There’s an Adobe controversy that seemingly everyone’s talking about. I have probably a unique take on it, and I want to share that with you in this article. If you’re interested, read on; otherwise, this is probably a post that’s ok to skip.
I don’t want to spend too much time rehashing what has already been said about it, but for those who don’t know… Adobe—the makers of Photoshop, Lightroom, and a number of other software programs—has been ticking off their customers for some time now. They’re constantly doing something that makes their customers unhappy—but, apparently, not unhappy enough to actually matter. Adobe is the long-time reigning king of photo and video editing software (at least by subscription sales…), and their closest competitors are pretty far in the distance. Adobe is not worried in the slightest about any controversy they’ve stepped into. They can be brazen in their controversies and it doesn’t bother them even a little. They have a lot to gain and very little to lose (or so they think). They can even spy on your pictures, and you’re not going to do a darn thing about it.
That’s the current controversy. Adobe has updated their terms of service, which allows them to potentially look at your pictures—presumably only if you are utilizing their cloud service and/or AI technologies; however, they haven’t fully clarified that, which certainly casts some doubt to a limited use scenario. If you’re not being forthcoming, people are going to assume all sorts of things, especially if you have a history of deception. For example, nobody had a clue that Adobe was using their pictures (via Adobe Stock) to train their AI; when it came out, Adobe pointed out it was in the terms of service, and everyone was like, “I don’t remember agreeing to that, and I wouldn’t have if I had known.” But how can you argue? You agreed. Is it Adobe’s fault that you didn’t read the lengthy terms of service written in a legal language that only an attorney could fully understand? No, it’s your fault, because you agreed, even though you had no idea what you were agreeing to. It was buried in there somewhere, apparently, that Adobe could legally use your pictures to eventually put you out of business.
If you want to learn more about the controversy, PetaPixel has a few articles (here, here, and here). Tony Northrup has a video. Even Fujirumors has a post. There are a thousand more, I’m sure, that you can find and read. It’s a big story, but it won’t make any difference, unless this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Unless their customers have finally had enough and have a mass exodus. Otherwise, we’ll all forget about this rather quickly, and (as usual) it will be a complete nonissue.
The fact is that most apps are spying on you. Data is money right now. Big money. It’s a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry. The more that is known about you, the easier it is to control how you think and behave and (most important to companies) to sell you crap that you probably don’t need and otherwise wouldn’t have purchased. Adobe is spying on you for the same reasons why Google, Apple, Meta, Yahoo, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., are spying on you. There’s a lot of money to be made from knowing more about you, and there’s a lot of money for that data. They will tell you that it’s innocent: to improve customer service or improve their products or for legal or training purposes— something like that—but in reality it’s about the money that they can make from doing it. Your money, btw—it’s about how they can get their hands on your money more easily. And it’s not just your money; they don’t actually care where the cash comes from—for example, Adobe’s AI ultimately isn’t about getting more money from photographers, but eventually the money that might otherwise go to photographers; they’re going to cut out the middleman (that’s you).
I know all of this because, technically speaking, I’m an app developer, and I’ve learned this stuff while developing apps and researching topics related to it. My apps don’t spy on anyone for any reason. I collect zero data with my apps, not even user names or email addresses. There are plenty of people who would say it’s not smart to do that—everyone else is doing it, and making a lot of money in the process. Why shouldn’t I? But I value your privacy, because I value my own privacy. Treat others how you wish to be treated, right? That’s the Golden Rule, which used to mean something. Maybe I’m naive, but I think the world would be better if more people followed that principal. Unfortunately, most apps don’t follow that rule, and you’re being spied on a lot more than you likely realize.
Going back to Adobe, I haven’t used their products for a long time now. A lot of Fujifilm photographers use Capture One instead of Lightroom because of how it handles X-Trans files. Nowadays—and for a handful of years now—I shoot JPEGs, and don’t edit, other than cropping/straightening and maybe a minor adjustment occasionally. I use Film Simulation Recipes, and get the look I want straight-out-of-camera, unedited. I have no need for Photoshop or Lightroom or even a competitor’s version of those programs. Personally, I don’t really care what Adobe does or doesn’t do, because I have no skin in the game, so to speak. Every person’s needs are different, but I bet that a lot of you reading this probably don’t need Adobe’s software, either, and could cancel your subscription (if you have one) without any negative impact whatsoever on your photography. If you’ve been on the fence about cancelling your Adobe subscription, perhaps now is a good time.
Even though Adobe owns the primary programs that many photographers use, if you are not happy with them, why continually give them your money? There are alternative software options, and alternative approaches, that make Adobe unnecessary for almost everyone. For me, it’s Film Simulation Recipes and JPEGs. For you, maybe it’s Capture One or some other program. I don’t want to suggest what might be the best choice for you, as we’re all different. Maybe you actually really do need Adobe; if that’s you, I hope you don’t mind being spied on by them, because they might just be doing that.
Anyway, this will all blow over really quickly, and two weeks from now probably no one will even be talking about it or concerned in the least about Adobe possibly spying on their pictures. So none of this actually matters. But if it does matter to you, just know there are indeed other options, and some might even be closer to you and easier for you than you realize.
Adobe just wrote: ‘You own your content’ and ‘we don’t train generative AI on customer content’
https://bit.ly/3VokLqK
And you are right:
‘And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.’ (LUKE 6:31)
Yeah, I read their response. I know that Tony Northrup wasn’t satisfied with it. I don’t really care one way or the other, personally, but… they definitely did train their AI on their customer’s content… not their Lightroom customers necessarily, but their stock customers. So, as usual, they aren’t being completely honest, which definitely makes people have some doubts.
I guess I just assume everyone is spying on us these days. For whatever it’s worth I pay Adobe $9.99 a month for Lightroom. I think you undervalue your FujiXWeekly app! I’d pay more for that great tool.
Definitely almost all free apps are spying. If you’re not the customer, you’re the product. Many paid apps are spying, too, but they shouldn’t be; basically, they are making you both their customer and their product simultaneously. That’s wrong, in my opinion, but it’s common, sadly.
no Adobe software here, so no issues…
but I also expect less and less privacy as time has worn on, since we (here in the US, anyways) have been willing to trade privacy for ‘security’….
There’s definitely less and less privacy, unfortunately.
“I shoot JPEGs, and don’t edit, other than cropping/straightening and maybe a minor adjustment occasionally.”
Ritchie, what program do you use for these purposes?
The Photos app that is default on all iPhones.
People have to know they are spied from almost all apps and sites! This the reality. We are marketing (and who know what else) targets.
There a lot of information about hist, if someone need to understand. That is why I do not like social medias and big, famous software.
Just like direction from me – guys at leas use ad blockers – on your browsers, on your mobile devices or at home level. I will not mention names of software and/or devices, but there are lot of information.
What’s crazy is that I read recently that many of the ad blockers are making deals with some of the ad companies to not block all ads. I suppose big businesses will find a way to get (our) money, one way or another, no matter what it takes.
It is possible. As I know the developers of uBlock were banned from some Dev conferences since few years.
But there still will be new faces and new blockers 🙂
Hello Ritchie, do you have an application or program that allows you to make a high-quality negative and print in Fine Art format? If so, I’m leaving Adobe as soon as possible… Thank you, with my best wishes,
I don’t know what you mean by “high quality negative” (120 format Kodak Ektar 100?), or “fine art format” (TIFF??). I’ve seen cellphone pictures and 110 film pictures on the walls of art museums. I’ve made prints (although never for an art exhibit) that look quite nice from straight-out-of-camera JPEGs from 26mp Fujifilm X-Trans cameras printed 2′ x 3′, no editing whatsoever. I don’t use any software programs anymore for editing pictures, the Fujifilm cameras have excellent output that don’t require editing. I’d consider them the digital equivalence of a high-quality negative and in a format perfectly acceptable for fine-art printing. In fact, I saw an incredible print from Jeffrey Sun that was SOOC (unedited) from the Fujifilm X-T50 that was about 40″ x 60″ maybe (I didn’t measure) and it looked amazing displayed on a NYC rooftop. I have no idea what specific editing tools that you are looking for, but I’m sure there are at least a few different programs that have them, whatever they might be. A lot of Fujifilm photographers use Capture One, for example. Since I don’t edit anymore, I’m probably not the person to ask for specific options. I hope this is somehow helpful nonetheless.
Hello Ritchie and thank you for your reply, I must have expressed myself badly. In fact, I make my prints in the form of gum bichromates or cyanotypes. The paper sizes are from 37.5 cm x 55 cm up to 110 x 78 cm. I have to make intermediate negatives in the format which are printed on transparencies, which must be the best possible. The most satisfactory results I have obtained were with Capture One indeed but the program has not worked for a few weeks and I hesitate to subscribe, paying for the Adobe suite. In fact, as I only work in SOOC .jpeg, I therefore have two needs: the negative and the printing in the format. These are the only uses I have with Photoshop, it is expensive! Sorry for being unclear, best regards, Philippe
I would love to learn more about this. It sounds really fascinating!
Hello and thank you Ritchie, I’ll get back to you as soon as I have a moment, in a few days.
Have a nice day! Philippe