If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
William Sommerwerck 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. 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? There are a couple of levels of answers to this. To those with general knowledge of image editing and image eding apps that somehow haven't experienced PhotoShop, they can download the reference manual, per another response. To the novice, there are numerous PhotoShop courses available, both in person and on-line. 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? The relationship and differences should be obvious to experienced image editors or photographers. Those who fall in neither category can probably avoid both apps without consequence, and go with Gimp or some other lower-end solution. 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? Those who became "professionals" within the last decade or two probably don't need such explanations. Like I said earlier, PhotoShop is to image editing as ProTools is to pro audio. -- best regards, Neil |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
In article , 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. for someone who doesn't earn their living doing graphics work, they can get photoshop elements which is typically $50. that's nowhere near outrageous, let alone several times beyond. not only that, but it's often bundled for free with various hardware. you may even have a copy already. 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. you didn't look very hard. they explain their products in detail, including comparing photoshop elements with the full photoshop. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
In article , Mxsmanic
wrote: Legacy applications that run only on MS-DOS. Maybe their favorite game is The Seventh Guest, which would probably fly like the wind on modern hardware. few people care about old legacy software. There are a lot of enterprises that need to run old software (sometimes very old software). not very many. MS-DOS can be used as a server, and some companies are still using it that way for legacy applications. a lot of things 'can' be used as a server. that doesn't mean it's a good choice, especially when there are *much* better options available. some will, some won't. you'll be long dead by the time it stops increasing. I think not. Problems are already arising. there are always problems arising. we do not live in a perfect world. plus, some software vendor business models collapse long before it might stop increasing. just look at microsoft today versus 15 years ago. they've had failure after failure and it looks like that's going to continue. Microsoft is past its prime, but it will be around for quite a while. but nowhere as dominant as they once were. gpus are dramatically advancing, ssd leaves hard drives in the dust and displays are becoming very high resolution, aka 'retina quality'. That doesn't help. oh yes it most certainly does. SSD is still orders of magnitude slower than RAM, so what? it replaces the hard drive and is orders of magnitude faster. and RAM is extremely slow compared to CPU cache, that's why there's both. and CPU cache still makes the processor wait. not as long as ram would. And this is getting worse, not better. it's getting much better. computers are *significantly* faster than ever before. Plus, network delays are now also a key impediment to improved performance. networks are also getting faster. In modern systems, if you're not waiting for the disk, you're waiting for the network. or the cpu, or even the user. it depends on the particular task. most do not. it might generate a lot of revenue quickly, but users catch on to that bull**** and it doesn't last for very long. it's a very bad long term business model. They've been conditioned to fall for it for years now. nonsense. many developers take pride in their work and don't release ****. Most developers today are either immature kids or people trying to make lots of money or both. nonsense. then it's a perfect opportunity for someone else to do a good job and own the market for that product. It's difficult to break into a market. not if you have a killer product. just look at smartphones today. before the iphone, apple had *zero* experience in making cellphones. they introduced the iphone which competed against market leaders such as nokia and rim, both of which who had significant market share. google also had *zero* experience in cellphones, and then they released android. now look what happened. apple and google together went from 0% market share to over 90% market share of the world's smartphones. nokia and rim are close to bankrupt and microsoft windows phone is struggling. That's why Windows is the leading desktop OS and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, even if Microsoft does nothing to promote it. Even if Microsoft makes mistakes, in fact, as it has done constantly in recent years. except that desktops are rapidly becoming niche and microsoft's mobile strategy is pathetic. the new world is apple and google being dominant. microsoft will end up with a tiny fraction of the market, which is actually rather amusing. all those microsoft fanbois must be in pain. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
In article , William Sommerwerck
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. 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? the explanations are on their website as well as other websites. a quick google search brings up many, many websites that explain the products, including videos. http://www.adobe.com/products/photos...e-version-comp arison.html Compare products Find the Photoshop product that's right for you. 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? lightroom is mainly an asset management app that can process raws, modify the images (exposure, colour balance, etc.) and do some retouching. it can also create books, websites, slide shows and prints from your photos. everything in lightroom is non-destructive, including cropping. photoshop is a comprehensive photo retouching and image editing app, however it doesn't do asset management nor can it make websites, etc. although it's retouching capabilities are well beyond what lightroom can do, 99% of the time you won't ever need any of it. most of the time, photoshop is destructive but you can (with quite a bit of effort) do it non-destructively. usually all that people do is adjust the exposure, contrast, colour balance, etc., which is well within what lightroom can do. on the rare occasion that you need more sophisticated editing tools, lightroom can easily roundtrip an image to photoshop. 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. they explain what the apps can do and adobe products are popular because many of them are extremely good. adobe camera raw is one of the best raw processing engines around. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
In article , David Ruether
wrote: 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. the gimp is roughly where photoshop was ten years ago. photoshop elements is dirt cheap and does much more than what most non-pros need. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
In article , tony cooper
wrote: Photoshop is not an impulse purchase item. Buyers of the full version are generally informed to some degree by exposure from some other source. I can't imagine any buyer that made the decision to buy a product of this cost based solely on what the primary website describes. why do non-pro users fixate on the full version of photoshop? it's *well* beyond anything they need. all they need is photoshop elements, which is usually around $50 and is well within 'impulse buy' territory. sometimes it's even bundled for free with hardware so they don't even need to act on an impulse. they already have it. meanwhile, pros will not think twice about buying the full photoshop because they know that it's the only thing that will do what they need. you could call that an impulse buy. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
On 2012-07-29 09:43:50 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
said: 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. Time for you to be specific. What is the problem you need solved, and with which Adobe product? While there are quite a number of Photoshop users in the photo groups not all use it. You should consider posting your Photoshop gripe and question where it would be more appropriate, alt.graphics.photoshop, or comp.graphics.apps.photoshop. As for the Adobe video products I can offer no solution as I am locked into still photography, with little interest in video. I would also recommend some of the Kelby publications and checking some of their online offerings. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
"nospam" wrote in message news: : In article , David Ruether wrote: 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. the gimp is roughly where photoshop was ten years ago. photoshop elements is dirt cheap and does much more than what most non-pros need. Gimp *2* is a very good program (better than my earlier Elements), and it is free (and the current Elements is "infinitely" more expensive, and not all that cheap - and it is also full of a lot of VERY amateur-level crap, which I prefer not to have in a "serious" editor...;-). --DR |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
Let's just say that the last time I looked at the Adobe site, it was a mess.
It doesn't explain //anything//. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|