Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: AdrianW on May 09, 2013, 06:55:32 pm

Title: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: AdrianW on May 09, 2013, 06:55:32 pm
There have, no doubt, been plenty of topics already started on this topic; and no doubt many have deleted fairly shortly afterwards as they descended into flamewars ;)

I will comment only on the article MR posted here:
"For example, piracy has always been a huge problem. Now, that will be much reduced."

No, I think piracy will in all likelihood increase as a result. Activation and copy protection mechanisms have been hacked and cracked since they arrived on the scene two decades or more ago. Cloud based or not; this will be no exception.

As an aside, I'll note that I was one of those two version jumpers. I'm not paying Adobe four times more money than I do now; and I'm definitely not going to pay the (I think inevitable) massive price jump once they have us all exactly where they want us on the upgrade treadmill...

I'm not going to pirate; I'm just going to stop upgrading. Money talks, or in this case money walks.

I'm sure TheGIMP will eventually mature into an excellent product; maybe this will be the impetus it needs!
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: bobtowery on May 09, 2013, 07:38:35 pm
I thought Michael's piece was measured and on point. The video was the best part. I emailed it to both of my college age kids (each at a different university) and I added "not sure you have heard all the flap about Adobe going to a rental model?" 

Both replied that they had heard, kids at school were talking about it, but it was "a non issue for us, since we all use everything we want illegally anyway."

Hmmm. (No jokes about what hoodlums I raised ok?)

But I wouldn't be so sure their protection scheme will be cracked. This is a new model. Probably part of the "every so often" checkin with the mother ship will download new bits such that the scheme changes all the time. I definitely thing one of their goals is to eliminate piracy, and I should think they have thought this through.

I do believe most of their creative suite user base are companies and companies are just fine with the subscription model (that would include my own company).

Basically... people don't like change. I wonder if it wouldn't be quite similar if the situation were reversed. We had always paid $20 a month to use PS. Now they come along and say "errr, it isn't going to work that way any more. You have to pay us SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS now. And then in one year, or two years, another TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS, unless you don't want updates or new cameras supported."

I really believe we'd have the same sh*tstorm.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Vladimirovich on May 09, 2013, 09:28:15 pm
This is a new model.

google how M$ recent products are pirated where M$ is using the same call home every so many days scheme to maintain their activated state.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Steve Weldon on May 09, 2013, 10:13:55 pm
I will comment only on the article MR posted here:
"For example, piracy has always been a huge problem. Now, that will be much reduced."

No, I think piracy will in all likelihood increase as a result. Activation and copy protection mechanisms have been hacked and cracked since they arrived on the scene two decades or more ago. Cloud based or not; this will be no exception.

+1  Living in Asia for so long I have what some would consider a worrisome attitude towards copy protection.  In most SEA countries I've lived or done business I've observed all but the most westernised or successful local companies either use pirated software, or a good percentage of their software is pirated.  Same goes for the Middle Eastern countries I've observed.  And of course in these places pirated software, music, movies, are available for one to several dollars at most.   A reliably working copy of CS6 complete with the crack that allows it to download the latest updates runs $4 in Thailand's infamous Pantip Plaza.  And of course you can find the same but more risky because of the risk of malware.. on most torrent sites.

A software company knows there are several popular ways of getting people to use their product.  Sell it.  Give it away.  Or develop an inadequate  protection system knowing full well a great many will pirate their product.  They also know this isn't all a downside.  There are upsides to having your product pirated.  Someone might like it enough to actually buy it, but mostly it increases the user base.  If your competitor in Thailand is using the latest best software (for free without penalty) then you'll need to go pay for it to complete.  It's more complex than this but you get the picture. 

And Adobe or any other company can easily prevent this.  So can Microsoft and the others.  But if they did, billions would be using some Chinese brand (and paying for it, countries don't let their citizens pirate their own software) and that company would further develop their product into a very good or better alternative that we'd start buying.  There is no good solution to the problem other than international cooperation, but even that isn't going to get a private citizen making $150 a month to pay $200 for the latest version of Win7.  They'd have to charge roughly the same percentage of the average income.. and then tourist and others would travel and buy it, or create a rampant black market. 

So they allow piracy because it benefits them and keeps them on top of the game.  Which is all well and good until they take some single mom to court and try and collect $200,000 because her son downloaded the lastest Justin Beiber CD.. Our entire judicial punishment system is predicated on the "make an example of" mindset..

So ya, I agree.  CC will become available on torrent sites just like CS6 is now, as well cracks to circumvent the phone in requirement just like there is to circumvent the activation requirement now.  And more people will pirate and feel they're justified BECAUSE Adobe changed their policy to something they see as unfair.  And face it, any company doubling their price (or worse) will be seen as unfair. 

Now let's talk about subscriptions.. something else I've written about forever.     Any company that can get their customers to "subscribe" becomes golden.  Their worth, their credit, their ability to raise investors, all of it.  Subscription is the holy grail of business.  Newspapers and then magazines discovered this by accident.. and it really took off.

If you look at what you're subscribing too already:  Electricity, water, sewer, trash, in a way a mortgage, cable, internet, cell phones, regular phones, pest control, gardeners, auto leases, and even auto loans are a structured subscription. and then there are subscriptions on top of subscriptions.  What you say?  Yep, your regular phone and then line protection on top of that.  Water and line protection.  Cable, cablebox, modem, Voip, AND line protection.  The list is very long.   When you add to this the average American's credit card debt.. because "payments" like "subscriptions" trick many consumers into buying more than they can afford.. there's nothing left for food.  But no worries, many diet companies will send your meals to you.  For a low monthly price..

Anyone forgotten what cash feels like?  I challenge you to get your next pay check in cash.  Hold it in your hand.. look at it.  And then go to the post office and start buying money orders for all of your subscriptions.  See if that changes your perspective a bit.  We rarely hold cash in our hands any more.. it's all electronic.  Not real.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 09, 2013, 10:46:01 pm
Piracy in itself is not an issue, the issue is the loss of revenue resulting from piracy.

This means that the millions of pirated private copies of PS will not generate much money for Adobe even if CC were uncrackable because the owners of most of these pirated copies would not purchase CC or the perpetual version anyway.

It may be different for companies using pirated copies if their business relies on Adobe products.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: JohnHeerema on May 09, 2013, 10:46:36 pm
I've been using Photoshop for a long time - since version 2 (not CS2), and I've bought their Master Collection since CS2, updating to every new edition along the way. So a subscription should, I suppose, be cheaper for me.

But I've always been an owner, not a renter.
I go to a lot of trouble to keep all of my computer data files archival. I've got virtual machines that I use just to be able to read the data files from applications made by companies that have gone under. I have terabytes of scanned slides and negatives, which I made so that I could still work with those images, years after they were originally made.

With the new rent-only plan, I have to assume that I will be willing to pay an Adobe tax for as long as I'm still alive, and I'm not willing to commit to that plan.

The pace of innovation has been slowing at Adobe, and I don't see huge changes in the future for most of Adobe's applications. Photoshop has seem some welcome changes of late (well, mostly ACR), but it's something of an anomaly. For the most part, successive upgrades have been minor, and I suspect that more and more people have been opting to only purchase every other upgrade (which must be why Adobe changed their upgrade policy with CS6).  

Adobe must be desperate to maintain their cash flow, and presumably decided that this was the only way to guarantee a steady revenue stream. Maybe it will work for them, and maybe it won't. But I think that CS6 will be my last version of Photoshop, and it's pretty certain that CS6 will be my last version of everything else in CS. I don't know what I'll do when Adobe decides to only rent Lightroom.

I teach image processing at a University level, and I won't teach Photoshop-only material any more.

It seems to me that this is a huge opportunity for open source image editors like Gimp, and potentially for another commercial photo editor.

For years, I've admired Adobe's shrewd business sense, and their ability to avoid the mire that Microsoft has dug themselves into. I don't think that way anymore. I really like both Photoshop and Lightroom, but I don't want to be an Adobe customer anymore. I hope that I can support a different company in the years to come.


Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: dreed on May 10, 2013, 01:18:50 am
Hopefully GIMP will get its act together and pick up the slack for those using the Windows platform.

If anything, this may be the kicker that turns it into a serious competitor.

How much does GIMP cost?

$0.

OSS FTW!
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Schewe on May 10, 2013, 01:26:19 am
How much does GIMP cost?

So, how much is it worth? Precisely? (put a real price on it–dare ya).
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Nick Rains on May 10, 2013, 02:04:02 am
At least the prices now are more equitable. Used to be that PS was 30-50% more expensive here in Australia. Now the subscription makes it actually cheaper. US$50 = AU$48 or thereabouts.   :D

As to the subscription model - time will tell. But having looked at the cheaper offerings like Elements and Pixelmator I think I do need CMYK, proper colour management and channels. Do other apps offer this? I don't know and I'm not going to trawl through demo after demo to find out what they lack. I have Elements, I just tried Pixelmator and it's great, but only up to a point.

My take is that it's only just on par price-wise for those who have ALL the Adobe products and upgrade every version. For everyone else is will cost more per year in dollar terms. The modifiers are if you really need the apps that are only available through CC (Muse etc) , need the 20GB Cloud space and the web hosting.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: schaubild on May 10, 2013, 02:16:42 am
If Adobe focuses on professionals, where do all these 2'500'000 subscribers come from? All pro or might it be that Adobe desperately needs to open new customer segments?

Poor me that I don't qualify as pro, I only teach Photoshop and use it for my job since version 5.5, but the resident LL evangelist said so.  :(
Did I mention that I don't rent software?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: dreed on May 10, 2013, 02:18:53 am
So, how much is it worth? Precisely? (put a real price on it–dare ya).

How much is GIMP (OSS) worth when it costs $0 to download and use?

Hard question to answer.

Do you quantify its worth in the number of human hours that have gone into writing it?
Do you quantify its worth in how much money you save from using it instead of Photoshop?
Or do you quantify its worth in some other fashion, such as if I pay $0 for something then it is worth $0?
Or do you simply say that its worth is not something that can be measured with money?

From the perspective of a person that also works on OSS, the my goal isn't to create something that sells or is worth money but rather to do something that contributes to society as a whole.

How do you calculate the worth of program that enables the world at large to edit their images without having to pay for the privilege?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Schewe on May 10, 2013, 02:23:26 am
How do you calculate the worth of program that enables the world at large to edit their images without having to pay for the privilege?

So, that's what I'm asking...what's Gimp worth?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: daws on May 10, 2013, 02:34:43 am
..what's Gimp worth?

More than it was a week ago, and less than it will be in the months and years to come, courtesy of Adobe.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: kencameron on May 10, 2013, 03:00:12 am
So, that's what I'm asking...what's Gimp worth?
Interesting question. It seems you aren't asking how much it would sell for if a price were put on it, but rather for some kind of non-market dollar value that could be attributed to freeware.  Assuming that is a meaningful concept, is there any standard way of calculating it, or do you have one in mind? If not, the answer would require a long post which explained and justified the respondent's methodology before coming up with a figure.

Is there an economist in the house?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: phila on May 10, 2013, 03:00:28 am
At least the prices now are more equitable. Used to be that PS was 30-50% more expensive here in Australia. Now the subscription makes it actually cheaper. US$50 = AU$48 or thereabouts.   :D

Indeed. The upgrade price from PS CS5 to PS CS6 was AUD$307.00. The 18 month price for PS CC is AUD$239.82 (12x9.99 + 6x19.99) - so a 27% saving! Yes of course Adobe is in the position of raising the monthly/annual subscription price, but then they raised the upgrade/new prices each version as well. The thing is that before you could decide to stop upgrading and still have full access to your layered files. Now you will only have access to flattened TIFFs/JPEGs (leaving raw files out it) - if you already have an existing copy of PS.

You pays your money and makes your (much limited) choice...
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: dreed on May 10, 2013, 03:06:47 am
So, that's what I'm asking...what's Gimp worth?

For photographers that don't agree with Adobe's new direction, it's invaluable.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 10, 2013, 03:34:37 am
So, that's what I'm asking...what's Gimp worth?

Not my native language, but isn't the correct English adjective: invaluable ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Gothmoth on May 10, 2013, 03:49:17 am
Quote
PIRACY will be reduced....

please donīt be naive.
piracy will not be reduced at all.. why should it?
there is no technical reason.. the software still runs localy on your PC.
server side activation can be cracked... there is no unsolvable problem with that.
from STEAM to KMS... there will always be a way for clever reverse engineers.

i think piracy will actually increase.
because people who hate the cloud/subscription will now think about using a pirated copy.

and user of a pirated copy donīt have to connect every 30 days.

itīs just the same as with games and NO-CD cracks.
in the end the legal customer will be bothered with copy protection mechanism and the warez user laughs....

itīs always the same. from dongles to DVD protection to server side activation.

Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Robert-Peter Westphal on May 10, 2013, 04:35:16 am
More than it was a week ago, and less than it will be in the months and years to come, courtesy of Adobe.

Regardless what I think about Adobe's current plans, the solution for me is not Gimp. With Gimp, you are bound to 8Bit color-depth in any color-space called RGB ( which could be sRGB, AdobeRGB,anything else in between). Furthermore, it uses only one core of my CPU, so the performance will not be as good as using PS.
For minor changes, you click more than three times of what you do in PS, when you want to work with a better performance, you will have to learn thousands of keystrokes, nearly all different from the one you are familiar with when using PS.

So, to come back to Jeff's question, for me personally, Gimp is worth not very much.

Robert
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 10, 2013, 05:09:59 am
With Gimp, you are bound to 8Bit color-depth in any color-space called RGB ( which could be sRGB, AdobeRGB,anything else in between).

Hi Robert,

Not for too long, they hope. The website mentions;
Quote
Unstable version of GIMP is now capable of working in 16 and 32 bit per channel modes, both integer and float. Color management has been improved as well, and thanks to support by AMD and Google the GEGL library can do GPU-side rendering and processing with OpenCL.

Quote
Furthermore, it uses only one core of my CPU, so the performance will not be as good as using PS.

That depends on how well the single core is utilized. It also depends on how well the GPUs are exploited ...

Quote
For minor changes, you click more than three times of what you do in PS, when you want to work with a better performance, you will have to learn thousands of keystrokes, nearly all different from the one you are familiar with when using PS.

Could that have to do with a learning curve? Maybe there are more efficient possibilities to achieve a result, once you learn how? I also see a lot of functions and filters and plugins that offer things that are harder to achieve in Photoshop. I guess it has to do with embracing a tool, and wanting to get to know it, including its idiosyncrasies.

Who knows, it seems there are also contacts with Google (who purchased NIK software), maybe this is the start of something interesting.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: stevesanacore on May 10, 2013, 08:57:57 am

At this point I am a subscriber. To me it seem the cheaper way to go compared with purchasing the complete suite and upgrading every 18 months like we used to do. Upgrades are critical to keep up with the latest cameras, both still and video for raw processing. I would think this will open the door for other companies to produce apps to finally compete with Photoshop. I think there is a huge market of amateurs or semi-pros that can't afford to or just refuse to purchase a subscription for software. Maybe the sales of Capture One will boom or maybe Aperture will have a revival? But for now, Adobe's subscription plan meets my needs just fine.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: David S on May 10, 2013, 10:42:52 am
It seems to me that the Cloud choice works well for large 'shops' and for heavy creative suite users.

It seems to me that it does not work at all for the hobbyist and infrequent user of Photoshop.

Also several have mentioned that upgrades are 'necessary' for new cameras. Actually new program features are not needed for new cameras just the formula/process to decode the new camera's data which would work on older program versions if, and only if, the provider chose to provide that service. SO I "have" to upgrade to get access to a new camera. This has nothing to do with new features I may want or may not want.

So it boils down, for me, to loss of choice and loss of use of data if I later change my mind.

Very frightening.

Dave S
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Gothmoth on May 10, 2013, 01:45:56 pm
what do you guys think about this:

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/10/adobes-date-of-birth-requirement-and-identity-theft/#disqus_thread

here is the link to the original article:

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: John Camp on May 10, 2013, 01:55:18 pm
I'm really unhappy with Adobe. If Apple added a compositing function to Aperture, I'd change over and never buy another Adobe product. I've only glanced at GIMP, and that in the last two days, and I'm traveling so I haven't really had a chance to dig into it. But I'm not a computer guy, and it looks a little techie to me, like you'll have to learn to speak computer to really use it.

Here's a question -- is there a decent compositing program out there, other than Photoshop? Will GIMP do that? That's the only function I need, and it seems absurd to pay a monthly subscription price for something I use six days a year. In fact, I refuse to do it, and since I'm being forced to change, I'm not even going to upgrade my CS5 to CS6; that would just delay things for a year or so. I've just got to find another compositing program. What about Corel? Will that do it?

By the way, I have no faith at all that Apple would ever add much of anything to Aperture -- I think the company has about zero interest in that product.

About Schewe -- I understand why he's been defensive about Adobe, and I've got no problem with it. If Adobe issues what sounds like a semi-ironclad assurance that they'll continue to update stand-alone versions of Lightroom, I'll continue to buy Jeff's books, which I have found to be well-written and quite useful. But I suspect that Adobe won't do that -- I suspect that as soon as the dust settles from this Photoshop move, they'll move Lightroom, as well.

I also suspect that Adobe has made a serious strategic mistake. I think it will pay off for a few quarters, or even a few years, but then they'll start getting in trouble. Adobe now owns the Creative Suite space, but this move creates a real opening for competitors, and at the same time, creates a lot of distrust in Adobe. And the competition won't have Adobe's overhead -- they'll be able to attack in a piecemeal way, with much smaller programs. Adobe now forces you to pay a high price even though you may only use one or two functions in a given Creative Suite program. That's why a lot of people only upgrade their CS every few years -- they don't really need all those new features. As long as you only had to pay a couple hundred bucks to upgrade every three years or so, that's fine, they'd do it. But if somebody comes up with a decent program that performs that needed function, and it's stand-alone and may be good for years...why would you put up with this subscription bs?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Gothmoth on May 10, 2013, 02:01:22 pm
About Schewe -- I understand why he's been defensive about Adobe, and I've got no problem with it. If Adobe issues what sounds like a semi-ironclad assurance that they'll continue to update stand-alone versions of Lightroom, I'll continue to buy Jeff's books, which I have found to be well-written and quite useful. But I suspect that Adobe won't do that -- I suspect that as soon as the dust settles from this Photoshop move, they'll move Lightroom, as well.

well yes.. thatīs pretty obvious isnīt it.

and i would never trust someone so tied to adobe having a objective opinion.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: TMARK on May 10, 2013, 03:41:23 pm
I don't shoot much professionally any more, but when I do, I rarely need anything more than CS5.  On one machine I have Cs3, and in fact don't really need anything else.

Raw Processing:  LR, C1, NX, DPP, Bible.  Make basic adjustments, export to Tiff.  Open in Cs3 or 5, adjust, resize, layers, retouch, output sharpening, proof print.  BAM!  No need for any subscription software.

What features do people need that not having access to future versions of PS becomes a crippling problem?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Steve Weldon on May 10, 2013, 04:10:03 pm
Piracy in itself is not an issue, the issue is the loss of revenue resulting from piracy.

This means that the millions of pirated private copies of PS will not generate much money for Adobe even if CC were uncrackable because the owners of most of these pirated copies would not purchase CC or the perpetual version anyway.

It may be different for companies using pirated copies if their business relies on Adobe products.

Cheers,
Bernard

I don't agree in whole.  They allow piracy and even make it easy.. because they benefit from piracy just like they benefit from selling the software.  The trick is to sell software in the desired region with as little piracy as possible while allowing and even encouraging piracy in other areas they don't expect to sell.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 10, 2013, 04:33:23 pm
I don't shoot much professionally any more, but when I do, I rarely need anything more than CS5.  On one machine I have Cs3, and in fact don't really need anything else.

Raw Processing:  LR, C1, NX, DPP, Bible.  Make basic adjustments, export to Tiff.  Open in Cs3 or 5, adjust, resize, layers, retouch, output sharpening, proof print.  BAM!  No need for any subscription software.

What features do people need that not having access to future versions of PS becomes a crippling problem?

Same here. Got 1 Ps3 on one unit and one
PS5 on another one.

I actually use only PS5 when I need 64 bits.
Big sizes, heavy files.

Remember this advert: whiter than white?
Clever.

And the day redcineX will support still raw, the days
Of adobe will be over for me.

But we're not there yet.

Ps: about piracy, in my AD short time, I haven't seen
A single agency, included very reputated ones, that
Didn't have some pirated softwares, many time as their
Apps 1.
You just had to ask: Who's got the latest Ps, or ilustrator?
And you had 10 hands giving you the DVDs in a second.

Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: DaveCurtis on May 10, 2013, 04:45:36 pm
Now with Lightroonm 5 if they could just add  Pano stitching and HDR I could kick Photoshop into touch!
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Wayland on May 10, 2013, 04:55:43 pm
I've been playing with alternatives all day.

Gimp is still limited by the 8 bit thing but that may well change soon.

Paint Shop Pro is a little buggy, clumsy in places but very good in others. Biggest downfall cannot save layered Tiffs.

Photoline was a revelation though. It had every thing on my list that I use in PS, many of the features worked better and with more options. The more I looked the more I found interesting new features that I can really make use of.

It's like getting an upgrade from CS6 for a little less than Ģ50 for a full licence.

I know what I'm going to do...
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: cybis on May 10, 2013, 05:19:59 pm
CC: I like the idea but hate the price.

The model works great for music and movies; and I wish it existed for e-books.

For instance, I subscribe to Netflix and Spotify because a little more money gets me a whole lot more intellectual property. It’s a win-win.

One of the problems with Adobe’s scheme however is that, at best, assuming you used to buy every new release, more money now gets you just a bit more IP. But if you used to skip a release or two, the new deal is horrible.

Adobe got greedy.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: NancyP on May 10, 2013, 06:45:21 pm
I think that Adobe could well take Lightroom into the cloud, and if so, users will be over a barrel because of the significant amount of user work put into the catalogs and the centrality of the catalog function to the workflow. For amateur users, this simply Will Not Fly. What, I have to pay a monthly fee to find stuff on my own hard drive? The DAM function is too much of a "utility", and people don't rent utilities, they buy them, often with great enthusiasm. I might say that the specter of having Adobe in effect repossess the user's added value labor (the customized, keyworded, copyrighted, etc catalog) is enough to make current users think about separate DAM programs and to advise newer hobbyist photographers to stay clear of LR.

I will say that I don't particularly need to go beyond Ps CS6, and wouldn't be interested in the CC unless I wanted to try out other Adobe applications.

The photographers' market segment is a small portion of Adobe's income. I would bet that the bulk of the income and of the piracy involves Acrobat. Acrobat is used by so many businesses, it is almost as ubiquitous as MS Office. Everyone on the planet has the free reader. A decent number of individuals in a business will have the Acrobat document creator software.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Ray on May 10, 2013, 09:02:36 pm
Wait a minute! Have I got this right? The full cost of ownership of Photoshop CS6 for someone who is new to the software and not upgrading, is around $1,000, at least in Australia. CS6E is well over $1,000. In a year or two's time, there would be a further $500 (or more) required for an upgrade to CS7, if one wanted the new features which might include the RAW converter for the new camera one has just bought.

However, a subscription to CC for the single application of CS6 is only $20 a month or $240 a year. At that rate, one can subscribe to the single application under the CC system for 6 continuous years for the cost of buying outright, CS6E plus just one upgrade during that 6 year period.

The main issue here, as I see it, are the consequences of storing processed files in the PSD format with lots of layers, should one later decide to cease subscription to Adobe CC. If one is worried about this, then one should always save a flattened tiff version of one's work so it can be opened in other programs.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: kencameron on May 10, 2013, 09:15:32 pm
Wait a minute! Have I got this right? ...
For someone approaching Photoshop for the first time, your line of analysis seems fair enough. The new arrangements also have the advantage, for new entrants, that they provide access to the software for a (relatively) small initial outlay, and the capacity to drop it if it turns out not to meet their needs. Those complaining are mostly people who have been using it for a while and feel that the changes reduce the value of their investment and increase the cost to them of maintaining access to the current version.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 10, 2013, 09:37:57 pm
For someone approaching Photoshop for the first time, your line of analysis seems fair enough. The new arrangements also have the advantage, for new entrants, that they provide access to the software for a (relatively) small initial outlay, and the capacity to drop it if it turns out not to meet their needs. Those complaining are mostly people who have been using it for a while and feel that the changes reduce the value of their investment and increase the cost to them of maintaining access to the current version.

Hi Ken,

Bingo! And in addition, the unforeseen move to ransom-ware can only explain the Stockholm syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome), not justify the actions by those who caused it.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Nick Rains on May 10, 2013, 09:50:46 pm
CC is a hell of a good deal for new users, no question about it. It will hook in a load of people who currently cannot afford the CS path. $50 per month for $4000 worth of software - where do I sign?

For those of us who have been forking out for upgrades since 1995 (in my case) it's not a particularly good deal, especially after reading Lloyd Chambers's take.

I only NEED Lightroom for my day to day business plus some Photoshop CHOPs (for special images) that date back to PS4 or 5 (such as layer masks, blend modes, calculations etc). My best way forward from a money POV is to keep my two licences for CS5 and CS6 as they are and stay on the Lightroom upgrade path whether it's Cloud or not. I don't NEED Muse, Cloud space, webhosting etc, or even the new gizmos in Photoshop CC. I don't use PSD file anyway so that's not a bother either.

Lightroom has colour management, 16-bit, a good printer module, good export options - it's a great tool. It's only really the layers stuff that I turn to PS for.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Ray on May 10, 2013, 10:07:41 pm
For those of us who have been forking out for upgrades since 1995 (in my case) it's not a particularly good deal, especially after reading Lloyd Chambers's take.

Isn't there a discount for those who've already bought a previous version of Photoshop as far back as CS3?

Those who have been using Photoshop for years should not have to worry about their subscription to CC becoming too expensive and the consequences of ceasing the subscription. They'll always have an older version to fall back on. If the older version doesn't support the RAW format of one's latest camera, no problem. Use the free DNG Converter.

I get a sense this is a storm in a teacup.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on May 10, 2013, 11:01:26 pm
I get a sense this is a storm in a teacup.

I never imagined I would have to publicly congratulate you for being the voice of reason :-)
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Rick Popham on May 10, 2013, 11:04:00 pm
Isn't there a discount for those who've already bought a previous version of Photoshop as far back as CS3?

Yes, sort of.  There is a discount for the first 12 months.  If you want to subscribe from Photoshop CS3 - CS6 to Photoshop CC, the price is $10/month for the first 12 months.  Since this is about what I've already been paying for my Photoshop Standard perpetual license upgrades, it's not really a discount.  After the 12 months is up, the price doubles. 

Users of the CS bundles or collections are probably getting a better deal, but I don't need that stuff so I haven't really paid attention.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: kaelaria on May 11, 2013, 12:14:33 am
That discount ONLY applies if you previously purchased DIRECT from Adobe.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: David Hufford on May 11, 2013, 12:39:56 am
GIMP has been claiming 16 bit support is coming for years. The last time I tried using it was in about 2008 and as I recall, they were making that claim. I won't even bother mentioning the color management issues of that time. Perhaps this will provide a kick in the pants for GIMP to finally provide a stable version with 16 bit support instead of just talking about it, but I am very skeptical of that. (Why would they? They ain't getting paid.)

I don't think we'll find a real alternative to PS with GIMP anytime soon. I am seriously considering going back to Capture One from LR, regardless of Adobe's vague reassurances about LR not going cloud (yet?).  For a PS substitute, I am still looking, but GIMP isn't it.

I'd say GIMP is worth what it costs.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: budjames on May 11, 2013, 02:22:16 am
If you are on a Mac, try Pixelmator for $14.99 on the Apple App Store.

Personally, I bought it to play around with it. It's an awesome program for the money, however, I own PS CS6 so I will be using that for as long as I can. With LR and Oneone and Nik plug-ins, I find myself not using PS much anymore any way.

Cheers.
Bud
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Nick Rains on May 11, 2013, 02:47:33 am
Pixelmator is worth $14.99. It works just fine but is quite limited.

No Channels, therefore no decent B+W conversions. No 16 bit. No CMYK. Has colour management plus masks and layers though.

If you need channels and CMYK, then Photoshop is really the only choice.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Wayland on May 11, 2013, 02:51:24 am
For anybody interested I found this useful Wiki article comparing most of the available editors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_raster_graphics_editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_raster_graphics_editors)
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 11, 2013, 05:24:09 am
GIMP has been claiming 16 bit support is coming for years.

Hi David,

It is implemented in the development series (one would need to compile it oneself). It is just not released in the "stable" release as pre-built binaries yet.

Quote from: http://www.gimp.org
Unstable version of GIMP is now capable of working in 16 and 32 bit per channel modes, both integer and float. Color management has been improved as well, and thanks to support by AMD and Google the GEGL library can do GPU-side rendering and processing with OpenCL.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: dreed on May 11, 2013, 07:01:35 am
I'd say GIMP is worth what it costs.

How much were people paying for Ps when it was much less feature rich than both it and GIMP today?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Sigi on May 11, 2013, 07:14:25 am
As of now there are many "what if" that are not answered yet:

Adobe's statement that Creative Cloud members would only be able to use an application version for up to one year after a new one becomes available. What if I like an existing version of CC and do not want to upgrade? or what if my plug-ins would not work with the new version? what if the new CC version does not support my operating system, am I then forced to upgrade my OS or even have to buy a new computer or in the case of a studio buy several computers?

There are more what if's where I do not have an answer. I want to be in charge of when to upgrade and when to buy new OS/computers and I do not want to be at the mercy of a company
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Les Sparks on May 11, 2013, 11:26:40 am
The biggest problem I see with the subscription model is the loss of use of the software when you let your subscription lapse. Then you have no way of dealing with  your old images. Saving them as flattened tiffs works if you don't want to tweak an image, but if you want to re-edit it to take advantage of a new trick you've learned or correct an error, you're out of luck. Once you've committed your images to Adobe, you're hooked and there's no turning back.  This is something that both pros and hobbyists need to consider.  You can say that if all else fails you can fall back to CS6 but there is no guarantee that images edited in CC 2015, say, can be opened and edited in CS6 even if you only want to use the subset of CC 2015 that is present in CS6.

Then there's also the worry that Adobe might go out of business. Not likely, but the software world is full of companies that totally dominated a niche only to fail for one reason or another. And companies outside of the computer industry also fail--remember Kodak?

As far as cost goes. For pros the cost model used my Adobe is of little importance. The cost of the entire Creative Suite is a minor part of the cost of doing business. For the many of the rest of us the cost is a real consideration.

Les
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on May 11, 2013, 11:48:14 am
The biggest problem I see with the subscription model is the loss of use of the software when you let your subscription lapse. Then you have no way of dealing with  your old images. Saving them as flattened tiffs works if you don't want to tweak an image, but if you want to re-edit it to take advantage of a new trick you've learned or correct an error, you're out of luck.

If you want to re-edit then you can re-edit from scratch or from the flattened tiff -- but not using the software you're no longer paying for ;-)

Horror of horrors -- it's even possible to do spot removal on a processed file that was exported as a compressed jpeg -- it's just not as utterly optimal as adding that spot removal to a non-destructive processing stream that start with the RAW image :-)
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: John Camp on May 11, 2013, 01:30:16 pm
I get a sense this is a storm in a teacup.

I think you're wrong, Ray. I think it's a real storm. I would be much less worried if Adobe made a simple statement: that they would guarantee that if you ever dropped out of CC, or if you ever moved to a place where CC was not available, that it would provide a DAM app that would allow you to extract all of your photos from LR/PS with all adjustments, flattened to TIFFs if necessary -- but not just one TIFF, but all the versions of an image for which you have adjustment files -- in a form that could be used to easily export them to another DAM app.

Your cost example is mildly phony -- sure, it's an okay financial deal for people who are just starting out, but most PS users are not just starting out. For people who upgrade every other time, it more than doubles our costs. I wouldn't be surprised if that was 90% of the Photoshop users. And the "discount" is a simple loss-leader: not available to everybody, and lasting only a year. I could upgrade to CS6 for ~$200 under the old scheme and use it for several years. But more worrying is the problem of exactly who controls the processed images in which we've invested a lot of time. If you've been working in Photoshop for 15 years and have several thousand processed images in which you may have devoted several tens of thousands of hours of work, and in which the processing itself is actually kept in a file rather than as an intact flattened image, you're either going to have to do an enormous amount of handwork to get these out of LR/PS, or you're essentially going to have to let Adobe control all of your work. And as you go along in PS, adding more and more images, and more and more work, the more difficult it will be to ever get out -- and at some point, you're going to have to pay *whatever* they charge, because you *can't* get out. That's the real rub. And if you think they won't do whatever  they can to maximize their profits, you're wrong -- that's what corporations do. I, unfortunately, am one of those people they probably wouldn't mind losing...a kind of marginal user and infrequent upgrader of PS (though a regular upgraded of LR.) But while losing me is a tiny problem for them, it's a big problem for me.

CS6 will only help out for a few years, and then it'll be obsolete. To continue using it, you'd literally have to buy and warehouse current computers and current operating systems. And the thing somebody else says about using $4,000 worth of software for $20 a month? I don't use $4,000 worth of software, and I never want to. I do one thing with PS, and you'll notice a lot of other people say the same thing -- that they do almost everything in LR, and go PS relatively infrequently. To me, the one function I use is critical, but I don't need all the other stuff. I don't need upgrades, or current versions -- and I suspect that even a lot of power users don't really need the upgrades. And that, I think, is the real reason behind this -- I suspect Adobe doesn't have a lot left in the development tank that anybody really needs, and that their rate of upgrade-purchases is falling. To keep the money coming, they've got to *force* you to buy the upgrades (which is what this scheme does) because a lot of us wouldn't buy them voluntarily.

I'm trying to figure out how to get out of LR. I'll buy LR 5 if necessary, but I'm now in LR4 -- and I have several different installations of LR4 with different image libraries. I'm going to try to consolidate these on one machine, and then find a way out if I can. I no longer trust Adobe. 
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Les Sparks on May 11, 2013, 03:30:46 pm
If you only want to tweak you don't need to do a complete edit.  With current license for CS6, I can go back and make minor or major changes without losing previous work. If I rent the software and for any number of reasons I stop renting (no $, move to NC mountains for extended period of time with no internet, etc), then I lose all my previous work if I want to make a minor change.  If I had a perpetual license (per CS6), I just continue working.  This is a downside of rental.  So anyone who jumps into to rental just needs to consider this downside as a factor when they make a decision. If I were a working pro,rental would look attractive based on $. As a hobbyist, rental doesn't appear as attractive.

I'm sure Adobe will be tweaking the CC thing in the next several months and maybe some of the downsides will be addressed or maybe not.
It's there ball and they can play whatever game they want.
Les
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: dreed on May 11, 2013, 10:08:22 pm
If you only want to tweak you don't need to do a complete edit.  With current license for CS6, I can go back and make minor or major changes without losing previous work. If I rent the software and for any number of reasons I stop renting (no $, move to NC mountains for extended period of time with no internet, etc), then I lose all my previous work if I want to make a minor change.  If I had a perpetual license (per CS6), I just continue working.  This is a downside of rental.  So anyone who jumps into to rental just needs to consider this downside as a factor when they make a decision. If I were a working pro,rental would look attractive based on $. As a hobbyist, rental doesn't appear as attractive.

This Adobe CC doesn't look like "renting" to me or if it were, I could rent the software at any point in time for any length of time.

To me this looks more like drugs where the "first hit is free" but after that, well ya gotta pay and withdrawal is pain.

What also worries me is if future versions of ACR are incompatible with CS6.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Ray on May 12, 2013, 10:52:41 am
I think you're wrong, Ray. I think it's a real storm. I would be much less worried if Adobe made a simple statement: that they would guarantee that if you ever dropped out of CC, or if you ever moved to a place where CC was not available, that it would provide a DAM app that would allow you to extract all of your photos from LR/PS with all adjustments, flattened to TIFFs if necessary -- but not just one TIFF, but all the versions of an image for which you have adjustment files -- in a form that could be used to easily export them to another DAM app.


I can only speak from my own perspective and experience, John. I've always saved my processed images as TIFFs because I understood from the time I first began using Photoshop that the TIFF was more universally accepted than the specialized formats of PSD and PSB. If I feel the need to reprocess an old image, I'd prefer to take advantage of the improvements in ACR or other RAW converters that have taken place since the time I first processed that image.

All my images, both RAW and processed TIFFs, are organized in my own created folders, under appropriate headings and subfolders to enable me to locate any image that springs to mind whether or not I have Bridge open and whether or not I am connected to the internet. My organization goes back beyond the time that Lightroom was created, and I don't in fact need or use Lightroom.

Over the years, memory storage has become so compact and affordable, I find I could now easily carry with me, everywhere I go, in just a couple of buttoned shirt pockets, a digital copy of every image I've processed in my entire life, including all the RAW images and scanned film. Those 2TB USB 3.0 Pocket drives are a wonderful thing, and so affordable. I look forward to the time when 3TB and 4TB pocket drives will become available.

Quote
Your cost example is mildly phony -- sure, it's an okay financial deal for people who are just starting out, but most PS users are not just starting out. For people who upgrade every other time, it more than doubles our costs. I wouldn't be surprised if that was 90% of the Photoshop users. And the "discount" is a simple loss-leader: not available to everybody, and lasting only a year. I could upgrade to CS6 for ~$200 under the old scheme and use it for several years.

Again, we have different experiences. At the Adobe Store in Australia, the full version of Photoshop CS6E cost $1,671, and the upgrade from CS5E costs $667. The Australian dollar is currently very slightly higher in value than the US dollar.

https://store1.adobe.com/cfusion/store/html/index.cfm?event=displayProduct&categoryOID=7240454&store=OLS-AU

However, I accept that prices can vary enormously. Is this perhaps part of the reason that Adobe is moving towards an internet based rental system, in order to standardize prices because there is currently so much price variation on the internet?

As you've mentioned, those who do not already use Photoshop will find it more affordable to begin using Photoshop for the first time in the form of CC. Those who already own a recent version of Photoshop will surely be able to continue using it for many years to come, in order to access their PSD files with layers, and/or convert their processed images to another file format in the event that Adobe goes broke. Why worry about things that may never happen? Don't you have back-up copies of all your work on DVD, Blu Ray, and/or external hard drives?




 
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on May 12, 2013, 01:00:52 pm
If I feel the need to reprocess an old image, I'd prefer to take advantage of the improvements in ACR or other RAW converters that have taken place since the time I first processed that image.

Yes.


As you've mentioned, those who do not already use Photoshop will find it more affordable to begin using Photoshop for the first time in the form of CC. Those who already own a recent version of Photoshop will surely be able to continue using it for many years to come, in order to access their PSD files with layers, and/or convert their processed images to another file format in the event that Adobe goes broke.

Yes.

How very sensible.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on May 12, 2013, 02:00:41 pm
I would be much less worried if Adobe made a simple statement: that they would guarantee that if you ever dropped out of CC, or if you ever moved to a place where CC was not available, that it would provide a DAM app that would allow you to extract all of your photos from LR/PS with all adjustments, flattened to TIFFs if necessary -- but not just one TIFF, but all the versions of an image for which you have adjustment files -- in a form that could be used to easily export them to another DAM app.

Please help me understand why that isn't already possible from Lightroom, someone suggested this in one of the other discussions --

You have to create a smart collection, set it to Has Adjustments is True.  Export it however you like with the given options.

Would that also work with PS -- use Smart Collections (http://help.adobe.com/en_US/creativesuite/cs/using/WSA54A1C45-604E-4515-B212-0A3DF67417C4.html#WS763F45A1-E192-45dd-B417-257144C312AF) in Adobe Bridge?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: stevesanacore on May 12, 2013, 03:40:18 pm
I think Adobe has stated that Lightroom will continue to be available to purchase and not limited to the CC deal.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jrsforums on May 12, 2013, 04:04:40 pm
Please help me understand why that isn't already possible from Lightroom, someone suggested this in one of the other discussions --


Some how I feel that this explanation is not necessary, but in the interest of being kinder and gentler....

Yes, Isaac, what you say is conceptually true.  However, it is against the workflow normal to these products and adds a level of work, complexity, and file management to LR that is only required if Adobe creats an "end of world" situation.

With Photoshop, the normal workflow is that, when you stop making changes...finished or not, you must save your work-in-process (WIP) to a PSD or, preferably, a TIFF.  If you don't, you lose all your work.  If you have saved it layered, you can go back and make changes or continue the work where you left off.  Whether it has been flattened or not, all "modern" TIFF viewers can view it as if it were flattened...and/or print it.  So, the fall back of having a view of the WIP or finished image is built in.

In Lightroom, all of your changes are saved as you make them...no action needed on your part.  You can stop any time you want stop/start the program and be back where you left off.  If you print, you have a print, but no TIFF, if you export to web site, email, etc. the normal process is to create the product to send in a temp. file, then delete....if you need to send again, you have all the info to recreate.  If you 'edit in', a TIFF will be created to bring the changes back to LR, but most likely will have add'l changes made to it in LR, which will be saved in the catalog. The above is true to virtual copies.  You also have in depth history, long with snapshots which could provide alternate views of the alternate finish product capabilities.

So, if you have 30,000 images that have been processed in PS, you probably have 30,000 "finished" TIFFs.  If you have 30,000 images which were processed 100% in LR, you would not have any TIFFs...or jpegs, for that matter.

So, you "solution", while conceptually possible, is, to me, not feasible and would works against the strength of LR.  And this has nothing to do with data storage, I, and others, have lots of TB spinning.  I would be interested in other LR users to see what their feelings are.

Somehow, I suspect you know all this already...
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jrsforums on May 12, 2013, 04:07:21 pm
I think Adobe has stated that Lightroom will continue to be available to purchase and not limited to the CC deal.

I think the wording was along the lines of "not at this time".  If not exactly spoken, I think that is a part of a general feeling of loss of faith...at least on my part.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on May 12, 2013, 04:55:15 pm
... conceptually true.  However, it is against the workflow normal to these products...

I'm happy that you feel able to reassure John Camp that what he asked for - "to extract all of your photos from LR/PS with all adjustments, flattened to TIFFs if necessary" - is already available.

I hope that will enable John Camp to feel less worried.


So, if you have 30,000 images that have been processed in PS, you probably have 30,000 "finished" TIFFs.  If you have 30,000 images which were processed 100% in LR, you would not have any TIFFs...or jpegs, for that matter.

So, you "solution", while conceptually possible, is, to me, not feasible and would works against the strength of LR.

Exporting TIFF may be an additional step for your LR workflow -- but why do you suggest that step is "not feasible"?

I imagine 30,000 would take days and days to export, and that amount of processing should be planned-out to minimize inconvenience -- but "not feasible"?


Somehow, I suspect you know all this already...

I forget what can be done in PS/PSE/Bridge.

I already do archive TIFFs as-well-as the Lightroom catalog.

Unlike you, John Camp "would be much less worried if Adobe made a simple statement..." so I hope we can both reassure him.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jrsforums on May 12, 2013, 05:26:49 pm
I'm happy that you feel able to reassure John Camp that what he asked for - "to extract all of your photos from LR/PS with all adjustments, flattened to TIFFs if necessary" - is already available.

I hope that will enable John Camp to feel less worried.


Exporting TIFF may be an additional step for your LR workflow -- but why do you suggest that step is "not feasible"?

I imagine 30,000 would take days and days to export, and that amount of processing should be planned-out to minimize inconvenience -- but "not feasible"?


I forget what can be done in PS/PSE/Bridge.

I already do archive TIFFs as-well-as the Lightroom catalog.

Unlike you, John Camp "would be much less worried if Adobe made a simple statement..." so I hope we can both reassure him.

I am not less worried why should John Camp be.

I said, not feasible to me.  Each can decide what they want to do.  If you wish to archive every version of every adjustment and virtual copy, etc. of your LR work that is your choice. Anyone who does not backup the catalog (and I would suggest the LR preferences, presets, etc. folders) is asking for trouble....particularly since it can be automated.

The LR (marketing??) team, and most tutorials and instructors, have made a point of the workflow I described.  

I happen to archive my prints.  However, that is because of my workflow, Qimage, not my belief that it should be a part of my workflow.

If I ever have the concern that I may need to be paranoid about LR (for example, going CC only, with no exit) I will find an alternative means of processing.....not make more work for myself.

Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: daws on May 12, 2013, 06:16:14 pm
I think Adobe has stated that Lightroom will continue to be available to purchase and not limited to the CC deal.
I think the wording was along the lines of "not at this time".  If not exactly spoken, I think that is a part of a general feeling of loss of faith...at least on my part.

The issues of loss of faith, trust and credibility are at the core of the debate that has been going on all this week.

Given Adobe's recent actions there is, quite literally, no reason to trust that any statement they make about their products will be honored by them in the near, much less the long term, future.




Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on May 12, 2013, 06:43:56 pm
I am not less worried why should John Camp be.

Unlike you, John Camp says he would be "much less worried if Adobe made a simple statement..."


I said, not feasible to me.  Each can decide what they want to do.  If you wish to archive every version of every adjustment and virtual copy, etc. of your LR work that is your choice.

That's why I asked John Camp for clarification of his needs - you chose to answer for him ;-)


If I ever have the concern that I may need to be paranoid about LR ...

You don't feel that perhaps you already are? :-)
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jrsforums on May 12, 2013, 07:29:57 pm
Unlike you, John Camp says he would be "much less worried if Adobe made a simple statement..."

It might help a bit if you quoted his full statement

John Camp quote post #52
Quote
I would be much less worried if Adobe made a simple statement: that they would guarantee that if you ever dropped out of CC, or if you ever moved to a place where CC was not available, that it would provide a DAM app that would allow you to extract all of your photos from LR/PS with all adjustments, flattened to TIFFs if necessary -- but not just one TIFF, but all the versions of an image for which you have adjustment files -- in a form that could be used to easily export them to another DAM app.

Back to your quotes...
Quote
That's why I asked John Camp for clarification of his needs - you chose to answer for him ;-)

I was responding to your "Exporting TIFF may be an additional step for your LR workflow -- but why do you suggest that step is "not feasible"?"  Which you had asked me a number of times in another thread...and alluded to in this thread.  That John or others have the same concern only, in my mine, reinforces my position.

Quote
You don't feel that perhaps you already are? :-)

I know that was meant to be humorous, but I probably am a bit paranoid....but you know what they say about paranoia....if you think someone is after you, they probably are.  In this case, if being concerned that corporate actions will effect personal "treasures" that I have, is paranoia....I have it.

I hope I come close to properly quote what someone posted "Faith comes in slowly walking but leaves in a horse gallop."
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: John Camp on May 13, 2013, 04:34:26 pm
One of the major problems John Camp has with all of this is that he's not interested in computers, has never been interested in computers, and doesn't plan to become interested in computers, but is stuck with them. John Camp wants computers to act like toasters, where you push the button, and the function is performed. It's undoubtedly possible possible to move several thousand unflattened images from LR and ACR to another piece of software, but John Camp doesn't know what that software might be, or how to operate it, and he really doesn't want to learn how, because he's got better things to do. He mistakenly trusted Adobe not to make a fundamental change in its operating conditions, so he'd only have to use learn these two pieces of software once, with lots of help from Luminous Landscape and Jeff Schewe, and with occasional upgrades. Now he's not only going to be required either to accept onerous conditions to continue using his prior software, or, locate and learn how to use what is likely to be a lesser piece of software. He's decided (tentatively) to do the following: to use LR4 as long as possible, while exploring other options; if no better options are found before LR4 goes obsolete, to upgrade to LR5 and continue to look for other options, and essentially, to trust that something acceptable will be found before LR5 goes obsolete. He doesn't believe there will be a stand-alone LR6; or at least, he can't trust Adobe to produce it.

Without unloading a large load of bullshit on him, John Camp would very much appreciate it if somebody could recommend stable companies that could provide him with (1) an easy-to-use raw processor that will handle both Panasonic m4/3 and Nikon D800 images and is of equal quality to LR; (2) a simple DAM program that will handle perhaps 10,000 images; and (3) a simple compositing program that will allow him create photo collages. John Camp thanks you. John Camp will now start reading the Aperture forum.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: tho_mas on May 13, 2013, 05:34:27 pm
John Camp would very much appreciate it if somebody could recommend stable companies that could provide him with (1) an easy-to-use raw processor that will handle both Panasonic m4/3 and Nikon D800 images and is of equal quality to LR; (2) a simple DAM program that will handle perhaps 10,000 images; and (3) a simple compositing program that will allow him create photo collages.
I guess there is no company in the computer/software business that you really could call "stable" in the long run ...
As far as RAW processors go Capture One Pro is certainly worth a look (IMO much better than LR and also faster once you've learnt the software). RAW Developer (lately called "Iridient Developer") is also a great little piece of software (Mac only). Future proof? Neither more nor less than Adobe ...

Referring to flattened TIFs and so forth ... I do not trust software companies to live forever ... and/or to support certain file formats forever.
I do store all my RAW files (with Capture One settings) on 2 different mirrored RAIDs. In addition I also backup my selected RAW files on another disk and online*.
I do process my selected RAWs not to look like the final image but to get the full range of tonal values out of it (so ideally no clipped blacks and no clipped highlights) while still tuned to look similar to the final image I have in mind. If you want so... I do create a "look" in the RAW software but the first output mostly looks pretty "soft" (i.e. - lacks contrast and very high saturated colors... and of course the TIFs are processed without sharpening). Out of Capture One I do process 16bit TIFs with the camera profile embedded (again, this applies to my selected files... not all RAW files, of course). I also backup these "clean" TIFs on said 2 mirrored RAIDs and the extra disk.
Then I also do backup the edited TIFs with layers (Photoshop) on said 2 mirrored RAIDs and the extra disk. And I do backup the final images flattened on the same RAIDs, on the extra disk (together with the RAW files) and online. I also do store all the software installers of the respective versions of my RAW softwares and Photoshop. In addition I store an old WinXP computer and at least 1 Mac with Snow leopard and Mountain Lion installed (also WinXP installed alongside with VM Ware fusion on that Mac). Finally I do store 2 printed copies of my selected files (printed at native pixel size).

Often I asked myself if I may have a mental illness (exessive fear of loss or so).
But the latest announcement of Adobe encourages me to continue investing in hardware (RAIDs/disks, online storage, prints...) and to keep my complex workflow.

To make a long story short... rather than asking for a future proof software re-think your workflow (including backups...).

______________
* often one image consists of 4 or 6 captures (stiched). Since I mostly shoot with a tech cam & MFD you can add 4 (6 respectively) "LCC"-shots ("white reference" shots) to the same image.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on May 13, 2013, 05:39:23 pm
... and he really doesn't want to learn how, because he's got better things to do.

I do share that sentiment.

He mistakenly trusted Adobe not to make a fundamental change in its operating conditions...

You don't seem to have been alone in doing that, although it seems more like a mistaken assumption than a mistaken trust (unless Adobe Systems Inc. made a public commitment to that effect?)


... use LR4 as long as possible, while exploring other options; if no better options are found before LR4 goes obsolete, to upgrade to LR5 and continue to look for other options ...

Steady as she goes and keep a weather eye.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Schewe on May 13, 2013, 06:48:46 pm
He's decided (tentatively) to do the following: to use LR4 as long as possible, while exploring other options; if no better options are found before LR4 goes obsolete, to upgrade to LR5 and continue to look for other options, and essentially, to trust that something acceptable will be found before LR5 goes obsolete.

If I were making suggestions to John, I would suggest getting the upgrade to LR5 because, well, it will 1) provide superior raw image processing for raw files and 2) extend the time in which John can gauge the future and decide what to do. I think it would be short sighted to allow a knew jerk reaction to upset the apple cart until the industry has a change to react and Adobe has a chance to react to the reaction.

I understand John has had a shock to his system of belief...but it would be useful to not make any really important decisions while in a state of shock.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: dmcginlay on May 13, 2013, 07:44:58 pm
... and then there are those who quietly take their money and go elsewhere - oops, I spoke too loudly, back to my state of Zen.

Don
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: David Sutton on May 13, 2013, 07:49:10 pm
One of the major problems John Camp has with all of this is that he's not interested in computers, has never been interested in computers, and doesn't plan to become interested in computers, but is stuck with them. John Camp wants computers to act like toasters, where you push the button, and the function is performed.


In the early 1970s I studied computer meteorology for a bit. We used punch cards and knocked out the tabs by hand with bent paper clips. The university's “portable” computer was the size of a volkwagen and was fed punched tape.
When I purchased my first laptop some five years ago I was quite looking forward to using it. But I was floored by how bad the operating system was (XP) and how poorly written the software. Thirty five years and so little progress. Marketed as a wonderful new world. Complete BS.
Just thinking about it makes me want to lie down for a year or two.
That's the tack I think I'll take on the Adobe issue.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on May 13, 2013, 08:38:55 pm
Thirty five years and so little progress.

Enough progress to allow you to entertain yourself, posting from your keyboard to other computer systems, to be viewed by a global audience moments later.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: David Sutton on May 13, 2013, 09:17:13 pm
Enough progress to allow you to entertain yourself, posting from your keyboard to other computer systems, to be viewed by a global audience moments later.

How tiresome. How did you manage to extend a comment about the development of software like, say Wordpad, to the workings of the internet? I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: John Camp on May 13, 2013, 11:00:22 pm
... to allow a knew jerk reaction to upset the apple cart...

Are you saying John Camp is a knew jerk?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Schewe on May 13, 2013, 11:36:06 pm
Are you saying John Camp is a knew jerk?

LOL...obviously that was supposed to be knee jerk reaction, but since knew is a word, spell check didn't alert me to the improper usage :~)

As a writer your editor must sometimes come across some "interesting" words that are close but not at all correct. That seems to happen o me a lot!

Hopefully you knee what I meant?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: John.Murray on May 14, 2013, 02:06:14 am
With the rapid advancement of technology, file sizes, software capabilities it's no wonder people question a fundamental change in Adobe's licensing /distribution approach.  Make no mistake, Adobe is beholden to their stockholders, and this is purely a business decision; our concerns regarding long term data integrity / workflow have little, if anything to do with this.

I've always been impressed with Adobe's generosity - the dng standard is honestly, brilliant.  I've read concerns about LR getting caught up, but remember, Adobe has always provided the previous iteration of Camera RAW with its ability to create an XML sidecar file, all along.  Sure, not nearly as slick or convenient as LR, but its always been there, at no cost.

I've been sorely dissapointed at Adobe track record regarding security; of the top 3 most exploited application vulnerabilities across all OS platforms, Adobe owns 2 (Flash, Adobe Reader) - in fact one Court System here in Washington State (Thurston County) no longer accepts PDF filings!!!

What *really* bothers me about adopting a "subscription based" workflow, is the total dependance on:

1) Your connection -  I get the fact that Adobe only requires a 30 day "phone home" frequency, with a 90 day "tombstone".  I think adobe needs to adopt a "milestone" approach, where a paid subscription to a certain revision, is guaranteed offline execution...
2) Bandwidth - I'm in a rural area with a 5GB monthly cap
3) Adobe's security track record - frankly, it sucks - I'd feel much better if there was a public effort to improve it, as Oracle (java) recently announced.

Creative Cloud is not an option for me, my version upgrades (and 2 platform changes) since CS to CS5 are at an end.  I'll continue using LR and will upgrade to LR 5 ....


Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: dreed on May 14, 2013, 02:46:53 am
I've been sorely dissapointed at Adobe track record regarding security; of the top 3 most exploited application vulnerabilities across all OS platforms, Adobe owns 2 (Flash, Adobe Reader) - in fact one Court System here in Washington State (Thurston County) no longer accepts PDF filings!!!
...
3) Adobe's security track record - frankly, it sucks - I'd feel much better if there was a public effort to improve it, as Oracle (java) recently announced.

I'm a fascist when it comes to my computer security.

Image editor wants to connect to the Internet?

Nope! It edits and works with images. Request to connect to web server denied.

Rinse and repeat for every application, be it CD-ROM burning software, disk utilities, word processors, etc. I don't care if it is commercial ware or free ware. Want to phone home? Request denied. Security perimeter is maintained.

Why do I do that? Makes it that much harder for a hacker to compromise my system or use it for spam, etc.

If I need to interact with a foreign entity, give me a phone number to call and let me push phone buttons.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on May 14, 2013, 12:14:28 pm
How tiresome. How did you manage to extend a comment about the development of software like, say Wordpad, to the workings of the internet? I wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

Your previous comment said nothing specific about what you thought was "bad", or how you'd obtained the source code of the software to determine that it was "poorly written", or where exactly you felt there had been "so little progress".

By all means make a sensible critique. On LuLa The Coffee Corner seems the appropriate place.

There is a tiny puzzle -- Why, 5 years ago, someone would buy a new Windows XP laptop when that OS had already been replaced by Windows Vista?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jeremyrh on May 14, 2013, 04:18:39 pm
John Camp will now start reading the Aperture forum.
I sympathise with the viewpoints expressed but would respectfully suggest that John not waste his time on Aperture, whose future seems every but as clouded as LR.

Wasn't it John Beardsworth who referred to DAM workflows as a series of affairs (maybe I misremember ...), and to advise against getting in too deep with any one? That advice now seems pertinent to the rest of the digital photography process. The only wa to avoid it is make prints - Adobe can' touch them!!
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: john beardsworth on May 16, 2013, 02:49:57 am
Yup, that was one of mine ;) though "a life of serial monogamy" was the line! Surprisingly for a company like Apple, Aperture no longer makes exit difficult - but the price of getting your metadata and organisation out of it is to duplicate all your files, or write metadata directly into raw files (forgetting Apple previous said not altering your raw files was a good thing about Aperture). Lightroom doesn't lock you in nearly as much - more hardware choice, metadata safely exported, and even your adjustments can be printed from another program (one advantage of DNG). So, John Camp, you're choosing between two potential loves, knowing neither will last forever, so why wouldn't you opt for the one offering the better prenuptial agreement that lets you keep what's yours?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: LesPalenik on May 16, 2013, 03:24:58 am
Enough progress to allow you to entertain yourself, posting from your keyboard to other computer systems, to be viewed by a global audience moments later.

Isaac, you are right about the entertainment possibilities.
However, in the old days the user interface was clear and simple, programs were lean and fast, and most importantly, they worked.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on May 16, 2013, 12:35:55 pm
... in the old days the user interface was clear and simple, programs were lean and fast, and most importantly, they worked.

By all means, start a topic in The Coffee Corner, and lay out your specific comparisons -- but please, spare us the golden age rhetoric.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: theguywitha645d on May 16, 2013, 01:34:08 pm
This is really funny.

Folks want a perpetual license? Try running the first Photoshop on Mac OSX. Sure the license states you can use this as long as you want, but I am not thinking that that is going to be the practice, not unless you are running MS-DOS.

As far as Lightroom. Personally, it is simply a beefed up Photoshop Elements. Pay your hundred bucks once and a while and upgrade. Go to Aperture. It does not really matter. Photoshop is really the tool for photographers.

What I am more concerned with is the expense of the CC model. For individuals, it is really expensive and your work becomes useless once the license expires. For large organizations, the model will be attractive. As a person that uses many of Adobe's applications, I might just have to start looking at alternatives, but it will be hard. With the Creative Cloud, Adobe becomes a service. Now it is whether I can afford the service.
Title: From a lightroom perspective
Post by: Dave Millier on May 18, 2013, 05:51:11 am
I'm not a photoshop user (though I have an ancient copy somewhere and an ancient copy of Elements and even LE) but I am a Lightroom user.  Lightroom has always been a fascinating product, combining what previously required multiple programs into one with a consistent UI and introducing an end to end non destructive workflow.

Great idea, but it came with one price:  if you buy into this approach, you give up all those in-between generations of tiffs you used to have wirth conventional editors. This has always been touted as a strength of LR, a great saving in storage and file management, and rightly so.

But it also brings the "eggs-in-one-basket" syndrome. Lightroom users basically have the original unprocessed raw files plus a database with a record of all the processing done on those raws (and all the keywording and the like). They don't actually have any physical edited files.  And there is no reason why they should: the whole ethos of Lightroom is non-destructive editing of the original raw with no need for any work-in-progress RGB renderings.  Your edits are simple a sequence of commands stored in a database which are run on the fly whenever you want to render and image into a print (or finished electronic file). This works so smoothly, it makes no sense to use lightroom as though it were photoshop and break this model by keeping "backup" rendered files with all the hassle involved in managing these files.

However, what Adobe have done by introducing this subscription model is break a trust. if you used LR on a large scale you know you are committed to this database driven editing model. You are in trouble if anything happens to LR because all of your work resides as nothing more than a remembered sequence of programming instructions associated with the RAW and only LR can run that program and render the file.  LR users need to have faith in Adobe to preserver this model or they risk losing everything.  And LR users are now left with the suspicion that Adobe might (probably will) at some point in the future use the same model with LR. And if they do this, it isn't just a case of the cost of software, it's all the hours you have locked up in the stream of commands saved in the LR database.  They will prevent you not just from using the software if you cease to subscribe but also they will deny you access to all your past work. Your work, the work you did with your skill and knowledge and labour. If Lightroom went to subscription it becomes ransomware.

Are you prepared to entrust 10000, 50000 or whatever images and all the work that went into this to Adobe's goodwill?  Are you going to go on increasing the size of that catalogue knowing what potentially be on the horizon? To my mind, the Photoshop subscription effectively kills the trust in Adobe and that kills Lighroom here and now as a viable product because, painful at it would be to bail at this point, I know that every single extra edit I make is increasing the hold they potentially have over me in the future.  This is a real shame because after initial scepticism, I have grown to like Lightroom a lot and have completely abandoned Capture One and Bibble and Picture Window Pro and the DAM product and the sharpening tools and the noise reduction programs and all the other software I had cobbled together into an intricate workflow.

It will be a blow to have to return to that kind of arrangement but to my mind a subscription model for Lightroom is functionally equivalent to losing your LR catalogue to a kidnapper: stop paying forever and you are left with years of unprocessed RAWs and nothing else.  I don't want my images to be under the control of a corporation who doesn't care about my images or me, I want them to be under my exclusive control because I do care.

Title: Re: From a lightroom perspective
Post by: kencameron on May 18, 2013, 08:15:53 am
I'm not a photoshop user...what Adobe have done by introducing this subscription model is break a trust...you are in trouble if anything happens to LR...LR users need to have faith in Adobe to preserver this model or they risk losing everything...to my mind, the Photoshop subscription effectively kills the trust in Adobe and that kills Lighroom here and now...I know that every single extra edit I make is increasing the hold they potentially have over me in the future...(and so on).

I must be missing something here. This line of talk seems melodramatic - if you don't use Photoshop. I am beginning to believe in mutating memes.

Like you, I am a Lightroom user, with, in my case, a few trips outside, mostly to plugins and specialist image processing software but also very occasionally, to Photoshop. I think it unlikely that Adobe will go to subscription only for Lightroom, because I trust them - to act out of self-interest. If I am wrong about that, I will have to consider my options. At that point I won't have lost anything. I will have access to the work I have done using the software I have done it with. I do revisit past work occasionally, but how much time does anyone have do that?

Future hardware and OS changes may be a problem, but not one caused by Adobe's changes to date or likely to be much increased by any future changes made by Adobe - they are already a historic and prospective problem resulting from the rapid rate of change in IT generally.

I expect there will be plenty of interesting options for me to choose between if I decide to abandon Lightroom, and plenty of strategies for jumping ship while minimizing losses.  And that assumes I haven't already jumped ship because my existing setup has been surpassed by other software - as happened when when I moved to Lightroom a few years ago.

This is all a real issue at the moment for Photoshop users and they have my sympathy and best wishes in influencing Adobe to modify their strategy or some of Adobe's best and brightest to do a new product as per Schewe's thread, but for Lightoom users - I should be so lucky as to have nothing worse to worry about, inside or outside photography.

Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: markd61 on May 19, 2013, 06:05:40 pm
I have heard a lot of anger and outrage from people across the net but almost entirely from non-pros.
I understand the annoyance at change and the uncertainty of the new model but as a pro myself this is a very trivial issue. I pay way more for  other subscriptions that do not make me any money at all.
If, for a reasonable sum of less than $100 a month I can make my solid, upper-middle-class living at photography I am not going to start complaining. I annually pay the state of California $800 for the privilege of having a corporation in this state. I pay my landlord $1500 a month for a studio that allows me to make many times that sum by not having to meet clients at Starbucks and shoot in the park. I pay for an internet connection fee that allows me to send and receive thousands of image files per month (thus saving my clients time, money and sales tax). And I pay ~$250 a month for several cell phones for my staff and myself that enable us to make more money than being limited to land lines and voicemail.

For me it is not an issue. I already lease SW from two other providers and have NEVER had an issues of connectivity or usability. In addition, updates and bug fixes arrive as they are developed and not at some special time when I then have to pay a lump sum for a number of bug fixes that I should have gotten much earlier.

But the storm of criticism of Adobe aside, the real test of whether they did the right thing for themselves and the shareholders is what happens to their earnings.

The fact is that whenever Adobe has introduced an upgrade a storm of protest erupts about the arrogance/greed of Adobe in asking $200 for the upgrade. This is always followed by a stream of indignant proclamations of  imminent departure from all things Adobe and the switching to (insert feeble cr@pware name here) and grave pronouncements of Adobe's demise.
But it never really happens.

Everybody moans about ethics and morality and the obligations of Adobe to its user base. I find it a little ironic that this same (self serving) metric is not applied to the other businesses in our country that are far more rapacious and indifferent to their workers and customers than Adobe has ever been. And this self righteous posturing is for a policy that affects their HOBBY?
When I hear about the steps all of you are taking to improve the lot of citizens and workers in this country and the world (I see you in your Bangladeshi shirt from Kohl's) then I might have a bit more sympathy for your hurt feelings.

Title: Re: From a lightroom perspective
Post by: Isaac on May 19, 2013, 08:51:55 pm
But it also brings the "eggs-in-one-basket" syndrome. Lightroom users basically have the original unprocessed raw files plus a database with a record of all the processing done on those raws (and all the keywording and the like). They don't actually have any physical edited files. ...

I don't want my images to be under the control of a corporation who doesn't care about my images or me, I want them to be under my exclusive control because I do care.

Me neither - so I have a half-dozen export presets which export jpegs at different sizes and degrees of output sharpening; and tiff without output sharpening, using different color spaces - and I use those export presets to create independent archive files.

(Of course, I also archive the usual Lightroom files.)
Title: Re: From a lightroom perspective
Post by: stevesanacore on May 19, 2013, 10:00:54 pm

But it also brings the "eggs-in-one-basket" syndrome. Lightroom users basically have the original unprocessed raw files plus a database with a record of all the processing done on those raws (and all the keywording and the like). They don't actually have any physical edited files. 

I'm not sure who you speak for but I have every one of my final choices of all my shoots rendered as DNG, TIFF, and jpegs in many places. I'd be a bit nervous only keeping the raw files around which at some point may be obsolete with no software to render them. I've been using Tiff and jpegs since 1990 where RAW file specs change every year with every new camera release.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Dave Millier on May 20, 2013, 03:37:22 am
Of course it makes sense to keep "spare tifs" around just in case, but for me the only reason I chose to use LR at all was to avoid all that. End to end workflow within a single program with non destructive editing, nice and neat and tidy. And this is the way the benefits of the program are often promoted, not least by LR gurus.  Pros may have a very different mindset, of course as they have a livelihood to preserve.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 20, 2013, 06:55:32 am
I have heard a lot of anger and outrage from people across the net but almost entirely from non-pros.

I don't think that this is correct. There is also a huge number of pro freelance designers who are at least as mad as amateur photographers.

The gap is no between pro and non pro, the gap is between corporate and non corporate.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: john beardsworth on May 20, 2013, 07:34:19 am
I have heard a lot of anger and outrage from people across the net but almost entirely from non-pros.
I don't think that this is correct. There is also a huge number of pro freelance designers who are at least as mad as amateur photographers.
The gap is no between pro and non pro, the gap is between corporate and non corporate.
I agree - "non-pros" are often professionals in their own field and shouldn't be demeaned.

When I hear about the steps all of you are taking to improve the lot of citizens and workers in this country and the world (I see you in your Bangladeshi shirt from Kohl's) then I might have a bit more sympathy for your hurt feelings.
Maybe stick to discussing the point rather implying others are hypocrites on evidence little better than your own prejudices, and dress sense?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Manoli on May 20, 2013, 07:46:29 am
Maybe stick to discussing the point rather implying others are hypocrites on evidence little better than your own prejudices, and dress sense?

+1
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jjj on May 20, 2013, 08:41:21 am
Isaac, you are right about the entertainment possibilities.
However, in the old days the user interface was clear and simple, programs were lean and fast, and most importantly, they worked.
But they were lean simply because they did very little compared to modern software. Heck my phone can do stuff my first computer would be incapable of and does so quickly and easily too.
Editing images [which is what us lot on here do] is way easier, a lot more powerful and faster than it ever has been in the past.

Your argument is like saying the first calculators were better as they fewer buttons than later more useful/powerful calculators.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: David S on May 20, 2013, 09:23:06 am
Quote:
"I have heard a lot of anger and outrage from people across the net but almost entirely from non-pros.
I understand the annoyance at change and the uncertainty of the new model but as a pro myself this is a very trivial issue. I pay way more for  other subscriptions that do not make me any money at all.
If, for a reasonable sum of less than $100 a month I can make my solid, upper-middle-class living at photography I am not going to start complaining. I annually pay the state of California $800 for the privilege of having a corporation in this state. I pay my landlord $1500 a month for a studio that allows me to make many times that sum by not having to meet clients at Starbucks and shoot in the park. I pay for an internet connection fee that allows me to send and receive thousands of image files per month (thus saving my clients time, money and sales tax). And I pay ~$250 a month for several cell phones for my staff and myself that enable us to make more money than being limited to land lines and voicemail."



Sounds fine for the moment but you will loose access to your life's work once you retire and decide to stop paying rent for your office, programs etc.

Dave S
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Rhossydd on May 20, 2013, 10:22:27 am
Sounds fine for the moment but you will loose access to your life's work once you retire and decide to stop paying rent for your office, programs etc.
Maybe people should remember that it will be (is) possible just subscribe for a month at a time to any of the packages. A month should be enough to reformat old work if necessary.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on May 20, 2013, 12:29:19 pm
Of course it makes sense to keep "spare tifs" around just in case, but for me the only reason I chose to use LR at all was to avoid all that. End to end workflow within a single program with non destructive editing, nice and neat and tidy.

End-to-end workflow which, if you want an independent archive, includes export in suitable image formats. Your choice.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: VidJa on May 20, 2013, 05:57:33 pm
This whole discussion goes beyond the fact the Adobe is just another company. As we have seen in the past: if it doesn't work, nobody will buy it. If it does... fine.
For pro guys CC will just be an expense. For enthousiasts as myself...I either keep using LR4, maybe 5 and CS6 for the next 5 years or I will switch to an alternative in time. There is no pressure, just time...time to explore new paths.

The same happened with word processors. At work I have Office 2013. At home I still have Office 2003 that came  with a long gone PC, supplemented with Libre Office. I run Windows 7 and Ubuntu linux next to each other and I'm spending more and more time in linux. There will be a point when joe average tells the boss to get rid of the old monoliths for his day to day work if the replacing software delivers more than the corporate choice in terms of productivity. That point may be far away for Adobe, but their attitude already unleached so many alternatives than one of them is bound to surpass the whole CC thing. Which one and when remains unforeseen. The only alternative for Adobe is to become that alternative. My conclusion. They don't know it yet, but they jus gave themselve a big reason to accelerate their own development.

we will see......
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: dreed on May 21, 2013, 06:40:56 am
Quote:
"I have heard a lot of anger and outrage from people across the net but almost entirely from non-pros.
I understand the annoyance at change and the uncertainty of the new model but as a pro myself this is a very trivial issue. I pay way more for  other subscriptions that do not make me any money at all.
If, for a reasonable sum of less than $100 a month I can make my solid, upper-middle-class living at photography I am not going to start complaining. I annually pay the state of California $800 for the privilege of having a corporation in this state. I pay my landlord $1500 a month for a studio that allows me to make many times that sum by not having to meet clients at Starbucks and shoot in the park. I pay for an internet connection fee that allows me to send and receive thousands of image files per month (thus saving my clients time, money and sales tax). And I pay ~$250 a month for several cell phones for my staff and myself that enable us to make more money than being limited to land lines and voicemail."

I don't think anyone is arguing about the fact that business will not really notice this change - or perhaps they will but not in a detrimental manner.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jjj on May 21, 2013, 06:45:40 am
Maybe people should remember that it will be (is) possible just subscribe for a month at a time to any of the packages. A month should be enough to reformat old work if necessary.
Reprocessing 40-50 years work in a month would be quite a challenge. No to mention the huge amount of HD space you'd suddenly need. And are you really never going to any creative work again just because you've retired?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 21, 2013, 11:48:02 am
I agree - "non-pros" are often professionals in their own field and shouldn't be demeaned.

John,

This is not what I meant. I meant pro users of Creative suite who do not belong to a corporation. In other words self-employed in the domain of graphic design and relying entirely on CS for their current work.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Don Libby on May 21, 2013, 12:11:36 pm
 Not feeling too good the past couple days has left me with little to do other than surf the web in search of answers.  I've read hundreds of posts which is slightly 55-45 (very unofficial on my part) against joining the cloud.  I did a very unofficial tabulation of those who were violently against what Adobe has done and those who have joined who seemed to offer rational reasons why they did it.

To be true no one like change.  I have a hard time at times accepting change.  However change can be in some cases a good thing.  In the end it's a very subjective thing that only the actual person making/accepting the change can offer.

I've been using Photoshop since about version 2 many many years ago.  I remember a friend of mine who had bought the program offering me a chance to try it free (okay it was a bootleg copy).   I remember I felt like a deer caught in the headlights.  Then shortly afterwards I fully embraced it and bought a copy for myself.  Chance can hurt at times.

Fast-forward a decade or two.  Last year I spent close to $500 to upgrade to CS6 and Pro Show Producer.  I had for several years thought of buying into the entire suite however the price was just too tight. 

Fast-forward to yesterday.  I logged onto my Adobe account and found that since I had a registered copy of CS6 I was eligible to join the Cloud at $19.99 per month (first 12-months) and enjoy the entire cloud.  (Just so that you know, Adobe is also offering this same price to any NAPP members).

So I joined.  The first thing I noticed is that I downloaded the latest upgrade directly to my computer for both CS6 and Premier Pro.  Other thing I noticed was a program that will save me countless steps (and one I was thinking about buying) Adobe Acrobat.  So last year I spent $473.00 in upgrades while this next year will cost me $261.72 ($19.99/mo plus $1.82/mo tax).  I realize and fully expect the next 12-months will increase, however I will also have 19-products to pick and choose from that will help me grow.

Choosing the Cloud was what I feel a good business decision as Adobe will never reverse their decision and I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.  There's more to the decision and I just hit the highlights.

In short I feel it was the logical thing to do for me.

Don

I also don't worry about PSD files as all my files are either the original RAW or saved as Tiff.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: kers on May 21, 2013, 02:32:53 pm
"
So I joined.  The first thing I noticed is that I downloaded the latest upgrade directly to my computer for both CS6 and Premier Pro.  Other thing I noticed was a program that will save me countless steps (and one I was thinking about buying) Adobe Acrobat.  So last year I spent $473.00 in upgrades while this next year will cost me $261.72 ($19.99/mo plus $1.82/mo tax).  I realize and fully expect the next 12-months will increase, however I will also have 19-products to pick and choose from that will help me grow.
....
I also don't worry about PSD files as all my files are either the original RAW or saved as Tiff.

So you are not dependent on Photoshop since you save everything as Raw or tiff.. But if you are dependent ..? the next year may cost you 360 $ (?) ; Adobe now has clearly shown you do not know what will come next...
One of the problems with photoshop is that it is so (!) dominating there is no alternative.. If the company that makes it decides to change the price policy a lot of people are affected and become restless...
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Rhossydd on May 21, 2013, 03:08:57 pm
Reprocessing 40-50 years work in a month
You've got 50 years worth of digital files ? that's a good trick.

My point is that failing to sign up for an on-going subscription doesn't (yet?) completely withdraw future access to the program or the files it's created in the past.

Maybe you'll change your workflow to another product for the future and will just need to save some files now to a new format, but you'll still be able to convert to newer format at a future date.

There's a part of the hysteria about this change to CC that doesn't merit close examination. Digital photography is quite possible without using Adobe products.

Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 21, 2013, 06:15:01 pm
Digital photography is quite possible without using Adobe products.

Yes, fortunatly, although not really an option for people who work in advertising or fashion. If I've seen almost all types of raw workflows, the PS stage for retouching is really the unique standart.
No retoucher that I know would use a GIMP app. In other areas, the need for PS is less important.

But I've been starting to use Nuke for stills some time ago and the app is really good, although not conceived for this task I see a potential. I haven't had the time to dig deeper into what can be done in Nuke for
still imagery, but I've been able to work on tiffs from Hasselblad Raw files on this compo app. But that means changing the layer mentality for nodes, and sometimes it's tricky.



Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jjj on May 21, 2013, 08:31:57 pm
You've got 50 years worth of digital files ? that's a good trick.
I'm not quite ready for retirement yet. I've been using PS for 18 years already, so I have a few digital files that started on film and a lot more waiting to be scanned as well as all the digital stuff since 2002/3

Quote
My point is that failing to sign up for an on-going subscription doesn't (yet?) completely withdraw future access to the program or the files it's created in the past.
But it will once your current CS6 software stops working on the computers and OSs that will replace one's current set up.

Quote
There's a part of the hysteria about this change to CC that doesn't merit close examination. Digital photography is quite possible without using Adobe products.
But there's nothing on the market to that comes close to PS, particularly when combined with LR.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Rhossydd on May 22, 2013, 03:54:50 am
Quote
My point is that failing to sign up for an on-going subscription doesn't (yet?) completely withdraw future access to the program or the files it's created in the past.
But it will once your current CS6 software stops working on the computers and OSs that will replace one's current set up.
This makes the assumption you won't upgrade to an OS that CC will work on.
For me, will CS4 still run on Windows 9 ? (possibly), but, if not, I can have a month's worth of CC to reformat any files I haven't already converted to a more universal format that I still want access to.
Quote
But there's nothing on the market to that comes close to PS, particularly when combined with LR.
Much depends on what you need to do. There's not much, if anything, you can't do without the unique features of Photoshop in normal photography.
Care to give any examples ?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: dreed on May 22, 2013, 06:17:19 am
No retoucher that I know would use a GIMP app. In other areas, the need for PS is less important.

What holds them back?
Are there specific features that are missing?
Or is it just a usability thing?
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Rhossydd on May 22, 2013, 06:29:52 am
What holds them back?
Habit.
If you have PS available you'll use it if that's what you've been using in the past.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 22, 2013, 08:08:25 pm
What holds them back?
Are there specific features that are missing?
Or is it just a usability thing?

You have to keep in mind that retouchers are generaly working for many photographers until they find a powerhouse to stay-in. They need to be really good at one software that they know it will be a standart whatever Windows or Mac will be used. They were generaly trained in schools where the software has been PS since the early days of digital imagery.
The good trainings are given on PS. With PS they can't be wrong, so they don't even bother learning another soft because on a job interview they will have to PS.

I see a similar situation in the motion industry. Here, if one really want to join a high-level training structure, it's falling into: Avid for cuttin, Smoke for power app, and Nuke for FX. You train on those, there are jobs almost guaranteed if you're not bad, and generally the reputated structures and teachers are there. There is not really a hig-end training on a Premiere Pro or Vegas. Go to the national teevee training and it smells Avid from all pores. FX cine is Nuke and Maya. There is almost nothing on Blender, and Blender is good (what the Gimp is to PS), but Etc...

It's all about what a specific industry considers as a standart, and the schools use the softwares the industry asks for.

People would be amazed to know how many printing houses are still working on FreeHand despite it's no longuer existing for awhile. Of course they know ilustrator or in-design, but as Free-Hand was a standart, and a well appreciate one, there is absolutly no prob you send free-hand files, even today. I do it all the time, and that's why I kept a XP machine because Free-Hand is not suitable on windows 7.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: JohnHeerema on May 23, 2013, 12:35:46 am
Adobe could have offered existing CS product owners a subscription option that reverted to a perpetual license whenever the subscription lapsed. That would have offered the people who have already bought CS an incentive to upgrade a month at a time, instead of once every 18 months or so.

Had Adobe done that, the current flood of criticism wouldn't have happened.

I do not believe for an instant that Adobe didn't consider this option. The fact that they chose not to pursue it, shows two things:
a) Adobe does not believe that they can continue to offer product upgrades that will entice their customer base to upgrade regularly.
b) Adobe doesn't really care about people who have given them money in the past. They are looking for money in the future, and are fully willing to annoy all those people who have paid potentially thousands of dollars to purchase CS licenses in the past.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Adobe expects to take a revenue hit over the next couple of years (see byThom.com), but believes that locking their customers into perpetual subscription costs is eventually going to be worth the negative publicity.

There has been a lot of talk about how fast things change in the computer world. That's been true in the past, but the rate of change has slowed dramatically in the world of computer hardware and software. Processor speed improvements are smaller and smaller. Operating systems and application software are changing more slowly as they mature. Thanks to virtualization, older operating systems can be run inside their newer offspring.

Most Adobe products today are awfully similar to what they looked like half a dozen years ago. Adobe must be looking at the next ten years, and realize that they don't have low-hanging fruit that will let them produce attractive updates at a pace that will sustain the revenue stream that they have grown accustomed to.

Anyone who owns a perpetual license is in a good position, and CC doesn't have a lot to offer us.

I've got a CS6 Master Collection. The only future upgrades that I expect to care about are upgrades to Photoshop, and I'd rather do without them than have files that I can't work on without paying a monthly ransom.


Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jjj on May 23, 2013, 08:52:38 am
This makes the assumption you won't upgrade to an OS that CC will work on.
Not sure what you mean by this. Have you mistyped something?

Quote
But there's nothing on the market to that comes close to PS, particularly when combined with LR.
There's not much, if anything, you can't do without the unique features of Photoshop in normal photography.
Care to give any examples ?
Not sure what 'normal photography' is but like most software, the initial versions can do most of what the later versions can do as can their rivals e.g. say Avid Vs Vegas Vs FCP Vs Premiere in video editing. What changes and what is critically important is the speed/ease at which you do things and the improvements in ergonomics that make using later programmes much better than earlier versions. FCP7 to the initial release of FCP X being a notable exception as unusually it dropped essential features, most since reinstated.
And although I said above there is nothing to rival the combination of LR + PS. I cannot think of anything one thing off hand that is actually unique to other than the pure ease and speed of being able to work with them. But there is nothing with all the features in PS/LR/Br and that is the important part.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jjj on May 23, 2013, 09:00:50 am
Most Adobe products today are awfully similar to what they looked like half a dozen years ago.
Do you expect the interfaces to constantly change to show they are better?
I really do not agree with this as I wouldn't want to go back to ten year old software. No way.

Though I do agree that the market is maturing and traditional revenue from must have upgrades will diminish. This has been obvious for a long time and I have wondered for many years as to when subscriptions would appear.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 23, 2013, 01:20:13 pm
Avid, PP, Edius, Lightworks, Fcp7...all
Competitors, capable apps. Some sectors
Would be more inclined to One or the other,
But more or less the same grocery.
There is nothing equivalent to what adobe has
In still imagery. Gimp is the closest but not really
At the same level.
Now, not everybody really needs the full features
Of PS. In fact only few sectors.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jeremyrh on May 24, 2013, 05:51:28 am
Avid, PP, Edius, Lightworks, Fcp7...all
Competitors, capable apps. Some sectors
Would be more inclined to One or the other,
But more or less the same grocery.
There is nothing equivalent to what adobe has
In still imagery. Gimp is the closest but not really
At the same level.
Now, not everybody really needs the full features
Of PS. In fact only few sectors.
Bit long for a haiku.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 24, 2013, 08:48:15 am
Bit long for a haiku.

Aint nothing
In still similar to
What ps is

Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: jeremyrh on May 24, 2013, 08:55:50 am
Aint nothing
In still similar to
What ps is


Creative Cloud --
Drifts across the sky
Far from photographer's reach.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on May 24, 2013, 10:35:39 am
Creative Cloud --
Drifts across the sky
Far from photographer's reach.
Best one yet!
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: John Camp on May 24, 2013, 05:17:26 pm
Adobe statement
Hovers on the summer air
Like the sh*t of bull

(5-7-5)
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: stevesanacore on June 02, 2013, 07:31:27 am
After getting a better feel for everyone using PS and not wanting to go the subscription route maybe Adobe should consider also keeping PS as a product just like LR. For people like me who benefit from having Premier, AE, etc.. the subscription is worth it, but for others who only need PS and LR, it seems to be a different story. I see no reason why they can't offer PS as a purchasable product along with LR. If they don't I believe this opens a window of opportunity for Apple or other companies to compete with Adobe in a high end photo retouching app.

However I don't understand why anyone feels their images will be held hostage. Everything I shoot is in Canon, Nikon or Phase One format, not Adobe.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 02, 2013, 08:00:16 am
However I don't understand why anyone feels their images will be held hostage. Everything I shoot is in Canon, Nikon or Phase One format, not Adobe.

That's because they approach their work-files as a work-in-progress. The Raw conversion is one of several steps towards the final product, which will include Smart Objects and adjustment layers that may work in a proprietary manner. Once flattened, or when the functionality has ceased to be available, one needs to start all over from scratch if something can or needs to be improved/altered, thus losing valuable time.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on June 02, 2013, 12:53:18 pm
...one needs to start all over from scratch if something can or needs to be improved/altered...

Sometimes. Sometimes one may start from the flattened tiff and improve/alter.
Title: Re: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm
Post by: Isaac on June 02, 2013, 12:56:44 pm
... but for others who only need PS and LR, it seems to be a different story. I see no reason why they can't offer PS as a purchasable product along with LR.

Perhaps Adobe think they do --
Quote
For those who don't like the subscriptions, the Creative Suite 6 software released last year "is a reasonable alternative," he said. "We'll continue to sell it and continue to maintain it.