Dehaze?

[Rhossydd]

Hoggy's right. In this case, the presets were created by moving a single slider and saving presets.

Yes, but the Prolost dehaze presets from ones are free. Where's the problem ?

[Hoggy]

If (or when) presets are free, there's no problem. 

[Rhossydd]

If (or when) presets are free, there's no problem. 

Why's there a problem if people create, market and sell them ?

[Hoggy]

Why's there a problem if people create, market and sell them ?

Because in general, they're made by just moving some sliders around.

[Rhossydd]

Because in general, they're made by just moving some sliders around.

So ? It's the end results that matter. If someone is happy to pay for the short cut or hasn't the knowledge to get the results, what's the problem ?

[john beardsworth]

So ? It's the end results that matter. If someone is happy to pay for the short cut or hasn't the knowledge to get the results, what's the problem ?

You don't have a problem fleecing the gullible then?

[Rhossydd]

You don't have a problem fleecing the gullible then?

Who says the customers are gullible ? Some people are happy to pay for convenience. No need to learn it all, just click a preset.

Not my idea of money well spent, but I'll defend the author's right to offer them for sale.

[john beardsworth]

Not my idea of money well spent, but I'll defend the author's right to offer them for sale.

It may be their right, but it's dishonest.

[digitaldog]

It may be their right, but it's dishonest.

I'd agree, there's a degree of dishonesty here. Going back OT, Dehaze is a really useful new feature. There are others that are not so easily 'lifted' by those who don't wish to pay for software upgrades hence, we should pay for the efforts of others. That keeps those efforts coming from those who did the hard work.

[Rhossydd]

but it's dishonest.

Explain to me why you think it's 'dishonest'

[john beardsworth]

Sure, I think "degree of dishonesty" is a good phrase. In this case, those who supply dehaze presets are deliberately helping people circumvent Adobe's sales strategy. Sure, Adobe didn't bother locking that door, but I happen to know that the Prolost preset guy had enough ethical doubts to ask Adobe if they had any objection.

[scyth]

Explain to me why you think it's 'dishonest'

it is as 'dishonest' as certain corporations using tax optimization schemes including the one...

[Rhossydd]

I happen to know that the Prolost preset guy had enough ethical doubts to ask Adobe if they had any objection.

So as they are available, we can assume Adobe aren't terribly bothered. Adobe might hope it promotes how good the option is to try to get people to buy into the subscription.

[scyth]

So as they are available, we can assume Adobe aren't terribly bothered. Adobe might hope it promotes how good the option is to try to get people to buy into the subscription.

similar to piracy which is actually helping Adobe with marketshare - Adobe rather have a pirated LR used by a determined & capable user for free than legally purchased (or freeware/shareware/donationware) product from competition 

[Rhossydd]

similar to piracy

Yes, but this is not at all piracy.
Firstly; the presets have been created by a third party.
Secondly; It's been said Adobe were asked if there were any objections to publishing them.

Piracy is simple theft.

[ButchM]

It may be their right, but it's dishonest.

In the instance of offering a plugin to circumvent the EULA for Lr 6.x, yes, there is a level of dishonesty present. Paid, donation or free.

While I don't support the sale or purchase of Lr presets in general, I also do not think it is wrong for industrious individuals who took the time to create those presets to seek a monetary gain in offering those presets for sale.

Let's face it, for normal everyday Develop module presets, no one is holding Lr users hostage until they purchase presets. It's purely a merit based system. If the presets don't offer a value to the end user commensurate with the cost to acquire them ... they won't sell.

For myself, I much prefer to create my own and/or use the app as per the EULA I agreed to.

[digitaldog]

similar to piracy which is actually helping Adobe with marketshare - Adobe rather have a pirated LR used by a determined & capable user for free than legally purchased (or freeware/shareware/donationware) product from competition 

Absurd, unproven. Explain all the work in software activation by Adobe and other's to cease the pirating of software. Market share from pirated software doesn't equal income let alone profit.


You a pro photographer? I have to ask as you've got zero transparency about yourself. It's OK if I take your images and sell them (assuming they are sale-able) while I keep the profits?

[john beardsworth]

While I don't support the sale or purchase of Lr presets in general, I also do not think it is wrong for industrious individuals who took the time to create those presets to seek a monetary gain in offering those presets for sale. It's purely a supply and demand situation. If users were opposed to, or felt it was unfair to purchase presets, they wouldn't sell.

Sadly, the industriousness is directed to convincing people they are being sold something worth paying for. The game's a bit like selling bottled tap water with a fancy label.

So as they are available, we can assume Adobe aren't terribly bothered. Adobe might hope it promotes how good the option is to try to get people to buy into the subscription.

Probably so, but the point stands that the preset author saw ethical issues in deliberately helping people circumvent Adobe's sales strategy and EULA.

[ButchM]

The game's a bit like selling bottled tap water with a fancy label.

Doesn't all bottled water come out of a tap?

Once again, if the market felt that fancy labeled tap water was not worth the investment, it would not sell. Period.

[john beardsworth]

Doesn't all bottled water come out of a tap?

Once again, if the market felt that fancy labeled tap water was not worth the investment, it would not sell. Period.

To repeat, so you don't have a problem fleecing the gullible then?