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

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

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

Comments

Total: 298, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

tom1234567: Users with the LRcc version still have not been updated And I am one of the users whom have still not had the update. Tried everything even uninstalled reinstalled no joy turns out Adobe servers are Cr-p and can not cope with the downloads so here's hoping mabey today !!
TomG

I've just checked. My Lightroom CC was upgraded to 2015 9 days ago.

I have no explanation for your problem, but it isn't a general problem.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 10:41 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: The last time I tried this off-cloud trial of Photoshop it refused to work, saying I had already had it and needed to buy. I shall now attempt again, will let you know if it works... Do hope I dont have to be online all the time I'm working...Dont want my stuff getting to Adobe for free!! Does anyone?

There are things I fail in. I do not understand updates. Surely a competent designer is able to write down what we need globally, all of it, and then simply write all those needs and all those adjustments into Photoshop, or Windows, or Apple OS, or a Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Sony camera? Surely.

I agree there are technological advances in hardware, but in software? So far the only reason , me the old PJ has for even wanting Photoshop over Lightroom is they refuse to allow LR to sharpen at 0.2 pixels, forcing us to use 0.5 at least. Not an update then at all, a commercial tyranny.

@munro harrap: "Because to force me (and you) to spend money to open files from newer cameras they force you to buy the next version, and then the next version."

Typically not true. Convert those files to DNG using the free DNG Converter and they will open in earlier versions of software.

Remember that this is largely a problem forced by the camera makers, not Adobe. For example, Pentax users like me don't have this problem because we can shoot DNG. Lots of other cameras have used DNG over the years.

If other camera makers offered DNG as a user option (why not?) we wouldn't keep seeing this complaint.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 08:47 UTC
In reply to:

backayonder: A few months ago I noticed that when I edited a photo in Lightroom 5.7 and then opened it up in CS5 the image was dark so eventually decided to pay $9.99 a month for the latest Lightroom and Photoshop.

Problem solved. Just two cups of coffee a month its a no brainer especially when I think how much I have paid over the years whenever I upgraded Lightroom or Photoshop.

No you do not have to be online yes the software is installed on your PC and yes your work can be saved on your hard drive. I do not store any work on the cloud.

I have just checked on that well known auction site and there is hardly any copies of Photoshop for sale so Adobe have been successful in knocking Pirate copies on the head by going with the Subscription format and Lightroom is so cheap why would you bother with a dodgy copy?

As Photographers we are always updating our gear yet baulk at this subscription model? It is small change compared to the cost of getting our images developed in the old days of film?

@SFXR: "I admire your naivete. I wish I was still innocent. The subscription model is pirated all across the Internet, just like the CS versions were. I believe that the pirates have already updated the new patch that came out a week or two ago. Me, I'm sticking with my Adobe.com bought version of CS6 and then with something NOT Adobe when this software dies. Enjoy your koolaid."

That statement has 2 independent themes: whether it cures piracy, which matters to Adobe, and whether it is good for users, which matters to the rest of us.

As photographers, it is more important to focus on whether or not we personally benefit. (Unless we plan to pirate CC!)

I like the subscription approach. I'm not "naive" or "innocent". I've used Adobe software for many years, and the full CC (not the Photography CC) since before the big 2014 announcement and release. It works for me.

I accept that it doesn't work for everyone. This is for personal factors, not "naive" versus "not naive".

Direct link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 08:39 UTC
In reply to:

Barend: I want to buy software and install it on my computer. No cloud for me, NSA knows allready enough :-))
If LR is not supported anymore I go find an alternative.

@junk1: "Do you need to be online each time you use it? "

No. But it needs to check occasionally. (Perhaps once a month at least? I'm not sure).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: This move by Adobe makes me wonder how successful their change to the, "creative cloud" business model has been.

If creative cloud were making big bucks for Adobe, would they have offered a second free trial?

@Smitty1: I was under the impression there was no cancel-when-you-want ability with this? Do students have that ability because normal end users do not (it is a yearly contract, shown at monthly rate to make the contract look sweeter)."

See the rules at the following:
Learn how to cancel your Creative Cloud membership or plan.
https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/cancel-membership.html

"If you cancel your annual membership (individual or team) within the first month, you will receive a full refund. Otherwise, you are billed 50 percent of your remaining contract obligation."

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

Raist3d: Hi Adobe. How about giving the new Lightroom CC only features to the stand alone Lightroom?

@Raist3d: "How about giving the new Lightroom CC only features to the stand alone Lightroom?"

"Stand-alone" is the cheaper option for people who have decided they don't need new features as they become available, but are prepared to wait, and perhaps even miss some releases!

Having made that choice, why expect to get things that haven't been paid for?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 10:28 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: This move by Adobe makes me wonder how successful their change to the, "creative cloud" business model has been.

If creative cloud were making big bucks for Adobe, would they have offered a second free trial?

@Samuel Dilworth: "It works very well for Adobe. They make more money from fewer customers, and additionally can spend less on development since they don’t need brilliant new features every year or two to get people to upgrade."

Here is a New features summary for Adobe Photoshop CC 2015:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new.html

Follow the links on that page to new features in 2014, and new features in 2013.

There are lots of new developments, some big, lots small, as I've discovered in more than a year of using it. But, of course, some people may simply decide that although Adobe is obviously doing a lot of development work, what they doing isn't of interest to them.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 10:23 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: This move by Adobe makes me wonder how successful their change to the, "creative cloud" business model has been.

If creative cloud were making big bucks for Adobe, would they have offered a second free trial?

@Steve: "This move by Adobe makes me wonder how successful their change to the "creative cloud" business model has been."

Judge for yourself:
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/61605102/sYlvCma1d3g5j7.pdf?PID=2159997
Or:
http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201412/121114Q4FY2014results.html?PID=2159997

4.61 million subscribers so far. Apparently good revenues. Investors like it (as would be expected).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 10:17 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The attraction of a wide angle macro lens escapes me. Every time I've ever wanted to do macro, I wanted longer focal lengths than practically any macro lens ever made.

So, I use my Kenko extension tube set with my 70-200. Even that doesn't really have enough working distance. Now, with a teleconverter and a crop body, then it feels about right.

So, my main macro lens has an equivalent focal length of 448mm.

I've tended to want longer macro lenses, because some of the things I want to photograph get spooked easily.

But when I bought a fisheye, I found uses for it that I wouldn't have thought of without have the lens to experiment with. I suspect it would be the same with this lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 08:16 UTC
In reply to:

stanic042: if the optical quality is any good (seems a bit cheap for ultra wide macro lens) this will be a very nice lens for the planned Pentax fullframe

My thought precisely! I've been wondering what wide angle lens to get for that camera. I suspect that some of my uses of a wide angle lens on that FF camera would permit Shift, and even though it isn't much, it might make an important difference.

(I've already got the long end largely sorted out).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 08:12 UTC
In reply to:

The Straw Man: This lens looks like fun.

When I first got a fisheye lens, it was for fun. And it was fun! But I found that it could be very effective as a creative tool too.

I suspect this lens would be similar - certainly fun, but also opening up some new options that I wouldn't otherwise have thought of. (Sometimes I need new technology to kick me in new directions!)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 08:07 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: If this has anything to do with optics, it is probably a good thing because it might mean that they've got their FX body up and working, and they're finally getting the best possible look at what a full-frame Pentax lens would look like on a full-frame Pentax sensor. (They've put almost all their effort into crop-sensor lenses for quite a while now, so who knows how any of their other FA / D-FA lenses will perform on full-frame.

TLDR; as long as they can get both this lens and the full-frame body delivered by this fall, or at the latest by this holiday season, I'm OK with the delay...

@matthew saville: "They've put almost all their effort into crop-sensor lenses for quite a while now, so who knows how any of their other FA / D-FA lenses will perform on full-frame."

Several people have tried DA and DA*, as well as FA, lenses on film cameras and published their conclusions. Obviously there is a difference between how a lens behaves on film versus how it behaves on a digital camera. But there are some clues available:

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/pentax/ff-index.htm

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 07:47 UTC
In reply to:

razadaz: Every time Adobe is mentioned on this forum it’s like throwing petrol on the barbecue. For me the features that have been introduced into Photoshop CC would not be enough to temp me to an upgrade let alone jump ship to a subscription. I will continue to sail the Photoshop 6 ship for as long as it stays afloat. The subscription model is great for businesses. If you are making good profits it’s a steal. For those who have no existing software it is a good option in the short term. But for those who have existing software I think the features being offered are not that tempting.

@razadaz: "But for those who have existing software I think the features being offered are not that tempting."

In contrast, I like the subscription model, and I like the steady trickle of improvements and new features. (I subscribed to the full CC before "CC (2014)", so I've seen 2 large CC-wide upgrades plus lots of smaller changes).

I'm just pointing out that the people who like, rather than hate, the CC model are not limited to businesses and people who make money from photography. I'm a pensioner and get no income from what I use Adobe CC for.

I respect your opinion for you and lots of others. But accept that there are people in possession of the same facts and plenty of CC-experience who have the opposite opinion.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 07:40 UTC
In reply to:

Jylppy: I hate the thought that my photos are managed & edited with a software by greedy corporation like Adobe that I do not trust. There are companies that have earned their trust, but Adobe is not one of those.

@Jylppy: "And they are using means such as "making alternative inferior" vs. just making it better."

It is common with software (& other things) to differentiate products so that a range of options, at different prices, is available, even though the manufacturing costs are the same.

The computer company I used to work for would bring out a range of computers, at different prices, with the cheaper (entry level) ones crippled by a simple bit of hardware. The customer could then buy an upgrade, and the engineer would arrive with what we called "golden pliers", snip the crippling feature, and provide the upgrade.

With software, this is even easier, because the pure "manufacturing" cost is small. Why not put lots of Photoshop code into Elements? In fact, why not give away CS6 to people with CS2? The same logic applies.

Instead of thinking of this as making the perpetual license version "inferior", think of it as making the perpetual license version "cheaper", or "less of a commitment".

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 11:22 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Joseph: Well, the FF body is not here yet so no big deal

@Mister Joseph: "Well, the FF body is not here yet so no big deal"

I wanted to use it this summer on a K-3 or K-3 II, so it is important to me. (But I do want them to get it right!)

Remember that there are several other Pentax FF lenses. They sell in spite of no FF camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 10:42 UTC
In reply to:

supeyugin1: Why do they need FF after thay converted all their lenses to APS-C?
Pentax should stay APS-C, instead of going FF. It's more compact and lighter.

@supeyugin1: "The customers who are asking for it already went to Canikon. Nobody is going to buy FF DSLRs from Pentax."

I will!

I already plan to buy just about all of the top-end FF equipment being released this year. I have (and like) the 150-450mm lens, and I've pre-ordered the 70-200mm lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 10:38 UTC
In reply to:

User6581894107: All consumers have to do is stop buying Adobe products. Every company listens to revenue based messages. I fear there are simply too few folks who will stop using the products.

But I like the CC plan! Obviously I won't stop.

I've read recently that there are nearly 5 million people using CC. (I don't know how many of those actually prefer it).

I'm not arguing that everyone should like CC. I'm sure lots of people will never like it!

But I am saying that there isn't a consensus against it. And my reading is that Adobe's shareholders like it because it is a more consistent revenue stream, so it is almost certainly here to stay.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 10:32 UTC
In reply to:

Maxfield_photo: Hopefully they are swapping the zoom and focus rings back to their proper place, though I think that's pretty unlikely.

I have the D FA 150-450mm lens. I find it more convenient to have the zoom ring at the front, because it makes it easier to support the lens with my left hand.

My guess is that I will be glad to have the zoom ring on this lens at the front too. (I have it on pre-order).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 16:49 UTC
In reply to:

abq13: I updated to PS CC 2015; the new features are there except dehaze. I go to "open in camera RAW" or just directly it is not there under FX. How do I get to it
Thanks

After I upgraded to Photoshop CC (2015), I found I had ACR 8.0!

I reloaded Windows, then found that the CC App now identified another update to Photoshop. This time I got ACR 9.1.

Weird!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

Roman_93: Well, if these features are all they put out in a year, then it is very thin and maybe comes in handy but nothing really wothwhile. Nearly no one whould have bought the new version with the old payment model.

It turns out that when innovation runs low a cloud pay model is needed to ensure cash flow rises.

Perhaps now Lightroom CC will get a steady trickle of enhancements like Photoshop CC does.

Here are the sorts of things that subscribers to Photoshop CC have been seeing. Follow the links to what was added to earlier versions of Photoshop CC:

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new.html

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 15:59 UTC
Total: 298, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »