TheEye

TheEye

Lives in United States San Francisco, United States
Works as a tandem horse diver
Joined on Apr 9, 2009

Comments

Total: 74, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1852 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheEye: Adobe believes their customers should have to pay $800 per year to use Photoshop. Adobe doesn't care that I neither need nor want all the latest doodads. I am also sure that Elements will remain a severely crippled 8 bit version of Photoshop.

Adobe can go and fly a kite in the cloud. There are other options.

I never felt a need for updating CS3.

Surely you know that software does not remain compatible forever, so don't give me smug advice, Adobe shill.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 04:23 UTC
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1852 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Ma: Adobe responds with...a *verbal response*, but no real response in any sense of that word. They might have released a press release with the single statement "So?", and called that a response.

Adobe has give the "hobbyist photo community" the finger. Time to tell them where to shove it.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 04:19 UTC
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1852 comments in total)
In reply to:

Adam Filipowicz: In my business. its easier to stay with a subscription rather then going through the yearly hassle of requesting software upgrades.. its cheaper, faster and less work to manage

So what's right for you must be right for everyone else? Enjoy your constant "updates" - you can't live without them.

How often have you posted in this thread? Ten more posts, and you'll get a $15 check from Adobe! :-P

Link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 04:18 UTC
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1852 comments in total)
In reply to:

SRT3lkt: guess many hobyist here then.

"We expected a higher degree of this type of reaction from the hobbyist photographic community "

Nice slap in the face of longtime customers. Now it turns out Adobe just doesn't care for for the "hobbyist photographic community." Adobe are charming and clever!

Link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 04:13 UTC
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1852 comments in total)
In reply to:

Adam Filipowicz: I bet most of the people that are complaining about paying a small fee to use photoshop, dont own a license and have a pirated copy.. becasue if your complaing about $20 then whats the likelyhood you bought it for $1000

Shills tend to be full of it. They apparently get paid on a per-post basis.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 04:03 UTC
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1852 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheEye: Adobe believes their customers should have to pay $800 per year to use Photoshop. Adobe doesn't care that I neither need nor want all the latest doodads. I am also sure that Elements will remain a severely crippled 8 bit version of Photoshop.

Adobe can go and fly a kite in the cloud. There are other options.

I have used CS3 for over 5 years. For simplicity sake, let's say exactly 5 years or ca 1827 days. I bought CS3 for around $500, I believe. So I paid 27 cents a day or about $100 a year. Now go wipe that smirk off your face. :-)

Link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 04:02 UTC
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1852 comments in total)
In reply to:

Adam Filipowicz: I dont do cloud.. I dont have a cell phone, I dont use email. I dont buy digital music i like CD's, I dont like computers..I like snail mail..no im not a dinosaur.. no way not me..

Luckily, Adobe gave you free access to a computer and paid you to post here. :-P

Link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 03:54 UTC
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1852 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoByRichard: But why is $4 a day very greedy and $1 a day is not greedy?
The fact is right now most of us are paying a lot less than $1 a day, so FORCING us to pay 200,300,400% more for something we don't need is greedy.

I want to be an owner, not a renter.

I bought CS3, which I am still using, and which I intend to keep using as compatibility between OS and CS3 exists.

Do you think I didn't pay enough for CS3, because I have been using it for half an eternity? ;-)

Link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 03:47 UTC
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1852 comments in total)
In reply to:

John Mason: I'm sorry. But I wonder how many people out there are like me and we just simply don't do cloud.

I don't do Iphone cloud on my phone, I don't do google cloud on my tablet, I don't use internet based backups, I certainly don't run my apps in a cloud dependent way.

I started with Photoshop with version 3 years ago and as the competition has come up, while I've upgraded over the years, I'm finding I just don't use it much more because the competitive raw converters have added so many features and the workflow is superior.

I have C1, DXO and Lightroom and for my needs I'm using C1 most of the time unless I need lens corrections then It's DXO.

The problem is, I use PS so seldom now that there is little incentive to join the cloud. MS is pushing this with Office 365 which has pushed most my clients to OpenOffice, because, they like me, just don't want to live in a cloud.

I'm not interested in the cloud. I keep my data on hard drives and on discs.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 03:45 UTC
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1852 comments in total)

Adobe believes their customers should have to pay $800 per year to use Photoshop. Adobe doesn't care that I neither need nor want all the latest doodads. I am also sure that Elements will remain a severely crippled 8 bit version of Photoshop.

Adobe can go and fly a kite in the cloud. There are other options.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 03:42 UTC as 701st comment | 4 replies
On article More pictures leak of purported Olympus PEN 'E-P5' (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

wilsonlaidlaw: Surprised to see the lower resolution VF-3 on this camera rather than the VF-2. The P series normally uses the VF-2. Given that Epson have already announced the successor LCD from the VF-2, I would have expected to see a VF-4 on the EP-5.

Wilson

That is the VF-4 in that picture. It has a much larger eyecup than the VF-3.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2013 at 14:52 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF6 Preview (101 comments in total)

Great little cam for those who want neither an EVF nor a hot shoe. I'm hoping the the G6 will have what I want.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2013 at 08:27 UTC as 34th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Rupert Bottomsworth: I predict these glasses will be a flop.

There are lots of idiots who will buy this idiotic product to not only document the minutiae of their idiotic lives, but to also share all this tedium with other idiots.

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2013 at 06:17 UTC

Luckily, thieves don't read gear-related news online. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2013 at 09:35 UTC as 13th comment

People still watch tv?

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2013 at 02:54 UTC as 48th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Boris: If I hire a artist to paint a portrait for me what copyright rights does this artist have?

Search for the term "work for hire." If you do a job that is explicitely "work for hire" (<-- this exact wording), then the client owns the copyright of the photos.

I always clearly state that, while I take on assignments, I do not do "work for hire."

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2012 at 04:07 UTC
In reply to:

Rod McD: IMO, the concept that photographers create an image all by themselves is a bit of a problem. It understates what is in reality a more complex situation. If a work is commissioned, a photographer doesn't own and didn't create the image subject. If that belongs to someone else, or is a person, then giving copyright to the photographer may hold some potential problems.

What rights do you have as an inventor or manufacturer if you've commissioned photography of a new product that is in-confidence? What rights do you have if a photographer takes pictures of you or your child, even with permission? It's a general legal principle that you can't contract your way around a legislated right. So what limits exist in the new law around how a photographer can exercise their copyright?
Even as a photographer, I can't see that this is the right outcome all of the time. Photographers should not be without rights, but neither should photographers have all the rights.

The copyright holder holds the copyright to his creation (the image). The image content (people property, brand names) may preclude commercial (or libelous) use of the image. To use an image commercially (for profit), the photog needs a signed model release from people that are clearly recognizable. In the case of images of property it depends: shot from a public area, an image of private property may of may not require a peoperty release, depending on several circumstances and factors. For example, in order to use a photograph of the Golden Gate Bridge commercially, the photog has to get a release from from the city of SF, because the Golden Gate Bridge has been copyrighted.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2012 at 04:04 UTC

In the US, the photographer owns the copyright, unless the job was expressly done as "work for hire." I never do "work for hire," because the client will own the copyright.

Even though I have the copyright to all my images, it does not mean I can use my photos commercially without required permissions (model and property releases). How I can use my images is however a seperate issue from me having the copyright.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2012 at 03:57 UTC as 35th comment
On photo Solitude in the Mountaineering challenge (4 comments in total)

Meteora? Isn't that where the monastary scenes in 'For Your Eyes Only' were filmed back in '80?

Very nice shot. Love the light, compositon, and tonal range.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2012 at 03:56 UTC as 1st comment
On article Just deployed: New dpreview.com forums system (699 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheEye: I don't see a post preview any longer. Did this feature get dropped?

Well, with a preview I see my typos. With WYSIWYG I don't. I suppose, WYSIWYG is not the same as WISISWIG! :-p

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2012 at 07:28 UTC
Total: 74, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »