Creative Cloud more than Doubles Price to renew!

battletone wrote in post #16946959
I mean ACR is the same thing....so if my lightroom is updated, I see no reason photoshop cannot also derive the same ACR install for use. I am aware the actual ACR is different. It's just another way to force an upgrade.

Why not blame the camera company instead of Adobe? It's Canon or Nikon or whoever who keeps changing the RAW files with every new model, so that software companies have to keep updating their products to keep pace. It's not worth it to Adobe to continue to maintain CS5 when they are trying to sell CS6, and now CC. I'm no fan of the constant update process, but to put all the blame on Adobe is really not seeing the whole picture (pun intended ).

battletone wrote in post #16946959
I mean ACR is the same thing....so if my lightroom is updated, I see no reason photoshop cannot also derive the same ACR install for use. I am aware the actual ACR is different. It's just another way to force an upgrade.

I don't know if I'm confused or you're confused...

If the Lightroom Raw processor is updated, then since it uses ACR, well ACR in Photoshop has always been updated, as long as you have a current version of Photoshop. If, though, you are keeping an older version of Photoshop, the ACR stays at the level that works with PS.

If you are saying you think that, for example, your Photoshop CS3 should have all the most recent updates for ACR that Lightroom does, well, sorry, it's never been that way. Every year car makers put out new models. You don't bring in your old car to be "updated" into a new car!

tonylong wrote in post #16947991
I don't know if I'm confused or you're confused...

If the Lightroom Raw processor is updated, then since it uses ACR, well ACR in Photoshop has always been updated, as long as you have a current version of Photoshop. If, though, you are keeping an older version of Photoshop, the ACR stays at the level that works with PS.

If you are saying you think that, for example, your Photoshop CS3 should have all the most recent updates for ACR that Lightroom does, well, sorry, it's never been that way. Every year car makers put out new models. You don't bring in your old car to be "updated" into a new car!

That makes no sense. ACR is the same thing that just gets piggybacked on the application. I never said ps needs to be updated for free forever. But if I bought lightroom with a more recent version of it for the engine, there is no reason photoshop cannot tap into that installation of ACR other than they want to force an upgrade.

battletone wrote in post #16948098
That makes no sense. ACR is the same thing that just gets piggybacked on the application. I never said ps needs to be updated for free forever. But if I bought lightroom with a more recent version of it for the engine, there is no reason photoshop cannot tap into that installation of ACR other than they want to force an upgrade.

It's not that complicated, but it is too simplistic to insist on something like you suggest!

If you buy the most recent version of Lightroom, you are paying for the most recent version of Camera Raw.

If you want the most recent version of Camera Raw in PS, then you pay for the most recent version of PS!

In other words, the two do get upgraded during their "life cycle", about every three months or so. But then, that life cycle ends (typically after 18 months or so) and a new version of LR comes out with a new version of Camera Raw, and a new version of PS comes out with that same version of Camera Raw, and the life cycle begins all over again.

Now, with CC, there may be some differences, I don't know, but always since LR began, it was released in conjunction with a new version of Photoshop, and the old version of Photoshop stopped being upgraded. Still, if you wanted to work with LR and an older version of Photoshop, you could either convert to a tiff or psd, or you could convert to DNG, but you couldn't edit Raw files in both.

Things were a bit different when LR4 came out while CS5 was still current, if you did a special update to the CS5 version of Camera Raw, you could do some "hand shaking" between LR4 and PS Camera Raw, but even that has its limits. It still boils down to if you want the latest (and greatest) with LR, you get the latest version of LR, and if you also want the latest and greatest in PS (including the new compatible Camera Raw) you upgrade Photoshop.

To insist that the older Photoshop version of Camera Raw be the same as the latest version in Lightroom, well, it just ain't so, but they do give us tools to work with between the two!

battletone wrote in post #16944930
I bought LR5 boxed and have CS5. Now I have to export things to tiff first to open in Photoshop since my 6D isn't recognized in PS's outdated camera Raw...even though it uses the same one as Lightroom?

I'm not sure I understand your complaint.

In the past you would open a raw file with ACR, process it, transfer it as a tiff image to PS and process it some more.

Now you open a raw file with LR, process it, transfer it as a tiff image to PS and process it some more.

I think that it would be possible, without a great deal of difficulty, to add to PS the ability to be aware that LR is also installed, just as today LR is aware of PS or PSE. If you attempt to open an unsupported Raw in PS, the notice telling you that ACR cannot open it could ask if you want to launch LR with that file's folder on the Import dialog. After import and developing in LR (provided you have a version of LR that supports the Raw file) the image could be sent back to PS as a psd/tiff - as is already done by LR. My rather old installation of Breeze Browser Pro does this with a keyboard shortcut if LR is set as the Raw converter of choice in Preferences, but automatic detection of LR would be easy for PS. However, such a feature would be no more than a courtesy convenience, saving a few seconds. You would still have to import the image to an LR catalog and hand off an RGB file to PS. [Question: can LR be launched from Bridge just as ACR can be opened from Bridge?]

Preeb wrote in post #16947978
Why not blame the camera company instead of Adobe? It's Canon or Nikon or whoever who keeps changing the RAW files with every new model, so that software companies have to keep updating their products to keep pace. It's not worth it to Adobe to continue to maintain CS5 when they are trying to sell CS6, and now CC. I'm no fan of the constant update process, but to put all the blame on Adobe is really not seeing the whole picture (pun intended ).

A bit more is involved in Raw support than accommodating format and metadata placement changes, although that is important also. There is also testing and profiling the new model's color rendering, adjustments for sensor and data read-out variations, setting post-WB white and black points, exposure bias, etc. So there will always be a lag between model release and third party support. Even for those cameras that write Raw to DNG files (Leica, Pentax, Ricoh etc.) support has to be extended to cover new models.

tzalman wrote in post #16948248
A bit more is involved in Raw support than accommodating format and metadata placement changes, although that is important also. There is also testing and profiling the new model's color rendering, adjustments for sensor and data read-out variations, setting post-WB white and black points, exposure bias, etc. So there will always be a lag between model release and third party support. Even for those cameras that write Raw to DNG files (Leica, Pentax, Ricoh etc.) support has to be extended to cover new models.

I wasn't saying that there was anything negative about the camera manufacturer making these changes to the RAW files, only that Battletone's complaint needs to be directed at both. Why should the manufacturer get a free pass for making necessary changes when the software developer doesn't get the same pass? In fact the responsible software developer does keep their package updated, usually several times during its lifespan, while the camera just gets older (I know that there sometimes firmware updates, but they don't really change anything - usually just fix bugs).

I have no ideal because I rarely use DPP, but doesn't it react the same way? Will a older version open up a newer camera? Just curious.

D Thompson wrote in post #16948725
I have no ideal because I rarely use DPP, but doesn't it react the same way? Will a older version open up a newer camera? Just curious.

I doubt it, but then you wouldn't use an older version as Canon will always issue a version for a new camera that does support it.

Also, as I think was mentioned earlier, Adobe DO support older versions of ACR. They issue the free DNG converter which will convert RAW files to DNG which can be edited in older versions of ACR - for free.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #16948785
I doubt it, but then you wouldn't use an older version as Canon will always issue a version for a new camera that does support it.

Yeah, they always provide a copy of DPP, but if you had a previous version would it work on a newer camera? My original copy of DPP came with my 20D and later I got the 5D, so would the original copy of DPP open the RAW files from the 5D? Granted you'd want to install the latest, but.... I guess if I really wanted to see I could always install the original version DPP and find out.

Yeah, it always kind of makes me scratch my head when someone accuses Adobe of forcing them to upgrade when they offer the free DNG converter. So far they are still updating CS6 ACR which is the first time they've issued ACR updates for an older version. I'm using ACR8.4 although it only supports new cameras, not any new features.

I have LR 5 and PS CS5. I have no intention of updating to PS CS6. I, unfortunately, upgraded from CS2 to CS5 shortly before CS6 was released. By the time I was ready to upgrade to CS6 it was no longer available except in the CC version. My LR is 5.4 and is upgraded as needed and always current.

I work in LR and send it to PS as needed (not to often). When I send an image to PS, LR asks how I want to convert the RAW. I let LR do it and that works just fine. I'm not sure why this process seems to cause such concern for some of those posting here. Other than taking a little extra time for the conversion, it works fine and PS CS5 does everything I need it to do. I do not need CS6 or CC for any reason.

As long as LR is available, I will be fine. If it stops being available (except the CC version), I'll use what I have until something else comes along. I suppose conditions could force me to buy a subscription, but I don't anticipate it.

rgs wrote in post #16949270
By the time I was ready to upgrade to CS6 it was no longer available except in the CC version.

Not true, you can still purchase CS6 as an upgrade from CS5 - Buy CS6 from Adobe.

tonylong wrote in post #16946913
I have things that rattle around in my head, so some fresh thoughts:

When you subscribe to the CC, you are in effect "leasing" the Adobe products. I've never leased a car, but hey, when you do you get to drive a nice brand-spanking new car! Hey, I can appreciate that, since I have rented nice new cars for brief bits of time...

But then, when the lease expires, no more car! Dang, my toy and all its cool things, it's gone!

'Course, people lease because they can afford or don't want to buy a new car, so that's part of the understanding, you aren't buying, you won't own this car!

But then, something that is available of interest is the "Lease to Buy" idea, the idea that you can jump into a lease, and then, at whatever extra cost (there of course will be that "extra cost") you can actually buy the thing!

This is not only out there for cars, but also for homes, and then we see the "Rent to Own" stores full of furniture and stuff, I'm sure each "segment" has a different approach as to how the "lease/own" bit gets managed, but the end result is if you are leasing (or renting) some such thing, then at the end of the lease if you are happy with it and can shell out the money, then it's yours to keep!

So, I was pondering this in the context of this discussion: at this point, Adobe has begun to "lease" the software, but what about the idea of them developing a "lease to buy" plan, where once you've done the monthly thing for however long, you could, according to an arrangement with them, "buy out" the lease and in return get the software "permanently".

Of course, though, that would put an end to the ongoing updates...as it has been, once they come out with a new "model", well, you are now driving an old "beater", it's paid for, but...

Well, at any rate, those thoughts were rattling. Maybe those who like the "lease to own" idea could bring it up to Adobe and see if there is something that is possible and feasible, in other words, something that would make you happy but also keep the Adobe profits flowing!

D Thompson wrote in post #16946981
Tony - I've mentioned this many times here and to Adobe.

+1 for this. I've also advocated for this!

My suggestion was for an upfront purchase of current "version" of CC, with a subscription based maintenance/upgrades cost. If/when you stop paying, you are left with the last paid "version". If you want to get back in later, you pay a pro-rated fee for the month(s) you skipped.

D Thompson wrote in post #16949451
Not true, you can still purchase CS6 as an upgrade from CS5 - Buy CS6 from Adobe.

Thanks. Good to know although I'm still not certain I need it. Might be good to upgrade just to last a little longer.