Did you leave Adobe? Where did you go?

woodworm · 07-03-2018, 02:50 PM - **1 Like**

Hey chaps - it was me that started this thread (feels like a long time ago - we've won a penalty shoot out since then!)

I can afford the Adobe subscription, I just don't want to take on another subscription (I have Amazon Prime, Netflix and other subs), it's just that I realise that my life could change a lot if I was no longer in a position for all of that - and in my family, only 'I' would gain from the Adobe subs, where as we all gain from the previous ... hence I'm looking for something that I can safeguard my hobby!

It is also possible that I will have lots of money in the future but then you will all be posting about how I'm moving to Sony

rangercarp · 07-03-2018, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by woodworm

Hey chaps - it was me that started this thread (feels like a long time ago - we've won a penalty shoot out since then!)

Thanks for starting this thread. I really appreciated the earlier posts where users suggested alternate PP software that they have tried and found adequate for their needs, or tried and found lacking. This type of discussion is most helpful. On the other hand, the suggestion that we should all just stick with Adobe is getting old. I can AFFORD $120 per year for the subscription. But I do not want to spend that much on PP software. I would rather spend that money on other things.

The point of this thread is to discuss alternatives to lightroom. For those of you who are happy with Adobe, that's great! I am happy for you and I respect your decision. Please show the same respect to those of us who are not happy, instead of trying to tell us why we should be happy.

**BigMackCam** · 07-03-2018, 04:26 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by rangercarp

The point of this thread is to discuss alternatives to lightroom. For those of you who are happy with Adobe, that's great! I am happy for you and I respect your decision. Please show the same respect to those of us who are not happy, instead of trying to tell us why we should be happy.

In fairness, the title of the thread (and the OP's question) asks whether members have left Adobe, and if so, what alternative(s) they chose. Although I personally chose to leave the Adobe toolset (and I'm happy with my choices), I think it's relevant to the question and extremely useful (certainly interesting) for the OP and other folks to hear from people who've stayed with Adobe and why

**Mikesul** · 07-03-2018, 07:33 PM

This has been an interesting and valuable thread.

**fs999** · 07-04-2018, 02:36 AM

Tried Ps and Lr a long time a go but was not convinced. I use PaintShop Pro, with Topaz Labs plugins, since then and I'm very happy.

**Rondec** · 07-04-2018, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Barry Pearson

I'm a hobbyist photographer, and a not-rich pensioner. I subscribe to CC. Why?

I can squeeze image quality out of old photos taken using old cameras and old lenses that probably couldn't be obtained at the time. I can use image-improving features of Lightroom and Photoshop that once didn't exist in the products. For example by using "Shake Reduction" that (I believe) only exists in CC versions of Photoshop.

The trickle of new capability in Lightroom and Photoshop over time makes my cameras and lenses appear more expensive that they were. It may become possible to use cheaper (or older) equipment to achieve the same end-result.

I've just revisited some of my photos taken with a *istD in 2004, 2005, 2006. I used the latest Lightroom Process Version 4, including the latest versions of noise reduction and sharpening, etc, I think some people would be surprised at what can be obtained from cheaper and/or older equipment when the latest software is used. Here is the thread showing the results:
Some old photos taken with a *istD: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I suspect a large number of the 12-million-plus subscribers to CC are neither professionals nor wealthy. Instead, like me, they have done a cost-benefit analysis which sees the subscription as a good deal.

(People might respond that they would buy updates to perpetual licence products to obtain those features. But that is now irrelevant: the recent very good Adobe financial results tell Adobe that they probably have it right! They are not about to switch back to perpetual licencing for their top-end products.So everyone needs to do their own cost-benefit analysis. Not based on what older software products could do, but on what the latest products could do for them. Perhaps they would be better off delaying buying new equipment in favour of subscribing to better software that makes that new equipment less urgent? Or that would simply save them time so that they could get out and take more photos?)

I suppose. I guess I'm pretty satisfied with the results I'm getting at present. I'm not likely to go back and reprocess a bunch of K100 images. even though they might look better with Lightroom 6.

The reason for Adobe's model is because they weren't able to turn out enough stand out improvements to get folks to upgrade every time they released a new version of Photoshop or Lightroom. Yes, there are incremental improvements that come out over time, but when Adobe would release a new version, it would often run slower and was buggy up till a couple of updates had been released.

The enemy of awesome is good enough and at this point I find Lightroom 6 to be good enough and don't really want to put 120 dollars a year into Adobe's coffers ad infinitum. As much as Adobe tries to spin this that this helpful to photographers, they are doing it for their own bottom line and at some point in the future they will raise the price. Possibly they will split the package a bit and give some kind of basic package that is still 120 a year and then a pro package for a larger amount, who knows? But they aren't going to sit on this price forever either.

I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but I know how these things work.

Barry Pearson · 07-04-2018, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by fs999

Tried Ps and Lr a long time a go but was not convinced. I use PaintShop Pro, with Topaz Labs plugins, since then and I'm very happy.

This is purely for the record, since you are very happy.

There has been a massive increase in performance and capability in both Lightroom and Photoshop since they were last available on perpetual licence.

Especially Lightroom, which now comes in two flavours: the Classic desktop-based version, and the new Cloud-based version.

---------- Post added 4th Jul 2018 at 11:11 AM ----------

Originally posted by Rondec

As much as Adobe tries to spin this that this helpful to photographers, they are doing it for their own bottom line and at some point in the future they will raise the price. Possibly they will split the package a bit and give some kind of basic package that is still 120 a year and then a pro package for a larger amount, who knows? But they aren't going to sit on this price forever either.

I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but I know how these things work.

Chuckle! Yes, of course Adobe are doing it for their bottom line!

And their recent record-breaking financial results demonstrate that their current subscription scheme, at the current prices, is very good indeed for their bottom line:
Adobe reveals record-breaking quarterly revenue in Q2 2018: Digital Photography Review

Adobe are astute enough not to cause significant numbers of their current subscribers, (over 12 million of them), to cancel their subscriptions and go elsewhere. And astute enough to to keep prices at a level where they can attract yet more subscribers.

**fs999** · 07-04-2018, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Barry Pearson

There has been a massive increase in performance and capability in both Lightroom and Photoshop since they were last available on perpetual licence.

In fact I was not very happy that Lr putted files everywhere on my disk and as I'm storing my photos on my disk it would double the needed space...

**Oakland Rob** · 07-04-2018, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by fs999

In fact I was not very happy that Lr putted files everywhere on my disk and as I'm storing my photos on my disk it would double the needed space...

Huh? do you mean your photo files? Lr doesn't put any photo anywhere but where you tell it to. You have the option to add, move or copy at import. Your choice. There's no reason to create duplicates. It does create previews, as any similar parametric editor will. If you don't like that model, then choose a photo file browser, like Photo Mechanic, Bridge, etc.

Barry Pearson · 07-04-2018, 08:17 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by fs999

In fact I was not very happy that Lr putted files everywhere on my disk and as I'm storing my photos on my disk it would double the needed space...

The way I use Lightroom, I control precisely where my image files are on my disk! They are only there once. Then Lightroom doesn't alter them at all. Its edits are non-destructive.

I use the classic date hierarchy for folders: "My Pictures > 2018 > 2018-06 > 10 RAF Cosford Airshow". That is how they look in Windows Explorer, and how they look in Lightroom. I keep the image file names that the camera gave them. Lightroom accepts those.

I have no idea why/how you were having problems Sorry!

**Kobie** · 07-05-2018, 03:05 PM

I have Photoshop but I guess my brain is wired differently. I've tried and tried to wrap my head around it but just can't.
I use a basically unknown software called Chasys Draw IES (Image Editing Suite) and I've been happy with it for my needs (more advanced editing).
For raw, I use DXO. I couldn't do both Lightroom AND Photoshop and had Photoshop before DXO.
Now if I could just wrap my head around Photoshop....

**Mikesul** · 07-05-2018, 03:16 PM

It is complex software and rather cobbled together long ago but in the end does the same things other editing software does. It just often has more options. Figure our one or two things you want to do and try those. Do not worry about all the other things you could do or ways you could do what you want.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Abstract Sometimes you have to go up, to go down.	Bob Harris	Post Your Photos!	15	04-05-2017 11:34 AM
Nature Softly will I leave you.	Tonytee	Post Your Photos!	3	09-10-2016 08:55 PM
Nature You go that way and I will go this way.	DarkShadow	Post Your Photos!	2	06-07-2015 07:25 AM
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 Software vs. Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Software Update	ASheffield	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	05-08-2014 05:52 AM

07-03-2018, 02:50 PM - 1 Like	#106
woodworm Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: North Wales Posts: 266 Original Poster	Hey chaps - it was me that started this thread (feels like a long time ago - we've won a penalty shoot out since then!) I can afford the Adobe subscription, I just don't want to take on another subscription (I have Amazon Prime, Netflix and other subs), it's just that I realise that my life could change a lot if I was no longer in a position for all of that - and in my family, only 'I' would gain from the Adobe subs, where as we all gain from the previous ... hence I'm looking for something that I can safeguard my hobby! It is also possible that I will have lots of money in the future but then you will all be posting about how I'm moving to Sony

07-03-2018, 03:14 PM	#107
rangercarp Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Southern Michigan Posts: 437	Originally posted by woodworm Hey chaps - it was me that started this thread (feels like a long time ago - we've won a penalty shoot out since then!) Thanks for starting this thread. I really appreciated the earlier posts where users suggested alternate PP software that they have tried and found adequate for their needs, or tried and found lacking. This type of discussion is most helpful. On the other hand, the suggestion that we should all just stick with Adobe is getting old. I can AFFORD $120 per year for the subscription. But I do not want to spend that much on PP software. I would rather spend that money on other things. The point of this thread is to discuss alternatives to lightroom. For those of you who are happy with Adobe, that's great! I am happy for you and I respect your decision. Please show the same respect to those of us who are not happy, instead of trying to tell us why we should be happy.

07-03-2018, 04:26 PM - 2 Likes	#108
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,682	Originally posted by rangercarp The point of this thread is to discuss alternatives to lightroom. For those of you who are happy with Adobe, that's great! I am happy for you and I respect your decision. Please show the same respect to those of us who are not happy, instead of trying to tell us why we should be happy. In fairness, the title of the thread (and the OP's question) asks whether members have left Adobe, and if so, what alternative(s) they chose. Although I personally chose to leave the Adobe toolset (and I'm happy with my choices), I think it's relevant to the question and extremely useful (certainly interesting) for the OP and other folks to hear from people who've stayed with Adobe and why

07-03-2018, 07:33 PM	#109
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	This has been an interesting and valuable thread.

07-04-2018, 02:36 AM	#110
fs999 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Luxembourg Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,645	Tried Ps and Lr a long time a go but was not convinced. I use PaintShop Pro, with Topaz Labs plugins, since then and I'm very happy.

07-04-2018, 02:54 AM	#111
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	Originally posted by Barry Pearson I'm a hobbyist photographer, and a not-rich pensioner. I subscribe to CC. Why? I can squeeze image quality out of old photos taken using old cameras and old lenses that probably couldn't be obtained at the time. I can use image-improving features of Lightroom and Photoshop that once didn't exist in the products. For example by using "Shake Reduction" that (I believe) only exists in CC versions of Photoshop. The trickle of new capability in Lightroom and Photoshop over time makes my cameras and lenses appear more expensive that they were. It may become possible to use cheaper (or older) equipment to achieve the same end-result. I've just revisited some of my photos taken with a istD in 2004, 2005, 2006. I used the latest Lightroom Process Version 4, including the latest versions of noise reduction and sharpening, etc, I think some people would be surprised at what can be obtained from cheaper and/or older equipment when the latest* software is used. Here is the thread showing the results: Some old photos taken with a istD: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review I suspect a large number of the 12-million-plus subscribers to CC are neither professionals nor wealthy. Instead, like me, they have done a cost-benefit analysis which sees the subscription as a good deal. (People might respond that they would buy updates to perpetual licence products to obtain those features. But that is now irrelevant: the recent very good Adobe financial results tell Adobe that they probably have it right! They are not about to switch back to perpetual licencing for their top-end products.So everyone needs to do their own cost-benefit analysis. Not based on what older* software products could do, but on what the latest products could do for them. Perhaps they would be better off delaying buying new equipment in favour of subscribing to better software that makes that new equipment less urgent? Or that would simply save them time so that they could get out and take more photos?) I suppose. I guess I'm pretty satisfied with the results I'm getting at present. I'm not likely to go back and reprocess a bunch of K100 images. even though they might look better with Lightroom 6. The reason for Adobe's model is because they weren't able to turn out enough stand out improvements to get folks to upgrade every time they released a new version of Photoshop or Lightroom. Yes, there are incremental improvements that come out over time, but when Adobe would release a new version, it would often run slower and was buggy up till a couple of updates had been released. The enemy of awesome is good enough and at this point I find Lightroom 6 to be good enough and don't really want to put 120 dollars a year into Adobe's coffers ad infinitum. As much as Adobe tries to spin this that this helpful to photographers, they are doing it for their own bottom line and at some point in the future they will raise the price. Possibly they will split the package a bit and give some kind of basic package that is still 120 a year and then a pro package for a larger amount, who knows? But they aren't going to sit on this price forever either. I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but I know how these things work.

07-04-2018, 03:00 AM	#112
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by fs999 Tried Ps and Lr a long time a go but was not convinced. I use PaintShop Pro, with Topaz Labs plugins, since then and I'm very happy. This is purely for the record, since you are very happy. There has been a massive increase in performance and capability in both Lightroom and Photoshop since they were last available on perpetual licence. Especially Lightroom, which now comes in two flavours: the Classic desktop-based version, and the new Cloud-based version. ---------- Post added 4th Jul 2018 at 11:11 AM ---------- Originally posted by Rondec As much as Adobe tries to spin this that this helpful to photographers, they are doing it for their own bottom line and at some point in the future they will raise the price. Possibly they will split the package a bit and give some kind of basic package that is still 120 a year and then a pro package for a larger amount, who knows? But they aren't going to sit on this price forever either. I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but I know how these things work. Chuckle! Yes, of course Adobe are doing it for their bottom line! And their recent record-breaking financial results demonstrate that their current subscription scheme, at the current prices, is very good indeed for their bottom line: Adobe reveals record-breaking quarterly revenue in Q2 2018: Digital Photography Review Adobe are astute enough not to cause significant numbers of their current subscribers, (over 12 million of them), to cancel their subscriptions and go elsewhere. And astute enough to to keep prices at a level where they can attract yet more subscribers.

07-04-2018, 06:43 AM	#113
fs999 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Luxembourg Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,645	Originally posted by Barry Pearson There has been a massive increase in performance and capability in both Lightroom and Photoshop since they were last available on perpetual licence. In fact I was not very happy that Lr putted files everywhere on my disk and as I'm storing my photos on my disk it would double the needed space...

07-04-2018, 08:12 AM	#114
Oakland Rob Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Bay Area California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 798	Originally posted by fs999 In fact I was not very happy that Lr putted files everywhere on my disk and as I'm storing my photos on my disk it would double the needed space... Huh? do you mean your photo files? Lr doesn't put any photo anywhere but where you tell it to. You have the option to add, move or copy at import. Your choice. There's no reason to create duplicates. It does create previews, as any similar parametric editor will. If you don't like that model, then choose a photo file browser, like Photo Mechanic, Bridge, etc.

07-04-2018, 08:17 AM - 1 Like	#115
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by fs999 In fact I was not very happy that Lr putted files everywhere on my disk and as I'm storing my photos on my disk it would double the needed space... The way I use Lightroom, I control precisely where my image files are on my disk! They are only there once. Then Lightroom doesn't alter them at all. Its edits are non-destructive. I use the classic date hierarchy for folders: "My Pictures > 2018 > 2018-06 > 10 RAF Cosford Airshow". That is how they look in Windows Explorer, and how they look in Lightroom. I keep the image file names that the camera gave them. Lightroom accepts those. I have no idea why/how you were having problems Sorry!

07-05-2018, 03:05 PM	#116
Kobie Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Bowmanville Photos: Albums Posts: 1,211	I have Photoshop but I guess my brain is wired differently. I've tried and tried to wrap my head around it but just can't. I use a basically unknown software called Chasys Draw IES (Image Editing Suite) and I've been happy with it for my needs (more advanced editing). For raw, I use DXO. I couldn't do both Lightroom AND Photoshop and had Photoshop before DXO. Now if I could just wrap my head around Photoshop....

07-05-2018, 03:16 PM	#117
Mikesul Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 7,594	It is complex software and rather cobbled together long ago but in the end does the same things other editing software does. It just often has more options. Figure our one or two things you want to do and try those. Do not worry about all the other things you could do or ways you could do what you want.