Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

2 Messages

 • 

1.4K Points

Thu, Oct 19, 2017 3:37 PM

149

Lightroom Desktop: Ability to print

We really need a "convenient" way to print.  Some of us still like to create prints to hang on a wall.  While I know the printing is still available in "classic", to be able to move forward with Adode, an integrated print function needs to be added to Lightroom CC.

Responses

3 Messages

 • 

100 Points

2 years ago

Add me to the list of 'dummies' who just assumed there was a Print function available in Lightroom CC when upgrading. Incredible that this is not there and silence from Adobe. Very very disappointed!

23 Messages

 • 

578 Points

2 years ago

I need the ability to print batches of photos over a local network to my Canon Pro-100 from Lightroom CC for Desktop and Lightroom CC Mobile. 

At a minimum, I will need to be able to make layout templates and select paper profiles within Lightroom CC.

175 Messages

 • 

3.7K Points

2 years ago

So strange nothing happens. 

Is a print function is so hard to implement?
is it implemented in iOS version probably with embedded functionality of IOS. Why not in Mac OS ?

Will this be implemented or not?

Why no statement from an official?

Go for C1, succeed your cloud by yourself 

4 Messages

 • 

140 Points

2 years ago

With February, 2019 comes another update, and still no print functionality in LightRoom CC. Does anyone from Adobe read these forums? Is there EVER a plan to implement a print dialog from within the app, or are we all wasting our time leaving comments here? 

4 Messages

 • 

140 Points

2 years ago

With February, 2019 comes another update, and still no print functionality in Lightroom CC. Does anyone from Adobe read these forums? Is there EVER a plan to implement a print dialog from within the app, or are we all wasting our time leaving comments here? 

3 Messages

 • 

100 Points

Seems to be a waste of time. I'm learning how to print with GIMP an open-source program. It has a pretty steep learning curve but is full-featured. If I succeed there, then I will take a look at RawTherapee (which can feed GIMP) and regretfully cut the ties to LR. I have been a huge fan of LR for years, and always bought the updates to LR Classic when they came out, but won't double the monthly cost just so I can print.

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.6K Points

Yes Adobe reads everything. It is frustrating when the one feature you really want seems to continue to be bypassed. It's just a very young app and there's a lot of features to add, so tough decisions have to be made.

14 Messages

 • 

358 Points

Printing is a pretty fundamental ability for a photograph don't you think Victoria? I'm managing okay by (against Adobe Recommendations) running CC and Classic side by side, both syncing, it mean I get two backups locally, but it also means that I can print as normal and create wedding books whilst using CC for triage and editing. 

5 Messages

 • 

148 Points

Adding a print module is a big job, sure... But adding lossless file output is a basic task, and it would enable us to use another program to print (be that Classic, Photoshop or anything else).

4 Messages

 • 

152 Points

The fact that printing exists in Classic seems to belie any claim that adding it to CC is a big job. How difficult could it be to adapt existing technology to a sister program? Without an explanation Adobe appears to be intentionally snubbing it’s customer base, but to what end?

5 Messages

 • 

148 Points

Brian - as a software engineer I can tell you that it may seem straightforward, however it may not be so for a lot of reasons.

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.6K Points

> 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.

14 Messages

 • 

358 Points

>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.

4 Messages

 • 

134 Points

@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.

14 Messages

 • 

358 Points

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 

4 Messages

 • 

140 Points

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.

14 Messages

 • 

358 Points

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)

20 Messages

 • 

494 Points

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.

14 Messages

 • 

358 Points

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

20 Messages

 • 

494 Points

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.

14 Messages

 • 

358 Points

Hi Mitch, because duplicating all the old functionality is a huge job (and some of it shouldn't be duplicated). We are going through the same issues in our company with a new cloud based version - simply duplicating what you had before is definitely not the right answer, making the important things work better is what is important (and I think Adobe are doing this with CC). 

You can't 'finish' it without feedback, and you can't get the feedback without launching it.

Sure, you have to pay for more cloud storage, but the Adobe storage is not expensive compared to other applications, and it works very well. 

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.6K Points

Apologies if you found that comment to be glib, but I meant it entirely sincerely. A little background - I maintained a collection of local printers in a working studio environment 15-20 years ago, but moved to sending the files to pro labs. I'm no longer working in that environment, but still send photos offsite because for MY workflow, it's simpler.

Since you have a lovely printer like that, I completely understand why you'd be frustrated. The request has my vote, even though I wouldn't need it myself. 

> It seems that CC was designed for tablets and phones. 

Yes, that group of mobile photographers is the initial target audience, at least at this stage of development. And that target audience has less of a need for local printing compared to Classic's target audience. That may change in time, as it grows up, but right now this is not a replacement for Classic, and nor is it meant to be. 

> 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. 

Naming it Elements would limit its potential. It is still a baby at the moment, no question, but it'll grow up in time. 

You sound like you'd be better sticking with Classic, at least for now Mitch & Jim.

4 Messages

 • 

152 Points

Victoria, that was a very thoughtful and responsive comment.

I work from several locations, so CC and universal access is very attractive as it solves my issue about how to see and work on photos in each place. But I still need to print, both for display and also for gifts and to enclose in notes. It would be helpful to know if printing in CC is “never” or “10 months out” or whatever so I can decide whether to invest my time in it. Perhaps you could share that with us.

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.6K Points

I'm afraid I can't give a timescale because Adobe doesn't preannounce their plans. I sincerely doubt the answer is never, but there's a lot of juggling priorities at this stage as it's still so very young.

Like you, the universal access is a big benefit in my workflow, so if I needed to print locally, I'd edit in CC as normal, and then I'd save the edited photo and use any version of Lightroom (even an old perpetual license) or Photoshop to print, and then throw away the exported files. Whether that would work in your workflow, only you can tell.

5 Messages

 • 

148 Points

"and then I'd save the edited photo and use any version of Lightroom" isn't that just a jpeg at the moment, or is dng+settings a perfect quality export/import path to CC Classic?

20 Messages

 • 

494 Points

Victoria- Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate that you took the time to understand our position. So here is an interesting fact. When I run CC on my Samsung tablet the share command offers 39 different sources I can share to. (onedrive, facebook, outlook, Kindle to name a few. Believe it or not it also lets me share to a printer. It appears the ability exists. The PC version of CC will only allow shares to Adobe or the local PC. Why are these programs so different on each platform? (a rhetorical question) It seem pretty obvious that CC is not meant for the PC 

175 Messages

 • 

3.7K Points

The crazy thing is thanks to iOS sharing capability, you are able to print.
So why adobe is not able to use an apple API on osx to print a selected photo?
What is crazy about that?

I'm not a software developper but it seems apple offer this possibility : The AppKit Printing API - Apple Developerhttps://developer.apple.com/.../Printing/osxp_printingapi/osxp_pri...


We just want a simple print function but a weird export that ask us to find the file and to open it in an another soft then print it (Damn we are not all photographer but technical people and need simple and fast mobile solution).

This is unfair from adobe to let us pay and suffer so much restriction thanks to "baby" software.  

(I've renew my subscription but really I'm fade up to read this again and again)

Go for C1, succeed your cloud by yourself 

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.6K Points

Yes, as you note, you can share to printers on mobile. That's the operating system doing that.

>  It seem pretty obvious that CC is not meant for the PC 

The desktop versions are much younger, whereas the mobile apps have been available for years. Desktop also has some features that mobile doesn't have yet, and vice versa. The long term aim is feature parity, but we're a way off from that yet.

175 Messages

 • 

3.7K Points

I can’t believe at all it is not possible to use the layer and or an api apple offer to print something.
No sorry i can’t believe it.
It is possible to print with every computer since probably the first computer exists and now with this kind of software it takes year to develop something to print?
Seriously?
And for example speak about iOS capability. Apple offer iCloud sync capabilities. Why not use iCloud sync capabilities to sync watermark setting. Why?
Why do I need to parameters on my Mac., on my iPhone, on my iPad separately? Why?
Because as simple it is, it is not on top priority of adobe developers.
Just crasy but it is as it. Adobe knows better than we what we need.
For example Adobe decide it is not possible to find a photo with its name. Why ? Is it so hard to use offline search or string text search? It is simple but adobe décided again we do not need this feature. Such a basic feature. Resulting no possibility to search a photo when offline.

Go for C1, succeed your cloud by yourself 

175 Messages

 • 

3.7K Points

As a result I’ve decided to add more data to 4 g connexion ;)

Go for C1, succeed your cloud by yourself 

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.6K Points

If everything was running through a single company's operating systems (e.g. Apple macOS/iOS), then yes, that would be a lot simpler. But Adobe doesn't just live in an Apple world. What happens on the macOS desktop needs to work on Windows version too, so it's not as simple as using the built-in API's.

> Because as simple it is, it is not on top priority of adobe developers. 

And yes, prioritization is the crux of the matter. Like everything in life, there are limited resources, and they're trying to balance the needs of a wide range of customers. Of course that doesn't make it any less frustrating when that's the missing feature is the one you need.

175 Messages

 • 

3.7K Points

You're right, Adobe does not live in apple centric system. But because Adobe offer a centric cloud solution (20Gb, 100Gb or 1Tb) available across Mac, iPhone, Windows, Adroid and Web, why not use a tiny string to synchronise through adobe's cloud (instead of iCloud) for this kind of data. (I don't know if windows and android manage watermarks in fact)
Anyway for a cloud centric solution the way Adobe offer with CC, everything this way should be possible or at least on top priorities.

But once again, I'm okay with you, ressources are not unlimited. Nevelseles,  as a simple customer, we sometimes just asking if those ressources are efficiently used or to stay positive, we are wondering about what's in the pipe. Thats the big question in fact.

But finally and it is the more important, we are hopping those limitation are not just a case study of segmentation (marketing) to catch some news customers (with CC) and not allow existing customer (from classic)  to switch from classic to CC.

Go for C1, succeed your cloud by yourself 

2 Messages

 • 

80 Points

a year ago

Fingers crossed this eventually gets sorted... It is one of the only things stopping me from going to the cloud and leaving the desktop lightroom behind.... oh and the book module....

Please...

2 Messages

 • 

82 Points

a year ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled print.

When will a printing options be included into Lightroom CC ?

20 Messages

 • 

356 Points

a year ago

Do not forget  :
1) your assets are captive in "adobe's cloud". Your asset is adobe shareholding. 
2) Adobe creates. Adobe does not listen their customer. 

ON1 Raw will present sync capability starting 2020 with real open cloud...

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.6K Points

> your assets are captive in "adobe's cloud"

No they're not. You can download them to a computer for a year after cancelling, either using the desktop app or the separate downloader tool, and you can keep a copy on your local computer storage while your subscription is active too.

If you prefer to use another tool, that's absolutely fine, but it's not fair to spread misinformation. 

20 Messages

 • 

356 Points

When I say "Your asset are captive" it is some kind of rhetoric.

BTW, can you explain why Adobe is not f***g capable to implement such a basic request (printing)?
Is it because everything is done to push you to let your asset intos closed cloud.
Maybe they are afraid people print and leave (?). Lol

Why do you think keyword are not sync between Mobile and classic. It is intentional to avoid people to use mobile to fetch tags and recover it using classic.

So yes, your asset are not captive. But you need to pay every month to develop. As a result your asset and development are virtually captive.

Thanks, some people are not blind and does not need Adobe to live.

I can use C1pro too. 

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.6K Points

Everything in life requires prioritization. I do support the request to add print and also to sync properly with Classic, but there's a lot of very valid requests and Adobe has to prioritize those requests. They may not prioritize the way you would like them to, but there's no conspiracy to it. There's just a finite amount of resources and a lot of things to do. 

20 Messages

 • 

356 Points

You are right. 

Ask them to stop paying marketing fee for useless name changing.
They will have time money and ressources to use native API to add such a function. Serious :)))

OK see you

4 Messages

 • 

152 Points

Why don't you give us either the list of priorities (so we can see how long we have to wait for printing) or a date by which Adobe will implement printing?

20 Messages

 • 

356 Points

Hum...

Probably because if you see some request / problem at the end of the list, you are aim to cancel your subscription. 

I imagine the frustration of the man how is in charge of create this snag list. 

To not forget, the list is probably huge. LR classic is an old piece of software. Mobile is brand new (2YO). And Adobe a really big and old company. Big dinosaur are strong but slow.

Don't forget the simple Acrobat Reader is a 500Mo piece of software only to open, print and fill formular.
Everytime you open Acrobat, a message prompt you something for you to accept (document preparation or I can't remember what) and you need to search internet how to disable this functionally in a very long setup menu. This functionality cost so much to users in lost time and Adobe don't care about.

So how do you want them to add a such complex feature.

They are not even able to create a proper import windows on Classic (Mac OS) without overlapping problem in GUI...

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.6K Points

> Why don't you give us either the list of priorities

I'd love to, but they won't publish it because it changes constantly, based on feedback from users, operating system changes, things that other teams are working on, all sorts of things. But then, I'm sure your priorities change frequently too. That's just life.

The votes here are taken into account when prioritizing though, so the best thing you can do is vote on all the requests that matter to you.

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

Yet, printing has always been an essential part of top professional photo editing applications. Adobe is definitely pushing to go the CC route yet they omit this basic option? Priorities change...I get this. But the lack of printing option for long time users shows the priority is not the end user. I can see asking for some other type of non common feature but this should be a given. I cannot comprehend how Adobe does not get this. Say what you want about teams and our priorities changing but it is just defending a ridiculous omission.
The simple fact is Adobe decided to go this route with Lightroom a few years ago. At that time they obviously had the "resources" they needed to do this. That is the time they should have add a print module. 

1 Message

 • 

60 Points

a year ago

I may not keep my trial subscription to Lightroom CC without print capabilities. 

2 Messages

 • 

82 Points

6 months ago

This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled Please add print function on Lightroom CC.

It's dumbfounding that there is no print function on Lightroom CC.  This is a very basic function.  It frustrating that this isn't mentioned on any of the product page or in the tutorials.

And also that there is no facial recognition on Classic.  

Champion

 • 

5.8K Messages

 • 

102.6K Points

Yeah, marketing pages aren't known for listing the things they don't do. There is face recognition in Classic.

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

6 months ago

Just like everyone else, I understand that Lightroom CC is a cloud backed asset (image) management software but I cannot understand Adobe's push to Creative Cloud, if the cloud apps are going to be so limited.  It has taken me a while to move from Lightroom Classic to Creative Cloud and I'm starting to get use to the interface.  Not having a simple print facility is beyond me.  I use to love going into Lightroom Classic and print 1 or more photo's per A4 page knowing that the images would be correct size on the paper ie. printing an 8x10 on an A4 page.  I was really hoping that Lightroom CC was going to replace flickr.com for web-storage and nicely integrate my mobile photos with my camera photos into one spot but that opinion is being shattered.

1 Message

 • 

62 Points

5 months ago

Please can you get this feature added. The syncing features of lightroom don't seem to exist anywhere else and are fantastic - my wife and I can each take photos, have them automatically sync to the cloud, and then edit / organise them once anywhere on phone, ipad, laptop, Mac. This isn't "pro" use, just family with lots of photos like everyone these days. But as well as using print services we also like to print our own photos at home. How is it possible that this isn't built in? Given how well this works I don't really want to have to ditch the whole thing and try to move to some other cloud storage and photo application just to simply the things like printing

2 Messages

 • 

20 Points

a month ago

I can't find a way to print my photos...I can't export to photoshop to do it.  I'm suppose to have photoshop, I'm suppose to be able to print.  WTF

Note: This comment was created from a merged conversation originally titled Printing my photos

721 Messages

 • 

9.8K Points

Where to start!!!!

 

(1) Have you transferred the images from your camera to your computer?

 

(2) Did you install Photoshop on your computer?

 

(3) Did you set your OS to use Photoshop as the program with which to open a picture file?

 

(4) Did you open a picture? (doubt that you did based on your statements above)

 

(5) Do you know how to send a picture from Photoshop to your printer?

 

(6) Is your printer's driver installed on your computer and is the printer connected to your computer?

 

(7) ..... it goes on from here:  Basic knowledge of basic operation of a computer needs to be learned.