Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

In article 2013060611493030337-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

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

no need.

all that's needed is download the plug-in sdk and start writing.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

how in the world do you get that?

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

nowhere have i contradicted myself.

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."

perhaps you should change your name to "illiterate".

On 6/6/2013 2:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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 hope you are right, but I have not seen that issue clarified.

--
PeterN

On 6/6/2013 3:37 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

how in the world do you get that?

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

nowhere have i contradicted myself.

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."

perhaps you should change your name to "illiterate".


Your reasoning is conspicuous by its absence. All you do is deny, even
when confronted with your own words. If said am imae was red, you would
deny that fact by giving a sefinitin of purple.

Byw EOD

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

how in the world do you get that?

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

nowhere have i contradicted myself.

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."

perhaps you should change your name to "illiterate".

Your reasoning is conspicuous by its absence. All you do is deny, even
when confronted with your own words. If said am imae was red, you would
deny that fact by giving a sefinitin of purple.

that's flat out false. stop lying.

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.


Paul, please post an original raw image from your OM-D.

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

On 2013.06.06 11:13 , PeterN wrote:
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.

With the subject matter at hand it is a very reasonable assumption.

It is possible that Paul had the "lossy compression" mode of
DNG-converter on and that could make a perceptible change - but it is
not the default mode. In the default mode the image loaded from DNG
will be identical to the raw.

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

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.

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

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.
--

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 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.