Adobe Lightroom 6.14 released (the last standalone version of Lightroom)


Today Adobe released Lightroom 6.14 - the last standalone version of the software (you can download it from this page).

The current Adobe CC plan rates can be found here. You can get a free Lightroom CC trial on this page (no credit card required).

Related post:

Adobe announced the December update to Lightroom (with Nikon D850 tethering support)

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Pilgrim2112

    I’m gone from Lightroom. Hello Capture One Pro.

    • Anything you miss?

      • Pilgrim2112

        Really miss the plug-in support. Capture one uses their AI from hundreds of pictures for each camera model as a starting point which I really like a lot. Instead of starting from a neutral image, you start from a great image. Their color space is also based on a profile for the specific camera instead of Adobe RGB or SRGB. Also really like the histogram level curves and the extensive layers support which I would otherwise have to go to Photoshop to get. Its a first class photo editor.

    • peter w

      probably all company’s will go that way.
      COP brings a new – paid – version every year, and you can work on subscription (I do).

      That being said, I use COP because it serves me better than Lightroom, so welcome.

      • Pilgrim2112

        I went 2 years without upgrading Capture One Pro because I did not see the improvements compelling enough to upgrade. I’m happy to have that choice with Capture One, but I believe I will be upgrading to Version 11, its quite a step up. You buy it you own it. With all the alternatives including up and coming editors like Luminar and Affinity, Adobe may need to rethink their subscription-only model if enough people refuse to stay with it. The subscription model makes no sense for the many hobbyists who use Lightroom too infrequently to justify monthly subscription payments.

    • jimh

      You won’t regret that decision.

    • FOODJI

      more like cancer1

    • Aldo

      Hows capture one pro for copy paste / sync recepies/profiles and batch processing?

  • Art

    I really need to switch from Lightroom. Not being able to own a program that can hold your work hostage is a big problem.

    • My hate for Adobe grows yearly but I still use their products. I hope they wake up. What happened recently that fomented further LR hate, I feel like I missed a news cycle here…?

      • Art

        The move from software you own to software you rent has really gotten people up in arms. I think since many of not most photographers are self employed they also realie there are lean months or years. With software you own, you can still work though it even if it is with dated software. With software you rent, if you can’t make the payments for some reason or something happens to Adobe, you are screwed.

        • sportrunner

          Ok, so there are some definitions that you need to clarify on this. First of all, you don’t own the software. Adobe gives you a permanent license to use the software for a single fixed price. You are allowed to use the software as long as you are able to run the software on the computer that contains the license. The subscription based license requires that you connect to Adobe to verify the status of the subscription every once in a while (at least every month). This is a very important distinction that users need to understand.

          The reason that Adobe(and many other vendors) are going to the subscription model has to do with the way revenue comes into their company. By guaranteeing monthly revenue they eliminate uncontrolled swings in revenue that they may not have control over. This is going to be the future of how software is sold.

          My issues with this is what else am I getting from my subscription? How fast will questions be answered by the support team. How are they going to address defects? What is the plan for adding new features?

          • marymig

            Unless customers reject it. Then software won’t be sold that way.

          • Allen_Wentz

            Are you an Adobe shill? Seriously.

            The CC model is not just about how you pay, it is about blocking access to your previous intermediate work product if you fail to pay in the future. UNACCEPTABLE.

            Note that many of us sometimes skipped upgrading Adobe products because
            A) Often a new Adobe version did not provide the value add that justified the $$ Adobe wanted.
            B) Because Adobe upgrades often broke things, like plug-ins or OS compliance. Rather than break one’s already-working-thank-you work flow just skip Adobe’s latest low-value bells and whistles.
            C) The cost of the learning curve for the latest Adobe bells and whistles did not provide adequate value add to justify the time spent changing.

            • sportrunner

              Adobe shill? Did you actually read anything that I wrote? I pointed out why Adobe is doing what they are doing and why the rest of the software industry is moving to this model. I never cheerleaded Adobe for doing this or any other company that is doing this. I was in the software licensing business for 15 years and I am trying to make you and the rest of the consumers on this site aware of what they are doing. And, more importantly, why they are doing it.

              The CC product sucks as far as I am concerned but that is where Adobe is going. All of your complaints show you are not the target customer for Adobe. You don’t update every version, you can’t justify using new features and every update breaks your plug-ins. The best thing you can do is educate everyone you know on why software companies are doing this. It comes down to revenue and answering to stock holders.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Sorry for the shill reference. It is obvious enough why Adobe is doing it: for money. It is a very profitable, mean business model that is boosting profits.

              But I do NOT believe that it is just about
              “By guaranteeing monthly revenue they eliminate uncontrolled swings in revenue…”
              There are lots of ways Adobe could have moved to minimizing revenue swings without hijacking users’ IP as the primary focus of their payment model.

              Certainly I was a target customer (hell even an unpaid evangelist) for PS a dozen years ago. But with CC Adobe can go eff themselves.

              Some of us think that business should be more than only about simplistically maximizing short term revenue.

            • FOODJI

              Adobe is in the business of making money, get over it.

            • Nobody here asks for feee Lightroom software. The main concern is what will happen one day when you stop paying for CC? You basically will no longer have access to your own pictures. This is my concern. Adobe should let you use the last version you paid for forever. I am also not a big fan of their cloud solution.

            • FOODJI

              That’s why you make backups. You’re paying for usage of the software regardless of version, of course Adobe wont let you use it for free. If you dont like it, move on.

            • So you backup all of your LR CC edits for years and then you stop paying – all of your edits are now gone.
              With the standalone version which I paid for, I can access and use all of my edits and pictures. Do you see the difference?
              Read my initial comment again – nobody is saying LR should be free.

            • TurtleCat

              Technically you’d have a readonly version of your edits as you still have Lightroom without the Develop module accessible.

            • Are you sure about that? I think you cannot use any of the Lightroom CC features once you stop paying. Even if you are correct, can you trust Adobe that they will keep that in the future? I can’t but this is just me.

            • TurtleCat

              I’m sure about it. https://m.dpreview.com/articles/3538565258/adobe-lightroom-allows-users-continued-access-after-license-expires

              But will that be true indefinitely? Anyone’s guess.

            • Ok, so this post is from 2014 and they say that users can still keep the standalone version. We now know that the standalone version is dead and only the latest CC will have all the latest updates which will not be backward compatible with LR 6. What also bothers me is that Adobe never mentioned this since (maybe I missed it?). The question is if you use the latest LR CC and make your edits with the latest features/functionalities, would you be still able to access the edits and exports your pics to jpg? If this is still the case, I would be ok but the fact that Adobe doesn’t promote this bothers me.

            • TurtleCat

              Well, the last time I stopped CC and didn’t reinstall LR (so about 13 months ago) it was the case. That’s what triggered me to install LR perpetual.

            • IronHeadSlim

              You will always have your NEF files. Output TIFF backups and you’ll always have your edits.

            • sure, but you are going to waste all the time you spent editing

            • IronHeadSlim

              Make sure to output full size TIFF files with the edits. I know it isn’t ideal but it is only a failsafe if you stop using Adobe, otherwise everything is fine.

              I know you don’t like Adobe’s policy but there are workarounds. I am resigned to paying the monthly fee. I use most of their apps so I pay $50 a month! (don’t hate me)

            • I have no problem paying as long as they let me use the last version once and if I decide to stop paying at some point in the future.

            • IronHeadSlim

              That would be the right thing for them to do!

            • FOODJI

              Adobe isn’t the welfare office. it’s a free market, if you don’t like paying for the best product, go buy some of the 2nd rate stuff and enjoy.

          • Art

            I get how software is written and licensed. In fact, my background is in software and as it works out, Acrobat has about 159,000 lines of my code in it. So yes, people don’t “own” software it is licensed. But for practical purposes and for the sake of discussion, it is called “owning”.

            While it may eliminate revenue swings, many people and I’d dare say especially photographers don’t like the idea of putting their work into something that they may not have access to tomorrow for whatever reason. The subscription model only works if people buy into it. I for one, don’t and from what I’ve seen and heard I’m not he only one.

            • sportrunner

              I agree, that no one likes it. I’m not going to be purchasing anymore products from Adobe moving forward. Like a lot of us, I am going to use this as an opportunity to shop around. The whole point of what I posted today was to educate about software licensing. Getting mad at what I wrote doesn’t change the fact that everything from office software to high-end CAD products are going to subscription licensing. I am guessing that Adobe expected to lose 25% of their customer base of Lightroom because of this transition. They deserve to lose more than that just in the way they have handled the Lightroom CC product. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to recover those losses.

            • FOODJI

              bye

          • Julian

            OK – but then have both models, then they can sell to both types of users, no need to take away the single fixed price option!

        • FOODJI

          if you cant pay the equivalent of 2 McDonald’s menus a month for an essential tool then you’re in the wrong line of work, an underperformer. I like price hikes, they weed out those who can’t hack it.

          • Allen_Wentz

            And that kind of attitude (caring only about the monthly cost rather than the right/wrong of it all) is why Adobe will make money on CC.

            Some of us will find better firms to do business with that do not build business models around holding our IP hostage.

            Note that in no instance is it about the cost per se, even though that is what FOODJI considers relevant.

            • FOODJI

              They will make money because it is the best product on the market. If there was a superior alternative, Adobe wouldn’t be on top. That’s the beauty of the free market.

          • Art

            I can certainly afford it now. In fact, I get my copy for free from Adobe. Even so, people can’t guarantee what their income will be down the road. We trust we will do well but we don’t actually know. Besides, there are other reasons why someone may not pay. Someone may retire, there may be an injury (for example lost eyesight), someone may have a family crisis financially or just in terms of time or even switching to another platform such as Capture One, On1’s alternative, etc. Some may have a better workflow such as Photo Mechanic which is better suited for news organizations. How would you like to lose access to all your work just because another piece of software may be better suited? Lightroom may suit your workflow now but can you guarantee that later? You may change jobs or Adobe may change the workflow for a different target market. The list goes on. If you “own” the software such that someone can’t just turn it off, your situation may change but you will still have access to your work.

  • Bjørn T Johansen

    My separation with adobe has started. Affinity take me under your wings.

    • Kriss_De_Valnor

      My separation is totally done! DXO did replace Lightroom 🙂

      • fanboy fagz

        same. my friend as well..no more adobe updates/subscriptions

        • A. F.O.

          we will see some change by Adobe only when their revenue starts decline: so far so good.
          So they must have a lot of people who can and pays every month. Great move, they have made.
          Not for me.

          • fanboy fagz

            I think this will be their last record revenue quarter. A lot of pissed off people.

            A lot of good alternatives. They are less years in the market vs adobe so they need a little more time to cook their products well. Only time.

    • Arthur Meursault

      LR 6.14 does NOT have the dehaze feature. Adobe has found another way to cheat and screw its customers.

  • neonspark

    I don’t hate CC as much as I hate LR mobile. total trash and forces me to a workflow that is imagined by adobe to sell me cloud services I don’t want.

    plus editing on tablets? please no! trash!

  • Roger S

    I plan to use this last standalone version of Lightroom for the near future, but will likely switch to something else next year sometime. DxO’s Photolab looks interesting for various reasons, but I will look more carefully into other the options mentioned here as well.

    • Same here – with the D850 I will fine with LR for at least 3-4 years.

      • Eric Calabros

        LR is terrible with Nikon colors, especially in red ranges, and red is very important in skin business, unless you’re​ very good in profiling. There are good reasons those D8xx owners who shoot for Vogue cover use C1. And there is the Nikon mirrorless phenomenon. It will arrive eventually and standalone LR won’t support that. while I double that camera has a game changing effect for Nikon market share, I believe you won’t be able to resist preordering that.

        • Yes, C1 is on of the options I am considering. I also want to see what they will do with Luminar.

        • Spy Black

          I’ve had a six of one, half a dozen of another experience with LR and C1. Overall I don’t see either one being better than the other.

          I have just the oposite experience with color from C1. LR generally gives me better color and, especially, luminosity control. I also set the standard from Adobe Standard to Camera Standard or Camera Neutral, don’t know if you’ve tried that.

          • Eric Calabros

            My reference is Nikon Capture NX-D. Only C1 makes similar output.

          • Allen_Wentz

            Just curious, what cameras do your eyes/brain find the ACR conversions superior to the C1 conversions? Not the workflow, but the visual conversions from RAW.

  • Tim

    I am surprised. I thought 6.13 was the final one.

    Anyway, it’s good to have it. Right now I am not entirely happy with Adobe, Phase One, AND Microsoft.

    Let me explain:

    • Adobe’s timing is pitch perfect. They know they are still the best all round solution, but not for long. So now is the time to put us in Catch-22.
    • Capture One is awesome with colors, but there are still some things on Windows that make me go like *hngh*? Maybe the Apple version is better, but that’s not an option. Check the Capture One Forum for bugs.
    • Windows 7 is awesome. Windows 10 is too unreliable. Buggy updates galore. So glad I got system images lying ready for recovery.

    No, again, I am not gonna switch to Apple. 🙂

    Here’s my roadmap:

    • Move to Capture One, but taking my time. I am not gonna be rushed. I feel they have to iron out more kinks.
    • Stay with Lightroom Standalone for now and for legacy on a Windows 7 Partition on a DUAL BOOT SYSTEM. Windows 10 partition will have internet access. Windows 7 partition… no. Not after 2020 when security updates end.

    Maybe everything is gonna be 10x better – camera’s, software, lenses – forcing me to upgrade, but I don’t really believe that. Real changes are gonna come from stuff like augmented reality, 3D shit and other gimmicks. I am cool with that. I am just not gonna pay for it.

    If you have a better plan, let me know. Again, Apple is not an option. 🙂

    • sportrunner

      Instead of dual boot maybe consider a virtual machine. Nice thing about it is the portable aspect. Downside is you need more machine and ram.

      • Tim

        Thought about that, and it would be even better, but I read about problems with color management. What is your experience?

  • HKer

    I have lightroom CC but want a standalone version incase I travel abroad and for some reason no internet connection and cc expired. I have a LR 5 license. Where can I buy a LR 6 license? I believe the link above is only for upgrading, not getting a new CS6 license. Please do correct me. Thanks in advance.

    • HKer

      Well I logged into my adobe account, then I saw the buy CS6 LR standalone for a split second, before it took me automatically to the CC page instead. Obviously Adobe don’t want you buying the CS6 license! Anyone any clues how to buy CS6 license.

      • HKer

        All done, just bought CS6 🙂

  • marymig

    Adobe needs to get the message that people will abandon their photo software if there is no standalone option.

    • Allen_Wentz

      I was a maximum Adobe supporter (and Master Collection spender) since the 1990s. Since the egregious CC debute I have not spent one penny on Adobe. Not because of the subscription model (even though I dislike it), but because the EULA takes control of one’s work: stop paying and you cannot access your work.

      • Roger S

        Yes, your last point is the key to why the subscription model is unacceptable. If you have a standalone copy of software, you can use it to access past work as long as you have a machine/OS that can operate that software. With a subscription, you essentially lose access to your own intellectual property — work that you have created — as soon as the subscription lapses. Users should object to this kind of business model.

    • FOODJI

      Do you think you’re smarter than Adobe… lmao

  • No thank you, switched to C1 🙂 last month…. and still use standalone PS CS5 !!! No Adobe cc 🙂 in my case !!!

  • TwoStrayCats

    So how much does it cost to purchase a stand-alone version of LR?

    • marymig

      US is $149.00

  • pete guaron

    Microsoft wrecked my Windows 7, so I’m in the process of phasing them out. It was never suitable for photo processing anyway.
    Much as I like Capture One Pro, they offered my an upgrade for nearly as much as I paid for it, only 3 months after I bought it – that’s too much like Adobe’s pricing to appeal to me.
    Anyway, what these companies don’t appear to realise is that as our photography improves, our demand for post processing drops. And when that happens, we don’t all need “more and more toys” – we can manage perfectly well with what we’ve got.
    What’s driven me away from Adobe is not just their subscription cost, or their cloud – but also that awful catalogue system. It makes it far to cumbersome to open and close photos.
    Lately I’ve been trialling a range of post processing programs. It’s been quite interesting. Noise, for example, was not as well handled by Adobe as it was in ACDsee, which surprised me – Adobe’s was too creamy for my tastes. COP didn’t reduce the noise as much as the other two, although it didn’t matter unless you enlarged it to an unrealistic level.
    So what this upheaval has been telling me is that it’s like cams & glass – there’s no one perfect post processing software system, and I don’t imagine we’ll ever see one.

    • Roger S

      “What’s driven me away from Adobe is not just their subscription cost, or their cloud – but also that awful catalogue system. It makes it far to cumbersome to open and close photos.”
      I agree. It’s nice to have a catalogue system built into the post processing software, but I have found Adobe’s to be very clunky. After my first trial of Lightroom, I in fact abandoned it for this reason for a year or two. Later, the many good features of Lightroom brought me back to it, but I can certainly move on again.

  • marymig

    Propaganda from Dartmouth…that is a press release.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Hella more than simply propaganda when it describes work from the inventor of CMOS. The potential commercial value is more than huge, so you can bet it was kept from public release as long as was feasible.

      • A. F.O.

        30% propaganda and 70% innovantion, I guess.
        Everyone needs good publicity; even a guy like him! So yes we will wait and see 🙂

  • John Smith

    I hate light room…because it should be MORE than what it is…..CANT MANIPULATE the channels in RGB LAB CYMK as you can in photoshop….why cant i move the clarity slider in the green channel only is that too much too ask?

  • Tim

    When did you ever see a breakthrough change come to full fruition in mature products? They are gonna smear it out over 15 years of incremental updates. That is, if it really works. 🙂

    • A. F.O.

      well we will wait & see.
      This guy co-invented the CMOS…

      • Roger S

        I tend to agree with Tim above, but you are right, the Dartmouth guy has some solid credentials in the field. Time will tell.

        • A. F.O.

          Agree!

  • For some reason, (I guess Adobe worked really hard, and succeeded, in making it this way on purpose) …I had already assumed that “stand-alone” updates to Lightroom were already gone as of a year or two ago.

    Are you saying that you can still pay ONCE for Lightroom, and use it with the latest cameras, instead of having to pay for CC?

    I had been paying for LR and PS upgrades ever one or two versions, back in the day, in fact I was going through a box in my garage and I found the actual CD’s for PS CS1-3, and LR3, lol. I don’t even own an optical drive computer anymore, though, and BOTH of my Adobe accounts don’t list any of the serial numbers for software that I purchased and registered back in the day.

    As I transition away from Lightroom to Capture One, I would definitely love to buy the final standalone version of Lightroom and Photoshop, so that I hopefully never have to pay for it ever again.

    It’s probably impossible for me to hunt down all the necessary old serial numbers for me to pay anything less than full price for each software, though. Again, this is by design. I gave Adobe a thousand dollars or two over the years, pre-CC, and they slapped me in the face. (And gave me a monthly bill for that slap in the face, too.)

    Oh well.

  • tomherren

    I have LR 5.7 but don’t use it anymore since I am doing mostly portraits. I tried Luminar 2018 for PC, but it is unusable, Macphun acknowledged and made a refund. I actually re-discovered Lightzone, a free RAW-converter that is very capable and offers a lot for processing once you have some routine. Its big disadvantage though is the lack of lens profiles and distortion corrections. A working pro, who uses PS CC for professional reasons suggests for amateurs like me to use Capture NX-D for basic RAW conversion and Affinity Photo for further processing as a low cost solution. One can also combine it with Nik Collection as long as your OS supports it.

    • Roger S

      As I understand it, an advantage of DxO is that they have bought the Nik collection and will soon be incorporating it into their Photolab software (the replacement for Optics Pro). This, I hope, will get around the OS problem with Nik.

      • Allan

        It continues to be unclear to me why Nikon doesn’t partner with a major software company to make post processing easy and seamless. It continues to piss me off.

        Capture NX2 was a competent product.

        • tomherren

          It still is. With a conversion tool developed by a private enthusiast (or even two) I continue using it for my D750 NEFs

        • Allen_Wentz

          Maybe because of
          1) Nikon arrogance.
          2) Avoiding favoritism: e.g. work with Apple and piss off Google, work with C1 and piss off Adobe, work with Adobe and piss off everyone…

        • TurtleCat

          It’s quite clear. Nikon wants to complete own and manage the whole process of software — though time and again that ability is called into question. Their best hope was to have acquired Nik before Google did but they didn’t do that. Nikon doesn’t want to release what they consider “secret sauce” to others. Not that the other camera manufacturers are more forthcoming…

      • tomherren

        I tried Photolab as well. Their (current) approach for integrating local adjustmens (U-points) is in my view too technical and too complex compared to the simple but effective + and – selections in CNX2 and Nik filters.

        • Roger S

          I see your point. CNX2 was my preferred software for a number of years and I still use it on occasion for images from older cameras. Very straightforward and intuitive. Ditto for the Nik collection. I haven’t yet tried Photolab in detail, but am looking forward to trying it out. I wasn’t aware that its use of U points was different, though, so I’m curious to see how it works. If unsatisfactory, I suppose we can hope for improvements in this aspect of DxO over time.

  • Saso

    Hmm, If I update LR through it’s interface, would everything go normal to 6.14? Or should I be worried that I’ll get LR Classic on my computer instead of update?

  • If some (still ;)) want to buy LR6, and if it can be done in your country, you can find all available Lightroom products and pick LR6 in a list at adobe”.”com”/”products page

    Though, you will have to type “Lightroom” in the search field on the top of the list in order to make LR6 appear in the list because it does not appear without a filter : https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e9ab47b28c96cd214f936798d39aadf0876ecdbb2c63be3eda388cd324f2ca75.png (!).

    Quite obvious they are hiding it the best they can.

    Then you can pick the LR6 version and buy it.

    A last advice : don’t update to LR6.14 too soon after it comes out, as it will be the last standalone version ever (now looks like it is). Because if it’s buggy, and you don’t have an easy way back to previous versions, you won’t have the choice but to keep it as it is or go for CC. At least, think of reliable and usable backups.

  • Chris Martin

    I’ll probably get trolled for saying this but I have been perfectly happy with adobe camera raw for editing. I’ve always thought that the layout was much better than light room and I don’t add any overly baked presets mint green. And maybe it’s just me but I’ve always thought that light room was completely bloated and convoluted. I stick with simple clean edits and my clients have always been happy with the results.

    • Allen_Wentz

      The eyes/brains of most Nikon users find ACR to be clearly less good than Nikon’s conversion, Capture One’s and/or Apple’s in-OS RAW conversion (Apple however tends to be relatively slow at supporting new cameras). If you like ACR RAW conversions take a critical look at the competition’s IMO better output.

      I avoided ACR for a decade by managing images via Apple’s discontinued Aperture (now Apple Photos) even though published pix ultimately went through PS. With all the good alternatives to PS today photogs can get highest-level post-processed conversions without touching Adobe’s egregious CC.

    • Considering that ACR *is* Lightroom, just with a different shell, there’s little reason to troll. Bridge is the original DAM, and still a damn good one at that. For each of its disadvantages due to its lack of a catalog system, it makes up for with the ease of browsing old folders that were never originally imported into a catalog in the first place, and/or moved around a dozen times in Finder / Explorer.

      Now, I will still troll you for liking ACR for editing, period. Adobe does no favors to NEF files, in fact the more I approach 3M NEF files in Adobe software, (both Lightroom and Bridge, since the original ACR first came out) …the more I hate the direction they’ve taken with their tonal management tools, and how over-the-top digital-y they’ve become. Now when I see a dynamic landscape image edited in BR / LR, I don’t think, “wow that must have been a beautiful scene!” …I think “Clearly this file has been beaten into submission with Highlights -75, Whites -50, Shadows +100, Blacks +75, ….yuck!”

      • Allen_Wentz

        No, Bridge is NOT the original DAM.

        • Well, thanks for being pedantic, but I was merely referring to the Adobe sphere of raw processing, and relating to LR in particular.

          Bridge is not a good DAM for many reasons, but it is also very useful for other things, which I already mentioned.

          • Allen_Wentz

            I lived through Adobe’s intro of Bridge and wanted to use it because of all the big Adobe apps I was running then, especially PS, but it was just uncomfortable for me after using Cumuus, Portfolio and Aperture.

  • Allen_Wentz

    I consider the article and the work it references way cool. I do not think anyone will intentionally “smear it out over 15 years of incremental updates,” but of course advances do come incrementally. I may not even know what “mature product” means, because when I got to the D2x I thought it was a hella mature product and did all kinds of commercial photog work with it; but compared to D850, D2x is a baby.

    Tim’s pessimism below is IMO flat wrong. Just look at the last 20 years where we went from the first tiny consumer-level captures to 8k video on a D850 today. And tech improves exponentially; we will see important effects of this research soon IMO, likely in just a few years.

    • A. F.O.

      I think Tim knows he is not right 🙂
      yes….my first digital camera was the fantastic Fujifilm F30! ehehhe a CCD camera! With a fantastic macro lens! 🙂 still functions!
      So yes, there’s people saying that one day lenses will be not need it, because the sensors will grab any photon from every scene…
      not good news for Canon & Nikon, I guess.
      My first PC had 8 MB of RAM…in 1994 and runed at 66 MHz! 🙂 (word 6.0 was kept in 6 full diskquets!!!)
      Today…there’s no excuse for anyone to not take great pictures because cameras are so so well made. And it will get even better!

  • Perhaps i’m being very stupid, but where on those pages can one find the 6.14 DOWNLOAD link exactly? It’s either VERY well hidden, or i’m blind as a bat

    • A. F.O.

      It is in the CLOUD!
      🙂

  • steve zee

    these links are NEVER here

  • Back to top