Creative Cloud more than Doubles Price to renew!

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!

The competitors do offer this "lease-to-buy" - and of course also the direct "just buy".

But Adobe isn't too much liking end users to have an option.

mikeinctown wrote in post #17053796
OK thanks. I had the LR5 beta installed at one time before the official release and I did like some things in it. The batch processing is a godsend over the Canon program. Importing things and figuring out where everything is though is a PITA. I wish instead of files in some LR catalog that they would just put the files in your my pictures folder. Maybe you can set it to do that, but it wasn't so easy when I was screwing around with the beta. Maybe that is why I kept using DPP. the photos are all in my pictures and don't change file types or names.

Anyway, will probably try it for the $10 a month, especially since I have a newborn expected any day. Will probably be taking thousands of photos of her and my other kids to appease the woman.

As I recall by default, well initial settings anyway, as you can change almost all of the default settings in LR, the downloader will put your image files in your My Pictures folder (On a Windows computer)I have mine setup to load to a folder for each day under My Pictures, I think it may actually do that, but I'm not 100% sure, It only take ticking one box in the downloader to do it. Also the initial default is to simply use the same filename as is used by the camera. All of the files then reside in the specified location on your HDD as normal. You can still use DPP on them, or any other non Adobe RAW processor, without affecting the way LR works. LR does not offer an option where the image files themselves are stored as part of the database file, although for Apple's Aperture that is the default setting, although you can change it to work the same way as LR, with "Referenced" files if you want to.

If you are using LR and have files that have been imported into the LR database it is important to ensure that you do not move the location of that file using any other program than LR. That is because it will break LR's database link to the file. If you do move images by error outside of LR you will be given the opportunity to find the files yourself so that LR can rebuild the link. If you have moved a whole tree of folders and images it is OK as LR will happily find all the images in subfolders automatically, so you only have to point it at the top of the folder tree.

The other thing to think about is that LR is not only a really good image management system, coupled to a brilliant RAW processing engine, it is also very good a producing both printed, and finished digital files. The digital files can be very easily tailored to suit the exact use that will be made of the files. The output sharpening that LR offers is very good in this respect too. It works really well, but the only way to "preview" it is to run the export. This is due to the fact that it is dynamically applied, depending on multiple factors, meaning that the file would have to be created in order for you to preview it. I also find it much easier to print to LR than it is from Photoshop, and the soft proofing functions are far easier to use than those provided in PS. Even when I have had to resort to using PS for those things that LR cannot do, such as large scale cloning or any process that requires the use of layers, I alway take the .PSD file back to LR for final output processing. The great thing is though that I only really need to take about 5% of images into PS. 95% are processed only using LR.

Alan

mikeinctown wrote in post #17053796
Importing things and figuring out where everything is though is a PITA. I wish instead of files in some LR catalog that they would just put the files in your my pictures folder. Maybe you can set it to do that, but it wasn't so easy when I was screwing around with the beta. Maybe that is why I kept using DPP. the photos are all in my pictures and don't change file types or names.

Just to add to what a couple others said above... (there really are many ways to organize things.)

When importing pay attention to the dialog box. This gives complete control over what LR does to your images. For example if you already have a large collection of pictures in a PICTURES folder, you can simply ADD the images (LR will not copy or rename them... its now just aware they exist.) [This is what I did when first starting to use LR... that way all my "pre-LR" files were added to the catalog.]

Another import option is to MOVE the files. This is what I use now:

1. I have one big pictures folder with subfolders for the YEAR.
   
2. I manually copy all my images to a temporary folder on my desktop (I just like to know everything got copied off card.)
   
3. Then I have LR rename* and move the files from my desktop to the 2014 folder.
   

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #17055415
Just to add to what a couple others said above... (there really are many ways to organize things.)

When importing pay attention to the dialog box. This gives complete control over what LR does to your images. For example if you already have a large collection of pictures in a PICTURES folder, you can simply ADD the images (LR will not copy or rename them... its now just aware they exist.) [This is what I did when first starting to use LR... that way all my "pre-LR" files were added to the catalog.]

Another import option is to MOVE the files. This is what I use now:

1. I have one big pictures folder with subfolders for the YEAR.
   
2. I manually copy all my images to a temporary folder on my desktop (I just like to know everything got copied off card.)
   
3. Then I have LR rename* and move the files from my desktop to the 2014 folder.
   

(*I have it rename to add the capture date and time to the original image name.... this is to prevent duplicate filenames whenever my image counter on camera rolls over/resets or if I use multiple cameras... and it means that no matter what happens to metadata the filename will have the correct date.)

That may be exactly what I was looking for. I know when I was trying the program out, all my stuff previously in picture folders with the date, etc stayed where they were. All new photos got imported into a folder that i'm not sure where. Will probably sign up for the program this weekend and give it another shot. Thanks again for the help.

mikeinctown wrote in post #17055513
That may be exactly what I was looking for. I know when I was trying the program out, all my stuff previously in picture folders with the date, etc stayed where they were. All new photos got imported into a folder that i'm not sure where. Will probably sign up for the program this weekend and give it another shot. Thanks again for the help.

No problem.
And just to reiterate what someone else mentioned before:

As far as backups are concerned:

1. The Catalog does NOT contain your images.
   
2. Backup your images externally.
   
3. And since LR saves your edits in the catalog non-destrucitvely, your catalog becomes almost as important as the images themselves... backup your catalog externally with your images.
   

BamPhoto wrote in post #16943867
Just received notice that my Creative Cloud membership will go from 19.95 to 49.95 in July.
I wonder how many subscriptions besides mine Adobe will lose?

Er welcome to software land!
They all want to get you nailed into subscription based software. Becuase thereafter your ass belongs to them.
I buy my software!

And it will only get worse!

The only saviour is if everyone refuses and then they have to sell it!
But Adobe has such a huge market share.
I fear we customers are doomed!

rgs wrote in post #16949270
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.

My LR is current and I use it daily. My Photoshop is a few years old (CS5) - does for me. I have no problem exporting a TIFF if necessary.

I also use Illustrator from time to time which I was thinking of finally upgrading before this happened. My Illustrator is OS9 - version 6.0 - ie about 2005. I keep an old OS9/Classic computer partition [within early OSX] going mostly for Illustrator and for my old copy of Quark. No way am I going to pay an Adobe subscription. Sadly in my attempts to find an alternative to Illustrator, none I have yet tried are anything like up to scratch and can't handle gradations. I have to keep that OS9/Classic computer going.

An alternative might be a Windows emulator and CorelDraw, I suppose - though I've never tried CorelDraw.

Thinking about it, maybe it's a good thing I still have my film equipment even if Kodachrome no longer exists.

BamPhoto wrote in post #16943867
Just received notice that my Creative Cloud membership will go from 19.95 to 49.95 in July.
I wonder how many subscriptions besides mine Adobe will lose?

The first hit of crack is free, you see....

That was always Adobe's model, and I figured it out before I bit. I have a full CS6 license and refused to bite on CC.

Why?

Because once you save a file in the new "CC" format that file is forever dependent on you paying a forward license fee for access to it, and Adobe makes no representation on what that fee will be in the future.

There is utterly nothing to prevent them from screwing you blind, blue and raw -- and if they do your work product becomes inaccessible. Not their work product, your work product.

Uh, no.

They offered it @ $29.99 and I resigned. Next year I may go to just PS and LR we will see, I have LR 5 and PSCS6 in box if I need them.
No I don't like subscriptions either!

tickerguy wrote in post #17087651
The first hit of crack is free, you see....

That was always Adobe's model, and I figured it out before I bit. I have a full CS6 license and refused to bite on CC.

Why?

Because once you save a file in the new "CC" format that file is forever dependent on you paying a forward license fee for access to it, and Adobe makes no representation on what that fee will be in the future.

There is utterly nothing to prevent them from screwing you blind, blue and raw -- and if they do your work product becomes inaccessible. Not their work product, your work product.

Uh, no.

tickerguy wrote in post #17087651
There is utterly nothing to prevent them from screwing you blind, blue and raw -- and if they do your work product becomes inaccessible. Not their work product, your work product.

Uh, no.

Other than the fact that is it all contract based with clear termination lines and very clear descriptions of services and costs, and contracts with their userbase have end dates spread over the entire year.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from converting all of your files to some other format before your subscription comes up and telling Adobe to go screw themselves if they actually tried screwing you over with some insane and unannounced price jump.

And for those of you who haven't been paying attention, Adobe has actually DROPPED the price of some of their software and added additional titles to the basic single title license for Photoshop CC. It was initially Photoshop CC for around $20 a month, and then the $10 a month limited time special was released. At some point they also tossed in Lightroom 5 to further sweeten the deal.

But yet now they have been releasing statements that the $10 a month 'deal' is the standard price going forward. I completely expect that price to rise over time, but to remain relatively in line with inflation levels.

You are NOT locked in for life once you start using Adobe products. You should know that, and you can bet Adobe knows that. If you haven't noticed Adobe isn't just a graphics software company, but they are also a world leading market analytics company. They know how many customers will bail if they jerk users around on pricing, and they aren't about to do something that will tank their own company out of some idiotic short term greed. They're in business to make money, and you can't make money if you drive all your customers into the arms of your competitors.

BamPhoto wrote in post #16943867
Just received notice that my Creative Cloud membership will go from 19.95 to 49.95 in July.
I wonder how many subscriptions besides mine Adobe will lose?

Many of us said the prices will rise back when all this started. Like everything else, the low price is just to get you sucked in. I refuse to do all that. Adobe is a huge liar. They said when they come out with the cloud they will also come out with the cd/dvd version to sell to those who have too slow a connection or no internet at all. I and many other photographers refuse to allow our work computers be hooked up to the internet so we are stuck but we don't regret it either. There is always piratebay. I'm not advocating that, just throwing out an option. Personally I am sticking with CS5. Starting with CS6 Adobe really messed up with getting rid of features that many of use were using in CS5. They got rid of the packages and the psd/raw thumbnail previews when you click on a single image to see what it is. If I ever get a camera that CS5 doesn't support then I'll deal with CS6 because you can still purchase it.

BamPhoto wrote in post #17087670
They offered it @ $29.99 and I resigned. Next year I may go to just PS and LR we will see, I have LR 5 and PSCS6 in box if I need them.
No I don't like subscriptions either!

And why should I pay for lightroom when I refuse to use it. Tried it, hate it, not ever going back. Why should I use lightroom and then photoshop when photoshop does all I need.

Well, there is always the free DNG Converter you can convert your raw files to a universal format or to one that CS5 will use.

Shooting wrote in post #17087802
I and many other photographers refuse to allow our work computers be hooked up to the internet so we are stuck but we don't regret it either. There is always piratebay.

Wait, what?

You would refuse to have your work computer connect to the internet for I assume "reasons", and then suggest that illegally downloading a potentially maleware infested time bomb off the internet is also somehow a good or logical idea?