I, likewise, wish to unsubscribe. That question was not answered here. There should be an "unsubscribe" link somewhere.

Thanks.

I have replied to these constant streams of redundant questions from new members of the 'hog regarding CC because there seems to be an aversion on the part of some in particular, to defend Adobe's pay-forever marketing. While extolling the virtues of CC, why is it that some NEVER seem to mention the fact that a commitment to this software entails an ongoing monthly payment, failure of which disables the product? Awareness of that fact is certainly not evident in the OP and is a major consideration to making an informed decision which was the original question.

The truth and nothing but the truth, but never the whole truth, as a politician or salesman would reply to a question. I am equally sick and tired of being criticized for my attempts at transparency when I ask questions aimed at helping a newcomer decide if they want to start down the slippery slope.

I hope there are others here who will pick up the gauntlet and let the world know there are other, cheaper and often better editors out there for their specific needs. I'm through with this constant defense of rental schemes and I'll unsubscribe from this Adobe fanboy gathering. My apologies to those who fall into the rental trap and suffer the problems associated with cessation of payments in the months and years ahead.

Don't bother to respond - I'm no longer here.

Is Elements doing the job for you? If so, why add expense and complexity and confusion to your polished workflow? Do you need constant minor changes and bug fixes? Are you ready and willing to begin endless payments to maintain your "subscription" or lose access?

The two references I gave above take all that into account.

As always, the best answer is "it depends" on a lot of things. Subject matter dictates the total amount of sharpening, as well as final output size and media. There are two professional level works on sharpening if you really want to get the best result.

"Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom" by the Late Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe is an excellent reference that explains when, why and how much.

Perhaps the most professional level discussion is embedded in the books "Professional Photoshop, Fifth Edition" and "Modern Photoshop Color Workflow" both by Dan Margulis.

The first is by far easier reading. Margulis, on the other hand, delves into sharpening as related to color balance, channels and some esoteric moves that require a lot of study to understand, although you don't have to understand why if you know how to implement his methods. These are the ultimate bibles for image editing using Photoshop.

@Gene51 has a vendetta against full disclosure. The OP asked about the subscription. I did nothing but add the missing information that IF YOU QUIT PAYING, YOU LOSE THE PROGRAM. I said and have NEVER said anything against the program itself, only the rental forever which I refuse to support. It's not a matter of money for me - I have thousands of dollars worth of software on my 4 computers.

If some of the rental fanboys here want to push subscriptions, fine. Don't misrepresent the product by omitting one of the key aspects of this software for many of us. Some love it, some hate it. But let's be honest when asked for advice and a recommendation.

Gimp, onOne, Paint Shop Pro, Picasa, Lightroom - lots of other options in boxes or freeware.

What do you have against full disclosure?

And while the spin here on the 'hog seems to be in favor of Adobe, you need the whole picture, not just the frosting on the cupcake.

You will pay $9.99 a month, every month. If you quit or fail to pay, you will have your program deactivated and it will not work. You will have to use other programs to access your files, and it's possible that files you saved in Adobe's .PSD format may not be readable by other editors. You must continue to pay if you want to play. That's $240/2 years which is more than the bi-annual upgrades used to cost. You do not "own" the software as a program, you "rent" it. There are many alternatives both free and cheaper.

Hacked businesses are mostly those who paid outside firms to set up their computer systems and then never updated or maintained their software, either because they didn't want to spend more money on the system or because their internal IT department was incompetent or clueless. It speaks nothing of the product other than the emphasis on bean counting above security of customer accounts.

Whether it was Adobe or some other source(s), about every six months my credit card account is hijacked and I get a call from the company asking if I bought a pizza in the Bronx and clothing in Iceland, and that they have blocked my card until I verify additional purchases. I can't buy fuel for my car when I'm on the road if I have it disabled, and I don't often carry enough cash to get home so I call VISA or MC and tell them to keep the card active until I can get it replaced. I carry multiple cards now but it's a pain. I know for a fact that one instance was an Adobe breach, as it was a card I didn't use for anything but backup, the others probably not. Fortunately, I've never lost a dime, and my card companies call to verify large purchases, but it's a pain in the a$$ to replace online vendor account information.

I don't get into the Mac vs. PC debate. I use both and my personal choice is PC because of cost, performance, flexibility and customizability. PS runs on both of them. Those who extoll the virtues of one over the other usually have specific functions that tip the decision, cost be damned. I build my own, and that makes a difference for both cost and performance, and I have a lot of software that just won't run on a Mac unless it has been PC-ized.

And I agree that Photoshop is good software. Sadly, CS6 is my last purchase. If and when Adobe offers boxed versions, I'll update. I'll never pay someone every month to keep my software alive.

It's not just Adobe, but many software companies change your default settings when you install their products. There is little I dislike more than having to go in and fix something that some software engineer thinks they know better than I do on what my computer configuration should be. It's easy enough to fix (usually) but it's annoying as hell.

...or planned obsolescence by Adobe ...

I don't intend to argue. Two points which are opinion only.

1) Money is not an object to me when considering to PURCHASE software with a potentially unlimited use-span. That software is paid for and is usable as long as I choose to do so. Not so with rent-ware.

2) I like the software. My objection is with subscription-only versions. If they would sell a boxed version, I would evaluate it and likely purchase it. I just purchased two competitive boxed products for evaluation most likely only one of which will become my standard. Subscription software is a slippery slope and potentially a big future expense for those who are unaware. There are many of us who dislike the pay-forever model but many who have too much time and learning invested in PS to switch, which is what Adobe bet on. Adobe obviously paid no attention to the feedback from their questionnaires, from other industry gurus like Scott Kelby, Dan Margulis, Dr. Brown, Matt Koslowski and from friends and professionals with whom I associate. I don't know of a single one of them who preferred subscriptions. I have a choice to go with other products once my CS6 is no longer viable - but I suspect that will be many many years down the road. I simply wanted to make sure new users of the more advanced editors know the disadvantages. I am tired of the endless Adobe advertising on the forum as though there is no other choice.

So no argument, just difference of opinion. If you want to extoll the virtues of CC, please be honest and note the disadvantages as well. We owe it to new people to give them an unbiased look at both sides. These topics recycle every month or two. Please, let's be fair and balanced.

This is perhaps a good illustration of the misunderstanding and rationalization for upgrading. None of this is "new."


That is absolutely not true. Your camera comes with software to handle RAW interpretation. Picasa and other editors are updated with new camera formats as they emerge. Even Adobe DNG and my CS6 ACR are updated with new camera releases.

Again, not true. CA has been removed quickly and easily using basic features of any editor. Lenses are also updated along with camera RAW formats in ACR if you have a paid-for version. The built-in CA removal is handy, but I often find I need to tweak it a bit afterwards, and many time with pro lenses, it is not necessary. The tools are there, nonetheless, to do so without the lens correction feature which is simply a modification of existing tools, or you can quickly and easily create your own lens correction definitions with the editor, which I've done for all my lenses.

I've always done panoramas in CS6 (and before). There is no need to do that in LR, and CC adds little of value in that regard.

My computer is plenty fast, even though it's 8 years old. CS6 uses my "old" GTX570 graphics card efficiently and everything is done in real time with the exception of one very long, complex action I use (which doesn't run with the new "improved" menu system in CC). I do have a new, state of the art computer which I just built, but no need to move CS6 to that machine because the speed increase would be totally transparent.

When we make decisions, it helps to know both the pros and cons, whether it's hardware, software or politics. Everything is a compromise. I don't mean to be a curmudgeon of which I've been accused here on the 'hog, but it is a disservice to newcomers asking questions to be inundated with a happy customer sales pitch for Adobe's CC subscription. It's not all good, which is true of any product, but to ignore the negatives is unfair to the OP who may not be aware of the downsides.

I have purchased both the onOne Photo Suite and the latest version of Paint Shop Pro and so far I've found nothing either of those products can not do in my photo workflow. The menu systems are a bit different, but the functionality I need is there. There are perfectly good alternatives with boxed software which should be considered, that's all I'm saying, and CC is not the holy grail of image editors. Let's be honest and define all aspects of the choice of editors.

It's not an argument, it's an opinion and a heads-up to those who think subscription software is the holy grail. And for those who like using it as an argument, Adobe always updated ACR and DNG when new cameras came out, and they still update my "old, obsolete" CS6 ACR with those new lenses and RAW definitions - just last week in fact.

If your example is correct, then my car is obsolete because it doesn't have a backup camera, in-dash GPS and touchscreen. The basic function is unaltered, and transportation is not obsolete unless or until roads are removed and/or fuel is changed such that my internal combustion engine will no longer run on it.

Many of the members here are excited to get some new tweak on the transform tool or the sharpening algorithms regardless of the real cost. If that's what turns you on, go for it. I'm not talking about you, I'm simply stating that there is more than one way to evaluate the product. It reminds me of those who can't afford a new $1,000 big-screen TV, so they pay $100/month for 18 months because they can't do the math and think they must have the product. I can and do pay for any software that I want or need.

I know well what CC is. I am inundated with e-mails and links begging me to return to Adobe and subscribe. They send me copious amounts of information listing all the "new" features, videos of the new tools, etc. etc. I'm not impressed and I see nothing that I want. Personal opinion. Yours may differ. Go for it. I can hardly wait until the entire software industry rents their products.

Two quick comments:

1) My cars do not have timing "belts," they use chains, and I gave my daughter my GrandAm with 210,000 miles - it went over 250,000 before she chose to trade it in. I was a new car dealership service manager for 12 years and I was a GM Certified Master Technician. You're out of your league on that, @Gene51.

2) "Functionally obsolete" is a matter of opinion. If it edits current output from my RAW files and runs on my OS, it is not functionally obsolete.

Be careful who you call a fool.

Sorry @Gene51, bad analogy.

First, software doesn't "deteriorate" in any way. It may be superseded with newer features, but that in no way diminishes the value of the original. There are many pros still using PS5.5 and earlier versions of CS because it still works fine and they don't need any of the new variations on the same old themes that are sold as "new features."

Second, I have a car that is 10 years old that has never had any maintenance other than oil changes, wiper blades and a battery in 90,000 miles. I don't need all that electronic crap to divert my attention from the basic responsibility of driving safely.

And frankly, I don't care how much money Adobe makes. They are rich beyond imagination with their monopolistic product. I don't want or need a new car, and I don't want or need new editing software.

Enjoy your monthly payments knowing that you're keeping them in business. Sorry, I won't help.