rcarol

There has been a lot of discussion on this forum about the high cost of Adobe's subscription service, about $120/year as I recall. Perhaps it's a little less if you pay for it annually. I don't remember because it's not all that important to me. But that leads me to the other side of the equation: Purchasing non-subscription applications in lieu of Adobe's subscription services. Which really cost more? I have been receiving email offers for the new On1 Raw, Luminar 4 and others. On1 Raw is being offered as an upgrade for $80 and considerably more if you don't have a previous version. Luminar 4 is being offered for $60 as an upgrade and more if you don't own a previous version. Then there are others such as Aurora 2019, Infinity, NIK, Topaz, DxO and list goes on and on. Each of these programs has at least one annual upgrade which you will get at a reduced price if you have a previous version, Just upgrading Luminar and On1 Raw will cost you more than a year's subscription to Adobe's package. I'm not sure how you can justify the cost of the non-subscription applications if you own a couple of them. I realize that you're not forced to upgrade these programs but in time your old applications will become obsolete.

Your thoughts.........

phot0n0ob

I'm not sure if getting hung up on the costs is the right approach. I am using LR because I actually like the library / database approach and the clear cut import > develop > export workflow. Therefore, I don't care whether the Adobe subscription is 10 bucks less or 20 bucks more than a combination of Luminar, On1 or whatever. My decision to go with the Adobe subscription was based on functionality, not on price.

srt101fan

It all depends on your needs/wants for editing tools. I bought Affinity a couple of years ago for $50; so far upgrades have been free; I'm happy.....

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Just like with GAS, there are some who succumb to SAS

Also note there is a difference between update and upgrade. PS Elements comes out with a new product every year, but has periodic free updates for 2 or 3 years for supported versions. Many people are still using versions that are several years old.

For everyone it's a choice of whether the new features (and "improvements") are worth the price and how much they use and enjoy their current model. With PSE when a new version comes out, last year's goes on sale. That's how I bought my first.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The Devil wouldn't buy our empty soul. He sets up a subscription.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The two Adobe products are rather mature software in late 2019. We're in a very different situation than the long history of LR and PS (and PSE) where new product releases of these software in 2008-2015 did represent new and unique capabilities and competitive advantages to the early adapters to the new versions (including improvements in stability and speed). If you assume LR costs $120 per copy and PS costs $600, your monthly $10 subscription buys you access to the market-leading capabilities on day 1 where it will be 5+ years before you've paid more in monthly payments than if you'd bought and lived with standalone copies. As you're always up-to-date via the subscription, who knows what the software will be capable of doing 6 years from now including support for operating systems and hardware changes that don't exist today. You don't have to buy new software because of things Apple or Microsoft to their operating systems or Apple or Intel do to their CPUs.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

There is also a difference between "update and upgrade" and what Adobe does. Adobe does not hold significant improvements until the annual new version. They frequently add significant improvements when they become available. In the update/upgrade model there is no benefit to the software company to provide significant improvements as part of a periodic update. Those are usually held for the upgrade. Why would anyone upgrade if the last update had most of the goodies?
Further, maintaining multiple versions for several years adds a lot of work. Adobe avoids a lot of effort and errors by only needing to worry about one version, the current one. Under the subscription model Adobe no longer has to track what versions need what updates (let's say support for a new file format) and how the code of the different versions affects the coding needs of the update. In the update/upgrade model a company may need to tweak each update to match each current supported version. Yes a company could just build a new version incorporating all of the old code to avoid these update issues, but to maintain eternal backward compatibility, the product overtime would become unwieldy. Adobe just has to do it once. Result; less testing and coding and better quality control.
How many threads that start with a question about why a piece of software if misbehaving are centered around software version compatibility? A lot of them. The subscription model avoids a lot if that.
For me there are just no significant downsides to the subscription model and lots of up.

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

Adobe CS6 Extended used to cost $1000 Lightroom 6 was $150. If I remember correctly, it cost $150 to upgrade from CS5 to CS6, and Lightroom upgrades were $80. There clearly is no "high cost" associated with the Adobe subscription model.

Other software titles that you mention are typically pretty reasonable as well - On1 Raw, Capture One Pro and DXO Photolab 2 (which includes Nik) are all aggressively upgraded, and make new release available every 12 months.

The question you need to resolve is which of these software suite/apps work for you?

Adobe has set a high bar for photo editing and image cataloging with their PS/LR suite. To my knowledge, there are no other "complete" solutions that offer everything PS/LR does. Others come close, like DXO/Nik, and ON1Raw - but they are not as rich in feature/benefit or as well supported by third party applications (plugins) as PS/LR. Each has their strong points - Capture One has excellent tethering, fast import and review, the ability to save and apply one or more edits made on one image to one or more others, excellent raw interpretation, etc etc. DXO has the best lens/camera profiles on the planet, excellent perspective correction tools, including a correction for volume anamorphosis that affects very wide angle lenses, DXO Prime image enhancement that works very well to preserve detail on noisy high-ISO or severely underexposed images, and they have expanded their raw converter's ability to do local correction by incorporating Nik. On1Raw has positioned their software to directly complete with PS/LR, but it is still in it's baby stage - and generally not ready for prime time - it is new, less stable that the competition though it does get better with each iteration, used to have some serious performance issues, etc - but they are clearly headed in the right direction.

I don't regard Luminar, Aurora and others to be in the same league. Nik was a stand alone suite of filters and presets that made short work of image enhancement vs creating the same results in Photoshop - it was never intended as a stand alone application. The same goes for Topaz - great software, but you'd still have to do some editing in a raw converter first in order to provide a high-quality 16 bit psd or tiff file for editing.

I find that for my purposes, maintaining current versions of DXO, On1, Capture One and PS/LR works for me. The cost is a non-issue since the upgrade prices are reasonable on the perpetual license software, and PS/LR is just $120 a year. I just got a $20 Adobe subscription credit because I am a FlickrPro subscriber. All in all, it cost me less to maintain my software than it does to insure it, and given that I am careful with my gear, I feel I get far more value out of my software.

I like having current software and not having to wait for it, and the excellent DAM (digital asset management) with Adobe's PS/LR, so while I may change up what other programs I use, for the time being PS/LR works best for me.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Aside from dollar value, those new to digital photography should consider their computer skills along with how much pleasure they expect to derive from learning new software and having extensive control over their editing. Some will find the digital world daunting and some will embrace it.

You don't have to rush into a year's subscription commitment; you can start more slowly with free or basic software.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I don't see the cost of using LR/PS from Adobe as high. In fact, I think it's a real deal for what I get. No software program that I am aware of does as much as the two programs combined. I do use other software but, for me, it just does not match up to the Adobe package. Adobe also gives users other programs that people are simply not aware of, for example, the ability to download hundreds of new fonts and Spark, a program that makes brochures, flyers, etc. that can be shared online, and also provides a program to share videos. The Adobe package is a complete package that offers many opportunities for photographers to process and share their work.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Appreciate the things in life you can't buy.

srt101fan

I think we need a new UHH section for CHG_CANONisms......

rcarol

"For me there are just no significant downsides to the subscription model and lots of up." I totally agree with you. I have been using Adobe's subscription service almost from the day it was offered.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I thought he was stealing them from Mr. Google?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There's only two types of people in the world: buyers and subscribers.