JP Owens
Well-known
I don't understand the reluctance to Adobe's subscription plans. I have the full CC subscription because I use many of their programs, but you can get Lightroom, Photoshop and 20TB of cloud storage for $10 per month now. Seems like a steal for $120 dollars a year. Constant updates to the software is just a bonus. I can't understand people who own $6,000 dollar cameras complaining about $10 a month.
michaelwj
----------------
Because you then own the camera and don't have to pay all the time. You can also sell it. I don't have a problem with $10/month only if when I don't want anymore upgrades I can still use the product. As it stands, you could sink 10 years of subscription and then have a tough month, mis a payment, and then what? What happens to your 20TB of cloud storage? What about the images you were working on?
I bought LR 5 when it came out as an academic staff member for $99. I also have CS6 through the same scheme which cost me ~$45. $10 a month for the rest of my photography life? No thanks.
On the other hand, if I was in the business getting it an subscription would be a no brainier.
Merlijn53
Established
robert blu
quiet photographer
100% agree, as satisfied user of it. It's more or less equivalent of a roll of film...
robert
FranZ
Established
This choice has nothing to do with perceiving the value of SW, just plain economics.
Please check my calculations?
I live in Europe, where the prices are a bit higher than in the US.
I just checked and I upgraded to LR 6 in september 2015 for € 75.
I don't use Photoshop, just LR and the monthly CC fee is €12.09
subscription would have costed me 27 * €12,09 = €326,43
Why would I spent €250 more to get approx. the same?
(and I still can keep using the SW as long as I don't buy unsupported camera's)
btw; Did you notice the stock value of Adobe? this move to monthly rent is a goldmine for them. In two years time it rose from US$ 100 to US$180. . . . .
Please check my calculations?
I live in Europe, where the prices are a bit higher than in the US.
I just checked and I upgraded to LR 6 in september 2015 for € 75.
I don't use Photoshop, just LR and the monthly CC fee is €12.09
subscription would have costed me 27 * €12,09 = €326,43
Why would I spent €250 more to get approx. the same?
(and I still can keep using the SW as long as I don't buy unsupported camera's)
btw; Did you notice the stock value of Adobe? this move to monthly rent is a goldmine for them. In two years time it rose from US$ 100 to US$180. . . . .
Bill Clark
Veteran
Well, for me subscription is not my cup of tea.
I bought CS4 in either late 2008 or early 2009 for around $200.00 for the upgrade DVD.
If my math is correct, I’ve owned CS4 for around 108 months.
108 times ten bucks is a lot more than 200 or 250 bucks.
Of course Monte used to call me “cheapie!”
At any rate, different strokes....
I bought CS4 in either late 2008 or early 2009 for around $200.00 for the upgrade DVD.
If my math is correct, I’ve owned CS4 for around 108 months.
108 times ten bucks is a lot more than 200 or 250 bucks.
Of course Monte used to call me “cheapie!”
At any rate, different strokes....
ptpdprinter
Veteran
If you find that CC does not provide value, then don't use it. Others do find value in up to date software, particularly where they are users of both LR and PS.
cz23
-
I'm still on PS4 as well. Once LR came out, I used PS less and less with every LR release.
The only concern I have is that, when I occasionally do open an image in PS from LR, I'm using a very old raw engine. Not sure if that matters, but I sometimes wonder.
I'll likely give the new product a try, more out of curiosity, but I'm pretty content with the LR/Silver Efex combo.
John
froyd
Veteran
I echo Franz'z feelings: $3 a month would be closer to what I spend currently for LR: $80 purchase price, with a 2-3 year upgrade cycle.
However, for me, it goes beyod economics. Even at $1 a month, I'd resist the concept of renting software. If Adobe gave me a choice of paying $1 a month, $12 one-time payment for the whole year, and $30 to buy the program outright, I'd go for the $30.
Additionally, I dislike the whole concept of bundling. Obviously it's very profitable, but as a customer I'd prefer to just get LR if that all I need. In America TV service provides use the same scheme to charge extra for essentially one or two worthwhile channels, padding the offer with a dozen worthless channels. Thank goodness supermarkets don't work the same way!
However, for me, it goes beyod economics. Even at $1 a month, I'd resist the concept of renting software. If Adobe gave me a choice of paying $1 a month, $12 one-time payment for the whole year, and $30 to buy the program outright, I'd go for the $30.
Additionally, I dislike the whole concept of bundling. Obviously it's very profitable, but as a customer I'd prefer to just get LR if that all I need. In America TV service provides use the same scheme to charge extra for essentially one or two worthwhile channels, padding the offer with a dozen worthless channels. Thank goodness supermarkets don't work the same way!
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Anyone watched the video on the Photo Rumours link?
It appears to be a really efficient way of delivering horrible looking fakey photos.
It appears to be a really efficient way of delivering horrible looking fakey photos.
willie_901
Veteran
I also refuse to use an off-site server and "keep n stuff in house".
I also happen to use LR CC every day.
willie_901
Veteran
PKR
Veteran
The forum is just a software package, server time and web access (sans the mods and environment created). The value here is in the content. It's actually stated at the bottom of every page: "All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner"
Not taking anything from Stephen. Look at the traffic here vs other photo related sites.
As with things like EBay, if there weren't any sellers, EBay would not exist.
Photo Software is a tool, no different than your camera, computer or printing consumables. It has value and wouldn't be created, in most cases, if it wasn't profitable. In the case of Adobe, their business model for their subscription products includes owing all the imagery that is passed into their web system. I want no part of that business model.
chris000
Landscaper
PKR
Veteran
See post #31 and beyond.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2763220#post2763220
X
RichyD
Established
Yes, I came across Luminar a week or so ago and downloaded the trial but I can't get it to run. Looking at their website for help all I could see was examples of extreme digital manipulation, not what I am looking for, so have been put off.
I was looking for an alternative to Lightroom and Photoshop but all the better alternatives seem to be Windows only (iMatch, which I used 13 years ago, and Paintshop Pro) so will probably end up upgrading to LR6 anyway and see if anything complete comes along.
PKR
Veteran
From Mike Johnston at TOP
"• Annoyed at Adobe? What Michael Reichmann called "the Photoshop tax" seems to some people to be getting more onerous. With the latest shift in Lightroom to a CC (Creative Cloud) monthly subscription model, it's not hard to foresee a future in which you're consigned to storing your own archive not on your own hard drive (or not only on your own hard drive), but on the amorphous "cloud." Where, of course, your pictures will be safe in perpetuity, we say sarcastically."
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html
X
"• Annoyed at Adobe? What Michael Reichmann called "the Photoshop tax" seems to some people to be getting more onerous. With the latest shift in Lightroom to a CC (Creative Cloud) monthly subscription model, it's not hard to foresee a future in which you're consigned to storing your own archive not on your own hard drive (or not only on your own hard drive), but on the amorphous "cloud." Where, of course, your pictures will be safe in perpetuity, we say sarcastically."
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html
X
krötenblender
Well-known
For an alternative to PS: Did you look into Affinity? I have not much experience with PS, but I have Affinity and think, it is a solid program. Many reviewers say, it is a good alternative to PS.
For the features of LR: I think, currently the mix of functions is more or less unique, although you can puzzle them together with several programs. But this approach is then missing the good integration - which IMHO is the main selling point until now for LR. The important parts are well integrated and you have a more or less consistent workflow for everything. For each single feature, there are several competitors, that do it better, but they all lack the integration of the right feature-mix.
I use LR since quite some time, but always wasn't very happy with many decisions by Adobe. I accept the reasons, why people think, the subscription-model is acceptable or even an advantage for them. I, humbly, don't care, I just don't like it. For many reasons.
That is, why I started to build my own DAM. - First step, DAM only, but with a simple SW-architecture that focuses on flexibility and expandability. So maybe later I add other features , that I think, I need or want. - Since I'm a computer scientist and software-engineer (started programming over 30 years ago, studied computer science and have been a professional in this area for nearly 20 years now), I think, I know what I'm doing and what I will be able to achieve alone and where I will need help.
It will start small, but watch me, Adobe...
Suggestion welcome...
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I'm wondering about a few things:
- Free upgrades sounds nice, but can you decide not to have them in CC?
- If you can refrain from updating, will 'older versions' of CC be supported indefinitely by Adobe?
- Is there a locally-stored catalog file in CC, like in stand-alone LR?
f16sunshine
Moderator
For an alternative to PS: Did you look into Affinity? I have not much experience with PS, but I have Affinity and think, it is a solid program. Many reviewers say, it is a good alternative to PS.
For the features of LR: I think, currently the mix of functions is more or less unique, although you can puzzle them together with several programs. But this approach is then missing the good integration - which IMHO is the main selling point until now for LR. The important parts are well integrated and you have a more or less consistent workflow for everything. For each single feature, there are several competitors, that do it better, but they all lack the integration of the right feature-mix.
I use LR since quite some time, but always wasn't very happy with many decisions by Adobe. I accept the reasons, why people think, the subscription-model is acceptable or even an advantage for them. I, humbly, don't care, I just don't like it. For many reasons.
That is, why I started to build my own DAM. - First step, DAM only, but with a simple SW-architecture that focuses on flexibility and expandability. So maybe later I add other features , that I think, I need or want. - Since I'm a computer scientist and software-engineer (started programming over 30 years ago, studied computer science and have been a professional in this area for nearly 20 years now), I think, I know what I'm doing and what I will be able to achieve alone and where I will need help.
It will start small, but watch me, Adobe...
Suggestion welcome...
Go for it!
I like Affinity and have been using it for negative Scan touch up and RAW conversions.
If it had a seamless catalog that would be great. (ala aperture or better)
Build one for affinity please!
I fully support this.