Previous news story    Next news story

Adobe faces criticism for change of upgrade policy

By dpreview staff on Nov 22, 2011 at 21:53 GMT

Photoshop trainer and author Scott Kelby has published an ‘open letter’ to Adobe requesting it re-thinks its product upgrade policy. The company, in a recent blog post about its ‘Creative Cloud’ online computing service, revealed that it will only allow owners of the most recent versions of Photoshop and Creative Suite to upgrade to the CS6 versions, when they become available. This moves away from its traditional position of allowing owners of the previous three versions a discounted upgrade. The company is offering a 20% discount for these owners to bring themselves up-to-date in time for the policy change.

The move, seemingly aimed at encouraging users to move to the monthly license for the cloud service, rather than buying a ‘perpetual license,’ will mean owners of Photoshop CS3 who might have expected to have the option of upgrading to CS6 will now have to first pay $159/£127/€199 (ex. tax) to move to version CS5. Users of the comprehensive ‘Creative Suite Master Collection CS3’ will face a rather more daunting $1,119/£985/€1279 (ex. tax) bill to put themselves in the position to receive a discounted upgrade to the CS6 version. Kelby’s letter acknowledges there may be a business case for the change in policy but asks Adobe to delay the policy change until CS7, so that users have more time to make an informed decision about their upgrade options. The 20% discount on upgrade prices is valid until December 31st 2011.

Comments

Total comments: 398
1234
sh10453
By sh10453 (Nov 25, 2011)

Part 1

In my humble opinion, Corel's Paintshop Pro X4 is far better than Adobe's Photoshop.

It costs less than $100, regular price. I have also seen it advertised by different sellers for less than $60. Right now it is on sale (Black Friday) for less than $30.00 at Corel's site!

Upgrades are usually $30 to $40.

I have used Paintshop Pro since its inception, in the DOS days, long before Corel acquired JASC, and it remains my favorite package (and I have tried more than a dozen different programs).

I have tested every version of Adobe's Photoshop, from the first one to CS5, and came out with the same result every time, which is ..... I hated it.

Corel has 30 days trial policy, so you may want to check that out, if you are sick of paying $699 for a graphics package.

============

2 upvotes
Danny
By Danny (Nov 25, 2011)

Corel is not for OSX, the platform for 99% of graphics designers.....
There is NO alternative for Photoshop if you are on a Mac and need to work in CMYK.

1 upvote
Wanganuilad
By Wanganuilad (Nov 25, 2011)

"In my humble opinion, Corel's Paintshop Pro X4 is far better than Adobe's Photoshop....."

Downloading now thanks
Pete

0 upvotes
Adrian Joseph Roy
By Adrian Joseph Roy (Nov 24, 2011)

Well, I just upgraded from CS4 to CS5, somewhat begrudgingly. I didn't upgrade to CS5 in the beginning for the same reason as a lot of other people here. I didn't see the need for it. Now that I know I have to upgrade if I want CS6, I will spend the money. With that said, the upgrade cost wound up being $139.00.

As mad as I was, after I reflected on the situation a little while later, I can't deny that I was left with the feeling that $139.00 every 14 to 16 months isn't actually all that much to pay to keep current on a product like Adobe Photoshop.

I am what I would call an enthusiast photographer. I believe that Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Lightroom are two of the best programs ever written. Period. And, Adobe is under NO obligation to provide upgrade pricing. And, I believe the upgrade price itself, roughly 30% of the full price, is fair. It's unfortunate that Adobe is tightening the purse strings a little, but I don't believe they are being completely unfair.

1 upvote
Nounours18200
By Nounours18200 (Nov 24, 2011)

Microsot has an even worse policy than Adobe, particularly regarding the Enterprises : they have a monopoly with Windows on the PCs, Sharepoint for the collaborative tool, Windows server (it is not the only OS available but you practically cannot avoid it the companies).
There is NO upgrade policy , unless you subscribe what is called a "software insurance", that is nothing less than a subscription process.
Adobe strts doing the same because they have a monopoly with Photoshop.

As long as our politicians will continue to pay more attention to the crude milk cheese or to the minimum diameter of the saussages to get an authorization to be sold on the market, INSTEAD of limiting what the Editors can do in their contracts, then we will continue to pay more and more (and our companies will also continue to pay more and more).

You can complain as much as you want, but the only solution is a legal limitation against the Editors: and I do not see any intention of our politicians to act...

0 upvotes
boinkphoto
By boinkphoto (Nov 24, 2011)

First, I hate the upgrade policy and $600/year is too much.

Second, why does every stupid software firm want to get me to upgrade at *Christmas*?

What, am I supposed to ask for Adobe updates for Christmas?

Thanks Adobe (not).

0 upvotes
Rod Harris
By Rod Harris (Nov 24, 2011)

And we see that Lightroom 3 is aailable to new users for $ 39.00, most of us paid $ 300 for the original and $ 100 for each upgrade,,,,,,,,,,,Gotta love Adobe........................

0 upvotes
murphyincalgary
By murphyincalgary (Nov 24, 2011)

Can you show me where I can get it for $39 please ??

3 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Nov 24, 2011)

I implore everyone to never, ever buy subscription based software. Do not support companies screwing you. If adobe gets the message people are willing to pay FOREVER to use software, everyone else will to. ALL software, will be subscription based. Imagine having multiple$20,$30,$50 monthly payments For everything from the games you play to the even the OS on your computer. It will also mean you will have to have an internet connection to use the software. How else will they deactivate it if you miss a payment?

It wont' stop with software either, Movies and Music will also be sold subscription only. Imagine your whole 50,000 strong collection of songs being deactivated because you can't afford the subscription anymore.

This is not far fetched, they have shown their hand. This is the future the software and entertainment industries are creating.

16 upvotes
DanCart
By DanCart (Nov 24, 2011)

What you said is very thought provoking and true.......the good thing is there is open source & other free software when it comes to photography, amateurs should seriously consider free photo editing programes like Picasa and others, now is the time

1 upvote
toysandme
By toysandme (Nov 24, 2011)

Adobe is Greek for "greedy bas tard." I can't understand why there is not more competition.

1 upvote
Danny
By Danny (Nov 24, 2011)

Yesterday I bought the upgrade from CS3 to CS5, I had no choice, there is no alternative when it boils down to CMYK and some useful filters like Liquify and so on. But it is the first time I upgraded with a plan in mind; I am going to focus on alternative options that might 'hopefully' provide CMYK support in the short future. Then I'll dump Photoshop. Not because it sucks (it is great), but I am a loyal customer for many years now, and I do not deserve to become part of a system where I have to upgrade every new version or I will be in trouble. Adobe users are not walking wallets.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
mungozan
By mungozan (Nov 24, 2011)

There is no end to Adobe´s greed. If there was only single real alternative in the market. A real alternative. They have become too powerful in the marketplace.

4 upvotes
Luke Kaven
By Luke Kaven (Nov 24, 2011)

Adobe broke good faith.

I have $500 for anyone who can develop a viable alternative to Photoshop. If a million people did the same, we could fund the development in entirety. I'd rather do that than buy-in again with Adobe under duress.

Photoshop has an outdated architecture. Professional video post production tools use more advanced dataflow architectures, something that Adobe should have done themselves long ago. Photoshop is a dead-end architecture. I won't shed a tear when it's gone.

12 upvotes
irish-george
By irish-george (Nov 25, 2011)

It is even worse than just being shaken down every 12-18 months. THAT would be bad enough, but what is intolerable is that very few updates install without Adobe intervention (i.e., waiting half a day on the phone + maybe a week for them to come up with a solution -- kinda ironic when the warez crowd has it easy and the paying customers are treated like garbage). ANY viable alternative comes along and I am gone forever Adobe.

2 upvotes
NigelMoore
By NigelMoore (Nov 25, 2011)

George, you're bang on the nail!

It's not unlike buying a DVD and having to sit through the ads and admonishments that piracy is killing movies.

And you're sitting there thinking "hang on, I _bought_ this! If I just downloaded it I wouldn't have to sit through this ****!"

Not that I'm condoning piracy, I most definitely do not. But it does make you think that the ones that get 'punished' are the honest customers.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
Alternative Energy Photography

So has anybody tried getting a statement from Adobe? It's been a few weeks since their blog post. What has the feedback been like, and what have they got to say for themselves?

I would not be surprised if the public has not been contacting them, but is instead content to grouse about it on web forums and in user comments to news articles, thinking that this will make a difference.

0 upvotes
Paul Lawrence
By Paul Lawrence (Nov 24, 2011)

They hung the phone up on me when I tried to talk to them

1 upvote
dopsgp
By dopsgp (Nov 24, 2011)

I usually don't have anything nice to say about Abode but to be fair, most other software companies does the same with software upgrades and maintenance whereby major software version upgrades require an existing license that is not more than 1 or 2 versions lower.

1 upvote
Kenneth Jones
By Kenneth Jones (Nov 24, 2011)

Dammit, one more thing at the end of a lousy week! Of all the companies I deal with, Adobe is one of the ones that I thought was least likely to try to gouge me (high priced software notwithstanding), and whom I thought included customer satisfaction as an important part of their business plan. The upgrade cost is not an issue for me at this time because I already have PS CS5 Extended, Lightroom 3, and Illustrator CS5, but it may be the next time around. I hate to think of having to put Adobe in the same category as Netflix and Microsoft. Kudos to Scott Kelby!

1 upvote
Ray Thompson
By Ray Thompson (Nov 24, 2011)

Only reason that I upgraded to CS5 was to get 64 bit applications. With NIK now doing 64 bit it seemed like a logical time to upgrade from CS3. But I see no compelling reason to upgrade beyond where I am. This is even more reinforced by Adobe's new pricing policy.

For want of a few bucks Adobe will be losing a lot more bucks in lost users and upgrades. Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot which Adobe seems to be doing. You would think that Adobe would learn from history.

2 upvotes
Gerard Hoffnung
By Gerard Hoffnung (Nov 23, 2011)

I'm pretty much done with Adobe after discovering that Elements 8 will not open the RAW files from the T3i I purchased earlier this year. Apparently Adobe expects me to buy the latest version so I can get a RAW converter that works. I have not read every post here so this may have already come up but their philosophy now is that they will not bring out new versions of RAW for previous versions once they release a new version of Elements. In other words, buy a new camera and buy a new version of Elements. Sorry but no, I'll find another product that supports me. And yes, I do know the workarounds but don't believe I should have to work around Adobe.

1 upvote
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Nov 24, 2011)

It's the same with the full version, too; my copy of CS4 won't open Sony NEX files, or anything from post-2008ish cameras, because the company ceases to update Adobe Camera Raw when it releases a new version of Photoshop (I have to convert the files to .DNG first, ironically with a free utility from Adobe).

1 upvote
Vallkar
By Vallkar (Nov 24, 2011)

It is free because DNG is Adobe format and they want to make it as popular as possible.

0 upvotes
Peanut88
By Peanut88 (Nov 23, 2011)

BOO ! BOO ! BOO !

1 upvote
Ray Fischer
By Ray Fischer (Nov 23, 2011)

The fact that so many people skip version upgrades shows that people do not believe that Adobe is providing enough value for the upgrade cost. I've made it a personal policy to only upgrade every other release because the enhancements have not been worth the $200 Adobe wants to charge, and apparently many other people do the same. Unless Adobe also cuts the price of upgrades then this is going to be another example of corporate stupidity on-par with Netflix's.

4 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Nov 23, 2011)

If nothing else, this move will help sell a lot of copies of PhotoShop Elements.

Because that program is probably all most of us need.

5 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Nov 23, 2011)

Damn just checked the Corel site and PaintShop Pro X4 Ultimate is on sale for $39.99!!!!

http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?&skuId=PK_TU14ENUGESD&1=1&storeKey=us&trkoi_itrkid=USCAJan10CorelcomquadLTO&itrkid=USCAJan10CorelcomquadLTO&mapcounter=1&pid=prod4220093

Damn Amazon has it for $24.99 http://www.amazon.com/Corel-PaintShop-Pro-X4-Ultimate/dp/B005HTIWIQ

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Nov 23, 2011)

Heh gets better. Before Nov 29 its free with a MIR from NewEgg

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832106100

http://images10.newegg.com/uploadfilesfornewegg/rebate/SH/Corel32-106-100Nov21Nov2911ol66.pdf

0 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Nov 23, 2011)

Plenty of Photoshop alternative out there. I still use PS7 which I pirated back in 2001 :)

Seriously what is the use of PS for photo editing. Most of the PS features are NOT needed for photo manipulation

GIMP - free
Corel PaintShop dirt cheap. I got mine for $50 after spending some time searching for coupons online
Raw Thepapee - Free
DarkTable - Free
Digikam. - Free

3 upvotes
Bob Meyer
By Bob Meyer (Nov 23, 2011)

It's not just Kelby who's criticizing the policy change. I've seen literally thousands of posts from PS users complaining about the change, and threatening to stick with their current version. I'm pretty sure CS5 will be the last copy of PS I buy. I use LR for most of my work, and for what I use PS for CS5 should do fine.

If users follow through on their threats, this could end up costing Adobe money rather than enriching them further.

5 upvotes
ozan yigit
By ozan yigit (Nov 23, 2011)

adobe did this before. there was a big adobe-generated hoopla around nikon's locked wb. in the end, adobe got a lot of press, and lived happily ever after with nikon's sdk. this is yet another way to generate press. there is only so much mileage left in dying flash.

0 upvotes
grubybartek
By grubybartek (Nov 23, 2011)

IMHO the prices of all Adobe products are fine (dear, but acceptable for what we get). The problems are upgrade prices (30-40% of the original price). If they lower it (to acceptable 15-20%) there would earn much more money.

3 upvotes
Joel
By Joel (Nov 23, 2011)

While I find LR3 to be an extremely good product, PS CS5 will probably be my last version. I'd be quite happy to keep older Mac hardware around to run it. There are some unique tools in PS which are perfect for retouching scans and the actions make a lot of processes automatic but this use hardly touches the feature set of PS, so the pricing model is making it hard to keep upgrading.

The odd thing is that software is facing a very steep downward pressure on cost as a result of the iOS and Mac App Stores but Adobe are resisting, going for reduced volume at higher prices instead of larger volumes, which would also protect them from competitors. PS must have recouped its R&D costs long ago.

If Adobe moved to this new business model while also introducing a seriously revamped PS for the 21st Century, I could understand. However, if CS6-7 are simply featuritis releases, then I think this is not going to work.

1 upvote
Jim Radcliffe
By Jim Radcliffe (Nov 23, 2011)

I am not interested in anything that exsits in the cloud. Adobe continues to over charge for all of their products and now they are just adding insult to injury. I hope they experience a "New Coke" / "Netflix" backlash from all of this. Seems they are beginning to believe their own press.

It may be time to look for other options rather than continue the cycle with Photoshop. As much as I like the software I'm going to vote with my wallet if they continue down this path. I've used Photoshop for about 10 years, upgrading all the time and feeling a bit gouged everytime I did so. Time for that to stop.

10 upvotes
pixel_colorado
By pixel_colorado (Nov 23, 2011)

Well said!

0 upvotes
irish-george
By irish-george (Nov 25, 2011)

I agree.

0 upvotes
Paul Guba
By Paul Guba (Nov 23, 2011)

I am sure the accounts have figured this out to be boon to the bottom line. I hope they calculated in the additional security measures to keep people who used to upgrade from just stealing it. I don't feel so secure having my software on the cloud. What is to prevent Adobe from just charging more? What would be my option as I would no longer have an actual piece of software. So its pay more or nothing. No way Adobe. FYI I have been a user since version 2.0 and have paid for every upgrade since.

0 upvotes
irish-george
By irish-george (Nov 25, 2011)

Lots of problems with the cloud, like security and availability (servers go down AND companies go out of business) and needing an Internet connection to do anything. Nope, way too risky.
It seems like Adobe software leaves some of the most tempting security holes for hackers, viruses, trojans, malware to go after and Adobe thinks it is a good idea to make it so that only one target needs to be hacked to bring millions of computers to their knees? Yeah, that's brilliant.

1 upvote
jhowell39
By jhowell39 (Nov 23, 2011)

Long time lurker here and old film guy getting back into it.

Its seems like Adobe might be attempting the 'Netflix' solution -- a rather large caliber, metaphorical handgun is pointed directly at right foot.

The solution is quite simple and is a four letter word -- GIMP.

2 upvotes
Alternative Energy Photography

One could say that Gimp is both the result AND the answer to the problem of tarsal bisection!

0 upvotes
pixel_colorado
By pixel_colorado (Nov 23, 2011)

I'm a long time Photoshop user and I have to say GIMP is not as user friendly as Photoshop is especially if you're used to Photoshop.

1 upvote
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Nov 23, 2011)

I agree pixel, photoshop is a superior product. At a price higher by infinity%, it should be. I don't believe I'll continue with that superior product if it means I have to begrudgingly pay to upgrade just because an upgrade exists to ensure I don't get hosed by needing/wanting something more in the future.

0 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Nov 24, 2011)

You know, people always trot out the GIMP as a Photoshop alternative, and except for a few cases, the GIMP almost never works out to be a practical replacement. And so Photoshop lives on. Well, maybe not after this policy change, but if we're going to get an alternative, the GIMP has a lot of work to do and features to add before it can replace Photoshop for a lot of people.

3 upvotes
Andrei Todea
By Andrei Todea (Nov 24, 2011)

I agree. Actually, the only reason I still use Windows is that I can't find good replacements for Photoshop and Flash. I believe Adobe knows that too (and maybe they deserve to earn money for this).

Things may change... I didn't think there will be an Office Suite that could replace Microsoft's solution and then came OpenOffice (and now LibreOffice). GIMP is not ready to do this to Photoshop. Not yet but it will :)

0 upvotes
Focus_Point
By Focus_Point (Nov 23, 2011)

Take good photos in camera for minimum fixes, and use Picasa (free from Google) to play with the colors, contrast and brightness... and I think there are other good and cheap applications for your layering and HDRs out there.

0 upvotes
Wanganuilad
By Wanganuilad (Nov 25, 2011)

Faststone still suits me and keeps getting better.
http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm
Pete

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 23, 2011)

Spending excessive money does not make you a better photographer. Adobe products are not, "professional", and they do not help you profit. Tiered limits, and upgrade restrictions are so 90's. If you savvy enough to be good at photo editing (and/or not needing to edit) then you are savvy enough to know software is now free, and I'm not talking about "Freeware". Last time I checked, ufraw, Gimp, it's many plug-ins, their free online videos, and DigiKam, work on Windows, or better systems.

Picasa = Beginner, light needs, with management.

Digikam = Intermediate needs, same comprehensive features as Lightroom, but free and without Lr catalog hell.

ufraw + Gimp + it's Plugins = Advanced, power user, and not even difficult, just everything, and the kitchen sink. The plug-ins allow many one click treatments.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 23, 2011)

Be sure to check out the Gimp re-synthesizer plug-in, also GMIC > Enhancements > Anisotropic filtering, for noise, and FX-Foundary > Photo > Effects > Tone mapping, for instant HDR; from one exposure. Refocus, is Adobe's latest "discovery" (LOL), and so be sure to check that out, in the Gimp, too. Filters > Enhance. Just makes sure wherever you install Gimp, just get all the plug-in extras, and/or scripts, that you want. Read the ufraw web page(for Raw). Set it up once, for you camera. If you have an odd camera, you can make your own, color profile. It's universal. Of course you can load Color profiles, per camera too. Then, ufraw can better your camera's JPEG look, instantly. Base curves (like per camera), and luminosity curves (like D-Lighting presets per photo), are loadable/savable too.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 11 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 23, 2011)

You do not have to set all the stuff in ufraw, just a relevant few things(like color smoothing ON). The point, is, After your one-time, camera color profile setup, just to get the relevant 16-bit Raw light data, as best "developed", and everything else is done in the Gimp. Gimp has an excellent Chromatic aberration filter at, Colors > Chromatic Aberration... Excellent NR, and fine control with Filters > Enhance > Wavelet Denoise, and anything else you might want, for the Raw developed photo advantages.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 23, 2011)

Of course you can do all manner of spot healing, special effects, gradients, and you have the fullest power for custom layers and all that, but you can let the plug-in do all that, if you prefer. I mean why waste time, in any other program, when nothing is restricted, in the Gimp? It's the standard, and the best thing to learn. It can therefore handle any need you have, without needing to learn other programs. I'm an ex-Lightroom user, and I've made it my business to test all photo editors. Now I see, Gimp gets it done. As Gimp is a pure editor (but there may be plug-ins), extensive tagging, and that kind of photo management, could be done in other programs, very easily. Such as Digikam, or even Picasa. Of course, Gimp does more than photo's, too.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 23, 2011)

If you like your JPEG's, you can just pull them up in the Gimp. Yet, if you need Raw, there is no treatment, that you can't match, That includes Nikon, Canon, Lightroom's (Adobe Camera Raw) own, and all the other Raw developers, and their development choices/options. Why limit yourself, to those?

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Rmano
By Rmano (Nov 23, 2011)

...and do not forget RawTherapee. I use normally RawTherapee + DigiKam + (rarely) gimp, and I have no problem. But well, I'm not a pro, really.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 23, 2011)

If you shot only Raw for speed, or if Raw is all you choose to shoot, or you have no Raw+JPEG after the fact, and then desire that JPEG, you can pull the embedded JPEG out of any Raw file.

dcraw -e *.NEF

...or whatever extension your Raw files uses. The JPEG quality will vary, by camera Raw type. For some purposes the JPEG is sufficient. Such as where you did not need Raw, and so you're done. It can also then be viewed, by any fast JPEG viewer.

Digikam (excellent, and extensive photo manager/ tagger/face recognition) displays this (still)embedded JPEG, for any Raw only file. Open file managers(better than "Explorer") , such as the one(s) with Ubuntu OS(free, total distribution), also show various(different cameras) Raw thumbnails, without any todo. You do not have to go hunting insecure web-site downloads, just to show your Raw thumbnails. Microsoft recently promotes various(limited camera types) Raw thumbnails, in their file manager, as a gift/feature for you to download, LOL.

0 upvotes
sh10453
By sh10453 (Nov 23, 2011)

Gimp is powerful, but its interface is not for everyone (far from being intuitive). Long learning curve.

I agree, there are many good programs for free out there.
Another free, simple-to-use program is Paint.Net, and it gets frequent automatic updates, and continuous improvement, with layers, effects, and more capability, and lots of plug-ins.
Plug-ins are user-contributions, including a RAW plug-in.

Many people don't use more then 10% of some software they pay hundreds of $$ for, but somehow they believe "bigger, more expensive is better".

For a full fledged, commercial graphics editor that should satisfy professionals and advanced users, there is PaintShop Pro ver. 14 (X4), which is somewhere from $60 to $99 (depending on where to buy it from). Upgrade from X3 is about $29.
So there are many alternatives if people look around.
I would never pay $699, or even $99 for Adobe's Photoshop! But that is me.
I have tried it many times (from ver. 1 to CS5, and I simply hated it.

......

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 23, 2011)

Why would you get exited about low cost programs; when the free (freedom) open programs are better?

This very old myth about Gimp being harder than Photoshop, is a sad joke. It's propagated by folks who do not like many (good) choices. They, likely run neither Photoshop(CS*), nor Gimp. Plus, they probably haven't used the Lightroom trial long enough to experience its catalog management hell.

The "leaning curve", is not less with Photoshop, not as powerful, with Lightroom (and you should see Digikam, if you like Lightroom, Plus the new unfinished Darktable, with a layout just like Lightroom). The only things overwhelming about Gimp, is it does so many different things. Name one thing, it can't do.

If you are put off, buy a benefit being under "Filters", as opposed to some other drop down menu list, then you really should just be using Picasa, instead. However, if you want to be able to do ANYTHING, your time is best spent just using Gimp(and plug-ins).

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 23, 2011)

Next thing I hear, is about 16bit capabilities, and ufraw does that; if that's what you need (for Raw). ...the more you know. Don't fall for the myths, and propaganda/marketing distortions. Just use these (over time) yourself. Why wouldn’t you?

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 23, 2011)

Also, there are so many Gimp, on-line videos, and tutorials that it's mind boggling. Get with THE program. To each his/her own, however. Caveat emptor. LOL. I mean really, can't you (all) find a better use for your money, than funding people who are working against your future, by their imposed limits? I don't care if you have "Invested" in all Abode's wares, you still need Gimp, in your arsenal, and it's free to add to it. At some point, you're going to have to let it (old, closed software mistakes) go. You are not doing better, by hanging on to, and trying to get your money out of quickly outdated programs, that are dragging your butt down. Why pay, for anti-competition!? It's your choice. Freedom. It's what’s for breakfast. :)

0 upvotes
Peter Hayward
By Peter Hayward (Nov 23, 2011)

The GIMP may be an alternative and an excellent OS effort, however my understanding is that it does not handle 16 bit images end to end. Thus the story is over for me before it starts. Pity.

0 upvotes
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Nov 24, 2011)

"Adobe products are not, "professional", and they do not help you profit."

Photoshop is *the* industry-standard professional photo editing tool and numerous professionals *do* make a profit with it.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 24, 2011)

"The GIMP may be an alternative and an excellent OS effort, however my understanding is that it does not handle 16 bit images end to end. Thus the story is over for me before it starts. Pity."

LOL. Slow reader. Actualy, it can, but ufraw does that, AND, I said that, just as I predicted your tired old argument would raise it's mythical head. Oh! Joe Schmoe said it's not as good, so that MUST be the truth. LOL. Here's an idea, why don't you give it an honest try, yourself.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 24, 2011)

"Photoshop is *the* industry-standard professional photo editing tool and numerous professionals *do* make a profit with it."

Learn to read between the lines. No more than free Gimp would, Get it now? The real point is, intelligent people do not hire photographers, because you run Adobe products. That's a fact. The whole point was, Gimp get's it done (better), with MORE profit for you. If you were working, you would already understand what I'm saying. If your ego, is based on Photoshop, you have found your problem, and it's not Adobe.

If you're a fake company trying to make it on tax write-offs, that you can build-up, you might have a real point. That's not real world, nor really legit now is it? Ah, the pretenders.

0 upvotes
KAllen
By KAllen (Nov 24, 2011)

Adobe products are very professional. When I upgraded to CS5 from 3 it was for a specific feature in 5 I wanted so I could earn more money. It worked.
Now I am also an After Effects user and soon to be a premier user, the programs integrate very nicely. To say Adobe products are not professional and can not earn you more money is just complete ignorant rubbish. Many many very successful businesses around the World make huge amounts of money via Adobe products.
Photoshop is a standard everyone knows, designers, producers, photographers, editors etc can pass on Photoshop files for extra work and you know who ever picks it up will be able to make it work as it is intended. For getting the best out of "My cat on the window ledge" or "Babies first steps" pictures any product will do. In a "pro" environment Photoshop is expected and it really is second to none in it's scope.

0 upvotes
KAllen
By KAllen (Nov 23, 2011)

I would be happy if Adobe charged me in £'s the equivalent price they pay in $ in America. I can see no reason other than greed for the massive UK price hike.
I use and have paid for Photoshop CS5 and After Effects 5.5 and I am about to buy Premier. Thats a big chunk I will have to keep upgrading.
What if CS6 is just an upgrade for graphic designers with nothing of use to photographers? We will have to buy 6 in order to get 7 which might be a photographers must have.
Shame on you Adobe.

Kevin.

3 upvotes
Vallkar
By Vallkar (Nov 23, 2011)

In terms of improvements from one version to another is very little. Base application stays the same. It simply doesn't justify the upgrade cost. If the whole world was happy with CS3 for example and don't bother to upgrade then Adobe are in trouble.

0 upvotes
Charles King
By Charles King (Nov 28, 2011)

The new sharpening/NR engine in CS5 was a major upgrade, probably the biggest since Smart Objects.

0 upvotes
Simon97
By Simon97 (Nov 23, 2011)

I used to be an IT manager for an engineering company. This is the way nearly ALL the software was licensed: It required some sort of USB dongle or a license server or still needed to be authorized like Windows OS or MS Office did (or does?). With most of the engineering software, you paid to use it for a year. If that expired, you paid to renew or lose use of the software and are charged full price of the software if you wanted to use it again.

Depending on the software, we figured it cost us $15,000 for a workstation, but that is still small compared to the cost of the human running it.

1 upvote
Tom Bird
By Tom Bird (Nov 23, 2011)

good ol times :-)
but they are over now. in the end adobe will loose.

2 upvotes
ST205
By ST205 (Nov 23, 2011)

Strange model Simon. I've used engineering software for 20 years and never seen that one. Normally you pay "maintenance" which is a fixed percentage of the original license fee. This gets you tech support and upgrades. If you stop paying maintenance you still have your license and dongle. Just no support or upgrades.

1 upvote
Vallkar
By Vallkar (Nov 24, 2011)

Imagine your hardware manufacturers started charging you licence fees. Suppose your camera stops working after certain exposures unless you renew your licence. It is madness.

0 upvotes
Blackubuntu
By Blackubuntu (Nov 24, 2011)

Don't give them any Ideas, dang, now we are screwed!

1 upvote
ozan yigit
By ozan yigit (Nov 23, 2011)

it is unfortunate that a sizable portion of the professional photographers and the comic book industry digital ink and color still depend on this beast and feel the need to keep up with the upgrades as if the difference between (say) cs4 and cs5 made *all the difference* to their art and craft. as more and more processing moves to capable workflow software, where adobe has good competitors, including a good open-source solution, it is not surprising adobe is trying to eek out as many dollars as possible from its rapidly shrinking user base. i'm kind of surprised that adobe hasn't introduced a per-core license for creative suite yet.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andrei Todea
By Andrei Todea (Nov 23, 2011)

Which open-source solution?
(Anything that is close to let's say CS2 is good enough for me).
Thanks.

0 upvotes
ozan yigit
By ozan yigit (Nov 23, 2011)

darktable. it is still young, but impressed me enough that I am actively working with & helping to develop it.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 24, 2011)

Yes, but it is NOT fully cooked, where others like Gimp are. Darktable is a great, up and coming, Lightroom-like (user interface) program. You would love it. HOWEVER, that’s not to be confused, with mature, and stable Gimp, and mature accessory apps, with it. Of course, this will change quickly, and Darktable will improve quicker, than closed projects. You just have to know, loading up a new beta programs does not represent the cream of the open software crop. Plus, no one will stop you; from loading a version that's too untested. Don't do that; unless you are helping, with development.

0 upvotes
Andrei Todea
By Andrei Todea (Nov 24, 2011)

Thank you. I will test it tomorrow.
... and congratulations / thanks for helping with the development!

0 upvotes
ozan yigit
By ozan yigit (Nov 24, 2011)

right. I said it is still young. there is already a very helpful ~90p book that goes with it too. i predict you will hear more and more about it.

0 upvotes
tom sugnet
By tom sugnet (Nov 23, 2011)

Greed is the main cause of this crisis.

5 upvotes
BobDavid
By BobDavid (Nov 23, 2011)

I'll bet you are not earning a living as a photographer. You like Photoshop? Pay for it. In the scheme of things, PS is a bargain-- that is if you are a professional photographer. If you don't want to pay for an upgrade, use something else.

2 upvotes
tom sugnet
By tom sugnet (Nov 23, 2011)

I don't like Photoshop. I use NX2.

2 upvotes
Gallethor
By Gallethor (Nov 23, 2011)

I like Photoshop, I don't like monopolys. I think a bargain is a good priced product in comparison to competence. And yes, I am trying to earn a living as a photographer and these prices does not help at all.

0 upvotes
Vallkar
By Vallkar (Nov 23, 2011)

For photographers, there are many other applications far better then Photoshop. Photoshop was initially created for graphic designers and it is still an useful tool.

0 upvotes
Tom Bird
By Tom Bird (Nov 23, 2011)

you like your ford f150? get a 1-year subscription. after that the motor wont run any more. if you dont renew your license youll pay full again later. so its a bargain if you renew every year ...

0 upvotes
QuarterToDoom
By QuarterToDoom (Nov 23, 2011)

Heh with the F150 at 65K teh phaser goes and you get a nice tick in the engine. Just ass you run out of warranty.

Oh lets not forget the leaking third light...

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 23, 2011)

Adobe's view might have been that users of older versions of CS were stick-in-the-mud codgers not likely to get excited about jumping on any "cloud" product. In principle, the cloud approach might be fantastic, if it allowed people to edit complex videos with no more than a tiny smart phone. But do cloud graphics products have lighter CPU, RAM, or graphics card requirements than the old-fashions "soft" wares? The drawbacks to cloudware will be, though, your connection speed and need to keep subscription payments current to avoid loss of files or software. It might be difficult or impossible to switch products or decline to pay for upgrades.

1 upvote
Marc Rogoff
By Marc Rogoff (Nov 23, 2011)

Not much love for Adobe - this is another example from Adobe on how not to make friends and retain customers....just wish there was another "game" in town to compete with them properly. They are an extraordinarily arrogant company. Just look at the cost differences of software for UK users despite complaints over the last 5 years.... If the software was priced better they would reduce the incentive to "steal" software. Most young Photographers use 'stolen" software as the cost is out of the ballpark for them.

4 upvotes
Tom Bird
By Tom Bird (Nov 23, 2011)

stay with cs5 or what youve got for a long time. it works now even for professionals and will do so in 2 years time.
dont update your system either, if it runs now to your satisfaction.

priced better? for whom. the comp. will price as much as the custoer will allow. its easy: dont buy and let them get bancrupt.

2 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Nov 23, 2011)

Boycott them, there are enough quality products available.

4 upvotes
Pixelpop
By Pixelpop (Nov 23, 2011)

The Adobe upgrade decision is another example of corporate arrogance and a disregard for their loyal customers. They should have learned from the recent card fee experience of Bank of America. I appreciate Kelby's letter and hope that Adobe pays attention to some good advice

6 upvotes
BobDavid
By BobDavid (Nov 23, 2011)

In regard to paying for software, a previous poster's comment: "Who cares!!! pirates rock: D"

My response: You are a thief. And those of you that pirate software are thieves. Have you ever consisdered that by pirating intellectual property, you are disincentivizing companies to spend money on R&D, probably eliminating jobs, and undermining a company's ability to offer the very best. If you love pirating software, move to China. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you are defaulting on your student loans and living with mommy and daddy. How would you feel if somebody decided to pirate something of yours?

1 upvote
Uaru
By Uaru (Nov 23, 2011)

I think it was a joke.

But would you consider a thief someone, who does not like to pay 1400$ for the product in Europe and buys the same for 600$ while on a trip to the US? Nice, official box?

0 upvotes
Tom Bird
By Tom Bird (Nov 23, 2011)

move to china?
most pirate sw is distributed from china. and sold to usa.
so blame yourself.

0 upvotes
photoPLPL
By photoPLPL (Nov 23, 2011)

It is not the matter of pirate/stealing a software, but one must be able to pay for the software and the software must justify what they earn. If PS's aim for real professional photographer, then it is correct, but you miss out the mass user. Dominate the Market is important in order to eliminate your competitor.

0 upvotes
photoPLPL
By photoPLPL (Nov 23, 2011)

Someone always said "move to China", infact PS is drying itself out to do this step. More people will leave you. Including me, but no big deal for you.

0 upvotes
CollBaxter
By CollBaxter (Nov 23, 2011)

One often complains about Microsoft and their crazy licensing. (Which they sometimes don’t understand themselves). However here in Africa they have release office home and small business which licences 3 systems for small home businesses and 2 systems per package for small businesses at a reasonable price. I have clients that had pirated software before and are now actually spending money on the packages and becoming legal because it is affordable. Microsoft never saw a cent before this on these packages. Maybe Adobe should think about this. At least Microsoft did the 3 year trip. Microsoft should actually be called buccaneers with the ridiculous cooperate prices as it arm leg and first born stuff.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Nov 24, 2011)

Oh no. It's not the poor, poor, families that will so suffer; if we don't bend over, and allow direct withdraw of our bank accounts, for their movies, music, and troublesome(insecure) closed software. That money will only find its way, to a more worthy recipient (and their children instead) such as NON-discretionary expenses. Otherwise we are no promoting the hard working companies that are providing a better, and with competition, product, or service.

The bottom line is the same though. You would NOT be breaking any laws (even stupid ones) with open software. I have full access to whatever I wished to pirate, and the open stuff, is better anyway. So what's the point? Save money, save time, get better, and live legally, all in one fell swoop! This includes the future improvements, and a better way to upgrade them too.

Free, and open software, is actually better. That "horse" has already left the barn, and had ponies, with wings. Wake-up dear friends. Be careful to who you listen.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Stephen_C
By Stephen_C (Nov 23, 2011)

I see, I guess I will switch away from Adobe. Thanks for making the decision easy. "Cloud" seems to be another word for "You don't own anything" and "This may not work when you can't get a connection."

3 upvotes
ChromeDome
By ChromeDome (Nov 23, 2011)

I use LR2 quite a bit and like it. I hardly ever use CS3. I was resisting the urge to upgrade at £190 because even at that price the cost seemed extortionate for a product I rarely use. The only reason would be to protect my initial £500 investment. Upgrading at Approx £200 every 3 or 4 years was high, but a luxury I'd afford myself.

Adobe seem determined to force my hand, so here's my solution. I'll keep CS3 for as long as it'll work. I might buy later versions of LR, but Raw Therapee is catching up fast, (half an hour this-morning gave me a good feeling about this option) Canon's own DPP is very usable and in some cases gives better results.

retaining CS3 will enable me to make sense of most online tutorials. Gimp's not 16bit enabled so I'm not sure about that, but for what I do PSP is probably enough alongside Raw Therapee and / or LR.

Adobe have basically lost my £1 / week subscription, because they wanted to up it to £4 / week. So good luck and thanks for all the fish.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Uaru
By Uaru (Nov 23, 2011)

CS5 cost about 600$ on the US Amazon. an about 1000 EURO in Europe, which makes it almost more then twice more expensive.

I wonder, if their subscription will follow that path...

2 upvotes
BobDavid
By BobDavid (Nov 23, 2011)

Believe it or not, I suport Adobe's decision. Photoshop is central to my business. Research and development comes at a cost. As a professional, I have never had a problem writing a check to pay for excellent software. If you are an amateur complaining about upgrade costs, maybe it's time to switch over to another suite of image editing software.

1 upvote
Uaru
By Uaru (Nov 23, 2011)

Think about this.
You pay for this research and development in the upgrade cost. If Adobe chooses to spend you money researching and developing something you do not need, you can give up on the upgrade, retaining your current possibilities.

In the subscription model, if you do not like, what the company is spending your money on, your only option is to give up the product entirely, without keeping the current status of your software - because it will probably stop working as soon as you give up your subscription.

Just imagine, what would have happened, if all the copies of Final Cut Pro stopped working, and the users would have been forced to use Final Cut X;-)

That is why I believe a permanent license is better for the users. It simply gives them more independence from the developer.

0 upvotes
Tom Bird
By Tom Bird (Nov 23, 2011)

so where is the problem? just go ahead writing your professional checks for adobe! moreover you could donate some bucks for them as well.

2 upvotes
vin 13
By vin 13 (Nov 23, 2011)

I can see why they want to go that way. In some ways I even like the idea. Over a long period $50 would probably be close to what I'd pay if I bought the new versions of everything every 3 years or so. It would also go into the accounts as a running cost, which is more tax-efficient (at least where I am) and it spreads the cost. However it would leave us at their mercy, they could double the price without warning any time they like. Worst of all, if it takes off, those of us in poor internet areas (I'm in the world's bottom 10% according to speedtest.net) will really be screwed.

0 upvotes
stevez
By stevez (Nov 23, 2011)

I think perhaps that Adobe has been hurt by companies like Nik, Topaz and others, which have made it much easier to create your vision than it is in Photoshop. Plus these plugins work very nicely in more reasonably priced software and with Topaz all upgrades are free. Perhaps also, Adobe realizes that CS6 may not be that enticing, so they're trying to cash in on CS5.

0 upvotes
xfoto
By xfoto (Nov 23, 2011)

And companies wonder why everyone just pirates their crap...

10 upvotes
NigelMoore
By NigelMoore (Nov 23, 2011)

PS has been pirated for years though, because it's a pro app and some people are too cheap to pay full whack. Perhaps we're all now paying the price for years of piracy (by others, in some of our cases).

But I rather suspect that comments below are closer to the trutth: that Adobe is having difficulty getting people to justify the upgrades with permanent licences. Solution: do away with permanent licences!

Currently, the alternatives are few and not always fully-featured. But nothing stays still for long. I think Adobe has cut its own throat in the medium- to long-term.

Comment edited 48 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Uaru
By Uaru (Nov 23, 2011)

Well, if the "professionals" do the pirating, then solving this problem will help.

But if the amateurs do the pirating, then just eliminating piracy will not do Adobe any good, because amateurs will not buy a 1000 euro application anyway, nor will subscribe for 100 euro monthly... On top of them, when some of those former pirates become professionals, they will not start buying PS, because they will be used to something else already. So Adobe, to make it profitable, should not only eliminate amateur piracy, but convince the pirates to buy PSE instead... and keep PSE and PS consistent...

0 upvotes
puneetvikramsingh
By puneetvikramsingh (Nov 23, 2011)

who cares !!! pirates rock :D

9 upvotes
BobDavid
By BobDavid (Nov 23, 2011)

You are a thief. And those of you that pirate software are thieves. Have you ever consisdered that by pirating intellectual property, you are disincentivizing companies to spend money on R&D, probably eliminating jobs, and undermining a company's ability to offer the very best. If you love pirating software, move to China. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that you are defaulting on your student loans and living with mommy and daddy.

3 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Nov 23, 2011)

Presumably by moving these things towards The Cloud it makes piracy easier to control - I wonder how many "Users" there are of Photoshop who got it "from the internet"?

0 upvotes
Bruce Clarke
By Bruce Clarke (Nov 23, 2011)

I suspect many designers are using older versions of Creative Suite, as it does what they need, and doesn't stop working. Photographers using Photoshop are unfairly penalised with the ACR, where Adobe do stop it working with newer cameras unless you upgrade, or stick to DNG.

Lightroom is the same, but the upgrade price is more sensible. I used to use PS and ACR a lot, but now do nearly all in LR.

2 upvotes
vin 13
By vin 13 (Nov 23, 2011)

Spot on in my case. AI / PS CS3 still work just fine and do what I need them to. Business isn't what it used to be, so I'm not going to upgrade for the sake of it. In fact AI10 and PS CS2 (which I'd only upgraded to for ACR) were working just fine too. I only upgraded them to switch to an Intel mac.

0 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Nov 23, 2011)

I use CS5 and i will upgrade to CS6, like the whole agency here. There is no alternative for professional print work If you just need a RAW converter, there are many outhere like Nikons NX or DPP fro Canon and third party software. I use Nikons NX2 and Lightroom 3 on a Intel Mac. After my corrections in Lightroom or NX I finish the images in Photoshop CS5. Gimp is not an alternative.

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Nov 23, 2011)

Adobe's problem is that people aren't upgrading.
The diminishing returns curve has set in.

CS3, CS4, and CS5 work too well. In fact most people don't even use half of the capabilities that was built into PS at CS3.

They kept scraping for new features, and some like "content aware fill" are really useful, but other like 3D are dubious. There simply aren't enough people willing to fork over big bucks to get one more feature. Most photographers don't need the software capabilities that graphic designers do.

So now they see their path to profit lying in subscription sales, and cloud storage. I wish them luck, because I think this will fail. There are too many OTHER photo editing programs available that work well enough for most people's needs.

Incidentally, Microsoft is facing the exact same problem. Anyone who upgraded beyond Office 2003 is probably wondering why they spent their money.

11 upvotes
Vallkar
By Vallkar (Nov 23, 2011)

Couldn't agree more. Spot on.

0 upvotes
photoPLPL
By photoPLPL (Nov 23, 2011)

Well said, I hardly used more than 20% of PS function.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
CanonPhotog
By CanonPhotog (Nov 24, 2011)

Exactly! I went from CS3 to CS4 and didn't experience anything in the upgrade that was compelling enough to have made it worth the cost. CS5 was no different. In fact, CS3 was even more stable then CS4 and I actually prefer using it over CS4. My only regret is the lack of compatibility with earlier versions of ACR and newer camera models' RAW image files.

0 upvotes
steveh0607
By steveh0607 (Nov 23, 2011)

This may be an opening for Aperture. Apple should step up its game a bit and really go after Adobe. Nothing beats competition. Get going Apple!

5 upvotes
Danny
By Danny (Nov 23, 2011)

Apple should come with a graphic software solution for Photoshop and Illustrator. Almost all graphic folks who work serious with these applications work on a Mac. And where do they get there software..? Adobe....
Apple should develop a serious graphics application alternative and put it STANDARD in their system. Perhaps a light version, so that professional people can choose to upgrade it for a reasonable(!) price. This way Apple could offer an one-in-all solution and thus take away the reason why graphics people should get their stuff somewhere else, as the software is already available in their system. This move, if done well by Apple, could make Adobe completely obsolete. Apple could buy an application like Pixelmator, and develop it to even a higher level than Photoshop. Now we are talking serious business.

3 upvotes
NigelMoore
By NigelMoore (Nov 23, 2011)

A year or so ago I would have agreed with you. But seeing what Apple have done to FCP, OS X, and some of the MacPro rumours, I think Apple are more focussed on making iOS trnkets.

2 upvotes
Vallkar
By Vallkar (Nov 23, 2011)

I think Apple are not keen on professional products, they make more money on consumer stuff.

0 upvotes
Tom Bird
By Tom Bird (Nov 23, 2011)

...but apple is about to say farewell to the professional market. aperture is not one of the better raw-converters, to say it nicely.
try raw photo processor, raw developer, c1, raw therapee, maybe DXO7...

1 upvote
JohnLoy
By JohnLoy (Nov 23, 2011)

Amen to DxO! I run all my serious NEF's through it first, taking care of lots of routine cleanup, etc. It's like buying-up in hardware as well.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 398
1234