Many writers predicted that this would happen when Adobe first launched their so called ‘cloud’ version of Photoshop, Adobe CC (Creative Cloud). It seems that they are now finally throwing the towel in with the boxed versions of Photoshop. There a few forums where arrogance is more widespread than utter ignorance, on this forum, there is an abundance of both.Last week Adobe rather unsurprisingly announced that the standalone Photoshop CS6 would no longer be updated with new features or have new codec supplied to handle the files from newly released digital cameras. So if you want to go on a journey for 3-4 months, taking photos and processing, in order to use what you have paid for your have to connect to the internet. Of course everyone knows that you *must* connect to the internet in order to use the subscription service, and that you *must* have a credit card. Obviously they are easily doing it with DNG - do you really think they could not program the same into the RAW plugin?ĭoes adobe have the solution to allow cs6 to import newer raw formats? yes they do. In this case all is it doing is converting a file. Think of RAW like a printer device driver, it connects hardware to the software. Its not like RAW is hardcoded into photoshop - it isn't - it is a separate plug in. Anyone want to guess which is costs more to develop - a picture editor or a full blown operating system? How many of those out there would like to have to buy a new version of windows or mac os every time any piece of hardware s purchased? You wouldn't - so I guess your freeloaders yourself. Spending $1k-$3k on a suite, I think most would expect more than 2-3 years of use. Or are we only carving out Adobe and cameras in this conversation? To follow that logic no monitor, printer, or any USB device would work. The argument that a manufacturer should "freeze" development to the hardware available at time of software production is just ignorance. Why not just tell everyone it is $4,740? oh, yeah right, no one would buy it. The cost for the suites is $79 a month, which in five years (the average an individual keeps one computer) is $4,740. Lots of people buy the suites, not just one app, so saying "it's only $10 a month" just isn't being truthful, and I would argue it is just dishonest. Those of you who want to keep supporting a company like Adobe, have at it - and good luck. I bought CS4, upgraded to CS5 and later to CS6 - so I have more invested in Photoshop than I do in my 80D! No more upgrades for me, and no subscriptions. In my opinion, Adobe is a bully that has no regard for its customers. And there are no doubt other programs out there that do the same. Oh, and by the way, Affinity Photo (formerly Serif PhotoPlus) also supports the 80D, as does Corel AfterShot 3 (I think it costs about $20 to upgrade from 2 to 3). It appears that others have a different opinion and that's fine. I don't intend to comment further on this. Whether I should blame Canon or Adobe is up for argument, but it will be much easier for me to find software (with a subscription) that supports the 80D than to opt for a different camera. As far as the comment from someone that I can find a thousand bucks for a camera but don't want to keep paying Adobe for new releases of software (or subscription fees), I wasn't aware until AFTER I bought the camera that Photoshop CS6 can't read the RAW images. And I refuse to subscribe to anything, not just Photoshop. You aren't obligated to pay a monthly "subscription fee" as with the newer versions of Photoshop. At least with Corel you pay for the software and own it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |