Lightroom 5 will be sold separate of CC when released

<p>I found out today that the new Lightroom 5 will be sold separate of CC. I was told by two Adobe reps that it would not. They evidently gave me the wrong information. </p>

<p><strong>Q: Will I be able to buy a boxed/perpetual version of Lightroom 5?</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><strong>A:</strong> <em>Lightroom 5 will be available for purchase as a perpetual software license, via electronic download from Adobe.com and authorized resellers. A boxed version of Lightroom 5 will be available from authorized resellers.</em></strong><br /><strong><em><br /></em></strong><br>

<strong><em>johndoddato.blogspot.com</em></strong></p>

<p>Interesting. This information was available at the announce time. Tragic that the reps don't know enough about their own products.</p>

<p>What does "CC" mean?</p>

<p>CC = Adobe Creative Cloud <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud.html">http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud.html</a></p>

<p>Adobe has never suggested anywhere publicly that LR is part of CS or CC. Were the reps authorized Adobe spokespeople?</p>

<p>Jeff, Adobe does actually imply that LR is part of CC and CS on their site.<br>

On the CC page <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/tools-and-services.html">http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/tools-and-services.html</a>, if you click on the link "See the CS6 apps available now", it takes you to a page of apps that includes LR <a href="https://creative.adobe.com/apps">https://creative.adobe.com/apps</a></p>

 

<p>Well however they sell it, I have the beta copy of LR5 installed and I will buy it when it comes out for the perspective control alone along with the new spot tool and radial filter. I like some of the format changes also. I have had no problems so far with the beta version. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, Adobe does actually imply that LR is part of CC and CS on their site.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Barry, Lr will <em>also </em>be part of CC, but will be available as a standalone application too.</p>

<p>Sorry, what I meant was the inverse, that Adobe has not said that LR will only be available as part of CC.</p>

<p>i read that part of CC you will have some extras.. but a boxed retail will still be available.. too bad they dont offer that for all theres software.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>i read that part of CC you will have some extras.. but a boxed retail will still be available.. too bad they dont offer that for all theres software.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>From what I understood the boxed perpetual license LR will still get bug fixes and maintenance updates as it has in the past and so will the CC version except new features will be easily and more frequently added to the CC version.</p>

<p>I'ld have to only assume that those with the boxed license version will have to wait for the next upgrade (18 or so months later) and its associated upgrade price to get the newer features already added to the CC version.</p>

<p><strong>OR </strong>the<strong> </strong>non-CC version upgrade will have fewer features added by comparison but that's too far off in the future to know for sure where things can change.</p>

<p>They're actually making LR available both ways, for rent as part of the wonderful new Cloud and for purchase as it currently is. The new business model strictly segments Adobe's markets into the "core" (professionals who rely on Adobe products and can be forced into renting the software because they have no choice) and everyone else. It intentionally prices non-"core" users out of that market segment, and into Elements and/or Lightroom.</p>

<p>Some "core" users are photographers who use Lightroom along with Photoshop. So Adobe makes Lightroom available through the Cloud. It's a freebie for those whose rental package includes multiple applications. They also have to make it available for separate purchase, so they can get revenue from the hobbyists who have been priced out of Photoshop. But they can't force those users to rent Lightroom because there are alternatives. </p>

<p>Lightroom also seems to be what Adobe is offering non-"core" current Photoshop users. If rental is not a viable option, they can continue to use CS6 (or whatever earlier version they're using). If they later buy a new camera and want to use raw files, they can buy Lightroom to gain access to the latest ACR version.</p>

 

<p>According to an Adobe representative who spoke to DPreview, the CC version of Lightroom will have added features not found in the boxed version. He wasn't talking about updates.<br>

What this means is that for the time being Lightroom will still be available boxed but if you want those extra features only available on the CC version then you'd have to subscribe. As the CC version becomes more popular I think we know what will happen next, only the CC version will be available. Adobe will get you one way or another.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He wasn't talking about updates.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since I don't know what version (4 or 5) of Lightroom you're referring to, here's straight from an Adobe employee by the name of Tom Hogarty, Adobe Senior Product Manager...</p>

<p>http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html</p>

<p>Here's the dpreview interview with Adobe VP of Creative Solutions, Winston Hendrickson...</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc</p>

<p>" If they later buy a new camera and want to use raw files, they can buy Lightroom to gain access to the latest ACR version."<br>

If you get a new camera and you are using an old PS program that doesn't support your camera, I would suggest converting them to a DNG format ( free download from Adobe) that way you can use your new camera and still convert RAW files on your old PS software. It is an extra step but it still lets you use your old PS program if you don't want to buy or upgrade your software for a new camera purchase. johndoddato.blogspot.com</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yep, I've seen nothing to suggest that the DNG Converter won't be around "forever"...</p>

<p>Adobe isn't providing the DNG converter out of compassion for customers who fall behind on their duty to buy every upgrade. Adobe wants DNG to become the standard raw format, for various reasons that benefit Adobe. Offering a free tool to convert raw files to DNG furthers Adobe's goal by increasing the adoption of DNG. The fact that it provides a free alternative to buying the latest upgrade is merely an incentive to increase adoption of DNG. It's the nectar that bribes the user-bees to help pollinate Adobe's crops.<br /><br />I'm not convinced that converting to DNG benefits photographers as much as it benefits Adobe. It depends on whether Adobe actually succeeds in making DNG a standard, or at least in convincing users and camera makers to embrace it. If Adobe doesn't succeed, DNG will become just another one of the babel of raw formats. <br /><br />There are two clear drawbacks to using the DNG converter. The first is that converting a native file to DNG precludes the use of the camera manufacturer's software (unless you choose the option of embedding the original file in the DNG, which doubles the file size). That may not sound like a drawback, but ACR has had problems with a few of my Canon raw files that I solved by using DPP. There haven't been many of those. And I would never use the bloody-awful DPP unless I had no other choice. But in those few cases I was very glad to have DPP, which can better handle "boundary" cases because its developers were privy to the full technical information about the cameras. <br /><br />The other drawback is with cameras that rely on software to correct lens aberrations, such as my Canon PowerShot S90 and S100. The ACR version in Photoshop CS5 supports lens profiles, and can make the necessary corrections automatically. But supposed I hadn't upgraded to CS5 and kept using CS3, which did not support lens profiles. It presumably could have read a converted DNG from my camera; but I'd have to spend a lot of time working out the appropriate lens corrections for each focal length, to do manually for each picture. There are likely to be similar features in future cameras that could convert to DNG, but "legacy" CS5 or CS6 could not support. <br /><br />For those reasons, I think buying Lightroom is a better solution than the DNG converter. The price is reasonable (less than a Photoshop upgrade used to cost), and it gets the latest improvements to Camera Raw. Of course, if you don't use raw files that won't be necessary. </p>

<p>All this talk about future proofing digital content doesn't address the big picture which is the fact everyone's digital creations must always rely on a machine and software to exist. Without that, you have nothing but 1's and 0's.</p>

<p>And no one has yet manufactured a digital imaging machine that will keep operating with the same software for years on end. Once you make a digital image you either have to print it or archive it to digital media format of choice to acknowledge it exists.</p>

<p>All your Raw edits saved to xmp metadata (Adobe) will only be utilized by the software that created it at that given time, computer and OS which may not be read, editable or compatible a decade into the future by newer technologies. We will always be paying for our digital content in some form or another if we want to keep in existence into the future decades from now.</p>

<p>In short I'm sure you all are aware that what you are "creating" is an illusion of ownership of a perceived real object.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In short I'm sure you all are aware that what you are "creating" is an illusion of ownership of a perceived real object.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Correct - which is why I don't worry about it.</p>

<p>I don't much care, I've decided to switch to ACDSee. To put it bluntly, I don't believe Adobe.</p>