Kevin Connery wrote:

Ideas are powerful.

Ideas without execution are like photographs that haven't been taken.

The people who produce solutions from ideas are the ones who benefit society most strongly. Yes, without the idea, the execution of the idea isn't possible, but the idea, without execution, is just that: an idea.

Do people pay photographers for the concept of a photograph or for the photograph?

The truth is that Adobe equipped Photoshop with layers four years after its competitors' introduction of the implementation.  Without healthy competition then, probably we would have never seen it in Photoshop.

Drew Smith Photography wrote:
It's the way everything is going. You can't buy a mainstream PC game now with needing to be logged in to the Internet. EA had a nightmare with their recent release of Sim City; insufficient servers to cope with demand.

I will now sit here with my CS4 and wait until I'm 'forced' to upgrade and/or log in.

This is a pain.

Torchlight, Tomb Raider, Turok, BS infinite "mainstream" games that don't require an always on connection.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
That isn't quite right.  They have deactivated the servers, so now every time you install CS2, it simply activates.  In other words, they are no longer testing for validity.  The software hasn't been terminated.

This is wrong on so many levels.  I had forgotten what I loved about forums, until today ;P.  Obviously you don't own CS2 yourself, or you would actually know the differences

Sichenze Photography wrote:
Wonder how many people will look at paint shop pro soon.

Probably not quite as many as those who say they will.

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:

There are a few upgrades but they don't last past a year or so.. After that Adobe has their next version out..

And as mentioned above, the OS can become an issue.

For those that want to hold out, I guess you can get the fastest computer you can afford and get CS6.    It'll last a few years..but I'd guess in 5-6 years, most will either find another program or have to buy into Adobe. 

Planning to do just that. Hold on to CS6 and ride it out. I don't plan to pay for corporate greed. I don't run a business here. I do this for the love of it.

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
This is the only way they can deal with the piracy. It's smart move. And the Cloud is awesome. The value is there for $29-$50 a month...used to cost $2500 retail.

Wow, you realize you're on a photography website, right Nico? If you honestly use the entire suite for your photography business, great news for you! Because that's the *ONLY* pricing bracket that's going down.

For everyone else, you're paying hundreds more over what you'd normally pay for the disc, over the same period of time.

Bad deal for 99% of photographers, least of all on this site.


And for the piracy, "pirates" can download Cs2 all day if they so wish, so this won't really do anything, because by definition "pirates" are generally the ones who couldn't afford $700 for a piece of software either way.

I still have my original CS2 disks, although they're pretty much nothing more than coasters since the servers were shut down.

Ike Lace Photography wrote:
Wow, you realize you're on a photography website, right Nico? If you honestly use the entire suite for your photography business, great news for you! Because that's the *ONLY* pricing bracket that's going down.

For everyone else, you're paying hundreds more over what you'd normally pay for the disc, over the same period of time.

Bad deal for 99% of photographers, least of all on this site.


And for the piracy, "pirates" can download Cs2 all day if they so wish, so this won't really do anything, because by definition "pirates" are generally the ones who couldn't afford $700 for a piece of software either way.

I still have my original CS2 disks, although they're pretty much nothing more than coasters since the servers were shut down.

I have CS2 on my laptop, CS5.1 on my Workstation. CS2 is free now, yep (I upgraded PS 7.0 to it free on my laptop! Lolz!). Adobe will shut-down the page that gives it away free (if they haven't already), but there'll still be a zillion site online that'll be making it available for download.

I agree on the "pirates" generally not being the ones who could afford $700+ for software regardless - so where does that put them in the hierarchy of photographers who Adobe stands to benefit from anyhoo? (I doubt highly all pirated versions of PS are pirated by photographers!)

After reviewing LR4 & CS6 quite closely and looking for good reason to consider upgrading from LR3.6 & CS5.1, my position remains the same - or rather, I've become more rigidly positioned on the side of the fence I occupy:
ADOBE CAN KISS MY ROSY WHITE ASS   (

Ike Lace Photography wrote:
I still have my original CS2 disks, although they're pretty much nothing more than coasters since the servers were shut down.

Then you might want to check this out: http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:

You are required to log on line once every 90 days.

Plus the upgrade is $29 a month not $50 so if you are upgrading from CS3 through CS6 it will only be $29 a month.

Okay, let's say I'm a company/person who ONLY uses Photoshop and InDesign for my product(s). Now PS is $20/month, but to get InDesign, I need to get the whole Suite ($50/month) and I have access to programs I will never use (the rest of the suite). How am I saving money?

GreatMomentsPhotography wrote:

Planning to do just that. Hold on to CS6 and ride it out. I don't plan to pay for corporate greed. I don't run a business here. I do this for the love of it.

Sadly, you're the guys that get screwed the most from this, in my opinion.   I can at least deduct the expense from my taxes.   Until I retire then what? LOL...

QFX! QFX QFX! LOL

GPS Studio Services wrote:
That isn't quite right.  They have deactivated the servers, so now every time you install CS2, it simply activates.  In other words, they are no longer testing for validity.  The software hasn't been terminated.

Ike Lace Photography wrote:
This is wrong on so many levels.  I had forgotten what I loved about forums, until today ;P.  Obviously you don't own CS2 yourself, or you would actually know the differences

Ummmm, are we getting into semantics here?

mathieu drut wrote:
Then you might want to check this out: http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/

Ike, click the link in the post I just quoted.  You can argue minutiae all you want, but my comments were correct.  The poster I had replied to had said that Adobe was disabling their activation servers so that CS2 would no longer work.  That was an incorrect statement.

What is the correct statement is that CS2 will continue to work.  If you have to re-install it, their activation servers are no longer online.  Adobe has given out a product activation code that will work without the use of their activation servers.

So, contrary to what the poster I responded to was saying, Adobe did not disable all copies of CS2, they still work, can be re-installed and continue to work.

In this case, I am not sure what you are finding as "wrong on so many levels?" Other than explaining that you have to use the product code provided by Adobe for free, everything in my post was right and corrected the error made by the poster I was responding to.

J u s t i n G i l l wrote:

John Allan wrote:
I have mixed feelings. It may be cost effective for those moving to motion for instance.

I did notice this, which addresses some of the comments:

http://terrywhite.com/5-myths-about-ado … ive-cloud/

I haven't read the WHOLE thread, but I liked this rebuttal to all the whiners and haters:
10 Reasons The Haters Are Mad About Adobe Creative Cloud

Stopped reading after: "1. The haters simply don’t understand it. The mob is mad..!

If someone calls people who use their brain "haters" and mob" is an arrogant p.o.s.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
Now that we have established that Ike was
"wrong on so many levels" 
I think we should get back to the abandonment issue. I have nothing new to add at this time but I would request a "remind me later" button  in Adobe tradition so I can check for updates to the thread

LOL

Ike Lace Photography wrote:

GPS Studio Services wrote:
That isn't quite right.  They have deactivated the servers, so now every time you install CS2, it simply activates.  In other words, they are no longer testing for validity.  The software hasn't been terminated.

This is wrong on so many levels.  I had forgotten what I loved about forums, until today ;P.  Obviously you don't own CS2 yourself, or you would actually know the differences



Probably not quite as many as those who say they will.

Been there, done that.

And it's in transit.

Ike Lace Photography wrote:

GPS Studio Services wrote:
That isn't quite right.  They have deactivated the servers, so now every time you install CS2, it simply activates.  In other words, they are no longer testing for validity.  The software hasn't been terminated.

This is wrong on so many levels.  I had forgotten what I loved about forums, until today ;P.  Obviously you don't own CS2 yourself, or you would actually know the differences

Adobe's official stance is that they aren't giving CS2 away. They say they are simply providing a server-free version for the people who own it so that if they move it to a different machine it won't barf because Adobe shut the activation servers down.

Whether that's face-saving on their part, or a way to give an older (but quite capable) product away without getting screamed at by shareholders, I don't know. But that's their claim.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
That isn't quite right.  They have deactivated the servers, so now every time you install CS2, it simply activates.  In other words, they are no longer testing for validity.  The software hasn't been terminated.

Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
Adobe's official stance is that they aren't giving CS2 away. They say they are simply providing a server-free version for the people who own it so that if they move it to a different machine it won't barf because Adobe shut the activation servers down.

Whether that's face-saving on their part, or a way to give an older (but quite capable) product away without getting screamed at by shareholders, I don't know. But that's their claim.

I think only one person in the thread claimed that they were giving it away.  It wasn't either person that you quoted.  It is true though that they have eliminated the activation requirement.  Since they are giving the keys away for free and allowing a download of the software, I am sure they know there will be some amount of pirating.

Gulag wrote:

Kevin Connery wrote:
Ideas are powerful.

Ideas without execution are like photographs that haven't been taken.

The people who produce solutions from ideas are the ones who benefit society most strongly. Yes, without the idea, the execution of the idea isn't possible, but the idea, without execution, is just that: an idea.

Do people pay photographers for the concept of a photograph or for the photograph?

The truth is that Adobe equipped Photoshop with layers four years after its competitors' introduction of the implementation.  Without healthy competition then, probably we would have never seen it in Photoshop.

Fractal Design Painter didn't add layers (in a kinda-sorta way) until after Photoshop did. At least three-quarters of the sub $5000 commercially available image processing packages didn't add them until later, either. Enhance, Digital Darkroom, Pixel Paint, PhotoStyler...none of them supported layers at that time. The only one I can recall was a Windows-only (DOS only?) product that had layers, but didn't do masking as well, had no CMYK support, and was therefore not useful to me. There might have been others, but I was using most of the major packages then, to fill in the various gaps, and I can only think of that one.

But throwing a red herring into the mix doesn't change things: a technology without the capability of being effectively used is an unexercised idea: an untaken photograph.

A counter-argument: Which commercial products support CMYK today? Which do so to an extent which makes it a useable mode, rather than just something which can do a one-way conversion? Which have had that capability since before Photoshop introduced layers? The same for LAB: what products actually let you work in LAB mode?  (The first is critical for print work; the second is incredibly powerful when dealing with color, contrast, and sharpening.)

Gulag wrote:
GIMP's web site also mentions adjustment layer feature is coming too. If you need to work in CMYK or LAB color mode, sorry GIMP simply doesn't have it.

CMYK has been present in Photoshop since version 2, 22 years ago. LAB and 16-bit support since v3 (21 years ago). For my purposes, LAB is a very Big Deal, and when I was retouching commercially, CMYK was even more so.

The reality is that Photoshop has been leading the field overall. Sometimes a feature is similar to/the same as one another package has had for a while, but in general, it's the most complete and well-integrated product for what it does. That someone else "invented" layers, or someone else "invented" CMYK support, or someone else "invented" a raw converter, or someone else "invented" various content-aware tools, or perspective tools, or whatever else; Adobe is the one who integrated those technologies into a single useable product.

I'm not defending Adobe's pricing; that Photoshop is more complete than its competitors doesn't particularly justify charging 20-50 times as much.  Pixelmator [often on sale for $15], or GIMP [free] do have an awful lot of the tools and capabilities PS does. For most people, the benefits of Photoshop aren't that significant (or aren't used at all), and we've seen the results: many photographers have shifted to Photoshop Elements or other less powerful, but more than powerful enough, tools. Businesses which do need those extras, though, are stuck.

StudioCMC wrote:
Wow.. Someone is going big..

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … n/TfWzqjHQ

NICE!!!!!

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

NICE!!!!!

119 signatures in 3 days? thats too low to be even embarrassing.  and a waste.  the existence of all the competitors out there, even if they dont have a huge chunk of market share, and the existence of new products in the market almost every day says "no this will not be something DOJ will bother investigating"

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

119 signatures in 3 days? thats too low to be even embarrassing.  and a waste.  the existence of all the competitors out there, even if they dont have a huge chunk of market share, and the existence of new products in the market almost every day says "no this will not be something DOJ will bother investigating"

In fact, although I hope Adobe is taken out of the market, this is not the way.
It is up to the consumer to meet out justice.

However if they try to make any of this crap retroactive to earlier products, or play games with TIFF, or ... Then the DOJ should and must step in.

So far they have not done anything illegal, stupid and greedy, absolutely.

Now government granted monopolies who get greedy, yeah, they should get nailed by the law. Or banks who get Trillions of taxpayer money to fix what their greed broke, yeah they should get nailed by the law.

StudioCMC wrote:
Wow.. Someone is going big..

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … n/TfWzqjHQ

I encourage everyone here to sign this and spread the word. If you want to stop Adobe (and other software companies with proprietary formats), from abusing their monopolistic power - this is the time to draw the line in the sand. A DOJ investigation could nip this thing in the bud.

Thanks, StudioCMC, for the post!

PS. I just did it. Takes only a few seconds to make an account, so don't let that put you off.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Fractal Design Painter didn't add layers (in a kinda-sorta way) until after Photoshop did. At least three-quarters of the sub $5000 commercially available image processing packages didn't add them until later, either. Enhance, Digital Darkroom, Pixel Paint, PhotoSTyler...none of them supported layers at that time. The only one I can recall was a Windows-only (DOS only?) product that had layers, but didn't do masking as well, had no CMYK support, and was therefore not useful to me. There might have been others, but I was using most of the major packages then, to fill in the various gaps, and I can only think of that one.

Variations of the 2D bitmap layer/object concept have appeared in consumer graphics software since late 80s, thanks largely to early layer/alpha channel work done by Alvy Ray Smith and others back in the '70s.

Looking at the history of this software genre on the Macintosh takes us back to the dynamic duo known as ComicWorks and GraphicWorks.  Developed by Macromind in 1985-86 (years before the company was renamed Macromedia) for Mindscape. These programs embodied the concept of bitmaps inside of separate frames called easels. Each easel could be set to a different resolution, could also have a QuickDraw transfer mode (AND, XOR, and many others - remember, this was well before the age of Photoshop), and could be moved from level to level in the foreground/background scheme, much like moving cast members from channel to channel in Director, which changes the cast members' 2-dimensional depth prioritization.

And then there was Shapes for ColorStudio, the program created by two of the most talented programmers in the Macintosh universe, Mark Zimmer and Tom Hedges. ColorStudio had a feature called Shapes, which allowed PostScript vector art to float in a separate layer above the bitmap background. You could selectively rasterize portions of the vector layer into the bitmap background, a capability that has yet to be reproduced in any contemporary imaging programs...

Source: Photoshop Channel Chops, Chapter 3 Layers, Page 88

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

119 signatures in 3 days? thats too low to be even embarrassing.  and a waste.  the existence of all the competitors out there, even if they dont have a huge chunk of market share, and the existence of new products in the market almost every day says "no this will not be something DOJ will bother investigating"

As much as I am opposed to Adobe's recent decision I am even more opposed to government interfering with a companies price policy.

The market will decide if it is a vaible plan.

Smedley Whiplash wrote:

-The Dave- wrote:
So on location without internet you can't use Photoshop?

No, I think it just verifies your current subscription once a month.  (like paying your cable bill, or phone bill)  Once it shows that the time has run out, the program probably doesn't run, or maybe you can't use the "save" features. [Lightroom is going to be the main solfwear for raw files./quote]

-The Dave- wrote:
So on location without internet you can't use Photoshop?

If it works like it does now, then no. You download the software to your computer just like always and use it like always, once a month the software must go online to verify that your membership is still valid. You don't need an interned connection to edit, and you are not required to store anything in the cloud. Personally, I love it. For less than a gym membership, I have almost every adobe program available at a moments notice.

MnPhoto wrote:
Can't wait for the new features.

the new key feature is your files just drop dead the moment you stop paying your monthly fee.

Gulag wrote:
the new key feature is your files just drop dead the moment you stop paying your monthly fee.

+1

Some people just aren't getting it, and by way of subscribing they're empowering Adobe into maintaining their stance with even more vigour   I've already decided on the route I'll take over the next 2/3 years, to a degree. All good things come to an end, and Adobe has been setting themselves up for a big come-down for a number of years now. They should've started taking action years ago, not suddenly slathering their size 9's with vaseline that has sand in it and instructing every consumer of their product to bend-over and take it or they get nothing

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site) 
DBImagery Toronto (Website)

“First, they ignore you. Then, they laugh at you. Then, they fight with you. Then, you win.”
~Ghandi

StudioCMC wrote:
Wow.. Someone is going big..

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … n/TfWzqjHQ

Just did- taking this all the way to the White House

Gulag wrote:
Variations of the 2D bitmap layer/object concept have appeared in consumer graphics software since late 80s, thanks largely to early layer/alpha channel work done by Alvy Ray Smith and others back in the '70s.

As sprite-like objects, yes. As an effective way to deal with images, especially photographic ones, no.

But you keep avoiding your own point: you praise "the dynamic duo known as ComicWorks and GraphicWorks" for their implementation of Smith's research, and "two of the most talented programmers in the Macintosh universe, Mark Zimmer and Tom Hedges", while denigrating the comparable efforts of the Knolls and numerous other Adobe developers.

You're certainly welcome to disdain Adobe--you don't have to have a reason for it--but designing your defense of things you "blame" Adobe for (not innovating because they used a technique invented/discovered 20 years earlier) by giving credit to others who used that same technique a year or so before Adobe did is silly; they both stood on the shoulders of giants.

Do you actually believe what you're saying? Are you unable to see that you're using the same data to try to prove innovation (your cited developers) and disprove innovation (Adobe's developers) at the same time. It doesn't get more circular than that.

All of the individuals and teams added to the capabilities available to photographers; the theoreticians who discovered/created a conceptual framework; the engineers who turned those concepts into algorithms; the engineers and UX folks who implemented ways to let people actually take advantage of the concepts and algorithms.

A technology which can't be used is...a technology which can't be used. Mock the people who make the concepts and technologies available, and you demonstrate a quite limited view of science, technology, and progress.

Philip of Dallas wrote:
I encourage everyone here to sign this and spread the word. If you want to stop Adobe (and other software companies with proprietary formats), from abusing their monopolistic power - this is the time to draw the line in the sand. A DOJ investigation could nip this thing in the bud.

I'd encourage people to think before signing something which publicly accuses a company of multiple illegal acts. Unless you have reason to believe the claims are true, it's a matter of putting your name on a false accusation.

Via tactics such as hostile takeovers, backroom deals with distributors and short-term predatory pricing, Adobe attained a monopoly over the creative software market. No serious challenger has existed since 2005.

GreatMomentsPhotography wrote:

Just did- taking this all the way to the White House

That "we the people" website is such a laugh.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Philip of Dallas wrote:
I encourage everyone here to sign this and spread the word. If you want to stop Adobe (and other software companies with proprietary formats), from abusing their monopolistic power - this is the time to draw the line in the sand. A DOJ investigation could nip this thing in the bud.

I'd encourage people to think before signing something which publicly accuses a company of multiple illegal acts. Unless you have reason to believe the claims are true, it's a matter of putting your name on a false accusation.

Oh Kevin... You're ever the optimist.

KonstantKarma wrote:
Oh Kevin... You're ever the optimist.

Yeah, I hear that alllllll the time.