Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Dave (Isle of Skye) on May 29, 2013, 01:18:44 pm
-
Read it here. (http://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/our-move-to-creative-cloud-an-update/)
Dave
-
Read it here. (http://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/our-move-to-creative-cloud-an-update/)
Dave
A lovely note....but currently the sleeves off their vest.
-
Adobe clearly don't get it. Or they're believing their own spin. Although it appears Adobe are climbing down some.
The major thrust of people's fury (and I use that word advisedly) is that once you stop subscribing to CC you lose the use of the software. Accessing our files is not the issue here.
Secondly the CC subscription is more expensive than purchasing outright. And it reduces choice about when, and if, to upgrade. OK, you can choose not to upgrade but that is not the point – the choice you are making is NOT to PAY for the upgrade. In a subscription service you pay for the upgrade whether you want it or not.
Thirdly there appears to be number potential technical issues which may mean your subscription software ceases working through no fault of your own.
Lastly there is the moral repugnance of being forced to pay for something on a subscription – potentially forever – where, no matter how much you pay, you never get to own (the license to use) what you've bought. You are perpetually tied into paying a powerful software company just to be able continue to use what you have bought/buying.
-
I think that note from Adobe indicates they understand what the issues are and they are working on resolving them in a manner that won't impair their basic strategy. I would cut them some slack at least until we see what they come up with. If they do the right thing it could be a win-win.
-
Mark.
Agreed. Apologies, my spleen got the better of me.
-
Understood - this development has upset many of us for reason; let us hope they do good by us.
-
This afternoon I was contacted (by email) by Adobe, and asked to fill out a very detailed online questionnaire about CC. They asked all the right questions about how I felt about the change, exactly what my reservations were, my usage, etc. They also left plenty of room for me to comment freely. Which I did!
I'll never know for sure, of course, but I wonder if Adobe feels a bit mislead by some of the photographers they initially turned to for advice about how CC would be received. Or at least if they are now realizing that they got a skewed sample of opinion.
Anyhow, this suvey may not make the slightest difference. Maybe Adobe doesn't care about photographers like me. But they did take the trouble to ask. Kind of late in the game, but perhaps better late than never. And I did get to tell them, rather directly, that I would probably never buy another piece of Adobe software if they didn't change the mandatory CC model.
-
I'll never know for sure, of course, but I wonder if Adobe feels a bit mislead by some of the photographers they initially turned to for advice about how CC would be received. Or at least if they are now realizing that they got a skewed sample of opinion.
Everybody I know that were told of the CC subscription and dropping CS7 as a perpetual license told them it would piss off a lot of people...note that there were very, very few people outside of Adobe who were told in advance and the timing of the disclosure was AFTER the decision had already been made. There were actually a lot of people inside of Adobe that didn't know for a long time. I don't know when Adobe disclosed the plan to everybody inside of Adobe, but I do know that there were plenty of people inside of Adobe that weren't happy about the changes either.
What I think is that Adobe (the execs that made the decisions) was surprised at how vehemently the people who were upset would be...and are now trying to figure out what to do to address the situation.
So, I encourage people to let their feelings known, but it would be useful to do so in a manner that will help Adobe address the problems rather than make them defensive.
-
So, I encourage people to let their feelings known, but it would be useful to do so in a manner that will help Adobe address the problems rather than make them defensive.
I have recommended several times over that they modify the model such that people who wish to stop subscribing may retain for a fee (or free if they've been subscribing for say 18 months) a perpetual license to the last version they were using. This way everyone would retain access to all the features they used on their photos up to the point they stopped subscribing. In principle this is so obvious (but would need some thinking about implementation), would resolve the whole issue and would retain their CC subscription system virtually intact. Anyone at Adobe reading this? I would be very interested to hear from someone there why such a solution could not be implemented, but better yet, how soon they will just do it.
-
but it would be useful to do so in a manner that will help Adobe address the problems rather than make them defensive.
didn't they violate some of our civil rights and try to impose some undue tax burden on us ? I think we need to involve ACLU, NAACP, JDL, SPLC, tea party and some folks from Fox Channel... that will surely make them address the problems right away, I 'd say next day.
-
would resolve the whole issue and would retain their CC subscription system virtually intact.
having perpetual license by itself does not do anything wrong w/ their subscription system... despite some postings from Jeff S. Adobe seems have no issues to have products sharing the same development to be simultaneously in products available under both system both accounting-wise and code-wise.
-
I wonder what this part means:
"Because of this we have no plans to change our focus on Creative Cloud. We understand this is a big change and for customers who are not yet ready to move, we will continue to offer CS6 products through our reseller partners and Adobe.com."
It could be understood as a decision to continue selling the boxed version.
This would put an end to most short term concerns.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder what this part means:
"Because of this we have no plans to change our focus on Creative Cloud. We understand this is a big change and for customers who are not yet ready to move, we will continue to offer CS6 products through our reseller partners and Adobe.com."
It could be understood as a decision to continue selling the boxed version.
This would put an end to most short term concerns.
Cheers,
Bernard
Not for people who at some point would like to retain a perpetual license to products with new features and useable on future operating systems.
-
I wonder what this part means:
"Because of this we have no plans to change our focus on Creative Cloud. We understand this is a big change and for customers who are not yet ready to move, we will continue to offer CS6 products through our reseller partners and Adobe.com."
It could be understood as a decision to continue selling the boxed version.
This would put an end to most short term concerns.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard....not sure how this fixes any concerns...the way I read it, these are just the existing code we have right now. Are you extrapolating to them offering boxed versions of CC editions? I'm not.
John
-
Bernard....not sure how this fixes any concerns...the way I read it, these are just the existing code we have right now. Are you extrapolating to them offering boxed versions of CC editions? I'm not.
John,
Yep, you are right, I somehow overlooked the importance of the 6 in CS6...
So, no, it doesn't help at all.
Still curious to see what they will come up with regarding my main concern which is the ability to keep working on files after the end of a subscription.
That will probably be some form of read only capability. I would be surprised if it addressed the fundamental doubt about creating more IP (layers, masks, vector objects,...) in CS knowing that - even if a result file can be generated/opened - the ability to continue leveraging this IP is the core request not satisfied by the CC subscription approach.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder what this part means:
"Because of this we have no plans to change our focus on Creative Cloud. We understand this is a big change and for customers who are not yet ready to move, we will continue to offer CS6 products through our reseller partners and Adobe.com."
It could be understood as a decision to continue selling the boxed version.
This would put an end to most short term concerns.
Cheers,
Bernard
The whole Adobe blog post is so carefully worded and contrived, it is somewhat excruciating to think about how many levels of sign-off it went through to appear on a "blog". The "YET" part in the above quote is interesting - it would appear to imply, in a somewhat patronizing tone, that resistance is futile. You can continue to purchase CS6 until you finally give in and subscribe ... which we know you will do, just maybe not quite yet - but you really don't want to wait too long or you will be left behind in the vapor trail of the Cloud.
I also received the email inviting me to participate in the online survey and I took great pains to be objective and informative. I pretty much also commented that I was aware of the CC, understood Adobe's pitch, trialed the CC for free and that I had no plans to subscribe or purchase Adobe software in the future as a result of the emphatic insistence on a subscription-only model with no ability to retain access to software that I had paid to subscribe to once I terminated the subscription.
Hopefully the execs cede some of the piloting through this storm to the goodwill ambassadors at Adobe that are able to bridge the newly formed chasm between the loyal users and the long-standing reputation of Adobe creative products. The perception of Trust has been steamrolled and that makes even loyal people unwilling to listen to too-little-too-late. In the end, a cynical Adobe may just ride out the storm with unflinching blog post "updates" and anticipate the mass acceptance of the inevitable after the hoopla has died down.
Fascinating as always. Unyielding and patronizing on the outside with a soft, gooey center implying that maybe they would like to know what registered users of their products actually think about their decision. As Mark says, it will be interesting to see what they come up with to deal with the current state of affairs - but really, given no plans to change the focus on the Cloud, will the solution be to offer some token free Cloud storage or 6 months of free subscription as a peace offering? Would loyal users be that stupid to interpret that kind of offering as a solution to any of the current complaints and criticisms? What calculation would yield the requisite number of free subscription months to mollify an angry user and convince them that the Cloud subscription is worth it? It will be interesting indeed to see how this shakes out -maybe the Adobe execs and PR machine can use the CC to arrive at a creative solution.
kirk
-
"...not yet ready to move..."
I deal with 3 smallish companies and directly know maybe 40 individuals who use Adobe products. Not one of them looks anything like those Adobe propaganda videos showing too-cool renovated urban rafters full of bubbly imaging bumpkins flitting willy-nilly from one Adobe product to the next. Should I move to SoHo?
As to the suddenness of the paradigm shift, one suspects a palace coup.
-
no plans to change the focus on the Cloud
we shall really stop using the word "cloud" and always use the word "subscription", that is what it is and we shall not play along Adobe's marketing.
-
The problem seems to be that they still don't get what many of their customers actually want or do. Talk about;
" cross-device collaboration and publishing capabilities.
....
allows us to explore new areas in mobile apps, helping you collaborate better and build a meaningful worldwide community to share work and find inspiration
....
the world’s leading online creative community, is now integrated with Creative Cloud, so customers can showcase work, get feedback on projects and gain global exposure."
...just doesn't interest a lot of photographers.
We don't all work collaboratively, some of us aren't obsessed with global sharing or need Adobe to provide a platform for inspiration. Individuals aren't in their plans.
-
Maybe Adobe is moving to subscription sales because Photoshop revenues are slipping due to people like me (and many of you) who rarely upgrade. I bought CS4 in 2008 and have no intention on upgrading until my computer dies-- and even then, I'll most likely reinstall CS4 on my next computer. When Adobe makes Photoshop a 100% parametric editor, I might then be impressed enough to subscribe to the cloud. Maybe ten years from now.
-
Maybe Adobe is moving to subscription sales because Photoshop revenues are slipping due to people like me (and many of you) who rarely upgrade.
Don't flatter yourself...the "photo market" is really very small for Creative Suite and Photoshop...pretty large for Lightroom however. Notice LR didn't go subscription only :~)
-
Might I respectfully suggest the the sharpening algorithm does not exist that would fix Adobe's focus on the Compulsory Cloud.
Mark Segal's suggestion - along with a more reasonable long term subscription price - might just cure enough of the nausea to be able to hold something down. Either that or CS7.
-
didn't they violate some of our civil rights and try to impose some undue tax burden on us ?
No.
Jeremy
-
Don't flatter yourself...the "photo market" is really very small for Creative Suite and Photoshop...pretty large for Lightroom however. Notice LR didn't go subscription only :~)
I'm not sure that lumping the "photo market" in with CS is appropriate.
Can you break out the "photo market" as a part of Photoshop sales?
-
After reading the Terms of Service some time ago I am disturbed. One of my clients is a defense contractor. Many of the images I work on are ITAR controlled. There is no way I could ever agree to the CC TOS.
-
No.
Jeremy
how unfortunate...
-
After reading the Terms of Service some time ago I am disturbed. One of my clients is a defense contractor. Many of the images I work on are ITAR controlled. There is no way I could ever agree to the CC TOS.
There's no reason using CC subscription applications requires that files be stored in the "Cloud." Your data can be as controlled and access-restricted as ever. All it means is that your applications periodically need to be able to verify their license is still paid up and current. In a very real sense the process is no different from the install of the boxed product verifying and activating the license key - it just that it happens periodically instead of just once at install time. Assuming your work computer is currently connected to the web, there is no more security risk with the CC apps than there is with the current perpetual apps.
-
Secondly the CC subscription is more expensive than purchasing outright. And it reduces choice about when, and if, to upgrade. OK, you can choose not to upgrade but that is not the point – the choice you are making is NOT to PAY for the upgrade. In a subscription service you pay for the upgrade whether you want it or not.
Sigh... This is about money, its always been about money. This is about monopoly pricing, it is what corporations strive to create.
Adobe's interest in providing you with a [insert buzzword here] experience begins and ends with the fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to clean out your wallet. Some of their employees, though, behave much better than their employer.
-
Don't flatter yourself...the "photo market" is really very small for Creative Suite and Photoshop...pretty large for Lightroom however. Notice LR didn't go subscription only :~)
I think I would dispute that Jeff, as I think you mean current version license holders for Adobe products and PS, as in recently registered for CC. Because I imagine the actually number of PS licenses and legitimate license holders worldwide, is a vastly larger number than we are being led to believe. Ok these might be people still hanging on to an older computer and older version of PS, but they are/were still in the loop if and when their old machine died, or a new camera is bought etc, to still being an Adobe customer and diving back in for an up to date copy of PS.
I also think the numbers Adobe are quoting with the 80% of customers opting for CC, actually means 80% of people who have bought Adobe products recently and had little option but to sign up to the cloud, it does not mean 80% of ALL Adobe products license holders and historical license holders, as they are hoping we will believe when they present it so.
Therefore, PS is not small beans, it is a very large world wide number if you count everyone who uses it legitimately in all its versions and who are (or at least were) still historical and potentially ongoing customers of Adobe.
Dave
-
I also think the numbers Adobe are quoting with the 80% of customers opting for CC, actually means 80% of people who have bought Adobe products recently and had little option but to sign up to the cloud, it does not mean 80% of ALL Adobe products license holders and historical license holders, as they are hoping we will believe when they present it so.
The statement "customer adoption leading up to the announcement on May 6th, with over 80% of people purchasing on Adobe.com selecting Creative Cloud" very clearly "does not mean 80% of ALL Adobe products license holders and historical license holders".
Please, can we be annoyed with the license change without twisting every statement into a sinister plot :-)
-
Please, can we be annoyed with the license change without twisting every statement into a sinister plot :-)
No twisting going on ... except maybe by Adobe's marketing department ... as always, the numbers they shared in their most recent blog post have little value beyond their attempt to make their decision look better to potential customers who are unaware or have yet to research the CC licensing model in detail. So in that sense, it is a plot ... whether it is actually sinister or not depends upon your point of view. Either way, those figures, as offered, do very little in the real world to prove anything tangible ...
-
Q4/2012 (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/201212/Q412Earnings.html) income looks great for Adobe.
-
Q1/2013 (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/201303/Q113Earnings.html) was reported at the end of that quarter.
-
I think I would dispute that Jeff, as I think you mean current version license holders for Adobe products and PS, as in recently registered for CC.
No, I mean that historically, photographers (pro and am) make up less than 10% of the overall Photoshop user base. Sorry...but that number is from Adobe's own internal calculations...Photoshop was not designed for nor mainly sold to photographers (even if "photo" is in the product name).
Yes, there are a lot of photographers (pro and am) that use Photoshop, but we are severely in the minority of all Photoshop users. Photoshop's largest user bases are graphic arts, scientific, industrial, corporate, web, design, web. All of those markets make up the majority of the Photoshop installed users base.
Yeah, I know...photographers tend to think they are the center of the universe...but we're not.
That's not to say that Adobe wants to alienate us...they don't. But we need to understand where we actually stand instead of where we think we stand.
-
But we need to understand where we actually stand instead of where we think we stand.
That's pretty obvious. Not important at all.
-
Things that are obvious to you, may not be obvious to others.
Things that are obvious to you, may seem obvious mistakes to others.
-
Why is the % of PS users using it for photographic applications relevant to this discussion?
We know that many other types of users of photoshop are also against the removal of the non CC version of PS.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why is the % of PS users using it for photographic applications relevant to this discussion?
I think because a much larger percentage of non-photographer users are using the software in a corporate environment where buying software by subscription is far less of an issue.
-
No, I mean that historically, photographers (pro and am) make up less than 10% of the overall Photoshop user base. Sorry...but that number is from Adobe's own internal calculations...Photoshop was not designed for nor mainly sold to photographers (even if "photo" is in the product name).
Yes, there are a lot of photographers (pro and am) that use Photoshop, but we are severely in the minority of all Photoshop users. Photoshop's largest user bases are graphic arts, scientific, industrial, corporate, web, design, web. All of those markets make up the majority of the Photoshop installed users base.
Yeah, I know...photographers tend to think they are the center of the universe...but we're not.
That's not to say that Adobe wants to alienate us...they don't. But we need to understand where we actually stand instead of where we think we stand.
I would expect that Adobe's figures for "photographers" derive from the 'customer feedback' questionnaire that appears just after you install one of their products – you know the one that asks what area of business you are in. Well, I would guess a significant number of people are like me for whom none of the categories is actually a good fit of what my 'business' is or even what I use Photoshop for. OK, so I may have exaggerated a little and selected a category that sounds better than just "photographer". My point ? I'm just not sure how reliable Adobe's data is (to which one could add the statement about an "80%" take-up of CC). I've worked for big corporates and, you know, presenting the best possible case for how you would like things to be by selectively using statistics is common practice. It's also delusional. No surprises there, then.
That aside I agree with Jeff that photographers will be in an apparent minority in their customer base. But it is not the case, as is being argued, that photographers are the only customers of Adobe for whom the new software by subscription policy is highly objectionable. If my (limited) researches are anything to go by "graphic arts, scientific, industrial, corporate, web, design" customers are equally disaffected by Adobe's decision, as are users of other CS products such as InDesign, Illustrator, etc.. It may be that we photographers have been most vocal and best organised but don't let Adobe's statement mislead us (as it seems to have deluded them) that photographers are the only ones up in arms about this.
-
Question - can i open PSD files from CC in CS6?
It will be a matter of time before it will be not possible- for sure...
Maybe Lightroom will be also subscription-only in a few years...
What to expect from Adobe? after this switch?
In that case Adobe has the key to your catalogue etc...
-
I think because a much larger percentage of non-photographer users are using the software in a corporate environment where buying software by subscription is far less of an issue.
I am not sure about that. There are countless independant graphic designer and they all use Illustrator and Photoshop.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am not sure about that. There are countless independant graphic designer and they all use Illustrator and Photoshop.
They're not 'countless' Adobe know how many licences are out there.
I've been surprised at how many professional photographers I've spoken to are using corporate PS licences their regular clients have passed on to them. It may well be similar for smaller graphic artists too. It's these big corporations and agencies that are buying an awful lot of seat licences and might make savings from subscription deals.
-
Interested that they bastardise the English language to such an extent that they use the verb "to ship" in reference to something that has no physical presence.
Are they going to send it over the Atlantic in a virtual container aboard a virtual freighter?
-
Question - can i open PSD files from CC in CS6?
It will be a matter of time before it will be not possible- for sure...
Maybe Lightroom will be also subscription-only in a few years...
What to expect from Adobe? after this switch?
In that case Adobe has the key to your catalogue etc...
The general view, backed from Jeff Schewe (who knows more than we do about this stuff) is to go over to using TIFFs. TIFF files can be opened by lots of applications including older versions of PS (than CS6). But in order to ensure compatibility of various kinds the advice is to use ZIP compression (not LZW) and ZIP layer compression. In my experience this produces slightly smaller files than PSD.
Do a search of this forum (Digital Image Processing) to get the most recent posting on this (found in similar threads about CC). Sorry, I
don't' have time to do this.
-
The general view,
See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78931.0
But in order to ensure compatibility of various kinds the advice is to use ZIP compression (not LZW) and ZIP layer compression. In my experience this produces slightly smaller files than PSD.
Ctien suggests no compression at all for best compatibility.
-
Interested that they bastardise the English language to such an extent that the use the verb "to ship" in reference to something that has no physical presence.
Are they going to send it over the Atlantic in a virtual container aboard a virtual freighter?
Yeah. But this is how these folk talk. It's a way of distancing themselves from reality by using language that does not accurately describe what a thing is or does. That gives a lot of wriggle room when you get challenged. Believe me, I know this from personal experience. It is also delusional (sorry I seem to be repeating myself!).
-
See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78931.0Ctien suggests no compression at all for best compatibility.
True. But the files are massive, especially if you've got a lot of layers. OK, if you've got lots of storage though.
-
especially if you've got a lot of layers.
If you read the article it suggests flattening the image, so no layers.
I just sometimes wonder why so many people can't be decisive and feel the need to never commit themselves to an edit.
-
I just sometimes wonder why so many people can't be decisive and feel the need to never commit themselves to an edit.
Well, thanks. That was helpful. Maybe people like to be able to reflect, over a period of time, on the edits they've done and go back and tweak them (especially if you are fine tuning an image). You can't do that if you've rushed in and 'committed' yourself ! :–)))
-
If you read the article it suggests flattening the image, so no layers.
I just sometimes wonder why so many people can't be decisive and feel the need to never commit themselves to an edit.
The other side of the coin is that they keep an open mind and anticipate reviewing their decision. Or you can spin it as fine tuning.
-
Or you can spin it as fine tuning.
"Spin" it ? I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps I'll give it a try ;D
-
Jeff,
perhaps Adobe find it a useful information albeit from a specific market segment that the majority would not like the subscription based model. A friend of mine and well known photoshop Guru, Doc Baumann in Germany, had posted the results of a survey conducted on behalf of COREL by INNOFACT AG.
In a nutshell (I have no time to translate the entire article now): 1.000 people were asked and just 1% would be happy to use a subscription cloud model.
35% prefer to order a box product over the Internet. 33% prefer a software download. 25% prefer to purchase a box in a retail shop. 1% would use a cloud based subscription.
fwiw here the german link:
http://www.docma.info/news-stories/artikel/detail/software-abos-unbeliebt.html
Best
Georg
-
I am not sure about that. There are countless independant graphic designer and they all use Illustrator and Photoshop.
Cheers,
Bernard
Jeff, Bernard, et.al., I don't think it matters a bit what percentage of the user base are of what profession. The key things that matter are (i) the overall acceptability of the model to the global client base, (ii) whether the number who stop paying money to Adobe is large enough to affect the company's net profit position and the share value, and (iii) reputational risk. The first two are empirical issues that only Adobe is best positioned to understand, and the third may be the factor motivating them to consider amending the model in some deference to the fraction of the clientele that is truly annoyed, content of change remaining to be seen.
-
Jeff, Bernard, et.al., I don't think it matters a bit what percentage of the user base are of what profession. The key things that matter are (i) the overall acceptability of the model to the global client base, (ii) whether the number who stop paying money to Adobe is large enough to affect the company's net profit position and the share value, and (iii) reputational risk. The first two are empirical issues that only Adobe is best positioned to understand, and the third may be the factor motivating them to consider amending the model in some deference to the fraction of the clientele that is truly annoyed, content of change remaining to be seen.
Also how good their data is, whether they know how good it is, and whether they believe it (despite of how good it may be).
-
Also how good their data is, whether they know how good it is, and whether they believe it (despite of how good it may be).
Whatever it is, it will be much better than any one elses' including us.
-
Whatever it is, it will be much better than any one elses' including us.
Forgive me Mark, I hate to quibble, but it does not matter if their data is "better" than anyone else's. What matters is whether the data is good enough to make rational decisions, and whether they want to believe the data they've got.
Judging by the recent statements coming out of Adobe one has to doubt whether the correlation between their perception of what the data is telling them (or at least the version they convey to the greater general public) and reality actually exists. Or, to put it another way, do they really think we're going believe some of what they're saying ? I remain sceptical since much of it seems 'spin' to back-up what they believe, or what they want us to believe. Let us just hope that the reality of what is going on behind closed doors bears little or no relation to their public pronouncements.
-
Simon, let me put it this way: if their data is not good enough to make rational decisions they will pay the price for that. While large corporations have been known to exercise huge delusional behaviours (viz the 2008 US financial crisis), Adobe probably have very sharp data gathering functions and market analysts who at least for the empirical stuff probably perform well. Executive management use of such information of course, whether for making decisions or producing public statements is another matter, and it is likely in these latter respects that we are seeing the shortcomings.
-
We'll see over the coming months !
-
No, I mean that historically, photographers (pro and am) make up less than 10% of the overall Photoshop user base. Sorry...but that number is from Adobe's own internal calculations...Photoshop was not designed for nor mainly sold to photographers (even if "photo" is in the product name).
Yes, there are a lot of photographers (pro and am) that use Photoshop, but we are severely in the minority of all Photoshop users. Photoshop's largest user bases are graphic arts, scientific, industrial, corporate, web, design, web. All of those markets make up the majority of the Photoshop installed users base.
Yeah, I know...photographers tend to think they are the center of the universe...but we're not.
That's not to say that Adobe wants to alienate us...they don't. But we need to understand where we actually stand instead of where we think we stand.
We have all filled out the little "surveys". How many of the "non-photographer" users you point to also use PS for their personal photographic use....and have the same concerns?
-
If Adobe first had made a version specific for photographer as an option to the cloud version we will not have this mess. Even if we are only 10% the number should be more than high enough to earn money.
You can perhaps as an investor accept that a company dump 10% of its customers but you can not accept this as one of the 10% customer.
-
If you're goal is "good enough" work, go ahead and flatten your PSDs. If you've never looked back at older work and thought you could do better now, with better tools or evolved skills, then you'll be happy.
I just sometimes wonder why so many people can't be decisive and feel the need to never commit themselves to an edit.
-
When I look back at older work, with better tools or evolved skills, I can always start fresh.
-
Well, that's certainly an efficient way to spend one's spare time! You must have a lot of it.
When I look back at older work, with better tools or evolved skills, I can always start fresh.
-
Well, that's certainly an efficient way to spend one's spare time! You must have a lot of it.
Equally, it could be that the older work was so crap ;)
-
Well, that's certainly an efficient way to spend one's spare time! You must have a lot of it.
Maybe your tools didn't become much better, maybe your skills didn't evolve much.
Enough with the snark.
We can do both -- we can save TIFF to build a non-proprietary image archive that provides some longer-term safeguard of independence and we can save PSD to provide convenience in the medium-term.
-
Isaac, I did follow up about the 16 bit previews in DNGs. It is indeed in the spec, but Peter doesn't know of anyone taking advantage of it.
-
Interesting.
I was going to come back to this for a couple of reasons:
Clearly lossy as they are JPEGs and only 8 bit. Peter Krogh used to do a demo (maybe still does) where he invited his audience to distinguish a print made from the raw data and one from the DNG's preview, and very few pro photographers could tell one from the other.
- I think there's a lesson in there given the fuss we sometimes make about arcane technical details
- I think there might be a lesson about whether we really need 16 bit processing or whether 8 bit PS Elements would be just fine
- I think there might be a lesson for me about whether I'd be better off archiving DNG rather than RAW + TIFF
-
Has the Lula forum database become corrupted and the data from two entirely different threads become blended into one?
I thought we were discussing Adobe and the PS licensing/rental issue update and not the merits or otherwise of different methods of file storage.
Or is this a sinister plot by an Adobe spy mole to curtail the discussion by randomly introducing a fake sub-thread ???
Dave ;D
-
Can't you see that one result of Adobe's changed licensing is greater awareness of the need for exit strategies and that file formats is a key element?
-
Interested that they bastardise the English language to such an extent that they use the verb "to ship" in reference to something that has no physical presence.
Just a commonplace analogy.
-
They're not 'countless' Adobe know how many licences are out there.
I've been surprised at how many professional photographers I've spoken to are using corporate PS licences their regular clients have passed on to them. It may well be similar for smaller graphic artists too. It's these big corporations and agencies that are buying an awful lot of seat licences and might make savings from subscription deals.
Countless as in "a very large number". But I am sure you had understood, right?
As far as your friends who have "received" a corporate license, well that is going to be more difficult to do with CC as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... my main concern which is the ability to keep working on files after the end of a subscription.
That will probably be some form of read only capability. I would be surprised if it addressed the fundamental doubt about creating more IP (layers, masks, vector objects,...) in CS knowing that - even if a result file can be generated/opened - the ability to continue leveraging this IP is the core request not satisfied by the CC subscription approach.
I've been meaning to ask you - is there something about "the ability to keep working on files after the end of a subscription" which you think is different than you would have during the subscription?
Is the only difference you have in mind that during the subscription there'd be updates and after the end of the subscription there wouldn't?
-
Countless as in "a very large number". But I am sure you had understood, right?
As far as your friends who have "received" a corporate license, well that is going to be more difficult to do with CC as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe by now the subject has been beaten to death, but here's the thing as far as I'm concerned. I always owned a legitimate copy of Creativeve Suite. I've never bootlegged or pirated anything Adobe or any other software for that matter. But the cost of Adobe products was always a hefty premium for me as a very small business (i.e., sole proprietor) even as I highly regarded the quality of the Adobe products compared to other options. I didn't skip every other major update, but I didn't always adopt the latest Adobe offering the very minute a new major CS suite number became available. I wasn't Adobe's best customer, but I wasn't Adobe's worst customer. I controlled my costs for Adobe software by buying into the latest upgrade when I could afford to do so. At all times my business prospects, not Adobe's, dictated that decision. Adobe just told me I must pay every month, and Adobe just doubled my annual cost for the essentially the same upgrade pathway I've been using for many years (let's not quibble about instantaneous minor monthly updates compared to 18 month or thereabouts major updates). I don't know whether I will accept this new licensing fee going forward. What I can say for certain, is that while in the past I thought Adobe's price to be a premium, I now consider it excessive. I'm actively exploring my options whereas I didn't spend much time doing so in the past. Is that a good thing for Adobe? I don't know. It depends on how many people now feel like I do about the new cost of remaining on Adobe provided software, and whether the revenues from that population of endusers outweighs Adobe's clever price increases. If enough endusers are prepared to adopt different software/hardware strategies to accomplish their designated tasks, then Adobe's new revenue model will be just like Coca Cola's marketing model when it tried to switch it's customers to "New Coke". That said, Adobe's most affluent customer base may fall in line in just enough numbers for Adobe management to declare victory. Time will tell.
-
There's no doubt if only half of Adobe's traditional customers join in the CC subscription model ... they will succeed because the revenues attained will offset their desired goal ... however, the "trust" ... or at least the perceived trust they once held will be gone forever ... especially once they apply price increases to the CC model for valueless updates/upgrades in years to come ... those who are currently lauding the concept of CC will have a different attitude after they have paid decades of fees ... to own nothing in return at the end of the cycle ... They constantly want to compare CC to Netflix, iTunes, Cable or Dish service, cell phone service ... but ... unless Photoshop comes with a "just push play" button to do all the heavy lifting ... I can't equate CC with those other "services" ...
Simply look no further than the top two "new features" in Photoshop CC ... Camera Shake tool? ... Wouldn't most "professional" designers and creatives rather work with photographers that could actually avoid the camera shake issue at the time of capture? ... Wouldn't it save so much time and effort if we spent our resources in making great captures rather than massaging marginal images into something useful?
Then the improved resampling to enlarge small resolution images for better printing ... Isn't it wonderful that Adobe is now going to offer the gift to anyone on the planet to take our web based portfolios to ANYONE who is willing to pay $20 a month ... and now enlarge those images for printing to reasonable print resolution? ... Classic examples of Adobe looking out for OUR best interests ...
The executives at Adobe are only concerned about their own bottom line ... not ours ... they think they have the only answers to our need and we will eventually succumb to their business model much like Hitler did in the parody video on YouTube ... I, for one, will not.
-
"No, I mean that historically, photographers (pro and am) make up less than 10% of the overall Photoshop user base. Sorry...but that number is from Adobe's own internal calculations"
Well, since it's Adobe's internal calculations we can certainly all take that to the bank with their credibility of late.
-
Interesting.
I was going to come back to this for a couple of reasons:
- I think there's a lesson in there given the fuss we sometimes make about arcane technical details
- I think there might be a lesson about whether we really need 16 bit processing or whether 8 bit PS Elements would be just fine
- I think there might be a lesson for me about whether I'd be better off archiving DNG rather than RAW + TIFF
I suspect making a print from an 8 bit file may be fine, but based on my experience from a related field, processing in 8 bit may be inadequate
-
There's no doubt if only half of Adobe's traditional customers join in the CC subscription model ... they will succeed because the revenues attained will offset their desired goal ..
I'm not sure if those sales projections are realistic.
Surely, in the first year, at $10/month many photographers will take advantage of the offer, but when the time comes to renew it at $20 or $50/month, not too many will continue.
Another miscalculation is the the reliance on the corporate clients. Just take the latest news about Chicago Sun letting 28 photographers go (and rehire some of them as freelancers).
Not only will this one company save payroll and medical insurance costs, but also their Adobe CC rental fees. At $20/month for 28 photographers this amounts to $6720/year. Not so much for this one company, but multiply it by number of companies on a similar path, and soon you are talking about real money and substantial revenue decline for Adobe.
-
"That said, through discussions with the community, we have heard some concerns around our move to Creative Cloud. Three main themes are coming through:
File access. Customers want to be sure that, if their membership to Creative Cloud lapses, they will still have access to their files.
Photographers, particularly photo-enthusiasts, are looking for a more tailored offering that focuses on their particular needs.
Some customers are not convinced that Creative Cloud is right for them and would rather continue to purchase desktop applications as before."
Personally I wouldn't just want file access. I'd want to be able to continue to work on my files even after my cc subscription lapses. Why would I pay for software, theoretically for a number of years, and not want to be able to use it?
I'm not looking for a 'tailored offering'. I'm wanting something to replace Photoshop because it's no longer an option. Adobe has taken that choice away. It wasn't because I don't like Photoshop anymore.
Creative Cloud, for me, equals more expense, a lot more expense, less choice, and giving Adobe a link to my bank account. I have no desire to support the executives and shareholders at Adobe. Greed is greed. Subscription software just ain't never gonna be part of my monthly expenses.
Any trust or confidence I had in Adobe is just gone. This started last year with their announcements about upgrades ending every two to three versions and becoming every version. Now that's gone too.
They say we still have Photoshop Elements and Lightroom. For how long? And why would I trust them with announcements they make today? I've seen how easily they change their minds. I see how little I matter to Adobe.
Feel like it's time to abandon this ship. Why should I support a company with my money when they are telling me I no longer matter to them? For the meantime I'll continue to use photoshop CS6 and Lightroom, but will look for and experiment with alternatives. I just don't want to give Adobe any more of my money.
I played with Pixelmator for a few weeks and just bought it. 14 euros. Not much money. Sure, it isn't Photoshop, but I like the feeling of supporting a company that may eventually give Adobe some competition. I hope the folks at Pixelmator continue to grow. Hope for others as well. NIK. onOne. Capture 1. Aperture. Topaz. I'm hoping they jump on this opportunity and give Adobe the competition they truly need.
Yes, there's some stress about change. But I'd rather deal with that stress than with a company I no longer trust or have confidence in.
Bad business attitude. Take this or nothing. We don't need 10 percent of our old customers. They just no longer matter. Thanks Adobe. Got the message. Think I'll spend my money elsewhere.
-
Some purchase cars, and some lease them.
Now imagine Adobe's arrogant monopolistic approach applied by Toyota, Ford, or any other manufacturer.
Some purchase a new car every 5 years, or so, some lease a car, and some buy second hand car (with little profit to Toyota).
Suddenly, you learn that your favorite manufacturer is using the "cloud" buzzword to force you to upgrade every 3 years, whether there is a new model or not, by :
. Offering the cars only through a "cloud"-based model
. Asking you to pay over the same period of three years, twice the price of a new car.
What would you do?
Upset is a nice word. You feel "violated" by your favorite manufacturer, and start looking for an alternative. If you are a cab driver in London, where this is a monopoly, you don't have a choice. You ask legislators to act on your behalf.
Here, with Adobe, we are left with this lingering feeling of being abandoned, violated, insulted (Adobe think of most of us photographer as pirates or user not worth selling their product to)
And this latest blog just shows how "out of touch" adobe is with their customer base.
When i registered my first photoshop (7.0), the survey inquired about my profession. I had two businesses at the time: healthcare and photography. I put healthcare. Many are like me, or have photography as a serious hobby, and the question is misleading. It did not ask what are we planning to use Photoshop for. Their biased conclusion was that few photographers use photoshop! Wow, what an admission to a company that invested in reducing image motion blur or upsize...
Oh well, we are returning the favor. By adobe. Aperture (80$) and Pixelmator ($15... I bought it for 29$ at the time) has already replaced Adobe. Now do you think i will let any of my employees in my healthcare business to subscribe to Adobe? Good luck getting my signature on that PO!
-
An update on the update (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57586521-92/dislike-adobes-creative-cloud-subscriptions-tough-beans/)
Wadhwani says - ""Customer satisfaction for users using Creative Cloud has been off the charts. It is our single highest customer satisfaction product in the creative space."
But apparently Creative Suite users in a Cnet survey, said they loathe Adobe's subscriptions - as only 8% currently intend to upgrade.
(http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57586530-92/survey-creative-suite-users-loathe-adobes-subscriptions/)
Dave
-
An update on the update (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57586521-92/dislike-adobes-creative-cloud-subscriptions-tough-beans/)
Wadhwani says - ""Customer satisfaction for users using Creative Cloud has been off the charts. It is our single highest customer satisfaction product in the creative space."
But apparently Creative Suite users in a Cnet survey, said they loathe Adobe's subscriptions - as only 8% currently intend to upgrade.
(http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57586530-92/survey-creative-suite-users-loathe-adobes-subscriptions/)
Dave
Did you read this sentence in the CNET survey: "One significant caveat: This was an unscientific survey of self-selected respondents." This of course invalidates the whole exercise. It's completely meaningless. I think it's just about axiomatic that the disgruntled are more likely to pipe-up in such surveys than the satisfied who just subscribe and move-on.
-
And equally axiomatic that one pissed-off customer tells ten times as many people as the satisfied customer. Both stats are pretty self-selecting, don't you think?
-
Highly probable.
-
My friends,
Let's face it, this is a done deal. The only winning strategy for us photographers it to actively support Adobe's competitors by buying licenses of their products today, even if they are not at the right level yet.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My friends,
Let's face it, this is a done deal. The only winning strategy for us photographers it to actively support Adobe's competitors by buying licenses of their products today, even if they are not at the right level yet.
Cheers,
Bernard
The basic deal is done, but it may yet emerge with some amendments to address the complaints. I'd let it play out for a while before jumping to conclusions.
-
^^There is a rich history that pressure from consumers and/or unintended results can alter and even significantly reshape corporate direction no matter how well thought out (or not). Use Mr. Google to research the term "marketing blunders" for some examples. There are many.
-
But apparently Creative Suite users in a Cnet survey, said they loathe Adobe's subscriptions - as only 8% currently intend to upgrade. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57586530-92/survey-creative-suite-users-loathe-adobes-subscriptions/)
Apparently users did not say "loathe" -- the word only appears in the title of the blog post and seems to be editorial comment.
fwiw It was 8% of those using CS 5.5 or earlier who plan to move to subscription, and 38% plan to move to CS6, and 54% don't know.
fwiw It was said of 76% of those using CS 6 that they planned never to move to CC, which might mean 24% answered that they plan to move to subscription and 76% answered don't know. (Or it might mean that the survey weirdly asked different questions of the CS 6 users).
-
The basic deal is done, but it may yet emerge with some amendments to address the complaints. I'd let it play out for a while before jumping to conclusions.
It'll be interesting to see what "continue to maintain" means in practice -- 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.
It'll be interesting to see what "reliably access what they've created" means in practice -- "We agree our customers should be able to open their files even after they've unsubscribed," Wadhwani said. "It's their work, and they should be able to reliably access what they've created."
-
My friends,
Let's face it, this is a done deal. The only winning strategy for us photographers it to actively support Adobe's competitors by buying licenses of their products today, even if they are not at the right level yet.
The basic deal is done, but it may yet emerge with some amendments to address the complaints. I'd let it play out for a while before jumping to conclusions.
Hi Mark,
Bernhard is not jumping to conclusions, he is right that supporting Adobe's competitors is a winning strategy, from every angle you may look at that.
Remember Pixmantec Rawshooter? An innovative blazingly fast Raw converter that posed such a threat to Adobe's Raw conversion speed and quality and marketing model that their only defense was to take it out of completion by buying the company. They slowly integrated some of the functionality (http://news.cnet.com/Adobe-Lightroom-getting-Pixmantec-influence/2100-1012_3-6118887.html?) (besides Raw conversion amongst others Vibrance ) into their own Lightroom software, which became better.
Everybody came out as sort of a winner.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Did you read this sentence in the CNET survey: "One significant caveat: This was an unscientific survey of self-selected respondents." This of course invalidates the whole exercise. It's completely meaningless. I think it's just about axiomatic that the disgruntled are more likely to pipe-up in such surveys than the satisfied who just subscribe and move-on.
Adobe probably have very sharp data gathering functions and market analysts who at least for the empirical stuff probably perform well. Executive management use of such information of course, whether for making decisions or producing public statements is another matter, and it is likely in these latter respects that we are seeing the shortcomings.
Mark, do I note here a propensity to support Adobe's data without question but to be entirely sceptical of any other data sources ? Just wondering ? Would you care to comment ?
-
Everybody came out as sort of a winner.
I wonder if you'll still hold that opinion if Adobe move LR to a subscription model in two years time ?
Yes, Rawshooter was good, I used it.
-
I wonder if you'll still hold that opinion if Adobe move LR to a subscription model in two years time ?
That's why we need to continue and support Adobe's competition! Keep the pressure up to prevent Adobe from making more stupid decisions, and allow competition to drive innovation.
In the mean time, Capture One has become much better, and will hopefully continue (when we support it) in the coming years. We have the very capable RawTherapee, in several ways better than Adobe's Raw conversion process, basically for free. We have very capable Pano stitching and focus stacking offerings, with much better control than what Photoshop has to offer. We have (some are exclusively plug-in based) very useful productivity/image enhancement (distortion correction, Topaz-Labs, Nik Software) solutions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Following earlier reports on Tuesday, Adobe confirmed that its chief technology officer, Kevin Lynch, is leaving the company. (http://www.zdnet.com/adobe-confirms-ctos-departure-in-sec-filing-7000012853/)
(http://www.whattheduck.net/sites/default/files/WTD1382.gif)
Dave
-
Just a commonplace analogy.
To ship has been used for decades to reflect "Release Date"
-
To ship has been used for decades to reflect "Release Date"
Maybe, but then people say the darnedest things ... ;)
According Webster's (http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/ship), the verb "ship" is used to describe the physical displacement of goods over a distance, to "transport commercially":
in commercial usage, to commit to any conveyance for transportation to a distance; as, to ship freight by railroad.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Following earlier reports on Tuesday, Adobe confirmed that its chief technology officer, Kevin Lynch, is leaving the company. (http://www.zdnet.com/adobe-confirms-ctos-departure-in-sec-filing-7000012853/)
Not sure what you're getting at, Dave, but that news is 2 months old - nothing to do with recent events. But you might be amused by this quote from his web site (http://klynch.com/):
"I'm currently CTO at Adobe, where I shape Adobe's long-term technology vision and focus innovation across the company along the lines of multiscreen, cloud, and social computing. The most recent embodiment of this work is Adobe Creative Cloud for creative professionals, and Adobe Marketing Cloud for marketing professionals."
At least Captain Smith didn't jump ship in Cherbourg or Queenstown....
John
-
...
It'll be interesting to see what "reliably access what they've created" means in practice --
My money would be on a free "Photoshop Reader" application for PSD files, perhaps including "Save As Tiff" and "Save As JPG" options, similar to the Acrobat Reader they give away for PDFs. Highly unlikely that they would allow users to cancel their subscriptions while keeping their current applications fully functional albeit frozen in time. How would that be functionally different from a conventional perpetual license upgrade? If they did that people could buy a subscription, install the applications, and then the next month cancel, effectively getting a perpetually licensed product for pennies on the dollar of what has been the normal boxed-product price.
-
we shall really stop using the word "cloud" and always use the word "subscription", that is what it is and we shall not play along Adobe's marketing.
+1
-
The basic deal is done, but it may yet emerge with some amendments to address the complaints. I'd let it play out for a while before jumping to conclusions.
Hi Mark,
Bernhard is not jumping to conclusions, he is right that supporting Adobe's competitors is a winning strategy, from every angle you may look at that.
Remember Pixmantec Rawshooter? An innovative blazingly fast Raw converter that posed such a threat to Adobe's Raw conversion speed and quality and marketing model that their only defense was to take it out of completion by buying the company. They slowly integrated some of the functionality (http://news.cnet.com/Adobe-Lightroom-getting-Pixmantec-influence/2100-1012_3-6118887.html?) (besides Raw conversion amongst others Vibrance ) into their own Lightroom software, which became better.
Everybody came out as sort of a winner.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
Back in 1959 I sat in my Economics classes learning about the evils of monopoly and the virtues of competition. Not much has changed in the intervening 5+ decades, so yes, I fully support the idea of competition to Photoshop - very unhealthy that there just isn't an integrated solution as all-round capable as Photoshop provided by at least one if not two other developers. Nothing I said in my response to Bernard can be read to infer any position on competition; but for clarity, I'll affirm - let's bring it on.
-
Mark, do I note here a propensity to support Adobe's data without question but to be entirely sceptical of any other data sources ? Just wondering ? Would you care to comment ?
Simon, actually I don't really care to comment, because there is a level of thought and discourse below which I think it's a waste of time and in fact demeaning to be engaged. However, any one participating in web forums needs to bear a thick skin and be prepared to deal with any level of nonsense (or let me more generously say "misapprehension") thrown-up so I shall, just for clarity, respond. I can't support data I haven't seen and therefore not understood; it would be highly unprofessional. So NO, there is no propensity to support Adobe's data. However, the CNet article says enough about the statistical *methodology* (speaking generously here) to know off-the-bat that it's garbage. I hope that clear's up the issue for you.
-
Simon, actually I don't really care to comment, because there is a level of thought and discourse below which I think it's a waste of time and in fact demeaning to be engaged. However, any one participating in web forums needs to bear a thick skin and be prepared to deal with any level of nonsense (or let me more generously say "misapprehension") thrown-up so I shall, just for clarity, respond. I can't support data I haven't seen and therefore not understood; it would be highly unprofessional. So NO, there is no propensity to support Adobe's data. However, the CNet article says enough about the statistical *methodology* (speaking generously here) to know off-the-bat that it's garbage. I hope that clear's up the issue for you.
Mark, I whole heartedly I agree with you about the "misapprehension" – although it does give folk a chance to get things off their chests.
Just out of more general interest, if you haven't already seen this already, you (and others) might be interested in the work of Dr W. Edwards Deming; a former statistician who advised the Japanese after WW2 and helped them turn around their industry. Dr Deming calls into question much of the statistical methodology of business, industry and government describing an over reliance on flawed statistics and statistical methodology – for example, learning to be sceptical about the provenance of the numbers. You have rightly been sceptical of the provenance of the numbers of the survey but I think it is entirely right to be equally sceptical about the provenance of Adobe's numbers; after all, they too have a point to prove.
For those who are interested in reading more about Dr Deming and what he taught a good starter is a book called 'Four Days with Dr. Deming – A Strategy for Modern Methods of Management' (William J. Latzko and David M. Saunders). I highly recommend it (and I have no commercial interest in same). He was teaching up until his death in 1993 and the institute he founded continues his work today. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize.
Apologies, getting slightly off-topic here !
-
for example, learning to be sceptical about the provenance of the numbers........
Yes indeed Simon, Statistics 101 - GIGO. (For those not in the know - Garbage In, Garbage Out.) :-) Most of us who deal with any kind of data on a professional basis need to be well aware of this problem.
-
......... Highly unlikely that they would allow users to cancel their subscriptions while keeping their current applications fully functional albeit frozen in time. How would that be functionally different from a conventional perpetual license upgrade? If they did that people could buy a subscription, install the applications, and then the next month cancel, effectively getting a perpetually licensed product for pennies on the dollar of what has been the normal boxed-product price.
Steve, yes, but there is a simple fix to this problem - if Adobe chooses to go this route to keep us happy. It would be this: you subscribe for a set contract period, let us say 18 months, after which you get to keep your current version in fully functional form free of charge if you were to unsubscribe (this would be akin to what we now have on the erstwhile traditional 18 month upgrade cycle, except that after a year the price will be equivalently twice as high so eventually Adobe still comes out way ahead). If you unsubscribe before the contract period is up, it is premature termination and you pay a penalty to keep a functional license for the version you are last using. People who keep subscribed would keep getting all the latest updates, so the incentive to remain subscribed remains for as long as people think there is value-added doing so.
-
True story. Slightly off-topic, but true.
Night exterior, Eureka Dunes, CA. Last month, an hour after sunset.
I've just completed a very satisfactory sunset shoot in the dunes and I'm making supper for myself and my travelling companions, my quadriplegic pal and his service dog.
A red jeep rolls up in the darkness and parks nearby. It's one of those rentals that you see all over Death Valley. A photographer emerges, gathers up his gear and disappears into the night.
"I wonder what he's up to?" I muse to my supper companions.
A half hour or so later, he re-appears. "How'd you make out?", I ask as he passes our campsite.
"Not good", he says. "I got here too late."
No kidding.
We got to chatting and learn that he's staying in Furnace Creek, several hours away. We also learn that he's woefully unprepared for life in Death Valley, lacking so much as a drop of water, let alone a map. He gratefully accepted our offer of water, of which he drank copiously. He wouldn't stay for supper, though. From looking at our maps he'd realized just how far it was back to the hotel and was anxious to leave. We actually tried to convince him to spend the night at the dunes, it being a safer alternative than the nighttime traverse of the empty, twisting, narrow mountain roads back to his hotel, but no.
He was an engaging conversationalist and I asked him what he did for a living.
"Oh, I'm in IT. I work for Adobe managing their cloud services."
-
To ship has been used for decades to reflect "Release Date"
Yes, I know :-)
According Webster's, the verb "ship" is used to describe the physical displacement of goods over a distance, to "transport commercially"
intransitive verb "4 : to be sent for delivery <the order will ship soon>" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ship (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ship)
In the case of software, an electronic file sent to a computer network from where it may be downloaded by customers.
Merriam-Webster provides these appropriate examples:
- "Your order is expected to ship soon."
- "The company will ship its new software next month."
- "The software will ship next month."
-
Peter, the Eureka Dunes story is hysterical. Exactly the mentality that resulted in the current Compulsory Cloud policy.
-
In the case of software, an electronic file sent to a computer network from where it may be downloaded by customers.
Merriam Webster doesn't say this, can you point out where it does?
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Other dictionaries (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/business-english/ship_1?q=ship) also reference the moving of physical products.
-
In the case of software, an electronic file sent to a computer network from where it may be downloaded by customers.
Merriam Webster doesn't say this, can you point out where it does?
That's why it isn't in quotation marks.
You seem intent on demonstrating a lack of familiarity with an American-English usage that is commonplace. No doubt you have your reasons.
-
You seem intent on demonstrating a lack of familiarity with an American-English usage that is commonplace.
?
-
I can only guess that some of you may have received an email today from the third-party marketing research firm that sent out the email link to the Adobe survey last week. The email I received informed me that, "Due to a problem with programming, you were not asked one of the questions correctly."
Priceless.
Anyway, the question that was not "asked correctly" - i.e., the follow up that Adobe has decided is probably important given the survey data they received, is attached below.
Fun, as always. I put an X in the "5" box for all items. One can only imagine what on Earth is going on in that corporate HQ....
kirk
-
Is that for real ? really ??
Priceless
-
Not necessarily so. Adobe could require a minimum subscription time and/or a purchase fee when I choose to drop out of the subscription model.
...Highly unlikely that they would allow users to cancel their subscriptions while keeping their current applications fully functional albeit frozen in time. How would that be functionally different from a conventional perpetual license upgrade? If they did that people could buy a subscription, install the applications, and then the next month cancel, effectively getting a perpetually licensed product for pennies on the dollar of what has been the normal boxed-product price.
-
Is that for real ? really ??
Priceless
It is for real. Unless someone from Evans Research Online is messing with me. Because we all enjoy reading way too much into these things, I find it fascinating that the survey firm even needed to explain why I was being sent the additional question. I mean, a simple, "Hey Kirk, thanks for participating in the survey - we have one follow up we'd like you to answer if you could please spare us the time. Greatly appreciate you thoughts."
The excuse is totally unnecessary and, in the current state of mistrust many folks have developed towards Adobe, I can only imagine how it is being (mis)interpreted.
Still, at least they finally asked the only really important set of questions. Better late than never.
kirk
-
Not necessarily so. Adobe could require a minimum subscription time and/or a purchase fee when I choose to drop out of the subscription model.
Indeed, pretty much as I suggested in reply 102 above. If you and I can think of this, perhaps the senior management of Adobe could do likewise; I'd like to see feedback on why such a scheme would NOT be workable and suitable.
-
I'd like to see feedback on why such a scheme would NOT be workable and suitable.
Well ... if Adobe offered such an exit option ... they would no longer receive their monthly stipend from you for CC ... The executives at Adobe don't want users to ever stop paying for the use of the software ... they're just shocked and surprised so many folks fail to recognize the "innovation" of the CC licensing model ...
-
But apparently Creative Suite users in a Cnet survey, said they loathe Adobe's subscriptions - as only 8% currently intend to upgrade. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57586530-92/survey-creative-suite-users-loathe-adobes-subscriptions/)
I asked about the cnet survey and there was a missing chart.
fwiw "Will Adobe CS6 users stay with it or switch to a Creative Cloud subscription?"
"Of 740" "self-selected respondents":
- 10.8% "Stay on CS6 but eventually move to Creative Cloud"
- 13.2% "I don't know"
- 76% "Stay on CS6 and never move to Creative Cloud"
-
Not necessarily so. Adobe could require a minimum subscription time and/or a purchase fee when I choose to drop out of the subscription model.
If so, how does that differ from the current perpetual licensing model, assuming with the present model one downloads the software upgrades via the web instead of bringing home a boxed product from a brick-and-mortar store? Adobe (and Microsoft and others) are trying to steer their products away from being a "pay us once and use it until you choose to replace it" item and turn them into products that generate a continuous ongoing revenue stream for as long as we use them. I'm not happy about it and I think it's a mistake but any solution to our complaints are clearly going to have to be consistent with that business strategy.
Adobe has clearly lost sight of the difference between sales and marketing. With sales you design and build a product and then convince potential customers that they need it. With marketing, you find out what the customers already want and then design and build a product that fulfills that need. I don't recall anyone ever asking me if I'd prefer to rent software versus paying once for a license to use for as long as I wanted it.
-
Guys, there's really a relatively simple psychology to all of this. If Adobe were to offer an acceptable "out" from the subscription process (i.e. one that allows us to keep the latest version we're using operational on some terms or other), we are comfortable, so we subscribe without further ado. Then what's the bargain: the deal is that we keep paying as long as they keep innovating. If they keep coming up with stuff we like, we stay subscribed because we want it. If they fail, we're gone. As long as they have confidence that they can continue enticing us to stay hooked, this should be a no-brainer for them, and the maximum likelihood is that most of us will sign-up under those conditions and we will stay hooked.
-
Guys, there's really a relatively simple psychology to all of this. If Adobe were to offer an acceptable "out" from the subscription process (i.e. one that allows us to keep the latest version we're using operational on some terms or other), we are comfortable, so we subscribe without further ado. Then what's the bargain: the deal is that we keep paying as long as they keep innovating. If they keep coming up with stuff we like, we stay subscribed because we want it. If they fail, we're gone. As long as they have confidence that they can continue enticing us to stay hooked, this should be a no-brainer for them, and the maximum likelihood is that most of us will sign-up under those conditions and we will stay hooked.
I couldn't agree with you more Mark ... but it's the folks at Adobe who earn salaries in the millions and own several hundred thousand shares of their own stock you need to convince ... They ... want a licensing model that pays perpetually, regardless of what features they develop and implement (or how timely they appear) ... if they give users an opt out avenue ... it defeats the whole purpose for the forced CC licensing model ...
Like has been said before, the opt out plan that we all would find acceptable ... is no different than the perpetual licensing model at the end of the day ... They have said in this most recent blog post that CC is here to stay. In my mind, even if they would come up with some sort of relatively acceptable compromise ... how could we users ever trust that they would not pull an even more detrimental policy change in the future? For that reason, I don't think I could ever again invest in their software with any sort of confidence that I wouldn't be throwing good money after bad.
Yes, it would be quite easy for Adobe to remedy the situation ... though, you are preaching to the choir ... your message is sound, however, those that need to hear it and can apply it's logic to their business model don't seem very receptive to listening.
-
... your message is sound, however, those that need to hear it and can apply it's logic to their business model don't seem very receptive to listening.
I think this is that what we need to wait a bit and see.
-
As long as they have confidence that they can continue enticing us to stay hooked, this should be a no-brainer for them, and the maximum likelihood is that most of us will sign-up under those conditions and we will stay hooked.
Adobe public statements present confidence that most customers who've previously wanted the new stuff enough to actually upgrade will again move to CC for the new stuff, and former customers who've previously been happy without the new stuff will continue with their olde PS or eventually buy CS6.
I suppose we should remember that ~500,000 early adopters already are paying subscription.
-
I suppose we should remember that ~500,000 early adopters already are paying subscription.
If that figure is correct and their global customer base is somewhere in the region of 12,000,000 (read this number online several times, so maybe not too far out), then 500,000 represents only around 5% of their customer base who have currently signed up to the cloud - if this is true, then they really are betting everything including their shirts, that the other 95% are going to sign up as well.
I cannot see a company of Adobe's size and global reach, taking such a gamble without having a good idea of what the outcome will be, so I must be missing something here and these numbers give a representation that is just too simplistic.
Dave
-
If that figure is correct...
"Adobe ended Q1 with 479 thousand paid Creative Cloud members, an increase of 153 thousand when compared to the number of members as of the end of Q4 fiscal year 2012." First Quarter Financial Highlights (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/201303/Q113Earnings.html)
and their global customer base is somewhere in the region of 12,000,000 (read this number online several times, so maybe not too far out)
Please share the source for that ballpark number. (Is it supposed to be every customer of any Adobe product ever, or...?)
-
[
I cannot see a company of Adobe's size and global reach, taking such a gamble without having a good idea of what the outcome will be, so I must be missing something here and these numbers give a representation that is just too simplistic.
Dave
[/quote]
Much has been missed in this discussion of Adobe's objectives. For at least a decade Cisco and IBM have been promoting "cloud" collaboration and have published positive surveys of executives lauding its benefits.
A subscriber's local installation of Adobe software will eventually erode into cloud based computing (as opposed to simple data uploads) so that creative technicians and their project directors will not be restricted to any particular platform. They apparently envision widely distributed effort on creative projects that are conceived, developed and completed entirely "in the cloud" using tablets, smart phones and even, sometimes, computers. It would not be prudent for a photographer to rely upon the availability of locally installed software for more than two or three years as Adobe's concept is fully implemented.
Adobe's interest in photographers is understandably attenuated. Outside of the large commercial shops, photographers do not collaborate that much. They might send out 8 mb jpegs for retouching, or AD approval but that, obviously, is not the collaboration that Adobe envisions. Adobe wants to provide both tools for the design of, say a web presence, and also the metrics for determining the success of the web marketing program.
Curiously, within the Adobe's Cloud discussion and EULA there appears to be a belief that the digitally creative types are going to be sharing techniques, processes, ideas and examples altruistically and unhesitatingly Facebook style, outside of their own enterprise. Adobe sees advertising opportunities along side the technician's uploaded, editorialized explanations and illustrations of work in progress.
There is no other way to account for the described difficulty Adobe perceives in the maintenance of perpetual licenses together with the cloud subscriptions when they are both, for the time being, installed locally.
Ultimately, with the availability of so much free or cheap stock, Adobe recognizes that photography is not a very significant element in anyone's future profit scheme. I mean, if you want a tiger in the website illustration, does one dispatch a photographer on an expedition?
Nuther' words, there does not seem to be much reason to count on Adobe addressing the wishes of the self-selected CNET "surveyed" who want perpetual licenses for what is really an illustrator's program. Do photography with the camera, like the old days, and for illustrations, hold your nose and join the cloud.
Ken Richmond
-
This line of argument ignores four potentially important factors that could possibly weigh-in more than proportionately to the affected share of the customer base: (i) corporate reputational risk, (ii) the time-value of keeping the peace; (iii) the fact that the loss of customers is a bite straight out of the bottom line - so it has leverage whether the number is large or - within reason - smaller; and (iv) the dynamic impact of inducing more competition to one of their flagship products (a good thing in any case), a risk they may decide worthwhile attenuating with a more copacetic commercial approach. Let us see how it plays out over the coming weeks.
-
"Adobe ended Q1 with 479 thousand paid Creative Cloud members, an increase of 153 thousand when compared to the number of members as of the end of Q4 fiscal year 2012." First Quarter Financial Highlights (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/201303/Q113Earnings.html)
Please share the source for that ballpark number. (Is it supposed to be every customer of any Adobe product ever, or...?)
The 12 million is shown in these financial briefing slides (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/AdobeMAXFABriefingSlides6May2013.pdf). 8 million are suite owners, 4 million have point products.
-
Nuther' words, there does not seem to be much reason to count on Adobe addressing the wishes of the self-selected CNET "surveyed" who want perpetual licenses for what is really an illustrator's program. Do photography with the camera, like the old days, and for illustrations, hold your nose and join the cloud.
I think you must have seen one of the presentations on Adobe's cloud vision, because your assessment is spot on.
The important question is if subscription works for professionals, will then consider rolling it out to the perpetual licence programs like LR & PSE ?
Let's hope not and Adobe see the value of serving their PL customers differently and do offer a PS light for photographers.
-
Nuther' words, there does not seem to be much reason to count on Adobe addressing the wishes of the self-selected CNET "surveyed" who want perpetual licenses for what is really an illustrator's program. Do photography with the camera, like the old days, and for illustrations, hold your nose and join the cloud.
Ken Richmond
Adobe makes an illustrator's program - it's called "Illustrator." They also make an image processing program, apparently not for photographers, called "Photoshop."
Go figure.
Adobe is going to do what it is going to do, regardless of the illogical reasons presented to an angry user base - people do not like being spoonfed garbage, so Adobe's attempt to convince us of what is good for us just makes us more irritated, because most of us know what we want, we just cannot have it the way we have become accustomed to having it. While this may be a bitter pill to swallow in the name of carrying on with the tools we know we want, Adobe insists on reacting to our displeasure with patronizing attempts to tells us why the Cloud is what we want, and if we do not want it, well, then we are not "professionals" or whatever differentiation they are trying to establish.
It is what it is.
kirk
-
(http://www.whattheduck.net/sites/default/files/WTD1399.gif)
-
Adobe makes an illustrator's program - it's called "Illustrator." They also make an image processing program, apparently not for photographers, called "Photoshop."
Go figure.
OK -- maybe the market for the image processing program was expected to be graphic designers and artists who create commercial artwork that includes photographs, not the people who take photographs.
-
OK -- maybe the market for the image processing program was expected to be graphic designers and artists who create commercial artwork that includes photographs, not the people who take photographs.
Well ... that has been bandied about for some time ... regardless of the intended market for Photoshop ... millions of photographers have adopted Photoshop nonetheless ... also the fact that Adobe never offered any form of disclaimer or imposed any criteria for entry that Ps was intended specifically for graphic designers and artists ... nor did they refuse to accept payment from the lowly photographers that in no small way made it possible for Ps to become what it is today ... and by extension, helped propel Adobe into a multi-billion dollar global concern. Not to mention it would have shut down Scott Kelby stone cold decades ago as the NAPP membership is primarily photographers.
I find it incredulous for anyone, you or Adobe, to be so dismissive by pointing out an intent that really is a meaningless facet that has very little to do with the actual reality of the situation.
I would venture to say, without the revenues that photographers have contributed to Ps and Adobe ... it might even be possible that Adobe would not now have the resources to even consider the CC model.
-
OK -- maybe the market for the image processing program was expected to be graphic designers and artists who create commercial artwork that includes photographs, not the people who take photographs.
Could very well be, either by intent of the designer or by the adoption of the tool by the folks that create commercial artwork. I can imagine that the intent back when Photoshop found its place in the industry - the industry has probably changed as "photography" has morphed from film and drum scanners to widely accessible digital acquisition.
The distinction is irrelevant from a user standpoint, in the sense that all of these people are performing image processing and using Photoshop to do it. From Adobe's corporate viewpoint, I understand that if the majority of the users are pre-press and commercial graphics folks and they are demanding the cloud, then that's where the tool should go - "photographers" may likely be a small subset of the Photoshop user compared to the industrial users you mention.
kirk
-
Well ... that has been bandied about for some time ...
So it doesn't really work as a way to lampoon Adobe.
-
I would venture to say, without the revenues that photographers have contributed to Ps and Adobe ... it might even be possible that Adobe would not now have the resources to even consider the CC model.
Well, I'm pretty sure you're wrong...by Adobe's own numbers photographers make up less than 10% of the user base for Creative Suite...consider that photographers (at least some if not many) only upgraded every other version (or even longer between upgrades) I would say that photographers as a group, have not been very important to Adobe's success. The reality is, photographers as a group have not been terribly important to Adobe. Now, photographers may not like to hear that, but if you want to deal with the situation, it's important to have a grasp of reality...
-
Well, I'm pretty sure you're wrong...by Adobe's own numbers photographers make up less than 10% of the user base for Creative Suite
Photographers were using Photoshop (and thus sponsoring Adobe) before the Creative Suite was even introduced in 2003 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Creative_Suite#Creative_Suite_1_and_2), I know I was for many years already. Because the Creative Suite offered much more than Photographers needed for their business, i.e. Photoshop, obviously (duh) photographers formed a small percentage of all Creative Suite users.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Now, photographers may not like to hear that, but if you want to deal with the situation, it's important to have a grasp of reality...
Well ... all the more reason for photographers to abandon Adobe products ... who wants to be treated as insignificant? If we do so ... Adobe won't even notice, eh?
-
Well, I'm pretty sure you're wrong...by Adobe's own numbers photographers make up less than 10% of the user base for Creative Suite...consider that photographers (at least some if not many) only upgraded every other version (or even longer between upgrades) I would say that photographers as a group, have not been very important to Adobe's success. The reality is, photographers as a group have not been terribly important to Adobe. Now, photographers may not like to hear that, but if you want to deal with the situation, it's important to have a grasp of reality...
I'm not even sure that metric is important. There are many products and user-types at play, and the commercial reality may not divide so nicely as between photographers and non-photographers. What matters is the percentage of the total client base for all the products that would find it practical/acceptable to subscribe or not subscribe. The lines of division may become more corporate versus non-corporate, but even that may not be informative enough. In any case, it will be a moving situation while people and companies sort out their minds on all this. All that said, we shouldn't either exaggerate or underplay the importance of any one group.
-
All that said, we shouldn't either exaggerate or underplay the importance of any one group.
But a user group should understand that it's only a subset of all users in the overall user base. It's also useful for a user group to have a firm grasp on the reality of their importance to the overall user base. Photographers as a group have not historically been a large portion of the overall Adobe use base for any of their products other than Lightroom. And a user group that has been historically slow to upgrade (only upgrading once in a while vs.each and every version) makes their importance even less.
-
Well ... all the more reason for photographers to abandon Adobe products ... who wants to be treated as insignificant? If we do so ... Adobe won't even notice, eh?
Actually, I don't need Adobe to stroke my ego.
I use Adobe software because I find it useful, and I'm usually also looking at software from other vendors as-and-when I have the time (Currently DxO Optics Pro 8 ).
-
But a user group should understand that it's only a subset of all users in the overall user base. It's also useful for a user group to have a firm grasp on the reality of their importance to the overall user base. Photographers as a group have not historically been a large portion of the overall Adobe use base for any of their products other than Lightroom. And a user group that has been historically slow to upgrade (only upgrading once in a while vs.each and every version) makes their importance even less.
Not saying all that isn't correct. I'm only pointing out - which I think we agree coming at it different ways - while the photographer subset may not be determinative, it's the combined responses of all the other subsets that will determine the success or failure of the business model in the final analysis. We've been focusing on photographers because this is a photography website that draws largely a photographer participant base. I haven't heard or researched how any of the other subsets have been reacting to this change of business model.
-
Actually, I don't need Adobe to stroke my ego.
You seem to have a propensity for reading into a comment ... I was not implying that I felt the need to have Adobe "stroke my ego" ... only that a transaction in commerce should at least have a remote sense of an equal partnership. For one can not exist without the other, especially if you consider repeat sales are the life's blood to success for any business.
If you, yourself, have ever conducted business on the open market ... as long as you accept a sale from a client, should the client feel they are important to the cause? Or should they merely be treated as a necessary nuisance if they are not your intended market? If they are treated as a less valued customer? ... How many repeat sales do you hope to achieve? How many "photographers" who at one point only owned Ps are now Creative Suite license holders? Would Lr have made such successful inroads to the photographic community without the historical reputation of Photoshop and Adobe in general? While I fully comprehend that a business must do what is in the best interests of the majority of their customers ... one would hope they could find a means to do so without alienating the rest. Because quite frankly, Adobe didn't come to this decision because they had their backs to the wall financially or are in dire straits.
-
But a user group should understand that it's only a subset of all users in the overall user base. It's also useful for a user group to have a firm grasp on the reality of their importance to the overall user base.
Enough already. I find it hard to understand why you as a creative artist if you will, would so vehemently defend that type of corporate logic. If you really believe that that type of technocrat corporate-centric logic is remotely useful in running a company within the larger context of a (global) community, then god help you when the local electricity and gas company re-evaluates your "significance"…
-
Enough already. I find it hard to understand why you as a creative artist if you will, would so vehemently defend that type of corporate logic.
You don't get it...I'm not defending Adobe's logic, I'm trying to explain it. Know your enemy...if you want to fight against Adobe's logic, you have to do so from a position of understanding why Adobe thought it had to do what it did...it's foolish to try to fight something you don't understand. I understand photographers are upset and why they are upset. They don't like Adobe's decision because of the way they think it impacts them as a Photoshop user. But ranting and raving isn't going to have any impact. If you don't like Creative Cloud, vote with your wallet. Just understand that your wallet has not been historically all that important to Adobe...
-
I cannot see a company of Adobe's size and global reach, taking such a gamble without having a good idea of what the outcome will be, so I must be missing something here and these numbers give a representation that is just too simplistic.
This is what I have also been wondering. Also I wonder how can their board accept a decline in sales by 22% in 2013 (the graph #29 in Adobe MAX Financial Analyst Briefing), I must be missing something here.
Looking at Adobe's Balance Sheet you can see that 40% of their assets is Goodwill. The GAAP rules were changed some 10 yrs ago and it is not required to amortize the goodwill anymore and Adobe has not amortized it. This isnt necessarily a bad thing. But 40% of the assets...
-
You don't get it...I'm not defending Adobe's logic, I'm trying to explain it.
I understand the difference. So let me rephrase deliberately provocative: how would you explain the logic behind any company being allowed to alienate 10% of its customerbase, in favour of apparently squeezing out more income from the remaining 90%?
-
Seems that many are complaining that they will be "locked out" of their ability to revisit files at a later time and re-edit their PSD files again if their subscription to CC stops, and there are tools that were used up till that point that are now closed to them. Personally I rarely go back and re-edit old images since there is a flood of new ones to work on all the time and I really wonder whether or not this is a valid 'bone of contention' or people just bellyaching for the sake of argument.
I'm not sure if anyone has suggested this yet...
As I understand the CC model, the software up to the point you have subscribed, remains on your HD you just can no longer access it after a given point after stopping.
What if Adobe simply implemented a way to re-enter your CC program (pay per use), and use it on a daily or weekly rental basis if it is really necessary to re-edit a file? You would still have access to all the tools that were used up to the point you stopped and full edit ability of said files!
David
-
...only that a transaction in commerce should at least have a remote sense of an equal partnership. For one can not exist without the other, especially if you consider repeat sales are the life's blood to success for any business.
If I never buy another Adobe product, Adobe certainly won't notice -- but I'll probably find it more difficult to get some things done.
It is not a partnership. It is not an equal partnership (Installed base 8 million?). It is a transaction, which is already over and done with.
No doubt Adobe know their valuable clients -- the clients that make them money.
-
I understand the difference. So let me rephrase deliberately provocative: how would you explain the logic behind any company being allowed to alienate 10% of its customerbase, in favour of apparently squeezing out more income from the remaining 90%?
Oscar, if the incremental income from the 90% will be greater than the net loss from the 10% (a portion of whom will subscribe)?
-
I understand the difference. So let me rephrase deliberately provocative: how would you explain the logic behind any company being allowed to alienate 10% of its customerbase, in favour of apparently squeezing out more income from the remaining 90%?
That's your characterization...and I'm not at all sure it's accurate. Assuming that a user is using more than one or two point products, CC is a really good deal for pro users. You get all of Adobe's pro apps for a relatively small price (based on the upgrade price for most of the Creative Suites or Master Collection). For non-pro users or users only needing one point product, I agree that a subscription may not be the best deal vs a perpetual license that is only upgraded on occasion. But that's what the reality is now. Get CS6 and hang on to it for a while or go Photoshop CC. Or, find something else to use.
-
This is what I have also been wondering. Also I wonder how can their board accept a decline in sales by 22% in 2013 (the graph #29 in Adobe MAX Financial Analyst Briefing), I must be missing something here.
Looking at Adobe's Balance Sheet you can see that 40% of their assets is Goodwill. The GAAP rules were changed some 10 yrs ago and it is not required to amortize the goodwill anymore and Adobe has not amortized it. This isnt necessarily a bad thing. But 40% of the assets...
Goodwill is the difference between the value of the company and the value of its physical assets. For a software company dealing in intellectual property goodwill would be a very large slice of total value; this is normal. And a decline of sales in one year of transition means little when your corporate time horizon is the next decade or so. Could you explain what any of this contributes to a better understanding of the issues?
-
f you don't like Creative Cloud, vote with your wallet. Just understand that your wallet has not been historically all that important to Adobe...
::)
rule N1, call things w/ their names... it is not "Creative Cloud", it is "subscription only mode"
rule N2, be vocal and actively post against everywhere... their (Schewes, plular) "goal" is to silence, so do not be silent...
-
But a user group should understand that it's only a subset of all users in the overall user base.
oh... tell this to LGBT
-
Seems that many are complaining that they will be "locked out" of their ability to revisit files at a later time and re-edit their PSD files again if their subscription to CC stops, and there are tools that were used up till that point that are now closed to them. Personally I rarely go back and re-edit old images since there is a flood of new ones to work on all the time and I really wonder whether or not this is a valid 'bone of contention' or people just bellyaching for the sake of argument.
You don't re-edit, and there's no reason to disbelieve what you say. If others say they do foresee the need to fine tune their work, then it's fair enough to accept what they say at face value. After all, why should they be accused of concocting this as a way to bellyache, yet your arguments not be similarly discounted for some other psychological failing? Ever heard of the idea of non-destructive editing and thought what it might be for?
-
What if Adobe simply implemented a way to re-enter your CC program (pay per use), and use it on a daily or weekly rental basis if it is really necessary to re-edit a file?
That's available now as I understand it. You can subscribe to(rent) the whole suite just for a month.
This aspect of it seems to be over looked by a lot of the complainants.
It's actually one of the few good things about CC; you can get access to things like InDesign for a one off book project or Premiere+AE for a video project just for a month or two to work on and finish a project.
-
I know we are all looking at this from a photographers point of view and how it affects us, but there are also many others out there who are finding that Adobe's Creative Cloud is a bitter pill that is just too hard to swallow, such as Higher Education (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/22/adobe-pricing-plan-raises-concerns) <- read some of the comments from educational buyers further down the page.
I wonder what percentage of Adobe's customer base this section occupies?
[Update] - and here (http://adobe2014.tumblr.com/) is how we could all help to change Adobe's mind. Although I don't agree with the statement on the link page that states "adobe cannot go back to perpetual licenses", because I think they definitely could if it meant appeasing their angry shareholders ;D
Dave
-
It's actually one of the few good things about CC; you can get access to things like InDesign for a one off book project or Premiere+AE for a video project just for a month or two to work on and finish a project.
nobody is arguing against "subscription", only about "subscription only"...
-
You don't get it...I'm not defending Adobe's logic, I'm trying to explain it. Know your enemy...if you want to fight against Adobe's logic, you have to do so from a position of understanding why Adobe thought it had to do what it did...it's foolish to try to fight something you don't understand. I understand photographers are upset and why they are upset. They don't like Adobe's decision because of the way they think it impacts them as a Photoshop user. But ranting and raving isn't going to have any impact. If you don't like Creative Cloud, vote with your wallet. Just understand that your wallet has not been historically all that important to Adobe...
Oh, Jeff....of course you are defending Adobe.
I find it interesting that you think it is important to explain to us Adobe position, as if it will make us feel any better about their action. How come, when it comes to DNG you don't have any "understanding" of the camera manufacturer's reasons to not use DNG.
Appears that you and Adobe, at least in your mind, are always right....even when you are both often proven wrong. Sure is a lot a chutzpah
-
Another interesting thing to ponder is the recent acquisition of Nik by Google. Nik made plug-ins for photoshop for photographers. This apparently unimportant market segment has been subsumed by Google, most likely because there is potential for making money off of such an inconsequential market segment - and most likely with an image processing application of their own. I would guess that one of the driving factors behind Adobe's new focus is the direct threat from Google and other "cloud"-saavy organizations with lots of programmers and a huge head start in the future direction of processing and delivery. Google has an extraordinary presence on the net. It makes mobile devices, and operating systems for them. It controls the universe of information, analysis and delivery of it. Perhaps Adobe's extraordinary emphasis on the Cloud is an attempt to let the (potential) competition known that Adobe is now going to be a player in the "future" - maybe a little late to the game. If Google wants a piece of your turf (the mobile device platform market, syncing desktop to mobile platforms for image processing, etc., syncing and collaborating over the net for data delivery), pissing off loyal customers is not a great way to start defending it.
But, of course, most people who would use a Google product for their images are not "pros."
kirk
-
Seems that many are complaining that they will be "locked out" of their ability to revisit files at a later time and re-edit their PSD files again if their subscription to CC stops, and there are tools that were used up till that point that are now closed to them. Personally I rarely go back and re-edit old images since there is a flood of new ones to work on all the time and I really wonder whether or not this is a valid 'bone of contention' or people just bellyaching for the sake of argument.
There are many cases when reworking a file is required together with the ability to do it at any time:
- Mgt of sharpening: I keep sharpening layers in my files and want to be able to remove them/modify them based on the desired output,
- Fine art applications: a client requests a print from an image on a new paper stock, you realize that you need to tune the curves to get the same rendering,
- Compositing: you want to re-use a template on which some picture elements of a web page are based but modify the layers arrangement to tune a text,...
- New improvements in raw processing. I did revisit quite a few images after C1 Pro 7 was released and didn't want to re-start from scratch. So I did re-open some files, replaced the base layer by the new conversion but kept all the layers on top of it,
- Printing of a portfolio: you need a certain degree of coherence among images that typically forces you to tune some of them which requires edition,
- ...
There are just a few examples. obviousy graphic designers build all their IP as layers, so they need to access layers wvery single time they use their files.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are many cases when reworking a file is required together with the ability to do it at any time...
afaict The situation is simply that you wish to use PS CC without subscription, and Adobe don't wish to provide PS CC without subscription.
-
afaict The situation is simply that you wish to use PS CC without subscription, and Adobe don't wish to provide PS CC without subscription.
I don't wish to use a subscription based solution at all because I feel that there is simply no way the issue of "business continuity" after subscription end can have a workable solution.
In other words, these real world examples are a clear proof that once you start to subcribe, you are bound to have to continue subscribing as long as you continue the activity for which you are using the software.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... because I feel that there is simply no way the issue of "business continuity" after subscription end can have a workable solution.
Because you consider proprietary artifacts to be assets, but they are fully assets only when combined with unrestricted use of the proprietary algorithms, and subscription restricts the use of some proprietary algorithms.
Which is why you won't be satisfied by - "We agree our customers should be able to open their files even after they've unsubscribed," Wadhwani said. "It's their work, and they should be able to reliably access what they've created."
We can guess that will only be a restricted use.
In other words, these real world examples are a clear proof that once you start to subcribe, you are bound to have to continue subscribing as long as you continue the activity for which you are using the software.
They are proof of the incremental benefits of continuing to use the same proprietary tool, which become part of the cost of moving to a different tool.
-
Because you consider proprietary artifacts to be assets, but they are fully assets only when combined with unrestricted use of the proprietary algorithms, and subscription restricts the use of some proprietary algorithms.
Which is why you won't be satisfied by - "We agree our customers should be able to open their files even after they've unsubscribed," Wadhwani said. "It's their work, and they should be able to reliably access what they've created."
We can guess that will only be a restricted use.
They are proof of the incremental benefits of continuing to use the same proprietary tool, which become part of the cost of moving to a different tool.
Yes, absolutely.
I believe few people would consider these "artifacts" (layers, masks,...), that I call IP, no to be valuable assets.
So this means that starting to subscribe means a choice in terms of continuying to pay forever OR loosing these valuable assets when you "decide" you won't continue to pay.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I believe few people would consider these "artifacts" (layers, masks,...), that I call IP, no to be valuable assets.
They only have value when combined with the proprietary algorithms.
I'm pleased to have a clear understanding of your views.
-
They only have value when combined with the proprietary algorithms.
Indeed. The Abode decision to focus on CC alone has highlighted our dependency on the continued availability of the platform (data and the algos turning them into photographic assets) in which we decided to invest our IP.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Shantanu Narayen (http://www.adobe.com/leaders/shantanu-narayen.html), the President and Chief Executive Officer of Adobe, has recently sold nearly all (around 97%) of his $10,000,000 (http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/adbe/insider-trades/sells) Adobe shares, just before the CC was introduced.
Don’t know if this is in anyway relevant to the ongoing Creative 'Mushroom' Cloud, but it is interesting don’t you think?
Dave
-
Interesting? Or just a cheap insinuation?
-
Interesting? Or just a cheap insinuation?
Whatever you want John, I am simply passing on comments as stated directly from Adobe's own user discussion forum, I have not made this up and I am not insinuating anything, I am simply passing this on, so if you want to think cheap, then cheap away ;D
Dave
-
Interesting? Or just a cheap insinuation?
Abode has publicly acknowlegded that they knew their move would not be popular.
You'd have to be real stupid not to anticipate a short/mid term negative impact on stock value. Now if Adobe's decision turns out to be good overall business wise, then the stock will bounce back.
So the decision of the CEO to sell is most likely related to CC, but it does not necessarily indicate that he doesn't believe in the stategy. Either he needs cash now or he doesn't see himself staying with Adobe long enough to benefit from the possible long term positive impact on stock value.
Who knows what his position was in this debate. It may have been decided by board members as part of a grand scheme to start deploying stable revenue generation schemes in order to resist the move towards free software. Indeed, we all know that the kind of "ad dumping" performed by Google may not be ruled illegal early enough to prevent killing a significant chunk of software IP providers like Adobe.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Adobe - Freedom of Choice - We Love Choice - Create without limits
http://web.archive.org/web/20110623095449/http://www.adobe.com/choice/
• At Adobe, we believe that the open flow of creativity, ideas, and information should be limited only by the imagination. Innovation thrives when people are free to choose the technologies that enable them to openly express themselves and access information where and when they want.
• Openness is at Adobe's core.
• We believe open markets that allow developers, publishers, and consumers to make their own choices about how they create, distribute, and access content are essential to progress.
• We remain certain that open markets are the only way forward.
Thoughts on Open Markets - John Warnock and Chuck Geschke
http://web.archive.org/web/20110716073019/http://www.adobe.com/choice/ openmarkets.html
• As the founders of Adobe, we believe open markets are in the best interest of developers, content owners, and consumers.
• We believe that consumers should be able to freely access their favorite content and applications, regardless of what computer they have, what browser they like, or what device suits their needs. No company — no matter how big or how creative — should dictate what you can create, how you create it
• When markets are open, anyone with a great idea has a chance to drive innovation and find new customers. Adobe's business philosophy is based on a premise that, in an open market, the best products will win in the end
• In the end, we believe the question is really this: Who controls the World Wide Web (insert how you use your Software)? And we believe the answer is: nobody — and everybody, but certainly not a single company.
Found this from Adobe a little while back......interest isn't it ?
-
Don’t know if this is in anyway relevant to the ongoing Creative 'Mushroom' Cloud, but it is interesting don’t you think?
I would find it more interesting if I could think of any plausible way in which it might be relevant to the ongoing creative cloud etcetera. What kind of connection do you see, Dave?
-
I want to know why his actions don't run afoul of Insider Trading laws.
-
Firstly, because they are disclosed. Secondly I would expect the sale to have been at arm's length.
-
I would find it more interesting if I could think of any plausible way in which it might be relevant to the ongoing creative cloud etcetera. What kind of connection do you see, Dave?
I only passed on this info so people could speculate for themselves as to its relevance or otherwise, because as I stated when I posted it, I personally didn't know if it was relevant or not. :)
Dave
-
Sure.
Look, I couldn't give a toss about this guy, but shouldn't the discussion attempt to stay above the level of nasty insinuation? No doubt he is as responsible as anyone for the decision to change the business model, but the rest of the board would be equally aware of the potential volatility of the stock price. They didn't choose to sell at that date "just before" the announcement. What do you make of that, eh? He also sold some stock back in January, "just before" nothing happened. Speculate on that, why don't you?
John
-
Sure.
Look, I couldn't give a toss about this guy, but shouldn't the discussion attempt to stay above the level of nasty insinuation? No doubt he is as responsible as anyone for the decision to change the business model, but the rest of the board would be equally aware of the potential volatility of the stock price. They didn't choose to sell at that date "just before" the announcement. What do you make of that, eh? He also sold some stock back in January, "just before" nothing happened. Speculate on that, why don't you?
John
Someone who knows specifically could voice in here. However, I know that in the USA there are specific rules on when executives can sell stock. This is to avoid insider trading. I would doubt that any executive would...or would be allowed by the board and legal dept....to sell at an inappropriate time.
-
Sure.
Look, I couldn't give a toss about this guy, but shouldn't the discussion attempt to stay above the level of nasty insinuation? No doubt he is as responsible as anyone for the decision to change the business model, but the rest of the board would be equally aware of the potential volatility of the stock price. They didn't choose to sell at that date "just before" the announcement. What do you make of that, eh? He also sold some stock back in January, "just before" nothing happened. Speculate on that, why don't you?
John
John, you say you don't give a toss about the guy, yet you have obviously just spent some time digging around in the man's Adobe trading history and then discussed it on this forum, which I didn't do before posting the previous link and haven't done so since. All I did was copy and paste a link from a current discussion on Adobe's own forum, under a thread discussing the Creative Cloud, so if you think that is "nasty insinuation" then that represents your way of thinking not mine.
Stop getting your knickers in a twist already, you'll burst a blood vessel or something ::)
Dave
-
Quit the insults, Dave. I merely followed your links and read them more thoroughly than you appear to have done, or with my background I perhaps understood them a little more readily. I'm not even sure you noticed that your "just before" was a whole month.
You know, I doubt you are so naive to believe that you weren't making unpleasant insinuations, even in jest....
-
Regardless if Narayen had the most innocent motives for selling his stock ... the quantity of shares, and the overall percentage of his total Adobe portfolio he converted to cash, along with the timing of the sale(s) ... has to make one wonder why he thought his investment was more valuable as cash now, and not in support of his own company increasing the value of his shares in the near future. I'm sure the SEC has (or is ) scrutinized his sell off ... so if he was up to something nefarious, we likely would have heard rumblings to that end by now.
It's really not that unreasonable for folks to at least raise an eyebrow when considering this action, especially in light of the sweeping change in licensing policy that can place doubts in stockholder's minds.
-
It's not unreasonable to raise an eyebrow - but it is to make insinuations when you should know that your "evidence" doesn't support them.
-
Finally, you've all run out of things to say about Adobe CC.
-
Who are you kidding?
-
I'm sure you can find something to squabble about, but you all do seem to have run out of things to say about Adobe CC :-)
-
Perhaps the lower frequency of remarks about the Compulsory Cloud is just a reflection of the utter and complete sense of disgust with Adobe.
-
I guess folks are, however puzzling this decision seems, starting to realize that PS has been end of lifed for good and that CC is not a credible alternative.
Many are probably starting to focus on replacement strategies.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Shantanu Narayen (http://www.adobe.com/leaders/shantanu-narayen.html), the President and Chief Executive Officer of Adobe, has recently sold nearly all (around 97%) of his $10,000,000 (http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/adbe/insider-trades/sells) Adobe shares, just before the CC was introduced.
Don’t know if this is in anyway relevant to the ongoing Creative 'Mushroom' Cloud, but it is interesting don’t you think?
Dave
Interesting? Or just a cheap insinuation?
John. I don't see any insinuations here, cheap or otherwise. I do see an interesting observation and, perhaps, an untimely coincidence. I think Butch sums it up very well.
Regardless if Narayen had the most innocent motives for selling his stock ... the quantity of shares, and the overall percentage of his total Adobe portfolio he converted to cash, along with the timing of the sale(s) ... has to make one wonder why he thought his investment was more valuable as cash now, and not in support of his own company increasing the value of his shares in the near future. I'm sure the SEC has (or is ) scrutinized his sell off ... so if he was up to something nefarious, we likely would have heard rumblings to that end by now.
It's really not that unreasonable for folks to at least raise an eyebrow when considering this action, especially in light of the sweeping change in licensing policy that can place doubts in stockholder's minds.
-
Finally, you've all run out of things to say about Adobe CC.
We are actually busy trialing other softwares, andlearning their paradigm. The train has left the station, bye Adobe. Wish you good luck with your subscribers.
-
John. I don't see any insinuations here, cheap or otherwise. I do see an interesting observation and, perhaps, an untimely coincidence. I think Butch sums it up very well.
What coincidence? It's a whole bxxxdy month different, as anyone familiar with US date formats can read! And 3 months after another disposal, which was made shortly before nothing happened. Other board members sold at various intervals throughout the year too. So no big deal - it's not remotely "interesting", nudge nudge wink wink. But does it insinuate something? You bet. You'd have to be pretty naive to think otherwise.
-
What coincidence? It's a whole bxxxdy month different, as anyone familiar with US date formats can read! And 3 months after another disposal, which was made shortly before nothing happened. Other board members sold at various intervals throughout the year too. So no big deal - it's not remotely "interesting", nudge nudge wink wink. But does it insinuate something? You bet. You'd have to be pretty naive to think otherwise.
John, do you have any connection with Adobe, commercially or personally ?
-
John, do you have any connection with Adobe, commercially or personally ?
That is a nasty and uncalled for question.
-
John, do you have any connection with Adobe, commercially or personally ?
Aha, so should I infer that you question my motives? What are you insinuating? ;) Can't you disprove what I wrote then?
For what little it's worth, I wouldn't say there's any real personal connection, though their UK people have hired me for Lightroom and Photoshop presentations. Sure, in public I bite my tongue a little, but I make it pretty clear when I do think Adobe have made mistakes. In this particular case you should know that I was in accounting, did a period of Sarbanes Oxley compliance work, and so I cast a professional eye over the disposals. That's why I called bullshit on Dave's insinuations.
John
-
That is a nasty and uncalled for question.
I'm OK with it! After all, I did insinuate Simon may be naive, so I don't blame him for a bit of retaliation.
J
-
I'm OK with it! After all, I did insinuate Simon may be naive, so I don't blame him for a bit of retaliation.
J
John, I don't recall you insinuating that I am naive ? And, BTW, I am not retaliating. I was just interested, that's all. Sometimes it helps to understand another person's perspective on things.
-
Aha, so should I infer that you question my motives? What are you insinuating? ;) Can't you disprove what I wrote then?
For what little it's worth, I wouldn't say there's any real personal connection, though their UK people have hired me for Lightroom and Photoshop presentations. Sure, in public I bite my tongue a little, but I make it pretty clear when I do think Adobe have made mistakes. In this particular case you should know that I was in accounting, did a period of Sarbanes Oxley compliance work, and so I cast a professional eye over the disposals. That's why I called bullshit on Dave's insinuations.
John
John you are beginning to look and sound like a bully, yet even so, I would dearly love to know what it is that you think I am insinuating, by simply posting what I thought was an interesting link and then openly saying that "I don’t know if this is in anyway relevant" - did you read that last bit? I will repeat it for you just in case you missed it this time round, as you so obviously must have done in my previous post "I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS IN ANYWAY RELEVANT".
So please tell me what it is that you think I am insinuating, that would then make you refer to this simple act of copying a link form Adobe's own website forum onto Lula, such a defamatory act by me personally, that you find it necessary to instantly refer to me as "Cheap", then "Nasty" then "Naive" and finally "bullshit"? Yet when I light heartedly suggest you should calm down from your obviously hyperventilating state of aggrievement, you refer to that as an "insult" - notice how I am trying my best to refrain from replying to your insults with equally low brow insults and name calling?
John, I own some of your books for God’s sake and I thought you had a good writing style and something interesting to say, yet I don't think I will be buying any more now, as you really have not covered yourself in glory here, with this spectacularly misguided and pernicious rant, as I am sure that the many thousands of people now reading this thread will agree.
Have a nice day John - although I am fairly sure you will not be able to let it rest and quickly type out a vitriolic reply, of how this is all my own fault for being so Cheap, Nasty and Naive and probably add in a few more low brow derogatory rants just for good measure.
Jeeez!!!! ::) ::) ::)
Dave
-
Dont you think that's rather silly? Actually, I don't refer to you as cheap or nasty - I say that of the insinuations - and am crediting you with understanding the financial misdemeanours you implied. I'd be amazed if you don't, but whatever.....
-
Quote from: Simon J.A. Simpson on June 08, 2013, 04:25:27 PM
John, do you have any connection with Adobe, commercially or personally ?
Aha, so should I infer that you question my motives? What are you insinuating? Can't you disprove what I wrote then?
It's typical and expected to be questioned about some "commercial official connection with Adobe" when someone in the know, someone who's got a deeper understanding of the process posts about an Adobe product by 'the other side' of the argument. I and others (like Jeff) are accused of having motives influenced by Adobe when in fact, we have a clue about the process of how the software evolved. It's a low blow and doesn't in any way dismiss an educated opinion.
FWIW, one could be commercially or personally connected to Adobe, but that it doesn't dismiss that person's point based on facts that those outside this connection have no clue about! In fact, those who do have a direct personal involvement with Adobe often have a far better grasp of the topic for obvious reasons. It's an insulting suggestion and worse, it fails to counter the argument.
-
John, I own some of your books for God’s sake and I thought you had a good writing style and something interesting to say, yet I don't think I will be buying any more now, as you really have not covered yourself in glory here, with this spectacularly misguided and pernicious rant, as I am sure that the many thousands of people now reading this thread will agree.
Yeah, ya know Dave...the way the Anti-Adobe crowd seems to behaving is a bit shocking...if somebody DARES to take umbrage with the way the anti-Adobe crowd seems to paint this whole CC/subscription thing, suddenly they are the enemy. The anti crowd seems to be perfectly willing to threaten and try to strong-arm anybody who pokes holes in the anti-Adobe proponents arguments. When I pointed out that "buying" a perpetual license vs a subscription license was essentially the same thing with different terms, I got a lot of grief...when I pointed out that Photoshop was never developed for photographers, photographers got pissed off at me for pointing out the truths. When I pointed out that photographers make up a very small % of Adobe's pro users, again, photographers jumped all over me.
Quite honestly having been involved in a trade oranization on behalf of photographers for over a decade (Advertising Photographers of America–APA and having served as National President) and trying to defend photographer's copyrights and improve business practices for photographers, color me just a bit jaded...by and large, photographers tend to come off as a bunch of bitchy little girls. When somebody does something to upset the apple cart, they all squeal like stuck pigs...but try to talk to them and try to organize them into a political group to try to accomplish some industry changes, forget about it.
So, Dave, let me save you the time and effort making any threats towards me. Please do not ever buy another book or video by me ever again. I don't want to count you and your ilk as being a customer of mine. Ok? (not like I would really give a shit mind you).
John nailed your feet to the floor because you tried to imply that Shantanu Narayen was baling out by selling a lot of insider held stock so clearly you thought Shantanu was taking his money and running. You couched it by saying you didn't have a clue what that meant and I'll reinforce what you said, you don't have a friggin' clue what insider trading may or may not mean. Do you have ANY experience in the stock market? I do...the fact that Shantanu sold a bunch of stock means exactly that Shantanu sold a bunch of stock. It seriously means nothing more than that...and if you were trying to predict the direction of Adobe's stock price from that, I suggest that would be really stupid. But hey, if you honestly think Shantanu is bailing out and Adobe is going to hell in a handcart, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and sell a bunch of Adobe stock short...come on, if you got any balls, put your money where your mouth is.
What, you really don't have a clue what insider trading actually means and you don't want to try to predict Adobe future stock price?
John has rather nicely (far nicer than I would have been) tried to explain that what you tried to imply was total bullshit...and now your attack line is you'll never buy another book John writes?
Yeah, ya know, I'm pretty sure John can look at himself in the mirror and have no problem with what he sees. You? I'm not so sure...
I'm pretty much done with the bitchy little girl camp...you all can do what you want to do...stick with CS6 till it molds off your machine, or jump to GIMP of try to use some of the other Photoshop wannabees...I really don't care.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion of issues, fine...otherwise, I think you all have beaten this horse to death. And if this personal bullshit stuff keeps happening, I suspect that this thread (and others like it) will get closed.
-
I'm pretty much done with the bitchy little girl camp...you all can do what you want to do...stick with CS6 till it molds off your machine, or jump to GIMP of try to use some of the other Photoshop wannabees...I really don't care.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion of issues, fine...otherwise, I think you all have beaten this horse to death.
Wow. I don't know you, Schewe. But you show all the signs of being a bully. A defensive bully, because you are on the wrong side of this whole issue, and I think you know it. So count me into the bitchy little girl camp, big macho Adobe man.
-
John, do you have any connection with Adobe, commercially or personally ?
This was intended as an honest question devoid of any underhand intent.
I unreservedly withdraw the question and any insinuation that may be derived from it.
-
This was intended as an honest question devoid of any underhand intent.
I unreservedly withdraw the question and any insinuation that may be derived from it.
Don't worry, Simon. I certainly don't blame you for wondering, but I just laughed it off and I hope I directly answered your curiosity.
-
Wow. I don't know you, Schewe. But you show all the signs of being a bully.
Hum, new around here bud? (can kinda tell by your post count). You might want to get the lay of the land a bit before ya start calling people names.
-
So, Dave, let me save you the time and effort making any threats towards me. Please do not ever buy another book or video by me ever again. I don't want to count you and your ilk as being a customer of mine. Ok? (not like I would really give a shit mind you).
My goodness, what it is about you "Pro's" recently, that you seem to get off on publicly beating up the little guy to the point of submission or threatening to shut down the thread and remove any form of dissent?
What do you both want me to do? Bare my back and enter into an act of public flagellation while begging for mercy, just because I dared to post a link and admit I did not know if it was relevant or not????
I posted a link on the very first post in this thread without comment and left it to others to make up their own mind and discuss what they thought it meant and that is all I was doing with this last link.
Jeff, I think you are probably a person who likes to appear gruff on the outside, but that you also have a big heart on the inside, so why ever you found it necessary to wade into this nonsense to gang up on me and join in with the bullying, just because I dared to post a link, leaves me speechless. I have no quarrel with you and in fact I would say I prefer to never quarrel with anyone, it is just not my thing - full stop!
People who are associated with Adobe at this time are getting a lot of flack, I get that and people who don't like what is happening with the CC are outraged, I get that too, but as this is a thread that is/was all about the CC and I have been posting links to it from the very first post, about what the rest of the community outside of Lula are saying about the whole CC issue, along with a few jokey cartoons, then I assumed that as this was just another link and part of what I was doing, it would be discussed by those who are interested just the same as all the other links.
If you put yourself in the public eye, then expect people to comment on what you say and do, but don't wade in like ten ton whenever you then read between the lines and make up whatever it is you seem to want to make up and expect people to think you are being rational and not going way over the top, as you insult and threaten people - you have really surprised me here Jeff.
I await further and lengthy abuse and can already feel the blood running down my back.
Dave
-
What do you both want me to do? Bare my back and enter into an act of public flagellation while begging for mercy, just because I dared to post a link and admit I did not know if it was relevant or not????
No, but an apology for posting a link to Shantanu insider trading (perfectly legal and reported BTW) and implying that his stock sales had anything to do with the current state of Photoshop CC or Adobe's outlook or prospects. And while you say you you didn't know if it was relevant, you know darn well that you thought it was and was using that as an opportunity for churning the pot.
At this point in time, it does nothing for the industry to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). And if you don't understand that your post did that, I would be surprised...
-
No, but an apology for posting a link to Shantanu insider trading (perfectly legal and reported BTW) and implying that his stock sales had anything to do with the current state of Photoshop CC or Adobe's outlook or prospects. And while you say you you didn't know if it was relevant, you know darn well that you thought it was and was using that as an opportunity for churning the pot.
At this point in time, it does nothing for the industry to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). And if you don't understand that your post did that, I would be surprised...
Can't do that Jeff, I posted this in complete innocence and that is how I intend to remain standing, on my innocence.
Not everyone has market trading experience you know, I left school at 15 with no qualifications and no education and went to work 12 hour shifts in the steel works as a welder - OK, I went back into education and then onto University in the eighties and now I have an MSc in computing as well as many other computer related qualifications, as well as teaching qualifications. I would also like to think I am very much towards the front of the crowd with photography and digital imaging and also computing, but as far as it goes for money matters, financial stuff and stock market trading etc, I will freely admit that I am as thick as farmyard muck.
So thank you for your offer Jeff, but I prefer to remain where I stand right now - innocent!!!!
Dave
-
No, but an apology for posting a link to Shantanu insider trading (perfectly legal and reported BTW) and implying that his stock sales had anything to do with the current state of Photoshop CC or Adobe's outlook or prospects. And while you say you you didn't know if it was relevant, you know darn well that you thought it was and was using that as an opportunity for churning the pot.
At this point in time, it does nothing for the industry to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). And if you don't understand that your post did that, I would be surprised...
Jeff, I thought the post on Shantanu's selling stock was being addressed without any need for a rant.
In my opinion, the announcement of Adobe CC has created it's own FUD (interesting how you have picked this term up after I used it against your DNG arguements). The "industry" will not be bothered by any possible insider trading scandel...which the SEC will deal with if needed. It is being bothered by the CC uncertainty.
And if this personal bullshit stuff keeps happening, I suspect that this thread (and others like it) will get closed.
I find it interesting that you end your personal attack with this statement. Is this a do as I say, not what I do?
-
No, but an apology for posting a link to Shantanu insider trading (perfectly legal and reported BTW) and implying that his stock sales had anything to do with the current state of Photoshop CC or Adobe's outlook or prospects.
I'm slightly surprised by this kind of reaction, as if there is no significance to Shantanu's insider tradings, which are perfectly legal. In defense of the publication of such information, people like Milton Friedman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman), laureate of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, said: "You want more insider trading, not less. You want to give the people most likely to have knowledge about deficiencies of the company an incentive to make the public aware of that."
I might add, it also works the other way around, significant net purchases of stock or other securities can give an early warning to markets about a more positive outlook.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Can't do that Jeff, I posted this in complete innocence and that is how I intend to remain standing, on my innocence.
Not everyone has market trading experience you know, I left school at 15 with no qualifications and no education and went to work 12 hour shifts in the steel works as a welder - OK, I went back into education and then onto University in the eighties and now I have an MSc in computing as well as many other computer related qualifications, as well as teaching qualifications. I would also like to think I am very much towards the front of the crowd with photography and digital imaging and also computing, but as far as it goes for money matters, financial stuff and stock market trading etc, I will freely admit that I am as thick as farmyard muck.
OK, then let's move on. I find it surprising that you profess such ignorance of what you were saying, Dave, but I'll say sorry anyway. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you shouted bloody idiot at someone getting too close to your welding, and probably meant it - but only for a short while.
John
-
OK, then let's move on. I find it surprising that you profess such ignorance of what you were saying, Dave, but I'll say sorry anyway. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you shouted bloody idiot at someone getting too close to your welding, and probably meant it - but only for a short while.
John
OK John I agree and accept your apology, things were said in the heat of the moment and that I think none of us really meant, so I agree we should move on and let sleeping dogs lie, and OK I will also apologise to you and anyone else I may have inadvertently offended and say that I am sorry that I posted something that appears to have been more explosive than I was ever aware that it could be and without first engaging my brain. But I think you will find if you look at any of my other posts on Lula, that I invariably try to be inoffensive to who so ever it is that I talk to and on the odd occasions that I do become animated, then I am always more than willing to eat my words and admit my mistakes - as I am sure Jeff will agree ;D
Dave
-
if somebody DARES to take umbrage with the way the anti-Adobe crowd seems to paint this whole CC/subscription thing, suddenly they are the enemy.
I can see why you're frustrated Jeff. You're offering reasoned, rational arguments and many of the arguments you're seeing are not rational. And personally I think none of this is in the least part surprising. David Hume famously said "Reason is and ought to be a slave of the passions". We can easily see that people are passionate in their feelings--but what can we do to make sense of it all?
Obviously, some of those who are angered by Adobe's decision perceive two groups: the anti-group (them) and the pro-group (you and others).
In a classic 1956 article (a real humdinger), Experiments in Group Conflict, Muzafer Sherif observed "when two groups have conflicting aims--i.e., when one can achieve its ends only at the expense of the other--their members will become hostile to each other even though the groups are composed of normal well-adjusted individuals."
The anti-group assumes that Adobe's decisions are somehow advantageous to your group. Because they see the decisions as disadvantageous to them, they perceive you to be in competition with them at their expense. Sadly this pretty much automatically makes you their enemy, no matter how rational your arguments.
In the fullness of time I hope that we as a community will all remember our perceptions can at times be utterly wrong, and that we are in fact a community of photographers, engineers, accountants etc. united by our great passion for creating and sharing art. And that some members of our community have in fact put in many years of honest, hard work to contribute what they have.
-
if somebody DARES to take umbrage with the way the anti-Adobe crowd seems to paint this whole CC/subscription thing, suddenly they are the enemy.
I, for one, take umbrage for being labeled "anti-Adobe"....just because I do not agree with some of the positions and rantings of some self-important people.
I am not "anti-Adobe", but that does not mean I have to agree with everything they do.
Those who are unhappy with Adobe CC have expressed their reasons. The responses from those who DARES to take umbrage" to that is mostly history lessons about how Photoshop started and self-important rambling of being President of the APA....all of which are interesting, but .none of which are germane to the current discussion.
If we disagree with DNG being a standard, we are not anti-Adobe, we just for multiple reasons just do not agree with it....but we are slammed and harangued with "if we are not with DNG we are part of the problem".
Forums are going to raise emotions...I am OK with that....and hopefully will be big enough to apologize if I go too far....but we do not need threats and demeaning comments from those we should be looking up to...and should expect to be leaders in the forums.
-
If we disagree with DNG being a standard, we are not anti-Adobe, we just for multiple reasons just do not agree with it....but we are slammed and harangued with "if we are not with DNG we are part of the problem".
Going back, no one I recall said DNG is a standard nor that not being standard dismisses the issues with proprietary data files that don't need to proprietary and hold up 3rd party support.
I'm pretty Pro-Adobe but there's lots to not like about the new model.
-
Yeah, ya know Dave...the way the Anti-Adobe crowd seems to behaving is a bit shocking...if somebody DARES to take umbrage with the way the anti-Adobe crowd seems to paint this whole CC/subscription thing, suddenly they are the enemy. The anti crowd seems to be perfectly willing to threaten and try to strong-arm anybody who pokes holes in the anti-Adobe proponents arguments. When I pointed out that "buying" a perpetual license vs a subscription license was essentially the same thing with different terms, I got a lot of grief...when I pointed out that Photoshop was never developed for photographers, photographers got pissed off at me for pointing out the truths. When I pointed out that photographers make up a very small % of Adobe's pro users, again, photographers jumped all over me.
Quite honestly having been involved in a trade oranization on behalf of photographers for over a decade (Advertising Photographers of America–APA and having served as National President) and trying to defend photographer's copyrights and improve business practices for photographers, color me just a bit jaded...by and large, photographers tend to come off as a bunch of bitchy little girls. When somebody does something to upset the apple cart, they all squeal like stuck pigs...but try to talk to them and try to organize them into a political group to try to accomplish some industry changes, forget about it.
So, Dave, let me save you the time and effort making any threats towards me. Please do not ever buy another book or video by me ever again. I don't want to count you and your ilk as being a customer of mine. Ok? (not like I would really give a shit mind you).
John nailed your feet to the floor because you tried to imply that Shantanu Narayen was baling out by selling a lot of insider held stock so clearly you thought Shantanu was taking his money and running. You couched it by saying you didn't have a clue what that meant and I'll reinforce what you said, you don't have a friggin' clue what insider trading may or may not mean. Do you have ANY experience in the stock market? I do...the fact that Shantanu sold a bunch of stock means exactly that Shantanu sold a bunch of stock. It seriously means nothing more than that...and if you were trying to predict the direction of Adobe's stock price from that, I suggest that would be really stupid. But hey, if you honestly think Shantanu is bailing out and Adobe is going to hell in a handcart, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and sell a bunch of Adobe stock short...come on, if you got any balls, put your money where your mouth is.
What, you really don't have a clue what insider trading actually means and you don't want to try to predict Adobe future stock price?
John has rather nicely (far nicer than I would have been) tried to explain that what you tried to imply was total bullshit...and now your attack line is you'll never buy another book John writes?
Yeah, ya know, I'm pretty sure John can look at himself in the mirror and have no problem with what he sees. You? I'm not so sure...
I'm pretty much done with the bitchy little girl camp...you all can do what you want to do...stick with CS6 till it molds off your machine, or jump to GIMP of try to use some of the other Photoshop wannabees...I really don't care.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion of issues, fine...otherwise, I think you all have beaten this horse to death. And if this personal bullshit stuff keeps happening, I suspect that this thread (and others like it) will get closed.
WOW !!!!! And you call your self a professional..... ambassador for the industry....... all I can say is WOW !!
-
ambassador for the industry
Those are your words...not mine. That's not what I think I am nor what I want to be. And truth be told, that was directed at Dave, not you. So, if you are thinking it's directed at you, you are wrong. I don't know you from Adam and couldn't care less what you think.
-
when I pointed out that Photoshop was never developed for photographers, photographers got pissed off at me for pointing out the truths.
One could argue, after years and years (a decade +) of spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars, supporting Adobe, buying books, videos, and attending classes and seminars, given by photographers for photographers, this wasn't exactly the best time to point out such a truth.
Frankly, considering how many times I've read it, I started to question whether this newly revealed "truth" was laced with contempt. And then after reading the recent rant, about the work done for APA, and the "bitchy little girl camp" comments, I'm convinced contempt exists. Contempt is not good for anyone.
Sometimes I wonder if Adobe ever talks to actual photographers who are trying to sustain a photography business in today's economy. Since I live in New York City, and have been a working photographer for almost 30 years, I often wonder if Adobe has any clue what it takes to keep a photography business here in the black. I know three, very talented youngish photographers who shoot editorial for prestigious magazines, and they can't afford to upgrade beyond CS4.
There are just a handful of photographers who are getting the big ad dollars and magazine contracts. And ever since the crash of 2008, those numbers dropped significantly as the ad market plummeted. Everyone else is hustling. I can't remember a time when trying to make a living at photography has been more difficult.
In the meantime, we artists grow older and our health care costs increase. And some people wonder why we creative types get bitchy when one more obstacle, one more price increase slaps us in the face, telling us to stop doing what we love to do.
God bless the clients who are willing to pay for retouching. They are getting harder and harder to find.
-
Those are your words...not mine. That's not what I think I am nor what I want to be. And truth be told, that was directed at Dave, not you. So, if you are thinking it's directed at you, you are wrong. I don't know you from Adam and couldn't care less what you think.
I know you were not directing that at me..... I have done nothing for it to be directed at me. But I am completely taken back by how you are presenting yourself lately. But you are whether you choose to or not a ambassador for this website, the digital industry and many other people you work with. Your actions are a direct reflection on Michael, John Paul and many others that may not agree with your form of expression. Just thought I might remind you of this........you say you would like a reasonable discussion of the issues. That is also what I would like to read.....the statement I quoted was just pouring gas on the fire...
-
Frankly, considering how many times I've read it, I started to question whether this newly revealed "truth" was laced with contempt. And then after reading the recent rant, about the work done for APA, and the "bitchy little girl camp" comments, I'm convinced contempt exists.
I do have contempt for a lot of the pro photographers in the industry today. Absolutely.
Are you a member of APA, ASMP or PP of A? Do you pay dues towards an organization that works on your behalf? Have you ever held an office or served on a committee that was trying to work with the Copyright Office or the 4A's (American Association of Ad Agencies) or trying to work with state legislators trying to change state tax statutes that place an undue burden on photographers? If you have, you have my respect. If you haven't, well, not so much.
How many people here have ever spent any time working for free, on behalf of the photographic community? I'll tell you, very few.
Yes, my view of the industry these days is very jaded...while the overall economy has been devastating to pro photographers over all and to photo journalists in particular (see the recent Sun Times article about elimination of all staff photographers). Most of the problems in the pro photo industry are exacerbated by the fact that photographers as a group refuse to work together to bring about positive change to the industry.
I'm not saying that if photographers were better organized that the whole Photoshop CC subscription would not have happened...but I will say that if photographers were better organized, they would have a stronger voice at Adobe. And, I know that for a fact. The squeaky wheel gets the grease...photographers have not, as a group been very squeaky because of the inability to work together as a group to bring about positive change in the industry.
So yeah, you got me...I tend to have a degree of contempt for a lot of photographers who piss&moan™ about the sorry state of the industry but can't be bothered to do anything about it...
-
One could argue, after years and years (a decade +) of spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars, supporting Adobe, buying books, videos, and attending classes and seminars, given by photographers for photographers, this wasn't exactly the best time to point out such a truth.
Frankly, considering how many times I've read it, I started to question whether this newly revealed "truth" was laced with contempt. And then after reading the recent rant, about the work done for APA, and the "bitchy little girl camp" comments, I'm convinced contempt exists. Contempt is not good for anyone.
Sometimes I wonder if Adobe ever talks to actual photographers who are trying to sustain a photography business in today's economy. Since I live in New York City, and have been a working photographer for almost 30 years, I often wonder if Adobe has any clue what it takes to keep a photography business here in the black. I know three, very talented youngish photographers who shoot editorial for prestigious magazines, and they can't afford to upgrade beyond CS4.
Yep, the proposition that PS was not designed for photographers is:
- irrelevant: we know that independent graphic designers are hurt just as bad as photographers by the CC only policy,
- clearly mistaken if it is supposed to mean that photographers were not even one of the target audiences of PS. Why so? Because PS is loaded with features designed specifically for photographic applications. So at best we could say that photographers were never the main target of PS, but they were a target for sure and the features Adobe delivered for this community clearly contributed to our decision to invest our money, time (learning curve) and IP into PS.
This being said, Adobe legally has the right to decide to adopt a business model only affordable by the richest part of their users base (typically the corporate crowd). Yes, they are going to hurt badly tens of thousands of end users and will probably put the business of some of those at risk, if not their lives.
I personally believe that this is immoral and clearly opposed to the religious values many of the key stakeholders at Adobe are putting forward in their communities, but heck... hypocrisy is nothing new.
It is our decision as users to stop investing into their products. As far as I am concerned, this policy will be extended to LR5 as well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I do have contempt for a lot of the pro photographers in the industry today. Absolutely.
Are you a member of APA, ASMP or PP of A? Do you pay dues towards an organization that works on your behalf? Have you ever held an office or served on a committee that was trying to work with the Copyright Office or the 4A's (American Association of Ad Agencies) or trying to work with state legislators trying to change state tax statutes that place an undue burden on photographers? If you have, you have my respect. If you haven't, well, not so much.
How many people here have ever spent any time working for free, on behalf of the photographic community? I'll tell you, very few.
Yes, my view of the industry these days is very jaded...while the overall economy has been devastating to pro photographers over all and to photo journalists in particular (see the recent Sun Times article about elimination of all staff photographers). Most of the problems in the pro photo industry are exacerbated by the fact that photographers as a group refuse to work together to bring about positive change to the industry.
I'm not saying that if photographers were better organized that the whole Photoshop CC subscription would not have happened...but I will say that if photographers were better organized, they would have a stronger voice at Adobe. And, I know that for a fact. The squeaky wheel gets the grease...photographers have not, as a group been very squeaky because of the inability to work together as a group to bring about positive change in the industry.
So yeah, you got me...I tend to have a degree of contempt for a lot of photographers who piss&moan™ about the sorry state of the industry but can't be bothered to do anything about it...
Just saying...
Maybe you should only interact with those few you respect...those at the lofty levels you describe.
You could then leave the rest of us "unwashed" alone.
-
But you are whether you choose to or not a ambassador for this website, the digital industry and many other people you work with. Your actions are a direct reflection on Michael, John Paul and many others that may not agree with your form of expression. Just thought I might remind you of this........
That is your perception (or misperception)...I am not an ambassador for anything or anybody. I'm under contract with nobody other than my publisher (who I'm sure would like for me to shut up).
I'm merely a forum member who happens to say what they think regardless of the implications. If I cared what people think of what I say, do you honestly think I would say what I say? My actions are a direct reflection on me alone. You would be making a serious mistake to paint Mike or JP or anybody else as having anything to do with what I think or say.
Yes, I do have a certain sway around here...(I have the email and cell phone numbers of certain people who control LuLa) but thankfully, I'm not in charge of moderating these forums (if I were, there would be a lot less posters on the forums :~) note the smily...that was intended to be funny.
-
I personally believe that this is immoral and clearly opposed to the religious values many of the key stakeholders at Adobe are putting forward in their communities, but heck... hypocrisy is nothing new.
Morality and religion? Really Bernard? This whole thing has transcended to this for you? I really don't get that at all. I understand people don't like having the tables changed and costs going up. But to equate that to morality issues and religious values? I really start to question the validity of that sort of visceral response. I mean, is that really what you think? That Adobe has done something immoral and anti-religious? I ask because I'm really trying to understand exactly how out of context all this anti-CC has gotten and the context that some people seem to be reacting to. Sorry bud, but that is way, way over the top.
-
with the way the anti-Adobe crowd seems to paint this whole CC/subscription thing
again you are trying to sneak false premises... not "CC" and not "subscription"... but "subscription only"... nobody is against having extra/additonal "CC" or "subscription" features... but a lot is upset with "subscription only" model for certain products intended for photographers as well like PS (yes, it is - you always like to forget ACR).
-
Morality and religion? Really Bernard? This whole thing has transcended to this for you? I really don't get that at all. I understand people don't like having the tables changed and costs going up. But to equate that to morality issues and religious values? I really start to question the validity of that sort of visceral response. I mean, is that really what you think? That Adobe has done something immoral and anti-religious? I ask because I'm really trying to understand exactly how out of context all this anti-CC has gotten and the context that some people seem to be reacting to. Sorry bud, but that is way, way over the top.
To start, I am not the least bit a religious person myself, but I have a lot of respect for various religious beliefs and the highest level of integrity they demand.
And yes, I clearly think that the way Adobe is letting down tens of thousands of end users with the CC only approach is immoral. It is a violation of an implicit commitment about the continued affordability of a platform that they have striven to make a must use for graphic artists, many of which do not have the stream of income required to comply with the new demands of the CC business model. So this decision is impacting significantly the lives of thousands of people in a negative way, which I find to be of questionable morality.
If I were going to church every week, and believed in the meaning of these things, I would certainly strive to avoid involving myself in such immoral deeds.
What do you find weird about this statement? Had you not considered this business proposal from the angle of morality or ethics? My English may have failed me here, unethical might be more accurate that immoral.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...by and large, photographers tend to come off as a bunch of bitchy little girls...
...they all squeal like stuck pigs...
...you don't have a friggin' clue...
...if you got any balls, put your money where your mouth is...
...I'm pretty much done with the bitchy little girl camp...
And...
...You might want to get the lay of the land a bit before ya start calling people names.
Yup. I think we all got the lay of the land.
-
Yup. I think we all got the lay of the land.
+1
-
having been involved in a trade oranization on behalf of photographers for over a decade (Advertising Photographers of America–APA and having served as National President) and trying to defend photographer's copyrights and improve business practices for photographers, color me just a bit jaded...by and large, photographers tend to come off as a bunch of bitchy little girls. When somebody does something to upset the apple cart, they all squeal like stuck pigs...but try to talk to them and try to organize them into a political group to try to accomplish some industry changes, forget about it.
So, Dave, let me save you the time and effort making any threats towards me. Please do not ever buy another book or video by me ever again. I don't want to count you and your ilk as being a customer of mine. Ok? (not like I would really give a shit mind you).
Interesting...
The buyers of Jeff's videos and books' are those same "bitchy little girls"... Call me naive, but I have rarely seen a business or venture succeed by calling their customers that way...
Good luck, man. We see where your loyalty lies: you must be making more money directly from Adobe than from those "bitchy little girls" photographers... I hate to consider the alternative (which would rhyme with "cupidity")
What a bunch of professorial arrogant bullies we see here... Michael Reichmann worked hard creating a reputation of independence, but he sure is surrounding himself with a different category of experts.
-
Yup. I think we all got the lay of the land.
+1
-
So...in summary, if I understand:
. A supplier (today, this Adobe. Tomorrow, this could be Canon) doubled its prices overnight
. They also forced their customers to upgrade every single release, whether they need it or not (if this was canon, imagine having to upgrade for every release, whether you need the features or not). Because they can.
. Some Customers got concerned about four things:
- doubling of annualized cost
- forced to upgrade and learn a new tool when they don't need or want to
- supplier has no incentive to continue to innovate meaningfully to earn their upgrade business
- no long term access to the creative results of using the tool (PSD...)
. Customers (mostly freelance photographers, graphic artists, video editors and web designers) raised these concerns
. A pack of "experts" start defending the company, its executives, its new business policy, and attacking viciously those who raised the concerns (we saw some here on this site, but many more on webdesign forums, graphic design forums, and other photography forums)
Oh well, masks have fallen... Goodluck getting that genie back in the lamp!
-
Michael Reichmann worked hard creating a reputation of independence, but he sure is surrounding himself with a different category of experts.
As a new poster here that's a pretty uncalled for insult.
Jeff Schewe's style here can be pretty unpleasant, but he's the only example of that. Most of the regulars put up with that because he's often got good, valuable insights and information that he passes on freely. It would be nicer if he could be more polite, but......
There's generally a very high standard of debate and courtesy here. You just need to see through the product evangelists and make your own mind up.
-
Mmmm. The Forum rules state : 'You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law'.
Newer posters (like myself ) find his style and language offensive, irrespective of the undoubtedly useful information he might provide. His assertions that he has some 'sway' in the Forum and can have posts he may not agree with deleted is sinister and anti-democratic, implying a behind the scenes censorship of views which do not accord with his views and possibly wider editorial views and ( potentially corporate ) alliances. His suggestion that new posters wait to see 'which way the land lies' before posting is again anti-democratic and sinister. Are not views of all posters welcome for debate? The site has obviously made a corporate decision to expand into Facebook and Twitter - this will provide greater exposure to the site and I would suggest the recent nature of posts ostensibly defending a huge corporate organisation and viciously decrying photographers is a position the now corporate Luminous Landscape may wish to revise. It is no longer a 'club' of friends prepared to put up with each other's idiosyncrasies.
I have bought his first book and pre-ordered his second, as well as buying his printing video he did with Michael. I value his knowledge. I deplore his arrogance and language tho and feel his privileged position in this forum undermines democracy and freedom of expression within it. I feel recent posts reflects negatively on the integrity of the whole site.
Can Michael exercise some leadership here in the interest of the reputation and development of his Forum. Can Kevin Raber act decisively and reign in an apparently out of control senior members of the site in order to accord with conventional web protocols regarding language and style of opinion making in accordance with its forum rules which will welcome new members from Facebook and Twitter. New people will not stay long with venting from people who should know better. These are important issues worthy of serious consideration. Without that consideration people will abandon this forum. Also will its sponsors tolerate its currently objectionable content? Is it good exposure for them?
I'm just saying, and awaiting to be blown away with a torrent of hot air. Or to be dismissed with a ' I dont give a shit what you think or say'. I wait with interest.
-
The buyers of Jeff's videos and books' are those same "bitchy little girls"... Call me naive, but I have rarely seen a business or venture succeed by calling their customers that way...
Reread what I wrote...
"Quite honestly having been involved in a trade oranization on behalf of photographers for over a decade (Advertising Photographers of America–APA and having served as National President) and trying to defend photographer's copyrights and improve business practices for photographers, color me just a bit jaded...by and large, photographers tend to come off as a bunch of bitchy little girls. When somebody does something to upset the apple cart, they all squeal like stuck pigs...but try to talk to them and try to organize them into a political group to try to accomplish some industry changes, forget about it."
I stand by that...I know a lot of photographers both pro and non-pro. By and large, it's the non-pro photographers who do things because of a love of the art which is the root definition of amateur in French. Way too many pro photographers are only shooting for the money and not for the image. Am I wrong? Think about it and tell me I'm wrong. Yes, there are some really great pro shooters who are really good and actually nice people (and many are close friends) but they are outnumbered, sadly, by "the bitchy little girls". Which are you?
-
I wait with interest.
Whatever...
-
It would be nicer if he could be more polite, but......
You ever here the story about the scorpion and the frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog)? The scorpion wants a ride across the river...he tells the frog that if the frog gives him a ride across, he won't sting him...the frog reluctantly agrees and allows the scorpion to get on his back. Half way across, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog says, why did you sting me, now we're both gonna die. The scorpion says, hey, I'm a scorpion, to sting is in my nature...it's what I do.
The funny thing is some people are trying to make this all about me and truth be told, it has ZERO to do with me. It has to do with Adobe's relationship with a segment of the market that they don't really understand and are not really important to them.
Oh, and to be clear, I get zero money from Adobe, Canon nor Epson...I'm an independent beholding to nobody including Mike and LuLa. I say what I say because that's what I think (or know). You are totally welcome to ignore me (as I do to some members here on LuLa). But, the moment somebody tries to exercise control of the forums whose name is not Michael Riechmann, I tend to ignore them. And Rhossydd, this isn't directed to you even though I'm responding to your post.
I will also say that I rarely start a fight...my responses to people are a reflection of their posts...and yes, I tend to take a scorched earth approach and escalate when responding to people with an attitude...you want a nice civil community? Then be sure what YOU post isn't inflammatory.
-
Jeff...get real....
The funny thing is some people are trying to make this all about me and truth be told, it has ZERO to do with me. It has to do with Adobe's relationship with a segment of the market that they don't really understand and are not really important to them.
It's always about you. You keep telling us.
I will also say that I rarely start a fight...my responses to people are a reflection of their posts...and yes, I tend to take a scorched earth approach and escalate when responding to people with an attitude...you want a nice civil community? Then be sure what YOU post isn't inflammatory.
Here again....the guilty claiming their innocence. How about the flaming post you made to the poor guy who innocently asked for guidance on matte paper. There was no need for your venom.
-
You ever here the story about the scorpion and the frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog)? The scorpion wants a ride across the river...he tells the frog that if the frog gives him a ride across, he won't sting him...the frog reluctantly agrees and allows the scorpion to get on his back. Half way across, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog says, why did you sting me, now we're both gonna die. The scorpion says, hey, I'm a scorpion, to sting is in my nature...it's what I do.
There is another idiom widely used in the US: "you can't teach an old dog a new trick"... I don't think that's the case of Jeff, but he sure enjoys acting like a stubborn maverick!
Guess what: in this day and age, some of us don't value these traits. These acts annoy us, and we simply surf to another place, or join another social network. This is not the '70s anymore.
-
'But, the moment somebody tries to exercise control of the forums whose name is not Michael Riechmann, I tend to ignore them. And Rhossydd, this isn't directed to you even though I'm responding to your post.'
I assume you mean me. You miss the point; I'm not trying to control the Forum, I'm asking the responsible managers of the forum to exercise control over YOU. You ignore all the conventions of social networkings and justify doing so with an inane story of a scorpion and frog. If you cannot boundary yourself, and ignore and belittle attempts from others to raise their unhappiness of you with you, others will have to exert those boundaries :(
You have so much to offer, but a different style would be sooooo much appreciated. :-)
-
Oh, and to be clear, I get zero money from Adobe, Canon nor Epson...I'm an independent beholding to nobody including Mike and LuLa. I say what I say because that's what I think (or know). You are totally welcome to ignore me (as I do to some members here on LuLa). But, the moment somebody tries to exercise control of the forums whose name is not Michael Riechmann, I tend to ignore them. And Rhossydd, this isn't directed to you even though I'm responding to your post.
Yeah ... that all sounds good in theory ... but you have to admit ... though you may not profit directly from Adobe, Canon or Epson ... there are far more participants here in this forum that HAVE contributed to your wallet (myself included) than you have to their bottom line. And likely the companies previously mentioned were involved in the process ... even if indirectly. For if we didn't use their products ... what you offer us would have been of little use ...
My goodness ... if I had a nickel for every time I saw you post "I don't care what you think" on this and several other forums over the years (don't let my current post count fool you ... I've read your posts for quite some time) ... I could buy a lifelong subscription to CC and have change left over ... It baffles me how you could care less about what others think of your comments ... yet you place so much importance on shouting down, if not silencing the opinions of others ... One Way Street is it?
I have the utmost respect for your knowledge experience, expertise and opinion ... I have zero respect for your deployment of same ... you spend far too much time in name dropping, highlighting your connections and ties with the Powers That May Be ... and far less in polite discourse ... You are NOT the self-appointed guardian that you think you may be ... if you are ... many of us may have missed the invitations to the coronation where you were appointed the savior of the LuLa forum (or any other discussion) ...
It is one thing to disagree in principle and yet another to be antagonistic, threatening and demeaning in your response. If you wish to change the tenor of a discussion, raising the stakes or the temperature of the discussion with threats is a sure fire method for failure in achieving your goal. You can't win by shear brute force, but rather engaging dialog would go much further. This isn't life and death, it isn't battlefield circumstances ... it is merely a discussion forum ...
I'm not saying you don't have the right to disagree ... that in of itself does not authorize you to play the role of a bully by threatening other forum members with deletion of their comments or expulsion from the forum ... or reminding them you have deep connections with the forum owner and moderators ... or question their understanding of the "lay of the land" ... regardless of whose phone numbers and email addresses you may have access to ...
So ... go ahead and have my posts deleted, and have me banned from the forum ... though that will never ensure that YOUR opinion will prevail ... only that you won't have to read when I disagree with it ... if that is your intended victory ... so be it.
-
My goodness ... if I had a nickel for every time I saw you post "I don't care what you think" on this and several other forums over the years (don't let my current post count fool you ... I've read your posts for quite some time) ... I could buy a lifelong subscription to CC and have change left over ... It baffles me how you could care less about what others think of your comments ... yet you place so much importance on shouting down, if not silencing the opinions of others ... One Way Street is it?
Well, tell me where to send the nickel because, once again, I'll tell you that, no, I really don't care what you or others think. I gave up caring what others think about me several decades ago when I got into advertising photography. I don't do things to satisfy others, I do things to satisfy myself. If I cared what other people think, I really would not be who I am and I care far more about who I am and what I do than the thoughts of others. Caring about what others think is a sure way of killing creativity...
You say you know my posting style well, yes, I know yours as well. Although relatively new here, you've posted on the Adobe forums for years. Sometime we agree, often times we don't. What's the problem? You have your opinions, I have mine. Yes, I write very aggressively...some may say abusively but I don't actually engage in ad hominem attacks...I'm perfectly happy attacking peoples' ideas. You don't like my debating style, tough...
Could I be more "polite", sure...do I have any desire to be more "polite"? Nope...I really don't have the time nor interest in being polite. You are welcome to not read nor respond to my posts...and I promise if you don't respond to a post by me, I won't respond to a post by you. Deal? (fair warning, I tend not to let others have the last word :~)
This whole thread is a thinly veiled attack on Adobe and the creative cloud. Heaven forbid that somebody doesn't agree with all the Adobe bashing that goes on.
You want to bring about change at Adobe? Vote with your wallets...that's the only thing that Adobe will respond to. Pissing&Moaning™ on the LuLa forums will do absolutely zero to bring about change...
Photoshop was not designed for nor really intended for photographers...the fact that photographers adopted and became addicted to using Photoshop is not Adobe's fault. Adobe is changing the ground rules...you either adapt and adopt or move on. Will this move by Adobe spur competition? You bet and I'm a firm believer in competition...in point of fact, the recent move to subscription may end up being a really great thing for the industry because it WILL spur competition which has been sorely lacking for well over a decade.
I hope some bright young people are hard at work creating a Photoshop killer...I'll just warn them that's it's a cutthroat field and you'll be going against Adobe's best and brightest. But if somebody thinks they can create an imaging app to rival Photoshop for photographers, more power to them–and I hope you bring your 'A' game cause competing against Photoshop won't be easy.
-
Hmm, suddenly the thread is less about Adobe's Creative financing and more about ... Schewe
Jeff is a character: arrogant, holier than thou, emotional, prone to hyperbole, tends to drop names, write aggressively and often make things personal (lot's of you's, I's and 'bud's in his text). That makes him less than 'simpatico' to most and sometimes gets him burned.
He does however represent an interesting historical memory of the industry and - more importantly imo - he is one of the few (the only?) published authors who does not cower behind a fake name when he participates in fora and debates like this, laying it all bare for everyone to see: that takes cojones, and I respect him for it, thorny red-neck package and all.
Jack
-
I'm likely to get excoriated for saying this, but this thread started with a legitimate set of concerns about Adobe's new marketing arrangements and has degenerated into a useless and irrelevant discussion about Jeff Schewe's personality. I think it's time for some here to take a pill and get back to real business. Everything that can be said has been said about the CC issue many pages ago and in other threads, so I am bowing out of this thread now, and won't be seeing any replies - just in case any one wanted to. Life's too short.
-
I can take all that Jack. Its his threats to have people banned, implying he can have threads discontinued, his references to the influence he has within the forum, advising people to become aware of the 'lay of the land' before posting opinions and then asserting he is just an ordinary forum member here. It is not an equal playing field and if anyone else wrote in his style implying power and influence their posts would be moderated. It comes across as nothing short of corruption and brings disrespect to Michael Reichmann and the site in general. I repeat, if the site is wanting to bring in new members with its affiliations with Facebook, Twitter etc it will need to follow the wider conventions of social networking discourse. Jeff's worst postings are anti-democratic and hegemonistic and cast doubt on the integrity of Lula. People drifting in from Facebook etc will see this and drift out again. This, I argue, undermines LuLa's current corporate drive must be based upon a business plan based upon the successful linking with social networking sites and sponsorship deals; Jeff's flaming can undermine all that and realistically threaten that plan. It must be a headache for the site's managers.
I have pre-ordered his book and will continue to purchase it cos I find his knowledge base stimulating.
-
Yes Mark. I agree. Points have been made......
-
Wow. Guys, this is just the new release of PhotoShop with anew licensing scheme that applies only to the new version. Some reactions sound like someone just forbade to sell food or something. No one stole anything you had yesterday!
I am not a pro. I have been an amateur for the last 41 years (I'm 50). I have done a few exhibitions and sold a few prints. I consciously chose not to go pro because it was absolutely obvious that I would not be able to feed myself with photography, let alone live comfortably. I learned to do something else very well and I now live very well and am able to practice photography the way I want.
Despite being an amateur, I do use LightRoom and PhotoShop, like many of us, as everybody but Adobe knows, it seems :)
Ah, and I pay for what I use. That's what the real job is for.
It seems to me the two main points of contention are price and dependency. Actually dependency is not new. Maybe some only realised it now, but our PhotoShop files have always been proprietary. What is new regarding dependency is that *if* we upgrade to PhotoShop CC, we will have to pay monthly and when we stop paying we loose access to the layers.
I know I am only restating things, but bear with me.
Who feels pressure to upgrade? Not me. Ah yes, if and when I buy a new camera, I'll have to upgrade. Wait. I'll have to upgrade LightRoom. I can keep a very old PhotoShop with only a very minor inconvenience. Yes I am on Windows. I chose that too, for the very reason that Apple has no concern for continuity and makes breaking changes to every single release of their operating system. How a "pro" can choose to use Apple and then blame Adobe when Apple breaks the compatibility with a major trade application is beyond me, but that's just me.
By the way, are these the starving pros we are talking about? They use Apple? And they starve? Hello?
So, if and when I buy my next $2000 camera (I am not a pro, so the D4 and 1D-X are of no use for me), I am not going to moan a very long time if I choose to pay $20/month for an essential software.
Since when photography gear is inexpensive?
Ah, the revenue is disappearing, Yes, I know. It happens in a lot of other businesses, all the time. Those people move on.
Being a pro photographer is running a business. If one goes into running a business without a solid business plan (been there, done that), it fails. In any kind of business. If the market conditions change, businesses fail and others spring up from nowhere.
When I see a business owner getting all caught up with a commodity that is available from just one supplier and has not factored in that that supplier might change its pricing structure, I see bad management, not an unlucky poor photographer trapped by a big meany corporation.
Now, for the complains about Schewe's style. Guys, who forces you to read him? It is written Schewe in bold at the top left of all his posts. I, for one, learn more from him than from all the other posts combined. So, no, he should certainly not be the one to be kicked out. Please.
-
Stephane your website flashes up an infection notice. (html:lframe-ZG trojan). No-one is asking for any sacking - far from it - just better moderation. I too continue to learn enormously.
For information and transparency, as I am posting on issues of significance, my websites are www.geoffreybillettphotography.co.uk and www.spanishcivilwarphotography.co.uk.
-
Wow. Guys, this is just the new release of PhotoShop with anew licensing scheme that applies only to the new version. Some reactions sound like someone just forbade to sell food or something. No one stole anything you had yesterday!
Sorry, Stephane, but (whatever you think of it) this is a big deal. That's why Adobe made such a big announcement.
It might be also less provocative not to imply others are guilty of bad management , not least when that supplier has an effective monopoly.
-
Sorry, Stephane, but (whatever you think of it) this is a big deal. That's why Adobe made such a big announcement.
It might be also less provocative not to imply others are guilty of bad management , not least when that supplier has an effective monopoly.
It is only a big deal if you let it be a big deal. This is a matter of perception.
Adobe has no monopoly. They have competition. I agree the competition sucks. But that's not Adobe's fault. Leading companies always charge more than the others. The more they lead, the less they fear competition, the more they charge. If you had shareholders, they'd expect that from you.
In a way, all this argument stems from the fact that Adobe's product are superior to the competition and that it creates a sentiment of dependence. Therefore, if they made lesser products, you'd feel less dependent on them, so you wouldn't mind so much about CC. It follows you'd like Adobe better if they made worse products. No wonder they are puzzled :P
Again, what makes you feel compelled to upgrade?
-
Schewe: Photoshop was not designed for nor really intended for photographers...
That maybe true but they sure want to attract photographers to CC now according to their main home page - Photoshop CC "With all-new Smart Sharpen, Camera Shake Reduction and cloud-powered Behance integration, it's the most advanced Photoshop yet."
Now no decent pro photographer should need the ludicrous Camera Shake Reduction, if you do need it then maybe try plumbing or carpentry as a trade. So I agree with Jeff, but maybe he should use the phrase "Photoshop was not designed for nor really intended for decent photographers..."
Schewe: I hope some bright young people are hard at work creating a Photoshop killer...I'll just warn them that's it's a cutthroat field and you'll be going against Adobe's best and brightest. But if somebody thinks they can create an imaging app to rival Photoshop for photographers, more power to them–and I hope you bring your 'A' game cause competing against Photoshop won't be easy.
Agreed, I wish there was more competition but it'll be a hard act to beat.
A final thought - if I live my whole life NOT knowing what "Cloud Powered Behance Integration" is I will die happy.
Sorry, a final, final note - a big thanks Jeff for starting the thread "If Thomas designed a new Photoshop for photographers now..." It provides a great opportunity to list the most wanted/useful tasks needed in software for photographers. A super post.
Regards, Ian (fashion photographer, Manchester, UK)
-
Stephane
I agree with every word of your last couple of posts.
Ian (fashion photographer, Manchester, UK)
-
It is only a big deal if you let it be a big deal. This is a matter of perception.
Adobe has no monopoly. They have competition. I agree the competition sucks. But that's not Adobe's fault. Leading companies always charge more than the others. The more they lead, the less they fear competition, the more they charge. If you had shareholders, they'd expect that from you.
In a way, all this argument stems from the fact that Adobe's product are superior to the competition and that it creates a sentiment of dependence. Therefore, if they made lesser products, you'd feel less dependent on them, so you wouldn't mind so much about CC. It follows you'd like Adobe better if they made worse products. No wonder they are puzzled :P
Again, what makes you feel compelled to upgrade?
Sure, it's a matter of perception. Stick your head in the sand and you don't see a big deal.
I didn't say monopoly - I said effective monopoly - so I'll ignore your diatribe on that.
Compelled to upgrade? Well, I didn't answer because this isn't about me - it's about your unpleasant assertion of others' "bad management".
Since you ask, compelled is the wrong word. Inclined is better. I am one of those who has got enough out of recent upgrades to justify the cost and therefore expected to continue upgrading. Apart from the various content aware stuff of recent versions, in the new cloud version of Photoshop I can quickly think of conditional actions, rounded corners, probably the CSS features, and there will be others - but I make a deliberate effort to evaluate new stuff. I will probably hold my nose and subscribe, but I certainly don't blame others for complaining when Adobe change the basis of the relationship, and I certainly wouldn't accuse them of bad management.
John
-
Complaining is one thing. Company-bashing and person-bashing is something else.
Seems I struck a nerve with my allusion to bad management. Sorry, I did not mean to offend. I am myself a terrible manager.
-
Yes, I agree there's too much of that, but I think it's reasonable that people have a reaction. After all, Adobe's announcement was always intended to be "exciting".
Only time will tell, but I just wonder how many of those who say they are finished with Adobe will just come back after a year or so when Adobe add a feature they really want, or when they find the alternatives aren't as viable as they'd hoped. And don't forget that one of the architects of Adobe's cloud jumped shipped in March - to Apple.
John
-
Well, I spent way too much time in the last weeks checking the alternatives. Some are reasonably good. Certainly good enough to avoid being excuses for bad pictures ;D
But no one has smart filters. Smart filters are such a boon when using the Nik plugins that I am ready to stay with CS6 for as long as it works. And that is going to be long. I reckon it will take at least 4 major releases of Windows before CS6 stops working.
Unless they do something that makes me want to subscribe.
-
I'm sure you won't be alone. But what can they ever do to make people want to subscribe? Is there enough in a single product subscription to tempt existing customers into paying more for a product which they only use for 5-20% of its features?
-
Is there enough in a single product subscription to tempt existing customers into paying more for a product which they only use for 5-20% of its features?
But then why complain if one is not concerned? It only becomes a potential problem if there is something you need in the upgrade.
-
For a thoughtful analysis of how Adobe got to this point (bundling mature and immature products into the same upgrade cycle) see Dan Margulis' blog entry here http://www.moderncolorworkflow.com/blog (http://www.moderncolorworkflow.com/blog)
-
But then why complain if one is not concerned? It only becomes a potential problem if there is something you need in the upgrade.
Well, there will be many who will take your view, but those who complain would have upgraded in normal circumstances because they have benefited from previous upgrades. That's why I wonder how many who complain will reluctantly sign up, and a lot sooner than we may think.
-
I'm sure you won't be alone. But what can they ever do to make people want to subscribe? Is there enough in a single product subscription to tempt existing customers into paying more for a product which they only use for 5-20% of its features?
What can they ever do, is all in your post: break-down of services! That way you only have to pay service fees for that 5-20%, which pretty much would assure that the cost-of-ownership for most users goes down. I personally have very little problem with a subscription model if that is what they will eventually offer.
That also solves many contingency concerns, because if you wanted to open some legacy files, you simply subscribe to the legacy-file-module for however long your project runs, and be done with it.
-
In a way, all this argument stems from the fact that Adobe's product are superior to the competition and that it creates a sentiment of dependence. Therefore, if they made lesser products, you'd feel less dependent on them, so you wouldn't mind so much about CC. It follows you'd like Adobe better if they made worse products. No wonder they are puzzled :P
Again, what makes you feel compelled to upgrade?
Stephane,
The dependance on PS is not directly related to its superiority, it is related to the ton of IP I have created using PS that is only useful when using PS.
This is the core of the issue here, Adobe is using our past trust in them to screw us.
Who wants to keep working with a supplier with such credentials?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I reckon it will take at least 4 major releases of Windows before CS6 stops working.
Hi Stéphane,
You seem confident that reactivation of CS6 will be possible ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
...Adobe is using our past trust in them to screw us.
I very much doubt that anyone at Adobe is even so slightly interested that they would want to "screw us".
I kind-of think that we previously bought Adobe software out of our own self-interest -- we chose to put on the golden handcuffs.
-
I very much doubt that anyone at Adobe is even so slightly interested that they would want to "screw us".
I kind-of think that we previously bought Adobe software out of our own self-interest -- we chose to put on the golden handcuffs.
Like any corporation, Adobe is just looking at maximizing their revenue and profits. An objective of "screwing us" has never crossed their minds. And I agree, we all willingly used Adobe's proprietary formats when processing our images. A smart business maybe would look at this risk and find ways of eliminating or at the very least, reducing the risk. Anyone caught in such a dilemma today only has themselves to blame.
-
The dependance on PS is not directly related to its superiority, it is related to the ton of IP I have created using PS that is only useful when using PS.
This is the core of the issue here, Adobe is using our past trust in them to screw us.
Who wants to keep working with a supplier with such credentials?
I have the same potential problem. If at some stage PhotoShop does not run on the last Windows iteration, I'll see. I usually re-visit layers over a few weeks, rarely more than that. I still hope my best and most precious pictures are yet to be done. And even then, how precious, really? These are pictures. OK, some of you sell them, or you get paid by the time you spend taking them and producing them, but really, how often do you really need to change a layer in an old picture? And if you do, do you get paid for that? If yes, well, you know the new price of your tool.
I do not feel Adobe has screwed me. I always understood the money I paid was for a certain product, not for anything else in the future.
And about what Adobe credentials are you talking about?
The credential to have made PhotoShop?
The credential to have made Camera Raw?
The credential to have financed actual fundamental research in our field so we can have tools we could only dream about before?
Who else does that?
DXO does. Look at their prices, not on the cheap side either.
And anyway, your current PhotoShop should work for many more years. After all, it is a pretty reliable product. Another blunder from those scumbags at Adobe, I suppose.
-
Hi Stéphane,
You seem confident that reactivation of CS6 will be possible ...
Cheers,
Bart
Reactivation? Oh, you're on Apple? Well, try to get the supplier you chose not to break your applications. This has nothing to do with Adobe. If that is your concern, have you tried to get a CS6 for Windows? Did they refuse?
-
I am not a pro…but bear with me
After reading the gibberish, I don't think so.
Anyone caught in such a dilemma today only has themselves to blame.
That's right, blame the loyal customer. Just goes to show, you don't need an education to be a photographer.
-
That's right, blame the loyal customer.
Did the "loyal customer" make a purchase to benefit themselves, or purely to benefit the seller at cost to themselves?
-
Reactivation? Oh, you're on Apple? Well, try to get the supplier you chose not to break your applications. This has nothing to do with Adobe. If that is your concern, have you tried to get a CS6 for Windows? Did they refuse?
Hi Stéphane,
I'm not running CS6 on a Mac, but on on Windows (for a number of reasons). So the OS shouldn't be the problem. But what do you think happens when you install the software on a new hard disk, new OS, new hardware? Do you trust Adobe enough to be confident that activation will not become a problem? If so, dream on.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. Just some friendly advice, it might be a good idea to make a mirror sector/partition copy of your working CS6 installation hard disk.
-
I'm not running CS6 on a Mac, but on on Windows. So the OS shouldn't be the problem. But what do you think happens when you install the software on a new hard disk, new OS, new hardware? Do you trust Adobe enough to be confident that activation will not become a problem? If so, dream on.
Thanks for your advice and pardon my too quick assumption. Well, I don't know. I do expect the activation to keep working, yes. Call me naive, but I have yet to go through a different experience.
-
After reading the gibberish, I don't think so.
That's right, blame the loyal customer. Just goes to show, you don't need an education to be a photographer.
Misty...you know dick about me and my education. I think you just might be surprised. No one is blaming the loyal customer...but if your business is hanging out their on some proprietary formats...YOU are only the one to blame getting your business in such a situation. Blaming Adobe for this shows me how much "business" education YOU really have.
-
you know dick
Yep, that's an education to be proud of.
-
Yep, that's an education to be proud of.
Sometimes you have to speak to the level of your audience for them to comprehend.
-
Are you a member of APA, ASMP or PP of A?
I joined my first professional organization soon after my first professional job decades ago. But to be honest, the only reason I joined was to gain eligibility for the group HMO plan. Self-employed individuals endure great frustration in their quest for affordable health care. The early 90's were among the scariest years I can remember as a business owner. All it took was one simple X-ray to be dropped from your health plan with a $3,000 deductible.
I'm a member of two pro organizations today, but that's because I've grown more political as I've gotten older. My circle of photographer friends care deeply about copyright issues, but I have to say, working with ignorant politicians is like getting teeth pulled with no novocaine (or reading posts from the ignorant around here).
No former assistant of mine (who has gone off on his own) can afford membership dues in pro organizations. These guys and gals are living from paycheck to paycheck, and they all seem to carry hefty balances at the rental shops. A working photographer in NYC often feels lucky if he can just lower his debt.
As for working for free, I know one 30-year-old photographer who just shot a spread in a famous fashion magazine. He's 2 months late on his rent (he needed that money to pay what the magazine would not pay, "editorial" ya know), and has no clue when he'll see his next paycheck.
I work hard not to judge people by what they can and cannot give. Everyone's capacity for giving is different. If you're a star, then I judge.
Working photographers are not a charity. We are not a Union. Many of us compete for the exact same job, and in this day of digital, where everyone with an iPhone and Photoshop is a pro photographer, we have no choice but to protect our style secrets if we wish to continue in this maddening job.
The concept of working together to help my fellow competitor is often at odds with protecting my business. There's always a delicate balance when it comes to giving support.
if photographers were better organized, they would have a stronger voice at Adobe.
Sorry, I just don't buy that. No voice is louder than yours, and there are plenty of pros who pay attention to what you have to say. If you can't strong-arm Adobe to pay attention to pro issues, with your mouth to Thomas' ear, than nobody can.
Yes, there is power in numbers. If all photographers boycotted Adobe tomorrow, maybe we would see some action. We all know that ain't gonna happen because we're trapped. Until a competent competitor comes along, we're stuck with the monopoly.
From my perspective, Adobe is no Apple. The crash hit all of us hard in 2008, and Adobe failed to develop a new product that would take a new market by storm. They were stuck with many customers who did not buy into their 18-month upgrades. Many of those customers could not update without fear of a business shutdown or a costly IT bill. And there were thousands of customers who couldn't afford to stay current, with or without all their peripherals. This is a fact. This is the reality that surrounds me daily, listening to my former assistants for the past four years.
Adobe needed to do something to bring in more money, and we all see what they decided to do.
IMO, it's never a good thing for a business to create hating customers. And if there's one sure way to piss off a customer, double the price of something they've grown accustomed to using in their business. (Are there any female executives at Adobe who know what happens when a beauty salon doubles the price of a manicure?)
For the life of me, I don't understand why Adobe refused to consider the small-business photographer (and all those energetic, enterprising people who are dedicated to David Hobby). All Adobe had to do was set a reasonable parameter, like no incorporation or some kind of provable sole-proprietor status, and set a fair price. As long as Adobe provided a reasonable financial solution for this group, all the hate chatter would be unnecessary.
In the meantime, we're left with the perception that Adobe does not care one bit about its loyal small business customers or all the amateurs who got caught up with having the biggest and the best. The perception of a company saying FU, NOW PAY UP to any of its customers can never produce a positive result.
-
A few random thoughts.
1) CS is nearing the end of its development cycle - there isn't much more that can be added or improved. As a product matures, more effort is required to achieve smaller improvements - with smaller/fewer improvements, what's the incentive to buy the latest version? If the product isn't gaining in sales (or even possibly that sales are stagnating), profit is reduced.
2) Many users do not update with each issue of CS, buying only the alternate versions. This only provides 1/2 the income from these users.
3) Software doesn't wear out. Features may improve, but it still works unless one requires an upgraded computer/system. I'm running all the software for an engineering business (word processing, spreadsheet, CAD, engineering specific software) on an XP machine - replaced the MOBO last year and re-installed XP. $100 for the MOBO, and $25 for the re-install. A new OS would require a new machine. I'm in business to make money not spend/lose it.
4) No matter the ownership of Adobe, income must keep coming in both for the shareholders and the employees (according to Wikipedia it has over 9,000 employees).
What's the solution? Increase income.
How do you increase income in light of items 1) through 4)? The first step is to get users committed to a product (they already are).
Corporations have been defined by some as a pile of money without a conscience. We'll have to get used to the concept.
Glenn
-
Like any corporation, Adobe is just looking at maximizing their revenue and profits. An objective of "screwing us" has never crossed their minds.
I'd wager a bet that a group of shareholders with voting shares pushed for this subscription model. Adobe is using its leverage in the industry to increase their income.
I'd also wager that those people complaining would do the same, if they were in such a powerful position.
-
I'd wager a bet that a group of shareholders with voting shares pushed for this subscription model.
You would lose that bet...as I recall, in the lead up and release of Photoshop 5.5 and CS5.5, Adobe offered subscription based licenses. It was actually successful–not over the moon successful but successful enough that with the release of CS6 Adobe would make a huge marketing effort to push the subscription services for single and the full package. All of these decisions were made by the execs and approved by the board of directors and I seriously doubt any shareholders had any input. Why? Because the decision to do CC and drop perpetual licenses was done over a very short period of time.
Telling tales out of school may come back to bite me but during the CS7 beta, it was CS7 right up to the point it turned into CC. Adobe had not planned on dropping perpetual licenses during the initial development of CS7. It was around Feb of this year that everybody at Adobe got really, really tight lipped. I can usually get people to tell me everything but there was something going on that even most of the Adobe employees weren't aware of.
What I do know is that when the CS6 updates went out at the end of the year in 2012, the updates for the subscription and perpetual licenses caused major problems. Running a dual code branch of both subscription and perpetual licenses where new features were added to the subscription but only bug fixes for perpetual resulted in what I'll refer to as FUBAR...fixing the problems resulted in engineers coming in and working over the holidays and really pissing off many employees and their families.
Somewhere along the line the decision was made to quite developing the perpetual licensed Creative Suite 7 and move everything over to subscription only and dropping the Creative Suite brand (not something one would do lightly given how much Adobe has spent building that brand) and moving everything to the Creative Cloud.
So, to those who think this CC is all about greed and milking the user base for every last drop of money I'll tell you Adobe really doesn't do that sort of thing. Adobe has not got a history of anti-competitive behavior (yes, they got into some hot water with the Aldus takeover but that was settled). For those who don't trust Adobe to keep the activation servers going for CS6 look at their behavior regarding the shutting down of the CS2 activation servers...they gave away non-activation installers and a set of serial numbers. They didn't have to do that...
And while I get painted as an Adobe "defender" I'm really not...I have knowledge of things that others don't have that alters my perception of the situation. I think the reaction to last years upgrade debacle lead to a knee-jerk reaction and the dropping of CS7 and perpetual licenses. I think that reaction was poorly thought out and communicated with a degree of incompetence that I'm all too familiar with. I think Adobe has made a mistake but I do believe they "think" this is the right course of action. I warned them that the shyte would hit the fan and that they needed to be really careful in how they approach the release of this new approach. Then they went and did a really bad job of announcing it at Adobe MAX–jeeesh, again another FUBAR situation. I also think that long term, some good may indeed come of this–increasing the opportunities for new competition, refocusing Adobe on some of the user base that has been alienated by this move (by this I mean photographers).
What I do suggest is let the dust settle to see what transpires for all of this. You can still get a CS6 perpetual license which is only about a year old. You can give Photoshop CC a shot for $9.99/month for the next year ($119 or so) and see whether or not the subscription works for you and if Adobe keeps up it's promise to keep adding new features on a regular basis–this is the thing I have high hope on because I know the engineers are chomping at the bit to dive into new features that won't have to wait 18 months to gestate. If you check the LR5 video tutorial where we talked with Eric Chan on line he mentioned that Upright that showed up in LR5 and ACR 8.1 was a new feature that was put in in about a month–which is a really, REALLY short timeframe. Yes, I suspect the guys doing the original research were working on it for a lot longer, but to go from R&D into an application in about a month is pretty interesting.
So, just to quiet down the rhetoric, I think I've said pretty much everything I have to say so this is a thread I'm not going to keep checking any longer. You all can carry on as you wish.
-
to those who think this CC is all about greed and milking the user base for every last drop of money
Not all of us would describe Adobe's business mission as "milking." Clearly, from the early days, Adobe had concerns about theft, and little by little they did what they could to fix that. I've never used a stolen copy of the software, and I've never used a student copy to run my business. But I know quite a few assistants fresh out of college (and some working photographers) who did use stolen or student versions, primarily because they could not afford a pro version of Photoshop.
When the license became more restricted, many of us listened to the outcry from these broke yet talented folks who were struggling with the costs of building a business in NYC. At a certain point a child has to grow up and pay off that student loan. Many of us did our part to teach the youngins' that stealing is stealing, but when money is tight, you do what you have to do to survive.
In 2008, advertising expenditure dropped by 40%, practically overnight. And that fact is no exaggeration. Does anyone at Adobe realize what that did to photography businesses? Here it is 2012. Have you seen this month's Vanity Fair? My used toilet roll is thicker. The business has yet to recover.
And while I get painted as an Adobe "defender" I'm really not...I have knowledge of things that others don't have that alters my perception of the situation.
Yes, but given what appears to be a lack of empathy (and now admitted contempt), struggling photographers have no clue which camp is yours. They certainly don't feel you're with them. Reading this thread won't help any of that. You have a way of alienating people, and I think that's too bad. I think you bring a lot to any discussion about digital photography, but people are more sensitive than ever to what feels like bullying. And that's a good thing.
-
...
For the life of me, I don't understand why Adobe refused to consider the small-business photographer (and all those energetic, enterprising people who are dedicated to David Hobby). All Adobe had to do was set a reasonable parameter, like no incorporation or some kind of provable sole-proprietor status, and set a fair price. As long as Adobe provided a reasonable financial solution for this group, all the hate chatter would be unnecessary.
In the meantime, we're left with the perception that Adobe does not care one bit about its loyal small business customers or all the amateurs who got caught up with having the biggest and the best. The perception of a company saying FU, NOW PAY UP to any of its customers can never produce a positive result.
Stay tuned and keep pressing - I believe Adobe is listening...
-
All of these decisions were made by the execs and approved by the board of directors and I seriously doubt any shareholders had any input. Why? Because the decision to do CC and drop perpetual licenses was done over a very short period of time.
This makes it sound like Adobe was reacting to something and not acting on a well-thought plan. I'm guessing here, but Schewe's post made it sound like Adobe was flailing at something. Perhaps some of their engineers in the trenches were fed up with poorly planned development cycles and were preparing to leave. Again, I'm guessing.
Then again, maybe Adobe is just like Netflix (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2011/12/28/5-business-lessons-from-the-netflix-pricing-debacle/).
That aside, I have been enjoying my CC subscription. The update process is painless and every update has been stable. I utilize four computers at my studio and the process of de-authorizing one computer and authorizing another happens without a hitch.
-
Stay tuned and keep pressing - I believe Adobe is listening...
Chris, I have also heard the 'Adobe is listening' rumour from a couple of sources now (creativecow.net being one) and so I am totally with you on how this might hopefully be an improving situation :)
So who knows, all this ranting, raving, squabbling and falling out etc, might have been worth it after all - we will all have to wait and see...
Dave
-
So who knows, all this ranting, raving, squabbling and falling out etc, might have been worth it after all - we will all have to wait and see...
Hi Dave,
If any of the "ranting, raving, squabbling and falling out etc" has educated the general public around these premises that Adobe is an unreliable "partner", so be it. As has been said (many times before), trust comes on foot and leaves on horseback ...
The current powers that be at Adobe, have done themselves and the stakeholders (which BTW is a much wider audience than shareholders) a huge disservice. Such huge incompetence rarely goes unnoticed, which also applies to the current apologists ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I have the same potential problem. If at some stage PhotoShop does not run on the last Windows iteration, I'll see. I usually re-visit layers over a few weeks, rarely more than that. I still hope my best and most precious pictures are yet to be done. And even then, how precious, really? These are pictures. OK, some of you sell them, or you get paid by the time you spend taking them and producing them, but really, how often do you really need to change a layer in an old picture? And if you do, do you get paid for that? If yes, well, you know the new price of your tool.
I do not feel Adobe has screwed me. I always understood the money I paid was for a certain product, not for anything else in the future.
And about what Adobe credentials are you talking about?
The credential to have made PhotoShop?
The credential to have made Camera Raw?
The credential to have financed actual fundamental research in our field so we can have tools we could only dream about before?
Who else does that?
DXO does. Look at their prices, not on the cheap side either.
And anyway, your current PhotoShop should work for many more years. After all, it is a pretty reliable product. Another blunder from those scumbags at Adobe, I suppose.
Not enough time for a detailed answer but:
- I have clearly distinguished several times the talented engineers a Adobe from the business decision makers, I know enough not to see corporations as simple entities.
- I don't remember denying the fact that PS is a great product resulting from past mgt decision to invest in order to create products with great competitive appeal. This has not prevented Abode from being profitable nor from showing healthy growth, has it?
- I have provided a clear list of examples where going back to old files is mandatory,
- I am sorry but I cannot agree with your view that Adobe does not have any obligations towards the users who created proprietary IP using their de facto standard platform. I believe that the CC only decision results in a clear negative value (the loss of the ability to continue leveraging this IP without commitment to keep spending twice as much forever) that is a violation of the implicit commitment made regarding PS being a de facto strategic platform for image edition. This implicit commitment beIng a core input in the initial decision to buy PS.
So they did screw us. Whether screwing us was their intent or not is totally irrelevant, only the results matters. I am not interested in speculating about the reasons why Adobe mgt took these decisions, only about the impacts for me as a faithful user having spent probably close to 10,000 US$ on Adobe products over the years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I really have no axe to grind with Adobe management. They can do what they think is best for the company. That said, I've heard it repeatedly said by Adobe experts that I'm not Adobe's prime customer because I"m not a graphics pro even though I've spent more money on Adobe software in the last several years than with any other software vendor. Why do I even use InDesign, PS, and Acrobat if I'm not in Adobe's core constituency? Well, Adobe's got color management working right (except for Acrobat lately), and on the Mac platform at least, this appears to be a singular accomplishment since even Apple Colorsync has had it botched up for two or three generations of OS upgrade. And I like/need layers and masks in PS so LR doesn't fill the bill (and may follow the rest of the Adobe offerings totally into CC subscription land for all I Know), but other than these very basic color management and image editing requirements, I don't need the full blown creative suite. Could plan B spring to life relatively quickly for folks like me? I think so. In fact, I'm providing feedback to two independent software providers at this moment who are paying close attention to my needs. I don't think my needs are that tough to meet, but I'd be the first to admit that only Adobe has met those needs up to this point in time. Nevertheless, there's an easy prize to be won here. Time will tell how important my business and that of other folks like me has been to Adobe.
-
...only about the impacts for me as a faithful user having spent probably close to 10,000 US$ on Adobe products over the years.
I hope you made money using those same products over the years?
-
I hope you made money using those same products over the years?
At least I did make some people happy using those products, which I would rate as more important than making money, but to each your own.
Regardless, I don't see how that is relevant to this debate.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Dave,
...trust comes on foot and leaves on horseback ...
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
I totally agree, trust across many areas of the industry, has certainly been one of the causalities in this whole saga, but another saying in the UK tells us that "The public has a very short memory". So I think it totally depends on what Adobe comes up with, as to what happens in the future and whether trust can ever be restored. I hope what Adobe does next will not be representative of yet another saying that goes, "too little too late", which I fear could well be the case, yet I'm still hoping that it isn't.
Dave
-
I know you may not read this, but thanks Jeff for your post summarising what you know about the CC debacle.
So, to those who think this CC is all about greed and milking the user base for every last drop of money I'll tell you Adobe really doesn't do that sort of thing.
In general terms I think you may be well correct on this point. But this is not the perception in territories beyond the Big Apple where we have historically enjoyed a penalty for purchasing our Adobe software. Although, there is some evidence that with the subscription model this may be disappearing and the pricing may, at last, be more equitable across the world.
I'm inclined to agree with you, and other posters above, that this whole infuriating situation may well prove to be to photographers' benefit in the longer term. Let's hope so.
-
At least I did make some people happy using those products, which I would rate as more important than making money, but to each your own.
Regardless, I don't see how that is relevant to this debate.
You state the cost of Adobe products to you as-if it was a donation which gave you no benefit, that just seems a bit strange.
-
I'm inclined to agree with you, and other posters above, that this whole infuriating situation may well prove to be to photographers' benefit in the longer term. Let's hope so.
Ctein on TOP, has now posted his "good side" take on the issue at hand.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/06/adobe-photoshop-creative-cloud-part-ii-the-good.html
-
At least I did make some people happy using those products, which I would rate as more important than making money, but to each your own.
Regardless, I don't see how that is relevant to this debate.
Cheers,
Bernard
10.000 will make 16 years of suite subscription and 41 years of photoshop only subscription.
-
I have confidence that the economic model of supply and demand will eventually dictate whether Adobe has made the correct decision here and will ultimately survive and prosper or decline. Monolithic companies grow and must adapt as change occurs around them. Adobe is much the same. Their product is, as many have said, mature with little room for significant development but they have no direct competition for the pro user. Companies and individual pros, in this age of austerity, will also be potentially unable to invest in the massive outlays every year or two to keep up with newer software. Monoliths like Adobe need to change now before they are left high and dry in a changing cultural and technological landscape. A subscription system, prima facia, seems a sensible way forward for everybody, so long as the price is pitched correctly to appeal both to the corporate user as well as the lone pro ( like myself ) and interested and committed amateurs. A price which appeals must surely be equal to the amount that would be spent on an average user's expenditure if purchased on the license current system. Anything higher will be considered as exploitation. But is this the only answer?
There are observations though which need to be made in this process of change.
1. To say that PS was never developed for photographers is disingenuous in the least and derisory to the armies of photographers who have used PS since its early incarnations. This assertion will infuriate photographers everywhere and automatically create resistance to any change which is promoted or explained on this false premise. Why doesn't Adobe see this? Why have they undermined this user group?
2. Companies exist to make profit. Despite reassurances from Jeff that Adobe is not purely motivated by increasing profits, this is an age where corporations ( ie shareholders ) expect increasing returns even within an age of austerity. It is becoming evident that multi-nationals will undertake any strategy to maximise their profits. Why is Adobe different? I don't think they are different; they are driven to make profit and will undertake whatever strategy to do this. Middle managers, developers and lovers of the product are caught in the middle between an outraged user base and cold blooded corporate strategists who will make whatever changes they need to make to prevent financial atrophy and market loss.
3. Company size is no determinant of safety and security. Sometimes the larger a company is the more devolved its decision making is. Take Kodak, Sony etc. It appears that Apple may even be now starting a period of decline. Adobe is no exception. It must adapt and will upset people ( ie users ) in that process.
4. Lightroom and similar programs, if beefed up to provide a complete substitute for PS for photographers, perhaps even providing a pro-version to fill the gap as has been suggested, would seem a sensible way forward. Lightroom meets most of my needs but not all. Plug ins help. If Adobe continues to maintain that PS is not for photographers it would seem Adobe could easily further develop Lightroom and make it a stand alone product available both within its subscription scheme and as a licensed product. But for how long will they allow a single product to not be nested in its wider corporate and economic strategy of CC?.
5. Jeff is strongly hinting that there are talented, independent software developers who may take this opportunity to develop alternative software. He talks about hostility from Adobe to any developments. But is this not ever so - in the free market opportunities are grabbed by enterprising individuals. Adobe ( as he states ) will not easily allow competition to develop and will try to thwart competition ( despite its alleged philanthropy towards the photographic community ). But only if competition develops to fully equal Photoshop will Adobe feel threatened. But competition MUST emerge if photographers are not ever to be dependent on the whims of Adobe and its fickle attitude to us.
6. It is unclear where undoubted experts and on-line resources stand on this issues. They too must be torn between allegiances to a powerful corporation with whom they have undoubted relationships and a readership which is mostly ( but not all ) alarmed by the proposed changes. It can be argued that the vehemence by which certain contributors put their views here has created ambivalence at best. This site is to be applauded for its declaration of interests on its front page. Lobbying happens in many forms though and in order for a reasoned debate to continue sites must be seen to be neutral and effective moderation to that end is essential.
7. Chris' suggestion that Adobe may be listening is helpful - I wish he would share his knowledge base for this assertion. How does he know?
8. But how will we know progress and what, as a group of photographers, do we want? Jeff's thread asking this very question is for me the best thing to emerge from all the debates. For me the only solution here is choice - the development of software suitable to meet the needs of professional photographers by an alternative company ( existing or new ) would ensure that our needs are best met and we would not be hostage to one group of shareholders.
-
You don't get it...I'm not defending Adobe's logic, I'm trying to explain it. Know your enemy...if you want to fight against Adobe's logic, you have to do so from a position of understanding why Adobe thought it had to do what it did...it's foolish to try to fight something you don't understand. I understand photographers are upset and why they are upset. They don't like Adobe's decision because of the way they think it impacts them as a Photoshop user. But ranting and raving isn't going to have any impact. If you don't like Creative Cloud, vote with your wallet. Just understand that your wallet has not been historically all that important to Adobe...
I wonder how long it will take us to understand, accept this, and get on with life (photography). :o
Glenn
-
I wonder how long it will take us to understand, accept this, and get on with life (photography).
I'm there.
When CS5 was released I saw PS wasn't going in a direction I wanted and got off the train.
-
I wonder how long it will take us to understand, accept this, and get on with life (photography). :o
Unacceptable.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Even though it's just a baby step, it may be a step in the right direction.
http://photorumors.com/2013/06/16/adobe-is-considering-new-pricing-models-for-creative-cloud/
The part about letting us have CS6 if we stop the subscription is laughable. Most of us already have it.
-
You state the cost of Adobe products to you as-if it was a donation which gave you no benefit, that just seems a bit strange.
That was not the intent of giving this figure. I am not questioning the value that CS has delivered to me.
I was only just pointing out that I invested this amount (the word is intended here) under the (now proven false) assumption that I was investing in a strategic image edition platform where my IP would be safe and where the skills developped would remain meaningful.
This amount is a measure of the trust I (mis)placed in Adobe.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Unacceptable.
Cheers,
Bart
And the options are:
1)
2)
3)
-
And the options are:
1)
2)
3)
A. Adobe's top mgt changes their mind and continue to upgrade and sell CS's "boxed version" at the current price point,
B. Those who consider the subcription only model unacceptable fund the development of competitive solutions like pixelmator, pl32, the gimp,... by buying licenses or donating funds today (already done as far as I am concerned for Pixelmator and pl32). It will take a few releases for them to be at the right level, we keep using CS6 box in the meantime,
C. We stop digital photography and devote our time/cash to something else.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
C. We stop digital photography and devote our time/cash to something else.
I could see something along the lines of "we radically change our current approach to post processing....", but "stop digital photography..."? Really? So if all Adobe products were to instantly disappear, through some whim of the aliens who really run things around here, would stopping digital photography really be one of your options? Surely there would be life after Adobe, and your Option B would quickly kick in. I suspect plenty of people are already finding this to be the case.
-
I could see something along the lines of "we radically change our current approach to post processing....", but "stop digital photography..."? Really? So if all Adobe products were to instantly disappear, through some whim of the aliens who really run things around here, would stopping digital photography really be one of your options? Surely there would be life after Adobe, and your Option B would quickly kick in. I suspect plenty of people are already finding this to be the case.
Option C is obviously pretty unlikely for me, but it is an option to consider in general terms.
CC alone would not be enough of a trigger, but for some people who have been considering this possibility, CC may be the extra drop of water that makes the glass overflow.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Could be worse ... we could be in the position of those folks that mortgaged the house to stock up on Kodachrome and were left with a freezer full of the stuff and no way to use it after the last lab able to process it closed its doors.
-
This could be interesting:
http://photorumors.com/2013/06/16/adobe-is-considering-new-pricing-models-for-creative-cloud/
We'd need concrete details to assess the value.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A. Adobe's top mgt changes their mind and continue to upgrade and sell CS's "boxed version" at the current price point,
B. Those who consider the subcription only model unacceptable fund the development of competitive solutions like pixelmator, pl32, the gimp,... by buying licenses or donating funds today (already done as far as I am concerned for Pixelmator and pl32). It will take a few releases for them to be at the right level, we keep using CS6 box in the meantime,
C. We stop digital photography and devote our time/cash to something else.
Hi Bernard,
Yes, that pretty well sums it up, although option C is personally unacceptable as well.
Option B is the most probable one, and in my experience many are currently going in that direction, using CS6 to bridge the time required to transition.
Besides Capture One Pro, DxO, and apparently PhotoNinja is well received, a Raw converter/developer like RawTherapee already gives a very good base material to work a bit more on, and e.g. TopazLabs photoFXlab offers a useful command center that allows access to their suite of generally excellent Plugins, in an (edge-aware) masked adjustment/blending layer approach that works very well, except for saving the layered work-in-progress as a layered file (I've just added a feature request for that on their forum).
Already, compared to Photoshop, superior image quality can be achieved with the image resampling algorithms as implemented by ImageMagick (up- and down-sampling and image transformations), and Photozoom Pro (only for upsampling), and even Pano stitchers offer a choice of resampling algorithms that retain better detail when correcting for distortions and keystoning.
There are many other photo-editors (e.g. Photoline is pretty powerful), but some offerings are a bit too much focused on a particular field of expertise (in which they are better than others) for use by the general public. An example of the latter would be PixInsight, a development environment (allowing user generated JavaScript to process image data) mainly (because of its roots) focusing on Astrophotography, but with a lot of usable features and some interesting unconventional approaches that offer benefits for general use as well.
A promising initiative like Gimp first requires the transition to 16-bit/channel processing later this year or the beginning of next year to become a full alternative, but progress may speed up with a bit of outside hands-on sponsoring. And of course things have become more interesting since Google acquired Nik software ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
A promising initiative like Gimp first requires the transition to 16-bit/channel processing later this year or the beginning of next year to become a full alternative, but progress may speed up with a bit of outside hands-on sponsoring.
I admire your optimism on that.
If you start digging into how The Gimp is being developed, you'll discover it's not being thought of as a photo-centric application for main stream OSs. It will taken a huge amount of effort and lobbying by photographers to steer it towards our needs. I can't see enough people making that sort of commitment to such a slowly developing project that's inherently just a vanity project for coders.
-
I admire your optimism on that.
If you start digging into how The Gimp is being developed, you'll discover it's not being thought of as a photo-centric application for main stream OSs. It will taken a huge amount of effort and lobbying by photographers to steer it towards our needs. I can't see enough people making that sort of commitment to such a slowly developing project that's inherently just a vanity project for coders.
Hi,
Well, 16-b/ch processing is apparently already implemented in the non-stable development version, but one has to compile it oneself. The available relatively stable compiled binaries are still 8-b/ch.
Cheers,
Bart
-
but one has to compile it oneself.
Which makes it a complete non-starter for most potential users.
More worrying is the way development is going. Removing the ability to simply 'save' an image* seems bizarre and unjustifiable.
*The save command only works with The Gimp's own xcf file format, anything else has to 'exported'
-
Which makes it a complete non-starter for most potential users.
That's why I said it will take some time before it's available to all.
More worrying is the way development is going. Removing the ability to simply 'save' an image* seems bizarre and unjustifiable.
*The save command only works with The Gimp's own xcf file format, anything else has to 'exported'
Seems a bit similar to Photoshop either 'Printing' or 'Exporting' to a printer module. Not a real issue, in fact it's more obvious that the saved result is in a proprietary format, just like Layered Photoshop .psd files and .tiff files with proprietary adjustment layers.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Seems a bit similar to Photoshop either 'Printing' or 'Exporting' to a printer module.
???
You want to print an image in Photoshop you just click 'Print' from the menu or hit Ctrl+P
You want to save a Tiff/JPG/PNG/etc, you just click 'save' or hit Ctl+S or you can save in a different format should you need to.
The vast majority of programs work like this (excepting programs that work in project based work where the final output is usually different to the input eg DTP or video editing.)
-
Which makes it a complete non-starter for most potential users.
More worrying is the way development is going. Removing the ability to simply 'save' an image* seems bizarre and unjustifiable.
*The save command only works with The Gimp's own xcf file format, anything else has to 'exported'
Let's be clear, nobody is looking forward to having to use The Gimp in its present form. It is a brave effort but is lacking polish.
Now, Adobe is not leaving us much choice here, we have to look for alternatives since our beloved PS was de facto end of lifed. We cannot force them to develop a product if they don't feel like doing it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We cannot force them to develop a product if they don't feel like doing it.
I get the impression that the Open Source projects aren't written by the end users, but the coders do it just for the experience/CV fodder.
The challenge would be to interest the coders in providing more photo-centric features, rather than the illustration bias we're seeing at the moment.
Not impossible and there's a decent basic set up to develop from, but changing the development focus won't be easy unless lots of people express an opinion.
-
Let's be clear, nobody is looking forward to having to use The Gimp in its present form. It is a brave effort but is lacking polish.
Now, Adobe is not leaving us much choice here, we have to look for alternatives since our beloved PS was de facto end of lifed. We cannot force them to develop a product if they don't feel like doing it.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's just not true (that you have no choice). You can stick with your present CS6 or earlier until the cows come home. For new camera support you can use the free DNG converter if nothing else. You can pay the $10 a month for a subscription and see what happens in the year to come before renewal comes around. Or you can switch trains - the choice is up to you. If you think Adobe is presenting you with an onerous burden, Microsoft's release of the traditionally licensed version of Office 2013 was only authorized for 1 PC - no more installing to your desktop plus a laptop - and was permanently locked to the first machine you installed it on - retire that machine and upgrade to a new one, there was no uninstalling and moving the Office copy to the new computer, you had to buy a whole new full-price copy of Office for the new one and essentially trashcan the first one! AND they abandoned reduced pricing for upgrades some time ago - upgrade from Office 2010 to Office 2013 you pay full-bore retail! Still is that way if you get a PC with Office pre-installed by the manufacturer; the OEM version is not transferable to a new computer. I have misgivings about the subscription model myself but some of you guys are really going to extremes in your vitriol.
-
I'm watching the "Digital Photography Summit" live-stream from B&H.
The fellow from Adobe who is the product manager for Lightroom was just announcing the "special show pricing" for LR at B&H during the seminar and was saying that LR is available in-store, on line as a stand-alone product, or as part of the CC... that's when he got seriously booed by the crowd of several hundred live attendees.
I'm not trying to stir the pot with this post. I was just surprised to hear that reaction "in the face of" Adobe at an event that they are a sponsoring. We've been encouraged to make our feelings known to Adobe, and they just got a "definitive live dose" of those feelings at B&H.
Our tempest here really seems to be representative of the general feelings of folk "at large" - or at least at B&H today.
-
That's just not true (that you have no choice). You can stick with your present CS6 or earlier until the cows come home. For new camera support you can use the free DNG converter if nothing else. You can pay the $10 a month for a subscription and see what happens in the year to come before renewal comes around. Or you can switch trains - the choice is up to you. If you think Adobe is presenting you with an onerous burden, Microsoft's release of the traditionally licensed version of Office 2013 was only authorized for 1 PC - no more installing to your desktop plus a laptop - and was permanently locked to the first machine you installed it on - retire that machine and upgrade to a new one, there was no uninstalling and moving the Office copy to the new computer, you had to buy a whole new full-price copy of Office for the new one and essentially trashcan the first one! Still is that way if you get a PC with Office pre-installed by the manufacturer; the OEM version is not transferable to a new computer. I have misgivings about the subscription model myself but some of you guys are really going to extremes in your vitriol.
Interesting you mention office, this reason and a few others are why so many people have switched to open source office type programs. People vote with their feet if they don't like something.
-
That's just not true (that you have no choice). You can stick with your present CS6 or earlier until the cows come home. For new camera support you can use the free DNG converter if nothing else. You can pay the $10 a month for a subscription and see what happens in the year to come before renewal comes around. Or you can switch trains - the choice is up to you. If you think Adobe is presenting you with an onerous burden, Microsoft's release of the traditionally licensed version of Office 2013 was only authorized for 1 PC - no more installing to your desktop plus a laptop - and was permanently locked to the first machine you installed it on - retire that machine and upgrade to a new one, there was no uninstalling and moving the Office copy to the new computer, you had to buy a whole new full-price copy of Office for the new one and essentially trashcan the first one! Still is that way if you get a PC with Office pre-installed by the manufacturer; the OEM version is not transferable to a new computer. I have misgivings about the subscription model myself but some of you guys are really going to extremes in your vitriol.
So your defense of Adobe is by pointing out that there was a worse case in recent history? When my children tried to pull that crap for questionable behavior by pointing their finger at a sibling or friends who did even worse ... do you think that method earned them a reprieve for their actions? Poor decision making shouldn't be overlooked purely because someone else made a worse decision. We should never have to settle for the lesser of two evils.
I don't see the vitriol you mention in the Bernard's quote ... Adobe has indeed issued an end of life for Ps perpetual licensing. Plus, we all know, though we can use our current versions for some time ... that time period is not infinite ... especially at the current pace of OS and hardware advancement.
Adobe has stated (and Jeff has verified) that they dropped traditional perpetual license support because it became too difficult, troublesome and costly to provide while at the same time offering the CC model ... I don't doubt that to be the case ... though the resulting injuries they endured supporting both models before making the decision to drop perpetual licensing and further development of that model were self inflicted.
Adobe wasn't forced by market conditions or confining outside regulations to adopt the CC model ... it was Adobe's own concept because it stacked the deck in their favor. No government or other oversight entity forced them into a situation where they had no other option but to end perpetual licensing in order to survive ... knowing that, yes, a significant number of users are going to be upset.
-
that's when he got seriously booed by the crowd of several hundred live attendees.
eggs or tomatoes will be good too
-
Here is an interesting perspective on some of the historical reasons Adobe finds themselves at the current crossroads, from Dan Margulis:
http://www.moderncolorworkflow.com/blog
kirk
-
That's just not true (that you have no choice).
I don't... I want to use (1) current and (2) full featured ACR (don't care about PS, but that is how I can use ACR)... so I have no choice but subscription model.
-
Adobe has stated (and Jeff has verified) that they dropped traditional perpetual license support because it became too difficult, troublesome and costly to provide while at the same time offering the CC model
lie, they don't have any issues to supply LR both ways... they don't have any issues to supply code updates for ACR/LR raw conversion engine both ways...
-
lie, they don't have any issues to supply LR both ways... they don't have any issues to supply code updates for ACR/LR raw conversion engine both ways...
Yes, Lr is available in both perpetual and CC licensing ... keep in mind, that Lr is also the only Adobe perpetual app that I am aware of that also does not require activation in order to be used ... so it wouldn't have that hurdle to clear that the other CS apps do.
Lie? ... I am in no way defending Adobe's decision ... but I don't have any doubts that Adobe indeed came to the decision to drop CS perpetual licensing because of the extra burden and cost to provide both. By saying that I am in no way endorsing or validating that decision. It was the absolute wrong decision to make. Though, I can't label it to be an outright lie.
-
???
You want to print an image in Photoshop you just click 'Print' from the menu or hit Ctrl+P
Maybe this (http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/Access+Photoshop+Plugin?responseToken=9b5bf4b8a52590fa8bbd8f84bcf14a8f) has changed for some printers?
Cheers,
Bart
-
The 16bit drivers for Canon printers aren't part of Photoshop, they're plug-ins to get the non-standard print pipeline in all OSs.
-
Here is an interesting perspective on some of the historical reasons Adobe finds themselves at the current crossroads, from Dan Margulis:
http://www.moderncolorworkflow.com/blog
kirk
Interesting read indeed ... I found this of particular interest: "... I said that this reaction was going to reduce the value of Adobe by about 15%. Since that time, as of this morning the company’s value has indeed dropped 10 percent relative to the NASDAQ index, a paper loss to Adobe of over $2 billion."
I don't think the execs or the board anticipated that much of a stock fluctuation so soon after the announcement. Even for a large corporation, that's a pretty big hit in about 6 weeks ... right before a momentous launch ... that seems to be on hold until 8 p.m. (PDT) tonight. (http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1234095?start=0&tstart=0)
-
I don't... I want to use (1) current and (2) full featured ACR (don't care about PS, but that is how I can use ACR)... so I have no choice but subscription model.
No, if you want full-featured ACR that is continuously updating for new hardware but don't need Photoshop's bell & whistles, use Lightroom and be happy. Look, I'm not defending Adobe but it seems like some of the objections raised are over the top, making out that the situation is worse than it really is. I've got a fridge full of transparency film that is languishing unused because professional colour labs offering quality E6 processing have gone the way of the dodo. I'm not happy about it but I don't claim it's some plot from a cabal of Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa who set out to screw photographers or force us all to buy new digital gear. Things evolve, live with it.
-
I've got a fridge full of transparency film that is languishing unused because professional colour labs offering quality E6 processing have gone the way of the dodo. I'm not happy about it but I don't claim it's some plot from a cabal of Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa who set out to screw photographers or force us all to buy new digital gear. Things evolve, live with it.
While I agree with that "evolution" premise in theory ... Adobe's CC only approach was by their own choice and not in response to a changing market driven evolution paced by consumer desire or demand over which, they had no control ... unlike the change from film to digital ... it was the consumer and end user that drove that evolution in the marketplace ... I don't recall users suggesting and/or nudging Adobe to offer CC in sufficient numbers to make it such a compelling reason to only offer a subscription model ... rather it has been forced upon users ... that is not evolution, it is a sad error in judgement.
-
Microsoft's release of the traditionally licensed version of Office 2013 was only authorized for 1 PC - no more installing to your desktop plus a laptop - and was permanently locked to the first machine you installed it on - retire that machine and upgrade to a new one, there was no uninstalling and moving the Office copy to the new computer, you had to buy a whole new full-price copy of Office for the new one and essentially trashcan the first one! AND they abandoned reduced pricing for upgrades some time ago - upgrade from Office 2010 to Office 2013 you pay full-bore retail.
Microsoft actually relented on that one. The licensing for Office 2013 is back to normal. It is not linked to one machine any more. You can replace your PC and keep your Office 2013. Anything less was indeed outrageous.
-
Adobe has indeed issued an end of life for Ps perpetual licensing.
For the new releases. Your current license remains perpetual.
Plus, we all know, though we can use our current versions for some time ... that time period is not infinite ... especially at the current pace of OS and hardware advancement.
PhotoShop CS3 works in Windows 8. I guess CS6 will work a very long time.
-
Microsoft actually relented on that one. The licensing for Office 2013 is back to normal.
Up to 5 machines, and they do both subscription and normal sales. I went for the subscription, and was glad I could evaluate the options and make a choice. They must have good programmers up in Redmond.
-
Up to 5 machines, and they do both subscription and normal sales.
This sounds good.
-
PhotoShop CS3 works in Windows 8. I guess CS6 will work a very long time.
True on Windows. I am more concerned on OSX. It seems that CS4 still works on 10.8.4, which is encouraging but who knows what incompatibilities Apple may introduce in 10.9, 10.10,... that may prevent CS6 from running normally. Adobe has already announced that would they would have to patch CS6 to make it work on 10.9, it doesn't convey a clear message in terms of future proofness, does it?
But the key question is whether it makes sense to keep creating more IP using a platform that will not evolve any longer.
My personal answer is to keep using it until an alternative gets at the right level, and to actively encourage their progress by buying licenses today.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's just not true (that you have no choice). You can stick with your present CS6 or earlier until the cows come home. For new camera support you can use the free DNG converter if nothing else. You can pay the $10 a month for a subscription and see what happens in the year to come before renewal comes around. Or you can switch trains - the choice is up to you. If you think Adobe is presenting you with an onerous burden, Microsoft's release of the traditionally licensed version of Office 2013 was only authorized for 1 PC - no more installing to your desktop plus a laptop - and was permanently locked to the first machine you installed it on - retire that machine and upgrade to a new one, there was no uninstalling and moving the Office copy to the new computer, you had to buy a whole new full-price copy of Office for the new one and essentially trashcan the first one! AND they abandoned reduced pricing for upgrades some time ago - upgrade from Office 2010 to Office 2013 you pay full-bore retail! Still is that way if you get a PC with Office pre-installed by the manufacturer; the OEM version is not transferable to a new computer. I have misgivings about the subscription model myself but some of you guys are really going to extremes in your vitriol.
I believe that you may have taken one quote out of context here. I wrote a few posts above that we had the following options:
A. Adobe's top mgt changes their mind and continue to upgrade and sell CS's "boxed version" at the current price point,
B. Those who consider the subcription only model unacceptable fund the development of competitive solutions like pixelmator, pl32, the gimp,... by buying licenses or donating funds today (already done as far as I am concerned for Pixelmator and pl32). It will take a few releases for them to be at the right level, we keep using CS6 box in the meantime,
C. We stop digital photography and devote our time/cash to something else.
By "no choice", I meant that Option B seems the only way forward for those not willing to give away the house keys to Adobe. So my intend is indeed to keep using CS6 as long as I don't find an alternative that brings me the level of functionality/ease of use/stability I need. But I will keep in mind that it doesn't make much sense to keep creating proprietary IP in a platform that has been de facto end of lifed by its vendor.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Up to 5 machines, and they do both subscription and normal sales. I went for the subscription, and was glad I could evaluate the options and makes a choice. They must have good programmers up in Redmond.
5 Machines for Office 365 (Office 2013 subscription); 1 machine for Office 2013 perpetual, but it is transferable now, once every 90 days.
-
True on Windows. I am more concerned on OSX. It seems that CS4 still works on 10.8.4, which is encouraging but who knows what incompatibilities Apple may introduce in 10.9, 10.10,... that may prevent CS6 from running normally. Adobe has already announced that would they would have to patch CS6 to make it work on 10.9, it doesn't convey a clear message in terms of future proofness, does it?
I know. But that is not Adobe's fault. Apple has completely lost sight of the needs of businesses. You are not Apple's target customer any more.
-
True on Windows. I am more concerned on OSX.
One of the assumptions about using Apple OS's seems to be that you need to keep up with their upgrades and legacy support has never been terribly important to Apple. The not too long ago change that left X-Rite owners having to buy expensive upgrades to i1 Products being a good example.
If you can't afford to keep up, look elsewhere.
Maybe time to re-evaluate your choice of OS then. It seems a little odd to moan like mad about Adobe, but then fall in line with Apple.
In real world usage there's not much difference between OSx and W7 and I've got both here.
-
5 Machines for Office 365 (Office 2013 subscription); 1 machine for Office 2013 perpetual, but it is transferable now, once every 90 days.
Thanks, Steve, I forgot about the perpetual. If I recall, the annual subscription cost was £80 compared to a single perpetual licence of around £110. To me this deal looked pretty slanted in the direction of subscription, and it made me head in the direction Microsoft wanted me to go. I look at Adobe's Cloud and even with a CS6 upgrade terms, I see a hidden price rise. A 21st century Hobson's choice?
-
I see a hidden price rise.
Hi John...not hidden at all for me, big price increase after the first year, especially here in France/europe...and we get less options for the price increase.
Something I wrote to Jeff the day before the adobe announcement here, in this thread : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=77989.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=77989.0)
"Guess it depends what the price point is. Based on prices today, the adobe single app cost is 20 dollars a month or 25 euros a month. Even if it's just every 18 months I still do better paying the upgrade fee like I used to.
Also, now I can upgrade when I want. Say I bought CS6 upgrade when it came out. Today I don't have to upgrade to CS7 until CS8 is ready to ship, if I don't want to lose my right/ability to upgrade. That would be closer to 36 months. Ok, say we narrow it down to 30 months. That's still only around $7 a month, not $20. Today the price point is not in my favor.
Based on the new features I've seen released over the last months for CS6 subscription users I'd say yes, I could wait till CS7 to have them included. They don't mean anything to me or my work.
Also, the $20/25 euro a month price is relevant today. What if Adobe decides to raise the price next year? I mean I wouldn't be surprised. What do I do? If I don't like it I can just stop paying and have nothing in hand to work with. At least until now by buying my 18 month upgrades I could continue to use Photoshop.
Honest, Jeff, I have nothing but respect for the folks that work at Adobe. I'm not trying to take food out of their mouths. I don't expect them to work for free. I love photoshop. I don't want to be put in a position to have to stop using it. But the subscription model just doesn't fit into my financial horizon.
Even if they came down to $10 a month, I'd be skeptical. Why? Forgive me this lapse into my imagination, but I suspect the shareholders would want more profit. Tease 'em with something cheap up front, get 'em addicted, then lower the hammer. Ok, call me paranoid. This is another 'thing' in our world, but I just hate the inflated prices of food and countless other things due to shareholders. Profit being given to people who do nothing but inflate the true prices of goods and services seems wrong to me. Food for another forum.
Sorry, but no. Not tempted in the least by the adobe subscription offers. What they'll offer us tomorrow, well, you know more about it than I."
Add to this the loss of trust and confidence I've felt since last year and Adobe's 'renew every version' not every two or three versions, and the writing is on 'my' wall. I'm kind of feeling like Bernard. Trying a few other raw converters and seeing what's available to replace photoshop. Nothing can replace it today, but that might not be true in a year or two. I've bought pixelmator. I'm gonna download a trial of Photoline, and maybe buy that too. Knowing I won't upgrade photoshop CS6 has freed up 250 euros in my budget. Similar doubts for Lightroom. Dang. Such great software. Made by some very talented people at Adobe. Ruined by greed. Well, ruined for me. It's really a shame. No matter how much some people have today it's never enough.
-
Hi John...not hidden at all for me, big price increase after the first year, especially here in France/europe...and we get less options for the price increase.
We in England are also in Europe, you know ;) To some extent, the old US-global pricing differences are a separate discussion, and I think it's fair to say that Adobe are not doing that any worse than before (or any worse than most other US companies). But it might be interesting to speculate on the reaction to CC if Adobe had chosen to offer upgraders a cost-neutral subscription rate and gone with worldwide dollar pricing (plus local taxes and language costs).
John
-
We in England are also in Europe, you know ;) To some extent, the old US-global pricing differences are a separate discussion, and I think it's fair to say that Adobe are not doing that any worse than before (or any worse than most other US companies). But it might be interesting to speculate on the reaction to CC if Adobe had chosen to offer upgraders a cost-neutral subscription rate and gone with worldwide dollar pricing (plus local taxes and language costs).
John
Yes. Agree with you. But they didn't. Is it too late to back track a bit? I wonder. Still. Subscription. Owning nothing but air after all the payments. Not for me. Also. It will be fun to watch Adobe as it becomes a full service entity and not a seller of product. The one time I had trouble with my upgrade serial numbers I spent over an hour on the phone with a woman who was definitely in India. I couldn't understand her accent. She knew nothing about the programs. Had to be handed over to her manager to finally get clear info across both ways. That won't cut it if on a subscription and for whatever reason your programs stop working.
Adobe and software as a Service. I'll be watching this closely.
(I don't blame england for having one foot in on europe. It's an economic mess. We knew that even before the euro.)
-
Maybe time to re-evaluate your choice of OS then. It seems a little odd to moan like mad about Adobe, but then fall in line with Apple.
In real world usage there's not much difference between OSx and W7 and I've got both here.
I have been complaining a lot about Apple's migration policy also, don't worry about that. ;) I am no apple fan boy, I use Win7 at work and like it.
But Adobe will not accept a migration of OS without a change of release... so I am currently stuck on OSX because of CS6... and also because of some other applications that do not have a Win version (FC Pro X, Raw Developper,...). The cost of moving to Win 7/8 would be very significant.
So yes, Apple contributes to worsening the situation, but this doesn't change anything about the fact that the situation would not have been bad in the first place without the Adobe decision. Let's keep things in the right order here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To some extent, the old US-global pricing differences are a separate discussion, and I think it's fair to say that Adobe are not doing that any worse than before (or any worse than most other US companies).
Hi John,
I don't agree, now that they do not sell perpetual license boxed products anymore since CS6. Looking at the current European pricing, it's 1 US$ == 1 Euro +23% VAT. That currency exchange alone is currently a 33% higher price for an electronic download. I didn't realize that European bytes were more expensive than the ones in the USA? Of course the reason for that is NOT that doing business is exactly 33% more expensive in Europe, but that they get income tax benefits (http://www.taxhavensguide.com/list-of-offshore-financial-centres.php) from doing ('off-shore') business (formally) from Ireland. That understandably urges them to make more profit here where the taxes are lower, than in the USA. You may be aware that there is quite a bit of discussion (http://www.economist.com/news/business/21568432-starbuckss-tax-troubles-are-sign-things-come-multinationals-wake-up-and-smell) going on about tax heaven constructions in Europe.
Question becomes, do we Europeans want to pay more than necessary, just for Adobe's tax/profit reasons? Given the demonstrated level of contempt for me as a long time customer, and for a large segment of the imaging industry, that is not hard to answer. Not if I can avoid it.
But it might be interesting to speculate on the reaction to CC if Adobe had chosen to offer upgraders a cost-neutral subscription rate and gone with worldwide dollar pricing (plus local taxes and language costs).
Speculation is always a nice pass-time, but nothing speaks louder than real actions ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sure, actions do speak louder than words. But the differential pricing, to Europeans' disadvantage, is nothing new and I don't see Adobe as worse than other companies that play tax-saving and job-shifting games. These perpetual practices (pun intended) would continue regardless of the subscription-only sales and I feel they only confuse the discussion.
-
But Adobe will not accept a migration of OS without a change of release...
I think you're wrong there. I transferred my CS for Mac to a Windows licence at no cost.
-
I think you're wrong there. I transferred my CS for Mac to a Windows licence at no cost.
Well, Adobe Japan used to not even allow this until I pushed in various ways. The condition was very clear that they would only grant this at the moment of an upgade.
I have not double checked with them, but even if this were OK now the issue with all the other stuff remains.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
More financial documents have just been released. See http://www.adobe.com/investor-relations.html, especially the results and the earnings call script (for a webcon with Shantanu Narayan).
-
This is certainly a compelling argument.
Hi John,
I don't agree, now that they do not sell perpetual license boxed products anymore since CS6. Looking at the current European pricing, it's 1 US$ == 1 Euro +23% VAT. That currency exchange alone is currently a 33% higher price for an electronic download. I didn't realize that European bytes were more expensive than the ones in the USA? Of course the reason for that is NOT that doing business is exactly 33% more expensive in Europe, but that they get income tax benefits (http://www.taxhavensguide.com/list-of-offshore-financial-centres.php) from doing ('off-shore') business (formally) from Ireland. That understandably urges them to make more profit here where the taxes are lower, than in the USA. You may be aware that there is quite a bit of discussion (http://www.economist.com/news/business/21568432-starbuckss-tax-troubles-are-sign-things-come-multinationals-wake-up-and-smell) going on about tax heaven constructions in Europe.
Question becomes, do we Europeans want to pay more than necessary, just for Adobe's tax/profit reasons? Given the demonstrated level of contempt for me as a long time customer, and for a large segment of the imaging industry, that is not hard to answer. Not if I can avoid it.
Speculation is always a nice pass-time, but nothing speaks louder than real actions ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Don't know whether anyone has noticed that Microsoft generated an amount of frustration similar to that of CC when they announced reinforced DRM of the new XBox game console?
Fortunately for Xbox users, MS mgt was smart enough to acknowledge they had been wrong and back tracked quickly. The DNA of companies can be seen in such times.
Adobe's mgt must be feeling increasingly lonely.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Speculation is always a nice pass-time, but nothing speaks louder than real actions ...
Cheers,
Bart
I think i just tap the optical line of the GCHQ; as it seems they have it all.
-
Maybe by now the subject has been beaten to death, but here's the thing as far as I'm concerned. I always owned a legitimate copy of Creativeve Suite. I've never bootlegged or pirated anything Adobe or any other software for that matter. But the cost of Adobe products was always a hefty premium for me as a very small business (i.e., sole proprietor) even as I highly regarded the quality of the Adobe products compared to other options. I didn't skip every other major update, but I didn't always adopt the latest Adobe offering the very minute a new major CS suite number became available. I wasn't Adobe's best customer, but I wasn't Adobe's worst customer. I controlled my costs for Adobe software by buying into the latest upgrade when I could afford to do so. At all times my business prospects, not Adobe's, dictated that decision. Adobe just told me I must pay every month, and Adobe just doubled my annual cost for the essentially the same upgrade pathway I've been using for many years (let's not quibble about instantaneous minor monthly updates compared to 18 month or thereabouts major updates). I don't know whether I will accept this new licensing fee going forward. What I can say for certain, is that while in the past I thought Adobe's price to be a premium, I now consider it excessive. I'm actively exploring my options whereas I didn't spend much time doing so in the past. Is that a good thing for Adobe? I don't know. It depends on how many people now feel like I do about the new cost of remaining on Adobe provided software, and whether the revenues from that population of endusers outweighs Adobe's clever price increases. If enough endusers are prepared to adopt different software/hardware strategies to accomplish their designated tasks, then Adobe's new revenue model will be just like Coca Cola's marketing model when it tried to switch it's customers to "New Coke". That said, Adobe's most affluent customer base may fall in line in just enough numbers for Adobe management to declare victory. Time will tell.
I am exactly in the same situation, you have perfectly described where I am at at this moment too.
-
The option I'm exploring is Photoline.
Seems to do everything I need just as well as Photoshop.
It actually does some things even better and it costs a fraction of the price for a perpetual licence.
There's an update soon which looks like it will be very good indeed.
-
The option I'm exploring is Photoline.
Seems to do everything I need just as well as Photoshop.
It actually does some things even better and it costs a fraction of the price for a perpetual licence.
There's an update soon which looks like it will be very good indeed.
I think when you dig into a lot of these PS wannabes, you'll find them lacking in many aspects. Plug-ins play a huge role in PS and many of these wannabes just do not have the support.
If they are so good...why was everyone using PS?
-
I think when you dig into a lot of these PS wannabes, you'll find them lacking in many aspects. Plug-ins play a huge role in PS and many of these wannabes just do not have the support.
If they are so good...why was everyone using PS?
They are not good enough today. The question is what we can do to make them good enough btwn now and the time when we won't be able to use CS6 anymore.
My answer is to devote to the purchase of licenses of these wannabees the money we would otherwise have spent on CC.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think when you dig into a lot of these PS wannabes, you'll find them lacking in many aspects. Plug-ins play a huge role in PS and many of these wannabes just do not have the support.
Hi,
Photoline supports the usual Photoshop plug-ins just fine, as do several other alternatives ...
If they are so good...why was everyone using PS?
Good question, maybe out of ignorance, post-processing wannabees, pirated copies, lack of promoters with an agenda, etc. ?
Cheers,
Bart
-
If they are so good...why was everyone using PS?
Habit
Whilst the upgrades could be missed for a version or two, the cost when something compelling was added wasn't high enough to cause much concern, so few PS users looked elsewhere.
-
Habit
Whilst the upgrades could be missed for a version or two, the cost when something compelling was added wasn't high enough to cause much concern, so few PS users looked elsewhere.
I agree. Once you have put in the time and energy to learn what you need from PS, it's hard even to consider looking elsewhere.
-
it's hard even to consider looking elsewhere.
However the other side of that is that once you're comfortable with image editing with Photoshop, you probably have the all the important skills to use another package. All you need is to cross-train, some packages will be harder than others, but the underlying skills and knowledge can still be utilised.
Adobe shouldn't be too complacent that users won't take their expertise and use it with different products in the longer term.
-
I agree. Once you have put in the time and energy to learn what you need from PS, it's hard even to consider looking elsewhere.
Eric,
As you know, things change. PS is not just the UI we are used to, it is also a product belonging to Adobe. Even if the UI has not changed, PS has changed dramatically, and probably forever, on June 17th. It is not anymore the great piece of software we have grown to like.
I think it is very similar to what happens when a non democratic regimes is voted in a country. Things look the same around us, it is very tempting to pretend we don't know and keep living in a less free environment, but the underlying reality is deeply different... and we know it isn't good.
Who will react if we don't?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To clarify my earlier comment a bit: For me, giving up PS will be somewhat painful, as old habits die hard. But I am certainly already starting to investigate most of the alternatives that have been mentioned on LuLa, and I expect to be ready to switch when it's necessary.
With some trepidation I'm sticking with LR for the time being, in the hopes that it won't also go the subscription route. I have C1 already as a usable alternative if necessary. And I have always kept a flattened tiff of every processed image that I think has value, so switching won't be too hard. And when I go back to an older file to make new adjustments, I usually start all over again from the raw anyway.
Eric M.
-
To clarify my earlier comment a bit: For me, giving up PS will be somewhat painful, as old habits die hard. But I am certainly already starting to investigate most of the alternatives that have been mentioned on LuLa, and I expect to be ready to switch when it's necessary.
Thanks for the clarification Eric.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The new Mac pro has arrived just in time.
It works on 10.9 as so does Photoshop CS6
So here we have a future proof combo for the next five years at least that can handle gigabit files without a sigh.
( the only problem i see is if adobe does not support the new GPU-cards in CS6 but only in CC)
-
I think when you dig into a lot of these PS wannabes, you'll find them lacking in many aspects. Plug-ins play a huge role in PS and many of these wannabes just do not have the support.
If they are so good...why was everyone using PS?
As a few people have noted, Photoline supports adobe-compatible plug-ins. I have been using Photoline, as well as Photoshop and each has their strengths and weaknesses for various tasks. Here is an interesting note on the download page of Photoline:
PhotoLine is only liable to german copyright and patent laws. If the program is downloaded from non-german foreign countries, Computerinsel GmbH does not take over responsibility for resulting copyright and patent violations.
from: http://www.pl32.com/pages/down.php
Interesting.
As far as why people use Photoshop and not viable alternatives, well marketing is probably one reason. Photoline is capable, but it's a couple of people doing their thing, not a marketing machine using the proliferation of Photoshop into professional and academic settings to get it into users' consciousness early and often. Photoshop is a fantastic product, so it is a matter of making it the one people think of first - to teach, to learn, to write books about, to have conferences about, to make video tutorials about, to have professional organizations about using it, to demand it in a professional environment, etc.
After all of the discussion, I have subscribed to CC to see how it all will work out in my usage. So far, an update to CC was issued the day after I subscribed. I have action sets and panels that I use that are being updated by the authors, so nothing monumental in that regard. Overall it appears stable and there is very little difference, from a usability standpoint, compared to CS6. It appears that the way plug-ins are installed may have changed, and I would imagine that as more people adopt CC, developers will deal with niggling issues and install problems (via the Extensions Manager). For some reason my CC tile cache was set to "1" by default (maybe it read this from some preferences file somewhere?) and it caused images not viewed at 100% to be noticeably aliased. I figured it was a GPU kind of issue but eventually found some Adobe support docs that suggested re-setting the tile cache to "4" as a possible solution to video issues. It worked on my MacBook Pro with a AMD Radeon HD 6770M 1024 MB card.
I also received a notification, prior to subscribing to CC, that a PSCS6 update was issued a few weeks back. I followed the link provided in the Updater to read about the issues it was intended to resolve. The link redirected me to:
http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2013/06/photoshop-cs6-13-0-5mac-13-0-1-2win-perpetual-license-updates-now-available.html
where people began posting their problems with the updater - it crippled their current install and the Adobe rep kept repeating that the update failed because "That error usually indicates that a required file has been deleted or modified by another program or the user. The solution is to run the CS6 installer again to repair/replace the missing/modified file, then run the updater." Ultimately most folks were required to completely uninstall and reinstall PSCS6 to enable the update. Once the install was successful, some folks noted that the bug fixes did not fix what they were claimed to fix. Then the Adobe blog got hacked. Not good.
Just curious if any CS6 users have successfully updated to 13.0.5 on a Mac or 13.0.1.2 on PC with this update? I have skipped it.
kirk
-
(Kirk) The 13.0.1.2 CS6 upgrade worked for me on two separate PCs (Win 7 Pro & Win 8, both 64-bit) with no installation issues and no obvious problems to date.
Malcolm
-
Just curious if any CS6 users have successfully updated to 13.0.5 on a Mac or 13.0.1.2 on PC with this update? I have skipped it.
kirk
13.0.5 updated flawlessly on both my 2009 Macbook Pro and 2011 Mac Mini.
-
Thanks to you both - I was curious if the complaints on the Adobe blog were isolated weirdness (I have colleagues who also experienced the error) or a widespread phenomenon.
kirk
-
Perhaps I'm an outlier -- a sole proprietor, freelance designer and photographer who depends on many Adobe products to make a living. To keep up with what my clients need over the past 5 years since I went freelance, I've had to get highly proficient with web, interactive, digital publishing and motion graphics quite in addition to the standard print tools. For me, as for most designers, Photoshop is just one tool out of many -- "a great plug-in for InDesign" is how it's often described. I've also never considered Adobe software expensive, especially compared with professional-grade tools in other fields. One seat of Maya or AutoCAD costs more than two seats of the entire Master Collection, for example. Given their dominance, Adobe could easily charge far more.
I subscribed to the Creative Cloud when it launched, and I've been more than happy. I have a CS6 Master Collection perpetual license, too, but there were advantages to the CC approach and I had already decided to stick with it going forward. Besides the nice, predictable monthly budget, the whole installation, upgrade and management process has been seamless. Anyone with experience installing Adobe software knows THAT is a major advance in its own right.
Notably absent from this thread are two factors that more or less forced Adobe into a subscription model in the first place, and the possibility that there are might be sound human and technical reasons for it. The first is legal, the other two derive from the decision that professional customers would be much better served if all of the products in Adobe's line-up worked together as a suite, rather than as disassociated individual products. We tend not to think about it much, but I have enough years of management experience to know that the logistics and coordination involved in getting more than fifty teams, spread across the US, Europe and assorted bits of Asia, to all finish their release cycles at the same time is mind-boggling. But the suite approach made that essential.
Adobe's wake-up call was the digital publishing revolution, kicked off by the success of the iPad. Customers (me included) were screaming for tools that the Creative Suite didn't have. The accelerating pace of change in video and web technology was already creating a strain; Adobe had been forced to shorten their release cycles from two years to eighteen months to keep their products relevant. Now their digital publishing and web tools needed immediate upgrades also. The obvious answer would have been to push out a feature upgrade, but legal reasons to do with revenue recognition (for which you can thank Enron and others) prohibit adding functionality to an already-shipping product. I don't know all the details of the mad scramble that ensued, but I do remember that it was a scramble, from which we got CS5.5. If you wondered why there was no upgrade to Photoshop or Illustrator in 5.5, now you know: it was all about ePub and Digital Publishing. Subsequently, Adobe announced they would be shifting to a yearly upgrade cycle. From their perspective, it was essential.
Consider the human strain on the engineering teams who have to meet these kinds of deadlines. Arbitrary deadlines have a way of stressing people out. People rushed and under stress are more error-prone. Every suite version has shipped with "known issues" that showed up too late to fix before release, and features the teams wanted to implement but had to defer for lack of time. If you know anything about software engineers, and Adobe engineers in particular, you know that this situation was probably doing nothing to improve morale.
Assume (because by my observation it's true) that from the top down, these people are focused on making the best tools possible for professional creatives. Assume, too, that management necessarily cares about their people, who are plenty talented enough to find jobs elsewhere. Management certainly knows Adobe has to innovate like crazy just to stay in the same place, but they can't burn out their best people with impossible development schedules.
A subscription model solves "How do we keep customers up to date without burning out our most creative engineers?". Personally, I think it was a pretty ballsy decision. It couldn't have been cheap. When they announced Creative Cloud in 2011 no-one -- I mean nobody -- I talked to at Adobe knew if it was going to be a success or a major flop. There were a lot of nervously-optimistic conversations going on at MAX that year. I also remember the delight and astonishment a few months later, when Creative Cloud launched and was an instant hit.
Fast forward a year. Cloud delivery really did work well, updates had been finalized and pushed out via the cloud, more and more customers were signing up, and it became clear they had a hit on their hands. With no suite-wide deadlines to meet, the different engineering teams could schedule their feature builds and QE work to fit the need -- form following function rather than the other way round. Don't think that blood pressures weren't going down all over the place.
Consider the whole DVD manufacturing and packaging evolution that has to happen every time there's a new set of boxed products -- two design suites, two web suites, a video suite, a master collection and every individual point product. All that is now gone, and good riddance I'm sure. Replacing it is the ongoing cost of maintaining all that cloud infrastructure. Like the subscription itself, a one-off big cost is replaced by an ongoing smaller one.
It is a BIG mistake, imo, to assume that a departure as radical as Creative Cloud could be thought all the way through for all possible scenarios in as little as a year. It's going to remain a work in progress for a while yet. I don't accept, because it's contrary to all my own experience, that anyone at Adobe wants to screw over their customers. That's just paranoia, frankly: popular in some quarters, but myopic and misguided. I've seen plenty companies where that was true. The signs are unmistakable: customer service goes down the tubes, all the best people leave, the company tanks frighteningly fast. If anyone remembers Ashton-Tate, that was the perfect example. I don't see any of those signs at Adobe.
I think a subscription model was unavoidable, just as I know there will have to be accommodations for not-very-well-thought-out situations. Photographers who use only Lightroom and some Photoshop, and who feel dumped on by the subscription-only model are a case in point.
Perhaps photographers are a minority public for Photoshop, which is used in every design, film and video studio as well as in forensics, astronomy, medicine and many other fields, but if there's one thing I've learned in the years I've been involved with Adobe products it's that their people do listen, and do genuinely care how useful their products are to all their constituents. The best approach from the customer point of view is to make the case, clearly and without venom, why a subscription model doesn't work. Don't assume, though, that your particular situation is intuitively obvious to an outsider, applies to everyone or is being deliberately ignored.
-
the other two derive from the decision that professional customers would be much better served if all of the products in Adobe's line-up worked together as a suite, rather than as disassociated individual products.
that has nothing to do w/ subscription only model... you can have a suite and perpetual licence model in addition... no contradiction
-
Adobe had been forced to shorten their release cycles from two years to eighteen months to keep their products relevant. Now their digital publishing and web tools needed immediate upgrades also. The obvious answer would have been to push out a feature upgrade, but legal reasons to do with revenue recognition (for which you can thank Enron and others) prohibit adding functionality to an already-shipping product.
no, they don't - LR is available under both license models and Adobe has no legal issues w/ that... M$ has no legal issues to bring new functionality in Windows (not only "bugs fixing") with their updates w/ perpetual license...
-
no, they don't - LR is available under both license models and Adobe has no legal issues w/ that... M$ has no legal issues to bring new functionality in Windows (not only "bugs fixing") with their updates w/ perpetual license...
No, Microsoft can't do that either. Nor can the publicly-traded antivirus companies (who've been on the subscription model for years). MS introduced a subscription model with Office 365, and you're going to see it becoming more and more common throughout the industry. It's a difficult situation and it applies across the software industry.
-
No, Microsoft can't do that either.
they can, windows, etc service packs bring new functionality in addition to just "bug fixing" and that is with perpetual license
for example (from M$ document)
"...Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 includes previously released updates and will deliver a number of powerful new features for Windows Server 2008 R2 for virtualization and Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI)..."
-
MS introduced a subscription model with Office 365, and you're going to see it becoming more and more common throughout the industry.
it has nothing to do w/ accounting differences related to perpetual license model and subscription model
-
Yes, it does.
-
Yes, it does.
no, it doesn't... also - did you "swallow" what M$ itself said on record about "will deliver a number of powerful new features" (and that is service pack, not a new paid release of their OS') for a product with perpetual license ;D... you can't be a little pregnant, or can you ? albeit pro adobe posters always are...
-
Hi. Wasn't sure which CC topic to revive, so figured this one would do.
I'm strongly considering purchasing the current Photography Program CC special which includes PS and Lightroom for AUS$120 for the first year. I'm having trouble finding the price that this would revert to after the year is up. Can anyone point me to a link or just update here what the current standard rate is for PS and LR? The other question I have is: Is it anticipated that CS6 and LR5 perpetual licences will continue indefinitely? I don't have either of these, and would prefer to avoid buying them at present at the same time as getting a CC subscription. But the thought of paying Adobe a rental fee for the rest of my life is a little bit off putting, and would like to retain the option in the future to step back to CS6 and LR5.
And I guess as a final question, how are those on the CC service finding it?
Cheers!
-
Hi. Wasn't sure which CC topic to revive, so figured this one would do.
I'm strongly considering purchasing the current Photography Program CC special which includes PS and Lightroom for AUS$120 for the first year. I'm having trouble finding the price that this would revert to after the year is up.
That is the regular price (i.e. its not a promotional price).
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
Thanks for the reply, Mike. On the Adobe site it is saying that this is a special and only available until May 31st. I found the regular price of just photoshop CC alone and it's $20 a month for a yearly subscription.
-
I'm having trouble finding the price that this would revert to after the year is up.
Hi,
Nobody knows for sure.
Can anyone point me to a link or just update here what the current standard rate is for PS and LR?
There seem to be only 'limited time' introductory offers, but the end date seems to be extended time after time.
Edit: I just saw Mike responding that it is the regular price, but the website (just checked) says it is a temporary price. So apparently they have not made up their mind.
The other question I have is: Is it anticipated that CS6 and LR5 perpetual licences will continue indefinitely?
In the Netherlands I've received two independent dealer notices that perpetual licenses for CS6 will end being available after May 30th, 2014. After that date, only subscriptions will be available. Lightroom so far seems to remain available with a perpetual usage license.
Depending on your needs, you could purchase a final Photoshop CS6 (upgrade) license, and wait for new developments in the LR licensing, unless you need specific LR5 functionality right now. You can use an up to date LR version for access to new features you really need, and finish work in Photoshop CS6 as long as it is supported by your hardware.
That's what I did, because I already had a perpetual Photoshop CS6 license, I only purchased a separate perpetual license LR5 upgrade for a discounted price. My running cost for both CS6 and LR sofar are a fraction of the current discounted annual subscription fee, and I assume there will be some sort of introductory discount should I feel the need to upgrade to a subscription in the future (maybe only a subscription for a month for temporary access).
Personally, I dislike subscriptions for software, because that locks one in in a perpetual payment scheme, without future exit strategy that allows access to all of my Work-in-Progress Intellectual Property. Also, the possibilities of getting locked out of my tools from a distance (either by a subscription verification error, temporary lack of connection, or a deliberate attack) is far from appealing.
YMMV.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks for the reply, Mike. On the Adobe site it is saying that this is a special and only available until May 31st. I found the regular price of just photoshop CC alone and it's $20 a month for a yearly subscription.
They're saying it's not a promotional price, but they're not saying it won't go up!
I think this is Adobe speak for something like this:
- It's a regular price, so the won't to up by 50-100% for existing subscribers when the offer period ends, but...
- ...it's not a fixed price, so like all our prices it may go up with inflation or whatever
So if other CC prices go up by 5% (for example), the LR/Photoshop price might as well. Of course, they could put them all up by 100% next year!
That's my interpretation, and I reserve the right to be wholly wrong.
-
That's my interpretation, and I reserve the right to be wholly wrong.
That's your speculation you mean...
-
They're saying it's not a promotional price, but they're not saying it won't go up!
I think this is Adobe speak for something like this:
- It's a regular price, so the won't to up by 50-100% for existing subscribers when the offer period ends, but...
- ...it's not a fixed price, so like all our prices it may go up with inflation or whatever
So if other CC prices go up by 5% (for example), the LR/Photoshop price might as well. Of course, they could put them all up by 100% next year!
That's my interpretation, and I reserve the right to be wholly wrong.
That is correct.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
-
It seems a reasonable interpretation of what Mike said, given that what he said doesn't gel with what the Adobe website is saying. It would be handy if Mike could clarify this.
edit: Ninja'd by Mike! Cheers for the clarification. :)
-
One positive thing about the CC deal is that it has spurred me out of my complacency to look at the alternatives. I tried Capture One and I actually like its conversions better than ACR/Lightroom. I like PhotoMechanic better than Lightroom for image culling and metadata. Haven't found a long term replacement for photoshop CS6 yet, but hopefully something will appear in the next 3-5 years. Then it will be goodbye Adobe unless they fix their subscription model.
I was listening to a CBC radio "Under the influence" podcast about how important "trust" is to long term corporate success. According to the speaker, Terry O'Reilly, a longtime ad man, trust is the #1 driver for success. Wonder how Adobe is doing on that.
-
Bernie, I am a subscriber who ummed and ahhed before committing, and I'm finding it great so far. Updates are regular, but not so frequent as to be intrusive, and the whole package just seems to work. At the current price it's definitely either cheaper or no more expensive than my usual upgrade cycle, but that may not be true for everyone.
-
At the current price it's definitely either cheaper or no more expensive than my usual upgrade cycle, but that may not be true for everyone.
It's certainly not true for everyone. I have the full Creative Suite CS6 and upgrade every cycle, but the rental cost over a 6 year period would be about double what I would have paid.
-
Consider
Photoshop CS3........................... 04/2007
Photoshop CS4........................... 1y 6m later
Photoshop CS5........................... 1y 6m after that
Photoshop CS6........................... 2y 1m later ( I skipped 5.1 to simplify)
At a street price of about $800 it would cost about $400 per year assuming a 'CS7' was released in 2 years. At $9.99 per month or $120 per year subscribing is far cheaper. One would have to hold on to CS6 for about 6.7 years just to break even. And a that point you'd have a very out-dated image editor versus current state-of-the-art one. I fully expect some sort of increase at some point. Everything goes up eventually.
-
Consider
Photoshop CS3........................... 04/2007
Photoshop CS4........................... 1y 6m later
Photoshop CS5........................... 1y 6m after that
Photoshop CS6........................... 2y 1m later ( I skipped 5.1 to simplify)
At a street price of about $800 it would cost about $400 per year assuming a 'CS7' was released in 2 years. At $9.99 per month or $120 per year subscribing is far cheaper. One would have to hold on to CS6 for about 6.7 years just to break even. And a that point you'd have a very out-dated image editor versus current state-of-the-art one. I fully expect some sort of increase at some point. Everything goes up eventually.
I don't think your math is correct. Assuming your dates are correct and $200 per upgrade, that is $600 in 5 years, or $10/month - the same as the CC rate. HOWEVER, most users do not upgrade every cycle and CC has no exit strategy.
-
I don't think your math is correct. Assuming your dates are correct and $200 per upgrade, that is $600 in 5 years, or $10/month - the same as the CC rate. HOWEVER, most users do not upgrade every cycle and CC has no exit strategy.
I did a similar sum. At UK prices, if I upgraded Photoshop every other time when you could do that (say every 3 years) and upgraded Lightroom every time (say every 18 months) it comes to around £308 every 3 years. The $9.99 package is £8.78 inc tax in the UK, or £316 after 3 years.
The exit strategy for me is to go back to my CS5, and pay to upgrade my LR to the latest version. Not pretty, but acceptable, and while I subscribe I have the latest version.
-
I don't think your math is correct. Assuming your dates are correct and $200 per upgrade, that is $600 in 5 years, or $10/month - the same as the CC rate. HOWEVER, most users do not upgrade every cycle and CC has no exit strategy.
You can certainly cherry pick the numbers to give a favorable or unfavorable result. For one thing you can not just buy 3 upgrades without first owning a full version so that has to be part of the cost.
As I said I was comparing the cost of a single copy of CS6 over it's typical life (2 years). If you were to upgrade CS6 to 'CS7' your cost would be (with upgrade) about $900 with a useful life of about 4 years which will require 7.5 years to break even. Although that combination would result in a better feature set at the end. Actually, it is a little worse since by paying upfront the cost is based on the NFV which would include any ROI you might experience if you bought the subscription.
Of course, there is an exit strategy. Stop paying the fee! What happens when you stop paying your electric bill?
-
Of course, there is an exit strategy. Stop paying the fee!
I think the OP was referring to the fact that once on the subscription treadmill any use of new cc enhancements or functionality immediately makes those new enhancements or functionality incompatible with previous Creative Suite versions.
Brian.
-
I think the OP was referring to the fact that once on the subscription treadmill any use of new cc enhancements or functionality immediately makes those new enhancements or functionality incompatible with previous Creative Suite versions.
Brian.
Hasn't that always been true. If I revert to an older version of a software program, the features of the new version will be unavailable. But in the case of Photoshop the file will still be able to be opened and editable and the changes previously made will be intact assuming the file was flattened.
When people use phrases like 'subscription treadmill' it suggests a bias not supported by the facts.
-
You can certainly cherry pick the numbers to give a favorable or unfavorable result. For one thing you can not just buy 3 upgrades without first owning a full version so that has to be part of the cost.
As I said I was comparing the cost of a single copy of CS6 over it's typical life (2 years). If you were to upgrade CS6 to 'CS7' your cost would be (with upgrade) about $900 with a useful life of about 4 years which will require 7.5 years to break even. Although that combination would result in a better feature set at the end. Actually, it is a little worse since by paying upfront the cost is based on the NFV which would include any ROI you might experience if you bought the subscription.
Of course, there is an exit strategy. Stop paying the fee! What happens when you stop paying your electric bill?
Seems cherry picking is common.
Someone is overlooking one extremely important and valuable factor. With a perpetual license the user had an asset. Conversely, a CC license is a liability. The perpetual license could be legally sold and transferred to another user. So we need to go back and do the calculations over factoring in those considerations instead of an arbitrary apples to apples analogy.
While it may be true that if you amortize the purchase cost of a CS license directly without allowing for it being an asset because it still has a marketable value, whereby the registered owner of the license could recoup some of the initial investment. With a CC license ... not so much. A CC license, after the fact, has no real value whatsoever ... at least Nat Geo lets you keep the copies of the magazines you purchased. They do go up in value over time if you take care of them.
-
One of my worries/concerns is that over time lightroom has increasingly replaced the need for certain aspects of photoshop. Throw the Nik plugins in (and potentially others), and photoshop becomes even less important. But for absolute maximum flexibility and control, it makes sense to still have photoshop for the time being. The worry is that say in five years time if lightroom (+/- Nik) can do pretty much everything a photographer needs, then there's no need to keep subscribing to photoshop. But then I'll have potentially 5 years of photoshop work that will no longer be accessible in a .psd style format. I'm not sure how true this feeling is, but I feel like I need to either hitch myself to solely lightroom (+ plugins) now, or commit to many long years of lightroom + photoshop.
-
Once you started using the proprietary Adobe formats, you were locked in. If you stay with CS6...what happens in say 5 years, 10 years when you cannot find any hw or sw to run your obsoleted software? Do people really think they can run CS6 forever? I think not.
The day you start using any proprietary formats you are locked in. This is nothing new with CC...only difference is the time to become obsoleted. With CS6, it will be a slow die, with CC it will be the day you stop your subscription.
I personally convert all my work to TIF's when I am done processing them. I find I don't need to go back to my images years later and continue processing them.
-
You can certainly cherry pick the numbers to give a favorable or unfavorable result. For one thing you can not just buy 3 upgrades without first owning a full version so that has to be part of the cost.
No, it doesn't - it's a money that's already been spent, and therefore not relevant to evaluating costs you're currently comparing.
-
But then I'll have potentially 5 years of photoshop work that will no longer be accessible in a .psd style format.
Please accept this as a genuine question rather than point-scoring: Do you actually go back to .psd files made 5 years ago and rework them?
-
Please accept this as a genuine question rather than point-scoring: Do you actually go back to .psd files made 5 years ago and rework them?
I can't speak for anyone else ... but yes, I do revise .psd files that go back much more than 5 years quite often. Rarely is it a straight up image file, but rather composite graphic designs for clients that may need updated, adjusted or otherwise edited as time passes. Sometimes we shouldn't assume that we all could or should have identical workflows or concerns.
Just last week, I had a client call and request some changes to the front and back book cover (and dust jacket) I originally designed for him over 10 years ago. The third such revision since the original in 2003 ... the book is going into it's fourth printing and the client wants the new tome to be distinguishable from earlier editions. Such requests may not be as common as most Ps users experience, but it is often enough for me to have genuine concerns.
Over the past year, I have been slowly converting many of these files to TIFF as time and opportunity allow, to be better prepared for moving away from Ps when the time comes that CS6 is no longer functional.
-
Sometimes we shouldn't assume that we all could or should have identical workflows or concerns.
Sometimes we should accept that when someone says a genuine question rather than point-scoring, it is a genuine question :-)
-
I face a slightly different "locked-in" issue. For me, most of my masters are not PSD but in Lightroom. Where I've edited in Photoshop (no more than 5-10% of images), the results are normally tiff. If the Photoshop editing was trivial and easily repeatable - say, a bit of straight forward cloning - then I save to jpeg, as D800 tiffs are huuuuge. Even after Photoshop, there might be further Lightroom adjustments, so the results are in Adobe-proprietary metadata. I keep it that way so I can go back and edit some more and, like Isaac, it happens quite often. If I want an image for a particular purpose I might find something from 5 years ago or more, and almost certainly I'll want to tweak it.
If ever I face the prospect of not being able to use Lightroom, I'll need a mega-export session to export currently around 65,000 images from Lightroom. That would probably be to Tif for high-rated stuff, and high-quality jpeg for the rest. Several days' work for the computer, but computers like that sort of thing!
-
Sometimes we should accept that when someone says a genuine question rather than point-scoring, it is a genuine question :-)
Sometimes you shouldn't assume that that portion of my comment wasn't offered solely for your benefit. ;)
-
Ditto ;-)
-
If I want an image for a particular purpose I might find something from 5 years ago or more, and almost certainly I'll want to tweak it.
When I think about how much LR (and Dx0 Optics Pro and Capture One Pro) has changed over the last 5 years, I'd be tempted to start-all-over-again from the raw or DNG.
I realize that volume of work is probably the key factor. (Well, volume of work; and making the minimum of changes to work that has already been accepted and used by a client.)
-
I face a slightly different "locked-in" issue. For me, most of my masters are not PSD but in Lightroom. Where I've edited in Photoshop (no more than 5-10% of images), the results are normally tiff. If the Photoshop editing was trivial and easily repeatable - say, a bit of straight forward cloning - then I save to jpeg, as D800 tiffs are huuuuge. Even after Photoshop, there might be further Lightroom adjustments, so the results are in Adobe-proprietary metadata. I keep it that way so I can go back and edit some more and, like Isaac, it happens quite often. If I want an image for a particular purpose I might find something from 5 years ago or more, and almost certainly I'll want to tweak it.
This strike me as a fundamental liability of relying on any software product to manage archival copies. Eventually, the product will go away and, sometime after that, so will the operating system releases on which the last revision of the product can execute. I don't think we need to worry about that happening anytime soon with Lightroom, but sooner or later. . . .
It's even worse with physical media. Some years back, a specialist at the U.S. National Archives described to me the agency's concerns about the preservation of information that was stored on floppy disks, tape cassettes, CDs, etc.—it's a real problem because the physical playback devices necessary to retrieve the data inevitably stop being manufactured as better devices supplant them, and there's a limit to how long it's practical to keep the legacy playback machines alive. (Keep in mind that these guys routinely think in terms of hundreds of years.) At least with software, it's always possible to build a new product that will emulate the functionality of an obsolete one at least sufficiently to permit porting legacy data files to a current format.
In that regard, it occurs to me that maybe those concerned about eventually no longer having access to Lightroom should be saving XMP sidecar files since they offer a perpetually readable record (i.e., a bytewise encoding of simple Latin text) describing what Lightroom or some future emulator needs to do to reconstitute the user's edits. Wouldn't work with Photoshop, of course, because you diddle with the actual pixels when you edit instead of building a list of changes for the software dynamically to apply.
-
This strike me as a fundamental liability of relying on any software product to manage archival copies...
It's even worse with physical media....
I agree with both points. I have been looking at archival issues for a museum, and the general advice is to use TIFF or JPEG. Both are well-established standards, and likely to be pretty long lasting as digital standards go. But how long is that: decades? Compare that to written records hundreds or thousands of years old. And writen records are not stored in a proprietary format you can't read when your CC subscription runs out.
For physical media, well, who knows? Even if DVDs are supposed to last decades, I'll bet no one will be using them in in 20 years, let along 200.
I suppose the answer is likely to be cloud-based, with important material held on multiple independent cloud services. But someone has to maintain digital storage. It's not as though you can put it in a cupboard, and be sure anyone can read it in 500 years time.
-
I suppose the answer is likely to be cloud-based, with important material held on multiple independent cloud services. But someone has to maintain digital storage. It's not as though you can put it in a cupboard, and be sure anyone can read it in 500 years time.
Yup. Once you start thinking in terms of multiple hundreds of years, the prospects become ... ahem ... cloudy. (Sorry. Couldn't restrain myself.)
-
Please accept this as a genuine question rather than point-scoring: Do you actually go back to .psd files made 5 years ago and rework them?
Fair question, and your implication is probably right. I rarely if ever go back to old images. ;) Although, in the past "near enough" has been good enough. But I think you make a good point. Perhaps I am over thinking that particular aspect.
-
Please accept this as a genuine question rather than point-scoring: Do you actually go back to .psd files made 5 years ago and rework them?
Perfectly fair question.
As has been suggested, I sometimes go back to the raw file and start from scratch. The software has improved of course but so have I.
I'm on a constant learning curve so the work I produce now is more refined than what I was doing five years ago. That includes my Post production work as well so reworking old files can be quite productive at times.
I do however also have some images that I revisit to produce differing versions for different applications and I don't want to go back to the starting block every time that happens.
-
When I think about how much LR (and Dx0 Optics Pro and Capture One Pro) has changed over the last 5 years, I'd be tempted to start-all-over-again from the raw or DNG.
That's what I do. It's amazing how much better the images look after being processed by the latest version of LR and some third-party plugins.
-
I just started selling work on Photoshelter. Before uploading the majority of the 500 photos I posted, I reworked them starting from the RAW file. The software has gotten a lot better since I started using it, but I have also gotten better at using it.
-
The software has gotten a lot better since I started using it, but I have also gotten better at using it.
That's really the odd thing about digital photography vs film. We're really still pretty early in the digital realm...film had well over a century to evolve while digital is really only about 25 yrs old (and that was crude back then).
While film was essentially "fixed" when developed, about the only thing that could happen was bad stuff...scratches, mold, fading, destruction, etc. So, one shot and processed, a neg never really ever got better...
Fast forward to today and the tables are turned...using the best post processing (raw pst processing plus digital manipulation) Older digital captures do indeed get better with age...now processing, new noise and sharpening and new algorithms mean that raw captures done decades ago can now be processed much, much better today than back then.
It's a whole new paradigm that requires a new way of working. If you've spent a lot of time on older images and are happy–fine, roll with it. But, just know that what you can do now could be way better than what you did back then.
I see this a lot in my own work...sometimes it's really worth a revisit (starting from scratch with a raw file) and sometimes it isn't. This decision is yet another way of "expressing your vision". Don't be afraid or lazy...if the processing has improved and your skill set has as well, don't be afraid to go back and revisit old work. But if you are truly happy with old work, don't let revisiting become a neuroses...
If it helps the work, do it, it it doesn't move on to something new :~)
-
I agree, I am still digging out old RAW's from many years ago and finding that I can now do so much more with them than I could way back when. Shots that I simply couldn't do anything with, I am now able to turn (some of them) into really good prints and even selling quite a few ;D
I suppose the lesson here then is, never throw anything away other than the real duds, as one day one of them might just end up becoming one of your best shots.
Dave
-
Has anyone tried to log into Adobe Creative Cloud today - atleast from Australia, I am unable to do so, every now and then I get a little message on the website saying they have issues with login - now, I am been with the Cloud for quite some time and haven't really had an issue with it, cost wise, its the cost of doing business.
However, I am currently in transit, and I have a job to get done, I have a desktop computer available to me, with a calibrated monitor, now this computer is currently without the latest version of Photoshop CC. I was well aware of this prior to arriving, but what I didn't count on was that I would not be able to login to adobe and download the software register the install and get working - now I am in a pickle!
I guess, I have seen the dark side of the cloud - availability! I can only hope they sort it out today before I hit my deadline :-\ not impressed today
just thought i'd share this
Henrik
-
While film was essentially "fixed" when developed, about the only thing that could happen was bad stuff...scratches, mold, fading, destruction, etc. So, one shot and processed, a neg never really ever got better...
Being pedantic, the same could be said for a RAW file, the data is never going to get any better. When deterioration does happen, it's digital too... There one day/gone the next. There are enough stories around of people who've failed to deal with the archiving issue properly and have lost all their work. A scratched hundred year old negative is always going to be of more value than a broken hard drive.
With film people upgrade(d) their enlargers and lenses to improve resolution and contrast, reduce scratches by using diffuser heads. Then there are different papers and developers to use, variable contrast papers, plus most importantly photographers skills improve to allow them to make better prints.
Sometimes when viewed objectively digital hasn't changed some aspects of photography as much as you might think, and some changes have been for the worst.
-
Has anyone tried to log into Adobe Creative Cloud today - atleast from Australia, I am unable to do so, every now and then I get a little message on the website saying they have issues with login - now, I am been with the Cloud for quite some time and haven't really had an issue with it, cost wise, its the cost of doing business.
However, I am currently in transit, and I have a job to get done, I have a desktop computer available to me, with a calibrated monitor, now this computer is currently without the latest version of Photoshop CC. I was well aware of this prior to arriving, but what I didn't count on was that I would not be able to login to adobe and download the software register the install and get working - now I am in a pickle!
I guess, I have seen the dark side of the cloud - availability! I can only hope they sort it out today before I hit my deadline :-\ not impressed today
just thought i'd share this
Henrik
I've just phoned Adobe support (15th May 1050 UTC), and been told their systems have fallen over, and no sign-in using Adobe ID will work. Expected time to fix: 4 hours.
-
I've just phoned Adobe support (15th May 1050 UTC), and been told their systems have fallen over, and no sign-in using Adobe ID will work. Expected time to fix: 4 hours.
You can check Adobe's system status here: http://status.creativecloud.com
It looks like it's been down for a while now.
-
You can check Adobe's system status here: http://status.creativecloud.com
It looks like it's been down for a while now.
Thanks for that link. I note regular status updates until 5.24pm Pacific Time, and then silence. It would appear that Adobe don't work on problems outside working hours in California, and we won't expect them to resume work for another 4 hours.
-
Adobe has a problem the banks have too: they have to be online 24 hours a day.
It s how they organized their system and now they have to show they are up to it.
Here in Holland all the banks fail a few days a year...
What happens if you did not use photohop for say half a year and you cannot login? Can you use the program or not?
-
Well, I had to cancel my job - good news I get the day off, the bad news is I don't make that money
ohh well, life goes on
Henrik
-
You can check Adobe's system status here: http://status.creativecloud.com
Creative Cloud is operating normally
May 15th 2014, 6:18pm
-
However, I am currently in transit, and I have a job to get done, I have a desktop computer available to me, with a calibrated monitor, now this computer is currently without the latest version of Photoshop CC. I was well aware of this prior to arriving, but what I didn't count on was that I would not be able to login to adobe and download the software register the install and get working - now I am in a pickle!
The older version you have isn't working?
-
Hi Andrew,
My situation was a little unique my own gear is n transit interstate. I had a system made available to me but it did not have the software on it.
So I would have install from scratch - the problem started when I wasn't even able to log into Adobe cloud.
An unfortunate set of circumstances - the stars just didn't align for me😄
Henrik
-
If I would be Adobe I would give everybody access to CC instead of locking some (pro)-costumers out.
Then maybe some people work for free but so what?
-
An unfortunate set of circumstances - the stars just didn't align for me😄
Yep...Adobe dropped the ball (again, not the first time) but I suspect they are not happy about the circumstances any more than users that got locked out–which really sucks. But the outage was relatively short lived. Hopefully this will be a learning moment for both Adobe and CC users...and hopefully this doesn't happen again. As far as I know, this is the first sign in outage...we'll see what transpires and determinations about why this happened.
It sucked for everybody...
-
Schewe,
You are all too right again ;D
it was just one of those days
Today is a new day, and its working
Henrik
-
If I would be Adobe I would give everybody access to CC instead of locking some (pro)-costumers out.
Then maybe some people work for free but so what?
Yep...Adobe dropped the ball (again, not the first time) but I suspect they are not happy about the circumstances any more than users that got locked out . . .
This is a tractable problem. I'm sure Adobe can devise a conditional test to briefly extend service to a previously-authenticated customer who, for whatever reason, may temporarily be unable to connect to the Mother Ship for verification that his subscription is current. It shouldn't be necessary to open the floodgates and "give everyone access" to the software in order to prevent an recurrence of this incident. And a robust solution should take into account not only instances when Adobe's authentication mechanism is not working or inaccessible, but also situations when the customer is unable to connect to the Internet when it's time to verify the status of his subscription.
They should have done this when they introduced the CC product line, but my guess is that Adobe or whatever Adobe contractor manages the Adobe license-management mechanism simply took continuous Internet connectivity as a given. They certainly wouldn't be the first to have made that mistake.
-
Well our move to the cloud has FAILEd !!
After weeks of mucking around - it looks as if I am after over 14 years of supporting Adobe .... leaving Photoshop and Adobe ....
:O(
They say they support us -- promise to call you back and fix your problems .... then leave you for weeks doing nothing!
You call them back ... whats going on you ask .... you explain the issues again ...... they attempt to fix them ...... nope no luck.
We will call you back tomorrow to fix it for you. .......
Again ... no calls at all - you wait for days .... a week no calls ......
Yep this Cloud stuff works well guys - thanks for the frustration - you ask again via email for help ..... third - fourth time ... again do we have to try to get you to help ..... or at least do what you say you will ... call back ?
If you cant fix it .... if you cant even call us back when you say you will ..... why should we believe anything you say?
I know many users are ok with what you have done and many are using your cloud with limited or no issues.
But the measure of a person / company is not what you can do when things are great - but how you support those with issues ... and in this case you have failed.
-
Just in case Jeff comes in here as well ...... Sorry - I should have kept my rant in one section of the forums and not put it in several places across the same forums.
I apologize for doing so .... It's just that I was so steamed up and frustrated.
It's that frustration that leads to .... well ....... bad decisions.
Again I am sorry.
Hopefully this will be fixed soon.
The issue by the way was Photoshop opening then closing immediately.
Then when the cloud account was off ....
It told us it was a trial version ......... then immediately closed again.
-
Just in case Jeff comes in here as well ......
I guess you really don't get it, huh?
You want help? Ask away...you want to pollute LuLa like you have all over the net? Go away...We get you are pissed...but this ain't the way to get help.
-
We finally got to moving over to the Cloud base of Photoshop. ( CC PS )
Installed cloud - installed CC PS - all good so far - then open Photoshop - it closed immediately.
Was Cloud open - Yes
Tried rebooting - just in case.
Opened PS - splash screen - menus all going - it closed again faster than it opened.
Ok Check the net - yep its a known issue.
Close Cloud - open PS - Now it tells me I have a trial version.
In any case this is the issue - it wont start and stay active for me to use.
We did finally get past the part where it thought it was a trial version ....... now it just wont start .......
So yeah Jeff I am pretty pissed off and have had a rant.
Still not fixed.
CS 5 Suite works fine - and so does the Downloaded version of Lightroom.
OS - Windows 7 Ultimate
32MB ram
Photoshop Opens and closes immediately.
I do appreciate your point of view.
Did I mention stressed out ?
-
I know threads wander off topic, but just because "cloud" occurs in this and in your problem.... Start your own thread.
-
???
Had actually thought it was on topic ........ OMG you guys .....
-
Read the thread - or just the first post - and you'll see you weren't. The words "cloud" and "update" may be in common, but this is about the big issue while yours is a more specific problem. Had you opened your own thread and explained the problem clearly, you'd probably have useful answers by now.
-
I understand that there are people having trouble with the cloud and people that don't like the entire concept. I had my reservations to start with I admit.
However. Today is a lovely Sunday morning in mid winter. The sun is streaming in through the window and outside it is cold, by our standards. We might not get to 17 degrees C today. I'm in the Southern Hemisphere. A long way from the tech hubs of the first and developed world. At the bottom end of Africa we don't have access to technology resources that others might take for granted.
Yet I am happily working on a batch of 120 images shot for a local linen retailer. They need the images on Monday morning. I am using PS CC. The actions I created at the studio on Friday have synced in the background and are being run while I write this. My software is all up to date and has run flawlessly since I went with the cloud subscription. The updates have been useful. I didn't find the move to CC2014 disruptive or confusing.
I'm just writing this in case people think it is all awful and difficult on the cloud. There is another side to it as well. Sure some are having problems and my sincere sympathy to them. I hope the issues are resolved successfully.
For some of us, even in third world countries, all is working flawlessly.
-
Please accept this as a genuine question rather than point-scoring: Do you actually go back to .psd files made 5 years ago and rework them?
I've often gone back and reworked files. Particularly as software has improved has improved so much.
-
I've often gone back and reworked files. Particularly as software has improved has improved so much.
One of the biggest areas of improvements was the raw processing, so if I need to go back to an image that is 5 years old, i'll start with the raw file and go from there.
-
If you had been up to date with your technique 5 years ago, it would be in the TIF/PSD file as a smart object.
-
If you had been up to date with your technique 5 years ago, it would be in the TIF/PSD file as a smart object.
Indeed. Smart objects are the smart way to use PS.
Particularly useful if you like to work parametrically - which is possible in PS despite some inaccurate claims to the contrary.
-
One of the biggest areas of improvements was the raw processing, so if I need to go back to an image that is 5 years old, i'll start with the raw file and go from there.
Well that's exactly what I was talking about. And as John mentioned, that can all be done within PS if you are working 'smartly'.
-
If you want to rework a raw, I don't see how an SO does anything other than embed another copy of the raw with another set of instructions in the main TIFF/PSD. Meaning you could do the rework alone in ACR or LR. Then add the other layers to that if you wish. I just don't understand SO's I guess. Are they not just an embedding of (in this case) a raw within the TIFF/PSD that like the raw outside it, is read only and can be rendered? Now the other Photoshop 'stuff' going along for the ride is of course important. What stops me from rendering a new image from say LR or ACR, then dragging and dropping the layers and other elements outside the SO of the original doc, isnt the net results the same?
-
If you want to rework a raw, I don't see how an SO does anything other than embed another copy of the raw with another set of instructions in the main TIFF/PSD. Meaning you could do the rework alone in ACR or LR. Then add the other layers to that if you wish. I just don't understand SO's I guess. Are they not just an embedding of (in this case) a raw within the TIFF/PSD that like the raw outside it, is read only and can be rendered? Now the other Photoshop 'stuff' going along for the ride is of course important. What stops me from rendering a new image from say LR or ACR, then dragging and dropping the layers and other elements outside the SO of the original doc, isnt the net results the same?
The embolded bit explains a lot of your previous posts when I've talked about non-destructive/parametric editing in PS. I planned to record a demo to show how to work this way in PS, but have been silly busy over last month or three. When/if I have time, I'll put something together to illustrate a non-destructive PS workflow and post it here on LuLa.
-
When/if I have time, I'll put something together to illustrate a non-destructive PS workflow and post it here on LuLa.
Thank you, because I'm kind of with Andrew on this...
-
Be useful too if the term non-destructive/parametric editing in PS was defined. At leat the non destructive part which IMHO isn't possible in Photoshop proper (it is in ACR using parametric edits). Existing pixels values that are changed are destructive. Do it in high but, it's a moot point.
-
Non-destructive editing is a marketing term that means very little (in reality). ACR/LR are parametric editors that do not apply the settings until a rendered file is created...then the pixels are indeed modified. Are they destructed? Nope...just rendered.
Photoshop can also do a lot of parametric editing when it comes to adjustment layers...like ACR/LR, those edits are applied until flattened...better yet is the ability to use the ACR filter inside of Photoshop proper.
The only "destructive" editing I ever do is trash bad shots...everything else I do I do to an image is designed to improve the image, not degrade it.
Short of downsampling from 16-8 bit or taking a ProPhoto RGB image and converting it to sRGB, there's really nothing in ACR/LR or even Photoshop that is really "destructive", just edit with various sorts of consequences...
Now, if you want to change the term non-destructive editing to something like infinitely re-editable, I'm ok with that. I hated the term non-destructive from the moment I first heard it. It's just a buzzword that is ambiguous not really very useful.
Oh, the people on DPReview seem to like it...does that mean anything?
:~)
-
Non-destructive editing is a marketing term that means very little (in reality).
Amen to that brother!
-
It's a bit more than a marketing term and is indeed broad enough to mean infinitely re-editable in common usage. Thinking just of of how you use PS, remaining able to get back to your original image, not having to start over again, has obvious advantages in terms of fine tuning in later PS sessions, applying adjustments to other images etc.
-
Thinking just of of how you use PS, remaining able to get back to your original image, not having to start over again, has obvious advantages in terms of fine tuning in later PS sessions, applying adjustments to other images etc.
A 'Save As' will accomplish the same resluts albeit one with lots of iterations and wasted time. Yes, adjustment layers and such are useful for going back within the editing but calling this non destructive is a marketing hype statement.
-
It's marketing hype if it comes from the mouth of marketing, but not when it describes the practice of trying to use Photoshop so you retain infinite editability.
-
It's marketing hype if it comes from the mouth of marketing, but not when it describes the practice of trying to use Photoshop so you retain infinite editability.
http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/nondestructive-editing.html
Nondestructive editing allows you to make changes to an image without overwriting the original image data, which remains available in case you want to revert to it.
And again, a Save As... does exactly that! Undo does as well. The term is both ambiguous and unnecessary. But it sounds good hence the Marketing.
-
Define the term narrowly if you will, but its usage has become broader, for good reasons.
-
Avoiding unnecessary extra files is a reason for following non-destructive practices, while Undo only works within the Photoshop session.
-
Define the term narrowly if you will, but its usage has become broader, for good reasons.
But Schewe and I disagree, it's not for good reason. You've again failed to backup your POV, you're just jumping on the marketing hype bandwagon.
The definition given by Adobe doesn't imply, it agrees with my use of Save As or Undo as being non destructive, and both actions were around ages before Photoshop had layers or the silly term was used. If you want to use sloppy language or language which is ambiguous (which the term is) or you want to agree that all applications that can save off an iteration while leaving the original intact are non destructive, so be it.
Saving extra files is a reason for applying non-destructive practices, while Undo only works within the Photoshop session.
Agreed, but by Adobe's own definition, those are STILL non destructive! The silly term doesn't take the number of extra files or the session into account; Nondestructive editing allows you to make changes to an image without overwriting the original image data. It simply defines a practice where the original isn't changed. If you really want that to occur, don't edit the data. If you do edit the data, the edits affect the subsequent numbers. Those numbers may be in a spun off document or not, but the facts and the effect on the data is clear; you've altered the numbers.
-
No, I'm sticking closely to Jeff's infinite editability definition, not a marketing one. And you can pretend all you want that "I've again failed to backup your POV". Oh dear, so what didn't you understand about the obvious practical advantages of non destructive ways of working? Just try some of those techniques listed by Adobe, smart objects and smart filters for example. But hey, you can lead a horse to water....
-
And you can pretend all you want that "I've again failed to backup your POV". Oh dear, so what didn't you understand about the obvious practical advantages of non destructive ways of working? Just try some of those techniques listed by Adobe, smart objects and smart filters for example. But hey, you can lead a horse to water....
John, here's what I mean by your lack of POV. Adobe states: Nondestructive editing allows you to make changes to an image without overwriting the original image data, which remains available in case you want to revert to it. Does a Save As provide exactly what Adobe states is a non destructive workflow? So how about a yes or no answer.
I fully understand the practical advantages, I'm stating that the term is unnecessarily as we had this capability even before Photoshop existed let alone when it got layers.
-
No
-
No
Excellent, thank you. I didn't expect an answer. Now that we got this far, explain it.
I open a document in Photoshop that's never been edited.
I apply some curves and other edits.
I conduct a Save As command and save a new document to the hard drive.
I close the original document and do not save it.
Results (unless you can tell me what I'm missing): Original is as it was prior to opening in Photoshop. I made changes to an image without overwriting the original image data. New document has the edits. New document did undergo some data loss due to rounding errors (there was nothing non destructive in that case but as Jeff has pointed out, the iteration is improved over original).
Nondestructive editing (according to Adobe and others) allows you to make changes to an image without overwriting the original image data, and I just did that with the Save As command, which remains available in case I want to revert back to it. The original data isn't any different after working on it in Photoshop, it of course wasn't over-written.
-
Yawn....
-
Yawn....
So you can't explain it. Kind of what I suspected, it would poke holes in your theory.
-
You asked if something was the same as something different, I answer no, and you still need it explained??? You're not poking holes in any theory, just showing you have a problem distinguishing black from white. Time to give your head a quick wobble.
-
You asked if something was the same as something different, I answer no, and you still need it explained???
Yup. Unable to? Sure seems that way.
-
I conduct a Save As command and save a new document to the hard drive.
As an unequivocal novice, compared to the two folks participating in this discussion ... to me "Save as" is different.
Save as, can accomplish the same task ... it also brings with it the extra burden of an additional file for each occurrence it is invoked.
Conversely, using adjustment layers, with the original base layer in tact, keeps the clutter to a minimum allowing adjustment, alterations and versioning utilizing a single file. Thus allowing the effort of processing a single file for use in different mediums without maintaining a separate file for each purpose.
Form a pont of semantics the descriptive terms may be for the benefit of marketing efforts, though I much prefer adjustment layers that can be turned off, adjusted, further enhanced, added and deleted as necessary to dealing with the addition of a completely separate file each and every instance I need to perform such tasks.
While I do realize that storage space is inexpensive and organizing our assists has has been greatly simplified ... I'd rather avoid all the clutter. No matter how you prefer to slice the definition of specific terms (or the purpose of their use) to describe the options to achieving the desired goal.
-
Save as, can accomplish the same task ... it also brings with it the extra burden of an additional file for each occurrence it is invoked.
I agree! 100%! That's not what I'm asking of John. Adobe has made a very simple statement in defining what they mean by non destructive editing. I've copied and pasted it more than once. I'm asking John how a Save As doesn't produce the same results they (Adobe) say makes software non destructive. There's no question that what Photoshop provides is vastly more flexible and useful than the Save As command. That isn't the issue or argument. We're talking about a term that I feel is mostly B.S., that described as it is by Adobe could be said of thousands of other applications.
Jeff's term (infinitely re-editable) makes more sense, but non destructive sounds so sexy and as if you are not "destroying" anything. If we're talking about the data from an edit isn't true.
John is simply buying into marketing semantics and can't explain how a Save As does not do what Adobe says makes a product non destructive (make changes to an image without overwriting the original image data).
-
Forgive me if this has already been stated. I just didn't have the time to go back through all 23 pages of this thread. I've mellowed a bit on CC after the Photography Bundle was made "permanent" and LR5 continues access functionality without subscription. I now subscribe to that. What I now want from Adobe is better a la carte pricing. I'd like to have Acrobat, but not at $20 a month forever. Similarly, I now just do stills but might want to jump into video. I'd like to get PP to learn it and play with it, but not at $20 a month more while it isn't generating revenue. PE is not an option. I tried that, and preferred Corel Video Studio to it. As much as I hate cable companies, they get bundling and pricing of same much better than Adobe does at this point.
-
No, again, I'm not "buying into marketing semantics". Just because you repeat that doesn't make it any more true, and it may just reveal your own blinkered outlook. And no, I'm not unable to explain, just unwilling to waste my time on those who can't, or won't, distinguish black from white or marketing hype from good practical techniques.
Doing a Save As in your example is just old-fashioned good practice when you open an original and create a derivative. Your question was so simplistic it's inane. What happens afterwards - to the derivative file - is what distinguishes what people mean by working non-destructively.
Traditionally you would reopen the file and do more work, something like transform or Silver Efex, for example. As your adjustment layers have masks (eg simulating a grad filter), you would need to get your pixels on a single layer. To avoid destroying anything, would you now apply your silly method of doing a Save As and Close, before continuing and flattening? Make another derivative file to meet your meaningless definition of non-destructive? You would? OMFG. Not very efficient, are we? But check on the big brain on you - in fact, you do have enough nous to create a new merged pixel layer, apply your Transform to this layer and close the file. The only way you can now fine tune the Transform or those adjustment layers is by discarding (ooh, destroying!) that new layer and repeating the previous steps.
The newer "non destructive" approach would be to convert those layers into a smart object, causing the Transform to apply as a smart filter. I still save and close, but my Transform edits remain fully editable. If I feel I need to edit the adjustment layers, I can do that. If I want to go back into the raw conversion, I can do that too. Infinitely-editable, non-destructive, good practice.
See the difference? Anyone else can.
John
-
Doing a Save As in your example is just old-fashioned good practice when you open an original and create a derivative. Your question was so simplistic it's inane. What happens afterwards - to the derivative file - is what distinguishes what people mean by working non-destructively.
Yawn.... back at you. The practice is one thing, the results are what you continue to fail to either examine or admit shows how much marketing BS the Adobe quote represents (my point from the start which you wish to agrue about). You've failed to explain how the results of the Save As are any different from what Adobe claims explains as the non destructive workflow in the copy and paste of their text repeated more than once! And yes, the issue (and problem) is the silly understanding that distinguishes what people like you mean by working non-destructively. The Save As command, in terms of the original is just as non destructive, as the Marketing nonsense that I pasted from Adobe! A point you seem lost on understanding.
See the difference? Anyone else can.
Speaking for everyone yet ButchM wrote:"
Save as, can accomplish the same task ...
And I agree with him. Adobe's claim in defining what destructive workflow is, is weak marketing speak which you appear to agree with, see the difference?
Edit (time to move on). Here's the bottom line John. Some feel the term non destructive workflow is an ambiguous and largely marketing created term and I'm in that camp. You feel it isn't marketing hype (It's a bit more than a marketing term and is indeed broad enough to mean infinitely re-editable in common usage.)
I supplied Adobe's definition of the term and then illustrated that there are all kinds of ways to do this and that based on Adobe's simplistic and silly marketing term, any app with a Save As command produces the same results. And it does without any further need to explain the benefits of SO's, Layers etc. The term is bogus. Jeff's suggestion doesn't sound anywhere as sexy but sure makes more sense. You want to feel the term and explanation Adobe uses isn't Marketing Speak, go ahead but I think you fall into a camp that people complain some of us of being by defending it, an Adobe Fan Boy.
-
Ha ha. Looks like it's you doing all the whining about Adobe's example workflows and who doesn't have the wit to recognise how they're different from Save As. Poor you. Maybe stop chewing gum when you're trying to think?
-
Ha ha. Looks like it's you doing all the whining about Adobe's example workflows and who doesn't have the wit to recognise how they're different from Save As. Poor you. Maybe stop chewing gum when you're trying to think?
Such language would suggest the adult known as John Beardsworth, who is unable to defined the definition by Adobe, has left the room.
-
Ooh, you do keep saying I'm unable to explain, even when I have done. Diddums. And that claim comes from someone quite unable to grasp a difference between Save As and non-destructive workflows? Haven't you got a brain the size of a planet?
-
Non-destructive editing is a marketing term that means very little (in reality). ACR/LR are parametric editors that do not apply the settings until a rendered file is created...then the pixels are indeed modified. Are they destructed? Nope...just rendered.
Photoshop can also do a lot of parametric editing when it comes to adjustment layers...like ACR/LR, those edits are applied until flattened...better yet is the ability to use the ACR filter inside of Photoshop proper.
The only "destructive" editing I ever do is trash bad shots...everything else I do I do to an image is designed to improve the image, not degrade it.
Short of downsampling from 16-8 bit or taking a ProPhoto RGB image and converting it to sRGB, there's really nothing in ACR/LR or even Photoshop that is really "destructive", just edit with various sorts of consequences...
Now, if you want to change the term non-destructive editing to something like infinitely re-editable, I'm ok with that. I hated the term non-destructive from the moment I first heard it. It's just a buzzword that is ambiguous not really very useful.
Oh, the people on DPReview seem to like it...does that mean anything?
:~)
Jeff,
I believe I have been saying just that (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=69835.msg553581#msg553581) for a couple of years now, a lone voice in the wilderness so to speak, so thank you for finally clearing this up for me after all this time, as I thought there was only me on the planet that could see it this way.
Also here is a link (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/non_destructive_imaging.pdf) to Adobe's own explanation of what it means by None Destructive Imaging (NDI).
Dave
-
Using "Save As" isn't non-destructive, it's just a previous copy.
Non-destructive implies, I believe, that within the image that you are using, you can revert to the original state (pre-editing). Using Save As doesn't allow you to do that within the image that has been edited. Save As merely creates a an unedited copy. Subsequent, edited copies are suffer destruction unless you use a non-destructive workflow (layers, ACR filter, etc).
Is it hype? Not really. There is a difference in terms of workflow and file. It's not difficult and it's also not worth getting hung up about.
1. Destructive workflow - the currently edited file can not be reverted back to its original state at a later time without resorting to a copy (which also prevents you *partially* reverting edits).
2. Non Destructive workflow - the currently edited file can be reverted back to its original state at a later time without resorting to a copy (and you are not prevented from *partially* reverting edits).
Note that "undo" doesn't apply because it is lost once at a certain number of steps and after closing the file.
-
But that isn't non destructive editing, that's reversible editing, which is not the same thing even though people seem to have become convinced that it is.
Outputting the file onto what ever media, will process the image to completion and fully render each pixels and everything you have done to it, just the same as a worked and flattened file, it is just that parametric editing, or using layers and SOs etc, allows you to delay that end point, but the end point (output) is the exact same no matter what method you have applied to the image to get you there.
I think people got caught up in the idea with parametric editing, when they also mistakenly linked it to the term non destructive editing, that they were getting something for nothing, because they could see that the original raw file is still there at the bottom of the stack of edits in LR, so wrongly concluded, that the output file was somehow being fully preserved or remained undamaged from all the edits that you had thrown at it, but it isn't, as the output file has to be fully processed which ever way you come at it. Parametric and raws embedded into SOs and layers etc, are only non destructive if you only ever want to look at the image on your own screen and even then the file still has to be rendered to create a virtual representation of the fully processed output image.
I wouldn't say all this is snake oil, because I don't think Adobe really intended it to be like that, but I think when people heard what they wanted to hear rather than what they were actually being told, I don't think they (Adobe) tried very hard to correct them, it was good for sales and as I have already pointed out in a previous post above, I did say all this two years ago, but nobody wanted to listen.
Dave
-
Using "Save As" isn't non-destructive, it's just a previous copy.
Where in the definition by Adobe do you see Save As not producing and following what they say NDI achieves?: Nondestructive editing allows you to make changes to an image without overwriting the original image data, which remains available in case you want to revert to it.
Non-destructive implies, I believe, that within the image that you are using, you can revert to the original state (pre-editing).
The key word above to observe is implies. In Adobe's definition it implies to me that NDI is editing that doesn’t overwrite the original. And Save As accomplishes that IMHO.
Using Save As doesn't allow you to do that within the image that has been edited.
Correct, but that's not part of Adobe's definition. Hence as written, it's ambiguous. It's qulte largely marketing speak, my only argument with John who feels' it isn't. IF Marketing had done their job properly and had the definition been properly written, there would be no argument in what NDI really is. Took Peter 19 pages to fix what Adobe originally wrote that John feels is marketing hype free.
Is it hype? Not really. There is a difference in terms of workflow and file. It's not difficult and it's also not worth getting hung up about.
I don't agree. The terminology from Adobe is vague and simplistic enough that we've had pages of debate over it's semantics. We see the term used often in various forums without knowing just what the author is implying, the reason I asked jjj when submitting his article.
It's like saying "This is high resolution'? WTF is that supposed to mean? Or "This is accurate color" another pet peeve I have and hate hearing. The more precise the language free from marketing hype, the better it is to discuss and understand what someone is talking about in terms of technology. If someone wants to write "I have a 21MP capture which I feel is high rez", or "the accuracy is within a dE 2000 of 4" the marketing speak is reduced/eliminated as much as possible. We can agree or disagree with the two statements based on language that's free from any hype and/or ambiguity. Nondestructive editing allows you to make changes to an image without overwriting the original image data, which remains available in case you want to revert doens't even start to fall into that camp!
I see that the use of imprecise marketing language from Adobe is enough for John to come to their defence and do so in a rather insulting manor when attempting to support his side. Which is rather telling.
-
Meh, I guess I'm just used to there being a difference between what technical people expect and will consider and then the rest of the world (I'm one of the technical ones) - so I try to take the time to consider it from the other perspective and then I'm usually happy.
Sure, it could be more precise and it may or may not be more precisely defined somewhere in a white paper or internal specs - I've certainly experienced that with Adobe in various programs so I know you have, too! :-)
I just don't think it's such a big deal. For a layman, the term is pretty easily explained and I think that anyone who uses the workflows can readily identify what is meant, what the differences are, and what the advantages are (versus using Save As, for example).
I don't think anyone should be abusing anyone about it, that's for sure.
If this was a definition being used in an SDK and affecting others who were creating apps or similar to make use of features and they were misdirected, it would be a problem (a big one), but it's not. Rename it by all means, but, again, I don't think it's too complex or worth getting hung up on. I don't think it really needed 20+ pages to offer a simple explanation - it took me just a few seconds :-)
-
A 'Save As' will accomplish the same resluts albeit one with lots of iterations and wasted time. Yes, adjustment layers and such are useful for going back within the editing but calling this non destructive is a marketing hype statement.
It's nothing to do with marketing hype. I refer to it as non destructive editing because that describes what I am talking about, no more no less.
It certainly became a more popular term once LR and similar programmes appeared, but I used it before it ever was used in that context.
If I do some editing in PS and no pixels are actually changed, why is it somehow destructive, just because it's PS [and not LR] which very obviously can do destructive editing, i.e changing pixels with no going back?
As for your constant wittering about 'save as', only a complete eedjit would argue that that is 'non destructive editing' or as Schewe prefers 'infinitely re-editable' which means exactly the same thing.
-
We see the term used often in various forums without knowing just what the author is implying, the reason I asked jjj when submitting his article.
You seems to be confused in thinking your misunderstanding is a problem the rest of us have with what the term means. Most people grok it, you're the only person I recall having the difficulty with what is quite a simple concept.
-
Is it hype? Not really. There is a difference in terms of workflow and file. It's not difficult and it's also not worth getting hung up about.
1. Destructive workflow - the currently edited file can not be reverted back to its original state at a later time without resorting to a copy (which also prevents you *partially* reverting edits).
2. Non Destructive workflow - the currently edited file can be reverted back to its original state at a later time without resorting to a copy (and you are not prevented from *partially* reverting edits).
Note that "undo" doesn't apply because it is lost once at a certain number of steps and after closing the file.
I would clarify and say that if you can revert back to the original image without using undo, then that would the concise description of non-destructive editing.
Which can be done in both PS and LR.
-
I would clarify and say that if you can revert back to the original image without using undo, then that would the concise description of non-destructive editing.
Which can be done in both PS and LR.
So will any application if that's your definition as stated! Open doc, edit all you want, close doc, don't save, undo wasn't used. Kind of pointless and expresses my view as to how ambiguous the term is, even with that explanation (you can revert back to the original image without using undo). Exactly what I did in that example.
You seems to be confused in thinking your misunderstanding is a problem the rest of us have with what the term means. Most people grok it, you're the only person I recall having the difficulty with what is quite a simple concept.
I'm not misunderstanding it at all, I'm illustrating that simplistic definitions have plenty of ways to interpret what the term is supposed to mean. It is why several of us here are upset with both the terminology and how it's 'explained' using simplistic language. I'm sure you can build a sentence or two to define what you mean by non destructive editing such there is no ambiguity. Of like Jeff, come up with a better name than 'non destructive editing' which wreaks of marketing speak (again, my ONLY point).
-
So will any application if that's your definition as stated! Open doc, edit all you want, close doc, don't save, undo wasn't used. Kind of pointless and expresses my view as to how ambiguous the term is, even with that explanation (you can revert back to the original image without using undo).
What is pointless is your 'reasoning', if it can indeed be called that. Claiming 'not saving' is non-destructive editing is up there with the dumbest things ever posted on the internet. If you haven't saved then you haven't done any editing in the sense that people who aren't being deliberately obtuse mean.
The whole point of non destructive editing is to keep your edits even after saving/closing programme/computer and so on. You damn well know that and are simply flailing around trying to redefine English/argue a bonkers point to defend your silly stance.
Exactly what I did in that example. I'm not misunderstanding it at all, I'm illustrating that simplistic definitions have plenty of ways to interpret what the term is supposed to mean.
No, over various threads you have backed yourself into a corner re PS/smart objects/non-destructive editing/LR etc and are wriggling like a worm on a barbed hook rather than admit you are wrong about something. As I said before don't think your confusion is the norm it simply isn't, I've never had anyone else struggle with this concept like you do. Though I suspect you know exactly what the term is understood to mean and are simply flailing desperately. However if your confusion is genuine, please accept my condolences for your condition.
It is why several of us here are upset with both the terminology and how it's 'explained' using simplistic language. I'm sure you can build a sentence or two to define what you mean by non destructive editing such there is no ambiguity. Of like Jeff, come up with a better name than 'non destructive editing' which wreaks of marketing speak (again, my ONLY point).
Objecting to a term because to you it reeks [not wreaks]** of marketing speak is rather pathetic. It's not marketing, it's simply a description for what is is even if it is used [quite accurately] in marketing for many different products. As for Jeff's alternative description, well it means exactly the same thing just with different phrasing. If Adobe had adopted Jeff's description instead, you'd probably claim that was 'marketing speak' too.
**I normally wouldn't correct spelling/grammar etc but seeing as you are banging on about accurate use of language, maybe you'd better start with your own Andrew.
-
Let's keep it civil, and not personal. The thread has become a somewhat entertaining exchange of thoughts, but it's main purpose seems to be to get another thread about the Adobe Subscription model closed by the moderator ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
What is pointless is your 'reasoning', if it can indeed be called that. Claiming 'not saving' is non-destructive editing is up there with the dumbest things ever posted on the internet.
Both your sentence and Adobe's explaining the definition fall into that camp. If you're unhappy with how sentence is read, clarify it!
The whole point of non destructive editing is to keep your edits even after saving/closing programme/computer and so on. You damn well know that and are simply flailing around trying to redefine English/argue a bonkers point to defend your silly stance.
I understand and damn well know what it is supposed to mean, that doesn't change the sloppy marketing speak. Nor how some (as Jeff points out, a few on DP review) read and understand the sloppy ambiguous Marketing Speak.
The whole point of non destructive editing is to keep your edits even after saving/closing programme/computer and so on is a good start in a well defined explanation of what I asked you to define in the first place!
-
Let's keep it civil, and not personal.
I agree. Such language is a sign that the other party isn't able to communicate their POV and have to lower the discussion to this level dismiss their inabilities. Considering this recent 'debate' is on the use of language, I'm not surprised.
-
Nonsense. It's a sign of exasperation with your inane contributions.
-
Nonsense. It's a sign of exasperation with your inane contributions.
Ah, that's your excuse for behaving less the adult here?
Haven't you got a brain the size of a planet?
Looks like it's you doing all the whining about Adobe's example workflows and who doesn't have the wit to recognise how they're different from Save As. Poor you. Maybe stop chewing gum when you're trying to think?
Time to give your head a quick wobble.
Just because you repeat that doesn't make it any more true, and it may just reveal your own blinkered outlook.
John, we'll never agree with each other on the semantics under discussion here, as I said, time to move on. Unless your tactic is to get the thread closed. I see your frustration, and I know why, your points are pretty weak and I suspect even you realize that. Some here agree with me, some agree with you. Lurkers can examine the language from each side and make up their own minds.
-
Ooh, aren't we a Mother Teresa! Sorry to disappoint you, but lurkers can readily see that your infantile tactics were designed to exasperate and invited derision. You ask for an explanation, you get one, then you whine that you've not had an explanation.... Here, yet again you bleat that my points were weak, a judgement all the more ludicrous as it comes from someone who makes the moronic comparison between Save As and non-destructive workflows. What are you smoking? What's your problem?
-
Ah, I get it. So non destructive editing means, that the history of all the steps you have done to an image is not destroyed and has nothing to do with preserving the integrity of the underlying pixels, as everyone seems to have mistakenly assumed it means.
So if I record an action in PS of everything I do to an image, no matter how much I wang the slide bars around, or pixelate the image, or introduce banding and noise etc, the fact I have retained a record of what I have done via an action, which I can later change, or jump back in time to any point in that editing process on a fresh version of the raw, that I have in fact performed a non destructive edit, even though the image itself might end up being entirely ruined, because the history of how I trashed the pixels, has been retained?
I can see why a lot of people have been confused by this vague and somewhat disingenuous use of terminology.
Wouldn’t it be better to call non destructive editing, something like non destructive history or retained history?
Dave
-
Sorry to disappoint you, but lurkers can readily see that your infantile tactics were designed to exasperate and invited derision.
So you walked into my parlour Mr. fly.
Speaking for other's (Lurkers) again.
Let it go John.
-
No Dave, it's not so related to history and is not disingenuous.
The term refers to image editing methods that preserve the editability of the object (file, layer etc) that you are working on, by applying your edits as parameters that can be refined or completely-removed in subsequent sessions. Adobe give some examples of PS workflows, and smart objects are a good example in that you can apply transforms, for example, which you can re-edit later. The same would apply to a LR workflow.
Your example might fall inside or outside that definition depending on whether you're baking the results of your actions onto the file that you save. If you're only adding adjustment layers, it might fit inside, but if you're baking your edits into that file's pixels, then you can't remove your edits in subsequent sessions. You'd have to go back to your original and repeat the work with whatever refinements you want to make.
John
-
So you walked into my parlour Mr. fly.
Speaking for other's (Lurkers) again.
Let it go John.
You're making a fool of yourself, aren't you? It's not only here that your online behaviour has deteriorated, is it? What is your problem?
-
I can see why a lot of people have been confused by this vague and somewhat disingenuous use of terminology.
Indeed, just here. Without the one sentence markeing speak from Adobe or the 19 pages of in depth discussion by Peter. This is exatly my issue with the silly term Non Destructive Editing. It means whatever the person using it wants or thinks it should mean. And if something else accomplishes the same result (the Save As analogy which is all that was), they can tell you it doesn't count. Case in point:
John says:Your example might fall inside or outside that definition depending on whether you're baking the results of your actions onto the file that you save.
The words might and depending are keys to the language.
Farmer says: Non-destructive implies, I believe, that within the image that you are using, you can revert to the original state (pre-editing).
Can't blame Farmer for writing implies and believes. One sometimes thinks this term is like a religious passage, you have to interpret a lot!
JJJ says: I would clarify and say that if you can revert back to the original image without using undo, then that would the concise description of non-destructive editing.
OK, concise. That's a good start, all I asked in the first place.
-
Non Destructive Editing ... means whatever the person using it wants or thinks it should mean. And if something else accomplishes the same result ... they can tell you it doesn't count.
No, they examine the exact workflow and consider whether it has the characteristics of non destructive editing. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... Not hard really, is it?
-
Moderator,
Isn't it time to close this thread? The last 15 or 20 posts show that it is time to close these children's playground..
-
No Dave, it's not so related to history and is not disingenuous.
The term refers to image editing methods that preserve the editability of the object (file, layer etc) that you are working on, by applying your edits as parameters that can be refined or completely-removed in subsequent sessions. Adobe give some examples of PS workflows, and smart objects are a good example in that you can apply transforms, for example, which you can re-edit later. The same would apply to a LR workflow.
Your example might fall inside or outside that definition depending on whether you're baking the results of your actions onto the file that you save. If you're only adding adjustment layers, it might fit inside, but if you're baking your edits into that file's pixels, then you can't remove your edits in subsequent sessions. You'd have to go back to your original and repeat the work with whatever refinements you want to make.
John
Thank you John, I now feel as though I fully understand the terminology for what it actually means, as opposed to what I was being told it meant, and by people who I thought that knew what they were on about. I also agree that this may have never been a case of intended misinterpretation from those practitioners who were genuinely 'in the know', but I do still think it has become the generally accepted but incorrect assumption to most users.
Dave
-
Moderator,
Isn't it time to close this thread? The last 15 or 20 posts show that it is time to close these children's playground..
Before doing so, a question of the NDI definers.
I set my camera to shoot a raw + JPEG and take both into ACR or LR (you pick).
I apply some edits (you pick, the same or different).
I render out two images to the same color space, bit depth etc (again, you pick).
Question: Are both files undergoing non destructive editing and if yes, are both equally non destructive? If the same or different, why?
TIA
-
Moderator,
Isn't it time to close this thread? The last 15 or 20 posts show that it is time to close these children's playground..
Brad, I totally disagree, I for one have found this discussion both fascinating and informative. OK, it might have become a little combative at times, but none the less informative. There is nothing wrong with a spirited debate, just look away if it's annoying you. ;)
Dave
-
Before doing so, a question of the NDI definers.
I set my camera to shoot a raw + JPEG and take both into ACR or LR (you pick).
I apply some edits (you pick, the same or different).
I render out two images to the same color space, bit depth etc (again, you pick).
Question: Are both files undergoing non destructive editing and if yes, are both equally non destructive? If the same or different, why?
TIA
LR's Dev module is ACR with a better UI. So they are the same thing processing wise, not to mention that a rendered out image file from either is no different from a flattened layered file saved from PS. i.e. no ability to undo any edits made to the outputted file. The original files in either ACR or LR however remain untouched and can be re-edited until the end of time or end of this thread which are about the same thing. ;D
No idea what the point of the question really is, since you should know all this anyway as you claim to be a teacher of these tools.
-
LR's Dev module is ACR with a better UI. So they are the same thing processing wise, not to mention that a rendered out image file from either is no different from a flattened layered file saved from PS. i.e. no ability to undo any edits made to the outputted file. The original files in either ACR or LR however remain untouched and can be re-edited until the end of time or end of this thread which are about the same thing. ;D
So far, nothing I don't know (about the two products and engines, I'm simply giving you an option).
Are both files are undergoing a non destructive workflow? It sounds like you're saying yes. Are they both equally non destructive?
No idea what the point of the question really is, since you should know all this anyway as you claim to be a teacher of these tools.
What I teach is to ignore the terminology non destructive workflow because it's so ill defined, hence the questions!
-
What I teach is to ignore the terminology non destructive workflow because it's so ill defined, hence the questions!
To the best of my knowledge, I have never destroyed anything by taking a photograph of it - so I would suggest that my workflow is definitely non-destructive.
(Although, of course, interference theory might suggest otherwise.)
-
If you have a file, which has edits which can be removed or undone to the extent that the original state of the file can be retrieved, then it can be said that the editing workflow involved is non-destructive because the original state is recoverable from within the file itself, even after saving and reopening.
If you workflow follows that, then it's non-destructive. If it doesn't, then it's destructive (regardless of whether you keep a copy of the original - as most do).
-
If you have a file, which has edits which can be removed or undone to the extent that the original state of the file can be retrieved, then it can be said that the editing workflow involved is non-destructive because the original state is recoverable from within the file itself, even after saving and reopening.
So it's all about the edits themselves, not the results of the edit.
-
A fairly concise definition of nondestructive editing, from “Real World Adobe Photoshop CS3,” Blatner, Chavez, and Fraser, 2008, p. 652. “The Nondestructive Workflow…work nondestructively whenever possible, using tools like adjustment layers and masks to keep our options open as long as possible. With Smart Filters and the enhancements to Smart Objects, particularly when it comes to raw camera images, Photoshop CS3 makes it possible to keep a wide range of edits in a reversible state, so that you can back out of them at any time. Here are all of the typical image-editing steps using the nondestructive editing features in Photoshop CS3 [accompanying figure is titled “A Photoshop document built nondestructively” and shows Photoshop layers: base image raw file Smart Object modified by Smart Filters, such as Shadow/Highlight, with patching and other layers, such as curves, above the base]
“Using these techniques, you can, at any time, strip away every last edit and return to the original base image, or adjust the intensity of any edit whenever you like. It’s an astounding degree of flexibility, but again, pushing nondestructive editing this far can eat up your hard drive space and RAM in a hurry. To mitigate this, you can head for a middle ground where you rasterize some layers into pixels when you’re happy with them.” (emphasis added) (edited to correct copyright date)
-
So it's all about the edits themselves, not the results of the edit.
No, it's entirely about the results of the edits and whether or not they can be reversed, removed, undone, etc., to the point that you have the original, unaltered, data available within the same file.
-
No, it's entirely about the results of the edits and whether or not they can be reversed, removed, undone, etc., to the point that you have the original, unaltered, data available within the same file.
OK so if it's also about the results of the edits, what about my raw + JPEG?
-
Sorry, Andrew, I'm missing your question somehow.
If you have a raw + jpeg you have two files. They exist independently of each other. Destruction or not relates to the original file, whatever format, produced by the camera. If you have presets on your jpegs, the resulting file is still the basis before you edit it and clearly outside of the control of any editing software.
If you have two files (or 10 or a million) produced by the camera and each is different, a non-destructive or destructive workflow then relates to the handling of that file and whether you can revert to the original state of that file, not to some raw (another bad pun) count of photons.
-
A fairly concise definition of nondestructive editing, from “Real World Adobe Photoshop CS3,” Blatner, Chavez, and Fraser, 2008, p. 652. “The Nondestructive Workflow…work nondestructively whenever possible, using tools like adjustment layers and masks to keep our options open as long as possible.
I don't disagree with what was likely Bruce saying this (not sure if it was Bruce, but I do remember him talking about this...could have been David or Conrad though), but there's one thing that many people fail to grasp when working with Adjustment Layers in Photoshop. You can still create situations where you'll get "destructive" edits with adjustment layers. Many people forget that when Photoshop applies an adjustment ayer, if does so in a consecutive manner applying one adjustment after the other and s on till they're all applied.
So, if you add multiple curves adjustment layers, you can still pretty much screw up an image just like applying multiple consecutive direct curves adjustments. Just cause you have an adjustment layer doesn't mean that all of a sudden, the edits are no longer destructive...they are just infantely re-adjustable until you flatten.
Yes, adjustment layers allow re-editability...but when you stack a bunch of adjustment layers together, the net result can be very destructive...
This doesn't apply in the same manner when editing parametric edits in ACR or LR. No matter what order you do things, the order and totality of the edits still are applied in the same order in the processing pipeline. Yes, you can step on the tone mapping of the Basic panel by adding Curves on top...but in my experience, this doesn't lead to the same sort of issues you find in Photoshop when staking a bunch of adjustment layers.
So guys, at what point can we determine exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? When you figure that out, let me know will ya?
:~)
-
Dave,
I had two reasons for my comment. People engaged in the ongoing debate will most likely disagree with both.
First, I thought the "combative" tone during an off topic discussion of semantics on a photo forum was, a little like kids in the playground kicking sand at each other, just for the pleasure of kicking sand. Yes, I know. I'm sensitive.
Secondly, all of this is happening well over 400 posts into a topic about Adobe Creative Cloud's reception/implementation. Long ago in this thread, long trains of posts went off into new, unrelated territory to the Topic. The semantics of Destructive/Non-Destructive is the most recent example. How would anyone browsing the Topic Titles have any idea that there was a "destructive/non-destructive" semantics debate occurring. None of those searchers will ever get the chance to be either fascinated or informed by the discussion (as you have been), or shake their head as to the uselessness of this back and forth discussion (as I have been). I say useless because all of the participants in the discussion understand exactly how all the software being discussed works in this regard, so a heated, semantics battle about what to call the software's behavior seems useless to me.
I assumed that if the moderator followed my suggestion and closed this Topic, then one of the participants would open a new topic with a title that somehow remotely identified what was being discussed. Or one of the participants would come to their senses and start that new topic themselves now. Focused Topics that more or less stay on track......I think they are a much better way to enable people to come to a discussion of interest, or avoid a Topic of disinterest.
Brad
Brad, I totally disagree, I for one have found this discussion both fascinating and informative. OK, it might have become a little combative at times, but none the less informative. There is nothing wrong with a spirited debate, just look away if it's annoying you. ;)
Dave
-
Yes, adjustment layers allow re-editability...but when you stack a bunch of adjustment layers together, the net result can be very destructive...
This doesn't apply in the same manner when editing parametric edits in ACR or LR.
Hi Jeff, that's correct. However, that would be more about (non-)destructive editing than about a (non-)destructive workflow, IMHO. It would be slightly less ambiguous to talk about 'reversible' rather than 'non-destructive' where workflows are concerned, but non-destructive add some nice drama ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Jeff, that's correct. However, that would be more about (non-)destructive editing than about a (non-)destructive workflow, IMHO. It would be slightly less ambiguous to talk about 'reversible' rather than 'non-destructive' where workflows are concerned, but non-destructive add some nice drama ...
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, you have hit the nail on the head, it is 'reversible' rather than 'non-destructive' that should be the term being used.
The angels can now stop dancing on the head of a pin ;)
Dave
-
Bart, you have hit the nail on the head, it is 'reversible' rather than 'non-destructive' that should be the term being used.
Though edits are only reversible after closing files because they are non-destructive, not to mention that destructive editing is PS is reversible too though the undo facility [until files are closed]. So hammer has in fact missed the nail and may have even hit the thumb. ;D.
I have to say I'm a bit baffled by how something so very simple is proving so very difficult. But then Andrew was involved. :-\
Neither do I think 'non-destructive' is marketing speak or overly dramatic, but a simply an accurate way of describing the activity.
Imagine some photos on slide film that I want to project with a yellow tint - two basic options I project through a yellow filter or I stain the slides yellow. The equivalent in PS is adding a yellow filter adjustment layer or changing the pixels in the layer to be yellowish. With the second options, the film the slide will be stain damaged and with PS the non-yellow pixels will be changed/destroyed. The non destructive option in both cases is removing the yellow filter. Simples.
-
Though edits are only reversible after closing files because they are non-destructive, not to mention that destructive editing is PS is reversible too though the undo facility [until files are closed]. So hammer has in fact missed the nail and may have even hit the thumb. ;D.
I have to say I'm a bit baffled by how something so very simple is proving so very difficult. But then Andrew was involved. :-\
Neither do I think 'non-destructive' is marketing speak or overly dramatic, but a simply an accurate way of describing the activity.
Imagine some photos on slide film that I want to project with a yellow tint - two basic options I project through a yellow filter or I stain the slides yellow. The equivalent in PS is adding a yellow filter adjustment layer or changing the pixels in the layer to be yellowish. With the second options, the film the slide will be stain damaged and with PS the non-yellow pixels will be changed/destroyed. The non destructive option in both cases is removing the yellow filter. Simples.
But when the file is printed or viewed on screen etc, then the image and all the edits to the image being viewed/printed have been destroyed in that printed/viewable version, just like a flattened, saved and closed file in PS, yes I know you can undo stuff in LR etc, but the output file is a fully baked file, no matter what you have used to get to that point - I think that was the sticking point, but we are now clear that 'non-destructive' editing only means the steps of image manipulation that are maintained, it has nothing to do with retaining pixels unchanged in the output file, or being somehow less damaging to their original integrity as they travel through the pipeline to the output file.
There seems to have been a confluence of terminology that has taken place here and lots of people assumed that one thing meant the other, but I for one am now totally clear on what it all means, even though it has taken me a while to see it for what it truly means, I now do, although I imagine the majority of users out there still don't.
I taught computing for many years at Uni up to MSc level and one of the first things I realised, was even if I thought something was easy or obvious because I fully understood it and so couldn't see why everyone else didn't easily understand it, that it doesn't automatically mean it is easy or obvious for other people to understand. We all have different ways of rationalising things in our heads and sometimes even 'clever' people, need the most basic of ideas explaining to them in an easy to understand way until they get it. A lot of lecturers didn't understand this basic tenet of teaching BTW and decided that if you didn't understand something, then it was because you were thick and had nothing to do with how they were unable to explain something in an easily understood way.
Dave
-
Yes, adjustment layers allow re-editability...but when you stack a bunch of adjustment layers together, the net result can be very destructive...
Exactly! And the reason I asked if 'non destructive' editing is about the edits or the results of the edits. Clearly the results and as you point out, now we have degrees of the non destructive editing results. The reason I asked about the JPEG + raw non destructive editing scenario. The results are not the same in terms of the data it would appear but no one as yet has placed that into the increasingly necessarily language of what non destructive means.
Jeff has produced an excellent example of why some feel the term is so ambiguous, to the point one could state: Non destructive workflows are non destructive unless they aren't. Silly!
Yes, adjustment layers allow re-editability...but when you stack a bunch of adjustment layers together, the net result can be very destructive...
So adjustment layers are or are not non destructive? Question isn't addressed to Jeff, but jjj and other's who seem to feel the one sentence explanation from Adobe, or the other equally undefined explanations thus far cover this without a lick of ambiguity?
Dave wrote: There seems to have been a confluence of terminology that has taken place here and lots of people assumed that one thing meant the other, but I for one am now totally clear on what it all means, even though it has taken me a while to see it for what it truly means, I now do, although I imagine the majority of users out there still don't.
Another Amen to that Brother comment. The reason we got into this rabbit hole in the first place: I asked jjj to define what he's going to mean when he tells me all about Smart Objects and blurted out the non destructive editing language again. As yet, the definition isn't as clear as Adobe's one sentence marking generated language would have some believe!
The plot thickens. The definition of non destructive editing remains spotty at best.
-
Exactly! And the reason I asked if 'non destructive' editing is about the edits or the results of the edits.
Workflow is not the same thing as the edited result. A particular workflow can be destructive while still being reversible. Of course different workflows can still result in better results for the more destructive workflow (if the non-destructive workflow is worse at getting the desired result).
So it's a lot of play with words, but in the end it's the result that counts to me. I can do things in Photoshop that I cannot achieve in Lightroom, so all of the discussion becomes meaningless pretty soon.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Workflow is not the same thing as the edited result. A particular workflow can be destructive while still being reversible. Of course different workflows can still result in better results for the more destructive workflow (if the non-destructive workflow is worse at getting the desired result).
So it's a lot of play with words, but in the end it's the result that counts to me. I can do things in Photoshop that I cannot achieve in Lightroom, so all of the discussion becomes meaningless pretty soon.
I don't disagree with a single word Bart. I'm more than suggesting using the terminology non destructive is thrown about with no clear definition, it's ambiguous and largely the result of marketing, nothing more. Hopefully if and when jjj gets around to his illustration of how SO's are going to be useful to me and others, and uses the term, he'll fully explain what he's talking about when using it!
-
I taught computing for many years at Uni up to MSc level and one of the first things I realised, was even if I thought something was easy or obvious because I fully understood it and so couldn't see why everyone else didn't easily understand it, that it doesn't automatically mean it is easy or obvious for other people to understand. We all have different ways of rationalising things in our heads and sometimes even 'clever' people, need the most basic of ideas explaining to them in an easy to understand way until they get it.
Well possibly you [and others] are looking for complexity where there is none and that's the problem. I've explained this to non-computer people and it's not been an issue.
But when the file is printed or viewed on screen etc, then the image and all the edits to the image being viewed/printed have been destroyed in that printed/viewable version, just like a flattened, saved and closed file in PS, yes I know you can undo stuff in LR etc, but the output file is a fully baked file, no matter what you have used to get to that point - I think that was the sticking point, but we are now clear that 'non-destructive' editing only means the steps of image manipulation that are maintained, it has nothing to do with retaining pixels unchanged in the output file, or being somehow less damaging to their original integrity as they travel through the pipeline to the output file.
That's Andrew adding to the confusion there I would say. He can make simplest things incomprehensible.
Also files output from say LR are not like a PS file flattened and closed, it is more like a save as a copy from a PS file that you can re-edit later.
-
I don't disagree with a single word Bart. I'm more than suggesting using the terminology non destructive is thrown about with no clear definition, it's ambiguous and largely the result of marketing, nothing more. Hopefully if and when jjj gets around to his illustration of how SO's are going to be useful to me and others, and uses the term, he'll fully explain what he's talking about when using it!
Stop wittering on about marketing, it's very tedious and has very little to do with the term which I recall being used a fair bit before ever being used in product literature.
-
Stop wittering on about marketing, it's very tedious and has very little to do with the term which I recall being used a fair bit before ever being used in product literature.
Whether that's a request or a demand, I have no intention of doing so, that's simply my opinion and I'm entitled to it. If you'd spend less time attacking and more creating a salient and well structured definition of the term non destructive editing, you'd be taken more seriously and perhaps, maybe, I'd change my opinion then stop about the marketing hype I today believe to be true. Otherwise you and John simply appear to me as childish poster's who are unable to effectively communicate your POV's and would rather insult and distract from the topic.
Are adjustment layers non destructive? Or is Jeff wrong?
-
Well possibly you [and others] are looking for complexity where there is none and that's the problem. I've explained this to non-computer people and it's not been an issue.
It's the computer literate you're having issue with! And yes, it is complex but if you want to make it silly and ambiguous and simplistic, don't blame others for asking for clarity.
-
It looks that you're the childish one, Andrew, with your infantile line of argument - and let's add your babyish English ("other's, "poster's" for instance). You're just stamping around and throwing up dust, and it does little for your credibility.
The term's been explained numerous times here - and yet you're still whining that it hasn't! Talk about a dog and his bone.... Sorry, but as a number of posts show, non destructive editing is a reasonably-defined and useful term, whether you like it or not. It walks and quacks.
-
Are adjustment layers non destructive? Or is Jeff wrong?
As we're dealing with semantics, what Jeff said was :
Yes, adjustment layers allow re-editability...but when you stack a bunch of adjustment layers together, the net result can be very destructive...
Jeff didn't say they are. Just said they CAN be.
In other words he didn't say much ( or he said both depending on which way you want to interpret it)
--
Question:
I save a new PS file with a bunch of adjustment layers, a clipping layer and a background layer.
No flattening, merging or export.
I save the file.
I re-open the file.
Have any of the original background layer pixels been indelibly changed ?
--
So guys, at what point can we determine exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Short answer : We can't. There ain't no pin-heads in Heaven.
-
Well possibly you [and others] are looking for complexity where there is none and that's the problem. I've explained this to non-computer people and it's not been an issue.
But did they truly understand what you were telling them, or did they just nod their heads pretending they did. Again having once been an educator, I am fully aware that a lot of learners do exactly that just to satisfy the teacher, or to try and not appear unintelligent.
It looks that you're the childish one, Andrew, with your infantile line of argument - and let's add your babyish English ("other's, "poster's" for instance). You're just stamping around and throwing up dust, and it does little for your credibility.
Come on John, there is no need to get so personal with Andrew to the point where you are nitpicking at his grammatical errors and belittling him, it does no one any good and doesn’t reflect well on you. I believe Andrew is trying (as I have done) to understand what the terminology really means.
If you want to succeed in educating someone, because that is surely what we are trying to do here and on this forum, then the first thing you need is patience and lots of it, because it is so easy for those that know, or believe they know, to think that anyone who dares to question that knowledge, are somehow unworthy of further reasoned explanations and dignified discussion.
Dave
-
Sorry, Dave, but if he refers to others' arguments as childish then he deserves to get it back - but with hard evidence. Are you convinced Andrew's wanting to understand, or just trying everyone's patience by kicking up dirt? He's been given numerous explanations and any rational person would have said "I see what you mean" long ago.
-
Come on John, there is no need to get so personal with Andrew to the point where you are nitpicking at his grammatical errors and belittling him, it does no one any good and doesn’t reflect well on you. I believe Andrew is trying (as I have done) to understand what the terminology really means.
First off, yes he does have to do this.
2nd, yes, I do want to understand the terminology. And yes there are semantics at play which is critical. This isn't about religion or politics were we can interrupt by bias. It's digital image processing and non destructive can mean a whole lot of different things to different people. We've seen it defined in one sentence and over 19 pages and a lot in between. What I've learned thus far is Non destructive editing/workflows are non destructive unless they aren't.
-
First off, yes he does have to do this.
2nd, yes, I do want to understand the terminology. And yes there are semantics at play which is critical. This isn't about religion or politics were we can interrupt by bias. It's digital image processing and non destructive can mean a whole lot of different things to different people. We've seen it defined in one sentence and over 19 pages and a lot in between. What I've learned thus far is Non destructive editing/workflows are non destructive unless they aren't.
What we've learnt is that you're unwilling to recognise a duck when it quacks! You've had reasonable explanations, and you're still whining.
-
interesting ... I checked out this thread because of the title ... this may be the record for wandering off topic the furthest ...
-
interesting ... I checked out this thread because of the title ... this may be the record for wandering off topic the furthest ...
Nowhere near Wayne. :D
-
But did they truly understand what you were telling them, or did they just nod their heads pretending they did. Again having once been an educator, I am fully aware that a lot of learners do exactly that just to satisfy the teacher, or to try and not appear unintelligent.
I'm aware of that too, but it is very simple to understand. Well, that's except when someone is muddying the waters as in this thread.
Come on John, there is no need to get so personal with Andrew to the point where you are nitpicking at his grammatical errors and belittling him, it does no one any good and doesn’t reflect well on you. I believe Andrew is trying (as I have done) to understand what the terminology really means.
Well seeing as we are debating semantics, the fact that Andrew often uses words incorrectly is quite pertinent.
As for his trying to understand, somehow I doubt that. Because if he did, then that would undermine a lot of what he has previously written/ranted about [incorrectly] on this subject.
-
Dave,
I had two reasons for my comment. People engaged in the ongoing debate will most likely disagree with both.
First, I thought the "combative" tone during an off topic discussion of semantics on a photo forum was, a little like kids in the playground kicking sand at each other, just for the pleasure of kicking sand. Yes, I know. I'm sensitive.
Secondly, all of this is happening well over 400 posts into a topic about Adobe Creative Cloud's reception/implementation. Long ago in this thread, long trains of posts went off into new, unrelated territory to the Topic. The semantics of Destructive/Non-Destructive is the most recent example. How would anyone browsing the Topic Titles have any idea that there was a "destructive/non-destructive" semantics debate occurring. None of those searchers will ever get the chance to be either fascinated or informed by the discussion (as you have been), or shake their head as to the uselessness of this back and forth discussion (as I have been). I say useless because all of the participants in the discussion understand exactly how all the software being discussed works in this regard, so a heated, semantics battle about what to call the software's behavior seems useless to me.
I assumed that if the moderator followed my suggestion and closed this Topic, then one of the participants would open a new topic with a title that somehow remotely identified what was being discussed. Or one of the participants would come to their senses and start that new topic themselves now. Focused Topics that more or less stay on track......I think they are a much better way to enable people to come to a discussion of interest, or avoid a Topic of disinterest.
Brad
A mod could also split the whole nondestuctive editing diversion to a new thread.
It seems to me the process is more important than the label. The software can hold the original file with a list of instructions to do on that file. The software may have a built in sequence that is deemed optimal (such as noise reduction is done before deconvolution which is done before, gamma, which is done before curves. The software could also let the user see/modify the sequence to be done. editing and reversing of the editing are done to the list of instuctions, not the data file. These are done to render a result to the screen which the user sees, then finally to the output file. The saving of the file is the saving of the original and the instruction list.
I really don't care what it is called.
-
The software could also let the user see/modify the sequence to be done. editing and reversing of the editing are done to the list of instuctions, not the data file. These are done to render a result to the screen which the user sees, then finally to the output file. The saving of the file is the saving of the original and the instruction list.
I really don't care what it is called.
How about Bernard? ;)
-
I really don't care what it is called.
Neither do I (I like Jeff's name). I care about what it's supposed to do! Big difference.
-
Neither do I (I like Jeff's name). I care about what it's supposed to do! Big difference.
Yet you have banged on incessantly about how much you dislike what is called. As for Jeff's name it means exactly the same thing, albeit with different phrasing. But as no-one else is using it the name you hate for this methodology is the accepted name for it.
As for caring about what it is supposed to do. Well seeing as you seem completely unable to grok what it is as evidenced at great length on here and in other threads that's not working too well for you either.
-
Yet you have banged on incessantly about how much you dislike what is called.
You really do need to re-read a number of posts if that's what you believe I asked specifically of YOU.
Start with #434 which was directed to you and #443. The name isn't the issue, the definition is! I prefer Jeff's as it at least begins to give an idea of what it's supposed to mean.
-
Conversing [I use the term loosely] with you.....
-
And with that final word, let's wrap this shall we?