What you never seem to mention, so I will, is that with non-subscription software you can decide to not pay for a year or two or more, and still have all the functionality you paid for up front. I don't think I am alone as someone who doesn't need every new feature the month they decide to release it. I just upgraded my Corel Printshop Pro to X9 for $40. Another member just asked if they should spend to upgrade to V9 as they are now using V6. I'd say that is a substantial saving over subscriptions. Maybe V6 doesn't support the latest camera, but if you don't own the latest camera ...

Just another point of view.

I upgrade my software regularly. The issue with comparing Printshop to Adobe products is that it cost $$$$ to upgrade. The last CS5 to CS6 upgrade cost me $525. While you might be happy with a $40 upgrade cost for Printshop, I forked over the $$$ to keep my software current. I used it in a professional context, and needed the features and benefits offered. Paintshop may work for you, but it definitely is not Photoshop on a variety of levels. I've love to say that you are comparing apples to apples, but you aren't. It's apples and oranges - both are fruit, but they are not the same. Comparing Photoshop to CC is more appropriate. And yes, even if you skipped an upgrade - it still cost $525 when you did - so you only saved $250 by upgrading from CS4 to CS6, in the meantime you missed out on some pretty useful stuff. If the "stuff" was something you could do without, then I guess it was ok to skip. But I found benefit to the upgrades - each increment made my work faster and better so it translated into $$$ in my pocket - not the other way around.

The big issue I have is I will never, even with your explanation, ever understand paying for upgrades, even if you skip one, but refusing to pay for a maintenance fee that has been reduced to a monthly payment. At the end, you pay for the software regardless. And if I were to stop paying for LR, I would still have access to my images, previews, library module, etc - because it is my data, and Adobe recognizes that they must provide access to it.

If I decided not to pay for Photoshop it would be because I found something else - in which case I wouldn't care to use photoshop anymore. So why would I be upset about not being able to use it? I fail to see the logic in railing against a monthly fee. I, like my accountant, look at it annualized anyway, and for $120 a year for both PS and LR, I am so much better off than when I paid for perpetual licensed software. BTW, several months ago I went back and tried to use CS6 - it was horrible. I felt like I was using a 10 yr old computer. SMH . . .


---

Gene- I upgraded PS every other upgrade from V3 which came on floppies, until CS5. Direct from Adobe I never paid more than $179. So unless you were doing more than 2 installs of just PhotoShop, you got ripped off. I could go along with subscriptions if they said when you stop paying you get no more upgrades, but still have the functionality you had when you stopped.

As for you needing all the new features, that is mostly just the desire to have the latest. To say you need them is to say you couldn't work anymore if they didn't come out with a new feature.

And, if you haven't used it lately I can understand why you feel there is a huge difference between Adobe and Corel. They have both added so much that they have more features than most people will ever need, even if they are three upgrades behind.

To each their own. But there are valid reasons for choosing owning versus renting and vice versa. True for houses, cars, and software. I know people who are willing to trade a 1 year old car because they now have CarPlay. Yeah, they too need the new feature. :)


---

So far the beta is pretty buggy, but the promised finalized version is just a few weeks away. It's interface is slick - very easy to move between raw and bitmapped images, unlike LR which requires the image be in effect exported from LR to Photoshop or whatever application you are using. Plugins work with LR and PS as they always have. Commands in raw are a bit slow, but the image quality so far looks pretty good.

I like the various sharpening options, noise reduction, and the range of the sliders on the Local Adjustment option - which is considerably better than LR's. It is also great to be able to "layer" the local adjustments, and apply a precision mask, just like you would in Photoshop or On1 Effects, to the raw file. You can copy the mask from one adjustment setting to another as well. Blend modes and selective application (highlights, shadows and skin) is very useful. It would be great if multiple masks could be named and saved for future use. But just having this type of masking in the Develop module is really great. Being able to save the changes in a .on1 sidecar is great, making changes totally and automatically non-destructive.

Being able to apply very accurately defined and precise masks to local adjustments means I will rarely try to do that in LR, where it is "fuzzy" at best.

So far, so good, can't wait until the other promised features are available -

I'm still exploring, but I can see some things that I really like, some things that are just not possible in LR, and some things that LR is just faster and better at.

Like any craftsman's tool kit - having lots of tools, some of which may have some redundancy, makes it really easy to apply the right tool for the job. Having only a hammer available makes everything look like a nail. in this case more is definitely better, and I don't see myself not using LR in the future, but I do see myself using more of On1, especially in the early phases of importing and making the preliminary adjustments to raw files. Nothing will beat LR when it comes to making simple batch adjustments, other than Capture One or DXO - at least at the moment.