Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
ree Member
Joined: 29 Jun 2004 Posts: 4399 | TRs | Pics
|
|
ree
Member
|
Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:13 am
|
|
|
Anybody else doing this??
Adobe is not selling their software anymore, you have to subscribe to them if you want their software.
There's upsides to it: you can get their entire line of software for one low price ($32/mo), you never have to pay for upgrades, use of their cyber space, etc.
The downside is you don't own the software.
For me, I guess it's a good deal - I use a lot their software - not just photoshop. No more upgrades. For work, I have to have this stuff. But usually, I'd let my versions get a few years old between upgrades, making it cheaper for me to get by.
Now it feels like I'm dealing with a drug dealer whom I have to pay for my art habit.
Another thing I'm finding... I installed one Creative Cloud app. Now my resident old versions are clunking to a halt. Looks like I have to stop whining and jump in the deep end.
|
Back to top |
|
|
DarkHelmet Member
Joined: 24 Oct 2012 Posts: 389 | TRs | Pics
|
I do the lightroom and photshop bundle for 9.99...
Works for me. don't use any of the "cloud" stuff.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kim Brown Member
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 Posts: 6899 | TRs | Pics
|
Nowadays, if you upgrade, you get the Cloud. No options. It can be a pain, esp. when partners/clients don't have updated software and you're sharing work and using their input on the product.
One reason we chose to not upgrade right now - gotta let the world catch up and the software companies work the bugs.
"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area."
Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area."
Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 7721 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:13 pm
|
|
|
I use an older version of Photoshop. It wasn't cheap and it does everything I need, so I don't see a reason to upgrade. No use for Lightroom, either.
|
Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014 Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics Location: United States |
I find my old versions of Photoshop and Lightroom to be more than adequate for my needs. I'd rather use a different brand of photo software than sell my soul to the Creative Cloud!
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008 Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:14 pm
|
|
|
I'm torn about this. I use Lightroom pretty much exclusively for my post-processing. Much better workflow than Photoshop and does everything I need it to. I haven't messed around much with exposure or focus blending or stacking or anything like that yet.
My old version of Lightroom 4.whatever works just fine. I know there will come a time, eventually, when it doesn't work any more, but just like Windows 7 I'll stick with it 'til I'm forced to upgrade. At that time I don't see any way around paying the subscription. Lightroom just works too well and I don't know of any other companies offering a non-subscription based alternative.
I was given my copy of Lightroom for Christmas back when it was version 3.something. I paid $99 for an upgrade to version 4 and that's all I've spent on it. Been using it for at least 4 years now. Having to pay $120/year is significantly more expensive.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6306 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
I straight up bought Creative Suite 6 when they announced that the next version would be the cloud subscription only. I refuse to subscribe to software mainly out of principle, but also because I don't so much find myself needing it anymore. I used to use Illustrator and Dreamweaver a ton, use InDesign a fair bit, but I've found better, cheaper (or free) programs for web coding, and I have no incentive to upgrade from the Illustrator or InDesign version I have.
I use Lightroom a ton, and Photoshop quite a bit. LR4 serves me just fine (never got 5), and I've been planning on upgrading to 6 when it comes out, as long as they stick to their original promise and release it as a standalone. But if they do go cloud only for Lightroom as well, I'll stick with LR4 and Photoshop CS6 as long as I can, then find a competitor when I'm out of options.
|
Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014 Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics Location: United States |
Hesman wrote: | The older version of Photoshop I had ground to a halt when I installed a newer OS on my computer and decided I bite the bullet to get a new version of Photoshop only to discover that you only get Adobe software via a subscription. |
You can still find older versions of Adobes software for sale from 3rd party retailers.
|
Back to top |
|
|
mike Member
Joined: 09 Jul 2004 Posts: 6397 | TRs | Pics Location: SJIsl |
|
mike
Member
|
Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:31 pm
|
|
|
Sore Feet wrote: | I refuse to subscribe to software mainly out of principle, but also because I don't so much find myself needing it anymore. |
Lots of other options out there. Many are free. PS no longer has a death grip on the market. I wouldn't mind finding CS6 free or cheap somewhere though...
CS2 downloads
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sore Feet Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001 Posts: 6306 | TRs | Pics Location: Out There, Somewhere |
mike wrote: | PS no longer has a death grip on the market. |
Not sure I'd agree with that. I'd say that Adobe no longer has a death grip on the market, because there are plenty of viable options to use instead of the multitudes of its other products (many better video editors than Premiere, HTML5 has effectively killed Flash, there's no reason to use Dreamweaver anymore with programs like SublimeText, etc), and while there are plenty of other image editors out there, Photoshop is still the defacto standard for a reason - it IS the best one, and it's not even close. And I think this is partially why they decided to go full subscription - pros need Photoshop (and maybe Illustrator) way more than they need the other programs that Adobe makes, but by tying them into the Cloud subscription, they keep all their products on peoples desktops.
For the more casual users though, most of those alternate image editors will be more than adequate.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bedivere Why Do Witches Burn?
Joined: 25 Jul 2008 Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics Location: The Hermitage |
|
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
|
Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:57 am
|
|
|
What video editor would you recommend that is competitive with Premiere?
It gets awfully hard to wade through the marketing BS when you have no practical experience.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jim Dockery Member
Joined: 12 Sep 2007 Posts: 3092 | TRs | Pics Location: Lake Stevens |
I've been using Photoshop for so many years it's integral to my work flow. I also do a lot of work with layers, so Lightroom isn't up to the task. I'm afraid Adobe has me caught, and I was pretty pissed about the subscription thing when they first introduced it. I stuck with CS6 until they finally separated Photoshop & Lightroom for $10/month. While there were no incredible new features I had to have, the auto updating of Camera Raw (which does have some new features), was the top of my list.
When friends who are looking to get into photo editing ask about software I still recommend Photoshop Elements. Much cheaper than the full version, it does everything a photographer wants. I use actions (macros combining many steps into one click) on almost every picture I edit, Elements doesn't have them, so I'm stuck with the full meal deal.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Posts: 7721 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:27 pm
|
|
|
I used to really like Adobe Camera Raw, but I'm using an old version of PS and it doesn't know how to open raw files from my camera. So I use the Canon software to convert them, it saves a tiff file and launches it in Photoshop, then I do what I need. It's less convenient but you don't need PS to convert your raw files.
I think PS Elements also doesn't have the curves adjustment? That's a show-stopper for me.
The Gimp is better than Photoshop in some ways, but I found the UI horrible.
|
Back to top |
|
|
joker seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:45 pm
|
|
|
Bedivere wrote: | What video editor would you recommend that is competitive with Premiere? |
Depends on what you mean/want to do. Sony Vegas is pretty decent according to some folks I know who do a lot of video editing at a "prosumer" level but who aren't trying to create a full on pro editing suite. For Mac, there's Final Cut. For Windows, Avid is what a lot of pros use, from what I've heard.
|
Back to top |
|
|
joker seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:48 pm
|
|
|
Sore Feet wrote: | And I think this is partially why they decided to go full subscription - pros need Photoshop (and maybe Illustrator) way more than they need the other programs that Adobe makes, but by tying them into the Cloud subscription, they keep all their products on peoples desktops. |
Maybe so, but I would bet that a much larger factor was simply that they want to develop a much steadier and more predictable revenue stream (based on what I've seen from inside another SW company that is in process of trying to shift purchase behavior from one-off purchases to subscriptions). Plus it makes flowing out updates more practical, including reducing the support hit from older versions since subscribers have no financial reason to stick with older versions (and more versions = more support cost). Another approach to keeping all their products on people's desktops would simply be to monkey with the pricing of a bundle of the programs for one-off purchase. I think that bundling and subscriptions somewhat orthogonal strategy levers for them.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|