Jump to content

Simon Meeds

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Forum reputation = neutral

About Simon Meeds

  • Rank
    Forum newbie


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    03 Aug 2002
  1. One of only two people I have known to use GIMP consistently has moved to LR. I don't know what the other person uses currently. The barrier to me has always been the paradigm leap when moving from any other tool: Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop, Paint.net... I'm sure it's manageable, but when you've got something else that works it's hard to justify the relearning experience. I can never see how people compare Paint Shop Pro with Elements and claim that "full fat" Photoshop is so far in front. Actually these days there are a few under-the-hood advantages to Photoshop (64-bit memory addressing, for example), but the user experience is far better in PSP in my experience, and if there is anything in there that people use that can't be relatively easily done in PSP I have yet to see or hear of anyone using it - certainly not worth the premium price as far as I can see except maybe for very specialist applications. I do quite like what I've seen in Light Room in terms of workflow though.
  2. Before Elements there was PhotoShop LE which came packaged with most scanners. For years Adobe offered various upgrade paths so users of LE and the Educational versions could upgrade to the full version for $150 to $300. Just because someone is an amateur, or doesn't make enough money from photography to afford $700 for the full retain version, doesn't necessarily mean their copy of PhotoShop isn't legitimate. However I will agree that there are a lot of pirated copies out there. That's a what happens when you price software so high and allow it to be activated by a half dozen serial numbers readily available over the internet. That's almost exactly what I was saying. I wasn't accusing any particular person of software piracy... just stating that many people in my social (photographic) circle seem to take it as almost axiomatic that one has a knocked off copy of Photoshop - I wouldn't say that everyone has exactly acquired it by nefarious means, but I'm sure it wouldn't meet the licence conditions. Comparing Photoshop with a specialist tool for servicing my car... I would work out how much it costs, how often I am likely to use it, and how long it will last before it breaks, becomes useless or obsolete. If that comparison is favourable, I might buy it... if it isn't I'll either get by without it or take my car to the garage to be fixed. To unwind the analogy, I might buy/subscribe to Photoshop or use something cheaper or "free" - Adobe is reasonably closing the door on the option of stealing it.
  3. Actually I think Adobe always had problems with its business model and this is one way of fixing it, though maybe not the obvious way. (Bear in mind that I don't use Photoshop, and I haven't enjoyed my limited experience of it - I much prefer Paint Shop Pro - which is cheaper does the same job (and some of what Lightroom does too) - it has its disadvantages but so does Photoshop. I am not however under any illusion that Corel couldn't go the same way as Adobe. Looking just at Photoshop, Adobe has two products: Elements and CS?. CS? is intended to be a professional product, and has been priced accordingly. Elements, an amateur product, ditto. Now, I know a lot of amateurs who use CS?, but almost without exception they are using pirated or at least semi-dodgy copies. This means that Adobe is missing out on the licence price of both Elements and CS?. By moving to a subscription model, Adobe can charge a professional price - if you are using it constantly then $20 a month isn't that much. Amateurs will have to decide whether to pay the professional price or to use Elements (or someone else's product). Either way, Adobe gets paid for what its users are using, which it will see as good news. Potentially the full version of PS will return to being a premium product, used by premium users, which is also good for image. There is another approach, which could have been implemented as either a pay-up-front or subscription model. That is, they could have got rid of Elements and reduced the price of the full product so that fewer people would pirate it and more people (potentially) would use it - i.e. those who would neither pay the price nor pirate it on principle. However, this wouldn't make it the premium product they probably want it to be. Simon
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.