Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

In article , PeterN
wrote:

FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
Olympus OM-D pictures.

converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
however.

Have you his images?

i don't need them.

dng does not degrade anything. converting to dng is lossless.

in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
guaranteed.

it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
original raw) degraded it.

Who is making this guaranty?

read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.

here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what
goes in is exactly what comes out.

do you worry about losing data when compressing one or more files with
zip? of course not, because it's lossless.

Are you saying that it is not possible for a programming error, or other
anomaly to cause a problem during conversion?

there's also a possibility of a programming error causing a problem
with the original raw, either in processing or the camera itself
writing a corrupt file.

it's even possible that a meteor could hit the house and destroy the
only copy of the raw files while still in the camera and not yet copied
anywhere.

you're arguing semantics again.

Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
it, without examination of the before and after images in question.

by understanding what dng is and what lossless means.

In article , tonycooper214
@gmail.com says...

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 10:29:05 -0500, philo* wrote:

On 06/03/2013 06:19 PM, wrote:
I have been a Photoshop user since the very first release of the
software for the PC way back in what, 1990? 1994?? Both personal and
at all of the screenprinting companies I managed over the years and
right up to my own personal photography work. I looked at GIMP once,
Same with COREL..... and a few other wannabe's.



snipped for brevity


Since I do minimal processing , GIMP is way more than I need...however
most of my professional level friends do use Photoshop and it sure can
get pricey to upgrade. Last time I heard, if it's more than one level
you have to start new.

Many of the folks are just staying with CS-2 and are saying they see
nothing in the newer versions they really need.

You would pick up some features that are of real use by going to the
current version of Elements. It's been quite some time since I used
CS2, but I have the feeling that Elements is much more advanced in
features.

"Need" is not a definable criterion. What one person needs is not the
same as what others need. "Want" is probably what more of us go for
than "need".

Many of us - amatuers, that is - that are using CS6 could do just
about as well without it in post processing our photographs, but we
like playing with stuff. Some play too much.

One benefit of CSx is that generally when one wants to do something one
can find a tutorial or howto. For competing products not so much.

As far a GIMP goes, it isn't Photoshop and it doesn't have the
features that Photoshop has...by a long shot. But, if it has the
features that *you* feel are sufficient, it's state-of-the-art.

I used GIMP for a while--the thing that made me dump it was that I could
never figure out how to get it to print properly with the printer I was
using.

Having used CS6, I would not want to go back.

On 6/5/2013 12:45 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
Olympus OM-D pictures.

converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
however.

Have you his images?

i don't need them.

dng does not degrade anything. converting to dng is lossless.

in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
guaranteed.

it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
original raw) degraded it.

Who is making this guaranty?

read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.

here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what
goes in is exactly what comes out.

do you worry about losing data when compressing one or more files with
zip? of course not, because it's lossless.

Are you saying that it is not possible for a programming error, or other
anomaly to cause a problem during conversion?

there's also a possibility of a programming error causing a problem
with the original raw, either in processing or the camera itself
writing a corrupt file.

it's even possible that a meteor could hit the house and destroy the
only copy of the raw files while still in the camera and not yet copied
anywhere.

you're arguing semantics again.

Last time I looked I learned that words are a means of communication.
the purpose for discussion is to exchange thoughts, which is why most of
us use words with a clear meaning.


Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
it, without examination of the before and after images in question.

by understanding what dng is and what lossless means.


And without looking at the images, you somehow know that there were no
errors in the conversion process.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
however.

Have you his images?

i don't need them.

dng does not degrade anything. converting to dng is lossless.

in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
guaranteed.

it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
original raw) degraded it.

Who is making this guaranty?

read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.

here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what
goes in is exactly what comes out.

do you worry about losing data when compressing one or more files with
zip? of course not, because it's lossless.

Are you saying that it is not possible for a programming error, or other
anomaly to cause a problem during conversion?

there's also a possibility of a programming error causing a problem
with the original raw, either in processing or the camera itself
writing a corrupt file.

it's even possible that a meteor could hit the house and destroy the
only copy of the raw files while still in the camera and not yet copied
anywhere.

you're arguing semantics again.

Last time I looked I learned that words are a means of communication.
the purpose for discussion is to exchange thoughts, which is why most of
us use words with a clear meaning.

the words i used have a very clear meaning.

do you not understand what lossless means? apparently not. here's the
definition:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=define%3A+lossless
1. Of or relating to data compression without loss of information.

normally lossless is used with compression. however, with dng, the raw
data is not compressed, it's just in a different container. it's the
*same* raw data, with additional information needed to process it
without specifics about the camera.

if you had any clue about this, you wouldn't be making such an utter
fool of yourself trying to argue semantics.

Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
it, without examination of the before and after images in question.

by understanding what dng is and what lossless means.

And without looking at the images, you somehow know that there were no
errors in the conversion process.

i don't need any of them.

dng is lossless which means converting to dng does not lose data. end
of story.

On 2013-06-05 11:29:30 -0700, "J. Clarke" said:


I used GIMP for a while--the thing that made me dump it was that I could
never figure out how to get it to print properly with the printer I was
using.

All the proponents of GIMP, believe that is all you need. However, GIMP
does not do all Photoshop CS6 can do, and where it does some of what
CS6 can do, it does not do it with the same ease. The only benefit is
cost.

Lightroom 4, and PSE11 are better pay options, and for Mac users
"Acorn" & "Pixelmator" are surprisingly good low cost alternatives. All
four are superior to GIMP.

Having used CS6, I would not want to go back.

Agreed.
I am very comfortable working with CS5 and now CS6 (together with LR4).
I have all the tools I could possibly need readily at hand if needed,
and if I don't know the solution to a problem, there is a wealth of
information and tutorials to add to my knowledge base.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2013060514192521123-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

I used GIMP for a while--the thing that made me dump it was that I could
never figure out how to get it to print properly with the printer I was
using.

All the proponents of GIMP, believe that is all you need. However, GIMP
does not do all Photoshop CS6 can do, and where it does some of what
CS6 can do, it does not do it with the same ease. The only benefit is
cost.

nevermind cs6, the gimp doesn't do what photoshop 4 (not cs4) could do
in 1994, namely adjustment layers.

Lightroom 4, and PSE11 are better pay options, and for Mac users
"Acorn" & "Pixelmator" are surprisingly good low cost alternatives. All
four are superior to GIMP.

Having used CS6, I would not want to go back.

Agreed.
I am very comfortable working with CS5 and now CS6 (together with LR4).
I have all the tools I could possibly need readily at hand if needed,
and if I don't know the solution to a problem, there is a wealth of
information and tutorials to add to my knowledge base.

that's also a plus for photoshop.

On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG.

2. Keep using CS3 as before.

FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
Olympus OM-D pictures.

DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so
that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of
course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly
to .DNG.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG.

2. Keep using CS3 as before.

FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
Olympus OM-D pictures.

DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so
that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of
course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly
to .DNG.

try explaining that to peter.

On 2013.06.05 18:50 , nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG.

2. Keep using CS3 as before.

FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
Olympus OM-D pictures.

DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so
that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of
course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly
to .DNG.

try explaining that to peter.

You're doing fine.


--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:18:37 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Over the weekend I purchased a Nikon D3200 camera. This camera uses
NEF-Compressed RAW format. I use Photoshop CS3 mostly out of laziness
in updating. Also though there is the cost with seeming annual
upgrades. CS3 did everything I need it to do so if it ain't broken
don't fix it.

I didn't read most of your rant but here's what you do:

1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG.

2. Keep using CS3 as before.

Thank you both very much. Sorry about the rant.... Been months since I
had a good one and that certainly did not qualify as a good one.
However I am disapointed in Adobe. Actually I started out just to say
I thought this was going to hurt them. Also, this is what I get for
having lived in a cave for a couple of years.

Elements you say?

I didn't say Elements at all.

i suggested elements.

I said: 1) Get the free DNG converter and 2) _continue_ using CS3 with
the DNG files instead of the NEF.

the most recent version of elements will be far more convenient than
that.

however, dng converter is free.

Yes, I was recognizing both your early contributions.....and
overlooking my rudeness.

I used Elements back in it's very first iteration. However I also had
Photoshop and used it heavily in the printing industry so it seemed
redundant back then and I have not kept uip with it having stuck with
PS all along.

So, I am now venturing outside my comfort zone and "broadening my
horizons" as my anger management obsessive girlfriend constantly
reminds me. Let's just face it...Old men do not like change! At least
I don't...

I am going to grab the DNG converter tonight. Thanks much both of
ya's.