Karl's Bird Photography Loc: Oregon

Hopefully, somebody already said something about the cost of Lr/Ps compared to the cost of the camera, lens, tripod, etc. A few hundred dollars (several years like a camera) for Lr/Ps when it's as important, if not more, than the camera gear is a steal.

Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey

Yes! As I said before they want to tell you how spend your money but if that was reversed they would be most likely saying, how dare you!😎😁 I agree Affinty is a great inexpensive editor, I actually got it on sale for $25!

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Maybe "evil" was not the best choice of words. Yet there are some regulars here where a similar tone is used whenever Adobe's switch to subscriptions is in the topic.

Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey

And you are paying for it for the rest of your life as opposed to hardware which is usually upgraded when one can afford it. Make no mistake about the subscription model is great for the companies, who are always getting monthly money, but not so great for the consumer who has more and more bills added to their cost of living. Case in point, I have been using Adobe products for 20 years. Subscription based that would have cost me $2500. But because I upgraded only when needed I spent about $900. The House always wins!

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Do you still drive a 20 yr old car? Tried buying parts for it lately? The key phrase in your reply, "Affinity... so far." The day will come when you will have new camera files Affinity can not read. And they will invite you to subscribe to the new service that can.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Personally I like a single purpose editor, and a single purpose catalogue application. I use ACDSee for catalogue, and that comes with an editor built in, but it's really a separate app I guess like ACR is separate to LR and PS. When I used PS I used it along with ACDSee. I'm not saying I wouldn't like LR and PS, I just am very happy with ACDSee and have been using it for probably 25 years. ACDSee interfaces just fine with any photo editor you might want to use. I don't recommend ACDSee much because it is one of those apps that has a pretty good learning curve, and many, many photographers seem to have major issues with anything computer related other than a camera. The editor is both good and easy to use though, but I use and recommend Affinity Photo for those wanting to get away from rentals.

Affinity also has a Designer and Publisher apps, but I don't have a use for them. I found Affinity's interface difficult to learn, but attribute that to having completely internalized Photoshop, and the two are really close, but not exact, which gave me headaches for a good while (it was a battle getting it through my thick head)

Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey

Actually many people do drive 20 year old cars and friend of mine just had his repaired the other day. Affinity, unlike ON1 or Capture one, has made no subscription alternative, strictly a one time purchase. And despite the plethora of subscriptions they offer, Adobe is still offering Photoshop Elements to buy. Adobe also offers a DNG service for free to upgrade your files. Yes subscriptions seem to be the trend but there are still many alternatives to this model including open source software should you so desire

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

The House never wins if the players leave! Adobe has about 25 million players and estimates are that it could be 30 million in 2023.

It takes some work to read the press when they made the switch. I recall there were three reasons, but I only remember two of them.

First was a piracy problem. It was worldwide and big. The estimates of illegal use were amazing. Can you still get pirated copies of CS6?

Second was about product development. The perpetual model was a boom and bust cash cycle. If there were too few customers upgrading, there was limited funding for the next ongoing development cycle. Monthly rental fees provided the consistent funding to create better products.

I think the third was that most commercial customers preferred rentals. There were tax reasons where monthly "expenses" were better than depreciation charges for capital investments. Although we photographers are important to Adobe, their commercial clients may be more important.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I find this very interesting, and if I understand it correctly, is the only reason I can see so far to use LR. Actually, if LR does this, I'd think PS itself should do this. I guess PS would need to incorporate the LR catalogue methods, which I don't understand why they don't anyway, and just do away with LR. On the other hand, I, who use ACDSee would not be able to use PS I guess.

I keep multiple copies of all my good pictures. I keep the original of course, then I keep the edited copy, then if I upload it for TV viewing, I keep a copy re-sized for the TV, and another re-sized for my DeskTop slide show. Then, for complex jpg edits, I save a psd file in case I want to return w/o starting over. If LR eliminates all that, it would be a good thing I guess. Just eliminating the need for a huge PSD file would be great. The small jpg files hardly count in size in this terabyte world.

tcthome Loc: NJ

I don't know. For existing subscribers, it still 10 a month. For new subs, 20 a month. Missed the boat is more like it. Capture one have smart masking?

Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey

And yet when they announced LR 5 some years back at a B&H forum they were loudly booed when they said it was also available alsoas subscription. Hobbyists make a larger part their clientele and should not be forced into a model that is not in their best interests. Any edits I make in the subscription model will disappear unless I make TIFF or JPEG copies. So if I can no longer afford it because of new a new medication I might need, I am Bleep out of luck. So yes the house wins. Of course they could offer a stand alone to those who prefer it like they are still doing with Elements but for some reason they do not. This is a business model that favors the company and not the consumer and if they were losing money the other way I think they need to rethink being in business.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Well no, I drive a 21+ year old truck. I know parts are expensive but so far, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH cheaper than buying a new, equivalent truck for 50-60,000 big ones. The biggest issue with my truck was last year when mice or squirrels lunched on some wires that prevented it from starting.

I'm pretty old and have no plans on buying a new camera, but if I do, I'm VERY confident Affinity will have no problem reading them at all. If they decided to FINALLY make me pay for an upgrade, I would be good with that as well, I feel like I'm getting over on them at this point anyway.

Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey

👍👍👍👍👍👍😁

Jack 13088 Loc: Central NY

Most excellent! Pretty much consistent with my opinion on these matters. And to quote a sign my wife bought. “I don’t need a second opinion. I like mine just fine.”

Historically speaking it started out as “Photoshop Lightroom” conjuring up the image of National Geographic editors and photographers around a giant light table pushing slides (Kodachrome) around creating a story. I believe it was intended to provide a very much needed database (I find the term “cataloguer” to be pejorative and ignorant intended to annoy me) for managing large number of images prior to editing in Photoshop. Databases are absolutely the best interface for managing large amounts of data. You use the everyday. Finder and Explorer are database application. So are TurboTax and similar programs. So where along the road it was discovered that the database incorporated in the Develop module was the way to make editing raw files user friendly. I don’t know how ACR vs. Lr came to be, however, they now are pretty much the same bag of bits. Lightroom plus Photoshop are an ecosystem that play together nicely and are not some diabolical plot but a system that seems to thrive in the marketplace.

I admit to waiting a year or two to switch to the subscription plan. I was more concerned that Adobe might abandon development of LR in favor of entry into the lucrative dumbed down mobile device market. It turned out that development has steadily accelerated. Of course, I have always understood that you can’t buy software only lease it without long term support guaranteed. All industrial strength software is licensed by the seat and paid for support. I think that bundling PS makes it a bargain. Plus the improved selection technology has made PS less frustrating so that I occasionally am successful with it.

Compare the $11/month (Don’t forget sales tax) to your monthly telecommunications (Internet plus TV plus telephone) bill not Starbucks and their overpriced awful coffee.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I agree with all that except I think Adobe never cared a lick about non-commercial customers. They were selling high priced product the average consumer couldn't afford or justify. This resulted in massive illegal usage. The rental aspect, which is good for commercial users, is also way more realistic to the average consumer, and was a way to grab the non commercial market. I think it was a glorious plan, and should have worked out well for them. I think it's a much better plan than pricing the consumer out of the market, both for them and the consumer. Still not for me though, but much easier for the hobbyist to justify 10/mo than $600/year. It's had me thinking more than once, but so far, I'm still out. Had PS not adopted the rental scheme, Affinity would likely have 90% of the non commercial market.