Apparently there will never be an Adobe Creative Suite 7; instead, there will be Adobe Cloud, at $50 per month for the [former] Suite, and $20 per month for a single application like Photoshop. Details.
Am I permitted to say here that this really sucks?
That's terrible. Adobe is throwing away the baby with the dishwater instead of offering both they are going to lose a good portion of their support base with this move. I suppose I should sell my adobe stock, lol.
Guess we will all need to find new products.. I wonder what percentage of their customers are corporate who will suck it up and pay the monthly fee vs. individual users?
Sorry to hear this, but I'm sure they know their market. I suspect that serious photographers make up a small part of it while they really feel they serve commercial interests. Perhaps their MBA's figure that PS Elements is The Product for the bulk of the photography market.
I know I could personally due without a lot of what's now in full Photoshop, and what I'd like to see is something "lighter" (like Elements) that still has features from the full PS that aren't in Elements.
I will struggle along with CS6 for a few years more. Then probably I will at least try Nikon Capture NX2. I've heard it is good, but slow. Has anyone tried the beta of Lightroom 5? Do they intend to keep selling it as a download?
It looks like I will be stuck on CS6 for the future. I am not "upgrading" to a subscription model, especially one where I need to be connected to use the product. As far as I am concerned, Adobe can take their Creative Cloud and shove it.
I plan to stay with CS6 as well. But I worry that when Adobe says it is stopping development of CS, it also means no support for new cameras. What better way to compel photographers, over time, to shift to "creative cloud"?
It is a bit of hassle and more time, but you can always use the free DNG software to convert your raw files, then pull them into the Adobe raw converter if you get a camera that is not supported. Or go with a 3rd party converter.
I am seriously hoping a company will step up with an alternative product that would give Adobe a run for their money. Maybe the Adobe Cloud model will provide enough disgruntled consumers to make it worth while for a competitor.
It looks like CS6 will have to last me a long time. I have the DVD disc if I ever have need to reinstall it.
The Adobe Creative Suite was actually designed for graphic artists in a production environment, this includes Photo Shop. A graphics pro who uses all the programs in the suite, for many hours each day would likely support the cloud/subscription-based model, and would pass on their costs to clients. For photographers, who would likely use PS on a less frequent basis (I am in this group), paying a subscription fee is simply money pit.
If you think about it, how many of the features of PS are directly related to the post processing most of us use for our photographs? Not that many, really. So, in effect, we're paying a lot of money for features we may never need.
With that in mind, I certainly would like to see a program that is truly photo-centric, whether it is from Adobe (an upgraded PS Elements, for example) or another vendor.
Microsoft is doing something similar with MS Office with their Office 365. You pay a subscription fee and can install it on several different machines. If you opt for the non-subscription version, you can only install it on a single computer. I find this to be very onerous.
On another note: I prefer having the actual disc(s). Downloading these huge files takes an age, even with DSL, and there's always a chance the download will get corrupted, making installation impossible, or at the least causing problems after the install.
What other programs offer layer based workflows?? Is there any other program where you can combine images and/or parts of images...for HDR, or Creative Textures etc?? I know Elements can do it but it's limited to 8Bit for these purposes. Thanks for the input.
It looks like you can get just Photoshop for $10/month for the first year...then $20/month. That's twice the going rate for an upgrade every other year. Ouch! Unhappy... It's doable...but unhappy about it....
I work in the software industry and selling software on a subscription model is a growing trend. Some companies have started with this model and never sold a perpetual license. What irks me is once you stop paying the monthly tribute you lose the software. I will sometimes skip a version upgrade to save money if the new features are not that great. Now I do not get a choice. Pay up or else.
I hope Adobe does not move Lightroom or Elements over to this model.
Adobe is concentrating there market research on the Creative Suite as a whole, which would probably place the main users in studio's. Most nature and landscape photographers only use the Photoshop part of the Suite, and do not operate in a studio for their images. Many (Including myself) do extensive and extended travel to remote locations where there is no internet or phone service. How are we going to process our photos if we cannot access the cloud because there is no service. In a recent three month trip camping in our national parks, I was not able to access the internet effectively for several weeks. Even with a 4G hotspot, that at most had a weak 3G signal. I agree with Jim, this idea really sucks.
I am unfortunately not surprised. It was very difficult to find a stand alone version of CS6 on their website when I went to it a few months ago. I certainly don't have the bandwidth for this kind of thing, and I fear the "cloud craze" means a decrease in development of the software, since they get people locked in to a monthly charge and no longer have much incentive to come out with an improved product.
I would love to see a serious competitor to Adobe. In the meantime, I'll probably just get lightroom for support for future raw formats and stick with CS6. I'd like to see a lot of people do that and for Adobe to develop some humility.
any announcement on how long they'll continue to update CS6 for new camera bodies? I'd like to make the move to CS6 while I can, but I'm also interested in getting a new camera body this fall, and if my ACR won't function with the new body, then I'd have second thoughts about CS6.
I have been seriously working with Capture NX2 for a couple of years now and I really like it. Its implementation of layers and masking is quite easy. I have not yet figured out how to do the luminosity masks that Tony K taught us to do in PS but I'm sure someone will. The ONLY thing I cannot get it to do is layering of two or more different images. For this I use either Photomatix for HDR or Helicon Focus for focus stacking. If really pressed to blend two different shots for another purpose (almost never happens) I use Photoshop Elements. For you Nikon users I suggest you try NX2. It has some nice features that CS does not that NIK built into the software. It can be a little slow when using a lot of high powered batch functions which I like to do, but a little more computer memory helped that out quite a bit.
How are we going to process our photos if we cannot access the cloud because there is no service.
If I am understanding things correctly, once you install the program and validate your license it is fully functional without the need to be connected to the internet.
The only time you need internet access is to re-validate your license once each month and grab any updates.
If you use their cloud storage service to save files on fly, you would certainly need internet access for this.
Please correct me, if I'm wrong.
As I said in my earlier post, I think this whole concept stinks.
This really blows, but is not unexpected. I would love to see a serious competitor to Adobe come out - I'd switch in a heartbeat. Fortunately, I bought the disc version of CS6 so at least I'm covered for a while.
My understanding is you can use the software without internet access for up to 99 days.
Per a Scott Kelby blog (and he sounds like he works for Adobe in this blog):
" It’s my understanding that if you’re an annual subscriber, it only checks once-a-month to confirm your registration — not every day, all day, and annual subscribers can actually be off-line for up to 99 days straight and it still keep their subscription active."
I have had this feeling for a while now that Adobe is going the cloud route. I am bombarded at least once a week with some kind of promotional email from Adobe to try the cloud subscription. I want nothing to do with it. Why should I buy a canon to shoot a mouse (no pun intended). Like most of us "photographers" here, I am not in the business of mass production of images. Quite frankly, the less time I have to spend manipulating images, the happier I am, so my practice, and what I teach, is "get it right in camera" and you won't have to waste time "fixing" it later. Having said that, I occasionally use CS5 to play with some image ideas, resize or some other functions like layers, so the subscription model is a non starter with me. I use LR4 (and testing LR5 beta) for 95% of my work. With this idiotic move from Adobe, I am hoping OnOne, or NIK, or both step up their game and fill the void with some additional tools we could all use, then we will not Adobe anymore.
Fortunately open source (free) software is making big strides. Perhaps it won't be long before Gimp, a free layer based photoshop-like application, will be able to entirely replace the need for photoshop in a typical workflow.
I've been using Nikon's Capture NX for about 3 years - I have to say I prefer it to Photoshop for every stage except the final 'save for web'.
I've noticed that NIK's Viveza has a very similar U Point feature.
Like many of you, I have no need for a full Creative Suite and my bandwidth is poor so I don't want software that depends on the internet.
I don't think we'll get Adobe to change their minds. They have clearly decided this is the way to go. Microsoft are doing the same, and many others.
We can all hang on to our old software for a while but as soon as we upgrade cameras and find that the software does not support them we hit the wall.
"...my bandwidth is poor so I don't want software that depends on the internet."
Just to again clarify, it only needs to check occasionally (monthly or less) that your license is valid. So yes you need an internet connection occasionally, but no, bandwidth is not an issue.
That said, I also much prefer the idea of purchasing, rather than leasing, software. However, I deal with a lot of very expensive software in my job, and all of it is leased and has been for years. I don't think this model will be anything too new for the business world.
Posted by Garry Revesz on May 11, 2013 at 10:19 PM
David is right, that this is not new for the business world. I too have dealt with a lot of enterprise software in my past IT businesses, and it's not a big deal to Corporations. They just write it off as a cost of doing business, and it's pocket change to them. I still have a half a foot in the business world, but since transitioning to the world of photography, I don't know one photographer who likes, wants, or needs the software subscription model to conduct their photo business, including me. In the majority of cases, this is not a corporate environment we operate in, so our software, hardware and workflow choices are very personal, we become married to them, and will only upgrade if it offers distinct advantages to our workflow; that is not a good recipe for the subscription model. The majority of my workflow is handled in Lightroom, and I seriously hope Adobe doesn't have future plans to move it to a subscription model. If signs of that ever became evident, they would have to build another bridge to handle the traffic crossing over from Lightroom to Aperture, even though it doesn't quite stack up.
I am wondering if you will be able to go to edit photos in PS from lightroom, from future lightroom upgrades, if you don't upgrade to new versions of PS?
John
Corel is now making moves to persuade disillusioned Adobe CS users to cross over to its Paintshop Pro and Aftershot Pro by offering upgrade pricing to anyone making the switch.
Discussion
35 repliesAm I permitted to say here that this really sucks?
I know I could personally due without a lot of what's now in full Photoshop, and what I'd like to see is something "lighter" (like Elements) that still has features from the full PS that aren't in Elements.
I am seriously hoping a company will step up with an alternative product that would give Adobe a run for their money. Maybe the Adobe Cloud model will provide enough disgruntled consumers to make it worth while for a competitor.
The Adobe Creative Suite was actually designed for graphic artists in a production environment, this includes Photo Shop. A graphics pro who uses all the programs in the suite, for many hours each day would likely support the cloud/subscription-based model, and would pass on their costs to clients. For photographers, who would likely use PS on a less frequent basis (I am in this group), paying a subscription fee is simply money pit.
If you think about it, how many of the features of PS are directly related to the post processing most of us use for our photographs? Not that many, really. So, in effect, we're paying a lot of money for features we may never need.
With that in mind, I certainly would like to see a program that is truly photo-centric, whether it is from Adobe (an upgraded PS Elements, for example) or another vendor.
Microsoft is doing something similar with MS Office with their Office 365. You pay a subscription fee and can install it on several different machines. If you opt for the non-subscription version, you can only install it on a single computer. I find this to be very onerous.
On another note: I prefer having the actual disc(s). Downloading these huge files takes an age, even with DSL, and there's always a chance the download will get corrupted, making installation impossible, or at the least causing problems after the install.
'Nuff said.
--P
I hope Adobe does not move Lightroom or Elements over to this model.
- Dan
If I am understanding things correctly, once you install the program and validate your license it is fully functional without the need to be connected to the internet.
The only time you need internet access is to re-validate your license once each month and grab any updates.
If you use their cloud storage service to save files on fly, you would certainly need internet access for this.
Please correct me, if I'm wrong.
As I said in my earlier post, I think this whole concept stinks.
--P
Per a Scott Kelby blog (and he sounds like he works for Adobe in this blog):
" It’s my understanding that if you’re an annual subscriber, it only checks once-a-month to confirm your registration — not every day, all day, and annual subscribers can actually be off-line for up to 99 days straight and it still keep their subscription active."
Garry Revesz
Toronto
Let Adobe know how you feel!
I have signed it.
--P
I've noticed that NIK's Viveza has a very similar U Point feature.
Like many of you, I have no need for a full Creative Suite and my bandwidth is poor so I don't want software that depends on the internet.
I don't think we'll get Adobe to change their minds. They have clearly decided this is the way to go. Microsoft are doing the same, and many others.
We can all hang on to our old software for a while but as soon as we upgrade cameras and find that the software does not support them we hit the wall.
Just to again clarify, it only needs to check occasionally (monthly or less) that your license is valid. So yes you need an internet connection occasionally, but no, bandwidth is not an issue.
That said, I also much prefer the idea of purchasing, rather than leasing, software. However, I deal with a lot of very expensive software in my job, and all of it is leased and has been for years. I don't think this model will be anything too new for the business world.
Garry Revesz
Toronto
John
There are some things that are pretty compelling, but not enough for me to go with the cloud version.
--P