Is Adobe CC worth it ?

[mknittle]

I am on the fence on subscribing. I figure now that it has been out for a while and It sounds good you guys and gals would know.

I an also up for a browser up grade. Any recommendations?


Thanks in advance Mark.

[Kodiak]

•
Hi Mark,

" …it has been out for a while and It sounds good…"

I am possibly the only one in here that will tell you: "No, I don't go for it."
It will end up costing you more… and in the mean time many developers
are working hard at creating other solutions.

I have CS6 and will stay with it patiently. I am looking forward at not using
anything signed Adobe in the near future.

[FootLoose]

Definitely worth it, Mark. $10/month is only $120/year. A possible alternative to Photoshop is OnOne's Perfect Photo Suite (which I have but rarely use). I don't recall the original cost of it, but every year they 'upgrade' it for about $160. Adobe upgraded CC earlier this year to CC2014 - at no extra cost, just the usual $10/month.

[Manfred M]

Answer is yes; I can't think of too many pros that don't use it. Kodiak would be one of the few exceptions that I know (in fact the only one I know). I've been using it for over 10 years and it is my "go to" editing tool.

Most people that I know who don't use Photoshop do so because they don't need the features or for philosophical reasons (hate Adobe) or financial reasons (free is better than $9.99/month).

That being said, there are decent alternatives out there and Photoshop is probably overkill for most people. It has an extremely long and intense learning curve, but that is no different than with any of the other higher end tools, like GIMP, Corel Paint Shop Pro, etc.

Before you commit; download it and try it for free for a month. If it is what you need, then subscribe, otherwise find something more suitable for your editing needs.

[chauncey]

Like Manfred states...long learning curve.

[dennybeall]

Photoshop CC(2014) and Lightroom for 10 bucks a month. There are other programs out there that will do some of the same stuff, some that will do those things almost as well and some that come not so close.
I've had it for some time and it's been updated and maintained seamlessly with only a mouse click on my part. My CS6 is also being kept up to date.
I use all the standard features daily in photo restoration and on new photos, but the real power to me has been that when something new or unexpected comes up the whole package with all the features is right on hand.
Well worth the monthly cost in my opinion.

[Glenn NK]

You could ask the same question about any processing software, and as is usual with photography questions, it depends on many things, the first of which is the issue of whether or not the software will server one's needs; this is quite apart from whether or not one wants to be tied to a subscription and that will cost.

The subscription issue is much more difficult to deal with, and that seems apparent in the few answers already provided.

I've read many heated posts on half a dozen forums dealing with the pros/cons of the Adobe subscription model - this seems to indicate that the question isn't so simple and obvious at it might seem.

Glenn

[Wayland]

There are few PP packages that match it's power for the price of the current package (nobody knows how long that may last by the way).

Many people find packages like Paint Shop Pro, Gimp, Photoshop Elements or Photoline more than sufficient for their needs.

Like many people, I was annoyed when Adobe changed to a subscription model for their software which turned the archival status of layered TIF files into deep question, but I have migrated to the new deal on the strength of personal assurances from Eric Chan that backward file compatibility will be carefully considered in future updates.

Even so, I now save master files in multiple formats with an eye to retreating to CS6 if I need to.

I guess you need to decide how important PP is to your work and compare the outlay with the benefit.

If I was starting from scratch by the way, I would probably have gone with PhotoLine. I think it is almost as powerful as PhotoShop but it works in different ways, which would mean a big change in my workflow and a massive learning curve for me after so many years with PS.

I've been through that before when I had to change from PSP to PS to access 16 bit editing. Sadly, I guess inertia is a major selling tool for many customers that soon become bonded to these packages.

[lukaswerth]

I use Photoshop CS6, quite happy with it for the time being - but once this becomes long in the tooth, let's say, when a future camera of mine will b no more supported by CS6's ACR, I will of course get Photoshop CC - where else should I go?

There have recently been here - quite interesting - discussions of other software, but Photoshop is Photoshop, it gives me as much latitude as I can expect in these days - and quite apart from that, I spent enough time to learn to handle PS - still learning, in fact - and it would be a big waste of time and energy just to learn another software - I have had enough of that since the early 90ties, thank you very much!

[victor]

The changing of software and file formats is a major concern to many of us.

I feel I now have enough software to cope with. I subscribe to the CC2014 and Lightroom 5. I also have CS6 and LR5 on disks and installed on my pc.

I am now faced with the ultimate challenge: do I now convert all my RAW Files to DNG format on my back up disk and retain the raw files in Lightroom as live files.

I have procured my last camera (I hope) a Canon D5 MkIII its fully supported in all software and pc's I own. If Adobe change specs etc I will be off the CC Package and will revert to CS6 and LR5 on my hard disk....

Lets wait and see what ADOBE do next.....

[HaseebM]

For those who haven't spent top $ in getting a retail copy, the $9.99 / month is definitely an option and you can always opt out within a year if you want to.

[Wayland]

I think you might find this exchange on Luminous Landscape of interest Victor

I don't know if the following information will help alleviate any fears regarding layered PSD/TIFF files (e.g., carefully crafted "master files"), but here goes. Thomas has informed me that Adobe has been very careful in adding features to layered PSD/TIFF in ways so they are still readable (and quite editable) in older Photoshop versions. For example, smart layers become normal layers if they require newer features. If you use a new blend mode or layer effect, you have the option of opening the flattened image exactly, or a layered version with possible visible changes.

Thus, folks who choose later to "get off the CC bus" but still wish to open, convert, print (and perhaps even do some edits to) their layered PSD/TIFF images using an older perpetual version of Photoshop (CS6, CS5, etc.) will continue to be able to do so. The same layered PSD/TIFF files will also be readable in Lightroom, which as Adobe has indicated it intends to keep available in a perpetual license form.

Eric, thank you. That is the first post I have seen, on any forum since this affair hit the fan, that actually addresses my principal concern.

The new deal looks tempting as it is presently being presented and combined with this new information gives me serious pause for thought. My exit strategy up to this point has been looking at the interesting work being done on PhotoLine but this would currently involve similar compromises as outlined in the backward compatibility scenario you have offered.

So, to be clear, is the current intention to commit to such a backward readability path for layered files in the future? Perhaps an option in the save command even if it does mean larger file sizes.

Hi Wayland,

Yes, indeed -- Ps has maintained a backward compatibility path for several years and the team intends to continue that. As indicated above, if you choose to use an older version of Ps to read newer files, you should always be able to view (i.e., see, print, save as other formats) the images exactly as you left them. Same with using Lr.

However, whether or not you'll be able to edit the individual components (e.g., smart filters, smart objects, etc.) will depend on the specific features you used in the document. For example, if you're just using Ps for curves + adjustment layers + masks, then you'll have no problem editing those files in older Ps versions like CS6, since those older versions also support those features. On the other hand, if your document uses a smart filter layer for a feature introduced sometime during Photoshop CC, then no, you won't be able to edit that layer in older Ps versions (since those versions came out before the feature, right?).

So, there is an important distinction between viewing and editing in terms of image access (I also wrote this in the note to James above) in terms of an "exit strategy" for subscription going forward.

Please let me know if I can clarify anything ...

[Kodiak]

The changing of software and file formats is a major concern to many of us.

Correct. That's why it is important to keep in your hands all the aces you got.

I feel I now have enough software to cope with. I subscribe to the CC2014 and Lightroom 5. I also have CS6 and LR5 on disks and installed on my pc.

This is a good strategy since you keep your aces.

I am now faced with the ultimate challenge: do I now convert all my RAW Files to DNG format on my back up disk and retain the raw files in Lightroom as live files.

What is good for Adobe is not necessary good for you!

It is very clear to me that the proliferation of formats…
• is not a clever end user strategy.
• is the argument behind Adobe's DNG format.

A single standard format like DNG is a good idea only if it is opened. At
this time, its "openness" is not sure and this is where the danger lies. Once
converted (you will surely not want to keep two files of the same size and
of the same data), one will delete the "wild files" and keep the standard
format. It is not among the strategies of Adobe to retro-convert to NEF or
whatever other format its DNG files. Consequently, deleting the original
RAWs will be the same as to slide yourself the noose around your neck.

I have procured my last camera (I hope) a Canon D5 MkIII its fully supported in all software and pc's I own. If Adobe change specs etc I will be off the CC Package and will revert to CS6 and LR5 on my hard disk....

As far as I know, DNG is an Abode solution that is not opened. You may find
yourself stuck with the old Adobe software as other developers are coming
up with alternative software. Keeping the original RAWs (or not converting in
the first place) is a more sensible approach since all these "wild format" are
still supported by all.

It is well know that ProRGB is a better RBG but, since it is not supported by
all, the profile is not going anywhere. So, the very old sRGB and the more
recent Adobe RGB 1998 and widely used and supported.

Lets wait and see what ADOBE do next.....

My strategy is: Adobe is not the only software developer that has a say in
this market, personally, I'm waiting to see what the others will come up with.

[loosecanon]

I subscribe to full cc package. I often use lightroom, photoshop, indesign, dreamweaver and acrobat. Having "industry standard" software saves me a lot of problems, and on one job alone I save on a printers bill £400

Its a no brainer

[Manfred M]

My strategy is: Adobe is not the only software developer that has a say in
this market, personally, I'm waiting to see what the others will come up with.

While this is technically correct, it's rather the same for Microsoft and Office Suite software, and yes, there are other packages out there, they can generally be classified as "me to" products, that offer some of the features of the market leader, but not all. Both MS and Adobe are the elephants in the room; with the lions share of the market niches that they are competing in.

I use MS Office and Adobe Creative Cloud Suite, not because I have a great lover for Microsoft or Adobe, but rather because they are the "gold standard" that all other competing products try to measure up to. With the Office Suite, there are products that do come close. I wish I could say the same for graphics software, but I can't. I feel that the main competition for both is actually the same company; Corel. but their market share is miniscule compared to the two category leaders.

[Glenn NK]

I think MS wants us to think their products are the gold standard, but I don't believe they are (any more than Windows OS is the gold standard). And just because 99 percent of word processing is done by MS Worst, doesn't mean it's the best (it's not IMO).

Nor do I believe that AutoCad at four to five thousand dollars CAD per install is worth their asking price even though 99 percent of cad work is done using AutoCad.

Adobe's pdf reader in a monstrous piece of disk hog that takes far more disk space than other better free programs.

As for PP software, I haven't found anything as useful as Lightroom. If it goes to subscription, I'll have to look around or just keep using LR5.

BUT, it's obvious from the proliferation of posts about other PP software that Adobe is going to be challenged. And that's not a bad thing.

Glenn

[Nicks Pics]

As Iv'e been looking at it, i figured that joining Adobe CC would necessarily cost about $120, because that is what happens whether you go for prepaid year of $9.99/month, or you pay $9.99 per month, with annual commitment. I have not advanced in PP skills so much as to be very interested in much but the RAW converter, (LR, or similar) so paying $120 for one year obviously does not make as much sense as $140 for an outright purchase of LR. (the license of LR, that is). But having come to understand that a photoshop type software should be used in addition to a RAW converter in order to achive the best in PP - a RAW converter doesn't even do panoramas for that matter, I decided to try a LR plugin, or Gimp, which is what I am actually planning to give a try. But I did give LR a 30 day trial, and found it so much better as a RAW converter than the Fujifilm one that came with my camera that I became set on getting it, and should I become more familiar with photoshop type programs, I can't say I wouldn't find Adobe Photoshop that much better than Gimp that I would become attached to it.

Another thing about this Adobe CC, is that they are moving to a Cloud-based system, and I wouldn't care ti have my cpmputer life evolve along with that.

[dabhand]

For those who haven't spent top $ in getting a retail copy, the $9.99 / month is definitely an option and you can always opt out within a year if you want to.

Haseeb raises a very good point that many forget, especially those who blindly say £9/month ain't much - that to me is especially NOT TRUE if you have already invested in and need the full CS package because in that case you are expected to write-off a $1000 investment and pay around £50/month - where was the logic in that ?

No doubt they will continue to ride the 'industry standard' wave for a while (NB: as just one of many examples, Internet Explorer 6 was once the industry standard) but I'll stick with the CS6 + Lightroom for now and when/if my PP needs change I'll review the available packages at that time and probably stay with Lightroom and take the same approach as Kodiak.

steve

[mknittle]

For those who haven't spent top $ in getting a retail copy, the $9.99 / month is definitely an option and you can always opt out within a year if you want to.

This is pretty much my thinking.