If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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 |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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 |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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 |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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 |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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 |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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 |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Has your memory card ever worn out?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|