Why I decided to upgrade to Lightroom Classic

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PhilBurton

Lightroom enthusiast (and still learning)
Premium Classic Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
3,178
Location
Palo Alto, California, USA
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Classic
Operating System:Windows 10
Exact Lightroom Version (Help menu > System Info): LR Classic 7.1

As many of you may know, I have not been happy with Adobe's move to a subscription pricing model only for Lightroom 7. Although I'm still not "happy" about the price, but I did the upgrade.

Here is why. My current equipment includes a Nikon D3, 24-70 f2.8 zoom, 80-200 f2.8 zoom, plus a bunch of other lenses purchased over the years. I recently bought a Benro carbon fiber tripod and Benro ball head and I make other photo hardware purchases. Right now I'm starting to think of a placement for my D3, because it is very bulky and heavy and because Nikon has improved a lot on parameters that matter to me: image quality, low ISO sensitivity and noise, buffer size, autofocus, card transfer rates, etc.

If I work out the "annual cost" of the D3, including resale, it is roughly $350 - 400 a year. Throw in a few hundred more for lenses and misc purchases. Let's makes that $600 a year, for discussion sake. That is five times the annual cost of the Lightroom subscription. Considering the key functions that Lightroom provides, it is worth it to me to "pay the Man the money" and get that subscription.

Phil Burton
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
This is true when you cost the subscription into your business or personal budget plans, however the sad part is that at some point in the future retirement looms or circumstances change and the costs of subscription may not be affordable in the budget anymore. The subscription route then becomes a bit of a problem so how do you proceed? Leave them as is in stasis, export and start anew with other software? Hmm tricky question and one only each individual can answer. Now for me, it made more sense to stay with the perpetual licence rather than subscribe. Interesting how we all tackle these thinks differently
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PhilBurton said:
Operating System:Windows 10
Exact Lightroom Version (Help menu > System Info): LR Classic 7.1

If I work out the "annual cost" of the D3, including resale, it is roughly $350 - 400 a year. Throw in a few hundred more for lenses and misc purchases. Let's makes that $600 a year, for discussion sake. That is five times the annual cost of the Lightroom subscription. Considering the key functions that Lightroom provides, it is worth it to me to "pay the Man the money" and get that subscription.
Click to expand...
Pretty much my thinking when subscription was first introduced. I didn't go into the annual cost of my hobby (too frightened, LOL), but for the price of the next lens (and there's always a "next lens"), let alone new camera, I could pay subscription fees for the next 10 years or so, which made the whole "should I subscribe or not" mental debate last about 10 seconds. Throw in Photoshop, and the whole cloud ecosystem, it was a no-brainer. But I generally have little problem with subscriptions, so I didn't have an antipathy towards that model to worry about.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
According to the CAA, the average total cost of car ownership in Canada is about $790 a month. I'm paying (with the exchange rate) less than 2% of that for the photography plan. If you can afford a car, the budgetary impact of paying rent for LR is within rounding error. And I've got to say that new Auto button is worth the price.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jim Wilde said:
Pretty much my thinking when subscription was first introduced. I didn't go into the annual cost of my hobby (too frightened, LOL), but for the price of the next lens (and there's always a "next lens"), let alone new camera, I could pay subscription fees for the next 10 years or so, which made the whole "should I subscribe or not" mental debate last about 10 seconds. Throw in Photoshop, and the whole cloud ecosystem, it was a no-brainer. But I generally have little problem with subscriptions, so I didn't have an antipathy towards that model to worry about.
Click to expand...

Hal P Anderson said:
According to the CAA, the average total cost of car ownership in Canada is about $790 a month. I'm paying (with the exchange rate) less than 2% of that for the photography plan. If you can afford a car, the budgetary impact of paying rent for LR is within rounding error. And I've got to say that new Auto button is worth the price.
Click to expand...

For many, like me. There are two separate issues:
1. Subscription costs. Yeah, am I paying more then I would if I had just bought Lr and upgraded? Yes. Do I get value from all the new "features", which I call crap, which have been added since I started. The answer is no. Not even close. I do not use mobile, I have no interest in any of the the Adobe cloud solutions (folio, behance, portfolio...), I do not use Photoshop and I highly doubt I ever will. I just do not see a value in the Photography plan, and it is a combination of laziness and inertia that have kept me on it. It is for this reason I am looking for alternatives; but the search is half hearted due to a lack of time. this lack of time, may keep me on the plan for a couple of years; but eventually the money will matter more than the time. So Adobe needs to step up the game before then....
2. As more companies switch a subscription/finance/rental model, where it is only five, ten or twenty a month and you can have XXXX. Each one by itself is small, and does not break the bank (currently). It is the combination of all of them; and has at least for me created an emotional resentment against the business model. As a result, I want and require more "value" for my cash. It is to the point, where I no longer chase the latest on many things, and drop the monthly costs. I do not rent the latest cell phone, I buy a middle tier phone every two years for $150 bucks retail and never pay a monthly fee for the phone. I dropped cable. I dropped my land line. I switched my accounting to an opensource solution....


Tim
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PhilBurton said:
Operating System:Windows 10
Exact Lightroom Version (Help menu > System Info): LR Classic 7.1

As many of you may know, I have not been happy with Adobe's move to a subscription pricing model only for Lightroom 7. Although I'm still not "happy" about the price, but I did the upgrade.

Here is why. My current equipment includes a Nikon D3, 24-70 f2.8 zoom, 80-200 f2.8 zoom, plus a bunch of other lenses purchased over the years. I recently bought a Benro carbon fiber tripod and Benro ball head and I make other photo hardware purchases. Right now I'm starting to think of a placement for my D3, because it is very bulky and heavy and because Nikon has improved a lot on parameters that matter to me: image quality, low ISO sensitivity and noise, buffer size, autofocus, card transfer rates, etc.

If I work out the "annual cost" of the D3, including resale, it is roughly $350 - 400 a year. Throw in a few hundred more for lenses and misc purchases. Let's makes that $600 a year, for discussion sake. That is five times the annual cost of the Lightroom subscription. Considering the key functions that Lightroom provides, it is worth it to me to "pay the Man the money" and get that subscription.

Phil Burton
Click to expand...

Hal P Anderson said:
According to the CAA, the average total cost of car ownership in Canada is about $790 a month. I'm paying (with the exchange rate) less than 2% of that for the photography plan. If you can afford a car, the budgetary impact of paying rent for LR is within rounding error. And I've got to say that new Auto button is worth the price.
Click to expand...

That is one way to "rationalize" the price....

Tim
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
tspear said:
For many, like me. There are two separate issues:
I want and require more "value" for my cash. It is to the point, where I no longer chase the latest on many things, and drop the monthly costs. I do not rent the latest cell phone, I buy a middle tier phone every two years for $150 bucks retail and never pay a monthly fee for the phone. I dropped cable. I dropped my land line. I switched my accounting to an opensource solution....
Click to expand...
I do get it. I was just the other day complaining about Focal, because I use it only when i buy a new lens or camera, and each time tend to need a new version (at least for cameras). Worth noting that it's a perpetual model, not subscription, doesn't really matter.

The problem with this in a technology sense is that, for good or ill, technology changes, and very few technology products operate in a vacuum. They are connected, they interact with each other. And whether you like it or not, it is very hard to freeze all these in one place.

I am in retirement central down here, and frequently run into friends or acquaintances who are photographers who just want to stop time, and use what they have. That's great. But the conversations usually go like this: "I had to buy a new Mac, and I reinstalled Lightroom and can't get the X to work". And it will be Lightroom 4 or some such, with a 1998 printer. Or how many places online do you see people saying "My new D850 won't work with my Lightroom" and you find out they are on version 4, and do not want to upgrade.

I am NOT saying people should not keep version 4 if it makes them happy. I am NOT saying people shouldn't buy a D850. And I am certainly not saying they should not ask for help.

But I am saying that "I do want my new X but I don't want to upgrade I just want it to work" is not a helpful attitude, and I hear that a lot. If you think you can freeze yourself in time, great. But when you start pulling the thread by buying new technology and connecting it, it unravels a lot of your frozen technological antiques.

You just can't have it both ways.

Did Adobe need to do subscription? Absolutely not. Did they need to cram it down our throats with no perpetual alternative? Absolutely not.

But does the subscription model actually fit technology better? Absolutely. Frequent, small, universally distributed updates allows software to stay current for security, for interoperability. Feature distribution is almost a separate question.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
$10 US a month for a hobby like photography does not seem like that much to me. We went out for lunch with friends last Friday = $50. Went to a movie a few days ago. Cheapy Tuesdays and after popcorn, etc it was about $25. I'm not thrilled about the subcritptfion method but I did have a choice. I paid for the whole year so I would not be reminded every month. Besides I had a Zenfolio account which was overkill for me. I was looking for a replacement but couldn't get motivated to rebuild. A nice surprise was I got Portfolio with the plan. That motivated me and the savings basically pays for the plan.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In all honesty and I hope I don't get anyone mad. I trialed a few of the big name contenders like C1 and DXO PhotoLab. Very good software but at the end LR always had the best fine detail after export. Currently I can't afford the big boy lenses so I'm at 400mm with TC thus I have to rely on cropping so that is the most important thing to me when I test a developer. If it does not pass that test I don't care what else may be better. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.I don't know what the PixelGenius group did but it is magic to me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I guess the "rental" route is fine for those that want the latest features, but I have a workflow that works for me and don't need every latest tweak. I still use Photoshop CS5 and have barely touched the surface of its features. So as long as Lightroom 6.14 perpetual stores and organizes my photos and allows me a very decent amount editing features I will continue to use it. Besides what's to stop Adobe a couple years down the road from rapidly raising the monthly fees. Lightroom (for me) is the ultimate tool for my needs plus the competitive products are currently weak in comparison. But let there be enough grumbling users out there and some smart entrepreneur will come up with an alternative. Its tough to stay at the top forever (hello dBase, Lotus 123, Wordperfect, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
If they rapidly raise the prices in a few years I'm 20 seconds from the cancel plan button.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ferguson said:
I do get it. I was just the other day complaining about Focal, because I use it only when i buy a new lens or camera, and each time tend to need a new version (at least for cameras). Worth noting that it's a perpetual model, not subscription, doesn't really matter.

The problem with this in a technology sense is that, for good or ill, technology changes, and very few technology products operate in a vacuum. They are connected, they interact with each other. And whether you like it or not, it is very hard to freeze all these in one place.

I am in retirement central down here, and frequently run into friends or acquaintances who are photographers who just want to stop time, and use what they have. That's great. But the conversations usually go like this: "I had to buy a new Mac, and I reinstalled Lightroom and can't get the X to work". And it will be Lightroom 4 or some such, with a 1998 printer. Or how many places online do you see people saying "My new D850 won't work with my Lightroom" and you find out they are on version 4, and do not want to upgrade.

I am NOT saying people should not keep version 4 if it makes them happy. I am NOT saying people shouldn't buy a D850. And I am certainly not saying they should not ask for help.

But I am saying that "I do want my new X but I don't want to upgrade I just want it to work" is not a helpful attitude, and I hear that a lot. If you think you can freeze yourself in time, great. But when you start pulling the thread by buying new technology and connecting it, it unravels a lot of your frozen technological antiques.

You just can't have it both ways.

Did Adobe need to do subscription? Absolutely not. Did they need to cram it down our throats with no perpetual alternative? Absolutely not.

But does the subscription model actually fit technology better? Absolutely. Frequent, small, universally distributed updates allows software to stay current for security, for interoperability. Feature distribution is almost a separate question.
Click to expand...

I am past the stage in life where I upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. Security might be one of the few arguments I could kinda buy. But not a lot. I do not need my photography tool to go online, it does not need to do anything but talk to my hard disk, my card reader and a printer. Not exactly a high threat environment.
But anyway, you are missing the point. Adobe has failed to deliver on a key concept called value.


Tim
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
tspear said:
I am past the stage in life where I upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. Security might be one of the few arguments I could kinda buy. But not a lot. I do not need my photography tool to go online, it does not need to do anything but talk to my hard disk, my card reader and a printer. Not exactly a high threat environment.
But anyway, you are missing the point. Adobe has failed to deliver on a key concept called value.
Click to expand...

So don't buy from Adobe. We each evaluate the offerings of vendors against our own needs. I like that Phil started this to say why it was worth it TO HIM.

I think the value aspect is what people should look at. And for many, they clearly get value from just sending the philosophical message "I won't buy subscriptions even if it costs me a LOT of angst".

Now (and literally true) I have gotten annoyed when I see someone drive up to a club meeting in a $70k car, show shots from their last three international trips in about as many months, taken with new-ish gear worth at least $10k, then during a session on photoshop whine that they are "living on a fixed income and can't afford a subscription". Then it's not about philosophy, it's a financial argument that doesn't pass the sniff test.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Haha wasn't me for sure. My little old Honda Jazz (Honda Fit I believe overseas) is now 12 years old and just passed the 133,000 mile mark. We both groan in unison now when I take it for a drive !
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't know about that. Value can mean something different to everyone. One person will say $10 a month is totally absurd while the one next to that person will say it does not bother them in the least bit and worth every penny. Then you have everything in the middle.

That is too subjective because it also includes personal feelings about or needs from a product. What may be critical to one may be nothing to another. I don't care that DXO has prime that may be better than LR's NR and is less expensive. I still don't like the final product and noise is one of my least concerns. On other forums people switched to DXO because of prime.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
tspear said:
That is one way to "rationalize" the price....

Tim
Click to expand...
Tim,

Almost all consumer purchase decisions are not entirely rational. if you aren't driving a Yugo or Brabant, you are spending more than you need to for a car. Why? All kinds of reasons, which are emotional in nature.

Businesses tend to make more rational decisions, based on increased earnings or decreased costs. But there is still the emotional element. "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM (or Microsoft or Salesforce or ...)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MrSteveVee said:
This is true when you cost the subscription into your business or personal budget plans, however the sad part is that at some point in the future retirement looms or circumstances change and the costs of subscription may not be affordable in the budget anymore. The subscription route then becomes a bit of a problem so how do you proceed? Leave them as is in stasis, export and start anew with other software? Hmm tricky question and one only each individual can answer. Now for me, it made more sense to stay with the perpetual licence rather than subscribe. Interesting how we all tackle these thinks differently
Click to expand...
Point well taken. The baseline assumption is that you can afford this sometimes expensive hobby.

Back in my film days, I would easily spend the equivalent of $120 or maybe even $240 a year just on Kodachrome film + processing. Easily. Back then did people rail against Kodak's pricing? Yes, I bulk-loaded all my B&W and processed it in my home darkroom. But mostly I shot color slides.

Phil
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sometimes expensive? :) I had one SLR and 2 lenses for 20 years. Since 2005 I have had 10 DSLR's and more lenses than I can remember. However when I did come home from a vacation I had to pay to have 12 rolls of film developed for 10 images I really liked.

I did dabble with B&W with both 35mm and 4 by 5. I read all of Ansel's books and built a field camera kit by Bender. Lenses, enlargers and all the rest it added up. I never got into developing color.

We went to see Ansel's show in Toronto several years ago. I walked up to a poster sized original of Moonrise over Hernandez and asked if they would take a cheque. The response was it was priceless. My wife and found that spot in January of 2015 when we were on a driving vacation. Sorry for going off topic.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PhilBurton said:
Tim,

Almost all consumer purchase decisions are not entirely rational. if you aren't driving a Yugo or Brabant, you are spending more than you need to for a car. Why? All kinds of reasons, which are emotional in nature.

Businesses tend to make more rational decisions, based on increased earnings or decreased costs. But there is still the emotional element. "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM (or Microsoft or Salesforce or ...)
Click to expand...

Absolutely, though that fits with value. That's why for most of us it's not a financial decision, really -- it's not whether buy paying subscription you will make $20 or more per month to cover it, it's about the value it brings. That value may be security, it may be "latest and greatest", it may be compatibility with other stuff, it may be new features. Or for not buying, it may be the "send them a message".

Personally I won't' shop at the very closeby Winn Dixie because they aren't nice. My wife agrees they aren't nice, but thinks its silly to drive an extra few miles to Publix. I get value from that drive by sending a message. It may be a message Winn Dixie is not actually hearing, but I still get value out of it.

So I do get it that some people just object on general terms to subscriptions, and won't do it, and it's not a financial decision.

I'd still argue it's rational though; feeling good about your decision is a very rational thing. :sneaky:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The point for me is not and never has been about the amount of money (at least, not while it is at the current levels). It is about budgets. I fund hobbies out of capital. If I have the money, fine, I'll buy whatever, if I don't I won't, this fits perpetual. If LR were for a business (of mine), I would fund out of the operational budget, which is the subscription model. I won't fund any pure hobby out of an operational budget.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
People object to the principle of subscription which is perfectly fine. Each to his/her own. If someone can't find $10 a month for what I would say is a high on the list hobby then something is not right. I say high on the list because if someone spends a lot of time of forums it is probably an important one. I don't know of many who test and scrutinize software to the molecular level that have inexpensive point and shoots or camera phones.

Business is a whole other issue but does include write offs as well. I had a registered photo business for about 5 years and there were quite a few.

Another point and I'm not saying it happens here. I think a lot of people got upset because they can't pirate anymore. I have heard people brag about it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
LRList001 said:
The point for me is not and never has been about the amount of money (at least, not while it is at the current levels). It is about budgets. I fund hobbies out of capital. If I have the money, fine, I'll buy whatever, if I don't I won't, this fits perpetual. If LR were for a business (of mine), I would fund out of the operational budget, which is the subscription model. I won't fund any pure hobby out of an operational budget.
Click to expand...
I'm impressed by anyone who can run their personal life with a budget at all much less separate capital and operational ones. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PhilBurton said:
Point well taken. The baseline assumption is that you can afford this sometimes expensive hobby.

Back in my film days, I would easily spend the equivalent of $120 or maybe even @240 a year just on Kodachrome film + processing. Easily. Back then did people rail against Kodak's pricing? Yes, I bulk-loaded all my B&W and processed it in my home darkroom. But mostly I shot color slides.

Phil
Click to expand...
Haha. we come from the same era Phil, that's exactly what I did. I used orwochrome, it was cheap enough that I could just about afford it, the grain was pretty poor but the colours were like the old Technicolor movies As time moved on I managed to squeeze out a little more from the budget and used Agfa as well. Special occasions warranted a big spend for some Fuji. Ahh good times :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah how is that done? I try but always fail. I'm saving every month for 7D3 if it ever comes out. If it came out next month I'd probably get it even if I did not have enough in the hobby account and I keep promising not to be a first adopter. Fun to get a new toy now and then.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
LRList001 said:
The point for me is not and never has been about the amount of money (at least, not while it is at the current levels). It is about budgets. I fund hobbies out of capital. If I have the money, fine, I'll buy whatever, if I don't I won't, this fits perpetual. If LR were for a business (of mine), I would fund out of the operational budget, which is the subscription model. I won't fund any pure hobby out of an operational budget.
Click to expand...

lol, as I sit here evaluating accounting software for a new company, this is kinda funny. Especially when I think applying to my rather lax home budget....

Tim
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top