Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe Photography Subscription Survey Regarding New Subscription Pricing  (Read 2754 times)

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2534
    • http://www.paulholman.com

Did you read Martin's article thoroughly? It goes well beyond defaults.
But doesn't really delve into local editing.

An Adobe (paid) evangelist writing how wonderful LR is compared to CO is hardly an unbiased assessment. We can be pretty sure that if Adobe add all CO's colour editing options into LR he'll get paid to say how great they are and how users have been asking for them (which they have for years).
That they feel the need to write articles like this says they know well that CO have a great reputation in this area that they have trouble competing with it.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9698
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

But doesn't really delve into local editing.

An Adobe (paid) evangelist writing how wonderful LR is compared to CO is hardly an unbiased assessment. We can be pretty sure that if Adobe add all CO's colour editing options into LR he'll get paid to say how great they are and how users have been asking for them (which they have for years).
That they feel the need to write articles like this says they know well that CO have a great reputation in this area that they have trouble competing with it.

This is the first I hear of Martin being a paid evangelist for Adobe. I didn't even know Adobe has paid evangelists, but I do know that Martin is a person of utmost integrity and objectivity. Would you care to share the proof you have that he is a paid evangelist?

I also strongly expect that if the LR team wanted to check-mate this or that feature in CO, they have every capability of doing so. The issue is whether they think it a priority or advantageous to do whatever. They know well what people including me, and many others more prominent than me, have recommended.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2534
    • http://www.paulholman.com

This is the first I hear of Martin being a paid evangelist for Adobe.
He's paid to speak for Adobe at events, he writes about Adobe products and gets paid for it, basically he earns from promoting Adobe products.

Quote
I also strongly expect that if the LR team wanted to check-mate this or that feature in CO, they have every capability of doing so.
From what I've read here in the past; What the LR team want to do and what Adobe allow them to do aren't always the same.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9698
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

He's paid to speak for Adobe at events, he writes about Adobe products and gets paid for it, basically he earns from promoting Adobe products.
From what I've read here in the past; What the LR team want to do and what Adobe allow them to do aren't always the same.

I think it would be more correct to say that he earns income speaking ABOUT Adobe products. Is speaking about products necessarily promoting them, or is it more likely educating people about what they do and how to use them? I would think the latter. It takes a lot of time and effort to do this - I know from personal experience - so the time spent deserves remuneration. He is providing the community with considerable value-added and is highly respected for doing so. Adobe depends on numerous authors in the community to speak and write about their products; software developers usually put comparatively little effort into that, leaving it to others more capable and specialized in this kind of communication. There is a lot to be said for this and in no way makes him or others "paid evangelists". Frankly I think you are trying to unjustifiably impugn the reputation of one of the most upright and knowledgeable members of the digital imaging community in order to disparage a technical article and I find it deeply misguided and offensive. I'm cutting all further discussion with you along these lines. This thread is about the pricing of Adobe subscriptions and I think it should return to that subject.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2534
    • http://www.paulholman.com

Frankly I think you are trying to unjustifiably impugn the reputation of one of the most upright and knowledgeable members of the digital imaging community in order to disparage a technical article and I find it deeply misguided and offensive.
Technical evangelist, as defined by Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_evangelist)
"An evangelist promotes the use of a particular product or technology through talks, articles, blogging, user demonstrations, recorded demonstrations, or the creation of sample projects."
I'm not in any way disparaging Martin, just pointing out that he get paid to talk about and, effectively, promote their products.
Nothing wrong with that. Plenty of others here do the same.

Quote
This thread is about the pricing of Adobe subscriptions and I think it should return to that subject.
Not much to say about that really. Get people hooked, put the price up. It was pretty obvious it would happen from day 1.
Lightroom is a tiny and declining part of Adobe's empire.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2017, 11:21:44 AM by Rhossydd »
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2354

Adobe has a number of "evangelists" who are employees.  Evangelist is part of a job description at Adobe.  Terry White is a good example of an Adobe Evangelist.

https://blogs.adobe.com/creativecloud/author/terry-white/
Logged
Regards,
Ron

graeme

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922

But doesn't really delve into local editing.

An Adobe (paid) evangelist writing how wonderful LR is compared to CO is hardly an unbiased assessment. We can be pretty sure that if Adobe add all CO's colour editing options into LR he'll get paid to say how great they are and how users have been asking for them (which they have for years).
That they feel the need to write articles like this says they know well that CO have a great reputation in this area that they have trouble competing with it.

I've got a few manuals ( on PS & LR ) by Martin Evening. I haven't noticed any Adobe 'evangelising' in them. His writing seems very measured, neither gushing about the product nor putting the boot in. If he thinks a feature really isn't worth bothering with he'll say so.
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2534
    • http://www.paulholman.com

Martin Evening: LR vs CO
Re-reading that it's interesting to quote from the last section;
"Capture One does outshine Lightroom in some respects though. The color editing sliders offer better fine-tuning control, particularly for skin tones. The Shadows and Highlights sliders have a greater range of tone control when editing regular dynamic range images. The new Luma Curve is useful for precise control of luminance and color contrast"

Which is what I said and you tried to disprove with your reference, own goal there Mark ;-)
Logged

graeme

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922

Re-reading that it's interesting to quote from the last section;
"Capture One does outshine Lightroom in some respects though. The color editing sliders offer better fine-tuning control, particularly for skin tones. The Shadows and Highlights sliders have a greater range of tone control when editing regular dynamic range images. The new Luma Curve is useful for precise control of luminance and color contrast"

Which is what I said and you tried to disprove with your reference, own goal there Mark ;-)

I've just read the article: The takeaway seems to be that there isn't that much differences between the two & most photographers could get perfectly decent results from either.

Not defending Lightroom / Adobe here: I don't particularly like the subscription model & am sick of Adobe's half baked 'upgrades'.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9698
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

Re-reading that it's interesting to quote from the last section;
"Capture One does outshine Lightroom in some respects though. The color editing sliders offer better fine-tuning control, particularly for skin tones. The Shadows and Highlights sliders have a greater range of tone control when editing regular dynamic range images. The new Luma Curve is useful for precise control of luminance and color contrast"

Which is what I said and you tried to disprove with your reference, own goal there Mark ;-)

I did say I wouldn't respond on this thread any longer, but on this one post it is appropriate that I do so regardless. I'm glad you have now really read that article and found that Martin is, after all, balanced and objective in reporting his findings.

When I pointed you toward that article, it was in response to your statement in reply 36: "Colour is the one area that CO walks all over LR. Both in overall and local areas." This is a rather sweeping generalization, and it brought back to mind that article of Martin's, in which he reported the findings of his research indicating that such generalizations are at the least very much open to question. That's all I was trying to establish. I have no problem with the fact that each application has its comparative strengths and weaknesses, because it conforms with my experience over the years.

I may just add as a general point about raw converters: there always have been a number of contenders at the forefront. The population changes over time, but some years ago I sat on a panel at Photo Expo in NYC - it was Andrew Rodney's "Iron Chef" panel setting the key contenders of the time to use their wares for working up a challenging photo supplied by a famous photographer. Both LR/ACR and CO were in contention, as was Apple's Aperture and one other, I forget the name. The most interesting outcome of this competition was how very closely all of them performed in the hands of the people who really knew how to use them, regardless that they had different algorithms and different interfacing for their tool sets. From that moment on I became yet more wary of broad generalizations about raw converters and remain so, especially after reading Martin's article which only reconfirmed my perspective. Everyone has their preferences of course - but I think a choice between them ultimately depends on three things: workflow preferences, particular features most important to the user, and finally price. Which latter I remind is what this thread was supposed to be about!
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6351
    • http:www.schewephoto.com

An Adobe (paid) evangelist writing how wonderful LR is compared to CO is hardly an unbiased assessment. We can be pretty sure that if Adobe add all CO's colour editing options into LR he'll get paid to say how great they are and how users have been asking for them (which they have for years).

So, am I an "Adobe (paid) evangelist" or a "Capture One (paid) evangelist?" I've been paid both by Adobe and Phase One...so does that make my opinion more or less valuable?

I helped Martin write that article because, well, unknowledgeable folks often only know the program they are using and self congratulate themselves by trying another program that in their novice hands doesn't do what their primary app does (or doesn't work in the same way). And I'm pretty sure he wasn't paid to say how much better ACR/LR was than C1 (although as an author I hope he was actually paid).

Anybody who says application "A" is better or worse than application "B" likely is barely competent in either application and is talking out of their hat.

Both ACR/LR and C1 are capable of really excellent results and the primary difference is in the expert level of the user. And anybody who knows the apps knows that.

But ya might wanna get off your high horse as it relates to being an "Adobe (paid) evangelist" somehow being a less valuable human. Martin is a straight shooter–which you would know if you knew him or read much of his writing. And his article is correct and on point. Either ACR/LR or C1 are really good raw pressing apps. C1 sucks for asset management and really sucks for printing–two things LR does a lot better (not perfect but a lot better). It should also be noted that ACR is simply an import plug-in module for Photoshop so if ya want compare ACR + Photoshop, pretty sure that combo can blow C1 out of the water. But that all depends on what you are doing–and your level of competence.
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2534
    • http://www.paulholman.com

I helped Martin write that article because, well, unknowledgeable folks often only know the program they are using and self congratulate themselves by trying another program that in their novice hands doesn't do what their primary app does (or doesn't work in the same way).
Firstly you aren't credited with any contribution to that article. I read from this you might consider Martin is "unknowledgeable" as his primary expertise is Adobe products. I assume that's not your intention ? but maybe he really doesn't have any long term experience with CO ?

If you've helped him with the article I assume to you concur with the quote earlier from it ?

Quote
And I'm pretty sure he wasn't paid to say how much better ACR/LR was than C1 ....
In Photoshop user magazine ? pardon me for being a little cynical about that.

Maybe time to read what I've said, not what you think I might mean here Jeff.
I've a lot of respect for Martin and I've bought a lot of his books and your(pixel genius) products, but he's primarily an Adobe user from everything I've read.

Adobe haven't been terribly popular with their move to subscription software in photographic circles, but competitors like Serif and Phase are raising their game to compete and in some aspects starting to better Adobe. Whether Adobe can be bothered to keep being the leaders in this field is difficult to see at the moment, I get the impression that they're concentrating on their 'big data' web innovations as that will continue to be a growing and lucrative market compared to the relatively mature imaging products that can't continue to increase their returns to Adobe as in the past.
Your shares in Adobe will continue to be a good investment, but not because of their interest and innovation in the digital imaging market. 


Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6351
    • http:www.schewephoto.com

Firstly you aren't credited with any contribution to that article. I read from this you might consider Martin is "unknowledgeable" as his primary expertise is Adobe products. I assume that's not your intention ? but maybe he really doesn't have any long term experience with CO ?

Yeah sorry if I was unclear...I helped encourage Martin to do the article and helped dissect his test efforts. While Martin had used C1 he had never owned a Phase One camera. I helped translate C1 = LR functionality.

Also the concept of the two philosophical approaches of LR/ACR being a "normalized" vs "optimized" approach and how and why Thomas chose going for normalized. C1 for non-Phase cameras and ACR came out about the sam time and Thomas wanted all supported cameras to be treated the same. Phase being a camera company wanted to optimize because that was their approach with their own camera.

My shares of Adobe stock? You presume a lot more than you know...

(edited to fix quote error)
« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 01:24:27 AM by Schewe »
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2534
    • http://www.paulholman.com

My shares of Adobe stock? You presume a lot more than you know...
I recall you mentioning you had stock in Adobe in the past here. No problem with that, probably a sound investment.
Logged

Hoggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126

Well, one thing I think we can all agree on:

There has never been nor is there currently any such thing as Capture One evangelists.
Logged
Cams: Pentax K-3, K-30 & Canon G7X, S100
Firm supporter of DNG, throwing away originals.
It's the hash, man..  That good hash!

Simon Garrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724

So, am I an "Adobe (paid) evangelist" or a "Capture One (paid) evangelist?" I've been paid both by Adobe and Phase One...so does that make my opinion more or less valuable?

It makes it less impartial and thus in some aspects less valuable.  You have a conflict of interest.  I'm not for a moment suggesting any dishonesty on your part, and I have found your opinions valuable.  I have a book of yours that has taught me a lot.  However, evidence suggests that people paid by an organisation are more likely (subconsciously and unknowlingly) to have a more favourable opinion of the organisation than the average view.  And neither you nor we will ever know if your opinion is skewed by any payments.  Nothing wrong with that, I'm just answering your question. 
« Last Edit: May 16, 2017, 08:45:37 AM by Simon Garrett »
Logged

jemsurvey

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 56

Well, one thing I think we can all agree on:

There has never been nor is there currently any such thing as Capture One evangelists.


Yes, I think they call them Ambassadors.
Logged

Hoggy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126


Yes, I think they call them Ambassadors.

See..  I told ya so!   ;D
Logged
Cams: Pentax K-3, K-30 & Canon G7X, S100
Firm supporter of DNG, throwing away originals.
It's the hash, man..  That good hash!

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9698
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

It makes it less impartial and thus in some aspects less valuable.  You have a conflict of interest.  I'm not for a moment suggesting any dishonesty on your part, and in the past I have found your opinions valuable.  I have a book of yours that has taught me a lot.  However, evidence suggests that people paid by an organisation are more likely (subconsciously and unknowlingly) to have a more favourable opinion of the organisation that the average view.  And neither you nor we will ever know if your opinion is skewed by any payments.  Nothing wrong with that, I'm just answering your question.

When I see phrases like "evidence suggests", it makes me curious to wonder what evidence, from who, how conclusive it is and perhaps most importantly, how relevant to the particularities of the case at hand. Especially these days, we've learned not to take such vague allusions to wisdom at face value. Some of our forum members do have generally beneficial contacts and dealings with companies in the imaging industry, the nature of which is varied. For example, companies do pay people to provide professional advice, often in the context of alpha testing, and in so doing, tell them the truth during a product development cycle, whatever that truth may be. On the other hand, reputable companies do not pay reputable people to undertake product reviews for publication; that could be a conflict of interest and both sides understand this. The people who do this work get to see and learn things about the companies and their products and what considerations went into various aspects of product design that people not doing it don't know much about because they've never had the exposure; so when the people who really do know a thing or two share certain kinds of information that doesn't violate their NDAs, it cannot be assumed that this arises from some mysterious commercial variant of the Stockholm Syndrome. Honest and astute people know themselves and they know the technical basis of their observations, so to suggest that not only are they biased, but they don't even know they're biased is more than a bit rich - it's just disingenuous fog and has no necessary bearing on the value or objectivity of what's being said. I remind for the nth time - this started as a thread about subscription pricing, let's take it back there.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2354

I remind for the nth time - this started as a thread about subscription pricing, let's take it back there.

Perhaps this thread has run its course and should close.
Logged
Regards,
Ron
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up