Price comparison of software with and without a subscription

I use DXO myself (bought). And I did the latest upgrade, so I now have DXOlab 9. Before this I had 7. So I skipped 8.
But with DXO it is handy to do it during Black Friday when you buy it or upgrade, then you get a substantial discount (I got Lab9 50% off a year ago during Black Friday)

Difficult comparison: I’ve had a subscription to adobe for Lightroom with Photoshop for 144 per year for a very long time.

You can take the comparison even further by adding Affinity. Although that program is still rough around the edges, there is promise there. With AI just as expensive as Photoshop Lightroom.

Are those prices you mention still correct? Adobe Lightroom CC/Classic and Photoshop CC currently cost almost 25 Euros per year after the recent increase. You then pay a small 300 Euros per year.

I actually miss Affinity with and without AI in the comparison

The latest version would functionally stand up well to a comparison with Photoshop. I don't know what you mean by “rammelen”, but Photoshop also has its weak points in some areas.

It's a fair comparison Nando. Dutch at its narrowest, you might say. We buy thousands of euros' worth of photographic equipment and some people get worked up about Adobe's subscription costs. Yes, it costs money and depending on how long you've been a customer there are price variations. But you have a good package, up to date, and forced by the competition, Adobe keeps developing its products. I'm perfectly fine with it.

I neatly pay 144 euros per year (just paid again) for the use of my Adobe Lightroom CC/Classic and Photoshop. Years ago I also bought the purchased version of Luminar, but I never use it, another update every time....
I assume that 144 euros (12 euros per month) is still affordable for a hobby. In my early days I did indeed use copied CDs or DVDs. I prefer to pay for something that is and remains up to date

I use Luminar Neo myself, considerably cheaper and without a subscription.
Why wasn't this one included in the comparison?

I pay 138.27 euros per year for LR and PS. But if you continued paying monthly after that price increase, it is indeed much more expensive now. At the time, I opted for a one-year subscription, which means the price remains quite reasonable. Plus 20GB of storage in Adobe Cloud.

Since I no longer use Microsoft Windows at all and all my systems (NAS, server and desktops) run on Linux, the Adobe packages aren't an option for me.
It does take some getting used to at first, but by now I can manage Darktable perfectly well as a non-destructive photo manager/editor, and for more extensive editing GIMP also offers everything I need as a hobby photographer.

Sorry Nando but with your commentary you are doing all the people who use Luminar Neo a great disservice. I certainly don't consider myself a professional but neither a struggler with crappy software. I once saw you present a video in which you use Luminar and have to wait minutes for an edit to be completed, while I could perform the same edit in seconds. Does this perhaps say something about your PC? I know you're not a fan of Luminar Nando and maybe this program then doesn't belong in your little box of your comparison, but don't just dismiss it like that as in the answers above to various questions.

Affinity is completely free. And has sufficient capabilities.

Nando, the subscription version Luminar Neo Pro contains much more functionality than the stand-alone (one-time paid) version. Moreover, you get all the updates included. That makes it just as good as Lightroom, after all.
I think it's a shame that you didn't include Luminar in the price comparison.

I completely agree with you. I myself have also been working with Photoshop for 20 years already, and with Lightroom for about 10 years now as well. I don't like changing because I realize that having good knowledge of your program helps you much more, instead of trying something new every time. It should also be said: indeed €144/year -or even a bit more - for a hobby is really not staggering in my opinion (where is the time when we paid 500/600 BF for a roll of film!!!) Which hobby is still cheaper, that is, if we don't pursue the latest technical gadget every year. I do use the very latest novelties such as AI less, however, because in quite a lot of cases -in my opinion- I don't find them accurate enough at all. I can easily spend an hour working out a photo to my liking. Those who don't have time might perhaps be better off not choosing photography as a hobby

For several decades, I have been using the English-language ACDSee Photo Studio Professional, which unfortunately is never mentioned as a replacement for Lightroom. My experience with Lightroom goes too far back for me to be able to compare the two programs. But I switched to ACDSee at the time for various reasons: I found the photo management more pleasant to work with, I considered the photo editing comparable and it was cheaper. HDR, Panorama and Stacking are possible.
An ACDSee Photo Studio Professional subscription costs 89 dollars per year, a one-time purchase/license costs 100 dollars. Cloud storage is limited, but many people already have that arranged elsewhere. A few months before a new version is released, there are always attractive discounts on the license price (currently 40%). I buy a new license approximately every three years and I am very happy with it.

Totally agree with you. How difficult can it sometimes be for people to put things into perspective. A fellow photographer complained about the price of Photoshop/Lightroom, around +/- €150/year. He was walking around with a Nikon D800 camera on his belly worth around €4,000. I gave him a useful tip: Leave your camera at home, then it can't be stolen. I don't think he understood me.

Nando, just as an addition: the masks have improved enormously in Luminar Neo Pro, both in the version without and with a subscription. The downside of not having a subscription is that you have to buy a lot of functionality separately. Then you end up paying quite a bit more.

What is the new Apple package like?

fredkok wrote on Tuesday 9 June 2026 at 17:15  | reply

First, a tip: If you have a Chamber of Commerce registration, use it for your Adobe subscription, then you will be exempt from VAT. Saves you 21% on the price.
Furthermore, I am extremely surprised by people who think that everything should be free if it is digital or comes via the internet. Compare the current costs with how things were in the analogue era. No more costs for rolls of film and chemicals. As a photographer, you also don't want your photos to be taken from the internet for unsolicited commercial use. Then you want a fair price for your photographic work. Then surely others may also charge a price. And if you don't like it, you look for freeware, but it always has its limitations compared to serious and paid software.

For years now, I've been in the fortunate position of not having to pay anything for an Adobe subscription (Lightroom + Photoshop).
If you also sell stock photos through Adobe, you get the software 'for free' with a minimum number of sales.
So both earning money and getting the software for free .
Besides, I just think Lightroom is a great system! So I stopped seriously considering anything else a long time ago!

You're right, Nando. Because only Lightroom is listed with the package, I thought they only provided Lightroom CC in that subscription, but fortunately Lightroom Classic is included too. In the past, we also had the old plan that included Photoshop CC and 20 GB of cloud storage. They replaced that with a more expensive variant.

I currently use Lightroom and Photoshop. Completely used to them and I can work with them well. Lately, I've been absolutely bombarded with advertisements for ON1. It claims to be a full-fledged Lightroom alternative for less than half the price. Does anyone here have any experience with it?

I've had the same subscription for years and I also pay 144 euros per year for this package, and it's definitely worth it to me.

Much also has to do with whether you are a professional or hobby photographer. I myself fall into the latter category (and money is important) I still work with a purchased Photoshop and Ligtroom and yes it has some disadvantages but that suits me and I haven't paid anything for 15 years already. I do subscribe to the idea 'you take a photo on location and not behind your PC'. Cropping, removing some (small) distracting elements, shifting things around a bit with colour and brightness, I don't do much more. I know that the current programs have much more up their sleeve.
Also that ai stuff is sometimes convenient but it is no longer your own photo.
ps: I work in advertising and nowadays everyone makes (themselves?) their designs with that shit gtp stuff and then expects us to carry out those unrealistic designs.

Oh, that's why those workshops and photo trips are so expensive.

As mentioned earlier, the price comparison is absolutely not complete if you don't include Luminar Neo in this price comparison. Nando's comments about Luminar Neo are, in my opinion, highly subjective and it is a real shame that PFA has and conveys this opinion about Luminar Neo. In my opinion, PFA should be objective.

@Jan Willem Hartmann, I think you're right, especially because Luminar is slowly gaining an increasingly larger market share.
On the other hand, I also have to acknowledge that you can never be complete, because there are many more software packages. Just to name one, 'GIMP' isn't discussed either.
I also think that Nando is criticizing Luminar Neo in a sense without having looked at the latest version.
It's about a price comparison and what you get for it. It's not about whether a package is good or bad right now.

Paulussie wrote on Monday 15 June 2026 at 10:20  | reply

Read the whole piece, and many of the comments, but for me it is still a mystery why le is so popular. Over the years (whenever a new version came out) I tried the trial versions, and never managed to make heads or tails of it. Absolutely unworkable for me.
My daughter does use it (professionally, she does weddings etc.) and I always hear her grumbling about lr.
I just use Nikon's own program, at least I understand what t does, and I can decide for myself where I save my files (always locally, no cloud in the sky)