[Jocko]

I have just received an email from Adobe to say that, due to the change in exchange rate between the pound (£) and the dollar ($), they will be increasing subscription rates for me, and I assume other UK subscribers, by 45%. So that will be me reverting back to CS4 and my purchased copy of Lightroom.

[GrahamS]

45% seems to be quite excessive. The exchange rate hasn't changed that much!

[EdMak]

Well, they can't do that when you own the product. Ed. CS4E

[Browser Mike]

I've had the same email. The current price for Photoshop CC ( ie Photoshop + lightroom ) is £8.57. The new price will be £10.10 . In my case this equates to approx. 17.8%. It will be higher if on an introductory ( discounted ) plan at the moment.
Glad to say that my subscription will not increase till December 2017. Overall cost per annum will be £121.20. I think that this still represents good value.
Regards,
Mike.

[Jocko]

I'm only paying £6.98 until September then mine goes up. Considering I have to exist on a pension, £10.10 is a step too far.

[MrB]

Perhaps sometimes it is worth trying to keep these things in perspective. If photography is your main hobby, and Photoshop CC is software that enhances the enjoyment of that hobby, isn't it worth paying the extra £3.12 - only slightly more than having one cup of coffee per month in a typical high street coffee shop?

Cheers.
Philip

[EnglishBob]

I'm paying $50 a month, but I have the full suite with Illustrator, After Effects and all the other video editing stuff. I shoulds probably claim it on my taxes as I am editing video, stills and graphics for clients.

[delb0y]

I've thought about moving to the monthly subscription but at the moment I'm not sure what I would gain. I use LR from a year or so back and it does 99% of what I need. Now and again I drop into a very old version of PS for some cloning, but that's about it. The only thing I can't do between the two programmes is drag the corners to straighten verticals and horizontals. You can do this to a certain extent in LR - but nothing like as well as the latter versions of PS. But I need that about twice a year...

There appears to be plenty of other good stuff in the more modern versions of PS - the ability to remove backgrounds automatically using layers and masks being one. But I'm not sure I'd use that. If ever I got a camera that was new enough that my version of LR doesn't support it then I'd have a rethink, but at the moment I don't see the benefits.

[GrahamS]

I started with "Photoshop" way back when God was a boy, and purchased every upgrade until PS CS5, which I still have. I purchased Lightroom 3 and then every upgrade until LR5. I consider that a considerable investment which I am not prepared to cast aside to go to the subscription product, which will cost another hefty sum per year, ongoing. When what I have no longer works, which will probably be due to operating system compatibility, I will have to make another plan.

[Jocko]

I tend to be like Derek. I use Lightroom for almost everything I do, and for what I need Photoshop for, CS4 does 99% of that. And as Lightroom and Photoshop both use Camera Raw, then any camera not supported by Camera Raw, is supported by neither platform.
As Philip says, it is not a lot of money for your main hobby. But photography isn't that to me. Add to that the fact I am living on an ever decreasing budget, only to get worse if forecasts are believed, then I have got to prioritise my spending. Hence the reason I never go out for coffee!

[EnglishBob]

When I upgraded to the 7DII I thought long and hard about upgrading to the latest version or using a raw converter, and decided I'd update so there was one less step in my workflow. If I bought the software I used in the CC package outright it would cover around 8 years subscription.

You can still buy Photoshop CS6 directly from adobe, but there will be no updates and it's still very pricey.

[pixelmaker]

I have mentioned it before in this forum. Adobe is way too pricy and there is the element of brand snobbery. I use PaintShop Pro which costs about $35 to upgrade to a brand new version once a year in Canada. It is a very sophisticated program and has become a real challenge to the equivalent Adobe product in its capability and price.

[EnglishBob]

I was a PaintshopPro user back in the days when it was still owned and developed by Jasc, I can do the majority of what I want in it, but not quite everything. I do think it's interface was way better than Photoshop's.

[pixelmaker]

I was a PaintshopPro user back in the days when it was still owned and developed by Jasc, I can do the majority of what I want in it, but not quite everything. I do think it's interface was way better than Photoshop's.

[pixelmaker]

The current version is PaintShop Pro X9 with the next one expected to come out later this year. I have used it commercially for years in photo editing and graphic designing with excellent results. It is getting better with each new version. Just two weeks ago I used it in designing advertising material for an order of 100,000 flyers. It’s a shame it is still not getting the recognition it deserves, but in some quarters people are starting to wake up and actually take notice.

[EdMak]

To each his own. Ed.

[delb0y]

I'd miss Light Room for sure if ever I had to change. I do so little to my photos, that PP only takes a few minutes, but LR does those few minutes work so well. A tweak here, a subtle change there. Great cataloguing. Easy to Edit in plug-ins if ever more work is reqd (rare). I think if I was a graphic designer or one of these people that create photos with loads of layers or bring elements in from different photos (changing the background, for example) then I'd have to think more widely. But as I don't do any of that... And my existing version of LR from a year or so back does all I need. Just one day if ever I get a more modern camera the trouble may begin :-)

[GrahamS]

Just one day if ever I get a more modern camera the trouble may begin :-)

Then you do what I do and use Adobe DNG converter.

[Jocko]

Adobe DNG Converter uses Adobe Camera RAW, the same as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Lightroom. If one doesn't support the new camera, none of them will. In that case you just have to use the RAW Converter software that came with the camera, until such time as Adobe add it to those they support. I believe Adobe Camera RAW works with all versions of Photoshop, that have RAW functionality, right back to the first which supports the format.

[GrahamS]

You don't need the latest version of Lightroom, Photoshop or ACR to run Adobe RAW converter. It is a stand-alone application.

[Jocko]

I realise it is stand alone, but the software at the backbone of all these Adobe programs is identical, and if Adobe hasn't got round to updating it to include the latest XYZ camera then none of them support it. I spoke to Adobe about this several months ago and that was what they told me.

[EnglishBob]

While Camera Raw is the backbone for each of the Adobe Products and their ability to edit/interface with a raw file, Adobe are very sneaky in how they allow it to be used.

Older versions of a program are not able to utilize newer versions of Adobe Camera Raw, so forcing you to update to a newer version to use a newer camera, unless you are willing to convert to their version of raw and work on those files.

Here is a list of Adobe Programs and which version of Raw they will support: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/ca...tions.html

Here's a list of Cameras, and which Camera Raw Version they require: https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/ca...meras.html

So by the fact they don't allow Camera Raw to be backwards compatible with older versions of the different apps, they ensure people will update.

[Jocko]

I think we are actually arguing at cross purposes. I agree fully with what you say in your last post. What I am saying is, if Adobe hasn't upgraded their software to support a new camera then none of their software will support it. This includes Adobe DNG converter.
I was storing my unprocessed images in raw and dng format, but I found that the two images were different in appearance. There were subtle changes. I went back to just storing the raw version.
Until Adobe includes support for a new camera you just have to use the software that came with the camera. Once they include support you can go back to using the DNG Converter. Once it is in dng format it will work with older versions of Adobe software.
Even though Adobe don't support a new camera that is no reason to avoid buying it.