Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

On 2013-06-06 14:46:54 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.06.05 22:10 , Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-06-05 17:07:18 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG.

2. Keep using CS3 as before.

FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
Olympus OM-D pictures.

DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so
that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of
course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly
to .DNG.

DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the
file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even with no
adjustments in the DNG.

That is an issue with the viewer not the DNG.
With some cameras (particularly Nikon) not all unadjusted RAW files
reflect the saturation, contrast, and sharpness found in in camera
JPEGs. Nikon unprocessed NEFs are typically soft and somewhat
desaturated. When converted to DNG the same properties are there.

I don't really consider it an "issue". I'm just stating that the
unadjusted DNG looks a bit dark and muddy in either Bridge or
FastStone. Since I've been using those two viewers since first
starting to shoot RAW, I'm used to it. I know that once I open the
file in CS that the image will be workable. I don't let what I see in
the viewer put me off.

It's not a complaint. It's an observation.

The way you state it above, viewing it in Bridge (subject to profile
settings - and also shows changes made in ACR (if any)) could confuse
the issue.

The way to check is to take the original raw through to ACR and see how
it looks. Compare that to the original raw converted to DNG and opened
for the first time in ACR. They should look identical.

Just for the Hell of it, here are two unadjusted NEF/DNG comparisons.
For what it is worth my feeble eyeballs cannot detect any difference
between them.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_228w.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_229w.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013.06.06 18:06 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In article ,
says...
In short I would like all these overpaid MBA's to go a little OLD
SCHOOL and learn what CUSTOMER SATISFACTION is all about and what
satisfied customers mean to the health of a major company.

The sad reality is that many companies think customers are idiots and
enjoy seeing their customers suffer. That's what we call
"Schadenfreude" here in Germany.


I thought Shaddenfreud was the guilty pleasure at others misfortune?


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013.06.06 18:40 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-06-06 14:46:54 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.06.05 22:10 , Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-06-05 17:07:18 -0700, Tony Cooper
said:

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to
DNG.

2. Keep using CS3 as before.

FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
Olympus OM-D pictures.

DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so
that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes
PS of
course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save
directly
to .DNG.

DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the
file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even with no
adjustments in the DNG.

That is an issue with the viewer not the DNG.
With some cameras (particularly Nikon) not all unadjusted RAW files
reflect the saturation, contrast, and sharpness found in in camera
JPEGs. Nikon unprocessed NEFs are typically soft and somewhat
desaturated. When converted to DNG the same properties are there.

I don't really consider it an "issue". I'm just stating that the
unadjusted DNG looks a bit dark and muddy in either Bridge or
FastStone. Since I've been using those two viewers since first
starting to shoot RAW, I'm used to it. I know that once I open the
file in CS that the image will be workable. I don't let what I see in
the viewer put me off.

It's not a complaint. It's an observation.

The way you state it above, viewing it in Bridge (subject to profile
settings - and also shows changes made in ACR (if any)) could confuse
the issue.

The way to check is to take the original raw through to ACR and see
how it looks. Compare that to the original raw converted to DNG and
opened for the first time in ACR. They should look identical.

Just for the Hell of it, here are two unadjusted NEF/DNG comparisons.
For what it is worth my feeble eyeballs cannot detect any difference
between them.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_228w.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_229w.jpg

Nor should one - but the point of observation should really be what
shows in ACR with inputs of the NEF and the DNG from that same NEF.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On 2013-06-06 15:30:00 -0700, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2013060611493030337-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2013-06-06 11:16:29 -0700, PeterN said:

On 6/6/2013 11:28 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip

Lightroom & PSE are not currently on the subscription hit list, so for
now sales from vendors other than Adobe will continue as usual. As to
how Amazon and other vendors sell at lower prices than Adobe's retail
set prices, they obviously make wholesale arrangements/deals with those
vendors.
As to the CC, all vendors will eventually loose out, and will not have
any of the Creative Suite products to sell.


I'm not sure what effect this will have on the plug-in publishers.
One side of me say they will fill in a lot of the gaps between
Essentials and CC. The other side says that I'm not certain they will
be able to continue development of seamless plug-ins for CC.

I don't see why the plug-in publishers would have any difficulty at all.
The CC edition of Photoshop is downloaded to, and installed on the
subscriber's computer where it runs. The separately purchased plug-ins,
some of which are stand-alone applications, would be installed in
whichever copies of eligible editing software is installed on the
user's computer. Nothing would change.

For example, I use the NIK suite, and when it installs the plug-ins, it
places them where they fit. In my case CS5. CS6, LR4, & PSE9. If I
subscribed to the CC, I would like to believe that they would install
without issue.

As for development, I am sure that most of the plug-in publishers have
working arrangements with Adobe.

I really don't understand where people are getting the notion that CC
runs on Adobe's servers. If Adobe is going to be providing enough
server-power and bandwidth to support CS6 with the same performance
level as a quad-core local PC they are going to have to charge a Hell of
a lot more than $50 a month.

Yup!
All Adobe is doing with the CC is providing the subscriber with a
download of their rental optimized software. That software runs on the
subscriber's computer as it has always done in the past, with the
exception that it calls home to check that the rent has been paid.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 6/6/2013 7:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-06-06 15:30:00 -0700, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2013060611493030337-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2013-06-06 11:16:29 -0700, PeterN said:

On 6/6/2013 11:28 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip

Lightroom & PSE are not currently on the subscription hit list, so for
now sales from vendors other than Adobe will continue as usual. As to
how Amazon and other vendors sell at lower prices than Adobe's retail
set prices, they obviously make wholesale arrangements/deals with
those
vendors.
As to the CC, all vendors will eventually loose out, and will not have
any of the Creative Suite products to sell.


I'm not sure what effect this will have on the plug-in publishers.
One side of me say they will fill in a lot of the gaps between
Essentials and CC. The other side says that I'm not certain they will
be able to continue development of seamless plug-ins for CC.

I don't see why the plug-in publishers would have any difficulty at all.
The CC edition of Photoshop is downloaded to, and installed on the
subscriber's computer where it runs. The separately purchased plug-ins,
some of which are stand-alone applications, would be installed in
whichever copies of eligible editing software is installed on the
user's computer. Nothing would change.

For example, I use the NIK suite, and when it installs the plug-ins, it
places them where they fit. In my case CS5. CS6, LR4, & PSE9. If I
subscribed to the CC, I would like to believe that they would install
without issue.

As for development, I am sure that most of the plug-in publishers have
working arrangements with Adobe.

I really don't understand where people are getting the notion that CC
runs on Adobe's servers. If Adobe is going to be providing enough
server-power and bandwidth to support CS6 with the same performance
level as a quad-core local PC they are going to have to charge a Hell of
a lot more than $50 a month.

Yup!
All Adobe is doing with the CC is providing the subscriber with a
download of their rental optimized software. That software runs on the
subscriber's computer as it has always done in the past, with the
exception that it calls home to check that the rent has been paid.


And what happens if I have no Internet connection?


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

And what happens if I have no Internet connection?

depends for how long. it will work for up to 30 days for monthly
subscribers and up to 99 days for yearly subscribers without an
internet connection.

On 2013-06-06 16:29:13 -0700, PeterN said:

On 6/6/2013 7:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-06-06 15:30:00 -0700, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2013060611493030337-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2013-06-06 11:16:29 -0700, PeterN said:

On 6/6/2013 11:28 AM, Savageduck wrote:


snip

Lightroom & PSE are not currently on the subscription hit list, so for
now sales from vendors other than Adobe will continue as usual. As to
how Amazon and other vendors sell at lower prices than Adobe's retail
set prices, they obviously make wholesale arrangements/deals with
those
vendors.
As to the CC, all vendors will eventually loose out, and will not have
any of the Creative Suite products to sell.


I'm not sure what effect this will have on the plug-in publishers.
One side of me say they will fill in a lot of the gaps between
Essentials and CC. The other side says that I'm not certain they will
be able to continue development of seamless plug-ins for CC.

I don't see why the plug-in publishers would have any difficulty at all.
The CC edition of Photoshop is downloaded to, and installed on the
subscriber's computer where it runs. The separately purchased plug-ins,
some of which are stand-alone applications, would be installed in
whichever copies of eligible editing software is installed on the
user's computer. Nothing would change.

For example, I use the NIK suite, and when it installs the plug-ins, it
places them where they fit. In my case CS5. CS6, LR4, & PSE9. If I
subscribed to the CC, I would like to believe that they would install
without issue.

As for development, I am sure that most of the plug-in publishers have
working arrangements with Adobe.

I really don't understand where people are getting the notion that CC
runs on Adobe's servers. If Adobe is going to be providing enough
server-power and bandwidth to support CS6 with the same performance
level as a quad-core local PC they are going to have to charge a Hell of
a lot more than $50 a month.

Yup!
All Adobe is doing with the CC is providing the subscriber with a
download of their rental optimized software. That software runs on the
subscriber's computer as it has always done in the past, with the
exception that it calls home to check that the rent has been paid.


And what happens if I have no Internet connection?

Then how did you download it in the first place?

I believe for the monthly subscribers there will be a call home at
sometime in the 30 day period. For annual subscribers the call home is
once in a 90 day period. If contact isn't made, I understand a 10 day
grace period goes into effect.

The CC software will attempt to call home when you open it, and in the
startup routine determines that the call should be made. All the calls
home are initiated by the installed software, not by an Adobe server
pinging your computer.

Basically, if you have any CC software installed on your laptop, and
you travel to a location where you cannot make an internet connection
the software will still run. If at anytime in that period it attempts
to call home and cannot, the grace period is initiated.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-06-06 15:49:35 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.06.06 18:40 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-06-06 14:46:54 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2013.06.05 22:10 , Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-06-05 17:07:18 -0700, Tony Cooper
said:

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to
DNG.

2. Keep using CS3 as before.

FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
Olympus OM-D pictures.

DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so
that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes
PS of
course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save
directly
to .DNG.

DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the
file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even with no
adjustments in the DNG.

That is an issue with the viewer not the DNG.
With some cameras (particularly Nikon) not all unadjusted RAW files
reflect the saturation, contrast, and sharpness found in in camera
JPEGs. Nikon unprocessed NEFs are typically soft and somewhat
desaturated. When converted to DNG the same properties are there.

I don't really consider it an "issue". I'm just stating that the
unadjusted DNG looks a bit dark and muddy in either Bridge or
FastStone. Since I've been using those two viewers since first
starting to shoot RAW, I'm used to it. I know that once I open the
file in CS that the image will be workable. I don't let what I see in
the viewer put me off.

It's not a complaint. It's an observation.

The way you state it above, viewing it in Bridge (subject to profile
settings - and also shows changes made in ACR (if any)) could confuse
the issue.

The way to check is to take the original raw through to ACR and see
how it looks. Compare that to the original raw converted to DNG and
opened for the first time in ACR. They should look identical.

Just for the Hell of it, here are two unadjusted NEF/DNG comparisons.
For what it is worth my feeble eyeballs cannot detect any difference
between them.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_228w.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_229w.jpg

Nor should one - but the point of observation should really be what
shows in ACR with inputs of the NEF and the DNG from that same NEF.

Well, if you insist. Here are the NEF & converted DNG, opened in ACR
with zero adjustment in each.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_232w.jpg

Further evidence presented to my rapidly softening brain, that the
conversion from NEF to DNG is as effective as duplicating the NEF.
....with one exception. The NEF is 20.1MB and the DNG is 27.2MB.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Alan Browne
says...

The sad reality is that many companies think customers are idiots and
enjoy seeing their customers suffer. That's what we call
"Schadenfreude" here in Germany.


I thought Shaddenfreud was the guilty pleasure at others misfortune?

Correct. The misfortune is buying their crappy products.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article ,
wrote:

I have been a Photoshop user since the very first release of the
software for the PC way back in what, 1990? 1994??

1992 was the first Windows release.

Through all the years I've been a loyal Adobe customer and never
really considered anything else as the Photoshop products always did
well for me.

Of course.

Over the weekend I purchased a Nikon D3200 camera.

Congratulations!

This camera uses NEF-Compressed RAW format. I use Photoshop CS3
mostly out of laziness in updating. Also though there is the cost
with seeming annual upgrades. CS3 did everything I need it to do so
if it ain't broken don't fix it.

My research and updating of CS3 let to naught as those of you in the
"know" will nod your heads to. So I figured I would call Adobe and
learn what the cost would be to upgrade.

Imagine my surprise when I learned of Adobe's current Subscription
demands to have the privilege of using their products.

Say what? I can't parse "Adobe's current Subscription demands to have
the privilege of using their products.". What do you mean?

I understand some Harvard MBA's brilliant idea in try to develop a
"locked in" customer base.

What gave you that idea? Do you imagine that Adobe feels that Photoshop
has lots of viable compatitors and that "locking in" the customer was
the only way to ensure their brand loyalty?

I mean isn't that what every business wants? A SECURE market share! I
understand some Fisk Economics PhD coming up with the idea that a
steady flow of cash would be far easier to manage than the normal ebb
and flow of cash trending. It cuts into your sailing and golf time to
actually have to MANAGE your cash flow doesn't it?

Sure, subscription based income evens out the money flow.

So now I am faced now with being a long time and loyal customer of yet
another economic STEAMROLLER in the form of a massive corporation that
begs for my hard earned $$$ without wanting to work as hard at
customer SERVICE as I must in MY business.

Didn't you just say that you used CS3, which worked, and you have no
reason to fix what isn't broken?

This locked in customer base, whether it is a 2 year cell phone
CONTRACT or an ongoing subscription for the privilege of using Adobe's
products is, in my humble Opinion complete and utter bull****.

How do you figure it is "bull****"? This implies some devious motives on
Adobes part. Could you perhaps share the line of reasoning you used to
come to this conclusion?

Let's try this concept: Develop a Superior Product. Sell it at a fair
market price by BUILDING VALUE in your product. THEN secure your
market share through EXEMPLARY customer service and support! THAT is
how you build a LOYAL customer base and market share!

So, uh, Adobe already has the superior product(s), they've sold it at a
pretty high price and I've never had any problem with their support.

Adobe, however, have had some serious problems with people pirating
their software, which means loss of income, which seriously limits their
capability to offer support and/or development.

In short I would like all these overpaid MBA's to go a little OLD
SCHOOL and learn what CUSTOMER SATISFACTION is all about and what
satisfied customers mean to the health of a major company.

I'm quite certain that software piracy have more serious effects on a
major company than a few ****ed off customers that would rather own the
software.

Didn't they teach you in your MBA classes that Loyal customers grow
from HAPPY and PLEASED buyers that perceive VALUE form the spending
of their hard earned dollars on your products!

I am a happy customer that is currently paying for the creative cloud
and feel I get great value for this deal. In fact, to me the entire
master collection just got a lot more affordable. Just like subscription
money flow evens out their income, it also evens out my expenses.

That's not good enough for the Marketing Gestapo today though. They
know that the state of customer service in America today is pathetic!

Oh, ok. I've only ever been in contact with Adobes European support,
which has been excellent.

They KNOW they cannot compete toe to toe AND **** off their clientele
with crappy service! So, they figure a captive clientele is better.

In what way can't Adobe compete "toe to toe"? With whom?

No It's not! Now I find alternatives to Photoshop. When I leave a
company with my loyalty crapped on...I will never go back.

I'm quite sure that the majority of users they are losing in this switch
are users who pirate the software anyway, so they aren't actually "lost".

In fact, they might win some actual paying customers..

This is going to hurt Adobe badly...... Oh and the ONLY people diving
feet first into this CLOUD bull**** like Adobe and every other company
is touting so heavily.......is the WORST idea EVER. You might as well
give your sensitive information to the Taliban!

So buying products from Adobe is like giving information to terrorists?
This seem like a reasonable argument to you?

Farewell Adobe...... It's been nice but I'm done with y'all!

I'm sure they're going to change back to the old ways, now that you're
leaving



--
Sandman[.net]