DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Not everyone is interested in getting the best they can get out of their photos. They are satisfied with merely good enough. For those people, spending money on something they wouldn't use is not a good idea. That is their right, as is our right to get everything we can out of our photos (and even more on top of that). There is no right position here. Any hobby worth its salt has costs, and this is a small one. But some people cannot commit money to the uncertain future.

We can all brag about our cameras and lenses to our neighbors, but few of us brag to our neighbors about the software we use.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I've used half a dozen Adobe products since the 1980s, but I can't consider them more than *de facto* standards. The only reason they enjoyed such success is because they had "the whole gamut of tools" that most graphic arts pros and pro photographers needed. That's enough reason to use their products.

Some versions of Photoshop have been real BLOATware. The organization of menus and functions has not always been elegant. I think that has changed with subscriptions... The software is tweaked constantly, incrementally, to make it work more smoothly for more users.

The creation of Lightroom for photographers was a really huge step in solving the workflow issue many professionals faced. It's a head scratcher for many, though, due to its curious naming scheme and its catalog/database/non destructive virtual workflow. I, however, like it a lot more than Photoshop, because it does 80% of what I want to do to most of my images.

But despite improvements to Adobe software, it does not serve everyone. Other tools fill in gaps, or replace the Adobe suite altogether. For instance, nothing will quite replace Thorsten Lemke's GraphicConverter 11, for me. It does a few things more easily and more efficiently than either LrC or Ps or any other tools I've used. I set up an edit bay at the lab I worked for, using the slideshow feature of GraphicConverter to cull edit group photos of school teams and classroom students. That was well before Lightroom existed. I still find GraphicConverter more useful and flexible for rapid cull edits.

Several less popular suites do things Adobe does not do. Some software functions are better in some packages. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, there's a marketplace. It's like anything else. There are popular products, and then there are the ones some of us swear by, rather than swear at.

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

PRECISELY... I never paid the monthly Ransom after CS6 either.

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

I thought I remember something about being able to run an older version of windows on the same computer for those who have old software that won't work on the latest version. You might want to look into that and save yourself a bunch of ransom monthly payments.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It's not a ransom. That's ridiculous. It's an appropriate cost for a very valuable tool set. The current Adobe $10.00 per month subscription is a very good deal for what you get considering you get both LR and PS. I pay more for the processing software I use. Post processing software is an essential tool and most of what's available for our use delivers excellent value for cost.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

My goodness, folks do need a perspective, don't they? My wife and I just opened a $10 bottle of wine. I spent more than $10 on fast food I shouldn't have eaten this week. If we look at some of the things we spent money on last month but didn't need to spend (or regret spending), many of us could find $120 to pay for a year's subscription. I don't even think about it. A month of the Photography Plan is less expensive than a single movie ticket, and I get more fun out of it than most films I'll forget next week.

That said, I know some folks are trying to live on a small Social Security check and nothing else. They still have decent choices in used computers and stand-alone software. On some level, it is not what you have, but how you use it that counts. At least, that's what she said last night...

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Wow, just ignore all logic. The fact is to upgrade at some point you had to buy the original software at some point. Let’s say you’re upgrading from CS4 which was an upgrade from CS3. CS3 was $699 and now you’ve paid to upgrade twice. Maybe you started with CS1, that was $895.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

She was being kind. 😜🤪🤣

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I'm with you, Bill. I understand that money is tight for some folks, but for many, ten bucks a month is off their radar. I've heard all the arguments too many times. For some, the Adobe plan is a good fit; for others, it isn't. What I often see is vocal proponents of one camp or the other, who try to bolster their arguments using flawed or incomplete TCO numbers..

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

And maybe you upgraded to CS from Photoshop for the upgrade price of $169.00 (Your $895 figure is wrong -- CS retailed for $649).

Going back over the years that original purchase lessens in significance as well as in actuality and you're paying periodic upgrade pricing. One more time: Assuming the costs are fairly comparable (as in fact they were) a) upgrading license versions over time and b) paying for the subscription, how are those models different when you chose to stop paying. Answer: the license version continues to work and the subscription version stops dead in it's tracks. You can't stop paying to use the subscription model -- that was the point.

shoelessjoe

I at one time used PSE and would update it once every few years. I couldn't see paying $600 for the full version of PS. I bought a new camera that came out after the software version was published and it wouldn't read the files because it couldn't determine the camera make and model. I either had to pay for an upgrade for between $85 and $100 for just Elements which after a year I would have to pay for another upgrade.

I chose to go for the subscription at $10 a month and get a full blown version of PS and also get Lightroom along with it. Now I get all of the updates when they are available and don't worry about equipment compatibility with the software.

The point is that either way Adobe like all other software companies are going to make money on their products. They are in the business of making money. The smart thing that Adobe did was to make it so inexpensive at $10 a month that they have a lot of subscribers. If it were $20 how many of the subscription customers would they maintain?
It works for them and it works for me. to others it might not work so much and that is OK.

MDI Mainer

I guess we should expand this thread to deal with the respective merits of RAW and JPEG.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

There's an argument that if you shoot JPEG, you never need new software ... hence my happiness with PSE-2011 now in 2022. My scanned film work just loves their LR6. My 2012 and 2014 full-frame digital cameras produce RAW files well known and supported by LR6. Just P - E - R - F - E - C - T.

MDI Mainer

Hope you have a patent for the vaccine against GAS.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

No, the point was you used bogus numbers to defend your point and you just can’t stop trying to spin those bogus numbers.