advertisement


Anyone using Adobe 'Photography'

Rockmeister

pfm Member
It appears to be offering both Lightroom and Photoshop combined for £9.98 /month, whereas on the same page, Photoshop alone is £19.97/month.

Something smells fishy :)
Anyone enlighten me, because if there no caveats i might jump back to Adobe (I see the lesser storage on iCloud...is that all it is??)
 
Yep, been on the that package for several years, ever since they moved over to the subscription model. Surprisingly, the cost has remained the same. I pay annually.

I keep everything local; I don’t use their cloud storage - which, I suspect, is where they make their money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DGP
Yep, been on the that package for several years, ever since they moved over to the subscription model. Surprisingly, the cost has remained the same. I pay annually.

I keep everything local; I don’t use their cloud storage - which, I suspect, is where they make their money.

Exactly the same here.

I know many people don’t like subscriptions, but it’s a worry free way to work it.
I’ve added a couple of DXO plug-ins over the years, and they’re a one-off payment, until the updates appear for more one-off payments!
 
Well my reason for asking is, that Affinity Photo, my photoshop substitute, is excellent in many ways and is (was),a one off price around £60, but the idea of PS and LR together at that cost seems tempting. At 60 quid for life, Affinity is really excellent and familiar for PS users, but workflow and slick operating performance are not always good. Anyway ta for all the comments.
 
I've got the subscription version on one machine, the cheap deal that gives you more than the more expensive deal, but I keep CS6 on another machine. Dare I say that I actually prefer the older version - CC seems to need vastly more memory, and runs a bit slowly on my 10 years old Windows 10 machine. I also really need to upgrade my graphics card, as this is an issue.
 
I've got the subscription version on one machine, the cheap deal that gives you more than the more expensive deal, but I keep CS6 on another machine. Dare I say that I actually prefer the older version - CC seems to need vastly more memory, and runs a bit slowly on my 10 years old Windows 10 machine. I also really need to upgrade my graphics card, as this is an issue.
DXO Pure Raw 3 murders my mid-2014 MacBook Pro, but it’s worth it. I really can’t see me batch processing!
 
On my desktop when Lightroom was beginning to run slowly I upgraded the motherboard to an MSI mag mortar, added an extra 16gb RAM to give 32gb, installed M.2 memory in addition to the existing Samsung Evo 850 SSD and a 12th generation Intel 12400f. Runs lightroom and photoshop much faster than the old setup. My lightroom catalogue is on an external 6TB hard drive. Just waiting for the new 14th generation processors to become available for the next upgrade
 
Adobe says Lightroom needs a GPU with a minimum of 2GB VRAM and a benchmark score of 2000, which is pretty low. So even relatively old GPUs work. Puget Systems, who build computers for photo processing found:

"What GPU (video card) is best for Lightroom Classic?​

Lightroom Classic does not really utilize a modern video card for the majority of tasks, so we generally recommend a mid-range GPU to handle the needs of other related applications like Photoshop that do use the GPU more heavily."

and also in their testing:

"Overall, we didn't see much of a difference between the various GPUs we tested, or even the test using just Intel integrated graphics and GPU acceleration disabled entirely. NVIDIA is definitely a hair faster than AMD (which oddly was slower than having no GPU acceleration at all), but the performance between each NVIDIA GPU is close enough to be within the margin of error. In fact, Lightroom Classic tends to have a larger margin of error than our other benchmarks, and anything within ~5% we would consider to be effectively the same.

We could go into our results in more detail, but what we are taking from this is that for what we are testing, the GPU has almost no impact. As we mentioned earlier in this post, we do hope to include a number of other tests that should be a better indicator of GPU performance, but this simply reinforces that your GPU is a low priority relative to your CPU, RAM, and storage."
 


advertisement


Back
Top