Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Schewe on July 04, 2013, 01:39:18 am
-
Generally, DAVID POGUE from the NYT gets thing pretty correct (there are a couple of issues I had with his article which I'll email him about) but it's interesting to get the big city view of Photoshop CC. Software as a Monthly Rental (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/personaltech/photoshop-cc-turns-software-into-a-monthly-rental.html?hpw&pagewanted=all) (note: requires NYTs registration).
David doesn't really talk about the difficulties of maintaining both a subscription and perpetual license model at the same time (which I think we've discussed enough).
-
Generally, DAVID POGUE from the NYT gets thing pretty correct (there are a couple of issues I had with his article which I'll email him about) but it's interesting to get the big city view of Photoshop CC. Software as a Monthly Rental (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/personaltech/photoshop-cc-turns-software-into-a-monthly-rental.html?hpw&pagewanted=all) (note: requires NYTs registration).
David doesn't really talk about the difficulties of maintaining both a subscription and perpetual license model at the same time (which I think we've discussed enough).
Great article (I could access without registering), thanks for sharing. I would say that he shares 100% of our concerns.
Since I doubt he is photography centric in his analysis, it does mean that these concerns are far from being limited to photographers, as we knew all along.
As a side note, he also seems to think that it used to be possible to buy photoshop. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great article (I could access without registering), thanks for sharing. I would say that he shares 100% of our concerns.
The NYT usually requires registration before reading articles–it depends a lot on the original url that directs to the article (it seems that the url I gave doesn't require registering).
I have a couple of issues with David's article...first off, he states the price for "renting' Photoshop CC as $30/month...that's the price if you've never bought Photoshop before. The price to upgrade to Photoshop CC is $19.95/month for upgrades (he says $30/month which is $360 not $240/year as he says). He also fails to mention (the apparently USA only upgrade price) of $9.95/month upgrade price.
David doesn't really get into the issues of perpetual vs subscription licenses...(that's the part I'm going to mention to him). So, his story is simplistic at best...but he does mention the complexity of the licensing programs–something that I've always thought Adobe was poor at explaining.
While some people seem to like to paint me as an Adobe Evangelist or an Adobe Apologist (or some sort of Adobe evil agent), I'm really not...I think it's useful to know the real story and the real facts. David is a well known journalist so I thought it would be interesting to see what he thinks–and I don't think he's 100% correct. Nor do I think the full story has yet been written...not yet anyway.
-
Nor do I think the full story has yet been written...not yet anyway.
Any move from Adobe to close the gap between the current status and the expectation of users like myself will be most welcome. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great article (I could access without registering), thanks for sharing. I would say that he shares 100% of our concerns.
Since I doubt he is photography centric in his analysis, it does mean that these concerns are far from being limited to photographers, as we knew all along.
As a side note, he also seems to think that it used to be possible to buy photoshop. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Not exactly "buy Photoshop". Rather, it is buy a license to use Photoshop.
-
David doesn't really get into the issues of perpetual vs subscription licenses...(that's the part I'm going to mention to him). So, his story is simplistic at best...but he does mention the complexity of the licensing programs–something that I've always thought Adobe was poor at explaining.
I feel David was right to point to the complexity of the pricing and doubt Adobe could explain it much better. In their CC/single app split they have (so far) avoided the huge temptation to indulge in the kind price obfuscation that's so typical of subscription services. But doesn't the complexity result from the changeover and previous customers having a range of upgrade expectations? And how - or why - would Adobe clarify that the introductory discount for upgraders is actually a price rise? They just can't give a simple message like "over x years you'll be paying no more than if you'd continued upgrading". Maybe I'd let Pogue be, or do you now have a burning desire to explain revenue recognition to him? ;)
John
-
Maybe I'd let Pogue be, or do you now have a burning desire to explain revenue recognition to him? ;)
Oh, I have a burning desire to set a NYT author straight, you bet! Understanding the full situation is something that I think users and journalists need to understand. Otherwise, it presumes understanding from a position of ignorance. I'm pretty sure David doesn't want to be presumed ignorant (in fact, I know for a fact he doesn't). He's a smart guy...heck, he writes for the NY Times! He's a bright boy too...
-
IIRC the NYT allows anyone to read 20 articles a month without registering.
-
...or maybe the URL Jeff gave takes us in via his personal registration and, if we leave obscene comments, they will be attributed to him!
:-[
-
Huh? What exactly are you smoking dooode?
Care to share?
-
Generally, DAVID POGUE from the NYT gets thing pretty correct (there are a couple of issues I had with his article which I'll email him about) but it's interesting to get the big city view of Photoshop CC. Software as a Monthly Rental (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/technology/personaltech/photoshop-cc-turns-software-into-a-monthly-rental.html?hpw&pagewanted=all) (note: requires NYTs registration).
David doesn't really talk about the difficulties of maintaining both a subscription and perpetual license model at the same time (which I think we've discussed enough).
An interesting article--thanks for sharing. David reports that PS was updated yearly rather than about every 18 months, which affects his analysis of costs of updating to new versions in the old system. He also implies that the resizing algorithms--both uprezzisng and downrezzing--have been substantially improved. These algorithms have previously been criticized by many as suboptimal. Is there really a substantial difference in PSCC?
Bill
-
IIRC the NYT allows anyone to read 20 articles a month without registering.
Even with such a restriction, often that won't apply to visitors who come from an external link.
I'm not a fan of Pogue's writing. I find his scribblings to be, generally, superficial and incomplete. Based on what Julieanne Kost says about ACR as a filter, Pogue is incorrect about all the functions of ACR being available. Combine that with the other errors in the piece and this is typical Pogue.
-
An interesting article--thanks for sharing. David reports that PS was updated yearly rather than about every 18 months, which affects his analysis of costs of updating to new versions in the old system.
His assessment of upgrading vs subscription costs are fundamentally correct. He's just a bit loose with the word "year" rather than "version".
If you upgrade PS every 18 months, your cash spend is less for 3 years, after which it's in Adobe's favour. After 6 years they're 25% ahead of where they would have been if they'd let you continue upgrading.
John
PS not sure how well this will work in your browser, but I've shared my £ numbers here (https://skydrive.live.com/redir?page=view&resid=5BDE4C0180FCD6C6!1173&authkey=!AInTKs0tyNC71E0)
-
If you upgrade PS every 18 months, your cash spend is less for 3 years, after which it's in Adobe's favour. After 6 years they're 25% ahead of where they would have been if they'd let you continue upgrading.
Of course not factoring in the fact that "constantly improving software" (as Pogue put it) requires constantly improving hardware to run it. Pogue forgot to include that cost consideration when calculating annual expenditures renting software.
Typical case scenario would be someone renting a package deal (InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop & Premiere) and keeping up with subscriptions as each feature is added to one, two or all and finding certain features won't work on one, two or all because it requires OS/hardware updates/upgrades. Then that annual cost expenditure requires more accurate methods of calculation or else no upgrades, no features but the monthly subscription stays the same.
OK, now how much does it cost per year? I've confused myself and lost track.
A correction...Pogue does say this...
It requires a high-horsepower, newish computer (Mac OS X 10.7 or Windows 7 and later), but it opens faster than before.
-
I have a couple of issues with David's article...first off, he states the price for "renting' Photoshop CC as $30/month...that's the price if you've never bought Photoshop before. The price to upgrade to Photoshop CC is $19.95/month for upgrades (he says $30/month which is $360 not $240/year as he says). He also fails to mention (the apparently USA only upgrade price) of $9.95/month upgrade price.
Aside from not mentioning the $9.95/month upgrade price (from CS3 version up), I think David is pretty accurate about the pricing. It is $30/month (if you only want to rent it for a month). If you make a one year commitment, it's $20/month ($240/year).
Other than that special 1st year pricing for users of PS CS3 and above, which expires at the end of the month, there is no "upgrade" to PS CC. After July 31, even as a user of Photoshop CS6, I would have to pay the same price for PS CC as someone who had never "owned" a version.
-
I think this paragraph from the referenced article sums up my concerns about the CC licensing model:
"But let’s face it: most professionals think they need Photoshop. So Adobe’s incentive to keep improving these programs isn’t exactly life or death. Nobody knows what improvements Adobe plans to add, how many, how often, or what the subscription rates will be next year or the year after that. Adobe is just saying, “Trust us.”
While Pogue didn't list the complexities of the pricing structures and short term discounts for perpetual license holders, I don't think he is misleading his readers by doing so. He did mention the discounts, but not in detail. Though, I think it might have been a more thorough job if had included those details specifically.
I don't necessarily find a software subscription model to be a bad deal per se ... I do think that there could have been a more equitable solution that would have removed a lot of concerns that many users have expressed over the past two months. I also think the Adobe marketing department dropped the ball in a big way in presenting CC to their current customers. It would have only taken a few minor tweaks which could have gone a long way in avoiding the outcry of the past two months.
Jeff, while I don't consider you a an "Adobe Evangelist" in the truest sense ... Neither am I an Adobe "hater" ... While I have strong opinions about CC, most of them negative ... I can separate my opinion from emotion. I dislike the policy and the CC only offering very much ... I do not hate anyone affiliated with Adobe. I don't know anyone involved well enough to have an emotional attachment ... either positive or negative. It's just as concerning to be unjustly labeled as a hater as it is to be labeled an evangelist or apologist ... Reasonable people can disagree on the issues and should not have to face unfair accusations because they speak their minds ... reminds me of the famous reference ... "So at what point did you stop beating your wife Mr. Smith? ..."
-
An interesting article--thanks for sharing. David reports that PS was updated yearly rather than about every 18 months, which affects his analysis of costs of updating to new versions in the old system. He also implies that the resizing algorithms--both uprezzisng and downrezzing--have been substantially improved. These algorithms have previously been criticized by many as suboptimal. Is there really a substantial difference in PSCC?
He was just trying to find something positive, wasn't he? ;)
Now, had Adobe not gone the CC route, these enhancements would have been made available in the same timing in the CS7 version. So any functional improvement present in CC should not - at least in this first iteration - be seen as a proof of the value of the subscription model.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting follow up by Mr Pogue: http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/
-
Sigh. The Adobe subscription program is not evil.
What gripes anyone may have seem to boil down to pricing and the market will send them clear signals as soon as they have expired the intro pricing.
Mr. Pogue understands the ins and outs of the Adobe software and pricing issues about as well as he understands cameras, which is pretty good (at least from a consumer perspective), but usually not better than the average forum participant here.
-
Mr. Pogue understands the ins and outs of the Adobe software and pricing issues about as well as he understands cameras, which is pretty good (at least from a consumer perspective), but usually not better than the average forum participant here.
Ironic that Mr. Pogue got lambasted for apparently not being anti-Adobe enough. Sound familiar? It seems that anybody who doesn't demand the blood of Adobe CEO running in the streets of San Jose is the enemy...
It's irrational...and many in the media have flamed the fires...while I thought David got some stuff wrong in the article it certainly wasn't a whitewash. But to the one commentator, who said: "Does Adobe actually pay you for mindlessly reprinting their press releases and calling it “news”?" it smacks of a total irrational meltdown...
I mean, really, Photoshop is just software...it's main user base are pros...yes, it's a sea change in terms of licensing models, but it ain't the end of the world as we know it...there are alternatives...CS6 will work for years...Photoshop CC offers some incremental upgrades but is expected to get further upgrades over the years–hopefully useful.
But this an't an evil plot by Adobe to take over the world and create a horde of minions that pay out money just to keep their work from being held hostage...
Yes, Adobe screwed up the CC announcement...yes, Adobe failed to fully explain users' options...yes, the whole "Cloud" thing is bullshit...it all started with the creative suites where users got hooked on getting more for less money. Of course, there was a backlash back then when users found out that upgrading to a suite product for a "deal" meant they gave up on their point product licenses...anybody else but me remember the whining when users found out they had to upgrade the entire suite rather than just Photoshop?
Photoshop is a tool...it's a tool to do digital imaging...it's not a civic right. It's not like Adobe is refusing to let you use Photoshop. They're just changing the terms of that use. If you don't like that, vote with your wallets...singing a petition ain't gonna get the results that the petitioners are hoping for.
I've been using the subscription model since Photoshop CS5.5. It works...it's ok...for CS6 I got the entire master collection-it allows me to get the most recent versions of Illustrator and InDesign and Dreamweaver (ironically, for my books I always have to save with backwards compatibility set for previous version because, well, my publisher's designers never seem to be working with the most recent versions :~(
-
Sigh. The Adobe subscription program is not evil.
What gripes anyone may have seem to boil down to pricing and the market will send them clear signals as soon as they have expired the intro pricing.
Mr. Pogue understands the ins and outs of the Adobe software and pricing issues about as well as he understands cameras, which is pretty good (at least from a consumer perspective), but usually not better than the average forum participant here.
It's not just about pricing, it's also about the fact that the software stops working once we stop paying our subscription (stop paying for whatever reason – and which may not necessarily be our choice). Also, we never get to own the license to use the software, as of old, so we can end up paying a lot of money for a software ‘tool’ which we do not, in the end, own.
I think, also, there are two perspectives here which have (perhaps) not been recognised. For someone ‘buying’ any of Adobe's software anew the subscription model makes financial sense – in terms of the initial cost it's really a no brainer. For those of us who bought outright the original software (or as we should now say bought the perpetual license) – and then paid many hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds for upgrades over the years – the idea of being tied into a subscription model produces a strong emotional reaction. Irrational (nod to Jeff) yes, but perfectly understandable.
It is is the statements from Adobe pundits (example below from David Pogue) apparently explaining Adobe's strategy that are provoking the quite justifiable (but perhaps irrational) cries of rage and anger from Adobe's customers. If these pundits (who claim to have inside information) are correct then Adobe has a jaw dropping cynical disregard for it's customers.
An employee told me at the time that, incredibly, Netflix’s spreadsheets showed that the company would still come out ahead, even with the mass defections. Netflix had already factored the anger into its business plan.
And that’s exactly what Adobe’s spreadsheets show. Even if the predicted number of angry customers abandon Photoshop, the total annual revenue for Photoshop will increase as a result of the rental-only program.
That’s why the petition is utterly hopeless. Adobe won’t change its course, because Adobe doesn’t care about those people. It already considers them a lost cause.
It’s very clearly a case where customer happiness is being sacrificed for more profit. And that’s the most upsetting part of all.
But perhaps we have now given Adobe cause for thought – and there are signs indicating that this may well be the case. I do not believe that Adobe is so lacking in market pragmatism that it will disregard the recent outcry. I'm ever so slightly hopeful.
-
I've been using the subscription model since Photoshop CS5.5. It works...it's ok...for CS6 I got the entire master collection-it allows me to get the most recent versions of Illustrator and InDesign and Dreamweaver (ironically, for my books I always have to save with backwards compatibility set for previous version because, well, my publisher's designers never seem to be working with the most recent versions :~(
Right here you have hit on one other major problem with the current trend at Adobe. The quality of programing at Adobe has been in a downward spiral for the last few years and it seems like Adobe would rather add more new bugs then fix reported bugs. Those of us in the print/publishing world can not afford to update (or maybe I should say use) to the latest software not because of the price but because of the lost time in dealing with the bugs and workflow changes. This has been an ever increasing problem of late, so much so that any new updates or upgrades now have to be tested on a backup partition (basically a beta partition) to see what is broken and or screwed up.
I my case, because of this I am going to wait and see what course Adobe is going to take in providing updates that fix bugs, or continue to screw with workflows, add new bugs, etc., going forward into CC. With the CC model I still don't know how easy it will be to have test partitions with new updates while maintaining a stable relative bugs free working partition and then being able to update the working partition when the new updates are confirmed to be working well enough to include in the everyday workflow where deadline have to be met.
I am not even sure what market Adobe is going after anymore. They seam to have lost touch with the real world.
-
Photoshop is a tool...it's a tool to do digital imaging...it's not a civic right. It's not like Adobe is refusing to let you use Photoshop. They're just changing the terms of that use. If you don't like that, vote with your wallets...singing a petition ain't gonna get the results that the petitioners are hoping for.
I've been using the subscription model since Photoshop CS5.5. It works...it's ok...for CS6 I got the entire master collection-it allows me to get the most recent versions of Illustrator and InDesign and Dreamweaver (ironically, for my books I always have to save with backwards compatibility set for previous version because, well, my publisher's designers never seem to be working with the most recent versions :~(
again you forget a number of users that need just full ACR (and no - no LR) and forced into subscription only model for that
-
again you forget a number of users that need just full ACR (and no - no LR) and forced into subscription only model for that
What's in ACR that's not in LR? I always thought it was the other way around where LR had more features than ACR.
-
again you forget a number of users that need just full ACR (and no - no LR) and forced into subscription only model for that
That makes no sense - the "develop" engine in Lightroom is essentially the same as ACR. Even with the perpetual license model, paying the full, or even the upgrade, price for Photoshop just to get ACR (if you don't actually need the full Photoshop editing functions) when the same functionality can be had in LR at a lower price makes no sense at all.
-
That makes no sense - the "develop" engine in Lightroom is essentially the same as ACR. Even with the perpetual license model, paying the full, or even the upgrade, price for Photoshop just to get ACR (if you don't actually need the full Photoshop editing functions) when the same functionality can be had in LR at a lower price makes no sense at all.
Indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The NYT usually requires registration before reading articles–it depends a lot on the original url that directs to the article (it seems that the url I gave doesn't require registering).
(Correction)
A one-time registration (free) is required to access the NYTimes online. If you are registered with the site, you have complete access to articles regardless of the linked url (sometimes the url changes as articles are updated). If you are not registered, any url link to the NYTimes will direct you to the registration page first.
From the NYTimes:
"Only users who have not already registered with NYTimes.com will be required to register before gaining access to a linked page. The registration process cannot be bypassed; however, registration is free.
Visitors can enjoy 10 free articles (including blog posts, slide shows, videos and other multimedia features) each calendar month on NYTimes.com, as well as unrestricted access to browse the home page, section fronts, blog fronts and classifieds.
Your free, limited access resets every month: at the beginning of each calendar month, you'll once again be able to view 10 free articles for that month.
Also note that NYTimes apps are free to download and install. After downloading an app, nonsubscribers receive 7 days of unlimited access to all of the articles in the app. After the trial period, you can read 3 articles each day for free. At midnight, your limit resets and you can read another 3 articles. Please note, the Windows 8 tablet app does not have a daily limit; nonsubscribers can only view articles in the Top News section.
For nonsubscribers, articles from the New York Times archives from 1923 through 1986 are $3.95 each. Views of archived articles outside that date range are free but still count toward the 10-article monthly limit."
-
Pogue also didn't mention the lifetime "piggy-back" upgrade issue requiring upgrading Photoshop with future upgrades of LR with newer features and PV process versions in order to keep Raw engine parity up-to-date between the two or else have the older Photoshop Raw engine override LR's newer version or be forced to create a copy (automatic export) of the image you have to throw away because you just wanted to see if you can make improvements or use other processes in Photoshop and cancel out if you change your mind.
-
I know David Pogue, and I like him very much. He's not a professional photographer. To my knowledge, he's never owned or managed a photography business.
A few of his quotes that stood out for me:
"It should be obvious why Adobe is enthusiastic about rental software. First, it’s big money…if you use only one or two programs, you’ll pay much more by renting"
David neglected to mention the large number of photographers who got sucked into buying the Creative Suite packages, and then could no longer upgrade individual licenses. We photographers, who have working relationships with graphic and web designers, slowly grew accustomed to the convenience of at least having the software available on our computers. Some of us actually forced ourselves to learn some of that software so we could save money by maintaining our own websites and designing our own marketing and promotion output. Most of this software wasn't used daily, weekly, or even monthly, but it was nice to have when you needed it. Now, if you want it in the cloud, it will cost you much more.
"The most talked-about new feature is Shake Reduction, which is intended to fix photos that were blurry because the camera moved slightly during the exposure."
Do pros really care about this feature? Or was it designed for amateurs? Or was it never intended for photographers? What gives?
In this age of digital and large capacity memory cards, is it possible to have only one million-dollar shot with one minor flaw: camera shake? Is it me, or does this sound incredibly amateurish?
If I accidentally shook the camera in one frame, I move on to another frame, which is what we did in film days. I can't imagine relying on a software feature to "fix" the blur from camera shake, when I have so many other photos in my arsenal. Isn't that the point of a high-capacity memory card? (or a tripod?)
"In other words, the software improvements are welcome. The new pricing may not be."
The question is, do the improvements justify the price. So far, according to the noise I hear around me in NYC, many are screaming, "NO!."
"But Adobe isn’t offering the rental plan — it’s dictating it."
And no customer enjoys being dictated to.
"It’s possible that what angered these readers so much is my reference to the petition as “touching but entirely hopeless.” This is not a put-down of the petition. This is a simple acknowledgment that companies like Adobe have already factored in the anger…Even if the predicted number of angry customers abandon Photoshop, the total annual revenue for Photoshop will increase as a result of the rental-only program…That’s why the petition is utterly hopeless. Adobe won’t change its course, because Adobe doesn’t care about those people. It already considers them a lost cause." (from David's blog)
"Whether you do (trust Adobe) or not, there’s no denying that the big picture has changed. From now on, you won’t just cut monthly checks for your mortgage, your electric bill and your cable TV. Now, you’ll be cutting one more — for your software."
This past weekend, United Healthcare informed thousands of self-employed NYC photographers that their health insurance through HealthyNY would end Dec 31, 2013. They are no longer covering "sole-proprietor" businesses. This October, a self-employed photographer gets to choose from one of the ACA Exchanges, as if you are now among the uninsured. With such serious uncertainly facing those who own a photography business, Adobe picked a fine time to kick many of their loyal customers down and out. David neglected to mention this.
-
In this age of digital and large capacity memory cards, is it possible to have only one million-dollar shot with one minor flaw: camera shake? Is it me, or does this sound incredibly amateurish?
All your points with regard to photographers nails it except the quote above on the camera shake feature.
Photo archivists restoring decades old images, security video/stills, forensics and other sciences might find that feature useful.
-
All your points with regard to photographers nails it except the quote above on the camera shake feature.
Photo archivists restoring decades old images, security video/stills, forensics and other sciences might find that feature useful.
I, for one, agree that the Camera Shake tool is useless from a practical standpoint for professional and even advanced amateur photographers ... while the feature may be "useful" for some folks ... and I laud the engineers for their efforts to harness technology into such a tool ... that doesn't make paying for something I would never use any easier to embrace.
I don't mind such efforts, I don't even mind supporting them with monetary efforts ... what I do mind is when further development focuses upon these types of features and rather than other features that a great many users appreciate and could be utilized by and even broader segment are allowed to languish or never see the light of day.
-
I, for one, agree that the Camera Shake tool is useless from a practical standpoint for professional and even advanced amateur photographers ... while the feature may be "useful" for some folks ... and I laud the engineers for their efforts to harness technology into such a tool ... that doesn't make paying for something I would never use any easier to embrace.
I don't mind such efforts, I don't even mind supporting them with monetary efforts ... what I do mind is when further development focuses upon these types of features and other features that a great many users appreciate and could be utilized by and even broader segment are allowed to languish or never see the light of day.
I don't need the camera shake feature nor am I subscribing to CC but I don't agree with your assertions of what a company like Adobe whose history of innovation has literally changed the world (including my world of prepress, graphics and commercial printing) should focus on just one sector of the digital imaging business.
Don't know if you realize this but their innovations have pretty much put a lot of folks out of a job but have created a wealth of opportunities for others as well as reduce energy consumption and consumables. The internet has now put other folks out of jobs (prepress/graphics for commercial print, newspapers, photojournalists) because ad dollars have moved away from that sector of the communications field. Adobe caters to the communication business which includes government/private business to business intercommunication (annual reports), broadcast tv, publishing, photography, forensic science, archivists, etc.
Adobe has every right and a duty to their investors to change with the times and see where they're going to generate as much revenue as possible or go the way of others including myself (no longer in graphics/prepress) mentioned above or get left behind.
What would you do if Adobe closed their doors and went out of business? No more upgrades or features. Computers would still be around but they may not run old Adobe software.
I just found out today the inventor of the mouse who died recently made very little money on his invention because he was 17 years ahead of his time which was when Steve Jobs implemented it on the Mac because his patent had run out by then.
Do you think Adobe should let that happen to them?
-
All your points with regard to photographers nails it except the quote above on the camera shake feature. Photo archivists restoring decades old images, security video/stills, forensics and other sciences might find that feature useful.
It seemed to me the primary focus of David's article was photos and photographers. It was in that context that I expressed my opinion on David's quote: "The most talked-about new feature is Shake Reduction, which is intended to fix photos…",
I don't know if Adobe (in fact) intended this feature for photographers, but David Pogue's writing implies that it was.
-
Tim ... I don't think I mentioned anything about stifling innovation from Adobe ... only that the addition of the Shake Reduction tool would rank very low on the list of features that would entice or convince me to invest in the cause ... Nothing more. Nothing less ...
Heck, I even praised the engineers for their efforts ... There are a lot of amazing tools available in the world today ... that availability alone may not be enough to warrant or require their use or ensure their place in the marketplace. Again, for me, a tool that takes marginal images to make them less marginal isn't a step forward ... and would quite often be wasted effort. It would be far better to start with an image that did not require such an effort. It's just another brick in the wall in your reference to removing the need for folks who know how to avoid the issue at the point of capture and allows designers and publishers to work with less expensive, more easily acquired, lower quality products. That's not innovation ... AFAIAC ....
-
Sorry to both misty and Butch for my misinterpreting or being confused at telling the difference between your opinions on what Pogue wrote from your own outside of what Pogue said.
I was getting the impression from this...
...what I do mind is when further development focuses upon these types of features and other features that a great many users appreciate and could be utilized by and even broader segment are allowed to languish or never see the light of day.
...that Adobe wasn't innovating enough for "and even broader segment" which I'm confused at what "segment" Butch was referring to. If you mean photographers, it's not as broad as you think from the perspective of Adobe's bottom line considering all the other business sectors they cater to I mentioned above.
But I do think Adobe is doing whatever they have to to stay in business and meet investor's expectations. If it means including something amateurish as one click "red eye" reduction or Shake Reduction for OOF images so be it.
-
Tim ... I apologize to ... my comment was meant to be "rather than" ... I've updated that so there is less confusion ...
Hey ... I'm all for one-click red-eye correction ... even with that acknowledgement ... such a feature wouldn't be my primary aspect of upgrading ...
I would never expect any business not to plan well for their future ... however, I fail to see how alienating current customers has ever assisted any business in achieving success.
-
Re: Shake Reduction;
It is a tool. If you are a fashion photographer in a studio using a tripod I would not expect your photos to have "Camera Shake", unless you are a doofus. Now Photo Journalists, Street photographers and other such action oriented photographers working in uncontrolled lighting may occasionally have need for the tool. For my personal use I have many pictures from the past that are irreplaceable and suffer from camera shake. Remember when we were using f3.5 lenses with our Argus C3's and Kodak Retina's? And Kodachrome was ASA(ISO) 12 or 25. Check out out what shutter speeds resulted from this combination under cloudy conditions. With many of those photos Shake Reduction works very well.
-
Ray ... fashion photography with a tripod? Not quite.
I have just a little bit of experience dealing with tough light and trying to freeze action ... I've been a full time photojournalist/action sports photographer since 1975. My first sports kit was a Nikon FM (with no motor drive) paired with a Nikkor 200 f/4 for field sports for a regional weekly magazine. I was shooting Kodachrome 64 for section front and page one publication ... the FM had a whopping 1,000 max shutter speed, but with ASA 64, I rarely ever got to use it ... Though I also used 50 f/1.8 feature work ... then I was really excited when I got my 105 f/2.5 about 1977... if I had suffered routinely from camera shake back then ... the editors would have fired me and hired someone who could get the job done ... That's what separated the wheat from the chaff ... those who get it done and those who didn't last long in the trade.
So forgive me if I don't show a bit more empathy on the matter. Been there. Done that.
Not only that ... from what I have seen and read about the tool ... it can only correct camera movement introduced at the point of capture. Subject movement, or focus issues ... not so much.
-
What other features could Adobe bring forth and be appreciated by a broader segment but are allowed to languish or never see the light of day?
Butch, please excuse my reconstructing your sentence, but I had to so I could understand exactly what you were referring to as "other features that are languishing" due to the fact I was formulating my response in relation to existing features mentioned in this thread such as the "Shake Reduction".
What features are languishing?
And thank you, for editing your response above. I didn't intend for you to go to those lengths.
-
"But this an't an evil plot by Adobe to take over the world and create a horde of minions that pay out money just to keep their work from being held hostage..."
Maybe, maybe not. Only homeland security knows..... :o