Adobe CC Photography Plan: Why I believe it is a good deal for me.

...

It is an OUTSTANDING deal. Where else can you get the industry standard PROFESSIONAL software for $5/month? This the same software that professional photographers, graphic designers, digital artists, magazine editors, and countless other business professionals use every day. Yet they make the exact same software available to any private person for $0.15 per day. No complaints here.

I have a handful of hobbies. Some serious, some not so much. I think my ~$10/month Adobe Photography Plan might just be my least expensive hobby expenditure. And if I were to get completely caffeinated and graph-up the price vs. artistic return/pleasure/fun I am sure that nothing else would come close to the cost vs. return equation. I mean, $0.33/day for something this powerful that I use every single day, it's just about the best deal going as far as I'm concerned.

For me the real value of LR is that it does so much to a high standard.

Yes I could probably buy an app that would do slightly better sharpening and another that could do slightly better noise reduction and ...... but I simply don't see the minimal improvements as being worth the extra effort. No one ever has said "your images aren't sharp enough/too noisy etc" and if no one notices then I don't see it as a problem.

Could we please stop posting about what a great deal Adobe's CC suite is please?

The folks at Adobe probably read this forum

Spencerphoto wrote in post #19007947
Could we please stop posting about what a great deal Adobe's CC suite is please?

The folks at Adobe probably read this forum

If they do - Get going on my NR Sensei request!

I love how the times that I am not shooting anything or need to process any photo, I am not paying for anything at all.

And what about all the TV channels you DON'T watch, or all the time you AREN'T on the phone, or all of the heat and electricity you pay for your home when you AREN'T in it? Or all the time you are NOT driving your car? You are still paying for all those things as well.

medd63 wrote in post #19008046
And what about all the TV channels you DON'T watch, or all the time you AREN'T on the phone, or all of the heat and electricity you pay for your home when you AREN'T in it? Or all the time you are NOT driving your car? You are still paying for all those things as well.

So the point is, "Why add to unnecessary expenses if you do not HAVE TO?"

If you paid $100 for cable, $10 for Netflix, $10 for Spotify or XM satellite radio...that is $120 each month. Putting the money into some accumulating value at 4% per annum, totals about $191000 of 'unnecessary expense' over 50 years. By spending it on those unnecessary expenses each month your retirement account is less, by that amount. Or, you would have been able to spend those funds on NECESSARY expenses, not merely frills that offered little value.

You don't 'need' all those TV channels, so maybe switching to a monthly TV service with local broadcast channels (like Hulu) for $7 instead works for you....saving $93. Instead of subscription music services, listen to broadcast radio...saving another $10. Then the $191000 loss of retirement value is instead a $33000 loss of retirement value...your retirement account is $158000 fatter as a result.

The phone is a NECESSITY. So is electricity a NECESSITY in your home, if nothing else to keep your water pipes from freezing in winter and to keep the food in your refrigerator from spoiling an becoming a total loss. Imagine trying to get around without a car, particularly when it is snowing or when it is 100 degrees outside...a necessity, when mass transit is not available or you cannot afford the loss of time vs. driving. You could get along with no phone...but then how do you reach family members, or how do they reach you in times of emergency or illness?
Yes, there are folks who are 'off the grid' and lead rather basic and isolated lives...it works for them. Does that work for you?!

.
I'm glad that you find it to be a good deal, John.

I suspect that how good of a deal it is depends on how much one uses it, and also whether one enjoys using it or hates using it.

For me, it hasn't turned out to be a very good deal so far. . Back in 2016 I bought Photoshop Elements for about $69. . I've had it for almost 4 years now, but hardly ever have a need to use it. . I think I've edited a total of 5 images with it over that time span.

It's not very user friendly. . By that I mean that I don't "just know" what to click on, and actually have to find a tutorial or use the "help" feature to find out how to do things. . This is a real turn-off for me.

So when I add up the fact that not only did I have to pay $69, but also had to use brain power to figure out how to use it, just to get those 5 images edited, it doesn't seem like it was worth it. . I would just as soon have not paid the $69, not had the painful experience of having to focus and concentrate to learn something new, and not have those 5 images edited. . Having a few images edited a certain way just isn't worth what it ended up costing, all told.

If I could use PSE to crank out perfect edits in just 5 or 10 minutes per image, and not have to spend time learning how to use the program, then it would be worth the $69. . But it just doesn't work that way, and therefore is not worth the $14/year that I have paid into it thus far.

.

I was not criticizing your personal choice, I was responding to medd63, and addressing the points made that that post, and there was no mention of Adobe pricing in that response.

Yes Wilt, electricity and heat are necessities. I was just pointing out that you pay for them even when you are not at home. The post I was responding to, commented that he didn’t pay for software while he wasn’t using it. In other words he wanted to pay once for the software and have it not cost anything thing if he didn’t use it for months at a time. But as we have agreed, that option is in the past as it regards to photoshop.

medd63 wrote in post #19008428
Yes Wilt, electricity and heat are necessities. I was just pointing out that you pay for them even when you are not at home. The post I was responding to, commented that he didn’t pay for software while he wasn’t using it. In other words he wanted to pay once for the software and have it not cost anything thing if he didn’t use it for months at a time. But as we have agreed, that option is in the past as it regards to photoshop.

yes, those days are gone...but why is Adobe so uncaring as to not offer to hobbyist/student a different monthly rate than professional?! 'In the old days' of film, a hobbyist on a budget should shoot less and buy film less and pay lab fees less...subscriptions do not allow such budget driven cost consciousness.
The Adobe student rate offers a 'break'...get it all for $30 per month, whether you need it or not. False 'economy'

Wilt wrote in post #19008430
yes, those days are gone...but why is Adobe so uncaring as to not offer to hobbyist a different monthly rate than professional?!

Canon don't reduce the price of their cameras when selling to hobbyists....

you saved your money and bought USED camera/lenses. Can I get goods from Adobe on the used market?