Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Creating something better than Photoshop CC ?

May 21, 2013 4:18 PM

The basic CC concept  just doesn't work for many people, including myself. Bottom line: there must be a  perpetual license option for a basic photo image editing program. For many photographers, Photoshop Elements just isn't robust enough. My guess is that other companies will jump into this huge new market, but that's going to take time.

 

It looks like Adobe is the only company in the position to produce a solution in the short term. So let's start there.

 

Over at the Kelby Blog and NAPP (the "Photoshop Guys," NAPP memebers and Blog contributors) they are actually working on a product concept to present to Adobe in response to CC. It's initially being called "LightShop" and its basic premise is to be a stripped-down Photoshop CC that integrates with Lightroom.  It will have minimal Type, no 3D, no video, and less special effects and other bloat -- just a clear Lightroom-like interface that is smooth and fast. Most important, it sells as a perpetual license like Lightroom, for under $200. This concept sounds interesting -- if you're into Lightroom. I'm not.

 

Another idea is for Adobe to offer something like a Photoshop Elements "Extended Edition." Now that they have killed the Standard Edition of Photoshop, a product like that would not encroach upon the now professional market focus of Photoshop CC. It would be relatively easy to produce because most of the code is already in Photoshop Elements for more advanced features  -- it's just turned off. ACR already comes with Elements, and Bridge could be included as before.  If some of the deficiencies of standard Elements could be addressed, and some of the consumer oriented bling thrown out, then it could be ideal for amateur to semi-pro photographers. Photoshop plug-ins would work as they do now. Sell a perpetual license for under $200, and I think a lot of non-CC customers would be happy. An upgrade from CS3 onwards would be great too, for maybe $100.

 

But exactly what features would be best for a Photoshop CC alternative product? Is 16-bit necessary if you are global-editing RAW in ACR or Lightroom? Can you really tell the difference in a print or on the Web? What about Blend Modes -- do we need that many? How about just one sharpening filter -- the upcoming version of Smart Sharpen?

.

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 21, 2013 5:52 PM   in reply to *Photonic

    Hi,

     

    This is just in case you missed it in the Creative Cloud announcements. Adobe will continue to offer the Creative Suite 6 versions as a perpetual software license.

     

    http://www.adobe.com/products/cs6.html?promoid=KFHNH

     

    You can find more details in the CS 6 FAQ link.

     

    I realize if you already use Ps CS6 then this provides nothing more to your proposition.

     

    regards,

    steve

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,469 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 21, 2013 6:01 PM   in reply to *Photonic

    I for one don't want a Lightroom-like interface.  But I'm already solidly on the full version of Photoshop CC, so maybe I don't matter.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 21, 2013 6:36 PM   in reply to *Photonic

    It is my understanding that while PSE has ACR it is a watered down version.  For those that like raw that is probably not acceptable.

     

    There is a lot of bloat in the CS versions.  From what I have read Photoshop 7 is still widely accepted as one of the best photo programs.  The downside now is it is so old users have difficulty running on modern computers.  But this would be an easy fix I believe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 22, 2013 12:15 AM   in reply to *Photonic

    I am willing to pay a fair price to anyone offering a good option that is not sold by Adobe. I prefer to not support them. I will support a non Adobe pixel pusher like p shop

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 22, 2013 12:36 AM   in reply to *Photonic

    As someone who has been using the Lightroom/Elements combo professionally for Landscapes photography, I find the main deficiencies of Elements to be

     

    • A watered down version of ACR, that's why I use Lightroom
    • 8 Bit only, 16 Bit would be nice but not essential for me
    • No CMYK mode, I am looking into ways around this.
    • Runs in 32 bit, 64 bit would utilies my PC's full 8GB of RAM
    • HDR merging, Elements only has a HDR ish PhotoMerge
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 22, 2013 12:55 AM   in reply to *Photonic

    Have you trried raw therapy

    http://rawtherapee.com/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 22, 2013 1:09 AM   in reply to *Photonic

    This idea/concept has been under discussion on LuLa for while now (the discussion was started by Jeff Schewe). See here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78240.0

     

    Interesting idea...

     

    M

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 22, 2013 1:10 AM   in reply to *Photonic

    LightShop would be of interest to me, but if such a product does materalize I suspect there would be restrictions on commercial use in order to protect the integrity of Creative Cloud.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 22, 2013 1:17 AM   in reply to 001andrew

    I was already aware of the existence of RawTherapee, but haven't taken a serious look at it yet.  I will now

     

     

    Thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 22, 2013 5:45 AM   in reply to bitm07

    bitm07 wrote:

     

    I was already aware of the existence of RawTherapee, but haven't taken a serious look at it yet.  I will now

     

     

    Thanks

    And while you're looking, why not give DxO Optics Pro a try?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 22, 2013 5:53 PM   in reply to *Photonic

    *Photonic wrote:

     

    …So a product at a price point under $200 would tap a huge market of photographers who are not willing (or can't) commit to $240 every year for CC… It just makes good business sense…

     

    Thoughts?

     

    That's what Adobe pretends to do with Photoshop Elements and, to a degree, with Lightroom.

     

    Personally, I find neither of those two offerings acceptable for my purposes.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 22, 2013 7:14 PM   in reply to *Photonic

    *Photonic wrote:

     

    As Jeff pointed out, PS became bloat-ware by trying to be all things to all people as Adobe expanded its market.  The LuLa discussion seems to be focused primarily on the needs of professional photographers -- and they are many.

     

    I never said Photoshop was bloat-ware, I said it was designed for pros and that photographers only make up a small % of the user base–it's widely used in graphic arts, science, industrial, film & video, 3D and the web. Because it's used by such a wide variety of users, it's naturally gotten a lot of features of no real use for photographers. And make no mistake, the CC initiative is directed at creative pros and companies.

     

    Whether on not something transpires, I don't know. But I do know that Lightroom keeps taking away more and more reasons to have to go to Photoshop for photographers. Adding a pixel based editor seems like a natural extension.

     

    And this isn't a new thing being discussed...some people have been talking about this for a few years. It's only now that it's come out and being discussed openly.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 22, 2013 7:21 PM   in reply to *Photonic

    *Photonic wrote:

     

    station_two wrote:

     

    That's what Adobe pretends to do with Photoshop Elements and, to a degree, with Lightroom.

     

    Personally, I find neither of those two offerings acceptable for my purposes.

    So, what would work for you (the topic of the thread)?

     

     

    Clearly, a stand-alone version of Camera Raw, coupled with my perpetual license to Photoshop 13.0.4, or even as early as 10.0.1.  Other than ACR, I think Photoshop has been pretty mature and complete for my purposes for about the last three versions.

     

    A perpetual license to such stand-alone version of Camera Raw, with an option to upgrade to a newer version every one or two years would be ideal.  I wouldn't mind shelling out $10 a month for that, as long as it's a perpetual license that won't expire when I decide to stop upgrading it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 23, 2013 8:45 AM   in reply to station_two

    station_two wrote:

     

    …A perpetual license to such stand-alone version of Camera Raw, with an option to upgrade to a newer version every one or two years would be ideal.  I wouldn't mind shelling out $10 a month for that, as long as it's a perpetual license that won't expire when I decide to stop upgrading it.

     

     

    By "$10 a month" I meant $240 every two years. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,469 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 23, 2013 9:27 AM   in reply to *Photonic

    *Photonic wrote:

     


    So, what would work for you (the topic of the thread)?

     

    While the concept of enhancing Photoshop Elements has some potential, I like the idea of starting with Photoshop CC proper and paring it down, myself.

     

    A Photoshop "Basic Photographer" edition, without video capability, without 3D capability - basically everything that Photoshop "Standard" was before - would be a good start.

     

    There are other power-user type things all over the product that could be made specifically unavailable to create a Photoshop "Basic Photographer" edition.  For example, UI color configurability could be fixed, options such as background save could be disabled, always maximizing PSD/PSB compatibility could be permanently set...  The list goes on.  A lot of configuration options in general could be fixed to minimum support cost options.

     

    That said, Adobe likely has good reasons we don't see for trying to reduce the complexity of the software code base, because elimination of the Standard/Extended disctinction was obviously done on purpose.

     

    Also keep in mind that, unless they've already been developing such things, Adobe can't move instantly on this.  I think we're all going to have to accept that Photoshop CC 14.0 is a Creative Cloud only type product for a while.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 23, 2013 9:40 AM   in reply to *Photonic

    There is a slim possibility that Adobe will listen to it disgruntled Photoshop customers.  If you havn't already read it, the 'Creating something better than Photoshop CC' post is worth a read (the links below).  Might be worth waiting a while to see if/how Adobe respones before upgrading

     

    http://forums.adobe.com/message/5346722#5346722

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,469 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 23, 2013 9:41 AM   in reply to bitm07

    Bitm07, that's this thread. 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 23, 2013 10:06 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Sorry.  Like you Noel,  I have been responding to different threads today.  My last post should have been sent to an 'upgrading to CS6' thread.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2013 11:26 AM   in reply to *Photonic

    According to Photo Rumors Adobe is concidering a new $9.99, 3 year pricing model for Photoshop Creative Cloud that includes a permanent copy of Photoshop CS6

     

    http://photorumors.com/2013/06/16/adobe-is-considering-new-pricing-mod els-for-creative-cloud/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,979 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 17, 2013 2:28 PM   in reply to bitm07

    A $10 a month price is in line with the old perpetual license price tag when Adobe changed to rule you must upgrade every time. Cycle time was 18 months and upgrade was $200.  200/18=$11 a month.  So the price would be right on. 

     

    However including a permanent copy of Photoshop CS6 is bogus. That is no solution to the problem that documents saved using Photoshop CC will not be useable with CS6.  So what good would CS6 be if you have been using Photoshop CC. Your work files your layered files your templates are not usable with CS6.

     

    No matter how you look at it Photoshop CC is a trap. Once in you can't get out.

     

    If $10 a month is for Photoshop extended its a better deal then before if you have a need for any of the extra features. Like stack mode blending...

     

    But this is only a rumor perhaps an Adobe feeler.

     

     

    If rumor become a fact I may consider CC I'll need to read the fine print.

     

    Wait Death is the way out but what happens to you if Adobe's death is before yours.

     

    @72 I don't think I have much to worry about and my children can handle what life throughs at them....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2013 6:47 AM   in reply to JJMack

    You bring up a great point. Lets say when we eventually die and lets say our family or even clients want to see what we have done. Adobe with cc in a way has cut off your legacy by not having a perpetual program that can automatically open your files. Which is different from saving as older file type.

     

    If cc had more price options i would be very temped to join it. Ither a 30-40$/month plan for say a suite as they have done for years or pick your favorite 3 programs and 1-2 minior ones like bridge or acrobat. I would also like to see a 10-15/month plan for just 1 program but that is not a special offer but long standing price. Im sure the cc price will change within the next 12 months which is for good or bad why you can only lock in a 1 year plan. It would be nice if like a phone you could lock in your plan price for 2 years. At least you would know what to expect. Adobe should look at phone subscriptions and see how we get people to pay 90/month for a phone which for many is a toy and they cant get people to pay 50/month for tools. With phones when you renew your contract gennerally every 2 years you get a massive discount on some new phones and some will actaully be free or upto 70% off. Adobe shoudl consider this. The more adobe products you have the bigger your renew discount should be. They could do it as 2 year contract or have several durations besides monthly and yearly. Have a 6 month, 18 and 24 month. Say you pay 50/month for your contract duration of 1 year, when it comes time to renew you should have a discount lets say 10-20% off which would be 40-45$ which is handy. If you upgrade to cc and have a suite you should have a biggerest discount than just 1 program say instead of 40/month like 30/month for that contract duration and if you have master collection maybe 20/month for the duration. Then with those 2 suites when its time to renew still give a discount but maybe less. Maybe a suite becomes 40/month and master 30/month but give more discount than those who just renewed. Give us what feels like incentives not punishments.

     

    Ya having 3 almost 4 photoshops was getting a big crazy. Photoshop extended, photohop, photoshop elements and light room. I guess its good for adobe to consolidate but they could have done it with out the cloud. Just make elements and lightroom merged and bump up the price maybe 40%. I think thats fair. Similarly with photoshop and extended, merge the 2 and increase price to 1/2 way between both. Starts getting weird when you have many overlapping things. Like web design has dream weaver and muse. I would love to get that as 1 program or a package deal since they do the same thing but go about it differently. Merge them as 1 and increase price 40%. Same with indesign and incopy, merge them together and increase price 40%. This will make each program stronger and a better buy. Just good house keeping to simplify. Adobe offers so many things I honestly dont know what some of their new things like fusion do. Many have only been around 1-2 years and its becoming complicated to know about all their stuff especially when they start overlapping.

     

    Good luck adobe. I do love you but you are breaking my heart. I want to stay but you need to make some changes to help me want to.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,469 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2013 11:27 AM   in reply to MyCoalescence

    MyCoalescence wrote:

     


    Adobe with cc in a way has cut off your legacy by not having a perpetual program that can automatically open your files. Which is different from saving as older file type.

     

    LOL, I should think there will be no problem with the kids / etc. being able to buy their own subscriptions to whatever services are required to deal with our legacies of data.

     

    Don't look now, but the days of everyone having their own computers, with which they can do whatever they want whenever they want (after the initial investment) are on the way out.  It's not just adobe.

     

    Pretty much everyone wants to carry around a litle tablet (phone or true tablet) with which they can access everything all the time.  That's the "cloud". 

     

    They're all convinced they can get real work done with those devices.  That's the "fantasy".

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,869 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 2, 2013 2:32 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    They're all convinced they can get real work done with those devices.  That's the "fantasy".

     

    -Noel

    I can barely manage to use Photoshop on a 17 inch laptop.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 4, 2013 5:16 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

    MyCoalescence wrote:

     

    Adobe with cc in a way has cut off your legacy by not having a perpetual program that can automatically open your files. Which is different from saving as older file type.

    LOL, I should think there will be no problem with the kids / etc. being able to buy their own subscriptions to whatever services are required to deal with our legacies of data.

    So you are saying you SHOULD have to be a cc subscriber so you can open your parents and grand parents photos? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. Why should I have to pay to look through my grand parents old photos, things they made from their youth and at things my grandmother an english professor wrote 70 years ago? Why would I want to go cc and have to FORCE my decedents to use a subscription just to look at my graphic design work originals? Some times works of art are not finished in 1 generation but passed through the family till finished. Why would I force them to continue to work on my stuff to pay subscription. We are also assuming adobe survives for 50 years to come when I retire which I cant give them more than a 50% chance of still be around. That is bondage and just insanity!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,469 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 4, 2013 8:39 PM   in reply to MyCoalescence

    What I'm saying is either you need the latest version of Photoshop or you don't.  For those who need it - who make money with it and who have been upgrading through every version released - a subscription is not substantially different.  I've personally bought every version (though I will admit, skipping 5.5 and 7.0) since it came out, because I've needed the features.

     

    Your grandkids will have to buy some kind of computer hardware (or cloud plan or whatever) to be able to access data in general.  It's not a long leap to think they'll have to pay for software too.

     

    I fully understand the "buy a license" vs. "rent" thing.  But you're misconcepted if you don't think you already need Adobe's ongoing support to keep you using the latest tech.  Sure, you can download Photoshop CS2 right now which doesn't need online activation, but that's a long way from current.

     

    This whole discussion reminds me of the Chicken Little story.  Except it's a bit late.  Don't look now, but Adobe has executed the plan.  It is what it is, and it doesn't show a whole lot of indication of failing.

     

    ADBE.png

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 4, 2013 9:11 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    As far as leaving my descendants PSDs, there's no way I would do that. Why would I think they would want to edit my work?  If I have photos I want to pass down, then I'll save them as jpgs or tifs.  While I'm not a big fan of the subscription base approach, I can see the benefit in how Adobe can put out more upgrades without having to worry about the cost of doing so, which also benefits the end users.  I have voice my opinion to Adobe more than a few times about having an exit strategy: being able to keep the last version of PS after you cancel your subscription providing you meet the exit guidelines, like subscribing for a certain length of time.

     

    Yes, PS is a professional program.  There are other professional programs that cost an arm and a leg.  I've always wanted AutoCad, but could never afford it, so the limited CAD work I do, I use a cheap program.  If I did CAD work for a living, I might consider it.  I make my living with Photoshop, so I do want all the new features to keep on the cutting edge.

     

    The concept of Adobe putting out a dumbed down version of PS just for photographers isn't a good idea.  What do you think the standard version of PS used to be?  It cost Adobe money to maintain different version of their product, so why not make one good one?  In the end, the big difference between the extended and standard version was just the Serial Number.  All the code was the same, except that Abode had to maintain the ability to turn on or off features.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,469 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 4, 2013 9:20 PM   in reply to csuebele

    csuebele wrote:

     

     

    The concept of Adobe putting out a dumbed down version of PS just for photographers isn't a good idea. 

     

    Can you elaborate on that?  That thought seems to have come in from the outfield... I don't recall someone suggesting dumbing Photoshop down, but I'm not going to re-read the whole thread to see.

     

    By the way Photoshop Elements IS a poor man's perpetually licenseable Photoshop right now.  It's hard to see where such adamant arguments from others keep coming from, given you can buy a perpetual Elements license.  Seems to me there are many choices.

     

    And yes, I agree, what I expect my son to get from me is a) my raw files (which he'll likely never look through), and b) standard format images of those I've made something of.  None of that will depend on Adobe's future existence.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 4, 2013 9:24 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel, When I say dumbed down, I mean a Photoshop version or some other Adobe product that is just for photographers, as mentioned above with the Kelby reference to a combination of Lightroom and PS for landscape photographers.  All the "graphic" fluff striped out - more or less.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,469 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 4, 2013 9:34 PM   in reply to MyCoalescence

    MyCoalescence wrote:

     

    ...FORCE my decedents...

     

    By the way your typo made me smile.  They probably won't care nearly as much about your photos as your descendants.  Our kids will probably just put all our photos on a USB 4.0 stick and throw them in a drawer. 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points