PS and LR monthly plan

Walker40

Does anyone use the $9.99 plan of PS LR? Pros and cons? I use Corel now but want to switch over.

2day

I find it cost effective, have it on both my laptop and desktop.

Walker40

Thank you! Do you have any restrictions with the program?

TonyCooper

I've been on the plan since the first of year.

All "pros". No "cons".

There's a new version of LR , and some people in another group
have complained about downloading problems, but they've
eventually solved the problem.

pathfinder

I have been using PS CC for some time, and downloaded LR CC today - no additional cost for the LR CC, - previously I had been using my own copy of LR 5. You are only allowed to have to operating copies of the programs - say one for a desktop and one for a laptop both used by the same owner, and not simultaneously.

Seems inexpensive at $9.99 a month, and seems to work pretty well. You have to remember to turn your laptop on once a month to keep your Creative Cloud subscription renewed if you are going to be away from the internet for a while where getting an online connection to Adobe might not be possible. This is really only significant if you are traveling away from modern WiFI connections.

The buzz with LR CC was the improved pano engine and the built in HDR engine, but they also finally made LR use the GPU processors on the graphics cards and this made LR CC significantly faster and smoother for me than LR5 was on my 2013 MacPro trash can. I am a fan. My LR catalog has about 120,000 RAW files so it does need a fast platform to operate quickly.

bike21

I also use the subscription plan and really like it. Always having the latest & greatest of the two most used pieces of photo editing software (for me) is a good thing in my book. Well worth the modest cost.

JoHawk

Just saw this thread as I am looking at the subscription also, I have been using photoshop installed on my desktop for the past few years so am unsure of exactly how a subscription works?

My assumption is that you pay $9.99 per month and subscribe. Then you download the software onto your computer and continue use and pay $9.99 every month until you cancel the subscription then your license would no longer work... Is this correct?? and is it a full version of the latest Photoshop or a light version ?? Just want to clarify this before I proceed in case I get duped ..

pathfinder

Currently, $9.99 brings you the current version of PS CC, Lightroom CC, and Bridge. These programs are stored on your computer, which must be able to connect to Adobe via the internet once a month at least, to verify that your subscription remains current. If it is not current, your software license will no longer be active, and your access to the programs will stop - this is my understanding of what I am paying Adobe for, but I am not an Adobe employee so if you have specific questions verify your answers with Adobe.

All three programs are the full and kept up to date versions, they are not Light versions.

JoHawk

pathfinder wrote: »

Currently, $9.99 brings you the current version of PS CC, Lightroom CC, and Bridge. These programs are stored on your computer, which must be able to connect to Adobe via the internet once a month at least, to verify that your subscription remains current. If it is not current, your software license will no longer be active, and your access to the programs will stop - this is my understanding of what I am paying Adobe for, but I am not an Adobe employee so if you have specific questions verify your answers with Adobe.

All three programs are the full and kept up to date versions, they are not Light versions.

Perfect just what I needed to hear.... Thank you, now off to subscribe!!!

Richard

CC is a good deal for those who want the latest and greatest. One word of caution though: if for any reason you decide to cancel your subscription in the future, you will lose the ability to use your Lightroom catalog. Your pics will be safe, but if you are using LR's Library correctly, you will have a hell of a time finding anything without it. I have finally decided to replace my old photo database manager with Lightroom (which now has a lot more bells and whistles), but rather than going the subscription route, I purchased the perpetual license version. Eventually, changing technology and more aggressive marketing tactics may force me to subscribe to CC, but I plan on being among the last to be assimilated.

TonyCooper

JoHawk wrote: »

Just saw this thread as I am looking at the subscription also, I have been using photoshop installed on my desktop for the past few years so am unsure of exactly how a subscription works?

My assumption is that you pay $9.99 per month and subscribe. Then you download the software onto your computer and continue use and pay $9.99 every month until you cancel the subscription then your license would no longer work... Is this correct?? and is it a full version of the latest Photoshop or a light version ?? Just want to clarify this before I proceed in case I get duped ..

Yes, if you discontinue the subscription you no longer can use PS or LR. However, all files
you have created using it are on your computer and you do not lose them.

If you have an older version of PS, you can still use that and still edit the files. You will
not be able to use any of the tools in the subscription version, but you will be able to
edit using all of the tools in your older version.

Most of us who have gone over have at least one older version that we've retained.

If you don't, you could purchase a license for Elements and do almost everything with
those old files.

Sam

pathfinder wrote: »

I have been using PS CC for some time, and downloaded LR CC today - no additional cost for the LR CC, - previously I had been using my own copy of LR 5. You are only allowed to have to operating copies of the programs - say one for a desktop and one for a laptop both used by the same owner, and not simultaneously.

Pathfinder,

I just went over to the dark side surrendering my independence to the image processing masters at Adobe, and have a question regarding your statement that you can't use your two allowed (say laptop and desktop) to be used at the same time.

Why not and how would they know?

Sam

pathfinder

Not sure the really would, since at least initially neither computer would have to be online on the web while working in LR or PS.

I have never tired to use them both simultaneously ( and I do not intend to try either ), so I don't really know if it is possible. I wonder if they get delayed reports of usage times perhaps when back online.

I think Adobe's point is they are willing to allow a single user to have two copies of their software on different machines, but they do not want two different people simultaneously using both copies, as might happen in a business environment with several employees.

Personally, I wish they would allow us to have 4 copies on 4 different computers - I own more than 1 laptop, and sometimes I want the larger laptop with more power, and sometimes when traveling I want the smaller lighter MacAir but with Adobe's existing policy I can't do that and keep my desktop machines software as well. Aw well, nothing is perfect.

One could always add a second license for another $10 a month, I suppose.

Sam

pathfinder wrote: »

Not sure the really would, since at least initially neither computer would have to be online on the web while working in LR or PS.

I have never tired to use them both simultaneously ( and I do not intend to try either ), so I don't really know if it is possible. I wonder if they get delayed reports of usage times perhaps when back online.

I think Adobe's point is they are willing to allow a single user to have two copies of their software on different machines, but they do not want two different people simultaneously using both copies, as might happen in a business environment with several employees.

Personally, I wish they would allow us to have 4 copies on 4 different computers - I own more than 1 laptop, and sometimes I want the larger laptop with more power, and sometimes when traveling I want the smaller lighter MacAir but with Adobe's existing policy I can't do that and keep my desktop machines software as well. Aw well, nothing is perfect.

One could always add a second license for another $10 a month, I suppose.

The only time I can think I might want to use both at the same time might be to test each machine back to back for speed, consistency, any other differences, or maybe I am busy exporting / downloading from the laptop while importing on the desktop.

Sam

JonaBeth Russell

To the OP...the only con is giving your money away monthly and not owning the software outright. I'd rather pay it once, have it for as long as I can use it.

Anthony

JonaBeth Russell wrote: »

To the OP...the only con is giving your money away monthly and not owning the software outright. I'd rather pay it once, have it for as long as I can use it.

Whilst I share your sentiment and don't particularly want to go the subscription route myself, I would note that even with the perpetual versions, you (me, everyone) only purchased a licence for the software, we don't actually own it. A technical point maybe, but worth being aware of.

Anthony.

Richard

Anthony wrote: »

Whilst I share your sentiment and don't particularly want to go the subscription route myself, I would note that even with the perpetual versions, you (me, everyone) only purchased a licence for the software, we don't actually own it. A technical point maybe, but worth being aware of.

Anthony.

Well, yeah, but for all practical purposes that's a distinction without a difference. To my knowledge, no software company has ever revoked the license of a product's entire user base. What is worth remembering is that while the license may be perpetual, eventually technical changes in hardware and software will force you to move to a different program or platform. Sure, you can try to keep your old hardware running forever, but who wants to deal with the computer equivalent of 50s cars in Cuba? I still have some WordStar files on floppy disks, but I only keep them for sentimental reasons. The CC model gives you some protection against planned obsolescence, but if you're paying attention, you will know when the time has come to upgrade or switch to a different product.

pathfinder

For the cost Photoshop and Lightroom packages, one can rent them with a very small down payment, and be cash flow ahead for several years..... Over the long haul, > 3-7 years or so depending on the present costs of PS and LR ( which might also rise in the future ) one might find it cheaper to purchase them - but as Richard said, they will no longer be the current versions.

I do own licenses for PS 3, PS 4, PS 5, PS CS and Lightroom 1 ->5 but I do not use any of them and strongly prefer not to - PS CC 2014 and LR CC are just that much better.

As I think about it, the cost of photography software ( PS, LR, and other plug ins ) is significantly less than I spend annually on photographic hardware averaged over the years. Good glass is far more expensive than software, but apparently worth it to me at least.

Pono Photo

pathfinder wrote: »

I have been using PS CC for some time, and downloaded LR CC today - no additional cost for the LR CC, - previously I had been using my own copy of LR 5. You are only allowed to have to operating copies of the programs - say one for a desktop and one for a laptop both used by the same owner, and not simultaneously.

One thing about this, yes, you are allowed to have the software installed on two computers at one time. But you CAN use them simultaneously. I have done it numerous times.

pathfinder

Good to know...

b08rsa

This thread really got my attention today. I have been using Photoshop 7.0 for the longest time. My question is... how much of a learning curve is this? So far from the tutorials, looks fairly easy to learn. Also, can this program take a .jpg file and convert to raw? I have really never shot in raw due to a file size.

Richard

I'm still on CS5 but I think the differences between that and the current version of CC should be minor for the questions you're asking. There will be a lot to learn if you make the move, but you can do it at your own pace. I don't think there's anything in PS7 that's not in the latest version, just a whole lot of new stuff that makes things much, much easier and faster. Many free tutorials can be found on the net. You already know the stuff that has always made PS difficult for new users--layers, masks, blending modes, selections, color spaces, etc., so the hard part is done. Probably the most difficult thing will be getting used to a changed user interface, but that's just a matter of practice. If you're not using Lightroom now, you probably will want to change your workflow as well, but again, there's nothing forcing you to do so immediately. You don't have to use Lightroom at all, but it is a great work management tool, light-years ahead of Bridge. Lots of people have found that Lightroom alone can meet their needs most of the time and only drop into Photoshop rarely.

You cannot convert a JPG into a raw file--that's like unscrambling eggs. You can still use all of the CC tools on JPGs, though you won't have as wide a range of exposure and color adjustments available as you would with raw files. The price of storage has dropped greatly since the PS7 days so you shouldn't let space prevent you from using raw.

Just one caveat: If your computer dates from the PS7 days, it will almost certainly not have enough horsepower or the right operating system to run CC. Make sure you check out the system requirements before proceeding.

Good luck.

ziggy53

b08rsa wrote: »

..., can this program take a .jpg file and convert to raw? I have really never shot in raw due to a file size.

Richard wrote: »

... You cannot convert a JPG into a raw file--that's like unscrambling eggs. You can still use all of the CC tools on JPGs, though you won't have as wide a range of exposure and color adjustments available as you would with raw files. The price of storage has dropped greatly since the PS7 days so you shouldn't let space prevent you from using raw.

Just one caveat: If your computer dates from the PS7 days, it will almost certainly not have enough horsepower or the right operating system to run CC. Make sure you check out the system requirements before proceeding.

Good luck.

Richard is absolutely correct in all his points. RAW camera files have tons more image information than JPG, and allow things like some additional information in the highlight areas and shadows, which permits more image detail recovery in those areas, and RAW files allow white balance correction in post-processing, while JPG files have already discarded so much information in both highlight/shadows that any recovery is minimal from the JPG image and any sort of color balance operation from a JPG file is generally more damaging than helpful.

Shoot RAW files (Sony ARW/SR2/SRF files, in your case) for anything critical.

b08rsa

ziggy53 wrote: »

Richard is absolutely correct in all his points. RAW camera files have tons more image information than JPG, and allow things like some additional information in the highlight areas and shadows, which permits more image detail recovery in those areas, and RAW files allow white balance correction in post-processing, while JPG files have already discarded so much information in both highlight/shadows that any recovery is minimal from the JPG image and any sort of color balance operation from a JPG file is generally more damaging than helpful.

Shoot RAW files (Sony ARW/SR2/SRF files, in your case) for anything critical.

So at what point do you decide how large of a SD card you need? I used to use 16 gig, but now moving to 32 gig class 10 cards. Also Richard is right, I downloaded the 30 free version and with my desktop being older (4 GIG RAM with a 1.9 GHz processor, running Win 7 64bit) I will be upgrading RAM today. Yesterday, I purchased a 3 TB external HD. Ran a little slow. . I guess I should start shooting RAW instead of .jpg format.

denisegoldberg

b08rsa wrote: »

So at what point do you decide how large of a SD card you need? I used to use 16 gig, but now moving to 32 gig class 10 cards.

My preference is for more cards, not larger cards. In the (hopefully rare) event of losing a card or a card going bad, I prefer to have my photos spread across multiple cards.

Have you considered carrying multiple 16 gig cards?

--- Denise

b08rsa

denisegoldberg wrote: »

My preference is for more cards, not larger cards. In the (hopefully rare) event of losing a card or a card going bad, I prefer to have my photos spread across multiple cards.

Have you considered carrying multiple 16 gig cards?

--- Denise

I carry multiple size SD cards, but I figure if I am going to start shooting short video clips, and RAW format still frames, I would chew up an 8 or 16 gig card pretty quick. I did pick up a few 64 gig class 10 cards for 19 bucks a piece, which I thought was not to bad of price. Thanks for the advice.

ziggy53

b08rsa wrote: »

I carry multiple size SD cards, but I figure if I am going to start shooting short video clips, and RAW format still frames, I would chew up an 8 or 16 gig card pretty quick. I did pick up a few 64 gig class 10 cards for 19 bucks a piece, which I thought was not to bad of price. Thanks for the advice.

Please do remember that card quality and card compatibility with your camera should be the dominant factors in your purchase decision, not price.

Purchasing a 16GB card masquerading as a 64GB card is fairly common on the Internet, and the only sure way to know that you are purchasing a quality card is to purchase through merchants with high values for customer satisfaction and then testing the card for speed and storage size. EBay and Amazon care much less about retaining photographic customers than B&H and Adorama. (I also rather like Newegg.)

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/09/beware-counterfeit-memory-cards-being-shipped-from-amazon-warehouses/

http://petapixel.com/2015/06/14/warning-watch-out-for-fake-memory-cards-on-ebay/

http://oeding.com/tutorial-how-to-spot-a-fake-memory-card/

Please read all of the above. An informed buyer is their own best friend.

---

As for card compatibility with your camera(s), use the manufacturer's recommendations as a starting point. Then do an Internet search to find out which cards work best for your particular equipment.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sony+A-77+MII&oq=Sony+A-77+MII&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=best+sd+card+Sony+%22A77+Mark+II%22

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sony+A-77+MII&oq=Sony+A-77+MII&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=sony+%22a77+mark+ii%22+card+recommendations

Ferguson

ziggy53 wrote: »

Please do remember that card quality and card compatibility with your camera should be the dominant factors in your purchase decision, not price.

Purchasing a 16GB card masquerading as a 64GB card is fairly common on the Internet, and the only sure way to know that you are purchasing a quality card is to purchase through merchants with high values for customer satisfaction and then testing the card for speed and storage size. EBay and Amazon care much less about retaining photographic customers than B&H and Adorama. (I also rather like Newegg.)

I agree with all of that, but want to expand on one aspect. For Amazon there is "amazon", and "Marketplace fulfilled by amazon" and "Marketplace".

The latter two have product supplied by the 3rd party. Just having it fulfilled by Amazon means they pick and pack and ship it -- not that they buy it, in fact they do not procure it at all. They exercise no real supervision over their Marketplace vendors' supply chain.

I personally tend to put Amazon (sold and fulfilled by) among the same general category as B&H and Adorama. I just can't see Amazon risking its own name by buying from nefarious 3rd parties as opposed to the manufacturer. So far I have not heard of counterfits "sold and fulfilled by amazon". But anything on the Marketplace you are really no better than eBay.

All that said, while I buy a lot of stuff from Amazon, I've generally only bought memory from B&H just to be safe.

b08rsa

I buy my cards from Micro Center, I have had nothing but good luck with Micro Center brand cards, still using their old Compact Flash cards in my old Oly from when 4 gig was alot of storage space. . Started using their SDHC's as well when I moved over to Sony DSLR's.

Tourmeister

Richard wrote: »

To my knowledge, no software company has ever revoked the license of a product's entire user base.

Late to the party, I know. But this comment caught my eye. You might find it ironic, but Adobe has actually done this! I have a purchased copy of Acrobat 5.0 that I used forever and worked great. Somewhere along the line Adobe decided to kill the old version. I only found this out when I went to install it on a new computer and it went to verify my license by connecting to Adobe's servers. I was promptly informed that my version of Acrobat was no longer valid!! It simply would not work any longer. In essence, they forced me to upgrade even though I was perfectly happy with what I had.

I am using LR4 still (I know... I should upgrade). I DO worry about getting into the subscription mode and then being stuck with years of work and not being able to access it because Adobe pulls something like the above again. Keeping an old version around is not a good solution. Consider what would happen if somewhere along the line they made changes in how the programs create and manipulate the catalogs such that old versions of the program could not access or use catalogs created by the new program. Or, they just do the same thing with old versions of LR that they did to Acrobat. They work fine until you have a need to reinstall them and then they are dead in the water.

I suspect that eventually the choice will be taken away from me if I want to keep using LR and I will HAVE to move to the subscription setup.

kdog

Tourmeister wrote: »

I am using LR4 still (I know... I should upgrade). I DO worry about getting into the subscription mode and then being stuck with years of work and not being able to access it because Adobe pulls something like the above again.

Keeping an old version around is not a good solution.

You don't need to keep old versions of LR, because newer versions read catalogs written by previous versions just fine. This is what's known as backwards-compatibility and most good software is designed this way. LR will also ask you if you want it to upgrade your catalog to the newer version and then you can take advantage of the newer features.

Consider what would happen if somewhere along the line they made changes in how the programs create and manipulate the catalogs such that old versions of the program could not access or use catalogs created by the new program.

The ability for an older version of a program to operate on data created from a newer version of a program is what's known as forward-compatibility and is generally not a goal of most product design. Trying to design something to be forward-compatible stifles the ability to improve the product and add new features. Why would you be worried about this case?