If Adobe went bankrupt tomorrow I suspect most photographers would survive...they would adapt and move on. Hell...many of us still love using film and have the know-how to revert to wet processing and will still enjoy it.
Most of us will survive quite easily on CS6 for a long time to come.....just as most of us will survive if we don't 'upgrade' our equipment for the next few years.
Most of us will be better photographers by concentrating more on upgrading our skill-set than worrying about the next product Adobe, Canon etc etc are bringing to the market and at what price.
Creativity and enthusiasm are a photographer's greatest assets.....we can work on those without paying Adobe another dollar......
BluesWest wrote:
Haven't met a photographer in years who still uses film - or would consider going back to it.
John
More than half the images I make are on film, 135 and 4x5. I also use a Canon 5D II, but find the experience of viewing my transparencies on a lightbox to be far superior to anything my calibrated wide gamut 30 inch monitor can display.
I have two Mamiya 2-1/4 X 2-1/4 twin lens reflexs sitting on the shelf above my monitor reminding me that I can always go back. Not that I really wish to. The darkroom is stored in the attic, and Toyons are still available.
Paul
simple math per to adobe:
roughly 12 month upgrade cycle with grew to 18 months. each 12 month cycle averaged about $180 per license. it then grew to 18 months and $220 per license. in recent time they pulled all upgrades (PSCS 6) from any dealers eliminating the middle man. now initial sales and upgrades are the sole right of adobe. at ~$20/mo it has upped the pricing for PSCC to $240/yr (12 month cycle) "rental".
I would actually do it at $10/mo.
I do believe this is ever so slightly out of hand.
now there have been complaints about MS and the way they do business. they started offering office 365 for $100/yr for licensed use on up to 5 machines either PC or Mac. this is all of office not a stripped down one. that I would buy into.
BluesWest wrote:
Haven't met a photographer in years who still uses film - or would consider going back to it.
John
You speak as though using film is antiquated, but it is still the best method for capturing images in certain situations - namely landscape. All you need to do is walk into one of Michael Fatali's galleries, and you'll see amazingly detailed images that are so full of life. Also, feel free to visit my website. Everything there was shot on large format film. I have digital as well, but there's something about film that is very special. I gave up digital in 2008 and went back to film. My portfolio is stronger now than ever.
I guess some people are more stressed than others about the Adobe decision.
I am still of the opinion that most photographers will not suffer if technological development (software and hardware) ended today...and we are stuck with what we have or can buy now.
In ten years there might be a problem...but I won't have one personally if my computer is still functioning as it is today...and my cameras as well.
One might argue this move is a good thing if it causes photographers to examine what they really need to be good photographers and whether they realize how much they have been seduced by the continual 'upgrade' message......clearly promoted by the manufacturers...suggesting that the only road to improvement is new gear or software!!
Those of us that are familiar with and value film are probably the least stressed in all this!!
Camperjim wrote:
It seems obvious that Adobe is not interested in a "reward" for recent customers. The Adobe plan seems to mean taking advantage of their monopoly to get as much money as possible.
I would not call their approach "lame", just greedy.
I would not completely say it is greed. Microsoft has been experiencing the same issue with its Office line of products. They are at office 2012 now. Companies are no longer seeing the need to upgrade the office suite every two years because their current version, say 2010 does everything a company may need. So what once was a big revenue generator just does not draw in the money stream for Microsoft. Microsoft has toyed with the idea of a subscription based product. The bottom line is a subscription based model produces a revenue stream that is easier to predict and maintain.
The greed part comes in play now for adobe. Adobe can get away with it because of competing products cannot do what photoshop offers. With Microsoft there are other options and we see that for them it is a slower transition to this model.
dan727 wrote:
I would not completely say it is greed. Microsoft has been experiencing the same issue with its Office line of products. They are at office 2012 now. Companies are no longer seeing the need to upgrade the office suite every two years because their current version, say 2010 does everything a company may need.
This is going to be a big problem for a lot of software companies soon i think. Software packages are hitting true maturity, and when they do the need to upgrade for functionality and performance changes into a need to upgrade for compatibility (with new computers, Operating Systems, Cameras etc). It is obvious that Adobe is struggling with the "what do we do next?" question and has plumped down on the most obvious solution - force users to keep paying in order maintain revenue.
The other obvious solution is perhaps not so palatable - semi-retire the software and have users pay a reduced fee on a longer product cycle to pay for bug fixes, compatibility with new hardware and OS's and maybe the odd new feature.The problem with this solution is that they then need to innovate in some way to maintain their current level of income, and for companies like MS and Adobe, with several mature packages serving a broad range of sectors, this is not at all easy.
Camperjim wrote:
Rather than think "man, Adobe is amazing, we're lucky to have this software" maybe it is time to think about what photography would be like without Photoshop. ....
There are alturnatives to PC. Some of them are simple but others like "Gimp" are large and powerful programs.
Why not use "Gimp"? The price is right. Is there something you need it can't do.
For that matter Adobe PS Elements does just about everything a photographer needs.
I would argue that there are alternatives to Photoshop but they come in a spread of packages as plug-ins and stand alone apps.....I did a bit of analysis recently and was surprised at how little I used PS...other than as an anchor package from which to dip into other applications. I am not a PS 'power user' and probably use maybe 10% of what is in CS6....if that....when added to what the plug-ins can do.
I could probably use LR4 in much the same way...and does anyone here think the other imaging software companies are not going to capitalize on this situation big time?...I can envisage hundreds of thousands of PS users looking for alternatives in the near future....all potential new customers for someone!!
Still...bosses at Adobe has presumably thought this through....and have decided that shedding truckloads of loyal customers makes financial sense.
Danny Michael wrote:
It's taken Photoshop 20 years to get where it is. No one is going to change that any time soon, unfortunately.
I disagree......if you look at all the stuff in PS that is rarely needed by photographers...look at what is already 'out there' from other companies...then throw in a major incentive to developers (huge numbers of Adobe customers looking for an alternative)...I thing the future is far from dire. It might have taken Adobe 20 yrs to get to where it is now...but it will take modern programmers a lot less time to come up with alternatives.
At worst, people will have to learn some new processes.....and even that will be some time in the future for anyone already running current Adobe products. I still have CS3 on my old G4...it is slow but it works...and I bought that computer ten yrs ago this month. Anyone with CS6 on a new computer should have a similar period of time to find an alternative....should they need one.
Not just photographers use Photoshop. Some of us actually use the application for more than Photoshop 101. Like I said, no one is even close to Photoshop, nor will they be in the future. If you only need a small fraction of the tools, then get Elements.
Danny Michael wrote:
Not just photographers use Photoshop. Some of us actually use the application for more than Photoshop 101. Like I said, no one is even close to Photoshop, nor will they be in the future. If you only need a small fraction of the tools, then get Elements.
Strange thing to say as this is a site for photographers and the comments are directed at how this will impact on them....and whether they (photographers) have alternatives to move to.
As for downgrading to Elements...I own a m/bike that will effortlessly cruise at double the UK National Speed Limit although I rarely go above the limit (being law abiding!!).....but have no intention of buying something that will only cruise at 70MPH max...because it is 'all I need'.
