Photoshop CC and Lightroom monthly offer

[JJ on the road]

Anyone using this method? I have a version of Elements 9, and enjoyed my trial of Lightroom; just trying to decide if I buy a boxed version of Lightroom 5 or jump into the package. I realize it may depend on how much I think I'll use it, but thought I might get some feedback first. Thanks

 

[tirediron]

Yep... since it's really the only game in town. At $10/month for the two, it's less than the cost of the upgrades I used to do.

 

[HaveCameraWillTravel]

It's funny to read this message board where this deal is generally well thought of. (I did it myself) but if you read the forums on DP review you would think Adobe is the spawn of satan for going this route. I especially like the folks over there who predict they will be out of business in a year. My favorite had to be the one poster who compared Adobe with Kodak.

But I digress, $150 (or so) for LR alone or $10 a month for both LR and PS wasnt much of a decision for me...my only decision was which credit card did I want to charge it on. (Did I wanr hotel points or airline miles)

 

[KmH]

Boatloads of people have signed up for Adobe's $9.99 per month Photoshop Photography Program.
That's like 2.5 lattes a month.

Photoshop CC 2014 alone has about 80% more tools, features, functions, and capabilities than PsE 9. PsE 9's version of Camera Raw only has 1/2 of the Camera Raw tools, etc Camera Raw CC 2014 has.

Yep. I too was upgrading Photoshop every 18 to 24 months at $199 a pop. And having to wait 18-24 months for the new features in the next upgrade.
Plus the cost of upgrading LR ($99 per upgrade back then), and having to wait for the next upgrade.
So basically $300 every 2 years for both, or $150 a year.

Now I pay $9.99 a month ($119.88 a year) for both LR and Photoshop CC AND get new features as soon as they are available. No more waiting for upgrades.
Do the math.
Looks to me like I spend $30 less per year.

 

[D-B-J]

Boatloads of people have signed up for Adobe's $9.99 per month Photoshop Photography Program.
That's like 2.5 lattes a month.

Photoshop CC 2014 alone has about 80% more tools, features, functions, and capabilities than PsE 9. PsE 9's version of Camera Raw only has 1/2 of the Camera Raw tools, etc Camera Raw CC 2014 has.

Yep. I too was upgrading Photoshop every 18 to 24 months at $199 a pop. And having to wait 18-24 months for the new features in the next upgrade.
Plus the cost of upgrading LR ($99 per upgrade back then), and having to wait for the next upgrade.
So basically $300 every 2 years for both, or $150 a year.

Now I pay $9.99 a month ($119.88 a year) for both LR and Photoshop CC AND get new features as soon as they are available. No more waiting for upgrades.
Do the math.
Looks to me like I spend $30 less per year.

Couldn't have explained it better myself. Really.

Jake

 

[JimMcClain]

Except that the PS/LR for photographers is an introductory offer. It's only been around less than a year so far. Will it continue to be $9.99 per month in perpetuity, or will it double in price to closely match the current price for the PS stand-alone currently at 19.99 per month?

Hey, 30 years ago I was hip deep into drugs and know how the addiction started 20 years before that. It was very similar to the stereotypical scenario you've all seen on the movin' pictures - first hit is free, you pay dearly for the next. I was lucky I stopped using 29 years ago. I wonder if Adobe has a similar plan for me because I'm already strung out on LR and well into my first hit of PS.

Jim

 

[ByronBrant]

Ill enjoy my CS6 for as many years as I can. 2 years using it so far.

 

[Buckster]

Except that the PS/LR for photographers is an introductory offer. It's only been around less than a year so far.

That's not true. I started my subscription to it on 9/17/13, and that was after thinking about it. I also contacted Adobe first to ask about when I should anticipate an increase, and was told that they had no plans for a rate increase on it.

Will it continue to be $9.99 per month in perpetuity, or will it double in price to closely match the current price for the PS stand-alone currently at 19.99 per month?

It simply doesn't matter to me. I'm not going to NOT use it now, when it's the best price and the best features ever (I've also upgraded every 18-24 months for many years, like KMH), on the premise that it MIGHT go up in the future by SOME unknown amount, and that the amount will be unreasonable. Maybe it won't. Or maybe it will go up by a reasonable amount, compared to what EVERYTHING we consume goes up by (see "cost of living increases"). If it happens, I can reassess the situation then, and decide if I want to stay with it, or move on to some other software to get the job done.

We all pay subscriptions to all kinds of goods and services from cell phones to cable TV to antivirus software to insurance to magazines and more and more and more. They ALL have the potential to increase in price over time. If the benefits and the price work for us TODAY, we use them. If not, we don't. It's that simple. We don't let some unfounded fear that they MIGHT increase SOMEDAY by some UNKNOWN amount that is unreasonable stop us from using them TODAY.

Hey, 30 years ago I was hip deep into drugs and know how the addiction started 20 years before that. It was very similar to the stereotypical scenario you've all seen on the movin' pictures - first hit is free, you pay dearly for the next. I was lucky I stopped using 29 years ago. I wonder if Adobe has a similar plan for me because I'm already strung out on LR and well into my first hit of PS.

Jim

This ain't detrimental drugs, it's software. I'm feeling pretty confident that nobody's going to be clunking old ladies over the head and stealing their purses to pay for their Adobe "addiction". It's also not the only software that can do the job, just the best for those of us who prefer it over everything else. So, if you DO get addicted and the dealer raises the price to a point you just can't justify anymore, you can just go to a different dealer who's got the cheaper stuff that will still get the job done.

 

[JimMcClain]

I started my subscription to it on 9/17/13, and that was after thinking about it.

Thanks for the correction.

I'm feeling pretty confident that nobody's going to be clunking old ladies over the head and stealing their purses to pay for their Adobe "addiction".

Never did that for real drugs. I was just an embezzler. Made my amends for that many years ago. Like most though, I prefer the good stuff, even when the price gets higher. I just thought it should be said, the Photography Plan price of $9.99 per mo. through Adobe isn't etched in stone.

Jim

 

[Buckster]

I just thought it should be said, the Photography Plan price of $9.99 per mo. through Adobe isn't etched in stone.

What price for a good or service IS etched in stone?

 

[weepete]

Anyone using this method? I have a version of Elements 9, and enjoyed my trial of Lightroom; just trying to decide if I buy a boxed version of Lightroom 5 or jump into the package. I realize it may depend on how much I think I'll use it, but thought I might get some feedback first. Thanks

Yup, I am. It's great and has a reasonable price point plus fully supported by Adobe.

 

[pixmedic]

i was content to keep on using my LR4 and CS5....
until adobe made the CC $10 a month.
as long as the CC is $10 a month, i will continue using it.

 

[qleak]

I have ethical issues paying for software. I use darkroom for raw files and gimp 2.9 development version for more advanced edits. The 2.9 version of gimp has higher bit depth than 2.8, when 2.10 comes out I'll probably switch back to stable even though I haven't had any problems with the dev branch.

 

[pixmedic]

I have ethical issues paying for software. I use darkroom for raw files and gimp 2.9 development version for more advanced edits. The 2.9 version of gimp has higher bit depth than 2.8, when 2.10 comes out I'll probably switch back to stable even though I haven't had any problems with the dev branch.

Not really sure what ethical issues there are paying for a service or product.
No different than paying for cable or Internet or phone. It's just another service. I don't have cable because I don't feel it's worth the money, so I use Netflix.

 

[qleak]

Not really sure what ethical issues there are paying for a service or product.
No different than paying for cable or Internet or phone. It's just another service. I don't have cable because I don't feel it's worth the money, so I use Netflix.

It's okay if you don't get my ethical concerns. Move along and don't be concerned.

I don't even run windows or mac os, so I couldn't use PS or LR even if I wanted to.

It's more about freedom for me and the ability to share ideas (and algorithms ) with friends. I find it reprehensible that there are restrictions on sharing information, but still respect peoples intellectual property rights (even though I disagree with many of the laws especially software patents).

Most "for pay" software people I know pirate some software, how many people do you know with illegal copies of old versions of PS ? or windows? or office? I don't participate in that.

I also think most paid software is a ripoff, but that's just me