It's so easy to go along, to follow the crowd, to subscribe ...
burkphoto wrote:
WTF?
I paid thousands to license Adobe packaged software between 1985 and 2015... Ten bucks a month is trivial compared to a lump sum of hundreds every 18-24 months.
The HUGE benefit of subscription is that it’s always up to date, so the learning curve is incremental.
ALL packaged software is licensed. We don’t own it. It works “as is” until your OS is out of date or your machine dies. You pay for upgrades (not updates).
The subscription model has been great for me... no unexpected lump sum expenses.
WTF? br br I paid thousands to license Adobe pack... (
show quote)
It has been great for most subscribers.
CHG_CANON wrote:
It's so easy to go along, to follow the crowd, to subscribe ...
And sometimes the easy thing is also the best thing.
burkphoto wrote:
I paid thousands to license Adobe packaged software between 1985 and 2015... Ten bucks a month is trivial compared to a lump sum of hundreds every 18-24 months.
The HUGE benefit of subscription is that it’s always up to date, so the learning curve is incremental.
ALL packaged software is licensed. We don’t own it. It works “as is” until your OS is out of date or your machine dies. You pay for upgrades (not updates).
The subscription model has been great for me... no unexpected lump sum expenses.
br br I paid thousands to license Adobe packaged... (
show quote)
I don't like the idea of subscriptions but must admit I do like the functionality. I still have a copy of PS and LR though they are old tools now.
CHG_CANON wrote:
It's so easy to go along, to follow the crowd, to subscribe ...
I've been using Photoshop since the first version, so I guess the crowd followed me. And if they had the subscription model from the beginning I would have saved many hundreds of dollars.
JohnSwanda wrote:
I've been using Photoshop since the first version, so I guess the crowd followed me. And if they had the subscription model from the beginning I would have saved many hundreds of dollars.
I started with, I believe, version three. After that I upgraded every two or three years for $140 -$160. I quit at CS-5. Having the latest and greatest wasn't changing the way I work, it just let me keep my software updated to match my camera. Then at an Adobe seminar somebody asked what the downside was to using DNG since it didn't include everything in the original file. The answer surprised me. The answer was that DNG only leaves out the camera manufacturer's proprietary data which Adobe software doesn't use anyway.
As for the constant updating, Corel PSP updated there software for my two newest cameras, D850 and Z6, while PS subscription users were still griping about having to use JPG. Of course the griping could have been brought about due to human error. We never know for sure.
---
Maik723 wrote:
Infinity Photo software is the way to go these days. Agree, or not Agree?
Neither yes or no from me, because I never used it! Its like most things, preference!
Maik723 wrote:
Infinity Photo software is the way to go these days. Agree, or not Agree?
If you like the features it offers, find its layout structure to be intuitive, sufficiently flexible and easy to work with, and also feel the price is acceptable - then sure, why not.
Being a light, non-professional user I could get away with a photo editor update every other year or more and would hardly notice the difference. Adobe might have already made most of the most useful changes to their software for 90% of the users. Aside from operating system tweaks, what we are seeing now may be new features for high-end users.
Maik723 wrote:
Infinity Photo software is the way to go these days. Agree, or not Agree?
INFINITY? What? Is that what they used to make Toy Story? You mean Affinity, right? Does it attract dyslexics? If you want to create dissidence on the Hog at least get the subject correct.
LCD wrote:
Being a light, non-professional user I could get away with a photo editor update every other year or more and would hardly notice the difference. Adobe might have already made most of the most useful changes to their software for 90% of the users. Aside from operating system tweaks, what we are seeing now may be new features for high-end users.
Not true. Many of the updates easier ways to to things and better quality, ie spot healing. Also new and easy neat tricks.
LCD wrote:
Being a light, non-professional user I could get away with a photo editor update every other year or more and would hardly notice the difference. Adobe might have already made most of the most useful changes to their software for 90% of the users. Aside from operating system tweaks, what we are seeing now may be new features for high-end users.
Bingo! I'm pretty happy with Ps CS6. But the Content Aware features of newer versions are impressive and tempting.
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
lamiaceae wrote:
... Does it attract dyslexics? If you want to create dissidence on the Hog at least get the subject correct.
It's pretty easy to create dissonance on the Hog, whether you're lysdexic or not.
rick_n_wv wrote:
I don't like the idea of subscriptions but must admit I do like the functionality. I still have a copy of PS and LR though they are old tools now.
I know I have a copy of PageMaker 7.0 around here, too. Unfortunately, it won't run on OS X 10.6.8, let alone Mac OS 10.14.6! I have to pull out the 1999 PowerMac G4 with OS 9.2.2 on it.
Software is like beach sand castles that get washed away every so often.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.