Adobe Photography Plan - Lightroom and PS - Worth it?

[BokehRaton]

Hi everyone,

I currently run Lightroom 5 and am looking to upgrade (especially with my future purchase of a D7200). Is the $9.99/mo worth it for LR6 and PS? Or, should I just purchase LR6 outright? I rarely use PS, but it would be nice to have.

For those that are using it, do you find any of the other "features" in the plan to be useful?

I plan to install them on both my macbook and a PC, so that will be nice. I hear the outright software purchase is either Mac or PC. You don't get both.

Also, will Adobe keep this around indefinitely? I would hate to get in to this only to find the price doubles in 6 months or they end it.

Thanks for any feedback!

 

[Chikako]

Also, will Adobe keep this around indefinitely? I would hate to get in to this only to find the price doubles in 6 months or they end it.

The best deals are those where you pay ahead for a year at a time, so you can at least be sure that you won't get your price jacked up in that time.

I doubt Adobe will change the pricing since this is their 'loss leader' for using the industry strength of Photoshop against other software makers of photography software.

If you are opposed to the software rental model, then no price is going to be right.

 

[dj_paige]

Hi everyone,

I currently run Lightroom 5 and am looking to upgrade (especially with my future purchase of a D7200). Is the $9.99/mo worth it for LR6 and PS? Or, should I just purchase LR6 outright? I rarely use PS, but it would be nice to have.

For those that are using it, do you find any of the other "features" in the plan to be useful?

You are getting the world's best photo editor (Photoshop), and Lightroom and Lightroom Mobile as well. The possibilities are endless.

I plan to install them on both my macbook and a PC, so that will be nice. I hear the outright software purchase is either Mac or PC. You don't get both.

Nonsense. You do get both.

Also, will Adobe keep this around indefinitely? I would hate to get in to this only to find the price doubles in 6 months or they end it.

Adobe doesn't tell us their future plans. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Although, I'd be shocked if the Photography Plan is going away in the next decade. Yes, the price could go up, no one can tell you what Adobe's plans are.

--
Paige Miller

 

[Dareshooter]

For me yes. I initially tried it because I was using elements plus Canons DPP so thought I'd give Photoshop CC a whirl. Wow what a difference that made so Elements was consigned to history. After a few months I decided to try Lightroom and it quickly became my go to software,use it for 90% of my work nowadays using photoshop only for the stuff that Lightroom can't do. Couldn't be happier and all for the price of a couple of pints and a packet of pork scratchings.

 

[ppage]

For me yes. I initially tried it because I was using elements plus Canons DPP so thought I'd give Photoshop CC a whirl. Wow what a difference that made so Elements was consigned to history. After a few months I decided to try Lightroom and it quickly became my go to software,use it for 90% of my work nowadays using photoshop only for the stuff that Lightroom can't do. Couldn't be happier and all for the price of a couple of pints and a packet of pork scratchings.

I couldn't agree more.

I was working with Photoshop CS4 and wanted to upgrade (1) to simplify my workflow by eliminating use of the DNG converter (as CS4 didn't support my Canon 70D), and (2) to take advantage of all the newer features in PS. I put off moving to CC for awhile because I had no interest in LR and was worried about possible price increases down the road.

I finally decided to move to CC about 18 months ago and have absolutely no regrets whatsoever. I love LR and use it rather than ACR, going to PS only after processing in LR and not at all for at least 50% of what I do.

As for the cost, while there has been no price increase, my cost has gone up because of the drop in the Canadian dollar. So I am now paying about $15 CND. This is equivalent to maybe 4 cups of coffee a month at your local Starbucks? Well worth it for me.

Since moving to CC, both PS and LR have had numerous features added and I got all the upgrades to both at no extra cost. I'm hoping to upgrade my camera next year to the Canon 6D and I'm glad to know that in planning for this upgrade I *DON'T* have to think about upgrading my Adobe software; the support for the camera will be there when I need it.

Peter

 

[Paulmorgan]

Hi everyone,

I currently run Lightroom 5 and am looking to upgrade (especially with my future purchase of a D7200). Is the $9.99/mo worth it for LR6 and PS? Or, should I just purchase LR6 outright? I rarely use PS, but it would be nice to have.

For those that are using it, do you find any of the other "features" in the plan to be useful?

I plan to install them on both my macbook and a PC, so that will be nice. I hear the outright software purchase is either Mac or PC. You don't get both.

Also, will Adobe keep this around indefinitely? I would hate to get in to this only to find the price doubles in 6 months or they end it.

Thanks for any feedback!

I`ve been with cc for three years, the price has never changed, they just keep giving me more and more for my money.

You don`t just get Lr, Ps and Br, you get other things as well, free web site, free storage etc etc.

 

[JJMacks]

I pay the $10 a month for the plan because Photoshop alone plan cost $20 a month. So I subscribe to the Photography Plan and only install and use Photoshop. IMO there no need to install LightRoom unless you need its library system. Lightroom does not support layers. Photoshop and Lightroom use the same RAW conversion engine. When you use Photoshop you only way you can use it is through Adobe ACR plug-in. LR develop module is not a Photoshop plug-in. RAW file passed to Photoshop by LR are open in Photoshop through ACR.

--
JJMack

 

[apathyman]

If you mainly use Lightroom, the Photography Plan is probably worth it. If, like me, you're mainly a PS user, I'm not so sure.

I subscribed to the Photography Plan for about 18 months but recently cancelled. I don't use Lightroom (never warmed to it) and I was finding that my old PS CS3 could do pretty much all I needed (with the addition of a few plugins).

Cheers

Brian

 

[Abrak]

I pay the $10 a month for the plan because Photoshop alone plan cost $20 a month. So I subscribe to the Photography Plan and only install and use Photoshop. IMO there no need to install LightRoom unless you need its library system. Lightroom does not support layers. Photoshop and Lightroom use the same RAW conversion engine. When you use Photoshop you only way you can use it is through Adobe ACR plug-in. LR develop module is not a Photoshop plug-in. RAW file passed to Photoshop by LR are open in Photoshop through ACR.

 

[JJMacks]

I do get your point about Lightroom not being 'necessary' if you dont use the DAM, publishing, map, book, etc

My point was that LR Does not support Layers. Therefore can not work popper with my layered files. Non-destructive editing is no longer possible with LR when you have layers. This is not the case when you just use Photoshop you can choose to edit in a non-destructive fashion or not.

I do not use LR. DAM, publishing, map, book, etc sounds like LR Output module features. Bridge also has and Output module and can also be scripted. Photoshop can also be scripted and has action support. You have more output options using Photoshop than LR. Photoshop is a full function image editor LR lacks many features a full function images editor requires. That is why LR requires an external editor to do serious image editing.

--

JJMack

 

[Jim Hess]

It is true that Lightroom isn't as full-featured as an image editor as Photoshop. However, leaving the comment at that point is a bit misleading. I have the Adobe photography plan and occasionally turn to Photoshop for specific tasks that Lightroom cannot do. But for the vast majority of my work I find that I can use Lightroom exclusively and obtain the desired results. Lightroom doesn't have layers. But it does have adjustment brushes and radial filters that enable me to do a lot of things that used to require layers. Perhaps I'm more simplistic than you. But that's my take on Lightroom.

Now, if I'm going to want to remove objects from an image, or change the sky by combining two images, or have some extensive spot removal to do then Photoshop is always the choice.

As far as the original question is concerned, I really think the creative cloud photography plan is an excellent value. Skeptics always bring up the possibility that Adobe can raise the price whenever they want to, and that's true. But they haven't done it in three years. Adobe has established a substantial user base with this marketing approach. I don't expect them to raise the price because it would probably upset the user base and revenue would drop. That's just my take on things.

 

[Simon Garrett]

I don't like software rental; it's the psychological fear that if for whatever reason I stop the subscription then "my" software stops working. Having got over that, the price is OK. I used to upgrade LR every release, and I upgraded PS every 2 or 3 major releases (when you could do that) and the cost was about the same as the current subscription. But now I get the current version immediately. I use LR for every image, and PS for those that need editing LR can't do, which is 5-10% of the keepers.

For me: it's worth it.

 

[JJMacks]

I agree with Jim excellent value.

I have two creative cloud subscriptions one for myself and one for my wife. Cost half as much as Photoshop alone. We do not use LR because we do not need LR output module or LR Library and any image adjustment that can be made in LR develop module can be made in ACR. You use ACR when you process image file in Photoshop. The UI is different than LR develop module however both use the same RAW Conversion engine.

When a LR user passes a RAW file to Photoshop the RAW file is open through ACR not by LR Develop. LR develop is not a Photoshop Plug-in.

 

[Lan]

I'm currently a subscriber, but I don't feel Adobe is trying very hard with their updates to PS/LR. The new features of Photoshop CC2017 aren't of much value to me - in fact they seem to be of more value to Adobe as a vehicle for (not) selling their stock images...

Let's just say I wouldn't have bought the new version outright for the new features, so I'm reconsidering my subscription. "Free" upgrades are only worthwhile if they're actually upgrades; currently it looks more like I'm paying money purely to benefit their shareholders.

Obviously that's what Adobe want; but this process has to be a two way street in order for it to work...

 

[Simon Garrett]

I'm currently a subscriber, but I don't feel Adobe is trying very hard with their updates to PS/LR. The new features of Photoshop CC2017 aren't of much value to me - in fact they seem to be of more value to Adobe as a vehicle for (not) selling their stock images...

Let's just say I wouldn't have bought the new version outright for the new features, so I'm reconsidering my subscription. "Free" upgrades are only worthwhile if they're actually upgrades; currently it looks more like I'm paying money purely to benefit their shareholders.

Obviously that's what Adobe want; but this process has to be a two way street in order for it to work...

I agree with all that. In PS, improvements in the last year or two make comparatively little difference to my workflow, but then I don't use more than a fraction of its capabilities. Perhaps it's just that PS does most of what most photographers want, so there is less scope for easy enhancement by Adobe. I suspect that may be one reason why Adobe went for rental: it might be that more photographers were thinking: "I guess I'll just skip the next update or two".

Lightroom definitely does have scope for new features IMHO, and definitely scope for performance improvements.

All that said, I'm still happy with the rental price. No regrets by me about switching to CC.

 

[ppage]

The upgrades you get every couple of months may not impress you much, but suppose you didn't get a few every couple of months. Suppose instead that you got all of them together at the same time.... every 2+ years for over $800? How many versions would you have to skip and how long would you have to wait to get access to any new features if you wanted what you spend on stand-alone versions not to exceed what you'd pay for a subscription? I make it about 6.5 years.

 

[Lan]

Perhaps it's just that PS does most of what most photographers want, so there is less scope for easy enhancement by Adobe. I suspect that may be one reason why Adobe went for rental: it might be that more photographers were thinking: "I guess I'll just skip the next update or two".

Lightroom definitely does have scope for new features IMHO, and definitely scope for performance improvements.

Agreed! I think you're probably right though, there are fewer features outstanding that we actually need.

I think that could be solved with more R&D expenditure though - half the features we have today weren't obviously things we wanted or needed until they appeared.

Layers are a good example. I remember graphics programs before layers, and I had no idea that I wanted or needed them, simply because they didn't exist before that point! Now I can't imagine life without them...

 

[Lan]

The upgrades you get every couple of months may not impress you much, but suppose you didn't get a few every couple of months. Suppose instead that you got all of them together at the same time.... every 2+ years for over $800? How many versions would you have to skip and how long would you have to wait to get access to any new features if you wanted what you spend on stand-alone versions not to exceed what you'd pay for a subscription? I make it about 6.5 years.

Back in the days of licences I skipped alternate (and sometimes more) versions and paid the upgrade prices, and I do think it might have worked out cheaper for me to buy the upgrades - if I had any choice in the matter.

That's the rub of course, we don't have any choice now... If you want a newer version, you have to subscribe; there's no other legal way to get an up to date version of PS.

You're obviously happy with the current state of affairs, and I'm glad. However, I'm starting to get dissatisfied.

 

[JJMacks]

Photography Plan is a small part of Adobe Creative Cloud. Photoshop is just one part of the creative cloud. Photoshop is the only part I care about.

Users here are into Photography and feel the updates to Photoshop are not of value. For them, I'm sure they are correct. Like them many of the new features I do not use.

Photoshop has more function and features than many of us need. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book. Photoshop is a tool more than just an image editor.

I use features in Photoshop not available in other image editors like Photoshop scripting. Photoshop is the right image editor for me. Photoshop is not needed if you just do basic image editing.

Adobe gives me a full creative cloud membership because of my participation on their forum site in the Photoshop forum. So I can install all Adobe Applications. However, I'm not into painting, web development or any other work. I'm retired I do not need to work.

The only Product I install is Photoshop. The only thing I find Adobe doing poorly when it come tp Photoshop is Adobe does not fix all reported bugs and they release too many bugs. I do not know how the support LR and other products for I do not use them.

Photoshop is more than an image editor so what....

The number of Bugs in Photoshop is growing that's a bummer. CC 2017 look quite good but it still has the scripting bug I reported in CC 2015.5 where it was introduced.

 

[Slick Fork]

Hi everyone,

I currently run Lightroom 5 and am looking to upgrade (especially with my future purchase of a D7200). Is the $9.99/mo worth it for LR6 and PS? Or, should I just purchase LR6 outright? I rarely use PS, but it would be nice to have.

For those that are using it, do you find any of the other "features" in the plan to be useful?

I plan to install them on both my macbook and a PC, so that will be nice. I hear the outright software purchase is either Mac or PC. You don't get both.

Also, will Adobe keep this around indefinitely? I would hate to get in to this only to find the price doubles in 6 months or they end it.

Thanks for any feedback!

The big "Yes it's worth it" point seems to be photoshop for most people. You don't mention if you're feeling like you'd USE photoshop at all or not...

I'm in the same boat, trying to decide on moving from 5 to 6 or a CC subscription. I've never really used photoshop and have played around a little with it on the trial. My initial impression is that it is WAY more than I need. All I'm interested in is photography and having enough editing power to 'develop' my photo's and lightroom alone does about 90% of what I need and I'm playing around with On1's 10.5 and that's starting to look like it's got enough features to manage the rest of what I need.

So, for me I'm leaning towards upgrading to 6 (or even waiting for 7)for the $80 and picking up on1 for $120.

Provided I don't do that every year, I'll come out on top.