The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm

[Rhossydd]

Reprocessing 40-50 years work in a month

You've got 50 years worth of digital files ? that's a good trick.

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

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

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

[fredjeang2]

Digital photography is quite possible without using Adobe products.

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

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

[jjj]

You've got 50 years worth of digital files ? that's a good trick.

I'm not quite ready for retirement yet. I've been using PS for 18 years already, so I have a few digital files that started on film and a lot more waiting to be scanned as well as all the digital stuff since 2002/3

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

But it will once your current CS6 software stops working on the computers and OSs that will replace one's current set up.

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

But there's nothing on the market to that comes close to PS, particularly when combined with LR.

[Rhossydd]

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

But it will once your current CS6 software stops working on the computers and OSs that will replace one's current set up.

This makes the assumption you won't upgrade to an OS that CC will work on.
For me, will CS4 still run on Windows 9 ? (possibly), but, if not, I can have a month's worth of CC to reformat any files I haven't already converted to a more universal format that I still want access to.

But there's nothing on the market to that comes close to PS, particularly when combined with LR.

Much depends on what you need to do. There's not much, if anything, you can't do without the unique features of Photoshop in normal photography.
Care to give any examples ?

[dreed]

No retoucher that I know would use a GIMP app. In other areas, the need for PS is less important.

What holds them back?
Are there specific features that are missing?
Or is it just a usability thing?

[Rhossydd]

What holds them back?

Habit.
If you have PS available you'll use it if that's what you've been using in the past.

[fredjeang2]

What holds them back?
Are there specific features that are missing?
Or is it just a usability thing?

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

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

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

People would be amazed to know how many printing houses are still working on FreeHand despite it's no longuer existing for awhile. Of course they know ilustrator or in-design, but as Free-Hand was a standart, and a well appreciate one, there is absolutly no prob you send free-hand files, even today. I do it all the time, and that's why I kept a XP machine because Free-Hand is not suitable on windows 7.

[JohnHeerema]

Adobe could have offered existing CS product owners a subscription option that reverted to a perpetual license whenever the subscription lapsed. That would have offered the people who have already bought CS an incentive to upgrade a month at a time, instead of once every 18 months or so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jjj]

This makes the assumption you won't upgrade to an OS that CC will work on.

Not sure what you mean by this. Have you mistyped something?

But there's nothing on the market to that comes close to PS, particularly when combined with LR.

There's not much, if anything, you can't do without the unique features of Photoshop in normal photography.
Care to give any examples ?

Not sure what 'normal photography' is but like most software, the initial versions can do most of what the later versions can do as can their rivals e.g. say Avid Vs Vegas Vs FCP Vs Premiere in video editing. What changes and what is critically important is the speed/ease at which you do things and the improvements in ergonomics that make using later programmes much better than earlier versions. FCP7 to the initial release of FCP X being a notable exception as unusually it dropped essential features, most since reinstated.
And although I said above there is nothing to rival the combination of LR + PS. I cannot think of anything one thing off hand that is actually unique to other than the pure ease and speed of being able to work with them. But there is nothing with all the features in PS/LR/Br and that is the important part.

[jjj]

Most Adobe products today are awfully similar to what they looked like half a dozen years ago.

Do you expect the interfaces to constantly change to show they are better?
I really do not agree with this as I wouldn't want to go back to ten year old software. No way.

Though I do agree that the market is maturing and traditional revenue from must have upgrades will diminish. This has been obvious for a long time and I have wondered for many years as to when subscriptions would appear.

[fredjeang2]

Avid, PP, Edius, Lightworks, Fcp7...all
Competitors, capable apps. Some sectors
Would be more inclined to One or the other,
But more or less the same grocery.
There is nothing equivalent to what adobe has
In still imagery. Gimp is the closest but not really
At the same level.
Now, not everybody really needs the full features
Of PS. In fact only few sectors.

[jeremyrh]

Avid, PP, Edius, Lightworks, Fcp7...all
Competitors, capable apps. Some sectors
Would be more inclined to One or the other,
But more or less the same grocery.
There is nothing equivalent to what adobe has
In still imagery. Gimp is the closest but not really
At the same level.
Now, not everybody really needs the full features
Of PS. In fact only few sectors.

Bit long for a haiku.

[fredjeang2]

Bit long for a haiku.

Aint nothing
In still similar to
What ps is

[jeremyrh]

Aint nothing
In still similar to
What ps is

Creative Cloud --
Drifts across the sky
Far from photographer's reach.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Creative Cloud --
Drifts across the sky
Far from photographer's reach.

Best one yet!

[John Camp]

Adobe statement
Hovers on the summer air
Like the sh*t of bull

(5-7-5)

[stevesanacore]

After getting a better feel for everyone using PS and not wanting to go the subscription route maybe Adobe should consider also keeping PS as a product just like LR. For people like me who benefit from having Premier, AE, etc.. the subscription is worth it, but for others who only need PS and LR, it seems to be a different story. I see no reason why they can't offer PS as a purchasable product along with LR. If they don't I believe this opens a window of opportunity for Apple or other companies to compete with Adobe in a high end photo retouching app.

However I don't understand why anyone feels their images will be held hostage. Everything I shoot is in Canon, Nikon or Phase One format, not Adobe.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

However I don't understand why anyone feels their images will be held hostage. Everything I shoot is in Canon, Nikon or Phase One format, not Adobe.

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

Cheers,
Bart

[Isaac]

...one needs to start all over from scratch if something can or needs to be improved/altered...

Sometimes. Sometimes one may start from the flattened tiff and improve/alter.

[Isaac]

... but for others who only need PS and LR, it seems to be a different story. I see no reason why they can't offer PS as a purchasable product along with LR.

Perhaps Adobe think they do --

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.