Adobe Moves to Subscription Model for Photoshop

[Mike Farley]

I am not sure whether or not it is coincidental, but today's "What the Duck" is very apposite.

http://www.whattheduck.net/strip/1382

[davidc]

Too good to not be intended

[Mike Farley]

Michael Reichmann adds his two penn'orth over at Luminous Landscape and includes a link to an updated version of THAT Hitler clip. In respect of the latter, I will repeat his warning to those who are offended by strong language.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/adobe_cc.shtml

Michael Johnston mentions it en passant at The Online Photographer, but (wisely?) mainly ducks the issue.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... -mail.html

Both are writers for whom I have regard and their views echo mine that many people will eventually get over it. Our Photoshop "tax" just increased and that's the main problem people have.

[davidc]

Hmmm I've read a number of counter opinions too The number of parody videos that are springing up criticising Adobe's decision are plentiful, and funny!

It's not simply a change to how we pay for their product though, it's a now a handcuff. We are entirely beholden to their decisions and upgrade path so consumer choice is reduced. If they have another couple of patch fiascos then they are in serious trouble, they've bet the farm on this.

[Mike Farley]

To an extent, those handcuffs were already there. Changed your camera and shoot Raw? That probably means updating Photoshop (and/or Lightroom) as well unless your new camera has been on the market for a while. Adobe's recent history has been littered with a number of increasing restrictions and price hikes, all of which seem to derive from the need to drive the revenues shareholders expect. If sales fall, someone will be fired and CEOs don't like that.

I suspect that Adobe's problem is that it has a bunch of mature products. Photoshop certainly is and I would not be surprised if the same applies to many of the others. The result is that there is less than compelling reason for a subset of its customers to upgrade. So far as photography goes, with one or two exceptions, outside of Raw conversion most of what people do can be accomplished with Photoshop 7, let alone CS6. Functions such as those based on content aware technology make some aspects easier and quicker, but for the cost conscious there are usually other ways of achieving the same results.

For myself, Photoshop Elements fulfills most of my needs, but I do find myself using one or two things in PS which make life easier. Content Aware Fill is one example and another is the Channel Mixer, long missing from PSE, principally due to its use in infrared photography. Most likely Camera Shake Reduction is a candidate for addition to that list. The other thing I like about my current integrated LR4/CS6 setup is that I can open images from Lightroom in CS6 without creating an intermediate file. Very often my initial conversions are not the those which I eventually use and it avoids the hassle of deleting unwanted files afterwards. For me, these various features are actually worth money.

Here's a thought. PSE supports plugins, so if Adobe has got its pricing wrong for photographers, the way is open for someone enterprising to add the missing features and make themselves a bit of cash. Who's in?

[Mike Farley]

"What The Duck" again.

http://www.whattheduck.net/strip/1387

[Mike Farley]

Adobe is currently stating that Lightroom will not become a rental only product. I just wish that the company had a better record of consistency when it comes to standing by its statements of policy. As it is, it is very difficult to place any trust in what it says, especially as Lightroom is unique in being available both standalone and as part of the Creative Cloud.

If it could incorporate Camera Shake Reduction into ACR, I am sure that a lot of photographers would have no need for Photoshop CC.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/15 ... le-hangout

[davidc]

Check out piccure.com, similar idea but I doubt it's as sophisticated or as good as Adobe's offering. Having said that it's currently free.

[Mike Farley]

Check out piccure.com, similar idea but I doubt it's as sophisticated or as good as Adobe's offering. Having said that it's currently free.

According to the website, piccure is currently in beta and is only available as a free 14 day trial. Which definitely seems odd. I'll find a selection of pictures taken with my unsteady hands and will give it a go.

[Mike Farley]

Mike Johnston at The Online Photographer has just published his views. The comments section is interesting as a number of people have mentioned alternatives to Photoshop which could be worth investigating. Someone has even posted a link to download CS2 complete with serial number from Adobe. It is meant for purchasers of the product who are still using it as it can no longer be activated online.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... l#comments

Thom Hogan has also written a number of articles about Adobe's strategy on his blog. He makes the point that by renting software as opposed to selling it outright, Adobe has become a service company. Something which it does not seem to have been good at in the past.

http://www.bythom.com/index.htm

The question is how many people who are considering switching or sticking with a copy of CS will actually do so? And are there alternatives out there which will do what people want? That's the nature of Adobe's gambol.