P: Lightroom Desktop: Ability to print

John I hear you. But why would Adobe release something less featured than what the "old" version delivered. I won't even go into the fact that the basic 20G hardly holds the code for the basic photo subscription. I have about 10 pics synched and I get the "almost full" warning. Indicating I get to pay even more for online storage to make CC work.
Not buying any of it yet.

I don't think it was Mitch - it was just starting again with better code - this is something we are doing with our software, but it's impossible to make it as fully featured from the start

It seems that CC was designed for tablets and phones. 
If they even think of eliminating the desktop (Classic) I will be totally done with Adobe.
The whole idea of LR was the catalogs and file control.

Hi Jim
Actually, whilst I agree that Victoria's 'last time I printed a photo' is a bit glib - CC is a 'built from ground up' application, and sharing libraries would be a kludge at best. In the end this will be good for all of us, the pain is now.

One of the main reasons I moved to CC was because of the processor power needed by CC (so so much less than classic). Processing images on my iPad Pro I can work for 8 hours with CC (on a plane for instance), whereas with classic on a MacBook Pro one is lucky to get an hour. 

I'm sure that CC is the early stages of our future, but certainly I can't be doing with the missing stuff (exif searching / printing / book module / etc.) but it seems that one can reasonably successfully run Classic as a backup for what's missing in CC (even if Adobe don't recommend it)
. 

With all due respect to Victoria ("Personally I can't remember the last time I printed a photo locally, since local or online labs do a good and economical job without needing to maintain a photo quality printer"), I maintain a Canon Pro-100 printer specifically so that I do not have to deal with a third party to produce prints.

Having to hop back-and-forth between two apps to get the functionality of one well-designed app seems kludgy at best. One would expect a company with the resources of Adobe to be able to share code libraries between apps, especially when those apps share a fundamental purpose (managing a library of image files). 

Perhaps a more honest approach would have been for Adobe to christen the new Lightroom CC as "Lightroom Elements." That way, nobody expects full features. 

In hindsight... that's unfair to Photoshop Elements. It has built-in print functionality.

hi Christian
I pay for the Photographer's thingy, with 1Tb of online storage (I think it's 12.50GBP a month). Yes - if you create a collection in CC it'll appear in Classic (but not the containers). 
it seems to work pretty well - both programs download source files, but perhaps that isn't a bad thing. 
. . and of course you then have all the background advantages of Classic, with the foreground advantages of CC 

@jonathan: So you don't have any "syncing" issues between CC and Classic? I thought Classic can only handle 20GB of online collections. How does Classic handle it, if I create an Album in CC, will it automatically be an online collection in Classic?

Ontopic: I thought Adobe would be faster with delivering left out features like printing and exporting. Now I'm not angry about Adobe not adding that basic functions - I knew that I don't get printing or exporting at the time I opted for the CC only subscription. I just hoped to get it soon. I guess most CC users who complain about missing features like printing are in the same boat now - nobody ever gave word THAT or WHEN those features will be added. If one is angry, it can only be because of disappointment.

Victoria- Can you identify any other Photo software that does NOT have a print function? Really your support of Adobe on this issue is rather weak.

>Everyone's workflow is different, so your priorities may be different
Yes indeed - tell me about it! as a camera tester and a software developer I'm only too aware of this (and like Radu I have no illusions about the complications of this). On the other hand I would have thought that most photographers would need one of the features missing from CC.

My own conclusion is that despite recommendations it's quite okay to run both applications (CC and Classic) parallel as long as you really understand what they're doing. That means that the improved filtering / book module / printing / exporting and other features not yet in CC can be used when needed.

> Printing is a pretty fundamental ability for a photograph don't you think Victoria?

Adobe will have some fairly significant stats on this, which will be a big factor in the decisions they've made so far. The main target audience for CC is not the same as the target audience for Classic, at least at this point of time. 

Personally I can't remember the last time I printed a photo locally, since local or online labs do a good and economical job without needing to maintain a photo quality printer. If I did need to, I'd just send it to Photoshop, or save as Original+Settings to import into a temporary Classic catalog.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be pleased to see it added. But I'd put things like a Trash facility, better export options and saved searches ahead of it on my own priority list. Everyone's workflow is different, so your priorities may be different.