The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm

[David Hufford]

GIMP has been claiming 16 bit support is coming for years. The last time I tried using it was in about 2008 and as I recall, they were making that claim. I won't even bother mentioning the color management issues of that time. Perhaps this will provide a kick in the pants for GIMP to finally provide a stable version with 16 bit support instead of just talking about it, but I am very skeptical of that. (Why would they? They ain't getting paid.)

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

I'd say GIMP is worth what it costs.

[budjames]

If you are on a Mac, try Pixelmator for $14.99 on the Apple App Store.

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

Cheers.
Bud

[Nick Rains]

Pixelmator is worth $14.99. It works just fine but is quite limited.

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

If you need channels and CMYK, then Photoshop is really the only choice.

[Wayland]

For anybody interested I found this useful Wiki article comparing most of the available editors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_raster_graphics_editors

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

GIMP has been claiming 16 bit support is coming for years.

Hi David,

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

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

Cheers,
Bart

[dreed]

I'd say GIMP is worth what it costs.

How much were people paying for Ps when it was much less feature rich than both it and GIMP today?

[Sigi]

As of now there are many "what if" that are not answered yet:

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

There are more what if's where I do not have an answer. I want to be in charge of when to upgrade and when to buy new OS/computers and I do not want to be at the mercy of a company

[Les Sparks]

The biggest problem I see with the subscription model is the loss of use of the software when you let your subscription lapse. Then you have no way of dealing with  your old images. Saving them as flattened tiffs works if you don't want to tweak an image, but if you want to re-edit it to take advantage of a new trick you've learned or correct an error, you're out of luck. Once you've committed your images to Adobe, you're hooked and there's no turning back.  This is something that both pros and hobbyists need to consider.  You can say that if all else fails you can fall back to CS6 but there is no guarantee that images edited in CC 2015, say, can be opened and edited in CS6 even if you only want to use the subset of CC 2015 that is present in CS6.

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

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

Les

[Isaac]

The biggest problem I see with the subscription model is the loss of use of the software when you let your subscription lapse. Then you have no way of dealing with  your old images. Saving them as flattened tiffs works if you don't want to tweak an image, but if you want to re-edit it to take advantage of a new trick you've learned or correct an error, you're out of luck.

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

Horror of horrors -- it's even possible to do spot removal on a processed file that was exported as a compressed jpeg -- it's just not as utterly optimal as adding that spot removal to a non-destructive processing stream that start with the RAW image :-)

[John Camp]

I get a sense this is a storm in a teacup.

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

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

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

I'm trying to figure out how to get out of LR. I'll buy LR 5 if necessary, but I'm now in LR4 -- and I have several different installations of LR4 with different image libraries. I'm going to try to consolidate these on one machine, and then find a way out if I can. I no longer trust Adobe. 

[Les Sparks]

If you only want to tweak you don't need to do a complete edit.  With current license for CS6, I can go back and make minor or major changes without losing previous work. If I rent the software and for any number of reasons I stop renting (no $, move to NC mountains for extended period of time with no internet, etc), then I lose all my previous work if I want to make a minor change.  If I had a perpetual license (per CS6), I just continue working.  This is a downside of rental.  So anyone who jumps into to rental just needs to consider this downside as a factor when they make a decision. If I were a working pro,rental would look attractive based on $. As a hobbyist, rental doesn't appear as attractive.

I'm sure Adobe will be tweaking the CC thing in the next several months and maybe some of the downsides will be addressed or maybe not.
It's there ball and they can play whatever game they want.
Les

[dreed]

If you only want to tweak you don't need to do a complete edit.  With current license for CS6, I can go back and make minor or major changes without losing previous work. If I rent the software and for any number of reasons I stop renting (no $, move to NC mountains for extended period of time with no internet, etc), then I lose all my previous work if I want to make a minor change.  If I had a perpetual license (per CS6), I just continue working.  This is a downside of rental.  So anyone who jumps into to rental just needs to consider this downside as a factor when they make a decision. If I were a working pro,rental would look attractive based on $. As a hobbyist, rental doesn't appear as attractive.

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

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

What also worries me is if future versions of ACR are incompatible with CS6.

[Ray]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




 

[Isaac]

If I feel the need to reprocess an old image, I'd prefer to take advantage of the improvements in ACR or other RAW converters that have taken place since the time I first processed that image.

Yes.

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

Yes.

How very sensible.

[Isaac]

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

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

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

Would that also work with PS -- use Smart Collections in Adobe Bridge?

[stevesanacore]

I think Adobe has stated that Lightroom will continue to be available to purchase and not limited to the CC deal.

[jrsforums]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jrsforums]

I think Adobe has stated that Lightroom will continue to be available to purchase and not limited to the CC deal.

I think the wording was along the lines of "not at this time".  If not exactly spoken, I think that is a part of a general feeling of loss of faith...at least on my part.

[Isaac]

... conceptually true.  However, it is against the workflow normal to these products...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jrsforums]

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

I am not less worried why should John Camp be.

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

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

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

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