Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: N80 on November 21, 2016, 07:40:34 pm
-
I subscribed to Adobe Creative Cloud last year with the LR/PS deal. $10 a month, which is not bad. But I never did warm up to LR and I do not use PS. I purchased an individual Capture One license and now I do not use LR at all.
So, about 5 months ago I went to cancel my subscription with Adobe only to be told that I'd have to pay a cancellation fee. I asked why and they said it was because the only subscription agreement is with auto-renewal and this was explained in the user agreement. Not cool, but shame on me for being naive and not reading the fine print. Additionally the fine print dictates that you can only cancel a subscription in the month prior to its expiration. Also, not cool. But again, fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice shame on you. To make this more palatable they offered to pay for three of the remaining months if I would pay for the last two. I agreed assuming this would end my subscription.
It did not. I went to cancel today, a few weeks too late mind you, and they say I will have to pay the $55 cancellation fee which is 50% of the remaining subscription. When I asked why I was told that even though they had modified the agreement (when they gave me 3 free months) that the original agreement was still binding. A supervisor confirmed this and their unwillingness to waive the cancellation fee. I asked if I could just pay the rest of the year's subscription and have them cancel it for good. They said no.
The ONLY way I can cancel is to do it between mid September and mid October of next year. They said emails are sent ahead of time. I did not receive one this last time.
I think this is unacceptable and quite frankly creepy for a company the size of Adobe to behave this way. Not being able to opt out of auto renewal is bad enough. Only being able to cancel without penalty in a 30 day period is worse. Not allowing someone to cancel without penalty a week after that time period expired is simply pathetic.
It reminds me of the CD clubs of the 1980s but even with those you could "cancel at any time".
I cancelled the automatic payment to Adobe on my PayPal account. I do not know what the result of this will be.
I won't spend any more time talking bad about Adobe, but I hope others will read this and understand how Adobe behaves in terms of these subscriptions. Buyer beware.
-
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.
-
Capture One is worth looking at. They sell a perpetual license as well as a subscription. I do not know the details of the subscription (it might be just as bad). CO is not as full featured as LR. It certainly is not PS. But the interface is a joy to use and it is amazingly configurable. It is still 'young' software in that Phase One has just recently positioned it as a LR competitor. I think its catalog features are a bit lagging as well as some print features. However, it seems to be evolving fast and PO is very receptive to feature requests.
But, the license is expensive. $300. Still, I very much prefer a simple one time payment over the schemes and traps that Adobe has put in place. Its not just that I'm cheap (because I am a little bit) it s just that I don't like being treated in a sneaky fashion.
I also despise the subscription model for software and hope that it goes away soon though I suspect it will not. I think the younger generation of software users have no memory or knowledge of being tied to a mainframe or the PC revolution of the early 1980s. Some enterprising genius will 'invent' perpetual software licenses again in 5-10 years and make a bundle with his 'new' idea.
-
Affinity Photo is your friend.
https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/
-
I just cancelled Creative cloud for Photoline and Imatch as my DAM system. Also reinstalled CS6 until I'm up to speed with Photoline. Was never a power user anyway.
Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk
-
It is still 'young' software
Hardly, it predates LR by four years.
Its has less peripheral functionality, but it's core is solid and it's workflow has been tailored to it's principle market of tethered studio shooting.
-
Affinity Photo is your friend.
https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/
The link doesn't tell you anything at all about what the system can do for photographers. Strikes me as an invitation to buy a product, sight unseen.
Rob
-
The link doesn't tell you anything at all about what the system can do for photographers.
You could just click through the menu options and find out about it.
The OP's point is that there are good products out there that don't need subscriptions.
-
The link doesn't tell you anything at all about what the system can do for photographers. Strikes me as an invitation to buy a product, sight unseen.
Rob
Rob,
Scroll down and there's a link to download a free trial for Mac. The Beta version for Windows is also available and for this one, no need to scroll at the bottom of the page.
-
I am also no fan of Adobes subscription model...
and if you want to use more than only photoshop and Lightroom it is plain expensive...
It is not an option anymore to infrequently use those programs because of that - as i did and maybe many with me...
My idea is they loose ground because of this.
Has anybody used 'Pixelmator'?
it is 30 euro mac only on the app store...
-
Thanks very much for this info.
I have a quibble with only one thing you said. You stated that you found the license fee of $300 for Capture One expensive. I don't use it, but I don't find this expensive at all. Considering what we pay for bodies and lenses, and the rest, $300 for software that you will use for years is a bargain. I do not agree with the notion we have (the collective we) that all software should be inexpensive or free.
-
Software ( firmware) is indeed often more expensive than the hardware to make.
But ones made it is easy to copy and sell with little cost.
-
Software ( firmware) is indeed often more expensive than the hardware to make.
But ones made it is easy to copy and sell with little cost.
Quite so. I enjoy irony and get a kick out of the fact that many photographers want cheap or free software but then bemoan the rise of microstocks. I guess it's normal human behaviour though. We tend to think that what we do is important but downplay the value of the work of others. My real estate agent brother-in-law has no trouble justifying his commission rates on expensive homes, which imo do not reflect his level of effort in selling them, especially when the value of those homes is primarily determined by factors outside of his or the sellers' control. Yet at the same time he balks at the price of real estate photography, insisting that he wants to maintain a high level of professionalism while shooting bad pics of the houses with a point&shoot that he doesn't know how to use. (I may out of touch, he might be using his smartphone these days.) But this is off-topic and I apologize for that.
-
Hardly, it predates LR by four years.
Its has less peripheral functionality, but it's core is solid and it's workflow has been tailored to it's principle market of tethered studio shooting.
Technically you are correct. However, it started as software primarily for use with Phase One equipment. Only very recently has it set out to compete with LR. The demise of Aperture seemed to have jump started this direction for CO. The relative 'newness' to this approach is apparent in it s DAM weaknesses. This does not trouble me at all and again, they are constantly improving and even make significant feature changes during incremental upgrades, which is refreshing.
-
Technically you are correct. However, it started as software primarily for use with Phase One equipment.
It was very quickly opened up to most cameras. I first started using version one in 2003, four years before LR1 was released.
It might also be worth pointing out that over the years their upgrade policy has been pretty enlightened. It's not been an expensive program to keep up with over the years.
-
I have a quibble with only one thing you said. You stated that you found the license fee of $300 for Capture One expensive. I don't use it, but I don't find this expensive at all. Considering what we pay for bodies and lenses, and the rest, $300 for software that you will use for years is a bargain. I do not agree with the notion we have (the collective we) that all software should be inexpensive or free.
Well, first off, "expensive" is in the eyes of the beholder. So it is a very relative notion.
Second, I agree with you completely even though my Scottish heritage is evident in my personality when it comes to money. Some would say I am a 'tight wad'. Nevertheless, I gladly paid the $300 for CO. So far I am well pleased with the program and find being out from under any subscriptions to be liberating. I feel this $300 is well spent as I now enjoy post processing whereas it felt like a chore in LR.
Third, I referred to it as "expensive" because many people view it that way compared to $10 a month ($120 a year) for a LR+PS subscription. But, even this is a little misguided if you do not need PS. If you do not use PS, the CC subscription is basically for LR alone. In three years it will cost you $360. Three years (or 10 years) of a CO personal license will cost you $300. It will cost you $400 if you upgrade once during that three years. So very comparable. Now, if PS is important to your workflow the CC subscription is a greater value.
The difference is, feature sets aside, I like working in CO and did not like working in LR. This is a hobby for me; why use a tool I don't enjoy?
And finally, I find Adobe's subscription plan to be predatory in its policies and the way they handle them. I've been an Adobe customer for 20 years and find it a bit sad to leave them in that regard. But I'm done with them. How a company treats its customers is very important to me and I think it says a lot about who a company is. I've related my experience above. On the contrary, Phase One is extremely pleasant to deal with and very cooperative and helpful.
Edit: I got CO for $260 on sale.
-
It was very quickly opened up to most cameras. I first started using version one in 2003, four years before LR1 was released.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I get that it has been around. But even Phase One admits that it is 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. At present almost none of those ways are important to me.
-
As mentioned in a recent post (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=114320.msg941547#msg941547), I'd love to find an alternative to LR/PS. It's nothing to do with the products themselves (when they function properly) so much as the execrable way Adobe treats its customers (in my experience). Dealing with them, indeed, feels like some kind of Third World huckster cartel. Trying to get support via the ridiculous "chat" (the only option available to "legacy" software owners) confirms that one is dealing with a manipulative and capricious organization.
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 resolved the issue reported at the link above by reverting to the previous Mac OS with, I might add, support above and beyond from Apple techs. However, the Adobe products are still subject to random crashes and strange behaviour.
Hopefully, there will soon be competition for a company that doesn't care about ... in fact, holds its customers in contempt.
-
I have a quibble with only one thing you said. You stated that you found the license fee of $300 for Capture One expensive.
Agreed.
Back in 2002 or so, I got a couple of the then-new Canon 1D bodies. I had been shooting with a pair of D30 bodies, and the files were great but the shooting experience left a LOT to be desired. So a 4-megapixel 8-fps camera that could actually autofocus was just what I needed.
But the files were truly difficult, especially using the early Camera Raw plugin to process the raw files. Based on some glowing reviews here, I downloaded a trial version of Capture 1, and the raw conversions were impressive, especially in keeping neutral tones neutral (and not a blobby mess of magenta and green).
Man, I hated the idea of spending $500 for a single raw processing application, and vented about it to my wife. She asked how much I had spent on the 1D bodies. Um, $11,000. Then she pointed out that the C1 was less than 5% of the camera cost, and made the cameras infinitely better. D'oh. I ordered it the next day.
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.
That said, I had the same issue with Adobe trying to cancel my full CC subscription at work -- once it rolls over, I'm stuck for another year. Grrrr.
-
Hopefully, there will soon be competition for a company that doesn't care about ... in fact, holds its customers in contempt.
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.
-
... 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.
-
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.
-
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! ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...
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 (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/971616-REG/adobe_61101760_photoshop_cs6_1_year_creative.html).
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
--
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
No wonder people are starting to detest multinationalism.
These companies have all the instincts of Capone. I wonder who really owns them...
Rob
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
BC
BC,
I have his book, Twenty Five Years of an Artist, first published in '92.
In it, he recalls doing a show in America, and the room was full of young people. Almost all the hands were up in the air, folks wanting to pose questions. He says that he held up the camera, and said: one camera, one lens and always Ektachrome 200 film. At that, every hand went down. Apparently, nobody wanted to learn about art, technique, emotions or anything but camera and film brands.
You could say that now, twenty-four years later, not a lot has changed.
FWIW, in one shot, a mirror pic of himself and a model, he's sporting a Minolta slr.
In some ways, I wish I hadn't bought the book: he reveals some few personal character details I'd have lived more happily not knowing about him. Also, the book has more 'doubtful' images than I was expecting from the usual postcards and his seminal book, Dreams of Young Girls, which I thought, at the tme, to be beautiful. From it I developed a love for French straw hats, amongst the most beautifully evocative props you can imagine, if you find the right ones! Not easy to do: they need a perfect balance of crown, brim and floral decoration, or they just look crass.
Yes, I suppose one could classify him, on a rough day, as a nostagic fantasist; but that said, I would personally prefer that title to being author of some of the stuff on music videos that turns me right off, quite apart from the music itself.
Rob
-
BC,
You could say that now, twenty-four years later, not a lot has changed.
I agree. The internet (including this site) is rife with content which is essentially pixel peeping and measurbating. For some, that is the whole of photography for them. Others could care less about the technical and focus on the art. Others do both and do both well. I'm not sure it is any worse now, per capita among serious photographers, than it was in Ansel Adam's day.
In some ways, I wish I hadn't bought the book: he reveals some few personal character details I'd have lived more happily not knowing about him.
I feel this way about a lot of people whose art I admire. Western culture needs to get over the idea that because someone is good at something and famous for that something that they are good at other things, including life. Most of the available evidence suggests quite the opposite. Makes me wonder why any of us cares about the opinion of any under-educated screen star, singer or athlete.
-
... I just got through expunging all Adobe products from all of my computers. Feels so good. Don't miss a thing.
Some of the stuff they install is like a root kit... check the registry db and hidden folders and you'll find tons of things, they don't remove during normal uninstall...
Took me days to get everything adobe weeded out. ::)
Feels good and don't miss anything either.
Re. alternatives... acdSee Ultimate 10 is worth a closer inspection, imho. It's become a seriously good package by now...
-
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.
But you don't lose that right! When you stop paying you can still use Lr to manage and print/output your photos. It doesn't stop working. You can even continue to adjust them - using Quick Develop. What you do lose is the ability to make further fine quality adjustments in Lr's Develop or in Photoshop. If you don't pay for more print developer and fixer, Ilford don't have to send you more than you've already bought.
-
Correct. And that is a nice touch by Adobe, but really just being decent, which is what they aren't in other matters.
-
Correct. And that is a nice touch by Adobe, but really just being decent, which is what they aren't in other matters.
It's more than decent. It's far more than was expected even by those of who know something about Adobe.
-
But you don't lose that right! When you stop paying you can still use Lr to manage and print/output your photos. It doesn't stop working. You can even continue to adjust them - using Quick Develop. What you do lose is the ability to make further fine quality adjustments in Lr's Develop or in Photoshop. If you don't pay for more print developer and fixer, Ilford don't have to send you more than you've already bought.
"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."
The above is the complete quotation of my response to marton, and I wasn't stating anything, just writing down my understanding of what I'd just been told by him.
However, I'm totally PS beyond the basic Nikon Capture NX2 where I sometimes do a little correction.
AFAIK, PS is the only system that permits Layers, and I couldn't function without Layers, so not a lot of choice.
Rob
-
AFAIK, PS is the only system that permits Layers, and I couldn't function without Layers, so not a lot of choice.
Rob, honestly!
Pixelmator, Acorn, Affinity - that's just off the top of me 'ead. There are likely a ton more.
Edit:
GIMP, http://www.creativebloq.com/free-photo-editors-51411796 - all free.
-
If you are only talking PS, then ending a subscription does mean you can't do anything in Photoshop, so you can't fine tune existing images with it. Even if you had never installed Lr before, you can still do so and use it to adjust/output existing images.
-
Rob, honestly!
Pixelmator, Acorn, Affinity - that's just off the top of me 'ead. There are likely a ton more.
Edit:
GIMP, http://www.creativebloq.com/free-photo-editors-51411796 - all free.
Thanks Manoli, I had never heard of those systems! I shall record the link for posterity and possible use if it eventually becomes necessary to move...
Rob
-
Even Capture One 9 has layers. Obviously nowhere near as robust as PS, but still functional and improving.
-
And Lightroom does many of the same things people use layers for, just without having layers.