Bruce n Philly wrote:
Hmmm... Some ruminations.... Typical greed approach of executives when product matures and market position is dominant....
What Adobe may be missing here, is American (and the world?) sourness on corporate and political greed. We were just rammed up the .%$#$ by the "system" we trusted and watched our savings and property devalue. Some of us lost our careers. Only now are we pulling out of this recession. So now, Adobe is behaving like the rest of the greedy lot.
Bruce in Philly
Spot on Bruce. It's a different world now. A huge part of the population has been absolutely devastated by the past several years. People have lost a lot, some their lives over financial ruin (our poor friend here at FM, rest his soul).
I am lucky in that I survived the financial crisis intact, but with a new perspective of how corporations are targeting people in every way possible to extract more cash to line their pockets.
No way, no how will I let Adobe pull this crap on me. Renting software? You have to be out of your mind.
Not one more dollar will Adobe get out of me. I'm a LONG time Photoshop user and have bought and paid for every single version of Lightroom since day 1. Until the CC announcement, I was pretty ambivalent about Adobe. Now, I hate them more than words can say. Their brazen greed is staggering.
May their fall be steep, fast, and may they hit the ground very hard.
We all are so used to Adobe it will be difficult to use other software for our work, but it is essential we try. Personally Capture One has turned out as quite a surprise in it's ability to produce superior results. Capture one did take some getting used to and still has some minor bugs. What I've enjoyed the most was actually using a new workflow, I think Lightroom was lulling me to sleep. I believe Capture One will inevitably be much better than Lightroom if they can evolve the library and rendering system just a little bit. Even more difficult to get used to was a Photoshop replacement but even there I'm enjoying the process. Corel's paint shop Pro has some incredible features and if it wasn't for its 32-bit processing it would be perfect. I think Corel is on the verge of releasing a version 6 that is now in a trimmed down version in their Corel draw six package. If you try the Corel draw image editing feature you'll be amazed at how fast it is which is a hallmark of the 64-bit program. Hopefully they have the foresight to rush this through to all the professionals they can find. GIMP is another surprise that seems to handle almost all the tasks of Photoshop and is totally cross platform. If more people donate and support programs like GIMP there could be real progress made. What I am finding out is that if Lightroom and Photoshop went away I have plenty of alternatives and there is no need to panic. The reality of Photoshop is that as a photographer I feel I'm doing way too much image manipulation anyways. At least for me I think it's time to revert to the purity of producing images without post processing manipulation.
Dennis: Check out Media Pro for the Library functions you are missing in CaptureOne. PhaseOne's solution is two coupled apps rather than a single do-everything app.
Personally I'm looking at Media Pro/CaptureOne as one solution and Corel Aftershot Pro (Bibble Pro). Right now Aftershot is winning, mostly due to my preference for it over Media Pro as I do prefer C1's conversions
Thanks for the heads up, I will give them a try! Didn't even cross my mind to try Media Pro. I used to use Bibble Pro a long time ago but found it a little illogical and buggy.
I would have to agree with this, to a degree, as I am finding the JPEG output from my FujiFilm X-E1 to be very pleasant.
While the output from my Canon 5DMkII actually needs processing somewhat.
I find that I actually like to perform post work, and after spending time all these years, and all this monies on PS, Adobe now saying PS is NOT for photography.
I find this ludicrous.
I just hope more "professionals" come out against Adobe.
And I would LOVE to see some internal Adobe employees condemning these extortion announcements.
Though, I don't actually think anyone will.
Shame, mismanagement destroys another useful product.
I sincerely hope too, that the camera manufacturers develop their in camera algorithms to actually do more than the simple scene type adjustments, if not supply better supporting softwares.
Sony is supposed to be outing a new JPEG "engine" soon in their gear.
Happy Shooting!
dennishh wrote:
The reality of Photoshop is that as a photographer I feel I'm doing way too much image manipulation anyways. At least for me I think it's time to revert to the purity of producing images without post processing manipulation.
"I find that I actually like to perform post work"
I also like to do post work and produce the best images possible from my clients. Unfortunately almost all my clients take advantage of this. Most of the time even when I'm billing a substantial amount for digital it doesn't seem like it's enough. If Adobe is successful with this ridiculous ripoff scheme it's time for all photographers to start charging more for digital manipulation and image storage. Adobe's has thrown a pebble in the pond that's now a ripple and most assuredly will turn into a tsunami.
Be VERY careful with Gimp or you will download a heap of other trash you do not want. Attached to their download are at least another four programs that will change all your browser settings, easy to get rid of but Gimp ought to be up front and give an option.
If they do it now and get away with it, who knows what they will do in the future.
dennishh wrote:
"I find that I actually like to perform post work"
I also like to do post work and produce the best images possible from my clients. Unfortunately almost all my clients take advantage of this. Most of the time even when I'm billing a substantial amount for digital it doesn't seem like it's enough. If Adobe is successful with this ridiculous ripoff scheme it's time for all photographers to start charging more for digital manipulation and image storage. Adobe's has thrown a pebble in the pond that's now a ripple and most assuredly will turn into a tsunami.
This has been a MAJOR issue since the transition from analog to digital. We started taking on the work that was traditionally done by labs, retouchers and even designers in some cases. Shoot analog film and you have an automatic archive of the work due to the medium. With digital, a lot more time, work and hardware is required - and not just once but over time since systems must be updated and upgraded to ensure the integrity of the archive. Often this is difficult to bill for with smaller clients since they somehow perceive it as "intangible" or even expected as part of the photographers job. I always suggest that if it's not possible to charge for everything, at least itemize it on the bill with a "gratis" or discount so the client at least knows it's something they should be paying for. Educating clients is a big part of the job.
Well for me, this is a hobby that I have decided to focus on.
I don't perform paid work, I do it for free.
I even give free matted prints, that *I* print, on my gear.
Stupid me? Shrug.
Anywho, the point for me, is, this is my entertainment, this is my down time/relaxation.
And now, this is trying to be taken away from me.
Not downplaying the "professional" paid for work people, as this will take away from them also.
However, being seen as I am NOT a "professional", Adobe wants to strip PS as NOT being for amateurs.
And "we" have no voice, nor say in the matter.
This is totally callused arrogance!
I get so mad, that I sincerely hope it ruins them.
Happy Shooting!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This has been a MAJOR issue since the transition from analog to digital. We started taking on the work that was traditionally done by labs, retouchers and even designers in some cases. Shoot analog film and you have an automatic archive of the work due to the medium. With digital, a lot more time, work and hardware is required - and not just once but over time since systems must be updated and upgraded to ensure the integrity of the archive. Often this is difficult to bill for with smaller clients since they somehow perceive it as "intangible" or even expected as part of the photographers job. I always suggest that if it's not possible to charge for everything, at least itemize it on the bill with a "gratis" or discount so the client at least knows it's something they should be paying for. Educating clients is a big part of the job. ...Show more →
dennishh wrote:
I also like to do post work and produce the best images possible from my clients. Unfortunately almost all my clients take advantage of this. Most of the time even when I'm billing a substantial amount for digital it doesn't seem like it's enough. If Adobe is successful with this ridiculous ripoff scheme it's time for all photographers to start charging more for digital manipulation and image storage. Adobe's has thrown a pebble in the pond that's now a ripple and most assuredly will turn into a tsunami.
buggz2k wrote:
I find that I actually like to perform post work,
Yes, it's a really short term, short sighted move by Adobe. Today's student or amateur/ hobbyist may at some point be a product influencer. How many will be promoting Adobe software down the road?
+1 this.
I have actually promoted Adobe software to many others, especially LightRoom, not any longer.
I am now at the point of NOT purchasing ANYTHING PS related, and I have a LOT, scripts, plug-ins, tutorials, books, DVDs, etc.
Just think of all these people, wow.
On another forum there is mention of "Free 24 hour trial to NAPP (National Association of Photoshop Professionals) "
I always wanted to join, but not now.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yes, it's a really short term, short sighted move by Adobe. Today's student or amateur/ hobbyist may at some point be a product influencer. How many will be promoting Adobe software down the road?
buggz2k wrote:
And now, this is trying to be taken away from me.
I'm curious what's being taken away from you? One could potentially use whatever version of PS one now uses, or update to version CS6, and have the same functionality as always. If one doesn't want to buy into Adobe's subscription CC versions, don't.
Raw conversions from future cameras could be handled with the free Adobe DNG converter, or by using the same Adobe Raw engine contained in Lightroom, a program Adobe has indicated will remain boxed software.
Adobe hasn't said that LR will remain boxed software, they have only said that they have no plan to make it CC only. They have also said that there will be a CC version of LR, which will have more features. Of course they could make such a plan any time, it is clear that we cannot rely on them to not do so.
Personally I will not upgrade or buy software from a vendor who I don't trust to at least a certain extent, and Adobe is no longer among them. They will not get any more money from me.
Yes, I understand this.
I have CS6 and many things for it.
Just no more upgrades because I am an unfit loyal customer.
grahamb3 wrote:
I'm curious what's being taken away from you? One could potentially use whatever version of PS one now uses, or update to version CS6, and have the same functionality as always. If one doesn't want to buy into Adobe's subscription CC versions, don't.
Raw conversions from future cameras could be handled with the free Adobe DNG converter, or by using the same Adobe Raw engine contained in Lightroom, a program Adobe has indicated will remain boxed software.
carstenw wrote:
Adobe hasn't said that LR will remain boxed software, they have only said that they have no plan to make it CC only. They have also said that there will be a CC version of LR, which will have more features.
What practical difference does your distinction make to my original statement regarding LR? Adobe will continue a boxed Lightroom.
Q. Will there be a different version of Lightroom called Lightroom CC?
A. No.
Q. Will there be features of Lightroom 5 that are exclusive to Creative Cloud members?
A. No.
The hyperbole being spun on the subject is great fun to watch. People are really excited, in fact enraged, and in those moments don't think rationally.
Everyone, take a breath, relax...go use your existing PS for the next 6 months and see what actually transpires.
I personally believe we'll see and enhanced Lightroom/elements being released that will not be part of CC. It won't have everything PS has, but should meet the majority of people post processing needs. If you need the power of PS, then you need to sign up to the subscription or if you are really daring...switch to Gimp.
Personally, if I am a professional delivering products to clients, I would rather put my neck into the Adobe noose than wander blindly into the Gimp merry-go-round.
buggz2k wrote:
Yes, I understand this.
I have CS6 and many things for it.
Just no more upgrades because I am an unfit loyal customer.
That's your choice.
Like most people, I would like to pay as little as possible for the items I consume. That said, I understand that through inflation, goods are more likely to appreciate in price than depreciate. The 70-200 f/2.8 lens one purchased new 5 years ago for $1,600 now sells for $2,400. No matter how long one has been a customer of the camera company (a loyal customer), that new lens will still cost $2,400.
Perhaps there wouldn't have been the backlash against Adobe's subscription model if they had first raised the price of their boxed software. Slap on a 50% increase (maybe over the course of a year or so), then offer the subscription model at a "bargain" price.
There's many things I can't justify. I don't use a smartphone (my cell runs <$10 per month). I don't drive a new vehicle (my 10 year old pickup with <50,000 miles still runs like a top). The $32 per month Adobe charges me for the CC this year will increase to ~$50 next year. That doesn't faze me. At less than $2 per day (at the $50 per month rate), it's an expense I can justify.
