I think I will dump Adobe

[rpcrowe]

Sorry for venting but I am frustrated.

Photoshop is a great program and I love it.

If only Adobe would go bankrupt and sell Photoshop to another company I would stick with it.

I hate Adobe I hate Adobe and just to make myself clear I HATE ADOBE

I thought (how foolish of me to think this) that when I enlisted for the subscription service, I would no longer have to do terrible battles with Adobe.

I was terribly wrong!

Now they say I am on a trial version and the password that I originally used doesn't seem to work...

What the heck is going on?

I am so sick of this company that I am pretty certain that I will switch over to DXO Photolab!

After a long and angry altercation with Adobe, they acknowledged that I am in fact subscribing to Photoshop CC and they issued me a new password. Phoroshop welcomed me like I was a totally new subscriber

[DanK]

I certainly haven't been wowed by their customer service, but you do seem to get the worst of it.

The last time I had a problem, I didn't even bother asking them. I installed my second copy of CC, and of course, the CC app asked me to sign in. All fine. But then Photoshop kept insisting that I sign in and register the copy, but when I looked, it showed me as signed in. I thought: why not just sign out from within photoshop and sign back in from within photoshop? It worked. Now I have to move my other copy to a new computer, and I am keeping my fingers crossed.

[Shadowman]

There's a lot of pretenders out there, no patience searching and leery of downloading most or fear they'll disappear like Nik.

[Manfred M]

Your experience is unfortunate, but as a subscriber to the full CC set ($US 50 package), I have not had any issues with any of the software and in the rare instances that I have had to contact customer support, their responses have been very professional.

I have had my problems bumped up to second level support and the turnaround time could be measured in minutes and was provided by knowledgeable staff.

[Hevii Guy]

Suppliers to the photography market are a fortunate lot: They have a meek audience which for the most part believes that in order to produce “better” results, they must have the most expensive gear, both hard and soft, which they can afford. Not having this allows them to blame the lack of such material goods as the reason why their shots aren’t as impressive as the next person’s (who may have actually shot their fotos with a cheap smartphone!).

Tired of being taken advantage of by the incumbents? Take action. Embrace Open Source Software. Yeah, yeah, we’re sure to have somebody piping up saying that the learning curve is steep and that the software isn’t identical to what the commercial bandits provide. Indeed. Absolutely correct. However, a neophyte on any unfamiliar software will encounter the same initial struggles until he or she eventually produces the same quality of results.

Break out of that well-worn rut created by legions of sheep slavishly and unflinchingly following the next in line. Rather than paying ever-increasing outrageous monthly fees, redirect your well-earned or well-saved money to perhaps taking your spouse out to dinner instead. This in itself will probably, in the end, have a greater impact on your ability to create better art.

I use the following:
Raw Processor: Darktable
Post Processor: Gimp
Library: Digikam

Here’s a great resource: Free/Open Source Photography

[xpatUSA]

Sorry for venting but I am frustrated.

Photoshop is a great program and I love it.

If only Adobe would go bankrupt and sell Photoshop to another company I would stick with it.

I hate Adobe I hate Adobe and just to make myself clear I HATE ADOBE

You have my sympathy. I dumped Adobe long ago when they quit supporting Foveon sensors.

Even dumped Acrobat Reader although I am forced to keep Flash, which think of as Macromedia product ...

[rachel]

I use the following:
Raw Processor: Darktable
Post Processor: Gimp
Library: Digikam

Here’s a great resource: Free/Open Source Photography

100% agree.

[NorthernFocus]

...Tired of being taken advantage of by the incumbents? Take action...Break out of that well-worn rut created by legions of sheep slavishly and unflinchingly following the next in line...

Indeed. But I say up the ante. Why stop at refusing to line their coffers with software profits? We should unwind the entire plan that they've laid for global domination. Few people are aware that Adobe owns the rights to TIFF and DNG file formats. And what about the Adobe color space that many of us use? We should free ourselves of those bonds as well. Not to mention the various proprietary RAW formats used by the camera manufacturers. True freedom can only be experienced by shooting/editing exclusively in jpeg.

[Shadowman]

Indeed. But I say up the ante. Why stop at refusing to line their coffers with software profits? We should unwind the entire plan that they've laid for global domination. Few people are aware that Adobe owns the rights to TIFF and DNG file formats. And what about the Adobe color space that many of us use? We should free ourselves of those bonds as well. Not to mention the various proprietary RAW formats used by the camera manufacturers. True freedom can only be experienced by shooting/editing exclusively in jpeg.

I'm not a subscriber (yet) but am an Adobe user, stopped upgrading Elements at version 14 and LR at 4.4 although I do have a copy of version 5 on my computer from a 30 day trial. I wouldn't consider it being bound to their tyranny unless you can't roll back to a previous version.

[Hevii Guy]

True freedom can only be experienced by shooting/editing exclusively in jpeg.

Unfortunately, shooting in jpeg is the antithesis of freedom since a jpeg is the camera manufacturer's interpretation of what our photo should look like. Shooting in Raw enables us the freedom to choose what to do with the appropriately-named "raw" data.

[NorthernFocus]

Adobe's true genius is in the image file formats. Some day they will activate the embedded code which locks anyone who doesn't use their software out of our TIFF and DNG files unless we pay them royalties. The smart person will get ahead of the curve and make full resolution jpeg copies of everything while we can.

[Shadowman]

Unfortunately, shooting in jpeg is the antithesis of freedom since a jpeg is the camera manufacturer's interpretation of what our photo should look like. Shooting in Raw enables us the freedom to choose what to do with the appropriately-named "raw" data.

I used to shoot RAW+JPEG fine but all it did was fill up my hard drive and never got around to comparing the JPEG edit to the RAW edit. I should do it for my next excursion, at least for a few frames, what got me in the mindset to try it is I was viewing another of those this camera vs that camera videos and the outcome came down to user preference, one photographer preferred the controls on their camera and the other preferred the size of the camera. When I downloaded the sample RAW images for each camera the youtube host provided it all came down to how I processed the image, I liked the result and found the quality of the image quite good but it wasn't enough to make me switch brands as both cameras provided similar end results.

[DanK]

Suppliers to the photography market are a fortunate lot: They have a meek audience which for the most part believes that in order to produce “better” results, they must have the most expensive gear, both hard and soft, which they can afford. Not having this allows them to blame the lack of such material goods as the reason why their shots aren’t as impressive as the next person’s (who may have actually shot their fotos with a cheap smartphone!).

Tired of being taken advantage of by the incumbents? Take action. Embrace Open Source Software. Yeah, yeah, we’re sure to have somebody piping up saying that the learning curve is steep and that the software isn’t identical to what the commercial bandits provide. Indeed. Absolutely correct. However, a neophyte on any unfamiliar software will encounter the same initial struggles until he or she eventually produces the same quality of results.

Break out of that well-worn rut created by legions of sheep slavishly and unflinchingly following the next in line. Rather than paying ever-increasing outrageous monthly fees, redirect your well-earned or well-saved money to perhaps taking your spouse out to dinner instead. This in itself will probably, in the end, have a greater impact on your ability to create better art.

I use the following:
Raw Processor: Darktable
Post Processor: Gimp
Library: Digikam

Here’s a great resource: Free/Open Source Photography

I assume this was in jest, no?

At least some of my fellow photographers who use paid software aren't "meek" and "slavish." They have simply made a choice, and often a very well informed one. If a different choice makes more sense for you, more power to you.

Remember that Richard's complaint was customer support, not cost. I use some open-source software, and usually, there is no customer service at all. Also, customer service is more than just responding to a problem such as the one Richard experienced. To take one example, Adobe provides, free of charge, many truly excellent teaching videos by Juliette Kost (which really help the neophyte learn the software). The equivalent for Darktable is...?

Re "ever-increasing outrageous monthly fees": if I am not mistaken, Adobe's subscription rate has not increased at all since the subscription service was started.

IMHO, if one wants to do something about undue corporate influence, there are a few more important targets than one's decision whether to spend $10/month for editing software. But to each her or his own.

[Donald]

Well said Dan.

If you don't like it, don't use it. If you use it, are happy with the business model, have no problem with the software, then you should be free from those who for some inexplicable reason, target Adobe to vent all their feelings about software that they don't like.

[Manfred M]

Suppliers to the photography market are a fortunate lot: They have a meek audience which for the most part believes that in order to produce “better” results, they must have the most expensive gear, both hard and soft, which they can afford. Not having this allows them to blame the lack of such material goods as the reason why their shots aren’t as impressive as the next person’s (who may have actually shot their fotos with a cheap smartphone!).

Tired of being taken advantage of by the incumbents? Take action. Embrace Open Source Software. Yeah, yeah, we’re sure to have somebody piping up saying that the learning curve is steep and that the software isn’t identical to what the commercial bandits provide. Indeed. Absolutely correct. However, a neophyte on any unfamiliar software will encounter the same initial struggles until he or she eventually produces the same quality of results.

Break out of that well-worn rut created by legions of sheep slavishly and unflinchingly following the next in line. Rather than paying ever-increasing outrageous monthly fees, redirect your well-earned or well-saved money to perhaps taking your spouse out to dinner instead. This in itself will probably, in the end, have a greater impact on your ability to create better art.

I use the following:
Raw Processor: Darktable
Post Processor: Gimp
Library: Digikam

Here’s a great resource: Free/Open Source Photography

Jörg - What you have written is the basis of what a lot of people in the open source community hold near and dear to their hearts. My view has always been, if it works for you, who am I to argue against your choices.

The unfortunate side is that quite often people on that side also condemn those of us who have not seen the light and shower us with the superiority of their choices. That too is unfair, because they take a very limited view of why people have taken a particular direction. I ran into the same type of arguments regarding Microsoft Office software versus the various free and open word processors, spread sheets, presentation software, etc. Unfortunately, in the world I worked in I was expected to use the Office product to deliver work to my clients.

Adobe is the defacto standard in the graphic arts community. If I want to deliver a product, most clients expect output in standard Adobe file formats that can be used by their editors or document creation software.

The other part of the argument that you seem to discount is the tremendous amount of time and effort I (and many others) have put into learning who to use Adobe software efficiently and effectively. Why would I take time out of my busy schedule to learn how to be competent in a complex tool like Gimp? If the cost of the product were the only driver, I could understand your argument, but it is only one minor part of the whole picture.

So please show some respect for others how may not agree with your decisions on software. We too have legitimate reasons for having gone down the path we have, even though it is not the same as the path you have chosen.

[Hevii Guy]

...Adobe provides, free of charge, many truly excellent teaching videos by Juliette Kost (which really help the neophyte learn the software). The equivalent for Darktable is...?

Here are two excellent video resources which I've found to be very helpful:

• Hutton: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...UuyWo1B468zEA0
• Durgin: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...UuyWo1B468zEA0

I think that anybody who takes the time to view these videos will be quite surprised indeed at what OpenSource Software has to offer. In some cases, it even surpasses that which is possible with proprietary software.

In terms of cost escalation, perhaps as a non-subscriber I'm not qualified to make that comment. However, numerous articles such as the following certainly seem to suggest that this is the case: https://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/...d-price-rises/

[Hevii Guy]

...quite often people on that side also condemn those of us who have not seen the light and shower us with the superiority of their choices...

...Why would I take time out of my busy schedule to learn how to be competent in a complex tool like Gimp?

I apologise, Manfred, if I came across as condemning those who do not use FOSS. It certainly wasn't my intent. Nor was it to suggest that my choice is superior to that of the other camp. My passion simply got the better of me

I don't think that you, or anybody for that matter who is satisfied with the status quo, would be spending your/their time wisely by learning new software if the current software provides them with exactly what it is they require. However, it's becoming quite clear that there are many who are growing frustrated with the business models of certain corporations in this field. These are the people who would benefit from knowing that there are viable alternatives available to them. Their investment in the time taken to learn some of these FOSS programs would be time well spent.

[DanK]

However, it's becoming quite clear that there are many who are growing frustrated with the business models of certain corporations in this field. These are the people who would benefit from knowing that there are viable alternatives available to them.

I agree. You could make that point more clearly if you didn't disparage those who have made different choices and if you were clear about the disadvantages as well as the advantages of choosing open-source alternatives.

[Manfred M]

However, it's becoming quite clear that there are many who are growing frustrated with the business models of certain corporations in this field. These are the people who would benefit from knowing that there are viable alternatives available to them.

I definitely understand where you are coming from and every user will have different needs.

While there are FOSS alternatives, there are also other paid alternatives out there as well that people are migrating too. Products by Corel, Serif, ACDsee, DxO Labs and Phase One have loyal followings as well. Most of the users that I know who do not want to use the Adobe products have gone to one of these packages, rather than FOSS.

That being said, there are advantages to using what is essentially "Industry Standard" software with its vast user community and third party support. As a general statement, any photographic course I have taken assumes a good, solid working knowledge of Photoshop and the Adobe Raw convertor, either Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom's Develop Module. Some of the more advanced courses use nothing else and having access to and using Photoshop is a course requirement.

[Manfred M]

I am so sick of this company that I am pretty certain that I will switch over to DXO Photolab!

As long as you understand that this product is a good alternative to either Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom's Develop module, but definitely not a substitute for Photoshop itself.