Just tried to log in to my Adobe account so I can upgrade LR. Right after logging in, I was presented with a new agreement and the only option was to accept/agree.
Here an encouraging quote from the agreement:"Collection of Subscription Fee. You agree that, in the event Adobe is unable to collect the Subscription Fees owed by you to Adobe for the Services, Adobe may take the steps it deems necessary to collect such Subscription Fees from you and that you will be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by Adobe in connection with such collection activity."
Whatever Adobe. I'm never ever going to do any of your subscriptions!
Valen305: My favorite line is "Hey, you're invited to the party...can you bring your camera and take a few photos?". So I say "Of course!", but show up without my DSLR camera, eat all their food and drink like a sailor. When they ask "where's your camera?" I pull out my iphone - "Oh, you wanted me to bring my professional camera? I only use that dreadful heavy thing for paid gigs."
Hahaha! Good one.
electrophoto: I'm self employed.... and yes I've heard them all ;) countless times.
people come up with the weirdest reasons why they should be worthy to get work for free or next-to-nothing.Usual answer: no, but no thanks.
In the beginning 15+ years ago I would try to explain, try to reason, spend the time... these days I just politely, but quickly tell them that they don't get anything for free from me.otherwise: waste of time.
good point! You want to spend your time with and on the clients that pay you, not with those that try to get you for free.
paulwright: Yes I've heard all those lines just about word for word. Aren't they shameless mongrels? You have to maintain your credibility and walk away. If you take a deep breath and maintain the viewpoint that in the long run it's best to be reassuringly expensive you'll have a long successful career.
I occasionally do jobs for Charities, NGO's and "Good Causes" but except for extraordinary exceptions I'll never do the job for free. Each project is assessed based on the apparent prosperity of the organisation and charged accordingly, often at around 50% of my standard rates.
The only things I'll do for free are not really free, it's an exchange/barter situation.
Exactly, preserve your reputation. And as you said, i have done jobs without getting payed for, but received something else in value that was roughly equal or even worth more to my biz.
This sums it up brilliantly! Go Harlan Ellison!
CameraLabTester: "This is your chance to get noticed by working free for our well known company!"
"More work will follow... hopefully paid..."
"This is a great offer from us... we'd like to support you..."
"We are doing you a great big favor..."
"Of course, all your images will belong to us, the copyright holders..."
What you feel inside...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyW8C8xvpUk
frobertv: I am an architect and regretfully our profession can only survive by working for free. Its about exposure to the market. Architects with a starting firm work for about 95% for free in the first 5 years at least. Think of competitions and so on. Work fro friends and family, all for free or paid so bad you rather did for free.I also worked as a architectural photographer. For years for free at first untill people started paying me.
The fact is all succesfull pro's did much of their work for free to get started. Succes comes from seeing what work for free will do you good sooner or later and what is just waisting your time. The fact that the work does not pay now means nothing yet.But its very true that there are harmfull cliënts you should learn to avoid. One common feature they have is they seem to have plenty to spend.Francois
The more you work for free, the more your name gets out there as 'the guy that does it for free'. You ruin your reputation before you build it up.
Haha, yes I heard it all, in every possible variation. True professionals don't have trouble laughing at such 'offers'. The problem are those who are struggling or those who are just starting out. They often fall for this because they hope it will lead to better jobs in the future.
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.