Creative Cloud 2018 out!!!

[chris dees]

I'll probably give something else a try. Luminar Windows Beta? Downloading....

I’m very interested in your findings Thomas. Luminar looks a nice alternative. Next year they wil come with a DAM addition too.

[Frode]

Adobe becoming a utility is old news by now. Before the subscription, because I used most of Adobe's products for other things, like video, Illustrator, Audition, and on and on, buying the Master Collection, which I had to, was probably more expensive and not updated as frequently. Like the water bill, now there is the Adobe bill. LOL.

I appreciate Adobe being there for me. It let's me do things I want to do, like this.

Fantastic image, BEAUTIFUL colors!

[Ilkka Nissilä]

So, how do I get images from Lightroom CC (the cloud app) back into a regular Lightroom (Classic) catalog so that I can use the edited images to make prints, for example? I know I can open the files in Photoshop CC but what if I want to print a batch of them from Lightroom CC?

Edit: ok, I figured it out. From Lightroom Classic, one has to select from the top left corner to sync this catalog and then after a while of waiting it displays the cloud photos in LR as "All Synced Photographs".

[John Geerts]

I'll probably give something else a try. Luminar Windows Beta? Downloading....

It crashed several times, without reason.  I uninstalled the program.  The file-open option is unworkable with NEF's. The very limited save-as options  are not an advantage.

[David H. Hartman]

It let's me do things I want to do, like this.

Thank you for posting: that Photograph is amazing. I love the pinks and greens and I guess they are stamen dancing in the center of the flower. It's a miniature, magic world.

Dave Hartman

[Les Olson]

Adobe makes more money, states should get more taxes

No.  Adobe's model is Adobe makes more money and does not pay tax.  Adobe claims it has an effective tax rate of about 26%, but that is based on a US accounting requirement to include as a liability the tax they would owe on funds "permanently re-invested" overseas if those funds were repatriated to the US.  In fact, in 2012 Adobe's tax rate was 6.9% (https://www.ft.com/content/6273646e-fb77-11e2-8650-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e6).

Adobe has, in the past, been careless about security.  That creates two issues: (1) records of software subscribers are an attractive target for hackers because the personal data and credit card numbers are up-to-date, and (2) if your images are on the cloud and your account is compromised ransomware attacks are a threat.  It would not only be the threat of losing images, but the threat of liability for illegal use of images - privacy breaches, eg. 

[MFloyd]

Before you change all for better worlds, please, give some attention to this article from Thom Hogan ...http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/digital-photography-softwar/the-expensive-update.html

[Les Olson]

Before you change all for better worlds, please, give some attention to this article from Thom Hogan ...http://www.dslrbodies.com/accessories/software-for-nikon-dslrs/software-news/digital-photography-softwar/the-expensive-update.html

Adobe's prices set the pace.  Why would anyone expect its competitors to be a lot cheaper?  Though some are: I can get Affinity - Thom's "best PS alternative" - for 55 euros as an outright purchase, and Affinity has not had a paid update since 2015.  Plus, Thom's $8 a month is the US price, and Adobe has a long history of charging much higher prices to customers outside the US: eg, the cheapest PS subscription Adobe France will sell me is 288 euros a year, and their price gouging in Australia is notorious (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/02/dont-believe-the-adobe-price-cut-hype-its-still-gauging-you-silly/ and https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/05/creative-cloud-keeps-getting-more-expensive-in-australia/). The ability to prevent people outside the US avoiding its price gouging by buying a perpetual licence copy in the US is one reason Adobe likes the subscription model - they even go to considerable lengths to stop you finding out what the price is in other regions.

Above all, even if companies do try to conceal the real cost of their software by frequent paid updates, if you have an outright purchase those updates are not compulsory.  You can decide whether you want the update or not, and if you don't you can continue to use the software without the trouble of changing to another program.  If - when - Adobe increases your subscription price you either pay or go to the trouble and expense of changing to another program right now, whether right now is convenient or not. 

[Mike G]

I’m unfortunately reading a lot of crap regarding Lightroom and its new iterations! If you don’t want to use the web based version then don’t use the Lr Classic CC instead it ain’t rocket science after all is it!

And don’t forget Adobe is not a charity!

Also there isn’t a software system or programmer that hasn’t had a security leak of some sort or other come on people stop picking on Adobe, if you don’t wish to use the subscription method offered by Adobe then don’t, there is other software available!

Sorry about that rant over. 

[David H. Hartman]

If Adobe was a charity it wouldn't buy it's competition.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

we are not perpetual so why should we need a perpetual license

The thing is that nothing is permanent in a changeable and changing world.

It is precisely because nothing is permanent, that we need perpetual licenses.

That is why we need software that can be run with no time limit and with no need for subscriptions.

That is precisely why we need and should demand software that is user-controlled, that means copyable and re-installable on compatible hardware without any ties to the manufacturer and no need for "activation" after the acquisition of the license.

[David H. Hartman]

If I had been taken up into the clouds to be with Adobe it would not have been forevermore. I've had financial problems and now I'm paying a quadriplegic friend's internet so she can engage in her seasonal business and so she can complete a hybrid online collage class that is both online and has a once a week class room or campus workshop. Not only that but I recently bought her an economy smart phone. I would have had to drop CC and I may have to drop my own internet access.

I bought Nikon CaptureNX2 to lessen dependence on Adobe but Google gobbled NIK., etc.

Dave

[CS]

The thing is that nothing is permanent in a changeable and changing world.

It is precisely because nothing is permanent, that we need perpetual licenses.

That is why we need software that can be run with no time limit and with no need for subscriptions.

That is precisely why we need and should demand software that is user-controlled, that means copyable and re-installable on compatible hardware without any ties to the manufacturer and no need for "activation" after the acquisition of the license.

You're free to create such software. Let me know how that business plan works for 'ya.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

You're free to create such software. Let me know how that business plan work for 'ya.

It is difficult to understand why some are seemingly against user-controlled software.

User-controlled software does exist, and here are some few examples:

- OpenSuSE Linux operating system (one of many Linux versions, they are all basically equally good)

- Corel AfterShot Pro RAW converter. This is a commercial program which was unfortunately bought from Bibble by a software company that wanted to eliminate an inconvenient competitor. The point is not that the software must be free, the point is that it must be user-controlled.

- RawTherapee RAW converter

- Darktable RAW converter

- Cinepaint image editor

- GIMP image editor

Lastly; All Adobe Photoshop versions up to and including Photoshop 7.01 was activaton-free and can be backed up and installed whenever the user needs - with no ties to the manufacturer. The same is true for all Windows versions up to and including Windows 2000. These software versions may no longer be available or compatible with most recent hardware, but that does not invalidate the point which is the following: User-controlled software exists and has existed, and people have created and and still create such software. Moreover, they have made and still make money from it. As they should do.

[CS]

It is difficult to understand why some are seemingly against user-controlled software.

User-controlled software does exist, and here are some few examples:

- OpenSuSE Linux operating system (one of many Linux versions, they are all basically equally good)

- Corel AfterShot Pro RAW converter. This is a commercial program which was unfortunately bought from Bibble by a software company that wanted to eliminate an inconvenient competitor. The point is not that the software must be free, the point is that it must be user-controlled.

- RawTherapee RAW converter

- Darktable RAW converter

- Cinepaint image editor

- GIMP image editor

Lastly; All Adobe Photoshop versions up to and including Photoshop 7.01 was activaton-free and can be backed up and installed whenever the user needs - with no ties to the manufacturer. The same is true for all Windows versions up to and including Windows 2000. These software versions may no longer be available or compatible with most recent hardware, but that does not invalidate the point which is the following: User-controlled software exists and has existed, and people have created and and still create such software. Moreover, they have made and still make money from it. As they should do.

I'm not against anything of the kind, so don't mischaracterize  my words. OTOH, you had better check your sources because your statement that old Photoshop versions up to 7 were activation free is absolutely false. The activation codes were printed on the box that the software came inm and if you used them up you had to ask Adobe for more. BTDT!