I finally figured out what CC stands for
SgtDave: Like most of the posters on here, I am disgusted by the latest antics from Adobe. Where is the loyalty shown to all of the long-time users ??I have a different perspective on this: PS has been in development for over 20 years and, lets face it, does just about everything that you could wish for apart from jump out and take the shot for you. Adobe must have realised that after the new 'ground-breaking' camera-shake correction capability, there really isn't much more to offer. The lack of significant new features in the future results in fewer users needing to opt for the latest version so what's the alternative? Subscription purchase, of course, to guarantee future steady income for minimum development costs. The cloud is just a diversion - you can use numerous other cloud vendors if you simply must have offsite storage.If you can really manage without the new goodies offered by CC, why not just stick with CS6 until another vendor comes up with a realistic challenge to PS.
I think people have been saying "what can adobe add now" for many years. They keep finding new features. Or Microsoft comes out with a new OS that the adobe installer won't run in. Or you need the new version of RAW for your new camera. I bought the last couple of upgrades for OS support and for RAW support. Done.
Greg Henry: Corel is actually responding fairly quickly to this now. Here's their new ad to offer discounts to CS users...
While Paint Shop Pro in particular may not be QUITE equal to Photoshop in all ways, in a few other ways, it's actually better. Folks should at least give it a try. I think we all agree that relatively few folks actually use ALL of the features in Photoshop - most don't even know what they all are without some training. PSP might be a good alternative for those who want something more than "Elements" but don't really need Photoshop.
Thanks. I'll check out the demo.
howardroark: Adobe, we don't trust you. According to the poll, "we" is about 96% of over 6,500 respondents. You have earned that loss of trust. Why should Lightroom be any different from CC if Photoshop isn't? If Lightroom had been a simplified version of PS then maybe more PS users would have migrated. I don't hate Lightroom, but I like PS and my workflow is already well-defined. By making this change you are FORCING people to either never upgrade their current PS or switch to another program. You hope we'll go use Lightroom, but why would we trust you not to get us hooked and stab us in the back again? Even if we did believe you, when switching programs don't you think you're opening up our choices to the entire field of available editing software and that we might choose to learn a system that hasn't completely lost our trust? I don't want you to go out of business, but I hope you lose enough stock value to forcefully eject whoever made this decision with extreme prejudice.
But the upgrade isn't for sale any longer.
I intend to give my software $ to companies other than Adobe. This cloud pricing is probably not too bad for people that update their software every time, but is ridiculous for the rest of us.
I'd be willing to pay $1/day for every day that I actually use their product.
I'll be taking a more serious look at photo software that isn't sold by Adobe.
I guess I'm going to start asking if "I need photoshop"? I guess the answer is I needed it for the $50/year or so it was costing me. At $240/year I'll find something else. The other software companies should be having parties.
So I just tried to contact adobe to tell them how much I don't like this.They connected me to CHAT. After I complained about subscription the person on the other end tried to sell me the subscription. WOW.
Good bye photoshop. I upgrade my LEGAL version every couple of versions. I think it costs $150-$200 every 4 or so years. It's a lot of money for a casual amateur user that isn't making money with this product. Ain't no way I'm gonna start paying $240 per year forever.
P.S. Can you use this new product if your internet connection is down?
todds: The 140K pixel EVF is the show stopper for me. That thing is going to look horrible. The olympus m43s optional EVF has 10 times the resolution.
I'm confused I just read another review that says 1,440,000 EVF resolution. What is the correct spec?
The 140K pixel EVF is the show stopper for me. That thing is going to look horrible. The olympus m43s optional EVF has 10 times the resolution.