Adobe Lightroom version CC 2015.4 / 6.4 released

Adobe-Photoshop-Lightroom-CC
Adobe released Lightroom version CC 2015.4 / 6.4. Here are the Nikon related changes:

New lens profile support in Lightroom CC 2015.4 / 6.4:

Mount
Nikon F Bower 14mm f/2.8 ED AS IF UMC
Nikon F Bower 16mm f/2 ED AS UMC CS
Nikon F Bower 24mm f/1.4 ED AS IF UMC
Nikon F Bower 35mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC
Nikon F Bower 85mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC
Nikon F Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2G ED VR II
Nikon F Rokinon 10mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS CS
Nikon F Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 ED AS IF UMC
Nikon F Rokinon 16mm f/2 ED AS UMC CS
Nikon F Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 ED AS IF UMC
Nikon F Rokinon 35mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC
Nikon F Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC
Nikon F Samyang 10mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS CS
Nikon F Samyang 14mm f/2.8 ED AS IF UMC
Nikon F Samyang 16mm f/2 ED AS UMC CS
Nikon F Samyang 24mm f/1.4 ED AS IF UMC
Nikon F Samyang 35mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC
Nikon F Samyang 85mm f/1.4 AS IF UMC

Additional information available on Adobe's Blog.

This entry was posted in Nikon Software and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • PhilK

    I wonder how many people would actually keep updating the non-CC versions of Lightroom if it weren’t for being held hostage by requiring the whole app to be updated just to use one of the newer lens profiles.

    • fanboy fagz

      no way id update. atm I have what I need. not giving adobe a cent.

      • PhilK

        I actually never bought LR but am probably going to do so in the near future. But I want to try to find an old “shrinkwrapped” version instead of the cloud version. I really despise this trend.

        A year or two after Adobe shifted to that business model, they reported record profits. Duh. Thanks for nothing.

        It’s bad enough that software licenses have rarely given customers much of a right to anything, now if your internet connection goes down or they just decide they are tired of supporting something, they just flip a switch at the data center and that software you “bought” instantly becomes 100% useless. Ugh.

        • Eric Calabros

          Well you no longer buy software, you buy the service that software provides. and any service has and end date. We repeat this discussions here and in other places on the web again and again, while people keep buying these services, because its cheap, at least for now.

          • neonspark

            Excuse me but you never bought the software. You bought a license to it. You were never an “owner”. You buy a car. You can resell a car. You could never resell software because all you did was buy a license. The problem is that people never read what they agree to, so when you agreed to pay for “owning” photoshop you were in fact paying to lease it. Off course old software you have a perpetual license/lease goes out of date, and part of your license/lease wasn’t infinitive updates for the price you paid for didn’t factor that in (and you can’t afford it if it did, if you’re crying about a bit of money now).
            So yes, you no longer buy software. Not because of creative cloud, but because you can no longer buy the rights to owning and reselling the software adobe created…unless you can buy off all the shares of the company, which you can…but that will probably be more challenging if you can’t pay for LR today. Just saying.

            • PhilK

              In regards to never “owning” anything, that depends on the software vendor.

              In reality, even the largest software vendors, before this cloud ripoff trend, would give you a PERPETUAL license to keep using the software as long as you wanted. That didn’t necessarily mean they would keep officially supporting it, and that didn’t necessarily mean it would work with Windows 3000, but if it worked for you with the equipment you were using and you wanted to continue using it – no problem at all.

              That’s all gone now with “cloud licenses”. Now you’re just a renter, who can be kicked off the property whenever the landlord feels like it.

            • right right, except if you review the user agreements to software product that you have “purchased”, you will find that they reserve the right to revoke your license at any time.

            • PhilK

              In practice, that almost *never* happens, unless you do something stupid like try to start making a business out of selling unauthorized copies of software. And even if it *did* happen, the technical nature of “shrinkwrap” software typically means that you could continue using it as long as you wanted anyway, because they can’t “flip the off switch” on your license the way they can on a cloud rental.

              There is unquestionably a stark difference in what a customer gets for their money when they are buying cloud subscription versus a traditional “shrinkwrap” software. And that is precisely why the software industry is pushing it: they make lots more money with the cloud subscription, and they have lots more control over how people use their software.

              Whereas the benefits are minimal, in most cases. This is not the 1980s or 1990s when to update your version of an application you had to have the vendor ship you a package of 25 floppy disks and a thick manual.

            • The entire notion that the BIG EVIL corporation is going to SHUTOFF your software, or FLIP THE SWITCH without good reason, or legal right, is ridiculous. There are huge benefits to the distribution of software through application services such as cloud computing, but that is really isnt the issue with the people that complaining about the Adobe’s CC, the real issue with them is more of a KING BABY attitude, have it be the young photographer that complains about every line item, not understanding COB expenses, or the old person unwilling to adapt t technology. I would like to know how it interferes with their ability to do their job, and make money, …. why are they complaining, … let’s see, the product is much less expensive than it once was (the price has dropped heavily in the cloud model, not too mention that inflation has increased greatly), more readily available, overwhelmingly rich in feature set, incredibly convenient (installation, maintaining current up to date state). These are professional tools that help us to streamline our process, make us more efficient, and in turn increase our profit margins.

            • PhilK

              I’ve been working in the I.T. field for decades, I deal with “big evil software vendors” on a daily basis. And I don’t think one has to worry that I am resistant to technology. 😉

              There is nothing inherent in the cloud licensing model that provides better functionality to customers – it is entirely up to each company what sort of features they choose to provide and support. In reality, the primary reason that software vendors have moved to that model nowadays is A) it was not feasible in the days before widespread broadband access, and B) it makes them more profit and gives them more control over their product’s usage.

              And it is precisely that control – the ability to “flip the switch” – that is attractive when it comes to cutting down on software piracy, another key benefit of cloud S/W licensing. Whether or not you think that “switch” exists or not – let me assure you, it most definitely does.

              As a person who does not pirate software or any other copyrighted work, I don’t have to worry about the “big switch” being used against me for that reason. I simply don’t like the concept where a software investment is simply an annual rental with an indeterminate “expiration date”, as stated previously.

              It’s OK, we can agree to disagree. Neither of us is likely to be persuaded by the other to change our stance on it, clearly. 🙂

        • neonspark

          so companies that make money offend you. do you own an apple product?

          • fanboy fagz

            whats with you and apple? people choose products they want to invest in. if you dont like that someone thinks $10 is a ripoff because the trapping system then piss off.

            • neonspark

              OTOH if you can’t afford 10 bucks, well, piss off 😉

            • fanboy fagz

              Im not giving adobe a cent. not a peso. adobe is a garbage company. I dont even use LR for my mass wedding editing anyway. been using others anyway. never was a LR fan. slow as shet buggy heavy and just bad UI. PS I use for specific work I need for specific wedding pics like bride face cleaning. but I dont use PS, I use plugins from other companies. other than that I use acdsee pro 7. lightning quick. does more than what I need. I dont need much editing anyway. my mindset is to get it right in camera as much as I can. manual WB always. I use presets and a touch here and there of minor editing. LR takes forever. I have 5.4 on my PC but dont use it often. the UI is crap. even the slider bars havent been fixed. with acdsee pro there are large wide slider bars that I simply hover my mouse over it and use the scroll wheel to make lightning fast adjustments. try making minute adjustments in LR. that small ass bar and you cant be precise. your fingers cramp squeezing the mouse so hard to be precise. try editing 2000 pics and see if your fingers have any feeling in them after it.

            • neonspark

              Ok bro. Make more money so you can afford LR and pay somebody to use it for you 😉

            • fanboy fagz

              your comments are from a mentally retarded person. I wont give anyone to edit my pics. just like I wont let anyone photograph for me. LR sucks. its gotten heavy bloated and slow.

            • Aldo

              I built my own computer… (not that expensive now days)… The new generation of intel just came out.. so you can get a bargain on the ddr3 haswell stuff. I can tell you LR is fast… very fast in my rig. I make a recipe for a particular shooting session say.. out door park session… then just paste that to all the pictures I shot… very minor tweaking after that. It takes me about 40 mins to an hour to edit 1000 pix.

              I was a fan of not editing much before… I even shot jpegs… but I discover different people called for different tweaking. eg some people look with a little more contrast.. others don’t etc.

            • fanboy fagz

              if you never used acdsee pro then I assure you, LR is SLOW. thumbnail previews is instant. no waiting. even export is lightning fast. I personally dont do the nondestructive editing. I edit and it saves as I go. like PS. once I edit there is no need to go back. erasing is simply pressing delete. it goes to the recycle big but I dont have excess pressing and “OK’ing” like in LR. I use both. hardly LR now. but I always save edited pics in one hdd and 2 copies of all the pics unedited on 2 others. but I dont do export. just a waste of time of at least 2 hours. it takes me about 3 hours to go through 4000 pics and edit 2000 (weddings here are of 400+ guests and at least 12 hours on our feet so we photograph a lot) but till you havent tried acdsee pro, LR will SEEM fast. usually exposure is fine, but in that pic the highlights might need a tad lowering and the midtones needs just a bit bumping. or a little dodge and burn in specific spots. the software isnt without flaws but compared to LR its tops. LR has way more tools than the vast majority needs. just like PS. how many use even 50% ?

            • fanboy fagz

              if you never used acdsee pro then I assure you, LR is SLOW. thumbnail previews is instant. no waiting. even export is lightning fast. I personally dont do the nondestructive editing. I edit and it saves as I go. like PS. once I edit there is no need to go back. erasing is simply pressing delete. it goes to the recycle big but I dont have excess pressing and “OK’ing” like in LR. I use both. hardly LR now. but I always save edited pics in one hdd and 2 copies of all the pics unedited on 2 others. but I dont do export. just a waste of time of at least 2 hours. it takes me about 3 hours to go through 4000 pics and edit 2000 (weddings here are of 400+ guests and at least 12 hours on our feet so we photograph a lot) but till you havent tried acdsee pro, LR will SEEM fast. usually exposure is fine, but in that pic the highlights might need a tad lowering and the midtones needs just a bit bumping. or a little dodge and burn in specific spots. the software isnt without flaws but compared to LR its tops. LR has way more tools than the vast majority needs. just like PS. how many use even 50% ?

            • Aldo

              I would have to look into your software… but atm I’m in a ‘if aint broke don’t fix it’ kind of situation with LR. It does what I need at the speed that I want. I can tell you no exposure is perfect… no matter how good you are… much the same with highlights, shadows along with the WB… which are more complex to set in camera on the go. Also.. the lab I work with only accepts jpegs… so if I don’t ‘deconstruct’ the picture myself guess who will? Oh and they’ll do it to a jpeg.. not to a raw file like I can. As a professional (and since I’m getting paid good money) I think it is my duty to turn in the picture I envisioned at the time I shot it… if not… I don’t think I’m meeting my own standard.

            • fanboy fagz

              Im with you. it takes me a lot of grief to move from a software im using. I wouldnt move now to a new software. its down town. learning curve, frustration.

              and ur 100% correct, no exposure is perfect. especially when its in a fast paced environment. I try to overexpose about 1/3-1/2 over. shadows dont look grainy and overexposing a bit is good for the females. cleans up shadows and wrinkles.

              and I agree with you, its not the clients who should be happiest with the pics the most, its the photographer. when you give the pictures ready and happy knowing the job came out fantastic

            • TheMeckMan

              Wow the more I read your replies and witness your horrible English skills first hand the more I realize your biggest problem isn’t what photo editing software you might be using. Try proofreading your posts and work on writing complete and coherent sentences.

            • fanboy fagz

              goes to show your intelligence level. you do realize internet is international? my mother tongue is not english. people from around the world come reply here. did you discover the net yesterday? or are you in your owen bubble thinking only “mericans” post?

            • Aldo

              LR works well for me… although I wished the colors and image oven looked more like the nikon software.

            • Spy Black

              You should download a 30 day trial of Capture One and see if it renders your particular work better. I jump back and forth between them and occasionally DxO. Sometimes something looks better in LR, other times it’s better in Capture One.

            • Aldo

              Looks good… I may give it a shot… do you know if you can copy past recipes to multiple images?

            • Spy Black

              I’m not sure, but with the free trial you can just give it a go.

            • Marsmobil

              Copy/paste works fine with 1 image or if you chose multiple images in Capture One. For me it’s the most powerful raw software out there

            • Eric Calabros

              All these impossible-to-disable curves raw developers apply to our images has made a situation I call Render Chaos 🙂

            • Spy Black

              Well, it’s kinda throwing the dice I suppose. The idea is to stay open and have options.

            • Rudi

              If only Capture One had a better library module and smoother workflow! For me workflow is more fluently in LR. Image quality is most of the times way better in Capture One. And yes, I own both.

            • fanboy fagz

              yes I read many people who enjoy working with capture one.

            • chkchkboom

              Have you tried the camera profiles under develop>camera calibration?

            • Do you use camera profile instead of adobe profile ? It gives fairly matching results for most lighting situations compared to capture nx2.

            • Aldo

              Oh yeah… The adobe profile has a red tint… but then the nikon profiles aren’t as good as with nx2… but they are the ones I use anyway. Like a lot of people here… I just wished nikon would sell or share their engine with other companies.

            • fanboy fagz

              I tell you the truth, when I shoot raw, I use capture nx2 and nxd. very slow and clunky workflow, but I love the colors it brings me,

            • Andy Aungthwin

              You know that if you don’t renew your house/car/health insurance every year you could end up in trouble? And for ALL the money that you spend on insurance you get nothing back, generally speaking.

              For $10 a month I use LR almost every day. I have an old Mac mini and the new but so powerful Macbook 12 and both LR and Photoshop CC run fine.

              Don’t know what Adobe did for you to be so bitter towards them but maybe you should just chill. You are going to give yourself a heart attack.

            • fanboy fagz

              I like PP, been using it since version 4. been buying them since. but LR ahs gotten worse over the versions. I guess youre not with the times but read on the net and a lot of people dont like adobe as a company. flash is a crime against humanity. if you want to use LR, use it. I have no need to upgrade. and thank you mommy for reminding me regarding insurance. but adobe wont get a single cent from me.

            • Andy Aungthwin

              I don’t particularly like McDonald’s as an organization. But the kids like to eat there. So I hand my money over because that’s what’s needed to have peace.

              Similarly, LR gets the job done for me. Adobe is no more or less evil than Apple, Microsoft or Coca Cola.

              Your problem is that you go on about not using LR and yet you want to comment about it.

              Why not just stay out of these threads? If you don’t like Adobe then don’t buy shares in Adobe – end of story.

              You are not going to convince me or anyone else about the pitfalls of LR and Adobe, just as no one is going to be able to talk my kids out of wanting to eat at McDonald’s, right?

            • fanboy fagz

              I have LR and have used it- for many years. I think over time its gotten shitty. heavy and clunky.

              dont speak for the voices of others. you are just you. you are not the spokesperson for the world. poll people and youll soon realize how much peple hate adobe. they just their products because tey grown used to it, invested money in it and are somehow uncertain to move to new software.

              I dont take my kids to fast food places. I make them hamburgers and fries at home. fresh. we do it together. they dont eat cereal for breakfast either. I make them sausage and eggs. after years of making burgers at home they dont care to eat mcd. we make kick ass burgers and fries at home. I worked as a chef for restaurants when I lived in the US. theres no one to blame but you for letting your kids eat mcdonalds and coke. its not a standard that everyone has to eat that garbage. I love my kids too much to buy them that crap. I dont drink coke. I only drink water.

              there are many crappy companies. adobe is one of the best of them.

              you have the right to buy and use what u want. I was a loyal adobe fan for many years. before you im certain. I think ms make decent products and I admire bill gates for his donating a lot of his money for human aid. specifically toilets in 3rd world countries.

              im sure you never visited his site gatesnotes.com ? take a look it may change your perspectives of him.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              You feed your kids sausage?? OMG! 😉

            • PhilK

              Concern trolling detected.

              Re: insurance: anyone with a few brain cells to rub together understands what they are paying for with insurance: they aren’t buying some savings bond, they are paying for access to a pool of funds larger than what they personally have, in the event that they incur a medical bill that cannot be predicted in advance.

              Anyone who thinks that the insurance company is supposed to be banking their insurance premium money to hand back to them is more than a little unclear on the concept.

              Whereas there is nothing that compels a software vendor to rent access to their product, they can put it in each customer’s hands the way that was always done before. But they are eager to do away with all of that and make their customers just poor sharecroppers instead, because it makes them a lot more profit for the same labor expended and service provided. In fact, the fact that they don’t have to produce a box with a disk and paperwork inside actually dramatically lowers their cost of doing business. PROFIT!

            • Andy Aungthwin

              I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Apparently he thinks nobody should make a profit!? I’m sure he works for minimum wage.

            • Andy Aungthwin

              Thanks Patrick. I just didn’t want to get into an argument with some guy on the internet about (a fairly decent) software that everyone has the option to use or not use.

              I mean, if you want to use, you pay. You don’t want to pay, don’t use.

              Does it get much simpler than that?

            • PhilK

              You’re not winning. 😛

              It’s always entertaining to see people on the defensive about some product or company, where when they read any sort of criticism of said company or product or price of same, they immediately paint them with the “must hate capitalism” brush.

              I mean, it’s quite bizarre to me, really. Maybe they shouldn’t be posting on the internet where – egads – sometimes people have differing opinions. 😀

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Actually, as I wrote before but perhaps you were thinking about your response rather than my words, I’m not defending Adobe. And, as I wrote before in another comment, I don’t like the subscription model either. It’s how you have to pay for a product I need. Pretty simple. In fact, I have the entire suite and would even if it didn’t include LR.
              And, finally, as I wrote somewhere else (do you read ANYTHING I write? ;-)), I enjoy debating people with differing opinions. My only requirement being they have a sensible reason for that opinion. I don’t have to agree with their reasoning but it must make sense.
              And with that, I’m pretty sure I won! 😉

            • Ken Elliott

              I use LR and have no problem editing 2000 pics. I hated it at first, until I used the Luminous Landscape videos. Once I understood how it was intended to be used, its been great. But I am against renting software, and have been considering what I’ll switch to when Adobe forces LR rental. Thanks for pointing me to Acdsee.

            • fanboy fagz

              WOW, luminous landscape! havent heard that website for the longest time. do you remember grumpy the railroad photographer? also entertaining to read. in the film days we looked all over for gear reviews. bjorn was one of them.

              LR is great. but for me it causes a lot of cramping. the sliders are small and its hard to make minute adjustment. great mouse/pad or not.

              yes im against renting as well. I prefer buying a copy and not have my cc be tied to adobe when I want to use it

            • PhilK

              Did Bjorn Rorslett (sp?) work for Luminous Landscape? He has his own (now pretty much static) site. Maybe a different Bjorn?

              The last article I read on LL was by the founder and included a half dozen extremely mediocre photos as illustrations. I was very unimpressed.

            • fanboy fagz

              yep Rorslett. loved looking to him for gear info. really unique images of macro. using gear I never heard of.

              LL was a strong canon user, no? he also showed comparison of the 5d mk1 compared to film and it was hard for me to believe that it had more detail. then I saw an article in the popphoto mag. they showed a closeup of writing on a sign and showed what film and the 5d can do. the 5d looked much better. were are we today. shooting clean images at 6400. good times.

            • PhilK

              Def agree with you about Flash.

              My main beef with Adobe is that they have become A) the new King of Bloatware, and B) the whole cloud thing where you are basically a rental slave with nothing tangible to show for your investment whenever they decide to pull the switch, among other things.

              Not that they are unique in that, it’s the new fattened-profit-model for a lot of the large software companies these days.

              (I haven’t investigated their privacy policies/practices, the other thing a lot of the big software companies are doing now is exploiting all your personal information and selling it to the highest bidder as another way to make money.)

            • fanboy fagz

              thats it exactly. they software has gotten too big and its just too slow.

              I couldnt agree more on selling personal info. even my post office sells my personal info. I have 1 phone/number that I keep specifically for deliveries from ebay or dx.com alieexpress and that number shows up in the ship to deliveries to my home. instead of writing me a slip to pickup my package we get texts. now this was ONLY for this and I dont use it for calls or contactw ith anyone. I now get ads and spam regularly. real estate, restaurant discounts..

              theres an anti-spam/ad law here for sms. 250 buck reimbursement in court, no questions asked. I should start capitalizing

            • PhilK

              Well some of it could be intentional, but it also can just be incompetence: poor security of user data. Happens a lot. Personally I think there should be criminal penalties – even jailtime – for businesses or individual business principals who do not securely steward customer data these days. It’s rampant.

            • fanboy fagz

              didnt they have security breech recently? ebay also and others as well

            • PhilK

              Tbh, security breeches have become so widespread that it’s almost getting to where it’s hard to keep track of who has NOT had one. But I don’t think I can remember anything recent with Adobe as the target. And since California has a strict disclosure law pertaining to breeches that affect customer data, if they did we likely would have heard about it.

          • PhilK

            I have no worldly idea how you came to that conclusion.

        • For $9.99/month i get LR and PS, . . . that is less than $120/yr, . . . . before they shifted to the cloud version of their products you would pay $199.99 for LR, ($99.00 for an upgrade), and PS would run you at least $299.99 (an upgrade price), .. heck, i remember when PS was $999.99. So, lets see, for $120.00, I get $400.00 worth of software, but lets say in the old day they didn’t release new version every 9-12 months, they did every other year, that is still $200.00/yr, which is less than the $120.00/yr I pay now. The reason why they had record profits is because the software became more economical for people that did not have the credit, or money to purchase PS before (having to pay the full price in the past), so their customers increased. Plain and simple, PS/LR are tools I need to get my job done, to be more efficient, and they are tools that enable me to make more money. Since the inception of Cloud based products, my profit margins have increased also, . . . greatly!

          • PhilK

            While you’re entitled to your opinion about why they are making bundles of money these days, I doubt you have any actual facts to back up your opinion that it’s all because they are helping-out the poor little people who could never afford their products before.

            Truth to tell, my personal issue with the cloud software model (with Adobe or anyone else) is less a matter of dollars outlay per year, and more a philosophical issue of control over what you get for your expenditure.

            Also: correlation is not automatically causation. Yay you’re making more money, I sincerely doubt it’s because Adobe switched their software to the sharecropper model.

            • LOL – Adobe, a public company, discloses a ton of information detailing how and where the profits are made, but not only that, Adobe customer base has increased greatly, you just need to do some searching on the InterTubes. Are they providing application services through Cloud computing as a way to help out the little poor people you talk about, or to increase their profits margins? LOL, come on man, expanding their user base increase their profits, thats what companies do, so not only do they MAKE more money, but we pay way less for it, and receive much more service in return, and that is a win for everyone.
              I would like to know how it interferes with your ability to do your job, and make money, how is it limiting that for you, … let’s see, the product is much less expensive than it once was (the price has dropped heavily in the cloud model, not too mention that inflation has increased greatly), more readily available, overwhelmingly rich in feature set, incredibly convenient (installation, maintaining current up to date state). These are professional tools that help us to streamline our process, make us more efficient, and in turn increase our profit margins.
              The increase in the quality of their products do help me to widen my profit margins, so yes, their is a correlation, although it might not be a solid 1, it is definitely above ZERO.

            • PhilK

              In regards to functionality, as others here have pointed-out, the capabilities of LR are apparently almost identical whether using the cloud or standalone product, at the moment. So much for all those cloud functionality advantages you claim. 😉

              There are some software companies that I respect and gladly use their products, there are others I do not respect and refuse to use their products for a variety of possible reasons, the licensing model is only one of them.

              I think Adobe makes some decent products overall, albeit these days rather bloated and inefficient, and I’m not a fan of the cloud licensing. That’s actually not too bad, considering some of their competitors. So while I’m not inclined to refuse to use their products (I already have some of them), that doesn’t mean I like everything they are doing. Life is complicated like that sometimes.

            • Patrick O’Connor

              I don’t like the cloud model any more than you. I just dislike whiners more (says the guy whining about whiners) 😉

            • PhilK

              Whining about Whining is not Winning. 😛

            • Patrick O’Connor

              As edited with my CC subscription. 😉

            • PhilK

              I feel ur pain, bro. 😀

          • Gael C.

            In europe, the photographers plan is 11.99€ – this is 20% (give or take) more expensive than 9.99, with no reason.
            I have been using LR on a regular basis since version 3, if I remember correctly and I bought it.
            I do not like the idea to be *forced* to use a cloud version, it makes me feel bad, and the fact that I have to pay 20% more than others, just because I’m in europe reenforces that feeling.
            Additionally, this entry price was introduced *only* because Adobe could not convince enough people to subscribe to its former model.
            Now, subscribing is helping them going this path, and I’m not into it.
            I’d rather switch to capture one – even though it will most certainly be painful at first, I put my money where I feel I am more valued as a user.

      • Eric Calabros

        The problem I have with LR is that’s its too much of things I don’t want. I just need a simple platform to run several plugins optimized for specific tasks, one for noise, one for HDR, one for sharpening, etc. Adobe is selling features overlapping with my plugins and not efficient and well performer as they are. so I have to pay for things I don’t use.

        • neonspark

          Please help me understand, you’re saying you don’t need LR because you spend all this money on plugins hoping they would give you an edge.Then LR offered similar features making your investment a bit redundant. So you’re hoping adobe will make a crippled LR version for cheaper so you can justify your expense on other software you decided to buy.
          How about instead of spending money on plugins you make more money with your craft so that the cost of LR will be trivial.

          • fanboy fagz

            how about you keep your personal comments to yourself.

            • neonspark

              every comment here is a personal comment you silly. Including yours lol.

            • fanboy fagz

              look how your protecting adobe. the vast majority dont think highly of that company but use their software because lack of options.

          • Eric Calabros

            I guess my help will be ineffective, you just can’t understand 🙂

        • Patrick O’Connor

          Years ago, I used plugins a lot. Now, only a couple and VERY sparingly.
          I used to use Photomatix, for HDR, but only to merge my exposures. I never liked the results using it for toning. Even just merging left me with images difficult to make realistic looking. Now, I only use luminosity masks to merge them. The results are MUCH better and I’m happier than a pig in shit. Before, I was only AS happy as a pig in shit. Much better now!

          • Eric Calabros

            So Photoshop works as a plugin for your LR 😉

            • Patrick O’Connor

              More like LR works as a front-end plugin for Photoshop. 🙂

      • neonspark

        another apple aperture user that still clinging to some ideal

        • fanboy fagz

          HELL NO! fuck apple products. dont assume anything dumb ass

          • …time to switch to decaf?

            • Aldo

              I need to switch to decaf

            • fanboy fagz

              need more red panda meat to calm my soul

            • Aldo

              I need all you can eat Korean BBQ

            • fanboy fagz

              yea thats the good shit. there used to be a lot of Mongolian meat restaurants..those still around?

            • Aldo

              Well the only Mongolian I frequent is the one at the mall… the one you pile all your meats and veggies then they’ll cook it for you… good stuff.

    • neonspark

      “being held hostage”
      oh bro tell me how much it burns lol.

    • nwcs

      Well I recently converted back to the perpetual Lightroom license from CC subscription. I don’t mind updating the whole app. It’s a bit silly that they don’t have a better update process but I’m not going to let that interfere. For now I’m happy with Lightroom 6.x and Photoshop CS6 and I’m off the bandwagon. If Adobe doesn’t make a Lightroom 7 and only makes it CC then I’ll keep using 6 until I can’t and then use some other converter.

      I sometimes use NX-D and that’s a good alternative.

      • Roberto Solari

        Just try C1Pro 9.. Its really good and no clouds… just buy it and its yours!!

        • nwcs

          I looked at it but I didn’t like their one color scheme for all and having to develop a repository of processing styles. It would be starting from ground zero. It had some elements I did like, though.

      • PhilK

        Good to know, didn’t know you could convert back from CC to standalone – interesting.. I’m going to try to find a copy of LR 6 standalone. Seems like there are still a few out there.

        • nwcs

          You can still buy LR6 directly from Adobe. They just make it hard to get to the link. I think B&H still has a DVD copy for sale.

    • Aldo

      I bought a d5500 and sold it just because I didn’t wanna wait/update LR

    • Aldo

      I bought a d5500 and sold it just because I didn’t wanna wait/update LR

    • zorwick

      I do

    • El Aura

      Before the whole CC stuff started, .x updates to LR were largely only new camera support with a few minor bug fixes thrown in now and then.

      Now, Adobe has boxed themselves into a corner by offering Lightroom both as CC and as standalone. It either keeps two parallel, ‘current’ versions (the standalone with only camera support and minor bug fixes and CC with continuous ‘feature’ updates) which also infuriates the standalone users by ‘withholding’ new features. Or it keeps adding the continuous feature updates to the standalone version as well and puts the whole CC idea to rest by giving standalone users the same feature updates and in the end having not enough big new features for a LR 7 version because they have all been added already over time.

      If there will be a LR 7, Adobe either won’t have a lot of new features for it or the CC version will also get a big feature update at that moment, again somehow putting the CC idea ad absurdum.

      • PhilK

        Hmm, didn’t realize they were still offering the standalone version, I haven’t looked recently. (They certainly aren’t still updating the regular CS apps any more) So are you saying that at the present time, both LR versions are feature-equivalent?

        • nwcs

          Almost. The De-Haze option is about the only thing different. That and the ability to use Lightroom Mobile and some of the CC specific stuff.

        • El Aura

          Lightroom never was part of the CS suite (despite officially called ‘Photoshop Lightroom’). When Adobe introduced the CC subscription model they made it clear that Lightroom would remain available as a standalone product. Every cynic on Earth has since predicted that this would change soon, so far it hasn’t.

          Adobe took some flak when the CC version of LR got features the standalone version didn’t with LR 6.1 (though they were minor ones). It is my understanding that this has changed since as they talk about Lightroom CC 2015.4 and LR 6.4 as two separate things but don’t differentiate between the two in regard to the new features.

          BTW, Framemaker is also still sold as a standalone product (and is not part of CC), in fact it is only sold as a standalone product (but then Framemaker almost lives in a separate universe).

      • Patrick O’Connor

        I’m not sure you’re looking at this right. I see LR as a stand-alone program that you get for free when you subscribe to CC.

        • El Aura

          That is the way I saw it until they released an update to Lightroom CC that contained features not available to the standalone version (though they appear to have backed off that model again).

    • CERO

      I actually wonder.. DXOoptics seems to download the profiles separately.
      Does this means you always get the latest profiles always?

  • neonspark

    Awesome. Downloading now. #CloudComputing. #BusinessPaysForit #Success #ComeAtMeBro

  • Patrick O’Connor

    I was going to comment on how happy I am that my 14mm Rokinon is supported now but I’ll hold off on the celebration seeings as how some of you are in mourning. 🙂

    • Aldo

      You have somewhere I can see samples of your Rockinon rocking it?

      • Patrick O’Connor

        Nope. I never post photos online. I got held back in kindergarten because I flunked “sharing.” 😉

        • Aldo

          Ah… well maybe you can upload one here when you get a chance.

  • Ryan

    Why are there so many abusive comments on here? This is a platform for sharing information. If you like a piece of software then learn it and use it, if you don’t then don’t!

    • Eric Calabros

      I don’t get this parental notion of “if you like it do that and if you dont like it do this”. We already know our options.

      Most of my plugins work on Adobe platform, most of my raw files have been edited on that, so I need it. why should I have to abandon it? and why should I have to be satisfied?

      • Patrick O’Connor

        I often need to be reminded of things I already know. Just ask my wife! 😉

    • true

      But adobe is greedy.. is it not?

      • Patrick O’Connor

        Really? So you work for free, do you?

        • true

          I think there is difference between greed / wanting to have some profits / ambition. Say sigma, they look to me more ambitious than nikon or canon. Nikon seems not-so-ambitious, when they release 58 1.4 that’s mediocre, and when they get constant problems with their newly released products (300pf shutter shock?)

          I do commend the canon for their recent 35 f1.4 m2 . That looks ambitious and good to me

          • Patrick O’Connor

            I agree there’s a difference but in this case, I think it’s neither. I don’t think, with their previous model, they were making enough profit to comfortably do R&D. Some folks say they’re not really coming out with much innovation and maybe that’s true for LR but, across their product spectrum, they are. Much more than before. If they were greedy, they could have switched to the new business model but not increased R&D.

            Someone once told Joe Biden (US Vice President), ‘it’s appropriate to question another man’s judgment, but to not question what’s behind his decisions because you simply don’t know his motives.’

  • Captain Insane-O

    Nice, can now tether with the d5500! Finally!

  • vcize

    Woah, rokinon profiles. Both unexpected and awesome.

    • Patrick O’Connor

      I already had a good profile someone else made for mine but it’s a pita to navigate to it. I’m hoping LR will automatically load this one.

  • aarif

    I don’t like the monthly/yearly plan. why not just pay once and it’s yours forever

    • Patrick O’Connor

      I don’t know if you remember but when cable TV first came out, a lot of people resisted paying monthly for something they always got for free. Now, people look at me strange because I don’t have any kind of subscription television service.

      • aarif

        they’re all blood suckers

        • Patrick O’Connor

          idk. Most “blood suckers” (mosquitos, leeches, et. al.) don’t give you the option of withholding your blood.

      • PhilK

        I don’t watch TV myself.

        But the thing with cable makes no sense, as it was providing a valuable service. (Better reception than what they could get with an antenna, and then more media options, far more than they could receive with an antenna)

        One thing that seems to be unlimited here (US) is people’s sense of entitlement.

        My issue with Adobe is not that I think I deserve it for free (I don’t pirate S/W at all, for example), but that they keep providing less for the same amount of money and any “investment” you make is worth nothing when they turn off the lightswitch whenever they feel like it.

        As someone in the I.T. industry, I firmly believe that computers should be like home appliances: if you have one that you bought 25 years ago and it still works fine, you should be 100% able to keep using it until it turns to dust if you want. This “sharecropper” business model disturbs me.

        • Patrick O’Connor

          “providing a valuable service” is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t know if you’re old enough to have experienced it but everyone was content with the reception we got because there wasn’t anything to compare it to. And in the early days of cable, it wasn’t that much better.

          My issue with people who complain about Adobe is they owe you NOTHING. People refer to the “investment” made but you pay for a specified use for specified services. When MS Excel overcame Lotus 123, people switched and went on with their lives. I’ve lived through the rise and fall of more software than Carters has little pills and never thought about my “investment.” I’m too busy working.

          Since you’re in the IT industry, I firmly believe that you guys exist to serve the end user but many (most) of you act like little dictators, inconvenienced by your customers requirement for your services. Sounds a bit like Adobe, huh?

          It’s not that I’m defending Adobe but rather, incensed by the unlimited sense of entitlement here (NR).
          Okay. Rant over. I feel better now.

          • PhilK

            I’m used to people extrapolating their singular experience to the whole world in online rants. Oh, and making ad hominem attacks on people by presuming to lump them in with a “group of evil people”. “You [I.T.] guys”. Feel free to insert some racial or religious thing in there, same difference. Don’t like a person’s argument, insult them on the basis of being a member of an allegedly evil group. 😀

            Last time I checked, we as humans tend to have opinions on all sorts of things, positive or negative, without any inherent need to feel “entitled” to any of them. Stating those opinions – say, about a product or company, regardless whether it “offends” one of their online white knights – does not equate to feeling “entitled” to anything. (Tho it should be repeated that there are a heck of a lot of self-entitled people out there these days. Including people who seem to think they are entitled to never encounter a criticism of one of their favorite products.)

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Where there’s smoke, there’s fire 🙂 (You may have to wait for it but there’s an accompanying graphic)
              I have no problem with encountering opinions with which I disagree. Kinda like a knight looking for dragons to vanquish! 😉

            • PhilK

              Funny thing about Dilbert – I never understood that cartoon at all, and found it boring as hell, for the longest time. Couldn’t relate to it, even though it was about my “field”.

              Then I went to work for a really toxically dysfunctional company for a while. Oh man, NOW it’s hilarious. 😀

            • Patrick O’Connor

              Welcome to my world. 🙂

    • nwcs

      You can still purchase a Lightroom 6 perpetual license.

      • PhilK

        Quite interesting they are still offering that, because they don’t do it with most of the rest of their apps these days.

        • nwcs

          They initially said when CC was announced that they would keep Lightroom available as standalone because the audience was sufficiently different. On their official blog they indicated no reason why it wouldn’t be offered standalone indefinitely but companies change their direction frequently.

  • TheInfinityPoint

    Lol I just upgraded from LR 5.7 to LR 6.3 (non CC version), and only because it has the new 200-500 lens profile. I really hate it that there is no *useful* lens profile downloader. I’m aware of Adobe’s lens profile downloader but it’s not updated and it definitely doesn’t have the latest profiles. And with that said I’m a bit surprised it took them this long to add the Nikon 200 f/2 profile. The Rokinons are a nice add as well.

    • true

      You should try look into alternatives. There’s Capture One (not sure if they have lens profiles though), DXO One (has profiles) and maybe some other out there too. I have lightroom + DXO, and whilst I like how fast lightroom is in “file management” / browsing images (and tagging them), DXO might have the advantage when it comes to editing them.

    • vriesk

      Makes me wonder, do you really need those profiles for such lenses? I find them useful to automatically correct pincusion/barrel distorsion on some of my wider lenses (24-120mm f/4G), but those don’t really show on telephotos. Apart from that, I failed to spot any benefit so far.

      • TheInfinityPoint

        Yeah distortion correction is nice, but also vignetting correction. Yes I can get rid of it on my own but it’s just more time consuming since it’s a zoom lens and aperture dependent, lol.

  • outkasted

    meh….Sorry Adobe I’ve moved on. Maybe i’ll come back at some point but for now i’ll use LR5 and the new boss in town…Capture One Pro 9

    • Patrick O’Connor

      I tried that but it seemed like a lot of work for very little difference. But then, I didn’t use it long enough to figure out an efficient workflow.

  • Patrick O’Connor

    I’ve never heard of this problem but have you tried saving your LR adjustments as external xmp files? Just a thought.

    • Hey Patrick! Just now have tested your suggestion and … and it seems to be working! I was always avoiding using .XMP files because you get extra 1 file together with .RAW and .TIFF files, what makes a folder overview a bit messy. But hey, at least I got this nasty issue fixed. Thanx for your suggestion, Patrick!

      • Patrick O’Connor

        Glad to hear it! 🙂

  • KnightPhoto

    I too am using the Luminous Landscape videos and e-books to transition to Lightroom. I’m about two weeks in, going well so far. I particularly was helped by his suggestions for keeping Photo Mechanic in my workflow as there is nothing faster than PM for ingest and triage. I had also used his training for Capture NX2, very good stuff for immediately getting to the intermediate stage and after a little effort getting to the advanced user stage.

    Had to do something with D500 on the way…

    • KnightPhoto

      Corrected the above to luminescentphoto (not Luminous Landscape), Jason Odell’s site

  • Back to top