On 2017-09-24 18:50, Davoud wrote:
Davoud:
Stop me if you've heard this one...

Alan Browne:
What I do not support is rental s/w. That's Adobe's new path. If I
were a full time photographer, then I'd go for it. But "renting"
spinning s/w that I don't use for stretches is a stretch.

I never grasped why persons who lease houses and automobiles, who pay
for utilities by the month, who belong to membership clubs, who
subscribe to newspapers or magazines... would draw the line at
subscribing to world-class software.

I own my house, but did rent an appartment or two in my salad days. Did
not resent the rent as I lived there most days of the month.

I own my cars - but did not resent making payments monthly as I used
said cars many times per month while paying for them.

I pay electricity by the month. But I use it nearly 24 hours per day.

I subscribe to one magazine. And I read it every month from cover to cover.

etc.

But s/w that I don't use for long stretches (life and business get in
the way of pursuits like photography, alas) I don't want to be "renting".

So as I clearly said above, if the photography were full time, then I'd
happily embark.

That one doesn't need it is an incontestable reason, however. Here's
the thing, though: there is no minimum subscription period for Adobe
CC, including the $10 photography plan. A friend, an accomplished
photographer, activates his photography plan for about two months each
year after big photo safaris.

Good idea. I'll look into it next round. Fall is coming ...

But I'll also be looking into non-Adobe products. One I've been using
is Davinci Resolve as an editing tool (video). While its strong suit is
not editing per se, it is more than adequate. And free for non
professional use.