I just love the title of the article! Hats off to DPReview!
Hey buddy, can hold your phone with the LED light on? Thanks! Ok and you, can you do the same from the other side? Awesome, OK let's take the shot.
Let's use the word 'social' and let's use technology that every major camera manufacturer had for decades already. Let's patent it! OMG we are so creative and innovative at Apple.
Here is a thought. So far Adobe has limited support to the latest RAW support to the most recent version of Photoshop and Lightroom. BUT at the same time it always kept it's DNG converter available up to date and free. Unless they completely go crazy and abandon their free and open DNG format, this option should be available in the future. For those who will stay with their current version of Photoshop but still want to use the latest cameras, they can use the latest version of the DNG converter, convert all raw files to DNG which then should load fine into older version of Lightroom and Photoshop.
Digitall: I think the DPR should pause with news from Adobe for a while. At this time, Adobe is not welcome in the community, and I am not what I say, but they are the facts that confirm that. And should offer alternatives to Adobe products and thus also help people find the alternative to the image editing more conveniently.There may be users dedicated to Adobe products, but there are many others who dispense Adobe and wish to find alternatives, and others who may never have used Adobe products. Help people first, your readers. Just an opinion.
That would mean DPReview taking sides with the consumer rather than the vendor. I highly doubt we will see that happening.
Whatever, Adobe! Sure you keep Lightroom out of the cloud but instead of adding features into Lightroom you add them to CC only software. Lightroom is already obviously not what it could be to make sure photographer still need Photoshop. Just look at the limited adjustments you can do with brushes/gradients. A lot of effort has been put into modules that are secondary (slide show, book printing, Map), but nothing that would overlap too much with Photoshop to make sure photographer still buy that.
In my humble opinion, Adobe's promise to keep Lightroom a standalone package is almost meaningless as it doesn't say anything about how much they are going to add into the standalone version. I bet in a few years most of Adobe's new feature development will only be available through CC based products. IOW this promise is meaningless.
AbrasiveReducer: Here's a survey. Is the reason so many users skip every other version of Photoshop (a) because it's too expensive for anyone who's not a full-time professional, or (b) because there isn't a heck of a lot of difference between versions? I have CS5 at home and CS6 at work and except that they've moved the tools where I can't find them, I don't see much difference with the newer one. Content-aware fill was useful; shaky camera filter sounds like something I can live without.
I would say a bit of both. Most photographers do it as a hobby and it makes it hard to spend money over and over for features that only professionals need. But even professionals don't upgrade all the time because the core functionality is there and has been for years. Over the past 12 years I think I only considered 3 versions worth upgrading and I use Photoshop professionally.
Matt: I like to own what I pay for. Period
Currently I own a license of Photoshop. Period.
Copyright, the source code or software patents is a completely different things. You also don't own those when you buy a smart phone, a car or buy music, yet you own it and can use it as long as you want. That was Matt's original point. Now you can continue to argue your own definition of what owning means, but that's missing the point of this discussion
None of the options truly express how I feel about it. And none of the three articles on Adobe's move are in any way critical or reflect how users feel. But I'm not surprised. Let's just be honest here, DPReview isn't a journalistic based news source, it is a marketing tool for a very large reseller (Amazon). It's purpose is to generate traffic and get people interested in buying products. Negative reporting doesn't get people in the mood to buy things. Don't expect to see actual journalism here, don't expect hard questions or truly critical articles. This site doesn't serve users, it serves Amazon.
Marvin Bartley: any suggestion for alternate software to photoshop
I think there is nothing wrong with using the current version of Photoshop and Lightroom for the time being. Adobe isn't taking your current versions away, they just change the future versions to subscription. So it's perfectly fine to keep using the current versions for as long as you want.
Photoshop pretty much works just fine since many years. If I look at the new features in PS that came in the past 5 years I can honestly say that I could easily do without them. So I'm pretty confident I will be happy using my current copy for the next 5 years without feeling out of the loop.
Lightroom is a different case, though. Since the editing tools are so much more limited than Photoshop, there is much more room to add new features. If Adobe offers new features only through their subscription I will abandon it. There is absolutely no way I will get myself in a situation where I loose access to my edited work when I stop paying the subscription.
MarcLee: Ironically, what Adobe is doing to us is a bit like what many wedding photographers do to their clients.
Not really. Wedding photographers make you pay for each individual photo. But there is no continued license fee to keep the prints. Once you pay for a print it's yours.
There are also plenty of photographers that work differently. They give you a disk with all the photos.
@vFunct that's not true. In many countries the so called license agreement is outdone by local law and you actually own the software. That level of ownership doesn't allow you to resell copies, but it's giving you much more rights than what the software companies do in the USA. For example in some countries you are allowed to modify the code to make it work for you. It also gives you the right to sell it again. When I sold a very expensive software after a few fears of use the company tried to prevent it. I reminded them of the local law of the country I was in and they very quickly nodded and the conversation was over.
But even in the US you own the license you payed for and Adobe can't legally take it away at will. The new subscription model does exactly that, though! They take your license away the moment you stop paying them. Big difference.
mgblack74: What happens if you don't have a credit card?
You can buy a prepayed credit card and use that. It requires no credit history or bank account.
Dear Adobe, each update is like selling a new product to a customer. You have to come up with new features, be creative and cutting edge. You have to win them over each time. If you see a decline in people upgrading, it means your updates are not good enough. Forcing people into paying for updates through a subscription and increasing the price and disowning users from their software is not a substitute for innovation. And don't insult us by saying it's only $9.99 when it's only a temporary offer and it would be better for us. Thanks Adobe, but I have a brain and I can think for myself.
Tmelov: As someone who, at the age of 53, has made a long and comfortable living off firstly cosa after effects, then adobes's suite of products, the time has finally arrived to cut the cord. The largest idiocy I've had to deal with over the last 30 odd years of vfx and design work has been dealing with the eternal problem of doing the same thing differently with almost every upgrade. Now, with the latest buffoonery from adobe, I no longer will have surety of interface under my control and that was the last straw. Lets face it, the only real difference between photoshop Cs3 and Cs6 in view of the actual work being paid for, is some minor functional changes. All designers I know avoid upgrading now as "it does the job" as it is. Carpenters dont upgrade their hammers every 12 months or so. Why should we? Im doing exactly the same thing, from a workflow perspective, as I was back in 92, just faster.Im fairly sure that under the new system, every month or so , some icon will change, or be moved, or removed and merged into another and it wont be when I decide is appropriate. Brilliant work adobe, you've got me seriously looking for alternatives.
You hit the nail on the head, Photoshop has reached a level of functionality that does the job many many years ago. You could tell that with each update Adobe was struggling coming up with new features that justify the upgrade. Lots of features were just glued on like Liquify which is basically a separate program. And as you said, many pros don't felt like upgrading. Adobe saw that and came up with this idea to force everyone into constant updates, no matter if they want or not.
mistral2: Adobe this is crazy. The competition must be ecstatic! Just watch Capture One and DXOsales soar.
I was thinking the same thing. I felt a little sorry for all the competition because no one was able to really get a good market share against Photoshop and Lightroom. Now the competition must be dancing in their offices celebrating this wonderful gift Adobe has given them.
There is no way I will go with Adobe's subscription plan as it is now. I'll be using my current copy of Lightroom and Photoshop for a while and look for alternative in the long run. Might be a little painful at first, but heck it's not the first software switch I had in my life.
Dear DPReview, it would be nice if you actually pushed for some answers rather than giving Adobe a platform to publish their non-answers. I have never seen that many users react upset about Adobe's move to subscription bases software 'leasing', yet you give Adobe the front page to post their patronizing statement.
Let me get this straight, you expected users to be upset, but went ahead anyways.
You saw a decrease in people upgrading their software because you ran out of creative ideas for new features that people consider worth paying for. So instead of making your products better and come up with new features, you force everyone to upgrade whether they need it or not.
You increase the cost to keep software up to date, yet disowning the buyer completely and effectively holding their work hostage when they don't pay the subscription any more because the software won't even run and open your files.
Adobe, I hear the message loud and clear, you can't come up with product improvements to generate enough income so you force people into a more expensive subscription plan.
Adam Filipowicz: man you folks are a bunch of babies.. its still cheap..considering what you get..its like $1 a day.. for everything.. always updated.. thats cheap.. how much do you spend a day.. driving, drinking coffee?, buying music, or on your cell phone.. i rely on adobe for almost everything i do.. (maxon and MS Office 365) I love the subscription model.. i hope Maxon does the same with Cinema 4D Studio
good for you that it works for you. Please don't call other people 'babies' who have different needs and different opinions. The issue goes far beyond money.
Apple has filed a patent that disables the camera part of cell phones all together based on location. U.S. Patent No. 8,254,902
harrygilbert: This has got to be nipped in the bud. Next step will be a lock that prevents the camera from taking photos wherever a government or commercial entity doesn't want you to take pictures.
Apple was actually working on that. The idea was to disable the camera in a cell phone in areas where no cameras are allowed.