Why do we have so many issues with software programs

[paulrbarnard]

I can understand Adobe switching to a secure subscription model. I was a member of a UK photography forum where only one member had a legal copy of Photoshop. All the rest had pirated copies.

You can have a secure license with purchased software too.

 

[paulrbarnard]

They really aren't.
The Affinity suite is undoubtedly good, but they're not as powerful or versatile as the Adobe suite. The poor handling of raw photo files is reason enough never to bother with them. I say that as an owner of the suite and I first used Serif's Page Plus at version 1 in 1993. I've owned several of their packages over the years and they've always disappointed quickly.
The reality is that the Affinity suite is that it is just a re-dress of Serif's old products that go back to the very start of home computing. They've always been amazing value for money, but never been as well featured as the leading companies. You get what you pay for.

DXO is better than Adobe for raw processing, Luminar Neo is better for creative workflow and I use photo supreme for DAM and to glue my workflow together. The combination of the three is better than Adobe (IMHO of course). I also use the topaz product on occasions.
Adobe is just the Microsoft office of the image processing space.

 

[Rhossydd]

DXO is better than Adobe for raw processing,

Sometimes. When DXO doesn't support or fails to recognise a lens the results can be worse than others.
I use DXO for some cameras and lenses, but not all.
I don't find DXO particularly good for post processing generally, it's only strength right now is optical correction. I just run some files through DXO if they'll benefit, then everything goes into Lightroom which is just better for everything else.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Sometimes. When DXO doesn't support or fails to recognise a lens the results can be worse than others.
I use DXO for some cameras and lenses, but not all.
I don't find DXO particularly good for post processing generally, it's only strength right now is optical correction. I just run some files through DXO if they'll benefit, then everything goes into Lightroom which is just better for everything else.

I’ve fortunately not had missing lens combinations with DXO. I tend to just use DXO RAW in my workflow and then Luminar for the creative edit. If I need perspective correction I use that in PhotoLab or film pack for B&W or film conversions. Apart from that I find Neo to be a really nice tool.

 

[Rhossydd]

I’ve fortunately not had missing lens combinations with DXO.

It's an easy thing to miss, especially if you don't use many different lenses.
On day one of using DXO it started throwing up I need to download xxxxxx lens profiles, most of which were correct. Then as I worked through my library I started spotting it trying to download and use incorrect profiles for lenses I don't own and have never used. Applying the wrong profile is worse than no profile at all.
If I'd just clicked OK without checking it would have happily carried on with it's error thereafter.

 

[paulrbarnard]

It's an easy thing to miss, especially if you don't use many different lenses.
On day one of using DXO it started throwing up I need to download xxxxxx lens profiles, most of which were correct. Then as I worked through my library I started spotting it trying to download and use incorrect profiles for lenses I don't own and have never used. Applying the wrong profile is worse than no profile at all.
If I'd just clicked OK without checking it would have happily carried on with it's error thereafter.

I have mainly Minolta and Sony lenses with some Ziess primes so all pretty mainstream.
I just changed my body so it downloaded a few new profiles but no issues to date.
I’ll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the heads up

 

[akirk]

I think this concept of cloud storage does come down to trust, I still have issues with using it no mater what they preach. In very simple terms do you trust having a storage medium you can handle and see or something somewhere else that you cannot see ? The bonus these days is that storage is cheap, therefore there is no excuse for not backing up data to multiple storage devices and keeping them in multiple locations and just comes down to self discipline plus how much value you place on the data. If you feel it is of very high value then it is worth looking at setting up a NAS system using redundant arrays and again everything is within your control, personally I like the WD drives and use these in my PC's and for external USB devices the Toshiba devices are good.

Yes, there needs to be trust, but it is an unusual person who manages their own backup / resilient storage better than one of the main cloud companies.
Multiple units - each with no individual resilience / multiple locations meaning that you have to put effort into maintaining them, or checking that they are working / the vast majority of people in these situations do no restoration testing / backup resilience comes from duplication which is rarely instant, often daily / weekly or monthly, leaving huge chunks of data not secure...

In nearly 40 years of IT I have seen loads of issues in home and amateur / small business systems, disks failing / RAID systems not configured correctly / NAS systems with proprietary encryption failing / off-site locations not backing up as expected / an inability to restore when needed / etc. etc. I have in that time never seen or had to deal with an issue from cloud storage.

It also depends on where you enjoy spending your time - I have zero interest in spending it all on backups and making sure that they are resilient - pay a fee and hand it all over to someone else...

 

[sploo]

I can understand Adobe switching to a secure subscription model. I was a member of a UK photography forum where only one member had a legal copy of Photoshop. All the rest had pirated copies.

Given that the last versions of Lightroom and Photoshop (that could be purchased outright) needed to be registered on an Adobe website during installation I'd suggest that anyone with a cracked copy would be able to obtain a cracked copy of the more recent subscription versions.

(I'm speaking as someone who bought Photoshop CS6 at full price, happy that that future upgrades would be cheaper... just as they moved to the subscription model )

 

[Spectric]

I'd suggest that anyone with a cracked copy would be able to obtain a cracked copy of the more recent subscription versions.

They solved the issue of piracy by moving the key from the user end software to there servers for activation just like Microsoft and windows. A lot of new software will use the TPM chip to deliver cryptographic keys to allow your programs to run and the TPM chip is a must have for windows 11 so you get the gist of where we are heading. Some of this in theory should be good because if everyone is legit and paying then the cost should be less but will this be the case.

The last version of Adobe I used was CS6 but as far as I was aware back then there were no upgrade paths to the latest versions, I had to move onto the rental scheme. But is a tenner a month asking to much for both photoshop and Lightroom, that is just £120 a year for the latest versions.

 

[Rhossydd]

is a tenner a month asking to much for both photoshop and Lightroom, that is just £120 a year for the latest versions.

Compared to upgrading comparable software, it's a bargain.
The smart move is to buy the annual licence package when it's reduced. This year an annual package cost £70 on Black Friday, for a few days last year you could get it for £42. You can also buy multiples and 'stack' them sequentially, so I'm sorted until 2028.

 

[Keith Cocker]

You can have a secure license with purchased software too.

Didn’t seem to stop piracy then!!

 

[paulrbarnard]

Didn’t seem to stop piracy then!!

Pretty much all modern SW phones home to confirm the license is valid and not in use on other computers. This is independent of subscriptions.

 

[sploo]

They solved the issue of piracy by moving the key from the user end software to there servers for activation just like Microsoft and windows. A lot of new software will use the TPM chip to deliver cryptographic keys to allow your programs to run and the TPM chip is a must have for windows 11 so you get the gist of where we are heading. Some of this in theory should be good because if everyone is legit and paying then the cost should be less but will this be the case.

The last version of Adobe I used was CS6 but as far as I was aware back then there were no upgrade paths to the latest versions, I had to move onto the rental scheme. But is a tenner a month asking to much for both photoshop and Lightroom, that is just £120 a year for the latest versions.

No one can ever "solve" the piracy problem though; if the program can be written, then it can be modified to not require the key/activation.

My issue with the subscription/rental model is that it can be changed underneath you on the whim of the vendor. In theory, I could keep using PS CS6 and LR6 "forever", and those tools don't change without my approval.

Adobe specifically said they were not going to move Lightroom to the subscription model... then they did. I wouldn't actually object to the cost of PS+LR (I think £120 a year is not at all unreasonable); it's simply that I don't trust them over the long term.

If there were a model whereby after, say, a year of paying the subscription you could stop paying and would be stuck on the last version you downloaded, I'd be all over it. Ironically, I'd likely then keep paying them £120 per year for the upgrades; but safe in the knowledge I wouldn't lose all access to the tools if they suddenly decided to change the terms or significantly increase the price.

 

[paulrbarnard]

No one can ever "solve" the piracy problem though; if the program can be written, then it can be modified to not require the key/activation.

My issue with the subscription/rental model is that it can be changed underneath you on the whim of the vendor. In theory, I could keep using PS CS6 and LR6 "forever", and those tools don't change without my approval.

Adobe specifically said they were not going to move Lightroom to the subscription model... then they did. I wouldn't actually object to the cost of PS+LR (I think £120 a year is not at all unreasonable); it's simply that I don't trust them over the long term.

If there were a model whereby after, say, a year of paying the subscription you could stop paying and would be stuck on the last version you downloaded, I'd be all over it. Ironically, I'd likely then keep paying them £120 per year for the upgrades; but safe in the knowledge I wouldn't lose all access to the tools if they suddenly decided to change the terms or significantly increase the price.

This is exactly the point. Once you start paying you can’t stop even if they double the price.

 

[Spectric]

If there were a model whereby after, say, a year of paying the subscription you could stop paying and would be stuck on the last version you downloaded, I'd be all over it. Ironically, I'd likely then keep paying them £120 per year for the upgrades; but safe in the knowledge I wouldn't lose all access to the tools if they suddenly decided to change the terms or significantly increase the price.

That is the issue when you rent the software it and will only I think get worse once the TPM chip is fully implemented because the vendor has the power to activate and control the version releases and who knows what else, maybe we are all to suspicous of these big companies.

 

[Sideways]

maybe we are all to suspicous of these big companies.

With good reason !
If you're not, you're either just not old enough or lived a charmed life.

 

[Rhossydd]

I could keep using PS CS6 and LR6 "forever", and those tools don't change without my approval.

Well L6 is already broken. The map module's licence from Google has expired, so it doesn't work without significant hacks.
You're also at the mercy of Adobe continuing to authenticate the software via their activation servers if you ever need to re-install assuming it continues to work on newer OSs.
(In fairness they made CS3 available in perpetuity when the decided to turn off those activation servers)

If there were a model whereby after, say, a year of paying the subscription you could stop paying and would be stuck on the last version you downloaded, I'd be all over it. Ironically, I'd likely then keep paying them £120 per year for the upgrades; but safe in the knowledge I wouldn't lose all access to the tools if they suddenly decided to change the terms or significantly increase the price.

As I understand it, if you stop subscribing the only thing you loose is the ability to use the develop module and the map module.
All the other modules continue to work, so you don't loose access to you original files, you can import new files to the library and can export and print 'developed' images. I'd assume you won't be able to import file formats that the last subscribed version didn't support, but you could import JPGs, TIFFs and raws from supported cameras (even if you couldn't edit them in the dev module*) etc.
I think that very fair and reassuring in the long term.

*Whether cutting and pasting XMP data could work for new basic edits would be an interesting experiment. As that worked for adding some unsupported options to LR6

So far Adobe have played very fair with subscription. They haven't put their prices up and have continued to innovate and deliver great new features.
I think there will be price changes soon judging by the market research they've been doing, but I'm not unduly concerned it will be terrible for my usage.
If you think Adobe are not to be trusted and a worry, go look at what Phase One have been doing to Capture One. They've been an absolute car crash of price gouging, changing direction and failing to innovate. C1 used to be my regular alternative raw convertor, but I've not fired it up for three years now.

 

[worn thumbs]

It might be time for some of you to explore FOSS software.As an example,what do the photography buffs need to do that GIMP won't do? GIMP It might mean looking for a menu in a different place.

 

[Spectric]

I would say that the one big plus point for Lightroom is that it is essentially a database that allows you to store and manage your photos with attached keywords. These make retrieving images with certain criteria very easy, ie with the right keywords you can look for all images of waterfalls taken in wales in winter which is great if you have a large stock and need to respond to customer request. Does GIMP handle this aspect of photography.

 

[worn thumbs]

I would say that the one big plus point for Lightroom is that it is essentially a database that allows you to store and manage your photos with attached keywords. These make retrieving images with certain criteria very easy, ie with the right keywords you can look for all images of waterfalls taken in wales in winter which is great if you have a large stock and need to respond to customer request. Does GIMP handle this aspect of photography.

No idea,I've never looked.Probably not,but I suspect even a browser would have some capabilities in this respect.A search function will locate keywords if somebody has taken the trouble to put them there.