Why are folks using 10 year old software when there are modern cheaper alternatives actively supported today?
Does it even run on modern computers?
E.g.: Affinity Photo,, GIMP etc.
IMO the common reasons why people continue to use--and in some cases, even go out and buy on the secondary market old licenses of--Photoshop CS6 (and sometimes even older versions) are a mix of fetish and function.
* There are people who want to use Photoshop because (as everyone knows!) Photoshop (even an ancient version) is The Professional Gold Standard™. I.e., fetish.
* But it's true that Photoshop or maybe more precisely its main file format is the professional gold standard, so if you want to send some professional a file to work on, that you've already worked on, while maintaining non-destructive edits, sending it as a PSD is the way to go. I.e., function.
* Some believe that Adobe Photoshop is so clearly the leader that a decade-old version remains 'better' (in some ill-defined way) than e.g. Serif Affinity Photo 2. I.e., fetish.
* Nevertheless, Adobe Photoshop CS6 is a product that's mature and, for many, entirely capable of fulfilling all the needs and wants, whose use incurs no additional costs. I.e., function.
I'm sure there are a bunch of additional fetishes and functions that you could add to the list. But I'll turn to some FWIWs:
* Modern raw converters with good local controls can accomplish a lot of what used to require a pixel editor like Photoshop.
* I don't have an old, or any, version of Photoshop, but I do still run / use Adobe Lightroom 6, the last non-subscription version. My predominant reason for doing so is that it does a decent job processing the DNG raw files from my Samsung phones, which my main raw converter (DxO PhotoLab 7 Elite) will not process at all. For a variety of reasons it makes no sense to debate further, I won't license subscriptionware. On the other hand, the now six-years-old (last updated December 2017) Lightroom 6 suffices for my particular purposes, at least as well as any no-additional-cost alternatives.
* I had Affinity Photo 1 and I have Affinity Photo 2. IMO they're excellent products at very reasonable (arguably bargain) prices. So far they've done everything I've asked them to do. On the other hand, I'm not going to claim that on the whole they can do everything Photoshop can do.
* Although GIMP was my main pixel editor from 2003 or 2004 until 2017, and I still use it some, IMO GIMP cannot compete with either Affinity Photo or Photoshop because the large majority of GIMP's operations are destructive. The large majority of Affinity Photo's operations are non-destructive. I
assume the same is true of the current Photoshop, and I suspect the same was at least largely true of Photoshop CS6.
