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

You subscribe to the service to deliver new copy each month. Adobe does not take back your edits. You can still see them.

A couple of things I forgot to say...

1. XMP files are no substitute for the develop module. Most of the editing steps saved to XMP cannot be used by other programs, so you can't realistically import your catelogue to another program via XMP. That is not a solution. I know this because when I first tried exporting my 40,000 image LR catalogue to darktable via XMP, the images didn't look the same in dT. The LR edit commands just don't translate 1:1 to darktable commands, it's useless - which is why I still retain 20 years worth of LR files in 6.14.

2. If I gave up active photography for one reason or another, but still wanted to work with my back catalogue, and had moved to LR CC, I'd have to subscribe to Adobe for the rest of my life or lose access to the individual edits I made over decades. I couldn't replicate those edits in another program, I'd simply have to give up the right to re-edit those files or be blackmailed into giving Adobe money for the rest of my natural. I don't consider that a good deal, and find it remarkable other photographers are happy to jump into being bound financially to Adobe forever.

3. A trivial example to demonstrate why it matters to me. I like to put a white border around my finished images (a fake mat). In darktable, adding these borders is a one click option. And a one click option to turn them off again. When I present on the web I leave the border on, when I print, I turn the border off temporarily. This is live editing of the back catalogue files. If I was doing this in LR subs, I'd have to subscribe £20 a month forever to ensure the right to switch my borders on and off. This is ridiculous, it's hostage holding.

I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to understand that "access to edits" means access to change edits.

When you buy editing software you buy the right to edit files, not just the right for your previous edits not to be deleted at some future point. What use is it to be able to admire my edits if I can't do anything with them? If my edits cannot be changed, the only right I retain with Adobe is the right to export my images - at which point they stop being raw files accompanied by a changeable history of edit commands I can continue to change in a different program and become a finalised file with no history of edits that can be further edited. This is no longer a raw file workflow.

I agree it would be different (and no longer unreasonable) if you could export the raw file edits to another program without losing anything. This would be akin to exporting a tif file edited in photoshop to, say, gimp. That's fine. But with the LR raw workflow, my edit history only works in LR. It can't be successfully exported to another program. XMP does not help.

Maybe because your case is not typical.
Most people seem not to want to change edits of old images. Instead, they want only to be able to export and print it again. However, those who like to re-edit old photos, like me, often want to start with a clean slate and not just pile up on the previous edits.

You may have a point. But they are my edits, not Adobe's. Adobe don't just stop me using their program, they stop me having access to my work in any other program. I think of all these apologies to Adobe as being like "Don't know what you are worried about, Mr Davinci. I know we have taken the Mona Lisa away from you and locked it up, but we gave you a photo of it first. You can continue to work on the photo any way you like".

A tiff of the latest state of my image is not the same as the raw file + the editing history. I can move a tiff into a new program and edit the tif but that is not the same as being able to roll back my edits to a prior state and re-edit.

I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to understand that "access to edits" means access to change edits.
[/quote]

It´s not that people don´t understand that. They rather understand it is not fair request given the stoppage of the subscribtion. In technical sense, this might be possible to override if not taken care of, and it would let people to continue using the software. Well, they don´t want that. Obviously. How can you blame them for THIS? No, they are not charity. No, I don´t like many things about subscription model either, but your idea simply is not reasonable.

What's not reasonable about them disabling the import module? You then have a program that can never be used for new images after you stop subscribing but can be used for existing images. That way they stop you from cheating them but they don't hold your edit history hostage. Probably easier for them to implement as well. No, their chosen method has been selected to ensure you have to pay for ever if you don't want to effectively throw away your edit history. This isn't reasonable protection of their revenue stream, it's doing violence to their customers who have paid them good money up to that point.

For many amateurs that work in bursts, working in the hobby for months then many months or longer off, which is more the norm than not among amateurs, the subscription model is a rip off as you are paying for a product you don't need during the time of non-activity. If I were a pro, I'd subscribe without question, but I could also write the subscription off as a business cost.

LR and PS are top notch but there also some very decent purchased and free software out there. I use Apache Open Office free software because my needs aren't high for MS Word and Excell. GIMP serves my needs quite well and its free.

Sometimes the best isn't the best, kind of like lenses. Will an f4 Canon 70 - 200 produce great results even though it weighs much less that the f2.8 and costs substantially less. Yes, because rarely do I need the f2.8 aperture. Same with Lightroom and PS, definitely the best out there but I don't need the best.

I agree that Adobe's subscription model does not work for you.

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?