What would you / do you pay for PP software?

[davidedric]

I was reading an earlier thread and thinking

-I understand a fondness for open software
-I understand that many photographers are operating on a very tight budget

But still..... It seems that folks will pay hundreds of pounds or dollars for hardware, but jib at paying a fraction of that for software. It seems to me that software added to digital photography opens up a huge new world, at a very reasonable price. (And you don't HAVE to have that latest upgrade - the software usually does just what it did when you bought it.)

I'm constantly staggered by what good software can offer (I use Lightroom) at what feels like a reasonable price. Is it just me? Hope not

[jcuknz]

Since I discovered software and what it can do I consider it of equal importance to the camera. But that doesn't mean one has to spend as much on it as the camera, ie GIMP for free if you like it, or moderate expense of Paint Shop Pro or Elements.

If you are in or hope to be in the graphics industry I think it is best to stick with Adobe but otherwise It is probable that people vote for the one they start with and get used to ... in my case PSP because when I moved up from the simple programmes to the proper and competant it was simply PSP or PS at four times the price, and it certainly wasn't four times better, if at all, for a photographer. [ no educational fiddle available to me ]. I simply don't like the Adobe approach

When I was in the States recently I bought from Amazon a copy of PSPhoto Prox3 for $15 and found it had pretty much everything that my PSPx4 costing $60 had [P&P on top of those prices along with perhaps import duty]

[Carl in Louisiana]

I tried a couple of the free software programs and found them too complicated for my limited computer skills. I purchased LR3 and then the upgrade to LR4 was free so I installed it. I am very satisfied with LR4 and the Nik software. All that I have learned about LR4 and Nik software has been through tutorials and I may have found some on the free software but did not think to look back then. I am happy with what I have and still finding new things about it all the time.
I am also happy and my hat is off to them that use the free/open software for what ever reasons. If I had tried a little harder I may still be using it myself.
As far as how good open software is, I think you may be surprised by the results from those who know how to use it, some are right here on this forum and their work is beyond amazing and the same can be said for paid software in the right hands.
The end goal is still the same for everyone and that is to come away with images we are happy with and proud to display whether the software cost zero $'s or thousands.
A budget means everything to some. If I had to start all over again...well it just would not happen.
Just my 2 cents.

[Mike Buckley]

I think one of the reasons people react to the high cost of the software is because it's so often so much more expensive than other software that they use. I recently read a statistic that 90% of software today costs consumers less than $10. I began thinking about the software that I have on my computer and realized that the only software that I knowingly spent more than $10 to license is the software related to photography. Some of the other software came with the computer with no additional cost but I'll never know the true cost that is included in the price of the computer.

When people are made aware of the unusually high profit margins that Adobe has, even compared with other software companies, they tend to especially get miffed at the cost of its software. My typical reaction is to advise them to consider investing in the company.

[Glenn NK]

Software for photography is expensive? Oh.

http://store.autodesk.com/store/adsk...ad_windows____

How about a cheaper alternative? The one I use.

http://www.fastcad.com/

Still more than LR4.

I spend much more time using LR than FastCad.

Glenn

[Mike Buckley]

Hi, Glenn!

Software for photography is expensive? Oh.

Just in case your post is in direct response to mine, keep in mind that my post explicitly referenced software used by consumers. Your example of AutoCad costing over $4000 is not primarily intended for consumers; it's a commercial application.

[groovesection]

Of course there are options which involve not paying for the software, but that is a whole moral issue and possibly not best discussed on CiC.
Needless to say given the choice of paying over £1000 for CS5 Production Premium, or downloading 20GB, then many people will take the risky illegal option.

[Ady]

For me it all comes down to the cost/benefit, but then I often charge by the job rather than the hour so the more jobs I can get done in a given period of time the better. From this perspective Photoshop seems perfectly reasonably priced as I can do far more in less time than I've found I can achieve with the alternatives.

That's not just because it's what I'm used to, I've only become a Photoshop convert in the last 3 or 4 years. That's after 20+ years of working with graphics and page layout applications for prepress and digital restoration work, during which time I actively avoided Adobe products, until they acquired PageMaker by merging with Aldus Corp.

Cheers,
A

[xpatUSA]

My main tool is PhotoShop Elements 6 - $25 on CD (eBay) upgraded to ACR 5.4 (free).

Then IrfanView (free) and Sigma PhotoPro versions 2, 3, 4 & 5 (free).

I do very little PP and have no need for "organizing", most of my shots are ephemeral.

[Glenn NK]

Hi, Glenn!



Just in case your post is in direct response to mine, keep in mind that my post explicitly referenced software used by consumers. Your example of AutoCad costing over $4000 is not primarily intended for consumers; it's a commercial application.

It wasn't aimed at anyone. But I'm quite certain that AutoCad has sold more copies of their software than Adobe has sold copies of CS or LR.

The engineering company I used to work for has 10,000 employees, at least half of which use A/C.

So I ask - who is a consumer?

I'm now a self-employed engineer - I purchased FastCad - am I not a consumer?

Glenn

[Tringa]

I use Photoscape if I just want minimal adjustments and GIMP if I want more; so I pay nothing.

Recently I downloaded the trial version of Lightroom, which I thought was good. If I was thinking of paying for editing software, I might be tempted.

However, I tend to use free software for most things. The only things on my PC that are paid for are the OS, games and Photomatix.

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

So I ask - who is a consumer?
I'm now a self-employed engineer - I purchased FastCad - am I not a consumer?

The lines between consumer software and commercial software are probably a bit blurred. You're clearly a consumer when you go to the store and purchase an apple for personal use and not for resale. When you're purchasing software for use as a commercial endeavor, especially as an engineer which is considered a professional service, you are selling the output. You would generally not be considered a consumer in that situation because the software is not being used for your personal use; it's being used for business. At least that's my take on it.

So, when I read that most consumer software sells for less than $10, that makes sense to me. Software used by engineers to produce design documents is not consumer software; it's commercial software.

[jdathebowler]

I have down loaded and use GIMP 2.8.It's a software program similar to Photoshop I found it at first very complicated,but with trial and error and lots of U Tube tutorials I am beginning to find it's true potential.I only ever thought that I would need to use a bit of lightening or alter the contrast to my photos.I now know different.Curve tool.cloning ,dodging and burning,filters and layers etc and lots more you can do to enhance your photos.It,s opened up a new world for me and best of all its free.

John

[oleleclos]

I'm constantly staggered by what good software can offer (I use Lightroom) at what feels like a reasonable price. Is it just me? Hope not

Your'e not alone. At least we're two

With excellent software from a supplier who'll be around to support you tomorrow now costing only two-digit sums (compared to three and four digits spent on cameras, computers and accessories), it's hard to understand that people are looking for something even cheaper.

It's someting in human nature, and especially in the British psyche, I expect. Everyone seems to want something for nothing, and exploiting that has become very big business indeed.

[DanK]

Dave,

At least in the case of Canon shooters, I think most people can do pretty well using the free raw converter supplied with the camera and an inexpensive pixel-level editing program like Paint Shop or Elements. I use Lightroom because I find that it can do everything I need for most images, right through printing. (It has a very good print module.) I switched from Paint Shop Pro to Photoshop primarily because I do a small amount of stuff that requires more than LR and I found much more in the way of advice and help with PS because it is so common. However, it is really overkill for me--I use a tiny fraction of its capabilities.

[Glenn NK]

So back to the original question.

There has always been discussions as to what the value of a house is - the value is what a buyer is willing to pay for it.

And this seems to be applying to PP software too because Adobe is selling a lot of PP software (CS, LR, and PSE) in spite of the occasional complaint of the cost.

As for what I would "like" to pay, I'd say nothing, but obviously I've paid more as I have LR4 and PSE6.

What it's worth to me is far more - maybe I'm unusual, but editing an image takes longer than capturing it, so the software is worth a lot to me. Someone suggested using Canon's DPP - I've tried several times, but won't put up with the non-intuitive interface. Lightroom has really got it right, and it has far more power than DPP.

I have quite a few thousand into gear, so a few hundred for such an important element is not bothering me.

There are also those that don't like the price of a good tripod, and buy junk several times before they get it right (in this instance, I'm talking about myself ). I seldom shoot without a tripod.

Glenn

[Mito]

There has always been discussions as to what the value of a house is - the value is what a buyer is willing to pay for it.

Value of something is what it is worth to the purchaser. If it's for commercial use then it has more value because money can be earned from it. If it's for a hobby then so long as it does the job you want it to do then the cheaper the better and put the money saved towards a new/better lens. There are many freeware or shareware programs available which are as good or perhaps better than the "big boys". At the end of the day "you pays yer money and takes yer pick".

[Colin Southern]

Of course there are options which involve not paying for the software, but that is a whole moral issue and possibly not best discussed on CiC.

Definitely best not "promoted" here, that's for sure

[Colin Southern]

Your'e not alone. At least we're two

With excellent software from a supplier who'll be around to support you tomorrow now costing only two-digit sums (compared to three and four digits spent on cameras, computers and accessories), it's hard to understand that people are looking for something even cheaper.

+1 = 3

[Colin Southern]

So back to the original question.

There has always been discussions as to what the value of a house is - the value is what a buyer is willing to pay for it.

And this seems to be applying to PP software too because Adobe is selling a lot of PP software (CS, LR, and PSE) in spite of the occasional complaint of the cost.

As for what I would "like" to pay, I'd say nothing, but obviously I've paid more as I have LR4 and PSE6.

What it's worth to me is far more - maybe I'm unusual, but editing an image takes longer than capturing it, so the software is worth a lot to me. Someone suggested using Canon's DPP - I've tried several times, but won't put up with the non-intuitive interface. Lightroom has really got it right, and it has far more power than DPP.

I have quite a few thousand into gear, so a few hundred for such an important element is not bothering me.

There are also those that don't like the price of a good tripod, and buy junk several times before they get it right (in this instance, I'm talking about myself ). I seldom shoot without a tripod.

Glenn

Glenn,

In my opinion, you hit several nails "on the head" with what you wrote, and I agree.

In my case I bought the full version of (I think it was) CS2 - in NZ Dollars I think it was around $1000 to $1200 (can't remember the exact amount) - but from there on in I only have to pay about $1 a day on average to keep up with the very latest - and personally, I think it's exceptional value for money.

I think folks perhaps need to keep in mind that Adobe are a company - and their objective is to make money to pay the staff - pay all the other considerable overheads - and have enough left over to return a dividend to their investors. And by all accounts, they're very good at it -- and good on them. If they get greedy and try to charge too much then their customers who have previously been willing to pay will walk away; if they charge too little then they'll go bankrupt. People need to remember that typically it's the last 10% of the price that delivers 50% of the profit. Without knowing the specifics of any of Adobe's accounts, I suspect that if just about any company halved the cost of their expensive products - then they'd quickly be out of business - and then we'd all lose.

It's business - pure and simple. If folks don't want to pay what they're asking for any reason then that's absolutely fine -- nobody will "put a gun to their head" and make them