Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Im Confused ... (not difficult)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 504304" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>Which plays into this very well for Adobe. Right now they give away Photoshop in the Creative Cloud Photography plan for $9.99 a month. Folks have said from the beginning that at some point Adobe would raise that price while they have promised not to. So, you get full functionality LR and PS. <strong><em>But</em></strong>, if they were to somehow make a "Photoshop for Photographers" that stripped out many of the <em>non-photography specific functions of Photoshop</em> (likely using the same logic and intellect that caused them to determine that no one uses the Eject on Import feature in LR) they could them roll that into Lightroom and still call it "Creative Cloud Photography" and still charge $9.99 ("See, we told you we'd never raise the price!!"), and then make full blown Photoshop part of an extension that would cost you an additional $5-15 a month.</p><p></p><p>It makes no sense from a user perspective, but if falls in line with everything Adobe has done since introducing the CC offering, which is to drive up CC functionality, subscriptions and revenue. You can't sell someone who already pays $9.99 a month anything new if it's already bundled in. With the graphics and video functionality getting greater and greater in Ps they can simply say, "It's more than just a photography tool, so we need to be able to charge for it accordingly. Photographers will still get <em>the most used</em> functions of Photoshop as a part of their subscription, and videographers can opt for the CC for Video bundle, and graphic designers will retain full functionality in the full Creative Cloud offering." </p><p></p><p>This is all theory, but the real question would be, if they create a stripped down version of Ps what does Adobe consider essential to photographers? If it's what we see in Elements then they have they heads up a dark chute. If they strip out everything in the 3D menu I won't even bat an eyelash - I'd love to play with it but that's truly outside of any photographers <em>need</em> (unless they are a graphic artist, in which case they're likely already ponying up). I have more of an issue with them stripping video editing functionality out. If I can shoot video with my DSLR then I should be able to grab frames from it and do at least basic edits and extracts to/from it. If that happened, I'd likely be more than OK with carrying on. Start stripping out some of the Filters, particularly the render effects that can be seen as more graphic arts oriented, and minimize the usefulness of content aware functions and we're gonna have a <strong><em>huge</em></strong> problem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 504304, member: 9240"] Which plays into this very well for Adobe. Right now they give away Photoshop in the Creative Cloud Photography plan for $9.99 a month. Folks have said from the beginning that at some point Adobe would raise that price while they have promised not to. So, you get full functionality LR and PS. [B][I]But[/I][/B], if they were to somehow make a "Photoshop for Photographers" that stripped out many of the [I]non-photography specific functions of Photoshop[/I] (likely using the same logic and intellect that caused them to determine that no one uses the Eject on Import feature in LR) they could them roll that into Lightroom and still call it "Creative Cloud Photography" and still charge $9.99 ("See, we told you we'd never raise the price!!"), and then make full blown Photoshop part of an extension that would cost you an additional $5-15 a month. It makes no sense from a user perspective, but if falls in line with everything Adobe has done since introducing the CC offering, which is to drive up CC functionality, subscriptions and revenue. You can't sell someone who already pays $9.99 a month anything new if it's already bundled in. With the graphics and video functionality getting greater and greater in Ps they can simply say, "It's more than just a photography tool, so we need to be able to charge for it accordingly. Photographers will still get [I]the most used[/I] functions of Photoshop as a part of their subscription, and videographers can opt for the CC for Video bundle, and graphic designers will retain full functionality in the full Creative Cloud offering." This is all theory, but the real question would be, if they create a stripped down version of Ps what does Adobe consider essential to photographers? If it's what we see in Elements then they have they heads up a dark chute. If they strip out everything in the 3D menu I won't even bat an eyelash - I'd love to play with it but that's truly outside of any photographers [I]need[/I] (unless they are a graphic artist, in which case they're likely already ponying up). I have more of an issue with them stripping video editing functionality out. If I can shoot video with my DSLR then I should be able to grab frames from it and do at least basic edits and extracts to/from it. If that happened, I'd likely be more than OK with carrying on. Start stripping out some of the Filters, particularly the render effects that can be seen as more graphic arts oriented, and minimize the usefulness of content aware functions and we're gonna have a [B][I]huge[/I][/B] problem. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Post Processing
Im Confused ... (not difficult)
Top