Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Adobe Creative Cloud Storm  (Read 21470 times)
stevesanacore
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2013, 07:57:57 AM »
ReplyReply


At this point I am a subscriber. To me it seem the cheaper way to go compared with purchasing the complete suite and upgrading every 18 months like we used to do. Upgrades are critical to keep up with the latest cameras, both still and video for raw processing. I would think this will open the door for other companies to produce apps to finally compete with Photoshop. I think there is a huge market of amateurs or semi-pros that can't afford to or just refuse to purchase a subscription for software. Maybe the sales of Capture One will boom or maybe Aperture will have a revival? But for now, Adobe's subscription plan meets my needs just fine.
Logged

We don't know what we don't know.
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1207


« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2013, 09:03:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Regardless what I think about Adobe's current plans, the solution for me is not Gimp. With Gimp, you are bound to 8Bit color-depth in any color-space called RGB ( which could be sRGB, AdobeRGB,anything else in between). Furthermore, it uses only one core of my CPU, so the performance will not be as good as using PS.
For minor changes, you click more than three times of what you do in PS, when you want to work with a better performance, you will have to learn thousands of keystrokes, nearly all different from the one you are familiar with when using PS.

There are many reasons not to use GIMP today because using Photoshop is an alternative that is worthwhile. Even serious amateurs have always used Photoshop.

But now that Adobe have decided to go down a path of continually taxing people for using their software, more people will start to look at alternatives and thus the demands for 16bit and multi-core rendering will grow. Hopefully it will attract more contributors to GIMP as well.

There's a chance that the way this will work will be the opposite and that people won't notice the monthly $X that they pay Adobe - as long as it is paid monthly. Maybe Adobe figures that the introductory 12 months at a lower price will bring in more fish that it can then string along into paying more in subsequent years because how else do they use those PSD files?

How much will people get annoyed when PP refuses to open and load PSD files after 53 weeks? Will people just fork over more cash or look elsewhere?

The big issues for GIMP are 8bit vs 16bit and colour management.
Logged
David S
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


« Reply #22 on: May 10, 2013, 09:42:52 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems to me that the Cloud choice works well for large 'shops' and for heavy creative suite users.

It seems to me that it does not work at all for the hobbyist and infrequent user of Photoshop.

Also several have mentioned that upgrades are 'necessary' for new cameras. Actually new program features are not needed for new cameras just the formula/process to decode the new camera's data which would work on older program versions if, and only if, the provider chose to provide that service. SO I "have" to upgrade to get access to a new camera. This has nothing to do with new features I may want or may not want.

So it boils down, for me, to loss of choice and loss of use of data if I later change my mind.

Very frightening.

Dave S
Logged
Gothmoth
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #23 on: May 10, 2013, 12:45:56 PM »
ReplyReply

what do you guys think about this:

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/10/adobes-date-of-birth-requirement-and-identity-theft/#disqus_thread

here is the link to the original article:

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 12:47:38 PM by Gothmoth » Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1257


« Reply #24 on: May 10, 2013, 12:55:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm really unhappy with Adobe. If Apple added a compositing function to Aperture, I'd change over and never buy another Adobe product. I've only glanced at GIMP, and that in the last two days, and I'm traveling so I haven't really had a chance to dig into it. But I'm not a computer guy, and it looks a little techie to me, like you'll have to learn to speak computer to really use it.

Here's a question -- is there a decent compositing program out there, other than Photoshop? Will GIMP do that? That's the only function I need, and it seems absurd to pay a monthly subscription price for something I use six days a year. In fact, I refuse to do it, and since I'm being forced to change, I'm not even going to upgrade my CS5 to CS6; that would just delay things for a year or so. I've just got to find another compositing program. What about Corel? Will that do it?

By the way, I have no faith at all that Apple would ever add much of anything to Aperture -- I think the company has about zero interest in that product.

About Schewe -- I understand why he's been defensive about Adobe, and I've got no problem with it. If Adobe issues what sounds like a semi-ironclad assurance that they'll continue to update stand-alone versions of Lightroom, I'll continue to buy Jeff's books, which I have found to be well-written and quite useful. But I suspect that Adobe won't do that -- I suspect that as soon as the dust settles from this Photoshop move, they'll move Lightroom, as well.

I also suspect that Adobe has made a serious strategic mistake. I think it will pay off for a few quarters, or even a few years, but then they'll start getting in trouble. Adobe now owns the Creative Suite space, but this move creates a real opening for competitors, and at the same time, creates a lot of distrust in Adobe. And the competition won't have Adobe's overhead -- they'll be able to attack in a piecemeal way, with much smaller programs. Adobe now forces you to pay a high price even though you may only use one or two functions in a given Creative Suite program. That's why a lot of people only upgrade their CS every few years -- they don't really need all those new features. As long as you only had to pay a couple hundred bucks to upgrade every three years or so, that's fine, they'd do it. But if somebody comes up with a decent program that performs that needed function, and it's stand-alone and may be good for years...why would you put up with this subscription bs?
Logged
Gothmoth
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #25 on: May 10, 2013, 01:01:22 PM »
ReplyReply

About Schewe -- I understand why he's been defensive about Adobe, and I've got no problem with it. If Adobe issues what sounds like a semi-ironclad assurance that they'll continue to update stand-alone versions of Lightroom, I'll continue to buy Jeff's books, which I have found to be well-written and quite useful. But I suspect that Adobe won't do that -- I suspect that as soon as the dust settles from this Photoshop move, they'll move Lightroom, as well.

well yes.. thatīs pretty obvious isnīt it.

and i would never trust someone so tied to adobe having a objective opinion.
Logged
Sharon Van Lieu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 376


Nantucket Landscape and Architectural Photographer


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 10, 2013, 01:14:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I use photoshop and lightroom every day. Something will have to be pretty good for me to switch. I don't like having to have a subscription but I use the photo software and dreamweaver and premiere pro. I can't and won't go out of business to spite Adobe and I don't want to divert creative energy into looking for alternatives. I hope they reconsider.

Sharon
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2013, 02:41:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't shoot much professionally any more, but when I do, I rarely need anything more than CS5.  On one machine I have Cs3, and in fact don't really need anything else.

Raw Processing:  LR, C1, NX, DPP, Bible.  Make basic adjustments, export to Tiff.  Open in Cs3 or 5, adjust, resize, layers, retouch, output sharpening, proof print.  BAM!  No need for any subscription software.

What features do people need that not having access to future versions of PS becomes a crippling problem?
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2013, 03:10:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Piracy in itself is not an issue, the issue is the loss of revenue resulting from piracy.

This means that the millions of pirated private copies of PS will not generate much money for Adobe even if CC were uncrackable because the owners of most of these pirated copies would not purchase CC or the perpetual version anyway.

It may be different for companies using pirated copies if their business relies on Adobe products.

Cheers,
Bernard

I don't agree in whole.  They allow piracy and even make it easy.. because they benefit from piracy just like they benefit from selling the software.  The trick is to sell software in the desired region with as little piracy as possible while allowing and even encouraging piracy in other areas they don't expect to sell.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 786



« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2013, 03:33:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't shoot much professionally any more, but when I do, I rarely need anything more than CS5.  On one machine I have Cs3, and in fact don't really need anything else.

Raw Processing:  LR, C1, NX, DPP, Bible.  Make basic adjustments, export to Tiff.  Open in Cs3 or 5, adjust, resize, layers, retouch, output sharpening, proof print.  BAM!  No need for any subscription software.

What features do people need that not having access to future versions of PS becomes a crippling problem?

Same here. Got 1 Ps3 on one unit and one
PS5 on another one.

I actually use only PS5 when I need 64 bits.
Big sizes, heavy files.

Remember this advert: whiter than white?
Clever.

And the day redcineX will support still raw, the days
Of adobe will be over for me.

But we're not there yet.

Ps: about piracy, in my AD short time, I haven't seen
A single agency, included very reputated ones, that
Didn't have some pirated softwares, many time as their
Apps 1.
You just had to ask: Who's got the latest Ps, or ilustrator?
And you had 10 hands giving you the DVDs in a second.

« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 04:25:29 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 10, 2013, 03:45:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Now with Lightroonm 5 if they could just add  Pano stitching and HDR I could kick Photoshop into touch!
Logged

Wayland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 10, 2013, 03:55:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been playing with alternatives all day.

Gimp is still limited by the 8 bit thing but that may well change soon.

Paint Shop Pro is a little buggy, clumsy in places but very good in others. Biggest downfall cannot save layered Tiffs.

Photoline was a revelation though. It had every thing on my list that I use in PS, many of the features worked better and with more options. The more I looked the more I found interesting new features that I can really make use of.

It's like getting an upgrade from CS6 for a little less than Ģ50 for a full licence.

I know what I'm going to do...
Logged

Wayland.
aka. Gary Waidson
Enter theWaylandscape...
cybis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 163



WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2013, 04:19:59 PM »
ReplyReply

CC: I like the idea but hate the price.

The model works great for music and movies; and I wish it existed for e-books.

For instance, I subscribe to Netflix and Spotify because a little more money gets me a whole lot more intellectual property. It’s a win-win.

One of the problems with Adobe’s scheme however is that, at best, assuming you used to buy every new release, more money now gets you just a bit more IP. But if you used to skip a release or two, the new deal is horrible.

Adobe got greedy.
Logged

NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776


« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2013, 05:45:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that Adobe could well take Lightroom into the cloud, and if so, users will be over a barrel because of the significant amount of user work put into the catalogs and the centrality of the catalog function to the workflow. For amateur users, this simply Will Not Fly. What, I have to pay a monthly fee to find stuff on my own hard drive? The DAM function is too much of a "utility", and people don't rent utilities, they buy them, often with great enthusiasm. I might say that the specter of having Adobe in effect repossess the user's added value labor (the customized, keyworded, copyrighted, etc catalog) is enough to make current users think about separate DAM programs and to advise newer hobbyist photographers to stay clear of LR.

I will say that I don't particularly need to go beyond Ps CS6, and wouldn't be interested in the CC unless I wanted to try out other Adobe applications.

The photographers' market segment is a small portion of Adobe's income. I would bet that the bulk of the income and of the piracy involves Acrobat. Acrobat is used by so many businesses, it is almost as ubiquitous as MS Office. Everyone on the planet has the free reader. A decent number of individuals in a business will have the Acrobat document creator software.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8845


« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2013, 08:02:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Wait a minute! Have I got this right? The full cost of ownership of Photoshop CS6 for someone who is new to the software and not upgrading, is around $1,000, at least in Australia. CS6E is well over $1,000. In a year or two's time, there would be a further $500 (or more) required for an upgrade to CS7, if one wanted the new features which might include the RAW converter for the new camera one has just bought.

However, a subscription to CC for the single application of CS6 is only $20 a month or $240 a year. At that rate, one can subscribe to the single application under the CC system for 6 continuous years for the cost of buying outright, CS6E plus just one upgrade during that 6 year period.

The main issue here, as I see it, are the consequences of storing processed files in the PSD format with lots of layers, should one later decide to cease subscription to Adobe CC. If one is worried about this, then one should always save a flattened tiff version of one's work so it can be opened in other programs.
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 10, 2013, 08:15:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Wait a minute! Have I got this right? ...
For someone approaching Photoshop for the first time, your line of analysis seems fair enough. The new arrangements also have the advantage, for new entrants, that they provide access to the software for a (relatively) small initial outlay, and the capacity to drop it if it turns out not to meet their needs. Those complaining are mostly people who have been using it for a while and feel that the changes reduce the value of their investment and increase the cost to them of maintaining access to the current version.
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1207


« Reply #36 on: May 10, 2013, 08:34:23 PM »
ReplyReply

However, a subscription to CC for the single application of CS6 is only $20 a month or $240 a year. At that rate, one can subscribe to the single application under the CC system for 6 continuous years for the cost of buying outright, CS6E plus just one upgrade during that 6 year period.

That's only for the first year.

So they have 12 months in which to get you hooked on Adobe Ps drugs.

Quote
The main issue here, as I see it, are the consequences of storing processed files in the PSD format with lots of layers, should one later decide to cease subscription to Adobe CC. If one is worried about this, then one should always save a flattened tiff version of one's work so it can be opened in other programs.

GIMP can open PSD files (or so the claims I've seen say.) Can't vouch for this or what the result is.

http://www.unixmen.com/13-reasons-to-choose-gimp-over-photoshop/

To conclude, instead of pirating Photoshop, its better to use open-source software i.e. GIMP, for image editing yielding comparable results. Photoshop has some tremendous capabilities, this fact cannot be denied however these capabilities are hardly needed for average to advance users. Photoshop, is only aimed at a very specific bunch of people who really are experts. Nevertheless, GIMP too can be used by experts the difference being that Photoshop might be able to accomplish some tasks easily while with GIMP you will have to take a long route!
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 08:40:24 PM by dreed » Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3394


« Reply #37 on: May 10, 2013, 08:37:57 PM »
ReplyReply

For someone approaching Photoshop for the first time, your line of analysis seems fair enough. The new arrangements also have the advantage, for new entrants, that they provide access to the software for a (relatively) small initial outlay, and the capacity to drop it if it turns out not to meet their needs. Those complaining are mostly people who have been using it for a while and feel that the changes reduce the value of their investment and increase the cost to them of maintaining access to the current version.

Hi Ken,

Bingo! And in addition, the unforeseen move to ransom-ware can only explain the Stockholm syndrome, not justify the actions by those who caused it.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 10, 2013, 08:50:46 PM »
ReplyReply

CC is a hell of a good deal for new users, no question about it. It will hook in a load of people who currently cannot afford the CS path. $50 per month for $4000 worth of software - where do I sign?

For those of us who have been forking out for upgrades since 1995 (in my case) it's not a particularly good deal, especially after reading Lloyd Chambers's take.

I only NEED Lightroom for my day to day business plus some Photoshop CHOPs (for special images) that date back to PS4 or 5 (such as layer masks, blend modes, calculations etc). My best way forward from a money POV is to keep my two licences for CS5 and CS6 as they are and stay on the Lightroom upgrade path whether it's Cloud or not. I don't NEED Muse, Cloud space, webhosting etc, or even the new gizmos in Photoshop CC. I don't use PSD file anyway so that's not a bother either.

Lightroom has colour management, 16-bit, a good printer module, good export options - it's a great tool. It's only really the layers stuff that I turn to PS for.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8845


« Reply #39 on: May 10, 2013, 09:07:41 PM »
ReplyReply

For those of us who have been forking out for upgrades since 1995 (in my case) it's not a particularly good deal, especially after reading Lloyd Chambers's take.

Isn't there a discount for those who've already bought a previous version of Photoshop as far back as CS3?

Those who have been using Photoshop for years should not have to worry about their subscription to CC becoming too expensive and the consequences of ceasing the subscription. They'll always have an older version to fall back on. If the older version doesn't support the RAW format of one's latest camera, no problem. Use the free DNG Converter.

I get a sense this is a storm in a teacup.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad