Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: rodcones on June 04, 2013, 05:12:20 am
-
It seems some points need clarifying in this Adobe Cloud business, although they may have been lost in all the "noise".
Adobe's major illustrative products can be bundled under their Creative Suite or bought individually and, related or not, Photoshop took on the moniker of CSx instead of continuing from PS7. There may be a fair number of photographers who use the whole Suite but the brouhaha has revolved around PS for those using it alone.
For this exercise the bought versions of the bundle or PS I'll refer to as CS-N and the possible future "Creative Cloud" versions as CS-CC.
The points concerned I've numbered so feel free to say right or wrong or comment to each.
1. With CS-CC the _only_ "Cloud connection" is the need for an Internet connection once a month for the verification/activation procedure of the subscription.
2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.
3. Those who have any CS-N but no desire to take on CS-CC can continue to use it until they or their hard disks wear out, the only possible deficit is no update for Camera Raw - never mind any new "wonder tool".
4. The "sticky point" is for those with CS-N who take on CS-CC. Their install is amended to CS-CC and stopping subscription in future would lose access to the software, unless Adobe includes a reversion mode - or the user restores the backup taken pre-CC.
5. New users starting out with CS-CC will lose access to the software if subscription stops, unless Adobe allow a "final fee" after a certain usage time has elapsed.
-
2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.
How do you edit a tiff file generated by PS without a properly licensed version of PS?
The location of storage being accessible is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient.
So in fact, you lose the ability to work on your files the day your subscription license ends.
3. Those who have any CS-N but no desire to take on CS-CC can continue to use it until they or their hard disks wear out, the only possible deficit is no update for Camera Raw - never mind any new "wonder tool".
Which puts an end today to the existence of CS6 as a strategic solution in which it makes sense to continue to invest in terms of IP creation (layers,...) and skills.
Because we know the world around CS will keep evolving ever faster and compatibility with the other apps our workflow requires will quickly be an issue.
Practically speaking it will probably not be realistic to keep using CS6 more than 2 years from now on.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Practically speaking it will probably not be realistic to keep using CS6 more than 2 years from now on.
Plenty of people are still using CS2/3/4/5. I don't see why that will change with 6. I just wish they'd ironed out some of the bugs before now - in my experience, it's the buggiest version yet.
-
Practically speaking it will probably not be realistic to keep using CS6 more than 2 years from now on.
If you are willing/able to have a "legacy computer" (or service running on a virtual machine), then CS6 should be able to run on that machine forever, unless there are some communication with Adobe servers that might eventually kill it?
If you are running a generic computer where you want to have antivirus, the latest security patches/OS revision, then CS6 will at some point in the future not be compatible with the services provided by the OS. Seems to me that Microsoft keeps a legacy application alive longer than Apple.
-h
-
If you are willing/able to have a "legacy computer" (or service running on a virtual machine), then CS6 should be able to run on that machine forever, unless there are some communication with Adobe servers that might eventually kill it?
If you are running a generic computer where you want to have antivirus, the latest security patches/OS revision, then CS6 will at some point in the future not be compatible with the services provided by the OS. Seems to me that Microsoft keeps a legacy application alive longer than Apple.
Exactly. Just to give on example, the raw converter will need to stay up to date unless you intend not to change camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Plenty of people are still using CS2/3/4/5. I don't see why that will change with 6. I just wish they'd ironed out some of the bugs before now - in my experience, it's the buggiest version yet.
Adobe just issued an update today.
-
It seems some points need clarifying in this Adobe Cloud business, although they may have been lost in all the "noise".
Adobe's major illustrative products can be bundled under their Creative Suite or bought individually and, related or not, Photoshop took on the moniker of CSx instead of continuing from PS7. There may be a fair number of photographers who use the whole Suite but the brouhaha has revolved around PS for those using it alone.
For this exercise the bought versions of the bundle or PS I'll refer to as CS-N and the possible future "Creative Cloud" versions as CS-CC.
The points concerned I've numbered so feel free to say right or wrong or comment to each.
1. With CS-CC the _only_ "Cloud connection" is the need for an Internet connection once a month for the verification/activation procedure of the subscription.
You can continue to use the products for 90 days if you happen to be offline at a particular verification time.
2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.
True. However if you choose to use another program it likely won't, as Bernard pointed out, be compatible with all of the features and functions of PS that you may have used.
3. Those who have any CS-N but no desire to take on CS-CC can continue to use it until they or their hard disks wear out, the only possible deficit is no update for Camera Raw - never mind any new "wonder tool".
True. The ACR updates aren't, perhaps, overly crucial as you will likely be able to continue to use the DNG Converter to convert RAW files to DNG for use in older versions of PS. The likelihood of a significant improvement in ACR is, I'd venture, less than a new 'wonder tool' in PS.
4. The "sticky point" is for those with CS-N who take on CS-CC. Their install is amended to CS-CC and stopping subscription in future would lose access to the software, unless Adobe includes a reversion mode - or the user restores the backup taken pre-CC.
Sort of true. For those who've bought their previous versions of PS from Adobe via download, they should be able to continue to log into their Adobe account and re-download the older versions. Are you certain that the CC version updates the previous CS versions and that the two aren't installed simultaneously?
5. New users starting out with CS-CC will lose access to the software if subscription stops, unless Adobe allow a "final fee" after a certain usage time has elapsed.
True. That concept of a fee to transform a CC version to a static-state legacy version would, I believe, be a big plus for Adobe and users. The extent of the fee should be based on the history of use. For example, a long time user who's paid for the full version and upgrades along the way should have a very nominal or no 'end fee'. A new user should have to pay an 'end fee' based on how long they've been using and how much of the price they've paid to date. In other words, a sliding scale.
Something else that I haven't seen addressed to date is the idea of modifying your subscription after it starts. For example, if a user decides s/he wants to try other Adobe products than just PS and signs up for the entire CC suite, but at some point down the road decides they don't need/want the other Adobe products, what is the ability to revert to a single-product CC subscription for just PS? I'm sure Adobe would be happy to go the other way but may be less happy to allow users to scale back.
-
...
Something else that I haven't seen addressed to date is the idea of modifying your subscription after it starts. For example, if a user decides s/he wants to try other Adobe products than just PS and signs up for the entire CC suite, but at some point down the road decides they don't need/want the other Adobe products, what is the ability to revert to a single-product CC subscription for just PS? I'm sure Adobe would be happy to go the other way but may be less happy to allow users to scale back.
Good point. What led me to be an 'early adopter' of the CC subscription was the fact that I use or plan to use other Adobe products besides Lightroom and Photoshop - specifically Acrobat, Audition, and Premiere. A CC subscription gives me access to all the various Master Suite applications for an annualized monthly cost close to the cost of a Photoshop upgrade alone.
-
It seems some points need clarifying in this Adobe Cloud business, although they may have been lost in all the "noise".
Hi,
Feel free, but why do you feel this uncontrollable urge? Just wondering ...
Adobe's major illustrative products can be bundled under their Creative Suite or bought individually and, related or not, Photoshop took on the moniker of CSx instead of continuing from PS7.
One doesn't buy the product, but purchases a licence. A licence is quite a different thing compared to ownership of a product. But let's not quibble about semantics, there are others whom I trust can (and will) do a better job if this thread lasts long enough.
There may be a fair number of photographers who use the whole Suite but the brouhaha has revolved around PS for those using it alone.
"brouhaha"? That seems a bit of an insult to those who's livelihood is at stake, wouldn't you agree?
The points concerned I've numbered so feel free to say right or wrong or comment to each.
1. With CS-CC the _only_ "Cloud connection" is the need for an Internet connection once a month for the verification/activation procedure of the subscription.
An internet connection is also required for access to the applications upon first install, and for updates although the latter is not new. For those on low bandwidth connections or with volume limitations, that can be a significant hurdle.
2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.
As stated by me and others on various occasions, there may be dependencies (e.g. Smart objects, adjustment layers, etc. in a Works in progress situation) that require proprietary access to the file layers.
4. The "sticky point" is for those with CS-N who take on CS-CC. Their install is amended to CS-CC and stopping subscription in future would lose access to the software, unless Adobe includes a reversion mode - or the user restores the backup taken pre-CC.
It remains to be seen how long activation of that software, e.g. on a new hard disk or Operating System, remains available.
5. New users starting out with CS-CC will lose access to the software if subscription stops, unless Adobe allow a "final fee" after a certain usage time has elapsed.
Hope springs eternal, but the past behavior of Adobe doesn't inspire trust.
Not covered by your list is the pricing increase, and the even further inflated European pricing on top of that. Also not addressed is the collateral damage to Plug-in developers, book and training publishers, dealer networks, in company training and EDP related issues no longer concentrated at periodic upgrade time but monthly, and not to forget the destruction of earlier Photoshop training of skills when forced to switch to other software.
Also not covered is the reduced incentive for Adobe to keep innovating their relatively mature products. As stated on other fora, a Camera shake reduction filter is a nice feature, but professional photographers usually do not produce enough camera shake to be an issue that need solving. Besides, there are already solutions for those few instances where it might help. Besides, we have been told that Photoshop is not intended to be used by photographers in the first place ..., but I digress.
Also, it has now become more inviting for software piracy to offer 'free' access to the suite because it's supposed to be more valuable, and brings the associated risk of destructive payloads. This will create a much more effective distribution system for malware which will cost society as a whole. I do not condone the spread and use of pirated software, but that doesn't stop others when the opportunity is offered to them on a silver platter.
Cheers,
Bart
-
It seems some points need clarifying in this Adobe Cloud business, although they may have been lost in all the "noise".
Why is it assumed that everyone that is less than thrilled with the CC licensing model, it's because the issue has not been clarified? For a great many folks it's the actual details that are clearly stated in the CC EULA that have us concerned ... not a lack of understanding or lack of comprehension about what CC is ... or is not.
While it may be true that some folks have created some "noise" on the matter ... at this point most of those individuals who are concerned about the long term negative ramifications really isn't because they "don't get it" or are incapable of understanding the concept. It's because of very legitimate and serious ramifications of the licensing model itself ... one that assures Adobe a stable income from here to eternity ... and guarantees the individual user ... not so much except relinquishing a monthly stipend to Adobe ...
For Adobe (and worse, our fellow users) to assume that we can't grasp the CC concept says far more about the former, than the latter.
-
<snip>
Besides, we have been told that Photoshop is not intended to be used by photographers in the first place ..., but I digress.
</snip>
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, I have never been able to reconcile this assertion - it is called "PHOTOshop" and was designed by Knoll, a known photography enthusiast, and contains several darkroom analogs in its feature set. Lightroom is actually called "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom" as in, an adjunct to Photoshop where you can convert your raws for further processing in Photoshop.
Lightroom may be "the answer" to working pros who need to keyword and to process hundreds of wedding images or product shots in a hurry, with minimal adjustment and the need to publish them to a web gallery; however, even to the photographer, it is not Photoshop. Lightroom is marketed as the one-stop environment for your digital photographs, and it is pushed toward "photo enthusiasts" (as in, according to Adobe blog update, "Photographers, particularly photo-enthusiasts, are looking for a more tailored offering that focuses on their particular needs."). I don't know what a "photo enthusiast" is, or what it means to Adobe. Presumably it means "non professional who has bought into the Lightroom workflow."
I thought Lightroom was designed to answer the needs of photographers (professionals who guided Adobe in the creation of Lightroom) and that is what inspired the repackaging of ACR into a more limited workflow environment with features like DAM, web publishing, and now printing. This approach signals that the actual concept of *processing* the image is not as important as managing and delivering the image, relative to Photoshop. I can see the appeal to working pros looking for efficiency and amateurs who like to get results by sliding the sliders. Between those two bookends, there are a lot of "photographers" who may, or may not, find Lightroom the most effective or expressive tool for their interests and workflow. I do not know how many Adobe users this comprises, but I would imagine that many of these folks use Photoshop. I think this is, in part, the audience that is not real happy - these users are being told:
"sure, you use Photoshop as a photographer/photo enthusiast, but that is really for pros - if you don;t like the CC subscription to keep using a pro tool, use Lightroom. This is the tool you really need if you are not serious enough to subscribe, and just to prove it to you, we are not going to force you to subscribe - we're doing you a favor, photographer, and keeping LR out of the subscription model. See? We know what you need."
Instead of simply saying, look loyal user, we've decided to change our business model and we apologize if this causes you grief, Adobe keeps insisting that their decisions are based on what is best for the user based on what Adobe knows the user wants and needs. In the end, it may be best for Adobe to change its business model so that it can continue to exist and keep these tools available for the user. That, however, is not the sentiment that Adobe is conveying - what is irritating is the insistence that somehow I cannot creatively express myself with Adobe tools unless I subscribe to them - that is, the subscription aspect of the CC is what is going to spur my creativity with modestly different Adobe applications (faster, more frequent updates, online Behance whatever-the-hell collaboration, Cloud syncing). I get the sense very few people buy that argument, considering people have been getting along just fine without all of this for a long time. So, you have the very real prospect of a disruption in the way people work trying to be balanced by the very vague and unknown potential of the Cloud and all of its claims and magic. The former is immediate and easy to appreciate, the latter is unproven with no experience to change the fence-sitter's opinion.
Interesting.
kirk
-
Bart, I have never been able to reconcile this assertion - it is called "PHOTOshop" and was designed by Knoll, a known photography enthusiast, and contains several darkroom analogs in its feature set.
Hi Kirk,
It's not my assertion, but I suspect that those who utter it are under the impression that Photoshop was traditionally mainly a tool for the CMYK oriented pre-press industry and retouch studios, not the providers of the images, photographers. As you say, its actual roots were more photographer oriented.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Kirk,
It's not my assertion, but I suspect that those who utter it are under the impression that Photoshop was traditionally mainly a tool for the CMYK oriented pre-press industry and retouch studios, not the providers of the images, photographers. As you say, its actual roots were more photographer oriented.
Cheers,
Bart
And so it may have become such a pre-press oriented tool, if not immediately, over time. However, Photoshop itself is a powerful tool that is capable of image processing that is useful, if not essential, to photographers. To claim that is was not intended for photographers implies that the toolset is somehow not applicable to image processing if the images are photographs and the user is a "photographer" versus a pre-press or graphic artist.
Now, if the percentage of users of Photoshop that are "photographers" is insignificant, that is a different story. That's what would be interesting to understand. If the way I use Photoshop is so insignificant compared to the way it is used by "pros" in "industry" then I totally get the spirit of the move Adobe is making. Again, if Adobe just said - "look, we know you use this tool this way, but your usage is such a small fraction of the total users who can benefit from the new subscription model and the CC features, above and beyond the applications themselves that we simply have to acknowledge the needs of the majority of users. Sorry for the inconvenience." However, telling me that I'm not a pro and that Lightroom is better for me is just not accurate. So we will see what the more "tailored offering that focuses on [my] particular needs" will be.
kirk
-
It's not my assertion, but I suspect that those who utter it are under the impression that Photoshop was traditionally mainly a tool for the CMYK oriented pre-press industry and retouch studios, not the providers of the images, photographers. As you say, its actual roots were more photographer oriented.
Make no mistake, in 1987-1989 when Adobe licensed the right to develop and release Photoshop, it was a commercial product in search of a home. The first release was with BarneyScan XP (Photoshop .87) which was a scanner designed to be used in graphic arts. Adobe licensed Photoshop to be in effect, a pixel editor to compliment their main vector application, Illustrator which was designed to use their up till them major source of revenue, PostScript.
At no time was Photoshop ever really developed as a tool for Photographers even though it used photo related terminology like dodge & burn. Between Photoshop 5 and Photoshop 7, a whole bunch of photo related features and functions were added in large part because Mark Hamburg worked with a small group of alpha testers who all happened to be photographers. Mark left Photoshop when the Creative Suite was started...Mark then developed Lightroom which WAS designed for and targeted to photographers.
So, while PHOTO is in the name Photoshop, there really ins't any legacy of Photoshop being developed for photographers (except for that narrow time window between PS 5-7).
Truth be told, Photoshop actually started as a file format converter to move proprietary CGI files from one system to another for John Knoll at Industrial Light and Magic (ILM). To move from one system to another certain image adjustments like levels had to be performed...so, in actual fact, Photoshop was originally started for use in the CGI side of the motion picture industry. In fact, when John and Thomas Knoll signed their deal with Adobe, George Lucas had to sign a waiver releasing any rights to Photoshop because John was an employee of ILM. Lucas figured that what would become Photoshop really had little or no value to the industry and gave it away...
So, no, Photoshop was not designed for nor target towards photographers...
-
So, no, Photoshop was not designed for nor target towards photographers...
But then, that was then ...
Photographers, who over the years in increasing numbers embraced Photoshop as their tool of choice are now told they should not complain, and use a non-layer enabled product for their work (or stop whining and fork over an increasing amount of their money to Adobe and feel honored that they are even allowed in).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Make no mistake, in 1987-1989 when Adobe licensed the right to develop and release Photoshop, it was a commercial product in search of a home. The first release was with BarneyScan XP (Photoshop .87) which was a scanner designed to be used in graphic arts. Adobe licensed Photoshop to be in effect, a pixel editor to compliment their main vector application, Illustrator which was designed to use their up till them major source of revenue, PostScript.
At no time was Photoshop ever really developed as a tool for Photographers even though it used photo related terminology like dodge & burn. Between Photoshop 5 and Photoshop 7, a whole bunch of photo related features and functions were added in large part because Mark Hamburg worked with a small group of alpha testers who all happened to be photographers. Mark left Photoshop when the Creative Suite was started...Mark then developed Lightroom which WAS designed for and targeted to photographers.
So, while PHOTO is in the name Photoshop, there really ins't any legacy of Photoshop being developed for photographers (except for that narrow time window between PS 5-7).
Truth be told, Photoshop actually started as a file format converter to move proprietary CGI files from one system to another for John Knoll at Industrial Light and Magic (ILM). To move from one system to another certain image adjustments like levels had to be performed...so, in actual fact, Photoshop was originally started for use in the CGI side of the motion picture industry. In fact, when John and Thomas Knoll signed their deal with Adobe, George Lucas had to sign a waiver releasing any rights to Photoshop because John was an employee of ILM. Lucas figured that what would become Photoshop really had little or no value to the industry and gave it away...
So, no, Photoshop was not designed for nor target towards photographers...
(this is a copy of a comment I made in another thread)
"... regardless of the intended market for Photoshop ... millions of photographers have adopted Photoshop nonetheless ... also the fact that Adobe never offered any form of disclaimer or imposed any criteria for entry that Ps was intended specifically for graphic designers and artists ... nor did they refuse to accept payment from the lowly photographers that in no small way made it possible for Ps to become what it is today ... and by extension, helped propel Adobe into a multi-billion dollar global concern. Not to mention it would have shut down Scott Kelby stone cold decades ago as the NAPP membership is primarily photographers.
I find it incredulous for anyone, or Adobe, to be so dismissive by pointing out an intent that really is a meaningless facet that has very little to do with the actual reality of the situation.
I would venture to say, without the revenues that photographers have contributed to Ps and Adobe ... it might even be possible that Adobe would not now have the resources to even consider or support the CC model."
-
Truth be told, Photoshop actually started as a file format converter to move proprietary CGI files from one system to another for John Knoll at Industrial Light and Magic (ILM). To move from one system to another certain image adjustments like levels had to be performed...so, in actual fact, Photoshop was originally started for use in the CGI side of the motion picture industry. In fact, when John and Thomas Knoll signed their deal with Adobe, George Lucas had to sign a waiver releasing any rights to Photoshop because John was an employee of ILM. Lucas figured that what would become Photoshop really had little or no value to the industry and gave it away...
So, no, Photoshop was not designed for nor target towards photographers...
Makes total sense - Photoshop was designed as a digital image processing tool - that is how I have always seen it. Back in the day, for a "photographer" to access such an image processing workflow, the film/slides they shot had to be converted to digital data - as you have pointed out, a process requiring specialized equipment and skilled operators, etc.. So I can understand that the intent was not toward the photographer shooting film, but to the image processing person who had to convert that to digital data (film/slide scan) and then manipulate the digitized image data (scan or CGI synthetic images, etc.) to prepare it for its intended use. Nowadays, with the ease of digital acquisition, the "processing" part has become much more integrated into photography and the artist's repertoire, in general - the distinction between photographer and image processing specialist had changed. In this sense, the intent of Photoshop as a tool to process images has simply found a new user base - the photographer.
kirk
-
It's not my assertion, but I suspect that those who utter it are under the impression that Photoshop was traditionally mainly a tool for the CMYK oriented pre-press industry and retouch studios, not the providers of the images, photographers. As you say, its actual roots were more photographer oriented.
Here's my take, coming from a person who purchased version 1.0.7 in May 1990: It was primarily for photographers and those photographers what wanted to dabble in image manipulation. And further, I don't believe Photoshop even supported CMYK until version 2.0 or maybe 2.5. The main competitor in those days, and the only competitor since then that had the chance to unseat Photoshop as THE app to use was ColorStudio and it supported CMYK before Photoshop. In those days, those of us that purchased Photoshop worried we bought the wrong package! ColorStudio was more powerful (more features) but more difficult to use, had a less polished UI than Photoshop.
All the other competitor's after that (Xres, Live Picture) came along much later and by that time, Photoshop was the de facto image manipulation product. Not that I didn’t play with both quite a bit, especially LP. The UI was it's kiss of death, while very powerful and very fast, and very, very expensive, by the time it arrived, most users were tuned to a Photoshop UI and workflow.
-
Truth be told, Photoshop actually started as a ...
Thanks, that was an interesting back story.
-
But then, that was then ...
Photographers, who over the years in increasing numbers embraced Photoshop as their tool of choice are now told they should not complain...
I've never said photographers should not to complain...just to understand what the circumstances are and be realistic with their expectations.
Photoshop actually has had three different lives over the two decades it's been available. It started as a tool for film and graphic arts, caught on and was used when then WWW exploded and them was adopted by many (but not all) digital photographers over the last 8-10 years. But all told, photographers make up a small percent of Adobe customers. So, Adobe is doing what it thinks is right for the magority (right or wrong). That's the reality...
-
4. The "sticky point" is for those with CS-N who take on CS-CC. Their install is amended to CS-CC and stopping subscription in future would lose access to the software, unless Adobe includes a reversion mode - or the user restores the backup taken pre-CC.
Adobe Creative Cloud / FAQ (http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html)
"I currently have a previous, perpetual-licensed Creative Suite edition on my computer. Will I be able to use both my Creative Suite products and the new Creative Cloud applications on my computer?
Yes, your existing Creative Suite installation will not be affected by installing the new CC applications. For example, you can install and use both Photoshop CS6 and Photoshop CC on the same computer"
-
2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.
As stated by me and others on various occasions, there may be dependencies (e.g. Smart objects, adjustment layers, etc. in a Works in progress situation) that require proprietary access to the file layers.
May be, for layered TIFF or PSD.
RAW, JPG, flattened TIFF remain useable blah blah.
-
Perhaps Adobe has disdain for "photographers" who need to repair their pictures using an illustrator's tool sets. Perhaps this is the watershed that sluices photography back to it's pre-Photoshop roots. My good friend: http://urdaneta.net/Urdaneta_Photography/Home.html has one of his studios at the other end of the corridor from mine. At the end of an indoor session, he delivers a dvd while his subject waits. No post processing at all. He's extremely successful and uses MUA's, but that's it. He's contemptuous of any "photography" that's "photoshopped". The term is invariably used deprecatingly and one might be sympathetic to a desire on the part of Adobe to detach itself from the activity.
...just sayin'.
Ken Richmond
-
Mark Hamburg worked with a small group of alpha testers who all happened to be photographers. Mark left Photoshop when the Creative Suite was started...Mark then developed Lightroom which WAS designed for and targeted to photographers.
Mark must have signed up to some sort of a non-compete because LR is really stunted as a tool for photographers. That's why most of us use one raw converter or another to then end up in PHOTOshop for final pixel editing.
-
Perhaps Adobe has disdain for "photographers" who need to repair their pictures using an illustrator's tool sets....
...just sayin'.
Ken Richmond
Everybody is allowed to 'just say', but that doesn't make the 'sayin' any righter. One can pretend that anything beyond cyanotope or a pinhole is bending the truth or that panoramas have no place in modern photography - fact is we are able to do stuff today that was not even conceivable a few years ago, like using zoom lenses or correcting various defects just like the folks at the Hubble did. But we can. So people who want to bury their heads in the sand and keep pretending we are still in 1842 are welcome to it. They would never use photoshop and if they were all there was the related folks at Adobe would starve to death and shut it down.
Fortunately for Adobe there are more than a few of us , the ones who were really amazed at what could come out of an original Hubble telescope image, who may keep them alive. But not if they snob us. There is nothing worse than a snobbed photographer.
Jack
-
I've never said photographers should not to complain...just to understand what the circumstances are and be realistic with their expectations.
Photoshop actually has had three different lives over the two decades it's been available. It started as a tool for film and graphic arts, caught on and was used when then WWW exploded and them was adopted by many (but not all) digital photographers over the last 8-10 years. But all told, photographers make up a small percent of Adobe customers. So, Adobe is doing what it thinks is right for the magority (right or wrong). That's the reality...
Your continued history lessons are interesting....but really have no part of the current discussion.
you also keep mentioning photographers being a small part of Adobe's customers. This is also "interesting", but only valuable if you can narrow your numbers down to the % relative to Photoshop, not the entire portfolio.
Your statement only makes any sense if you are trying to tell us that, for Adobe, photographers are insignificant to their business, that the do not give a sh*t about us, and we should all seek other solutions as quickly as we can.
Is that what you are saying, Jeff?
-
Your statement only makes any sense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_of_influence
-
So there you are at your gallery show, discreetly mingling and you overhear the young couple who are viewing your "photograph", the one you spent hours traveling to get at sunset, and shot with five different filters with a 50 megapixel back on a tripod, "... he photoshopped it."
pinhole camera? You are kidding, right? Jack, how does that respond to the negative association the software has acquired in connection with photography? Suppose people started saying that a photograph has been Hoganed? Or Schewed? I suspect you could develop some sort of complex over that use of your name. :-)
Ken Richmond
-
So, no, Photoshop was not designed for nor target towards photographers...
you forget a non zero amount of people who use ACR (no, not LR, thank you)... decouple ACR from PS and sell it on perpetual basis... but it is not going to happen, because LR is a better tool to keep users captive.
-
Hi,
Feel free, but why do you feel this uncontrollable urge? Just wondering ...
Not wanting to waste LuLa server space by quoting any more.
I am sorry if you felt insulted though I believe that "brouhaha" is not as pejorative as you imply.
And I erred in not elaborating on the file availability wrt layered or Actions attributes. I admit not having CS6 but Elements will open PS edited files.
And of course as you pointed out, the discourse has been enlightened and enlivened by those more able. Always helps the ongoing understanding and knowledge about the issue.
-
So there you are at your gallery show, discreetly mingling and you overhear the young couple who are viewing your "photograph", the one you spent hours traveling to get at sunset, and shot with five different filters with a 50 megapixel back on a tripod, "... he photoshopped it."
pinhole camera? You are kidding, right? Jack, how does that respond to the negative association the software has acquired in connection with photography? Suppose people started saying that a photograph has been Hoganed? Or Schewed? I suspect you could develop some sort of complex over that use of your name. :-)
Ken Richmond
Hi Ken,
I was reacting to this quote of yours:
He's extremely successful and uses MUA's, but that's it. He's contemptuous of any "photography" that's "photoshopped".
I am not arguing about the negative connotation PhotoShop has gained over the last few years, I agree with you there. I am simply contemptuous of your friend's contempt because there is definitely a place for PS in a photographer's workflow at the beginning of the third millennium. Some purists stick their head in the sand when it comes to using new tools but today PS is very much part of the toolkit of an IQ conscious photographer, whether that's tone mapping for increased DR, stitching together panoramas for a wider FOV or giving the effect of a polarizing filter.
Were your buddy the one with the five filters and the digital back, I would have a question for him: why distort the natural scene by using a stack of IQ limiting filters when 99% of the desired effect can be better implemented and controlled in post? You can get it to look just like it would have looked through the five filters, but with better IQ later. Capture all of the information as-is at the scene, and do the fine tuning in post. Of course if one is contemptuous one may never realize that.
Jack
-
Jack,
They guy with five filters at cloudy sunsets would be me.
Ken Richmond
-
Well, for a program Adobe never meant for photographers, they have certainly been willing to promote it to and with photographers, at trade shows, user groups, book authors and in their advertising, as well as the tool sets within the program itself-dodge and burn, lens correction and HDR tools, to name a few. A little facetious to say we should just be happy with what we have and stop expecting the company to care about the millions who bought into the workflow they happily sold us.
-
Well, for a program Adobe never meant for photographers
come on, Schewe intentionally always omits ACR parts... too inconvenient for him
-
A little facetious to say we should just be happy with what we have...
Who do you think said that?
-
Jack,
They guy with five filters at cloudy sunsets would be me.
Ken Richmond
Kudos. I don't have a digital back and 5 filters, but I have been known to lurk around such scenes at such times... :)
-
Their actions speak louder than their words.
I'll happily retract my statement when they offer a way to exit CC with a 'frozen' version of the latest version of PS. Many here have described how that could be done without it being for free.
Who do you think said that?
-
come on, Schewe intentionally always omits ACR parts... too inconvenient for him
Look bud...I've been working with Thomas on ACR since before ACR 1.0 was released...(I rode my bike over to Ann Arbor so he could shoot calibration files with my Canon D30). ACR is Thomas' little post-Photoshop baby and has worked as a Photoshop plug-in since it's first release in 2003 and not an integral part of Photoshop until Camera Raw was added as a filter in Photoshop CC. What's you point? You think ACR proves that Photoshop has been directed at photographers? Bullshyte...wake up and smell the roses bud. The only reason that ACR exists is that Thomas thought Canon's raw processing software sucked so he decided to do it himself. It had little to nothing to do with Photoshop until recently (when some people discovered Russell Brown's script to add an ACR Smart Object to images in CS5.5.
So, what's your point? Do you have a point or are you just sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots? You wanna get into a pissin' match with me? I don't think you'll win...(I could be wrong, but I do have some friends up North in the frozen tundra).
You got anything useful to add or are you just wasting everybody's time again?
-
Look bud...I've been working with Thomas on ACR since before ACR 1.0 was released...(I rode my bike over to Ann Arbor so he could shoot calibration files with my Canon D30). ACR is Thomas' little post-Photoshop baby and has worked as a Photoshop plug-in since it's first release in 2003 and not an integral part of Photoshop until Camera Raw was added as a filter in Photoshop CC. What's you point? You think ACR proves that Photoshop has been directed at photographers? Bullshyte...wake up and smell the roses bud. The only reason that ACR exists is that Thomas thought Canon's raw processing software sucked so he decided to do it himself. It had little to nothing to do with Photoshop until recently (when some people discovered Russell Brown's script to add an ACR Smart Object to images in CS5.5.
So, what's your point? Do you have a point or are you just sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots? You wanna get into a pissin' match with me? I don't think you'll win...(I could be wrong, but I do have some friends up North in the frozen tundra).
You got anything useful to add or are you just wasting everybody's time again?
Why always with the threats Jeff?
-
This whole discussion about whether Photoshop was intended for photographers is a fruitless waste of time. What's the point of that? I wish this silly aspect of the conversation would stop.
-
This whole discussion about whether Photoshop was intended for photographers is a fruitless waste of time. What's the point of that?
Hi,
It's a diversion tactic.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
It's a diversion tactic.
Cheers,
Bart
pretty much like 'the cloud', 'being connected', 'behance', 'pro vs. amateur',...bottom line, it's about a pretty big price hike and taking away choice by forcing all users to have to subscribe...it's like it was at the beginning...more money for shareholders and executives...okokok, i do think it might make sense for some business situations if you use three or more of the programs that adobe offers, but for smaller businesses, individuals, hmmm, not so much...
and at this point i think it's hard to 'clarify' anything while it seems Adobe is still uncertain about final details, changes they might implement...it's really wait and see...that's what I'm gonna do, stick with photoshop CS6, (no choice there anyway), see what adobe does with lightroom...i can wait a year or two, by then we'll see how subscription prices evolve and how this strategy is working for adobe...
i'm kinda hoping for a new version of photoshop, like jeff schewe started a thread about, something more tailored for photographers with a bit of graphic design necessities thrown in like text...and who knows, maybe it'll come from disgruntled adobe employees that leave adobe and strike out on their own...the next 24 to 36 months will be interesting...
-
Look bud...I've been working with Thomas on ACR since before ACR 1.0 was released...(I rode my bike over to Ann Arbor so he could shoot calibration files with my Canon D30). ACR is Thomas' little post-Photoshop baby and has worked as a Photoshop plug-in since it's first release in 2003 and not an integral part of Photoshop until Camera Raw was added as a filter in Photoshop CC. What's you point? You think ACR proves that Photoshop has been directed at photographers? Bullshyte...wake up and smell the roses bud. The only reason that ACR exists is that Thomas thought Canon's raw processing software sucked so he decided to do it himself. It had little to nothing to do with Photoshop until recently (when some people discovered Russell Brown's script to add an ACR Smart Object to images in CS5.5.
So, what's your point? Do you have a point or are you just sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots? You wanna get into a pissin' match with me? I don't think you'll win...(I could be wrong, but I do have some friends up North in the frozen tundra).
You got anything useful to add or are you just wasting everybody's time again?
my point, Jeff, is that you act like an agent for Adobe... by employing whatever means necessary to steer away from the very simple fact - the issue is "subscription only" (not cloud, not subscription, not pro, not amateurs, not photographers)... everybody see what you do, do not put yourself in a situation of Colin Powell and weapons of mass desinformation
-
i'm kinda hoping for a new version of photoshop
just decouple ACR from PS... but Adobe wants to steer that market towards LR, because LR keeps 'em captive better
-
Why always with the threats Jeff?
because he has no other arguments.
-
because he has no other arguments.
Oh...but he does have lots of history lessons and stories of his purported greatness....these always win arguements on current subjects. :D
-
just decouple ACR from PS... but Adobe wants to steer that market towards LR, because LR keeps 'em captive better
personally, i'd like acr smart objects as part of any future photoshop version i buy, not rent...I also like some of the 'smaller' improvements...like when they updated brightness/contrast in the adjustments panel...a small good improvement...but i was mainly thinking a more streamlined version of photoshop, maybe re-written code for faster operation...I'm not sure what's possible...
honest, i've no clue what adobe wants to steer its customers toward...i'm not savvy in economics or big business...i mean i still wonder why they'd want to alienate, lose a good chunk of business with this subscription stuff, but that's me...I'd think make both, make as many potential customers as possible happy...
and if this 'logic' of adobe's continues i'd expect LR 6 or whatever to go subscription too...we'll know more as we head on down the road...
one last thing...i like hearing about jeff's past, the early days of photoshop, adobe...i find it interesting...as far as his view goes, he's made it clear from the beginning, he owns adobe stock, some of his friends work there, he thinks subscription is a good idea...
-
In the past i had to decide if the new Photoshop was worth buying.
Now i also have to decide if i want to be a CC-junkie for the rest of my life...
-
This whole discussion about whether Photoshop was intended for photographers is a fruitless waste of time. What's the point of that? I wish this silly aspect of the conversation would stop.
It's a diversion tactic.
BartvanderWolf really should know whether it's a diversion tactic -- because it was BartvanderWolf who brought it up again (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79065.msg636249#msg636249).
(And kirkt expanded it (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79065.msg636282#msg636282) into a separate discussion again.)
-
I just watched Terry White's and Russell Brown's "Top 5" Photoshop CC features. It both, 3 of the 5 were ACR (a.k.a. Lightroom) functions....!!!
There may be many reasons for Adobe CC. However, for Photoshop, the reason seems quite obvious.
Who would spend ~$180 for "Camera shake reduction"? Subscription only seems the only way to get more $$$s out of us for this paltry release.
-
I just watched Terry White's and Russell Brown's "Top 5" Photoshop CC features. It both, 3 of the 5 were ACR (a.k.a. Lightroom) functions....!!!
There may be many reasons for Adobe CC. However, for Photoshop, the reason seems quite obvious.
Who would spend ~$180 for "Camera shake reduction"? Subscription only seems the only way to get more $$$s out of us for this paltry release.
Agreed ... watching Terry's presentation of Ps CC, was a almost deja vu of his five favorite features in Lr5 ...
Since April 2012 when Creative Suite 6 was announced ... Adobe sold 4.1M perpetual licenses ... but only 500,000 CC subscriptions over the same time period ... apparently the only way to assure CC adoption, was to eliminate perpetual licensing ... even then, Adobe only expects to have 1.25M CC subscribers by Q42013 ... seems to me if CC is such a dramatic innovation, why isn't there more of a stampede for signing up for CC subscriptions? Why does Adobe only expect to persuade 18% of current Creative Suite 6 perpetual license owners to make the transition by year's end? Heck, they don't expect to break the 3M mark until some time in late 2015 ... If CC is such a great deal ... why are they expecting such a glacial pace for adoption? Even after it is the only option to move forward?
-
It's a diversion tactic.
Lest we forget, BartvanderWolf was the person (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79065.msg636249#msg636249) who brought it up again (and kirkt was the person who expanded that (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79065.msg636282#msg636282) into a separate discussion again.)
Correct - it has been discussed because that particular characterization of Photoshop is given as a response to some of the issues being raised here by photographers who use Photoshop. In this day and age of digital photography, in a forum of photographers who use Photoshop, the original intent of Photoshop is irrelevant.
kirk
-
Who would spend ~$180 for "Camera shake reduction"?
and round cornered rectangles.
-
Since April 2012 when Creative Suite 6 was announced ... Adobe sold 4.3M perpetual licenses ... but only 500,000 CC subscriptions over the same time period
You sure of that 4.3m? What's the source?
-
You sure of that 4.3m? What's the source?
Sorry ... I was a touch off ... the number is 4.1M (I corrected my post) ... from the Max briefing pdf ...
-
I thought that was the installed base, not the sales in that year.
OK, it's effectively the same thing, though it mixes upgrades and new purchases.
-
I thought that was the installed base, not the sales in that year.
Well ... how could you have an "installed" version of CS6 without a sale? Regardless, the numbers presented are the Installed Base that "excludes" CC subscriptions. Either way, eight times more users adopted CS6 in the same time period as did CC. So I don't quite grasp your point.
-
I was being a bit slow, and you read before I corrected my post. 4.1m is a valid number, but I'd want to know the split between upgrades and new purchases before drawing the same conclusion as you about the 500k voluntary subscriptions behind a disappointing number. I felt it was a surprising-strong start, a proof of concept rather than a reason to deny us the choice.
-
I was being a bit slow, and you read before I corrected my post. 4.1m is a valid number, but I'd want to know the split between upgrades and new purchases before drawing the same conclusion as you about the 500k voluntary subscriptions behind a disappointing number. I felt it was a surprising-strong start, a proof of concept rather than a reason to deny us the choice.
To me, the only way the differential of the number of upgrade purchases for CS6 perpetual licenses would have any impact ... is if all of the subscribers to CC were new users to Adobe products ... which I doubt is the case. Surely there are a number of CC subscribers that are newbies due to the lower barrier for entry, however, without knowing for sure, it is my guess they too are in the minority with the vast majority of current subscribers being those folks were once perpetual license holders ... though the group of CS 6 perpetual users must surely contain the largest percentage of folks that are among the first to upgrade each and every version ... which is why I find 500,000 CC subscribers to be a very conservative number by comparison ...
-
Agreed ... watching Terry's presentation of Ps CC, was a almost deja vu of his five favorite features in Lr5 ...
Since April 2012 when Creative Suite 6 was announced ... Adobe sold 4.1M perpetual licenses ... but only 500,000 CC subscriptions over the same time period ... apparently the only way to assure CC adoption, was to eliminate perpetual licensing ... even then, Adobe only expects to have 1.25M CC subscribers by Q42013 ... seems to me if CC is such a dramatic innovation, why isn't there more of a stampede for signing up for CC subscriptions? Why does Adobe only expect to persuade 18% of current Creative Suite 6 perpetual license owners to make the transition by year's end? Heck, they don't expect to break the 3M mark until some time in late 2015 ... If CC is such a great deal ... why are they expecting such a glacial pace for adoption? Even after it is the only option to move forward?
I do not know for sure....however, I suspect the CS6 licenses may have been for each individual product. The CC subscriptions were probably for the entire suite.
That said, this was for a very low introductory price....and allow many to try out products...over a long period of time...that they may have never purchased. Of real interest will be those that continue...and those who try during the coming period...and continue at the end of it.
If Adobe is silly enough to base their business on "tryers"....well, I doubt they are that foolish.
-
I do not know for sure....however, I suspect the CS6 licenses may have been for each individual product. The CC subscriptions were probably for the entire suite.
No, the numbers shared were for "Suite" installs ... the point product figures were separated out (CS3-CS5.5 at 2.9M, CS6 at 1.5M) though they did not break down individual app numbers in those figures.
-
No, the numbers shared were for "Suite" installs ... the point product figures were separated out (CS3-CS5.5 at 2.9M, CS6 at 1.5M) though they did not break down individual app numbers in those figures.
Butch...thanks for the correction.
Actually, it makes it seem even worse for Adobe.
-
Hi,
It's a diversion tactic.
Cheers,
Bart
No, I'm afraid that it isn't. For the purposes of evaluating the merits of a complaint to the FTC, it is extremely relevant to any discussion of a potential remedy. To add to Jeff's history, back in 1996, when Adobe prevailed in the Aldus merger complaint, they had to divest themselves of "Freehand" to the Altsys Corporation within 6 months. Moreover Adobe had to refrain from the acquisition of "Professional Illustration Software" until 2006 without prior approval of the FTC. The point here is that Adobe characterizes itself to the FTC as the owner and producer of "Professional Illustration Software".
"OK, so what?", the photographers, ask. WTF has that got to do with our problem? Permit me, as a pedant, to analogize: Disston Tool decides to stop making handsaws and to concentrate exclusively on circular saws for cutting wood. Along come the saw musicians, armed with bows who say, "Hey!" "Not FAIR! I have learned, at considerable investment of personal time, to play music with a saw, and I have a special bow and because of the constant bending of the saw during my performances, it changes the temper of the blade and I require replacements in order to play my music." To this Disston responds, "Hmnn, but...but...our tools are intendedfor wood cutting. We listen to and even admire saw music, but hey, the saw for music market is too limited to address economically. Our products are for cutting wood."
The FTC has already granted Adobe a monopoly for Professional Illustration Software, and the issue now is whether this Creative Cloud permits Adobe to unilaterally exercise market power, raise prices, reduce innovation and increases the likelihood of unrestrained domination in violation of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act.
Photographers are the saw musicians.
with apologies, and intending no offense.
Ken Richmond
-
To this Disston responds, "Hmnn, but...but...our tools are intendedfor wood cutting. We listen to and even admire saw music, but hey, the saw for music market is too limited to address economically. Our products are for cutting wood."
So ... all those years Adobe attended WPPI, NPPA conventions and other photography centric expos offering information booths and presentations (prior to the advent of Lightroom) ... they were there to deter photographers from buying and using Photoshop? Because, after all ... it was not their intention that Photoshop to be a tool for photographers ...
The preceding is just a rhetorical question of course ... ;)
-
Adobe's promotional conduct was the subject of earlier posts addressing the EULA and it's complete, total renunciation of all advertising representations. You may not rely on any advertising or promotional statements as a condition of acquiring Adobe's software.
But rest assured this Creative Cloud subscription is under evaluation. I just don't think photographers, myself humbly included, are looking at this thoughtfully enough. If, as in the past, Adobe is required to divest something in order to get the total control it wants, what should that be?
Ken Richmond
-
Disston Tool decides to stop making handsaws and to concentrate exclusively on circular saws for cutting wood.
Your analogy falls apart quickly. Adobe has not changed what they are offering. They have not stopped offering "handsaws".
In addition, it would be difficult for Adobe to say that they did not intend or market Photoshop to photographers.
That photographers are a small percentage of those using the entire CS suite...and therefore a small part of Adobe's earnings...is not a surprise. I would be interested in seeing the specific breakout of usage for those just buying Photoshop....not lumped in with those buying suite packages.
-
Your analogy falls apart quickly. Adobe has not changed what they are offering. They have not stopped offering "handsaws".
In addition, it would be difficult for Adobe to say that they did not intend or market Photoshop to photographers.
That photographers are a small percentage of those using the entire CS suite...and therefore a small part of Adobe's earnings...is not a surprise. I would be interested in seeing the specific breakout of usage for those just buying Photoshop....not lumped in with those buying suite packages.
It is, after all, an analogy. When the inventory runs out, saw musicians, like photographers, will have to learn to perform with a new set of tools. BTW Adobe has, as set forth above, described it's software as an "Illustrator's" package.
I should point out that I become timorous before courageously anonymous posters, so don't feel offended if I ignore some comments in the future.
Ken Richmond
-
I just don't think photographers, myself humbly included, are looking at this thoughtfully enough. If, as in the past, Adobe is required to divest something in order to get the total control it wants, what should that be?
Ken Richmond
Ken, would you care to elaborate and expand on that comment and question?
-
Ken, would you care to elaborate and expand on that comment and question?
Well, many photographers would accept the subscription if they could bail out with a usable current installation left on their computer. Undoubtedly the cost of subscriptions is trivial to some, and organically offensive to others, but not one post in the past five weeks in this or in other forums referenced Adobe's "cloud" distinctively and how, as a photographer, that concept impacts them. Nor has anyone articulated a "right" to which a remedy can respond. Well, there are rights involved here - principally, the right not to be injured by the destruction or elimination of competitive forces that reduce innovation.
As Photographers we are stuck with a dismaying history that officially authorized Adobe's total dominance of the Professional Illustration Software market because no one in 1996 could provide evidence of an "injury". Courts and the FTC do not permit witnesses to bring their crystal balls up to the stand. Just as was true then, Photographers cannot today "imagine" an injury that has not occurred. It's clear that most here "feel" an injury, but they just can't describe it.
Unless compelled to divest, Adobe will have all Photographers in the "Cloud" as the Camera technology changes and is adopted. Camera manufacturers are not going to provide competent selection tools and layer/masking/smart object/rastering software, so if you want or need to change your photograph, that's where it will have to be processed. There cannot be any doubt about that. It's Adobe's NEXT BIG THING.
Ken Richmond
-
Well, many photographers would accept the subscription if they could bail out with a usable current installation left on their computer. Undoubtedly the cost of subscriptions is trivial to some, and organically offensive to others, but not one post in the past five weeks in this or in other forums referenced Adobe's "cloud" distinctively and how, as a photographer, that concept impacts them. Nor has anyone articulated a "right" to which a remedy can respond. Well, there are rights involved here - principally, the right not to be injured by the destruction or elimination of competitive forces that reduce innovation.
As Photographers we are stuck with an dismaying history that officially authorized Adobe's total dominance of the Professional Illustration Software market because no one in 1996 could provide evidence of an "injury". Courts and the FTC do not permit witnesses to bring their crystal balls up to the stand. Just as was true then, Photographers cannot today "imagine" an injury that has not occurred. It's clear that most here "feel" an injury, but they just can't describe it.
Unless compelled to divest, Adobe will have all Photographers in the "Cloud" as the Camera technology changes and is adopted. Camera manufacturers are not going to provide competent selection tools and layer/masking/smart object/rastering software, so if you want or need to change your photograph, that's where it will have to be processed. There cannot be any doubt about that. It's Adobe's NEXT BIG THING.
Ken Richmond
So ... are you saying that if a photographer could show a legitimate "injury" ... the FTC could possibly compel Adobe to offer a more acceptable licensing model? If so, I find that intriguing ...
However, I am of the mind set that the free enterprise system will kick in gear and other developers will offer up an alternative designed and "intended" for photographers. The main reason we haven't seen a bona fide contender before now ... is most photographers who use Photoshop felt quite content and secure using Adobe software ... so much so, that a new option would have to struggle mightily to even secure a modest share of the market. Thus no one seemed to venture forth in a meaningful manner to compete with Adobe.
For me, I would rather bide my time and see what transpires with other possible options than to wait and see if an outside entity forces Adobe to do differently than the path they have chosen. I would rather gamble on someone who is hungry to prove themselves than support a large corporation who already has shown contempt for their customers.
-
Adobe's venemous software acquisition history is instructive. Adobe's in-house developers and stringers are under covenants not to compete, and it will hire away talent, just as it always has. This is the problem with unregulated monopolies.
Ken Richmond
-
Adobe's in-house developers and stringers are under covenants not to compete, and it will hire away talent, just as it always has.
Note, in this Adobe are no different than any other software company.
-
Not sure why you skipped two major elements:
. It costs 2x to 4x higher, depending on your past frequency of upgrades
. You are forced to pay for the upgrades, whether you need those or not. There is no incentive for Adobe to push themselves and offer meaningful new features, since you haveto pay your monthly due no matter what
It seems some points need clarifying in this Adobe Cloud business, although they may have been lost in all the "noise".
Adobe's major illustrative products can be bundled under their Creative Suite or bought individually and, related or not, Photoshop took on the moniker of CSx instead of continuing from PS7. There may be a fair number of photographers who use the whole Suite but the brouhaha has revolved around PS for those using it alone.
For this exercise the bought versions of the bundle or PS I'll refer to as CS-N and the possible future "Creative Cloud" versions as CS-CC.
The points concerned I've numbered so feel free to say right or wrong or comment to each.
1. With CS-CC the _only_ "Cloud connection" is the need for an Internet connection once a month for the verification/activation procedure of the subscription.
2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.
3. Those who have any CS-N but no desire to take on CS-CC can continue to use it until they or their hard disks wear out, the only possible deficit is no update for Camera Raw - never mind any new "wonder tool".
4. The "sticky point" is for those with CS-N who take on CS-CC. Their install is amended to CS-CC and stopping subscription in future would lose access to the software, unless Adobe includes a reversion mode - or the user restores the backup taken pre-CC.
5. New users starting out with CS-CC will lose access to the software if subscription stops, unless Adobe allow a "final fee" after a certain usage time has elapsed.