Has your memory card ever worn out?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Adobe does not, because it has no understanding of how to sell
merchandise.

What an amazing disconnect from reality!

On 2012-07-29 17:17:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
said:

You seem to be missing the point. The basic question is
not "what does Photoshop do?" but how do I tell which
Adobe product best meets my needs?

Lightroom works as a stand-alone image editor and more,
as it gives you a very good catalogue system, and it can
integrate with Photoshop, or any other editor.

This is the sort of thing I'm complaining about.

If Lightroom has its own editing facilities -- then under what conditions
would I use it, and ignore Photoshop?

Most.

This isn't a matter of rummaging
through a list of editing features for the two products. Rather, it's
something Adobe should briefly discuss on its Website.

It does.


Adobe does not,

you are not looking hard enough, and if you are this incapable of
searching the web, you have a different set of problems.
Here is a starting point.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photos...ml?PID=2159997

because it has no understanding of how to sell merchandise.

I don't believe they have any problem with selling their merchandise,

It just assumes every person who does image editing will rush right out in a
buying frenzy.

In my opinion (some folks around here don't hold much weight to my
opinion) Lightroom gives the majority of photographers all they need
for cataloging, making RAW adjustments, making nondestructive
adjustments and edits, making intelligent nondestructive crops, having
a decent print terminal and output designer, being able to Geo tag and
map locate shots, having the ability to create web galleries and more.
Then if you have the need to have access to any other editor if there
are tasks which Lightroom cannot handle.

One of my prior beefs with Lightroom was the lack of adjustment layers.
That problem has been solved with the useful and FREE OnOne Software
product "Perfect Layers 2"
http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/perfect-layers/

They have other free plugins for Lightroom, all good fun.
There is also Matt Kloskowski, who is one of the guys in the Kelby
Training stable, and who provides a lot of free Lightroom actions and
plugins, and training at their web site.
http://lightroomkillertips.com/

So I would say that for 95% of users there would be little need to use
Photoshop. That said there are things I prefer doing using my Photoshop
workflow because I am comfortable with it. I also find myself using
lightroom as a selection table and a place to built collections of
shots giving them the odd occasional adjustment.
....and I am sure I mentioned that those adjustments were nondestructive.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

Adobe does not, because it has no understanding
of how to sell merchandise.

What an amazing disconnect from reality!

Glad you agree with me.

I don't think a comprehensive description
is what is required.

Nor do I. It's the OP who wants one.

No, I don't want a comprehensive description.

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

$40 is also cheap, but neither $50 nor $40 will buy you the current
edition of Elements. Both will buy you an older version on eBay. The
current version sells for about twice that. (Unless you are qualified
to purchase the Academic version)

wrong, as usual. it's nowhere near 'twice that.'

the current version is $64 on amazon right *now* and if you shop around
a little you can easily beat that price.

http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-65136385...0/dp/B005MMMT6
E

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

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.

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.

nonsense. they have descriptions on their web site, including demo
videos, and many third parties write about it too. none are book-like
in length.

Nor are they comprehensive. Or even close. Or even remotely close.

actually, they are comprehensive.

The third party write-ups are not on the Adobe website, and that is
what the OP is whining about.

that's why they're called third party write-ups.

those who actually have a genuine interest in learning about the
products won't limit themselves to only adobe's web site.

There are many, many ways to get comprehensive information about PS's
features. They just aren't on Adobe's website. Nor, in my opinion,
need they be.

there's plenty of information on adobe's site. i've never had a problem
finding out about new features of their products. it's usually the
first place i look.

third party sites can be good, but they are a mixed bag. it depends on
whose site it is.

Many of the book-length books on Photoshop cover only a limited number
of subjects. Scott Kelby is famous for this. I have many of his
books, but no one book of his covers all, most, or even a significant
number of the coverable topics.

scott's books aren't all that great. i *highly* recommend the books by
the late bruce fraser, martin evening and the very entertaining and
very talented katrin eismann.

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

here are many videos about cs5. it's probably too soon for a set of cs6
videos. i'd call these very comprehensive.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshop-...p-cs5-overview
/

The complaint is not about what is available, but what is in the Adobe
website. I don't think it's a valid complaint, but at least I read
carefully enough to know what the complaint is.

but not carefully enough to know that the complaint is bogus.

there is a wealth of information at the adobe website, including the
videos at the link above.

if after watching those videos, someone doesn't understand what
photoshop can do, then they have more serious issues than which photo
editor to get.

In article , tony cooper
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.

for someone who doesn't earn their living doing graphics work, they can
get photoshop elements which is typically $50.

Where do you get your information? From "Two's Company" re-runs?

Without the Academic discount, the current version of Elements is
$99.99. Older versions are available on eBay for less.

only if you're foolish enough to pay full retail.

shop around and it's much less.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Adobe does not, because it has no understanding
of how to sell merchandise.

What an amazing disconnect from reality!

Glad you agree with me.

READ WHAT I WROTE, DICKHEAD!

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:36:02 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:27:39 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:27 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , William Sommerwerck
wrote:

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.

Selling it to... whom, exactly?

Potential customers! You need to convince them, or they might not buy your
product.

good point. too bad adobe can't convince anyone to buy their products.

oh wait...

what's even more hilarious is you said they have a monopoly. obviously
quite a few people are buying their products for that to be the case.

You are changing the subject. We were discussing the problem of
potential new buyers being unable to find out anything useful to
enable them to distinguish one Adobe product from another.

nospam never makes any effort to actually help anyone. His favorite
help line is "nonsense". He participates to contradict, not to help.
I think he thinks he's impressing people.

There is a problem for potential buyers in understanding all of the
capabilities of each program, but there is also a problem for Adobe in
that those potential buyers are individuals who have significantly
different needs or interests in what they want to be able to do. I
really don't see how Adobe could create a webpage that would answer
all questions for all potential buyers. I can't imagine anyone wading
through it if it existed because so much of it would pertain to things
that aren't of interest to each individual.

I've read all of your posts on this, and all of that other guy's, and
neither of you have stated your own needs or interests. At what point
are you currently in editing? What do you want to do that you can't
do with the tools now available to you? And what are those tools?
What do you want out of a program?

I've got years of experience using Photo Paint (which software dates
back about as far as Photo Shop). Corel seems to be letting Photo
Paint die and I cannot run it on 64 bit W7. When I discovered that is
when I started looking at Photo Shop.

Photoshop prices are out of this world in New Zealand so I considered
very carefully. I had tried Elements a few years ago but wasn't very
impressed. I tried to sort out what each of the various bundles did
(including Lightroom which had just come on the market) but got
nowhere.

I did consider the several times offered suggestion that I download
various bundles for a trial period, but this is not really helpful. I
hope no one seriously expects I can download four different
photoprocessing packages and then in one month learn enough about each
one to make useful comparisons. In any case, why should I have to go
to so much trouble?

This was about the stage I decided to buy Paint Shop Pro (X2 it was in
those days). It cost me less than Elements would have done at that
stage. As I have said elsewhere, I'm quite impressed with it except
that the way it generates and handles masks is different from good old
Photo Paint. I'm still coming to grips with that aspect.

You are asking the question "Why doesn't Adobe tell me everything I
want to know?", but you should be asking "Here's what I want to do.
Which program do I need to do it?"

The first has no good answer. The second can be answered.

The firss has no single answer. I don't have a specific single finite
need: that's part of the problem.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens