Just Cancelled Photoshop

[Photowithfries]

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?

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?

You probably have many years ahead as a photographer while there are others, who can paint images on the cave walls that you would find useful for a very long time, but who do not wish to spend all to communicate when so little is perceived.

 

[Photowithfries]

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.

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."

 

[Photowithfries]

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.

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!

 

[guangong]

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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

 

[nmp]

And that's exactly what it is worth too.

I stopped drinking Starbucks coffee for 2 days in a month and it pays for my Photoshop CC.

 

[Mal Paso]

My issue was not cost, I was denied use of photoshop that I Had Paid For! Adobe ran their security checks on weekends when No Support Was Available. The program refused to run when I needed it. Part of the problem may have been hughes satellite. I am on Starlink now but adobe gets no more money from me. They had their chance.

 

[Rayt]

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.

Me too and also with Lr and Nikon scan. Adobe didn’t restrict the old discs but progress certainly did them in. I kept that Macbook Pro running and eventually replaced the HD with SSD and a new battery so it’ll go for a few more years. All was good until new digital cameras doubled in raw file sizes every few years and the poor old Mac could no longer handle them. It was still good for the scans but I didn’t want to keep an extra computer just for that. Updated OS no longer supported older software in newer machines. Latest versions of Lr and PS are more user friendly anyway.

 

[Roseha]

I lost access to my CD version of Photoshop CS6 when I upgraded my Mac to OS Catalina. It won't work anymore.

I already had bought Affinity and once I realized where the various tools were located there I've been able to use it pretty much as well as I did Photoshop.

I still have access to my CD version of Lightroom but I imagine that will run out some day as well.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Everyone has learned from Adobe how they can raise their profits a lot more with little R&D. Just go to the subscription model. I use to be in the fire alarm system installation and service business. Service and maintenance afterward was always the bigger profit center especially if I had a monthly charge contract. I had commercial clients for twenty years who would send me a check every month for service whether they needed me that month or not. I didn't even have to bill them once I got going. They'd just send a check. Much better than having on-call service where you bill on a time and material basis. Today, it would be bank-to-bank deposits. What a sweet deal.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

$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

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.

Look at it this way. $10 a month over ten years is $1200. It adds up.

 

[MattKing]

I sure wish the practice management software I was using for our law office before I left the practice had been just $10.00 USD per month.
Even $100.00 USD per month would have been less than we were paying - on a yearly basis.
For another comparison, I understand that independent auto repair shops around here who require full featured engine analysis machines for all brands aren't able to buy the machines, they can only lease them. The lease rates (which include all software updates and support) start at $100,000.00 CDN per year.
$10.00 USD per month is cheap for the capabilities that Photoshop includes. The problem for many is that:
1) they only use a small subset of those capabilities; and
2) much of the information out there - courses and handy techniques and tips - as well as the special purpose add-ons like plug-ins is Photoshop specific.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

I just bought Microsoft Office 2021 with my new Dell Windows 11 desktop. It seems to be licensed for the life of the computer, (I think, I hope). Will it expire or just when the desktop dies?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

You just gave that twenty-year-old a good reason to take up film photography with a darkroom.

 

[MattKing]

From time to time I think it would be handy if Photrio had a "Content Aware" mode

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Maybe a darkroom with "content-aware".

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

+1

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

My point is, if one is to complain about the price of using PhotoShop, there are other ways to adjust a digital file. If you need the tools that photoshop offers, you need to pay for them. And no publisher I know of requires or even will accept a PhosSop file, they mostly want TIFF or JPEG.

 

[nmp]

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?

 

[Rayt]

Interesting...one could own a darkroom for $10 a month?

Exactly I spend more than $10 a month for beer.