Photoshop replacement for the future?

<blockquote>

<p>So whether that coffee you buy is overpriced or not depends in turn on whether you spend much more every month on something else?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's pretty clear Steve means he doesn't notice $10 but over here on argue.net, a guy can hardly say anything without being challenged...what is it with PN? Not coffee like Steve, but for me it's beer or home delivered butter chicken. Where I live, LR3 used to be $350 and PS $750...Now I'm on CC and $10/mnth is what I spend on coffees in two days. Easy choice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So whether that coffee you buy is overpriced or not depends in turn on whether you spend much more every month on something else?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not over priced. You may desire it to cost less but IF you decide the cost to benefit ratio is sound you'll hand over your money for that product, that's all that matters. <br /> There are all kinds of products and services you and I buy that we may feel is over priced (gas?) but we buy them none the less.<br>

<br /> IF the subscription for CC was ridiculously low, say $1 a month, you think all those people screaming bloody murder about 'renting' software wouldn’t buy into this? You bet they would. IF they paid $199 ever two years to upgrade, even skipping a few years, at $1 a month with continuing updates, you'd be a fool not to buy, I mean rent. Unless you feel cutting off your noise despite Adobe is worthwhile. If so, do that and move on please.</p>

<p>So there are two camps. One says the price to rent is too high and I say, fine, move on. The other camp says "<em>we must "own" our software, <strong>we will not rent"</strong></em> but if the price were insanely slow, I suspect they would move the political boundaries away and sign up in a second. So is this about price or politics? IF it's about price, every user has their own unique answer, just as if they were buying coffee. If it's about politics, wrong forum and for many of us, a huge waste of time. Pick. </p>

<p>What ever you do for a living to feed your family (Photography, banker, you name it) whoever is paying you would love it if you charged less. Why not! Doesn't make you overpriced unless the services you provide are not worth the benefit and as such, you'll get little if any work. What makes Adobe's business practices any different? </p>

This seems a bargain for commercial photographers who might use photoshop 40 hours or whatever a

week, but for the artist/hobbyist who doesn't use it as much it's a little harder to swallow.

 

I just downloaded a trial version of Elements, and having used PS for years I have no idea if it will work for

me. I only use a half dozen, maybe a dozen functions at most in PS to do what I need to do, so besides

not spending as much time on it as most commercial photogs, I also only use a fraction of what the

program is capable of doing.

 

Is the monthly fee a contract sort of thing, where the months must be consecutive for a span of time, or is it

like netflix where you can skip a month then join up again, or put a hold on your account while you're not

using it?

<p>I used to pay $15 for a single roll of E6 slide film and nearly $30 for Fuji NPS with a stack of 4x6's...I have zero appreciation/tolerance for people complaining in the digital age about computer and software costs when they have it so easy and cheap today...If it was up to me, I'd red card the complainers, send them off the pitch and force them back to an age of costing them a $1.00 every single time they pushed the shutter button.</p>

<p>Eric:<br>

You overlook that when film/slides were sent out, a finished product was in your hand.</p>

<p>With digital, all the work is mine and while I don't do much right now because of my limitations, my time is not valueless.<br>

Conni</p>

Nevertheless, there is such a thing as planned obsolescence.

>>> Is the monthly fee a contract sort of thing, where the months must be consecutive for a span

of time, or is it like netflix where you can skip a month then join up again, or put a hold on your

account while you're not using it?

 

For the best price, it's a yearly contract that auto-renews - possibly with a new price. There's an early termination fee if you

decide to cancel before your contract is up. The amount is 50% of your remaining

contract. Similar to banks, telecom, and cable companies. For some, Adobe have now joined

those ranks with their business model.

 

Also... Having been caught up in Adobe's massive credit card breach last year due to their lax

security and affecting 38 million users, there's no way in heck I would ever allow them to

have my credit card number on file to make monthly charges.

Thanks Brad.

<p>I've been using Elements (now ver 9) for years but I miss a feature found only in the full version of PhotoShop. I'd like to be able to edit in the Lab L (or Luminance, whatever it's called) mode. I need this so I can linearize a curve in QuadTone RIP.</p>

<p><br /> Having seen some favorable comments here on Paintshop Pro, I downloaded the pdf but could find no mention of this mode. Perhaps I missed it... does anyone know if Paintshop Pro has this feature?<br /> <br />Thank you.</p>

<i>"It's pretty clear Steve means he doesn't notice $10 [...]"</i><br><br>Indeed. It should also be pretty clear that whether or not someone can afford something (nor with what degree of ease) is not the answer to whether or not something is too expensive for what it is.<br><br>Anyway, renting software is paying for it in installments (but without end. Just like renting anything else). As such, not a problem. A worry is (as with all subscription based products) is that you don't know what both price nor availability will be in, say, a year's time from now. Something you don't have to worry about when buying something.<br>The reason why it is an attractive business model is that people become dependent on the service. Install a bought version of PS on your computer, and you may miss out on updates, but are (relatively) assured that whatever happens to Adobe, you can use the software for as long as you like, And without extra costs.<br>I mentioned scientific publishing. A business segment that has shown what this model can offer. Yearly price increases of up to 30% are nothing unusual. Paying many hundreds of dollars for a single issue of a journal is nothing special. They can ask for that much money becuase, well... because they can. People depend on their service.<br>Cloud computing is moving software publishing in that very direction (with added benefits for the publishers. They 'own' everything you store in the, their cloud as well. You're owned when you make use of the cloud.). Will it go to such extremes as scientific publishing has reached? Maybe not. But there is nothing to prevent it, and there are billions to be made. So lets hazard a prediction. What would you say?

A friend at work has suggested pixlr.com. He says it's free, although I'm not sure on that. Has anyone tried it?

<blockquote>

<p>Indeed. It should also be pretty clear that whether or not someone can afford something (nor with what degree of ease) is not the answer to whether or not something is too expensive for what it is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>QG, you'll have a hard time finding people that think $10/mnth is too expensive for what (LR & PS) is! Do you buy any other software? Adobe has no competition and could easily charge twice as much imo.</p>

<p>Brad, I hear you re credit cards...I bit the bullet. I made another Adobe account/id and went to the bank and opened another account with a $500 limit card and now cross my fingers. What is one supposed to do in a year or two for current software and not play along with their subscription paradigm? So I shrug and dove in. By then I hope Google has bought Capture One or DxO and Adobe can pogue mahone </p>

<p> </p>

<p>All I can say is, buying each upgrade to PS was a PITA, and if you skipped a year or two, like I mentioned, you got burned going full price. It felt like that was a type of extortion "racket." I'd much rather keep current for a monthly fee, especially since each new version of camera requires new raw conversion software, thus a mandatory upgrade in PS, unless you can tolerate doing the DNG conversion for every shot. Some might not mind that, but for me it was another time consuming and bothersome step. I personally don't use LR, but that is included, which is really nice for people who use LR and PS. </p>

<p><strong>"Adobe has no competition and could easily charge twice as much imo."</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Well they did try to do just that. Only large-scale public backlash caused them to rethink it. Large amounts of people locking themselves and their photo libraries into perpetual contracts will certainly embolden them in the future though.</p>

Eric~,<br>$ 10 a month is indeed not much, compared to what it cost to buy PS before. It is quite a lot compared to what the GIMP costs.<br>But have you read on beyond the bit you quoted? This is a change in business policy, not in price.

<blockquote>

<p>Well they did try to do just that. Only large-scale public backlash caused them to rethink it. Large amounts of people locking themselves and their photo libraries into perpetual contracts will certainly embolden them in the future though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point of view, the pitch forks came out over the change to subscription model, not new prices. Agree. As soon a decent alternative comes out, people will be gone. Google and G+ is something to watch for. It's phenomenal how photo-centric G= has become and how many "celebrity" photographers are using G+. With Picasa and Nik, and Google Drive working with Pixlr, it wouldn't take much for Google to offer an awesome raw workflow now.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But have you read on beyond the bit you quoted? This is a change in business policy, not in price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But it's yourself and Ray that keeps bringing up price while being confused over why someone else would possibly correlate it with coffee purchases or comparing it to crapola Gimp. The price is insignificant to me and if $10/mnth is too much money to use the industry leading software that enables you to be on the same playing field along side every pro and advanced amateur, then I suggest a different hobby!</p>

<p>Desktop computing is dying a quick death while mobile and cloud computing is growing by 700% a year. If you don't like Adobe's subscription model, you're going to have a tough time with the way everything else will also be in five years.</p>

<p>Germany or Argentina?</p>

 

<i>"The price is insignificant to me and if $10/mnth is too much money to use the [...]"</i><br><br>And there we are once again reading that confusion of business model and price... ;-)<br><br>Desktop computing isn't dying a quick death, by the way. Far from it. So/and it's far too soon to proclaim that if people do not like the subscription model, it will be them who will be having a tough time.<br>Growth figures are meaningless unless they are expressed in numbers that represent something real, i.e. something other than percentages. What would be interesting is to see the figures of former annual CS6 sales and present annual cloud subscriptions.

<p><strong>My point of view, the pitch forks came out over the change to subscription model, not new prices.</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Same here. Part of that involves what will happen to these "teaser" rates in the future once the die is cast. Its debatable on whether the subscription model is financially smart depending on what programs you use for what purposes and how important the latest and greatest updates are. But the underlying issue is it doesn't matter because you don't have a choice.<br /> <br /> <strong>"Google and G+ is something to watch for"</strong></p>

<p>Google is definitely a big hope for those who want alternatives to the monopoly Adobe has on the market now. I definitely think Google sees an opening for them and they have the money and technology to pose a serious threat. I hear more and more people who don't need the full power of photoshop turning to things like Capture One as well. Perhaps in time that momentum will grow.</p>

<p><strong>"Desktop computing is dying a quick death"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>It has lost market share for sure but it isn't going to die. Not every application is suited to smart phones and tablets (or even laptops). I can't imagine ever doing serious photo editing on one of these. There will always be a market (albeit smaller) for desktops.</p>

<p><strong>If you don't like Adobe's subscription model, you're going to have a tough time with the way everything else will also be in five years.</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Not everything is going to be cloud/subscrition based in 5 years. High end Photoshop users are a small and captive audience. It's easier to coerce them, but not so much for the rest of the population who could care less (and would probably despise) the cloud/subscrition model. Trying to force a monthly payment for every piece of software on one's computer would create quite an outpouring of anger.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Desktop computing isn't dying a quick death, by the way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay then, it already has died. You may not like it, Q.G., but the data is easily found to show you're incorrect. Even if you ignored the reality of what the smartphone and tablet market has done to desktop market in the last three years, the laptop/ultrabook market has already stifled the desktop market. Even Apple ignores the desktop user today. The best selling laptop at Amazon is the chromebook, a mobile device. The best selling Apple computer is a laptop.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Trying to force a monthly payment for every piece of software on one's computer would create quite an outpouring of anger.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe, but does it change anything? I was pissed but then caved and bought CC. I just bought MS Office Student, or whatever it is called, for $130. I return home and open the package up and the fine print says I'm allowed to install it twice. Twice! I think many are assuming Adobe CC will be $10/mnth in the future? What if it's dropped even further to say $25 for a one time purchase like apps usually do? I've already watched LR go from $350 to $90 for LR5. The Adobe model is the thin end of the wedge, they are the first foot in the door. Apple and iTunes have been doing it for years and now The Google Chrome OS is mobile/cloud based. Windows is building their camp of app's as well, Microsoft is doing a great job of bringing Windows phones and Surface tablets to the cloud. The new iPhotos that replaces Aperture is all about uploading and editing in the cloud. Picasa is doing it for a long time. The future for me, will be shooting and uploading my files and then using small underpowered machines to edit. At the rare time I need a print, the jpg is easily downloaded to a networked connected printer.</p>

<p>Adobe, in their shareholder reports, says more people are using CC PS and LR than ever before and judging by the amount of recent growth of newbies in G+, Flickr, and FB groups, I believe them. The stock price has gone up nicely as well in the last 10 months.</p>

<p>An interesting switch to the subscription model is easily found with television. Years ago, you bought the hardware including an antenna and you got everything that was broadcast. Now, virtually all of the content available must be bought via cable or over the internet with monthly fees, and on the cable side, lots of services have to be bought separately from the basic access. With movies, it's moved from ownership of physical media to temporary access via a service provider. I pay Comcast and Netflix on a monthly basis far more than I pay Adobe and for access of somewhat less value than Adobe provides.</p>

<p>There are alternatives to cable for some content, but many of them have monthly access fees as well. There are free ways to watch a small percentage of content, but certain content isn't available without a subscription unless it's bootleg.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=814892">David Rabinowitz</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 10, 2014; 01:01 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>when are they upgrading photoshop with new features...since the conversion to a subscription format, i haven't heard anything about new features of an upgrade...what am I missing...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There was an update in January. But most importantly, there was an upgrade just recently. The new version is Ps CC 2014. It should have installed automatically for you. If not, download it from the cloud. This is a complete new version, so if you are using a shortcut to Ps CC, you are opening the older version. Make sure you look up your programs to see if it is installed. It has plenty of new features such as new blur filters, new options for content aware etc. And also the ability to link and package smart objects much like in Adobe InDesign, font preview like in Adobe Illustrator and my favorite: a selection tool based on focus. I was pleased to see that upgrades unlike updates are a new installation, leaving the previous version intact on your computer, as I was concerned that eventually you would be forced to upgrade your computer to meet the requirements of the new software.</p>

<p>As for Zelph original question: Any programs out there that can replace Photoshop for image work? As other mentioned, without knowing how you use Ps, I can't answer... I use Ps extensively and based on my personal use of the software, the answer is definitely: NO</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is a complete new version, so if you are using a shortcut to Ps CC, you are opening the older version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This caused a bit of confusion because people <em>assumed</em> that CC 2014 would update CC. As you point out, it's a totally new version so you'll have both CC and CC 2014 installed and like every previous update, you have to delete the older version if and when you so desire. Use Adobe's uninstaller (it works great). <br>

Adobe had to have some line in the sand in terms of version'ing their products. If in 2 years there is a major upgrade where a current OS or hardware we use today becomes incompatible, that version has to be defined. So even if there is a subscription that will update itself regularly and with new features, we will still see major version updates presumably every year (until told otherwise ;-)</p>

<p>thanks Line...i have the 2014 version now...i was hoping for a newer version...i'll have to review these changes...regards....David</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i have the 2014 version now...i was hoping for a newer version</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />CC2014 was released less than a month ago. Do you expect Adobe to update every week?</p>