# Who Adopted Adobe CC?



## RLPhoto (Jul 22, 2013)

Did you move to CC? Why or why not?


----------



## wsgroves (Jul 22, 2013)

I moved to o CC from the last version. Basically because I do not like using older software, and the fact of the matter is...cloud is now the only way to get new apps. It kind of sux to "rent" but for a hobbyist like me, in the long run its probably cheaper. 
I should also add that since im a computer guy at a school, I get the discount which is a lot.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 22, 2013)

I won't move to CC until it offers something that can't be done without it (which I'm sure Adobe is working quickly toward). Or until it's cracked somehow, if it hasnt been already. It's just not worth the price unless you're using most of the entire suite and already wasting money to buy new editions yearly anyway. ESPECIALLY if you're just using it for photography. I've never discovered a logical justification to upgrade yearly, unless someone else is paying that you don't respect lol. Even if you have money to waste... you might as well thrown it away.

I use Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and After Effects heavily—even occasionally with 3D. There is no reason to upgrade. People who do tend to be those who don't know what theyre doing with the software in the first place and assume having something newer means having something better.

I will say this: I DO understand the want to upgrade for a professional. Just like a pro might use a grip on their 5D even though they never hold vertical or need extra battery life—clients who don't know think it makes the product youre giving them better/more valuable. I got a request for a Powerpoint presentation the other day and the client's first "requirement" listed was "Must have adobe CS6".... what do you even say to that? Sometimes its just easier to say, "yeah I have it"


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2013)

no


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 22, 2013)

I have Photoshop CS 2 and 4 and Lightroom 4. I have an ancient copy of Indesign that I've not used for many years. I may upgrade to LR5. I usually use LR or DPP and go to PS if I need to do something specific. For the amount of use I have, I cannot justify a monthly fee.

In all likelihood Adobe (I have never been "whelmed" with their customer service) will someday find a way to only support CC. That's fine because it is their choice. By then, I might just use DPP and DXO or look into Capture 1. I only do this for a hobby and much as I enjoy trying to achieve things with post, I can get by without a lot of this.


----------



## noisejammer (Jul 22, 2013)

Nope, I didn't choose the CC route and having been encouraged to try alternatives, it's very unlikely that I'll give Adobe any more money.
I found that Capture One Express does at least as well as a raw pre-processor and can send the image straight into Photoshop.

C1 Express cost me $35 a couple of weeks back... what's not to love? It does need quite a serious machine - so try before you buy.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Jul 23, 2013)

If you put in the hands of less people for more $ then it balances out their equation. For me personally, the current CS6 is fine for me and my workflow. I use other programs that do similar adjustments that I can work with to suit my needs. 

Like others, I think we're waiting for Adobe to 'come to their senses'. With this poll, its obvious they may be losing alot more than they're gaining.

You should share the results of this poll with Adobe.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 23, 2013)

I haven't. I barely use PS at all, mostly just LR (yes, upgraded to LR5), and it doesn't make a lot of financial sense for me as a hobbyist. I also hate the thought of renting software like this. And the name is so misleading. It's simply a different licensing scheme. Nothing* is in the "Cloud", you still download the applications and install them locally. You still use the same phone-home license check like for PS6. It just checks regularly and if you stop paying the software stops working.

* Yes, there are some features that are "Cloud" based such as settings syncing, file/collaboration sharing, things like that, but not the core applications


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 23, 2013)

They keep pummeling me with advertisements and I ignore them. I used to upgrade every other version or more frequently since version 3.5. They lost a customer.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 23, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> I haven't. I barely use PS at all, mostly just LR (yes, upgraded to LR5), and it doesn't make a lot of financial sense for me as a hobbyist. I also hate the thought of renting software like this. And the name is so misleading. It's simply a different licensing scheme. Nothing* is in the "Cloud", you still download the applications and install them locally. You still use the same phone-home license check like for PS6. It just checks regularly and if you stop paying the software stops working.
> 
> * Yes, there are some features that are "Cloud" based such as settings syncing, file/collaboration sharing, things like that, but not the core applications



Well that's all it really could mean by "cloud" right? I assumed it was safe to bet you wouldn't be running the software from an Internet connection. That would suck... Hard


----------



## PureShot (Jul 23, 2013)

Yes i moved, and i love PS cc 
for photograph is the best PS ever.


----------



## Waterloo (Jul 23, 2013)

The Shake Reduction Filter is worth the price of admission. If you haven't tried it you need to. Even images that appear relatively sharp seem to benefit from it.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 23, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't. I barely use PS at all, mostly just LR (yes, upgraded to LR5), and it doesn't make a lot of financial sense for me as a hobbyist. I also hate the thought of renting software like this. And the name is so misleading. It's simply a different licensing scheme. Nothing* is in the "Cloud", you still download the applications and install them locally. You still use the same phone-home license check like for PS6. It just checks regularly and if you stop paying the software stops working.
> ...



Yea, but that's why it's so mis-named in my opinion. "Cloud" these days is just used to describe any old thing that a company can conceive of to ride the bandwagon of the fad.


----------



## LewisShermer (Jul 23, 2013)

I got fed up of the constant cracking and pricking about turning the internet on and off and then all the issues when having a new operating system and new cameras...

I now have 2 accounts, 1 for home and one from the company I work for. I do spend approximately 8 hours a day on either photoshop, illustrator or indesign for a job so it kinda makes sense. I plan to learn premier and aftereffects for video editing...

I guess I just gave in and didn't want the hassle any more


----------



## Waterloo (Jul 23, 2013)

Yes, Adobe has it wrong. It should be Photoshop S (Subscription). What were they thinking?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 23, 2013)

I haven't yet, but I will.

I am going to wait until the last possible moment, then take advantage of the $19.99/month offer for CS6 owners. I'll try it for a year and hope they give in and offer an extended term or other deep discount before next year. If they don't, well...I'll always have CS6.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 23, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I haven't yet, but I will.
> 
> I am going to wait until the last possible moment, then take advantage of the $19.99/month offer for CS6 owners. I'll try it for a year and hope they give in and offer an extended term or other deep discount before next year. If they don't, well...I'll always have CS6.



I'm not sure, but don't you have to give up your perpetual CS6 license to go CC with the $20/month discount offer? Just make sure that isn't the case before you potentially end up doing something very regretful.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 23, 2013)

Waterloo said:


> Yes, Adobe has it wrong. It should be Photoshop S (Subscription). What were they thinking?



They were thinking Cash Cow but it might end up being something less than that.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 23, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't yet, but I will.
> ...



I've read their terms and FAQs pretty closely. They say you will always have access to CS6. But, I sure as heck will check one more time before pulling the trigger.


----------



## RunAndGun (Jul 23, 2013)

Nope. I have CS5/LR3 and barely touch either one. DPP was the main piece of photo software that I used for years with some DXO on the side... Now it's Aperture and NIK plug-ins(I still use DXO when I need it).

When I "buy" software, I want to buy it and be done with it. It'd be kinda like Ford saying you can no longer buy their vehicles, but for $XXX per month you can drive one for as long as you pay $XXX per month.


----------



## ragmanjin (Jul 23, 2013)

*It's really not so bad*

I was never able to afford the $6000 or whatever for a real licence before, so I ended up just buying the CS5 master collection from the Molino in Cusco, Perú. $4. I didn't feel so bad since I had paid someone for the programs, whether it was Adobe or not.
But as soon as they came out with the creative cloud thing, it's been awesome. $50/month or whatever (though they are open to a good barter if you call them, my assistant photographer is only paying $25/month) and you get every program, always up to date, anything new is yours immediately. By the time I've paid enough to match the previous cost of one of their programs, I'll already be using the next version. I haven't even paid as much as I would have had to for Lightroom 4 alone, and now I've got Lightroom 5 already. No extra charge.
In my opinion, this creative cloud stuff was an awesome call on Adobe's part — for people in my position. They basically f'd all the hobbyists.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 23, 2013)

RunAndGun said:


> It'd be kinda like Ford saying you can no longer buy their vehicles, but for $XXX per month you can drive one for as long as you pay $XXX per month.



Thats pretty much the definition of a lease haha... But yeah not having the option to buy would be weird.



ragmanjin said:


> I was never able to afford the $6000 or whatever for a real licence before, so I ended up just buying the CS5 master collection from the Molino in Cusco, Perú. $4. I didn't feel so bad since I had paid someone for the programs, whether it was Adobe or not.
> But as soon as they came out with the creative cloud thing, it's been awesome. $50/month or whatever (though they are open to a good barter if you call them, my assistant photographer is only paying $25/month) and you get every program, always up to date, anything new is yours immediately. By the time I've paid enough to match the previous cost of one of their programs, I'll already be using the next version. I haven't even paid as much as I would have had to for Lightroom 4 alone, and now I've got Lightroom 5 already. No extra charge.
> In my opinion, this creative cloud stuff was an awesome call on Adobe's part — for people in my position. They basically f'd all the hobbyists.



$6000 in what currency? It's like $2600 (max) for CS master collection in the US... and who needs a license to master collection anyway?? I never understood that.... If you do work that requires professional software for editing like... every art form... $2500 should be chump change for anyone that talented...


----------



## ragmanjin (Jul 23, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> ragmanjin said:
> 
> 
> > I was never able to afford the $6000 or whatever for a real licence before, so I ended up just buying the CS5 master collection from the Molino in Cusco, Perú. $4. I didn't feel so bad since I had paid someone for the programs, whether it was Adobe or not.
> ...



At the time, running a magazine, working as a freelance journalist, graphic/web designer, photographer and magazine/newspaper redesigner, I used several of the programs very frequently. You've gotta be diverse if you want to make any money as a freelancer in Canada, being that the wages haven't increased or even adjusted for inflation since the early 70s. Basically the place fresh magazine ideas go to die, too. Thanks for killing media, Harper. Now running a photography studio and doing all the design, websites, ads, layout, video, etc. in house, I still use a good four or five programs regularly, though now I'm finding I use Capture One for more of the actual digital darkroom process than anything else.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 23, 2013)

*Re: It's really not so bad*



ragmanjin said:


> In my opinion, this creative cloud stuff was an awesome call on Adobe's part — for people in my position. They basically f'd all the hobbyists.



Yea, that's pretty much how it feels to me. They're ignoring the hobbyist/specialized person who only uses 1 or maybe 2 products and doesn't need or can't afford to upgrade every time a new version comes out, even at upgrade prices.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 23, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> $6000 in what currency? It's like $2600 (max) for CS master collection in the US... and who needs a license to master collection anyway?? I never understood that.... If you do work that requires professional software for editing like... every art form... $2500 should be chump change for anyone that talented...



It was very expensive in Australia, too. Cheaper to fly to the US and buy it then buy it locally. I think CC is a good deal in comparison.

It would be interesting to compare global sentimentality towards CC. I'd suspect that countries like Australia and much of Europe would feel more favourable towards it.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 23, 2013)

Adobe finally blocked my account on fb after I continued to sarcastically poke fun of the cash cow they decided to go with, but no, as of now I have absolutely no plans to ever subscribe to the CC. I run a business, I do it ethically, I listen to my clients, but Adobe has bluntly chosen not to go down that path. CS5 works great for me and unless CS7 is announced, Adobe should not expect another dime from my bank account.

-Tabor


----------



## M.ST (Jul 23, 2013)

I don´t want go online with a computer with all my images on it.

Forget it Adobe.


----------



## pwp (Jul 23, 2013)

I've adopted CC 100% and the setup suits me perfectly. 

But I appreciate completely the viewpoint of photographers who may want/need/can afford to upgrade only every few years. For them it's a shocker. If I was in a different position financially and not operating a business I'd be locking into CS6 and hoping that Adobe's promise to keep updating it holds good for many years.

-PW


----------



## dirtcastle (Jul 23, 2013)

I've been doing Creative Cloud since last summer. For me it's a good deal because I regularly use Photoshop, Lightroom, Illustrator, Premiere, and After Effects (often professionally). I can see why people are angry but either it's worth it or it's not. It's like a symphony of whining in here. If it's such a big deal, grab a torrent or find an alternative.


----------



## scottburgess (Jul 23, 2013)

Still using Photoshop CS5. Seriously thinking about volunteering on The GIMP to move the 16-bit version along. It seems kinda crazy to spend oodles of money when The GIMP will probably soon do the same thing for free, including support for Photoshop plugins. With enough volunteer support, the entire Creative Suite could be replaced with open source.


----------



## Crapking (Jul 23, 2013)

I'm another early adopter from LAST summer. Access to the entire suite, on multiple computers and synch'ing my preferences has been very useful, and when I had a laptop misplaced ( on location) I was able to borrow another, reload the programs, and keep working - PRICELESS. $600/yr ($50/month) sounds bad if you only use 1 or 2 programs, but to have Premiere/PS/LR and inDesign is kinda like leasing a Ferrari. Sure, I could own a Ford, sure other programs could get me there and get the job done, but I like my ride


----------



## IslanderMV (Jul 23, 2013)

I use Lightroom 4 and Photoshop CS5, and I have no plans to update at this time. While I do make some money from photography it is by far not my main source of income. So I need another monthly bill like a hole in the head. 

I keep telling myself it would not be right to install that pirate copy of CC that a buddy of mine has.


----------



## silvestography (Jul 23, 2013)

From a photography standpoint, I have Photoshop CS5 and use it at most twice a month, and while on its own, I could justify the price since I do use it more for graphic design, the $20/month ends up being the difference between having and not having a website, which seems much more important to me. I will, however, consider upgrading LR4 to LR5, for some of the speed improvements as well as the healing brush tool.


----------



## bchernicoff (Jul 23, 2013)

Historically, I have felt justified using free copies of Photoshop and told myself that once I started making money from my photography I would buy a copy of Photoshop. I did purchase Aperture then later Lightroom 4, the Lightroom 5 upgrade, as well as the entire Niks Collection. When I started using Aperture as my main editor instead of Photoshop I was amazed at how much could be done and how quickly. This has only increased with the newer versions of Lightroom. So, I have less and less reason to need Photoshop and certainly not on a never-ending subscription basis.

This leaves me with a dilemma. Should I buy a legal copy of CS6 while I can to proactively keep my promise to myself or should I just be more spiteful and recognize that Adobe's decision to screw their users means I should say "screw you" right back and keep doing what I have been doing? These days I spend a 3-4 hours a month in PS compared to 16-20 in Lightroom and feel much less inclined to pay even the CS6 price.

To be fair, if I were a full-time pro photographer I wouldn't hesitate to sign up for CC. Yes, it costs more and yes, it sucks that you are stuck paying forever, but it's the cost of doing business. You pay the electric bill every month, right?


----------



## RGF (Jul 23, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> Historically, I have felt justified using free copies of Photoshop and told myself that once I started making money from my photography I would buy a copy of Photoshop. I did purchase Aperture then later Lightroom 4, the Lightroom 5 upgrade, as well as the entire Niks Collection. When I started using Aperture as my main editor instead of Photoshop I was amazed at how much could be done and how quickly. This has only increased with the newer versions of Lightroom. So, I have less and less reason to need Photoshop and certainly not on a never-ending subscription basis.
> 
> This leaves me with a dilemma. Should I buy a legal copy of CS6 while I can to proactively keep my promise to myself or should I just be more spiteful and recognize that Adobe's decision to screw their users means I should say "screw you" right back and keep doing what I have been doing? These days I spend a 3-4 hours a month in PS compared to 16-20 in Lightroom and feel much less inclined to pay even the CS6 price.
> 
> To be fair, if I were a full-time pro photographer I wouldn't hesitate to sign up for CC. Yes, it costs more and yes, it sucks that you are stuck paying forever, but it's the cost of doing business. You pay the electric bill every month, right?




Moral question - how would feel if a homeless person decided to move in with you - after they have place to live. Or if someone who was hungry and unemployed/broke came into your home and took food. Or if someone who was broke took $ out of bank account or you pocket. Not too happy I'll bet. In a way you are doing this to Abode.


----------



## bchernicoff (Jul 23, 2013)

RGF said:


> Moral question - how would feel if a homeless person decided to move in with you - after they have place to live. Or if someone who was hungry and unemployed/broke came into your home and took food. Or if someone who was broke took $ out of bank account or you pocket. Not too happy I'll bet. In a way you are doing this to Abode.



This isn't the same thing at all. Not paying a licensing fee for a digital copy of a work is not the moral equivalent of taking money out of someone's account or pocket or stealing a physical item. And while I have not yet licensed PS, I am a paying customer for Lightroom 4 and 5. I make no money for my photography at this time and use PS very little, so to put my situation in terms of your example, I am the roommate who pays rent, but bums some of your food. The real problem with Adobe's pricing in general is that it doesn't work well or at all for hobbyists. They could remedy this in CC better than they ever could before with a real pay-as-you-go plan. They could charge $3-4/hour with a maximum monthly charge of the normal subscription rate.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 23, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> I won't move to CC until it offers something that can't be done without it (which I'm sure Adobe is working quickly toward). Or until it's cracked somehow, if it hasnt been already. It's just not worth the price unless you're using most of the entire suite and already wasting money to buy new editions yearly anyway. ESPECIALLY if you're just using it for photography. I've never discovered a logical justification to upgrade yearly, unless someone else is paying that you don't respect lol. Even if you have money to waste... you might as well thrown it away.
> 
> I use Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and After Effects heavily—even occasionally with 3D. There is no reason to upgrade. People who do tend to be those who don't know what theyre doing with the software in the first place and assume having something newer means having something better.
> 
> I will say this: I DO understand the want to upgrade for a professional. Just like a pro might use a grip on their 5D even though they never hold vertical or need extra battery life—clients who don't know think it makes the product youre giving them better/more valuable. I got a request for a Powerpoint presentation the other day and the client's first "requirement" listed was "Must have adobe CS6".... what do you even say to that? Sometimes its just easier to say, "yeah I have it"



From what I've been reading, it was cracked within a couple of days after release...


----------



## unfocused (Jul 23, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Moral question - how would feel if a homeless person decided to move in with you - after they have place to live. Or if someone who was hungry and unemployed/broke came into your home and took food. Or if someone who was broke took $ out of bank account or you pocket. Not too happy I'll bet. In a way you are doing this to Abode.
> ...



This just shows that you can rationalize just about anything if you try hard enough. 

I've been an early and consistent critic of the CC system, but let's not rationalize away stealing.

I'm sure there are plenty of wedding and portrait photographers who would disagree with the premise that it's okay to take a digital copy of their work and not pay for it. No difference between stealing a company's software than stealing another photographer's pictures.

But, it's okay, because you paid for another product from the same person? Hey, I bought a portrait from you last year, so I should be able to steal these wedding pictures, right?

And, it's okay because you don't make money from photography and only use the product on occasion? Hey Canon, I don't make any money from photography, so it's okay if I steal this 1D-X, especially because I'm only going to use it occasionally.

If you want to steal things, at least be honest about it. 

I hate the Adobe CC model. It's a one-size-fits-all solution in an era in which customers are demanding flexibility and customized pricing models. Adobe is swimming upstream against the current with their experiment and there are already signs that it isn't working for them. 

You are correct in that one huge problem with Adobe's pricing models is that it doesn't accommodate the "enthusiast" market. Rather ironic, since Canon, Nikon, etc., have all found that to be their most lucrative market. It's a terrible strategy on their part and I think they will regret the decision.

But please, it's frankly too ironic for words for any digital photographer to defend stealing electronic data. What do you think pictures are made up of today?


----------



## Montell (Jul 23, 2013)

Waterloo said:


> The Shake Reduction Filter is worth the price of admission. If you haven't tried it you need to. Even images that appear relatively sharp seem to benefit from it.



You don't need to get Adobe CC to get Shake Reduction. Piccure announced shake reduction before Adobe and it works on PS CS4 and above and Elements 7 and above. You can get a 14 day free trial at http://www.piccure.com/
It works for me and I have been buying Photoshop for about 15 years. Now I will use CS6 till the wheels fall off and Lightroom as long as I can buy it when I want to.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 23, 2013)

unfocused said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



I'm not going CC, in fact I'm now buying Production Suite CS6 and will stick with that for the foreseeable future.

However, one way I could reconcile the cracked copies would be.

1. You bought into CC, you stayed with it for long enough to 'pay' for a normal copy.
2. You wanted to quit CC, and you got a cracked copy for the version you currently are renting.
3. You continue to use cracked CC at that level..so you can continue to use and manipulate your software.

For that scenario, I don't see a problem....

In my case, I registered with a local college...about $30 for application fee and transcript copies sent in....I got a student picture ID, and a .edu email account.

I'm using that to get the educational version of the Production CS6 suite...saved about $2K on it....
I don't see anything wrong with that...I fulfilled what Adobe needed for approving student pricing. 

And I've read Adobe's FAQ, and the educational version is perfectly legal to use for commercial work.

My $0.02,

cayenne


----------



## wsgroves (Jul 23, 2013)

Thanks Montell. I didnt know there was another plugin for shake reduction. CC shake reduction always makes my imgs too noisy/sharpened etc.


----------



## bchernicoff (Jul 23, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of wedding and portrait photographers who would disagree with the premise that it's okay to take a digital copy of their work and not pay for it. No difference between stealing a company's software than stealing another photographer's pictures.
> 
> *There is a huge difference. When you hire a wedding photographer, you are hiring one or two people to do work just for you and you sign a contract agreeing to pay for that work. If you turn around and steal the images, you have stolen directly from someone you contracted with to provide you and you alone a service. That is entirely different than someone downloading a cracked copy of PS. If you don't see that difference then there is no further point discussing this with you.*
> 
> And, it's okay because you don't make money from photography and only use the product on occasion? Hey Canon, I don't make any money from photography, so it's okay if I steal this 1D-X, especially because I'm only going to use it occasionally. *Stealing a physical good that was manufactured at great expense is not at all the same as using cracked software. If you don't see that difference then there is no further point discussing this with you.*



If I as a photographer offer a digital copy of one of my images for $699, I am clearly targeting a specific market. If some kid decides to steal that image and use as his desktop background I won't care one bit, because clearly he was NEVER my intended market. If I had been interested in selling it to him, I would have offered it for personal, non-commercial use for some trivial price.


----------



## RGF (Jul 23, 2013)

cayenne said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > bchernicoff said:
> ...



I took advantage of the edu discount. Adobe does not require you to be a full time student, only a student. Perhaps a gray area but I believe within the rules


----------



## RGF (Jul 23, 2013)

unfocused said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



+1000. In the end, we all need to be able to justify our decisions. I like to be able to sleep well at night knowing that I hold true to my beliefs.


----------



## bchernicoff (Jul 23, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure there are plenty of wedding and portrait photographers who would disagree with the premise that it's okay to take a digital copy of their work and not pay for it. No difference between stealing a company's software than stealing another photographer's pictures.
> ...



To expand on my own response, further suppose that I had sold two of my commercial images to this kid...one for $150 and one for $79. I would consider that kid to be a good customer...how much do I care about the one he's using for personal, non-commercial use? 

This is not as outlandish concept in the software world as you seem to think. I am a software and systems engineer. I both write the software that power sites like this one as well as spec and built out the servers that power them. It might surprise you to learn how much enterprise software is given away for free for non-commercial use. Some is even free for commercial use, but they charge you for support. Read about MySQL, Ubuntu Server, JBoss Application Server, the Spring Framework, etc if you are interested. All of them are licensed in this way and are prevalent across the web. Adobe may not have chosen to follow this model, but that doesn't mean it's not *VERY *common.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 23, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I haven't yet, but I will.
> 
> I am going to wait until the last possible moment, then take advantage of the $19.99/month offer for CS6 owners. I'll try it for a year and hope they give in and offer an extended term or other deep discount before next year. If they don't, well...I'll always have CS6.


Yes, but you won't necessarily be able to edit images in CS6 that were edited in photoshop CC due to the new features. That's the big issue, they own you, and you lose if you try to quit.


----------



## daltech (Jul 23, 2013)

I jumped in this past June.

Looked at what it offered, I use PhotoShop, I use Lightroom, I use Dreamweaver, sooo !

I thought of another thing, I love the App stores and one specific aspect of them, I'm talking iTunes and Android stores, what I love about them, is I don't need to have tons of media around, with licenses printed somewhere, or saved in a file somewhere, when I need the app or application re-installed, I re-install it, and my identity identify me as a license owner.

If/when I rebuild my computer, I know I will not have to lookup CD/DVDs and licenses numbers(alphanumeric plates) in order to be able to install the software. I login to the CC, and pick what I need, that's it !

It's worth it for ME, perhaps not for others, you can't complain about a tool, if the tool is too expensive, or not to your liking for ANY reasons, the tool isn't for you, end of story, I don't use GIMP to edit photos, I never could get used to it, ME, somebody else it's more intuitive the GIMP way, perfect, we're two happy people !

The other advantage I find, is there's tools for all kind of tasks, if I get ask to do something, which I know I can, but don't have the software, I know that if CC has it, I can install a full version of it and use it, and uninstall it when I no longer need it.

It works for me !


----------



## daltech (Jul 23, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Moral question - how would feel if a homeless person decided to move in with you - after they have place to live. Or if someone who was hungry and unemployed/broke came into your home and took food. Or if someone who was broke took $ out of bank account or you pocket. Not too happy I'll bet. In a way you are doing this to Abode.
> ...



I have to disagree with you, there's Adobe hobbyist alternatives, Photoshop Element, Premiere Element and Lightroom (since version 4). So having a copy of PS without a license, is stealing, plain and simple. CC isn't the only route to Adobe's products for photographers and videographers pro or hobbyist, I know quite a few pros who are quite happy with the Element version of Photoshop and Premiere.


----------



## zim (Jul 23, 2013)

daltech said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



Indeed, I suspect there is a lot of snobbery around regarding using Elements but equally it's wrong that Abobe seem to have decided that's what 'amatures' should use, or pay pro pricing structure


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jul 23, 2013)

Nope. I hope I never. The best argument I've heard so far is that if you did go with cc and modified your images with cc only tools, you could not use cc again so you couldn't edit those cc images again because they contained cc tools/layers. 

I think Adobe is playing a dangerous game. Dangerous for them because they will lose many customers over this high handed approach to customers and dangerous to their user community because once the features are used they do own us. It is like taking drugs and they become our drug dealer. Abstinence from cc is the only answer.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 23, 2013)

daltech said:


> I jumped in this past June.
> 
> Looked at what it offered, I use PhotoShop, I use Lightroom, I use Dreamweaver, sooo !
> 
> ...



Well, you probably better hold onto any information, codes, numbers that they give you even with CC....are you that trusting of Adobe that they *won't* lose your customer info, and if you need to rebuild that computer, they'll 100% remember it for you and allow you to re-install?

Do you trust them to never try to move everyone to the 'next great thing' and pull the plug on CC and you lose if you don't move to the next great thing?

Remember people that bought into MS Zune system, and the music store there? Zune went away, and those people that bought and paid for music...they're pretty much SOL now, that's lost money.

No one thought a company as big as Microsoft would ever fail on such a venture....but it did.

I've never understood those that "don't like media" cluttering things up. Unless you live in a one room shack with no closets, or shelves....is this a problem?

I love to have the physical media....I put it away and keep it for possible later needs. Hell, I often make at least one backup copy, or at least rip an image to put on a NAS system I keep just for this need.

I not only don't like to 'rent' software, but I don't like to depend on the good graces of a publicly traded company, who is NOT beholden to their customers (as many think), but to their _ONLY _master, the shareholders that demand a profit.

I'm happy this works for you. I'm sure it does for many.

I'm just not that trusting of a company. I'd rather have physical media that "I" control the destiny of, and at a later time, I can reuse it as needed on maybe VM I create...etc.

cayenne

ps. I've never bought music online either...especially since they don't easily sell lossless forms of it without DRM. I buy CD's still, I rip those to flac for the living room high end stereo, and then rip mp3 copies for lessor listening environments, like the ipod for the car or the gym...I prefer to buy the best I can get, and then rip copies as needed for the appropriate environment.

I've not run out of room in the home yet due to all my "physical media".


----------



## bchernicoff (Jul 23, 2013)

cayenne said:


> ps. I've never bought music online either...especially since they don't easily sell lossless forms of it without DRM. I buy CD's still, I rip those to flac for the living room high end stereo, and then rip mp3 copies for lessor listening environments, like the ipod for the car or the gym...I prefer to buy the best I can get, and then rip copies as needed for the appropriate environment.



Check out amazon.com/mp3 256kbps and no DRM. It's all I've used for music for several years. I love it. When you make your purchase the default will say something about storing it in the cloud, but should be a button to download it to. It does require you to install their downloader app, but once it's on your system, it's yours to do with as you please.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 23, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > ps. I've never bought music online either...especially since they don't easily sell lossless forms of it without DRM. I buy CD's still, I rip those to flac for the living room high end stereo, and then rip mp3 copies for lessor listening environments, like the ipod for the car or the gym...I prefer to buy the best I can get, and then rip copies as needed for the appropriate environment.
> ...



Going on a somewhat off-topic tangent, but those are still MP3, not lossless FLAC which is what cayenne rips to. While in most practical situations there's not a huge difference in perceived quality, with the right quality of equipment and good ears you can to an extent.


----------



## cayenne (Jul 23, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > ps. I've never bought music online either...especially since they don't easily sell lossless forms of it without DRM. I buy CD's still, I rip those to flac for the living room high end stereo, and then rip mp3 copies for lessor listening environments, like the ipod for the car or the gym...I prefer to buy the best I can get, and then rip copies as needed for the appropriate environment.
> ...



Like someone else posted, those are mp3 files...they are a lossy format, you've lost information before you ever got them when they ripped them to mp3.

Those are ok for a portable player, or in the car...both horrible listening environments, but for my home stereo, where I can hear quality differences....I prefer the lossless versions, either off CDs or even if they've been ripped into lossless formats like flac (Apple has a lossless AAC or ACC don't they?)....

If they sold and let you download lossless versions without DRM, I'd be open to that....

cayenne


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 23, 2013)

cayenne said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...



Linn Records has FLAC, both CD quality and Studio Master. Mostly UK artists I believe, as well as a lot of ambient/electronic/classical music. I've bought things from them occasionally.


----------



## daltech (Jul 24, 2013)

> Well, you probably better hold onto any information, codes, numbers that they give you even with CC....are you that trusting of Adobe that they *won't* lose your customer info, and if you need to rebuild that computer, they'll 100% remember it for you and allow you to re-install?


There is no codes, numbers to remember with CC, you have a user id, and a password. And I have monthly receipts to prove that I'm a paying member.



> Do you trust them to never try to move everyone to the 'next great thing' and pull the plug on CC and you lose if you don't move to the next great thing?


I trust that they will one day, they just did that. But I lose nothing, I'm getting something now for my money that I spend now.



> Remember people that bought into MS Zune system, and the music store there? Zune went away, and those people that bought and paid for music...they're pretty much SOL now, that's lost money.


The media that "I" create today using Adobe products, isn't Adobe proprietary, JPEG, RAW, XML, HTML... So I'm not worried about this. Perhaps if somebody was to use Muse to create a website, this could be a problem 



> I've never understood those that "don't like media" cluttering things up. Unless you live in a one room shack with no closets, or shelves....is this a problem?


I hear you, but to me, I can install Photoshop, Premiere, Dreamweaver and Lightroom, with 4 simple click and walk away and come back later and it's all done, and at no point do I have to enter any personal information, serial numbers... except to login with my user id and password into CC.



> I love to have the physical media....I put it away and keep it for possible later needs. Hell, I often make at least one backup copy, or at least rip an image to put on a NAS system I keep just for this need.


So 2012 !! LOL !! I'm teasing you  I don't even have to do that for what is crucial.



> I not only don't like to 'rent' software, but I don't like to depend on the good graces of a publicly traded company, who is NOT beholden to their customers (as many think), but to their _ONLY _master, the shareholders that demand a profit.


It is and ran like a business, yes. You see it as solely renting the software, I see the convenience and services offered by CC, learning center, the community, the easy one shop updates...



> I'm happy this works for you. I'm sure it does for many.


Hey, you are 100% right here, I can't buy a Smart car, I'm 6'8", and I married and three children, and the older one isn't done growing (16) and is 6'3", so although the Smart car is a 'smart' car, it ain't for me 



> I'm just not that trusting of a company. I'd rather have physical media that "I" control the destiny of, and at a later time, I can reuse it as needed on maybe VM I create...etc.


It's your prerogative !

Cheers Cayenne !

Bernard



> ps. I've never bought music online either...especially since they don't easily sell lossless forms of it without DRM. I buy CD's still, I rip those to flac for the living room high end stereo, and then rip mp3 copies for lessor listening environments, like the ipod for the car or the gym...I prefer to buy the best I can get, and then rip copies as needed for the appropriate environment.


I've been buying music on iTunes for years, at the beginning I didn't do it as much, as DRM was a pain, now it isn't, I can copy my music onto multiple devices without any issue.



> I've not run out of room in the home yet due to all my "physical media".


You seem well organized, I suggest you do like me with my documents, music and thousands of photos, store them elsewhere also, I have a safety deposit box at my bank where I store a copy also, in case of a fire


----------



## cayenne (Jul 24, 2013)

daltech said:


> > Remember people that bought into MS Zune system, and the music store there? Zune went away, and those people that bought and paid for music...they're pretty much SOL now, that's lost money.
> 
> 
> The media that "I" create today using Adobe products, isn't Adobe proprietary, JPEG, RAW, XML, HTML... So I'm not worried about this. Perhaps if somebody was to use Muse to create a website, this could be a problem



I was referring mainly, to the proprietary files for PS, the PSD and PSB files...you know the ones with all the layers, and work?



My thoughts were if Adobe pulled the plug or changed and you didn't want to continue to rent, or something happened, you'd not be able to go back to any of your PSD files and reopen, reuse or re-edit....

I wasn't talking about the final deliver to customers files (jpg, etc)....but do you not ever reuse some templates or things you did in PSD files or do you throw them all away when you finish an image?

C


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 24, 2013)

Also an interesting issue, for those that buy the perpetual LR5 license, but also pay into the CC. Looks like you can't use your perpetual license at the same time as your CC apps. Mike Pasini has run into an issue with that.


----------



## daltech (Jul 25, 2013)

> I was referring mainly, to the proprietary files for PS, the PSD and PSB files...you know the ones with all the layers, and work?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd use GIMP to open PSD files, it opens them out of the box.

Bernard


----------



## cayenne (Jul 25, 2013)

daltech said:


> > I was referring mainly, to the proprietary files for PS, the PSD and PSB files...you know the ones with all the layers, and work?
> >
> >
> >
> ...



Will it open CC versions of PSD files I wonder in a lossless fashion?

I'm all for GIMP, I hope this Adobe move will actually give people incentive to contribute to ($$ and money) and support the more rapid development of GIMP. It is a great tool and I feel with more time and money thrown at it, it could likely be the first one to really rival PS, but it needs work.

I don't mind working with a different interface so much, but if they could get the higher level of functionality, and do 16 and 32 bit manipulations...it would be well on its way to being a challenger.

Is there an Open Source analog to LR or Aperture?

C


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 25, 2013)

It seems a 1:4 ratio of adopters to holdouts. If this majority holds out long enough, adobe would change its policy's.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 25, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> It seems a 1:4 ratio of adopters to holdouts. If this majority holds out long enough, adobe would change its policy's.



Yea, but this is a totally unscientific survey and possibly includes a higher proportion of hobbyists vs those who make a living at using those tools. Plus, Adobe sees a lot of other creatives who aren't photographers. You know, InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat, Fireworks, Dreamweaver just to name a few.

Most hobbyist photographers use Lightroom and possibly Photoshop. I'd bet most photographers who make a living at it use some combination of Lightroom and Photoshop, and possibly something like InDesign. A small part of the entire package.

I'm all for it though, if there are enough holdouts, maybe something will change *crosses fingers*


----------



## J.R. (Jul 25, 2013)

While I posted "No", I'm not too sure this poll's sample size is big enough to represent the actual market. 

Hobbyists like meself are not going to adopt the cloud (most of us) and are happy with standalone versions that we have got. Most pros I know have subscribed to the cloud because, for them the benefits outweigh the cost (none of them are on CR ).


----------



## daltech (Jul 25, 2013)

> Will it open CC versions of PSD files I wonder in a lossless fashion?


Tested it before posting my post, I created a brand new PSD file using PS CC with layers and filters... and opened it successfully in GIMP.



> Is there an Open Source analog to LR or Aperture?


The closest I know of is DarkTable (http://www.darktable.org/), look promising !

Cheers C !

Bernard


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 25, 2013)

daltech said:


> > Will it open CC versions of PSD files I wonder in a lossless fashion?
> 
> 
> Tested it before posting my post, I created a brand new PSD file using PS CC with layers and filters... and opened it successfully in GIMP.



Sure, maybe it opens, but is the final output exactly the same? And even more, use some of the really advanced features. The new de-shake and things like that. Will it render out correctly?


----------



## daltech (Jul 26, 2013)

> Sure, maybe it opens, but is the final output exactly the same? And even more, use some of the really advanced features. The new de-shake and things like that. Will it render out correctly?



This is true for ANY software, whatever you own it or not, there's software that doesn't really work anymore on Windows XP, Vista, 7 or 8, ie some 16bit software from the Windows 3.1 times. CC is definitely not for you and others that stress over *when (not if)* Adobe goes bankrupt and nothing will support anything they did. I don't stress about that, I have other things in life to stress about.

I don't have 10,000 PSD files, I have some templates and that is about it, I usually end up with a TIFF file when I'm done editing a file from LR to PS back to LR with the TIFF.

There's no real debate, it's like a car brand, there's the brands that we can and can't afford, and for the ones we can, there's the brands we like and don't like, for reason XYZ, same here.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 26, 2013)

daltech said:


> > Sure, maybe it opens, but is the final output exactly the same? And even more, use some of the really advanced features. The new de-shake and things like that. Will it render out correctly?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The worry (for me) is not that Adobe goes bankrupt, it's that if I do some work, then stop subscribing, if I don't have _alternative_ software that produces the exact same output, I need to go back and give Adobe more money simply to be able to open up and output/do more work on the same file. Even if it's 5 years from now and they've added a ton of features that I may not need for that particular file/job. 

Part of it is the principle of the thing, but another big part is that, especially in the hobbyist/occasional freelancer, we _don't_ have much or any income derived off of our work and don't want to be forced to keep paying Adobe simply to keep doing something we love. For example, I still have Photoshop CS5. I'd love to get Photoshop CC because the new blurred image sharpener seems amazing, but I'm not going to because then I may need to keep paying Adobe *in perpetuity* for something that I would only use occasionally, rather than only upgrading my version of Photoshop when a new feature comes along that I find compelling.


----------



## daltech (Jul 29, 2013)

> Part of it is the principle of the thing, but another big part is that, especially in the hobbyist/occasional freelancer, we _don't_ have much or any income derived off of our work and don't want to be forced to keep paying Adobe simply to keep doing something we love. For example, I still have Photoshop CS5. I'd love to get Photoshop CC because the new blurred image sharpener seems amazing, but I'm not going to because then I may need to keep paying Adobe *in perpetuity* for something that I would only use occasionally, rather than only upgrading my version of Photoshop when a new feature comes along that I find compelling.


Keep an eye on Photoshop Element, lots of the photographer's features from Photoshop seem to make it's way to the Element version. For instance Content Aware did, I believe with CS5 you already have that feature, but anyway, I'd expect the new blurred image sharpener will make it in the next Element release.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 29, 2013)

I just received a notice that anyone who registers for the Photoshop World convention will now receive a "free" subscription to Adobe CC for one year. Adobe also seems to have extended their introductory offers from the end of July to the end of August. 

Do you think they are having a harder time than they imagined in getting people to sign up?


----------

