Not Impressed with Adobe

<p>A year ago I upgraded from Photoshop Elements 5 to Elements 10, just so it would support RAW conversion on a Canon Rebel T2i. Well last June I sold that camera and bought a Nikon D3200. In May or so, they did a RAW update on Elements 10, but it was 1 month too early for my Nikon to be supported. Then in June Adobe came out with RAW 7.1 which did support my camera, but 7.1 was not supported under Elements 10. So while Elements 10 was still the current product, I waited 4 months for them to provide an updated RAW converter for my camera. Nope. Now that Elements 11 is released, it does support the D3200. But Adobe will not update the RAW files in previous products anymore. They used to support this update for a few years, but now they won't support it for more then a year anymore. Which means it could get expensive if you replace your camera every couple years. On Blu Ray players, they support updates for at least 3 years. Other software products sometimes the same story. But Adobe decided to stop support once the product is no longer active. I find this a bit of poor customer support if you ask me. Now because they dragged their feet on providing an update for my camera, I have to buy their new product at yet more expense, even though my previous version is only a year old and is still perfectly usable- if not needing the raw converter. Anyone else annoyed by this?</p>

<p>The workaround is easy; convert to DNG in Adobe's DNG converter and use the DNG's in earlier software.<br>

I agree with you that it is annoying. No one expects support for very old cameras but Adobe might consider a longer support period. On the other hand Adobe are counting on more subscription users which will cost you every year.</p>

<p>I think it's called capitalism</p>

<p>It's also called abuse. though unrelated when a new itunes 10 was brought out my itunes on apple 10.4.11 stopped functioning. I kept getting a notice to upgrade on my itunes, which of course I could never do. So my children can no longer purchase from an itune store. This is despicable behaviour on the part of Apple. All and every software company are 'Mean' in in some aspect of their dealings with the people they know that they can exploit if given the freedom, we just have to live with it.</p>

<p>Apple is just as bad. I had to update iphoto to get raw support for the OM-D, and that software was a real step backwards otherwise. For a previous camera, I had to update the operating system.</p>

<p>I hope Lightroom 4 will be updated for a while to come, as I'm eying a new camera coming out in a couple of months.</p>

<p>So what's Adobe and Apple to do? Keep supporting old versions of their software forever? I hate to break it to you folks, but if they were to do that there'd be several issues - the most visible of which would be price increases on their products. (and the last time I checked iTunes is Free. FREE. FREE. Did I mention that iTunes doesn't cost a dime?) </p>

<p>Companies upgrade software for 2 reasons - New Features and Bug Fixes. One is sexy and sells, the other is an admission of failure and doesn't sell. If you keep using an older version of software X and it has bugs in it that could a) damage your computer, b) cause / allow others to access your information or c) cause operating problems - then you have no one to blame but yourself. </p>

<p>Adobe has a pretty decent upgrade policy compared to a lot of companies. And as anyone can tell you, they come out with a new version of elements about every year - and no - they don't always update camera raw on previous versions for new cameras. It just depends where they are in the release cycle. </p>

<p>Finally - if you want to be PO'd at someone - why not be mad at the camera makers who keep tweaking their raw formats? I can't say for sure - but I'm guessing that they could define a generic raw format for their systems that contains all of the information needed to process images, one which they would not have to change with each new model. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Scott, you blame Adobe but are you sure it is Adobe's fault for "dragging their feet"? How co-operative was Nikon in getting their camera to Adobe and how many other models from a score of camera manufacturers were also in process?<br>

>even though my previous version is only a year old and is still perfectly usable<br>

Use the DNG route as others have suggested or switch to another software maker when you feel it is time to change.</p>

<p>[[Which means it could get expensive if you replace your camera every couple years.]]</p>

<p>If you have the means to buy a new camera every couple of years, complaining about an $80 software package is a bit silly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you have the means to buy a new camera every couple of years, complaining about an $80 software package is a bit silly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This.<br /><br />And if you're really going to be a tightwad about it, just use Nikon's very <em>free</em> View NX2 to do RAW conversions for you, in batches, so you can then edit them one by one in <em>any</em> version of Elements if you really need to.<br /><br />Threads like these are pretty much never started by people inside the companies that have to create and support software - especially software that has to interact with third-party devices and data formats. Adobe has to pay hundreds of salaries to keep up with this stuff. It's incredibly expensive, and millions of people rip off their software because they'd rather buy a couple of pizzas and a round of beer than upgrade the tools they use along with their expensive new camera equipment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think it's called capitalism</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right. Without which we wouldn't have shiny new cameras and amazingly powerful new software available at historically incredible prices. And if the companies that do that all day long can't make money, <em>they die</em>. And then who would you have to complain about? The Ministry Of Imaging Software? The Bureau of Camera Design? Olde Mike's Hand Made DSLR Shoppe?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think you guys are being to hard on Scott. Many of your comments are well said and in principle I do agree. However, the thrust of the issue is in David's remark: "So what's Adobe and Apple to do? Keep supporting old versions of their software forever?" The answer is both yes and no. You are wrong because every company should self-obligate itself, out of courteous behaviour, to care for their past customers who will become once again their future customers. They do not have to support forever, but they have a nasty habit of dropping support far too early and this is about Greed, not practicality. They change and update and change again far far more than is necessary. It's not always about you they think you know, it's about themselves, companies that operate the correct balance between their own needs and the needs of their customers are falling away sharply. Sometimes updates were known before a new product is brought out, but they save it for the new product instead of having the decency to update the present one. However having said this, technology moves so darn fast that a lot of it is redundant within the month that it appears. This is a fundemental flaw in operating principles and is driven by greed, not necessity.</p>

<p>"Greed," Chris, is a two way street. You only have to spend a little time here on PN to see abundant greed - on the part of members - for cameras with new specs, computers with more horsepower, software with new features. A publisher or manufacturer's desire to sustain their company, their employees, their investors and their position in a very competitive marketplace is completely reasonable. And consumers who aren't "greedy" for a few more megapixels don't have to worry about "greedy" vendors and their new software because ... they can just keep using what they've already got, or use the free software provided by camera makers.<br /><br />I'd argue that expecting a publisher to keep updating your $50 software from years ago is a shining example of "greed." Because it's unreasonable to expect a company trying to keep up with wildly changing technology to pull that years-long tail behind it when selling something that inexpensive. If you were talking about expensive CAD software, we'd be having a different conversation. But we're talking about something that's cheaper than a movie and popcorn for a family of four.</p>

<p>Did users of Photoshop's then current version wait 4 months for the D3200 camera to be supported or did Photoshop quickly support in Photoshop RAW 7.1 that had D3200 support? Elements 10, the current version of that title, didn't per Scott.</p>

<p>Any disparity in support for that camera in each of those titles is Adobe's fault entirely. A four month difference in functionality for a light versus a full version means a poorly conceived light version, an example of a company not doing its best, a threat to its brand.</p>

<p>Matt, agreed! The 50 or 100 euro software yes. But something costing 800 or 1400 euro I think is different. (Itunes example quoted). So no problems with what you say. </p>

<p>Elements, with a new version each year, is essentially subscription-ware without the main advantage of true subscription-ware: that its always up to date. It isn't unreasonable for the consumer to expect that the Elements current version be up to date, and true subscription-ware is an efficient way to always have the most up to date version in the user's hands. There is no excuse for a company's light version to not be as well supported as the full version. After all, who would want the full version after bad experiences with the light version.</p>

<p>Another reason to be unimpressed with Adobe Elements is this: I don't see easily on the Adobe elements site the features added to make 10 into 11. They aren't making the case for an upgrade to 11. What kind of marketing is that except bad marketing.</p>

<p>Also, the Upgrade Now button doesn't take me anwhere. The button doesn't return the requested page. I'm someone with a credit card and an impulse. For not delivering their buy page, they lost me. I probably won't go back until 12 or 13. Their sales presence can't handle the traffic. Not impressive.</p>

<p>Adobe isn't making any promises it isn't keeping. If you find they're overpriced, try the alternatives and make a decision, complaining isn't going to change anything. If sufficient people vote with their wallets, THAT will change something. Try free programs like GIMP and then decide if Adobe is worth the money. I find GIMP does what I need in an editor.<br>

But I have to say if your using freeware and you like it, make a donation. It's amazing what they put out with the limited resources they have, show your appreciation.</p>

<p>As I said my beef was a few years ago- they allowed Raw updates for 3 years for a product. Now its 1. Secondly they dragged their feet when it came to supporting my camera with Elements 10, when it was already available for Photoshop CS and Lightroom at the time Elements 10 was still current. I find that is poor customer service. And as one said- why not allow pay for Raw updates instead of buying the whole program all over again? It doesn't have to be supported for ever, but I think 3 years is not asking for a lot. It just bugs me because I just bought PSE 10 last year and it seems ridiculous to have to get 11 just for a RAW update.</p>

<p>In our real business here we work with Adobe a lot. They have a medium term policy that sees PS and LR users migrating to the web-enabled, pay-for-what-you-use system. That will solve the problem of upgrades which cost Adobe a fortune. In this system the version will always be the latest. Now how long will they support legacy PS v whatever, who knows, but talk is five years.<br>

And as for the OP's problem: Camera, RAW >>>ViewNX>>>>TIFF>>>>PS (or whatever). I wonder how big a D800 high bit TIFF is? Hmmmm. </p>

<p>I agree with Scott P. Raw support for even a low end product for only one year is a bit lame. Same issue with the full version of Photoshop. Using Adobe's free DNG converter is their standard answer to that, but it is one more time consuming hassle to use. I think they should do better than this. How about one a one year extension?</p>

 

<p>On the lighter side, and not to be a P.I.A. ... but still using Elements 6 with my film camera's.<br>

I'm so far behind in technology, I don't have to worry about keeping up. Still trying to figure out, which is in better shape, as were the same age, my Anniversary Speed Graphic, or me. ;-)</p>

<p>Use what a got, and do the work around's. Keeps life simple, and more time for using what you have, in taking and making pictures, in what ever format or camera ya got.<br>

That's why you brought the dang thing in the first place.<br>

Go out, have fun, and forgetabout the rest of the stuff. ;-)</p>

 

<p>RE: "I think it's called capitalism" No, its called betting against your customer. I do not do business with a company that bets against me. PME and Adobe can stick it. I am now looking for another editing software.</p>