Adobe being punished for predatory marketing tactics

On 10-09-25 17:38 , Ofnuts wrote:
On 25/09/2010 19:58, Ray Fischer wrote:
Many people rejected the flawed Vista to stay with XP. Many companies
insisted that the "XP downgrade" option was included on PC that they
bought so they could avoid Vista's problems. It appears that these
millions of XP users will be forced to stay with Internet Explorer 8.

Or upgrade to Windows 7.

Or use a better browser.

Indeed. I have avoided IE as much as possible since it first came out
and when possible removed it from my computers completely. Not easy, it
is hooked deep into XP and onward - you have to manually clean up the
registry, a long tedious task.


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

"Peter" wrote:
"tony cooper" wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 09:52:14 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:
"Alfred Molon" wrote:
@j5g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, RichA says...
Whereas Adobe simply
refuses to update raw conversion which kills the software's utility
for any new cameras.

Well no, because you can always convert to DNG and keep using an old
version of Photoshop. The DNG converter is free.

I had forgotten about DNG. However, IIRC I thought there were issues in
the DNG conversion with some formats. I could be wrong, though.

I shoot Nikon, RAW (.NEF), download via Bridge with a setting that
automatically converts files from .NEF to .DNG, and process in CS4.

I have no idea what problems you might have heard about. I have none.
(Except for the images not being as good or as interesting as I
thought they would be when I pushed the shutter.)

It's just something that sticks in my head about conversion of RAW to DNG.
It was not in connection with the use of any Adobe products. As I said
above, I could be wrong and the issue is not worth pursuing. I am more
concerned my sharing the image issue you refer to in the immediately
preceding paragraph.

DNG drops, just as Lightroom and ACR ignore, all the in-camera jpeg
conversion settings: sharpness, contrast, "picture styles" (a Canonism), and
even color balance. People new to LR/ACR get freaked because their images
get imported with the camera settings applied and at first the thumbnails
look good, but then LR/ACR updates the thumbnails to reflect its defaults,
and they look dull and boring. (The dropping bit is fine by me, because I
like to set the in-camera conversion settings so that it's easier to
evaluate images on the screen. But it's less good for people who like to set
up shots in camera so the in-camera jpegs can be used.)

Adobe gets its DNG converter updates out quickly when a new camera comes out
so you can use it until LR and ACR get updated to handle the camera.

As long as DNG remains backwards compatible to earlier versions of LR/ACR,
it will work for people who don't want to upgrade. But if the camera mfrs
come up with something that makes that impossible, that won't work.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-09-23 9:26 , Peter wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
Tsk, tsk. No support for software just a year after its inception,
moving on to newer editions, forcing people to upgrade whether they
needed to or not.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/22/tech...tock/index.htm

Adobe are being punished by the quality of their past products where users
do not see the need to upgrade as what they have does all they need - most
esp. in lean economic times where people are saving rather than spending.

I still haven't upgraded to CS5 (PS only) as it doesn't really do much
more than CS3 that I need. It does have some nifty features (content
aware editing) and a nice HDR model (and more) - I just don't need it yet.

So I'm getting a lot of value from CS3, as I'll be able to upgrade to CS5
(or CS6) at my leisure.


I was very happy with CS3 and upgraded only because CS5 has a feature I
like. (content aware fill.) for me it was worth the $200 cost of the upgrade

--
Peter

On 10-09-25 22:33 , Peter wrote:


I was very happy with CS3 and upgraded only because CS5 has a feature I
like. (content aware fill.) for me it was worth the $200 cost of the
upgrade

That's just it - that feature and the few others are not worth $200 to
me - at least not yet. Maybe I need to do more deliberate HDR shot sets?

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

"Alan Browne" wrote:
On 10-09-25 22:33 , Peter wrote:

I was very happy with CS3 and upgraded only because CS5 has a feature I
like. (content aware fill.) for me it was worth the $200 cost of the
upgrade

That's just it - that feature and the few others are not worth $200 to
me - at least not yet.

The only thing to watch out for is that Adobe won't let you upgrade from
much older versions. So if you think you are going to continue to need PS,
you need to upgrade occasionally. Also, so many of the discussions of image
processing on the net assume PS, that you need to be reasonably up to date.

Maybe I need to do more deliberate HDR shot sets?

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

http://ihateyourhdr.tumblr.com/
http://lewiscollard.com/cameras/hdr-sucks/

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 9/30/2010 9:42 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 10-09-25 22:33 , Peter wrote:

I was very happy with CS3 and upgraded only because CS5 has a feature I
like. (content aware fill.) for me it was worth the $200 cost of the
upgrade

That's just it - that feature and the few others are not worth $200 to
me - at least not yet.

The only thing to watch out for is that Adobe won't let you upgrade from
much older versions. So if you think you are going to continue to need PS,
you need to upgrade occasionally. Also, so many of the discussions of image
processing on the net assume PS, that you need to be reasonably up to date.


I buy to use, not discuss.


--
Peter

"peter" wrote:
On 9/30/2010 9:42 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 10-09-25 22:33 , Peter wrote:

I was very happy with CS3 and upgraded only because CS5 has a feature I
like. (content aware fill.) for me it was worth the $200 cost of the
upgrade

That's just it - that feature and the few others are not worth $200 to
me - at least not yet.

The only thing to watch out for is that Adobe won't let you upgrade from
much older versions. So if you think you are going to continue to need
PS,
you need to upgrade occasionally. Also, so many of the discussions of
image
processing on the net assume PS, that you need to be reasonably up to
date.


I buy to use, not discuss.

If you read what other people write, you might learn something...

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 9/30/2010 11:35 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote:
On 9/30/2010 9:42 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 10-09-25 22:33 , Peter wrote:

I was very happy with CS3 and upgraded only because CS5 has a feature I
like. (content aware fill.) for me it was worth the $200 cost of the
upgrade

That's just it - that feature and the few others are not worth $200 to
me - at least not yet.

The only thing to watch out for is that Adobe won't let you upgrade from
much older versions. So if you think you are going to continue to need
PS,
you need to upgrade occasionally. Also, so many of the discussions of
image
processing on the net assume PS, that you need to be reasonably up to
date.


I buy to use, not discuss.

If you read what other people write, you might learn something...

Only when they know what they are talking about.

--
Peter

On 10-09-30 21:42 , David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 10-09-25 22:33 , Peter wrote:

I was very happy with CS3 and upgraded only because CS5 has a feature I
like. (content aware fill.) for me it was worth the $200 cost of the
upgrade

That's just it - that feature and the few others are not worth $200 to
me - at least not yet.

The only thing to watch out for is that Adobe won't let you upgrade from
much older versions. So if you think you are going to continue to need PS,
you need to upgrade occasionally. Also, so many of the discussions of image
processing on the net assume PS, that you need to be reasonably up to date.

I know, but as CS2 to CS5 is valid, I'll take a leap of faith for CS3 to
CS6. Or upgrade to CS5 when I see more of a need for it. (which would
include more shooting. Was a bad summer for shooting due to
"renovations" and a thing called a "living room" and my now missing
studio (I swear had one real close to the "living room") and other
interruptions to life. I note the fall colours outside, however...

Maybe I need to do more deliberate HDR shot sets?

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I take it you object?


http://ihateyourhdr.tumblr.com/

I agree that bad (overdone) HDR sucks, but I don't agree that it can't
be used with appropriate discretion. I have done a few in the past, the
old fashioned layers way, but having the computer sort it out is much
more agreeable.

We can't escape the fact that our eyes have more dynamic range at a
given point in time than our digital cameras and film.

In that light, HDR does have a place.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-10-01 0:01 , peter wrote:
On 9/30/2010 11:35 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote:
On 9/30/2010 9:42 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan wrote:
On 10-09-25 22:33 , Peter wrote:

I was very happy with CS3 and upgraded only because CS5 has a
feature I
like. (content aware fill.) for me it was worth the $200 cost of the
upgrade

That's just it - that feature and the few others are not worth $200 to
me - at least not yet.

The only thing to watch out for is that Adobe won't let you upgrade
from
much older versions. So if you think you are going to continue to need
PS,
you need to upgrade occasionally. Also, so many of the discussions of
image
processing on the net assume PS, that you need to be reasonably up to
date.


I buy to use, not discuss.

If you read what other people write, you might learn something...

Only when they know what they are talking about.

That assumes that you know enough about what they are talking about.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.