Has Photoshop lost its way?

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

9 minutes ago, ad47uk said:

The problem is that it is a payment that needs to be kept being paid, since there is no way to buy photoshop outright. a friend of mine uses Photoshop and illustrator and it is cheaper to rent the whole package than just those two,   so she have to pay for a load of stuff she do not use, what is the sense of that?

 

She have looked at Affinty photo by serif and she thinks it is great and  their designer software, the problem is people are snobs and they expect her to use Photoshop to do their projects.  £50 a month is a fair bit to give out for software she do not use.

 

I hated when adobe switch to rental only model. I wish they did the option Microsoft has done with Office. You can buy (no free upgrades), or you can rent (with free upgrades). 

[HawkMan]

You're really comparing apples to oranges here.

 

First of you're comparing an auto function, which to start of is terrible either way you look at it. 

 

second, photoshop isn't a program to adjust the colors of your pictures. it's a photo editing suite, and PSP doesn't even come close to competing there yet. There's one software that's very recent that . few have started using that competes, though I'm not sure I agree, but that might be because I'm used to PS, Affinity Pro.  it competes with PS on basic editing anyway.

 

For what you're using PS for, you would be FAR better of using LightRoom, which blows most all competitors out of the water so faer in regards to it's full capabilities as a raw photo management and development/adjustment suite. 

 

But whatever software you use, don't use Auto, and don't ujudge their quality by the auto "develop". tweak and use noise reduction and sharpen and actual useful tools for developing and bringing out details and proper color grading, THEN judge the final result, based on lost detail, colors and gradients , not a subjective "these software adjusted auto colors look better than those", in this case it's just an engineer on one company deciding warmer is nicer anyway. 

[The Evil Overlord]

59 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

You're really comparing apples to oranges here.

 

First of you're comparing an auto function, which to start of is terrible either way you look at it. 

 

second, photoshop isn't a program to adjust the colors of your pictures. it's a photo editing suite, and PSP doesn't even come close to competing there yet. There's one software that's very recent that . few have started using that competes, though I'm not sure I agree, but that might be because I'm used to PS, Affinity Pro.  it competes with PS on basic editing anyway.

 

For what you're using PS for, you would be FAR better of using LightRoom, which blows most all competitors out of the water so faer in regards to it's full capabilities as a raw photo management and development/adjustment suite. 

 

But whatever software you use, don't use Auto, and don't ujudge their quality by the auto "develop". tweak and use noise reduction and sharpen and actual useful tools for developing and bringing out details and proper color grading, THEN judge the final result, based on lost detail, colors and gradients , not a subjective "these software adjusted auto colors look better than those", in this case it's just an engineer on one company deciding warmer is nicer anyway. 

+1 

I'd give more likes if I could