"And while many users have genuine concerns over the subscription model - and crucially the fact that the software will stop working if you don't pay your monthly subscription- the relatively low monthly fee does make Photoshop rather more accessible to new users on a budget."
If you are on a budget there are plenty of better options to choose from than Adobe's CC-flytrap.
mcshan: When you are satisfied with your image don't forget to pay your monthly rental fee.
I still think it is good to openly discus about the future of PS here on DP. Considering the sh!tstorm of responses to Adobe's CC announcement, it seems clear that A LOT of users are moving away from Adobe, more than you and I can imagine. Is it therefore a good idea to keep on posting PS-tips 'n tricks? Perhaps yes for now but how about a year from now, or 2? We'll have to wait and see which software developers will rise above the others with their PS-alternative.
Now that PS is going CC, I wonder which software will be used for tutorials like this in the future.
plevyadophy: COREL NOW OFFERING MASSIVE DISCOUNT TO ADOBE USERS-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great. Now let them develop Paintshop Pro for OSX and we are talking.
SeeRoy: Now, if Microsoft are looking for the "killer app" that will help resuscitate the still-born Windows 8, they should buy one of these contenders and accelerate its development.
I am not so sure if I want Microsoft for developer. That would be choosing between 2 evils.
Corel Paintshop Pro should go OSX, it will be a golden move if they did. They are clearly the best complete replacement for PS.
Combatmedic870: So what will DPR be using for the camera reviews? Still adobe? Or are you guys going to be switching?
Very interesting to find out, as it is pretty clear that almost everybody-and-his-brother seems to have repulsive feelings about Adobe's CC.
AbrasiveReducer: Dear DPR: Instead of saying these applications don't literally replace Photoshop 6, you could say "While they lack layers, paths, selections, marching ants, CMYK, emboss, spider warp and wind filters, etc, etc, etc, for many photographers these quickly mastered programs may be perfectly acceptable replacements for Photoshop".
@ Mark Smith
Mark, if you would work in the commercial advertising industry, you will need CMYK, 100% guaranteed. The big studios are simply asking for it. So yes, I am one of the CMYK guys, and any package without CMYK color space and editing options is a no-no for me. (Not to forget: 16bit).
Anfy: Where is Sagelight?
There are many options, I think dp made a quick review on the most well-known options while this Adobe-CC topic is still hot. But I hope for a much more indepth review on a broader range of options.
I really miss PhotoLine here, as it has 16bit and cmyk support.
Good idea to post alternatives, although not every workflow is comparable. I do mainly illustion and heavy retouche editting, and work 99% in 16bit greyscale and CMYK colorspace, so my options are pretty weak. (If I was in desperate need for it). Corel seems the best bang for the buck as a complete replacement. Too bad I am on OSX, I would have give it a try with some heavy documents, see how it will handle.
awb1000: I only use Photoshop on occasion, so I see no value for me in this. I had been thinking about moving from Aperture to Lightroom, but that's off the table now.
Stu, stop fighting for a company that takes the Mickey with it's users.
Henry M. Hertz: don´t know if it was posted before but anyway.. can´t be posted often enough:
Stue, the reason why you are here is that the 'numbers' complaining have become LARGE. Adobe employees like you are trying to calm down the crowd to prevent any further collateral damage. (Funny how users have become 'numbers', that's exactly what's wrong with this picture, isn't it?) You and I both know this show getting worse and worse. People are no fools, people are no numbers, people are you and me, individuals, and no numbers that can be manipulated by fake spam e-mails from Adobe with these quotes from 'numbers' telling how great CC really is. Wake up man, it's not going to happen.
vin 13: Not exactly a guarantee is it?
Adobe lost all it's credits, thanks to the big boys who pulled the whole Adobe-circus into the abyss. Who is going to trust a company that pulled this trick upon it's users? Why? What have we done to them? I have been nothing but good to Adobe and supported them for more than 17 years.. All the money I invested in Photoshop, even though the upgrades where pretty much useless after CS2. And this is what we get, CC or go to hell? Is my money no good anymore? You only want me if you can milk me out every month, year in year out, slightly raising the costs? Adobe, what have you done? This ship has already started to sink.. and who is going to stop it?
Stu, we will survive without Photoshop, without Lightroom, without Illustrator, without Adobe. Everything will turn out just fine. The world will be a better place without these people. And I am not talking about the quality people behind the software, I am talking about the big boys with the cigars who puzzled on the CC-plans, the big boys who just gave the whole circus away and pulled Adobe into the abyss.
Something tells me they are working around the clock for an OSX version. As long as it have 16bit and CMYK support I am in.
Oh Adobe.. what have you done. What have you done to yourself.
rdc13: All the creative directors, illustrators, designers, and photographers that I work with are discussing how to move away from Photoshop so they can protect their assets WITHOUT having to be tied to a service that they can't control.
More and more I hear this: Give me a product, not a service.
Yes, and knowing that the big studios are doing bad and looking for ways to cut costs, thanks to the crisis, this is an incredible stupid move and bad timing from Adobe as well.
midou: I guess we are all wrong here. ADOBE is happy to get a rid of hobbies and semi profi istockers, who buy once, do not upggrade for 5 years, do not need new features, use 30% of PS potential, do not need any cload gigs for team work. We are pain in the ass for them.
They don't want to get rid of anyone, they want to own our @ss.PS is finished for years and everyone owning a copy of PS is fine with it. And so they came up with ideas like 'only camera's are supported in the newest CS-whatever'. But that wasn't enough, they know they have a problem, and that is maintaining a continuous money-flow for a product that has been finished years ago and won't sell itself anymore. And so they have puzzled on a system that will suck everyone into a system which we can't leave anymore without serious consequences (not been able to use your own files anylonger, not owning the software anymore). It is a huge gamble for them, and you bet they are keeping their fingers crossed that this trick will work out for them, because as far as I can tell, it ain't lookin so good for Adobe's CC-fairytale.
Danny: Something I notice is that a lot of people are comparing PS with RAW converters. PS is converting, image editing AND retouching, and especially the last part is what PS separates itself from converters. If you are converting RAW images, I honestly thing you have no problems finding an alternative, c'mon. If you do heavy retouch work on 16bit images and perhaps work in CMYK color mode, THEN you'll need some serious good alternatives THAT WILL HAVE THESE SPECIFIC FEATURES! So, Lightroom is NOT an alternative for Photoshop.
Did I already said 'Screw Adobe with their CC'? OK, here, I said it again, screw them.
Correction, I mean: Aperture, Capture One Pro, dxo-optics are NOT alternatives for Photoshop.
If you are just processing and applying some filters YOU DON'T NEED PS! On the other hand, if you do heavy retouch work, illustration work (CMYK) and photo manipulation in high-res 16bit format THEN YES(!) the Adobe's CC move is a serious issue. Unless you already own a copy PS CS-whatever, then just use it until the end of times. I am fine with my copy of CS5 and have all the time to do my research and buy a copy of the competition and slowly move my workflow over to theirs.
Something I notice is that a lot of people are comparing PS with RAW converters. PS is converting, image editing AND retouching, and especially the last part is what PS separates itself from converters. If you are converting RAW images, I honestly thing you have no problems finding an alternative, c'mon. If you do heavy retouch work on 16bit images and perhaps work in CMYK color mode, THEN you'll need some serious good alternatives THAT WILL HAVE THESE SPECIFIC FEATURES! So, Lightroom is NOT an alternative for Photoshop.