Possible new feature for next Photoshop

In article 2011101416415343658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Then consider that those who use plugins might have an investment
totaling many times that of Photoshop, and some folks have found that
their plug-ins cease to function, and/or not even install when they
update PS.

and some folks have found that their software ceases to function (or
has assorted problems) when they update the operating system.

On 2011-10-14 16:53:16 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Charles E. Hardwidge
wrote:

Your alternative is a workaround and fine as far as it goes. Just don't
oversell it.

it's no more of a workaround than using photoshop directly. it's the
exact same plugin.

Again, explain where Camera RAW is supplied as a standalone.

i did, and gave links.

if you want to argue that the dng converter & camera raw package which
is a single download and install is not a standalone camera raw, then
that's technically true but it makes absolutely no difference to the
user. at the end of the day, you download it and process raw files,
entirely for free.

Wrong!
You convert RAW files to DNG which can then be processed with the last
working generation of ACR you were able to install in the version of
Photoshop you own.

DNG Converter is a converter not a RAW processor.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2011-10-14 16:54:51 -0700, nospam said:

In article 2011101416415343658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Then consider that those who use plugins might have an investment
totaling many times that of Photoshop, and some folks have found that
their plug-ins cease to function, and/or not even install when they
update PS.

and some folks have found that their software ceases to function (or
has assorted problems) when they update the operating system.

That too.

Many folks are reluctant to upgrade an OS to find that their
considerable investment in software has become garbage.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Charles E. Hardwidge
wrote:

Again, explain where Camera RAW is supplied as a standalone.

i did, and gave links.

if you want to argue that the dng converter & camera raw package which
is a single download and install is not a standalone camera raw, then
that's technically true but it makes absolutely no difference to the
user. at the end of the day, you download it and process raw files,
entirely for free.

Again, explain why older apps can't be supported.

i did.

We're not going to get very far if you just rely on *insisting* you're
right and *assuming* other people know less than you. I had the grace to
throw you a bone and if you can't play nice then **** off.

what part wasn't nice? you're the one dropping to obscenities.

1. It's not a standalone in any meaning of the definition.

2. You didn't.

3. You're the one who wants everything your way.

We're done.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

In article 201110141652458930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

There is no free route to ACR 6.5 without an upgrade to CS5 or LR3.

again, this is not true.

Then perhaps a read of Adobe's note from their very own Adobe Camera
Raw 6.5 page and the accompanying "ReadMe";

"The Camera Raw 6.5 plug-in is not compatible with versions of
Photoshop earlier than Photoshop CS5."

http://www.adobe.com/special/photosh...6.5_ReadMe.pdf


nothing about that contradicts what i said.

if you want to use camera raw *within* photoshop, you are restricted to
the version compatible with whatever version of photoshop you are
using.

however, you can use the latest camera raw and dng converter, which is
*free*. once the image is dng, you can open it with older versions of
photoshop.

In article 2011101416571011272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Again, explain where Camera RAW is supplied as a standalone.

i did, and gave links.

if you want to argue that the dng converter & camera raw package which
is a single download and install is not a standalone camera raw, then
that's technically true but it makes absolutely no difference to the
user. at the end of the day, you download it and process raw files,
entirely for free.

Wrong!
You convert RAW files to DNG which can then be processed with the last
working generation of ACR you were able to install in the version of
Photoshop you own.

nope. you can use older versions of photoshop once it's dng.

DNG Converter is a converter not a RAW processor.

it uses camera raw to do the conversion to dng, at which point they can
be opened by earlier versions of photoshop as well as other apps that
support dng.

On 2011-10-14 17:10:56 -0700, nospam said:

In article 2011101416571011272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Again, explain where Camera RAW is supplied as a standalone.

i did, and gave links.

if you want to argue that the dng converter & camera raw package which
is a single download and install is not a standalone camera raw, then
that's technically true but it makes absolutely no difference to the
user. at the end of the day, you download it and process raw files,
entirely for free.

Wrong!
You convert RAW files to DNG which can then be processed with the last
working generation of ACR you were able to install in the version of
Photoshop you own.

nope. you can use older versions of photoshop once it's dng.

Exactly as I have stated above.


DNG Converter is a converter not a RAW processor.

it uses camera raw to do the conversion to dng, at which point they can
be opened by earlier versions of photoshop as well as other apps that
support dng.

Do you actually understand that there is a difference between
converting a RAW file to DNG, and processing a RAW or DNG file.
Not even Adobe claims that ACR makes the conversion to DNG, THAT IS
WHAT DNG CONVERTER DOES, and why it exists.

At no point does DNG Converter process a RAW or DNG file so that it can
be adjusted in whatever editing software you choose, provided it opens
DNG's.

RAW files and DNG files are in many ways equals which require processing.

At no time using DNG Converter can you make any adjustments to WB,
camera profile, lens profile, noise reduction, sharpening, exposure,
contrast, saturation, spot correction, image straightening, cropping,
recovery, apply fill light, adjust brightness, clarity, & vibrance,
apply tone curves, apply gradients, amongst other adjustments.
So DNG Converter does no RAW processing other than conversion, no
matter how much you might want you convince yourself that it does.

As I am about to repeat for the Nth time, you can only use the version
of ACR compatible with the version of Photoshop you own regardless of
how fresh your download of DNG Converter might be.
..


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/12/2011 6:45 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:27:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
"Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
photo is difficult to do.

There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.

A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
type of image has become a cliche.

My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.

It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg



Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
pendulum would have worked better.

Sure, but I don't have a moving pendulum around the house to
photograph.

I was very close to going to a pet store and buying a Siamese Fighting
Fish in a small round bowl to see if I could photograph that with a
blur of movement. Didn't do it, though.

However, one of the other entries was a straight-down shot of a koi
pond. It was good, but not great.



As you pointed out: deliberate motion blur is not easy. My own suspicion
is that is why most CC judges like frozen objects. My bird images with
motion blur in the wings usually receive a comment that the wings are
blurry. Yet to me blurred wings can be a much nicer image.

You want motion blur?

I got motion blur.

See first http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2254.jpg

and then http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2256.jpg

Great subject, but you wouldn't have fared any better than I did. The
judges confused most of us by wanting more blur in some photos and
more sharpness in other photos. What they wanted was an image where
part of the subject is sharp and part is blurred.

The photos they graded high were images of something like a bicycle
with the rider very sharp but the spokes blurred. Some of the "zoom
blur" shots fared well, but they were shots where the blur was created
in-camera and not in Photoshop.


I was thinking of you last night. Someone submitted an image of a small
boy staring at a school of koi. The boy was tack sharp while there was a
bit of blur in the koi. The judge commented that he could not see the
boy's face. Watcha gonna do. (Not my image.)

--
Peter

On 2011-10-15 00:24:13 +0100, Bruce said:

Pete A wrote:

People have been paying large sums of money over the years in the dream
of fixing their broken OS from a certain well-known vendor. Well, now
they have 64-bits of broken crap instead of 16. The crap runs faster,
only because the CPUs are much faster, it takes ten thousand times more
RAM to operate, and needs mind-bogglingly complex add-on software to
protect it from itself. Progress, eh? Can't wait for the 128-bit
stuff...


If the CEO of a certain well-known OS vendor finds a horse's head in
his bed one day soon, this thread will surely help the law enforcement
agencies to find the perpetrator. ;-)

Hey, I loved the OSs while they were earning me money. I have a lot to
thank them for

In article , Bruce
wrote:

The problem comes when you buy a new DSLR, CSC or any p+s or superzoom
that offers RAW. Given the amount of time that usually elapses
between such purchases, it is almost a certainty that you will need a
new version of Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), and that your new version of
ACR won't work with your current version of Photoshop.

only if you haven't upgraded it already.

At enormous expense, which is the whole point of this discussion.

actually, very little expense (or even free). not everyone needs the
full photoshop. for most people, photoshop elements is more than enough
and it's generally $50-70, with full support of new cameras. it is
frequently bundled with hardware so the user might not even need to
spend anything at all.

but that's not the point. some people *do* upgrade their software for
reasons other than adding a new camera because they see value in the
new features. content aware fill is amazing.

adobe adds a *lot* of features that justify upgrading independent of
raw conversion, such as content aware fill. when you get a new camera,
you already have the latest and greatest and can use the latest and
greatest camera raw. if you bought a just released camera it might be a
month or two wait for support, but that's about it.

Adobe adds only enough features to justify the term "upgrade", and few
if any of them are ever of any interest to me.

to you perhaps, but others find the features very useful, which is why
they upgrade.

I would be very happy
if minor upgrades were available at a nominal price to allow using new
cameras, without any of the additional features that you seem to
value, but I (and I suspect most people) don't.

if most people didn't value them, then adobe wouldn't be selling new
copies. since they do sell new copies (and quite a lot of them), that
is obviously wrong.

You are clearly an Adobe fan and in your eyes the company can do no
wrong. But those of us who aren't fans, and who are therefore able to
take a slightly more cynical view, see a company that is abusing its
market position to extract unreasonably high prices for upgrades.

you are clearly an adobe hater and full of disinformation. they are not
abusing anything, they can do wrong (but not with this issue) and the
upgrades are not unreasonably high priced. you get 18-24 months of
*free* updates to the current version of camera raw. how long should
they offer free updates? forever? major revisions will require a newer
version of photoshop, which as i said, is $50 or so for elements,
hardly what anyone would call unreasonably high priced. adobe is doing
exactly the same thing as just about every other software company and i
don't see you bitching about any of the others.

Yes, it is possible to use a DNG converter or the RAW conversion
software supplied with the camera, but many people feel pressured into
buying the latest version of Photoshop, and that ends up costing a lot
of money.

photoshop elements is typically $50-70 and lightroom is sometimes on
sale for as little as $99 (normally $200). that's not what one would
call a lot of money. even lightroom not on sale is not prohibitively
expensive.

Unfortunately, not in the UK, where Lightroom costs GBP 149 plus the
usual 20% VAT, say about GBP 179. That's about US$ 286. As far as I
am aware, it has never been sold at a lower price and is impossible to
buy online in the UK at the US price.

lightroom goes on sale periodically, you just have to watch for it, and
if it's $99 us, it would be about 60 gbp. photoshop elements is
normally $50ish, so that would be about 30 gbp. add in the 20% vat and
it's just 36 gbp, *substantially* less than what you said it would
cost.

I admit I have a vested interest here, but I do feel that people are
being forced to spend a disproportionate amount of money that serves
only to make Adobe rich without yielding any significant benefit to
the purchaser. The purchaser needs only to be able to work on his/her
new RAW files, and the cost of doing that via ACR and Photoshop seems
ridiculously high.

if there's no significant benefit then the user does not need to buy
it. very simple.

The user needs to be able to work on RAW files from their new camera.
The rest of the upgrade offers no significant benefit, but the user
has to pay for all of that just to be able to use their new camera.

the user can do that, as i already explained. the rest of the upgrade
*does* offer benefits, except maybe to you, although i doubt you even
looked at what it includes. you're just blindly bashing.