Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

The day of the machine taking over is fast approaching. Cyber-done is on it's way. Happy Shooting.

richandtd Loc: Virginia

Intresting information but for the time being I’ll be not using subscription maybe in the future things might change who knows.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I still work with Lightroom 6 and Photoshop CS6... using the last and most up-to-date version of each. I've worked with Photoshop since version 4 (mid-1990s, first version for Windows) and Lightroom since it was introduced (2006), upgrading each of them roughly every three or four years (i.e., sometimes skipping a version).

That said, I worked it out and the cost to subscribe to the LR CC & PS CC, $10 a month (actually a year prepaid for $120) is almost exactly the same as I spent upgrading. And this is setting aside the initial, high cost of Photoshop (which I paid twice over the years... $600+ each time, if I recall correctly).

The subscription is a pretty good deal, IMO.

My complaint is that there's no good reason for Adobe to not offer it both ways, to let their customers choose between a licensed version or a subscription. Adobe could easily offer a choice and the cost to them would be the same to them either way, since most software is sold through downloads these days anyway (eliminating the need for packaging, distribution, retailers, etc.) I don't like that people can't choose to buy LR CC or PS CC separately (you pay for both in the subscription). And I don't like "auto updates" (Adobe already had to roll back one where they really screwed up LR).

I also have concern that the monthly rent could be increased at any time. On the one hand, Adobe hasn't increased it since they started with the subscription model... for the general consumer. (They have increased the cost of the commercial version.) On the other hand, they obviously think it's worth a lot more, since they tried to sell PS CC alone for almost $30 month initially, didn't get many sales and only arrived at the current pricing after several big price reductions and repackaging to include LR.

They also broke a promise that Adobe representatives made on their own blog... Back when the Photoshop CC version with LR was rolled out, folks asked and were told that Lightroom would continue to be offered with perpetual license, that there would be a "Lightroom 7". That didn't happen! LR6 survived a couple years longer than PS CS6, but it's now only available via the subscription, too.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

This is a common misconception.

When you are working with RAW files it's the same in Photoshop, Lightroom AND Elements. All three use, at their core, the same Adobe Camera Raw. In the case of Photoshop, it's a separate module. The other two, it's integrated so that in order to update ACR you have to update the entire program. But the upshot is that in all three, when you work with RAW files, they are handled in the same 16 bit mode.

The difference is that you can't SAVE a 16 bit file (such as a TIFF or PSD) out of Elements. You can only save 8 bit files (such as JPEG).

Frankly, JPEG is all most people ever need. It's the standard for most purposes: printing, online display and website usage, etc.

TIFFs and other 16 bit are mostly only needed for commercial purposes. Clients may want them in order to do more work on the image, adapting it further for their particular purposes. Color separations for commercial printing purposes may be best done with 16 bit files.

But 16 bit files are overkill for almost anything else. If you print an 8 bit file and a 16 bit file of the same images on a high quality inkjet, the end result will appear pretty much the same. The only differences... the 16 bit file will usually take longer to print and it may consume more ink.

16 bit is most important when working with images... when editing and optimizing, making changes to exposure, contrast, saturation, etc. In that respect, Elements is no different from Lightroom and Photoshop. Elements doesn't have all the bells and whistles that Photoshop does, but Elements has capabilities that Lightroom doesn't (such as working with layers & masks).

See:

https://learning.linkedin.com/blog/tech-tips/which-do-you-need--photoshop-elements-vs--photoshop-cc
https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements/buying-guide.html
https://comparisons.financesonline.com/photoshop-elements-2018-vs-adobe-photoshop-cc

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

There are still many choices available, so you are not locked into the subscription model. Adobe is treading a fine line - keeping their monthly subscription fee affordable is essential to prevent damage to their core amateur market. Personally, I think ten bucks a month is perfect, affordable to Joe Average, but slightly higher than the competition's charge for a single use "permanent" license if they updated annually. If their user base begins to erode, there will be market openings for the competition, even though the professional user base should be secure for a while due to the large investment many pros have in terms of training and competence.

Again, I don't have a problem with the subscription model itself, for any software. The market will still determine the pricing, and I doubt that the competition will go away during my lifetime. It is so much better for any company to have a predictable revenue stream, and this is the very definition of it. The old way, when revenues would drop off as soon as an update was rumored to be in the works, then peak for a few months after each new release, must have sent financial analysts into apoplexy.

In the time I've used it, there have been several updates, and all have actually featured some usable new features. I don't plan on switching unless the price increases considerably, but I'm certainly going to be aware of even minor increases going forward.

Andy

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"Adobe is treading a fine line - keeping their monthly subscription fee affordable is essential to prevent damage to their core amateur market."

Were you ever shooting with film? This is not a "fine line". This is outright cheap!

"...slightly higher than the competition's charge for a single use "permanent" license"

Maybe true except that the price includes a suite of photographic tools, not just the "permanent license" single app.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Yes, I certainly shot with film, and I think Adobe is dirt cheap for what it gives me. I spend more than ten bucks a month on takeout coffee.

Perhaps I didn't clearly express my thought, so I'll try again...

There are competitors out there who sell a "Perpetual" license for under a hundred bucks. There is also the constant threat of freeware and shareware, but these are so seriously behind LR/PS in features that they aren't really competition. Adobe has to price its subscription so that 1)It's affordable to amateurs, even semi-serious ones, 2) It recognizes the added value of the subscription model over the one-time, soon to be obsolete, purchase.

If they go too high, they'll lose subscriber base, and the competition will gain sales and users invested in learning their new toy. Adobe's biggest asset isn't its acceptance as the gold standard by the professional world - it's the user base of Johnny JPEGs who first learned any kind of post processing on Elements, and have enough investment to continue forking over their ten bucks each month. That's the fine line I was talking about, and I'm quite sure Adobe is on top of it. There have been no price increases so far, and the service is an excellent value. I imagine they are wary of even testing any increase at all, at least for a while.

This is a great revenue model - predictable and capable of slow growth, without the sudden ups and downs of selling new updates every year or two. It's how I subscribe to Office now, which is only seven bucks a month. Virtually all business software developers are also using this model, or moving toward it.

I think Adobe has a superior product suite, and a solid business model. Unless they suffer an attack of short term corporate greed, I think they will retain their market position for as long as I'm pushing a shutter button.

Andy

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Andy,
"If they go too high, they'll lose subscriber base"

I wonder what would happen if they went to $12? Outrage and cancellations or outrage and continued subscriptions?

"

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I'd happily fork over more, but I think they are in a sweet spot at ten bucks, if the model continues to work for them. The more expensive package with additional cloud storage is, I think, $12.99, and there are several other add-ons available. I don't think they'll have to raise the base price much, if any, for quite a while.

Every time this topic comes up the outrage level here surprises me, I think it's more about the model than the amount with many people, especially those of an older demographic - which seems to include a majority of our fellow members. I'm a senior citizen myself, and have the Medicare card to prove it, but the subscription model makes so much sense that as long as the pricing isn't outrageous, I have no objections at all to it. I use it for MS Office, anti-virus software, AutoCAD, and a proprietary construction spec and estimating program that I use at work. The old model discourages incremental improvements, fosters market uncertainty, and encourages consumers not to take advantage of new improvements as they become available in an attempt to save a few bucks. Developers selling the old way have to "save up" new features and upgrades for a new release, while under the subscription model, every incremental improvement gets released and beta tested by the entire subscriber base. This will promote quicker solutions, as in the bug found when computers are held in suspension mode with an open window. I'll bet that's fixed within a few weeks.

I, for one, welcome our new subscription overlords... Skynet is not happening, people.

Andy

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

First its not a tax. Second the standalone price of Lightroom 6 was over $100 and the cost of the last standalone version of Photoshop, CS6 was $699, for a total of over $800 plus tax.

PhotoShop and Lightroom together cost $9.99 a month by subscription. Compared to the initial outlay of the standalone versions you would get 6 & 2/3 years of constantly current software for the same price. Standalone versions of LR and PS usually had a major upgrade after every 2.5 years or so. If you wanted to continue to have the latest standalone versions of both PS & LR in that 6 & 2/3 year period you would have to upgrade twice, and it would cost you approximately double your original investment over that period. Clearly those who think that the current subscription versions of Lightroom and PhotoShop are some kind of ripoff either don't understand what it is, or simply didn't do the math. It is a fantastic bargain for those who use both pieces of software and want to stay up to date with the most current version. I don't use either Lightroom or PhotoShop any more, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the pricing.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You do not have to be on line to use it. That is a fallacy.

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

Your loss. But relish in your rant.

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

Though it is referred to as a subscription!, it is really more than that. There were far too many users either pirating or using copies of Photoshop that were 4 versions old because they REFUSED to upgrade - it's really difficult to get users to pay for maintenance contracts on retail software, and the cost of maintaining software on really old computer systems (used by those guys with the old software - ) was ever increasing, so they had two alternatives - keep raising the price of the new versions and upgrades, or switch to a downloadable, "subscription" model. By abandoning the perpetual license model (and the correspondingly higher costs involved in dealing with that group of users), they saved a fortune, and shifted their focus and resources to building a bigger user base with better software and more frequent version upgrades. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the curmudgeons and luddites that refuse to upgrade their software - their reticence (cheapness) has indeed helped the software industry move forward. Kudos to Adobe for seizing the opportunity and their decision to prioritize their business by adding value to their products for their loyal "subscribers" and setting a high bar for the industry on a whole.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Good...goodbye.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I'm sure Adobe is happy to have loyal customers who don't question their business practices. But lots of us use older software because it's mature and bug-free and we don't feel the need to upgrade in order to access the latest whiz-bang.

I have not upgraded MS Word or Excel since 2010 because there are, after all, only so many things you can do with words and numbers and the products are faster than I need them to be.

Only Adobe forces you to upgrade your software if you buy a new camera. Their requirement is artificial. It's not based on any change to the design of the raw spec and this is easily demonstrated by opening a Nikon raw file with an "obsolete" raw converter that has not been supported for years like Picture Window Pro.