Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by philo , Jun 4, 2013.

  1. philo 

    philo  Guest

    On 06/03/2013 06:19 PM, wrote:
    > I have been a Photoshop user since the very first release of the
    > software for the PC way back in what, 1990? 1994?? Both personal and
    > at all of the screenprinting companies I managed over the years and
    > right up to my own personal photography work. I looked at GIMP once,
    > Same with COREL..... and a few other wannabe's.
    >



    <snipped for brevity>


    Since I do minimal processing , GIMP is way more than I need...however
    most of my professional level friends do use Photoshop and it sure can
    get pricey to upgrade. Last time I heard, if it's more than one level
    you have to start new.

    Many of the folks are just staying with CS-2 and are saying they see
    nothing in the newer versions they really need.
     
    philo , Jun 4, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. philo 

    philo  Guest

    On 06/04/2013 10:52 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-06-04 08:29:05 -0700, philo <> said:
    >
    >> On 06/03/2013 06:19 PM, wrote:
    >>> I have been a Photoshop user since the very first release of the
    >>> software for the PC way back in what, 1990? 1994?? Both personal and
    >>> at all of the screenprinting companies I managed over the years and
    >>> right up to my own personal photography work. I looked at GIMP once,
    >>> Same with COREL..... and a few other wannabe's.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> <snipped for brevity>
    >>
    >>
    >> Since I do minimal processing , GIMP is way more than I need...however
    >> most of my professional level friends do use Photoshop and it sure can
    >> get pricey to upgrade. Last time I heard, if it's more than one level
    >> you have to start new.
    >>
    >> Many of the folks are just staying with CS-2 and are saying they see
    >> nothing in the newer versions they really need.

    >
    > The issue comes for owners of new cameras who shoot RAW. They do not
    > have the ACR support for their new cameras in the dated version of ACR
    > in CS2, or in the OP's case CS3.
    >
    > For Mac users with the move from PPC Macs to Intel there are even fewer
    > options, as the Intel Macs will not run CS2, unless in a Windows partition.
    >
    > The various options for the OP to deal with the NEF files from his new
    > DSLR were discussed further back in this thread.
    >




    Yes, I saw that.

    It's a shame that Adobe does not have a less expensive upgrade option,
    obviously they are in business to make money...but they are even more
    aggressive than Microsoft.
     
    philo , Jun 4, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. philo 

    nospam Guest

    In article <kol2gb$lig$>, philo  <>
    wrote:

    > It's a shame that Adobe does not have a less expensive upgrade option,


    they do.

    it's called photoshop elements and is typically around $60.

    anyone who is still using cs2 or the gimp would find the current
    version of elements to be an upgrade (significantly so in the case of
    the gimp).

    > obviously they are in business to make money...but they are even more
    > aggressive than Microsoft.


    no they aren't. unlike microsoft, adobe publishes file formats,
    including photoshop's. that makes it very easy to switch to a
    competitor, some of whom already support photoshop files.

    contrast that with microsoft, where if you want to read one of their
    proprietary formats, you need to license it, and it's often not that
    cheap. they even invented their own programming language to lock people
    in.
     
    nospam, Jun 4, 2013
    #3
  4. philo 

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:29:05 -0500, philo  <> wrote:

    >On 06/03/2013 06:19 PM, wrote:
    >> I have been a Photoshop user since the very first release of the
    >> software for the PC way back in what, 1990? 1994?? Both personal and
    >> at all of the screenprinting companies I managed over the years and
    >> right up to my own personal photography work. I looked at GIMP once,
    >> Same with COREL..... and a few other wannabe's.
    >>

    >
    >
    ><snipped for brevity>
    >
    >
    >Since I do minimal processing , GIMP is way more than I need...however
    >most of my professional level friends do use Photoshop and it sure can
    >get pricey to upgrade. Last time I heard, if it's more than one level
    >you have to start new.
    >
    >Many of the folks are just staying with CS-2 and are saying they see
    >nothing in the newer versions they really need.


    You would pick up some features that are of real use by going to the
    current version of Elements. It's been quite some time since I used
    CS2, but I have the feeling that Elements is much more advanced in
    features.

    "Need" is not a definable criterion. What one person needs is not the
    same as what others need. "Want" is probably what more of us go for
    than "need".

    Many of us - amatuers, that is - that are using CS6 could do just
    about as well without it in post processing our photographs, but we
    like playing with stuff. Some play too much.

    As far a GIMP goes, it isn't Photoshop and it doesn't have the
    features that Photoshop has...by a long shot. But, if it has the
    features that *you* feel are sufficient, it's state-of-the-art.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 4, 2013
    #4
  5. philo 

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:57:14 -0500, philo  <> wrote:

    >On 06/04/2013 10:52 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2013-06-04 08:29:05 -0700, philo <> said:
    >>
    >>> On 06/03/2013 06:19 PM, wrote:
    >>>> I have been a Photoshop user since the very first release of the
    >>>> software for the PC way back in what, 1990? 1994?? Both personal and
    >>>> at all of the screenprinting companies I managed over the years and
    >>>> right up to my own personal photography work. I looked at GIMP once,
    >>>> Same with COREL..... and a few other wannabe's.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> <snipped for brevity>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Since I do minimal processing , GIMP is way more than I need...however
    >>> most of my professional level friends do use Photoshop and it sure can
    >>> get pricey to upgrade. Last time I heard, if it's more than one level
    >>> you have to start new.
    >>>
    >>> Many of the folks are just staying with CS-2 and are saying they see
    >>> nothing in the newer versions they really need.

    >>
    >> The issue comes for owners of new cameras who shoot RAW. They do not
    >> have the ACR support for their new cameras in the dated version of ACR
    >> in CS2, or in the OP's case CS3.
    >>
    >> For Mac users with the move from PPC Macs to Intel there are even fewer
    >> options, as the Intel Macs will not run CS2, unless in a Windows partition.
    >>
    >> The various options for the OP to deal with the NEF files from his new
    >> DSLR were discussed further back in this thread.
    >>

    >Yes, I saw that.
    >
    >It's a shame that Adobe does not have a less expensive upgrade option,


    Well, there is. Elements is $99.99 if you order from Adobe. You'll
    see a $60 figure bandied about, and you can get it for that, but if
    you are more comfortable dealing directly with the source then the
    Adobe price is reasonable.

    It's an "upgrade", even if it's not a new version of a current
    program, if it's a replacement program that offers more features.

    >obviously they are in business to make money


    Is there a better reason to commit your time and resources to a
    business?



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 4, 2013
    #5
  6. philo 

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > As far a GIMP goes, it isn't Photoshop and it doesn't have the
    > features that Photoshop has...by a long shot. But, if it has the
    > features that *you* feel are sufficient, it's state-of-the-art.


    the gimp is in no way state of the art.

    it might be 'good enough' but it's 10 years out of date with poor
    performance too.
     
    nospam, Jun 4, 2013
    #6
  7. philo 

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >It's a shame that Adobe does not have a less expensive upgrade option,

    >
    > Well, there is. Elements is $99.99 if you order from Adobe.


    on sale for $69 thru father's day, directly from adobe.

    > You'll
    > see a $60 figure bandied about, and you can get it for that, but if
    > you are more comfortable dealing directly with the source then the
    > Adobe price is reasonable.


    nothing wrong with buying it elsewhere.
     
    nospam, Jun 5, 2013
    #7
  8. philo 

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <kol0rh$asv$>, philo <> wrote:
    >
    >Since I do minimal processing , GIMP is way more than I need...however


    Does GIMP support more than 8 bits per color channel yet? Last I checked,
    it was still just talk.

    Also, I tried installing the add-ons that were supposed to make GIMP (under
    Linux) able to read camera raw files, but they didn't work.

    --
    Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
    pciszek at panix dot com | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
    Autoreply is disabled | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
    | --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jun 5, 2013
    #8
  9. philo 

    Mayayana Guest

    | It's a shame that Adobe does not have a less expensive upgrade option,
    | obviously they are in business to make money...but they are even more
    | aggressive than Microsoft.

    They're the same. They both worked hard to make
    their product the standard and millions of people
    willingly paid them ridiculous prices to get a copy of
    that standard. Some had to buy it for work or school.
    Some were trying to keep up with the Joneses. Some
    were simply too lazy to do anything but buy whatever
    product seemed to be #1. (Colleges, especially, have
    been a great help to monopoly software companies.)

    Once a company has the standard they can do almost
    anything. Any office worker in the US who can't handle
    an MS Office file, from any version of MS Office, won't be
    taken seriously by their peers, most of whom don't even
    realize that there's software other than MS Office. For them
    Office is nearly synonymous with their computer. Likewise
    with Photoshop on Macs in the graphics business.

    So why wouldn't these companies exploit their customers
    again, given the chance, if their customers are sucker
    enough to go for it? Most of the existing customers will
    take to their gmail and facebook and twitter to complain
    about how evil corporations are exploiting them -- for a
    few days. Then they'll pay Adobe. Then they'll save
    face by arguing that Adobe's subscription model is an
    improvement over the tedious business of keeping track
    of install CDs and knowing where one's files are. :)

    And the compliant media, once they see that most
    Adobe customers have calmed down, will feel free to
    hang their ads on 8-page fluff articles, like "The 7 Reasons
    You Should Switch to Adobe Subscription Now".

    And peace will again reign in ConsumerVille, at least
    until Facebook increases their ads-per-page, or Twitter
    changes their terms of service, or Google starts inserting
    text ads, inline, into emails and Chrome-loaded webpages,
    or Microsoft forces Office 365 on their MS Office
    customers. Then their customers will feel "so betrayed"
    again... for a few days.
     
    Mayayana, Jun 5, 2013
    #9
  10. philo 

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>, tonycooper214
    @gmail.com says...
    >
    > On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:29:05 -0500, philo  <> wrote:
    >
    > >On 06/03/2013 06:19 PM, wrote:
    > >> I have been a Photoshop user since the very first release of the
    > >> software for the PC way back in what, 1990? 1994?? Both personal and
    > >> at all of the screenprinting companies I managed over the years and
    > >> right up to my own personal photography work. I looked at GIMP once,
    > >> Same with COREL..... and a few other wannabe's.
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > ><snipped for brevity>
    > >
    > >
    > >Since I do minimal processing , GIMP is way more than I need...however
    > >most of my professional level friends do use Photoshop and it sure can
    > >get pricey to upgrade. Last time I heard, if it's more than one level
    > >you have to start new.
    > >
    > >Many of the folks are just staying with CS-2 and are saying they see
    > >nothing in the newer versions they really need.

    >
    > You would pick up some features that are of real use by going to the
    > current version of Elements. It's been quite some time since I used
    > CS2, but I have the feeling that Elements is much more advanced in
    > features.
    >
    > "Need" is not a definable criterion. What one person needs is not the
    > same as what others need. "Want" is probably what more of us go for
    > than "need".
    >
    > Many of us - amatuers, that is - that are using CS6 could do just
    > about as well without it in post processing our photographs, but we
    > like playing with stuff. Some play too much.


    One benefit of CSx is that generally when one wants to do something one
    can find a tutorial or howto. For competing products not so much.

    > As far a GIMP goes, it isn't Photoshop and it doesn't have the
    > features that Photoshop has...by a long shot. But, if it has the
    > features that *you* feel are sufficient, it's state-of-the-art.


    I used GIMP for a while--the thing that made me dump it was that I could
    never figure out how to get it to print properly with the printer I was
    using.

    Having used CS6, I would not want to go back.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 5, 2013
    #10
  11. philo 

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013060514192521123-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > > I used GIMP for a while--the thing that made me dump it was that I could
    > > never figure out how to get it to print properly with the printer I was
    > > using.

    >
    > All the proponents of GIMP, believe that is all you need. However, GIMP
    > does not do all Photoshop CS6 can do, and where it does some of what
    > CS6 can do, it does not do it with the same ease. The only benefit is
    > cost.


    nevermind cs6, the gimp doesn't do what photoshop 4 (not cs4) could do
    in 1994, namely adjustment layers.

    > Lightroom 4, and PSE11 are better pay options, and for Mac users
    > "Acorn" & "Pixelmator" are surprisingly good low cost alternatives. All
    > four are superior to GIMP.
    >
    > > Having used CS6, I would not want to go back.

    >
    > Agreed.
    > I am very comfortable working with CS5 and now CS6 (together with LR4).
    > I have all the tools I could possibly need readily at hand if needed,
    > and if I don't know the solution to a problem, there is a wealth of
    > information and tutorials to add to my knowledge base.


    that's also a plus for photoshop.
     
    nospam, Jun 5, 2013
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nospam

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    nospam, Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    179
    nospam
    Jun 4, 2013
  2. nospam

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    nospam, Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    209
    luxitman
    Jul 3, 2013
  3. nospam

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    nospam, Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    275
    PeterN
    Jun 7, 2013
  4. PeterN

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    PeterN, Jun 5, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    188
    PeterN
    Jun 5, 2013
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    Paul Ciszek, Jun 5, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    340
    Views:
    2,157
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jul 4, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page