RikWriter
Well-known member
And if you change computers, you can put it on a new one if you just deactivate it on the old one first.
Did something I swore I was never going to do
- Thread starter RikWriter
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
And if you change computers, you can put it on a new one if you just deactivate it on the old one first.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
Exactly. At current pricing levels, the subscription is not any more expensive than buying new versions every year, and thus far Adobe has done a good job with adding worthwhile features in a timely manner. Really has worked well.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
Well, it's good until someone sends you a Word or Excel document that blows up in Libre Office. Or you spend an afternoon keeping it from blowing up.
I don't disagree with you; there are office packages that handle the needs of most people. But there are always potential compatibility issues with Office documents, especially more complex ones. We still have Office on one of our home machines, though we no longer need the suite for work.
It's now even better than that; if you hop on computer #3 it will tell you which two are authorized and ask you which one you want to deauthorize. You can hop around like a bunny in a flower field now.
CJC2
Member
IMHO this is the bet $10 per month that I spend. Bet of luck.
R_Warshaw
Member
I have both Adobe and Capture One subscriptions - Capture One for it's tethering capabilities and Bridge, Camera Raw and Photoshop for everything else. The frequent changes in how things work with each update are not always easy for this octogenarian but the improvements, particularly for masking in both products have been worth the effort. My file storage and cataloging is separate (homegrown) from both packages to avoid possible update glitches. While I was bothered by the subscription model at first I've come to accept it.
TJ McG
New member
I haven't used Photoshop in my job for more than 20 years, but I still use it every day in my photography hobby and when you consider what it used to cost (early versions were over $800 and upgrades more than $200, and that was 34 years ago) I think the photographer's package, which includes a lot more than just Photoshop and Lightroom, is a bargain. The $10 a month cost is less than peanuts to me, and I have the latest and greatest that Photoshop and Camera Raw have to offer all the time. Also, if you remember, when the subscription model started many years ago now, Adobe said the price was temporary and would be going up the next year. After the outcry that resulted, they backed off and the price is still the same today as when it began. I don't expect that to last forever...
2Lab
New member
I am now thinking of going the other way - trash Adobe. My custom built PC is now 10 years old and the last two iterations of 2024 just hogged my resources so I couldn't do anything. This has been happening on every new release since about 2020. I am thinking they are expecting US to do their beta testing. I have gone back to the last update of 2022 which was one of the most stable editions, at least for me, for the time being. I know I am loosing out on the new stuff but my graphics card seems to be the bottle neck and I can't seem to find an upgrade that is compatible with the motherboard. I am thinking about a new machine but they are sooooo damn expensive now.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
A new reasonably fast computer is lots cheaper than a decent camera. 2014 is a long time ago in the computer world.
But, it's easy to spend other people's money ...
James C.
Active member
I, too, VERY reluctantly felt the need to start using Adobe Lightroom Classic (LrC) since Apple dragged its feet for 9 months in supporting the Z8 RAW format! I had been using the FREE Apple "Photos" app for years for both light editing and, more importantly, cataloging all of my bird & wildlife photos. For more advanced editing I use Affinity Photo, which is similar to Adobe Photoshop, and you can buy it outright for $70 USD.
But when I could no longer rely on Apple, I turned to third-party alternatives like FastRawViewer (to at least view my Z8's photos). I soon turned to NX Studio (by Nikon) so I could edit my photos. However, I found NX Studio's interface less than intuitive. I was also very frustrated and concerned about all the changes to my workflow, and that I couldn't catalog my photos; and with each passing week, the number of Z8 photos that I was bringing home was increasing, even after culling.
By December of 2023, I was fed up! I finally gave in and got the "Photographer's Plan" from Adobe so that I could use LrC. This has changed my workflow yet again. I must admit though, that the "Develop" features in LrC are so much more powerful than what I could do in Apple's "Photos" app, that I am now using LrC rather than "Photos." The "presets" functionality I am also starting to find fascinating. I have even purchased Glenn Bartlley & Jan Wegener's "Proset" packs and I'm starting to experiment with those. The $10/month sting from the Adobe subscription is now starting to lessen for me. And loathe as I am to admit it, I think I'll be using LrC from now on.
For another $20 bucks...how many times you change computers that you have worry about this "additional" charge?
We spend 5, 10, 20 grand on photo equipment but balk at 20 or 100 bucks for software.
Scratching my head, you do you I guess...
RikWriter
Well-known member
Well, none of what you said actually applies to anything I said. I was telling someone else about an option in Microsoft Office, nothing to do with the photo software. Also, no one was balking at paying for software, just some people don't like the subscription model.
I remember the bad old days. I only got every second or third upgrade for Photoshop, since I could not afford to buy every one that came out. Now, I get constant upgrades for next to nothing and some of the small upgrades were real game changers for me. The new masking abilities that came out a short while ago enabled me to go back through some of my photos and make keepers out of throw away shots. Now the masking includes people in the masking possibilities and those people can be further masked for skin, eyes. hair etc. etc. to make a portrait photographer's workflow much simpler than it has ever been before.
While I was not too excited about it when it came out, I now confess I love the constant improvements that the subscription models make possible.
@RikWriter, I want to thank you for reminding me about how I felt and how much my opinion has changed over the years.
Johan Schmidt
Active member
Wow - $120 / yr for crucial software vs the cost of gear nowadays - it's one of the few remaining bargains out there.
Johan Schmidt
Active member
If you shoot film you don't need a computer or software
JPaul_Johnson
New member
I agree. PS/LR will be the only subscription I ever buy, and if Gimp ever gets competitive, that will also stop. Long way to go for them, but I would love to just use a Linux PC with a killer photo app and just get all the hands out of my pockets. I must be getting old.
If you shoot film you don't need a computer or software
You kinda do though for some things. Sure, it is not needed for slides and with a home lab and enlarger I could produce prints at home. I hung on to my film camera until it was clear that digital had matched and exceeded it. But even then during the transition I still had my film scanned for use in photoshop.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
It's a matter of the value provided. I pay my internet provider bill every single month because it is well worth the cost. Same for the electric bill. Free/cheap is great ... but you gotta pay for higher quality. Otherwise, nobody will build the higher quality product. I love my Nikon 500 pf lens. But it cost me. The profit motive has its advantages.
The PS/LR subscription annoyed me a bit at first, but the value to an even modestly serious photographer for $10 a month is high. I'll spend about that much on *one* lunch today.
Adding: I just did the math, and at current Adobe prices, the cost of the 500 pf was equivalent to about 33 years of the Adobe subscription. One can point out the 500 pf is an expensive lens (though a lot cheaper now used). And Adobe prices will go up -- you can bet the marketing team at Adobe thinks about this a lot -- but wow, the current subscription is probably the best value now I see in photography gear/infrastructure, whatever.
Last edited:
Best buy out there. Give up one cup of fancy coffee per month and you've paid for it.
RikWriter
Well-known member
I don't drink coffee.
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
How many of you rent or lease your camera gear; I'm not talking about a short-term rental, I'm asking about long term? Anybody? Then why would you be so willing to subscribe (rent) software? Subscribing to software is just like leasing a car -- much more expensive in the long run. I've been willing to make one-time purchases of Affinity and Topaz software, but subscribe? Not me!
I too have used Libre for years with no problems. It's free and there are regular updates. We have it on two computers and I also used it on my office computer before I retired.
I too have used Libre for years with no problems. It's free and there are regular updates. We have it on two computers and I also used it on my office computer before I retired.
RikWriter
Well-known member
The problem is, none of the others is as good or efficient. It takes twice or even three times as long to process images without LR and PS.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
I don't think that a valid analogy. It doesn't matter if I'm "buying" or "leasing" if the feature set works for me at the pricepoint I have to pay, I'll happily pay. I'll correct my previous post: lunch today was about 1.5 times the monthly subscription price.
LR's organizational features are excellent and I wouldn't be without them. And the editing capabilities are pretty good (plus you can go into PS if desired).
And as others have pointed out, when you consider the cost of buying a new version of Lightroom every couple of years, the subscription price now costs you about the same. Adobe's subscription model has worked for me better than I anticipated. If you don't find LR or PS useful, sure don't pay for them.
The only times I've tried Libre, it wouldn't always handle Word or Excel docs sent to me. For just myself doing docs, sure it would be good enough.