ceder wrote:
Lightroom (or Aperture) plug-in with layers: Perfect Layers by OnOne software.
Maybe everyone does not need Photoshop...
Anyone used it??
Another approach is to link Lightroom with Photoshop Elements assuming it will remain available outside CC. Linking Elements as an editing app is described here: http://lightroomkillertips.com/?p=4876
My use of photoshop has diminished so much with the evolution of Lightroom that this is another (at least short term) option. Should Adobe do with LR what they're doing with PS, then I will consider moving to Phase One, Aperture or DxO.
There is an interesting "coincident" with the Adobe announcements.
First, they announced a new "Anti-shake feature in the cloud" : -) and followed with the Subscription only offer.
The first announcement is to get morons excited and convinced that their pictures will be always razor sharp, no matter how fuzzy they come out from the camera. After all for them it is sharpness that counts most. There are already announcements of IS technology death.
It is funny that after so many years all wizards of Adobe were unable to produce a NR feature on par with NN, NW and others, but now they'll eliminate any fuzz from our picture files : -)
This is identical to conviction by the PS maniacs that if one adds enough layers and applies enough filters any garbage will be turned into a masterpiece. There is a whole cottage industry milking profits from PS (actions, filters and other add-ons, many of them simply useless).
Once the advertising BS is flying how can people resists subscription with exclusive access to the anti-shake panacea :-)
carstenw wrote:
At this point I am more or less done with Adobe. I cannot imagine what would change my mind again. I will keep CS6 and use it until Adobe sabotages it, and then use something else. I will likely switch back to Aperture as soon as Apple makes a sign of life, like releasing version 4. Flash is coming off my main browser, and I will keep it only for emergencies in the backup browser. And that was that. It is truly disgusting what they have tried to pull here, just revolting.
What gets me is that the actual details of the CC license agreement (EULA) completely contradict the damage/ spin control things Adobe has been putting out there (all the "myths" about CC and this crap that people are misinformed and don't know what they are talking about). Adobe says one thing, the binding legal contract says another. What are they going to say now? "Oh, Trust Us... None of that stuff will happen. Our lawyers just make us put that in there". Unbelievable!
I'm no expert but I think your point about bait and switch has merit. Many folks have invested a tremendous amount in training, learning etc. and in many cases have set up their whole business based on the previous terms of the license. For Adobe to all of a sudden change the rules will have, in some cases, severe consequences to a business, individual or institution. This hubris that Schewe is spewing about relaxing (zen out) there are so many other things in the world to be concerned with is utter BS for those whose livelihood is affected.
I downloaded and tried out Piccure http://intelligentimagingsolutions.com/index.php/en/ Dose an amazing job at taking out long exposure moment. Like everything else with Adobe this product is probably better than their implementation. I don't know when I would use this other than my with my phone images.
For a while, I'll use Photoshop CS6...I already own it, and I'm not going to stop using it because I don't like the prospect for future upgrades. It's also quite a bit ahead of other editors right now. Once a competitor catches up and passes, I'll probably move to that.
I love Lightroom, and will keep using that as long as it works well and stays standalone. If they move that to cloud only, I will jump off that ship and move right to Capture One. I already own C1E 7, and it works great. Not quite as good as Lightroom in the managing and import process, but I could deal.
Jman13 wrote:
For a while, I'll use Photoshop CS6...I already own it, and I'm not going to stop using it because I don't like the prospect for future upgrades. It's also quite a bit ahead of other editors right now. Once a competitor catches up and passes, I'll probably move to that.
I love Lightroom, and will keep using that as long as it works well and stays standalone. If they move that to cloud only, I will jump off that ship and move right to Capture One. I already own C1E 7, and it works great. Not quite as good as Lightroom in the managing and import process, but I could deal. ...Show more →
Ditto - although I don't own CS6 but I hardly use CS5.5 anyway. I hope LR stays standalone but I agree, if not, Capture One provides great results if not quite as intuitive to use.
I agree that most of us will be sticking with Photoshop for a while but if Adobe continues with this we need to buy and support another product that is willing to meet the professional and amateur needs without the cloud. I don't know which program is going to do this, but for now Corel seems to do just about everything and more for a lot less money. It is slightly slower but the capabilities are usable and enjoyable. I don't know what Corel's attitude is but would be interested in hearing it. Capture one is the phenomenal program and once they sort out their library functions it will be every bit as good as light room if not better in its raw processing. Adobe has opened this door. I can't wait to see all the manufacturers jumping on this bandwagon Adobe's pricing has been astronomical and I don't see any solution for that in the future.
Scott Kelby said yesterday that during a promo for yesterday's "The Grid" on-line broadcast he would have a suggestion for Adobe execs that photographers would absolutely love. This was after he was mercilessly trashed in the comments on his blog about the CC Cloud situation. Kelby said he had a great idea and would need our help.
I did not see the broadcast. I was at work.
Did anyone see a broadcast of "The Grid" yesterday?
What was Kelby's idea? He has tremendous pull with Adobe.
Tom K. wrote:
Scott Kelby said yesterday that during a promo for yesterday's "The Grid" on-line broadcast he would have a suggestion for Adobe execs that photographers would absolutely love. This was after he was mercilessly trashed in the comments on his blog about the CC Cloud situation. Kelby said he had a great idea and would need our help.
I did not see the broadcast. I was at work.
Did anyone see a broadcast of "The Grid" yesterday?
What was Kelby's idea? He has tremendous pull with Adobe.
I saw the broadcast. I thought it was kind of a waste of time. It started out like I was afraid - Scott spent about 30 minutes crying about how the Internet bullies beat him up (he either has very thin skin for someone in his position or he was just diverting from the topic at hand or he was playing the unsung hero card with his NAPP base). There were a lot of solid comments made on his blog, of course with some insults and over-the-top accusations, but nothing like he presented it in the broadcast. He also conveniently didn't mention how there were parts of his blog post that were very snarky and condescending. When you make a post like that, you're going to get some snark in return. I don't need to hear "life isn't fair", for example.
Anyway, his big idea was for Adobe to create a stripped-down version of Photoshop more geared to photographers. He and Matt then unbelievably took the final 15 minutes starting to go feature-by-feature determining what they would want or not want. It was kind of comical. I can't see it being really feasible for Adobe in a way that would be acceptable for customers for the following reasons:
- They already have Elements. As Scott pointed out, Elements is more complex and harder to use than Photoshop in some ways but it is a product that already exists for the down-market.
- Scott and Matt started naming off all the old legacy crap that PS has that nobody uses (the old, weird filters, for example) and how Adobe could take those out. But that stuff is already developed and Adobe never updates those things anyway. It would COST Adobe to take those things out. Makes no sense.
- As became comically obvious during the last part of the show, virtually all photographers are going to say that that they can get by with a sub-set of PS features. My feeling is that you will never get them to agree on what features should be included in that subset. A lot of people are still going to be unhappy and Adobe is sure to reserve some juicy features for PS.
- Adobe is already crying about how complex things have gotten. That is their excuse for not continuing to support both CC and stand-alone products. Hard to see why they would do this.
- Unless this is something that Adobe has already started working on, how long will this new "Photoshop Lite" take to develop. A year? Two?
The idea was probably worth mentioning for a minute or two but what really disappointed me was the lack of any other suggestions. Only 5 seconds were spent on the possibility of bringing back the perpetual license in some form terminated with a condescending dismissal by Scott. Frank Doorhof and others have mentioned this alternative and it makes perfect sense to me. I replied to a thread in the Wedding Forum to that effect. All Adobe would need to do would be to continue to let CC customers continue to use the software with no further updates or cloud services. They could put constraints around that like requiring a minimum 12 months of service before your perpetual license rights kick-in. Their new continuous upgrade model actually SUPPORTS that option since they have to worry less about people jumping ship right after a yearly upgrade.
rattymouse wrote:
Three cheers to LLoyd Chambers for his scathing write up and analysis of Adobe CC's EULA. Absolutely brutal what Adobe is trying to pull.
It will be a very cold day in hell when Adobe gets $1 out of me.
Nice group of posts from Lloyd, though I did send him info on upgrading his Dreamweaver. Adobe has cleverly hidden the upgrades to CS6, you can still do it as I pointed out to a person asking about a Photoshop 6 upgrade(He meant CS6) on the Post Processing forum.
Its only available via download now and even when you get to the page it looks like you need to buy a whole new package. It is not until you select Buy that it will allow you to change it to Upgrade.
Eyeball wrote:
I saw the broadcast. I thought it was kind of a waste of time. It started out like I was afraid - Scott spent about 30 minutes crying about how the Internet bullies beat him up (he either has very thin skin for someone in his position or he was just diverting from the topic at hand or he was playing the unsung hero card with his NAPP base). There were a lot of solid comments made on his blog, of course with some insults and over-the-top accusations, but nothing like he presented it in the broadcast. He also conveniently didn't mention how there were parts of his blog post that were very snarky and condescending. When you make a post like that, you're going to get some snark in return. I don't need to hear "life isn't fair", for example.
Anyway, his big idea was for Adobe to create a stripped-down version of Photoshop more geared to photographers. He and Matt then unbelievably took the final 15 minutes starting to go feature-by-feature determining what they would want or not want. It was kind of comical. I can't see it being really feasible for Adobe in a way that would be acceptable for customers for the following reasons:
- They already have Elements. As Scott pointed out, Elements is more complex and harder to use than Photoshop in some ways but it is a product that already exists for the down-market.
- Scott and Matt started naming off all the old legacy crap that PS has that nobody uses (the old, weird filters, for example) and how Adobe could take those out. But that stuff is already developed and Adobe never updates those things anyway. It would COST Adobe to take those things out. Makes no sense.
- As became comically obvious during the last part of the show, virtually all photographers are going to say that that they can get by with a sub-set of PS features. My feeling is that you will never get them to agree on what features should be included in that subset. A lot of people are still going to be unhappy and Adobe is sure to reserve some juicy features for PS.
- Adobe is already crying about how complex things have gotten. That is their excuse for not continuing to support both CC and stand-alone products. Hard to see why they would do this.
- Unless this is something that Adobe has already started working on, how long will this new "Photoshop Lite" take to develop. A year? Two?
The idea was probably worth mentioning for a minute or two but what really disappointed me was the lack of any other suggestions. Only 5 seconds were spent on the possibility of bringing back the perpetual license in some form terminated with a condescending dismissal by Scott. Frank Doorhof and others have mentioned this alternative and it makes perfect sense to me. I replied to a thread in the Wedding Forum to that effect. All Adobe would need to do would be to continue to let CC customers continue to use the software with no further updates or cloud services. They could put constraints around that like requiring a minimum 12 months of service before your perpetual license rights kick-in. Their new continuous upgrade model actually SUPPORTS that option since they have to worry less about people jumping ship right after a yearly upgrade.
I guess I always saw Lightroom as that distilled version of Photoshop geared to photographers. LR5 promises to take that to another level with some added features . . . assuming it stays an owned standalone non-CC product.
rji2goleez wrote:
I guess I always saw Lightroom as that distilled version of Photoshop geared to photographers. LR5 promises to take that to another level with some added features . . . assuming it stays an owned standalone non-CC product.
And some people in the chat room were asking for that, too, including layers and what-not.
In an ideal world that would be great and maybe Adobe will eventually get there but I think the hurdle is going to be how to continue to include all that new functionality in what is a parametric-based, non-destructive environment. It's sort of like getting to a Photoshop that records a never-ending history of every change you made to the image (not just the last X steps and including mouse movements). If you do much extensive editing in LR, you have probably already noticed how the XMP files can start to grow significantly. So even if Adobe can overcome some of the software issues, I think advancements there may be limited by hardware (CPU and storage) performance.
You must select Buy first then it brings up a list
I want to Buy :Full
I Own : Select Product
Platform: Mac
Language: English
Delivery: Download
Quantity :1
You can change each of them except Delivery by clicking the down arrow next to each. To get upgrade click the arrow beside Full. Be sure to select the right platform and Product You own.
As I am understanding this, if you ever stop paying Adobe for the monthly subscription to the Cloud for Photoshop or if for any reason Adobe cancels your account you can never open your work again. But, I would presume that if you saved your work as completed TIFF file you could at least open it and print it with CS6 or any other software program that can read TIFF. Is this correct, or am I just wishing this to be the case?
naturephoto1 wrote:
As I am understanding this, if you ever stop paying Adobe for the monthly subscription to the Cloud for Photoshop or if for any reason Adobe cancels your account you can never open your work again. But, I would presume that if you saved your work as completed TIFF file you could at least open it and print it with CS6 or any other software program that can read TIFF. Is this correct, or am I just wishing this to be the case?
Rich
Correct, you just wouldn't have access to the CC application(s).
I am still reserving judgement about the whole deal.
I have been thinking about it and as a hobbyist I have the option of just subscribing to it on a monthly basis for $29.95 (yuck). This would allow me to just shoot for several months at a time and then edit for a month or two...just a thought.
Eyeball wrote:
I saw the broadcast. I thought it was kind of a waste of time. It started out like I was afraid - Scott spent about 30 minutes crying about how the Internet bullies beat him up (he either has very thin skin for someone in his position or he was just diverting from the topic at hand or he was playing the unsung hero card with his NAPP base). There were a lot of solid comments made on his blog, of course with some insults and over-the-top accusations, but nothing like he presented it in the broadcast. He also conveniently didn't mention how there were parts of his blog post that were very snarky and condescending. When you make a post like that, you're going to get some snark in return. I don't need to hear "life isn't fair", for example.
Anyway, his big idea was for Adobe to create a stripped-down version of Photoshop more geared to photographers. He and Matt then unbelievably took the final 15 minutes starting to go feature-by-feature determining what they would want or not want. It was kind of comical. I can't see it being really feasible for Adobe in a way that would be acceptable for customers for the following reasons:
- They already have Elements. As Scott pointed out, Elements is more complex and harder to use than Photoshop in some ways but it is a product that already exists for the down-market.
- Scott and Matt started naming off all the old legacy crap that PS has that nobody uses (the old, weird filters, for example) and how Adobe could take those out. But that stuff is already developed and Adobe never updates those things anyway. It would COST Adobe to take those things out. Makes no sense.
- As became comically obvious during the last part of the show, virtually all photographers are going to say that that they can get by with a sub-set of PS features. My feeling is that you will never get them to agree on what features should be included in that subset. A lot of people are still going to be unhappy and Adobe is sure to reserve some juicy features for PS.
- Adobe is already crying about how complex things have gotten. That is their excuse for not continuing to support both CC and stand-alone products. Hard to see why they would do this.
- Unless this is something that Adobe has already started working on, how long will this new "Photoshop Lite" take to develop. A year? Two?
The idea was probably worth mentioning for a minute or two but what really disappointed me was the lack of any other suggestions. Only 5 seconds were spent on the possibility of bringing back the perpetual license in some form terminated with a condescending dismissal by Scott. Frank Doorhof and others have mentioned this alternative and it makes perfect sense to me. I replied to a thread in the Wedding Forum to that effect. All Adobe would need to do would be to continue to let CC customers continue to use the software with no further updates or cloud services. They could put constraints around that like requiring a minimum 12 months of service before your perpetual license rights kick-in. Their new continuous upgrade model actually SUPPORTS that option since they have to worry less about people jumping ship right after a yearly upgrade.
Thank you very much Eyeball. I was hoping Kelby would have something better than the idea of a lite version of Photoshop. First and foremost Kelby is a salesman. That and being joined at the hip with Adobe takes away any potential openmindedness he could have on the issue. He's the kind of salesman that really bothers me. Slick, offering teasers constantly. It's all about his bottom line. It feels like he cares more about making money than anything else. He's not advocating for his base. I used to think he was honorable.
