Has your memory card ever worn out?

information is good, but it's clear you aren't interested in any of it.
like ssd, your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it.

You have no idea what's currently going through my mind.

I'm reminded of a "counter-culture" optical store in College Park, MD,
called "For Eyes". (Get it?) 42 years ago I was interested in contact
lenses
and walked in. The person there wasn't much interested in helping. "We
don't
believe in pushing our products on customers." That's a great way to go
out
of business.

amazing how 40 years later, they're still in business. maybe they know
something about selling contacts that you don't.

Who said they were?

I hate to spoil things for you, but this store existed in College Park in
1970. Whatever connection it has/had with any other store of that name, I
don't know.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Interesting that only you amateur users seem to feel that way.
Perhaps you can explain the reason that such a "failure" resulted
in the market position for those products (#1), and how they can
somehow do better by wasting their resources explaining those
products to folks that are unlikely to need or buy them?

It's never a waste of resources to make an effort to capture a new
customer. Just because a product sells well, doesn't mean its
manufacturer knows how to best market it.

Adobe's efforts to "capture a new customer" appears to be their support of
educational facilities that train those potential new customers on their
product. It seems to be sufficient.

Adobe's market position has little to do with the way Photoshop has
been promoted.

That is patently absurd, William! You don't get to #1 by accident in a
market that is *still* occupied by dozens of other competing products.

Photoshop was (as far as I know) the first major paint software *

Which only goes to show that you don't know much about "major paint
software", which existed for at least a decade before PhotoShop (google
Quantel PaintBox, Targa boards, Aldus PhotoStyler, GrayFX, among dozens of
others).

designed primarily for the special needs of photographic images. Its
rapid adoption doubtless reduced interest in other products.

I don't consider a couple of decades to be "...rapid adoption...", YMMV.

It
didn't hurt that it wasn't cheap, as Americans tend to associate
price with quality. And once you've invested in something expensive,
you're unlikely to put out additional dollars to switch.

PhotoShop was actually a *lot less* expensive than the products that were
already on the market and in use at the time of its introduction. IIRC,
PhotoShop cost around $300, while some similar products I owned and was
using cost over $3k.

Photoshop sells well because it's "the standard" and it's expensive
-- not because it's the best choice among competitive products.

Refer to the discussion about ProTools being "the standard" for a notion of
PhotoShop's position. In short, Adobe has marketed PhotoShop and its other
products better than their competitors.

Of
which there are essentially none. (Corel PhotoPaint seems to be the
only meaningful competitor, and it doesn't sell well because it's
"obviously" too inexpensive to be any good.)

There are several competing products, some functionally better than
PhotoShop (or CorelPaint). But, in order to know that, one would need to
know *all* of those products well enough to compare them, which most likely,
only a pro would be able to do. Amatuers need not apply.

--
best regards,

Neil

In article , William Sommerwerck
wrote:

information is good, but it's clear you aren't interested in any of it.
like ssd, your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it.

You have no idea what's currently going through my mind.

i'm going by what you've posted.

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

A RAW file used with a current version of Photoshop or Elements is
processed non-destructively just as it is in Lightroom.

not in the normal course of action it isn't.

you have to take explicit steps for it to be non-destructive and most
people don't know how to do it or that the option even exists.

What? Open a RAW file in either Photoshop or a version of Elements
that opens RAW, and the editing is done to the RAW file is
non-destructive. There's no way for it to be otherwise.

although it's true it doesn't alter the raw, that is *not* what
non-destructive editing means.

what non-destructive editing means is you can go back and alter the
edits you've made to the image long after you've made them, including
after you've saved the file and your history states are long gone.

that includes intermediate files you've saved with save as..., as you
ignorantly suggested in the previous post. only if you took additional
steps can you later modify or undo changes.

It's what you do next that requires extra steps. If all the editing
required is done to RAW file, all the editing is done
non-destructively.

not in photoshop it isn't, unless you take the time to do in a way that
is non-destructive, which is not what most people do, including you.

for an edit to be non-destructive in photoshop, it would need to be
done in an adjustment layer, smart object, smart filter, etc. and
that's at best a pain and at worst, not possible, since not everything
can be done that way.

with non-destructive editing, you can at any time go back and change
things, including going back to camera raw and adjusting things such as
white balance or exposure. you can also uncrop an image, change the
rotation, change the amount of blur or sharpening or even remove it
entirely, modify or remove a retouch you've made, all of these done
long after you originally made them.

if you simply apply a filter, such as gaussian blur, it can't be
modified later. you have to take the additional step to do it as a
smart filter so you can later go back and modify it. it is an *extra*
step that the user has to not only know about, but actually do it for
every edit they make. not everything can be done in smart filters,
liquify being one example (as of cs5).

I do all the editing necessary at this stage on
many images. I only go into Photoshop to get a .jpg version to upload
somewhere that requires a .jpg.

if that's all you do with photoshop, you don't need photoshop at all.

import to lightroom, adjust/retouch as desired, then export to jpeg or
even better, directly upload a jpeg to wherever (lightroom supports a
number of image hosting services).

There is no effort involved in non-destructive editing in Photoshop or
Elements.

bull****. there most certainly is a *lot* of effort.

Well, some of us must find it easier than you do. Perhaps you're just
over your head.

perhaps you haven't any clue what you're talking about, or more
accurately, you *clearly* do not.

what you are claiming is not possible unless you take extra steps, as
i've explained a couple of times already, so whatever it is you find
easier, it's something totally different than what we're talking about.
you're very confused and worse, you don't even realize it.

every edit you make has be done in a way so that it can be undone at a
later time. for instance, filters all have to be done as smart filters.
if you forget, then it's destructive and you won't be able to go back.
it rapidly becomes a huge pain in the ass.

The RAW file remains intact. Some of us manage to work in such a way
that we don't have problem.

whether or not you have a problem is not the issue.

if what you're doing works, that's wonderful, however, what you are
doing is *not* non-destructive editing. period.

Again, perhaps you are simply not very
proficient. Perhaps you should get a PC and use "Paint".

i'm a whole lot more proficient than you and i understand what i'm
doing. perhaps you should take your head out of your ass and try to
learn something, for once.

The effort is the difference between Control + S and Shift
+ Control + S (on a PC) or picking one of the drop-down options vs
another.

completely wrong. that is *not* non-destructive editing.

You just admitted - above - that it is possible but, with your
workflow, "a *lot* of effort".

there you go twisting things again. i never said anything about
workflow, mine or anyone elses.

saving intermediate files is *not* non-destructive editing. period.

what i said was that you *can't* non-destructively edit photoshop
without extra effort, sometimes quite a bit, and sometimes it's simply
not possible at all.

every change you make has to be done in an adjustment layer, smart
object, etc. or it destructs. this is a fact, whether you believe it
or not.

The "effort", though, is something you
experience due to your lack of proficiency.

totally wrong. see above.

you clearly do not understand what you're talking about.

Neil Gould wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Interesting that only you amateur users seem to feel that way.
Perhaps you can explain the reason that such a "failure" resulted
in the market position for those products (#1), and how they can
somehow do better by wasting their resources explaining those
products to folks that are unlikely to need or buy them?

It's never a waste of resources to make an effort to capture a new
customer. Just because a product sells well, doesn't mean its
manufacturer knows how to best market it.

Adobe's efforts to "capture a new customer" appears to be their support of
educational facilities that train those potential new customers on their
product. It seems to be sufficient.

Adobe's market position has little to do with the way Photoshop has
been promoted.

That is patently absurd, William! You don't get to #1 by accident in a
market that is *still* occupied by dozens of other competing products.


No, you do it by capturing rents from having educational institutions
doing your sales for you. Same for much other software
as well... the schools should charge 'em for the privilege.

snip

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Interesting that only you amateur users seem to feel that way.
Perhaps you can explain the reason that such a "failure" resulted
in the market position for those products (#1), and how they can
somehow do better by wasting their resources explaining those
products to folks that are unlikely to need or buy them?

It's never a waste of resources to make an effort to capture a new
customer. Just because a product sells well, doesn't mean its
manufacturer knows how to best market it.

Adobe's efforts to "capture a new customer" appears to be their
support of educational facilities that train those potential new
customers on their product. It seems to be sufficient.

Adobe's market position has little to do with the way Photoshop has
been promoted.

That is patently absurd, William! You don't get to #1 by accident in
a market that is *still* occupied by dozens of other competing
products.


No, you do it by capturing rents from having educational institutions
doing your sales for you. Same for much other software
as well... the schools should charge 'em for the privilege.

I agree that this is a proven methodology, but would go further in a
critique to say that a school that teaches a profession based on an
application, rather than the underlying principles of the field and issues
that are being addressed by an application is ripping off the student by
preparing them for a relatively short-term employment and doing harm to the
industry by stifling the innovative ways that those issues more efficiently.

--
best regards,

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:

No, you do it by capturing rents from having educational institutions
doing your sales for you. Same for much other software
as well... the schools should charge 'em for the privilege.

I agree that this is a proven methodology, but would go further in a
critique to say that a school that teaches a profession based on an
application, rather than the underlying principles of the field and
issues that are being addressed by an application is ripping off the
student by preparing them for a relatively short-term employment and
doing harm to the industry by stifling the innovative ways that those
issues more efficiently.

Oops... this last part should read, "...by stifling the innovative ways that
those issues can be addressed more efficiently."

--
best regards,

Neil

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:17:33 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

--- snip ---

I know you don't mean it this way, and that you understand, but a
person who has not used any of these programs might think from reading
this that Lightroom is the only way to edit non-destructively ...

In the Adobe world.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:14:51 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

Elements is about $70. Photoshop is about ten times that. The way you
avoid the "very expensive stab in the dark" is to buy the cheap product
and use it until you run into something that you need that it won't do.

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.

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

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:46:18 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

You're assuming that they see their market as being people who have
never used the kinds of products they sell before. They don't really
care about the casual-user market. They aim their products at
professionals, most of whom have taken some kind of training.

That seems to be changing.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens