Owashi: "We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option but we do envision added functionality for the CC version of Lightroom."
I don't like the sound of that. So we have to pay for CC or get a dumbed down version of Lightroom?
CarlosC....Check the Adobe website and you ought to be able to find the pages that actually list abilities of Elements. For one, you're stuck in 8-bit (for the most part) so for many that's a deal breaker. Raw converter is also seriously crippled. It's not a bad program but it's a far cry from the "real thing". Here's some more, straight from Adobe...
PhotoByRichard: the message is quite clear, we don't care about you
You've got it wrong. They care about you, or more specifically your wallet and how it's far too stuffed with cash. They'd like to help you lighten it.
Josh152: So it seems to me the basic message is "sorry but PHOTOshop is not really meant for photographers anymore so just buy Lightroom and shut up."
Yep, that has got to be one of the oddest things I've heard in a long time. The software synonymous with photo processing just isn't what we're supposed to be using for photos. Someone call Merriam-Webster and have them take "photoshop" out of the dictionary. Replace it with "lightroom".
dcdigitalphoto: Classic Adobe combination of ignoring the questions and not listening to people who actually have bought their software. Everyone loses from this. Hackers will find a way to circumvent their process and people who legitimately buy their software will choose not to.
Shoot foot.Reload.Shoot foot.Reload etc
"people who legitimately buy their software will choose not to"
They will but in the meantime will hope and pray someone somewhere comes up with a viable alternative.
Mssimo: Classic Question Dodge:
How do you justify the price increase to photographers?
Last year we actually cut the price of Lightroom in half in order to open it up to a broader market of photographers.
He has a career in politics. Classic example of answering a question by stating a fact that has nothing to do with the question.
jerrith: Well, actually there's only one group of users to blame and that's all those that copy the software and don't pay license fees at all. Those are the one's that make companies like Adobe look for ways how to make sure there are only legal versions available and thus turn to something like the cloud where you can't use your illegal copy of the software anymore.It's a sad fact, but it's us legal users who willingly pay for a great piece of software engineering that take the fall for all the thieves out there. For every legal version in use there are multiple illegal versions downloaded. If nobody used illegal software, companies would be able to drop their price easily as they could sell more copies. But hey, downloading software isn't stealing, right? YES IT IS!!
Oh, so now Adobe has cut off the pirates have they? Good. So that means higher revenue right? So why have they at the same time effectively doubled the price along with it? Because they can. It has nothing to do with a few illegal copies out there and everything with obscene greed.
The issue that Adobe is ignoring and some people are forgetting is that third party plugins have usually been far better at doing what they do than Adobe's attempts. Adobe should have in the past and should in the future stick with what they do best and leave the Camera Shake Reduction to those who have already done it and probably still do it better. And really, I need to reduce the camera shake in my photos? Those that had any have long since been binned. Would that go a long way in reducing the price of Adobe products? Should but probably won't. They've gotten pretty greedy and have figured out a way to ensure a steady stream of gold going their way. And who will suffer? It'll be my customers cause I sure will pass this increase of doing business on to their wallets. That's if no one comes up with a viable alternative to this program before my CS6 becomes obsolete.
Deano255: It sounds like a lot of people who are complaining the loudest are people who have pirated (i.e. stolen) the software and seem to feel they are entitled to it and upgrades forever. Do you steal your cameras too? Sorry, no sympathy here. Your piracy just drives up the costs for us who do pay. Adobe is a company selling intellectual property, not a welfare institution.
And how actually have you come to the conclusion that most people here have pirated any software from adobe? And have you actually done some simple math here? Legit users are now going to be asked to pretty much buy the software in its entirety each and every year now. The days of buying once, and paying upgrade prices are gone. $200-ish every two years or so? Now it's $1200 every two years. Enjoy it if you want. Sorry if the rest of us are a little steamed over the gouging.
(unknown member): Funny thing is, the majority of the whiners here will be using Photoshop CC a year from now.
Every time a new version of Photoshop comes out people come out of the woodwork to swear they will never use an Adobe product again...it's rather amusing!
Maybe not a year from now but at some point those that find they can't live without it will be forced to due to unsupported OS or plugins. In the meantime, I'll be finally be seriously looking at the competition. And I don't find anything at all funny about this. Adobe has seriously screwed their users who will have to scramble for alternatives or hand over an exorbitant amount of cash, month after month after month. Obscene is the word I'd choose for it.
Marques Lamont: $49.99 USD per month for 12 months is not bad. It's like renting software.
It's $12.50 per week. That's the same as eating McDonalds twice a week.
This is just to eliminate piracy. I don't think it's a bad thing, as piracy almost KILLED the design industry.
Your revenue stream must be pretty sweet if you don't mind shelling out $600/yr. Don't forget a few things though. Not everyone lives in the U.S. and currency values fluctuate so other countries could be paying far more than $600/yr. And if you're planning on being in business for even just ten more years, can you justify $6k just for one bloody program? As it is, I've been shelling out for upgrades after the initial purchase and over the last ten, it's far far far far less than that (cause I don't always go version to version and have skipped some), I can tell you. THAT is what this is all about. It's always about money but this is obscene.
foto guy: Another reason I need to go Gimp.
I think many will try to milk CS6 for as long as possible but adobe knows they have dedicated users over the fence since sooner or later OS updates will no longer support it, plugins won't and you (if you have to have it) will have no choice. Hope too your computer doesn't crash cause I remember hearing that they won't even re-validate the license of out dated software after so many years. What an opportunity for competition to come out with the next great "photoshop".
I've been thinking for a few years now about switching from Photoshop to something else. I've dreaded something like this coming along ever since they started their cloud (read:rent) option becoming their only option. Have I got this right...$360 year 1, $600 each after that? Are they kidding? Even as a professional, I can't justify spending near $6k over the next ten years alone. Guess they're forcing me into going to DXO or someone else for a raw converter and now I have to find something for editing. I know most out there love lightroom, but I don't. Like others I'll milk my CS6 for as long as possible but then it'll be farewell adobe, it was sort of nice knowing you. You may have beaten the pirates (not saying that's a bad thing) but you're sure kicking the crap out of your loyal users. Ciao.
Seeing as how it's now Monday, I expect I'll probably stop laughing come Saturday. Or maybe not. This is almost as hilarious as the iphone dohicky that attached it to your hotshoe to amuse infants while you took their photos.
balios: He should do outdoor weddings.
....at night, for that 'deer in the headlights look'.
"I do wonder, though, if these kinds of "in your face" photogs will lead to legislative action against street shooters."I'm probably in the minority here but I hope so. There's a lack of privacy in public and that goes with the territory but on the other hand, I don't need to be assaulted and you'd think that people would get some sort of say on their image generating revenue for someone else. Really. Just because I was on the street?
B1ackhat: You do what you need to do, but I personally find it very intrusive and would beat the living pi** out of you if you did it to me. I am completely unimpressed by the photos by the way.
You'd have to get in your car and chase him down but I'd have to agree with you on this one. It's going a little too far in my opinion, probably not far enough in some people's.
Ugh. Yes, I'm the only guy on the planet who's not a fan of facebook.
One man's "art" is another's pile of bird droppings. This isn't about what is and isn't art but whther or not two prints are "alike". Personally I think a print is a print. Dye, ink, so what? The issue should be "who owns the negative" and what should he/she be allowed to do with it? Anything he/she wants. No matter what print you may have, you'll always have a reproduction. Unless the artist sells you the "original", all you'll ever have is a reproduction. As far as I'm concerned (not that I would personally pay him for it), Sobel should be excited by the newer inkjet prints. They should increase the value of the older dye prints substantially to most real collectors, just as any print signed 1/2000 is valued higher than 1999/2000.
DXO never fails to incite heated retorts. It's so funny when they give a Canon product poor scores and the Canon users call the methodology flawed. Now it's time for the combo of a Canon camera/lens system to get good scores (something those of us using the 5D3 and certain lenses have known from actual usage) and it's time for the Nikon fans to yell foul. Oy vey.
jm67: Well, it's not for me by a long shot but I still dont' get the point of it. I'm sure someone out there will love it but I think it's a waste of the Earth's natural resources.
Some cameras are more useful than others. I (unlike some) fail to see how this fills an unfilled niche. Am I somehow not allowed to have a personal opinion now on how useful I find a camera? And no, it's not a piano. ??? Go attack someone else who thinks this camera is a waste of time.