Cool suggestion!!

With the Sony A7RIII they finally moved the movie rec button to a better location. I think moving forward the a6000 line will get this improvement.

Totally get it. I'm not saying Adobe isn't good software, because it is. What I am saying is that there is also a lot of other really good PP software out there, and that Adobe is by far the most expensive of the bunch. I always tell people Corel PaintShop Pro is a 98% solution (as compared to PS CC) for about 1/5 of the cost. I keep abreast of new Adobe Photoshop features and I can honestly say there is absolutely nothing that is in PhotoShop CC that isn't in PaintShop Pro that I care for, and Serif (Affinity) and Macphun (Luminar) are really kicking it into gear as other great PP options.

For "professionals" I think Adobe might be a fine choice -- but for "enthusiasts", "hobyists", and "amateurs", just not seeing it. I usually help about 5+ people a year transition from the Adobe subscription to either PS Elements, PaintShop Pro, or Affinity -- and all the "thanks" I get from these people is really worth it. So I'm not against Adobe. :-) I actually help a lot of people move from the subscription to PS Elements -- when I see that they barely use PhotoShop and its features.

A lot of people that are Pro-Adobe also may not realize that it is good for there to be competition. I firmly believe that if there was no competition Adobe would have hiked the price up on the $10 a month LR/PS subscription and it would probably be $15 or $20 a month by now, and competition is also a reason that they still keep PhotoShop Elements alive. If there was no competition they would ditch PS Elements in a heart beat. Competition is a good thing for all of us.

I was just looking at an article that listed a ton of alternatives to Adobe. So if you don't like the subscription model, plenty of choices. Vote with your feet!

DxO Optics, CyberLink, Corel, ON1, MacPhun, PhaseOne, Serif, Zoner, ACDSee, GIMP, Pixlr, Meitu, PhotoScape, Magix.

The Adobe alternatives that I see that are most mentioned on UHH are: DxO, Corel, MacPhun, PhaseOne, GIMP, and Serif.

MacPhun is the company that makes Luminar and Serif is the company that makes Affinity.

There are even more free options. My Dad uses Picassa, because it is very easy to use and does everything that he needs. His cost: $0. If Picassa does everything he needs, why pay more?

Marionsho -- Well said!!! You definitely get it.

Using the own versus rent analogy for discussion purposes for comparing the perpetual licensing model versus the subscription model is very legit. Adobe uses the subscription model exclusively which is like renting.

Perpetual Use Model is a licensing model, where the cost to own an application is calculated up-front and charged to the licensee in return to a perpetual (forever) right to use the software.
For discussion purposes -- you don't technically "own" the software, but the characteristics of a perpetual use license are a lot like owning, so using the "ownership" analogy is valid for discussion purposes.

A subscription is a term license, or a license that allows you to use a software application for a defined length of time. You pay for a certain amount of time, and if you don't keep renewing the license expires.

I find that the people on UHH tend to be very educated, and almost everyone understands this distinction -- they're just using the terms for comparison purposes.

I of course, highly prefer the "Perpetual Use Model" because it is like owning. I pay up front and if I want to use that software as long as it will run on my computer that's my choice. Subscription, you have to pay (on a monthly or annual basis) whether you use the software or not.

Each pricing model has it's pros and cons. But just be aware that the subscription model is usually more expensive, and in Adobe's case it is much more expensive than other PP software like: Affinity, Luminar, Paint Shop Pro, etc... I've said this before if you're ok with paying $120 a year for the Adobe subscription then this is a legit strategy and go for it, and if you are not -- there are plenty of excellent alternatives, even PhotoShop Elements, which is a very good program for many.

I use Corel PaintShop Pro which typically costs about $60 (on sale) for a perpetual use license. The price for Serif Affinity is around $50 for a perpetual license (so that is also a great option). Having a perpetual use license means I can upgrade when I want. I usually find that a three year cycle works well (and occasionally will upgrade more often if the vendor comes out with some features I feel are worth the upgrade). So for a 3-year period I typically pay $60. The price calculation for the Adobe LR/PS $10 a month is $120 a year, or $360 a year. The calculation is extremely simple. Hmm... $60 versus $360 over a 3-year period? As an "enthusiast" -- I much prefer paying the $60, and that's what I do. :-)

Yes -- I get it if you are a professional and can write off the cost, then your decision may be very different, but if you are an "enthusiast" -- in most cases Adobe's subscription model just doesn't make much sense, when there are so many other high quality PP alternatives.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, however the term "Best" when it comes to software is a very subjective statement.

If you want to make a more precise statement you can say that Adobe is the Market Leader, which is true, although that still doesn't prove objectively that Adobe's PP software the "best".

The example I always like to use is MacDonalds. They are #1 in fast food burgers in terms of market share. Does that mean they make the "best" hamburgers?

Best -- is really relative to the needs and wants of each customer.

There is no misconception -- almost everyone on this Forum understands that it's "perpetual use license" versus a "subscription license", not owning versus renting.

For almost all intensive purposes a "perpetual use license" is like owning and a "subscription license" is like renting. It's a simple comparison model that can be used for discussion purposes and that's why people make the analogy, even though it's not 100% precise.

With a "perpetual license" like the name implies you have purchased a license to use the software in perpetuity. You are correct, you don't own the software but you have the rights to use it forever as long as you don't break the terms of the use license. That is very similar to owning. In fact, unless you break the terms of the license -- no one is going to ask for the license back. ;-) That's the main reason "perpetual use license" exists -- mainly so you don't go breaking the terms of the use license.

In the end -- as this thread proves there are a huge number of people that dislike the subscription model, and many that are ok with it. In the case of PP software, a subscription doesn't have to be more expensive, but in Adobe's case it is, in fact, very much so. My take on it is if you think you're getting your money's worth out of Adobe go for it -- just don't fool yourself -- it is a lot more expensive than almost all the other PP alternatives that are out there. If you're a professional and can write off the cost -- I get it, but if you're an amateur photogropher, or an enthusiast like I am I really don't.

And for those that try to rationalize it -- by saying that it is just two cups of coffee a month, or whatever. Hey, if you think it's worth two cups of coffee go for it. The argument can easily also go the other way -- where many of us would rather save our money and have the two cups of coffee. Given the choice - let me see -- two cups of Peets or Starbucks coffee or the Adobe $10 a month subscription -- My choice is for the two cups of coffee.

As a Sony fan -- the real party time was the release of the A9, the release of the A7RIII was nice but more in-line for a quiet celebration. :-)

The A7RIII has met with great news and reviews -- but the A9 was the game changer!! Other than criticizing Sony's lack of native glass for the E-Mount-- the one thing that many DSLR fans always used to say last year was: "Mirrorless cameras will never be able to autofocus as fast as DSLRs -- it just isn't possible". Boy, did the A9 prove everyone that made that statement wrong. I don't hear that statement made at all anymore.

The A7RIII is just proof that Sony has been listening to their customers. The A7RII is a really good camera -- but a combination of things always bugged me a little: the battery life, no dual card slots, the position of the video recording button, ... Basically, the A7RIII fixes almost all of the little things -- and as a bonus made auto focus blazing fast. The A7RIII is an amazing camera! Perfect for professional wedding and event photographers. Tons of reviews are in now -- and I don't think I've seen even one negative review.

Sony has a great native full frame E-Mount lens lineup! Yes, not as robust as a Canon's or Nikon's -- but unless you're a professional photographer there really isn't an issue, and even then the only real gap is for professional wildlife and sports photographers. Sony has done a great job plugging up any holes in their full-frame E-Mount lineup. They've released a lot of native glass these past two years. Really, the only thing that is missing are some of the super telephoto primes, like a 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm prime. Super telephoto primes are not the province of many photographers because these lenses will probably will start at $8K and go on up...

You might be talking about the APS-C E-mount lenses? -- can't comment there as I've not been tracking those.

And I'd be interested in the opposite answer: Is there anything significant that Adobe CC can do better than Paint Shop Pro? I've asked this question -- many times -- and have never received a good answer -- because I think the answer is -- "hardly anything".

I've never met anyone that is an "expert" on both platforms. I've only met people that are "experts" on -- one or the other. Seen a lot of people that claim they know both -- but when you dig down -- they really only know one of these packages really well -- and are usually very dated in their knowledge of the other.

I'm the same as everyone else -- I know one package really well, which is PSP (and my knowledge of Photoshop is on the low side). So it is actually really, really hard to get a real good comparison.

Corel PSP support although not as extensive as PS is excellent. The last time I counted there are over 300 quality PSP YouTube videos (and that's not counting the low quality stuff). There are some good books, and the PSP forum is top notch. Plugin support is excellent. PSP has full support for PS plugins and scripts, even has native support for Adobe brushes!

I will agree since PS is the big Gorilla in the room it has more training options -- but the real question is: Does PSP have really good training and support options? and are they enough? -- the answer is yes.

In the end -- everyone has their opinions. Photoshop is a good program -- but the reason I use PSP is because of the cost (and because of how good it is)-- I consider myself an experienced PSP user -- and can tell you there is nothing that I've seen an experienced user in PS CC do that can't also be done in PSP. These are both very mature programs.

In fact, the only two major features that I'm aware of that PS has -- that PSP doesn't are: 1) The ability to edit in the CYMK color space directly, and 2) The ability to do focus stacking natively. For #1 -- that feature is very useful if you are a print house -- and pretty much worthless if you are not, and #2 -- focus stacking can easily be done with free or very inexpensive third party software (so easy work arounds). That's really it. Ok, actually PSP doesn't work on a Mac -- but that's not a negative at all for me -- as I am a PC user.

The way I always make the comparison to people is: Would you rather pay a lot more for the industry standard, which is Photoshop, or would you rather pay a lot less for a program that does about 98% of what PS CC can do? People will have different answers. I am a hobbyist/enthusiast, so PSP makes a ton of sense, and for a hobbyist/enthusiast Photoshop CC really doesn't. Now if I was a Professional I might think differently -- because I could then expense the cost, but I don't make money with this hobby.

So far, I've managed to help move a ton of people in the enthusiast/hobbyist category to Affinity (if they have a Mac) and PSP (if they have a PC) -- as soon as someone gets a demo and realize how powerful these two packages are -- they're like: Why am I paying $10 a month? -- and then many switch away from the $10 subscription to either PSP, Affinity, or Photoshop Elements.

Although I agree with you that for professionals the choice is different (where the high cost of PS CC is not an issue), and in lots of cases there is an advantage in going with the Gorilla.

The advantage on the Windows side isn't just about being able to select all your components, but it is also about being able to replace one of them if one goes bad if you use a Desktop PC. A hard drive goes bad -- , motherboard goes bad, power supply goes bad, fan goes bad, etc... -- easy and inexpensive to replace. Last year I fixed my Dad's desktop PC (that was off warranty). His hard drive failed. -- For about $80 (the price of a 250GB ssd) I easily fixed his system -- and it took only about an hour. I don't even want to think what that would cost on an off warranty Mac.

Also with a Desktop PC you can get an Nvidia Titan X or a Nvidia 1080Ti graphics card, etc... If you want top notch gpu hardware -- i.e. graphics processing -- the only real route is a Desktop PC, because of its modularity.

I have a hobby where I do a lot of 3D rendering -- and the software I use -- uses a technology called IRay that was developed by NVidia that does hardware based 3D rendering (i.e. can use NVidia's CUDA cores to accelerate 3D rendering) -- with the Nvidia 1080 card I have -- rendering is 5 to 10 times faster than a Core i7 based Windows PC or a core i7 based Mac. In other words -- a Mac is not even really an option for my 3D rendering hobby -- because you can't use them with NVidia's fastest GPUs.

Yes - the old Macs were upragedable -- now let's circle back to the present day -- every single component on a 2017 Mac laptop is soldered on to the motherboard -- cpu, storage (ssd), and memory -- absolutely not upgradeable. And that silly touch strip that they charge an extra $300 for?

In the end, it really is a price issue. There is nothing you can do with a Mac that you can't do a PC and vice versa -- it's just that the Mac is more expensive. The Mac fan will argue that subjectives like quality and ease of use are worth the Apple tax -- but the realities really are these are just subjectives -- we could argue all day about subjectives, because they are subjective.

I have a friend who is an IT Manager for a small company that is an Apple shop -- and believe me there is no savings in Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) with Apple -- again a lot of subjectives from Apple fans. Believe me Apple stuff breaks down just as much as the PC stuff does, it's just that the Apple fans have very selective memories. This company bought the Apple Cinema monitors because they look "cool", but lots of failures with this monitor -- now this company is replacing the ones that break down with regular monitors. They realized that they can get monitors with equal display specs for 60% of the price. Ok -- these monitors don't look as cool but $600 versus $1000 is a pretty significant difference.

Personally -- after the "Trashintosh" debacle -- and the "touch strip" nonsense -- I've been seeing a lot of people moving back to the PC.

I have been using PSP for about 5-6 years now. I just upgraded to Paint Shop Pro 2018 Ultimate for $60 (a perpetual license), from PSP X8. The Ultimate version is the same as the regular version it just has some extra software, and a package of extra brushes, templates, and textures.

I highly, highly recommend PSP. Think of PSP this way -- a program that does ~98% of what the full version of Photoshop CC does for a lot, lot less money.

The last few versions they have really been focused on reliability, usability, and performance. I had PSP X8 (i.e. version 18), and normally only upgrade about every three years, but because of the performance improvements in PSP 2018 -- I broke my normal tradition and upgraded after one year (something I don't normally do) -- but nice to have that option if I decide that Corel made some upgrades worth paying for.

Also -- PSP supports Photoshop brushes and Photoshop scripts out of the box. It's a fantastic program. I really like what Corel has been doing with it lately. I really wish more people would try it -- it's almost one of those hidden gems.

There are only a few post processing programs that have focus stacking as a native feature. The way you do it if you have PSP is to do the focus stacking in a program that is specialized for the purpose, where most use Helicon. Helicon Focus, is probably the best software for focus stacking period.

Also someone on UHH told me that there are a few cameras that have focus stacking as a built in feature, if I remember correctly I think a few Olympus models.

Maybe -- but the way I read it the OP -- really means PS (Photoshop) not PSP, he just used the wrong acronym for Photoshop.

Your suggestion is a good one. Affinity at $50 is a small investment and the OP can make comparisons against LR and PS and make an assessment on what he and his wife prefer over the long term.