Xiaomao: K-5 scored 83% in 2010, K-5 II (s) scored 81% in 2013. Does it mean a step backward? Anyway, I prefer what K-5 IIs delivers.
Weeell OK, I have an A3+ printer too, have had for a while, and sure results from 16MP are fine. Fine up to A2 if you insist. But it's easy enough to order prints online these days, which I do if I want A2 and A1 prints.
But if you are printing A2 on a regular basis, 24MP definitely has a slight edge, assuming you are using an adequate lens.
Of course if you are not, it's all wasted storage and processing IMO.
I have to say this is Oly's best looking camera for a while. It has a far more functional/purposeful look than any previous model, especially the EM5.
Having said that, there seems to be precious little separation between models.
PhoCam: Sorry Photoshop..... Capture One now has my attention for this type of work! You wouldn't listen, so we moved on. We outgrew you!
Good luck trying to do this in Capture 1.
Don't get all the complaints, though it's par for the course on DPR. The same techniques can be applied in any program but if you are going to do a demo, which one to pick? PS and Elements still account for most users around here.
If you want layers in LR the Perfect Layers plugin is free (onone software) though of you want all the masking options and gradients, you can get the whole suite. Also a plug-in. Works with PSD files too.
But although PSP etc. all do it slightly differently, the technique is exactly the same.
BJL: How about calling this technology "X3", which is the jargon adopted as an industry-standard by CIPA? "Foveon" is just one approach to X3, and not the one that Canon is pursuing, and the "X3" tag is also well-known.
It would be sweetly ironic, would it not, if the ultimate art in digital sensor design actually used ideas from film emulsion technology :-)
Marty4650: Fuji must be following the Microsoft business plan.
They seem to be very fond of marketing products full of bugs, then releasing lots of firmware upgrades ("Service Pack 2?).
Does "Version 1.05" mean that this is the fifth firmware upgrade for this relatively new camera? If so, it makes you wonder why they didn't do a better job testing the camera before release.
Fuji might want to consider making firmware updates into a subscription service. Each time you connect your camera to your computer it checks with headquarters and automatically installs this week's upgrade. The concept seems to be working well for Adobe. :)
It does not have any bugs. The new lens requires new firmware to optimise it's performance, but it still works fine without it.
Funny how people can put a negative spin on a positive drive to improve. Nikon released a FW update for the D700 recently. Now why could they not have fixed that 3 years ago?
She can say what she likes, as long as she says it to me over a glass of wine....
Larger companies do like monthly fees. Easier accounting, no investment cost, easy upgrades. But is this the whole story? Not for software.
SAAS licensing has been touted by software companies for over a decade, but in the end the infrastructure implications (firewalls, control over software distribution and workstation build control) make it impossible for larger enterprises. It is simply unacceptable to have external parties controlling the version level of PC builds, especially via the internet, or losing control over company data security. It's a CIO nightmare.
For individuals and non-business users, SAAS makes very little sense. They like to have permanent ownership, control over upgrades, and portability.
So who does it work for? A handful of small independent design shops running Macs and nothing but CC, and no-one else.
Even MS have massively overstated takeup of 365 in large enterprises:
Klindar: Adobe's decision may very well provide competitors with the business they need to develop their products into complete/superior alternatives. For many years I used JASC (now Corel) Paintshop and switched to CS a few years ago only because I needed support for 48 bit images. Corel then announced support for 48/16 bit and I was happy being able to go back to Paintshop a couple of years ago. For me, it is the technically superior product with a similar (but better) interface to Photoshop, accepts the same plugins and is 10% the cost. The scripting is more flexible and easier to do than Photoshop "Actions". A single license lets you install to 3 machines ... my main unit, backup and portable. I'd have to buy 2 licenses from Adobe to use Photoshop that way. I realize you can transfer a Photoshop license but it's a nuisance. Unfortunately, no Paintshop Apple version but the way Corel has ramped up support and been promoting Paintshop suggests that may come.
I also started out on the Jasc product and it was very user friendly. Only issue I have with it is that the RAW engine is nothing like as good for some cameras as ACR or LR, and it takes longer to get new cameras on board. It's also not as responsive as the newer versions of PS which matters if you have a D800!
This may of course change if their sales take off and they can get more staff. In the meantime you can use it as an editor with LR.
But I agree it's an excellent product and with all the free plug ins its a great deal.
Having been a fairly vociferous critic of Adobe over the last weeks I see this as a lesson learned and good news. This is as near a climb down as you are likely to get.
There IS a big difference between corporate media shops and small photo businesses and consumers. Separate the operations and have a different (but only one) support model for each and the problem is solved.
LR works well. It provides RAW support well before the competition. All it needs is a good editor. An upgrade to Elements with extended 16 bit support, advanced masking, plugins and layers, etc. (but no catalogue) would make financial sense as both a stand-alone tool or an LR plug in.
In combination there is nothing much that would compete, but both would be fine on their own for many people. After all, you can always use Elements with Picasa or Aperture. Instead of competing with your own products, give more people a reason to buy Adobe. Simple. (Invoice in the post)
Choosing Velvia over Provia, choosing black and white film, choosing different saturation in camera, framing, using a polariser, changing the aperture, using a slow shutter, under or overexposing, using or not using flash, using a different focal length to change perspective.....
All of these change the "look" of the result, even before you hit the darkroom (and press darkrooms did a lot of work to enhance images).
The "default" RAW image is simply chosen by the RAW converter. It does not represent reality, any more than Provia did. Or Ektachrome. The eye and brain together can not only see more tonal range, but they also see the drama of the contrast...a camera has trouble doing both. Trying to recreate what the eye sees and the brain felt at the time is not wrong - any more than choosing the "right" phrasing for the accompanying article.
The whole concept of "truth" seems to have people confused. Tell your story well, just don't lie. That's all there is to it.
MarcLee: At the end of the first quarter this year, Adobe reported a 64.8% drop in quarterly earnings on higher expenses and lower product revenue. However, even THAT was above Wall Street expectations.
Earnings for the first quarter were $65.12 million or $0.13 per share, compared to $185.21 million or $0.37 per share last year. Adjusted earnings per share (EPS) declined to $0.35 from $0.57.
Revenue decreased 3.6% to $1.008 billion, due to lower products revenue offsetting increase subscription, and services and support revenues.
Adobe have LOST more in product purchases than they have gained in subscriptions. And that was when they still offered a choice. Products revenue fell to $675.79 million from $808.52 million (133 million loss), while subscription revenue grew to $224.27 million from $146.23 million (78 million profit).
If it's so much cheaper to run a subscription model, then they could offer some positive incentives - like lowering the price....
Another solution for Adobe.
As well as allowing more flexibility on the lease (including right to continued use without upgrade after a certain amount is paid) Adobe have another option to boost growth.
Create a new company, and sell Google a 49% stake in return for a cross licensing, support and marketing agreement. Transfer LR and elements to the new co. and create an integrated offering that has two products, a Picasa based consumer tool with a better editor and RAW converter, and an LR based enthusiast/pro tool with a more complete, 16 bit editor with colour management (hybrid of Elements and essential goodies from PS).
Drop Elements altogether.
Google could develop the consumer product and take over marketing, distribution and support for both.
49% would be a huge investment kick, and would enable them to develop a world beating photographer oriented solution. They would still benefit from an increased revenue stream, despite only owning 51%.
tdptdp: Adobe has started a very valuable conversation here, among the pitchforks and torches.
Why is anyone storing their art in a proprietary file format that is not guaranteed to be around in 50 years? What plans are in place for accessing these valuable works in 50 years?
A friend of mine recently printed a project that combined her contemporary photographs with prints from some very old medium format film she discovered. She was still able to print, even though the camera manufacturer and the film manufacturer have both gone bankrupt and none of the components are available any more.
This is a major unresolved issue with digital photography. The technology is wonderful, but we are being very short-sighted in our approach to it.
@tdptdp you can't own copyright on a format, and patents expire in 25 years. You can already use Corel PhotoPaint to open PDSs as well.
kymarto: I've read Adobe's arguments for the cloud move, and they do not wash. I do understand the advantages, for instance, of continuous incremental upgrades, but the argument about the difficulty of maintaining two separate versions (CC and CS) is hogwash. There is an easily implemented model that could work to everyone's advantage: "rent to own" instead of straight rental.
Let's say that someone subscribes for three years at a cost of $20 a month. They have invested $720. Now assume, for the sake of argument, that Adobe valuates the core app at $800, and the upgrades delivered to that subscriber for those three years at $200. The software that that user has on their computer is worth $1000. What is the big problem to give that user the option of paying the balance ($280) and granting them a perpetual license for what they have? And if they choose not to do so, then they lose access.
Clearly Adobe wants to keep people on the hook and then give them nothing for their money. Shame on them.
Yes, once you have paid over a certain amount (equiv to a license or upgrade fee) you should be entitled to continue to use the software without upgrades. Furthermore, if you wish to "rejoin" then you should be able to do so simply by resubscribing (though the clock will start again from the beginning).
This would cost no more to support than the rental model does now.
But the other issue is that there is NO NEED for Adobe to access your machine in the meantime. If you are paying by credit card, debit card or bank order, they can check you made your last payment. Why do they have to bother you? After all you can't download it onto another machine because you'd have to register.
You should only need to connect to get updates. That's it. They can check your status then.
What appals me more than the sheer arrogance of this response is the complete lack of creative imagination involved. Instead of letting the techies propose a solution that would keep photographers in the game without the downsides expressed (easily possible with some imagination) they just thought "these jerks don't matter so stuff them".
It's the lack of intelligence and unwillingness to keep customers onside that really makes me angry. The executives at Adobe are an insult to the geniuses that design and develop the products.
rhlpetrus: Please clarify this statement:
"Monthly subscribers can go for as long as 30 days without connecting to the Internet for license validation. Users with an annual commitment can go for as long as 99 days."
One thing is license validation, another is if you can actually work offline for 30 days. Is the latter also true?
So if something goes wrong with their license checker, your company stops working. Nice. Hope they enjoy lawsuits.
Adam Filipowicz: if high schools cant afford it.. then they should switch to something else.. I dont even think highschools need adobe products.. if you want to learn it.. go to college/university and it will be paid for by your outrageous tuition fees
Yeah, I know you now, aren't you the Adobe Customer Relations Director?
OvinceZ: Lightroom is for photographers and Photoshop isn't? Both are useful for photographers but Photoshop is too expensive. Lightroom is now affordable like Nik software. Most of us spend heaps on other photography software. Topaz, Capture One, Perfect Effects, Noiseware, etc.
Adobe is going to lose thousands of long time customers with this strategy.
Worldwide I would bet there are more than 100,000 enthusiasts and solo pro photographers who use PS. Probably even 500,000. Still probably small beer as far as Adobe are concerned as it apparently costs more to support them than kick then in the nuts.
The stupid thing is they could fix the problem easily with a bit of imagination, but they seem to be oblivious. Or maybe they are just deeply cynical.
57even: It just struck me that forcing many low usage users into paying considerably more for a product simply because they are locked in is probably a breach of anti-trust law. Now, anyone know a friendly lawyer?
No, they are effectively forcing me to pay a lot more for legally licensed software, or do thousands of hours work for no value to myself simply because of their market position.
BTW if you work for Adobe, then in my opinion you are making it worse by insulting everyone. If you don't, then why the hell are you schilling for them?