short term lightroom?

[diver dave1 23]

 

I still use the non-subscription versions of Lightroom and Photoshop with images from my Nikon D7000.  I am considering moving to a newer camera and would like my software to be able to read the RAW images I would get.  I only need lightroom for my image work from time to time.  Is it possible to get it for a month then stop the subscription for a while then restart it and repeat that process as needed?

I know $10/month is not a lot but when COVID arrived, things changed, as you know.  I have yet to need either software for over 3 yrs now and will have limited dive trips per year.

I anticipate only needing to work on photos maybe 1-2 months per year.  It would be nice to pay $20/yr rather than $120.

 

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

You would need to read the fine print in the contracts.  An alternative might be to purchase affinity photo which is reasonably priced or to use the free Adobe DNG converter to convert all your images to DNG which your lightroom should be bale to process.

[hyp 115]

This is not an option as far as I know. DNG converter is the only solution.

[Davide DB 601]

Sorry but IMO in these cases, piracy is the only option (from someone who pay the bills with software).

Subscription model for 90% of commercial software is really a scam.

[davehicks 123]

Find a friend you can share a subscription with. Adobe allows two devices to be signed in and active at once. When you sign into a 3rd device it makes you remotely sign out of one of the others. This makes using Adobe at home and doing travel convenient.

If your friend is not using their subscription in two places for the time you need it, you could share their login.

You can always access and work with your photos with the Free Adobe Bridge app when you don't have subscription access. Be sure to turn on the XMP metadata file option in Lighroom to make this work properly.

Edited April 7 by davehicks

[sarthur1 7]

a short search in google (best free alternative to adobe lightroom 2023)

this is the first link, my guess is that all links will have the same list, maybe some softwares will have different ranks.

https://skylum.com/blog/guide-to-the-best-free-lightroom-alternatives

[makar0n 72]

Put that eye patch on and get yer parrot on yer arm, all while holding a bottle of grog.
Or use Darktable, free and open source.

Subscription model is nothing but a scam, outside of maybe tiny amount of valid use cases. And Adobe is not one of them. But that makes you pay 10x more than you would, because nobody normal would upgrade each year otherwise, and when you stop paying leaves you with the very exact nothing, you are only renting the software.  Killed 2nd hand market right there.

You will have nothing. You will own nothing.

Edited April 7 by makar0n

[makar0n 72]

2 hours ago, sarthur1 said:

a short search in google (best free alternative to adobe lightroom 2023)

this is the first link, my guess is that all links will have the same list, maybe some softwares will have different ranks.

https://skylum.com/blog/guide-to-the-best-free-lightroom-alternatives

Skylum makes Luminar , which in turn sits on no.1 on that list...I wonder why.
A lot of sites offering such "rankings" are nothing but paid advertises, if not direct devs. One has to look a bit more careful

Edited April 7 by makar0n

[roberto.formiga 16]

Adobe's subscription model forced me to abandon Lightroom and Photoshop completely. After testing a lot of options in the market I've moved to Capture One and never looked back. They (still) offer a perpetual license OR a subscription based model. I've bought a perpetual license in 2021 and I don't need to upgrade annually. I'll probably keep this same version for many years to come. And the final output that I'm able to achieve in my black and white photography is way better than Lightroom's. It's a great piece of software.

[davehicks 123]

I think I'm going to cancel all of my subscriptions in protest too!

Here's my list:

• Netflix
• HBO
• Audible
• Spotify
• Gym
• Garbage pickup
• Water
• Electricity
• Health care
• Life insurance

Yes, it's absurd but the fact is that if you don't like the service that Adobe is providing then don't use it. I'm not pointing fingers here, but I'm a bit tired of the self-righteousness constantly on display by people who reject subscription software. This occurs constantly on every tech related forum I browse.

Personally, I get great value from LRc/PS and $120 a year is a good price for my usage. The updates, improvements, and new features added in the last year alone would have prompted me to buy a new Full Fare version if that was still a thing. Remember when software like Photoshop and Microsoft Office cost like $500 in upfront payment and then yearly upgrade fees? I do, and I was a rabid pirate as a result. Subscriptions are a lot less work than piracy truth be told. Subscriptions killed of piracy in the music industry, so maybe they are on to something?

[Davide DB 601]

Your answer and the comparisons you make are so absurd that I don't even know where to begin to explain. 

Just three links

https://hbr.org/2022/10/3-reasons-subscription-services-fail

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3634591/the-problem-with-the-subscription-economy.html

More specific to Adobe:

https://andreabianco.eu/blog/2020/03/05/adobe-and-the-problem-with-their-subscription-model/

In the end: keep paying if it satisfies you.

[TimG 62]

You pays your money and you makes your choice.

Ive been using LR since 1.0 and probably paid for a version upgrade  every 2nd or 3rd iteration up until the introduction of the subscription model. I find the current version terrific and, although Photoshop is included in the package, I find I use it less and less. 

So for about £9 a month, just over £100 a year, I’ve got a package that has improved continually. Much though I don’t like the subscription model, I don’t feel cheated by Adobe. - actually maybe the opposite because of the continuous and regular improvements. 

Like I say, pay your money, one way another, and make your choice. It’d be very hard to argue that LR isn’t a good product. Whether it’s good value becomes a personal decision. 

[RVbldr 10]

This is where you have to see the value on the subscription. At this point, I'm getting my $9.99./mo value, and as someone mentioned, the larger updates every two years were fairly expensive, so if I'm getting regular updates and improvements along the way, that's a win. In this case, we're getting Photoshop and Lightroom, along with Bridge (if you use that), two very robust products for <$10/mo. But, the eye is in the beholder. 

[Architeuthis 184]

I use LR/PS and like it a lot, but I dislike the subscription. I am just too lazy and uninterested to learn how to work with a new software and therefore I do not intend to switch...

Here two links about Adobe LR alternatives, that are certainly worth to look at:

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0404869946/the-best-open-source-lightroom-alternatives

https://www.techradar.com/best/best-lightroom-alternatives

 

Wolfgang

Edited April 14 by Architeuthis

[roberto.formiga 16]

For years I used LR since the 1.0 version. It's a great software, nothing to say about it, it's just not for me. Not because of the software itself, but because of their business model. When the subscription was introduced I went for it and when the iPad version became available I subscribed to the 1TB cloud plan which I think it's an incredible tool, specially for full time photographers that needs mobility. What bothered me was that for years I paid "rent" to Adobe without using their software on a daily basis. Actually, specially during the pandemic, months went by without even launching the LR app. But besides that my main issue with this model it that I felt "enslaved" by Adobe. When I realized that all my work was sitting in their cloud, locked in their software and without payment years of work would become useless I took the hard decision to look for alternatives. I had to re-develop thousands of photographs along the way in the new software I'm using and managing a local backup, but I'm free again to upgrade software whenever I choose and I have immediate access to all my images locally (somehow I couldn't download some RAW files back from Adobe's cloud, I don't trust it 100%). So I bought a software and as long as I want I can keep using it just like in the old days. The plus which I was not expecting is that the image output quality is even better than LR for my kind of photography.

My previous DSLR camera lasted 10 years and I don't need always the latest and greatest software that is able to read RAW files of newer cameras that I don't own. The subscription model make us pay for upgrades we don't need most of the time. I still prefer the ownership model over the subscription model the whole industry (software and non) is moving to. In my opinion and for my usage €150/year for LR seems a good deal in the short term but the long term cost is high since there's no alternative other than keep paying forever. Consider that I paid €170 "una tantum" on a black Friday sales of Capture One.

Of course this is just my case and people have different needs and expectations. It's up to us to choose the best option. I'm probably just getting old... :-D

[Davide DB 601]

Guys I do not want to convince anyone, and I am convinced that you are happy with the product and the price.
But personally, mere economic covenience takes second place to the ethics of the companies involved. In short, for me there is more than just money.

It is no accident that any internet search for Adobe subscription model, controversy, predatory brings back thousands of negative comments. A unique case among large software companies. Not even Microsoft in the 1990s... All users gone crazy?

Monopoly is toxic for any business and I simply hate monopoly. 

Creative cloud is evil. Yesterday was Venezuela, tomorrow maybe Italy or your country.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/7/20904030/adobe-venezuela-photoshop-behance-us-sanctions

If you have spare time just read this article which summarize perfectly all questions raised by Adobe business model. It's simply not for me.

https://petapixel.com/2020/02/15/photographers-this-is-why-other-photographers-hate-adobe/

 

 

[davehicks 123]

20 hours ago, roberto.formiga said:

.

 

Is you didn't want to preach and convince anyone you would have ended your post after the first sentence. You clearly have a bone to pick and a crusade to fight.

Edited April 15 by davehicks

[Barmaglot 262]

8 hours ago, Davide DB said:

It is no accident that any internet search for Adobe subscription model, controversy, predatory brings back thousands of negative comments. A unique case among large software companies. Not even Microsoft in the 1990s... All users gone crazy?

Pffffft, you want to talk predatory pricing, look at Oracle. They demand you license every single node in your cluster that their software can possibly run on. Not actively runs on, not designated as a failover target, but potentially available.

[Davide DB 601]

20 minutes ago, Barmaglot said:

 

Hahahaha.

Another monopoly.

[davehicks 123]

8 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Hahahaha.

Another monopoly.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means

[fruehaufsteher2 23]

If you have an iPad Pro you could switch to LR mobile. It is 22€/year in D and the functionality is high.

[MTH 5]

I've just upgraded to a D500 - get me, keeping up with the 2010's. It isn't supported by my owned version of Lightroom. Lightroom cost me about £100 back in the day - today if I want to rent it - it is ~£100 a year. That seems madness to me? Clearly I don't need all the new bells and whistles and I've found that DNG works fine for what I want to do.

We all work on different budgets. I don't have all the other monthly costs either ie Netflix, Spotify etc. Clearly I pay my taxes, which in the UK cover many of davehicks other spends. I buy my cars rather than rent them, I buy my dive equipment rather than rent it. It means I control my spend and I buy "features" when I want them.

In my opinion Adobe and many others (Microsoft) have moved to the rental model because the new features just wouldn't have interested enough people into buying their product again. AI certainly doesn't interest me. It doesn't really scare me either. I look to produce the best pictures I can, if AI could remove all the backscatter in a picture then it may be useful, I'm not interested in it "repairing" a bad picture though. I'm not making money out of my pictures (they aren't good enough for that ) so a bad picture is just a chance to take it again with better technique.

I have to admit to being interested in Topaz de noise and sharpen but at the moment not enough to buy their product. If they did trial software I'd be happy - I don't like the buy and we will refund model either.

[davehicks 123]

1 hour ago, MTH said:

I've just upgraded to a D500 - get me, keeping up with the 2010's. It isn't supported by my owned version of Lightroom. Lightroom cost me about £100 back in the day - today if I want to rent it - it is ~£100 a year. That seems madness to me? Clearly I don't need all the new bells and whistles and I've found that DNG works fine for what I want to do.

We all work on different budgets. I don't have all the other monthly costs either ie Netflix, Spotify etc. Clearly I pay my taxes, which in the UK cover many of davehicks other spends. I buy my cars rather than rent them, I buy my dive equipment rather than rent it. It means I control my spend and I buy "features" when I want them.

In my opinion Adobe and many others (Microsoft) have moved to the rental model because the new features just wouldn't have interested enough people into buying their product again. AI certainly doesn't interest me. It doesn't really scare me either. I look to produce the best pictures I can, if AI could remove all the backscatter in a picture then it may be useful, I'm not interested in it "repairing" a bad picture though. I'm not making money out of my pictures (they aren't good enough for that ) so a bad picture is just a chance to take it again with better technique.

I have to admit to being interested in Topaz de noise and sharpen but at the moment not enough to buy their product. If they did trial software I'd be happy - I don't like the buy and we will refund model either.

Lightroom just added AI de-noise in the latest update. It's at least as good functionally as what Topaz offers in this initial debut, and likely to get better and add options in the future. The AI features in Lightroom to date have been about making your existing editing flow easier and faster, not about auto-magically fixing your images.

If you don't want to pay for Lightroom/PS then just use Bridge and a free-ware RAW editor. It will still work with your legacy lightroom catalogs.

[MTH 5]

On 6/7/2023 at 6:16 PM, davehicks said:

Lightroom just added AI de-noise in the latest update. It's at least as good functionally as what Topaz offers in this initial debut, and likely to get better and add options in the future. The AI features in Lightroom to date have been about making your existing editing flow easier and faster, not about auto-magically fixing your images.

If you don't want to pay for Lightroom/PS then just use Bridge and a free-ware RAW editor. It will still work with your legacy lightroom catalogs.

That's interesting @davehicks. Still as I said I'm not interested in renting software, so Adobe are sadly not a future option. The Topaz option to buy and mix with my current workflow would work, and when I get a chance to spend more time looking at things I'll probably give it a go.

I know many on here are Adobe fans but I'm never renting software if I can avoid it, it just isn't a model that works for me personally. For the Pros that always upgraded PS etc, I'm sure it makes sense. I'm still making do, quite happily, with my PS CS6 from 10 years ago and Lightroom 6 from about 6 or 7 years ago. At £120 a year I'm sure that is affordable to many, but I'd prefer not to have paid £1200 over the last 10 years that I've happily used CS6 (that I only paid ~£500 for). Yes there has been inflation etc. However, I'm still using it, and to be honest I'm still very happy with what it does. I try and not mess around too much with my photos above and below water. Cropping, playing with white balance, sharpening, playing with the light to enhance and removing the odd element that I'd not noticed at the frame edge etc. 

As I said earlier, I'm just doing it for fun :-).