Photoshop replacement for the future?

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by zelph_young, Jul 8, 2014.

  1. With Photoshop going online with subscription only I won't be updating or upgrading any longer. Once CS6 gets where it won't or can't handle what I need - what are the alternatives?
    Any programs out there that can replace Photoshop for image work?
    It is not an immediate need but will most likely come up in the next few years.
     
  2. There are no alternatives that will fully edit everything you've done assuming you've used proprietary Adobe technology like layers, blend modes, smart objects etc. Save a flattened TIFF, you have a world of options. So when you say any programs out there that can replace Photoshop for image work, you have to exactly define what work you're talking about. You have piles of raw files with metadata instructions from Adobe Camera Raw? They are toast. You'll have to render the data into a TIFF or JPEG or similar rendered image and bring them into this new Photoshop replacement.
     
  3. I agree, plus Adobe has now permanently dropped the subscription price to $9.95 per month. Roughly $120 / year. This is about what they were charging for the version upgrades?
     
  4. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    That $9.95 includes Lightroom also.
     
  5. The contenders are Photoline and PaintShop Pro. And PhotoShop Elements.
    For LR kind of work there's Zoner Photo Studio.
    All have trial versions. I haven't tested them enough to have an opinion. Other than my opinion that they all leave a lot to be desired in terms of UI. Now, if they would focus on proper ergonomics instead of metal-kiddie-theming….
    Edit: PhotoShop's UI is included in the 'all' ranted abut above.
     
  6. I use both Adobe Lightroom (it may technically be called Photoshop Lightroom, but I don’t think it is subscription only yet) and the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP). The name of the latter is a travesty; somebody really ought to fork it just to change the name.
    GIMP cannot match Photoshop’s feature set, and two particularly glaring omissions are 16-bit channel support, and adjustment layers, both still under development. There is almost no CMYK support, either; I think soft proofing to a CMYK profile is about it. All that said, with a price of free, compared to the cost of a Photoshop subscription, GIMP competes quite well on value for some use cases, or even some business cases. It would probably be worth trying it out for an hour or so.
    Similarly if you are editing digital photographs, especially in quantity, I recommend trying the 30 day free trial of Lightroom. I dislike the hidden nonlinear tone curve in recent versions of Lightroom, but there is a built-in preset inverse tone curve to get back to either roughly linear or exactly linear (I did not test which of the two was the case).
     
  7. @Tudor but the non-subscription versions didn't stop working after a year. Compare a car: if you rent one for a year, you don't spend the same as if you bought a new one each year!
     
  8. Adobe did lower the price per month but there is no guarantee they are going to keep it there. The monthly price also reduces the necessity for them to continuously improve the program to justify upgrades. There is a good reason for them to be concerned about this.
    When it comes to software most photographers are WAY over gunned. Very few photographers truly understand Photoshop in depth or use the majority of its features. Corel PaintShopPro is an excellent program, with a short learning curve and an unbeatable price. It will do the overwhelming majority of tasks that most professionals and amateurs demand. There are other programs as well.
    Then there is the observable trend away from the over-processed, almost cartoon like photos that were a fad for a few years. It may be that we have come to realize that we do not live in a CGI world.
    If your boss requires you to use PS then you are stuck with it. If you have been wise and stored your clean raw images in the past and want to try something else, there are some very good options for much less than a year's worth of Photoshop.
     
  9. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Very few photographers truly understand Photoshop in depth or use the majority of its features.​

    Is there a survey somewhere that shows this? Also, it's common for comprehensive applications to have features that won't be used by every, or even most, users. Word is a good example. Small special-purpose apps for each feature set would create chaos.
     
  10. GIMP, or some descendent of it in Open Source, may be the only alternative to buying into the money-every-month to Adobe scheme.
    You won't figure GIMP out with "an hour or two" of use, however. Photoshop is just as Topsy ("Jes' growed") as GIMP, but many of us have been using PS for years and have learned what we need to know in it, according to our own use.
    For now I have PS 6 for a sort of 'backup' alternative to subscription, but am still using CS5.5 for various reasons. When they stop working, it's very unlikely that I will go further down the road to Adobe peonage.
     
  11. If we mention the Gimp, then there's Paint.net as well. PDN is missing a lot of stuff, but it can do simple edits! Yes, you can't do serious stuff with it, but neither can you with the Gimp.
    Regarding the 'nobody uses all the features'. well, the problem is that you need them to be there when you need to use them. It's like saying that Joe Sixpack doesn't need his photos enlarged to 100x50, or an f/1 lens, or the possibility to shoot a lot of frames per second. Yes, he doesn't need it for 99% of his photos, but the remaining 1% are the ones he will remember. When what is captured in a photo is great, then I want it to be as technically good as possible.
    The problem with image editors is that they are incredibly poor tools, given their age. Yes, they can do some things very well, but they don't make the basics simple. The basics are 16-bit, adjustment layers, smart selections and a normal sane UI that fits in with the rest of the operating system. Once they get this, then they can start adding things on top. Paint.net has the UI but none of the rest; the others have the rest but not the UI. The Gimp has none of these, despite having bits of all.
     
  12. Is there a survey somewhere that shows this?​
    Not that I know of. There are however dozens of Photoshop schools, courses, and workshops that relatively few users attend. It might be interesting to know what percentage of Photoshop users have never attended any formal training.
    As you know Jeff, we have a number of "I want to be a professional, what camera should I buy" threads here. How many of them include in their "kit" training to go along with their purchase of Photoshop. When they mention it at all I might add.
    I have mentored quite a few photographers along the way and am amazed at how many of them have never considered formal training in Photoshop. A great many have a Costco copy of Elements. I know professionals who use Elements exclusively and who have no plan to do anything else.
    There are still film shooters out there. Few and far between but out there. They have no option to use all of the features of PS but yet they press on. I am all for the right tool for the right project. I use PS myself. I also have and am becoming quite fond of the Corel product. It is really quite capable. It can do virtually everything I wish to do quite nicely. I have it on two of my laptops.
    Certainly one can't have too many features available should one need or choose to use them. But if those features cost $10.00 or more per month in perpetuity, it is reasonable to question the expense.
     
  13. To Zeph: what Photoshop features do you use? Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, Or Capture onePro can all do most of
    the I,age processing chores that Photoshop CS 6 can do.

    If you are an advanced or professional user and use layers a lot, there isn't an alternative. I am in that category but use
    Lightroom to do most of the simple heavy lifting of image processing and Photoshop for some layered work and
    retouching .
     
  14. Don't plan too far ahead. The software of your choice may be ended, just like Aperture, other programs may emerge.
    Keep an eye on developments. Just Google 'photoshop alternatives' every now and then and you will be up to date.
     
  15. While I don't consider myself an advanced post-processor, there really isn't much Lightroom can't handle for me and as of now it is still sold as a stand alone program. If you actually need all the features Photoshop has to offer there isn't anything else quite like it. With that being said, you may consider Capture One. It seems to be very advanced and allows editing in layers as well. It may not have the same myriad of features and tools as the full blown version of Photoshop, but it seems to be quite capable and powerful. It also seems to be the go-to program for many professionals who shoot tethered in a studio (often with Phase one cameras no less). If you aren't a fan of cloud based "pay as you go" software (I'm not either) Capture One could be a good alternative and probably as close as you can get to Photoshop.
     
  16. There are some programs that do things faster and better than Photo Shop, example: Light Room. However, I don't think PS will totally go away anytime soon.
    I tried GIMP for a while until I though I might pull out all my hair. It works almost as well as PS except it is a lot slower.
    I also use Helicon Filter which has some really good fine-tune, non-destructive features that you can't get anywhere else. Of course there is Photoshop Elements that does about 80% of what PS does for 1/4 of the price.
    These days the Editing Software that comes with your camera have gotten better especially when it comes to RAW. If you just need to tweak a little bit no need going any further.
     
  17. To Zeph: what Photoshop features do you use?​
    That's the key question! Without a proper answer, it's impossible to plan an effective migration. Or even answer the key question, should you migrate. IF you need existing proprietary editing support, you're kind of stuck with Photoshop.
     
  18. Any programs out there that can replace Photoshop for image work?​
    The main question is: what image work? For numerous people, Lightroom (or one of its rivals) can replace Photoshop for the vast majority of work already. Yes, there is no other powerhouse as Photoshop, none as complete. But it depends a lot on how much of all that power you actually use to be able to say whether or not there is a replacement.
    So, what Ellis asked: what features do you use? And what features can you absolutely do without, and/or accept possible workarounds?
    For me personally, CaptureOne (=LR rival) with Photoshop Elements (older version) does the trick - yes, sometimes I miss some things from full-blown photoshop but nothing I cannot work around. The limitation of PS Elements are largely covered by the fact that I do 95% in CaptureOne, before moving to PS Elements. Maybe not ideal, but the European pricing for LR and PS isn't half as attractive - this is the compromise that works for me. Really depends on needs/wants.
     
  19. Antonio
    Whenever Adobe ever did a new version of Photoshop the upgrade would cost between $140-$160.
    Those upgrades happened every year.
    So for me the $9.95 per month charge is still cheaper than the former yearly upgrade charge
     
  20. But Tudor, you weren't forced to upgrade. You could keep using the old version forever. Yes, someone who did upgrade every year will not see costs climb much (if the current pricing stays as it is). But few people did upgrade every year. And for a rental, which is what it is currently, the price is obscene. Again, with my car example: the cost of renting a car for a year is *much* less than the cost of 'upgrading' to a new one each year. Here, you're saying the renting is cheeper than the former upgrade, but even then it's only marginally cheaper. And that's after the discount, because before that it was actually higher.
    Adobe can do this because a large part of their costumer base are enterprises or people who for professional reasons have to always use the latest version. All the others won't put up with it.
     
  21. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    All the others won't put up with it.​

    "All?" Plenty of people have subscribed to the $9.95 deal. Can you cite a source for your data?
     
  22. I said 'won't', not 'didn't'. That automatically makes it a prediction. What kind of data are you thinking of?
    But who do you know, aside from the categories I mentioned, that is content with the 'deal'? What proportion of the purchasers of the non-subscription versions do they form?
     
  23. On staying with the same version of PS forever....
    It all depends on where you are going to do your raw processing. If you want Adobe PS or Lightroom to do the raw processing, then you need to stay currrent. The latest Camera RAW update (8.5) will work with CS6+
    I suppose if you never plan on upgrading your camera body or buying a newer lens, then your premise is true.
    In terms of rent vs. buy... I think you're better off in a car environment of comparing lease vs. buy. I purchased a car, kept it for 10 years, net net was that it cost me about $500 per month for the entire 10 years (including interest on a 5 year loan, repairs, tires, etc) If I leased the same car, it would have been $350 per month for 24 months
     
  24. I suppose if you never plan on upgrading your camera body or buying a newer lens, then your premise is true.​
    And you keep old computer hardware up and running. I've got two such MacBook's, one for OS9 support, one for Rosetta with Intel support. As long as they don't die....
     
  25. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I said 'won't', not 'didn't'. That automatically makes it a prediction. What kind of data are you thinking of?​

    "Might" is a prediction. "Won't" is not a prediction. Data that shows that "all the others" are in this one group. If you don't have it, "all" is mighty presumptuous.
     
  26. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I suppose if you never plan on upgrading your camera body or buying a newer lens, then your premise is true.​
    This brings up an interesting financial issue. Let's assume someone is keeping a Canon 5DMkiii body (or an equivalent Nikon body) for five years. We know from posts here that there are people who buy these bodies who are not professional photographers. The body cost the photographer $3200 plus tax in many cases, so let's call it $3500. This is not including any other equipment such as lenses, which will probably be kept longer. That's $58/month. Some people may choose to keep the camera body as a backup, but let's say it can be sold for about $750 (based on actual sales I can find here.) That makes it $46. Let's also assume that the same person replaces their computer every five years. Some people go longer and some go shorter, so that's a safe average. Let's say they buy a mid-range iMac of MacBook for around $1500. We're ignoring the monitor if that's separate, hard drives, calibration device, and printer. That's $25/month. If they sell the five year old computer, it will go for around $400. That makes it $18/month. That makes for $64/month at a minimum for a camera and computer. Photoshop CC adds $10/month to that.
    Seems like most of one's money is going to hardware that is eventually going to die and/or be replaced, and a small amount to maintaining up-to-date Photoshop and Lightroom. Software is now 13% of total cost of maintaining a photography setup excluding all sorts of other expenses, so this is absolute best case. Of course we see people here who spend $3500 on computers and buy three bodies that they replace. And people who upgrade with every model. So the average could be lower. In other words, it's a lot of complaining about a fairly small piece of the pie.
     
  27. Jeff's math is an eye opener and kind of illustrates the throwing the baby out with the bath water approach of migrating simply because there's a new method of buying/renting (whatever you want to call it) software. The bottom line is the bottom line in $$. It's either good money spent or it's not. Upgrade, don't upgrade, subscribe, don't subscribe, nothing new here in terms of deciding where to spend your hard earned cash.
     
  28. Yes, you can't do serious stuff with it, but neither can you with the[sic] Gimp [sic].​
    I have been using Photoshop back to version 2.5 and I do not now use GIMP. However, I have friends who are professional graphics people who use GIMP, who would strongly disagree that it is inadequate. None of them are participants here, unfortunately, and my own experience does not come into it. They assure me, however, that when I end my thrall to Adobe (as they are wont to put it), I will find all I need in GIMP.
    I can't speak to what António would want to do, but his apparent "hour or two" experience is not characteristic of those who seriously DO work with the "GNU Image Manipulation Program".
     
  29. JDM, I'm not sure what you mean by an hour or two. I've been forced to use the Gimp regularly for the last 9 years (it hasn't improved an inch in all that time, by the way). It's got little 16-bit support, zero operating system integration, buggy UI toolkit, clunky ways to do almost everything, no advanced tooling at all, you name it. I'm not even counting the fact that it is slow, because every software can be. There is absolutely nothing it does well among the few things that it does. Obviously, if you only need two or three primitive operations and get used to the way they are performed, then you'll be able to use it. As I have been. Because I'm not doing serious work with it, only some little bits of things I can't do with Paint.net, which is miles ahead in terms of UI but has even less features. Did I mention that the latest version's installer for Windows 7 x64 has been broken for months?
    I'd love to be able to speak highly of the Gimp, but I can't. I've been thru too many years of expecting the *next* version to solve some of the most arcane problems.
    Not only is the Gimp not the answer, it will never be. It's a dead end. Unless, of course, they redo everything from scratch, but then that wouldn't be the Gimp we're talking about. (By the way, the… questionable... choice of name is theirs.)
    Have you tried to do stuff with ImageMagick? It has no UI, but I often find it rewarding. Of course, there are many things a UI-less program by its nature cannot do.
    (A UI toolkit is that software library that provides buttons, menus, icons, etc; the Gimp's is called GTK and was originally written for it but since put to better use by other applications; usually, an application doesn't have its own UI toolkit, rather using those provided by the operating system and hence looking and feeling as good as the rest of the system.)
     
  30. for clarification, the phrase "hour or so" was Joe's term which I incorrectly thought was yours. Apologies.
    JDM
     
  31. Jeff, my english may certainly bear correcting, but I think my 'won't' is still referring to the future in that context (as opposed to others where it may describe a present situation or be ambiguous).
    Your math starts off skewed by assuming a > $3000 body every five years. How many non-professionals do that? Then you assume a computer is used for nothing more than photography. Then you ignore that there's more than PhotoShop running on the computer, and if everyone decided to follow Adobe's model you'd have to multiply the cost by a fair number. That should make clear how disproportionately high the cost of subscription is. The only reason it is even possible is that there is no competition, otherwise it would have to be an order of magnitude lower. Now, I'm not saying Adobe is under any obligation to lower it. I'm saying folks have the right to say the cost is high (often when justifying why they won't go along with the subscription) and not hear it said back to them that they are just being stupid.
     
  32. How many non-professionals do that?​
    Impossible to answer. I suspect many, I'm one and know many others. The pro market in some segments is in a shambles and the only customers keeping some companies going is the prosumer segment if you forgive the term. LuLa, which gets 1 million unique hits a month is filled with these photographers.
    Then you assume a computer is used for nothing more than photography.​
    Good point. Let's say 50%?
    The only reason it is even possible is that there is no competition, otherwise it would have to be an order of magnitude lower.​
    That's probably true but ask yourself why, with the exception of about a year in 1990-1991, there has never been a serious competitor to Photoshop. ColorStudio was close early on. Live Picture, maybe close but going from $4000 to $99 is telling. Xrez was a joke. And those are all last century failures to win over the PS market.
    I'm saying folks have the right to say the cost is high (often when justifying why they won't go along with the subscription) and not hear it said back to them that they are just being stupid​
    It is a value proposition.
     
  33. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I'm saying folks have the right to say the cost is high​

    Hight relative to what? The competition? It costs a lot more than Picasa, sure. The value it brings? If there's no alternative, the cost can't be considered too high, it's either do it or lose the value.
     
  34. High relative both to the cost of comparable items and the cost of living, in general. There are many software products around, and there is a marked difference in pricing according to whether the product is sold to corporations or to individuals. The issue with PhotoShop is that its 'home' version (Elements), which is IMO priced right, is actually not 'the same thing with limitations' but a different product, and as such most of the users who aren't happy with PSP or PL won't be happy with PSE either.
     
  35. "If there's no alternative, the cost can't be considered too high, it's either do it or lose the value."
    That's the main problem I think. There is effectively no competition to Photoshop and the people (mostly professionals) who depend on it are forced to buy into the business model whether they want to or not. There is also the issue of being dependent on the "cloud" and your available (or unavailable) internet connection to use the program. So regardless of whether or not it makes financial sense to go with a subscription plan, Adobe has made users less self-sufficient and more dependent on the wills of Adobe. Very Apple-like and it will probably help them rake in the cash, but it's not everyone's idea of a good time. Not offering a stand alone program alongside the subscription model gives it the impression of a forced "money grab" amongst a market that has no viable alternatives to turn to. Once they get loads of new users into the CC for a short time at $10 a month they effectively have them hooked since they aren't going to cancel their subscriptions and risk losing libraries, edits etc. At that point they can effectively raise the price to levels that may give one pause as to whether subscription based service really is a good value. It's about increasing profits. As a business this is certainly their right, but it is definitely not about Adobe being generous and making it easier for people to get updates and the latest software developments. Things like new camera and lens profiles are already updated for free in stand alone programs. Half of the other updates are mostly fluff. These things seem to be what irks people the most.
     
  36. If you want to see this business model developed somewhat further, have a look at the more mature form of it, look at the scientific publishing industry, what happens there, and what the consequences are.
    In short: it's not a matter of "If there's no alternative, the cost can't be considered too high, it's either do it or lose the value". It turns out to be a matter of even if though there may not be an alternative, the costs can be (and are) too high, both publisher and 'consumer' lose the value, so (!) an alternative will be created.
    That alternative simply has to be created. And it offers a new business opportunity (though in no way as lucrative - if you think Apple is a very profitable company, have a look at the after tax earnings of some of the scientific publishers. Sell your Apple shares, and buy into Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, LWW or Elsevier! For as long as it lasts, though) for those who recognize it (and recognize where and how the other model went bad). That alternative has existed a long time in the software industry: open source. The Gimp (as one example) has already been mentioned. Open access (the equivalent in the publishing industry) is gaining ground, despite resistance from industry and (lobbied) politicians.
    Driving force behind such change is both the fact that you can't just ask what you want. You have to take into account, not just what the customers are willing to pay, but also what they can afford to pay. And indeed that feeling that we, consumers, are victim of a forced money grab, i.e. robbery.
    So will it succeed this business plan? Seeing that it is (finally) beginning to crumble where it has already been tried before, i doubt it. Still, as long as people aren't yet aware of where this may lead, it will enjoy some success for a while.
     
  37. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    High relative both to the cost of comparable items​

    Then buy one of them. Why bother if you can use something else?
     
  38. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    There is also the issue of being dependent on the "cloud" and your available (or unavailable) internet connection to use the program​

    This is minor. You only have to "check in" occasionally.

    There is effectively no competition to Photoshop​

    So go on Kickstarter or Indiegogo and raise money for your own competition to it. It's that easy. Of course if it's that easy, someone out there must be doing it, right?
    That alternative simply has to be created.​

    You too. What's stopping you from using Kickstarter and starting something to compete?
     
  39. I'lll be glad to continue this conversation when as per the guidelines you have something new and informative to say. Otherwise, there is nothing in the latest instalments to which a constructive reply can be given.
    Until then, and following your advice, I'm sure nothing stops you from finding some other audience that is actually impressed by the argumentation you've put forth so far.
     
  40. when are they upgrading photoshop with new features...since the conversion to a subscription format, i haven't heard anything about new features of an upgrade...what am I missing...
     
  41. what am I missing...​
    Quite a number of new features. Google is your friend.
    http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/features.html
     
  42. With Photoshop going online with subscription only I won't be updating or upgrading any longer.​
    As one who has used Photoshop for 20 years in a professional capacity, I would have to agree--and many other creatives feel the same way. Whether I am purchasing software for a company* or for my own contract work, when I pay for software I want to own it. I don't want Adobe as my digital landlord, holding out their hand every month. There are critical budget considerations, ie deciding when to upgrade, the ability to access files anytime--whether or not I pay Adobe's rent, and backwards compatibility/legacy issues too.
    Needless to say, I'm glad I bought CS6, and will use it for as long as possible.
    *Back when I worked for a company...If I had to submit a budget for software for myself, my assistant, and the workstation for outside contractors--all on a monthly payment schedule--my boss would freak out! Nobody likes to get hit every month if they can help it.
     
  43. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    when I pay for software I want to own it​

    You never really own it. You have a license. Have you read the terms of every software license carefully? I don't know anyone who has, except maybe in the government.
     
  44. You never really own it. You have a license.​
    Kind of like photography is (can be) sold. The work I shot for Forbs is mine, they had a license to use it for a period of time and place.
    Unless I'm mistaken, modern versions of Photoshop prior to CC still require some activation/phone home and I have no idea how often that might happen or if it could cease.
     

  45. You never really own it. You have a license. Have you read the terms of every software license carefully? I don't know anyone who has, except maybe in the government.​
    I've used PS for 20 years--I know this; splitting semantic hairs is besides the point, right? I think I explained what I meant by owning it--ie I purchase a license for a self-standing copy--once paid, no monthly fees. Big difference--my post above clarified why I prefer single-payment licensing.
     
  46. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    I've used PS for 20 years--I know this; splitting semantic hairs is besides the point, right?​
    It is, and wish they'd get off that carousel. I can appreciate both sides of the rental/own coin. There's a huge difference between paying a lump sum up front and obtaining an instal disk that can be installed anytime, on any computer, and for as long as one wishes, than otherwise compared to temporary monthly access with an internet connection.
     
  47. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    The new rental package with Photoshop and Lightroom for $10/month is probably a very good deal for professional photographers who rely on both programs for their livelihood and had previously purchased every upgrade. But it's not a good deal for amateur or enthusiast photographers who bought upgrades only when they added something truly useful. Adobe's answer to those people's complaints is "You aren't the customers we want for Photoshop, so it doesn't matter whether you subscribe or not. Besides, you really should be using Elements or maybe Lightroom, which have everything you need and are available with a perpetual license."
    Adobe can get away with forcing users of Photoshop and the rest of the Creative Suite products because they have no competition, at least for professional users who rely on them. And the rental pricing is probably advantageous to those captive users anyway. Adobe can't get away with forcing users of Elements or Lightroom to rent those products because there is competition in that market. For example Paint Shop Pro is a very good alternative to Elements for Windows. And Aperture is a good alternative to Lightroom for Mac-- or at least it was, as Apple is abandoning it. The loss of that competition may empower Adobe to make future versions of Lightroom rental-only. When you have a monopoly on "industry-standard" products, it absolutely makes business sense to leverage that monopoly to its fullest for the benefit of the shareholders.
    And, of course, if you don't want to rent Photoshop and Lightroom, you have the option of using Adobe's free DNG converter if you get a new camera. Then you can keep using your legacy version of Photoshop for as long as you want. Adobe is trying to promote DNG as the universal raw file format, and everyone who chooses to use DNG conversion rather than renting the current software is helping Adobe by becoming a stakeholder in the future of DNG. It's up to you to decide whether that's a fair tradeoff.
    For what it's worth, I went the DNG route when I got a new camera last month. The extra step of DNG conversion is a minimal inconvenience. Photoshop CS5 can read the converted files just fine, and they're also 18% smaller than the original files, on average.
     
  48. "So go on Kickstarter or Indiegogo and raise money for your own competition to it. It's that easy. Of course if it's that easy, someone out there must be doing it, right?"

    "You too. What's stopping you from using Kickstarter and starting something to compete?"
    I don't think anyone was claiming that developing image editing programs is easy. It's a discussion about the likes/dislikes of the business model. There are lots of products/businesses out there that I don't agree with, but funding kick-starters to replace them all is a little tough. Maybe someone will do it or existing companies will improve and better compete with Adobe. Consumers voicing displeasure is one method of getting the point across to the industry, inducing change and hopefully encouraging other companies to offer alternatives that don't currently exist. If you are happy with Photshop and prefer the subscription based method that's great.
     
  49. The last version of pre-CC PS that I had was CS4, and I didn't upgrade the next couple of years. Following that, I found out if I wanted to upgrade to CS6 I would have to pay full price, which was $600 or so! I just wasn't going to do that. So for me, simply paying ten bucks a month for the very latest version is a much better deal. I spend much more than that on coffee every month. BTW, I hated having to use the DNG converter every time I purchased a new camera and didn't have the latest PS version. CC is a great program and I shoot exclusively in raw, using ACR.
     
  50. "So for me, simply paying ten bucks a month for the very latest version is a much better deal. I spend much more than that on coffee every month. "

    So whether that coffee you buy is overpriced or not depends in turn on whether you spend much more every month on something else?
     
  51. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    So whether that coffee you buy is overpriced or not depends in turn on whether you spend much more every month on something else?​
    It's pretty clear Steve means he doesn't notice $10 but over here on argue.net, a guy can hardly say anything without being challenged...what is it with PN? Not coffee like Steve, but for me it's beer or home delivered butter chicken. Where I live, LR3 used to be $350 and PS $750...Now I'm on CC and $10/mnth is what I spend on coffees in two days. Easy choice.
     
  52. So whether that coffee you buy is overpriced or not depends in turn on whether you spend much more every month on something else?​
    It's not over priced. You may desire it to cost less but IF you decide the cost to benefit ratio is sound you'll hand over your money for that product, that's all that matters.
    There are all kinds of products and services you and I buy that we may feel is over priced (gas?) but we buy them none the less.

    IF the subscription for CC was ridiculously low, say $1 a month, you think all those people screaming bloody murder about 'renting' software wouldn’t buy into this? You bet they would. IF they paid $199 ever two years to upgrade, even skipping a few years, at $1 a month with continuing updates, you'd be a fool not to buy, I mean rent. Unless you feel cutting off your noise despite Adobe is worthwhile. If so, do that and move on please.
    So there are two camps. One says the price to rent is too high and I say, fine, move on. The other camp says "we must "own" our software, we will not rent" but if the price were insanely slow, I suspect they would move the political boundaries away and sign up in a second. So is this about price or politics? IF it's about price, every user has their own unique answer, just as if they were buying coffee. If it's about politics, wrong forum and for many of us, a huge waste of time. Pick.
    What ever you do for a living to feed your family (Photography, banker, you name it) whoever is paying you would love it if you charged less. Why not! Doesn't make you overpriced unless the services you provide are not worth the benefit and as such, you'll get little if any work. What makes Adobe's business practices any different?
     
  53. This seems a bargain for commercial photographers who might use photoshop 40 hours or whatever a
    week, but for the artist/hobbyist who doesn't use it as much it's a little harder to swallow.

    I just downloaded a trial version of Elements, and having used PS for years I have no idea if it will work for
    me. I only use a half dozen, maybe a dozen functions at most in PS to do what I need to do, so besides
    not spending as much time on it as most commercial photogs, I also only use a fraction of what the
    program is capable of doing.

    Is the monthly fee a contract sort of thing, where the months must be consecutive for a span of time, or is it
    like netflix where you can skip a month then join up again, or put a hold on your account while you're not
    using it?
     
  54. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    I used to pay $15 for a single roll of E6 slide film and nearly $30 for Fuji NPS with a stack of 4x6's...I have zero appreciation/tolerance for people complaining in the digital age about computer and software costs when they have it so easy and cheap today...If it was up to me, I'd red card the complainers, send them off the pitch and force them back to an age of costing them a $1.00 every single time they pushed the shutter button.
     
  55. Eric:
    You overlook that when film/slides were sent out, a finished product was in your hand.
    With digital, all the work is mine and while I don't do much right now because of my limitations, my time is not valueless.
    Conni
     
  56. Nevertheless, there is such a thing as planned obsolescence.
     
  57. >>> Is the monthly fee a contract sort of thing, where the months must be consecutive for a span
    of time, or is it like netflix where you can skip a month then join up again, or put a hold on your
    account while you're not using it?

    For the best price, it's a yearly contract that auto-renews - possibly with a new price. There's an early termination fee if you
    decide to cancel before your contract is up. The amount is 50% of your remaining
    contract. Similar to banks, telecom, and cable companies. For some, Adobe have now joined
    those ranks with their business model.

    Also... Having been caught up in Adobe's massive credit card breach last year due to their lax
    security and affecting 38 million users, there's no way in heck I would ever allow them to
    have my credit card number on file to make monthly charges.
     
  58. Thanks Brad.
     
  59. I've been using Elements (now ver 9) for years but I miss a feature found only in the full version of PhotoShop. I'd like to be able to edit in the Lab L (or Luminance, whatever it's called) mode. I need this so I can linearize a curve in QuadTone RIP.

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

    Thank you.
     
  60. "It's pretty clear Steve means he doesn't notice $10 [...]"

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

    Anyway, renting software is paying for it in installments (but without end. Just like renting anything else). As such, not a problem. A worry is (as with all subscription based products) is that you don't know what both price nor availability will be in, say, a year's time from now. Something you don't have to worry about when buying something.
    The reason why it is an attractive business model is that people become dependent on the service. Install a bought version of PS on your computer, and you may miss out on updates, but are (relatively) assured that whatever happens to Adobe, you can use the software for as long as you like, And without extra costs.
    I mentioned scientific publishing. A business segment that has shown what this model can offer. Yearly price increases of up to 30% are nothing unusual. Paying many hundreds of dollars for a single issue of a journal is nothing special. They can ask for that much money becuase, well... because they can. People depend on their service.
    Cloud computing is moving software publishing in that very direction (with added benefits for the publishers. They 'own' everything you store in the, their cloud as well. You're owned when you make use of the cloud.). Will it go to such extremes as scientific publishing has reached? Maybe not. But there is nothing to prevent it, and there are billions to be made. So lets hazard a prediction. What would you say?
     
  61. A friend at work has suggested pixlr.com. He says it's free, although I'm not sure on that. Has anyone tried it?
     
  62. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Indeed. It should also be pretty clear that whether or not someone can afford something (nor with what degree of ease) is not the answer to whether or not something is too expensive for what it is.​
    QG, you'll have a hard time finding people that think $10/mnth is too expensive for what (LR & PS) is! Do you buy any other software? Adobe has no competition and could easily charge twice as much imo.
    Brad, I hear you re credit cards...I bit the bullet. I made another Adobe account/id and went to the bank and opened another account with a $500 limit card and now cross my fingers. What is one supposed to do in a year or two for current software and not play along with their subscription paradigm? So I shrug and dove in. By then I hope Google has bought Capture One or DxO and Adobe can pogue mahone
     
  63. All I can say is, buying each upgrade to PS was a PITA, and if you skipped a year or two, like I mentioned, you got burned going full price. It felt like that was a type of extortion "racket." I'd much rather keep current for a monthly fee, especially since each new version of camera requires new raw conversion software, thus a mandatory upgrade in PS, unless you can tolerate doing the DNG conversion for every shot. Some might not mind that, but for me it was another time consuming and bothersome step. I personally don't use LR, but that is included, which is really nice for people who use LR and PS.
     
  64. "Adobe has no competition and could easily charge twice as much imo."


    Well they did try to do just that. Only large-scale public backlash caused them to rethink it. Large amounts of people locking themselves and their photo libraries into perpetual contracts will certainly embolden them in the future though.
     
  65. Eric~,<br>$ 10 a month is indeed not much, compared to what it cost to buy PS before. It is quite a lot compared to what the GIMP costs.<br>But have you read on beyond the bit you quoted? This is a change in business policy, not in price.
     
  66. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Well they did try to do just that. Only large-scale public backlash caused them to rethink it. Large amounts of people locking themselves and their photo libraries into perpetual contracts will certainly embolden them in the future though.​
    My point of view, the pitch forks came out over the change to subscription model, not new prices. Agree. As soon a decent alternative comes out, people will be gone. Google and G+ is something to watch for. It's phenomenal how photo-centric G= has become and how many "celebrity" photographers are using G+. With Picasa and Nik, and Google Drive working with Pixlr, it wouldn't take much for Google to offer an awesome raw workflow now.
    But have you read on beyond the bit you quoted? This is a change in business policy, not in price.​
    But it's yourself and Ray that keeps bringing up price while being confused over why someone else would possibly correlate it with coffee purchases or comparing it to crapola Gimp. The price is insignificant to me and if $10/mnth is too much money to use the industry leading software that enables you to be on the same playing field along side every pro and advanced amateur, then I suggest a different hobby!
    Desktop computing is dying a quick death while mobile and cloud computing is growing by 700% a year. If you don't like Adobe's subscription model, you're going to have a tough time with the way everything else will also be in five years.
    Germany or Argentina?
     
  67. "The price is insignificant to me and if $10/mnth is too much money to use the [...]"

    And there we are once again reading that confusion of business model and price... ;-)

    Desktop computing isn't dying a quick death, by the way. Far from it. So/and it's far too soon to proclaim that if people do not like the subscription model, it will be them who will be having a tough time.
    Growth figures are meaningless unless they are expressed in numbers that represent something real, i.e. something other than percentages. What would be interesting is to see the figures of former annual CS6 sales and present annual cloud subscriptions.
     
  68. My point of view, the pitch forks came out over the change to subscription model, not new prices.


    Same here. Part of that involves what will happen to these "teaser" rates in the future once the die is cast. Its debatable on whether the subscription model is financially smart depending on what programs you use for what purposes and how important the latest and greatest updates are. But the underlying issue is it doesn't matter because you don't have a choice.

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


    It has lost market share for sure but it isn't going to die. Not every application is suited to smart phones and tablets (or even laptops). I can't imagine ever doing serious photo editing on one of these. There will always be a market (albeit smaller) for desktops.
    If you don't like Adobe's subscription model, you're going to have a tough time with the way everything else will also be in five years.


    Not everything is going to be cloud/subscrition based in 5 years. High end Photoshop users are a small and captive audience. It's easier to coerce them, but not so much for the rest of the population who could care less (and would probably despise) the cloud/subscrition model. Trying to force a monthly payment for every piece of software on one's computer would create quite an outpouring of anger.
     
  69. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Desktop computing isn't dying a quick death, by the way.​
    Okay then, it already has died. You may not like it, Q.G., but the data is easily found to show you're incorrect. Even if you ignored the reality of what the smartphone and tablet market has done to desktop market in the last three years, the laptop/ultrabook market has already stifled the desktop market. Even Apple ignores the desktop user today. The best selling laptop at Amazon is the chromebook, a mobile device. The best selling Apple computer is a laptop.
    Trying to force a monthly payment for every piece of software on one's computer would create quite an outpouring of anger.​
    Maybe, but does it change anything? I was pissed but then caved and bought CC. I just bought MS Office Student, or whatever it is called, for $130. I return home and open the package up and the fine print says I'm allowed to install it twice. Twice! I think many are assuming Adobe CC will be $10/mnth in the future? What if it's dropped even further to say $25 for a one time purchase like apps usually do? I've already watched LR go from $350 to $90 for LR5. The Adobe model is the thin end of the wedge, they are the first foot in the door. Apple and iTunes have been doing it for years and now The Google Chrome OS is mobile/cloud based. Windows is building their camp of app's as well, Microsoft is doing a great job of bringing Windows phones and Surface tablets to the cloud. The new iPhotos that replaces Aperture is all about uploading and editing in the cloud. Picasa is doing it for a long time. The future for me, will be shooting and uploading my files and then using small underpowered machines to edit. At the rare time I need a print, the jpg is easily downloaded to a networked connected printer.
    Adobe, in their shareholder reports, says more people are using CC PS and LR than ever before and judging by the amount of recent growth of newbies in G+, Flickr, and FB groups, I believe them. The stock price has gone up nicely as well in the last 10 months.
     
  70. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    An interesting switch to the subscription model is easily found with television. Years ago, you bought the hardware including an antenna and you got everything that was broadcast. Now, virtually all of the content available must be bought via cable or over the internet with monthly fees, and on the cable side, lots of services have to be bought separately from the basic access. With movies, it's moved from ownership of physical media to temporary access via a service provider. I pay Comcast and Netflix on a monthly basis far more than I pay Adobe and for access of somewhat less value than Adobe provides.
    There are alternatives to cable for some content, but many of them have monthly access fees as well. There are free ways to watch a small percentage of content, but certain content isn't available without a subscription unless it's bootleg.
     
  71. David Rabinowitz[​IMG][​IMG], Jul 10, 2014; 01:01 p.m.
    when are they upgrading photoshop with new features...since the conversion to a subscription format, i haven't heard anything about new features of an upgrade...what am I missing...​
    There was an update in January. But most importantly, there was an upgrade just recently. The new version is Ps CC 2014. It should have installed automatically for you. If not, download it from the cloud. This is a complete new version, so if you are using a shortcut to Ps CC, you are opening the older version. Make sure you look up your programs to see if it is installed. It has plenty of new features such as new blur filters, new options for content aware etc. And also the ability to link and package smart objects much like in Adobe InDesign, font preview like in Adobe Illustrator and my favorite: a selection tool based on focus. I was pleased to see that upgrades unlike updates are a new installation, leaving the previous version intact on your computer, as I was concerned that eventually you would be forced to upgrade your computer to meet the requirements of the new software.
     
  72. As for Zelph original question: Any programs out there that can replace Photoshop for image work? As other mentioned, without knowing how you use Ps, I can't answer... I use Ps extensively and based on my personal use of the software, the answer is definitely: NO
     
  73. This is a complete new version, so if you are using a shortcut to Ps CC, you are opening the older version.​
    This caused a bit of confusion because people assumed that CC 2014 would update CC. As you point out, it's a totally new version so you'll have both CC and CC 2014 installed and like every previous update, you have to delete the older version if and when you so desire. Use Adobe's uninstaller (it works great).
    Adobe had to have some line in the sand in terms of version'ing their products. If in 2 years there is a major upgrade where a current OS or hardware we use today becomes incompatible, that version has to be defined. So even if there is a subscription that will update itself regularly and with new features, we will still see major version updates presumably every year (until told otherwise ;-)
     
  74. thanks Line...i have the 2014 version now...i was hoping for a newer version...i'll have to review these changes...regards....David
     
  75. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    i have the 2014 version now...i was hoping for a newer version​

    CC2014 was released less than a month ago. Do you expect Adobe to update every week?
     
  76. Adobe had to have some line in the sand in terms of version'ing their products. If in 2 years there is a major upgrade where a current OS or hardware we use today becomes incompatible, that version has to be defined. So even if there is a subscription that will update itself regularly and with new features, we will still see major version updates presumably every year (until told otherwise ;-)​
    So Adobe will be releasing periodic versions which will presumably receive no further updates once the new version becomes current, but will otherwise work perfectly well? If only there were some way of, say, paying a fixed fee that covered only that version, but would keep it running indefinitely without an eternal subscription! A radical idea, I know, and I expect the technology to implement is is still decades away, but one which Adobe should seriously consider. I imagine it would be quite popular with some of their customers...
     
  77. So Adobe will be releasing periodic versions which will presumably receive no further updates once the new version becomes current, but will otherwise work perfectly well?​
    Seems that way if you look at CC vs. CC2014.
    If only there were some way of, say, paying a fixed fee that covered only that version, but would keep it running indefinitely without an eternal subscription!​
    Then it wouldn't be a subscription which is what Adobe wants. Not going to happen even if it's popular with customers.
     
  78. "Not going to happen even if it's popular with customers."

    There we are. The customer is always... uhm...
    Here's another of these goldies: "he who laughs last, [etc.]"
    ;-)
     
  79. Oh dear, I think I'll need to use the <sarcasm> tag in future :)
    I think the answer to the OP is that there's no great alternative. If there were, it would not be necessary to find one, since Adobe would never have dared to impose the subscription system in the face of serious competition from a product with a perpetual licence.
     
  80. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    Then it wouldn't be a subscription which is what Adobe wants. Not going to happen even if it's popular with customers.​
    That's exactly what makes Adobe's rental scheme so unpalatable, at least to some people. A normal business prospers by doing what's popular with customers and serving their needs. But Adobe, by virtue of its "industry standard" monopoly products, no longer needs to care about what its customers want. Adobe's customers now serve Adobe's need to maximize the wealth of its executives and investors. Adobe has attained a position that MBA students dream about, but almost never get to see.
    That said, a $10 monthly subscription to Photoshop and Lightroom, which includes periodic incremental enhancements, is probably a very good deal for a successful professional photographer who relies on those products for his or her livelihood, and who would faithfully buy each new version under the legacy business model. Those are the sort of customers who best serve Adobe's needs. They're likely to defend Adobe against those who whine and moan about "rental."
    It's the amateurs and enthusiasts who are, to put it bluntly, getting screwed with the new model. They're the ones who are complaining about "imposition." Many of those users have been less than faithful in meeting their obligation to give Adobe $200 every year and a half, so they resent having that obligation forced on them with the rental model. Although Adobe is certainly happy to rent Photoshop to non-professionals who want to rent it, those users aren't the people Adobe wants as Photoshop customers. Adobe would say to the whining amateurs, "It's too bad you don't like the subscription model, but Photoshop really isn't for you anyway. Elements is what you really want, and we sell it under the traditional perpetual license. And if you really think you need something more advanced than Elements, you can also perpetually license Lightroom."
    For what it's worth, I have Photoshop CS5. I upgraded to it from CS3 because it had some compelling new features, but before that I didn't see any reason to get CS4. When CS6 came out, I looked carefully at it and concluded there was no compelling reason to upgrade. When Adobe finally recognized that they had made a serious mistake with their initial subscription plan by excluding photographers who didn't need the entire Creative Suite, I looked carefully at Photoshop CC. I saw nothing that made me say "I must rent this for $10 a month!"
    So I will stick to CS5 for as long as I have a computer that can run it. I recently bought a new camera, which forced me to again consider my options. Spending $200 for the obsolete CS6 just to read my camera's raw files didn't make sense. Nor did committing to rent Photoshop. I may consider Lightroom in the future, but I'm not yet ready to ascend the learning curve of its asset management database workflow.
    For now, DNG conversion is my best option. I'm finding the conversion step minimally inconvenient at most. The Adobe converter actually adds convenience if I'm uploading files from a multi-day trip, as it can traverse the directory structure on a memory card and put the DNG files in a single directory. I'd otherwise have to do that manually. After conversion, ACR 6 and CS5 work as they always have, and the DNG files are 18% smaller than the native CR2 files. If Adobe's claims are to be believed, I'm also guaranteeing that I will always be able to read my raw files. So there seems to be nothing to lose by going with DNG.
    As always, YMMV.
     
  81. It's the amateurs and enthusiasts who are, to put it bluntly, getting screwed with the new model.​
    I don't see how (by virture of simply what they do). I know some amateurs and enthusiasts who have much bigger budgets and much better equipment and can afford the fees easily so I don't see how they are being screwed. If the price to pay is too high, like any other item, they can pass.
     
  82. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    paying a fixed fee that covered only that version, but would keep it running indefinitely without an eternal subscription!​

    And how would you stop piracy of that version? Before CC, 60% of the Adobe users were running pirated copies of PS. Although it was initially cracked, CC now appears to have succeeded in stopping piracy. So unless you have a solution, it's not going to be a good situation for Adobe.
     
  83. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    So there seems to be nothing to lose by going with DNG.​
    Yet. But I must say it seems a bit odd to me for you on the one hand have a problem with the way Adobe is heading with subscriptions, yet on the other hand further entrenching yourself into their ecosystem with dng?
    Interesting discussion. I've set my calendar for five years from now to revisit it
     
  84. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    Yet. But I must say it seems a bit odd to me for you on the one hand have a problem with the way Adobe is heading with subscriptions, yet on the other hand further entrenching yourself into their ecosystem with dng?​
    That's the strange bargain I had to make with an evil monopolist. I can either pay to rent their current software, or I can use my legacy software with my new camera in exchange for helping Adobe achieve their vision of dominating the world's standard raw file format. Either way, Adobe benefits. There is no free lunch, but I chose what seemed the least distasteful route. And while I don't drink deeply of the DNG Kool-Aid, there indeed seems to be little to lose with DNG, even if ends up not offering all the advantages Adobe claims for it.
    An alternative to the evil monopolist would be preferable, but it does not exist (vainly attempting to bring the thread back on topic). I actually started with Paint Shop Pro when I got my first film scanner in 1999. I was unwilling to either pay $600 for Photoshop or accept the pirated version that someone at work offered me. PSP seemed to have everything I needed, and it seemed to improve significantly with each new version....
    .... Until Corel took it over in 2005. They came out with PSP 10 ("X"), which claimed to have advanced color management and a useful raw converter. It was only after I bought it that I discovered I had paid to be a volunteer beta tester of what even Corel admitted was an unfinished product. I decided that Corel had farkled what had been shaping up to become a viable alternative to Photoshop. So it was time to bite the bullet and plunk down my $600 for Photoshop CS2. Yes, it was Corel that sold me Photoshop.
    Much as I'd like to see PSP become true competition for Photoshop, my experience completely destroyed any confidence I had in Corel. For all I know, Corel now has their act together and has made PSP a polished product that at least competes with Elements. But I don't trust Corel at all.
     
  85. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Ted, do you write as well?
     
  86. And how would you stop piracy of that version? Before CC, 60% of the Adobe users were running pirated copies of PS. Although it was initially cracked, CC now appears to have succeeded in stopping piracy. So unless you have a solution, it's not going to be a good situation for Adobe.​
    Ah, I see it now A lifetime subscription for every user is the only conceivable way to combat piracy! Adobe really had no choice.
    An appropriate Google search gives me this in the second hit:
    "Here comes the next version of the awesome tool created by [deleted]. Last version 1.06 had the ability to crack almost all the products of CC & CS Suites, but unfortunately did not work for the latest CC 2014 release done by Adobe. But this new version 1.1 released by [deleted] works for the latest CC 2014 too."
     
  87. You may want to have a look at Picture Window Pro.
     
  88. Monopoly? The fact that they offer a better product than anyone else and therefore acquire the giant part of the market does not make them monopolist. They are not preventing anyone to create and sell a better product competitively... As mentioned previously, I use Adobe products extensively, especially Ps for photography as a hobby and at work as a graphic artist as part of the creative suite I do most of my initial work in Ps and then transfer seamlessly to other Adobe applications. The fact that no one else has developed a product that suits my needs is the reason I do not have any other options, not because Adobe has monopolized the market! 120$/year for the best application on the market is a very good option in my view...
     
  89. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    As mentioned previously, I use Adobe products extensively, especially Ps for photography as a hobby and at work as a graphic artist as part of the creative suite I do most of my initial work in Ps and then transfer seamlessly to other Adobe applications. The fact that no one else has developed a product that suits my needs is the reason I do not have any other options, not because Adobe has monopolized the market! 120$/year for the best application on the market is a very good option in my view...​
    You prove the point I made earlier. You are a professional user of Adobe's "industry-standard" products. As such, you are key to Adobe's profitability. Adobe thus offers you a subscription plan that is a good deal, which you eagerly (and appropriately) defend against those of us who complain about it.
    It doesn't really matter to you whether there are other options, since Photoshop and Lightroom are the best products for you, at a price you consider a good deal. But those of us who complain do so because Adobe's executives have decided we are not key to their company's profitability. The rental scheme is not a good deal for us, and there are no other options. We have essentially been abandoned by Adobe, for reasons that make entirely good business sense for them and for their investors. Arguably, that's a problem because we're selfish and narrow-minded, and we place our petty interests ahead of what's best for Adobe's shareholders.
    Whether or not Adobe attained its market dominance because it sells the best products, the fact is that Adobe is a monopoly. There are no alternatives to many if not most of its "industry-standard" products; and that same market dominance is an insurmountable disincentive for any competitor to even attempt to challenge Adobe. Adobe is a business after all, and its executives' first priority is maximizing their shareholders' return. So taking full advantage of their monopoly position by locking customers into a rental model that provides shareholders with a continuous revenue stream is exactly the right thing for Adobe to do, from a business perspective. They wisely recognized that it's no longer possible to add enough real, compelling value to new releases of Photoshop to make users want to buy every upgrade.
    If that business decision angers amateurs and enthusiasts, who don't see a benefit from paying for the software up-front and getting continuous incremental improvements, that's not a problem. They aren't the customers Adobe wants anyway. Adobe offers them Elements, with the traditional perpetual license. Adobe can't get away with forcing users to rent Elements because they don't have a monopoly in that market segment. Those who hate Adobe can use Paint Shop Pro or one its other competitors. And for most amateurs, Elements or Paint Shop Pro really are a better choices than Photoshop anyway. Lightroom is similarly available with a perpetual license because it has competition from Apple's Aperture. But now that Apple is apparently abandoning Aperture, I expect that Adobe will soon have the monopoly power to force Lightroom users to "subscribe." If they don't use that monopoly power, they'll be breaching their obligation to the shareholders.
    That said, it's possible that Adobe's new business model will finally provide incentive for someone to create a genuine competitor to Photoshop. I've even suggested that users who are upset about Adobe's decision, and who happen to have the appropriate coding skills, should channel their outrage productively into improving GIMP rather than pointless complaints.
    I don't necessarily believe that GIMP is the solution. But I suspect that the competitor to Photoshop will come from the Open Source community rather than from a corporation. That's because Microsoft Office dominates its market in the same way as Adobe's Creative Suite, which makes commercial competition infeasible. (Novell nearly destroyed itself trying to make WordPerfect and a collection of defunct Borland office software compete with Microsoft. Corel acquired the detritus of that fiasco, and now holds onto a marginal niche in the "office suite" market.) Microsoft faces serious competition from the free open-source LibreOffice. If the competitor to Photoshop isn't a revamped GIMP, it will probably be a new effort similar to LibreOffice.
     
  90. In the UK I get charged over $65 a month for CC. After endless discussions with Adobe and promises of price reviews nothing has changed. At a recent meeting of like minded photographers 87 of the 120ish present have decided to cancel our subscriptions as our workload allows, I cancelled mine yesterday.
    My CC never allowed me to use LR due to some complication with an existing license on my hard drive which myself and Adobe spent hours trying to resolve, so it proved even poorer value for me. The $10 option for PS and LR is not available to me.
    So whilst I was happy to support Adobe in this new venture, it became clear that they were not prepared to support me, and many others so its cheerio Adobe.
    CS6 and LR5.5 that I own will serve me for many years, when they don't I'll look elsewhere as the competition is imminent, from Fuji and Sony especially
     
  91. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    That said, it's possible that Adobe's new business model will finally provide incentive for someone to create a genuine competitor to Photoshop.​

    There was always an incentive, which is called market share. Nobody bothered though. The only decent challenger I ever saw was a product Silverfast had years ago. The beta was way ahead of Adobe at the time but Silverfast a) priced it at twice Adobe's price (high enough for 10 years of CC), b) didn't really finish it, and c) was only available on the Apple platform, which meant a lot of web publishers couldn't use it.
     
  92. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    That said, it's possible that Adobe's new business model will finally provide incentive for someone to create a genuine competitor to Photoshop.​

    There was always an incentive, which is called market share. Nobody bothered though. The only decent challenger I ever saw was a product Silverfast had years ago. The beta was way ahead of Adobe at the time but Silverfast a) priced it at twice Adobe's price (high enough for 10 years of CC), b) didn't really finish it, and c) was only available on the Apple platform, which meant a lot of web publishers couldn't use it.
     
  93. Ted,
    Although I have access to the Creative Suite at work, I do subscribe independently to Ps for my personal use and consider that the monthly fee is well worth it. One thing you left out when saying that Adobe is disregarding amateurs is the fact that people do not have to dish out 1500$-2000$ up front anymore to start using it. I think that this new model makes the software available to a larger number of people, contrary to what you are saying... Just my pov...
     
  94. "There was always an incentive, which is called market share."

    Indeed. That incentive is becoming stronger, now that it would appear that not every PS-user is going to play along with that new business model. There will be a change in market share.
    So "Adobe's new business model will finally provide incentive for someone to create a genuine competitor to Photoshop" may well be true, with the insertion (implicit or explicit) of the word "enough" between "provide"and "incentive".
    However it will turn out, it's an interesting development.
     
  95. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Like it or not, it's an "Instagram" world out there now and Adobe sees the writing on the wall. Going CC while also offering a mobile "Photoshop Express" version is a wise move to slowly bring their desktop market to the mobile market
     
  96. It's only "an Instagram world out there" when you don't look further than kids playing with toys.
    Meanwhile there are people reporting things like "After I photograph a show and during the edit phase I will be opening as many as 100 RAW files at a time from my D4 and running batch actions on them. This will go on for 8 to 10 hours a day for as many days as it takes for me to finish the show. That is typically 4 days. I have found my system to be rock solid under this kind of a load." in a discussion where 36 GB of ram is deemed too little and a 500 GB SSD too small.
     
  97. CS4 seems to run fine on my new iMac. That should do for now.

    It is true that 'customers' have ripped Adobe off in the past by finding a way to use PS without having
    to pay one dime for it.
     
  98. It is indeed true, Ray. And though i'm dead against piracy, it must be noted that that wasn't only a bad thing for Adobe.<br>Many of those pirated copies were used by people who couldn't or wouldn't afford to buy PS. So not entirely a loss of revenue for Adobe. And it did help spread PS, did help make Photoshopping a verb.
     
  99. Many of those pirated copies were used by people who couldn't or wouldn't afford to buy PS. So not entirely a loss of revenue for Adobe.​
    That's ridiculous! Are you a photographer? You are OK if some company uses your images without paying for them because they probably can't afford to pay the full price? That's OK? Theft is theft. It's never acceptable no matter what the thief could afford.
     
  100. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Meanwhile there are people reporting things like "After I photograph a show and during the edit phase I will be opening as many as 100 RAW files at a time from my D4 and running batch actions on them. This will go on for 8 to 10 hours a day for as many days as it takes for me to finish the show. That is typically 4 days. I have found my system to be rock solid under this kind of a load." in a discussion where 36 GB of ram is deemed too little and a 500 GB SSD too small.​
    You're still stuck in the "desktop" paradigm. Once again, he/we/me wont need all that horsepower in the future. Instead of downloading the contents of our cards to our powerful systems, we will upload the contents of our memory cards to the cloud and edit there.
    Open a gmail account, download Picasa, and try the future today.
     
  101. Instead of downloading the contents of our cards to our powerful systems, we will upload the contents of our memory cards to the cloud and edit there.​
    Yeah, that's going to be so fun, uploading gigs of raw files just to do what we can do today by moving to the desktop directly from the PC card in a fraction of the time. Sounds like a great workflow for those charging by the hour.
     
  102. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    I'm not sure why people keep trying to judge the future by the limitations of what they are using today?
     
  103. I'm not sure why people keep trying to judge the future by the limitations of what they are using today?​
    Becuase we are living in the today and don't write science fiction. The current non-desktop, raw + cloud workflow from Adobe is a huge joke (Lightroom Mobile). In the time it takes you to just upload your "raw files", which you must first download to the desktop anyway, I've processed the images on that desktop. Plus, in the current scheme, it's not even raw data we're dealing with (instead Smart Previews). Between that lack of actual raw data and the silly time it takes up upload to the cloud just to start the work process is a deal breaker for some of us who live in the present.
     
  104. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Becuase we are living in the today and don't write science fiction.​
    Before you jumped in just now and trying to bait and troll again, we are pondering and musing about the future.
    Why would yo upload gigs of data at all once? Like, from a memory card when you return home? Yes, like I said, you're thinking of the future with todays hardware limitations. Instead, tomorrow, your camera will be uploading as you shoot on a wireless network that is 10x's faster than it is now. Nifty.
     
  105. Before you jumped in just now and trying to bait and troll again, we are pondering and musing about the future​
    Speaking for everyone once again...
    Why would yo upload gigs of data at all once?​
    Because IF I come back from a shoot, I've got gigs of raw files I need to process. Upload to the desktop then to the cloud? When I can upload to the desktop and start working immediately seems a vastly more effective workflow if time is money assuming how much longer it takes to get the raws just to the cloud (for what purpose do I need them there? Answer, I don't).
    Yes, like I said, you're thinking of the future with todays hardware​
    Sorry, I'll think about driving, I mean flying back from a shoot in my flying car while the camera of the future uploads those gigs of raws ala the Jetsons.
    Instead, tomorrow, your camera will be uploading as you shoot on a wireless network that is 10x's faster than it is now.​
    The digital Nostradamus predictions. When that happens, let me know and I'll give it a shot. Until then, it's simply speculation on your part of course.
     
  106. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Speaking for everyone once again...​
    No. Like I said, right before you jumped in trying to entice me into a flame war again, Q.G. de Bakker and myself (we) were pondering the future of cloud. Maybe read the thread before butting in and trolling
     
  107. Like I said, right before you jumped in trying to entice me into a flame war again, Q.G. de Bakker and myself (we) were pondering the future of cloud

    Maybe read the thread before butting in and trolling.

    Classic Eric reply with such decorum and pot calling kettle black again. If you were reading the posts, you'd see I was the 2nd person here bud. You showed up way late on this one as usual (post 45 or so, 2 days later), spouting as the troll, but not to one. I see no such comments about the cloud from Q.G. nor anything that the OP asked about so again, I think you need to speak for yourself IF you can.
     
  108. I've been using Elements (now ver 9) for years but I miss a feature found only in the full version of PhotoShop. I'd like to be able to edit in the Lab L (or Luminance, whatever it's called) mode. I need this so I can linearize a curve in QuadTone RIP.​
    You don't need Photoshop for this, you can convert the RGB numbers to Lab on-line: http://brucelindbloom.com (CIE Color Calculator). Setup the RGB working space, add the RGB values and Bruce gives you Lab values to pop into QuadTone RIP. See page 23 of the manual.
     
  109. Thanks so much, Andrew, this may be just what I'm looking for.
    Sounds like you are familiar with QuadTone RIP. That's helpful, too. I'm printing exclusively in b/w and I can create a curve up until the last step. I get stuck on linearizing my curve, ie filling in those 21 squares - QTR's Curve Maker accepts either Density (and I don't have a densitometer, nor access to one) or L values. I can read the RGB values of each square, using the Photoshop Elements eyedropper. So if I can convert those readings to L values, I'd be home free. One point of confusion... the Kodak grey scale, which is used for reference, has only 20 squares, not sure what to fill in the 21st square.
    I may have further questions at some point. I'm not sure what to fill in from Ref. White on down, I've studied the explanation on the Learn More page but it will take more than one read. Once again, thank you very much - this could be a real breakthrough for me.
    Your website is phenomenal as well. Much of it way over my head, but I've bookmarked both Bruce's and yours.
    Best regards,
    Paul
     
  110. Paul, I'm only familiar with QuadTone in passing. I'd head over to the Luminous Landscape printer forum and ask there, lots of power users:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?board=6.0
    Yes, all you need in Elements is to set the color picker for RGB but you'll need to know the assigned color space (for example, sRGB). Those RGB values can easily be converted to Lab and I suspect you just need the Lstar or Lightness value. On Bruce's site, just aim for sRGB from the scan (?) or whatever the source is you need Lab from. Leave the white point at D50 not that it would mater much for Lstar. Leave Adaptation as is, it's fine too. If the data is really in sRGB, pick the sRGB option, not 2.2 (that can affect the values). Once you enter the three sets of RGB values, click on a button and all the fields will update. The calculator is pretty much setup as a default for sRGB, you don't have to mess with anything much other than just entering the RGB values in the three fields.
     
  111. One point of confusion... the Kodak grey scale, which is used for reference, has only 20 squares, not sure what to fill in the 21st square.​
    #1 is pure white, #21 is pure black with what appears to be 5 percent values moving in that direction as shown on page 15 of the manual. Not sure what you're supposed to be scanning (a print I suspect) but it looks like 21 steps to me which makes sense.
     
  112. Actually, the Kodak scale only has 20 steps... just checked. It goes from 0.05 to 1.95. The scale on page 15 is a calibration printout from QuadTone, and indeed that does have 21 steps. That's where it gets confusing, for me anyway.
    Regards,
    Paul
     
  113. Andrew,
    Thanks for the Luminous Landscape tip... ironically, I check their site every day, didn't know they had a discussion section! I'll check that out. Most of my help with QuadTone is on a Yahoo! group dedicated to that software, and frequented by Roy Harrington, the program's author. He's very helpful, but I've had some sort of block due to what I thought was a limitation of not being able to enter L values. But now, thanks to your tip, I may be able to cross that hurdle.
    Your comments on the other parameters were very helpful, actually I think I'll be working in RBG, not sRBG. BTW, what is Lstar? L*ab?
    Thanks again,
    Paul
     
  114. Your comments on the other parameters were very helpful, actually I think I'll be working in RBG, not sRBG. BTW, what is Lstar? L*ab?​
    Getting OT but.... Might need to start a new thread. Lstar is the L in Lab (then there's aStar and bStar)**. You'll be working in some RGB working space which may not be sRGB but that color space MUST be defined to convert those RGB values to Lab. In sRGB, R0/G200/B0 is a different color than R0/G200/B0 in Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB Etc. I don't know Elements but suspect it has to understand these working spaces. It's critical the numbers you feed to Bruce's calculator have a defined color space. Otherwise the number conversion may not be correct. Imagine you want to convert Ounces to Milliliter. If you went to a site for the conversion and didn't enter Ounces, the site can't do the conversions. Or if you popped a value for cup into the calculation when you really wanted Ounces, your final value would be wrong. So this is pretty important. **http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200504_rodneycm.pdf
     
  115. Andrew,
    That occurred to me as well, ie starting a new thread! But I think we're about done...
    Just checked my Elements (I'm on version 9, now it's up to 11 or 12) and I can work in RGB but sRGB is not listed as an option under Mode. This leaves the camera... I usually shoot in jpg, but perhaps I should be shooting in RAW. But what color space am I in then? (It's a Canon G-9). Also, once I've converted the color original to b/w, does all this matter? I convert to b/w by working on each of the RGB channels, in monochrome. I usually set the channels at 60,40,0.
     
  116. Paul, see: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements/using/setting-color-management.html
    There's no such thing as plain old vanilla RGB but many flavors, all having a specific DNA if you will. Adobe RGB is one, sRGB is another etc.
    As to what to set on the camera (raw or JPEG which would provide sRGB), you should check with Roy or the folks on LuLa. It probably isn't ideal. I thought they needed a scanned image of a print?
     
  117. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    That occurred to me as well, ie starting a new thread! But I think we're about done...​
    Oh heavens no, not Andrew. Some threads he carries on talking to himself, other time he'll resort to insults and ad hominem attacks to ensure he gets the last word in.
     
  118. Eric ~ Oh heavens no, not Andrew. Some threads he carries on talking to himself, other time he'll resort to insults and ad hominem attacks to ensure he gets the last word in.​
    Eric, can you look up the term hypocrite? Case in point:
    Eric ~ , Jul 03, 2014; 04:47 p.m: We? Lol, you don't even make photos for the fun of it.
    Eric ~ , Jul 06, 2014; 01:02 p.m: It's his MO, you'll never get a straight answer out of him, Joe.
    Eric ~ , Jul 07, 2014; 11:14 a.m: You'll find no sympathies from anyone here, Luminous Landscape, or AUF's. You're a nasty bully that for some reason gets carte blanche from the PN mods​
    Dozen's of other examples this is just ONE thread!
     
  119. I don't know if it was mentioned above, but isn't Photoshop already being replaced by Adobe Raw. A couple years ago I went to a Scott Kelby CS6 workshop in Los Angeles, and the entire day was spent learning Adobe Raw.
     
  120. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Andrew - Yeah, that's going to be so fun, uploading gigs of raw files just to do what we can do today by moving to the desktop directly from the PC card in a fraction of the time. Sounds like a great workflow for those charging by the hour.​
    Google Fiber FTW. Today, Google Fibre upload is already 50% faster than my Lexar USB3 card reader dumps to ssd.
    [​IMG]
    It's not a difficult concept to grasp. If you took photos on a smartphone, we've had the ability to upload (auto backup) our jpg's to Google and iTunes accounts while shooting. In a few months, Android L is coming out and it allows raw photography. It's only a matter time before the option for dslr's to be cloud-tethered as no one wants to wait until they are home to start viewing/culling/editing these days while we're carrying our mobile devices.
     
  121. Andrew,
    I thought they needed a scanned image of a print?​
    Actually, QTR needs a scan of the Kodak Q-13 step file, and a scan of a 21 step file as printed by QTR. Then the two are combined to linearize the curve - and that's the part I have trouble understanding.
    One last question, and I thank you for all your other responses: if I'm working in b/w, do I need to concern myself with the various color spaces?
    Regards,
    Paul
     
  122. One last question, and I thank you for all your other responses: if I'm working in b/w, do I need to concern myself with the various color spaces?​
    You think it's OK with Eric ;-) The working space in terms of gamut no, but the question would be what's the source of the data (raw, a scan etc)? I'd check with Roy or on LuLa but I suspect sRGB or Adobe RGB would be fine but some working spaces do have different gamma (TRC) encoding so I'd check. It's possible the product would prefer a 2.2 TRC (sRGB).
     
  123. Thank you, Andrew... I'll watch my gamma.
    Paul
     
  124. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Desktop computing isn't dying a quick death, by the way. Far from it.


    The digital Nostradamus predictions. When that happens, let me know and I'll give it a shot. Until then, it's simply speculation on your part of course.
    I'm letting you know, lol. I love it. Photoshop now runs native in a virtual environment, according to TechCrunch


    For the longest time, pundits said that Google’s Chromebook initiative wouldn’t amount to much because Chrome OS couldn’t run complex applications like Photoshop. Those pundits will have to find another example now, because starting today, Photoshop will run on Chrome OS and on Chrome for Windows (if you are an Adobe education customer).
    This new streaming version of Photoshop will be available first for Adobe education customers with paid Creative Cloud subscriptions. Clearly, the company is using this group as its beta testers for this project and it’s unclear when Adobe plans to launch this to a wider audience. The company is hosting its MAX conference next week, which would be the ideal staging ground for a wider launch, but that would be an awfully brief beta period. Adobe says the project will be available to its education customers for at least the next six months.
    According to Adobe, this is the complete version of Photoshop, but it will run in a virtualized environment, so you don’t need to install anything on your local machine. Opening, saving and exporting files is handled by Google Drive.

    http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/29/adobe-brings-photoshop-for-chromebooks-to-its-education-customers/
     
  125. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Desktop computing isn't dying a quick death, by the way. Far from it.
    The digital Nostradamus predictions. When that happens, let me know and I'll give it a shot. Until then, it's simply speculation on your part of course.​
    First, photoshop running virtually on Chrome OS and now Adobe going mobile all the time for iOS and Android. Seems like my "speculation" of working in the cloud with Adobe on mobile is getting even closer!
    "one thing is becoming clear: the theme of this year’s Adobe MAX is all mobile, all the time. Some exciting new apps, updates to both the mobile and desktop apps we know and love, and the official release of the Creative SDK public beta"
    http://petapixel.com/2014/10/06/adobe-unveils-new-updated-apps-drives-deep-connections-desktop-mobile/#more-147335
     
  126. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Look. A photoshop alternative. Affinity Photo is making headlines everywhere
    http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/02/12/hands-on-affinity-photo-throws-down-the-gauntlet-to-
    photoshop-at-least-on-the-mac/
     

Share This Page