Lightroom and Elements (Page 3): Agree :sm24:...

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

bsprague wrote:

Buy something else! Adobe doesn't need your money... (show quote)

Agree

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

selmslie wrote:

I'm sure Adobe is happy to have loyal customers wh... (show quote)

Only Adobe forces you to upgrade your software if you buy a new camera? That is not accurate. DXO PhotoLab also doesn't support new cameras in older versions, and I believe Capture One Pro is the same. I suspect there are also others. With regard to software updates and using the most current version, for some of us at least, it is important and very desirable. I'm a power user of Microsoft Office, and use it professionally. As a result I want the latest improvements and collaborative functionality, especially with Microsoft Excel and PowerPoint. For those that don't need or want that, older versions of Office may meet their needs and more. Most users barely scratch the surface of the available functionality. Its the same for Post Processing software. I no longer use Adobe products but I always want my preferred software to be up to date with the latest features which I always use to my advantage. For those who are happy not to upgrade, and don't see a need for new functionality, Adobe is no longer a choice for them unless, like you, they have older standalone versions.

dave.m

i resisted the subscription model for Photoshop / Lightroom CC since it came in. Like many of those here, I actually paid for upgrades every couple of years or so.

But CS6 is now well out of date wrt to camera RAW. As mentioned many people are completely happy with JPEG, but long experience at work before retiring, and as an keen amateur photographer since, is that I work in the most 'complete' data format until the very last. JPEG has been clipped significantly before the data even leaves the camera. RAW hasn't so when I've messed up the exposure or the white balance, it is significantly easier and definitely more realistic to fix from RAW.

With the black Friday deal this year I finally succumbed to upgrade my PS/LR and could kick myself for not doing it sooner (even at the $1=£1 'conversion' across the Atlantic.) No more farting around converting RAW to PSD to use with CS6 and having to do everything and then sort, rate, and tidy up the 'keepers'. With Lightroom classic CC the import job is easy.

I typically scrap 60-70% of my images, develop most of the rest quickly in LR to export as JPEG, and a small proportion are worthy of the effort of export to PS for refined editing.

With LR CC classic (ie NOT the online LR part of the subscription) on a compact laptop, I can rate a day's images with [ctrl] up or down arrow in a very short time and have effectively identified 'deletes' (down arrow), 'maybe's (do nothing), and definite keepers (up arrow). I also colour code a group of images (for a panorama, or exposure blending say.) A daily backup of LR catalog and where I saved the data using Microsoft Synctoy to a 256GB usb and I have 3 copies before evening meal (original card, on Laptop, and 256GB USB.) And at end of the trip export to my desktop at home for final finishing - some with PS CC, - to Photo album.

In the end my view was £10 a month was small given the huge timesaving I achieved with my workflow - instead of a shedload of images to review, sort, rate etc etc at the end of a trip, I get home with that done. For me, with my workflow, it actually put back a bit more fun into my hobby by removing a chore - and all for less than a pint of beer a week :)

That's not to say I like the subscription model at all, but understand why it came about. Also for me the Adobe cloud part of the subscription is completely disabled as I have no use for it. And if I only had time for using my camera occasionally, took a small number of images, then the cost may well be considered too high. I saw an article once - no idea how they found out - that there were many more pirated copies of PS about that purchased, so probably the same reason that Microsoft use subscription for Office 365? I wonder how many who complain about Adobe subscription model are upset 'cos there are no later ripoffs for there latest camera RAW :) ?

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

richandtd wrote:

Due to my refusal to pay the monthly tax that Adobe wants to charge my system which currently has the stand alone Lightroom 6 installed will have Elements 19 when it gets here. I’ve read all the wonderful positive remarks about the monthly tax but I just can not justify continually paying Adobe. Personally I think it is a money grabber game that Adobe has gone to. Anyway just ranting about what I consider an unnecessary tax.

I always find remarks like this ironic (if not outright silly) - I mean, if you shoot with a 5 year old point and shoot pocket camera then do what you do. But if you've spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on camera gear (and a computer to go with it) and want to whine about the monthly subscription fee for a software suite that that used to cost $600+ on the perpetual license schema then get by all means something else. If your skillset or needs don't include the newer features that software makers put into their products there is no sense in getting anything new.

Know this, though - the subscription model is hardly unique to Adobe. Microsoft is doing it with their high end business software - what used to be called Navision and Axapta (later Dynamics NAV and Dynamics AX) and sold for multi millions of dollars (Axapta competes with the likes of SAP and Oracle ERP) - they changed the names to "Dynamics for Enterprise" and some other stupid names (much like Adobe made their ridiculous name changes to LR) but businesses that want to obtain this software pay a few hundred dollars per user per month (again, as opposed to $5M outright plus a 15-18%/year support contract fee). For the software company, the steady stream of monthly income is a desirable alternative to the unknowable revenue stream that comes from random individual purchases.

But by all means don't use Adobe's stuff - there's plenty of other programs out there, many of which are quite good.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

richandtd wrote:

So with the subscription based you have to be on line for it to work and living in the country or traveling with my camper maxing out my hotspot via my phone is out of the question. .

In case you have been off the grid for a year or more you first statement is only true for LR CC (the somewhat newer limited cloud version). For LR Classic CC you do NOT have to be connected to the internet but once every month or so to verify your license.

Dave Sr Loc: Nazareth, Pennsylvania

As an amateur photographer I pay my $10 to Adobe each month and use LR to keep my photos organized, accessible, and well processed. Rarely do I spend less than 5 hours in a week working with LR. If I go to a movie for 2-3 hours, it costs me $10 or more. In terms of entertainment value, $10 to Adobe per month is a good value.

scubadoc Loc: Sarasota, FL

Unless things have changed since I last read a EULA, even if you “purchase” a stand alone version of Lightroom, or Photoshop, or any other software for that matter, you don’t own it. You have purchased a license which gives you the right to use the developers software on their terms. Purchasing a license does not require the developer to maintain it, upgrade it, or add the latest features. Don’t be surprised that vendors regularly announce new versions with the latest and greatest features with an upgrade pathway for previous licensees. Look at On1, Luminar, Capture1, etc. A yearly upgrade charge of around $50-$70 to get the newest version for a single software. Adobe gives you a package of an entire suite, automatically upgraded several times a year for approximately $120/yr. it’s up to you to decide which has more value.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

I don't get out as much as I used to. I find learning Photoshop CC fun and entertaining to learn and use. Sure beats crossword puzzles and sudico. For 10 bucks a month it is cheaper than a crosswords puzzle book and far more rewarding.. my 2 cents worth

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

scubadoc wrote:

Unless things have changed since I last read a EUL... (show quote)

Spot on! Most packages just give fixes and you buy the next version to get new function. I think the $10 a month is steal and you get both. LR can do 90+% and PS can do 120%. Color me thrilled to have the package not have to play with versions. As a side issue that most don't care about - Adobe has basically a single source to maintain, keeping their costs down. When any program product has multiple releases that they have to keep fixing, the costs are very expensive every time a problem is encountered. Two or three releases in the field has to be source fixed 2 or 3 times and differently and tested.

You have two choices - every few years going through an update once you are left without service or a consistent single stream and just use it. Your choice!

CaptainPhoto

What is with all the grumbling about Adobe and the monthly "subscription". If you get magazine or newspaper's - you pay a subscription fee. I pay more than $9.99 a month for the daily paper. If you don't want the latest update of LR and PS then so be it. Just stop the hum-bug - after all its Christmas Time.

CaptainPhoto

What is with all the grumbling about Adobe and the monthly "subscription". If you get magazine or newspaper's - you pay a subscription fee. I pay more than $9.99 a month for the daily paper. If you don't want the latest update of LR and PS then so be it. Just stop the hum-bug - after all its Christmas Time.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

richandtd wrote:

So with the subscription based you have to be on l... (show quote)

I you don't have to be online to use CC. Once a month it checks that the account is current, but it is several months before they actually suspend the account and access.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

f8lee wrote:

I always find remarks like this ironic (if not out... (show quote)

Quicken financial software is by annual subscription now. My Microsoft Office Professional 365 is also by annual subscription. Its costs me around $100 a year to support 5 machines with the latest version of Office Professional. That's around $20 per year per computer, a small fraction of the cost of having the stand alone versions on 5 machines and I don't have to worry about purchasing and installing future upgrades. It's always up to date. Not every one needs 5 copies, but I do. My wife, adult son and I use them on 3 desktops and 2 laptops. I don't understand why so many people have problems with Adobe's very inexpensive and cost effective pricing plan. Some folks are happy just using their old software forever and that's great for them, but some of us are not satisfied with that and want our software to be current.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

amfoto1 wrote:

I still work with Lightroom 6 and Photoshop CS6... using the last and most up-to-date version of each. I've worked with Photoshop since version 4 (mid-1990s, first version for Windows) and Lightroom since it was introduced (2006), upgrading each of them roughly every three or four years (i.e., sometimes skipping a version).

That said, I worked it out and the cost to subscribe to the LR CC & PS CC, $10 a month (actually a year prepaid for $120) is almost exactly the same as I spent upgrading. And this is setting aside the initial, high cost of Photoshop (which I paid twice over the years... $600+ each time, if I recall correctly).

The subscription is a pretty good deal, IMO.

My complaint is that there's no good reason for Adobe to not offer it both ways, to let their customers choose between a licensed version or a subscription. Adobe could easily offer a choice and the cost to them would be the same to them either way, since most software is sold through downloads these days anyway (eliminating the need for packaging, distribution, retailers, etc.) I don't like that people can't choose to buy LR CC or PS CC separately (you pay for both in the subscription). And I don't like "auto updates" (Adobe already had to roll back one where they really screwed up LR).

I also have concern that the monthly rent could be increased at any time. On the one hand, Adobe hasn't increased it since they started with the subscription model... for the general consumer. (They have increased the cost of the commercial version.) On the other hand, they obviously think it's worth a lot more, since they tried to sell PS CC alone for almost $30 month initially, didn't get many sales and only arrived at the current pricing after several big price reductions and repackaging to include LR.

They also broke a promise that Adobe representatives made on their own blog... Back when the Photoshop CC version with LR was rolled out, folks asked and were told that Lightroom would continue to be offered with perpetual license, that there would be a "Lightroom 7". That didn't happen! LR6 survived a couple years longer than PS CS6, but it's now only available via the subscription, too.

I still work with Lightroom 6 and Photoshop CS6...... (show quote)

It's much cheaper for a company to support one platform - digital delivery - than to support all that is involved in producing packaging, DVDs, manuals, warehousing inventory etc. Now they could go to a digital delivery but they would still be forced to support old software on old computers. That would not be a good business decision.

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

Personally, I think that the Adobe subscription is a bargain. I don't understand what all the "bitching" is about. $10/mo.? Cut out a burger each month and you've got it as well as the best in Image Processing.