Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions  (Read 116499 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9363
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #680 on: May 17, 2013, 10:49:59 AM »

To learn what in this commentary is baseless gossip and what is sound information worthy of attention.

And if you couldn't decide, by yourself and for yourself, which one is which after 37 pages, then only God could help you. Or Adobe.

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 481
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #681 on: May 17, 2013, 11:56:50 AM »

I think this has been at least mentioned before and I thought it worth elaborating upon a little. Photoshop is a very mature product, and it may be that there isn't a lot left to improve about it or add to it. Certainly there are small improvements to be made and maybe a few more "wow" features could be dreamed up, but are there enough such things to keep people upgrading for, say, five more upgrade cycles? When the answer is "no" many products go into a maintenance mode, receiving updates only for new operating system requirements and security threats. The subscription model keeps a big stream of revenue flowing regardless of what Adobe does in the way of improvements, while removing much of the incentive for Adobe to come up with such improvements. Those who want or need to keep using their PSD files will eventually subscribe just in order to maintain compatibility with future operating systems and hardware even if Adobe makes no improvements at all.

This is at least food for thought. If it's true what's happening makes more sense.
Logged
- Dean

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3690
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #682 on: May 17, 2013, 11:57:28 AM »

When I pay to see a movie performance, I don't imagine that I have formed a relationship with the leading actress :-)
So you were only brushing away popcorn when they threw you out of the movie theatre?

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
    • My Flickr page
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #683 on: May 17, 2013, 01:41:00 PM »

So you were only brushing away popcorn when they threw you out of the movie theatre?

Now that is funny! :D :D
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1907
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #684 on: May 17, 2013, 01:55:19 PM »

Has anyone actually signed up with the CC service here?

Well I sort of inadvertently ended up signing up, entering my date of birth and agreeing to Adobe marketing by phone, mail or email just trying to download the trial version of CS6 after discovering my options with LR4 due to no other download options available on Adobe's site.

Now I have a new app on my system called AAM (Adobe Application Manager) permanently on my Mac system which now controls BOTH CC subscription apps (I'm not using) and perpetual licenses of existing Adobe apps.

I found the link below to an Adobe forum discussion about issues with this AAM answered by an Adobe Staff member and it doesn't look good for those who have perpetual licenses with regard to removing AAM from the system if you use Adobe apps...

http://forums.adobe.com/message/4719208

The reason I'm posting is that the downloading interface has changed where you can't see the size and length of time of the download within the AAM. There's no instructions for what you're getting into. You just end up going headlong into the download sequence one step at a time. By the time you find out what you've done the AAM is on your system. I found out by accident the download size is listed in your "Signed In" Adobe "My Account" dropdown menu within the CC app web page. Very Google-ish way of doing things.

I had to stop the download because it was taking WAY TOO long. CS6 is a 2GB download just to try it out.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 01:58:07 PM by tlooknbill »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8803
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #685 on: May 17, 2013, 02:15:07 PM »

Stuff that obviously isn't ready for prime time. One would have thought with these massive changes taking place the senior management of the company would have insisted that EVERYTHING to do with download management, licensing and installation would be working flawlessly before publishing. One can imagine, a huge task given the number of applications, permutations and combinations of customer choices, customer computing environments, etc., but they did bring all this on themselves. Perhaps one reaches a point where the KISS principle becomes inoperative; one wonders.
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

nemophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
    • Nemo Niemann Photography
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #686 on: May 17, 2013, 02:26:05 PM »

Has anyone actually signed up with the CC service here?

Well I sort of inadvertently ended up signing up, entering my date of birth and agreeing to Adobe marketing by phone, mail or email just trying to download the trial version of CS6 after discovering my options with LR4 due to no other download options available on Adobe's site.

Now I have a new app on my system called AAM (Adobe Application Manager) permanently on my Mac system which now controls BOTH CC subscription apps (I'm not using) and perpetual licenses of existing Adobe apps.


I actually signed up for a CC app -- Muse. I had it as a beta and first release. Decided to see what it would be like if I "rented" the software for a year, since my .muse files I'd created would obviously not open. A slight disaster -- not straight forward signing up. It took about 15-20 minutes to sort thought everything and --finally -- download. Except that the download "appeared" to take 24-hours! The program never said complete", finished" or anything, just some silly bars continually filling. The next morning I quit the download/installation. The program asked, "Are you sure". Bloody well right I'm sure. Then I double-clicked the program icon, and it did launch the latest version. Stupid, frigging stupid is all I can say. As someone said, this is the wonderfulness of cloud softaware. Adobe needs it's act together before forcing everyone into their footsteps. Muse is a decent program, though limited. I have two other programs that do the job about as well.

Nemo

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #687 on: May 17, 2013, 02:56:52 PM »

I'm willing to believe that others have better information than I do.

I'm willing to believe there was something I misunderstood and others understood.

So far it just seems that I expected less. When I pay to see a movie performance, I don't imagine that I have formed a relationship with the leading actress :-)

Adobe wants you to think they are the prima-donna.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Adobe was never more vulnerable to people like us.  Pay attention to the man behind the curtain, and the illusion of authority.

While you might give others the benefit of the doubt, as often as not, they are wrong, and banking on your willingness to invest false trust in their authority.

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #688 on: May 17, 2013, 03:00:00 PM »

I think this has been at least mentioned before and I thought it worth elaborating upon a little. Photoshop is a very mature product, and it may be that there isn't a lot left to improve about it or add to it. Certainly there are small improvements to be made and maybe a few more "wow" features could be dreamed up, but are there enough such things to keep people upgrading for, say, five more upgrade cycles? When the answer is "no" many products go into a maintenance mode, receiving updates only for new operating system requirements and security threats. The subscription model keeps a big stream of revenue flowing regardless of what Adobe does in the way of improvements, while removing much of the incentive for Adobe to come up with such improvements. Those who want or need to keep using their PSD files will eventually subscribe just in order to maintain compatibility with future operating systems and hardware even if Adobe makes no improvements at all.

This is at least food for thought. If it's true what's happening makes more sense.

This is an important point.  Photoshop is beyond mature, it is obsolete in every technical sense.  All that is left for Adobe is to keep manipulating the market to generate ongoing dependency.  In reality, the market is ripe for disruption, as ripe as it will ever be.

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 902
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #689 on: May 17, 2013, 03:06:13 PM »

After almost three days the Adobe Cloud service is still not 100% functional. Unbelievable.

http://status.creativecloud.com/
Logged
~ CB

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8803
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #690 on: May 17, 2013, 03:12:53 PM »

Photoshop is beyond mature, it is obsolete in every technical sense. 

This is a very broad, sweeping, unsupported swipe at one of the deepest and most sophisticated imaging applications ever devised by mankind. Could you please substantiate what you are saying? And who is providing equivalent functionality in a manner that is less "obsolete"? Note that I do not work for Adobe, I have no particular relationship with Adobe except as a user of their software, but when I see comments of this ilk it leaves me kind of breathless.

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

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9363
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #691 on: May 17, 2013, 03:37:34 PM »

...Photoshop is beyond mature, it is obsolete in every technical sense...

-1

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #692 on: May 17, 2013, 03:44:55 PM »

This is a very broad, sweeping, unsupported swipe at one of the deepest and most sophisticated imaging applications ever devised by mankind. Could you please substantiate what you are saying? And who is providing equivalent functionality in a manner that is less "obsolete"? Note that I do not work for Adobe, I have no particular relationship with Adobe except as a user of their software, but when I see comments of this ilk it leaves me kind of breathless.

While I might think your assessment was at least as sweeping as mine, I agree your question deserves an answer.

Photoshop uses a one-dimensional dataflow architecture known as "layers" -- perhaps one and a half dimensions when you count things like masks.  Compare this with an N-dimensional dataflow architecture such as Nuke.  Compare with respect to a common task, such as compositing.

Compositing is inherently an N-dimensional process.  Several sources, each processed differently, must be brought together into one image, with integration occurring potentially at different stages in processing for each source.  

- In photoshop, it is necessary to "bake in" intermediate results in order to align them to a one-dimensional flow.  There is no going back to revise parts of your composited image, all of which might have required extensive independent treatments, as well as a level of /coordination/.  

- In Nuke, as with any N-dimensional dataflow (or "node based" editing if you prefer), it is possible to do several things:

(1) You can import and/or retain the entire processing history of the multiple sources and revise at will at late stages in the project.
(2) One source file can be used in multiple stages of the dataflow for entirely different purposes without duplication or baking in.

- Using an N-dimensional dataflow machine, you can devise many different kinds of user interfaces at the level above, and that includes a photoshop compatibility layer, as well as other things for various different purposes.

- In photoshop, several hacks have been devised in order to accommodate different needs, such as "Apply Image..." which is completely unnecessary in an N-dimensional dataflow architecture.  

And that's just a start.  Thanks for the question though.  I'm thinking of teaching a course on this over the summer.  It's a timely topic.

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8803
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #693 on: May 17, 2013, 04:05:41 PM »

Nuke is a compositing application for the film industry. Not clear to me whether you're comparing apples with apples. Is it truly appropriate to cherry-pick technologies developed for different purposes and then dump on Photoshop for not using them? A whole architecture and structure of a multi-purpose application is at play, so I wonder about that - I have no reason to say you are incorrect, but I wonder.

Are you so sure an "N-dimensional data workflow" would work in Photoshop? I'd like to hear from the professional digital imaging engineers on that one, because somehow I would think if this were so much better, those guys at Adobe would have been on top of it long ago.

I also don't understand why you say that anything needs to be "baked-in" when compositing with Photoshop. Everything can be done with layers and adjustment layers and people who know what they are about in that application can reverse anything they do. Have you every since how Bert Monroy, perhaps one of the great masters of all compositors, uses Photoshop? There is quite an education there about intricate, reversible workflows.

And yes, my statement about Photoshop may have been a bit *sweeping*, but find me another comparably-purposed application that does all what Photoshop does, and as well, and I'll take it back.
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: 2385
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #694 on: May 17, 2013, 04:49:38 PM »

because somehow I would think if this were so much better, those guys at Adobe would have been on top of it long ago.
Sure ? There are a lot of reasons why making radical changes to the way Photoshop works could be regarded as a very bad idea.
Part of it's success has been the slow steady progress and ease of moving to new versions without having to learn a lot of new things.
Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #695 on: May 17, 2013, 05:06:14 PM »

Nuke is a compositing application for the film industry. Not clear to me whether you're comparing apples with apples. Is it truly appropriate to cherry-pick technologies developed for different purposes and then dump on Photoshop for not using them? A whole architecture and structure of a multi-purpose application is at play, so I wonder about that - I have no reason to say you are incorrect, but I wonder.

Consider also the GEGL library being developed for GIMP.  It uses the same N-dimensional dataflow architecture.

Quote
Are you so sure an "N-dimensional data workflow" would work in Photoshop? I'd like to hear from the professional digital imaging engineers on that one, because somehow I would think if this were so much better, those guys at Adobe would have been on top of it long ago.

All comers are welcome.  In my view, Adobe, as a business decision, did not want to spend $200M to make a product that had a future so long as they felt they had a cash cow.  Technically, though, photoshop was always vulnerable.  I consulted on a competing design ten years ago, and undertook a study back then.

Quote
I also don't understand why you say that anything needs to be "baked-in" when compositing with Photoshop. Everything can be done with layers and adjustment layers and people who know what they are about in that application can reverse anything they do. Have you every since how Bert Monroy, perhaps one of the great masters of all compositors, uses Photoshop? There is quite an education there about intricate, reversible workflows.

I didn't say (quantitatively) that "everything" needs to be baked in, I did say that at some point one needed to bake in intermediate results.  Try for example to use a single source file for multiple purposes within a single layer stack, and without duplicating it or importing it from another stack.  

Example, use a single source file as a layer mask, a multi-frequency sharpening mask, a "hard light" layer within a single stack.  Then decide that you need to change the source file just slightly.  Can you reverse and re-do all of those derived images in a single click?  

The ability of people to push the bounds of the existing photoshop does not speak to the extent to which those same people could push another architecture and with less effort.

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #696 on: May 17, 2013, 05:07:48 PM »

Sure ? There are a lot of reasons why making radical changes to the way Photoshop works could be regarded as a very bad idea.
Part of it's success has been the slow steady progress and ease of moving to new versions without having to learn a lot of new things.

A compatibility module would be a trivial exercise -- for those who want it.  Meanwhile, newer and more ambitious projects could be undertaken with greater ease.  Competition works that way.

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4738
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #697 on: May 17, 2013, 05:17:52 PM »


- In photoshop, it is necessary to "bake in" intermediate results in order to align them to a one-dimensional flow.  There is no going back to revise parts of your composited image, all of which might have required extensive independent treatments, as well as a level of /coordination/................

........ In photoshop, several hacks have been devised in order to accommodate different needs, such as "Apply Image..." which is completely unnecessary in an N-dimensional dataflow architecture. 

And that's just a start.  Thanks for the question though.  I'm thinking of teaching a course on this over the summer.  It's a timely topic.
Maybe you should learn to use Photoshop a little bit better first if you think there is no going back to revise composited images. I've used a non-destructive workflow in PS for years, it's not as simple as the parametric workflow in LR, but it can still be non destructive, when using smart objects, layer masks, adjustment layers...etc.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8803
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #698 on: May 17, 2013, 05:22:03 PM »

Consider also the GEGL library being developed for GIMP.  It uses the same N-dimensional dataflow architecture.

All comers are welcome.  In my view, Adobe, as a business decision, did not want to spend $200M to make a product that had a future so long as they felt they had a cash cow.  Technically, though, photoshop was always vulnerable.  I consulted on a competing design ten years ago, and undertook a study back then.

I didn't say (quantitatively) that "everything" needs to be baked in, I did say that at some point one needed to bake in intermediate results.  Try for example to use a single source file for multiple purposes within a single layer stack, and without duplicating it or importing it from another stack.  

Example, use a single source file as a layer mask, a multi-frequency sharpening mask, a "hard light" layer within a single stack.  Then decide that you need to change the source file just slightly.  Can you reverse and re-do all of those derived images in a single click?  

The ability of people to push the bounds of the existing photoshop does not speak to the extent to which those same people could push another architecture and with less effort.

I'd still like to know why this new technology hasn't found its way into Photoshop or into alternative competing products. Especially if it has been worked on for a decade or more. People can and do adjust to new ways of doing things. We need only back-cast the rapid transition from film to digital.
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

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions
« Reply #699 on: May 17, 2013, 05:39:43 PM »

Maybe you should learn to use Photoshop a little bit better first if you think there is no going back to revise composited images. I've used a non-destructive workflow in PS for years, it's not as simple as the parametric workflow in LR, but it can still be non destructive, when using smart objects, layer masks, adjustment layers...etc.

Imagine that you want to use a single source file for three purposes, for example (1) a layer mask, (2) a sharpening layer, and (3) an "overlay" blend (blending with itself for purposes of local contrast enhancement).  How would you do that without duplicating?  Remember, loading a layer mask is an implied duplication.  I don't know of any way to both derive and load a layer mask with a smart object.  Think about it.  You'll see it.  You could even have layers with controlled feedback, something that is patently impossible in photoshop.  There is an entire world beyond photoshop.

There are many things you can do with photoshop with considerable work.  With an N-dimensional dataflow, there are ways to do the same things with a trivial amount of work.
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37   Go Up