Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: mydna on April 28, 2022, 08:58:18 pm
-
Hello
Is there still a CS version that I can still run without paying monthly/yearly subscription on the M1 Mac?
Thanks
OreN
-
No
-
No, CS6 doesn't run at all… and the following versions are subscription only.
-
As long as the subscription is 10$ a month i think it is no problem...
-
As long as the subscription is 10$ a month i think it is no problem...
True and there's also competing products like Affinity Photo that aren't subscription-based.
-
I don't understand the no subscription mindset. It's not much money and it has given great benefits. The new masking capabilities in LR are simply awesome. I doubt that they would have been developed if not for the guaranteed income stream provided by the subscription model. There have been many other good improvements with nearly each release. The nay naysayers said at the time that Adobe would take your money and deliver very little in the way of improvements. They have been resoundingly proven wrong. I have Dxo also. Comparing the subscription cost of LR to the forever cost of Dxo with upgrades figured in, it comes out about the same. Dxo does not yet support Om-1. I fear they are holding off supporting it until the next upgrade so Om-1 uses will have to upgrade.
-
Just considering Adobe, for me subscription is cheaper than the perpetual price. I used to upgrade LR every time (it's my workhorse), and upgrade Photohop every 2 or 3 times (when you could do that). Amortised over an upgrade cycle, that cost more than $10 a month.
Does anyone remember just how breath-takingly expensive Photoshop was for a perpetual licence?
-
Just considering Adobe, for me subscription is cheaper than the perpetual price. I used to upgrade LR every time (it's my workhorse), and upgrade Photohop every 2 or 3 times (when you could do that). Amortised over an upgrade cycle, that cost more than $10 a month.
Does anyone remember just how breath-takingly expensive Photoshop was for a perpetual licence?
I believe the perpetual PS license was $895. Given the original purchase price along with the upgrade prices...today's PS / LR subscription price is a deal.
-
It appears from all of the typical internet vitriol that there are still people who believe that Adobe is some sort of evil big brother corporation whose main goal is to swindle its customers. I have no love for corporate America but as someone else said, Adobe's behavior has been pretty reasonable. They've not raised prices (yet) and seem to work on advancements to the program on a regular basis.
We have an incredible wealth of options with the current programs. Competition is good and seeing that there are alternatives may help keep Adobe on their toes but I suspect that the alternatives (which I have not personally explored) are but a small fraction of the market.
I'd be surprised if anyone can't accomplish their photographic goals with Lightroom and Photoshop. I'm old enough to have done both black and white and color printing in the wet darkroom. Today, one can accomplish infinitely more with greater precision than at any other time in the history of our art.
-
All one has to do is see the adoption rate of subscribers to see the naysayers are massively out numbered.
https://prodesigntools.com/number-of-creative-cloud-subscribers.html
Per the company’s annual results out last week, recurring revenue in Adobe’s Creative segment grew 17.3% from a year ago. At this time last year, management said that “the Creative Cloud business has grown ~85%” from the end of 2017, when analysts pegged the number of CC paid subscribers at 12 million.
So, doing the math and updating for year-end 2021, this gives an estimated new total of 26 million subscribers, up approximately 4 million from last year. Meaning, the run rate of new subscriptions is around 1 million per quarter – adding an average of 10,000+ net new paid members every day for the CC 2022 product line.
-
I was very much against the subscription model when it was first introduced but my opinion has changed 180 degrees. I love getting regular bug fixes and new or improved features as Adobe has been doing. The masking alone is amazing.
-
I can't remember much about CS5 because it is so long ago but the current capabilities leave them for dead.
"Select Subject" would be enough incentive for me as you can basically do an Action to change a background, saving a huge amount of time.
-
You know, back in the day of PS 3-7, we eagerly greeted each and every iteration of the program and had no qualms about paying for the privelge. But the thought of the prescription version with monthly or yearly payments just sat wrong with me. I have not bought into the new model. What I have suites me just fine. I don't do any extensive retouching, or sky replacements. My use of all the new tools would probably be minimal. So, thank you Adobe, for what you have brought to the table. And the Knoll brothers for making it all possible in the first place.
Also, I used to be a great evangilist for the Macintosh from day one. But computers and operating systems have matured, and I regard them as just another tool. I look foreward to the new inovations that Apple is doing with engineering their own CPUs. But for basic still photography, my home assembled PC from 7 years ago, is still chugging along just fine. I can handle 400 MB files no problems. I have made 40x80 prints with no more effort than a 16x20. Isn't digital just wonderful! Sure beats spending hours in the darkroom, developing film, cutting dodging tools, contorting my hands for burning in high lights. Sniffing all those familiar darkroom odors. And, my digital camera, shows me what I have captured instantly, without having to wait to develop the film.
What else can I add? Isn't photography wonderful and accessible to all. Maybe that's what I miss today, photography was like black magic back in the old days. Not everyone could achieve great results. You had to learn magic skills!
-
You know, back in the day of PS 3-7, we eagerly greeted each and every iteration of the program and had no qualms about paying for the privelge. But the thought of the prescription version with monthly or yearly payments just sat wrong with me. I have not bought into the new model. What I have suites me just fine.
But you have examined the new functionality in versions past V7 to come to that conclusion right? :D
I can handle 400 MB files no problems.
For some, that's considered a small document.
Isn't digital just wonderful! Sure beats spending hours in the darkroom, developing film, cutting dodging tools, contorting my hands for burning in high lights.
That I never entered a darkroom after starting with Photoshop 1.0.7 in 1990, yeah; did my time and never want to go back there.
-
As long as you had a thumb drive and a serial number, it was easy to "borrow", er, steal Photoshop from another computer. I never paid for it until subscription. I was always sort of amazed at that. I guess they went beyond total market share, and then took advantage of the monopoly status.
-
As long as you had a thumb drive and a serial number, it was easy to "borrow", er, steal Photoshop from another computer. I never paid for it until subscription. I was always sort of amazed at that. I guess they went beyond total market share, and then took advantage of the monopoly status.
Imagine a real and working photographer admitting to stealing another photographers work.
The non intelligent have no qualms about stealing intellectual property. 😢
-
Happened every day, dawg, and Adobe practically encouraged it. Now they have 95% market share. Get it?
-
Happened every day, dawg, and Adobe practically encouraged it.
So that's your justification for stealing software; got it.
The non intelligent have no qualms about stealing intellectual property. 😢
Do show us where Adobe practically encouraged it.
Now they have 95% market share. Get it?
Those stats came from? Even if true, they have that market share because they provide a product lots of people want and pay for. Hence the adoption rate FACTS I provided backed by actual stats (https://prodesigntools.com/number-of-creative-cloud-subscribers.html) not pulled out of my rear end.
I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.
Get it? Nope.
-
I never paid for it until subscription.
Why not?
I was always sort of amazed at that.
I'm amazed at you confessing to theft.
Happened every day, dawg, and Adobe practically encouraged it. Now they have 95% market share.
What else can you rationalize theft of? Do you encourage others to steal your work?
Get it?
Yeah. I think we all get it. I don't think that you do.
-
Do you encourage others to steal your work?
What work? ;)
And if some exist, the answer would be no.
"Cheats and hypocrites are those who do everything with words and do nothing with actions".— Democritus
-
I'll bet you guys think that you pay full cost for an Uber. Or that your ten bucks a month for Spotify actually supports the musical industry in a comfortable way. You'll figure it out some day.
-
I'll bet you guys think that you pay full cost for an Uber. Or that your ten bucks a month for Spotify actually supports the musical industry in a comfortable way. You'll figure it out some day.
I don't use Uber or Spotify.
I don't steal like you.
I don't hide behind an alias like you and even if I felt the need, I would not be as foolish as you are and admit to stealing.
The thief thinks all men steal.
"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot". -Groucho Marx
-
So, you're the RCA dog? Who knew?
Seriously, it's as though they wanted me to "Steal" it. It happened within corporations. They could have easily put up some sort of secure wall, but, they didn't. They knew it was happening. They took a gamble, just like Uber is by giving away cheap cab rides, and Spotify by giving me like every song ever recorded for ten bucks a month. They all want monopoly power, and some get it. The U.S. government successfully sued Bill Gates for his attempt, but they let another hundred acts slip through he cracks. But, after their position in the graphics industry was solidified after Macromedia imploded, they then had the captive audience, i.e., me and maybe billions worldwide, by the proverbial cajones. We had to subscribe. There was and still is no viable alternative. Ka Ching. Get it?
-
So, you're the RCA dog? Who knew?
Look who's talking out of his ass again:
https://open.spotify.com/artist/5kBvzehGYbdk2haHbLbwnH
Seriously, it's as though they wanted me to "Steal" it.
The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument.
You've admitted to stealing. We get it, you're a crook, hide behind an alias, and have zero proof you've worked at anything anyone would steal otherwise (IOW, a hack).
You're posting (hijacking) a thread on a forum for photographers, but you're not a photographer and any pro photographer would never consider stealing another photographer's work and understands intellectual property. You're trying unsuccessfully to insult a guy who was a chair member of the APA (look it up), an organization of photographers supporting others in media rights and selling their intellectual property so the idea of stealing anything is not going to wash with me.
Get it? No, you don't.
You're also again not being taken seriously here. Bottom line: Thief & Fool.
-
You are a very angry man.
-
Seriously, it's as though they wanted me to "Steal" it.
The ability of the human mind to rationalize away nefarious acts is pretty amazing. How tight were those shorts that Adobe was wearing to justify your actions again?
We had to subscribe. There was and still is no viable alternative. Ka Ching.
What Adobe product are you using for which there is no viable alternative? You can think about it while I rummage thru your wallet. Ka Ching!
Get it?
Yeah... we still get it. It's just that we got it ethically and legally.
-
You are a very angry man.
Another assumption without merit.
I'm however not a thief. You admit to being one.
Get it? Nope.
Not an assumption, unless you're just a liar (Based on your posting here, your talents could include both however):
As long as you had a thumb drive and a serial number, it was easy to "borrow", er, steal Photoshop from another computer. I never paid for it until subscription.
-
You'll figure it out some day.
I sincerely hope that you figure it out some day. It will likely start with you being honest with yourself and not rationalizing your negative actions. If you can do that with some consistency, there's a chance that you might become trustworthy in your interactions with others.
-
What Adobe product are you using for which there is no viable alternative? You can think about it while I rummage thru your wallet. Ka Ching!
Why, Photoshop, of course. What, are you using something anywhere close? Besides, try entering the retouching business not knowing or using or knowing Photoshop, and get beck to me on that one.
-
I sincerely hope that you figure it out some day. It will likely start with you being honest with yourself and not rationalizing your negative actions. If you can do that with some consistency, there's a chance that you might become trustworthy in your interactions with others.
I should stop, but, one last thing. Did somebody tell you life is fair at some point in your life, and you believed that person?
-
Besides, try entering the retouching business not knowing or using or knowing Photoshop, and get beck to me on that one.
Yes, try entering that business. Then get back to us.
-
I should stop, but, one last thing. Did somebody tell you life is fair at some point in your life, and you believed that person?
You should. All doubt removed.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/AllDoubtsRemoved.jpg)
-
Yes, try entering that business. Then get back to us.
Twenty five years, dawg.
As the saying goes, some people do, the rest teach and advise.
-
I should stop, but, one last thing. Did somebody tell you life is fair at some point in your life, and you believed that person?
I'm grateful that I had people convince me early in life that regardless of how fair life is, I should always aim to treat others fairly. They referred to it as a Golden Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule). Lot's of people are trying to live with that concept in their approach to life and other people as well.
I'd have to say that it seems to have been good advice and worked out pretty well for me. It's a concept that dates back thousands of years; so I suspect that it's also worked out pretty well for others that have tried it before me and those of a like mind.
-
Twenty five years, dawg.
Ah yes, "Benny Profane", the Banksy of retouching. This is the reason you must hide behind an alias, can't show us your work. Which like Photoshop, was likely stolen. As you've admitted to us!
Pathetic.
-
As the saying goes, some people do, the rest teach and advise.
And as your audience has seen, some steal. 🤔
What do you want to do when you grow up Benny?
Most little boys say a fireman or astronaut.
-
I should stop, but, one last thing. Did somebody tell you life is fair at some point in your life, and you believed that person?
Yes, please stop. You already gave us a glimpse of your morals...I don't think we want to see more. It's ugly.
-
digitaldog, I applaud your answers and responses, which are always spot on. BUT, why waste your time with the cretin? He/she is obviously a no-talent troll who just likes to argue the wrong side of most discussions. Let's ignore him (or her). I'll call his logic and thoughts 'Artificial Unintelligence', which are as predictable as my cat's reaction when I shake a box or treats. ;)
-
digitaldog, I applaud your answers and responses, which are always spot on. BUT, why waste your time with the cretin? He/she is obviously a no-talent troll who just likes to argue the wrong side of most discussions. Let's ignore him (or her). I'll call his logic and thoughts 'Artificial Unintelligence', which are as predictable as my cat's reaction when I shake a box or treats. ;)
This troll + cretin has a long history here and in another forum of being, well a troll, cretin, fool and trying to convince others he's some kind of retoucher. I doubt he could retouch himself out of a wet paper bag with the pen tool! Anyway, thanks and to answer your question (why I do this):
"Deceiving a fool is an exploit worthy of an intelligent man." -Giacomo Girolamo Casanova
-
I get it. It can be fun to dope-slap a mean-spirited low-life, who asks for everything thrown at it (a carefully chosen pronoun).
-
There's a quote which Warren Buffett has repeated many times to groups and in interviews that has a permanent place in my memory: "What we're looking for when we hire somebody... we're looking for intelligence, we're looking for energy, and we're looking for integrity. And if you don't have the last, the first two will kill you."
"If you hire somebody without integrity, you really want them to be dumb and lazy, don't you? I mean, The last thing in the world that you want is for them to be smart and energetic."
From the man himself in under 30 seconds...
https://www.youtube.com/Warren Buffett: Intelligence, energy, integrity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iLY9gzvFwA)
-
digitaldog, I applaud your answers and responses, which are always spot on. BUT, why waste your time with the cretin? He/she is obviously a no-talent troll who just likes to argue the wrong side of most discussions. Let's ignore him (or her). I'll call his logic and thoughts 'Artificial Unintelligence', which are as predictable as my cat's reaction when I shake a box or treats. ;)
Yes, this discussion has been quite useful. Benny Profane added to ignore list.