# Adobe Announces Photoshop & Lightroom for $9.99/mth



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 4, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/adobe-announces-photoshop-lightroom-for-9-99mth/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/adobe-announces-photoshop-lightroom-for-9-99mth/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>*UPDATE*


</strong>The catch is you must own a copy of Photoshop CS3 or higher to qualify for the limited time pricing of $9.99 per month (sign-up before December 31, 2013). They lost me at that requirement, had they not required CS3, I would have signed up as soon as I was able to. This still may be great for customers that have chosen not to upgrade from previous versions of PhotoShop.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/creativelayer/introducing-the-photoshop-photography-program/" target="_blank">Read the Adobe blog for more</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Into the cloud?


</strong>Adobe just announced Photoshop and Lightroom for $9.99/mth. If you don’t want to lay out the cost of the software in one lump sum, this may be for you.</p>
<p>I personally have no interest in laying out what Photoshop costs up front, however I may take them up on this new offering once I read the fine print.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://plus.google.com/101396087935203987162/posts/SzNTVyp2M4q" target="_blank">Follow the keynote</a></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/pslightroom.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-14304" alt="pslightroom" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/pslightroom-575x323.jpg" width="575" height="323" /></a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## RVB (Sep 4, 2013)

Nice try Adobe.. just stop messing about and sell us the license just like before this cloud nonsense,Cloud might work for some people but it's not for everyone,I prefer clear skies..


----------



## Click (Sep 4, 2013)

RVB said:


> Nice try Adobe.. just stop messing about and sell us the license just like before this cloud nonsense,Cloud might work for some people but it's not for everyone,I prefer clear skies..



+1

I totally agree.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 4, 2013)

Give a person a fish, you feed them for a day. Teach a person to fish, you lose a steady customer.


----------



## ablearcher (Sep 4, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Give a person a fish, you feed them for a day. Teach a person to fish, you lose a steady customer.


 LOL So true.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 4, 2013)

This is actually a pretty good deal if you're someone who needs both photoshop and lightroom, as by the time you purchase both and upgrade both every 3yrs or so, it's break even cost wise at worst.

But, if you're just a lightroom user, its a crap deal.

edit: scratch that, the deal is specifically only for people already with CS3 or newer. Meaning unless you updated CS suites ever 20 months, it's not so great a deal



> Beginning today, customers who own Photoshop CS3 or higher are eligible for a special Creative Cloud membership offer that includes all of the following for just $9.99/month:
> 
> Photoshop CC
> Lightroom 5
> ...


----------



## cayenne (Sep 4, 2013)

RVB said:


> Nice try Adobe.. just stop messing about and sell us the license just like before this cloud nonsense,Cloud might work for some people but it's not for everyone,I prefer clear skies..



Agreed!!

I refuse to *RENT *software.....and have the possibility that if for any reason I cease to pay Adobe '_ransom_', that I may no longer be able to open and work on my files.

cayenne


----------



## skfla (Sep 4, 2013)

This is actually tempting but for 2 things. 1.) I have CS2. Once Lightroom became more functional, its pretty much the only Adobe photo product I use so I didn't upgrade. I'm probably the only person out here on CS2 but still, no deal for me! & 2.) Adobe will carry this only until they have the base they need/want and then they'll either bump the price or degrade the access to the point that no one will want it. So $10/month really isn't bad (said the spider to the fly) but..... 


I would put one change on Neuro's turn of phrase: Teach a person to fish, you lose an* income stream*. I truly believe that Adobe no longer sees us as customers, simply lemmings to be herding, manipulated, etc.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 4, 2013)

skfla said:


> This is actually tempting but for 2 things. 1.) I have CS2. Once Lightroom became more functional, its pretty much the only Adobe photo product I use so I didn't upgrade. I'm probably the only person out here on CS2 but still, no deal for me! & 2.) Adobe will carry this only until they have the base they need/want and then they'll bump the price or degrade the access to the point that no one will want it. So $10/month really isn't bad (said the spider to the fly) but.....
> 
> 
> I would put one change on Neuro's turn of phrase: Teach a person to fish, you lose an* income stream*. I truly believe that Adobe no longer sees us as customers, simply lemmings to be herding, manipulated, etc.



Please don't be confused, Adobe is, I believe, a publicly traded company...and as such they are only answerable to the shareholders for providing them profit.<P>
The customers are just a necessity to do this, but the customer is not their primary concern or obligation.

Once I got this concept down, I can easily understand what corporations are trying to do, maximize shareholder profits, nothing more.

It isn't personal, it is purely business....the only way the consumer can fight back, is with the pocketbook.


----------



## bchernicoff (Sep 4, 2013)

This sounded very tempting until I saw the requirement that you must already own CS3 or newer.

So close, Adobe... so close!


----------



## Harv (Sep 4, 2013)

I hate the thought of being held ransom by anyone..... Adobe included. I was tempted to update to CS6 but then along came this new marketing approach of theirs. I'll just continue to stumble along with my CS4 which pretty much does everything I need.

And if for some reason, my CS4 craps out, there will always be an alternative somewhere.

I have always owned my own home because I never wanted to be at the mercy of a landlord. Nothing has changed.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Sep 4, 2013)

Should I accept the offer (I own- pardon me- I am allowed to use CS6), and I stop paying: is my license of CS6 still valid or not?
I still don't want it, just curious.
Thanks for information.
BTW.: on the german Adobe homepage I don't find this offer.


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 4, 2013)

And there it is.

This is the right combination at the right price, for me. Hassle free, two programs I use together will upgrade in lock-step without having to do workarounds.

I always upgrade for new features, and to support the vitality of the software. I don't expect the company to carry me forever, just because I bought version 1.0 back in the dark ages.

If you haven't upgraded in 4 versions, you lost the ability to pay a reduced price for a stand a lone version anyway - so I guess this doesn't really apply to you. If you're not interested in new versions of a program, what do you care what the pricing structure is going forward?


----------



## David Hull (Sep 4, 2013)

Is this $9.95 for both products in perpetuity or is it just an introductory offer that will soon pop back up to $19.95 or $29.95 in a year? This part: _"The catch is you must own a copy of Photoshop CS3 or higher to qualify for the limited time pricing of $9.99 per month (sign-up before December 31, 2013)"_ sounds "fishy".


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 4, 2013)

This tells me their plan is a failure. Just hold out folks and they will go back to perpetual licenses. We just have to hope that not to many people go for this. If they hold out it now seems clear Adobe will have to back track.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 4, 2013)

cayenne said:


> skfla said:
> 
> 
> > This is actually tempting but for 2 things. 1.) I have CS2. Once Lightroom became more functional, its pretty much the only Adobe photo product I use so I didn't upgrade. I'm probably the only person out here on CS2 but still, no deal for me! & 2.) Adobe will carry this only until they have the base they need/want and then they'll bump the price or degrade the access to the point that no one will want it. So $10/month really isn't bad (said the spider to the fly) but.....
> ...



Which is wonder about the extreme fanboy reaction to defend a company's honor to the utmost these days when so many companies clearly do everything they can to get away maximally taking advantage of their own customers and fanboys. Some even carry out studies to test out how far they possibly push annoy hurt and anger customers without quite losing enough to hurt them. Some then try to push it even yet a bit farther and get burned.
If the companies are free to do that why do the lemmings have to clap and applaud it? They aren't looking out for the best of the customer so why does the customer have to look out for the best for them? (not that I can blame the companies for maximizing what they can, but they can't get upset if the customers then start whining).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 4, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> Should I accept the offer (I own- pardon me- I am allowed to use CS6), and I stop paying: is my license of CS6 still valid or not?
> I still don't want it, just curious.
> Thanks for information.
> BTW.: on the german Adobe homepage I don't find this offer.



if it is not still valid, then it would be an abominably bad deal.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > skfla said:
> ...



That's been AT&Ts business plan for years


----------



## Ivar (Sep 4, 2013)

Adobe: "To be clear, $9.99 is not an introductory price. It is the price for those of you who sign up by December 31, 2013."

For how long?

Does it imply that if one signs up later than December 31, 2013, one will get a higher price from there on? I suppose there will be an option for those, even without PS.

So anybody joining in at a later stage will pay more?

If so, why should I believe that the price is not the "To be clear, $9.99 is not an introductory price" i.e. there will exist two pricing for the same thing after the December 31, 2013. If there are co-existing 2 pricing, I suppose they become the same at some point, supposedly the higher one taking over?

Looks to me, it is a try to get the owners of a CS 3 or higher on board with a limited time offer and they need to pay more than 10$ after a while.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 4, 2013)

David Hull said:


> Is this $9.95 for both products in perpetuity or is it just an introductory offer that will soon pop back up to $19.95 or $29.95 in a year? This part: _"The catch is you must own a copy of Photoshop CS3 or higher to qualify for the limited time pricing of $9.99 per month (sign-up before December 31, 2013)"_ sounds "fishy".



Hmm it's pretty unclear. Is it a limited time to permanently (or very long term at least, I mean in 30 years $10 won't be worth what it is today and in 100 years....) get $10 a month or a limited time to sign up to get to pay only $10 a month for a limited time (said time could end after the first month or two for all you know).

Anyway for those who need PS, PP and AE it all becomes much worse.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 4, 2013)

Ivar said:


> Adobe: "To be clear, $9.99 is not an introductory price. It is the price for those of you who sign up by December 31, 2013."
> 
> For how long?
> 
> ...



So by saying it is not an introductory price they seem to be implying that you would get $10 forever so long as you never stop paying at any point (unless they are being real weasels and mean that is not an introductory price in that it will not always be introductory for $10 for a few months for everyone but only for those who sign up by December and then they get a special price of $10 for a few months or something, that would be really stoatish way to expect it to be parsed though, not sure even Adobe would pull that??).

It still doesn't seem like anything special, if you only ever used PS and never lightroom, compared to the old model. This is $360 every three years. That seems to be, at best, no worse than before, and potentially a fair amount worse.

And this whole magic cloud talk is just so ridiculous. How the heck did many people get the products before. Downloaded from the internet from Adobe. How do you get the magic 'creative' cloud version you download the same thing from the internet from Adobe. What the heck is the difference? It's the exact same thing 100%! How is something that is the exact same as formerly existed creative? The only difference is that they now charge per month with no continued usage and before you paid and owned it.

Rental vs ownership that is THE only difference. They should call it Adobe Rental not Adobe CC. 

The whole cloud thing is such a big bunch of nonsense made up by marketing psychologists to come up with pretty terms to manipulate customers.


----------



## LarryC (Sep 4, 2013)

For many businesses the CC thing may make economic sense. For many small shops and most hobbyists, it does not, and this is just Adobe trying to seduce us into their perpetual-payments scheme. They presumed us version-skippers were not an important part of their business but I bet we are a larger customer base than they wanted to admit and they are scrambling to find a way to entice us into the bright light of the Cloud. DON'T GO!


----------



## ag25 (Sep 4, 2013)

Like their software, Adobe's head is in the cloud on this one.

Did the whole Microsoft Xbox fiasco not do enough to scare them?


----------



## risc32 (Sep 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ivar said:
> 
> 
> > Adobe: "To be clear, $9.99 is not an introductory price. It is the price for those of you who sign up by December 31, 2013."
> ...



yup.


----------



## David Hull (Sep 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > Is this $9.95 for both products in perpetuity or is it just an introductory offer that will soon pop back up to $19.95 or $29.95 in a year? This part: _"The catch is you must own a copy of Photoshop CS3 or higher to qualify for the limited time pricing of $9.99 per month (sign-up before December 31, 2013)"_ sounds "fishy".
> ...


The reason I asked is that I think that $10 /mo is not a bad price to pay for a PSCSx license as an individual but $20 is a bit excessive. LR has gotten so good that I just don't go to PS that much anymore and LR offers a perpetual license (so far anyway).


----------



## agierke (Sep 4, 2013)

um yeah....thx but no thx adobe.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 4, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> Should I accept the offer (I own- pardon me- I am allowed to use CS6), and I stop paying: is my license of CS6 still valid or not?
> I still don't want it, just curious.
> Thanks for information.
> BTW.: on the german Adobe homepage I don't find this offer.



I took advantage of the $19.99 pricing (U.S.) for CS6 customers to upgrade to CC full suite right before it expired. I figured I'd try it for a year and see what happens. I actually expected Adobe to extend the offer, but it appears they let it expire Sept. 1, so I'm glad I pulled the trigger.

To answer your question: CS6 remains loaded on my machine. I still have a valid CS6 license and should I need to reload (say, for example, if I replace my computer), my understanding from Adobe is that I can always reload my CS6. They are also continuing to add bug fixes to CS6 and, from what I have read, it sounds like they will continue to update with new camera profiles, etc., just won't add new features. 

I have tried and I can choose to either run CC or the CS6 version of Photoshop (both are on my machine). Frankly, I'm in the middle of a project and haven't wanted to mess with new programs, so haven't done much with CC yet. I have found the downloader a bit buggy (can't get Bridge CC loaded) but haven't taken a lot of time/effort to try to figure it out yet. 

My strategy is to try CC for a year, learn some new programs and then, if Adobe jacks up the price, I can always fall back on CS6 or whatever alternatives might be available by this time next year.

CS6 opens Photoshop files that have been edited in CC, so for those worried about losing access to files, that doesn't seem to be a problem (I always leave "maximize compatibility" checked when I save a file).

Most annoying thing so far has been the problem downloading Bridge and having to reload my plug ins. Advice to others: be sure you install the plug ins into the right directory. It appears CC automatically loads both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions and does a crappy job of identifying which is which. My Nik plug in wasn't showing up and then I figured out that it had installed in the 32 bit version, instead of the 64 bit version. 

I am as unhappy about this whole scheme as anybody else, but when I did the math I decided it was worth the $240 (plus tax by the way) for a year to try it out. Mainly because I am curious about some of the programs that aren't available in CS6. 

Sidenote: I can't find this offer on the Adobe site here in the U.S. either. Really annoys me when companies don't have it together enough to update their own sites immediately when they make an announcement. No press release...no listing of this under their "offers" as of now.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 4, 2013)

David Hull said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > David Hull said:
> ...



It sounds like it goes forever so long as you never skip a month's payment and sign up before 2014, but it reallllly does pay to verify and verify again and then once more when it comes to Adobe. I also wonder if they would pull the perpetual license for CS3-CS6 that people had who went for this, or not.


----------



## docfuz (Sep 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Rental vs ownership that is THE only difference. They should call it Adobe Rental not Adobe CC.



While I *don't* like this CC scheme from Adobe, it should be noted that in most EULAs you do *NOT* own the software. You just have the right to use it. The point is that CC is not making us rent anything, it just makes us upgrade to everything even if we didn't want to.

With italian license fees, if I wanted to upgrade from CS3 to CS6 and from L4 to L5, I'd pay around 500-600 EUR. That is around 5 years of this CC photography deal. Would I update to CS7 if it existed? Probably not. To L6? Probably yes, price-wise. So after the 6th year I would pay more with CC. But if I was and always-update-to-latest-version kind of guy, this deal would not be a rental. It would be a different model of owning the right to use that latest version of the software. And it could be cheaper.

What I don't get, if Adobe really is going nuts trying everybody to join into CC, is why this offer is limited to CS3+ owners only. Next year they could extend this to DSLR owners.


----------



## SwissBear (Sep 4, 2013)

what about a LR only thingy for $2.50, sorry 2.49 per month? THAT would be a deal!


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 4, 2013)

Well, they should have no problem guaranteeing this $10/mo in perpetuity...

They will simply end the product, support it for a limited time, while moving forward with a "new" application that carries forward, with a new pricing structure.

Those of you who were using Breezebrowser (one price, free lifetime updates) before Chris Breeze migrated development to Breezebrowser Pro (sold on a 12 month subscription basis) will know exactly what to expect.


----------



## David Hull (Sep 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > Is this $9.95 for both products in perpetuity or is it just an introductory offer that will soon pop back up to $19.95 or $29.95 in a year? This part: _"The catch is you must own a copy of Photoshop CS3 or higher to qualify for the limited time pricing of $9.99 per month (sign-up before December 31, 2013)"_ sounds "fishy".
> ...


It's a little more clear over on DPR:

_Adobe has added a new pricing tier to the Creative Cloud product, possibly in response to the negative response from the photography community when it announced that all Creative Suite products would require a monthly subscription. The Photoshop Photography Program gives users Photoshop CC, Lightroom 5, Bridge CC, Behance, and 20GB of storage for $9.99 per month. That's not a promotional price, either, as long as you sign up before the end of this year. In order to be eligible for this bundle, you must already own Photoshop CS3 or newer._

Assuming that is from Adobe. I would still rather have it the old way but at least this is about $200 every 18 months (for both programs, so it is even a better deal).


----------



## wtlloyd (Sep 4, 2013)

Did anybody link this faq yet?

http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html#pslr-bundle

If you are CC now, contact Adobe to convert (see faq)

this pricing can not be obtained after Dec 31, or if you let membership lapse in the future.


----------



## tmagman (Sep 5, 2013)

Does this mean Lightroom is also going to be perpetually updated with the subscription as well? It says that it is now included in the bundle and available through CC...


----------



## chauncey (Sep 5, 2013)

I rent my home, I rent/lease my car, I rent a housekeeper, I rent a lawn care man, I rent my children's education, and other software/games...why not Photoshop?


----------



## eml58 (Sep 5, 2013)

Found the attached on Apple Rumours, seems clear enough, I think.

$9.99/month until Dec 31st, then you'll pay more.

I imagine it'll be a 1 year possibly 2 year lock on price, then you'll pay more.

Offer isn't "Live" yet, I imagine it'll take a week or so to get onto the Adobe site.

I remember some months back on another Adobe CC thread where someone that was apparently an Adobe Software onward seller declared this would never happen, Adobe doing a special for "Photographers", I guess the Positive view on this is that Adobe are concerned at the reaction to the Full CC set up, and have at least sort to not loose customer base by not putting together something for "Photographers".

Now it's really just about wether or not People feel there's value in $120/year for PSCS6+LR5 and the value offered in upgrades as they come as part of the deal, My view is that $120/month for PS+LR5 is a reasonable deal as it includes instant upgrades & new content as they come, I'm not keen on "Renting" software, but I can live with it at a price, this price. And quite honestly I see the Adobe CC "renting" of software via a yearly subscription as the way of the future, for any Company it's about Cash-flow, the subscription system helps solve this issue for Companies, I'm surprised Apple and others aren't already doing the same.

The fact that it'll only be a "fixed" price for a determined period, 1 year, maybe 2 years, is par for the course in today's world, nothing stays the same, nothing get's cheaper over time.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 5, 2013)

Wait. Adobe says, "We listened to our customers," and yet they're still giving us this rental bulls***? We didn't ask for a special rental price for photographers. We asked for a version of Photoshop where we can guarantee that we don't have to keep paying them forever and ever just to avoid losing the ability to open files that we created or modified using their tools.

What they don't get is that for most photographers, Lightroom is enough. They might use Photoshop once in a blue moon, but for that privilege, Adobe is asking them to pay approximately the full retail (not upgrade) price of Lightroom annually. Exactly what planet are Adobe's executives living on, again?

Not to mention that this requires us to trust that Adobe will still exist in ten years. I have serious doubts, personally. Short of getting bought by somebody competent, they're on their way out the door. To me, this "special offer" looks like the last gasp for a dying company with an expiring patent portfolio and a flagship product that has gotten only minor window-dressing tweaks for nearly a decade.

I'm hopeful that Adobe will correct their craniorectal inversion before they do something suicidally stupid like trying to shift Lightroom to a cloud-only model. That said, if they don't, I've started reading through the Aperture SDK in preparation for writing a library import plug-in. I estimate the effort in low double-digit hours. So if Adobe does this to Lightroom, at least for Mac users, its metaphorical carcass will be dead before their cloud version even hits the ground.


----------



## dbduchene (Sep 5, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Please don't be confused, Adobe is, I believe, a publicly traded company...and as such they are only answerable to the shareholders for providing them profit.<P>
> The customers are just a necessity to do this, but the customer is not their primary concern or obligation.
> 
> Once I got this concept down, I can easily understand what corporations are trying to do, maximize shareholder profits, nothing more.
> ...



And more to this point the VALUE of the stock today matters MORE then the dividends. In the old days people bought the stocks looking at the Dividends and the monthly income 1st and then the increase in stock value. In todays world that has flipped. Moving a company to a reoccurring revenue can and will drive huge increase in stock value even if the total revenue stays the same. To that end revenue can in fact decrease some and the stock value can stay the same or even increase. 

I HATE cloud and the concept. I like to travel and spend time in many places when I do with NO internet access. It may be easy in the US but places like Ho Chi Minh City, Porto Sugro brazil and the likes I have had no access for days on end. I just hope that apple does not abandon Aperture and stops making version worse So that I can stay with it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 5, 2013)

I feel its just a short term deal, and prices will start going up after 6 months. 

Adobe is undoubtedly hurting. Let them hurt.

Adobe's 2nd Quarter report for 2013 shows.
Cash flows:
Net Income

six Months ending 6/1/2012 $409.085,000
six Months ending 5/31/2013 $141,663,000.

They are hurting for cash, and as more members drop than signup, a CEO is going to be booted out.


----------



## CTJohn (Sep 5, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I feel its just a short term deal, and prices will start going up after 6 months.
> 
> Adobe is undoubtedly hurting. Let them hurt.
> 
> ...


Let's hope he is!


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 5, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I feel its just a short term deal, and prices will start going up after 6 months.
> 
> Adobe is undoubtedly hurting. Let them hurt.
> 
> ...



Adobe ran the numbers before adopting the subscription model, they don't expect to gross more than in 2012 for three years, http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/older-2013-software-news/the-financial-side-of-the.html but the subscription model is on track and is being well received by the target audience, judging by the share price. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:ADBE&sa=X&ei=sPsnUpi4PIb49QTh6oCIDQ&ved=0CCoQ2AE
Share prices are near the highest levels ever and so is the company valuation.

The vast majority of CR posters are not the target audience, they are almost certainly generally in the 10% that Adobe estimates are individuals working at home (enthusiasts, hobbyists, retirees, semi-pro photographers, etc.) And no, at the corporate level that 10% of casual users are just not that important, especially when you factor in the number of them that are using vastly discounted "educational" copies and, like many of the posters in this thread, are not regular updaters. 

Adobe makes practically no money from us, they don't care what we have to say, they make money from core business creative professionals who don't care about $50 a month subscription charges but just care about how integrated their apps are and how much time that can save them. Meanwhile Adobe work out how they can leverage their platform into as many creative professionals as possible and the truth is a complete package at $50 a month with apps you might not try otherwise makes a lot more business sense than a limiting $1,500 or $2,999 suite of apps. They might not have introduced drop dead must have new PS features, but the cross apps integration work they have been doing, which is far more important to their target market, has been very good.

To see why it makes sense to Adobe you have to understand how unimportant they see us 10% as, special offers like this are nothing more than publicity stunts to calm the waters, it will not divert them from their corporate cash cow subscription model, even if the current model is a disaster, and the company valuation is certainly not suggesting it is, they can't divert from their subscription model for at least two more years anyway.

P.S. Lightroom 5 is a killer app with some very cool new features, it might still have a bug or two but the clone brush, the radial filter and smart previews are killer additions, bearing in mind a perpetual license can be had for $99 on regular special offers I don't think Adobe are screwing us either.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 5, 2013)

I don't see the silver lining.

I can understand a subscription for a service (like a gym membership or Netflix), but for software? No way. When I install it on my machine, I expect to be able to use it when I want for as long I want. 

One thing that really irritates me is Adobe's BS explanation that they had to go this route in order to make it easier for people to get the latest updates and features without having to wait 18-24 months for the next version. Rubbish. They could accomplish this just as easily by releasing service packs and making them available for download. They could even charge for each service pack if they wanted to. That would allow people to use their perpetual license as we have in the past while giving the constant-updaters a way to stay updated. If it was standard license with an optional subscription-based update plan + cloud services, I wouldn't complain at all.

Man am I glad I got Lightroom 5 before it went to the cloud, too. I hope it serves me well for many years. Maybe by then Adobe will retreat on this mandatory subscription hogwash.

I wonder -- how much of this nonsense has to do with the fact that Flash is increasingly being replaced by HTML5?


----------



## JoeDavid (Sep 5, 2013)

I'm at PSW 2013 and heard the announcement. The really irritating thing was that Adobe said they had heard loud and clear what the users wanted and this addresses it. The feedback they are talking about is that a lot of us don't want to pay a subscription from now to eternity and prefer the standard pricing model. This doesn't address the complaints in the least! 

BTW - they said it was not an introductory price and that it would remain at 9.99/mo. If you believe that one, I have some prime oceanfront property in South Dakota that I'll sell you! Once you are in that model, they will eventually raise it and you'll have no choice.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 5, 2013)

If it's $10 for life, I might jump on it even I already have LR4 and CS6.

But if it's $10 for e.g. 12 months, and then some ridiculous amount, no way.

So can someone confirm how long they promise the $10?


----------



## lopicma (Sep 5, 2013)

On the surface, this subscription model Adobe is using looks like a flop. Kelby was giving away a full year at _Photoshop World_, and now this incredible deal. I guess if your making money at this, it's better than the box purchase. Adobe need to market this model as a SERVICE, not a PRODUCT. You *rent *a service, but you *own *a product. 

It almost seems like Adobe shot themselves in the foot when they released _Lightroom_. It does everything _Camera RAW _does (with a better interface), and you don't have to buy _Photoshop _to get the _Camera RAW _updates.

Until I start making "boatloads" of cash from my photography (LMAO), I think I'll stick to the *Lightroom/PS Elements *lineup and save BIG!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2013)

wtlloyd said:


> Did anybody link this faq yet?
> 
> http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html#pslr-bundle
> 
> ...



I'll bet it can if nobody signs up now . What would they do, lose everyone's money?


----------



## sylvestrerato (Sep 5, 2013)

RVB said:


> Nice try Adobe.. just stop messing about and sell us the license just like before this cloud nonsense,Cloud might work for some people but it's not for everyone,I prefer clear skies..



+2!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2013)

Famateur said:


> I don't see the silver lining.
> 
> I can understand a subscription for a service (like a gym membership or Netflix), but for software? No way. When I install it on my machine, I expect to be able to use it when I want for as long I want.
> 
> One thing that really irritates me is Adobe's BS explanation that they had to go this route in order to make it easier for people to get the latest updates and features without having to wait 18-24 months for the next version. Rubbish. They could accomplish this just as easily by releasing service packs and making them available for download.



Plus they sort of do that anyway, at least for updates, already.

Also interesting that they had to relent and make it available using the old downloader for government and educational use where those were not able or allowed to use the new CC downloader. So they actually appear to be making it the other way too anyway despite the claims that it would be impossible due to it being a development nightmare.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2013)

Famateur said:


> I don't see the silver lining.
> 
> I can understand a subscription for a service (like a gym membership or Netflix), but for software? No way. When I install it on my machine, I expect to be able to use it when I want for as long I want.
> 
> ...



And say you've subscribed for three years, why don't you get to keep the version you are at after every 2 or 3 years even if you quit? (OK, because people would quite and not sign up again for another 2-3 years and repeat is probably why but it sure rots for the consumer.)


----------



## lastcoyote (Sep 5, 2013)

tpatana said:


> If it's $10 for life, I might jump on it even I already have LR4 and CS6.
> 
> But if it's $10 for e.g. 12 months, and then some ridiculous amount, no way.
> 
> So can someone confirm how long they promise the $10?



the adobe blog states that this isn't an introductory price:
http://blogs.adobe.com/creativelayer/introducing-the-photoshop-photography-program/

should be open to all though and not just those who own CS3 or higher IMO


----------



## digital paradise (Sep 5, 2013)

eml58 said:


> Found the attached on Apple Rumours, seems clear enough, I think.
> 
> $9.99/month until Dec 31st, then you'll pay more.
> 
> ...



It will be live on Sept 17. I spoke to a Adobe rep. He never quit trying to up sell me for the full CC package for $29.99. They sound desperate.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 5, 2013)

A bit off topic, but I'm curious why people buy Lightroom if they have Photoshop. 

I tried it a few years ago and hated its file management system. Maybe I'm just used to Bridge, but it seems to fit my needs better. 

Even Adobe admits Lightroom doesn't do anything that can't be done in Camera Raw. If you use smart objects, they open in Camera Raw and not Lightroom, so you end up using Camera Raw for any smart object edits anyway. 

I'm told it has some advantages for batch processing that makes it easier if you are trying to manage large collections, but for a hobbyist, I just don't get it.

What am I missing?


----------



## bchernicoff (Sep 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> A bit off topic, but I'm curious why people buy Lightroom if they have Photoshop.
> 
> I tried it a few years ago and hated its file management system. Maybe I'm just used to Bridge, but it seems to fit my needs better.
> 
> ...



The main thing for me is that the workflow is so much faster. I can:
1.) import a shoot
2.) scroll through them rejecting obvious bad shots and rating (1-5 stars) ones I like and want to come back to
3.) filter on the ones I've rated 3 stars or better
4.) make an adjustment that many shots will need like WB, sharpening, etc. 
5.) quickly copy/paste that adjustment onto all the shots
6.) then go through and work on individual shots to tweak what they need
7.) publish them in a private gallery on any or all of Smugmug/Flickr/Facebook with only a couple of clicks
8.) share with clients, friends, whoever


----------



## apmadoc (Sep 5, 2013)

Make sure you read the fine print. I think the price goes up after 12 months.

Right now I'm on a intro price of $29.99 a month for the full CC suite, but at the end of 12 months it goes up to 49.99 / month. (no, i won't be renewing)


----------



## RVB (Sep 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> A bit off topic, but I'm curious why people buy Lightroom if they have Photoshop.
> 
> I tried it a few years ago and hated its file management system. Maybe I'm just used to Bridge, but it seems to fit my needs better.
> 
> ...



In short LR is also a DAM app (digital asset management) and PS isn't.PS is also far more complex and capable for advanced editing and complex composite's.

Adobe is just trying to lure people with this price but once you take the bait you will be shafted later when price's go up,better of sticking with CS6,it does everything and should last for a long time yet.

And the more of us that stay away from this Creative Subscription crap the more Adobe is to revert to the perpetual license model.

Cloud is ok for some people are having the option is fine,but by removing the option Adobe is trying to manipulate us and force out hand.. I'm staying out.


----------



## bchernicoff (Sep 5, 2013)

apmadoc said:


> Make sure you read the fine print. I think the price goes up after 12 months.
> 
> Right now I'm on a intro price of $29.99 a month for the full CC suite, but at the end of 12 months it goes up to 49.99 / month. (no, i won't be renewing)




They've said repeatedly that the price doesn't go up with this deal.


----------



## rexbot (Sep 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> A bit off topic, but I'm curious why people buy Lightroom if they have Photoshop.
> 
> I tried it a few years ago and hated its file management system. Maybe I'm just used to Bridge, but it seems to fit my needs better.
> 
> ...



Lightroom is for managing a collection of images, with some decent, but limited, editing tools. Photoshop allows extensive work on one image at a time, but offers no way to organize, search, or manage a collection of images. Together they work really well for workflow management.

Here's a good comparison article. Even though it is a little dated, the points are still valid:
http://photographylife.com/photoshop-vs-lightroom


----------



## cayenne (Sep 5, 2013)

Harv said:


> I hate the thought of being held ransom by anyone..... Adobe included. I was tempted to update to CS6 but then along came this new marketing approach of theirs. I'll just continue to stumble along with my CS4 which pretty much does everything I need.
> 
> And if for some reason, my CS4 craps out, there will always be an alternative somewhere.
> 
> I have always owned my own home because I never wanted to be at the mercy of a landlord. Nothing has changed.



CS6 is still a viable option.

Just last month bought CS6 Production Premium Suite.

I figure that will last me easily a few years....and I think by then we'll see what the lay of the land is with Adobe and rental only software. 

C


----------



## dmsphoto (Sep 5, 2013)

Just got off phone with Adobe...I like many I assume, bought into the $30 package but really have not taken advantage off the entire CC Suite. This new announcement would be a better fit for me, so I called to see if Adobe was going to have a "cross grade" type path...only to be told by the Adobe Rep that this announcement ($9.99) is a RUMOR! lol There are escalating my case and am supposedly getting a call back in a day or so.


----------



## RVB (Sep 5, 2013)

I thought this looks interesting as an alternative to photoshop...http://www.ononesoftware.com/landing/2013/09/suite/?v=1&utm_campaign=Ste8_Own_0913&utm_medium=email&utm_source=OwnSteLegacy&utm_content=#vid

Looks like On one have been working hard to seize the opportunity that this subscription nonsense has presented them.

A strong alternative to LR is Capture one pro 7 which i find does a great job on Canon file's. Download a free trial here.

http://www.phaseone.com/en/downloads/capture-one-pro-7.aspx

It's nice to have alternative's to Adobe and their tricks..


----------



## Famateur (Sep 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And say you've subscribed for three years, why don't you get to keep the version you are at after every 2 or 3 years even if you quit? (OK, because people would quite and not sign up again for another 2-3 years and repeat is probably why but it sure rots for the consumer.)



That would be a great solution, but of course, they wouldn't do that...unless they get enough guff from customers.


----------



## Sashi (Sep 5, 2013)

dmsphoto said:


> Just got off phone with Adobe...I like many I assume, bought into the $30 package but really have not taken advantage off the entire CC Suite. This new announcement would be a better fit for me, so I called to see if Adobe was going to have a "cross grade" type path...only to be told by the Adobe Rep that this announcement ($9.99) is a RUMOR! lol There are escalating my case and am supposedly getting a call back in a day or so.



I was likewise annoyed as I had purchased LR unnecessarily and subscribed to PS CC to make use of the discount incentive offered till the 31st August, only to have this new deal offered after that date. I'm far better off with the new package deal and when I contacted customer services I was told it was coming 17th September. On the plus side I can apparently refund both my current purchases on that date and then subscribe to the new offer.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> A bit off topic, but I'm curious why people buy Lightroom if they have Photoshop.
> 
> I tried it a few years ago and hated its file management system. Maybe I'm just used to Bridge, but it seems to fit my needs better.
> 
> ...



I'm a hobbyist, and for me, it has a lot to do with cost. I can't justify shelling out six or seven hundred dollars for Photoshop, but $99 for Lightroom? Done. In a heartbeat.

Since Lightroom 5 is my first experience with Lightroom, I don't know what it was like when you tried it a few years ago. I became interested after seeing it used in some YouTube videos (Mike Browne, Gavin Hoey, Serge Ramelli -- then the official Lightroom channel). Then I started searching and watching everything I could find about Lightroom 5. About the time I figured it might be the last non-subscription version and that I wanted to get it, Adorama had their $99 deal. I didn't even hesitate, and I'm very, very pleased so far.

I admit, I'm still getting used to the photo management side of things, but the develop module is excellent (for all the reasons others have shared). Going from Picasa with JPEG to Digital Photo Professional with RAW to Lightroom 5, I really feel like I've advanced my ability take a photo and make it far better than I could before. 

I'm also looking forward to using the Book module to print some photo books of family vacations and stuff. Not sure I'll ever use the Slideshow or Map modules (at least for now), but the Web module looks interesting for when I get to the point of posting more photos online.

Anyway, Lightroom just seems to pack in a lot of powerful features for a very reasonable price -- especially if you can't afford Photoshop! When I need to do advanced editing, I've been getting by quite happily with GIMP for long enough that it makes it even harder to justify buying Photoshop. Of course, I'd love to have a proper Liquify tool, as I find iWarp a bit clunky, but it hasn't stopped me from turning out some pretty good (at least in my opinion) full-page magazine advertisements. ;D

With all the "clouds" rolling in lately, I'm just hoping Lightroom has an umbrella and gumboots!


----------



## unfocused (Sep 5, 2013)

Famateur said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > A bit off topic, but I'm curious why people buy Lightroom if they have Photoshop...
> ...



Oh yeah. I totally get it if you don't have Photoshop. But, its value is significantly diminished if you have Photoshop, since all the "develop" options are identical to what is contained in Adobe Camera Raw which is embedded in Photoshop.


----------



## grahamsz (Sep 5, 2013)

tpatana said:


> If it's $10 for life, I might jump on it even I already have LR4 and CS6.
> 
> But if it's $10 for e.g. 12 months, and then some ridiculous amount, no way.
> 
> So can someone confirm how long they promise the $10?



From their online support

_Janella: I do understand your concern, however, price are subject to change at any time. For the first 12 months, the price for the bundle Photoshop CC and Lightroom 5 will remain same i.e US$9.99 per month_

Looks like after 12 months they can change the "standard" "non-introductory" price to whatever they like. I suspect what they are trying to suggest is that it won't double like the trial price of the whole cloud membership, but who the hell knows. They could just discontinue it after a year.


----------



## Famateur (Sep 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Famateur said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Ah...right. I think I misunderstood your question. Yeah -- if you have Photoshop, I can see how Lightroom might not seem that great. I don't have any experience comparing the two, so I'm not much help there. Still, there seem to be enough glowing reviews about Lightroom 5 from Photoshop users that perhaps it's worth downloading the trial to see how it's changed since you last tried it.

Either way, the whole subscription thing just chaps my hide. I can see how it might be nice for a full-time pro that depends on Lightroom and Photoshop every day and who upgrades with every release, but for me? No way! [I hope there are enough customers like me (and others in this forum) that Adobe hears that...]


----------



## unfocused (Sep 5, 2013)

RVB said:


> I thought this looks interesting as an alternative to photoshop...http://www.ononesoftware.com/landing/2013/09/suite/?v=1&utm_campaign=Ste8_Own_0913&utm_medium=email&utm_source=OwnSteLegacy&utm_content=#vid
> 
> Looks like On one have been working hard to seize the opportunity that this subscription nonsense has presented them...



Interesting. I have both the current onOne suite and the Nik suite. Switch back and forth, as each has its strengths and weaknesses. Some of onOne's adjustments tend to be over-the-top and have to be dialed back if you don't want that "Photoshopped" look. 

I have to say, their resizing program (used to be Genuine Fractals I believe) is pretty incredible. Nik's black and white conversions are still the best in my opinion.

Anyway, interesting that onOne is now emphasizing the stand-alone option. I believe they also have some way of adding layers in Lightroom, which could also make Photoshop less necessary. I think over the next year we'll see more and more of these options. The plug-in manufacturers don't want to be strapped to the mast if the Adobe ship starts to go down.

Adobe may be in too deep to just walk away from their "We-called-it-cloud-but-it's-not-really-a-cloud" software program. But, I suspect we will see a lot of "special offers" etc. as they try to extricate themselves from this disaster.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 5, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> I may take them up on this new offering once I read the fine print.


+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> A bit off topic, but I'm curious why people buy Lightroom if they have Photoshop.
> 
> I tried it a few years ago and hated its file management system. Maybe I'm just used to Bridge, but it seems to fit my needs better.
> 
> ...



I don't get it either. LR was sooooooo horribly slow to sort through images, if you need to peak at 100% to check for focus and motion blur it has to render previews for everything even in the cases when you shot RAW+full JPG or with the newer cameras that have full-size test JPGs embedded in RAW! (unless they have changed it since I last tried). 

Photomechanic or FastPicViewer or whatnot are so much better for that and ACR in PS does everything LR does and more right?

I get it for those who are maybe still using CS5 or earlier or who don't have full photoshop at all, that is another story.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > A bit off topic, but I'm curious why people buy Lightroom if they have Photoshop.
> ...



But the thing is while LR is faster at that than PS/B, it is wayyyy slower than all the other options for sorting/tagging/marking.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2013)

grahamsz said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > If it's $10 for life, I might jump on it even I already have LR4 and CS6.
> ...



Wow, seriously? Because in some of the later semi-clarifications they made it sound like it for for life, so long as you never missed a payment and signed up before 2014.

Yeah so everyone seriously needs to NOT do this. Gotta force them back.

Adobe: You must never again leave the cloud and bring your $35.00 a month to my bank account!
Lando: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


----------



## m (Sep 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I don't get it either. LR was sooooooo horribly slow to sort through images, if you need to peak at 100% to check for focus and motion blur it has to render previews for everything even in the cases when you shot RAW+full JPG or with the newer cameras that have full-size test JPGs embedded in RAW! (unless they have changed it since I last tried).



It doesn't matter if you shoot raw + jpg, because the raw has to be processed anyway.
I'd recommend rendering the previews while importing the images into lightroom.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Photomechanic or FastPicViewer or whatnot are so much better for that


Are they capable of displaying the changes you applied to the images with lightroom?


----------



## grahamsz (Sep 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> grahamsz said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



They promise they'll keep that price for 12 months, but you also have to sign up for a 12 month commitment.

I also don't begrudge them price increases if they are justified. I think I got Photoshop 1 when it was bundled with a black and white scanner, clearly CS6 provides more value than that and I don't mind that the price has risen faster than inflation. However I'd really just like Adobe to say that "Subscription price increases are limited to 10%/year" or something like that. That way I could accurately plan.


----------



## 7enderbender (Sep 5, 2013)

I'm confused. Can anyone confirm that there still is a boxed, non-cloud photoshop version available? I thought not. Which to me would be the end of using them. I don't do subscription software. Period. Even if they offered it for a buck I wouldn't want it. I want it installed and then not change it until I see fit (which can be years after I buy it).

Still have CS5 and wouldn't even bother if not for my plan to switch from PC to Mac by the end of the year.

Bonus question: is there a way to buy CS5 for Mac still somewhere? 

If not it's going to be a combination of LR3 (which I'm perfectly happy with) and Gimp or something.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 5, 2013)

lastcoyote said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > If it's $10 for life, I might jump on it even I already have LR4 and CS6.
> ...



Adobe also said they had no plans to eliminate purchases of their Creative Suite. Look how long that lasted. At this point, I trust Adobe as far as I can throw their software.




Famateur said:


> Ah...right. I think I misunderstood your question. Yeah -- if you have Photoshop, I can see how Lightroom might not seem that great. I don't have any experience comparing the two, so I'm not much help there. Still, there seem to be enough glowing reviews about Lightroom 5 from Photoshop users that perhaps it's worth downloading the trial to see how it's changed since you last tried it.



I use them for different things. Photoshop is a great tool for editing a single image. Lightroom is a great tool for editing a lot of images.

Unlike many of you, I don't shoot professionally; the photos I take are mainly for my own enjoyment, because I want to have a picture of something (though I also post many of them for others to enjoy). As a result, I have only a single Lightroom library that contains essentially every photo I've ever taken with a digital camera. With LR, I can quickly (in no more than a minute or so) find any picture in my library. This beats the heck out of using Photoshop.

I also find LR more convenient for editing photos because I often need to apply a consistent set of fixes to a bunch of photos in rapid succession, then tweak those settings to suit. I find that workflow to be straightforward in LR—much more so than in Camera Raw.

I use Photoshop to actually do corrections (on rare occasions) or (more commonly) to create book covers and other designs that incorporate images along with other content. I use Camera Raw when importing those images into Photoshop.

At least in my mind, the two tools have fairly different purposes and do different things well. YMMV.


----------



## michi (Sep 5, 2013)

So excited, I get to basically pay at least $10 a month to adobe for the rest of my life. No thanks...


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 5, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> I'm confused. Can anyone confirm that there still is a boxed, non-cloud photoshop version available? I thought not. Which to me would be the end of using them. I don't do subscription software. Period. Even if they offered it for a buck I wouldn't want it. I want it installed and then not change it until I see fit (which can be years after I buy it).



You can still buy CS6, at least for now. Adobe has announced that they are not going to add new features to it, however, so CS6 is the end of the line for the purchased versions. And I'm in complete agreement with you; I'm moving off of Photoshop for new projects going forward. As far as I'm concerned, Adobe effectively end-of-lifed their flagship product.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2013)

m said:


> I'd recommend rendering the previews while importing the images into lightroom.



Yeah but what if you need the images right away. Do you have time to sit there for it injest and render previews for ages when the paper is going to press in 40 minutes? And even when there is nothing like that going on, and at this moment for me there isn't, I don't like to have sit there and have injection of images of CF cards take ages.



> Are they capable of displaying the changes you applied to the images with lightroom?



No, but I personally don't really care a whit about that when I am trying to quick sort. I want to be able to instantly sort and have to sit around for ages while it develops 800 or even 4000 photos. I don't need to see a semi-final potential rendering to be able to do initial sorting and rating. And once images are fully processed or processed in alternate ways, and not just in some intermediate potential rendering which I wouldn't be able to use for such comparisons anyway, you can certainly use them to display those.


----------



## gbchriste (Sep 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> A bit off topic, but I'm curious why people buy Lightroom if they have Photoshop.
> 
> I tried it a few years ago and hated its file management system. Maybe I'm just used to Bridge, but it seems to fit my needs better.
> 
> ...



Whoever told you that at Adobe is smoking something. Yes, many of the ACR tools replicate the tools in the LR Develop module. But being able to adjust white balance, recover highlights, adjust contrast, etc, is only a small part of the LR package. 

I don't know how anyone doesn't think file management in LR isn't superior than just piling on PSD after PSD file in PS. With Virtual Copy, I can create an unlimited number of versions of a photo - different sizes, different processing, etc, without creating any additional files in the system. I could create 100 different versions of one photo and still have only one raw file on the system. The only time I get a new file is when I chose to export one of those versions out to some other format like JPG.

Unlimited and eternal editing history on any image, without having to ever hit "Save". Edit history in Photoshop has a limited number of steps it can retain, and only during the time that photo is open in PS. I can pile up literally hundreds of edits on a single photo in LR, go away for a years, come back to that photo and see every editing step I ever took, and can roll the image forward and backward to any previous step. Let's say that 50 steps ago I converted the image to B&W. But now I want a color version. I can roll the image back 50 steps to the last step it was in color, create virtual copy at that point to get a second copy in color, then roll the original forward back to the black and white version. Now I have two independent copies of the same photo that I can process separately.

Collections - these are groupings of photos that span any location on the file system. So I have a "Grandkids" collection. Every photo I take of the my grandkids I add to that LR collection, but they don't physically move from whereever they are on the disc file system.

Slice and dice all my photos by any criteria I want. I want to find every shot taken with my 5DIII with a 70-200 2.8L at ISO 3200 and shutter speed of 1/60? No problem. I've zipped through 10,000 or more photos applying search criteria like that and had them all up in the grid view in a matter of a few seconds.

Rate every photo numericall (1-5), with a color rating (Green, Red, Blue, Etc), a "Pick" flag, a "Reject" flag, self-selected key words, and retrieve every photo at any level of my LR catalog hirearchy by those attributes.

Burn entire collections directly to CD at any size and resolution I want without having to first dump a bunch of JPGs to disc, further cluttering up my file system.

Export photos as JPG images directly to email attachments without having first dump a bunch of JPGs to disc and then manually attach to email. Further avoids cluttering up the file system with more files.

Export and manage whole catalogs for archive off-line but easily reopen and access those catalogs. My current LR catalog has the current year plus the previous two full years of images, organized at the top by year (2011, 2012, 2013). When the new year rolls over, I export the oldest year in to it's own LR catalog and store on an external harddrive, and remove that year from my current working catalog. Keeps my image volume manageable. But if I need to get something from an earlier catalog. It's less than a 2 minute operation to close my current catalog and open the archived one to find and work with what I'm looking for.

I could go on and on. IMHO, anyone who thinks LR doesn't bring significant added value to their workflow of PS either doesn't have enough images to make it worth their while, or isn't using LR to maximum effect.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2013)

m said:


> It doesn't matter if you shoot raw + jpg, because the raw has to be processed anyway.



No it doesn't if you just want to scan through quickly and sort. Why do you need to waste time doing a quick RAW develop when you have full size jpgs there already to zip through? And for any recent camera even when you shoot RAW only (which is mostly what I do these days), the RAW has a full size embedded jpg to use for quick sorting, so again why waste time making some crummy test renders of every single RAW file??

With other programs I can INSTANTLY zip through hundreds of shots at full-res. And I don't waste a TON of disc space on storing all sorts of quick full size RAW renders for many files I will never bother with anyway and even for the ones I do bother with I will process much more carefully.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> I don't know how anyone doesn't think file management in LR isn't superior than just piling on PSD after PSD file in PS. With Virtual Copy, I can create an unlimited number of versions of a photo - different sizes, different processing, etc, without creating any additional files in the system. I could create 100 different versions of one photo and still have only one raw file on the system. The only time I get a new file is when I chose to export one of those versions out to some other format like JPG.
> 
> Unlimited and eternal editing history on any image, without having to ever hit "Save". Edit history in Photoshop has a limited number of steps it can retain, and only during the time that photo is open in PS. I can pile up literally hundreds of edits on a single photo in LR, go away for a years, come back to that photo and see every editing step I ever took, and can roll the image forward and backward to any previous step. Let's say that 50 steps ago I converted the image to B&W. But now I want a color version. I can roll the image back 50 steps to the last step it was in color, create virtual copy at that point to get a second copy in color, then roll the original forward back to the black and white version. Now I have two independent copies of the same photo that I can process separately.



This part does sound potentially interesting though. Although I'm not sure that LR has enough processing for my variations to not end up occurring in PS anyway though. I'd have to look into it in more detail again.

And you can save out variations at any point with PS, although each does take a ton of storage space, I guess the variations in LR each take barely any disk space at all then? That could be nice.

I just wonder if I'd have too many variation occurring post LR stage or not to make it matter.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know how anyone doesn't think file management in LR isn't superior than just piling on PSD after PSD file in PS. With Virtual Copy, I can create an unlimited number of versions of a photo - different sizes, different processing, etc, without creating any additional files in the system. I could create 100 different versions of one photo and still have only one raw file on the system. The only time I get a new file is when I chose to export one of those versions out to some other format like JPG.
> ...



Actually I appreciate that insight. Since I bit on the $19.99/month Cloud offer for CS6 users, I can download Lightroom anytime. I may have to give it another look. 

I admit that having grown comfortable with my workflow in Bridge, Camera Raw and Photoshop, I just didn't have the patience to tackle one more program and when I tried Lightroom a few years back I wasn't impressed. I'm also pathologically resistant to spending time organizing anything. I know it is irrational, but I would rather spend my time taking and editing photos than keeping things organized. Time inefficient I know, but at 60 I ain't gonna change.

(Edit): I do wonder though how things like the rating system and saving to disk, CD etc., differ from Bridge.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > gbchriste said:
> ...



All edits and other meta-information (tags, geo info, exif data, etc) are held in the Lightroom Catalog, which is basically just a SQLite database. Once you put information into a database like that, you can do a lot of powerful things.

Leaving all that aside, to answer the question of as many versions of a photo as you want while not taking up much storage space, that's absolutely correct. Depending on the amount of changes, it's a few KBytes. Definitely less than a MByte per virtual copy unless you are doing an insane number of corrections and localized changes and such. 

For worrying about keeping your photos organized, Lightroom can actually help you with that immensely without taking more than a few moments on import. You just tell it what folder structure you want it to keep the raw files in, type in a few keywords describing what you are importing, and then anytime you want you can search on any of those keywords, or when you took photos. Or if you geo-tag even _where_ you took photos.


----------



## m (Sep 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Yeah but what if you need the images right away. Do you have time to sit there for it injest and render previews for ages when the paper is going to press in 40 minutes? And even when there is nothing like that going on, and at this moment for me there isn't, I don't like to have sit there and have injection of images of CF cards take ages.



With time constraints like that, I understand your point.
You don't have to "sit there" though, I guess.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I don't need to see a semi-final potential rendering to be able to do initial sorting and rating.



If they implemented something like this:
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_capability_to_display_embedded_preview
you would not have to shoot raw+jpeg because you could use the embedded jpeg to do the sorting in let's say the library module. So for now, this remains unresolved =(


----------



## zim (Sep 5, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> Whoever told you that at Adobe is smoking something. Yes, many of the ACR tools replicate the tools in the LR Develop module. But being able to adjust white balance, recover highlights, adjust contrast, etc, is only a small part of the LR package.
> 
> I don't know how anyone doesn't think file management in LR isn't superior than just piling on PSD after PSD file in PS. With Virtual Copy, I can create an unlimited number of versions of a photo - different sizes, different processing, etc, without creating any additional files in the system. I could create 100 different versions of one photo and still have only one raw file on the system. The only time I get a new file is when I chose to export one of those versions out to some other format like JPG.
> 
> ...



Great info gbchriste, been thinking of getting LR, the above is very compelling. Being able to roll back history and take virtual copies as you have described is incredible. That alone makes my mind up.

Two questions if you don't mind though before I download a trial.

Do all vers have this facility or is it only the latest?

Can you also roll back crop info?

Regards


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 5, 2013)

zim said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > Whoever told you that at Adobe is smoking something. Yes, many of the ACR tools replicate the tools in the LR Develop module. But being able to adjust white balance, recover highlights, adjust contrast, etc, is only a small part of the LR package.
> ...



I'd have to look back, but the last few versions definitely have that kind of exporting/editing.

For crop info, you can still re-crop from the original even if you've made 50 changes since the last crop. That way you don't have to roll back all of your changes, just using the crop tool and go in, or out, or change the aspect ratio. Whichever.


----------



## David Hull (Sep 5, 2013)

FWIW: I got this back from Adobe when trying to pin them down as to whether this was a temporary, introductory offer or not:

Adobe Photoshop wrote: "This current offer of $9.99 for existing customers ends Dec 31st. There may be other offers in the future. As of right now, there are no plans to have this package available after Dec 31st."


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> I'm confused. Can anyone confirm that there still is a boxed, non-cloud photoshop version available? I thought not. Which to me would be the end of using them. I don't do subscription software. Period. Even if they offered it for a buck I wouldn't want it. I want it installed and then not change it until I see fit (which can be years after I buy it).
> 
> Still have CS5 and wouldn't even bother if not for my plan to switch from PC to Mac by the end of the year.
> 
> ...



First, there is no "cloud" version of the software. That's just a marketing phrase that some 20-something hipster at Adobe dreamed up because it sounded cool. 

You download the software from the internet onto your machine and it stays there until your subscription ends, at which time they nuke it.

As far as boxed versions. I believe CS5 was the last boxed version available. CS 6 had to be downloaded from Adobe using a validation code. That said, however, once you have that code and your Adobe account, you are supposed to be able to access the download files indefinitely (so you can change machines, add to a second machine, etc.)

Honestly, that's actually a little more convenient when your hard drive crashes and you have to dig around looking for where you threw the disks and where the serial number is. I haven't checked, but I suspect that if you have a valid CS6 license, you can switch operating systems if you want, since it's a download rather than a disk. 

I'm a little unclear as to how long CS6 is available for purchase (if it is still available). What I do know is that you can keep it on your system indefinitely, even if you add "Creative Cloud."


----------



## drummstikk (Sep 6, 2013)

$20 a month for Photoshop only was a complete non-starter for me. I have stretches where I use Photoshop for hours a day for weeks on end, but then I have extended periods where I hardly touch it.

The full Creative Cloud would pretty much be a waste for me since I'd probably use, at most, 3 of the apps.

But $10 for PS and Lightroom? Now I'm listening. I'm not currently and never have been a Lightroom user (aside from some demos and betas) but at this price I'd like to give the newest version another try. I've been working with Aperture since the first of the year, and am still on the fence about it. But even if I don't make LR a permanent part of my workflow, $10 bucks/mo. to always have the latest Photoshop on hand sounds pretty good to me.

I am raising an eyebrow at the CS3 requirement. It's not an issue for me personally since CS3 is the last upgrade I did, but given the pushback they've gotten, I'd think Adobe would want to eagerly embrace all comers to the subscription model, even if the latest version you have is from the last century.

Adobe is being very clear about the price being "not introductory." They go back on that at the risk of a heap of bad PR, but of course in life their are no guarantees. If the price goes up later, I'll re-evaluate. I disagree with what some others have said about this being a "trap" or you'll have no choice if/when Adobe raises prices. You ALWAYS have a choice, AS LONG AS you take steps to maintain your independence. Here, I'm thinking of using the "maximize compatibility" option when you save out Photoshop files, and saving your photo Raw files outside of a proprietary database. (Exporting edited Raws as .DNG is worth considering here, as I expect your Lightroom edits will be preserved if you open them in Adobe Camera Raw later.)

I don't trust Adobe any more or less than I trust Canon, Comcast, AT&T, Apple, or any other company whose products/services play a big part in my life. I've used an iPhone 4 for the last three years and it's showing it's age. My next phone may be the new iPhone that will almost certainly be announced next week, or it may be an Android. Sure, there would be some pain at abandoning a lot of iOS apps I've accumulated in recent years, but very few, if any, choices in life are made without some cost or consequence.

The substantive difference between dropping 150-700+ dollars all at once to "own" software (yes, "own" with air quotes -- read your EULA) or paying a relatively painless $10/month to "rent" frankly eludes me. When this offer goes live, I'm very likely to give it a try. Subscription software seems like the wave of the future to me, especially for "pro" apps like those from Adobe.

Down the line, will any of us really miss that file cabinet drawer full of boxes and disks for increasingly obsolete software? I know I won't.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 6, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > gbchriste said:
> ...



Hmm I just realized a potential stumbling block though. What if some the steps involved say Nik plug-ins? I don't think Adobe seems to be able to record what settings were used so could how could it handle that? Also what about fancy work with layers?

The concept is brilliant and enticing, I'm just not sure it could handle all the things I do so I'm not sure it would do me good often enough. I'll have to look into it in more detail.


----------



## gbchriste (Sep 6, 2013)

zim said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > Whoever told you that at Adobe is smoking something. Yes, many of the ACR tools replicate the tools in the LR Develop module. But being able to adjust white balance, recover highlights, adjust contrast, etc, is only a small part of the LR package.
> ...



I've been using LR since V3 and all have the unlimited/eternal editing history and virtual copy features.

Any edit in LR can be rolled back no matter what it is. But you do have to be careful. When you look at the history, you see it as a series of steps stacked up in a vertical window, with the latest edit on the top of the stack, and the earliest on the bottom of the stack. You can't just yank a step out of the stack to undo it.

If I click on an earlier step, the photo will re-rendered to the version that contains that step and all steps prior to that. I can then export a photo or create a virtual copy with those edits applied. I can then step back forward to the later edits in the stack to return the photo to where it was when I started.


----------



## gbchriste (Sep 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



Can't speak to how it handles 3rd party plug-ins since I've not used any of them.

As to layers, if your workflow or style involves a lot of complex layer manipulation, especially with layer styles like Softlight, et al, then PS may definitely have an advantage for you.

In my portrait work I try to do everything I need to do in LR. My editing style is pretty clean so I don't need a lot of layer effects. I only use PS for retouching, cloning/healing, content aware delete, etc when I need to clean up a photo and LR's comparatively weak heal/clone tool isn't up to the task.


----------



## pknight (Sep 6, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



onOne Software's Perfect Photo Suite allows for layers with most of the functionality of PS. It is available as a plug-in for Lightroom, which allows you to access layer functionality without going into PS. Of course, when you return to LR from Perfect Photo Suite a new file is created with the edits you made, but that is also true when you use PS as an external editor from within LR. 

Plus, the onOne suite includes several modules that do much more than provide layers. You can get it with stand-alone capability, or just as a plug-in. It is a pretty slick package, even at full price it is much cheaper than PS, and you get a permanent license! 

gbchristie, what version of LR are you using? The healing brush is supposed to be greatly improved in LR 5.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Sep 6, 2013)

@ unfocused: CS6 was available as a box-version. I have this version.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> @ unfocused: CS6 was available as a box-version. I have this version.



My bad. I didn't realize that. 

I had forgotten, I got CS6 as a free upgrade under a promotion where, if you upgraded to 5.5 near the end of it's life cycle, Adobe sent you a code for an upgrade to CS6 when it came out. Under that promotion you had to upgrade via download. No boxed version offered. Hence, my confusion.


----------



## gbchriste (Sep 6, 2013)

pknight said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I'm using LR5 and yes the healing brush is greatly improved. When it works, it works really well and has already saved me on a number of occassions from having to make a round trip to PS. But it's still not as capable as the clone/stamp and content aware tools in PS. Some retouching just defies the LR healing brush and has to be done in PS.

Will definitely look in to the onOne suite. Sounds enticing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 6, 2013)

pknight said:


> gbchristie, what version of LR are you using? The healing brush is supposed to be greatly improved in LR 5.



The healing brush (it is no longer a circle but can be painted and has a very powerful algorithm driving it), the radial filter which was a glaring omission up to now, and smart previews as well as a multitude of nice enhancements make, in my opinion, LR5 the best $99 any keen photographer can spend. The latest improvements make PS less and less necessary for the "average" keen photographer, very high quality full edits can now be done 100% in LR5, as can top grade proofed and profiled printing, and it is a very competent DAM. 

Sure Photo Mechanic might be a faster dedicated DAM, but how many of us need to ingest hundreds/thousands of files for fast edits that PM can't then do? Custom metadata and IPTC info etc, that can all be done just as effectively with an intelligent customised workflow in Lightroom. If you have any issue with LR you can guarantee there are serious pros that have designed better workflow options than you are using. There a lot of high volume pros now only using Lightroom and they are happy to share their workflow solutions, check out Creative Live or Pye over at the SLRLounge for several completely different high volume workflows. LR is not an RIP either but it makes superb prints. If you need that last 5 or so % of performance in any area you need to spend to get it, but as a rounded photography package Lightroom really is a very good complete solution, especially when you factor in the plug in options and capabilities for diverse interests.

Hate Adobe all you like, even if the majority of people here are not their key market and rarely pay them retail price for the software, but for keen amateurs/semi pros, hobbyists et al, Adobe have bent over backwards to facilitate you not giving them more money. Name me one other software company that spend their time and money developing a standard, then makes it open, then gives you a free convertor that they fully support with the very latest cameras, also for free, so you can use new camera files on their old software? Give me an example of Apple/Microsoft etc etc doing that.

Adobe bashing gets very boring, if you are not a retail CS5 or CS6 owner you haven't given Adobe a decent amount of money for what they currently sell, they have moved on so get over it. If you are not a retail CS5 or CS6 purchaser and you are here then you probably are the target market for Lightroom 5, at this point LR5 seems to be the best product in its class and price point.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2013)

A better deal: $19.99/month for the entire CC suite under a student and teacher license.

I think this is a price reduction (not sure, but I thought it was $29.99 last month). Go register for a class at your local community college and sign up for this. 

http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/students.edu.html?sdid=KHBIT


----------



## Jim O (Sep 6, 2013)

cayenne said:


> I refuse to *RENT *software.....and have the possibility that if for any reason I cease to pay Adobe '_ransom_', that I may no longer be able to open and work on my files.



Ever leased a car? Or financed a purchase? They will take it away if you don't pay. Or make it inoperative remotely (I'm sure that's coming if it isn't already here). Why is software different?

I know that I'm late to this party but just to be a devil's advocate here, kindly tell me what software you actually *OWN*.

Unless you've written it yourself, the answer is probably none. You merely own a perpetual license. Basically that means you've rented it for life. You have no ownership rights. None. Zilch. Nada. And, there are no guarantees that it will work on your next computer with a new operating system, and no guarantees that security updates will be available in perpetuity. There's not even a guarantee that your really old versions of LR and PS will work with modern RAW files though they likely will.

I own a small web hosting business. I *OWN* a perpetual license for the software I use - http://www.whmcs.com/, but I pay an annual fee if I want updates. It's the best package for small web hosts and when security holes are found (and they exist in almost *ALL* PHP software) they are plugged much faster than Microsoft patches Windows 7. Much faster. We're talking hours usually. That's a cost of doing business. I also pay a monthly fee for cPanel which is installed on each of my lower end servers. I pay annual fees for other add on packages like Softaculous. Again, a cost of doing business.

I also, for fun, run a web forum totally unrelated to Canon and photography. It uses a commercial software forum package - http://www.invisionpower.com/ - for which I have a permanent license. I still pay semiannual fees for upgrades and other services.

Have you ever gone to see the same movie twice? Did they let you in free the second time? The third time?

This is $120/year! $10/month! If you're having to choose between your Adobe license and food, then by all means eat! Lightroom is about $80 to upgrade if I recall correctly. For a little more each year you can get access to Photoshop as well, along with every major and minor upgrade. It's actually a good deal. How much did the last "L" lens you bought cost? Or the last EOS body (M doesn't count)?

So you can refuse to "rent" software, but understand this is the way many big software packages will be sold in the future. It's a good model for software developers as they can anticipate a steady stream of income. It's good for users too because major and minor updates are always available, along with security patches, and because it's easy to switch to the competition. If you've paid $1000+ for Adobe CS6 you might not be as quick to switch.


----------



## grahamsz (Sep 6, 2013)

drummstikk said:


> Adobe is being very clear about the price being "not introductory." They go back on that at the risk of a heap of bad PR, but of course in life their are no guarantees. If the price goes up later, I'll re-evaluate. I disagree with what some others have said about this being a "trap" or you'll have no choice if/when Adobe raises prices. You ALWAYS have a choice, AS LONG AS you take steps to maintain your independence. Here, I'm thinking of using the "maximize compatibility" option when you save out Photoshop files, and saving your photo Raw files outside of a proprietary database. (Exporting edited Raws as .DNG is worth considering here, as I expect your Lightroom edits will be preserved if you open them in Adobe Camera Raw later.)



The biggest risk I see is Lightroom. There's a good chance that LR6 will be Cloud-Only. At which point you install it, it upgrades your LR5 catalog and you are stuck. There will be no legal way to get at your lightroom catalog without continuing to pay Adobe.

Photoshop has some of the same issues, you can create files that presumably use features only available in CC and those won't open properly in CS6. Though that's pretty unlikely at this point as most CS6 files open well in CS3 so it's likely we've got a fair few years before that comes into play.

I think you are right that Adobe would look bad if they hiked the price up dramatically. I don't really mind if it goes to $11 next year, but I do worry that they could release LR6, then discontinue this bundle and force us onto the full creative suite.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 6, 2013)

Jim O said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > I refuse to *RENT *software.....and have the possibility that if for any reason I cease to pay Adobe '_ransom_', that I may no longer be able to open and work on my files.
> ...



Leaving aside the differences and discussion between perpetual license and actual ownership of software, the thing that many of us are wary of is that when we stop paying, we stop being able to use the software. If I'm a hobbyist (I am), don't make any money at it, but I still want to use LR and/or PS for some things and am content with the last version I got (PS CS5 through Elements upgrade special), then while I might like the latest version of PS, I use it rarely enough that it doesn't make any sense. 

If I were just getting started, said great, I can get it all and started using it. However 6 months later I have money issues and need to stop paying for it (since I don't make any/much money at it), then suddenly I stop being able to use it. If all I really used was Lightroom, sure, I can still get the perpetual license but now I have no money to buy that.

Perhaps the above is a bit muddled, but trying to sum it up clearer, the issue I have is that I rarely use PS, and don't really need the latest version. For Lightroom, if a new version is released every 1.5-2 years, it's still quite a bit more costly (on the order of double or more) to use CC than to simply buy the perpetual license. And then I still need to _pay_ that monthly fee *forever* if I want to keep using LR. If I find that LR5 has everything I want and don't need to upgrade to LR6 because it doesn't offer me enough of a value proposition, I just don't buy it. Instead, with CC, I *have* to keep paying for it. No choice. Sure, I get the LR6 additions, but if they offered me no great incentive to upgrade in the first place I may not even use them but I'm still paying.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 6, 2013)

grahamsz said:


> The biggest risk I see is Lightroom. There's a good chance that LR6 will be Cloud-Only. At which point you install it, it upgrades your LR5 catalog and you are stuck. There will be no legal way to get at your lightroom catalog without continuing to pay Adobe.
> 
> Photoshop has some of the same issues, you can create files that presumably use features only available in CC and those won't open properly in CS6. Though that's pretty unlikely at this point as most CS6 files open well in CS3 so it's likely we've got a fair few years before that comes into play.
> 
> I think you are right that Adobe would look bad if they hiked the price up dramatically. I don't really mind if it goes to $11 next year, but I do worry that they could release LR6, then discontinue this bundle and force us onto the full creative suite.



Unless you copy your LR5 library first! But then so many of these objections are just emotional outbursts with no facts or rational thought behind them. I still have LR2/LR3/LR4 and LR5 catalogs stored should I ever need or want to open a legacy program that is far more likely to be rendered non functional by Microsoft or Apple.

CC files open fine in CS6.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 6, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> Leaving aside the differences and discussion between perpetual license and actual ownership of software



You can't leave it aside. It's a fact.

While I agree with most of what you say, *if* you want the upgrades from CS3 or CS4, this is a good deal. CS5 it maybe worth waiting.

My understanding is that LR will continue to be marketed as a standalone product, *and* as part of CC. The rest of CC will not. As I understand it, CS6 is to be the last release in the "CS" series. If all you want is LR this is not a good deal. If you use PS, this is a good deal.

LR, while used by many pros, is positioned to compete with Aperture and other programs like that, which are in large use by non-professionals as well. 

BTW, LR versions 4 and 5 were 14 months apart. Version 5 is really an improvement to me. Who knows when 6 will come out?

Adobe's target is not people who do not want to spend $10/month on their software. That is plain and simple.

I'm all in favor of free and open source software (FOSS), but the truth is, my FreeBSD 9.1 desktop that I mostly use as an NAS device, can't beat my Mac.

And again, I'll point out, there is no guarantee that your version of PS will work on the next version of your OS, or the one after that. As long as you are happy with it though, there is no point in CC. I will say that I have generally done an upgrade every other CS cycle. I was still on CS4 and was considering CS6 or waiting since I also was content. With the incentive I got, CC made sense for me. The CS4 to CC upgrade will likely cost me less than the upgrade to CS6 would have, and eventually I would have had to move to CC if I wanted newer features, say in three years or so. Instead, I got the newest LR and PS, and a few things that I use only on occasion. I also get upgrades regularly and semi-automatically with the cloud app that runs on my Mac.

My frustration here is not with you or with Cayenne, but rather a general one. This is a gearhead forum. Let's take you for instance. Again, not to pick on you, but you have the following listed in your signature:



> 5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8



That's perhaps over $7000 worth of gear that you use to make images. By this forum's standards that may be _less than_ average.

I find it so incredibly ironic that people with so many *thousands of dollars worth of gear* don't find the software that they use regularly to be worth $10/month. Not just you, but so many people in this thread. C'mon now. How many of you smoke? Subscribe to HBO? Subscribe to Netflix?

I understand it's a change, a paradigm shift for many of you, but look at the numbers. They aren't big.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 6, 2013)

grahamsz said:


> The biggest risk I see is Lightroom. There's a good chance that LR6 will be Cloud-Only.



Please see my earlier post above. Also see http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html and scroll down to the sixth question:



> Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?
> 
> A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely.



Your comment was pure speculation and not based on any research. If Adobe is lying in this matter it will bite them in the ass. LR is a money maker for them.

LR competes in a different market than does the rest of CC. If they put it strictly in CC they lose to Aperture and other products. It makes no business sense.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 6, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> ...so many of these objections are just emotional outbursts with no facts or rational thought behind them...



Agreed. I've been a critic of the CC model and I still don't like it. Mostly because I don't want a company dictating my buying decisions to me. I regularly updated my Adobe software, but I did it on my own schedule and took full advantage of their special offers over the years. 

I think it is perfectly legitimate to be upset with the forced, heavy-handed approach that Adobe took. And, it's certainly understandable to be more than a little concerned about what the future may hold. 

But, on the other hand, some of the worries/complaints border on tin-foil hat thinking. 

If you shoot in RAW or JPEG, your original digital negatives aren't going anywhere. If at some point your RAW files become unreadable, that will be due to Canon changing the format, not something Adobe does. Worst case scenario is you can't open a PSD file and have to rebuild the image. But wait, remember those good old days when you had to start from scratch every time you put a negative in the enlarger? No difference.

I don't have much sympathy for those who complain that the latest offer only applies to CS3 and later version owners. How many people on this forum are still shooting with the 20D that was current when CS3 was released? 

Adobe has been pretty clear that Lightroom is going to continue to be offered as a perpetual license. Sure, they can change their mind, but then, what guarantee is there that any company won't change their mind. Canon could decide to made a radio trigger strobe and then refuse to release a receiver that would allow their older model strobes to communicate with the new radio control strobes. (Oh wait...they already did that didn't they?)

I'm not thrilled about this. But, I have had to accept that I am an unusual case. I enjoy Photoshop, but I also use InDesign, Dreamweaver and Acrobat. Occasionally I like to play with and learn other software programs. I am clearly not the customer that Adobe is targeting. Instead I'm like the guy on this forum who buys a 1DX to take pictures of his kids and vacations. I hope that Adobe will recognize there is a market for the hobbyist user, but if not, I've got a year to figure out an alternative strategy and frankly, I've pretty much decided to just trust the marketplace.


----------



## grahamsz (Sep 6, 2013)

Jim O said:


> Your comment was pure speculation and not based on any research. If Adobe is lying in this matter it will bite them in the ass. LR is a money maker for them.
> 
> LR competes in a different market than does the rest of CC. If they put it strictly in CC they lose to Aperture and other products. It makes no business sense.



My inquiries with Adobe make it pretty clear that when they say "indefinitely" they mean "we have no plans to change this in the next 12 months". That's their answer on the $10 price, and I have no reason to believe that they have longer plans.

Your point about business sense seems reasonable. Lightroom fills a different need and people who use it often dont need any of the other tools in the creative suite. However this is the same company that now forces print shops to subscribe to things like After Effects - so I'm not necessarily counting it out.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 6, 2013)

unfocused said:


> ....... Canon could decide to made a radio trigger strobe and then refuse to release a receiver that would allow their older model strobes to communicate with the new radio control strobes. (Oh wait...they already did that didn't they?)



That isn't what they did, the new flashes can talk to the old ones and they all have the same functionality the old system ever had, what you don't get is a free lunch, the old flashes don't have the new system RF functionality, *but they never did*, they didn't when you bought them and they don't now.

To me this objection to the lack of a remote RF trigger for older flashes is akin to buying a 780HD TV and then moaning because it isn't 1080 or 4K native, it never was, you can still watch TV on it, you can even watch 1080 and 4K input on it, you just don't get the newer features (resolution).


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 6, 2013)

Jim O said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Leaving aside the differences and discussion between perpetual license and actual ownership of software
> ...



It is a fact, but for the majority of purposes the difference between a perpetual license (e.g. what most people consider to be 'ownership') and a _subscription_ model are significant.



Jim O said:


> My frustration here is not with you or with Cayenne, but rather a general one. This is a gearhead forum. Let's take you for instance. Again, not to pick on you, but you have the following listed in your signature:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's totally worth $10/mo. Hell, I'll go $20/mo and it's worth it. The problem I have is if I ever *stop* spending that money, I can't use the software. Period. You can't get around that.

If they said "after you subscribe for X period of time, you can stop paying and you get a perpetual license for the software up to that patch version" I'd be perfectly happy to switch to CC. And probably end up paying for nearly forever.

For me it's not an issue of ownership per se, it's access. I want to be able to access the application I'm spending money on when I want/need it. Sure, sure, I can start up the subscription again. But that's a pain in the rear after I've spend thousands of dollars on a subscription, then stop paying and I get nothing.

EDIT: fixed quotes formatting


----------



## Jim O (Sep 6, 2013)

grahamsz said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > Your comment was pure speculation and not based on any research. If Adobe is lying in this matter it will bite them in the ass. LR is a money maker for them.
> ...



What has that to do with your comment that LR will become "subscription only". Your exact words were:



> There's a good chance that LR6 will be Cloud-Only



So you asked about the price of CC for the next year and from that you drew the above conclusion that there's a "good chance" that LR will become "subscription only". I guess it depends on how you define "good chance". If, to you, five percent is a "good chance" then I might agree with you. If you mean more than 50-60%, I'd have to disagree.




grahamsz said:


> Your point about business sense seems reasonable. Lightroom fills a different need and people who use it often dont need any of the other tools in the creative suite. However this is the same company that now forces print shops to subscribe to things like After Effects - so I'm not necessarily counting it out.



Print shops are different than are casual printers. The appropriate comparison, SAT style, would be:

Professional photographers are to casual or amateur photographers as professional print shops are to the person who puts out your church bulletin. They have different needs, budgets, etc.

Lightroom will stay separate and and will have a market alongside Elements. That's my *guess*.

The subscription plan will work for CC because the cost of version upgrading with CS was so burdensome that many pros (and pro shops) skipped versions even when they _wanted_ to upgrade. As a result they had an even *more* expensive upgrade next time around. Now they know they will pay a small amount monthly, something which is easy to budget, and will *always* have the latest versions. There are tax advantages also.

A perfect example is my brother's company. He has about 15-20 CS licenses. When renewal time came around he had to come up with a lot of cash, or fall behind. Further, software is not "expensable" for tax purposes. It has to be depreciated over (I believe) three years. So he has to pay for 15-20 licenses but only gets to deduct a third of the cost each year. On the other hand, his monthly CS fees are easy to budget and are fully deductible *in the year they are paid*. That's why many businesses in the US lease vehicles rather than buy them.


Lastly, here's a question: was LR *ever* part of CS? Answer: no (at least not that I recall). LR is being *given away* as a bonus to CC subscribers, not "taken private".


----------



## Jim O (Sep 6, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



It's not a "rent to own" deal. <shrugs>

Like I said earlier, if it's a question of food or your license fee, well, I hope you'd have sold your camera gear by then anyway, so by all means eat.

I linked to the software I use for my hosting business. They have retained the "owned" *or* "leased" license model. As you can see in the first screenshot it pays to own the license pretty quickly. That's why I purchased.

In the second screenshot you can see Adobe PS6 at Amazon. It will take you about five years before you break even** buying a perpetual license vs a subscription at 10$/month, not counting the opportunity cost of the money. In the former scenario you will probably want to upgrade again because you'd have been using really outdated software that may not even work on your newest computer. In the latter you had $600 in your pocket, budgeted the $10/month and always had the most up to date software.

**Edit - actually more because you'd have to pay for a license for LR separately.


----------



## zim (Sep 6, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Great info gbchriste, been thinking of getting LR, the above is very compelling. Being able to roll back history and take virtual copies as you have described is incredible. That alone makes my mind up.
> ...



thanks again (and others that replied)
I understand those limitations, that's fine, the thought of being able to try different ideas on an image without filling up disk space is really appealing *, have to admit I probably do this way more than I should but it's a big part of the fun I get out of photography.

Regards

_Edit: * and cross multiple sessions of course_


----------



## Rick (Sep 6, 2013)

I just signed up on Aug 24 for PS CC so this announcement comes at an opportune time. Sign-up for the new deal starts on the 17th and I'll be able to convert my present subscription to this new subscription. 

Several of the new features in ACR are especially helpful as well as the shake reduction tool.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 6, 2013)

Rick said:


> Several of the new features in ACR are especially helpful as well as the shake reduction tool.



+1 from an _older_ guy with hands not as steady as they were 30 years ago.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 7, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ....... Canon could decide to made a radio trigger strobe and then refuse to release a receiver that would allow their older model strobes to communicate with the new radio control strobes. (Oh wait...they already did that didn't they?)
> ...



Hah! I knew I'd get a reaction from you. Just pulling your chain. We've been round on this before.

I gave in and sold all my 580s and bought 600 RTs. Canon and Private won this battle, but I still whine.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2013)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I remembered we had and I thought you might be, but I'll be a counterpoint to your whine whenever I see it 

Besides, there is no winning and losing, there is just embracing what works best for us when we need it, and that damn RT system is pretty difficult to resist once you try it.

P.S. Lightroom 5 has all the enhanced ACR capabilities from PS CC, it is a big step up from LR4 and ACR in CS6.


----------



## jrista (Sep 7, 2013)

Hmm, I am not sure what everyone is complaining about. Given the terminology, the price is $9.99/mo in perpetuity so long as you sign up before the end of the year. That comes out to $60/yr for these apps, or less than that if you factor in the online storage space option.

I was greatly dismayed with Adobe trying to force everyone to move to the $50/mo "master suite" cloud deal, which is what their prior pricing basically amounted to. Hardly anyone uses just one adobe app, and at $20/mo per individual app, everyone might as well just pay for the master cloud deal. Not everyone, however, has FIFTY PER MONTH of disposable income, particularly freelancers, photographers, etc. who may not have consistent monthly income in order to support a subscription. 

Fears of Adobe increasing price are overblown. Given how much hate there is for their Cloud service in general, they know they would lose droves of customers if there was ever even a HINT of a price increase. Most previously existing customers, such as myself, have been wise enough to keep their CS6 license and software, so they will always have something to fall back on. There is no reason not to stand your ground and vote with your pocketbook in the event Adobe ever does try to stick it to you and raise your price unnecessarily. 

Over the LONG term, inflation is a perpetual, and seemingly permanent, and fairly simple fact of the fiat currency world. "Paper" money inflates, and prices will eventually inflate with it. I wouldn't expect a sudden price jump from $9.99 to $19.99 in a year...but over five years, I'd expect something along the lines of a move from $9.99 to $14.99 at most (probably less than that). That assumes Adobe doesn't finally learn that lower prices mean more subscribers. If other popular subscription services are any indication, the price should DROP in the long term as Adobe gathers more and more customers. As NetFlix's subscriber base has grown, the price has dropped. I used to spend $30/mo for three discs a month. Now I pay $7.99 for unlimited HD streaming. I wouldn't worry about price creep until it actually occurs, and instead, I would look forward to price contraction over the long haul, assuming Adobe's customer base continues to increase (and, if they produce more packages like this one, say a $9.99/mo deal for freelance digital artists and graphic designers, another for freelance DSLR cinematographers, etc. I suspect Adobe's CC membership will indeed increase.)

At less than $60/yr each for these two apps, that is a very good deal. The monthly price is not too difficult to swallow. And it comes with 20 gigs of online storage space to boot! Personally, I think this is the first good Adobe Cloud deal to come along.


----------



## TommyLee (Sep 8, 2013)

I just threw up in my mouth


----------



## tpatana (Sep 8, 2013)

TommyLee said:


> I just threw up in my mouth



Why? I'd think that wouldn't be too pleasant experience.


----------



## pknight (Sep 8, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> I'm using LR5 and yes the healing brush is greatly improved. When it works, it works really well and has already saved me on a number of occassions from having to make a round trip to PS. But it's still not as capable as the clone/stamp and content aware tools in PS. Some retouching just defies the LR healing brush and has to be done in PS.
> 
> Will definitely look in to the onOne suite. Sounds enticing.



The new onOne suite version, coming Nov. 8, has what looks like an improved healing brush. It also has a new module that seems to include a lot of what is in the LR develop module. I do not work for onOne, btw. I am just very impressed with what they have done. Life after Adobe might be OK after all.


----------



## pknight (Sep 8, 2013)

jrista said:


> Hmm, I am not sure what everyone is complaining about. Given the terminology, the price is $9.99/mo in perpetuity so long as you sign up before the end of the year. That comes out to $60/yr for these apps, or less than that if you factor in the online storage space option.
> 
> I was greatly dismayed with Adobe trying to force everyone to move to the $50/mo "master suite" cloud deal, which is what their prior pricing basically amounted to. Hardly anyone uses just one adobe app, and at $20/mo per individual app, everyone might as well just pay for the master cloud deal. Not everyone, however, has FIFTY PER MONTH of disposable income, particularly freelancers, photographers, etc. who may not have consistent monthly income in order to support a subscription.
> 
> ...



I believe you are wrong about the $9.99 being permanent. Read any Adobe EULA. They reserve the right to raise prices at any time.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 8, 2013)

tpatana said:


> TommyLee said:
> 
> 
> > I just threw up in my mouth
> ...



Exactly. And once Adobe realizes this, we may be in business again.

;D


----------



## Jim O (Sep 8, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > TommyLee said:
> ...



Hahaha.

What are you going to use? Corel? It sucks, always has. GIMP? Always been free and full of bugs. Some smaller apps without the feature set? There is *nothing* comparable to PS. So use the old version you have and live with it, or fork over a few bucks a month. And when you get your next computer and it has a new OS and your old version of PS won't install, don't whine to Adobe. They may have sold you a perpetual license but they didn't promise perpetual support.

I'll wager that Adobe will stick with this arrangement going forward for five years and not back down. Businesses, who are their largest customers, _like_ this type of arrangement.

Adobe will be quite happy selling licenses to you for LR and Elements. If you want PS, you will have to go to CC.

The only thing that might change that is if they perceive that they can make more money selling perpetual licenses for individual apps. But it's extremely doubtful that you will never see a CS7.


----------



## jrista (Sep 8, 2013)

pknight said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, I am not sure what everyone is complaining about. Given the terminology, the price is $9.99/mo in perpetuity so long as you sign up before the end of the year. That comes out to $60/yr for these apps, or less than that if you factor in the online storage space option.
> ...



That isn't evidence of anything. EVERY EULA says that. Its a pretty standard thing for subscription services (companies HAVE to be able to adapt to changing economic circumstances, and can't be locked into prices that may eventually not support their service.) I wouldn't read into that clause in any way. Adobe will change prices according to demand, inflation, and other economic forces. Sure, they will charge as much as they can, that is the basis of a capitalist market...but people WILL walk when the prices get too high, or when the service doesn't offer what people want. 

Again, NetFlix is a superb example of how this works with subscription services...when the company tried to spin off Quickster, dropped Stars Play, and increase streaming rates, DROVES of members literally left the service. The company reversed its policies, shored up its services, increased content offerings, and their members came back. 

Sorry, but anyone who thinks Adobe has more power over the customer than the customer themselves regarding price and offerings just doesn't understand market dynamics or the power of the customers "wallet vote."


----------



## Jim O (Sep 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> NetFlix is a superb example of how this works with subscription services...when the company tried to spin off Quickster, dropped Stars Play, and increase streaming rates, DROVES of members literally left the service. The company reversed its policies, shored up its services, increased content offerings, and their members came back.
> 
> Sorry, but anyone who thinks Adobe has more power over the customer than the customer themselves regarding price and offerings just doesn't understand market dynamics or the power of the customers "wallet vote."




This is true but also very different markets. Streaming video is/was still an immature market at the time, and growing rapidly. It still is in a period of rapid growth. Netflix's target customer base was mainly young(er) individuals and families. Their business was retail, one consumer at a time, who could easily change their viewing habits.

Adobe has a mature product in a mature market. The product is the same, with enhancements/improvements being added over time, and the way it works is the same. It still resides on the person's computer. Adobe's customer base is businesses and individuals, but I'd venture that most CS buyers and CC subscribers are small to medium sized businesses, be they sole proprietorships like an individual professional photographer or a company like my brother's which I mentioned earlier, which has 15-20 seats. The _only_ thing that has changed for them is that they're paying over time for what they'd buy anyway, and their cash outlays are fully deductible in the year they make them. Also, some improvements are likely to be released more frequently, because new feature sets do not need to be held back for the next release cycle.

The other difference is that streaming video is not a necessity. One can still go to the Redbox and rent a DVD for a dollar. This software suite has few real competitors and so is a necessity for many businesses. For a company with 50-100 seats, the sheer cost of changing, of installing new software on multiple workstations, of training entire staffs to use something different, and of converting from one format to another is tremendous. There needs to be a really good reason to move away from Adobe with all that investment in time and training, and that involves the availability of a suite with comparable features at a significant cost savings to offset the costs of "retooling" and the "hassle factor". Adobe is the _de facto_ gold standard, not just PS but other tools as well. When a company looks to hire someone for their art or graphics department, they often put in their ad something to the effect of "Must be familiar with Adobe [xxx].". Small price changes, or even price model changes like this are not going to change that, again absent a viable competitor at a really advantageous price that can provide all the tools in a way that interoperates, etc. For a growing company the cost is lower to add five seats this way than to buy five licenses. Cash flow is important to growth, and thinly capitalized, rapidly growing companies would rather shell out a monthly fee than a big outlay that may get in the way of their obtaining the next five seats, and scaling back is easy as well.

My point is that while customers can and do influence the market, a small minority, even a vocal one, may well not have much effect. Consider that when AT&T announced they were putting in data transfer limits in Q2 2010, some people yelled and screamed, and some customers even left. AT&T stuck to its guns and still has huge market share. In fact, it probably unloaded/avoided some users of high amounts of data transfer and improved its margins. It was followed by Verizon in Q3 2011. People yelled and screamed and "threw up in [their] mouth". Guess what? Verizon still has lots of customers. More than any other US provider. In fact they both are gaining users. All this while Sprint has remained "unlimited". Their relative positions haven't changed much according to the following graphic.






Source: http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/grading-top-10-us-carriers-second-quarter-2012

The people who are "grandfathered" into "unlimited" data plans are not really "unlimited" either. If they are in the top ~ 10% they get seriously slowed down by both carriers. That usually equates to around 6GB/month if I recall correctly, a common amount selected by families, and which is cheaper, at least at Verizon, than is the unlimited plan to which some are still grandfathered.

Again, my prediction is this is all much ado about nothing. CC is here and this type of software pricing is here to stay just like data transfer limits, at least until the next and better model comes along.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 9, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know how anyone doesn't think file management in LR isn't superior than just piling on PSD after PSD file in PS. With Virtual Copy, I can create an unlimited number of versions of a photo - different sizes, different processing, etc, without creating any additional files in the system. I could create 100 different versions of one photo and still have only one raw file on the system. The only time I get a new file is when I chose to export one of those versions out to some other format like JPG.
> ...


If you are using lightroom, right click edit in photoshop. You have several options, including edit a copy after processing in lightroom, or before. In either of those cases, the original remains untouched. 

Its just a matter of personal preference, Lightroom is optimized for use by pros who need to organize thousands to millions of images, and get quick access to them. It also means you should keyword them (Lightroom has tools to do this quickly). 


Some prefer to organize images their own way, and that's ok. If it works for you, great.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 9, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> I'm confused. Can anyone confirm that there still is a boxed, non-cloud photoshop version available? I thought not. Which to me would be the end of using them. I don't do subscription software. Period. Even if they offered it for a buck I wouldn't want it. I want it installed and then not change it until I see fit (which can be years after I buy it).
> 
> Still have CS5 and wouldn't even bother if not for my plan to switch from PC to Mac by the end of the year.
> 
> ...



Yes:
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65170137-Photoshop-Extended-CS6/dp/B007R0RL7G/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1378743347&sr=8-12&keywords=adobe+photoshop+cs6

I just got Production Premium CS6 suite, with CDs....

Also, even if you buy the download version, CS6 is still stand alone....so, you don't have to worry about that. You can buy CS6 products that are stand alone and not tied to CC

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Sep 9, 2013)

Jim O said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Leaving aside the differences and discussion between perpetual license and actual ownership of software
> ...



Well, you can run any version of your OS in a VM (Virtual Machine) as long as you like and that will take care of supporting your version of PS or any other bit of software that might possibly become unable to run with newer OS updates.

And renting things that you will not need again, is often accepted. I generally see a movie ONCE and never have a need for it again. The few I do want to watch over and over again, I have the option of *buying* for using as often as I wish.

Renting software used to generate output...is NOT good for the rental paradigm, since if you quit paying, your works YOU created and own, are now no longer accessible to you. That is the main concern that you seem to have difficulty in understanding. This is different than renting a car or a netflix subscription, this hold YOUR work hostage...those other examples you give do not.

Other companies are literally salivating at the possibility of renting rather than selling software (and lets not get into the semantic arguments about owning software or a perpetual license, I'm talking about you buy it and are free to use it in perpetuity without ever paying the company another cent)......MS has tried this somewhat in the past, as have other companies and have been rebuked by the consumer.

The *only * way to combat this *is* with your wallet. That is the ONLY thing a publicly traded company will listen to, as that the customer is _not_ their primary concern, they only are beholden to their shareholders. So, if you don't protest with your wallet, then sure...the battle is lost and many other companies will jump on this bandwagon, which most everyone can see, is not good for the consumer.

Once they have you locked into this paradigm of renting you software, and holding your intellectual property you created with the tools 'hostage'...what is to stop them from jacking up the prices as they wish, and what incentive is there for them to keep trying to innovate and come up with improvements in a quick fashion? Nothing.

cayenne


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2013)

cayenne,

I understand what you are saying, but from Adobe's perspective any creative professional that baulks at $49,99 a month for access to their $3,000 suit of software *is not their target market*. As I have already said many posters here will fall into the 10% of customers that Adobe expected to disenfranchise, they did the numbers before the change and they believe, in the mid to long term, the new model will generate more money for the shareholders, so far that belief has been supported by the share price and company valuation.

However, Adobe have, again as I have already said, bent over backwards to enable that 10% to keep using their current software even with new cameras (no small expenditure in itself), maintain perpetual licensing with Lightroom, and make this new photographer orientated subscription model at prices any keen hobbyist could easily afford. They will even still sell you new copies of their old perpetual license software, the option you decided worked best for you.

That you don't like most of their options is your prerogative, but get used to it, Adobe believe it is a more solid business model for them and their primary customer base, *creative businesses*.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 9, 2013)

> Once they have you locked into this paradigm of renting you software, and holding your intellectual property you created with the tools 'hostage'...what is to stop them from jacking up the prices as they wish, and what incentive is there for them to keep trying to innovate and come up with improvements in a quick fashion? Nothing.



I keep reading this. How is Adobe holding anything hostage?

You always have your original files, whether jpg or raw. Those files are software independent (okay, Raw files get a little "iffy" but that's due to camera manufacturers, not software companies.)

Once you complete your edits, you can save the file in a software-independent format. So you've always got the original negative, and you've even got a final print that you can reproduce in unlimited quantities. What you don't have is every step that you took along the way to create that final image. But, guess what?, for about 160 years of photography, no one had that anyway. 

Plus, why assume that your layers will disappear or your psd files will become unreadable? It's far more likely that whatever storage medium you are using will become antiquated and unusable long before the file format. 

From the Corel website:



> What File Formats does Paint Shop support?...PSD - Photoshop - Read/Write





privatebydesign said:


> cayenne,
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but from Adobe's perspective any creative professional that baulks at $49,99 a month for access to their $3,000 suit of software *is not their target market*.



Maybe, but everyone is also just one community college class away from $19.99 access to their $3,000 suite of software. And, Adobe's student teacher licensing agreement is very broad – even allowing for commercial use of the software.

I don't like what Adobe has done, but repeating the same myths over and over doesn't make them true.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2013)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne,
> ...



What is your point? That a person Adobe considers outside their main business base has yet another option to bargain software use. I keep saying Adobe have bent over backwards to take care of that lost 10%, you just mentioned an example I forgot to.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I know it is hard to imagine, but I am in agreement with you.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 9, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Well, you can run any version of your OS in a VM (Virtual Machine) as long as you like and that will take care of supporting your version of PS or any other bit of software that might possibly become unable to run with newer OS updates.



Anybody got a Mountain Lion disc I can borrow? Legally?




cayenne said:


> Renting software used to generate output...is NOT good for the rental paradigm, since if you quit paying, your works YOU created and own, are now no longer accessible to you. That is the main concern that you seem to have difficulty in understanding. This is different than renting a car or a netflix subscription, this hold YOUR work hostage...those other examples you give do not.



Really? So I'm to assume that you need PS or another Adobe product to open your JPEGs and RAW files? Your TIFFs and PNGs? Other graphics programs can even open PSD's. PSD is an open format with its own SDK - http://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/photoshop/fileformatashtml/. There is no need to make this personal and insult me by saying things like "That is the main concern that you seem to have difficulty in understanding" since your argument is completely and utterly fallacious. I can read well and hold an advanced degree. I _understand_ what you say very well, it just happens to be false. You can scream it from the top of the Empire State Building all day and night but it wouldn't make it any less false. Do you "have difficulty in understanding" this concept? Your indignation would seem far more righteous if it wasn't covered in crap.




cayenne said:


> Once they have you locked into this paradigm of renting you software, and holding your intellectual property you created with the tools 'hostage'...what is to stop them from jacking up the prices as they wish, and what incentive is there for them to keep trying to innovate and come up with improvements in a quick fashion? Nothing.



More of the same nonsense. Until they make it so you cannot save your output as a TIFF or a JPEG or a PNG or some other *open format*, they are not holding your intellectual property hostage in any way shape or form. Want to save all of your edits? Save them.

As Chicken Little said:



> The sky is falling...



Anyway, if you don't want to use PS or Adobe products any longer that's cool.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I know it is hard to imagine, but I am in agreement with you.



Ah that is the source of my confusion


----------



## CTJohn (Sep 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> However, Adobe have, again as I have already said, bent over backwards to enable that 10% to keep using their current software even with new cameras (no small expenditure in itself), maintain perpetual licensing with Lightroom, and make this new photographer orientated subscription model at prices any keen hobbyist could easily afford.


I'm not sure how they're bending over backwards. I bought a copy of CS5 Extended shortly before the CS6 release. CR2 files from my 6D don't work on my version of Photoshop.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 10, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > However, Adobe have, again as I have already said, bent over backwards to enable that 10% to keep using their current software even with new cameras (no small expenditure in itself), maintain perpetual licensing with Lightroom, and make this new photographer orientated subscription model at prices any keen hobbyist could easily afford.
> ...



Have you updated to the latest available Camera Raw Plugin for your version?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > However, Adobe have, again as I have already said, bent over backwards to enable that 10% to keep using their current software even with new cameras (no small expenditure in itself), maintain perpetual licensing with Lightroom, and make this new photographer orientated subscription model at prices any keen hobbyist could easily afford.
> ...



It depends how "shortly" before CS6 was released, normally Adobe offer a recent purchaser discount to upgrade. But once a version of pretty much any companies software is superseded support stops, Adobe are not unusual in that regard it is the industry norm, they didn't know when you were going to buy a new camera after all. Having said that Adobe did write a fully supported free program that allows you use CS5 and your 6D files, name me another software company that does that.

Also, if you don't like the idea or price of upgrading to CS6 or the "hassle" of the free DNG convertor then get Lightroom 5 for $99, this gives you the very latest ACR, the version above CS6, the CC version, you can then "open in CS5" and "render using Lightroom" and open every camera Adobe currently support in your legacy CS5. $99 gets you the best ACR leveraged against the power of PS.

Adobe give us photographers so many legal ways of working around any "restrictions" or "limitations" they are accused of putting in our way,they can't all be by accident, I believe they are bending over backwards to keep stuff accessible to that 10%, we are just to obtuse to see it, too often we sound like belligerent children being asked to simmer down after a tantrum in a supermarket or restaurant.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 10, 2013)

Jim O said:


> CTJohn said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Oops. I see that 6D is not supported by the latest version available for CS5. If you bought shortly before the release then then the upgrade was free. Also, there was an interim 5.5 release.

Using the DNG converter is your best current choice if you want to directly manipulate your RAW files in PS without going through LR, unless you want to do the $10/month subscription.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 10, 2013)

One other point that is worth mentioning is that Adobe, like _any_ software producer, is not obligated to support old software versions _ad infinitum_. After a certain point in time, all software become EOL. Before that, generally only security updates are made available. CS5 was released in 2010 and CS 5.5 in 2011. CS6 was released in 2012 and CC in 2013. So if you're running CS5 it's from several versions back. At a certain point in time there simply are not going to be additional features added. The 6D was the latest Canon body until recently. I believe that CS5 versions of the Adobe Camera RAW Plugin support RAW files from the 5D3 and 1D X.

Evidently it's Canon that changes the format. Older versions of *Canon's own software* (DPP) won't recognize RAW files from the 6D. So blaming Adobe for the fact that Canon keeps changing format is a bit unfair... to Adobe. The DNG format is an international standard but most manufacturers, including Canon have not adopted it.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 10, 2013)

I for one was not at all happy about the subscription basis, but, alas, 9.99 is affordable to keep me in the game, provided they dont in a year or two jack their rates up. The other programs I use, but aren't vital in my survival as a photographer (indesign, dreamweaver, etc) I can keep my CS5 version, as long as my computer will continue to support it, or there's a new feature I cannot live without. I understand why adobe did what they did, i dont have to like it tho.


----------



## Minh Nguyen (Sep 10, 2013)

Just look at the new XBOX One. They wanted to monitor everyone and keep their machines constantly online. If your XB-ONE isn't connected to verify that you're playing and using the machine legally its practically a brick. So you pay $400 for a brick. PS4 kept gaming the same as the previous generation. All of a sudden Xbox is now taking a step back because of the backlash. 

If we hold out or let adobe know we won't take this sh*t they'll do the same. However, in our world there is no Adobe competitor. Adobe bought them all out. There's GIMP but I don't think that has enough power or features.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 10, 2013)

Minh Nguyen said:


> If we hold out or let adobe know we won't take this sh*t they'll do the same. However, in our world there is no Adobe competitor. Adobe bought them all out. There's GIMP but I don't think that has enough power or features.


*THIS.*

Well, if enough people stay with CS6 and don't migrate, Adobe might get nervous and reconsider.
Also, this give the opportunity for other players to now compete in this market. There is interest likely, in funding more professional GIMP development, with some work, it could be a contender, but like you said, it needs work.
There are other companies out there even now, that are starting to do some interesting work with image manipulation, I've seen links from people talking about them, like onone.com I think it is...interesting stuff.

But as I've mentioned before, being vocal about your displeasure *is* one way to make your thoughts known, but the most powerful voice you have, is your wallet.

The bottom line for Adobe is $$,and the expectations of the market on how much they make each quarter. If in a year or so, the $$ flow isn't as anticipated, well, something will give. I don't know what yet, but I will be happily sitting with all my CS6 tools that should last me for easily 2-5 years and I'll see what the lay of the land is then.


c


----------



## unfocused (Sep 10, 2013)

cayenne said:


> ...this gives the opportunity for other players to now compete in this market....The bottom line for Adobe is $$,and the expectations of the market on how much they make each quarter. If in a year or so, the $$ flow isn't as anticipated, well, something will give...



Time will tell if this was a huge mistake on Adobe's part. Honestly, I have to go back to the days of "New Coke" to think of a company that has done something like this – taken a successful, market-dominating product and made a significant change that alienates a large base of customers.

Obviously Adobe knows they have stumbled and they are trying to find a way to fix it without completely abandoning the Creative Cloud model (which might be just too embarrassing for them to swallow). The question is, will they be able to backtrack sufficiently to protect their market share, or are they so arrogant that they think no one can possibly compete with them?

I strongly suspect that one of the first things Google may have done after learning about this was pay a visit to Corel. With Nik they have a foothold in the market and they certainly have the financial resources to buy up Corel and develop it into a truly competitive product.

I think it is also interesting how companies that were completely dependent on Adobe have pivoted so quickly to emphasize expanded stand-alone options (onOne being a good example). 

Personally, I think I'm in a good position. I've got the full CC suite locked in at $20/month for a year and I have a perpetual license for CS6 as a backup. I can wait and watch how the market shakes things out and in the meantime have access to a whole lot of programs to try out over the next year.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 10, 2013)

Jim O said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



I doubt CS6 will refuse to work on Windows 9. And if it did I'd just dual boot back into Windows 7.
By the time it won't work at all, far off, there may well be much better competition or, if we do all hold off, Adobe will be forced to retreat.

I don't know that all big institutions necessarily love it at all. Adobe already had to back track and provide the old installers for governmental and educational institution usage (so much for the talk that it was impossible to keep both the old and new CC installs going).


----------



## CTJohn (Sep 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> CTJohn said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


I do use Lightroom 5, purchased a few weeks ago. It will not export to CS5 as layers, only as single files.

Do you work for Adobe?


----------



## CTJohn (Sep 10, 2013)

Jim O said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > CTJohn said:
> ...


Isn't DNG an Adobe product? Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future? They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> Isn't DNG an Adobe product? Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future? They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.



The DNG format is an *free and completely open format* developed by Adobe, just like pdf's. Converting files to DNG does not destroy your original, you have several options, one, make a copy (this doesn't touch your original), or two, make a copy and include the original RAW file inside it (again, this doesn't touch your original). 

Doing this via the free fully supported DNG convertor just means Adobe have given you the ability to use unsupported newer cameras in older software, entirely for free, without touching your original image file. Name me one other software company that does that.

There are good reasons to chastise the corporate way we seem to be racing towards, but I really don't believe Adobe deserve most of the hysteria and inaccurate hyperbole being thrown at them.


----------



## CTJohn (Sep 11, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> CTJohn said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't DNG an Adobe product? Why would I put files in that format, when I have no idea what they're going to do with it in the future? They aren't winning a lot of friends with their business strategies.
> ...


I think you're missing my point. If I do processing in Adobe's format (DNG), then unless I want to re-process at some point in the future when Adobe decides not to support DNG, I'm once again at their whim. 

If I carry RAW and DNG in my computer, I have the above issue and eat up more of my hard drive as well.

I repeat my question, do you work for Adobe?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 11, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > CTJohn said:
> ...



Actually, to the best of my knowledge, DNG makes it simpler for any application that implements the standard (GIMP, etc) to open up the image. However, you still need to 'develop' it if you use something like PS and don't export a final TIF/JPG/PNG, or do it in LR since LR just stores a series of actions, then only applies them when you select Export.

However, as far as I am aware, DNG is an open standard similar to how ODF is an open format, although maybe not quite as open.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 11, 2013)

CTJohn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > CTJohn said:
> ...



When did you first ask if I worked for Adobe? Don't bother, I don't, never have, never will.

I believe you are missing my point, and the capabilities Adobe have given you.

You say you have CS5 and a 6D and the RAW files will not open in your version of ACR? Here are a couple of workarounds that Adobe have left for us, but first, what format do you currently save your CS5 work in?
[list type=decimal]
[*]Download DNG Convertor, convert a copy of your RAW file to DNG, open in CS5's ACR, process, open in CS5 process. Save as-------- This is where you are being obtuse, you always have to save your PS file as something, save it to whatever you save it now, TIFF, jpeg, PSD etc etc you don't need to save as a DNG, you just need to open it as one to work your new cameras files in your older software.
[*]Upgrade to CS6
[*]Pay $99 to get the CC version of ACR via Lightroom 5
[/list]

So, one free option that doesn't touch your RAW file, one modest cost option that vastly increases your functionality that also doesn't touch your RAW file, CC/LR5's ACR is way better than CS5's ACR, and one marginal upgrade cost that gets your 6D files open but doesn't future proof you for long and doesn't get you the best available ACR, and oh, doesn't touch your RAW file.

The only difference to your current workflow is converting a copy of your RAW file to DNG to open it in CS5's ACR, it takes no more HDD space, it doesn't touch your original RAW file and your CS5 output file s identical to your current CS5 output files. Adobe provided and support that functionality entirely free. Again, give me one example of any other software company that provides a free fully supported program that means you can continue using old versions of their software with new hardware (new, expensive, cameras that's files are only unreadable because the camera manufacturers refuse to adopt any kind of RAW standard).

As has been said, DNG is an open format, it is far more likely that future third party software will be able to read DNG's than PSD's, or even some legacy RAW files. 

For the record, whilst I have tested this to see if it works as I say (it does I have copies of CS4 and CS5 on older boot drive clones) I do not use DNG's as I have no need, I went the CS6 and LR5 route as, for me, that makes far and away the most sense.


----------



## CTJohn (Sep 11, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> CTJohn said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


I'm replying on my very old laptop, purchased long before I purchased CS5. The Windows Vista program in this laptop surely cost a lot less than what I paid Adobe for CS5 Extended, is updated continually by Microsoft, and so far, seems to work with all programs I choose.

Regarding Adobe, as far as I know, I never use ACR except behind the scenes. With RAW images from my 7D, I import them into my Lightoom catalog, then can use "Photo- Edit In", and either open as an image, or merge to panorama, merge to HDR, open as smart object, or open as layers. Lightroom tells me this version of Lightroom (happened in both 4 and 5) may require Camera Raw plug-in 8.1, but gives me the option of "Render Using Lightroom" and I'm fine. The images open as TIFs in Photoshop.

With RAW images from the 6D, the HDR, panorama, open as smart object, and open as layers options don't give me the "Open with Lightroom" option, only offering "Open Anyway." When I click that, nothing opens in Photoshop. So far, that means I've lost the functionality of those actions, which were among the ones I used the most. I've had to export as TIF, then import the TIFs back into my catalog, and then import into CS5.....not a huge problem, but not the functionality I thought I was buying. 

I'm an amateur, and not a heavy user of Photoshop, but invested a lot of time, and Lynda.com cost learning how to use the program. I haven't seen anything dramatic for my usage that says I need to update to the most recent version of Photoshop, but Adobe seems to think otherwise.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 11, 2013)

Again, for those of you with CS5 who cannot open RAW files from their 6D, blame Canon, not Adobe. It's Canon that keeps changing the format and not documenting it openly. As I said, older versions of DPP, Canon's own software, won't open RAW files from the 6D. If Canon would make its file format backward compatible, there would be no issue opening your files in older versions of PS.

DNG was indeed created by Adobe, but it's a fully open format with no license or royalty fees. It's also totally non-destructive. As far as I understand, all metadata is preserved.

DNG is not perfect. Ideally camera manufacturers would open their RAW formats and publicly document all versions starting from the beginning. They don't. Again, this is not the fault of Adobe.

Absent that, there could be an independent standard that is not created by any company. Even then, I doubt Canon or Nikon would use it, simply because they want to retain control. Think Adobe is the only bad guy? When the 6D puts distortion data into a RAW file, it can only be read by DPP, not even by ACR. Now who has control of your creations?

Since neither of the above has happened, DNG, being open, fully open since the beginning, at least attempts to deal with this situation by allowing RAW files from any camera (so long as there is a converter available, and that's not Adobe's responsibility either) to be placed in a standardized format that can be read 20, 30, even 50 years from now, since the format has been fully and openly documented since the beginning, and is licensed royalty free to anyone who wants to use it.

As of now Pentax offers the option to save files as DNG. So do a bunch of smaller manufacturers. There are also dozens of non-Adobe products that can open and work with DNG files.

DNG is not the optimal solution. Full documentation by the camera manufacturers is. But they're not likely ever to do that. DNG is an alternative. It's not the best solution but it's better than proprietary formats like CR2.


----------

