Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions

[Mark D Segal]

And this has happened in the last 20 years when? The file will not open? The flattened TIFF part of the TIFF file isn't accessible?

Andrew, this is a bit subtle perhaps, but I think the folks are concerned about a situation like this. You have a CS6 license "forever". I don't think any one is questioning that they can always open a flattened TIFF or PSD in that version of Photoshop - or in may other applications for that matter, if it's a TIFF.

The issue is this: you subscribe to CC. They introduce new features with new code that work fine on the current CC version. So let us say you use those new features on a file and they create new adjustment layers, or you use new layers for them. You decide at the end of your contract to de-subscribe. You have your files alright, but you are only left with legacy CS6 to open them. If CS6 doesn't have the code that enabled the new features you used on that file while you were subscribed, those edits likely won't be accessible in CS6 which is all you are left with (if you had it to begin with - people starting fresh won't even have that). So if you think at some point you may jump off the train, you need to at least create a version of the file that merges all the layers created with new CC code into the background layer. By doing so you lose the non-destructive reversible workflow approach with respect to those things you did in CC that may not be recognizable in CS6. You can avoid this inconvenience only by either staying aboard the train or merging nonCS6-compliant edits into the background if you ever think you will jump off the train. So people feel "chained".

Now, if you ask me, I think Adobe could create a win-win from all this by giving or selling to users who decide not to renew at the end of a contract period a perpetual license for the latest version they were using. That way there can be no complaint that the system can cause you to lose stuff unless you stay perpetually hooked.

Have I captured this dilemma clearly and correctly enough with this?

[Michael Schoenfeld]

It might be worth mentioning that if you view the image I attached, my PSCS6 and Premiere Pro software does NOT show up in the deactivation list (they are perpetual licenses, BTW).

Michael Schoenfeld

[Janne Aavasalo]

What is now going to be the safest method of archiving my RAW files?

I've always had a healthy distrust towards DNG, so all my RAW files are just that, in the proprietary formats of the camera used to take the photo.

Although I kind of could see the benefit of camera manufacturers using just one format (at least Michael and Jeff have been advocates for this format to be DNG), it's just another proprietary format amongst others. And with a small turn of the tables the DNG as a format seems far worse than what all the camera manufacturers have cooked up combined.

So yeah, my view is that what comes out of the camera is treated as "sacred" and kept in its original format. I'd go with that approach from now on and if you happen to have backups in the original formats, I'd dig them out too.

[Janne Aavasalo]

Have I captured this dilemma clearly and correctly enough with this?

Yes you have (at least on my part), thank you Mark.

Your explanation was just what I was after, but it didn't come out that clearly due being tired and perhaps because I'm not natively English speaking.

Edit: Just to add and to keep in mind that this issue will only get worse as time goes by and new features are added to the new CC - versions.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And this has happened in the last 20 years when? The file will not open? The flattened TIFF part of the TIFF file isn't accessible?

Hi Andrew,

Think about a Process 2012 Raw conversion, when your most recent CS5 perpetual licence (when you didn't feel like upgrading) only supports process 2010. Think about a Smart object based on that process 2012 conversion (with it's expanded range and new features). You're forced to start your PS edits based on Process 2010 all over.

Cheers,
Bart

[nemo295]

I've always had a healthy distrust towards DNG, so all my RAW files are just that, in the proprietary formats of the camera used to take the photo.

Although I kind of could see the benefit of camera manufacturers using just one format (at least Michael and Jeff have been advocates for this format to be DNG), it's just another proprietary format amongst others. And with a small turn of the tables the DNG as a format seems far worse than what all the camera manufacturers have cooked up combined.

So yeah, my view is that what comes out of the camera is treated as "sacred" and kept in its original format. I'd go with that approach from now on and if you happen to have backups in the original formats, I'd dig them out too.

DNG doesn't scare me. To Adobe's credit, they have made the DNG format open to anyone to use as they see fit without licensing fees. It is itself based on the open TIFF/EP standard. DNG is as close as we'll probably ever get to a generic RAW file format.

[jwstl]

I also bought into the DNG for long term file security stuff too. Why on Earth would I trust Adobe with that format anymore?

Right or wrong, I think this move to CC is really going to hurt the acceptance of DNG as that universal RAW format. DNG needed the support of photographers and I think that support was steadily increasing. But DNG is an Adobe creation and there's no love for or trust in Adobe amongst photographers right now so I imagine the support for DNG is plummeting.

[kencameron]

I've been impressed by the excellence of your previous comments on LuLa, so please help me understand:

-- How exactly will stopping paying for PS CC prevent anyone from showing JPG and TIFF images wherever and whenever they like?

Isaac, one thing to understand here is how jokes work. Explaining a joke is probably always futile, but here goes anyway. The analogy is, as you rightly point out, and have convincingly maintained against all opposition, a long way from perfect. But as far as the functioning of the cartoon as a joke is concerned, that is actually the opposite of a problem. The cartoon dramatizes the sense of outrage some people feel at a real consequence of Adobe's change - that is, losing access to something important if you stop subscribing - and releases the associated tension in a smile. It does so by portraying a scenario which exaggerates the occasion for surprise and outrage to the point of absurdity. It is the absurdity which allows people to smile. Then, refreshed in mind, they can go on to discuss the pros and cons of the change rationally. It is no reflection on you that it apparently doesn't work that way for you, that you go straight for the deficits in the analogy, and identify them unerringly. But by the time you do that, those for whom it does work have smiled and passed on.

[Janne Aavasalo]

DNG doesn't scare me. To Adobe's credit, they have made the DNG format open to anyone to use as they see fit without licensing fees. It is itself based on the open TIFF/EP standard. DNG is as close as we'll probably ever get to a generic RAW file format.

I'm not afraid of it either, but I still haven't seen the need to convert my proprietary RAW files into another format. But yes, I don't think one is "screwed up" if they have gone the DNG route.

[jrsforums]

And presumptuous.

Only when the person does nt seem to get it 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

There lies the presumption.

As is a failed attempt to divert attention from the underlying issues.

Cheers,
Bart

[Vladimirovich]

Right or wrong, I think this move to CC is really going to hurt the acceptance of DNG as that universal RAW format.

it has nothing to do w/ that - DNG is not going to be accepted because leading camera's manufacturers are not interested... you can't seriously consider a miniscule marketshare of Leica/Ricoh/etc as "acceptance"... as for being an intermediate format in your workflow (say instead of .TIFF or so) that's another story.

DNG needed the support of photographers and I think that support was steadily increasing.

no, it is not as they are not refusing to buy cameras that do not have DNG as a native raw format... even the most vocal DNG proponents here are happily shooting and taking money/equipment/participating in workshops and other marketing efforts from non DNG camera manufacturers... and hence are simply supporing non DNG with their money  

[Vladimirovich]

To Adobe's credit, they have made the DNG format open to anyone to use as they see fit without licensing fees.

I see fit to have a new DNG tag - may I have that w/o Adobe ? no, I can't.

[Vladimirovich]

I'm an Adobe customer and I bought in to all the non destructive editing stuff.

every single raw converter since before Adobe was parametric and non destructive (actually except Adobe's, which sometime ago were able to modify raw files /not raw data/ w/o warning to you).

[jrsforums]

I find all these DNG comments interesting.

Where the heck were all you guys in this thread?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=77569.0

[Janne Aavasalo]

Save that layered TIFF using a different file name.

Now you have the old TIFF and a new TIFF -- you've created something new.

I think I'll feed you one more time before going to bed.

Yes, if I save it under a different name, I've created something new, actually even if I work on a file and just save it as is, I've created something new.

But could you tell me how this solves the issue I've been explaining or better yet, how it has anything to do with it.

So sure, I've saved it twice under different filenames. Now I have two files of the same image and...

If you mean that I can open an image I've worked on in the new CC version in an older PS CS - version:

-troubleshoot my way through the layers that use technology found only in the CC - versions
-remove the layers that are not compatible with CS
-rework the image with "legacy" methods to get it to resemble the image when it was processed with CC
-and then save the "new" file in CS

Well there's a set of some mind boggling workflow options, thanks but no thanks. This is what I mean by lost work (and sanity if I'd have to "convert" all my photos into "legacy" mode) and it totally negates the reason for keeping your processing software up to date and using the newest features made available.

[Alan Klein]

How many people will not upgrade their cameras fearing that they will have to get on the clouds with Adobe just to post process their new camera's photos.  That could hurt the camera and other hardware manufacturers.  It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.  Watch for other non-photo software companies going the Adobe route too.

[Janne Aavasalo]

How many people will not upgrade their cameras fearing that they will have to get on the clouds with Adobe just to post process their new camera's photos.  That could hurt the camera and other hardware manufacturers.  It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.  Watch for other non-photo software companies going the Adobe route too.

I think that this will not be as big of an issue since RAW-conversions can be made in several applications (including the bundled software from the camera manufacturer).

[digitaldog]

-troubleshoot my way through the layers that use technology found only in the CC - versions

Specifically which layers would that be?

-remove the layers that are not compatible with CS

Specifically which layers are not compatible with CS what?

-rework the image with "legacy" methods to get it to resemble the image when it was processed with CC
-and then save the "new" file in CS

Kind of your fault for: buying into something new and hopefully useful and billable, then deciding it wasn't that cool so it goes away, then asking why you can't go back because you didn't handle your options with much wiggle room. It's OK to paint yourself into corners from time to time <g>.

IF you get this far in your story, you decide maybe, those features you thought were cool and paid for, are still cool and the alternative is to stop processing files, so you'll just pay the fee to Adobe and move on.

Well there's a set of some mind boggling workflow options, thanks but no thanks.

I think that's the right answer for you! Don't upgrade. Stick with CS6 which at some time in the future may die and you're forced to do..... All those years without the cool new features?

[Vladimirovich]

How many people will not upgrade their cameras fearing that they will have to get on the clouds with Adobe just to post process their new camera's photos.  That could hurt the camera and other hardware manufacturers.  It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.  Watch for other non-photo software companies going the Adobe route too.

most people use in camera JPG, then go those who just use OEM supplied raw converters, then go those who do not mind Adobe's new subscription model and those who use alternative raw converters and only then go those who use raw files, use Adobe's raw converters like ACR and do mind subscription model... so it is a non issue for camera manufacturers at all... it is like the question of DNG for a native raw format - they simply do not care as if DNG is not existing, that's it...