No Love affair with Digital (Thread moved)

[Deleted member 88956]

You didn't buy the software, you bought a license to use the software, and it came with terms.

I'm not disputing that, just the fact of having hard copy installed on my PC so I can take it into the woods and use it.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not disputing that, just the fact of having hard copy installed on my PC so I can take it into the woods and use it.

Which is part of the reason that I use software with a license that permits that.

 

[nmp]

Isn't CC NOT stored on your computer?

No. CC is NOT not stored on your computer. It is, just like the non-CC version. Only difference is it communicates on a periodic basis to the Adobe servers to make sure you have legal copy and to upgrade if any. I think you can use it without connecting to the internet for 3 months for annual subscribers or 1 month for month-to-month subscribers.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

No. CC is NOT not stored on your computer. It is, just like the non-CC version. Only difference is it communicates on a periodic basis to the Adobe servers to make sure you have legal copy and to upgrade if any. I think you can use it without connecting to the internet for 3 months for annual subscribers or 1 month for month-to-month subscribers.

Sorry, but you're proving my point. The reason I stopped upgrading Adobe (granted, I do not need it for professional purposes, so I can see how those who do, need to continue or even feel better about the sub approach). To me under the umbrella of sales pitch along the lines of "you're better off with subscription because it is always up to the latest edition" Adobe takes joiners hostage. Luckily there are still at least as good options with the traditional purchase or ... free. So as long as my current Lightroom continues to give me what I need, I'll stick to it, then go elsewhere. And as I mentioned, even though this is not suppose to be happening, my LR randomly locks me out until I connect to internet. Probably some attempt to get user into the new deal.

 

[blockend]

To me under the umbrella of sales pitch along the lines of "you're better off with subscription because it is always up to the latest edition"

Yes, it's like PCP plans for cars. The monthly rate on a new car seems reasonable, but in three or four years time you've only paid for half of it. You can return the car, with provisos on mileage and condition, or you can keep paying and they'll give you a new one. The old one may have had many thousand miles of reliable service left, but you have to get the new model or lose the car. It's worse in fact because there's no cash or second-hand option with editing software.

Image sharing sites like Flickr are also pursuing a monetised model, and there's no limit on what such sites may demand in future to look at your own pictures. It's why I'd recommend anyone who cares about their photography to load to various platforms, but above all print their work. When you're gone and site entry codes are a distant memory, SD cards are as relevant as wax cylinder recordings, a USB port and CD drive have gone the way of optical audio discs, your grandkids will be able to look at what you got up to in 60 years time, just as we do.

 

[Luckless]

Isn't CC NOT stored on your computer? Which is what that pst was poking at. I am on last hard installation version of Lightroom, unlikely to upgrade, and still get annoyed by occasional denial for using it when somehow, upon opening it with no internet connection it well ... asks for verification. And yes, it is fully purchased legal copy that's been verified, and re-verified over and over with Adobe's server..

It IS stored and runs on your computer, but its licensing system must sync credentials at least once a month/once every three months depending on your plan and setup. This is to prevent people from easily installing/copying it to as many computers as they wish.

If that upsets you, then don't blame adobe, blame everyone who felt entitled to use the results of adobe's efforts but not pay for it...

 

[David Brown]

... don't blame adobe, blame everyone who felt entitled to use the results of adobe's efforts but not pay for it...

Yep!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Not sure if it was in this thread or another but I've spent some time today working with MakeTiff and PerfectRAW from colorperfect.com and it works very well, quality is excellent.

 

[nmp]

Sorry, but you're proving my point. The reason I stopped upgrading Adobe (granted, I do not need it for professional purposes, so I can see how those who do, need to continue or even feel better about the sub approach). To me under the umbrella of sales pitch along the lines of "you're better off with subscription because it is always up to the latest edition" Adobe takes joiners hostage. Luckily there are still at least as good options with the traditional purchase or ... free. So as long as my current Lightroom continues to give me what I need, I'll stick to it, then go elsewhere. And as I mentioned, even though this is not suppose to be happening, my LR randomly locks me out until I connect to internet. Probably some attempt to get user into the new deal.

To each his own. I am happy with the subscription model myself. I am not sure though why your standalone LR locks you out. You might want to talk to someone at Adobe. I still have mine from before I got CC version on a different computer and use it occasionally while on travel and have never had such an issue.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

... then don't blame adobe, blame everyone who felt entitled to use the results of adobe's efforts but not pay for it...

I think that is a bit too far, subscription model was introduced for no other reason but to lock people into the system long term and get them used to it / rely on it to a point of facing a hard decision later on of going elsewhere or continuing. This is bean counters telling planners where to find more cash flow. All else is PR and advertising.

I don't blame people for subscribing, there are pros to that too, but for low volume use I think not. There at options at least as capable, even if not supported or documented all that well.

 

[MattKing]

I think that is a bit too far, subscription model was introduced for no other reason but to lock people into the system long term and get them used to it / rely on it to a point of facing a hard decision later on of going elsewhere or continuing. This is bean counters telling planners where to find more cash flow. All else is PR and advertising.

I would counter this with a former small business owner's perspective.
A product/service delivery model that provides for consistent income and lots of smaller transactions with corresponding small amounts of profit each time permits you to be much more efficient and effective at supplying consistent value to lots of customers.
Sort of like camera stores in the old days, who made most of their money selling film and photo-finishing.

 

[Luckless]

I think that is a bit too far, subscription model was introduced for no other reason but to lock people into the system long term and get them used to it / rely on it to a point of facing a hard decision later on of going elsewhere or continuing. This is bean counters telling planners where to find more cash flow. All else is PR and advertising.

I don't blame people for subscribing, there are pros to that too, but for low volume use I think not. There at options at least as capable, even if not supported or documented all that well.

No, the "Phone Home" aspect of software very much IS directly linked to people who decide they're above the law and above bargaining in good faith. No software company wants to maintain the systems required for a program to confirm if the user actually paid for their software, whether on a subscription or a one-time payment software delivery scheme.

That's development and support time that any programmer would rather devote to far more productive and useful things...

If there weren't large bodies of people who were willing to use software without paying for it, or trying to pull something like pay for one month and then just keep using it without renewing, then there would be no reason to even bother writing systems to try and block them from doing so... And it has zero to do with subscription model.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, the "Phone Home" aspect of software very much IS directly linked to people who decide they're above the law and above bargaining in good faith. No software company wants to maintain the systems required for a program to confirm if the user actually paid for their software, whether on a subscription or a one-time payment software delivery scheme.

That's development and support time that any programmer would rather devote to far more productive and useful things...

If there weren't large bodies of people who were willing to use software without paying for it, or trying to pull something like pay for one month and then just keep using it without renewing, then there would be no reason to even bother writing systems to try and block them from doing so... And it has zero to do with subscription model.

I handled that problem by changing to GIMP.

 

[jtk]

I would counter this with a former small business owner's perspective.
A product/service delivery model that provides for consistent income and lots of smaller transactions with corresponding small amounts of profit each time permits you to be much more efficient and effective at supplying consistent value to lots of customers.
Sort of like camera stores in the old days, who made most of their money selling film and photo-finishing.

Matt, I agree wholeheartedly. When I paid my bills with photography I wanted repeat customers and worked hard to make sure they were happy. Same as with auto mechanics and physicians.

As well, reputation is crucial. It's important to consider just who it is that prefers which software.

Gimp is fine for people who want to chat with other Gimp users...I understand that.

Photoshop (for example) offers astounding ease and horsepower, not to mention exceptional training/educational support.

If I was lonely and loved playing with software I might use Gimp, but I prefer to make and share prints, therefore rely on Photoshop. I like Photoshop's CC version because in fact it is continuously updated without my intervention...and as a result is continuously refined.

 

[AndyH]

I think that is a bit too far, subscription model was introduced for no other reason but to lock people into the system long term and get them used to it / rely on it to a point of facing a hard decision later on of going elsewhere or continuing. This is bean counters telling planners where to find more cash flow. All else is PR and advertising.

I don't blame people for subscribing, there are pros to that too, but for low volume use I think not. There at options at least as capable, even if not supported or documented all that well.

The subscription model is rapidly being adopted by nearly every software developer, for good business reasons. A steady revenue flow is much better than a sales model that depends on "new" versions producing bumps in sales. Technical support is a vital part of software sales, and it is nearly impossible to provide that on old versions of software installed on newer computers. But failure to do so produces bad customer relations.

From the user's viewpoint, it is actually much cheaper than buying the new versions. Only a few users persist in trying to use older versions, but if you upgrade to each new version you will pay a lot more money in the long run. Additionally, the software companies that use the individual release model hold back improvements to release them in a "new" edition to spark sales - subscribers get each incremental improvement as they are released, rather than having to wait for the latest and greatest "new" edition.

That's why subscription has become the new normal. It works better and is more effective for the companies and for MOST users. There are still single license freeware and shareware alternatives and a few individual release developers, but this is the direction the world is going. My job requires the use of Microsoft Office , as well as software for construction specification and bidding, accounting, contract writing, and property management. Every single one has now gone to a subscription model over the past two years, and I'm okay with that. It's costing us less to stay up to date, and our tech support needs have actually been considerably reduced. Fewer crashes, bugs, and glitches equals more productivity while in front of the computer.

Lots of us wish for the good old days, but maybe the good old days weren't really all that good when viewed objectively.

Andy

 

[wiltw]

To each his own. I am happy with the subscription model myself. I am not sure though why your standalone LR locks you out. You might want to talk to someone at Adobe. I still have mine from before I got CC version on a different computer and use it occasionally while on travel and have never had such an issue.

Yes, to each his own! As a photo enthusiast for over 50 years, though, I detest the current subscription model because if I had been subscribing to Adobe software all during that time, my retirement back account would be smaller by over $19K because of paid fees and because of loss of interest accumuation on those fees paid during 50 years (if the money had simply accumulated at 4%, as it had done before 2009!).

 

[Deleted member 88956]

The subscription model is rapidly being adopted by nearly every software developer, for good business reasons. A steady revenue flow is much better than a sales model that depends on "new" versions producing bumps in sales. Technical support is a vital part of software sales, and it is nearly impossible to provide that on old versions of software installed on newer computers. But failure to do so produces bad customer relations.

From the user's viewpoint, it is actually much cheaper than buying the new versions. Only a few users persist in trying to use older versions, but if you upgrade to each new version you will pay a lot more money in the long run. Additionally, the software companies that use the individual release model hold back improvements to release them in a "new" edition to spark sales - subscribers get each incremental improvement as they are released, rather than having to wait for the latest and greatest "new" edition.

That's why subscription has become the new normal. It works better and is more effective for the companies and for MOST users. There are still single license freeware and shareware alternatives and a few individual release developers, but this is the direction the world is going. My job requires the use of Microsoft Office , as well as software for construction specification and bidding, accounting, contract writing, and property management. Every single one has now gone to a subscription model over the past two years, and I'm okay with that. It's costing us less to stay up to date, and our tech support needs have actually been considerably reduced. Fewer crashes, bugs, and glitches equals more productivity while in front of the computer.

Lots of us wish for the good old days, but maybe the good old days weren't really all that good when viewed objectively.

Andy

This your subjective opinion, there is a lot more to using software than cost. I don't like being tethered to the net nor told what and where I can do whatever. No to mention be at a mercy of Adobe at all times.

 

[AndyH]

This your subjective opinion, there is a lot more to using software than cost. I don't like being tethered to the net nor told what and where I can do whatever. No to mention be at a mercy of Adobe at all times.

Of course, you have the right to use your software however you wish. However my point was that the entire industry is moving toward the subscription model, for reasons that make complete business sense, and that many computer users are more than fine with this trend, including me.

I'm sure we will see other photo software companies switching to the model as time passes, as will developers in other fields large and small. All of the specialty products I listed used to be available in one time, single user packages, but now demand subscriptions. The constantly evolving computer field demands tech support, and tech support costs money, especially when software ages but hardware is replaced more frequently. When I first started using computers on a daily basis, I kept the hardware for several years, upgrading by component. Now it is hard to get much more than three years out of a laptop without expansion slots, and each time I upgrade there is a whole new set of glitches, bugs, and crashes if I'm using older software. It's not everyone's desire, and I'm not judging you on your choices, but it's an inevitable trend in the marketplace.

Andy

 

[Mal Paso]

Kodak figured out early, get a camera in someones hand, get them hooked and you have an income stream. We used to decry the tyranny of the Great Yellow Father. Not much has changed. LOL

 

[CMoore]

Digital has a steep learning curve, but once you've familiar with Photoshop, you can take your photography to a new level.

Disclaimer #1 -
Besides the fact that i would still choose to shoot film, because that is what i like....... Ralph's comment sums up my frustration with trying to learn to use a Digital SLR.
At my local college, i (twice) signed up for the Beginner Photo Class. I dropped out both times.

Disclaimer #2 -
Other than using the Internet for my own personal Library/University, i get no joy from using or sitting in front of a computer. No bond with them at all.
So that means i have No Idea what a computer Does, Can Do, or how to operate one.
THAT was my biggest block to staying in the Digital class. Until two years ago, i had NEVER used an Apple Computer. I had to have somebody show me how to turn on the monitor.
It was all downhill from there. Teachers were shocked that i did not know computer basics.... "Files"... or creating files, or any of that stuff, i know nothing about that.
I REALLY needed individual instruction. Trying to learn Capture One, or Darkroom or Photoshop was impossible for me. I simply did not have competence with the computer.
This is 100% NOT the fault of digital photography....i am just pointing out a fact. If you are not somewhat computer savvy, modern photography is a F'ing bummer.

The kids in the class LOVED Me.
I thought Instant-Gram was a camera.....no Chip, that is Instax..!!!
Instagram,.....is a photo service..!!!
I had NO Idea. I do not pay any attention to that stuff.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Of course, you have the right to use your software however you wish. However my point was that the entire industry is moving toward the subscription model, for reasons that make complete business sense, and that many computer users are more than fine with this trend, including me.

I'm sure we will see other photo software companies switching to the model as time passes, as will developers in other fields large and small. All of the specialty products I listed used to be available in one time, single user packages, but now demand subscriptions. The constantly evolving computer field demands tech support, and tech support costs money, especially when software ages but hardware is replaced more frequently. When I first started using computers on a daily basis, I kept the hardware for several years, upgrading by component. Now it is hard to get much more than three years out of a laptop without expansion slots, and each time I upgrade there is a whole new set of glitches, bugs, and crashes if I'm using older software. It's not everyone's desire, and I'm not judging you on your choices, but it's an inevitable trend in the marketplace.

Andy

Great and I am overall fine with digital, still have all 10 digits attached to my palms. But I am one of those who disagree with any scheme that essentially holds me hostage to whatever they decide to do with , after all, what I am paying for. This is the problem I am having with it. I don't want to even know what's in the fine print of such an agreement, it's enough to see what hits the eye without going deeper.

Also, I do not see all photo editing software going subscription route, Adobe is a monster in the industry, they have what it takes to support their servers and make promises they make. Many would run themselves out of business for not being able to follow through on required support concessions they would need to put out ot gain clients.

 

[removed account4]

The button pushing to me is more about automatics in digital photography, shots taken at thousand-a-minute rate with not much thought given. Sure, not all digital shooters do that, and both, film and digital,up require skill to end with a fine image. Yet, traditional process has requirements that, if not done correctly it ends up in a bin with no way to get it back in any form, outside of trying to re-shoot, which for many subjects is no longer possible, Digital has vastly changed that and certainly diluted a need for the know how to get anything of potential value.

I would not equate upgrading cameras/lenses to what it is happening in digital world. There was a vast difference going from Brownie to a top notch mechanical marvel, than upgrading your sensor from millions of pixels to a few more million of pixels with zero added photographic value. There is a huge difference in handling experience of film camera that gives an assuring feel in handling and mechanical/optical consistency (as in switching Brownie to say ... a Nikon) than getting a bigger sensor with likely "faster" (by nano-seconds) system response times, that only gives most upgraders a sense of ... well, got more pixels, must make better photo now. The advertising pressure that always implies newer is always better for you, never had more useless value than in current world.

Digital is here, hopefully so is film. Both have pros & cons, but vastly different experiences. Completely incomparable.

well, i understand where you are coming from, i guess we have completely different points of view on this
button pushers are what kept the film industry alive from the 1880s until 2000 and even today with the carefree manifesto of LOMO users. (shoot with utter abandon and enjoy using film &c &C &C)
digital process might seem easy, but it requires plenty of skill to do it right, and even more skill to make good prints, even though onboard computers and light sensors make it hard to make a poorly exposed photo, it is still easy to make poorly exposed photos with a digital camera ( trust me i edit viciously ---, a few years ago when visiting family overseas i shot probably 4000(probably closer to 4500 ) photos, for 60 image i gifted in CDs ...) but maybe that's just me? but for generations people have been just as happy with poorly exposed poorly printed snapshots taken with disposable or instamatics or box cameras so it doesnt' seem much different. upgrade a digital camera for one with more memory and faster technology? not sure how different that is from upgrading your 127 film square kodak hawkeye to a kodak reflex, it's more realestate, more controls and did i really need it? probably not... maybe im suggesting things that are exceptions to the rule? that said sure its easy to say they are completely different but IDK seems pretty much the same exact thing, and from my experience using digital since the 90s, not much different. like aunt millie with her slide shows and photo albums, i just wish she and people nowadays would learn the magical art of editing... cause unfortunately instead of 100 photos of the trip to aruba one has to feign and interest in at aunt millie's house it is 10,000 images of the trip to the ice cream stand we have to live through...

 

[Deleted member 88956]

well, i understand where you are coming from, i guess we have completely different points of view on this
button pushers are what kept the film industry alive from the 1880s until 2000 and even today with the carefree manifesto of LOMO users. (shoot with utter abandon and enjoy using film &c &C &C)
digital process might seem easy, but it requires plenty of skill to do it right, and even more skill to make good prints, even though onboard computers and light sensors make it hard to make a poorly exposed photo, it is still easy to make poorly exposed photos with a digital camera ( trust me i edit viciously ---, a few years ago when visiting family overseas i shot probably 4000(probably closer to 4500 ) photos, for 60 image i gifted in CDs ...) but maybe that's just me? but for generations people have been just as happy with poorly exposed poorly printed snapshots taken with disposable or instamatics or box cameras so it doesnt' seem much different. upgrade a digital camera for one with more memory and faster technology? not sure how different that is from upgrading your 127 film square kodak hawkeye to a kodak reflex, it's more realestate, more controls and did i really need it? probably not... maybe im suggesting things that are exceptions to the rule? that said sure its easy to say they are completely different but IDK seems pretty much the same exact thing, and from my experience using digital since the 90s, not much different. like aunt millie with her slide shows and photo albums, i just wish she and people nowadays would learn the magical art of editing... cause unfortunately instead of 100 photos of the trip to aruba one has to feign and interest in at aunt millie's house it is 10,000 images of the trip to the ice cream stand we have to live through...

There are always exception to the rule

It's all within an individual and I did not try to imply digital is easy in order to be of high grade. I was mainly focusing on main stream ways of shooting digital and looking at what was taken long afterwords, because in this sense it is easy to work that way. With film (and never mind alternative processes) one just does not have the luxury of endless clicking. A different and careful thought process is needed to record it as close to intentions as possible, then fine tune it later. The rate of shots taken to shots retained is vastly different between film and digital in majority of cases.

On upgrading gear? I recall a girl, an aspiring photographer, who clearly had a great eye and some high grade shots. He "needed" to upgrade her gear because ... there is a newer one (and she had pretty high grade camera in digital spec sense) but she thought that her photography would get better by doing so. I will say that same was and is happening with any gear, you can see that in discussions, people switching brands all in search for becoming a better photographer, meaning they don't know what being a good photographer means. So here I believe we are in exact agreement, nothing has changed.

I will just retain my belief that shooting digital at a 100 a minute is not same as shooting 5 on film.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

.... one just does not have the luxury of endless clicking. A different and careful thought process is needed to record it as close to intentions as possible, then fine tune it later. The rate of shots taken to shots retained is vastly different between film and digital in majority of cases.

I will just retain my belief that shooting digital at a 100 a minute is not same as shooting 5 on film.

This cartoon pretty well summarizes the conundrum of digital versus chemical:

 

[radiant]

Yes, I have a question: how to get a single awesome exposure?

That meme is old and worn out already. Seriously speaking if it needs 2000++++++++++ exposures to get 6 awesome shots, I will go for it. Frame count doesn't mean anything, it is again the end result that only matters.

.. getting awesome shots seems to be easy, just load a 120 film and press shutter 12 times and you get 6 awesome shots. Medium format cameras seem to be magic boxes