Has your memory card ever worn out?

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:00:09 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

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?

I suspect your search-fu is weak young grasshopper.

You seem to be missing the point in much the same way as many other
people. William Sommerwerck described the problem succinctly in two
successive articles:
---------------------------------------------------------------
When he first touched on the subject he wrote:

"I was amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of its
products did (or didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or
not).."

... and in his next article he expanded his point by writing:

"And what of those who haven't used them? There are hundreds of new
potential customers every day who are ignorant of such things. What
do you do...ignore them?

For example... What is the relationship between Lightroom and
Photoshop? Lightroom apparently does some things Photoshop also
does. Why would I use one and not the other? Or both? How do these
products interact (or not). What are the advantages and tradeoffs?

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. The goal is to get a "I like that --
I'll buy it!" reaction."

I don't think he was requesting anything other than a comprehensive
description of anything but the general capabilities of and the
relationships between the components of the product range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I came in to say that I was looking for much the same information
several years ago and couldn't find it either.

This information cannot be obtained as an answer to a single simple
question. Nor should each individual would-be customer have to carry
out extensive research to acquaint themselves with a range of Adobe
products so they can assemble the information for themselves.

so what do you suggest that they do?

any potential customer who is not familiar with a product line will
have to learn about it prior to purchase, regardless of what it is.

We are not talking about a _product_line_.

for some people that might be fairly quick, such as a pro who knows
what they're looking for, while for others, it might mean doing some
research to see which product best fits their needs.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:48:08 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

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?

A short answer is 'none' but I might quibble over what is meant by
'books'. However, surely you are not saying that these are these only
reason for using Photoshop.

I'm saying that these are good reasons for using PhotoShop, and that other
apps are as good or better at fitting other workflows. For example, I don't
use any version of PhotoShop if I'm preparing images solely for the web.

I suspect there are some things that Photoshop can do which I might
value purely for my own satisfaction. Even if that is all there is to
it, which it isn't, it surely is enough.

Your suspicions are based on...?

I haven't found anything that PhotoShop can do that other apps that I have
or have used can't do, except create good PSD files to pass to agencies who
are clients of mine or integrate seamlessly into my other Adobe apps. For
me, it's a matter of workflow efficiency, not the feature set of one
particular app, and one won't find out about that from reading books or a
website.

--
best regards,

Neil

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 06:23:33 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

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?

I suspect your search-fu is weak young grasshopper.

You seem to be missing the point in much the same way as many other
people. William Sommerwerck described the problem succinctly in two
successive articles:
---------------------------------------------------------------
When he first touched on the subject he wrote:

"I was amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of its
products did (or didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or
not).."

Which says that his search-fu is also weak. I admit that adobe doesn't
jump up and beat you over the head with the comparison, I've always had
to look for it, but it's been there for a long time.

... and in his next article he expanded his point by writing:

"And what of those who haven't used them? There are hundreds of new
potential customers every day who are ignorant of such things. What
do you do...ignore them?

That is exactly what adobe does, just as Peterbilt ignors the hundreds
of new soccer moms every day who they do not consider to be part of the
target market for 18-wheelers.

For example... What is the relationship between Lightroom and
Photoshop? Lightroom apparently does some things Photoshop also
does. Why would I use one and not the other? Or both? How do these
products interact (or not). What are the advantages and tradeoffs?

I don't understand why one needs a point by point comparison to get the
difference. Lightroom is a cataloguer with some editing capability.
Photoshop is an editor with some cataloguing capability.

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. The goal is to get a "I like that --
I'll buy it!" reaction."

I don't think he was requesting anything other than a comprehensive
description of anything but the general capabilities of and the
relationships between the components of the product range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I came in to say that I was looking for much the same information
several years ago and couldn't find it either.

This information cannot be obtained as an answer to a single simple
question. Nor should each individual would-be customer have to carry
out extensive research to acquaint themselves with a range of Adobe
products so they can assemble the information for themselves.

Why should a prospective customer for a Peterbilt truck have to obtain a
commercial driver's license? Quite simply because that's the market
Peterbilt wants to serve.

It's called "owning a niche". Adobe doesn't want to be a mass-marketer.
If you just want to dip your toe in the Adobe water, get Elements.
That's what they want the mass-market consumers to do. The ones who
find it useful and want more can then upgrade. The ones who don't
haven't spent much.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:00:09 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

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?

I suspect your search-fu is weak young grasshopper.

You seem to be missing the point in much the same way as many other
people. William Sommerwerck described the problem succinctly in two
successive articles:
---------------------------------------------------------------
When he first touched on the subject he wrote:

"I was amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of its
products did (or didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or
not).."

... and in his next article he expanded his point by writing:

"And what of those who haven't used them? There are hundreds of new
potential customers every day who are ignorant of such things. What
do you do...ignore them?

For example... What is the relationship between Lightroom and
Photoshop? Lightroom apparently does some things Photoshop also
does. Why would I use one and not the other? Or both? How do these
products interact (or not). What are the advantages and tradeoffs?

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. The goal is to get a "I like that --
I'll buy it!" reaction."

I don't think he was requesting anything other than a comprehensive
description of anything but the general capabilities of and the
relationships between the components of the product range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I came in to say that I was looking for much the same information
several years ago and couldn't find it either.

This information cannot be obtained as an answer to a single simple
question. Nor should each individual would-be customer have to carry
out extensive research to acquaint themselves with a range of Adobe
products so they can assemble the information for themselves.

so what do you suggest that they do?

any potential customer who is not familiar with a product line will
have to learn about it prior to purchase, regardless of what it is.

We are not talking about a _product_line_.

Well, actually you are.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:59:59 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Nikon NX2 and Paint Shop Pro does me for now.

In that case, whether you realize it or not, Photoshop is gross overkill
for your purposes.

Yes, it will do everything that you need, but you'd be buried in
complexity.

I suspect that there are things I am doing or might want to do in the
future that might be better done in Photoshop. I will find out when
the time comes.

and you will be able to do what you want in photoshop elements too.

You are not in a position to know.

you are not the target market for the full photoshop. you're not a pro
who does this stuff day in and day out. what it offers over elements
isn't anything you are likely to ever need.

I'm a potential buyer.

What part of "go away, we do not want your business" are you having
trouble with?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

This information cannot be obtained as an answer to a single simple
question. Nor should each individual would-be customer have to carry
out extensive research to acquaint themselves with a range of Adobe
products so they can assemble the information for themselves.

so what do you suggest that they do?

any potential customer who is not familiar with a product line will
have to learn about it prior to purchase, regardless of what it is.

We are not talking about a _product_line_.

of course we are talking about a product line.

you said 'a range of adobe products' above and you also made a big deal
about *comparing* the products in a checklist.

sounds like a product line to me.

not that it matters, since if there's only one product you will still
have to familiarize yourself with the one product. same thing, only a
little less work.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Nikon NX2 and Paint Shop Pro does me for now.

In that case, whether you realize it or not, Photoshop is gross overkill
for your purposes.

Yes, it will do everything that you need, but you'd be buried in
complexity.

I suspect that there are things I am doing or might want to do in the
future that might be better done in Photoshop. I will find out when
the time comes.

and you will be able to do what you want in photoshop elements too.

You are not in a position to know.

if nx2 & paint shop pro do it for you now, then you don't need the full
photoshop. you might think you do, though, but you don't.

you are not the target market for the full photoshop. you're not a pro
who does this stuff day in and day out. what it offers over elements
isn't anything you are likely to ever need.

I'm a potential buyer.

everyone is a potential buyer.

you don't need the full photoshop for the reasons i gave.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

photoshop is an *very* popular app and there's *so* much information
out there about it that it's scary. it's actually overwhelming how much
is out there.

Which is why a comprehensive description of the general capabilities
and the relationships between the components of the product range are
so desirable. That doesn't need a full description of the entire
capabilities of each product.

as has been explained numerous times, that's available from adobe and
many other sources.

Neil Gould wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:48:08 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

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?
A short answer is 'none' but I might quibble over what is meant by
'books'. However, surely you are not saying that these are these only
reason for using Photoshop.

I'm saying that these are good reasons for using PhotoShop, and that other
apps are as good or better at fitting other workflows. For example, I don't
use any version of PhotoShop if I'm preparing images solely for the web.

I suspect there are some things that Photoshop can do which I might
value purely for my own satisfaction. Even if that is all there is to
it, which it isn't, it surely is enough.

Your suspicions are based on...?

I haven't found anything that PhotoShop can do that other apps that I have
or have used can't do, except create good PSD files to pass to agencies who
are clients of mine or integrate seamlessly into my other Adobe apps. For
me, it's a matter of workflow efficiency, not the feature set of one
particular app, and one won't find out about that from reading books or a
website.

And if all you want is the interface, then GIMPShop will let you have
close to 90+% of that for free.

It's the GIMP 2.2 with a Photoshop skin on it.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
I haven't found anything that PhotoShop can do that other apps that
I have or have used can't do, except create good PSD files to pass
to agencies who are clients of mine or integrate seamlessly into my
other Adobe apps. For me, it's a matter of workflow efficiency, not
the feature set of one particular app, and one won't find out about
that from reading books or a website.

And if all you want is the interface, then GIMPShop will let you have
close to 90+% of that for free.

It's the GIMP 2.2 with a Photoshop skin on it.

Well, I think an app's functionality is more than skin deep...

www.gimp.org says:
"It's been a long time since we last had an active Windows-based developer.
Consequently, GIMP has accumulated a plethora of bugs specific for that
operating system. As much as we'd like to provide a smooth user experience
for Windows users, we simply do not have the required human resources."

'nuff said.

--
best regards,

Neil