Has your memory card ever worn out?

nospam wrote:
In article , Neil Gould
wrote:

There was no difficulty in processing large images (50 meg)
because the actual image file was never loaded into RAM. And, there
were applications that worked much faster than PhotoShop, which was
a "late comer" to digital image editing.

actually it wasn't a 'latecomer' at all. before photoshop, what
existed were little more than paint programs. they were very
primitive and not particularly good.

I completely disagree with your notions about this. There were
several professional image editing applications on the market long
before PhotoShop was created.

not on low cost desktop computers, there weren't.

"Low cost" is always relative to the application. My $10k desktop computers
that I used for image editing in the mid '80s were "low cost" compared to
the dedicated workstations that were the only competitive alternatives.

What do you think folks used to edit images from high-end drum
scanners?

really expensive software. photoshop might seem expensive but it's
much cheaper than what came before it.

Photoshop never seemed expensive to me. I've paid over $5k for some of the
image editing software I used back then. Photoshop never was all that good
of a program compared to what was available, even some that cost *less* than
Photoshop, like the ULead products were more efficient and flexible. That's
why Adobe bought them and shelved them. I have PhotoShop for the same reason
that folks get ProTools, not because it's all that good.

--
best regards,

Neil

Photoshop never seemed expensive to me.

Not if you're a professional photographer. But for someone who doesn't earn
their living doing graphics work, the price is several times beyond
outrageous.

Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its site, I was
amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of its products did (or
didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or not). When I complained about
this, I received pretty much a "we're Adobe -- we don't give a damn"
response.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Photoshop never seemed expensive to me.

Not if you're a professional photographer. But for someone who
doesn't earn their living doing graphics work, the price is several
times beyond outrageous.

Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its site, I
was amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of its
products did (or didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or not).
When I complained about this, I received pretty much a "we're Adobe
-- we don't give a damn" response.

Since professionals have used many similar products for extended periods of
time, Adobe's explanations of what their products do are adequate to provide
a basic understanding of them. There are functional details and workflow
implications that can not be adequately covered on a website, and sometimes
even take a couple of years of in-service use to sort out.

--
best regards,

Neil

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Photoshop never seemed expensive to me.

Not if you're a professional photographer. But for someone who doesn't earn
their living doing graphics work, the price is several times beyond
outrageous.

Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its site, I was
amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of its products did (or
didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or not). When I complained about
this, I received pretty much a "we're Adobe -- we don't give a damn"
response.



http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/topics.html

"CS6 Help PDF (20 MB)"

http://helpx.adobe.com/pdf/photoshop_reference.pdf

That's better than when I bought Photoshop, in that at
the time, the paper copy of manual in the box was the reference.
I don't think there was anything that detailed I could look
at before hand.

Paul

Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its site,
I was amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of
its products did (or didn't) do, and why you might purchase it
(or not). When I complained about this, I received pretty much
a "we're Adobe -- we don't give a damn" response.

Since professionals have used many similar products for extended
periods of time, Adobe's explanations of what their products do are
adequate to provide a basic understanding of them.

And what of those who haven't used them? There are hundreds of new potential
customers every day who are ignorant of such things. What do you do...
ignore them?

For example... What is the relationship between Lightroom and Photoshop?
Lightroom apparently does some things Photoshop also does. Why would I use
one and not the other? Or both? How do these products interact (or not).
What are the advantages and tradeoffs?

One of the best sales tools is to clearly explain what your product can and
can't do, and how its features work with the features of other products in
your line. The goal is to get a "I like that -- I'll buy it!" reaction.
Adobe doesn't give a damn, probably because it has de facto monopoly on
image editing.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
news:
:

Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its site,
I was amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of
its products did (or didn't) do, and why you might purchase it
(or not). When I complained about this, I received pretty much
a "we're Adobe -- we don't give a damn" response.

Since professionals have used many similar products for extended
periods of time, Adobe's explanations of what their products do are
adequate to provide a basic understanding of them.

And what of those who haven't used them? There are hundreds of new potential
customers every day who are ignorant of such things. What do you do...
ignore them?

For example... What is the relationship between Lightroom and Photoshop?
Lightroom apparently does some things Photoshop also does. Why would I use
one and not the other? Or both? How do these products interact (or not).
What are the advantages and tradeoffs?

One of the best sales tools is to clearly explain what your product can and
can't do, and how its features work with the features of other products in
your line. The goal is to get a "I like that -- I'll buy it!" reaction.
Adobe doesn't give a damn, probably because it has de facto monopoly on
image editing.

I tend to avoid Adobe so as to stay off their expensive "update
treadmill" with each application, and to avoid the multitude of
expensive applications needed to do relatively simple things
(which is why I like Vegas - it alone incorporates several "apps."
in one reasonably priced program). And, for those interested in
just a good photo editor (but without some of the specialty
functions of PhotoShop that most users don't need), there is
the free Gimp 2.
--DR

Adobe, like most software of this type of application,
offers trial downloads. A comprehensive description
of the features of Photoshop would have to be book-like
in length.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about an overview of the product's
point and purpose.

On 2012-07-29 06:39:53 -0700, Paul said:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Photoshop never seemed expensive to me.

Not if you're a professional photographer. But for someone who doesn't earn
their living doing graphics work, the price is several times beyond
outrageous.

Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its site, I was
amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of its products did (or
didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or not). When I complained about
this, I received pretty much a "we're Adobe -- we don't give a damn"
response.



http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/topics.html

"CS6 Help PDF (20 MB)"

http://helpx.adobe.com/pdf/photoshop_reference.pdf

That's better than when I bought Photoshop, in that at
the time, the paper copy of manual in the box was the reference.
I don't think there was anything that detailed I could look
at before hand.

Paul

While the trend has been toward the downloadable PDF for most software
and many advanced products, with my purchase of CS2 when I upgraded
from PS7 I received both a full and comprehensive and detailed manual
of some 380 pages, and a free DVD from Kelby Training "Photoshop CS2
Power Session" which detailed all of the new features to be found in
that game changing release, and their basic use.

Since then however, cost cutting seems to have excluded the inclusion
of a manual of any type, and leaving the user to find advice in the
Adobe help files, forums, or some of the details found in the Photoshop
User, or NAPP Podcasts.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Since then however, cost cutting seems to have excluded
the inclusion of a manual of any type, and leaving the user
to find advice in the Adobe help files, forums, or some of
the details found in the Photoshop User, or NAPP Podcasts.

This has, unfortunately, has become pretty much the standard for almost all
software. It wouldn't be so bad if the documentation were of consistently
high quality -- but it isn't.

Regardless, what I was talking was things that are not necessarily answered
in a user manual. And if they are, they should be pulled out and displayed
on the Website.

On 2012-07-29 09:16:40 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
said:

Adobe, like most software of this type of application,
offers trial downloads. A comprehensive description
of the features of Photoshop would have to be book-like
in length.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about an overview of the product's
point and purpose.

"...an overview of the product's point and purpose"???

If you need that, you have a serious problem which might be beyond any
assistance you might find in the photo groups.

It has been clear from day one with PS1-7 what the "point and purpose"
of Photoshop was. It is and always has been a photo editor, with the
"point and purpose" to edit and adjust photographs and image files.
Most folks get that. With the move to the Creative Suite its various
parts have evolved.

The basic concept and features are spelled out on the Adobe web site,
If they don't meet, or if they exceed your requirements, don't buy it.
You might want to check out a trial demo version. If it doesn't suit
you, don't buy it, there might be another solution for you.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.html

--
Regards,

Savageduck