Adobe subscription - anyone getting tired of paying

[maflynn]

Not for nothing, I've yet to move off of LR, while I hate to keep paying for the app, I'm trying to make sure what I do decide on is a really good fit for my workflow.

LR has some definite benefits in what it offers
C1 has some different benefits
Photos Raw is unknown, so I need to wait and see.

I love the tools and customization ability of C1, but its organization and DAM features are lacking compared to LR. As we approach black Friday, I want to decide what tool works the best for my needs as I feel that will be my best opportunity to save money on C1 if in fact I decide to switch over.

 

[Sohappy]

I will receive my first mac in December, coming from windows. I had cs5 with a windows only licence. I won't take a subscription plan. So it'll be Affinity Photo for me and I'll simply use the finder to manage my files.

 

[needfx]

when I start making real money with all the adobe programs I use (and others), maybe then I'll join the subscription/purchase boat.

Until then, I am a freeloader unfortunately, and not proud about it.

 

[JackRoch]

I love the tools and customization ability of C1, but its organization and DAM features are lacking compared to LR. As we approach black Friday, I want to decide what tool works the best for my needs as I feel that will be my best opportunity to save money on C1 if in fact I decide to switch over.

I was wondering how you were progressing with your transition and wondered what you thought of MacPhun’s recently announced Luminar.

I know asset management is a deal-breaker for you and there’s a sort of cack-handed workaround in their FAQ; essentially carry on using Lightroom or Aperture and use Luminar as a plug-in.
(bottom of page: https://macphun.com/luminar)

Personally, I’m still sticking with DxO+NeatImage and, having bought Affinity’s Photo as a PShop replacement, am hoping that their hinted-at DAM will come to fruition.
Similarly, I’ve got Affinity’s Design and again, hope that their hinted-at InDesign equiv will appear before long.

If not for all that – and waiting for Affinity’s support for plug-ins to get sorted out – Luminar looks pretty good.
I kinda feel I’m already committed to Affinity products and not sure I’ve got the energy to start the whole process again with MacPhun!

 

[phrehdd]

Just a thought here -

Is it possible to pay in advance beyond the 1 year subscription? Considering how Photoshop itself used to cost around 600 dollars, why not pay 600 in advance for the next 6 years or so and then you have it as if you own it. Consider after that the next "upgrade" cost. I have btw, no idea if one can do that but it would be a good compromise for those that prefer to buy software (such as myself) and are insistent (unlike myself).

 

[maflynn]

I know asset management is a deal-breake

That's it exactly, so while I looked at Luminar, I passed over it, for any serious consideration given where the product is in regards of DAM, I understand there's some talk that it will get it eventually, but as of right now, I'm not seriously considering it.

 

[robgendreau]

Just a thought here -

Is it possible to pay in advance beyond the 1 year subscription? Considering how Photoshop itself used to cost around 600 dollars, why not pay 600 in advance for the next 6 years or so and then you have it as if you own it. Consider after that the next "upgrade" cost. I have btw, no idea if one can do that but it would be a good compromise for those that prefer to buy software (such as myself) and are insistent (unlike myself).

Yeah, I did. But since the price might fall, that could be a bad strategy. I had a coupon though and it just tacked on another year at a very reduced rate. Didn't have to do anything but enter the code after I bought a download version from an Adobe vendor online.

That's it exactly, so while I looked at Luminar, I passed over it, for any serious consideration given where the product is in regards of DAM, I understand there's some talk that it will get it eventually, but as of right now, I'm not seriously considering it.

I think Luminar is more in the editing category, not even attempting much management. More like DxO than Lr. Kind of two or three steps to the easy end of the spectrum with Ps and Affinity Photo. It does layers and RAW though, so that gives it a leg up over some other editing applications.

 

[MCAsan]

Plus Macphun says they are planning a browser for Luminar. That could mean they plan something similar to Photo RAW where there is a browser; but, there is no database of images and edits. All the edits are stored in XML files with the images.

 

[phrehdd]

Yeah, I did. But since the price might fall, that could be a bad strategy. I had a coupon though and it just tacked on another year at a very reduced rate. Didn't have to do anything but enter the code after I bought a download version from an Adobe vendor online.

My comment was for those (like myself) who prefer to buy software outright. The life of a software might be 3-5 without serious upgrade so paying upfront is akin to buying. Your point is very well taken on the deal that are to be had when subscribing annually. My only other comment is I don't think I would mind 1-2 companies on the subscription model but so many are trying to go that way that it seems like nickel and diming on the wallet.

 

[maflynn]

I guess there's some good news being paralyzed by indecision

Capture 1 has just been updated to version 10. Blog

Some improvements over the areas I complained about, so I wonder if its enough to dump LR now. I'll be downloading this trial and giving it a run.

Inertia has largely settled in, to be perfectly frank. While other products have much better RAW processing engines, I find LR's workflow to be intuitive and in honesty I do like LR's DAM capabilities. Yet my original point of continually paying for a product is not ideal. Couple that with the fact, that I think unlike other subscription based products, I've not seen updates to the degree that make LR a good subscription buy.

So basically, I have two warring factions inside of me, the ease of work flow with LR, over the financial sense of spending money on a product that I may not think is worth it.

 

[AZhappyjack]

I guess there's some good news being paralyzed by indecision

Capture 1 has just been updated to version 10. Blog

Some improvements over the areas I complained about, so I wonder if its enough to dump LR now. I'll be downloading this trial and giving it a run.

Inertia has largely settled in, to be perfectly frank. While other products have much better RAW processing engines, I find LR's workflow to be intuitive and in honesty I do like LR's DAM capabilities. Yet my original point of continually paying for a product is not ideal. Couple that with the fact, that I think unlike other subscription based products, I've not seen updates to the degree that make LR a good subscription buy.

So basically, I have two warring factions inside of me, the ease of work flow with LR, over the financial sense of spending money on a product that I may not think is worth it.

I agree with your point about continuing to pay for a product that one sees as of little value, or that may not be worth the cost. There are, however, enough parts to Adobe's CC suite that you cannot get any other way. Forgive my ignorance, but are there quality alternatives to things like Illustrator? As much as I despise the subscription software model, sometimes, there's no other way.

 

[maflynn]

Forgive my ignorance, but are there quality alternatives to things like Illustrator?

I don't know but then for my situation, I'm paying for the photographer's bundle and I only get PS and LR. Partly, due to me needs and partly to the power of LR, I rarely use PS, so most of my time I'm in LightRoom. While the cost of the Photographers bundle is a lot less then the full creative suite, its still money leaving my bank account that I am questioning.

 

[MCAsan]

Copy that! I never use PS....so why am I paying for it and using disk space to contain it?

 

[maflynn]

I sound like I'm vacillating over this, and maybe I am, but I had this thought as I looked at C1 and I'll download the preview to On1's RAW product. Basically, Lightroom does a lot of things pretty well, not great but pretty well. Its RAW processing is ok, and with some manual adjustments you can produce results similar to C1, but you don't just use the editing module, you have the library module, that has a lot of features and filters. With the ability to add in plugins, I can extend the power of LR.

I'm having trouble justifying a purchase when it means I have to alter or give up some of the flexibility that LR affords me. I hate the idea of keeping paying monthly for something that doesn't seem to get updated as much as I was hoping, but so far I've not found one product that does everything I do in LR as well as LR.

Take C1 as an example, it does a number of things better then LR, no question, but its DAM capabilities and keywording is weaker then LR. I'll have to adjust how I use those. I rely heavily on Lr's smart collections, using a mixture of dates, and keywords to organize my images. I think I can do something similar to that in C1 but I've not found it. That means its not as intuitive as LR

Long story short, I'm still using LR and I don't see myself changing quite yet though I'm spending time with C1 version 10 currently and then I'll spend some time with On1's. I do like C1' interface and ability to change the UI to the way I work, but as I said numerous times, how I use the tool to organize my images is just as important as how it processes the RAW images.

 

[thingstoponder]

I don't know but then for my situation, I'm paying for the photographer's bundle and I only get PS and LR. Partly, due to me needs and partly to the power of LR, I rarely use PS, so most of my time I'm in LightRoom. While the cost of the Photographers bundle is a lot less then the full creative suite, its still money leaving my bank account that I am questioning.

I would just get standalone Lightroom for 149. You can use it for years and years and won't need to upgrade unless you get a new camera which isn't supported, but even then you can convert to DNG. Lightroom has been good enough for years now. It's not like C1 is a cheap alternative to standalone Lightroom or the CC photography plan. It's 299 and they release a new version like every year. Lightroom is the standard for pro Photographers and it's raw processing is just fine.

 

[phrehdd]

I would just get standalone Lightroom for 149. You can use it for years and years and won't need to upgrade unless you get a new camera which isn't supported, but even then you can convert to DNG. Lightroom has been good enough for years now. It's not like C1 is a cheap alternative to standalone Lightroom or the CC photography plan. It's 299 and they release a new version like every year. Lightroom is the standard for pro Photographers and it's raw processing is just fine.

Your logic seems sound. There are still Aperture users out there that are happily using the application. I would imagine the stand alone LR would still be decent with cameras not support IF* the Raw converter could be had way of either a round trip to another app or a plug-in (thus leaving the Lightroom still as a reasonable DAM).

 

[MCAsan]

Lightroom is A standard for pro photographers. But check those that use medium format and you will find lots of Capture One Pro. I know several landscape pros who use Fuji bodies and have replaced Lr with C1P.

 

[msandersen]

I'm a longtime Aperture user who's been trying to slowly ween myself to something else. I've tried Lightroom a few times, previously switching exclusively for several months to force me to get to know it as well as I could; but I found I wasn't enjoying it, the modular system wasn't working well with my workflow, it's auto-adjust which I use on import as a starting point to evaluate my images sucked in comparison to Aperture, meaning more work, and metadata-management was a hassle. So I ended up for a while with both Aperture for all legacy images, and importing new images with it for it's superior metadata management and GPS tagging. Now I've moved heavily over to using Photomechanic for ingesting, file renaming and tagging, including geotagging, before moving to Capture One for editing. Not ideal, but a better alternative for me than using Lightroom, as the workflow is much more comfortable, and I can get the results I am after more easily and quickly than Lightroom.
Over time, I will have to work through the tens of thousands of images in Aperture to clean them up, fix up metadata and write it to the masters, and exporting any pics to jpg so I won't be burned once Aperture stops working. As it is, it still works, but is showing buggy behaviour in El Capitan. There are still looks that I know better how to achieve in Aperture and have presets for; I have yet to rebuild similar presets in C1 or Lightroom for that matter.
So yes, C1 is flawed, as is Lightroom, but C1 fits my needs better once you add Photomechanic into the equation. Mind you, it is hard to get past Photoshop, and that is their ace, since if you are on the Photograhy plan, you have Lightroom, so why pay more for C1? For me personally, it is worth it for the productivity and results. For most casual photographers struggling to justify the Photography subscription, it is too high a price to have both, if they cannot make do with Affinity Photo or the like. I have that as well, but I just know Photoshop too well, and it is still a powerhouse no other software can compete with for certain things. In publishing, there is nothing else. It really depends on your needs, and if you are prepared to get to know Affinity well enough. For the desperate, there is the Gimp, but without a native Mac version, I cannot take it seriously (GTK is seriously poxy and sloooow).

Lightroom and Aperture come from a different direction than Capture One; while the former are for your average photographer as well as professionals using SLRs, with photobooks and social media sharing very much an important part of their mix (eg wedding photographers), Phase One comes from the direction of needing software to support their high-end medium format cameras, as used in high-end fashion shoots and the like, where good tethering support in a Session workflow and specifically good support for their cameras was paramount. Cataloging is a fairly new thing for them, and social media plugins are still alien to them, as is inbuilt photo book support. Or proper metadata management for that matter. Where they are strong is in their RAW image editing and tethering (which Lightroom inexplicably sucks at; even Lightroom people who need to shoot tethered use C1 for that part). With Wifi becoming more prevalent in SLRs and full frame mirrorless, tethering in SLRs might become less of an issue.
As I like to play with new photo tools, I do have Luminar and Photo Raw; I particularly liked playing with Luminar on certain images which got what I was looking for more easily than in C1; it depends on the image and the look you are going for. It will be another tool to try on select images now and then, but without a good DAM component (they say they are working on a browser and batch processing), it is too difficult to work on a photo session, quickly going through picking images and applying edits across multiple images for instance. I am yet to give Photo Raw a good go, but it somehow doesn't feel as comfortable, even though they at least have a browser.

 

[robgendreau]

Photo Mechanic would be a good supplement to say C1 or even for Aperture users who are starting to transition (it might be easier to use PM for some metadata work than exporting from Aperture. In combo with some chops at using Spotlight, and some other utilities you can do tons of stuff. I use Alfred with some exiftools-like workflows and HoudahGeo for georeferencing, even though I also use Lr. It's just easier sometimes when you're working with both images and text and other file formats.

And for culling, check out FastRawViewer. Way better than using Lr or Aperture for that function. And inexpensive.

But for those who use non-Lr/Ps adjusting in other applications, why not just use Lr for free? Once you're out of subscription everything but Maps, Develop and Lr Mobile works. If used for organization, just write stuff to metadata and you can use those image files with anything, even if Lr disappears.

 

[Chancha]

The biggest draw of Lightroom for me is the longevity. Adobe has been around since the dawn of PC software, there had been times that they pulled things that didn't benefit anyone but themselves, but for the most part they do value keeping their technology being relevant for a long time. I can dig out a .psd made in the 90's and it will open in Photoshop CC without even showing a warning dialogue box.

For image library management I think it is really important to make sure your metadata, sorting, and most importantly adjustments to survive as long as possible. In the old days, for better or worse, every edited version meant a newly saved .psd, while it take away precious drive space but it lives outside of the archives. But ever since RAW/non-destructive was viable, it became clear that a unified management solution is really really needed for the long term, and if such solution is subjected to obsolesce it is just going to give me insecurity. Folks who had to endure the pain of transitioning out of Aperture should know this first hand.

When deeper image manipulation or special attention to RAW processing is concerned for certain workflow or type of photographers, I do agree alternatives in C1P for instance is probably more appealing, at least for the moment. I find myself almost exclusively working in Lightroom nowadays, and only use Photoshop when images are used for desktop publishing or any printed projects. But of course if I had to do intense manipulation or even illustration then many other apps are also needed, but again these are extra oddity that lives outside of the LR workflow, which has management & archive in mind first and foremost.

I am not particularly bothered by the subscription model, when the asking price is fairly cheap it is much easier to justify. But I do see it being an issue in the long run, for people that are concerned there is always the standalone perpetual license. Not being able to use the cloud features of the CC is a bummer though, however, I find it fair to be locked into subscription when web-based features are involved. For people who can take advantage of the LR Mobile app to offload, edit, and sync RAWs on the road, the CC price is a steal.

 

[Clix Pix]

I'm one who is still using Aperture, just not ready to give it up yet! I haven't been doing extensive photography and post-processing for a while so Aperture has been just fine for what I've needed, and I pop into it, do my thing and that's it......I know that I need to be looking at other options but am still dragging my heels about this. I am really reluctant to get locked into some sort of subscription plan, especially when I'm not all that active right now with shooting and processing, but I know the standalone options are becoming more and more limited. Sigh......

 

[MCAsan]

I...but I know the standalone options are becoming more and more limited. Sigh......

Since when?


https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/more-post-processing-choices.2015809/

 

[msandersen]

Photo Mechanic would be a good supplement to say C1 or even for Aperture users who are starting to transition (it might be easier to use PM for some metadata work than exporting from Aperture. In combo with some chops at using Spotlight, and some other utilities you can do tons of stuff. I use Alfred with some exiftools-like workflows and HoudahGeo for georeferencing, even though I also use Lr. It's just easier sometimes when you're working with both images and text and other file formats.

And for culling, check out FastRawViewer. Way better than using Lr or Aperture for that function. And inexpensive.

But for those who use non-Lr/Ps adjusting in other applications, why not just use Lr for free? Once you're out of subscription everything but Maps, Develop and Lr Mobile works. If used for organization, just write stuff to metadata and you can use those image files with anything, even if Lr disappears.

I use HoudahGeo as I gradually transition my images away from Aperture; whenever I make time, I go over an old project, check and update the metadata such as Keywords, then write the project's files to the originals; I move the processed project folders into a new folder to denote they have been processed, then when I've done a few, I quit Aperture, then load up HoudahGeo, which can read Aperture's database (hence Aperture must be shut down first) and write all the Aperture geotagging to the originals, because for some reason Aperture doesn't when writing metadata to it, unless you export images. Lastly I make sure I have a full-res processed exported jpeg of my selects saved with my library with [Ap] tagged on the end, so I can always refer to it; if needed later, I can reprocess in C1, Lightroom or whateverfor It's a hassle, but it has to be done if the map data is to be retained. I know most metadata will carry across if you import the entire library as is to either Lightroom or Capture One, but I don't know if C1 imports GPS data. Having been burnt by Aperture, I would rather all the metadata be in the originals, so I'm not dependent on anybody's database-driven RAW DAM.
My workflow with new projects now involve ingesting with Photo Mechanic, which I have come to like more as I get to know it more, though it has it's own shortcomings. I particularly like knowing it uses Exiftool in the background, which I trust absolutely from having used it on and off for a long time; it is a reliable workhorse toolset. I then know the originals have all my metadata. Photomechanic also makes it easy to Geotag my images, all before going near a RAW converter. By the time I fire up Capture One, everything is tagged with descriptions, keywords, Copyright info, geotagged, etc. and a few preliminary colour tags and ratings. So it doesn't matter to me too much that Capture One is lacking in that department, as long as I can search and select on tags and keywords etc.

I had not heard of FastRawViewer; I went and had a look, and decided to get it to try out; I'm not sure yet how it will fit in my workflow with Photo Mechanic, but what got me interested is how you can analyze the RAW image much better; with regular inspection of images, I may get to know my camera better, where it's limits lie. When using the camera histogram, I am all too aware that it is generated from a jpeg for speed, and so is not necessarily the most accurate, as the website for FastRawViewer and RawDigger also shows. I usually aim to expose to the right (ETTR), it will be interesting to see how close I actually get to that based off the camera histogram, or if showing some blown highlights in-camera means you are actually still in gamut. Their site seems to suggest the jpeg shows blown highlights when you cna actually push it further. On my old 60D, I used Magic Lantern and sometimes used its ETTR function in conjunction with bracketing.

The biggest draw of Lightroom for me is the longevity. Adobe has been around since the dawn of PC software, there had been times that they pulled things that didn't benefit anyone but themselves, but for the most part they do value keeping their technology being relevant for a long time. I can dig out a .psd made in the 90's and it will open in Photoshop CC without even showing a warning dialogue box.

If only Microsoft made Office that way... dig out your old Office documents from 10 years ago, and you are in trouble. Government departments charged with maintaining documents for 70 years are having to either print them out or keep old computers with old operating systems running old copies of Office on them, just to comply with the law. That is why I got interested in OpenOffice years ago; my needs in that department are meagher, so I won't miss the power features. We desperately need standards for Office documents like ODF, just as it would be nice to have some agreed-upon standard for image and adjustments in XML; the adjustments may well not carry across, as they are different converters, but the file should be readable by any RAW converter and all metadata carry across. If another program needs to write to the XML file, like Photo Mechanic, it should have the safety of knowing a standard to write to, so it can be amended safely. Any tags a program doesn't know, can safely be ignored, but not excluded from being rewritten.

 

[Jim400]

Just had an email from Adobe to say the price of the Photography Plan is going up slightly (here in the UK), due to 'currency fluctuations'.

Had to be expected really!

 

[JackRoch]

Just had an email from Adobe to say the price of the Photography Plan is going up slightly (here in the UK), due to 'currency fluctuations'.

Had to be expected really!

and, as a bonus: https://www.dpreview.com/news/3633651596/adobe-cs6-has-been-officially-retired