Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

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.

Remember, you cannot directly view a DNG, or RAW image file in
Photoshop without running it through ACR. You can use Bridge to view
unmolested RAW, DNG, & JPEG side-by-side to make the comparison.

If I open a NEF and a converted DNG of the same image in my simple
viewer, Apple's "Preview" I see no difference between them. The same is
true making a side-by-side comparison of unprocessed RAW, and converted
DNG files in Bridge.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013-06-05 17:15:48 -0700, said:

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:18:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

Yes, I was recognizing both your early contributions.....and
overlooking my rudeness.

I used Elements back in it's very first iteration. However I also had
Photoshop and used it heavily in the printing industry so it seemed
redundant back then and I have not kept uip with it having stuck with
PS all along.

So, I am now venturing outside my comfort zone and "broadening my
horizons" as my anger management obsessive girlfriend constantly
reminds me. Let's just face it...Old men do not like change! At least
I don't...

I am going to grab the DNG converter tonight. Thanks much both of
ya's.

I still recommend test driving Lightroom 4 to use with your copy of CS3.
You might even find less need for anymore than the occasional use of CS3.

Here is a brief overview of some of the develop capabilities of
Lightroom 4 by Julieanne Kost;

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/getting-st...tunning-images
?

The trial download link:
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/i...shop_lightroom

....and if you decide to buy, check with Amazon, as they have much
better prices than Adobe direct.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2013.06.05 20:07 , Tony Cooper wrote:
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.

Color profile settings are doing that, not file content. DNG is a raw
wrapper, nothing more.

IOW, reading the camera raw (say an .NEF) into ACR and reading the .DNG
made from the same .NEF into ACR should look identical (no setting
changes in ACR):

Original raw --+---------------------------------------------- ACRView
|
+-----DNG-Converter----- .DNG file ---------- ACRView

Those should look the same on the screen in ACR.

"Viewers", ACR and photoshop all present raw according to color profiles
in use as well as whatever settings you have (such as in ACR).

In Photoshop there are a lot of "View" options for profiles, proof,
printer and so on that it is easy to have one on and forget it.

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

On 2013.06.05 20:15 , wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:18:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

Yes, I was recognizing both your early contributions.....and
overlooking my rudeness.

I used Elements back in it's very first iteration. However I also had
Photoshop and used it heavily in the printing industry so it seemed
redundant back then and I have not kept uip with it having stuck with
PS all along.

So, I am now venturing outside my comfort zone and "broadening my
horizons" as my anger management obsessive girlfriend constantly
reminds me. Let's just face it...Old men do not like change! At least
I don't...

I am going to grab the DNG converter tonight. Thanks much both of
ya's.

Good luck with it.




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

On 6/5/2013 4:51 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN



clarity snip


you're arguing semantics again.

Last time I looked I learned that words are a means of communication.
the purpose for discussion is to exchange thoughts, which is why most of
us use words with a clear meaning.

the words i used have a very clear meaning.


OK Take your choice. your counter a discussion by claiming I am arguing
semantics.
Since you use words with "a clear meaning," by implication that means,
you were wrong.

Which is it. were you wrong then,m or are you wrong now?

do you not understand what lossless means? apparently not. here's the
definition:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=define%3A+lossless
1. Of or relating to data compression without loss of information.

normally lossless is used with compression. however, with dng, the raw
data is not compressed, it's just in a different container. it's the
*same* raw data, with additional information needed to process it
without specifics about the camera.

if you had any clue about this, you wouldn't be making such an utter
fool of yourself trying to argue semantics.

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.

by understanding what dng is and what lossless means.

And without looking at the images, you somehow know that there were no
errors in the conversion process.

i don't need any of them.

Perhaps you should change your nymto "clairvoyant."


--
PeterN

On 6/5/2013 7:22 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2013.06.05 18:50 , nospam 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.

try explaining that to peter.

You're doing fine.



He is assuming that errors never occur. I do not think that is a valid
assumption.

--
PeterN

On 2013-06-06 05:52:31 -0700, Whisky-dave said:

On Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:44:19 AM UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:

I still recommend test driving Lightroom 4 to use with your copy of CS3.
You might even find less need for anymore than the occasional use of CS3.

Here is a brief overview of some of the develop capabilities of
Lightroom 4 by Julieanne Kost;


http://tv.adobe.com/watch/getting-st...tunning-images

The

trial download link:
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/i...shop_lightroom

...and if you decide to buy, check with Amazon, as they have much
better prices than Adobe direct.

Poor amazon will lose out come the subscription method. ;-(
Makes me wonder how can amazon sell cheaper than Adobe can.

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.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.



--
PeterN

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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , PeterN
wrote:

I'm not sure what effect this will have on the plug-in publishers.

none.

One side of me say they will fill in a lot of the gaps between
Essentials and CC.

what's essentials?

do you mean elements?

weren't you going on about proper use of english? looks like it's you
who has the problem, not me.

The other side says that I'm not certain they will
be able to continue development of seamless plug-ins for CC.

why wouldn't they? adobe isn't going to stop them.

you're talking out your ass again.