P: Refresh the User Interface

[chilledout]

Hi Adobe,

The Lightroom Classic desktop UI looks incredibly outdated. I'm not sure there's good reason for this given its popularity. Please update the user interface to match your other software like Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign etc.

A modern, lean styling would not only look better, it would be more competitive with alternatives, and it would provide additional screen real estate for users.

Thank you.

[KR Seals]

Sometimes I see comments like this. Can you explain why you feel this way. What would an updated UI look like and still maintain the functionality? I understand you are specifically speaking about Lightroom Classic. Have you tried Lightroom?

[F. McLion]

What is the use case for a more modern UI ... what's the gain for you/any user?

IHMO, the UI is very ok. They should rather work on the speed of the application.

[JohanElzenga]

There are a huge number of Lightroom Classic video tutorials on Youtube, written tutorials on websites and books about Lightroom Classic. A different UI just for the sake of making Lightroom Classic 'more modern' would mean that these tutorials become obsolete and the confusion between Lightroom Classic and Lightroom (cloud) would probably become worse. So no, please do not change the IU. We need improvements of the functionality, not eye candy.

[chilledout]

Thanks for all the comments.

To be clear, I’m referring purely to style and appearance, not function. I am suggesting Adobe make the appearance of the UI look like the rest of Adobe software.

Screenshots below to illustrate a few examples.

Sure, it doesn’t affect function. Does a beautiful UI actually matter? Does beautiful design matter? Subjective, but aesthetics have a role to play and software designers know this.

I agree that Lr Classic could be improved in many functional ways. Example: an improvement to the spot healing tool to match the accuracy and speed of photoshop.

But again, here I’m referring only to the look, that is totally separate from functionality.

My suggestion in a nutshell: keep everything else the same, just make it look like it was made in 2022. As it stands, Lr Classic looks the way Adobe software looked many years ago.

Thanks.

[F. McLion]

Regarding the tabs: You can hide these, permanently or "auto-hide". That is how I gain more space, since I don't need them anyway.

Use the keyboard shortcuts to work in LrC - suggested way of working. You can hide and un-hide most parts of the screen simply with hitting a key. Also, to change modules or directly open a specific develop tool.

My 0.02 ... Keyboard shortcuts are key in LrC.

[JohanElzenga]

Some of the things you mention are actually already implemented. Try this: Go to 'Window - Screen Mode - Full Screen with Menu Bar'.

[GoldingD]

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, as in v1, was created as a program for photographers to manage photo filing and post process images. For photographers, not for Graphics Designers. One key point being at that time simplicity over the complexity in Photoshop.

The GUI was set up with menu bar modules appropriate to functions to occur in post processing, and left and right panels for a logical workflow, note that in the develop module, in the right side panel for one, top to bottom is in a logical progression in terms of process workflow steps.

Photoshop was seen as to cumbersome, to convoluted, and with lots of capability not used by photographers, Oh their are pro's that will call this BS. but most LrC users hardly enter PS, they just do so for a few things not done well in LrC.

Adobe has enough hate from users unhappy with bugs, lack of capability's compared with competitors, poor customer service, etc. So they are not likely to make such changes to the UI, that could lead to a mass immigration to Capture One, ON1 Photo RAW, etc.

Now some things could improve that users would appreciate. Selection of fonts and text size for one.

[chilledout]

Yes, as a professional photographer I already use all shortcuts etc.

For fear of my point being missed, I am simply asking Adobe: why? Neglecting the most basic UI updates signals to me as a user that Adobe doesn’t care that much about Lr Classic.

Despite the loyal user base and use case of Lr Classic, Lr Cloud is getting all the attention.

[JohanElzenga]

Lightroom Classic is getting quite a lot of attention. It's just that the team concentrates on features rather than eye candy. I guess most Lightroom Classic users prefer it that way, because you do not seem to get many people agreeing with you so far.  BTW: this is what Lighroom Classic looks like if you use Full Screen with Menubar. That is a lot more like Premiere Pro.

[SteddyShots]

100% agree. However, just like if you suggested this on a Photoshop or Premiere forum before their UI was modernized you would have got equal pushback because people, especially commenters don't like a lot of change even for the better. 

In regards to why the UI hasn't been updated but every other Adobe app has is because presumably they launched LR CC. When they did they could have called it Lightroom Pro and Lightroom Cloud, but instead choose the new version to be the new Lightroom and the previous to be "Classic" which by nature means the old version. Adobe I'm sure would love to have a single app, however making drastic changes to the LRC would cause an uproar, but at the same time, Apple also decided to abandon Aperture for Photos because their is a much larger market for a simplified app. Unlike Apple, Adobe knows they can't drop classic, because all the pros will switch to another app, and once they do prosumers would also follow eventually.

The long term goal one can imagine is that there is enough feature parity that most will have switched to LR Cloud, and then sunsetting Classic won't be too disruptive. But in the meantime I expect they will continue to focus on new features for Cloud (which they will also add to Classic) other than UI improvements since doing a UI update would signal LRC will be around forever and alongside LR Cloud. But while that's probably the thought process now, if droves of pros stick with Classic, like they are now, then perhaps there plans will change and some day it will be updated and even rebranded as Lightroom Pro or such. And remember with LR Cloud you must use their storage which as people's libraries grow which much more money for the company vs LRC. Adobe stock has been doing amazing since switching to subscriptions, so while many may hate subscriptions and cloud storage, its proving successful so probably the future. 

[Keith Reeder]

"Neglecting the most basic UI updates signals to me as a user that Adobe doesn’t care that much about Lr Classic."

You're reading motiviatons for the current situation that there's simply no evidence for - did Denoise AI pass you by?

At the best of times, UI is subjective, and yet most of us (I confidently assert, despite having no evidence either) are probably more interested in actual functionality improvements, rather than arbitrary changes to look and feel.

"The Lightroom Classic desktop UI looks incredibly outdated."

I flat-out disagree. And that's kinda my whole point. It's like arguing that blue is a better colour than red.

[Keith Reeder]

"because people, especially commenters don't like a lot of change even for the better."

I don't think you get to decide what's "for the better" as far as other people's opinions of UI are concerned.

[bajanstefan18]

Agree big time. More so than an update the UI feels like it's weighted while using the application on a variety of machines in a variety of use cases. Of all the beta products available for adobe products, this one is in need of it's own to get feedback from end users.

[SteddyShots]

I don’t, companies like Adobe and Apple for instance do which is why they upgrading all their os and products to modern ui’s then customers get to decide since if it’s not better overall then people won’t use and won’t be successful and then companies will change and go with a financial profitable design. Adobe chose a modern design for all their countless other apps and the company is flourishing. But again, most people don’t like change which is why all the users who would love to see the app finally with the ui updated aren’t likely to comment here since often met with hostility. But I’ll let comments speak for themselves in that regards.

[claudiawey1968]

I agree 100% - I am a passionate photographer and a UX designer. I love the UI of Lightroom (not the classic version). It is so much simpler, untuive and effecient, as well as clean and elegant. I whish I could use that, but I need the local storage and the access to plugins, so I am kind of stuck with Lightroom classic, but I hate every bit of it.

[Keith Reeder]

"but I hate every bit of it."

Then I suggest you have your priorities all wrong.

As long as the UI does't actively get in the way of the functionality - and let's be clear, it absolutely does not - then it's doing its job perfectly well.

Complaints about it are then simply arbitrary, subjective personal preference - possibly exacerbated by your self-proclaimed "UX designer" interest in the topic, which may well make you believe that your opinion of "better" is somehow validated by your expertise.

Just for context on that last: "UX designers" have decided, the world over, that the best UI for image editing and RAW conversion programmes should include a dark background with white or light grey text: personally I agree, but on every forum I've ever been active on - this one; Capture One; ON1; Affinity Photo; ACDSee, to name but a few - there are constant complaints that this colour combination doesn't work. 

And yet, we've got it anyway - purely because UX experts have decided that it's the way to go.

It's reasonable to assume that Adobe has a few such folk on the payroll, too. I don't doubt that Lr Classic's look and feel will evolve, but to acknowledge that is not to accept that there is an inherent here problem that needs fixing... 

[SteddyShots]

Then I suggest you have your priorities all wrong.

As long as the UI does't actively get in the way of the functionality - and let's be clear, it absolutely does not - then it's doing its job perfectly well.

You have no idea their priorities, just as they know not yours. So you may do better sharing your opinion than attempting to speak for others who have a different view point. I and other supporters do not appear to be saying UI is their number one priority. Rather they love they app, but wish it had a modern UI, like every single other Adobe app. All of those apps like Photoshop have had lots of priorities but Adobe has been able to managing to keep their app design updated with the times in all of them while continuing to release major feature updates. 

UI certainly gets in the way of functionality since the user interface is literally what the user users to carry out the features of the app. How much it effects it varies. Such as having a dated dropshadow on text can be an eye sore but on the surface wouldn't seem to effect productivity, until one thinks how apps with dated UI most often have dated backends with significantly slower performance. As new apps that embrace newer frameworks get the benefit of the updated UI elements. I have a 100K library in Lightroom Classic and Cloud, and Cloud is drastically faster as it was completely rewritten code base and subsequently a modern design. Of course feature wise Cloud still is far behind the workhorse of Classic, but it could have feature parity with it's modern design, but Adobe is aiming towards a wider audience, since modern design is are more accessible to users. 

The longer Adobe neglects updating the app design the more likely it is eventually Adobe will stop supporting Classic and only support the Cloud product is which drastically more lucrative since it requires using their storage. Apple had Aperture, but they stopped updating the UI and then slowing down features until eventually switched to Apple Photos solely because there is such a larger market. Other than C1, Lightroom is all we really have as Pros, so hope Classic continues, and an updated design would certainly signal they are invested it keeping it around in parallel with the Cloud app, rather than simply updating it until enough people switch to the Cloud offering.

[Keith Reeder]

"You have no idea their priorities, just as they know not yours. "

Anyone who is more worried about subjective notions of UI, over the performance and efficiency of the programme, has the wrong priorities: we're not using Lr because it looks pretty, we use it because of what it can do for us. 

"So you may do better sharing your opinion than attempting to speak for others who have a different view point."

So others can state as a fact - and without a shred of evidence - that the Lr UI is flawed, and I can't express a counter view?

Good to know...

"UI certainly gets in the way of functionality"

A bad UI certainly can get in the way of functionality, but nobody on this thread has yet identified a single instance of Lr's UI actually doing that.

QED. 

Again: it's about priorities. There's a world of difference between "I don't much like how this bit of  Lr looks..." and "This fundamentally stops me from using Lr the way I should be able to..." And anyone more wrapped up in the former than the latter is missing the point.

Every single image editor or RAW converter I've ever used (and it's a lot) has attracted complaints about their UI: the only rational approach is to filter out this abitrary, subjective noise as an irrelevance (we can't all be right...) and focus on what they can do, because at least that can (to a greater or lesser extent) be objectively considered and quantified, unlike UI. 

[SteddyShots]

"Anyone who is more worried about subjective notions of UI"

People could easily make while generalizations about people making this type of statement as well. Again, perhaps speak for yourself rather than potentially attempting to speak for everyone, when many continue to say what you are saying about them does not represent their thoughts.

And again.. the author and others did not say the UI is more important than features, etc (you are saying that for them). They are saying that like every other software Adobe has ever released, they have been able to focus on features and keeping the app design up to date. And when users want a modern UI, that goes hand and hand with major performance improvements since developers rarely ever do a full modern redesign without updating the underlying code. So when if every Adobe updates the app, you can be sure it will go hand and hand with a full rewrite as they did with Lightroom and their other apps and thus result in significant performance improvements like we see with Lightroom CC. 

A bad UI certainly can get in the way of functionality, but nobody on this thread has yet identified a single instance of Lr's UI actually doing that

Again Lightroom is relatively slow compared to Lightroom CC because it uses an old code base that the UI is attached too. Adobe will never rebuild the backend to a complete modern code based and leave the design dated, as the design UI elements are highly correlated to the code used.  We want a modern user interface and all that comes with  that including improvements to the code that result in being able to more quickly adopt the latest hardware and IS software features that available.

So others can state as a fact - and without a shred of evidence - that the Lr UI is flawed, and I can't express a counter view?

That may be more you unwillingness to listen to people providing evidence of that. As noted again, ever piece of Adobe has been updated so that is what Adobe believes is appropriate for their software, and Adobe is more financially successful than ever in history so customers overall support that direction as well. If keeping the design overall the same for 10-15 years was what Adobe and their customers wanted then they would, since Adobe will do what makes the most money since they are a for profit company. But again realize many people do not like change, and not matter how much we explain the benefits they still do not want it. That is completely fine, but hopefully you will be able to respect others point of view as well even if it is different from yours and not to generalize their views especially when it does not represent their beliefs or views. 

[chilledout]

Thanks for the comments.

Regarding features, several new ones, including Denoise AI, were introduced about six months after my initial post. Recent updates to Lightroom Classic have indeed been great. However, as others mentioned, Lightroom CC (cloud) likely generates more revenue for Adobe. Hence, allocating more resources to enhance the cloud software aligns with better returns on investment.

Refocusing on my original question: Adobe's suite of applications shares a consistent UI design, but Lightroom Classic stands out with outdated elements compared to other Adobe apps. This raises the question: Why? What does it say about Adobe's focus?

Some argue for the "if it works, why change it?" approach. However, progress matters. We should embrace improvements as advancements in knowledge and skills lead to better outcomes. In computer literacy and software engineering, advancements usually result in enhanced performance and functionality for users, ensuring their loyalty.

Believing that no changes are needed implies the current UI design is flawless. But can we honestly claim that? Shouldn't we strive for continuous improvement?

History has shown us that when we resist change and progress, we tend to remain stuck in the past. While Adobe will undoubtedly continue improving their products, it's unfortunate to see the Lightroom Classic UI left behind, raising questions about its future.

Cheers.

[Leo Lundgren]

Totally agree with this. I'm new to photography and Lightroom (the new one) was my first interaction with a photo editing software. It's been really fun and intuitive overall and the only thing I'm missing are some key features. I started looking for another software plan in order to find these features and I discovered that there was a Classic version. My first impression was that it looked like something that had been forgotten and pushed to the side by the new version. It reminded me of how editing software used to look when I went through college. I was surprised to discover that it was the "powerhouse" version of the two and that professionals used it mostly. I'm not sure what the point is to have such a visual and practical difference between the two versions but it's a pity really since it comes in the way of the editing. I really hope the two versions will look alike in the future.

[MissCatD]

I completely agree with this sentiment. The Lightroom Classic look is over a decade if not 2 decades outdated to modern design standards. The beveled edges, rough typography, chunky vs thin inconsistencies between headers, gradiented stock graphics and more than anything the white window header are all very rough on the eyes and extremely distracting.

I have been using Adobe products religiously for over a decade and a half, and there's no excuse for this. What are you trying to do, Adobe, keep your senior and legacy users satisfied with nostolgic 90's and 2000's graphic styles? Or is it just sheer laziness? It really is hard on the eyes, in such a clean, sleek and modernly graphic-designed age. There are reasons why graphic design has changed tremendously over the past 2 decades, and it's not just a trend. It's an evolution to a more clean digital environment that's easier to understand, recognize and navigate. Legitimately, it's social and visual psychology. Unmatching the modern standard makes things feel foreign, harder to process, and slows down productivity. Kind of like culture shock.

Modern Lightroom does not have all of the tools that Classic Lightroom does, making this detail all the more frustrating. In order to gain access to these improved tools, I have to endure this awful visual environment? Please, Adobe, can you update the visual interface for Lightroom Classic?

Thank you.

[Lumigraphics]

There is a whole lot of pain in the Lightroom UI. Having different modules (with different colorspaces, yet) and different capabilities is nuts. Or try this- work with templates when you are importing photos. You can't preview the metadata, editing an existing template (which I do on pretty much every import) is ridiculous- way too many clicks needed, stupid defaults, you name it, just a waste of time and effort. Tools are inconsistent- if you have a secondary window, select multiple files, then click a label on the toolbar it only applies the label to one file BUT right-click and the label is applied to all selected. Arrow keys work different in Library and Editing. Change the magnification and it will actually change the window view. Keywording is a mess, buggy and can't decide which namespace to use and conflicts with Bridge. Right-clicking an image works differently depending on exactly where you click. You can't rename a file while editing, why do I have to go back to the Library module for a simple NAME CHANGE? (the stupid filename for images with AI noise reduction...)

Apple had a FAR superior UI in Aperture but of course that's now dead. I'd love to see Adobe pay Apple to copy that UI.

I could go on and on and on. :sigh: