Adobe goes monthly subscription ONLY!!!!

lmegson · May 8, 2013

As a photoshop user since v3 I am dumbfounded by this move by Adobe. For many years I was a freelance graphic artist with a good workflow, so a monthly fee would have been no problem. The problem is now I am semi-retired and only pick up the occasional job, so to have to fork out a fee every month is a big worry, especially as I have invested a lot of time and money learning the software and expanding my digital darkroom with the intention of spending more time on photography. The monthly fee of £17.58 doesn't sound that much today, but it will no longer be possible to miss an upgrade if funds are tight. No pay - no play.

I would be interested in what others think.

Les

Pioneer · May 8, 2013

I think upgrades come with the monthly subscription so you will be paying for them. The subscription model is more expensive. For businesses or graphic designers who use the software to make a living there really isn't anything else out there that can do the job for them. So they will almost certainly pay. For myself, an amateur who uses Photoshop very occasionally, I will likely move to Lightroom and learn to use it. I will continue to use the Photoshop package I currently own to do those occasional image edits that Lightroom cannot. But it makes no sense economically for me to rent Photoshop by the month. I may start exploring Corel Printshop Pro to see what it is capable of doing for me.

OzJohn · May 8, 2013

I certainly won't buy a sub for any Adobe program and I'm a pro photographer who uses PS every day. I currently use CS5 and Photoshop 7. Yeah that's right PS7 because I love the browser that only appeared in 7 and the original CS1. I mainly use 7 to individually crop and do basic levels/curves on large numbers of images and the old browser runs the pants off Bridge and miniBridge. I do, though, love many of the features in later PS versions and use PS5 for pretty much everything else.

BTW running old software on a newish computer gives an enormous speed advantage simply because each new version of any software becomes bloated as more "functionality" is added to exploit increasing processing power.

Think I'll upgrade to CS6 while it's still available and stick to it and PS7 for the duration. I reckon I could do at least 90% of my Photoshop work in PS7 alone if I really had to (its the only PS I have on my laptop) but I'd sure miss things like content-aware fill. I would never miss Adobe RAW as I think there are better tools available - I use Nikon Capture NX and occasionally DxO Optics. I've only ever used an evaluation copy of Lightroom a few versions ago and didn't like it. OzJohn

ann · May 8, 2013

oz, there are other pieces of software that will do "content aware type" of work.

I too am not a fan of Lightroom and altho I do have several versions of PS, i use it basically as the platform to run plug ins that I find easier for me to use. I don't edit on a daily basis and in fact may go months before touching a computer so the learning curve on PS is huge for myself.

These days Topaz Labs and Onone both have stand alone programs that are very powerful. It will be interesting to see if Nik goes to a stand alone program as well.

Felinik · May 9, 2013

Nik are already stand alone, all plug-ins are installed as executables as well.

L Gebhardt · May 9, 2013

It will be many years before CS6 isn't usable for me. So I don't plan on subscribing for a while. I'll use LightRoom to do raw conversions.

ann · May 10, 2013

Nik has a standalone product? What is it called.

I have both Topaz and OnOne standalone but all my Nik products are within PS.

Felinik · May 10, 2013

At least on Mac OS X all the NIK plug-ins are available as stand alone applications as well. I have them all, and when I installed the plugins the stand alone apps were automatically installed as well.

ann · May 10, 2013

Interesting, I was checking and saw something that mentioned when using Lightroom they could be used as stand alone.

I have just switched to an Imac for my photo work and downloaded my Nik products (which by the way , they added a couple i didn't own) but put them into PS.

Felinik · May 10, 2013

Right click on an image file in finder/desktop and you will get the option to open it with the different NIK applications as well....

ann · May 11, 2013

thanks, i will check it out.

chuck94022 · May 12, 2013

I guess this means that the digerati among us now will suffer similar ongoing costs of creating images as we film users face.

And perhaps worse: you can't buy a year's worth of Photoshop and put it in the freezer for later use. When your Photoshop expires, it's, gone, gone, gone.

And who's to say that if you create a .psd file today, the future in-the-cloud version of Photoshop you will be forced to use will be able to read it?

I'll stick with my CS5 until it no longer runs on my Mac.

OzJohn · Jun 4, 2013

If you can turn a deaf ear to Thom Hogan telling you how good he is every few paragraphs, he makes some interesting points on this topic in his blog and, as well, the most recent items deal with the issue of press photographers being sacked and their place being taken by reporters with cameras plus news photos being sourced from the general public. This topic has a had a good run on APUG recently but not here AFAIK. OzJohn

Dead Link Removed

Pioneer · Jun 5, 2013

I have no gripe with digital, I own several digital cameras and enjoy them. However I do find this entire thing a bit amusing. Some people like to claim that digital is so much cheaper to use than film but once you have added up the cost of all the hardware, software, upgrades, subscriptions, etc. I actually think it may be more expensive to use a digital camera than a film camera. :0

ann · Jun 5, 2013

Pioneer said:
I have no gripe with digital, I own several digital cameras and enjoy them. However I do find this entire thing a bit amusing. Some people like to claim that digital is so much cheaper to use than film but once you have added up the cost of all the hardware, software, upgrades, subscriptions, etc. I actually think it may be more expensive to use a digital camera than a film camera. :0

Thumbs up on this one!

OzJohn · Jun 6, 2013

Pioneer said:
I have no gripe with digital, I own several digital cameras and enjoy them. However I do find this entire thing a bit amusing. Some people like to claim that digital is so much cheaper to use than film but once you have added up the cost of all the hardware, software, upgrades, subscriptions, etc. I actually think it may be more expensive to use a digital camera than a film camera. :0

Even if a roll of film and processing cost 25 cents it is still more expensive than free and no matter how you like to spin it that is the true acquisition cost of digital images. Sure you may have to buy a camera and card initially but that is the only cost you need to incur to take digital photos and even that cost can be avoided by using your phone. Pre-digital, comparatively few photographers did their own processing and printing so they paid extra for this to be done for them - exactly the same as most digital photographers who choose to print do today except that the prints are much cheaper than they ever were.

It is a fallacy that one must own a computer to be a digital photographer and an even bigger fallacy that a dedicated imaging computer must be obtained even if you already own a house full of them. Certainly you need to be able to view your photos but many folk choose to do that on PCs, laptops, tablets and smart phones that they own for other purposes. You do not have to manipulate your photos and you do not have to print them on an expensive inkjet printer. In fact, using the EXIF metadata in digital camera files and their internal algorithms, modern digital mini-labs printing on RA4 paper can make auto prints for less than 10 cents each and they are orders of magnitude better than the auto prints obtainable only a few years ago from negatives. OzJohn

RalphLambrecht · Nov 12, 2013

lmegson said:
As a photoshop user since v3 I am dumbfounded by this move by Adobe. For many years I was a freelance graphic artist with a good workflow, so a monthly fee would have been no problem. The problem is now I am semi-retired and only pick up the occasional job, so to have to fork out a fee every month is a big worry, especially as I have invested a lot of time and money learning the software and expanding my digital darkroom with the intention of spending more time on photography. The monthly fee of £17.58 doesn't sound that much today, but it will no longer be possible to miss an upgrade if funds are tight. No pay - no play.

I would be interested in what others think.

Les

I'm in the same situatioband I think, It stinks, but I will most like give in to the pressure too. Even my publisher is asking me to goCC

analoguey · Nov 12, 2013

OzJohn said:
Even if a roll of film and processing cost 25 cents it is still more expensive than free and no matter how you like to spin it that is the true acquisition cost of digital images. Sure you may have to buy a camera and card initially but that is the only cost you need to incur to take digital photos and even that cost can be avoided by using your phone. Pre-digital, comparatively few photographers did their own processing and printing so they paid extra for this to be done for them - exactly the same as most digital photographers who choose to print do today except that the prints are much cheaper than they ever were.

It is a fallacy that one must own a computer to be a digital photographer and an even bigger fallacy that a dedicated imaging computer must be obtained even if you already own a house full of them. Certainly you need to be able to view your photos but many folk choose to do that on PCs, laptops, tablets and smart phones that they own for other purposes. You do not have to manipulate your photos and you do not have to print them on an expensive inkjet printer. In fact, using the EXIF metadata in digital camera files and their internal algorithms, modern digital mini-labs printing on RA4 paper can make auto prints for less than 10 cents each and they are orders of magnitude better than the auto prints obtainable only a few years ago from negatives. OzJohn

That's an apples to oranges comparison. About the only ones who could take photos out of phones or any similar device were cold-war spies! A like to like would be film P&S vs digital P&S.
SLR comparison via the medium means that you compare the TCO not just for taking a single snap - in which respect film or digital both look better depending on counting either incremental or initial cost.

Shooting analog in this age involves hybrid workflow anyways - so the costs on that aren't differentiated much - but with analog hybrid the negative or positive acts as a good backup medium. So redundancy and DR solution is slightly better.
With digital, the costs of shooting the picture fall with every shot taken but the costs of storage, redundancy and disaster recovery go up.

I have lost two years worth of photographs because a hard-drive decided that it's had enough. With shooting a film-based hybrid workflow there's more scope for redundancy n backup.

Are you saying for example an MFDB is cheaper to shoot than a film MF and equivalent in quality?

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

RalphLambrecht · Dec 12, 2013

I took the plunge to get the latest version ofPSand now I regret it, because sfter going CC, the new in Design won't open my book files created with in Design CS5

jeffreyg · Dec 13, 2013

I don't know if this will help anyone reading these threads but if you don't want to go with PS check out LightRoom along with OnOne's Perfect Photo 8.

HOME

RalphLambrecht · Dec 26, 2013

afterworking with PSEfor a year now, I'm convinced Photoshop is still the best. for some reason I cannot download Lightroom from the cloud.so I cannot try it.

OzJohn · Dec 27, 2013

analoguey said:
That's an apples to oranges comparison. About the only ones who could take photos out of phones or any similar device were cold-war spies! A like to like would be film P&S vs digital P&S.
SLR comparison via the medium means that you compare the TCO not just for taking a single snap - in which respect film or digital both look better depending on counting either incremental or initial cost.

Shooting analog in this age involves hybrid workflow anyways - so the costs on that aren't differentiated much - but with analog hybrid the negative or positive acts as a good backup medium. So redundancy and DR solution is slightly better.
With digital, the costs of shooting the picture fall with every shot taken but the costs of storage, redundancy and disaster recovery go up.

I have lost two years worth of photographs because a hard-drive decided that it's had enough. With shooting a film-based hybrid workflow there's more scope for redundancy n backup.

Are you saying for example an MFDB is cheaper to shoot than a film MF and equivalent in quality?

I only spotted this reply today but it deserves a reply. If I'm comparing apples with oranges you're comparing a pineapple to a cabbage. The actual acquisition cost of digital is zero, zilch, nil, nothing whether it is on a phone or a $40K digital back and it is impossible to demonstrate otherwise since there are no consumables. Neither is it necessary to buy a camera if you own a phone or a computer if you already have a device. For many people that basic setup will provide images of satisfactory quality at little or no cost. If you want to make the equation more complex and introduce red herrings like the cost of archival backup or the capital cost and depreciation of expensive equipment that's your problem but most people who take digital photos could'nt give a stuff whether they can access the image in 50 days let alone 50 years and would not know what a MFDB is even if Santa gave them one gift wrapped. Your reply completely misses the thrust of my post. Sadly, this often happens when we allow business theory to influence our private lives. OzJohn

RalphLambrecht · Mar 13, 2014

lmegson said:
As a photoshop user since v3 I am dumbfounded by this move by Adobe. For many years I was a freelance graphic artist with a good workflow, so a monthly fee would have been no problem. The problem is now I am semi-retired and only pick up the occasional job, so to have to fork out a fee every month is a big worry, especially as I have invested a lot of time and money learning the software and expanding my digital darkroom with the intention of spending more time on photography. The monthly fee of £17.58 doesn't sound that much today, but it will no longer be possible to miss an upgrade if funds are tight. No pay - no play.

I would be interested in what others think.

Les

I felt the same way but bit the bullet a few months ago.Now, I feel better about it.I'm always up-to-dateand the billing is very transparent.If you frequently work with Adobe products and make money with it, go for it1.I THINK,it's worth it.just concerned MS and Apple will come up with similar ideas;where does it stop?software updates for your caror it will stop running?

Loris Medici · Mar 17, 2014

I see nothing objectionable in having to pay USD 17 per month for PS + LR combo. Even if you keep using your above average but still reasonably priced (cost ~ USD 2000) digital SLR for 5 years (actually it's more like 3-4 years methinks), you'll end-up paying ~ USD 35 per month *for the camera only*. The special CC subscription for photographers is half of this figure! How much do you pay montly for your cable TV / cellular / DSL ect.? Really, if you're going to complain about USD 17 per month, clearly you haven't made a good choice for a hobby; photography is an expensive endeavor... (And was even more expensive before digital.)

lenny · Mar 19, 2014

This isn't about cost for me. It's negligible. The issues are "do I own this software" and "what part of the information on my computer do I have to give them?"

The first question can be annoying, what would I do if their servers went down for 3 days? Would my app not work, etc. Not that big a deal.

The other, bothers me. I have a little app on my computer called Little Snitch, which tells me when my computers' applications want to talk to the home office. Adobe checks my machine every two hours. Same with Apple. So do a million other things, all with cryptic names that one has to look up, from the innocuous checking the time synchronizing to things which share items which I do not want to share.

I now have to have an app called "Cookie" which manages the tracking cookies which every browser page wants to use to track everything about me. I installed Ghostery and DoNoTrackMe, both browser extensions to block things, along with AdBlock, I am off Google for searching, (using ixquick.com). Skype has looked into my Contacts and now has every one of them up on the screen, despite the fact I would likely not like to speak to 3/4 of them right now, and wants to check every minute or so to see if everyone is online. I liked Skype, but then they were bought by MicroButt. I unfriended everyone and got off of Facebook. What an absolute waste.

I have nothing to hide here, but I am tired of these intrusions on my privacy. We all know they aren't just looking for an address or two, but they want to know everything about you, where you are at every moment, so they can sell it to someone trying to sell you something. I already have everything I need, I don't really want targeted advertising. I think the world this will create is ultimately very dangerous to all of us, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you may ascribe to.

Lenny

Adobe goes monthly subscription ONLY!!!!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency