# Are you thinking of switching to the Creative Cloud?



## JimHess43

I switched to the $10/month photography program yesterday. I retired, and it's easier to budget $10/month than come up with the upgrade price. The installation went very smoothly. It will have my Photoshop CS6 intact, so I'm now using it as my secondary editor if needed. I took the time to uninstall my standalone Lightroom and reinstalled from the cloud. Information that I received from the Adobe forums that this was necessary in order to be running under the right license. Others have had problems, and this has been the common solution. After Lightroom was installed I expected to have to search for my catalog. Not so. I double clicked on the desktop icon and Lightroom opened my catalog to exactly where I left off. My Nik plug-ins and my Canon Print Studio Pro plug-in were in place and usable. I had to copy the Google and PSP folders from the Photoshop CS6 plug-ins folder to the Photoshop CC plug-ins folder in order to have the Nik plug-ins and Print Studio Pro available. But that was very simple. All in all, I was impressed with the transition and look forward to using some of the new features in Photoshop as well as getting Lightroom upgrades as they become available.


----------



## clee01l

I never uninstalled LR when I subscribed to CC.  I'm not sure why some people seem to think it necessary. The CC app took over ownership of the LR app and when a version update came out proceeded to update the installed version with 5.5 and later 5.6.  I think it is your imagination about performance. The LR 5.6 that you have now is identical to the 5.6 that you uninstalled.


----------



## JimHess43

Like I said, "it might be my imagination." In reading on the Adobe forums it seems that some people are getting trial messages after installing CC. And the solution has consistently been to remove the desktop version and install the cloud version. I'm not arguing because I really don't know. I didn't even try to start Lightroom until I removed it and installed from the application manager. I'm not a computer specialist. And, you are right, the program is exactly the same as what I had previously.


----------



## Jimmsp

I have been thinking about subscribing as well. I have been using PSE for quite a while, since PS 7 (as I recall). But it seems to make sense to go back to PS, as the yearly price is less than the PSE update & a LR 6 update (when that comes along).
I was, however, thinking of uninstalling LR as I don't have enough room on my SSD drive (C drive) for both LR & Photoshop; I have LR there now. I'll do this unless I can install PS on a drive different from LR.


----------



## clee01l

Jimmsp said:


> I have been thinking about subscribing as well. I have been using PSE for quite a while, since PS 7 (as I recall). But it seems to make sense to go back to PS, as the yearly price is less than the PSE update & a LR 6 update (when that comes along).
> I was, however, thinking of uninstalling LR as I don't have enough room on my SSD drive (C drive) for both LR & Photoshop; I have LR there now. I'll do this unless I can install PS on a drive different from LR.


I think all of your apps should be in the program file folder.  If space is a premium, you might consider storing data on another drive.  In LR you can move folders full of images to an external drive and free up tons of space.  When you back up the LR catalog, you can backup to an alternate location. You can decide where the LR backup folder should reside.  Also LR does no housekeeping on the backup folder. So, LR backups will continue to accumulate until you clean up the folder.  This too can free up space if the backup folder is on the primary HDD. 

Unless you are using LrM on an iPad or have need of mobile laptop away from the master image files, you do not need the Smart Previews folder.  This Smart Previews folder can grow to tens of GB in size. Eliminating it can free up a lot of primary HDD space.  The user subfolders can be aliased with a symlink so that Windows still thinks they are present inside the User folder


----------



## Jimmsp

clee01l said:


> I think all of your apps should be in the program file folder.  If space is a premium, you might consider storing data on another drive.  In LR you can move folders full of images to an external drive and free up tons of space.  When you back up the LR catalog, you can backup to an alternate location. You can decide where the LR backup folder should reside.  Also LR does no housekeeping on the backup folder. So, LR backups will continue to accumulate until you clean up the folder.  This too can free up space if the backup folder is on the primary HDD.
> 
> Unless you are using LrM on an iPad or have need of mobile laptop away from the master image files, you do not need the Smart Previews folder.  This Smart Previews folder can grow to tens of GB in size. Eliminating it can free up a lot of primary HDD space.  The user subfolders can be aliased with a symlink so that Windows still thinks they are present inside the User folder



Thanks. But I keep my LR catalog, previews, and backups all on the D Drive, which is a high speed spinner. All my photos are there as well. I just have the main program on the SSD so it loads faster. 
I just have too much other stuff on the SSD which is small @80GB. I also keep a secondary program folder on the D Drive, which is where I'll put PS.
One of these days I'll upgrade to a larger SSD.


----------



## clee01l

Jimmsp said:


> Thanks. But I keep my LR catalog, previews, and backups all on the D Drive, which is a high speed spinner. All my photos are there as well. I just have the main program on the SSD so it loads faster.
> I just have too much other stuff on the SSD which is small @80GB. I also keep a secondary program folder on the D Drive, which is where I'll put PS.
> One of these days I'll upgrade to a larger SSD.


 With that knowledge, I still think PS should be on the faster local drive.  The LR app, the CC app and the PSCC app will run best on the faster drive.  If your limit is 80GB, then look at moving the TEMP folder to the D Drive and look for infrequently used apps that can be moved to the D drive too. if you use Symlinks on the SSD , the space is preserved and all sorts of data and apps can be stored elsewhere.


----------



## tspear

Cletus,

I had the trial version of the stand alone Lr (version 5.6) installed. Was trying to decide between Creative Cloud and the Standalone. Ended up going Creative Cloud. Lr would not recognize the CC license. I contacted Adobe, the support answer was to uninstall the Standalone version and reinstall from CC. Took just a few minutes while I did other things and solved the problem.

Tim


----------



## Jim Wilde

I don't actually think you can install PS on a different drive if using the Photography CC bundle, i.e. you have no control over the program installation location....I've seen many complaints about this over the last year or so.


----------



## rick98761

I went with creative cloud. I'm excited to see where the mobile app goes. At some point I'm hoping for it to be able to do a bit of raw work. I'm also a compulsive software updater, so I enjoy not having to worry about that aspect.


----------



## Luc

Hi, coming in fairly late in the discussion but I am a bit doubtful whether or no to go with CC ... at the moment I have LR 5.2 and at the time I went for the cheap solution and got my serial from E-bay... As a result, I just found at that I am unable to enable a plug-in ... I know, call me stupid. So I am looking in getting the latest version with a real serial. I was interested in getting CC but I am not sure if it its worth the monthly plan. I hardly use Photoshop, I already have a monthly plan on Google Drive with 1 TB and I only use LR at home ...


----------



## Jim Wilde

Not sure how we can really help you decide, it's really a personal decision. There are many users who hate the subscription model, so would never consider buying into the CC version. On the other hand there are many who, like me, consider it quite a bargain....even though I don't use PS very much (yet), the fact that I will always have the latest versions of both Lightroom and Photoshop for a relatively small monthly fee was too good to pass by. Another advantage, which is often overlooked, is that the CC subscription, like the Lightroom perpetual version, is dual-platform. This means I can have Photoshop on both my Windows and OSX systems at no extra cost (previously, PS perpetual licences were single-platform only).

Overall, I am very pleased with my CC subscription though I acknowledge that it may not suit everyone.


----------



## davidedric

And, if you have an iPad, you get mobile included - the only way to get it.  Unfortunately I use Android, but it seems it's not far away.  So for latest versions, and I don't really use PS, plus Mobile, it seems like the way to go.  I also think that being on the supplier's preferred path is usually beneficial (though others feel rather differently)

Dave


----------



## Luc

@Jim and Dave I realize it is a personal choice but the replies I might get could help me in deciding


----------



## clee01l

As Jim says, "it's really a personal decision".  For $120USD per year, getting access to PS was hard to pass up.  I did not think I would use PS very much either, though I do find that I use it more and more just because I know a little more about how to use some of the PS functions. 

In addition to PS I now have Adobe CC Asset cloud storage for files, Behance storage area, AdobeRevel storage and LR Mobile cloud storage collections   I'm not sure what the storage limits are for each, and I haven't fully integrated Behance or AdobeRevel into my workflow or figured out the relationship between LR and all of this cloud storage or which pieces are attributable to my CC Subscription.   But there certainly seem to be a lot of Adobe Cloud products that might make a Google Drive subscription unnecessary.


----------



## Jimmsp

clee01l said:


> As Jim says, "it's really a personal decision".  For $120USD per year, getting access to PS was hard to pass up.  I did not think I would use PS very much either, though I do find that I use it more and more just because I know a little more about how to use some of the PS functions.
> 
> .....


I will say almost exactly the same thing. I was a user of standard LR and PS Elements, updating LR on a regular basis, and PSE every other version or so.
I went with the subscription and I couldn't be happier. I had switched from PS to PSE back around Ver 5, and now I am playing with all that I had missed, and in 16 bit.


----------



## Luc

Well guys,  I'm almost convinced in subscribing.  It's a shame that it seems hard to found out what the cloud storage limit is.  

On the other hand for a few bucks/month having updates et all seems indeed more cost effective instead of coughing up a steep price for a stand alone product and for updates... 

As for my cloud storage,  the 10 bucks i pay now for 1TB doesn't kill me...


----------



## clee01l

Luc said:


> Well guys,  I'm almost convinced in subscribing.  It's a shame that it seems hard to found out what the cloud storage limit is.
> 
> On the other hand for a few bucks/month having updates et all seems indeed more cost effective instead of coughing up a steep price for a stand alone product and for updates...
> 
> As for my cloud storage,  the 10 bucks i pay now for 1TB doesn't kill me...


I've compiled a list of the confusing Cloud storage options from Adobe.  Based upon my own research so there could be errors and there may be additional storage available with an Adobe ID that I've missed:

*Adobe Storage Limits*

Adobe Revel = 2GB Free,  Unlimited @$5.99/mo. 

Adobe Creative Cloud = 2GB Free
Lightroom Mobile = Limited to the storage capacity of your mobile device (Current max ~ 128GB.) Only Smart Previews (Lossy DNGs) are allowed.
Behance = Unlimited Image Storage but size restrictions on individual images
BehanceProsite = 20GB @ $11.00/mo.


----------



## Luc

Well,  that's really restricted lol


----------



## Jack Henry

This may sweeten the deal if you subscribe through Amazon

Apparently only available to US Citizens, but......


----------



## Luc

Jack Henry said:


> This may sweeten the deal if you subscribe through Amazon
> 
> Apparently only available to US Citizens, but......



Could be a sweet deal indeed but since I'm living in Brasil it's useless to buy on Amazon since the money greedy government charges unreal import taxes... A 100 bucks buy ends up costing me about 200 bucks :surprised:


----------



## Jack Henry

Luc said:


> Could be a sweet deal indeed but since I'm living in Brasil it's useless to buy on Amazon since the money greedy government charges unreal import taxes... A 100 bucks buy ends up costing me about 200 bucks :surprised:



But you're not the only one reading this thread.


----------



## Luc

Jack Henry said:


> But you're not the only one reading this thread.



Ofcourse not... Just saying that in my case it's not an option


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Cloud Storage rates?

Photographer's bundle has unlimited for LR Mobile uploads, plus 2GB of CC storage.


----------



## clee01l

Victoria Bampton said:


> Cloud Storage rates?
> 
> Photographer's bundle has unlimited for LR Mobile uploads, plus 2GB of CC storage.


LR Mobile uploads are limited to lossy DNG (Smart Previews).  The CC  storage was initially 20GB grandfathered for initial subscribers and reverted to 2GB upon renewal.   You can store any file type in the CC Storage (even catalog files) However to exceed the 2 GB limit gets very expensive, you need to move up to the Single App plan @ $20USD per month just to get 20GB. 

Behance and AdobeRevel offer cloud storage more affordable but each has negatives associated with the storage.


----------



## JimHess43

I switched to the $10/month photography program yesterday. I retired, and it's easier to budget $10/month than come up with the upgrade price. The installation went very smoothly. It will have my Photoshop CS6 intact, so I'm now using it as my secondary editor if needed. I took the time to uninstall my standalone Lightroom and reinstalled from the cloud. Information that I received from the Adobe forums that this was necessary in order to be running under the right license. Others have had problems, and this has been the common solution. After Lightroom was installed I expected to have to search for my catalog. Not so. I double clicked on the desktop icon and Lightroom opened my catalog to exactly where I left off. My Nik plug-ins and my Canon Print Studio Pro plug-in were in place and usable. I had to copy the Google and PSP folders from the Photoshop CS6 plug-ins folder to the Photoshop CC plug-ins folder in order to have the Nik plug-ins and Print Studio Pro available. But that was very simple. All in all, I was impressed with the transition and look forward to using some of the new features in Photoshop as well as getting Lightroom upgrades as they become available.


----------



## Luc

clee01l said:


> LR Mobile uploads are limited to lossy DNG (Smart Previews).  The CC  storage was initially 20GB grandfathered for initial subscribers and reverted to 2GB upon renewal.   You can store any file type in the CC Storage (even catalog files) However to exceed the 2 GB limit gets very expensive, you need to move up to the Single App plan @ $20USD per month just to get 20GB.
> 
> Behance and AdobeRevel offer cloud storage more affordable but each has negatives associated with the storage.



I think it's fair to say that for xtorage one needs to look elsewhere... 20, 50, 100... MB doesn't cut the deal when you're dealing with fotos... 

But it's understandable... Offering a 10 buckz subscription for LR and PS,  included updates is a sweet deal for a photographer... Expecting a cloud storage that reachez 1TB included would be... Well... To %%%%%%% awesome lol


----------



## gillesdebda

Hello,

I bought a standalone license few years ago and i recommand LR to my friends in the standalone version.
The issue is: where can we buy and download a full version of LR 5.x with a standalone version ?

Thanks
Regards


----------



## clee01l

gillesdebda said:


> Hello,
> 
> I bought a standalone license few years ago and i recommand LR to my friends in the standalone version.
> The issue is: where can we buy and download a full version of LR 5.x with a standalone version ?
> 
> Thanks
> Regards


https://www.adobe.com/products/catal...?promoid=KLXMI


----------



## Digital Finger

The subscription model doesn't appeal to me at all. I'm quite happy to carry on using the version of Photoshop I have (CS6) as  it does all I need for photography, although I previously upgraded regulrily, but I look forward to buying LR upgrades, it is worth it to my mind, if it went the subsciption only route it'd lose me


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Digital Finger said:


> if it went the subsciption only route it'd lose me



Completely understand - a lot of people feel that way.  Out of interest, what would you move to?


----------



## Digital Finger

Victoria Bampton said:


> Completely understand - a lot of people feel that way.  Out of interest, what would you move to?



To start I would stick with what i've got as long as possible, I think LR 6 is a safe bet for quite a while for me,  it should already support the new canons, (the only major upgrade Im considering) so it wouldn't be until next year earliest that there would be a problem. If Im wrong then I would just have to use DPP to get tiffs into LR or use DNG, either way the subscription model is a brick wall AFAIC. 

I hope LR 7 is offered a s a perpectual license too as I really like LR and the direction is going.

There are alternatives, none as good as LR I admit, but I do hope it's not a decision I'll have to make. I'll be sad if it comes to it.

I can get to where I need to get with my photos without LR already if I had to, but LR is more convenient. I'm sure you and Adobe are perfectly aware of current and upcoming (in beta) competition


----------



## davidedric

With no inside knowledge at all, it seems logical to me that Adobe will persist with a standalone version.

This is all about maximising revenue (or rather, profits).    Logic is that Photoshop "CC" is predominantly used by professionals in various fields, and who are likely content with the subscription model.   Elements, in contrast, is predominantly used by amateur photographers, many of whom will rarely upgrade, and so Elements stays in the perpetual licence camp.   Lightroom is used extensively by both professional photographers and amateurs, so it makes sense to have both types of licence available.   It would be possible for the two versions to diverge, to "encourage" people into the subscription camp, but the extra support costs are unlikely to make that attractive.

Dave


----------



## Dave Miller

I examined my spending on software over the last 5 years and came to the conclusion that the CC route was as cheap as purchasing outright if I was to ensure having the latest software automatically updated. So I took out a 12-month subscription with which I’m happy so far but will reconsider the deal at the end of the year.


----------



## clee01l

Adobe has stated clearly that they will continue a LR perpetual license.  However long this lasts, no one (probably not even Adobe) can say.  As long as licensing is a separate function inside the executable code that permits a 30 day trial, a license renewed every 30 days or a perpetual license, there will only be a single version of LR. What I think will happen and any added functionality in the next release of LR may show LR moving toward Creative Cloud features and Creative Cloud integration. While these features and functionality will be present in the perpetual license, the perpetual license user won't be able to take advantage of them with out a subscription.  Still these features will be there as an inducement to become a subscriber. 

As for becoming a subscriber, the Photographer's bundle at $120USD per year is only a small increase to a $150 LR license upgraded at $80 annually. With that small price difference, the subscriber gets Photoshop.  If you look at bundling perpetual licenses for LR & PSE manually, there probably is no price advantage to a perpetual license. 

Now I have a question, why the resistance to a subscription?  There is no viable alternative to LR and no migration path away from an extensive LR catalog. If your prior work has locked you into LR, why not subscribe?  A Photographer's Bundle at $10USD/mo. is not much different in price than a couple of trips to Starbucks each month. Or any other addictive vice that you might have.


----------



## wtlloyd

2 lattes a month, people - or a pint and a half, if you prefer. And it's every bit as important as the hardware.
You never did "own" your software, you just didn't bother to read the licensing agreement and ignorance is bliss, I guess.


----------



## Luc

What holds me off at the moment is the fact that adobe will provide LR 6 only for a 64 system... Since i still use 32 I'm not to keen to subscribe and up my system to 64....


----------



## tspear

clee01l said:


> Adobe has stated clearly that they will continue a LR perpetual license.  However long this lasts, no one (probably not even Adobe) can say.  As long as licensing is a separate function inside the executable code that permits a 30 day trial, a license renewed every 30 days or a perpetual license, there will only be a single version of LR. What I think will happen and any added functionality in the next release of LR may show LR moving toward Creative Cloud features and Creative Cloud integration. While these features and functionality will be present in the perpetual license, the perpetual license user won't be able to take advantage of them with out a subscription.  Still these features will be there as an inducement to become a subscriber.
> 
> As for becoming a subscriber, the Photographer's bundle at $120USD per year is only a small increase to a $150 LR license upgraded at $80 annually. With that small price difference, the subscriber gets Photoshop.  If you look at bundling perpetual licenses for LR & PSE manually, there probably is no price advantage to a perpetual license.
> 
> Now I have a question, why the resistance to a subscription?  There is no viable alternative to LR and no migration path away from an extensive LR catalog. If your prior work has locked you into LR, why not subscribe?  A Photographer's Bundle at $10USD/mo. is not much different in price than a couple of trips to Starbucks each month. Or any other addictive vice that you might have.



From a personal perspective, I am always on the latest and greatest. So if the math is basically even between subscriptions and upgrading a perpetual license. Shrug, whatever. 
From a business perspective, I normally skip releases, so this raises my costs. Not something I would appreciate. 
Last point, I have not even installed Photoshop yet, and I probably will not for a couple years. So this is wasted money....

Tim


----------



## Modesto Vega

wtlloyd said:


> You never did "own" your software, you just didn't bother to read the licensing agreement and ignorance is bliss, I guess.


Indeed we never owned the software. Instead we licensed the software perpetually. A license of Photoshop CS or CS2 is not supposed to expire, even if the activation servers are switched off; once the software is activated it is perpetually licensed and, at least in theory, if the machine where it is installed stops working I am supposed to be able to reinstall it.

The trouble with the subscrpition model is that it introduces a valid until date, valid until the date you stop paying. I am afraid sooner or later we are all going to stop paying at which point the software is no longer valid and stops being fully functional. Vint Cerf calls this the digital dark ages and champions the concept of the digital vellum. A digital vellum with software with limited functionality because subscription are no longer available is only partially useful.

In my honest opinion, the subscription model makes digital conservation a very difficult task.


----------



## Modesto Vega

wtlloyd said:


> You never did "own" your software, you just didn't bother to read the licensing agreement and ignorance is bliss, I guess.


Indeed we never owned the software. Instead we licensed the software perpetually. A license of Photoshop CS or CS2 is not supposed to expire, even if the activation servers are switched off; once the software is activated it is perpetually licensed and, at least in theory, if the machine where it is installed stops working I am supposed to be able to reinstall it.

The trouble with the subscrpition model is that it introduces a valid until date, valid until the date you stop paying. I am afraid sooner or later we are all going to stop paying at which point the software is no longer valid and stops being fully functional. Vint Cerf calls this the digital dark age and champions the concept of the digital vellum. A digital vellum with software with limited functionality because subscription are no longer available is only partially useful.

In my honest opinion, the subscription model makes digital conservation a very difficult task.


----------



## tspear

Modesto Vega said:


> Indeed we never owned the software. Instead we licensed the software perpetually. A license of Photoshop CS or CS2 is not supposed to expire, even if the activation servers are switched off; once the software is activated it is perpetually licensed and, at least in theory, if the machine where it is installed stops working I am supposed to be able to reinstall it.
> 
> The trouble with the subscrpition model is that it introduces a valid until date, valid until the date you stop paying. I am afraid sooner or later we are all going to stop paying at which point the software is no longer valid and stops being fully functional. Vint Cerf calls this the digital dark ages and champions the concept of the digital vellum. A digital vellum with software with limited functionality because subscription are no longer available is only partially useful.
> 
> In my honest opinion, the subscription model makes digital conservation a very difficult task.



Actually, likely makes it easier. Software companies with subscription models generally are more financially stable. Also, you find they tend to do more incremental releases, which tend to keep them more tightly tuned to the customer base. As a result, they are less likely to make huge functional bets which fail and then bankrupt the bottom line. Just imagine a small company which made Microsoft Bob; would they still be in business?

Tim


----------



## JimHess43

Modesto Vega said:


> Indeed we never owned the software. Instead we licensed the software perpetually. A license of Photoshop CS or CS2 is not supposed to expire, even if the activation servers are switched off; once the software is activated it is perpetually licensed and, at least in theory, if the machine where it is installed stops working I am supposed to be able to reinstall it.
> 
> The trouble with the subscrpition model is that it introduces a valid until date, valid until the date you stop paying. I am afraid sooner or later we are all going to stop paying at which point the software is no longer valid and stops being fully functional. Vint Cerf calls this the digital dark age and champions the concept of the digital vellum. A digital vellum with software with limited functionality because subscription are no longer available is only partially useful.
> 
> In my honest opinion, the subscription model makes digital conservation a very difficult task.



Ownership of a perpetual licensed software isn't really secure, in my opinion. You own a license for software that eventually becomes obsolete and totally unsupported by the maker of the software. You don't have access to new features. In order to get support and new features it's necessary to upgrade to a new license that will eventually become obsolete and unsupported. So you are always playing leapfrog in order to maintain software. I like the subscription model. It's true, I don't "need" the Camera Raw filter. I don't "need" the shake reduction filter. But having those features as well as always having access to the latest Lightroom certainly makes postprocessing a lot easier. I accept the fact that subscription software really goes against the grain of some users. And that's fine. But, in my opinion, owning a perpetual license for software isn't the panacea that it might seem to be on the surface.


----------



## Digital Finger

It concerns me that some people seem so concerned to 'convert' non subscribers to subscribers even when they make no gain from it ( at least not directly). 

I don't like the subscription model. The reasons have already been stated by many in many places, but if you're really interested think of it this way - it  feels the same as if you had been buying a car model of your choice all your life and then suddenly you were only able to lease them. I don't like it - it's pretty simple.

I know it's software not hardware but you can blame Adobe for supplying it in a  a big  box


----------



## Modesto Vega

Digital Finger said:


> It concerns me that some people seem so concerned to 'convert' non subscribers to subscribers even when they make no gain from it ( at least not directly).


They must be shareholders of companies offering subscription models, or at least get a commission. I am just joking of course but sometimes it does sound that way.



Digital Finger said:


> It concerns me that some people seem so concerned to 'convert' non subscribers to subscribers even when they make no gain from it ( at least not directly).
> 
> I don't like the subscription model. The reasons have already been stated by many in many places, but if you're really interested think of it this way - it feels the same as if you had been buying a car model of your choice all your life and then suddenly you were only able to lease them. I don't like it - it's pretty simple.


I couldn't write better. A subscription is committing to lease a car indefinitely without an option to buy. Why anybody would think that software is the only industry where this is acceptable defies logic?

Having said this, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the subscription model, my grandfather had a National Geographic subscription, when I was growing up I greatly enjoyed reading those magazines and looking at the amazing maps; it probably got me interested both in photography and maps. When he stopped paying the subscription, I still enjoyed the magazines and maps because he "owned" them. National Geographic did not take the magazines away or impose a restriction whereupon the maps could no longer be read.


----------



## JimHess43

Obviously, there is no right answer. Whatever works for you works for you. Personally, I like the subscription plan. If you don't like it, that's fine. But nobody is going to convince anyone differently by dragging this debate on and on. Just do what makes you feel secure and comfortable.


----------



## Modesto Vega

tspear said:


> Actually, likely makes it easier. Software companies with subscription models generally are more financially stable. Also, you find they tend to do more incremental releases, which tend to keep them more tightly tuned to the customer base. As a result, they are less likely to make huge functional bets which fail and then bankrupt the bottom line. Just imagine a small company which made Microsoft Bob; would they still be in business?
> 
> Tim


I don't care about Adobe's, Microsoft's, Apple's, or any company's financial stability. I don't wish then bad neither, I use the 3 of them and hope they do well.

I care about my own financial stability, about been forced to consider that somehow I need to magically find a way to generate an extra £8.57 a month, £102.84 per year *forever* to keep enjoying my photography. I'll rather find a different vendor.

By the way please don't forget that Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Google, and even Oracle where startups in 1990s which aren't that far away.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

The one thing to bear in mind is a change Adobe made a few months ago, that even if a subscription (or trial) does expire, all is not lost. The Develop module, Map module and mobile sync stop working, but the rest carries on as normal. So no one's 'locked in', which had clearly and understandably been a major concern for many.


----------



## Modesto Vega

Victoria Bampton said:


> The one thing to bear in mind is a change Adobe made a few months ago, that even if a subscription (or trial) does expire, all is not lost. The Develop module, Map module and mobile sync stop working, but the rest carries on as normal. So no one's 'locked in', which had clearly and understandably been a major concern for many.


I am aware about this, but could I go back to Vint Cerf's digital dark age - please see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31450389 - and ask your opinion, as a respected photographer and long term expert user of Lr and other Adobe software?

Imagine somebody comes up with the photographic equivalent of "Las Meninas" or "The Storm on the Sea of Galilee" using the Adobe Creative Cloud and in 50 years or a 100 years somebody decides to look at how that photograph was made; so they open up Lightroom and all they can see is that photograph was shot ISO 100, 20mm, f/2.8 1/4000 sec using a particular camera and a particular lens and that, in addition, they did further editing in Photoshop. There is no information visible regarding any the PV and Lr develop settings because the Development module is locked. We don't know if they layers because we cannot run Photoshop.

How does it sound to you? How does it sound to you that future generations might not be able to see how we worked as photographers because an inflexible subscription model has locked away the inner workings of several decades of work?

I am really curious about your opinion on this.


----------



## JimHess43

Okay, imagine that somebody in 50 years or 100 years wants to see how that photograph was made. What do you think the chances are that the software that made the changes will even be usable in the operating systems of the day? Operating systems keep dropping off the backend every time there's a new release of Lightroom. If it was a raw file, and you to the time to write changes to XMP, there might be something that will read that file.


----------



## Modesto Vega

JimHess43 said:


> Obviously, there is no right answer. Whatever works for you works for you. Personally, I like the subscription plan. If you don't like it, that's fine. But nobody is going to convince anyone differently by dragging this debate on and on. Just do what makes you feel secure and comfortable.


It is good we agree on this. The next problem is that Adobe is leaving the subscription non-believers with no or very restrictive options. If Adobe tightly integrates any new Lr 6 functionality with the Creative Cloud, subscription non-believers like myself are left with 2 options: forcibly convert or figure out and exit strategy. They started the process with Lightroom Mobile and yesterday's FT interview with Adobe's CEO clearly indicates that Adobe is burning all the boats with regards to desktop software.

For the first time since I got Lr instead of Capture One, I am forced to look at an exit strategy and I am not liking it a bit as I have over 10,000 in the Lr catalog.



JimHess43 said:


> Okay, imagine that somebody in 50 years or 100 years wants to see how that photograph was made. What do you think the chances are that the software that made the changes will even be usable in the operating systems of the day? Operating systems keep dropping off the backend every time there's a new release of Lightroom. If it was a raw file, and you to the time to write changes to XMP, there might be something that will read that file.


This is whole point of what Vint Cerf refers to as the digital vellum, the digital vellum should be able to bypass that. I have a lot of respect for Mr Cerf. Watching that interview is worth while.


----------



## clee01l

Digital Finger said:


> It concerns me that some people seem so concerned to 'convert' non subscribers to subscribers even when they make no gain from it ( at least not directly).
> 
> I don't like the subscription model. The reasons have already been stated by many in many places, but if you're really interested think of it this way - it  feels the same as if you had been buying a car model of your choice all your life and then suddenly you were only able to lease them. I don't like it - it's pretty simple.
> 
> I know it's software not hardware but you can blame Adobe for supplying it in a  a big  box


No one is trying to convert (at least I'm not).  I'm just trying t understand the resistance to a subscription plan.  I know I was resistant until I figured out that Adobe was willing to throw in Photoshop for essential what I was paying to keep LR and PSE current and PSE was always falling short in the functionality department.  Previously upgrades to PS were ~$600 every two years and upgrades to the $300 LR license were $99 about every 18 months. 

Given the choice of buying a new car on the installment plan and watching it depreciate in value, versus leasing and getting a new car every year, makes leasing a pretty attractive option. This is basically what Adobe is doing for LR/PSCC.  IF LR6 is really being released next month I am looking forward to receiving my copy as a part of my subscription.


----------



## JimHess43

I switched to the $10/month photography program yesterday. I retired, and it's easier to budget $10/month than come up with the upgrade price. The installation went very smoothly. It will have my Photoshop CS6 intact, so I'm now using it as my secondary editor if needed. I took the time to uninstall my standalone Lightroom and reinstalled from the cloud. Information that I received from the Adobe forums that this was necessary in order to be running under the right license. Others have had problems, and this has been the common solution. After Lightroom was installed I expected to have to search for my catalog. Not so. I double clicked on the desktop icon and Lightroom opened my catalog to exactly where I left off. My Nik plug-ins and my Canon Print Studio Pro plug-in were in place and usable. I had to copy the Google and PSP folders from the Photoshop CS6 plug-ins folder to the Photoshop CC plug-ins folder in order to have the Nik plug-ins and Print Studio Pro available. But that was very simple. All in all, I was impressed with the transition and look forward to using some of the new features in Photoshop as well as getting Lightroom upgrades as they become available.


----------



## tspear

Modesto Vega said:


> I don't care about Adobe's, Microsoft's, Apple's, or any company's financial stability. I don't wish then bad neither, I use the 3 of them and hope they do well.
> 
> I care about my own financial stability, about been forced to consider that somehow I need to magically find a way to generate an extra £8.57 a month, £102.84 per year *forever* to keep enjoying my photography. I'll rather find a different vendor.
> 
> By the way please don't forget that Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Google, and even Oracle where startups in 1990s which aren't that far away.



Actually, only Google was a product of the 90s. 
Anyway, I understand your point. I was giving a counter argument, and also pointing out a benefit which is often overlooked by many consumers. That is by the very nature of the subscription model, the company is forced into a more regular release schedule.

Tim


----------



## Digital Finger

clee01l said:


> No one is trying to convert (at least I'm not).  I'm just trying t understand the resistance to a subscription plan.  I know I was resistant until I figured out that Adobe was willing to throw in Photoshop for essential what I was paying to keep LR and PSE current and PSE was always falling short in the functionality department.  Previously upgrades to PS were ~$600 every two years and upgrades to the $300 LR license were $99 about every 18 months.
> 
> Given the choice of buying a new car on the installment plan and watching it depreciate in value, versus leasing and getting a new car every year, makes leasing a pretty attractive option. This is basically what Adobe is doing for LR/PSCC.  IF LR6 is really being released next month I am looking forward to receiving my copy as a part of my subscription.



Money is not the issue (for me)


----------



## davidedric

Good.   It really doesn't matter.  If you want to preserve your photos then print them.  I expect Adobe to outlast me by some margin


----------



## Digital Finger

davidedric said:


> Good.   It really doesn't matter.  If you want to preserve your photos then print them.



I do, but that wasn't the question


----------



## Jack Henry

If LR can be downloaded as either a subscription or perpetual licence, why then, does that option not exist for their other software? It's obvious from the small gathering in this forum that there are mixed opinions both ways. So if this group is a sampling of the 'world at large' surely Adobe can see that they're NOT pleasing the masses with just one option.

I'm not sure if the LR .dmg file downloadable for both models is the same, but if it is then why is it any different for the other Adobe products.


----------



## Jack Henry

Digital Finger said:


> I do, but that wasn't the question



Analysis Paralysis


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Modesto Vega said:


> How does it sound to you? How does it sound to you that future generations might not be able to see how we worked as photographers because an inflexible subscription model has locked away the inner workings of several decades of work?



Lightroom or any other software isn't just going to stop working overnight.  When it comes close to the end of the road, you'll simply convert your finished files to a generic long-standing format like TIFF that's still well supported at the time.

Take, as an example, old floppy disks.  Ok, you might not have a drive that can read them any more, but anything that was important you copied onto currently-supported media, right?  Same principle applies.


----------



## gregDT

Jack Henry said:


> If LR can be downloaded as either a subscription or perpetual licence, why then, does that option not exist for their other software? It's obvious from the small gathering in this forum that there are mixed opinions both ways. So if this group is a sampling of the 'world at large' surely Adobe can see that they're NOT pleasing the masses with just one option.
> 
> I'm not sure if the LR .dmg file downloadable for both models is the same, but if it is then why is it any different for the other Adobe products.



 The fact that Adobe Photoshop was one of if not the most pirated piece of software ever made is probably one reason why Adobe went down the subscription road with such enthusiasm. It's horses for courses but as a professional photographer the eight quid a month I pay for Lightroom and Photoshop is a very small amount. I pay more each month for postage stamps. As a small business I'm sure I'm not alone in preferring to pay a very modest subscription each month rather than a significant chunk of money every few years. It's all about the cash flow   

I'm guessing but I would imagine that Adobes main customer base is either studios or individual professional creatives. The number of 'hobbyist' users of Photoshop is likely a smaller demographic and I suspect that the pirating problem came mostly from a subset of casual/hobbyist users who balked at the price tag. So for the majority of business users the subscription plan might make more sense. For the non professional user I guess Adobe is saying 'tough luck why not try PSE'? On the other hand I imagine there are a hell of a lot of enthusiast/non professional photographers who while not willing or able to drop £800+ on post processing software might be more inclined to get a months worth of Photographers Program subscription for less than a tenner and see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Digital Finger

gregDT said:


> The fact that Adobe Photoshop was one of if not the most pirated piece of software ever made is probably one reason why Adobe went down the subscription road with such enthusiasm. It's horses for courses but as a professional photographer the eight quid a month I pay for Lightroom and Photoshop is a very small amount. I pay more each month for postage stamps. As a small business I'm sure I'm not alone in preferring to pay a very modest subscription each month rather than a significant chunk of money every few years. It's all about the cash flow
> 
> I'm guessing but I would imagine that Adobes main customer base is either studios or individual professional creatives. The number of 'hobbyist' users of Photoshop is likely a smaller demographic and I suspect that the pirating problem came mostly from a subset of casual/hobbyist users who balked at the price tag. So for the majority of business users the subscription plan might make more sense. For the non professional user I guess Adobe is saying 'tough luck why not try PSE'? On the other hand I imagine there are a hell of a lot of enthusiast/non professional photographers who while not willing or able to drop £800+ on post processing software might be more inclined to get a months worth of Photographers Program subscription for less than a tenner and see what all the fuss is about.



judging by the amount of money dropped on expensive photography kit I think the full cost of Ps isn't that much in the equation.
But when it comes to pirating- I agree it must gall to lose so much to theft - that would pee me off too. I liked the fact that Adobe gave us a gift for paying properly for the program and always assumed it wasa thanks for not being one of those pirating blighters. I was sad when they didnt give a token freebie for my last two purchases but then I'm a sensitive soul


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Digital Finger said:


> But when it comes to pirating- I agree it must gall to lose so much to theft - that would pee me off too.



TBH, I think the subscription deal's more about the financial bottom line than it is about pirating.  Shareholders like subscriptions because it's continuous income.


----------



## Jack Henry

You know that Adobe has a 'special' price for it's Australian customers. According to a recent government enquiry into software pricing disparity for downloadable software (Adobe, iTunes music etc) Adobe's answer to why does downloadable Adobe software cost more in Australia (factoring exchange rates etc) than other countires when ordered online (and we get geo-locked to the Au site) was that "...because the Australian website gives a richer experience than that of users in other countries..."

Having said that, there is not one piece of software on any of my machines that hasn't be purchased legitimately. BUT that doesn't alter the fact that not everyone wants, likes or needs the subscription model. I'm happy to upgrade every 5 or 10 years. As for pirating, how long do you think it will take for the subscription model to be circumvented?


----------



## rhynetc

The subscription model is no more expensive -- and probably less expensive -- than legitimate purchases of the software, and we can stop any time and go to a straight purchase plan just as one can do with a leased vs purchased automobile.  So what's the beef?  Adobe is giving photographers a great deal!


----------



## tspear

rhynetc said:


> The subscription model is no more expensive -- and probably less expensive -- than legitimate purchases of the software, and we can stop any time and go to a straight purchase plan just as one can do with a leased vs purchased automobile.  So what's the beef?  Adobe is giving photographers a great deal!



Actually, if you crunch the numbers, it is more expensive for a pure Lr user. Now if you include PSE or Ps and also upgrade to the latest release every time, then yes it is cheaper.

Tim


----------



## Denis de Gannes

tspear said:


> Actually, if you crunch the numbers, it is more expensive for a pure Lr user. Now if you include PSE or Ps and also upgrade to the latest release every time, then yes it is cheaper.
> 
> Tim



You need to view the subscription model of Lightroom differently. What you are doing is subscribing to the latest version of Photoshop CC and you get to use Lightroom with the Mobile sync to iPhone, iPad etc *gratis.
*


----------



## clee01l

Jack Henry said:


> If LR can be downloaded as either a subscription or perpetual licence, why then, does that option not exist for their other software? It's obvious from the small gathering in this forum that there are mixed opinions both ways. So if this group is a sampling of the 'world at large' surely Adobe can see that they're NOT pleasing the masses with just one option.
> 
> I'm not sure if the LR .dmg file downloadable for both models is the same, but if it is then why is it any different for the other Adobe products.


Yes, It is the same.  Just as LR has a Library Module, Develop Module, Map Module, Import module and ACR module contained in the same application, there is also a licensing module.  This is *how I imagine* that it works:

LR starts.
Call Licensing module
Decision: has it been 30 days?
No - Go to Run
Yes - Is there a perpetual license
No - "ET Call Home"
Is there a valid subscription?
Yes - Go to Run
No - Send user a subscribe or uninstall message


Yes - Go to Run



Run

Now, it is true that this licensing module can be in PS or any other Adobe subscription app. And I suspect there is a licensing module like this in Every Adobe app. except that Step 2.1.2 has been defaulted to Step 2.1.2.1 "Is there a valid Subscription"  That option does not exist for every product because Adobe has changed fundamentally how the company is structured. The PhotosShop Client Suite products are being sold as a Service and support is focused on providing that service. This group is not a representative sampling of the 'world at large'.  Photoshop's primary customer is the large Design Graphics organization.  You seldom see those folks here looking of help.  The consumer products division (if there is a consumer products division at Adobe) over laps the Graphics Design Services division only with the products LR & a small number of people (consumer photographers) that can benefit from PS. 

Of course, I have no actual knowledge of how the modules are managed inside of LR but as a former application developer, the above is how I would write the code that gets compiled into the executable that you know as Lightroom.  The above model works to describe how LR works. And as a model it is not any different than the model used to describe Global Warming. As long as the model describes and fits the facts, then the model holds up. If you go 18 years into the future and the model no longer fits the actual facts, then you need to construct a new model.


----------



## Modesto Vega

Victoria Bampton said:


> TBH, I think the subscription deal's more about the financial bottom line than it is about pirating. Shareholders like subscriptions because it's continuous income.


I think that Victoria is spot on there; it is about continuous predictable income which shareholders love.

The subscription model is technically much more complex to implement, test, and manage that delivering software to desktops. I think, Victoria, mentioned in another thread that this could explain a lack of public beta for Lr6.



Denis de Gannes said:


> You need to view the subscription model of Lightroom differently. What you are doing is subscribing to the latest version of Photoshop CC and you get to use Lightroom with the Mobile sync to iPhone, iPad etc *gratis.
> *


This argument only works if you assume that everybody was buying and wants to buy the latest version of Lr and Ps as soon as it is released. This is evidently not the case by looking at this and other forums, there are people still on Lr2, Lr3 and Lr4 and whatever versions of Ps were compatible with those versions Lr. I know quite a few photographers that perfectly happy with Lr5 and Ps CS6, both perpetual licenses, and have no interest in upgrading; they might have considered an upgrade when Lr8 and CS9 come out.

The subscription is less choice, it is not more choice. Adobe marketing wants you to believe it is more choice and they are doing a great job judging by this thread.

I can no longer buy a Latte, a Cappuccino, an Americano, a Expresso, a Green Tea, an Earl Grey Tea, or a Camomile Tea at the coffee shop. I can only buy a coffee made out of Nescafe, with a choice of caffeinated or de-caffeinated, and sorry if you like teas go somewhere else because be don't do that anymore. Would you use that business model if you were running a coffee shop.

I can no longer buy a car, I have to lease it and have to renew my lease every year, and actually have to change car model when the car manufacturer feels like, no choice. Would you use that business model if you were a car manufacturer?

I care more about having choice than about the money. There is only one way: the Adobe way, subscriptions. This was Microsoft's approach: tablets, why do we need to care about tablets? And what happened, Apple took over the top spot. There is such a thing as companies becoming too big and Adobe is starting to give signs that they might about to get there.

IMHO, the subscription model as it is needs changing and it will surely change, just give it time.


----------



## JimHess43

I don't think the creative cloud is less choice or more choice. It is simply a choice. I "chose" to subscribe to the creative cloud. I chose what I consider to be the benefits the creative cloud. You choose not to subscribe to the creative cloud because the benefits that I see don't apply to you.

I still have Photoshop CS6 installed on my computer. If I ever choose not to continue with the creative cloud I can resort to using it. If I decide not to continue with the creative cloud I can always purchase an upgrade version of what ever Lightroom is current at the time. I lose nothing. So I have plenty of choices. I don't believe Adobe is evil or too big. They have chosen a business model that seems to work for a lot of users. And they're willing to take the heat from those who don't like the approach. Debate on if you will. I know I can't convince you, I'm not trying to. But I am convinced that the creative cloud subscription plan is right for me.


----------



## Modesto Vega

JimHess43 said:


> I don't think the creative cloud is less choice or more choice. It is simply a choice.


Do you agree that for something to be a choice, there has to be an alternative? If so, could you please enlighten me and let me know where is the Adobe alternative to a subscription to the cloud for a serious photographer?

Do you really think that reverting to old software CS6, or hoping that Adobe will keep Lr with full functionality as a perpetual license product are alternatives?


----------



## gregDT

I'm afraid the alternative is "cheerio, it's been fun but we've moved on and you're now in a niche market we're no longer Interested in serving, all the best, Adobe". It might not be fair but it seems to be the way it is.


----------



## tspear

Denis de Gannes said:


> You need to view the subscription model of Lightroom differently. What you are doing is subscribing to the latest version of Photoshop CC and you get to use Lightroom with the Mobile sync to iPhone, iPad etc *gratis.
> *



Denis,

That is what Adobe marketing is trying to sell. I just am not interested Lr mobile or in Ps. 
I am not going to use an iPad(I do not like them), I have an android tablet that I will not use with Lr. I have a full blown laptop for travel. I am years away from have the time to learn Ps. 

Just like cable. I only have internet with them, no cable, no phone... They keep trying to bundle crap that I do not want. If Adobe offered a Lr only for $6 a month I would be a lot happier. 

Tim


----------



## Denis de Gannes

tspear said:


> Denis,
> 
> That is what Adobe marketing is trying to sell. I just am not interested Lr mobile or in Ps.
> I am not going to use an iPad(I do not like them), I have an android tablet that I will not use with Lr. I have a full blown laptop for travel. I am years away from have the time to learn Ps.
> 
> Just like cable. I only have internet with them, no cable, no phone... They keep trying to bundle crap that I do not want. If Adobe offered a Lr only for $6 a month I would be a lot happier.
> 
> Tim



You have exactly what you want. Lightroom is still available as a stand alone software package. Upgrade every 18 to 24 months at $79. Where I currently live/reside it is my only option, I cannot subscribe to the creative cloud.

To wit there is no Lightroom Creative Cloud package there is a Photoshop CC Photographers Package that includes Lightroom as a bonus for free. Its pretty simple if you do not wish to use Photoshop CC do not subscribe to the Creative Cloud.


----------



## tspear

Denis,

Where in T&T do you live? My wife was from Trincity outside Port of Spain.

Tim


----------



## Dave Miller

This is all getting a little too heavy for me.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Dave Miller said:


> This is all getting a little too heavy for me.



Agreed Dave.  I think both sides of the argument for and against have been discussed quite nicely, but we've done it to death now.  Some like it.  Some don't like it.  Some don't mind either way.  Let's wait and see what Adobe's next move is.


----------

