Adobe is going to only sell subscription based Photoshop [Archive]

Kirk Gittings

6-May-2013, 12:42

This is from Jeff Schewe, one of their contract developers.

Actually, they announced new aggressive upgrade pricing to the CC versions of apps which brings the price down-assuming you go with a longer term license.

Special pricing for existing customers
CS3 and later get Complete for $29.99
CS6 customers get Complete for $19.99
CS3 and later get Single App for $9.99
All offers require annual commitment

As far as the economics of the CC for Adobe, actually, it's been the success of the whole subscription model (and the technical difficulty in doing dual application versioning for subscription & perpetual licenses) that have driven Adobe toward doing this. Yes, it will alienate some users who reject the whole "cloud" thingie...which I understand (assuming the rejection is made based on real facts and not FUD).

As a book author, my life just way more complicated because I can't write for a fixed target with a known lifecycle...now it's a moving target that will be tough to do for paper based publishing (easier and perhaps better done with ebooks).

I'm also kinda melancholy about the whole change to the old model...as a long term alpha/beta tester, I always looked forward to a new dev cycle and seeing what the engineers came up with (and hammered on them to fix stuff). But this new model allows a freedom and flexibility that will, I think, lead to more rapid advances with new features on a more regular basis. But I'll miss the old way...

Edited to add the special offers...

Jeff Dexheimer

6-May-2013, 12:45

It looks to me like you validate your machine, then download the software. You either buy Creative Cloud at $50/mo and have access to a bunch of adobe software, of pay $30/month for access to just photoshop. With paid access you download the software and validate your machine once a month, so there is only a need networked once a month. You are fed updates when they are ready, assuming you have a internet connection, or when you are ready if your connection is periodic.

It might not have the upfront cost, but it will cost significantly more. If you upgrade periodically, like many do, every other product cycle, you pay $200 every 2 years. If you just get a photoshop subscription at $30/month that costs you $720 every 2 years.

C_Remington

6-May-2013, 12:49

Is Photoshop relavent to real photographers?
Pete.

Of course. Why wouldn't it be?????

Ken Lee

6-May-2013, 12:50

Is there a version of GIMP which supports 16-bit editing and embedded ICC profiles ?

BarryS

6-May-2013, 12:52

I think the low-priced upgrades subscriptions are introductory offers and can't be locked in past the first year. I love Netflix for $8/month and MOG for $15/month--the subscription model is great for media. PS and LR for $40-$50/month is excessive unless the apps are making you money.

invisibleflash

6-May-2013, 12:59

Is Photoshop relavent to real photographers?
Pete.

I only use Elements and an old version. Really just for printing and adding text. I use LR, NIK and AS.

Ken Lee

6-May-2013, 13:04

Is Photoshop relavent to real photographers?

By real, do you mean people who create lots of small image files and need to perform simple repetitive operations on many at a time ?

bob carnie

6-May-2013, 13:16

If I read this right it will be $600 per year for us as we need the full creative suite, rather than a single purchase once every four years.

It looks to me like you validate your machine, then download the software. You either buy Creative Cloud at $50/mo and have access to a bunch of adobe software, of pay $30/month for access to just photoshop. With paid access you download the software and validate your machine once a month, so there is only a need networked once a month. You are fed updates when they are ready, assuming you have a internet connection, or when you are ready if your connection is periodic.

It might not have the upfront cost, but it will cost significantly more. If you upgrade periodically, like many do, every other product cycle, you pay $200 every 2 years. If you just get a photoshop subscription at $30/month that costs you $720 every 2 years.

evan clarke

6-May-2013, 13:17

Pretty enjoyable to view this thread.. I don't care about any Adobe stuff, I make prints.. Sorry for the snotty response..

Ken Lee

6-May-2013, 13:21

Pretty enjoyable to view this thread.. I don't care about any Adobe stuff, I make prints.. Sorry for the snotty response..

Sorry, that's still a bit snooty. You don't care ? You make prints ?

Light Guru

6-May-2013, 13:23

Is Photoshop relavent to real photographers?
Pete.

So your saying that people who don"t print photos in the darkroom are not real photographers. That is a bunch of CRAP. There are many "real" photographers who shoot fully digital or who use hybrid film/digital process.

According to your logic you could day that people who use water colors are not real painters, or that photographers are not real artists.

Kirk Gittings

6-May-2013, 13:24

How old are some of you? So maybe we should shoot back something about the cost and availability of film? Come on this isn't high school and were not cheering for our team or taking pot shots at the rival team across town.

And yes I challenge anyone to prove I am not a "real photographer" Grow the f__k up. This is serious for some of us.

FWIW since my love is film and my paycheck comes from digital all of this kind of stuff affects me deeply. The last thing I need is more fixed overhead with no control of how I pay it. One of the reasons I survived the recession while most of my competitors filed bankruptcy was because I carry very little debt and fixed overhead. I HATE THIS.

paulr

6-May-2013, 13:27

I would happily participate in an angry public letter / petition.

bob carnie

6-May-2013, 13:28

Yes I agree with Kirk, my passion is film and my paycheck comes from digital.. Both can stand up to scrutiny.

Daniel Stone

6-May-2013, 13:29

I'll bet Google can come out with something better, and cheaper ;)

look at what they did with Nik software. Bought the company, then "bundled" the software all together for the (prior) cost of [1] program. I don't use those programs, but I know individuals who do, and are overjoyed at not having to pay $150/per, give or take.
Guess its good to be a luddite(of sorts).
Buy CS6(I'm still running CS4, and more than happy with it) and just don't upgrade anymore, just transfer the same software to new machines as you build/acquire/upgrade them down the road.

But tripling the price(more or less) sure might piss off a lot of individuals, and professionals...

-Dan

Leigh

6-May-2013, 13:32

The business model that all these companies hope to achieve is keystroke licensing.

They will charge a nominal fee (e.g. 1 cent) for each keystroke or mouse click.

It makes a whole lot more money for them.

This cloud nonsense is just the enabling mechanism for that business model.

- Leigh

Tin Can

6-May-2013, 13:34

I see it as inevitable. I signed up. It becomes a fixed cost, I can live with.

bob carnie

6-May-2013, 13:35

Now that is very scary , every click of the mouse..

The business model that all these companies hope to achieve is keystroke licensing.

They will charge a nominal fee (e.g. 1 cent) for each keystroke or mouse click.

It makes a whole lot more money for them.

This cloud nonsense is just the enabling mechanism for that business model.

- Leigh

Kirk Gittings

6-May-2013, 13:42

I really hope that some viable competition comes along.......

Kirk Gittings

6-May-2013, 13:45

I see it as inevitable. I signed up. It becomes a fixed cost, I can live with.

I will have to do it to. But I don't see it as a long term fixed cost-actually its only a fixed cost for you for one year. Not for the next or the next or......

Tin Can

6-May-2013, 13:47

I doubt it. The complete suite is decades in the making and constantly mutating. I have tried everything else. Not even close.

I really hope that some viable competition comes along.......

Tin Can

6-May-2013, 13:50

I like that Adobe has finally made it all work on both PC and Mac. I use both.

Where are the Linux boosters?

Light Guru

6-May-2013, 13:53

The monthly price for Photoshop from the cloud is $20 that's $5 a week. Skip a few trips to starbucks each week and get over it.

Kirk Gittings

6-May-2013, 13:53

Me and have for years-PC desktops and Mac laptops.

bob carnie

6-May-2013, 13:55

I have to agree with Randy , they really have a grasp of an region of my body few have completely reached.

I doubt it. The complete suite is decades in the making and constantly mutating. I have tried everything else. Not even close.

Lachlan 717

6-May-2013, 14:01

Kirk Gittings

6-May-2013, 14:04

The monthly price for Photoshop from the cloud is $20 that's $5 a week. Skip a few trips to starbucks each week and get over it.
That's the price now. They are keeping it low to beg off a lot of the predictable blow back. As they are a virtual monopoly, its not likely to stay low.

Light Guru

6-May-2013, 14:13

That's the price now. They are keeping it low to beg off a lot of the predictable blow back. As they are a virtual monopoly, its not likely to stay low.

Photoshop is one of the most pirated software out there. The move to subscription only is going to prevent that piracy. The more people who actually pay for it the better. More money to put into development of the product and also the ability to keep the cost of the subscription low.

Greg Miller

6-May-2013, 14:17

I have always upgraded when each new version came out. Not that really needed each new version other than being an educator I needed to stay up with the changes.

I will have to seriously consider living with Photoshop CS6 for as far out in time as I can conceive. That will probably last until I eventually upgrade to a computer that CS6 won't run on because of the underlying structure of the O/S or I get a new DSLR that isn't supported by Adobe Camera RAW. Either way that's probably several years down the road. Adobe won't get any more of my money until that happens.

Leigh

6-May-2013, 14:18

Photoshop is one of the most pirated software out there. The move to subscription only is going to prevent that piracy. The more people who actually pay for it the better. More money to put into development of the product and also the ability to keep the cost of the subscription low.
Wow. Have you bought into the propaganda.

It's widely pirated because it's overpriced. Pirating is legitimate competition to monopolies.
Pirating is illegal and unethical. So are monopolies.

Name one monopoly that's reduced its prices due to increased customer revenue.

- Leigh

Greg Miller

6-May-2013, 14:21

Do you feel that anything's missing from the current Edition?

If it's like many digital upgrades, it seems the more incarnations, the greater the diminished returns.

Perhaps just stick with the current (last non-subscription) Edition?

I agree. Adobe's timing is bad (should have done this many versions ago). Photoshop is so good now it is hard to imagine new features that I cannot live without. Where they will get many people is when they buy a new DSLR and need a versions of ACR that supports the RAW files for that camera. Adobe has always used that to force people to upgrade.

So there will be a good market opportunity for alternative quality RAW converters (some already exist).

rdenney

6-May-2013, 14:28

I would happily participate in an angry public letter / petition.

Me, too. I've paid a lot to keep Photoshop upgraded over the years, but I'm a low-volume user and this will increase what it costs me significantly.

But, even worse, it means I use a substantial portion of the very limited bandwidth I buy each month just downloading updates-without-the-option. These guys assume all their users live in big cities or along the west coast with FiOS or Uverse service. My internet access at home comes over a Verizon 4G modem--anything over 8G and I'm paying a freaking fortune for very single megabyte. And I'm lucky when that service works at all--I'm right on the fringe of coverage.

Monopolies suck. And free software like GIMP just makes it that much more difficult for people who need to eat to offer a commercial alternative to Photoshop that actually serves our needs.

Rick "needing a DISLIKE button" Denney

welly

6-May-2013, 14:30

An easy way to pay for the entire Creative Suite rather than a one off payment of thousands of dollars, only for that investment to be rendered useless in a years time, and no more upgrade costs? And I can pick and choose which applications I want to use?

Sign me up! I'm in!

Oh, I've already done so and Adobe have already lowered the price since I first subscribed to Creative Cloud. I would happily rent all my software if I could. Then I wouldn't pay for it when I wasn't using it.

Kodachrome25

6-May-2013, 14:37

I have a 3.33 6 core MacPro maxed out that serves my Nikon 9000ED scanner, I have no intention of upgrading anymore at this point. By the time my D800 is replaced by a new model, I will be done with digital nearly completely and just in time, this stuff is all BS...

welly

6-May-2013, 14:40

Me, too. I've paid a lot to keep Photoshop upgraded over the years, but I'm a low-volume user and this will increase what it costs me significantly.

But, even worse, it means I use a substantial portion of the very limited bandwidth I buy each month just downloading updates-without-the-option. These guys assume all their users live in big cities or along the west coast with FiOS or Uverse service. My internet access at home comes over a Verizon 4G modem--anything over 8G and I'm paying a freaking fortune for very single megabyte. And I'm lucky when that service works at all--I'm right on the fringe of coverage.

Monopolies suck. And free software like GIMP just makes it that much more difficult for people who need to eat to offer a commercial alternative to Photoshop that actually serves our needs.

Rick "needing a DISLIKE button" Denney

Updates work no different with creative cloud than they have done previously. It doesn't force updates on you every month. It has the same adobe updater application that you can easily choose to ignore.

Out of interest, have you done the maths to confirm that the monthly expense of creative suite would cost more than a yearly (or so) upgrade to the next version? For our office at work, the subscription model has worked out much cheaper. The upgrade from CS5 to CS6 would have cost us over $1000 per seat. The yearly Creative Cloud subscription is going to cost us $588.

Jeff Dexheimer

6-May-2013, 14:53

Updates work no different with creative cloud than they have done previously. It doesn't force updates on you every month. It has the same adobe updater application that you can easily choose to ignore.

Out of interest, have you done the maths to confirm that the monthly expense of creative suite would cost more than a yearly (or so) upgrade to the next version? For our office at work, the subscription model has worked out much cheaper. The upgrade from CS5 to CS6 would have cost us over $1000 per seat. The yearly Creative Cloud subscription is going to cost us $588.

For single use users, cloud is much more expensive. A photoshop subscription is $20 for the first year, then it goes up to $30 after that. If you compare the price of licensed software, updating every 2 years, you get CS2 = $600, upgrade to CS4 = $200, upgrade to CS6 = $200, totaling $1000 in 6 years.

Compare that to 6 years on the cloud subscription. Year 1 @ $20/ month = $240, years 2-6 (Assuming no further price increases) $30/month = $1800, or a total of $2040.

In six years time that more than double the cost to the single copy user. After that the difference just increases even further.

Greg Miller

6-May-2013, 15:02

For single use users, cloud is much more expensive. A photoshop subscription is $20 for the first year, then it goes up to $30 after that. If you compare the price of licensed software, updating every 2 years, you get CS2 = $600, upgrade to CS4 = $200, upgrade to CS6 = $200, totaling $1000 in 6 years.

Compare that to 6 years on the cloud subscription. Year 1 @ $20/ month = $240, years 2-6 (Assuming no further price increases) $30/month = $1800, or a total of $2040.

In six years time that more than double the cost to the single copy user. After that the difference just increases even further.

I think a more realistic price comparison is to use 18 months. That has been the Adobe update cycle, and with CS6 Adobe had announced that you could only upgrade from the most recent version.

Costs (assuming you already own a valid license which fits most of the people here):
Old model = $200 every 18 months
New model (first year at $20/month, next 6 months at $30/month): $420 for 18 months

The deal looks a different for someone just now purchasing Photoshop, but you still lose over the long run with the subnscription model.

Still a very lousy deal.

Drew Wiley

6-May-2013, 15:39

It's important to keep the flow of money going to all these bright-eyed bushy-tailed software engineers around here, so that
they can afford to shoot real film when they finally grow up!

Kirk Gittings

6-May-2013, 15:41

I think a more realistic price comparison is to use 18 months. That has been the Adobe update cycle, and with CS6 Adobe had announced that you could only upgrade from the most recent version.

Costs (assuming you already own a valid license which fits most of the people here):
Old model = $200 every 18 months
New model (first year at $20/month, next 6 months at $30/month): $420 for 18 months

The deal looks a different for someone just now purchasing Photoshop, but you still lose over the long run with the subnscription model.

Still a very lousy deal.

Yeah like they just doubled the cost.

Lenny Eiger

6-May-2013, 15:41

I hate Adobe. Someone said they have finally got it to work on Mac and PC. I use a Mac for editing and say they haven't gotten it together at all. It's still dog slow with a decent-sized file. It still takes forever to save. Its full of bugs. Listening them talk about Apple (and the reverse) is like hearing 3 year-olds argue.

This is simply an effort to 1) get more money out of you, and 2) get more access to your computer, your preferences, etc. so they can sell your life to targeted marketing.

Try installing Ghostery on your browser and see how many people are trying to track you. I also use an app called Cookie to dispense with cookies. It's a neverending battle. I'm sorry, I just don't want to buy that much....

To those that say they will never upgrade, what's going to happen in 5-7 years? Your printer will die and you will need a new one and you won't be able to print, or do other basic things. Tif may morph into something else. It's not realistic, given the changes that occur in a 10-year period. We didn't have smartphones 10 years ago...

Adobe's going to do what they're going to do. Being an imaging professional I will probably have to live with it. But I don't have to like it.
I'd be happy to sign on to a letter of protest, if someone writes it - maybe a change.org petition would be in order...

Lenny

bdkphoto

6-May-2013, 19:17

Yeah like they just doubled the cost.

For working professionals this is just part of the cost of doing business. I've been on the fence about it for a while but there's lots of folks who figured this out long ago. Add it to your production expenses at $xxx per job and move on if you need to stay current. If you are an educator it's a $20 month deal for the entire creative suite for the first year, then $30. That's a no brainer for me.

perfectedmaya

6-May-2013, 19:23

By real, do you mean people who create lots of small image files and need to perform simple repetitive operations on many at a time ?

hi

yes, the beta version support 16bit 32 bit

color management is supported, but i heard it is abit slow when turned on..

we must put our support for gimp.. they are going to implement layer adjustment etc.. they lack funds.. so given enough funds they can move fast and releasse all the features that are needed to level with PS..

Kirk Gittings

6-May-2013, 19:28

Kirk Gittings

6-May-2013, 19:32

Otto Seaman

6-May-2013, 19:33

I wish we had some higher end options not only for a Photoshop competitor but for InDesign and Illustrator as well. If only a developer removed about 500 Adobe "features" and gave us lean, fast applications, photographers and designers would flock to it. If it came in at half the price they'd see a multi-billion $ market overnight....

Why hasn't this happened yet? Did Adobe lock up the technology that well? Isn't that a monopoly, shouldn't there be an anti-trust case brought up?

perfectedmaya

6-May-2013, 20:00

Like what a decade late to the party?

no choice, this is the state of free software.. soem grow fast, some slower..

Amedeus

6-May-2013, 20:07

Why hasn't this happened yet?

Because it is not a multi-billion dollar industry overnight ...

Did Adobe lock up the technology that well?

They own a significant amount of patents, know-how and trade-secrets ... it takes time to overcome this all if you start from scratch ... I don't see anyone with a product that is overall even remotely close (I know this is debatable) ... there is other software out there but only covering a smallish portion of what Adobe does and whatever is out there is not necessarily "better" ... 100 users, 100 different opinions ...

Isn't that a monopoly, shouldn't there be an anti-trust case brought up?

It is not Adobe's "fault" there is no serious competition around and they are not necessarily engaged in practices that warrant "anti-trust" measures although I'm pretty sure a lot of users feel otherwise ...

Adobe is not the only company locking up their market and changing business model on their customers in a more or less unilateral way for a variety of "business" reasons ... in the end ... if you don't like them, don't use them ... and no one is prohibited from going after their market

I'm pretty sure though they'll follow the developments and their bottom line very closely and in the end, the latter dictates the course of action.

Henry Ambrose

6-May-2013, 20:46

I've been using PS since version 1. That means I've sunk a bunch of money with Adobe over the years and that I made that money and a little left over with their tools. I think its always been pricey, but it made good business sense. For whatever all that is worth.

By going "service" Adobe is hoping to keep their cash cows alive for a bit longer. While computers increased in capacity and speed over the years, mature software has lagged in real improvements. Believe it or not, you can get your work done on a 7-8 year old Mac and the same age PS, and not much slower but certainly just as good as the very latest and newest stuff. There is nothing more to innovate speed, power or quality wise for still pictures on the web. Photoshop is grown up now.

Paper publishing is shrinking, and software to do it is shrinking in sales along with it. (has been for a while) All that is left is to collect rent on the position the software publishers occupy and where there is some demand for their products. What you're seeing is not some hot new genius business model, its just plain old rent seeking. And I suppose they have earned it.

But its not going to be friendly to you. Adobe is firmly planted in the driver's seat and buckled in once this happens. We won't like it now and we won't like it later. But here it is. Expect to see more of this from other companies. In the meantime, this might be a good time to pick up a newer machine and a recent version of PS that does not have to "phone home". That should keep you safe for another 5-7 years. After that, bend on over.

Kirk Gittings

6-May-2013, 20:56

"After that, bend on over."

Ben Syverson

6-May-2013, 22:01

I think it's a good deal... I have a kneejerk reaction against subscription-based software, but ultimately it's worth it to me to pay $50 / month to have access to all of Adobe's products. I use Illustrator and Photoshop every day, and InDesign pretty often. Every once in a while I need After Effects. To get those four products "the old way" would necessitate a $2500 purchase (Master Collection) and expensive periodic upgrades.

To keep this on the topic of LF, Photoshop is really the only software that can handle the gigantic files we have to deal with. GIMP is great, but try opening a 2400 DPI 8x10 scan, dustbusting it, applying curves, sharpening and downsampling it for print. If you've ever used GIMP, you know how hilarious that last sentence is.

If you only need Photoshop, it's only $20 / month with no contract, whereas the previous version was $600 outright. That equates to two and a half years of use. After two and a half years, Adobe would be coming around to get your upgrade fee to the next Creative Suite. I prefer to just pay them monthly and get the latest software as it's available.

Obviously I'd like to have a free or cheaper alternative, but there's really nothing out there. Nothing even remotely close.

paulr

6-May-2013, 22:28

They're just going to split the market between those are willing and able to pay, those who will grudgingly switch to something less capable, and everyone else who will pirate the software. Which is just like now, but I'm betting the first group gets smaller and the third group larger.

Tin Can

6-May-2013, 22:48

I thought it was pretty tough to pirate the latest Adobe. I would never do that. I never see a PC guy pirate it, but all the Mac guys do it. And it seems they need to always get a new cracked password and waste more time than it's worth. I don't know what people think their time is worth. Mine is worth a lot.

$50 a month is cheap.

I don't have cable, OTA is fine. I don't have a cell phone, I use free VIOP. I do pay for DSL and keep a landline for 911 and toll free. I have wired phones every 10 feet, with the ringers off.

The point is, I need Adobe, good computers and DSL. I don't need a lot of other things that cost more.

They're just going to split the market between those are willing and able to pay, those who will grudgingly switch to something less capable, and everyone else who will pirate the software. Which is just like now, but I'm betting the first group gets smaller and the third group larger.

jonreid

6-May-2013, 22:57

Is Photoshop relavent to real photographers?
Pete.

"Real photographers" sheesh...

bdkphoto

6-May-2013, 23:03

Bruce....please. I've been at this since 1978. I know how to figure costs into my fees but in case you haven't noticed we are coming out of a recession and fees around here have been hammered. One example is editorial. In 2006 I was getting $2500 a day locally for editorial and turning down work right and left. Now it is $600-$800. Most of my competition filed bankruptsy during the recession (doesn't mean they have gone away) but not me because I watch all fixed expenses and debt like a hawk. Adobe has us by the balls and they know it. IMO the cost is seemingly low now to mitigate the blow back but once the dust settles and we are all renting their software-watch out. They will be coming for your wallet.

Sorry Kirk, I don't agree, the cost difference between buying the software and using the monthly model, especially when you can do the edu version that includes Premier, Indesign, and Acrobat Pro seems really minimal - it's $360 vs 200 for just photoshop, so its $160 +/- for premier, acrobat pro and all the other stuff you have to pay for anyway. I reserve my ire for Getty, Corbis and Google, they are placing far more downward pressure on our market. Adobe I can always mark up and recoup from my clients. Getty and Corbis - I can't do much about. When my assistants started using the subscription model, I found it was time to reevaluate. Recession or not this is not a big deal for you either way - it's lunch money. I think you know that too. The market has been really rough here in NY, though it has gotten better over the last few months - I got sick of the downward pressure so I decided to raise my rates. Guess what - I got busier and not one client said boo about it. Just food for thought.

Tin Can

6-May-2013, 23:14

Good point, most of you get Academic discounts. I haven't for 12 years.

welly

6-May-2013, 23:16

"Real photographers" sheesh...

He's referring to photographers with beards and photography waistcoats, not plebs like us.

Otto Seaman

7-May-2013, 04:11

He's referring to photographers with beards and photography waistcoats, not plebs like us.

Or were they the ones getting academic discounts?

Joe Smigiel

7-May-2013, 05:36

If you are an educator it's a $20 month deal for the entire creative suite for the first year, then $30. That's a no brainer for me.

I've been using an educator version of Photoshop CS3 extended for 6 years. The initial cost was just under $300 IIRC. That averages $50/year and I don't feel the need to update further given my limited use for the software. I'll be sticking to what I have.

rdenney

7-May-2013, 05:48

I'm an amateur, and I'm not a student. I do a little commercial work occasionally.

But none of that means I'm not interested in capable tools and techniques. I'm a large-format photographer, after all. I don't use this every day--more like a day or two a month. I can't pass the expense to customers (though I agree with Kirk that customers ultimately get to decide whether they will tolerate that). I don't have unlimited bandwidth, and at the current willingness of people in cities to support rural infrastructure development, I never will.

At the $20/month introductory price, Photoshop will cost me in 7-10 months what I used to spend every two years on upgrades. Keystroke pricing would absolutely squelch motivation for experimentation.

I wonder if people like me outnumber those of you shrugging this off as the cost of doing business. I bet we do.

I will continue to use what I have until it no longer works, and then consider my options.

Rick "thank you Adobe for ejecting me" Denney

Ben Syverson

7-May-2013, 05:53

Plenty of people run old or pirated copies of Adobe software. This change in the pricing doesn't really affect those people at all. Adobe's core business is the large pool of users who end up upgrading every 18-24 months, and from what I can tell, they all seem fine with it.

The good news is that for LF, just about any version of Photoshop will work. You can open a 2400 DPI 8x10 on a Mac IIci with Photoshop 1.0! Seriously, you can.

bob carnie

7-May-2013, 05:57

No Tilley hats are the big giveaway

He's referring to photographers with beards and photography waistcoats, not plebs like us.

RichardRitter

7-May-2013, 06:06

Well with dial up that makes it very hard to use their products. Down load would take hours maybe days .
At $50 per month that ends up being allot of film that will out last a digital file.

Jac@stafford.net

7-May-2013, 06:55

[...]Why hasn't this happened yet? Did Adobe lock up the technology that well? Isn't that a monopoly, shouldn't there be an anti-trust case brought up?

It will be interesting to see how the Euro-economy deals with this, given how sensitive some countries are about locked-in enterprises.

Ken Lee

7-May-2013, 07:03

hi

yes, the beta version support 16bit 32 bit

color management is supported, but i heard it is abit slow when turned on..

we must put our support for gimp.. they are going to implement layer adjustment etc.. they lack funds.. so given enough funds they can move fast and releasse all the features that are needed to level with PS..

Where is the download for the beta version ?

I'm trying the current version. It does keep improving - that's great.

For B&W we don't need a lot of bells and whistles, but 16 bit, layers, and decent sharpening is the key. Even ICC profiles is less important if we want to print with Quadtone RIP.

Len Middleton

7-May-2013, 07:03

No Tilley hats are the big giveaway

Bob,

Can they get those South of the border?

I will have to find out how your workshops went after I get back,

Len

bob carnie

7-May-2013, 07:11

If one is doing film separations for alt processes photoshop is critical.

Where is the download for the beta version ?

I'm trying the current version. It does keep improving - that's great.

For B&W we don't need a lot of bells and whistles, but 16 bit, layers, and decent sharpening is the key. Even ICC profiles is less important if we want to print with Quadtone RIP.

Brian C. Miller

7-May-2013, 08:00

Like what a decade late to the party?

"Free software" usually means that the developers aren't paid anything to develop it. Volunteer effort means exactly that: volunteer. For a while, GIMP wasn't being developed at all. And it's a real PITA to get the development environment up and running for GIMP. Not fun at all.

Where is the download for the beta version ?

Snapshot the source with a git sync, and then compile it. Oh, and you'll need to set up first for the prerequisites, and mind the various versions. You know the drill, right?

... Right?? :confused:
(And you are running Linux, right?)

Tin Can

7-May-2013, 08:06

From Adobe 5 minutes ago,

The education deal is back: Students and teachers receive a discount of 60%-70% off the regular price worldwide, and pay US$19.99/month for the complete Cloud.

Shootar401

7-May-2013, 08:38

Robert Brummitt

7-May-2013, 08:38

Well, I'll throw my hat into this debate as well.
I don't care what Adobe has chose to do. I openly oppose and never agree to any company that wants to attach my credit card account. It's just dangerous in my thinking. I get asked all the time to subscribe for this and that. I decline always. It's how you control your money. I don't even subscribe to any photography magazines! I rather go to my local bookstore and look at the issue and decide to purchase or not. Becasue I learned that not every issue contains material that I find interesting.

I don't care to rent software either. I like ownership. I like to say, "I worked for it and bought it...This is mine." I don't operate on the newest version of Photoshop. I still use PS CS3. It gives me what I want and I'm happy with it. I don't need 64 bit, I don't use much HDR and I don't care for 3D. These were all the improvements of later version of Photoshop from my CS3.

I understand that for the more professional photographer having the latest is best. You have to compete to make a living and renting software may make sense. I have seen many individuals and companies go under because investment of software and hardware. Those investments then are up for sale when times get tough. But, I'm not in that boat and I think Adobe should think of those like myself.
I don't like the hard sales. I don't like hard sales tactics. It makes me think "Why?". Adobe is trying too hard to sell me to use their Cloud and now they are forcing it on all of us. Why? I like having options! I like have choice! It's what truly drives the economy. Adobe is taking those choices away from us. "It's my ball and you'll play what I want to play". With Adobe, "It's our software and you'll pay as you go and that's that!"
Sorry no.

Ben Syverson

7-May-2013, 09:26

Say you're using CS3. CS3 was announced in 2007. It's now a full six years later... You weren't willing to pay $600 for CS4, CS5 or CS6, and now you're not willing to pay $20 / month for CC. Nothing has changed from Adobe's perspective: they're still not getting money out of you. Nothing has changed from your perspective: you're going to use CS3 regardless. So in the end nothing has changed.

Keep in mind that the target market for Photoshop is professional graphic designers, not photographers. Photoshop is a crucial tool for designers in all media, including print, web, video, interactive, etc. They are who buys the software. It's often necessary for them to have the latest version, because they're getting newer files from clients and colleagues. A subscription service is ideal for this group. If you get an InDesign file unexpectedly, you can just download InDesign and fire it up.

This is a good move for Adobe's actual customers. Everyone else will either find an alternative or become a customer. Sadly for us on this forum, there are no alternatives that can handle giant files, and it's not likely that there ever will be. It's a very small niche.

Tin Can

7-May-2013, 09:33

Well, put Ben.

Say you're using CS3. CS3 was announced in 2007. It's now a full six years later... You weren't willing to pay $600 for CS4, CS5 or CS6, and now you're not willing to pay $20 / month for CC. Nothing has changed from Adobe's perspective: they're still not getting money out of you. Nothing has changed from your perspective: you're going to use CS3 regardless. So in the end nothing has changed.

Keep in mind that the target market for Photoshop is professional graphic designers, not photographers. Photoshop is a crucial tool for designers in all media, including print, web, video, interactive, etc. They are who buys the software. It's often necessary for them to have the latest version, because they're getting newer files from clients and colleagues. A subscription service is ideal for this group. If you get an InDesign file unexpectedly, you can just download InDesign and fire it up.

This is a good move for Adobe's actual customers. Everyone else will either find an alternative or become a customer. Sadly for us on this forum, there are no alternatives that can handle giant files, and it's not likely that there ever will be. It's a very small niche.

Greg Miller

7-May-2013, 09:49

A subscription service is ideal for this group. If you get an InDesign file unexpectedly, you can just download InDesign and fire it up.

Where do you see that option? Everything I see requires a 1 year commitment.

This is a price increase for me - and I consider myself an actual Adobe customer. I use Photoshop CS6. I upgrade every 18 months for $200. A 1 year commitment at $19/month is $228. If an 18 month subscription were available it would be $342 (assuming same $19/month). That's a 70% price increase. I find that very hard to be happy about.

Ben Syverson

7-May-2013, 10:13

Where do you see that option? Everything I see requires a 1 year commitment.
You have a few options.

• $20 / month for one app, with a one year contract.
• $30 / month for one app, with no contract.
• $50 / month for all the apps, with a one year contract.
• $75 / month for all the apps, with no contract.

What I was saying is that if you're paying the $50 / month, and you get an InDesign file, you can just download InDesign. That's the plan I've had for over a year. It's really handy if you routinely need more than one Adobe app. If you only need PS, then $20 makes more sense.

rdenney

7-May-2013, 10:17

Ben, I guess those payments I made to Adobe don't make me a customer. I figure they've gotten at least a kilobuck out of me just for PS, and never once had to provide me support.

They pretty routinely got my upgrade money every couple of versions, exactly consistent with the price they asked.

Yes, Adobe products are popular with professional graphic designers. But Hasselblad was a standard for professional photographers, too, but it was still amateur customers who they depended on for volume. Nearly all my photographer friends outside of a few of you guys are amateurs, and nearly all of them maintain Photoshop within a version or two of current. This change will punish them.

Maybe Adobe doesn't want amateur customers. But given the trend of increasing amateurization of photography and graphic arts, this might be shortsighted.

One solution for them would be a stripped down version that includes only features needed by photographers--removing all the CMYK prepress support, for example--and selling it at reduced price. But it would need 16-bit support, adjustment layers, large file handling, lens corrections, selection and filtering, color management, and RAW support.

Lightroom and the SE version don't support amateur photographer use cases, particularly those that involve scanning.

We've had to maintain old hardware and (often) software for scanning, and it looks as though we'll have to do it for this as well. I just wish I had an unlimited broadband option where I live--I couldn't suck this up even if I wanted to.

Rick "who already has to keep Adobe from burning up all his bandwidth with Acrobat Reader updates" Denney

Tin Can

7-May-2013, 10:23

I might add, that I want the whole suite and have years, but the initial buyin was just too great. I prefer my gateway drug cost of one year at $30 a month with contact, that rises to $50 a month after a year.

I get it all now.

I find it very strange that some of the obvious educators here are complaining about THEIR great deal. .edu discounts are a great buy for lifetime academicians!

Greg Miller

7-May-2013, 10:30

You have a few options.

• $20 / month for one app, with a one year contract.
• $30 / month for one app, with no contract.
• $50 / month for all the apps, with a one year contract.
• $75 / month for all the apps, with no contract.

What I was saying is that if you're paying the $50 / month, and you get an InDesign file, you can just download InDesign. That's the plan I've had for over a year. It's really handy if you routinely need more than one Adobe app. If you only need PS, then $20 makes more sense.

Here's the page I am looking at - there is not $30 option wioth no contract: https://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html. Even if there is one the price now goes up to $540/year. Almost as much as buying CS6 outright.

My guess is most people who would pony up for $50/month are already using InDesign a fair amount of the time. I'm sure not going to pay $50/month when I only need /want Photoshop. The people for whom $50 makes sense under this model need to be using at least 3 apps of the suite. InDesign is one of the major apps design firms use, so they would only benefit by having access to one of the sattelite apps.

Ben Syverson

7-May-2013, 10:49

Here's the page I am looking at - there is not $30 option wioth no contract: https://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html. Even if there is one the price now goes up to $540/year. Almost as much as buying CS6 outright.
Greg, click on the $20 / month option. On the next screen, you can select $30 / month with no contract. If you have a CS3 or higher license, it goes down to $10 / month (WITH a contract).

In any case, there are a few options.

Greg Miller

7-May-2013, 10:53

Greg, click on the $20 / month option. On the next screen, you can select $30 / month with no contract. If you have a CS3 or higher license, it goes down to $10 / month (WITH a contract).

In any case, there are a few options.

Got it - thanks.

Given that there still are any options that are even close to making sense for me.

Rain Dance

7-May-2013, 10:58

Isn't Adobe owned by a guy from India? This should explain a lot.

How does that explain anything?

Chuck S.

7-May-2013, 11:09

For us low volume/intermittent/amateur users, would the no-contract option allow one to simply pay the $30 for a month here and a month there of intensive editing, and zip for those months when we're not that active or interested?

bob carnie

7-May-2013, 11:10

How does Lightroom fit into all of this, I use it daily along side PS.

marfa boomboom tx

7-May-2013, 11:17

How does Lightroom fit into all of this, I use it daily along side PS.

Q. How much will Lightroom 5 cost?

A. We do not have pricing information to share at this time.

Q. Will Lightroom 5 be included as part of Adobe Creative Cloud?

A. Yes. Lightroom 5 will be delivered to Creative Cloud members at no extra charge when it’s available.

Q. Will I still be able to purchase Lightroom 5 outside of the Creative Cloud

A. Yes. Lightroom 5 will continue to be available as a standalone product, available for purchase as an Electronic Software Download(ESD) or as a boxed product with a traditional perpetual license.

marfa boomboom tx

7-May-2013, 11:46

...edtd... Everyone else will either find an alternative or become a customer. Sadly for us on this forum, there are no alternatives that can handle giant files, and it's not likely that there ever will be. It's a very small niche.

see phase one:
http://www.digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/10-off-capture-one-purchases-upgrades

P1 handles Phase 180/280 files with ease.

(i know the coupon is dead. knife fork spoon.)

Mark Stahlke

7-May-2013, 12:01

Robert Brummitt

7-May-2013, 12:01

I am just a photographer. I work in a graphic arts dept but for my personal work I just use Photoshop and Lightroom. I have no need for the cloud, I have no need for most of the other software Adobe supplies. I can use them at work but at home it's Lightroom and Photoshop. By doing what I want, Adobe wants me gone. They are forcing me into what they want. Not giving me any choice. Pay or play?
What I see is Adobe using two market strategies. Both I find loathsome.

First is the automotive industry's Leasing programs that is geared for those who have to have the newest car. So, you pluck down your downpayment and make your monthly payment for 3 years and at the end, You have to return the car. It's not yours. Then the dealers will sell that car. Adobe can't do that.
Second marketing strategy is the Time share. My in-laws bought into this some years back. They pay their monthly payments and use it. That is all good and fine but you are limited. Your money is locked in to one or a few at best locations. You don't have choices.

To the gentlemen who say I'm not an Adobe customer. I am an Adobe customer. I may not wish to upgrade or subscribe but that does not mean I'm not a customer. What happen to the phrase, "Once a customer, always a customer"? Adobe figures that they have us over a borrow. They figure that between camera upgrades, software and hardware upgrades eventually, I and those like me will have to get the newest version of Photoshop. And that is this how monopolies act! This is why the consumer always feels cheated.

To the gentleman who says my version of Photoshop still is licensed to Adobe. That maybe so. But, I'm pretty sure that when I bought it. I registered it as mine with Adobe. It belongs to me. I'm not to share it! But I can sell it. I also know that if I were to sell the software, I and the buyer would have to do a transfer of ownership before Adobe. I know this because I had done it.

The thing that is bothersome to me is that Adobe wants to be attached to my credit card. That is dangerous! If you always want to have a constant drain on your credit. Go for it! I don't want that. It's not a good thing. Another thing, to the gentleman who say use the cloud off and on. What if you forgot to turn it off and say something happen to you. What if got laid up and are not around for 6 months. At $50 a month. That is $300 gone! You may call up Adobe or another subscription service and explain and they'll probably say we don't care, go Talk to your Credit card service. Ever done that?! It's not good.

Otto Seaman

7-May-2013, 12:41

So I can use my CS6 version until hardware and OS updates render it incompatible, probably two to six years down the line depending on my speed of upgrading?

And by 2015 either there will be a credible competitor to Photoshop - perhaps Google's Nik acquisition is their preliminary step in that direction? - OR I simply buck up and pay $30 for the month(s) that I want to use Photoshop.

Perhaps I will get by using Lightroom and scanning apps and only rent Photoshop when I know that I will need to do pixel editing, perhaps only during the darkest nights of Winter?

So possibly I could actually save money with this. And if I am pressured to be using the latest version of Photoshop from the Creative Cloud, then business is good enough that the price doesn't matter?

Bottom line is that I will opt for the least expensive option and have lost all loyalty to Adobe (not that it wasn't already waning). A good competitor could sell a lot of $350 software boxes if they had a decent alternative.

Jac@stafford.net

7-May-2013, 12:51

I registered it as mine with Adobe. It belongs to me. I'm not to share it! But I can sell it

I am sure you are honest. However, technically Adobe owns it, and you license it.

Just a word from the last version of Photoshop I bought - the student version. It is a full CS5 (12.1 x64) version, with the only difference a statement in the ULA that transfer of the product is prohibited.

I appreciate your information regarding the credit card charge. Scarey!

Greg Miller

7-May-2013, 13:00

However, technically Adobe owns it, and you license it.

I don't think that is correct. When you purchase the software, you own the license.

Snippets form Adobes site (emphasis mine):

If you sell or give your Adobe software to an individual or business, you can transfer the license accordingly. Transferring the license allows the new owner to register the software in their name.

Requirements to transfer a license:

You must initiate the product transfer as the current owner of the product license. The receiver of the license (transferee) cannot initiate this process.

Jac@stafford.net

7-May-2013, 13:07

I don't think that is correct. When you purchase the software, you own the license. [...]

Thank you for the correction, Greg. The wording is important.

Ben Syverson

7-May-2013, 13:30

If you're not dealing with large scans, Lightroom is all you need. The local adjustments have improved dramatically, and you can now do virtually any kind of photo cleanup or prep within the app. It's fantastic.

I personally wouldn't want to open 8x10 scans in Capture One, but it's worth a try. Those scans are still over 4X larger than the biggest files from a medium format digital back, and my guess is that Capture One wants to load the entire image into RAM. Well, if you've got a $40,000 back, odds are you can afford 32 gigs of RAM anyway.

People will definitely seek out alternatives, which is a good thing. Competition benefits everyone in the equation, including Adobe. That said, I don't envy anyone setting out to make a Photoshop killer. What's more likely is that developers will make specialized apps to compete with particular use-cases for Photoshop. But odds are they will run on your tablet or iPhone, since that's where the money is these days.

Corran

7-May-2013, 14:32

I've been discussing this with some photographer friends and also educators.
The consensus is that none of us will be upgrading past what we have (I use CS5, a friend uses 3!). Frankly, it does all I need. Since I'm on a smokin' custom-build PC with a SSD it's also fast.

Anyway, this won't stop pirating and it's not designed to. How hard do you think it will be to disable the dll or whatever that calls back to Adobe to check your subscription is still valid? Or redirect it. Probably easier to pirate than now. No, what this does is lock in huge schools and corporations into a perpetual monthly fee, which I imagine will be a huge profit increase for Adobe.

Jac@stafford.net

7-May-2013, 14:51

I've been discussing this with some photographer friends and also educators.

When I was in higher Ed we had a site license which allowed 'n' active sessions of Adobe whatever at a time. Gotta check how that might change.

How hard do you think it will be to disable the dll or whatever that calls back to Adobe to check your subscription is still valid?

Pretty hard because they use in-line code to check network time/date. No dll. Messing with the PC's date won't help. The license code is in the downloaded executable. Adobe is smart enough.

Ben Syverson

7-May-2013, 14:52

Anyway, this won't stop pirating and it's not designed to. How hard do you think it will be to disable the dll or whatever that calls back to Adobe to check your subscription is still valid? Or redirect it. Probably easier to pirate than now. No, what this does is lock in huge schools and corporations into a perpetual monthly fee, which I imagine will be a huge profit increase for Adobe.
Adobe already had some kind of mechanism to check for activation every 30 days, because that's how the demo versions worked. So my guess is that the new crack will be pretty similar to the old crack. Activation has been network-based for a couple CS versions at least, so I doubt this will give the pirates much of a challenge.

Corran

7-May-2013, 15:05

Jac - yes that's how we are doing it here at the university I work at. Now the school will be paying $50 * however many total open sessions allowed per month - I think at least 300 here possibly, or $15,000/month. Wow! Might as well make it free for small businesses really.

I have to agree with Ben - it'll be cracked within weeks, maybe days.

Ed Kelsey

7-May-2013, 15:31

I just bought a little program called Pixelmator on the Apple store for $15. I haven't really tried to use it yet but it does have a much prettier face than PS. Supposedly does layers and stuff. I'd never buy into the Creative Clown. I have PS6 and will use it until it doesn't work anymore.

Greg Miller

7-May-2013, 15:40

If you're not dealing with large scans, Lightroom is all you need. The local adjustments have improved dramatically, and you can now do virtually any kind of photo cleanup or prep within the app. It's fantastic.

They have improved. But IMHO they still feel very rough and clumsy compared to the tools in Photoshop.

I also don't do much in Lightroom or ACR in terms of contrast or saturation changes, because if, for example, you change contrast you also affect hue and saturation. So I prefer to wait to change contrast and saturation (almost always decreasing saturation) until the image is in Photoshop where I can affect only contrast or only saturation individually by using blending modes.

Ben Syverson

7-May-2013, 16:37

They have improved. But IMHO they still feel very rough and clumsy compared to the tools in Photoshop.
I wish I had LR's tools within Photoshop. The way you can use the brush to "paint in" exposure and then adjust it with a slider is like dodging and burning on steroids. It's what they were trying to do with layer masks in Photoshop, but it's much quicker and easier to adjust in LR.

I also don't do much in Lightroom or ACR in terms of contrast or saturation changes, because if, for example, you change contrast you also affect hue and saturation. So I prefer to wait to change contrast and saturation (almost always decreasing saturation) until the image is in Photoshop where I can affect only contrast or only saturation individually by using blending modes.
Interesting point—I don't often use those color-based blending modes in Photoshop (such as Saturation, Color, Luminosity), but it's true that LR doesn't have that capability. You can always adjust the saturation up or down manually... Even when a color appears to go "out of range" in LR, it can be brought back using saturation or some other tool. Internally it's linear ProPhoto RGB with no cap on the range.

Greg Miller

7-May-2013, 16:44

I wish I had LR's tools within Photoshop. The way you can use the brush to "paint in" exposure and then adjust it with a slider is like dodging and burning on steroids. It's what they were trying to do with layer masks in Photoshop, but it's much quicker and easier to adjust in LR.

I can think of a variety of ways to do this in Photoshop with adjustment layers, a paint brush (with much more control over brush shape, size, and opacity), and opacity slider. And using Luminosity blending mode you won;t affect hue or saturation in the process.

Brian Ellis

7-May-2013, 16:56

Is Photoshop relavent to real photographers?
Pete.

God, that's clever Pete - "real photographers" (as opposed to unreal photographers I suppose) Did you think of that all by yourself?

Try "relevant" next time.

Brian Ellis

7-May-2013, 17:08

Pretty enjoyable to view this thread.. I don't care about any Adobe stuff, I make prints.. Sorry for the snotty response..

Does it make you feel better to insult the many people here who make their prints using Photoshop?

KOG

7-May-2013, 19:06

Where I work we use multiple copies of CADD software. The software company has been pushing for several years, to get all users of the software onto a subscription. (Which would drive up our costs.) An insider told me it was to show investors that the software could generate a larger steady cash flow, instead of just maintenance fees.

I imagine Adobe is thinking the same thing.

Kevin

Tin Can

7-May-2013, 20:35

I had to deal with that at my former and last employer. 'Never Again' to steal a sad litany.

I certainly hope they had to buy it all again as Adobe license was all in my name. Luddites.

A problem for those whose work computers never go online. CS6 was like pulling teeth to get it loaded and activated without an internet connection.

Add in very slow connections and you have even more problems.

8-May-2013, 05:34

I bought into it. I like it. $20/mo is reasonable for high end software. I like the free alternatives to PS, but they aren't as fast or capable. I like capture NX2 as well. I just couldn't spring the big bucks up front for photoshop and not know when the upgrade schedule was when I'd have to pay again.

The only downside is that if they have a quality slump, I won't be able to skip over it.

I can understand businesswise that subscription is preferable to feast or famine release cycles. They've got staff and programmers to pay at all times, not just when someone wants to buy something. It should reduce the hype and vaporware associated with marketing something that's not out yet in order to promote a new version cycle too.

jnantz

8-May-2013, 05:34

its too bad there isn't another company making a similar program ..

at least lightroom is still stand-alone ( knock wood )

jonreid

8-May-2013, 05:53

Isn't Adobe owned by a guy from India? This should explain a lot.
That's little more than a very racist comment.

Brian Ellis

8-May-2013, 06:05

I bought Photoshop 4.0 about 10-12 years ago. Since then I've bought every upgrade through CS6 at a cost of about $195 each, on average about every three years, or about $65 a year. Am I correct that now I'm supposed to pay $20 a month for Photoshop to stay current or roughly $720 over the three or so years that used to cost $195? If so I'll just keep my CS6 disc and use it forever. CS6 does all I need to do and much more.

Brian Ellis

8-May-2013, 06:26

In a corporate environment, is software a capital expense?
Will subscription based software become an operating expense?
What are the accounting and tax ramifications?

There must be someone here who has an accounting background and can answer questions like this.

I don't know about accounting treatment but for federal income tax purposes a monthly software license fee would normally be deducted as a current expense each year (unless it's prepaid for a period longer than a year, in which case it would be amortized over the period for which it was paid). If purchased it would normally be a capital cost, amortized over the life of the software (three years for tax purposes).

As you might expect, it's not really quite that simple - there's a 50% bonus depreciation deduction, there's software bundled with the hardware vs separately purchased software, there's software that's developed internally rather than being purchased, etc. etc. But the above is the general idea.

Brian Ellis

8-May-2013, 06:36

It's important to keep the flow of money going to all these bright-eyed bushy-tailed software engineers around here, so that
they can afford to shoot real film when they finally grow up!

Geez, another one. For the life of me I can't grasp the mentality of someone who inserts a message in a Photoshop thread just to dump on those who use Photoshop.

FYI - many people who shoot "real film" (is there such a thing as unreal film?) also use Photoshop. There's no such dichotomy as "film or Photoshop." They're not mutually exclusive.

Deane Johnson

8-May-2013, 07:15

Here's a company that makes outstanding software at very reasonable prices. I've used several pieces of it for years, including their excellent Web Design software. Their PhotoPlus is pretty good. Is it as good as PhotoShop? Certainly not. Nothing is as good as PhotoShop, but look at the price.

http://www.serif.com/photoplus/

BTW, I'm not connected with Serif in any way, only a purchaser of the products. I post this simply as informational for those who might be looking for an alternative to the rising costs of Photoshop. I have both Photoshop and PhotoPlus available and I still go to Photoshop as my first choice.

8-May-2013, 07:24

gimp and pl32 are also alternatives.

jnantz

8-May-2013, 09:09

No way in hell I'm going to pay $50 or so dollars a month for a piece of software I use 3 times a month (if that). I'm not a professional, photography is a hobby for me and I can't justify paying that much. And sorry to say this, but a cracked and pirated version of the next PS is looking better and better if they continue this BS.

Isn't Adobe owned by a guy from India? This should explain a lot.

why would you think, as a hobbyist who uses PS maybe 3 times a month anyone would suggest you
subscribe to it? i'm using a 5 year old version of cs2 on an even older g5 and g4 ... and even though
i shoot professionally i have not upgraded my system or PS software to the current versions.
a new laptop or mini loaded will run me at least 2K and then the current version of PS so i could upgrade to
the cloud + subscribe platform would cost me a chunk of change too. not going to do it anytime soon.

big deal if adobe being owned by someone from india ... i am sure there are some very skilled people
from all over the planet working for adobe no matter where they are from.

your comments explain a lot

paulr

8-May-2013, 09:19

Petitioning has begun. (http://www.ephotozine.com/article/petition-to-bring-back-adobe-creative-suite-grows-in-support-21921)

Petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model) at change.org.

Tin Can

8-May-2013, 09:22

Signed

Petitioning has begun. (http://www.ephotozine.com/article/petition-to-bring-back-adobe-creative-suite-grows-in-support-21921)

Petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model) at change.org.

Lenny Eiger

8-May-2013, 09:47

Signed

Ben Syverson

8-May-2013, 09:48

Best way to vote is with your dollars... Adobe is a public company. If their profits take a dive this quarter, they'll bring back CS. Otherwise...

Tin Can

8-May-2013, 09:48

This thread is done, because it will now be a series of 'signed'

Tin Can

8-May-2013, 09:50

Adobe claims millions of customers, we will not make a dent, if true.

Preston

8-May-2013, 09:52

Best way to vote is with your dollars... Adobe is a public company. If their profits take a dive this quarter, they'll bring back CS. Otherwise...

My sentiment, exactly.

I did sign the petition.

Both actions will help.

--P

Eric James

8-May-2013, 12:10

I've been upgrading Photoshop every other edition. For the CS4 to CS6 upgrade I paid $200 plus WA sales tax; roughly four years after upgrading I would have upgraded to "CS8" for a similar price. For four years of Photoshop CC my cost would be $1050 with tax.

When VP of Adobe Creative Solutions was asked: "How do you justify the price increase to photographers?", he dodged the question by saying: "Last year we actually cut the price of Lightroom in half in order to open it up to a broader market of photographers."

I'll milk at least three more years out of CS6 and find a suitable (non-Adobe) replacement in 2016.

Struan Gray

8-May-2013, 12:33

The problem is not the price. Yes it stings that the price has been raised, but that is not what really matters here.

The real problem is that once you stop paying your subscription, you have nothing usable. Adobe's solution is to use an older legacy copy of the non-subscription software. Good luck finding one of those (legally) a year or so from now.

There is no way for the impecunious amateur to make do with trailing edge technology. Photoshop is no longer a tool, it's a handyman who won't work on tick.

It's as if all book publishers decided that in future books could only be read in subscription-only reading rooms.

Tin Can

8-May-2013, 12:39

This is the history of all things 'Legacy Digital', unsupported OS, no drivers, no hard parts. Obsolete is the industry standard.

I, at first objected to VueScan, but it has proven it's worth and made most of my 'Legacy' scanners work. The VueScan upgrade for life model applied to PS and LR would be great!

rdenney

8-May-2013, 15:22

Adobe claims millions of customers, we will not make a dent, if true.

What makes you think our issues are so unique?

Rick "who has many photography friends, all of whom are adversely affected" Denney

rdenney

8-May-2013, 15:29

Struan, I would say the problem is not only the price.

But you raise other even more valid reasons for my current plan, which is to stand pat with my current version and wait for better days.

I'm annoyed that Adobe thinks Light Room is all that photographers might need.

Rick "voting with his wallet and also signed the petition" Denney

paulr

8-May-2013, 18:05

Struan's summary is dead on. This is the first time you've been forced to pay on an exact schedule, and the first time the company could take a working product away from you. I'm fundamentally not ok with it. And I don't think we're in a minority here; this isn't like trying to protest the discontinuation of some silver paper that only five of us knew about in the first place.

David Lobato

8-May-2013, 18:59

I know a few people who have Photoshop but haven't had the time or the motivation to learn it. It's another one of those software items most people, who have the money, buy out of adherence to popular wisdom. They just as well should be using iPhoto or an equivalent.

How can Adobe know how many registered users fit this category? But, when the new payment schedule hits them my guess is these less than casual users will decline the monthly payments on something that has been "gathering dust" on their computers. That's a significant amount of customers Adobe shouldn't count on to be in their egg basket.

Tyler Boley

8-May-2013, 19:36

the fact is a lot of extremely talented individual artists use and depend on Photoshop. There are many users who won't really feel this, corporate users, shops with decent cash flow, lots of employees, and of course the very high end commercial guys.. they'll just do it.. no prob. The crux of this for many of us, the other 99%, is what Kirk mentioned much earlier.
For individual fine and/or commercial artists the economy remains in the toilet. Before I turned down my last request for an assignment from a long term good client, their budget was less then 5% of what it was in better years. Five percent. All my costs had been escalating despite the economy. Rent, health care, you name it.. constant digital camera upgrades.. My day rate ended up about half of what it was, and fighting for any usage just became a constant drudgery. Then for fine art, my main gallery closed, two other galleries had major layoffs and most of us had to go pick up our work.
So when people suggest we can easily pass these new costs on to our clients.. they must be in the 1% with their eyes closed to the rest of the world. My last sale from Getty was .. gee, I can't recall if it was over a dollar or not...
Lightroom ain't gonna do what I need to do. Let's face it, Adobe along with Apple and most of our large tech suppliers left any concern for the high high end and individual innovators behind some time ago. Where's the new Edwin Land? Catering to the best of the best just because?
On another list people are saying this opens the door to competition, who are they kidding, there's no competition in this walmart world any more.
OK, end of rant.
Tyler

willwilson

8-May-2013, 20:34

Photoshop has always been overpriced. It's now going to be way overpriced. Honestly, what do you expect from Adobe. Instead of making their product better to drive sales they are trapping the customers who can't do without it. Hopefully they will run it in to the ground soon, Google can buy it, and make it free.

Ben Syverson

8-May-2013, 20:57

If Google buys Adobe, that will be the last time I open Photoshop. I don't trust software written by advertising companies.

If it ever gets really bad, I promise to write an app for us LF shooters. I wrote a Mac app for color correcting gigantic files a couple years ago... I could add layers, the clone stamp, healing brush, etc, pretty easily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLJHp7fSLj0

Around the same time, I created a web based image editor. You can see our prankster version of it here:

Satromizer Online (http://satromizer.com/online/)

If you switch the Satromizer to RGB (Image > RGB), you can use the paint, clone stamp, blend and healing (patch) brushes.

I have another software project called Mattebox... It's an iPhone camera app. Working on that taught me how to read and write Photoshop files with layers. So if you put those three things together, you could get something that does most of what we need Photoshop to do. It wouldn't have lens flares and difference clouds, but you know... you gotta draw the line somewhere.

Tin Can

8-May-2013, 21:28

Whoa, Ben.

Build those cameras.

You have many talents.

Nathan Potter

8-May-2013, 21:34

welly

8-May-2013, 22:03

I'm not sure why anyone would want to actually buy software. It's worse than a motor vehicle for devaluation. When I look at all the software I've paid for in the past, it's the most worthless investment I can possibly think of. Not only does software become outdated almost as soon as you buy it, continually improving hardware ensures software is outdated even quicker. I'd have rented all my software if it was possible and then I wouldn't have thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of useless software sat gathering dust in various boxes in the garage.

Tin Can

8-May-2013, 22:41

And remember when it all came with giant heavy tomes of instruction and documentation. I threw out at least 100 lbs of that just from Adobe.

Microsoft was just as bad.

I try to use Open Office, or Libre' as it now, but it is crap.

All the hardware, for many years I bought a new computer every 18 months, I like backup.

it is unbelievable how much digital photo biz costs, not even considering printers and supplies.

All obsolete.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to actually buy software. It's worse than a motor vehicle for devaluation. When I look at all the software I've paid for in the past, it's the most worthless investment I can possibly think of. Not only does software become outdated almost as soon as you buy it, continually improving hardware ensures software is outdated even quicker. I'd have rented all my software if it was possible and then I wouldn't have thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of useless software sat gathering dust in various boxes in the garage.

mdm

8-May-2013, 23:07

My subscription to Photoshop costs AUD19.99 per month or about $240 per anum. What is the fuss about?

Tin Can

8-May-2013, 23:10

I have lost the thread.

You gotta pay to play.

Is all I know.

My subscription to Photoshop costs AUD19.99 per month or about $240 per anum. What is the fuss about?

Kirk Gittings

8-May-2013, 23:12

David with 18 month upgrades I was paying about half that. They just doubled the price.

Corran

8-May-2013, 23:31

All the hardware, for many years I bought a new computer every 18 months, I like backup.

it is unbelievable how much digital photo biz costs, not even considering printers and supplies.

All obsolete.

!!!
Wow. I build myself a new computer every 3-4 years. I can't imagine buying new computers so often. If anything breaks, which is rare, I can either buy a replacement part and install it that day from Best Buy or if I want to save a bit of money and don't need a rush job I will order it online...

Digital photography, just like film photography or any business, is all about how you handle the expenditures. I don't even own an office printer, because I don't need one - I send invoices and other documents to clients as PDF files (easier to keep records that way too). Prints are ordered from large companies and pre-paid for by the clients. Supplies for me are just several spindles of CDs and DVDs per year.

Personally, when I got into commercial photography, I was amazed at how everything was so cheap. A nice camera and a few good lenses only set me back about what I paid for just a couple of microphones - audio recording is my "main" gig, and just for the mics that I use day-to-day I have over $25k invested. And that's just the first part of the signal chain!

Anyway, I am really surprised you just "paid up" for this Randy. Why? What are you getting from the monthly subscription that your current Photoshop version isn't giving you? Like welly, I think software is a ridiculous "investment" and I upgrade very infrequently.

Tin Can

8-May-2013, 23:37

Bryan, I am more than twice your age. Old men cheat with money. Sometimes it works.

So little time. So much to do.

!!!
Wow. I build myself a new computer every 3-4 years. I can't imagine buying new computers so often. If anything breaks, which is rare, I can either buy a replacement part and install it that day from Best Buy or if I want to save a bit of money and don't need a rush job I will order it online...

Digital photography, just like film photography or any business, is all about how you handle the expenditures. I don't even own an office printer, because I don't need one - I send invoices and other documents to clients as PDF files (easier to keep records that way too). Prints are ordered from large companies and pre-paid for by the clients. Supplies for me are just several spindles of CDs and DVDs per year.

Personally, when I got into commercial photography, I was amazed at how everything was so cheap. A nice camera and a few good lenses only set me back about what I paid for just a couple of microphones - audio recording is my "main" gig, and just for the mics that I use day-to-day I have over $25k invested. And that's just the first part of the signal chain!

Anyway, I am really surprised you just "paid up" for this Randy. Why? What are you getting from the monthly subscription that your current Photoshop version isn't giving you? Like welly, I think software is a ridiculous "investment" and I upgrade very infrequently.

Corran

8-May-2013, 23:42

So little time. So much to do.

This I can agree with. :)

mdm

9-May-2013, 00:21

Well in my case I didnt own it in the first place and could not get it at educational rates, so it made sense to subscribe instead.

barnninny

9-May-2013, 00:39

To address the accounting question raised by somebody upthread (sorry I've forgotten who you are, but I just read through this entire thread), I'm a software architect and that topic comes up fairly frequently in my meetings with my boss: what will the accounting impact be if we adopt architecture x? (For example, using the cloud instead of maintaining our own data center.)

As I understand it, software is basically never capitalizable in the corporate world.

On the subject of the thread more generally, in professional terms, I'm a fan of cloud computing. In personal terms, I'm not. I think it's a model that's much better suited to a commercial setting than it is to a consumer setting. The privacy issues are currently intractable (mostly because the political will doesn't exist to address them), our legal system hasn't figured out how to deal with the new problems it raises, and there are other problems, as well.

Given my druthers, I buy my software and keep it locally installed. That goes for PS, too.

Leszek Vogt

9-May-2013, 01:46

Guys, you might want to see the "answers" from Adobe and all of this current upheaval....it's all over the place.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc

(not sure if this is appropriate)

Les

Greg Miller

9-May-2013, 04:21

David R Munson

9-May-2013, 04:33

Otto Seaman

9-May-2013, 05:12

OK with InDesign I'll make a book about Premiere using Illustrator illustrations and then create a semi-functional website using Dreamweaver and Flash and export everything as a giant PDF with Acrobat. I can collaborate with my fellow team members from around the world using the Cloud and my crack third-world subcontractors can implement my concepts while I live the high life from all the Getty microstock profits I rake in.

With Adobe I can be a Creative God.

Henry Ambrose

9-May-2013, 05:23

First of all, here's an interesting analysis of the financial side of things (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57583370-92/how-greedy-is-adobes-creative-cloud-subscription-not-very/).

In addition to my own creative work, in which I use enough Adobe software to need the master collection, I work as a freelance photo assistant. I can't afford to buy the master collection under the old plan. I can, however, afford $50/month for the creative cloud subscription. Not only is it cheaper over a period of several years, it keeps me perpetually up to date with the latest versions of everything. This is valuable for me in producing my own work, as well as in being up to date when I show up on a shoot where I need to be using the latest software on someone else's machine. A digital tech isn't worth much if he's only familiar with software that's a few generations old already. As an imaging professional, I am excited and pleased for the creative cloud model. I'm not sold on it being the only way to buy the software, but oh well.

Bottom line, the Adobe creative suite is an unbelievably capable, versatile array of tools and people need to realize that $50/month really isn't bad to have access to the most powerful creative software ever developed. I understand that this isn't a great change for everyone, but for a lot of us it's fantastic.

Ha! Good luck with this.

Just wait until you pull down a release that's broken and you need to do some work and deliver product right away. Taking a client's money to do a job on a schedule that can be derailed by a powerful and uncaring remote vendor (Adobe in this case) is negligent. Your gear is not tested and you won't know there's a problem until you try to do what you've always done and the damn thing wont work. That hardly fits your description of "imaging professional".

Get out in the real world in some crappy motel at 8 PM after shooting all day and the internet connection is buggy or goes down and see how much work you can do with a computer that won't run PS 'cause it can't phone home. Or you're a day out of subscription. Or the latest version is changed.

Adobe has run the course of software development and milked every penny they can out of their products over the last 5-6 years. There is not a drop left so now they're going to render the carcass to squeeze out the last few drops of fat. They're leaving being a creative software business and going into a rent seeking monopoly model. This won't last long. If I worked for them, I'd be getting my resume together.

Henry Ambrose

9-May-2013, 05:28

Brian Ellis

9-May-2013, 06:09

Well I'm a long time silver and Ilfochrome printer. A couple of years ago I decided to expand into digital work. For me, a hobbyist, that has been almost a financial disaster. What with scanners, computer, software, printers and DSLR and materials the cost has been well over $10K. I use Photoshop CS with a Mac G5 because the CS was cheap and has turned out to be decent to learn on. In fact it seems to do all that I need it to do. I was planning to get CS6 this year along with a Mac Pro - yea another $3000!

I'm a cheap yankee and psychologically cannot do subscription stuff that has monthly payments or purchase things that I do not own in perpetuity. It looks like I will be locked out of anything beyond CS6.

Well, so be it. (phrase named for the famous Russian philosopher Dimitri Sobeit, IIRC).

I think Tyler has a point about the financial pressures on fine artists and I would add to that hobbyists with limited funds that must come from family resources.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

You didn't own a computer before you switched to Photoshop? You didn't own a printer? You didn't own a DSLR? You mention buying "scanners" plural - why did you need more than one? You also don't have to pay $3,000 for CS6 if you have CS3 or later and you certainly didn't need to buy Macs. If you're a hobbyist and spent over $10,000 to learn Photoshop you spent a whole lot more than you needed to.

Plus of course you're talking about starting from absolute scratch and assigning all the cost to one year when in fact all that stuff will benefit you for years to come. My computer is about 6 years old, my DSLR was bought in 2008, my lenses were bought at the same time, my scanner was bought about ten years ago, etc. etc. Sure, I could say it all cost about $6,000 in the year of purchase but in fact just like your expenditures, they were capital expenditures that are properly amortized over a period of years, not just all charged to the year of purchase.

welly

9-May-2013, 06:42

marfa boomboom tx

9-May-2013, 07:04

Okay, so what can you do?

-- complain to the masses. [ ]
-- curse the gods. [ ]
-- complain to adobe. [ ]
-- sign a petition. [ ]
-- get drunk. [ ]
-- make certain all current adobe sw is up-to-date. [ ]
-- upgrade your adobe 'must haves.' (before June!) [ ]
-- check out this cloud thing. adobe has already told us their future; have they told you yours? [ ]
-- download and try those 'other' products you've meant to. [ ]
-- make list of why you need what you need. [ ]

-- get back to worrying about the demise of color sheet film. [ ]

-- take long walk with dogs through some of worlds last untouched desert... your own backyard.

rdenney

9-May-2013, 07:18

It's not FUD. Professional IT people call it configuration management. There is definite risk every time any critical package is upgraded. Will it still integrate with that system properly? I have had some integration issues each time I've upgraded Photoshop. No, none were fatal, obviously. All were temporarily time consuming. Critical systems managers don't do automatic updates. Their IT people test them first to understand and mitigate side effects.

If Adobe updates, they had a reason to. They will have added or rearranged features. Every time I've upgraded, I've had to go through a learning curve to figure out where the features I use are now residing.

With this delivery model, I lose configuration management control. That is a risk.

But Struan brought up the bigger issue, and that is that there is no way to step off the train once you are on it, and still be able to work. Thus, it's impossible to work on a budget, as many photographers do, when times are tough.

People who take in graphics work have to accept files from the latest version, perhaps. But people who deliver it, or who use those services rather than providing them, can provide a TIFF and the customer won't know or care what version produced it. Especially if that customer is the photographer himself.

Rick "whose professional work involves critical systems" Denney

9-May-2013, 07:33

Brian C. Miller

9-May-2013, 08:20

OK, software and the cloud:

#1, this "configuration management" is nothing compared to what I go through as a software developer. "Moved a button" nothing, I often have to go and modify code due to an API change. Then compile, test, and oh, did something else change because of something upstream? Guess what...

#2, there are things called "cell phones" which give network access wherever you have a cell signal. The networks are all digital, and the analog equipment has all been removed. I get about 350Kbits/sec download speed on my cell phone, and that phone is about five years old. I can ride the Amtrak train between Seattle and Portland, and there's only a few spots where I don't have network access. And that's private network access, not shared with someone else.

#3, this network-controlled software licensing has been available for over a decade. Adobe is just now getting around to it. Microsoft went to network licensing with Windows Genuine Advantage, and the technology for that was being marketed just past 2000.

#4, if you really really really really want something different, like GIMP, then download it, the support libraries, and start writing code!!!

Welcome to the "real world."

Otto Seaman

9-May-2013, 08:49

In the 1990s Quark used to dominate graphic design and publishing, and every six months it seemed they released a new $99 version 0.0x "upgrade" that usually only fixed some bug or compatibility problem. The upgrades were worthless and expensive but the ad agencies would mindlessly adopt everyone, so as a freelancer you were forced to go along with the upgrades as Quark was never backward compatible. Not to mention it was $695 to buy initially, we all knew we were being abused.

Once Adobe launched InDesign, lots of people switched. By InDesign 3 nearly everybody had switched. And the best part was InDesign was only $200 at first.

Praying someone comes along and does this same thing to Adobe now, a decade later.

Nathan Potter

9-May-2013, 08:54

You didn't own a computer before you switched to Photoshop? You didn't own a printer? You didn't own a DSLR? You mention buying "scanners" plural - why did you need more than one? You also don't have to pay $3,000 for CS6 if you have CS3 or later and you certainly didn't need to buy Macs. If you're a hobbyist and spent over $10,000 to learn Photoshop you spent a whole lot more than you needed to.

Plus of course you're talking about starting from absolute scratch and assigning all the cost to one year when in fact all that stuff will benefit you for years to come. My computer is about 6 years old, my DSLR was bought in 2008, my lenses were bought at the same time, my scanner was bought about ten years ago, etc. etc. Sure, I could say it all cost about $6,000 in the year of purchase but in fact just like your expenditures, they were capital expenditures that are properly amortized over a period of years, not just all charged to the year of purchase.

Let's see if I can justify my blabbering.

Mac G5 with 8 GB RAM and extra hard drive, used $600
PS CS used copy for learning $300
Nikon 5000 ED scanner new for 35 mm $1200
Epson V750 Pro for 4X5 $1200
Epson 3880 17 inch printer $1200
Mac 23 inch Cinema display $800
XRite Eye 1 Pro color calibration $1000
Betterscanning fixture with Aztek fluid, etc. $500
DSLR Nikon D800E, new $3500
Nikon 24 to 120 zoom, new $1200

Aproximate total $11,500

Brian, I've always been an analogue worker so didn't have really any digital gear at all. D800 is the first DSLR I've owned. I've had a Macbook for years but not really suitable for high quality digital manipulations. The high cost is not to merely learn PS but to produce prints of a quality that matches the Ilfochrome I've worked with for years.

Yes this can be amortized over years of use, so far 2 years so I'm down to $5750.

I have to pay about $3000 for CS6 because I'd need a new Mac Pro with 16 GB of RAM along with CS6.

So this is actually what I spent in year 1 to get into high quality digital work utilizing my existing inventory of images, (about 20,000). Admittedly a quality DSLR punches this cost up quite a bit but I was trying to move well into the digital age for a variety of reasons.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Bill_1856

9-May-2013, 09:23

I think that they've run out of ideas for new features which would justify buying a new version, so this is the only way they can continue to milk the market.

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 09:29

de-blur, de blur, sung to 'Ze Plane! Ze Plane! Fantasy Island.

I think that they've run out of ideas for new features which would justify buying a new version, so this is the only way they can continue to milk the market.

paulr

9-May-2013, 10:02

Nathan, the amount you spent is reasonable for all that stuff, but it's really not fair to call that the cost of entry. Your list includes a pair of scanners AND a high end dslr kit. So you got a setup that will allow you to transition to digital printing from all your film, and also to start digital capture at a pretty high level. This is indeed a lot of stuff!

For a more typical user who already has a workable computer, you could get started with just the price of PS, a scanner, a printer, and a few upgrades (ram, bigger drive, used high end monitor and calibration kit).

I worked for a few years on 4x5 b+w images with a g3 imac, built in monitor (this was the biggest limitation) and a consumer scanner and piezo-modified cheap printer. Far from efficient, but I was able to do high quality work and to learn the software.

rdenney

9-May-2013, 10:22

Brian, I use cellular data to serve Internet at my house, because it is my only option. I pay $80 a month for 8GB of data. My wife and I both use it for working at home, which eats up a lot of that capacity. If I exceed that limit, I pay 5 cents a megabyte. And a good portion of the time, it barely works anyway, and my download speeds may be 128k/s to 8mb/s depending on its mood.

And step out of Seattle. Many places in this country have no cellular service at all, let alone data service, let alone 3G or 4g data service.

Part of Adobe's goal is to avoid having to support versions more than 30 days old. I don't need a splash demanding that I upgrade every few weeks--I already get that with Acrobat Reader and the checkbox they provide to turn it off is a placebo.

But the delivery model is based on unlimited high-speed data, and they effectively cut off those who don't have access to that.

Rick "who knows how cloud and auto-updated services work, and has to schedule many work activities for 1.) when in the office, or 2.) when at Starbucks" Denney

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 10:29

I think Adobe is offering 6 month re-certifying shortly.

And I vote for fiber optic to every home, Japan did it 15 years ago.

If the hills had fiber optic, we could all move there and ruin the rural lifestyle.

I am 2 miles from Sears tower and barely get OTA or cell service.

CantikFotos

9-May-2013, 10:33

When has this happened before with adobe software? Why, because of this payment system, will they start releasing bunk software?

Can you stop with the FUD, please?

When I was living in Indonesia I couldn't activate my legally purchased Photoshop because of the lousy internet. I ended up going out and buying a pirated copy that didn't need activation.

And that is not fud.

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 10:35

I have had to activate by phone, that worked maybe 7 years ago...

When I was living in Indonesia I couldn't activate my legally purchased Photoshop because of the lousy internet. I ended up going out and buying a pirated copy that didn't need activation.

And that is not fud.

CantikFotos

9-May-2013, 10:37

I have had to activate by phone, that worked maybe 7 years ago...

Twelve hour time difference with a very poor connection and expensive phone system..........I gave up after being on the phone for 30 minutes.

CantikFotos

9-May-2013, 10:42

Many places in this country have no cellular service at all, let alone data service, let alone 3G or 4g data service.

But the delivery model is based on unlimited high-speed data, and they effectively cut off those who don't have access to that.

Unfortunately, too many people seem to live in some kind of bubble where they think all the perks where they live are available worldwide. Or even nationally. I live a quarter of a mile from the nearest cell tower and have no phone service.

Ben Syverson

9-May-2013, 10:51

Part of Adobe's goal is to avoid having to support versions more than 30 days old. I don't need a splash demanding that I upgrade every few weeks--I already get that with Acrobat Reader and the checkbox they provide to turn it off is a placebo.

But the delivery model is based on unlimited high-speed data, and they effectively cut off those who don't have access to that.
That's not quite the case... Updates become available every few months, and they don't force you to install them. In fact, you may not even realized they're available. I just opened Adobe Application Manager and saw this:
http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/5/creativecloud.png

You can wait until you have a good connection (or plenty of time) to download, and it doesn't bug you. So it's hard to complain about the update system.

After the software is installed, you only need to go online once every 30 days. So you don't need anything close to a high-speed connection.

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 11:08

This is pretty bad taste, but it is making the rounds.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3D67Iw9q2X9cU&h=hAQEsjazR

Peter Mounier

9-May-2013, 11:14

This is pretty bad taste, but it is making the rounds.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3D67Iw9q2X9cU&h=hAQEsjazR

That's funny. The very same video was used for a Nikon rant not too long ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwf2RShNV0

Ben Syverson

9-May-2013, 12:04

From 4 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqqxRPZdfvs

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 12:06

I missed that one!

Ben Syverson

9-May-2013, 12:09

Another meta one is Hilter ranting about how to make a Hitler rant using Windows Movie Maker. Genius.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-c4hXZI-uU

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 12:14

One day a woman like this will end Adobe world domination.

Smart lady!

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/meet-17-year-old-saving-you-game-thrones-twitter-spoilers

Brian C. Miller

9-May-2013, 12:19

And step out of Seattle. Many places in this country have no cellular service at all, let alone data service, let alone 3G or 4g data service.

When I step outside of Seattle, I have a camera loaded with film! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! (+echo chamber and thunder)

Where I've been in Washington and Oregon, when I connect to cell I also have data.

As for "high-speed" delivery, I only recently upgraded from 768K DSL to fiber. And before that I used telephone modems. So there! Nyah! Beware, else I shall bury you in paper tape and punch cards! Yes, the wrath of the Teletypes of perdition shall fall upon you! (Network connected TTY machines are hilarious to true nerds. And rotary telephones with cell guts. Don't ask why. Just is. It's so funny to watch one print out a rendition of a web page.)

Now, one of the things that might be available in your area is some kind soul who will connect you with point-to-point WiFi. There was an article in The Register about one fellow's travails beaming WiFi from a neighbor's house to his.

Here's a thought: what about Photoshop Elements? I've been using that since I bought my first Epson scanner, and I haven't felt *that* left out of the new features.

(and now that Hitler has been brought into the discussion. the thread is dead. Need a gravestone "smiley.")

Corran

9-May-2013, 12:24

There was an article in The Register about one fellow's travails beaming WiFi from a neighbor's house to his.

I remember reading a bunch of articles back when I was trying to leech internet at my first apartment in college about using a Pringles can over the antennae of a router to try to amplify the range and pick up distant wi-fi networks. Never worked for me...

rdenney

9-May-2013, 12:29

Ben, right now, I buy an upgrade and they mail me a DVD. I don't have to download at all. Will they continue to do that?

But that is not my main issue in any case. My main issue is losing the right to persist with an old version if they price the subscription out of my reach, or if my reach is shortened unexpectedly. (And they have already priced it beyond where I want to reach.)

More and more, we are seeing attacks on making tools available for amateurs with high standards by forcing them into a commercial mold with high costs. In the past, a careful amateur could get results with modest equipment on a par with pros. Now, the modest user is being increasingly expected to compromise on capabilities (vis a vis, say, volume).

And I do not respond well to ultimatums.

Rick "thinking the current upgrade frequency might change if delivery excludes a physical media option" Denney

Ben Syverson

9-May-2013, 12:52

It may be a matter of personal perspective/opinion... Personally I think the tools for "amateurs with high standards" have never been better, more affordable or more diverse. You have Lightroom to do 99% of what photographers used Photoshop for, and it costs $150. 10 years ago you pretty much had to buy Photoshop, for much more than $150.

Beyond that, you have the whole world of tablet apps which many amateur photographers are using now. Snapseed is incredibly powerful and FREE. There are apps to do just about any individual photo task, and most of them are free or $1-2. So I don't know... it's hard for me to swallow the idea that amateur photo enthusiasts are under attack by anything other than an overwhelming number of choices.

Drew Wiley

9-May-2013, 13:04

Randy - fiber optics are one of the biggest wastes of Fed money I can think of. Did you know the Rural Electrification Act is still in force? A high school buddy of
mine inherited the local phone co in the part of the Sierra where my ranch was (I sold it). The family was already well off (they owned a half-million acres up there),
and he got educated as a lawyer, then applied for fiber-optic funds to help the poor ole hillbilly economy. The Feds reciprocated. One fiber optic line went past my
place about a mile to a cowboy's trailer. He didn't own a computer, and only two people have tapped into it since. Another branch went to a logging ghost town.
And a third branch went to a fishing resort only accessible three months a year, and with no electricity. Each destination ended up with more potential line speed
than either the state capitol or right here in the epicenter of techie! I wonder just how many millions were spent in each case; and this if far from unique. Fiber
lines have gone all kinds of wierd places in the West. Pork barrel. Everyone in the boonies I know who actually needs access uses a dish.

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 13:24

Even in the heart of Chicago, all I can do is look at a marker 20 feet from my front door that locates a major fiber optic feed to Chicago.

At one time I wanted a mobile dish for my Airstream, it was simply too costly 10 years ago.

I use free wifi from McDonalds when travelling. I don't even need to go in. Runs my iPod voip app fine.

Ben is going to make a cloud based PS buster and soon I can cut the ties that bind.

What are they doing in Marfa?

Randy - fiber optics are one of the biggest wastes of Fed money I can think of. Did you know the Rural Electrification Act is still in force? A high school buddy of
mine inherited the local phone co in the part of the Sierra where my ranch was (I sold it). The family was already well off (they owned a half-million acres up there),
and he got educated as a lawyer, then applied for fiber-optic funds to help the poor ole hillbilly economy. The Feds reciprocated. One fiber optic line went past my
place about a mile to a cowboy's trailer. He didn't own a computer, and only two people have tapped into it since. Another branch went to a logging ghost town.
And a third branch went to a fishing resort only accessible three months a year, and with no electricity. Each destination ended up with more potential line speed
than either the state capitol or right here in the epicenter of techie! I wonder just how many millions were spent in each case; and this if far from unique. Fiber
lines have gone all kinds of wierd places in the West. Pork barrel. Everyone in the boonies I know who actually needs access uses a dish.

rdenney

9-May-2013, 14:27

Ben, the notion that amateurs will use a tablet app for photography is an example of my point. Where's the color management? Where's the resolution? Where's the support for scanning? For making prints? Not all amateurs are young; many have years of film photos from which they still want to mine. Many learned photography in the past and still want to work that way. And their aesthetic may be quite traditional. Will a tablet app support Travelwide users? I'm not seeing how.

A colleague of mine (older than me) was a 35mm amateur for years. He's been using a Canon 5D for a few years, with Lightroom, though he is unhappy with his color results and wants to move into color management. And he just bought a Mamiya 645 kit. That part of it is indeed cheaper than ever. The forums he visits are also up in arms right now, and he has decided that he needs to buy Photoshop now before being prevented from doing so. He wants the features and control, but not at $30/month (to start with) with a credit card on file. (I could not talk him into a Travelwide, but I have other friends who were easier targets.)

I just think Adobe has completely mischaracterized a significant portion of their current and potential customer base. The question is: Do they care?

Rick "whose standards differ from pros mostly in volume, not in desired competencies and capabilities" Denney

Ben Syverson

9-May-2013, 14:45

As much as it pains me to write it, the number of people who scan film or print their photos is statistically insignificant. Even pro wedding photographers may not be asked to print their photos, and if they do, they might be sending them to AdoramaPix or another online printing service. Most photographers wouldn't know an ICC profile if it bit them on the gamut.

For the most part, iOS does "the right thing" when it comes to color management—if I shoot Adobe RGB on my Canon, it's translated to sRGB very nicely by the OS, and it's ready for manipulation in any app. There are also tablet-based Raw converters which can handle the color themselves.

Lightroom of course takes care of all of that for you, and gives you Adobe's powerful color management.

So "Photoshop for photography" is an increasingly esoteric workflow. Like shooting film, it's still perfectly doable, but you'll pay a bit of a premium.

rdenney

9-May-2013, 14:49

Do you have data to support that? There are more old people than you imagine, and many have boxes of old slides, even if they don't still shoot film. I get asked about scanning...a lot.

Rick "wondering how Travelwide users will get their negatives into the computer" Denney

Jac@stafford.net

9-May-2013, 14:56

Do you have data to support that? There are more old people than you imagine, and many have boxes of old slides, even if they don't still shoot film. I get asked about scanning...a lot.

As one of The Old Ones, we know we are not long to be. Adobe is in for a run that goes way farther than we will.

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 14:56

Most of those old people will never scan their slides. I tell them to take them to Costco. They never do even that, and I am sure not scanning anybodies slides. It took me a long time to learn how and to do my own.

That is how I stepped sideways into digital, I figured 15 years ago scanning was a cheaper way to a file. Not!

Do you have data to support that? There are more old people than you imagine, and many have boxes of old slides, even if they don't still shoot film. I get asked about scanning...a lot.

Rick "wondering how Travelwide users will get their negatives into the computer" Denney

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 15:01

Servers, network and data.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/data-center/open-compute-projects-next-target-the-network-218232?source=IFWNLE_nlt_daily_pm_2013-05-09

Jac@stafford.net

9-May-2013, 15:04

I think Adobe will do very well with its new path - enough that I will put in for two-hundred shares which should offset any software costs forever.

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 15:07

LOL, win win!

I think Adobe will do very well with its new path - enough that I will put in for two-hundred shares which should offset any software costs forever.

Corran

9-May-2013, 15:10

I've asked everyone in my family, and not a one actually has negs/slides from back when they were younger. I was of course looking to scan and preserve them, but they had already thrown them away!

I think the market share of older folks scanning and editing slides is absolutely tiny. And those that do are more likely to buy one of those cheap scanners that probably have a very basic image editing software included.

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 15:21

My former employer switched to digital. 2500 employees for 70 years. HR made crappy digital, mandatory for all future imaging. Thereafter, the company magazine looked like shit. HR wanted more HR room so they tossed out an entire pickup truck bed full of slides. Since they did this in my workshop, I stole/rescued a hundred pounds of them. I scanned many at work and it was a pleasure to see my co-workers in their youth.

My point is, most old slides and photos are thrown away.

I've asked everyone in my family, and not a one actually has negs/slides from back when they were younger. I was of course looking to scan and preserve them, but they had already thrown them away!

I think the market share of older folks scanning and editing slides is absolutely tiny. And those that do are more likely to buy one of those cheap scanners that probably have a very basic image editing software included.

Jac@stafford.net

9-May-2013, 15:23

I think the market share of older folks scanning and editing slides is absolutely tiny. And those that do are more likely to buy one of those cheap scanners that probably have a very basic image editing software included.

I guess that they will take the slides to Walmart-like places, have them printed, and be done with it.

Corran

9-May-2013, 15:28

Yes, or send them off with one of those online services - I hear they ship the film to India or someplace where they get scanned by the thousands and then shipped back!
I actually contacted someone last month - I had seen them posting about a massive collection of color slides they had found at an antique shop that looked to have been from the 50's. I offered to scan some for archival free (they were asking about scanning and the process/costs involved, wanting to do it themselves). Didn't even write back.

Tin Can

9-May-2013, 15:33

It is a thankless job. I put our 8mm movies and selected slides on DVD and my family would not even view them once.

I was always the photographer, now I have lost interest in family imaging.

Yes, or send them off with one of those online services - I hear they ship the film to India or someplace where they get scanned by the thousands and then shipped back!
I actually contacted someone last month - I had seen them posting about a massive collection of color slides they had found at an antique shop that looked to have been from the 50's. I offered to scan some for archival free (they were asking about scanning and the process/costs involved, wanting to do it themselves). Didn't even write back.

Ben Syverson

9-May-2013, 15:34

I have anecdotal numbers, but I don't think anyone has hard numbers, because who knows what to define as a "photographer" in the age of Instagram and the iPhone. But even if you limit it to people with SLR-type cameras, Canon and Nikon sell millions of digital SLRs per quarter. The number of people who shoot film is probably growing slightly over the past couple years, because the whole pie is growing, but I guarantee we're a tiny sliver of the photo pie. Travelwide customers (my favorite people) are like a sliver of a sliver. I'd call them "one in a million," but they're actually rarer.

That sliver is still big enough to constitute a lot of people, of course, but maybe not big enough for Adobe to take notice. In any case, Photoshop is their flagship product, and it's not even primarily a photography tool anymore:
Who uses Photoshop (http://www.photoshop.com/products/photoshop/who)

rdenney

9-May-2013, 15:50

You guys are talking about vacation-pic snapshooters and administrative hacks, not serious amateur photographers. Please don't conflate my example use cases with all the possible use cases that lead to requirements Lightroom does not fulfill.

Remember, the vast majority of members of this forum are amateurs. From my perspective, those who are professional graphic artists are the tiny minority.

Not all amateurs want the features of Photoshop vs. Lightroom, of course. And clearly Adobe is betting that number is pretty small. Maybe they intend to raise Lightroom to the level people like me want. They aren't saying, and that's part of the problem. They aren't describing their strategy from the perspective of all their stakeholders, leaving us free to assume the worst in self-defense.

Rick "noting that systems engineering starts with users" Denney

David R Munson

9-May-2013, 15:52

Ha! Good luck with this.

Just wait until you pull down a release that's broken and you need to do some work and deliver product right away. Taking a client's money to do a job on a schedule that can be derailed by a powerful and uncaring remote vendor (Adobe in this case) is negligent. Your gear is not tested and you won't know there's a problem until you try to do what you've always done and the damn thing wont work. That hardly fits your description of "imaging professional".

Get out in the real world in some crappy motel at 8 PM after shooting all day and the internet connection is buggy or goes down and see how much work you can do with a computer that won't run PS 'cause it can't phone home. Or you're a day out of subscription. Or the latest version is changed.

Your tone is inappropriate and runs dangerously close to personal attack. I am an imaging professional and I do damned good work. I'll thank you to not assert otherwise.

Overall, Adobe's products have run more reliably for me than any other software I have used over the course of the past decade. Software problems converging with a total inability to access the internet and lack of access to backup software is extremely unlikely. I'd be more worried about hardware problems or one of the many, many other things that can suddenly appear and screw up a shoot.

You're clearly pretty bitter about this, but not all of us are.

Corran

9-May-2013, 15:59

Hey Rick, have you tried the Lightroom 5 Beta? A friend of mine mentioned that some of the upgrades make Photoshop almost completely unneeded for the photography work he does. I think they upgraded the adjustment brush or whatever it's called to be closer to what PS offers. I don't know, I do all my touch-up work in CS5 and don't plan on upgrading to LR5 anyway, but I thought I'd mention it.

Jac@stafford.net

9-May-2013, 16:20

I would encourage that we use LR, and see what happens to Adobe. I have insulated myself (I hope) by investing in Adobe in the stock market. What shall be will be .... but that is tangential.

Truly, my LF enthusiasts, what do we really need from Photoshop? I have used it in a demanding environment for other peoples' images for ten years and now that I am free of that I find very little use of Photoshop. Am I an orphan? (It is cool if I am. :))

Henry Ambrose

9-May-2013, 16:28

Your tone is inappropriate and runs dangerously close to personal attack. I am an imaging professional and I do damned good work. I'll thank you to not assert otherwise.

Overall, Adobe's products have run more reliably for me than any other software I have used over the course of the past decade. Software problems converging with a total inability to access the internet and lack of access to backup software is extremely unlikely. I'd be more worried about hardware problems or one of the many, many other things that can suddenly appear and screw up a shoot.

You're clearly pretty bitter about this, but not all of us are.

Not a personal attack at all. And I am not familiar with your work, but I'll take your word for it that you do "damned good work". And you're probably a nice guy, so there. ;>)

But I do strongly disagree with what you wrote. I'll stick by what I wrote earlier and explain it a bit more fully and gently - I don't think anyone who travels can trust finding a broadband connection just anywhere they go. And the digital/internet status quo in a major city like the one you live in is very different from lots of the rest of the U.S. And finally, again -- showing up with untested stuff that might not work is a big problem. If you're assisting some big name shooter and they have 4 hand-trucks full of computers, that's all fine and good. If you're on your own dime, doing schmuck work and mostly carrying your own stuff, you'll need to think harder on this matter.

Adobe is making life harder for independent photographers and the free lance design folk. Those that need it will pony up. The others will have to do otherwise, whether its legacy hardware/software or trying something new. There is nothing here that helps the independents.

David R Munson

9-May-2013, 16:32

I guess we just see it very, very differently. I see this as a step forward, overall. I guess we'll just have to see how it all pans out.

welly

9-May-2013, 16:47

Not a personal attack at all. And I am not familiar with your work, but I'll take your word for it that you do "damned good work". And you're probably a nice guy, so there. ;>)

But I do strongly disagree with what you wrote. I'll stick by what I wrote earlier and explain it a bit more fully and gently - I don't think anyone who travels can trust finding a broadband connection just anywhere they go. And the digital/internet status quo in a major city like the one you live in is very different from lots of the rest of the U.S. And finally, again -- showing up with untested stuff that might not work is a big problem. If you're assisting some big name shooter and they have 4 hand-trucks full of computers, that's all fine and good. If you're on your own dime, doing schmuck work and mostly carrying your own stuff, you'll need to think harder on this matter.

Adobe is making life harder for independent photographers and the free lance design folk. Those that need it will pony up. The others will have to do otherwise, whether its legacy hardware/software or trying something new. There is nothing here that helps the independents.

You only need to validate your copy of Photoshop once every 30 days, and I'm surprised you don't know that that is already the case. Photoshop phones home all the time to make sure you don't have a pirated copy - one of the reasons those who send out cracked releases of Photoshop require you to add entries into your system's /etc/hosts file (for those who are on a Mac). On top of that, if there is concern that Adobe releases a broke release, why haven't you been concerned about this until now? Or have you been? In which case, why (if you are) are you using Photoshop at all if you have such concerns about the quality of Adobe's releases? Nothing has changed with the exception of how you pay for the software.

Brian Ellis

9-May-2013, 17:19

Let's see if I can justify my blabbering.

Mac G5 with 8 GB RAM and extra hard drive, used $600
PS CS used copy for learning $300
Nikon 5000 ED scanner new for 35 mm $1200
Epson V750 Pro for 4X5 $1200
Epson 3880 17 inch printer $1200
Mac 23 inch Cinema display $800
XRite Eye 1 Pro color calibration $1000
Betterscanning fixture with Aztek fluid, etc. $500
DSLR Nikon D800E, new $3500
Nikon 24 to 120 zoom, new $1200

Aproximate total $11,500

Brian, I've always been an analogue worker so didn't have really any digital gear at all. D800 is the first DSLR I've owned. I've had a Macbook for years but not really suitable for high quality digital manipulations. The high cost is not to merely learn PS but to produce prints of a quality that matches the Ilfochrome I've worked with for years.

Yes this can be amortized over years of use, so far 2 years so I'm down to $5750.

I have to pay about $3000 for CS6 because I'd need a new Mac Pro with 16 GB of RAM along with CS6.

So this is actually what I spent in year 1 to get into high quality digital work utilizing my existing inventory of images, (about 20,000). Admittedly a quality DSLR punches this cost up quite a bit but I was trying to move well into the digital age for a variety of reasons.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

You chose to buy some very good equipment. That was your choice but it wasn't necessary to learn Photoshop or to produce excellent images. For example, you bought an Epson 750 for $1,200. I've been getting along just fine with an Epson 4990 that I bought about ten years ago for about $500. You could have bought a 4990 used for about $200 and saved $1,000 just for starters. You bought an Xrite Eye One for $1,000. I use the excellent calibration software that came with my NEC monitor. The software and monitor together cost about $700, $300 less than you paid just for your Xrite. I think it's fair to say that while the D800E is an excellent camera there are many fine cameras that make equally fine images for a lot less than $3,500.

I have no problem with anything you did, it's all a matter of personal choice. You chose to buy excellent equipment that costs a lot and you chose to buy it all at once rather than just dipping your toes in the digital waters and moving up later as your needs developed. My quarrel, to the extent I had one, was with the implication in your original post that Photoshop/digital is so super-expensive that it costs $10,000 plus to get into them.

Nathan Potter

9-May-2013, 18:53

You chose to buy some very good equipment. That was your choice but it wasn't necessary to learn Photoshop or to produce excellent images. For example, you bought an Epson 750 for $1,200. I've been getting along just fine with an Epson 4990 that I bought about ten years ago for about $500. You could have bought a 4990 used for about $200 and saved $1,000 just for starters. You bought an Xrite Eye One for $1,000. I use the excellent calibration software that came with my NEC monitor. The software and monitor together cost about $700, $300 less than you paid just for your Xrite. I think it's fair to say that while the D800E is an excellent camera there are many fine cameras that make equally fine images for a lot less than $3,500.

I have no problem with anything you did, it's all a matter of personal choice. You chose to buy excellent equipment that costs a lot and you chose to buy it all at once rather than just dipping your toes in the digital waters and moving up later as your needs developed. My quarrel, to the extent I had one, was with the implication in your original post that Photoshop/digital is so super-expensive that it costs $10,000 plus to get into them.

Brian, your point is well taken. For me, a digital dum dum two years ago, I did choose to get mostly new stuff because I want to do photography and not equipment repair. New stuff comes with instructions for use which I sorely needed. Even at that the Nikon 5000 ED scanner failed within 2 months and had to be sent back to the factory. I discovered that connecting an old Mac G5 to a Mac Cinema monitor takes an incomprehensibly complex cable with built in power supply! And so on. So welcome to the arcane world of digital photography where any kind of consistent interface standards need not apply. Where was the IEEE when needed. Oh, I suppose stifling innovation was their concern.

Well, I suppose Adobe is innovating with a subscription scheme which allows them to deliver instant updates of bloatware to the great benefit of the user.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Brian C. Miller

9-May-2013, 19:13

Rick "wondering how Travelwide users will get their negatives into the computer" Denney

Pick up a screwdriver.
Open the computer case.
Place the negative inside.
Close the computer case.
Put down the screwdriver.

Done!

Brian "ah iz uh jeenyus" Miller

rdenney

9-May-2013, 19:33

Pick up a screwdriver.
Open the computer case.
Place the negative inside.
Close the computer case.
Put down the screwdriver.

Done!

Brian "ah iz uh jeenyus" Miller

Damn!

Why didn't I think of that?

Rick "no genius" Denney

Preston

9-May-2013, 21:27

Dakotah,

As I understand things, the software as installed on your computer is fully functional without a connection to the internet. The only time you need to be connected is when it's time to revalidate your license or you use their cloud storage system.

You do not 'own' the software outright, regardless of whether you have the DVD, a download under the old model, or pay under the new model. When you purchase the 'program' you are only purchasing a license to use it: Adobe owns the program. This is true for any software you buy, Adobe or otherwise.

--P

Oren Grad

9-May-2013, 21:40

Lloyd Chambers walks through some notable features of the Adobe CC Terms of Use:

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

rdenney

9-May-2013, 21:44

Preston,

I don't recall seeing in the EULA that the purchased license was revocable for lack of future payment. One does not have to own the code to own a license to use it, and revoking that license would have to be done consistently with the agreement at time of purchasing the license.

Rick "who maybe missed that bit" Denney

Preston

9-May-2013, 21:47

One does not have to own the code to own a license to use it,...

That's what I was trying to say, but didn't say it very well. Thanks for the clarification, Rick.

--P

welly

10-May-2013, 05:26

I see this like buying a book. I own a copy that I can pick up and read anytime I want, but now I will have to send a check to the author every month if I decide to read it.

You could also say it's like leasing a car - you'll may have to give it back eventually but you have none of the liabilities of it going out of date and devaluing. And if a better, faster, more economical model comes out, you can jump ship without being left with a turd on your hands to deal with.

rdenney

10-May-2013, 06:34

You could also say it's like leasing a car - you'll may have to give it back eventually but you have none of the liabilities of it going out of date and devaluing. And if a better, faster, more economical model comes out, you can jump ship without being left with a turd on your hands to deal with.

Did you actually read the critique of the EULA that was linked earlier? It requires me to agree to let them change or upgrade the software on my computer any time they want, to name just one concern of mine.

But as with all cloud services, if they go belly-up or change business strategy at any time that cancels the service, they take your capability and whatever files you have stored with it.

Renting makes sense when you want to share a limited resource with others, as with a rental car. That fits, for example, in an enterprise arrangement where you have five copies of the software being used occasionally by ten people. But licensing software use conventionally allows you exclusive use of the software for as long as you need it, no matter what the company decides or is forced to do.

I do still use software no longer on the market. And I don't upgrade stable software that fulfills my requirements. That minimizes breakage and frustration, and simplifies configuration management.

Adobe has been discounting upgrades more for those who kept up, and that approach uses incentives to encourage periodic upgrades. The new approach is not based on incentives, and instead punishes those who don't need or want to upgrade at every version change.

On the matter of upgrade frequency, if they can force it at any time and if they don't have to deliver it on media, given their assumption of unlimited access, what incentive do they have not to roll them out monthly instead of quarterly or annually? I see them reducing costs by going to "cloud testing".

Rick "who rents only when it is sensible, but who wants the choice in any case" Denney

welly

10-May-2013, 06:42

Did you actually read the critique of the EULA that was linked earlier? It requires me to agree to let them change or upgrade the software on my computer any time they want, to name just one concern of mine.

Yes, I did read the EULA critique. If you didn't give them permission to change or upgrade the software on your computer at any time, they wouldn't be allowed to push updates to the software.

Greg Miller

10-May-2013, 06:44

rdenney

10-May-2013, 06:44

rdenney

10-May-2013, 06:49

Yes, I did read the EULA critique. If you didn't give them permission to change or upgrade the software on your computer at any time, they wouldn't be allowed to push updates to the software.

Yes. I complained of limited and expensive bandwidth, and was told by Brian and others that I would get to choose when I upgraded. That's not what I would be agreeing to, and that agreement is now in fact space. The model assumes unlimited high-speed access, which is not available where I live.

Rick "speaking of FUD" Denney

Oren Grad

10-May-2013, 07:28

Yes, I did read the EULA critique. If you didn't give them permission to change or upgrade the software on your computer at any time, they wouldn't be allowed to push updates to the software.

Such permission is baked into the terms of service. You can't reject that provision if you want to use CC.

11.4 The Software may automatically download and install updates from Adobe. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new Software modules, and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Adobe to deliver these to you with or without your knowledge) as part of your use of the Services.

Sal Santamaura

10-May-2013, 08:05

Adobe timed this perfectly. I've steadfastly resisted any move away from a completely wet workflow, save the Canon G-9 used for an occasional snapshot and satisfying publishers' demands that illustrations for my wife's sporadic specialty magazine articles be submitted as digital files. This mostly Luddite behavior is viable because I'm an amateur.

Recently, encouraged by Dick Phillips, I have given serious consideration to trying out scanning + inkjet printing of film negatives. Adobe just completely quashed any such thoughts. My deep, sincere condolences to those of you who've invested a bunch in Photoshop or are forced by professional competitive requirements to continue using it.

I suspect Ilford will continue to be the major recipient of my discretionary photography dollars.

bob carnie

10-May-2013, 08:40

Sal ,
we are seeing a niche in digital negs to wet process, In fact are investing huge amounts of time , energy and money in learning to be self sufficient.
Photoshop is critical for the neg making process via pictorico or silver film, the ability to separate the colours, channels and screen if needed will make PS more important in my shop.
GEH is teaching how to make silver emulsions and for the home worker , there is huge merit into learning this.

Bob

Adobe timed this perfectly. I've steadfastly resisted any move away from a completely wet workflow, save the Canon G-9 used for an occasional snapshot and satisfying publishers' demands that illustrations for my wife's sporadic specialty magazine articles be submitted as digital files. This mostly Luddite behavior is viable because I'm an amateur.

Recently, encouraged by Dick Phillips, I have given serious consideration to trying out scanning + inkjet printing of film negatives. Adobe just completely quashed any such thoughts. My deep, sincere condolences to those of you who've invested a bunch in Photoshop or are forced by professional competitive requirements to continue using it.

I suspect Ilford will continue to be the major recipient of my discretionary photography dollars.

Sal Santamaura

10-May-2013, 08:53

...we are...investing huge amounts of time , energy and money in learning to be self sufficient.
Photoshop is critical for the neg making process via pictorico or silver film, the ability to separate the colours, channels and screen if needed will make PS more important in my shop...Yes, PS seems central to that kind of operation. Are you outputting digital negatives to silver using the Lambda or an LVT film recorder?

Sorry to all for this slightly OT diversion. Bob, if you think it more appropriate, please reply in a separate thread or by PM.

bob carnie

10-May-2013, 09:00

The lambda, is IMO a big imagesetter, as well we are making con ton negs off the lambda as well introducing screen, we also use a 7800 epson to make pictorico negs.
If we find we need hard dot negs and the Lambda cannot deliver then we will purchase an imagesetter, I have seen quotes on units near to me and they are realistic to consider.
Photoshop is critical to me and I will indeed go to the Cloud *whatever that will mean* .

Yes, PS seems central to that kind of operation. Are you outputting digital negatives to silver using the Lambda or an LVT film recorder?

Sorry to all for this slightly OT diversion. Bob, if you think it more appropriate, please reply in a separate thread or by PM.

redrockcoulee

10-May-2013, 09:33

You could also say it's like leasing a car - you'll may have to give it back eventually but you have none of the liabilities of it going out of date and devaluing. And if a better, faster, more economical model comes out, you can jump ship without being left with a turd on your hands to deal with.

But the problem with the Adobe solution is yes you can lease a car or do without a car. Right now I can go out and buy a new car, a used car or lease a car. I have not bought a new car since 1969 and have never leased a car and usually pay cash for a vehicle. If you are in business it might make more sense to lease a car rather than purchase one and the same will hold true for Adobe products, for many it makes more sense to lease. Those who are agruing against it for the most part are saying that for THEM it does not make sense. Without decent access to the internet there may be problems.

What about older computers and operating systems? Will Adobe simply say they will no longer run their newest product on the OS you are using and you are now not able to use their products unless you find an older version. Is it OK for others to tell you to upgrade your system, whether it be a person who thinks that you need to have the latest version to do your work or be it Adobe. With purchasing you have the option, upgrade to use the new version or stay with the old one. With leasing you will not have that option in the future, by that if you were able to continue to be able to buy you might have CS12in the future but CS13 will not run on your OS however with the new system coming into effect you will be forever limited to CS6.

Drew Wiley

10-May-2013, 09:35

Are those imagesetters still dependent upon Agfa commercial film?

bob carnie

10-May-2013, 10:00

Not sure, The film is abundant if that is what you are leading too.

Are those imagesetters still dependent upon Agfa commercial film?

Ben Syverson

10-May-2013, 10:39

Drew Wiley

10-May-2013, 10:40

Partially. I knew a glut of product is out there, but not exactly why or how stable the future will be. Of course, this kind of product is unrelated to Agfa's conventional photography film demise - different category. Imagesetters sometimes produce a half-toney look, even via stochastic. A lot of program writing for
anyone I know of who has gone that route, or perhaps a steeper learning curve than they anticipated. Good luck, regardless.

Tin Can

10-May-2013, 10:51

I agree Adobe does their research. I was in a very intensive Adobe focus group that paid $200 cash. They got their money's worth. I believe they were also shooting video to catch facial micro-movements to analyze our veracity. 6 people in my group with 3 visible interviewers, one way glass and 3 video cameras running I saw.

I plan to keep CS3, PS5 and LR4 as I do own a licensed copies. However, as I have stated here, I signed up for the cloud 3 months ago.

Ultimately you either accept the new pricing or you don't. The "old" software works fine. You can still buy CS6 today if you want to lock in the last version before the change.

Adobe has sold half a million CC subscriptions already, and it will only grow now that it's the only option. They've done market research (I participated) and test marketed CC for a full year... They've obviously done the math, and determined that this will make them more money, even if it angers some people (especially photographers—another fact they've acknowledged). In other words, the odds of Adobe backing down and reinstating CS are extremely low. This wasn't some impulsive business move... they've been working toward this since at least 2009.

bob carnie

10-May-2013, 10:54

Like anything we work with Drew, when the time comes I will protect myself with enough product to satisfy my fiscal future.

Partially. I knew a glut of product is out there, but not exactly why or how stable the future will be. Of course, this kind of product is unrelated to Agfa's conventional photography film demise - different category. Imagesetters sometimes produce a half-toney look, even via stochastic. A lot of program writing for
anyone I know of who has gone that route, or perhaps a steeper learning curve than they anticipated. Good luck, regardless.

sanking

10-May-2013, 11:25

Ultimately you either accept the new pricing or you don't. The "old" software works fine. You can still buy CS6 today if you want to lock in the last version before the change.

Adobe has sold half a million CC subscriptions already, and it will only grow now that it's the only option. They've done market research (I participated) and test marketed CC for a full year... They've obviously done the math, and determined that this will make them more money, even if it angers some people (especially photographers—another fact they've acknowledged). In other words, the odds of Adobe backing down and reinstating CS are extremely low. This wasn't some impulsive business move... they've been working toward this since at least 2009.

What Adobe has done may or may not be a good business decision for them in the long run. I own registered versions of PS 5.5, 7, CS, CS3 and CS5. I had planned to buy CS6 but when Adobe jacked up the price for the academic version by nearly 100% I decided to hold on to my money. I figure CS5 will be OK for another five years, and by that time I think it highly likely that other software will be available that will serve my photography needs for less. I will definitely find a way to use something else rather than switch to subscription software.

Sandy

FlyingGiraffes

10-May-2013, 13:23

I'm a college student currently using a "free" version my friend gave to me on a usb stick. Seeing as it can't use any plugins (I want to use some NIK ones), this move by Adobe, has me about to purchase cs6. My college has cs6 extended for 169. If I choose student subscription at 20/month I'll pay more in only 9 months.

You left out the part about where you're wearing your ironic heavy plastic framed nerd glasses and skinny black hipster jeans. Otherwise you got it right.

And you left the part out where choice of clothing doesn't affect personal values and personality. I'm currently wearing a pair of skinny black jeans. Hipster jeans they are not. Skinny black jeans =/= hipster jeans. Surprisingly, I'm not wearing "ironic heavy plastic framed nerd glass". Oh, and most of my wardrobe is black. I must be a gothic person then, right? Surprise, I'm not!

I realize you're joking and all, but that's some strong negative association with a certain group of people. Apparently hipster = greedy dirtbag.

I dislike it when people generalize what kind of person I am based on my clothing (and in addition miss categorize because they can not pick up the nuances in different styles).

rdenney

10-May-2013, 13:29

Ben, I never accused Adobe of being stupid or capricious. I accused them of the possible mistake of abandoning a bigger part of the clientele than they may have realized. And I accused them of being insensitive to the needs of a substantial (and loyal) user population, whether or not it is commercially important to them.

As an old capitalist, I know that companies must treat their customers' real issues with genuine respect. Adobe, like many tech companies, fashions itself as a new kind of business, more in tune with altruistic goals. I find this ironic.

They could do many things to serve those whom they have abandoned without reversing this decision. But only by clamoring about it do we have any hope than they will.

One thing they could do is further recognize the differing use cases of photographers and pre-press service bureaus and graphic artists, and quit marketing one product to both. Lightroom may be just that, but it's not there yet--most serious photographers still find they require Photoshop. I'm hoping it or a competing product will be by the time my PS copy becomes unsustainable.

Rick "who has seen this before" Denney

Jac@stafford.net

10-May-2013, 14:28

With the so-called death of the PC we should expect that high-end, compute intensive vendors will focus upon the Gold customers. Those who have migrated or started new with *pad devices are not going to look to Photo Shop.

The market is changing. Vendors with monolithic software packages should be terrified.

One day people will have sources that allow them to package only those features they want, and then add-on incrementally. And it will be hugely expensive to include all the features of the monolithic kind of software that Adobe has created.

The future ain't what it used to be.

Eric James

10-May-2013, 14:46

I'm a college student currently using a "free" version my friend gave to me on a usb stick...SNIP

I dislike it when people generalize what kind of person I am based on my clothing (and in addition miss categorize because they can not pick up the nuances in different styles).

Maybe someday, when you've matured enough to stop your fraudulent use of software, you'll also come to realize how perfectly contradictory your last statement is.

FlyingGiraffes

10-May-2013, 19:44

Maybe someday, when you've matured enough to stop your fraudulent use of software, you'll also come to realize how perfectly contradictory your last statement is.

Pointless arguing on the internet seems to factor into your high maturity level. There is no contradiction in my last statement. People generalize based on what I'm wearing, in addition they miscategorize (because that's human nature) causing farther incorrect generalizations.

KOG

10-May-2013, 19:47

One day people will have sources that allow them to package only those features they want, and then add-on incrementally.

Try adding only one channel to your cable TV package!

Kevin

David R Munson

10-May-2013, 20:16

Try adding only one channel to your cable TV package!

Kevin

This reminds me of something else, as far as cost is concerned. I pay as little as I can for usable broadband in Chicago, but it's still more than Adobe's monthly fee. Adobe's fee is also less than my average gas bill and less than my electric bill most of the year. Hell, I pay more for film every month than Adobe's new setup costs.

Point being, it's decidedly affordable on a day-to-day basis. It costs less than a beer a day, or many of the other unnecessary things we add into our lives because we simply choose to do so. I don't make much money, but I can afford the new Adobe pricing pretty easily because it's important to me and it fits in my budget. How this affects the reliability of various releases (among other usability concerns) remains to be seen, but most of us here have little to no room to complain about the price. We can affordit. Maybe some or many of us don't want to pay for it, but that's a different issue entirely.

Henry Ambrose

10-May-2013, 20:50

I'm a college student currently using a "free" version my friend gave to me on a usb stick. Seeing as it can't use any plugins (I want to use some NIK ones), this move by Adobe, has me about to purchase cs6. My college has cs6 extended for 169. If I choose student subscription at 20/month I'll pay more in only 9 months.

And you left the part out where choice of clothing doesn't affect personal values and personality. I'm currently wearing a pair of skinny black jeans. Hipster jeans they are not. Skinny black jeans =/= hipster jeans. Surprisingly, I'm not wearing "ironic heavy plastic framed nerd glass". Oh, and most of my wardrobe is black. I must be a gothic person then, right? Surprise, I'm not!

I realize you're joking and all, but that's some strong negative association with a certain group of people. Apparently hipster = greedy dirtbag.

I dislike it when people generalize what kind of person I am based on my clothing (and in addition miss categorize because they can not pick up the nuances in different styles).

Hey you kids!
GET OFF MY LAWN!

"this move by Adobe, has me about to purchase cs6. My college has cs6 extended for 169. If I choose student subscription at 20/month I'll pay more in only 9 months."

Math is a funny thing isn't it?
Are you a business major?

Henry Ambrose

10-May-2013, 20:58

Pointless arguing on the internet seems to factor into your high maturity level. There is no contradiction in my last statement. People generalize based on what I'm wearing, in addition they miscategorize (because that's human nature) causing farther incorrect generalizations.

When you read something on the internet it may not be directed at you personally. In fact it is fairly likely that the person writing has no idea what you are wearing, how many tats or piercings you have, our how you think or act. They (and the whole world) may have been thinking about something else at that moment. Good chance of that, actually.

barnninny

10-May-2013, 21:06

This reminds me of something else, as far as cost is concerned. I pay as little as I can for usable broadband in Chicago, but it's still more than Adobe's monthly fee. Adobe's fee is also less than my average gas bill and less than my electric bill most of the year. Hell, I pay more for film every month than Adobe's new setup costs.

Point being, it's decidedly affordable on a day-to-day basis. It costs less than a beer a day, or many of the other unnecessary things we add into our lives because we simply choose to do so. I don't make much money, but I can afford the new Adobe pricing pretty easily because it's important to me and it fits in my budget. How this affects the reliability of various releases (among other usability concerns) remains to be seen, but most of us here have little to no room to complain about the price. We can affordit. Maybe some or many of us don't want to pay for it, but that's a different issue entirely.

Where the comparison with film cost breaks down is that you only have to buy a box/roll of film once. Once you've bought it, it's yours for as long as you want it. You don't have to keep paying for that same box every month in order to keep it.

David R Munson

10-May-2013, 21:39

Bad comparison. I use film once. Exactly once. I expose it, I develop it, it's done.

Ben Syverson

10-May-2013, 21:55

Bad comparison. I use film once. Exactly once. I expose it, I develop it, it's done.
Haha, imagine if Adobe abandoned the monthly fee and switched to the film model. 99¢ to open a new document, and 99¢ to save it. :)

Tin Can

10-May-2013, 21:57

Lol

FlyingGiraffes

10-May-2013, 22:00

When you read something on the internet it may not be directed at you personally. In fact it is fairly likely that the person writing has no idea what you are wearing, how many tats or piercings you have, our how you think or act. They (and the whole world) may have been thinking about something else at that moment. Good chance of that, actually.

That's the point. You're generalizing. Anyways I don't think this is going to get any better so I'm going to leave it at this. Have a nice weekend.

Brian Ellis

11-May-2013, 06:17

Where the comparison with film cost breaks down is that you only have to buy a box/roll of film once. Once you've bought it, it's yours for as long as you want it. You don't have to keep paying for that same box every month in order to keep it.

Yeah, the reason I'm into photography is that I like buying film and not using it. I've only bought film once, that was a roll of APX25 that I bought back in 1990. So it's been mine for 23 years so far and I only had to pay for it once. I sometimes think that I really should use it but then I realize that if I use it I'll have to buy another roll . . . and if I use that one I'll have to buy another one . . . and another one . . . and another one . . . So I just hold onto that one unexposed roll I've had for 23 years. It's so economical to not have to keep paying for it every month.