Adobe Changing Course? Sort of....

[Uhooru]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to <em>own</em> what I pay for. I don't want my photos, photoshop, music, head or anything else in the cloud. Owning the disc I paid for is more practical for me.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

Fine you are not required to use photoshop, though actually even with a disk, you only are granted a license that is limited. Read the fine print. But get used to it, this is how the software delivery world is going. Apple computers are not even including DVD/CD burner players in most of their products. Seems like the handwriting is on the wall.

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

[GBarrington]

<blockquote>

<p>Fine you are not required to use photoshop, though actually even with a disk, you only are granted a license that is limited. Read the fine print. But get used to it, this is how the software delivery world is going. Apple computers are not even including DVD/CD burner players in most of their products. Seems like the handwriting is on the wall.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is considerable difference between holding a license from month to month to holding a license in perpetuity for a given version of software. Personally, I've transitioned away from Adobe completely. was it painless? No. Is the software problem free? Also no. BUT, I know I have far greater control of my photographic future this way. It's all a matter of:</p>

<ol>

<li>How much do you trust Adobe.</li>

<li>How much you want to rely on the 'goodwill' of others to keep your photos safe and available.</li>

</ol>

<p>All decisions require some sort of compromise one way or another. My experience with the corporate world leaves me suspicious and mistrustful. There is no way Adobe will be able to avoid taking advantage of the trust their subscribers will grant them. It is inherent in the model.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>How much you want to rely on the 'goodwill' of others to keep your photos safe and available.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How are your photos not safe and available with CC?</p>

[Dave410]

<blockquote>

<p>It's time to stop talking about Adobe's moves and either sign up or move on. I have decided to become Adobe free. it is neither difficult nor the end of the world. It took me about 3 months to do it in a planned and organized manner. It's really just a matter of choice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How did you do it?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>All decisions require some sort of compromise one way or another. My experience with the corporate world leaves me suspicious and mistrustful. There is no way Adobe will be able to avoid taking advantage of the trust their subscribers will grant them. It is inherent in the model.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Should we take this as meaning you have<strong> no subscription services</strong> (begging the question, how are you sending form posts to the web?). Phone, TV, Net, are all off limits too? My understanding is all such services are subscription based and run by corporations. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>You're paying a monthly subscription to have all your non-destructive edits be functional when you convert to tiff/jpeg for output to the web or a third party printer.</p>

<p>You stop paying your subscription, all those edits with advanced tools provided by ONLY the CC version of your software will get turned off and made inaccessible. If you created these non-destructive edits as presets to thousands of Raws, jpegs, tiffs, that can be a problem.</p>

<p>Your only option you have is to convert all those thousands of images to a "cooked" format like 16bit tiff with the non-destructive edits baked in before you cancel your CC subscription. Gonna' need a lot of hard drive space for all those thousands of large file sizes especially high rez 16MP/16bit tiffs.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Your only option you have is to convert all those thousands of images to a "cooked" format like 16bit tiff with the non-destructive edits baked in before you cancel your CC subscription. Gonna' need a lot of hard drive space for all those thousands of large file sizes especially high rez 16MP/16bit tiffs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or just use Backwards compatibly from day one such that a flattened version exists inside the TIFF. Going back to conversations about file formats long before CC and subscription: PSD=Bad. TIFF=Good. For raws, you're always in need of some proprietary processing (because raw is raw). You could render them before signing off from CC or you could move to a new converter and start again with <strong>their</strong> proprietary processing. If you get upset with that company, you're in the same boat. Raw processing as you know is just a big pile of proprietary metadata. </p>

[GBarrington]

<blockquote>

<p>How are your photos not safe and available with CC?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never said they weren't. I asked if you can trust Adobe to NEVER hold your photos hostage? I don't believe I can. Therefore I've stopped using Adobe products.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How did you do it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://getsatisfaction.com/acdsystems/topics/how_to_switch_from_lightroom_to_adcsee_pro">https://getsatisfaction.com/acdsystems/topics/how_to_switch_from_lightroom_to_adcsee_pro</a><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Should we take this as meaning you have<strong> no subscription services</strong> (begging the question, how are you sending form posts to the web?). Phone, TV, Net, are all off limits too? My understanding is all such services are subscription based and run by corporations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it does NOT mean I have no subscription services. But it does mean I consider my photos too important to trust to ONLY subscription services. I see photo editing and organization a weak spot in an all online workflow. I understand that the latest subscription offer for photographers does not automatically store photos online, but they DO seem to be offering such a service. I was horrified to learn that Google automatically uploads any photos I take on my Droid cell phone to Google +, I immediately put a stop to that. I've been around the corporate world far too long to trust any of them. I know that ANY statement of intent from ANY corporation has a shelf life of about 30 seconds. That statement of intent is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, right up to the point where they change their mind. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I asked if you can trust Adobe to NEVER hold your photos hostage? I don't believe I can</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

How? CC software runs on your computer. Images are saved on your computer. How can they hold them hostage?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>No, it does NOT mean I have no subscription services. But it does mean I consider my photos too important to trust to ONLY subscription services.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you may be confusing a subscription service of software with some requirement you host your images on this subscription service. That isn't the case. In no way are you forced to do this. I've been using Creative Cloud since day one and not a single image of mine is in Adobe's cloud. Not because I fear what they'd do with them, I have no need to store my images there (I backup to multiple drives and to the CrashPlan backup cloud). There is no on-line workflow with CC unless you want to. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I was horrified to learn that Google automatically uploads any photos I take on my Droid cell phone to Google +,</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

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

[GBarrington]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Of course it was an "opt in", they are always, "opt ins" aren't they? We discover, after the fact, that we "opted in" to a program we may not have fully understood. I'd be curious to learn what you think of the new Facebook Terms and Conditions. Do you believe that FB has acted in good faith to the users on this? Do you think even 1% of the users understand what they have opted in to? I don't.<br>

I'm not telling you what to do. Feel free to trust Adobe completely, if you so choose. I choose to assume that Adobe will look out for Adobe, leaving me to look out for me. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>But it does mean I consider my photos too important to trust to ONLY subscription services.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not photos, non-destructive edits by proprietary Raw engine software like ACR/LR i.e. PV2012 and future advances in cloning, gradient, smart objects, upright etc. etc. the list goes on and on which most folks can't sort out in their head, including myself, because they haven't seen or used some of those advanced tools before they signed up to subscribe to CC versions of apps having those advanced tools. If they see the current CC app without all those bells and whistles that aren't now included in the current version they won't know they need and maybe not use anyway, they don't see a problem with the subscription plan. It has a horse with blinders method of buying and using software.</p>

<p>In addition with the subscription plan they will always have to keep in mind as the apps improve and add more features, their work is now tied to continually making those monthly payments. Time has a way of making folks forget how much work they've put into post processing thousands of images backed up on hard drives using older versions of both licensed and CC subscription versions of the app.</p>

<p>You are losing those edits that you spent quite a bit of time applying to thousands of images. When you cancel the CC subscription in the future there is a more possibility you'll lose a lot more work than when you started out due to out of sight, out of mind lack of forethought stretched out little by little throughout the years of CC subscription use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or just use Backwards compatibly from day one such that a flattened version exists inside the TIFF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you referring to LR's way of embedding xmp edits in jpegs and tiffs. I'm only talking about losing non-destructive edits which was a big selling point for using Adobe apps at the beginning over other converters. I'm not talking about layered tiffs produced in Photoshop.</p>

<p>You're dismissing and diluting my point about losing non-destructive edits and the time invested by canceling a CC subscription as being no big issue since the previous non-CC version can be used.</p>

<p>To simplify it even more, the user is really paying a monthly fee in order to preserve their time invested producing non-destructive edits because once you cancel the subscription, that work is gone unless you previously bake the edits into a tiff format and thus lose the benefits of non-destructive edits.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Are you referring to LR's way of embedding xmp edits in jpegs and tiffs. I'm only talking about losing non-destructive edits which was a big selling point for using Adobe apps at the beginning over other converters. I'm not talking about layered tiffs produced in Photoshop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both. It's all proprietary processing. You want to use it? You pay. Simple as that. I used Quicken from about 1999 to two years ago and have every transaction made during those years in a proprietary Quicken database. I WAS able to export that data to a open format (<strong>QIF) </strong>and import that into a different product (iBank). All the data transferred but much of the proprietary functionality, reports, custom categories didn't. I made this decision, I have to live with having to rebuild my categories and reports. Anyone who stops paying for CC is in the same boat. Or anyone moving from MS word to Apple's Pages etc. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head to stop using proprietary functionality of a software product. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You're dismissing and diluting my point about losing non-destructive edits and the time invested by canceling a CC subscription as being no big issue since the previous non-CC version can be used.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm dismissing it yes. Because if that's important and necessary, you pay for it. If not, move on. Save as a layered TIFF and forget, by your own doing, that you can no longer access either proprietary layered functionality or XMP raw edits. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>To simplify it even more, the user is really paying a monthly fee in order to preserve their time invested producing non-destructive edits because once you cancel the subscription...<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, <strong>part</strong> of that fee goes to that. Part of that fee goes to continuing to use the product as you did before. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I'd be curious to learn what you think of the new Facebook Terms and Conditions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

They're not being implemented right now. Facebook announced that on Thursday.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>The OP states that the deadline to get the discount is Dec. I received an email on August 22 giving me an August 31st deadline. What's going on? I didn't have much time to even think about it.</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<p>It's a new program. That was just a discount that only applies to the first year. They have since announced the program, which they say will have a permanent price rather than just first here.. Click <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/creativelayer/introducing-the-photoshop-photography-program/">here</a> to read about it from the horse's mouth.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I received an email on August 22 giving me an August 31st deadline. What's going on? I didn't have

much time to even think about it.

 

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

 

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

 

The "cloud" aspect is just obfuscation. It's really about going to a subscription based model. Which appears to be leaving customers confused and calculating the long-term negative consequences, and considering other options.

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>I never said they weren't. I asked if you can trust Adobe to NEVER hold your photos hostage? I don't believe I can. Therefore I've stopped using Adobe products.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but you have never really answered how you think Adobe can "hold your photos hostage." Are Tiff images or jpgs or gifs proprietary Adobe formats? People express these vague and unfounded fears and don't really logically explain the basis for these suspicions. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I'm getting second thoughts on not joining the subscription model at the current $9.99/month deal for photoshop and lightroom. As I mentioned before, if one upgrades every time a new version comes out - in general about every 18 months, then the cost was $199 for PS and $79 for LR. With the subscription, the cost for the same period is $180. I just read that the deal starts on September 17th. If you are currently subscribed to the $9.99 photoshop deal, you have to cancel to get the new one. What gets me a little is that the deal will end December 31 - sounds a bit like desperation on adobe's part. Now I have to decide if I really want to be up-to-date at all times...</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but you have never really answered how you think Adobe can "hold your photos hostage."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because there <em>is </em>no answer, Barry - and we know it. It's pure, unadultered, meaningless FUD.</p>

<p><strong>The absolute worst-case scenario is that an ex Adobe user won't be able exactly to repeat conversion/PP decisions previously applied to (<em>non Adobe proprietary</em>) Raw files using Adobe software</strong>.</p>

<p><em>And that's it</em>. The very worst thing that might happen.</p>

<p>To which I say <em>big deal. </em>It's not as if Adobe's is the only way to reach a desired end result, <em>and</em> <em>that's the point</em>.</p>

<p>Some people might need to do a goodly amount of work to migrate their body of work to a new DAM app if they decide (for some bizarre reason) to dump Lr, but most people for whom this would be a serious issue are likely to be the very pros that CC is targetted at and who will likely sign up.</p>

<p>But for most of the people making all the noise about CC - almost all self-proclaimed hobbyist/enthusiast 'togs - it's easy enough to walk away from Adobe: all alternative Raw converters are as non-destructive as Adobe's, and many are capable of equal or better IQ (I speak as a big fan of Lr, but one with considerable experience of alternatives), <em>and every last one of their images will be able to make the journey, too.</em><br /> <br /> Then you process 'em in PaintShop Pro, Photoline, PWP or whichever other editor you choose instead of Photoshop, and catalogue them in Media Pro, Photo Mechanic, IDImager... Or, for a best of both worlds option (An excellent converter, very effective DAM and truly useful editor) try Glen's approach - ACDSee Pro 6, which I like a lot myself - for me it's "Lighting EQ" is worth the price of admission all on its own.<em><br /></em></p>

<p><em>So many alternatives to Adobe out there...</em></p>

[pbalko]

<p>Got an email from Adobe this morning assuring my that I would be transitioned from the current $9.99 program into the new $9.99 program. Sweet. But then the fine print muddies the whole thing up again. Can anyone explain what they're saying here?</p>

 

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

[Brad_]

>>> Can anyone explain what they're saying here?

 

>>> "* Photoshop single-app members currently enrolled in an annual plan at US$9.99/month will automatically be

transitioned to this new Creative Cloud offering, which includes access to Photoshop CC and Lightroom 5 at the same

US$9.99/month price. At the end of your current 12-month contract, you will automatically be renewed based on the then-

current price of this offering."

 

What they are saying is that after one year, the program they just transitioned you into, will be at the price that's in effect

at that time, rather than the so-called "permanent" $9.99 price for people signing up today. What will the price be in your

case? I can't find any information. Adobe's previous, last month's promotion was 50% off for the first year, meaning that particular

program would go to $20 per month. One possibility is that your one-year-from-now price would be similar.

 

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

 

As I mentioned above, Adobe's move to the "cloud" and "special offer" programs first leaves customers wondering what's

going on, and how they're going to be (for many) negatively impacted.

[GBarrington]

<blockquote>

<p>Because there <em>is </em>no answer, Barry - and we know it. It's pure, unadultered, meaningless FUD.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can think of all sorts of scenarios that MIGHT happen. However Tim Lookingbill said it best</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To simplify it even more, the user is really paying a monthly fee in order to preserve their time invested producing non-destructive edits because once you cancel the subscription, that work is gone unless you previously bake the edits into a tiff format and thus lose the benefits of non-destructive edits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like I said earlier, feel free to trust Adobe all you want. I have chosen to take the step Tim stakes out for the future, immediately, and become Adobe free now. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I can think of all sorts of scenarios that MIGHT happen. However Tim Lookingbill said it best</p>

</blockquote>

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

<br>

FWIW, one can produce a Shake Reduction layer in CC and move back to CS6 and access that data. You<strong> can't</strong> edit it using Shake Reduction of course, but your stamped edits <strong>do</strong> open and are presented to you, just as if you just flattened the entire original doc. You didn't lose any of your data. By your own doing you lost the ability to continue to edit it. If by your own doing, you decide to stop using CC, you by your own doing decide you don't want to edit the data with those features only found in CC. But your data is still there. </p>