Creative Cloud Facts

[Barry Beckham]

I am still hearing the most ridiculous information and irrational fears regarding Creative Cloud, so here are the facts below.

 

 

Creative Cloud - Facts

 

[PGA]

As another satisfied user of the Creative Cloud Photography package, I can endorse the accuracy of the facts that Barry has given. The UK cost of the package is currently 8.57 GBP.

[David Porter]

Another reason for installing Photoshop CC 2015 rather than keeping older versions is not only all the new features but also many of the existing features seem to work much better than previously. Enough said.

Mickp

[Barry Beckham]

Mick

That is very true and I have experience of it. About 3 years ago I had 10 people at a Photoshop workshop and all were using laptops to follow what I was doing. I supplied the images so they all had the same as me.

When I got to the later part of the day and I demonstrated how to control contrast in a Raw file, one or two were having trouble achieving what I had just demonstrated with my PS  CS6. They were using CS3. So, I walked around to help them, but I could not get to the same place with CS3 as I was able to withCS6. I knew Adobe had improved the engine room of Photoshop, but that was a bit of an eye opener. 

Now Creative Cloud is even better.

[JudyKay]

I have a personal and reasonable and proper aversion to subscription model (anyone who disagrees is nuts), however I also see the advantages and am very pleased overall with Photoshop CC.

I travel in distant places and have encountered being unable to use Photoshop due to lack of internet.  I have not tried contacting Adobe for an override, because this has been rare--happened only twice.  I had an older backup copy of Photoshop CS4 installed in anticipation of this problem which served my needs completely.

Because I use Photoshop presently on 4 computers at two locations with 2 travel laptops, I have to do occasionally do the inactivate/activate hassle, but so far it has gone so smoothly, that I haven't needed to buy and extra copy of Photoshop.  I would certainly rather not have to do it at all.  Sadly, I have found pirated Photoshop versions installed on in-room hotel rooms in huh-hummm some countries. Not that I would dare use such computers--imagine the diseases they must carry!

In the end, Photoshop CC at $9.99 is a terrific bargain and the system works very well.   

 

 

 

[Barry Beckham]

I have a personal and reasonable and proper aversion to subscription model (anyone who disagrees is nuts), however I also see the advantages and am very pleased overall with Photoshop CC.

Fair enough, but do you feel able to say what your reasonable and proper aversion is?

I travel in distant places and have encountered being unable to use Photoshop due to lack of internet.

The problem with the line above is that it gives the impression that difficulties may occur for Creative Cloud users if they travel to distant places or are away from home with a laptop. That's not the case and I and many others experience none of those with just a little planning.  If I am about to travel and do a demo for a club or go away for a few weeks, I fire up the laptop before I leave and allow Adobe to sign out of all other computers to Activate the laptop. 

That's it, I don't even need an internet connection while travelling

I have to do occasionally do the inactivate/activate hassle, but so far it has gone so smoothly,

I just fired up Photoshop CC on my spare PC. The Limit Reached screen came up and I hit OK to sign out of other computers and it took 23 seconds from that click to Photoshop being open on screen. You consider that a hassle?  Especially considering the convenience of being able to have Creative Cloud on so many different machines and at your disposal anywere

 

 

[JudyKay]

10 hours ago, bbdigital said:

I have a personal and reasonable and proper aversion to subscription model (anyone who disagrees is nuts), however I also see the advantages and am very pleased overall with Photoshop CC.

Fair enough, but do you feel able to say what your reasonable and proper aversion is?

 

I don't prefer it. That is my aversion.  But it works.  

 

Quote

I travel in distant places and have encountered being unable to use Photoshop due to lack of internet.

The problem with the line above is that it gives the impression that difficulties may occur for Creative Cloud users if they travel to distant places or are away from home with a laptop. That's not the case and I and many others experience none of those with just a little planning.  If I am about to travel and do a demo for a club or go away for a few weeks, I fire up the laptop before I leave and allow Adobe to sign out of all other computers to Activate the laptop. That's it, I don't even need an internet connection while travelling

The problem is that difficulty does occur for CC users in distant places with a laptop.  I too go through that process of deactivating, activating, ensuring I update everything before leaving, but I sometimes go up to 3 months away from reliable internet in remote places. Usually not more than the 30 day maximum allowed by Adobe,  but I have had a problem twice.  A little planning prevents the problem for you, but does not prevent the problem for me.  30 days is certainly enough for most people, but I am not most people.  I haven't tried setting up a hotspot with a satellite phone and connecting my laptop to that, perhaps that might work.  My backup of PS 6 works well enough for my needs.  

Quote

I have to do occasionally do the inactivate/activate hassle, but so far it has gone so smoothly,

I just fired up Photoshop CC on my spare PC. The Limit Reached screen came up and I hit OK to sign out of other computers and it took 23 seconds from that click to Photoshop being open on screen. You consider that a hassle?  Especially considering the convenience of being able to have Creative Cloud on so many different machines and at your disposal anywere

 

Yes, it is more hassle than not having to do it.  Perhaps there are people who actually enjoy the hassle.  They must be very happy.  

I do enjoy having the software on multiple machines and recognize that the hassle is a way to govern licensing that works for Adobe.

I appreciate your article and it certainly applies to nearly all people.  However, there are exceptions, I am one, for whom your "myths" are not all based on ridiculous information and irrational fears regarding Creative Cloud.  

Just sayin'.

 

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Security is one issue that worries me judging by the abysmal record Adobe has over the last few years

Yachtsman1..

[Barry Beckham]

I've had enough, I throw the towel in.

 

 

 

[michaelr108]

Hi There

I got into Photoshop many years ago by following Barry and others in Digital Photo Magazine . With my photography and computer upgrading to the latest version of Photoshop is a must for me and with Windows 10 and Photoshop CC 2015 and the promise of a new version of PTE it's like Christmas come early.Eric I have had no problems with security and bye the way only today on windows 10 there is a large update which among other things deals with security updates and while I am on about updates there is one for Photoshop CC 2015 today as well. I learnt along while ago if you keep off dodgy sites you stay secure .Please forgive  an old mans waffle but I have read so much about security problems with windows 10 to me is a myth and scare mongering.

Michael

[michaelr108]

Hi There

In my previous text message I wrote Photoshop 10 which should have read Photoshop CC 2015 version KB3116900 . Sorry about that.

Michael

[tom95521]

On 12/9/2015 at 4:44 AM, stearman65 said:

Security is one issue that worries me judging by the abysmal record Adobe has over the last few years

Yachtsman1..

Eric,

You are correct in that Adobe Flash seems to continue to have a very large number of security problems. Part of the problem is that Flash is usually "opt out" so it's enabled by default. I have Flash disabled by default in Chrome so that I have to right click then enable I want to view an embedded video. Since CC probably uses a fixed URL and does not use a browser (as far as I know) it should be safe.

https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/bulletins/SB15-348

Tom

[Lin Evans]

Hi Tom,

I think Eric may not be talking about Flash security issues but rather Adobe's security issues. A couple years ago they had a huge breach of security when hackers stole personal information from their servers as explained here:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/03/technology/security/adobe-hack/index.html?iid=EL

Best regards,

Lin

[Barry Beckham]

While these security breaches are regrettable and we wish they could be avoided, it's probably reasonable to assume that Adobe's site is now stronger than it was previously. It always amazes me when a company is the victim of cyber crime that the blame never falls on those who are stealing the information, but always on the company itself. The company usually referred to as "They"  by the know it all's, somehow has to be super human and do something the best programmers in the world cannot achieve. Total unbreakable security.

Human's being humans then queue up to chest beat and say things like  "the abysmal record Adobe has over the last few years"  I was one of those affected, but it was only a password change. My money wasn't on the point of being stolen. 

When those who shout the loudest have their home burgled and trashed, remind me to blame them for not having adequate security on their home to keep the thieves out.

Life is full of risks, but too many people are willing to jump on the bandwagon and often loaded down with only gossip will bang the drum and scare the life out of those who are nervous. 

 

[Lin Evans]

I doubt anyone is blaming Adobe for the actions of hackers, but large companies are often targets for cyber theft so there is an inherent risk in giving them personal information including credit card numbers and such which can result in financial loss if one's own card is compromised. I've personally been the victim of credit card fraud and have learned not to risk more than I can afford to lose. My solution is to have a small account for online transactions which I only keep minimal amounts in. I use this card for all online transactions so that any potential future losses are minimized. The other danger is in having one's name, address, telephone number and other data which can be used in identity theft schemes stored on servers. That risk also can be minimized by setting up pseudo identities which in some places is not strictly legal but are not terribly difficult to achieve while staying more or less within the legal parameters. One way to do this is by creating a small corporation to handle on-line purchases from large companies which can be targets for hackers. Then if that identify is compromised, the corporation can be dissolved and nothing personally which is really important is compromised.

Lin

[Guest Yachtsman1]

7 hours ago, Lin Evans said:

Hi Tom,

I think Eric may not be talking about Flash security issues but rather Adobe's security issues. A couple years ago they had a huge breach of security when hackers stole personal information from their servers as explained here:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/03/technology/security/adobe-hack/index.html?iid=EL

Best regards,

Lin

Correct

I had to change my password with Adobe twice just because I have a standard account with them to upload up-dates to A/reader.

Eric

Yachtsman1.

[JudyKay]

On 12/9/2015 at 10:34 PM, bbdigital said:

19 hours ago, Lin Evans said:

I doubt anyone is blaming Adobe for the actions of hackers, but large companies are often targets for cyber theft so there is an inherent risk in giving them personal information including credit card numbers and such which can result in financial loss if one's own card is compromised. I've personally been the victim of credit card fraud and have learned not to risk more than I can afford to lose. My solution is to have a small account for online transactions which I only keep minimal amounts in. I use this card for all online transactions so that any potential future losses are minimized. The other danger is in having one's name, address, telephone number and other data which can be used in identity theft schemes stored on servers. That risk also can be minimized by setting up pseudo identities which in some places is not strictly legal but are not terribly difficult to achieve while staying more or less within the legal parameters. One way to do this is by creating a small corporation to handle on-line purchases from large companies which can be targets for hackers. Then if that identify is compromised, the corporation can be dissolved and nothing personally which is really important is compromised.

Lin

Well said, Lin.  I have had similar experience and use your strategy including pseudonyms for most product registrations.  

[Urmas]

I bought PS CS3 and upgraded to each new version up to CS6 what I still use. Did not buy into CC monthly scheme. There are several reasons. Money at present price levels is not one of them.

1) The most important reason is, that whenever I stop paying, I am no longer allowed to use CC. If there would have been an option, that long-term loyal customers who subscribe CC, they can continue to use the last version of CC they reached with payments. Probably I might have bought into CC. But I dislike the idea, that when I retire form active photography some day, to see my old (raw) images, I still have to pay monthly fee. Even if it is in distant future.

2) The biggest reason I upgraded PS versions was not PS itself but need for raw file support when new cameras arrived. Yes, there have been some good features introduced in PS (name content aware fill), but not that much. When PS introduced HDR, DOF stacking, panorama stitching, noise removal - still dedicated software was better in these areas. And still is.

3) I frequently use two computers - desktop and laptop. Even standalone available Lightroom (don't have it, but my friend has) requires you each time deactivate/activate when you switch computers. You are not allowed to run software on two computers at the same time. This would be an unnecessary hassle for me. All other software I use allows at least 2 simultaneous activations and uses.

4) When I have lectures or workshops about photography and image editing, I try to explain principles behind workflow. I do not tell that you need to "press that button" and then "move this slider"... So, having all class with the same software is not necessary for me.

5) When you have rented software you first pay to the company in hope, that they will improve the software. Selling perpetual licences, a company has to innovate enough first to justify my payment. I think, there is a long-term difference.

6) There is an old saying - do not keep all eggs in the same basket. Diversity is better in most cases.

7) Being a nature photographer, most of PS (and CC) bells and whistles - I do not need them. For may years already I use Photoshop mostly to run noise removal plugin, resample and run sharpening plugin. Occasionally need to convert CMYK (when doing books). So, the raw converter is the software, where most of my life runs. PS just resamples and converts color profiles!

8) When Adobe stopped new camera raw support for CS6, I started to look around. Read the internet, tried and now my raw developer is CaptureOne Pro. I get better results than with Adobe Camera RAW. Wasn't cheap, but I care about image quality. So, I am glad Adobe forced me to think and look wider.

9) Occasionally I need a bit more of PS features (on top of resampling). As it is, for now CS6 does the job for me. And it is reasonable to think, that it does until Windows 10 goes on (only hassle is with high resolution displays). On the other hand, buying CC for few months when I actually need it - sure that could be one option. But Adobe is not the monopoly anymore.

These are my considerations regarding CC and Adobe. As it is there are people with different needs and habits.

Urmas

[Barry Beckham]

56 minutes ago, Urmas said:

I bought PS CS3 and upgraded to each new version up to CS6 what I still use. Did not buy into CC monthly scheme. There are several reasons. Money at present price levels is not one of them.

1) The most important reason is, that whenever I stop paying, I am no longer allowed to use CC. If there would have been an option, that long-term loyal customers who subscribe CC, they can continue to use the last version of CC they reached with payments. Probably I might have bought into CC. But I dislike the idea, that when I retire form active photography some day, to see my old (raw) images, I still have to pay monthly fee. Even if it is in distant future.

Then convert all your raw files on download to Digital Negative. There your worry over

2) The biggest reason I upgraded PS versions was not PS itself but need for raw file support when new cameras arrived. Yes, there have been some good features introduced in PS (name content aware fill), but not that much. When PS introduced HDR, DOF stacking, panorama stitching, noise removal - still dedicated software was better in these areas. And still is.

How do you know? You can't possible have the in depth experience of all that's out there to be able to make that statement. Define better for me? 

3) I frequently use two computers - desktop and laptop. Even standalone available Lightroom (don't have it, but my friend has) requires you each time deactivate/activate when you switch computers. You are not allowed to run software on two computers at the same time. This would be an unnecessary hassle for me. All other software I use allows at least 2 simultaneous activations and uses.

This is incorrect. If your working with Creative Cloud and even a disk allows two installs.  How do I manage to have Lightroom, Photoshop and Bridge on 4 computers, if it's not possible. 25 seconds it takes for me to switch to a third machine with Photoshop. Those who say this is hassle are (sorry to say this) talking nonsense

4) When I have lectures or workshops about photography and image editing, I try to explain principles behind workflow. I do not tell that you need to "press that button" and then "move this slider"... So, having all class with the same software is not necessary for me.

I have no idea what your point is here, I don't understand what the last sentence means

5) When you have rented software you first pay to the company in hope, that they will improve the software. Selling perpetual licences, a company has to innovate enough first to justify my payment. I think, there is a long-term difference.

Don't understand this either, perhaps its me, but "I think there is a long term difference"  means what?

6) There is an old saying - do not keep all eggs in the same basket. Diversity is better in most cases.

Yes, I have met many of those people. They have so many programs on their machine they never get the best from any one, simply because modern software is so complex and packed with features. There are not enough hours in the day for anyone to learn them all.

7) Being a nature photographer, most of PS (and CC) bells and whistles - I do not need them. For may years already I use Photoshop mostly to run noise removal plugin, resample and run sharpening plugin. Occasionally need to convert CMYK (when doing books). So, the raw converter is the software, where most of my life runs. PS just resamples and converts color profiles!

Use Lightroom then

8) When Adobe stopped new camera raw support for CS6, I started to look around. Read the internet, tried and now my raw developer is CaptureOne Pro. I get better results than with Adobe Camera RAW. Wasn't cheap, but I care about image quality. So, I am glad for Adobe forced me to think and look wider.

You seem to be saying quite a lot about a program you don't seem that attached to and I would love to see some evidence how the other software is so much better. Does it make your camera technique better? No. Does it make your lenses sharper? No. It works on the same Raw file your camera provides, so show me the difference. I'll be the first to take my hat off to you

9) Occasionally I need a bit more of PS features. As it is, for now CS6 does the job for now. And it is reasonable to think, that it does until Windows 10 goes on (only hassle is with high resolution displays). On the other hand, buying CC for few months when I actually need it - sure that could be one option. But Adobe is not the monopoly anymore.

Really, then why are the worlds photographers all using it

I don't care a hoot what anyone uses and I am certainly not a spokes person for Adobe, but what I read and what my experience and common sense tells me are generally miles apart. 

 

 

[Urmas]

2 hours ago, bbdigital said:

I bought PS CS3 and upgraded to each new version up to CS6 what I still use. Did not buy into CC monthly scheme. There are several reasons. Money at present price levels is not one of them.

1) The most important reason is, that whenever I stop paying, I am no longer allowed to use CC. If there would have been an option, that long-term loyal customers who subscribe CC, they can continue to use the last version of CC they reached with payments. Probably I might have bought into CC. But I dislike the idea, that when I retire form active photography some day, to see my old (raw) images, I still have to pay monthly fee. Even if it is in distant future.

Then convert all your raw files on download to Digital Negative. There your worry over

Just read this: https://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng

Out-of camera raw is the original to keep. And I would really like to retain developing recipes as well, if possible.

2) The biggest reason I upgraded PS versions was not PS itself but need for raw file support when new cameras arrived. Yes, there have been some good features introduced in PS (name content aware fill), but not that much. When PS introduced HDR, DOF stacking, panorama stitching, noise removal - still dedicated software was better in these areas. And still is.

How do you know? You can't possible have the in depth experience of all that's out there to be able to make that statement. Define better for me? 

For HDR I use PhotomatixPro and it is more flexible than PS.

For DOF stacking I use Helicon Focus. PS can do simple stacking, but Helicon has more and better options.

PS can do reasonably well with simple panoramas. I large (multi-row) panoramas it can't compete with dedicated tools like PTGui of Autopano Giga. Not done myself, but I know persons doing very-very large panoramas.

For noise removal I have been using NeatImage and Topaz Denoise. Both better that Photoshop or ACR.

For sharpening I prefer results from deconvolution technology provided by FocusMagic and Topas InFocus. PS smart sharpening is pretty close, though.

AdobeBridge (and Lightroom) can do slideshows. Why the hell we are here in PicturesToExe forum?

3) I frequently use two computers - desktop and laptop. Even standalone available Lightroom (don't have it, but my friend has) requires you each time deactivate/activate when you switch computers. You are not allowed to run software on two computers at the same time. This would be an unnecessary hassle for me. All other software I use allows at least 2 simultaneous activations and uses.

This is incorrect. If your working with Creative Cloud and even a disk allows two installs.  How do I manage to have Lightroom, Photoshop and Bridge on 4 computers, if it's not possible. 25 seconds it takes for me to switch to a third machine with Photoshop. Those who say this is hassle are (sorry to say this) talking nonsense

Thanks for clearing it up. Yes, CC can be used simultaneously on two computers. Stand-alone Lightroom requires that activate/deactivate mess. Just pushing users into CC :-).

http://www.steeletraining.com/tutorials/computers/lightroom.html

4) When I have lectures or workshops about photography and image editing, I try to explain principles behind workflow. I do not tell that you need to "press that button" and then "move this slider"... So, having all class with the same software is not necessary for me.

I have no idea what your point is here, I don't understand what the last sentence means

I have heard suggestions (not only from you), that when doing photo editing workshops, now all participants can have the same (CC) version. It is good, when one does Photoshop workshop. When I do photo editing workshop, I try to be principle-specific, not platform-specific. When possible, I try to show how to achieve same or similar results with different software. Definitely, there are and will be unique bits and pieces in different software packages.

5) When you have rented software you first pay to the company in hope, that they will improve the software. Selling perpetual licences, a company has to innovate enough first to justify my payment. I think, there is a long-term difference.

Don't understand this either, perhaps its me, but "I think there is a long term difference"  means what?

When someone has ensured stable income (large market share), it tends to become lazy in innovation. Why trouble when profit is coming?  For example, for years Canon produced the only affordable full-frame DSLR. When Nikon finally released its full-frame DSLR-s also Canon users gained from it.

6) There is an old saying - do not keep all eggs in the same basket. Diversity is better in most cases.

Yes, I have met many of those people. They have so many programs on their machine they never get the best from any one, simply because modern software is so complex and packed with features. There are not enough hours in the day for anyone to learn them all.

Actually the same statement is valid for almost all large software, starting from text processors ending with image and video editing. I think, I use 5-10% of my office software features, probably less of my CS6. But at least 75% of Focus Magic, Helicon Focus, Photomatix and CaptureOnePro. For me learning and using software is not about learning its shortcuts and menus. To me it is about what I need to do, what is behind it and then, how to achieve needed results in particular software.  If I need italics in text editor, I can do it in OpenOffice, MicrosoftOffice, WordPerfect or PTE forum. If I need to use curves, I can do it in Photoshop, CaptureOnePro, Corel PhotoPaint etc.

7) Being a nature photographer, most of PS (and CC) bells and whistles - I do not need them. For may years already I use Photoshop mostly to run noise removal plugin, resample and run sharpening plugin. Occasionally need to convert CMYK (when doing books). So, the raw converter is the software, where most of my life runs. PS just resamples and converts color profiles!

Use Lightroom then

I have been a long-term Photoshop user and having Bridge, CameraRAW, Photoshop and its plugins all in one workflow was pretty good. Probably because of that (habit?) I still think about Photoshop too much. As a matter of fact, in CS3 times, there were no good alternatives. Today you are absolutely right here. Now I can achieve most I need in CaptureOne Pro. Lightroom is not an option for me anymore and I explained earlier. For image database I have used IMatch for many-many years already, when Lightroom database was nonexistant and still is no competition here.

8) When Adobe stopped new camera raw support for CS6, I started to look around. Read the internet, tried and now my raw developer is CaptureOne Pro. I get better results than with Adobe Camera RAW. Wasn't cheap, but I care about image quality. So, I am glad for Adobe forced me to think and look wider.

You seem to be saying quite a lot about a program you don't seem that attached to and I would love to see some evidence how the other software is so much better. Does it make your camera technique better? No. Does it make your lenses sharper? No. It works on the same Raw file your camera provides, so show me the difference. I'll be the first to take my hat off to you

It is contrary to your assumption here. I used to be very happy with Photoshop and Adobe CameraRAW. I witnessed substantial improvements in RAW developing engines through CS3 to CS6. Was quite happy with it actually. And then just looked around and tried myself. Especially, when ACR failed to deliver goods from 5Ds R files.

See attached files. Same 5Ds R raw, different converters. Lens profiles applied. Corner crops are from CaptureOne Pro 8 (C1), Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) and Canon DigitalPhotoProcessional (DPP). Needed to recover highlights to max to restore meadow and sea. Shadows needed just some pushing. Applied final sharpening in Photoshop (Focus Magic). I was surprised, how many aberrations show up in ACR file. C1 highlight recovery is the best. DPP is very good in details. C1 is very close to DPP in details and has the best overall look.

9) Occasionally I need a bit more of PS features. As it is, for now CS6 does the job for now. And it is reasonable to think, that it does until Windows 10 goes on (only hassle is with high resolution displays). On the other hand, buying CC for few months when I actually need it - sure that could be one option. But Adobe is not the monopoly anymore.

Really, then why are the worlds photographers all using it

I don't care a hoot what anyone uses and I am certainly not a spokes person for Adobe, but what I read and what my experience and common sense tells me are generally miles apart.

As I told, different persons, different requirements, different habits. I do not care about software companies, none of them has made me any gifts or subsidies. And it is not about money here. I am happy to pay (reasonable price) if I get the best. What I care is the quality of my results.

 

[Barry Beckham]

I rest my case and throw the towel in for the second time 

[Lin Evans]

I think the essence of this is that "different strokes for different folks" may be the operant phrase. Obviously many, many people are  quite happy with Adobe's subscription paradigm and the quite low price for Photoshop and Lightroom compared to the original purchase license prices.

Are there alternatives such as the one's mentioned by Urmas which are superior to those features found in Photoshop? Of course there are. I use many of the same software packages Urmas mentioned and for good reasons. They are simply superior to those similar features found in Photoshop. Photoshop is a fantastic program and offers some amazing capabilities all in one package. For many, what is found there is all they need. For others, the superior capabilities in other software is definitely worth the investment in time and effort to learn how to use these capabilities. 

Choices are a good thing and we are all fortunate to be able to pick and choose among options. Each of us have different requirements and there are multiple solutions out there which work for us. There is absolutely nothing seriously wrong with the paradigm Adobe has selected for their products. The "creative cloud" makes great software available to people who could otherwise not afford to use it and it gives Adobe a steady income stream to bolster future development. Is it right for everyone in all cases? No, but that's what's great - we have choices...

Lin

[Barry Beckham]

I think the essence of this is that "different strokes for different folks" may be the operant phrase. Obviously many, many people are  quite happy with Adobe's subscription paradigm and the quite low price for Photoshop and Lightroom compared to the original purchase license prices.

I agree with you, but that isn't the point originally made and with respect to Urma, he is part of the problem I highlighted. He has given the impression that he is very knowledgeable  on Photoshop and how do I know if he is or isn't?  He says he has been using it for almost 9 years, since CS-3. He gives lectures and workshops about photography and image editing, He tells us he is beyond telling people what slider to move but goes deeper than that. He says he explains the principles behind the workflow and as a nature photographer he doesn't need the bells and whistles. He gives the impression he writes books on the subject and is a user of the latest Canon 50MP camera. So, it's not unreasonable to form a view from the post that here is someone who knows what they are talking about.

On the other hand he wasn't aware of the basics of how many installations Photoshop allows, but is still willing to go into print and state it as fact that you can only have it on one computer at a time. Call me old fashioned, but if you have been with the software for almost 9 years and are telling everyone you're an expert,  that is a pretty important point to miss. To make his point we have a list of software being compared, but as a CS-6 users Urma is already two and a half years out of date which was one of my main points. Modern software is too complex, there is a lot of it out there and it's upgraded and improved quickly. I have not met anyone yet who can keep up up all areas, yet many will go into print and give the impression they can and do.

No mention has been made of the latest upgrades to Photoshop where HDR and Panoramas can be done solely in Camera Raw. I can only assume that this point has been missed when the comparisons were made. Maybe because of the 30 months of development that has gone by.

I am not against choice, I am against information put out by those who give the impression of knowledge, but really are just on their hobby horse.  Something like 5 different software packages are mentioned before we even consider Adobe. So, if we add the three adobe products we have 8 and we seem to be told that we need these if we are to be proficient at our photography because they are so much better.

Nah, don't buy it.

I have no interest in test pictures that I have had no hand in creating let alone seeing the original image to ensure it was exposed correctly in the first place. Direct me to a website, where I can see great examples of the HDR, Panoramas, the noise reduction the super sharp images. Stop me in my tracks with the quality of the photography being created now, not a dozen images amassed over 10 years. Show me the wow value your getting and you will have me sitting up and taking notice.

Just telling me it's so isn't enough

[Lin Evans]

Hi Barry,

It's really not incumbent for someone else to "direct you to a website" to convince you that there are better options for HDR, panoramas, noise reduction and super sharp images than Photoshop is able to produce. If you really want to educate yourself on this then you will seek out the answers for yourself. It's not a "contest" to see who knows more about image processing. If you are completely happy with what can be done in Photoshop, that's all that's important for you. 

We don't all have the same needs. For example, if you don't print larger than 24 inches or so, you will probably never see the differences in sharpness and interpolation with the best products for those manipulations such as Qimage Ultimate, BenVista's Autozoom Pro and what Photoshop offers. On the other hand, if you print as large as 60 inches as some do then the differences will be glaringly evident. If you don't make panoramas with hundreds of individual images you probably will not see the differences between Photoshop's "Automerge" and Kolor's Autopano Giga, but there are indeed mega differences. 

There are reasons why these other software companies are highly successful at what they do but these reasons are not always appreciated unless the user has specific needs which are not met by Adobe's products.

Best regards,

Lin

[Barry Beckham]

Your missing the point Lin and forgive me but you do state the obvious at times.We could actually take Adobe's name out of this discussion and replace it was Acme. 

It's really not incumbent for someone else to "direct you to a website" to convince you that there are better options for HDR, panoramas, noise reduction and super sharp images than Photoshop is able to produce. 

Yes it is for me. If you want to tell me that you have discovered  something wonderful that the rest of us haven't yet found,  then show me some evidence of it. My experience is that those who talk loudest in general seem to produce very little, but it's not even about that.

Its about making sure when you talk to others in print that you have the facts right. We can all be allowed an error or two, but don't tell me you haven't noticed that some information given on forums is way off beam. Its why many people believe that those of us who visit and contribute to these forums and discussions have not been taking our medication.

I am beginning to sound a bit like that myself now, but lets hope if I can be aware and ask the question, all is not lost