Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
On 12/18/2017 8:54 PM, Mayayana 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?
> 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.
It's all a matter of personal preference and use. Although I am strictly
an amateur, I find myself using the newer features. Although I am not
certain when each new feature came out, I find myself using and poking
around with liquefy, defog, distort, color selection improvement, etc.
Not everybody does, but that is their choice. I know I can get some of
the effects cheaper, but how I chose to spend my money is only my concern.