Why do we have so many issues with software programs

[Rhossydd]

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.

Many of us will have tried FOSS software and given up with it.
You could probably write a couple of thousand words on why the GIMP isn't as good as paid software.
Just as a starter it won't open raw camera files, something Photoshop has done for 20 years. That's a workflow anyone serious about photography takes for granted, even smartphone cameras can deliver raw files now to get the best from their cameras.
Darktable is a low spec copy of Lightroom, again well behind comparable functionality.
The harsh reality is that FOSS is usually ten or twenty years behind the times with respect to features and capabilities.
Whilst it doesn't effect functionality the interfaces are frequently similarly outdated and unduly complex to use.

One aspect people take for granted, or forget, is that every time there's a major new functionality in modern photo software it's backwards compatible. That means that not only are your current final images better, but also you can return to older files and deliver better results than was possible at the time they were taken.
Photography has never been a cost free pursuit, once you could be spending £10/day on film and processing, now you spend a fraction of that on software. It's now really a very small part of the overall cost of photography- cameras, lenses, accessories, computer system....

Yes, you can use FOSS and get reasonable results with some effort and zero expenditure, but why wear the hair shirt and accept second best ?

 

[Rhossydd]

No idea,I've never looked.

Maybe best not to comment on things you don't understand.

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.

There's a LOT more to the library(DAM) function in Lightroom rather just searching for keywords. It's a hugely powerful and massive asset to photo organisation and management.
There's simply no FOSS alternative.

 

[sploo]

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

Yep. That's what I object to. You could have years worth of cash sunk into the product, with loads of work/resources tied up in it, but if the pricing or terms suddenly changed (such that it was unacceptable to you) you're screwed.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I think the old "pay once" software model is thoroughly broken both from the software company and user perspective. An annual cost not dissimilar to a minor car service, call out a plumber to fix a leak, or a family supermarket shop is not a major expense.

Even as hobbyist (let alone business) I suspect many will have spent many times what we spend on license fees on tools, equipment and materials. Businesses accept that paying for quality can be good sense - eg: buy Festool not cheap. Hobbies cost money.

Many software users would happily stick with the familiar software they originally bought possibly 5, 10 or 15 years ago. This is an unsustainable business model for a software company - develop a new product, generate income for 1-3 years, then a financial drought/crisis.

How big a threat a lack of ongoing development would represent may be debatable - but any bugs, security issues, enhancements on launch would remain, and future improvements left unaddressed.

From a user perspective a failure to update software will lead to its failure. Backwards compatibility is a nice theory, may work for one or two generations, but will eventually fail. Informed skilled users will be better equipped to deal with these issues - most will not.

Similarly with data storage - unless a user is prepared to devote the time and develop the skill to ensure storage and back up remains effective (accessible, file formats updated etc etc), it makes sense to use a professional resource.

The only real issue is future reliance upon the software company selected - blithely assuming they will play by the rules in 5+ years time may be naïve, and routine review of alternatives would seem sensible.

 

[sploo]

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.

Louis Rossmann (YouTube) has some great videos on this subject; that companies frequently create situations where a pirated version of the product is actually better than the original. I remember unskippable warnings on DVDs (telling you not to pirate)... that were only present on legal copies, and not on pirates . Then there was the whole saga of audio CDs that didn't conform to the (IRC) Orange Book standard; meaning that they didn't play correctly in some types of CD player... unless you ripped a copy with suitable software then wrote a new disc free from the (deliberately added) corrupt data.

 

[sploo]

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)

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.

I didn't know the map module was broken as I don't use it; but it's a good point.

I was aware of the auth servers issue; though (hopefully) if they took them down then people would kick up enough of a stink that they may make CS6 and LR6 "free" like CS3.

LR CC does indeed keep working (for some definition of working) if you stop paying, but it is basically crippled IMHO.

I am surprised (and impressed) that they've kept the subscription pricing for LR and CS down for many years; so I'll give them that. I just wish there was a way to legally get perpetual installs.

I did look at Luminar some years ago as an alternative to LR, and if I ever upgrade my camera (to one not supported by LR6) then I likely will have to find a solution (I'm not that keen on converting all the raw images to DNG).

 

[Rhossydd]

LR CC does indeed keep working (for some definition of working) if you stop paying, but it is basically crippled IMHO.

YMMV, but even without the develop options Lightroom is worth it just for it's DAM options. I haven't found any standalone DAMs that are as useful and easy to use. That it will continue to work freely is to be commended.

I am surprised (and impressed) that they've kept the subscription pricing for LR and CS down for many years; so I'll give them that. I just wish there was a way to legally get perpetual installs.

You've already pointed out that software packages simply can't carry on forever. Is it really realistic to think that you'll lock up a system without any upgrades to keep a program running for perpetuity ? and that assumes you don't choose to use any unsupported cameras in future.
We need to pay for development and maintenance if we want good software.
It's now almost eight years since LR became a subscription service and the price hasn't increased at all despite inflation. In that time prices more widely have increased by 30%, so the cost of the package has effectively decreased.

 

[sploo]

YMMV, but even without the develop options Lightroom is worth it just for it's DAM options. I haven't found any standalone DAMs that are as useful and easy to use. That it will continue to work freely is to be commended.

You've already pointed out that software packages simply can't carry on forever. Is it really realistic to think that you'll lock up a system without any upgrades to keep a program running for perpetuity ? and that assumes you don't choose to use any unsupported cameras in future.
We need to pay for development and maintenance if we want good software.
It's now almost eight years since LR became a subscription service and the price hasn't increased at all despite inflation. In that time prices more widely have increased by 30%, so the cost of the package has effectively decreased.

Very fair points.

As to the latter; yes, I have machines (admittedly ones not connected to the Internet) running decades old software (e.g. CNC control systems).

I do also have programs that are ~20 years old running on machines with up to date operating systems.

 

[Rhossydd]

As to the latter; yes, I have machines (admittedly ones not connected to the Internet) running decades old software (e.g. CNC control systems).

That's fine as long as you don't want to change anything and everything continues to work.

I do also have programs that are ~20 years old running on machines with up to date operating systems.

I have a few too, they tend to be pretty simple utility software that remains workable with newer OSs, but even that starts getting harder to keep working even with just routine OS updates.

 

[worn thumbs]

Maybe best not to comment on things you don't understand.

There's a LOT more to the library(DAM) function in Lightroom rather just searching for keywords. It's a hugely powerful and massive asset to photo organisation and management.
There's simply no FOSS alternative.

According to my eyes the thread is about software in general and not the abstruse capabilities of one proprietary photographic program.As such I expressed the opinion that it could be worth exploring that world.Your rather rude post is of little help to those who might be seeking alternatives for any activity that is less precisely specified.I supposethe anoraks will always know their particular topic quite well.

 

[sploo]

That's fine as long as you don't want to change anything and everything continues to work.

I have a few too, they tend to be pretty simple utility software that remains workable with newer OSs, but even that starts getting harder to keep working even with just routine OS updates.

That's what VMs are for

(though I don't have anything so old yet that I need to run it on a VM).

 

[Rhossydd]

According to my eyes the thread is about software in general and not the abstruse capabilities of one proprietary photographic program.

You were commenting on a specific program, not a generality.

Your rather rude post is of little help to those who might be seeking alternatives for any activity that is less precisely specified.I supposethe anoraks will always know their particular topic quite well.

I'm not just an "anorak" I'm a professional in the field of electronic imaging. I'm giving my considered advice and observations for others, that it doesn't suit your view doesn't make me 'rude'.

 

[Rhossydd]

That's what VMs are for

(though I don't have anything so old yet that I need to run it on a VM).

Not so useful when software starts to rely on specific hardware capabilities.
I've watched forum threads where users have flailed around trying to get software that relies on GPU capability to run in VMs without any success.
Maybe IT experts can configure VM systems to work like that, but mere mortals are really going to struggle.

 

[sploo]

Not so useful when software starts to rely on specific hardware capabilities.
I've watched forum threads where users have flailed around trying to get software that relies on GPU capability to run in VMs without any success.
Maybe IT experts can configure VM systems to work like that, but mere mortals are really going to struggle.

Oracle VM VirtualBox is pretty good (I've had it running some graphically intensive applications), but it's certainly way slower (than running directly on the host OS), so definitely not ideal.

 

[user 43593]

You were commenting on a specific program, not a generality.

Hmmm... as a one time professional photgrapher with a once substantial investment in Adobe's software, I think they have become driven by avarice. Despite misgivings about the security of software that I had paid almost £2,000 for (Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, InDesign and Premier) I was invited to try creative suite v.1. It was not what I was used to and it seemed overly complicated in use. I persisted trying to learn the foibles of the grouped software applications and was invited to attend an Adobe seminar in London. This was a meeting to tell the lucky invitees that CS2 was being released, despite CS1 being not ready for prime time.

I asked about the support for professional photographers, having used Photoshop since version 2 for all of my pre-press graphic control over technical manuals, ably assisted by Quark Xpress. The response from Adobe was that professional photographers equated to around 100,000 individuals globally and so they were not really a market worth persuing or servicing. The advent of cheap and easy digital photography for the general population was the real prize behind the so-called rationalisation of Adobe's software offering.

My last standalone copy of Acrobat (£630 worth) kept insisting I change to the CC version and as I had owned my Acrobat copy v.11 for a Mac for about 6 months, I was disinclined to move to CC. The tedious advertising to change to CC presaged a day when my standalone version of Acrobat stopped working, which annoyed me greatly. Adobe were unhelpful in that regard. I had a licensed version of Photoshop on an old computer and used that while searching for other software answers. Apple released Aperture which was good in some respects and bad in others but they made my decision for me when the £500 Aperture was dropped and abandoned and given away unsupported for almost free.

My salvation came in the form of Serif software who produced the outstanding Affinity Photo, Affinity Design and Affinity Publisher. I bought a combined licence for all three software titles (including the iPad versions) for about £80 and have not looked back. Regular and useful free updates to the software are another welcome suprise. Anyone waiting almost 15 years for Adobe to overhaul the desperately out of date Illustrator would be envious. In truth Adobe dropped many professional photographers in the soft and smelly. I know many who have voted with their wallets and their feet. The hegemony of the once all conquering 800lb gorilla that was Photoshop, has been broken, and not before time. I dropped Acrobat too and now use PDF Expert so I am free of Adobe. It was their own sharp practices that caused me to get away from their concept of software use.

EDIT: spelling correction

 

[Rhossydd]

The response from Adobe was that professional photographers equated to around 100,000 individuals globally and so they were not really a market worth persuing or servicing.

Welcome to the commercial world.
Professional photography is even less important to Adobe now. Most of their income comes from their software running web commerce.

My last standalone copy of Acrobat (£630 worth) kept insisting I change to the CC version and as I had owned my Acrobat copy v.11 for a Mac for about 6 months, I was disinclined to move to CC. The tedious advertising to change to CC presaged a day when my standalone version of Acrobat stopped working, which annoyed me greatly. Adobe were unhelpful in that regard.

Hardly surprising. I'll bet it wasn't their fault it 'stopped working', but an OS update caused it. Take that up with Apple and their high handed lack of legacy support.

My salvation came in the form of Serif software who produced the outstanding Affinity Photo, Affinity Design and Affinity Publisher. I bought a combined licence for all three software titles (including the iPad versions) for about £80 and have not looked back.

Yes, I fell for the Serif Affinity stuff too. I tried it out, did a few things with it and haven't used it much since. In particular, AP's handling of raw image files is hopeless. Lots of promises, but little more than their old xx Plus series programs.
On Windows 10 CS4 still works fine and PS CS4 and InDesign CS4 are still much better than the Affinity suite.

 

[Spectric]

Who remembers Rawshooter Pro, this was a great piece of software that delivered good results and really worked well. The company was brought out by Adobe and Rawshooter pro became Lightroom with users getting Lightroom for free.

 

[Rhossydd]

he company was brought out by Adobe and Rawshooter pro became Lightroom with users getting Lightroom for free.

Not quite. Lightroom was, and still is, far more fully featured and slicker to use than RSP.
The story I've been told is that RSP was bought by Adobe to gain their highlight recovery and vibrance technology and that's all that passed through to LR.

 

[Spectric]

The guys who wrote RSP I believe actually went on to work for Adobe, it was the RAW processing engine Adobe incorporated in Lightroom . The marketing of RSP was clever, give away a free version and wait before asking £90 for the full pro version which so many did as it was just better than anything else out there at the time.

 

[user 43593]

Welcome to the commercial world.
Professional photography is even less important to Adobe now. Most of their income comes from their software running web commerce.

All too clearly! Where application software is supporting a whole industry, one might easily expect software updates and changes. I for one did not expect crucial software to become unimportant, along with a substantial group of professional users.

Hardly surprising. I'll bet it wasn't their fault it 'stopped working', but an OS update caused it. Take that up with Apple and their high handed lack of legacy support.

A fair point, especially when we have all witnessed Apple dropping widely used facilities like Hypercard, SCSI, Floppy Discs and CD players et al. It was the daily reminder to join CC that made me suspect that Adobe were behind this failure of legitimately purchased and licensed software. My view is that it was underpinned by Adobe's unwillingness to entertain the issue. It is easy to believe Adobe was complicit in killing its own standalone software.

Yes, I fell for the Serif Affinity stuff too. I tried it out, did a few things with it and haven't used it much since. In particular, AP's handling of raw image files is hopeless. Lots of promises, but little more than their old xx Plus series programs.
On Windows 10 CS4 still works fine and PS CS4 and InDesign CS4 are still much better than the Affinity suite.

Other RAW file processing engines were equally attractive, especially considering the unneccesary file handling of LR, which I neither wanted nor needed. I have used DxO, Capture One and Iridient Developer to cover perceived deficiencies in AP. Adobe were pushing their DNG format, presumably in the hope it would become another universal success like PDF format. Leica, Pentax, Casio and Samsung all natively support DNG format. Most camera manufacturers choose not to support DNG files natively.

I was responsible at one time for capturing medical illustrations and the images had to be provably untampered with. Some hardware proofs were implemented and RSA software proofs are common. Generally available cameras from Canon and Nikon do not offer native support for DNG files. The medical file formats often contain far more information than DNG conversions support. Formats such as Dicom, Analyze, Minc and Nifti for example.