Adobe editing software the most used in the world for a reason.

Let's say that Adobe let you edit all the files you'd imported when the subscription lapsed. Then I could, faced with a massive negative scanning project, scan 100,000 negs, activate my subscription, import all the scans, deactivate my subscription, and spend the next 10 years editing the files in Lr.

That´s what I had on my mind. The possibility of such approach and going around the restriction. And don´t think that they didn´t think about it.

But I fully feel your pain on the violence done to the customers David. :-D I am Canon sufferer. The Canon cripple hammer hits hard. As much as I hate the company, I still use their gear.

But Adobe didn't renege on their perpetual licenses. If you have one, it still applies. All they did was change to a subscription model going forward. If their customers didn't like that model. there were, and are, alternatives available.

The subscription model saved me money, as I'd been upgrading Lr, Ps, Ai, In, and Acrobat once a year before that. And now I don't have to buy fonts.

But it doesn't - you don't lose your edits, you don't lose your pictures, you don't lose your metadata, you don't lose your ability to access, view, or export your images. You lose your ability to do new things with you images.

Yeah, they kind of did. 6.14 Maps module no longer works and the same with face detection.

I'm always surprised that ACDSee doesn't come up more often in these threads. They offer a subscription plan and a purchase plan, and as far as I can tell, it's the most complete alternative to Adobe's products, with DAM and editor (and more) in one application.

If having access only to the 2017 version of your photos is what you want, well, you're free to make that choice. Me, I'll continue to use the latest versions of LrC and Ps. I'll continue using masks, stitching panoramic image sets, and using all the other upgraded and completely new tools Adobe has released in the last 6+ years. I'll also continue to have access to the 2023 version of my photos. I'm in the process of applying the new AI Denoise tool to select photos. It's amazing :)

You still have the raw files in their original state. Do whatever you want with those. Edit them to your heart's content in whatever app you choose as the replacement for LrC.

It's a moot point, anyhow...cause it ain't gonna happen. This doomsday scenario of Creative Cloud vanishing in a Thanos snap hasn't happened. Nor is it likely to happen. This whole side discussion is needless handwringing over something as real as...as Thanos :)

That's the nature of a subscription model. It doesn't work for all parties. Although in terms of Adobe's revenue, your example would hardly cause a dent, the proportion of LR users who exclusively use it to process an archive must be minuscule compared to those using it to process new files. They could get around that by offering a special archivists price. I don't know, because I haven't looked, (it's not like Adobe go out their way to make pricing easy - I read somewhere that there is a LR/PS price of £10 per month but when I spoke to Adobe they insisted it was £20 and that they could do me a special deal but only for one year), that there may be a minimum cancellation period once you've signed up and they would make the equivalent of the old perpetual licence price back no matter how quickly you cancelled, so even the case you've outlined would not represent any kind of loss for them.

Another approach is a metered approach. You get charged for your actual usage, not a time period i.e. if install the software on a laptop, put the laptop in a cupboard and never open the software, you get charged nothing. A pay as you go model. The question then becomes what is metered? The time the program is active, the number of operations spent when using it, the number of edits done, the number of files used?

You seem to be side stepping my point entirely. I'm not worried that the subs model is going to disappear my raw files. What it disappears if I stop subscribing is my access to my edits. And they are my edits, not Adobe's, they represent my work, my creativity, my labour, my learning of the product. None of that is anything to do with Adobe, yet the subs model makes all that sunk cost theirs. And I cannot take those edits away to another program if I don't like because those edits won't work the same. I've tried that already. Effectively, the subs model means they own my edits and I have to pay them for access to my own work. It's an outrageous scam. And Adobe have done this knowing exactly what the consequences were for users that started with their original beta program, supported them through 4 complete major versions and have built up catalogues that represent a massive investment of personal time, and they did it anyway. True Apple style. Throw out the old, in with the new, who cares about the old customers, we have new ones!

None of this is a major problem for me personally, as I never signed up for the subscription, and I swapped to an alternative product as early as I could. But I don't think you should make light of the impact on previously loyal LR users who don't want to go subscription. I have over 40,000 images in my old LR catalogue even after weeding.tagging them in an immense multi-month exercise over the last 12 months. It is infeasible that I could just take my raw files and feed them into another program and start from scratch. 40k of repeat edits is too much. My solution is to run two separate systems, one Linux/darktable for new stuff and one win/LR 6.14 for older stuff. The downside is I have to operate two systems.

And to your "moot point", the truth is all the hand wringing has already been done, the argument settled. The people in this debate are mostly the people who accepted the Adobe deal. Those like me, who were never going to stand for it, have moved on and are (mostly) not here in this debate. I'm talking to the Adobe club here.

All I can hope is that you never come to the conclusion that weight of edits has now bound you forever to paying subscriptions to Adobe if you want to keep control of your raw edits.

BTW, Capture One is also switching to the subscription model.
IMO, it is only a matter of time until most commercial post-processing tools are switched to the subscription model if they want to stay competitive (invest in development) while still being profitable. In the end, only open-source tools like Darktable will be subscription free.
Most Adobe users seem to agree that switching to the subscription model has benefitted them in the long term.

I don’t believe that it has benefited me personally. But that just me. I have not read anywhere that “most” Adobe users (I.e. a majority) ‘seem to agree’ that it has either. But you may have info that I don’t have. Has there been any studies/surveys of this that show that a majority of Adobe users believe a subscription model benefits them? Can you link?

Soon as I saw all these new companies springing up to take over the perpetual licence market, I thought it won't be long before they look at Adobe's profits and go the same way. And I think about all the customers switched to them thinking it's the way to escape the subs model and were encouraged by those companies to do so for that reason. And how that will make their eventual switch even more of a betrayal than Adobe's early claim that LR would be exempt (just delayed in reality). That's why I decided to go open source. Escape from Microsoft, escape from Adobe.

I do wonder whether all those happy Adobe customers will feel quite so happy when they realise they will be paying that subscription for the rest of their lives, even when perhaps active photography is no longer such a priority. That or give up any hope of proper raw editing of years of files.

My objection was never about money, it was about control over my own work. I think of this mess in various ways including silly scenarios like "what would people have thought years ago if, say, Ilford had declared that anyone who developed their negs with Ilford products has to pay Ilford a lifetime subscription or lose the rights to their negatives. You could stop subscribing, and in exchange Ilford would take your negs and give you a nice print of your pictures instead. Nothing stopping you scanning those prints and editing the scans anyway you liked. Perfectly reasonable deal". It's a silly scenario and not a very good analogy but it does get across the spirit of the argument.

Why are you people so content to hand control of your precious edits to a corporation? Why would you?

This illustrates the #1 reason why a person shouldn't migrate to another image processing and editing platform when they like the way their photos look in the platform they're currently using. If LrC were to go away, the biggest PITA would be figuring out how to get the next editor to produce images you like. It's probably doable but it's gonna take some time. And for what?

The problem you encountered migrating your library to Darktable isn't an LrC or a DT problem. It's a problem inherent in any decision to move from one image processing & editing platform to another. They're not the same product. It's gonna take time to make the new tool dance to your tune.

Is this something you're giving serious thought? Are you about to shelve your camera gear for good? If not, why worry over it? What good comes from that?

The question to ask is this: what's a reasonable annual cost to have 24/7 access to a searchable catalog of 40K photos? To have access to that catalog and to all the great processing and editing tools you've come to appreciate...plus new ones you can't begin to imagine but would surely enjoy using if they were to become available?

If £20 a month fits in your budget, isn't that a better choice than some other image editing and cataloging platform that you don't know?

BTW, you don't have to decide today what you're going to use to edit and catalog your photos 10 years from now. Make the decision based on what you want to use today and for the next year; two at the outside.

I have made the decision. Not paying Adobe to own my edits. darktable is not only free, it's free from anyone else's control essentially as long as compatible O/S exist. It's a bonus that it's a better product than LR. And I'm never going to transfer the old photos in, too big a job. Instead I run two separate systems in a dual boot environment. So it's no bother for me. My bother is on behalf of those who get sucked in without realising the implications. I'm not sure how much bother I have to spare for those who did realise the implications, and went for it anyway. I just hope it continues to work out for you.

My impression from reading the forums is that most Adobe users (who are subscribers and want updates) are happy. That is what I meant with seem to be happy with the switch to the subscription model.

You don't need access to the editing you've previously done to change the look of a photo. You need access to the original raw/JPEG and to an image processing & editing app. Adobe going away in a Thanos snap won't deny you access to your original files.

Image processing and editing software is a tool. It's a tool used to process and edit photos or images. When you buy Adobe LrC, you're paying for a non-destructive platform. Your original raw or JPEG won't be altered by any processing or editing done in that app. That is what guarantees your ability go back to square one and start all over, if you hate the way a photo turns out.

You still have the raw files. If you are dissatisfied with the results you get with Adobe LrC, you can take your raw files and go to whichever platform you choose. You can export your edited photos to save the work you did with LrC. You can even save your edits in XMP sidecar files. Adobe is not forcing you to return any of the work you did.

Your expectations are unrealistic. You can export your edited photos to preserve the work you've done. You have your untouched raw files to start fresh in another app. You can save XMP files with the edits made to your photos. Neither Adobe nor their competitors have any responsibility to guarantee that the edits made in brand A will seamlessly transfer to brand B.

The trouble with sensing the vibe here is that all the people who were really unhappy are no longer Adobe customers, so you don't get to hear from them. It skews the picture a bit.