What Lightroom still lacks and why left my Adobe subscription
I used Lightroom for twenty years and left the subscription. Here's what broke, what I still miss, and what I want from the next generation of photography tools.
If you’re wondering whether to leave Lightroom, I can save you some time: I did, and it was not a clean break.
I used Lightroom for twenty years and paid for it for more than a decade. Then I cancelled the subscription and paused my editing. I still use the free version for my catalog and WordPress publishing, but I edit somewhere else.
Here’s what made me leave, what I still miss, and what I want instead.
What Lightroom still gets right
I am not writing this because Lightroom is bad. If it were bad, leaving would have been easy.
Lightroom is also where I learned to edit with intention. David duChemin’s Vision & Voice taught me that editing is not a set of sliders. It is deciding what a photograph is about and using the tools to lead the eye there. That is why I stayed so long.
The catalog is still the best argument for staying. It holds twenty years of photographs, keywords, collections and smart collections, plus the folder structure I built around the way I work.
It is not just a browser. It is the map of my archive.
When I open it, I know where everything is. That is worth something, and I have not found a replacement that gives me the same confidence.
The editing is still familiar. The masks are good: Subject, Sky and People work well.
HDR merge and panorama merge work. The print, book and web modules are still there. The plugin ecosystem is still there. That is not nothing. It is the reason I kept paying for so long.
And there are two things I miss.
The first is generative remove inside the DNG. Not just the tool: the fact that the edit stays in the raw file.
I do not have to create a TIFF, double the size of the file, and drag it back into the catalog. I open the DNG, remove what I do not want, and the file remains the file.
That is a clean workflow, and I have not found anything that matches it.
The second is direct export to WordPress. I still use it. My photographs go from the catalog to the website without another application in between.
When you publish often, that is not a small convenience. It is the difference between a workflow that moves and one that stops at every step.
So no, I am not pretending Lightroom is worthless. The things it still does well are exactly why the rest of this article is not a victory lap.
I know what I am leaving behind. I know what I am still using. That is what makes the missing features worth writing about.
Why the features never arrive
I paid for Lightroom for more than a decade. The subscription was supposed to buy updates. Instead, I kept finding the updates somewhere else.
Three examples:
- The focus point. It is in Camera Raw. It is not in Lightroom. Same company, same raw file, different app.
- The AI tools. I pay a subscription, then I pay again in credits. And I can only use Adobe’s model.
- The split. Photoshop gets the pixel work. Lightroom gets the photographer’s workflow. The line between them is commercial, not technical.
That is the pattern: pay, wait, work around it.
I don’t think Adobe is sitting in a room plotting. I think it owns the workflow. Once your catalog, keywords, edits and publishing all live in one app, leaving is a migration, not a click. The company can move at the speed that suits it.
The trust problem goes beyond features. Adobe made cancelling a subscription difficult enough that the US government sued the company.
In 2024, a terms-of-use update appeared to give Adobe broad rights over customer work, including the possibility of using it to train AI models. Adobe said Firefly was not trained on customer content and later revised the language. I am not a lawyer. But I know how it felt: I was paying for a tool, and the company seemed to treat my photographs as an asset it could use.
So let’s go through the features. I’ll start with the interface, because it is the first thing you see every day.
The interface
The interface is where the frustration starts. You open Lightroom to look at your photographs, and the software feels like it was designed for a different decade.
There is no justified grid
Lightroom gives you a grid. It does not give you a justified grid. Mylio has used that layout for years: the rows fill the screen and the photographs keep their proportions.
The current grid is functional. It is not beautiful. Every frame is the same size, so a vertical portrait and a wide landscape get the same weight. You lose the rhythm of a shoot.
What I want: a justified grid that makes the library feel like a portfolio, not a contact sheet.
There is no command palette
Most of the apps I use now have a command palette. Lightroom still hides settings in menus that make sense to Adobe, not to me.
If I have not used a feature for a month, I have to remember where it lives. That is not a workflow. It is a memory test.
What I want: one shortcut, type what I need, and go.
Filters cannot become collections
I set up a filter by year, month, keyword and rating. Then I want to save it as a smart collection. Lightroom lets me save it as a preset, but not as a collection.
So I rebuild the same filter by hand, or I keep a saved filter that does not appear where I need it.
What I want: a button that turns the current filter into a smart collection.
And while we’re there: let me hide the top filter bar. The left and right panels can auto-hide. The top one cannot.
Import
Import is where Lightroom should feel fastest. It is where I feel slowest.
Importing from a card takes too long
Importing directly from a camera or card reader should be quick. Instead, Lightroom spends minutes building previews, and sometimes the battery is half gone before the import finishes.
The workaround is ridiculous: copy the files to the computer first, then import them into Lightroom. It works, but I am doing the software’s job.
What I want: a fast import that uses the embedded previews, does not drain the battery, and lets me start culling while the files are still coming in.
Auto-stack does not understand brackets or focus stacks
Lightroom can stack by capture time. It cannot tell that five frames are a bracket, or that twelve frames are a focus stack.
So I get piles of near-identical images, and I stack them by hand. On a long trip, that is hours of work the software should do for me.
What I want: import-time stacking that recognises brackets and focus stacks, keeps the sequence together, and lets me choose the keeper.
There is no safe delete-from-card after import
If you forget to format a card, you find out at the worst moment: in the field, with the card nearly full.
Lightroom will import the files. It will not help you clean the card afterwards. I delete them manually, one by one, or I format the card and hope everything was copied.
What I want: a clear option after a verified import to delete the imported files from the card, with a confirmation that protects the ones that were not copied.
Library
The library is the reason I stayed with Lightroom for so long. It is also where the software is most fragile.
Re-importing scatters your keywords
If you re-import exported photos, the keywords can come back flat. The hierarchy you built over weeks is suddenly a list.
I have lost hours rebuilding parent keywords and sub-keywords after a re-import. The worst part is that you often notice too late.
What I want: a preview before re-importing that shows how the keywords will land, and a warning when a file already has keywords. Keep the hierarchy I built.
Keywords and smart collections are trapped in each catalog
I use different catalogs for different projects and countries. Every new catalog starts with a new keyword list and a new set of smart collections.
That means rebuilding the same system, and then keeping it in sync by hand. It is not a library. It is a series of libraries that do not talk to each other.
What I want: a shared keyword library and shared smart collections across catalogs. Set them up once, use them everywhere.
I still have to keyword every photo myself
Lightroom has AI for masking, denoising and removing objects. It does not keyword my photos for me.
Small apps and plugins can already suggest keywords from the image. Adobe has the resources to do it natively, with my own hierarchy, and it still does not.
What I want: AI keywording that suggests terms from my existing keyword list, shows me the result before writing it, and lets me accept or reject each one.
Editing
Editing is the part I still trust. It is also the part that fights my intent.
Auto does not understand mood
The Auto button is built to normalise an image. It tries to make everything visible.
That works for an average frame. It fails on a low-key photograph. It lifts the shadows, reveals noise, and kills the mood I was trying to protect.
Adaptive profiles are smarter, but they still look for a middle ground. Sometimes the middle ground is the wrong place to be.
What I want: Auto that recognises a low-key frame and leaves it low-key. And a panel where I choose which sliders Auto is allowed to touch, so it stops adding vibrance and lifting whites when I do not want them.
Presets cannot run in sequence
My import workflow is not one preset. It is a sequence: Auto first, then a base look, then a mask, then denoising based on the camera and the ISO.
Lightroom makes me apply those steps by hand, then go back and undo the ones that do not fit. On a big shoot, that is a second pass through every image.
What I want: sequential presets on import, with simple conditions:
- Low-key frame: apply the low-key recipe.
- Milky Way shot: apply the night recipe.
- DJI drone: use the DJI colour treatment.
- High ISO: apply the right denoise level.
A decision tree, not a single preset.
Camera colour profiles are close, but not close enough
The camera-matching profiles are supposed to reproduce the look of the camera’s own JPEG. They are close, but not close enough.
Canon raw files need work before they look right. DJI DNGs often turn the sky aqua, far from the JPEG the drone produced. I can fix it, but I should not have to fix the same camera every time.
What I want: colour science that matches the camera manufacturer’s own output, and a one-click colour match from a reference JPEG to the raw file. If the camera can produce the colour, Lightroom should be able to start there.
Masking
Masking is Lightroom’s strongest feature. It is also where the gaps are most obvious.
There are no animal feature masks
Lightroom can find a person’s eyes, mouth and skin. It cannot find a bird’s eye, beak or feathers.
For a wildlife photographer, that is the mask that matters. I do not need another portrait preset. I need to select the eye of a hummingbird.
What I want: animal detection for eyes, beaks, feathers and fur. If Lightroom can find a human eye, it can find a bird’s eye.
Depth masks are limited to phones
Depth Range masking exists, but only for files with embedded depth data. In practice, that means the phone in my pocket, not the camera in my bag.
I do not photograph portraits with an iPhone. I photograph wildlife and people with professional cameras. Why does the phone get the better depth workflow?
What I want: depth masking for professional cameras, or a depth-map workflow that works with the raw files I actually shoot.
Luminosity masks are not a real workflow
Lightroom has a Luminance Range mask. It is useful. It is not a luminosity-mask workflow.
There are no zones from 1 to 10, no midtone presets, no dedicated panel for the way photographers actually use luminosity masks. I can approximate it, but I cannot work the way I want.
What I want: a dedicated luminosity panel with zones, midtone presets and feathered ranges. The kind of control that people who use luminosity masks expect.
Blending and output
This is where the workflow leaves Lightroom and turns into a chain of other apps.
No focus stacking or true 360 panorama stitching
Lightroom can merge HDR and panoramas. It cannot focus-stack, and it cannot stitch a true 360 panorama from the DNGs a drone produces.
So I leave Lightroom, open another app, merge the files, export a TIFF, and bring it back. Every extra step costs time and disk space.
What I want: focus stacking and 360 panorama stitching inside Lightroom, with the result kept in the catalog.
No social media panel
Lightroom has a Book module. Most photographers do not share books. They share photographs on social media.
There is no collage panel, no text overlay, no carousel builder, no scheduling. I export, open a design app, and rebuild the same layout again.
What I want: a social module with collages, text overlays, carousel layouts and scheduling. The place where the photograph is finished should also be the place where it is published.
No native WordPress publishing
WordPress is where I publish my work. Lightroom still has no native way to send a photograph there.
I use a plugin and a workaround. It works, but it is another link in the chain, and another place where something can break.
What I want: native WordPress publishing with title, caption, alt text, categories, tags and featured image. Choose the photo, write the words, publish.
The plugin system
Everything is a plugin.
That is the idea that ties the whole list together. The problem is not only that Lightroom is missing features. The problem is that you cannot add them yourself, or choose who does.
A plugin architecture would change that:
- The interface could be replaced.
- Features could be added by anyone.
- The AI provider could be your choice.
- The file management could be open and portable.
- You would not have to wait for one company’s roadmap.
That is the Lightroom I wanted. It is also the Lightroom I stopped waiting for.
Rest of my ideas
A few more ideas that did not fit the main argument. They are still part of the standard. Open the one you care about.
Lightroom’s folder structure, collections, smart collections and publish panels are powerful. The left panel still feels like an older application. New apps put date, location, keyword and rating filters in front of you. The folder tree is one way in, not the only way.
The folder structure is not the problem. The problem is that I have to build the modern view myself with smart collections, then keep rebuilding it.
What I want: a sidebar that presents the useful views by default, with filters for date, place, keyword and rating, and keeps the folder tree for when I need it.
Every keyword change to a JPEG or DNG rewrites the file. My backup tool sees a new file and re-uploads the whole thing. One keyword across a thousand 60 MB DNGs becomes a cloud traffic problem.
Raw files already use sidecars. JPEG and DNG should have the option too.
What I want: an option to write metadata to an XMP sidecar for JPEG and DNG, so a keyword edit stays small and my backup does not re-upload the image.
I can build smart collections by keyword, date, camera or rating. I cannot ask for “birds” or “landscapes” unless I have already keyworded them. The apps built in a week can group by subject. This does not need a giant AI model.
What I want: smart collections that can use subject detection, so a bird, a portrait or a landscape can become a view without a keyword pass.
Smart collections can filter folders, but there is no exact-match operator. If I want one folder and not its subfolders, I cannot say so cleanly. In a deep archive, that is the difference between a useful view and a folder that keeps pulling in everything below it.
What I want: an exact-match operator for folders, and no artificial limit on the criteria a smart collection can use.
I have mask presets for portraits, landscapes and wildlife. I still apply them one image at a time. A batch shoot with 300 keepers turns that into a long, repetitive pass.
What I want: an auto-apply masks button that detects the image type and applies the matching saved mask set. Portrait, landscape, bird, mammal. I review the result, but I do not build the same mask 300 times.
Adaptive profiles are useful, but I have to choose one for each photo. The subject is usually obvious: a portrait, a landscape, a cityscape, a bird. The software can see it too.
What I want: automatic profile detection that proposes the right adaptive profile for the subject, with a review before it is applied. It does not need generative AI; a classifier is enough.
Luminar Neo has glow, rain and sky replacement. Lightroom has none of it. I do not want every photograph to look like a composite, but sometimes the frame needs atmosphere the camera did not capture.
What I want: a small set of built-in effects for glow, rain and sky replacement, kept inside the photographer’s app instead of sending me to Photoshop or another editor.
Perspective correction can straighten a building. It cannot recover a composition when the camera was in the wrong place. Warping deforms the content instead of adding pixels. It is not the same job as Photoshop’s generative fill.
What I want: a real warp tool for pulling a composition back into shape, without leaving Lightroom for Photoshop.
Who should stay, who should leave, who should wait
Lightroom is not worthless. It is just not the only option anymore.
Stay if:
- Your catalog is the centre of your business.
- You rely on the print, book or web modules.
- You need the plugin ecosystem.
- The missing features are annoyances, not daily blockers.
Consider leaving if:
- The subscription is the main source of friction.
- Import and keyword management cost you hours every month.
- You need animal masks, focus stacking or 360 panoramas.
- You want to choose your AI provider.
Wait if:
- You are curious but not in pain.
- You have not tested a replacement on a real project.
- You would have to migrate a library you do not understand yet.
Do not migrate your whole catalog to test a new app. Run one project through it. Compare the time, the output and the stress. Then decide.
What I’m watching now
If you are looking for Lightroom alternatives, I am not recommending one yet. I am watching a few open-source projects, and each one is interesting for a different reason.
Redlamp is the one that caught my attention first. It uses external model libraries for selection and removal, which is the kind of openness I want. I have not used it enough to call it a replacement.
RapidRaw feels fast and focused. It is open source, but the AI is not free: it costs about $14 a month. That is a useful reminder that open source does not automatically mean cheap.
Lightcraft is early, but it is moving quickly. That is the point. A small team can ship a useful feature in weeks, not wait years for a roadmap.
None of these is finished. That is exactly why they are worth watching. The full reviews are a separate article, where I will test them on a real project and show what works and what breaks.
If you are still paying for Lightroom, you do not have to switch today. But you should know what is coming.
I cancelled the subscription because the tool stopped serving the intention it taught me. That is the whole argument.
Lightroom taught me to edit with intention. It gave me a catalog I trusted and a workflow I knew.
I am not pretending those years did not happen, and I am not pretending the free version is useless. I still use it for the catalog and for publishing. I still miss generative remove inside the DNG and the direct export to WordPress.
But I am not waiting for the next version to make the decision for me. The next generation of photography tools should be fast, open and shaped by the people who use them. They should let me choose my AI, keep my metadata portable and add the feature I need without waiting for a roadmap.
I don’t need Adobe to fail. I need it to compete.
If you are still paying, ask yourself what you are paying for. If the answer is the catalog, you are not alone. If the answer is the updates, check when the last one actually changed the way you work.
Frequently Asked Questions
Lightroom generates its own high-quality previews by interpreting the full RAW sensor data from scratch. This process involves demosaicing the file, applying a color profile, and rendering an accurate, editable image. While this takes more time initially, it ensures that what you see is a true representation of the RAW file's potential.
In contrast, many other viewers and operating systems take a shortcut by simply displaying the pre-rendered JPEG preview that the camera embeds within the RAW file. Extracting this existing image is nearly instant, but it doesn't reflect the raw data and has camera settings already "baked in."
Photos may appear less saturated after converting from Adobe ProPhoto RGB to sRGB because of the differences in color gamut between the two color spaces. Adobe ProPhoto RGB has a wider gamut, meaning it can represent more colors, particularly in the saturated reds, blues, and greens. In contrast, sRGB has a narrower gamut and cannot display all the colors available in Adobe ProPhoto RGB. During conversion, colors outside sRGB's range are either clipped or mapped to the nearest representable color, often resulting in reduced saturation and potential color shifts. This can lead to a softer and less vibrant appearance in the final image.
Converting a layer to a smart object in Photoshop and applying a Camera Raw filter generally maintains the layer's quality. However, if you start with a JPEG or other non-RAW file, initial quality limitations remain, regardless of how you apply Camera Raw adjustments. Exporting a layer directly as a smart object from Lightroom retains the file’s RAW attributes, offering potentially superior flexibility for exposure and color temperature adjustments. While both methods allow non-destructive editing, starting with RAW files often provides a broader tonal range and more precise adjustments compared to applying Camera Raw adjustments to non-RAW files converted into smart objects in Photoshop.
To view camera focus points in Lightroom, you'll need a plugin, as Lightroom doesn't offer built-in support for it. One of the most popular plugins is "Show Focus Points" for Lightroom Classic. After installing the plugin, select a photo in the Library or Develop module and go to 'File' > 'Plug-in Extras' > 'Show Focus Points'. A new window will open, displaying the focus points overlay on your image. Ensure your camera model is supported by the plugin for best results. This functionality is particularly useful for evaluating focus accuracy and composition post-capture.
Dual Pixel RAW is a feature in some Canon cameras that uses the Dual Pixel CMOS AF sensor technology to capture more information about a scene, allowing for post-processing adjustments. Each pixel on the sensor is split into two photodiodes, enabling the creation of two slightly different views of the scene. This capability allows photographers to make microadjustments to the focus, depth of field, and even bokeh effects after a photo is taken. Dual Pixel RAW requires specific software, such as Canon's Digital Photo Professional, for these adjustments. It provides greater flexibility in editing, enhancing creative control over the image's final appearance.
