bobbyrab
Well-known
The cloud has nothing to do with the using of the software, it's an extra functionality should you want to use it, I've been using cc for a year or more and haven't even looked at the cloud as I'm not interested in that particular feature. In that sense it's the same as PS and LR have always been, the raw files and resulting jpgs stay on my hard drives. I'm guessing it's a resource used by photographers working away from their base, or editing off site, as I say I haven't looked at what it does as for me it's not necessary.
At the initial announcement and price point I was dead against it and thought they'd shot themselves in the foot, but the actual price is probably less over three years than I was spending on the standalone. I see if it's a hobby it might be a bit pricey, but then a standalone legitimate copy has always been expensive which is why most folk have either the cut down version or managed to procure a dodgy copy somewhere.
Ranchu
Veteran
Excess verbiage. All you're saying is that if a person does any work on their files with Photoshop, then it's fine for Adobe to lock them out of those files if they don't pay monthly rent to Adobe for continued access to them.
There is no difference once you have a layer on your work. Now Adobe owns it, and you rent it.
"Layers are just a feature of the technology" is amusing me. Use layers = pay rent to Adobe for the privilege for the rest of your life. That's Adobe's plan. It's never going to happen in my house.
willie_901
Veteran
No... I'm saying one is not locked out of anything unless one is negligent or incompetent.
willie_901
Veteran
Except no work is done in the Cloud. Working with high-resolution files does not/can not increase bandwidth costs.
No raw files exist in Adobe's Cloud unless you elect to manually copy them there for backup, sharing or some other purpose. Except for collaborative projects I really can't think of a reason to have originals (raw) on your desktop/laptop and on Adobe's Cloud servers. Even if there were copies in the Cloud, post-production work done in LR does not access the Cloud files at all.
For completeness sake, one can optionally crop and render images in LR that were manually selected for synchronization to Adobe's CC iPad LR app. If someone decides to sync many hundreds of images, this takes bandwidth. Of course, iPad post-production work and viewing is entirely optional. I only use it for image editing (selection) and comparison.
Unavoidable dependence on the Cloud is limited to a monthly verification process and updates to new versions. The former takes minuscule bandwidth and the later requires no more bandwidth than updates for the stand-alone version.
By the way, I hate Adobe due for the hideous, nightmare they call Customer Support. But there is no other way for me to do what I need to do that compares in efficiency, diversity and economy.
Ranchu
Veteran
Yes, I know what you're saying, I just don't see much in it.
Contarama
Well-known
I use GIMP, LIGHTZONE, and since I am running a PC, Windows Photo Gallery (Vista)...I can move it from machine to machine with no impunity. It is shareware. It works for me. No time to mess around. Not even $9.99 a month. Whatever you do keep it simple. 
MaxElmar
Well-known
Mac folks have a very capable Photoshop alternative in Pixelmator. In it's latest incarnation it has CMYK proofing and 16-bit color support. It's $30 - it goes on sale for $20. It has nice integration with our old pal, Aperture, and I believe it will do the same with the Photos app, when it arrives. Add your favorite RAW converter (only if you don't like OSX RAW conversion) and you are in business.
Folks who don't want to deal with Apple software could use Photo Mechanic to organize their library.
There are alternatives.
Folks who don't want to deal with Apple software could use Photo Mechanic to organize their library.
There are alternatives.
TXForester
Well-known
GIMP is free, so that is nice if funds are limited. If you shoot RAW, then UFRaw is a free.
I know a pro that uses PS Elements.
I know a pro that uses PS Elements.
willie_901
Veteran
Pixelmator is worth every penny. I don't know if it will run with Sparrow's hardware. I hope it does.
willie_901
Veteran
Does Adobe own your layers?
Ranchu
Veteran
They own anyone's layers who rents their layers from them. That's not me, I have a freestanding copy, so the layers I make, I don't need to pay Adobe every month to use them.
Sparrow
Veteran
... I think you'er both correct in a way.
When I was working, each year I'd budget for software and support ... software was capital expenditure so if I were upgrading the multiuser version was anything up to £25,000. That went onto the balance sheet though, so it was neutral in profit and loss terms (then the IRS required software to be amortised over four or five years as I recall)
Support however was a cost of business so its an above the line item and comes straight off the P&L account, what Adobe are doing is turning one of my assets to a cost ... as I said I'm retired so other than being wrong, it doesn't effect me now.
I bought a freestanding copy of cs6 with a two machine licence ... so I'm OK for a few years now
When I was working, each year I'd budget for software and support ... software was capital expenditure so if I were upgrading the multiuser version was anything up to £25,000. That went onto the balance sheet though, so it was neutral in profit and loss terms (then the IRS required software to be amortised over four or five years as I recall)
Support however was a cost of business so its an above the line item and comes straight off the P&L account, what Adobe are doing is turning one of my assets to a cost ... as I said I'm retired so other than being wrong, it doesn't effect me now.
I bought a freestanding copy of cs6 with a two machine licence ... so I'm OK for a few years now
bobbyrab
Well-known
Do you mind me asking what you paid for it Stewart?
Sparrow
Veteran
It was around £325 as a download ... I posted a link to it a few posts back
bobbyrab
Well-known
That looks like a good deal Stewart, but you can see even at that price you're stumping up 3 years of rental cost upfront and that's without LR. If you were a LR user as well then the rental option would seem to be the cheaper option.
Sparrow
Veteran
... yep, its the principle I object to ... don't come crying to me in a few years when half your budget is spent on dozens of little rental payments that all seemed cheaper at the time
Ranchu
Veteran
It's a chilling moment
It's a chilling moment
"Its a chilling moment: A message appears on a computer screen, saying the files are encrypted and the only way to access them is by paying a ransom."
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal...ers-force-computer-users-to-make-hard-choice/
It's a chilling moment
"Its a chilling moment: A message appears on a computer screen, saying the files are encrypted and the only way to access them is by paying a ransom."
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal...ers-force-computer-users-to-make-hard-choice/
MaxElmar
Well-known
Normally, I would have to award Ranchu the "Dramatist of the Month" award for comparing an LR subscription to Russian hacker encryption ransomware. But let's just call it hyperbole for a rhetorical flourish.
