Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: julienlanoo on September 05, 2013, 02:14:21 am
-
Ladies and Gentlemen, the boycot is working! : http://photorumors.com/2013/09/04/adobe-announces-photoshop-photography-program-photoshop-lightroom-and-20gb-of-storage-for-9-99-per-month-starting-september-17th/
greets
ju
-
Ladies and Gentlemen, the boycot is working! : http://photorumors.com/2013/09/04/adobe-announces-photoshop-photography-program-photoshop-lightroom-and-20gb-of-storage-for-9-99-per-month-starting-september-17th/
greets
ju
I still find the new arrangement to quite annoying. Unless something amazing comes out in PS, I will not upgrade from CS6. (As a matter of fact, I still use CS3 and find it perfect for my needs.)
-
+1.
I still find the new arrangement to quite annoying. Unless something amazing comes out in PS, I will not upgrade from CS6. (As a matter of fact, I still use CS3 and find it perfect for my needs.)
-
I don't see how any "boycott" is working. Adobe isn't going back to the old software license model. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all I see is a trimmed down package "designed for photographers" ----to get more people to drink the kool-aid.
$9.99 is indeed much more palatable, but the whole idea still stinks to me. I regularly upgraded under the old business model, but I liked making that decision whether it was worthwhile. No more choice anymore. Adobe wants its "version upgrade" money upfront regardless of whether those future upgrades are worthwhile to you as an individual.
Three months to decide if I drink the kool-aid... :-\ ???
ken
-
I know a couple of people who are suddenly interested in Aperture, and one of them is a Windows user, so he's planning a wholesale computing change around. Well done Adobe
-
My Photoshop CS6 has more bugs than CS5, so I mostly work in CS5.
GIMP 2.10 is in the pipeline, with 16bit support. This might be the end of Photoshop. They´ll not get me in the creative cloud.
Bernd
-
I don't see how any "boycott" is working. Adobe isn't going back to the old software license model.
That's my take on it too. But if people who signed a boycott feel better, great.
-
I will also stick with CS5. This business model is not comfortable for me.
-
Comon guys, boycotting is childish!
This being said, I am not sure that 9.99 US$ changes anything.
It for sure is a more reasonnable price point, one that is probably closer to what I used to be spending... but the lack of exit strategy remains.
So, as far as I am concerned, the answer continues to be focused on looking for alternatives to Photoshop till my CS6 instance becomes unusable.
"looking for alternatives" meaning buying licenses from those alternative sofwares to fund the development of these software, several in parallel up to the amount I would be paying to Adobe on CC.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Looking at the cost of medium format gear it's hard to complain about $9.99/month :)
Subscription services is the future, for music, TV, software etc, anything that can be delivered through your broadband connection. We are in the start of the transition to these business models. You can boycott all you want, it's coming anyway.
-
"looking for alternatives" meaning buying licenses from those alternative sofwares to fund the development of these software, several in parallel up to the amount I would be paying to Adobe on CC.
The $9.99 is clever pricing. It includes a perpetual licence for Lr and for 1 or 2 years you will find it hard to beat the $120 /$240 outlay that CC will cost. A new copy of Lightroom alone costs $149.99 (reduced today to $129.99). Upgrades and Student full licences are $79.00.
So, for anyone who is in the market for a new copy of Lightroom, and probably for those of us who are already on the bandwagon, 1 or 2 years of CC subscription makes sense. It also gives us the time to see what, if any, must-have improvements and innovations Adobe comes up with - all for a relatively modest outlay.
BUT, it does nothing for those less fortunate. CC is still price-gouging, whichever way you look at it. Personally, I'm still looking for alternatives.
Anyone care to contribute ?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=81795.0
-
There is just one thing that really sets off my alarm bells. The limited time offer combined with the promise this is the price and will continue to be so. If that is the case than why make it a limited time offer??? It feels like those people ringing my doorbell with that great offer of an energy company that I have to sign now or the offer is out of the door. Only to find I have been totally screwed at a later stage.
I guess I really do not trust Adobe any longer...
-
I guess I really do not trust Adobe any longer...
You trust a major corporation that releases some of buggiest crap in the market ?
15 years ago I worked for a well know company that developed PS plugins. We had frequent meetings with Adobe. They were planning back then to transition to a subscription only model.
This has been a long time coming and it's not going to change.
-
For this price I think it's strange if you still think that adobe is dong something bad.
It's the best imaging software at the moment, everyone wants it but a lot of people were never able to afford it, now you have Lightroom and photoshop for the price of 2 Starbucks coffees a month. Come on.
-
For this price I think it's strange if you still think that adobe is dong something bad.
It's the best imaging software at the moment, everyone wants it but a lot of people were never able to afford it, now you have Lightroom and photoshop for the price of 2 Starbucks coffees a month. Come on.
I agree with this. If my copies of CS3 and 5 didn't do what I needed them to do, I'd do the CC subscription for $10 a month.
-
Frank,
I don't think it's the amount of money; it's the model. Adobe's plan is like the cable company wanting to rent you a modem for six or seven dollars a month.
SG
-
For the price of a MF lens you can subscribe for the rest of your life.
-
$9.99.
A bad deal? Come on. has anybody added up how much it costs to do anything for $9.99. Movie tickets are $13 for 90 minutes.
I'll tell you a bad deal. Buying thunderbolt to firewire cords for a $9.99 an inch.
Seriously, if you want the cost of intellectual property to go down, don't condone anyone that swipes it, regardless of their reason.
IMO
BC
-
Do you really think it will stay this low for the rest of your life ? Be serious.......It might be low now but I bet it will rise soon, and when their investors decide they want more profit. For me it's the fact I'm locked in and they can put the price up when they please. I'll continue to use CS4, it does all I need.
Pete
-
Very bad move from Adobe in my opinion.
A lot of professional shooters will see this a good deal but it will alienate most enthusiasts and they will start looking for alternatives.
-
For this price I think it's strange if you still think that adobe is dong something bad.
It's the best imaging software at the moment, everyone wants it but a lot of people were never able to afford it, now you have Lightroom and photoshop for the price of 2 Starbucks coffees a month. Come on.
Quite. This new pricing is about half the price I paid for the perpetual license for PS(X) Extended when averaged out on a monthly basis over the last 8 or 9 years.
-
I know a couple of people who are suddenly interested in Aperture, and one of them is a Windows user, so he's planning a wholesale computing change around. Well done Adobe
Yeh...I want to crawl into bed with Apple. They won't screw you.
-
There is just one thing that really sets off my alarm bells. The limited time offer combined with the promise this is the price and will continue to be so. If that is the case than why make it a limited time offer??? It feels like those people ringing my doorbell with that great offer of an energy company that I have to sign now or the offer is out of the door. Only to find I have been totally screwed at a later stage.
I guess I really do not trust Adobe any longer...
Show me anything that will guarantee today's price forever. To think so is truly naive.
-
Show me anything that will guarantee today's price forever. To think so is truly naive.
You can say that about any product or service.
-
It includes a perpetual licence for Lr
Apparently not according to the Adobe rep in another thread here. He's saying it's a CC licence, NOT a perpetual licence.
IF so, that could skew the value of the deal a lot.
-
Yes, $10 per month is a decent price and all is right in the world, for now. You subscribe, it's affordable, and you can always fallback to your perpetually licensed copy of CS6 if Adobe jacks up the price unreasonably or does some other unreasonable thing with CC. Great! But if you think a few years further down the road, to a time when CS6 doesn't function on current operating systems, things are not so great. Without a fallback or graceful exit strategy you use whatever Adobe produces and pay whatever they want or the software stops working in short order and you have no way to work with the files you have generated. There isn't a company on earth that wouldn't exploit a situation like that, and it's exactly what Adobe is setting up. It's the same mechanism they're using, now along with a low entry price, to pull everyone possible into this scheme.
IMO the issue here has had little to do with the price of entry and a lot to do with becoming entrapped. Adobe has made the entrance ever so enticing but the only exit is a jump from a second story window. I'd bet someone at Adobe is already calculated how high the price can go before people start jumping.
My instincts tell me it's better to find alternatives now, while there's no pressure and a good fallback (CS6) exists. But, being not so young and not so poor makes me want to just drink the cool-aide, avoid the hassle, and get back to making pictures.
-
But if you think a few years further down the road, to a time when CS6 doesn't function on current operating systems, things are not so great.
Don't upgrade the hardware (or upgrade Photoshop). No one is putting a gun to your head. I have an old Mac G5 around just to run color management software that cost nearly 5X what Photoshop does because I still need it, the software can't run on Intel Mac's. Who's fault is that? What's wrong with that solution?
Without a fallback or graceful exit strategy you use whatever Adobe produces and pay whatever they want or the software stops working in short order and you have no way to work with the files you have generated.
By your own doing.
There isn't a company on earth that wouldn't exploit a situation like that, and it's exactly what Adobe is setting up. It's the same mechanism they're using, now along with a low entry price, to pull everyone possible into this scheme.
So they are bad guys by providing a product you wish to use at a good price?
IMO the issue here has had little to do with the price of entry and a lot to do with becoming entrapped.
Again by your own doing. FWIW, I have a copy of Photoshop 1.0.7 but I can't run it on any modern Mac. I'm at fault for giving up my old Mac II Ci, not Adobe. Not that I have any desire to run Photoshop 1.0.7 (or Photoshop 3 etc).
My instincts tell me it's better to find alternatives now, while there's no pressure and a good fallback (CS6) exists.
Do it. That's your choice. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with sticking with Adobe products and paying to do so. No one is forcing either path on you!
The only thing that's changed here is the subscription model. Outdated hardware, the ability or inability to upgrade hasn't changed one bit.
-
I'm pretty much in agreement with the several comments that Andrew made. I pay $7.95/mo for Netflicks so I can stream movies and television shows that I might have missed to my TV. I don't think twice about this except to realize that once I stop paying, I don't have access to any shows/movies any more. I'm happy with having my LR license right now as I do most all of my work in it and I do have PS6. If I was regularly selling prints the CC makes sense because it's a tax write off as a business expense (and I have no doubt that a lot of forum members do exactly that). None of us know the Adobe sales figures and maybe $10/month (rounding up) is the perfect price point that Adobe came up with to keep the amateur photography market happy. It's still pretty cheap given the cost of hardware (computers, cameras, lenses, tripods, and other auxiliary equipment).
-
I'm pretty much in agreement with the several comments that Andrew made. I pay $7.95/mo for Netflicks so I can stream movies and television shows that I might have missed to my TV. I don't think twice about this except to realize that once I stop paying, I don't have access to any shows/movies any more. I'm happy with having my LR license right now as I do most all of my work in it and I do have PS6. If I was regularly selling prints the CC makes sense because it's a tax write off as a business expense (and I have no doubt that a lot of forum members do exactly that). None of us know the Adobe sales figures and maybe $10/month (rounding up) is the perfect price point that Adobe came up with to keep the amateur photography market happy. It's still pretty cheap given the cost of hardware (computers, cameras, lenses, tripods, and other auxiliary equipment).
Yeh, we rent a bunch of stuff and after we stop paying, we have nothing to show for it. My TV and ethernet combined are easily over $100 / month. Renting PS / LR for $10 / month seems quite reasonable compared to my other rentals. On top of that, I have something out of my PS rental...many beautiful prints that I make money off selling.
-
Apparently not according to the Adobe rep in another thread here. He's saying it's a CC licence, NOT a perpetual licence.
IF so, that could skew the value of the deal a lot.
Seems to be a confusion which needs to be clarified.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=80687.msg661340#msg661340
-
You want to future proof those nondestructive xmp edits for all those thousands of Raws you've captured throughout the years, you'ld better keep track of which ones were rendered with or without CC subscription Adobe software if you decide to end the subscription years down the road.
It'll get kinda' confusing on backups made years prior.
The major benefit told to many of us from the start for shooting Raw and processing with Adobe's nondestructive method was to allow the photographer to take advantage of improvements to display and processing technology in the future in order to pull more data out of those old Raw captures.
Of course the user can always decide to re-up after a hiatus on their CC subscription and have the software turned back on in order to take advantage of the image processing technologies, but it might get a bit confusing managing this option on thousands of images backed up on hard drives, some rendered with perpetual license software and some with CC subscription and using older software for both payment plans.
Guess it's not that big of a problem, right? Our images make us all slaves to our computers anyway.
-
The only issue I have with any of this is the 10 bucks a month, or even 20, it's the perpetual upgrade when you move to a new camera. You buy a new camera and past versions of lightroom, PS or C-1 won't process the file, so you move to let's say lightroom 5, but it only works in mountain lion and you then buy mountain lion, but your present hardware really is optimized for it and 4 other apps have to be re purchased or updated.
Now that to me is wrong, when I buy an 16 mpx camera, but need to upgrade three items just to process.
IMO
BC
-
The only issue I have with any of this is the 10 bucks a month, or even 20, it's the perpetual upgrade when you move to a new camera. You buy a new camera and past versions of lightroom, PS or C-1 won't process the file, so you move to let's say lightroom 5, but it only works in mountain lion and you then buy mountain lion, but your present hardware really is optimized for it and 4 other apps have to be re purchased or updated.
Now that to me is wrong, when I buy an 16 mpx camera, but need to upgrade three items just to process.
IMO
BC
You made me have to pick up my marbles on that angle BC. Hadn't thought of that one.
-
Now that to me is wrong, when I buy an 16 mpx camera, but need to upgrade three items just to process.
And the root problem there is that the camera makers still refuse to have a raw file format standard. Every new camera forces all the software developers to decode the new raw file format and update their software. On the other hand, if there was a standard (such as DNG) new cameras would be supported in older software. Leica is a prime example...and new cameras Leica may produce use DNG as their raw file format and it's file supported in current and older software.
This problem is not one of Adobe's making...blame the camera makers.
-
I am signing up in December. I believe Adobe will honor this price and that it easily increases to 3x in 3 years for new subscribers. Mobile computing is just starting. Big Data is in it's infancy too. The computing world will look much different in ten years. I predict a RIP desktop...which is still my preferred platform today.
-
I am signing up in December. I believe Adobe will honor this price and that it easily increases to 3x in 3 years for new subscribers. Mobile computing is just starting. Big Data is in it's infancy too. The computing world will look much different in ten years. I predict a RIP desktop...which is still my preferred platform today.
With PC sales down and no certainty for that to change, I'ld hate to think we'll all be editing on mobile devices with touch screens the size of a lunchbox decades down the road. Or heaven forbid we're left with editing on Google Glasses with SSD hard drives the size of a fingernail.
Makes CC subscription less problematic. It's the only way to look on the bright side...look for something worse to worry about.
-
In reply to various:
I see Adobe's subscription model as being a bit different from a Netflix subscription or Internet service. When Netflix stops working you lose nothing but the ability to watch Netflix movies in the future. Because Netflix isn't used to create anything, you don't lose access to anything you created before it stopped working. In the CC scenario, the time invested in creating files while CS and CC were operational is lost, at least until you can migrate to something else, when CC stops working, not just the ability to create new files. It's that previously invested time, and the pain of migrating, that gives Adobe so much more leverage. If not for that none of this would be an issue.
There's nothing wrong with keeping old hardware around to run old programs. That can easily become a hardware and software maintenance nightmare so I wouldn't be anxious to do it.
Adobe software is great and the current price is good. Using that to get customers into a pay as you go situation that's difficult to get out of by virtue of their investment of time spent creating proprietary files is good business. I wouldn't expect the price to stay nearly this low for very long because the situation obviously allows for significant future price increases with maximal customer retention. The more proprietary files customers generate the more they'll pay before enduring the pain of going elsewhere. From a marketing perspective that's what subscription systems tied to proprietary anything are designed to do. Adobe isn't the first to implement a similar marketing strategy, but I suspect they're the largest so far. From a corporate perspective what's not to like?
I completely agree that "The only thing that's changed here is the subscription model. Outdated hardware, the ability or inability to upgrade hasn't changed one bit". It's the subscription model that makes all the difference in the world. With any perpetual license model there's always a buffer allowing significant time (years) to do whatever you want to do. It's the relatively immediate loss of service when a customer stops their perpetual payments that causes the problem. That's also what causes the customer willingness to pay to avoid that problem.
Adobe can do anything they want with their products, including channeling customers into this perpetual payment system. It's their prerogative. Customers are also certainly free to do whatever they want. There's no right or wrong choice, but at least for me there seems no "good" choice, sort of like a political election.
-
When Netflix stops working you lose nothing but the ability to watch Netflix movies in the future. Because Netflix isn't used to create anything, you don't lose access to anything you created before it stopped working.
Nor do you with Photoshop. Save a TIFF, even a layered TIFF. All kinds of image editors that will access that data. When CC stops working, your files can be accessed but not necessarily re-edited but that's quite different from saying you don't have access to the data. And when CC stops, the TIFF, layered or now can't be opened in Quicken or Excel. Just as when Excel stops, don't expect to open it's proprietary data in CC.
The only people who cut themselves off from access to their images are those that are not forward thinking or dumb enough to stop paying for CC and expect something else to provide the identical functionality.
Oh, you want to continue to use proprietary Adobe process on those layers but not pay? That's never been possible. Either with Adobe or other's products. The idea that once you stop subscribing to Photoshop your files disappear or become unusable is hogwash.
when CC stops working, not just the ability to create new files
That's true for any software product. Or any product for that mater.
-
The only issue I have with any of this is the 10 bucks a month, or even 20, it's the perpetual upgrade when you move to a new camera.
Not if you save a JPEG <g>. Really, how is it Adobe's fault that the manufacturer builds a new, proprietary raw file for every camera? Yet if the camera saves an openly supported file format, TIFF or JPEG, no issue. The blame should be placed on the people who move the goal posts every time they create a new camera. It's totally unnecessary and if fact, the majority of cameras do have the ability to save off a file one could open in a version of Photoshop that's 20 years old. They could do the same with their raw data but choose not to. They are the bad guys in this respect.
-
Seriously, if you want the cost of intellectual property to go down, don't condone anyone that swipes it, regardless of their reason.
+10 (actually make that 27)
I recently setup new servers and workstations for a large printshop (Windows) and immediately ran into issues with new Win7 machines running CS3 and various incarnations of Illustrator - I'll give you "one" guess how many licenses they legitimately own....
I pointed out that, for them, the cost of CC is a *fraction* of the maintenance and ink on just one of their presses.....
I can't and won't criticize anyone who legitimately runs any version of software and their opinions, but BC makes a great point!
-
And the root problem there is that the camera makers still refuse to have a raw file format standard. Every new camera forces all the software developers to decode the new raw file format and update their software. On the other hand, if there was a standard (such as DNG) new cameras would be supported in older software. Leica is a prime example...and new cameras Leica may produce use DNG as their raw file format and it's file supported in current and older software.
This problem is not one of Adobe's making...blame the camera makers.
So what you are saying Jeff, is that if one of the major camera manufacturers woke up and saw this opportunity and immediately started to release all their new cameras with a lossless DNG Raw capture option, then that camera manufacturer would instantly have a ready made market of Adobe disenfranchised photographers, who would then be willing to bias all their future purchasing towards that manufacturers products?
Hello Canon, are you listening, is there anyone at home?
But seriously, I totally agree, you have totally hit the nail on the head.
In a round about way, I think you have come up with a really good idea there Jeff, I just hope that someone connected to one of the major camera manufacturers is reading this thread and picks up this idea.
Dave
-
So what you are saying Jeff, is that if one of the major camera manufacturers woke up and saw this opportunity and immediately started to release all their new cameras with a lossless DNG Raw capture option, then that camera manufacturer would instantly have a ready made market of Adobe disenfranchised photographers, who would then be willing to bias all their future purchasing towards that manufacturers products?
Yep...the situation where new cameras force new versions of software because of proprietary, undocumented raw file formats is a big problem for the industry, regardless of what software you wish to use. Leica chose DNG and enjoys support in any software that supports DNG (and not just Adobe software). Forcing people to upgrade software and hardware because of new cameras is everybody's problem and has nothing to do with the "Adobe disenfranchised photographers"...and thanks to DNG Converter (created by Thomas Knoll for backwards compatibility), you can convert today's raw files and open them all the way back in Photoshop CS and Camera Raw 2.4.
Dave, not for nothing bud, but at some point I think you really need to move on...do you really want to keep this anti-Adobe stuff up forever? This whole thread seems based on a rather unhealthy premise...at some point ya gotta move on and get back to shooting. If you have Photoshop CS6 then you're fine for at least a few years...
-
This whole thread seems based on a rather unhealthy premise...at some point ya gotta move on and get back to shooting.
On that you're right, Jeff.
When the 'Cloud' was announced there was an understandable adverse reaction from the photo community. Now, Adobe Photoshop customers have been given a 50% discount on the original pricing plus Lightroom for free. It's not perfect, but much better than zilch.
At the outset, it was clear that the only way forward, if you were unhappy, was to talk (with the wallet) and walk. There are at least 5 recent threads, plus one (that I started, on the alternatives). The statistics:
complaints, clarifications & rants - 12,000 views | 420 posts
alternative suggestions and plans - 300 views | 4 replies
I know what I would be thinking if I was Adobe ...
-
Thankfully, my clients don't hire me because I can come in with the lowest bid. They hire me because I offer them the product they desire or require at a fair price. Not because I offer a bargain basement price with an expiration date.
I just don't know why some folks can't grasp the concept ... For me, it is NOT now ... nor has it ever been about the PRICE of CC that has deterred me from subscribing to CC ... I could very easily afford the price of a full $50 per month subscription to CC ... even higher if need be ... I have never flinched about the COST OF DOING BUSINESS ... it is whatever it is and you move forward working within those parameters .... Though that expenditure MUST show a return for the investment made. Speculation on that return is just too costly when you have to pay in advance for a "Pig in a Poke" ...
My problem with the CC licensing model is ROI .... RETURN ON INVESTMENT ... and honestly ... there is currently NOTHING in Photoshop CC or Lightroom 5 that would enhance MY bottom line beyond what I can accomplish with the perpetual licensed software I already own. There is zero motivation to sign up only to enhance Adobe's profits today .. that may or may not see a return for me tomorrow. At ANY price. If anything, the direction the Adobe executives have steered development of their products over the past few years is they are definitely worried more about profits ... and much less about increased functionality of the products they produce.
I could very easily afford this new subscription offer that Adobe has made ... Currently ... the only accomplishment that would be ensured is that Adobe's bank account would increase by the same amount my bank account would decrease ... THAT is NOT a return on investment ... but merely a contribution to a software developer that would in no way enhance MY profitability ...
In the end, if I purchased EVERY item I could afford ... it would only ensure I would have a much lower balance in MY bank account ... It would NEVER ensure that I would be more profitable ... Adobe has to demonstrate a more balanced effort that THEY will indeed move forward in a more significant manor than they have done in the past to prove their worthiness of a perpetual investment. I have zero blind trust that Adobe has MY best interests at heart. In fact I have zero trust in them at all.
If Adobe wishes to have me among the supposed throngs of users who can't wait to be on the CC subscription hook, they better come up with more than Camera Shake tool ... or a Slideshow module that is a total joke or a Book module that is Blurb only solution ... thus rendering both modules to virtually useless wasted space of ones's and zero's on my HD.
I'll gladly INVEST in a developer's efforts ... IF ... I can see a future beyond a 30 day expiration date for the privilege of use.
It's all about the MERIT system ... if you offer a product that is superior and worthy of investment ... you really don't need to force users to SUBSCRIBE to it ... they will seek you out, crash down your doors to be a part of the process then reward you commensurately ... there wouldn't be a need to force it down their throats ... even at a discount.
-
Dave, not for nothing bud, but at some point I think you really need to move on...do you really want to keep this anti-Adobe stuff up forever? This whole thread seems based on a rather unhealthy premise...at some point ya gotta move on and get back to shooting. If you have Photoshop CS6 then you're fine for at least a few years...
Yes I have CS6 and I will take your advice Jeff, because I too am heartily fed-up with this whole thing now, moving on ;D
Dave
-
Yes I have CS6 and I will take your advice Jeff, because I too am heartily fed-up with this whole thing now, moving on ;D
Dave
I don't know Dave, you've added some interesting info for us...if you want to add more or just vent it's ok with me.
-
Comon guys, boycotting is childish!
This being said, I am not sure that 9.99 US$ changes anything.
It for sure is a more reasonnable price point, one that is probably closer to what I used to be spending... but the lack of exit strategy remains.
So, as far as I am concerned, the answer continues to be focused on looking for alternatives to Photoshop till my CS6 instance becomes unusable.
"looking for alternatives" meaning buying licenses from those alternative sofwares to fund the development of these software, several in parallel up to the amount I would be paying to Adobe on CC.
Cheers,
Bernard
No it's not, it's showing our feeling about the product by shutting off cash they would have got.
They won't listen to the comments of their users, so maybe they will listen when the bank ballance suffers, if they don't then they lose out in the end.
I can work quite happily with CS6 and LR4.
-
I don't know Dave, you've added some interesting info for us...if you want to add more or just vent it's ok with me.
Thanks Morris, it is good to know someone has been listening to my blatherings, but I fear the battle is now lost and defeat has been snatched from the jaws of victory, because it’s plain to see from the many comments on this and other fora, that people cannot see past that low sign up price and are willing to forget about everything else they were complaining about as a result. Will they still see it as a good deal in the future, who knows, they might well do so and if they do then good luck to them I say, but I think Jeff is right in this instance, because for the reducing minority of us to keep carping on about this whole affair and how we don’t agree with it, will only begin to look like sour grapes on our part. Whether we were right or whether Adobe was right will sort itself out in the end, as things always have a tendency to do when given enough time and with plenty of hindsight, but for now I think the battle is over, we tried because we thought we were right, but we lost because people couldn’t see past $9.99 a month.
C'est la vie :'(
Dave
-
Thanks Morris, it is good to know someone has been listening to my blatherings, but I fear the battle is now lost and defeat has been snatched from the jaws of victory, because it’s plain to see from the many comments on this and other fora, that people cannot see past that low sign up price and are willing to forget about everything else they were complaining about as a result. Will they still see it as a good deal in the future, who knows, they might well do so and if they do then good luck to them I say, but I think Jeff is right in this instance, because for the reducing minority of us to keep carping on about this whole affair and how we don’t agree with it, will only begin to look like sour grapes on our part. Whether we were right or whether Adobe was right will sort itself out in the end, as things always have a tendency to do when given enough time and with plenty of hindsight, but for now I think the battle is over, we tried because we thought we were right, but we lost because people couldn’t see past $9.99 a month.
C'est la vie :'(
Dave
I kinda agree with Jeff too. Say your piece/peace, move on. But as you pointed out, it's an emotional war inside for some of us. So, I feel if you need to vent, vent. I've been reading all this with some anxiety and disgust and just working and waiting to see it all unfold.
I'll do what's right for me down the road. See/read the actual offer. Hope it makes some sense as these days adobe language is anything but clear and to the point. I guess the european prices will be more like 15 euros a month, still a slight increase over what I'd have paid before for upgrades. I might try for a year and jump ship if I'm not happy. Still, I don't like the monthly link to my bank account. Don't like what I see as greed. Don't like not having a choice when a choice can be made available. And on and on...
Still not happy about being 'fooled' into upgrading from CS5 to CS6 so I could supposedly have the 'right' to upgrade later to CS7 (as they changed the policy about upgrading), a version of photoshop which will never see the light of day...
and maybe it's not my place, but how many billions in profit does a company need to make before it's content?...seems like it's never enough...whatever...
kind regards
Morris
and yes, c'est la vie...
-
I fear the battle is now lost and defeat has been snatched from the jaws of victory,
Things have changed once, they'll change again. If everyone rolls over and falls into line there'll be no reason to improve future offers.
If people stick with what they've got and think carefully what real benefit they get from subscription and not choose to buy into it now, maybe there'll be better offers at some future point.
Right now I can't see why moving to CC makes any sense for me either financially or from using newer software.
-
I understand the issue about an exit strategy. It's definitely not an insignificant issue. But it's a bridge than can be crossed later, I don't have to figure it out now - as long as I figure it out before terminating the monthly CC payment.
With that in mind, and given that I'm currently on CS5 and LR4, this sounds like a great deal to me. I look forward to it becoming available and can hardly wait to sign up.
-
Not if you save a JPEG <g>.
Or I suppose you could use the manufacturer's software to make a TIFF and then open that in whatever PS you have ?
-
And the root problem there is that the camera makers still refuse to have a raw file format standard. Every new camera forces all the software developers to decode the new raw file format and update their software. On the other hand, if there was a standard (such as DNG) new cameras would be supported in older software.
This problem is not one of Adobe's making...blame the camera makers.
I wonder if it actually suits Adobe in some ways ?
Whilst there are continual new formats, there will be upgrades to be sold.
If every manufacturer used the same format there'd be fewer upgrades and then how much longer would the perpetual licence work for LR ?
-
If every manufacturer used the same format there'd be fewer upgrades and then how much longer would the perpetual licence work for LR ?
Since nearly all the manufacturer's have an option to produce a JPEG, I suggest your suspicion’s don't wash. That WE don't want to use that open, a highly supported format for obvious reasons, we want raw, I think the answer is quite clear. IOW, anyone with a DSLR that comes out tomorrow but set's it to JPEG can access that image in Photoshop 1! How is it a benefit to that user OR Adobe if instead they switch the camera to raw? Answer: It isn't.
-
$9.99.
A bad deal? Come on. has anybody added up how much it costs to do anything for $9.99. Movie tickets are $13 for 90 minutes.
I'll tell you a bad deal. Buying thunderbolt to firewire cords for a $9.99 an inch.
Seriously, if you want the cost of intellectual property to go down, don't condone anyone that swipes it, regardless of their reason.
IMO
BC
The problem is not so much the price as it is the chains that will bind you to maintain your subscription until the end of time, that is if you want to continue using the software with which you have edited thousands of images. With the perpetual license model, you only have to upgrade if and when your computer's OS will no longer support the version of PS that you have been using. For many people, that will occur infrequently, if ever.
Rob
-
For this price I think it's strange if you still think that adobe is dong something bad.
It's the best imaging software at the moment, everyone wants it but a lot of people were never able to afford it, now you have Lightroom and photoshop for the price of 2 Starbucks coffees a month. Come on.
Until the day comes that you no longer wish to pay the subscription. Then you will be locked out of your psd files forever! Adobe can count me out of this pay on tap system. After a decade of paying upgrades every year and sometimes paying twice for mac and pc versions, I will now look for alternatives! I want choice for my business. I want to upgrade when I think and upgrade is worth it and not because I get locked out when the payments stop. If I'm having a bad month I don't want to worry about payments to adobe on top of all my other business costs. When Adobe said they listened to their customers they must have had the hearing aid turned off!
-
Until the day comes that you no longer wish to pay the subscription. Then you will be locked out of your psd files forever!
That is absolutely false!
-
That is absolutely false!
No it's not absolutely false. I need a working copy of PS to open my psd files. When you stop the payments you can no longer use Photoshop!
-
Refinement of support for PSD files in GIMP (http://google-melange.appspot.com/gsoc/project/google/gsoc2013/crystallis/10001)
-
No it's not absolutely false. I need a working copy of PS to open my psd files. When you stop the payments you can no longer use Photoshop!
No, that is untrue and false. I've got both products. There is no issue opening a PSD built in CC in CS6. But why save a PSD, save a layered TIFF.
Example: one can create a Shake Reduction layer in CC and since that edit is stamped into the layer, it will open just fine in CS6. Can you re-edit the layer using Shake Reduction in CS6? No, that is unique functionality only found in CC. But that's not the point, any new proprietary processing unique to CC is unique to CC. Further, nothing stops you from flattening any and all layers built in CC as a PSD and opening it in Photoshop 1.0.7! OR any product that can open a TIFF!
Bascially, you don't know what you're talking about when you make the false statement: you will be locked out of your psd files forever! It is untrue.
You even have CC? You tested your flat earth theory?
-
Refinement of support for PSD files in GIMP (http://google-melange.appspot.com/gsoc/project/google/gsoc2013/crystallis/10001)
Thanks for that post. That's interesting news. I hope they can get the support for this. Perhaps one good thing to come of all this is that people will take a more serious look at alternatives to adobe.
-
Also, "Photoshop Elements - File formats for importing (http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements/kb/supported-file-formats-premiere-elements.html#main_Adobe_Photoshop_Elements___File_formats_for_importing) ... PSD"
Also, "There is no issue opening a PSD built in CC in CS6. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=81842.msg664169#msg664169) But why save a PSD, save a layered TIFF".
-
No, that is untrue and false. I've got both products. There is no issue opening a PSD built in CC in CS6. But why save a PSD, save a layered TIFF.
Example: one can create a Shake Reduction layer in CC and since that edit is stamped into the layer, it will open just fine in CS6. Can you re-edit the layer using Shake Reduction in CS6? No, that is unique functionality only found in CC. But that's not the point, any new proprietary processing unique to CC is unique to CC. Further, nothing stops you from flattening any and all layers built in CC as a PSD and opening it in Photoshop 1.0.7! OR any product that can open a TIFF!
Bascially, you don't know what you're talking about when you make the false statement: you will be locked out of your psd files forever! It is untrue.
I currently have just over half a million images in my current database with an enormous number of saved work files in PSD format. If you have the spare time to convert all of these files to tiffs for me then great. I DON'T. Moving on to the CS6 solving all your backwards compatibility issues, then what happens when CS6 is NO LONGER supported on current operating systems and you discontinue a CC subscriptions? Yep you guessed it...your locked out!
You even have CC? You tested your flat earth theory?
Nope. Have CS5 on my Mac and CS3 on my PC and was due to upgrade the PC before all this came about. Now I will not upgrade unless Adobe offer me what I want/need, instead of trying to ram it down my throat.
Do any of
-
I currently have just over half a million images in my current database with an enormous number of saved work files in PSD format. If you have the spare time to convert all of these files to tiffs for me then great. I DON'T. Moving on to the CS6 solving all your backwards compatibility issues, then what happens when CS6 is NO LONGER supported on current operating systems and you discontinue a CC subscriptions? Yep you guessed it...your locked out!
First of all, your fault for not understanding that PSD is a proprietary Adobe format. And that there is nothing, other than Duotone support that PSD provides that a TIFF can't provide. You want to continue to use CS5 (or CS6) forever? Stick with your current hardware and OS. Adobe isn't forcing you to upgrade either.
Second, you can easily batch convert all those files to TIFF to fix your mistake.
Third, that they are PSD files doesn't dismiss your incorrect statement that you can't open them in earlier versions of Photoshop. Even CS5. Even CS3!
Forth, your statement is flat out wrong: I need a working copy of PS to open my psd files. When you stop the payments you can no longer use Photoshop!
That's simply incorrect.
Nope. Have CS5 on my Mac and CS3 on my PC and was due to upgrade the PC before all this came about.
Good, then you can absolutely open your PSD files in either. I explained you may not be able to edit them using newer proprietary functionality that is in CC that you decided to no longer use by not subscribing. But you'd be advised to use an open file format like TIFF considering you are planing, by your own doing to stop using Photoshop and it's proprietary file format!
-
Also, "Photoshop Elements - File formats for importing (http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements/kb/supported-file-formats-premiere-elements.html#main_Adobe_Photoshop_Elements___File_formats_for_importing) ... PSD"
Also, "There is no issue opening a PSD built in CC in CS6. (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=81842.msg664169#msg664169) But why save a PSD, save a layered TIFF".
Further, I just opened a CC created PSD with layers in GraphicConverter, a fine product.
http://www.lemkesoft.de/en/start/
Full version: just $39.95
-
Further, I just opened a CC created PSD with layers in GraphicConverter, a fine product.
http://www.lemkesoft.de/en/start/
Full version: just $39.95
Hi Andrew,
Can you confirm whether it opens them in 16-bit/channel, and alpha channels/masks?
According to their web-site its PSD functionality only "Supports 1, 8, 24 bit per pixel".
Cheers,
Bart
-
Can you confirm whether it opens them in 16-bit/channel, and alpha channels/masks?
According to their web-site its PSD functionality only "Supports 1, 8, 24 bit per pixel".
Yes, they open as 16-bit, according to the file info and size.
mage width:
3000
Image height:
2097
Number of bits per component:
{16,16,16}
Compression scheme:
reserved
Pixel composition:
RGB
Image title:
roman16 bvdm Reference Images for visual assessment, processing and output
in premedia and print
Orientation of image:
1
Number of components:
3
X resolution:
300.0 ppi (pixel per inch)
Y resolution:
300.0 ppi (pixel per inch)
Image data arrangement:
1
Resolution unit:
inch
Software:
Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
The Alpha channel is 'honored' in that I see it's effect on the image. It does open this as a flattened PSD but I believe one can import individual layers which then reside on GraphicConverter's own proprietary layers.
-
Yes, they open as 16-bit, according to the file info and size.
Good. Strange that they don't mention that on their website. Maybe it's mentioned somewhere else than in the list of supported formats. I can't find it in their PDF manual either.
The Alpha channel is 'honored' in that I see it's effect on the image. It does open this as a flattened PSD but I believe one can import individual layers which then reside on GraphicConverter's own proprietary layers.
In their manual they mention that one can split in the individual layers on export, don't know if a TIFF from a PDF will contain the layers, but I assume it does. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that all adjustment layers are functional. I suppose one needs to install the software and try it to find out.
Cheers,
Bart
-
First of all, your fault for not understanding that PSD is a proprietary Adobe format. And that there is nothing, other than Duotone support that PSD provides that a TIFF can't provide. You want to continue to use CS5 (or CS6) forever? Stick with your current hardware and OS. Adobe isn't forcing you to upgrade either.
So now your saying it's my fault for actually using the technology which I paid for???
Second, you can easily batch convert all those files to TIFF to fix your mistake.
Jeez that's got to be the most arrogant remark I have seen on this forum. Did you consider that I may use duotones too or sorry was this a "mistake" too??
Third, that they are PSD files doesn't dismiss your incorrect statement that you can't open them in earlier versions of Photoshop. Even CS5. Even CS3!
We sort of covered that point already but clearly you chose to ignore my reply. I'm not going to repeat any points that I have already made. Clearly you have made the decision to defend Adobe's actions regardless of the implications for many of your fellow photographers. Perhaps it is because you make a living from selling training courses on Adobe's products that makes it hard for you view this from a strictly photographers viewpoint. My opinions reflect the views of many others on this forum who take issue with the way Adobe have moved the goal posts.
Forth, your statement is flat out wrong: I need a working copy of PS to open my psd files. When you stop the payments you can no longer use Photoshop!
That's simply incorrect.
So let's say a new photographer signs up to CC today and one year later he cannot afford the subs. He never had CS6 before so what does he do? Is he not locked out of his files? My old version of PS will not be working in years to come as OS changes will render it useless. I don't want to keep old hardware knocking around for decades just to provide a life insurance policy for my PSD files. What I want, after over a decade of Payments to Adobe is a fair resolution to this problem.
Good, then you can absolutely open your PSD files in either. I explained you may not be able to edit them using newer proprietary functionality that is in CC that you decided to no longer use by not subscribing. But you'd be advised to use an open file format like TIFF considering you are planing, by your own doing to stop using Photoshop and it's proprietary file format!
So you are willing to accept that PSD may offer additional functionality in the future but you still consider everyone that uses it to be stupid right? ;-)
-
So now your saying it's my fault for actually using the technology which I paid for???
John, I'm correcting a factually incorrect statement you made: Until the day comes that you no longer wish to pay the subscription. Then you will be locked out of your psd files forever!
That's simply WRONG!
We don't need more, incorrect FUD from people who don't know what they are talking about. Please.
Next, you paid to save in any number of formats. That you saved in one that's far less flexible in terms of using other software products, well yes, you did that to yourself! Had you saved as Layered TIFFs, your options to open that data elsewhere would be far greater. But that's kind of moot. You can open your PSDs in earlier versions of Photoshop of which you yourself admit you own. You can open them in other products too (we've provided several other options). So again, you're dead wrong when you write: Until the day comes that you no longer wish to pay the subscription. Then you will be locked out of your psd files forever!
Get it?
Jeez that's got to be the most arrogant remark I have seen on this forum. Did you consider that I may use duotones too or sorry was this a "mistake" too??
Do you? Are all those files Duotones? Of course, what you find arrogant is me correcting you on your severe misunderstanding of file formats. Don't save your documents in TIFF, save them as PSD and guess what? You can still open them outside of CC after you stop subscribing. Sorry if the facts that dismiss your post upset you. You're just wrong.
We sort of covered that point already but clearly you chose to ignore my reply. I'm not going to repeat any points that I have already made. Clearly you have made the decision to defend Adobe's actions regardless of the implications for many of your fellow photographers. Perhaps it is because you make a living from selling training courses on Adobe's products that makes it hard for you view this from a strictly photographers viewpoint. My opinions reflect the views of many others on this forum who take issue with the way Adobe have moved the goal posts.
Nice tact. It doesn't at all dismiss your ignorance of the facts that dismiss your incorrect post. Admit it, once you stop subscribing to CC, you CAN open your PSD's even if you probably should have had the smarts to understand the ramifications of canceling your subscription.
So let's say a new photographer signs up to CC today and one year later he cannot afford the subs. He never had CS6 before so what does he do? Is he not locked out of his files?
No, he isn't. If he was as ill informed as you, he'll have to purchase a product that can open a PSD of which there ARE applications available. If he were more informed than you, he'd have saved TIFF's. With layers. Which also contains a flattened version he could open in probably hundreds of software products. He'd do this before he pulls the plug on his subscription.
old version of PS will not be working in years to come as OS changes will render it useless.
His fault for pulling the plug and saving PSD's without doing some basic research, something you should try!
I don't want to keep old hardware knocking around for decades just to provide a life insurance policy for my PSD files.
Save as TIFF, or JPEG if you must. You want 100% certainty that whatever file format your images are in today, someone can open them anytime in the future? Not going to happen. Welcome to the real world John.
What I want, after over a decade of Payments to Adobe is a fair resolution to this problem.
Work smart John. I told you why you're painting yourself more into a corner saving as PSD. It is a proprietary Adobe format. Then you want to bail on Adobe and you expect that you'll have better access to your images because you used a proprietary format AND moved from the company that built those files? Are you serious?
So you are willing to accept that PSD may offer additional functionality in the future but you still consider everyone that uses it to be stupid right? ;-)
Wait, you're saying in one sentence you want to have flexibility to leave the Adobe proprietary fold, then you ask if using the proprietary format, you might lose something? OF COURSE you want to use whatever format or for that matter software provides you the tools and solutions you need. If that's really true, stick with Adobe and their proprietary tools. But what you're asking isn't the case today and hasn't been for years and years. The facts, the reality IS that TIFF provides everything other than Duotone support that a PSD does. If that changes, let's consider the ramifications, mostly, you have even more reason to stick with Adobe.
You have gone to great lengths to avoid admitting that something you said that's factually incorrect. Why drag us down a rabbit hole (what happens IF Adobe does this or that). The facts today are, if you work in CC and save PSD, which I would not recommend, you CAN open your PSD's after canceling the subscription. That doesn't mean you have all the features and functionality that you had when you were paying to use CC (duh)!
-
OK! Time Out.
I have locked this thread since I believe that most of us have heard enough.
If you feel it important to continue, PM me with a good and reasoned explanation.
Chris