abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I probably have not received a disk in five years. Not a problem for me. As for the browser, I tried others but came back to IE because it is the one that all my sites use. While the others may be better in other ways, fewer things run on them and IE remains the gold standard. I got tired of trying to run something elsewhere just to fire up IE.

I am not enticed to store things in the cloud other than my carbonite backup. I do not care what MS, Adobe or Google want. I want them locally and backed up to the cloud. Just my prejudice.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I think (if I am reading your info about the Adobe Cloud correctly) that you misunderstand the Adobe Cloud. All of the Adobe software resides on your computer as does your images. The Cloud just gives a means for Adobe to send your updates and for you to post a few images for you to get to from other computers. The Adobe Cloud also allows shops with multiple photographers/editors to collaborate on projects. For the individual photographer, the "Cloud" is just a delivery device and gives Adobe the ability to verify that your "dues" are up to date prior to opening the software package. (Adobe allows 30 or so days of grace so that people that are on location or away from Wi-Fi connections for a period of time to continue to use the software while on location. As soon as the laptop or computer with the software on it is booted in an area with Wi-Fi, the license on that computer is updated for another 30 days or so. (Note: the 30 days is a generalization as Adobe would NOT cut it off necessarily on day 31 but is just a rule of thumb).

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I think we are on the same page. I know the software resides on my machine. I thought Adobe gave some cloud storage and encouraged you to store images there. To change the subject a bit, the subscription model makes piracy a lot harder and that ticks off the pirates. Is Adobe getting richer or is it passing on the savings to the subscribers?

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

The main fault with Elements is that most image adjustments and the use of layers downsizes you image to 8-bits. If you originally took an image in RAW, then depending upon the camera you use, it started out as a 12-bit or even 14-bit on the more expensive cameras. If you edit the image in Lightroom and/or Photoshop, it stays at 12 or 14-bits and you loose no information. If you go to Elements, almost everything you do downsizes the image to 8-bits. This is Adobe's way of protecting the sales of Photoshop.

There are other low cost alternatives that don't play games with downsizing the image.

thephotoman Loc: Rochester, NY

I fully agree with you Wayne. With the CC version you get all updates included. This includes updates for new cameras.
Also, photographers need to understand that PS can be as simple or complicated as you want it to be. There is no need to know all of PS tools, just the ones you use. As you become more familiar with it you can learn other tools which can help make even more exciting images from your great photos.
Heck even Julian Kost, an Adobe guru says she is still learning.

DGStinner Loc: New Jersey

I believe the upgrade price for Photoshop used to be $650. Lightroom is $80. It would take over 6 years of monthly payments before you'd pay more than just standalone versions.

Bunkershot Loc: Central Florida

Sounds like a no brainer to me. Obviously I'm going to go with the $9.99 package. Thanks for all the feedback. Absolutely incredible response. I love this site!

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

Lightroom has a more extensive database than any version of Elements; LR will upgrade to the latest ACR to accomidate the newest cameras; and the %0.05 also gives you access to Photoshop (if you know how to take advantage of it). Otherwise, the standalone version of LR6 still far surpasses the abilities of Elements 12, and does get ACR upgrades, but Lightroom does have a Learning Curve more complex than elements to use it properly.

jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

Or is Adobe setting it up to where they have you so locked into using their programs that in another year they can jump the price about 800% and say "Use it or lose it."? This just reminds me of how the cable companies started out only charging a minuscule amount for their services and after they had you hooked they shot the price up AND took channels away and made access to them only if you paid the premium price for their service.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

My personal felling is they are not going to do that. I believe they set the price for PS and LR based on the average users upgrade cycle which I think was between 4 and 5 years. They are making the same amount of money doing the monthly purchases as they would by waiting for people to upgrade. For me it's heck a of lot easier to pay the $10.00 a month then to have to shell out that $600+ every few years. I pay out the $100 a year for my Office products as well and I fell like I've saved myself money over the long run.

DGStinner Loc: New Jersey

And if they did, I'd just move to Capture One and import my existing Lightroom catalog and keep on working.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

And Adobe knows that. They're not stupid and they need to make a (dirty word for you socialists) a profit.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

I would encourage you to think more about what you want to do with your images. PS and LR are merely tools that allow us to do this crazy stuff.

Unless you simply take the picture, look at it, then throw it away (delete it), there seems to be merit in having some sort of organizational aspect to what we do. Yeah, it helps that our computers arrange everything in a folder structure, but that's less than adequate. Consider how one would indicate who is in the photo, for example. Would we create a folder for each member of our family? Then, where in a folder structure do you put the image of 2 or more family members? Replication? <groan>

Lightroom provides an excellent method to organize the fruits of our efforts, especially when we take the time to learn how it does it. And, in addition, it uses Adobe Camera Raw to allow us to tune the image to our liking.

If we find we need to do pixel-level editing, it's simple to hand it off to Photoshop or Elements for those edits. As a bonus, when we finish those edits, the new, edited photo is handed right back to Lightroom and cataloged with the original. No better place for it.

Elements is a simpler subset of Photoshop functionality. I know it provides some organizational aspects, but not with the latitude of Lightroom.

Hope this helps.

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

Elements has a raw engine but it is an abreviated version of ACR or LR. and it is only 8 bit compared to 16. Your results can be better with the full PS/LR.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

AND: With the current plan, they don't have to print manuals, pay for packaging, pay distributors, pay retailers, and have a steady 9.99 per month income from each user that they can count on for at least a year per user. I wish I could have 500,000 users that I could count on for $120 per year instead of having to jump through the hoops of spending thousands of dollars developing a new release of the software, creating and printing manuals and packaging, then providing enough of a discount to my distribution chain that they could sell it at a reasonable price and all of us make a profit and not worry about if this version was going to sell or flop. And, with the setup, if you decide you don't want the package, you just quit paying and the development part quits working. You can still access the images that are already processed but you can't do more until you pay again. Some developer / marketer at Adobe must have gotten a great bonus for coming up that that plan.
I found this interesting article about the myths involved in the Adobe Cloud.
http://terrywhite.com/5-myths-about-adobe-creative-cloud/