File: IMG_5149.png (116 KB)

116 KB PNG

That’s an impressive effort of losing all your business.

It is a good thing when these behemoth companies hire folks to maximize profits with the end result being that the competition is able to move in to the market segment and cash in because the consumers are having none of it. eBay has taken the same route by squandering their monopoly by finding creative ways to squeeze more out of the remaining sellers with the result that niche markets are able to thrive. Whatever Adobe does to fix the mess they have put themselves in will not be a cheaper and better product, but rather even more creative ways to attempt to fleece their customers because they never admit to having gone too far and it is always blamed on some external factor because the people behind these policies are unable to make any mistakes and in the rare event that they do admit it it is already too late and the ones responsible are already hired in a new behemoth of a company where they repeat the process.

>>4484621

I've been a paying member for years, today I go to cancel my plan and there is an exit fee?
I cant wait for other companies to move in and replace them.

>>4484631
It's because you picked a yearly subscription and chose to pay monthly. You get a discount for taking the yearly plan.

When you cancel early they convert the previous months to the monthly plan and charge you the discount you received.

People have complained about this for like a decade btw.

What happened now? I was about to pay for lightroom and photoshop if there was a black friday discount and move on from my 2017 editions.

lmao im still using cs5 or whatever version i torrented for free from thepiratebay many years ago

>>4484617
What did Abobe do this time?
>>4484631
You'll probably be less upset at other companies if you start learning how to read

File: animebetrayal.png (385 KB)

385 KB PNG

>>4484631
>there is an exit fee
What the fuck lmao

>>4484652
You can still easily find newer versions. I use PS 2024 and LR 2025, the only thing that's unavailable is a handful of ai features but who cares anyway. The ai masking and denoising still work offline and except for content-aware fill which is blocked it's the only ai features worth having.
Plus now Affinity is available for free

>>4484663
>You can still easily find newer versions
You still need to use Blows 10 or 11

File: based-uh-hello-based-department.gif (417 KB)

417 KB GIF

>>4484652
>still using Photoshop 7 from 2005 or whatever the fuck

>>4484662
>buy annual plan (for discount), billed monthly
>surprised with fee when trying to cancel mid-year
no wonder you guys are so retarded with money

>>4484668
I've never paid for software though, so no inconvenience whatsoever

>>4484669
>I'm poor
That's okay, maybe one day you'll make it out of poverty

>>4484668
>mid year
nigger, its almost december

>>4484670
I'm not I just avoid spending money on stupid shit when I can get them for free. Why does that make you upset, are you a codemonkey?

>>4484672
I would call it a woman moment, but that might be just what he wants to hear.

>>4484671
>annual subscription means Jan-Dec
See, you guys are that dumb about money
>>4484672
It doesn't make me upset, you aren't fooling me about being poor though lol

File: harold.jpg (148 KB)

148 KB JPG

>>4484682
>you guys are that dumb about money
>proceeds to fall for marketing memes and pays for things that are free

>>4484682
>you aren't fooling me
Holy cope
I bet you don't even make 6 figures

I can only imagine paying for Adobe because I never did. If you are not a pro, it's retarded.

It's a shame Affinity is too basic for RAW editing, now that it's free.
I fail to see why anyone would bother even pirating Adobe products in this day and age. There's an alternative for everything there.

>>4484702
>I fail to see why anyone would bother even pirating Adobe products in this day and age.
I use Lightroom since 2012.

>>4484702
>I fail to see why anyone would bother even pirating Adobe products in this day and age
LR is pretty neat though, what's wrong with it?

Not only did they increase the price recently, they are also introducing credits for generative processing.

As a photoshop user of nearly 20 years, it really pisses me off that they have gone in this direction instead of working on the fundamentals of the programme, which are in dire need of updating. You would expect them to have the very finest sharpening software in the main programme, but instead they made it a plugin and you have to pay even MORE to make it work? Get bent !

>>4484701
its like 15 dollars a month homie, get a job.

>>4484734
And 5 years later after paying 5x12x15 or 900 and owning nothing now what? Pay another 900 over the next 5 years?

Also you’ll be paying a lot more if you want anything more than the most basic plan.

It’s just not worth it at all anymore.

>>4484735

Also don’t forget the $120 to cancel your plan after 5 years

>>4484735
>900 and owning nothing now what

I guarantee that, if I gave you 900 dollars right now, in five years time you would have nothing to show for it

>>4484701
Im a pro and it is still retarded. I get a free subscription through work and I use GIMP instead on my personal computer.

File: jeeves-wooster.gif (1 MB)

1 MB GIF

>>4484738
>Im a pro
>I use GIMP instead on my personal computer

>>4484734
Are you an Adobe employee? Your arguments are pretty repetitive.

>>4484742
I have posted once.
Seems like others agree.
If you cant afford 10-15 dollars every four weeks of your life, you seriously need to change your life.

>>4484743
This is your mind on adverts

>>4484743

Now explain why adobes share price has dropped 40% over the last year.
Consumers are not agreeing with you…

>>4484741
For the past ten or fifteen years I have made my living with adobe slop. I am not putting that bloatware on my personal property. Gimp can reasonably do anything a “personal” project requires. Sunk cost permeates this entire board.

>>4484743
Its cheaper than that, I buy the year subscription for LR + PS + 1TB of Creative Cloud off NewEgg/Best Buy for $70-90 around this time of year for Black Friday.

The problem is that its not as good as it used to be. I tried DXO PhotoLab and it supported more of my lenses (Pentax, so my fault here) + I preferred the crop/horizon tools on it and the auto edits were a lot better than LR which often had me fucking around with the sliders more than I wanted to. I also liked the ability to render according to a specific camera body or even film (Fuji Astia/Provia/Velvia 100 or Kodakchrome). The only thing I missed was AI Subtract which sometimes has saved a photo when something is in the composition I don't like (like a person or plant/object).

I actually found it to be much easier/faster, the edits it automatically applied got me 95% there vs LR getting me 70% there (often switching to Adaptive Color profile or similar to get a look I want). I often shoot with CCD shitters too that have lots of grain above ISO400 so the denoise is used in LR.

The problem is that's $200 and they release a new one every year...mind you that's with it on sale since I'm shopping around for a LR replacement. CaptureOne and TopazAI are the same price.

>>4484617
I still use CS6.5. That and gimp which I'm starting to prefer for some tasks.

Adobe, they take your shit and still make you pay for it

>>4484743
>If you cant afford 10-15 dollars every blah blah

If you think that is an argument, you seriously need to change YOUR life.

>>4484743
I can afford that, however I don't want to spend that. I am cheap not poor. Know the difference, bitch.

>>4484855
Only if you're fucking new to the world and you don't just pirate it. Anyone who has paid that fucking awful company for a year has already paid them enough to morally justify pirating their monopolyware for the rest of your life. Bonus is that a cracked version running fully blocked from the internet doesn't give them a single fucking bit of your data. Haxnode's releases are the only way to run Adobe clean & get what you paid the bastards for.

>>4484886
That fucking awful JEET company

>>4484795
>I also liked the ability to render according to a specific camera body
Isn't it included in LR? I have default development profiles specific for each of the cameras I've used

I have disdain for things I can't own and can only rent. I don't have Lightroom for this reason.

I paid $200 for capture one last year. I accurately predicted that not one single camera worth buying would be released after the z5ii (nikon a7iii) so the lack of upgrades doesn’t bother me. The only bad thing is the zoomed out previews hide noise like purple shadow casts that zoomed out exported images dont (with lower end cameras - images are identical 1:1). I wish they’d fix that and add whatever trick that is to the export dialog, but they mostly target high end gear users so they probably won’t.

>>4484672
You aren’t getting it for free, you’re stealing it.

File: 84331738046.jpg (74.7 KB)

74.7 KB JPG

>>4484939

>>4484939
oh noooooo what will Adobe ever do!

>>4484939
Copying isn't stealing

>Stealing bananas isnt stealing! More bananas will grow!

Except you're stealing money from the farmer, so he cant pay his farm workers, and suddenly there's no fucking bananas.

>>4484946
This is bait.

>>4484946
Copying is not stealing. If you give me a banana, it is physically my banana. If you want money give me another. I will not rent a banana I physically own. I am free to plant a banana tree or give my banana away.

Intellectual property is an oxymoron. Like all evil concepts, it was invented by the french, supported by the english, ignored by the chinese, and strengthened by the jews. So you know it’s bull.

>>4484946
IP is rent seeking aka morally wrong and societally destructive
https://old.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/17xpjrc/housing_cost_of_living_and_inflation_crisis_rent/
IP creates wealth for one person by taking it from another. There is no wealth generation. Adobe is taking your money. That is it. They do not have to actually do work or create value. You are a tenant. They are your parasite.

Usury and rent seeking are the two horsemen of the apocalypse. There are no other two.

>but you must be marxist if-
I do not believe anyone HAS to be ethically consistent with a philosophy. We can have free markets and ban rent seeking. We can have free markets and execute anyone who grows or sells marijuana in public. Same concept. Libertarians despise both, but I despise libertarians. Marxists despise me, and I don’t count them as human.

>>4484948
>Copying is not stealing.
Copying IS stealing. You are literally benefitting from the product of someones labour for free and making it harder for them to produce more. But you can convince yourself of whatever communist nonsense you like if it makes you feel less morally anxious.

>>4484949
>Give me stuff for free! Making me pay for stuff you made is wrong !

Awful little commie jackasses. No, if you want to take advantage of the stuff people worked hard to make you can PAY UP and like it.

>>4484950
>i sold you something, and now you’re doing what you want with it? BUT I WANT MORE FUCKING MONEY YOU FUCKING COMMUNIST! GIVE ME MORE MONEY!
Rent seeking is parasitic behavior.

If you wanted more money you should have raised the price. Owning someone elses property for "moral good" IS communism. Not respecting your non-right to be a faggot is not.

Data once handed over is the property of the recipient.

>>4484951
If adobe wants more money they should raise the price.

Oh, they cant contribute enough value to charge more?
Then the go out of business for being bad at making software.

Problem solved.

>>4484953
>companies that spend too much money to make bad software should go under instead of engaging in rent seeking
Noooo think of their shareholders! So many trust fund kids would have to… GET JOBS! Or cut their losses and invest in competitors! This is violent antisemitism! You’re a communist nazi!

Creative work

>>4484952
>Data once handed over is the property of the recipient.
Photoshop is a tool, not just "data". Its like hiring a powertool. You pay to use it, and in return its constantly maintained and upgraded. If you dont like it, hey, you can always go out and buy a manual drill. Or do what you do and steal a drill from someones truck...

File: Screenshot 2025-11-26 at 3.16.37 PM.png (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB PNG

>>4484909
I don't think LR lets you do the same, but this lets me apply color profiles that specific cameras might have (re: color science) or film simulations (Fuji Provia/Velvia/Astia 100). Only NX Studio for Nikon let you do similar. I might be wrong.

>>4484946
not the hecking poor multi million dollar company nooo

>>4484958
>The farmer is rich! He will always be rich!

More commie nonsense.

>>4484956
I don’t know how to break it to you but photoshop is data. Its valueless. Once copied it can be copied again and each copy is someone elses property. Adobe uses this bullshit business model and immoral legal crap to get rich off comparatively little work. Like a landlord.

Piracy is not theft. It is justice.

If they want more money they can stop giving data away or make the new data better enough to purchase. Things that are worth NOTHING are not perfectly profitable products. If piracy offsets their sales their mere data is too shit for the convenience to be worth their price so they should lower prices if not go out of business so competitors can enjoy more customers.

But you’re a boot licking cuck so you’ll disingenuously defend the heel or your neck to no end

>>4484960
Adobtb isn’t a farmer. Its a service company that does what others will do for free. Their service is providing something of no real value. A more convenient way to copy the data they already gave to everyone else.

Oops. Bad business model.

Are you midwits seriously having this gay argument here? Copying data =/= theft, and don't even bother with the cliche "muh lost sale" cope. Use your brain this time.

File: scan0116.jpg (817.9 KB)

817.9 KB JPG

Here is why I am done with photoshop.
This is my original film photo.

File: banana1.png (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB PNG

>>4484979

This is the exact same photo edited in googles banana image editor that took me about 10 seconds to do.
I can edit anything to it in 5 seconds by just typing a sentence what I want done.
Why on earth would I pay adobe when this tool exists for free?

And yes this is extreme, its just to show how powerful it is, it does subtle stuff even better.

File: aa1.png (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB PNG

>>4484980

File: yhnrtyj.png (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB PNG

This google software is actually pretty good for editing

>>4484984

if thats not good enough for you, you are pretty fussy and it can do the edits in seconds.

File: 1585260817303.jpg (23.5 KB)

23.5 KB JPG

>>4484951
>stuff people worked hard to make
>Adobe Inc.

File: setting-profile-selection[1].jpg (398.8 KB)

398.8 KB JPG

>>4484957
Camera raw has always had camera matching profiles, or at least for the last 15 years. It also allows to create custom ones and proposes several in-house profiles. You can apply whichever you want by default depending on the camera type and/or model used to take the photo

>>4484997
LR camera profiles have never worked. At least not for Nikon cameras.
I was shocked when I tried NX Studio.
Sadly NX doesn't have any good masking features.

File: image.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4485001
There are some differences in contrast and wb but honestly they're tiny, Adobe does a good job reproducing these color profiles. I'm quite sure that the processing completely annihilates these differences, and in any case you can also make your own profile if you don't like whatever premade shit adobe proposes.
You can pick whatever software you prefer but I wouldn't say LR doesn't offer the ability to use good camera profiles.

>>4484980
>>4484979
>AI photo editing
>Waves are different shapes
>Break in water is different shape
>Sky is completely generated
>Everything is artificially smoothed
>Background wave erased
>Only element that remained was the rock
>look at muh awesome photos guise!
Bruh just generate an image from scratch at this point baka. There's exactly one element of the photo that remained somewhat accurate, you may as well had just gen'd it from a prompt.
Not only that, it clearly looks AI as well so there's no way you're passing that off as anything but.

File: scan0149g.jpg (4.6 MB)

4.6 MB JPG

>>4485004

ok here is a more natural example, this photo was kind of boring.

File: 55.jpg (201.8 KB)

201.8 KB JPG

>>4485006

I added some interesting foreground elements and some nice fluffy summer clouds. Thats quality editing and would of taken ages in photoshop. Make no mistake people do this in photoshop too, this is just quicker.

>>4485007
Looks like shit. Pixel peeping is now based and reveals AI lies.

>>4485011
its not ai, thats my photo I took with some minor editing adjustments.
This is a ship of theseus situation but I would not be calling this AI at all, its my photo.

>>4485013
>Takes photo
>inserts random gubbins that wasn't there to begin with at all with AI
>its not ai
Anon...

>>4485007
>I added
You didn't do shit, ai did it all for you

>>4485001
They do work though, they just aren't identical
NX studio is the only way to get exact, but that's because it's a proprietary conversion
Same is true for other brands and other software
Good thing there's no reason to use NX if you have LR anyways

>>4485007
This is an abomination.

>>4485007
I don't think thats how clouds work.

>>4484997
Camera matching doesn't let you apply the profile for other brands/models onto photos taken with one model. That screenshot I uploaded was for a photo taken with a Pentax K200D but I could still apply the color profiles for a Canon, Nikon, Sony, other Pentaxes, etc. NX Studio let you do the same.

File: image.png (525.8 KB)

525.8 KB PNG

>>4485062
Even though I fail to see the point of doing that, I'm pretty sure that you can simply copy the profile you're interested in into your custom profiles folder

File: 1200x630bb.jpg (80.4 KB)

80.4 KB JPG

>>4484980
>>4484981
>>4484984
>>4485006
>>4485007

>>4484979
>>4484980
>>4484981
Imagine going out and shooting on film and going through all the effort just to load your image into fucking google AI and turn it all into a completely different and worse image.

>>4485066
Actually I looked it up and there's also an option to do it semi-automatically via File > Import profiles, and then there's a list of 971 cameras each having multiple profiles in the ProgramData folder (for windblows)

>>4485062
Ah, so you don't know how to edit

>>4484980
>>4485007
Are.. are you Ken Rockwell? Did your AI train directly from Ken Rockwell? I haven't seen oversaturated crap like this in ages.

>>4485090
>id your AI train directly from Ken Rockwell
Fuck that's actually quite possible

>>4484617
So, what's new in 2026?

>>4485081

i mean yeah no shit i'm just giving anecdotal advice on lightroom vs dxo photolab i never said i was good i just said i found it easier/faster to use

im a amateur who mostly shoots friends/family and vacation photos it should be intuitive and easy to use for retards like me otherwise you'll have people still paying $2000 to shoot jpegs sooc out of a fuji x100vi or worse saying their iphone takes better pictures than a actual apsc/ff camera with glass.

>>4485070

i might try it, still considering half renewing my LR sub for $70 for the year. i usually like canon 5d classic/mk2 colors to the point im keeping a running search of one on facebook marketplace (i mostly shoot pentax or minolta a-mount)

>>4485230
Find a pirated copy and be done with it

>>4484617
>what's new in 2026
maybe they will enhance their software startup times. something happened in 2025 beacuse nowadays it can take up to 30 seconds to start ps/indesign/illustartor/afterfx/premiere.

>>4485400
Gotta load the spywares

>>4484617
fuck adobe. biggest jeet scam company there is.

I hate adobe but do any of the alternatives come close to lightroom and photoshop? I figure if we're already slaves to corporate america, what's one more subscription if it means not capping myself in the knees

>>4485564
C1 is great, but I've not found anything to replace Photoshop as well, so I pay for both and just don't use LR at all lol

lightroom is $60 for the year goyim

https://www.newegg.com/adobe-photoshop-lightroom-cc-plan-1-year-subscription/p/N82E16832505516?Item=N82E16832505516

>>4485818

And 10 years later after paying $600 owning nothing and losing all your catalogs when you stop using it, then what?

>>4485832
Then I will only have spent 600 dollars and never had to worry about upgrading once for a whole decade?

>>4485832
Can we see some of your 10 year old photos?

File: 2940463076310.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4485858
Not him but I could've said the same thing, here's one from november 2011

>>4485933
And this is a photo that's very important for you to maintain LR catalog compatibility with going forward?
You often go back and make further adjustments to it, and re-make the JPGs?

>>4485968
Not often but it happens. I actually won a small contest with a photo from this series.
I don't pay for LR though so whatever

>>4485992
lol good unrelated anecdote then

>>4485993
>unrelated
There's a higher chance to go back and reedit meaningful photos. Stop coping.

>>4484666
It just works.
I'm sticking with m0krus that I got a few years ago, Adobe hasn't had a single major update since CS6, so you aren't really missing out.

Next time I might just move over to Affinity on the Photoshop domain. Premier already lost me to Resolve.

>>4484980
>>4484981
>>4485007
If you didn't tell us this was AI, we wouldn't be able to tell. That's how far these models have advanced.
Everyone ITT making fun of them would be fooled by these rather minor touch-ups. All of the criticism you see is faux-intellectual virtue signalling.

>>4485007
you've made it so much worse...so sad

File: 1750309540855697.gif (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB GIF

>>4487164
I hope you get an intervention for this psychosis.

File: images.jpg (19.5 KB)

19.5 KB JPG

>>4484939
>You wouldn't download a camera.
lmao

More than ever, it is morally correct to pirate Adobe products : https://www.theverge.com/news/842256/adobe-2025-earnings-ai-growth

>>4484670
>flexes getting duped like a fool
Especially if you have money it even more retarded to spend it on software, lmao.

>>4490037
What should we be spending money on?
Why is buying software bad?

>>4490037
>>4490146
Buying things is fine. Reasonable purchases are the hallmark of a functioning capitalist society.
The more docile take is that Adobe hasn't added anything meaningful since CS5 and uses a predatory and overpriced model to squeeze consumer dry while offering few reasons to upgrade or subscribe. Since you can't (legally or through first-party channels) get a hold of older versions for less money, new users are stuck in this late-stage shithole that is Adobe subscriptions.
>inb4 buying things bad
Buying terrible value products is bad.

>>4490151
>The more docile take is that Adobe hasn't added anything meaningful since CS5
Sounds more like early versions of Photoshop are fine for normies, but they have definitely added a lot since then.
Their pricing model is cheaper than it was historically, like with CS5, and more accessible now. All things considered, it's still relatively cheap for how much time I use it.
Older versions were more expensive. The only price increase for me has been within the last year, going from $10/month to a whopping $15/mo.

If it's bad value for you, don't get it. But saying it's bad value in general is very silly.

Thank you, Shantanu Naharayaniyenu.