Ziza, thank you for that link. I've looked it over and now I believe people should have a little fear. Why? Well, Microsoft has seemed to spend years and years ""fixing"" each product they sell. I don't recall seeing that scenario in the Adobe world. Yet your link takes you to a place in the Adobe world that suggest a long list of fixes with the newest product, the Cloud world.

One thing I've learned over these years of using Photo Shop, even before the Creative Suite days, is the fact that there are so many tools, some even seem to be hidden. And how many of us have learned how to use all of these tools and then enjoy the pleasures of their power? Then add the power of combining those tools?

I'm in total agreement that ""renting"" software is a very high cost over time. And like our cable bills, it will only keep going up. And rent why??

I've chosen a different path. Since CS6 and CS5 are considered as "old technology" now, I've decided to purchase many versions of these ""old books"", many with included DVD files. They are so inexpensive via Amazon "used" books or even eBay. I've now collected twelve of these, most costing $5 or less. At a comfortable pace over the next three months, I'm going to go through these to actually learn about the tools I've never used before. When I'm finished, I can't imagine many "new tools" offered via CC that will do what all the regular tools can't already do. And before anyone says "Yes, there will be new tools", but consider, is it worth $120/year, for the next many years?

According to an Adobe promo, they've signed on more than 1.5 million subscribers. Now let me say, for the record, that I love Adobe products. But with their making $15 million dollars per month, they will do just fine if this person examines ways to better utilize what I already have.

Thats this person's humble opinion.

Corporatocray, I like that word!

One thing I've learned over these years of using Photo Shop, even before the Creative Suite days, is the fact that there are so many tools, some even seem to be hidden. And how many of us have learned how to use all of these tools and then enjoy the pleasures of their power? Then add the power of combining those tools?

I'm in total agreement that ""renting"" software is a very high cost over time. And like our cable bills, it will only keep going up. And rent why??

I've chosen a different path. Since CS6 and CS5 are considered as "old technology" now, I've decided to purchase many versions of these ""old books"", many with included DVD files. They are so inexpensive via Amazon "used" books or even eBay. I've now collected twelve of these, most costing $5 or less. At a comfortable pace over the next three months, I'm going to go through these to actually learn about the tools I've never used before. When I'm finished, I can't imagine many "new tools" offered via CC that will do what all the regular tools can't already do. And before anyone says "Yes, there will be new tools", but consider, is it worth $120/year, for the next many years?

According to an Adobe promo, they've signed on more than 1.5 million subscribers. Now let me say, for the record, that I love Adobe products. But with their making $15 million dollars per month, they will do just fine if this person examines ways to better utilize what I already have.

Thats this person's humble opinion.

Thanks Jerryc41 for bringing up questions about CC. I have a major question I'd enjoy being answered. And since there seems to be members here using CC, I think you'll be able to supply my answer.

Compare CS5 and CS6, if I want to work ONLY in Photoshop, will I gain anything appreciably if I were to join/pay for CC as compared with doing my work in CS5 and CS6?

Thanks in advance.

As a long time experienced user of CS5, I'm curious to hear about the experiences of Photoshop CreativeCloud, at $9.95 per month. Am I missing something if I stay with CS5 and not join CC?

The softbox is an excellent suggestion, only I need to get much closer than what the softbox will permit.

I've looked at the MK14 and it looks like an excellent suggestion. When doing film and a Nikon camera, I bought one of Canon's circular flash that worked well, but as you know, a lot of dollars go into that flash. I'm not sure I'd be using one all that much. I think the MK 14 will be exactly what I need. Thanks guys.

I'm using a Canon 5D11 camera with three lenses. All three are 77mm front diameter. I'm considering a close up strobe, similar to the old circular one attached to the front of the lens. Macro photography has always been fun for me. The large 77mm lens diameter might present a problem due to its large size. Anyone have experience with close up strobe and 77mm lens diameter? Let me say THANKS in advance for your thoughts.

Thank you for asking that question, for I should be asking a similar one. As owner of a 5DMark2 camera, is/was there an update I should have been aware of?

Thanks all.

As an owner of a Canon 5DMark2, I highly endorse Canon, and among the reasons is that they last forever. My 20D from eons ago still works stellar and has never seen a repair shop. The comment about the "kit zoom lens"? I totally agree. Don't let that twist your arm in buying the T5i. The quality body is what will stay with you for years and years to come. I have no problems with the T5I, for it's an excellent 'entry camera'. But if you think you'll enjoy shooting pictures over the years, start with a great camera body right out of the gate. That is my humble opinion.

Your question contains so many subjective thoughts and opinions, I won't touch those. Only you can decide what you want to photograph and what images you want to keep. I have a storage plan you might like. Whenever I return home from any camera shoot, I immediately burn everything from the memory card to a DVD. I shoot only in Raw, so I can return later (a week, month, or year) and retrieve a particular image I want. So in my nine years of digital slr life, every image is stored on either a CD or DVD. Oh, by the way, our walls have so many prints, framed and enjoyed.

Apple Store. That all he/she needs to know.

Hi FrumCA, I've forgotten that point, and it is a valid one. When I switched, I had to pay Adobe some kind of platform fee to get the Mac version since I originally paid for the PC version. The same will probably be true for Microsoft Office, for I use the Microsoft Office for the Mac. But this will be a one time fee.

Let me leave with this thought. Every morning, when we leave for the day, I don't expect to ""have to fix our cars"" just in order to drive them. Certainly not daily. Yet, that is what was happening ... all the time ... with my PC's. Doesn't happen any more with the Mac. That, alone, would make it worth while to pay the price of buying switched-platform software to switch to the Mac. What price can you put on a good night's sleep?

Actually no, I meant to type Adobe. From Gateway stores (remember those?) and Best Buy stores, I frequently heard them say that Adobe wrote software that wasn't always compatible with PC operating systems. True or not, I always encountered conflicts with Photoshop and my PC's. But from 2003 forward, with iMacs, I never encountered conflicts with Adobe and Apple.

Is there anyone here who doesn't recall the "Blue Screen of Death"? Until about 10 years ago I bought PC computers, about one every two, three, or four years. I could never get more than about three years out of them before I'd find an almost-daily "fatal failure" of my PC. Sony, Dell, Gateway, HP, it didn't matter much, I had them all. Then in a desperate wish for some peace, I took the plunge and purchased my first Apple. It was an iMac, dated 2003. Yes, it did cost a bit more than a PC. Then I learned of the TWO (please take note --> TWO) advantages of buying the Apple machines. FIRST, no "blue screen of death". I have never -ever- had my iMac just shut down. They are far FAR more reliable than a PC. Okay, ready for the second reason to buy an Apple? They last, for years and years. My 2003 iMac still works, does not quit while using it with Photoshop, no Blue Screen of Death. It does move more slowly, I'll admit that, but it sill works. (What computer doesn't slow down after five years of age?)

Since Adobe switched to the Intel chip, I had to purchase the "newer" 27" Mac in 2009. It's five years old now, and I use it 8 to 12 hours every day with no failure. I plan to use it for at least another ten years. Oh, my 2003 iMac? I use it every time I return home from a photo shoot. The machine burns my DVD, then makes my Kelby type CD case thumb nail prints. So I'm currently using an 11 year old Apple, and a 5 year old Apple every day of the week.

Oh, one more thing. I ran into a past student of mine, from more than 20 years ago. Since "used" computers don't seem to draw much trade-in value, he has kept every former Apple, the first of which is the original toaster-looking type from the 1980's. For me, he powered it up. It still works!!!! And every computer purchased since then also works. Since "newer" software requires operating systems that out-date older machines, he has had to buy newer models. But one of his daughters uses a 15 year old Mac to do her homework. And along the way, he tells me that he has never experienced a clash between his Apples and Adobe software.

So, is an Apple more expensive?? Take the price and divide be ... oh, divide by 10, because you'll get at least 10 years of service, and very VERY reliable service. Hands down, Apple computer are far more economical than any PC, and they give you such peace of mind, because they just keep working.

Okay folks, go ahead and attack. I'm just saying if you are looking for reliability and Peace of Mind, Mac is the way to go.

I have just one small suggestion to make. I've purchased two of these teleconverters in the past. One was very inexpensive, and the loss of sharpness was very noticeable. Several years after that, I switched over to Canon L series lenses, one of which is the 100-400, giving amazing results. However, I wanted to experiment, so I purchased (this time) the 2.0 converter made for the L series lenses, so that gave me 200-800mm. The results are truly amazing. Now keep in mind, the converter cost just under $400, but I plan to own it for many years to come. And while I won't be using it that often, I was so glad to have it when I was in the Baltic two years ago, for I captured a castle a great distance away. So I'm in favor of owning one, but don't purchase anything but the best made for you camera system. You truly do "get with you pay for".