Photoshop replacement for the future?

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I suppose if you never plan on upgrading your camera body or buying a newer lens, then your premise is true.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Jeff's math is an eye opener and kind of illustrates the throwing the baby out with the bath water approach of migrating <em>simply because</em> 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. </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, you can't do serious stuff with it, but neither can you with the[sic] Gimp [sic].</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have been using Photoshop back to version 2.5 and I do not now use GIMP. However, I have friends who <em>are</em> professional graphics people who <em>use</em> 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.</p>

<p>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 "<a href="http://www.gimp.org/">GNU Image Manipulation Program</a>".</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>(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.)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>for clarification, the phrase "hour or so" was Joe's term which I incorrectly thought was yours. Apologies.<br>

JDM</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>How many non-professionals do that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then you assume a computer is used for nothing more than photography.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. Let's say 50%? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only reason it is even possible is that there is no competition, otherwise it would have to be an order of magnitude lower.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is a value proposition. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm saying folks have the right to say the cost is high</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

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.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>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.</p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"If there's no alternative, the cost can't be considered too high, it's either do it or lose the value."</strong></p>

<p>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.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

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.<br>In short: it's not a matter of <i>"If there's no alternative, the cost can't be considered too high, it's either do it or lose the value"</i>. 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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>High relative both to the cost of comparable items</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Then buy one of them. Why bother if you can use something else?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

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

<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is effectively no competition to Photoshop</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

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?<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That alternative simply has to be created.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You too. What's stopping you from using Kickstarter and starting something to compete?</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>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...</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>what am I missing...</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Quite a number of new features</strong>. Google is your friend.<br>

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/features.html</p>

[kurt_story1]

<blockquote>

<p>With Photoshop going online with subscription only I won't be updating or upgrading any longer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Needless to say, I'm glad I bought CS6, and will use it for as long as possible.</p>

<p>*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.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>when I pay for software I want to own it</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

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.<br /></p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>You never really own it. You have a license.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Kind</em> 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.<br>

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. </p>

[kurt_story1]

<blockquote>

<p><br /> 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <em>owning</em> it--ie I purchase a license for a <em>self-standing copy</em>--once paid,<em> no monthly fees. Big difference</em>--my post above clarified why I prefer single-payment licensing.</p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>I've used PS for 20 years--I know this; splitting semantic hairs is besides the point, right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>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."</p>

<p>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 <em>is</em> 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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[pics]

<p><strong>"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?"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong>"You too. What's stopping you from using Kickstarter and starting something to compete?"</strong></p>

<p>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.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>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.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"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. "</i><br><br>So whether that coffee you buy is overpriced or not depends in turn on whether you spend much more every month on something else?