Thud, another one falls

Discuss Photomator and photo editing.
User avatar

2022-08-18 12:12:59

No, not Pixelmator too - subscription, really? :anguished:

Ok, I see us existing users get let off the leash, for now. But, that's a huge price hike too. How long before you start adding features that existing customers won't be able to get unless they pay for an upgrade, or pay for the subscription (yeah, it happens elsewhere, so I'm sceptical).

Your timing couldn't have been any worse, have you seen what's going on out there. We're looking at 3-400% price increases on our energy bills here (UK), >10%inflation, everything is going up and up all the time, and much is similar globally. How much more does anyone think they can squeeze the punters for more cash? Every single subscription service I already have is increasing their prices by significant amount, and it's surpassed the 'enough is enough' point some time ago.

I know, I appreciate there are running costs and all that, but you're talking about a ten fold price increase in one jump. Have you really underestimated your accounts so badly? Or was that a way to get a larger customer base started on a lost leader?

Don't get me wrong, I've never had an issue paying for stuff. I don't like subscription models for software, but if they're fair and reasonable, they can be acceptable, but they take away choice from the customer. A perpetual licence may give less revenue, and I never had an issue with getting free updates, but paying extra for a significant 'upgrade' to the next version.

The trouble with the subscription model as it seems at the moment, is that developers (in general) tend to become lazy and only add small and insignificant improvements, at a slow pace (the reality of it, not what is seen in marketing blurb). Major releases encouraged a decent set of feature enhancements that usually justified an upgrade fee. If a user decided the enhancements offered nothing, they could decide to not upgrade to that version and continue using it. A choice.

Sorry to be ranting at you, but it's getting too much now, I'm just sick of seeing 'in app purchase', or 'subscribe for only...' appearing in everything I look at now.
User avatar

2022-08-18 19:23:31

While I agree, I hate subscription models, I’m happy about the fact that those (including myself) are grandfathered in and do not have to purchase the software.

The cost for everyone is going up and it’s hard for buyers to purchase software on a monthly basis. But it’s also hard for employers. We somehow think they are exempt from inflation but they too have to pay the bills.

There’s other options for those that don’t want to pay for a subscription but they won’t hold a candle up to Pixelmator Photo.
User avatar

2022-08-18 19:46:54

I do get the point of it all, but experience shows that this does not always give a better product to the customer.

I also get angry when I’ve purchased a product under a certain agreement, which then changes from what was originally promised. Now I’m not saying for sure that this will necessarily happen with Pixelmator, but it’s been very common to find that a licence has been ‘grandfathered’, but in reality, the product owned by the customer has also been frozen at that point of development (I can name a few there, Enpass, Camera+ 2, Lightroom, all Topaz Labs products I purchased). I have ‘lifetime’ licences for those, but they’re all frozen at a point of development before the subscription systems started.

That’s not what I originally paid for. As I say, I have no objection to whatever purchase system is offered, if I find it offers a decent product at a representative, and affordable cost, I’ll buy into it. I object to this conditions being changed, especially it it becomes a stealth change.

I am of course pre-empting some of that here, but if they follow the average market trend, it doesn’t look hopeful.

Cheers.
User avatar

2022-09-20 09:59:58

If enough of the apps that I use were to go subscription based (Pixelmator Photo, Affinity Photo and Designer, LumaFusion, ArtStudio Pro, Procreate, etc) I would simply give up and go with Adobe.

Adobe is industry standard in every freaking field. All their apps are top notch even if I don’t like them all (I hate Illustrators interface).

So Pixelmator Photo goes subscription. I will get it for free for the time being, but once I no longer receive it this way, I’m outta here. I have two options, find another app that satisfies my needs (Good thing I have RAW Power even if I don’t like its interface), or begin to consider giving up and subscribe to Adobe. I rather pay one rent to Adobe, than many small rents to many developers of software that are not industry standard to begin with. It’s the hard truth.

I’m really disappointed in their decision.
User avatar

2022-09-20 20:18:45

It's becoming like a rash now, so many are at it. Even things like Halide and Camera+ are at it too, and have followed on from Topaz, Adobe (who blatantly lied about going with a subscription only option) and many others. Although many are a fair price, the constant compounding of the subscription costs to a consumer simply isn't sustainable. In the end, as you suggest, it can be best to simply consolidate into a single cost, which may not be the favoured choice, but works out better economically.

For sure I appreciate the business models that creates these decisions, but it's so much more about the spreadsheet dictating, rather than thinking about customer support and loyalty. Too often I've paid for products based on the condition of a purchase agreement, only to have it be ripped up and changed. It's all covered up with clever marketing terminology to make it all legal, but it still stinks when you've no longer got the product support you thought you paid for.

Of course we'll get a locked in deal for existing customers, for a while perhaps. But eventually they'll add new features, and then want to change the conditions so we have to pay again for those. It's been happening for a while with many products now.

Don't get me wrong, I accept that paying for upgrades is normal. What is wrong is offering a licence to use a product based on a single payment, then fiddling the system so you can change that policy.

I would certainly think about just going with the Adobe plan again myself, except for the fact that I use a cloud based multi-device setup now. For my needs, the Adobe options are far too costly, as they don't offer enough cloud storage, and the upgrade to the next level is not well priced. And the mobile device versions of their apps are terrible (IMHO).

Cheers
User avatar

2022-09-20 20:39:13

I haven’t checked Lightroom on the iPad, I will at least find some videos about it, just in case. As I said, it was a good move on my part (and thanks to you) that I got RAW Power, it gives me at least one option for the time being other than Pixelmator. I can always buy the perpetual license of Darkroom, which is expensive but it also includes the desktop version for the same price and not a subscription as Pixelmator Photo for the mac, and it does have masks (not the way I want them but they’re not bad either).

In any case, it seems that sooner or later I’ll have to jump ship. It doesn’t matter what reasons they have or how they try to make it sound attractive, it isn’t for me. I really like the app, but I won’t go subscription. It is not the first app I like that I let go for this very reason (Forger would be a good example).

They should give more options to their users, like the perpetual license for BOTH the ipad and the mac (and check what the others like Darkroom are charging for the exact same thing).
User avatar

2022-09-21 15:12:25

by Cantisani I haven’t checked Lightroom on the iPad, I will at least find some videos about it, just in case. As I said, it was a good move on my part (and thanks to you) that I got RAW Power, it gives me at least one option for the time being other than Pixelmator. I can always buy the perpetual license of Darkroom, which is expensive but it also includes the desktop version for the same price and not a subscription as Pixelmator Photo for the mac, and it does have masks (not the way I want them but they’re not bad either).

In any case, it seems that sooner or later I’ll have to jump ship. It doesn’t matter what reasons they have or how they try to make it sound attractive, it isn’t for me. I really like the app, but I won’t go subscription. It is not the first app I like that I let go for this very reason (Forger would be a good example).

They should give more options to their users, like the perpetual license for BOTH the ipad and the mac (and check what the others like Darkroom are charging for the exact same thing).
I must admit I haven't checked the most recent Lightroom mobile features, but the reasons I ditched it were mostly the missing basic functions. I wasn't expecting anything like Lr Classic, but the mobile version lacked too many useful features, such as virtual copies, stacking, batch processing (it has that after a fashion, but it's very clunky and unreliable), no external editors (other than Ps) and even red-eye fix is missing.

Their cloud service hasn't been the most reliable either, they've have at least a couple of major issues, even losing users data.

I have been finding Photos in combo with external apps, like Pixelmator, Raw Power etc. has been a much more flexible solution, and gives far more features than the Lightroom options are capable of. Indeed, Photos itself is currently proving to be a much better app than I ever gave it credit for.

I can see the issue with the lifetime license is still how to quantify it as to its value to both the developer and the consumer. Clearly if you used it over many years, its value is greater to the consumer, but could simply put the developer back to square one again over a short time. If they did the same as, say, Darkroom, they'd have gone back to zero income after just over three years. I can only see that they'd have to find some way to start regaining income again later on. I'm confused by their fees, they simply don't add up at all to anything sensible, there's so much overlap that nothing makes sense as an economical option, other than if you were sure you'd keep using it for more than three years. You'd have to hope they didn't move the goal posts though, and find a way to start charging again.

As I say, I don't object to the old fashioned way of paying for the annual upgrades, if you're buying extra features and stuff that's actually useful. I do object to continuously paying for bug fixes with the occasional 'goodie' thrown in.

Forgive me for being cynical, but this is exactly what has been happening for the last few years now.
User avatar

2022-09-23 04:04:28

by Andy Hewitt
I must admit I haven't checked the most recent Lightroom mobile features, but the reasons I ditched it were mostly the missing basic functions. I wasn't expecting anything like Lr Classic, but the mobile version lacked too many useful features, such as virtual copies, stacking, batch processing (it has that after a fashion, but it's very clunky and unreliable), no external editors (other than Ps) and even red-eye fix is missing.

Their cloud service hasn't been the most reliable either, they've have at least a couple of major issues, even losing users data.
To be honest, all I use Lightroom or Pixelmator for is developing with the available tools. I don’t stack, I very seldom use the HDR stuff, I don’t correct red eyes with it. Of course, I heavily use batch editing, so that’s a big issue for me if it is clunky as you mention. I do use virtual copies every now and then but I could do without it. I do care about local editing a lot though, that’s why I still come occasionally to these forums, to check if there’s any news about new features, and then I find that the new feature is subscription lol 😂..

I could use Lightroom on the iPad if the batch processing is as good as Pixelmators or better. Lightroom basic developing tools are light years ahead of Pixelmators (highlights and blacks recovery) and I miss them whenever I use Pixelmator to develop, and therefore I spend more time developing my work, trying to get as much as I can from the app.
I have been finding Photos in combo with external apps, like Pixelmator, Raw Power etc. has been a much more flexible solution, and gives far more features than the Lightroom options are capable of. Indeed, Photos itself is currently proving to be a much better app than I ever gave it credit for.
I would have to see your workflow, I don’t know what you do. I just open Pixelmator, develop, crop, batch edit wherever useful, and then batch export JPGs and some of the photos I take to Affinity Photo to improve them or add whatever effect. That’s it.
I can see the issue with the lifetime license is still how to quantify it as to its value to both the developer and the consumer. Clearly if you used it over many years, its value is greater to the consumer, but could simply put the developer back to square one again over a short time. If they did the same as, say, Darkroom, they'd have gone back to zero income after just over three years. I can only see that they'd have to find some way to start regaining income again later on. I'm confused by their fees, they simply don't add up at all to anything sensible, there's so much overlap that nothing makes sense as an economical option, other than if you were sure you'd keep using it for more than three years. You'd have to hope they didn't move the goal posts though, and find a way to start charging again.
They’re free to do whatever they want, but by going subscription only they will alienate not only “occasional users” as they claim on the blog. I’m a pro photographer and I won’t do subscription, and I don’t think I’m alone in my views.
As I say, I don't object to the old fashioned way of paying for the annual upgrades, if you're buying extra features and stuff that's actually useful. I do object to continuously paying for bug fixes with the occasional 'goodie' thrown in.

Forgive me for being cynical, but this is exactly what has been happening for the last few years now.
If they would do that and ask for money for bug fixes and a few goodies, users would have the choice to skip that particular version and continue to use the one they have.

I can see myself paying $20 or $30 or more dlls for an upgrade that includes super useful features. Even if it only included a very well implemented local adjustments set of tools.. shut up and take my money!… but not for bug fixes of course. Those bug fixes are mistakes made while coding (inevitable) and they should be made available for free after the upgrade.

Why would I be willing to pay $20 or $30 for upgrades, but not for a subscription? The point is: choice. I can pay IF I want, whenever I want, and in the mean time I can continue to use the old version. With a subscription, if at any given time you stop paying, you can’t use the app. That’s what I’m completely against and I won’t support any app that goes that way.
User avatar

2022-09-23 04:19:25

1. Not quite – the lifetime purchase also entitles users to Pixelmator Photo for Mac, this doesn't apply to people who bought the app before the switch. For these users, we plan to provide a discount on the lifetime purchase of Pixelmator Photo for Mac and a discount on the subscription (as long as this is technically feasible).
I just read this by Andrius. So…. Let me see if I get this right.

Existing users of Pixelmator Photo DO GET a lifetime license (iOS and iPadOS), with all the upgrades included forever.

BUT you don’t get Pixelmator Photo for Mac, just for iPad and iOS.

You do get a discount on the lifetime license for PP for Mac (and for the subscription but whatever).

SO

An existing user, will have to pay only for a discounted price for the lifetime license for the Mac in case you want it (I bet that discount will be time limited but that’s fine).

If all this is true, then I’m all in. I’ll get the lifetime Mac license and take their word for it, and continue to enjoy it on my iPad too.

I hope I got that right, sounds too good.. no?
User avatar

2022-09-23 05:05:29

by Cantisani
To be honest, all I use Lightroom or Pixelmator for is developing with the available tools. I don’t stack, I very seldom use the HDR stuff, I don’t correct red eyes with it. Of course, I heavily use batch editing, so that’s a big issue for me if it is clunky as you mention. I do use virtual copies every now and then but I could do without it. I do care about local editing a lot though, that’s why I still come occasionally to these forums, to check if there’s any news about new features, and then I find that the new feature is subscription lol 😂..

I could use Lightroom on the iPad if the batch processing is as good as Pixelmators or better. Lightroom basic developing tools are light years ahead of Pixelmators (highlights and blacks recovery) and I miss them whenever I use Pixelmator to develop, and therefore I spend more time developing my work, trying to get as much as I can from the app.
I wouldn't say 'light years' ahead. Pixelmator is a pretty powerful editor, for a much lower cost
I would have to see your workflow, I don’t know what you do. I just open Pixelmator, develop, crop, batch edit wherever useful, and then batch export JPGs and some of the photos I take to Affinity Photo to improve them or add whatever effect. That’s it.
I keep everything contained within my Photos library, so it all syncs in my iCloud storage across all my devices. Many apps can access that library directly, and maintain the management of the library within Photos. Pixelmator, Raw Power and many others are capable of that.

As Pixelmator doesn't store it's editing data within the library, but uses a huge proprietary external sidecar file instead, I don't find it as useful to me for that reason. Having switched to a mostly mobile device system now, it's not an option as far as storage capability goes. Editing wise, it's excellent, and I use it on images that need its capabilities when I have to, and then delete the sidecar files when I'm done. Unfortunately that means losing any non-destructive editing workflow.

Raw Power does store it's editing data within the Photos library, but I'm recently finding it very buggy on the iPad, and has become unusable for me (Nik has no idea why).

Other apps (such as Darkroom, Polarr, Snapped etc.), also access the Photos library, but don't display my carefully designed folder and album layout, they all flat-file the albums into a single list (I have hundreds of them), so make them impractical to make any real use of.

Affinity is also one of those, but doesn't even work as well with the Photos library, and make the whole workflow a complete mess, so I hardly ever use it.

For all those reasons, I have now looked more closely at Photos itself, and for my needs it actually does most of what I need. So I am currently editing and managing my images in Photos, and only using external apps when I have to.
They’re free to do whatever they want, but by going subscription only they will alienate not only “occasional users” as they claim on the blog. I’m a pro photographer and I won’t do subscription, and I don’t think I’m alone in my views.
For sure. I'm a 'hobbyist', so I don't have any requirement to make things 'perfect' as such. My workflow only has to satisfy what I want from my photos.
If they would do that and ask for money for bug fixes and a few goodies, users would have the choice to skip that particular version and continue to use the one they have.

I can see myself paying $20 or $30 or more dlls for an upgrade that includes super useful features. Even if it only included a very well implemented local adjustments set of tools.. shut up and take my money!… but not for bug fixes of course. Those bug fixes are mistakes made while coding (inevitable) and they should be made available for free after the upgrade.

Why would I be willing to pay $20 or $30 for upgrades, but not for a subscription? The point is: choice. I can pay IF I want, whenever I want, and in the mean time I can continue to use the old version. With a subscription, if at any given time you stop paying, you can’t use the app. That’s what I’m completely against and I won’t support any app that goes that way.
Exactly my point. The 'perpetual' licences offer a choice. A user can skip a version if they don't need the new features. IMHO that method of selling seems to encourage them to develop better new features that will sell the upgraded product. Subscription simply drags the user into a plan regardless of whether they're introducing useful new features or not.

Cheers.
User avatar

2022-09-23 05:25:42

by Cantisani
I just read this by Andrius. So…. Let me see if I get this right.

Existing users of Pixelmator Photo DO GET a lifetime license (iOS and iPadOS), with all the upgrades included forever.

BUT you don’t get Pixelmator Photo for Mac, just for iPad and iOS.

You do get a discount on the lifetime license for PP for Mac (and for the subscription but whatever).

SO

An existing user, will have to pay only for a discounted price for the lifetime license for the Mac in case you want it (I bet that discount will be time limited but that’s fine).

If all this is true, then I’m all in. I’ll get the lifetime Mac license and take their word for it, and continue to enjoy it on my iPad too.

I hope I got that right, sounds too good.. no?
Yes, but notice the get-out clause "(as long as this is technically feasible)".

This is typically being used by just about every developer that's offered a 'lifetime' licence for existing customers after switching to a subscription model. For sure you can use the app you bought, but eventually it becomes frozen in a certain state, and you will no longer get any new features unless you subscribe. As more time passes, you'll update your devices and OS, and the app you bought may not even work at all.

It can also introduce a more aggressive level of marketing too (such as constant reminders to upgrade), which I dislike very much.

This is one of the reasons I'm gradually making myself less reliant on the third party apps now, and trying to do as much of my work within Photos as I can.

I do pay a subscription to Apple for my cloud storage, but that's part of my Apple One account. That is my starting point though, somewhere I have to pay for cloud storage if I want to maintain my multi device syncing. I use some of the other Apple online products (Music, News Apple TV+, Family Sharing) that I find useful to me and my family, so that presents reasonable value to me.

I could, as you suggest, just use Adobe Lightroom, but that then provides a cost for redundant cloud storage, and Adobe doesn't offer enough cloud storage at a reasonable price. It's still actually cheaper to continue working with a couple of the third party apps.

However, as an 'hobbyist' photographer, I make no money from photos, so I have to justify any costs. As an average consumer, I'm becoming overwhelmed by the stuff that's become a subscription service, and can no longer simply afford to keep up with it all. Something has to give (just look at our cost of living increases recently - I'm in the UK, but I assume it's happening elsewhere too, my energy bills have gone up from £1100 to £2600 for the next year, something has to go to pay for that).

So, I am forced to compromise, and reduce such things as much as possible, and prioritise the things that matter most. If that means using Pixelmator until it stops working for me, then I'll plan to exclude it from my workflow sooner rather than later.

Cheers.
User avatar

2022-09-23 05:36:15

by Andy Hewitt
I wouldn't say 'light years' ahead. Pixelmator is a pretty powerful editor, for a much lower cost
I mean that specially with highlights and shadows recovery, Lightroom is far better. I’ve developed hundreds of thousands of photos with it and when I first used Pixelmator Photo I noticed it immediately. As good photographers do, I try to balance range of the photo IN camera while shooting and succeed at it (very rarely do I take an under or over exposed picture), but recovering highlights and shadows is a must in A LOT of photos, it is part of the developing process every time.

The same thing can be said in other controls, Lightroom is better in many of them. I’m inclined to think the difference is due to the way Apple implements their RAW engine, Adobe has done it better in my opinion. I don’t know, I could be wrong, but that’s the feeling I get, and Pixelmator and others are limited by the engine they use.
I keep everything contained within my Photos library, so it all syncs in my iCloud storage across all my devices. Many apps can access that library directly, and maintain the management of the library within Photos. Pixelmator, Raw Power and many others are capable of that.

As Pixelmator doesn't store it's editing data within the library, but uses a huge proprietary external sidecar file instead, I don't find it as useful to me for that reason. Having switched to a mostly mobile device system now, it's not an option as far as storage capability goes. Editing wise, it's excellent, and I use it on images that need its capabilities when I have to, and then delete the sidecar files when I'm done. Unfortunately that means losing any non-destructive editing workflow.

Raw Power does store it's editing data within the Photos library, but I'm recently finding it very buggy on the iPad, and has become unusable for me (Nik has no idea why).

Other apps (such as Darkroom, Polarr, Snapped etc.), also access the Photos library, but don't display my carefully designed folder and album layout, they all flat-file the albums into a single list (I have hundreds of them), so make them impractical to make any real use of.

Affinity is also one of those, but doesn't even work as well with the Photos library, and make the whole workflow a complete mess, so I hardly ever use it.

For all those reasons, I have now looked more closely at Photos itself, and for my needs it actually does most of what I need. So I am currently editing and managing my images in Photos, and only using external apps when I have to.
Gotcha. Somehow I don’t feel very comfortable using Photos to develop my work. Can you batch process using Photos? Can you copy the adjustments of one photo and paste it to a number of other photos? That’s a must for me.

For sure. I'm a 'hobbyist', so I don't have any requirement to make things 'perfect' as such. My workflow only has to satisfy what I want from my photos.
Me neither, must of the time I need just to fine tune the original photo. As I said, I always try to take a good photo from the clic, so the post processing is much easier later.
User avatar

2022-09-23 06:00:07

by Andy Hewitt
Yes, but notice the get-out clause "(as long as this is technically feasible)".
I believe the get-out clause was referring to the subscription discount, I have read that elsewhere in his posts or the blog.
This is typically being used by just about every developer that's offered a 'lifetime' licence for existing customers after switching to a subscription model. For sure you can use the app you bought, but eventually it becomes frozen in a certain state, and you will no longer get any new features unless you subscribe. As more time passes, you'll update your devices and OS, and the app you bought may not even work at all.

It can also introduce a more aggressive level of marketing too (such as constant reminders to upgrade), which I dislike very much.
If that is the case, then lifetime doesn’t really mean lifetime. If it is a marketing gimmick, by the time the app stops working for me and I don’t get new updates, I will be long gone elsewhere. Lifetime for me sounds like “you’ll be able to use it forever” because they will provide updates. If they don’t, then it’s not lifetime, it’s “for as long as it works, and when it breaks you either suscribe or you’re on your own”. That’s not lifetime.

One example that comes to mind again: Forger.

They offered existing customers ONE YEAR of free updates. After that, they’ll have to suscribe. If they don’t, they simply can’t use the app anymore. That is super clear and I like that they made it crystal clear. So it was an easy choice for me, I won’t even use the app during that year. I’ll use Nomad Sculpt and forget about Forger. That’s ok, they have many users, they won’t miss me, I just won’t support their business model, my personal choice.

I do pay a subscription to Apple for my cloud storage, but that's part of my Apple One account. That is my starting point though, somewhere I have to pay for cloud storage if I want to maintain my multi device syncing. I use some of the other Apple online products (Music, News Apple TV+, Family Sharing) that I find useful to me and my family, so that presents reasonable value to me.

I could, as you suggest, just use Adobe Lightroom, but that then provides a cost for redundant cloud storage, and Adobe doesn't offer enough cloud storage at a reasonable price. It's still actually cheaper to continue working with a couple of the third party apps.

However, as an 'hobbyist' photographer, I make no money from photos, so I have to justify any costs. As an average consumer, I'm becoming overwhelmed by the stuff that's become a subscription service, and can no longer simply afford to keep up with it all. Something has to give (just look at our cost of living increases recently - I'm in the UK, but I assume it's happening elsewhere too, my energy bills have gone up from £1100 to £2600 for the next year, something has to go to pay for that).

So, I am forced to compromise, and reduce such things as much as possible, and prioritise the things that matter most. If that means using Pixelmator until it stops working for me, then I'll plan to exclude it from my workflow sooner rather than later.

Cheers.
I hear ya.

Even when I’m a pro photographer, I’m from Mexico. And you can take my word for it, it is getting harder and harder to make a living off photography here. I stopped using Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple Music, I do pay for 200Gb for iCloud, just to move files among devices. I still pay for SmugMug as it is crucial for my business, but it is expensive ($75 USD a year, unlimited JPG and PNG storage, galleries and downloads for clients, etc). I have many Terabytes of photos in it already so I’m actually trapped lol. Economy here is going south as well. We don’t have an energy crisis as you guys in Europe, but we’re still hit by world developments and of course, our own governments mistakes (they’re utterly incompetent right now but that’s another story). So I really can’t afford to commit to app subscriptions. I’m happy using Affinity apps, Pixelmator Photo, and many other apps, but if they keep pushing towards subscription, I’ll end up figuring out if I can afford Adobe and forget about the rest. It just makes sense and I hope it doesn’t come to that.
User avatar

2022-09-23 07:07:08

Gotcha. Somehow I don’t feel very comfortable using Photos to develop my work. Can you batch process using Photos? Can you copy the adjustments of one photo and paste it to a number of other photos? That’s a must for me.
Not as such, but consider that Photos is a consumer level app, not a 'Pro' app.

None of this works on the iPad version. On the Desktop though, you can copy and paste adjustments from one photo onto another, but not as a batch. It's quite quick to apply the pasted adjustments by flicking through the images with the arrow keys though. Not too bad for a small batch perhaps.

You can batch process using the Auto Enhance though, simply selecting a bunch of images and hitting Command-E will instigate Auto Enhance on that selection.

It's fine for me though. I tend to take so many varied images, that batch processing isn't actually useful to me.
User avatar

2022-09-23 07:41:21

by Cantisani
I believe the get-out clause was referring to the subscription discount, I have read that elsewhere in his posts or the blog.
Maybe, I lack trust in that though. He also starts it with "We plan to...". There is a lot of ambiguity in those comments that does allow for a flexible licensing approach in the future.
If that is the case, then lifetime doesn’t really mean lifetime. If it is a marketing gimmick, by the time the app stops working for me and I don’t get new updates, I will be long gone elsewhere. Lifetime for me sounds like “you’ll be able to use it forever” because they will provide updates. If they don’t, then it’s not lifetime, it’s “for as long as it works, and when it breaks you either suscribe or you’re on your own”. That’s not lifetime.
Indeed so. Very often the term 'lifetime' is misused, it doesn't always mean the lifetime of the user, but can also mean the intended lifetime of the product.
One example that comes to mind again: Forger.

They offered existing customers ONE YEAR of free updates. After that, they’ll have to suscribe. If they don’t, they simply can’t use the app anymore. That is super clear and I like that they made it crystal clear. So it was an easy choice for me, I won’t even use the app during that year. I’ll use Nomad Sculpt and forget about Forger. That’s ok, they have many users, they won’t miss me, I just won’t support their business model, my personal choice.
I can name a few myself. The biggest was probably when MacPhun changed into Skylum, and sold Luminar as a 'lifetime' licence, in order to compete with the, at the time, new Adobe subscription licensing. "Buy it once, use it forever" was the tagline. Except that was a lie. They then renamed it Luminar 2018, and asked for more money to continue using it. Of course you can still use the original Luminar if you want, but it never got the features that were promised, or any of the bugs fixed it had, all of which where promised on that purchase. Yet they got away with charging for a full upgrade order to get features that were promised already.

Even Adobe at one point promised to always offer a perpetual licence, back when the cloud subscription was only a user option. Yet they lied, and at the drop of f hat, dismissed the perpetual licence completely. For sure, you can still use the last licence version of Lightroom, but it's never updated, and doesn't run on newer systems, so isn't a lifetime licence.

Many others are also moving to the subscription service, Halide has done it, and now they are stating that although you can use a lifetime licence, you will not get new features unless you subscribe. Camera+ 2 has started now too.

Topaz labs dropped us in it too, I paid a lot of money for my rarely used plugins, but they're now frozen in time, and becoming less useful, even though I bought a 'lifetime' licence, some of these won't run anymore either.

Other things too, Enpass is now doing it, and removing features unless you subscribe.

Forgive me if I have little, or no, trust in any of them now.
I hear ya.

Even when I’m a pro photographer, I’m from Mexico. And you can take my word for it, it is getting harder and harder to make a living off photography here. I stopped using Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple Music, I do pay for 200Gb for iCloud, just to move files among devices. I still pay for SmugMug as it is crucial for my business, but it is expensive ($75 USD a year, unlimited JPG and PNG storage, galleries and downloads for clients, etc). I have many Terabytes of photos in it already so I’m actually trapped lol. Economy here is going south as well. We don’t have an energy crisis as you guys in Europe, but we’re still hit by world developments and of course, our own governments mistakes (they’re utterly incompetent right now but that’s another story). So I really can’t afford to commit to app subscriptions. I’m happy using Affinity apps, Pixelmator Photo, and many other apps, but if they keep pushing towards subscription, I’ll end up figuring out if I can afford Adobe and forget about the rest. It just makes sense and I hope it doesn’t come to that.
Yeah, I hear you too, our government's been a bit of a shambles lately too.

I'm using the merry-go-round technique now, and switch on and off between various entertainment providers, only enabling ones that have things of interest at any time.

That SmugMug subscription doesn't actually sound too expensive to me (checking their website, only shows a $16/mth, $132 fee as the cheapest option!)... Ok, found more options now, aggressive marketing again, hiding the cheaper options away.

I can't see me ever going back to Adobe now, for one it's too hard to switch over my non-destructive edits (basically have to start all over). And it simply doesn't offer the integration into the Apple eco-system I want. The cost isn't actually that much of a factor, I think they do offer the best value overall, especially now that almost everyone has gone with subscriptions. It's just their software doesn't actually do what I need.

Cheers.
User avatar

2022-09-23 08:12:29

by Andy Hewitt
Maybe, I lack trust in that though. He also starts it with "We plan to...". There is a lot of ambiguity in those comments that does allow for a flexible licensing approach in the future.



Indeed so. Very often the term 'lifetime' is misused, it doesn't always mean the lifetime of the user, but can also mean the intended lifetime of the product.
Sure, I mean, ideally I would expect it to work and be updated until the app itself is no longer maintained, they release a truly all new app or the company goes belly up or something. That for me means lifetime, not an artificial moment they decide they don’t want to support existing users.
I can name a few myself. The biggest was probably when MacPhun changed into Skylum, and sold Luminar as a 'lifetime' licence, in order to compete with the, at the time, new Adobe subscription licensing. "Buy it once, use it forever" was the tagline. Except that was a lie. They then renamed it Luminar 2018, and asked for more money to continue using it. Of course you can still use the original Luminar if you want, but it never got the features that were promised, or any of the bugs fixed it had, all of which where promised on that purchase. Yet they got away with charging for a full upgrade order to get features that were promised already.

Even Adobe at one point promised to always offer a perpetual licence, back when the cloud subscription was only a user option. Yet they lied, and at the drop of f hat, dismissed the perpetual licence completely. For sure, you can still use the last licence version of Lightroom, but it's never updated, and doesn't run on newer systems, so isn't a lifetime licence.

Many others are also moving to the subscription service, Halide has done it, and now they are stating that although you can use a lifetime licence, you will not get new features unless you subscribe. Camera+ 2 has started now too.

Topaz labs dropped us in it too, I paid a lot of money for my rarely used plugins, but they're now frozen in time, and becoming less useful, even though I bought a 'lifetime' licence, some of these won't run anymore either.

Other things too, Enpass is now doing it, and removing features unless you subscribe.

Forgive me if I have little, or no, trust in any of them now.
Indeed the outlook for those of us who prefer a one time fee is not good. But if enough apps that I use trap me in a corner, I will seriously consider one sole provider, and that can only be Adobe. They offer solutions for almost every creative field, and many of those solutions are industry standard. I hate them for coming up with subscriptions, but that’s the way it is. We’re not there yet though, and new apps and solutions are created constantly, so there’s still hope. I just wished that the apps I prefer stayed the way they are up until now, there’s one big reason I bought them: I don’t pay rent, just one fee.

Yeah, I hear you too, our government's been a bit of a shambles lately too.

I'm using the merry-go-round technique now, and switch on and off between various entertainment providers, only enabling ones that have things of interest at any time.
I was doing that too, but this year hasn’t been good for me, so entertainment is the first thing to go, at least for sometime.
That SmugMug subscription doesn't actually sound too expensive to me (checking their website, only shows a $16/mth, $132 fee as the cheapest option!)... Ok, found more options now, aggressive marketing again, hiding the cheaper options away.
I noticed that too the other day. Last year I paid $55 dlls for my basic plan. This year my renewal is $75. It’s fuckin crazy. But I need it. I’ve been using them for more than 10 years now. The first year I payed around $37, and every year they incremented the cost a little, but this year they went all hungry on us. New users can’t find the basic plan easily as you noticed. I wonder if they’re having financial problems, it worries me a little. I will begin to consider getting a local cloud server or NAS of some sort, but that comes with a safety protocol out the window (having a copy in a different location).
I can't see me ever going back to Adobe now, for one it's too hard to switch over my non-destructive edits (basically have to start all over). And it simply doesn't offer the integration into the Apple eco-system I want. The cost isn't actually that much of a factor, I think they do offer the best value overall, especially now that almost everyone has gone with subscriptions. It's just their software doesn't actually do what I need.

Cheers.
That’s an important difference between you and me.

It seems to me that you keep your RAW originals along with the edits.

I don’t, I can’t. My general workflow is.. I shoot the photo session, wedding or whatever, download the RAW+JPG, upload those JPGs to SmugMug as a temporary backup, process the RAWs, export to JPG, post process a few of them in Affinity Photo, upload all processed JPGs to SmugMug. DELETE the RAWs. Once I process the RAWs, I know I won’t process them ever again. I only keep the JPGs.
The older work only lives in SmugMug, I also delete those from my local storage (after a year or so).

Since I take thousands of photos for clients every year, I just can’t keep them locally. It all goes to SmugMug, where they can always find them, and where they are easily at my disposal if I ever need to get some to show to prospects. So SmugMug is critical for me.

Cheers
User avatar

2022-09-23 09:45:54

by Cantisani I noticed that too the other day. Last year I paid $55 dlls for my basic plan. This year my renewal is $75. It’s fuckin crazy. But I need it. I’ve been using them for more than 10 years now. The first year I payed around $37, and every year they incremented the cost a little, but this year they went all hungry on us. New users can’t find the basic plan easily as you noticed. I wonder if they’re having financial problems, it worries me a little. I will begin to consider getting a local cloud server or NAS of some sort, but that comes with a safety protocol out the window (having a copy in a different location).
I think that's why most have gone with the subscription plans. Many developers have struggled with income, but I think they find it easier to push everyone onto a subscription, for a steady income. This seems to be rather than putting effort into coming up with new features and designs that could sell as a decent upgrade path. Almost without exception, I find the apps that have gone subscription, tend to get new features that are slow to arrive, and of very little real world benefit to users.

There's certainly far too much emphasis on AI based features IMHO, which they seem to believe is the best way forward. They can be handy tools at times, but for me, they rarely give me a perfect end result, and I still need to make some manual adjustments. Indeed, they can often throw you into completely the wrong editing workflow (despite being marketed as a 'good starting point').

They could or course just be getting greedy! ;-)

The biggest of the companies, Apple and Adobe, haven't actually increased their prices at all since their services started (indeed, Lightroom and Photoshop are significantly cheaper now than they originally were), yet they have grown into huge behemoths of a business. It shows that providing a decent product/service that people want at a price that's reasonable is the way to obtain sustainable income.
That’s an important difference between you and me.

It seems to me that you keep your RAW originals along with the edits.

I don’t, I can’t. My general workflow is.. I shoot the photo session, wedding or whatever, download the RAW+JPG, upload those JPGs to SmugMug as a temporary backup, process the RAWs, export to JPG, post process a few of them in Affinity Photo, upload all processed JPGs to SmugMug. DELETE the RAWs. Once I process the RAWs, I know I won’t process them ever again. I only keep the JPGs.
The older work only lives in SmugMug, I also delete those from my local storage (after a year or so).

Since I take thousands of photos for clients every year, I just can’t keep them locally. It all goes to SmugMug, where they can always find them, and where they are easily at my disposal if I ever need to get some to show to prospects. So SmugMug is critical for me.

Cheers
Yes, I decided to embrace the whole idea of the non-destructive workflow from the beginning. I store all the Raws (and many JPEG master images too) in my library, and use that workflow to manage and edit all my images. Of course it's a hobby, I take far fewer images than you would in a Pro environment. My collection is about 60,000 images, around 600GB of master images (which ends up as about 1TB when put into a catalogue/library).

I only create the external JPEGs as and when needed for something specific, such as getting a calendar printed, or sending to a web site. Family sharing can be done directly from the Photos library without any need to export as a separate operation.

Of course when I said that the Adobe costs aren't the issue, that's only at their current level, to be able to use Lightroom and get 1TB or storage, their fee is very reasonable. If that increased, I would not have the same opinion.
User avatar

2022-09-27 05:12:44

It's about 55 USD for lifetime license. I don't know why people are even discussing about the cost. Nobody is forced to subscribe, you can buy a lifetime deal one time and I'm sure for years of development it is worth 55 USD? + all past customers are grandfathered in except for the upcoming Mac OS version.

I agree that the "per month" cost is quite high for what it is though. But from my point of view this is because they want to clearly steer you towards the yearly or lifetime offers. Which are good value.
User avatar

2022-09-27 05:22:31

by denisbkk It's about 55 USD for lifetime license. I don't know why people are even discussing about the cost. Nobody is forced to subscribe, you can buy a lifetime deal one time and I'm sure for years of development it is worth 55 USD? + all past customers are grandfathered in except for the upcoming Mac OS version.

I agree that the "per month" cost is quite high for what it is though. But from my point of view this is because they want to clearly steer you towards the yearly or lifetime offers. Which are good value.
Hello! $55 is not an issue. Even the mac version alone is worth it, specially if it is a FOREVER license. Forever in the real sense (the life of the app itself, until it is replaced by an all new app or it goes belly up).

The issue here is what we’ve seen from other companies, and we’re concerned that Pixelmator Photo is going in that direction too. The problem is that we’ve seen time and time again, that companies do not keep their promise. There will come a day when they say.. from this version on, we will only take subscriptions. Existing clients can join with a discount or whatever.

So right now they say, existing customers will have a lifetime license (you’ll have to pay only for the mac version).

Until they decide they don’t really mean it, because they want everyone in the subscription model. It happened with Lightroom and many others.
User avatar

2022-10-20 19:39:24

Hey Andy, non related question for you.
I can’t figure out how to move an existing album into an existing folder within the Photos app. I’ve googled it, searched on YT, nothing 😅 Then I remembered that you’re an expert using the Photos app to organize your photos.. I hope you don’t mind. Image
User avatar

2022-10-20 20:36:18

Are you sure that screen shot is from Photos and not Pixelmator Photo?

My Photos looks like this, and it is just drag and drop.

Image
User avatar

2022-10-20 20:39:02

by Andy Hewitt Are you sure that screen shot is from Photos and not Pixelmator Photo?

My Photos looks like this, and it is just drag and drop.

<p><img src="//support-cdn.pixelmator.com/uploads-new/cuf_1666298171_Screenshot_2022_10_20_at_21.30.12.png" class="postimage is-shown is-visible" alt="Image" width="221.5" height="168.5"></p>
Yes, Photos app on my iPad. What version of iPadOS are you running? I’m still in 15.6. There’s 15.7 available but I figured I would just wait for iPadOS 16 that’s around the corner. I can’t drag and drop.

I see you don’t have preview icons.. how?
User avatar

2022-10-21 05:23:38

Doh!, because I'm an idiot, and I was using the desktop version of Photos :grimacing: . Sorry about that.

Right, yes, back to Photos on the iPad... I have a layout like this:

Image

OK, so no, you can't drag and drop a folder like you do on the desktop version. First you need to click the 'Edit' button at the top...

As shown in this image:

Image

Then you need to open the folder first, by clicking the arrow icon, so it points down (as in my image), Then click on the Triple dash icon on the right of each album, and slide the album into position - you should see it pop into position as you move it up and down the list, and simply let go once you have it in the right place.

You can position and order all your albums like this. I'm hoping they add a Sort order option in iPadOS 16, but otherwise, your album order is done manually on the iPad. However, this process does follow the standard iOS way of moving objects about (like when you want to edit the order of the device's Share panels, or Control Panel, for example.

FWIW, I have been using my desktop version to carry out all the management of the library, then using the iPad Pro for all my photo editing. I found the extra functions on the desktop version simply make much of this easier.

Those albums don't have preview icons because they're empty. I use those as temporary 'working' albums.

All the best.
User avatar

2022-10-21 05:37:43

Thanks Andy.. it still doesn’t work for me.. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong. I can order the albums, but I can’t make an album go into a folder. 🤦‍♂️

Image

Someone at a facebook group suggested that this is not possible, I would need to create an empty album inside the folder first, then go to the original album, select all photos, click the share button and add them to the new album and delete the original album. That’s ridiculous but I guess the only way.
User avatar

2022-10-21 06:09:55

Wow, you know I've not noticed this before, but yeah, you're right. Here's a quote from the Take Control of Photos book (very much worth buying if you want to get the best out of Photos).

“In my testing in iPadOS 14.0.1, you could sometimes move an album into a folder by tapping Edit, then grabbing the drag handle button and putting that album underneath a folder. Or between albums in a folder. But most of the time, it just crashed Photos. So you can give it a try—but this seems like a really buggy section of Photos for iPad.”

This seems to be the same on iPadOS 15.7 as well. We can only hope they've fixed this in 16.

It goes on to suggest doing what you say above and creating a new album in the folder, and adding the images to it manually.

In fact, better still, simply click 'Select' then 'Select All' the images inside the album first, then if you use the Share icon, and 'Add to Album', select 'New Album' inside the Folder you want, it will already populate it with the photos. You can then remove the old version of the album after that. Or, do all the folder/album manipulation on a desktop, which does all work fine.

Also FWIW, I find that after years of building my collections, I don't actually use the move album function very often, as I tend to create them in the folders I want them as I import images. Or indeed, if I create a new set of images, I usually select the images then create a new album inside the folder I want it in, which creates the album, and adds the selected images.