I think that Photoshop is now so laden with bells and whistles that fewer and fewer people are keen to upgrade. As this is the Adobe flagship product and they count on ongoing revenues from it, they look for ways of making people fork out the money. Microsoft tried that with annual licensing for their software when it reached maturity. Desperate situations call for desperate measures.
I frequently skip a version or 2. Check out educational discounts if you are or know a student.
My annoyance is that CS3 does everything I need it to (and then some) and my D700 is supported by the accompanying version of ACR, but every time I use Lightroom's "edit in â¦" "open as layers" or "merge to panorama" I have to click through the nagware warning "the version might not be compatibleâ¦". Every single time.
It overshoots being enough of a nuisance to persuade me to upgrade and risks landing in "never give Adobe another cent" territory. If only it wasn't such an excellent program, I might be determined to work without it.
Now that is a good point. CS2 is enough for me without a pc upgrade, and Lightroom 3(ahem, freebie courtesy of Leica) is useful...until it starts to lecture me when I try to combine the 2 into a seamless flow. Every sympathy.
Actually...having a seamless workflow between PhotoShop and Lightroom was one of the key reasons why I updated to CS5 - it really is very nice.
The other thing I really like about CS5 is the new clone tool - which is very clever. It looks around the *target* area and clones/blends intelligently. The first time I used it, I was cloning pieces of a picket fence over a car, and I was amazed about how well it *understood* what I was trying to do, and aligned the pickets in one continuous flow. Again - really very nice.
I suppose what I am trying to say here is that there are valid reasons for upgrading your software once in a while, and I don't mind paying for it at an upgrade price point. I am distressed about this new policy, however. I think they should at least honor upgrade pricing 2-3 major versions back. I suppose that their belief is that PhotoShop is primarily used by design industry professionals who will pay the price without questioning it much. Sounds like a self fulfilling prophecy to me. If guys like us need to pay full price every time we upgrade, it moves from no-brainer territory into to a major purchasing decision.
Anyone tempted to jump to alternative products the next time round, instead of upgrading? Photoshop elements comes to mind - I've heard it's quite good and has the majority of the features most home users need. When I played with it a few versions back, it was missing stuff like layers and curves, but I believe they've added those things since.
Full price is $99 and $79 for upgrade - and actually if you're using a Mac, it's $85 in the app store, and less if you manage to snag itunes gift cards at a discount.
There's also stuff like Paint Shop Pro...
No - can't do that. I've become quite accustomed to the power of PhotoShop and LightRoom. It will just make me upgrade less often - or alternately, have my student son do the purchasing...
Elements are an 8 bit system 256 colors, while photoshop is I believe a 16 bit system (65 536 colors). This means that if you manipulate colors in Elements, your image quality deteriorates quickly. In Photoshop it takes more determined effort to screw up your colors. For me 8 bit system is not an option.
I have a lot of respect for Scott Kelby - he is also the President of PhotoShop Professionals of America. If he is crying foul here and backhandedly suggesting that users stop purchasing PhotoShop to send a message, its a pretty bad policy.
I'll laugh every time that I hear of someone pirating this software if this policy goes through.