Beestripe

Beestripe

Joined on Mar 23, 2007

Comments

Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17
On Adobe hack affects 38 million users, not 2.9 million article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Augestflex: Not happy that my account was compromised. The letter I received from Adobe mentions that in some cases Adobe's encryption software was used to decrypt information before it left their network. So yeah, now, in addition to changing passwords I need to worry about my credit card and potential fraudulent charges. Honestly, if it isn't already a practice, companies that have breeches of these nature should be fined for their inability to protect important financial and private data of their customers.

Should, being the operative word. Reality is, most people have the same password for everything.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 31, 2013 at 16:35 UTC
In reply to:

Michael de Ruijter: Does it only come in white?

Yes, but you can paint it any colour you wish

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2013 at 20:13 UTC
In reply to:

bigdaddave: For all those who constantly whinge that Canon never come up with anything new and inventive, just look at this, a pro level tele zoom with a built-in converter.

Get stuffed Nikon

Whether it's Canon or Nikon, you can always count on naysayers here at DPReview.
It's what has made me detest the forums here for years.
moving on now...

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2013 at 20:09 UTC

Yikes! to the lens
Yikes! to the price

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2013 at 20:01 UTC as 24th comment
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)
In reply to:

Octane: Let me get this straight, you expected users to be upset, but went ahead anyways.

You saw a decrease in people upgrading their software because you ran out of creative ideas for new features that people consider worth paying for. So instead of making your products better and come up with new features, you force everyone to upgrade whether they need it or not.

You increase the cost to keep software up to date, yet disowning the buyer completely and effectively holding their work hostage when they don't pay the subscription any more because the software won't even run and open your files.

Adobe, I hear the message loud and clear, you can't come up with product improvements to generate enough income so you force people into a more expensive subscription plan.

Basically Adobe is now and indian giver. People dont like that.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 21:31 UTC
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)
In reply to:

jkoch2: All the complainers are greatly mistaken. Adobe's 2013 profits are down by half, with return on equity now a bare 4%. The software publishing earnings outlook is bleak unless competitors either ape Adobe or cease R&D and merely remarket existing products at successively lower and lower prices. The (mostly good) products sold by Corel originated with firms that went bankrupt, and even Corel lost money and ended up owned by its creditors. Avid has lost boatloads of money.

The driving cause of all this is the slow-down in PC sales and the diminishing marginal returns of fancier or more complex products. Competition in the cut-price iOS or Android "apps" world is another factor.

Maybe there's some truth here.
Maybe also, Adobe has been charging too much for their premium software, leaving no option financially for a LARGE proportion of users to source it by unethical means.
What if they instead slashed their prices (say especially for previous CS versions, or for something less insulting than Photoshop Elements) they'd get a more profitable economy of scale.
And like a lot of loyal customers are saying here, Adobe's strategy of forced-rental risks losing their loyal client base, hence surely less profits...

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 21:15 UTC
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)

I never rent anything. Exceptions being 'temporary' things like hire cars , a movie or an obscure DIY tool that I may only ever need to use once.
Whereas if it's something that I plan to use for a worthwhile duration, I buy. Knowing full well that if I continued to rent or locked myself into a hire-purchase contract, I'd be almost certainly paying far more in the end. And naturally, we all have a better sense of security when owning something we value.

Rent Photoshop? Well, I assumed PS as a permanent-use product for me. This conflicts completely against my principles. It's monopolistic, unethical and just plain ill conceived.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 11:12 UTC as 203rd comment
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)
In reply to:

mike earussi: Since the only people who can justify spending $20-$50/ month for THE REST OF THEIR LIVES just to access PS are professionals who actually make money off of it and so can justify the expense, this means Adobe no longer wants amateurs to use their software. But since all professionals started off as amateurs where does Adobe think any more new PS professionals will come from since virtually all amateurs will now be switching over to alternative products?

Agree. very risky for Adobe in this respect. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg
Most paying professional Photoshop users I know, obtained their skills initially by learning off pirated/free copies. Yet, one or two still use pirated software, but that's basically because it still isn't affordable for them. Let alone for a semi-pro or amateur photographer or artist.
If Adobe instead slashed their software prices, like I mean slashed, I reckon it would pay off far better in terms of economy of scale, and just may even make something like CC a bit more palatable.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:54 UTC
On HDR for the Rest of Us article (199 comments in total)

How to describe making a natural looking HDR image in one word - restraint

Direct link | Posted on Aug 30, 2012 at 11:05 UTC as 21st comment

How can it be like a 'smartphone' if it's not a phone? Just saying.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2012 at 14:06 UTC as 55th comment | 5 replies
On Reuters showcases EOS-1D X multiple exposure modes article (226 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jon Ragnarsson: A bit gimmicky. Takes probably longer to fiddle with settings on the 1DX rather than do it by one command in ImageMagick.

/s

Plus if you dont like fiddling with camera settings, the 1Dx probably would be slight overkill for you...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2012 at 07:16 UTC
On Reuters showcases EOS-1D X multiple exposure modes article (226 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jon Ragnarsson: A bit gimmicky. Takes probably longer to fiddle with settings on the 1DX rather than do it by one command in ImageMagick.

/s

Not.
I'd really like to see you try and composite an authentic multiple exposure effect in ImageMagick, let alone Photoshop. And if you do, please let me know how long it takes.
Makes perfect sense to me, rather just pressing a few buttons in-camera for the effect.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2012 at 18:22 UTC

Famously, Kevin Carter killed himself in large part because of his Pulitzer Prize winning photograph - http://i.imgur.com/KtIz2.jpg
He never helped the child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter
Obviously there is a limit how far one can morally detach themselves as a 'photographer'.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2012 at 12:52 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies
On World Press Photo announces 2012 contest winners article (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

jameshamm: Can you believe it was shot at a speed of 0.4 sec?

Aperture f2, ISO 400 ? not exactly a tripod setting, and judging by the available light in the shot, photo most certainly would have been whited out @ 0.4
Also any photojournalist with a modicum of competence, would surely be aware of an appropriate shutter speed.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 19, 2012 at 16:20 UTC
On World Press Photo announces 2012 contest winners article (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

jameshamm: Can you believe it was shot at a speed of 0.4 sec?

I'd say it's a misprint, 1/40 more likely - close up sample here - http://imgur.com/GaAJT

Direct link | Posted on Feb 14, 2012 at 07:33 UTC

I bet there's 10's of thousands of colour bled london buses that were done well before Nick Houghton's far from unique, photoshop 101 crud.
Someone please sue the f**ker

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 16:39 UTC as 86th comment
On Preview:canong1x (1032 comments in total)
In reply to:

BeanyPic: I wish people would stop finding their flaws in any camera and slam the products and manufacturers.
Make your comment. If it has what you want and need or it doesn't put it in but stop the moaning. The reason manufacturers make so many different models is to cover a specific market place. There are so many now that you'll find what you need from any of them.
I mainly use Canon as I find they have what I require and I like the look and feel of their products. Not every camera hits the mark for me but that's the way it is. I'm betting that statement can be made by all commentators on this site. So stop brand bashing just because they didn't come to you and make a bespoke model just for you.
I'm not innocent myself, I'm not a Sony fan. So I don't buy Sony.
Find and buy the right product for you.
Had to get this of my chest as it's getting a bit painful reading a lot of these comments now.

isn't dpreview the home of pedantic whiners?

Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 17:44 UTC
Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17