Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Renting Photo-Shop


astro mick

Recommended Posts

I think PhotoShop is a great piece of software. Well recognised and respected by the user base.

If I were a professional photographer whose livelihood and income depended on my results, then renting PS would be a real option.

For the "average" amateur astronomer looking to improve the processing of his/ her images I think the costs of PS are very difficult to justify.

There are many dedicated AP programs available which are more cost effective and I'm sure can meet our needs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Being old (I was going to say 'old school' but 'old' will do!) the rental model grates with me. I use Ps CS3 and absolutely love it. I bought a disk, it's my disk and I suppose the only thing that will take it from me will be some dung-beetling WIndows 'upgrade' on which it won't work.

Why can't I own a piece of software? I own my car, my motorbike, my house, my telescope... Buying and owning things has worked pretty well for a very long time. The fact that this system may not suit certain manufacturers is their problem.

Olly

A lot of people now don't own their cars, in the UK alone over 1.8 million people now lease them.
They see it as a sensible way to get a motor they want at an affordable monthly payment.

As well as PS CC I pay £79 a year for Office 365 which we can have on 5 pc's a bargain with what we get.

Renting imo is no different than paying your broadband/phoneline or your satellite tv, we don't own them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A lot of people now don't own their cars, in the UK alone over 1.8 million people now lease them.
They see it as a sensible way to get a motor they want at an affordable monthly payment.

But this is different because they have chosen to do this against buying one.  Whereas with PS you don't get a choice unless you can manage to acquire an older 2nd hand version.

So you get a patch of cloudy weather and you don't use photoshop at all for several months of the year but you are still having to pay to rent it.  I'd find that hard to swallow.  

Carole 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/02/2019 at 22:22, JamesF said:

 If however people stop buying and the vendor has no income

 

People will not stop buying. The lifespan of software is typical shorter then that of your other possessions.  It will become incompatible or the latest software is just better.

Renting guarantees a stable income for the vendor but in general will result in higher costs for the buyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have a a copy of CS4 which I still use and haven’t felt the need to upgrade.

But I would strongly advise anyone to check out the very latest version of GIMP, it really is very good. Especially when you consider it is free!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to avoid renting anything that I can buy, so I would not pay £120 pa to photoshop for the amount that I would use it. I got given a copy of CS2 a while back and have explored it a little, so it is interesting to see that others are using CS2 & 3. Based on the results Olly gets, there's would appear to be no need for me to go looking for anything more "advanced".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that when we started to "get serious" about CCD astro-imaging PS was about the only game in town. It built up a reputation based on the early successes and was adopted by the amateurs as being the "package of choice". you weren't "doing it right" unless you used PS and/or some of the add-ons developed by the astronomy community.

It was never a dedicated astro package - it was for use by serious photographers and professionals. 

As the years went buy it changed both in content and complexity to better meet the market needs of the professional. Most of the needs of the amateur astronomer continued to be met by the older versions, but it was still held up as "package of choice".

Nowadays there are more and more photographic processing packages available and newer astro dedicated software which have been developed to meet the needs of the amateur astronomer.

I can't see how the average Jo Blow can justify the current costs of PS compared with capable alternatives. We seldom use it every day, and there's little or no commercial benefits in using PS.

What was cost effective and useful twenty years ago is now an over featured, over priced package and should no longer be held in high esteem as the "only package of choice"

Just my 2c

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Merlin66 said:

I'm of the opinion that when we started to "get serious" about CCD astro-imaging PS was about the only game in town. It built up a reputation based on the early successes and was adopted by the amateurs as being the "package of choice". you weren't "doing it right" unless you used PS and/or some of the add-ons developed by the astronomy community.

Nowadays there seems to be a growing community who believe that you're not "doing it right" unless you use PI. I'm not going to try to convince anyone that Photoshop is the best option - for some it clearly isn't, but it's exceptionally good at what it does. That does not mean that any of the other packages are not also very good. In the hands of a skilled processor I'd guess that decent data could be turned into an outstanding image in any of the packages on offer. With a much less skilled operator (such as myself) it's going to be a struggle no matter which package is used. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.