munro harrap: There seems to be a problem here. The UK's problem. Photography here has an incredibly low status........ These collections of early work are completely undervalued, despite their being unique and unrepeatable. Allowing the export of anything homegrown from this island should have been prevented by Act of Parliament many decades ago.
Why should our kids have to wait and visit websites to look at reproductions of images at all when we have the time the space and Heaven knows, the money to look after artworks of all kinds here.
The reason foreign investors buy art is that unlike the Brits, they are not stupid- they know that these artworks all reflect times and cultures we cannot reproduce.
Here they dont want to pay ANYTHING for photographs at all, if they can at all avoid doing so. And there are foreign curators moving our collections corruptly out of the UK via their connections. Do you want us to lose this war?
You say: "The reason foreign investors buy art is that unlike the Brits, they are not stupid- they know that these artworks all reflect times and cultures we cannot reproduce."
I don't really agree. As you described the buyers, they are investors. They would buy rat poo if they thought that rat poo would increase in value. Art doesn't come into it.
Secondly, calling a nation "stupid" (as implied in your comment) is stupid. Ironic, eh?
Elmos: Wow.. so much hostility against the UK. What is being proposed doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Nothing is being destroyed or hidden or faked. The images were made in the UK by someone living in the UK and are now considered culturally valuable what is the issue here ? do we have too much time on our hands folks ?
We live in an age where everyone having a bad day takes to the internet to express their outrage on topics they know virtually nothing about.
Online anonymity helps them exorcise their demons in a way that would cause them problems in the real world.
This is the age of social media outrage :)
steelhead3: the British have so little in the way of great Art through the ages, they thought it necessary to rob foreign lands of their treasures by military force.
steelhead3, it's kind of important to point out that your version of history is very selective.
Historically, lots of countries "thought it necessary to rob foreign lands of their treasures by military force", as you put it.
The Spanish, the Portuguese, the Germans, the Austrians, the Dutch, the Belgians, the Turks, the Italians, the Greeks, the Russians, the Japanese, the Chinese... you get the point.
History is interesting and there are very few countries who haven't eyed up something that lay beyond their borders and thought, "we'd like a bit of that".
Times change. Back in then, people felt more secure as part of a conquering empire or nation. Come to think of it, that may not have changed much...
Mirrorless Crusader: Who cares if someone digitall manipulates a photograph? Cameras already cook the raw files and raw converters manipulate the data as well.
There's a big difference between basic white balance and colour correction and comping the Dali Lama into your shot to create a bit of interest :D
DaveE1: There's something intriguing about very old photographs. I'm drawn to study them closely, as I find the thought of living in those times interesting.
I wouldn't want to give up my modern day comforts and technology though. I'm sure that someone will be saying the same thing in 100 years about photos from 2015 :-)
There's something intriguing about very old photographs. I'm drawn to study them closely, as I find the thought of living in those times interesting.
DaveE1: The Adobe marketing creeping into the site may backfire.
So, Photoshop has been around for 25 years?... an interesting fact, but also a reminder that there are better software for most photographers these days. The audio CD has been around since 1985, but that doesn't make it the best way to listen to music.
The comments under the recent article on the Photoshop 25th anniversary made it clear that many people are developing a dislike for Adobe and its products.
Despite what the carefully crafted Adobe press release would want you to think, Photoshop is increasingly becoming less relevant. Eventually, even the "power" users will move away when the newer alternatives get traction.
Sorry Adobe, but your money and size doesn't buy my opinion ;-)
@Kim Letkeman, of course, when you brand other people's experiences or opinions as "utter nonsense", the appropriate reply to you might well be.. "Right back at ya!"
If you use Photoshop for video, you are probably a little further behind the curve than you realize. But it is your choice and if it works for you and you are happy, keep doing it.
I've never been a cheerleader for any brand, so I don't connect with the need to promote a product to people who don't need it. That's not to say that Photoshop is a bad product; far from it.
From working with many hundreds of creative professionals and photographers, I know that most don't actually need Photoshop for their needs. I also know that from a professional perspective, we are handling an increasing number of file formats that do not originate in Adobe products. Like it or not.
The Adobe marketing creeping into the site may backfire.
TheDreamingWatchman: A lot of people seem to believe that - if you buy and own software - you can use it forever; or at least for the next 25 years.
Sorry to be the one to break the news: You can't!
In 10 years your current computer will be old and retired or slow and useless or dead without chance of resurrection.
You will have a new computer and the new computer will have a new OS.
And there's a good chance your current Photoshop (or Capture One or whatever you own) will not work with the new OS because the OS will be new and your software will be old. Real old.
But don’t worry! You can still put the box with your software on a shelf and tell your grandchildren: This it Photoshop (or Caputure One) from 2014.I bought it! I own it! It's mine! (My precious!)
And if only I could find an Emulator for Win7 (or OS X) for my Win 14 (or OS XIV) I could show you, what I can do with this little darling.I’m sure it still works like a charm.
Haha, 25 years ago they were predicting we would be using hover cars to fly to work in 2015. I didn't spot any on my way to work this morning.
I also think that a form of mouse or stylus will still be common 25 years from now. Who knows, Adobe's profitability may come from mice then ;-)
nerd2: Who in right mind will use stupid capacitative stylus to edit pictures?
@nerd2, I get the distinct feeling from your arguments that you are not an artist. In that case, nothing is going to help you, so don't get worked up about the technology.
Leave art to the artists. They don't care who made what if it works for them.
photo_rb: Go to Google Image search, look for "iPad Art" and then tell me this is useless or "junk" for drawing or sketching.
nerd2 is merely getting tripped up in his/her desire to bash the product, rather than looking at the art.
If you see a fantastic painting, do you criticize it because of the brand of paint the artist used? (some people obviously would).
Photoman: Does this mean a slow death of Wacom??? How many People don't a iMac/MacBook computer and iPad. The Wacoms do have 5012/1024/2048 levels of pen pressure, depending on which model you get, so I don't how a iPad will compete with that. Sometimes you can't even click on the right link on the stupid iPad ;)
It is not intended to be a replacement for a Wacom. A little common sense would have told you that.
Besides, if you can't click "on the right link" on a tablet device, you probably shouldn't have one. They work perfectly well for millions of others.
@TheDreamingWatchman You seem to be arguing against a point no one is making.
The point people are making is that when you own a copy of the latest software, you can easily continue using it for many years into the future at no additional cost.
There are lots of people still using Win XP. If a version of Photoshop ran on that OS several years ago, it would still run on it with the normal perpetual license today. Photoshop was capable of doing all the necessary stuff years ago.
madeinxyz: In all fairness, I wish want to point out at a time where so many people were using pirated ADOBE CS software. For anyone who has a clean conscience, good for you, but even you probably knew someone who hadn't had a clean vest.
Another thing: Many companies that I worked for tried not to upgrade their CS for as long as they could, because of course, it costs money. Sometimes, I meet people working in companies that still use CS3. Which is their right, of course.
Adobe has to grow as a company and deliver more products that can enable artists to do even more. Technology is rapidly changing and so are the skills that handle technology. For Adobe it is alpha and omega to be ready to face those changes and expectations. A subscription based fee model allows them to better calculate investments.
I doubt that most people would disagree that the subscription model is of benefit to Adobe. The complaints seem to center around the fact that lack of choice in ownership (rent and never own) is not good for the consumer.
You as a business or individual have no option but to go with Adobe's strategies if you are merely renting. Of course, if they want to double the price, your cost doubles too. If they drop a feature, you lose that feature too. That loss of control is understandably concerning for many.
At least with the standalone once off license, you could determine how you used a product well into the future.
Stuart001: I can't believe people are so negative about something that no one is forcing them to use. Does anyone still use 3Mp cameras? Dial up internet? A mobile phone powered by a 6volt, wet-cell battery? Watch VHS movies?
Subscription-based, downloadable software is inevitable. Why? Because we now have the means to quickly transfer large amounts of data over the Internet. We don't need to put it on CDs or DVDs any more. And the subscription model is actually cheaper than the old method of buying PS 4,5 or 6 and Lightroom, unless you are happy updating just once a decade and using outdated software.
Some of the new things in PS CC are terrific. Access to camera raw as a filter within Photoshop by itself saves me hours per week, and more than pays for the annual subscription. This is true even if you are not a pro, unless you value your own time at zero.
Don't like it? Don't buy it. Or invent something better. (And I don't work for Adobe, and I'm not a hip young tech head-I'm almost 60.)
Stuart001, the point is you can't buy it.
Just a Photographer: I don't like Adobe as a company and their company policy.
That said - There is nothing that beats Photoshop CC when it comes down to image editing and image manipulation.
The only reason why I do have a subscription on CC.
We have an account with an agency in New York for N. American work and a couple in London for branding. Their creatives didn't use Photoshop for recent design work. A few years ago, that would have been difficult to imagine.
And to add... the mobile and web interface work we get done by online agencies do not use Adobe products at all.
Marty4650: It seems pretty obvious by now that Adobe makes more money by having fewer customers, as long as those customers are willing to pay monthly subscription fees.
And this is all about money, and not about serving those dissuaded customers.
You really can't fault Adobe for wanting to be more profitable. It's how capitalism works! More power to them.
In the meantime, their former customers will scrape by somehow. By using other products, by using older versions, or even by buying Photoshop Elements. And that last option actually works pretty well for amateur photographers.
Marty, most photographers can do nicely with Capture One Pro 8, or even Lightroom - assuming the user doesn't want to make a clean break from Adobe.
With a bit of knowledge and practice, you can take a well exposed image and do wonders with it without ever resorting to a full graphic design application like Photoshop.
Tom Hix: Wow. What a bunch of nabobs of negativism. If ya don't like Adobe products, don't use them and find something else or shoot film and work in the darkroom. Adobe must be doing something right as they are still around for 25 years.
@Tom. Doing it right would put them in a strong position for the future. CC is intended to do that, but the implementation has been a bit clumsy and created a negative attitude among existing and new customers.
Of course the large numbers who use pirated copies couldn't care less. (CC was pirated within a week of launching). I sometimes wonder what percentage of people who say they use it are paying subscribers.
MnTony: OMG - this whining is still going on? Folks, the adoption rate for CC was much faster than Adobe predicted. They aren't going back. Buy into it or don't - you have the power of your choice. But whining every time Adobe is mentioned is getting very old. Alternatives may pop up, and competition is always a good thing.
MnTony, I had heard the opposite. Adobe were reported to be struggling to hit their initial predictions. I hope your job is not at risk ;-)
Martin Datzinger: I can even predict the next icon: https://affinity.serif.com/static/img/about/icon-affinity-photo.jpg
@Martin, let's hope Affinity doesn't get chewed up and spat out by Adobe.
They produce a great Designer product and a very promising Photo one. I am really looking forward to seeing their new document layout product soon.
There may be some bugs in the betas, but if they kill them all in the next 25 years, they will have done better than Adobe ;)