Yes, choices were removed. That was unfortunate. I didn't really notice though because I have a need for photoshop and lightroom. Clearly you don't and that's fine. Besides, it's still only half my monthly coffee budget. Seems reasonable to me.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Tests Doubling the Price of Photography Plan With Photoshop and Lightroom
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I shoot both digital and film, and scan all of my color film.
Digital goes directly into Lightroom, and if I have to run 1 "keeper" out of 500+ into Photoshop it would be unusually high for me. Basically I use PS because I prefer things like its perspective correction tools to those in Lightroom. The other big reason is if I'm working with a long exposure(typically 30 seconds or more) and need to clone out a hot pixel. An exceptionally uncommon scenario is if I've let the sensor get unusually dirty, and said dust is conspicuous and distracting-getting rid of it is tedious, but Photoshop is many, many times better than Lightroom.
My film scans, by contrast, almost never see Lightroom but almost every one of them sees Photoshop. Even with ICE, I still generally need to manually take care of some dust and scratches. The spot healing brush is generally the tool of choice for this, although sometimes the clone stamp is better. There's no comparison between these tools in Photoshop and Lightroom.
BTW, I'm still using Lightroom 6 and Photoshop CS6-I bought them both outright. Unlike the lens that I didn't hesitate to drop $400 on this past week, though(Nikkor AI-S 35mm f/1.4), I couldn't buy them used and also can't resell them to recover some of my money eventually. I rarely buy new photo equipment.
CS4 & High Sierra here, and yeah ... as a hobbyist ... I guess it's time to learn how to use Affinity, and/or find a way to go back to GIMP. I just can't justify a monthly subscription for software I only use on occasion.
Luminar is a good app. I switched to that from Aperture > Lightroom > LuminarAs a serious hobbyist, I can justify the $10/month rate. I cannot justify twice that. I would probably go LR only for that price then find a PS alternative.
I bought Premiere elements for $99. When you put it in advanced mode it has a lot of the functionality and no subscription.
It's called being spoiled and using a Keurig
. Ever since I discovered this machine that makes any kind of coffee with one button, I've been hooked. I equate it to switching from a washboard to a washing machine. Much more expensive and not quite as good, but much easier.While reasonable to you. Everyone else that uses it as a hobby and doesn't make money out of it, its a big mistake by Adobe. I had a year on Lightroom (might have been shorter) then switched to Luminar which has a much better interface than Lightroom.
Then you might want to expand your horizons and explore the modern age.
Any real photography, even just product shots is an art if done correctly and with a proper eye.
Your comments are belittling and arrogant. Apparently all should bow down to your greatness. Sense some insecurity.
Plus - if you stop really doing much photography you can keep the current version of PS or LR you have for as long as you want and continue to open all the photos you worked on for as long as it keeps working on your machine and that is usually a very long time. With this subscription garbage you're going to pay Adobe every month whatever they like for the rest of your life if you don't want to lose the work you put in; or start again with the RAW files and re-do the edits in something else.
I did get suckered into subscribing for a year, got a load of apps I had no use for at all and every time I edited a photo I thought "I'm going to have to do this again one day when Adobe hikes prices beyond what I can pay".
Adobe got away with jamming a subscription model because they were the only game in town not just for professionals (for whom the subscription is a pretty reasonable cost of doing business which pays itself back) but for the vast numbers of people who just wanted to edit a few photos in PS every year. Fortunately they are no-longer the only game in town.
No I just consider painting and photographing as two distinct activities. And yes a photographer needing painting to get great pictures is a painter and no photographer...
MS has gone to a subscription model to solve the issue of pirated asian software use. AAPL is increasingly shifting to a monthly fee model. There are many others. The era of software in a box is dying.
Although you can keep using older versions of PS and LR for as long as you keep an OS that supports them running, there IS a downside for the RAW shooter.
Every new camera that comes to the market(or at least the ones that use manufacturer-specific RAW formats) requires an update to the RAW converter backing the software.
My main DSLRs are a Nikon D600 and D800-I use a few others, but these are my newest. Legacy software/hardware compatibility dictates that Snow Leopard is my primary OS on my Mac Pro. CS6 will run on Snow Leopard, but not LR6(LR4 is the newest). I can open D800 files in Photoshop, but not in Lightroom, in SL.
Consequently, to do my photo editing I either reboot into High Sierra(running Mojave requires replacing the GPU, which consequently will not allow me to run SL) or just go to my MBP also running High Sierra. The latter usually wins
. Adobe was at least considerate enough last year to push an update to LR6 that added support for the D850 and Sony A7RIII. The word I heard at the time, though, was that 6.14 would be the last LR6 update.
Generally agree with that. As I'm fully Canon I get to use their free DPP, which has a clunky interface but works extremely well with Canon cameras and lenses, that's my current Lightroom alternative. Canon has an easier job because they only have to support their own hardware.
I would also happily buy Lightroom Classic if they would sell it to me for .. $200 .. $300? I'll keep it until there's something cool, or new camera support, in a newer version and buy it again. I don't need weekly updates and I don't want to rent cloud storage.
I think Adobe's plan was to offer the camera bundle with 20Gb storage and get people starting to use the CC versions of the apps and then need more storage, because 20Gb's not a lot. However LR CC is nowhere near as capable as LR Classic and has a long way to go before it is. I tried them both, for all the cute synching between apps and devices for the CC apps, Classic with an old-style workflow was much better. They sell PS Elements outright, I think they should sell LR Classic, they'll pick up a ton of users who won't rent software and don't need 1Tb of cloud storage.
Try Affinity Photo. Unless you have some pretty esoteric workflows and plug-ins, you’ll be fine.
[doublepost=1556943782][/doublepost]
Interestingly, while at first it certainly seemed so, it turned out it wasn’t. It takes advantage of a lot of macOS specific technologies and APIs, but its engine was written in good ol’ C for portability. In fact, there are now great iOS *and* Windows versions of the suite.
And while the interface is very much more Mac-oriented, it is in fact less native than, say, the kinda hideous and clunky (for someone used to Ai and Freehand, at least) CorelDraw (and I debuted on that back in the day). Try and open Corel’s toolbar customization interface and Affinity’s and you’ll see just how much more native and HIG/Aqua-compliant it is when compared to Affinity or anything Adobe pumped out for the last 15 years.
Last edited:
This is why I am against the subscription model yes it looks good at first but then bamm it’s higher how many times has Netflix upped its pricing every time I get an email from Netflix I’m afraid they are raising their prices again.. well I guess this is life....
If you are exchanging files it's very difficult to find studios, artists and clients that don't rely on Adobe.
I work with design/motion graphics/interactive industries. They all use Adobe products big time.
Like I mentioned, there are some cases you can get away with different software but the majority of the creatives uses Adobe.
I hate the subscription model. Wish Adobe would go back but don't see it unfortunately.
Last edited:
I assumed you pay monthly because $27.49 seems like a monthly fee rather than an upfront annual fee. Also due to the fee change, which is illegal under modern contracts. So it was either you’re under a modern contract that includes a fee change clause, or you’re under an older contract. I’d love to be able to pay $27.49 per year, that’s so cheap it doesn’t seem realistic as a yearly fee.
Last edited:
I don’t agree at all. None of the products you mention suddenly got or gets a 100% price increase without any change in functionality. This discussion is about squeezing consumers, not about the value of the product itself, which could very well be 19,99 but then they should have priced it properly from the get go.
For a professional photographer this might be just one of the costs (and photography is a low margin business nowadays for most), but jacking the price by 100% without increasing the value for the consumer even a little bit is a slap in the face of your loyal base.
edit: this seems like someone did a very basic price elasticity analysis at Adobe HQ. They need to retain a little bit more than half of their existing consumer base to make this a positive game for them. I guess most of their really loyal consumers will be retained (professional photographers) and the least profitable consumers will leave the most (amateur photographers). Why are those the least profitable? They cost more to acquire through advertising and need more online support. This could be a play to reduce cost and focus more on the pro market.
Last edited:
I’ve been using Lightroom and Photoshop for a long time, but I’ve lately been slowly transitioning to On1 Photo RAW (really slowly since I’ve been so busy with other things lately). I haven’t learned much about it yet, but so far it’s been very good.
[doublepost=1556959003][/doublepost]When I got my Adobe CC subcription, I paid around 250-ish AUD for a year’s subscription (whole set). When it came time to renew I forgot the exact day it would expire (my fault), but it was annoying that they sent me an email hours before it expired telling me it will automatically renew. And then the subscription changed to 480-ish AUD.
[doublepost=1556959003][/doublepost]When I got my Adobe CC subcription, I paid around 250-ish AUD for a year’s subscription (whole set). When it came time to renew I forgot the exact day it would expire (my fault), but it was annoying that they sent me an email hours before it expired telling me it will automatically renew. And then the subscription changed to 480-ish AUD.
Parts of CS6 are 32-bit, and will not run beyond Mojave. In fact upgrading to Mojave may allow Adobe room to claim your serial number is counterfeit... (See their site and the relevant forum); if it so happens your serial is revoked they'll offer you a Cloud subscription.
The Adobe site right now is offering the current LR/PS/20GB $9.99 plan and a LR/1TB $9.99 plan.
That makes sense to offer one plan for desktop users and another for heavy LR/mobile/cloud users. And for those who want LR and PS plus 1TB storage, a more expensive plan would then be fair.
That makes sense to offer one plan for desktop users and another for heavy LR/mobile/cloud users. And for those who want LR and PS plus 1TB storage, a more expensive plan would then be fair.
They're probably trying to plug the gap in their income caused by people moving to competitors. I reckon thy're heading for a doom loop.
No one here ever said that painting and photography was the same thing. I'm not really sure why you think people using Photoshop are "painting" their photos. The program isn't called PAINTshop (I mean, that program does exist, but for this conversation we are talking about Lightroom and Photoshop, and the differences).
If I go to the beach and want a portrait of my kids with a sweeping sunset, I can't very well clear out the other 20-100 people there just so I can get a photo. I can strategically place my kids not near others, then clone out everyone later. I also might find a pretty alley of flowers somewhere, but on the other side is an ugly building. Flipping and cloning to the other side in post fixes that. It isn't painting. It's having a vision while taking a photo of what I want the end result to be, and then having the necessary post processing skills to acheive that vision. Not every location is a dream. yes, sometimes I do shoot things exactly as they are, but with not-in-studio portrait photography in particular, there are often things you simply can't control in camera, but take about 14 seconds to fix in post. I'm very active in some photo forums with working professionals - not just "pros" but people sponsored by Nikon, Canon, Sony, Profoto......these people ALL edit their photos in PS. They don't just stick to LR.
Times have moved on from old school darkrooms, and while many people are going back to film, that doesn't mean using PS is bad, or wrong, or silly, or amateur.
Last edited:
Must have missed the part where he said he painted or needed to paint.
If you’re doing anything other than adjusting levels/exposure, such as color, you are painting.