AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Yeah, I don't get it either, but my emotional reaction was initially the same. It's the old model we're used to.

On the OP's question - I've found Gimp to be not as awful to learn as had been suggested to me by some. I still have it on my computer, but the LR/PS combo is so much easier and convenient to use.

Andy

throughrhettseyes Loc: Rowlett, TX

Photography
US$9.99/mo

Includes:
Lightroom CC
Lightroom Classic CC
Photoshop CC
20GB of cloud storage
Compare photography plan

I have this and am very happy with it. I like you always steered away from monthly subcription apps. But...I found by getting the Photography version of Adobe cloud it is always up to date and doesn't take up a lot of your hard drive since it is cloud based. This is good if you have the newer laptops and tablets that don't have a lot of storage space. The old way goes out of date in a couple of years and cost over $300 to buy a stand alone program. You had to buy Photoshop as a second program and didn't interface with each other as this option does. It is seamless between apps. So it's pay me now or pay me later. I pay now and am always up to date with Adobe cloud.

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

Unless you wrote it you don't own it. Basic fallacy. When you pay for software the only thing you own is a limited license to use it. That's what's wrong with your opening premise.

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

And how do you see the notion of owning software? There is a fact - you don't own it. And then there is the opinion that people like to "own" their software. The opinion is clearly not based in fact or reality. I don't care if someone's opinion is different from mine - it's what makes the world go round. But the concept of software ownership only works in two situations - you paid someone to write a custom application for you or you wrote it yourself - this is not opinion, it's a fact. Only misinformed people are foolish enough to argue against facts.

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

I would suggest "ON1 Photo RAW 2018", "Affinity Photo" or "Luminar 2018". Any of them should work well for you. You could look into a trail copy to see which you prefer. I do tend to use the "ON1 Photo RAW 2018" the most.

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

You missed the point. I wasn’t referring to software ownership I was referring to your characterization that those who do not want to subscribe to Adobe’s LR/PS model are somehow “irrational”.

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

If you read carefully what I wrote, I am not calling anyone irrational. I am saying that the concept of owning something you cant own - but you can pay for a license to use - is inherently irrational. And insisting that this is a valid reason to dismiss paying for a software license on a monthly basis is really no different than paying for it on an annual or version upgrade basis. It's just a different delivery model that cuts out the middleman and allows really great software to end up on your computer for not a lot of money in the big picture. Calling a behavior irrational is different from saying someone is irrational, which is not I said at all.

Is it irrational behavior to dismiss a software title because you don't like the way the company collects it's payment? Is it irrational behavior to regard a purchased license to use software as a "thing" that you "own" - when all you really own is the limited license to use it?

In a related context, as a photographer, someone may want to purchase a license from you to use one of your pictures. You own the picture. It's up to you how you want to license it and how much you will charge, and how that picture can and can't be used. But the client wants to own all rights to the image, and use it as they please. First off, you would price the image differently. Second, if you wrote a licensing agreement that permitted use of the image for internal purposes, but found out later that the image was used commercially, I think you would be less than thrilled.

One of the concepts of ownership of something is having complete control over it. Can you sell your license to Lightroom 6 or PS CS6?

Another real world example. You are the owner of a photography business. You purchase a single copy of CS6 - you then load it on your company's server, and distribute it to the 30 people who use it. Your justification is that you "own" the software. When you are taken to court - how do you think the judge is going to rule - using your logic that you "own" the software? The judge will tell you that you own a license not the software, and make you pay for the other 29 instances of it's being used on computers, and add punitive damages and interest. Yes, it is completely irrational behavior to think that you are granted software ownership when all you have is a limited license to use it in the way the owner - Adobe - permits.

If someone thinks that owning a license to use something is the same as owning 100% of the rights to that "thing" to use as they please - well that's irrational behavior, don't you agree? As I wrote above - there are only two instances where you "own" software - you commissioned a custom software development project, or you wrote it yourself. But I will add a third - you purchase a company that develops software for profit.

Here is the license agreement for CS6. Show me where it states that you own anything other than permission.

https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/legal/licenses-terms/pdf/CS6.pdf

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

Look my disagreement with you isn't over owning anything. I get your point about software ownership, I worked in the software business for 30 years. I understand the concept of right to use. That is not the point. My point is how you pay for that right to use.

You believe a recurring monthly charge that you pay basically, forever, is ok and a bargain. I don't. To me, its in Adobe's interest to have a recurring revenue stream not mine. So yea, I don't like the method of payment. Maybe that's irrational? So be it. I'm irrational.

That is just one reason out of about 4 that I don't participate in Adobe's LR/PS subscription plan. The others have to do with some bad experiences I had using Adobe's software in the business world--why would I use their software when there are suitable alternatives?; the lack of choice in upgrades--upgrades are pushed on you whether you want them or not -- lack of choice is a pet peeve of mine; for what I do I don't need the immensely and overly complex Photoshop (in my view) and I'm not investing any time to learn it; and lastly the fact that I liked the idea of getting software that was designed specifically for the platform that I use.

So enjoy your choice and let me enjoy mine.