March 01, 2015, 06:40:25 PM

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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 150
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 09, 2013, 10:37:50 PM »
Please sign this online petition. I do not know if it will do any good, but it is certainly more effective than just sitting around on this forum complaining:

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 07:46:01 PM »
I believe even "photographers" in the film era would combine more attractive skies (with clouds) to enhance landscapes. No photoshop. It's still photography high and mighty people.

Well, as a matter of fact, 19th century photographers like Timothy O'Sullivan did combine clouds and foregrounds on prints made from glass plates. In part, because the plates were not able to capture the full spectrum of light, so to recreate the scene they had to merge images.

But, keep in mind that in the early days of photography, documentary ethics were not well-defined. Roger Fenton's famous image of cannonballs on the road in Crimea being a classic example. Remember that photography was viewed as a substitute for newspaper illustrators and, of course, artists took great liberties with scenes when they were drawing images for the press in the 19th century, so photographers thought little or nothing of recomposing a scene to make it more interesting. (For example, Alexander Gardner's "Rebel Sharpshooter" who was most likely moved to the spot where Gardner took the photo).

Of course, just because something was done in the past doesn't make it right and today, no respectable news photographer would dream of re-arranging a scene. It's a career ending move.

Still, we are not talking about news photos here. These are grey areas and one must determine what one is comfortable with. I think the only deadly sin would be to intentionally deceive. (See the discussion a year or so ago about the "art" photographer who claimed to have gotten a picture of the moon rising over the desert that was clearly debunked by dozens of people on this site and others)

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 02:28:22 PM »
I hope this was okay I just wanted to see the difference if adjustments were made as suggested.  I only took about 4 or 5 minutes so I just copied the original and tried adding some global adjustments as suggested, just for giggles...

Cooled the sky added some exposure, subtracted some exposure, saturation and sharpening, leveled the horizon... it's not that terrible but is still the original composition... Idk...  Sky may be a little overdone yet but it seems like good suggestions and doesn't feel like cheating as much as correcting...  I hope it was okay to do this, I wasn't trying to offend anyone.  :)

Everyone must find and follow their own ethics, but Krob78's changes sort of summarize mine. I have no problem pulling details out of different layers from the same image, adjusting colors, exposure, etc. To me, that is really just a more sophisticated version of what we used to do in the darkroom with burning and dodging. It's already there in the negative/raw file so it existed when the picture was taken.

Personally, I'm not all that uncomfortable with some removal of extraneous objects, depending on the image and its use. I'm less comfortable with adding things that were never there or moving objects around.

If you've read any of my posts over the past few days, you know how unhappy I am with this move. But, I don't really think it's fair to say there is no exit strategy.

Adobe says they will make CS6 available for download indefinitely. So, if you drop the system after a year, you can still use Photoshop CS6 to open and edit your files. Now, will CS6 be able to open files 5 or 6 years from now? That's another question. But, that has always been a problem with virtually every program that exists today. There are no universal standards and no guarantees that today's formats will be accessible tomorrow. If you've ever stored anything on a floppy disk, you know the problem.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 08, 2013, 10:16:56 AM »

So, if I read your quoted part correctly...

I could join CC the archived version (current version?) of CS6, which would run stand alone, not requiring CC account, and then quit and still have CS6 which would run indefinitely?

If so, that sounds like a bit of a bargain...?


Umm...Not quite. From the Adobe website: If you purchased an annual individual membership plan and you cancel after the first 30 days but before meeting the 12-month commitment date, you will be charged 50% of the remaining amount left on your contract.

I suppose that would still be cheaper, but not as much of a bargain as you may be thinking.

Now, to respond to some of the recent comments:

I have always been a legal user of Adobe products. To suggest that the complaints that are showing up all across the Internet are primarily from people who purchased the software is ridiculous. As others have pointed out, those who buy pirated software aren't going to be deterred by this. They aren't the ones who complain. It is those of us who play by the rules.

Reminds me of the gun control argument – criminals steal guns and use them illegally, so let's make it hard for persons to own guns legally.

To the statement that Adobe products are professional and you shouldn't be using them if you can't afford to pay whatever they want to charge. Well, I suppose that is their right, but, like Canon, Adobe could not survive on their professional users alone. It is the extensive base of non-professionals who provide the financial support for the company. Photoshop, in particular, has long been marketed to amateurs and hobbyists.

And, even for professionals, I don't know of too many business people who can just arbitrarily pass on every increased cost to their customers. Especially photographers, who are increasingly battling one another for a shrinking pie.

As for the claim that these products have been in development for decades. So what? Also, let's remember that Adobe didn't get to where they are by innovation alone. A large part of their success has come from swallowing up other companies like Aldus and Macromedia.

But, in the end, what I keep coming back to is this: If this is such a great deal for the customer, why is it mandatory?

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 07, 2013, 09:29:19 PM »
Here is a bit of irony. I went to the Adobe website today just to learn a bit more. I was surprised at all the applications available. Cool things that I might want to try.

So, okay. If they had sent me an offer to voluntarily try out the Cloud at $20 a month, I probably would have felt like it was a real bargain and jumped at the chance, so long as I knew that I could go back to the old system if I found it wasn't worthwhile. But instead of enticing customers to try it out, they have completely mismanaged the whole thing by shoving it down customers throats.

Interestingly, their own forum boards are filled with disgruntled customers and their big Adobe Max confab has now one big negative story coming out of it. As someone who has spent most of my working life helping people communicate with the public, I can only imagine the conversations that are going on in their PR department. This is exactly the sort of thing that happens when CEOS, Engineers and Accountants drive the agenda and don't listen to their communications people.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 07, 2013, 04:00:12 PM »
A swap to this model of using Adope CS6 will cause some problems for big organisations that have to secure their datas .
The head of the IT department in the organisation where I work, is in doubt whether the state bureaus is allowing to open the firewall/safety-solutions to use this cloud based software. It is to risky. They are in fear to get hacked.
And we own really a lot of CS6 licences.

Okay, repeat after me: This is NOT a cloud application. This is Not a cloud application.

From Adobe's website: "And, as always, your applications live on your desktop, not in a browser and not in the cloud."

It is just a confusingly-named marketing scheme.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 07, 2013, 02:07:36 PM »
Can't stop commenting on this thread -- sorry.

One thing people need to understand is that to Adobe, "Cloud" is just a marketing name. This is not a true "cloud" application. Ironic for a software company, but apparently somebody in marketing thought "cloud" sounded cool and modern.

As others have pointed out, the software gets downloaded on your machine just like today. The only difference is that if you stop paying, they nuke it.

Also, when people do their calculations, many here are comparing the subscription price to the full version costs. And, yes, it can look like a good deal if you are new to the applications and have to buy a brand new full version. But, I suspect most people are "upgraders" like myself, who bought a full version years ago and upgraded and expanded their options when Adobe offered deals.

I think I probably started with one license for Pagemaker, got that converted to InDesign and then, as Adobe started offering bundles, they gave owners of individual products a decent (but still steep) price to expand. Point is, you should compare the price of this subscription to the upgrade price, not the full retail price. Second point on this, Adobe only upgraded a "full" step every two years - Release version 1 in year one, version 1.5 in year two and then version 2 in year three. The cost for the .5 versions was usually much smaller and Adobe considered the full number versions as the true upgrades. So, you really only needed to pay every two years to remain current.

So, if you want to get an accurate picture of just how much more this is costing, take the cost of a two-year subscription and compare that to the cost of an upgrade. CS6 Design and Web Premium Upgrade right now is $375. Two year cost would be less than $16/month. So, even those on the "bargain" $20/month plan will be paying more and Adobe is only promising the $20/month price for one year.

Yeah, I'll probably go ahead and pony up for the $20 month plan in the first year. But I will be watching the market, watching what competition emerges and really evaluating my needs. As it stands now, I seldom use anything but Dreamweaver and Photoshop, with the occasional use of InDesign. Flash is dead, so that's of no use. I've kept buying because I figured it was worth the investment to stay current for the times when I do need one of the other programs, but now I will use the next year to take a serious look at what I do use and how often. Dreamweaver is fast becoming unnecessary with the growth of PHP. For the little I use InDesign, I can keep the CSS6 version pretty much forever. So the deciding factor will be what Photoshop competitors emerge.

Sorry for the long winded rant.

Software & Accessories / Re: Alternatives to Adobe Software
« on: May 07, 2013, 10:39:03 AM »
Unfortunately there isn't a good alternative to Photoshop right now. But that doesn't mean that will always be the case.

Here is how I see this playing out over the next year:

1) Adobe succeeds in getting a lot of users to buy into the "Creative Cloud" system at the introductory price, but like Canon and Nikon have found with rebates, they soon learn that the reduced price becomes the expected price. Migrating those customers to the "real" price proves a lot harder than they thought.

2) Many Photoshop-only users migrate to Lightroom and find that with third-party plug-ins they can find work-arounds for most photo processing. Adobe's investors start to wonder why the company made a decision that has people migrating from the more costly product to the less expensive product.

3) Corel suddenly finds itself a hot prospect for acquisition. Google buys Corel. First product is "Word Perfect by Google" which replaces Google Docs in the real cloud and a full version is offered for download at a deep discount. Microsoft starts scratching their head wondering "what did we do?"

4) Google's puts some cash behind Corel's graphic suite products, merges the NIK and Corel teams, promotes combined products at deep discount and uses the next year to upgrade the offerings to pro quality.

5) Adobe watches its share price plummet and under pressure from investors revises its Creative Cloud plan. They announce that they have decided to offer permanent licenses on select products.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 06, 2013, 10:29:05 PM »
Okay, one more thing. We can complain all we want on this forum, but please, also go to one or more of the public Facebook pages for Adobe, such as and post a comment there.

Companies don't like public humiliation and in this era of the Internet and social media, it can be the most effective tool. Please, go post your opinion and urge others to do so as well.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 06, 2013, 10:15:09 PM »

I think you are missing the point..Once you jump to the cloud, it is no longer do you stay with the version you are on or upgrade... it is do you use the software or not.

Why is Adobe doing this... because it is HUGE money and a captive slave audience.

Maui, I don't want to get this off track, but what point was I missing? You are saying almost exactly the same thing I said.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 06, 2013, 09:41:46 PM »
The more I think about this the angrier I get.

Just a few thoughts:

I took advantage of Adobe's offer for a discounted upgrade to CS6 last year. Catch was, it was download only. So, while I have it on my computer, I don't own any disks. My computer crashes, I have to go through Adobe to have it authorized on the new computer. So, suppose I decide to take a pass on their "generous" offer and stick with CS6? Well, eventually I'll need to replace the computer and then, guess what, no way will Adobe give me access or unlock the software once they've gone to this system, you can bet on that.

So, unless you have a computer that will never die, don't count on being able to access your existing versions forever.

Now, they are going to sucker people in with their "introductory" pricing. So, what happens in a year when they jack up the price? Will I be able to go back to CS6 or will that have been disabled because I upgraded to "cloud?"

Main thing I'm getting at is this: even if you own disks from a previous version, don't think for a minute you will be able to reload them onto new machines or use them forever.

Others have rightly pointed out that all your images will be held hostage and if you let your subscription lapse you are screwed.

I'm not at all buying that customers like Adobe Cloud as much as the company claims. Naturally, since people have had a choice, the only people who migrated to the "Cloud" option were those for whom it made financial sense. Of course, they are going to like it, they made a choice and that's what they picked. But, you can be sure Adobe never asked people who didn't migrate how they felt about it.

I sincerely hope that this becomes Adobe's "New Coke" moment.

Finally, there is a part of me that – being optimistic – hopes this prompts some real competition in the market.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 06, 2013, 06:19:03 PM »
Count me in among the unhappy customers. I think this is going to backfire on Adobe.

I consistently bought the upgrades (although I usually waited for their promotional deals). Once I'd bought into the system, it was affordable to upgrade. Frankly, I tended to overbuy (purchasing the entire Creative Suite when I seldom use anything but Photoshop, InDesign and Dreamweaver.)

Like some of the stories have said, I'll probably be one of those that subscribes for the first year at the promotional pricing, but once it goes to full price I'll take a very close look at renewal. I think Adobe may find that this plan actually results in less revenue.

A lot of shots seem to have a bluish cast. i'm much more impressed with the output of the nikon 3200 which is > $200 cheaper than the SL1

Yeah, let's compare a handful of shots taking by iraikov and his girlfriend while they were walking around town learning the new camera, to a bunch of shots that Nikon France contracted with professionals to produce. No doubt culled from thousands that were taken and post-processed by folks who do that sort of thing for a living.

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 06, 2013, 04:57:50 PM »
And back in say 2004-2006 when students asked what system to get it was Canon, Canon, Canon. Everyone at papers had Canon. Sidelines were Canon, Canon. If you see people out and about it was Canon. Now when you hear people getting advice it is at least as often look into Nikon and you see a lot of Nikons at games, people walking around with them, etc.

And back in say 2004-2006 1973-78 when students asked what system to get it was Canon, Canon, Canon. Pentax, Pentax, Pentax. Everyone at papers had Canon Nikon. Sidelines were Canon, Canon. Nikon, Nikon. If you see people out and about it was Canon Pentax. Now when you hear people getting advice it is at least as often look into Nikon Canon and you see a lot of Nikons Canons at games, people walking around with them, etc.

Canon clawed their way to the top over about 30-40 years. They weren't always the leader they are today. They did so by running a smart business. Sales figures would indicate they still know what they are doing. Do people buy other brands? Of course they do. It's not in our best interests for any company to have a monopoly share of the market. Every time Nikon introduces a new product, I'm very happy because it means Canon must compete.

Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 150