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

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.

That’s funny.

I would guess that We read the same forums and my totally unscientific perception - as it relates to forum users only - is opposite of yours. I guess neither of us can talk about ‘most Adobe users” as we have no real facts. I do wish a credible source would do a detailed survey about this though - across the entire photo/video/creative user base — and see what the actual sentiment is. I, personally, don’t know.

You can't transfer your edits via XMP. You can transfer some metadata and one or two edits might be compatible with your new editor, but the option to transfer doesn't really exist. It would require some kind of catalogue translation program to do this and I can't see newbie vendors developing that to mop Adobe ingrates.

No reasonable person can possibly argue that someone should be fine with the prospect of starting afresh editing a back catalogue of 40,000 images. It's a ridiculous idea.

The idea my expectations are unrealistic is pure gaslighting. LR ran on a perpetual licence model for almost all of its existence. It didn't make Adobe poor, did it? Some accountants ran some numbers and figured out a way to gouge their customers. And as I keep stressing, I don't care about their pricing model. I care about only one thing, not having control over the thousands of hours of labour I have put into my image editing over the last 20 years, just to benefit Adobe shareholders, if I were to be foolish enough to sign up for the subs model. And I'm not, I still have my perpetual licence for images up to 2019 and still and always will have control over my edits. The same for post 2019 images which are processed in darktable and free of all this nonsense.

I do find it bizarre that people think it is ok to hand control over their own work to a corporation whom they will have to continue to pay forever. It really doesn't seem sensible or equitable to me. But each to their own; if you guys are happy with the situation there's obviously nothing else worth saying on the subject. I just hope anyone signing up has thought through the implications for their autonomy.

No, it doesn't. What's lost is your access to make NEW edits. You permanently retain access to your old edits.

I spent $149.50 USD on Capture One Pro 7, $49 USD to upgrade to 9, $182 CAD to upgrade to 12, so around $330 USD over 9 years. I would have to upgrade again if I get a new camera. Prices has gone up, but still way cheaper than subscribing to Lightroom.

Correct.

Rich

What does it even mean to say you retain access to your old edits if you can't change them, roll back to an earlier version or do anything with them?

I'd describe that situation as "your old edits are permanently frozen from the moment your subs lapses and you are blocked from accessing them".

That situation is not remotely what I would describe as "retaining access". Putting your stuff in a locked glass case under armed guard is not "retaining access", it's letting you look at it from afar whilst you ponder re-subscribing to get hold of the key.

You can access the edits for printing and exporting. However, you are blocked from doing any more modifications within the app.
My more significant concern would be whether you can still update Adobe's apps even if the subscription has lapsed. Ten years from now, none of my current apps will be compatible with my latest computer/OS.

It means you retain them. Kind of like picking a carpet color - you retain the carpet but not the ability to change its color.

Almost like hanging a print on the wall.

It means you can still view, print, export and publish your old edits.

I put stuff in a safe deposit box specifically so that I can retain access.

You retain access to the key. What you lose is the ability to modify what's inside.

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. Losing access means not being able to view, print, export or publish your pictures with your edits in-tact. But that's not what's happening.

When you buy a painting, do you retain access to the artist's ability to apply new paint and thus alter the painting? Or do you just own the painting as-is? You're paying Adobe for the right to make NEW edits. You retain the old ones. And even so, I think you can still alter them to some degree with Quick Develop and you can always re-start your subscription if you want to make new edits.

Yeah, the subscription model sucks for users (but it's great for Adobe since they get to "fleece the flock"), but not for the reason you say.

That is also a concern with purchased software, and with the software that comes with purchased hardware. I'm looking at you, Hasselblad/Imacon.