Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's take on Adobe CC  (Read 15683 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2811


« Reply #100 on: May 10, 2013, 02:03:23 PM »
ReplyReply

The problem is how much longer will CS6 be shipping, a week, a month... We need clarity.

How  long was "raw support for currently shipping products" in the past -- months not weeks?
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2811


« Reply #101 on: May 10, 2013, 02:05:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Just make an export user-preset that will export a full resolution TIFF without output sharpening to the folder that contains the RAW files.
It's really really easy to maintain both LR catalog and TIFF work products.

With all due respect....I do not think you have thought through this completely

With all due respect, you have done nothing to show why you think so.
Logged
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468


WWW
« Reply #102 on: May 10, 2013, 02:53:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm with Gothmoth on this one. For the couple of people who are vigorously defending Adobe on this without referencing the most odious, biased and one sided licensing agreement I've ever see - one that makes the debacle that X-Rite tried to foist on us a couple of years ago, childlike in comparison - I'm wondering how you are reconciling that in your own mind. I'm only halfway okay with the new licensing scheme, but when you factor in the licensing agreement, the insult is almost too much to bear. That you're given no choice in the matter and half to agree to odious terms in order to proceed should have everyone, especially those photographers and former photographers who purportedly care about individual rights, scurrying towards the door. I really don't see how anyone, for or against this argument can read those terms and say they're okay with them, but I might be wrong.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 736


« Reply #103 on: May 10, 2013, 02:56:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure I understand. IF you are in CC and apply a new feature, like Shake Reduction to a layer, save as a layered TIFF, open in CS6, you have access to that layer. It looks and acts identically as you saw in CC. But of course, you can't call up Shake Reduction there again, it doesn't exist. And you could of course save a flattened TIFF (a version of that should be inside the Layered TIFF too).

Now, suppose you make a Smart Object in CC and apply that Shake Reduction. It will not be editable as well in CS6 and further, CS6 should pop a warning and allow you to flatten that layer (no more SO support).

Yeah...I wasn't clear.  Meant non-Adobe products.

Got off my lazy butt and pulled down a couple layered TIFFs and opened them in Irfanview.  

What I had long 'ass-u-me-d' appeared true...i.e. the TIFF displays, just as if I had saved a flattened TIFF.

Since I only did a small sample, I gotta ask....would this be true for all cases?

Reason I ask, I always save the layered TIFF, just in case I may want to go back at some later date.  Would rather not have to also save a flattened version, just in case.

Thanks...John
Logged

John
daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


« Reply #104 on: May 10, 2013, 02:56:52 PM »
ReplyReply

How  long was "raw support for currently shipping products" in the past -- months not weeks?

You're citing Adobe's past practices as an indicator of what they will do in the future. In fact, this week has made it clear that what Adobe did in the past absolutely cannot be relied upon as an indicator of what they will do in the future.



Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 736


« Reply #105 on: May 10, 2013, 02:59:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm with Gothmoth on this one. For the couple of people who are vigorously defending Adobe on this without referencing the most odious, biased and one sided licensing agreement I've ever see - one that makes the debacle that X-Rite tried to foist on us a couple of years ago, childlike in comparison - I'm wondering how you are reconciling that in your own mind. I'm only halfway okay with the new licensing scheme, but when you factor in the licensing agreement, the insult is almost too much to bear. That you're given no choice in the matter and half to agree to odious terms in order to proceed should have everyone, especially those photographers and former photographers who purportedly care about individual rights, scurrying towards the door. I really don't see how anyone, for or against this argument can read those terms and say they're okay with them, but I might be wrong.

Don't take this wrong...it is totally tongue-in-cheek....it could be worse, they could claim to own the copyright for all the images processed by PS-CC......oops....they probably missed that... Roll Eyes
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 736


« Reply #106 on: May 10, 2013, 03:03:56 PM »
ReplyReply

With all due respect....I do not think you have thought through this completely


With all due respect, you have done nothing to show why you think so.

Look, I do not mean to demean you.   However, if you do not know, then I suspect that you either do not use Lightroom or are not taking full advantage of it.
Logged

John
schaubild
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #107 on: May 10, 2013, 03:09:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, Adobe already prepares the ground for some more entertainment:

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 03:14:45 PM by schaubild » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9110



WWW
« Reply #108 on: May 10, 2013, 03:10:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah...I wasn't clear.  Meant non-Adobe products.

Got to send either a flattened TIFF or one that has the flattened data inside it. Any 3rd party product can't understand the layers, that's proprietary Adobe stuff.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Justan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1875


WWW
« Reply #109 on: May 10, 2013, 03:15:02 PM »
ReplyReply


Thanks for the post.

Parts of their licensing terms are nothing short of outrageous.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2811


« Reply #110 on: May 10, 2013, 03:25:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Parts of their licensing terms are nothing short of outrageous.

See -- South Park, Season 15, Episode 1, April 27 2011 -- "HumancentiPad" ("Don't read about 'HUMANCENTiPAD' on a full stomach")

"Combine both story lines — the HUMANCENTiPAD one hinged on the notion that people don’t read the Apple agreements they sign off on, and thus allow themselves to be tracked at any location and human-centipeded — and you see that the themes are Parker-Stone perennials: Knowledge really matters; many people are lazy and thus prey to exploitation."
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2811


« Reply #111 on: May 10, 2013, 03:26:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Look, I do not mean to demean you.   However, if you do not know, then I suspect that you either do not use Lightroom or are not taking full advantage of it.

With all due respect, you have still done nothing to show why you think so.
Logged
MarkM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



WWW
« Reply #112 on: May 10, 2013, 03:40:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pfigen
without referencing the most odious, biased and one sided licensing agreement I've ever see
Thanks for the post.
Parts of their licensing terms are nothing short of outrageous.

Specifically, which part do you find so outrageous and odious?
Logged

pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 468


WWW
« Reply #113 on: May 10, 2013, 04:11:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Have your read those terms and conditions yet? There's so much that is patently offensive that it would take up way too much space here. Any photographer or creative who knows anything about and/or values his own rights will find it that way. That so many appear to have not read through it is a shame and especially those who are vociferously defending the what, with this language, becomes indefensible. I think folks are too wrapped up in the shock of the original announcement and are now only getting to the nitty gritty details now. The backlash against X-Rite with their restrictive language forced them to modify. Unfortunately with Adobe, this is nothing new. When Adobe upgraded their User to User forums, they also upgraded their terms and conditions relating to posting images and content in a way that pretty much makes it stupid to post anything there, much like Facebook.

Rather than ask me what I find odious, why don't you point out all the things you love about the terms.
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370


« Reply #114 on: May 10, 2013, 04:12:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable, but having just spent £630 on PS CS6 just a few weeks ago what I actually want is support for a reasonable period, say 18-24 months of updates including new camera support. What I don't want is to have to give Adobe even more money for CC and the support I should be receiving with my new product.

Thoughts anyone?



Same here, at least I would expect Adobe to solve the annoying bugs like the disappearing cursor. It now feels I have never owned a complete normally working product and Adobe is forcing me to buy into a subscription model. I alread have little faith in their ability to solve bugs... I wish I could deliver an incomplete product to my clients and force them into buying more for higher prices from me. I have no confidence in Adobe they will fix current bugs in CS6, especially the disappearing cursor is annoying and has been in CS6 from the beginning.
Logged
Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 999


WWW
« Reply #115 on: May 10, 2013, 04:14:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey, at least our cursor eventually returns, unlike our option for a perpetual license.
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370


« Reply #116 on: May 10, 2013, 04:17:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, but you do need to Tab out of the program each time.

BTW, What is in it for me as a customer of Adobe?? What is my advantage?

The updating thing is no issue to me. I am alway online and can update instantly. Faster bug fixes?  after Adobes performance on CS6 I have no faith in that. But honestly, what is the real gain for Adobe customers?? I don't see it.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 736


« Reply #117 on: May 10, 2013, 04:23:43 PM »
ReplyReply

With all due respect, you have still done nothing to show why you think so.

I don't give LR lessons, talk to Jeff  Smiley
Logged

John
MarkM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



WWW
« Reply #118 on: May 10, 2013, 04:38:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Have your read those terms and conditions yet? There's so much that is patently offensive that it would take up way too much space here. Any photographer or creative who knows anything about and/or values his own rights will find it that way. That so many appear to have not read through it is a shame and especially those who are vociferously defending the what, with this language, becomes indefensible. I think folks are too wrapped up in the shock of the original announcement and are now only getting to the nitty gritty details now. The backlash against X-Rite with their restrictive language forced them to modify. Unfortunately with Adobe, this is nothing new. When Adobe upgraded their User to User forums, they also upgraded their terms and conditions relating to posting images and content in a way that pretty much makes it stupid to post anything there, much like Facebook.

Rather than ask me what I find odious, why don't you point out all the things you love about the terms.

That's what I thought. You have nothing specific. It's pretty easy to be shocked, SHOCKED, at the things you find in TOS agreements, but when it comes down to it, it's boiler plate that you find in just about every software and service TOS agreement you read. The writer of that blog is clearly pissed at Adobe and is looking for anything to mad about—it's almost all hyperbole. Or he's never looked at another TOS agreement before today. So that's what I asked: what is in there that is so outrageous and unusual? That they can change their terms? That they can object to objectionable material? That they might show advertisements when you use their service. I'm not defending them, I don't love anything there, I'm just sincerely curious what specifically you object to.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9110



WWW
« Reply #119 on: May 10, 2013, 04:41:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Rather than ask me what I find odious, why don't you point out all the things you love about the terms.

Come on Peter, you can do better than that can't you?

Got to agree with Mark, that's not a useful reply. If there's some nasty bits there, let's see em. Since I don't play a lawyer on TV, I'd appreciate too, having someone point out something I should be pissed about.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad