[othar]

As for myself, I enjoyed renting videos from the local store and returning the disks, but I've never liked the idea of paying to rent a downloaded stream (especially since they don't match the fidelity of a BluRay).

In my opinion this is not a good comparison for a software subscription model, because most people will rent a movie just for 1 or 2 viewings and that's it. If they really like a movie that much to watch it more often they will probably own a copy (except with Netflix and other subsciptions like that -> but then those movies are a byproduct of the new context they are interested in). Besides there is not a big difference in principle between renting a BluRay or a stream, you pay to watch a certain movie at home, the only difference is the medium how it is provided.

I see image processing softwares more like tools. Yes there are some things you would rent when needed, like a cement mixer or a hammer drill because you don't use them that often, but I wouldn't rent a simple hammer or a screwdriver, those are too often in use to rent in my opinion.

But I've had the basic Photoshop/Lightroom subscription for a few years now, replacing my old copies of CS3 etc. I pay about $150 CDN a year for the software (and don't really use Lightroom all that much), and it's been nice to have it up to date - sort of. I'm conservative with my computer equipment, and don't have the latest and greatest. But when the newer 2019 Photoshop version came out, my computer couldn't download it as I didn't have the newer OS. And it bugged me to be subscribing to have the latest software, without actually being able to get it.

This is also something I wouldn't be that happy with. If my hardware or software is no longer capable to process images from my newest camera in a satisfactory manner then an upgrade is necessary, but as long as everything is working fine (and not unconveniently slow) I don't wanna be forced to upgrade my system because of a software update.


That said, an Adobe subsciption can be beneficial if you use those programs for work as a professional photographer or the like, because they have some timesaving work processes integrated other programs might lack (so you need a workaround to achive the same goals) but as a hobby photographer I can take more time to get to those desired results without a problem.

---

Last edited by othar; 01-29-2021 at 01:54 AM.

[RobA_Oz]

I don’t use Lightroom, but I have been using CS5 for some considerable time, and CS3 for even longer. I’ve considered moving to CC in the past couple of years, but CS5 does everything I want on my 2009 MacBook Pro and my 2010 iMac. Even so, there one or two features in CC that may be useful occasionally, but not enough to persuade me to make the move.

However, it wasn’t a lack of features that spurred my reconsideration, recently, but the acquisition of a new MacBook Pro, that won’t fully run CS5 due to the move to 64-bit processing (I understand that some components will run, but the main Photoshop program won’t, although I may be wrong there). CS6 will run on the new MacBooks (though possibly not the M1-powered versions – mine is the last of the Intel MacBooks), as will the other processing software that have been mentioned here.

The upshot was that I was preparing to subscribe to CC when a combination of deals on a standalone version of ON1 yielded a cost that was less than a year’s CC subscription. While it means retraining to suit the new software, I haven’t found that to be much of a barrier, yet, and I do like what it can do, and it has a catalogue component, which some of the others don’t offer. So far, so good.

[sergeremy]

One can write software that phones home every time you use it but still sell a perpetual license. There is no technical reason why the billing needs to be subscription-based in order to make software harder to pirate.

Both scenarios are non starters for me - my photo and audio work is done on off-line computers. No perpetual windows updates for me, regularly ruining my perfectly working setup.

[Grimmus]

I thought I had a "perpetual license" when I bought those 4 rolls of Kodachrome with developing prepaid 😆 in the 90's.

Cost me $60......that adobe sub is looking cheaper now 😝

(BTW, not a fan of the subs model either so still using LR5 with the GIMP - just found add-ins for auto luminosity mask creation, woo-hoo!)

[PDL]

Lightroom 6 was the last version that was available without entering a subscription deal.

Unfortunately, recently yet another feature became unavailable. Following the loss of the map functionality and the ability to directly upload photos to Facebook, now it is the built-in face recognition that quit working.

Apparently, even the ability to create virtual copies is said to crash LR6 now.

Just a heads up what "perpetual license" means when it comes to Adobe. With the vast majority of other companies it means that the software will continue to work as is, save incompatibilities introduced by new operating systems. Adobe's Lightroom 6, on the other hand, with its dependence on time-limited third-party licenses, just keeps falling apart on its own.

The maps function in LR 6.14 failed in 2018 as shown by the link How to Re-enable Google Maps View in Lightroom Classic 6.14 .
Somewhere in this forum I told everyone about it, in 2018 when my vacation images were not updatable as they were in 2017. The cause was Google changing their Map API in order to monetize Google maps. ExiftoolGUI and GeoSetter map functions failed for the same reason. On the GeoSetter website, there is a short discussion about Google charging fees for a Map API go here:
A Minor Update after a Long Time - GeoSetter

Complaining about Adobe when it is Google who caused the issue is like beating a dead horse especially when some of us reported these "issues" two (2) years ago. The failure of LR v6.14 to get additional tools like "dehaze" and then the failure of the Map Module lead me to going to Capture One exclusively. I know that you don't like CO now so you are going to have to find something - or a combination of other tools - to meet your criteria.

Since I rarely use LR anymore, the loss of things like face recognition and virtual copies does not mean anything to me.

[Belcik]

Since I rarely use LR anymore, the loss of things like face recognition and virtual copies does not mean anything to me.

How did you migrate? Did you move photos from Lightroom to Capture One, or just left As Is and simply started a new workflow with it?


Отправлено с моего iPhone используя Tapatalk

[stevejo]

Anyone unhappy with the Adobe subscription model should check out Affinity. This has a one off payment (presumably for each major version), and is only about £45 for the Photo module. It is also on offer at present for 1/2 price. They are also offering a 3 month trial instead of the usual 10 day one. It is pretty feature rich and offers everything most photographers want. ( I don't have any commercial interest here).

[PDL]

How did you migrate? Did you move photos from Lightroom to Capture One, or just left As Is and simply started a new workflow with it?


Отправлено с моего iPhone используя Tapatalk

I have been using both CO since 2012 and I was on the LR beta for v1.0. I did not "migrate" my images from LR to CO, I ran them in parallel for several years.

I have my old laptop with LR (not enough screen real estate for CO) that I use on my vacations to share images with family and friends. Once home, I reload the images into CO where it is the only thing I use these days. Loading LR catalogues into CO came on way to late for it to be anything but a waste of efffor.

---------- Post added 01-29-21 at 01:06 AM ----------

Anyone unhappy with the Adobe subscription model should check out Affinity. This has a one off payment (presumably for each major version), and is only about £45 for the Photo module. It is also on offer at present for 1/2 price. They are also offering a 3 month trial instead of the usual 10 day one. It is pretty feature rich and offers everything most photographers want. ( I don't have any commercial interest here).

I use CO for the majority of my use and I use Affinity primarily for panoramas and such. I am not all that interested in using pixel based editors.

Back to the subject of this thread I talked about Google Maps failing off and on since 2006.

[BigMackCam]

Both scenarios are non starters for me - my photo and audio work is done on off-line computers. No perpetual windows updates for me, regularly ruining my perfectly working setup.

It doesn't have to be a frequent "phone home" licensing check. It could be a one time process requiring you to connect to the internet within, say, 30 days of installation so that the servers can register your machine ID and provide a registration key to your software. I know you do your photo and audio work offline, but I'm guessing you have wifi or ethernet adapters in your computers... so a one-time connection for registration would be OK.

[Rondec]

I understand the rationale behind griping about Adobe's subscription model. It's hard to shell out money for something you can't really see or touch. As for myself, I enjoyed renting videos from the local store and returning the disks, but I've never liked the idea of paying to rent a downloaded stream (especially since they don't match the fidelity of a BluRay).

But I've had the basic Photoshop/Lightroom subscription for a few years now, replacing my old copies of CS3 etc. I pay about $150 CDN a year for the software (and don't really use Lightroom all that much), and it's been nice to have it up to date - sort of. I'm conservative with my computer equipment, and don't have the latest and greatest. But when the newer 2019 Photoshop version came out, my computer couldn't download it as I didn't have the newer OS. And it bugged me to be subscribing to have the latest software, without actually being able to get it.

So, I got a newer computer that could run High Sierra, and downloaded the newer Photoshop.... and then they went and updated it to the 2020 version that wouldn't run on High Sierra. A new graphics card later, and I was able to run Catalina, and then get back up to date. So far, so good.

As for the subscription cost, people gripe about paying monthly or yearly for a bunch of data they can't see on their hard drive. But those same folks will think nothing about dropping $150 on some lens filter they use only once or twice a year. At least they can ooh and ahh with the unboxing, and imagine all the cool shots they will now be able to take. When I think back to the days when Photoshop alone was close to $1,000 (and it was only up to date for what, a year or so?) I think the subscription is a bargain.

And I'll repeat the point I've made before, but subscription made a huge amount of sense for Adobe. Far, far, far too many photographers would brag about having the latest and greatest Photoshop version, while I was still nursing my CS3. But far too many of them had pirated copies, which wasn't good for Adobe. Renting it out, month by month, has kept things a lot more honest out there, and I can't blame them.

I think piracy was an excuse for them to turn this model. They certainly could have implemented some other ways of circumventing folks stealing their software without making people pay every month for the software.

The issue to me is that I am a hobby photographer. I don't buy a bunch of filters all of the time or things like that. I did typically buy Lightroom every three years, whatever version was out and Elements every four to five years. So, that would typically cost me about 150 dollars every three years, which worked for me. I decided if I thought there was enough reason to upgrade or not.

I have no problem with Adobe wanting to squeeze their clients for as much as they can, but what feels like a good deal to pros can feel like gouging to those of us who are hobby photographers who didn't upgrade as frequently as Adobe wanted us to.

(I have never pirated a piece of software in my life and am always glad to pay for upgrades when I think they are worthwhile to me).

[gatorguy]

I thought I had a "perpetual license" when I bought those 4 rolls of Kodachrome with developing prepaid 😆 in the 90's.

Cost me $60......that adobe sub is looking cheaper now 😝

(BTW, not a fan of the subs model either so still using LR5 with the GIMP - just found add-ins for auto luminosity mask creation, woo-hoo!)

Reminds me of when I thought using Seattle Filmworks free film with paid processing was a smart idea back in the day.

[sergeremy]

It doesn't have to be a frequent "phone home" licensing check. It could be a one time process requiring you to connect to the internet within, say, 30 days of installation so that the servers can register your machine ID and provide a registration key to your software. I know you do your photo and audio work offline, but I'm guessing you have wifi or ethernet adapters in your computers... so a one-time connection for registration would be OK.

Yes Mike, I can live with a one-time registration verification - except on my music workstation which is set up too far for wifi to reach it, and 3G/4G don't come through either. I dare say I am rather happy about that. My unstated point however, was that I'm very much afraid the phone home tech is taking over (heck, one of my audio interfaces won't even re-install offline - I have to haul it and my computer back into my home to get it running), and I'm quite cross about that. I just hate everything being online (but I do appreciate much of what the internet has brought / brings to the modern day party).

[Ontarian50]

I see image processing softwares more like tools. Yes there are some things you would rent when needed, like a cement mixer or a hammer drill because you don't use them that often, but I wouldn't rent a simple hammer or a screwdriver, those are too often in use to rent in my opinion.

I don't think comparing software to screwdrivers and hammers is a fair comparison either. You buy a set of screwdrivers and you can pretty much use them for the rest of your life. Hammers can be passed down through the generations.

Software becomes obsolete far too quickly - especially if you're shelling out $1,000 for Photoshop. It doesn't take too long before you find you don't have some of the cool features of the newer release (and it's debatable how much you'd use it), or you find your new camera's raw files won't open, or you buy that new computer with the newer processors and OS, and your old version doesn't work so well, it at all.


If I were faced with buying a set of screwdrivers for $1,000 that became obsolete within a few years because they didn't fit the latest screws, yeah, I might consider renting a set I could hand in and upgrade every year or so, if it cost me less than $15 a month, and they sent me a new screwdriver in the mail every time a new screw head came out.


I get it, there are people who hate Adobe's subscription model, as they don't use it as much as their Netflix subscription, but it costs the same. But for those of us who do use the programs several times a week for a variety of purposes, the subscription method is a lot less painful than shelling out $1,000 a copy and watching it slowly go out of date. And again, comparing the number of $150 or so gadget purchases we hobby photographers buy in a year and get much less utility from to a subscription to top-grade software is painful ($300 artisenal neck straps, anyone?).

I do chat with a few photographers at times who are limping along with their old versions of PS or Elements, yet own top-grade newer cameras, and they gripe about not being able to open certain files, etc. etc. They seem determined to never buy into the subscription plan out of spite to Adobe. Yet they have that great big variable ND filter they bought a year and a half ago, but haven't got around to using it yet ....

[BigMackCam]

I get it, there are people who hate Adobe's subscription model, as they don't use it as much as their Netflix subscription, but it costs the same. But for those of us who do use the programs several times a week for a variety of purposes, the subscription method is a lot less painful than shelling out $1,000 a copy and watching it slowly go out of date. And again, comparing the number of $150 or so gadget purchases we hobby photographers buy in a year and get much less utility from to a subscription to top-grade software is painful ($300 artisenal neck straps, anyone?).

I do chat with a few photographers at times who are limping along with their old versions of PS or Elements, yet own top-grade newer cameras, and they gripe about not being able to open certain files, etc. etc. They seem determined to never buy into the subscription plan out of spite to Adobe. Yet they have that great big variable ND filter they bought a year and a half ago, but haven't got around to using it yet ....

The subscription model is much more easily justified for folks who use the tools several times weekly, week in, week out. For them, I can see how a subscription makes sense. Some weeks, I'm processing a few photos every day, while other weeks I won't process a single one. Occasionally - but at least a couple of times a year - I may go several weeks without processing any. So you can see how a GBP £360 subscription (three years @ £120 per year) makes less sense for me than the £100 (and five pence ) I previously paid for Lightroom 6 stand-alone. I may get regular updates and features with the subscription, but I can live with software that's three years out of date so long as it does what I originally paid for.

The thing is, with Darktable, RawTherapee and GIMP, I don't ever have to use out of date software, because they're frequently updated with new features. Are Lightroom and Photoshop more polished? Certainly... although the gap is narrowing much faster of late. But, as a proficient Lightroom user, I can confidently say there's nothing I need in raw conversion and editing terms that the open source tools can't handle admirably... and the output, whatever anyone may think or say, is of equal quality. I don't get any reduction in quality of results by using open source software. The workflow is sometimes a bit clunkier, sure, but it's constantly getting better and better... and you quickly get used to it.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that Adobe's subscriptions aren't good value. That's entirely subjective. Actually, for those who use the tools frequently enough, I think they can be decent value for money. But £360, whilst not a lot of money to me, is nonetheless significant. I don't splash out $300 on neck straps, I can tell you that right now. My last photography purchase - other than a set of batteries for a pocket film camera - was the Pentax HD FA35 f/2, back in December 2019. It cost me less than three years subscription to Adobe's base plan, and I can process all the photos I take with it in Darktable or RawTherapee... for as long as I want, as frequently or infrequently as I choose, at no extra cost.

It's just a different choice, different priorities

[othar]

I don't think comparing software to screwdrivers and hammers is a fair comparison either.

You buy a set of screwdrivers and you can pretty much use them for the rest of your life. Hammers can be passed down through the generations.

Software becomes obsolete far too quickly - especially if you're shelling out $1,000 for Photoshop. It doesn't take too long before you find you don't have some of the cool features of the newer release (and it's debatable how much you'd use it), or you find your new camera's raw files won't open, or you buy that new computer with the newer processors and OS, and your old version doesn't work so well, it at all.

If I were faced with buying a set of screwdrivers for $1,000 that became obsolete within a few years because they didn't fit the latest screws, yeah, I might consider renting a set I could hand in and upgrade every year or so, if it cost me less than $15 a month, and they sent me a new screwdriver in the mail every time a new screw head came out.

I get it, there are people who hate Adobe's subscription model, as they don't use it as much as their Netflix subscription, but it costs the same. But for those of us who do use the programs several times a week for a variety of purposes, the subscription method is a lot less painful than shelling out $1,000 a copy and watching it slowly go out of date. And again, comparing the number of $150 or so gadget purchases we hobby photographers buy in a year and get much less utility from to a subscription to top-grade software is painful ($300 artisenal neck straps, anyone?).

I do chat with a few photographers at times who are limping along with their old versions of PS or Elements, yet own top-grade newer cameras, and they gripe about not being able to open certain files, etc. etc. They seem determined to never buy into the subscription plan out of spite to Adobe. Yet they have that great big variable ND filter they bought a year and a half ago, but haven't got around to using it yet ....

If someone always wants (or jobwise needs) the newest and shiniest, then you are right, software becomes obsolete pretty fast, but I don't feel the need to update my software at the moment because I can still create everything I want with my current processing software [LR 5.7 + Nik collection + Hugin + PaintShop Pro 2019 (Gimp before that)]. In the last 6 years I spent about $150 on processing software, this would buy me about 1 year in the subscription model, as a mere enthusiast I don't see the point (but to be fair I don't see the point in spending $1000 on Photoshop when not using it for a business either).


Granted, I don't buy a new camera on a regular basis. I use my K-3 for over 6 years now, but I plan to get a new camera at the end of the year and along with that I will probably upgrade my PC (and maybe my software too)