Has your memory card ever worn out?

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.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:14:28 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

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.

ULead is now back in service with Corel.

I have PhotoShop for the same reason
that folks get ProTools, not because it's all that good.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 05:49:38 -0700, "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).

That's the main reason why I have never bought it. I like to know what
I'm paying for, especially when Adobe require my nose to bleed in the
process.

When I complained about
this, I received pretty much a "we're Adobe -- we don't give a damn"
response.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:21 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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),

nonsense. i just took a look at the release notes for gimp 2.8, the
most recent version (may, 2012).

they added layer groups as well as direct text editing, something
photoshop has had for *years* plus a lot of fluff, like changing the
font that's used on screen.

the gimp *still* does not have adjustment layers, making it very
limited for all but very casual work and its raw processing (via ufraw)
is awful compared to camera raw.

and it is free (and the current Elements is
"infinitely" more expensive, and not all that cheap

elements is free when it's bundled with hardware. i once had 3 or 4
copies of it.

also, $50 is cheap. people spend more than that on a graphics tablet,
which probably bundles elements.

- and
it is also full of a lot of VERY amateur-level crap, which
I prefer not to have in a "serious" editor...;-).

then don't use those features.

While I have only recently started to use it seriously, I am becoming
impressed with Corel Paint Shop Pro X4.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 11:03:26 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

--- snip ---

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?

All of this is covered by questions and answers in the Adobe Forums.
http://forums.adobe.com/index.jspa

That seems to primarily contain troubleshooting info for people who
have already bought the/a product.

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.


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.

What really helpful sources are there, particularly when it comes to
helping distinguish one product from another?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

What really helpful sources are there, particularly when it comes to
helping distinguish one product from another?

there's plenty of stuff at adobe's site and even more at third party
sites.

In article , Eric Stevens
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).

That's the main reason why I have never bought it. I like to know what
I'm paying for, especially when Adobe require my nose to bleed in the
process.

there are trial versions available, along with plenty of info about all
of their products adobe's site as well at other sites.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:04:57 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

Where can I find out the difference between Elements and full
Photoshop? Where can I find out what I lose/gain by buying Elements
(or Lightroom etc) rather than Photoshop? At the moment I feel as
though I am expected to make a very expensive stab in the dark.

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.

What's more, they have probably been taught on Photoshop and know no
other.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:14:28 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

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.

ULead is now back in service with Corel.

ULead company never went away... Adobe bought Aldus to acquire the version
of Pagemaker that was under development (and became InDesign 1.0), and in
the process shelved Aldus PhotoStyler, which was a pro image editing app
developed by ULead. A non-compete agreement kept pro features, such as CMYK
editing, out of Uleads follow-up app, PhotoImpact. But, if ULead's
relationship with Corel turns out like Ventura Publisher and the Xara apps,
they're doomed.

--
best regards,

Neil

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:03:28 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

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.

Obvious? Obvious how? How can you identify the dkifferences if there
is no easy way to determine the broad content and capabilities of
each?

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.

The present arrangement seems a good way to throttle off new buyers.

My oldest daughter is a graphic designer and she knows photoshop as
she was taught it at school. Her daughter is a graphic designer and
she too knows photoshop as she was taught it at school. But neither of
them really knows what is/isn't in Elements, Lightroom etc.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens