So tired of the new edition hype for PS Elements

The last PS Elements version I purchased was PS Elements 15; however, I have never used it. The reason: shortly after I purchased it I learned a new version was in the works. Now we're up to PS Elements 2121. Frankly, I am tired of comparing, deciding whether to upgrade, reviewing 'new' features, regardless if there is a new 'tool' or an improved organizer. My feeling is that I could simply read information about the new upgrades and do nothing else: no shooting, no equipment changes, in short, no photography.

 

It seems to me Adobe is simply trying to attain a level of software in which every photograph is either 'perfect' according to some preconceived idea of what the perfect shot should be OR creating so many 'innovations' like enhanced slide show, actions, techniques, etc., that the photographer will eventually--through overload--toss aside any of the original purposes or objectives one has had for photographing itself.

 

Is the answer jettisoning the whole elements framework (I suspect photoshop is being marketed in the same way -- i.e., new, improved model you must upgrade to. The other option is to avoid as much 'digital darkroom' as possible and work on photography itself like lighting, subject matter, environment, etc. Any suggestions.

I accept that most software is going to be updated more regularly than I would like. I use what I need and disregard what I don't. I don't spend much time reading about new features. I'm mostly content with the ones I'm familiar with. Occasionally, I'll come across something new to me that's beneficial and then I add it to my arsenal. I try to waste as little time as possible and still get great joy for thinking about, taking, and working on my photos. I'm not going to let technology spoil that. I use technology and try my best not to let it abuse me.

I try to get things "right" in the camera as much as possible and use Photoshop to finish things off. I agree that there are a lot of almost meaningless software upgrades and like Sam Stevens I ignore most of them unless I have a particular effect that I want and can't get in the camera or from my existing software. Adobe and others are trying to get photographers into a GAS situation with software in the same way that some photographers collect endless cameras and lenses in a vain quest to become better photographers.

Photoshop Elements is not subscription software. You don't need to upgrade if you don't want to, until something no longer works or you want added features.

 

The other option is to avoid as much 'digital darkroom' as possible and work on photography itself like lighting, subject matter, environment, etc.

 

Getting things optimized as much as possible in camera and postprocessing aren't alternatives. They're complementary. ALL digital images have to be processed, either with a canned set of algorithms in the camera or with a custom set of edits you do yourself. Sometimes the in-camera processing will work OK, e.g., if you have optimal lighting. Often it doesn't. Often the scene or subject needs work to create a really good image, even if you "get it right" in camera. If you study the old masters of film photography, you'll see that some of them spent a great deal of time in the darkroom, converting the simple capture to what they wanted. Software is just today's version of that.

Getting things optimized as much as possible in camera and postprocessing aren't alternatives.

Bravo. :)

If I wanted to commute to work by car, a Ford Model T should do that job well enough, a Citroen 2CV just perfectly...

A couple of years ago an early version of Elements came with a graphics tablet and didn't look cutting my cake. - File closed.

I'm using the more or less free stuff: Silkypix or Canon's counterpart pa,ckaged with my cameras, Picasa and Darktable / RAWtherapee. I have a vague idea of what LR can do and used it at work, a while ago. - Making camera profiles with Xrite colorchecker seemed handy. If I'd be shooting more people I might end buying Portrait Pro.

But honestly: Photo software that is still doing the job for you is fine and most likely doesn't need replacement. When it suddenly becomes unable to import or handle RAW files from your latest camera, you have to decide if you want to buy an upgrade or convert those files externally. - There are many ways to skin a rabbit.

Sorry I hadn't heard / read anything about Elements 2021 yet. I'd be surprised if nothing was missing in that package.

Have I got this right: the OP is complaining about a program he's never used?

I use PS Elements 2020 on a travel/outing laptop along with the old free version of the Nik plug-ins--very versatile/affordable editing set-up.

I've used PS Elements for some time as a cheapo back-up for LR. There are seldom "can't-live-without" features added in every Elements update; ACR really only needs updating for new cameras.

Get something like a Scott Kelby Elements cookbook and learn to use the program.

I replaced my ten year old computer earlier this year. As part of that I updated some of my software, going from Elements 8 -- to Elements 2020. I will agree that 2020 has some niceties 8 didn't have, but from my user point of view the main improvement I have is from a far higher performance computer with a 500Gb SSD system drive and double the RAM of the previous machine. Note that as I shoot Canon digi-hardware, DPP 4.0 handles my raw conversions just fine.

 

And yup, just about daily the past week or two I've been getting emails from Adobe about the 2021 stuff. Of course I also get one or two emails daily from a number of other retailers I have actually bought from --- but seldom more than once or twice a year. It just adds to the general atmosphere of the whole world going crazy!

Edited December 1, 2020 by dave_thomas|8

I think I;ve upgraded Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements (the video companion) about four times in 20 years, now up to 2020. I hardly use Elements for photos except if I want to open a photo I haven't brought into Lightroom my main editing program. LR requires that you input it while PS Elements you just open it.

 

I do use Premiere a lot to make video slide shows. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDzogShfhgCHh2rVvEsFOJQ But frankly, that too hasn't really changed that much. They've added a lot of quick inputs and setups I don't use, Bells and whistles. I've also used my purchased edition of LR V6 for a member of years. It has;t been upgraded except on-line version which of course I don't subscribe too. Since I haven't upgraded my camera, I haven't noticed. LR works fine the way it is. Or was.

+ 1 for the previous comments.

 

The simple truth is that all tech companies need to innovate to remain competitive (and relevant) in the markets in which they operate and expand these if possible. Adobe is no different to say, Microsoft, Facebook or Instagram. It's products are continually in development to make them easier to use and with more precision. And to add features that are useful/attractive for some - but not all - photographers, retouchers, graphic designers, etc. Especially, I would imagine, for first-time buyers who will be comparing PSE with alternatives.

 

I have a LR + PS subscription so I automatically get updates. For other (non-photography) tools that I've bought, I often skip new releases until some new feature comes along that looks to offer value for money. There's no obligation to upgrade.

They have to keep money coming in, so yearly upgrades are needed regardless of whether they fill any need. A horrible example is Paint Shop Pro. Ignoring the many bugs, it's a pretty good editor, but Corel tries to get you to upgrade every year and the product just gets more klunky. Eventually everybody figures this out and stops buying into the madness. It's the same with CAD and many other programs. If the upgrades cost is too much, I usually don't bother. The problem is when they put a limit on upgrade prices so if you wait too long, you have to buy all over again.

They have to keep money coming in, so yearly upgrades are needed regardless of whether they fill any need. A horrible example is Paint Shop Pro. Ignoring the many bugs, it's a pretty good editor, but Corel tries to get you to upgrade every year and the product just gets more klunky. Eventually everybody figures this out and stops buying into the madness. It's the same with CAD and many other programs. If the upgrades cost is too much, I usually don't bother. The problem is when they put a limit on upgrade prices so if you wait too long, you have to buy all over again.

Everyone is catching the leasing bug. I heard recently that now they want you to lease a washer and drier instead of buying them. At the end of a three or four year term, they install new ones. Pretty soon you'll be able to rent a wife. Think of what the upgrades will cost. :)

Pretty soon you'll be able to rent a wife. Think of what the upgrades will cost.

This is why I'm thankful I'm a gay man. Husbands are much cheaper!

I wonder at what level the OP would cut off further development of Photoshop Elements, or any other piece of technology?

 

Leasing software is not exactly a new concept. IBM used that business model from the early 1950's, as did other technological giants. Only with the advent of personal computing did the idea of "owning" software become popular. Even so, it was an illusion, because if you read the fine print you only purchase the right to use it until it no longer does what you need it to do.

 

I always had good reason to stay up to date on software I use daily, my bread-and-butter so to speak. Leasing is a cost savings to me, about 3/4ths of what I paid for periodic ugrades, plus I have access to programs I never considered because of the up front cost. The advantage to Adobe is that leasing smooths out their cash flow, which allows them to plan better and operate more efficiently. Most people would suffer if they were only paid every 15 months or so. Leasing also increases their sales, because new customers are not put off by the high initial cost of "buying" professional software, typically about $1000 per package.

Pretty soon you'll be able to rent a wife

What's new about that?

What's the minimal wife rental term where you are?

Does the same apply to women who rent husbands?

Or gays/transgenders who rent partners?

 

Everyone is catching the leasing bug. I heard recently that now they want you to lease a washer and drier instead of buying them. At the end of a three or four year term, they install new ones. Pretty soon you'll be able to rent a wife. Think of what the upgrades will cost. :)

I wonder at what level the OP would cut off further development of Photoshop Elements, or any other piece of technology?

 

Leasing software is not exactly a new concept. IBM used that business model from the early 1950's, as did other technological giants. Only with the advent of personal computing did the idea of "owning" software become popular. Even so, it was an illusion, because if you read the fine print you only purchase the right to use it until it no longer does what you need it to do.

 

I always had good reason to stay up to date on software I use daily, my bread-and-butter so to speak. Leasing is a cost savings to me, about 3/4ths of what I paid for periodic ugrades, plus I have access to programs I never considered because of the up front cost. The advantage to Adobe is that leasing smooths out their cash flow, which allows them to plan better and operate more efficiently. Most people would suffer if they were only paid every 15 months or so. Leasing also increases their sales, because new customers are not put off by the high initial cost of "buying" professional software, typically about $1000 per package.

America is a debt-based society. In the old days, people would save up and then purchase when they had all the money. Only houses were mortgaged or other really expensive items like boats and cars. Why would you lease a washer and drier? It only costs you more long term, a situation the manufacturers have become quite aware of.

 

The fact is Adobe leasing program is a winner - for them. They quadrupled their sales because even at $10 a month, that's $1200 in ten years. Maybe you and other pros find that necessary. It's important to stay up to speed. But most amateurs don't need to spend that kind of money. I've been running Lightroom 6.0 perpetual for years. It's fine for my purposes. I've upgraded Elements and Premiere Elements (video) about four times in what 15 years. But I could have stayed with the original. I never use the bells and whistles they provided.

You don't lease or buy software. You can subscribe (just like HBO), or you can purchase a license to use the software and in both cases, you agree to an EULA of which, if you go against it, subscription of purchase license, it can be revoked. I state that as an actual software developer who played a role in drafting EULA and creating software (for Photoshop).

Some think (at least most) professional photographers sell a photo. We sell usage and rights to use a photo. If a fee is high enough, one can sell as a 'buy out' but that's not often the case.

Adobe has made a very nice profit with the subscription model, it is means to access software and a product many desire to subscribe to. No one has to subscribe or purchase a perpetual license to any software or upgrade their software. Some have no issues working with really old hardware and operating systems. Options are good.

As for 'most amateurs' if and when that metric is factually described with actual data, instead of a gross generalization, perhaps we can visit what that properly and accurately defined group needs or doesn't need, and what they may spend.

One man's key toolset is another (amateurs?) bells and whistles. These are tools. Some can use a kitchen knife as a screwdriver. Other's prefer the right screwdriver for the job.

I don't think subscriptions have has anything to do with debt. It's simply a different way of marketing a product, and a very successful one for some companies. This isn't limited to Adobe. On the computer I am using now, my principle office application suite (Microsoft Office) and my principal statistical software are also subscription-based. Capture One now offers the choice of a perpetual license or a subscription. Apple is now offering what amounts to a subscription: you pay a fixed monthly fee and get an updated iPhone once a year.

 

Fortunately, the market still offers a choice. If you want postprocessing without updates, you can still find perpetual licenses. That will allow you to avoid updating until something else changes and won't work with it, e.g., a new raw format.

 

I didn't like the subscription model when Adobe started it, but I've come to like it. I've found some of the new features in recent versions very helpful, and I like not having to fuss with periodic updates. The cost is probably considerably less than my ink wastage every year. However, that's just my preferences. The market still provides other options for people who don't share my preferences.

Michael Bloomberg subscription model made him a 50 billionaire.

 

It is available for an annual fee of $20,000 per user ($24,000 per year for the small number of firms that use only one terminal).[3] As of October 2016, there were 325,000 Bloomberg Terminal subscribers worldwide.[4]

Bloomberg Terminal - Wikipedia.

OP, I'm still using LR 3, 4 and 5. I have Elements 9. I use it for printing only, never got round to learning it. LR fills my main needs.

 

I did buy the new Elements 2020 because it had video software on it, but never got round to fooling with it. But I'd concur with your assessment OP. For now I use Movavi video software. Happy with it except for color grading. I was hoping Elements could do better.

 

Here is what the Movavi does for video.

 

 

Since it was all still photos I used LR 5. At the end of the video is a photo 'before and after' to show the LR work achieved.

 

It is very hard grading video. Simply because the video looks different on every method of viewing. You need a different graded video for computer, TV, social media, projection etc. I just split the difference with the grading. Too crazy making all those grades unless you are getting paid for it.

Edited December 4, 2020 by invisibleflash

Michael Bloomberg subscription model made him a 50 billionaire.

 

It is available for an annual fee of $20,000 per user ($24,000 per year for the small number of firms that use only one terminal).[3] As of October 2016, there were 325,000 Bloomberg Terminal subscribers worldwide.[4]

Bloomberg Terminal - Wikipedia.

My calculator comes up with a vastly different value using either $ figure, can you explain yours?

 

Most Bloomberg setups have between two and six displays. It is available for an annual fee of $20,000 per user ($24,000 per year for the small number of firms that use only one terminal).[3] As of October 2016, there were 325,000 Bloomberg Terminal subscribers worldwide.[4]

It still does everything I want, but it will almost certainly break if I update beyond OSX High Sierra and if I get a new Mac of any kind

 

 

I did try version 6, but I found nothing I really need in it, and it showed the same little quirks under High Sierra that version CS5 12.1 does....

 

My daughter does run Mavericks on one of her machines and PS 6 does sort of work under it, however.

After wrestling with Gimp on my Linux Mint laptop, I worked out how to use the Wine windows emulator, and installed this. At least everything is in familiar places, it does pretty much everything I need, and the only thing i really miss from later versions is the very useful quick selection tool.

 

 

My calculator comes up with a vastly different value using either $ figure, can you explain yours?

 

Most Bloomberg setups have between two and six displays. It is available for an annual fee of $20,000 per user ($24,000 per year for the small number of firms that use only one terminal).[3] As of October 2016, there were 325,000 Bloomberg Terminal subscribers worldwide.[4]

Apparently, while I wasn't looking, his wealth has gone up from $48 billion in April, 2020 to $60 billion in July 2020. Not everyone can make $12 billion for three months' work. The figure I quote in my first post were the annual fees he charges for his terminals. He gets this income every year. So it adds up. Part of his wealth includes Bloomberg Business, cable, etc. But I don't know what the breakout is among the various income sources.

 

"He began his career at the securities brokerage Salomon Brothers before forming his own company in 1981. That company, Bloomberg L.P., is a financial information, software and media firm that is known for its Bloomberg Terminal. Bloomberg spent the next twenty years as its chairman and CEO. In 2020, Forbes ranked him as the sixteenth-richest person in the world, with an estimated net worth of $48 billion as of April 7, 2020[2] and as of July 21, 2020, Bloomberg ranked 8th in Forbes 400 with net worth $60.1 billion.[3] Since signing The Giving Pledge, Bloomberg has given away $8.2 billion.:

Michael Bloomberg - Wikipedia