Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Tony Jay on January 20, 2013, 04:07:11 am
-
Fair summary appraisal.
Thanks Alain.
Tony Jay
-
I wonder if features like Photomerge have improved in PS6. I got the impression it had in CS5, but I never upgraded to CS4 so my comparison was with CS3.
I find stitching programs tremendously useful now that they can often produce good results from hand-held shots. I used to travel with two cameras and two lenses so I never had to change lenses. Now that I travel with just the one camera, the D800E which effectively takes the place of my previous two cameras at their maximum performance in any situation, at the very least, I find it a bit of a pain changing lenses.
Sometimes, when the 24-120/F4 is attached and I need a wider FoV such as 16 or 20mm, I'll just take a couple of shots or more at 24mm for stitching purposes, with camera held vertical, instead of changing to my heavy 14-24/F2.8 zoom. Usually I get a seamless stitch in CS5, although I always have to use distort and warp to some degree to tidy up the resulting image, which doesn't worry me.
However, it's still sometimes difficult to stitch scenes that are rather close, using Photomerge.
-
I wonder if features like Photomerge have improved in PS6. I got the impression it had in CS5, but I never upgraded to CS4 so my comparison was with CS3.
I find stitching programs tremendously useful now that they can often produce good results from hand-held shots. I used to travel with two cameras and two lenses so I never had to change lenses. Now that I travel with just the one camera, the D800E which effectively takes the place of my previous two cameras at their maximum performance in any situation, at the very least, I find it a bit of a pain changing lenses.
Sometimes, when the 24-120/F4 is attached and I need a wider FoV such as 16 or 20mm, I'll just take a couple of shots or more at 24mm for stitching purposes, with camera held vertical, instead of changing to my heavy 14-24/F2.8 zoom. Usually I get a seamless stitch in CS5, although I always have to use distort and warp to some degree to tidy up the resulting image, which doesn't worry me.
However, it's still sometimes difficult to stitch scenes that are rather close, using Photomerge.
CS6's PhotoMerge may have improved over CS5 but I haven't noticed anything spectacular.
-
CS6 definitely has some enhanced features, but I really hate how they dribble-out updates that really look more like point-releases and then charge hundreds of dollars for them. There are possibly two or three enhancements that appeal to me, but I am forced to fork-over a couple hundred $$$ to keep up with the latest-and-greatest.
-
We're not forced to upgrade.
I once used Camera Raw and PS and I used to upgrade PS every chance. But finally took myself off of the upgrade treadmill because after a few upgrades you've essentially paid the program's original cost all over again - and just for incremental increases. I switched to LR because the upgrade cost was half of Photoshop's. I still use CS4 but won't upgrade that for a while yet.
-
I still use CS4 but won't upgrade that for a while yet.
And when you do, you'll need to pay for an entirely new copy of Photoshop because as of this year, the upgrade policy has changed so that you can only upgrade to a new version from 1 version back. So, if you want Photoshop CS6, you need to be on Photoshop CS5. To get Photoshop CS7 when it comes out, you'll only be able to upgrade from version CS6.
-
And when you do, you'll need to pay for an entirely new copy of Photoshop because as of this year, the upgrade policy has changed so that you can only upgrade to a new version from 1 version back. So, if you want Photoshop CS6, you need to be on Photoshop CS5. To get Photoshop CS7 when it comes out, you'll only be able to upgrade from version CS6.
Strangely, it seems that many photographers still haven't noticed this significant increase of the de facto price of PS.
For those who did upgrade every 2 releases, it is a 100% increase in price.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Strangely, it seems that many photographers still haven't noticed this significant increase of the de facto price of PS.
For those who did upgrade every 2 releases, it is a 100% increase in price.
Cheers,
Bernard
It seems that this is what Adobe is looking for, because the "Cloud" pricing of Photoshop alone -- $20/month -- works out to nearly 100% more than the price of the 18 month Photoshop perpetual upgrade cycle. I guess the writing is on the wall for perpetual licensing, though I hope I'm wrong.
-
We're not forced to upgrade.
...
Yes, you are right, but no, it is a bit more complicated. There are other costs that are associated with delaying the inevitable upgrade cycle--generally in the form of opportunity costs.
- When you finally do upgrade, there is a larger learning curve and substantial changes to your workflow are more likely to be necessary. So, when you wait a long time, the upgrade is more disruptive to your productivity.
- Learning and online training resources go stale, so when you need help, you are left looking for information on old versions. It is often hard to find what you are looking for.
- As with old hardware, old software has more down time due to incompatibilities that are caused by patches and driver updates. ( I am not suggesting staying at the bleeding edge, just up-to-date)
- You don't benefit from productivity enhancements as soon as you might--losing time. (how much time could I have wasted working without refine edge for targeted adjustments)
So for me the choice to not upgrade isn't motivated by a need to have the latest and greatest software, but instead by a desire to not fall behind on skills and processes that may eventually cost me time.
[/list]
-
Yes, you are right, but no, it is a bit more complicated. There are other costs that are associated with delaying the inevitable upgrade cycle--generally in the form of opportunity costs.
When you finally do upgrade, there is a larger learning curve and substantial changes to your workflow are more likely to be necessary. So, when you wait a long time, the upgrade is more disruptive to your productivity.
So for me the choice to not upgrade isn't motivated by a need to have the latest and greatest software, but instead by a desire to not fall behind on skills and processes that may eventually cost me time.
Hum, really?
As far as I am concerned, most of the benefits I saw in upgrading since CS3 were 64 bits support, asynchronous save,... that don't require any learning curve at all.
From a functional standpoint, the only value items I got I can think of are:
- better sharpening,
- shadow/highlight recovery.
Total learning time around half a day while reading a book and playing with the kids. ;)
The truth is that I can absolutely not justify the money I spend on CS. The main reason for upgrading ends up being to keep it compatible with ever faster evolving OSs, which is mandatory on OSX when buying new hardware.
Cheers,
Bernard