Barry Pearson

Barry Pearson

Lives in United Kingdom Stockport, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired computer systems engineer
Joined on Sep 24, 2005
About me:

Photographic qualifications: LRPS, CPAGB

I have no commercial or contractual relationship with digital photography companies, other than paying for the use of their products.

My own websites require no registration, are non-commercial, and free of paid-for advertising.

Comments

Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

hammarbytp: This release just emphasizes the gap between the full Photoshop CC version which due to its pricing model is now only suitable for professionals whose living is photography and Photoshop elements users whose just want to stick there latest cat pictures on Facebook.

There is nothing here however for the hobbiest photographer enthusiast who wish to produce the best possible photo.

There is a yawning gap in the market here which someone needs to fill.

I am an amateur photographer and website developer, and I subscribe to the full Adobe Creative Cloud, not just the Photography subset. People need to be careful not to assume that their own judgments are everyone's judgments.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 09:16 UTC
In reply to:

lcf80: Almost every single camera provides RAW images using 12 or 14 bits per color, free tools like GIMP and RawTherapee support it. And Photoshop Elements still useless, in 2014? Open your eyes, Adobe.

I demand high quality from my images, whether projected or printed. I have found over many years using Photoshop that if I get the histogram right during raw conversion I can normally work with 8 bits in Photoshop. (Not always - just nearly always).

I suspect this is the point that Lee Jay made above - the fact that raw images use more than 8 bits doesn't mean that the image processed in Photoshop needs more than 8 bits. As long as the "heavy lifting" of the processing is done in the raw converter before getting into Photoshop, there is typically little to gain.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2014 at 09:04 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: While I personally have struggled for years to get my head around Aperture (it just seems a total mess, compared to Lightroom or even iPhoto), I do feel sorry for the many photographers whose brains are wired in a way that allows Aperture to make sense, because they no longer have an upgrade path.

On the other hand, that might be a good thing. Each new version of Lightroom has got more complex and runs slower and slower. I would have stayed on Lightroom 1.4 (very snappy) except Adobe force an "upgrade" with every new camera purchase. At least Aperture users can now get very comfortable and stay that way for years! After all, Apple aren't actually dropping Aperture just yet and, even if they do, it will still work for some time after that.

Reply to deep7 (etc): why would you transfer your photos to and from the Cloud? Is that something Apple demand?

I am a subscriber to the full Adobe Creative Cloud plan. (I also wanted web-development tools, etc). I can run stand-alone when I want to, and my photos never leave my PC. The Cloud is there if I want to use it, not a necessity. (Although I think my apps "call home" every month to check that I am still subscribing).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 17:01 UTC
On Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

pagenine: It's like selling your soul. Once you subscribe, there can be no going back. Adobe spent millions (if not billions) on this little venture. They made their bed and now they have to lay in it. When they realized most photographers hated it, the monthly price started dropping and now it's down to $10 per month.

My guess is they hired some marketing "expert" when the Cloud was first mentioned a few years back and they assumed (wrongly) that one day everything would be on the cloud and we would all live happily ever after. It may work fine for word processing and spreadsheets, but NOT for PS.

I have to think that the few proponents there are for CC, work someplace where the company pays for it, so sure, why not enjoy it.

For the rest of us that have been using PS since the earliest versions, this seems like corporate suicide for Adobe.

Part 2:

I think Adobe would argue that people who object to the subscription model are not really their target market for Photoshop. Photoshop goes far beyond "photography" as typical people at DPReview see it, and will continue to be developed for leading-edge professional tasks.

I think Adobe would argue that other people would be better off with Lightroom and/or Elements, both of which are available as "not CC", which are targeted specifically at photographers rather than more general "creative professionals". Lightroom continues to get capability that once needed Photoshop, and Elements, especially given the plugins available for it, does lots of things that older versions of Photoshop didn't.

(Note: I'm going by demonstrations of Elements and what I've read - I don't use it myself. But I do use Lightroom - in fact I consider Photoshop to be a plugin to Lightroom where photography is concerned!)

People examining just the "Photography" CC plan are seeing very little of CC.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 21, 2014 at 05:58 UTC
On Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

pagenine: It's like selling your soul. Once you subscribe, there can be no going back. Adobe spent millions (if not billions) on this little venture. They made their bed and now they have to lay in it. When they realized most photographers hated it, the monthly price started dropping and now it's down to $10 per month.

My guess is they hired some marketing "expert" when the Cloud was first mentioned a few years back and they assumed (wrongly) that one day everything would be on the cloud and we would all live happily ever after. It may work fine for word processing and spreadsheets, but NOT for PS.

I have to think that the few proponents there are for CC, work someplace where the company pays for it, so sure, why not enjoy it.

For the rest of us that have been using PS since the earliest versions, this seems like corporate suicide for Adobe.

Adobe is heavily developing the Creative Cloud for leading-edge creative professionals. Full CC subscription gives access to nearly all of Adobe's major apps, of which Photoshop is just one of many. Most of those apps are mainly intended for professionals anyway.

The "Photography" CC plan is a bit of an anomaly. It provides Lightroom + Photoshop for half the price of a CC plan for just (say) Dreamweaver. Yet it provides (in my opinion) far more capability, representing far more development effort over the years.

A recent report said that most recent Adobe revenues came from recurring payments including the Creative Cloud. It is the future for their top-end apps.

Why is the "Photography" CC plan a cheap anomaly? I think it is because, unlike most other Adobe apps, Photoshop is widely used by amateurs and photography-only professionals. There is a large market they can sell to at the right price.

I subscribe to the full CC, yet I'm retired. I think it is worth what I get for it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 21, 2014 at 05:44 UTC
On Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Danny: CC = history.

For leading-edge creative professionals I believe CC is the future. I don't think there is really a down-side for those people.

For other people, (including me!), there are alternatives. But they won't include new versions of Photoshop. In spite of not being in Adobe's target market for CC, (I'm retired, a pensioner, and a hobbyist photographer who also develops websites, etc), I've subscribed to the full CC, because I think it is a good deal.

I think when amateur photographers have had the chance to examine what the alternatives are, the fuss about CC will die away. It will be seen that Photoshop is not necessarily the ideal product for many such photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 16:30 UTC
On Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

tornwald: We need to know nothing, because Adobe is dead.

Walter, I agree that Photoshop was designed for such people from the start. But a complication was that there were few alternatives for other people. (I first bought Photoshop 6, in 2001. There were others, but not nearly as many as today). So many of those other people started using Photoshop.

Elements didn't exist (although Photoshop Limited Edition, or "LE", did). Neither did Lightroom. Then when those came along, they were very limited at first, and no alternative to Photoshop. People used to speculate that Adobe were slowing down their development to avoid competing with Photoshop. People said that about (lack of) perspective correction and soft proofing in Lightroom, for example.

I don't think that Adobe are (now) worried about those products competing with Photoshop. They want Lightroom to be ubiquitous. Elements continues to evolve. I hope that (perhaps with Lightroom) those who can't accept the CC model or think that Photoshop is bloated or a rip-off see these alternatives.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 16:18 UTC
On Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

tornwald: We need to know nothing, because Adobe is dead.

Hm! I've just seen a recent financial report that says they have exceeded their target revenues, and more than half of their recent revenues came from recurring sources such as the Creative Cloud and Marketing Cloud.

What I'm seeing in DPReview is an increasing mismatch between the direction Adobe is taking Photoshop and direction that would be suitable for typical photographers here. Perhaps CC is the wrong model for many people here, but that is because they are no longer Adobe's target market for Photoshop. (Judging by the announcement/presentation that I watched in real time a couple of days ago, they are addressing leading-edge creative professionals. Photoshop is just one part of the CC offering).

If most photographers were in Adobe's target, they would probably be justified in criticising the Cloud model and its pricing. But such photographers may need to re-assess whether Photoshop will ever again be a good match to their real needs. Would Lightroom and Elements be better?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 09:56 UTC
In reply to:

Dorkington: I've had both the photographer bundle and the full bundle since they launched this initiative, and frankly I've been very pleased. It's a fairly cheap price (especially the photographer bundle) for applications that I use to pay my bills. The updates are often times incredibly helpful, especially some of the stuff for Illustrator and InDesign.

I have to wonder if some of those complaining would be pleased with Elements. I don't say this as an insult... Elements has a pretty comprehensive set of features these days, and it's cheap to boot.

Reply to Deardorff:

I think someone who is content to stay on older versions of Photoshop isn't in Adobe's target market for Photoshop. Their development efforts are concerned with professionals who want the latest features, who want the flexibility and sharing of the Cloud, etc. (I'm comfortable with the CC plan and have a full subscription, not just "Photography", because I wanted other things too, but I don't think I am in the target market either!)

I really believe that for the majority of non-professionals, either or both of Lightroom and Elements, non-CC, would be sufficient. They are suitable for photographers typically working alone, and they both have some capability that weren't even in the full Photoshop a few years ago.

I think that some people want the full Photoshop (which in the full CC plan is what was the Extended version) mainly for what it represents, rather than because they need its unique features. Perhaps now is the time to ask "is this the product for me?"

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 05:54 UTC
In reply to:

PicOne: How do upgrade fees (to eg. LR6) get calculated if the upgrade becomes available somewhere in the middle of your 1yr contract?

IOW, to say this $9.99/month cost structure is "permanent" doesn't mean much if LR5 is about to be replaced.

In effect, you are not subscribing to "Lightroom 5". You are subscribing to "Lightroom".

Just after the announcement yesterday, as a subscriber to the full CC plan, I was able to install Photoshop 2014, Dreamweaver 2014, and Audition 2014, plus the upgrade to Lightroom 5.5 and an update to Bridge. At no extra cost. And there are several other CC products that I can now take the 2014 versions of at no extra cost if I want to, even though they didn't exist when I subscribed just weeks ago.

I assume that the same will apply to the "Photography" CC plan too. It would be useful to have conformation of this.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 16:49 UTC
In reply to:

Marcin 3M: Imo these new features are maybe worth 9.99 - but total, not per month... Or little more.
But this whole buzz reveals, that concept of improvements of ps. ended with cs3.
All PS subscribers pay for improvements of premiere, illustrator or indesign, and their commercial cloud, rather than improvements of PS itself.

This morning I started to experiment with the extra features in Photoshop 2014, released yesterday. The Photoshop CC that it replaces was improved compared with CS5, which in turn .... you get the message!

The reason I have been taking nearly every upgrade of Photoshop (and Lightroom) is that each upgrade has been useful to me. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop#Version_history

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 16:41 UTC
In reply to:

Stephen_C: Nothing says "Success" like dropping the price so low. The problem is that I am reminded of Admiral Ackbar's famous line when it comes to getting invested in an open ended subscription with a program that uses proprietary image files.

If Adobe goes broke, things won't stop instantly. There should be time to do some bulk conversions. (I realise that TIFF, like PSD, belongs to Adobe, but lots of programs support it to a little or large extent).

Given that there would be millions of people with the same problems, I would expect there to be a large market for products that will help people with those problems.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 16:35 UTC
On Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Barry Pearson: My career was in the computer industry, working for a company which made part of its income from software revenues. So part of my own income came (in effect) from software revenues, which for our own operating systems tended to be on subscription/rental. So I have a different view from many people here, and I am comfortable with the CC model. (And I don't see software piracy as a victimless action).

I have long said that I believe the first software to be considered by club-level photographers should be Lightroom or the equivalent, rather than Photoshop which has been the traditional first product in the UK. Then editing software can be added if needed. I know people who make effective use of Photoshop Elements, with or without Lightroom. I also know many people who use Photoshop and struggle with it, while they clearly don't need anything beyond Elements or the equivalent.

Photoshop is not a monopoly. Even Adobe don't think so, hence Elements, which is not CC.

Reply to jtan163:

I live in the UK, which has suffered for many years from over-pricing compared to the USA, just as Australia has. I have even complained on-line in Adobe forums, using the term "rip-off".

But - that didn't change my views on piracy! I didn't have to buy, Adobe doesn't have a true monopoly, there are alternative products, and I didn't have to buy nearly every upgrade. It was (and is) a cost-benefit judgement to do so, taken as a hobbyist. Buying Photoshop upgrades was one of the cheaper aspects of my photography, far cheaper than petrol, and possibly cheaper than ink+paper.

I believe many of the people who pirate Photoshop are not professionals who might claim they need it to make a living. (Would such people be able to claim it against tax as a business expense anyway?) If someone doesn't need it to make a living, what justification do they offer?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 16:21 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: So it's apparent Adobe has alienated the 50+ crowd. Hopefully the $10/mo plan will attract enough young people to make up for it.

I'm 67 and subscribed to the full CC plan two or three weeks ago, once I had a hot PC built.

I have been taking nearly every Photoshop upgrade for about 13 years, and nearly every Lightroom upgrade from version 1. And I use Dreamweaver, and badly needed an upgrade to my old version. I think the full CC plan is good for me.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 11:07 UTC
On Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know article (182 comments in total)

My career was in the computer industry, working for a company which made part of its income from software revenues. So part of my own income came (in effect) from software revenues, which for our own operating systems tended to be on subscription/rental. So I have a different view from many people here, and I am comfortable with the CC model. (And I don't see software piracy as a victimless action).

I have long said that I believe the first software to be considered by club-level photographers should be Lightroom or the equivalent, rather than Photoshop which has been the traditional first product in the UK. Then editing software can be added if needed. I know people who make effective use of Photoshop Elements, with or without Lightroom. I also know many people who use Photoshop and struggle with it, while they clearly don't need anything beyond Elements or the equivalent.

Photoshop is not a monopoly. Even Adobe don't think so, hence Elements, which is not CC.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 06:37 UTC as 34th comment | 3 replies
On Ricoh announces HD Pentax DA AF 1.4X AW rear converter article (52 comments in total)

I've pre-ordered it.

If it works as well as I hope on my macro and longer lenses, it will be a cheap way of extending the capability and options of my equipment.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 10:33 UTC as 10th comment
On Ricoh announces HD Pentax DA AF 1.4X AW rear converter article (52 comments in total)
In reply to:

offertonhatter: £380? Wow!

Actually, on certain Pentax Forums, that was the ballpark price for this (between £300 and £400). So in the end it seems to be spot on.

I will still get one, I have a funny feeling that it will be superb with my DA*300mm F4.

:-)

Gary Martin:

Yes to both of those lenses! But I also want to use it on the DA-F 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR, because sometimes a bit of extra distance is useful for macro work.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2014 at 10:30 UTC
On Pentax K-3 preview (959 comments in total)
In reply to:

MaxSauvage: As a longtime Nikon D300s user for sports and wildlife, I'm praying that they launches a new APS-C Expert Camera with improve ISO and MP resolution. I'm really feeling like Nikon don't bother their DX-pro users anymore..

Look like Pentax-Ricoh understand what a ton of D300s user wish for a long time ! A 8.3 burst at continuous-shooting (60jpegs - 33 raws continuous is very good) If Pentax can launches a 70-200 or a 80-400, this K-3 would be a very VERY attractive option for wildlife and sports shooters ! !

I use the DA* 60-250mm f/4 lens for airshows, motor sports, sometimes birds in flight, urban candids, etc. (I've had it for over 4 years and it has survived dreadful weather without fuss). It is sharp enough wide open, and very good at f/5.6.

If I could only keep one of my lenses, it would be this one. (If I could only have two, I would add the DA 12-24mm f/4).

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2013 at 17:52 UTC
On When Bad Weather Means Great Photography article (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

rfsIII: I'm a +1 on making sure you keep your gear dry, dry dry... Despite the YouTube videos of people hosing off their cameras with no ill effects, I managed to short out the internals of a D7000 in a very light mountain rain. Whether or not your camera drowns seems to be somewhat unpredictable.

My Pentax K-mount bodies and DA* lenses have been drenched many times over the last 4 years, without any problems. I've got photos I otherwise wouldn't have got. I've stopped worrying about them - I have more concern for myself! (One of the most famous YouTude videos on this topic featured Pentaxes being used in Afganistan. I have no knowledge of how other makes compare).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2013 at 12:31 UTC
On Pentax Q7 Review preview (240 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kodachrome200: Given the price and the size and weight it just seems odd. at the end of the day it is neither cheaper or easier to carry around then m.43 or aps.c systemcamera. yet the results pale. why would anyone buy this

I have a Q plus the 02 zoom (and the optical viewfinder and a spare battery). Since I like big bold sharp photos, (I use a K-5IIs and some good lenses), I don't know why I bought it.

And here I am, looking at this review, thinking that I want to upgrade to the Q7, and I don't know why! I suspect I will have one by the end of the year, and I still won't know why.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 11:15 UTC
Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »