Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe Photography Subscription Survey Regarding New Subscription Pricing  (Read 4545 times)

ihv

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://www.flickr.com/ihv

<emotional rant>
I recall Adobe's attempt to introduce the new import dialogue. It only took the next 3-4 months upgrade cycle to switch back to the old one after the flashback. You create a bug, you fix the bug. What about the customer who has the fun to pay for all that - less new features, wasted release cycle? The same happened with the output sharpening bug with an extremely clumsy workaround and the fix only happened with the next upgrade cycle, not a single day earlier. They clearly are in no hurry. Would that only be because of high quality reasons!

Having a perpetual licence, I personally wouldn't upgrade if the feature set consisted only of what the CC had received (by the way the CC feature to fill in the frame for merged panorama by using the image distortion-stretching seems just underwhelming considering there is a solid technology to do the smart content aware fill).
</emotional rant>
Logged

ihv

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://www.flickr.com/ihv

P.S. in the NLE world there is a new star rising, Davinci Resolve. No rental, has had free updates from version 9 to 14, the coloring part was long used by Hollywood professionals.

The full package with a perpetual license?

299$!!!

that all has happened at the time Adobe Premiere has received a lot of bug and other complaints.

If anybody's interested, a review from an industry pro about Davinci Resolve: http://www.onerivermedia.com/blog/fairlight-part-1-the-dawn-of-a-resolved-era/
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9864
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

Good you identified this as an "emotional rant", as those are not likely to be balanced commentary and this one is no exception.

If you're going to rant, why not also rant about the new features they've introduced since the subscription program started and have proven themselves to be very useful. I'm thinking particularly of the new "Upright" feature, which I happen to think is brilliant, but there are others, as well improvements under the hood to existing tools. Yes, there have been several episodes of significant "glitches", which the company fixed, some faster than others; but as many have pointed out, without making excuses for any particular company, these products are very complex and errors can happen; as well new design concepts can be introduced with all good intentions, but fail with the clients. At least they do listen and sooner or later things get fixed. It's not all bad, so let's not get swept away. I really think it's worthwhile considering the pricing issue on its own merits, and just accept that on the whole these applications are very powerful and very good, some periodic technical issues notwithstanding.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2652
    • Peter Aitken Photographs

Many would disagree with the notion of the subscription plan being a "good deal". It was a lousy deal from the start for anyone who does not want to be licked in to paying the piper in perpetuity.

I pay my paper and ink supplier in perpetuity. However, I do not like the suggested price increase.

And the idea of complaining about $10 - or even $20 - a month for PS and LR seems odd coming from guys like us who will gladly drop $2,000 for a lens, $3500 for a body, $5000 for a printer, and $10,000 for a trip to Labonzaland. Hell, I probably use $20 worth of ink each month with nozzle checks and black ink changes.

I would hate to do without Photoshop because I rely on the Focus Magic plugin and PS's sophisticated selection tools.
Logged
Peter
"Photographic technique should always be a means to an end and never the end itself."

vjbelle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400

As I think about the survey I kind of got the impression that Adobe would maybe enhance the tools for Lightroom.  I would be lost without the selective burn/dodge/saturation tool, the heal tool and the clone tool.  The fact that I can easily do my editing on  additional layers is also important.  I don't use Lightroom at all so please correct if any of the above tools are available.  Most other enhancements can be accomplished in raw processing (C1) and in post with Picture Window.  Picture Window incorporates 'Color Mechanic' as one of their tools which I consider one of the most flexible/powerful color editing tools available.  Nik Viveza comes in a close second for color editing but, as far as I know, its dead ended and sooner or later won't be compatible with PS.

Victor
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9864
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

If you are editing decent captures to begin with and you really know how to use LR, you don't need most of that other stuff for an extremely high percentage (like verging on 99) of all usual image editing requirements.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2426

Lightroom is not perfect.  Yes, I use it for all my work but it could perform better, take less RAM, add new features, etc.  I do think it's a bit of a marvel though and rely on it for its content mgmt (catalog) capability besides editing, printing, etc.

I'm still waiting for the day that it does a good job demosaicing Fuji X-T2 files.  Until it does I do demosaicing and sharpening of my RAF files with Iridient X-Transformer or Iridient Developer.  That's an extra step but well worth it for me.

Lest I forget, the version I'm running is Lr CC 2015.10.  That tells me that either they've got something in the hopper for 2017 or they just don't care that much about Lr.  I have no idea which.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2017, 02:20:55 PM by rdonson »
Logged
Regards,
Ron

vjbelle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400

If you are editing decent captures to begin with and you really know how to use LR, you don't need most of that other stuff for an extremely high percentage (like verging on 99) of all usual image editing requirements.

By 'Decent Capture' I take it you mean that the shadows aren't blocked and the highlights aren't blown.  From my point of view if those two parameters are met then the capture is 'Decent'.  That certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't require editing and, maybe, selective editing which can be accomplished much easier in PS than Lightroom.  If LR were to incorporate those tools (like selective dodge/burn) then I would be more inclined to try it. 

Victor
Logged

StephaneB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
    • http://www.lumieredargent.com

I cancelled my subscription last month, having finally settled on a replacement. I'm now fully migrated to ACDSee Ultimate. I did buy Affinity Photo, I don't use it much.
Logged

Stéphane

My Webpage

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9864
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

By 'Decent Capture' I take it you mean that the shadows aren't blocked and the highlights aren't blown.  From my point of view if those two parameters are met then the capture is 'Decent'.  That certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't require editing and, maybe, selective editing which can be accomplished much easier in PS than Lightroom.  If LR were to incorporate those tools (like selective dodge/burn) then I would be more inclined to try it. 

Victor

Victor: You can do A LOT of selective editing in LR. How much experience do you have using the application on photos that need this kind of treatment? I'm doing it routinely. It has good masking capabilities and good controls for selective colour adjustments. It's not as heavily equipped with tools as PS is in these respects, but it is very capable in the hands of people who have mastered its capabilities.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

ned

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 124

I've moved to managing my image database with imatch, one click will send it to your photo editing software of choice which for me it's CS6 then I use the new qimage plug-in to print.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Logged
Shutter speed is crucial in photography somehow.

vjbelle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400

Thank you, Mark, for pointing that out.  I don't use LR so am very unfamiliar with its capabilities.  Having said that, I would be lost/very unhappy without the 'burn/dodge/saturation' tool.  If that tool's capabilities could be accomplished in LR I could be a convert. 

Victor

Edit:  I don't use PS for selective color editing as I find it clumsy or maybe I just haven't mastered that technique.  I have long used 'Color Mechanic' as my color editor but it has been discontinued and is now incorporated into Picture Window which is one of the reasons I have purchased that stand alone program. 
« Last Edit: May 12, 2017, 03:53:14 PM by vjbelle »
Logged

ihv

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
    • http://www.flickr.com/ihv

I was thinking it is a sort of sympotmatic for companies that grow huge and then transform somewhat ignorant as perceived by a set of users.
No denying, it's a great piece of software (I wouldn't be using it and commenting here otherwise) and for sure, looking at the stock they are moving in the right direction (for the time being).
However, there are popping out some voices here and there questioning the value and business practices, users looking more actively for alternatives.
I don't care much about "friendliness" of a company, but caring about users matters. In that respect, I think many agree here, Adobe is not high on the list.

Good you identified this as an "emotional rant", as those are not likely to be balanced commentary and this one is no exception.

If you're going to rant, why not also rant about the new features they've introduced since the subscription program started and have proven themselves to be very useful. I'm thinking particularly of the new "Upright" feature, which I happen to think is brilliant, but there are others, as well improvements under the hood to existing tools. Yes, there have been several episodes of significant "glitches", which the company fixed, some faster than others; but as many have pointed out, without making excuses for any particular company, these products are very complex and errors can happen; as well new design concepts can be introduced with all good intentions, but fail with the clients. At least they do listen and sooner or later things get fixed. It's not all bad, so let's not get swept away. I really think it's worthwhile considering the pricing issue on its own merits, and just accept that on the whole these applications are very powerful and very good, some periodic technical issues notwithstanding.
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2555
    • http://www.paulholman.com

It has good masking capabilities and good controls for selective colour adjustments.
Sorry, but CO is far superior in this respect. It's the main reason I'll use CO in preference to LR for files needing selective colour adjustments.
Hardly any of LR's colour adjustments are usable in local selections.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9864
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

Thank you, Mark, for pointing that out.  I don't use LR so am very unfamiliar with its capabilities.  Having said that, I would be lost/very unhappy without the 'burn/dodge/saturation' tool.  If that tool's capabilities could be accomplished in LR I could be a convert. 

Victor

Edit:  I don't use PS for selective color editing as I find it clumsy or maybe I just haven't mastered that technique.  I have long used 'Color Mechanic' as my color editor but it has been discontinued and is now incorporated into Picture Window which is one of the reasons I have purchased that stand alone program.

Victor, LR is very capable for dodging, burning and saturation edits.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9864
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

Sorry, but CO is far superior in this respect. It's the main reason I'll use CO in preference to LR for files needing selective colour adjustments.
Hardly any of LR's colour adjustments are usable in local selections.

One can do a fair bit with colour in local selections with LR, but I agree the one area where LR could really stand improvement is in the range of tools available with local selections. Nonetheless, I usually find what they provide does the job for me, but more options providing more granularity would save a few trips to Photoshop.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2555
    • http://www.paulholman.com

One can do a fair bit with colour in local selections with LR, but I agree the one area where LR could really stand improvement is in the range of tools available with local selections.
Colour is the one area that CO walks all over LR. Both in overall and local areas.
It's another example of where Adobe have failed to improve the product and another product leads the way.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9864
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

Colour is the one area that CO walks all over LR. Both in overall and local areas.
It's another example of where Adobe have failed to improve the product and another product leads the way.

Nope. Not systematically the case.

Martin Evening: LR vs CO

or

Mark Galer. Watch the video.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2555
    • http://www.paulholman.com

Martin Evening: LR vs CO
or
Mark Galer. Watch the video.
Both of those are about defaults. Once you start to look at detailed local editing or even more general tonal zones (shados/mids/highs) LR's options look pretty lame compared to the three way tool and color editor.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9864
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

Both of those are about defaults.

Did you read Martin's article thoroughly? It goes well beyond defaults.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up