So how is that Subscription Service working out for Adobe?

[jjj]

Wrong again Isaac. You are not comparing like with like.

[john beardsworth]

You've responded with distraction rather than addressing the obvious point.
Is it OK if I license your photos for a single use -- and then break that license agreement and give them away?

No, I've responded to your "obvious point" on its merits!

[jjj]

No, I've responded to your "obvious point" on its merits!

Nicely put.

[Glenn NK]

The subscription model seems to be a fait accompli - like the referee's call it's final - and in this case there is no coach's challenge available.

[Isaac]

You are not comparing like with like.

You've already stated --

Dear me. This is not a difficult concept. Licensing is not the same as purchase, do not confuse the two. One is for usage, one is for ownership.

But you don't seem to think that is the correct response to --

While it's legally correct, for all practical purposes you are purchasing it and it's yours.

[Isaac]

No, I've responded to your "obvious point" on its merits!

Apparently you can do no better than evasion.

[Isaac]

The subscription model seems to be a fait accompli - like the referee's call it's final - and in this case there is no coach's challenge available.

And has been for quite a while.

[john beardsworth]

Apparently you can do no better than evasion.

Sorry, no evasion on my part - just read the paragraph from which you initially quoted.

I just don't think your question was genuine, "Isaac". Grow some....

John

[jjj]

Isaac, mixing up my replies to different scenarios as if the were the same situation is disingenuous. And misleading.
Try and respond properly in future, Ta.

[Glenn NK]

I understand that many don't like the Adobe subscription model.   I have a question:

What are you going to do about it?

I have seen talk about looking for another application.  Has anyone found one that stacks up?  There are quite a few threads on several forums on this topic, but has anyone actually done something about it?

It's one thing to be upset and I understand it - but the world has a tendency to be harshly real and reality has changed.

EDIT - fixed grammar.

[ButchM]

I understand that many don't like the Adobe subscription model.   I have a question:

What are you going to do about it?

I seen talk about looking for another application.  Has anyone found one that stacks up?  There are quite a few threads on several forums on this topic, but has anyone actually done something about it?

It's one thing to be upset and I understand it - but the world has a tendency to be harshly real and reality has changed.

Well, firstly, anyone seeking an alternative to Photoshop CC doesn't have to adopt something else immediately. Fortunately, Adobe can't stop anyone from using CS6 for as long as it is feasible. There is time to allow other developers to prepare a worthy option. Keep in mind, those possible options really don't need to be an exact duplication of current Ps CC capabilities ... in fact, most photographers don't really need all that is capable in Ps.

Secondly, the "Photographer's Bundle" did not exist until there was an outcry for something other than what Adobe presented for CC last May. Don't you remember, Adobe had to "listen" for awhile and responded with a more palatable offering? Maybe a few of us are hoping that Adobe is still "listening."

The "harsh reality" is the vast majority of their traditional perpetual license holders are not embracing CC. While it may be interesting that having sub 2M CC subscribers is an indication of success ... that is still less than half of the number of CS6 licenses they sold in the first year CS6 existed. Add in the over 4M perpetual license holders of CS3-CS5 ... Adobe has a long way to go to convince those folks they need to get in line. That is about as real as it gets.

Adopting CC should be done because it is the best option available ... not submitting to it because it is perceived as the only option available.

[LesPalenik]

I seen talk about looking for another application.  Has anyone found one that stacks up?  There are quite a few threads on several forums on this topic, but has anyone actually done something about it?

Well, right now, there is nothing comparable to the latest version of PS. However, PS CS5 or CS6 are pretty good too, and for many users fully adequate.
One of the new features in PS CS6 was the oil painting filter. If such a feature is important for the artist in you, Topaz Simplify plugin is a very good replacement for that. In that aspect, Topaz Simplify offers actually more than Photoshop. I wrote recently a short article on capabilities of this plugin and included some of the painting filter examples, you can read more about it at:

http://advantica.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/topaz-simplify/  

Topaz Clarity plugin is an excellent tool for tonal adjustments and contrast enhancing, and even many PS CC users prefer to use it instead of more time consuming PS processing through curves, masks, and adjustment layers. NIK's Viveza, and Color FX Pro are other good options. OnOne Software recently introduced their collection of similar plugins. I use LR, PS CS5, Topaz and NIK, and find that I can get all my needs satisfied through that combination. It's very likely that with all new enhancements in coming versions of LR, Topaz, NIK, and other programs, the need for having PS CC will drastically diminish.  

Having said that, if one day Adobe re-introduces the "Classic PS" including post CS5 updates, I would upgrade to it, but at this time, I'm not missing anything.
Most importantly, I'm not missing any of the troubles some PSCC users are experiencing with new updates and totally unnecessary activation gimmicks.  

[chez]

Well, firstly, anyone seeking an alternative to Photoshop CC doesn't have to adopt something else immediately. Fortunately, Adobe can't stop anyone from using CS6 for as long as it is feasible. There is time to allow other developers to prepare a worthy option. Keep in mind, those possible options really don't need to be an exact duplication of current Ps CC capabilities ... in fact, most photographers don't really need all that is capable in Ps.

Secondly, the "Photographer's Bundle" did not exist until there was an outcry for something other than what Adobe presented for CC last May. Don't you remember, Adobe had to "listen" for awhile and responded with a more palatable offering? Maybe a few of us are hoping that Adobe is still "listening."

The "harsh reality" is the vast majority of their traditional perpetual license holders are not embracing CC. While it may be interesting that having sub 2M CC subscribers is an indication of success ... that is still less than half of the number of CS6 licenses they sold in the first year CS6 existed. Add in the over 4M perpetual license holders of CS3-CS5 ... Adobe has a long way to go to convince those folks they need to get in line. That is about as real as it gets.

Adopting CC should be done because it is the best option available ... not submitting to it because it is perceived as the only option available.

Well, as far as I'm concerned...it is the best option available. I don't see anything on the horizon that will come close to what can be done in PS.

[ButchM]

I don't see anything on the horizon that will come close to what can be done in PS.

Just out of curiosity ... how many other options have you personally and thoroughly tested in the past year that would confirm your expert assessment?

I couldn't agree more that, today, Ps is the best possible option. Fortunately, my current version of Ps is much more than adequate for the relatively few projects I need it for. With the advent of Lr, Aperture and C1 ... Ps sees far less activity in my daily workflow. There is absolutely no compelling reason for me to hop on the perpetual monthly stipend merry-go-round any time soon. Especially considering doing so would not enhance my personal bottom line whatsoever.

Historically, enterprising entrepreneurs always seem to rise to the task and offer solutions when the market presents itself. I have little doubt, that in time (long before my current version of Ps will reach EOL) there will be a more acceptable option available.

I guess that is the difference in gauging whether you perceive the glass is half full ... or half empty ... I am wagering on half full.

[Rhossydd]

I understand that many don't like the Adobe subscription model.   I have a question:
What are you going to do about it?

Easy, not buy into it.
Photoshop is fantastic and definitely the best image editor, but version CS4 will be fine for me. The more recent versions don't add anything I find useful and have actually removed bits I use, so no need to upgrade.

I've tried out some of the alternatives and The Gimp and Photoline both have enough options to do what I do with PS.

If Lightroom goes subscription only, I'll just stick with the last perpetual licence version and migrate back to Capture One when I need to.

[LesPalenik]

The "harsh reality" is the vast majority of their traditional perpetual license holders are not embracing CC. While it may be interesting that having sub 2M CC subscribers is an indication of success ... that is still less than half of the number of CS6 licenses they sold in the first year CS6 existed. Add in the over 4M perpetual license holders of CS3-CS5 ... Adobe has a long way to go to convince those folks they need to get in line. That is about as real as it gets.

The irony is that normally, many of the PS CS3-CS6 users would have at some point upgraded to CS7. As it stands now, many of those users will never upgrade to the CC and some will migrate to other programs.

[chez]

The irony is that normally, many of the PS CS3-CS6 users would have at some point upgraded to CS7. As it stands now, many of those users will never upgrade to the CC and some will migrate to other programs.

Really, I'm hearing the opposite here. Most say their current version does everything they ever need. Why would they upgrade?

For me, I'd rather use the best product on the market to get the job done. My time is more important than a $10/month cost for the subscription. That same important time would be wasted looking for an alternative product that I know is not as complete as PS. To me, it makes no sense to waste time looking for an inferior product when the one I know inside and out and have been using for two years is available.

Sure I don't like the new subscription only model from Adobe, but that is what it is. I'm not going to hurt my processing skills and step back in time with abilities that are limited by some wannabe PS product just because I don't like Adobe's move. Frankly, from a financial sense, it costs me less today than it was 3 years ago...and that is a good thing.

I guess we all make our own choices. Hope everyone can get by their bitterness and find a system that works for them.

[Jim Pascoe]

I just dipped back into this thread and I am amazed it is still running!  The way I see it as a professional photographer is that the cost is very small compared to the utility of Photoshop.  For any amateur who is really serious about their photography then the cost is also very reasonable.  For the amateur who just dips into Photoshop now and then because they don't do much photography then perhaps Adobe's own Photoshop Elements would suffice.

The vast majority of amateurs I have met over the years were using a pirate version of Photoshop anyway so no loss to Adobe.  It's an expensive programme, and despite having read lots of the negative comments about the subscription model, I still cannot see how it is much more expensive for the vast majority who like to keep reasonably up to date with software anyway.  It seems the biggest complaint is the principle of the thing, and Adobe have made a decision.  It is just a product and not unique so customers can vote with their feet.  Time will tell.

Jim

[jjj]

For me, I'd rather use the best product on the market to get the job done. My time is more important than a $10/month cost for the subscription. That same important time would be wasted looking for an alternative product that I know is not as complete as PS. To me, it makes no sense to waste time looking for an inferior product when the one I know inside and out and have been using for two years is available.

Sure I don't like the new subscription only model from Adobe, but that is what it is. I'm not going to hurt my processing skills and step back in time with abilities that are limited by some wannabe PS product just because I don't like Adobe's move. Frankly, from a financial sense, it costs me less today than it was 3 years ago...and that is a good thing.

Someone a short while back in another thread, did a breakdown of the costs of moving from the perpetual licence to CC for his small design studio. And it was phenomenally more expensive.

The PS/LR bundle is I think pretty good value, but that only came about because of the huge outcry and interestingly the deadline for the this limited offer and who can take it, keeps being knocked back.
The other thing about the mere £8 p/m for pro photographers is that many now also do some video to make ends meet and then you suddenly need to pay £48p/m instead to get Premiere Pro as well. This I think is the main issue for CC, it's a bit all or nothing. If you use all the software it's a bargain, but the reality is very, very people will do that, so not so much of a bargain after all. Even when I did design + web work as well as photography stuff, I still never used all the Creative Suite.

[jjj]

I just dipped back into this thread and I am amazed it is still running!  The way I see it as a professional photographer is that the cost is very small compared to the utility of Photoshop.  For any amateur who is really serious about their photography then the cost is also very reasonable.  For the amateur who just dips into Photoshop now and then because they don't do much photography then perhaps Adobe's own Photoshop Elements would suffice.

Lightroom will actually do all the work most photographers require and that includes the pros. Photographers make up a surprisingly small percentage of PS users, less than 10%.

The vast majority of amateurs I have met over the years were using a pirate version of Photoshop anyway so no loss to Adobe.

But imagine if Adobe could make them customers.....