Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:54:34 -0500, "Mayayana"<email@example.com> wrote:
>"Eric Stevens"<firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
I never had CS. Over the years I variously had Gimp, ... PhotoPaint,
Paintshop Pro, NIK, DxO and various plug ins to extend them. Updates
kept arriving and no matter what I had at the time it still cost me
money to keep them up todate. The costs were accumulating and when CC
arrived I leapt at it.
>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.