Windows 10 - Day 1

On 05/06/2016 17:50, Savageduck wrote:
[]
Don't play the Adobe subscription model short. You will find a bunch of
us here who are quite happy with it, and the powerful tools it provides us.

Now that I am paying that Adobe CC $9.99/month subscription I have
access to automatic, continuous and sometimes subtle updates with new
and useful features.

Those, not necessarily "essential", new features ultimately make life in
one's photo editing workflow easier. Most importantly, having been a
Photoshop user from my initial rudimentary Photoshop Deluxe (that must
have been a joke) to my first version with some muscle, Photoshop 5.0, I
have bought additional full versions (PS 7.0, CS2, LR) and a series of
upgrades (CS4, CS5, & CS6; LR2, LR4) making a considerable software
investment. What I have now with PS CC & LR CC is the best value Adobe
has ever offered, and I am happy to pay it rather than being on the
upgrade treadmill.

Since I started subscribing to Adobe CC there have been what would have
been substantial developments from the last non-subscription editions,
which would have resulted in a minimum of two major upgrades to PS and
one for LR. That alone has saved me $500. As PS and LR develop there are
going to be more things that cannot be done with PS CS3/4/5/6 or LR3/4/5.

I'm still using Office 2000 under Win-10, with only the very minor fix
that I tell Excel it's running under Win-7. For what I need to do,
it's quite adequate, as is my PaintShop Pro 10. Perhaps my needs are
simpler than most folk.

Well that is OK then. There is little point in moving out of your
comfort zone. However, you should keep in mind that systems and software
are in ever changing flux, and being locked into stuff that is merely
'adequate' today, you will find yourself stuck with deadend software
that is no longer supported. You can rationalize that you need nothing
else, but things change and it can be worthwhile working with that change.

I am sure that a lot of the specialized satellite work you do will
continue to function with your current setup, but regardless of OS, we
are talking photo/image editing software here, not specialized satellite
tools.

Well, it's only "saved" you $500 if you were going to buy the upgrades,
if you /needed/ the new facilities offered. But please enlighten me, is
there an up-front cost as well as the $9.99 monthly charge. Perhaps one
day my needs will expand, so it would be helpful to know.

Of course, I also take the view that much post-processing is
unnecessary, and my aim is to create a copy of the scene which I see,
rather than some artistic inspiration derived from it. As far as
possible, I try to get the image out-of-the-camera to be just what I
want, whilst accepting that sometimes cropping, exposure correction,
horizon alignment etc. may be required. I suspect that my taking of
JPEG rather than RAW images say something as well.

By the way, I very rarely use an commercial tools to process satellite
images. It's all my own software - tools optimised to do a particular
job which work on quite low-powered PCs (as they were developed some
time back).

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

Don't play the Adobe subscription model short. You will find a bunch of
us here who are quite happy with it, and the powerful tools it provides us.

Now that I am paying that Adobe CC $9.99/month subscription I have
access to automatic, continuous and sometimes subtle updates with new
and useful features.

Those, not necessarily "essential", new features ultimately make life in
one's photo editing workflow easier. Most importantly, having been a
Photoshop user from my initial rudimentary Photoshop Deluxe (that must
have been a joke) to my first version with some muscle, Photoshop 5.0, I
have bought additional full versions (PS 7.0, CS2, LR) and a series of
upgrades (CS4, CS5, & CS6; LR2, LR4) making a considerable software
investment. What I have now with PS CC & LR CC is the best value Adobe
has ever offered, and I am happy to pay it rather than being on the
upgrade treadmill.

Since I started subscribing to Adobe CC there have been what would have
been substantial developments from the last non-subscription editions,
which would have resulted in a minimum of two major upgrades to PS and
one for LR. That alone has saved me $500. As PS and LR develop there are
going to be more things that cannot be done with PS CS3/4/5/6 or LR3/4/5.

I'm still using Office 2000 under Win-10, with only the very minor fix
that I tell Excel it's running under Win-7. For what I need to do,
it's quite adequate, as is my PaintShop Pro 10. Perhaps my needs are
simpler than most folk.

Well that is OK then. There is little point in moving out of your
comfort zone. However, you should keep in mind that systems and software
are in ever changing flux, and being locked into stuff that is merely
'adequate' today, you will find yourself stuck with deadend software
that is no longer supported. You can rationalize that you need nothing
else, but things change and it can be worthwhile working with that change.

I am sure that a lot of the specialized satellite work you do will
continue to function with your current setup, but regardless of OS, we
are talking photo/image editing software here, not specialized satellite
tools.

Well, it's only "saved" you $500 if you were going to buy the upgrades,
if you /needed/ the new facilities offered. But please enlighten me, is
there an up-front cost as well as the $9.99 monthly charge. Perhaps one
day my needs will expand, so it would be helpful to know.

of course not.

why would there be any up front cost?

On Jun 5, 2016, David Taylor wrote
(in article ):

On 05/06/2016 17:50, Savageduck wrote:
[]
Don't play the Adobe subscription model short. You will find a bunch of
us here who are quite happy with it, and the powerful tools it provides us.

Now that I am paying that Adobe CC $9.99/month subscription I have
access to automatic, continuous and sometimes subtle updates with new
and useful features.

Those, not necessarily "essential", new features ultimately make life in
one's photo editing workflow easier. Most importantly, having been a
Photoshop user from my initial rudimentary Photoshop Deluxe (that must
have been a joke) to my first version with some muscle, Photoshop 5.0, I
have bought additional full versions (PS 7.0, CS2, LR) and a series of
upgrades (CS4, CS5, & CS6; LR2, LR4) making a considerable software
investment. What I have now with PS CC & LR CC is the best value Adobe
has ever offered, and I am happy to pay it rather than being on the
upgrade treadmill.

Since I started subscribing to Adobe CC there have been what would have
been substantial developments from the last non-subscription editions,
which would have resulted in a minimum of two major upgrades to PS and
one for LR. That alone has saved me $500. As PS and LR develop there are
going to be more things that cannot be done with PS CS3/4/5/6 or LR3/4/5.

I'm still using Office 2000 under Win-10, with only the very minor fix
that I tell Excel it's running under Win-7. For what I need to do,
it's quite adequate, as is my PaintShop Pro 10. Perhaps my needs are
simpler than most folk.

Well that is OK then. There is little point in moving out of your
comfort zone. However, you should keep in mind that systems and software
are in ever changing flux, and being locked into stuff that is merely
'adequate' today, you will find yourself stuck with deadend software
that is no longer supported. You can rationalize that you need nothing
else, but things change and it can be worthwhile working with that change.

I am sure that a lot of the specialized satellite work you do will
continue to function with your current setup, but regardless of OS, we
are talking photo/image editing software here, not specialized satellite
tools.

Well, it's only "saved" you $500 if you were going to buy the upgrades,
if you /needed/ the new facilities offered. But please enlighten me, is
there an up-front cost as well as the $9.99 monthly charge. Perhaps one
day my needs will expand, so it would be helpful to know.

There is no additional charge, just the $9.99/month.

Of course, I also take the view that much post-processing is
unnecessary, and my aim is to create a copy of the scene which I see,
rather than some artistic inspiration derived from it. As far as
possible, I try to get the image out-of-the-camera to be just what I
want, whilst accepting that sometimes cropping, exposure correction,
horizon alignment etc. may be required. I suspect that my taking of
JPEG rather than RAW images say something as well.

You sound like a good candidate for one of the Fujifilm X-series cameras.

By the way, I very rarely use an commercial tools to process satellite
images. It's all my own software - tools optimised to do a particular
job which work on quite low-powered PCs (as they were developed some
time back).

I realize that, hence my comment, and understanding that you might be content
to maintain your status quo.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

| Well, it's only "saved" you $500 if you were going to buy the upgrades,

He does. He buys 'em all. A lot of people
do that. It seems to be a sort of irrational
compulsion. "The new version *must* be
better and I don't want to miss anything."


| Of course, I also take the view that much post-processing is
| unnecessary, and my aim is to create a copy of the scene which I see,
| rather than some artistic inspiration derived from it. As far as
| possible, I try to get the image out-of-the-camera to be just what I
| want, whilst accepting that sometimes cropping, exposure correction,
| horizon alignment etc. may be required. I suspect that my taking of
| JPEG rather than RAW images say something as well.
|
I deal more with processing than taking pictures,
and I also work in RAW. The real here photographer is
the woman I live with. She shoots mainly in RAW,
has a high quality camera and high quality printer.
For RAW we both use AfterShot Pro. For other graphics
I mainly use PSP5. I then use PSP16 for trickier things,
like when I need a high quality sharpen on a low
quality image. But for most things PSP16 is just a
bloated hog that takes longer to accomplish things.

I don't remember exactly what PSP16 and Aftershot
Pro cost, but I think it was less than $100 for the two
of them.

The downside? I can't do image fill-in. For instance,
someone recently wanted to rotate an image a few
degrees and then fill in the edge pie slice with
convincing background. I don't think PSP will do that.
PS will. I don't really care. If I were being paid fulltime
to prep photos for a magazine then I'd care. In that
case speed and options would be far more important
than software cost. That's really the Photoshop market.
Commercial people buy it because the extreme extra
cost for slight extra functionality is actually worth it
to them. It pays off in income. Thus Adovbe gets away
with price gouging. A lot of other people buy Adobe
because they think the product the pros are using must
be the best.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Well, it's only "saved" you $500 if you were going to buy the upgrades,

He does. He buys 'em all. A lot of people
do that. It seems to be a sort of irrational
compulsion. "The new version *must* be
better and I don't want to miss anything."

for many people, the new version makes it easier to do what they were
doing and that alone is enough. sometimes it makes it possible to do
things they otherwise *couldn't* do at all.

there's nothing irrational about that.

On Jun 5, 2016, Mayayana wrote
(in article ):

Well, it's only "saved" you $500 if you were going to buy the upgrades,

He does.

If you had actually quoted what I typed, and not have snipped and then made a
statement out of context you would have understood that there were/are no
upgrades to buy. So I was refering to potential savings.

Here is what I actually wrote:
"Since I started subscribing to Adobe CC there have been what would have
been substantial developments from the last non-subscription editions,
which would have resulted in a minimum of two major upgrades to PS and
one for LR. That alone has saved me $500. As PS and LR develop there
are going to be more things that cannot be done with PS CS3/4/5/6 or
LR3/4/5.�

He buys 'em all.

No I don’t/didn’t, that information was removed with another of your
edits. I included my Adobe purchase history and you removed it to support
your answer. Once more, here is what you removed:
"Most importantly, having been aPhotoshop user from my initial rudimentary
Photoshop Deluxe (that musthave been a joke) to my first version with some
muscle, Photoshop 5.0,I have bought additional full versions (PS 7.0, CS2,
LR) and a series
of upgrades (CS4, CS5, &CS6; LR2, LR4) making a considerable
softwareinvestment.�

So I didn’t buy them all. I didn’t buy PS CC or LR2/3.

A lot of people
do that. It seems to be a sort of irrational
compulsion. "The new version *must* be
better and I don't want to miss anything."

Nothing irrational at all. After checking with new features on each ungrade
release I made an informed decision on whether or not I would upgrade at that
stage. Sometimes it took some other users demonstrating just how the new
features were best used before I upgraded. Now I don’t need to do that all
upgrades are included with the CC subscription.


Of course, I also take the view that much post-processing is
unnecessary, and my aim is to create a copy of the scene which I see,
rather than some artistic inspiration derived from it. As far as
possible, I try to get the image out-of-the-camera to be just what I
want, whilst accepting that sometimes cropping, exposure correction,
horizon alignment etc. may be required. I suspect that my taking of
JPEG rather than RAW images say something as well.
I deal more with processing than taking pictures,
and I also work in RAW. The real here photographer is
the woman I live with. She shoots mainly in RAW,
has a high quality camera and high quality printer.
For RAW we both use AfterShot Pro. For other graphics
I mainly use PSP5. I then use PSP16 for trickier things,
like when I need a high quality sharpen on a low
quality image. But for most things PSP16 is just a
bloated hog that takes longer to accomplish things.

That is always an option.

I don't remember exactly what PSP16 and Aftershot
Pro cost, but I think it was less than $100 for the two
of them.

The downside? I can't do image fill-in. For instance,
someone recently wanted to rotate an image a few
degrees and then fill in the edge pie slice with
convincing background. I don't think PSP will do that.
PS will. I don't really care. If I were being paid fulltime
to prep photos for a magazine then I'd care. In that
case speed and options would be far more important
than software cost. That's really the Photoshop market.
Commercial people buy it because the extreme extra
cost for slight extra functionality is actually worth it
to them. It pays off in income. Thus Adovbe gets away
with price gouging. A lot of other people buy Adobe
because they think the product the pros are using must
be the best.

With all of that said I also consider other options, and as an OSX user I
have bought other very adequate software including the Mac only Pixelmator
($29.99) and Affinity Photo ($49.99) Both very good options for those wanting
to avoid the subscription model. Affinity is soon to release a Win edition.
http://www.pixelmator.com/mac/
https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/

--

Regards,
Savageduck

a series
| of upgrades (CS4, CS5, &CS6; LR2, LR4) making a considerable
| softwareinvestment."
|
| So I didn't buy them all. I didn't buy PS CC or LR2/3.
|

I stand corrected. I find it very hard to believe
that all of those purchases were worthwhile. But it's
your money. I was just pointing out the context of
your opinion about Adobe cloud. It's coming from
someone who thinks it's worthwhile to buy *almost*
everything Adobe sells.

Similarly, I don't believe anyone really needs every
version of MS Office. People buy it to keep up with
the Joneses in a business context. So I wouldn't
put a lot of stock in the opinion of a serial MS Office
updater who thinks Office 365 is a good deal. I'd
be surprised if they thought otherwise.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

Similarly, I don't believe anyone really needs every
version of MS Office. People buy it to keep up with
the Joneses in a business context. So I wouldn't
put a lot of stock in the opinion of a serial MS Office
updater who thinks Office 365 is a good deal. I'd
be surprised if they thought otherwise.

actually, they bought every version of office because microsoft
intentionally changed the file format so that people *had* to buy every
upgrade to be able to read documents sent to them by others.

fortunately, that's no longer the case.

On 2016-06-05 21:18:45 +0000, "Mayayana" said:


a series
| of upgrades (CS4, CS5, &CS6; LR2, LR4) making a considerable
| softwareinvestment."
|
| So I didn't buy them all. I didn't buy PS CC or LR2/3.
|

I stand corrected. I find it very hard to believe
that all of those purchases were worthwhile.

For me they were. For you probably not so much, but you have made up
your mind and nobody is going to change it.

But it's
your money. I was just pointing out the context of
your opinion about Adobe cloud. It's coming from
someone who thinks it's worthwhile to buy *almost*
everything Adobe sells.

There is plenty that Adobe sells/sold that I didn't buy.

Similarly, I don't believe anyone really needs every
version of MS Office. People buy it to keep up with
the Joneses in a business context. So I wouldn't
put a lot of stock in the opinion of a serial MS Office
updater who thinks Office 365 is a good deal. I'd
be surprised if they thought otherwise.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:58:25 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| Well, it's only "saved" you $500 if you were going to buy the upgrades,

He does. He buys 'em all. A lot of people
do that. It seems to be a sort of irrational
compulsion. "The new version *must* be
better and I don't want to miss anything."

I'm one of those people. I even upgrade software that I almost never
use. At the same time, there aren't any struggling college students
here, and I don't think $50 or $100 is a very meaningful amount for
anyone here. Going further, I don't think it's always worth it to
scour the new features, and then do a thorough cost/benefit analysis
on every last thing one buys. It's only money. If it looks like I have
something to gain with the new version, I'm in.

Thus Adovbe gets away
with price gouging.

I think their products are competitively priced. You pay a bit more,
you get more. Whether you need the "more" is another matter. It's just
not worth agonizing over every dollar.