Medium format use: Is photoshop indispensable ?

[fotografz]

I refuse to pay the subscription charges to Adobe but not because I'm apposed to subscription services. Can someone please tell me apart from the background save feature in CS6 has Adobe released any must have new tools, performance enhancements or quality improvements since my last payed upgrade (or probably since CS3) that make CC a must have upgrade?

I'm not sure of the compulsive need to have the latest Adobe "code" on my machine, and pay monthly for it when it offers no added benefit over CS6 (which still receives camera updates)?

So please this is a genuine question, what does paying a monthly fee for CC give me over CS6 that is making all the posters in this topic so bemused why us none payers haven't signed up already???

Personally, I think this is a legitimate question ... but the answer depends on how current one wishes to be with any refinements without bothering to track each update or wait for a new release to get those refinements ... as opposed to not feeling a need for every little tweak, or even every new release.

I simply went back and reviewed my financial outlay for PS and LR over a few years and found the subscription plan to work for me, where I could see it being different for others.

The unknowns are how long PS6 will be supported ... and how long Adobe will keep the CC subscription at a reasonable cost per month.

- Marc

 

[Ed Hurst]

I think there is a tendency to conflate whether the price of the subscription (as it currently stands) represents good value (based on our own personal criteria) and whether the compulsory subscription model is something that people like. To me, the former is true (I find it reasonable value for what I do) and the latter is not (I don't like being forced to pay a subscription). I don't think it's morally wrong or a rip off - after all, it's a free market and no one is forcing me to use their products; they are free to charge as they wish, and I am free not to buy it. However, there is something about the feeling of buying something outright and feeling "that is now mine, outright" versus feeling that buying something involves permanently having to pay money to a corporation. Certainly an emotional response and not totally logical, since in the end I pay the same (or perhaps less). But I do understand why it feels wrong. Because if you buy something outright, you are then free to do what you want with the product, including using it, without ever having to do anything in particular.

So I am in the position of understanding why people object - on an emotional level - whilst deciding, in the end, that it doesn't matter much logically and paying up!

 

[gazwas]

I just don't get it. Bitching and moaning about $11/month

I have no issue with the monthly cost and do think it is good value if it actually had any great benefit over CS6. I looked at the list of improvements in CC and apart from not knowing what the camera RAW as filter means everything else looked very minor. I don't see how "workflow time-savers", "camera shake reduction", "font search" and "inproved guides" can be classed as upgrades? When Camera RAW no longer gets updates then it might be time to upgrade but still struggleing to see any reason yet? Possibly if I used Lightroom it would make more sence but being a C1 user I have no idea of the update history of that software.

 

[Chris Giles]

When I first started out I was using a illegal version of Photoshop. Then I realised that It was going to cost me much less than a camera lens so I bought CS4 in full, upgraded to CS5, then CS6.

I've no problem paying a subscription charge. It allows me to always have the latest version and updates and it's cheaper than upgrading every year. When you think about it, those who complain about paying a sub are often the ones who want a perpetual license and don't intend to upgrade anyway.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am much more a Lightroom user than a Photoshop user, so I considered looking for cheaper alternative to Photoshop. With the present pricing Lightroom and Photoshop combined I feel that the package is attractive.

I do most of my work in Lightroom, that lets me work with small files. But, sometimes I need to do things Photoshop is good at. The present cost is not much higher than what I would pay for just Lightroom updates in the long run.

Another point is that many Photoshop users didn't use "legit" version, the present scheme lovers the barriers of entry.

Jeff Schewe, over at LuLa says that Thomas Knoll acted a lot to lower prices for Photoshop for photographers, and that is a very good thing that I may feel he deserves some applause for.

Best regards
Erik

I think there is a tendency to conflate whether the price of the subscription (as it currently stands) represents good value (based on our own personal criteria) and whether the compulsory subscription model is something that people like. To me, the former is true (I find it reasonable value for what I do) and the latter is not (I don't like being forced to pay a subscription). I don't think it's morally wrong or a rip off - after all, it's a free market and no one is forcing me to use their products; they are free to charge as they wish, and I am free not to buy it. However, there is something about the feeling of buying something outright and feeling "that is now mine, outright" versus feeling that buying something involves permanently having to pay money to a corporation. Certainly an emotional response and not totally logical, since in the end I pay the same (or perhaps less). But I do understand why it feels wrong. Because if you buy something outright, you are then free to do what you want with the product, including using it, without ever having to do anything in particular.

So I am in the position of understanding why people object - on an emotional level - whilst deciding, in the end, that it doesn't matter much logically and paying up!

 

[Pradeep]

The title of this thread reads 'Medium Format Use: Is Photoshop Indispensible?".

Given that it is for Medium Format users, I don't see the problem unless it is one of 'principle'. When we all have spent over $25K (in many instances over $50K) on camera equipment, what is $11 per month?


I've been a photoshop user since PS6 in the 90s. Upgrades usually appeared every 18-24 months and cost around $150-200 (which in 2001 was a lot of money). A regular subscription now costs around the same overall.

As far as need for processing is concerned, I think it is absolutely indispensable. Some degree of post is required for every image, even if it is just cropping and dust spotting. Today, LR and C1 can transform an image, pulling out shadow detail like you wouldn't believe it.

Is there anything else that can do it? sure, but nothing else has as wide a user base, as robust an interface or as powerful a set of features. For those big into graphic design and video, there is a whole host of other programs in the Adobe stable that work seamlessly with Photoshop.

For me it's a no-brainer.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Exactly. One MF lens would buy you way more than TEN years of use of the latest PS versions.

 

[Shashin]

I suppose you could apply that thinking to a lot of things.

We may own a TV, computer, phone, but we "lease" it's use from the power company, cell company and cable company.

Heck, even if you own your own car, you are "leasing" it's use from the Oil companies.

- Marc

But I don't have to buy my electricity or oil from a single company. I could even install equipment to generate my own electricity.

But this is a bit different. Perhaps it would be clearer this way. If you paint a picture, how would you feel sending a check to the paint manufacturer every month to view the painting?

 

[Shashin]

Exactly. One MF lens would buy you way more than TEN years of use of the latest PS versions.

Right now...

...and I don't mean the prices of optics might fall.

 

[Shashin]

My situation might be a little different. I don't just use Photoshop, but InDesign and Illustrator. I am rather ambivalent about the whole thing. In some ways it takes away the hit of the upfront cost of paying for the package, but the idea that some company can pull the pug on your creative work anytime it wants is a bit too Big Brother. I can design a book or an illustration, but I have to keep funding Adobe to get to the design?

Whether you need Photoshop is more personal. I use a lot of features and some seem rather unfeature like--color management, for example. I am sure photographers could get by without Photoshop, but in my work there is no substitute.

 

[satybhat]

SO,

In general, there's agreement that there is no viable software alternative to what can be done in photoshop. In my opinion, this makes it an even more difficult situation.
$11 a month, a very good deal, yes. A few things that might further this discussion:

1. CS6 is definitely good enough for me for now. But they have stopped selling it for newcomers who don't have it.

2. A subscription for use is more, lets say "ethical" for content that changes all the time. eg. a magazine, a newspaper, a video rental. Here, people have to keep paying to use the same thing (almost, except for perhaps a few substantial updates here and there ).

3. This is akin to artists charging a subscription to have their painting put to use (as Will pointed out).

4. Ownership is not established. For eg, if someone is subscribing to 'my copy', how would Adobe feel if someone sublet the license ? We share and resell books and music and gear after all, so why not software ?

5. Is there a guarantee that $11 will not become $30 a month ? No. ( At the same time, it might even reduce further ).

6. If someone uses photoshop just once in a while, should the subscription price reflect that ? (I for eg. will get 10 keepers a year as an enthusiast photographer ). I hardly put in 30 hrs of photoshop work in a year. For me, $132 for 30 hrs a year is something to consider alternatives for. The truth is that CS6 is so good, that unless I change my gear and desktop ( 5-7 yrs ) I have no need for the subscription at all. Does adobe care about how that affects them? Au contraire, if they came up with another CC worth $500 to be bought outright in 3 yrs, I would actually consider 'upgrading".

 

[Arjuna]

... If you paint a picture, how would you feel sending a check to the paint manufacturer every month to view the painting?

I think the analogy is a little askew: you are 'renting' the tools from Adobe, not the end product.

If you make a print, or save a .tiff file, then you don't really need Adobe PS again. You can view the print, and probably view and/or print the .tiff file, even if Adobe goes out of business and CC is gone.

If you want to do some more work on the picture, i.e. if you want to make some changes to the picture that you painted, with rented brushes and paints, then yes, you need (to rent) the same (or newer and improved) brushes and paints in order to do some new work on the old painting. But that is a different issue from viewing the original painting/picture.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Well I think the painting analogy doesn't really work because it's more akin to a final output flattened jpg or TIFF file. You're one & done once it's produced.

However, with a perpetual PS outfit your paints never truly dry.

 

[Dogs857]

Have you looked at the OnOne suite??

They are pretty nice, relatively easy to use and the results are quite good. I have been using it quite a bit lately in an attempt to understand it better. That and the Niksoft suite of adjustment programs. I'm not ready to dump PS just yet but they are pretty damn nice.

I traditionally used Photoshop for 10-20% of my post processing. Lightroom does most of the heavy lifting and then shoot into other programs for things that I can't do there, or are done better elsewhere. Photoshop is a fantastic program, and I would use it to maybe 1/10th of its potential. I just don't need most of the fancy stuff it can do. I did subscribe to the cloud as it was cheaper than updating my CS4 to CS6. However if I can get results from OnOne then I may change over to them.

Then again for $10 a month with PS and LR it's pretty good value.

 

[Pradeep]

Have you looked at the OnOne suite??

They are pretty nice, relatively easy to use and the results are quite good. I have been using it quite a bit lately in an attempt to understand it better. That and the Niksoft suite of adjustment programs. I'm not ready to dump PS just yet but they are pretty damn nice.

I traditionally used Photoshop for 10-20% of my post processing. Lightroom does most of the heavy lifting and then shoot into other programs for things that I can't do there, or are done better elsewhere. Photoshop is a fantastic program, and I would use it to maybe 1/10th of its potential. I just don't need most of the fancy stuff it can do. I did subscribe to the cloud as it was cheaper than updating my CS4 to CS6. However if I can get results from OnOne then I may change over to them.

Then again for $10 a month with PS and LR it's pretty good value.

I've been an OnOne user for a while and have also used the Nik suite extensively. Lately I've been trying the excellent MacPhun package (never been a big fan of Topaz except the masking piece). Nik cannot do raw conversion and I doubt OnOne's raw conversion is good enough (in fact they recommend first converting them to tif or other formats). The package though is really good, better than any other I've come across.

My biggest problem with OnOne is that it is too slow. Even on my MacPro 2013 with two graphic cards, 64G RAM, it is incredibly slow especially when the screen is a big 30" monitor. OTOH, MacPhun is super fast as is Photoshop. I've written to OnOne support and they admit their program is not optimized for speed.

There is really no getting away from LR or Photoshop.

 

[Egor]

"Is Photoshop Indispensible?"

For Professionals: Yes, you must have it, use it, and practice

For anyone else, I can't say, but if I were an advanced amateur or just an enthusiast, The first thing on my "want" list (ahead of any camera, lens, or gadget) would be a computer and Photoshop.

The question is like asking a film photography enthusiast or pro back in the 70's: "Is processing your film indispensable? Is a darkroom indispensable?"

That having been said, it is odd that there is virtually no competitive product to switch to. I can't think of any other software that so clearly dominates its market as Adobe Photoshop. I remember som promising alternatives back in the early 90's but they died rather quickly and not much has come out since. Conspiracy theories anyone?

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

The way I see it, if I have dropped the kind of cash that I did to reach the level of perfection I desire from my gear, then the images I deem keepers should also be worked to perfection, blowing off every tiny bit of dust that doesn't make the image.

Thoughts like "but that's what it was actually like!" can ruin photographs.

That having been said, it is odd that there is virtually no competitive product to switch to. I can't think of any other software that so clearly dominates its market as Adobe Photoshop. I remember som promising alternatives back in the early 90's but they died rather quickly and not much has come out since. Conspiracy theories anyone?

For digital artists there are still a few alternatives, but for photography I'm not entirely sure how anything else would work. What differentiating features could they possibly offer? How much more efficient would the workflow be? What would you do about cross-application integration?

Photoshop already has a very efficient interface, more features than most people ever use, is highly expandable with plugins for those few features it does not have, and it's fully integrated into a suite of products where I can drag and drop stuff between programs and I know what I'm doing without having to learn a new interface since they all look the same.

A monopoly is only a bad situation to be in if the only thing you get out of it is arrogance on the side of the developer, but Adobe keeps developing features and innovates in directions people didn't even know they needed. Content-aware technology? can't live without that anymore! but before it was introduced I didn't know if it was even possible and would have been happily cloning and stamping away till this day.

 

[Shashin]

I think the analogy is a little askew: you are 'renting' the tools from Adobe, not the end product.

If you make a print, or save a .tiff file, then you don't really need Adobe PS again. You can view the print, and probably view and/or print the .tiff file, even if Adobe goes out of business and CC is gone.

If you want to do some more work on the picture, i.e. if you want to make some changes to the picture that you painted, with rented brushes and paints, then yes, you need (to rent) the same (or newer and improved) brushes and paints in order to do some new work on the old painting. But that is a different issue from viewing the original painting/picture.

But my end product is the Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign files. So you would be OK in a camera company charging a subscription to the camera's raw processor? I mean, once you have processed the images, you don't need access to the original file. As long as you continue to pay, you can keep using the raw files, including the xml file.

If Adobe offered a choice, that would be one thing. But they are telling me I have to rent my work from them. They are saying what I create is not really mine. Perhaps it is because I make books. But I make the books, not Adobe. I have yet to see Adobe suggest that their files are just an intermediate file format to an actual product.

Don't get me wrong, even in book production there is some benefit to subscription. It solves a lot of legacy issues. But it does being up the problem of who actually owns the work, the creator of the work or the tool maker? Lets just hope Adobe never goes bankrupt.

 

[Don Libby]

I entered a subscription to the cloud May 2013 for an introductory price of less than $20 per month for 12-months then last year they screwed up and quoted the same price for the second year. I received an email stating they were honoring that price so in the end I've been paying 1/2 what I should have if they hadn't stepped up and honored their mistake.

A couple months ago I signed in and added another email address to my profile. The same time I deactivated the laptop to use CC on the SP3 for a quick trip I went on where I needed to pack ultra light. Returning home I deactivated the SP3 and reactivated the laptop however never really checking that I had done everything correctly.

Turns out I screwed myself. First with the email change; Adobe thought I had opened a new account and my CC desktop would only offer ne "trial" and not "install". Secondary since I had deleted everything on the SP3 (to save space) without properly deactivating Adobe thought I had reached my max of 2-computers.

I've been a little too busy to concern myself since my main studio computer continued to play and properly update all the needed programs. Monday I contacted Adobe on their chat. 3 1/2 hrs later I was back up and running on both the studio and laptop having fixed the email error sign-in I had caused and the screw up on activating/deactivating. The person I chatted with was highly professional and patient staying on the line as we fixed each problem and reloaded CC desktop onto my laptop. A lot of the time spent on the chat was me properly describing what I had done and then the slow process of downloading the software.

I choose the full Creative Cloud to give me access to more than just Photoshop and Premiere Pro, Acrobat are just 2-programs that are well worth the price of admission. I can also visit and load another program use it then 6-months later delete if after I no longer have a need. I keep returning to LR thinking that I'll eventually learn to like it however it always ends up deleted.

The one smart thing I've done is brought anther seat for C1-Pro to have on the SP3 giving me full access on all 3-of my computers without the need of any worry. In the end at least for me I see this as a price of doing business and it's a write-off.

Don

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

But my end product is the Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign files. So you would be OK in a camera company charging a subscription to the camera's raw processor? I mean, once you have processed the images, you don't need access to the original file. As long as you continue to pay, you can keep using the raw files, including the xml file.

If Adobe offered a choice, that would be one thing. But they are telling me I have to rent my work from them. They are saying what I create is not really mine. Perhaps it is because I make books. But I make the books, not Adobe. I have yet to see Adobe suggest that their files are just an intermediate file format to an actual product.

Don't get me wrong, even in book production there is some benefit to subscription. It solves a lot of legacy issues. But it does being up the problem of who actually owns the work, the creator of the work or the tool maker? Lets just hope Adobe never goes bankrupt.

You don't have to use any of Adobe's proprietary formats, TIFF has been around since digital scanners were invented almost 30 years ago and is openable by everything, and xml/dng are both open standards that a programer can write a program for if needed. So long as the method for decoding the data isn't kept in a state that may eventually be lost, there's nothing to really worry about, people have reverse-engineered stuff much more complicated in the past.