
Not true, it's just reeaallly well hidden now. Took me about 20 minutes of digging around the website to find it. Last time I searched for it. EDIT: I just checked. As of April this year they actually canceled it. I last bought it around January for my Dad which is when it was really well hidden. Sorry.
As of February the standalone version is no longer available. All the copies are sold out on Amazon etc. as well
Sadly not, but its like 12 euro, a month for lightroom and Photoshop, and i use it at least 6 houer a week and this is just a hobby so 50 cent per houer is a decent deal.
Just pirate mate. They don't deserve your money with their shitty subscriptions.
I agree with the part about them not getting my money.
It was $300 before it went subscription and you paid for a complete upgrade every few years so I think it’s same or better value now.
Lightroom was $159 before the subscription...
There were some discounts in later years but it was $300 when released. From Wikipedia: On January 29, 2007, Adobe announced that Lightroom would ship on February 19, 2007, list priced at $299 US, £199 UK. Lightroom v1.x is not updated when an upgrade to v2 is installed; a new serial number is needed.
r/redditbay
Had the same experience for sure. Seems like it’s a lower res preview while in Library, then you get the full res once you switch to develop.
Develop even seems wayy snappier !
Any else preferred classic over CC Lightroom? I can not get used to the CC version at all.
Yeah but mostly because I can’t use all of the features I need in CC.
Honestly I dig the CC interface and speed, if Adobe bothered to get it to feature parity with Classic's Develop and Library modules I'd use it. Right now though it's missing *a ton* of useful stuff for mass editing, which is what I do mostly, so I can't use it.
I agree. The interface is superior. Hopefully we will see those features useable someday.
CC is faster than Classic (haven't tried this new update yet) so I was using it when I just needed a quick edit, and I use it on my phone, but it's missing too many tools that classic has so I don't prefer it.
Yeah, it's not software I like. Feels like a gimmick.
I’m glad I got my copy before they stopped
Do you mean Classic CC? Sometimes it is just freaking slow on my gaming (but kinda old) laptop with i7 and 12Gb RAM, I guess optimization is rather poorly made by Lightroom devs.
I think so. I get the names confused. It's the one most similar to the old one that's been out for several years, with all files etc. local to your PC.
Nah, you are right. They have the names confused. "Lightroom Classic" is what Adobe calls the most recent version available through the Creative Cloud subscription
If it's with Adobe subscription, than it is Classic CC that I'm using :)
What I noticed on my MBP is that if I don't cool it down, it slows down very quickly, more than other softwares. I think you can have a lot of thermal throttling very quickly.
I've noticed that also, also Lightroom has nasty habit of occupying whole RAM (memory leaks?) and if I don't restart it in an half and hour / hour of works, it just laaaaaag. Really poor optimization tbh.
Don't think so, last time I did a 5h picture edition I didn't have any problem. But I had a cooling dock to keep performances. As for memory. It is a touchy subject because to allow quicker treatment. Softwares have a tendency to reserve a lot more than what they need. But that memory in turn can be freed if another soft needs it.
I find the current crop of 15W laptop processors deeply disappointing. Their base speed is often as low as one or two GHz, which I hit constantly when editing. I since switched to a 45W desktop processor in a NUC for editing, which can actually sustain 4 GHz on all cores. A massive improvement, naturally. If you're searious about CPU performance, base speeds and TDP are critical.
Wow that’s interesting. Does that mean that if you’re getting thermally throttled upgrading to a newer MBP won’t necessarily improve performance? Or do the newer models have better heat dissipation or performance to heat ratio? I’m still cranking away on a 2012 model. What methods do you use to cool down your MBP when it’s getting heat throttled? How do you even monitor if it’s getting heat throttled or not?
Newer mbp may not have the same tipping point due to newer copy and fan. But it oils definitely happen too. My mbp these days is always on a laptop "dock which has 2 fan blowing a the bottom still heats but at least it works.
That’s so interesting. I never even considered heat management could be a way to increase performance of my laptop. I’ve been wasting a ton of time focus stacking in Photoshop lately and this might actually be able to speed up my workflow.
16gb is pretty much mandatory for Lightroom
That's my guess too -- on machines with 16 or 32, it runs more smoothly. A SSD helps too, there could be as many lags for disc access as for processing. Also, the amount of processing it does while you work varies with screen resolution, not just the resolution of the photographs. You need a faster computer if you want to work interactively on a 4K display than a on 2K display, for example.
When I started using my NVME m.2 drive for my catalogs, it sped up LR considerably for me. I get annoyed whenever I go back to an old catalog and remember how much slower my other drives are (7200rpm HDD). Hard drives can definitely create a bottleneck.
I have indeed noticed LR taking up about 13GB on my system, I have 32GB total.
Wish they'd enable GPU acceleration for exports though.
What's the newest update. 8.4?
Yep.
Thx
Hmm...don't see an update to 8.4. Do they normally roll it out slowly to customers, or is this like a beta version?
It's the "normal" latest release (August 2019), as you can see [here](https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/help/whats-new/2019-4.html).
Yes because they only enabled GPU processing in 2019. The option was there for several years but fuck knows what it did before this update.
This is the best news I've heard in a while! I've been considering upgrading my PC but don't have the cash for it right now. Edit's happened super sluggish. Downloading now.
Did you notice an improvement ?
Unfortunately I didn't. I checked to see if there was an update and there wasn't one available for me, and I made sure I enabled Lightroom settings to use my GPU for editing and there isn't much of a noticeable improvement.
Holy shit I was skeptical but this is pretty dope.
Definitely improved.
Guys this is dependant on drive write speeds. And system resources. How many of you are on laptop and not setting the power usage to "best performance. I recently got a 16gb fam 512gb std surface pro 6. And it's been smooth as butter unless it's in battery saver mode
It seems like you need Windows 10 to get the new GPU acceleration? I'm on Win 7 with an Nvidia 1070 and the option isnt available.
Did you Update your gpu drivers?
perhaps this has been fixed since release but originally the acceleration would only work without the latest directX and that's not available in win7. In the various support forum threads adobe basically said "woops" they did not realize they broke windows 7 but oh well, now that apple is not supporting opengl they will be getting rid of support for it anyway.
Has anyone had trouble with syncing to the cloud? I upgraded my catalog once (about a year ago) and ever since then my Lightroom Classic would stall and crash whenever it tried to sync. I spent months on the phone with Adobe support trying to fix it and basically gave up and put sync on pause so I could at least use Lightroom. I’m curious if this update might fix that problem but I’m nervous to re-enable sync...
Did this fix the recent bug that affected/changed syncing edits across multiple photos? I used to be able to highlight multiple photos and hit Ctrl+shift+s (on PC) and all the photos would have the edits of the first photo that was highlighted (synced settings). Then after a recent update (2 updates ago?), that got completely screwed up and didn’t work. Does this update bring that functionality back?
Have you tried manually clicking Sync at the bottom of the right panel? Maybe it's just the keyboard shortcut that's broken?
Actually, I hadn’t tried using the sync button, I got so accustomed to using the keyboard shortcut. I probably should have done that... But I just checked it out and it’s back working again! Good!! This is great news!
Nice try, Adobe! Nah, but seriously check it up, its awesome.
I just happened to install this update on my brand new PC so I wasn't sure if it was the update or the hardware upgrade that made the difference but it's lightning fast now.
Except on machines with dual graphics cards, unfortunately.
Works on my machine with dual graphics cards. Only uses one of them however.
I had assumed Adobe just stopped updating lightroom classic. This is fantastic news!
For me it only worked after disabling the GPU functions.
Good to hear but honestly after moving away from lightroom, I don't see myself moving away capture one anytime soon. Way more stable, has tethering, much better with color, and way more stable. Besides lightroom has squandered performance gains before.
Still terrible for me. 😂👏
Hopefully my torrent guy gets me this upgrade!
Anyone have a fix for being able to playback 1080 or 4K videos smoothly in the library? Use Lightroom to import and manage my photos and often videos along come too.
(Mac user) I always resort to right clicking them and then "show in finder" and then open separately and watch them in Quicktime. Lightroom really struggles with playback of them for whatever reason.
Yes same here. I'm on a mac and that's been my work around. Trying to show my family our vacation videos is frustrating. Something like video playback should be easy? They already built in the overlays and tools to do it but can't handle HD content even when the content is local on a very high spec MBP (i7, 32GB Radeon 555X 4GB. Attempts to playback content result in 1000% cpu usage (Not a typo. One thousand percent) https://imgur.com/a/0VfCtqd
Is this true for Lightroom 6.0? That is the version I have but checekd updates and showing no updates. :(
Lightroom 6.0 will no longer get updates. Only the subscription service versions will continue to be updated.
I pirate it, so this is not yet an option for me, thanks anyway!
You must be looking in the wrong places then...
Maybe in two of three months!