Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's take on Adobe CC  (Read 13729 times)
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335


WWW
« Reply #140 on: May 11, 2013, 04:31:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Just make an export user-preset that will export a full resolution TIFF without output sharpening to the folder that contains the RAW files.

It's really really easy to maintain both LR catalog and TIFF work products.
Assuming that Lightroom also goes to a subscription model and I were a Lightroom user, that is not what I would do.  If I had an image previously edited in LR/ACR that I wanted to revise, I would take the original raw file, re-edit it from scratch in another raw convertor and almost certainly come up with a better result.  (ACR is a mediocre raw convertor IMO, but that is beside the point.)  Realistically, this not likely to be a frequent problem, but when it arises, there are simple solutions.  For images that are "perfect" as is, convert to TIFF or JPEG and use them as you please.  As with CS6, the day will come when the latest version of Lightroom will not run on future operating systems.  Then users will face the big conundrum.  All of their LR edits will be beyond reach without signing up for a subscription.  Perhaps now is the time for people to wean themselves off of Adobe completely. 

Of course, there is no guarantee that other software companies will not eventually adopt the subscription model as well.  It will all depend on how profitable it turns out to be.  As long as Adobe has a near monopoly on the image editing market, they can probably make it work.  If serious competition develops, they may have to change their imperious ways. 

Rob
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8582



WWW
« Reply #141 on: May 11, 2013, 04:32:24 PM »
ReplyReply

If they sell prints, is that not a perpetual license?

License for what?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8582



WWW
« Reply #142 on: May 11, 2013, 04:38:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't see why rent to own could only work if the buy out price is exorbitant.
Rob

Doesn't have to be exorbitant although that what constitutes exorbitant is anyone's opinion. It has to be more than what Adobe was getting in the past, or they have no reason to consider it. One year subscription plus full price might, one year subscription plus 50% of what the original perceptual license might lure them. One year plus $79 isn't going to fly. I have no idea what price Adobe feels the market should pay for this and I have no idea what the market will consider exorbitant or not. The alternative, what we have now is they can just ignore any option for a perceptual license. Those that don't think any of the options above are exorbitant have one less option.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #143 on: May 11, 2013, 04:48:03 PM »
ReplyReply

License for what?

Andrew...maybe license is the wrong term. 

You buy a print.  You "own" that print....have the right to view it forever, sell it, will it to your heirs.  You cannot copy or reproduce it in any form. 

What would you call it?  Simple term, please.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #144 on: May 11, 2013, 04:53:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Doesn't have to be exorbitant although that what constitutes exorbitant is anyone's opinion. It has to be more than what Adobe was getting in the past, or they have no reason to consider it. One year subscription plus full price might, one year subscription plus 50% of what the original perceptual license might lure them. One year plus $79 isn't going to fly. I have no idea what price Adobe feels the market should pay for this and I have no idea what the market will consider exorbitant or not. The alternative, what we have now is they can just ignore any option for a perceptual license. Those that don't think any of the options above are exorbitant have one less option.

 Smiley Actually, it has to be more than what they will get if people are really unhappy with the CC concept/pricing....which, in reality, could be on a dive to zero.
Logged

John
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335


WWW
« Reply #145 on: May 11, 2013, 05:04:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Smiley Actually, it has to be more than what they will get if people are really unhappy with the CC concept/pricing....which, in reality, could be on a dive to zero.
This will be absolutely true only if viable alternatives to Photoshop become available.  Then Adobe will have to compete for business that they have always taken for granted.  And I expect it to happen.  Most photographers do not need or use much of the functionality contained in the software behemoth that is Photoshop.  A simpler platform that allows for the liberal use of third party plug-ins will suffice for the vast majority of users and almost all photographic purposes.  Some such programs already exist, but there will be more, and they will get better.

Rob
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 05:35:59 PM by robgo2 » Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #146 on: May 11, 2013, 05:14:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew...maybe license is the wrong term.  

No, "license" is the correct term ... Every product I sell or service I provide also includes a written license agreement. Whether the job is a portrait print package, wedding package that includes prints, albums and digital files, commercial shoot where only digital files are provided or a job for publication delivered electronically. Each type of job has it's own set of license requirements and limitations as required that is amicable to all parties concerned. I don't offer a one-size-fits all license because my client's needs are different. Thus I accommodate them, for which they compensate me based upon those accommodations ...

Even without the existence of a written license, photographers who sell prints still have copyright license enforcement opportunities although they would be more limited. But it is still a "license" nonetheless. Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.
Logged
Gulag
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


« Reply #147 on: May 11, 2013, 05:16:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Again, Photoshop has very small tiny weight in Adobe's overall revenue pie, and photographers are actually very very small percentage of Photoshop user base.  Adobe correctly foresaw the big change, and has positioned itself for massive revenue rainfalls in this historical switch from paper to screen. What Adobe says basically it's our way or highway. Get used to it.
Logged

“For art to be art it has to cure.”  - Alejandro Jodorowsky
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335


WWW
« Reply #148 on: May 11, 2013, 05:42:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Again, Photoshop has very small tiny weight in Adobe's overall revenue pie, and photographers are actually very very small percentage of Photoshop user base.  Adobe correctly foresaw the big change, and has positioned itself for massive revenue rainfalls in this historical switch from paper to screen. What Adobe says basically it's our way or highway. Get used to it.

If that is the case, then Adobe won't mind losing the patronage of tens of thousands of photographers to alternative programs, once they are developed.  So then everyone can be happy again.  But I can already envision Lightroom's sales starting to plummet, as the photographic community loses confidence in the manufacturer.  Do you think that Adobe will be OK with that as well?

Rob
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 05:46:09 PM by robgo2 » Logged
Gulag
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


« Reply #149 on: May 11, 2013, 06:03:35 PM »
ReplyReply

If that is the case, then Adobe won't mind losing the patronage of tens of thousands of photographers to alternative programs, once they are developed.  So then everyone can be happy again.  But I can already envision Lightroom's sales starting to plummet, as the photographic community loses confidence in the manufacturer.  Do you think that Adobe will be OK with that as well?

Rob

It seems like Adobe *believes* it's a TINA world as Margaret Thatcher used to preach. How many photographers don't rely on any third-party plugins/filters/actions in their LR/PS workflow? If the number is more than 80%,  Adobe wouldn't dare to roll out its rentier plan because the switching cost would be far lower.  But, if you can visit those so-called *Creative* workplace, and every desktop has Adobe Creative Suite installed. Adobe seemingly also believes in 80/20 rule in this case.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 06:11:25 PM by Gulag » Logged

“For art to be art it has to cure.”  - Alejandro Jodorowsky
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8582



WWW
« Reply #150 on: May 11, 2013, 06:34:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.

I agree. Thanks for clarifying.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3415


« Reply #151 on: May 11, 2013, 06:47:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.

Hi,

Whoa, one doesn't automatically sell the IP, one sells a copy of a print (unless you stipulate the transfer of the copyright to a single new owner, who can then exclusively exercise his acquired Copy Rights, locking you out).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 07:03:56 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #152 on: May 11, 2013, 06:56:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi,

Whoa, one doesn't automatically sell the IP, one sells a copy of a print (unless you stipulate the transfer the copyright to a single new owner, who can then exclusively exercise his acquired Copy Rights, locking you out).

Cheers,
Bart

Agreed. I should have said the routine sale of a print is actually an implied limited personal use licensing. The courts have upheld in many cases the implied limited personal use licensing in the absence of a written agreement that stipulates otherwise in specific detail.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 07:08:57 PM by ButchM » Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #153 on: May 11, 2013, 06:59:45 PM »
ReplyReply

No, "license" is the correct term ... Every product I sell or service I provide also includes a written license agreement. Whether the job is a portrait print package, wedding package that includes prints, albums and digital files, commercial shoot where only digital files are provided or a job for publication delivered electronically. Each type of job has it's own set of license requirements and limitations as required that is amicable to all parties concerned. I don't offer a one-size-fits all license because my client's needs are different. Thus I accommodate them, for which they compensate me based upon those accommodations ...

Even without the existence of a written license, photographers who sell prints still have copyright license enforcement opportunities although they would be more limited. But it is still a "license" nonetheless. Because the sale of a print is not only the sale of a piece of paper, it is the sale of the intellectual property on that paper.

Thanks, Butch.

You said what I was stretching towards much better than I could....with the update on "personal license"
Logged

John
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3415


« Reply #154 on: May 11, 2013, 07:13:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed. I should have said the routine sale of a print is actually an implied limited personal use licensing. The courts have upheld in many cases the implied limited personal use licensing in the absence of a written agreement that stipulates otherwise in specific detail.

Hi,

But don't forget that, e.g. a banknote, just like a print, remains to have the copyrights of the original IP holder, which also means that others are not allowed to reproduce it, alter it, or even purposely damage it!

So, the absent written agreement is already very much part of the original Copyright.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #155 on: May 11, 2013, 07:57:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't much care about the cost, I care about the control. If I edit photographs in a post-CS6 cloud-based Photoshop, and if I then do something that seriously annoys Adobe, they can turn me off. I no longer have access to what could be thousands of hours of my own work -- not Adobe's work, but mine. I suspect that right now, somebody somewhere is planning to do just that -- annoy Adobe, get turned off, and then sue, not to be turned on again, but with a claim that they were irrevocably damaged by Adobe's action, that no EULA can apply to somebody else's *work* (not the software, but the *work.*) If just one photo geek somewhere wins, say, $100K with such a suit, I think many, many people might pile on.

I think the Adobe EULA has a lot of stuff in it that is designed to frighten people, and that Adobe wouldn't even attempt to enforce a lot of it, but suppose there was one thing that would really piss Adobe off, and cause them to shut you down? Well, there is. Suppose you lost your job and temporarily couldn't pay the fees? They wouldn't want to hear that, at all. They would quickly stop supporting your software, like, tomorrow. And this is not some random annoyance that some evil guy at Adobe uses to turn you off...this will be a common, routine occurrence and I suspect over the years would cause them to turn hundreds or thousands of people off...and those people would then lose access to their past work.

Let's take this out of the photography realm for a moment. Suppose I am a professional writer who specializes in writing software tutorial books; let's say my name is Shoey.  I go to a cloud-based Microsoft Word where I write a complete how-to book, and I'm negotiating the sale of the book for a very large sum of money, but something I say really pisses Microsoft off -- like, "I'm broke, and I temporarily can't pay the license fee until I sell my book." So they turn off my Word, and refuse to give me access to my own work. Would I sue? You bet I would. And I would sue for a screamingly large amount of money, not only the loss of the sale of the book, but the loss of opportunity -- the momentum that book would have given other books, to my career, etc. Microsoft may have the right to control its software, but they have no right to deny me access to my work.

How is that different than if you find you can't pay Adobe to continue the license, they then refuse to let you have access to your past work? Answer: it isn't.

Adobe could largely protect itself, IMHO, if they added a facility that would "freeze" Photoshop CC at any given point that would allow the users full access to export functions for his stored images and the image modification files, so that while you might lose access to Photoshop, you wouldn't lose your own work. 

I think they could do that, but I doubt that they will.
My feeling is, this is going to end badly.
Logged
Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984


WWW
« Reply #156 on: May 11, 2013, 09:50:27 PM »
ReplyReply

... if I then do something that seriously annoys Adobe, they can turn me off...

I wonder is a suitably acerbic forum post on a prominent site would suffice.  ;-)
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #157 on: May 11, 2013, 10:29:26 PM »
ReplyReply

To get back to the original topic, I noted that Michael said
Quote
Now, of course if you want to continue using CPM and WordPerfect, that's your right. Just don't expect to run it on a present-day CPU.

To set the record straight, WordPerfect runs just fine on Windows 7 (but not CPM) on my present-day Intel Core I7 CPU.

And if you want to run WordStar on CPM, I have a working Kaypro in my cellar that can still do it.

(So, Take That, Adobe!!!)    Grin
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #158 on: May 11, 2013, 10:55:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Let's take this out of the photography realm for a moment. Suppose I am a professional writer who specializes in writing software tutorial books; let's say my name is Shoey.  I go to a cloud-based Microsoft Word where I write a complete how-to book, and I'm negotiating the sale of the book for a very large sum of money, but something I say really pisses Microsoft off -- like, "I'm broke, and I temporarily can't pay the license fee until I sell my book." So they turn off my Word, and refuse to give me access to my own work. Would I sue? You bet I would. And I would sue for a screamingly large amount of money, not only the loss of the sale of the book, but the loss of opportunity -- the momentum that book would have given other books, to my career, etc. Microsoft may have the right to control its software, but they have no right to deny me access to my work.

Hum...you are an excellent fiction writer John...but like all fiction, one must, as a reader, be willing to suspend disbelief and overlook reality.

First off, I use Word but if Word was removed from my system by the evil MSFT, I would open that Word doc in OpenOffice and keep writing. Yes, I would loose my formatting macros (my Word specific text adjustments), but I would could add styles that would tell production what needs to be a Head 1, or 2 and what's a caption and a callout. Bold in Word is essentially the same as Bold in Writer and save text out as .rtf.

So, would OpenOffice work exactly like Word? Nope...but I could get access to my text (image) and redo formatting (image adjustments) but the essence of my work would remain assessable so I could finish my book on time (highly unlikely since I'm terrible at deadlines). In your fictional; scenario, you better believe I would have some choice words about Word & MSFT :~)

Going away from the analogy (fiction) and back to digital imaging (reality), image file formats have enough compatibility outside of Photoshop to allow access to my images outside of Photoshop. Would a different app maintain things like Smart Objects? Nope...would other apps support all of the Photoshop adjustment layers? Nope. But I would still have access to my images and could do digital imaging with any other apps like Corel PaintShop Pro X5 for $69.99 sadly, Windows only) or GIMP which is cross platform and free. Would I lose work? Yep, Would I lose images? Nope...

As it relates to raw images and ACR/LR, yes, things are more complicated and would be problematic. Yes, the raw edits would be lost if you couldn't get at the raw images with Adobe software because only ACR/LR can read and process those settings. But you would sill have your original raw file. There are plenty of other 3rd party raw processing options–some darn near as good as ACR/LR (some people might say better than ACR/LR but that is a debatable point).

Look, these are the early days of this sea change...we've yet to see the real impact of these changes over time. The CC announcement was less that 1 week ago, and Photoshop CC hasn't even shipped yet. There will be a 30 day demo of Photoshop CC to allow people to see whether or not the new features and functionality is a worthwhile update over CS6. Adobe will have to work hard to keep adding new features t keep subscribers who do buy in happy. For the foreseeable future, photographers still have the CS6 option. How long will Adobe keep selling CS6? I don't know...I'm not sure Adobe knows at this point. Will photographers leave Photoshop in droves? I don't know, neither is Adobe. Will a bunch of competitors be born to pick up where Adobe left off? I don't know, we'll see. The gate has been opened, we'll see what happens. What I suggest people do is wait and see what transpires...and resist doing anything irrational now that makes your life miserable in the future. YMMV!
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 02:03:25 PM by Schewe » Logged
Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #159 on: May 11, 2013, 11:09:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Again, Photoshop has very small tiny weight in Adobe's overall revenue pie, and photographers are actually very very small percentage of Photoshop user base.
What about the non-photographers? Don't they have exactly the same objections to the rental model that the photographers do?

Quite frankly, Adobe's customers should be able to survive with older versions of Adobe software, or with non-Adobe software. Adobe will not be able to survive long without customers. I think people need to vote with their wallets and remind Adobe of this fact.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad