Adobe Changing Course? Sort of....

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by john_markanich, Sep 5, 2013.

  1. I just received an email from a trusted source (Mark S. Johnson Photography
    www.msjphotography.com) who related the following:
    Friends,

    After all of the recent grumbling about Photoshop Creative Cloud pricing, Adobe has finally listened to photographers and come up with a plan that gives us all reason to keep being creative! Yesterday at Photoshop World, Adobe announced a Creative Cloud membership plan designed exclusively for photographers and priced just right. Here's an excerpt from their press release:

    "Since introducing Photoshop CC we’ve listened to feedback from a spectrum of our customers, from advanced professionals to casual enthusiasts. One common request was a solution specifically tailored for photographers. We listened and at Photoshop World we’re announcing a special offer for our loyal Photoshop customers. Beginning today, customers who own Photoshop CS3 or higher are eligible for a special Creative Cloud membership offer that includes all of the following for just $9.99/month (pricing varies outside of the US):

    Photoshop CC
    Lightroom 5
    20 GB of online storage
    Behance ProSite
    Access to the online video tutorials in Creative Cloud

    This is the ongoing price for anyone who signs up by December 31, 2013. So if you sign up in October 2013, then when you renew in October 2014, the price will still be $9.99 per month. We do not currently have any intention of raising this price."

    Adobe has announced that this offer will become available in a few weeks. When it is, I'll make an announcement on MSJPhotography, or you can check out the Adobe site to learn when the offer goes live.

    Best!

    Mark
    Mark S. Johnson Photography
    Back to my question: As a former CS5 owner I reluctantly bit the bullet and updated a single application, i.e. to Photoshop CC, before Adobe's last deadline of July 31st under a contract of $9.99 per month for the first year then jumping to $20 per month thereafter. Now, will I, as a "loyal PhotoShop customer", be eligible for the new $9.99 per month forever plan? I haven't contacted Adobe about this as the new plan is not posted on their website as of yet. Any thoughts? I'm sure a bunch of us are in the same boat.
     
  2. OP here: I may have found an answer to my own question at http://www.dpreview.com/
    You will have to dig down to the Sept. 4th posts.
    If true, happy days are here again.
     
  3. John, there may be a bunch of us in the same boat, but I feel more like I'm floating on a raft. My problem is, I don't want to have to rely on the cloud for any Photoshop work - period. I just want to pay a reasonable price for the software and a two-PC license, install it and go to work, just like in the "good old days". So, am I the only dinosaur out here?
     
  4. William, you don't have to rely on the cloud for your PhotoShop work. Simply save any image you happen to be working on to a folder on your home based hard drive(s). The cloud feature, I'm guessing, is for pro's working in a mobile environment who need access to their files anywhere, anytime. As a lowly photo enthusiast I have no need for this feature. And yes, $9.99 per month is still a kick in the shin but is somewhat mediated by the provided software, the instant updates, and the would-be cost of upgrading to newer versions of PS in the future.
    Will Adobe find a way to sell us something else down the line? I'm sure they will as every business does.
    If this ten-bucks-a-month plan holds for an appreciable time I can personally justify the annoyance based on my volume and level of work. As always, your mileage may vary.
     
  5. Clearly their marketing team doesn't listen very well to those who emphatically have indicated it's not the price that's the issue it's the fact you have to rent software on a monthly basis into perpetuity that's tied to hard earned content that has quite a bit invested becoming even more integrated within the complexity of the software years later. Makes it difficult to keep track of everything down the road especially for those who wear socks with sandals and play shuffleboard.
    It corners the customer into viewing their content nervously from the fact it's made with nondestructive Adobe algorithms that are updated/upgraded with new features and bug fixes not just to benefit the customer but to keep up with newer operating systems and hardware. It just adds another layer of rat's nest integration to their Digital Asset Management routines and strategies that vary customer to customer who deal with tens of thousands of images. Future internal dialog...
    Adobe:
    "Pay the rent or everything gets turned off!"​
    Customer:
    "What?...What does that mean? I forgot how it works? Oh my! I need to check my thousands of images to see if they're broken."​
    Grandpa has a heart attack from not eating, sleeping or keeping hydrated from checking thousands of images. Adobe decides to turn everything back on and runs and hides in shame.
    "Casual enthusiasts/hobbyists" as myself like the freedom of choosing when they want to buy a newer system and the thought of things breaking while still paying a monthly fee because all these vendors aren't on the same page with the possibility of being stuck with no options while continuing to pay or else lose other low level functioning tends to make me and other's brains hurt.
    Seeing how their marketing team is handling this...well...I'ld have to quote in the schlocky tone of Donald Trump..."Yo' Fah-yud!"
    Again we accept what the smartest guys in the room say and do and just live with the consequences.
     
  6. And why should we trust Adobe to NOT significantly raise their rental fee? While $9.99 sounds reasonable, I have no faith whatsoever that Adobe won't screw us down the road - again. I will stick with what I currently own.
     
  7. "...customers who own Photoshop CS3 or higher are eligible..."​
    Darn, that leaves me out. Otherwise I'd say it's a very fair deal.
     
  8. Clearly their marketing team doesn't listen very well to those who emphatically have indicated it's not the price that's the issue​
    You'd probably do well to remember that your personal opinion isn't the voice of the Silent Majority, Tim - in fact for most people (if the internet is any indicator of what "most" people think), price was indeed the main bugbear.
    It corners the customer into viewing their content nervously from the fact it's made with nondestructive Adobe algorithms that are updated/upgraded with new features and bug fixes not just to benefit the customer but to keep up with newer operating systems and hardware​
    "Cornered"? Nobody from Adobe is holding a gun to anyone's head here - besides, this piece of hyperbole accurately sums up the situation we're in without CC: and it's meaningless in terms of it being a "risk".
    Grandpa has a heart attack from not eating, sleeping or keeping hydrated from checking thousands of images.​

    Eh? Seriously Tim - either take more water with it, or lay off the coffee until after you've decided to "contribute"; nothing about Adobe's direction of travel will - or even could - make this comment remotely meaningful. What do you possibly think Adobe might do to "break" anyone's ability to continue to use the images they own? It's a hypothetical question. The answer is nothing.
    Again we accept what the smartest guys in the room say and do and just live with the consequences.
    Again, you don't have to "accept" anything about this, and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise; either continue to use what you're using now, or find non-Adobe alternatives. They exist.
    We get it, Tim - you're set against CC. But it might serve the community better if you yourself first understood why you're against it, and articulated that rather than inventing utterly preposterous and meaningless soundbites with which to define your opposition - bluntly, you're talking nonsense, and the "issues" you've raised wouldn't be out of place in a Grimms' fairy tale.
    Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?
     
  9. I have no faith whatsoever that Adobe won't screw us down the road - again.​
    And how - exactly - has Adobe screwed you already?
    I will stick with what I currently own.​
    Oh, the humanity! What a terrible fate - those bastards at Adobe putting you in the Hell Of Nothing Actually Going To Get Any Worse Than It Is Right Now...
     
  10. My problem with CC is the perpetuity of it - I stop paying and I own nothing and it is my understanding that I lose access to the software within in month (or 90 days at the longest). Otherwise, $120 per year is indeed a fair price - if one upgraded photoshop and lightroom every time a new version came out, the cost would be higher - but if one decided not to upgrade one still had software that worked - in perpetuity.
    Also, the deal seems to end December 1 - for those who haven't signed up by then, the price will be higher again.
     
  11. The temporary nature of my right to use the software and the land mines buried in the EULA were the deal breakers for me the first time around. Nothing has changed in regard to item one and my guess is that this will be true of item two as well.
    No, not for me. Ever.
     
  12. Dieter, the deadline is December 31, not December 1.
    Lupo, I think that's from the other end of the horse. ;-)
    OK, my perspective is based on the fact that I'm perfectly happy with CS5, don't need or want Lightroom, and never saw the need to upgrade to CS6 even before it started clouding up. What I would really like to be able to do is purchase an additional license for two more computers so that my wife can run CS5 on her machines. Somehow, I suspect that ain't gonna happen. And, based on the current prices for copies of CS5 now on eBay and Amazon, it looks like I'm not the only one trying to dodge the CC bullet...
     
  13. But it might serve the community better if you yourself first understood why you're against it...​
    I just outlined why I'm against it using a possible case scenario with a bit of tongue and cheek to your stuffed shirt styled comments. You really can't read between the lines, can you?
    It's the complexity of it all down the road including what Howard mentioned about the EULA which I'ld wish he'ld expand upon.
    I think CC approach is a great idea for a corporation such as Adobe to improve their bottom line. Not so great for those who want their imaging software to get more simplified.
    I don't call it simple having a download app permanently residing on ones computer to check on you month to month and all the possible SNAFU's that can occur when a user switches or adds more computers and has to have that CC download app tag along on everyone of them hoping nothing gets corrupted.
    A lot of folks clone their hard drives which that CC download app is going to be a part of. Those backup cloning apps have to have a preference sets on what and when to update old versions of data and what to do with them. CC download data may throw a possible monkey wrench several years down the road when the user wants to transfer back that cloned data and find things don't work as they should and gets involved in along troubleshooting session with no end in sight to finding the cause.
     
  14. Interesting if you only need PS and LR, but Adobe's sell is the whole suite of applications in the Creative Cloud, and it may be that's their plan, for photographers who may want to upgrade or expand into other applications. I'm currently on a $20/month subscription for the CC (one year discount for previous subscribers to other applications), and I've found they upgraded CS6 applications into CC applications. I'm using 3 CC applications and not PS or LR5 because I like the CS5-6 versions of PS, besides if you bought LR5 and install the CC version, it overwrites your paid version.
     
  15. I agree with many of the comments above. I don't want to pay a monthly fee for a product I may not use very often. I just want to purchase a software license when I choose and upgrade it when I choose. I like having the choice and, furthermore, it incentivizes Adobe to keep improving their products so I will want to upgrade. If Adobe starts getting paid every month no matter what, they won't be very motivated to improve.
    Adobe backed off on their original plan when they realized how unpopular it is. Perhaps they will back off on this plan if we reject it too. In the meantime, I will stay alert for alternative products.
     
  16. I worked for a company at one time that told me they had no plan for relocating for the 'foreseeable future'. Less than two weeks later I was told they would be relocating to a site 800 miles away. Sorry but this offer is not for me. I will continue to use purchased rather than rented products.
     
  17. If the standalone model was economically feasible Adobe would continue using it. The problem is rampant piracy gave them little choice.
    Just as an example, when I mentioned that I wasn't eligible for this offer because I didn't already own CS3, an acquaintance suggested "Just torrent it". I mentioned that I actually did have a Demonoid invite but never activated it because I wasn't comfortable with pirating software, movies, etc.
    I pay an annual subscription fee for Amazon Prime because it's a good value. Lots of folks pay for streaming movie/TV for the same reason. And lots of gamers subscribe to Steam, which is the only way to get access to some popular games. Piracy made game development economically infeasible, and Steam provided an alternative that many people support even though, let's face it, video gaming is a luxury.
    Professional photographers and serious amateurs will support Adobe's cloud based services. The rest were never customers anyway.
    And, yes, of course Adobe will continue to improve and innovate. Switching to cloud based subscription services won't lessen the competition or reduce the demands by photographers and graphic artists for ever-better tools.
     
  18. I am going to take advantage of this new offer and hope for the best. What I would like to know whether or not I can continue to use the CS6 on my machine if there is a failure in The Cloud?
    -Cheers
     
  19. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    The problem is rampant piracy gave them little choice.​

    Lex is absolutely right on this. Unless someone here that is complaining about CC has a better solution for Adobe to combat piracy, there's no point in complaining. So which of you complainers has the solution?

    BTW, a lot of apps are dependent on "the cloud" now, which a lot of people don't think about, maybe because, at least currently, they are free. Anything done with Google, for example. Evernote. A lot of backup solutions. And it's not just apps, it's websites. If Facebook died, I would lose contact not just with friends but with potential and existing clients.
     
  20. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Lex is absolutely right on this. Unless someone here that is complaining about CC has a better solution for Adobe to combat piracy, there's no point in complaining. So which of you complainers has the solution?​
    Pretty sure Adobe has phoned home for quite awhile now, since they introduced activation many years ago. Their activation schema works pretty well too. I've got CS6 and other Adobe app's on multiple systems with a license that allows two per serial to run concurrently. Very easy to deactivate on system A then activate on system C while B is left alone. Even without net access I was once able to do this by phone. The software product my partners produce uses a similar system which we had to implement due to the fact we did find piracy an issue and we work within Photoshop as a plug-in. Any photographer who's had his work stolen, or anyone who's developed software that's been pirated will have a different sensitivity to what Adobe and other's do to combat this issue. That's a completely different issue than moving to a subscription model!
     
  21. Does this mean that if someone's CC subscription expires, they will no longer be able to open and further process their PSD files?
     
  22. There seems to be some conceptual bloc to the idea of subscription services in software. But we've all been living our life utilizing these means of product delivery since the the turn of the 90th to the 20th century. How about all your utilities, elec. gas, water, trash, telephone, and more modern conveyances such as Netflix, Cable, Direct TV and all cell phone service.
    At 10 bucks a month for Photoshop AND Lightroom plus the other extras, sounds to me a very good deal.
     
  23. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Pretty sure Adobe has phoned home for quite awhile now, since they introduced activation many years ago.​

    The problem has been that with the licensed product, it is easy to beat the activation.
    Does this mean that if someone's CC subscription expires, they will no longer be able to open and further process their PSD files?​
    You will be able to open and process them, but not with any version of PS from when the CC versions started.
     
  24. It's time to stop talking about Adobe's moves and either sign up or move on. I have decided to become Adobe free. it is neither difficult nor the end of the world. It took me about 3 months to do it in a planned and organized manner. It's really just a matter of choice.
    Stop bellyaching, and start ACTING!
     
  25. if you already have CC, how do you convert to the $9.99 pricing and LR5 etc?
     
  26. Does this mean that if someone's CC subscription expires, they will no longer be able to open and further process their PSD files?​
    You will always be able to open a PSD file in any version of Photoshop whether perpetual license or CC subscription.
    It's the non-destructive xmp edits with Raws, jpegs and tiffs created in ACR CC subscription version that will lose functionality when CC subscription expires.
    I always thought non-destructive edits were overhyped. Who needs 'em.
     
  27. You will always be able to open a PSD file in any version of Photoshop whether perpetual license or CC subscription.​
    When your subscription expires, I don't think the CC program will let you open any file anymore. I doubt the program will actually run when it hasn't found a valid license and the grace period is over. Can you provide a link to back up your information?
     
  28. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    if you already have CC, how do you convert to the $9.99 pricing and LR5 etc?​
    If you have the single product CC for Photoshop, it will automatically convert.
     
  29. Dieter's remarks are the ones that bother all of us. I hope an answer to them will be coming from Adobe soon.
    -O
     
  30. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    When your subscription expires, I don't think the CC program will let you open any file anymore.​
    When you save a PSD on your computer, you have saved a PSD on your computer. You will not be able to open it in a cloud version of PS if you have stopped paying your fees. Tim's response is wrong. You can't open it in a CC version of PS if you don't subscribe. But the file can still be opened.
     
  31. Will you still be able to open a file with your old CS6 software?
    -O
     
  32. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    You may not be able to open a RAW file, you would have to convert it to DNG or process it in Lightroom, if the RAW file format was added after CC. However, you will always be able to open it in CS6 if the format is compatible, e.g., DNG, TIFF, jpg, PSD. You will also be able to open the file in other software that handles the format, so you should be able to open any CC-processed file in GIMP, for example. I should point out that I am saying "should" since nobody knows what will happen with any files and any software in the future.
     
  33. Whoops! Forgot to leave off the CC subscription version of Photoshop in last response. I meant to say you can open a PSD if you have older versions of Photoshop that are perpetual licensed like CS3-CS5. Sorry about that.
    I'm surprised folks still use the PSD format instead of tiff.
     
  34. Will you still be able to open a file with your old CS6 software?​
    So then there are two versions of CS6? The one that was/is an upgrade as a boxed disc from CS5 you can still purchase from Adobe's site I'm assuming because someone told me this was still available instead of downloading from the CC subscription which is the other version of CS6. Anyone confirm that?
    All in all I'm still confused. One of several reasons why I'm not buying anymore imaging software for now.
     
  35. Tim, there's only one version of (photoshop) CS6 - and it is still available as boxed disc or as download from the adobe website: https://www.adobe.com/products/cata...g_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html?start=10
    (Photoshop) CC is the latest version with added functionality and new features - and with its introduction, adobe went to the subscription model. As I mentioned before, I trialed photoshop CC - and one feature I now miss since going back to CS6 is the possibility to use ACR as a filter.
    Another issue will arise as soon as I purchase a newly released camera - ACR in CS6 will not open its RAW file anymore and I will either have to go the DNG route or use a different RAW converter. In order to be prepared, I purchased LR5 (which is said to remain available without a cloud subscription) and also Capture One Express.
    Which brings us to the backward compatibility of a PSD file - sure I can open a CC PSD file with CS6. But if I used a functionality that's only available in CC, it doesn't do me much good to try to work on that file in CS6. I rarely save a PSD file though - only if I put a lot of effort into creating different layers and want to preserve them for a possible rework later. Can't do that with TIFF.
     
  36. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Can't do that with TIFF.​

    You can save layers with TIFF.
     
  37. You can save layers with TIFF.​
    Didn't know that, thanks for the teaching an old dog a new trick ;-)
     
  38. Didn't know that, thanks for the teaching an old dog a new trick ;-)​
    Hey wait a minute! You knew all of that info you posted above (which helped me considerably and got me to thinking) but you didn't know that you can use layers in Tiff format?
    Thank you for proving my "Omission Principle" theory I developed around my observations of the information age. See what I mean how complicated this sh*t is getting?!
     
  39. Thank you for proving my "Omission Principle" theory I developed around my observations of the information age.​
    To me it just proves that I have subscribed to the principle of lifelong learning as there is always something new to discover. Did a little reading and now know that - in short - PSD = bad; TIFF = good. So the next time I feel compelled to save layers from photoshop I will select the TIFF option and not the PSD one. May even re-save the few PSD files I have as TIFFs :)
     
  40. "Tim, there's only one version of (photoshop) CS6 - and it is still available as boxed disc or as download from the adobe website:"



    Dieter, I'm afraid that there's more to it than meets the eye. Below is a link to blog post from a pro friend of mine, Tracy Valleau. There are two versions of the newest PS, CS6 and CC6, and there can be significant issues in getting rid of CC6 if you have CS6 installed, and want it to run after canceling CC6.

    After clicking on the link below, scroll down to the post "HOW TO CANCEL CREATIVE CLOUD, AND HAVE YOUR COPY OF CS6 STIL WORK".
    http://www.tracyvalleau.com/blog/
    I hope that helps those that are wanting to revert from CC6 to CS6. Sadly, doing so can be non-trivial. My own personal option was to take the $10 monthly route to CC6, and now I get LR5 thrown in at no additional cost to me. I realize that my choice is not going to agree with what everyone else chooses.
     
  41. There seems to be no other option but making monthly payments. I for one don't want to give another company unfettered access to my credit or bank account. What about the option of making a one time yearly payment. It feels like they are not being honest and forthcoming when the only option is to make monthly payments. It implies that there may be hidden charges down the road. They are asking us to trust them, but we have seen that these corporations haven't been forthcoming with what information is being collected and who or what entity has access to that information or data. We have no reason to trust them.
     
  42. John, I have a specific and separate credit card that I use for recurring credit card charges (24 Hour Fitness, 1&1 Internet, etc.) I can view any charges anytime I visit my bank account online but it is not connected to anything. Credit cards do expire and it is a pain to update all of the credit card information. Imagine if you forget to update your Adobe CC information before your current active credit card expires. You may lose your current special deal that's supposedly good for a lifetime.
     
  43. There are two versions of the newest PS, CS6 and CC6​
    Not that I am aware of: Photoshop CS6 is version 13, Photoshop CC (there is no CC6 to the best of my knowledge) is version 14; they are different in functionality. For example, CC allows to use ACR from within as a filter and has the camera shake reduction algorithm. If it wasn't for the cloud subscription model, then CC would have been released as CS7. AFAIK, the ACR versions are still the same for CS6 and CC, but the new functionality that is available in CC isn't available in CS6 (upright, for example http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjou...pport-for-photoshop-cc-and-photoshop-cs6.html); as long as CS6 is being sold, new cameras will be supported by ACR even in CS6 (that's at least my understanding). CS6 is being sold as download and via disc and the "old" licensing model, CC is licensed via cloud subscription.
    As I said before, I installed CC and tried it for a month - when then trial expired, I just went back to using CS6; I had no problems in doing so (and haven't bothered uninstalling CC at all). I also installed a licensed version of LR5 in the time span that CC was active - so far no negative influence (I saw this morning that one menu item in LR5 points to CC - haven't checked yet what it actually does and how I could point it back at CS6; so there could be potentially some trouble lurking).
    For the time being, CS6 is sufficient for my needs and I will not subscribe to CC, not even when that new $9.99 deal is coming along. I actually only upgraded to CS6 from CS5 because of the scare back then that an upgrade price for the next version would only be available for the most recent version, not the three versions as before. Turned out to be not true (so much for trusting what adobe says)...
     
  44. I actually only upgraded to CS6 from CS5 because of the scare back then that an upgrade price for the next version would only be available for the most recent version, not the three versions as before.​
    Me too.
    Turned out to be not true (so much for trusting what adobe says)...​
    Right.
     
  45. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    When you save a PSD on your computer, you have saved a PSD on your computer. You will not be able to open it in a cloud version of PS if you have stopped paying your fees. Tim's response is wrong. You can't open it in a CC version of PS if you don't subscribe. But the file can still be opened.​
    Yes and no (mostly no). Probably yes about the cloud part as you were paying for storing them there. But not for PSD's that reside on your hard drives. PSD is a proprietary Adobe format. Other products can open a PSD IF they license that from Adobe. That's not an issue with TIFF.
    Proprietary functionality isn't new or unique to Adobe. Just like there's proprietary functionality in Excel that isn't in Apple's Numbers, or MS Word that's not in Text Edit.
    There is and always has been proprietary Adobe processing. It changes from each version as Adobe introduces new functionality. For example, if you go way back to Photoshop 3, it introduced Layers. If you built layers, even in a TIFF, you could NOT open them in a version older than Photoshop 3. Today, you can build a layer using CC that has functionality unique to CC and not re-edit that layer in CS6. That's what happens as you upgrade and use newer Adobe proprietary and that's always been the case.
    The idea that IF you own CC and stop paying to use it, all your files are now unable to be opened isn't the case. First, save your images in TIFF. Even layered TIFFs. Many applications WILL open them, earlier versions of Photoshop too. But forget about the ability to edit them as you did with the newer version of CC (because by your own doing, you decided to stop using it by not paying). If you work with Smart Objects, this will be even a more difficult transition. IF you saved a flattened TIFF, dozens, maybe hundreds of software products can open that data. Your data isn't non accessible, your ability to edit them using Adobe proprietary functionality is, big, big difference! But you the user did this by deciding not to use this newer version, thanks to a new subscription model. But again, this situation existed for a Photoshop CS6 user who for whatever reason decided to move backwards to CS5.
     
  46. Changes to CC6 (PS 14.0 x64) and it's ACR version (currently ACR 8.1.0 x43) occurred after the initial trial period and when it actually became a subscription item, sometime in July, IIRC. CS6 did not get those changes, and neither did it's ACR version, and they will not get subsequent changes that come with a CC subscription. The issue of getting rid of CC6 becomes an issue after you try to drop it as a subscription and continue with CS6 instead.
     
  47. It feels like they are not being honest and forthcoming when the only option is to make monthly payments.​

    Based on what? What's not honest and forthcoming?
     
  48. Credit cards do expire and it is a pain to update all of the credit card information. Imagine if you forget to update your Adobe CC information before your current active credit card expires. You may lose your current special deal that's supposedly good for a lifetime.​
    Doubtful and do you have any basis for this conjecture?. For instance, if my card expires on Netflix or any other service that is automatic monthly pay, I get an email stating there's a problem with my card. It's happened several times. That simply reminds me to update the card info for that vendor. If I don't and my subscription terminates, yes that could cancel what ever contract I had but I've always been given a chance to correct the problem and I've never had a subscription canceled or terms changed if I change it as soon as notified.
     
  49. I would like to own what I pay for. I don't want my photos, photoshop, music, head or anything else in the cloud. Owning the disc I paid for is more practical for me.
     
  50. I would like to own what I pay for. I don't want my photos, photoshop, music, head or anything else in the cloud. Owning the disc I paid for is more practical for me.​
    Fine you are not required to use photoshop, though actually even with a disk, you only are granted a license that is limited. Read the fine print. But get used to it, this is how the software delivery world is going. Apple computers are not even including DVD/CD burner players in most of their products. Seems like the handwriting is on the wall.
     
  51. Fine you are not required to use photoshop, though actually even with a disk, you only are granted a license that is limited. Read the fine print. But get used to it, this is how the software delivery world is going. Apple computers are not even including DVD/CD burner players in most of their products. Seems like the handwriting is on the wall.​
    There is considerable difference between holding a license from month to month to holding a license in perpetuity for a given version of software. Personally, I've transitioned away from Adobe completely. was it painless? No. Is the software problem free? Also no. BUT, I know I have far greater control of my photographic future this way. It's all a matter of:
    1. How much do you trust Adobe.
    2. How much you want to rely on the 'goodwill' of others to keep your photos safe and available.
    All decisions require some sort of compromise one way or another. My experience with the corporate world leaves me suspicious and mistrustful. There is no way Adobe will be able to avoid taking advantage of the trust their subscribers will grant them. It is inherent in the model.
     
  52. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    How much you want to rely on the 'goodwill' of others to keep your photos safe and available.​
    How are your photos not safe and available with CC?
     
  53. It's time to stop talking about Adobe's moves and either sign up or move on. I have decided to become Adobe free. it is neither difficult nor the end of the world. It took me about 3 months to do it in a planned and organized manner. It's really just a matter of choice.​
    How did you do it?
     
  54. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    All decisions require some sort of compromise one way or another. My experience with the corporate world leaves me suspicious and mistrustful. There is no way Adobe will be able to avoid taking advantage of the trust their subscribers will grant them. It is inherent in the model.​
    Should we take this as meaning you have no subscription services (begging the question, how are you sending form posts to the web?). Phone, TV, Net, are all off limits too? My understanding is all such services are subscription based and run by corporations.
     
  55. You're paying a monthly subscription to have all your non-destructive edits be functional when you convert to tiff/jpeg for output to the web or a third party printer.
    You stop paying your subscription, all those edits with advanced tools provided by ONLY the CC version of your software will get turned off and made inaccessible. If you created these non-destructive edits as presets to thousands of Raws, jpegs, tiffs, that can be a problem.
    Your only option you have is to convert all those thousands of images to a "cooked" format like 16bit tiff with the non-destructive edits baked in before you cancel your CC subscription. Gonna' need a lot of hard drive space for all those thousands of large file sizes especially high rez 16MP/16bit tiffs.
     
  56. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Your only option you have is to convert all those thousands of images to a "cooked" format like 16bit tiff with the non-destructive edits baked in before you cancel your CC subscription. Gonna' need a lot of hard drive space for all those thousands of large file sizes especially high rez 16MP/16bit tiffs.​
    Or just use Backwards compatibly from day one such that a flattened version exists inside the TIFF. Going back to conversations about file formats long before CC and subscription: PSD=Bad. TIFF=Good. For raws, you're always in need of some proprietary processing (because raw is raw). You could render them before signing off from CC or you could move to a new converter and start again with their proprietary processing. If you get upset with that company, you're in the same boat. Raw processing as you know is just a big pile of proprietary metadata.
     
  57. How are your photos not safe and available with CC?​
    I never said they weren't. I asked if you can trust Adobe to NEVER hold your photos hostage? I don't believe I can. Therefore I've stopped using Adobe products.
    How did you do it?​
    https://getsatisfaction.com/acdsystems/topics/how_to_switch_from_lightroom_to_adcsee_pro
    Should we take this as meaning you have no subscription services (begging the question, how are you sending form posts to the web?). Phone, TV, Net, are all off limits too? My understanding is all such services are subscription based and run by corporations.​
    No, it does NOT mean I have no subscription services. But it does mean I consider my photos too important to trust to ONLY subscription services. I see photo editing and organization a weak spot in an all online workflow. I understand that the latest subscription offer for photographers does not automatically store photos online, but they DO seem to be offering such a service. I was horrified to learn that Google automatically uploads any photos I take on my Droid cell phone to Google +, I immediately put a stop to that. I've been around the corporate world far too long to trust any of them. I know that ANY statement of intent from ANY corporation has a shelf life of about 30 seconds. That statement of intent is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, right up to the point where they change their mind.
     
  58. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I asked if you can trust Adobe to NEVER hold your photos hostage? I don't believe I can​

    How? CC software runs on your computer. Images are saved on your computer. How can they hold them hostage?
     
  59. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    No, it does NOT mean I have no subscription services. But it does mean I consider my photos too important to trust to ONLY subscription services.​
    I think you may be confusing a subscription service of software with some requirement you host your images on this subscription service. That isn't the case. In no way are you forced to do this. I've been using Creative Cloud since day one and not a single image of mine is in Adobe's cloud. Not because I fear what they'd do with them, I have no need to store my images there (I backup to multiple drives and to the CrashPlan backup cloud). There is no on-line workflow with CC unless you want to.
     
  60. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I was horrified to learn that Google automatically uploads any photos I take on my Droid cell phone to Google +,​

    You agreed to that in setup. It's always done as an opt-in. And it doesn't delete them from your phone.
     
  61. You agreed to that in setup. It's always done as an opt-in. And it doesn't delete them from your phone.​
    Of course it was an "opt in", they are always, "opt ins" aren't they? We discover, after the fact, that we "opted in" to a program we may not have fully understood. I'd be curious to learn what you think of the new Facebook Terms and Conditions. Do you believe that FB has acted in good faith to the users on this? Do you think even 1% of the users understand what they have opted in to? I don't.
    I'm not telling you what to do. Feel free to trust Adobe completely, if you so choose. I choose to assume that Adobe will look out for Adobe, leaving me to look out for me.
     
  62. But it does mean I consider my photos too important to trust to ONLY subscription services.​
    Not photos, non-destructive edits by proprietary Raw engine software like ACR/LR i.e. PV2012 and future advances in cloning, gradient, smart objects, upright etc. etc. the list goes on and on which most folks can't sort out in their head, including myself, because they haven't seen or used some of those advanced tools before they signed up to subscribe to CC versions of apps having those advanced tools. If they see the current CC app without all those bells and whistles that aren't now included in the current version they won't know they need and maybe not use anyway, they don't see a problem with the subscription plan. It has a horse with blinders method of buying and using software.
    In addition with the subscription plan they will always have to keep in mind as the apps improve and add more features, their work is now tied to continually making those monthly payments. Time has a way of making folks forget how much work they've put into post processing thousands of images backed up on hard drives using older versions of both licensed and CC subscription versions of the app.
    You are losing those edits that you spent quite a bit of time applying to thousands of images. When you cancel the CC subscription in the future there is a more possibility you'll lose a lot more work than when you started out due to out of sight, out of mind lack of forethought stretched out little by little throughout the years of CC subscription use.
    Or just use Backwards compatibly from day one such that a flattened version exists inside the TIFF.​
    Are you referring to LR's way of embedding xmp edits in jpegs and tiffs. I'm only talking about losing non-destructive edits which was a big selling point for using Adobe apps at the beginning over other converters. I'm not talking about layered tiffs produced in Photoshop.
    You're dismissing and diluting my point about losing non-destructive edits and the time invested by canceling a CC subscription as being no big issue since the previous non-CC version can be used.
    To simplify it even more, the user is really paying a monthly fee in order to preserve their time invested producing non-destructive edits because once you cancel the subscription, that work is gone unless you previously bake the edits into a tiff format and thus lose the benefits of non-destructive edits.
     
  63. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Are you referring to LR's way of embedding xmp edits in jpegs and tiffs. I'm only talking about losing non-destructive edits which was a big selling point for using Adobe apps at the beginning over other converters. I'm not talking about layered tiffs produced in Photoshop.​
    Both. It's all proprietary processing. You want to use it? You pay. Simple as that. I used Quicken from about 1999 to two years ago and have every transaction made during those years in a proprietary Quicken database. I WAS able to export that data to a open format (QIF) and import that into a different product (iBank). All the data transferred but much of the proprietary functionality, reports, custom categories didn't. I made this decision, I have to live with having to rebuild my categories and reports. Anyone who stops paying for CC is in the same boat. Or anyone moving from MS word to Apple's Pages etc. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head to stop using proprietary functionality of a software product.
    You're dismissing and diluting my point about losing non-destructive edits and the time invested by canceling a CC subscription as being no big issue since the previous non-CC version can be used.​
    I'm dismissing it yes. Because if that's important and necessary, you pay for it. If not, move on. Save as a layered TIFF and forget, by your own doing, that you can no longer access either proprietary layered functionality or XMP raw edits.
    To simplify it even more, the user is really paying a monthly fee in order to preserve their time invested producing non-destructive edits because once you cancel the subscription...​
    Yes, part of that fee goes to that. Part of that fee goes to continuing to use the product as you did before.
     
  64. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I'd be curious to learn what you think of the new Facebook Terms and Conditions.​

    They're not being implemented right now. Facebook announced that on Thursday.
     
  65. The OP states that the deadline to get the discount is Dec. I received an email on August 22 giving me an August 31st deadline. What's going on? I didn't have much time to even think about it.
    00byjT-542398884.JPG
     
  66. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    It's a new program. That was just a discount that only applies to the first year. They have since announced the program, which they say will have a permanent price rather than just first here.. Click here to read about it from the horse's mouth.
     
  67. >>> I received an email on August 22 giving me an August 31st deadline. What's going on? I didn't have
    much time to even think about it.

    That was Adobe's last month's offer. It was poorly received (no doubt due to the perceived value and ambiguous/weaseling language), so they came up with a new one last week.

    Seriously, Adobe has fumbled introducing their new buisiness model pretty bad. First thing that's on customers' minds now is wondering, "How is this new program hurting me long term?" Rather than delighting customers with great value and exciting products. Not a good place to be, IMO. People remember.

    The "cloud" aspect is just obfuscation. It's really about going to a subscription based model. Which appears to be leaving customers confused and calculating the long-term negative consequences, and considering other options.
     
  68. I never said they weren't. I asked if you can trust Adobe to NEVER hold your photos hostage? I don't believe I can. Therefore I've stopped using Adobe products.​
    Sorry, but you have never really answered how you think Adobe can "hold your photos hostage." Are Tiff images or jpgs or gifs proprietary Adobe formats? People express these vague and unfounded fears and don't really logically explain the basis for these suspicions.
     
  69. I'm getting second thoughts on not joining the subscription model at the current $9.99/month deal for photoshop and lightroom. As I mentioned before, if one upgrades every time a new version comes out - in general about every 18 months, then the cost was $199 for PS and $79 for LR. With the subscription, the cost for the same period is $180. I just read that the deal starts on September 17th. If you are currently subscribed to the $9.99 photoshop deal, you have to cancel to get the new one. What gets me a little is that the deal will end December 31 - sounds a bit like desperation on adobe's part. Now I have to decide if I really want to be up-to-date at all times...
     
  70. Sorry, but you have never really answered how you think Adobe can "hold your photos hostage."​
    Because there is no answer, Barry - and we know it. It's pure, unadultered, meaningless FUD.
    The absolute worst-case scenario is that an ex Adobe user won't be able exactly to repeat conversion/PP decisions previously applied to (non Adobe proprietary) Raw files using Adobe software.
    And that's it. The very worst thing that might happen.
    To which I say big deal. It's not as if Adobe's is the only way to reach a desired end result, and that's the point.
    Some people might need to do a goodly amount of work to migrate their body of work to a new DAM app if they decide (for some bizarre reason) to dump Lr, but most people for whom this would be a serious issue are likely to be the very pros that CC is targetted at and who will likely sign up.
    But for most of the people making all the noise about CC - almost all self-proclaimed hobbyist/enthusiast 'togs - it's easy enough to walk away from Adobe: all alternative Raw converters are as non-destructive as Adobe's, and many are capable of equal or better IQ (I speak as a big fan of Lr, but one with considerable experience of alternatives), and every last one of their images will be able to make the journey, too.

    Then you process 'em in PaintShop Pro, Photoline, PWP or whichever other editor you choose instead of Photoshop, and catalogue them in Media Pro, Photo Mechanic, IDImager... Or, for a best of both worlds option (An excellent converter, very effective DAM and truly useful editor) try Glen's approach - ACDSee Pro 6, which I like a lot myself - for me it's "Lighting EQ" is worth the price of admission all on its own.
    So many alternatives to Adobe out there...
     
  71. Got an email from Adobe this morning assuring my that I would be transitioned from the current $9.99 program into the new $9.99 program. Sweet. But then the fine print muddies the whole thing up again. Can anyone explain what they're saying here?
    * Photoshop single-app members currently enrolled in an annual plan at US$9.99/month will automatically be transitioned to this new Creative Cloud offering, which includes access to Photoshop CC and Lightroom 5 at the same US$9.99/month price. At the end of your current 12-month contract, you will automatically be renewed based on the then-current price of this offering.​
     
  72. >>> Can anyone explain what they're saying here?

    >>> "* Photoshop single-app members currently enrolled in an annual plan at US$9.99/month will automatically be
    transitioned to this new Creative Cloud offering, which includes access to Photoshop CC and Lightroom 5 at the same
    US$9.99/month price. At the end of your current 12-month contract, you will automatically be renewed based on the then-
    current price of this offering."

    What they are saying is that after one year, the program they just transitioned you into, will be at the price that's in effect
    at that time, rather than the so-called "permanent" $9.99 price for people signing up today. What will the price be in your
    case? I can't find any information. Adobe's previous, last month's promotion was 50% off for the first year, meaning that particular
    program would go to $20 per month. One possibility is that your one-year-from-now price would be similar.

    It's a shame your transition isn't grandfathered in *all* aspects.

    As I mentioned above, Adobe's move to the "cloud" and "special offer" programs first leaves customers wondering what's
    going on, and how they're going to be (for many) negatively impacted.
     
  73. Because there is no answer, Barry - and we know it. It's pure, unadultered, meaningless FUD.​
    I can think of all sorts of scenarios that MIGHT happen. However Tim Lookingbill said it best
    To simplify it even more, the user is really paying a monthly fee in order to preserve their time invested producing non-destructive edits because once you cancel the subscription, that work is gone unless you previously bake the edits into a tiff format and thus lose the benefits of non-destructive edits.​
    Like I said earlier, feel free to trust Adobe all you want. I have chosen to take the step Tim stakes out for the future, immediately, and become Adobe free now.
     
  74. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I can think of all sorts of scenarios that MIGHT happen. However Tim Lookingbill said it best​
    Expect he's way off IMHO. Having access to the newest proprietary processing has always been an issue and a subscription didn't change that one bit. You want Shake Reduction functionality? You upgrade to CC. Even if it had a perceptual license, CS6 users couldn’t use that functionality, it didn't exist in their copy. The idea that you are paying an upgrade fee (subscription or not) to access this newer data is by it's very nature something we've all had to deal with from day 1. The only difference is the scenario where you spend say a year making new documents with new functionality then decide you no longer want to pay to do so. You deal with this by producing a document that is fully backwards compatible. Because you, the user decided you wanted to stop using the new functionality.

    FWIW, one can produce a Shake Reduction layer in CC and move back to CS6 and access that data. You can't edit it using Shake Reduction of course, but your stamped edits do open and are presented to you, just as if you just flattened the entire original doc. You didn't lose any of your data. By your own doing you lost the ability to continue to edit it. If by your own doing, you decide to stop using CC, you by your own doing decide you don't want to edit the data with those features only found in CC. But your data is still there.
     
  75. Long ago I took a long look at using proprietary formats such as .PSD.
    I understood that I could not escape the problems inherent in getting 'raw' data in a proprietary format 'IF I WANTED RAW DATA' which in my case is NEF (Nikon Electronic Format). However, since there is no guarantee that Nikon will be around in perpetuity, and just a few of my photos may have staying power (I hope), and I don't want future generations to have to guess whether they can open my original files -- an issue fraught with today's librarians -- I decided to simultaneously shoot JPEGs, always and never just shoot 'raw' (proprietary) alone, just for the fear that someone in the future might do away with it, Nikon might merge, go away, or some such.
    If you think that's far fetched, consider this.
    Fifteen years ago, how many people thought Kodak would be going bankrupt; Minolita, etc. would be out of the camera business?
    How many people have seen the current news that it is projected that by year's end Olympus may no longer make cameras since their downward sales and financial slide appears unstoppable, and they may disappear as a brand manufactured by the company of the same name?
    In some future world, the same could happen to Nikon -- maybe Sony buys them out, or Samsung, or the Sony-Samsung megamerger, or some company we never heard of, and somehow all the proprietary formulae for all those NEF (proprietary raw) Nikon files of my various cameras I've used gets buried away deeply in someone's servers (like being lost in an digital attic or stored with the Arc of the Covenant in that vast government warehouse), and when future photo historians come to open your or my current photos to show or work on once again in raw (in my case, again NEF) format, they'll just be unopenable and lost forever.
    A life's work lost, if I'm shortsighted now.
    The same for you, if you value your work as I do mine.
    I thought of this almost ten years ago when I first heard of 'Raw' formats and learned they were proprietary.
    Leica tried to do something about it with its digital files by adopting Adobe's nonproprietary open standard, but nobody went along, and worse, anybody who converted their files on downloading would be suspect if they entered a contest and was asked for their 'original file' - and only could produce a 'converted' file.
    What decision would contest judges make about the file's authenticity? Rules didn't say when one member raised the issue.
    I just decided for shooting when I can I'll shoot JPEG along with raw (NEF). JPEG is firmly entrenched, documented, and it's owned by the world. It's not likely ever to disappear.
    And when it comes to processing, I save to .PSD format as one option, but for every photo I save in .PSD format, I also save the same version as a 16-bit .tiff version.
    Yes, .tiff saves layers.
    Layered .tiffs eat hard drive space, but today you can buy a four terabyte hard drive for the price of a one terabyte hard drive ten years ago, or I buy 3 tb hard drives for about $100.00 regularly using 'price match' at a local famous national electronic retailer, now with USB 3.0.
    It's extra work to save in multiple formats, but then I value my work in part as history and part as a legacy (some of it at least), and I don't want it to become valueless through some corporate decision-making at Adobe, maybe the demise of Adobe some day, maybe through its merger with Apple, Microsoft, Google, or even some company we haven't heard of that revolutionizes everything in ways we can't even imagine yet.
    .TIFFs in: .PSD out.
    JPEGs in; NEFs (raw) OK for now, but never trust them as the ONLY source. They are proprietary and subject to their formulae being lost or surcharged far into the future, rendering your collection unopenable. Shoot dual formats, and make NO exceptions.
    Today's librarians have long been stuck on how to deal with the proprietary format problem not only with photos but with all digital media.
    And not for lack of good cause.
    I've solved it for myself as best I can.
    I back up and back up and back up and back up on hard drives and also to the cloud.
    But with the cloud, I keep recalling one service that 'guaranteed' and 'insured' to its members the service would keep their photos.
    Then one day, overnight or over a weekend, all the photos were downsized to thumbnail size and some executive was awarded a big bonus (probably) for saving on server memory size and transmission costs since small files cost far less to transmit, and that was especially so at the time that decision was made a few years back.
    Seems that that company didn't really destroy the photos, only their functionality, and then only for the more serious users.
    In any case, someone figured out the 'insurance' reimbursement on one cloud plan that touted 'insured photos', and it came to cents per photo.
    Anyone want to sell their photos for pennies apiece in case a cloud server guarantees and insures them but insures them? Members (some of them) learned the hard way.
    Remember 'Digital Railroad' which was used by many professionals to store and sell their photos? It was both a 'cloud storage and retail outlet' company geared to professionals with some wonderful work stored on it by some very accomplished artists -- some foolish enough to use it as their sole repository for their work. Artists and that includes photographers, are not always the most forward thinking individuals.
    That company was the 'next best thing to sliced bread' as it was touted to me. 'You should put your photos there,' one famous photographer and software inventor told me, as I could both store them there and sell them from DR site.
    Well, a year of so later, 'Digital Railroad' (cloud storage and photo retailing intermediary) went bankrupt.
    Under bankruptcy court supervision, an attempt was made to notify the photographers that their photos stored on its servers would be destroyed, but a certain number of the photographers were sick, had passed away, were traveling, moved, changed e-mail, etc..


    One day the bankruptcy judge entered an order that the servers of 'Digital Railroad' be wiped so they could be sold, and I believe they were sold after being digitally wiped clean.
    Inevitably some serious work was lost forever.
    Any company offering 'cloud' services could end up in such a predicament or any one of the various predicaments I've described above.
    My solution is multiple hard drives (safer than CDs and less burdensome while more permanent), in multiple locations, (thousands of miles apart) then largest jpegs to a cloud service, knowing that the cloud service is only as permanent as the payment they get. Clouds generally won't save anything that is proprietary such as 'raw' format, and those files are HUGE and slow to upload. If you have a million photos, as I may have, storing all to cloud becomes time and cost prohibitive. Only worked on photos make it to the cloud, and then only the JPEGs of course as my 'cloud' service does not take .tiffs, and it would take forever and a few years to upload as many as I'd like to save, (again, just the 'worked on' versions, at my Internet speeds).
    Remember what happened to 'street' great Virginia Maier who fell on an icy walk, ended up in a nursing home, and just before she died, her entire Rolleiflex collection was auctioned off from a storage facility, only to be found to be some of the GREAT street work of the last century by the new buyer of some of the work, creating a run on her vast stored and auctioned negatives and prints (and some cinemas too).
    As to storing 'free' on Flickr one terabyte, it's far too cumbersome now to use for serious storage - perhaps that'll become more of an option in the future, as Yahoo, despite Wall Street's bitching, is somewhat firmly grounded financially, and one's photos have a reasonable expectation of staying there a while.
    But beware, because any new executive could make ONE BAD DECISION of a lifetime and make an irrevocable decision that destroys the value of your collection (like downsizing), etc.
    It's taken me the better part of a year and a half over slower internet connections to upload just the 'worked on' parts of my collection to the cloud service I have chosen, and I find it would probably take four times to eight times as long to download back the entire same collection, as there is no easy way just to download the entire thing -- only photo by photo -- an enormously time consuming job for 24-inch jpegs even on a fast Internet service and also enormously labor intensive.
    I've thought about the problems inherent with proprietary formulae a lot and the same about the way corporations are structured and corporate decision-making is made -- especially in the USA and especially so in the software industry which does not have a particularly long-range mode of thinking -- it's not a mode that spans generations - we're lucky if the time horizon is a year or three in the future for today's software and digital geniuses.
    I'm girded for keeping my photos intact past my lifetime, under the assumption that a few of them might have some worth in the future, if only as history, and if as art, then who wants them destroyed through short-sighted thinking on my part?
    Do your thinking now if you want to keep your photos to see another generation . . . . and implement your best plans now.
    You can always adapt as better methods come along.
    john
    John (Crosley)
     
  76. Long ago I took a long look at using proprietary formats such as .PSD.
    I understood that I could not escape the problems inherent in getting 'raw' data in a proprietary format 'IF I WANTED RAW DATA' which in my case is NEF (Nikon Electronic Format). However, since there is no guarantee that Nikon will be around in perpetuity, and just a few of my photos may have staying power (I hope), and I don't want future generations to have to guess whether they can open my original files -- an issue fraught with today's librarians -- I decided to simultaneously shoot JPEGs, always and never just shoot 'raw' (proprietary) alone, just for the fear that someone in the future might do away with it, Nikon might merge, go away, or some such.
    If you think that's far fetched, consider this.
    Fifteen years ago, how many people thought Kodak would be going bankrupt; Minolita, etc. would be out of the camera business?
    How many people have seen the current news that it is projected that by year's end Olympus may no longer make cameras since their downward sales and financial slide appears unstoppable, and they may disappear as a brand manufactured by the company of the same name?
    In some future world, the same could happen to Nikon -- maybe Sony buys them out, or Samsung, or the Sony-Samsung megamerger, or some company we never heard of, and somehow all the proprietary formulae for all those NEF (proprietary raw) Nikon files of my various cameras I've used gets buried away deeply in someone's servers (like being lost in an digital attic or stored with the Arc of the Covenant in that vast government warehouse), and when future photo historians come to open your or my current photos to show or work on once again in raw (in my case, again NEF) format, they'll just be unopenable and lost forever.
    A life's work lost, if I'm shortsighted now.
    The same for you, if you value your work as I do mine.
    I thought of this almost ten years ago when I first heard of 'Raw' formats and learned they were proprietary.
    Leica tried to do something about it with its digital files by adopting Adobe's nonproprietary open standard, but nobody went along, and worse, anybody who converted their files on downloading would be suspect if they entered a contest and was asked for their 'original file' - and only could produce a 'converted' file.
    What decision would contest judges make about the file's authenticity? Rules didn't say when one member raised the issue.
    I just decided for shooting when I can I'll shoot JPEG along with raw (NEF). JPEG is firmly entrenched, documented, and it's owned by the world. It's not likely ever to disappear.
    And when it comes to processing, I save to .PSD format as one option, but for every photo I save in .PSD format, I also save the same version as a 16-bit .tiff version.
    Yes, .tiff saves layers.
    Layered .tiffs eat hard drive space, but today you can buy a four terabyte hard drive for the price of a one terabyte hard drive ten years ago, or I buy 3 tb hard drives for about $100.00 regularly using 'price match' at a local famous national electronic retailer, now with USB 3.0.
    It's extra work to save in multiple formats, but then I value my work in part as history and part as a legacy (some of it at least), and I don't want it to become valueless through some corporate decision-making at Adobe, maybe the demise of Adobe some day, maybe through its merger with Apple, Microsoft, Google, or even some company we haven't heard of that revolutionizes everything in ways we can't even imagine yet.
    .TIFFs in: .PSD out.
    JPEGs in; NEFs (raw) OK for now, but never trust them as the ONLY source. They are proprietary and subject to their formulae being lost or surcharged far into the future, rendering your collection unopenable. Shoot dual formats, and make NO exceptions.
    Today's librarians have long been stuck on how to deal with the proprietary format problem not only with photos but with all digital media.
    And not for lack of good cause.
    I've solved it for myself as best I can.
    I back up and back up and back up and back up on hard drives and also to the cloud.
    But with the cloud, I keep recalling one service that 'guaranteed' and 'insured' to its members the service would keep their photos.
    Then one day, overnight or over a weekend, all the photos were downsized to thumbnail size and some executive was awarded a big bonus (probably) for saving on server memory size and transmission costs since small files cost far less to transmit, and that was especially so at the time that decision was made a few years back.
    Seems that that company didn't really destroy the photos, only their functionality, and then only for the more serious users.
    In any case, someone figured out the 'insurance' reimbursement on one cloud plan that touted 'insured photos', and it came to cents per photo.
    Anyone want to sell their photos for pennies apiece in case a cloud server guarantees and insures them but insures them? Members (some of them) learned the hard way.
    Remember 'Digital Railroad' which was used by many professionals to store and sell their photos? It was both a 'cloud storage and retail outlet' company geared to professionals with some wonderful work stored on it by some very accomplished artists -- some foolish enough to use it as their sole repository for their work. Artists and that includes photographers, are not always the most forward thinking individuals.
    That company was the 'next best thing to sliced bread' as it was touted to me. 'You should put your photos there,' one famous photographer and software inventor told me, as I could both store them there and sell them from DR site.
    Well, a year of so later, 'Digital Railroad' (cloud storage and photo retailing intermediary) went bankrupt.
    Under bankruptcy court supervision, an attempt was made to notify the photographers that their photos stored on its servers would be destroyed, but a certain number of the photographers were sick, had passed away, were traveling, moved, changed e-mail, etc..


    One day the bankruptcy judge entered an order that the servers of 'Digital Railroad' be wiped so they could be sold, and I believe they were sold after being digitally wiped clean.
    Inevitably some serious work was lost forever.
    Any company offering 'cloud' services could end up in such a predicament or any one of the various predicaments I've described above.
    My solution is multiple hard drives (safer than CDs and less burdensome while more permanent), in multiple locations, (thousands of miles apart) then largest jpegs to a cloud service, knowing that the cloud service is only as permanent as the payment they get. Clouds generally won't save anything that is proprietary such as 'raw' format, and those files are HUGE and slow to upload. If you have a million photos, as I may have, storing all to cloud becomes time and cost prohibitive. Only worked on photos make it to the cloud, and then only the JPEGs of course as my 'cloud' service does not take .tiffs, and it would take forever and a few years to upload as many as I'd like to save, (again, just the 'worked on' versions, at my Internet speeds).
    Remember what happened to 'street' great Virginia Maier who fell on an icy walk, ended up in a nursing home, and just before she died, her entire Rolleiflex collection was auctioned off from a storage facility, only to be found to be some of the GREAT street work of the last century by the new buyer of some of the work, creating a run on her vast stored and auctioned negatives and prints (and some cinemas too).
    As to storing 'free' on Flickr one terabyte, it's far too cumbersome now to use for serious storage - perhaps that'll become more of an option in the future, as Yahoo, despite Wall Street's bitching, is somewhat firmly grounded financially, and one's photos have a reasonable expectation of staying there a while.
    But beware, because any new executive could make ONE BAD DECISION of a lifetime and make an irrevocable decision that destroys the value of your collection (like downsizing), etc.
    It's taken me the better part of a year and a half over slower internet connections to upload just the 'worked on' parts of my collection to the cloud service I have chosen, and I find it would probably take four times to eight times as long to download back the entire same collection, as there is no easy way just to download the entire thing -- only photo by photo -- an enormously time consuming job for 24-inch jpegs even on a fast Internet service and also enormously labor intensive.
    I've thought about the problems inherent with proprietary formulae a lot and the same about the way corporations are structured and corporate decision-making is made -- especially in the USA and especially so in the software industry which does not have a particularly long-range mode of thinking -- it's not a mode that spans generations - we're lucky if the time horizon is a year or three in the future for today's software and digital geniuses.
    I'm girded for keeping my photos intact past my lifetime, under the assumption that a few of them might have some worth in the future, if only as history, and if as art, then who wants them destroyed through short-sighted thinking on my part?
    Do your thinking now if you want to keep your photos to see another generation . . . . and implement your best plans now.
    You can always adapt as better methods come along.
    john
    John (Crosley)
     
  77. Sorry for the double post. The second contains edits and is the one to be read.
    I was unaware it had been posted or would have tried to edit it.
    Forum maintainer, please take note and delete first post.
    john
    John (Crosley)
     
  78. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    How does that relate in any way to the question in the OP? Especially when you say:
    Clouds generally won't save anything...​

    and it's been pointed out above that nothing is in "the cloud" in CC, it's just an unfortunate naming that indicates the program has to verify with an Adobe server regularly.
     
  79. Expect he's way off IMHO. Having access to the newest proprietary processing has always been an issue and a subscription didn't change that one bit.​
    Exactly, Andrew - a complete non-issue in terms of being a new situation to be in, as I say in my first contribution to the thread.
    The only new thing here is the sense of a lack of permanent ownership in the new pricing model. Everything else is just meaningless noise.
    Glen, this isn't about "trusting" Adobe or anyone else - sorry, but that's just more FUD. Either you like what Adobe is offering in terms of the new pricing regime, or you don't.
    Trust doesn't influence any of my software purchase decisions: I don't "trust" (or not) ACDSee, Picturecode, Phase One or Corel either - I buy their software because it is useful to me, not because I have some sort of emotional attachment to the idea that the companies concerned want to do right by me.
    I'd be on the new $9.99 (or £7.14 here) deal in an instant except that my Photoshop licence is via my employer, which excludes me from it: again, not because I "trust" (or not) Adobe, but because in my view it's a fantastic deal. Trust is simply not the issue here.
    I do however have confidence that Adobe's software offerings are of very high quality, and that does matter to me. But I also know that this is true of other software, so I'm not vested in Adobe.
    Playing notions of "trust" (whatever that even means in this context) into this discussion is as meaningless as the load of old toot that Tim has been dishing out about Adobe holding our images hostage - it's hyperbolic, emotive, wrong-headed and irrelevant.
    Interestingly, I was recently invited by Corel to complete a survey, as an owner of their (Godawful) AfterShot Pro software; one of the questions in there was whether I would be prepared to move to a subscription pricing model a la CC: so as others have pointed out, it's not just Adobe that has a taste for this approach...
     
  80. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    The only new thing here is the sense of a lack of permanent ownership in the new pricing model. Everything else is just meaningless noise.​
    That sums it up to perfection!
     
  81. Playing notions of "trust" (whatever that even means in this context) into this discussion is as meaningless as the load of old toot that Tim has been dishing out about Adobe holding our images hostage - it's hyperbolic, emotive, wrong-headed and irrelevant.​
    The only thing I don't trust about you, Keith Reeder, is your reading comprehension. I didn't say anything even close to what you think I said about Adobe holding our images hostage.
    My time and effort I spend building non-destructive edits are not for rent.
     
  82. "If you are currently subscribed to the $9.99 photoshop deal, you have to cancel to get the new one."
    I don't think so. AFAIK, those who are currently subscribed to the $9.99 mo CS 6 option are automatically upgraded to the new combo of PS and LR, etc.

    "What gets me a little is that the deal will end December 31 - sounds a bit like desperation on adobe's part. Now I have to decide if I really want to be up-to-date at all times..."

    Well, it's a limited time offer to customers that qualify. Nothing unusual about that, companies do this type off thing all the time. We're all familiar with weekly grocery store ads, and some stores, Safeway for instance, have special, personalized, pricing on some items for some customers. Those weekly ads typically last 7 days, then the prices return to normal, and of course with grocery stores we see a new ad a new list of products that get special pricing, for a limited time.

    Newspaper and magazine subscriptions have gone up sharply from what they were years ago. The publications cannot survive in today's market by charging prices from yesterday's market. Adobe has no way of knowing how long they will be able to offer this new PS/LR subscription service at the $9.99 price, but they do lock it in for a year. Adobe has no crystal ball anymore than anyone here does.
     
  83. Sheesh! That should read "$9.99 mo CC 6 option" not CS 6 option. Oh well.........
     
  84. Just because Adobe asks you to "subscribe" doesn't make them a "service" such as a newspaper or magazine. To be sure, news articles and magazine articles are consumed and have a "shelf life." (They are usually timely.) Adobe is only a tool-maker. Their tools are not consumed, however they wish they were a service and they want you to believe they are a service. At best, they want you to believe their tools are so special that you should rent them with a long-term commitment on your part, so they can "project," as to use their crystal ball. It's obvious to what end.
    Consider a software developer building a single crop tool for your entire operating system. A single brush with all the brushes you find to import. A single pen tool that's the same in Photoshop as it is Illustrator as it is in Quark Xpress or OmniGraffle or After Effects. In other words, why can I not go to a single tool box and choose one text tool and use that across a few different apps? When that day comes, am I expected to subscribe to that functionality? One tool at a time or some "set" of tools. For how long? A micro-hour, a day, a month, etc.?
    Later. I'm going to my garage.
     
  85. Renting tools is a long-standing model though, Stephen.
    If we agree that Adobe is indeed a "tool maker", why wouldn't they consider what amounts to a rental model for their "tools"?
    On a related tack: I wonder how many people banging on about CC pay a regular periodic "rental" for their SmugMug or Zenfolio galleries, or their website hosting, without so much as batting an eyelid?
    It's exactly the same as CC: stop paying and the website goes away.
    But that's OK?
    I fail to see any difference except that they're used to the idea...
    At best, they want you to believe their tools are so special that you should rent them with a long-term commitment on your part​
    Which places the onus directly back onto us: we either deal with the new pricing model, or we take personal responsibility for identifying alternatives, which strikes me as a far more mature and purposeful reaction to Adobe's decision than the interminable whining from some quarters on internet forums about the nasty corporation doing nasty things to us...
    I'll say it again: Adobe isn't holding a gun to anyone's head here, and anyone who says otherwise is either - to be kind - pushing an agenda which has nothing to do with the real issues; or simply hasn't got the first clue about what's actually going on.
    Or both...
     
  86. I'm done arguing the toss over this utter non-issue.
    Those of you who want to characterise yourselves as victims of Adobe's vindictive machinations go ahead and continue to complain about your hair shirts, which Adobe is apparently forcing you to wear.
    Me, I learned from the demise of RawShooter all those years ago, not to rely solely on one piece of software or on a single software provider...
     
  87. On a related tack: I wonder how many people banging on about CC pay a regular periodic "rental" for their SmugMug or Zenfolio galleries, or their website hosting, without so much as batting an eyelid?

    It's exactly the same as CC: stop paying and the website goes away.​
    No, Smugmug and Zen are like billboards where your advertisement (work) is displayed. When your rental term is up, your work comes down but you still possess the tools to create another ad. Or at least you did until now.
    As I said early on, this model is not for me. The EULA alone, at least as originally written, is nothing I'd ever agree to. However, I'm not gnashing my teeth or wringing my hands. Adobe's machinations will have zero effect on me. Best of luck to the rest of you.
     
  88. Does any one know why the monthly payment plan is the only option? What about a yearly payment option?
     
  89. "Does any one know why the monthly payment plan is the only option? What about a yearly payment option?"
    When Adobe first announced CC they also announced alternative ways to pay for it, including the option of paying by the year. Adobe would be the best source to ask what choices are in effect now with this new offer.
     
  90. To follow up on my recommendation to contact Adobe in the above post, I did it myself. It was a waste of time, sad to say. I talked to the Adobe order line 1-800-585-0774, and they had no answer to the question about the annual payment option except to say that I should see what is offered next week when the offer becomes active.
    I have not come here to bash Adobe, but, they have not got their ducks in a row over this new CC option. One would think that the sales reps would be familiar with payment options for products, but if one did think that they would be wrong.
    Not only that, but my own CC Manager does not even show LR as an app that may be purchased through CC, even though it is available from CC, and the sales rep did a Sgt. Schulz claiming to "know nothing!". I'm not too concerned about the LR app not being listed in my CC Manager window at all, as it will probably get resolved next week when the new offer becomes active. But, I was concerned that the sales rep knew nothing about much of this CC operation for an app that he could very well have needlessly sold me if I had not been aware of what is coming next week. Com'on, Adobe, get with the program!
     
  91. We subscribe to magazines and professional organizations and even Photo.net on a yearly basis. What would be the difficulty in offering CC on a yearly subscription and send out a friendly email after 11 months to notify you that it is time to renew. Adobe has no problem sending us emails now. I would be perfectly happy with that arraignment. I searched all through Adobe's website for a mention of a yearly subscription but could find no mention of it if it exists.
     
  92. A question about this LR/PS CC combo bundle has been nagging at me concerning subsequent upgrade numbering changes from the regular CS perpetual license model to CC version numbering (i.e., 14.x.x.x, 15.x.x.x.).
    If I sign up for this LR/PS subscription and pay regularly for lets say two years where in that length of time I've upgraded to several version numbers for each app and decide to end the subscription, do all the versions get turned off going back to the beginning of the subscription two years ago? Or just the last/current upgrade version downloaded?
     
  93. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    ...do all the versions get turned off going back to the beginning of the subscription two years ago?​
    Yes. You'd have to fall back on a perceptual license (CS6) if you owned one.
     
  94. You'd have to fall back on a perceptual license (CS6) if you owned one.​
    Or CS3, CS4, CS5 - whichever was the latest version that you purchased before the subscription model became active.
    And that is exactly what I don't like about the subscription - you are paying rent and as soon as you stop you realize that you don't own a thing. Despite the fact that after a few years of paying the subscription you paid a lot more money than a full version of photoshop and lightroom had cost before. I am not saying that the $9.99 isn't a fair price - I am only saying that after a certain time period when you decide to drop the subscription, you should be allowed to use what you have at that point - you just wouldn't get any further updates and upgrades.
    Of course, the problem with that is that if you decide to renew the subscription at a later time you would need to get all the upgrades that were missed - essentially for free. Unless adobe let's you back in for a fee that depends on how long you've been out - where there is a will, there is a way.
     
  95. Spare a thought for Australian consumers of Adobe products.

    For decades, Adobe has been consistently charging us up to twice what you pay in the US for exactly the same software. There was even a recent Federal government enquiry into the practice, known as "price gouging". At the same time, the Adobe CEO came here to announce CC, conveniently choosing to totally ignore journalists' questions on gouging, as if it had never happened.
    I notice that this $9.99 is a US only price. In Australia, we are required to pay $20/month for a single application and no cheaper offer has been made. Why? It's the same "Creative Cloud" - or maybe it could be called a "Profit Maximising Smokescreen".
    While I think the software is great, the prices Australians pay are extremely inequitable.
     
  96. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    The price in Australia for the new program is $9.99AUD. That's not significantly different than the US price.
     
  97. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    It looks like Adobe's MBA-geniuses are trying to turn an embarrassing mistake into a marketing triumph that proves yet again their genius infallibility.

    Originally, the MBA-geniuses apparently cared only about enhancing the revenue stream from professional graphic designers. They expertly devised a rental scheme specifically to delight that target market, since it is indeed an excellent deal for them.

    Being geniuses, the MBAs knew and expected that photographers would be unhappy with what, for them, would be a very bad deal. But as they decided photographers were outside the target market, and thus irrelevant to the plan for enhancing Adobe's revenue stream, the expected dissatisfaction could be safely ignored. It's strictly business, after all. Any MBA knows it's perfectly fine to shaft loyal long-term users if that's deemed necessary for business.

    Despite their unquestioned genius, the MBAs somehow failed to anticipate the extent and volume of the tantrums those expendable photographers would throw all over the Internet. That was creating an embarrassing PR problem for Adobe. It was even more embarrassing to the MBA-geniuses, who cannot tolerate even the suggestion that they're capable of error.

    This wasn't the first time Adobe's MBA-geniuses had to vaporize an embarrassing gaffe. When Adobe bought Pixmantec, they decided that the users who had invested in RawShooter Premium were irrelevant, and told them they were simply out of luck. But the MBA-geniuses failed to anticipate that those users would not quietly accept being sacrificed to Adobe's greater glory. After a few weeks, the MBA-geniuses decided that RawShooter Pro users would receive a free copy of the new Lightroom 1.0. In one stroke of genius they transformed a thorn in Adobe's side into a group of enthusiastic gamma testers.

    So the MBA-geniuses went back into their conference room and came up with plan that would not only vindicate their infallibility, but convert those once-irrelevant photographers into enthusiastic rent-payers who provide a useful secondary revenue stream.

    And they may have succeeded at erasing their mistake, since the $10 monthly rental of Photoshop and Lightroom seems a very good deal indeed. Of course, like any landlord Adobe always has the right to raise the rent and change the terms and conditions whenever the MBA-geniuses decide it's in Adobe's best interest. But let's not think about that. Let's just celebrate the triumph of the infallible MBA-geniuses and joyfully join the secondary revenue stream!
     
  98. Ted,
    Did you flunk out of an MBA program or were you turned down for a position at Adobe?
    I fail to see where the anger comes from. Adobe made their decision. They modified it to the benefit of photographers. No one has to join the program. It isn't as if you are being drafted into the military. It is a volunteer army.
    I can understand people not liking this change. I can understand people not joining the program. What I can't understand is the anger. There must be something deeper going on. I just don't get it.
     
  99. i am very annoyed with Adobe that I cannot take advantage of what it an brilliant offer as I cannot buy Adobe Products in Cambodia (or Laos or Vietnam) I had to buy through a friend abroad.
     
  100. Wow there some rather angry, bitter posts happening here, most of it inchoate when in comes to stating justifications for the anger towards Adobe. Usually, such bitterness has at the bottom of it, love in some form. What else could engender such emotional vehemence?
     
  101. I agree with many of the comments above. I don't want to pay a monthly fee for a product I may not use very often. I just want to purchase a software license when I choose and upgrade it when I choose

    I might, but not when that payment is required for access to my data. IOW not when I lose my work if I stop paying, which is what CC is all about, your images go into Adobe's cloud and access to that is determined by you paying for that access (which is logical, storage costs money, but I have my own storage and I like it that way).
    Were it just the software, I'd take out a subscription for a month or so when I need that thing that I don't need more than once or twice a year and would otherwise cost me hundreds or thousands to buy, then before the subscription runs out export everything to a format I can use in software I do own outright (cloud based stuff like that tends to slowly but surely remove all such export options).

    Unless someone here that is complaining about CC has a better solution for Adobe to combat piracy, there's no point in complaining. So which of you complainers has the solution?​

    software as a service (SAAS) (CC does that) combined with local storage.
    And ideally an option for a one-off charge that lets you use that software in perpetuity, rather than a recurring weekly or monthly charge. An option of "pay per use" might also be handy for the rarely used things (for example I am quite content with PS Elements and Lightroom combo, full PS CSx I rarely need so wouldn't want to pay premium for that).
    The currently offered bundles are too restrictive, IMO.

    "Does this mean that if someone's CC subscription expires, they will no longer be able to open and further process their PSD files?"​

    yes, if they're stored in the cloud those files are gone. You may hope Adobe keeps them for a few months in case you reactivate, but I doubt there's any guarantee given about that.
    If you store your data locally, the only thing you lose is the option to open those files as you now lack the software to do so (but you can resub or maybe someone, somewhere, will write a program that can read/convert them).

    Doubtful and do you have any basis for this conjecture?. For instance, if my card expires on Netflix or any other service that is automatic monthly pay, I get an email stating there's a problem with my card. It's happened several times. That simply reminds me to update the card info for that vendor.​

    Not sure about Adobe, but I've seen online services where the options to change payment details were such a massive PITA that it might as well have been impossible.
    Things like sending copies credit card statements from both the old and new card to them via snail mail, with copies of your passport, to verify that the new card is indeed owned by the same person as the old and both are you.
    And in one case the only option was to close the account, pay a service fee with the new card to reopen it, which got the new card added as the default payment method, and then pay another service fee to have the old card removed.

    How are your photos not safe and available with CC?​

    if stored in the cloud, they're only available while you pay for your cloud access.
    IOW your creations are held hostage to your payment for the service, a service that can be terminated at any time with no prior notification, a service that might be unavailable because of problems outside the control of either you or the service provider (say your internet goes down).

    You agreed to that in setup. It's always done as an opt-in. And it doesn't delete them from your phone.​

    They also opt you in for them changing their service on the fly as they see fit without notifying you (Apple, your insurance company, and many others do the same). When I created my Google/Android account there was no Google+ so I never agreed to them uploading my snapshots to there.

    Can anyone explain what they're saying here?​

    They're saying that after the first year they can do whatever they like with the price, and your contract will automatically be changed to that new price.

    Renting tools is a long-standing model though, Stephen.​

    yes, but when the rental period expires for that electric screwdriver, anything screwed together with it doesn't suddenly unscrew itself, leaving you screwed.

    It's exactly the same as CC: stop paying and the website goes away.​

    I have a local copy of that site I can upload to another hosting provider and it is back online.
    I stop paying Adobe, I've lost all the work I've put into making that content I worked on using their tools, not quite the same thing.

    Despite their unquestioned genius, the MBAs somehow failed to anticipate the extent and volume of the tantrums those expendable photographers would throw all over the Internet. That was creating an embarrassing PR problem for Adobe. It was even more embarrassing to the MBA-geniuses, who cannot tolerate even the suggestion that they're capable of error.​

    not MBAs, marketing gurus.
    And it's not Adobe specific, it happens all over the place.
    Years and years ago there was a company called Borland which made some of the world's finest and most competitively priced software development suites.
    It was extremely popular with small and independent developers, but not so much with large corporations (though they'd happily employ those small and independent shops to use Borland products for them).
    Someone at Borland decided they should "target the enterprise". The brand name of the company was changed to Inprise (INtegrating the enterPRISE), the price of the products more than tripled overnight, and suddenly the marketing team who'd previously had prowled small backroom events in jeans and T-shirts with sporty logos and slogans now wore pinstripe suits and organised product launches in the Hilton and other top venues, they'd even shaven off their beards.
    Suffice to say the scheme failed, they lost the independents who could no longer afford their products and made up 90% of their sales, while failing to gain the target market of enterprise customers who're firmly in bed with Microsoft, IBM, and Oracle.
    They tried to revert the damage by reverting the name and offering a "professional level" product suite to complement the "enterprise suite" but that version was so stripped it was next to useless for what the serious professional needed.
    A few years later the intellectual property was bought out by another company, integrated into their product suite, and now sold as part of that, to their enterprise customers as they still have never been able to gain back the independents who've since switched to Oracle's and Microsoft's cheap or even free offerings that they launched in the meantime.

    Adobe has a bit less to fear there as they're not increasing their prices at the moment, but they're on a slippery slope if they forget their main market (not saying we are their main market rather than the large graphics design shops, I don't have a breakdown in sales for Adobe).


    And they may have succeeded at erasing their mistake, since the $10 monthly rental of Photoshop and Lightroom seems a very good deal indeed​

    only if you're a frequent upgrader. If not it's not a good deal (I tend to upgrade once every 5-6 years on average, for example).

    And before you attack me, I work in IT and we're selling SAAS services as part of our portfolio. They can be a great deal if you're not a large enough user of the software (in our case number of seats as well as data volume) to justify the licensing cost of the full suite for on-site usage.
    It's for each potential customer to work out whether purchasing a site license or a SAAS solution is in their own best interest, having both options available to you gives flexibility.
     
  102. @ Jeff Spirer - not according to the pricing page I looked at.
    http://www.adobe.com/au/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html
    Can you supply a link, please?
    Thanks.
     
  103. Thanks, Phil. I appreciate your information.
    $10 sounds more reasonable and humane. It is worth weighing up for consideration. Strange that it wasn't on the Australian site.
     
  104. It seems that rather than continue the conventional retail seller/customer style relationship we are all used to, Adobe has decided the classic Drug Dealer/Junkie type relationship is more to their liking. Its a good plan for them.
     
  105. yes, but when the rental period expires for that electric screwdriver, anything screwed together with it doesn't suddenly unscrew itself, leaving you screwed.​
    I promised not to post again but for the love of God can somebody - Jeff? Andrew? - explain yet again just what meaningless, unfounded crap, statements like this are?
    You're screwed only if you let Adobe screw you - nothing about this new pricing structure locks you, your images, or what you might subsequently want to do with them, into Adobe. It is either ignorant of the reality of CC, or downright dishonest, to suggest otherwise.
    That being the case (and for the avoidance of any doubt, that is the case):
    What on Earth is the problem?

    Either suck up paying on an ongoing basis or move on. There is life outside of Adobe, even for your "proprietary" PSD files.
     
  106. I promised not to post again but for the love of God can somebody - Jeff? Andrew? - explain yet again just what meaningless, unfounded crap, statements like this are?
    For the love of God, Keith, just stop reading what you find as crap statements. Your browser has a scroll bar. Use it. It's the same advice Jeff and others give quite often here.
    No one is going to respect what you have to say if you don't respect what others say. They have a legitimate POV and regardless of how you interpret it, you will respect it.
    Now shall I draw you a bawth and fetch your slippers, smoking pipe and jacket for this evening, sir?
     
  107. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Andrew? - explain yet again just what meaningless, unfounded crap, statements like this are?
    I've tried but the facts fall on deaf ears. Or there is a reading comprehension issue with some. The screwdriver analogy (if we can be so kind to even call it an analogy) stinks and isn't remotely pertinent.
     
  108. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    They have a legitimate POV and regardless of how you interpret it, you will respect it.​
    Yes if you find FUD and falsehoods a legitimate POV. The idea that once you stop using CC, you can't access or edit your files is simply untrue. Suggesting that by your own doing, removing the ability to use CC is like a screw driver and anything screwed together with it doesn't suddenly unscrew itself, leaving you screwed is nonsense. It's untrue. It is a lie. It is like saying once you stop using CC, the 6000 year old flat earth will cease to exist. If that's a legitimate POV, dog help us all.
     
  109. if stored in the cloud, they're only available while you pay for your cloud access.​

    No one is required to utilize the "cloud"for their storage, especially for sole storage, and in fact doing so is dangerous. But in any event, any "cloud" service by any provider holding stored data can do the same. Stop subscribing to any cloud service and at some point they will dump your data. That's why relying on internet storage as a sole repository of one's data is not a recommended practice. But I thought everyone knew that. The CC "cloud" issue is simply a red-herring that really has no relation to the issue.
     
  110. Yes if you find FUD and falsehoods a legitimate POV. The idea that once you stop using CC, you can't access or edit your files is simply untrue.​
    That's your opinion on the first part concerning FUD/falsehoods, and on the second part it is you, Andrew, that has reading comprehension issues considering nothing was written (at least I didn't write it) stating concern over not being able to access our files or not having the ability to edit them.
    Read what I said, not what you want to distort to your own skewed POV. I have a legitimate case and concern and it has nothing to do with not being able to edit or access my files.
     
  111. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Read what I said, not what you want to distort to your own skewed POV. I have a legitimate case and concern and it has nothing to do with not being able to edit or access my files.​
    Those comments were not directed at what you wrote (I directed my comments at what you wrote which you conveniently ignored). I've read what YOU wrote prior and had no difficulty dismissing most of it.
     
  112. Dismissed? Oh! IOW nothing for you to be concerned about so just move on.
    I stand by what I say as a legitimate concern for mine and other's workflow situations.
     
  113. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Dismissed? Oh! IOW nothing for you to be concerned about so just move on.​
    There are issues to be concerned with a subscription versus a perceptual license. What you wrote in defense of the issues with the differences have nothing to do with the actual issues. You wrote:
    You're dismissing and diluting my point about losing non-destructive edits and the time invested by canceling a CC subscription as being no big issue since the previous non-CC version can be used.​
    Again, I am dismissing this POV because all proprietary processing that is version based has always been an issue if you can't use the version that created those proprietary edits. Further:
    To simplify it even more, the user is really paying a monthly fee in order to preserve their time invested producing non-destructive edits because once you cancel the subscription...​
    No, they really are not. Or let's put it this way, that's only a tiny portion of what they are paying for. One pays a monthly fee to continue to edit images with proprietary processing and further, if you are so sure you'll give up the proprietary edits, be smart and save a rendered image whereby no further proprietary editing is necessary. Least you forget (again) that YOU pulled the plug on past, present and future processing by canceling your subscription.
    This is really simple Tim. You either find the price you pay for these functions useful or you don't. If you don't, you better plan what your next move will be. ALL XMP and similar Adobe processing you are so in love with is proprietary. Wiping all evidence of an Adobe product, subscriptions or perceptually licensed, from your machine is your call. If you do so, only you are to blame if you can't use those proprietary processes to further edit your data. Noting stops you from flattening or rendering the data so any application that can open say a TIFF can do so and you can further edit that data.
     
  114. The only new thing here is the sense of a lack of permanent ownership in the new pricing model. Everything else is just meaningless noise.
    That sums it up to perfection!​
    It's not a sense of lack - it's a real lack of permanent ownership; stop paying the subscription and you lost access to the software. That to me is the biggest drawback with the subscription model and will likely be the reason why I won't be jumping on it. I only upgraded to CS6 because of the misinformation regarding future upgrade options - that's $199 I'm already in the hole for believing what adobe said. Then I purchased LR5 to have access to the same RAW conversion utility as with ACR from photoshop - and as it was stated at the time - outside the subscription model even for further upgrades. That's another $79.


    Currently, the only features in CC that interest me are the ability to use RAW as a filter from inside photoshop - but I can use the less convenient way that works in CS6. Then there's "upright" - more convenient than the older method. Not really what I am willing to spend $10 per month in perpetuity on.
    I am not going to comment on the PSD/layered TIFF issues that might arise from stepping down from CC to an older version of photoshop since I don't use those options. If I did, then I would spend some time figuring out how to make certain I am not left with unreadable junk.
    So, in essence it all boils down if one is willing or not to spend money on a monthly subscription in perpetuity. All the rest is meaningless noise.
     
  115. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    So, in essence it all boils down if one is willing or not to spend money on a monthly subscription in perpetuity. All the rest is meaningless noise.​
    Exactly! And for some, it's a non issue if you do the math with the new pricing. I've updated every version of Photoshop since 1990 (1.0.7). That usually cost about $199. A new version came up typically every 18 months or so. At $9.99 X 18, that's less than an upgrade just a little. The issue is, some people don't want to be forced to upgrade. Some of us do this for a living, we wouldn’t think of not upgrading. There are lots of people who happily moved to CS6 from CS3! And that cost Adobe money. Like all businesses, they want to make a profit. The new subscription model stops this every other, every 3rd version upgrade option. It makes a lot of business sense and I can see how people who are perfectly happy upgrading every 3 years instead of every 18 months would be unhappy with this new model. I'm not happy my cable bill goes up either. In the end, it's a cost versus benefit decision. I don't want to pay more for cable, or the same for my cell service but lose unlimited data (which I never needed anyway but that's a different story). All kinds of business do what Adobe has done. If the proposition isn't something you want to deal with, move on. But to say you are being held hostage, or that your files are in a jail in the cloud, or that you lose your proprietary editing because you will no longer pay for a tool is as you say, meaningless noise.
    Currently, the only features in CC that interest me are the ability to use RAW as a filter from inside photoshop - but I can use the less convenient way that works in CS6. Then there's "upright" - more convenient than the older method. Not really what I am willing to spend $10 per month in perpetuity on.​
    Keep in mind that new features will be rolled out on a regular basis. Just happened with version 14.1. The new Generator feature is useful (to me) but may not be useful to you. And there's another rub. There will be new features added probably monthly or so. You have no idea what they will be or if they are worth what was a one time upgrade fee. So think of this as paying to use an existing tool that will get better over time depending on the type of work you do. With Thomas Knoll working on ACR, we can be pretty sure ACR (and later Lightroom) will see those new improvements and features aimed at photographers.
     
  116. To expand a bit on what Andrew says, the capability gap between PS/CS 6 and PS/CC is only going to become wider as time goes by. My guess is that we will see a lot of photo folks regret not taking advantage of this new PS/LR offering, once it has bypassed them. Hindsight is always 20/20.
     
  117. In the end, it's a cost versus benefit decision.​
    Indeed - and for me it is one that will keep me from subscribing as long as possible and possibly forever. If adobe were to implement the option that - let's say after two or three years of subscription - one were to stop but could continue to use the software as it is at that point - without further upgrades and updates, of course - now that would sway me (and I don't see a reason why adobe shouldn't do this). Even though there's still the likelihood that the price will eventually go up - I doubt it's going to stay at $9.99 for more than three years. Those who stop the subscription and start again at a later date will have to pay more too - that much should be certain.
    My guess is that we will see a lot of photo folks regret not taking advantage of this new PS/LR offering, once it has bypassed them.​
    Most certainly - and I might well be one of them. But as it stands, adobe's offer is not good enough to persuade me.
     
  118. A few questions on the practical application of this CC subscription:
    1) Does the CC subscription software download impact on the use of existing installations of PS (installed from "old fashioned" purchased discs)? Can I run both on the same machine without conflicts?
    2) Can psd files created in CC PS be read and worked on in older versions of non-CC PS?
    3) Are edits to RAW files done in CC PS maintained if the edited files are opened in older versions of non-CC PS?
    4) Does the CC subscription software work with already installed disc versions of other Creative Suite modules (eg Illustrator, In Design, etc)? That is, if I want to do the $10 PS CC subscription, do I need to subscribe to all the CC Creative Suite modules that I use to maintain seamless operations between them?
    Has anyone tried doing these things yet?
     
  119. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    A few questions on the practical application of this CC subscription:​
    1. No issues or conflicts. You can run CC and CS6, no problem. Probably earlier versions too.
    2. Yes. Keep in mind however that some new or unique functionality in CC isn't backwards compatible.
    3. Depends. Especially how far back you're talking about.
    4. Yes. You can run say Photoshop CC and InDesign 5, no problem.
     
  120. Thanks Andrew. (My lawyer will be in touch if this doesn't work out.)
    With regards 3) - it would be PS 5 & 6.
    My concern would be future redundancy of PS6 with advances in the CC PS. (I am mindful of the lack of ACR support for older PS versions with Nikon D800 raw files.)
    I still have the feeling in the pit of my gut that I get when I am just about to jump out of the door, using a chute packed by persons unknown. The decision to go potentially has a major bearing on the future.
     
  121. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    My concern would be future redundancy of PS6 with advances in the CC PS. (I am mindful of the lack of ACR support for older PS versions with Nikon D800 raw files.)​
    Not sure I understand. As ACR progresses, it natively supports more cameras as the raw files are proprietary. Adobe (and all other 3rd party converters) have to decode them to support processing. That's why Adobe has developed DNG. Let's say you have CS6 and Nikon comes out with new camera. Let's say a newer version of ACR supports that new format but CS6 doesn't (the camera file didn't exist when CS6 was developed). You could convert that newer Nikon file to DNG and use it in an older version of ACR, in this case, CS6.
     
  122. Thanks again Andrew. You have answered my question. This means that in the future, I may not be able to use just PS6 on a laptop in the bush to process newer iterations of camera propriety raw files.
    I realise this is a fairly narrow burrow of interest for probably most people, but it is pivotal to the way I need to work.
     
  123. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    This means that in the future, I may not be able to use just PS6 on a laptop in the bush to process newer iterations of camera propriety raw files.​
    Yes unless you convert them to DNG. The DNG converter is updated regularly to support newer cameras. It's free. So you could stick with PS6 and when a new camera comes out you can convert the proprietary raw for processing in your older version of ACR in CS6. Unfortunately, you and everyone else has to wait on Adobe to update the DNG converter for that new system. Adobe has to update this converter thanks to the camera manufacturer's who just refuse to create an open raw format. But that's a different story that has been debated here for awhile.
    There is a downside to staying with an older version of ACR in that it gets better at processing the raw data, and that's true for older or newer camera files. For example, we saw the introduction of PV (Process Version) 2012 last year in CS6 and Lightroom 4. It does a significantly better job than PV2010. IF the quality of processing your raw's is critical, updating Photoshop for ACR, or updating Lightroom is a useful investment.
     
  124. In early 1990 after graduating from Art Center College of Design in Pasadena with a BA in Photography, Andrew Rodney purchased his first color Macintosh system in order to run a new and revolutionary product called Adobe Photoshop. Andrew is one of only a hand full of Adobe Certified Technical trainers for Adobe Photoshop in the country and has been a beta tester for Photoshop since version 2.5. Andrew specializes in color management solutions and training.

    Andrew has been featured in or written for such publications as Photo District News, Publish Magazine, Color Publishing, Computer Artist, Digital Imaging Magazine, Digital Output , Photo Electronic Imaging and Peterson’s Photographic Magazine. Andrew lectures around the country and speaks regularly at such shows as Seybold, Thunder Lizards, PhotoExpo, PMA and DPIX and the DIFP Seminar Series. Andrew also teaches regularly at the Santa Fe Photo Workshops.
    Andrew also provides custom printer profiles and color management consulting, for more info, visit Andrew's web site.
     
  125. Thanks Andrew. You have been most helpful.
     
  126. I, for one, would love to hear Shun's view of all of this.
    -O
     
  127. Andrew, did you know a Leslie McCall when you were at Art Center?
     
  128. It appears that Adobe is going to the "Software as a Service" (Saas) model. There are benefits for both the Company and the Consumer with this model (as well as costs).
    Company benefits: (1) Normalized revenue stream - if you upgrade like I do, there are a number of years between payments; (2) easier update of software including faster correction of bugs - the company can update the software "on the fly" if you will; (3) Instill / Build loyalty of the product - people paying subscriptions tend to be loyal users (at least that is what I think); (4) Easier to introduce the product to people because the cost is generally cheaper on the front end - instead of paying 200-300 dollars right now, I can pay $20 a month.;(5) Ability to limit piracy of software - hard to copy if need an account to run.
    Consumer benefits: (1) Constant improvements and updates - if you upgrade all the time, you get the updates immediately (and the cost generally breaks even); (2) without the hassle of an install - not everyone is a geek like me. Upgrading can be a pain. If the Company can do it for me - a little at a time - the ease is worth it.
    The cost to the Company are not as obvious, but I would suggest Public Relations is the biggest. Long time users want to have a perpetual license they can install anytime they want. Features in the current version suddenly disappear because of an update (seen that happen a lot). New problems occur because the code wasn't quite right when it was released. Competitive pricing is another - the per month rate can't be too high because the competition can be intense and people have a price point.


    The costs to the consumer are easier for me to see (being the consumer) - (1) Cost - I may be able to save enough to buy the next upgrade, but my monthly budget doesn't allow me to do a subscription or I think the monthly cost is too high for the service (which is why I don't have cable tv); (2) Updates can be a pain - I personally like to do them myself; (3) I have to allow the company into my machine on a regular basis. As a CFE and a programming "nut", I have a hard time doing that. Even if the company is trustworthy, an entry point for them is an entry point for someone else.

    I could go on about some of the legal ramifications as well - such as storing personal information on a computer you don't own, but that probably doesn't apply here.
    There are a number of options available - I personally use GIMP to process my photos. It is open source, runs on Windows (and Linux). I use UFRaw to processes the NEF files. It is also open source. So the real issue is do you stay with Adobe or move to something else?
     
  129. There are lots of people who happily moved to CS6 from CS3! And that cost Adobe money.​
    This, unfortunately, seems to be the way the marketing guys at Adobe actually think. Those of us who only shovelled money into their coffers for every 3rd version of their very expensive software are clearly worse than pirates! When a company has a near monopoly in professional image editing, we shouldn't be surprised when it pulls this sort of stunt - corporate greed pretty much dictates it. For me, getting on the endless CC treadmill would roughly triple what I usually spend on Adobe products. As for piracy, this will do nothing to deter it - CC was reportedly cracked within 24 hours of its release and, by defusing the time bomb, the pirates are now offering an arguably superior product...
     
  130. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    Can't understand the problem. Increasingly LR gets better and steadily takes over tasks that used to be the province of Photoshop. If I don't like Adobe's Cloud offers surely I can continue to buy LR every upgrade or two and just keep the CS5 I've got. I'll almost certainly spend less than if Adobe hadn't taken its leap- unless I feel motivated by some offer or another that comes along.
     
  131. "we shouldn't be surprised when it pulls this sort of stunt - corporate greed pretty much dictates it"
    At least this thread hasn't degraded into over the top ridiculous comments!
     
  132. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    CC was reportedly cracked within 24 hours of its release and, by defusing the time bomb, the pirates are now offering an arguably superior product...​

    It is not proven that it was "cracked." They were able to perform a download and install. There is no proof at this time that it will survive the subscription checking.
     
  133. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    There is no proof at this time that it will survive the subscription checking.​
    And even if it does survive, so what? Stealing somehow justifies anything in terms of the new subscription schema or a perpetual license?
     
  134. At least this thread hasn't degraded into over the top ridiculous comments!​
    Do you honestly think Adobe would be doing this if they had serious competition from another company offering perpetual licences for equivalent software? Perhaps I should have used a more polite term than 'greed'? How about 'impetus for profit maximization'? That should be sufficiently ambiguous.
     
  135. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Do you honestly think Adobe would be doing this if they had serious competition from another company offering perpetual licences for equivalent software?​
    Because there is no serious competition or equivalent software?
     
  136. Richard, Are we to accuse Adobe of treason, mass murder, mind control, etc, just because they built the best solution for the issue? Profit is not evil, and you can bet the farm, that Adobe's competitors are in search of it as much as Adobe is. Your argument has more holes than Swiss cheese. Your comments are against capitalism as much as they are against Adobe. Seeing them in that light allows the reader to give them the credit that they deserve.
     
  137. There is no proof at this time that it will survive the subscription checking.​
    I've no intention of downloading a cracked version to try it out! But the pirates seem to have managed to deal with all of Adobe's previous online checking mechanisms, so I'd be a bit surprised if they haven't managed it this time.
    Stealing somehow justifies anything in terms of the new subscription schema or a perpetual license?​
    Of course not. The point is rather that anti-piracy is a spurious justification for the new business model. Adobe knows perfectly well that piracy takes place, will probably continue to do so, and might even be made more attractive by a subscription scheme. But pirates, many of whom aren't (realistically) potential paying customers, aren't Adobe's main concern. Their motives are to milk more money from their legitimate customers, especially those who tend to skip upgrades (when given the choice), and to take complete control of distribution (no more boxed product resellers to cut in).
    Because there is no serious competition or equivalent software?​

    Well, exactly. Since they have an effective monopoly in this area, they feel perfectly safe in imposing a subscription model that many customers will dislike. Where are they going to go? PaintShop Pro? GIMP?
     
  138. Richard, Are we to accuse Adobe of treason, mass murder, mind control, etc, just because they built the best solution for the issue? Profit is not evil, and you can bet the farm, that Adobe's competitors are in search of it as much as Adobe is. Your argument has more holes than Swiss cheese. Your comments are against capitalism as much as they are against Adobe. Seeing them in that light allows the reader to give them the credit that they deserve.​
    'At least this thread hasn't degraded into over the top ridiculous comments!'
     
  139. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    The point is rather that anti-piracy is a spurious justification for the new business model.​
    The business model has nothing (very little if anything) to do with anti-piracy. It is about increasing revenue. That's rather oblivious isn't it? Adobe has had an activation schema for years, how is this different? I pointed out how this new model is about keeping users from skipping versions. That generates more money and on a monthly basis. It is a very clever business model I suspect many here would love to have!
    Since they have an effective monopoly in this area, they feel perfectly safe in imposing a subscription model that many customers will dislike.​
    First off, they have an effective monopoly because they have the best product and consumers obviously have aided in producing said so called monopoly. 2nd, not all customers dislike it, there are some significant advantages which have been pointed out here. But if you dislike it, move on. If this new model in some way causes this company to lose instead of gain more business and thus money, they will likely change course. Kind of doubt it...
    Where are they going to go? PaintShop Pro? GIMP?​
    Beats me, I'm not going there. I can't speak for others. IF the Adobe solution continues to be the best in class, despite less flexibility in upgrading or forcing customers to stay on the bus, then they will do just fine. By their own doing and by the doing of their customers. IF someone comes along with a better solution, then that company will take these customers away. It's simple, classic capitalism!
     
  140. The business model has nothing (very little if anything) to do with anti-piracy. It is about increasing revenue. That's rather oblivious isn't it? Adobe has had an activation schema for years, how is this different? I pointed out how this new model is about keeping users from skipping versions. That generates more money and on a monthly basis. It is a very clever business model I suspect many here would love to have!​
    I think we completely agree about why Adobe is doing this (I only brought up piracy as it had been mentioned as a justification a couple of times above). That doesn't mean those customers who are getting a worse deal have to like it, or kid themselves it is somehow for their benefit as well.
    First off, they have an effective monopoly because they have the best product and consumers obviously have aided in producing said so called monopoly. 2nd, not all customers dislike it, there are some significant advantages which have been pointed out here. But if you dislike it, move on.​
    No need to italicise - I used 'effective' quite deliberately. Of course it's not an absolute monopoly, and it goes without saying there are good reasons why Adobe products are so successful. But when a company attains such a dominant position, the tendency seems to be to behave in a rather more 'arrogant' way than previously. Why care about what a large proportion of your customers want, when enough will suck it up on your terms anyway? I'd be tempted to use the phrase 'crack dealer business model', but that might upset Carl :)
    IF someone comes along with a better solution, then that company will take these customers away. It's simple, classic capitalism!​
    I'd like to imagine someone will, but I suspect nobody will want to make the investment to challenge Adobe's decades of product development. If Canon announced that their dSLR firmware would from now on lock up unless an annual fee was paid they'd just drive customers to Nikon. But Adobe has no strong competitor in its particular niche, so provided they keep their rental pricing below the 'mass rebellion' threshold, market forces will make little difference, and CC will indeed be a financial success for the company.
     
  141. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Of course it's not an absolute monopoly, and it goes without saying there are good reasons why Adobe products are so successful.​
    A little history lesson about Photoshop from someone that lived it. I purchased Photoshop 1.0.7 in May of 1990. It had been out a few months. There was a competing product called ColorStudio. It was about the same price and was in fact a bit more mature. It had CMYK capabilities before Photoshop. At the time, there was a rivalry between those who used one vs. the other (think Nikon vs. Canon). Many of us in the Photoshop camp, and there were not that many in those days, wondered if we picked the right product! The issue with ColorStudio was a more complex, some would say inferior GUI. It was far more geeky if you will. It took maybe a year or two for Photoshop to dominate the market for this space and ColorStudio died.
    There have been challenges. X-Rez, Live Picture are two that come to mind. I worked with both products. X-Rez was such a rip-off I was surprised Adobe didn't take them to court. It was the companies dysfunctional nature that killed it off. Live Picture, a product that initially cost $4000 was probably the most likely product to unseat Photoshop. To this day, it has (had) functionality that Photoshop lacks. But the GUI was a mess too and people struggled to figure it out.
    The reason Photoshop has been successful is by and large, Thomas Knoll who in the last number of years has taken ACR onto his own and a very good team of engineers and product managers. Can someone topple Photoshop? Not at all impossible. But not very likely considering the very long 23 years it has been on the market and the team that builds it. IF someone came out with a better product, you better believe a lot of us would jump ship. I'm not holding my breath. There are areas where Photoshop frustrates me. I use it less and less thanks to Lightroom. But I have a severe need for tools that only Photoshop provides. That's true of other products I use with both frustration and admiration.
    This again is very simple. Adobe changed it's pricing model. I have to use Photoshop. The price is worthwhile for me by a long shot. Some of the differences in the perceptual license and the subscription is useful and a benefit, some not. If anyone out there is finding that the proposition is such that they can and want to leave the Photoshop fold, they should do so. This is no different from any other consumer decision about a product and price consideration.
     
  142. Do you honestly think Adobe would be doing this if they had serious competition from another company offering perpetual licences for equivalent software? Perhaps I should have used a more polite term than 'greed'? How about 'impetus for profit maximization'? That should be sufficiently ambiguous.​
    Is seems you relate the concept of profit with evil. It seems that sometimes we consumers expect companies to invest in what it takes to create the best products and deliver those products for virtually free. It's a good business model that has advantages for many users of photo shop and LR and maybe not others. But I thinks its commendable that Adobe has listened to the photographic community and tailored a package that makes it quite reasonable to continue using CC6 if you want to. In other words, for many users that like or need to use PS it's not a "worse deal", it's actually a better deal. But some people don't seem willing to acknowledge that.
    Like others have said, if it doesn't suit, than don't use it. No one is twisting anyone's arm. Some people sound as if they have a right to determine how a company should sell and distribute its goods. Well we do, indirectly by either purchasing or not. That's your choice, but I can't see any reason to demonize Adobe because their move doesn't suit some inchoate concept that people are getting screwed by Adobe when that isn't the case at all.
     
  143. "I'd be tempted to use the phrase 'crack dealer business model', but that might upset Carl"

    That wouldn't upset me, Richard, but it does show readers where you are coming from. Adobe should be equated with a "crack dealer", right.......... Miss your meds, did you?
     
  144. But when a company attains such a dominant position, the tendency seems to be to behave in a rather more 'arrogant' way than previously. Why care about what a large proportion of your customers want, when enough will suck it up on your terms anyway?​
    Sorry, what's the more arrogant way? If its such a large proportion of customers that want the old structure and they all vote with their feet to the degree that it effects the bottom line, then they will have to evaluate and decide to push on without those customers or change and create another means of purchasing. It's a business decision that has nothing to do with being "arrogant". Sounds kind of childish to think that if they don't accept your idea of what their business model should be, equates to them being arrogant. I tend to agree with what Brad said much earlier in this thread, they bungled and created a lot of un-necessary confusion with the way they launched this new model.
     
  145. It seems to me that one side of this debate is painting Adobe as a hapless, innocent victim of unjustifiable criticism.
    As I mentioned in a previous post, Australian consumers have been paying at least 60% more for Adobe products than US and European buyers for decades (even after "purchase by download" was introduced, with no associated transport costs for physical product). This is after differences in currency exchange rates have been deducted. This type of pricing amounts to gross opportunism. The reasons given by Adobe for the price differential were baseless spin. As I also mentioned previously, the problem was significant enough to warrant a Federal government inquiry into this price gouging by Adobe and a number of other IT companies. Their responses and attempted justifications were pathetic and totally unconvincing.
    While I agree that what Adobe charges is Adobe's business, what we have experienced here in Australia hardly builds trust between Adobe and its customers. Their behaviour was unconscionable.
    You can trot out the platitude "well you didn't have to buy it". That is true. But I fail to see why we should have been discriminated against and financially penalised because we are not US or European citizens and the cost of overheads to supply the product to Australians was not significantly greater than selling to the rest of the planet.
    When consumers are consistently treated badly, it is hardly surprising that they will harbour a certain level of mistrust and suspicion. Adobe is no babe in the woods and it plays hard, not just against competitors but also its customers.
    Brand and product loyalty is a two way street. Adobe's domination of the market and the way they apply the power this gives them understandably gets up some people's noses.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBBWUZfgRiw
     
  146. A little history lesson about Photoshop from someone that lived it. I purchased Photoshop 1.0.7 in May of 1990. It had been out a few months.​
    I've been using it, on and off, for a little under 20 years. I don't recall the specific packages you mention, but PS was clearly superior to anything else I'd tried at the time, and in a different world to the Unix raster editing packages I was familiar with from the 80s. I wonder, though, how many users were finding some of the more recent upgrades quite as necessary as Adobe would like, and were sticking with older 'good enough' versions for sound economic reasons in difficult times? To a non-specialist (like me), some of the recent PS upgrades appear a lot less dramatic than in earlier years, while (e.g.) Acrobat Pro just seems to pile on unnecessary multimedia features that open new security holes on a monthly basis (in fact, keeping your system secure has sometimes seemed like more of a motivation to upgrade than whatever new features the current release contains, another reason why I hope they don't kill off CS6 support anytime soon). This, perhaps, was the background for Adobe's switch to software rentals.
    Adobe changed it's pricing model. I have to use Photoshop.​
    There it is in a nutshell. The second statement is true for many people, which gives Adobe a lot of freedom with the first (if you have to stay current).
    Is seems you relate the concept of profit with evil.​
    Of course not, that would be silly. Adobe has for many years sold their software at a high price that many of us have been (relatively) happy to pay.
    In other words, for many users that like or need to use PS it's not a "worse deal", it's actually a better deal.​
    Although the pricing may well be attractive to people who normally buy every version, for the rest of us, not so much. As for the other changes, I think we need to separate the rental model itself from the things that Adobe has chosen to include in CC to sweeten the pill. Cloud storage is cheap ($10 will buy you the same amount per year from Microsoft), social networking seems compulsory for every modern application (whether you want it or not!), and incremental upgrades are offered by many companies who provide perpetual licenses (when you stop paying the fee the updates stop, but the software doesn't). None of these things are dependent on any specific buisiness model, but all help to distract us from the real, major change that Adobe has made - you are now renting, not buying.
    Some people sound as if they have a right to determine how a company should sell and distribute its goods. Well we do, indirectly by either purchasing or not.​
    What we do have is a right to criticise. Without the negative reactions Adobe got for its initial offering, would the current PS/LR deal even be on the table?
    Miss your meds, did you?​
    Yes, I used to get by with just the occasional dose, but now they're saying I have to pay a monthly prescription fee...
    Sounds kind of childish to think that if they don't accept your idea of what their business model should be, equates to them being arrogant. I tend to agree with what Brad said much earlier in this thread, they bungled and created a lot of un-necessary confusion with the way they launched this new model.​
    Speaking as a childish, unmedicated anti-capitalist (apparently) I would say they not so much bungled as deliberately obfuscated exactly what they were offering. Never mind the rental agreement behind the curtain, look at the Cloud! I imagine this may have been problematic for the easily confused.
    When consumers are consistently treated badly, it is hardly surprising that they will harbour a certain level of mistrust and suspicion. Adobe is no babe in the woods and it plays hard, not just against competitors but also its customers.​
    Indeed. We get higher prices in the UK, too. At one point, I think it was suggested that this was partly due to the 'cost of translation'. Clearly adding the 'u' back to 'colour' is an expensive business.
     
  147. Of course not, that would be silly. Adobe has for many years sold their software at a high price that many of us have been (relatively) happy to pay.​
    Not really, I much prefer this new price structure. But that's just me. LR and PS for 10 USD a month is pretty good. You say you were happy (relatively) to pay for the upgrades vweaiona, well, I wasn't and this suits me better. So that's the way of it, some will like some won't. You think you share the opinion of a large percentage of photographers, but I believe there are also a lot of photographers who will migrate to CC that didn't want to pay the hefty price for a single copy of Photoshop plus another license for LR. But will be (relatively) happy to pay $10 a month for both LR and PS = 120 USD per year. But it seems you haven't stopped to think about those people.
     
  148. You think you share the opinion of a large percentage of photographers, but I believe there are also a lot of photographers who will migrate to CC that didn't want to pay the hefty price for a single copy of Photoshop plus another license for LR.​
    Then I'm afraid they're going to be disappointed. The offer (which is just available until December) is only open to people who have already paid the hefty price for a single copy of Photoshop (and who would previously have qualified for upgrade pricing). PS upgrades used to go for $199, and LR upgrades are currently $73 at Amazon (I suspect much of the target market will already have a version of Lightroom). 2 years of CC therefore come to about 88% of the upgrade costs you'd normally be paying to own the latest software. So you do save a bit (and a little more if you had to buy Lightroom from scratch, rather than an upgrade), but this hardly makes the rental a spectacular bargain (presumably even less so when the price to join rises next year). However, I expect the deal will still be pretty popular, and lots of people will be happy with it - I'm only complaining on my behalf, not theirs!
     
  149. Well 88% sounds less than a 100% in my math class. There's no point in re-hashing the benefits of rental vs. non-rental. Its already been explained to you several times and you've already explained why you don't like it several times. So as has also been said several times, some of us will dig it and some of us won't.
     
  150. When I booted up this morning there were three app updates awaiting me from my Adobe CC Manager, Bridge CC, PS/CS6 and PS/CC. Additionally, LR 5 was available to download from the CC Manager, so I DL'ed it. All went as smooth as silk, and I now have LR 5 included in my $9.99 mo PS/CC subscription.
    I already had used the LR 5 trial, and it had timed out. So, last week I deleted LR 5 to make way for it to be delivered via the CC Manager, and to prevent any issues that might have been caused by already having a copy loaded, even though it had not yet been activated beyond the free 30 day trial. This is just what worked for me, and perhaps it will help someone else. I'm running Mac OS X 10.8.5, and I have no clues for anyone running Windows.
    x
     

Share This Page