NatureScapes.net Forums

archfotos wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:Still, compared to the monthly rates, it’s a bargain. That’s especially true for larger school districts at 2500 licenses per year where more students can utilize it. I do hope they lower the numbers required, because in small places like Santa Fe where a huge number of artists and creatives are in the schools and make up the general population, our schools are not that large. They would certainly benefit, as would Adobe down the road, from lower required numbers.

Doesn't this kind of show the flaw for school systems in general to be teaching with "materials" that are so prohibited due to costs for most students?  Basically students won't be able to continue with their art once they leave the building.  Whether to work at home or once they graduate.  While Adobe's red herring of $10 a month for photoshop might quiet the photo message boards.  Art students will want to work on multiple programs and using Adobe that means $600 per year for a student.

Adobe clearly has made the choice wanting to be a software for corporate America.  With all the options available; Resolve, Darktable, Affinity, etc.  the school systems should be utilizing/teaching software that the students can afford.  What if the school system told students they could only shoot projects on 8x10 cameras or submit art work over 40" and all paintings needing to be done in oil?

Jerry Uelsmann, Dali, ManRay and many more were creating imaginative work well before Adobe showed up.  Stifling students with an elitist attitude that Adobe has generated is not beneficial for the students.  Every time I've worked with a digital artist (who obviously have an unlimited budget for work software) I'm amazed how they love to show off their Gimp skills.  And I've worked with PAs who are just getting out of school very little income yet are convinced they need to waste their finances on Adobe's subscription because their professors have convinced them of this.  My opinion the portfolio still gets you the job.

Could you imagine how much money our government(for the people) would save if using Open Source software instead of paying millions for rights to use Word Processing software.

archfotos wrote:

SantaFeJoe wrote:Still, compared to the monthly rates, it’s a bargain. That’s especially true for larger school districts at 2500 licenses per year where more students can utilize it. I do hope they lower the numbers required, because in small places like Santa Fe where a huge number of artists and creatives are in the schools and make up the general population, our schools are not that large. They would certainly benefit, as would Adobe down the road, from lower required numbers.

Doesn't this kind of show the flaw for school systems in general to be teaching with "materials" that are so prohibited due to costs for most students?  Basically students won't be able to continue with their art once they leave the building.  Whether to work at home or once they graduate.  While Adobe's red herring of $10 a month for photoshop might quiet the photo message boards.  Art students will want to work on multiple programs and using Adobe that means $600 per year for a student.

Adobe clearly has made the choice wanting to be a software for corporate America.  With all the options available; Resolve, Darktable, Affinity, etc.  the school systems should be utilizing/teaching software that the students can afford.  What if the school system told students they could only shoot projects on 8x10 cameras or submit art work over 40" and all paintings needing to be done in oil?

Jerry Uelsmann, Dali, ManRay and many more were creating imaginative work well before Adobe showed up.  Stifling students with an elitist attitude that Adobe has generated is not beneficial for the students.  Every time I've worked with a digital artist (who obviously have an unlimited budget for work software) I'm amazed how they love to show off their Gimp skills.  And I've worked with PAs who are just getting out of school very little income yet are convinced they need to waste their finances on Adobe's subscription because their professors have convinced them of this.  My opinion the portfolio still gets you the job.

Could you imagine how much money our government(for the people) would save if using Open Source software instead of paying millions for rights to use Word Processing software.