What replaces Photoshop?

[grat]

IMO affinity doesn't even doesn't even come close to Photoshop Despite the claims.

Personally, I'm finding features in Affinity that are much more difficult to do in Photoshop, so YMMV, TANSTAAFL, etc.

Out of curiosity, what's lacking in Affinity Photo for you? I agree that it does things in a very different way, but once I've taken the time to learn the difference, I've been pleased with the results.

 

[Luis Filipe]

Affinity Photo.

I got really surprised with it. Can run all my workflow there.

Is it better than PS? No, but it is enough. And paid £25.00 to HAVE the program, not to USE the program.

Last update to 1.9 brought some new useful stuff, some I might not even use.

 

[DonW]

I tried moving from PS after using it from it's beginning. At first the whole concept of a subscription based operation piss me off but then I realized that 1. It's cheap on an annual basis and 2. With things changing so fast I love getting all the updates as they come rather than having to wait for the next standalone PS program. I tried all the aforementioned programs in this thread and they all did some things well but not everything I needed in one package. PS fit the bill so I ponied up and got on the cloud.

You seem to be able to get on Photrio every so often so I am sure you could satisfy Adobe's license check requirements. I am sure they would be happy to take your credit card or if you don't have one just get one of those VISA gift cards with the amount you need on it. Maybe that will work.

Don

 

[grat]

You seem to be able to get on Photrio every so often so I am sure you could satisfy Adobe's license check requirements. I am sure they would be happy to take your credit card or if you don't have one just get one of those VISA gift cards with the amount you need on it. Maybe that will work.

Right up until someone at Adobe decides their shares need a boost, or their license server hiccups at just the wrong moment.......

I do not reward behavior which is designed to enrich shareholders at the expense of the customer. I don't know about Luis, but for me, this isn't technical or financial-- I have a fantastic internet connection, and make a reasonable income. This is philosophical. Adobe has chosen a licensing model I do not agree with, and I will not support.

I've been banging away on computers since you typed in programs out of a magazine in BASIC or Assembly-- I've experienced shareware, freeware, open-source, closed-source, SaaS, mainframe computing, grid computing, cloud computing, BSD vs GPL vs Apache vs MIT, I've used everything from acoustic couplers to v.90 to T1 to ISDN, token ring, ethernet, and ATM-- And there are too many usable options to justify supporting Adobe's blood-from-a-turnip based licensing model.

While one poster has had perfectly legitimate complaints about Serif, for everyone else, they've been exemplary in customer service, support, and pricing (although I need to download 1.9-- which is a free upgrade to 1.8 users).

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

People hate on the Adobe subscription model but it's one of the dumber takes on the interwebz today.

PS & LR had a combined sticker price of nearly $1k before the subscriptions. It was unaffordable for most and so piracy was rampant. Now you can get both for around $10 a month, and instead of having to wait for updates they come regularly. It would take about 7 years of paying for PS and LR to equal the single license for both, and in that time Adobe surely would have released a new version or two.

So let me spell this out for you. Adobe SIGNIFICANTLY lowered the cost of using their software, and eliminated piracy basically over night. They increased their user base, thus increasing their profits (which is a goal of for profit companies btw).

It's better for consumers, it's better for Adobe. I really can't understand wanting to drop a boatload of cash on a fixed version of PS just so you can say you have a perpetual license. You don't even need to use PSDs anymore as TIFFs can have the layers built in. And even then you're not using raws for some reason? It makes no sense.

If you want to complain about Adobe, do it because their software is slow and oftentimes buggy. Their subscription model however, is great.

 

[MattKing]

No user ever owns commercial software anyways. They rent it.

 

[BGriffin23]

Darkroom is 100% free and can do all but the "inserting graphics" part of #2 in Post 10. For that see Gimp, also free.

 

[Luis Filipe]

Right up until someone at Adobe decides their shares need a boost, or their license server hiccups at just the wrong moment.......

I do not reward behavior which is designed to enrich shareholders at the expense of the customer. I don't know about Luis, but for me, this isn't technical or financial-- I have a fantastic internet connection, and make a reasonable income. This is philosophical. Adobe has chosen a licensing model I do not agree with, and I will not support.

I've been banging away on computers since you typed in programs out of a magazine in BASIC or Assembly-- I've experienced shareware, freeware, open-source, closed-source, SaaS, mainframe computing, grid computing, cloud computing, BSD vs GPL vs Apache vs MIT, I've used everything from acoustic couplers to v.90 to T1 to ISDN, token ring, ethernet, and ATM-- And there are too many usable options to justify supporting Adobe's blood-from-a-turnip based licensing model.

While one poster has had perfectly legitimate complaints about Serif, for everyone else, they've been exemplary in customer service, support, and pricing (although I need to download 1.9-- which is a free upgrade to 1.8 users).

Its half heavy and I can do all my workflow there, as I said before, its enough. I was using about 10% of the PS anyway.

For me it all basically resumes to:

-cr
white balance
get the as much midtones as posible
-PS
noise reduction (if)
lens correction
tonal adjustments
color adjustment (if)
crop/resize
sharpening (if)
output

All files are automatically smart objects, layers and masks works the same way and you have this blend range tool that really powerful is used properly.

Again, photoshop is better, but PS is here being improved for more then 30 years and Affinity for 5.
Affinity brought me what I need for less money. I don't care, if windows paint could offer the same features I need, I would be with paint.

 

[grat]

I've found that auto-color is surprisingly relevant for inverting negatives under Affinity, and I have become quite enamored of Frequency Separation as a nice tool for boosting sharpness without amplifying grain-- very handy if you're using an Epson which tends to add a small amount of softness to the scan. Being able to set up multiple slices with different crops / scales via the Export persona is also kind of nifty. I don't use it that much except to produce desktop-sized images, but it is definitely useful.

 

[Luis Filipe]

I have become quite enamored of Frequency Separation

Thats one of the things I dont use, but recognise that having as an adjustment layer might be useful.

One thing that could be improved are the selection tools, and adding numerical values to curves would be a plus.
Also, luminosity masks take a little longer to create than in PS.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...enrich shareholders at the expense of the customer...

Isn't that the very essence of every for-profit corporate entity, irrespective of whether it's publicly or privately held?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Isn't that the very essence of every for-profit corporate entity, irrespective of whether it's publicly or privately held?

Yes but the 2nd part is not even true in this case, because in exchange the customer got affordable access to legal licenses and more regular updates to the software. Back in 2002 student me looked at even the educational price of PS as a huge expense. Now it's a heck of a lot less than what I was spending on cheap beer in Carbondale per month.

 

[runswithsizzers]

For me, Lightroom was the replacement for Photoshop. A subscription to the Adobe Photography Plan gets me both, but for the RAW files from my digital camera, I almost never use Photoshop anymore.

I do still use Photoshop when working with digital camera copies of my b&w negatives and slides. If there are many dust spots to remove, Photoshop's Clone/Heal tools are much better than Lightroom's. I also prefer Photoshop sharpening tools when working with digital copies of film. (I don't do much sharpening, if any, when working with all-digital images, other than the Lightroom default.)

Occasionally, I want a red arrow on an image to call attention to some detail, or to underline text on a screenshot; Photoshop can do that, but Lightroom cannot.

Other than those few special cases, Lightroom does everthing I need to do, and I prefer the interface to Photoshop.

 

[grat]

Isn't that the very essence of every for-profit corporate entity, irrespective of whether it's publicly or privately held?

No, it isn't. If your business is based on income from customers, then there's a simple rule: Do what's best for the customer.

Everything else will follow. More customers, more positive advertising, more revenue.

Cutting corners, designing by spreadsheet, milking the customers-- these will come back to bite you in the %$#@ eventually. Bob Lutz, when he became a VP at GM, described the environment as "perfected mediocrity". As an example, when he toured the paint shop, the engineers were happy to show him their paint, because they had the lowest failure rate in the industry-- and when he said "Yes, but all your colors are ugly", they were very confused, because that had never come up in their meetings.

Adobe's licensing model benefits the shareholders-- not the customers. In the short term, it will lead to more revenue-- But in the long term, it's dubious. IBM ruled the world with software subscriptions-- you didn't own the OS on your mainframe or mini-computer, you didn't own the software running on it, and you had to pay running support costs to keep the hardware "under warranty". And then they got steamrolled by the PC industry when they tried to license their (far superior) MicroChannel Architecture for PC's-- but it cost money, and a lot of it, per PC. So Intel created PCI. Apple tried the same stunt with firewire, because they'd been successful with SCSI. Now it's all USB/Thunderbolt.

 

[grat]

Yes but the 2nd part is not even true in this case, because in exchange the customer got affordable access to legal licenses and more regular updates to the software. Back in 2002 student me looked at even the educational price of PS as a huge expense. Now it's a heck of a lot less than what I was spending on cheap beer in Carbondale per month.

I support researchers in computing at a major university. Due to stupid user tricks, a PC had a "bad" network cable-- the user tapping his foot against the case, while the network cable was stretched tight around the leg of his desk, had resulted in the port being rounded out, and our slightly off-spec (cheap) cables wouldn't stay in. I suggested to the researcher that he go pick up a $15 cable from Best Buy. He objected. Strenuously.

Finally, I pointed out he was screaming about a $15 cable that would make his $4000 workstation function, and would allow him to process the data he had collected for his MULTI-million dollar research grant.

People don't bat an eye at paying thousands of dollars for cameras, lenses, lighting, darkroom supplies, memory cards, hard drives, computers, scanners-- and have a freaking fit when asked to pay for a piece of software that makes their job easier.

You want to pay out a monthly fee for software for the rest of your career? Enjoy. I think it's an abusive model, and no amount of whitewashing changes my opinion that you're thanking Adobe for screwing you.

 

[MattKing]

The problem with Photoshop isn't the licensing model.
The problem is that it is an incredibly powerful and extensive tool, that has capabilities that very few exploit.
To maintain that tool, they need high prices or a relatively expensive subscription option.
Most people need a simpler tool.
If it was $4.00 per month, with an option to save money by paying $34.99 once each year, a stripped down Photoshop would be much more suitable.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...enrich shareholders at the expense of the customer...

Isn't that the very essence of every for-profit corporate entity, irrespective of whether it's publicly or privately held?

Yes but the 2nd part is not even true in this case, because in exchange the customer got affordable access to legal licenses and more regular updates to the software. Back in 2002 student me looked at even the educational price of PS as a huge expense. Now it's a heck of a lot less than what I was spending on cheap beer in Carbondale per month.

The second part might or might not be true depending on how long a given customer used / continues to use a non-subscription copy of Photoshop. Your "trade study" is yours alone, and doesn't represent generic customers'.

No, it isn't. If your business is based on income from customers, then there's a simple rule: Do what's best for the customer...

Best for the customer would be giving them the product/service at no charge. Methinks complying with your rule is a certain way for the business to go bankrupt.

 

[grat]

Best for the customer would be giving them the product/service at no charge. Methinks complying with your rule is a certain way for the business to go bankrupt.

And with open source, that's potentially what happens-- but you're entirely at the mercy of the developers. Regardless, products like this forum, are running on open source software, running on top of open source operating systems, developed in large part by volunteers and amateurs. There is enough commercial support from entities like Red Hat and Ubuntu that those developers are paid. If you want Linux, it's "free"-- but if you want supported linux, you'll probably buy a commercial version.

No, best for the customer is a reasonable price that they can afford, that allows the company to continue developing.

Unfortunately, taking extremist viewpoints is in fashion these days, so people usually forget there's something resembling a middle ground.

 

[MattKing]

No, best for the customer is a reasonable price that they can afford, that allows the company to continue developing.

So isn't this an argument about how much, rather than how frequently it is charged?
Personally, I choose to use Corel alternatives, supplemented by pay if you choose alternatives.
But if they transitioned to a pay per month mode that costs considerably less than Adobe charges, I would support that.
And if I started to use more of the extensive graphics capabilities of Photoshop - which is more core to its nature than its photographic capabilities - then I would celebrate its low cost, monthly approach to billing.
As a former business owner, I completely support a model that supplies regular income from people who regularly use and expect support for someone's product. If I still owned that business, I would be effectively be required to subscribe to a much more expensive Adobe product - and I would be happy to do so, because as a user, I would be making money using that product.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Best for the customer would be giving them the product/service at no charge. Methinks complying with your rule is a certain way for the business to go bankrupt.

...products like this forum, are running on open source software, running on top of open source operating systems, developed in large part by volunteers and amateurs. There is enough commercial support from entities like Red Hat and Ubuntu that those developers are paid...

Volunteers and amateurs getting some support from commercial entities do not a "business" make.

 

[Luckless]

Adobe's licensing model benefits the shareholders-- not the customers. In the short term, it will lead to more revenue-- But in the long term, it's dubious. IBM ruled the world with software subscriptions-- you didn't own the OS on your mainframe or mini-computer, you didn't own the software running on it, and you had to pay running support costs to keep the hardware "under warranty". And then they got steamrolled by the PC industry when they tried to license their (far superior) MicroChannel Architecture for PC's-- but it cost money, and a lot of it, per PC. So Intel created PCI. Apple tried the same stunt with firewire, because they'd been successful with SCSI. Now it's all USB/Thunderbolt.

I'm curious as to how many large scale software projects you've been involved with.

Because I can assure you that a dependable consistent revenue stream IS a benefit to the customer. Stable development teams result in stable software. Stable revenue results in stable development teams.

Unless you think that having features delayed months or years as they're held back for "The next big release" is to your benefit as a customer...

 

[grat]

So isn't this an argument about how much, rather than how frequently it is charged?

As I said some time back, I have a copy of PhotoShop CS2. It still installs and works. Adobe could be sold tomorrow to a venture capital firm who decides to quadruple the subscription price-- and your option is to quit using the software, or pay up.

I don't mind Support as a Service. I don't agree with Software as a Service, when it potentially affects my ability to continue editing images.

Volunteers and amateurs getting some support from commercial entities do not a "business" make.

I'm sure Red Hat and Canonical will be fascinated to hear that. Then there's all the open-source licensed software in your copy of Windows that was originally written by amateurs and volunteers.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Volunteers and amateurs getting some support from commercial entities do not a "business" make.

...I'm sure Red Hat and Canonical will be fascinated to hear that...

No, they won't. They are the commercial entities I referred to. The "non-businesses" you're trying to use in this back-and-forth are the volunteers and amateurs "getting some support" from Red Hat and Canonical. Those are no more "businesses" than are exploited Uber and Lyft drivers of the gig economy.

 

[irisrei08]

The best alternative to the PhotoShop is GIMP. GIMP is much more than an image editor – it gives you most of the features of Adobe Photoshop, completely free. It is safe to download and easy to use. GIMP opens almost any image file type. If you're looking for a free image editor then go for GIMP. it's an ideal choice among all photo editors.

 

[Anaxagore]

The plug-ins are to me the main reason to keep subscribing to PS (plus the fact that PS CS6 on high-dpi screens can give weird displays, and the panorama function in the latest PS works with fewer mistakes than the discontinued Autopano Giga gives me). Is any of the PS competitor software programs compatible with PS plug-ins ?