Clint Dunn

Clint Dunn

Lives in Canada Vancouver, Canada
Joined on Dec 2, 2008

Comments

Total: 287, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

GaryJP: For all kinds of reasons, including living on the edge of a very repressive political system, I do not trust cloud computing. If the authorities can remove your access to the "cloud" and your programs depend on that, you can do NOTHING. It's a dangerous move for those who don't live in Western style democracies.

Exactly. My IT guys were trying to convince me to convert all of our companies Office licenses to Office 365 (Cloud)....I don't think so!! Let's see....Patriot Act gives the Gov't access to all of your confidential info.....

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 04:24 UTC
In reply to:

ch01: Reading from the statements, it's not about controlling pirating, they want a continuous stream of *larger* income...

I'm sure the subscription model will be cracked too....but as it stands you need to 'connect' through the net at least every 30 days. With any of the other 'cracked' versions there was never a need to 'connect' unless you wanted an updated version.

I'm not saying they will be successful, but theoretically the subscription model should be less susceptible to piracy. It's like currency...just because there will always be counterfeiters doesn't mean the Treasury stops looking for anti-counterfeit measures....

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 04:19 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: The biggest problem with what Adobe is doing is that it leaves people with very little options. Don't want to pay for a subscription?? OK, fine, good luck opening that proprietary RAW file from that fancy new Fuji/Canon/Nikon/Pentax in your $600 copy of CS6 in a year's time.

I don't know about you guys but if the camera makers standardized with say dng files I could live with CS6 for the next 10 years easily.

Oh use the SW that came with your camera you say?? Oh yes, back to Silkypix....the joy. Admittedly it isn't Adobe's fault the camera makers are too stupid to standardize a RAW format, but they are about to alienate a LOT of people with their new business model.

OK....so I was wrong about Pentax but (no offence) they are a small player anyway. Canon/Nikon use proprietary RAw formats and that is the lion's share of the world.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 04:14 UTC
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: I will not be buying Photoshop again after over 10 years of licensing and using it. Currently, I own and use PS CS5 and this is the end of my relationship with Adobe! If you insist on having me buy into CC and no longer offer me upgrades, there will be no more Adobe purchases from me. I will find a suitable alternative product ASAP!

Rick...I completely agree with you....but subscription is where things are going....for better or worse.

I was a staunch supporter of physical media for movies too...can't tell you how many Blu-Rays (and even HD-DVD's) I bought...but guess what....the Blockbusters of the world have gone the way of the dodo bird and the majority of people just stream online through Apple/NetFlix etc.

It sucks...but it's true. Same thing for Microsoft, their Office suite is now subscription based. I refused to migrate my company to Office 365 as I refuse to pay the subscription. I am going to hang on to Office 2010 as long as I can.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 04:13 UTC
In reply to:

ch01: Reading from the statements, it's not about controlling pirating, they want a continuous stream of *larger* income...

Gary....every version of PS till now has been cracked and setup to not communicate back to Adobe...what good are 'monthly checks'.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:48 UTC
In reply to:

OvinceZ: Adobe is an example of the negative side of Capitalism. Nik made their software cheaper via Google. Adobe is way too expensive for what you get and the updates add up. No wonder there are so many pirates. Now this Cloud nonsense. Surely there can't be that many silly people who will subscribe!

Yes....Nik made the right move making the product cheaper. The reality is that there are far more casual users of PS than there are 'Pros'. Adobe is pricing the majority of their consumers completely out of the market.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:46 UTC
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: I will not be buying Photoshop again after over 10 years of licensing and using it. Currently, I own and use PS CS5 and this is the end of my relationship with Adobe! If you insist on having me buy into CC and no longer offer me upgrades, there will be no more Adobe purchases from me. I will find a suitable alternative product ASAP!

Very noble of you Rick....but name a 'suitable' alternative to PS. Therein lies the problem....many other products are decent depending on your needs...but for some things PS is simply the best.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:44 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: The funniest thing about the litany of complaints here is that the majority of you don't pay for the SW...you use pirated copies. Go ahead...tell me I'm wrong:) For every Pro out there with a legit copy of PS is a 'Pro' doing $500 weddings on weekends with $2000 of SW they got off a torrent site.

jberk - I NEVER said that 'no one' buys the SW....I said that a LOt of people do not buy the SW....there's a difference.

Think I'm wrong??? Go to a Torrent site and see how many people are 'sharing' CS6. I just checked...one one site alone there are roughly 4,000 people sharing the CS6 file for download. $600 a copy times 4,000 users on just one site is $2,400,000 in lost revenue....not to mention that additional people are downloading the program as we speak....every second of every day.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:42 UTC
In reply to:

ch01: Reading from the statements, it's not about controlling pirating, they want a continuous stream of *larger* income...

Don't fool yourself....it's about the pirating just as much as it's about the constant, steady, predictable cash flow that a subscription creates.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:33 UTC

The biggest problem with what Adobe is doing is that it leaves people with very little options. Don't want to pay for a subscription?? OK, fine, good luck opening that proprietary RAW file from that fancy new Fuji/Canon/Nikon/Pentax in your $600 copy of CS6 in a year's time.

I don't know about you guys but if the camera makers standardized with say dng files I could live with CS6 for the next 10 years easily.

Oh use the SW that came with your camera you say?? Oh yes, back to Silkypix....the joy. Admittedly it isn't Adobe's fault the camera makers are too stupid to standardize a RAW format, but they are about to alienate a LOT of people with their new business model.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:30 UTC as 448th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: The funniest thing about the litany of complaints here is that the majority of you don't pay for the SW...you use pirated copies. Go ahead...tell me I'm wrong:) For every Pro out there with a legit copy of PS is a 'Pro' doing $500 weddings on weekends with $2000 of SW they got off a torrent site.

Calm down guys...I said, for every Pro with a valid copy is a weekend warrior who doesn't...I guess you guys are some of the precious few who pay:) Don't kid yourself, the ability to sell the product monthly is a bonus, but the ability to cut down on pirating is probably just as big of a motive. I'm sure the hackers will find a way though..
Anyway, I have long said that if Adobe priced the product much lower they would sell more than enough to make up for the reduced entry fee.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 03:15 UTC

The funniest thing about the litany of complaints here is that the majority of you don't pay for the SW...you use pirated copies. Go ahead...tell me I'm wrong:) For every Pro out there with a legit copy of PS is a 'Pro' doing $500 weddings on weekends with $2000 of SW they got off a torrent site.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 02:17 UTC as 478th comment | 22 replies
In reply to:

Framer: Adobe should just cut staff, stop development and reduce marketing, that way, it could be much less expensive!

Oh wait, then everyone here would start whining about how there are no new features bla bla bla...

Pathetic bunch of whiners!

Actually.....if someone at Adobe priced their product appropriately a lot more people would choose to buy it as opposed to using pirated versions of the product. It would blow your mind if you knew how many people use PS for free.....many would buy legitimate copies if it were cheaper.

The honest few pay the price for a bloated product that the majority of people get for free. That's a fact...well....an opinion based on a LOT of anecdotal evidence.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 02:12 UTC

While I hate the news I can't say that I am surprised. Microsoft is basically doing the same thing with Office 365. After all...why sell SW once when you can make people pay for perpetuity.

The figure I would like to see is how many of the millions of PS users paid for the SW vs those just using pirated copies....

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 02:07 UTC as 482nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Airless: $700 for a 55-200mm zoom? Have they lost their minds?

Jim King - Hey....I own an XPro1 and their 35mm 1.4...so I'm not cheap. This is a slowwww lens so for me $700 is too much money. To each their own.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 16:49 UTC
In reply to:

Airless: $700 for a 55-200mm zoom? Have they lost their minds?

@Jim King - Look at the speed???? In what world is a 3.5-4.8 lens 'fast'.....sounds very 'kit like' to me. Remember many of us buy fast glass for the shallow DOF not just the speed....and there is nothing remotely special about a 3.5-4.8 lens from either a speed or DOF perspective. Too much money!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 00:43 UTC

Is it just me that finds it odd that Fuji would advertise the Zeiss lenses on their roadmap??? Yes I understand that more lenses for their platform is a good thing but still....

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 00:41 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply
On We put the HTC One's ultrapixels to the test post (172 comments in total)

16:9????? Really?? Man...I really want this phone but 16:9 for photos is just brutal. As the article mentioned once you crop to 4:3 you are only left with a 3MP image.

16:9 is ok for landscape snaps but useless for most portraits.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 15:17 UTC as 17th comment
In reply to:

farrukh: That looks huge!

That's what she said.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2013 at 21:59 UTC
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: Pretty amazing story. This guy has to sell his gear to pay the bills...then we have all of us clowns on DPReview with G.A.S who buy and sell like they're disposable cameras.

onlooker - You know what I was getting at. For some people cameras are tools to make a living. For others cameras are a hobby (more-so than the photography). I don't begrudge people buying and selling gear but at the end of the day the majority of us shoot for a hobby.

I just think it's an interesting commentary that some people spend tens of thousands on gear they barely use only to sell it a year or two later when something 'better' comes along. Then you have someone such as this award winning Photojournalist that NEED the gear and are forced to sell. Just sayin'.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 12, 2013 at 22:32 UTC
Total: 287, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »