Confused with Adobe offerings....?

[JohnP]

Have been look at Adobe PS - looks like you can no longer purchase this & need to subscribe to a cloud based offering... Looking at prices it looks like you can get Photoshop & Lightroom for around £8/ month which isn't too bad considering what stand alone version of PS used to cost but you can also purchase any of the individual Adobe products (including PS) for £17/month... uhhhh!

Am I missing something here - Is there £8/month version a reduce prog?

Would be interested to know if anyone has gone this route?

Thks,  John

[MarkH]

John I got a download version of PS from amazon last year for £19 no subs. That is running fine.

[Carole]

I've read on other forums John that you can't buy it any more and can only rent it for £8 per month, so I presume that £8 buys what you need for Astrophotography.

I'm still using my CS3 I purchased several years ago and will continue to do so until I have no choice i.e. I get a new operating system at some point in the future that it won't install on, currently using W7. 

Carole

[MarkS]

So, you can only rent it now - how interesting.  £8/month (£100/year) isn't so unreasonable when compared with the crazy prices they used to charge - i.e. CS6 currently costs £1200 on Amazon.  It means the massive entry barrier to using Photoshop has been taken away. 

I still dislike Photoshop because it can't be used for stacking and because (when I last looked) the "curves" and "levels" functions change the R:G:B ratios for star colours, giving stars the wrong colour and draining all colour from brighter stars.  That's why I still use Iris for the bulk of my processing.  However there are some Photoshop functions that could potentially be useful.

Mark

[JohnP]

Well that's what I thought £8/ month isn't too bad...

[Carole]

I still dislike Photoshop because it can't be used for stacking and because (when I last looked) the "curves" and "levels" functions change the R:G:B ratios for star colours, giving stars the wrong colour and draining all colour from brighter stars.

That would explain my lack of star colour.

Carole

[Mike]

It would indeed Carole. Your stars always come out pink instead of white.

[RobertM]

I still dislike Photoshop because it can't be used for stacking and because (when I last looked) the "curves" and "levels" functions change the R:G:B ratios for star colours, giving stars the wrong colour and draining all colour from brighter stars.  That's why I still use Iris for the bulk of my processing.  However there are some Photoshop functions that could potentially be useful.

Mark

Photoshop can be used for stacking, well at least the online version can.  Not sure about the star colours though, you're right about the washed out colour effect, as to whether it's been improved in the new version - who knows!

Robert

[Carole]

Your stars always come out pink instead of white.

But we are talking about lack of colour rather than pink instead of white, I still don't have an answer to what you are talking about as yet, I just load them up and stretch them so not sure why. 

Carole

[MarkS]

Most imagers who use PS end up with no star colour.  However some succeed: I seem to remember Olly writing that he iteratively does a bit of "curves" adjustment then an increase in saturation then curves then saturation until it looks right. To me that is an admission that PS is the wrong tool or a tool being used in the wrong way.  There is a whole chapter, "Intensifying Colour", in the book "Lessons from the Masters" devoted to the subject.  Complicated techniques to get round a fundamental issue that should not exist in the first place. However PS does have some HDR functionality so I wonder if it also has some specific HDR dynamic range compression that does not destroy colour.

Mark

[Mac]

CS6 currently costs £1200 on Amazon.  It means the massive entry barrier to using Photoshop has been taken away. 

Adobe used to do a creative suite which was a collection of all of their software on a 30 day free trial, if you google for that you should still be able to find it and download it. Save the huge cost just to try it out only to find they have not fixed the so called issues.

Mac.

[Kenny]

Has anyone tried LightZone? Apparently a free, opensource, digital darkroom alternative to Lightroom. Only discovered it this evening.

[Les R]

Have been look at Adobe PS - looks like you can no longer purchase this & need to subscribe to a cloud based offering... Looking at prices it looks like you can get Photoshop & Lightroom for around £8/ month which isn't too bad considering what stand alone version of PS used to cost but you can also purchase any of the individual Adobe products (including PS) for £17/month... uhhhh!

Am I missing something here - Is there £8/month version a reduce prog?

Would be interested to know if anyone has gone this route?

I went the student / teacher route and currently on my second year. I renewed in the black Monday (or was it Friday!) sales. I think its costing me £12 a month for ALL adobe products.

I have a son doing A level Photography, Art and ICT so its justified (and valid). Ive never been asked to prove eligibility for the license and download either.

Be warned though, My first time, I think it cost me £14 a month, which on renewal date (without the offer I found) theyd bumped to £21.

All works fine, though Id prefer to "own" the software.

[MarkS]

Just noticed this on SGL.

Users (including Olly) are reporting that layer masking functionality may have changed in Photoshop CC, compared with previous versions:
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/238061-photoshop-cc-advise/

Mark

[Fay]

I wonder if you can still add plug ins if rented?

[Kenny]

Has anyone tried this yet? (PS/LR online subscription)

And do you know whether I could install it on multiple PCs (for my own use of course  )?

[JohnP]

I think the limit maybe 2. Can you check the license agreement?