Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ACR 5  (Read 38272 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5530


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2008, 04:01:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You're right.  Tax is inappropriate.  I prefer "Adobe Shakedown."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I guess you just don't have the self discipline to NOT do things you don't want to, huh? Again, you are under no obligation (other than the pressure you place on yourself) to ever upgrade Photoshop again unless the industry moves forward to the extent that you can't use the current version of Photoshop that you have on new computers and OS's that come out in the future. But that's the price you pay for not upgrading.

Adobe goes out of its way to come up with interesting and compelling new features and functionality in order to induce users to upgrade. If you are not induced, it's pretty silly to upgrade huh? I don't think "shakedown" is in the least bit accurate...
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7044


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2008, 04:07:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Only two lines, Mark?  I'm hoping Schewe is more entertaining.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I could have written more, but that would have burdened you with even more not-entertaining lines, so not to put too fine a point on it...............
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2008, 04:44:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, I could have written more, but that would have burdened you with even more not-entertaining lines, so not to put too fine a point on it...............
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224731\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is just a really funny thing, Mark.  Who cares what they call it so long as they actually pay for it?

I'd happily trade the "this product that does 1/10th what yours does is free so why should we pay for yours?" crowd for the frowny faced check writers.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 04:45:00 PM by DarkPenguin » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7044


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2008, 06:09:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is just a really funny thing, Mark.  Who cares what they call it so long as they actually pay for it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The reason to care is that language can be used to disparage an enterprise which most likely doesn't deserve it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2008, 06:49:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes.  But their actions tell the true tale.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7044


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2008, 06:53:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Getting way off topic, but what actions?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2008, 06:58:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Buying it.  People grumble about the cost but they still pay it.  In my book that's a huge compliment.

But then I am a cynic.

(What was the topic anyway?)
Logged
Pete JF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2008, 07:46:47 PM »
ReplyReply

IT'S the ACR camera update thing that forces many of those grumblers to buy it.

I'm one of them..i dont need CS4 right now. My pictures will not look any different in it. However, I would like to use ACR when i need it without having to screw around with doing the DNG thing- watusi.

Adobe knows that the ACR camera (lack of) update thing forces a large group of people to purchase newer versions of PS. Jeff knows it too and is wrong when he says that nobody is obligated to buy newer versions of PS. Not having camera support is a huge "inducement" for quite a few users. Read the forums..this ACR camera update subject shows up quite a bit and many times people say bad words about it. Many people also say that they dont want to do the DNG conversion for one reason or another

Still, Adobe should be nice and do a massive update of ACR cameras back to, say..Cs2 or plain old CS. I have CS2, perfectly adequate for making stunning photos that will rake in millions of dollars.

It would just be NICE if they did it and it really wouldn't cost them shit in the long run. They're a big healthy company and would still have the world gripped in their photopaw after the big, nice ACR camera update.

Hard to believe that a few got pickled about Mike Johnston's little joke about a "photoshop tax". LoL-ski, that is a trip.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5530


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2008, 10:09:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It would just be NICE if they did it and it really wouldn't cost them shit in the long run.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Are you a software developers? Do you know what the implications of split-code support? You branch off code for a new version, you cease writing to the old code in order to move the current code forward. As a direct result, adding support for backwards compatibility would indeed cost dev time for a product team whose product is not sold. And remember, there are only three main engineers working on Camera Raw and one of them is a forum regular here in the LL.

Adobe, since mid-1990's has had a very consistent policy, support for older versions ceases when new version are released. The fact the some people feel bent over a barrel because they buy new cameras that weren't even in the design phase when a current version of Photoshop was released is pretty much proof that they inherently place hardware on a higher value than software. And, for photographers to so treat intellectual property is pretty ironic.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7044


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2008, 10:37:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
IT'S the ACR camera update thing that forces many of those grumblers to buy it.

I'm one of them..i dont need CS4 right now. My pictures will not look any different in it. However, I would like to use ACR when i need it without having to screw around with doing the DNG thing- watusi.

Adobe knows that the ACR camera (lack of) update thing forces a large group of people to purchase newer versions of PS. Jeff knows it too and is wrong when he says that nobody is obligated to buy newer versions of PS. Not having camera support is a huge "inducement" for quite a few users. Read the forums..this ACR camera update subject shows up quite a bit and many times people say bad words about it. Many people also say that they dont want to do the DNG conversion for one reason or another

Still, Adobe should be nice and do a massive update of ACR cameras back to, say..Cs2 or plain old CS. I have CS2, perfectly adequate for making stunning photos that will rake in millions of dollars.

It would just be NICE if they did it and it really wouldn't cost them shit in the long run. They're a big healthy company and would still have the world gripped in their photopaw after the big, nice ACR camera update.

Hard to believe that a few got pickled about Mike Johnston's little joke about a "photoshop tax". LoL-ski, that is a trip.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Choices need to be made about how peoples' time will be compensated. Adobe perhaps could have maintained Camera Raw as a separate piece of software which we purchase apart from Photoshop. If they did that, it would be regularly up-graded and new versions would be sold probably at an up-grade price to existing customers and at the new price to new customers. Instead they bundled it with Photoshop, so we buy the package in a combined up-grade. The wisdom of integrating them allows them to be used interactively and allows the development of the one to be accommodated by the development of the other. When we pay an up-grade price we're getting the synergy of the pair.

Furthermore, for those who don't want to up-grade, there really is nothing wrong or complex working the DNG route. And finally, there's Lightroom - we can now go from camera to print in LR2 and use CS3 for residuals instead of an up-grade to CS4 if we so desired, so those who don't want to up-grade Photoshop can buy LR or up-grade an existing LR. There are enough options here that should satisfy most peoples' needs and budgets, while assuring that Adobe gets paid for the work they do. I still haven't seen any convincing evidence of a rip-off or "shakedown"  in any of this.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pete JF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2008, 10:43:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff said: "Are you a software developers?"


Nope, I'm not a software developers. I'm Mr. T.

I figure it would cost them about 200 grand to do this, probably less. A drop in the bucket against Adobe's almost 200 million in earnings third quarter.

After Adobe's sales peak out on their latest and greatest..they could just write it and give it as a gift, to me and my friends who grumble when they scratch out another check to the Adobe taxman. And, they could put your face on the box so I could give you a big fat kiss every time I made a great photo

While they're at it, they could fix the buggy Bridge. The bridge to nowhere..lol.

Sincerely,

Mr. T
« Last Edit: September 26, 2008, 10:50:10 PM by Pete JF » Logged
Anthony.Ralph
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43



« Reply #31 on: September 27, 2008, 03:12:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
IT'S the ACR camera update thing that forces many of those grumblers to buy it.

[..]


Apart from the DNG route which Adobe offer, there is always the camera manufacturers own software for converting RAW files so there are alternatives thus ensuring we are not locked into having to upgrade Photoshop if we don't want to.

On the other hand, Adobe are quite clever in offering enough new/improved features in any PS upgrade, which when added to ACR make the upgrade route a compelling one.

Anthony.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7044


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 27, 2008, 06:29:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jeff said: "Are you a software developers?"
Nope, I'm not a software developers. I'm Mr. T.

I figure it would cost them about 200 grand to do this, probably less. A drop in the bucket against Adobe's almost 200 million in earnings third quarter.

After Adobe's sales peak out on their latest and greatest..they could just write it and give it as a gift, to me and my friends who grumble when they scratch out another check to the Adobe taxman. And, they could put your face on the box so I could give you a big fat kiss every time I made a great photo

While they're at it, they could fix the buggy Bridge. The bridge to nowhere..lol.

Sincerely,

Mr. T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224824\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You say you "figure" a cost of 200K. Could you please tell us how you "figure" that? I'd like to see - and perhaps others readers would too - some real meat behind such numbers, drawn on your knowledge of software development requirements and costs.

Adobe's earnings are spread accross a very large number of products and R&D work, of which Photoshop is only one, so picking a number such as Q3 earnings in isolation of context is completely meaningless. You'll get a better idea of their financial performance if you were to download their financials and their 10-K (on their website), analyze them, then come back and tell us whether they're making too much money - but even that wouldn't entirely cut it, because what they make largely depends on customers' willingness-to-pay and no-one is putting a gun to anyones' head to buy this stuff, nor have competitive alternatives started to creep in, which often happens when super-normal profits attract new market entrants, regardless of incumbent advantage.

And Bridge CS3 on my computer is definitely not buggy. Works just fine, but I've switched to using LR2 because it's even better. The only thing the LR2 Library module doesn't allow which Bridge does allow is the capability of reaching directly back into your folder and file structure on your hard drive to permit selecting thumbnails in Bridge and re-arranging their location on disk. Apart from that, for the day to day library functions I need, Bridge works fine and LR2 is superb.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pete JF
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #33 on: September 27, 2008, 10:37:18 AM »
ReplyReply

200k ought to cover hiring a couple of hackers. that includes the amphetamines and a case of Mountain Dew™.

I can provide a couple of rascals to break into the Nikon and Canon offices, steal their secret potions and some extra paper..during break time the hackers are guaranteed to start launching paper airplanes out the window, it's what they do..They'll empty out the copy machines in no time, mischevious little creeps.

Mark, I never suggested that Adobe was making too much money. My motto: mO mOneY, right on!

If Adobe's running short on the cash to do this then they should tap into the easter basket fund or the corporate shaving kit fund, go department to department in Adobe headquarters with a hat and a big stick..put Schewe in a souped up wheelchair and let him hold the stick...that could be some effective fundraising imagery.

Hell, I'll meet Madmanchan in the lobby and kick a roll of singles across the floor at him. I don't want to get too close because he's a madman and his dad probably taught him some ancient moves. I don't mess around with madmen who are a good at computers appear to be gentle and calm.  

I could drop about 40 dollars in his lap and that would certainly help. $200,040.00 is big money. Chan is a very generous fellow, always upping the info and glad to do it with no sign of demons, chaos or insecurity in his demeanour. I like him very much and sense that he'd be up for Adobe's -big gift- to those with the holes in our knees.

I'm glad to hear that Bridge is running well for you. Do this..google - Adobe Bridge Buggy...

Mine's been running smooth lately but I'm expecting it to go down hard pretty soon. It always does. I go through the usual routine of trashing a bunch of crap, rubbing it's temples, feeding it skittles...it's freaking tempermental and flaky.

It's a beautiful day, I'm going skateboarding..When I get back I'm gonna solicit Adobe for some band-aids and monkey's blood (mecuricrome)...the gold chains make me top heavy, even on the big board..
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7044


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 27, 2008, 10:42:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Enjoy.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8344



WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 28, 2008, 09:58:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I guess you just don't have the self discipline to NOT do things you don't want to, huh? Again, you are under no obligation (other than the pressure you place on yourself) to ever upgrade Photoshop again unless the industry moves forward to the extent that you can't use the current version of Photoshop that you have on new computers and OS's that come out in the future. But that's the price you pay for not upgrading.

Adobe goes out of its way to come up with interesting and compelling new features and functionality in order to induce users to upgrade. If you are not induced, it's pretty silly to upgrade huh? I don't think "shakedown" is in the least bit accurate...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=224729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

Where is gets annoying is that most other RAW converters don't ask you 349 US$ uprade fee to support a new camera type... most of them actually do it for free for a long period of time. Raw Developper comes to my mind.

So my personnal conclusion is not to use ACR because I know that one day, I'll be in a situation where I'll have to upgrade to a newer version of PS just to be able to use the right version of ACR that will be supporting my new camera. I am aware that converting to DNG is a by-pass, but I don't find this to be practical.

Frankly speaking, I have some other issues with ACR that currently prevent me from using it extensively, although I used to a few years back, but even if the demoisaicing of ACR were best in class, I still would have the issue described above.

This really isn't Abode bashing at all, it is a real world problem with the way ACR releases and PS releases are currently coupled.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #36 on: September 28, 2008, 10:06:12 AM »
ReplyReply

On the flip side, occasionally you get new features in CR without having to pay a dime. For example, with CR 4.1 new capture sharpening tools were introduced. As another example, with CR 4.5 the new color engine was introduced, along with a full set of new profiles (including long-requested ones that emulate the camera maker's color), and a tool (DNG Profile Editor) for rolling your own custom color profiles. No charge for existing CR 4.x users.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7044


WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 28, 2008, 10:06:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jeff,

Where is gets annoying is that most other RAW converters don't ask you 349 US$ uprade fee to support a new camera type... most of them actually do it for free for a long period of time. Raw Developper comes to my mind.

So my personnal conclusion is not to use ACR because I know that one day, I'll be in a situation where I'll have to upgrade to a newer version of PS just to be able to use the right version of ACR that will be supporting my new camera. I am aware that converting to DNG is a by-pass, but I don't find this to be practical.

Frankly speaking, I have some other issues with ACR that currently prevent me from using it extensively, although I used to a few years back, but even if the demoisaicing of ACR were best in class, I still would have the issue described above.

This really isn't Abode bashing at all, it is a real world problem with the way ACR releases and PS releases are currently coupled.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,

I think where there may be some mis-appreciation of the context here, is that you aren't paying $349 just to up-grade for new camera types. You are paying for a whole package of substantial improvements and innovations to the whole package of Bridge-ACR-PSCSx with each new release. If you want all these things, hard to say in the abstract that it isn't worth it. If you don't want these things, then indeed you may be better-off choosing a raw converter that gives you the camera up-dates free. So I'm not sure what the real-world problem is.

As for DNG, what's wrong with it in your opinion?

Cheers,

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5530


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 28, 2008, 12:13:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Where is gets annoying is that most other RAW converters don't ask you 349 US$ uprade fee to support a new camera type... most of them actually do it for free for a long period of time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The major upgrade to Photoshop happens on average, every 18 months. During the time that the current version is well, current, the updates are free. For Camera Raw 3 in Photoshop CS2, that was 7 times (3.7 was the last update), for Camera Ra 4 it will have been 6 updates (CR 4.6 will be the last update for CS3-which has been released as an RC but will be released as a final GM even AFTER Photoshop CS4 has been announced).

But the point where you loose me here in your logic is that you are equating a Camera Raw upgrade along with a Photoshop and Bridge upgrade for whatever the upgrade cost is to a very limited functionality raw converter by some other company. What other raw converter comes with the functionality of Photoshop? By your logic, you are paying for Camera Raw and getting the Photoshop and Bridge update for free...you see the problem with that logic?

I also question your 349 US$ uprade fee...that's for Photoshop Extended...which has a lot of interesting stuff for mostly non-photographers. So, comparing the standard upgrade for the regular version (which in the US is $199, not $349) it makes the comparison of Camera Raw/Photoshop/Bridge to any other raw processor only software even more, uh, ludicrous. If you average out $199 for 18 months, that's just about $11/month. Heck, I spend more than that on wines by the glass sometimes...sure, for some people who don't do this for a living, that might be considered a high ticket luxury, but then there's always Photoshop Elements (which really fulfills the needs of many people who seem to convince themselves they really need Photoshop).

Now, I won't get into the whole US VS the Rest Of The World pricing...I think Adobe is wrong and that's way above my pay grade anyway...

But really, for people to complain so loudly and claim that Adobe is "forcing" them to upgrade their version of Photoshop just to get new camera support is pretty darn dismissive of the value of Photoshop.

I was around for the first version of Camera Raw (version 1.0 that would work in Photoshop 7) that Adobe sold for $99. Should Adobe have continued to sell Camera Raw as a separate product? That way the development would be un-linked to a version of Photoshop. But I'll tell ya that the nature of Camera Raw would have been considerably different than it is now if that had come to pass. Users really are a lot better off the way it is now than the way it would have been if Camera Raw was a separate product for sale.

Again, I'll point out the dichotomy that seems to encourage photographers to value software less than hardware. You really shouldn't. I can think of no time in the history of photography where one's "originals" have continued to improve so much AFTER they were shot as with raw digital photography. And to be quibbling over a couple hundred bucks every year and a half or two just seems pretty to me.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7044


WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 28, 2008, 02:46:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And to be quibbling over a couple hundred bucks every year and a half or two just seems pretty to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not pretty - perhaps petty, or was it pretty petty?

(Sorry Jeff, couldn't resist!)  
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad