Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier 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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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?
-
I too think the photography deal is very good value. However any other variation of CC isn't such good value.
+1
I want my bygone "Design Standard/Premium" package again...
-
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?
The old versions seem to run just fine, although I never use the old LR and rarely use the old PS.
-
Thanks,
-
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?
Correct. Well, it didn't interfere with my LR5.7 / PS5, anyway. As ever, back up beforehand.
Jeremy
-
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
I fully agree with both, Thom and Bernard.
Installing all those trial versions without a consent, thus cluttering the disk drives and requiring extra work to delete them, is at best irresponsible, and at worst it can render some of the computers unusable.
As to the subscription model, I would divide my circle of PS and LR users into three groups:
About one third converted to CC (and at least half of those were indirectly coerced into it just to take advantage of the "temporary PS/LR $9.99 price")
another third, myself included keep using PS CS5 or CS6, and not missing Camera Shake filter or any of the upgrade complications,
and the last group switched to PS Elements, Gimp, Instagram, iPad editors, or other simple editing programs, some using just C1, Irridient Developer, or perpetual version of LR
Based on the chatter in various forums, it seems, that if Adobe raises the $9.99 monthly subscription price, the exodus from the from first group would be much greater than any prospects from the second group, wishing to upgrade to CC.
Most "noncritical" users in the third group are perfectly happy with their existing tools and they are unlikely to migrate to any of the other two groups.
-
I fully agree with both, Thom and Bernard.
Installing all those trial versions without a consent, thus cluttering the disk drives and requiring extra work to delete them, is at best irresponsible, and at worst it can render some of the computers unusable.
As to the subscription model, I would divide my circle of PS and LR users into three groups:
About one third converted to CC (and at least half of those were indirectly coerced into it just to take advantage of the "temporary PS/LR $9.99 price")
another third, myself included keep using PS CS5 or CS6, and not missing Camera Shake filter or any of the upgrade complications,
and the last group switched to PS Elements, Gimp, Instagram, iPad editors, or other simple editing programs, some using just C1, Irridient Developer, or perpetual version of LR
Based on the chatter in various forums, it seems, that if Adobe raises the $9.99 monthly subscription price, the exodus from the from first group would be much greater than any prospects from the second group, wishing to upgrade to CC.
Most "noncritical" users in the third group are perfectly happy with their existing tools and they are unlikely to migrate to any of the other two groups.
Where does your data on market shares for these "groups" you defined come from? I'd like to see it.
There is perhaps also a 4th "group": all those who converted to CC and have no regrets and didn't/don't feel "coerced". Yes, 10 bucks a month is good incentive pricing and let us see how long it remains at that level.
-
Mark,
that was no official or precise breakdown, more a very rough estimate based on the group of people I know - personally or through forum discussions.
I included your "4th" group in my first group. I don't doubt, that members of the group are quite happy with their decision, $120 annually is not much, but some people just don't feel comfortable with the "rental" arrangement.
It's not so different from buying or leasing a car. Actually, with the cars now we have even a share option. However, in the automotive world, we are not bullied into the leasing, we can also buy it.
-
Mark,
that was no official or precise breakdown, more a very rough estimate based on the group of people I know - personally or through forum discussions.
I included your "4th" group in my first group. I don't doubt, that members of the group are quite happy with their decision, $120 annually is not much, but some people just don't feel comfortable with the "rental" arrangement.
It's not so different from buying or leasing a car. Actually, with the cars now we have even a share option. However, in the automotive world, we are not bullied into the leasing, we can also buy it.
Thanks for clarifying Les. Developing comfort with major changes to how things were done can take time, the amount depending on the quality of the change. As I mentioned, I would belong to the "4th Group", but would still like to have seen a better exit strategy than now exists. But I would not characterize the current set-up as bullying. There is no compulsion to go the CC route as long as one is happy to keep using the last available "perpetual-licensed" versions. Rather than bullying, I would characterize their marketing strategy as "strongly nudging" :-).
-
All I'm trying to do, is to "gently nudge" Adobe to release annually or biennially a non-CC version of their existing product for the masses who so far resisted to buy into the rental model.
Could be a sizeable market.
-
All I'm trying to do, is to "gently nudge" Adobe to release annually or biennially a non-CC version of their existing product for the masses who so far resisted to buy into the rental model.
Could be a sizeable market.
I doubt this would happen. It would distract from the model they are nudging the community into. However, I think it important for Adobe to recognize that not everyone can maintain their subscriptions forever for a variety of reasons, but would still like the ability to revert to fully functional editing of their photos with the last version they subscribed to; these people would have more comfort with the subscription model if there were an exit strategy preserving their last-used version - even if one had to pay a reasonable one-time back-end fee to maintain it indefinitely. I don't think the clientele for this option would be very large, but nonetheless comforting and useful to some.
-
Adobe might do it on a yearly basis.
If you want the latest updates the fastest, go with CC
If you are willing to wait a year, then you can go with a traditional license.
With the CC you are paying for the privilege of getting the updates first.
The question is how would Adobe release these updates to the standalone license holders?
1. A la carte - Adobe introduced 10 updates in the past year. The license holder would be able to pick and choose which update feature they want and pay only for those features. Each feature may have a different price depending on the value/cost from Adobe
2. Traditional update - Adobe introduced 10 updates in the past year, the license holder would then be offered a package update of all of these features at a fixed price that will recompense Adobe for their costs and value added.
I would like to see option 1, but I fear that Adobe might feel they can make more money by forcing the license holder to accept all updated features or no updated features.
-
I'll take that deal, Otto.
The second alternative will be quite acceptable.
-
I'll take that deal, Otto.
The second alternative will be quite acceptable.
The question is how much would you be willing to pay for this option. If you opt out of the subscription, Adobe would e losing your revenue stream. Would you be willing to pay say 5 years of subscription rates to obtain a perpetual license?
What Adobe really wants with the subscription model is steady and predictable revenue. With people opting in/out at will, it disrupts the revenue flow...back to the way it was before the CC version.
-
Installing all those trial versions without a consent, thus cluttering the disk drives and requiring extra work to delete them, is at best irresponsible, and at worst it can render some of the computers unusable.
On the subject of clutter, look what appeared in LR's import dialogue after a recent update of Adobe stuff. A huge stack of mounted DMGs that are not visible as being mounted in PathFinder/Finder. Had to eject from Disk Utility.
-
The question is how much would you be willing to pay for this option. If you opt out of the subscription, Adobe would e losing your revenue stream. Would you be willing to pay say 5 years of subscription rates to obtain a perpetual license?
What Adobe really wants with the subscription model is steady and predictable revenue. With people opting in/out at will, it disrupts the revenue flow...back to the way it was before the CC version.
Poor Adobe! Losing all that extra revenue stream and facing irregular disruptions in revenue flow. What will now the bean counters and shareholders say? You can look around, many other companies face really hard times in this very competitive world.
What Adobe wants is one thing, and what I want is something else. Some call it irreconcilable differences. Fortunately, we were able to part on friendly terms.
They still keep sending me various PS/LR offers and I still try to remind them that they should simplify the life for their customers, not complicate it.
What I don't understand how close to your heart is Adobe's well-being. Or is this an extreme case of a Stockholm Syndrome?
-
Poor Adobe! Losing all that extra revenue stream and facing irregular disruptions in revenue flow. What will now the bean counters and shareholders say? You can look around, many other companies face really hard times in this very competitive world.
What Adobe wants is one thing, and what I want is something else. Some call it irreconcilable differences. Fortunately, we were able to part on friendly terms.
They still keep sending me various PS/LR offers and I still try to remind them that they should simplify the life for their customers, not complicate it.
What I don't understand how close to your heart is Adobe's well-being. Or is this an extreme case of a Stockholm Syndrome?
Since I love using their products and their products allows me to efficiently create my art...I want Adobe to survive and prosper now and into the future. My family and friends are close to my heart. Adobe and their products are just materialism to me...I don't really have any feelings other than they provide a means for me to create what I want.
Sort of like my car is just metal that gets me to where I'm going,
-
What a coincidence! Likewise, I love the old Photoshop as much as you do and feel exactly the same way about my car. As it happens, I was able to purchase both outright, and plan on using them as long as they will run. I'm confident that with some new filters and
plugins (plugs), I can extend its useful life beyond dealer's initial estimate.
Similar to Adobe, my car dealer keeps sending me also various special announcements, but they offer both, leasing and purchase arrangements.
-
What a coincidence! Likewise, I love the old Photoshop as much as you do and feel exactly the same way about my car. As it happens, I was able to purchase both outright, and plan on using them as long as they will run. I'm confident that with some new filters and plugins (plugs), I can extend its useful life beyond dealer's initial estimate.
Similar to Adobe, my car dealer keeps sending me also various special announcements, but they offer both, leasing and purchase arrangements.
Glad you can continue using both your old PS and your old car. I just got myself a new vehicle and signed onto CC so I have the latest versions available to me. I don't have the inclination of wasting my time scrawling the Internet looking for plugins. I use LR/PS along with the NIK suite...that does me just fine.
-
Congratulations to your new car! And quite right, NIK plugins really help with both PS and LR. You should try also Topaz plugins, some of theirs are newer and more powerful than NIK, especially Denoise and Clarity. To save you time scrawling the Internet looking for plugins, here is a handy link:
Topaz Labs (http://www.topazlabs.com/861-17.html)
Interestingly, more and more often, many previously heavy PS users (even on this forum) are reporting that they can accomplish pretty much everything they need just with LR and some of afore mentioned plugins.
EDIT:
Speaking of Denoise, Topaz is currently running a promotion on this product (20% off till end of June). Based on my personal experience, for most images, Topaz Denoise is less destructive on the edges and fine details than Nik's Dfine. Below is the direct link to Denoise and when you get to the checkout, enter "JUNEDENOISE" as the coupon code to get your discount.
Topaz DeNoise (http://www.topazlabs.com/aff/idevaffiliate.php?id=861&url=http://www.topazlabs.com/DeNoise)
-
Mark,
that was no official or precise breakdown, more a very rough estimate based on the group of people I know - personally or through forum discussions.
I included your "4th" group in my first group. I don't doubt, that members of the group are quite happy with their decision, $120 annually is not much, but some people just don't feel comfortable with the "rental" arrangement.
It's not so different from buying or leasing a car. Actually, with the cars now we have even a share option. However, in the automotive world, we are not bullied into the leasing, we can also buy it.
You also have more options as there are different manufacturers. If you don't like Chevy's leasing or purchase plan, you can pretty much purchase or lease a car from Ford that matches in performance, quality, engineering and features. Unfortunately in the photo world, Adobe has a better product for the most part so where do you go? Also, with cars, you don't have to re-learn how to drive when you switch brands. Who wants to start all over with a new PP program? And then who wants to convert all those old edits done with PS? And cataloguing? These aren't problems with cars. What someone has to come out with is a "new car smell" atomizer for Photoshop. Just spray the screen with it and you think you just updated!
-
You also have more options as there are different manufacturers. If you don't like Chevy's leasing or purchase plan, you can pretty much purchase or lease a car from Ford that matches in performance, quality, engineering and features. Unfortunately in the photo world, Adobe has a better product for the most part so where do you go? Also, with cars, you don't have to re-learn how to drive when you switch brands. Who wants to start all over with a new PP program? And then who wants to convert all those old edits done with PS? And cataloguing? These aren't problems with cars. What someone has to come out with is a "new car smell" atomizer for Photoshop. Just spray the screen with it and you think you just updated!
Well, that may happen sooner than some think. Apparently, Apple has a team of top-notch software designers working on a Photoshop killer program code-named Photos Pro. The new 3D image editing platform will offer not only a fresh fragrance and sexy interface, but a brand new architecture, designed from the ground up in a powerful and typically intuitive Apple way. Outside developers will be able to use the Swift programming language and software hooks to write their own special functions and filters, callable from the main program, and sell them through the App Store. It's just an unconfirmed rumor at this time. Once Google finds out about it, you can bet, that they will announce their own self-driving Super Picasa fully integrated with new NIKita to enter the post Photoshop universe.
-
Well, that may happen sooner than some think. Apparently, Apple has a team of top-notch software designers working on a Photoshop killer program code-named Photos Pro. The new 3D image editing platform will offer not only a fresh fragrance and sexy interface, but a brand new architecture, designed from the ground up in a powerful and typically intuitive Apple way. Outside developers will be able to use the Swift programming language and software hooks to write their own special functions and filters, callable from the main program, and sell them through the App Store. It's just an unconfirmed rumor at this time. Once Google finds out about it, you can bet, that they will announce their own self-driving Super Picasa fully integrated with new NIKita to enter the post Photoshop universe.
I look forward to that. Are these phone/tablet initiatives? If so, they won't really impact Photoshop.
-
Unfortunately in the photo world, Adobe has a better product for the most part so where do you go?
Serif Software (https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/) has placed some very functional programs on the market. I've been toying with Affinity Photo (https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/) and it is a very capable program. Combined with Iridient Developer (http://www.iridientdigital.com/) and Phase One Media Pro (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Software/Media-Pro.aspx?), you have all you need for processing, retouching and cataloging, with no subscription fees.
In the 1990s, QuarkXpress was installed in most publishing houses, design firms, ad agencies and graphics shops. The program was ubiquitous, and was very capable. It utilized Postscript & TrueType fonts, vector graphics and raster graphics seamlessly into its layout engine, and its utilization of RGB, CMYK and Pantone color was cutting edge. At one point 95% of all printed material in North America was produced with the program. That market dominance is gone, and while the program is still alive and functional, Quark essentially lost market share due to their own mistakes (not porting the code to OSX for years being one of them). The majority of designers and production artists now sit in front of InDesign, Illustrator & Photoshop. It's a helluva toolset, and only Adobe can ruin it.
-
Apple has a team of top-notch software designers working on a Photoshop killer program code-named Photos Pro. ...
Well Apple just killed Aperture and showed more often that you cannot trust them into making something that has some continuity.
If they think tomorrow some other approach is 'better' they just unplug the old program and start a new from scratch.
They did that with Aperture- final cut pro (X) and they do it to their operating system every year.
(Even the way they format their harddisks has changed without any notification between different builds of 10.9.5)
-
Well, that may happen sooner than some think. Apparently, Apple has a team of top-notch software designers working on a Photoshop killer program code-named Photos Pro. The new 3D image editing platform will offer not only a fresh fragrance and sexy interface, but a brand new architecture, designed from the ground up in a powerful and typically intuitive Apple way. Outside developers will be able to use the Swift programming language and software hooks to write their own special functions and filters, callable from the main program, and sell them through the App Store. It's just an unconfirmed rumor at this time. Once Google finds out about it, you can bet, that they will announce their own self-driving Super Picasa fully integrated with new NIKita to enter the post Photoshop universe.
I was surprised at how much of the NIK software has ended up in Snapspeed which is in the Android phones. Pretty remarkable at how fast Google bought it and then is turning it into a powerful cellphone editor. Might be right on some Super Picasa too.
I got a bad feeling that the major DSLR camera makers and Adobe are going to find themselves in a bit of a snit with these "apps" and their makers. Some stuff is really good and innovative. I didn't know until yesterday I could take a "spherical image" (Panorama is passe now?) in minutes by following a dot with my phone and it even processed the image in a few minutes - no external computer or Adobe software needed. And the app "Google Camera" was free! I never thought some single device would allow for so many variations of cameras against a DSLR: HDR camera app. Load it. Panorama camera. Effects. Editors. etc. all at your fingertips. Just load the app and you got a whole new camera and methodolgy.
I fear PS may be on it's last legs in the next decade at the rate this stuff is evolving. Maybe even the major DSLR makers as well. Kodak did the Cloud thing way back in the 90's and that failed, and so did Kodak. Evolution marches ahead - and at a very brisk rate.
SG
-
Poor Adobe! Losing all that extra revenue stream and facing irregular disruptions in revenue flow.
http://prodesigntools.com/creative-cloud-one-million-paid-members.html
The new figures are 4.6 million subscribers.
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/61605102/mQlaPzs1f3h5k7.pdf
Net new Creative Cloud subscriptions grew by 639 thousand in the quarter to over 4.6 million, and represents 38% year-over-year growth.
-
I think hypothesizing about Adobe's demise is premature. And I don't see any of those alternatives providing the kind of integrated processing power we get from LR+PS combined. Not impossible, but not yet. Meanwhile Adobe needs to remain vigilant, on its feet and provide customer satisfaction because nothing and no-one is permanent in this industry.
The current round of releases has indicated there is a serious management problem in the commercial area at Adobe. They need to issue a clear, transparent policy statement to the photographic community about what you get and what you should expect and not expect with each purchasing option, they need to clean-up and improve the visibility of version numbering so users can see in an instant exactly which version they are using, they need to assure non-discriminatory international pricing to the extent different tax regimes and exchange rates allow it, they need to provide a sensible exit strategy for people who need to leave the CC stream and revert to perpetual LR licensing, they need to provide LR tech support 24/7 (It's Monday to Friday now) especially at a time when updates are emerging with semi-transparent documentation and they need to make the process of downloading and selecting updating options up-front - this business of burying the option to retain one's current working version in an Advanced Options menu needs to go. If they were to do all these things, it would clean-up the mess they've gotten themselves into and make customers' lives a lot easier, as well as cut the complaining. Another option, not however precluding some of the above measures, would be to discontinue perpetual licensing of LR. Wouldn't surprise me to see that by next year.
-
http://prodesigntools.com/creative-cloud-one-million-paid-members.html
The new figures are 4.6 million subscribers.
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/61605102/mQlaPzs1f3h5k7.pdf
Net new Creative Cloud subscriptions grew by 639 thousand in the quarter to over 4.6 million, and represents 38% year-over-year growth.
Yes, but their net income has dropped a lot from 2011 too, by nearly half.
https://ycharts.com/companies/ADBE/net_income (https://ycharts.com/companies/ADBE/net_income)
and
http://www.alphr.com/news/390835/dark-clouds-for-adobe-as-profits-slide-by-46 (http://www.alphr.com/news/390835/dark-clouds-for-adobe-as-profits-slide-by-46)
I agree with some analysts who think the stock is way overvalued, maybe a $20 stock at best. They do a lot of insider trading too so I wouldn't rely on what the CEO claims.
Most likely they will have to raise subscription fees soon if their shareholders shout. How that plays out will be very interesting to watch. Some of those new subscribers are in for free too with Adobe Acrobat DC Cloud and sync. No telling on how they are determining their subscriber count: Are they paying, using Overdrive, shifting, or not? Large numbers look good, but income is more telling.
This could also be much of the same low sales issues of what the camera makers are going through in lost income as well. I've seen too many camera stores close up of late. Tough business these days - and probably will get tougher.
SG
-
I think hypothesizing about Adobe's demise is premature. And I don't see any of those alternatives providing the kind of integrated processing power we get from LR+PS combined. Not impossible, but not yet. Meanwhile Adobe needs to remain vigilant, on its feet and provide customer satisfaction because nothing and no-one is permanent in this industry.
The current round of releases has indicated there is a serious management problem in the commercial area at Adobe. They need to issue a clear, transparent policy statement to the photographic community about what you get and what you should expect and not expect with each purchasing option, they need to clean-up and improve the visibility of version numbering so users can see in an instant exactly which version they are using, they need to assure non-discriminatory international pricing to the extent different tax regimes and exchange rates allow it, they need to provide a sensible exit strategy for people who need to leave the CC stream and revert to perpetual LR licensing, they need to provide LR tech support 24/7 (It's Monday to Friday now) especially at a time when updates are emerging with semi-transparent documentation and they need to make the process of downloading and selecting updating options up-front - this business of burying the option to retain one's current working version in an Advanced Options menu needs to go. If they were to do all these things, it would clean-up the mess they've gotten themselves into and make customers' lives a lot easier, as well as cut the complaining. Another option, not however precluding some of the above measures, would be to discontinue perpetual licensing of LR. Wouldn't surprise me to see that by next year.
Good summary, Mark
I am not so sure about Adobe being able to drop the perpetual license on LR. They were able to do it for PS, since there is at the moment no real alternative, but when it comes to LR, there are plenty of alternatives, and some are even better in certain aspects than LR. Exiting from LR-CC without some way to access your old LR files would be even more precarious than exiting from PS-CC. I would never put myself into that position.
-
Yes, but their net income has dropped a lot from 2011 too, by nearly half.
https://ycharts.com/companies/ADBE/net_income (https://ycharts.com/companies/ADBE/net_income)
and
http://www.alphr.com/news/390835/dark-clouds-for-adobe-as-profits-slide-by-46 (http://www.alphr.com/news/390835/dark-clouds-for-adobe-as-profits-slide-by-46)
I agree with some analysts who think the stock is way overvalued, maybe a $20 stock at best. They do a lot of insider trading too so I wouldn't rely on what the CEO claims.
Most likely they will have to raise subscription fees soon if their shareholders shout. How that plays out will be very interesting to watch. Some of those new subscribers are in for free too with Adobe Acrobat DC Cloud and sync. No telling on how they are determining their subscriber count: Are they paying, using Overdrive, shifting, or not? Large numbers look good, but income is more telling.
This could also be much of the same low sales issues of what the camera makers are going through in lost income as well. I've seen too many camera stores close up of late. Tough business these days - and probably will get tougher.
SG
Are you by ay chance a financial analyst with expertise on the valuation of Adobe stock? In what respect is their stock "over-valued"? You think their investors don't understand the value of what they are buying - i.o.w "irrational: investors? And as for insider trading, I presume you know this is a criminal offense, so if you want to sling arounf those kind of charges best be sure you can substantiate them. The profit slide by the way was predicted in a penultimate 10-K - they aren't into the subscription model for the short-term. It is a long-term play. So far the numbers indicate the uptake is beating their own expectations. But the revenue drop occurs - as they explained to the SEC - because the rash of perpetual license renewals that would have fallen due is being replaced by CC subscriptions which carry lower initial cash flow. Not hard to see of course. Over the long term they may make more money from this - obviously what they are hoping for, but it is a business risk and time will tell. Don't forget the buy-in cost to get into the LR+PS subscription train is VERY low - much less money up-front than the cost of buying licenses to each of LR and PS. So they must be hoping that price elasticity of demand will further increase their market and market share, and the incremental technical value they expect to offer will also entice people to buy into these subscriptions and stay. This is the logic that must be driving this model. If it is, note that it puts both them and their customers on a treadmill: them to keep the value up and us to keep paying. So this is a very interesting development to keep watching. We should prepare to be educated.
-
Good summary, Mark
I am not so sure about Adobe being able to drop the perpetual license on LR. They were able to do it for PS, since there is at the moment no real alternative, but when it comes to LR, there are plenty of alternatives, and some are even better in certain aspects than LR. Exiting from LR-CC without some way to access your old LR files would be even more precarious than exiting from PS-CC. I would never put myself into that position.
Thanks Les. Yes, one of the alternatives to LR is PS - because the Camera Raw engine delivers the same adjustments that you get in the Develop Module of LR. I think people buying the LR+PS combo are looking at what the total package with its near seamless integration offers and not whether a different raw converter has this or that feature that may be arguably a bit better. To re-iterate, I share your discomfort about the absence of a viable exit strategy from the subscription train.
-
Mark, fyi, insider trading can be both legal and illegal. I didn't say they were doing it illegally, but most any companies officers who hold stock options do trade within their own company, and a lot if you look at their reports.
The legal version is when corporate insiders, officers, directors, employees and large shareholders, buy and sell stock in their own companies. Not illegal to do. If they are transparent to the public, when corporate or insiders trade in their own securities, they must report their trades to the SEC. Many stock investors and traders then use that information to identify companies with investment potential, and the theory is if the insiders (CEO's, exec. board, etc.) are buying the stock, they must know more about their company than everyone else, so it is a good idea to buy the stock.
Where it gets messy and illegal is where they hide information from the SEC and public and provide tippees confidential information (ala, Martha Stewart.). Sometimes providing false information to sway public or financial institutions as well.
You can look up most any member on a companies board: CEO, Exec. etc. on the exchange and see how many shares they hold, sell, or buy. How they disclose it (To the SEC, public or not, or undercover and illegal.) is where it gets iffy. How they move it is where the market hopes to gain some info under a watchful eye.
No doubt a lot of 'questionable' trading goes on too and open to debate over legality. Cattle futures in Arkansas anyone? ;)
SG
-
I use Photoshop Elements for my scanned image post processing. It includes Camera Raw and I believe it is the exact same ACR engine included with LR and PS. The only difference is the UI is simplified which makes some features unavailable. You can buy, at very low cost, plugins which enable some of these features. I use Elements+ which allows use of lens profiles, curves, channels, scripts and softproofing for instance. Plugins such as Neat Image and Focus Magic work just fine with it. You can find all sorts of free actions on the web which will work with it. There is a workaround to make a layer on a 16 bit file (not inside an action, unfortunately). It will work with large color spaces such as Prophoto and AdobeWide (but you can only convert to Adobe RGB or sRGB within the program).
I usually only update it on even-numbered versions but the latest, PSE 13, was the first 64 bit version and I wanted to try that. The first release froze up on me often. Adobe came out with 13.1 in a short while which seems to fix it. ACR has also been updated to 9.0. I wonder why Adobe is having problems getting bug-free initial releases?
So there is one more Adobe alternative to Lightroom on a perpetual license. I'm still using Capture NX2 for the little digital work I do.
Allan
-
Mark, fyi, insider trading can be both legal and illegal. I didn't say they were doing it illegally, but most any companies officers who hold stock options do trade within their own company, and a lot if you look at their reports.
The legal version is when corporate insiders, officers, directors, employees and large shareholders, buy and sell stock in their own companies. Not illegal to do. If they are transparent to the public, when corporate or insiders trade in their own securities, they must report their trades to the SEC. Many stock investors and traders then use that information to identify companies with investment potential, and the theory is if the insiders (CEO's, exec. board, etc.) are buying the stock, they must know more about their company than everyone else, so it is a good idea to buy the stock.
Where it gets messy and illegal is where they hide information from the SEC and public and provide tippees confidential information (ala, Martha Stewart.). Sometimes providing false information to sway public or financial institutions as well.
You can look up most any member on a companies board: CEO, Exec. etc. on the exchange and see how many shares they hold, sell, or buy. How they disclose it (To the SEC, public or not, or undercover and illegal.) is where it gets iffy. How they move it is where the market hopes to gain some info under a watchful eye.
No doubt a lot of 'questionable' trading goes on too and open to debate over legality. Cattle futures in Arkansas anyone? ;)
SG
Yes true, but the language "stock options" has a different connotation than "insider trading", most people usually associating legality with the former and illegality with the latter, especially when used in a context suggesting that it is inordinately skewing the value of the shares.
-
Yes true, but the language "stock options" has a different connotation than "insider trading", most people usually associating legality with the former and illegality with the latter, especially when used in a context suggesting that it is inordinately skewing the value of the shares.
I have to agree with Mark. Adobe must be under a lot of attention from the regulators, and we can be certain that those employees lucky enough to be granted shares are very careful to only trade them outside quiet periods and with enough advanced notice that they cannot be suspected to be timing the sell of stocks based on non publicly available information.
Those insinuations are out of line.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am very surprised that the Moderator hasn't stepped in to close this thread? :-\
-
I am very surprised that the Moderator hasn't stepped in to close this thread? :-\
Why? Foul language? Ad Hominems?
People are at liberty to say stupid (in the mind of some) things, without violating the TOS, aren't they? Whether the thread has interesting enough content to respond to is another matter, and is usually not moderated for lack of substance.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I am very surprised that the Moderator hasn't stepped in to close this thread? :-\
Well, I think this thread has pretty much exhausted the "photographic" content of the issue (much as it did some time back when CC was first introduced), and to some extent, because of its inherently close linkage to the commercial side of things it has kind of wobbled a bit "OT", but I agree with Bart that we haven't unambiguously violated the ToS and irrelevant commentary isn't a reason to lock a thread. In fact, I would recommend the future usefulness of such a thread for members to discuss their upgrading experience, because there have been some substantial issues with the commercial and technical functioning of the recent round and the more information about these problems that surfaces, the more useful it will be for Adobe and the rest of us to take corrective action.
-
Why? Foul language? Ad Hominems?
People are at liberty to say stupid (in the mind of some) things, without violating the TOS, aren't they? Whether the thread has interesting enough content to respond to is another matter, and is usually not moderated for lack of substance.
Cheers,
Bart
Getting very close to possibly defaming Adobe with digs about insider dealings? I am not American but know enough to realize the thread is going in the wrong direction. Bernard summed it up in Reply#54.
Those insinuations are out of line.
-
I think that matter is clarified and now behind us. Let us preserve the thread for what I suggested above: discussion of upgrading issues.
-
Getting very close to possibly defaming Adobe with digs about insider dealings? I am not American but know enough to realize the thread is going in the wrong direction. Bernard summed it up in Reply#54.
Those insinuations are out of line.
Cripes! What insinuation? It's fact! All heavily traded companies do it, and it's public knowledge (And should be.) which is what keeps it legal. What stockholders and buyers do with the info is how they may play their hand.
Here's the Adobe Systems Incorporated 'Insider Activity' (SEC Form 4) on the web: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/adbe/insider-trades (http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/adbe/insider-trades)
Want Apples "insider trading" report? Here it is: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=AAPL+Insider+Transactions (https://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=AAPL+Insider+Transactions)
Geeze, get with it already and quit listening to buzz words of all insider trading is illegal crap.
Try reading "Forbes" sometime. Might aid in how the market really works and analysts thoughts.
SG
-
Can we take this thread back to photographic usefulness?
-
Can we take this thread back to photographic usefulness?
Yes, please!
-
One of the new Adobe Cloud offerings is access from PS CC to the new Adobe Stock collection with 40 million royalty-free images (after acquiring Fotolia stock agency).
An interesting feature is that you can download a watermarked preview image directly from Photoshop, Premiere, or other programs, play with the composition and cropping, and when you purchase a license, your edits will be transferred and applied to the full image version.
For some users, this could be of more value than DeHaze or Camera Shake filter.