Why all the hating on Adobe?

[JasonTheBirder]

Subscriptions are a lot more than the price. Since you are more locked in, you are less likely to have the capability of switching software. So Adobe can raise prices.

The "locked in" argument has some holes. (1) If your software creates files that cannot be read by other software then the solution to changing software is to export those files to a universal type such as TIF.

There seems to be a lot of negative sentiment towards Adobe on various forums, likely fueled by competitors. It’s important to note that the rules of the dpreview forums prohibit such propaganda.

I for one am not sponsored or motivated by any competitors to Adobe in ANY way. I have no vested interest in hating Adobe, I just do because they created some AI products.

Same as other SW manufacturers. Do you hate them also?

I hate the ones that have anything to do with AI, and I do what I can to spread the word (I write an entire newsletter on the dangers of technology). But not ALL software manufacturers have created new AI products. So, when I can, I go with them. So your statement is incorrect, because not ALL companies make AI products.

I think the world would be a better place anyway if the big tech companies went the way of the dodo, especially Google.

I never said ALL. I said SOME. The ones which do not implement new technology will be left behind. History knows such examples. Luddites is one of the famous.

Not necessarily true. Tools without AI can certainly exist if enough people use them. And not everyone uses AI, or wants to. Not all tools need to incorporate all new technology to stay around. And AI is certainly not crucial for photography.

 

[Trk]

Tools without AI can certainly exist if enough people use them.

I think you mean Generative AI, because in photography AI is almost everywhere, camera focusing, many features in all app.

Without AI only possible is film camera, manual focus lens, dark room, chemicals, enlarger, ....

 

[tbcass]

I hate the ones that have anything to do with AI, and I do what I can to spread the word (I write an entire newsletter on the dangers of technology). But not ALL software manufacturers have created new AI products. So, when I can, I go with them. So your statement is incorrect, because not ALL companies make AI products.

I think the world would be a better place anyway if the big tech companies went the way of the dodo, especially Google.

May I respectively disagree with you? I'm 79 years old andin my lifetime I would estimate that advances in technology have been 90% positive. Concentrating on the occasional negative gives a skewed view. For the most part any negative of technological advances comes from the way it's used not the tech itself. That is a human failing, not a technology failing. If you compare the world to the way things were 50-100 years ago, we are far better off now.

 

[JasonTheBirder]

Tools without AI can certainly exist if enough people use them.

I think you mean Generative AI, because in photography AI is almost everywhere, camera focusing, many features in all app.

Without AI only possible is film camera, manual focus lens, dark room, chemicals, enlarger, ....

That is an exaggeration for sure. I am pretty sure my D500 doesn't use AI, or if it used machine learning in its design somewhere it must have been a pretty primitive algorithm, designed before 2016. And I for one use no AI features in my editing. Not a single one.

 

[JasonTheBirder]

I hate the ones that have anything to do with AI, and I do what I can to spread the word (I write an entire newsletter on the dangers of technology). But not ALL software manufacturers have created new AI products. So, when I can, I go with them. So your statement is incorrect, because not ALL companies make AI products.

I think the world would be a better place anyway if the big tech companies went the way of the dodo, especially Google.

May I respectively disagree with you? I'm 79 years old andin my lifetime I would estimate that advances in technology have been 90% positive. Concentrating on the occasional negative gives a skewed view. For the most part any negative of technological advances comes from the way it's used not the tech itself. That is a human failing, not a technology failing. If you compare the world to the way things were 50-100 years ago, we are far better off now.

Depends on what you consider valuable or positive. Technology has had many downsides, but most noticeable the destruction of ecosystems around the world that would not be possible without technology. Also, I do not agree with the social theory of technology usage, that it is dependend on human choice. I think we are much more like automatons that are largely shaped by technological growth, mainly because of prisoner's dilemma-type situations in which some people are forced to use technology to keep up and make a living.

For example, I for one would barely, if ever use lots of technology if my means of living did not depend upon it.

 

[tbcass]

I hate the ones that have anything to do with AI, and I do what I can to spread the word (I write an entire newsletter on the dangers of technology). But not ALL software manufacturers have created new AI products. So, when I can, I go with them. So your statement is incorrect, because not ALL companies make AI products.

I think the world would be a better place anyway if the big tech companies went the way of the dodo, especially Google.

May I respectively disagree with you? I'm 79 years old andin my lifetime I would estimate that advances in technology have been 90% positive. Concentrating on the occasional negative gives a skewed view. For the most part any negative of technological advances comes from the way it's used not the tech itself. That is a human failing, not a technology failing. If you compare the world to the way things were 50-100 years ago, we are far better off now.

Depends on what you consider valuable or positive. Technology has had many downsides, but most noticeable the destruction of ecosystems around the world that would not be possible without technology.

Are you aware of the damage to the ecosystem that occurred in the 1800s and before. That was due to the misuse of technology of the era. Are you aware of the animals that became extinct way back then. Are you aware of the deforestation of North America and Europe hundreds to a thousand years ago? The only way you could have avoided that is if we remained hunter gatherers. Is that what you want? Much of the technology produced today is used to correct the problems associated with the technology of the past.

Also, I do not agree with the social theory of technology usage, that it is dependend on human choice. I think we are much more like automatons that are largely shaped by technological growth, mainly because of prisoner's dilemma-type situations in which some people are forced to use technology to keep up and make a living.

That is of course your opinion. My opinion is totally different.

 

[JasonTheBirder]

I hate the ones that have anything to do with AI, and I do what I can to spread the word (I write an entire newsletter on the dangers of technology). But not ALL software manufacturers have created new AI products. So, when I can, I go with them. So your statement is incorrect, because not ALL companies make AI products.

I think the world would be a better place anyway if the big tech companies went the way of the dodo, especially Google.

May I respectively disagree with you? I'm 79 years old andin my lifetime I would estimate that advances in technology have been 90% positive. Concentrating on the occasional negative gives a skewed view. For the most part any negative of technological advances comes from the way it's used not the tech itself. That is a human failing, not a technology failing. If you compare the world to the way things were 50-100 years ago, we are far better off now.

Depends on what you consider valuable or positive. Technology has had many downsides, but most noticeable the destruction of ecosystems around the world that would not be possible without technology.

Are you aware of the damage to the ecosystem that occurred in the 1800s and before. That was due to the misuse of technology of the era.

That is ridiculous! It is still occurring now with our output of CO2, which is caused and is causing immense damage now! Incredible that you can even say that the majority of the damage was before 1800 when we've experienced millions of hectares of forest being massacred since then as well.

 

[tbcass]

I hate the ones that have anything to do with AI, and I do what I can to spread the word (I write an entire newsletter on the dangers of technology). But not ALL software manufacturers have created new AI products. So, when I can, I go with them. So your statement is incorrect, because not ALL companies make AI products.

I think the world would be a better place anyway if the big tech companies went the way of the dodo, especially Google.

May I respectively disagree with you? I'm 79 years old andin my lifetime I would estimate that advances in technology have been 90% positive. Concentrating on the occasional negative gives a skewed view. For the most part any negative of technological advances comes from the way it's used not the tech itself. That is a human failing, not a technology failing. If you compare the world to the way things were 50-100 years ago, we are far better off now.

Depends on what you consider valuable or positive. Technology has had many downsides, but most noticeable the destruction of ecosystems around the world that would not be possible without technology.

Are you aware of the damage to the ecosystem that occurred in the 1800s and before. That was due to the misuse of technology of the era.

That is ridiculous! It is still occurring now with our output of CO2, which is caused and is causing immense damage now! Incredible that you can even say that the majority of the damage was before 1800 when we've experienced millions of hectares of forest being massacred since then as well.

You totally ignored my message and the point I was making so I will say no more.

 

[Philip Eihuyar]

The "locked in" argument has some holes. (1) If your software creates files that cannot be read by other software then the solution to changing software is to export those files to a universal type such as TIF.

There seems to be a lot of negative sentiment towards Adobe on various forums, likely fueled by competitors.

That would be an important thing if it were true. But unless you can show any evidence of that statement, it should be disregarded as speculation. I only see people expressing their -either carefully thought-out views -or just venting and piling on because of their being opinionated people.

It’s important to note that the rules of the dpreview forums prohibit such propaganda.

Regarding Photoshop PSD files, I recently tested opening them with GIMP and found no issues. GIMP successfully preserved layers and other elements, at least for the types of edits I perform. This makes GIMP a viable alternative for those who need basic PSD file compatibility without subscribing to Adobe’s services.

Good advice to know about-

I still have CS4 files that I can open in Affinity or other applications. My old Fuji RAF files seem to be unable to be opened in DxO PL7 Missing camera modules ... I'll have to look for a work around Does GIMP open such RAF files?

For Lightroom users, enabling sidecar files ensures that no data is lost, as Lightroom does not modify the original files. This feature is particularly useful for maintaining the integrity of your photos while still benefiting from Lightroom’s powerful editing capabilities.

While I personally dislike subscription-based software, it has become the industry standard. Even Luminar, another popular photo editing software, has adopted this model. Subscriptions can offer continuous updates and new features, which can be beneficial for users who want to stay current with the latest tools and improvements.

Despite my reservations about subscriptions, I use Photoshop, Lightroom, and Luminar simultaneously without any issues. Each software has its strengths, and using them together allows me to leverage the best features of each. For instance, Photoshop excels in detailed image manipulation, Lightroom offers robust photo organization and batch processing, and Luminar provides innovative AI-driven enhancements.

In conclusion, while there are valid criticisms of Adobe’s subscription model, there are also practical alternatives and complementary tools available. You can transfer files without any issues.

The only thing I hate is Adobe taking data while using particular features of their software. Each time you use Neural Filters, they immediately take your photo and incorporate it into their models. Generative AI allows them to use your photo for any purpose. They should prompt the user with this information before each of these functions.

 

[tbcass]

There seems to be a lot of negative sentiment towards Adobe on various forums, likely fueled by competitors. It’s important to note that the rules of the dpreview forums prohibit such propaganda.

LOL, a conspiracy theory?

 

[Philip Eihuyar]

May I respectively disagree with you? I'm 79 years old andin my lifetime I would estimate that advances in technology have been 90% positive. Concentrating on the occasional negative gives a skewed view. For the most part any negative of technological advances comes from the way it's used not the tech itself. That is a human failing, not a technology failing. If you compare the world to the way things were 50-100 years ago, we are far better off now.

Depends on what you consider valuable or positive. Technology has had many downsides, but most noticeable the destruction of ecosystems around the world that would not be possible without technology.

Are you aware of the damage to the ecosystem that occurred in the 1800s and before. That was due to the misuse of technology of the era.

That is ridiculous! It is still occurring now with our output of CO2, which is caused and is causing immense damage now! Incredible that you can even say that the majority of the damage was before 1800 when we've experienced millions of hectares of forest being massacred since then as well.

Actually this is an important matter to bring up. The increases to the human population have caused and are increasing to be magnified as an extinction event. This is not an exaggeration. For the preservation of a livable ecosystem for humans and non humans, a quite severe reduction of population will be required. Is this possible for world wide societies to organize to prevent what seems to be what is headed towards us like a freight train? It most probably will require a real change in what we call business as usual -but stranger things have happened. Technologies can be an advantage to this aim to gradually stabily reduce human populations to a sustainable level.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

The He Man Adobe Haters Club. No girls allowed. That will cut down on the clutter in the Retouching Forum and the haters will impress each other with their ever righteous analyses of the latest Adobe outrage.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Actually this is an important matter to bring up. The increases to the human population have caused and are increasing to be magnified as an extinction event. This is not an exaggeration. For the preservation of a livable ecosystem for humans and non humans, a quite severe reduction of population will be required. Is this possible for world wide societies to organize to prevent what seems to be what is headed towards us like a freight train? It most probably will require a real change in what we call business as usual -but stranger things have happened. Technologies can be an advantage to this aim to gradually stabily reduce human populations to a sustainable level.

Don't get me started, Phil :^)

 

[davidedric]

[No message]

 

[Philip Eihuyar]

Of course the easy no brain approach is to intentionally misintrepret what I said and assume an audience of similar folks. No, lets get you started. What do you see in the future one hundred years for this planet?

 

[PMB]

Tools without AI can certainly exist if enough people use them.

I think you mean Generative AI, because in photography AI is almost everywhere, camera focusing, many features in all app.

Without AI only possible is film camera, manual focus lens, dark room, chemicals, enlarger, ....

That is an exaggeration for sure. I am pretty sure my D500 doesn't use AI, or if it used machine learning in its design somewhere it must have been a pretty primitive algorithm, designed before 2016. And I for one use no AI features in my editing. Not a single one.

Well, does the D500 have Matrix metering? Isn't that driven by hundreds of thousands of images the Nikon used to refine the metering based on the patterns and colours of the image? Isn't that kind of machine learning? Maybe not generative replacement.

Peter

 

[BBR5]

Between the subscription model and business practices, there is no shortage of things to complain about. Complainers are gonna complain.

In addition to Adobe, I've used PL, Topaz, and ON1. Found myself spending quite a bit staying up-to-date with each of those, even only one at a time. And I didn't like some of the business practices of those companies either.

Choose your poison.

 

[Zeee]

Between the subscription model and business practices, there is no shortage of things to complain about. Complainers are gonna complain.

In addition to Adobe, I've used PL, Topaz, and ON1. Found myself spending quite a bit staying up-to-date with each of those, even only one at a time. And I didn't like some of the business practices of those companies either.

Choose your poison.

Ditto.

 

[tbcass]

Between the subscription model and business practices, there is no shortage of things to complain about. Complainers are gonna complain.

In addition to Adobe, I've used PL, Topaz, and ON1. Found myself spending quite a bit staying up-to-date with each of those, even only one at a time. And I didn't like some of the business practices of those companies either.

Choose your poison.

What didn't you like about the business practices of those companies?

 

[Liquid Light]

That business practice is fairly standard in software companies nowadays.

Yes, because Adobe has played a major role in the increasing use of subscription models in the industry. A tautology is not a valid argument. In the case of Adobe, the bar compared to which I measure CC are perpetual licenses which they used for 15-20 years.

Your comment could equally well apply to a lot of software companies. To be clear, I'm not thrilled about subscription models either. But I don't like "abandoware,: or using software from companies no longer in business.

Abandonware or companies no longer being in business is not the issue here.

How could you tell?

By the same slow pace of improvement as in the pre-CC days. But it´s the other way around: Those that do claim CC has increased the speed of innovation should be able to provide evidence. I have yet to see any.

And your brilliant insight is?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck.... Of course one can argue there´s nothing wrong with making more money than is already the case, but I prefer to call things by their proper name. CC has neither increased security against piracy, nor has it made Adobe products cheaper, nor has it improved the user experience (one can actually claim the opposite is true), nor has it lead to a perceptible increase in the number and quality of improvements. I think it´s fair to call claims of this nature a rationalisation of what Adobe is doing. Why people are rationalising I don´t know. Some kind of corporate Stockholm Syndrome maybe....?

All that has changed with the introduction of CC is a much higher and more predictable stream of revenue for Adobe.

But, there´s even a reasonable use case for a subscription version of their software: If an individual or a company needs them for short periods of time only, or if flexible scalability in the number of licenses is important. Had Adobe the interest of their customers in mind, they would´ve added the subscription model on top of the already existing perpetual licenses.

I was in the software business for 40 years. Can you say anything similar? That argument is absolutely valid.

In another thread you asked what the difference was between paying monthly for software, or for the electricity bill. If you´re unable to see the difference between a means/tool of production for content creation, and consumables, your argument from authority has backfired.

There were very few companies as viable as Adobe, long before CC. Viability was not an issue in the slightest, Adobe was doing exceedingly well with no competitor in sight far and away. The viability of a software company can of course depend on the introduction of a subscription model, but definitely not in the case of Adobe.

I use a different ID in another photography forum. Readers of that forum know that I can be highly critiical of Adobe. I'm definitely not an apologist, but I also dislike emotion-driven arguments. Consider the "meme" stock Gamestop or the money that people pay for a Bitcoin, which has no use case for legitimate transactions. By now, other tech-driven financial innovations have either failed or become mainstream. Not Bitcoin, because enough people are completely irrational.

Where is anything I wrote here emotion driven?