A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 4th 13, 11:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Over the weekend I purchased a Nikon D3200 camera. 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.

I didn't read most of your rant but here's what you do:

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

2. Keep using CS3 as before.


Thank you both very much. Sorry about the rant.... Been months since I
had a good one and that certainly did not qualify as a good one.
However I am disapointed in Adobe. Actually I started out just to say
I thought this was going to hurt them. Also, this is what I get for
having lived in a cave for a couple of years.

Elements you say?


I didn't say Elements at all.


i suggested elements.

I said: 1) Get the free DNG converter and 2) _continue_ using CS3 with
the DNG files instead of the NEF.


the most recent version of elements will be far more convenient than
that.

however, dng converter is free.
  #12  
Old June 4th 13, 11:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

As far a GIMP goes, it isn't Photoshop and it doesn't have the
features that Photoshop has...by a long shot. But, if it has the
features that *you* feel are sufficient, it's state-of-the-art.


the gimp is in no way state of the art.

it might be 'good enough' but it's 10 years out of date with poor
performance too.
  #13  
Old June 5th 13, 12:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 703
Default Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

On 6/3/2013 8:30 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-06-03 16:19:27 -0700, said:

I have been a Photoshop user since the very first release of the
software for the PC way back in what, 1990? 1994?? Both personal and
at all of the screenprinting companies I managed over the years and
right up to my own personal photography work. I looked at GIMP once,
Same with COREL..... and a few other wannabe's.

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.

Over the weekend I purchased a Nikon D3200 camera. 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.


We feel your pain. :-(
This has been discussed in the photo NGs at some length, and many of us
here have discussed, and weighed the pro & cons of the Adobe "Creative
Cloud" (CC). Many of us have decided that CS6 is the end of the Adobe
upgrade treadmill. Few of us here are pro-photographers, or graphic
artists/designers and we have chosen to stick with CS5 or CS6 and go no
further.

Personally, over the years I have paid for PS7, PS-CS, then up graded to
CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5, & finally CS6. I use Lightroom 4 (LR4)+CS6 in my
workflow.

The Adobe upgrade path changed several years ago and for you an upgrade
from CS3 to CS5 dead-ended some time ago. You are correct the only
purchasable upgrade you could make today is CS5 to CS6. So, your
purchase options are to pay $699 to Adobe for the last of their
inventory, or $650 via Amazon for the last of their inventory. None of
those are appealing.

Now that you have a new camera which is not supported by ACR in your
CS3, you have several options:
1: Search out other available software options.

2: Stick with CS3 and add Lightroom 4 , currently available for
$97.99 from Amazon. This will give you all you need for cataloging and
processing of current RAW files, and you will still be able to use CS3.
(this is the solution I recommend)
There are some advantages to this as you would be using the 2012 RAW
process engine, which is a vast improvement over the 2003 version in CS3.

3: Download the current version of the free DNR convertor from Adobe,
and continue with CS3.

...or 4: Take a deep breath and consider the actual annual cost of
the subscription model for single module rental of Photoshop compared to
$699 purchase or $199 upgrade. The initial offering of $10/month for a
single module for the first year, $120/year vs $199 for an upgrade, or
$120/year vs $699 for a purchase of CS6. After the initial offering the
single module rental goes to $20/month or $240/year and a permanent
upgrade path. You still get to have two installations desktop/laptop. If
I was not a retired old fart, I might well consider the CC subscription
route.

Le Snip

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




So far, I have found DXO is a better than decent RAW converter, with
more capability than ACR. I will have a more informed opinion as I
continue to learn the produce and they come out with the promised
upgrade to permit selective adjustments.

--
PeterN
  #14  
Old June 5th 13, 01:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

It's a shame that Adobe does not have a less expensive upgrade option,


Well, there is. Elements is $99.99 if you order from Adobe.


on sale for $69 thru father's day, directly from adobe.

You'll
see a $60 figure bandied about, and you can get it for that, but if
you are more comfortable dealing directly with the source then the
Adobe price is reasonable.


nothing wrong with buying it elsewhere.
  #15  
Old June 5th 13, 04:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul Ciszek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 244
Default Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"


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.

--
Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
pciszek at panix dot com | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
Autoreply is disabled | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
| --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984
  #16  
Old June 5th 13, 04:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul Ciszek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 244
Default Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"


In article , philo wrote:

Since I do minimal processing , GIMP is way more than I need...however


Does GIMP support more than 8 bits per color channel yet? Last I checked,
it was still just talk.

Also, I tried installing the add-ons that were supposed to make GIMP (under
Linux) able to read camera raw files, but they didn't work.

--
Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
pciszek at panix dot com | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
Autoreply is disabled | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
| --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984
  #17  
Old June 5th 13, 04:44 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

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


converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
however.
  #18  
Old June 5th 13, 12:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 703
Default Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

On 6/4/2013 11:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

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


converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
however.


Have you his images?


--
PeterN
  #19  
Old June 5th 13, 05:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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


converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
however.


Have you his images?


i don't need them.

dng does not degrade anything. converting to dng is lossless.

in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
guaranteed.

it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
original raw) degraded it.
  #20  
Old June 5th 13, 05:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 703
Default Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

On 6/5/2013 12:22 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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

converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
however.


Have you his images?


i don't need them.

dng does not degrade anything. converting to dng is lossless.

in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
guaranteed.

it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
original raw) degraded it.


Who is making this guaranty?
Are you saying that it is not possible for a programming error, or other
anomaly to cause a problem during conversion?

Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
it, without examination of the before and after images in question.


--
PeterN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DxO says Adobe Lens profiling has "shortcomings" Alan Browne Digital SLR Cameras 11 May 23rd 10 11:48 PM
[review] "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers"by Scott Kelby Troy Piggins[_32_] Digital SLR Cameras 27 December 15th 09 07:50 PM
[review] "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers" by Scott Kelby Phred Digital Photography 4 November 24th 09 06:02 PM
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ \The Great One\ Digital Photography 0 July 14th 09 12:04 AM
Adobe euphemism: "Most comprehesive = most expensive." RichA Digital SLR Cameras 13 July 7th 07 06:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.