ADOBE is on the run, failed at subscribtion

[Tin Can]

I think Adobe is on the run, they are backing away from the subscription and now trying to sell low cost student hard copies.

These are signs of failure. It does not make me happy as I use Photoshop daily and there is no real competition.

I just got this email headline.

New Adobe CC / CS6 Student & Teacher Editions – How to Save 70%

[Jmarmck]

They charge to much for it.

[toyotadesigner]

Sooner or later GIMP will feature 16/48 bit image editing. So I just wait, and I guess many other users as well. I've already substituted InDesign with Scribus, Bridge with XNview MP (both for Linux, Mac and Windows available for free). I'm already 'playing' with 8/24 bit GIMP to get used to it, so when the 16/48 version hits my Mac I will abandon PS as well. For Lightroom ther is Darktable and RawTherapee (Linux, Mac and Windows), so I never started an adventure with LR (ok, still running my good old Nikon Capture NX). No sweat, no panic. We've got a choice and alternative for the Adobe products.

[EdSawyer]

Adobe has always given huge discounts to the education industry. Where I am, you could get the whole CS6 master collection for $400 or so ($2500+ retail) with the education discount. Of course if you are motivated/inclined to do so, you can get it for nothing too. Probably the same case with CC as it was with CS6. Just sayin'...

[Tin Can]

3/4's of the ad copy in the email was dedicated to software theft and the dangers to your creative projects.

They even brought up illegal pirated software 'back door's' which will hack your computer.

It was full on scare tactics, with sweet discounts.

They are on the run.

As for GIMP, been there, no thanks!




Adobe has always given huge discounts to the education industry. Where I am, you could get the whole CS6 master collection for $400 or so ($2500+ retail) with the education discount. Of course if you are motivated/inclined to do so, you can get it for nothing too. Probably the same case with CC as it was with CS6. Just sayin'...

[jp]

I think gimp is pretty decent replacement for photoshop 7.0. I've used it and was happy with it, but for the lack of 16/48 bit handling.

CS6/CC is pretty fast though with it's GPU acceleration and the healing brush makes FAST work on dust spots.

[Kirk Gittings]

I think Adobe is on the run, they are backing away from the subscription and now trying to sell low cost student hard copies.

These are signs of failure. It does not make me happy as I use Photoshop daily and there is no real competition.

I just got this email headline.

New Adobe CC / CS6 Student & Teacher Editions – How to Save 70%

Maybe but they have always offered these deep discounts to students and teachers. What is so different about this?

[Tin Can]

I know they have always offered EDU discounts, but this email had a distinct taint of fear. It was worded very strangely with my last post explanations of software piracy.

I deleted it or I would copy it here.

I figured a few here got the same email, I don't get EDU messages from Adobe and I subscribe to the PS and LR $10 version. I'm not a target customer.




Maybe but they have always offered these deep discounts to students and teachers. What is so different about this?

[Kirk Gittings]

If anyone else got this send me a copy. I'm curious and maybe I didn't get it because I'm all ready a "teacher" subscriber.

[Ken Lee]

Sooner or later GIMP will feature 16/48 bit image editing. So I just wait, and I guess many other users as well. I've already substituted InDesign with Scribus, Bridge with XNview MP (both for Linux, Mac and Windows available for free). I'm already 'playing' with 8/24 bit GIMP to get used to it, so when the 16/48 version hits my Mac I will abandon PS as well. For Lightroom ther is Darktable and RawTherapee (Linux, Mac and Windows), so I never started an adventure with LR (ok, still running my good old Nikon Capture NX). No sweat, no panic. We've got a choice and alternative for the Adobe products.

Thanks for that information, which is very helpful.

[Jim Noel]

Adobe has always given huge discounts to the education industry. Where I am, you could get the whole CS6 master collection for $400 or so ($2500+ retail) with the education discount. Of course if you are motivated/inclined to do so, you can get it for nothing too. Probably the same case with CC as it was with CS6. Just sayin'...

My full CS6 Educational edition was $76. Adobe has always had such discounts for students and educators.

[Mike Anderson]

Sooner or later GIMP will feature 16/48 bit image editing.

Oh wow, it's coming indeed:

http://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#c16bit

[Jmarmck]

Last time I tried Gimp it locked up the system so badly I had to uninstall. I got a copy of elements lite with the scanner. I have been using the stamp and healing tools extensively.

I guess I could buy the CS6 EDU pack as I work for a university. But so far Elements is working.

[mdarnton]

I keep waiting for someone to put in layers, which also would imply independent canvas sizes. Maybe someone reading this thread knows a substitute with those already? I use FastStone for day-to-day work, and it does everything I need except for those two things that I really do need for work.

[Tin Can]

We may be looking at a big player like Adobe dying like film.

I am very happy with the latest Photoshop, it works wonderfully.

[Brassai]

There's no way I'm signing up for their subscription deal. They'll just jack the price up to $100/month or something eventually. I also don't want my images on their "cloud." I just don't trust them all that much, and don't want to be a "renter."

[Fred L]

Can't ever see Adobe going bye bye. They have Photoshop, Premier (seeing more friends going Premier instead of Final Cut Pro) etc..

Too many professionals use it so the base is huge with no real competition.

[ederphoto]

[QUOTE=Fred L;1122018]Can't ever see Adobe going bye bye. They have Photoshop, Premier (seeing more friends going Premier instead of Final Cut Pro) etc..

Too many professionals use it so the base is huge with no real competition.[/QUOT

Plus one ! And they also have Lightroom which is becoming better and better with every edition .

[Tin Can]

AVID, Capture One.



Can't ever see Adobe going bye bye. They have Photoshop, Premier (seeing more friends going Premier instead of Final Cut Pro) etc..

Too many professionals use it so the base is huge with no real competition.

[DennisD]

There are many within the photographic community who might wish Adobe would fail, based on its conversion of CS to a subscription based cloud model and requiring ongoing payment for software we used to "own" outright.

Has the subscription model failed ? Who really knows for sure ? However, Adobe has always promoted and discounted heavily to students and academic establishments. And successfully so, because they've managed to get students "hooked" and committed to their products at an early stage, ensuring a future, devoted user base.

At the moment, the only place Adobe (or at least Adobe stockholders) are running, is to the bank. Currently Adobe stock is at its highest levels in 5 years.

As photographers, we represent only a portion of the incredible CS user base. Many thousands of corporate users, ad agencies and graphic designers, movie studios, web developers and other professionals, etc, etc. are more than happy to support the Adobe CC subscription model.

As much as many among us would like to see some stiff competition for Adobe, and particularly PS, there's nothing which comes close in terms of development and universality.

Unfortunately, the topic of this post might be better termed "WISHFUL THINKING" until Adobe comes face-to-face with a very challenging competitor.

[Kirk Gittings]

112528

Yeah right "Adobe is on the run, failed at subscription" they are totally tanking. Stock hits new high, 405 thousand new subscribers last quarter alone. This was published yesterday.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57620547-92/adobe-stock-hits-new-peak-as-investors-cheer-subscriptions/

but wait........
A recent survey by CNET and analyst firm Jefferies showed that 57 percent of Creative Cloud subscribers plan to renew, even though many no longer will get the first-year promotional pricing of $30 per month. However, the survey also showed customer satisfaction rates with the subscription to be dropping.

Give us some real competition-all that software mentioned above is not in the same league......yet-not for someone like me who makes their living with this software.

[Tin Can]

OK, I am wrong.


112528

Yeah right "Adobe is on the run, failed at subscription" they are totally tanking. Stock hits new high, 405 thousand new subscribers last quarter alone. This was published yesterday.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57620547-92/adobe-stock-hits-new-peak-as-investors-cheer-subscriptions/

but wait........

Give us some real competition-all that software mentioned above is not in the same league......yet-not for someone like me who makes their living with this software.

[Curt]

I think that graph is photoshopped!

Adobe is evolving and adjusting like every company. We as consumers have become very sensitive to changes, trying to for tell future events has become the norm.

[Jmarmck]

I once had copies of Dreamweaver and Fireworks when it was still Macromedia. I loved it. I cannot get those old versions to run anymore. Fireworks was the best competitor until Adobe bought them out. Too bad.

[jp]

I used to enjoy pre-adobe software from Aldus, like pagemaker and photostyler. Adobe just slowed them down and crashed them slowly.
Current Adobe photoshop is very fast and zippy though and is not comparable.

Here's another glowing report of Adobe's cloud business success.
http://petapixel.com/2014/03/21/adobes-q1-numbers-show-creative-cloud-success-whether-like/#more-131889

[Shootar401]

3/4's of the ad copy in the email was dedicated to software theft and the dangers to your creative projects.

They even brought up illegal pirated software 'back door's' which will hack your computer.

It was full on scare tactics, with sweet discounts.

They are on the run.

As for GIMP, been there, no thanks!

Pirating Adobe CC does not create any back doors. I mean, that what I hear ;)

And yes, Gimp is horrible. If they added true adjustment layers, blending modes and 24/48bit processing I'll revisit it.

And some interesting info... I work for a major TV network, we currently have 60+ seats of CS6 in house. Our Adobe rep was bugging us to upgrade to CC. Since none of our production machines can access the internet we couldn't do the CC plan since the software needs to phone home every month. Well it turns out that that is not exactly the truth. Adobe can generate a S/N that allows it to work as a permanent license with no need to phone home.

[Robert Brummitt]

Let me ask you this? I work for Shriners Hospital. It's an educational hospital and I sue Lightroom and photoshop. Can I get the latest version of PS without subscription? 90 percent of y work is done with Lightroom but I do use PS for more detail work.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Let me ask you this? I work for Shriners Hospital. It's an educational hospital and I sue Lightroom and photoshop. Can I get the latest version of PS without subscription? 90 percent of y work is done with Lightroom but I do use PS for more detail work.

Simply ask Adobe. If they recognize your workplace as educational, they will ask for a picture of your Shriners ID and make it so.

[Fred L]

not sure. afaik, you can upgrade within a version, ie- CS5 but there's no upgrade path from CS5 > CS6 if that's what you're thinking. Might require paying for the new version which could be necessary if you shoot raw files. CS5 can't convert latest nefs from D4s for example so I'll need to get IT to install CS6 with latest plugin (still beta I think).

but yes, best to contact Adobe for clear answers.

[gregmo]

Adobe will make more profit with their current model & slowly starting increasing rates as more & more users sign up which just adds to their bottom line. I hate the subscription model & refuse to take part in it.
I follow a LF film-scan-edit workflow and CS6 and my computer can handle my files (1-6GB scans). I just use a relatively new dedicated "photo editing" computer for photography & another computer for general use. In the future, has long as the hardware lasts on the editing computer, I'm not effected by software/ operating systems changes in the coming years.

[Pawlowski6132]

I think Adobe is on the run, they are backing away from the subscription and now trying to sell low cost student hard copies.

These are signs of failure. It does not make me happy as I use Photoshop daily and there is no real competition.

I just got this email headline.

New Adobe CC / CS6 Student & Teacher Editions – How to Save 70%

Huh????

What is signs of failure??

[DennisD]

......CS5 can't convert latest nefs from D4s for example so I'll need to get IT to install CS6 with latest plugin (still beta I think).

Fred,

I believe there's no immediate need to jump to CS6 just for D4s. If you have the latest version of Lightroom, use that as your RAW converter and render your adjusted files to open in CS5. The LR5 Raw converter is excellent and easy to use. Make sure it has the latest updates.

I don't think you will have difficulty with the D4s NEF files, though I do not have firsthand experience with that camera. I know D800 is no problem.

Dennis

[Fred L]

Tried LR but wasn't feeling it and my flow is Photo Mechanic > CS6 for jpegs or raw. Something changed in the net files when they brought out the D4s as I found the out hard way. Getting CS6 is no big deal. Have the ok from my boss so just wait till tech is back from vacation. Have CS6 on my Air if I need to access raw till then.

[Robert Brummitt]

I visited the Adobe site and I don't see anywhere that says you can just buy the software? I refuse to be a renter. I don't use PS all the time to warrant it.
I work with a D3 and download through Lightroom and finish an image with PS if I think it needs it. Otherwise, PS is closed.

[Elliot Puritz]

Kirk is completely correct...the company is doing very well and has transitioned to "the cloud"....what software REALLY compares with CS6?

There will always those who write and speak negatively about Adobe and PS. Those so disposed should use alternate software and complain about something else....:}

Elliot

[Robert Brummitt]

Kirk is completely correct...the company is doing very well and has transitioned to "the cloud"....what software REALLY compares with CS6?

There will always those who write and speak negatively about Adobe and PS. Those so disposed should use alternate software and complain about something else....:}

Elliot

What about those of us who do not make a living with the software? I don't teach PS. I don't work as commercial photographer. I do work for a hospital as a photographer but event the Shriners are bulking at the high fees Adobe wants. I'm just a simple fan of photography who loves the art form. Are we to be left high and dry?
I love working with my CS3 but because I use some plug-ins that require a photoshop higher the CS3 they won't work now. I paid good money for CS3 and the plug-ins and I don't see the need to rent CC. I'm being punished because Adobe wants it all their way.
You say those so disposed should use alternate software. I would say Adobe should honor those who use their software and help keep them in the fold not punish them or disregard them.

[Laura_Campbell]

I love the subscription option offered by Adobe. It has enabled access to software I previously couldn't justify purchasing.

[Kirk Gittings]

Robert CS3 is 3 generations old (4 if you count CC). What software company continues to support versions of their software 3-4 generations back? Very few-in fact none that I use. I have a drawer full of software CDs that won't run on my current computers, Mac and Windows.

I do teach LR and PS. Kids are paying good money to learn the latest software. So CC is basically a necessity for me as a teacher, but it is also a necessity in my business. Time is money and each little upgrade has things that save me time and therefore make me money. So CC is a necessity there to.

I'm perfectly willing to give other software a chance but to date IMHO nothing can do for me what LR and PS can do in terms of both tools and data management combined. I want to see some serious competition for Adobe but in the meantime I simply have to ante up.

[Oren Grad]

I visited the Adobe site and I don't see anywhere that says you can just buy the software?

If you mean PS CS6, try here:

http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html

[AtlantaTerry]

If you mean PS CS6, try here:

http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html

That is all great. But where is the UPGRADE from boxed CS5 Extended to boxed CS6 Extended?

[tgtaylor]

Robert CS3 is 3 generations old (4 if you count CC). What software company continues to support versions of their software 3-4 generations back? Very few-in fact none that I use. I have a drawer full of software CDs that won't run on my current computers, Mac and Windows.

Iup.

Ha,ha, love it! Traditional photographers and darkroom workers like myself don't have to worry about keeping-up with the Adobe's of the world. Silver, gold etc are, and will always be, readily available and film, at least B&W, will also be available and if it isn't you can make that too.

Imagine if Vivian Maier's negatives were on Kirk's CD's.

Thomas

[Robert Brummitt]

Robert CS3 is 3 generations old (4 if you count CC). What software company continues to support versions of their software 3-4 generations back? Very few-in fact none that I use. I have a drawer full of software CDs that won't run on my current computers, Mac and Windows.

I do teach LR and PS. Kids are paying good money to learn the latest software. So CC is basically a necessity for me as a teacher, but it is also a necessity in my business. Time is money and each little upgrade has things that save me time and therefore make me money. So CC is a necessity there to.

I'm perfectly willing to give other software a chance but to date IMHO nothing can do for me what LR and PS can do in terms of both tools and data management combined. I want to see some serious competition for Adobe but in the meantime I simply have to ante up.

Thanks, Kirk. I would agree with you on many points. But, I guess I'm stuck. My wife is a big financial person. She is a manager in Wells Fargo corperation and she won't let anyone have access to our credit card or financials. She and I believe in strong control. When our daughter was in a club basketball team we had to signed a contract where the service would have access to our credit and my wife simply said that won't happen. She asked how much would the club need for the three months membership and cut a check. Later, we found out some of the team parents were hit with charges and fees.

I don't think my family has any subscriptions that's on a payment plan attached to a credit card? I jokingly tell folks that my wife's office has three monitors. Two for work and one that monitors my spending. I mean it's hard to buy gifts for her because she knows before I get home! I guess I will have to save and buy CS6.
:):):)

[Oren Grad]

That is all great. But where is the UPGRADE from boxed CS5 Extended to boxed CS6 Extended?

If you click on "Buy", you will get a submenu with an item "I want to buy" which allows you to select "Full" or "Upgrade".

[AtlantaTerry]

If you click on "Buy", you will get a submenu with an item "I want to buy" which allows you to select "Full" or "Upgrade".

OK, thanks. I was wondering about that.

I tried the checkout. WOW! Now they want $400 for the upgrade for the Extended version. That's at least $100 or more than the last upgrade. :(

Well... at least it's a tax write-off.

[Kirk Gittings]

Robert, Yes I try and avoid recurring subscription debits from my account. This is one of only two I allow. But it goes to an account that has very limited funds available.

[toyotadesigner]

As much as many among us would like to see some stiff competition for Adobe, and particularly PS, there's nothing which comes close in terms of development and universality

The only commercial alternative for 16/48 bit image editing is PhotoLine http://www.pl32.com.

Don't panic - it's a 64 bit software for 69 Euro, it's just the name that's sort of misleading, because they've never changed the domain name.

[tgtaylor]

The day is approaching when you will have to pay to access your images in the "cloud" assuming, of course, that you didn't relinquish those rights by placing them on the cloud in the first place. Wat's ya gonna do den?

A sucker is born every second - PT Barnum

Thomas

[analoguey]

Maybe existing users could confirm - as I understood, the payment is for the license and support but the software is locally installed and images stored locally?

[andrehh]

Maybe existing users could confirm - as I understood, the payment is for the license and support but the software is locally installed and images stored locally?

Yes, the software is installed locally and your pictures are stored and processed locally.

Just once in a month there is an online validity check for your licence. And in case you are travelling in areas without internet for a longer while: the software will continue to run without validity confirmation for a maximum of 180 days.

[Greg Miller]

Maybe existing users could confirm - as I understood, the payment is for the license and support but the software is locally installed and images stored locally?

Yes, that is correct. With the CC subscription, Adobe does provide some cloud storage. But given the large file size of photographs, especially LF photographs, it just isn't practical to upload full res files to the cloud for most people. So the troll post above can be safely ignored.

[sanking]

I have no idea how this will eventually impact Adobe but many businesses are apparently becoming much more concerned about Cloud storage. There was an article on Friday in the New York Times on this subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/business/fallout-from-snowden-hurting-bottom-line-of-tech-companies.html?_r=0

Sandy

[Ken Lee]

To that point, I just saw an ad from Microsoft for some kind of cloud storage service, and they made a big point of stating that their servers are in Canada. I want to stay clear of political discussion, but eventually the inter-connections become evident.

[analoguey]

Cloud storage is uh not great unless something like Google implemented drive currently - no, not dropbox, not skydive or even box.
you lose access to dropbox if you had 2-factor authentication and changed your phone no, phone or just reinstalled the authentication app. No second logins. (somewhat akin to the new iPhone security feature). Skydrive - worst of the lot.
Box gives you 50gigs but no assured secrecy or security. (not from nsa but others)

[Greg Miller]

To that point, I just saw an ad from Microsoft for some kind of cloud storage service, and they made a big point of stating that their servers are in Canada. I want to stay clear of political discussion, but eventually the inter-connections become evident.

Microsoft's new cell has made it cleat that the company's strategic focus is in 2 areas. Cloud and services. Expect to be be pushed into those areas by anything you do Microsoft related in the coming months and years.

[Greg Miller]

Cloud storage is uh not great unless something like Google implemented drive currently - no, not dropbox, not skydive or even box.
you lose access to dropbox if you had 2-factor authentication and changed your phone no, phone or just reinstalled the authentication app. No second logins. (somewhat akin to the new iPhone security feature). Skydrive - worst of the lot.
Box gives you 50gigs but no assured secrecy or security. (not from nsa but others)

Think about where Google makes the bulk of their revenue. Then think about how much you want them sifting through your data. It isn't a place that I can feel good about parking my personal and business documents.

[StoneNYC]

My only two comments.

The thing I find most valuable after having used EVERY version of Lightroom all the way from the beginning LR1 is that it is a non-destructive editing, if PS would implement this into it's system along with the navigation and cataloging of Lightroom (photoshop and catalogue) then it would at least make some sense to always be up to date and go the CC rout

BUT there are some folks (not many but enough) who live in remote areas or are working in remote areas where they won't have access to the internet for long periods of time (months) if you're shooting in the Himalayas or North Pole or some remote jungle or Africa where there is just no signal, but you want to download and edit content, and suddenly your computer goes to check 30 days in and locks you out... What then??

That's the problem with subscription base. If they had 2 year pre-pay subscriptions and the only 30 day check was for update downloads, that would at least make more sense.

Also I have CS6 (that I never use) and got it as a package deal for $200 total and it came with LR4 on this special 1 day sale at B&H... So the CS6 does exist as a hard copy, or did, but they may have removed that when CC came out.

I thought I would use it more, but it's just so complicated and the destructive editing means I need to make copies of the original file before editing, what a waste of HD space! No thanks...

Wish they would get with the program and just combine LR and PS, I wouldn't mind paying for a combined program which would have non-destructive options.

I'm 31, used to be a hacker, and I find CS6 really hard to work with, all PS's I've used CS3 and some older PS9? probably...? Anyway they all were bought, and then never used because they are totally non-intuitive and you need to go to school to use them, when I'm not a graphic artist, I just want simple easy to use options, LR has most but their spot removal is horrible compared to CS6's and the graduated ND filter is confusing in both programs... So much IN PS that I actually took a 1 day class that just covered the ND filter part and with all the steps just to do it I got confused the next day and couldn't figure out how to repeat the process, it should be simple, but they make everything so complicated...

I'm not a stupid man, but PS is the most non-intuitive program I've ever used, it's worse than working on a machine running Microsoft windows, and that's pretty bad...

[Greg Miller]

PS is non-intuitive. Until you learn it. Like most things that are complex, they tend to have a steep learning curve. But if you can get past it, the software is extremely powerful. And once learned, we tend to not want to sacrifice that power for a more intuitive interface. I did not find CS6 to be any harder to use than any previous version. And I do find CS6 to facilitate a more non-destructive work flow. More-so than any previous version. So I am interested in hearing why you think it is more destructive.

[analoguey]

Think about where Google makes the bulk of their revenue. Then think about how much you want them sifting through your data. It isn't a place that I can feel good about parking my personal and business documents.
Oh, I agree!
My point was on usability specifically. Dropbox easily blocks you off and skydrive...*sigh*.

[j.e.simmons]

Tech articles I've read indicate computers are moving to devices which contain only a web browser. All programs and storage will be in the cloud.
There are many US court decisions that say if a file is on a server, it belongs to the owner of the server, at least so far as getting warrants and who has the authority to let someone look at the file.
I'd never put my copyrighted image, files, etc. on a cloud server.

[Fred L]

Stone,

The original file is left alone if you SAVE AS. This saves the worked file as another entity but if you simply close the worked file and choose 'SAVE CHANGES TO...' when it asks, then yes, the original is altered. I always 'SAVE AS' so there's no need to duplicate any files.

I wouldn't worry about using CS6 as it does things that LR can't do afaik, but I haven't used LR very much and am not super familiar with it.

[StoneNYC]

Stone,

The original file is left alone if you SAVE AS. This saves the worked file as another entity but if you simply close the worked file and choose 'SAVE CHANGES TO...' when it asks, then yes, the original is altered. I always 'SAVE AS' so there's no need to duplicate any files.

I wouldn't worry about using CS6 as it does things that LR can't do afaik, but I haven't used LR very much and am not super familiar with it.


PS is non-intuitive. Until you learn it. Like most things that are complex, they tend to have a steep learning curve. But if you can get past it, the software is extremely powerful. And once learned, we tend to not want to sacrifice that power for a more intuitive interface. I did not find CS6 to be any harder to use than any previous version. And I do find CS6 to facilitate a more non-destructive work flow. More-so than any previous version. So I am interested in hearing why you think it is more destructive.

To both of you.

In LR the original file is never touched, a separate very small file is created with all the information on changes made to the image(essentially a complex text file with codes for what is done to the image), that info is linked to the original file through Lightroom, the only time a new image file is created at all is if you export the file.

This also allows you to easily batch adjust large groups of files (say you didn't entire shoot all on your tripod and somehow all of the images were just slightly off of the horizon line and so you have to know adjust each one so that they are properly aligned, well in light room you can just select all the files and tell it to match the crop/tilt of one image and apply it to as many images as you want (2,000 if you need) this also applies to things like exposure, color temperature, etc, it's very powerful) imagine you shoot an entire wedding and for some reason all the images were accidentally shot on tungsten film, you can fix one image, then batch the rest and apply any other changes that are needed and batch them all, NOW imagine working on 2,000 files at once in CS6 and then having to go do something else while you're mid-way through working on them, you could leave the computer on all day and night, or you have to save each file as a brand new file... You've now doubled them as they at all PSD files because you haven't finished with your "layers" or whatever you're doing...

I'm Lightroom you just exit the program, everything is stored, all the changes, and the original file stays as it was.

I have 3TB of images, and my total size of my edit files is only 1BG... That's 3/1,000th's the size (or is it 3/100ths?) of the original files, imagine cutting your file storage in half by not having to "Save as" a new file...

That's the power of Lightroom.

No granted the type of editing you're doing in Photoshop is much more advanced, or it could be, but the same types of "text file" edits could still be created and you would still be saving a lot of space and the only time you would ever need to save the actual file as something larger as a whole file would be when you're exporting.

A great example would be if you're working on some kind of large project like say you're creating a book, of I don't know week, and you're going to have a book full of wheat and you need to take pictures of every single kind of week that exist on the planet and you're going to each country that has this week and taking photos of the week and this project takes you for years to complete, you've been saving the files within your light room system and you've been making edits on your leg room system, for four years now, but the only space you're taking up are the adjustments you've made to the file, now only at the end when you're ready to export the files and send them off to the maker for production do you actually create the files send them off to your book make her and then you don't even have to keep the created files on your computer because you don't need them anymore because you sent them off to the bookmaker or the printer etc. you can actually get rid of them altogether and if you ever need them again simply export them again, and the export takes very little time even for large files...

On top of this if 10 years from now you decide to make another book of all types of other kinds of wheat ut you decide that this book is going to have other plants in it, but you want to include the ones you have, except that you're going to have this book with a sepia tone, you don't have to go in and make a whole new file and save a whole new file with the new sepia toning, you just create what they call a virtual copy, it tells the text file to "pretend" there are 2 images and keep details in the original edit, and also to add new changes, and have a second file, so you're saving space again because you're not creating two sets of instructions, you're using one set, then adding to it. This again saves space.

This is also really great if you decide that you're going to change your watermark from what it was to something new and you know want to get rid of all of the files that you created that you store on your computer that have the watermark that is old, and replace them with the watermark that is new, you simply select the "flagged" button (because you would have already added your favorite images as flagged as you worked with them over the years, and made virtual catalogs (folders with alias/shortcuts to the original files) of your "website images" or "to show LF guys" etc, so you simply go in export them again with the new watermark, and then it asks you these files already exist what should I do, and you tell it overwrite the files, so it overwrites the old files with the new files with the new watermark and nothing at all is ever done to the original RAW / TIFF / DNG, and the only new files that are created are the final product, so essentially JPG's which are very small.

Just so you guys know I dictated this on my iPhone using Siri, so if there are any serious errors to the text that don't make any sense, it's probably that Siri did not understand what I was saying and use the wrong word, I apologize for this, but it's so long I don't feel like rereading it to edit :-p

[Greg Miller]

In Photoshop, a non-destructive workflow uses layers (Curves, Color Balance, Vibrance,...). Layers are not destructive. You can always modify or delete layers. You can save the file, and years later open the file and modify or delete layers. You also have smart object for the few things, like filters, that would other change pixels. Layers also have layer masks. So you can add an effect, such as lowering the luminosity, and only apply that effect by using layer mask. That gives you the same effect as a GND, except with a paintbrush on the layer mask, the transition does not have to be a straight line like it would be with a GND. If in Photoshop, you find yourself clicking on Image | Adjustments, you are probably in the wrong place (because that area is destructive) These techniques take me about an hour to teach. If you took a class that took a full day to teach a GND, the the class was not a good one.

[jp]

The changes of the datacenter being insecure/hacked is likely less than most PCs being insecure/hacked. It's just a matter of the enemy you don't know versus the one you do.

[StoneNYC]

In Photoshop, a non-destructive workflow uses layers (Curves, Color Balance, Vibrance,...). Layers are not destructive. You can always modify or delete layers. You can save the file, and years later open the file and modify or delete layers. You also have smart object for the few things, like filters, that would other change pixels. Layers also have layer masks. So you can add an effect, such as lowering the luminosity, and only apply that effect by using layer mask. That gives you the same effect as a GND, except with a paintbrush on the layer mask, the transition does not have to be a straight line like it would be with a GND. If in Photoshop, you find yourself clicking on Image | Adjustments, you are probably in the wrong place (because that area is destructive) These techniques take me about an hour to teach. If you took a class that took a full day to teach a GND, the the class was not a good one.

You're missing the point, 1 you don't have to make layers in LR for it to be non-destructive, and 2 the "layers" file is HUGHE and again means you have to make a whole new file with these layers... It's a lot more space and more file sorting to do... And again more space!

[Greg Miller]

Also, in Photoshop, you can easily do what you discussed with Sepia and Watermarks. Those go in as new layers. You can chosse th make the layer visible, or not. When you save the file, all layers are save (visible and non-visible). So you do not have to make multiple copies. You also have something called layer comps, where, with one keystroke, you can make multiple layers visible, or not.

[Greg Miller]

You're missing the point, 1 you don't have to make layers in LR for it to be non-destructive, and 2 the "layers" file is HUGHE and again means you have to make a whole new file with these layers... It's a lot more space and more file sorting to do... And again more space!

No you do not have to make multiple copies. And the layers are much more powerful than a LR adjustment. And most layers do not add significantly to the file size. Only layers that have actual pixels do that.

[StoneNYC]

Also, in Photoshop, you can easily do what you discussed with Sepia and Watermarks. Those go in as new layers. You can chosse th make the layer visible, or not. When you save the file, all layers are save (visible and non-visible). So you do not have to make multiple copies. You also have something called layer comps, where, with one keystroke, you can make multiple layers visible, or not.

Aside from the fact the whole layers thing confused the heck out of me.

Can you batch edit 2,000+ images at once?

[StoneNYC]

No you do not have to make multiple copies. And the layers are much more powerful than a LR adjustment. And most layers do not add significantly to the file size. Only layers that have actual pixels do that.

Layers with pixels?

We should start a new thread.... We are OT :(

[Greg Miller]

Aside from the fact the whole layers thing confused the heck out of me.

Can you batch edit 2,000+ images at once?

Yes.

[Greg Miller]

Layers with pixels?

We should start a new thread.... We are OT :(

Layer adjustments do not have pixels. I just did a test.

File with no adjustments: 372,526 KB
File with 2 curve layers, color balance layer, vibrance layer, PhotoFilter layer : 372,936 KB

[Greg Miller]

Aside from the fact the whole layers thing confused the heck out of me.

Layers are just like transparencies on an overhead projector. We can add a yellow transparency and the viewer sees the image as more yellow. We can remove the transparency at any time and the image looks like it did at the start. No pixels changed (nondestructive) because we did not change the base transparency (background layer).

[Fred L]

Some photographers don't really care if a file is destructive since the original is intact and they don't need to revisit the worked file. I know I don't particularly care once I file my photos to whoever needs them.

Different needs, different workflows.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Can you batch edit 2,000+ images at once?

Yes, I have processed 2130 images from our local historical society. I fired it up at about 10AM and went to lunch and it was all done when I returned. I've done similar rough batches over the years.
.

[Greg Miller]

Some photographers don't really care if a file is destructive since the original is intact and they don't need to revisit the worked file. I know I don't particularly care once I file my photos to whoever needs them.

Different needs, different workflows.

I can understand that some do not require a nondestructive workflow. But the nondestructive workflow requires no extra effort or time (in fact I could make an argument that it tales less effort and time) than a destructive workflow. So I don't know why one would I Gentilly opt for the destructive workflow.

[Brian K]

Sales are up for Adobe, subscriptions are up

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/adobes-profit-falls-shares-spike-near-days-end-2014-03-18

[bdkphoto]

Layer adjustments do not have pixels. I just did a test.

File with no adjustments: 372,526 KB
File with 2 curve layers, color balance layer, vibrance layer, PhotoFilter layer : 372,936 KB


Hey Greg,
I'm sort of answering an earlier post too...

Lightroom is a parametric image editor - nothing you do in LR affects the Camera raw files (or the original tiff if you are working from a scan) and you can always return to the original file state. Photoshop is a pixel based image editor and once you are working in PS (ACR portion of PS is a parametric editor like LR) you are fixing the pixels in place.

Save a color tiff file as a BW in PS and you can't go back to color once it's saved, in LR you can go back.

LR saves instructions sets (parametric editing) and leaves the original files unchanged, PS acts directly on the underlying files and alters the actual pixels once saved (pixel based editing). PS has some new parametric features (cropping comes to mind) and the ACR portion is non destructive too. You are correct that adjustment layers do not build file size, but retouching layers (cloning and spotting etc) will build file size quickly.

LR has improved quite a bit but still can't compete for deep image editing beyond simple spotting and standard image adjustments, but for the basics its hard to beat, especially with the non-destructive workflow.

There is a really good full explanation here by my friends Richard Anderson and Peter Krogh on dpbestflow- http://dpbestflow.org/links/36 - well worth the read.

[StoneNYC]

Yes, I have processed 2130 images from our local historical society. I fired it up at about 10AM and went to lunch and it was all done when I returned. I've done similar rough batches over the years.
.

LR takes about 2 seconds to apply those changes... But at least it's possible somehow.

[StoneNYC]

Hey Greg,
I'm sort of answering an earlier post too...

Lightroom is a parametric image editor - nothing you do in LR affects the Camera raw files (or the original tiff if you are working from a scan) and you can always return to the original file state. Photoshop is a pixel based image editor and once you are working in PS (ACR portion of PS is a parametric editor like LR) you are fixing the pixels in place.

Save a color tiff file as a BW in PS and you can't go back to color once it's saved, in LR you can go back.

LR saves instructions sets (parametric editing) and leaves the original files unchanged, PS acts directly on the underlying files and alters the actual pixels once saved (pixel based editing). PS has some new parametric features (cropping comes to mind) and the ACR portion is non destructive too. You are correct that adjustment layers do not build file size, but retouching layers (cloning and spotting etc) will build file size quickly.

LR has improved quite a bit but still can't compete for deep image editing beyond simple spotting and standard image adjustments, but for the basics its hard to beat, especially with the non-destructive workflow.

There is a really good full explanation here by my friends Richard Anderson and Peter Krogh on dpbestflow- http://dpbestflow.org/links/36 - well worth the read.

So basically the things I do (dust spotting) would increase the pixel count and file size significantly? I spot like 100 or more "spots" an image sometimes...

[Greg Miller]

Hey Greg,
I'm sort of answering an earlier post too...

Lightroom is a parametric image editor - nothing you do in LR affects the Camera raw files (or the original tiff if you are working from a scan) and you can always return to the original file state. Photoshop is a pixel based image editor and once you are working in PS (ACR portion of PS is a parametric editor like LR) you are fixing the pixels in place.

Save a color tiff file as a BW in PS and you can't go back to color once it's saved, in LR you can go back.

LR saves instructions sets (parametric editing) and leaves the original files unchanged, PS acts directly on the underlying files and alters the actual pixels once saved (pixel based editing). PS has some new parametric features (cropping comes to mind) and the ACR portion is non destructive too. You are correct that adjustment layers do not build file size, but retouching layers (cloning and spotting etc) will build file size quickly.

LR has improved quite a bit but still can't compete for deep image editing beyond simple spotting and standard image adjustments, but for the basics its hard to beat, especially with the non-destructive workflow.

There is a really good full explanation here by my friends Richard Anderson and Peter Krogh on dpbestflow- http://dpbestflow.org/links/36 - well worth the read.

Hi Bruce,

I'm not sure I am following. When I convert a color image to B&W in Photoshop, I use a B&W adjustment layer or a channel mixer adjustment layer (so the pixel layer remains unchanged). So I can go back to the original color version later if I want. The only time I could not do that would be if I flattened the image and saved it. But I never would do that for a master image file. I generally do not do this, but you can also open the raw file as a smart object and re-edit with ACR (either LR of ACR) as well.

[MikeH]

The IRS has made it clear to tax professionals that, if it's on the cloud, they have a right to look at it. It's not been tested in the courts, yet, but, as John Simmonds mentions, the courts are headed in that direction.

[StoneNYC]

Hi Bruce,

I'm not sure I am following. When I convert a color image to B&W in Photoshop, I use a B&W adjustment layer or a channel mixer adjustment layer (so the pixel layer remains unchanged). So I can go back to the original color version later if I want. The only time I could not do that would be if I flattened the image and saved it. But I never would do that for a master image file. I generally do not do this, but you can also open the raw file as a smart object and re-edit with ACR (either LR of ACR) as well.

I'm not sure I follow either... My camera RAW file is CR2 (canon) or TIFF if it's a scan) how do you save the adjustments to the CR2 file without converting it and then re-saving it to a DNG/PSD file?

[bdkphoto]

So basically the things I do (dust spotting) would increase the pixel count and file size significantly? I spot like 100 or more "spots" an image sometimes...


In PS best practice for spotting would be to duplicate the original layer and use the clone or healing brush to spot. The duplicate layer would double the file size. Ideally each transformation-- spotting, burning, dodging, retouching would each have its own layer, and your files will be larger.

In LR theres no change in file size ( or really minimal ) as you are not working on the file itself just the instruction sets for the file. Of course you can't do significant transformational editing in LR - your not going to remove air conditioners and exit signs on a building with the tools in LR so the reality is that the non-destructive workflow of LR will only go so far before you will need to use PS.
This is the tradeoff between LR and PS- LR is non-destructive editing, and PS is not, but there is a lot that cannot be done in LR.

[Greg Miller]

In PS best practice for spotting would be to duplicate the original layer and use the clone or healing brush to spot. The duplicate layer would double the file size. Ideally each transformation-- spotting, burning, dodging, retouching would each have its own layer, and your files will be larger.

In LR theres no change in file size ( or really minimal ) as you are not working on the file itself just the instruction sets for the file. Of course you can't do significant transformational editing in LR - your not going to remove air conditioners and exit signs on a building with the tools in LR so the reality is that the non-destructive workflow of LR will only go so far before you will need to use PS.
This is the tradeoff between LR and PS- LR is non-destructive editing, and PS is not, but there is a lot that cannot be done in LR.

This is not very intuitive either, but is a better practice for spotting. Create a blank layer above the background layer (as opposed to copying the background layer). The use the spot healing brush (or tool of choice) with "sample all layer" or "sample layers below" selected.

Copying the background layer will double the files size. Using a blank layer will cause file size to barely change (including the new pixels created on the blank layer while spotting).

[Greg Miller]

This is the tradeoff between LR and PS- LR is non-destructive editing, and PS is not, but there is a lot that cannot be done in LR.

I'm still going to disagree with this. PS is not destructive when using adjustment layers. The background pixels are never changed. The adjustment layers are simply instructions, very similar to the parametric instructions from ACR.

[Greg Miller]

I'm not sure I follow either... My camera RAW file is CR2 (canon) or TIFF if it's a scan) how do you save the adjustments to the CR2 file without converting it and then re-saving it to a DNG/PSD file?

If you are editing in LR or Bridge/ACR (ACR is used with LR too, just a different user interface), the adjustments are automatically saved in the .xmp sidecar file. If you are talking about Photoshop adjustemtns they would be save in the .psd file or .tiff file that you eventually save.

[bdkphoto]

Hi Bruce,

I'm not sure I am following. When I convert a color image to B&W in Photoshop, I use a B&W adjustment layer or a channel mixer adjustment layer (so the pixel layer remains unchanged). So I can go back to the original color version later if I want. The only time I could not do that would be if I flattened the image and saved it. But I never would do that for a master image file. I generally do not do this, but you can also open the raw file as a smart object and re-edit with ACR (either LR of ACR) as well.

The easier thing is to read the dpbestflow stuff as I think its much clearer than I can do but I'll give it a whack…you are working correctly in PS with layers, as long as you keep them in place you will be able to return to the original state -- however once you flatten an image you have fixed the changes at the pixel level. There is no return from BW once flattened. In LR the file itself is never altered so at any time you can return to the original state of the file. The pixels in LR are never altered just instruction sets for how the file is viewed. In PS the pixels are transformed into BW.

If you make changes to the original file in PS without using layers you are stuck, LR you are not. PS transforms the actual pixels, LR (parametric image editors) only change the instructions sets for the pixels not the pixels themselves…


Sorry I can't be much clearer, as I've said it is laid out much clearer elsewhere and after a big dinner I'm fading fast…

[bdkphoto]

I'm still going to disagree with this. PS is not destructive when using adjustment layers. The background pixels are never changed. The adjustment layers are simply instructions, very similar to the parametric instructions from ACR.

Here's the dpbestflow on this:

Pixel editing
In the most basic kind of image editing, you must actually alter the image pixels to make a change. So, to make a JPEG more blue, you increase the amount of blue in the pixels, compared to those of red and green. When you save the file, you've made a "destructive" change to the image, since you've replaced the original color information with new color information. We call this destructive because the original image no longer exists (unless you made a copy), even though you might have improved the image.

Over the years, Photoshop has changed, and it's possible to use layers to work on images non-destructively. The original image can be saved as a layer, for instance, and all the "pixel pushing" can be done to duplicates of this layer. Fundamentally, however, Photoshop must alter the file at some level in order to adjust the image.

Moreover, Photoshop is fundamentally a one-at-a-time program. While you can run batch processes on a folder of images, Photoshop must work on them sequentially. Open, change, close. Open, change, close.

Parametric Image Editing (PIE)
A Parametric Image Editor, by contrast, generally cannot change the original pixels. It makes changes by creating instructions or parameters for interpreting the file. If you want to make a picture more blue, you create an instruction that tells the software to make the pixel more blue. The original pixels - the Source Image - never gets changed, only reinterpreted. Parametric Image Editors are fully non-destructive.

Because Parametric Image Editing Software (PIEware) works by means of text-based instructions, it's very well suited to many-at-a-time workflow. You can take the instructions that are made for one image and apply them to any number of additional images. Of course this makes it ideal for digital photography because there is often a need to adjust multiple images in the same way.

The most important peice of information for photographers is that Parametric Image Editing is custom made for Raw Files. While Parametric Image Editing has been around for several decades, and has been the structure of choice for video and graphic design software, the explosion of PIEware choices was fueled by raw file photography. Digital camera raw files simply can't be edited with traditional pixel pushing. As digital photography - and raw file capture in particular - has exploded in popularity, there has also been an explosion in the use of PIEware.

[Greg Miller]

The easier thing is to read the dpbestflow stuff as I think its much clearer than I can do but I'll give it a whack…you are working correctly in PS with layers, as long as you keep them in place you will be able to return to the original state -- however once you flatten an image you have fixed the changes at the pixel level. There is no return from BW once flattened. In LR the file itself is never altered so at any time you can return to the original state of the file. The pixels in LR are never altered just instruction sets for how the file is viewed. In PS the pixels are transformed into BW.

If you make changes to the original file in PS without using layers you are stuck, LR you are not. PS transforms the actual pixels, LR (parametric image editors) only change the instructions sets for the pixels not the pixels themselves…


Sorry I can't be much clearer, as I've said it is laid out much clearer elsewhere and after a big dinner I'm fading fast…

Thanks for the reply. I did skim through the link, but didn't see anything that would cause me to thing that PS is destructive. I never flatten my master files, so the destructive part just does not apply to me. The only time I flatten files is when preparing them for a specific output (but I leave the master fine untouched). And mostly because it is very important to flatten 16 bit images prior to converting to 8 bit. If I were to output a B&W image I would flatten the file for printing, but the master file retains all layer adjustments, and therefore is not destructive.

[Greg Miller]

Here's the dpbestflow on this:

Over the years, Photoshop has changed, and it's possible to use layers to work on images non-destructively. The original image can be saved as a layer, for instance, and all the "pixel pushing" can be done to duplicates of this layer. Fundamentally, however, Photoshop must alter the file at some level in order to adjust the image.

It is extremely rare that I would make a duplicate of the background layer. There rarely is a need to do that. Adjustment layers are simply instructions. They do not alter the background pixels any more than a ACR adjustment alters the raw file. "alter the file" does not mern "alter the pixels". Altering the file means that the file now contain instructions (adjustment layers). Yes, that is different than ACR using a .xmp sidecar, but the only difference is in where the data is stored. The advatage of ACR is that the it is faster to do bartch editing because you are working with small xmp files rather than large psd files. The advantage of saving the instructions in the .psd file is that those instructions travel with the picel;s when an image file is copied. If you copy a raw file using an OS file copier, you can lose the .xmp file. I rarely do batch edits on large number of files so the batch editing advantage is not enough to offset the advantages of PSD editing.

One advantage of PS that I refuse to give up (which I would using LR) is being able to work on the 3 components of color (hue, saturation, luminosity) independently using blending modes. Increasing contrast with a curve and a blending mode of normal will almost always cause apparent saturation to increase to an undesired level. But changing the curve layer's blending mode to luminosity wil prevent that. So I almost always change contrast with a blending mode of luminosity, hue with a blending mode of hue, and saturation with a blending mode of saturation. THis yields a very high level of control over color in an image that you just cannot do in LR.

[Greg Miller]

I might add that the H/S/L blending mode concept is especially important with toned B&W images. Make a healthy contrast increase in LR to a sepia toned image and watch the saturation of the sepia go crazy. Now you have to decrease saturation, which will in turn decrease contrast. It is a vicious cycle. That can largely be avoided with blending modes in PS.

[StoneNYC]

If you are editing in LR or Bridge/ACR (ACR is used with LR too, just a different user interface), the adjustments are automatically saved in the .xmp sidecar file. If you are talking about Photoshop adjustemtns they would be save in the .psd file or .tiff file that you eventually save.

Right, so as I said before, the storage space is extremely larger in PS.

My original file is 25mb RAW (CR2) or if a 4x5 B&W scan 180mb TIFF (2400dpi scan). The new .xmp (I thought that's what it was but I didn't want to say it and be wrong) and the RAW file together will be 25.2mb or 181mb TIFF... Tell me how big the CR2+PSD or TIFF+PSD file will be... Bet the combined size is a lot more...

Anyway, thanks for confirming my belief that PS just isn't ready for me.

I don't remove signs or air conditioners, I don't work like that, if you can't do it in the darkroom on film, I don't want to do it digitally, feels wrong for me... (May I emphasize FOR ME as to be clear I'm not saying it's bad, just not what I would prefer).

Thanks.

[Greg Miller]

Right, so as I said before, the storage space is extremely larger in PS.

My original file is 25mb RAW (CR2) or if a 4x5 B&W scan 180mb TIFF (2400dpi scan). The new .xmp (I thought that's what it was but I didn't want to say it and be wrong) and the RAW file together will be 25.2mb or 181mb TIFF... Tell me how big the CR2+PSD or TIFF+PSD file will be... Bet the combined size is a lot more...

Anyway, thanks for confirming my belief that PS just isn't ready for me.

I don't remove signs or air conditioners, I don't work like that, if you can't do it in the darkroom on film, I don't want to do it digitally, feels wrong for me... (May I emphasize FOR ME as to be clear I'm not saying it's bad, just not what I would prefer).

Thanks.


While it is true that a .psd file will be larger than a raw file, I don't see how the sentence of mine that you quoted conforms or denies that in any way. Just because the data is stored in a different place (.psd vs. raw+xmp) in no way implies that the total data size is different.


I thought I would use it more, but it's just so complicated and the destructive editing means I need to make copies of the original file before editing, what a waste of HD space! No thanks...

I also never suggested that PS was right for you. My original post inquired as to why you thought CS6 was destructive. A question that remains unanswered. There is absolutely no reason to have to make copies of the original file prior to editing.

[StoneNYC]

While it is true that a .psd file will be larger than a raw file, I don't see how the sentence of mine that you quoted conforms or denies that in any way. Just because the data is stored in a different place (.psd vs. raw+xmp) in no way implies that the total data size is different.



I also never suggested that PS was right for you. My original post inquired as to why you thought CS6 was destructive. A question that remains unanswered. There is absolutely no reason to have to make copies of the original file prior to editing.

I'll try to make this simple... The file is a CR2 (canon RAW) as an example, this must be saved, and then an additional file must be made that is the new .psd file... This is 2 files that are RAW in nature.

I and many others wouldn't want to put all my eggs in one basket, I don't trust Adobe enough to convert my RAW images into PSD/DNG files and eliminate the original CR2 files. So I would be forced to have 2 sets of files, the CR2 files AND the PSD or DNG files, that is larger than CR2+XMP by a LOT.

Simply converting the CR2 into DNG or PSD is destructive because you're editing the way the RAW data is viewed and stored and read.

This is probably arbitrary to most people but to me it matters and I'm not the only one.

This goes along with the OT which talked about cloud storage, if my files are all in the Adobe cloud, AND are all in Adobe propriety format, who's to stop them from forcing me to continue subscribing just to have access to the files...

What if I have all my PSD files edited in layers and then want to use apples editing software (I wouldn't as their vault system is just as scary as Adobe CC but for arguments sake, let's say I do) now how can I be assured Adobe won't make some propriety changes that make it impossible to get at my files / layers etc, or possibly even just the original data before all the changes through a different program, I'm possibly stuck... I don't want that.

This is why I think the TOTALLY non-destructive xmp system makes a lot more sense for the long term. Rather than the PSD layers system.

Again it's not for everyone and I'm not trying to be a troll or anything, just explaining my thoughts. And something to think about especially if you are a CC user or thinking about it.

[Greg Miller]

I'll try to make this simple... The file is a CR2 (canon RAW) as an example, this must be saved, and then an additional file must be made that is the new .psd file... This is 2 files that are RAW in nature.

I and many others wouldn't want to put all my eggs in one basket, I don't trust Adobe enough to convert my RAW images into PSD/DNG files and eliminate the original CR2 files. So I would be forced to have 2 sets of files, the CR2 files AND the PSD or DNG files, that is larger than CR2+XMP by a LOT.

Simply converting the CR2 into DNG or PSD is destructive because you're editing the way the RAW data is viewed and stored and read.

This is probably arbitrary to most people but to me it matters and I'm not the only one.

This goes along with the OT which talked about cloud storage, if my files are all in the Adobe cloud, AND are all in Adobe propriety format, who's to stop them from forcing me to continue subscribing just to have access to the files...

What if I have all my PSD files edited in layers and then want to use apples editing software (I wouldn't as their vault system is just as scary as Adobe CC but for arguments sake, let's say I do) now how can I be assured Adobe won't make some propriety changes that make it impossible to get at my files / layers etc, or possibly even just the original data before all the changes through a different program, I'm possibly stuck... I don't want that.

This is why I think the TOTALLY non-destructive xmp system makes a lot more sense for the long term. Rather than the PSD layers system.

Again it's not for everyone and I'm not trying to be a troll or anything, just explaining my thoughts. And something to think about especially if you are a CC user or thinking about it.

The xmp files are Adobe files that have the exact same risk as a PSD file. It is an Adobe format that Adobe could, in theory, decide to stop supporting. So your non-destructive xmp process does not exist.

And Canon can do the same thing you are afraid Adobe might do. CR2 is also a proprietary file format (that continually changes with each new camera generation) that has the exact same risk as PS layers.

[StoneNYC]

The xmp files are Adobe files that have the exact same risk as a PSD file. It is an Adobe format that Adobe could, in theory, decide to stop supporting. So your non-destructive xmp process does not exist.

And Canon can do the same thing you are afraid Adobe might do. CR2 is also a proprietary file format (that continually changes with each new camera generation) that has the exact same risk as PS layers.

In both cases though the original CR2 file is intact and I could retro-convert if and when the time comes, canon won't charge me to use their format in the future, can't be sure of Adobe.

Also, I'm done, we are OT and going in circles

[Greg Miller]

In both cases though the original CR2 file is intact and I could retro-convert if and when the time comes, canon won't charge me to use their format in the future, can't be sure of Adobe.

Also, I'm done, we are OT and going in circles

It is intact, same as if you opened as a smart object in PS. But in either case you must have vendor supplied software that ru b s on a functioning computer. Today you have that. Some year down the road you may or may not. Depends on if the vendor supplies the software and what they charge. Canon or Adobe pick your poison.

Also you still have your CR2 file intact whether you use PS or not. Using P's does not change that. If adobe no longer makes xmp or psd feasible to access, there is no difference whether you use LR or Ps. You still have you CR2 and you still lose your changes.

[Kirk Gittings]

PS and LR are a bit hard to grasp conceptually (and they "think" differently from each other) but if you stick with it there is a point where you turn a corner with understanding them and then it comes easy. It was hard for me at first too. Now, just like I pre-visualize a print and all the burning and dodging etc.when I look at a scene, the same exact thing happens when working digitally or with film and digital printing in mind. I see the final product with LR and PS tool adjustments in place.

[paulr]

I'm still going to disagree with this. PS is not destructive when using adjustment layers. The background pixels are never changed. The adjustment layers are simply instructions, very similar to the parametric instructions from ACR.

That's cool ... never thought of it. Does this cause any issues with adjustment layers above it? Can you sample all layers below the blank layer?

[Greg Miller]

That's cool ... never thought of it. Does this cause any issues with adjustment layers above it? Can you sample all layers below the blank layer?

Each tool has different options (for some reason...). The spot healing brush only has "sample all layers". The clone tool has optiosn for "current and below", "current layer", and "all layers". The "all layers" options can obviously cause problems because the tool will pick up their effect and then the layer above it will repeat the effect. There is an easy work around by selecting all the layers above, hitting CTRL+G (creates a Group with those layers), then click on the eyeball of the Group to temporarily hide the group - do the spotting - then reveal the group when done.

The blank layer seems odd at first, but quickly makes sense after doing a couple of times. It also makes it easy to remove some spotting if desired. Just take the eraser tool and wipe out the desired pixels on the spotting layer. This would be much harder to do if it was a copy of the background layer.

[Greg Miller]

That's cool ... never thought of it. Does this cause any issues with adjustment layers above it? Can you sample all layers below the blank layer?

Added info. I usually place the blank layer directly above the background layer, and then spot. I usually spot as the first step in PS, so I usually don't have to worry about having layers above the blank later. But sometimes after increasing contrast, some spots will be visible that were not visible initially. I like placing all the adjustment layers into a Group anyway because it makes it easy to do a before/after comparison.

[paulr]

I asked because I usually have a background layer and above that a sharpening layer. The sharpening layer is a clone of the background, set to luminosity, and with the blend-if sliders used to exclude the brightest highlights and darkest shadows. I'd like to be able to put a spotting layer directly above these. In the past I've always done spotting as a destructive process.

[Greg Miller]

I asked because I usually have a background layer and above that a sharpening layer. The sharpening layer is a clone of the background, set to luminosity, and with the blend-if sliders used to exclude the brightest highlights and darkest shadows. I'd like to be able to put a spotting layer directly above these. In the past I've always done spotting as a destructive process.

That should work. If you select "current and below", that will do the trick. The sampling should use the sharpening layer pixels, except for where the blend-if decides to make the background layer visible, in which case sampling will happen form the background layer. I'm guessing that's exactly what you want.

[Fred L]

I have to say, this has been a very educational thread about Adobe that morphed into CS6. I was never a big user of layers but I'll have to save the info here for further reading and dig into it more if it can help with post processing. Tons of information !

[photoevangelist]

Adobe has always given huge discounts to the education industry. Where I am, you could get the whole CS6 master collection for $400 or so ($2500+ retail) with the education discount. Of course if you are motivated/inclined to do so, you can get it for nothing too. Probably the same case with CC as it was with CS6. Just sayin'...

I purchased the CS5 Design Set when it was new for around $150 under the educator discount in Korea. There were so many pirated versions in Korea, I think they were almost giving it away for $150. CS5 is good enough for me and what I do, I don't need to pay the monthly subscription.

[Adamphotoman]

This has been an interesting read even if a bit confrontational.

My workflow is capture one pro:
This has up to 10 adjustment layers including ND Grad filters...all on the Raw file with something like sidecar instructions.
One can always go back to the RAW file and as the program gets better one can process the RAW files even better.

Then I go to PS.

When I purchased PS 5.5 the nice lady said IF you do it now we will give you PS6 for free.
They did not honour.
I stopped there.
No more paying for PS.
No Cloud.
No CC

So i am searching but CS5 or 6 is all I need for now.

Thank you Greg Miller for your experience.
And thank you Stone for your side of it.

grant

[Ben Syverson]

Eh, $10/month is pretty good for Photoshop + Lightroom. It's basically $120 / year to have the latest version of Photoshop at any given time, and they actually have been adding/fixing things every few months. Sometimes the features are things you don't need, but sometimes they add something useful like Select > Focus Area (https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new.html#focus_area_select).

Photoshop CS6 Extended was $999. That's equivalent to over 8 years of CC. I don't think I could use the same version of Photoshop for 8 years. 8 years ago, CS2 was the latest and greatest. Content-Aware Fill didn't arrive until CS5. I use the Content-Aware Healing Brush to do all of my dust spotting...

Plus, I like that I can install 2 copies—my wife uses my other copy to do light editing and image prep for the web.

Anyway, to each his/her own, but I'm in the minority that thinks CC is actually a great deal

[Preston]

Since Adobe made the subscription for Photoshop + Lightroom for $10/month permanent, I think that's a pretty good deal. At the moment I'm using CS6 that I got a while back for the upgrade price. From what I've heard from others, Adobe is being pretty timely with bug fixes and feature updates. At some point, when there are new features that I can't live without, I'll subscribe.

Just a quick note wrt to CS6: Adobe is providing updates for Adobe Camera RAW. So, if you use ACR, be sure to check for updates.

--P

[Greg Miller]

Eh, $10/month is pretty good for Photoshop + Lightroom. It's basically $120 / year to have the latest version of Photoshop at any given time, and they actually have been adding/fixing things every few months. Sometimes the features are things you don't need, but sometimes they add something useful like Select > Focus Area (https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new.html#focus_area_select).

Photoshop CS6 Extended was $999. That's equivalent to over 8 years of CC. I don't think I could use the same version of Photoshop for 8 years. 8 years ago, CS2 was the latest and greatest. Content-Aware Fill didn't arrive until CS5. I use the Content-Aware Healing Brush to do all of my dust spotting...

Plus, I like that I can install 2 copies—my wife uses my other copy to do light editing and image prep for the web.

Anyway, to each his/her own, but I'm in the minority that thinks CC is actually a great deal

I would say $10/month is just OK. Most people paid the upgrade grade price - much less than a full price version. I paid $220 in May 2012 for the CD version. So that's about $8.50/month, and I own it, not rent it. And I have it installed on my desktop and laptop per Adobe's license agreement. CS2 was hardly a mature product. The features added between CS2 and CS6 are quite significant. CS6 is a pretty mature product, so the new features are not really that significant. Similar to an upgrade from Word 2010 and Word 2013. Adobe knew that and pretty much had to switch to a rental model to keep income flowing. So far, for the work I do, there isn't a feature that compels me to switch to CC. And it would have a be pretty darn good feature to compel me to start paying monthly for the rest of my life, or else lose the ability to open my files.

[Ben Syverson]

If CS6 is working for you, then who cares what Adobe does with CC? You can just ignore it, and use CS6 for the rest of your life.

If this new payment model is totally abhorrent to you—even though it saves you money—then you could switch to a competing product.

[CantikFotos]

My problem is that where I live, it would take a month to download it.

[StoneNYC]

I just think they should still be offering both options to give everyone a chance to make their own decision...

[StoneNYC]

My problem is that where I live, it would take a month to download it.

Have you contacted Adobe to ask them about this particular kind of issue? It's possible that they have some kind of special situation set up for people that live in your kind of area where Internet access is not available, or limited?

[Greg Miller]

If CS6 is working for you, then who cares what Adobe does with CC? You can just ignore it, and use CS6 for the rest of your life.

If this new payment model is totally abhorrent to you—even though it saves you money—then you could switch to a competing product.

Yes, I am quite aware of my options. I was simply pointing out the reasons why I don't think the $10/month rental option is a "pretty good deal".

[dave_whatever]

Let's face it for what it is, the CC model is adobe's attempt to remove from photoshop the title of "probably the second most pirated piece of software ever", probably only second behind Windows XP. Photoshop has long been seen as the one piece of software that everyone must have, despite 90% of its capacity being more or less redundant to most users. I can,t imaging anyone who doesn't make money from their photography getting value from Photoshop, not at the $999 price point. Lightroom or Aperture is available for a lot less money which cover most people's needs better than any version of Photoshop, and allows handling a large library of files easier (and the same basic workflow/handling for scanned images and digital), and open source freeware like GIMP increasingly able to fill the gaps. So with photoshop widely pirated (mainly due to its enormous price tag) Adobe needed to do something to continue to make some money, they'd rather take a fee quid each month than nothing. And by making it look like a cheaper option as nobody is paying up front, they'll probably kill off a lot of the perceived need for pirated copies.

[Jac@stafford.net]

My problem is that where I live, it would take a month to download it.

Could it be worse than my 4.9Mb/s ? Sometimes it is slower.
.

[Greg Miller]

Could it be worse than my 4.9Mb/s ? Sometimes it is slower.
.

Sounds like you have DSL or low end cable. DSL speeds of 3 Mbps or less is very common. The few folks still using dial-up suffer with 54 Kbps.

[StoneNYC]

Sounds like you have DSL or low end cable. DSL speeds of 3 Mbps or less is very common. The few folks still using dial-up suffer with 54 Kbps.

Could be worse than that... When I got an UPGRADE to 28.8kbps back in the day I was CRUISING! Haha

[Jac@stafford.net]

Sounds like you have DSL or low end cable. DSL speeds of 3 Mbps or less is very common. The few folks still using dial-up suffer with 54 Kbps.

My sympathies to the 54 Kb/ps folks. Been there long ago.

My internet provider chokes our speed. We have to pay a lot to get more in increments up to 100Mbps. (Gigabit speeds are crazy expensive.) Only a few commercial enterprises buy it. We have two different providers in town, but they don't compete. Same-same all the way.

Europe is so far ahead of the USA. A real shame.
.

[CantikFotos]

Could it be worse than my 4.9Mb/s ? Sometimes it is slower.
.

How's 1.3 on a good day when it's not down completely?

[Jac@stafford.net]

How's 1.3 on a good day when it's not down completely?

That is so bad. I am guessing that your particular island is strictly satellite fed. On the other hand, perhaps it is a beautiful place to live in the real world.

[CantikFotos]

That is so bad. I am guessing that your particular island is strictly satellite fed. On the other hand, perhaps it is a beautiful place to live in the real world.

I wish we had satellite. As it is we have an undersea cable with virtually no bandwidth. And I'm paying approx $95 a month. But the sunsets and sunrises are amazing. And I have mangos, papayas and coconuts growing in my yard.:cool:

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

From Jac, Minnesota:
Europe is so far ahead of the USA. A real shame.

Hello from Europe !
[a digression about megabits per second]

Well, I know that the grass is always greener in the nearby field, so this is actually what I'm using at home while typing this message:
For a subscription of $30 per month, I have, through an old analogue telephone line installed in the 1970's, what we call here an ADSL service, 11 Mbits/second [about 1.4 megabytes/second] for download and 1 Mbits/second [about 125 kilobytes/second] for uploading (this is already too fast for my regular typing rate ;) )
I'm living in a medium-size city, only 2 miles away from the installations delivering the ADSl signal, and I know that remote villages have much lower speeds than us.

So far, so good for me, downloading at 10 Mbits/second, this is far enough for useful things I need, but often it is not the customers' needs that create the service, but instead the offer of a new service that creates the needs: remember when xerox-style of copiers became the standard, immediately, everybody HAD to make hundreds of copies per day ;)

[end of digression]

And .. oooops, sorry, what was the original subject ? Ah ! PhotoshopTM
I'm not qualified to make any comment: I'm using the GIMP on LINUX for most my retouching tasks, and 10 Mbits/second is fast enough to download regular upgrades of my LINUX system within a few minutes, including, of course, regular upgrades of the GIMP (soon 16-bit images in the GIMP, this has been announced for years, still waiting, but true believers in free software never object)

"the offer of a service that creates the needs", no connection with PhotoshopTM, of course ;)

[StoneNYC]

I wish we had satellite. As it is we have an undersea cable with virtually no bandwidth. And I'm paying approx $95 a month. But the sunsets and sunrises are amazing. And I have mangos, papayas and coconuts growing in my yard.:cool:

I wouldn't even be able to backup a single image in a year lol, my 11x14 B&W scans are 2GB's and my 4x5's are 150mb (B&W) and 300mb (color) I assume my 8x10 B&W's will be around 600mb's and my color 8x10's would be 1.3gb's EACH... Sheesh... Glad I have high speed internet from the "civilized" world...

[Corran]

I live in a large city with a major university, a military base, and a regional hospital.
Despite being within 2 miles of the university and hospital, the ONLY internet service I can get is AT&T and I get on average 1.2 Mbps or something abysmal. Uploading barely registers (I tried uploading a 5 minute video to Youtube - it was going to take 10 hours or something stupid so I did it at work instead).

Anyway, on topic - the University System of GA just last fiscal year signed an agreement with Adobe that the entire system will be using the CC subscription. EVERY school must abide by this - which means schools like the one I work at will be having thousands of licenses at that $10/month (or maybe a discount, I hope?).

[Jac@stafford.net]

Anyway, on topic - the University System of GA just last fiscal year signed an agreement with Adobe that the entire system will be using the CC subscription. EVERY school must abide by this - which means schools like the one I work at will be having thousands of licenses at that $10/month (or maybe a discount, I hope?).

Are they using a key-server method in which just so many copies can be run concurrently, or actually licensing everyone who wants to use it?
.

[StoneNYC]

I live in a large city with a major university, a military base, and a regional hospital.
Despite being within 2 miles of the university and hospital, the ONLY internet service I can get is AT&T and I get on average 1.2 Mbps or something abysmal. Uploading barely registers (I tried uploading a 5 minute video to Youtube - it was going to take 10 hours or something stupid so I did it at work instead).

Anyway, on topic - the University System of GA just last fiscal year signed an agreement with Adobe that the entire system will be using the CC subscription. EVERY school must abide by this - which means schools like the one I work at will be having thousands of licenses at that $10/month (or maybe a discount, I hope?).

My cell phone data speed is faster than that.. Are you sure there's not an issue in your line?

[Greg Miller]

My cell phone data speed is faster than that.. Are you sure there's not an issue in your line?

I see businesses on a regular basis that have that speed. It's rather common for DSL users. Look at ATT's (they are a DSL provider) web site to see what they currently offer: http://www.att.com/shop/internet/internet-service.html. Their plans start at 768 Kbps. They call their 3 Mbps service "Pro" and 6 Mbps "Elite". As if people should feel privileged to get 6 Mbps.

[Jac@stafford.net]

AT&T really sucks.

I just got the updated rates from my provider. There are start-up costs not mentioned, but still good. I did not include the gigabit options.

117894

[Corran]

Are they using a key-server method in which just so many copies can be run concurrently, or actually licensing everyone who wants to use it?
.

You are correct, they have a key-server. But I know here we have a lot of concurrent licenses, and we aren't even a super huge school like some of the others in the state.
Either way this, in my opinion, was Adobe's real motive. They couldn't care less if everyone pirates their software (remember, CC is probably easier to pirate than the normal CS6) - they just want that constant revenue stream from the businesses and gov't institutions.

[Greg Miller]

I just received, and completed, a survey from Adobe. It basically was probing interest in Creative Cloud, and asked about desirability of several ways they apparently are considering to make Creative Cloud more attractive. The survey requires non-disclosure, so I won't go into details, but none of the ideas they listed in any way made me want to go onto Creative Cloud. My primary opposition is that I don't want to be locked into paying a monthly fee for the rest of my life just to maintain the ability to open the image files that I have accumulated in my life.

[Jmarmck]

@ Greg, I tried to find a software package for Photoshop or lightroom on the Adobe site and could not find where to buy the software outright, only the cloud subscription. I am with you Greg, I am not into giving anyone especially Adobe any more of my cash. For the life of me I cannot figure how anyone would find this attractive.

@ Bryan-The GA BOR has many software license agreements. I manage one for the GIS software here on this campus. We pay an annual fee to this company which is based upon enrollment. Then I have to project the number of seats (computers) for each license server. I imagine that the Adobe agreement is very similar. The end user would rarely see any indication of licensing until it expired at the end of the FY. It still does not solve my problem. I need something besides Elements lite which came with the scanner.

[paulr]

117894

If I could afford option 3, I'd absolutely change my name to Max Turbo.

[StoneNYC]

The problem is even if you "retain the option" to use the older software, that's really only good so long as your computer and your operating system don't change, but 10 years so now do you really think you're going to be using the same computer you using now with the same operating system? I don't think so, so the creative cloud does give you some more guarantee of access to your images in the future than the current "own the program" system does, in the context I laid out anyway... I'm not saying I like CC, I don't use it I own the CS6 before CC came out so I'm lucky in that regard, but I do see both sides of it, and I can see why it's so appealing long term.

[Greg Miller]

The problem is even if you "retain the option" to use the older software, that's really only good so long as your computer and your operating system don't change, but 10 years so now do you really think you're going to be using the same computer you using now with the same operating system? I don't think so, so the creative cloud does give you some more guarantee of access to your images in the future than the current "own the program" system does, in the context I laid out anyway... I'm not saying I like CC, I don't use it I own the CS6 before CC came out so I'm lucky in that regard, but I do see both sides of it, and I can see why it's so appealing long term.

The long term problem is obvious, and requires an expense whether with a subscription model or "owned" software. The real problem with the subscription model is in the short to mid-term time frame. In the subscription model, if you stop paying the monthly fee, you lose access to your photos. With the owned software, you can access your photos as long as you have a computer you can install the software on - and that generally hasa 10 year time window,

[Kirk Gittings]

if you stop paying the monthly fee, you lose access to your photos

Not true. Adobe has been adamant that this will not happen. Besides that using PS CC you don't have to use Cloud Storage. I don't.

[Greg Miller]

Not true. Adobe has been adamant that this will not happen. Besides that using PS CC you don't have to use Cloud Storage. I don't.

I wasn't talking about cloud storage. My images are stored as layered files. If I stop paying the CC fee, and therefore cannot open Photoshop, how will I open my layered files?

[Kirk Gittings]

Ah I get it. That's a very good question. I haven't read all the above posts. Do you have PS6? You may have to maintain a computer just to run a legasy version into the future.

For me it is worthwhile to just buy the subscription. Any new tools they come up with that saves me time makes me money.

[Greg Miller]

Yes, I have PS6. My plan right now is to run on that as long as I possibly can. And hope that sometime dwon their road Adobe changes their mind (I think that is unlikely).

I believe the CC model was driven by that fact that the Creative Suite functionality had become very mature. What could functionality could they add that would be so compelling in order to drive people to upgrade? Probably not much. So force people to pay on a monthly/annual basis, whic removes the upgrade decision from the equation.

[Kirk Gittings]

You may be right. But I thought that at any given time and they have surprised me over the years.

[Greg Miller]

I'm thinking that there are 2 possible reasons Adobe ran this survey. One would be just a normal marketing effort to drive incremental growth of their subscriber base. The second being that they are signiicantly underachieving on their planned subscriber base, and are forced to float ideas on what changes they can make to get back on track.

[Kirk Gittings]

A lot of people are hoping the subscriber model will fail and they can go back to buying updates. How many? I have no idea. I actually know someone on their board. The subscriber base is going very well, but they are never going to stop going after the hold outs. I don't know what their "target" subscription participation was/is but it has been a clear success. It doesn't cost them that much to launch such a survey and it reinforces the idea that the subscription is here forever and that they are customer friendly. As a registered "hold out" you can expect various sales pitches and hooks to come your way for a very long time I suspect.

I personally hope there continues to be hoards of holdouts and more importantly competing software. That will drive Adobe to continue to develop their products..

[Oren Grad]

I just received, and completed, a survey from Adobe. It basically was probing interest in Creative Cloud, and asked about desirability of several ways they apparently are considering to make Creative Cloud more attractive. The survey requires non-disclosure, so I won't go into details, but none of the ideas they listed in any way made me want to go onto Creative Cloud.

Ditto. I gave all of the proposed changes the lowest rating, and on one page where they provided a box for an open-ended response I wrote that I'm not interested in buying a subscription to cloud-based software and services.

[Greg Miller]

Ditto. I gave all of the proposed changes the lowest rating, and on one page where they provided a box for an open-ended response I wrote that I'm not interested in buying a subscription to cloud-based software and services.

LOL. They're going to think you and I are the same person...

[rdenney]

My cell phone data speed is faster than that.. Are you sure there's not an issue in your line?

Don't assume cell service is the same everywhere. My 4G service is about 2 or 3 MB/S depending on how many other users around here are hitting it. We have no hard-wire availability, let alone fiber.

And even if it is fast enough, I'm limited on the amount of data I can download each month. And Apple is already doing its best to eat that up.

Software companies are going to big-city models and ignoring rural customers because there are too few of them to care about.

Rick "noting that Swiss Telecomm wanted 20CHF per megabyte for cellular data roaming" Denney

[StoneNYC]

Don't assume cell service is the same everywhere. My 4G service is about 2 or 3 MB/S depending on how many other users around here are hitting it. We have no hard-wire availability, let alone fiber.

And even if it is fast enough, I'm limited on the amount of data I can download each month. And Apple is already doing its best to eat that up.

Software companies are going to big-city models and ignoring rural customers because there are too few of them to care about.

Rick "noting that Swiss Telecomm wanted 20CHF per megabyte for cellular data roaming" Denney

My point was that I was surprised that a HARD WIRED speed was slower than my cell phone speed. That's all.

[Greg Miller]

The very slow hard-wired speeds are still far more common that the fast here in the USA. When I'm working with a business that has more than 10/1, it's always a pleasant surprise. That's true even in NYC. Most places don't have faster speeds available. In areas that do, most people can't stomach the higher fees to get it. I have to pay $70 for 20/2.

[Greg Miller]

There is in effect an informal monopoly of internet providers in the US. Several years a go, Time Warner Cable and Comcast got together, divied up the country, and agreed not to compete in each others' territory's. You have have NYC, we'll take LA. You can have Boston, we'll take San Francisco... That left very little competition, so in most of the country they are free to charge what they want. Now they are merging so it will only get worse.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Most of Europe has better land service speeds than the USA, and why? The USA has lack of competition. You are left to discover why.

[Robert Brummitt]

I'll just continue to use CS3.

[Ron McElroy]

At work we can't run what ever the latest version of CS on our older G5 Macs. This new version needs to run on Mavericks OS and these G5s will not run this OS with out problems. Needless to say we have clients sending in files created in the latest version.

[StoneNYC]

At work we can't run what ever the latest version of CS on our older G5 Macs. This new version needs to run on Mavericks OS and these G5s will not run this OS with out problems. Needless to say we have clients sending in files created in the latest version.

I'm surprised you can even run the files on a G5.. It's not an insult but that's damn old... I'm shocked it could handle a 300mb image file...

[Ron McElroy]

I'm surprised you can even run the files on a G5.. It's not an insult but that's damn old... I'm shocked it could handle a 300mb image file...

You must not work in the printing business:)

[StoneNYC]

You must not work in the printing business:)

Well, I actually current sell labels, so I kinda do, but I don't make them, I only ask the guys to make the plates to make them for the customer.

What I should have said was, "I'd shoot myself if I had to wait longer than I already do to open and renter a 300mb file" which for me on my MacBook Pro running mavericks is about 3 second in PS (which I never use) and about 1/2 second in Lightroom, which is what I use primarily.

[Jac@stafford.net]

At work we can't run what ever the latest version of CS on our older G5 Macs. This new version needs to run on Mavericks OS and these G5s will not run this OS with out problems. Needless to say we have clients sending in files created in the latest version.

That is ancient on terms of computers. My mate is a magazine editor and layout artist (something becoming extinct) and after her G5 smoked she got a Mac Mini and thought she had gone to heaven.

[analoguey]

I wasn't talking about cloud storage. My images are stored as layered files. If I stop paying the CC fee, and therefore cannot open Photoshop, how will I open my layered files?

I read somewhere that access for 3 months(post lost connection/last paid) is available. But I simply dont trust corporations enough to let them have the housekey. Heck, I'd not trust the govt with it!




The problem is even if you "retain the option" to use the older software, that's really only good so long as your computer and your operating system don't change, but 10 years so now do you really think you're going to be using the same computer you using now with the same operating system? I don't think so, so the creative cloud does give you some more guarantee of access to your images in the future than the current "own the program" system does, in the context I laid out anyway... I'm not saying I like CC, I don't use it I own the CS6 before CC came out so I'm lucky in that regard, but I do see both sides of it, and I can see why it's so appealing long term.

You know how old the drum scanner running OS's are, right? Not necessary that ceaseless change/downgrade is guaranteed.

[Tin Can]

I was waiting for a MAC Mini upgrade, but now fear, the next Mini will lose Firewire and ways to easily upgrade. I think I am buying a 2 year old model, which is the latest. Not happy with that plan, but a Mini has more of what I want than anything else PC, MAC or Linus offers. Linus is not a misspelling.


That is ancient on terms of computers. My mate is a magazine editor and layout artist (something becoming extinct) and after her G5 smoked she got a Mac Mini and thought she had gone to heaven.

[StoneNYC]

I was waiting for a MAC Mini upgrade, but now fear, the next Mini will lose Firewire and ways to easily upgrade. I think I am buying a 2 year old model, which is the latest. Not happy with that plan, but a Mini has more of what I want than anything else PC, MAC or Linus offers. Linus is not a misspelling.

I thought they made adapters for FireWire to thunderbolt?

[Tin Can]

They do, costs more money. I will use TBolt for the display, FW800 for a high speed card reader. USB3 for external hard drives and other peripherals.

Apple loves to get rid of interfaces and FW is legacy. My vid guys have 100 FW drives for backup. I will only be doing small vid projects, but I like to access footage.


I thought they made adapters for FireWire to thunderbolt?

[StoneNYC]

They do, costs more money. I will use TBolt for the display, FW800 for a high speed card reader. USB3 for external hard drives and other peripherals.

Apple loves to get rid of interfaces and FW is legacy. My vid guys have 100 FW drives for backup. I will only be doing small vid projects, but I like to access footage.

Dunno....

118791
118792

That's my Mac and a 10 second google search gave me this...

118793
118794

[StoneNYC]

Part 2

118795

Looks like what you want based on the description...

118796

And the link...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=885718&gclid=Cj0KEQjwur2eBRDtvMS0gIuS-dYBEiQANBPMR0VrtIimtlv_3fOpNNelK8YNPxuEzx5re5t3VIMd6xkaAiO18P8HAQ&is=REG&Q=&A=details

[jcoldslabs]

I'm still running Photoshop 7 on a Windows XP machine that is over ten years old, and I've never felt that my scans have suffered for it.

Jonathan

[Tin Can]

I have a MAC and a handful of the 'cheap' $30 connectors.

I don't want to buy more of them.

I see you have discovered Google, that's great.

Thanks for the tip.



Part 2

118795

Looks like what you want based on the description...

118796

And the link...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=885718&gclid=Cj0KEQjwur2eBRDtvMS0gIuS-dYBEiQANBPMR0VrtIimtlv_3fOpNNelK8YNPxuEzx5re5t3VIMd6xkaAiO18P8HAQ&is=REG&Q=&A=details