So, what's the exit plan after you get on the LR subscription treadmill for a while? My understanding is that the LR software remains on your computer to allow you to search through your catalog and visualize the instructions in the sidecar, even if you are no longer a subscriber.
However, if you plan to start over in another program, my understanding is that the only way to do that is to export your edits into "finished" jpgs or tiffs and reload all of them into the new software package. My understanding is that you'd also loose most of your metadata.
If you still have 6.7 on your computer (who knows until when that will be forced into obsolescence) ...
I still don't know what LR 6.7 is. The final perpetual license version of LR that I ran for a long time (as it slowly became degraded by OS and Adobe back end changes) was v6.14. It died, permanently, when I installed macOS Catalina. That's when I tried On1 and found it too annoying to use ... Still have RAW Power, Luminar, Affinity Photo, et al to do testing with.
🙂 But I needed to get some work down and Lightroom Classic presented the best path to that for the moment.
LR Classic works exactly the same with respect to the files and editing parameters it stores as LR 6.14, but it's linked to the subscription payment model and give access to Adobe's Cloud (and tries to get you to use it as often as it gets the chance; I don't). The exit strategy is the same as what I planned all those years ago with the initial release of Lightroom in 2006:
When I finish a rendering, I make a 16bit-per-component export product as a TIFF file and store it separately from the original image file (of whatever format). These are organized by a slightly different derivative of the same organize by date folder hierarchy and contain all of the edits as I defined them as well as all the IPTC annotation data. I can browse or search for anything in this directory tree using a variety of tools, including the Finder (on macOS), LR, or any other image browser.
Work that I haven't finished, if I leave using LR, I just consider as new. Of course, I usually input at least preliminary IPTC annotation when I import into LR, and I save that metadata to the files. Most any useful image file browser can read the IPTC data either from embedded metadata or from sidecar files associated with the originals. Editing parameters are, of course, specific to LR although some apps ingest them and attempt to simulate them (like On1) with varying degrees of success. It doesn't matter to me, since like any other "new" work the only thing that's important is that the IPTC data is preserved and the grading I might have done is part of that IPTC data (stars basically).
I have always felt that since lossless, parametric editing is an interpretive game, one should
always export a version of whatever you consider to be a finished rendering. This is because as the interpreter (LR) is upgraded, there is no guarantee that the parameters will always be treated exactly the same way in interpretation. It's just good practice, to me, to always cement into the actual pixel values whatever I consider as the final edit.
I don’t like the subscription idea. Maybe I would like it if I owned Adobe stock.
But I’m kinda out of the loop now as I use Photoshop CS4 and it works just fine for me. My iMac is old, by tech standards, but it also still does the trick for me.
My way of thinking, is if I change computers I would consider either OnOne or Elements. I have the On One version that works as a plug in with Photoshop. Haven’t checked out the stand alone version. The two most important ingredients with Photoshop are layers and blending.
But I may sound like a worn out record, but I’ve worked hard at understanding this stuff and I believe in getting it where I want it during the capture stage so as I don't have to spend, what I consider, a waste of time trying to get it correct during the process stage.
I'm with you, Bill ... the subscription model for LR use doesn't net me much in way of any benefit and actually costs me slightly more since I don't use the other tools included with it. But PS CS4 and the Adobe Camera Raw that supports it is way too old to support more of the more recent cameras that are of interest to me, and not upgrading to newer versions of Camera Raw that have had the benefit of a decade's worth of algorithm improvement since doesn't seem sensible. Even for ancient, existing cameras: For example, my 2003 Olympus E-1 produces very nice in-camera JPEGs but since it also produces raw files, I can reprocess with the latest raw converter even old photos I made with it and see significant improvements in the rendering quality. I can make new photos using higher ISO settings with the same camera that are better than I ever could with older versions of the raw converter.
Getting the exposure and framing right when capturing to raw files continues to have great value to getting the best rendering, but a raw file—no matter what the settings in camera—is NOT a finished image and requires interpretation by a raw converter to render to a finished image. That raw conversion is critical. Unless you're happy with the JPEG capabilities and rendering that your camera produces and consider that your finished image, or have cameras that your current tools produce the right finished results from to your satisfaction, the strategy of sitting still with an older version of an image processing computer, operating system, and image processing app is limiting. I continue to push boundaries and find that updated OS, apps, etc, all contribute to my satisfaction...
Maybe I'm just fussy and want something that is impractically difficult to achieve, but eh? such it is.
😀
G
