Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Justinr on January 22, 2011, 05:49:28 am
-
Are there any, or even the prospect of one coming along?
Photoshop is expensive mainly I feel because there is so little in the way of competition, a decent image processing piece of software is something that Microsoft is lacking and I can't help but wonder why they haven't tried to plug the gap.
If for some strange reason all the PS programs now running irretrievably crashed tomorrow where would you turn?
-
I don't really agree with the price argument.
There's academic pricing if you're a student. There's Elements and there's Lightroom to suit other budgets, particularly if you don't need the full variety of PS functionality (and many photographers don't).
Full Photoshop is an incredibly diverse and powerful piece of software, but for a professional it's a small investment compared to a lens or camera body or even creating/hosting a web site.
If you're not a professional, then the price is the pain you feel for stepping up to a professional piece of software. Alternatives include the abovementioned, plus software such as that which comes from the camera manufacturer, numerous alternative raw processors (free and commerical) and a number of other editing programs of various levels of functionality.
To a large degree, you get what you pay for.
I know that's not strictly what you asked, but it bugs me when people complain about the price of PS against what is often $10k or more in photographic and related equipment (even as amateurs). And if you camera equipment collection is sub $1,000- then you should consider that starting with Elements or Lightroom or if appropriate an academic version might be more suitable. You don't need to have hugely expensive cameras to capture wonderful images, but it's not reasonable to expect Adobe to price for the general consumer when the software is not intended for that market.
-
To add to Phil's excellent response. Lightroom at half the cost of Ps5 may be all you need. I have both and I am in Lightroom 50 hours to maybe 1 in Photoshop.
For me its all in the effort versus benefit ratio. For hundreds and hudreds of landscape images I process, Lightroom gives ME all I need out of them. Could I get more out of them by going to Photoshop,maybe.
Your photography may require a different level of processing requiring Photoshop.
The bottom line is that digital images straight out of the camera need some form of processing. If I were making my living off of these images I would want the best product on the market to help with this process. Right now Adobe has two of the very best in Ps5 and Lightroom at very good price points.
-
GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/) is quite affordable: it's free (as in beer). It does pretty much everything PS does when it comes to photo editing, and much more with plugins. They often have features way before PS does, such as content-aware fill.
It has picked up color management which was one my main complaints the last time I tested it a few years ago. The reason I'm still not using it is that it doesn't do 16-bit editing - it's supposed to come with 3.0 (it's at 2.8 now), hopefully later this year. I'll take a close look at GIMP's viability then. Also, the UI is quite different from PS and I'm not a fan of it at all; this can be "fixed" with plugins, though.
You don't need to have hugely expensive cameras to capture wonderful images, but it's not reasonable to expect Adobe to price for the general consumer when the software is not intended for that market.
That's actually exactly what they do. PS Elements is Photoshop stripped down. Since it is widely frowned upon to ask different prices from customers depending on their ability and willingness to spend*, the next best things is to strip down features and make different products. Since Photoshop is software, CS5 and Elements have essentially identical cost-price - but they ask for wildly differing prices to capture the higher prices of CS5 professionals and serious amateurs are willing to pay, while at the same time they are able to sell the lower-tier Elements at lower prices (margins) to capture that end of the market. It's called price discrimination.
* academic (and children and pensioner) discounts are a peculiar exception to the rule but let's not derail the discussion further
-
All very well and good and quite the proper answer of course but it doesn't help those who do actually turn a penny or two without vast investment in equipment.
At present I have CS and it does everything I want at present in the way of preparing my prints for sale or images for the web but it does have limitations in certain areas that maybe the latest full version might address. Naturally I will never use more than 5% of its capability but that doesn't mean to say that the 5% I need is found in Elements or Lightroom, indeed I get the impression (from visiting the Adobe site) that these two items are designed for those who just want pretty pictures rather than work towards a particular style or look and that is what I want from the software.
I'm sure that we would all like to work at the level where the latest full on edition of PS is just an incidental expense but as I look around and see high street studios shutting up shop, once quite selective wedding photographers offering all sorts of 'deals' to attract custom and hear from colleagues just how thin on the ground work is at present I do begin to wonder if Adobe is chasing a declining market in its apparent pursuit of elitism.
-
Try PhotoResampling.
http://www.photoresampling.com/index_eng.php (http://www.photoresampling.com/index_eng.php)
Jacopo
-
For the Adobe averse; How about ?
Corel PaintShop Photo Pro X3
Serif photoplus x4
Picture Window Pro 4
Lightzone
iPhoto
Aperture
GIMP
All reasonably competent image editors.
Plus there are many more smaller less well specified or specialist programs like Qimage, Irfanview and for working with RAW files DXO Optics, Capture One, Bibble, and the manufacturer's own software often can be usable too.
There's plenty of cheap competition for Photoshop, but nothing seems to dent it's popularity.
-
GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/) is quite affordable: it's free ....It has picked up color management which was one my main complaints the last time I tested it a few years ago.
Shame it doesn't work as you'd expect it to.
Try opening a file that's untagged with a colourspace.....
-
The trouble with Gimp and Irfanview is that I find them a bit like running through mud, you get there (or somewhere close) but it's one hell of a journey.
For the Adobe averse; How about ?
Corel PaintShop Photo Pro X3
Serif photoplus x4
Picture Window Pro 4
Lightzone
iPhoto
Aperture
GIMP
I've started working through the list (many thanks for the suggestions) and Serif's offering seems to tick the required boxes but I guess I'll never know until I try it. The thing is that I am happy with my edition of PS but I am often asked what I'd recommend that's affordable to non specialists instead, especially by those who are looking to prepare their images for the web.
-
The trouble with Gimp and Irfanview is that I find them a bit like running through mud, you get there (or somewhere close) but it's one hell of a journey.
This part of reason people stay with PS, not only the difficulty of learning a new program, but also there are a huge range of tutorials, help pages and peer support for PS, much of it of really high quality.
Unfortunately the cheap end of the market tends to be owned by less expert users and the quality of help and peer support is often far poorer as a result.
I am often asked what I'd recommend that's affordable to non specialists instead, especially by those who are looking to prepare their images for the web.
I forgot to mention Picassa, free, simple and liked by a lot of more casual users.
-
If PS isn't an incidental expense, then it's hard to accept that you're someone making a living from photography. I know that it has different pricing in different markets, but we're talking what up to $1,000- maybe?
It seems to me that you've visited the Adobe site but not taken advantage of free 30-day trials of the software. Give Elements and Lightroom a go. You want a "particular style and look" - I'd be pretty sure you could achieve it with either program, but if you really *need* CS5, then you're not going to have much luck with anything else - there's nothing that does exactly what PS CS5 does, except for PS CS5, and that's at a very reasonable price point for what it is.
-
Photoshop is expensive mainly I feel because there is so little in the way of competition, a decent image processing piece of software is something that Microsoft is lacking and I can't help but wonder why they haven't tried to plug the gap.
Oh, there's competition...it's just that over the long haul, there's really nothing anywhere as good, flexible and powerful. MSFT tried to compete with Photoshop...a product called Digital Image Suite. It didn't do very well and MSFT killed it because, well it wasn't anywhere nearly good enough to compete.
See, while there have been and still are competitors, they just aren't as good as Photoshop. You really can't blame Adobe for that. The US$199 upgrade cost every 18 months works out to be about US$11.05 per month. If you are any kind of pro and can't afford that, ya gotta wonder why? It's a rather small cost of doing business considering how much you can make while using it.
It really sounds more like you are very anti-Adobe or anti-Photoshop. Any particular reason?
The Photoshop engineers are constantly striving to improve the app and very responsive to all the various markets Photoshop serves-of which photographers is rather small (but have historically had enormous input). Adobe COULD behave a lot more anti-competitive than they are...they've really never engaged in that behavior, they just keep making Photoshop better and better. Considering Photoshop's position in the marketplace, I think Adobe bends over backwards for their customers–except for customer service of late (which sucks).
-
I got the Adobe Master Suite for $100 under a deal with the NSW DET. Adobe is going out of it's way to engage with students in NSW.
After working with Microsoft products for the past 14 years I have found them to be clueless with regards to standard graphics industry practices. Anyone professional who has used Illustrator/Freehand and Photoshop to create illustrations and then used Microsoft products will have the same reaction that I have and that is their products are just nasty when you think of quality graphics.
Twenty years of Photoshop and you still can't import a .psd image into a Microsoft product. Sorry not good enough.
Cheers,
-
Farmer.
it's hard to accept that you're someone making a living from photography.
It's hard to accept that you have read my posts because that is something that I haven't claimed. Try again. ;) Yes I went on to the site and no I didn't download a free trials version because I couldn't see one being offered. I was therefore thrown back on relying upon their blurb which gave every impression that it was a prettifying program for people who like pretty pictures. If Elements is more than this then they should say so at the outset otherwise it's a marketing fail. Really, I shouldn't need to spend time looking for something that they do not suggest is there.
Schewe
A cute little sales job for Adobe there and I'm sure you are absolutely right, not so sure about the need to for analysis on my motivation though as your conclusion so far is a little off the mark and I worry that further investigation may only result in yet wilder assumptions. May I ask as to why you are so keen in your support of Adobe? The behavior in trying to corner the PDF project which is in fact open source would suggest that they are not always as saintly as they would like us to believe. I hasten to add that MS is probably no better for I have vague memories of various scandals attached to a more youthful Bill Gates but I can't recollect the details just at the moment.
-
Farmer.
It's hard to accept that you have read my posts because that is something that I haven't claimed. Try again. ;) Yes I went on to the site and no I didn't download a free trials version because I couldn't see one being offered. I was therefore thrown back on relying upon their blurb which gave every impression that it was a prettifying program for people who like pretty pictures. If Elements is more than this then they should say so at the outset otherwise it's a marketing fail. Really, I shouldn't need to spend time looking for something that they do not suggest is there.
You said, and I quote, "those who do actually turn a penny or two without vast investment in equipment. " So my point was, and is, that if you don't make a living from it then it's either not the right product for you, or you have to accept the pain of purchasing pro level software when you're not a pro. The indication from your post, was that you make some small return from a small investment.
You also appear to be ignoring Lightroom and only discussing Elements.
That said, from the PE page:
The #1 selling consumer photo-editing software*
Simply unlimited! Adobe® Photoshop® Elements 9 photo-editing software delivers powerful options that make it easy to create extraordinary photos, quickly share your memories in Online Albums and unique print creations, and automatically organize and help protect all your photos and video clips.
You then have a link to features, reviews, customer comments and so on. Since you haven't actually stated what it is you want to do, it's difficult to tell you whether this will work for you (and difficult for Adobe) which is why they have a large, friendly, yellow TRY button right below BUY, so you can check it out for yourself. For USD80-, it's very inexpensive.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopel/
Turning our attention to Lightroom, they use the same TRY/BUY buttons - you can see for yourself at:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/
At USD300-, this obviously moves up in the expense scale, but you get more - again, the site has a list of features and the opportunity to trial it.
Now shall we move to PDF? This was created by Adobe in 1993. Since they released it as an open standard, how exactly are they trying to "corner the project"? They opened it up in 2008. It's not exactly 100% open, but then so what? They invented it - they can release it at whatever level they like.
It seems you're here to have a whinge. Fine, go for it. If you actually want some advice or suggestions, this thread has many.
-
I think Adobe bends over backwards for their customers–except for customer service of late (which sucks).
When my laptop was stolen last year, they de-authorized it within minutes of my email/phone call. I was impressed, especially since I had no idea who to reach out to. Perhaps I got lucky.
-
May I ask as to why you are so keen in your support of Adobe?
Because I personally know many (if not most) of the engineers working on Photoshop and I've worked with the engineers working on Camera Raw and Lightroom. So, Adobe is not some faceless corporation to me but individuals working hard to advance the industry...as far as PDF and what you allege, I'm not personally knowledgable about that. However, I've seen Adobe bend over backwards to try to both offer their technology as standards while maintaining some level of technical control over the their technology. This has been their track record with DNG and XMP. So, unless you can specify Adobe's bad behavior, I'm inclined to discount what you say as sour grapes...
And, the bottom line, no, there is no viable head to head competitor to Photoshop and that's unlikely to change. So, you'll just have deal with the current landscape. BTW, at CS, you are outside of the upgrade window for CS5 (3 versions back)...is that what pisses you off?
-
he US$199 upgrade cost every 18 months works out to be about US$11.05 per month...........I think Adobe bends over backwards for their customers–except for customer service of late (which sucks).
I think there's cause for complaint over the pricing of products, especially for their international customers.
You may pay $199 for an upgrade in the USA, in the UK we're asked for £190.80 = $305 even without our local sales tax it's £159 = $254. That's in excess of 25% more and to add insult to injury we don't even get the benefit of a translation into our local language, English! Other markets suffer even worse I believe.
Shall we mention the upgrade trap of the Creative Suite products ? that can be an expensive mistake to buy into.
-
Gentlemen please, a little less vexation I think would be in order. I make some mild comments about the pricing of Adobe products and all of a sudden mean doubts are cast upon my professionalism and I am reduced to a pi**ed off whinger spouting sour grapes! Extraordinary, but sadly not without precedent in the rather anally retentive world of photo forums.
Elements/lightroom, both are presented as much the same and if I mentioned only the one it was because i was talking in general rather than in the particular, a distinction that most intelligent people can appreciate. Again, why should anybody bother with a 30 day trial if they are not informed or in anyway convinced by the initial sales blurb that it would be worth their while? They hardly make that option obvious anyway and we are all busy people.
I actually like using CS, it is quick and I have found my own way of working with it that suits but I also put together the odd website with a CMS gallery and this invariably involves offering advice on taking and preparing photos for the web, do I tell my customers that they will need to spend another €1,000+ or is there something else that will do the job? I look at the web pages trying to sell me Elements/Lightroom and compare with Serifs Photoplus 4 feature list and it's a no brainer, to my mind Adobe have screwed up here, dismissively aiming for what they consider non professionals want rather than trying to engage in an intelligent manner with potential customers who do not want or need to make such a large investment in the full blown version. But hey, what do I know, I'm only a potential customer after all.
You said, and I quote, "those who do actually turn a penny or two without vast investment in equipment. " So my point was, and is, that if you don't make a living from it then it's either not the right product for you, or you have to accept the pain of purchasing pro level software when you're not a pro. The indication from your post, was that you make some small return from a small investment.
I wonder if you would care to reflect upon that paragraph for it doesn't read as being as decisive or informed as you may feel, but rather pompous, elitist (snobbish even) and sorely detached from reality, well reality as found it in rural Ireland anyway. As a UK based friend who has worked as a photographer for many years put it to me "The game is over". There is no longer the demand for professional photographers that there was and I doubt that there ever will be again. I've been busy teaching myself new and associated skills because I see so many in the trade struggling or going out of business. I never was a full time pro, could never afford to be, but it has been an enjoyable little sideline in the past and I have always considered 'professionalism' in any craft as being a state of mind rather than a dependence upon it for a living.
Yes I have left much unsaid but there is only so much time I can spare for this sort of ultimately meaningless argument, so fire away fellows, but do try to be original at least.
-
Oh, there's competition...it's just that over the long haul, there's really nothing anywhere as good, flexible and powerful. MSFT tried to compete with Photoshop...a product called Digital Image Suite. It didn't do very well and MSFT killed it because, well it wasn't anywhere nearly good enough to compete.
See, while there have been and still are competitors, they just aren't as good as Photoshop. You really can't blame Adobe for that. The US$199 upgrade cost every 18 months works out to be about US$11.05 per month. If you are any kind of pro and can't afford that, ya gotta wonder why? It's a rather small cost of doing business considering how much you can make while using it.
It really sounds more like you are very anti-Adobe or anti-Photoshop. Any particular reason?
The Photoshop engineers are constantly striving to improve the app and very responsive to all the various markets Photoshop serves-of which photographers is rather small (but have historically had enormous input). Adobe COULD behave a lot more anti-competitive than they are...they've really never engaged in that behavior, they just keep making Photoshop better and better. Considering Photoshop's position in the marketplace, I think Adobe bends over backwards for their customers–except for customer service of late (which sucks).
Not quite it's $306. 57 if your unlucky (or lucky depending on viewpoint) to live in the UK.
-
Elements/lightroom, both are presented as much the same and if I mentioned only the one it was because i was talking in general rather than in the particular, a distinction that most intelligent people can appreciate. Again, why should anybody bother with a 30 day trial if they are not informed or in anyway convinced by the initial sales blurb that it would be worth their while? They hardly make that option obvious anyway and we are all busy people.
I'm amazed at this. You expect to be taken seriously, but then shrug off any responsibility for reading about the products recommended.
The trials of Adobe products seem to me to be obviously available on the most casual of inspections of their web site.
I'm also surprised you haven't bothered to look at, or know about, Photoshop Elements, it's been around for very many years and has always been regarded and marketed as the cut-down version of PS for people not needing the full version. Just because the product's advertising is pitched at more casual users doesn't mean it should be over looked, especially so since you asked for recommendations for products for this exact market.
-
Elements/lightroom, both are presented as much the same and if I mentioned only the one it was because i was talking in general rather than in the particular, a distinction that most intelligent people can appreciate. Again, why should anybody bother with a 30 day trial if they are not informed or in anyway convinced by the initial sales blurb that it would be worth their while? They hardly make that option obvious anyway and we are all busy people.
The information is plainly presented and if you can't recognise it, then it is amusing that you should sling verbally at me as you did, don't you think? (Perhaps my punctuation was incorrect there - I'll leave it for you to determine).
How much more obvious should it be than to have a large, bright button there for you to click?
But hey, what do I know, I'm only a potential customer after all.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps you're not really a potential customer. It doesn't really matter. You've already elevated yourself. You're right and they're wrong.
I wonder if you would care to reflect upon that paragraph for it doesn't read as being as decisive or informed as you may feel, but rather pompous, elitist (snobbish even) and sorely detached from reality, well reality as found it in rural Ireland anyway. As a UK based friend who has worked as a photographer for many years put it to me "The game is over". There is no longer the demand for professional photographers that there was and I doubt that there ever will be again. I've been busy teaching myself new and associated skills because I see so many in the trade struggling or going out of business. I never was a full time pro, could never afford to be, but it has been an enjoyable little sideline in the past and I have always considered 'professionalism' in any craft as being a state of mind rather than a dependence upon it for a living.
It read exactly as I intended. Whatever you choose to read into it is your choice and my dilema, but ever was the written word, no?
That the demand has changed does not mean that there is no more demand. Furthermore, photographers are only a portion of the market for which the product is intended.
Yes I have left much unsaid but there is only so much time I can spare for this sort of ultimately meaningless argument, so fire away fellows, but do try to be original at least.
Why would we invent something new for you to savour when it's the same, tired, doggerel with which we are presented? You didn't ask an honest question. You had an agenda. The responses are honest, but don't heel to your dogma.
I was over it before it started.
-
Not quite it's $306. 57 if your unlucky (or lucky depending on viewpoint) to live in the UK.
Arguing about $1.57 on a $300 deal when talking about currency exchange rates is pretty pointless.
-
When my laptop was stolen last year, they de-authorized it within minutes of my email/phone call. I was impressed, especially since I had no idea who to reach out to. Perhaps I got lucky.
I can de-authorize my C1 license in the time it takes me to pull up the Phase One web site. No need for an email/phone call. Apparently another indication of there superiority in the market. ::)
-
Arguing about $1.57 on a $300 deal when talking about currency exchange rates is pretty pointless.
YHBT (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=YHBT).
-
I can de-authorize my C1 license in the time it takes me to pull up the Phase One web site. No need for an email/phone call.
Did you bother to read the words "laptop was stolen" ?
-
I'm amazed at this. You expect to be taken seriously, but then shrug off any responsibility for reading about the products recommended.
The trials of Adobe products seem to me to be obviously available on the most casual of inspections of their web site.
I'm also surprised you haven't bothered to look at, or know about, Photoshop Elements, it's been around for very many years and has always been regarded and marketed as the cut-down version of PS for people not needing the full version. Just because the product's advertising is pitched at more casual users doesn't mean it should be over looked, especially so since you asked for recommendations for products for this exact market.
Should you care to visit the Adobe Ireland site then I think you too will be hard pressed to spot any mention of a free trial that's obvious- Lightroom Ireland (https://store2.adobe.com/cfusion/store/html/index.cfm?store=OLS-IE&event=displayProduct&categoryPath=/Applications/PhotoshopLightroom)
-
Should you care to visit the Adobe Ireland site then I think you too will be hard pressed to spot any mention of a free trial that's obvious- Lightroom Ireland (https://store2.adobe.com/cfusion/store/html/index.cfm?store=OLS-IE&event=displayProduct&categoryPath=/Applications/PhotoshopLightroom)
This is getting ridiculous. It makes perfect sense since that's a store page - there is a prominent "Try" link on the LR product page (http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshoplightroom/).
-
Arguing about $1.57 on a $300 deal when talking about currency exchange rates is pretty pointless.
$1.57? over a hundred bucks is a lot more.
-
YHBT (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=YHBT).
It's not a toll post, theres been enough fuss here in the UK about the price differences to cause a professional photography magizine to try and get it's readers to boycot adobe in the past.
-
Honestly Farmer why so touchy?
The information I was looking for was not plainly presented, you are assuming, like Adobe, that all the information I want is there. It is not, and besides I'm only slinging some of the mud back. Phrases such as
'It seems you're here to have a whinge.' are hardly likely to be conducive to polite debate. No?
Not only am I a potential customer but I find myself in the position of advising other potential customers. Isn't everyone a potential customer anyway? Not sure exactly what I've elevated myself from to what though.
What leads you to assume that I have an agenda? Could you kindly explain as to what you think that agenda is as I really have no idea. It is an accusation that betrays an element of insecurity rather than an attempt at reasoned argument.
Toodle pips
J.
-
Feppe
I search for Adobe lightroom in Google, I peruse the list of options and see a link for their store in Ireland which would appear to be the obvious choice for someone living in Ireland. What pray is so ridiculous about that? If there is more to be learnt then shouldn't this be flagged on the site? This sort of problem with websites goes far beyond Adobe though, Hills (http://www.hillspet.com/hillspet/utilities/selectLanguage.hjsp) and Suzuki (http://www.globalsuzuki.com/motorcycle/index.html) are two sites I've struggled with in the past. Presenting large amounts of information with cross reference to pertinent items of other information in a clear fashion without the need to second guess the organisations products, services or general approach to website design is quite possible, even the Irish Government can manage it.
-
I must agree with the unjustified pricing policies of Adobe. It often comes up in conversation with friends who use it. I am still using CS3!
Less and less though.
I would up grade to CS5 tomorrow as I try to keep EVERYTHING up to date on my workstation. But I would feel like the king without any clothes when I look at the USA to UK price difference, or does the exchange rate ignorance indicate a zenophobia nature.
It's not just Adobe, now wheres my Apple gone?
Pro or not there is no excuse for rip offs and I wonder at some of the responses if you were paying another 40%.
-
Hi
I'm using picture window pro 5.0 and for the things I need a image editor (after RAW conversion) it's clearly enough. It's 16-bit, has colour management and does everything I need. I for example do like the two zone and three zone transformations for landscapes.
It's clearly not as polished or "big" as PS, but the price is also only 1/11th of photoshop.
-
Hi
I'm using picture window pro 5.0 and for the things I need a image editor (after RAW conversion) it's clearly enough. It's 16-bit, has colour management and does everything I need. I for example do like the two zone and three zone transformations for landscapes.
It's clearly not as polished or "big" as PS, but the price is also only 1/11th of photoshop.
That looks as if it could be useful. I am tempted to download the trial when I know I'll have time to look at it properly. Also pleasing to see that the price and trial offer were both there on the first page as well as a PDF of the manual which is informative and by which I was able to ascertain that it suits the needs of many within a just few minutes. A clear, useful and unambiguous presentation of the product.
-
Should you care to visit the Adobe Ireland site then I think you too will be hard pressed to spot any mention of a free trial that's obvious- Lightroom Ireland (https://store2.adobe.com/cfusion/store/html/index.cfm?store=OLS-IE&event=displayProduct&categoryPath=/Applications/PhotoshopLightroom)
2 clicks took 2 seconds.
Downloads and Try (Beside Lightroom 3)
-
2 clicks took 2 seconds.
Downloads and Try (Beside Lightroom 3)
But where on the page linked to is there any indication of a free trial? A visitor has to do two things, 1, assume that a free trial exists and then 2, go look for it with no clear indication as to where it is. Should someone really need to go through this process? Compare and contrast with the Picture Window page, or is it some sort of test to see if you are savvy enough to be admitted into the ranks of the Adobe Users club?
-
It's OK, Justin. Obviously since it's not blisteringly clear to you, it's Adobe's fault. Everyone else has been complaining for years about the inability to find and download the trial versions. Yup, that must be it.
-
Oh, there's competition...it's just that over the long haul, there's really nothing anywhere as good, flexible and powerful. MSFT tried to compete with Photoshop...a product called Digital Image Suite. It didn't do very well and MSFT killed it because, well it wasn't anywhere nearly good enough to compete.
As a former member of the Digital Image Suite team, please allow me to set the record straight on the fact that it was never intended to be a competitor for Photoshop. It was an enthusiast product, at an enthusiast product's price point (~$30-$100 depending on SKU, and that was full retail pricing, not upgrade).
I'm not sure where the impression it was intended to compete at the Photoshop level came from--for example, it only worked with 8-bit images! You are correct that it was killed, but not because of any Photoshop compete story.
-
It's OK, Justin. Obviously since it's not blisteringly clear to you, it's Adobe's fault. Everyone else has been complaining for years about the inability to find and download the trial versions. Yup, that must be it.
Well don't you think it should be blisteringly clear to every visitor, and if not why not?
As I have already suggested as a website or web presence expands it becomes ever more difficult to manage and keep consistent and this is an example of the sort of wrinkle that can appear in the cloth. It is my belief that one of the major aims of any website is to guide the visitor to the information they seek in as quick and efficient manner as possible, that doesn't happen here and I have given two further examples which I have found difficult in the past, so I'm not shooting just at Adobe.
-
I'm not sure where the impression it was intended to compete at the Photoshop level came from--for example, it only worked with 8-bit images! You are correct that it was killed, but not because of any Photoshop compete story.
Sitting through some meetings in Redmond...the subject of which I can't really get into. And no, it was not originally intended to be a direct competitor to Photoshop head to head...but it was the last digital imaging app MSFT actually released (although I heard rumors of others in R&D and some discussion about going head to head with PS-which MSFT was smart enough not to try). The reason I mentioned DIS was that was the last time MSFT even tried to offer a digital imaging app and it did compete with Elements which is a Photoshop derivative...
-
Well don't you think it should be blisteringly clear to every visitor, and if not why not?
As I have already suggested as a website or web presence expands it becomes ever more difficult to manage and keep consistent and this is an example of the sort of wrinkle that can appear in the cloth. It is my belief that one of the major aims of any website is to guide the visitor to the information they seek in as quick and efficient manner as possible, that doesn't happen here and I have given two further examples which I have found difficult in the past, so I'm not shooting just at Adobe.
You Googled and decided to pick a page that wasn't the front page. If you'd just typed adobe.co.ie (since you're in Ireland) you should have seen a "Photoshop Elements" on the front page. Clicking that takes you to:
http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshopel/
And there you can see the BUY and TRY along with features, version comparison, etc.
I'm not sure it could be easier. Do you really want a "try" button on every page? Maybe that's a good idea (seriously), but I've never seen it done. Try sending Adobe an email and tell them about the troubles you've had.
In the meantime, since multiple people have pointed you toward additional information and trial versions, why don't you trial them (along with any of the other software that interests you).
If you don't like the pricing, send feedback and vote with your feet. It's expensive here, too (Australia), compared to the US, but once upon a time, I spent a long time working in international trade finance and I get that the issue is far more complex than just converting at the exchange rate. I'm very happy with the level of support I can get locally, for example, and that costs real money.
Of course it would be great to not pay aruond 65% more - nobody likes paying more - but the price in this market is what it is.
If at the end of the day you find something better/cheaper/different/etc that you prefer then I don't think you'll find anyone here complaining - indeed, I'm sure we'll all be interested to hear about it, so long as it isn't prefaced with a whinge :-)
-
You Googled and decided to pick a page that wasn't the front page. If you'd just typed adobe.co.ie (since you're in Ireland) you should have seen a "Photoshop Elements" on the front page. Clicking that takes you to:
http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshopel/
And there you can see the BUY and TRY along with features, version comparison, etc.
I'm not sure it could be easier. Do you really want a "try" button on every page? Maybe that's a good idea (seriously), but I've never seen it done. Try sending Adobe an email and tell them about the troubles you've had.
In the meantime, since multiple people have pointed you toward additional information and trial versions, why don't you trial them (along with any of the other software that interests you).
If you don't like the pricing, send feedback and vote with your feet. It's expensive here, too (Australia), compared to the US, but once upon a time, I spent a long time working in international trade finance and I get that the issue is far more complex than just converting at the exchange rate. I'm very happy with the level of support I can get locally, for example, and that costs real money.
Of course it would be great to not pay aruond 65% more - nobody likes paying more - but the price in this market is what it is.
If at the end of the day you find something better/cheaper/different/etc that you prefer then I don't think you'll find anyone here complaining - indeed, I'm sure we'll all be interested to hear about it, so long as it isn't prefaced with a whinge :-)
Farmer, I am overwhelmed by your immeasurable superiority and maturity and would welcome the chance to kiss your ass just as soon as the opportunity presents itself. There, now I hope you are happy with the response you seem to so earnestly crave. Meanwhile I'm off to bed, nighty night.
-
Meanwhile I'm off to bed, nighty night.
But still stuck using Photoshop CS...so who is the winner/loser? And the odds are real good, you won't find a competitive replacement for Photoshop...just a less expensive knockoff which will end up being less optimal.
-
Sitting through some meetings in Redmond...the subject of which I can't really get into. And no, it was not originally intended to be a direct competitor to Photoshop head to head...but it was the last digital imaging app MSFT actually released (although I heard rumors of others in R&D and some discussion about going head to head with PS-which MSFT was smart enough not to try). The reason I mentioned DIS was that was the last time MSFT even tried to offer a digital imaging app and it did compete with Elements which is a Photoshop derivative...
Actually you and I first met at one of those meetings. In any case, yes, DIS was marketed as a competitor for Elements, but not Photoshop.
-
Actually you and I first met at one of those meetings.
Cool!!!
But as I remember, there was some "discussion" about what MSFT was thinking about putting out a digital imaging app. I kinda remember some comments about Photoshop needing some "competition" and some rumors about MSFT's Lightroom Killer...(which never shipped).
The bottom line is neither Apple nor MSFT is in a position to have a cross platform real competitor to Photoshop for a host of reasons–not the least of which is ain't EASY to come up with a Photoshop competitor.
-
But still stuck using Photoshop CS...so who is the winner/loser? And the odds are real good, you won't find a competitive replacement for Photoshop...just a less expensive knockoff which will end up being less optimal.
Schewe
May I recommend that at some time you take a step back, look real hard this posting of yours and perhaps consider the notion that you have put on such a truculent display of petty minded stupidity that I for one am left to wonder just how such an obviously intelligent man could pride himself in appearing such a bollix (as they say hear in Ireland). Winner, loser?? Is this a playground or somewhere for intelligent debate? Do us all a favour and grow up for God's sake.
-
Schewe
May I recommend that at some time you take a step back, look real hard this posting of yours and perhaps consider the notion that you have put on such a truculent display of petty minded stupidity that I for one am left to wonder just how such an obviously intelligent man could pride himself in appearing such a bollix (as they say hear in Ireland). Winner, loser?? Is this a playground or somewhere for intelligent debate? Do us all a favour and grow up for God's sake.
Justin,
Any rational, sensible reader of this thread, especially if he has read some of your other contributions to other threads, would suggest you look in a mirror.
Jeremy
-
Justin,
Any rational, sensible reader of this thread, especially if he has read some of your other contributions to other threads, would suggest you look in a mirror.
Jeremy
What is rational and reasonable? Who is to decide? By what measures do you judge such things? How you see me is one thing, how I often see others on here is something else. From reflecting upon my position on various matters I happy to report that thankfully I do not fit in to a sort of self regarding clique of new world superiority and conformity to assumed ideals. It would be a sad day indeed if I were to. Put it down to a clash of cultures if you like but I just don't buy into the idea of automatically assuming that progress or change is always heading in the right direction just because it is progress or change. Of course life moves on but are you suggesting that it's direction should never be challenged, is that what you find difficult to cope with, non 'establishment' ideas?
-
Justin,
Any rational, sensible reader of this thread, especially if he has read some of your other contributions to other threads, would suggest you look in a mirror.
Jeremy
+10
Eric
-
+10
Eric
Fine, justify Rational and Sensible rather than indulge in sloppy platitudes.
-
Justin, Jeremy and Eric, a problem with this thread, as well as some others in this forum, is the lack of civility. No one has to agree, but neither does anyone need to be uncivil. It would be more productive and pleasant for all if everybody would avoid insults and, instead, make their points in a civil, rational manner. Alas, I doubt that that utopia will ever be realized, but perhaps if more members express their displeasure whenever anyone resorts to insults and incivility, whether you agree or disagree with the person otherwise, then the level of discourse in this forum will improve.
Justin, please permit me to offer one piece of unsolicited advice: Before deciding whether further to confront Jeff Schewe regarding the manner in which he has responded to your posts, you may want to review page two and three of this thread, and consider whether confronting Jeff is likely to be productive or to serve any useful purpose. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50387.20
On the other hand, Justin, I think it only fair to suggest that you take another look at your posts in this thread to see if you’ve been as civil as you could have been. I and most everybody has, at one time or another, written in haste or when irritated, with the result that we weren’t as civil as we should have been. It happens to all of us. We can all, however, endeavor to improve.
Jeremy and Eric, I understand your point, but permit me to suggest that your posts may tend to inflame the incivility, not dampen it. Perhaps it would be more productive to express displeasure with everyone’s incivility, rather than to focus just on Justin.
-
Dmerger
The trouble is in replying to your post is that it can so easily dissolve in to a 'yes but no but' point scoring contest that holds no real interest to anyone except the inflamed participants.
Having said that I'd like it to be noted that I asked a perfectly civil question and it was immediately taken by some as an attack on Adobe and Photoshop and even though I made it clear in my second post that I am a quite satisfied user of said software the assumption still remained with various other members that I was denigrating it. I was therefore labelled as being 'Pissed off' (Schewe), 'Whinging' (Farmer) and indulging in 'sour grapes' (Schewe again) right from the first page. Pray tell me where I had attempted to cast such unpleasantries before they were thrown my way?
I think that you will also find that I answered other posters in a perfectly polite manner expressing my gratitude (sincerely held) for the helpful suggestions that were made.
Jeremy and Eric, I understand your point, but permit me to suggest that your posts may tend to inflame the incivility, not dampen it. Perhaps it would be more productive to express displeasure with everyone’s incivility, rather than to focus just on Justin.
I can hardly argue with that except to point out, if you will permit me, that you yourself have devoted a whole three paragraphs to admonishing me and just two lines to others.
-
So Justin, what's it going to be? Photoshop or GIMP?
-
Certainly not GIMP! Been there, done that and ran away just as fast as I could :D (Same applies to Irfanview BTW)
For myself I am happy with CS, it's like a cosy old slipper now which may not be a good thing in a way as I feel sometimes that I should break out of that comfort zone just to freshen things up. However, as I've mentioned I find myself being asked for advice on image manipulation software and seeing as I don't like the two main freebies mentioned above I find myself stuck for an answer if PS is going to be too dear for occasional users. A couple of good pointers have come out on this thread so I'll be following them up at some point.
-
There ya go. Photoshop it is. Time to upgrade, too. You'll be very impressed with the new tool set.
-
Certainly not GIMP! Been there, done that and ran away just as fast as I could :D (Same applies to Irfanview BTW)
For myself I am happy with CS, it's like a cosy old slipper now which may not be a good thing in a way as I feel sometimes that I should break out of that comfort zone just to freshen things up. However, as I've mentioned I find myself being asked for advice on image manipulation software and seeing as I don't like the two main freebies mentioned above I find myself stuck for an answer if PS is going to be too dear for occasional users. A couple of good pointers have come out on this thread so I'll be following them up at some point.
The occasional user does not really need Photoshop. At half the price Lightroom is just about the best thing going. Easy to learn,easy to teach as well.
With Cs being about 5 years old you may want to dig in and see what Lightroom is all about.
If your educating others I would want to promote myself as having the most up to date post processing technology available.
-
Justin, I’m sorry you disliked my post, but I think you may have construed it in a manner I did not intend. Let me address your last point first.
You wrote: “I can hardly argue with that except to point out, if you will permit me, that you yourself have devoted a whole three paragraphs to admonishing me and just two lines to others.” I intended my first paragraph to apply to every participant in this forum, and to set out the topic of my post. I addressed it to Jeremy, Eric and you because you three were those most involved in the discussion at that time. I didn’t include Jeff for the reason alluded to in my second paragraph. So, if you construed my first paragraph to be an admonishment of you, it is not what I intended. Also, my second paragraph was not intended as an admonishment of you, and I really can’t figure out why you think it was so. All I can say is that is not what I intended.
I’d also like to make a general comment about something else you wrote: “Pray tell me where I had attempted to cast such unpleasantries before they were thrown my way?” My following comment, however, is not intended to relate specifically to this thread, you or anyone else. I don’t want to get into a discussion of who threw the first stone. I merely want to comment on the general implication of the sentence I just quoted.
When confronted with an insult, it’s human nature to retaliate in kind. We’ve all done so. I believe, however, that the better approach is to overcome our impulse, not stoop to the same level. I believe a better reaction to an insult would be to try to keep the discussion on topic and civil, not escalate the incivility. Perhaps if the insult is egregious (i.e., it’s obviously an insult and not perhaps a misunderstanding or just mildly confrontational, which can easily happen with written communication in the style of forum posts), point out that such insults are not necessary or appropriate, and perhaps suggest that the person making the insult could make his or her point in a more civil manner. To do otherwise and retaliate in kind, usually just escalates the insults and puts a stop to any useful, helpful, rational discussion. Please note again, this paragraph is intended as a general statement and not intended to relate to this specific thread.
Lastly, perhaps I should explain why I’m taking the time to weigh in here at all. Well, I’ve learned a lot of very useful information over the course of many years participating in this forum. It’s an invaluable resource with many extremely knowledgeable people participating. Therefore, I have a selfish, vested interest in this forum, and incivility diminishes it. In addition, although I may just be influenced by my recent personal experience in this forum, it seems to me that I’m seeing an increase in incivility. This is not the only thread that is currently active to show such incivility. So, my posts here are my attempt to stem the tide, although I fear in vain.
-
Dean
I construed it as an admonishment of myself because you singularly failed to address it to the the other major protagonists, as you still do. Jeremy, Eric and I have exchanged heated words on another thread and although my replies to them both were doubtless robust there was no name calling or snide denigration of their character, I simply saw their intervention as unexpurgated ire rather than attempts at insulting me. Now that leaves us with Farmer and Schewe who as I have already pointed out kicked off with the disdainful remarks.
Although your attempts at pacification are doubtless well meant and appreciated by all I am inclined to believe that the oil you are pouring on these troubled waters may yet ignite should it be seen to favour just a couple of the vessels caught in this wasteful storm.
Justin.
-
Jeremy and Eric, I understand your point, but permit me to suggest that your posts may tend to inflame the incivility, not dampen it. Perhaps it would be more productive to express displeasure with everyone’s incivility, rather than to focus just on Justin.
I apologize and will attempt to clarify my own position: I do object to incivility on the part of any posters to LuLa, and I will further state for the record that IMHO Justin is not the worst offender.
Eric
-
I apologize and will attempt to clarify my own position: I do object to incivility on the part of any posters to LuLa, and I will further state for the record that IMHO Justin is not the worst offender.
Eric
Nor you Eric, and I must admit that I was rather dismayed to see your intervention as I was under the impression that we had somehow come to respect each others viewpoint. Let us hope that is indeed the case.
-
I apologize and will attempt to clarify my own position: I do object to incivility on the part of any posters to LuLa, and I will further state for the record that IMHO Justin is not the worst offender.
Eric
“Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.” (Michael Corleone)
Well Eric, I’d about lost all hope, and then you have to go and be all mature, reasonable and rational. :-\
-
There ya go. Photoshop it is. Time to upgrade, too. You'll be very impressed with the new tool set.
That would appear the logical conclusion so it might yet happen although I doubt that I will be able to convince Adobe of my student status. Microsoft on the other hand will let you have there software at the discounted rate if you swear on the latest copy of the Beano that you once sat on the same bus seat as someone who looked as if they might be going to school. Anything to boost market share I guess.
J.
-
Well Eric, I’d about lost all hope, and then you have to go and be all mature, reasonable and rational. :-\
I don't think anybody ever called me any of those things before.
Eric
-
Now that leaves us with Farmer and Schewe who as I have already pointed out kicked off with the disdainful remarks.
I've certainly flamed people in my time (and had my arse handed to me as well). In 20 years on the net, it's not hard to find examples of poor judgement or loss of temper!
In this case, I gave you an honest response and I'm sure you understood that it was not directed exclusively at you. I don't believe there was anything disdainful in my opening post, or subsequent.
You seemed to take offence at my interpretation of professional and my complaint about people complaining about price. That's fine - we all have different experiences and if that was your reading of my post then so be it. My point was simply that anyone who finds the price of PS to be other than incidental is isn't someone making a living from photography and as such it's unreasonable to complain about paying a professional level price for a professional level product. There was no personal attack intended. I am an amateur photographer. I'm an "industry professional" but if I had to make a living from photography, I'd starve! To the extent that you were offended, I apologise sincerely because at that point, it was not my intent to do so.
It did, after your next reply, seem to me like you were having a whinge and my mistake was continuing the discussion. I'll take responsibility for that. Further escalation is something for which we can both share the blame, though I'll tell you that I'm not offended or upset by anything that you said. Indeed, some of it was amusing (and I mean that genuinely, not in a "I laugh at you" sense).
I hope that you do take the time to download the trial versions of all the products discussed.
-
That would appear the logical conclusion so it might yet happen although I doubt that I will be able to convince Adobe of my student status.
There are other choices:
- Outsource all your retouching. However, if you ever wanted to evaluate your retoucher's work (check alpha channels, sharpening, etc.), then you'd need GIMP or a recent release of PS.
- Download or acquire an illegal copy of the program (and everyone here will vilify you).
- Buy the program outright.
I use PS daily and it's as integral to my workflow as my lights, cameras and lenses. It's rather difficult for me to imagine a professional photographer, or a student wishing to excel in photography, not using Photoshop on a daily basis. Even if you outsourced your work, you'd need some method for critical image evaluation prior to, and after, sending files out.
In addition, if you want to reach your full potential without outsourcing, you will need to master Photoshop (which is an ongoing life experience). And this point, I think, is what grinds at your nut.
-
Now that leaves us with Farmer and Schewe who as I have already pointed out kicked off with the disdainful remarks.
Well, don't know about Famer but I just took the time to reread the thread and I'm really just not sure where anything in my posts to you were in the least bit rude or impolite...my fist post was actually rather mild by my standards. My second post asked if whether or not you being outside of the CS5 upgrade window pissed you off?
My 3rd post said: "But still stuck using Photoshop CS...so who is the winner/loser? And the odds are real good, you won't find a competitive replacement for Photoshop...just a less expensive knockoff which will end up being less optimal."
Then you said: "May I recommend that at some time you take a step back, look real hard this posting of yours and perhaps consider the notion that you have put on such a truculent display of petty minded stupidity that I for one am left to wonder just how such an obviously intelligent man could pride himself in appearing such a bollix (as they say hear in Ireland)."
Wow...you think I've put on a truculent display of petty minded stupidity?
Really?
You sure have a hair trigger...and on odd sense of civility.
-
Everything is relative, but I find Photoshop to be a very inexpensive piece of software, especially for what it does. As Schewe stated, it works out to around $10/month, as a business expense that's NOTHING. How would you like to spend $3,000.00 per month? It is what it is. Why is it so important that other companies produce a competing product? I'm sure if some company thought it were prudent to create a photo editing software on par with PS they would. Try LR and Elements first and they don't get it done for you what is a couple hundred $$? It just seems you are bitching just to bitch when there's nothing to bitch about. Even if you bought a full version of PS every year that's not going to break the bank for a semi successful business.
-
Jeremy and Eric, I understand your point, but permit me to suggest that your posts may tend to inflame the incivility, not dampen it. Perhaps it would be more productive to express displeasure with everyone’s incivility, rather than to focus just on Justin.
I have considered what I wrote and I'm afraid I must stand by it. Jeff certainly doesn't need me to defend him and we know (and love?) him for what he is, which in my view is an invaluable source of useful information and experience wrapped up in a shell which can make a cactus look cuddly. However, in this particular thread, he was wholly outgunned in discourtesy and I really can't see anything wrong in pointing that out.
However, as ever, I would be sad to find that I had accidentally offended anybody.
Jeremy
-
Oh luv'a'duck, what a beastly beastly boy that Justin is. Let's all huddle up and whisper and prate about him whilst gently fondling each other's genitals. Yep, how's that for incivility? Pretty good eh!
Over to you Geoff, you old cactus you!
BTW, if anybody should construe this as total contempt for the level of debate that this thread has descended to and suspect that I'm laughing my little cotton socks off over here they are of course quite correct.
Let the bitchiness commence!
-
OK everyone, back to your respective corners. Let's just chill.
Michael