Adobe CC-Read the small print.

[Manoli]

... relatively nascent as full featured DAM/editing suite compared to LR and Aperture and it remains that way now. I'm not knocking it. I love it. But CO still lags LR in a number of ways.

.. I've tried Capture Pro, and I liked it a lot ... except it lacked certain features/integrations that I rely on for my present workflow, which for the time being includes Photoshop.

I have since switched to Lightroom for the simplified workflow and the DAM features, but I was very happy with C1 while I used it, and it was well worth the cost.

Just wondering if any of the posters here are aware that it is now possible to (almost) seamlessly blend C1 into a Lightroom workflow using 'Open Directly' a plugin by John Beardsworth. Think of it as C1 being an alternative Develop module, keeping all files within the Lr framework.

https://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/jbeardsworth/opendirectly/

With the 'copy to subfolder' checkbox, Lr copies the original file to a C1 subfolder within your Lr directory structure. All files and C1 outputs are kept separate yet actionable/viewable from within Lr - but, no, the C1 part isn't a parametric workflow.

[RPark]

Interesting. I'll check that out. Thanks.

Just wondering if any of the posters here are aware that it is now possible to (almost) seamlessly blend C1 into a Lightroom workflow using 'Open Directly' a plugin by John Beardsworth. Think of it as C1 being an alternative Develop module, keeping all files within the Lr framework.

https://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/jbeardsworth/opendirectly/

With the 'copy to subfolder' checkbox, Lr copies the original file to a C1 subfolder within your Lr directory structure. All files and C1 outputs are kept separate yet actionable/viewable from within Lr - but, no, the C1 part isn't a parametric workflow.

[RPark]

True enough, changing workflow, not to mention applications, is tiresome. I moved from Aperture when Apple abandoned it -- moved to LR and got my head around that ... mostly. I also use Nik plugins for some images.

I miss some features of CO (learned during trial) but, as I said, ran into some missing features -- if one can run into something that isn't there 

The Adobe chat I didn't feel in itself was a problem -- it was the people on the other end of it! Hopefully, my clients/customers don't feel that way about the chat app on my shop! 

Thanks for commiserating.

That is exactly how I felt. Even the chat app was horrible and difficult to use. I think the competition is there. I think all of the features of LR and PS can be found elsewhere. But it takes time to assess them and integrate them. And sometimes the expense of the alternatives can be huge (Imageprint comes to mind).

I think a lot of people are unwilling to step away from the comfort of LR. I was always put off by the price of CO. It was a lot more than LR or Aperture licenses. But, it has been worth it.

It is also INCREDIBLY daunting to change from one format/workflow/catalog to another. This process has been miserable. I have observed two things: 1. Once the move is done, its done. You just have to go about it thoughtfully and plan accordingly. 2. Aspects of workflow that I once thought were indispensable often are not. Doing something differently can seem harder at first. But it usually isn't; it's only different. This was very true in CO. On the other hand, CO is so customizable you can get pretty close to LR or Aperture very easily.

[northerngal]

This whole issue with Adobe is exactly why I am running (CD-based ) CS5!  I am NOT going to the cloud or to a subscription.  I live in Alaska, for crying out loud, and I don't always have good internet access.  I have never been happy with how Adobe treats their customers, or should I say, how they treat photographers.  I think Adobe sees the whole photography side of their business as just an extra.  They are much more interested in the business applications.
The way I see it, CS5 is good enough for me for quite awhile, and by then, there will be another program that will work.  Yes, it's a problem to deal with new cameras.  My X-T1 won't open in RAW, so right now I'm using the piece of junk program they sent with the camera, but that's another whole can of worms......I'm still using VISTA on my 6 year old PC and trying to decide just exactly I want (need?) to upgrade.

[kers]

I am running Photoshop CS6 on a mac. Must say CS5 was far more stable- at least on a mac.
But CS6 had some compelling features (ACR 2012) and a new layout that i liked.
For camera support you could buy a lightroom6 standalone edition i guess and use that raw converter before photoshop.

[PeterAit]

I assume you are paying with a credit card? Call the CC company and report Adobe's charges (after you cancelled) as fraudulent and unauthorized. Ask for a refund of your charges.

[Peter_DL]

...
I cancelled the automatic payment to Adobe on my PayPal account. I do not know what the result of this will be.

I bought a Photoshop CC 1-year-subscription a couple of months ago.
Cash payment in a local electronics store. Just for reference, B&H seems to offer it here.

So far Adobe does not have my credit card details.

Not sure though if it will be possible to extend the subscription by buying another 1-year-package when it is due.  I'll have to find out.

Maybe it's a bit old fashioned, but I'd always prefer not to have these automatic electronic payments, even when the annualized cost are comparably lower.

Peter

--

[Phil Indeblanc]

Thanks for that, George.
This gives yet another reason that I am happy to have stuck with the perpetual versions of PS and LR.
The way Adobe has been behaving lately makes it all the more likely that I will jump ship eventually, once there is good enough competition to do so.

Exactly!

I have used ON1 software years ago(mostly in the past, but keep buying the low $75 upgrades), and recently they started offering a RAW converter. It is still in test mode as I play with it, BUT.....Since LR is too slow, an I just cant deal with it, and C1 creates all kinds of folders in every image folder, I will use it on a need be basis....
IF On1 delivers a smoother working sw, I already love a few things about it.  Its just a browser, so you dictate your folder the way you want, which has always been the right way to go for long term, and large volumes of content.

I remember reading the DAM book some time back, and I'm sure there is a revise with using LR database....If you are a photographer with a large number of images, and you have big mpixels to convert, LR isn't going to be working out too well.

You already know you need to manage your own folders. ACDSee is another tool that works on most (Not IIQ/PhaseOne files!). 
There's even a free app called PhotoScapeX, Raw Therapee, and DXO , not free but another option I am considering.
As far as PShop, I have used COREL for decades, but more like decades ago, and they are still a great goto when Adobe PS stops working.

I never was sold on the idea of subscription pay for a software. And It was a uphill battle of a thread here when Adobe was about to switch to CC, and I was in the minority, with a number of people, who likely got it for free for X amount of time or?   They were ridiculing the idea of buying vs renting. Saying its going that way with all, and that we better convert now for the great low price...Ummm, NO!

That is one of the worst models we have been sold, and sadly many swallowed it.

[David Sutton]

I'm not ready to go through the learning curve of tackling a new workflow yet. CS5 does all I need and after having installed both ON1Raw and  RawTherapee I realise I'm more comfortable with LR just at the moment.
So I just upgraded from LR5 to 6 in order to process X-T2 files. That was interesting.
Firstly LR6 has a monitoring capability that can only be turned off by logging in to their website. Then I wasn't paying attention and it installed the CC application for me. After getting rid of that I see Adobe had 3 report-back applications installed and running in the background for LR. I found the parent folder and re-named it to put a stop to that.
This sort of thing is tiresome. For me it's a sign the money men have taken over and the enthusiasts have left. So a good incentive to be on the lookout for a workable replacement.
David

[kers]

Next thing is you go to the bakery and they want your address, location acces to all your contacts and make a subscription for bread the whole year.

[Rob C]

No wonder people are starting to detest multinationalism.

These companies have all the instincts of Capone. I wonder who really owns them...

Rob

[N80]

Part of my desire for software is one stop shopping. I do not switching in and out of different programs although I will occasionally use some of the NIK collection. This was part of the reason I never liked LR all that much. It was like the Develop mode was another program within the program. Transitions between Grid and Develop mode were slow and clunky. Aperture handled this seamlessly. CO does this fairly well also. I don't use layers and masks much. I don't have tens of thousands of images that need robust DAM features. So CO works great for me now. Finally got all images in CO catalogs. Finally settling in. Feels good.

I wonder about the comment above about Adobe and photographers. Apple sure bailed on us. Maybe in a way Adobe has too.

Anyway, I'm done with Adobe. That feels good too.

[Rob C]

Funny how folks work: I use layers more than anything else; it seems to me to be almost the point of PS.

Regarding Adobe: they should revert to the concept of a cd one buys, that can be reinstalled freely by the owner when a new computer has to be bought etc. etc. and new computers, too, should never make your old software, such as your version of PS, redundant. Neither should it allow one's calibration devices to go the way of the dodo. My move to W8.1 a couple of years ago cost me both facilities and a lot of inconvenience to get back into a crippled form of action.

Of course, DNG would help a lot... in fact it's absurd that it isn't the norm, with proprietory manufacturer types being the exception rather than the rule. Putting all manner of artificial obstructions in the way of photographers working easily doesn't make sense, even commercially, because it just pisses people off, which is never a good thing for a brand to consider doing.

I read these new camera reviews and marvel that photographers buy this stuff, sometimes unable to convert their new files into their normally used file-type right away; the best reason not to buy that I can imagine. Just think: how would it have been had Nikon, Canon, Leica et al. insisted you use a totally different film type for their product: "nope, we won't let you use Kodachrome; sorry, Velvia disallowed; Tri-X - you must be joking!" You see the absurdity?

In the end, I feel more and more a sense of sod 'em all, I'll take up golf or write a book.

Rob

[bcooter]

Of course, DNG would help a lot... in fact it's absurd that it isn't the norm, with proprietory manufacturer types being the exception rather than the rule. Putting all manner of artificial obstructions in the way of photographers working easily doesn't make sense, even commercially, because it just pisses people off, which is never a good thing for a brand to consider doing.

snip.....

I read these new camera reviews and marvel that photographers buy this stuff, sometimes unable to convert their new files into their normally used file-type right away;

I don't see this as serious, I just see it as another choice.

Rob what you write makes sense but I think your leaving out a large part of the equation of pay for play.

The people that market and set sales strategies of everything that is sold, in this case software, don’t necessarily use the product in pressured situations.   They’re management people, just looking at a strategy that won't be rejected and the bottom line.

Prior to the pay for play sub system, every assistant I hired had a laptop full of the latest software and never paid a penny.   Their thought process was I’m broke, I need it, later on when I can I might buy it.

I never thought that way, not that I’m a saint, it’s just how can I complain about people appropriating my work, if I’m ripping down software?

In fact these assistants can find it free on the web, download it, install it in less time than I can buy it legally. 

So guys like me that always pay full tilt, are paying for the people that don’t.  Kind of like taxes, or insurance. 

The biggest thing that stops me from buying a camera isn’t the cost of the camera, or a new lens set, or a learning curve.  It’s the fact I have to buy a new software suite, usually upgrade my operating system and it's a day or two out of my life I don't won't to waste.  In fact there is one camera I'd order today, it's just not worth it right now to waste the time.

It’s one of the reasons I like Leica’s dng raw.    I can open the Leica files up in almost any software , any year and process to my hearts content.

The only thing that bothers me with the pay for play software is it’s a hypocritical, process because I’ve dealt with a few companies and it’s not a level playing field.

But buying new stuff to me is kind of the I-phone process.   I’m not saying the newest isn’t better, but is it that much better and is it something that will really change your work, or life?

Actually I thought people would reject the pay for play subscription system because it’s complicated and if you travel with multiple computers it’s a real pain, especially if you have to call the maker.

But I guess I’m wrong, because I thought the people that camp out in front of the Apple store waiting for the latest phone would also become a thing of the past and they still do it.

BC

[Rob C]

Hi BC,

Yes, I appreciate the rip-off problem for the makers, but it's always there today with everything - pics, music - anything you like can be nicked. If you know how, which is a problem for some who don't! ;-)

When I first got myself a website I was really uptight about copyright theft; then, as time went on, I came to the conclusion that if anything was being stolen, there was never a chance that the same people were ever going to pay me in any case, so I wasn't losing a sale... the problem, of course, would be if any previous client who perhaps owned the copyright discovered a stolen image he hadn't authorised for resale. But, that aspect aside, I guess it's better having a website than not.

Did you hear about the death of David Hamilton a couple of days ago? Sad, but he's far from the only famous photographer to take himself out (or so it's claimed about him); he's in good company. There were accusations of rape against him from former models... as they were all so young, I think there is more to answer for by the parents who, presumably, must have allowed their kids to go and live with him, travel around to shows etc... I suspect that the attraction of getting easy money out of somebody who is old, so perhaps less capable of remembering and/or proving how it was, must be quite a strong temptation. Now, everybody in the situation has lost.

The fun of fame.

Rob

[N80]

Hi BC,

Yes, I appreciate the rip-off problem for the makers, but it's always there today with everything - pics, music - anything you like can be nicked. If you know how, which is a problem for some who don't! ;-)

I do not steal software (or music, videos, images, etc.) Don't condone it. Did not let my children do it. Won't ever do it no matter what the justifications might be. But at the same time I don't want to hear bellyaching from an industry that sells digital bits that anyone can access from anywhere. No logistics. No distribution issues. Etc.  Sure, its a problem, but the easy access and distribution is also how they make money. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Adobe's problem, for me, was that they treated me like a thief.

I just got through expunging all Adobe products from all of my computers. Feels so good. Don't miss a thing.

[marton]

I hate Adobe and its awful subscription model, but I just love Photoshop. I don't use Lightroom but even so, $10 a month seems a small price to pay. At some point a truly viable Photoshop option will appear and then - hasta la vista Adobe.   

[bcooter]

Adobe's problem, for me, was that they treated me like a thief.

I just got through expunging all Adobe products from all of my computers. Feels so good. Don't miss a thing.

N80

I agree.   Since we live and work in three cities, two countries, it's virtually impossible to have the cloud work for us.  I've called them multiple times, with the only answer is to buy multiple subscriptions.  It's not just the money, it's the attitude.

Now I price my work out by use, though that get's more difficult in today's economy.   What I dislike about the cloud is I can be in the middle of a session and it will turn off.  It's an awful experience, especially if you have client's in the room.   I personally don't need anything past PS 5 and lightroom 4.   Unless I buy a new camera and then of course it's a different animal, hence dng.

Adobe acts like the old telecom companies and I'll bet they have kept a lot of people from buying cameras.  I hope it comes down to where they finally have to drop the cloud and offer stand alone software with the ability to upgrade to a new camera, rather than junk the whole suite.

Rob C,

Early in my career I ran across David Hamilton's work.  He had been around a long time by then and all I saw was printed material in books and there was very little nudity.  It was mostly ballerinas, and models in window light, which he was a master at.   I think he was sponsored by the third largest camera company, which has been sold to another company.

I can't make comment, because I don't know the facts and for the record would never stand for a child being abused. 

But it is a very accusatory world and everyone has to be careful.   I know years ago we refused to cast Children in our studios even though there were dozen's of people in the studio because one mother became outraged because she overheard a client say (in a kind way) that her daughter wasn't right for the position.    So the mother went outside and broke the windshield out of one of my cars. 

I let it go, did not want to get involved with someone that crazy, though after that we never did a large casting anywhere but in a rental studio or the agent's offices.  Just too much risk for us and the clients.

It's a different world and though we have fun on set I have a list of rules I run by every crew member on what to say, how to act, etc. etc.  We keep it lighthearted, but also keep it very, very businesslike and are more careful than is probably needed, but today I don't know how to  be more careful than is needed.

So many things in the world have become better, but the flip side is if your the producer you have to watch everything that is said, regardless of intent.

Once again I don't know the circumstances about DH but feel for anyone that is in so much pain that they take their own life.     

BC

[Phil Indeblanc]

I hate Adobe and its awful subscription model, but I just love Photoshop. I don't use Lightroom but even so, $10 a month seems a small price to pay. At some point a truly viable Photoshop option will appear and then - hasta la vista Adobe.

Corel Painter and Corel PaintShop are pretty darn great.

Corel used to do a interface mimic with Adobe Illustrator...You were using Corel Draw, but the GUI was Adobe Illustrator...Not sure how they got away with it, but imagine that with PShop and Corel PaintShop. Would be an interesting transition.

[Rob C]

I hate Adobe and its awful subscription model, but I just love Photoshop. I don't use Lightroom but even so, $10 a month seems a small price to pay. At some point a truly viable Photoshop option will appear and then - hasta la vista Adobe.

Is that how it works? But that still means subscription, doesn't it?

In other words, if you stop the perpetual drip, drip, drip, then you will lose the right to working your own pictures. That can't be just. Again it comes back to filmic analogy: imagine Kodak or anybody else expecting you to pay them each time you work on a transparency you once made on their material.