# poor mans photo shop



## jaycar85 (May 17, 2015)

I just got a dslr, and now I have a lot of questions. I would like to use my camera to its full potential and i assume that includes tweaking photos in light room or photo shot. after doing a little research it appears i have to pay for photo shop or light room. i guess my first questions is their any free photo shops and if so are they the same and if not how do they differ? I do not feel my current  skill set justifies me paying 10 a month for a photo shop. also if i do not use a photo shop should i still shoot in raw or just stay to jpeg


----------



## 480sparky (May 17, 2015)

Try using the software that came with the camera.


----------



## Derrel (May 17, 2015)

Thom Hogan has been suggesting that Pixelmator is a powerful, pixel-level editor that can take the place of Photoshop for some users...
Pixelmator

I have read about Windows users who like GIMP.


----------



## dennybeall (May 17, 2015)

One way to improve your photographic skills is to work on having your shots ready to go right out of the camera. Composition, framing, lighting and focus can all be done in camera.
Combined with the software that came with the camera the shots can be a good start.


----------



## jaycar85 (May 17, 2015)

all good sugestions like i said this is all new to me so all this helps. i purchased aused d7000 and it did not come with the  any software so im out of luck using the software that came with it. and i have a mac so can i still use gimp?


----------



## 480sparky (May 17, 2015)

Go here for Nikon's free stuff.


----------



## Microbois (May 17, 2015)

You must make the difference between software like Lightroom and Photoshop. They are different animals.

If I can recommend a very good alternative to Lightroom, I would suggest ACDSee Pro 8. It's selling right now for 60$ at 40% off. This is a very capable piece of software, that you may never outgrow. That's what I'm using and I'm very happy with it.

As far as an alternative to Photoshop, there are many products out there. Among the free ones, Gimp comes to mind, but I've tried it, and don't like it. You can try it out and see if it works for you. I happen to have a few similar products installed in my computer. Namely Corel Photo-Paint (bundled with CorelDRAW!), and Corel Paint Shop Pro which sells for about 64$. Paint Shop Pro is pretty decent actually. You may also consider Perfect Photo Suite from OnOne Software if you are into working a lot on your pictures.

Don't get too hung up on using Photoshop or Lightroom just because this is what the rest of the world is using. Truth is, if you know your software well, you will pull off just about anything. I'm always amazed by people who spend money for Photoshop but use only 1% of its capacities.


----------



## jovince3000 (May 17, 2015)

if you don't have the CD, you can also try to get the software from nikon directly : Current Versions of Nikon Software

I'm not a Nikon user and I'm not informed on which of the software listed on the website it is you need, but if I'm not mistaken, nikon give their software for free from a download on their website. So you shouldn't require a liscence key. 

Edit : I got bested, darn you sparky


----------



## jaycar85 (May 17, 2015)

thank you 480 and every one els im not trying to be lazy i just dont know anything about this stuff


----------



## 480sparky (May 17, 2015)

jaycar85 said:


> thank you 480 and every one els im not trying to be lazy i just dont know anything about this stuff



None of us were born knowing anything about this stuff.  We *all *learned it.

So stick around, and we'll be happy to pass what we know on to you!


----------



## jaycar85 (May 17, 2015)

well after reading all these responses mabe i dont eaven know the dif. between the software  it comes with it light room and something like gemp.  fig they all do the same thing but it doesn't appear that way.  you can also buy software that is just a one time fee and you are good to go? that seems like the way to go. once again thanks for the help


----------



## Microbois (May 17, 2015)

Lightroom, or its alternative, is pretty much like a wet "darkroom" in the old days of film. You edit each pictures, tweaks levels, adjust colors, contrast, crop, dodge/burn, etc. Some software are more sophisticated than others, but essentially, that's what it is, and you can proceed in batch.

Photoshop on the other hand can do pretty much all you would do in Lightroom, but would let you work at a much higher level. You can repair pictures, add or remove objects, use layers, etc. There are also a lot of plugins available to enhance pictures. Photoshop is a great piece of software, but there are other alternatives that may suit your needs just as well.

If your intention is only to take pictures with your camera, do some basic editing so your pictures look nice and you can have some of them printed, then all you need is Lightroom or one of its alternative. Actually, you can download ACDSee Pro 8 and try it out for 30 days free. Best way to make yourself an informed opinion is to try it out.

I'm old school, and I don't like the new licensing model that software companies are putting forward where you "rent" software for a monthly fee. I prefer to pay up front, get to use the software for as long as I want, then upgrade whenever I feel like doing it. I don't know if it's true, but I've read all your files made on software rented monthly can no longer be opened if you stop paying and decide to no longer use the software. If so, you may end up screwed pretty badly in the future if your computer is full of files, but you have stopped using those "rented software".


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (May 18, 2015)

I have tried a few of these free image program, but since i shooting in raw, it`s not just raw support, if you have a small camera, the optical distortions in the images can be really bad, and a nightmare to compensate for manually as it changes depending on focal length.

Abode is the best, see if you can get an older version that supports your camera, I have bought a few camera`s that come with older version of lightroom or photoshop that people do not use, It would be great if we could give them to people who dont have the money to buy software.

I think i have Adobe Lightroom 3, i got sent two copies with my Panasonic DSLR, are they locked to that brand or model?

John.


----------



## jaycar85 (May 18, 2015)

so since i will not be a pro in a form of photo shop at the start should i still shoot in raw? other than being less compressed if it better tht jpeg if i never use editing software?


----------



## Ysarex (May 18, 2015)

jaycar85 said:


> so since i will not be a pro in a form of photo shop at the start should i still shoot in raw? other than being less compressed if it better tht jpeg if i never use editing software?



Depends on how far you go and how much you want to learn. If you do progress and become proficient your future self may really want to kick your past self for not saving those raw files now.

Shoot raw + JPEG and select from one of the free raw file converters to start: LightZone, RawTherapee, Darktable, UFraw.

LightZone and RawTherappe are very good and will edit JPEGs as well as raw files. Darktable is MAC/Unix exclusive so no version for a Windows system. Darktable is excellent software. Tutorials are available for all and you can give them a try without financial investment. You can get help here.

Joe


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (May 18, 2015)

I only shooting Raw, but you should use jpeg if you need continues shooting, you can use a free program like Instant Jpeg from Raw that extract the preview jpeg from the raw file, for Nikon RAW`s the jpeg is full sized and very nice quality for the file size, other camera brands sometimes use smaller embedded jpeg`s so try one and see.

Instant JPEG from Raw

John.


----------



## Braineack (May 18, 2015)

free online "LR": Polarr Online Photo Editor 2
free online "PS": Online Photo Editor Pixlr Editor Autodesk Pixlr


----------



## Dao (May 18, 2015)

For what I need, as a hobby, I'd choose Lightroom over photoshop if cost is a concern.  I'd a old version of photoshop and I used it in the past.  But after I bought the Lightroom, I seldom need Photoshop.    Don't get me wrong, there are  a lot of stuff that Photoshop can do that Lightroom can't.   And they both should work together.   In some occasion, I  did most of the post in LR and then launched PS from within LR and got additional modification.

As for beginner, I'll recommend Lightroom first for photo post processing.


----------



## jaycar85 (May 18, 2015)

wow talk about info over load. looks like i will be on the desk top for a couple hours when i get home go n threw all these posts and links.  thanks again every one for the info dont think i saw one bad post. cant wait to start contributing to this forum other than asking questions


----------



## otherprof (May 18, 2015)

jaycar85 said:


> all good sugestions like i said this is all new to me so all this helps. i purchased aused d7000 and it did not come with the  any software so im out of luck using the software that came with it. and i have a mac so can i still use gimp?


Have you tried iPhoto? It should be in your Mac.


----------



## miliardo (May 18, 2015)

I'd recommend RawTherapee + Gimp if you need layers...rawtherapee has lens profiles so it should correct distortions created by various lenses


----------



## jaycar85 (May 18, 2015)

"Have you tried iPhoto? It should be in your Mac"

man i havent tried anything just got the camera sat, and have taken some photos nothing more.


----------



## Don Kondra (May 18, 2015)

A lot of the software companies offer 30 day free trials periods, I'd suggest you try Adobe Photoshop Elements.  It can be had for ~ $70 on sale. 

A good free program is FastStone Image Viewer.

Cheers, Don


----------



## jaycar85 (May 18, 2015)

i guess now that i understand it a little more i retract my original thought of paying for a photo shop program. i wouldent mind paying just one time. thought of a monthly,annually payment would be a no go.


----------



## raventepes (May 18, 2015)

From all the non-Adobe products, I've been happiest with Corel Paint Shop Pro. Sometimes I actually prefer it to Photoshop. Its downside is that it's slow compared to PS, but otherwise, I can't complain. 

Gimp is decent, but I don't care for its layout and functionality. Maybe I've been using Photoshop and Paint Shop too long.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (May 19, 2015)

I have been trying the free "RawTherapee" and i am very impressed and it has lens correction profiles.

RawTherapee Features

John.


----------



## MrWrong (May 19, 2015)

I have been using Corel AfterShot Pro for my photo editing.  It is very similar to Lightroom and it works great for my needs.


----------



## NCspotter (May 19, 2015)

I have a Nikon as well, and only shoot in RAW. I've installed Nikon's View NX 2 program on my computer, which allows me to convert RAW files to JPEG. View NX 2 allows for a little bit of editing, but I haven't gotten used to it yet. I mostly use Pixlr for my edits, which is pretty powerful for a free program. You'll have to open it in your web browser though...I don't think they have a downloadable version.


----------



## chuasam (May 20, 2015)

it's only $10 a month. just pony up. It's the price of 2 Cafe Latté at Starbucks. Learn the proper software the first time and you don't have to relearn it in the future.


----------



## Microbois (May 20, 2015)

chuasam said:


> it's only $10 a month. just pony up. It's the price of 2 Cafe Latté at Starbucks. Learn the proper software the first time and you don't have to relearn it in the future.



To each is own.

It's 10$/month now, but how much will it be next year, in 3 years? This is the whole point for a company to move to a monthly payment basis, they can raise the price anytime, just like with the gas you put in your car, and you have no choice but pay as you are hooked up and dependent. It's cheap now so they can get as many people on board as possible, but eventually, price will go up. Oh, and you even drank their Kool-Aid "_it's only the price of 2 Cafe Latté at Starbucks_"... As far as being the "proper software", let me laugh. There are other alternatives that are just as good and efficient.

The only valid reason I see to go with mainstream software is if you work in the field (meaning you make income from photography), and you collaborate with your clients, or you hire helpers. Then, using the same software every professionals are using is a sound advice. You don't want to be the odd one in the corner. But if this is a hobby, there's no obligation to use what the pros are using. At this point, this is snobism.


----------



## JoeW (May 20, 2015)

First, let me put in a vote for Pixelmator.  It's especially effective with Macs (what I use).  It doesn't do everything that Photoshop does.  But it has a lot of good stuff, it's dirt cheap and allows you to do a lot of creativity with your photos.  

Second, if you really want to do Photoshop (but don't want to pay) then use GIMP (which is free and I believe open source).  It's a bit clunky but is designed to be a free public alternative to PS.

Third, Macs no longer come with iPhoto.  Their new updated program is called Photos and is an enhancement to iPhoto and I believe also replaces Aperture (I may be wrong on this last part).

My advice on programs:  it depends upon what you want to do with it.  Software is just a tool.  So asking someone "should I get a hammer?"...probably, unless what you want to do is to paint a window frame...in which case a hammer would be amazingly ineffective at that.  If what you're looking for is a program that is free to sort out large batches of photos and do modest, basic edits then Nikon's ViewNX2 program probably accomplishes that.  If you're looking for a free program to do basic edits and then display those photos (i.e.: show 'em off on your laptop while storing them on the Cloud) then Apple's Photos does that.

For right now, it's probably not wise for you to plunk down a lot of cash on a program since you're still just figuring out your camera.  At a minimum, you need something to convert from RAW (if you're shooting in that), do basic edits (crop, straighten, brighten, some erasing), store/file/archive, and then display.  And there are a lot of programs that will do those things (some may even be on your computer).  And then once you get an idea of what your big challenges are (i.e.: you shoot a ton of files and do minimal editing but need an organizational system and access vs. lots of detailed editing and creative changes to each photo vs. showing 'em all off to friends and family) that will then tell you which direction to go.


----------



## jaycar85 (May 20, 2015)

chuasam said:


> it's only $10 a month. just pony up. It's the price of 2 Cafe Latté at Starbucks. Learn the proper software the first time and you don't have to relearn it in the future.



Chuasam i know its not much,  and yeah i will probably  end up fork n out the green lol just seems like this world loves to nickle and dime you 10 a month for this 20 a month for that before you know it you got 400 month in just crap. I think ill just work with the nikon software until  i outgrow it then move up.


----------



## waday (May 20, 2015)

jaycar85 said:


> I think ill just work with the nikon software until i outgrow it then move up.


I think this is a good move, especially because you may not need all of the fancy options provided in Photoshop/Lightroom right now. 

It's the same reason why I buy cheap equipment until I can afford the nice stuff. Learn on free/cheap equipment, then upgrade when you've reached the limit of the current setup.


----------



## Microbois (May 20, 2015)

Don't mean to hijack this discussion, but people don't realize how bad it is for us, customers, to see the software industry moving towards a monthly service basis, as opposed to providing a good you purchase and use. I won't get into all the details of why software developers are taking this route, but there's nothing good in this future for us; customers. If software companies want recurring income, which is a much tougher business nowadays that software are mature technologies, there are many proven ways to acheive this goal without going to a billable monthly service. Actually, I think a monthly software rental plan can be interesting for those who need software for a brief period of time, or if you hire new employees and need more licenses, again for a short period of time, but for regular customers, this makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## The_Traveler (May 20, 2015)

Any company needs recurring income to support their business.
I had a small internet company that did policy development and training for healthcare companies.
Without subscription for training and certification yearly, my company would have disappeared.
Companies need to stay in business and $10/month for LR and PS is about 6 years equivalent to buying.

I'll bet on that.


And compared to all the other expenses of photography as a hobby, 10/month is trivial, budget dust.


----------



## Microbois (May 20, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Any company needs recurring income to support their business.
> I had a small internet company that did policy development and training for healthcare companies.
> Without subscription for training and certification yearly, my company would have disappeared.
> Companies need to stay in business and $10/month for LR and PS is about 6 years equivalent to buying.
> ...



Software companies had recurring income for more than a decade now through software assurance programs where they would supply new versions of software, and support, for as long as customers paid their yearly or monthly fees. This was also a good way for companies to budget their software expenditures. But the main flaw of such software assurance program, from the software developer's perspective, is that the customer remains owner of the product (software) forever.

The problem with the 10$/month rental program is that you are not actually purchasing a product, but a service, and a service can be interrupted, modified, cancelled, neglicted, or go up in price, etc. Your only power is to shut up and pay, or cancel your subscription if you're not happy. A "service" is treated in a totally different manner than a "product" in all consumer laws. Selling a product that would stop working automatically after one year is illegal, but it's not for a service. The elephant in the room that the uninformed public is missing here, is that by providing a service, you no longer have the power as a customer to influence the development of software. Software companies are dreaming to become utility companies in the future, but they will also take their bad habits, and considering the poor reputation of software developers, it will get ugly sooner than later.

What kills me in this whole scam is if you stop paying, all your files, at least in their native format, become unreadable and unsuable. Software developers should at least offer a paid version like before, and a monthly rental program if they wish, but moving software to this unique model is a trend we will soon regret as customers, but very few people understand this. Once again, we're all free to do whatever we want, but I'm not buying into this, and all I hope for, is this model doesn't become the only way to use software in the future. I don't even mention the aspect of having your computer talking to the servers of the software developer on a daily basis with all the possibilities it opens to have unauthorized access to our computers. All that stuff combined with cloud storage, and you are in for a very big surprise... I won't derail into privacy issues, but this is exactly where it's heading, but people just don't care as they don't understand at all what's really going on.

Please save this discussion, and let's talk about where the software industry has led us in 10 or 20 years from now. Sure, there will be some advantages, but they may not outweight the inconvenients...


----------



## The_Traveler (May 20, 2015)

Microbois said:


> Software companies had recurring income for more than a decade now through software assurance programs where they would supply new versions of software, and support, for as long as customers paid their yearly or monthly fees. This was also a good way for companies to budget their software expenditures. But the main flaw of such software assurance program, from the software developer's perspective, is that the customer remains owner of the product (software) forever.



Excellent point but software companies have the same problem as hardware companies do now, the marginal improvements aren't worth the new cost and so people stop subscribing - and the company fades, essentially because they have improved themselves out of business.



Microbois said:


> Please save this discussion, and let's talk about where the software industry has led us in 10 or 20 years from now. Sure, there will be some advantages, but they may not outweight the inconvenients...



I won't be here in 10 or 20 years and so the issue is moot for me.


----------



## pixmedic (May 20, 2015)

I dont understand how the files will be unusable if i stop my adobe subscription. 
i save the raw files on disk. so...no issues there. I can go back and edit them with any program i want down the line. 
LR and PS spits out a jpeg as my end product, which I give to clients...dont see how THEY can open and use their file when they don't have adobe and I wont be able to down the road if i quit adobe. 
im really not seeing a downside. $10 is dirt cheap for the two _*best*_ photography software programs you can get. 
I understand not "owning" the software....but its no different than leasing a car instead of buying it. you have to give the car back when you stop paying for it. same with my PS and LR.  Im fine with that.


----------



## Microbois (May 20, 2015)

The_Traveler said:


> Excellent point but software companies have the same problem as hardware companies do now, the marginal improvements aren't worth the new cost and so people stop subscribing - and the company fades, essentially because they have improved themselves out of business.



Yes, it's a known problem, but it's not unique to the software industry. In fact, it's one of today's challenges for companies in our fast changing world, but we are all in the same boat. I just don't like as a customer to consciously put my balls in the hands of the industry and hope they will do the right things for me. If software companies get a constant flow of cash, they will sit on it, and provide minimal improvements to their "service". I prefer to live in a cruel world where companies have to hire the best software engineers, heavily invest in R&D, be serious about being a market leader, and leave the final choice to customers to buy their product or not.

Just remember that a new sucker is born every minute, so there's room to sell to new customers forever. It's just that the software industry has to stop looking at double, or triple digits growth, as the norm, and accept single digit growth as normal. They may also consider lowering their prices too, as they are quite greedy. I remember several years back, I've looked at the annual report of Microsoft and their profitability was over 25%, but try to find that kind of profitability in other businesses, good luck. I guess it's shareholders first! Very often, lowering prices increase sales dramatically too...



pixmedic said:


> I dont understand how the files will be unusable if i stop my adobe subscription.
> i save the raw files on disk. so...no issues there. I can go back and edit them with any program i want down the line.
> LR and PS spits out a jpeg as my end product, which I give to clients...dont see how THEY can open and use their file when they don't have adobe and I wont be able to down the road if i quit adobe.
> im really not seeing a downside. $10 is dirt cheap for the two _*best*_ photography software programs you can get.
> I understand not "owning" the software....but its no different than leasing a car instead of buying it. you have to give the car back when you stop paying for it. same with my PS and LR. Im fine with that.



I'm not talking about the RAW or the JPG files. I'm talking about the *native* PSD file you make before you generate a JPG file. When more software are on such monthly rental program, like Microsoft Office, then your .DOC and .XLS files will become unusable, unless you are provided with a "viewer", but you won't be able to modify the file if your monthly subscription is not paid. The big problem I see with this situation, is how your archives will look like in the future, especially if you stopped using rented software for say 10 years?

If you have no problem leasing software, then please do! Sure 10$/month is dirt cheap for two mainstream photography software, but again, this is beside the point. Would you say the same thing next year if it's no longer 10$/month, but now 29.95$/month? What happens if they split LR from PS and ask 10$/month for each next year? It's open ended, and as a customer, I don't like being in that situation... Maybe you're very happy now, you drank the Kool-Aid and life is good, but will you be happy when the company takes a new direction you don't want to follow? If you decide to change boat later on, it may cost you a lot.

You say "_I understand not "owning" the software....but its no different than leasing a car instead of buying it. you have to give the car back when you stop paying for it._", but you don't understand the underlying problem. There's no problem with leasing, because you are free to lease, *or buy*, a car since it's your decision in the end. With LR and PS in the CC, you have *no choice*, and you are forced into this model, want it or not...

Once again, people are lured into attractive monthly pricing, for admittedly excellent pieces of software, but what happens next? Some people live happily not knowing what tomorrow has in reserve, I'm just not like that.


----------



## Dao (May 20, 2015)

I think one of the current trend is, especially for the new generation, not to own things.  So for those who grow up in this type of environment may not see any issue of not owning a software, songs/music, videos, games etc. Maybe in 10 -20 years later, people may say why their grandpa/grandma bought all those stuff.  They may find it strange to buy a software/music/video or store all the content themselves. 

But for me, at this moment, I still like to own.   I am old school.


----------



## pixmedic (May 20, 2015)

Microbois said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent point but software companies have the same problem as hardware companies do now, the marginal improvements aren't worth the new cost and so people stop subscribing - and the company fades, essentially because they have improved themselves out of business.
> ...




why do i care about the native PSD file when I have the raw file and the finished jpeg file?
this is a total non-issue to me.

your not "forced" into anything with adobe. don't want to lease their software? then don't. its that simple.
you can buy other software that does essentially the same thing. lots of people do professional work without using adobe products.  Adobe is not the only game in town, and does not have a monopoly on photo editing software.

If adobe jacked their prices back to the original $50 a month tomorrow, I would quit my subscription.
I would simply try a few other programs and find one that works best for me, and that would be the only significant inconvenience to me.
I would still have use of ALL my saved raw files and ALL my saved jpeg files so there is no significant loss on either my end, or past clients end.

in the _*meantime*_.... I am very happy to take advantage of having the latest PS _*and *_LR updates without having to shell out a ton of money.  I will take advantage of this deal for as long as adobe keeps that price. will it cost me money later?
it might,  I dont know. what i do know is that it _*didn't*_ cost me $800 _*right now*_. in all reality, i was using CS5 and LR4 because I didn't want to spend the money on the upgrades.
this was a great solution for me, and i suspect, plenty of other people.

for the rest, just go buy another editing program and dont worry about what Adobe is doing.
im sure Adobe has doomed itself to immediate failure with their business model the same way some people say Nikon has.


----------



## JacaRanda (May 20, 2015)

Or.....just buy it for $699 (photoshop CS6) and be happy you think you own it.
Or.....just buy it for $150 (LR6) and be happy you think you own it.


----------



## Microbois (May 20, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> why do i care about the native PSD file when I have the raw file and the finished jpeg file?
> this is a total non-issue to me.



Because all the hours of work you've put into a picture is in the PSD file! While it may not represent a big issue for you with pictures, I've used a lot of software in my life, and it would be a living nightmare if a company like Autodesk, maker of AutoCAD, would take a similar route. It would put countless projects at risk once archived.



pixmedic said:


> in the _*meantime*_.... I am very happy to take advantage of having the latest PS _*and *_LR updates without having to shell out a ton of money. I will take advantage of this deal for as long as adobe keeps that price.



This is short term thinking, but by drinking the Kool-Aid, by subscribing to the "service", and by accepting all the drawbacks, you help software companies make this business model viable. Don't worry, I'm not reproaching you anything, we live in free countries and I respect people's decisions... Seriously. But if one day we come to regret it, I'll be that old grumpy man saying : "I told ya!". LOL.



pixmedic said:


> for the rest, just go buy another editing program and dont worry about what Adobe is doing.
> im sure Adobe has doomed itself to immediate failure with their business model the same way some people say Nikon has.



Don't worry, I'm not losing sleep over what Adobe is doing with their business model. I'm using other software to edit my pictures, and I'm very satisfied. The only thing that worries me a lot is if this software monthly rental business model is here to stay, or if it will be just a temporary "blurp" in the software history. I read somewhere that the next version after Windows 10 will also be available only on a monthly basis. This sucks big time...



JacaRanda said:


> Or.....just buy it for $699 (photoshop CS6) and be happy you think you own it.
> Or.....just buy it for $150 (LR6) and be happy you think you own it.



Nope, I'm using alternatives and open source software whenever possible. The only "mainstream software" in my computer is Windows 7, but that's me...


----------



## pixmedic (May 20, 2015)

Microbois said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > why do i care about the native PSD file when I have the raw file and the finished jpeg file?
> ...




i don't get the "kool aid" reference. 
adobe offers a service I find useful, so i use it. 
when they stop offering a service i find useful, i wont use them anymore. 
I don't save PSD files. only raw and finished jpegs, so...losing adobe tomorrow would be no less detrimental to me than if i lost the use of any other product. i would just start using another. 
the hours of work i spent are saved as the hi res jpeg. if, for some reason, i need to re-edit, i would just start with the raw file. I don't spend "hours" on any single picture, so even if i needed to reedit a handful, it wouldn't be more than an hour or two...not exactly crippling for me. 

I understand...CC isn't the best solution for everyone. 
I don't get to keep the movies i watch on netflix for $8 a month. 
I don't get to keep the shows I watch on cable. 
I don't get to keep the songs i listen to on Pandora. 
I would assume you probably don't subscribe to any of those either. 
I get to use the best photo editing software on the planet, for just a little more than i pay for netflix. 
right now, for me, that's a far better option than settling for a lesser program and batching system just for the privilege of "owning" it. 

if that's "drinking the kool aid",  pour me another round.


----------



## Microbois (May 20, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> I understand...CC isn't the best solution for everyone.



I don't have a dog in this fight, nor do I really care as I've been a long time and happy user of alternative and open source software. Even my own choice is not for everyone, just as CC is not for everyone either. The only reason why I brought up this software rental business model, it's because I know a few big cheeses in the software industry, and I know exactly where all this is going, and chose not to be part of it, that's it. All I hope for is it doesn't sink the whole industry in this rental model only. I also happen to know what kind of data is coming back to the software developer during updates, upgrades, activation, etc.



pixmedic said:


> I don't get to keep the movies i watch on netflix for $8 a month.
> I don't get to keep the shows I watch on cable.
> I don't get to keep the songs i listen to on Pandora.
> I would assume you probably don't subscribe to any of those either.



You are confusing a few things here... TV shows, musics, and movies are "content", but software is a "tool", not content. I'm not the type of guy to go out and buy movies, but I like to purchase my tools once, and have them when I need them.

By the way, you say you don't get why I refer to the Kool-Aid expression. I never looked up the definition until now on Wikipedia : _Drinking the Kool-Aid is a figure of speech commonly used in North America that *refers to a person or group holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination*.* It could also refer to knowingly going along with a doomed or dangerous idea because of peer pressure.* *It can also be used ironically or humorously to refer to accepting an idea or changing a preference due to popularity, peer pressure, or persuasion.*_

Couldn't be more dead on! LOL.


----------



## JacaRanda (May 20, 2015)

I like it.  A definition that can be applied either way.  It's hard to tell who drank it.


----------



## pixmedic (May 20, 2015)

Microbois said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I understand...CC isn't the best solution for everyone.
> ...



wouldn't you rather buy a movie on CD and "own it" instead of just "leasing" it?
i would rather own a movie that will never be changed, and lease a "tool" that requires constant updates and needs to be replaced every year or two.  

please explain  how how it is "doomed" since you don't know.  people have been saying Nikon is doomed for years.
please explain how it is "without critical examination" when i have reviewed all the editing options i had available and choose the best software at an affordable price which seemed to suit me best. 
I did my research. I looked at other options. Corel, Gimp, paintshop pro, ACDSee...
my belief in CC being the best choice for me was not unquestioned or unresearched. it certainly wasn't the "popular" choice when I got it, and there was definitely no peer pressure or persuasion. 

by the wiki definition of the "kool aid expression", im afraid you couldn't be more wrong about me, as none of the definitions are accurate in my situation. perhaps you have it backwards, and you are just against the CC on naive principle against subscriptions, and not due to any actual factual concerns or critical thinking.  perhaps you are the one who has drunk the kool aid. (which, honestly....sounds like a horrible Jim Jones reference..)

Lightroom AND Photoshop for $120 a year. 
way cheaper than buying the newest versions every 2 years. 
and when the time finally comes that adobe either raises the price, or stops the CC....ill just move on to whatever suits me best at the time.


----------



## Microbois (May 20, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> I like it. A definition that can be applied either way. It's hard to tell who drank it.



Indeed! Mouhahahahaha!

I have to step out pixmedic, but hold on, I'll reply to you later tonight. This is a very interesting and funny discussion.


----------



## pixmedic (May 20, 2015)

Microbois said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > I like it. A definition that can be applied either way. It's hard to tell who drank it.
> ...



indeed.
dont be too late, i gotta be on shift early tomorrow.


----------



## sashbar (May 20, 2015)

LightZone Open-source digital darkroom software for Windows Mac Linux


----------



## Microbois (May 20, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> wouldn't you rather buy a movie on CD and "own it" instead of just "leasing" it?
> i would rather own a movie that will never be changed, and lease a "tool" that requires constant updates and needs to be replaced every year or two.



That's a funny and unexpected twist you've got there, but I guess I think differently. Aside from a few classics, I never understood why people buy movies. Once you have seen it once, either at the cinema or on TV, I don't feel like watching it again before several years, and sometimes never. I'm not a 3 years old who can watch the same movie 50 times in a row. Buying a movie I've never seen before, just to have it, will gather dust until I give it away or throw it away. I guess it's a different story if you have a home theater and you can have a bunch of friends over. Not my cup of tea though.



pixmedic said:


> please explain how how it is "doomed" since you don't know. people have been saying Nikon is doomed for years.
> please explain how it is "without critical examination" when i have reviewed all the editing options i had available and choose the best software at an affordable price which seemed to suit me best.
> I did my research. I looked at other options. Corel, Gimp, paintshop pro, ACDSee...
> my belief in CC being the best choice for me was not unquestioned or unresearched. it certainly wasn't the "popular" choice when I got it, and there was definitely no peer pressure or persuasion.



I don't know about the doom prophecies of Nikon, but I do know that we are getting into a whole new world if the monthly rental software business model becomes successful. Just to make the record straight, I use to work as an IT director for a large architect firm, and it was my job to negociate software acquisition with all the big names in town (Autodesk, Microsoft, Adobe, etc.). So, what you will read down there is not just from thin air or how I see it in my crystal ball...

But let me start with an analogy with something that happened in the last few decades, but relates to the current story. I won't get too much in details as you will see exactly where I'm going. You remember when most of the stuff we bought were made in North America? Yes, the stuff was more expensive, but it was often of much better quality, lasted longer, and it was made not too far from where you lived. People had good paying jobs in factories and could afford what they were making (sounds familiar?). Today, most of the stuff we buy is made overseas, the quality has suffered, and more than half of the Americans today work for retail stores at minimum wage. On the bright side, the stuff we buy has never been any cheaper than now, but we have lost our good jobs. See, there are 2 sides to a coin... Depending on which side of the fence you are, maybe you are suffering today, or maybe you're laughing all the way to the bank.

Back to the monthly rental software program... As it was mentioned before, software companies had a hard time competing against their own older version as customer would not upgrade just to get a few marginal improvements. The reason to move to a monthly rental program is to transform the "product" into a "service", to have recurring incomes. If priced right, it's also easier on the wallet. So far, everyone wins right? I think we all agree on this.

Right now, all you are looking at is the attractive price of 10$/month for 2 great pieces of software, and it's unquestionable that it's a great deal. My reference to you _drinking the Kool-Aid_ is simply that you are just contributing to the creation of a new paradigm in the software industry. If no one was buying into the CC, Adobe would stop, right? Now, as you mentioned it yourself earlier, you keep your RAW and JPG files, and if you ever decide to stop your subscription, there will be little harm. True enough, but the problem is elsewhere, it's the fact that this software rental model will grow, and if Adobe is successful at it, guess what? All the major software companies will follow, Microsoft already announced they will be doing this with the version following Windows 10. Now, think a little bit in the future at a wider scale, not just your little person using LR and PS for 10$/month, and try to envision people using databases, writing articles, creating drawings, etc. If their files must be reused or accessible over several years, can you imagine the kind of power software companies have over those using their products? I mean they have the power to make your archives unaccessible unless you pay them a monthly fee, and that monthly fee is set by whom? The software industry is not regulated like other utility companies. And guess what, this isn't recent news... Back in the early 2000's, when I had those sales managers of Autodesk and Microsoft in my office, we were discussing exactly that rental model. So, I'm not new to this, and I knew it was coming long before anyone here.

The second problem we get into is software companies receving monthly payments have a captive customer base and that will totally change their work dynamic as they are no longer forced to compete everyday. Remove competition from the equation, and what do you get? They will implement a few changes here and there to show that they are doing something, but globally, they will slow down innovation by a large margin. They are already big, but will get even bigger, and slower. Where do innovation will come from? Small startup companies that they will acquire and integrate to their product line, maybe. I've seen it happening in other businesses, software is not any different. By the way, did you know that 85% of the cost you are paying for CRM/ERP solutions is used to pay the expenses incurred to sell you that solution (marketing material, hotel room, plane tickets, meals, sales rep salaries and commissions, etc.). Less than 15% goes into R&D... Yup, and it's probably not any different with our big players.

The third reason why software rental is bad, as I mentioned before, those companies are big and they are in some ways monopolies. I mean, as an IT director, when your company has been using Microsoft Word for the last 15 or 20 years, moving to another software is simply not an option. First, you'll get a lot of resistance internally from employees, all your archives become suddenly not fully compatible, the cost of retraining is significant, and if you collaborate and exchange documents with partners, you can't afford to be the only one working with software no one use. So, put a huge software company in a situation of monopoly offering subscription to mission critical software for a monthly fee for as long as you pay. Now, tell me seriously that this is not a threat to your company when all the control of your software infrastructure is in the hands of another company...

Now, let's get back to my example of products made overseas and which killed quality jobs here in North America (if you don't beleive me, read the book "Cheap - The High Cost of Discount Culture"). All those times where we bought in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, products based on price alone, regardless of where there were made or their quality, we slowly dug the graves of our own North-American workers. Back then, if we had made the decision of buying more products made locally, and shell out that extra 10$, then your neighbor would probably still have his machinist job at the factory, instead of working at Wal-Mart at minimum wage. While not exactly the same threat, drinking the 10$/month Kool-Aid will just bring what I've described above. Oh ya sure, it's only 10$/month for now, but what will we loose in return in 5 or 10 years from now?

Now, of course, maybe those big software companies will behave properly, charge reasonable monthly fees, not abuse their position, and my doom prophecies will never happen, I sincerely hope so. Maybe this business model will revolutionize the industry, give access to great software for "budget dust" as someone said here, and I can be completly wrong, but I have no reason to beleive this will be in favor of customers. Call me a pessimist, but I prefer to give my money to those smaller software companies that still believe in making a great product before making a lot of money. Software is a product, not a service.

I guess I'm not the only idiot thinking this way :

I Have to Rent My Software Now How Does That Work - Scientific American
Steve Wozniak Cloud Computing Will Cause Horrible Problems In The Next Five Years - Business Insider
Photoshop CC modest upgrades shackled to terrible rental model Ars Technica
Petition Adobe Systems Incorporated Eliminate the mandatory creative cloud subscription model. Change.org


----------



## Dao (May 21, 2015)

I think we need to looking at software product differently.  A product that is for general consumer or a product that is geared toward professional or commercial/business.   Let take an example. in mid 90s, if someone like to host a internet server using Windows NT, they or someone need to buy the NT server.  

After using it for few years, a new version come out and they may need to buy it again due to new features.  So for those business who need to stay in the game will need to pay 9 hundred to a thousand every few years.  Of course, some will stay behind for the longest they can until the point they have no choice.  However, the long they wait, the harder the upgrade. 

I believe that is one of the main reason MS was losing ground in internet server business to open source Linux model.  High up front cost and need to pay again in few years.   I saw business rewrite their site/code to move to open source platform.  Linux server installation in our Data center far exceed Windows based server.    So in early 2000s (forget exactly when), MS started to offer Windows Server (either Windows Server 2000 or 2003) leasing to customer.  So customers only need to pay a monthly fee to lease the OS or DB server.  And if they decided to upgrade to a newly version, the monthly cost stay the same.  And that really help those who want to stay with MS technology.

Back to Photo touching software.  I believe Photoshop CS or most of the high end Adoble products are designed for professional, not for regular consumer.  I'll assume a design firm may choose software subscription over purchase the software again and again due to version upgrade.   Of course, the company can just buy a Photoshop CS6 and be done with it for the next 10 - 15 years as their competitors always using the latest version with more latest features. 

Photography is my hobby, so I am fine with older version which can do what I need to do.  May not be as efficient, but that fine with me.   However, if I am doing it professionally, I may choose subscription model as long as the cost is right and new and better feature are coming.

Of course, it will be nice if Adobe offer 2 models for Photoshop.  (Subscription and purchase)  But I believe their target audience are business that prefer subscription.  Majority of the consumer who buy their product for photo touching most likely are the one who buy Photoshop Elements instead.


----------



## Microbois (May 21, 2015)

Dao said:


> So customers only need to pay a monthly fee to lease the OS or DB server. And if they decided to upgrade to a newly version, the monthly cost stay the same.



I totally agree with everything you say. The only thing I can't stand from the actual CC model, is that it's now a "service", and no longer a product that you can buy or lease. Back in my days as an IT director, I made a lot of deals with Autodesk and Microsoft so we would pay our licenses on a montly basis, during which we would receive updates and new versions, but this was contracts spanning over 2 or 3 years, and we remained owner of the software purchased at the end (or leased whatever you call it). If for any reasons we decided to stop after the deal was over, then we would keep those licenses, and they would still be functional for as long as we kept the same generation of computers/OS/software. I don't see why software companies can't continue this model that offered them exactly what they needed, a recurring income.

That being said, I don't discount the software monthly rental model as per say. I think it could be very useful, for instance, if you need to hire a bunch of people for a project lasting 6 months. You already owe licenses for your core employees, and then you rent monthly those extra licenses you need for a short period of time. It can even be beneficial to individuals who needs good software for a short period of time, just like you can rent a car, or a 150$K cine-camera to shoot a movie.

If companies want to move to a new paradigm of offering software services for a monthly fee, it's because they know all too well that they are no longer capable of delivering major upgrades with lots of new and powerful features. Maybe, in a near future, technology will evolve in a totally new direction, and there will be lots of room to adapt existing software to the new technology, but at the moment, I don't see anything close to that at first sight.


----------



## Buckster (May 21, 2015)

Microbois said:


> The only thing I can't stand from the actual CC model, is that it's now a "service", and no longer a product that you can buy or lease.


Yeah, we understand where you're coming from.  You're not the first to voice that opinion.  Nonetheless, even after most of us have hashed through this same conversation with others over the past couple of years and examined it thoroughly from all sides, points and counterpoints, pros and cons, it turns out that many of us don't have a problem at all that it's now a "service" and no longer a product that we can buy or lease.

As for you, it's simple: don't use it.  There are lots of alternatives out there for you and anyone else who doesn't like it for any reason, or no reason at all.  No need to justify it with anyone - do as you will on that score.

You're preaching about this like it's a religion and any of us who don't believe what you do are going to consumer Hell or something.  I don't know about anyone else, but it's not swaying me a bit.  I paid full price for many years for every Photoshop upgrade that Adobe came out with, and all I had to do was a bit of basic math to know that I'll take this over that any day of the week.  

Somewhere on old hard drives and backup disks, I have every "owned" copy of Photoshop I ever "bought" outright.  Several thousand dollars worth of them.  But even if Adobe went out of business tomorrow, I'd never pull them out, reinstall them and use them again, so what good is the fact that I "own" them?  That's always been the problem with "owning" something that has a limited useful life to it.  I only care to have it while it's still useful to me, not until I die and can pass it on to my kids, and then they can pass it on to their kids, and so on.

I bought my Jeep outright, so I own it.  That doesn't mean it will last me forever though.  When it's sitting somewhere rusting away on flat tires or rims and unable to even start, what good will it do me that I "own" it?

That's what those many "owned" versions of Photoshop I have are to me today - rusting old software that I "own", like that means anything at this point.

If old software is all you need and all you will EVER need to get the job done, then just buy the old software and be done with it.

But for those of us who want more up to date features and benefits than old software can deliver to work with, it's an ongoing cost to us, either way; Big bucks per upgrade, or little bucks per month, which turns out to be much less expensive than the upgrades were.


----------



## Microbois (May 21, 2015)

Buckster said:


> You're preaching about this like it's a religion and any of us who don't believe what you do are going to consumer Hell or something.



I'm not a preacher, nor there's consumer Hell waiting for you. I just raised up the issue because that's what discussion forums are all about. I think I've been respectful for other's opinion so far, even if they are opposite to mine, but I'd like to remind you that this is a discussion forum here, so if we must all say the same, there's no discussion. You are defending very well your decision to drink Adobe's 10$/month Kool-Aid, and you are happy to do so, so please just keep going. I think this discussion can be useful to anyone who's on the fence right now, as to weither get a CC subscription or not, and my opinion on the subject, just as those who disagree here, may be helpful to make a decision.



Buckster said:


> Somewhere on old hard drives and backup disks, I have every "owned" copy of Photoshop I ever "bought" outright. Several thousand dollars worth of them. But even if Adobe went out of business tomorrow, I'd never pull them out, reinstall them and use them again, so what good is the fact that I "own" them? That's always been the problem with "owning" something that has a limited useful life to it. I only care to have it while it's still useful to me, not until I die and can pass it on to my kids, and then they can pass it on to their kids, and so on.



Here's another slanted opinion that misses my point entirely. What's important is not to hold on to your old copies of Photoshop so you can put them on your will. Older versions of software are useless. Do you realize by paying for a software you will never owe shifts the power from the customer to the software manufacturer? As a consumer, manufacturers have to make goods that will entice you to buy them. If you feel it's too expensive, or doesn't respond to your needs, you can decide not to buy. As a consumer, you have the power on your side for as long as the money is in your hands. This is the most important incentive software manufacturers have to keep coming out with new useful features and invest heavily in R&D. By paying every month for a service, it's open ended as to what manufacturers will do next, how much they will charge, and you have no say on that end. Heck, they may even come out with an update that will require you to add more RAM to your computer! Sure, you can cancel your subscription at any time, but since the product you are renting monthly are mainstrean software, those software manufacturers are in a technical situation of monopoly. I'd just like to remind you that monopolies are illegal, and for many good reasons.

You see the current situation in your own personal perspective by paying a pleasing 10$/month for a duo of great professional software, but just like that guy who picks a cheap screwdriver made overseas instead of a better American made screwdriver for couple dollars more, you are contributing to a business model that will lead to a lot of problems later without caring for the consequences later. We make a lot of decisions with our purchase decisions, but I assume that all that really counts for you now is to have LR and PS at 10$/month?


----------



## pixmedic (May 21, 2015)

Microbois said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > You're preaching about this like it's a religion and any of us who don't believe what you do are going to consumer Hell or something.
> ...



Well poo....i was looking forward to consumer Hell....
You keep assuming there will be dire concequences later, and you could be right,  but there's really no way to say which way this business model will go. You are implying that because we don't subscribe to your "theory", we don't care about the future. You also seem to keep assuming that anyone choosing adobe CC either did no research for themselves, or remain willfully ignorant of what is "best" for the market. Perhaps this isn't the message you are trying to convey,  but that's kinda how it is appearing. Why do you assume that our decision to get adobe CC us strictly based on price? I paid full price for CS5 and LR4 so I am well accustomed to paying for Adobe products. Why isn't it perfectly feasible that we simply researched all our options and came to the conclusion that adobe is the best product for us? 

I suppose, just for the sake of playing devils advocate here, I will say that by NOT going to a subscription service,  you are perpetuating a market that encourages software piracy and illegal sales.


----------



## table1349 (May 21, 2015)

Here you go medic.


----------



## Derrel (May 21, 2015)

I want to point out that when Adobe suddenly announced the $50 a month "rental" program, I was one of the loudest and most persistent voices to condemn their announced price point--over,and over,and over. Meanwhile, we had a few people on this site who acted like shills for Adobe, trying to portray $50 a month in-perpetuity as "a good deal". Well...as it turned out, the shills were overruled by the larger base of Adobe customers, and the $50-a-month extortion gave way to $9.95 a month for Photoshop CC AND Lightroom.

Adobe's attempt to extort $50 a month out of millions of customers, in perpetuity, is the exact type of move that has made Thom Hogan start recommending Pixelmator as a Photoshop alternative.


----------



## Microbois (May 21, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> You are implying that because we don't subscribe to your "theory", *we don't care about the future*. You also seem to keep assuming that anyone choosing adobe CC either did no research for themselves, or *remain willfully ignorant of what is "best" for the market*. Perhaps this isn't the message you are trying to convey, but that's kinda how it is appearing.



You got that right, it's pretty much what I'm saying.



pixmedic said:


> Why isn't it perfectly feasible that we simply researched all our options and came to the conclusion that adobe is the best product for us?



You are confusing a few things here again. I think LR and PS are the best and most powerful photography software you can purchase today, and I understand why some people want those programs. But you could have kept your last paid version and refused to drink Adobe's Kool-Aid. Then, it would have sent a strong signal to Adobe that this business model is not desired by its customer base. By being lured into a cheap monthly price, you voluntary drank the Kool-Aid, and can't care less about the future (you said it). I personally use open source and alternative software because it's plenty enough for my needs and a fraction of the cost of Adobe's products, but if I was a full time photographer working with art directors of important clients, of course I wouldn't waste my time with any other software than LR and PS. I also understand that hobby photographers want to use LR and PS if they can afford it, it's their choice.



pixmedic said:


> I suppose, just for the sake of playing devils advocate here, I will say that by NOT going to a subscription service, you are perpetuating a market that encourages software piracy and illegal sales.



Well, as long as software is installed in your computer, it's possible to pirate it. I haven't checked, but I've read that CC has been pirated long ago. Actually, just type "Adobe CC" in Google and see one of the first word added automatically ... Yup, it's "crack", so I'm pretty sure cracks exist. The only way to prevent piracy will be to have a hosted application on Adobe's server, until then piracy will remain present.

On another note, and we're are certainly all different, I tend to keep my computer for as long as I can. I'm obviously not the type to always want the best and shell out money to get it right away. I see computers and software like tools, and I don't replace my cordless drill every 6 months just because a new model has 50 in-lb more torque than my actual drill. I have no problem working with software one or two versions behind. So, every couple years, I buy a new computer, and update the software I use and want to keep. As a former IT guy, I've long understood that to acheive the best performances, it's better to keep software and hardware within the same 1-2 years generation. Once you start mixing old software with new OS and new hardware, or vice-versa, glitches and bugs arise. That being said, my computer is more than 4 years old, still very powerful to edit photos and HD video, and judging from that I won't upgrade it for another 1-2 years, maybe even 3 years. So yes, I skip versions, and even if I decided to drink the Kool-Aid anyway, it would probably turn out to be more expensive that way for me.

Software, hardware, cameras, lenses, are just tools involved in the process of creating images. If those "tools" do exactly what you want, and they are paid off, what's the incentive to spend money just to get the latest and end up doing the same work as before? Can you tell me only one feature in CC that is now essential to your workflow, but you couldn't do in earlier versions?


----------



## Buckster (May 21, 2015)

Microbois said:


> your decision to drink Adobe's 10$/month Kool-Aid


You should stop using this insult.  And yes, it is an insult.  Please stop.



Microbois said:


> my opinion on the subject, just as those who disagree here, may be helpful to make a decision.


The OP of THIS thread is someone looking for alternatives to PS and LR, so he doesn't need to be dissuaded from it.  He's already looking for alternatives, and others were helping him with that.  You're overreaction to someone asking him why not PS and LR, which he could easily have answered himself, has hijacked the thread and started this argument, and both are entirely unnecessary, ESPECIALLY since it's been hashed and rehashed countless times already for more than 2 years since Adobe went with the CC model.



Microbois said:


> Here's another slanted opinion that misses my point entirely. What's important is not to hold on to your old copies of Photoshop so you can put them on your will. Older versions of software are useless.


Exactly.  So what good is it to "own" that which is useless?  People don't.  They don't continue to use old software.  They upgrade.  They buy new.  They pay.  Again.  And again.  And again.  It's a myth that a subscription service keeps costing you but buying and owning doesn't, since buying and owning only lasts until the next buy and own cycle of the product.  It's a red herring to continue to act like the subscription model is the bogeyman simply because it's an ongoing subscription.  It's like whining that food is a subscription since we have to keep buying it over and over and over again, or we'll starve to death.



Microbois said:


> Do you realize by paying for a software you will never owe shifts the power from the customer to the software manufacturer? As a consumer, manufacturers have to make goods that will entice you to buy them. If you feel it's too expensive, or doesn't respond to your needs, you can decide not to buy. As a consumer, you have the power on your side for as long as the money is in your hands. This is the most important incentive software manufacturers have to keep coming out with new useful features and invest heavily in R&D. By paying every month for a service, it's open ended as to what manufacturers will do next, how much they will charge, and you have no say on that end. Heck, they may even come out with an update that will require you to add more RAM to your computer! Sure, you can cancel your subscription at any time, but since the product you are renting monthly are mainstrean software, those software manufacturers are in a technical situation of monopoly. I'd just like to remind you that monopolies are illegal, and for many good reasons.


Yeah, yeah, yeah... They'll be coming to get my first-born and take my car too someday.  They'll never update the software.  It'll just stagnate, and all of us users will stagnate along with it.  Because of it, the economy will tank, Adobe will go out of business, and all our computers will implode right after we realize that suddenly without warning all our PSD files can't be read by anything anymore, including the various programs not made by Adobe that can read them now, and even pull out the various layers from them.  Then you informed lot who walked around with your sandwich boards, bullhorns and signs screaming the end is near will be proclaimed right, and hailed as the seers you obviously are.

WTF EVAR.

When it happens, you can say you told us so.  Meanwhile, there's no sign that any of that "consumer Hell" you keep describing and alluding to and preaching about is going to happen any time soon, so I'm not going to worry a lot about it.



Microbois said:


> You see the current situation in your own personal perspective by paying a pleasing 10$/month for a duo of great professional software, but just like that guy who picks a cheap screwdriver made overseas instead of a better American made screwdriver for couple dollars more,


Show me that cheap American BETTER made Photoshop and LR solution that will last FOREVER without EVER needing an upgrade or replacement and is just a few dollars more, so that I can replace this cheap, overseas-made horrible PS and LR software that will no doubt break any minute, RIGHT when I NEED it most.

And then I'll be ready to buy any bridges you have handy that are for sale.



Microbois said:


> ...you are contributing to a business model that will lead to a lot of problems later without caring for the consequences later. We make a lot of decisions with our purchase decisions, but I assume that all that really counts for you now is to have LR and PS at 10$/month?


What counts for me is that I have the latest, greatest (IMHO) software for my needs, and that means PS and LR.  As I stated earlier, I paid full price for MANY years to get it, and now I pay less.  If CC hadn't come along and the price wasn't less, I'd STILL be paying the full upgrade price every time adobe popped out a new upgrade.  So, no, it's not all about the money.

On the other hand, since I'm NOT rich and money and budget ARE things I have to actually deal with in the real world I live in, I'm certainly LIKING that it now costs me LESS than it ever has before to use those programs that I WANT to use, CHOOSE to use, and was always willing to pay MORE for in order to continue to use the latest greatest versions of them.  Believe it or not, I'm informed enough to know there ARE other software solutions out there, have actually tried some of them over the years, and I still CHOOSE to use PS and LR, as is my right.

Now go parade around in front of Walmart with a bullhorn and a sign that tells people not to shop there because it's ruining the economy and their futures.  It's true, but guess what?  You're not going to change a thing with that sign and bullhorn.  They're going to keep right on shopping at Walmart right there in front of you, and across the land.  You might as well be standing on a beach with a bucket trying to turn the tide with it while shouting at the other people lounging about and swimming about how bad it will be someday when that beach has eroded away.

If and when that happens, they'll just go to a different beach.  And if all your dire prophesies come true, we'll just go to a different software.


----------



## jaycar85 (May 21, 2015)

Buckster said:


> The OP of THIS thread is someone looking for alternatives to PS and LR, so he doesn't need to be dissuaded from it.



Lol my answer has been made a long time ago  

If i knew how to put in the caption in with Michael Jackson eating popcorn i would.
Im just honored my 3rd post on this forum  started a fight


----------



## Buckster (May 21, 2015)

Derrel said:


> we had a few people on this site who acted like shills for Adobe, trying to portray $50 a month in-perpetuity as "a good deal". Well...as it turned out, the shills were overruled by the larger base of Adobe customers, and the $50-a-month extortion gave way to $9.95 a month for Photoshop CC AND Lightroom.


*NAME* the so-called "shills", as you've called them numerous times on this forum. Provide their actual quotes.  Link to the threads where it happened.  Or will that challenge go unanswered yet again?

It sure is easy to make claims and call people names if you don't have to back it up, eh?


----------



## Microbois (May 21, 2015)

Buckster said:


> What counts for me is that I have the latest, greatest (IMHO) software for my needs, and that means PS and LR. As I stated earlier, I paid full price for MANY years to get it, and now I pay less. If CC hadn't come along and the price wasn't less, I'd STILL be paying the full upgrade price every time adobe popped out a new upgrade. So, no, it's not all about the money.



Buckster, seriously... If you systematically upgrade to new versions of LR and PS, without ever questioning if you really need the features in the new version or not, well it's obviously your choice and your money, but for many of us, we just think differently about software acquisition. I don't have to have the latest and the greatest. Can you conceive as possible that someone might not be interested in upgrading his software? Now I understand why you took offense when I mentioned _drinking the Kool-Aid_. Looks like you had a lot of it already, so you are intoxicated. Hey ho! This is meant as a joke buddy, Ok? Take it easy!

I could also feel insulted by the way you paint me with a bullhorn and a sign yelling at people that the end is near, but don't worry, I have a very thick skin, and can take a lot of bashing. I can explain, debate, express ideas, share opinions, discuss intelligently, and I'm open minded too, so someone can help me change my mind on some issues if their reasoning is sound and logic. I like to poke fun a little bit (Kool-Aid thing) to keep discussion on a light tone, but I remain respectful of the opinions expressed by others. I also understand that people make choices and I respect those choices, but I'm always deceived when I'm attacked by those who don't think like me. It's always the same tactics; they attack me personally, and not my ideas, they don't open up on their own decision process, and more often than not, they read my responses way too quick and don't grasp any subtilities so their replies are always a bit off. Should I be surprised?


----------



## Derrel (May 21, 2015)

Photoshop...I got into it at version 2.5, back when the "most powerful home computers" were Mac Quadras that cost huge sums, and the app barely worked at a snail's pace. Before the world wide web. Upgrades over the years from 1992 to roughly 2007 for me were like $149,$149,$199, $249.

Adobe suddenly pulling an extortion demand of $50 a month for life out of their A$$ meant that what had been a $149 to $199 for three to four year run of each version would be $1,800 for three years. I know when a large company is trying to a**-ream me. Seem like some people don't think things through very much,and like bending over. Buuuut the vast majority of Adobe customers stood up and said, "Waaaaaait one God*****d minute here...your product is NOT worth that much money!"

And so, Adobe caved to pressure from people who didn't want to bend over and take it. And their attempt to extract $50 a month, $600 a year, six f*****g THOUSAND dollars per decade from millions of the people who helped build their company, fell flat.

Huhhh...amazing how that worked out...turns out it was only worth five DOLLARS a month to most people...and five bucks more if Lightroom was thrown in as an inducement...


----------



## snowbear (May 21, 2015)

jaycar85 said:


> Im just honored my 3rd post on this forum  started a fight


Sometimes that doesn't take too much effort.


----------



## bribrius (May 21, 2015)

have some faith in free competition and capitalism. If too many softwares go to monthly more will pop up you can outright buy. Long as there is customers the products will be created. So if enough people dislike renting the software, more will seek alternatives. And the market will respond.


Putting all that aside, 
the references to alternative in this thread have been informative and helpful. This is probably one of the more helpful threads i have seen lately on here. Everyone that added informative input and links to alternative softwares give themselves a pat on the back.


----------



## table1349 (May 21, 2015)

snowbear said:


> jaycar85 said:
> 
> 
> > Im just honored my 3rd post on this forum  started a fight
> ...


jaycar.... Don't be too honored.  For your 25th post we take you out back and crucify you.  

For your 30th Terri gets into the act.  

p.s.  remember to call her Mistress Terri, otherwise,  well lets just say that Neosporin won't help those wounds.


----------



## Derrel (May 21, 2015)

And, uhhhh, he's serious about that "Mistress Terri" title....


----------



## pixmedic (May 21, 2015)

Don't make me break out the "vintage medical equipment"


----------



## snowbear (May 21, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> Don't make me break out the "vintage medical equipment"


without grease


----------



## table1349 (May 22, 2015)

snowbear said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Don't make me break out the "vintage medical equipment"
> ...


Grease /  Smease.....Medic is a major share holder in the company that makes ....






Notice the pretty medical emblem on the label???


----------



## Derrel (May 22, 2015)

"bedroom tested. doctor recommended"  Welllllllllll nowwwww....


----------



## table1349 (May 22, 2015)

Derrel said:


> "bedroom tested. doctor recommended"  Welllllllllll nowwwww....


How do you think ole Medic can slide em into the back of that Ambulance so easy.  

Astroglide,  with it you actully can put a camel through the eye of a needle.


----------



## sleist (May 22, 2015)

snowbear said:


> jaycar85 said:
> 
> 
> > Im just honored my 3rd post on this forum  started a fight
> ...



Sometimes?


----------



## snowbear (May 22, 2015)

sleist said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > jaycar85 said:
> ...


I didn't want to disappoint the noob.  He seems very proud for something as common as this


----------



## Derrel (May 22, 2015)

Too bad our newcomer didn't arrive with a bunch of selfies done while wearing a fedora and a letterman's jacket...


----------



## Microbois (May 22, 2015)

Let's get back at it for a minute... Argh, I hate being right all the time... Here's another twist to this software rental thing : GM says you don t own your car you just license it - Boing Boing

Now, try to tell me that it's a good thing.

I'm waiting...


----------



## Buckster (May 22, 2015)

Microbois said:


> Let's get back at it for a minute... Argh, I hate being right all the time... Here's another twist to this software rental thing : GM says you don t own your car you just license it - Boing Boing
> 
> Now, try to tell me that it's a good thing.
> 
> I'm waiting...


It's the same answer that you get regarding Adobe: Don't like the way a company does business?  Don't deal with that company.  Use something else.

Wow.  That was hard to figure out.

ETA: As complex as modern vehicles just coming out now are, what with their integrated computer systems controlling SO much, I personally wouldn't WANT anyone but someone certified by the manufacturer to work on it.  I don't need the neighborhood goober "tinkering" with it so that it becomes a rolling deathtrap without anyone realizing it until it's too late.


----------



## pixmedic (May 22, 2015)

Microbois said:


> Let's get back at it for a minute... Argh, I hate being right all the time... Here's another twist to this software rental thing : GM says you don t own your car you just license it - Boing Boing
> 
> Now, try to tell me that it's a good thing.
> 
> I'm waiting...




its a good thing.






seriously though. chillax Mr. doom and gloom.
companies ask for a lot of things all the time. doesn't mean they get it. if you seriously believe that would actually go through,  your drinking way too much of the conspiracy kool aid.


----------

