# I LOVE PHOTOSHOP...



## masquerad101 (Jul 4, 2013)

(pitty I wont be using it any more)

Ok ok, so I know that this has now become as big a question as " Nikon vs Canon, Family Guy vs American Dad, Terminator vs Robocop or... Is Tom cruise Gay? <-(Who cares? I'm a fan) So hear goes!

Now that Photoshop CS6 is now PS CC and is now on a monthly subscription based format I for one will refuse to use it, if not just for the rediculus idea of renting software, also because I simply cannot afford to have any more DD (Direct Debits) coming out of my account. So where do we/I go from here? There is an abundance of free image editing software out there but are they any good? And what about the cheaper than photoshop software? Can It cut the mustard? 
I mean For the last 7 Years Ive struggled to learn the various techniques on PS,Ive spent a small fortune on PS magazines and CS software, Ive honed my skills and have gained confidence in my image editing abilities in PS. I started with Photoshop CS2 and went from there all the way through to CS6 and now they tell me they want to line my pockets on a monthly basis! 

Anyone else feel like Adobe just hit them a kick in the nuts/lady garden? 

The only options I can see as a windows user is GIMP and Serifphoto plusx6 but how can I expect to just switch to a lesser software and maintain the high standards That I spent the best part of a decade learning? I expect that this (how I feel) is how film photographers felt when digital photography spread like a fire through a closed box of matches! Or how DJS felt when the format went to laptops rather than Vinal decks. (Still hurting from that transition) 
The only thing I can hope for is that Adobe listen to there customers and release a stand alone photographers software? Please? Is that too much to ask for?

Feel free to jump in and set the record straight for Adobe If your in agreeance with the future, but the problem is not all photographers have broadband and or cash to spend on monthly subscriptions. I mean my mortgadge is in access of £450 and my rates are £125. Thats per month. then you have to take into consideration my utility bills...electric, oil, food and clothes and not to mention my child and wife to look after! I mean just where are we suposed to get the cash from? 
Come on Adobe, Wise up! Listen to the masses?

Anyone else got any input on this?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 4, 2013)

Lets see.... $9.99 (US) a month is going to destroy using Photoshop?   Membership plans: Pricing, upgrades, and subscriptions | Adobe Creative Cloud   (Is it higher overseas or something?)




I could see this only being a problem for those that downloaded it illegally, and don't own a legitimate serial number for it.

Especially when buying CS6 is not cheap ($600.00 plus), which would be what... FIVE years of the subscription price.

This whole subscription thing would have probably never happened if it wasn't for the software thieves that were downloading it for free right and left....


----------



## SCraig (Jul 4, 2013)

Why not just keep using CS6?  They aren't going to charge you for that.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 4, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Lets see.... $9.99 (US) a month is going to destroy using Photoshop?   Membership plans: Pricing, upgrades, and subscriptions | Adobe Creative Cloud
> 
> View attachment 49181
> 
> ...



riiight. and if noone pirated movies, ticket prices would be lower. and music CD prices would be lower. and video game prices would be lower. 
im not saying that software piracy hasnt been a factor in some decisions, but what they are REALLY looking for, i believe, is a larger "repeat customer" base. and thats exactly what the cloud gets them. a consistent source of revenue. I think it was bound to happen, piracy or no.  Im perfectly happy with CS5. i will probably get LR5 at some point, but i had/have no intention of getting CS6. so...adobe wont be getting more money from me for PS, and until i decide to get LR5, they wont be getting any money from me at all. The solution? The cloud. Its not a bad deal if you always want up to date software. I just don't like extra recurring bills. im not mad at adobe for the decision. its just like any other product. people can take it or leave it.


----------



## masquerad101 (Jul 4, 2013)

Yes Thats prety attractive per month... but ( at the risk of sounding cheap) I (as I said in my origional post) cannot afford *anymore* Direct debits coming out of my account. I am living beyond my means as it is. I purchased my copy of CS6 legitamitly but again as I said I can just about manage my bills as thery are. So how then can I expect to pay more to photoshop for software that I paid £349 for?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 4, 2013)

The entire Creative Cloud scam has zero to do with illegal downloads...it allows Adobe to slack off on developing innovative new features in new releases of their products, and instead allows them to get a monthly revenue stream by milking their customers monthly, kind of the way a dairy farmer milks his herd. Under the old model, Adobe earned money only once they had a newly-developed product, so there would be mass numbers of buyers, and so they were forced to actually PAY software engineers monthly paychecks for months on end, until such time as they felt their user base would buy their new, iterated version. So...every 18 months or so, Adobe tried hard to have a new product to offer, HOPING that the users would see the value of a new feature or two here and there, and would open their wallets, and buy the new "upgrade". Well, after years of development, and the development of other competitors in image manipulation software, Adobe decided they needed a way to continually milk their herd, every single month, for the rest of their lives. NO longer were users expected to buy an expensive product once, and have a product that WORKED for years on end. Instead, users would be subjected to a monthly fee in order to have access to their work. If you quit paying, well, your work would effectively be locked away from you. It's called extortion in other fields. Adobe in effect sells software that only functions as long as the user keeps paying them to allow it to work. Good job Adobe!


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 4, 2013)

masquerad101 said:


> Yes Thats prety attractive per month... but ( at the risk of sounding cheap) I (as I said in my origional post) cannot afford *anymore* Direct debits coming out of my account. I am living beyond my means as it is. I purchased my copy of CS6 legitamitly but again as I said I can just about manage my bills as thery are. So how then can I expect to pay more to photoshop for software that I paid £349 for?



unless you really NEED all the software that comes with the creative suite, why get CS at all? just get elements. or lightroom 5.
i wouldn't have gotten CS5 at all if it wasn't a gift. I don't use most of it anyway.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 4, 2013)

I downloaded the trial version of the latest Elements. Oh-my-Lord, what an utterly abysmal interface. Seems as if it was deliberately designed to be inferior. Trying to use Elements was utterly MADDENING.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 4, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> unless you really NEED all the software that comes with the creative suite, why get CS at all? just get elements. or lightroom 5.
> i wouldn't have gotten CS5 at all if it wasn't a gift. I don't use most of it anyway.



For me, Elements doesn't have some of the CS capability that I need (and I'm not even talking about the suite... I just mean PS)... But like someone said, why even bother upgrading?  I still use CS5... Surely you can continue using whatever you're using now...


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 4, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I downloaded the trial version of the latest Elements. Oh-my-Lord, what an utterly abysmal interface. Seems as if it was deliberately designed to be inferior. Trying to use Elements was utterly MADDENING.



Ugh.. Bummer.  Guess im ok with sticking to CS5 and LR4.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 4, 2013)

masquerad101 said:


> Yes Thats prety attractive per month... but ( at the risk of sounding cheap) I (as I said in my origional post) cannot afford *anymore* Direct debits coming out of my account. I am living beyond my means as it is. I purchased my copy of CS6 legitamitly but again as I said I can just about manage my bills as thery are. So how then can I expect to pay more to photoshop for software that I paid £349 for?



Then my question still stands.  Why not just use what you already have and pay zero for it?


----------



## masquerad101 (Jul 4, 2013)

SCraig said:


> masquerad101 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes Thats prety attractive per month... but ( at the risk of sounding cheap) I (as I said in my origional post) cannot afford *anymore* Direct debits coming out of my account. I am living beyond my means as it is. I purchased my copy of CS6 legitamitly but again as I said I can just about manage my bills as thery are. So how then can I expect to pay more to photoshop for software that I paid £349 for?
> ...



Because in time It will be outdated.. I mean If i offered you CS2 and said but look here I have CS6 which would you preferr? Its like sayin ill give you a loaf of bread but if you let me raid your bank account on a monthly basis ill give you the nife to butter it with, but not the butter... that comes next month!


----------



## e.rose (Jul 4, 2013)

masquerad101 said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > masquerad101 said:
> ...


I would take CS2.

Like I said I'm not even running CS6.... I'm running CS5 and that's gonna be fine for me for the next who knows how many years.  Well.. INDEFINITELY now that the Cloud has arrived. 

What's happening is that you're falling victim to the "OH! I MUST HAS A NEW SHINNY!" trend that happens every time something new comes out

You have a NEWER software than *I* have right now... and YOU'RE worried about it going outdated EVENTUALLY?  :greenpbl:

Silliness.


----------



## masquerad101 (Jul 4, 2013)

e.rose said:


> masquerad101 said:
> 
> 
> > SCraig said:
> ...



You have a point!


----------



## SCraig (Jul 4, 2013)

masquerad101 said:


> Because in time It will be outdated.. I mean If i offered you CS2 and said but look here I have CS6 which would you preferr? Its like sayin ill give you a loaf of bread but if you let me raid your bank account on a monthly basis ill give you the nife to butter it with, but not the butter... that comes next month!


Software only becomes outdated for one of 2 reasons:
1.  It will no longer do what you need it to do.  This might be because new camera bodies are not supported or new file formats are not formatted.  It might be because the files are too large or something along those lines.

2.  There are features in newer versions that do things you feel that you need.

Until it gets to the point where you really need to upgrade CS6 just keep using it.  I have, among other software, a fairly recent version of Corel Paintshop Pro (version 14).  Not the newest but relatively new.  I also have version 7 of Paintshop Pro, copyright 2000.  I personally prefer to use the old version because it's smaller and much, much faster and easier to use.

By the time that happens there may be something as good or better on the market, you may decide you don't need the newer features, your finances might improve, many things could happen.

Personally I don't care for Photoshop.  I have CS6, I have Lightroom, I have DxO Optics 7, I have Corel Paintshop Pro, I have Corel Aftershot (formerly Bibble 5), and I have Nikon Capture NX2.  Of all those I personally prefer Nikon Capture NX2 and it is pretty much all I use.  I use Paintshop Pro for a few tools, I occasionally use ACR when I get into a tough RAW conversion.  You never know what will come along that tickles your fancy.

Use what you have until you reach a point that it won't do what you want any longer and then worry about it.  Heck, for all we know Adobe will have abandoned that silly cloud nonsense and gone back to what they provided before.  Or, whoever buys Adobe when they lose the bulk of their customer base will put things back like they were.


----------



## hopdaddy (Jul 4, 2013)

Will the "Cloud" be a benchmark that creates a separation between, Working "PRO" and Hobbyist ?    The working Photographer will just add the cost in.


----------



## KmH (Jul 4, 2013)

> _*Promotional pricing* for existing CS customers applies to the first year of membership. *Offer ends August 31, 2013.*_


It's only $9.99 for a year.

The second year will be $20 a month, the


> *Single-app plan &#8212; annual
> *_Full version of one desktop application_



Adobe didn't want to mention the pirating of their software as part of the reasoning to going to subscription based pricing, just like other companies don't publicize losses due to theft.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 4, 2013)

hopdaddy said:


> Will the "Cloud" be a benchmark that creates a separation between, Working "PRO" and Hobbyist ?    The working Photographer will just add the cost in.



I know plenty of working pros that are still upset about it, because adding in the cost means they have to raise their prices which will upset their current clientele.

Not to mention people like me that are in the midsts of BUILDING my business and don't suddenly need yet ANOTHER "subscription service" added onto my expenses that I'm currently paying out of pocket until I can build a steady enough clientele base to not HAVE to pay out of pocket.

I'm not a hobbyist, but I'm also not to the point where I can quit my day job doing photography (and part of that is because I'm becoming more specialized and not so generalized because I hate shootings weddings/families/babies/engagement/etc.).

But even still... like I said, I know people who ARE full time photographers and will just have to add in the costs to their sessions, who aren't happy about the cloud either.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 4, 2013)

e.rose said:


> hopdaddy said:
> 
> 
> > Will the "Cloud" be a benchmark that creates a separation between, Working "PRO" and Hobbyist ?    The working Photographer will just add the cost in.
> ...



...BUT... to add to this...

This is part of the reason I'm sticking with CS5.

I shoot with a 5DMKII... I have LR4... my camera is compatible with both CS5 and LR4.  I don't plan on upgrading my camera any time soon, so I don't have to worry about compatibility issues with later models.  CS5 does what I need it to do right now (and probably for a good long time), and by the time I NEED to upgrade... I will deal with that mess when I get to it.  Although I'm secretly hoping a new company will emerge from the shadows and come out with a comparable non-subscription based software that will allow me to switch away from Adobe.

I use LR, PS and ID.  So I'd have to pay the full subscription rate vs. just one piece of software.

(But all of that for $600?!  What a deal?!)

Except that makes the assumption that I would upgrade my software every time a new one came out, therefore having to re-buy those 3 pieces of software every year... and I absolutely DO NOT... feel the need to upgrade with every new change, so the $50/mo thing is not a good deal for me in the long run.  Which is why I hope something else comes out of the woodwork.  But if it doesn't... I'll deal with that bridge when I come to it and have to adjust my pricing accordingly... as a little piece of my soul dies. 

But I'm just gonna hold onto CS5 and LR4 for dear life until Adobe pries it out of my dying cold hands.  Or Canon.  Once I upgrade to a different camera (someday way down the line) that won't talk with my current software.  :lmao:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 4, 2013)

e.rose said:


> hopdaddy said:
> 
> 
> > Will the "Cloud" be a benchmark that creates a separation between, Working "PRO" and Hobbyist ?    The working Photographer will just add the cost in.
> ...



Raise their prices, and PISS off customers???? Really? That just doesn't make sense....

Lets say they have the $29.99 a month plan. $30.00! If they have 30 client /one hour sessions a month... that means raising prices $1.00 per client (not that anybody could make a decent living on 30 1 hour sessions). If each of those clients orders 10 prints.. that is 10 cents per print. Most clients won't even notice....

and if they have a more realistic number of clients (60, 90, 120, 300)? Then it won't be an issue.  Were they complaining about having to drop $600.00 plus to do the same number of clients over a 3 or 4 year period? I doubt it... CODB!

It is just moving the cost to a pretty inexpensive monthy charge, instead of a large chunk of cash every 3 or 4 years! And it is STILL a business write off... so what is the problem?

I could definitely see where it might piss of the 3 hour session for $50 PRO's... but not the real thing!


----------



## hopdaddy (Jul 4, 2013)

E.Rose ,I believe the majority of Full time photographers are extremely disappointed with Adobe .Tim Grey has been very vocal as well as many others . In the long run ,I feel it will make it harder for people like you getting started ,however if you have CS and others use Gimp will it help you to stand-out and gain more "Higher end" clients?


----------



## masquerad101 (Jul 4, 2013)

SCraig said:


> masquerad101 said:
> 
> 
> > Because in time It will be outdated.. I mean If i offered you CS2 and said but look here I have CS6 which would you preferr? Its like sayin ill give you a loaf of bread but if you let me raid your bank account on a monthly basis ill give you the nife to butter it with, but not the butter... that comes next month!
> ...


#

Please, I would love to know any tyechniques using NX2? You see I am an ameture, I have spent 7 years practicing Photoshop and I have just went from canon to fujifilm to nikon so any advice would br greatly appreaciated.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 4, 2013)

It's a great way to not need to update anything to attract new customers, but to continually bilk $29 or $39 or $49 or $59 a month from people who are foolish enough to stick with Adobe for month after month, for years on end. Of course, stupid people also rent furniture from Aarron's Furniture for $50 a month for years on end, instead of just BUYING it. and stupid people also lease cars and pay tens of thousands of dollars for cars that they later have to GIVE back!! lol It's kind of a ghetto type thing, people who don't see the value in actually owning anything, but just adding another monthly expense to their credit card, and watching the prices go up and up and up for years on end.

Adobe just gave three large software companies a HUGE, HUGE incentive. The *lock* position that Adobe once enjoyed on the market just cracked. In a big,big way.


----------



## hopdaddy (Jul 4, 2013)

Derrel said:


> It's a great way to not need to update anything to attract new customers, but to continually bilk $29 or $39 or $49 or $59 a month from people who are foolish enough to stick with Adobe for month after month, for years on end. Of course, stupid people also rent furniture from Aarron's Furniture for $50 a month for years on end, instead of just BUYING it. and stupid people also lease cars and pay tens of thousands of dollars for cars that they later have to GIVE back!! lol It's kind of a ghetto type thing, people who don't see the value in actually owning anything, but just adding another monthly expense to their credit card, and watching the prices go up and up and up for years on end.
> 
> Adobe just gave three large software companies a HUGE, HUGE incentive. The *lock* position that Adobe once enjoyed on the market just cracked. In a big,big way.


I hope your bottom line is correct ,But as for the "Stupid" part .I have a choice to rent from Aarrons or not . I don't have that same option IF I stay with Adobe . My Real question again ,Will CS make enough of a difference to pass on the cost? I am sure the price will creep . In a market that is in despair already...will out sourcing be the answer? I have a Family member that has always sent His stuff out ,but now to save on cost he started doing his own Touch-ups. That was before the cloud. He shoots School Kids (That is always fun to say ) If the price moves up very quickly ,He might be better off going back to completely outsourcing .


----------



## e.rose (Jul 4, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > hopdaddy said:
> ...



Dude... there's no way in HELL I'm doing 30 clients a MONTH.  Not with the way I'm doing things. 

And yeah I'd MUCH rather pay a large chunk every 5 years for something I own and can continue to be able to open my .psd files with, without having to worry about that ability being taken away the second I stop paying a subscription fee, than have the latest and greatest update every year.

And a business write-off doesn't mean I get all that money back. 

If you love the cloud more power to you, but I'm avoiding it for as long as humanly possible.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 4, 2013)

hopdaddy said:


> E.Rose ,I believe the majority of Full time photographers are extremely disappointed with Adobe .Tim Grey has been very vocal as well as many others . In the long run ,I feel it will make it harder for people like you getting started ,however if you have CS and others use Gimp will it help you to stand-out and gain more "Higher end" clients?



I don't necessarily think that having CS vs. Gimp is going to make a difference to clients.  They don't see what you're editing with, and people can do some amazing things with GIMP.  *I* personally don't like it after having CS5... but I'll just stick with CS5, that's all.   I won't have to switch to GIMP because I already have CS5... and I won't have to upgrade to the cloud, because... I already have CS5... and my equipment is compatible with it.

But yes, you're right... I've heard more complaints about it across the board... from full time working photographers (who charge normal rates and not the $50 gets you all) than I have heard positive things.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 4, 2013)

Derrel said:


> It's a great way to not need to update anything to attract new customers, but to continually bilk $29 or $39 or $49 or $59 a month from people who are foolish enough to stick with Adobe for month after month, for years on end. Of course, stupid people also rent furniture from Aarron's Furniture for $50 a month for years on end, instead of just BUYING it. and stupid people also lease cars and pay tens of thousands of dollars for cars that they later have to GIVE back!! lol It's kind of a ghetto type thing, people who don't see the value in actually owning anything, but just adding another monthly expense to their credit card, and watching the prices go up and up and up for years on end.
> 
> Adobe just gave three large software companies a HUGE, HUGE incentive. The *lock* position that Adobe once enjoyed on the market just cracked. In a big,big way.



Exactly.  ::highfive::

(Historians better write this into the books man... I am on the same page as Derrel!  :lmao: :hug:: )


----------



## SCraig (Jul 4, 2013)

masquerad101 said:


> Please, I would love to know any tyechniques using NX2? You see I am an ameture, I have spent 7 years practicing Photoshop and I have just went from canon to fujifilm to nikon so any advice would br greatly appreaciated.



It's hard to capsulize it into a few lines on a forum post.  The best advice I can give is to Download The Latest NX2, install it, and try it for yourself.  If you have questions feel free to send me a PM and I'll try and help you out.

In a nutshell, most of the common tools for manipulating photographs are there.  NX2 does leave some commonly used tools out, for example there is no clone tool, and that's why I still use Paintshop Pro or Photoshop on occasion.  Everything you do to a file in NX2 is a non-destructive edit.  Much like an adjustment layer in CS6.  If you don't like what the adjustment does then just turn it off or delete it and the file remains unchanged.  If you save the file as a RAW file (.NEF) then your adjustments remain as non-destructive edits, much like a PSD file.  If you save the image as a JPEG or TIFF or anything other than a NEF then the edits are written to the file and become permanent.


----------



## Buckster (Jul 4, 2013)

I have CS6 and LR4.  I upgraded to them when they came out, just like I always upgraded Photoshop when Adobe came out with the new versions, something I've done for I don't know how many years and versions now - lots.  So, to those arguing with my math that to buy it costs $600, pull your head out of your butt - I haven't paid full pop for Photoshop in so many years, I can't even remember the first version I bought, and it's been relatively inexpensive upgrades ever since - THAT'S the price point they have to meet or beat to get me on board, and they're not even close.

  I'll upgrade to LR5 probably this month, and that's likely the last dollar of mine Adobe will ever get.  I'll use what I have until there's some reason it will no longer work, if that ever happens, and then I'll assess the situation given the software options available at that time.  I suspect other companies will fill the void Adobe has created with this scheme, and they should be looking pretty good as solution a few years from now, when it might matter to me.

I don't worry that I'll miss out on new features from Adobe.  The current Adobe software I have is mega-awesome already, and works just great for me, and that won't change - it is what it is, and will be as good as it is now for as long as I can use it.  I really do love it - no two ways about it.  After all these years of working with it, it's practically an extension of me.

But even with all the time, effort and money I put into buying, upgrading and learning to use it over the years, I can walk away from Adobe even faster than I did any of my 3 ex-wives, especially seeing as how they did  things to try to get me to stay that Adobe will never be able to come close to matching!  

I worry more that a future OS will lock me out of the current software, like trying to play an old DOS game on a new machine today - it just doesn't always work.  If that happens, it will mean either maintaining an old machine and OS just to keep working, getting a replacement editing software from another company and learning how to use it, or joining the BS Adobe "cloud" subscription service for as low a rate as I can get at that time.  Frankly, I'd probably pay more for some other software, rather than go crawling back to the ***** that cheated on me, which is how I currently feel about Adobe - like it cheated on me after all we've been through together over the years.

  In any case, I expect it to be at least several years before I have to cross that bridge, and I might not even live that long, so I'm not going to spend much energy thinking or worrying about it now.

In all honestly, if the CC price structure for Photoshop alone (which is all I'm interested in from the "cloud" subscription service) was in line with what I paid for upgrades every 18 months or so, I wouldn't have a problem at all with their subscription scheme.  But that's not the case.  I've done the math, and it's a monetary bend-over without lube.

I'm also a little peeved that they even call it "Creative _*Cloud*_", like it's just a part of the new, trendy "cloud" thing, when it's nothing of the sort.  It's a subscription service, nothing more, nothing less.  You DL the full software and install it on your machine, where it takes up all the space it ever has, and it simply phones home over the net to verify it's licensed whenever you fire it up.  You can even run it for a month at a time offline without it shutting down over not getting Mommy Adobe's acknowledgement that it's legit.

And I wouldn't want it to work any other way, frankly.  I want that software running locally so that I don't have to be online to use it, or wait crazy times because of network congestion or the damn cable service going out, waiting for an operation to complete and send me back the data, and crazy crap like that, which I'd expect from a true "cloud" solution where the software is on a central server and I pass data back and forth to it to do edits and get results.  That's not the issue though. The issue is one of implying that we're stupid enough to buy into a marketing ploy by calling it what they did. It's simply not a "cloud" service, so don't try to BS me with marketing crap - just call it what it is: A subscription service.

Anyway, that's where I'm at with it.  I'm disappointed with Adobe, mostly over the jacked-up price of my standalone Photoshop upgrades, but I don't think it's honestly going to affect me much - I'm simply going to keep rocking my current CS6 and LR5 into the foreseeable future, and Adobe can shove their subscription fees up their feature upgrade pipes.


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 4, 2013)

I was using MS office 97 up until a year ago. Yes, I was using a 1997 software until 2012. Why? It was stable, met my needs and it was affordable (softwares were much cheaper back then). While I wasn't pirating, I bet MS hates me more than those who do.

Ok, to the CS/CC issue. IF YOU THINK ADOBE MAKES MONEY FROM YOU INDIVIDUALS, YOU ARE WRONG!
Adobe doesn't care about individual photographers or hobbyists or students. They KNOW they won't make money from you/me because of many reasons. Adobe makes money from corporate users who are STABLE customers who really have no where else to turn to. The CS suite is really irreplaceable and a vital money-making tool for pretty much any company with a design or marketing department. Companies that I used to work for would jump on the latest versions of CS without much thought, with some who may skip one version if they don't see how the new improvements justify the cost. So Adobe got smart by making them pay on a consistent basis so corporate customers cannot "skip their payments".

Also, when a customer buys a CS license, they can use it forever. That won't work with CC. Now CC's licensing concept is not new. I used to use this 3D surfacing software called Alias ( car designers use it ) and they go by annual licensing of about USD20k a year. Yes, TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS PER SEAT A YEAR! Of course you can keep using it after the year ends, but you get zero technical support, which is vital to many companies trying to get things done on time. So car companies dish out the money year after year.

So stop being pissed at Adobe. They don't care. BTW the CC version has already been cracked by someone.... the war rages on.


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 4, 2013)

hopdaddy said:


> Will the "Cloud" be a benchmark that creates a separation between, Working "PRO" and Hobbyist ?    The working Photographer will just add the cost in.



Now I can really say I have an expensive hobby.


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 4, 2013)

hopdaddy said:


> I don't have that same option IF I stay with Adobe .



Before Photoshop was big, I was using Corel Photopaint, which was a part of Corel Draw software package, which dominated the market at that time (20 years ago?). Corel is still around. Sure Photopaint(or whatever it's called now) probably isn't as good as photoshop, but I bet given enough support from customers and users, they will catch up in no time.


----------



## ShaneF (Jul 4, 2013)

some people just like to have the newest shiniest things even if they don't know what they do, Ahhh new and shiny.  

Personally i dont upgrade software unless it has a feature i know i will use or its a free upgrade. But thats just my opinion.


----------



## CindeeRoo (Jul 5, 2013)

masquerad101 said:


> Because in time It will be outdated.. I mean If i offered you CS2 and said but look here I have CS6 which would you preferr? Its like sayin ill give you a loaf of bread but if you let me raid your bank account on a monthly basis ill give you the nife to butter it with, but not the butter... that comes next month!



I completely understand where you're coming from on the account of finances and the desire to stay current. I am disabled and live on a fixed income. I also happen to own CS2 and is my primary source of photo editing. I bought it when it first came out and have not been able to afford an upgrade since. I actually bought CS2 for only $100 (along with a pen and tablet), as I already had V6. Having said all that, I am/have been getting by quite well over the years with my outdated version. I like to use actions on my images from time to time and have no problem finding them, new, for my version. Also, I've recently started learning the art of photo manipulation. I'm talking about finding stock images, or using my own, and making digital art with said images. I've learned so much over the years. How to paint skin, hair, blending and so much more. I do find it a challenge on occasion to follow tutorials that use earlier versions but I still manage to get by. Sure it would be nice to have an earlier version, I know that I'm missing out on some cool upgrades, but oh well. I have had to deal with what I've got and what I got ain't so bad! My opinion is that since you're "financially challenged," like me, blow off this CC thing, be happy with what you have and keep on making art. After all, I am proof that not only is it possible to get by, but that there's still room to grow and manage just fine! ;-)


----------



## KenC (Jul 5, 2013)

I know they won't get any more of my money.  As someone who only upgraded due to OS changes and has had three versions of PS over 15 years, the monthly cost would be more than I am used to spending (even at $10/mo for the first year) over the life of a PS version.  Since I don't get paid for photography and can't write off the cost, why should I spend more?  I agree with previous posters that Adobe just made a business decision and hasn't made that much from people like me, but someone else will get my business next time I need to get software.  I hope my current computer and OS run well for many years.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 5, 2013)

I'm not a big "upgrader" kind of person. 
when I got CS5 (which I only got because it was a gift) it replaced my still-working-just-fine CS2. So for me, paying a subscription fee just to start keeping up on the latest PS updates is really pretty silly. 
I do very little in Photoshop anyway, and from what I have heard, LR5 closes much of the gap for some things many needed PS for. 
I MAY pick up a copy of the latest Elements since you can still buy that outright, but most likely i will just get LR5 and not worry about any newer PS versions. 
i really don't understand the animosity towards Adobe though. we hate the oil companies for the gas prices, we hate ford/GM/Chrysler for the car prices, and now we hate Adobe for their Photoshop subscription prices. But all three scenarios have one thing in common. Of the outraged people, some simply NEED those products and will therefor HAVE to get them, and some can/will find alternatives and just not use those products that they are not satisfied paying the fees for. 
some people dont drive cars. I dont have that option, but I know several people that do. some people may not have the realistic option of NOT having photoshop. (i guess) I dont "need" the newest versions, or even photoshop at all really, so while i may have to have a car and pay for gas, i DONT have to subscribe to adobes creative cloud. so i choose not to.  its simple. 

I think there are a lot of people that mistake their "needing" a product for "wanting" a product. sometimes for added convenience, sometimes for the prestige, sometimes just for the bling features. Adobe, for better or for worse, made a choice about their product. that they make. that they own. we, as consumers, have a choice as well. 
Only time will tell if either of us made the right ones.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 5, 2013)

masquerad101 said:


> Yes Thats prety attractive per month... but ( at the risk of sounding cheap) I (as I said in my origional post) cannot afford *anymore* Direct debits coming out of my account. I am living beyond my means as it is. I purchased my copy of CS6 legitamitly but again as I said I can just about manage my bills as thery are. So how then can I expect to pay more to photoshop for software that I paid £349 for?



Just keep using what you have the average photographer cannot use photoshop to anywhere near it potential


----------



## gsgary (Jul 5, 2013)

masquerad101 said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > masquerad101 said:
> ...




It's like saying you have to have the latest fancy camera to get good shots, if you get it correct in camera you hardly need photoshop, i hardly ever use it, i use Capture one for raw files, CS3 and lightroom 1.4 i would rather spend my money on film


----------



## amolitor (Jul 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The entire Creative Cloud scam has zero to do with illegal downloads...it allows Adobe to slack off on developing innovative new features in new releases of their products, and instead allows them to get a monthly revenue stream by milking their customers monthly, kind of the way a dairy farmer milks his herd. Under the old model, Adobe earned money only once they had a newly-developed product, so there would be mass numbers of buyers, and so they were forced to actually PAY software engineers monthly paychecks for months on end, until such time as they felt their user base would buy their new, iterated version. So...every 18 months or so, Adobe tried hard to have a new product to offer, HOPING that the users would see the value of a new feature or two here and there, and would open their wallets, and buy the new "upgrade". Well, after years of development, and the development of other competitors in image manipulation software, Adobe decided they needed a way to continually milk their herd, every single month, for the rest of their lives. NO longer were users expected to buy an expensive product once, and have a product that WORKED for years on end. Instead, users would be subjected to a monthly fee in order to have access to their work. If you quit paying, well, your work would effectively be locked away from you. It's called extortion in other fields. Adobe in effect sells software that only functions as long as the user keeps paying them to allow it to work. Good job Adobe!



Interesting take. Ctein takes the exact same set of premises, and arrives at the opposite conclusion 

This allows Adobe to STOP being so feature-focused. Instead of demanding that engineering deliver a basket of N many Awesome New Features every so and so many months, they can focus on rolling out things that make sense when they make sense. As a professional software developer over the last, oh god has it been that long, I can tell you that sales and marketing are a bunch of jerks and want New Features they can use to get people to Buy The New Thing, constantly. Engineering prefers a more evolutionary approach, where new features are released when they're ready to be released.


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Engineering prefers a more evolutionary approach, where new features are released when they're ready to be released.



At the expense of paying month after month not knowing when? As someone who works in R&D that's bull****. If you don't like to work with time lines than you can always say,"Oh it's not ready yet."

Even if I pay to go to an improv, I'd be pissed if the first sentence the guy says isn't funny, let alone wait for it to happen.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2013)

PS was great, and still is. But I think it's been pretty bloated over the years. I wish that there was a more photography/prepress-specific product, more closer to what photoshop was before CS, a sort of modernized PS 5.5, which was my favorite version.

I understand now that you can edit video with PS? WTF is that all about?


----------



## amolitor (Jul 5, 2013)

molested_cow said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Engineering prefers a more evolutionary approach, where new features are released when they're ready to be released.
> ...



What? Man, I hate this part of the internet, where people want to argue with you without making the slightest effort to understand what you're saying.


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 5, 2013)

Yes I understand your point. Google does that and they are awesome, but they don't make customers pay while they "wait". That's the main point. Adobe is charging its customers to wait for them to wow. It's not the marketers who demand new features. It's the market.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2013)

I had not thought of that. I am unsure if this will result in less motivation to add features or more, however. I suppose that while photoshop is the only viable option, then there will be less motivation to develop their products - people are already paying and what will people do? switch to Corel?

But if competition does exist, I think having to pay a monthly fee would encourage development as people are less likely to want to pay for nothing.

I think Adobe is pretty much shooting themselves in the foot here, and are pretty much ensuring a competitive market for themselves.


----------

