[jatrax]

Well, I guess it is all relative. Do you listen to well-know Adobe shill Terry White or former Adobe employee now better known Photoshop and Lightroom expert Tim Grey. I know and trust Tim.

I believe Anvh is referring to rumors that the software itself will be cloud based. Available only while on line. Which is not true.

The article you link to is very informative, thank you for that. However, the authors statement that you will lose access to your images if you stop paying is at odds with other articles I have seen that seem to state that you only lose access to future updates if you stop paying. I have no idea which is correct, and I agree if this article is right that is quite alarming.

[Smeggypants]

I believe Anvh is referring to rumors that the software itself will be cloud based. Available only while on line. Which is not true.

The article you link to is very informative, thank you for that. However, the authors statement that you will lose access to your images if you stop paying is at odds with other articles I have seen that seem to state that you only lose access to future updates if you stop paying. I have no idea which is correct, and I agree if this article is right that is quite alarming.

You need to keep paying. Stop paying and the authorisation ceases and you can't load your work.

Adobe's move to a Subscription Enslavement business model is NOT something I'd ever be a part of

[Anvh]

Like jatrax say i mean that the software will not be cloud based.
So all the files are on your computer and nothing is controlled (owned) by Adobe except the software.

If you don't pay your subscription you indeed lose the right to use the software but you still own the images.
Just use TIFF...

I don't see what the deal is about...
Hell if you use PSD you can just download the free CS2 and use that instead to open them...
I just don't see why how you can not open the images anymore.

[emalvick]

Like jatrax say i mean that the software will not be cloud based.
So all the files are on your computer and nothing is controlled (owned) by Adobe except the software.

If you don't pay your subscription you indeed lose the right to use the software but you still own the images.
Just use TIFF...

I don't see what the deal is about...
Hell if you use PSD you can just download the free CS2 and use that instead to open them...
I just don't see why how you can not open the images anymore.

But... If you are trying to use CS2 with PSD files created in CC, will you really be able to open them? I really do wonder what recourse we'd have with respect to PSD files.

On the other side of the coin, this is always something you face when you potentially change software. PSD files aren't really going to be supported in other programs, so you're going to have to convert them to some other format. Quitting your subscription would mean the same thing. You'd have to convert them to another format. And, you are going to lose some compatibility, which is to be expected.

So, I do think the whole CC option isn't the greatest, and I won't be switching to it, myself, because I find it a bit costly for my needs. But as far as file access goes, I'm not sure it is the complete end of the world. The only flaw in it is that if you quit your subscription, you'd have to convert your files before quitting rather than keeping an old version of photoshop around for when the need arises. But, as alluded to elsewhere, you really have to always be ready for a change as it only takes one change in hardware and OS's to leave you with the inability to ever install an outdated software again. I like to think I can hold out for CS6 indefinitely, but isn't there going to be a point where I may not even be able to activate it again? Software often only outlives hardware to the point where you can install it and activate it, which often depends on the company you buy your license from.

I only hope that in the near future some other companies will make more of a dent in Adobe's pie and start actually competing with it on the CS level and not just on the Elements level as seems to be the case these days.

[jatrax]

Currently not a problem for me as I use Lightroom and Elements (occasionally). I've no need or desire to learn PS. But I do not like the subscription model, maybe I just need to get used to the idea. Anyway, Adobe has said LR and Elements will not be subscription based, but that could change of course.

The reality is that there is no competition for full PS. There is competition for Lightroom and for Elements. Adobe can get away with just about anything with PS, not sure they could do the same if they went that route with LR or Elements as too many users would have an option to switch brands.

The question will be whether they gain net revenue from this scheme or not. If they test it and find it actually generates less revenue than the old model they will go back or try something else. If this does generate more than the old license model then it is a win for them and I foresee other companies following along.

[tclausen]

Like jatrax say i mean that the software will not be cloud based.
So all the files are on your computer and nothing is controlled (owned) by Adobe except the software.

If you don't pay your subscription you indeed lose the right to use the software but you still own the images.
Just use TIFF...

I don't see what the deal is about...

Well, I use other software for photo-editing, so what do I know....but, PSD files, they contain a lot of stuff that not necessarily is contained in a TIFF, no? Such as layers and masks and undo history and various other such things. I'd imagine that people save in PSD for a reason in the first place...

"Just use TIFF" is a little bit like telling someone who's afraid of flying to "just walk from New York to Rio"...theoretical, perhaps, possible but not at all practical (and perhaps a notch condescending).

Yeah, I can see what the big deal is about for file "ownership", and Adobe is most decidedly not doing the most beneficial thing for the consumer here.

I can also see what the big deal is for somebody investing in learning a tool, only to (on a whim, when Adobe goes belly-up, or when the Internet goes down, or when that somebody is not able to keep coughing up money every month such as a student or a retiree) have it yanked from their hands and their investment in learning wasted.....

It most certainly is a very big deal that Adobe has gone in this direction. Not [just?] in a theoretical "just use TIFF" sense, but in a very real, practical sense. It makes Adobe / Photoshop a decidedly poor choice of tool.

[tclausen]

Currently not a problem for me as I use Lightroom and Elements (occasionally). I've no need or desire to learn PS. But I do not like the subscription model, maybe I just need to get used to the idea. Anyway, Adobe has said LR and Elements will not be subscription based, but that could change of course.

Heh, the words out of a corporate mouth should always be heard with the (silent) addendum of "...until we change our minds".

The reality is that there is no competition for full PS. There is competition for Lightroom and for Elements. Adobe can get away with just about anything with PS, not sure they could do the same if they went that route with LR or Elements as too many users would have an option to switch brands.

That is quite possible - but it is also true that for a great many users, Photoshop is really a huge overkill. I used CS2 (or was it CS?) back in the day. I think I was an advanced user of it, as I guess that I used about 10% of its features....the other 90%....well, I am pretty sure that there're pro's out there who need it, and that's great.

My only reason for using PS back in the day was, btw., that it was the only tool that I knew of, that did proper color management. Fortunately that has changed.

Already when Adobe wanted me to pay full price (again) to use my PowerPC PhotoShop CS2 on my new Intel-based Mac, I took that as a warning that it was a company a little too enthusiastic about shafting their customers....

The question will be whether they gain net revenue from this scheme or not. If they test it and find it actually generates less revenue than the old model they will go back or try something else. If this does generate more than the old license model then it is a win for them and I foresee other companies following along.

That's a risk/possibility, indeed.

[Anvh]

Seems the questions are about the files so here are the answers.

PSD can and even must be saved in compatibility mode so that light room, elements or another version of photoshop can open them.

TIFF support layers and masks. I use tiff almost exclusively with photoshop. I understand this something photoshop ads so I've no idea how other programs handles that.
For single layered file tiff is actually advices by adobe.
Seems gimp can handle layered tiff and cs2 also van so... Yeah I don't see a problem here.

There are 2 free programs that can handle the files.
Seems to me you are searching for problems...