Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe Photoshop CC - The Alternatives  (Read 24902 times)
nma
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #60 on: September 26, 2013, 09:29:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Most think that Photshop+LR are the sine qua non software for professional work, but that relies on a traditional view of low dynamic range photography. As mentioned in a previous post, HDR in Photoshop is not that great. HDR, contrary to the traditional view is not out of the main stream. One can argue that Ansel Adams Zone System is an attempt to map the dynamic range of the scene to the rage offered by the output device, in Adam's case, a particular paper and developer type.

Already, we see an increase in dynamic range with cameras like the Nikon D800. I am not an insider but I think it likely that there is a lot of research going on in this area. We may see much bigger jumps in DR in the near future. This would mean that HDR photography will more often be a one shot capture, not the multiples required now. In that case Photoshop will be at a serious disadvantage because its floating point capabilities are nowhere near optimum. Its historical evolution suggests that a fully floating point Photoshop product would be a big slog, requiring backward compatibility. I am thinking that will open the door to competitors. Kodak fell, Digital Equipment, Sun, too. The floor is littered with companies who once seemed invincible. And it does not take long when the ground begins to shift. Who knows? But it is not a certainty that Adobe will have a long reign.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2759



WWW
« Reply #61 on: September 26, 2013, 09:40:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Photoshop owes its position to the problems of cameras' dynamic range? Kinda overstating the case, don't you think? 
Logged

Wayland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84



WWW
« Reply #62 on: September 26, 2013, 11:34:57 AM »
ReplyReply

OK I admit it, I don't get it. You've got the best photo editing software on the planet with Lightroom and Photoshop CC and you guys are looking for alternatives? I guess you're not that interested in getting the best from your images. Seriously, $10 a month and you cry fowel. Give me a break. Does anyone remember shooting Kodachrome at $15-20 a crack and for only 36 exposures and you had to wait maybe a week to 10 days to see your results. Please! You were spending more than that in chemistry, film and paper.

Give your heads a shake. People spend more than $10 a month on coffee. Everyone had the chance (and still does) to develop something equal to or better than either LR or PS, but they haven't.

You guys have lost it.

Maybe you should just be playing checkers in the park... that's free. Not supporting any BIG CORPORATIONS then, the big meanies.

Don't you just love a well thought out response?

I'm not going to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent...
Logged

Wayland.
aka. Gary Waidson
Enter theWaylandscape...
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 350


« Reply #63 on: September 26, 2013, 10:16:41 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, lemme s'plain.
Most posters don't complain about $120 cost per year, but about being bullied into the subscription model.
Furthermore, so far Adobe didn't add much to the Photoshop features since they announced their watery invention. Whatever found its way into PS CC, is not even worth $10.




Can you please elaborate what the differences are between PS CC and PS6? If you don't know, how can you tell they are worth $10?
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 350


« Reply #64 on: September 26, 2013, 10:19:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Well ... how would this all work if there were only one option for cameras, lenses, flash, printers, computers, etc., etc., etc. .... Would we be better off if there was only Canon, or only Nikon? Who benefits more from the lack of a viable competitor? ... The virtual monopolistic software developer ... or their customers? Once everyone is locked in to a subscription plan, don't you think you would benefit from a competitor to keep Adobe engineers on their toes driving them to innovate faster and further and to force the executives to keep prices reasonable? Celebrating a temporary, affordable monthly stipend may not be wise for the long haul ... for once you board the train and there are no other options to complete your journey via other means ... who suffers most from a lack of competition?

The most popular does not always equate with being the "best." While Ps and Lr do some things extremely well, there are areas where they really may not be the "best" options ... if they were, how do you explain the thriving plugin industry? ... Also there are a few other areas in PS and Lr where there are dismal failures. You only have to look at them with open eyes to see where the flaws may be. Adobe is by no means pure perfection.

Yes, I remember that era all too well ... and your example is exactly why I was ecstatic when Kodak made E-6 chemicals readily available so we did not have to be chained to their Kodachrome lab and could turn around Ektachrome or Fujichrome in under an hour. Viable options benefit everyone and are liberating for the marketplace. Opportunity, such as the one that Adobe presented to their competition on May 6 opened the door for some folks who firmly believed there was no such opening to attract customers away from the "best" ... I for one hope they do venture forth in a meaningful way.

For me it isn't, nor has it ever been, about the price ... but whether the investment of that price will enhance my bottom line. That is the rule I apply to any purchase I make for my business. Photoshop CC does not have one new feature or enhancement that would contribute to the cause. Yet Adobe has set up a structure that not only insists I reward them for their efforts, they also place a set-in-stone expiration date on the deal. It's about much more than the price of entry alone. Adobe no longer wishes to be rewarded based upon merit, but for time in service. That is a recipe for complacency that is only exacerbated in the absence of a  legitimate competitor. In that case we all lose.

I'm not quite sure about that ... Wouldn't it make more sense to have options? ... Would you show up to a paid job with only one camera, one lens, one flash, one memory card? Or do you keep some redundant backup options handy in case of trouble? ... Why shouldn't we do that with our software solutions as well? Wouldn't that be the intelligent method of conducting business? Or is it more wise to advise your fellow photographers to "shake their head" and board the bus like lemmings?

So today basically Nikon and Canon have the monopoly on DSLR cameras. I guess you are running out and purchasing a Pentax outfit with their huge assortment of lens just to keep the competition active in this market...right. Or do you shoot with a big bad Canon or Nikon?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2759



WWW
« Reply #65 on: September 27, 2013, 01:36:12 AM »
ReplyReply

So today basically Nikon and Canon have the monopoly on DSLR cameras. I guess you are running out and purchasing a Pentax outfit with their huge assortment of lens just to keep the competition active in this market...right. Or do you shoot with a big bad Canon or Nikon?
Basically Nikon and Canon have a duopoly and there are other established competitors. Over time we've seen new features have come from competition. You were being invited to consider a monopoly....
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2759



WWW
« Reply #66 on: September 27, 2013, 01:39:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Take a look at Improving RAW-to-JPEG conversion on Google+:

"Starting today, and thanks to +Nik Photography, our RAW-to-JPEG conversion is now significantly improved. RAW images from more than 70 different cameras will look better as a result (full list below), and we’re tuning additional models over time."

I'm not sure who the author is, other than being a Google guy. My guess, based on his German origins, is he's one of the Nik engineers.

John
Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #67 on: September 27, 2013, 02:06:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Can you please elaborate what the differences are between PS CC and PS6? If you don't know, how can you tell they are worth $10?
for me, for example, the difference is really in ACR (I can't stand LR and I don't want a limited ACR in PSE - so I have to use PS)
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7903



WWW
« Reply #68 on: September 27, 2013, 03:23:32 AM »
ReplyReply

So today basically Nikon and Canon have the monopoly on DSLR cameras. I guess you are running out and purchasing a Pentax outfit with their huge assortment of lens just to keep the competition active in this market...right. Or do you shoot with a big bad Canon or Nikon?

I am sure that many of us would do just that if Canon and Nikon made the firmware of their cameras subscription based or decided to significantly raise their prices without a clear rationale.

Fortunately, they have been smart enough to understand that their ability to deliver perceived value and generate purchase desire across generations of product would be sufficient to maintain a healthy growth.

Japanese companies are also typically less impacted by share holders pressure and tend to feel that keeping as many customers happy as possible is important. This does not always work in their favor in the long run since it sometimes prevent them from release breakthrough products (although the Nikon 1 is IMHO a clear proof that this does not apply to Nikon, eventhough most folks at LL don't consider the Nikon 1 useful for their applications), but it is great when you invest in their line of products as a customer of theirs.

Having been in Japan for many years, my educated view is that this is the result of the humble people running these companies believing in concepts such a respect and gratitude. They are also typically paid 5-10 times less than their North American counterparts, which is another reason why they are less likely to take decisions putting personal greed ahead of the general interest of the eco-system they evolve in.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 04:04:30 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

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

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 27, 2013, 05:06:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Having been in Japan for many years, my educated view is that this is the result of the humble people running these companies believing in concepts such a respect and gratitude. They are also typically paid 5-10 times less than their North American counterparts, which is another reason why they are less likely to take decisions putting personal greed ahead of the general interest of the eco-system they evolve in.
Cough! Olympus. Cough!

Quote
Japanese companies are also typically less impacted by share holders pressure and tend to feel that keeping as many customers happy as possible is important.
I gather they don't do annual the dividend nonsense, that hobbles Western companies, where they try to maximise revenue every year even if in the long term that is not necessarily the best way to run a business.
I think they work more on three year periods which gives time for investments to make a return.
Politics is the same, instant and usually ineffective fixes rather than long term useful solutions tend to be the norm. Because a fix that takes ten years to see full effect will be long after the next election.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


« Reply #70 on: September 27, 2013, 08:33:16 AM »
ReplyReply

So today basically Nikon and Canon have the monopoly on DSLR cameras. I guess you are running out and purchasing a Pentax outfit with their huge assortment of lens just to keep the competition active in this market...right. Or do you shoot with a big bad Canon or Nikon?

It's ok if you can't quite grasp the concept of how the consumer/customer benefits from a competitive marketplace.

Imagine, if Adobe had a real head-to-head competitor your monthly subscription for the Photographer package might only be $4.99 a month with even more features and benefits. I guess that is just too much to comprehend for some folks.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #71 on: September 27, 2013, 08:43:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Imagine, if Adobe had a real head-to-head competitor your monthly subscription for the Photographer package might only be $4.99 a month with even more features and benefits. I guess that is just too much to comprehend for some folks.

I can comprehend pigs flying but haven't see any evidence of this possibility on any kind of scale. Nor, since around 1990 with the competition of ColorStudio have I seen any competition to Photoshop worth looking into. Oh, I guess we could add Live Picture for some limited competitive functionality. So imaging a product half as good and half the price of a Photoshop subscription is within the realm of reality. Comprehending a product that's better at half the price? Not impossible but if the 23 year history of products that provide Photoshop functionality is any indication, you might as well imagine pigs flying over your home once a month and dropping a $10 bill into your back yard. Now back to the real world...
Logged

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

Posts: 547


« Reply #72 on: September 27, 2013, 09:18:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Now back to the real world...

The essence of ButchM 's post was,

.. the concept of how the consumer/customer benefits from a competitive marketplace.

He did preface his exaggerated exemplar post with the word 'Imagine' . Not sure why you felt the need to respond with such aggressiveness, particularly on a point on which he is correct.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 09:44:28 AM by Manoli » Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 181


« Reply #73 on: September 27, 2013, 09:21:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I can comprehend pigs flying but haven't see any evidence of this possibility on any kind of scale. Nor, since around 1990 with the competition of ColorStudio have I seen any competition to Photoshop worth looking into. Oh, I guess we could add Live Picture for some limited competitive functionality. So imaging a product half as good and half the price of a Photoshop subscription is within the realm of reality. Comprehending a product that's better at half the price? Not impossible but if the 23 year history of products that provide Photoshop functionality is any indication, you might as well imagine pigs flying over your home once a month and dropping a $10 bill into your back yard. Now back to the real world...

Andrew ... C'mon now ... I didn't say it was reality or even likely. Simply pointing out that competition has considerable impact on pricing and performance in the business world. When you have another provider nipping at your heels, you have to stay sharp to maintain your place in the market. If you wish to believe that Photoshop could not be a better product today if Adobe had a serious competitor, that's ok ... but since you are a history buff, you may want to refer to other examples over the years where competition has absolutely benefited most everyone involved.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3582


« Reply #74 on: September 27, 2013, 09:57:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Not sure why you felt the need to respond with such aggressiveness, particularly on a point on which he is correct.

It makes one wonder indeed. Apparently the concept that competition offers benefits, is a bit hard to grasp for some. In addition, while the workflow may not be as convenient, there are several partial alternative solutions that offer higher quality. That also seems to fly over the head of some that think that Adobe's solutions are the be all and end all, they aren't. Like all software, some things are good, some are not that good.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9004



WWW
« Reply #75 on: September 27, 2013, 10:27:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Andrew ... C'mon now ... I didn't say it was reality or even likely. Simply pointing out that competition has considerable impact on pricing and performance in the business world.
To that I agree. But the premise of Adobe having a real head-to-head competitor for a monthly subscription at $4.99 a month with even more features and benefits is about as likely as flying pigs. On paper it sounds great and easy and something someone should provide. The reality is in 23 years, that never got close to happening. Why?
Logged

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

Posts: 181


« Reply #76 on: September 27, 2013, 10:38:43 AM »
ReplyReply

To that I agree. But the premise of Adobe having a real head-to-head competitor for a monthly subscription at $4.99 a month with even more features and benefits is about as likely as flying pigs.

Sometimes sarcasm can be a wasted effort in the written form ... I was merely responding to one silly analogy with another ...
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 350


« Reply #77 on: September 27, 2013, 01:40:50 PM »
ReplyReply

It's ok if you can't quite grasp the concept of how the consumer/customer benefits from a competitive marketplace.

Imagine, if Adobe had a real head-to-head competitor your monthly subscription for the Photographer package might only be $4.99 a month with even more features and benefits. I guess that is just too much to comprehend for some folks.

Don't be an ass!

Obviously everyone wants competition and a choice...but why has there been no competition to date for professional level complete image processing package to Adobe? Corel gave it a run, but failed badly. There are a bunch of niche products out there, but nothing as a complete package.

Until someone else steps up to the plate an offers a "real" competitive package to PS, I don't see how anyone who is serious about the quality of their photos would not continue to use PS.
Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #78 on: September 27, 2013, 02:25:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Until someone else steps up to the plate an offers a "real" competitive package to PS, I don't see how anyone who is serious about the quality of their photos would not continue to use PS.

Thank you for stating the bleedin' obvious.
Where has anybody in this thread stated that they will NOT continue using PS in the immediate future ?

The dissatisfaction lies not in the product but in matters which have been discussed 'ad nauseam' in a multitude of other threads. There really is no need to go into yet another CC discussion, at least in this thead, which is what you seem to be aiming for.

As for prefacing your post by calling another member an 'ass' - a gratuitous and unnecessary insult. Nuff said ?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 02:43:42 PM by Manoli » Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 350


« Reply #79 on: September 27, 2013, 03:04:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for stating the bleedin' obvious.
Where has anybody in this thread stated that they will NOT continue using PS in the immediate future ?

The dissatisfaction lies not in the product but in matters which have been discussed 'ad nauseam' in a multitude of other threads. There really is no need to go into yet another CC discussion, at least in this thead, which is what you seem to be aiming for.

As for prefacing your post by calling another member an 'ass' - a gratuitous and unnecessary insult. Nuff said ?

Well if someone puts down other fellow members with statements like "I guess that is just too much to comprehend for some folks.", what would call them. I think my statement was very appropriate in this case.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad