Just Cancelled Photoshop

[Photowithfries]

Good idea, that tantrum. Eat a bunch of Garlic before you do it! That usually makes it work better. That Photoshop price. You write it off...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is why so many companies who can are going subscription service following Adobe. Adobe made billions more than they were making. Someone is paying for all those extra profits.

"In 2013 when Adobe launched Creative Cloud, the company broke with selling boxes and refocused on selling subscriptions (software as a service). At the time, the company had about $200 million in annual recurring revenue. Today, Adobe has over $5 billion in recurring revenue.

That’s important, because from an investor standpoint, recurring revenue is twice as valuable as non-recurring. This is something that doubles its enterprise value compared to a company that has to sell a new widget every month, quarter, or year. The reason is simple: Keep your customers happy, and the money keeps flowing in. No further sales efforts are required."

Adobe’s path from $200 million to $5 billion in recurring revenue

Here are the five lessons Adobe learned while growing its SaaS business from $200 million in recurring revenue to $5 billion.

venturebeat.com

Look at the chart for how it takes off in 2913 when CC started. Thank you, subscribers.

Adobe Net Income 2010-2022 | ADBE

Adobe annual/quarterly net income history and growth rate from 2010 to 2022. Net income can be defined as company's net profit or loss after all revenues, income items, and expenses have been accounted for. <ul style='margin-top:10px;'> <li>Adobe net income for the quarter...

www.macrotrends.net

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

What is wrong with the concept that a professional, who derives income from use of a product, pays more for that product than a casual user who derives no income from that same product use?!

So nobody gives a d*mn that when they are retired and living on $2000 a month from Social Security payments that some company cares (particularly about folks who were lifelong users of their products -- they know which ones have registered their products over how many years!) and gives a price break. There are a number of establishments who give seniors a 10% price break on purchases, or free extras.

May Social Security cease to exist when you retire, and then see how you feel about senior discounts at that point in your life!

I retired from when I was 40. I neither need nor want the government's money. By your logic, Snap-On should sell me tools at Harbor Freight prices because I just work on my own car and don't make money with my tools. That's silly and you know it.

 

[guangong]

A question regarding Adobe subscriptions. Must one subscribe for a given time period (yearly, semi annually) or can one subscribe for one month only? I ask this question because I primarily use film and digital capture only sporadically. Therefore, PS, Illustrator, and InDesign sit in my computer unused for long periods. So, can I subscribe to Adobe programs on an “as needed” subscription?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What is wrong with the concept that a professional, who derives income from use of a product, pays more for that product than a casual user who derives no income from that same product use?!

So nobody gives a d*mn that when they are retired and living on $2000 a month from Social Security payments that some company cares (particularly about folks who were lifelong users of their products -- they know which ones have registered their products over how many years!) and gives a price break. There are a number of establishments who give seniors a 10% price break on purchases, or free extras.

May Social Security cease to exist when you retire, and then see how you feel about senior discounts at that point in your life!

Many companies offer discounts for seniors, AARP, AAA, veterans, teachers. Adobe offers discounts for students and teachers which of course is a great sales technique because once they get you using their product as a student, you'll probably stick with it for life. All those monthly payments for 50 years at $10 a month equals $6,000 (assuming no increase in charges). Of course, teacher's get a discount because then they'll teach Adobe products so their students have to use them.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Photo editing software has matured. The new features they now add from year to year are marginally beneficial, just bells and whistles to create a reason to keep charging. Also, as a professional, you can write it off as a business expense. I think it's the worst for a new amateur photographer. He or she won't be paying monthly for ten years, but for their whole life.

I don't use Photoshop enough to know what features may have been added, but I do know Lightroom continues to be improved in non-trivial ways. (For those who may not know, a subscription to the Adobe Photography Plan includes both Photoshop and Lightroom.)

A recent Lightroom update made the Masking tool much more powerful and easier to use. And not too long before that, the Color Grading tool was a nice addition. Some say the Enhance details tool is a significant feature (I have not tried it) and that was added last summer. That's three significant improvements added in the past year or so.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't use Photoshop enough to know what features may have been added, but I do know Lightroom continues to be improved in non-trivial ways. (For those who may not know, a subscription to the Adobe Photography Plan includes both Photoshop and Lightroom.)

A recent Lightroom update made the Masking tool much more powerful and easier to use. And not too long before that, the Color Grading tool was a nice addition. Some say the Enhance details tool is a significant feature (I have not tried it) and that was added last summer. That's three significant improvements added in the past year or so.

But for the average photographer, do they really need it? I said it may be required for the professional who has to up his game each time to be competitive. But, for the average amateur who prints now and then for his house, are those extra things that important? It's like all those arguments about resolution and pixels and DR that went on all the time.

If Adobe kept up with purchased upgrades as they do with Photoshop Elements, you could spend a few bucks every few years to get those upgrades. Maybe that's the answer. Just buy Elements if you're an amateur.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...So nobody gives a d*mn that when they are retired and living on $2000 a month from Social Security payments that some company cares (particularly about folks who were lifelong users of their products -- they know which ones have registered their products over how many years!) and gives a price break...

Time for a bit of perspective. The subject of this thread is photo editing programs. Not food. Not clothing. Not shelter. Not medical care. If a private company decides to offer or decides against offering discounts for retirees, it's nobody's business but that company's. And the company deserves neither praise nor condemnation for its decision. Like all corporate decisions, such a call is made considering the company's fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profit. Corporations have no other responsibilities beyond any legal or regulatory requirements.

...If Adobe kept up with purchased upgrades as they do with Photoshop Elements, you could spend a few bucks every few years to get those upgrades. Maybe that's the answer. Just buy Elements if you're an amateur.

Again, as I pointed out earlier in this thread:

Only good enough if "most people" don't want to make prints with good tonality. Elements is an 8-bit application, not 16.

 

[runswithsizzers]

But for the average photographer, do they really need it? I said it may be required for the professional who has to up his game each time to be competitive. But, for the average amateur who prints now and then for his house, are those extra things that important? It's like all those arguments about resolution and pixels and DR that went on all the time.

If Adobe kept up with purchased upgrades as they do with Photoshop Elements, you could spend a few bucks every few years to get those upgrades. Maybe that's the answer. Just buy Elements if you're an amateur.

I can't speak for 'the average photographer' - only for myself (and like the children of Lake Woebegon, I am above average ;-)

I did use Photoshop Elements for several years (up to version 10). I think Elements is a fine product which is often overlooked and under-rated. But as I recall, Adobe did not offer many (any?) minor updates. As I recall, the only way to "update" Elements was to buy a more recent full-version (there may have been some small discount to previous users(?)

As a hobbist, I don't "need" Lightroom/Photoshop. I don't even really "need" a camera, or any of the rest of it. I do photography because I enjoy it. And I expect my hobby to cost me money, because that is just the way hobbies are. I am fortunate to be in a position where the $10/month subscription cost is not a significant burden on my budget. And I happen to enjoy using Lightroom more than any of the other editing software programs I have tried (not that many). For me, the subscription model is the most convenient way to keep Lightroom up to date. If a Lightroom subscription costs me more money than using Elements - the functionality, the user experience, and the convenience of Lightroom are worth it, to me (YMMV).

 

[Pieter12]

What is wrong with the concept that a professional, who derives income from use of a product, pays more for that product than a casual user who derives no income from that same product use?!

So nobody gives a d*mn that when they are retired and living on $2000 a month from Social Security payments that some company cares (particularly about folks who were lifelong users of their products -- they know which ones have registered their products over how many years!) and gives a price break. There are a number of establishments who give seniors a 10% price break on purchases, or free extras.

May Social Security cease to exist when you retire, and then see how you feel about senior discounts at that point in your life!

Using that logic, camera companies should offer their products at a substantial discount to seniors and amateurs who are not deriving an income from the equipment. Film manufacturers, too for that matter. And sports car and motorcycle manufacturers to those who don't race professionally. I could go on and on. The choice to purchase or subscribe to a professional-level product is yours, it is not the company's to determine its pricing depending on your use. Maybe you would rather Adobe tack on a fee for every photo that went through their program and then you post on social media or print?

Senior discounts are a courtesy and a marketing tool, not a right.

 

[Pieter12]

As a hobbist, I don't "need" Lightroom/Photoshop. I don't even really "need" a camera, or any of the rest of it. I do photography because I enjoy it. And I expect my hobby to cost me money, because that is just the way hobbies are. I am fortunate to be in a position where the $10/month subscription cost is not a significant burden on my budget. And I happen to enjoy using Lightroom more than any of the other editing software programs I have tried (not that many). For me, the subscription model is the most convenient way to keep Lightroom up to date. If a Lightroom subscription costs me more money than using Elements - the functionality, the user experience, and the convenience of Lightroom are worth it, to me (YMMV).

This is why so many companies who can are going subscription service following Adobe. Adobe made billions more than they were making. Someone is paying for all those extra profits

Maybe Adobe is making all those extra profits because more people are subscribing, since the price of entry is much lower than buying the products outright. And there is less theft with the subscription model. You would have to subscribe for 4 years to pay the equivalent of the last version of PhotoShop that was sold. And over those 4 years, there would probably have been at least one major upgrade, so you would not have the latest tools and features. In the professional world, the subscription model makes perfect sense, especially beyond the photo software. Many upgrades to InDesign and Illustrator were not downward-compatible, so if a client sent a file that was more current than your version, you could not open it.

 

[Duceman]

I purchased Affinity Photo last year and could not be more happy with it. No, it does not work exactly like my PhotoShop CS5.5 did, but after a bit of time and learning, I'm able to use it how I want to.

Personally, I'm really tired of Adobe. IMO, they have been going through a devolution over the past decade or so. For example, after having used (and purchased) Acrobat Pro X for many years, I've found the latest version of Acrobat Pro DC--which I am now required to pay a yearly license to use--to be entirely user-unfriendly; very much harder to use than prior versions. And for what added benefit? None, really, that I can see. Fact is, many of these programs reached their zenith a long time ago... and other than having to update them for updated operating systems, I see no real advantage that they have over prior versions.

 

[faberryman]

Why are people still complaining about Adobe shifting to a subscription model? Didn't that occur four or five years ago? If you don't need or want to pay $10/month for the PS/LR bundle, there are plenty of other options, some of which are completely free of charge. Sure, the other options suck, but that's life. Time to move on.

Someone suggested Adobe Photoshop Elements as an alternative. Here is a before and after photo from the Adobe Photoshop Elements website. I bet it is a lot easier to satisfy your creative urge to change the color of your dog's fur from brown to orange using Photoshop Elements Sensei AI technology than in the vastly more expensive and complicated Photoshop CC, so what are you waiting for?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well priced actually, considering its graphics and publishing and photo management capabilities, all of which are well supported.
But its like buying a Hasselblad system when one rarely shares ones photography - PhotoShop may be more than one needs.

But you yourself have seen my work. A few years ago I PM'd several photographs to you. Furthermore you can come by my place to see many of them on the walls.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Only good enough if "most people" don't want to make prints with good tonality. Elements is an 8-bit application, not 16.

I suppose for many amateurs who have a color printer at home making 8 1/2 x 11" prints, Elements might be good enough. Doesn't tones and banding become an issue with size? To what size is 8 bits perfectly OK?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Doesn't tones and banding become an issue with size? To what size is 8 bits perfectly OK?

In my experience, unsmooth smooth tonality and banding are unrelated to size. Rather, they manifest in areas of relatively even tone (e.g. sky) irrespective of print size.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In my experience, unsmooth smooth tonality and banding are unrelated to size. Rather, they manifest in areas of relatively even tone (e.g. sky) irrespective of print size.

Sal: What was the resolution of the images the last time you checked? Wouldn't resolution affect banding?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...the other options suck...

In your opinion. There are numerous options other than renting Photoshop, some of which are quite good. I started with Elements, then moved to PhotoPlus X8 and am quite satisfied with it. In case my disk of that program won't run when I'm eventually forced to migrate to Windows 11, I decided to try Affinity Photo. It's got more capability than PhotoPlus X8 but, in my opinion, is less user friendly.

Others have posted in this thread about different non-Adobe programs they find satisfactory. I'd explore any of them before considering renting Photoshop.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Isn't sRGB 8-bit on the web. Why don't we see banding?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Isn't sRGB 8-bit on the web. Why don't we see banding?

I do see it on the Web. Often.

 

[faberryman]

In your opinion. There are numerous options other than renting Photoshop, some of which are quite good. I've been using PhotoPlus X8 and am quite satisfied with it. In case my disk of that program won't run when I'm eventually forced to migrate to Windows 11, I decided to try Affinity Photo. It's got more capability than PhotoPlus X8 but, in my opinion, is less user friendly.

Others have posted in this thread about different non-Adobe programs they find satisfactory. I'd explore any of them before considering renting Photoshop.

You read my post entirely too literally. There are lots of options at lots of price points. I am sure everyone can find a digital image editing program that meets his needs and pocketbook.

I would especially like to thank the OP for starting this thread in the digital area of the site so that no analog photographers were traumatized by seeing a discussion of digital image editing software.

 

[nmp]

Isn't sRGB 8-bit on the web. Why don't we see banding?

When you post-process in 8-bits, there is a multiplicative effeect - error gets amplified every time you do something with the data. That's different from post-processing in 16-bit throughout and then do the final conversion to 8-bit sRGB.

 

[Pieter12]

I suppose for many amateurs who have a color printer at home making 8 1/2 x 11" prints, Elements might be good enough. Doesn't tones and banding become an issue with size? To what size is 8 bits perfectly OK?

I dunno, but photoshop can handle 32-bits per channel. As far as I know, most camera-generated jpgs are 8-bit. RAW files can be higher.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When you post-process in 8-bits, there is a multiplicative effeect - error gets amplified every time you do something with the data. That's different from post-processing in 16-bit throughout and then do the final conversion to 8-bit sRGB.

In Computer Science with imaging, sound et al it is good practice to work in the best quality, resolution, ... one can and then when the work is completed save those results and if useful or necessary output at a lower quality or resolution. As you stated using the 8 bits resolution only may inject some artifacts, however if one starts in the higher resolution, there tends to be fewer unwanted side effect.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I dunno, but photoshop can handle 32-bits per channel. As far as I know, most camera-generated jpgs are 8-bit. RAW files can be higher.

So that raises a question. If most cameras provide 8-bit jpegs, why do they cause banding if you edit them in 8-bit? Or if you edit RAW pictures with 8-bit editing programs? Is there banding before they're edited?