Fuji GFX and Capture One

[pegelli]

Just find it odd that £9/Month is seen as prohibitive to work on files from £10-£50k of camera kit.
Doesn’t give me insomnia either.

It's not (always) the money, as you can read in several posts it also has to do with other stuff people don't like about Adobe or the terms of the subscription. It's just like cameras, lenses etc. The ideal one doesn't exist and people choose what suits them best. For some it's an Adobe subscription, for others not. Both are right (for their needs) and I don't see any problem with that. Isn't it great to have choices?

 

[MrSmith]

Choice is good. I too dislike adobe but that’s for their lacklustre attitude to fixing a lot of the photoshop tools (brush lag, quickmask bugs only single core etc) and releasing new features that are of little use to professional users.
I still think it’s incredibly good value considering what it enables you to do.

 

[pegelli]

I still think it’s incredibly good value considering what it enables you to do.

Agree, it's not significantly more expensive than buying the upgrades in the past. But it's the inability to keep using it when you stop the subscription that holds me back taking the plunge. If I switch tools I don't mind to use that for all my new photo's, but the thought I can't do little tweaks on my old shots in the tool they were first processed in is the show stopper for me.

 

[MGrayson]

If the perpetual license were such a bad deal compared with the "only $10/month" subscription, then Adobe would surely make it an option to fleece us idiots of our money. The fact that they don't means we are undervaluing the option - as in the financial instrument - we have given them to raises the price or otherwise hold our work for ransom.

Anyone is welcome not to care, or not to see why giving away control of the output of your $50K camera system (and paying for the privilege) is a bad thing. Or they can argue that computers won't support your current software in 10 years, or whatever. It's the lack of choice that bothers some of us.

I'm having déjà vu.

Matt

 

[MrSmith]

‘other compatible image processors are available':thumbup:

 

[pegelli]

......... we have given them to raise the price or otherwise hold our work for ransom.

+1, not being able to access your old work with your old tool is a bad deal in my book, no matter what angle I look at it. A perpetual licence with an old computer will very likely work until you die, and even longer for your heirs in case they would be interested.

‘other compatible image processors are available':thumbup:

Fortunately yes, and even better, most of those don't involve the ongoing subscription that you think should be OK for others.

 

[ron787]

Re: Fuji GFX and Capture One vs An annuity for Adobe

If the perpetual license were such a bad deal compared with the "only $10/month" subscription, then Adobe would surely make it an option to fleece us idiots of our money. The fact that they don't means we are undervaluing the option - as in the financial instrument - we have given them to raises the price or otherwise hold our work for ransom.

Anyone is welcome not to care, or not to see why giving away control of the output of your $50K camera system (and paying for the privilege) is a bad thing. Or they can argue that computers won't support your current software in 10 years, or whatever. It's the lack of choice that bothers some of us.

I'm having déjà vu.

Matt

I'd stopped using Adobe products, with the exception of an older version of Photoshop 6 that had been purchased, when they'd switched to their subscription program. Like you, I do not relish the idea of a company holding me hostage to their cash generating agenda. I much prefer to own my software, or a license to use same, thereby affording me the option of signing on to future upgrades or not. Of course, the hostage approach assumed by Adobe and others guarantees them perpetual cash flow, or so they think. IMO, the Phase One approach with Capture One is much more palatable, and the software itself has matured to the extent that it accomplishes all that I personally require, and I am a GFX100 user.

 

[mristuccia]

IMHO we are rapidly moving to a commodity service model. And in a very near future complains like those will pretty much sound like wanting to own the very power plant instead of paying the monthly bill.
Time will tell us, and I agree that it is indeed good that we have different choices and different thinkings.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Likely next step might be you can only store your images on their servers. Not possible you say? Well for CAD/CAM, computer machining design software that has already happened. Then it will be even easier to rip you off. :banghead:

 

[ron787]

Likely next step might be you can only store your images on their servers. Not possible you say? Well for CAD/CAM, computer machining design software that has already happened. Then it will be even easier to rip you off. :banghead:

Well said!
I can envision Adobe, and companies that employ a similar business plan, selling their obligatory "Cloud" storage as a more efficient means of archiving and processing. And at that point they will have complete control of your content ... talk about hostage taking. I will never follow that path, and prefer to own my resident software with storage directed to my on premises RAID device. You acquired the images, you own the copyright. Keep it safe.

 

[MrSmith]

If that happens then their competitors will prosper and professional users will leave adobe in droves.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Capture one release a full image editing program as they are effectively developing it in the open with layers, masking,luminosity masks etc.
In fact I heard a rumour a few years ago that this was where they were heading.

 

[PeterA]

Likely next step might be you can only store your images on their servers. Not possible you say? Well for CAD/CAM, computer machining design software that has already happened. Then it will be even easier to rip you off. :banghead:

Yep