From: Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
From: "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:54:34 -0500
Organization: NNTP Server
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <p19rj5$1fqt$>
References: <> <p0rg46$1tqe$> <131220171132354803%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <181220171608156123%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <p19er6$101g$> <>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-Priority: 3
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
Print Article
Forward Article
"Eric Stevens"<> wrote
| I don't make money out of Photoshop and for what it costs to rent CC I
| find I save money.

   I'm curious. Presumably you had the last version
of CS before it went online. And now you pay.....
$12/month or something like that? $120-$150/year?
What do you find added to the online version that's
worth so much? Why is it worthwhile to always
update to new versions? Are the handful of new features
really so critical in what you do? Even people using
it fulltime for work typically skip a version. That's a
big part of why Adobe went to the rental model.
They make a bit less than if they sold each version,
but they weren't selling each version to most people.
Rental makes more money than selling only every other
version. And they're not under pressure to cook up
a snazzy update every year.

    I repeatedly see
conversations here where it's clear that people are
spending a small fortune to rent CS as well as buying
all sorts of expensive, adjunct tools. I don't get it.
Unless the main thing you like to do is cutting edge
special effects, like airbrushing skin or stitching scenes
together seamlessly. Most of the basic editing functionality
has been around for 20 years.