I do a fair amount of image editing, but the depth doesn't match the frequency. For a while, I used Adobe Creative Cloud and its bevy of programs for my editing, but then I realized the features far exceeded what I actually needed. I don't manipulate layers; most of my work involves removing something from a background or increasing resolution. There are plenty of options that perform those tasks while demanding far less power than Adobe's suite of apps.

And in the end, that's what made me shift away from Adobe to other applications. Well, the excess features and the cost. Adobe Creative Cloud can quickly get expensive, and the variety of open-source applications available across the web makes it hard to justify the cost when I don't need advanced features.

I was paying for a toolbox I rarely opened

Adobe had a lot of features I didn't need

Adobe Creative Cloud is designed for professionals who live within that ecosystem. If you work in graphic design, professional video editing, or a similar field, the suite of tools is probably exactly what you need. But for a writer who only edits images for inclusion in articles? It's overkill. I was only using Photoshop to crop images, clean up backgrounds here and there, or maybe lighten a picture taken in a too-dim office. Spending anywhere from $20 to $60 per month was adding up, and I didn't feel like the value was there.

When I started paying attention to what tools I actually used, the math didn't add up. I only needed a few basic functions — tools that I could find in multiple open-source applications. I didn't need to spend $200+ per year on that. My Creative Cloud subscription was essentially paying a premium for features I didn't use, wasting money on tools I could easily replace. It was an expensive tax deduction.

There are free and/or low-cost options that do what I need

And sometimes do it better

Too often, we think of Adobe as the only option. It might be the best known, but there are a slew of open-source applications that can do the same thing without sacrificing functionality. GIMP is one example; it's just as powerful as Photoshop, although its interface can be a bit obtuse at times. If you're looking for something more like Lightroom, Darktable is a fantastic solution. Inkscape is a viable alternative to Adobe Illustrator. And all those apps have something in common: they're free to use.

Again, if I worked in a field where Adobe was the default option — graphic design professionals often work almost exclusively in PSD files — then I might find myself more drawn to the platform. However, I can achieve the same functionality, often through a simpler interface, with open-source apps that don't put a strain on my wallet.

Adobe might be more viable if it wasn't a subscription

I miss owning things

There was a time when Adobe was a one-time purchase, not a recurring subscription. Sure, it was still pricey back in those days, but far less so than a monthly sub is now. When Adobe shifted to a subscription model, everything changed — and not in the user's favor. I had already dropped a ton of entertainment-focused subscription services in favor of a Jellyfin server, and Adobe was the obvious next step. I wasn't getting my money's worth out of the suite each month, so why bother forking over cash as prices kept rising and the suite kept providing less value?

But Adobe's ecosystem is nothing to scoff at

Disparate open-source tools can't match it

There is one area where Adobe beats out the competition, and that's in its ecosystem. An asset in Photoshop can be imported nearly seamlessly into Illustrator or Premiere without any change to its color profile. All of Adobe's tools work well with each other, and if you're working as part of a larger team, that convenience and functionality is hard to beat.

And as I mentioned earlier, Adobe is the standard in many fields. Many jobs require proficiency in Adobe's suite of tools, and experience in GIMP doesn't perfectly transfer. Sure, it wouldn't take you long to get the hang of Photoshop if you're a GIMP master, but it's a glaring omission on a resume that's expecting it.

But that's working on a scale I don't need

Graphic design isn't my forte

Adobe's strengths cater to the visual professional, and that's something I most certainly am not. I work with words, not images or video. My brain doesn't operate visually, and the level of editing I do won't warrant the complexity of Photoshop. Tweaking an image for inclusion in an article doesn't require the same level of effort as exporting a Photoshop file for a print shop. PNG or JPG works just fine for me.

Open-source tools are more consistent

I prefer open-source tools whenever possible. Not only do these applications tend to remain relatively the same, with gradual improvements and evolution over time, but if, for some reason, I absolutely despise an update, I can revert to an earlier version. I'm not locked into an ecosystem as I would be with Adobe, and I'm not at the mercy of corporate whims.