riveredger: Intuitively, I suspect anyone who thinks $10/month is outrageous is using a pirated copy of it now, or doesn't own it all.
Howaboutraw, what are you referencing in my comments? I agree 100% that the old versions still work. I am still using CS5, and have to convert to DNG in order to edit raws from my X30.
Sorry badscience, but you missed the point and continue to pretend I am saying something else.
EDWARD ARTISTE: While de facto standards are all well and good, this is a prime example of having only ONE "real" option ends up screwing us all.
So anyone who's waiting to get a 5d4, 1d4, t7i, nikon 9000 or whatever, you have to pay adobe for pshop to even see the files. MONTHLY. Forever. Sure, you can use canons or nikons crap software...PER IMAGE. Their apps are quite terrible, rivaling the worst in possible UI design.
Some smart guys keep talking about the cost of a starbucks, but how about the costs of non working software because your lifetime subscription ran out, or the day the prices go up and you cant do a damn thing about it.
The prices will rise, as soon as the user base hits some magic number in their marketing departments papers.
We are screwed, and only the foolish don't know it. Ill start looking at capture 1. As a community, we should all band together to kickstart or support a universal raw module with cataloging ability, so NO one gets locked out of thier camera raws ever.
sfxr, read the last sentence of the post to which I was responding. The OP clearly states that he is concerned about getting locked out of his raws.
mrbill62: Who didn't see this coming?
Happily, I am Adobe free.
Go create a post somewhere about whatever software you are using, since you are happy. I have tried other software (everything from GIMP to RawTherapee to Capture One to AcdSee) and have not found any that I believe are a better product than PS. Lightroom, on the other hand, isn't so good in my opinion.
@badscience - let me explain, since the point was lost on you. My point was that a person who could afford to buy PS at it's $600-1000 price (base vs extended), would not be crying about a $10/month price in order to get the latest version. At least, that is logical to me, since $10/month means it would take 5 years to equate to the price of buying the old stand-alone versions of PS (the base version, not extended). At this point, you will usually hear that the real reason people are upset are all of the FUD arguments. Fear - "I will lose access to my files" - completely wrong, Uncertainty - "the price might go up", Doubt - "Adobe didn't go with the cloud model to stop piracy, they did it to make profits" (this one might be true, actually).
SFXR - can you elaborate? You do know that you can always access your own files with other software of your choice at sometime in the future, right? You do realize that your RAW files will continue to be viewable if you stop paying for your subscription, right? So please explain how you will be "locked out of your raws."
Pictus: Simple and effective solution...Works like the normal ACR!http://thepluginsite.com/products/metaraw/
ahhh, a Mac user who complains about a cloud based paradigm. How ironic!
Edgar_in_Indy: It sounds like the article would be more accurate if it said that Adobe is intentionally crippling ACR so that new releases will no longer work with CS6, in hopes of forcing satisfied CS6 users into an upgrade they would otherwise not buy.
Every single version of Photoshop was eventually cut off from ACR upgrades, folks. I still use CS5 - and in order to use a newer camera I have to use DNG converter in order to work with a raw file. I am glad Adobe continues to make ACR converter free and continually updates it so that my software will always be useful.
IF you were really happy, why would you bother posting on a thread like this?
Read my comment. Folks like you are upset about the sales model itself, not necessarily the price point.
Kicking should read "locking"
No one is kicking you out of your RAWs. The misinformation around here is scary.
Intuitively, I suspect anyone who thinks $10/month is outrageous is using a pirated copy of it now, or doesn't own it all.
The Scurvy Dog of PR: I will never buy another Adobe product for as long as I live. The BAN IS ON!
You'll be back. The alternatives are cheaper for a reason.
Gary Goodenough: Bullies
Tieu Ngao: Overpriced and "made-in-China"!!!No, thanks. I'm happy with my Nikon Coolpix A (APS-C sensor & made in Japan).
mrsfixit: Tempting, but I wouldn't spend a grand on this. It's still a (relatively) small sensor compact.$500-600, maybe, but no more. It's overpriced.I'd go for a mirrorless instead. Bigger sensor, better IQ, more DR, more versatile. So, I guess that means I'm still looking for something to replace my aged Canon G11, but this ain't it...
Good luck finding a 325i for the price of a Camry.
Gotta love the camera industry... Counterfeit flashes, gray market cameras, new items that have been used, oil stained sensors, orbs, etc... No wonder folks stick to phones!
DualSystemGuy: Unless there is something wrong with the comparison tool, the RX III and RX IV samples are virtually identical. I expected a noticeable difference from the stacked sensor to be honest.
And why is that?
Mike FL: SONY likes users to "think" that new sensor is better in Noise/DR b/c larger photosite, but other than RX100-4 has 4K, there is really no meaningful difference in terns of Noise/DR from RX100-3.
Actually, Sony made no claims as to improved ISO or DR performance. The new sensor is about speed.