What surprises me in this conversation is how snarky some of the posts are. And how exactly does putting someone else down facilitate conversation? I would expect that from teenagers but I doubt those in this thread who contributed to the nastiness can claim that excuse. Grow up folks, most of us are adults here. It IS possible to disagree without becoming disagreeable.
GOVA wrote:
I find it almost comical that people cry about $100-$1000 upgrades don't happen very often while most of them pay $2000+ per month for rent/taxes/mortgage.
Well don't forget, they also complain when a customer of theirs, thinks they charge too much just to take a picture.
I can see how it kind of sucks for some, but personally, the new policy doesn't bother me. I upgrade each version anyway. I figure if I'm going to spend thousands on the gear, I want to make sure I'm getting the most from my post processing.
GOVA wrote:
I find it almost comical that people cry about $100-$1000 upgrades don't happen very often while most of them pay $2000+ per month for rent/taxes/mortgage.
Try living in a CS5 box. Let us know how that works out, okay?
So no one used NX2 anymore to convert from Raw? I still do that, and bring the tiff into CS5 to work with. So I am not really bothered by this. The Camera Raw editor has really gotten more powerful through the years, but for me, NX2 works great.
Many companies do software upgrades. There are a billion supporting examples out there. Adobe is just locking down their policy more. Do I like it? Not really. I don't jump on the must have CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5, CSx... bandwagon as they don't change enough between versions to make it worth my money generally and Photoshop pricing is quite a bit more than Lightroom pricing so the comparison is a bit flat.
As a working photog you look at all costs, this is just another one that is going up. A lot of us still burn a bit from the increase in glass prices from Nikon so it's one more on the fire. That said, it's not the end of the world. You budget for it. You raise your prices to cover your cost of doing business. You move on.
If you hate it that bad, there are alternatives to Photoshop out there.
I agree with CGrindahl as well, no use flaming someone because they complain about the pricing. $500 to one person is different than $500 to someone else because of different financial situations, etc etc.
Buying CSx is a lot like upgrading a camera body... I think lot would agree that you don't just upgrade the body every time a new one comes out, especially if what it's offering isn't something you're that interested in.
You're also right that comparing LR to PS isn't really the same since one is 3x as expensive. That being said, LR2 to LR3 was at least a fairly substantial update. I haven't yet seen anything on what LR4 might give.
I also like Steve Perry's comments. If you're spending thousands on Nikon gear [as we all do if we're shooting pro Nikon stuff] we should make sure we're getting every penny back on the back side with post processing which is sometimes almost as important as what you did on the front end! I've seen too many great photos ruined by horrible post processing.
This also gets into the "invest in the photographer" theme as well [see Thom Hogan for refs] but I am getting off topic now.
Adobe has a monster of a creative image program that is reliable and, generally, bug free. It got that way because they sold PhotoShop. You cannot develop this kind of a program as freeware. To listen to some on this forum Adobe would be developing separate upgrades for RAW converters for 5 year old programs-versions for free.
Recently I got into digital Music recording. The Big Dog program there is Pro Tools by AVID. Their stripped program (Pro Tools 9) cost $600 (their version of Elements?). It is very buggy and stops recording for many reasons (that means a live recording session crashes).
Just 6 months out of the gate AVID released a new version (Pro Tools 10) which advertised to be better (fixes issues already know for some time) than the previous version (naturally). The upgrade was $300 (really a patch with a few new features) it also crashes/stops recording-but more often. We are really lucky to have Adobe's Photoshop!
SoundHound, my question is this: How much do you think it cost Adobe to create CS5 (not including previous development costs for CS4)
While I do agree to an extent that their software is top notch (kinda comes with being in the business since forever) the cost of development is likely nowhere near what they make on it; especially given that Adobe generally doesn't rely on retailers to sell their software (meaning they make most of the cost as profit rather than sharing it with the retailer).
KAJed wrote:
SoundHound, my question is this: How much do you think it cost Adobe to create CS5 (not including previous development costs for CS4)
While I do agree to an extent that their software is top notch (kinda comes with being in the business since forever) the cost of development is likely nowhere near what they make on it; especially given that Adobe generally doesn't rely on retailers to sell their software (meaning they make most of the cost as profit rather than sharing it with the retailer).
What it cost to create is irrelevant to you the consumer. They must make a profit.
If your selling your images do you let your customer tell you how much you can make? You set your prices by what is fair market price. If you set to high you don't sell. To low and you go broke.
Photoshop is near the top of the best seller list. Must be a good value for what it is.
Wonder how many working photographers send their customers new updated albums for free when they learn better ways to PP ??
What it costs to me is absolutely relevant. The same issue exists to me for sending text messages. If you don't have a plan they can cost you $0.25 each. But for the provider to send them costs them closer to $0.00001 giving you a 25000% markup. This matters to me as a consumer.
The problem with Photoshop is that it really is DAMN good. There's no other VIABLE option (IMO, I've tried the Gimp and I just can't take some of the things it does differently). It is for all intents and purposes a monopoly on the product (just like ProTools). They get to set their price and the people that can afford it will.
Keep in mind I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate here. If I had the money to upgrade with every new version I absolutely would, but I'd still think it's overpriced.
CGrindahl wrote:
What surprises me in this conversation is how snarky some of the posts are. And how exactly does putting someone else down facilitate conversation? I would expect that from teenagers but I doubt those in this thread who contributed to the nastiness can claim that excuse. Grow up folks, most of us are adults here. It IS possible to disagree without becoming disagreeable.
+1 agreed. Seems like some use the forum to vent their shortcomings from behind electronic walls....
You are sooooooo right.!!! They should give the software away.! 
