Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 06 Feb 2014 (Thursday) 07:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

IS Adobe CC worth it?

 
drvnbysound
Goldmember
3,316 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Aug 2009
     
Feb 13, 2014 15:43 |  #46

I'm not trying to debate anything. It is what it is. I don't see Adobe changing their offering anytime soon and that's fine. However, as I said above, I have no plans to subscribe, just like I won't be renting an apartment or leasing a car. If that means I won't have the latest version of Photoshop, I'm ok with that. My life will continue on... it's not that big of a deal to me. I know there are people in third world countries that have much bigger problems that I do. That doesn't mean I don't want to use their product(s), and it shouldn't keep me from trying to come up with ways that would satisfy the people who don't want rental-ware, like myself. Heck, at least I'm bothering to try and come up with a way that I'd willingly pay for it, as opposed to visiting an torrent site and getting a cracked version. I won't do that, but I know it's available.


I use manual exposure settings on the copy machine
..::Gear Listing::.. --==Feedback==--
...A few umbrella brackets I own...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
D ­ Thompson
Goldmember
Avatar
3,882 posts
Likes: 126
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Georgetown, Ky
     
Feb 13, 2014 16:08 |  #47

Mark-B wrote in post #16687224 (external link)
This has been the case since long before CC. Most people update just because they feel like they always have to have the new version. This is true for iphones, cameras, software, and most other things in the internet age. Those who do update for features usually do so for one new heavily advertised feature and don't even look at the rest of the smaller features. CS4 > CS5 got you content aware fill. Plenty of people updated just for that. CS5 > CS6 got you content aware patch and a crop too like the one in Lightroom. Plenty of people updated for that. The CC versions have already done updates at least as substantial as those things.

While the Content Aware tools could be considered quite useful by a lot of people, I'd venture to guess few will use the Camera Shake filter and even fewer the Warp tool.


Dennis
Canon 5D 20D
I have not yet begun to procrastinate!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Feb 13, 2014 19:14 |  #48

D Thompson wrote in post #16687328 (external link)
While the Content Aware tools could be considered quite useful by a lot of people, I'd venture to guess few will use the Camera Shake filter and even fewer the Warp tool.

I can agree with the camera shake filter, but not the perspective warp tool. Lens corrections and free transform (including skew, perspective, warp, etc) are some of my most used tools. That perspective warp could be helpful to objects at the edge of the frame in a 10mm shot and plenty of other situations.


Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drvnbysound
Goldmember
3,316 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Aug 2009
     
Feb 13, 2014 19:54 |  #49

Mark-B wrote in post #16687713 (external link)
I can agree with the camera shake filter, but not the perspective warp tool. Lens corrections and free transform (including skew, perspective, warp, etc) are some of my most used tools. That perspective warp could be helpful to objects at the edge of the frame in a 10mm shot and plenty of other situations.

They just need a good lens correction profile in Lr for that right? ;-)a


I use manual exposure settings on the copy machine
..::Gear Listing::.. --==Feedback==--
...A few umbrella brackets I own...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DerDembo
Member
53 posts
Joined Aug 2009
     
Feb 14, 2014 06:10 |  #50

Luckless wrote in post #16687067 (external link)
It is not in Adobe's best interest to slack off on development. They are in the lead by a strong margin now, but slacking off gives competitors more time to play catch up and only serves to give them a shorter gap to close. Pushing hard with a more efficient development and release cycle means Adobe can not only keep their strong margin, but they can pull even further ahead.

Of course not right now, but Adobe is a big company and when they run into trouble with their revenue stream in other areas (think Flash Media Server licenses) somebody will look at all those costly developers and say: Guys, I don't think we need all these people!

And don't underestimate the costs involved in switching software for large companies - they would need to find a compelling new feature in a different software package to justify the switch (true for updates too) and the fact that Adobe went for a subscription model tells me that they don't see anything on the horizon.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 188
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Feb 14, 2014 11:53 |  #51

DerDembo wrote in post #16688513 (external link)
Of course not right now, but Adobe is a big company and when they run into trouble with their revenue stream in other areas (think Flash Media Server licenses) somebody will look at all those costly developers and say: Guys, I don't think we need all these people!

And don't underestimate the costs involved in switching software for large companies - they would need to find a compelling new feature in a different software package to justify the switch (true for updates too) and the fact that Adobe went for a subscription model tells me that they don't see anything on the horizon.

Why would they make cuts to an insanely profitable and high profile part of their company (which puts that status at risk) in an attempt to prop up a failing sector?

And I'm very well aware of the cost of switching software for large companies. I've helped several companies deal with 1000+ license switches in the past. One of my old classmates works for an ad firm somewhere in Canada, and his entire job is to find image and video editing software, review it, and discuss options with project managers.


Do you think large companies that rely on software like Adobe are going to keep sticking around with their expensive licenses for services if Adobe lets competitors catch up in product quality? Look at why Adobe is frequently used: everyone uses it. If you work in digital 2D art, odds are you've used an Adobe product. Maybe you've used one of the other half dozen semi-serious competitors to Adobe's stuff, but chances are good that you've at least seen the basics of an Adobe Elements product. Hiring people who know the software and work flows in it is easy. Need to hire more employees? Odds are good that you don't have to train them in the new software.

This is why companies keep on with Adobe. However, if adobe lets things slip. If they slack off and allow other competitors to catch up and start taking over the smaller studio business, then Adobe is in a really bad place. They start to lose market share. Small shops that bought 5 licenses for a competitor's product grow. Soon they've bought 10, then 20, then 40. People at those small studios move on to 'bigger and better things', taking their knowledge of a competitor's (now equal) product with them, and Adobe's marketshare beings to collapse as larger firms get exposure to a competitor's products with their employees saying things like "Well we worked with X for years over at Y's firm, and it was just as good and half the cost."

The only way Adobe stays in the lead is that when all a manager hears when they ask someone for an opinion on options other than Adobe's software is "Well we could switch to that, but it can't do even half of what Adobe's stuff does."


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rockpirro
Member
81 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2014
     
Feb 14, 2014 21:24 |  #52

Its a great program, some great new features, but if your just doing basic edits, cs5 or cs6 is more than enough.


http://www.facebook.co​m/roccopirrottinaphoto​graphy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rayk
Goldmember
Avatar
1,838 posts
Likes: 196
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Northamptonshire. Uk
     
Feb 15, 2014 16:22 |  #53

Adobe is having us all over.

Whilst I understand book leg copies of CS6 are out their and this is why CC came out, but until companies such as Adobe, Microsoft etc keep having us over with the inflated price they charge for their software, bootlegging will happen !!!!

Vote with your feet, avoid CC!!!


Regards Ray
LRPS - Licentiateship of The Royal Photographic Society- CPAGB - ACA - Adobe Certified Associate -
www.rakphotographic.co​m (external link)
Follow me on Facebook (external link)
Follow me on Twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 188
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Feb 15, 2014 17:55 |  #54

Software is expensive to produce, bootleggers or not.

And the subscription model used for the Creative Cloud system isn't about preventing piracy, but rather it is about cash flow and a stable development environment that enables them to rapidly deploy new features and shorten development cycles.

The traditional model of software development is that a developer, publisher, or some other backer with money takes a risk and invests their money up front to fund development for upwards of several years with the hopes that the product can be finished and released to a market that will buy enough copies to not only recoup the investment but also earn a decent profit.

The new model however flips things. We are the investors. We put our money up now with the hopes of strong improvements in in the software down the road. Getting access to their existing software is a rather obvious incentive to encourage this investment and clearly limits the risks involved rather nicely. (After all I'm getting my money's worth in the mean time even if the improvements don't pan out as well as I could hope.)

By collecting fees from a subscription service the company can better manage risk. They have X cash coming in every month, which means they can scale their development cycle to what their actual income is now, not having to try and guess what their income is going to be two or three years down the road. They're freed from having to try and come up with a spiffy feature list that is going to convince non-technical people that paying for an upgrade is worth it, and can focus more on the less 'shiny' details of software development that frequently get left by the wayside in favour of 'features'. (Such as lower level optimization, advanced refactoring of code that makes future development easier/more reliable, etc.)

Shiny new features can be rolled out 'when they're done', meaning something cool that an exceptionally clever intern codes up for the company on his lunch break the week of a "Gold Launch" (final product getting shipped to customers, no new features added within that version) can be rolled into the product within the next month or so, rather than a year and a half later.

We as the end users get cool new tools to work with sooner, and a gradual change. We only have to learn one or two new things every few months to keep up with new development, rather than face radical changes from a 'whole new version', and exceptionally radical changes to the software if we had decided to skip several versions because our current software was 'good enough'.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drvnbysound
Goldmember
3,316 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Aug 2009
     
Feb 15, 2014 20:44 |  #55

I don't think the idea of the CC had anything to do with piracy. There were hacked versions available for download within the first couple of weeks that it was released. CC does not need a constant internet connection to remain active. It only needs a singular connection/authenticat​ion from the Adobe 'cloud' once a month.


I use manual exposure settings on the copy machine
..::Gear Listing::.. --==Feedback==--
...A few umbrella brackets I own...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hen3Ry
Goldmember
Avatar
1,061 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Aptos, CA, USA
     
Feb 15, 2014 22:23 |  #56

bw!

Luckless wrote in post #16692095 (external link)
Software is expensive to produce, bootleggers or not.

And the subscription model used for the Creative Cloud system isn't about preventing piracy, but rather it is about cash flow and a stable development environment that enables them to rapidly deploy new features and shorten development cycles.

The traditional model of software development is that a developer, publisher, or some other backer with money takes a risk and invests their money up front to fund development for upwards of several years with the hopes that the product can be finished and released to a market that will buy enough copies to not only recoup the investment but also earn a decent profit.

The new model however flips things. We are the investors. We put our money up now with the hopes of strong improvements in in the software down the road. Getting access to their existing software is a rather obvious incentive to encourage this investment and clearly limits the risks involved rather nicely. (After all I'm getting my money's worth in the mean time even if the improvements don't pan out as well as I could hope.)

By collecting fees from a subscription service the company can better manage risk. They have X cash coming in every month, which means they can scale their development cycle to what their actual income is now, not having to try and guess what their income is going to be two or three years down the road. They're freed from having to try and come up with a spiffy feature list that is going to convince non-technical people that paying for an upgrade is worth it, and can focus more on the less 'shiny' details of software development that frequently get left by the wayside in favour of 'features'. (Such as lower level optimization, advanced refactoring of code that makes future development easier/more reliable, etc.)

Shiny new features can be rolled out 'when they're done', meaning something cool that an exceptionally clever intern codes up for the company on his lunch break the week of a "Gold Launch" (final product getting shipped to customers, no new features added within that version) can be rolled into the product within the next month or so, rather than a year and a half later.

We as the end users get cool new tools to work with sooner, and a gradual change. We only have to learn one or two new things every few months to keep up with new development, rather than face radical changes from a 'whole new version', and exceptionally radical changes to the software if we had decided to skip several versions because our current software was 'good enough'.

Bingo.

Something the subscription model eliminates is the constant stress of hitting a date. When you are in that mode, as the old saying goes: "You can have new features, speedy/on-time delivery, or ship bug free. Pick two.


***************
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 188
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Feb 16, 2014 07:57 |  #57

Except bug free always comes with a little asterisk with it.

Any software more complex than "Hello World" generally has a bug. Even "Hello World" can exhibit an unexpected bug depending on the system it is deployed to.

So it is more an issue of how many bugs, and how many exceptionally obvious ones, get shipped.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grayline
Member
Avatar
247 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Newnan Georgia
     
Feb 16, 2014 08:31 |  #58

I have a Employee of mine that has had a bootlegged copy of ps6 for over a year it cost $49
it does its own updates. I think Adobe, Microsoft shouldnt be so dang expensive where more people can use their product. $1200 for ph6 and LR ? thats retarded why not $300 and sell 25, 000 copies than $1200 and sell 1000 copies and 25, 000 Bootlegged copies and $25, 000 a year to prosecute?
its a known fact there were 5 times more copies of windows xp sold Bootlegged than ever sold by microsoft...but if you could buy a complete useable program for $99 why would you spend $700 for an authentic? PRICE Is everything face it ...


Gear List :EOS 70D ,Sigma 50mm 1.4,Tamron 18-270, Canon 18-55,Canon HFM31,Canon SX280HS,Olympus E-10 ,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hen3Ry
Goldmember
Avatar
1,061 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Aptos, CA, USA
     
Feb 16, 2014 09:15 |  #59

Luckless wrote in post #16693247 (external link)
Except bug free always comes with a little asterisk with it.

Any software more complex than "Hello World" generally has a bug. Even "Hello World" can exhibit an unexpected bug depending on the system it is deployed to.

So it is more an issue of how many bugs, and how many exceptionally obvious ones, get shipped.

Yes, its true. All software has bugs. This is a given, and though it isn't provable, it isn't unprovable either. Shipping software has aways been a roll of the dice when it comes to bugs. Take PS. It is a huge program, at least in terms of the number of lines of code, and it has multiple ways to accomplish the same objective. Over time folks have developed their own way of doing things, often accomplishing a similar affect by different means. This means some folks will find bugs that other people never see. In the end, it gets down to quality control, and not to coding excellence.


***************
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
"spouting off stupid things"
Avatar
55,862 posts
Likes: 2634
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Feb 16, 2014 09:47 |  #60

Hen3Ry wrote in post #16693403 (external link)
Yes, its true. All software has bugs. This is a given, and though it isn't provable, it isn't unprovable either. Shipping software has aways been a roll of the dice when it comes to bugs. Take PS. It is a huge program, at least in terms of the number of lines of code, and it has multiple ways to accomplish the same objective. Over time folks have developed their own way of doing things, often accomplishing a similar affect by different means. This means some folks will find bugs that other people never see. In the end, it gets down to quality control, and not to coding excellence.

Clearly you have never worked in the software industry. Software modeling is a very well developed science and one can predict with a fairly high confidence how many bugs are in the code when shipping. But the last statement is so so wrong. You can never test quality into a product. All you can do is confirm what you have.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,116 views & 0 likes for this thread
IS Adobe CC worth it?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is idauria
1073 guests, 249 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.