Previous news story    Next news story

Adobe publicly confirms stand-alone future for Lightroom

By dpreview staff on May 15, 2013 at 16:34 GMT

Adobe Product Manager Tom Hogarty stressed that Adobe has, 'no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future.' The statement, made in light of the overwhelming response to Adobe's Creative Cloud announcement last week, was made during a Google+ Hangout today in which both Hogarty and Lightroom PM Sharad Mangalick responded to audience questions.

What did Adobe say about Lightroom and CC subscription?

Predictably, the first question at the hangout was about the future of Lightroom. Hogarty tried to ease concerns about Lightroom's future: 'Basically we have no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future. We have plans to make Lightroom available in its current form pretty much indefinitely.' And, while he wouldn't use the word 'forever,' he confirmed that he meant 'for the foreseeable future.'

Hogarty stressed Lightroom was distinct from Creative Suite: 'We can confirm that Lightroom is still going to be a bit different [from software such as Photoshop and In Design]- we don't plan on adding any Creative Cloud-specific features that you would only get if you were a subscriber to Creative Cloud.' Instead, he said, the team was 'investigating cloud-based offerings that are not specifically part of the Creative Cloud. We're looking at cloud-based workflows.' These are the examples previewed on Scott Kelby's online show 'The Grid,' which could be offered 'incrementally to the Creative Cloud or outside the Creative Cloud.'

Is Camera Shake Reduction coming to Lightroom?

Meanwhile Mangalick responded to demands for Photoshop's new 'Camera Shake Reduction Tool' to be added to Lightroom: 'We're currently looking at ways of leveraging cutting-edge technology for all our customers - we're still trying to figure out how to get that into a Raw processing pipeline.'

'I'd love to see it,' he added, but confirmed 'it won't be in Lightroom 5.'

Download the Lightroom 5 public beta from Adobe Labs

697
I own it
12
I want it
31
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 615
1234
Geezer Graphics
By Geezer Graphics (11 months ago)

I’ve long been paranoid about using proprietary file extensions, having been burned in the past. If I decide to give Adobe the boot at least I’ll be able to open the thousands of photos I saved as TIFFs instead of PSDs, but is there any program with will open them with the layers intact?
Garline

0 upvotes
Michel J
By Michel J (11 months ago)

Your question reveal the problem of proprietary saving files format. Another cause of why users hate Adobe.

After the introduction of them new 'addiction marketing' paradigm (supposed way of success based on them Clouds Computing business), will the users hate Adobe even more?

0 upvotes
Michel J
By Michel J (11 months ago)

This is just a step back for a while. But for how many time?

A step back because of what the users wants really.

Did you copy Adobe?

0 upvotes
Toermalijn
By Toermalijn (11 months ago)

Adobe also publically told us everybody needed to be on cs6 in order to be able to upgrade to the next cs version. We now all know that was a big fat lie.

1 upvote
40daystogo
By 40daystogo (11 months ago)

An Australian newspaper's report on Adobe CC. The conclusion: "As an amateur photographer, are you ready to sign up for a year's subscription at $600 to use Photoshop? We thought not."

http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/cameras/monopoly-money-20130522-2jzmi.html

2 upvotes
57even
By 57even (11 months ago)

Larger companies do like monthly fees. Easier accounting, no investment cost, easy upgrades. But is this the whole story? Not for software.

SAAS licensing has been touted by software companies for over a decade, but in the end the infrastructure implications (firewalls, control over software distribution and workstation build control) make it impossible for larger enterprises. It is simply unacceptable to have external parties controlling the version level of PC builds, especially via the internet, or losing control over company data security. It's a CIO nightmare.

For individuals and non-business users, SAAS makes very little sense. They like to have permanent ownership, control over upgrades, and portability.

So who does it work for? A handful of small independent design shops running Macs and nothing but CC, and no-one else.

Even MS have massively overstated takeup of 365 in large enterprises:

http://www.citeworld.com/business/21751/office-365-adoption-exaggerated

2 upvotes
JasperD
By JasperD (11 months ago)

What Adobe says through its spokespersons isn´t even worth even recycled paper it would be written on!

9 upvotes
jberk
By jberk (11 months ago)

They said the same thing last year an
Bout continuing to offer perpetual licenses to photoshop.

2 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (11 months ago)

The damage is done. I have seen their true colors.

They care far too much more about money and shareholders than they do about their customers. It is one thing to make a profit. It is another thing entirely to ignore and step all over the users of your product, that are the lifeblood of this or of any company. Extremely poor long-term business strategy. If I was a shareholder, I would be quite livid actually. But perhaps short-term cashing out, at the expense of others below and to all sides, is increasingly what the titans of industry seem to be set on doing?

At any rate, I want absolutely nothing to do with a company like Adobe now.

16 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

The joys of the "Cloud".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/17/adobe_creative_cloud_problem/

Missing a deadline for a big client or a broadcast time due to something like this could shut down a small company.

5 upvotes
ryanshoots
By ryanshoots (11 months ago)

I wonder if Adobe could publicly confirm for us that they've squandered their user's trust to the point that almost no one believes them.

10 upvotes
JimsPC
By JimsPC (11 months ago)

I gave Adobe the 'move on' last year after they failed to allow me to process E-M5 files in my lightroom 3.6.
Moved to ACDSee 6 pro. The Raw converter is as good as Adobe and it gives me freedom to file things as I like and handles adjustments to my methods better. I also use the full Nik suit and full Topaz bundle.
Bye Bye Adobe.
I refuse to upgrade just because Adobe management wants a revived product revenue by painting the bumpers instead of chrome plate and attaching them differently.

7 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

The Raw converter is totally different in Lightroom 4 compared to 3.6 so when you say ACDSEE 6 Pro is as good as Lr 3.6 that does not mean much now. Plus all you had to do was download the free Dng converter and you would have been able to edit the files in Lr3.6.

2 upvotes
JimsPC
By JimsPC (11 months ago)

The trial one I tried of lr4 was in no way better than ACDSee, I tried several at the time I moved to ACDSee pro6. ACDSee was the best and paintshop pro x5 was the worst of a whole lot of them, though paintshop pro x5 had other qualities that I liked. Also I am not going to be blackmailed by Adobe. Nor pay their Mercedes bonus fee they charge in Australia. They have had the last of my money.

3 upvotes
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (11 months ago)

Stu, I am so happy that there is a workaround and that the new Adobe engine is better than the old one - just like DPP, Raw Therapee, Photo Ninja, and DxO, just to name a few, are better than the new Adobe engine. :-)
Let's be honest: the only reason to use ACR/Lightroom engine was that it was directly in the Adobe workflow. Qualitywise, it never could compete.

3 upvotes
Class Four
By Class Four (11 months ago)

Vote with your wallets. It's all the corporate clowns running Adobe understand. You don't buy their crap they are forcing on you - and they will make changes. You don't own the product you just bought. You are renting. They can make changes anytime they like. You have to sign on to the internet and accept them or you are out of a product. Some businesses don't allow the computers doing the photo editing to even connect to the internet for security reasons. They don't want what they are working on stolen. I've spent thousands on Adobe - but the have lost my respect. If fact I think they suc for the way the treat their customers. They have got my last dollar. And anyone asking me (the camera guy as I'm know to many of my friends) - I will tell them whatever you do - DO NOT BUY ADOBE FOR ANY REASON. THEY HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR CUSTOMER NEEDS.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
17 upvotes
Class Four
By Class Four (11 months ago)

Adobe are liars. They will tell you want you want to hear if it will get you to buy their product. Look at CS6. There was no talk of subscription based after CS6 or no one would have bought it knowing that Adobe would have no incentive to continue to upgrade it. Instead they will focus on subscription only and hope you will change over to that - wasting the money you spent on CS6. They will tell you what you want to hear to get you to buy. Then they will say market conditions changed and we had no plans but now it a direction we need to go. They will leave LR5 to die on the vine AFTER you has spent your money and then want you to go subscription. I will not pay them a monthly bill. I do not need anymore of those. Adobe leaves me no choice but to find somewhere else to spend my photo editing money. It wasn't my choice - it was there's and the smug arrogant VP that "manages' the product line. He is completely out of touch with customers and is only in touch with bottom line.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
13 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Yes it was your choice. You choose to not go monthly. It will be your choice to not use CS6 anymore as well. It's not as though the program has suddenly stopped working.

1 upvote
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

And it is also our choice whether we want to invest more time in their products. We now know the carpet can be pulled out from under our feet any time and Adobe will have no compunction about doing so.

6 upvotes
Alternative Energy Photography

Q. "Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?"

A. "Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."

That's not a "negatory" there, chief. Based on recent Adobe history, I say it's reasonable to believe that it might even mean "Yep, probably!"

3 upvotes
razadaz
By razadaz (11 months ago)

The rhetoric I am hearing from Adobe is the same that I heard when the Cloud first came out. We were assured that there were no plans stop boxed versions. They said they were going to introduce .5 updates on a 12 monthly cycle and to get on that band wagon we would have to upgrade now. Now, before that model was even in place they have changed their game again. They must think enough of their customers are gullible idiots to make the plan work. My fear is that they might be right.

10 upvotes
rarufu
By rarufu (11 months ago)

Unbelievable how undiplomatic they act.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
ozan yigit
By ozan yigit (11 months ago)

why should this be believed. this is a business, it has no promises, no obligations to anyone except shareholders.

5 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (11 months ago)

I used to own Photoshop (since version 4.0), but then, a few years ago, I needed to use a few other programs, and since Photoshop was a part of that suite, I bought the suite (US $2K). Late last year I decided to just continue with Photoshop, as I did not need the other components anymore. I called Adobe and asked to upgrade Photoshop, and was told, "no, you have to buy it from scratch, or upgrade the entire suite". It left me with a bad taste in my mouth. The forced CC just reinforces my feeling that it is time to move on. They're arrogant, and I don't trust them anymore.

19 upvotes
jberk
By jberk (11 months ago)

Thanks. Bad customer service on their part

1 upvote
lbuclk=
By lbuclk= (11 months ago)

Makes you wonder how many other companies are thinking along "new coke" lines?

2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (11 months ago)

I know there are a lot of people who think some are reacting too strongly to Adobe's actions lately, but I think most of us are simply trying to save Adobe from themselves. They've forced us into a situation where we have to hurt ourselves by adopting their new pricing or hurt them by going elsewhere. If we can convince them that the consequences of their actions will be very bad for their business, reputation, profits, etc. then we'll get to keep the software we've enjoyed for so long and they'll get to make money. Win win. The sooner they change their position the better. Using the New Coke analogy, some people went to Dr. Pepper or Pepsi and stayed there.

12 upvotes
Kway
By Kway (11 months ago)

I hope we can trust them for this. I don't see myself turn over to capture one or dxo, cause they're more expensive than LR. If I want to upgrade LR, I can just buy the upgrade version. Aftershot is not good enough to be compared to LR (I've tried it).
Open source alternative like RAWTherapee is just too slow and lacks a lot of functions and good UI.
But when the time comes Adobe makes LR CC-only, I hope there will be a good alternative product.

1 upvote
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

Capture One is actually a lot less expensive once you are on the upgrade path. It is also excellent.

2 upvotes
Toermalijn
By Toermalijn (11 months ago)

Photo ninja's raw converter is much better then lightroom. Also there is seperate dam software that is much better then LR. LR has much more competiton then photoshop has and can be easally be replaced by something much better!

0 upvotes
Nigel Wilkins
By Nigel Wilkins (11 months ago)

One benefit to Adobe for creating the subscription model that hasn't been mentioned as far as I've read so far, is the added attraction to corporate users of improved cash flow. If they only have to pay say $50 a month rather than the full price all in one go, they get to keep their cash for longer. They can also pay only when they need it for specific projects. This is a massive incentive for a company to invest in the software.

Lightroom on the other hand, is cheap, so there's no reason to think it'll go the same way, unless it grows into something more substantial, which is unlikely since it's only a database & RAW converter.

Anticipate change & all will be ok, rather than having change forced on you.

2 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

Love how people keep coming up with the red herring that this is about resisting change. It seems to be an Asobe talking point. No. It is about there being good change and bad change.

6 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (11 months ago)

The popular corporate culture, both in private and public sectors, is that change is good. No, it isn't. Change for the sake of change is destructive and errodes confidence. Change that benefits one party and hurts another also is not intrisically good.
Your argument may make a certain sense, but proposing that only the one model should exist at any one time, that the two sales strategies are mutually exclusive, is foolish.
Some companies may benefit from monthly payments, but many would rather write off the expense in one fiscal year and be done with it. Good companies know how to look down the road and if they can avoid throwing money in the garbage they will.

6 upvotes
Nigel Wilkins
By Nigel Wilkins (11 months ago)

I never said change is good, in fact I'd rather do without it, but if change is inevitable, it's far better to have anticipated it beforehand & adapted. Either that, or complain a lot, get nowhere & end up losing out. Which would you choose?

Agreed about good companies having foresight, but large corporations rarely make good companies. They live for today's margin.

I'm certainly not defending Adobe, just making the best of a situation. Complaining & ignoring the reality helps no-one.

0 upvotes
razadaz
By razadaz (11 months ago)

I cannot understand why Adobe fail to realise that whether its the amateur photographer or the large company using their software they both pay the same for it, and the profit to Adobe is the same. Even a large company may only have one or two people using Photoshop in their graphics dept. It's not like MS Office where a company can have dozens of installations. Some companies have larger installations of DTP packages, but Quark is still breathing and this move could breath new life into it yet. I think they say they are going to continue lightroom standalone versions only because they know fine well that there is Phase One and DXO out there. Those packages are only more expensive because Adobe dropped the price of Lightroom last year.

2 upvotes
Toermalijn
By Toermalijn (11 months ago)

Some employees of very large companies(larger then Adobe) allready said not to buy into the cloud. Adobe will hurt themselfs.

They lied about the perpetual subscriptions, they lied about the cloud and they WILL lie about LR as well as they see fit.

All they are trying to do is damage control, wich isn't working anymore at the moment.

0 upvotes
lostinjapan
By lostinjapan (11 months ago)

The sad thing about this is Adobe can't be trusted anymore. The few statements they have released have been contradictory to each other. They are not responding to their customers needs, wants or desires only their own accountants. Every company deserves to make a profit on the products or services they sell, but this goes beyond that. I really like Adobe's products, but I don't like Adobe or at least the Adobe they have become as of late. I hope they change, but I have no faith in them. It really is sad.

9 upvotes
Nigel Wilkins
By Nigel Wilkins (11 months ago)

No corporation can or should be trusted. They exist for their own benefit & will always act accordingly.

Sad but true.

2 upvotes
Abraxx
By Abraxx (11 months ago)

"foreseeable future",
yeah sure,
I do not care about any statements from Adobe anymore.
This company completely lost my trust.
I have no confidence and this won't change anytime soon due to their catastrophic marketing and handling of this "matter" and the way they have treated and ignored many of their customers.
I spend my money elsewhere now...

10 upvotes
mwgnz
By mwgnz (11 months ago)

"The foreseeable future"? Yeah, right. So how far do you really see Adobe? Because I and the rest of your customers are beginning to suspect it's not much beyond the end of your own nose. And if I were you, I think I'd get some treatment for that nose of yours. It looks as if its been burnt by a flame thrower this week.

3 upvotes
KAllen
By KAllen (11 months ago)

Adobe makes products, people like their products, so why not sell them what you have and people want? Isn't that the basis of a profitable business?
Is not turning your back on thousands of customers that are willing to spend millions on your products basically a very stupid thing to do?
If this is how Adobe thinks, I'm glad I don't have shares in Adobe, the only way is down from now on.
Get some sense back Adobe, supply what customers want not what you want them to want, you are not irreplaceable others will fill the vacuum.

3 upvotes
JackFM
By JackFM (11 months ago)

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2013/05/adobe-brass-address-photographers-concerns-about-cc.html

0 upvotes
Vadimka
By Vadimka (11 months ago)

"foreseeable future" to Tech guys could mean totally different than for marketing or CEO. (could be next fiscal year)

I was looking at Capture One Pro for a while, and now I finally have a good excuse to jump ship.

Aperture with some plug-ins, like Onone or Nik, should also suffice for most part. But for those super rare instances where nothing will do, but the PS, I'll just open up my good ole CS4.

2 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (11 months ago)

It's Adobe's decison back on Jan 1 to restrict upgrades to the most recent version only which is what should have gotten everyone riled up. This subscription-only move now could never have happened if they hadn't done that first.

Many users skip a generation when upgrading so Adobe's move effectively doubled the price of upgrading overnight by forcing upgrades every generation. How many other companies can double the price of their software overnight to screw a large percentage of their exisitng users like Adobe just did and not create an uproar about it?

Because it's only now we're seeing the real cause/result of their action on Jan 1. There's no way they could sell their compulsory subscription-only model now at the same price as continually upgrading every generation every year if there was still an alternative option available for 50% or even less via skip-every-other-generation versions.

So their plan to screw many of their existing users has been a while in the planning.

8 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

Looking at the zeal with which some here defend Adobe's rights to restrict the choices of its longtime customers, and basically tell them to FOAD, it is hardly surprising Adobe uses the term "evangelists".

13 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

Adobe is a privet business. They have every right to change the pricing model for their products and use proprietary file formats just as you have every right not to purchase said products. When you chose to buy software you know uses propriety file formats and save all your files in those formats you are accepting the risks involved and the chance you will become locked in to that software and/or that the price will go up. Adobe can only get away with propriety formats that limit choices because people are willing to accept them and pay for software that uses them.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

Thank you cheerleader No. 2. And we have every right to be disgusted with their rapaciousness and their hostageware. And to express and act on that contempt. You are free to continue to pay our portion of their company overheads.

3 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

LOL MacLee. Calling me a cheerleader only makes you look like a spoiled child and shows you completely missed my point. Everyone is outraged now but was perfectly happy to accept adobe's propriety files which locked them in to adobe's software a couple weeks ago. Where was the contempt then? Where was the outrage and calls to boycott when adobe was market testing the subscription fee? Anyone with any sense could see that it was only matter of time until adobe ended the perpetual license in favor of it. It is the consumers who sent adobe the message that proprietary files and subscription pricing were just fine. It is the same with those ridiculous cell phone contracts. Instead of laughing in the sales mans face and throwing it away everyone signs the ridiculously lop sided contract and then complains about the fees and overage charges like they don't realize their acceptance of them is why they exist in the first place.

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

Josh, I think wee'll see where "sense" falls out in all this. People are NOT signing Adobe's new lopsided agreement and voicing their opinions. And you seem to think that because people may have accepted unfair terms in the past, they have no reason to complain about even more unethical terms now. It's a unique twist on logic.

2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

What's unethical about it? People chose to buy and use adobe's software and use adobe's propitiatory file formats of their own free will. They can also choose not to buy it anymore if they no longer agree with how adobe prices it. So just what has adobe done that is so unethical? They are a business. Their primary goal is to make money and as long as the don't break the law they have every right to use things like proprietary formats and subscription pricing that are beneficial to this goal.

0 upvotes
Toermalijn
By Toermalijn (11 months ago)

Mostly people who make money by spreading the word about Adobe, like scott kelby and a few others.

0 upvotes
Jon Lewis
By Jon Lewis (11 months ago)

You just can't trust them anymore thats the bottom line

24 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (11 months ago)

To STU 5. You CAN run Corel DRAW on a Mac. Read:

http://corelblogs.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/you-can-run-coreldraw-on-a-mac/

And the most important statements:

"We also make sure to test new releases on our design software on Apple computers."

and

"Adobe’s recent announcement will put the discussion back on the table."

4 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

But not in OSX and that is what counts and to jump between OS systems is a joke if you have deadlines to meet. Plus that leaves your Mac computer open to viruses even with anti virus software.

Putting the discussion back on the table is far from actually saying we are going to launch a Mac version that we are currently developing.

Of course they test it out on Macs...Macs generally run windows better that standard PC's.

3 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

Guess you have not used a PC for a long time Stu. I have had as many problems with my Macs as my PCs lately, particularly over stupid issues like OS upgrade incompatibility with Time Machine. Not to mention hardware errors like a Macbook Air that decided not even to start. As a dual system user, it always amazes me how Mac users never consider they time they spend with "Geniuses" when comparing systems.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

MarcLee wrong I used a windows 8 machine for two days last month and a XP machine. Not had any issues with OSX upgrades with Time machine myself.

2 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

Varying mileage. I was recently sitting at a lunch table with six Mac using friends and we had ALL had issues in the past six months. Either with software or drop dead hardware. The geniuses are great. I'd just rather not have to see them so often.

2 upvotes
adrianf2
By adrianf2 (11 months ago)

Stu 5, since your obsession in defending all things Adobe is clear for all to see, perhaps you should come clean about your involvement with Adobe as an employee or as someone with a financial interest in the company.

You can defend Adobe till the cows come home (which you probably will), I couldn't care less. What I object to is your disingenuous slagging of any competitors' products.

For example, you ignore a positive review of Pixelmator that i posted and claimed that the product was virtually unusable, encouraging me to check out the apps store comments.
Well I did just that, and the app has a 5 star rating and mostly glowing comments, with which, from my experience I agree with.

Pixelmator may not be a direct competitor to PS, but it sure beats the hell out of LR.

You do similar thing to other alt software, including offerings from Corel

I mostly give people the benefit of the doubt, but in your case you are appearing to be little more than a tiresome troll with issues.

9 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

adrianf2 so you did not read the pages and pages of one star reviews then? The fact is from December it did not work with quite a few graphic cards in Mac computers. The company has admitted it as well. Are you saying the company made this up and lied that their program had issues with some graphic cards?

Also quite a few people are saying the latest update is using over 8Gb of Ram which the old version from only a few days ago did not do. Are they making this up? Again it is on the app store website.

Lots of over people are complaining it automatically saves versions which a couple of updates ago it did not do and they want that option reintroduced but no one gets back to them. Again it is all there to read on the app store.

Pixelmator is closer to Ps than it is Lr. It is not designed to edit 100's or 1000's of Raw images at a time.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

adrianf2 I have already stated I am not an employee of Adobe or as someone with a financial interest in the company at least twice on this thread. I guess you missed that.

It seems you think it is fine for people to moan about Adobe but not for others to moan about the competition? Everyone can have different views about Adobe but they are not allowed different views of Pixelmator or Corel?

1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

Every product gets some one star reviews. What's significant about you Stu, is you only read 5 star reviews of Adobe and only read one star reviews of the competition.

4 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

" to jump between OS systems is a joke if you have deadlines to meet."

Ha ha ha. Meanwhile "evangelists" like you are telling people they can keep running old versions of Photoshop forever if only they maintain a partition with an old OS on their system.

Get some consistency guys.

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting
1 upvote
adrianf2
By adrianf2 (11 months ago)

I'll let others judge for themselves about Pixelmator and visit the app store for themselves. Any objective person can see how the reviews stack up. I have never had any of the problems mentioned by you.

Yes I missed it where you declared were not an employee etc, so my apologies for that.

When you say "It seems you think it is fine for people to moan about Adobe but not for others to moan about the competition?" the point surely is that there is no equivalence. If Corel was to start the same practices as Adobe, I'm sure that they would suffer similar criticism.

What you are doing is 'cherry picking' negative data regarding Adobe's competitors for some reason, in a very unfair manner.

3 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (11 months ago)

Stu, if you're not being paid by Adobe for all the tireless work and effort you've been putting in over the past few days on their behalf as well as maligning their competitors (even if you don't actually use the software) at every opportunity, you should be! You must have clocked in over two days solid of work for them so far, so well deserve some form of compensation for all your herculean effort.

And it really is herculean. It's exhausting just reading all your posts that I just had to stop after a while, so I can only imagine the work you've put into writing them all.

And all for free! I don't know if a $4billion a year company actually needs unpaid volunteers to vigorously promote/defend their company and software, but hey it's all about maximizing dollars for Adobe, so every one you save them by generously doing all this paid online-promotional work for free is an extra dollar to go towards the bottom line - and into their money-grubbing shareholders' and management's pockets.

4 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

adrianf2 what you are doing is 'cherry picking' negative data regarding Adobe. There are a lot of positive things about CC. Over half a million already signed up for it and using it yet probably less than 10k complaining about it on forums. That is a very rough estimate and if anything a bit on the high side. Take out from that the ones who have not even used it for a long time anyway or have hated Adobe for years and don't buy anything from them or have never used it and the numbers are less.

The trouble is on DPR people are ranting about it compared to many sites. A lot are getting their facts wrong. Some seem to attack people who say anything positive about it. They are coming across as an angry rioting mob at times. Do you honestly think that helps the case against Adobe?

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

MarcLee I have never said "telling people they can keep running old versions of Photoshop forever if only they maintain a partition with an old OS on their system."

All I said is a lot of people have said they will run it for several years to come on this forum.

That is quite different from what you are telling people what I said.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Untrue GaryJP what do you think all the negative comments are on here are about Adobe... 5 star reviews? Of course I read all the negative stuff. How else could I comment on it!

1 upvote
dearjym
By dearjym (11 months ago)

Stuart

ANYONE who behaves like you, and can actually keep this level of contention going with so many people, for the past 10 hours...solid, to see all blind support that you have so lovingly tried to cram down the forums throat...I applaud you.

The people on this forum, who were accusing you of being an employee with Adobe, that's clearly false. I believe you. Furthermore, it's also clear that you have no 'probable' financial stake in the company. To be fair, you should forgive them, because on the surface I can look that way. I have a guarded amount of respect for you, and I'd have to say, this is a special day for me. Because until today, I had never known a LVL:36 Adobe FanBoy with a Magic LVL:54 Gilded Fanaticism. It's so passé to see Mage's, Dwarves, & Elves, it's refreshing to finally see the Trolls stand up and be counted. Well done! :)

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

"Of course I read all the negative stuff. How else could I comment on it!" Reading involves comprehension. You seem to be having issues with that.

2 upvotes
spitfire31
By spitfire31 (11 months ago)

Adrianf2 in sublime ignorance writes: "Pixelmator may not be a direct competitor to PS, but it sure beats the hell out of LR."

You obviously don't have a clue what either program does. LR is a sophisticated cataloging database and an advanced RAW developer.

Pixelmator, in its current 2.2 Blueberry guise, has no cataloging features AT ALL, it is only 16 bits/channel, not 24, and it's dependent on the Mac OS RAW engine, which is a far cry from the latest Adobe CR.

Pixelmator shows a lot of promise for the future but there is virtually NO overlap between LR and Pixelmator. You're comparing apples and blueberries.

0 upvotes
Adam L Productions
By Adam L Productions (11 months ago)

Irrelevant. Not buying any Adobe products ever again. I know this may come as a shock to Adobe, but I use Photoshop for - get ready - PHOTOS. And I sure as HELL will not pay a subscription to do so. The version of Lightroom and CS5.1 are the last things I ever buy from Adobe. Adobe you screwed up big time on this subscription garbage.

13 upvotes
I a n
By I a n (11 months ago)

This is the thing that bugs me. They keep talking like LightRoom is their only product for photographers - not true. Ideally I would like to keep my LR PS pair going as stand alone products. I am *never* going to rent software.

This drives me nuts. Come on Adobe PhotoShop is for photographers too. I am so pleased that corporations are happy with the subscription service. That is great, truly it is. But I do not spend $ on software that way and I am not alone. All you have to do is let us continue to buy your products as stand alone installed products. It is not hard you already know how to do it.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

The talk about LR being for photographers is just to deflect questions about their new pricing of PS. See Adobe Knows their new model is not economically viable for many people. But with the subscription they have the potential to make even more money with the people who can pay it. They are taking a well educated risk that losing some people who upgraded infrequently yet still demanded full support for their software, making them high cost and low profit customers, will still leave them with enough people paying the subscription, all of whom will be high profit and low cost customers, for them to come out ahead.

0 upvotes
Toermalijn
By Toermalijn (11 months ago)

Not all companies will buy into the CC trap. They also know cost can go up at will and skyrocket.

Basically, with cloud you are in the hnds of Adobe...NO company should ike that.

0 upvotes
Leon V
By Leon V (11 months ago)

I am an amateur photographer. I have Photoshop CS6. I do not have Lightroom. I want to continue using PS CS6 in the future and not subscribe to Photoshop CC. Therefore, Camera Raw in my PS CS6 will not be updated for future Nikon cameras (which I am sure I will be buying).

Question. If future versions of Lightroom continues to be available on disc, and future Lightroom versions recognize future Nikon camera NEF raw files, would I be able to develop the raw files in lightroom, save them as PSDs, then open these PSDs in PS CS6?

If this is the case, and that is a BIG IF, then this scenario (buying future Lightroom versions and using PS CS6 for edits, composites, masking, etc.) is my solution to not buying into the CC.

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Yes that will work. What happens is you tell Lightroom what program you want to edit with outside Lightroom. Sometimes it auto selects Ps other times you just need to tell it once. You can choose the file type you want to edit in Ps. In your case .PSD. After that you make your adjustments in Lr and then select 'edit in' and choose Ps. Lightroom then creates the file and opens up Ps for you. You make your adjustments close the file and it is saved back to Lr.

0 upvotes
KeithF
By KeithF (11 months ago)

Lightroom can process the RAW/NEF file. You can send ("Edit in Adobe Photoshop CS6" menu) the TIFF/PSD to Photoshop to further process the file. When you save, it will put back into Lightroom Catalog, you can stack multiple version of into one. I believed Apple Aperture did the same.

0 upvotes
SemperAugustus
By SemperAugustus (11 months ago)

Yes, you can...edit the Raw in LR and trigger edit in Ps, LR actually writes a TIFF (not PSD) and carriesnall adjustments to Ps. You can do the same with your camera supplied sw. AND, maybe, just maybe the RAW format would be similar enough for ACR to process it. I just gotba new Canon SL1 for my wife and CS6 took the RAWs no problem.

0 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (11 months ago)

To Leon V: yes, yes amd yes. You can do this all.
If you don't have Lightroom, think about the option of Phase One, Capture One Pro 7. It's currently the best RAW software outthere. I use it for my D4, D800E and MF-backs (again)

0 upvotes
Dan Tong
By Dan Tong (11 months ago)

http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

2 upvotes
Schnapshot
By Schnapshot (11 months ago)

LOL! This user posted more than 60 (sixty!) pro Adobe comments in this thread.

Check out this comment history:
http://www.dpreview.com/members/991131409/comments

And no comment on any other topic.

How does this look like?
What is the conclusion? :-)

9 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

That I am a Lightroom user maybe. Going back further you might notice I am also an Olympus user, a micro four thirds user, a Apple user and also post in the Pro forum. Also you will notice some posts in the Windows forum about monitors.

Just thought I would save you some time

2 upvotes
Schnapshot
By Schnapshot (11 months ago)

Wow. 9 min response time.

3 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Yes just for you I posted in another thread as well.

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (11 months ago)

A real enthusiast:) hehee!

6 upvotes
Schnapshot
By Schnapshot (11 months ago)

@ Stu 5: You are refering to "Poll: What concerns you most about Adobe's move to subscription software?" ?

You posted a lot comments over there :-)

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

No actually I was referring to the post on the Nikon D5200 from today. Quite a recent post.

And yes well spotted about the other post. I am just getting back to adjusting some photos now in Lightroom 5 beta.

0 upvotes
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (11 months ago)

Hehehe - good propaganda nowadays must be subtle. Adobe have hired the wrong man! :-)

5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Actually that is quite funny RobertSigmund.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (11 months ago)

he is a moron.....

0 upvotes
Toermalijn
By Toermalijn (11 months ago)

Looks like he's an employee of Adobe or one making money from Adobe products.

0 upvotes
intensity studios
By intensity studios (11 months ago)

The ONLY reason Lightroom is not going subscription-only is because there are VERY good alternatives currently available like Capture One and Aperture.

If Lightroom had a monopoly like Photoshop does, BELIEVE IT, they would force you into a software rental.

Adobe don't care about its users wants or needs.

15 upvotes
jm67
By jm67 (11 months ago)

I would hope that most if not all users of one or the other have caught on to this but it is worthwhile to emphasize the fact. Lightroom has equals (some may say betters) while Photoshop has pale imitators.

On another note, I just got an email from OnOne assuring me that THEY will never (yes, they have the guts to use the word "never") rent their software. So far Adobe is telling them that CS6 will be supported in the next Mac/Win versions. Here's hoping Win9 is better than 8 and that this little tidbit of info is true. An alternate converter paired with CS6 for the moment seems a possibility.

2 upvotes
Toermalijn
By Toermalijn (11 months ago)

Unfortunately, they never have. Look at the Adobe forums and see how many features are requested and never find their way into the products. They are too arrogant lately. Thinking they KNOW what we need or want.

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (11 months ago)

Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?

A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely.

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html

3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (11 months ago)

And you believe this why? Has Adobe signed a contract? Or just mumbled something?

4 upvotes
PicOne
By PicOne (11 months ago)

VersionS plural.. that would be LR 5 and 5.1 ?

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (11 months ago)

I believe it because it was said by someone who is both in the right position and who has a long history of being trustworthy.

1 upvote
beeguy956
By beeguy956 (11 months ago)

If you had asked them about CS last year they would have said the same thing.

1 upvote
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (11 months ago)

No, wrong. He's the LR and Camera Raw product manager. Nothing to do with CS.

1 upvote
Alternative Energy Photography

Q. "Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?"

A. "Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."

That's not a "negatory" there, chief. Based on recent Adobe history, I say it's reasonable to believe that it might even mean "Yep, probably!"

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (11 months ago)

You must not be a native English speaker, in that case.

1 upvote
beeguy956
By beeguy956 (11 months ago)

"No, wrong. He's the LR and Camera Raw product manager. Nothing to do with CS."

Sure, but my point is, what would you expect him to say? What would the product manager for CS have said during the time of CS5 if you had asked him the same question? Would he have said "Yes, we will be abandoning our current software model in two years and forcing all users to switch to subscription-only", or would he have said ""Future versions of CS will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely"?

I strongly suspect it would be the former, even if he knew it was coming, and in the cases of both CS and LR it's likely not in their hands.

0 upvotes
Toermalijn
By Toermalijn (11 months ago)

ljfinger,

they accidentally didn't lie about cs6 that everybody needs to be on cs6 in order to be able to upgrade to the next one? It was just making money. They wanted to force more people to upgrade. They will do this again in the future.

0 upvotes
beeguy956
By beeguy956 (11 months ago)

Sorry, last paragraph of my comment should say "latter" not "former".

0 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (11 months ago)

"Stu wrote about my comment on Lightroom: It's a lot more than that if you actually use the program every day."

Now my question to Stu are:

So where are my layers in Lightroom Stu?
Where are my channels in Lightroom Stu?
Where are my calculation in Lightroom Stu?
Where are my multiple curves in Lightroom Stu?
Where are my levels in Lightroom Stu?
Where can i find 'apply image' in Lightroom Stu?
Where can I make selections in Lightroom Stu?
How can I select color ranges in Lighrtoom Stu?
How do I apply masks in Lightroom Stu and How do i invert them in LR?

Do I need to go on?
Lightroom is ACR added with some stuff that nobody really needs.
Whats wrong with a smart file structure to find you images back?

LR is greatly overrated by many and especially by Adobe who want us to believe that LR is as powerful as Photoshop, while Lightroom only consist of the ACR editing module.

Therewith LR is practically worthless to the main community who have no need to have their files in a database.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
12 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (11 months ago)

I don't need layers except for compositing.
Lightroom has RGB curves, which is good enough.
I've never used calculation to process a photograph.
Multiple curves are redundant.
Apply images isn't much different than LR's native all-batch approach.
LR has adjustment brushes for manual and auto mask for automatic selection. It's limited, but very powerful, fast, and practical.
HSL panel does a great job with color ranges.
Inverting all effects is a feature request, but the first signs are in with invert for radial gradient.

LR is pretty much all I use to process images. PS is so slow, that it's powerful capabilities are unused for 999 out of 1000 of my shots. I don't have a hour to process a shot. I have 10-60 seconds. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but even so I find that the extra time is more productive inside LR than in PS. So PS is down to exactly two things - annotation and compositing. I do everything else in LR and that's all the power I need.

2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

Llightroom is a much better UI for ACR combined with a photo management and organization system. It is incredible for what is meant for. It was never meant to replace PS. That said it can do a lot and is enough for many photographers. It is not overrated at all. Especially if you need to sort and edit a lot of raw files. Like say if you are a wedding or event photographer or if you just got back from a vacation and have a couple thousand photos to go through. If you only shoot a few shots on the weekends it is probably over kill and you can get by with another raw converter or the PS ACR plugin.

For what is meant to be there is no equal to LR except for maybe Aperture.

2 upvotes
Dianoda
By Dianoda (11 months ago)

Having used LR4 briefly, I agree with OP. LR4 is greatly lacking in functionality compared to Photoshop and the database import requirement was a frustrating, time wasting step that caused to immediately regret my purchase, and I all but abandoned the software after a week or so of use (luckily Adobe did gave me a coupon for $400 off PSCS6... so I guess it wasn't all bad).

Processing my images via Bridge/Photoshop feels so much more streamlined to me (does a better job w/ photos stored on my NAS, don't have to deal with reimporting files across multiple computers - I can just access them, not to mention that all the expanded image editing tools are there when I need them: 32-bit HDR tiffs, Photomerge, etc.). LR4 is basically ACR paired with a constricting/inflexible database layer.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
10 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (11 months ago)

@Josh152
Yes the UI of LR looks better, but if we only take a look at the editing module, then LR has NO benefits or extra features over ACR.

In fact if you compare them side by side you will find out that LR's editing module IS camera raw. The only difference in the end is the UI.

How often do you need to find a file that you didn't know was there and how fast do you find it in comparison with using a logical file structure?

For most regular users there is no need to tag every image with keywords they just know where to find the files.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 7 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (11 months ago)

@ljfinger,

You are clearly not a well known PS user.
If you were you would have known that you could make actions that would near instantly do all of your edits for you.

I can edit my files as fast (if not faster) in Photoshop then I can do in Lightroom with better results.

If you prefer LR, then that is fine with me, but I was asking a question to Stu, because he says that LR has more ore less the same offering as PS. Which is clearly not the case.

2 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (11 months ago)

"Yes the UI of LR looks better, but if we only take a look at the editing module, then LR has NO benefits or extra features over ACR. "

There's a big advantage - you don't have to have PS to use it.

Actions can't do my edits for me. They are basically just macros and thus need to be re-created or customized for each type of edit you want to do. When I shoot with a gel on my flash, changing the WB of all the images I shot with the gel to the get's color temp takes all of 1 second in LR, no matter how many images I shot with. That's the sort of mindless thing an action can do, but it takes a long time to open, add the step, save and close each of those files. And it's only non-destructive if you do it on the raw data via something like a Smart Object.

I've imported 1,000 shots, selected the best ones, processed them all, exported them and uploaded them to my web site all in 45 minutes in LR.

1 upvote
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (11 months ago)

"How often do you need to find a file that you didn't know was there and how fast do you find it in comparison with using a logical file structure?"

Pretty often. I have a quarter million images in two catalogs. I use the logical file structure, but it often helps to be able to search across a wide range of sources quickly when I only know a little bit of data about the shot in question.

0 upvotes
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (11 months ago)

That's why I never bought Lightroom in the first place.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Just a Photographer lets just put my response to your comment back into context again.

You said in your post amongst many things:

"They only forget that LR is nothing more then the ACR module that is already being shipped together with PS."

I responded to that comment about Lightroom compared to ACR:

"It's a lot more than that if you actually use the program every day."

I was not comparing Lightroom to Photoshop so all your questions to me are quite pointless.

Also Adobe have never said Lightroom is a Photoshop replacement although it might be for some who don't need all the features of Photoshop. I still use Photoshop as well though. Although using Lr beta 5 I need to use Ps less than I did with Lr 4.

1 upvote
wansai
By wansai (11 months ago)

LR isn't overrated. It's a more full feature ACR plus management system. however, if you already are versed in manually managing your library (I am and do), it also can be a lot faster and simpler than letting LR do it.

For basic photo processing, LR is good enough. It can't really be compared to PS as photoshop literally can do everything - and not all photographers even know how to utilise photoshop beyond the basic tools already present in LR.

1 upvote
ephipi
By ephipi (11 months ago)

"..... approved by a moderator." We'll see, I hope so.
Having been a loyal customer of adobe products for more years than I'd like to mention, I have to say, at this point I don't believe much of what adobe says. Monopolies are like that. Off lightroom and on to another matter. On April 24/2013, I received in an Email message as follows:

Dear MYname,

Your JPEG photos have started their move to Adobe® Revel™.

Moving your photos will take 24 to 48 hours.
You'll receive an email once the move is complete.
-----
I new nothing about this until after the event, until my photos had been moved. What the hell is going on, I said when speaking to someone on the phone. I have to this day 'NOT' received an explanation. I interpret this as "You will be assimilated resistance is futile".

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Bill Bentley
By Bill Bentley (11 months ago)

From Adobe's site:

"What is Adobe Revel?
Adobe Revel is a free photo app for your Mac, iPad, and iPhone. Organize your memories using albums, event tags, and captions."

You probably had uploaded some pictures to an Adobe gallery or your own space on Adobe.com somewhere and they were doing some housekeeping. That's my best guess anyways. At least you should still be able to open and access them. :-)

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (11 months ago)

The photoshop.com to Revel migration was heavily advertised and notices were sent to the email you registered with Adobe. There was an opt-out, and even a support forum set up just for this.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

http://www.photoshop.com/misc/membership-faq

0 upvotes
ephipi
By ephipi (11 months ago)

@Bill Bently
-------------------
"You probably uploaded some pictures to an Adobe gallery."
---------------------------------
Not so, I have an online Web-Site, light-quest.com, where I upload some of my images. My Web-Site is the only place were I display some images to the public. See, this is the same kind of explanation I received when I called their Tech-support line; they intimated that it must have been pilot error on my end. No! My system was accessed and images were taken.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

As aside note can we please stop calling anyone who isn't' acting like adobe is the next incarnation of Satan and instead is taking a more objective view of the situation a troll or adobe shill? It just makes everyone, even people with legitimate concerns, seem like ignorant children afraid of change.

2 upvotes
SemperAugustus
By SemperAugustus (11 months ago)

There are two official trolls, Stu 5 and GW (who works for Adobe) nobody else have been called anything else.

7 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

lol nothing Stu 5 has written is trollish at all. He is just taking a more moderate and less extreme position on the matter. Disagreeing with the hysteric majority does not make one a troll.

2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (11 months ago)

Stu is disagreeing with anyone who finds Adobe's actions a disturbing indication of the trend they or others may choose to follow in the future. I don't care for the terms "troll" or "fanboy" but Stu certainly is not presenting an unbiased opinion. I don't hate Adobe, I don't love them, but I do recognize a decision that has some very obvious implications about their motivation and what effect that decision will have on their products in the future. Stu's approach isn't moderate at all, it is the most optimistic, unassuming, trusting, and defeatist view available on the spectrum of interpreting Adobe's actions. The moderate view is "they are a business and they have a right to make decisions that are most advantageous to their shareholders." That's the only non-judgemental position a person can take.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
10 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

Exactly my point. All stu 5 is doing is disagreeing. That does not make him a troll. PERIOD. I am sick to death of people calling anyone with a different opinion from the majority a troll. It is ridiculous.

Stu 5 position seems to be that adobe might actually be telling the truth about LR not going on the subscription and that the subscription model might actually be good for some people. Which is despite what you claim is a much more moderate and much less biased opinion than the majority who seem convinced adobe will always do the most evil thing possible.

1 upvote
SemperAugustus
By SemperAugustus (11 months ago)

Sorry Josh, I disagree about the "moderate"...he cannot find ONE problem with the perpetual rent model. ALL other SW are useless, to the point, that if Stu 5 is not a troll or paid shill then he is a "useful idiot"

6 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (11 months ago)

Josh, I think you're taking some statements to an extreme. Yes, some people have been pretty extreme in their emotional outbursts, but most people simply feel left out in the cold by a company they have been loyal to. And why? Greed, and deceptive greed at that. There are some people who will greatly benefit from a subscription model that will allow them to pay for the product over years instead of up front, and if that becomes the group memory years from now then nobody will think twice about it. Right now our collective memory is that of people paying thousands of dollars in combined up front and upgrade costs only to one day be told "hey, if you want anything more from us you have to pay for it every month until you die or quit photography." He isn't a troll per se, but he is stating a very unlikely scenario: big companies who do something for profit and flying in the face of market forces that would push innovation can still be trusted to keep their word. Fool me once......

2 upvotes
howardroark
By howardroark (11 months ago)

If Adobe was surrounded by fierce competitors like camera makers are or even the OS/mobile OS markets this would be the moment where they entered obscurity. Windows killed almost everyone in the PC market and then dirty underhanded Apple hit them with an ecosystem including OS/iOS/hardware/media/tv/phone and suddenly it looked like the king wasn't wearing any clothes. Should anyone produce a PS competitor that challenges them and offers a real license, PS is gone. They'll have to strike while the iron is hot or Adobe will have to wake up very quickly in order to avoid it.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

First of all thank you Josh152.

SemperAugustus when did I say I did not see any problems with it? I would like to see Adobe have faster servers for downloading the programs first of all. I cannot see the option anymore of being able to rent Ps on it's own a month at a time. That would be good to have again. I would also like some sort of .PSD viewer that was available to everyone either free or at a low cost so when they don't use CC anymore they can view there files. Although saying that Lightroom does allow that if you purchase the program. Interesting to see Adobe are looking into the viewer option though. Part of a good backup system though should be making 16bit tiff copies of important photos in the first place.

1 upvote
Schnapshot
By Schnapshot (11 months ago)

Just check the comment history of Stu 5:
http://www.dpreview.com/members/991131409/comments

More than 60 pro Adobe comments :-)

Here are some drones around. LOL.
What a disgrace for the company trying to manipulate a public forum with drones.

0 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

Josh152, in your "ignorant children afraid of change" comment you yourself are regurgitating one of the shill talking points, not one person here has suggested being afraid of change. They have sensibly criticized chane that os for the worse. Also, not one person here has said they do not think the subscription model should be available for anyone. They have been angry about choice they previously had being taken away. About being forced into it. When you make straw man arguments like that, you show your own colors rather more clearly than you mean to. I love change. But only an idiot or an Adobe shill loves change for the worse.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Schnapshot if you bothered to read some of the older comments you will notice I do post in other forums as well and that I am a professional photographer, ie I am not working for Adobe.

Yet another example of someone skim reading and jumping to a conclusion without reading everything available so they get their facts straight.

0 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

If you are paying the subscription fee you are working for Adobe whether you like it or not.

2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

So MarcLee does that mean you work for a mobile phone company, or maybe a telephone company or perhaps a cable company or a satellite TV company or maybe even a car leasing company?

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (11 months ago)

Stu, people quite often sign up for a mobile phone contract to get their phone subsidized. They also have the option to buy the phone straight up. Adobe has taken that option off the table. Were I to own the new Adobe CC and I was then given the option to use their cloud service, that would be a reasonable monthly expense as I'm asking them to maintain a server where my files can be shared. Even if CC had a monthly license subscription and a perpetual license option that would be very reasonable. My old iPhone 3GS still works and I pay only for any additional services I require. Right now it is a glorified iPod touch, but if I wanted service I could go buy it on a monthly basis. The apps all still work. Wifi still works. The ONLY thing that requires a monthly fee is cellular telephone/data (since all transmissions are digital data). If I don't have a contract or I've fulfilled my two years they know I can bail any time. PS has ZERO functionality if your subscription expires.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

Stu5, none of the above except Creative Cloud holds MY creativity hostage. Rents being what they are in my area however, I do often feel I am working for my landlord. Which is again why I, like most people, would choose to buy if that choice was not taken away. No one has questioned your right to work for Adobe by paying your subscriptions at their unilaterally decided price.

But you are spending an awful lot of time here trying to convince others they should not resent choice being taken away and their work being held hostage.

Adobe have shown their true colours. Just like one trusts a faithful wife more than an unfaithful one, the trust issue is THEIR creation.

Incidentally, I think Adobe have messed up Premiere even more than they have messed up Photoshop by this idea. Video editors are even more hostage to the software than photographers. It's ironic that they decided to make Final Cut Pro X more competitive again and give up the market boost they got from Apple's mess.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

" the hysteric majority" There you go showing your true colours again Josh.

"Stu 5 position seems to be that adobe might actually be telling the truth". However THEY have given the public the reason to distrust them in this area. No one else. You guys are welcome to believe what they say. Just as you were to believe them when you purchased. at full price, software that will soon be rendered redundant.

Want to buy some beachfront property?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

howardroark actually buying an iphone under contract general works out more expensive, well it does in the UK. Better to buy sim only and the phone outright. Sim only is what I meant. It allows you to use the phone. CC allows you to use Ps on your computer.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

MarcLee Adobe are not holding your images hostage. You can open up .PSD with open office, Apples Preview etc etc. Anyone with a sensible backup plan will make 16 bit tiff backups anyway.

Yes I was talking to a friend in the film industry a couple of days ago about Premiere and Photoshop. He thought all the ranting in DPR was quite amusing. He like a lot of the people he works with thinks the CC version of Premiere is an excellent idea and is great value for money. Likes the idea it avoids the up front cost, the fact he can write the monthly cost off totally as a business expense and that he always has the latest version as a new feature is ready without having to wait for the next yearly boxed version to come out. Like many editors in the film and TV industry he still does not like FCP X even with all the new updates.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

GaryJP anyone could see CC only was on it's way a year ago. Also CS6 will not suddenly stop working. It is not going to be redundant anytime soon. There are people out there still quite happily using much older versions of Ps.

1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

Sorry, but I can tell you Stu that I have spoken to three broadcast stations in my area who say that under no circumstances would they consider subscribing to their primary editing software. Particularly when pricing structure in future will be unilaterally decided. Also, MOST stations do not connect workstations to the web. And if your friend likes Premiere for video editing over Final Cut or Avid he is already part of a very small minority in the industry anyway. In faxct, an irrelevant part, I am amused beyond belief that you claim the "film industry" likes Premiere. Your limited credibility is severely stretched here. It is barely a contender, despite Apple's mess last year, Incidentally, Apple has responded to user concerns about FCP X and fixed many of the issues its customers had. Doesn't mean most are not still preferring FCP studio. More prefer Avid.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

"Also CS6 will not suddenly stop working. It is not going to be redundant anytime soon." That's like saying your cancer will kill you in two years instead of six months.

2 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

Stu fondly imagines that once they have got him locked into the subscription system Adobe will have motivation to make their system and file formats if anything MORE open rather than less. In fact, all their motivation will be to lock you in tighter and boost prices whenever they feel like it.

And that could be quite a lot if say (optimistically) 25% of the previous user base has to pay ALL their running costs because 75% have jumped ship.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (11 months ago)

Brutal. Guys, Stu is here to argue. That's all. There is no winning against someone who has an opinion that is fact...perfection of perception is a delusion that one cannot be disabused of.

0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

GaryJP Avid has been dropped by many in the UK in favour of Finalcut and Premiere. But when Apple tried to tell the industry how they should be editing when they launched Finalcut X things changed. A lot more peole started to loo at premier. Hong Kong might be different but remember the UK is considered to have some of the best if not the best technicals within the world within the film and TV industry. It is what makes London the third most busy city in the world for film and TV production. It is what has partly secured the next Star Wars to be filmed and produced here.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

GaryJP no it is not at all like saying 'That's like saying your cancer will kill you in two years instead of six months.' Really there is no need to bring cancer into the conversation at all regarding software.

The point is there are already a number of people on here saying that they are using much older versions than CS6 and even the ones on CS6 say they intend to use it for the next 5 or 6 years. You said that software will soon be rendered redundant which is simple not correct is it. It will still work won't it for a number of years unless it is outdated by new OS that they are forced to upgrade to. Or are you saying to all those people that they are wrong?

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

MarcLee if they did that a lot of amateurs would walk and maybe a few pros although most pros know they can simple write this off as a business expense so they have no reason to jump ship as quickly. There is also no reason why Corel, Apple or anyone else might not increase their prices in the future either.

1 upvote
GaryJP
By GaryJP (11 months ago)

Sorry, but you are wrong. There is really no evidence that Premiere is making serious inroads in movie production. And I have UK contacts as well as Hong Kong ones. I like Premiere myself, although I will be dropping it now. But the fact is if you are a young editor and you decide to break into the industry by learning Premiere you are not very wise. And even less so after the subscription mode.

And yes, the metaphor applies. When a company is no longer upgrading software its shelf life is limited and you know it too damn well. But keep up the "evangelism".

0 upvotes
MarcLee
By MarcLee (11 months ago)

Stu, just as, in relationships, I'd choose the girl who has not cheated on me, lied to me, and told me in no uncertain terms she has no interest in me, over the one who has done all the above, I will not give Adobe the benefit of the doubt.

As others have said: "Fool me twice, shame on me." applies here. But you may be fooled as many times as you like.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

howardroark I am not hear to argue but there is a huge amount of miss information being put out about what adobe has said and what they have really said. Lots of pros out there just think there is just a lot of ranting going on here and find it laughable with all the conspiracy stories as well. The problem is when challenged quite a few people have little facts to back up their argument so they then just resort to name calling and mud slinging. They make it sound as though Adobe is the worst company in the world just because it will not do what they are demanding it should do. They make out this has come with no warning and Adobe is finished.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (11 months ago)

Adobe will carry on and CC has the potential to bring them a lot of new clients. Any new photographer, graphic artist etc coming into the industry will jump at the option because once they have purchased all their hardware including cameras etc the last thing they want to start doing is spend several 100s or 1000s on software. They will much prefer to pay a monthly fee and this is what is already being said within the industry.

1 upvote
howardroark
By howardroark (11 months ago)

ROFLMAO....did you just argue the point that you're not here to argue?! :) Yes, Adobe will gain new clients. They'll lose a whole heaping lot of clients, too. The day one perpetual license is available for a true PS competitor is the day PS will become extinct, too....okay, it might take a few weeks for everyone to switch over. LOL

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

"That's like saying your cancer will kill you in two years instead of six months."

See this is exactly what I am talking about. Comparing Adobe's new pricing model to cancer is outrageous and makes you sound like a petulant child stamping your feet. Which as I said before plays right into adobe position that everyone complaining is just afraid of change. The only way to be taken seriously is to act and speak out about this issue like the informed, mature adult you actually are instead of like a spoiled, insensitive, ignorant, and fearful child which is exactly what over the top statements like the one I quoted above makes you sound like.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
DustyWalker
By DustyWalker (11 months ago)

Very good news ! That let one year to work on making a switch to DXO or Capture one. Just before Lightroom will surely fell in CC subscription model too :-)

7 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (11 months ago)

Anyone who doesn't' think LR is going to end up on a subscription model eventually is fooling themselves. LR is still at the stage where lots of new features are being added and noticeable improvements to existing ones are still being made. just compare the lens correction tools of LR 3, 4, and 5. Or look at how the basic panel adjustments have been tweaked and improved. Heck entirely new modules have been add to LR since it was released.

Just wait until LR is as finished as PS is now and see how long adobe keeps losing sales as more and more people start skipping versions like a very large number of users currently do with PS before LR is on the subscription scheme too.

6 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (11 months ago)

I think it's a little soon to argue on the one hand, that each version of Lightroom has significant improvements but people will soon skip new versions, especially if $99. or less. I do agree that photographically useful upgrades to Photoshop ended with content-aware fill.

0 upvotes
KAllen
By KAllen (11 months ago)

No doubt a year or two ago they would of said the same regarding Photoshop.
I would not trust my library with them.

11 upvotes
califleftyb
By califleftyb (11 months ago)

I'm using CS2 in combination with other software and I'm ok with it. Here's why I never upgraded my CS2. I bought the entire creative suite for well over $1,000.00. A few years ago I decided to upgrade my Photoshop to CS4 and was happy to pay for the upgrade....but Adobe told me no way, I had to upgrade the entire suite for an outrageous amount (can't remember but I think was over $1k again). In other words, because I was their best customer they weren't going to extend the same courtesy as they would to their newest, or care to keep me in the Adobe family. My reaction was simple, sorry Adobe but I'm not bending over for your reaming.

I posted this little story at the time on DPReview and frankly most of the comments smugly said that Adobe was a business and had every right to use these business tactics and I should be happy to upgrade the suite at a price lower then buying a new version all together. So my response to this entire bruhaha is this.......... welcome to the party, pal!

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (11 months ago)

Everything is cheap, or at least reasonable when it's somebody else's money.

1 upvote
RobertSigmund
By RobertSigmund (11 months ago)

I was in a very similar situation like you. When CS appeared, the Suite was still affordable. I upgraded from Photoshop 7 to the CS suite. I also bought CS 2 suite. With CS 3 the situation changed. They differenciated the suite and the prices skyrocketed. I had a window of opportunity to upgrade to Photoshop CS 3 (without suite), I think from Photoshop 7 (I do not remember well). Had I been in your situation, CS 2 would have been the terminus for me as well. My terminus was CS 5 simply because I did not agree with them restricting the upgrade possibility to 1 version back. And this despite my having bought every upgrade before! I do not like worsened terms and conditions! I do not like to be extorted. Adobe overestimates the sheepishness of its customers. (I am not talking about Stu or Leon Wittwer, of course)

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
onlooker
By onlooker (11 months ago)

.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
arnzzz
By arnzzz (11 months ago)

Check http://forums.adobe.com/community/creative_cloud to see how "happy" Adobe's customers are with their Cloud subscriptions now that the sync service has been down for days and their files are gone from the Cloud. Then check Adobe's status notifications that say"All systems are go." clearly hiding their service outage...

8 upvotes
SemperAugustus
By SemperAugustus (11 months ago)

Maybe the trolls commenting here, should go there...

0 upvotes
jmkoh
By jmkoh (11 months ago)

Whoa, I just looked at that forum, what a nightmare.

My work had a couple of Adobe evangelists give their speech about CC using the same old line of, if you can afford Starbucks coffee, you can afford CC. Neither Starbucks or Adobe will getting any cash from me. They were really smug when I mentioned the outrage on photography forums.

1 upvote
Jude McDowell
By Jude McDowell (11 months ago)

@jmkoh The analogy to Starbucks alone would convince me not go with CC (if I had not already decided not to); coffee from independent coffee shops is soooooooo much better. Adobe are setting the bar (for coffee) very low. LoL

0 upvotes
Chris Vincent
By Chris Vincent (11 months ago)

This is the same company that states the reason for UK prices being 40% higher than US prices is down to 'higher costs of doing business' really? I thought it was all online.

7 upvotes
Nigel Wilkins
By Nigel Wilkins (11 months ago)

I'll be using Lightroom for the foreseeable future. If they change something & I don't like it, I'll use something else, same as Photoshop. No big deal.

I really can't see what all the fuss is about.

Even if Lightroom did become a subscription service, it would still be worth considering if the price was right. I pay an awful lot more for my TV channels & never have been able to buy them.

2 upvotes
Toermalijn
By Toermalijn (11 months ago)

Pro's have huge file collections of customers. Once they cannot open these files again, you're stuck. That simple. So, it IS a BIG fuss.

2 upvotes
ProtectedVoid
By ProtectedVoid (11 months ago)

Well, the non-destructive editing of images in RAW format, combined with the catalogs is very powerful. Now, factor in 100,000 images in hundreds of catalogs, all tweaked for various print shops using custom ICC profiles...switching to another software, or forcing the prospect of losing the functionality of the existing software by requiring users pay for a subscription-only service in perpetuity is a VERY big deal.

1 upvote
Nigel Wilkins
By Nigel Wilkins (11 months ago)

I also have large collections...saved in non-proprietary file formats, namely TIFF files. To not have the option of opening your files using alternative software is the same as not backing up your files. Most Pros understand this, those that don't, need to.

2 upvotes
anthony mazzeri
By anthony mazzeri (11 months ago)

TIFF is proprietary owned by Adobe. Probably not when you first started using the format, but they bought control of it four years ago.

So your non-proprietary files have come under Adobe's sphere of influence/control and you didn't even know it. And there you were all the while thinking you were safe. Actually there's nothing to stop the same happening when switching to any competing product either as many want to do now. Adobe are an acquisition company and could just as easily buy out their Corel or Pixelmator etc competition just as they did Aldus and Macromedia.

0 upvotes
Nigel Wilkins
By Nigel Wilkins (11 months ago)

Really? you're right, I didn't know that, thanks for enlightening me. However, most imaging programs can open them, so at this point, it's not an issue. If that changes, my workflow will also change, but it's nothing to be concerned about for a long while, if ever.

0 upvotes
buggz
By buggz (11 months ago)

I don't, and will never, believe anything Adobe says.
I will not be buying anything from Adobe, ever.
I will not be buying any add-ons, tutorials, or any thing related to Adobe products, ever.
It's a shame that mis-management is allowed to ruin peoples lives.
I still feel as if stabbed in the back, from the extortion announcement.

2 upvotes
Nigel Wilkins
By Nigel Wilkins (11 months ago)

Ruin people's lives? Really?

3 upvotes
buggz
By buggz (11 months ago)

Yes, I think it is criminal extortion.
I feel as stabbed in the back.
Oh, before I get sucked in further, I will stand by my remarks, and not go any further with you.
Too many trolls, you know.
I feel that any who is for this is a paid shill.

3 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (11 months ago)

I can't tell who the troll is.

2 upvotes
robert1955
By robert1955 (11 months ago)

There are many replies here that are completely over the top, but you are the most extrem-shark jumping of all. If oyu weren't with the majoirty here you would be outed as a troll

3 upvotes
buggz
By buggz (11 months ago)

Shrug, I posted recently in the same manner on all the other forums, why not here?
It really is big to me.

From another forum:
Well for me, this is a hobby that I have decided to focus on.
I don't perform paid work, I do it for free.
I even give free matted prints, that *I* print, on my gear.
Stupid me? Shrug.
Anywho, the point for me, is, this is my entertainment, this is my down time/relaxation.
And now, this is trying to be taken away from me.
Not downplaying the "professional" paid for work people, as this will take away from them also.
However, being seen as I am NOT a "professional", Adobe wants to strip PS as NOT being for amateurs.
And "we" have no voice, nor say in the matter.
This is totally callused arrogance!
I get so mad, that I sincerely hope it ruins them.
Happy Shooting!

3 upvotes
buggz
By buggz (11 months ago)

Oh, there's more:
[quote][b]buggz2k wrote[/b]:
+1 this.
I have actually promoted Adobe software to many others, especially LightRoom, not any longer.
I am now at the point of NOT purchasing ANYTHING PS related, and I have a LOT, scripts, plug-ins, tutorials, books, DVDs, etc.
Just think of all these people, wow.

On another forum there is mention of "Free 24 hour trial to NAPP (National Association of Photoshop Professionals) "
I always wanted to join, but not now.

[quote][b]AnotherForumUser wrote[/b]:
Yes, it's a really short term, short sighted move by Adobe. Today's student or amateur/ hobbyist may at some point be a product influencer. How many will be promoting Adobe software down the road?[/quote]
[/quote]

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
buggz
By buggz (11 months ago)

oops

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Jonne Ollakka
By Jonne Ollakka (11 months ago)

Perfect time for someone else to step in and offer a stand alone PS clone. I suppose CS5 is where we part ways.

1 upvote
Total comments: 615
1234