That's hilarious! My "extra hour" has long been paid for by putting up with business BS for many many years. Why can't I still have some desire to do photography for fun after having done it for so long?Why lower prices for retirees? What difference does it make whether the product is used for business? And where does the forcing and extortion come into play?
What if the product saved you a hour each month? Can you earn that $10 back with your extra hour?
Damn good question. It seems like "it costs nothing, just a little bit each month". Best advice I ever got was from a good friend who said "do whatever can't be done with a computer."Instead of absorbing the high initial cost of an outright purchase? Of course in the long run it costs more, just in smaller chunks. All the software companies we deal with at work have migrated over to a subscription model. Our yearly costs for these subscriptions have gone through the roof, and there’s nothing I can do about it except raise prices.
To never take a photograph, as a vocation is something to give serious consideration to. Photographer retirees have not, to my knowledge, made too overly much, except for a few. I'm so sorry if you and your wife do not reach that bar so far. If they still do photography as retires it is probably because they were not burned too much over the years doing commercial work and they still enjoy the process as an art form( which does not always require digital effects.) For example, time spent in a darkroom can be quality time. This does not require digital support unless there is a shortage of water and sewage. So to say retirees are just a bit special because of spending many years as photographers and living thru it! As well, to say new photographers should consider what you have said and do it as an avocation, instead of a vocation. I thought that was a stupid thing to say many years ago, but not so much now. My wife and I did well but I probably should have been a lawyer or something, and have done photography for a hobby!Some software is used and not rented where no money is exchanged (OSS/FS). If the use of the software incurs cost for the vendor then sure, charge for the bandwidth, storage whatever. If there are no usage-based costs for the vendor then where is the justification for transaction charges? But my real question is, what makes retirees special? Why not by zip code, level of education, IQ or any other factor that might be a better indicator of available funds? I know retirees that bring in as much as my wife and I combined so why should they get a break?
The software saves time achieving a particular goal in less time than alternatives, and that goal is an edited image. For example, one could posit that stopping breathing saves a lot of time, money and trouble. Doesn't do much for accomplishing any human goals or activities though. Or put another way, the most direct way to save time with photography would to never take a photograph.
If you are not a heavy user [not weight shaming] the price for GIMP 2.0 is about right $0.00US.
And that's exactly what it is worth too.
Luckily, I was able to buy Production Premium CS6 a few days before Adobe went to rental only. Because rental would not fit my pattern of use, rental would not be a practical alternative.
I have been able to add CS6 to other computers. It may be that Adobe doesn’t consider it worthwhile to bother restricting the older disc versions.
Instead of absorbing the high initial cost of an outright purchase? Of course in the long run it costs more, just in smaller chunks. All the software companies we deal with at work have migrated over to a subscription model. Our yearly costs for these subscriptions have gone through the roof, and there’s nothing I can do about it except raise prices.
If Adobe was making less money from their subscription model, they would cancel it and go back to the purchase/license method. So overall, they're making way more now than with their old model. Someone is paying for all those extra profits.$10 a month for Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom is a bargain.
For those that think owning software is an advantage, I think you are confused as to how software is maintained today.
Every program I use that is current (not an old program that is not maintained), is rented.
My pdf program offers this to its users, and I rent it because I want to use it across my machines, and I *require* full updates.
View attachment 311209
This is a real problem created by adobe that needs to be fixed. What if a self employed photographer needs to have a job delivered "in the morning" but "is no longer competitive" because of dependance on a rental product that only works part of the time since it has been a Rental? What if adobe covers the losses on that job, or on the loss of that client? Would that not be fair?
Instead of absorbing the high initial cost of an outright purchase? Of course in the long run it costs more, just in smaller chunks. All the software companies we deal with at work have migrated over to a subscription model. Our yearly costs for these subscriptions have gone through the roof, and there’s nothing I can do about it except raise prices.
Alan,
For years many of us bought Photoshop alone for $649.00, and then we had to pay for updates.
Believe me, this is much cheaper, especially for new users.
Instead of a big price tag for PhotoShop or Microsoft Office, the software companies have changed to a monthly charge and slowly sucking the blood out of the subscribers. And yes, they do screw up and sometimes cancel someone who was paid up and the subscriber is without usable software until the problem is corrected.
On my Mac I am using a 2008 version of Microsoft Office and on my PC laptop I just switched from OpenOffice to LibreOffice. On both I have GIMP when I need it.
Some of what you say I agree with, but not everything.
Recently there has been huge leaps in AI learning that is being reflected in PS & LR, so not always just incremental changes.
What I have discovered to be the biggest 'aha moment' for me while teaching these programs to young adults that are photography majors is, not everyone is computer savvy.
Some people think it is just old people that do not do well working on computers, but no, it happens with young folk too.
It amazes me when I have taught a twenty something student that is basically computer illiterate.
You might think because they grew up with computers in the classroom they'd already have mastered the machine, but nope!
In order to get good at PS, LR or other graphics based programs, one has to be computer literate first.
So IMO, $10 a month for PS and LR is a bargain, especially if you need to learn computer basics too.
Or you could spend thousands learning in a classroom like I taught in.
Do you really take such lousy photos that you must have PhotoShop to retouch them? If you can't afford the program, maybe you should improve your photography so it isn't necessary. Most digital cameras come with some sort of software that allows for reasonable adjustments, cropping, etc. And there are tons of elementary retouching programs available for free or low cost.
Do you really take such lousy photos that you must have PhotoShop to retouch them? If you can't afford the program, maybe you should improve your photography so it isn't necessary. Most digital cameras come with some sort of software that allows for reasonable adjustments, cropping, etc. And there are tons of elementary retouching programs available for free or low cost.
This is, I would suggest, unnecessarily harsh.
There is a substantial amount of support resources for PhotoShop users - far more than for the alternatives.
PhotoShop is a defacto standard - labs, publishers, producer of photo books and even the people who make personalized photo mugs design their systems and help resources built on the assumption that users are working with Adobe products.
If you work with specialized processes that require digital negatives, good luck finding helpful materials that are not oriented toward PhotoShop users.
It is bad enough that we never own beer; we can only rent it. So why does not need to rent PhotoShop when one for the same cost could own a darkroom, less the cost of materials of course.
Interesting...one could own a darkroom for $10 a month?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?