If Everyone Hates Adobe, Why Is It Pulling in Record Profits?

If Everyone Hates Adobe, Why Is It Pulling in Record Profits?

Last week, Adobe reported that the fourth quarter of 2019 was the most lucrative in the company’s history, delivering annual revenues of $11 billion. Given that it’s rare to hear a good word said about Adobe in the world of photography and videography, why is the company still so incredibly successful?

You don’t have to look far to find photographers complaining about Lightroom: it’s slow, its masking functionality is put to shame by the likes of Capture One, its ability to edit skin tones is surprisingly limited, and the workspace cannot be customized. The near-unavoidable Creative Cloud Desktop app is bloated, constantly up-selling, and frequently misleading. Perhaps by far the biggest bugbear bemoaned by customers is the subscription model: no other photo editing software ties you in for 12 monthly payments with the ever-present threat that the price could be hiked at any moment. 

From this, you can probably appreciate why I thought Adobe Rush was a free alternative to iMovie. One of the many slightly misleading aspects that makes Adobe's software obnoxious.

For many photographers, Adobe has them tied into a contract and thus has no incentive to innovate, fix bugs, or offer significant upgrades, but it’s not just photographers who are complaining. I’ve heard from more than a few videographers and filmmakers recently who have announced their move from Adobe Premiere Pro to DaVinci Resolve, citing stability issues and corrupt project files. Premiere can be buggy, especially if you’re on a PC running hardware that’s more than a few years old. Many users complain of customer support being incredibly slow responding to inquiries, bug reports that are seemingly ignored, and that the beta forums for some packages have become farcical.

Is Adobe Too Big to Care?

The recently launched version of Photoshop for iPad seemed indicative of how Adobe now treats its customers. No doubt, huge companies draw greater criticism simply by virtue of being so huge, but for many, the car crash that was Photoshop for iPad demonstrated a complete lack of respect for users. Instead of getting enthusiastic fans on board by exhaustively testing and evolving a new product, Adobe seemed to rush it to market, creating an application that received countless caustic reviews.

I recently did a job that required a lot of compositing, something I'd never done before. Not something I'd like to try on the iPad.

Given all of these problems and the emergence of so many competitors — Capture One, Skylum, and Affinity to name but a few — why is Adobe still proving so unbelievably successful? Creative Cloud subscriptions account for the largest part of Adobe’s revenues, and from the noise, surely, dissatisfaction and customers migrating elsewhere would have an impact? Apparently not, and shareholders must have been delighted when Adobe’s share price spiked by more than 4% on December 12 at the news that revenues for the year were in excess of $11 billion.

That is a phenomenal amount of money for a company that makes niche software. This is not an operating system that is integral to every machine out there or a word processor that even your nan needs to have installed. This is hardcore, professional-level, commercial software with a comparatively limited customer base. Through sheer innovation, Adobe established itself as the industry standard across numerous professions, but how long can this last? Apparently, for the foreseeable future.

The Subscription Tsunami

Adobe realized early that software as a standalone product was not going to deliver profits forever. Eventually, demand was going to drop-off — potentially coinciding with a slackening of innovation from its developers — and Adobe was smart in predicting that its sales would reach saturation point. The number of new customers would eventually decline, and those who already owned the software were not about to blow a chunk of cash on an updated version that was barely an upgrade.

Software as a service was the future, and it brought other hooks and advantages as well. Tapping into customers’ Gear Acquisition Syndrome was now much easier: users might feel reluctant to hand over several hundred dollars for something that offered only an incremental improvement, but paying $10 a month to know that you were always using the latest and greatest version was reassuring.

Lightroom. Dependable. Occasionally sluggish. Hard to leave.

Secondly, cloud service companies such as Dropbox were already using this model, and if this type of functionality could be bundled into the deal, it would both justify the ongoing fee as well as trapping customers into an ecosystem. If your raw files are all in Adobe’s cloud, while it’s not impossible to move systems, it definitely gives you an extra incentive to stay put. Encouraging lethargy is a great way of retaining customers.

Thirdly, this model can feel to many like a monthly subscription but is in fact an annual subscription that is paid by the month. Opting to pay for the entire year in advance will not save you any money, and even if you choose to pay for 12 months, Adobe will hang onto your card details so that it can process the renewal when it comes around. (Given that Adobe inadvertently exposed the data of 7.5 million customers a few months ago, this might not be ideal if you’re protective about your information.) This monthly fee feels less expensive, and psychologically, it gives you the misguided sense that if your circumstances suddenly change, this is a financial burden that can be immediately canceled. Of course, it’s not that simple: there is a fee if you want to cancel your contract early.

The final piece of this puzzle that secured Adobe’s transition from goods to services, from selling to renting, was the disappearance of the option to purchase outright. While subscription and standalone options stood side by side for a while, sales of Lightroom 6 stopped earlier this year, with the last copies being snapped up from online retailers in March and April. You might recall that back in 2013, Adobe promised users that it would always offer a standalone version of Lightroom available to purchase with a perpetual license: “Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely,” its blog calmly explained.

So, was Adobe telling the truth as it saw and things then changed, or was it telling customers what they wanted to hear to prevent unnecessary upheaval?

The Photography Bundle Is Massively Discounted

In Adobe’s defense, it could be argued that the plan for photographers is comparatively cheap. Lightroom and Photoshop together come to $9.99 a month, which seems like a bargain when you consider that Photoshop as a single app is $20.99 per month. Why anyone would choose to pay for Photoshop on its own considering that it’s less than half the price if you rent it with Lightroom is a mystery, but that’s the standard fee for individual apps.

Photoshop. Cheap at half the price.

As the model goes, it makes sense. There are millions of amateur photographers willing to pay a small fee per month that probably wouldn’t pay a large fee. Adobe gets a ton more customers, which more than outweighs the reduced price — a million customers paying $10 a month pulls in more revenue than 100,000 customers paying $20 a month. By contrast, there are far fewer video editors or designers than photographers, and they will pay more for an individual app, especially when it’s more likely to be a profession.

The problem starts when, as a photographer, you have Lightroom and Photoshop, but want to do some video editing. Adding Premiere — one single application — to your bundle triples the cost of your subscription. Because of this, I opted to buy Affinity Publisher outright for around $50 rather than rent InDesign for the year for more than $250.

If you feel the urge to self-publish a book, Affinity Publisher is your most cost-effective professional option.

Not only that, but one has to wonder how long this Lightroom/Photoshop photography bundle will last. Earlier this year, Adobe claimed that it was “testing” new pricing options when visitors to its website noticed that Lightroom as an individual app was $9.99, but bundled with Photoshop, the price was suddenly $19.99. Perhaps this was some A/B testing happening in certain parts of the world, but if those are the options when renewal time comes around, many will be ditching Photoshop and paying a one-time fee for Affinity Photo or Pixelmator Pro in its place.

If Adobe decides to implement this change, there is a chance that customers renting one app rather than two will then be more inclined to ditch Lightroom completely in favor of something else. Hopefully, for us customers, that’s enough for Adobe to hold off.

Will the Competition Follow Suit?

What seems more likely is that competitors will follow suit with the subscription model. No doubt, lots of small software firms initially saw Adobe’s move and thought they’d been given a up: while Adobe would push customers away with subscriptions, they could Hoover them up by continuing to offer one-time fees. However well that may have worked for Adobe’s competitors, Adobe has proven that the subscription model is lucrative, and it may only be a matter of time before one-off purchases become a thing of the past across the industry. Affinity and Pixelmator are both a single purchase, but they’re still under heavy development, and while many professional users will have migrated, Adobe still has a very stiff hold of the industry, and one-off fees make these alternatives stand out — for now.

Capture One currently offers both a one-time fee and a subscription, but will it eventually follow Adobe’s lead and become subscription only? It has no plans to switch, but unlike Adobe, it doesn’t want to rule it out before possibly changing its mind.

Adobe Can Do Whatever It Wants, But for How Long?

This being a free market, Adobe can charge whatever it wants, and customers will decide what’s best, but Adobe’s dominance is going to take time to shift, and the company is clearly not afraid of exploiting its position. There’s a huge volume of tutorial content for Adobe products, and any budding young digital creative thinking of ditching freelance life and working for an agency will be expected to know Adobe products inside out.

Fortunately, companies such as Affinity are leading the charge and seem to have the funds to be able to offer their software at very affordable prices. Right now, Affinity Photo is just $49.99, and a perpetual license costs less than two and a half months of Photoshop. If and when the Lightroom/Photoshop bundle gets its price hike, I highly recommend reading this article from Fstoppers' Wasim Ahmad and doing the 30-day trial.

A screenshot of Affinity Photo. Source: Serif.com

In time, Adobe’s slowing innovation, dishonorable marketing tactics, and lack of respect for its customers may have an impact, especially as competitors match features, produce more tutorial content, and continue to undercut Adobe on price. Revenues might be at record highs for 2019, but as 12-month contracts begin to expire and the alternatives keep getting better, 2020 might be a different story.

What are your thoughts? Leave a comment below.

Andy Day's picture

Andy Day is a British photographer and writer living in France. He began photographing parkour in 2003 and has been doing weird things in the city and elsewhere ever since. He's addicted to climbing and owns a fairly useless dog. He has an MA in Sociology & Photography which often makes him ponder what all of this really means.

Log in or register to post comments
110 Comments
Previous comments

I would also note that the acrimony is very similar to the outrage ginned up in the political sphere where allegiances and differences are amplified all out of proportion.
Unlike politics, the Adobe "oppression" scarcely merits the emotion that populates these and other boards.

I'm one of the complainers but I also don't own a subscription. I still have sympathy for people who feel like they need to use adobe because they aren't in the professional position to not care about passing that cost onto their clients.

Like some other people I've talked to, I've held onto my license of LR 6. I fear for the day that I get a camera that isn't supported... That will likely be the when I make the complete switch to C1.

Affinity kicks ass and hopefully they keep making a great product. I've been a huge fan and already use them for everything outside of LR and even for design work. The thing that still bothers me is that Adobe is the default and while files/projects communicate (for the most part) smoothly between platforms, I sometimes run into issues but I'm sure some of them are user error and not the fault of the Affinity program.

I can admit that I like Adobe products at a functional level. I just hate the SaaS business model for a product that lacks enough useful innovation to warrant the increase in cost for me. I don't need all of the tricks that they keep adding to their creative suite other than maybe camera support.

What you are describing is the problem of enthusiast/hobbyist. Adobe's profits stem from large scale institutional subscriptions and smaller professional firms. In short, those making money from the service.
I get that a hobbyist may resent the model but as you note, Affinity and other alternatives offer solutions for them. That the alternative apps may not yet be as capable or as integrated as Adobe is less important to that market as they are not dependent on them for their living.

So, to my original point, venting at Adobe for their profit driven SaaS model that has rewarded their shareholders with a 900% share price increase over 10 years is pointless.

Adobe is leaving behind precisely that customer base that did not upgrade regularly, needed more support and (was alleged) often used pirated software. I fire clients that fit that profile.

Adobe lives in a market with little competition so it makes sense why people complain. Reminds me of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMcny_pixDw

A big part of reason people complain is because Adobe are pro software, not designed for easily use by beginners. With years of practice I can comfortably working with most Adobe apps that I needed for my work and hobbies, and I have no intention to move to anything that rely on AI process.

Actually, Adobe is pro softwate that tends to come out of the gate bugged out, and Adobe spends too much time touting what's new and not enough time fixing what needs to be addressed.
However when you're a giant corporate monopoly you don't really have to give a shit.

I'm a product designer and feel like Adobe had been a secondary tool for years now. While I still use it for illustration and raster editing (though no longer UI) it's tough to justify the cost. Everything said here is accurate; I'm ready to cancel for a cheaper alternative as soon as one is available. So tired of Adobe's bloated software riddled with unnecessary services and sluggish performance.

Because it's cool to hate on huge corporations while still shoveling your money, sometimes secretly, into them because the truth is they make good to decent products. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with Adobe. If there were, they wouldn't have the customer base. PS and LR are staples, but it sounds super edgy, and counter big business if I say fuck Adobe. Hell, I can even make a Fuck Adobe poster in PS, and get chuckles for irony.

I don't think you've been paying attention to what people don't like. They have an effective monopoly on professional graphic solutions and the switch from a license model to SaaS meant they people would be paying more for their software without an equal increase in its usefulness. I may be a sample size of one but I'm certain I'm not alone when I say that I would likely never use many of the newer features that they've included. Sure they're neat but they keep pumping out these innovative tools that many won't use on a regular basis. All the while, they are collecting dollars from people who would have waited to upgrade their software license when Adobe came out with something that was actually a step up from what they were using.

As I noted above, institutional expenditures for Adobe products is likely to remain strong as they have embraced the SaaS model and like the fact that they do not need to spend staff time and money on upgrades/installs/support. They also like the fact that all licensing is accounted for and thus eliminate license compliance costs and so on.
I think individual users at the hobbyist level are a small part of the overall base of customers but just as Honda and Toyota sell millions of Accords and Camrys, those dissatisfied with the offerings can switch to the Subarus of image editing. Many hobbyists will stick with the crowd.

Photoshop...I pay $120 a year because no other software can save a bad photo like it can..yet. %95 of all my editing is in Capture One though.

I'm sorry but this article is biased. You are naive if you think adobe is only used by photographers. It is the most functional and widely used by designers which make up the larger group of adobe users. Indesign is more of an asset than photoshop. Or lightroom. They are neccessary.

And the vast bulk of users are making a living with it. At $10-$20 a month it is scarcely a model -breaking expense for someone who is using it as their primary means of production.
My coffee bills are higher than that in one week.

I ended my CC because I did not like the software's unreliability and sensitivity to crashes. Each update requires more capacity from my computer and I am not willing to update the computer now.
The price you show in your article is not right. There is also tax. The price varies from country to country depending on the currency you pay with.
Today I use Capture One for my Fujifilm files. For other camera brands, I use PhotoLab (with Nik Collection) by DxO. For video editing, I use DaVinci Resolve. I am very pleased with the changes.

From the perspective of a systems manager, which included well over 500 copies of Photoshop, I would observe we negotiated a leasing agreement for "x" number of Photoshop licences per year, Just as we did for nearly all our other software needs. The leasing of software is standard practice in the commercial world (at least, for larger and government organisations) and outright purchase is the exception. What surprises me is that Adobe left it so long to introduce their subscription model across the board and scoop us plebs into their web.

Anyway, I happen to think the subscription rate for the Photography Bundle is good value for money, especially when I recall the days when I had to pay over a $1,000 plus for personal use, upfront for a copy of Photoshop Extended, and STILL put my hand in my pocket to the tune of hundreds of dollars every year or two to step up to the next numbered version of the product. Good times >:(

What kind of a headline is this? I don`t thinf Adobe is really that hateful by everyone like they`ve stated here, otherwise Adobe products wouldn`t be that popular among lots of professionals. I am not a great fan of Photoshop but it`s just because it seems to complicated for me and I prefer doing portrait editing via PhotoWorks

People don't like when a company has an effective monopoly because of what it does to costs.

"Everyone" is a vocal minority and Adobe have no competition. There's your two reasons.

i wish i could just pick a few apps i do really use. all the others that i dont use i am paying for now. but something i do love is that the apps integrate. im using photoshop, premiere, after efffects and audition at the same time a lot of the time. sometimes i just use 1.

WHY? Because when you try and quit your CC subscription, they try and force you to remain. At first it starts out with a nice low price for Photoshop and Lightroom only, once you reject that, the fun starts. I was actually threatened by 'customer support', into staying. He cited a penalty of over 200 USD, to quit the subscription. I laughed. Told him I was in the EU, and he immediately changed his story, ended my subscription and hung up. Do not be fooled, there is nothing customer centric in anything Adobe does. They are simply counting you as a revenue stream.

Everyone Hates Adobe, cause they are Pulling in Record Profits by raising price by 50% overnight.

With hundreds if not thousands of hours invested in Lightroom and photoshop why would I want to change? People pay 5 bucks for a cup of fancy coffee and then complain about the cost of Adobe? Are we forgetting that years back PHOTOSHOP was hundreds of dollars, well outside the price range of a casual user?

It was only ~30 years ago when you turned on a PC you were met with a C:\\ staring at you and little else.. I still have DOS 1.0 51/4 inch disks and appreciate everything it has taken to get me a subscription to Adobe......

The coffee comparison is a bit strange because there are multiple coffee brands out there in a competitive market where Adobe is pretty much on it's own and can increase it's subscription fees much higher before people stop paying.

Photoshop used to cost hundreds of dollars but over time, one usually didn't upgrade with each new version. The innovation was not there (and I argue that it still isn't) so you could just wait and spread that cost across multiple years. I still use LR6. I paid for a license and it's been working just fine for my production process. The things I might be missing out on are not worth the yearly cost. It's likely that I wouldn't use many of the things that I'd be paying for and thus making it MORE expensive.

Most are fake hater, true hater just switch to another product without telling you

There are so many great alternatives to Adobe products now that it makes no sense to invest, and invest, and invest in Adobe's alleged success. Luminar and darktable are wonderful alternatives. If you don't like Adobe, MOVE! Quit bitching and just MOVE!

Why are they raking in crazy money? The power of a monopoly!

"Revenues might be at record highs for 2019, but as 12-month contracts begin to expire and the alternatives keep getting better, 2020 might be a different story."

Well, except they had record revenues in 2016, 2017, and 2018--as far as I understand. Yes, alternatives may get good enough to reverse the course, but it's doubtful. Also, I reckon that the subscription model will become the norm within 5 or 10 years. The reason for that is that it has been so very successful for Adobe.

At the end of the day, like it or not, Adobe is the standard by which all others are judged.

Adobe has a solution for just about everything creative and I use a large number of their applications, simplistic and complex, for print, web, video, animation and social. Each application seems optimized for a specific task (or set of tasks) which leads to inconsistent UI across the apps - but there is improvement in that area as well.

Love the products HATE the company, will NOT upgrade to subscriptions, I was more than willing to pay for updates annually as I choose, BUT not monthly, plus a rural location where wfi is not a given, I never knew that creativity wa a function of large city, never ming farmers, ranchers AND small towns, I had my paid for licensed pulled because they claim it was a fraudulent upgrade, no recourse, 4 years after the fact...just love how they do not work with you or offer any work arounds...will fold our office before I will pay for a monthly subscription. I think locking you into a monthly for products you use occasionally to allow for products you use daily stinks. Not everyone lives in a down town.

You don't quit your job if you like everything about it but the boss.

Because it's only the angry 1% who "HATE" Adobe, hating on things everyone likes is the cool thing nowadays and blatant click-bait articles get views.

Another trend that's become "cool" is saying things like "hating on things everyone likes is the cool thing nowadays", and not listening when people back up their position.

It's okay I'm sure someone is ready to listen about why Adobe is the most evilest ever

Most people think Adobe is a good product, they just don't like the SaaS model. That's far from the dismissive straw man you keep building in defense of Adobe.

Well then I have bad news for them as SaaS is going to grow and grow considering the piracy rate and vitriol against DRM software. They're trying to sweep back the tide

I love Adobes products and the monthly fee is about half of Capture One and gives me both Photoshop and Lightroom. Photoshop have been around since forever, it’s great software,
Also most clients of Adobe pays with little complaints. I would expect. I find it much harder to pay for Starbucks coffee:)

I have had high hopes for Luminar to be my choice to get rid of Adobe. But it is now version 4 and it seem less likely now than in version 3. So for now I am stuck with the Photography plan.

Because their subscription model sucks ass. I switched to Affinity Photo and am happy to not pay $10 a month. Affinity Photo cost me $50 and I’ll never have to pay another dime. And I like it just as much.

I do invest in the stock market as a hobby (and for retirement) and when Adobe converted over to the rental plan only, I decided not to buy the stock because of all the negative feedback on photography forums. Wow was I wrong. Same thing with McDonald's, everyone hates McDonald's but everyone eats their food and their stock has also skyrocketed. From now on I'll stick to business news and ignore the nay-sayers. They're typically wrong, and probably not over flowing with cash. .

I'm a designer and have been using Adobe software for longer than I can remember. I didn't mind too much to switch to their subscription model because I felt I was getting more than enough value, using PS, AI, INDD, DW and Acrobat daily, plus Premiere and Animate on an ad hoc basis. That is until about 2 months ago when a mysterious bug suddenly started preventing CC and all the apps I use from updating. Support has been shockingly bad, I'll spare you the frustrating details but the bottom line is that Error 183 is a known bug and it will be fixed one day, no one knows when, stop asking about it. But do still pay your sub. I find it despicable of Adobe to care so little and be so arrogant - but there is no alternative - they've made themselves the industry standard and even if I could transpose my entire work flow to other apps and vendors, I still need to share files with other professionals. Adobe has become the golden hand cuffs and the abusive partner - I really have grown to hate them and cannot wait for the day that there is a real competitor and alternative.

Integration and Updates.
Integration between the applications is one major reason for Adobe's success. Moving a going from LR into PS and then into AE or PP is a no-brainer.
The subscription model for the CC applications makes updating another no-brainer.

I don't think Photoshop is bad at all, it's the industry standard for a reason, and I gladly pay $10/mo to use it (and I use it daily).

Lightroom I think is what everyone really hates.

Myself and I'd wager the vast majority of commercial advertising photographers use Capture One because 95% of the jobs we're shooting, we're tethered. And anyone who's used LR's tethering function knows just how COMPLETELY INADEQUATE it is.

And before someone says "think of the catalogs! will someone please think of the catalogs!!", I call bullshit. If you have a clean and logical real folder set-up, you don't need a lethargic catalog to look up your work.

It is sad that wireless tethering in Lightroom with a plugin that hasn't updated in years is faster than tethered

Admittedly I’m not running tethered but Lightroom has become my standard tool for post then Photoshop is my tool for finalizing and mastering the final product. I’ve done so much with Photoshop over two decades that I’m surprised I’d rather do most of the work in Lightroom but I think the reason is in the core differences between the programs. Now with Lightroom I’m more likely to do less with the photo and keep it closer to my actual photo than when I was only on Photoshop.

By past 20 years has focused more on graphic design than photography alone and now I use both PS and LR nearly interchangeably even though I’ve tried other programs.

Last, they finally brought the products into affordability. Photoshop has always been overpriced until the updated their current subscription based option. I was first upset by the option. “Screw them, I want to own my programs!” No, it’s more affordable now and gets routine updates. I’ll agree with Hasto and others on need for better updates but they provide them as part of the subscription, a notable improvement over the years.
Cheers

Because nothing beats PS/Lr/Nik Collection combo. There are alternatives but they still can't match Adobe suits. Also, not everyone believes the constant "this is finally an alternative to Adobe" articles that both fstoppers and Petapixels keep pushing again and again.

I think the term is rent. They are the landlords of the creative space and we are just tenants.

Here's the tedious non-photographic answer.

Adobe has monopolistic pricing power due to the fact that barriers to entry exist for their competitors, and barriers to exit exist for their users.

Adobe benefits from what is called, in Economics, a positive network effect externality: this occurs when a product or services value is increased simply by the number of people using the product or service. Everybody uses Adobe, so that means that Adobe is valuable, so everyone uses it, because everyone uses it. This happens with a lot of information exchange systems. The benefits of the externality go a long way towards making up for other defects that the information system might have- this is why scholars in medieval and early modern Europe communicated with each other in Latin, despite the fact that the language had been dead for 1000 years and was extremely "buggy," pardon my anachronism. Facebook is modern example, or instagram. There are plenty of problems with these products, but everyone is on them. So they continue to be valuable.

Interestingly, and alarmingly for Adobe, the positive feedback loop generated by positive network externalities can invert into negative feedback loops very quickly, and very thoroughly.

Latin is a great example of this. The Humanists attempted to "reform" it, purging it of medieval and renaissance accretions, in an attempt to return "ad fontes." This had the effect of making Latin harder to learn, less malleable ,and less useful in contemporary science and culture. Costs of Latin were being raised just as French was gaining in prestige and use. The spread of French reduced switching costs for users, and this, combined with the rising costs of Latin, caused Latin to almost completely disappear as the international language of culture and science. After 1000 years, this process took maybe less than half a century.

For a more modern example, look at how quickly myspace collapsed.

Adobe is attempting to raise the costs of using it as high as possible (so as to maximize their revenue), while still keeping these costs just under switching costs and positive network externailty benefits. This is a tough tightrope to walk. They'll probably screw it up.

Clear candidate for best comment of 2019. Bravo, sir.

The argument is good but Adobe is not supported by thousands of fashion conscious tweens but rather corporate types who want ease of management and who ascribe to the nostrum "No one ever got fired for buying IBM (Adobe)".
The cost to switch is high for the institutional users and would be mightily resisted by management wanting to avoid switching headaches. Kind of like no one has meaningfully moved away from Microsoft despite an abundance of anecdotal rage.

I don't hate Adobe and have been a subscriber of the Photography plan for several years now.

More comments