Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe CC  (Read 21347 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Adobe CC
« on: June 16, 2015, 09:36:25 pm »

http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/creative-cloud-2015-emerges.html

I would tend to agree with Thom here. Most of the initial promise hasn't been delivered on, additional features have been of limited value, Adobe is making less money from my business, I still hate the subscription model.

I really still wonder who came out better from CC. It still sounds like a perfect lose-lose proposition.

Cheers,
Bernard

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2015, 09:47:14 pm »

http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/creative-cloud-2015-emerges.html

I would tend to agree with Thom here. Most of the initial promise hasn't been delivered on, additional features have been of limited value, Adobe is making less money from my business, I still hate the subscription model.

I really still wonder who came out better from CC. It still sounds like a perfect lose-lose proposition.

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard,

I think it's important to unpack two issues here: (1) what the software is delivering, from (2) how it is being delivered. On the former, it's such a mature application that it's essentially run out of those wow-must-have features we used to get with each major update. New features tend to be less significant than they used to be during the growth phases. On the latter, the new model is really quite OK. Especially for LR, the upgrade process is pretty seamless, the format provides for more frequent updates than the previous delivery model, and the price of the LR+PS bundle works out to less than we paid for perpetual licenses for the two applications every 18 months, which became the upgrade cycle. So much as I was initially apprehensive about it, I can't complain about the subscription model for either cost or convenience. There remains, however, the question of what happens to functionality when one gets off the train. Reverting to our last perpetual license version always remains an option, but edits made to previous photos using upgraded features may not work. I think this is an open issue, but it remains to be seen how important in practice. First it requires leaving the program, then requires actually going back to those previous photos and experiencing missing edits - so multiply one probability by the others and it may turn out to be a diminutive issue. Time will tell.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Some Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2015, 09:52:10 pm »

I wonder about this line from the article:  "It appears that Adobe’s sales team is in charge of the installer these days, not their customer quality assurance team."

If they begin installing trials of their software, could that will lead to automatic price hikes if the trial becomes a paid version if one does not manually remove it before the trial's expiration?  i.e. "You must have wanted it as you didn't delete it, so here's an extra bill for you."  Just hide it in the EULA somewhere in small print that no one reads.

SG
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2015, 10:01:57 pm »

I really still wonder who came out better from CC. It still sounds like a perfect lose-lose proposition.

Usually, I respect Thom Hogan's articles, but this one is filled with incorrect information and hastily formed impressions. Sorry, he's wrong about a lot of what he wrote.

As far as the advances made in the CC model, he's a photographer and doesn't care (use) a fraction of what Adobe has added since CC first shipped.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2015, 10:05:40 pm by Schewe »
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2015, 10:11:05 pm »

There remains, however, the question of what happens to functionality when one gets off the train. Reverting to our last perpetual license version always remains an option, but edits made to previous photos using upgraded features may not work. I think this is an open issue, but it remains to be seen how important in practice.

Well, when LR CC was released, Adobe enabled the ability to continue to use LR even after the expiration of the subscription. You can still use the Library, Print and Export but you are locked out of the Develop module.

Adobe is trying to Address people's fears...something they get no credit for. That said, there is still a vendor lock-in in that you are locked into LR/ACR rendering and older version won't get newer functionality like Dehaze.
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2015, 10:56:16 pm »

As far as the advances made in the CC model, he's a photographer and doesn't care (use) a fraction of what Adobe has added since CC first shipped.

the bottom line - photographers did not really end up better, so he is right as he is writing for photographers...  are you writing here, in this forum, about say some other folks ?
Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 798
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2015, 04:12:17 am »

the bottom line - photographers did not really end up better, so he is right as he is writing for photographers...

Agreed.  The article reflects my thinking as well.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2015, 06:29:42 am »

being an Apple user :
if Metal ( the new GPU addressing of apple OSX10.11) is introduced properly in Adobes products then i probably will have a reason to upgrade from CS6.
For now i do fine.

Like Thom I still do not understand: if i would buy the perpetual version of lightroom 6.1   - will it contain the new dehaze function or not?
If not it would be a bit strange and unnatural for LR 6 did not contain much new things...
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2015, 07:01:26 am »

Like Thom I still do not understand: if i would buy the perpetual version of lightroom 6.1   - will it contain the new dehaze function or not?
If not it would be a bit strange and unnatural for LR 6 did not contain much new things...

Hi Pieter,

The way I interpret it, which may be wrong because it is a bit confusing, you cannot buy a perpetual license for 6.1, but only for 6.0. If that is true, then I do not understand why they call it 6.1 instead of just LR 6. I tried looking for it on the Adobe Website, but only got steered towards LR 2015 CC (which opbviously will get incremental upgrades in addition to the updates for camera profiles and bug fixes that LR 6 also would get).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2015, 08:14:13 am »

the bottom line - photographers did not really end up better, so he is right as he is writing for photographers...  are you writing here, in this forum, about say some other folks ?

I think it's important to recognize that Photoshop is an application that has very broad usage across the art/ design industry, not only photography, and that as technology changes adapting the application to new production modes that have become popular are important to the future commercial prospects for Photoshop. Adobe is working on a much broader canvas than traditional photography alone. So how useful an upgrade is becomes subjective depending on what we as individual users need and do. So I wouldn't criticize an upgrade for not offering "enough" to photographers. It is a very mature application in this respect.

Looking at my own image editing experience over the past few years, with LR being as good and photography-focused as it is, I could live with any number of the Photoshop versions produced over the past "X" years because I revert to it so seldomly, but that's just me. Now in that context, if only the LR folks would build in a manual de-skewing capability allowing one to adjust perspective on each of the four sides of the image frame individually, the little I use PS would shrink that much more. "Upright" works wonders sometimes, but sometimes not.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2015, 08:27:18 am »

I wonder about this line from the article:  "It appears that Adobe’s sales team is in charge of the installer these days, not their customer quality assurance team."

If they begin installing trials of their software, could that will lead to automatic price hikes if the trial becomes a paid version if one does not manually remove it before the trial's expiration?  i.e. "You must have wanted it as you didn't delete it, so here's an extra bill for you."  Just hide it in the EULA somewhere in small print that no one reads.

SG


Yikes!  I can see a company trying to do just that.  I wonder how a judge would treat this if it ever came up in a civil suit?

Worse, suppose you decide you don't want this new program and Adobe decides to charge you a separate fee to close that part of the account?  Even more money coming in.

I bet there are corporate VPs thinking about this a lot.
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2015, 08:32:22 am »

I think it's important to recognize that Photoshop is an application that has very broad usage across the art/ design industry...

I agree that's an important point, Mark. Also, complaints about new versions of Photoshop not offering "enough" to photographers often result from the photographer's own failure or disinclination to experiment with new features.
Logged

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 974
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2015, 08:45:56 am »

I sense distrust of Adobe in Thom's article, and from others on this forum. Ever since they went to the subscription model there's been a lack of trust. Is it only because the user will be locked out once their subscription expires?

When the CC works, I love it. When it doesn't, I hate it, which has been once. Early on, a CC release wiped all Adobe preferences. That sucked a few hours from my day, and Adobe was made well aware of it, too, by me and a few thousand other users on the Adobe forums. Since then, CC updates have been very smooth and carefree.
Logged
~ CB

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2015, 10:24:53 am »

Quite a few years back when LR was maybe v2 or v3, the percentage of PS users that were photographers had decreased to about 8%. It's probably dropped a bit since then as LR has matured and made even less need for photographers to use PS.  So talking about PS from a photographer's point of view needs to be tempered by the fact photographers are nowhere even anywhere near being the main customer of the programme.
I'd also hazard a guess that many photographers who still use PS are ones are too stuck in their ways to move to more modern and appropriate tools, more suited to their work.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2015, 10:37:40 am »

It would be interesting to get actual data on how many photographers use PS as opposed to how many graphic artists use it.  But how would you account for the overlap?
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4559
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2015, 10:40:51 am »

I have been on CC, both PS and LR, for about a month now. It installed flawlessly, runs flawlessly, and updates flawlessly. I run Windows, FWIW.

Here's how I look at it. For $10 a month, less than the cost of a low-end lunch, I always have the latest updates to the photo programs I use the most. That's $120 per year, less than the cost of ONE medium-sized ink cartridge for the 7900. In other words, chump change. I don't give a fiddler's fart about Adobe's motivations, whether they are making more profit, or any of that claptrap. I am a photographer and IMO to have the use of two essential tools for a piddling amount of money has "good deal" written all over it.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2015, 11:12:18 am »

I have been on CC, both PS and LR, for about a month now. It installed flawlessly, runs flawlessly, and updates flawlessly. I run Windows, FWIW.

Here's how I look at it. For $10 a month, less than the cost of a low-end lunch, I always have the latest updates to the photo programs I use the most. That's $120 per year, less than the cost of ONE medium-sized ink cartridge for the 7900. In other words, chump change. I don't give a fiddler's fart about Adobe's motivations, whether they are making more profit, or any of that claptrap. I am a photographer and IMO to have the use of two essential tools for a piddling amount of money has "good deal" written all over it.
I too think the photography deal is very good value. However any other variation of CC isn't such good value.
I have no need for the whole CC package but it would be nice to say have another programme, but buying any other single app costs twice as much as PS+LR together. In fact even buying just PS costs double.
The prices are set it appears to make the full CC deal look good value. But in reality very, very few people need all the aps because in reality most people will just use a few of them. So not a got a deal as it may first appear.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2015, 12:58:08 pm »

I too think the photography deal is very good value. However any other variation of CC isn't such good value.
+1 and it also makes that i ( and a lot of people) will not learn to work with any of those programs in the future- is that good for Adobe?
-
Does anyone know if you can open a in PhotoshopCC made PSD or PSB file in Photoshop CS6?
For that is the dealbreaker for me.
Sooner or later i have to move to CC...  and say 25 years from now i cannot open them without getting a subscription even if i only want to print-or see onscreen old photographs.
( I guess i have to save all outcome to tiff files)
« Last Edit: June 17, 2015, 01:02:41 pm by kers »
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2015, 02:10:54 pm »

Does anyone know if you can open a in PhotoshopCC made PSD or PSB file in Photoshop CS6?

It'll probably open, but features introduced in CC may not render properly. So for example, a linked smart object, web fonts, or an artboard may not be understood by CS6. My expectation is that they'll be rasterized, but it'll be on a case by case basis.

I'd suggest using TIF rather than proprietary PSD/PSB. The only things TIF won't support are Duotone image mode, transparency in InDesign, and displacement maps, and TIF is usually easier to open in other apps.
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: Adobe CC
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2015, 03:34:40 am »

I have been on CC, both PS and LR, for about a month now. It installed flawlessly, runs flawlessly, and updates flawlessly. I run Windows, FWIW.

Here's how I look at it. For $10 a month, less than the cost of a low-end lunch, I always have the latest updates to the photo programs I use the most. That's $120 per year, less than the cost of ONE medium-sized ink cartridge for the 7900. In other words, chump change. I don't give a fiddler's fart about Adobe's motivations, whether they are making more profit, or any of that claptrap. I am a photographer and IMO to have the use of two essential tools for a piddling amount of money has "good deal" written all over it.

I am tempted to go down this route. I take it that CC doesn't "interfere" in any way with my set up of LR 5.7 and PSc6 which I have already purchased as a perpetual stand alone?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up