The Photoshop CC Good value myth
I get a little tired of this myth that paying a creative commons licence is somehow good value.
It really depends on what you do. If you work for large company doing advertising images or your buisness involves photographsetc then it might well be. But for the hobbiest photographer it makes far less sense.
For people who already have CS6 it makes no sense, since there despite Adobe's publicity there has been virtually no must have features since the day they turned off the purchase outright option. Apart from UI tweaking it could be argued that there has been no major feature added since CS3
If you do not have a copy, it seems great that you get the latest copy of PS and lightroom for a monthly outgoing. But remember it means that if you have a life event where £110 a year could be useful, that means you lose not only access to software now, but also the ability to access your old files in PS format.
Also do you really need PS CC? If you are a photographer, lightroom will do 95% of the job which you can buy outright. (The reason lightroom has not gone totally CC is that there are plenty of competition out there for Raw processing such as Dx0)
There are only two good reasons for getting PS CC. One is that there is training for virtually every manipulation task out there, but virtually all use PS. If you use GIMP somehow you have to translate the instructions to an alien interface.
Secondly is plug-ins. Plug-ins like the Google Nik collection are in some ways more essential than PS itself. Then again they can also be used in LR.
Personally I use PS CS2 and can do most of the things I want and 99% of the tasks can be achieved without paying blood money to Adobe each month. Hopefully I will get to the point where I can understand photo processing basics enough to ditch PS totally and move to something like Gimp