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 20 Oct 2017 (Friday) 10:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

So if we are done with LR, whats our choices?

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,166 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5923
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited over 2 years ago by TeamSpeed. (14 edits in all)
     
Oct 24, 2017 12:32 as a reply to  @ post 18479855 |  #76

There is no reason to belittle people, you just stated you don't get it, so let's take a look at software and services.

Software is software, you write it once, it runs for a very long time with no attention. I am in the software business, both in SaaS (software as a service) and in licensed standalone copies. Sometimes people want to buy a copy, others want to buy a subscription, each model comes with different expectations and at different cost points. The problem people have here is that they used to own a copy and could run it for years without any updates needed, and others that change equipment often may not mind paying $10 a month because they need the updates as they change equipment. The same model exists with just about everything, cars, housing, etc.

The issue here is that there is no longer a choice. You must pay the much higher model. This ISN'T MOVING forward, it is simply a way for a corporation to force people to pay for something they developed once, over and over and over and over, month after month. Sure they have upgrades and enhancements over time, that hasn't changed from when there wasn't a monthly subscription, that was called an "upgrade fee", but even that cost you just once each major upgrade. Some people just use basic functions that NEVER change year after year where now they have to pay repeatedly for something developed 5 years ago, but before they didn't have to.

It would as if the entire car industry decided they were going to stop selling cars, and instead you could only lease, you would have to pay monthly forever and forever, and never get to a point where you own the vehicle. That would stink, and you would could never get ahead financially. Monthly fees have a tendency to go overboard and increase at a higher rate than inflation, and certainly higher than one's salary annual increases in many markets. This means you become less and less financially sound as you get to a point you own less and less, and have to pay monthly for things you use once in a while or used to have to only pay once.

Let's take this model to something everyone could understand. What if the MP3 market moved to a digital system where you had to pay 10 cents each time you listened to a track, and you could no longer buy CD albums or pay once for MP3s from Amazon, or whereever? That is where this slippery slope is leading us. There would no longer be cheap monthly fees to listen to streaming music, you would have to pay each time any of your devices played any song... The 3D printing market is going to be there sooner than the entertainment industry, but I am quite sure the movie and music industry would love to go to that model right afterwards. Fair use rules, and many other things we take for granted are quickly disappearing.

It won't be long before we start wishing we had cheap monthly fees, because I am sure they won't be there in the future, as the businesses learn how to whittle away consumer cash at a faster rate.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,885 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2531
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Oct 24, 2017 12:34 |  #77

-Duck- wrote in post #18479855 (external link)
... Look at all the free software Adobe makes available (DNG converter, PDF reader, and who knows what else). Adobe doesn't hold anything hostage. Adobe isn't out to rape people. They are moving forward. Imagine, you can now edit cross-platform, from any computer (or tablet), anywhere in the world! FOR THE PRICE OF A MACMEAL!

And as I pointed out, they also made CS2 free: https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18476816
I would bet that most people only use about 5% of what PS is capable of, & I'm one of them, so I left the upgrade path long ago.


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
-Duck-
my head is usually in the way
Avatar
1,708 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 737
Joined Apr 2016
Location: Shelton, CT USA
     
Oct 24, 2017 12:53 |  #78

For the individual perhaps upgrades have stopped but not for a global community. Yes, you bought a Canon 40D to take your Sunday family pictures and you are happy with processing those images on your 10 year old desktop running Windows 7 and don't plan on ever upgrading from that. That doesn't mean Canon, Nikon, Sony and others have stopped manufacturing new camera models. Each model requires a new updates in order for the software to be able to decode the image files. That doesn't mean Microsoft and Apple haven't come out with new hardware and software for people to edit their images on. Those need compatibility upgrades. Adobe products are used by more than just the photographic community who each have their own demands on what the software should do. All that needs development. Then there is technology in general. We are moving to a cloud based system where everything will be handled by smaller computers accessing the power of larger computers. This is a reality, not some made up conspiracy in order to hold your files hostage. So no, I don't buy the develop once and ride the profit train in mentality. That is definitely NOT realistic.

Sorry if my rant comes across harsh but people are not thinking clearly when they formulate their arguments. They're speaking from a selfish what about me perspective and not considering the big picture.


"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Unitas Photography (external link)Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,420 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4116
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Oct 24, 2017 13:34 |  #79

-Duck- wrote in post #18479905 (external link)
For the individual perhaps upgrades have stopped but not for a global community. Yes, you bought a Canon 40D to take your Sunday family pictures and you are happy with processing those images on your 10 year old desktop running Windows 7 and don't plan on ever upgrading from that. That doesn't mean Canon, Nikon, Sony and others have stopped manufacturing new camera models. Each model requires a new updates in order for the software to be able to decode the image files. That doesn't mean Microsoft and Apple haven't come out with new hardware and software for people to edit their images on. Those need compatibility upgrades. Adobe products are used by more than just the photographic community who each have their own demands on what the software should do. All that needs development. Then there is technology in general. We are moving to a cloud based system where everything will be handled by smaller computers accessing the power of larger computers. This is a reality, not some made up conspiracy in order to hold your files hostage. So no, I don't buy the develop once and ride the profit train in mentality. That is definitely NOT realistic.

Sorry if my rant comes across harsh but people are not thinking clearly when they formulate their arguments. They're speaking from a selfish what about me perspective and not considering the big picture.


And you're speaking from a "market ignorant" aspect. Value isn't determined by the producers cost but by the consumers desire. Supply and demand are real, even in the software market. There's a reason why the competitors are so much cheaper. Lack of demand. There's also a reason why the sub fee hasn't gone up yet, competition.

If you think people aren't thinking clearly, maybe you aren't thinking clearly. It's not the consumers job to know how a product is made. It's the consumers job to know what they are willing to spend on what they want, and to identify which product best meets their needs while being closest to their budget target.

If you think the "develop and sell once" model doesn't work, what do you tell the auto industry? Most people don't buy new cars every year, and yet they stay in business. They are constantly developing. Constantly having to develop new technologies both to complete with each other and to meet regulatory standards. Meanwhile, you can lease a car, or buy. Why can't we have this choice in software?

Come to think of it, software is the only industry I can think of that is pushing subscriptions (leasing) so hard. You mention Canon and Sony as constantly developing new cameras, and yet, you aren't required by them to lease your current camera are you? When you decide to upgrade your camera it's generally understood that their may be other costs associated with that. That may be new batteries, memory cards, L brackets, or software.

BTW, what's wrong with keeping a computer for a longer period of time? Do you replace your computer every year? Why try and denigrate someone who would choose not to? Those people are usually businesses. Businesses buy computers that meet their needs, and they don't replace them until they can no longer meet their needs. To do otherwise is to waste money. You don't go into business to waste money, you go into business to make money. Even for the home consumer, keeping a computer until it is no longer efficient is a better model than just buying every time something new comes out. I have 5 computers in my home. I certainly won't be chasing some sort of upgrade cycle with them. You buy premium product and pay premium prices on the assumption that it will last. That's were the real value comes from, longevity. It's hard to accumulate capital if you're constantly disposing of it.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alex66
Member
247 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Feb 2006
     
Oct 24, 2017 13:48 |  #80

Scatterbrained wrote in post #18479930 (external link)
And you're speaking from a "market ignorant" aspect. Value isn't determined by the producers cost but by the consumers desire. Supply and demand are real, even in the software market. There's a reason why the competitors are so much cheaper. Lack of demand. There's also a reason why the sub fee hasn't gone up yet, competition.

If you think people aren't thinking clearly, maybe you aren't thinking clearly. It's not the consumers job to know how a product is made. It's the consumers job to know what they are willing to spend on what they want, and to identify which product best meets their needs while being closest to their budget target.

If you think the "develop and sell once" model doesn't work, what do you tell the auto industry? Most people don't buy new cars every year, and yet they stay in business. They are constantly developing. Constantly having to develop new technologies both to complete with each other and to meet regulatory standards. Meanwhile, you can lease a car, or buy. Why can't we have this choice in software?

Come to think of it, software is the only industry I can think of that is pushing subscriptions (leasing) so hard. You mention Canon and Sony as constantly developing new cameras, and yet, you aren't required by them to lease your current camera are you? When you decide to upgrade your camera it's generally understood that their may be other costs associated with that. That may be new batteries, memory cards, L brackets, or software.

BTW, what's wrong with keeping a computer for a longer period of time? Do you replace your computer every year? Why try and denigrate someone who would choose not to? Those people are usually businesses. Businesses buy computers that meet their needs, and they don't replace them until they can no longer meet their needs. To do otherwise is to waste money. You don't go into business to waste money, you go into business to make money. Even for the home consumer, keeping a computer until it is no longer efficient is a better model than just buying every time something new comes out. I have 5 computers in my home. I certainly won't be chasing some sort of upgrade cycle with them. You buy premium product and pay premium prices on the assumption that it will last. That's were the real value comes from, longevity. It's hard to accumulate capital if you're constantly disposing of it.

In the UK there are a lot of people who do a "hire" approach to running a car, it works out quite cost effective with minimal fuss. Mine includes the insurance and road tax (just add fuel), a lot of people do the same, it works out less than a loan for the same car some of the time. You are right about its what people are willing to pay, much like selling a camera on Ebay you bought for say £500 a few years ago if it will only sell for £100 that is what it is now worth, or what anyone is willing to pay for it. Adobe is still the market leader and if you were willing to upgrade each time then the sub model is a bit less than upgrades used to be for PS, if you missed few gens though not so much. Not sure where the sub model came from, though I think some of it was to get those that never had the whole amount to get it and used hacked versions and they did find they got more subs than sales for the one off from what I have heard. It is all based on demand though, if there was a demand to have a long term rental of say the latest 5D then Canon would do it.


Stuff
Feed Your Head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scoobert
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,176 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 228
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Iowa
     
Oct 24, 2017 13:50 |  #81

-Duck- wrote in post #18479855 (external link)
I never could understand the hate for Adobe people express in conversations like these.

That's like b1tch1ng at Ford for coming out with the Model T when the horse and buggy you've been using works just fine.


I think we found Adobe employee on the board.


No, it would be like Ford saying we have made the last car for sale in 2016. You will now rent a 2016 ford "focus" for $399.00 a month for as long as you want a car. $399.00 a month is a cheap car payment and every couple years you will get a new 2016 ford focus. Whats not to love, i am sure you would be all over that




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lumens
Senior Member
451 posts
Likes: 82
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Mesa, AZ
     
Oct 24, 2017 17:14 |  #82

Scoobert wrote in post #18479951 (external link)
I think we found Adobe employee on the board.

Possibly so, but for me I just have a trust issue with Adobe at the moment. I was one to be VERY slow moving to the subscription model, but I did want the updates so DID NOT have a choice. I was forced by Adobe to go subscription. Now for those who did stick with the Permanent License as they were told that would still be a viable option, Adobe has simply stated VERY CLEARLY they DO NOT count as viable customers as they refuse to follow like sheep.

Yes the Photographers option (Lightroom/Photoshop) is the lead software at the moment and the product is very good, likely the best. The price is not bad and a very good way to go, but for how long? I do hope "Classic" will be around as Adobe states, but can I believe that? They have very clearly proven to their customers They Lie!

I will likely continue to use the Classic, but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will I use their cloud. I refuse to follow like a sheep led to the slaughter. I will also keep an eye on the alternatives. They keep getting better all the time. ACDSee would be my go to now except the Mac version just isn't there yet. The Win10 version is very impressive and likely as good if not better than Lightroom, my problem is I really don't care for Win10. Luminar is coming out with a DAM (Digital Asset Management) soon, with that Luminar could be a very good choice as well. I have heard good things about Capture One and OnOne Raw as well. I will likely download the trial versions and give them a test.

Having so many options is something to really be happy about at this time.


FUJI XT-2 & FUJI XT-3 ->
12mm Roki, 16 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 56 f1.2, 80 Macro
10-24, 18-55, 55-200, 100-400

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Oldschool1948
Senior Member
Avatar
587 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 6
Joined May 2012
Location: Fort Washington, MD
     
Oct 24, 2017 20:10 as a reply to  @ post 18479184 |  #83

What he said!


5DIII Gripped
AD360 | Canon 600EX-RT (x2) | 580EXII | L358
70-200 f4L IS | 24-70 f2.8L II | 50 f1.8 mk I | Tamron 150-600 G2
Canon Pro-10 Printer | Adobe LR6 | OnOne Raw

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
-Duck-
my head is usually in the way
Avatar
1,708 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 737
Joined Apr 2016
Location: Shelton, CT USA
     
Oct 24, 2017 23:37 |  #84

Scatterbrained wrote in post #18479930 (external link)
And you're speaking from a "market ignorant" aspect. Value isn't determined by the producers cost but by the consumers desire. Supply and demand are real, even in the software market. There's a reason why the competitors are so much cheaper. Lack of demand. There's also a reason why the sub fee hasn't gone up yet, competition.

You are correct, and Adobe's pricing is very competitive for the power and flexibility their full line of software offers the creative market. I never said otherwise. As a matter of fact, I made a point that their current pricing structure is very affordable, being just slightly more than a Big Mac meal a month at McDonalds.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #18479930 (external link)
If you think people aren't thinking clearly, maybe you aren't thinking clearly. It's not the consumers job to know how a product is made. It's the consumers job to know what they are willing to spend on what they want, and to identify which product best meets their needs while being closest to their budget target.

Here, again, you are right. It isn't the consumer's responsibility to know how a product is priced, but likewise, a consumer shouldn't presume that a product isn't worth the price without understanding all that goes into making that product. I even made the analogy of a photographer who prices their image at $100 but a consumer only wants to pay $10. That consumer does not understand the time, education, effort and expense that went into making that $100 image. Should the consumer know all that? No, but it doesn't negate or disqualify the established price. On the other hand, if the consumer was aware of all that went into its creation they may not be so hesitant to pay the photographer's fee.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #18479930 (external link)
If you think the "develop and sell once" model doesn't work, what do you tell the auto industry? Most people don't buy new cars every year, and yet they stay in business. They are constantly developing. Constantly having to develop new technologies both to complete with each other and to meet regulatory standards. Meanwhile, you can lease a car, or buy. Why can't we have this choice in software?

This one I'm confused as you are, in an off way, repeating exactly what I said. The auto industry doesn't develop once and sell forever. Neither does a software company and that's what I stated above. The biggest difference is in implementation of the product. A stand alone product does require less maintenance, that's true, but we are talking about a suite of products that doesn't fit into that category. Adobe products are globally recognized as industry leaders and there is a greater demand from the creative community to meet certain needs. Currently that need is driving to a cross platform, work anywhere requirement. I'd like to see anyone name another company or piece of software that lets you integrate between raster images, vector images, 3D images and video seamlessly across both Windows and Macs with access from the cloud for joint workflows from different locations. The logistics of juggling all these alone is staggering and could never be implemented with stand alone software as easily as their current structure.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #18479930 (external link)
Come to think of it, software is the only industry I can think of that is pushing subscriptions (leasing) so hard. You mention Canon and Sony as constantly developing new cameras, and yet, you aren't required by them to lease your current camera are you? When you decide to upgrade your camera it's generally understood that their may be other costs associated with that. That may be new batteries, memory cards, L brackets, or software.

You're comparing apples to oranges here (and with the automotive industry or computer hardware industry) since software is a much more fluid system of implementation than hardware. As there is no physical structure to contend with, modifications to a piece of coding can be altered, compiled, debugged and executed without creating a lot of disturbances. A good analogy using the automotive industry would be akin to a product recall (a bug in the system) where a whole line of support systems are displaced (manufacturers of the part need to retool, defective inventory has to be scrapped, garages have to work overtime, etc.).

Scatterbrained wrote in post #18479930 (external link)
BTW, what's wrong with keeping a computer for a longer period of time? Do you replace your computer every year? Why try and denigrate someone who would choose not to? Those people are usually businesses. Businesses buy computers that meet their needs, and they don't replace them until they can no longer meet their needs. To do otherwise is to waste money. You don't go into business to waste money, you go into business to make money. Even for the home consumer, keeping a computer until it is no longer efficient is a better model than just buying every time something new comes out. I have 5 computers in my home. I certainly won't be chasing some sort of upgrade cycle with them. You buy premium product and pay premium prices on the assumption that it will last. That's were the real value comes from, longevity. It's hard to accumulate capital if you're constantly disposing of it.

Again, I fully agree with you and you misunderstood my comment. I stated that people DO keep old technology for long periods of time and they would be VERY HAPPY with OLD software. The reality is that technology DOES NOT stay old. It moves forward and the software companies have to progress with that advancement. Therefore the "develop once, sell for a long time" model doesn't work, as I stated above. Technology is advancing in record steps. We are getting into smaller, more powerful personal computers and the software manufacturers need to keep up with this rising technology. You can now use Adobe's Lightroom on a tablet. How's that for advancement. That is brought to the consumer because of developments in cloud based software technology. So, yes, I stick to everything I've said. People are reacting to what they don't know or understand and it is unfair to progressive companies who are breaking new grounds.

No, Adobe isn't the only company embracing cloud service but is is the company being discussed here.


"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Unitas Photography (external link)Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
-Duck-
my head is usually in the way
Avatar
1,708 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 737
Joined Apr 2016
Location: Shelton, CT USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by -Duck-.
     
Oct 24, 2017 23:45 |  #85

Scoobert wrote in post #18479951 (external link)
I think we found Adobe employee on the board.

No, it would be like Ford saying we have made the last car for sale in 2016. You will now rent a 2016 ford "focus" for $399.00 a month for as long as you want a car. $399.00 a month is a cheap car payment and every couple years you will get a new 2016 ford focus. Whats not to love, i am sure you would be all over that

Sorry, I am not an employee and I am not paid by Adobe to give my opinions. I have also not always been a fan of Adobe. Actually, 20 years ago I was ANTI Adobe as I hated having to pay $1800 for software. I thought that was rape. I went with less expensive alternatives but was constantly hitting compatibility issues when dealing with professionals who were primarily Adobe users (there is a reason it's considered an industry standard). Disclaimer over.

As for your analogy, you are comparing apples to oranges, as I stated above. You can not compare research and design, prototyping, tooling, manufacturing, product support, marketing and sales of a physical object to the development, debugging, compiling and distribution of software code.


"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Unitas Photography (external link)Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,420 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4116
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Oct 25, 2017 00:02 |  #86

-Duck- wrote in post #18480298 (external link)
You are correct, and Adobe's pricing is very competitive for the power and flexibility their full line of software offers the creative market. I never said otherwise. As a matter of fact, I made a point that their current pricing structure is very affordable, being just slightly more than a Big Mac meal a month at McDonalds.

Here, again, you are right. It isn't the consumer's responsibility to know how a product is priced, but likewise, a consumer shouldn't presume that a product isn't worth the price without understanding all that goes into making that product. I even made the analogy of a photographer who prices their image at $100 but a consumer only wants to pay $10. That consumer does not understand the time, education, effort and expense that went into making that $100 image. Should the consumer know all that? No, but it doesn't negate or disqualify the established price. On the other hand, if the consumer was aware of all that went into its creation they may not be so hesitant to pay the photographer's fee.

This one I'm confused as you are, in an off way, repeating exactly what I said. The auto industry doesn't develop once and sell forever. Neither does a software company and that's what I stated above. The biggest difference is in implementation of the product. A stand alone product does require less maintenance, that's true, but we are talking about a suite of products that doesn't fit into that category. Adobe products are globally recognized as industry leaders and there is a greater demand from the creative community to meet certain needs. Currently that need is driving to a cross platform, work anywhere requirement. I'd like to see anyone name another company or piece of software that lets you integrate between raster images, vector images, 3D images and video seamlessly across both Windows and Macs with access from the cloud for joint workflows from different locations. The logistics of juggling all these alone is staggering and could never be implemented with stand alone software as easily as their current structure.

You're comparing apples to oranges here (and with the automotive industry or computer hardware industry) since software is a much more fluid system of implementation than hardware. As there is no physical structure to contend with, modifications to a piece of coding can be altered, compiled, debugged and executed without creating a lot of disturbances. A good analogy using the automotive industry would be akin to a product recall (a bug in the system) where a whole line of support systems are displaced (manufacturers of the part need to retool, defective inventory has to be scrapped, garages have to work overtime, etc.).

Again, I fully agree with you and you misunderstood my comment. I stated that people DO keep old technology for long periods of time and they would be VERY HAPPY with OLD software. The reality is that technology DOES NOT stay old. It moves forward and the software companies have to progress with that advancement. Therefore the "develop once, sell for a long time" model doesn't work, as I stated above. Technology is advancing in record steps. We are getting into smaller, more powerful personal computers and the software manufacturers need to keep up with this rising technology. You can now use Adobe's Lightroom on a tablet. How's that for advancement. That is brought to the consumer because of developments in cloud based software technology. So, yes, I stick to everything I've said. People are reacting to what they don't know or understand and it is unfair to progressive companies who are breaking new grounds.

No, Adobe isn't the only company embracing cloud service but is is the company being discussed here.

I don't think people are "reacting to things they don't understand". I understand perfectly what they are doing, but guess what, it effects me not one iota. I don't edit on my phone (except cellphone snaps). I don't edit on a laptop. I don't edit on a tablet. I don't collaborate with people in Sweden (not for photography anyways). I have no need for their cloud services and there are quite a large number of others who don't either. Yet we are being pushed into that software model. Hence the whole point of the discussion. Lr is just now receiving it's first significant update since Lr6. There's little significant difference right now between PSCC and PS CS6. Just a lot of money spent. Look at Adobes stock price, it says it all. Again. Why not offer a stand alone option? Because they make less money that way. It's not a coincidence that we've seen a proliferation of competing products since the CC was announced. That so many other products now exist that offer stand alone software shows that there is indeed a robust market for people who just want to edit their photos, and who don't want to be beholden to a subscription to do so.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
-Duck-
my head is usually in the way
Avatar
1,708 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 737
Joined Apr 2016
Location: Shelton, CT USA
Post edited over 2 years ago by -Duck-.
     
Oct 25, 2017 00:30 |  #87

Scatterbrained wrote in post #18480315 (external link)
I don't think people are "reacting to things they don't understand". I understand perfectly what they are doing, but guess what, it effects me not one iota. I don't edit on my phone (except cellphone snaps). I don't edit on a laptop. I don't edit on a tablet. I don't collaborate with people in Sweden (not for photography anyways). I have no need for their cloud services and there are quite a large number of others who don't either. Yet we are being pushed into that software model. Hence the whole point of the discussion. Lr is just now receiving it's first significant update since Lr6. There's little significant difference right now between PSCC and PS CS6. Just a lot of money spent. Look at Adobes stock price, it says it all. Again. Why not offer a stand alone option? Because they make less money that way. It's not a coincidence that we've seen a proliferation of competing products since the CC was announced. That so many other products now exist that offer stand alone software shows that there is indeed a robust market for people who just want to edit their photos, and who don't want to be beholden to a subscription to do so.

You claim to understand what Adobe is doing yet your comment says otherwise. YOU may not need all those features Adobe products are building but others do. SO MANY others. So you want what, Adobe to cater to your needs because you have no use for all those features? Come on. Seriously? Adobe isn't forcing anyone to buy their product any more than than they are forcing people to use them. You either need it or you don't. If you need it, you buy it. If not, you go someplace else. It's a free market.

That is my argument. People are taking Adobe's actions as some kind of personal attack or conspiracy theory to hijack content. They aren't. They are just moving forward and for them forward means a globally accessible suite of tools working on cloud based technology with full seamless integration for professional content creators.

I will agree with you that there are countless other companies that have identified a market for disgruntled Adobe users. The hobbyists do need some place to go to and they are there to pick up the slack. That is a very smart business move for them and a great asset for those who feel Adobe is leaving them behind. But that is not in Adobe's control.

As for the subscription model, that has been around for a long time now, not just magazines, and a large variety of industries utilize it besides the software industry. Telephones (both cellular and terrestrial), satellite and cable television (remember when TV was free?), electricity and water, internet service just to name some of the most popular. Stop payment on any of those services and you're out of luck.

And this thing about hijacking content. I don't get it. How does not using a piece of software hijack images? Last I saw my camera takes pictures and I can see them on my computer without even having to open any Adobe product.


"If you didn't learn something new today, you wasted a day."
Unitas Photography (external link)Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,420 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4116
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Oct 25, 2017 00:52 |  #88

-Duck- wrote in post #18480327 (external link)
You claim to understand what Adobe is doing yet your comment says otherwise. YOU may not need all those features Adobe products are building but others do. SO MANY others. So you want what, Adobe to cater to your needs because you have no use for all those features? Come on. Seriously? Adobe isn't forcing anyone to buy their product any more than than they are forcing people to use them. You either need it or you don't. If you need it, you buy it. If not, you go someplace else. It's a free market.

That is my argument. People are taking Adobe's actions as some kind of personal attack or conspiracy theory to hijack content. They aren't. They are just moving forward and for them forward means a globally accessible suite of tools working on cloud based technology with full seamless integration for professional content creators.

I will agree with you that there are countless other companies that have identified a market for disgruntled Adobe users. The hobbyists do need some place to go to and they are there to pick up the slack. That is a very smart business move for them and a great asset for those who feel Adobe is leaving them behind. But that is not in Adobe's control.

As for the subscription model, that has been around for a long time now, not just magazines, and a large variety of industries utilize it besides the software industry. Telephones (both cellular and terrestrial), satellite and cable television (remember when TV was free?), electricity and water, internet service just to name some of the most popular. Stop payment on any of those services and your out of luck.

And this thing about hijacking content. I don't get it. How does not using a piece of software hijack images? Last I saw my camera takes pictures and I can see them on my computer without even having to open any Adobe product.

As I said, I do understand where they are going, and I know the demographic that it benefits. I also know there are large numbers of people, not just hobbyists, that don't need the cloud connectivity and don't want to pay a monthly fee to use something they feel they should be able to own. I'd wager there are fewer CC users who need or use they cloud connectivity than otherwise. That's not being a luddite, that's being realistic. Some people don't need to own a car. They lease, or rent. If you live in Manhattan for example, you could just rent a car when you travel. If you own a business that moves around a large variety of people and good, you can rent a large variety of vehicles over the course of a year and never own any.

Water, gas, electricity, etc. are consumable commodities for which you are billed as you use them. Meanwhile, software subscriptions mean not being able to buy something that is physically on your computer, even if you wanted to. It's more akin to being charged a storage fee for your furniture, while not being allowed to actually buy it if you wanted to. Microsoft offers both, why can't Adobe?

Of course there's also the issue of later down the road, when they move to a completely cloud based model where all the software is run on the cloud. What do you do in an area with no network connections? What if you're in an area with very slow bandwidth? For people who are doing real travel and editing on a laptop, lack of bandwidth will become a serious issue. That is of course assuming Elon Musk doesn't get his globe encompassing satellite based high speed internet up and running.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,967 posts
Gallery: 148 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4073
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Oct 25, 2017 02:22 |  #89

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18479799 (external link)
You can't buy a drink and a snack at a gas station when you're on a trip for less than $10.

Yes, I can. . In fact, I can buy a drink and a snack at a gas station for just $3. . But I don't. . Why? . Because I can't bring myself to buy that candy bar - even though I'm really wanting it - for $2 when I know I can buy the same candy bar in bulk at Walmart and have the cost come out to around $0.75 each. . So I usually walk out of the gas station without the snack that I want. But wait - know what? . I don't go without because I keep a cooler in my trunk packed with snacks that I bought in bulk ahead of time! . If I can save a buck or two by planning ahead, it is certainly worth the effort.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18479799 (external link)
Netflix is $25 a month because we still like watching Blu Ray movies.

Huh? . $25 a month? . That's ludicrous. . My Netflix costs $9.99 a month. . When they raised it from $7.99 to $9.99 I thought long and hard about cancelling it and simply doing without, but finally decided that it was still a worthwhile value, even at $9.99......so I kept it. . Why? . Because being able to watch entertaining things at home will tend to keep me at home more, so I'll save money by not going out to seek entertainment (or just avoid boredom).

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18479799 (external link)
HBO is $10... I could go on and on.

I would never subscribe to HBO because I already have (and pay for) Netflix. . Plus, to get HBO, don't you need to already have some sort of TV package, like cable or Dish or something? . I don't have anything like that - I keep checking on it, but all of those TV type of services are preposterously expensive. . Plus, I don't have a television set, and getting one would just set me back even more money. . So I just have Netflix and the NFL Game Pass (which is online-only streaming of football games, but not live....they're only available to view an hour or so after the game has finished).

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18479799 (external link)
What about the snacks people buy at the grocery store? How many boxes of crackers or chips can you buy for $10?

I very rarely buy chips because they just aren't a good value - what you get vs. how much you pay just isn't worth it.

Crackers are a different matter. . There are some very good whole grain crackers that are a good value for the money. . Of course, I don't buy these at Walmart because they are cheaper at Safeway with the Just-For-You coupon program that I use. . A large sized box of Triscuits for $1.99 or even $2.50 is a pretty good value, and makes for some very good road-trip snacking.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18479799 (external link)
How about avoiding those every month for the rest of your life? We make choices.. all of us. Available resources determine some of those choices for us.

You make it seem like all of us just carelessly throw a few dollars around here and another few there. . That is not the case at all. . Every dollar I spend - literally every dollar - is carefully considered, and only spent when I firmly believe that I will get a good return for that expenditure.

I believe that there are quite a few people that are like me in this regard. . For us, $10 a month - into perpetuity - is a pretty big deal. . For me to spend that much, I have to be sure that I am getting a heck of a lot of value, and I am just not sure that Adobe CC will provide enough value for me to part with that kind of money. . For $10 a month, Netflix provides many, many, many hours of entertainment. . When I think of the editing ability that Adobe CC would give me, over and above the (free) editing software that I currently use, I just don't see it providing the same kind of value that Netflix does, even though it costs the same amount. . And so I pass on it and continue to use the free software.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,011 posts
Gallery: 543 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1625
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Oct 25, 2017 05:08 |  #90

teekay wrote in post #18479808 (external link)
Question for the CC users: What happens if for some reason you miss a monthly payment or more? Can you still use the LR program on your computer and access any files on the cloud?

Currently I have LR6 standalone and have no plans to change as long as it works with all my various cameras' RAWs. I just tried updating it to LR6 latest version and it failed, so I'm not going to risk trying again in case I lose what I have.


Since you didn't get a full response to this question here goes. If you stop paying the fee then you lose all access to Ps, but I guess that isn't a surprise, with Lr though you get pretty much all the functions, except Develop and Map modules. So you have full access to the Library, and can even add new images to it if you want. Keywording and other Metadata is still updateable. Having full access to the Library module also means that you can still apply basic edits with the quick edit tools, and can apply a preset. Unfortunately though it seems that if you have your own presets that apply say just sharpening, or exposure changes, without touching any other controls, you cannot apply them in sequence. Each time you attempt to apply a preset it seems the image is reset to the defaults. I guess that's to stop people making lots of presets and not bothering to pay. Oh and you can even keep up with the updates. A new version comes with a new trial period, so that will give you time to at least update the library etc to the new tools.

It actually seems like a really good thing for an amature. If for any reason you are no longer actively taking photos, then simply finish your subscription and you still have all your Lr catalogue available, you can still add all your mobile phone and other photos, and even some RAW images if you only need basic conversion tools. Get back into it and just restart your subscription. Being disabled and on a low income I had to miss a couple of payments in the last year, and so know from first hand experience what happens. I didn't even get any emails from Adobe because of the 12 month contract thing. When I went back to the Adobe site it was just a simple matter of paying and restarting the service. I was actually pleasantly surprised. I have the full package, so that I have access to Premier for video. Adding Premier to the Photographers package was the same price as a special I found on the full works.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

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

82,760 views & 130 likes for this thread
So if we are done with LR, whats our choices?
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 aSadBlueBerry
1113 guests, 318 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.