Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe CC: any compelling features to make one WANT to upgrade to it?  (Read 15303 times)
Jack Hogan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« on: October 08, 2013, 04:27:52 AM »
ReplyReply

As some of you know I mainly do landscapes for myself and I used to upgrade every other PSCS cycle.  I am currently at CS5.  Since I am happy with CNX2 as a raw converter and Windows as a DAM - and I am not planning to start using LR - I figure my PS costs averaged out at around $5/month for the last several years.

The current time-limited $9.99/month offer for CC+LR is twice my historical cost - but low enough that I could grin and bear it.  The question then becomes whether there is an actual reason for me to buy into CC. 

In other words, are there any compelling features that would make a photographer want to upgrade to CC from CS5/6?  Shake reduction and new/improved Smart Sharpen are neither here nor there to me, so I can't say I see anything that appears like a must-have feature that I don't already have (perhaps through a plug-in or third party software).   But maybe I'm missing something.  What was the killer feature that made you take the plunge?

Or is this really like Word 2007 and 2010 - the difference in functionality between the two is so limited as to appear immaterial to most people?

Cheers,
Jack
« Last Edit: October 08, 2013, 04:29:31 AM by Jack Hogan » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2013, 05:14:16 AM »
ReplyReply

The improvement to your DAM functionality by using a database programme like LR over Windows is phenomenal and because LR seamlessly links into PS they work fantastically well together. And combining your processing software with your asset managing software is a huge leap in efficiency and time saving.
Do you use Bridge at all for your file management?

In my experience, every version of PS has been nicer and easier to use than previous versions. Don't just look at the fancy headline features, many times it's the small refinements that make the biggest difference in everyday use. If you use say CS6 and then go back and use CS5, you suddenly realise how much nicer the new version is to use. And one of the less obvious benefits of CC will be the fact that the engineers can spend more time on the everyday 'ordinary' features as opposed to the fancy make people upgrade whizz bang features to help market a new version.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2013, 05:19:03 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2013, 05:16:12 AM »
ReplyReply

As some of you know I mainly do landscapes for myself and I used to upgrade every other PSCS cycle.  I am currently at CS5.  Since I am happy with CNX2 as a raw converter and Windows as a DAM - and I am not planning to start using LR - I figure my PS costs averaged out at around $5/month for the last several years.

I used to upgrade every 2-3 PS updates but took every Lightroom update.  Even before CC, they stopped the ability to upgrade other than the latest Photoshop, so I'd stopped at CS5 like you. 

But for me, even if I could update every other PS CSx release (perhaps every 3 years) and every LR update (every 18 months or so) then the cost would be about the same as the Photoshop CC package.  In UK prices, just over 100 per year.  The fact that I use Lightroom (and update that every time) probably tips the balance for me. 

Given that this is a time-limited offer, I've gone ahead with it.  I don't like renting software.  What happens when they lose credit card details (like last week) and I have to get a new card?  If I don't update my card details online by the next billing cycle, my software gets switched off.  But I've still got my CS5 licence and an LR5 licence for that, or if I change my mind after a year. 


The current time-limited $9.99/month offer for CC+LR is twice my historical cost - but low enough that I could grin and bear it.  The question then becomes whether there is an actual reason for me to buy into CC. 

In other words, are there any compelling features that would make a photographer want to upgrade to CC from CS5/6?  Shake reduction and new/improved Smart Sharpen are neither here nor there to me, so I can't say I see anything that appears like a must-have feature that I don't already have (perhaps through a plug-in or third party software).   But maybe I'm missing something.  What was the killer feature that made you take the plunge?

In terms of features probably not.  There's not much new that's useful to me in CS6 or CC over CS5.


Or is this really like Word 2007 and 2010 - the difference in functionality between the two is so limited as to appear immaterial to most people?

Oddly, I thought the Office 2010 update was useful.  Microsoft seem to alternate good and bad releases of software; they introduce something half-baked, and sort it out next release.  Office 2007 introduced the ribbon interface.  I don't much like that, but more to the point they did it badly.  Office 2010 has few new features, but gets the ribbon sorted out better.  Office 2013 appears to be a waste of space for most people. 

So you get:
Office 2000: good
Office XP: bad
Office 2003: good
Office 2007: bad
Office 2010: good
Office 2013: bad

And:
Windows XP: good
Windows Vista: bad
Windows 7: good
Windowss 8: bad
Logged
Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2013, 05:18:32 AM »
ReplyReply

If you use say CS6 and then go back and use CS5, you suddenly realise how much nicer the new version is to use.

Hm... I did just that - got to use CS6 for two weeks, then back to CS5 on my normal machine.  Apart from white-on-black UI instead of black-on-white I barely noticed the difference.  Maybe I'm just unobservant. 
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2013, 05:25:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Hm... I did just that - got to use CS6 for two weeks, then back to CS5 on my normal machine.  Apart from white-on-black UI instead of black-on-white I barely noticed the difference.  Maybe I'm just unobservant.  
Maybe you just kept using it the same way, so you wouldn't notice the differences. Two weeks really isn't very long with software as complex as PS. And you have to spend time specifically learning and finding out the new features and tricks to get the best of it. I recall looking at 'How to Use PSx' books where an author showed how to do so and so and thinking there's no point in that anymore as that's a technique you needed to do several versions back and is now no longer relevant as the programme has improved so much. All the author did was add the new whizz bang features to a 'how to..' book from  previous versions and didn't look into the details or didn't notice them as they had set habits in how to do certain things.

Oh and the dark interface was a loooong overdue improvement.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2013, 05:28:26 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Martin Kristiansen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2013, 09:10:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Enhancements to the pen tool are great, I use that a lot with deep etching. A little thing but saves a lot of time.

I could be wrong but I think to use the camera raw editing tools in photoshop you had to convert to a smart object. Anyway I use the colour correction tools of CR quite a lot and they are under the filter menu. Sorry if I am wrong about that.
Logged
kjkahn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2013, 10:32:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Two features in CC I really like:

1. I always liked the ACR sharpening tools better than those in PS. Now, with the ability to use ACR as a filter, I can use the ACR sharpening tools, along with the adjustment brush, for output sharpening as well as for capture sharpening.


2. I really like the new tools for removing perspective distortion (also accessed by Filter|Camera Raw Filter).
Logged
Jack Hogan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2013, 12:11:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmmm, mostly nice to haves.  Any MUST haves?
Logged
Martin Kristiansen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2013, 12:41:02 PM »
ReplyReply

It is PS. Not food. There are no "must haves" in PS. There are only things that save you time and things that make you money. If the time saved equates to a saving greater than the cost of the software then it becomes "sensible to have" or perhaps even a "stupid not to have".

Depends on your workflow and charge out rate really.
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 371


« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2013, 01:22:10 PM »
ReplyReply

It is PS. Not food. There are no "must haves" in PS. There are only things that save you time and things that make you money. If the time saved equates to a saving greater than the cost of the software then it becomes "sensible to have" or perhaps even a "stupid not to have".

Depends on your workflow and charge out rate really.

Yeh, for $10/month, saving just 10 minutes in processing time over the entire month pays back the cost. People squabbling about the cost really need to look at how they value their time.
Logged
Jack Hogan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2013, 03:46:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeh, for $10/month, saving just 10 minutes in processing time over the entire month pays back the cost. People squabbling about the cost really need to look at how they value their time.

Yes, and that's exactly my point.  Money is no longer an issue.  So what time saving features (photography) made you want to subscribe versus what you had before?
Logged
Simon Garrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 393


« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2013, 03:49:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeh, for $10/month, saving just 10 minutes in processing time over the entire month pays back the cost. People squabbling about the cost really need to look at how they value their time.
For professionals, yes - provided CC really does save them time.  But amateurs don't value their time at $60 an hour. 

Logged
Jack Hogan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2013, 03:51:31 PM »
ReplyReply

It is PS. Not food. There are no "must haves" in PS. There are only things that save you time and things that make you money. If the time saved equates to a saving greater than the cost of the software then it becomes "sensible to have" or perhaps even a "stupid not to have".

Depends on your workflow and charge out rate really.

Fair enough, although time is not of the essence in my case as my 'clients' are patient :-)  Is there a specific feature you desired (or that saves you time if you prefer) that made you want to upgrade?
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1989


WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2013, 04:02:34 PM »
ReplyReply

If you're curious about what CC has to offer you, why not just download the trial version and see for yourself what improvements it has ?
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 371


« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2013, 08:03:46 PM »
ReplyReply

For professionals, yes - provided CC really does save them time.  But amateurs don't value their time at $60 an hour. 



Really? My free time whether I'm a professional or not is still my free time. If I can spend less time behind a computer and more time out shooting or watching the game on the tube...is that not worth something to you? Sometimes amateurs have even less time to spend on their hobby making savings in processing even more important.
Logged
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 520


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 08, 2013, 10:22:43 PM »
ReplyReply

In contrast to the OP, I thought that the Camera Shake reduction might be the thing that would entice me to switch.
I have seen Adobe demo with the pink flower and that looks quite impressive. On the other hand, I heard that this tool doesn't work everytime and often introduces artifacts and too much sharpening.

I have some less than optimal images taken handheld with a long lens and wonder how effective this tool would be in fixing slight camera motion blur and ghosting.


 
Logged

Martin Kristiansen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2013, 03:12:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Generally I don't use the camera shake filter, I usually use tripods. Actually I pretty much always use tripods unless I am using the large studio camera stand.

I used it on one occasion when the client asked a model to jump and before I could adjust shutter speed she jumped, I shot and we got a great image I couldn't replicate despite trying. Problem was it had a bit of motion brur on her face hands and feet. I gave it a try with camera shake, although it wasn't technically camera shake, and it saved the shot. Paid a few months of CC subscription that image did.

It's not a bad filter at all. Has sliders for artifact suppression and so on. Also with a bit of a brain you can figure out to put it on a layer and blend back the bits you want and leave out those that are not working.

Anyway, as I said, the pen tool enhancements alone more than save me the subscription price per month.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3868


« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2013, 03:35:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I have some less than optimal images taken handheld with a long lens and wonder how effective this tool would be in fixing slight camera motion blur and ghosting.

Hi,

There are several alternatives for attempting to salvage those isolated cases. You could try DeblurMyimage.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
smahn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #18 on: October 09, 2013, 09:55:14 AM »
ReplyReply


Anyway, as I said, the pen tool enhancements alone more than save me the subscription price per month.

Could you elaborate a bit on these pen tool enhancements. My google prowess seems inadequate. Something about moving an anchor point with the space bar?
Logged
Martin Kristiansen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2013, 10:56:35 AM »
ReplyReply

It is a feature that I believe the pen tool in illustrator has had for a while. It occurs when working quickly with the pen tool that you place an anchor point a few pixels out. In the past you have have to go to the select point tool and move it into place or nudge it using the arrow keys. With the new behavior you simply hold down the space bar before dropping the point and you can move it into place. This works even if you have the anchor point by the handle.

Sounds like no big deal but as I said. Saves seconds every time and that quickly becomes minutes and hours.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad