Yeshe: Adobe have yet to present us with an acceptable "Exit-strategy" before I commit to a subscription. Imagine what happens if you want to un-subscribe one year later and try to open your image-catalog you generated in Lightroom during that year in an older LR version from the pre-Creative Cloud era, - you cant! You're stuck with the subscription as long as you live if you want to open you generated libraries again! Lightroom and your libraries are being updated continuously (during the subscription-period) and will not be compatible with previous versions of Lightroom in the event that you would like to opt out of the subscription-plan at a later stage.
For those of us that are lucky enough to have access to excellent software such as Aperture, I say, stick to them!
Really, this is a probelm with ANY software NO MATTER what payment strategy the vendor adopts ............... IF customers depend heavily on the cataloging features of a particular vendor's software product.
Really, my view is, that photographers should rely instead on a robust filing system such that, without cataloging, their files can easily be found. So for example, a photographer could have a directory structure on their hard drive like this: \ [year] \ [month] \ [subject matter ] \ [client] \ [ job number ]\ ....
What would then happen is that the cataloging features of whatever software that the photographer is using would be considered as the icing on the cake rather than the whole cake.
In my own case, instead of relying on star ratings of my images, I go so far as to create separate directories such as "intial selects", "final selects".
I regard it as folly to rely on a vendor's cataloging system, which is, after all, a proprietory database format susceptible to change.
icexe: The only way I can see this working is if Adobe adopted a far more reasonable and guaranteed pricing model.
A more reasonable structure would be $4.99/month for any single product, then offer special "bundle" prices (E.g. Any 3 for $12.99/month, any 5 for $19.99/month, the entire suite for $39.99/month).
But the most important part to get people on-board is to guarantee those prices for a minimum of five years.
Also, if/when you drop subscription for a given product, it should fall back to a "limited functionality mode" that allows you to still open, view, and print your current images but maybe disables most filters, or the ability the save any new changes, etc..
good ideas here.
And i have yet another one.
How about they keep the price as it is but they only charge for a month if you use the product, even only once, in that month.
So for example, you use Ps on the first day of each month of Jan to March but on no other days of those months; you get charged the full month's rental for those three months. Then in April to June you don't use the product at all; in this situation, you don't get charged.
For non paying months the Cloud products good at least allow viewing of files but not saving or editing or any other features of the software; or better still, the Cloud products come with a separate viewer utility for those months when one doesn't want to pay the monthly rental.
This would be great for travelling photographers, who may be away on assignment for months at a time; they wouldn't be lumbered with a bill for something they aren't, and can't be, using.
Mike Dobbs: I'm about to move to LR but not if I must rent it. Anyone know of upcoming discounts on downloadable version?I'm having to move from Corel's Aftershot Pro catalog/RAW Converter/Editting system since I've just picked up a new camera (Olympus E-M1) that has no converter yet in ASP and may be many months before it appears. I do not have PS...ASP & Corel PaintShopPro have suited me fine over the years....way lower cost as well.
Can you not use the FREE Adobe DNG Converer to convert your E-M1 from .orf to .dng and then work on the .dng files in AsP?
carrigman: I think it's a very good offer and I have signed up. For €144 a year I have access to the best image editor there is with automatic updates as they arise. Already, ACR's Radial Filter and Automatic Perspective Correction - to name just two of CC's innovations- make it a very attractive option over previous versions. People may whinge about the concept of renting rather than owning the software but, like it or not, that is the way it's going to be and you either stick with your existing version of PS - which will become increasingly dated as time goes by - or you accept what Adobe are doing and go with the flow. Yes, you could also, of course, opt for another image editor but for me, I am so used to PS that a change was never a realistic proposition.
Is that to reduce the rage induced tremors potential customers are having as a result of this Cloud nonsense?
Blasthoff: Obviously the price is an "enticement" or come on. Ever since I realized the concept as a "wet dream" of Microsoft, I have feared the whole concept of "cloud" applications for years. Now it is here in it's infant stage. The concept of "having a hand in your pocket" has come full circle. You will not be able to fathom the full implication of this process until it is entrenched across the board. A scary thought.
My fears go beyond pricing, which is not to say it isn't enough of a concern. Putting all of ones eggs (tools) in one basket in the form of a "cloud" should be scaring the pants off of most folks. Your computers, in themselves, are nothing more then boat anchors without software. The whole concept is to make software and even the personal computer obsolete. What you will be left with are "services" and appliances to connect to them. Connectivity is all there will be and YOU WILL BE at the mercy of it, FOR EVERYTHING! Metered life with one universal kill switch.
I agree with you. Also, the day we get to the universal kill switch that you talk of is the day that many a government will be ever so happy; just think of the power they will have over their citizens (as if they haven't got enough already!)
David Rossberg: This is a great deal, Adobe finally did something reasonable and ppl are still complaining.
Do you work for, or have shares in,Adobe (or any enterprise that benefits from an association with Adobe)?
Serious question,not intended to be antagonistic (I am just curious as you are doing so much to defend them in comment after comment after comment).
Andrew53: Someone finds a way to migrate my LR work to different software and I'm gone.
And why on earth are photographers using Lr database facilities when the database format is, as far as I am aware (correct me if I am wrong), not an open standard.
That seems daft beyond belief to me; by using the Lr database (a.k.a. Catalog, and internal edits) a photographer is already locking themseleves into Adobe long before this Cloud thing came into being.
Whey not simply use a reasonably organised directory structure to store your images e.g. \ [year] \ [project name] \ [ edits ]
HawaiiVolcanoes: No subscription...no monthly anything...period. I use photoshop CC..I do not pay for it...and I won't pay for it until it becomes Standalone and the price drops to something "sane"..thank you
May not be a thief; perhaps s/he has access to someone else's computer.
jimkahnw: Don't criticize Adobe for creating a way to protect its investment. They employ an army of coders to build Photoshop and at one time PS was the most pirated software on the internet. Software as complex and powerful as PS is not free, and Adobe is entitled to make a profit, especially if it supplying tools that others use to make a profit. Hence the Creative Cloud business model.
As a professional user of Photoshop, I have always purchased the upgrades as they were released. I also use some of the other tools available from Creative Cloud, so the cost of the subscription is really a bargain, especially when compared with the prior prices of boxed versions. It's the cost of doing business.
Those users who would select less capable software, mostly out of spite, are giving up a competitive advantage.
You are wrong.
Photoshop is not nor has it ever been the most pirated software.
That crown goes to Microsoft software both their Operating System (which sits on around 90% of personal computers in the world) and their word processing, spreadsheet and database packages; and of that lot, it's the Operating System and the word processor that take the lion's share of piracy.
Adobe have never produced any product as "popular" as those Microsoft products.
Jorgen E: I will NOT let myself be held hostage by Adobe and their "pay-us-for-the-rest-of-your-life"-strategy. I'll stick with my Production Premium CS6 Suite, and continue to update Lightroom for as long as Adobe let me. When that doesn't work anymore, I'll find some alternatives. I think I'm done with Adobe...
Vaards: What If...
I purchase thru PROXY USA server cheaper ($9.99) than with European IP address for €12,29?
I am an EU citizen but ............. I am fed up with this myth of discrimination and how more expensive things are.
You are all forgetting that it's customary to quote U.S. prices exclusive of taxes (Federal and State) and European prices are usually quoted to INCLUDE V.A.T.
pumeco: Every time I see people whining about Adobe pricing they remind me of me before I wised-up and decided to ignore the greed altogether. I switched from a Windows/Corel setup to a Linux/RawTherapee/GIMP setup and have no reason to look back - none whatsoever.
Not only do I have a free setup, I also have an operating system that doesn't invade my privacy, I'm in control over what it does.
The only reason Adobe are the industry standard is because purchasers of their products put them there - they keep 'feeding' them. The alternatives are often more powerful and in a lot of cases (such as the setup specified above) free!
Spend your money on your wife, your kids, yourself even. Leave Adobe to their own devices and with a bit of luck they'll fold without you even knowing about it. If everyone used the GIMP and RawTherapee, those would eventually become the industry standard and Adobe would be no more.
It's simple really: stop whining, stop feeding them, and make that free switch!
@NetMage,But there's nothing to say that a commercial enterprise like Adobe won't die too.........look at Kodak.
But your general thrust is a good one; open source stuff is run on the goodwill of the developers and, as we know from human experience, motiviating a workforce on zero salary is real difficult so many a freebie project has folded.
On the other hand, Raw Therapee is EXTREMELY well supported and it seems to be supported by a group of people who are intensely motivated and GIMP seems to be the same. GIMP does however need a lot more work to be as polished a product as Photoshop; Raw Therapee seems to me to be a fully mature product easily comparable to Lightroom and in fact it's better at what it does (minus the cataloging feature, which in any event I don't think photographers should rely on, rather they should use a well thought out directory structure)
razadaz: Very emotive issue this. Every time it gets mentioned there is a torrent of complaints. Ultimately market forces will determine what the future will hold. Adobe, who until now have had such a dominating position with Photoshop may have blown a hole in their own foot and will end up allowing other enterprising software companies to get a foothold.
However, the rental model will always be popular with larger companies who can now turn capital expenditure into tax deductible monthly payments.
Well now, that is a VERY VERY good point (something I hadn't considered) and something the self employed photographer might wish to consider.
Culinsky: I've switched to RawTherapee a couple of months ago. It's awesome. I still have LR... just 'cause i'm being lazy to uninstall it.
@Model Mike What on earth is "asset management"?! Is it not just a database given a fancy name? And if it's a database then it is susceptible to being corrupted or not being compatible with some other software later on if say Adobe go bust.
Why not just use something far more reliable, and cross platform? Namely, create directories with meaningful names e.g. [year folder] / [subject folder] / [date]
And furthermore, the FREE Picassa software will give you "asset management" too.
wherearemyshorts: $4000 Zeiss Otus 1.4/55
f/1.4 Falloff: 1.59 stops at corner
for a $4000 lens this seems terrible
The real issue is that lens mounts on DSLRs are just not wide enough. For reasons of legacy support we are lumbered with film era lens mounts.
So corner fall off is inevitable ........... unless one is willing to tolerate an even bigger and more expensive lens.
Only Oly (Four Thirds DSLR) and Leica (S System) have bothered to make wide lens mounts. Oly's Four Thirds system was unsuccessful and who knows what the future holds for Leica.
Samuel Dilworth: A PDF, a PDF, my kingdom for a PDF!
Since when has PDF not been interactive???I have some interactive PDF publications on my computer, and have had for years.So what exactly do you mean by interactive (maybe we are lost in translation here)?
chooflaki: Dowloaded it on my Ipad for free. And not asked if I owned a Fuji camera. Looks great. Quite a hefty magazine. 45 mb download. This is a great supporting feature. Every camera company should get on the bandwagon..
It's no big deal; Olympus have had something similar for a while now and Panny have had for ages. Leica and Hasselblad too have had a mag for ages. I think even Sigma have a users mag.So really it's Fuji copying others.
plevyadophy: The bottom line is: all these cards, except the Eye-Fi cards, are rubbish in actual use.
There was a comparative review of these rivals to Eye-Fi cards published recently here on DPReview. Folks would do well to go read it and the associated comments.
@agehaOK, point me to a comparison review of this card and the Eye-Fi cards.
DPReview already has a comparison review of wireless cards: note how rubbish the rival cards are to Eye-Fi in ACTUAL use????!!
The bottom line is: all these cards, except the Eye-Fi cards, are rubbish in actual use.
Al Downie: Leica manage to fit a large LCD display behind the sensor without turning the camera into a cube, and my old D200 isn't nearly as 'fat' as this Df - I really don't care for the trend to make fat cameras. The cynic in me wonders if their objective is simply to increase the surface area of the box to enable EVEN MORE buttons and knobs and dials and modes and settings and levers and switches and wheels and controls to be crammed into the design. Because that's what people loved about the FM2, right?
The Leica S