Adobe Cloud. Against monthly subs?

Started Sep 5, 2013 | Discussions thread
John1940 Senior Member • Posts: 2,727
Re: Nah...

JulesJ wrote:

happypoppeye wrote:

JulesJ wrote:

Then please sign this Change.Org petition please.


I would consider paying maybe up to $4.00 per month for the Adobe stuff but nothing more, but I'm not going to sign a petition. It's Adobe's business and they can do anything they want with it. I have always used Adobe PP software and probably always will, but I'm not turning it into a monthly bill and I'm not worried if they go out of business.

They won't be going out of business. But you miss the point. Lots of small businesses, who for decades have happily supported Adobe and used their excellent products, are not forced into a system they don't want, never asked for, and are not happy about. You say you always will use their software. When you upgrade your camera to a new one it is likely not to be supported by the software you have now. If you are happy to just use jpgs or another company's Raw converter that is ok. But eventually your last version of PhotoShop will undoubtably not work properly.

I don't agree with your last sentence, Jules. I submit that you can always use something such as Canon's DPP RAW converter and (as I have found out) input its TIFF output into ACR, Brigge, Lightroom as well as Photoshop. Is there any difference in image quality (apart from DPP haveing a better or worse demosaicing algorithm than ACR's) if you use 16-bit TIFF? I say no.

Is there any function in any of the four Adobe offerings above that will not work properly and the same way as if one started with ACR? Not that I can see with Bridge, Lightroom or Photoshop.

If you start with ACR in any of the last three packages, then, since they use ACR as a plug-in, your workflow will probably be faster, but you pay for that by having to pay the CC fees monthly.

ACR used by those packages creates an internal equivalent of TIFF by doing demosaicing first. All subsequent work is done on that. There is full capability to change anything or everything in terms of the original RAW settings after that conversion to a real TIFF or an internal version with RGB at every pixel location. If I use ACR by itself and create a real TIFF and don't tell the other packages that it came from ACR as a separate package, I get exactly the same result image quality-wise as if I used, for example, Photoshop with its ACR plug in. If anyone has tried this and has come to a different conclusion, I'd like to hear about it.


 John1940's gear list:John1940's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow