Mystic38
Steve & Glyn,
 
have you tried Lightroom + paint shop pro?..
 
Since I adopted LR I found that 90-95% of my work is within that environment, and so for the nasty lil bits that you just have to sort out I can launch PSP from within LR, make the detail edits, and return to LR..  edit history is maintained correctly in LR so its a homogeneous solution to me... and bang/$ is off the charts..don't let the cost fool you into thinking its not much of a program.
 
Ian

Hi Ian, thanks for the great info.
 
I haven't tried Paint Shop Pro, it's interesting to learn how well it integrates with LR though.
 
I'll give the Trial version a go on the basis of your recommendation!
 
Do you know if it contains a Corel equivalent (or similar) to Photoshop's Refine Edge feature? As I mentioned before, LR's wonderful Lens Correction module (which I find indispensable as I photograph a lot of architecture) and PSE's Refine Edge are two features I use a lot.
 
I'm currently shooting and creating the final images for a charity calendar, which involves using photos of peoples' heads and shoulders and using them in various mocked-up 'humorous' settings. Being able to isolate the heads accurately from the background, especially around their hair, has been a breeze with Refine Edge.
 
================
 
Edit to add:
 
@Ian - I just pulled the trigger on Paintshop Pro X5 Ultimate - the included Nik Color Efex Pro 3.0 photographic filters pack sold it to me before I even downloaded the trial LOL
 
It was only £50 on Amazon for a boxed copy, can't complain at that for excellent value.
 
Thanks again for the heads-up 
 
 
@Craig - Sorry for the derailment of your (very interesting) thread 
================

bitflipper
...
The subscription model is a good fit for software that requires frequent updates and intensive customer support/training. My own company works this way. We don't call it a subscription, we call it a maintenance contract. It's entirely voluntary and the software won't stop working if you don't buy a contract. But we will charge you an hourly rate if you need help, upgrades will cost extra, and technical services are pay-as-you-go.
 
95% of my customers buy a maintenance contract. No coercion needed.
 ...

That is very reasonable. I have an electronic consulting company and have some software that I use all the time where I do have a maintenance contract.
 
The semiconductor company I used to work for set me up with a workstation (in my house) and circuit analysis software that was (at the time) $15,000/yr. I'm sure other people have seen similiar situations. Needless to say, I don't use that software for my company...
 
Walt
 
 

I use software from 4 business models.  Freeware (with pop-up ads), Purchased and owned (Sonar, Audition, Word, Excel, etc.), Purchased but not supported without a yearly paid service plan, and Subscription (Adobe Muse).
 
My least favorite is the freeware.  My subscription software is updated very regularly and includes new features and bug fixes as they are developed.  We all know the experience with the Cakewalk model where you pay and may or may not get regular updates.  On my software that offers the service plan, they never release bug fixes after a release (we have never needed one as it is very stable) but a service agreement is required if you need technical support.
 
I guess I would be OK with a subscription if Cake stayed on top of the updates as they are developed AND MY SOFTWARE WOULD CONTINUE TO WORK beyond my contract period if I discontinued.

No, No & no no no!

bitman
No, No & no no no!

 
Yes.

No.  No.  Never.  I know companies WANT to do this to guarantee the income stream.  I know they would try to sell it as 'service' etc.  I understand some of the benefits. 
 
But no.  It's not what I want to be tied into a company etc.  I hate playing the 'update every so often' anyway.  Maybe I'm a control freak, or maybe I think it's a suckers play.  
 
I'm actually leaning the OTHER way: at some time, I may just pull the 'internet plug' on my 'productive' setup and treat it like a piece of studio 'hardware'.   Stop all the computer futzing around and just make music. 
 

I believe that this is a trend we will see more and more of...not actually owning anything anymore.
 
The more we are tied to subscription services and online installers under the guise of 'security and convenience', the more removed we are from having any real control over the products we supposedly own.
 
This is one of the highest profit area for all retailers of any kind. Consider the 'extended warranty' concept. For the very few who actually get to take advantage of it before the warranty period expires ( which is very carefully thought out by the retailer ) its a bargain...for most everyone else, its a last minute up sell that seldom gets redeemed.  ( Car under carriage coating anyone?? )
 
Most really bad concepts start out this way with what seem to be perfectly sensible reasons..until the hangover comes.
 
Think of all the best purchases you have ever made in your studio, the ones that really last and that you depend on. I'll be willing to bet the ones you still use or still have value will be hardware...
 
...because, old or new, you in fact 'own it' out right...weather your internet connection is working or not.

Featherlight
I believe that this is a trend we will see more and more of...not actually owning anything anymore.
 

In one respect, we're already half way there with SONAR - the EULA makes it quite clear that we don't actually own the software, we merely purchase a licence to use it.
 
And this business model is the main reason why we cannot sell the software on, or more accurately, transfer the licence.
 
Although not strictly relevant to this thread, I believe allowing this option, even if it involves Cakewalk charging a (small) fee for the licence transfer, would have benefits for both Cakewalk and its customers. I believe however, that there is a genuine and fully understandable reason why this option hasn't been introduced - the sell on value of a 'single' licence is almost impossible to quantify because due to Cakewalk's rather attractive upgrade pricing. As most of us didn't actually pay full market retail price for the latest version, it would be unfair to be able to sell a full version of SONAR if you only paid the $99/£79 upgrade price.
 
I'm sure there is a way of doing it, but I wouldn't want to have to work it all out.
 
 

No. Just no. People need to wake up if they really think this will benefit the consumer rather than the vendor.

Thats the way its been for as long as I can remember Steve.
 
Think about it, owning has meaning that is problematic to a software developer. Having a right to use the software is a very different matter. If you own it you have every right to it including in selling copies. If on the other hand you have access to it but have no claim to the code selling it would be a problem for you. 
 
I can fully understand why CW has that as a contract with its user base. It isn't freeware. 
 
I have no problem with how CW has written its EULA.