fstop: Lets hope Adobe splits off the Raw conversion program into a separate selling program to use with previous versions of Photoshop to handle new cameras. This new Adobe vision is really not right and I hope they get enough bad feedback and loose enough customers to also offer a non cloud version in the future. I have been using PS as a hobby since version 5.5. I have a lot of money and time into the programs not only with PS but with 3rd party programs. I feel betrayed by Adobe and no longer feel I can trust them with further investment even if they come to their senses and stop this madness.
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.
Valiant Thor: Thomas Knoll and Seetharaman Narayanan should be ashamed of themselves.
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...
gw5815: Just sayin' -- http://www.zdnet.com/adobe-q1-earnings-soar-as-creative-cloud-subscriptions-surpass-500k-7000012843/
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.
Jabs767: Cloud? What's that?
First you have to have reliable internet connection which for me is not possible and this reliance by software manufacturers/developers on such technologies might be alright in the US, but not all parts of the world have the same systems.
It takes a whole day recently to download/update my Mac OS! Not every professional photographer works in big US cities or even the big studios in Australia. They seem to have forgotten a large portion of their market and are concentrating on the 'big' customers.
Adobe already charge nearly twice as much in Australia for their products than they do in the US.
It looks like I will be using Nikon's CNX2 and Capture One Pro more now when Nikon deliver new cameras that ACR won't open the RAW files on.
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.
Andre Pernet: I hate it. First Adobe announces the bad news: The subscription!.Then it is the cloud! . What if I want to spend 6 hours working on PS when there is no internet access? Finally they did not say what is new and attractive in PS cc that would make me want it and pay tons of money. Sorry Adobe you lose me by being too greedy.Andre Pernet
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.
ENicolas: I have Creative Cloud - it's not worth it, and when my year of servitude is up I'll be quitting. It turns out that Paintshop Pro does about everything Photoshop does anyway, and for $100.
Adobe just killed itself.
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.
MiraShootsNikon: I love what Adobe technology does for my images, but this attempt to charge "rent" on those images is a dick move.
And what's really going to hurt Adobe, here, is PR doublespeak.
The "Terry White FAQ" is a good example. "You own your images!" they insist, even if you stop paying your "rent." "People, people, get the facts!" Then, quietly: "if that happens, you won't be able to open the latest Photoshop, and you won't be able to open anything that hasn't been saved for compatibility in an earlier version, if you even *own* an earlier version."
Same thing with the cloud processing agenda. "Calm down, people, you don't need a continuous internet connection--only an occasional check every three months!" And then, later, "we're so excited to unveil future image tools that leverage the *processing* power of the cloud . . . ."
Yeah. "People, people! Calm down and get the facts!" . . . . which are pretty much exactly what you think they are. Not smooth, Adobe. Not smooth.
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.)
paulbysea: Why bother with apple it is losing market share hand over foot, Android is the tablet OS of the future.
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.
Anfernee Cheang: "Enthusiast" DC without hot shoe? That sounds funny to me...
I like EVF while all other specs are the same. However, without an EVF I still can shoot. But without hot shoe I can do nothing under certain circumstances. I'd prefer Nikon P7700 in this case, with same 1/1.7" sensor and a brighter F2.0-4.0 lens. P7700 does not have EVF, but instead it has a fully articulated LCD.
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.
MrTritium: We now have 5 slim&light expert compact cameras. The Pana LF1, Sony RX100, Nikon P330, Canon S110 & Fuji XF1.
Size-wise they are very close to each other, and they all weight 190~250g :http://camerasize.com/compact/#456,332,446,384,379,ha,fhttp://camerasize.com/compact/#456,332,446,379,ha,t
Sensor sizes are RX100 > XF1 > LF1=S110=P330 .
They also all have one drawback : The max aperture drops quickly as you zoom. This is especially true for the XF1: F3.4@35mm et F4.2@50mm. Let's hope the LF1 will do better.
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.
skysi: I can't wait until I'll be able to brake those glasses :)
Why? Will they be going too fast?
noirdesir: Not too long ago, some people preferred a large format camera because composing on a big 'screen' is more precise, easier and more enjoyable. Why should composing with an iPad screen thus be something ludicrous?
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.
dparsons: I'm surprised there is no HDR, Image stacking and Focus Stacking .. I guess that would imply the use of Layers and Lightroom is very much single image .. So kinda makes sense .. I love Lightroom and I like these updates anyway ..
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.
peevee1: Another fixed focal length fixed lens cam? Do you ALWAYS shoot at a single focal length and don't care about composition and perspective at all? How many people are like that? They all have been served by X100 2 years ago (and a few of them may upgrade to X100s, maybe). RX1, Nikon A, Ricoh GR etc will just fail in the market, because the market is too small. If any customer will buy a camera like that by mistake, they will return it as soon as they find out that it is just as limited as their phone, only there is no even the "pinch to zoom" digital zoom.And this GR does not even have any stabilization, at all, so it sucks even compared to a good smartphone.
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.
steven168z: Networkable Catalogs is a must..
It is a must, but nobody in this price class can do it, which probably means something about how doable it is.
Ausphoto2011: Yeah sure, its a good looking small powerful camera. But at the end of the day you're still stuck with a terrible crop factor even worse than the BMCC. Goodbye Wide angle shots... you can forget it with this. However, Still intrigued to how the video will look from it.
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.
Hans Stuhrmann: Watch out... uploading and sharing images on facebook means to give away extensive usage rights for free
Would you sign the following excerpt with somebody that just 'shows' your pictures on a web site? They are already making business with our content.
Excerpt from facebook 'Statement of Rights and Responsibilities' that we all sign:
'For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.'
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.