Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Opinions: Adobe subscription software model
Jun 21, 2014 13:27:47 #
Note: This is a re-post. My original post was moved to links by admin. (Thanks to Rongnongno and Bob Yankle for their comments) However I wanted to hear from photographers on what they think of the subscription model so I'm re-posting this without the reference link.
Adobe is converting their customers to the subscription model.
For individuals there is a Creative Cloud Photography plan that will provide both Lightroom AND Photoshop for about $120/yr.
Seems like a good deal but it's subscription based so ultimately it will be more costly than purchasing LR outright. Additionally, there are a lot of individuals who don't need photoshop. For them, LR is fine.
Opinions?
Adobe is converting their customers to the subscription model.
For individuals there is a Creative Cloud Photography plan that will provide both Lightroom AND Photoshop for about $120/yr.
Seems like a good deal but it's subscription based so ultimately it will be more costly than purchasing LR outright. Additionally, there are a lot of individuals who don't need photoshop. For them, LR is fine.
Opinions?
Jun 21, 2014 14:05:06 #
Don't really like the idea of subscription model - as you said mor expensive and what happens to you "stuff" if you let it go.
May not be able to work on your photos.
May not be able to work on your photos.
Jun 21, 2014 14:22:51 #
Yes, PCC costs about $120 per year. But consider this fee includes automatic, periodic updates and upgrades at no extra cost. Plus the user does not have to wait until a new Photoshop version comes out to benefit from improvements.
My subscription to Adobe Photoshop initially included only a single app -- short for "application" -- at $9.99 per month -- a low rate due to my longtime use of Photoshop. Then shortly after, Adobe added Lightroom to my subscription at no extra cost.
Look into what Adobe offers in Creative Cloud. You may find a single app for Lightroom. But of course if both PS and LR come together at one price of $9.99, this duo seems worth having for the power of PS.
Not sure if LR comes with the new filter: Camera Shake Reduction. This filter compensates for the slight blur that results from the vibration caused my DSLR mirror slap. The inherent sharpness of the lens optics then shows in the image. This one new filter in PCC makes migrating to it worthwhile.
Note that some users err in their assumption they own their version of Photoshop. Not so. A PS user owns a license to use the software. Adobe owns PS.
My subscription to Adobe Photoshop initially included only a single app -- short for "application" -- at $9.99 per month -- a low rate due to my longtime use of Photoshop. Then shortly after, Adobe added Lightroom to my subscription at no extra cost.
Look into what Adobe offers in Creative Cloud. You may find a single app for Lightroom. But of course if both PS and LR come together at one price of $9.99, this duo seems worth having for the power of PS.
Not sure if LR comes with the new filter: Camera Shake Reduction. This filter compensates for the slight blur that results from the vibration caused my DSLR mirror slap. The inherent sharpness of the lens optics then shows in the image. This one new filter in PCC makes migrating to it worthwhile.
Note that some users err in their assumption they own their version of Photoshop. Not so. A PS user owns a license to use the software. Adobe owns PS.
jd7000 wrote:
Note: This is a re-post. My original post was move... (show quote)
Check out People Photography section of our forum.
Jun 21, 2014 14:45:01 #
catsanddogs wrote:
what happens to you "stuff" if you let it go.
May not be able to work on your photos.
May not be able to work on your photos.
Certainly you can't use the license that you "let go".
But that brings up an interesting question. With non-destructive editing, if I decided not to renew the editing software license, would I lose the ability to view those edits? I suspect so. So to prevent that issue, I would need to save all the edited versions as new originals, which means much more disk space is required.
Jun 21, 2014 15:04:36 #
jd7000 wrote:
Err...Certainly you can't use the license that you "let go".
But that brings up an interesting question. With non-destructive editing, if I decided not to renew the editing software license, would I lose the ability to view those edits? I suspect so. So to prevent that issue, I would need to save all the edited versions as new originals, which means much more disk space is required.
But that brings up an interesting question. With non-destructive editing, if I decided not to renew the editing software license, would I lose the ability to view those edits? I suspect so. So to prevent that issue, I would need to save all the edited versions as new originals, which means much more disk space is required.
You can save as 'export' and use a non proprietary file format like TIFF that retains layers...
When you (or I) work we start from an original - whatever the format - we keep that original safe, just in case, then we save the edited work and then 'export' to whatever like DNG of JPG. These exports are expandable as we can reopen the edited version and export again.
The result it that we still have only two files: The unadulterated original and the edited version under a non proprietary format.
WHERE is the space problem here?
Jun 21, 2014 15:16:03 #
Two questions for you, jd7000
Have you ever calculated the total cost of ownership of a software title if you keep up with the software upgrades?
Consider that CS# cost about 1K and each new software iteration cost around $500.00 and comes out just about every two years... The fourth year you really need to upgrade so you bite the bullet and pay the $500.00 update meaning that you have now paid $1500.00 to be up to date...
1500/48 (4*12) = $31,00 (+ or - a few cents) and you lived two years with a non updated software...
What is cheaper $10 per month every month or massive payment of $1000 and $500? Remember that in a business either way it is tax deductible.
What is the most convenient: Being up to date all the time or only once in a great while?
Have you ever calculated the total cost of ownership of a software title if you keep up with the software upgrades?
Consider that CS# cost about 1K and each new software iteration cost around $500.00 and comes out just about every two years... The fourth year you really need to upgrade so you bite the bullet and pay the $500.00 update meaning that you have now paid $1500.00 to be up to date...
1500/48 (4*12) = $31,00 (+ or - a few cents) and you lived two years with a non updated software...
What is cheaper $10 per month every month or massive payment of $1000 and $500? Remember that in a business either way it is tax deductible.
What is the most convenient: Being up to date all the time or only once in a great while?
Jun 21, 2014 15:49:24 #
Rongnongno wrote:
The result it that we still have only two files: The unadulterated original and the edited version under a non proprietary format.
WHERE is the space problem here?
The result it that we still have only two files: The unadulterated original and the edited version under a non proprietary format.
WHERE is the space problem here?
Photoshop does not utilize nondestructive editing. LR does.
There is no need to save an original copy when using Non-destructive editing (NDE). With NDE The program saves a list of changes which are applied to the image each time it is displayed or exported from the software. The list of saved changes is much much smaller than the image file. You always have the option of saving another original if you like. Exporting to PS would necessitate saving the original copy but if only using LR there is no need to save originals. They are automatically preserved.
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
Jun 21, 2014 16:05:04 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Two questions for you, jd7000
Have you ever calculated the total cost of ownership of a software title if you keep up with the software upgrades?
What is cheaper $10 per month every month or massive payment of $1000 and $500? Remember that in a business either way it is tax deductible.
What is the most convenient: Being up to date all the time or only once in a great while?
Have you ever calculated the total cost of ownership of a software title if you keep up with the software upgrades?
What is cheaper $10 per month every month or massive payment of $1000 and $500? Remember that in a business either way it is tax deductible.
What is the most convenient: Being up to date all the time or only once in a great while?
Seems like that is 3 questions.
:wink:
(1) The editing/library ware I purchased Circa 2005 for $300, I upgraded in 2010 for $99. So that's about $400 total over 9 years = $44.44 /yr . I have gotten free updates several times a year over that time.
(2) Depends on the time period involved. What is the amortization time? If LR and PS cost $700 together then it would take 6 years to break even vs purchasing the software. Seems like too much. But for a LR only user ($80) that trade is different. The math changes for professional/business users as well.
(3) Both have advantages and disadvantages. Personally I like to keep things up to date. And I do. This is not for everybody. Some people don't like it when software is changed they prefer to stay with the original version as long as humanely possible.
Enjoyed all your comments in both posts. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Jun 21, 2014 16:15:04 #
jd7000 wrote:
Photoshop does not utilize nondestructive editing.... (show quote)
Good luck with that myth. That the edited version exist on your LR directory seems to escape you.
If I open a raw file in PS, like in LR it is not edited and the result will coexist with the original, same as LR. The non destructive edit is achieved by creating a hidden copy of the original, just check the space taken by LR data... Other software titles like ACDSee have the same claim... They will revert back to the original... Located in a hidden directory!
Talk about space used (not wasted thought)
Jun 21, 2014 21:25:08 #
jd7000 wrote:
Photoshop does not utilize nondestructive editing. LR does.
That is not fully correct. For raw files ANY processing by any raw converter is non-destructive by definition as a raw file cannot be altered. When leaving a raw converter one has to choose just exactly what format one wants.
Now for jpg, you are correct.
Jun 21, 2014 21:34:46 #
I find funny that you folks edit a jpg, save as jpg and.. Well, you have weird workflows is all I can say
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.