Yeah, had the same email - for my full subscription, the cost is going up to over £50 a month which is a psychological barrier that will make me re-assess how much I really need it!
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 subscription - anyone getting tired of paying
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My transitions seems more and more to be to:
- Photo Mechanic: fast import/ingest into folders in the file system plus easy filling out of metadata such as IPTC info.
- DxO Optics: reading native raw format, doing all manner of lens and other corrections, apply killer noice reduction
- Luminar, Aurora, Creative Kit apps to do local and global styling changes to finish the image
None of this makes sense.
You say the subscription model doesn't work for the consumer (as opposed to the company/corporate user) because the former "likes to have control over [his/her] expenditure."
But the subscription model does exactly that - it gives the consumer more control. Having to fork out a huge sum just to get started isn't having control; neither is having to do much the same when a significant upgrade comes along.
The comparison with property investment is completely misleading: you can re-sell property, but not Photoshop.
Adobe's Lightroom and Photoshop subscription deal brings these truly amazing programs within the reach of just about anyone: for the price of a cup of coffee a week you have access to probably the best imaging software available. It would take me a long time for my subscription to equal what LR and PS cost to buy outright. Having to invest a huge sum for an uncertain period of time doesn't compare at all.
I don't particularly like having to "rent" software and validate online every month, but neither do I like the idea of forking out a large one-off payment which will get asked for again at some point.
To me the question is do I want Lr and Ps on a monthly subscription. The question is do I want them at all. Adobe raw conversion is not state of the art. Lr is very slow importing and very limited in its editing capabilities. I rarely use Ps and can substitute Pixelmator just as easily.
So for me......the Adobe CC Photography appeal is diminishing......at any price.
So for me......the Adobe CC Photography appeal is diminishing......at any price.
I'm curious; how is Adobe's raw conversion not state of the art? isn't conversion conversion, so to speak? I realize it doesn't do say pixel shift motion correction, but that's not really raw conversion.
I'm just about to this point as well.
1. Photo Mechanic for import / sorting / metadata changes. Uploading to my SmugMug account is much faster too. This program is VERY quick. Expensive though !
2. Capture One Pro 10 (For Sony) - Wow - what a raw converter and great image editing. I tried DxO but it seemed to not like my iMac (27-inch, Late 2012). The results were great, but the performance wasn't.
3. Luminar is great fun for stylizing, I still have the old Nik Collection and ON1 Photo 10.5.
I've got it sorted out for my needs. Lr is now off my dock.
Well, yes, the default renderings differ. But that's true of every raw renderer, including macOS, the proprietary ones from manufacturers, etc. IOW, a matter of personal preference, as are the controls available, etc.
Each also applies some base level settings and even with a "no settings" or whatever preset there's often some baseline exposure compensation. It's pretty easy to suss it out in Adobe stuff (see the Rawdigger documentation for example), and from what I recall DxO does it too, although I also recall they said they try to set it at about the same place Adobe does IF you remove the "hidden" baseline Adobe applies (if you use DNG you can see it in the exif and you can easily set ACR or Lr to remove it). DxO also tries to match the specific camera colors more than Adobe, but if you use your own profiles that's less of an issue of course.
I prefer to buy software. I do think that the cost of some of the Adobe products previous to subscriptions got a bit crazy. For many 500-600 dollars for A software is a great deal to shell out. If they were asked - I'll let you pay 120 dollars a year for 5-6 years and include all the updates and full upgrades, people might be very happy (when the offer is framed this way). So, simply paying a chunk of 120.00 a year might seem easier to many than 20 bucks a month which feels like a parasitic pull from their bank account. In the end, the cost might actually be cheaper to go to the subscription pay out than "owning" software and having to pay for any version upgrades. As for me CS6 Photoshop is an impressive software even without the upgrades from Adobe. Many 'filters' can be bought to make it more useful or easier to use for special operations on a given image.
Well, you had a roof over your head. That's something.
You also had lower stress by not owing a bank a huge sum of money, and probably overall lower expenses since heat is usually included in rent, and you're not spending your money on repairs, upgrades, and renovations. If my roof leaks, the landlord's on the hook, not me.
The rent vs buy calculations always leave those extra costs out, deliberately.
Stress? I've not had a mortgage since I was 33! Been living rent free ever since.
Same as owning LR.
Good for you, but how is that relevant for someone debating rent vs buy now? And i highly doubt you've had zero housing expenses. No taxes, no repairs, no utilities costs?
I'm not really sure how paying for new wallpaper is relevant in a buying verses renting software debate either, but then you brought it up.
But any costs I have spent on my house have more than been matched by the increase in property value over the years.
Actually I got tired before I ever paid. Subscriptions are not for me for the same reason companies like them.
Your property taxes, utility costs, and repairs are not recovered in resale. And if you're in an inflationary bubble, your next home will be subject to the same inflation. Man, these American dream home ownership myths really chafe my chaps.
Back on topic: I dropped Adobe for many reasons, including subscription costs. I do nearly 100% of my editing now in Snapseed, which is free.
Not an American! My next Home will be a 6ft by 2 ft box! My Home would cost around £800 a month to rent. I don't spend that on maintaining it.
It goes up in value at about 5-10% a year. I think you need to rethink the maths.
Now I still use LR 6 which I upgraded from 5. It is costing me less than renting it.
I also have the Nik Suite and DXO suite, but I didn't pay for those. They both have there place, but as a DAM LR is superior.
Ownership (amongst others as an investment) to rent preference dominates in many parts of the world, including Central, Eastern and Northern Europe.
P.S.: Even in the capital your avatar reflects.
Ownership (amongst others as an investment) to rent preference dominates in many parts of the world, including Central, Eastern and Northern Europe.
P.S.: Even in the capital your avatar reflects.
Yes, the banks run all those countries too.
Heh. We're all renters. No one owns Adobe's software save Adobe. Owning a perpetual license is not at all analogous to owning a home. Would that it were, where I live: all my software would have doubled in value by now. I could sell WriteNow for about $20k if it appreciated like housing in the SF Bay Area
I stopped using LR all together about 2 years ago. I think it's such a clunky archaic piece of photography software, and it just didn't match up well with how I view photography or my workflow. I'd only ever paid for single licences though, with student discount. Pixelmator achieves everything I need from a Photoshop point of view, now. But in terms of photography, I work almost exclusively with VSCO - which I love and could vouch for forever.
Yes its true that we should read the agreements and that we are only purchasing the "use of" a software and not much else. However, we have seen over time that "us of" has come with small print that lets makers of software do more such as in the case of Windows (who may access your system unless you take specific actions to stop etc.) and some complexities with other agreements...so I simply provide this "agreement below" as no more than crude humour (so if you don't like crude humour don't look at the link).
No, I'm not tired of paying.
I think it's a great deal and I like all the updates throughout the year.
I think it's a great deal and I like all the updates throughout the year.
One thing I don't like about the subscription model is that if or when you decide to stop paying the subscription, you know longer have access to the software you "paid" for and you won't be able to open your files in older versions of software you may have bought such as CS6 (Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat, etc.). Am I wrong with this assumption?