Ongoing product value and paid upgrades

I’m not an Adobe fan by any means. But, for $120/year, they offer the most powerful combination of editing tools and services on the planet. One could easily get by with only that plan and miss nothing. Try that with the Topaz plugins. Four niche, not always ready-for-prime-time plugins at 80% of the annual cost of the most complete editing software out there? Really?

Adobe never promised Creative Cloud for free and then reneged. And, they haven’t raised the price of ownership in years (decade?). No, I’m not an Adobe fan. But TL’s pricing makes Adobe look like saints.

I have DxO as well. DeepPrime is very good and I use it. But there are workflow limitations with DxO that prevent me from using it as a primary raw editor. I have 7 years of images from an older camera that DxO decided was not worth providing raw support. You have to use its de-mosaic engine to use DeepPrime. And it is internally limited to AdobeRGB output. My upgrade price for it is $69 per year (major version) and again is a significantly better value than the TL plugins. It is a full editor.

Those examples, and many others, show how out of line Topaz is. Not to mention, misleading their long-time customers. It’s not a good look.

1 Like

Question to lhodaniel2:
Can you still use Photoshop and Lightroom if you stop paying the $120?
Can you still use the Topaz products if you don’t pay for the upgrade?
And did Adobe give a discount to the buyers who always bought the upgrades well in advance?

These are purely rhetorical questions and everyone knows the answers.
At Adobe, you only pay to use the software, which is a software rental.
This is honestly a payment model that deserves the same fuss.
And many users didn’t go along with that back then either, and are sitting on their software today because new cameras are no longer supported.
With this I don’t want to question the performance of the software, which is certainly excellent, but for me the two products would never cover everything, especially not Photoshop.

And basically, I would like to say to all critics once again that apples are compared to oranges here.

According to the milkmaid calculation with the two Adobe products, any - but really any - shareware and any update would definitely be too expensive for programs with fewer functions.

One must always look at the ratio of the number of buyers/users to the effort required to create the software. Programming the software is not cheaper just because fewer people use it. Of course Photoshop is much more complex, but that’s why more people buy it.
Comparably complex programs with fewer users often cost 4-digit amounts.

And I would assume that this ratio is even much higher for Adobe than for the Topaz products. Adobe has millions of users and makes pretty good profits every year, the software should be much cheaper!
Also DxO Photolab certainly has significantly more buyers and subscribers than the Topaz products, but the above mentioned ratio is probably similar. The Nik Collection is probably bought less and is therefore more expensive in proportion (new and existing features, convenience).

And a niche product like the Topaz software may of course always cost a bit more if its features are outstanding and unrivaled in the market.
This was certainly the case with Topaz for a while now, but these unique selling points can of course disappear at some point. DeepPrime is probably only the beginning. Topaz has to come up with something, even if DeepPrime does not support all camera models.
And that is of course a good thing, because the users usually profit from the competition.

And now I repeat myself:
For long-term users, Topaz should have come up with a different model. I understand the annoyance.

Yes, Topaz graciously lets us continue to use older buggy versions rendering files with gross artifacts and other problems, all of which should have been fixed before release. You got me there (sarcasm). If you want to have fixes to those bugs and not have files with artifacts you have to sign up for Topaz’s subscription. Yes, it is a subscription but with different terms than Adobe’s. Also, Topaz is NOT separating all free bug fix updates from paid “feature” upgrades as they said they would. A needed bug-fix comingled with maybe not needed “features” still requires the subscription.


First not impressed with the way this was sneaked out, seems underhanded - not TOPAZ way. second Gigapixel told me i needed an upgrade i went through usual hoops and loops for a long download only to be told i then needed to pay. Why not inform us before demanding cash. Finally we all saw what this model - call it what you will - but its subscription by another name. That drove thousand of users away from Photoshop into Topaz’s arms even professional users like Glyn Dewis… which ever way you slice the pie this still works out between 4 and 8 dollars a month. a number very close to Adobe. This leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of the many people i have urged to move to Topaz because of the hated of subscription. Falling on your sword whilst shouting “mea culpa” doesn’t excuse the way you have handled this. Be upfront we are adults if you think your reasons are sound then be honest and open about them. That gives people the choice before downloading


very far from apples and oranges. At least Adobe were up front and honest. Look at the demographics here digital photography per-se is a dying art nowadays everyone uses their phones for principal camera. I should imagine a lot of users like myself are part of the older dying breed pensioners who don’t have the money for subscriptions (by any name) that’s why they are still using PS6 and Lightroom 4 because they stopped dead in their at the thought f subscription. They moved to Topaz because it offered free upgrade path. so they spent money on PS then spent more on Topaz and now Topaz want them to adopt the very same model that caused them to leave Adobe. If this isn’t illegal it should be


If you read my posts, you will know that I am in no way a fan of the new policy. But I have to say that I do not consider the Topaz model a subscription - it is a perpetual license. For the same reason you mentioned that people are still running LR 4, you can continue running Gigapixel 5.1 as long as you want without paying anything else. And if you do buy the upgrade license you will be able to continue to run whatever the last version is when your year runs out. So there is no requirement that you pay anything to continue using the software. That’s different from Adobe - if I buy the newest version of LR, it will stop working once the subscription runs out.

With that all said, some of the main differences I have seen is that Adobe made bugfixes to LR4 long after they changed to a subscription model. At this point, there is no indication that we will get bug fixes to a previous version of the Topaz software once a “major” release has come out. They do not appear to be releasing separate bug fixes to previous versions at this point, and because of the model they created it would be a nightmare to do so. So if there is a bug that you want fixed you will need to pay for an upgrade license, assuming it is fixed in one of the newer versions.


They need to stop this stupid update reminder! Every time I open the programs I’m hounded to update, 2 week deferral is ridiculous. Give us a way to turn it off!


Disappointed at best.

I don’t think this is a business decision that will hold up well with your existing user base. You have entered in a contract with those users that payed for a product with free lifetime upgrades. For the life of it I really can not imagine there is any legal base that allows for retroactively changing that contract without the explicit consent of your contract partners, aka the users.

I understand software development costs money, and should be payed for. Having to pay for any kind of minor update after just one year is not exactly what I consider “owning a software”. Paying half of the already payed price for a piece of software per year for the ability to keep it running smoothly really doesn’t seem justified.

As of today, I will be looking out for an alternative to your products.


Topaz is now history for me. I paid for Denoise and now can not use it.
Good luck with new customers.

And why can’t you use it?