I Hope That Canon Watched Today's Apple Event

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 11:37:10 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 11:18:12 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 17:26:20 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Overall, I'm not at all thrilled with what Adobe has been
doing
in terms of their 'rental' business model ... I expect
that
when
they finally abandon Photoshop CS 6 that I'll replace it
with
PS Elements instead.

Yes, the subscription model seems to be the biggest
complaint
about
Adobe CC and Microsoft Office.

I wonder why ;-)

mostly because people hate change and like to complain.

Maybe but as with other products some people prefer to purchase
them
than
pay
on what we in the UK called the never never.

they can purchase whatever they want. nobody is stopping them.

you can only purchase what is on sale or being sold.

not if you're a fence... ;-p

Still true even if you are a fence.
A fence is a dealer in stolen goods.
A fence does NOT steal goods, he buys them from others then sells
the items on.

He buys stuff that ain't sold but stolen and reimburses the hands on
thiefs for their work...

so as I said no difference.

Sure it does, he buys stuff that ain't for sale!


You can not purchase adobe photoshop, yuo can NOT own photoshop.
You buy a licence to use it.

then you own the license and the right to use ps...

But that isn't owning photoshop is it.

I have a TV licence to watch the BBC I do NOT own the BBC.

But you finance it. Some folks would hold you responsible for that it
produce then...

Only those folk that think I have any choice in what the BBC produce.
and those shouldn't be arent allowed to walk the streets as normal people.

You can r 'n r and throw da telly out the window... Mine is most for
show, BTW but I want to create an illusion that I'm ordinary... YMMV! ;-p



My license is for 1 year.
I can only legally view what the BBC produces during that year, I don;t
own
anyhting they produce.

You own the right to watch their stuff...

Yep that's why I pay for the license, I can view but never own it.
--
teleportation kills

On 9/16/2015 12:26 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

which version to get depends how someone uses lr and/or ps. for some
people lightroom/photoshop cc is a better choice and for others
standalone is a better choice and for others the full creative suite is
the better choice.

also, lightroom standalone *will* advance further just as it always has.

Another time when fact is not differentiated from opinion.

what i wrote is a fact, not opinion.


Which horse will win in the race I plan to bet on.

--
PeterN

On 9/16/2015 1:21 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-16 16:43:47 +0000, PeterN said:

On 9/14/2015 6:30 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:14:48 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

The one plug-in I'd like to add is a better plug-in to reduce noise.

LR's is great. Have you used it yet?


If you are talking about PS, there are several ways.
Create a smart object to make it easy to go back and increase, or
decrease the effect, and use one of the methods I described below.

I agree that in PS the use of "Smart Objects/Filters" is a good way to
go. However, Bill isn't talking about PS he is talking about Lightroom
and the pretty easy to use, and effective NR found there.

Or: Duplicate the layer and use one of the following:
The NR filter in PS; the NR in the camera raw filter; or apply a very
slight surface blur. With any of the last three if you overdo it, you
can simply adjust the opacity of the duplicate layer.

(Duck, don't bother to make the obvious comment.)

Why would I comment on your methodology and workflow?

Well you and I don't always agree on acceptable noise levels. G


To start with adding surface blur is possibly the single worst, and
desperate method for dealing with noise.

Probably.

For me I haven't used the PS NR filter in years.

The NR filter in 2015 has been completely redone. I just started playing
with it.

NR in ACR is very good (It is the same as NR in LR). Howeve r, it works
best if applied to the RAW file during RAW processing. Otherwise, if you
have omitted the NR step in RAW processing it is best to open as a Smart
Object from ACR, which makes returning to ACR for any tweaking or adding
NR simpler, and more effective.

Then since you also have NIK and On1, they both have pretty effective NR
with NIK Define2 and the NR in Perfect Effects which can be used without
applying any of the effects.



Yep. I am not sure if NIK Define can be used as an LR plugin. I still
have to fully implement LR into my work flow.

--
PeterN

On 2015-09-17 15:35:59 +0000, PeterN said:

On 9/16/2015 1:21 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-09-16 16:43:47 +0000, PeterN said:

On 9/14/2015 6:30 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:14:48 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

The one plug-in I'd like to add is a better plug-in to reduce noise.

LR's is great. Have you used it yet?


If you are talking about PS, there are several ways.
Create a smart object to make it easy to go back and increase, or
decrease the effect, and use one of the methods I described below.

I agree that in PS the use of "Smart Objects/Filters" is a good way to
go. However, Bill isn't talking about PS he is talking about Lightroom
and the pretty easy to use, and effective NR found there.

Or: Duplicate the layer and use one of the following:
The NR filter in PS; the NR in the camera raw filter; or apply a very
slight surface blur. With any of the last three if you overdo it, you
can simply adjust the opacity of the duplicate layer.

(Duck, don't bother to make the obvious comment.)

Why would I comment on your methodology and workflow?

Well you and I don't always agree on acceptable noise levels. G


To start with adding surface blur is possibly the single worst, and
desperate method for dealing with noise.

Probably.

For me I haven't used the PS NR filter in years.

The NR filter in 2015 has been completely redone. I just started
playing with it.

NR in ACR is very good (It is the same as NR in LR). Howeve r, it works
best if applied to the RAW file during RAW processing. Otherwise, if you
have omitted the NR step in RAW processing it is best to open as a Smart
Object from ACR, which makes returning to ACR for any tweaking or adding
NR simpler, and more effective.

Then since you also have NIK and On1, they both have pretty effective NR
with NIK Define2 and the NR in Perfect Effects which can be used without
applying any of the effects.



Yep. I am not sure if NIK Define can be used as an LR plugin.

If you made a step by step installation of the NIK collection NIK Dfine
is installed in LR and can be used. The result is returned to LR as a
Tiff. It is a bit of a kludge, but it works. It is simpler to use the
LR NR. I leave Dfine 2 for PS.

I still have to fully implement LR into my work flow.

Try it, you might like it. These days I very seldom use ACR as LR gives
me all of that and more.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 13:27:59 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 11:37:10 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 11:18:12 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 17:26:20 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
In article
,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Overall, I'm not at all thrilled with what Adobe has
been
doing
in terms of their 'rental' business model ... I
expect
that
when
they finally abandon Photoshop CS 6 that I'll replace
it
with
PS Elements instead.

Yes, the subscription model seems to be the biggest
complaint
about
Adobe CC and Microsoft Office.

I wonder why ;-)

mostly because people hate change and like to complain.

Maybe but as with other products some people prefer to
purchase
them
than
pay
on what we in the UK called the never never.

they can purchase whatever they want. nobody is stopping them.

you can only purchase what is on sale or being sold.

not if you're a fence... ;-p

Still true even if you are a fence.
A fence is a dealer in stolen goods.
A fence does NOT steal goods, he buys them from others then sells
the items on.

He buys stuff that ain't sold but stolen and reimburses the hands on
thiefs for their work...

so as I said no difference.

Sure it does, he buys stuff that ain't for sale!

No he doesn't he only buys stuff that is for sale that's what makes him a
fence rather than the thief.

They ain't for sale if they are stolen, Bofo!


But you finance it. Some folks would hold you responsible for that it
produce then...

Only those folk that think I have any choice in what the BBC produce.
and those shouldn't be arent allowed to walk the streets as normal
people.

You can r 'n r and throw da telly out the window...

How does that affect the TV license ?

No telly no need for a license, right?


Mine is most for
show, BTW but I want to create an illusion that I'm ordinary... YMMV! ;-p

then you've failed.

Don't post drunk!
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Stop paying and you lose the service. That's how I rationalize my
Adobe CC and Microsoft Office licenses.

What if you don't want to use the service for a month...
do you still have to pay ?

Such a strange question. If you rent a dwelling, and go on vacation
for a month, you wouldn't question the landlord for expecting rent to
be paid for that month.

I wouldn't because I'd still own the stuff in my dwelling.

you still own the documents you created with the app

How is that relivent ?.

you're the one who brought up ownership.

If you rent a house and move and you brought the TV yuo can take it with you.
If it was incuding in the rent, legally you can't walk off with the TV.

if you get evicted for not paying rent, you get to keep your tv and
other stuff, although it might be left out on the sidewalk.

-hh wrote:
SavageDuck wrote:
-hh said:
...
What I found here is that iPhoto was "good enough", but with its
replacement with 'Photos', its utility was utterly trashed.

Agreed. Photos is probably one of the worst downgrades Apple
has ever produced.

I'm actually shocked at just how bad 'Photos' is.

And it hasn't helped that Apple has already EOL'ed iPhoto
under OS X 10.10.5 ... a damn short legacy support timeline too.

I've been dabbling with Lightroom since version 1, but didn't
find it compelling enough to switch over from iPhoto. After a
week struggling with Photos, I put in an order yesterday for LR6.

LR6/LR CC is not LR1 or even LR4. It is a very good editor and
! will for most folks who are not doing compositing with layers do
! all they will ever need for photo processing.

Understood, although I'm really looking at LR more for 'image
management' workflow as my first priority. It might not be the
best tool for that (I'll be checking out your below recommendations)
but that's the critical gap shortfall from the iPhoto -- Photos mess.

I highly recommend taking the time to view, at minimum some of
Julieanne Kost's videos on the current editions of LR.
http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html


Since you have mentioned iPhoto and Photos I am going to make the
assumption that you are a Mac user and I have also looked for Mac PS
! alternatives and I highly recommend both Pixelmator and Affinity Photo.
The only benefit to Photoshop Elements is many plug-ins such as the NIK
collection and the OnOne Suite will work with PSE.
http://www.pixelmator.com/mac/
https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/

Thanks, I'll be taking a look at these options as well.

At first look, these both appear to be image editors, not big on
the portfolio organization (sorting, culling, etc) part. Did I overlook it?

-hh

On 2015-09-19 20:32:45 +0000, -hh said:

-hh wrote:
SavageDuck wrote:
-hh said:
...
What I found here is that iPhoto was "good enough", but with its
replacement with 'Photos', its utility was utterly trashed.

Agreed. Photos is probably one of the worst downgrades Apple
has ever produced.

I'm actually shocked at just how bad 'Photos' is.

And it hasn't helped that Apple has already EOL'ed iPhoto
under OS X 10.10.5 ... a damn short legacy support timeline too.

I've been dabbling with Lightroom since version 1, but didn't
find it compelling enough to switch over from iPhoto. After a
week struggling with Photos, I put in an order yesterday for LR6.

LR6/LR CC is not LR1 or even LR4. It is a very good editor and
! will for most folks who are not doing compositing with layers do
! all they will ever need for photo processing.

Understood, although I'm really looking at LR more for 'image
management' workflow as my first priority. It might not be the
best tool for that (I'll be checking out your below recommendations)
but that's the critical gap shortfall from the iPhoto -- Photos mess.

I highly recommend taking the time to view, at minimum some of
Julieanne Kost's videos on the current editions of LR.
http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html


Since you have mentioned iPhoto and Photos I am going to make the
assumption that you are a Mac user and I have also looked for Mac PS
! alternatives and I highly recommend both Pixelmator and Affinity Photo.
The only benefit to Photoshop Elements is many plug-ins such as the NIK
collection and the OnOne Suite will work with PSE.
http://www.pixelmator.com/mac/
https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/

Thanks, I'll be taking a look at these options as well.

At first look, these both appear to be image editors, not big on
the portfolio organization (sorting, culling, etc) part. Did I overlook it?

No. Both Pixelmator and Affinity Photo are pure image editors and are
not a replacement for Aperture, or Lightroom.

For that sort of thing you will find no better than Lightroom.




--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 18:00:42 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 13:27:59 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 11:37:10 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 11:18:12 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article
,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 17:26:20 UTC+1, nospam
wrote:
In article
,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Overall, I'm not at all thrilled with what Adobe
has
been
doing
in terms of their 'rental' business model ... I
expect
that
when
they finally abandon Photoshop CS 6 that I'll
replace
it
with
PS Elements instead.

Yes, the subscription model seems to be the biggest
complaint
about
Adobe CC and Microsoft Office.

I wonder why ;-)

mostly because people hate change and like to complain.

Maybe but as with other products some people prefer to
purchase
them
than
pay
on what we in the UK called the never never.

they can purchase whatever they want. nobody is stopping
them.

you can only purchase what is on sale or being sold.

not if you're a fence... ;-p

Still true even if you are a fence.
A fence is a dealer in stolen goods.
A fence does NOT steal goods, he buys them from others then sells
the items on.

He buys stuff that ain't sold but stolen and reimburses the hands
on
thiefs for their work...

so as I said no difference.

Sure it does, he buys stuff that ain't for sale!

No he doesn't he only buys stuff that is for sale that's what makes him a
fence rather than the thief.

They ain't for sale if they are stolen, Bofo!

a fence's MO is to sell stolen goods.

True. He buys stuff and sells them thou they aren't for sale. As bad as
a thief. In fact: he's a thief by proxy, and so are you if you buy from
a fence. Got that now?




You can r 'n r and throw da telly out the window...

How does that affect the TV license ?

No telly no need for a license, right?

Wrong.
All you need to have is something capable of recieving teh TV stations.
So if you have a VCR or DVD player that has a tuner that can recieve the BBC
then you have to have a license you DO NOT need to have a TV.

Oki... Soo, classic VCRs (with tuners) are to be considered to be
headless tellys. I agree with your lawmakers on that.
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 27 September 2015 06:35:08 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 18:00:42 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 13:27:59 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 11:37:10 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article
,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 17 September 2015 11:18:12 UTC+1, android
wrote:
In article
,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 17:26:20 UTC+1, nospam
wrote:
In article
,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Overall, I'm not at all thrilled with what
Adobe
has
been
doing
in terms of their 'rental' business model ...
I
expect
that
when
they finally abandon Photoshop CS 6 that I'll
replace
it
with
PS Elements instead.

Yes, the subscription model seems to be the
biggest
complaint
about
Adobe CC and Microsoft Office.

I wonder why ;-)

mostly because people hate change and like to
complain.

Maybe but as with other products some people prefer
to
purchase
them
than
pay
on what we in the UK called the never never.

they can purchase whatever they want. nobody is
stopping
them.

you can only purchase what is on sale or being sold.

not if you're a fence... ;-p

Still true even if you are a fence.
A fence is a dealer in stolen goods.
A fence does NOT steal goods, he buys them from others then
sells
the items on.

He buys stuff that ain't sold but stolen and reimburses the
hands
on
thiefs for their work...

so as I said no difference.

Sure it does, he buys stuff that ain't for sale!

No he doesn't he only buys stuff that is for sale that's what makes
him a
fence rather than the thief.

They ain't for sale if they are stolen, Bofo!

a fence's MO is to sell stolen goods.

True. He buys stuff and sells them thou they aren't for sale.

He puts them up for sale.

But they arn't for sale since they are stolen and the owner, or hens
insurance company might want there owning little hands on it!


As bad as
a thief. In fact: he's a thief by proxy, and so are you if you buy from
a fence. Got that now?

Yes, have always know it. The fact is that a fence has stuff for sale.

But they arn't for sale since they are stolen and the owner, or hens
insurance company might want there owning little hands on it!



How does that affect the TV license ?

No telly no need for a license, right?

Wrong.
All you need to have is something capable of recieving teh TV stations.
So if you have a VCR or DVD player that has a tuner that can recieve the
BBC
then you have to have a license you DO NOT need to have a TV.

Oki... Soo, classic VCRs (with tuners) are to be considered to be
headless tellys. I agree with your lawmakers on that.
--
teleportation kills
--
teleportation kills