August 31, 2014, 02:42:47 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 151
451
Quote
it takes a few years of the photo package at $9.99pm to have bought PS and LR outright. Indeed if you add up LR at $149 and the last PS at $650, for $800 (which they still couldn't write off), you are looking at nearly seven years of monthly package payments, who didn't upgrade PS quicker than 7 years?

You haven't taken into account that a user may already have a perpetually licenced version of Photoshop (and/or Lightroom), that the $9.99 price is only locked in for 12 months and that you would have nothing tangible to use or resell if you decide to end your subscription for any reason.

Yes, and as soon as you stop paying the lease on your car, trucks, computer, building, you are left with nothing tangible to use or resell.

The subscription model is a model for BUSINESSES, not hobbyist photographers.

452
Just wondering if there is somebody here with an economics background that could play devil's advocate and go bat for Adobe?

Just how is their profit margin affected by the Cloud subscription? What kind of money is saved by not producing packaging and use of a disc?

How is this different from the way publishers charge a dollar for iPhone games or content for Facebook games?

Will the review point be all about the number of subscribers?

Just interested.

I will.

What most of us photographers, one man bands, and casual amateur users fail to grasp is that the vast majority of Adobe users are businesses, I have seen figures of over 90% of revenue actually comes from businesses, we are just a very small but vocal minority of Adobe users. It is a pro piece of software that is marketed at imaging and graphics professionals, along with video, websites and publishing to greater and lesser extents, the fact that it is such a flexible photographic editing tool is almost incidental.

Businesses get a 100% tax deduction on leases, purchases have to get depreciated over several years, from a business perspective leasing is a vastly better cash flow option. The core purchasers of Adobe products are happy with the leasing model, it is a good thing for them. A $50 cheque each month with a full deduction, or find $2,000 ish lump sum every two or so years and then have to hold that expense on your books for years.

Also us small but vocal users were not really very good revenue providers. We tended to buy one version of PS and then run it until our cameras weren't supported or there was a must have feature several versions later. How many times did you skip versions of PS? Most of us just got every other one, if that, think about the cash flow implications for Adobe with that model.

Now there are several really good articles out there about Adobes revenue stream plans, basically they expect to lose money, or rather not take in as much money, for over three years, they don't expect to be creating more revenue under the subscription model for five years. They have run the numbers, the numbers, despite our (small users) opinions is good, subscription levels are good enough to encourage investors and the share price is up. Adobe, despite the PR issues to "us", is doing well because for their core market and main revenue providers, the subscription model is much more efficient.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ADBE+Interactive#symbol=ADBE;range=2y

A few things of note:

the head of Adobe dumped a LOT of stock right after he gave his big speech to investors about how this new model would be so amazing for investors, a bit curious no? seems like he pumped up the new model, got the stock to soar, and then cut and ran to an extent

i have heard that some major institutions and businesses have no been so happy with the CC thing at all

Well neither of those, if true, have had a negative effect on the share price so far. Something is worth what the market says it is, the market has said Adobe is worth more. As an investment opportunity a company committing to a five year income restructuring is pretty dramatic, and potentially viewed as risky, also the investor needs to think seriously about length of investment. I am sure before the five years is up there will be glitches, but so far the new model, as viewed from the share price, has been an unbridled success.

As for your two rumours, well stock rumours are more frequent and more inaccurate than Canon rumours, without supporting verified quotes, or paperwork, it is just as likely to be a big institution trying to cover a short sale.

453
Lighting / Re: yongnuo yn560-iii any good
« on: May 30, 2014, 01:22:31 PM »
The YN560-III can now be controlled remotely via the newly released YN560-TX:
http://www.lightingrumours.com/yongnuo-yn560tx-5872#.U4i5GmcnLq0

I have reliably used YN 565EX and 586EX2's in the studio for product photography next to my Canon 580exII's and the YN have performed flawlessly. IMHO, YN are highly recommended!

No you can't.

They are slated for release "around" September, which given Yongnuo's previous release date accuracy should be some time early 2017.

454
Software & Accessories / Re: Shooting in the rain
« on: May 30, 2014, 12:44:33 PM »
I'm not fond of rain photos.  It doesn't really show up in the image... It is annoying.

That is what flashes are for, just put a ziplock over it on the stand and it works great for illuminating raindrops.

455
Lighting / Re: yongnuo yn560-iii any good
« on: May 30, 2014, 11:53:06 AM »

My problem/issue with more complicated YN products is compatibility, needing firmware updates for different cameras means at some point your YN flash is going to be worthless, Canon will always give full integration with any EX flash and the 550 is the best bang for the buck power wise (it has the same as a 600EX). It is a true "Master" giving three groups in ETTL, HSS, SCS when on camera, etc etc.

Also Canon is not the best teacher in compatibility. Look to the possibilities of the Yongnuo flashes/triggers and do compare that to the Canon products on older cameras. Even the 600EX is not fully backwards compatible with older canon cameras. So, I did save the money and bought Yongnuo instead of Canon flashes, though on lenses I would not think about choosing an other brand.

As far as I am aware all EX flashes work on all EOS cameras, they don't offer ETTL-II on old EOS film cameras that don't have ETTL-II metering systems, but how could they? It is a body feature not inside the flash. Every EX flash ever made works on every EOS digital camera ever made, and the G and M cameras. The 600 introduced new menu items that are not capable in older cameras, but everything you could ever do pre 600, you can do with a 600 on every EOS digital camera (and much more), just some of the latest cameras give you a few more options with it.

I wouldn't call that a compatibility issue, unlike the YN-E3-RT that has been plagued with issues and now 10 firmware updates in less than six months.

456
Ok, first of all, I'm asking that just out of curiosity and want to know what is the difference.

1. case: FF body with Canon's 200-400/4 lens with 1.4x TC. You are able to extend focal length with one switch.

2. case: FF body with option to switch to crop mode. (to make things simpler, let say crop factor is 1.4) Lens in that case is 200-400mm/4 - with no built-in TC.

I'd like to know what are pros and cons of each approach? In 1. case you lose 1 stop when switch TC on. From f/4 to f/5.6.

In 2. case, the aperture stays the same - f/4 (at least I think so) So, what are cons here?

The cons are equivalence, cropping has a focal length factor, as we all know, what seems to be missed too often is it also has an aperture and iso factor. Your FF 560mm f5.6 at 1/500 sec and 400iso, is equivalent to the crop of 400 f4 at 1/500 sec and 200iso, but in reality the ff shot will have less noise and lots more pixels. The ff image will have around 1 stop IQ advantage, the pictures will have identical dof, and exposure when reproduced at the same size on screen or in print.

In this specific situation there is no advantage to going the crop route.

There are advantages to using a crop camera, not a crop mode, not least cost, a 7D with a 400 f5.6 is very very close to a 1Dx with a 600 f4, but there are over two stops difference in IQ, even if you crop the 1DX a bit to get the 640mm. Also framing with a crop camera can be much easier if the subject is smaller, but that isn't the case in your hypothetical.

457
Hey, "Option 2" just gave me an idea: a FF sensor with a higher photosite density in the centre (equivalent in size to an APS-C sensor); kind of like an 18MP sensor inside an 18MP sensor.

So what's the benefit? The ability to use both EF and EF-S lenses at same MP count; and more "resolution" for higher sharpness in the central part of the FF image.

Crazy nutty idea, huh?

Yes, because EF-S lenses can't clear the mirror of FF cameras, so you'd have to have a third, fourth sixth EF lens designation after EF, EF-s, EF-M, TS-E, MP-E.

Oh and the more pixels from a crop don't actually translate to any more resolution in real world shooting from same generation sensors anyway. So all in all it is a bad idea that won't work.

It's only real niche is for manufacturers that really messed up their lens strategy and stated, very boldly, they would never make a ff digital sensor as there was no need, but then after selling a good amount of crop digital only lenses realising they were talking crap and had to release a ff digital sensor. Hence lens confusion, compatibility nightmare, and all around dissatisfaction. On the other hand you can use your $150 lens on your $3,000 camera.

458
Lighting / Re: yongnuo yn560-iii any good
« on: May 30, 2014, 11:11:13 AM »
I have and use Yn products with varying results, though I don't have the 560's.

If you are going to use on camera only, or via OCC, then I would recommend a used Canon 550EX over the YN any day, indeed I am a working pro who has used 550EX's very happily (sometimes with YN RF-602's) for years and only recently sold my last one after moving to the 600 for different reasons. For a dozen times a year use they are the perfect fully compatible solution for Canon users. And a cheap set of RF-602's will get you wireless manual for next to nothing should you ever feel inclined.

Used 550EX's run $75 to $175 on eBay. In another thread I even recommended them to another working pro here, Sporgon, he got them and is very happy with his purchase.

My problem/issue with more complicated YN products is compatibility, needing firmware updates for different cameras means at some point your YN flash is going to be worthless, Canon will always give full integration with any EX flash and the 550 is the best bang for the buck power wise (it has the same as a 600EX). It is a true "Master" giving three groups in ETTL, HSS, SCS when on camera, etc etc.

459
PBD was being sarcastic about FPN, or at least the opposite of facetious, whatever that is.

I think my favourite synonym for facetious is jocose.

460
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 30, 2014, 12:52:26 AM »
If they don't do this 1D4 fiascos are likely to occurr.   

I presume you actually meant the 1D MkIII AF issue.


461
If you are being interviewed in person I'd print 15-25 (20 is perfect) of your best sports shots. If they want to see online I'd run the best 20 sports shots first with a separate gallery for more diverse stuff, if they are interested they will look, but if not they won't be distracted.

Take great care in choosing your prints, don't do 8x10's unless that is your format. Be very careful mixing colour and B&W and portrait and landscape orientated images. Also make sure you present in a fixed order that gives continuity and context to your work.

Don't have two shots of the same type in there, choose the best diving to the left frisbee catch, don't show them two or three diving to the left, even if they are your three best shots. We never know what lights the interviewees fire, scatter gunning with variety is better than only having a one shot style. Don't have two shots from the same event in there, nobody takes two of their best 20 shots ever at the same event and it looks like you only did it a couple of times, also don't crop the same image twice, or show the same image in colour and B&W.

Diversity vs quality? Quality every time.

462
Unfocused,

My point was business users, of any size. The only people that can't benefit from the tax breaks and cash flow advantages of the subscription model are people who are not registered businesses or DBA's, if you are invoicing people you get the benefits of the subscription model, that includes all your small businesses and free lancers, and even people like me, a one man band generalist free lancer.

The only people who have cause to moan are the people who can't write off the lease payment, and even then they have to make excuses to moan because it takes a few years of the photo package at $9.99pm to have bought PS and LR outright. Indeed if you add up LR at $149 and the last PS at $650, for $800 (which they still couldn't write off), you are looking at nearly seven years of monthly package payments, who didn't upgrade PS quicker than 7 years? And if you didn't Adobe don't care about you because they never got much money off you anyway.

464
Just wondering if there is somebody here with an economics background that could play devil's advocate and go bat for Adobe?

Just how is their profit margin affected by the Cloud subscription? What kind of money is saved by not producing packaging and use of a disc?

How is this different from the way publishers charge a dollar for iPhone games or content for Facebook games?

Will the review point be all about the number of subscribers?

Just interested.

I will.

What most of us photographers, one man bands, and casual amateur users fail to grasp is that the vast majority of Adobe users are businesses, I have seen figures of over 90% of revenue actually comes from businesses, we are just a very small but vocal minority of Adobe users. It is a pro piece of software that is marketed at imaging and graphics professionals, along with video, websites and publishing to greater and lesser extents, the fact that it is such a flexible photographic editing tool is almost incidental.

Businesses get a 100% tax deduction on leases, purchases have to get depreciated over several years, from a business perspective leasing is a vastly better cash flow option. The core purchasers of Adobe products are happy with the leasing model, it is a good thing for them. A $50 cheque each month with a full deduction, or find $2,000 ish lump sum every two or so years and then have to hold that expense on your books for years.

Also us small but vocal users were not really very good revenue providers. We tended to buy one version of PS and then run it until our cameras weren't supported or there was a must have feature several versions later. How many times did you skip versions of PS? Most of us just got every other one, if that, think about the cash flow implications for Adobe with that model.

Now there are several really good articles out there about Adobes revenue stream plans, basically they expect to lose money, or rather not take in as much money, for over three years, they don't expect to be creating more revenue under the subscription model for five years. They have run the numbers, the numbers, despite our (small users) opinions is good, subscription levels are good enough to encourage investors and the share price is up. Adobe, despite the PR issues to "us", is doing well because for their core market and main revenue providers, the subscription model is much more efficient.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ADBE+Interactive#symbol=ADBE;range=2y

465
......
I don't recall Ansel Adams ever using lights, it certainly wasn't in any of his most prominent work. (Please use a complete quote to maintain context.)
Sure, you're right as you always are.


You are right, I was wrong, well sort of. In his 5 volume 1950's book he did write about artificial light.

Now do you recall any of his prominent works that actually use it, as per my original comment?

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 151