Audi R8 Detail Shoot with some interesting new lights
When I found out one of my friend’s had a brand new red Audi R8, I was begging them to let me shoot it, and this week I got about an hour to shoot some detail shots (here’s a few above), and the car was, just insane! I’m hoping to get another chance soon to shoot the full car in an airplane hanger, so I’m pretty psyched. But for this shoot I tried out some groundbreaking new lights, and I don’t want to spill the beans because I did a behind-the-scenes video (hopefully I can share it here next week), but they were pretty darn slick, and I can’t wait to share it with you as soon as the video is ready.

Location shoot for Empower Boxing
Yesterday I snuck out of the office with Brad to do a quick portrait with James, the owner of the literally just-opened Empower Boxing gym in Tampa, Florida. Very cool guy and a very cool set-up, with heavy bags hanging…well…everywhere. Some behind-the-scenes shots coming next week as well.

Wednesday’s Episode of “The Grid”
If you missed this week’s “Scott Responds to the Creative Cloud Feedback” episode of “The Grid,” the rebroadcast is above. The first half of the show is about Adobe’s subscription-only announcement, and the 2nd half is about an idea I had for Adobe for photographers, and it got lots of love from the community. If you’re going to comment here, make sure you watch the Grid first, before you comment, ’cause if I can tell you didn’t watch it, I’m pulling it. Just so ya know.

That’s it for now. Hope you all have a great Friday, and a kick-butt weekend.

Cheers,

-Scott

P.S. I’m in Seattle with my new tour on May 23rd, and then LA on the 24th. Hope you can join me

About The Author

Scott is a Photographer, bestselling Author, Host of "The Grid" weekly photography show; Editor of Photoshop User magazine; Lightroom Guy; KelbyOne.com CEO; struggling guitarist. Loves Classic Rock and his arch-enemy is Cilantro. Devoted husband, dad to two super awesome kids, and pro-level babysitter to two crazy doggos.

113 Comments

  1. Gorgeous images of an equally gorgeous car! Thanks for sharing.

  2. Love the Empower Boxing photo! Looking forward to learning how you made it work.

  3. I saw your Grid episode yesterday and hadn’t realize all of the foofaraw that you had to endure over the CC post. I think most people got it when you wrote the post and stayed silent. So don’t be too discouraged. The silent majority understands and is with you. Also, your thoughts on Lightshop are fantastic and groundbreaking.

    • Lightshop ground breaking? We have asked for layers and other photographer centric features to be added to Lightroom for years… but Adobe wanted to keep their cash cow Photoshop a target for photographers so you had to get both. Now that they have priced themselves out of the range of many hobbyist photographers with Photoshop CC there is little choice but to ask Adobe to add what we need to Lightroom or a “Lightshop” type program for a reasonable cost… or find an non-Adobe alternative. I suspect Adobe will “fix” this one way or another for photographers but it may be a painful couple of years until they do.

    • John !
      How do You know what “silent majority” thinks, when it is …well – silent ???

  4. the car of my dreams,when can i test him lol.

  5. Thanks for your efforts to help us understand the Photoshop options. Forget the trolls. You’re doing a great job.

  6. This is for the Troublemaker / Whiner: Scott Kelby is the face of Kelby
    Media (Maybe Matt is the background). But you have to realize that as
    much as you deny it you are also the face of Adobe Lightroom and
    Photoshop to most of us. They can drag Tom Hogarty out to show us the
    future, but they do it on your show. We go to Kelbytv.com. When we want
    to see PS and LR and other things photographic it is Photoshop World and
    not Adobe Max. Yes, you and others are on the advisory board, but most
    of us aren’t. We “know” you and for that very reason we trust that NAPP
    and Kelby Training will always be there for US. While others turn off or
    easily get offended by coments in their blog you are our knowledge
    pool. As you have recently done and we hope do in the future you will
    relay our fears and applause to the big “A”. When you spent the night
    researching CC how do you think we found out the details or felt the
    frustration when we tried to do the same. Customer Relations has never been initiated by A but by a Kelby 2×4 (OK, maybe a 1×1)
    phone call. We rely on you and the others at Kelby Media to be our
    voices. If you saw venom in the postings it was due to the way CC was
    dropped on us. And as the face of A you were on the receiving end. Sorry and Thank You from the gang.

  7. I would LOVE a stripped-down PS version for photographers who use Lightroom! Maybe Adobe could use a version of their beta tester program, and allow photographers (from hobbyists to professionals) to tell them what features they really want.

    Releasing effects, layouts and other goodies into the Creative Cloud is a good incentive to use the Cloud. It would be lovely not to have to buy third-party software, too. I still would like the option to purchase a licensed version if I want.

    P.S. People who read your (FREE) blog and attack you there? Jackholes. Thanks for all you do for us.

  8. Hi Scott,

    Love your books and I hope Adobe reworks all of this in a way that has me continuing to buy Photoshop and thus more of your books.

    I think some of the problem here is that the first part of this episode is geared towards a straw-man argument. I have read 500 to 1000 posts, and next to no one thinks you have to pay $50.00/month for Photoshop. What people are upset about is this:

    Once you stop paying you lose the software, and thus the ability to edit images in an application that up until now could keep indefinitely. No perpetual license. You do address this in the video, but (correct me if I am wrong) you say something to the effect of well at that point down the road you just pay for another month at $10.00 and can edit them for that month. Well it is not $10.00, after the introductory period it is $30.00 for Photoshop just for one month if you don’t sign up for an annual commitment. So you are underestimating the cost by a factor of 3. That minimization of the problem is going to upset people that are already upset. So you may be the messenger, but the message is mistaken in Adobe’s favor. And your initial blog post had several examples of what came across as minimizing the problems people were having. No, you should not be called names and I still think you are a great guy.

    And I see people upset about a lot of things you don’t address. Consider this. Adobe says they will let a user freeze updates for a year so that you don’t get new features pushed on you that you don’t want. Great. But what happens when that year is up and the features they are pushing don’t work on your computer? Are you then forced to upgrade your computer?

    You also don’t address that some of the new advanced features Adobe is talking about (such as the anti-blur) will mean uploading images to the cloud to be processed on their servers. This is a major problem for people uncomfortable putting their art up into the Cloud.

    Then there are the things I hear most about – basically that for all those who upgrade every 18 months, the effective cost has gone from $200 to $360. That is an 80% increase.

    Another example of why your blog post probably upset people are other straw-man arguments such as people saying “That’s not fair.” I’m sure some are, but the vast majority are not saying that, they are saying that the deal going forward is much worse than it previously was, at least after the $10.00 period expires. So again people are going to feel that their problem is being misrepresented or minimized, and that is going to make an angry person all the more angry. Just trying to add some insight as you expressed some confusion in the Grid episode as to why people would be upset towards you.

    Personally I am angry at Adobe. Your blog post (which was the first reaction I was interested in) made me a bit more angry, and parts of this video were helpful in understanding where you were coming from, but other parts like mentioned above didn’t help and seemed like you were addressing the complaints of the few and ignoring the complaints of the many, and the fact that for a Photoshop user after the initial year, the cost has gone up by 80%. (The $200.00 to $360 every 18 months example). Show me the person who is not upset by the cost of something they love going up by 80%. But my biggest issue is the loss of a perpetual license. They can fix that.

    Everything I mentioned above pertains to Photoshop only. If I used the whole suite then yes, I would be happy, although still miffed about the loss of a perpetual license.

    Personally I am not going to make any decisions now, as emotion should not be a part of it. After I cool down I will decide what makes best creative sense and then choose the best creative option I can afford. I encourage others to do the same, and not to make decisions that will affect your creative workflow while you are upset.

    Anyway, have a good weekend,

    Kurt

    • Kurt,
      Really good analysis. I agree with your comment 100%.

    • This is such a good point !! Dont forget that if you are like me and skip every other version then my cost goes up to 260% !!

    • I came here to make these very points. Kurt has articulated my misgivings with CC quite well.

    • If you read the EULA for CS6 or before you will see you don’t own it anyway

      • Hi Peter,

        That is true, but I didn’t say that one did own it. I said that Photoshop CS was an application that one “up until now could keep indefinitely. No perpetual license.” We want to keep the perpetual license, and thus be able to use the program for say the next 5 years without paying $10.00/month for the first year and $20.00/month for the next 4 years at a total additional cost of $1080.00 over those five years. Now for now we have that option, and that is just use Photoshop CS6 or what ever version one has already licensed for say the next 5 years at zero cost. But we will be unable to purchase new features without committing to a monthly payment that will be much more expensive than the old model over time.

      • What this argument doesn’t take into account is that no lump sum is ever paid or received with a subscription model. It’s dripping from my business into Adobe’s. That benefits me because I have that capital for longer and it hurts Adobe because it has to wait to get its fee. Adobe is willing to do this because it brings more revenue long term and gives them a stable, reliable revenue stream.

        I’m not saying it makes it alright, but it is a factor that isn’t being mentioned.

        “I buy appreciating assets, I rent depreciating assets” as John Paul Getty said.

      • For new users that is correct. For current users we have already paid the lump sum (myself $650 for Photoshop). For that we get $10.00 off a month of the subscription for the first year.

    • So let me get this right. I can buy Adobe CS6 for $600 and keep it for ever, or following this argument I can rent it for say a year and then cancel my subscription and keep my access to the software having spent only $120. I’m obviously missing something here but why would I ever want to pay $600 if Adobe adopted this new opt out pricing policy. What if I rent CS6 for a month? Then I’m only paying $10-20 for the complete program if i cancel. it just doesn’t make any sense to me at all? So why would Adobe ever want to do that? Yes they could introduce a buyout plan (which I’m sure they’ll never do) where I could pay a one off fee and ‘buy out of the subscription and keep the software’. But that’s not what’s being discussed. It seems we’re unhappy about renting software for a while and then not being able to use it when we stop paying for access to it.
      Also I’m confused about the issue with not being able to edit files if I stop subscribing to CC? Surely there are many applications that can read PSD files, I’m sure I own at least two of them already.
      Depending on how you use Photoshop there’s plenty wrong with the new subscription plan but I can’t understand why Adobe would commit financial suicide like this? I rent my home but when i stop paying rent I have to move out, I rent my web space and again if i stop renting it my webhost will take my web site down? Confused….

      • Hi Greg,

        I will try to help.

        The opt-out buying plan that I would want to see and I see others proposing is not what you are suggesting. A reasonable plan would be after someone who is a current licensee of Photoshop pays for a certain number of months that is at least the equivalent cost of what it would cost to upgrade, then and only then would they be able to leave the system with a perpetual license for the version they have at that time. So for example (as I have a current license) I could do CC for a year starting on the new version in June, and then after paying a total of say $240.00 they would give me a perpetual license for that version. This way they would make $40.00 more off me than the old system, which would have cost me $200.00 for an upgrade. That is a 20% increase in profit for Adobe, and I wind up with no more than I would have had with the old system. Hardly financial suicide.

        Now for someone that does not have a license for Photoshop now – a new user – their cost of a perpetual license would be equivalently higher, meaning that they would become eligible for a perpetual license somewhere between year 3 and 4, when they have paid Abode more rental fees over that period of time than the software plus upgrades would have cost them under the old system.

        No one is asking Adobe to give away the farm here. This proposal and others would give Abode more money than they have been getting from us in the past – just not 80% (for the regular updaters) or 260% (for those who currently update every other version) more.

        Doesn’t that seem reasonable?

        Kurt

      • This is a well articulated breakdown of your suggestion. I plan to host a Google hangout to talk about this. Would you be willing to join? if so let me know on twitter or google+ (@andregant)

      • Hi Andre,

        Thanks for the kind invite, but I submitted these ideas to a director of marketing (evangelism) at Adobe a few days ago, and he said he would get it to the right people. I have seen other employees of Adobe doing the same on other boards, and I have seen so many proposals now that are similar and different to mine that I think they have a great idea of what people want, and the ball is really in their court. I encourage you and others to contact these employees directly though Adobe’s website or other websites and discussion groups where they may be posting.

  9. The main issue that I have with the cc is that the only way to keep accessing my psd images is to keep paying my subs for the rest of my life. Give me a lease buy out option, like buying a car, and I will sign up now! Cs6 is not the answer because the psd format will change. A read only option is not the way to go.

    I think we are un happy with your summary because you don’t seem to have talked about the long term requirements to access our images, or looked at why adobe should keep the price decent or even keep innovating if they have us all over a barrel because there is now exit strategy.

  10. If Adobe throw in an Audi R8, with their cloud subscription, I’ll definitely sign up :)
    Regarding all the negative feedback, don’t worry about it, you’re efforts and opinions are greatly appreciated by the majority of photographers.

  11. I use “rotate view” ALL the time with retouching with my Wacom Tablet. It allows me to keep the same brush stroke motion for different parts of the image. Don’t cut it!

  12. It sounded like you were making up the neutered photoshop idea on the fly. I don’t want a dumbed down version of PS. You claim elements has 80% of what PS has. Then why make a dumbed dow version of Photoshop. Then why is PSCS6 $700 and elements $59.00?

    Much of this is philosophical. Many people do not like to rent. So when you take he most beloved software in history and you FORCE people to rent it they feel unease. They feel like hostages. They feel like they are paying ransom. They feel less secure. Pride of ownership is a big thing. When some folks saved up the money and bought Photoshop they had a sense of pride and frankly bragging rights. Now with the renting scheme that whole dynamic is gone. Now they don’t pay to own the greatest software in history, they pay to use until they can’t pay then they have nothing.

    There is a special feeling you get when owning a book buy Henri Cartier-Bresson. That feeling isn’t there with a magazine subscription. Not even close. Same thing with the new PS dynamic.

  13. Scott, I’m so sorry I didn’t write back on your blog…. Because I was thrilled. Your explanation answered all of my questions and now I’m subscribed at $10 per month. I’ve been oh, so impatiently waiting to upgrade to CS6, and with your descriptions, it made my course of action clear.
    Just know that for every fist-raiser there were maybe 10 of us saying, “oh, right….this makes sense for me.” And because we were no longer angry…and just a little excited….we moved on. Your words were clear and positive. Not perfectly happy, but not negative. Don’t ever stop! Your guidance is important to me, and dare I say, people like me. The angry ones just need a release, and it has nothing to do with you. It’s nice that they have a place to release too.
    I also loved your ideas for “LightShop”….I teach budding photographers and would love an affordable option for them… For me? I can’t imagine ever leaving photoshop. Part of the magic is knowing that there’s a whole undiscovered world in there just waiting for me!
    Thank you, Scott, Matt, RC, Dave, Pete and all the gang for keeping my world rocking!!
    LindaMarie Stella

  14. Hi Scott,

    Nice pics of the boxer and the Audi, but more importantly, I’m sorry you are undeservedly catching so much heat over Adobe’s decisions.

    The Photoshop for Photographers concept discussed on the Grid was a fantastic idea. I hope Adobe can come up with something like that, as a stand-alone or bundle with Lightroom. Maybe LR will evolve to the point where photographers will only need one software piece (aside from plug-ins).

    Please don’t stop gathering and sharing this extremely helpful and accurate info, or at least share it on the NAPP site if the general public can’t handle it without flaming. I appreciate that you are an industry touchstone, but sorry that you’re a lightning rod too.

  15. Hi Scott,

    Nice pics of the boxer and the Audi, but more importantly, I’m sorry you are undeservedly catching so much heat over Adobe’s decisions.

    The Photoshop for Photographers concept discussed on the Grid was a fantastic idea. I hope Adobe can come up with something like that, as a stand-alone or bundle with Lightroom. Maybe LR will evolve to the point where photographers will only need one software piece (aside from plug-ins).

    Please don’t stop gathering and sharing this extremely helpful and accurate info, or at least share it on the NAPP site if the general public can’t handle it without flaming. I appreciate that you are an industry touchstone, but sorry that you’re a lightning rod too.

  16. Hi Scott, I have been away from photography as a hobby for a few months, so this has caught me by surprise.

    As strictly a hobbyist and with my current economic situation cc is out of the question. I guess I should consider myself fortunate, as I was able to CS6 at the educational discount. Without that it would have been impossible. From a hobbyist point of view, the nice thing about “owning” the software is if your employment status changes you don’t have to worry about losing access to your hobby because you can’t afford the monthly subscription.

    As to the “Lightshop” idea, that is something I would be definitely be interested in. With both Photoshop and Elements I feel like I’m paying for thing I’ll never use. I don’t use the organizer in Elements as I have LR and about 90% of the features in PS I’ll never use.

  17. Hi Scott, I have been away from photography as a hobby for a few months, so this has caught me by surprise.

    As strictly a hobbyist and with my current economic situation cc is out of the question. I guess I should consider myself fortunate, as I was able to CS6 at the educational discount. Without that it would have been impossible. From a hobbyist point of view, the nice thing about “owning” the software is if your employment status changes you don’t have to worry about losing access to your hobby because you can’t afford the monthly subscription.

    As to the “Lightshop” idea, that is something I would be definitely be interested in. With both Photoshop and Elements I feel like I’m paying for thing I’ll never use. I don’t use the organizer in Elements as I have LR and about 90% of the features in PS I’ll never use.

  18. Hi Scott

    Kurt’s post below is bang on the money for me but I have one other point to add.

    Adobe, over the last 12 months, had made it clear to all photographer’s that they will only be able to upgrade to the next version of Photoshop if they have CS6 by the cut off date of 31st December ’12. They absolutely must have know that there wouldn’t be another upgrade version available during this time, Creative Cloud and this initiative didn’t appear overnight.

    I pestered at least two close friends to upgrade to CS6 from the CS4 they were both on, and I’m sure 1,000’s upgraded when they obviously didn’t need to, IMHO, very dubious practice at best from Adobe.

    • EXACTLY what I did. Upgraded from CS4 to CS6 because I thought that was the only way I’d then be able to upgrade to CS7. And OWN it. Now that I “own” CS6, WHY would I START paying for the CC within six months of upgrading? Adobe hasn’t ADDED anything NEW to the Photoshop part of the CC that I need or want. This whole CC crap has pissed me off enough and now ‘burned’ enough that I will NEVER go to the CC for fear of losing access to my photo archives; I’ll stick with CS6 for as long as I can based on my computer and OS. I’ve also NOW got an ‘ear to the ground’ for NEW software that isn’t subscription only. Checked on Corel today – and by the time I need something NEW for a new computer and/or OS, I bet COREL is totally up-to-speed with excellent software for photo processing as I want it. Screw Adobe and their small minded and poorly thought out ‘business’ plan. MY business plan now says to go another way.

  19. Hi Scott

    Kurt’s post below is bang on the money for me but I have one other point to add.

    Adobe, over the last 12 months, had made it clear to all photographer’s that they will only be able to upgrade to the next version of Photoshop if they have CS6 by the cut off date of 31st December ’12. They absolutely must have know that there wouldn’t be another upgrade version available during this time, Creative Cloud and this initiative didn’t appear overnight.

    I pestered at least two close friends to upgrade to CS6 from the CS4 they were both on, and I’m sure 1,000’s upgraded when they obviously didn’t need to, IMHO, very dubious practice at best from Adobe.

  20. I think people are being overly mean (they always are online) but I think there are some specific objections to your hanling of it that people have.

    It took until minute 27 for either of you to admit that it’s bad for some users. Up until then you keep saying “guess what my advice was.” I think rather than asking others to guess, it would be nice to (without breaking your NDA with Adobe) give some idea of what your advice was. Scott, I still don’t think I’ve heard you say or write “$20/month is a price increase for some users, particularly those who buy an upgrade version of every other Photoshop release.” I’ve seen this math done elsewhere, and it would be nice for you to actually say this in a public way. By not stating this simple fact, the Q&A really does seem to be overly positive, and by continuing not to simply state this fact you seem evasive.

    Second, you keep saying $10/month, when long-term the currently stated pricing is $20/month. This is what most people (fairly, I think) are basing their cost-comparisons on. Furthermore, allowing the $10/month to extend beyond the first year would be a slap in the face for users who chose to pay $20/month rather than find a copy of CS3 that they could use to get the $10/month discount.

    Finally, I think you’re hand-waving the software expiration/rental issue, but I really think it is a fair one. Installing CS6, which will eventually be extremely out-of-date, is not really a good long-term solution to this. The way I would get around this (were I Adobe) is fairly simple: If you have had access to a creative cloud application continuously for the last 2 (3?) years, you are licensed to continue using the last version of the application that you installed indefinitely on a single computer. You get no updates, no support, and may not be able to install the software on a new computer. The software may continue to authenticate itself, but your license to use it will not expire. If you choose to re-subscribe to a Creative Cloud application, the license clock resets and the newly reset clock applies to any newer versions that you install after beginning your new subscription. This wouldn’t be Photoshop for $10, this would be Photoshop for $480-$720, which is about what it sells for now.

  21. I think people are being overly mean (they always are online) but I think there are some specific objections to your hanling of it that people have.

    It took until minute 27 for either of you to admit that it’s bad for some users. Up until then you keep saying “guess what my advice was.” I think rather than asking others to guess, it would be nice to (without breaking your NDA with Adobe) give some idea of what your advice was. Scott, I still don’t think I’ve heard you say or write “$20/month is a price increase for some users, particularly those who buy an upgrade version of every other Photoshop release.” I’ve seen this math done elsewhere, and it would be nice for you to actually say this in a public way. By not stating this simple fact, the Q&A really does seem to be overly positive, and by continuing not to simply state this fact you seem evasive.

    Second, you keep saying $10/month, when long-term the currently stated pricing is $20/month. This is what most people (fairly, I think) are basing their cost-comparisons on. Furthermore, allowing the $10/month to extend beyond the first year would be a slap in the face for users who chose to pay $20/month rather than find a copy of CS3 that they could use to get the $10/month discount.

    Finally, I think you’re hand-waving the software expiration/rental issue, but I really think it is a fair one. Installing CS6, which will eventually be extremely out-of-date, is not really a good long-term solution to this. The way I would get around this (were I Adobe) is fairly simple: If you have had access to a creative cloud application continuously for the last 2 (3?) years, you are licensed to continue using the last version of the application that you installed indefinitely on a single computer. You get no updates, no support, and may not be able to install the software on a new computer. The software may continue to authenticate itself, but your license to use it will not expire. If you choose to re-subscribe to a Creative Cloud application, the license clock resets and the newly reset clock applies to any newer versions that you install after beginning your new subscription. This wouldn’t be Photoshop for $10, this would be Photoshop for $480-$720, which is about what it sells for now.

    • Bob. with ALL due respect.

      Had you.. posted an informational post to your blog. And 3 hours later feel related to the devil for just posting information. Not YOUR policy or YOUR rules, just merely the messenger for what Adobe laid out. You might take until minute 27 to get yourself together too. Scott (although outgoing and hilarious) is just a guy like you and me. he puts his pants on the same way and has feelings and emotions. Think what it was like coming off a great Orlando PSW with hundreds of people whooping it up, to being accused and called names merely for informing us. Really not fair.

      And although Scott never played the ‘poor me’ card…ever, on the GRID. He could have. He had the right to say it to people. The bottom line here is this. Scott has NOTHING to do with Adobe’s practices or policy or pricing. He’s just a guy having fin and teaching us all Ps. Why throw numbers at him ?

      He told us outright, he didn’t feel this was a good deal for the hobbyist photographer fro the outset. And as a guy with his name on all of this, he has a lot of differnt plates to juggle here. He has to maintain training for us left behind cloudless.. And keep the working professionals (suckers for Adobe) trained too.. That’s a tough nut.

      Just breathe my friend. Scott and everyone down at NAPP will not leave us standing at the side of the road with an empty cup.

      • So true. I don’t get why everyone’s calling him names and thinking that he’s the bad guy here. I’m upset by this too, but I think we all need to calm down and resort to methods other than hate posts. People, if you’re that angry, go sign some petitions or send adobe an email. Remember that people are entitled to their own opinions.

      • That because thousands can reach him and express their unhappiness about it. where is the Adobe ceo blog? Scott and others working for Adobe are acting as a sponge between, absorbing many reasonable negative feedback.

      • First off, Scott DID play the “poor me” card, that was about the first two minutes. I think he is ABSOLUTELY entitled to do so.

        Scott seems genuinely confused as to why people think he is being unfair to his clients and readers. My post attempted to identify the ways where people are getting the message (I’m sure a false message) that Scott either doesn’t get it (which people on both sides of the issue doubt) or he is only telling the favorable side. Mentioning these things (particularly the first one) would have made his initial post seem a lot more balanced.

        On your final point: Scott has maintained that Photoshop is a bad deal for the hobbyist. I can respect that, and he’s generally right. However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of hobbyists who want the “full” version of Photoshop. I actually had a paragraph on why but deleted it after deciding that I was going to keep to three main points where I felt Scott was being unfair to his audience, and not simply those where I simply disagree. [sidenote: this paragraph amounted to: hobbyists don’t care about CMYK, but they DO care about 16-bit.]

  22. Adobe might get it – maybe, but that’s a stretch. New Coke died a horrible death. Netflix crashed for a time and reversed itself. The customer revolt road is littered with the dead bodies of corporate executives and so-called “brilliant” marketing people who screwed up. Adobe has always consisted of a bunch of arrogant, money-hungry curs singularly interested in lining their pockets.

    • Matt, You make a great point and I agree. If everyone stands by our principles on this issue, odds are good Adobe will make an adjustment to their policy to retain their PS customer base. While PS is a professional piece of software, a huge percentage on Adobe’s PS customers are not pros. The pros will have to go with the CC program to stay competitive; the rest of us don’t.

  23. I’ve posted this once. Disqus ate it up.

    After having read Matt’s post on NAPP yesterday, I think maybe people could/should stop..think, and breathe a bit here. Adobe is going to do what Adobe is going to do. Nothing to do with Scott, NAPP.. Anyone at Kelby. Although I will say everyone over at Adobe, they are definitely off my Christmas list for good.

    Scott, Matt, Pete, everyone over at NAPP and Kelby has more often than not, always expressed to us in some form or another. ‘ If you aren’t satisfied with it, tell us, and we’ll make it right ‘.

    Now whether that is a NAPP seminar, book, missing issues whatever. If you’ve ever dealt with those people at NAPP, you know they are straight shooters. So lets sit back and see how things play out on Adobe’s part here. Matt has said he is not going to let the ‘non-cloud users’ fall by the wayside and not be trained, or feel left out. The point has been made now in about 8 different blogs by hundreds of users and members, I think Scott gets it.

    Trust in Scott, Matt, Pete and all those crazy kids over at NAPP to do right by all of us. They’ve never tried to see anyone off yet. So why would they start now? I mean lets face it. Scott is NOT a meany, and frankly, he doesn’t need the money that bad. He just wouldn’t see anyone feel cheated or undervalued.

    So lets just breathe and trust in the fact that NAPP has, and will be there for all of us members, even though Adobe clearly has other plans for us.

    You’re a good guy Scott. your heart is in the right place, and I trust in all of you down at NAPP to see us through all of this just fine.

  24. I have used the Creative Cloud since day one. While I use Photoshop, Indesign, and Illustrator every day, having everything available is great. I had bought the master suite a couple of years ago and being able to pay monthly instead of a big payout every couple of years is great. And being able to get updates as soon as they are ready is great. And for those that worry they won’t be able to get to their psd files if they decide to no longer use Photoshop, save your files as jpegs.

  25. I’m sorry Scott that you can’t handle the heat or feel that you undeservably have become the poster child. But like you’ve said many times…life isn’t fair.

  26. Just want to point out that the analogy that Scott and Matt slipped in at the end related to cable TV is really not that bad of an analogy. Maybe we need to get John McCain on Adobe’s case:

    http://business.time.com/2013/05/10/john-mccain-wants-to-lower-your-cable-bill/

  27. Kurt and Bob nailed it. Scott, you’re failing to acknowledge the concerns of people who are a big chunk of your site’s viewers. They aren’t misunderstanding anything. That’s why they’re still moaning. You shouldn’t be nonplussed by that.

    Key points:
    – We must keep paying Adobe (at minimum one-year increments, BTW) to be able to edit our PSDs beyond CS6, even if we need to only a couple times a year.
    – For Photoshop-only upgraders (and that’s a lot of us!), EVEN IF they usually upgrade every time (and a great many don’t), our ongoing upgrade costs have gone way, way, way up. We are not mollified by an initial teaser rate. We’ve been burned by cable enough to know how temporary that is.

    People are going to keep on moaning until they feel understood. As long as you keep harping about the few (very few!) who still think they have to pay $600 a year for Photoshop alone, complaints will continue to flood your comment section. C’mon, man up. Acknowledge our real, valid, and not confused concerns.

  28. scott,

    could you whisper in adobe’s ear and ask them to add Captivate to the CreativeCloud?
    I think it would be a awesome additional and totally push me to get the multiproduct version rather than just photoshop.

  29. One thing that Scott has mentioned directly and indirectly for quite a while is the shift of NAPP to photography instead of being merely Photoshop centric. I’d be curious if that means more tutorials and ideas using tools outside of Adobe’s.

    The first season of DTown did this but it was cosponsored by Nikon. Perhaps looking for more partnerships out there would lead to intriguing possibilities. I think what I would like to see is whether NAPP will continue to serve my needs whether or not I stick with Adobe products; though it is unlikely I will.

    Insults do no good and I tried not to insult anyone in that other thread. Elements is not viable because it doesn’t support plugins I use or 16 bit editing. A Perpetual license Photoshop for Photographers that is reasonably priced would be very welcome and serve the needs of people who feel disenfranchised with Adobe’s corporate focus. Or perhaps onOne will fill that need first? They’re well positioned for it. With a few things that Nik provides added in, it would be perfect.

  30. Scott,

    Thanks for going in detail about Adobe’s CC. It clears up a lot of my concerns. And, thanks for pointing out what options I have going forward, much appreciated. What I did not realize, my fault, is that you are face to face with Adobe behind the scenes. Maybe going forward telling people first that you are working hard behind the scenes to convey what NAPP members would like to see in upcoming software releases. Appreciate all that you do and keep up the hard work.

  31. Scott & Matt,
    Let me begin by saying that I like your idea of “Lightshop”; however, my beef with Adobe is not so much price as the whole idea of subscription, or as some have called it, rental software. I don’t do subscription software. I am retired. My wife and I are both NAPP members and have attended Photoshop World in Las Vegas and Orlando. I have been using or playing with Photoshop since version 4. Currently, I have CS6 Design Suite Standard and Lightroom 4 installed on a Mac Pro workstation and on a Windows 7 Pro workstation. I also own the complete OnOne, Nik and Topaz suites. I strongly disagree with your suggestion that Adobe buy Topaz. Such purchases are seldom successful. That’s why I’m holding my breath on the Google purchase of Nik. I read that what Google was really after was Snapseed. Already, they have announced that they are not supporting NX2. I don’t use NX2, but there are many Nikon shooters who do. Perhaps the most striking example I can site is IBM’s purchase of Lotus for Lotus Notes. I am one who is looking for an alternative to Photoshop because I will only purchase a so-called perpetual license. Certainly Elements is one possiblity, but if you can convince Adobe to come out with a Photoshop for Photographers, but not on subscription, I would be most interested. As Cory would be quick to tell you, Photoshop was originally developed for graphic artists, not photographers. This whole business makes me very worried about all my PSD files and whether I will be able to open them in the future. Adobe has lost my confidence.

  32. Scott,

    I watched “The Grid” and you went a long way towards curing the furor that occurred toward you in your post earlier this week. You do however say again and again you aren’t Adobe’s spokesman and why should you be getting flak for their decisions, but that is exactly the point and source of the anger Scott, you are OUR spokesman TO Adobe and we felt the “FAQ” you wrote answered every question that could be answered in favor of Adobe while leaving out any negatives that you or the community you represent may truly face. Hearing you acknowledge that you had concerns that you brought to Adobe, that you still have concerns, that you have proposed solutions etc. is what you really should have put in that very post some days ago. It sounded like you were speaking for them, rather than speaking for us. “The Grid” and your thoughts are a step in the right direction.

    Let me break down a few points:

    1. The idea for a “Adobe Lightshop” type of program is exactly what we need. I am like many folks loving Lightroom and finding less and less reasons to head to Photoshop everyday. I would love to NOT need Photoshop anymore but I still need it for some things but the value in having Photoshop is becoming less everyday just as Adobe now wants to charge more which isn’t great for photographers.

    2. Your argument of the $10 cost per month to existing PS users isn’t a fair one Scott, because that is JUST for 1 year and ONLY if I subscribe by the end of the July for a full year. Many photographers don’t want to go down the road of the $20 lock in subscription and that IS what is coming if sign up for the great “deal” of $10 for a single year. You hint or suggest that Adobe should extend the $10 deal much further but that is not what they are saying they are going to do. The decision to join the CC and tie our futures to PS CC should be based on what the real cost will be, $20 a month… forever (or until they raise it.)

    3. You make the argument that $20 a month for professional level software is a good deal and that if we can’t find $10 or $20 to spare maybe we shouldn’t be using Photoshop in particular if we make our livelihood from it. Perhaps that is a totally fair statement Scott, really… good point… but there is a dark truth you aren’t mentioning. A huge number of photographers, hobbyists who don’t make their living from Photoshop, many of which are NAPP members (despite the “Professional” in the membership) have invested in a one time $700 program knowing that they can use it for years with no further cost and upgrade for a reasonable $200 upgrade when new features or compatibility became so compelling it became time. It became commonplace in the community to skip 1 or even 2 generations of Photoshop before upgrading again but most felt ok with that as we are NOT professionals. That is why you saw us get upset when Adobe was going to cut out owners of generations prior to PS 5.5 from upgrading to PS 6 and you defended us brilliantly, helping stave off disaster for those who did skip generations. That said we still faced the new prospect of having to upgrade every 18 months for $200 which was in some cases a doubling of cost for us. Now CC with just Photoshop will cost $240 a year, $360 a “cycle” (in the past $200), and $720 a “skipped cycle” (in the past still $200.) These are HUGE price increases. If you feel that we were unfairly taking advantage of Adobe in the past with our upgrade practices and that the new prices are fair, that is one thing… but these new prices simply price out of the market many hobbyists that frankly don’t get enough value for their level of use out Photoshop to justify the money now being charged.

    4. The final point is that even though the real costs of ownership of just Photoshop are going up by 2-4 times (or more) depending on how you upgraded in the past, we are getting less value from our money (regardless of amount) because the moment we stop paying we lose the program. In the past I could upgrade for $200 and if Adobe never made another good version of the program I could at least keep what I had… once I buy into CC I can never stop paying or lose Photoshop. YES, I can get Elements or just use Lightroom but I still lose Photoshop even if I am thousands of dollars and years into using CC by that point.

    I hope you can acknowledge there is much blame to hand around Scott. Photographers missed some of the fine print. Adobe PR was a mess. And finally you too perhaps didn’t initially present a well rounded summary of the PROS AND CONS of the situation. It will shake out, but our best bet now? Get Adobe to put EVERY feature of Photoshop that applied to photographers into the Lightroom program even at enhanced cost, because for many photographers this $10 intro, $20 for life CC idea will simply never work.

  33. The issue to me is not so much the pricing as it is the concept (renting software). Can I afford 20-30/month? Sure. It’s not going to break the bank. I do not want to pay 20-30/month for ever. It comes to point where I want the payments to stop and I want t own what I was paying for. Renting just doesn’t make sense for something that is used daily.

    What if Nikon said were going to stop letting people buy our cameras and lenses. Instead, you’ll have to pay a monthly fee just to use the gear. Stop paying the monthly fee, and you lose all your camera gear. Would anyone be ok with that?

    Renting makes sense for things you don’t need all the time. Like the 400mm f/2.8 lens I’ll never be able to afford. Renting it for the rare time I need it makes sense vs buying it. Creative cloud would make sense to me for some of the other programs available that I rarely use. For things that are part of our everyday workflow, renting just doesn’t make sense. That is what has a lot of people angry.

    I like the idea of “Lightshop” that was mentioned. A program for photographers that sits between elements and photoshop would be a good move. I’ve used elements, and wasn’t impressed. The ACR version in there was a stripped down version. Taking the stuff photographers need from CS6 and throwing it into a slimmed down program, I’d give that a try. Just promise me it will never be in the cloud. :)

    Good luck with pitching the idea, right now, Adobe strikes me as a very anti-customer company. I know the thoughts on the grid were a very preliminary idea. I’d be interested in a blog post or something in the futrue with some more concrete ideas once you have those together.

  34. Scott,

    If I understand correctly, you want a stripped-down version of Photoshop that is such that it and LR would complement one another in providing a “complete” set of tools for a photographer. My thought is that PSE does that at the present time for about $60. So, why would I pay, as you suggest, about $149 for a stripped-down version of PS that does less than PSE? Why not refine PSE to do what you suggest and offer at about $60?

    Such an approach would provide two reasonably priced approaches, (1) a ‘Cloud’ approach for those who want to rent and , (2) a LR + LS for those who prefer to own. (But I will buy the last full version of PSE – just in case.)

    Take care,

  35. Scott, sorry you had to take so much crap. I never once blamed you for the Adobe CC thing.

  36. Hi Scott,

    I think you can’t blame the people for all the confusion about the Creative Cloud (but of course you can blame them for attacking you, instead of the Adobe officials… such a reaction is stupid)… Adobe and their information strategy generated this confusion – at least to some degree. After their announcement I had a hard time to get all the facts about the cloud. My biggest concern was that “every 30 days” limit for the account verification. Minimum once ore twice a year I travel for some documentary work (6-8 weeks, sometimes even more) to some parts of the world, where it’s hard or impossible to get an internet connection… Only by some kind of “accident” I finally got the information that you can be offline for up to 99 days and that you can get a longer activation period for travel with one simple call to the Adobe support anyway… Why do they pay their PR people all that money? At the time of the announcement there should have been a page online with all the information needed, to get the entire picture. This could have prevented most of the confusion… and it could have saved you from some overreacting comments.

    Having that said, I’ve made the decision not to subscribe to the cloud. Photoshop CS6 has all the features I need, whats missing is added by some Nik and OnOne plugins… this way I should be fine for the next few years… maybe I’ll buy me a nice new lens from the saved money, so at least Nikon has one reason to thank Adobe for the “CC only” business model.

    That stripped down Lightshop (or however you may call it) is a great idea (although I doubt that Adobe will go for it). In my Photoshop CS6 all the menu items I don’t need (not only filters) are hidden (thanks god for the menu preferences) and I’ve assigned the keyboard shortcuts from the hidden items to the ones in use that come without one by default… it comes really close to what you and Matt were talking about. Unfortunately the hidden menu items still load at the start of Photoshop, so it only speeds up my workflow, but not the program… at least Adobe should add an option where you can select something like “Don’t load hidden menu items on program start”…

    Cheers,

    Jay

  37. Hi Scott, I am a big fan. i realize that you are not an adobe spokesperson, and that you are an advocate for napp and photographers everywhere. I personally dont think a third program called lightshop will be beneficial, as u already said, we have elements and lightroom already. a third option to replace photoshop doesnt seem to make much sense, especially if its available through the cloud, which in that case why wouldnt be using photoshop? I do hope that when you are making your recommendations to adobe, you also take into account the thousands of people like who look to you that seem to get forgotten, or not taken seriously, but yet spend quite a bit of money on your books, or on going to adobe conferences and use and purchase adobe products. I am an extreme hobbyist photographer. I do not make money from it, however there is not a day that goes by that i am not taking photos for myself or someone else. i spend hours in photoshop. I read your blog and look to you for answers and buy your magazines and your books to learn more. I use lightroom…but mainly i use photoshop…because people like me create scrapbooks, and digital art of our families and of others. We use the tools in photoshop that you would like to get rid of in “lightshop”. Because we are not professionals we do not upgrade every year to the newer version of photoshop….well i do personally, but im not really talking about me, but the literally thousands upon thousand of people that buy photoshop, to have on their computer, for projects or fun or digital scrapbooking. Are u aware of how famous you are in those circles? How many in those circles look to you and your teaching who are not considered to be professionals but yet invest in you? i can point you to forums and places where u might be shocked. My point being, to actually own a copy of photoshop is important to the majority of those thousands of people, who cannot possibly for a lifetime pay a monthly fee to continue to do what is more of an obsession with them. some are still using cs2 or 3 and upgrade every 3 or 4 years, and now when they can’t use that anymore they are just out of luck. You can not compare this scenerio with adobes monthly fee to square space charging a monthly fee for the use of a website. Square space in mainly a service…i pay the hydro monthly as a service they provide, but i dont expect them to leave the lights on if i dont pay. But when i go to purchase a program….i want to purchase a hands on copy of a program. Adobe is providing no service, so i just wanted to point out that i really hope you dont view that as a legitimate comparison since u are the voice for photoshop users as even you yourself have said. Since your role to adobe is to advise and give your opinions… when you do i hope you do the research on the people like me who invest in you and your knowledge and take us into account as well. We are photographers, who arent professionals nor are we professional graphic artists, but we are a huge group that use photoshop for both reasons and are “customers” of yours that at some point in the near future are not going to be able to continue to do so with this new method. I am fully aware that these decisions are not yours to make…but please just remember that we exist too. Perhaps, a solution u could suggest would be after you have paid the monthly fee for a year and half or two years, should you no longer continue to do so, that you are then able to retain the version of photoshop that you have on your computer at that time…as it would have paid for a full hands on version by that time. Then should you leave the cloud, you keep your version, but if you ever want a newer version, you have to rejoin and the same process starts again….you pay monthly fees, and if we want to leave the cloud with a version of photoshop that would belong to us, then we must have been there for a length of time etc. Because at the end of the day that is what the real issue is. Photoshop users want to have a program they own…..adobe wants us on a monthly plan, and your right…we could join, pay $10 and leave again, so that certainly wouldnt be beneficial for adobe. But after a time frame, adobe would ensure they made at least the amount of money they would have had they just sold it out right. Anyways, just a thought.

  38. Scott, I don’t like to see you be the heat sink for Adobe’s marketing
    strategies. You don’t deserve it IMHO. And, you are right in that many
    of us serious photo enthusiasts can come up with $20 a month. We can
    save up for a new lens. We can subscribe to NAPP. We indulge this
    itch and that for our passionate endeavor of capturing and processing
    exceptional images. But, there reaches a point where we can’t do it
    all. So, we cut back. If we pay the $20 a month for the single product
    CC, where before we could skip an upgrade or two of Photoshop, guess
    what gets cut. It doesn’t make sense to pay for your training if we’re
    forced to cut out the product we want to be trained to use. I have some
    of your books, and you’re still one of my favorite industry gurus.
    Let’s hope for a win/win situation in all of this. I’m hoping they load
    up Lightroom (perhaps adding things like layers and the sharpening capabilities) so freelance and enthusiast photographers can continue with that outside of CC and have their needs met.

  39. I am licensed owner of LR4 and am using LR5b and PS CS6. I’ll make a
    deal with Adobe. Put “shake reduction (de-blur)” in LR5 Develop module
    and I’ll upgrade to LR5 and make do with PS CS6 for now, This will make
    Scott’s life a whole lot easier, and he won’t be calling you as much.

  40. I have an even better idea than Lightshop. You read for it? How about Adobe just incorporate all those features you mentioned into Lightroom instead of creating a seperate app. We don’t need another application to add confusions. Lets just make Lightroom better. And yes I would be willing to pay more, as long as I have the option of buying it and not renting it. :-)

    • This is bad idea !

      Cost of LR would go up and many LR users do not need this kind of Swiss knife

      This is in the same league like Adobe’s idea of CC.

      You try to force people to pay more for something they do not need and they do not want.
      What we want is choice !

  41. Scott,

    Thanks for stepping up and explaining all of this. I like your idea, but my only fear is that if Adobe offers a cheaper, photographer’s version of Photoshop that it will push up the price for the rest of the features in the fuller version of Photoshop. Personally, I would want to keep all the features available at my disposal and this side effect would rain on my day a bit, but otherwise a solid idea.

    Question: If I own CS6 (or CS5 in my case, or any other version of PS for that matter) can I install PS CC along side it so that if/when I stop paying I can simply revert back to what I “own” (recognizing that it’s a license and that I don’t actually own anything)? Maybe that would help with a bunch of these upgraders that are worried about losing .psd support if/when they stop paying.

  42. Hi Scott,
    I have a radical idea, why not make an “Edit” module in LR (along side the existing “Library”, “Develop”,”Web”,… modules) and put all of the “Lightshop” features there. That way LR could, in itself, become the complete photographers toolkit without the need of having to purchase a companion application.

    Tim

  43. In case you’re interested in the new Cloud thing, read the agreement first:

    http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

    It may cost you more than the rent you’d be paying for.

  44. Scott,

    I’ve just watched “The Grid” for the first time ever and I’m not sure what to make of it.

    As the president of a Photoshop trade group, it seems to me that you would acknowledge that pretty much everybody in this group already has Photoshop. Why join otherwise? We are therefore entitled to upgrades. So why do you keep bringing up the $700 cost to compare to the cost of the “Cloud” version? $10/month is about what I have paid for my last couple of upgrades to Photoshop Standard, so the “special” one year pricing of the “Cloud” version is really no bargain — especially when it’s not a perpetual license. And the subsequent $20/month payment is just — insulting.

    You’re getting heat about this because it seems like you’re trying to justify Adobe’s pricing. We get the same spiel from Adobe: “$2600 for only $50/month!” is very different from saying “We’re going to charge you $600 for the same product that you can get for a $525 upgrade fee.”

    I have also thought about a stripped down version of Photoshop. (Elements is NOT an option: mostly everything is in 8 bit, ACR is crippled, and it gets in my way, trying to “help” me). They could certainly strip out all the pre-press stuff, CMYK and the like. I was actually liking the way you were talking about until you mentioned a “Cloud” bundle for it. This would really not be acceptable unless it was available as a perpetual license.

    • Great post!

      Mr. Kellby choose $700 option, because he knows, that this is only option, that makes sense about cost.

      For people, who have PS and who upgrade no often then every 18-24 months( majority of us) this CC is much more expensive.

      I am surprised that Mr. Kellby thought, that people will buy his explanation about CC.

  45. Scott, I really appreciate your re-posting the video from the Grid. You presented the case clearly and concisely. Now I have no problem subscribing to the $10 for Photoshop/month. Everything clicked when you or Matt said “Photoshop is a professional tool”. Thanks for removing the group think goggles! – Graham Hedrick

  46. Here is my quick analysis:

    Previous to CS6 I was using CS3. CS3 was (and probably still is) more than adequate for photography work.

    CS3 released APR 16, 2007
    CS6 released MAY 07, 2012

    5 Years between versions

    Cost to Upgrade CS3–>CS6: US$ 199.99

    For the current subscription system
    Year 1: $120
    Year 2: $240
    Year 3: $240
    Year 4: $240
    Year 5: $240

    So for the equivalent period of access to photoshop, Total cost is $1080

    A difference of $880 to me.

    The value proposition for a photographer with his or her own studio trying to keep costs low means this is a cost increase with the only benefit of having the latest version all the time, which is really not necessary (I know guys who still use PS7 along side LR3 or LR4).

    The idea of a “lightroom” is intriguing, but I would rather see LR include a “retouch” or “edit” module as opposed to another app. Make LR fast, and a true photographers tool with a module that even the most creative retouchers can use effectively.

    Additionally, with the 199.99 I spent upgrading to CS6, I have CS6 in perpetuity. For an additional $880 I get access to photoshop for 5 years, a much shorter period of time in comparison

    • John, To be fair, most folks don’t wait 5 years between upgrades. But no matter, CC is still a bad deal for those of us who have upgraded with every release of CS.

  47. Scott, thanks so much for all your efforts to make sense of an unpopular situation. I hope at the very least, Adobe will reconsider not supporting any more CS Photoshop versions. I have absolutely no interest in the cloud or paying a subscription.

    That said, the Photoshop For Photographers or lightshop stripped down app you brought up is PURE GENIUS! If it were a licensed stand-alone app, I would pre-order it right now. Right now! I am a photographer, not a designer, and having a photographer-oriented version of Photoshop would be absolutely fantastic. I and so many photographers I know would purchase it in a heartbeat. As you said, the perfect companion to Lightroom. I gotta pray….

  48. JUST SAY NO

    Boycott Creative Cloud

    Scott has stated why he thinks Creative Cloud is the way forward which is his right to do so. He must feel it works for him which is great.

    It doesn’t take very long to work out that for most users that Creative Cloud will at least double the cost of using Photoshop if your the user who upgrades every second version (about every 2 years).

    The worst thing about Creative Cloud is once your on it you can never stop paying for it because if you do loss access to edit your files.

    We should all tell Adobe no to Creative Cloud this is all about Adobes bottom line if people don’t join, Adobe will have to rethink.

    Contact Adobe tell them why you wont be signing up for Creative Cloud.

  49. The Good:

    The Creative Cloud has the ability to offer so much more than stand alone versions of Lightroom and Photoshop.

    Imagine:

    1. Shooting wirelessly tethered to the cloud. No more card readers. Images are waiting in the cloud.
    2. Viewing, sorting, and editing your photos from anywhere with any device.
    3. Sending and sharing your processed photos with any device.
    4. Subscribing not only for the software, but to be part of an online community. A community where ideas and techniques are shared and really good ones can be made quickly and easily made a available to everyone. For example, if you would like to reproduce the Joel Grimes’ high key look, you currently have to watch a 1 hour tutorial. Imagine building it into Photoshop so that you can reproduce it in several clicks.

    The Bad:

    The Creative Cloud is no where near this sophisticated and offers very little than up-to-date versions of the stand alone software.

    Scott, you have built a business that is intertwined with Adobe. When Adobe makes a dumb move, you are going to take a few lumps. Suck it up and move on. Please, don’t take 35 minutes to vindicate yourself. “The Grid” is a great and informative show. Your viewers don’t find it useful to hear why this isn’t your fault.

    Your idea is a great plug-in for Lightroom, but it simply maintains the current workflow most photographers use. I would rather see Adobe make the cloud really awesome. We are stuck with it.

    • 90% of the time I shoot where there is not only no Internet access but no cell phone access either. So Adobe efforts to link everything via CC don’t help me or most other nature and wildlife shooters.

  50. Regarding your suggestion about having a version of photoshop just for users, how about pulling that functionality into a new “module” in Lightroom. Call it “Advanced” or something. This way it is more integrated.

  51. Regarding your suggestion about having a version of photoshop just for users, how about pulling that functionality into a new “module” in Lightroom. Call it “Advanced” or something. This way it is more integrated.

    • This is bad idea !

      Cost of LR would go up and many LR users do not need this kind of “module” and do not want to pay more.

      This is in the same league like Adobe’s idea of CC.

      You try to force people to pay more for something they do not need and they do not want.

      • They should have long ago set up Lr so it is truly modular. Something that I once thought was their plan back for the beta tests of v1. Sell Lr with Library, Develop and Print. You want the other modules, then you add them al a carte. Priced accordingly. That way, the market can drive pricing and development of the extra modules and we won’t have to have these little quibbles arguing over what should or should not be included. The actual sales of the extra modules would dictate that aspect.

      • Excellent idea.

        We buy what we need, when we need

  52. Remember, Scott, the reason you are trapped in this PR Fiasco with Adobe is Adobe has no PR whatsoever! Their arrogance toward their customers (a.k.a. “The Little People”) is nauseating. But be honest about the costs; once Adobe is cloud-only, they can charge $20, $30, $65 per month!

  53. An additional thought occurred to me last night, even if Adobe loses 25-35% of the ENTIRE Photoshop user base over these changes the large additional revenues generated by the CC will not only replace the lost income but will find Adobe actually coming out ahead by a sizable margin. And we wonder why they are doing this? Bummer.

  54. Strange that no one is asking this — what is Adobe’s motivation for adding features after everyone signs up for the endless subscription?

    There IS none!

    They can simply put all their applications in maintenance mode and lay off all the new feature developers. And what-are-ya-gonna-do-about-it? Stop your subscription? No, because there goes access to all your existing files.

  55. Scott,

    Thank you for the detailed explanation of your position and efforts WRT Adobe CC you and Matt did on The Grid this past Thursday. I admit I was upset with Adobe for the change and with you for what appeared to me to be support or approval of the new CC subscription. I think you did a much better job of explaining things than you did in the Q&A post. I really think you should just delete the Q&A post and replace it with a link to The Grid show.

    Ya know that there is an unwritten rule that bad news should be conveyed in person rather than by email or blog posts. You always do a great job (with a sense of humor) conveying things live or in your training videos.

    • You have no idea what You wrote about.

      Half of The Grid is about Q+A article, hence if Mr.Kelby would remove it, people did not know a clue about subject.
      The article is reference to that Grid.

      And the Author asked us about “Lightshop”, and not about censorship

  56. Thanks to your explanations. More clear to me what they want to do. There are alternatives to PS and that’s where I am going to go. I am a pro photographer; I loathe renting stuff including software. We as consumers can walk away.

  57. Scott

    I was one of the 400+ people who left a comment on your Q&A and my views then and now is that I am against subscription as a principle.

    I have had Photoshop for many years and I have upgraded as and when I think the new set of features warrant an upgrade. Back in the beginning I had PE. However, it was when I would read articles by yourself and your associates that would say this feature or that feature are the reason why I MUST buy Photoshop Version XYZ so I subsequently invested in Photoshop. There have been major changes that have been added to Photoshop over recent years that have made it the must have software for Photographers. I think your idea for a stripped out version of CS just for photographers is an excellent idea. However, in between time tell Adobe to drop the idea of SUBSCRIPTIONS for the upgrade of the basic version of CS6. Remember the vast majority of photographers have been purchasing Photoshop for years are only using 10% of the program.

  58. I’d prefer to have the PS features needed by photographers integrated into LR. This would expedite workflow. LR has, in the course of time, acquired ever more features, so now one has to resort to PS or Nik Software less often than with earlier versions. I’m looking forward to the day when I can do everything within LR.

  59. Scott, I noticed your frustration related to the cloud stuff. This kind of stress over a long period is not good for your health. Glad you have Matt and your wife and others to point you in the right direction. Hey, you got 70,000+ members. At least 10% are suffering from some mental health issues and you have to take that into account. This photoshop is fun stuff and we enjoy your keeping us all informed with your blog.

  60. Hi Scott,

    Just watched the Grid episode 95. I LOVE the idea of LightShop! I’m an enthusiast photographer who has sold a few images, but I do not need the entire CC–in fact I don’t need the entire PS CS6.

    Thanks for your help in explaining the current situation.

  61. I think Adobe’s Creative Cloud pricing is difficult to judge. There are benefits such as the cloud storage that do not come with current CS retail versions. The value of these benefits is different for every user. For some people, these features may be worth nothing (I suspect for a lot of the blog commenters) while they’re worth a lot of money for others.

    I just finished a post that compares how many months of creative cloud membership you get compared to the current retail pricing http://www.mathieuwauters.be/a-look-at-adobes-creative-cloud-pricing/ . For new customers, the creative cloud pricing is very attractive. For existing customers and more specifically for existing Photoshop users, the upgrade price of $200 will “buy” you 16 months of Creative Cloud membership, which is just shy of Adobe’s 18-month update cycle. Again, this is only valid if the CC features carry no additional value. For many pro’s, this may not be the case.

    The argument “Adobe may raise the price of CC membership” is true but flawed. Adobe could raise the price of their product at any time. They could have done so for different CS versions just like they can do it for the Creative Cloud.

    Also, I’d like reiterate my criticism regarding international pricing. A CC membership of $50 per month costs 61 euros in Europe. This is the equivalent of 79 dollars. Especially for digital products, this makes no sense at all.

    Finally, Scott, I’m sorry you’ve had to endure such a storm of negative reactions. I’ve bought and read a lot of your books and I’m really grateful for the continuous stream of tips and training you and the NAPP/Kelby Training team work on. Stealing some marketing lingo, it seems like you were “stuck in the middle” between end consumers and Adobe. :-)

  62. Faustoshop?
    If you are a digital photographer and use Adobe Photoshop to some
    degree to edit your images, think about it. Do you want to subscribe to a
    service that, if you choose to stop the subscription at any time later
    in life, you will lose the capability to further edit those images with
    Photoshop? That is what I understand the terms of Adobe’s new Creative
    Cloud to be. After an introductory 12
    month period, do you really want to be on the hook for $20.00 per month
    – the rate if you now own CS3 or later – for the rest of your life
    (plus increases at Adobe’s discretion) to be able to edit your photo
    files? I can see where this might be beneficial to graphics businesses
    that have multiple employees and using more CS applications than
    Photoshop. But individual photographers? Even we so-called “hobbyists”?
    And what about third parties like authors, trainers, or organizations
    like National Association of Photoshop Professionals? I just cancelled
    my NAPP membership. If I stay with CS6 I don’t need NAPP. I’m thinking
    that Mephistopheles must be lurking the halls in Adobe’s headquarters
    building. Are you feeling tempted?

    • Stan Burman do you really not understand that you are spreading misinformation or are you just a hater? I call FUD.

      a. You don’t have to subscribe. You can buy CS6 right now and edit your photos forever.
      b. More than a dozen photos allow you to open or edit your photographs – even if you decide to save them in PSD format. You will always have access to your pictures.
      c. If you were truly concerned about editing future photos, you’d save your RAW photos which can be – wait for it – wait for it – edited any time in the future using the software that came with your camera or one of the other 12 programs that read RAW files.
      d. If you choose to end your subscription, then you can always re-subscribe for just a month if you want to – if you need access.
      e. It’s $15 a month for the first two years not $20. So the fact that you have to make things sound worse than they are is a hint you’re on the wrong side of the argument.

      But sounds to me like you don’t want facts getting in the way of your rant. I am thinking GIMP (which is free) would be a good alternative for you.

      • Unfortunately FUD is a not a one-way street.

        a. CS6 will NOT be useful or functional “forever”
        b. Can any of those dozen of alternate options adjust a Smart Layer? How many will allow adjusting any layer created in Ps? Can they turn layers on or off? If these options were indeed “options” … we wouldn’t be having this discussion … Ps users would be flocking to those options.
        c. In other words … start from scratch for thousands or tens of thousands of images …
        d. Some folks may consider throwing good money after bad, a less than desirable or unwise task.
        e. CC Pricing is much more than the opening round of discounts. After all … it’s a “perpetual” proposition remember. Bottom line is … Adobe will have ALL the leverage … Users will have less money to call their own. That’s a fact, Jack.

  63. Okay, here’s my Conspiracy Theory… Adobe has been mad at the world ever since Steve Jobs took a pass on allowing Flash to work with the iPad. First they were mad at just Steve, but when everyone started buying iPads, their anger grew, Unable to contain their anger, they are now taking it out on the world by trying to force us to switch to their CC.

    Now, as Scott would tell you, there’s no need to get all riled up about this. It’s only a theory on my part. If you don’t like this one, I have others I can share.

  64. Scott, do you have any insights into Adobe’s market research efforts? I know they have the advisory panel for PS with people like you, Matt, and the others who give them feedback, but I’m wondering if they ever ran this CC concept past regular paying customers, in the form of focus groups or some other formal market research? Because in all honesty, this debacle strikes me as though someone in Adobe is trying to play the role of Steve Jobs, thinking they know what the market wants and needs before the market itself does. The problem, of course, is that few people have the understanding of markets the way Steve did. Adobe has certainly proven that no one in their organization does; they really are out of touch with the market.

    • I know about 18 months ago I participated in a very long Adobe survey that talked about these concepts. Outlined prices, subscription only, mixed licenses, etc. So I know they’ve talked about this internally for a long time. And I wouldn’t be surprised if they repeated that survey to other random people.

      For what it’s worth I was VERY adamant against the subscription approach in my survey answers. When they introduced Creative Cloud I figured they settled on a hybrid approach. I should have realized it was just a transitional measure.

  65. Scott –

    Many, many people have paid for the full version of Photoshop AND upgraded over the years (since the mid-90s for me). I feel the new plan is unfair to regular Photoshop upgraders who have already put a lot of money into Photoshop.

    First, for regular upgraders, the price of upgrading is nearly doubled with Photoshop CC. The previous cost of upgrades was $11 per month ($200 / 18 month product cycle). If you upgraded infrequently, the monthly price was even lower. With Photoshop CC, it will be $20 per month after the first year. So, upgraders are not happy with the large price increase and that this increase was not acknowledged (and even made to sound like Adobe was being reasonable).

    Second, with the new plan we must pay every month or lose use of the current version of Photoshop. No more deciding when we want to upgrade. I hope you can see why this is a big change for Photoshop users and not just people afraid of change.

    As you mentioned, there are other options. But, they are not fair to people who have already put money into Photoshop. I think people would have been much happier if the problems above were acknowledged and we tried to get Adobe to be fair instead being told these are the only options and we just have to deal with it.

    As I posted previously, my solution is a flat $10 per month fee and every $200 in payments locks you into that current version. If you stop payments after that and want to come back at some point, you make up the missed payments. This way you can decide if you want to pay for upgrading on a monthly basis or in a lump sum.

    The bottom line is that regular upgraders would actually be paying less with my plan ($10 per month vs. $11 previously) and everyone would be able to use what they paid for, just as in the past.

    Hope this helps,
    Dan

  66. First, I believe that both you and Matt did a good job of trying to explain what was happening. You both put positive spins on it which I think was good because change is always stressful. Most people think of only the negative. I really like your idea of Lightshop. I think you represent the 70k NAPP members very well! Please do not stop!

    Most people here are not addressing another real issue. That is; if your computer crashes or if you purchase a new computer, there is no way to download any of the previous CS versions if you do not have the CD. I’ve downloaded all but my first version of PS from their website.

    The other issue that most are missing is that at some time in the future when our Operating Systems become absolute, it’s very likely, a new OS may not be compatible with older versions of PS. So, even if we do “own” or have the legacy products, we may not be able to use them forever anyway.

    While I’m not sure that the current options are all the great, I’m hoping the Adobe will hear the outcry and offer we photographers more options which are more amiable.

  67. Hi Scott,
    Thank you so much for the Adobe Tom (Hogarty?) episode and then the Q&A with you and Matt! I sent you a positive tweet and hope you’re feeling better now because you help the community so much.
    I’d appreciate it if you could clarify the following things I still don’t understand:
    (1) LR 5 will be coming out soon so I guess Adobe plans to continue LR on a non-subscription basis. Is that correct?
    (2) You said that for current owners of CS3+ (I have CS6) Adobe was offering a one-year CCS subscription for $10, but I didn’t see it anywhere on Adobe’s website. Could you explain where we go to get it?
    (3) I’d like to not subscribe to the cloud until it’s necessary, but I don’t know when they will stop offering the $10/month subscription. Can you comment on how much longer we have before the $10/month offer is over?

    (4) Tom gave his contact as Tom_lr, but I didn’t understand the rest of it. Could you give his complete contact info (since he offered it, I guess you can) in case you can’t answer my first 3 questions? If you can’t, can you give the contact info of someone else at Adobe who could answer these questions? (Forget about Adobe Chat. They just answer from “the book.”)

    Thank you again!

  68. I do like the idea of adding a photographer-centric version of Photoshop. Personally, I would prefer it to be integrated in Lightroom rather than stand-alone. Due to the concerns others have with pricing, perhaps this could be a step up version of Lightoom or allow the additional module(s) to be purchased separately.

    Photoshop Elements is a confusing product, as I don’t think it has a clear place in the Adobe line-up. It appears to be both their entry level product and an add on for advanced users. I have not played it for some time, but my recollection was that it had too much for beginners and too much overlap for those already using a Raw editor.

    The categories/labels below may not be correct, but hopefully reflect the various levels of interest and investment (both in time and money):

    Casual or beginning photographers = Elements

    Enthusiast = Lightroom only

    Advanced = Lightroom and Elements

    Semi-pro and Pro = Lightroom and Photoshop

  69. Hey Scott, thanks a lot for all the info and for everything else… this made me think about a phrase of a friend: “If you can’t afford it, then you don’t need it” And I think it applies to this very well. But you know there are worse problems than the price… yesterday I call #adobe support because every month I have problems paying my monthly fee, and they say… “the online store has not been activated for mexico”…. so they can’t charge my mexican credit card!!!! isn’t that nice??? heheheh they forgot a whole country! I am now wating for their answer about my case, because they can’t bill me, and they are about to cancel my account… Is not a complaint to you!!!! i am just sharing… i know you’ve had enough of that… Take care guys!!!

Leave a Reply

Close