Has your memory card ever worn out?

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

I would point out that if you are using LR to import from your camera
or card reader there is nothing stopping you making RAW adjustments as
you would in ACR.

No, I import using Bridge. I don't get around to using LR until all
the photos that I want to keep in LR have been processed in CS4. I
use LR strictly as a repository for processed images.

that's totally backwards and also very inefficient.

I sometimes wonder if you are simply unable to process information or
if you just don't pay attention.

I have previously stated on several occasions that I am retired, a low
volume shooter, and that I sometimes process no more than a few shots
from an outing with my camera.

So why should being inefficient bother me? I have unlimited time to
process my images, there aren't that many images to process, and that
I am quite happy with the way my processing comes out.

Why should I abandon a workflow that works for me and adopt one that
requires more time in learning new techniques when my present system
is more than adequate?

translated: i'm set in my ways and have absolutely no interest in
learning anything new.

You can criticize my output because I put it on view. Unlike you, I
don't claim to be proficient without providing evidence of the
results. But, it is ridiculous to tell me that my system is
inefficient.

it's not ridiculous at all. it *is* inefficient, and what's even more
hilarious is you have the gall to tell me i lack proficiency when you
admit you are not even using the apps the way they were meant to be
used. maybe if you knew what you were doing, you would be in a position
to criticize.

Under-utilization, I know, but that's the workflow that I've developed
over the years and I'm perfectly happy with it.

that's fine, but you should try learning how it's supposed to be used.

Why should I? What would I gain? What can you point to that could
have been done better if done differently?

Where are your results? Where is the evidence of your greater
proficiency or increased efficiency?

this isn't about me.

go read a book on lightroom or watch one of the many tutorials. you
certainly could use it.

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

I'm a bit bummed today, and it's because of a photograph. It's a
photograph of my car blowing a red light and captured by a red light
camera and sent through the mail. It'll cost me $158. It's much
more in some states.

wow, so you're a danger to yourself and others on the road.

They have me dead to rights, too. I remember the incident. I allowed
myself to be momentarily distracted and didn't see the stoplight at
all. Lucky that no one else was in the intersection.

momentarily distracted?? didn't see it *at all* ????

that's the kind of thing that causes serious injuries and kills people.

I haven't had as much as a parking ticket in the last 15 years or so.
I can't remember the last moving violation I was cited for.

that just means you weren't caught.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I no longer believe that to be the case. All you seem to want to do
is go on record as being disappointed a few years ago about what was
available on Adobe's website. You keep going back to that and
ignoring all the information that has been provided to you that
explains why Adobe does what they did, and do, and how to make the
decision of what product could work for you.

All this started when William SommerWerck posted two articles
outlining his reaction to the difficulties he encountered when trying
to decide what Adobe software to buy. His experiences resonated with
me and I confirmed I had had a similar experience and had encountered
similar difficulties.

only because both of you are incapable of finding out information for
yourselves, or more likely, you don't want the information in the first
place.

the information is readily available and has been for years, both at
adobe's site and third party sites and in a variety of forms, whether
it's comparisons, feature lists, demo videos or whatever else.

in short: you're full of ****.

Since then nospam has devoted his energies into browbeating me into
accepting that what Adobe did then really met our needs. His principal
weapon in this battle is his attempt to change the question.

i didn't change a damned thing. you said the information didn't exist a
few years ago and via the wayback machine, i showed that it *did*
exist.

In article ocal, J.
Clarke wrote:

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

It's not bogus.

Let's put it this way... You're interested in Adobe photo-editing products.
You have specific questions about what they do and how they work together
(or not), so you can make an intelligent buying decision. You go to the
Adobe site, expecting clear answers to your questions. Will you find them?

I say you won't.

I've never had a problem finding an answer to any question about product
functionality.

nor have i. there's an overwhelming amount of information out there.

Why don't you, instead of whining incessantly, pose your questions and
see how long it takes for someone to post you links to the answers on
the adobe site?

they won't do that because they aren't actually interested in answers.
they just like to whine.

I suspect your search-fu is weak young grasshopper.

nonexistent, you mean.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:38:21 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But that's not what is being discussed. How can the ordinary person
who has no great familiarity with Adobe software obtain enough
information to make a meaningful comparison between the individual
products?

by visiting their site or googling for other sites with information.

It might work now, but it didn't at the time I needed it.

then you did something wrong. the information was there and has been
for years.

So you keep saying, but you keep providing information to answer a
question other than the one that William and I metaphorically asked.

So what do you want him to do, seduce Doctor Who into letting him borrow
the TARDIS long enought to go back to the '90s and take screens shots of
the adobe site from then to show you?

In article ocal, J.
Clarke wrote:

But that's not what is being discussed. How can the ordinary person
who has no great familiarity with Adobe software obtain enough
information to make a meaningful comparison between the individual
products?

by visiting their site or googling for other sites with information.

It might work now, but it didn't at the time I needed it.

then you did something wrong. the information was there and has been
for years.

So you keep saying, but you keep providing information to answer a
question other than the one that William and I metaphorically asked.

So what do you want him to do, seduce Doctor Who into letting him borrow
the TARDIS long enought to go back to the '90s and take screens shots of
the adobe site from then to show you?

the wayback machine has adobe.com back to 1996, but they were blocking
anything past the main page then.

i did find a comparison from 2000, however, linked in another post.

In article ocal, J.
Clarke wrote:

Dated 2012 - 06 - 01. Brand new. Adobe is obviously changing their
ways.

or more accurately, they updated various pages for the brand new cs6
that came out a month or so earlier.

as i have shown repeatedly, there have been comparisons at adobe.com as
far back as 2000 and probably earlier.

I get fed up with you parrotting this inspite of numerous attempts to
explain to you that you are trying to answer the wrong question.

Any answer anybody gives you is answering the wrong question. When you
are shown a point by point comparison it's not "comprehensive", when you
are shown a comprehensive description it's not point by point.

You don't even know what you want.

bingo.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:22:23 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
I was prepared to pay the 'ten times higher' price for Photoshop if
I could determine that it was necessary for what I wanted to do. The
trouble was I couldn't easily determine what Elements could/couldn't
do in comparison with Photoshop without making a major research
project out of it.

I did try: I still have several books on the software tucked away
somewhere. But it was all too hard for someone who knew nothing
about the products. In the end I bought Photo Paint for less than I
would have paid for Elements. Adobe's loss, my gain.

Then, you arrived at the right conclusion, not only for yourself,
but for others with your level of exposure to such apps, because if
PhotoPaint does what you need, PhotoShop is serious overkill.

I don't think Photo Shop is overkill for what I want to do. It's just
that I couldn't establish that at the time.

Based on what I've seen you write, I think you like the idea of PhotoShop,
but you don't really have a need for its strengths. For example, how many of
your images have been printed in magazines or books? How many clients do you
have that want .PSD files?

--
best regards,

Neil

wrote:
Can we limit the photoshop discussions to the photo groups
and actually discuss audio production in rec.audio.pro
please?

On one hand, I understand your frustration with "wandering threads", on
another, there are many of us with multi-disciplinary careers who may find
some benefit from the various viewpoints expressed by those who are more
singularly-focussed (audio / video / photo). Since this is a cross-posted
discussion, originally about memory cards which are used in all these areas,
the portions that are OT in one group or another are acceptable to me.

--
best regards,

Neil

nospam wrote:
In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

They are terribly inefficient. Install MS-DOS on a modern high-end PC, and
you'll see just how fast the hardware really is.

and then do what with it?

Run programs.


no modern software will run on ms-dos, so what you'd end up with would
be a doorstop. that makes it as inefficient as anything could possibly
be, and significantly more expensive than an actual doorstop.

Who needs "modern"? Banks still run Cobol programs that were
30-40 years old when the Y2k problem was an item.


The massive inefficiency of current systems is largely masked by increases in
computer speed, but that won't last forever.

which is why you see multicore processors and offloading tasks to the
gpu. there's still *plenty* of room for increasing overall speed.

Actually, that's clear proof that there isn't plenty of room.
A CPU 4 times as fast is much preferable to (and faster than)
a quadcore with 1/4th the execution speed each for almost all
PC tasks. These bandaids only work well for a very few tasks.

Software vendors concentrate on development methods that produce code quickly,
allowing them to push it out the door and earn money as soon as possible. But
this code is massively bloated and unbelievably inefficient.

nonsense. certainly some developers ship crap,

About 80-90%.

but many do not.

"many" only because there are so many developers that 10% is
a sizeable number.

the
ones who ship crap don't tend to last too long.

Explain microsoft.

many developers spend a
*lot* of time optimizing and tweaking their code so it runs as fast as
possible.

The first rule of optimization: Don't.
The second rule of optimization: Don't yet.

A good developer will go for correctness first and for speed
only much later. But then he'll have chosen good algorithms and
data structures, which will be 100s or 10.000s of times faster
than incompetently chosen ones --- and those then need to be
"optimized" and "tweaked" to become 2x or 3x faster and thus
sort-of usable fast.

So the good developer doesn't need much optimization, unless the
problem is close to the computing power so than even with ideal
algorithms it would be in danger of being slow. Which most of
the time simply isn't the case.


Vendors don't
care once they've sold the product, so they allow users to pay again and again
for their careless development methods.

nonsense again. if developers are careless and ship a slow and buggy
product, there won't be any users to pay again.

Explain Microsoft.

they will have switched
to a competing product that doesn't suck, and written by a developer
who knows what they're doing.

Explain Microsoft.

-Wolfgang