Ridiculous comment but trolls with troll. There are very few photographers in the world that “don’t blink” over a $5,000 lens or camera body. In fact, many of us battle with ourselves for months and months over whether to pull the trigger or not. We agonise then work hard and save hard to pay for them. We sit and work out how long it will take to pay for itself. Eventually, we may or may not purchase.
A good lens may last 20 years or more, or at least have a significant resale value somewhere down the line. Camera bodies, less so, but they are tools of the trade. Necessities to do the job.
Now, at $240 a year, the Adobe CC Photography Plan is no longer cheap. Over the lifetime of a good lens - say 20 years, it’s very close to the same price! And that’s assuming the price stays fixed for that long which, of course, it won’t.
Will photographers pay the increased price? Of course we will. But we will also look at competing products and the potential return on investment. The second another product does more for less money, many photographers will switch.
What I fail to understand is how something that was worth $9.99 a month yesterday is worth $19.99 today.
“Doesn’t blink” indeed.
From what I understand it was always meant to be a promotion. They charge $19.99/mo for their other standalone apps, like if you want Illustrator. Actually I just looked it up and it's $20.99 now.
[doublepost=1557155267][/doublepost]
yes photographer will expend the money on the equipment, but they will get the use of said equipment for years to come, is not like nikon or cannon are renting you the lens, Adobe subscription is extortion plain and simple, I was paying for $29 a month for cc then they hike it to $50 with a year that’s $600 a year after year…do you buy lenses year after year?
Yes, I'm always expanding my lens lineup. Also over time my lenses don't keep up with my camera technology. My Canon L lenses designed in the late 90s can't resolve what modern 50MP cameras can today. Newer versions are custom designed for the newer sensors. Also I switched from Canon to Sony because Canon has fallen so far behind so I've been building up the library again and Sony has way more options with the short sensor distance able to adapt all sorts of lenses.
[doublepost=1557155863][/doublepost]
I'm a hobbyist photographer, still hanging on tightly to the last version of Lightroom that wasn't in CC. I don't break my camera out often enough to justify $120/yr on Lightroom. It was one thing when a new version came out every 18 months or so, and was $100 to upgrade. But sorry, I just can't.
Photographers who are making money from their work shouldn't have a huge problem with the change in pricing. It's the hobbyists who got hooked on features that are going to suffer here.
Yeah, it would be smart for them to offer a "Lightroom Elements" for people who are hobbyists. Otherwise there are a lot of solid alternatives out there for less money.
I spent 2 grand on Adobe Design Premium, which I can no longer use with current macOS. Maybe I should have bought the Windows version and that would still run on Win10.
If I had bought a lens at the same time as I bought Design premium, that lens would still be compatible wouldn't it? Or would the lens manufacturer be calling me asking for money every month?
Well first of all it should work on both Mac and PC, at least that's how it worked back in the day when I had it. Second of all, it depends on when you bought it. Professional photographers regularly send their lenses in to get them cleaned and inspected. It's a part of the pro services package that many manufacturers sell. Also lenses break and require repair or replacement. Also lenses don't keep up with technology. For instance many lenses being sold in the late 2000s were optimized for film photography. As digital sensors have become more densely packed over the years, this has led to more chromatic aberration and less ability to resolve these sharper images in the 40-60MP range. This led me to the decision to switch systems entirely from Canon to Sony as I was going to have to replace most of my lenses anyway and Sony's imaging sensors were far superior. So yeah, nothing is permanent.
[doublepost=1557155978][/doublepost]
Following your logic, you can't freak out if they raise the bread price to 10 bucks a loaf because you already spent 20k on a car? Da**** is wrong with some people
See what I wrote above. Adobe has always charged $19.99/mo or higher for their standalone apps. This was started as a promotional price that stuck around for a long time.
[doublepost=1557156059][/doublepost]
Difference is, I would OWN all those other items and I can sell them to whom ever I please at a later date, and NONE of the photo's I have taken are held hostage by someone else proprietary software.
I do NOT rent software, and I will NOT pay to release my work from a hostage situation.
Your photos aren't being held hostage. That's a complete mischaracterization at best and an outright lie at worst. You can take your photos wherever you please unless you trashed your RAWs and have no backups and no means to download them from the cloud, which would be weird.
[doublepost=1557156297][/doublepost]
That's not really the way it goes and you know it.
Photographer: reads review for a fancy new lens. Deliberates about it for 2 years; finally decides to ask the wife. Two more years pass and as he combines 2 birthdays, major anniversary and 2 christmases to finally be allowed to buy said lens. In the meantime, that camera body is getting old. Goes to sell left kidney, but realizes that he lost that back in 2013 when he made the mistake of buying a "Trash Can" Mac Pro.
In the meantime, catches "The Speech" from the wife when she sees YA monthly Adobe subscription fee on the credit card bill and reminds the Photographer that he hasn't touched any of the pics from six months when the family went to Disney .. and that her sister's husband gets just fine results from just the kiosk down at COSTCO.
Not for an actual photographer. Also I run the finances, not my wife. You're confusing "photographer" with "some guy who likes to take pictures." It would be like saying you're a cinematographer because you recorded your niece's birthday party on your phone, or you're an EMT because you cleaned and bandaged your son's wound. Words matter. But as I said above, it would be great if Adobe offered Lightroom Elements for hobbyists. I just don't know if they want to enter that market.
[doublepost=1557156378][/doublepost]
Yeah sure, for those professionals earning a living from it, the cost of Adobe CC is a drop in the ocean of their costs. But for us hobbyists, who outnumber the pros by a large number, these prices matter. I have $4,000 worth of camera equipment, and make no money from photography, and I wasn't willing to pay the $120/yr. Not because it's only $120, but because if I live another 50 years, its $6,000. And now they want to make it $12,000. That all said, I'm guessing their subscription model must be working out well if they're experimenting with doubling it. For me, I'm sick of paying rent, so have been looking at all my subscriptions, and cutting them to the bone.
As I said above, they should make Lightroom Elements, but I don't think they care.
[doublepost=1557156471][/doublepost]
I think, everyone generally hates subscription model. RIP.
I like it. It makes everything a simple fixed cost for taxes and comes with other perks we didn't have before such as cloud storage and mobile apps.
[doublepost=1557156588][/doublepost]
Love how you start with high prices of things that are justifiably high priced to say we should all be cool with adobe doubling prices for no reason.
How about “Ya’ll have $30k cars and can’t spend $20 on a cup of coffee as Starbucks raises prices? Ya’ll suck”
No the two aren’t comparable.
Yes they are. They are all business expenses for photography. You're comparing apples and oranges. You made the non-comparison comparison here.
Adobe has charged $19.99/month and more recently $20.99/month for standalone apps for years now. The initial photography plan was more of a promotion. Like if you wanted just Illustrator it would always be around $20/mo.
[doublepost=1557156666][/doublepost]
Damn, I'm making off like a bandit. I've spent maybe 1.5-2k on my photography gear and its paid for itself a dozen times over.
You're a moronic photographer/artist if you aren't as frugal as possible.
It's not like you buy this stuff every year, but giving an example of the range of photography expenses as a comparison. My point was Lightroom is more valuable to me than a new lens or even a new camera body because I can't even continue working without my editor and library.
[doublepost=1557156857][/doublepost]
Surely, there must be a difference between a lens and a license! I can’t put my finger on it. It’s got to do something with ice?
Both photography gear. A license to my editor and library is more important to me than buying a new lens.
[doublepost=1557156953][/doublepost]
Ya but my gear is not on a stupid subscription plan. Adobe have lost the plot. Photoshop is a bloated and Lightroom is fragmented mess with Classic & CC versions. Plus its very slow compared to Capture One.
Curious what gear you use that you've never upgraded. That Rebel XT treating you right after 15 years or what?
[doublepost=1557156997][/doublepost]
People should have been this mad about the 9.99/mo and moving to subscription.
[doublepost=1556873087][/doublepost]
You’re neglecting one very important aspect, ownership. There is no ownership with the sub model.
You're neglecting one very important aspect, ownership. There is no ownership with the license or sub model.
