What would you / do you pay for PP software?

[davidedric]

As the OP, you can probably work out my view: I judge on what it's worth to me, not what it cost to produce. It's pretty much all been said in the thread, but I'd just like to add a couple of thoughts.

After a working life in application development and application management (and AM is the hard bit!) I know how hard it is to produce high quality software. It's not even theoretically possible to produce bug-free software (that's another subject, if anyone wants a thread in the Community Lounge, but definitely off topic here.)

I see the only ways to get software of the richness, quality and longevity that we all want is through co-operative development, or by proprietary products: and by that I mean either open source, or with the backing of a major corporate such as ADOBE, or from the camera manufacturers. We can each make our own choice based on whatever criteria are most important to us.

As and example of what will eventually wither: for several years I used a product called Picture Window Pro (PWP). It had some quite advanced features, notably curves, at at a price around that of PSE when PSE was really a toy. (Interestingly, it was written by the guy who wrote Lotus 123, if anyone remembers the days when Microsoft and Apple weren't the only players around). Sadly, it just couldn't keep pace, and I only recently uninstalled it from my PC.

So I don't expect the PP software marketplace to get broader - though the future position of Android may make life interesting.

[Colin Southern]

(Interestingly, it was written by the guy who wrote Lotus 123, if anyone remembers the days when Microsoft and Apple weren't the only players around).

Even more remarkably, I was asked to open a 123 file for a client the other day -- which reinforced a powerful message about data archiving, but that's another story.

[blakemcguire]

As far as paying for software to do post processing, it's a h-e-double-hockey-stick of a lot cheaper than an equivalent darkroom setup.

[Maritimer1]

Maybe this has been covered. My photos have value and I expect to be paid for them; not have them ripped off. So, why shouldn't I pay for a post processing system? I have CS5, purchased from the Adobe Educator's Store. There seem to be many apps and free PP sites available if people don't want to put out any money. It seems that there is something for everyone without crossing ethical boundaries.

[Glenn NK]

Even more remarkably, I was asked to open a 123 file for a client the other day -- which reinforced a powerful message about data archiving, but that's another story.

I'm using 123 on a daily basis; I use it for structural engineering calculations - if it isn't broken . . . .

Glenn

[Inkanyezi]

There are more dimensions to software than what to pay.

I abandoned Windows, because it was less reliable than Linux, and Adobe doesn't make any photo editing software for my operating system, so the choice is rather simple. No, I don't pay a cent for photo editing software or operating system, but I did contribute to the development of the system.

About fifteen years ago, I used Photoshop, and in 2004 I bought PSE 3.0 intending to use it for editing my photos. Several severe bugs that were not fixed by Adobe made me abandon Elements in favour of Gimp. The first was that the Organizer program had three ugly warts, not placing the files in a folder until clicking a button, which left the files in limbo (\tmp\) when the process was not completed, even though gleefully erasing them from the card, the other that it watched all disk movements, consuming lots of processor cycles, and the third that it could not be disabled or negotiated at install. None of those bugs was fixed by Adobe. Then there was a non-functional feature for adjusting white balance. I was pleased to see that such a feature would be implemented in the software, only to find that it didn't work. The bug was not fixed by Adobe.

The "solution" suggested by Adobe was to upgrade - at a cost. Now that I had paid for malfunctioning software, and the company asks me to trust them that it will work better if I pay them more money, it's a no-brainer, when there is other software where bugs are fixed. Open source software does have advantages, and it is not only that you don't have to pay for it. I had a fully functional photo editing program at once, just by installing Gimp in Ubuntu. It didn't have any feature for adjusting white balance with a reference, but other free software working seamlessly with Gimp did that. So why should I ask Adobe to FMH? It is not a matter of money, more about business decency.

I know that there's no warranty for programs, that they should work at all, but when I pay for a product, I think a decent claim is that included functions should work, and if not, that they are fixed in the issue one has bought. It's fine if they want to implement new bells and whistles in a new release, but the seller should not demand more money from me to fix an error in the present one. A feature, as the white balance eyedropper, should be functional if it is there. After all it was one of the reasons I bought the program. As it is, the Elements 3.0 did not have more functionality than the old Photoshop 4.0 that I used ten years earlier.

So as the Organizer stole cycles and could not be disabled, I had to remove it to use the program. I know that the later version had a menu choice of disabling it, but in version 3.0 there was none. And as there was no feature for adjusting white balance, the program was less functional than purported. I become a bit stingy regarding a supplier that does not deliver, so it's not really that the Adobe software has a cost. It's that they sold me a product that had flaws that should have been fixed, and they didn't deliver. For the exact same reason that I won't make more business with the telephone company that was for a long time the only one here, I don't buy anything more from Adobe. They accepted my money, but did not deliver.

So I don't pay more than I already did, and I won't buy from that supplier again. Maybe its software is good, doesn't matter, because what I have is good enough, it is not broken, and I don't have to mend it.

[davidedric]

Excellent post, Urban. I absolutely appreciate your rationale.

I know that there's no warranty for programs, that they should work at all, but when I pay for a product, I think a decent claim is that included functions should work, and if not, that they are fixed in the issue one has bought.

You're quite right, of course, but I suppose I may be worn down by many years as a (corporate) purchaser/consumer of commercial software. A product is released for sale when the the boys and girls in marketing judge it will make the biggest profit - and the quality of the product is only one factor. I'm sure the developers would want to hold out for a better product with fewer bugs, but if you buy a commercial package that's what you get. I guess this may be different for open source.

This was brought home to me many years ago by a salesman from a very large software company, lets call them O*****, who said to me: "You have to understand that there are two types of employee in this company: productive and non-productive. The productive ones are those who sell the software, the non-productive ones are those who write it". I'm sure that company is not unique!

So, yes, I have a less than perfect operating system (Vista, for heavens sake) - but I can't remember last time it crashed. I have LR4 for PP, which seems to more than meet my needs (with PSE9 as a supplement, rarely used). So I'll stay put whilst recognising other approaches are just as valid.

As a final comment, at least I/we don't have to pay annual "maintenance" charges just to persuade customer support to keep talking to us.

[Mito]

I think that what has not been made clear is that open source software is for sharing. If the program meets your needs then you can pay for the software either financially as a donation or contribute to its development if programing is your forte. Communial help, I suppose, similar to this forum. Another comment that has been made is incompatiblity. JPEG, TIF, PNG are exactly that in any platform.

[Manfred M]

I guess I got into PP software in a round about way.

I started with Adobe products when I bought a video editing accelerator card that came bundled with Adobe Premiere 5.1 probably about 13 or 14 years ago. When CS came out Adobe offered a huge discount to get Production Studio CS, so I got a full-blown version of Photoshop before I really got into serious digital photography. I needed Audition and Encore for the video work I was doing, and the bundle that included Photoshop and Illustrator, Acrobat etc. cost less that buying the video packages I needed separately. The amateur video editing packages out there were terribly unstable, and while I am quite competent in using Apple’s Final Cut Pro, I still required software like After Effects, so I was stuck with buying Adobe regardless.

I never bought Elements, as I had a much more powerful piece of software on my computer already. I started using Photoshop well before Lightroom was introduced, and frankly never found that Lightroom did much for me. Lightroom does not work well for my editing style and workflow, as I do everything I can using layers and non-destructive editing techniques..

I’m reasonably competent in Photoshop, and have yet to find something in any of the other tools that give me the level of control I have in the full-blown version. If I start working in Lightroom or ACR, I pretty well always end up working in Photoshop to finish things off.

Bottom line is that I am a confirmed full-blown Photoshop user. I see no advantage of moving over to GIMP, because I would still be buying other Adobe software, so I just can’t be bothered learning it.

[PhotoByTrace]

I've certainly become aware of software being as useful and essential a tool in digital photography as the hardware I use, and so have been happy to invest in it. I'm extra glad I am one of the fortunate ones who benefits from educational discounts, but would invest in *useful* software regardless. I also use the Nik Collection and was intrigued to receive an email about their purchase by Google... I wonder where that will lead the development of that software into the future.

[rawill]

FastStone has been recommended to me. What to CIC members think of it.

[Inkanyezi]

FastStone has been recommended to me. What to CIC members think of it.

FastStone is a very good program for browsing and importing pictures. It also can do many other things, but after trying it, I found it of no particular use to my workflow. YMMV, and if that's the first program you use, by all means, continue. Just as many other packages, it will work together with other software, so you can pass your image to Photoshop or Gimp from inside FastStone for other editing options. But anyone already on Lightroom or Elements (with Organizer), or with Photoshop and Bridge, might find little virtue in installing yet another program. However, the way of browsing is different from those other programs, so FastStone has some functionality that might be worthwhile. I guess it can be used just as I use Picasa, to browse images stored on the system by viewing them.

[Kris V]

Bottom line is that I am a confirmed full-blown Photoshop user. I see no advantage of moving over to GIMP, because I would still be buying other Adobe software, so I just can’t be bothered learning it.

Same here. I downloaded and installed Gimp on my laptop, since I can only use PSCS6 on 2 computers.
I'm still struggling with it!, although I like to learn new things - Gimp is just sooooo complicated, compared to PS, which I started using since version 4.

[Kris V]

FastStone has been recommended to me. What to CIC members think of it.

I use Faststone to preview what's on my card, and use it to delete all non-keepers, before I import to LR4. Other than that, I have really no use for it.

[rpcrowe]

I just attended a free Canon Printer seminar at Calumet Camera in Escondido, CA. The presenter introduced the new lne of Canon Printers but spent most of the time reviewing printing with the Pixma 9500 and the Pro 9000 Mark II since those were the printers that most of the attendees were using. I have always printed directly from Photoshop but, the presenter introduced us to the Canon Easy Photo print software which runs under Photoshop, Lightroom and Photoshp Elements. The software is a free download and really impressed me with its capabilities. And did I mention, it's FREE!