Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.  (Read 11097 times)

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3128
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2013, 02:42:28 PM »

4. The "sticky point" is for those with CS-N who take on CS-CC. Their install is amended to CS-CC and stopping subscription in future would lose access to the software, unless Adobe includes a reversion mode - or the user restores the backup taken pre-CC.

Adobe Creative Cloud / FAQ


Quote
"I currently have a previous, perpetual-licensed Creative Suite edition on my computer. Will I be able to use both my Creative Suite products and the new Creative Cloud applications on my computer?

    Yes, your existing Creative Suite installation will not be affected by installing the new CC applications. For example, you can install and use both Photoshop CS6 and Photoshop CC on the same computer"
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3128
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #21 on: June 04, 2013, 02:49:04 PM »

2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.
As stated by me and others on various occasions, there may be dependencies (e.g. Smart objects, adjustment layers, etc. in a Works in progress situation) that require proprietary access to the file layers.

May be, for layered TIFF or PSD.

RAW, JPG, flattened TIFF remain useable blah blah.
Logged

Ken Richmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #22 on: June 04, 2013, 04:52:12 PM »

Perhaps Adobe has disdain for "photographers" who need to repair their pictures using an illustrator's tool sets.  Perhaps this is the watershed that sluices photography back to it's pre-Photoshop roots.   My good friend: http://urdaneta.net/Urdaneta_Photography/Home.html has one of his studios at the other end of the corridor from mine.  At the end of an indoor session, he delivers a dvd while his subject waits.  No post processing at all. He's extremely successful and uses MUA's, but that's it.  He's contemptuous of any "photography" that's "photoshopped".   The term is invariably used deprecatingly and one might be sympathetic to a desire on the part of Adobe to detach itself from the activity.

...just sayin'.

Ken Richmond

« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 07:25:07 AM by Ken Richmond »
Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 532
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #23 on: June 04, 2013, 05:01:09 PM »

Mark Hamburg worked with a small group of alpha testers who all happened to be photographers. Mark left Photoshop when the Creative Suite was started...Mark then developed Lightroom which WAS designed for and targeted to photographers.

Mark must have signed up to some sort of a non-compete because LR is really stunted as a tool for photographers.  That's why most of us use one raw converter or another to then end up in PHOTOshop for final pixel editing.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 05:04:57 PM by Jack Hogan »
Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 532
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #24 on: June 04, 2013, 05:24:27 PM »

Perhaps Adobe has disdain for "photographers" who need to repair their pictures using an illustrator's tool sets....

...just sayin'.

Ken Richmond

Everybody is allowed to 'just say', but that doesn't make the 'sayin' any righter.  One can pretend that anything beyond cyanotope or a pinhole is bending the truth or that panoramas have no place in modern photography - fact is we are able to do stuff today that was not even conceivable a few  years ago, like using zoom lenses or correcting various defects just like the folks at the Hubble did.  But we can.  So people who want to bury their heads in the sand and keep pretending we are still in 1842 are welcome to it.  They would never use photoshop and if they were all there was the related folks at Adobe would starve to death and shut it down. 

Fortunately for Adobe there are more than a few of us , the ones who were really amazed at what could come out of an original Hubble telescope image, who may keep them alive.  But not if they snob us.  There is nothing worse than a snobbed photographer.

Jack
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 890
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2013, 05:40:30 PM »

I've never said photographers should not to complain...just to understand what the circumstances are and be realistic with their expectations.

Photoshop actually has had three different lives over the two decades it's been available. It started as a tool for film and graphic arts, caught on and was used when then WWW exploded and them was adopted by many (but not all) digital photographers over the last 8-10 years. But all told, photographers make up a small percent of Adobe customers. So, Adobe is doing what it thinks is right for the magority (right or wrong). That's the reality...

Your continued history lessons are interesting....but really have no part of the current discussion.

you also keep mentioning photographers being a small part of Adobe's customers.  This is also "interesting", but only valuable if you can narrow your numbers down to the % relative to Photoshop, not the entire portfolio.

Your statement only makes any sense if you are trying to tell us that, for Adobe, photographers are insignificant to their business, that the do not give a sh*t about us, and we should all seek other solutions as quickly as we can. 

Is that what you are saying, Jeff?
Logged
John

Vladimirovich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1320
Logged

Ken Richmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2013, 05:50:48 PM »

So there you are at your gallery show, discreetly mingling and you overhear the young couple who are viewing your "photograph", the one you spent hours traveling to get at sunset, and shot with five different filters with a 50 megapixel back on a tripod, "... he photoshopped it."

pinhole camera?   You are kidding, right?   Jack, how does that respond to the negative association the software has acquired in connection with photography?   Suppose people started saying that a photograph has been Hoganed?  Or Schewed?  I suspect you could develop some sort of complex over that use of your name.   :-)

Ken Richmond
« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 06:11:29 PM by Ken Richmond »
Logged

Vladimirovich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1320
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2013, 05:51:29 PM »

So, no, Photoshop was not designed for nor target towards photographers...
you forget a non zero amount of people who use ACR (no, not LR, thank you)... decouple ACR from PS and sell it on perpetual basis... but it is not going to happen, because LR is a better tool to keep users captive.
Logged

rodcones

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2013, 06:38:05 PM »

Hi,

Feel free, but why do you feel this uncontrollable urge? Just wondering ...

Not wanting to waste LuLa server space by  quoting any more.

I am sorry if you felt insulted though I believe that "brouhaha" is not as pejorative as you imply.

And I erred in not elaborating on the file availability wrt layered or Actions attributes. I admit not having CS6 but Elements will open PS edited files.

And of course as you pointed out, the discourse has been enlightened and enlivened by those more able. Always helps the ongoing understanding and knowledge about the issue.
Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 532
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2013, 03:04:36 AM »

So there you are at your gallery show, discreetly mingling and you overhear the young couple who are viewing your "photograph", the one you spent hours traveling to get at sunset, and shot with five different filters with a 50 megapixel back on a tripod, "... he photoshopped it."

pinhole camera?   You are kidding, right?   Jack, how does that respond to the negative association the software has acquired in connection with photography?   Suppose people started saying that a photograph has been Hoganed?  Or Schewed?  I suspect you could develop some sort of complex over that use of your name.   :-)

Ken Richmond

Hi Ken,

I was reacting to this quote of yours:

Quote
He's extremely successful and uses MUA's, but that's it.  He's contemptuous of any "photography" that's "photoshopped".

I am not arguing about the negative connotation PhotoShop has gained over the last few years, I agree with you there.  I am simply contemptuous of your friend's contempt because there is definitely a place for PS in a photographer's workflow at the beginning of the third millennium.  Some purists stick their head in the sand when it comes to using new tools but today PS is very much part of the toolkit of an IQ conscious photographer, whether that's tone mapping for increased DR, stitching together panoramas for a wider FOV or giving the effect of a polarizing filter.

Were your buddy the one with the five filters and the digital back, I would have a question for him: why distort the natural scene by using a stack of IQ limiting filters when 99% of the desired effect can be better implemented and controlled in post?  You can get it to look just like it would have looked through the five filters, but with better IQ later. Capture all of the information as-is at the scene, and do the fine tuning in post.  Of course if one is contemptuous one may never realize that.

Jack
Logged

Ken Richmond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 70
    • Richmond Fine Photography
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2013, 07:17:39 AM »

Jack,

They guy with five filters at cloudy sunsets would be me. 


Ken Richmond
Logged

Rob Reiter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 263
    • The LightRoom
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #32 on: June 05, 2013, 11:34:13 AM »

Well, for a program Adobe never meant for photographers, they have certainly been willing to promote it to and with photographers, at trade shows, user groups, book authors and in their advertising, as well as the tool sets within the program itself-dodge and burn, lens correction and HDR tools, to name a few. A little facetious to say we should just be happy with what we have and stop expecting the company to care about the millions who bought into the workflow they happily sold us.
Logged
http://www.lightroom.com Fine art printing for photographers and other artists

Vladimirovich

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1320
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #33 on: June 05, 2013, 12:27:57 PM »

Well, for a program Adobe never meant for photographers
come on, Schewe intentionally always omits ACR parts... too inconvenient for him
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3128
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #34 on: June 05, 2013, 12:32:39 PM »

A little facetious to say we should just be happy with what we have...

Who do you think said that?
Logged

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 532
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2013, 01:15:47 PM »

Jack,

They guy with five filters at cloudy sunsets would be me. 


Ken Richmond

Kudos.  I don't have a digital back and 5 filters, but I have been known to lurk around such scenes at such times... :)
Logged

Rob Reiter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 263
    • The LightRoom
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2013, 10:58:00 PM »

Their actions speak louder than their words.

I'll happily retract my statement when they offer a way to exit CC with a 'frozen' version of the latest version of PS. Many here have described how that could be done without it being for free.

Who do you think said that?
Logged
http://www.lightroom.com Fine art printing for photographers and other artists

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5980
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #37 on: June 06, 2013, 03:13:27 AM »

come on, Schewe intentionally always omits ACR parts... too inconvenient for him

Look bud...I've been working with Thomas on ACR since before ACR 1.0 was released...(I rode my bike over to Ann Arbor so he could shoot calibration files with my Canon D30). ACR is Thomas' little post-Photoshop baby and has worked as a Photoshop plug-in since it's first release in 2003 and not an integral part of Photoshop until Camera Raw was added as a filter in Photoshop CC. What's you point? You think ACR proves that Photoshop has been directed at photographers? Bullshyte...wake up and smell the roses bud. The only reason that ACR exists is that Thomas thought Canon's raw processing software sucked so he decided to do it himself. It had little to nothing to do with Photoshop until recently (when some people discovered Russell Brown's script to add an ACR Smart Object to images in CS5.5.

So, what's your point? Do you have a point or are you just sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots? You wanna get into a pissin' match with me? I don't think you'll win...(I could be wrong, but I do have some friends up North in the frozen tundra).

You got anything useful to add or are you just wasting everybody's time again?
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 890
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #38 on: June 06, 2013, 04:55:35 AM »

Look bud...I've been working with Thomas on ACR since before ACR 1.0 was released...(I rode my bike over to Ann Arbor so he could shoot calibration files with my Canon D30). ACR is Thomas' little post-Photoshop baby and has worked as a Photoshop plug-in since it's first release in 2003 and not an integral part of Photoshop until Camera Raw was added as a filter in Photoshop CC. What's you point? You think ACR proves that Photoshop has been directed at photographers? Bullshyte...wake up and smell the roses bud. The only reason that ACR exists is that Thomas thought Canon's raw processing software sucked so he decided to do it himself. It had little to nothing to do with Photoshop until recently (when some people discovered Russell Brown's script to add an ACR Smart Object to images in CS5.5.

So, what's your point? Do you have a point or are you just sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots? You wanna get into a pissin' match with me? I don't think you'll win...(I could be wrong, but I do have some friends up North in the frozen tundra).

You got anything useful to add or are you just wasting everybody's time again?

Why always with the threats Jeff?
Logged
John

mistybreeze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 177
Re: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.
« Reply #39 on: June 06, 2013, 06:12:04 AM »

This whole discussion about whether Photoshop was intended for photographers is a fruitless waste of time. What's the point of that? I wish this silly aspect of the conversation would stop.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up