Jump to content
Alistair Scott

Now you're going to have to pay for Photoshop per month ...

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

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.

My computer simply wouldn't run the latest versions of LR and PS when I started using them so I acquired older ones which would work. They still do. Likewise my DLSR is a tool of the trade and will be used till it wears out or goes off a bridge. The Hasselblad was 15 years old when I got it, I used it for another 20 and now fully expect it still to be in working order at 45.

 

Our car is fairly reliable. When I fix it, I get the Haynes book out. I'd be pretty miffed if Haynes wouldn't sell me the workshop manual but would only rent it by the month.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where Adobe will have everyone by the 'short and curlies' is that present CS users who don't wish to use the subscription method will not receive updates for ACR in the near future,  I for one will put off subscription for as long as possible and keep using CS6.  

 

It's a one-way ticket unfortunately as all software will eventually become subscription based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where Adobe will have everyone by the 'short and curlies' is that present CS users who don't wish to use the subscription method will not receive updates for ACR in the near future,  I for one will put off subscription for as long as possible and keep using CS6.  

 

It's a one-way ticket unfortunately as all software will eventually become subscription based.

 

Except FOSS (free open-source software).

 

I expect the userbase of the Gimp to skyrocket over the coming months. I've bitten the bullet and downloaded a beta version of the Gimp that handles 16 bit editing after getting interested in it again following this Gimp thread -  http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/179-has-anyone-use-gimp/

 

If there was a FOSS Mac photo catalog program that was a workable solution for me, I'd be using that by now too. I've tried using Macports to get digiKam (a Lightroom, Aperture et al equivalent) but it was a world of pain. By the way, for Windows users, digiKam has been ported and an executable download is available so no compiling needed (i.e. unlike on Macs). DigiKam under Linux is excellent with some great editing functionality too. And it's FOSS.

 

Darktable looks promising on the Mac but I'm not a fan of the UI but I will revisit it as they are actively developing it.

 

So at the moment, I'm running Lightroom 4.4 and Aperture 3.4.4 in parallel along with Nik plugins, Perfect Photo Suite 7 and PS CS5. But I am migrating, hopefully, from PS CS5 to Capture NX2 and the Gimp and will probably stick with Aperture for my metadata/catalog needs. I'm also hopeful that some of my Nik plugins will work within Gimp - there are some wrappers for PS plugins, I think. (More research needed).

 

If an appealing FOSS Aperture alternative shows up, I will give that a serious look as well.

 

And I'll be subscription-software-free.

Edited by Russell Watkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where Adobe will have everyone by the 'short and curlies' is that present CS users who don't wish to use the subscription method will not receive updates for ACR in the near future,  I for one will put off subscription for as long as possible and keep using CS6.  

 

It's a one-way ticket unfortunately as all software will eventually become subscription based.

 

Except FOSS (free open-source software).

 

I expect the userbase of the Gimp to skyrocket over the coming months. I've bitten the bullet and downloaded a beta version of the Gimp that handles 16 bit editing after getting interested in it again following this Gimp thread -  http://discussion.alamy.com/index.php?/topic/179-has-anyone-use-gimp/

 

If there was a FOSS Mac photo catalog program that was a workable solution for me, I'd be using that by now too. I've tried using Macports to get digiKam (a Lightroom, Aperture et al equivalent) but it was a world of pain. By the way, for Windows users, digiKam has been ported and an executable download is available so no compiling needed (i.e. unlike on Macs). DigiKam under Linux is excellent with some great editing functionality too. And it's FOSS.

 

Darktable looks promising on the Mac but I'm not a fan of the UI but I will revisit it as they are actively developing it.

 

So at the moment, I'm running Lightroom 4.4 and Aperture 3.4.4 in parallel along with Nik plugins, Perfect Photo Suite 7 and PS CS5. But I am migrating, hopefully, from PS CS5 to Capture NX2 and the Gimp and will probably stick with Aperture for my metadata/catalog needs. I'm also hopeful that some of my Nik plugins will work within Gimp - there are some wrappers for PS plugins, I think. (More research needed).

 

If an appealing FOSS Aperture alternative shows up, I will give that a serious look as well.

 

And I'll be subscription-software-free.

 

I appreciate the sentiments in wanting to free oneself from the big corporations but there are huge amounts of learning involved. The amount of time spent learning would far far outweigh any savings made. Furthermore these free programs fall far short of the capabilities of Photoshop. If I had infinite time then I would love to try out all this stuff but there is too much else to do. I don't think there will be too many pros or serious amateurs racing off to explore the depths of Gimp. These changes always cause a big reaction but, after a while, things settle down and we remain strapped to the corporate machine. Remember when Adobe first introduced product activation.

 

Why run Aperture and Lightroom together? Do they not do pretty much the same thing - database and raw converter primarily which need an image editor such as Photoshop to do much more than the basics? I bought Aperture a few years ago out of curiousity when it first came on the App Store for about for about £40 or so but have never really used it. I chose Lightroom for its better integration with Photoshop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the sentiments in wanting to free oneself from the big corporations but there are huge amounts of learning involved. The amount of time spent learning would far far outweigh any savings made.

 

<snip>

 

Why run Aperture and Lightroom together? 

 

<snip>

 

 

 

Good points, MDM. For me (YMMV), Lightroom 4.4's raw conversion (2012 Process Version) is better than Aperture's raw conversion for my NEFs. On the other hand, the UI and the cataloging and metadata handling (especially keywording) is better in Aperture than Lightroom.

 

Both LR and Ap can pass files to external editors including CS5 (I didn't upgrade to CS6 so old Process Version hence LR4). Both integrate with Nik and onOne plugins although neither is 100% bulletproof in this regard.

 

And for me, if spending a couple or three days (I won't need infinite time) learning to use free but powerful software saves me from parting with two large and important limbs to Adobe every month then it's worth it. If it doesn't work out, I'll return to my current workflow and maybe even consider an Adobe subscription. I'm not closed to the CC subscription idea but if I can efficiently produce decent images without Adobe's help then why should I? 

 

When the time comes that I upgrade my camera body and so Lightroom won't recognise its raw format, I'll use the manufacturer's raw conversion software. Actually, I'm using a trial of Nikon's Capture NX2 with View NX2 now and although the UI is a bit clunky, the files I'm getting out of it are better than those I get from Lightroom (and miles better than what I would get from Aperture). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, one thing that infuriates me about this is that about 4 weeks ago, I decided to go down the DNG route in its entirety so I could store metadata with the raw file and take advantage of file validation should I need it. I converted and then deleted my entire archive of NEFs (and Panny RW2s) thinking that there'd be no further need for them. It was good while it lasted and I liked the way the DNG format simplified things passing files around different software and plugins. I ignored the fact that Aperture couldn't read RW2-DNG conversions and just used my master and derivative TIFFs instead. NEF-DNGs posed no problem though, as long as I remembered to save to file (which I did).

 

In retrospect, this was a very poor decision on my part and one I regret now given the results I'm getting with Nikon's proprietary raw converter. On the other hand, it's not reason enough to stick with Adobe.

 

C'est la vie and all that, I suppose.

Edited by Russell Watkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell

 

I appreciate the sentiments in wanting to free oneself from the big corporations but there are huge amounts of learning involved. The amount of time spent learning would far far outweigh any savings made.

<snip>

Why run Aperture and Lightroom together? 

<snip>

 

 

 

Good points, MDM. For me (YMMV), Lightroom 4.4's raw conversion (2012 Process Version) is better than Aperture's raw conversion for my NEFs. On the other hand, the UI and the cataloging and metadata handling (especially keywording) is better in Aperture than Lightroom.

 

Both LR and Ap can pass files to external editors including CS5 (I didn't upgrade to CS6 so old Process Version hence LR4). Both integrate with Nik and onOne plugins although neither is 100% bulletproof in this regard.

 

And for me, if spending a couple or three days (I won't need infinite time) learning to use free but powerful software saves me from parting with two large and important limbs to Adobe every month then it's worth it. If it doesn't work out, I'll return to my current workflow and maybe even consider an Adobe subscription. I'm not closed to the CC subscription idea but if I can efficiently produce decent images without Adobe's help then why should I? 

 

When the time comes that I upgrade my camera body and so Lightroom won't recognise its raw format, I'll use the manufacturer's raw conversion software. Actually, I'm using a trial of Nikon's Capture NX2 with View NX2 now and although the UI is a bit clunky, the files I'm getting out of it are better than those I get from Lightroom (and miles better than what I would get from Aperture). 

 

I understand as I actually really enjoy learning new software and delving further into the stuff I think I know. For example, when Photoshop became scriptable, I spent ages learning how to script it. That was great fun but it was incredibly time consuming and I didn't produce many new images over that time. I would quite enjoy downloading Gimp and learning how to use it so that I could compare it fairly with Photoshop. However, I made a resolution a few years ago that I was going to focus on photography and blinker myself to the delights of learning new software. I have a massive backlog of images to process at the moment and it's growing as I produce faster than I can process. So, if for no other reason, I'm sticking solely with CS6 and Lightroom for now. I've even got a full version of Capture NX2 that I got with a camera last year but I've not even installed it. I'm happy with ACR and the conversions I am getting. I don't want to look at what I might be missing despite what my OCD tendencies are telling me. :)

Edited by MDM
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, one thing that infuriates me about this is that about 4 weeks ago, I decided to go down the DNG route in its entirety so I could store metadata with the raw file and take advantage of file validation should I need it. I converted and then deleted my entire archive of NEFs (and Panny RW2s) thinking that there'd be no further need for them. It was good while it lasted and I liked the way the DNG format simplified things passing files around different software and plugins. I ignored the fact that Aperture couldn't read RW2-DNG conversions and just used my master and derivative TIFFs instead. NEF-DNGs posed no problem though, as long as I remembered to save to file (which I did).

 

In retrospect, this was a very poor decision on my part and one I regret now given the results I'm getting with Nikon's proprietary raw converter. On the other hand, it's not reason enough to stick with Adobe.

 

C'est la vie and all that, I suppose.

 

I feel your pain and this is the reason why I never fell for the DNG argument about future proofing RAW files. A few years ago it seemed everyone was advocating deleting your original RAW files after archiving to DNG because there was no guarantee camera manufacturers would still support them in the future. Of course this was a safe thing to do because Adobe would exist forever and never price it's self out of the photography market.... Hmm.

 

I did briefly flirt with converting my RAW files that I had processed in ACR to DNG. I did this to archive my ACR edits with the RAW file, but I embedded the RW2 files in the DNG. The small cost of additional hard disk space seemed a worthwhile insurance. Since moving to LR I haven't bothered with DNG and decided until such time no new software could process my RAW files, I would leave DNG well alone.

 

Nothing is guaranteed to last forever as I found out to my cost last year when my DAM system became unsupported without warning. I realised I was relying on features that were unique to just one software package and could not be migrated to another product. A lot of lost effort was the result.

 

Of course I now realise I have made a similar mistake with Photoshop. Many of my best images are saved as tiff files with multiple layers that are unlikely to be read by alternatives to photoshop. There are new features in CS5 & 6 for example that I'm guessing can't be read by CS4 or earlier and this could easily be the case with CC enhancements in the future. If I move to CC I will need to be careful to ensure I save an additional flattened archive copy of each of my layered tiff files as insurance for a time when I might choose to cease subscribing and return to CS6 (assuming it still works) or an alternative.

 

For those who say they will keep CS6 or earlier, just remember that for most of these to continue to work into the future the activation server still needs to be turned on by Adobe and they could at any time decide to turn it off. Next time you need to reinstall your perpetual licensed copy of Photoshop you might find it's as good as useless. CC is not so different after all. As a business decision, turning off the activation sever by Adobe would encourange an increase to its CC subscriptions. What have they got to loose? Food for thought.

 

I am encouraged to read that Adobe say they are listening to feedback from photographers and are considering a LR/Photoshop CC offering. If they come up with a sensible price for the two as a package then I just might be interested. Ideally this would be a free bundling of LR with the Photoshop CC option. Keep LR a standalone package for those that don't need/want Photoshop and bundle it with Photoshop CC for those that do. Wishful thinking perhaps.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I now realise I have made a similar mistake with Photoshop. Many of my best images are saved as tiff files with multiple layers that are unlikely to be read by alternatives to photoshop. There are new features in CS5 & 6 for example that I'm guessing can't be read by CS4 or earlier and this could easily be the case with CC enhancements in the future. If I move to CC I will need to be careful to ensure I save an additional flattened archive copy of each of my layered tiff files as insurance for a time when I might choose to cease subscribing and return to CS6 (assuming it still works) or an alternative.

 

For those who say they will keep CS6 or earlier, just remember that for most of these to continue to work into the future the activation server still needs to be turned on by Adobe and they could at any time decide to turn it off. Next time you need to reinstall your perpetual licensed copy of Photoshop you might find it's as good as useless. CC is not so different after all. As a business decision, turning off the activation sever by Adobe would encourange an increase to its CC subscriptions. What have they got to loose? Food for thought.

Why save as layered TIFF given that Photoshop is the only program likely to be able to open the files in any case? PSD is a much more efficient and reliable format than TIFF for layered files - smaller files, faster opens and saves and much less likely to get corrupted. I can see the logic in saving flattened TIFFs which can be opened by many programs but not layered TIFFs.

 

In relation to the activation server, Adobe recently turned this off a few months back for CS1 and CS2 and provided a serial number that could be used without the need to connect - it led to that episode of furious downloading of the supposedly free CS2. The point is that I would assume they will do the same for later versions. In any case it will inevitably be necessary for most of us who need Photoshop at some point to go with the subscription for other reasons.

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I've even got a full version of Capture NX2 that I got with a camera last year but I've not even installed it. I'm happy with ACR and the conversions I am getting.  I don't want to look at what I might be missing despite what my OCD tendencies are telling me. :)

Oh gwaan gwaan gwaan. You do really.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ca

 

 

 I've even got a full version of Capture NX2 that I got with a camera last year but I've not even installed it. I'm happy with ACR and the conversions I am getting.  I don't want to look at what I might be missing despite what my OCD tendencies are telling me. :)

Oh gwaan gwaan gwaan. You do really.  :)

I can't believe this but I seem to have lost the card with the licence number on it. So even if I wanted to ..... :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you were tempted then. :D

 

Of course. Temptation has never been a problem for me - resistance is the issue. Actually I just found the card. Right in front of me under my monitor. I think I will install it on my laptop and check it out on my next trip to Ireland should I get a rainy day or two. Maybe have a glance at Gimp as well while I'm at it. But only on rainy days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where Adobe will have everyone by the 'short and curlies' is that present CS users who don't wish to use the subscription method will not receive updates for ACR in the near future, 

 

Yep - new camera's will not be supported in older versions of ACR - but that's nothing new.   Work around by converting RAW files to DNG via the PS Bridge downloader or the free (for now) Adobe Camera RAW and DNG converter.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why save as layered TIFF given that Photoshop is the only program likely to be able to open the files in any case? PSD is a much more efficient and reliable format than TIFF for layered files - smaller files, faster opens and saves and much less likely to get corrupted. I can see the logic in saving flattened TIFFs which can be opened by many programs but not layered TIFFs.

 

In relation to the activation server, Adobe recently turned this off a few months back for CS1 and CS2 and provided a serial number that could be used without the need to connect - it led to that episode of furious downloading of the supposedly free CS2. The point is that I would assume they will do the same for later versions. In any case it will inevitably be necessary for most of us who need Photoshop at some point to go with the subscription for other reasons.

 

I use tiffs for two reasons.

 

1. psd has a max filesize of 2GB and that's easily exceeded when you have a layered 6x17 scan.

2. I have had compatibility problems with non Adobe DAM systems and psd files.

 

Also I chose tiff because it was an open format. Of course using propriety layers somewhat defeated that idea, but at least many non Adobe applications can still read the image preview contained within a tiff (assuming photoshop is set-up to save it). The image preview may be enough to be able to make the jump from Adobe in the future for most of my images, but several contain alternative versions embedded within layers which I would loose unless I manually converted to individual flat tiffs.

 

Interestingly I've come across this article that suggests Adobe may be backtracking a little and will allow Photoshop CC to continue to open our files and to convert them to other formats after subscriptions have expired. No guarantees of course.

 

I agree that CS1 & CS2 can now be used without activation but Adobe have made no statement of intent regarding extending this to later versions in the future.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In relation to the activation server, Adobe recently turned this off a few months back for CS1 and CS2 and provided a serial number that could be used without the need to connect - it led to that episode of furious downloading of the supposedly free CS2. The point is that I would assume they will do the same for later versions. In any case it will inevitably be necessary for most of us who need Photoshop at some point to go with the subscription for other reasons.

I don't know about Windows but the Mac versions of CS 2 that Adobe made available was PowerPC only. If Adobe ever makes CS 6 available without activation and provides serial numbers I'm sure it will be years after Apple releases a completely different OS possibly based on an entirely different processor.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got this email:

 

Thank you all for signing this petition! In just 4 and a half days we already have received more than 5,500 signatures from professionals, designers, freelancers, hobbyists and photographers from across the world.

Firstly, I wanted to inform you all, that as of late yesterday and early today there have been news articles written about this petition, including an article by CNNMoney and ComputerWorld. This is a small victory for us! As the media picks up on the fact that there are people out there who aren't in favor of Adobe's new changes, this petition will only continue to gain traction.

 

At this moment the count is at 5,919 supporters!

 

Please take a moment to sign it too:

Eliminate the mandatory "creative cloud" subscription model.

 

There is another petition here.

 

- thank you for signing!

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use tiffs for two reasons.

 

1. psd has a max filesize of 2GB and that's easily exceeded when you have a layered 6x17 scan.

2. I have had compatibility problems with non Adobe DAM systems and psd files.

 

Also I chose tiff because it was an open format. Of course using propriety layers somewhat defeated that idea, but at least many non Adobe applications can still read the image preview contained within a tiff (assuming photoshop is set-up to save it). The image preview may be enough to be able to make the jump from Adobe in the future for most of my images, but several contain alternative versions embedded within layers which I would loose unless I manually converted to individual flat tiffs.

Yeah I guessed there would be a good reason or two. I use psb for the really big ones rather than tiff but I've never used a DAM system that I know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In relation to the activation server, Adobe recently turned this off a few months back for CS1 and CS2 and provided a serial number that could be used without the need to connect - it led to that episode of furious downloading of the supposedly free CS2. The point is that I would assume they will do the same for later versions. In any case it will inevitably be necessary for most of us who need Photoshop at some point to go with the subscription for other reasons.

I don't know about Windows but the Mac versions of CS 2 that Adobe made available was PowerPC only. If Adobe ever makes CS 6 available without activation and provides serial numbers I'm sure it will be years after Apple releases a completely different OS possibly based on an entirely different processor.

You are right. I'd forgotten that. I am sure I will have bitten the bullet and taken up a subscription by the time that happens. Most upgrades are ultimately hardware driven in any case: new camera needs more RAM or new machine which means new OS which means new apps and so on. The unfortunate fact is that Adobe has a virtual monopoly on the pixel editing market and I am sunk in way too deep to pull out now with most of images saved as layered PSDs. I'll stick with CS6 for a while unless the new version has something really worthwhile although I cannot imagine at the moment what that might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that activation can be spoofed at least up to CS4.

Should you have a legitimate version of course.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got this email:

 

Thank you all for signing this petition! In just 4 and a half days we already have received more than 5,500 signatures from professionals, designers, freelancers, hobbyists and photographers from across the world.

Firstly, I wanted to inform you all, that as of late yesterday and early today there have been news articles written about this petition, including an article by CNNMoney and ComputerWorld. This is a small victory for us! As the media picks up on the fact that there are people out there who aren't in favor of Adobe's new changes, this petition will only continue to gain traction.

 

At this moment the count is at 5,919 supporters!

 

Please take a moment to sign it too:

Eliminate the mandatory "creative cloud" subscription model.

 

There is another petition here.

 

- thank you for signing!

 

wim

 

Signed and tweeted - in fact we should all tweet this and get the numbers up

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now using Darktable and the GIMP on Linux.  I also have photoshop elements.  Don't need photoshop anymore.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The petition asking Adobe to eliminate the mandatory "creative cloud" subscription model on change.org has now more than 20.000 supporters!

 

If you haven't done so already, please consider signing here!

 

wim wiskerke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed. 

 

Kumar sriskandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed, although i don't use it a great deal there may be a time when I will.

 

 

Regards

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.