Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 27 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe - Creative Cloud Update  (Read 54762 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2807


« Reply #280 on: June 15, 2013, 11:17:27 PM »
ReplyReply

...only about the impacts for me as a faithful user having spent probably close to 10,000 US$ on Adobe products over the years.

I hope you made money using those same products over the years?
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7958



WWW
« Reply #281 on: June 16, 2013, 01:36:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I hope you made money using those same products over the years?

At least I did make some people happy using those products, which I would rate as more important than making money, but to each your own.

Regardless, I don't see how that is relevant to this debate.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1019


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #282 on: June 16, 2013, 08:25:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Dave,

...trust comes on foot and leaves on horseback ...

Cheers,
Bart

Hi Bart,

I totally agree, trust across many areas of the industry, has certainly been one of the causalities in this whole saga, but another saying in the UK tells us that "The public has a very short memory". So I think it totally depends on what Adobe comes up with, as to what happens in the future and whether trust can ever be restored. I hope what Adobe does next will not be representative of yet another saying that goes, "too little too late", which I fear could well be the case, yet I'm still hoping that it isn't.

Dave
« Last Edit: June 16, 2013, 12:00:38 PM by Dave (Isle of Skye) » Logged

Photography Tuition holidays on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
Simon J.A. Simpson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


« Reply #283 on: June 16, 2013, 09:11:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I know you may not read this, but thanks Jeff for your post summarising what you know about the CC debacle.

So, to those who think this CC is all about greed and milking the user base for every last drop of money I'll tell you Adobe really doesn't do that sort of thing.

In general terms I think you may be well correct on this point.  But this is not the perception in territories beyond the Big Apple where we have historically enjoyed a penalty for purchasing our Adobe software.  Although, there is some evidence that with the subscription model this may be disappearing and the pricing may, at last, be more equitable across the world.

I'm inclined to agree with you, and other posters above, that this whole infuriating situation may well prove to be to photographers' benefit in the longer term.  Let's hope so.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2807


« Reply #284 on: June 16, 2013, 10:23:27 AM »
ReplyReply

At least I did make some people happy using those products, which I would rate as more important than making money, but to each your own.

Regardless, I don't see how that is relevant to this debate.

You state the cost of Adobe products to you as-if it was a donation which gave you no benefit, that just seems a bit strange.
Logged
davidh202
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #285 on: June 16, 2013, 11:59:30 AM »
ReplyReply


I'm inclined to agree with you, and other posters above, that this whole infuriating situation may well prove to be to photographers' benefit in the longer term.  Let's hope so.

Ctein on TOP, has now posted his "good side" take on the issue at hand.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/06/adobe-photoshop-creative-cloud-part-ii-the-good.html
Logged
iladi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #286 on: June 16, 2013, 12:38:52 PM »
ReplyReply

At least I did make some people happy using those products, which I would rate as more important than making money, but to each your own.

Regardless, I don't see how that is relevant to this debate.

Cheers,
Bernard



10.000 will make 16 years of suite subscription and 41 years of photoshop only subscription.
Logged
gbillett
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #287 on: June 16, 2013, 03:23:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I have confidence that the economic model of supply and demand will eventually dictate whether Adobe has made the correct decision here and will ultimately survive and prosper or decline.  Monolithic companies grow and must adapt as change occurs around them.  Adobe is much the same.  Their product is,  as many have said,  mature with little room for significant development but they have no direct competition for the pro user.   Companies and individual pros,  in this age of austerity,  will also be potentially unable to invest in the massive outlays every year or two to keep up with newer software.   Monoliths like Adobe need to change now before they are left high and dry in a changing cultural and technological landscape.  A subscription system,  prima facia,  seems a sensible way forward for everybody,  so long as the price is pitched correctly to appeal both to the corporate user as well as the lone pro ( like myself ) and interested and committed amateurs.  A price which appeals must surely be equal to the amount that would be spent on an average user's expenditure if purchased on the license current system.  Anything higher will be considered as exploitation.  But is this the only answer?

There are observations though which need to be made in this process of change.

1.  To say that PS was never developed for photographers is disingenuous in the least and derisory to the armies of photographers who have used PS since its early incarnations.  This assertion will infuriate photographers everywhere and automatically create resistance to any change which is promoted or explained on this false premise. Why doesn't Adobe see this? Why have they undermined this user group? 
2.  Companies exist to make profit.  Despite reassurances from Jeff that Adobe is not purely motivated by increasing profits,  this is an age where corporations ( ie shareholders ) expect increasing returns even within an age of austerity.  It is becoming evident that multi-nationals will undertake any strategy to maximise their profits.  Why is Adobe different?  I don't think they are different;  they are driven to make profit and will undertake whatever strategy to do this.  Middle managers,  developers and lovers of the product are caught in the middle between an outraged user base and cold blooded corporate strategists who will make whatever changes they need to make to prevent financial atrophy and market loss. 
3.  Company size is no determinant of safety and security.  Sometimes the larger a company is the more devolved its decision making is.  Take Kodak,  Sony etc.  It appears that Apple may even be now starting a period of decline.  Adobe is no exception.  It must adapt and will upset people ( ie users ) in that process.
4.  Lightroom and similar programs,  if beefed up to provide a complete substitute for PS for photographers,  perhaps even providing a pro-version to fill the gap as has been suggested,  would seem a sensible way forward.  Lightroom meets most of my needs but not all.  Plug ins help.  If Adobe continues to maintain that PS is not for photographers it would seem Adobe could easily further develop Lightroom and make it a stand alone product available both within its subscription scheme and as a licensed product.  But for how long will they allow a single product to not be nested in its wider corporate and economic strategy of CC?. 
5.  Jeff is strongly hinting that there are talented, independent software developers who may take this opportunity to develop alternative software.  He talks about hostility from Adobe to any developments.  But is this not ever so - in the free market opportunities are grabbed by enterprising individuals.  Adobe ( as he states ) will not easily allow competition to develop and will try to thwart competition ( despite its alleged philanthropy towards the photographic community ).  But only if competition develops to fully equal Photoshop will Adobe feel threatened.  But competition MUST emerge if photographers are not ever to be dependent on the whims of Adobe and its fickle attitude to us.
6.  It is unclear where undoubted experts and on-line resources stand on this issues.  They too must be torn between allegiances to a powerful corporation with whom they have undoubted relationships and a readership which is mostly ( but not all ) alarmed by the proposed changes.  It can be argued that the vehemence by which certain contributors put their views here has created ambivalence at best.  This site is to be applauded for its declaration of interests on its front page.  Lobbying happens in many forms though and in order for a reasoned debate to continue sites must be seen to be neutral and effective moderation to that end is essential.
7.  Chris' suggestion that Adobe may be listening is helpful - I wish he would share his knowledge base for this assertion.  How does he know?
8.  But how will we know progress and what,  as a group of photographers,  do we want?  Jeff's thread asking this very question is for me the best thing to emerge from  all the debates.  For me the only solution here is choice - the development of software suitable to meet the needs of professional photographers by an alternative company ( existing or new ) would ensure that our needs are best met and we would not be hostage to one group of shareholders.
Logged

Geoff Billett
www.geoffreybillettphotography.co.uk
www.spanishcivilwarphotography.co.uk

Author From Earth to Air   and Gateway to Nirvana
Photographs from Andalucia and the 2013 Kumbh Mela
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 289


« Reply #288 on: June 16, 2013, 03:49:34 PM »
ReplyReply

You don't get it...I'm not defending Adobe's logic, I'm trying to explain it. Know your enemy...if you want to fight against Adobe's logic, you have to do so from a position of understanding why Adobe thought it had to do what it did...it's foolish to try to fight something you don't understand. I understand photographers are upset and why they are upset. They don't like Adobe's decision because of the way they think it impacts them as a Photoshop user. But ranting and raving isn't going to have any impact. If you don't like Creative Cloud, vote with your wallet. Just understand that your wallet has not been historically all that important to Adobe...

I wonder how long it will take us to understand, accept this, and get on with life (photography). Shocked

Glenn
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1925


WWW
« Reply #289 on: June 16, 2013, 04:31:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder how long it will take us to understand, accept this, and get on with life (photography).
I'm there.
When CS5 was released I saw PS wasn't going in a direction I wanted and got off the train.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3631


« Reply #290 on: June 16, 2013, 05:08:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder how long it will take us to understand, accept this, and get on with life (photography). Shocked

Unacceptable.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
CoyoteButtes
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #291 on: June 16, 2013, 05:35:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Even though it's just a baby step, it may be a step in the right direction.

http://photorumors.com/2013/06/16/adobe-is-considering-new-pricing-models-for-creative-cloud/

The part about letting us have CS6 if we stop the subscription is laughable. Most of us already have it.

Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7958



WWW
« Reply #292 on: June 16, 2013, 05:35:46 PM »
ReplyReply

You state the cost of Adobe products to you as-if it was a donation which gave you no benefit, that just seems a bit strange.

That was not the intent of giving this figure. I am not questioning the value that CS has delivered to me.

I was only just pointing out that I invested this amount (the word is intended here) under the (now proven false) assumption that I was investing in a strategic image edition platform where my IP would be safe and where the skills developped would remain meaningful.

This amount is a measure of the trust I (mis)placed in Adobe.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 289


« Reply #293 on: June 16, 2013, 06:37:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Unacceptable.

Cheers,
Bart

And the options are:

1)

2) 

3) 
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7958



WWW
« Reply #294 on: June 16, 2013, 06:58:21 PM »
ReplyReply

And the options are:

1)

2)  

3)  


A. Adobe's top mgt changes their mind and continue to upgrade and sell CS's "boxed version" at the current price point,

B. Those who consider the subcription only model unacceptable fund the development of competitive solutions like pixelmator, pl32, the gimp,... by buying licenses or donating funds today (already done as far as I am concerned for Pixelmator and pl32). It will take a few releases for them to be at the right level, we keep using CS6 box in the meantime,

C. We stop digital photography and devote our time/cash to something else.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

A few images online here!
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #295 on: June 16, 2013, 07:33:21 PM »
ReplyReply


C. We stop digital photography and devote our time/cash to something else.


I could see something along the lines of "we radically change our current approach to post processing....", but "stop digital photography..."? Really? So if all Adobe products were to instantly disappear, through some whim of the aliens who really run things around here, would stopping digital photography really be one of your options?  Surely there would be life after Adobe, and your Option B would quickly kick in. I suspect plenty of people are already finding this to be the case.
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7958



WWW
« Reply #296 on: June 16, 2013, 08:14:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I could see something along the lines of "we radically change our current approach to post processing....", but "stop digital photography..."? Really? So if all Adobe products were to instantly disappear, through some whim of the aliens who really run things around here, would stopping digital photography really be one of your options?  Surely there would be life after Adobe, and your Option B would quickly kick in. I suspect plenty of people are already finding this to be the case.

Option C is obviously pretty unlikely for me, but it is an option to consider in general terms.

CC alone would not be enough of a trigger, but for some people who have been considering this possibility, CC may be the extra drop of water that makes the glass overflow.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #297 on: June 16, 2013, 09:08:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Could be worse ... we could be in the position of those folks that mortgaged the house to stock up on Kodachrome and were left with a freezer full of the stuff and no way to use it after the last lab able to process it closed its doors.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7958



WWW
« Reply #298 on: June 17, 2013, 02:07:03 AM »
ReplyReply

This could be interesting:

http://photorumors.com/2013/06/16/adobe-is-considering-new-pricing-models-for-creative-cloud/

We'd need concrete details to assess the value.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3631


« Reply #299 on: June 17, 2013, 03:14:01 AM »
ReplyReply

A. Adobe's top mgt changes their mind and continue to upgrade and sell CS's "boxed version" at the current price point,

B. Those who consider the subcription only model unacceptable fund the development of competitive solutions like pixelmator, pl32, the gimp,... by buying licenses or donating funds today (already done as far as I am concerned for Pixelmator and pl32). It will take a few releases for them to be at the right level, we keep using CS6 box in the meantime,

C. We stop digital photography and devote our time/cash to something else.

Hi Bernard,

Yes, that pretty well sums it up, although option C is personally unacceptable as well.

Option B is the most probable one, and in my experience many are currently going in that direction, using CS6 to bridge the time required to transition.

Besides Capture One Pro, DxO, and apparently PhotoNinja is well received, a Raw converter/developer like RawTherapee already gives a very good base material to work a bit more on, and e.g. TopazLabs photoFXlab offers a useful command center that allows access to their suite of generally excellent Plugins, in an (edge-aware) masked adjustment/blending layer approach that works very well, except for saving the layered work-in-progress as a layered file (I've just added a feature request for that on their forum).

Already, compared to Photoshop, superior image quality can be achieved with the image resampling algorithms as implemented by ImageMagick (up- and down-sampling and image transformations), and Photozoom Pro (only for upsampling), and even Pano stitchers offer a choice of resampling algorithms that retain better detail when correcting for distortions and keystoning.

There are many other photo-editors (e.g. Photoline is pretty powerful), but some offerings are a bit too much focused on a particular field of expertise (in which they are better than others) for use by the general public. An example of the latter would be PixInsight, a development environment (allowing user generated JavaScript to process image data) mainly (because of its roots) focusing on Astrophotography, but with a lot of usable features and some interesting unconventional approaches that offer benefits for general use as well.

A promising initiative like Gimp first requires the transition to 16-bit/channel processing later this year or the beginning of next year to become a full alternative, but progress may speed up with a bit of outside hands-on sponsoring. And of course things have become more interesting since Google acquired Nik software ...

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: June 17, 2013, 03:17:05 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 27 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad