graybalanced

That program is already here, it is Lightroom, and it is still sold inexpensively and with a permanent license.

Photoshop does a lot more, but the way Lightroom 5 looks, I am going to need Photoshop a lot less than I do now.

You just named two engineers. I seriously doubt they have ANYTHING to do with corporate pricing policy there. It is probably appropriate to still have the highest level of respect for their technical achievements. Who knows, they might even disagree with the new policies. Until we know, I think blaming them is probably jumping to conclusions.

Now, I think it's fair to use any expletives you want for their executive team...

Well I'm going to pull back a little on my defense of gw now that I've gone through the thread and seen how many posts he's made.

gw5815, while a connection is not needed every day to use an installed app, Adobe apps are so large that a serious broadband connection is required just to install even one application. It wasn't until my affluent American neighborhood finally got 12Mb/s that downloading a single Adobe app stopped being a long, painful wait.

What I read was that it you can now work to 180 days without Internet, or up to 6 months if you call them.

So working for 6 hours without Internet seems to be no problem. People have to be able to work on planes after all.

Paintshop doesn't do everything Photoshop does, it only does everything you need it to do. Getting away from Photoshop is probably the right thing to do in that case.

SemperAugustus and RadPhoto, I don't think he's promoting their agenda. I think he's just injecting a dose of reality.

People on various forums keep saying they swear this is going to fail, but the reality is that Adobe has already been trying the subscriptions for a year or so and have found out that more users than expected are willingly signing up for the subscription even as the perpetual option still exists. gw is simply posting indications that this might work out better for Adobe than the doomsayers say, and right now Adobe has better numerical evidence than the doomsayers.

I don't like subscriptions either, but what gw is doing is simply showing that the subscription model is working for Adobe so far and it might be wishful thinking for us to hope that it's going to fail enough to be abandoned, based on the evidence.

It will be interesting to see if it remains successful when the introductory prices expire.

If you stopped subscribing for 3 years and can't open your PSD files, is there anything that will stop you from signing up to CC for just one single month, converting all your PSDs to TIFFs, and not worrying about it again?

(Remember, TIFFs can both be opened by non-Adobe apps but can also store all Photoshop layers, effects etc. so in theory is a no-lose format.)

There are more Android phones out there, but that doesn't tell the whole story. It's still true that for every dollar an iOS developer makes, an Android developer makes about $0.25. Also, in the Comscore report that just came out, iOS market share is up and the gain was at the expense of Android, which was down.

tkbslc, carrying around this camera and a little flash and a trigger is a lot different than carrying around an SLR and a Speedlite.

I've done both, fired Speedlites remotely with my Canon 7D and from the hot shoe on the Panasonic LX7. The difference in size and weight is quite significant.

The max aperture at full zoom is why I really like my LX7. It beats both this camera and the S110 in that regard.

I highly value the constant aperture zooms I have for my SLR and the LX7 was the best I could do in that area for a pocket camera under $500.

Why? Will they be going too fast?

There are two opinions here. One is that the large screen is of value, the other that the camera doesn't justify any improvements in viewing.

Not much will change about the large screen. It will remain a large Retina-quality viewfinder, which, if it was on a "pro" camera, would be highly desired.

But what will change is the quality of the iPad camera. Sure, it isn't great now, but just look at the trajectory on similar devices. Its quality can only go up. The iPad camera is sure to improve to where other mobile cameras are now. Not too many years from now, it might be valuable to use the iPad as a Retina viewfinder the same size as an 8x10 view camera.

I'm not surprised at all. This isn't Photoshop,..LR works nondestructively with raw images primarily. That means any edits to your multi-image photos, whether they be HDR, pano, or focus stack, need to be recalculated from the raws all the way through the previews.

People already complain about LR4 being slow, I shudder to think how long you would have to wait for edits to propagate through a 12-image pano or a 5-image HDR made up entirely of raw files when you also include the merging calculations.

In Photoshop you avoid all those problems because the images get merged down into one. It's destructive editing, but it sure cuts down on recalc times.

A large percentage of the "classic" photographs of the film era were shot on fixed focal length cameras. If it fits the style you shoot most of the time, there is no problem.

It is a must, but nobody in this price class can do it, which probably means something about how doable it is.

Decades of Super 16 filmmakers are probably wondering how anyone can call this camera "terrible" and incapable of wide shots...

The ICP had an exhibition of these in NYC a little while ago. It was fantastic because they showed prints along with entire contact sheets and his handwritten notes, so you could see everything he shot and how he marked it up to pick the frame he wanted to print.

There is also a documentary film of The Mexican Suitcase, but I haven't seen it yet.

Let's be realistic. That language is probably used on all of the sites you have willing posted your photos on. Most of it is necessary for the site to do what it does.

Would you post your photos on the site with these terms? "...you grant us a license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such content on the Web Site for the purposes of providing the Services, promotional, and/or display activities. This license exists only for as long as your content for the Services remains on the Web Site..."

Those are the terms of DPReview. Now, DPReview's terms are slightly better than Facebook's because DPReview limits its usage to providing site services, but otherwise the language is almost the same. And DPReview uses the word "promotional." Do you trust how they interpret that word with respect to your images?

Not defending Facebook in the least (I don't trust them either), just encouraging intelligent discussion of terms.

Limited editions don't mean much in a digital world, and there are plenty of blurry lines. Is it still the same edition if you change the size or type of output?

Even worse is leaning on "scarcity" as value in art. That's fine if it's historical, but scarcity on its own is a stupid reason for a collector to base most of the value of a digital piece. Hey, I will print only one copy of this digital photo here, therefore it must be worth four million dollars.

No, let's assign value on the inherent creative value and meaning of the work, not on a scarcity that is implemented in such a plainly artificial way. That's just lying.