rickpoole: I agree with Dale 100% - my cost will go up by 2-3X at the minimum. Being a hobbyist who doesn't make much money on photography this price increase is unjustifiable and unacceptable and no explanation by Mr. Hendrickson or other Adobe executives would convince me to subscribe to the CC subscription model at those rates. Even if the monthly price was only $9.99 I'd still have to think long and hard whether I want to be tied to any form of software subscription.
Mr. Hendrickson's statement of what they plan on offering for the hobbyists really doesn't make sense - Lightroom CC enhancements trying to lure them into the CC subscription model? Apparently they are not listening to the thousands of posts from users saying they will not subscribe to the CC no matter what.
You guys are killing me :) It is justifiable, because Adobe doesn't answer to you. It is also acceptable to many who use the full suite. $600 per annum for someone using PS simultaneously with IL, and using After Effects with Premier and InDesign for outputting eBook content... it starts to look like a deal to the professional who actually uses the software to the hilt.
It's a good deal for many artists who can afford $10 for PS but cannot afford to plunk down nearly $700 for PS alone.
The math is simple. Some people will benefit; some people won't. Adobe feels that it reaps the most financial reward focusing on its most financially important demographic. I can't fault them for that because it makes the best business sense. Adobe isn't your friend, nanny or nurse maid. Adobe is a company; nothing more. nothing less.
Neither Adobe nor Mr. Hendrickson or associated execs are trying to convince you to do anything. It's a simple take it or leave it scenario :)
seidensticker: It is always sad to see companies with a good product put the needs of the company (stable revenue and profits) before the needs of their customers. The American car manufacturers had a "planned obsolescence" strategy which blew up in their face when the Japanese offered better cars at a lower price and with better customer service. Adobe has ignored the needs of tens of thousands of amateur photographers (like me) who are not daily users. We are not interested in giving Adobe an annuity for life. Their new strategy is especially stupid given that Google has bought Nik software. Rather than defend their market, Adobe has chosen to cede a large portion of their business to a larger and financially stronger competitor. This won't end well for Adobe!
Not the same. Whether you're a corporation or kid that works at the local burger joint, a car means the same thing to you if you have to get to work, band practice, etc. The general public supports the automobile industry.
PS on the other hand isn't supported by the typical photographer. Most photographers aren't spending $600 -$2,500 on PS or an Adobe Suite. Adobe isn't saying "screw the photographer", but rather "Wake up... you're neither our target market, nor the demographic that pays our bills/profits!"
Photographers that *do* fit into the target market probably aren't whining about paying $20-$50 monthly.
I fancy boxed software, but I think Adobe is on the right course.Unless Google comes out with a program better than PS, they're not even on anyone's radar when it comes to processing photos- whether they own Nik or not is of no consequence in my mind.
My response is simply to stick with CS6 unless something jaw dropping comes down the pipe.
nikhilnh: I hope someday Adobe realizes that this was a very very bad decision and I also hope that they realize that "someday" is today.
I think Adobe knows their deepest pockets... and it isn't photographers making chump change. I maintain that Adobe will make a lot of money with this method. I don't like it either, but it does make sound business sense.
Clint Dunn: 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....
Easy answer. Amongst only those who stole the software, the subscription-to-pirated software ratio would be higher than it currently is had Adobe had subscriptions in the past as many businesses (and some individuals/groups) who steal the software but really need it for their work, would've been forced to buy it.
Too simple. Adobe isn't blind to that fact either.
Pay to play.
Gary Goodenough: I have my last versions of Photoshop, I have three CS6 licenses and would have purchased three CS7 licenses. I will not rent. So long Adobe I will spend my money on something else.
I have 6, but wouldn't have even thought about purchasing 7 unless the new features were too great for me to pass up. That's the point. Adobe doesn't make money off people like me even though I buy the suites... once every 5-8 years ;)
I think Adobe is on a roll with what they're doing. Leave the little fish behind and go for the bigger bucks. Makes perfect business sense in this particular instance to me.
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.
You would be correct. Adobe is doing the right thing. Photoshop has been pirated to death. Though I like buying the suites and not being dependent on the cloud (I generally dislike cloud computing), I do not blame Adobe one bit!
Adobe isn't in business to lose money. It's in business to make heaps of it, and I think they're on the right track. I'll be using the CS 6 suite until it just doesn't fit my needs anymore and hopefully by then some other corp would've made something comparable to PS. I don't see myself paying for a subscription anytime in the near future unless Adobe releases features that are just too great to pass up.
I hate to see adobe go this route, but I understand it 100% and think they're doing the right thing.
** For every person or business who pays for Adobe products, I think 100x that amount mooch it from the internet. Generally speaking I believe Clint is correct without any doubt in my mind.
Howard: How exciting ... NOT!
Actually the price seems like not-so-high priced cinema equipment, but that's beside the point. People pay over $10k for a Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux to use non professionally, and over $13k for a Canon 800mm lens to shoot birds in their spare time, so spending $5k for a "cinema" lens isn't exactly breaking the bank for many people interested in the lens.
And for those who were in the market for a fast 50mm lens anyway, they effectively get a $2,000 discount when opting for the cinema lens since they were going to be out that anyway. ;)
Exciting to others on this site who think video is the future, especially when it comes to paid work hands down because it's still too collectively expensive & time consuming (equipment, software, editing knowledge) for most people to try to make money with it.
Since there are many on this site who use their Canons for stills in conjunction with video when they're actually working to get paid, the lenses are relevant. I for one like hearing about them and any new tech along those lines.
So while it may not be exiting enough for my panties to soaked, it's relevant enough for me to want to read about it.
cplunk: Now were going to get all alarmed about these. But I've never seen anyone get too alarmed about their laptop's camera being pointed at them, and the room behind them any time it's powered up. I've read at least two court cases about these being used to track "missing" property (one from a public school district, sent home with a student. the other from a rental center).
I wonder how long before hackers start harvesting images off these?
Funny you mentioned "laptop cameras" being pointed at the user. The first thing I do when I pull a computer from the box is tape over the camera with a well-blending strip of black tape. I can't even tell you if the camera on my iMac works properly... I've never used it. There is no way on earth would I trust having a camera pointed back at me that's connected to a computer. No way.
One reason why I don't just paint over it is because I might want to use it as an additional security camera of sorts when I'm not home.
WildSammy: well and now will spam the world poor quality photos of everything and without any deeper meaning or value by millions of people who will photograph and share stupidities all around them.. just they see it.. congrats google! try to focus on something more useful for humanity next time :)
Actually, since the masses have had easy access to HD video and excellent still photo quality, I've gotten MUCH more enjoyment looking at what the common man brings to photography and video as opposed to when it was dominated by professionals. Professionals didn't film their wild 150mph ride through city streets in a Ferrari, nor airplane landings in interesting Alpine resorts. Professionals didn't film or photograph great war footage as seen from an A-10 pilot's view. I've seen more *interesting* shots from civilians on the street than I have ever come close to seeing in professional (sanitized) work.
Sometimes I just want to see the real world, without having to think about a silly "deeper meaning". It's real-world videos that have forced many corporations to make a better product when Suzy Q and her friend start posting real life videos of which of their cars performs better in snow... the Audi or the Volvo wagon.That's what people can relate to, not corporate ad crap.
Todd Ka: These are disgusting. and should be illegal. Goodby privacy.
You were fooled into thinking that you ever had "privacy" to begin with. The government (and military) and see into your home, listen to your conversations, track your movements, and monitor your business... the concept of "getting a warrant" is for people who don't know any better. Sheep. A warrant is about as realistic today as a restraining order... neither keep the really bad people, organizations, or governments from doing what they've been doing all along anyway.
rfsIII: Luckily, the technology for making sense of all those photos is at least years away, so the sheer volume of data is going to be its own protection for now. Think how hard it is to go through the 50,000 or 100,000 photos you have on your hard drive. Multiply that 100 times and then multiply THAT number by the billions of head-mounted cameras that will be in use soon. The Stasi and the CIA and the KGB and whatever other secret police will never be able to go through them all.
Actually a computer could find a particular face in a billion photos fairly quickly (relatively speaking). That technology has been around for at least a decade. It doesn't take much imagination to know how quickly such will be done a decade from now.
fstein: Interesting phenomenon - when surgeons document informed consent on video, patients have almost zero recall of what they were told
That's been happening in the field of Law since day one. Think of how many people have to be told what it was they really said as opposed to what people remember themselves as saying. Perhaps witnesses will be able to tell what they actually saw, instead of swearing to what they *think* they saw.
robogobo: No way am I going to tolerate someone in my presence with one of these obnoxious, intrusive apparat on their face. No way.
The choice isn't yours... past removing yourself from the presence of the other person wearing the thing-a-ma-bob on their face. Just like you can't do anything about a person with a cell phone or GoPro camera.
peevee1: D800E with Nikkor 85/1.4G and the new Sigma 1.4 DG HSM A (stopped down a little) are going to be as good or better as anything on 645D I suspect, even at base ISO (of course it kills Pentax at speed).
But then there are those DP1m, DP2m, DP3m.
Paying 10K for a body and then more for nice lenses is so last decade. ;)
The D88e comes close, and for most photographers will make better financial sense than buying a MF body + lenses and accessories- however, do not be fooled into thinking that the D800e is on par with a MF camera because it is not.
Close enough for most work, but there are many areas where the D800 doesn't even come close. Shooting a water skier from the back of a boat while you're plugged into a strobe or two... The D800 is restricted to 1/250 sync... a Mamiy/Phase set up with leaf shutter lens can give you over 1/1000 shutter speed while you're plugged into a 3200ws pack.
In a case like that (and that's just one example) the difference between the D800 (and the slow sync speed of the Pentax for that matter) and a MF body like the Hy6 or Phase/Mamiya will be night and day.
The difference will also show its colours when you start processing the file. The MF file can stand more "abuse" :)
That said- I'd opt for the D800 hands down over the Pentax... but not other MF systems.
Mr Fartleberry: What about their disco campaign? This is really old. Hasselbald went nuts when digital came out, they've still not recovered. Peddling red Ferrari cameras to arabs is still a bad sign.
(chuckle) The first time I saw their "Ferrari Edition" bodies, I thought it was a cheesy product. Even if offered at the same price point of the other models, I'd feel weird (actually embarrassed) toting around a camera that's loud red with Ferrari's prancing horse depicted on the side. Yuk. :)
I'd like to see Hasselblad breathe new life into the old 500 series which hasn't been updated since the 90's I was told. A refined mirror action, basic AF or at least in-camera metering would be a great start. I think Hasselblad should've made the 500 series into something like a "lite" version of the Hy6.
Offerings from Mamiya and Phase in my mind make Hasselblad (generally) a bad purchase decision today.
facedodge: The camera is about 10 degrees off level. (sure it was intentional... but still)
"But still" what? The shot creates a nice isosceles triangle (almost) at the top. Convention is great, but sheesh, I'm not the only one tired of seeing perfectly straight horizons, etc.. I find it refreshing to see a scene as my eyes might see it in the context of angles.
Stanchung mentions "blown highlights".... let me guess... the lens the photographer's using doesn't have perfect edge sharpness either right? Sure, layers could easily make the cloth perfectly exposed, etc., but good grief- all this "10 degrees off", "blown highlights" and other sanitization photography stuff has reached a unreasonable level of ridiculousness. ;)
Cy Cheze: People have been boiling lenses (lentils) for millenia.
Why no curiousity about how the lens got into the sea, or why the owner thought it worth $X to half-rescue an old lens perhaps worth less than $X? The story must be a bit soft-boiled.
I couldn't care less "how" it got into the sea. The owner probably figured that if it cost $500 to fix, that was still a lot cheaper than buying another fast wide angle premium lens... especially if the photographer used it primarily for paid work; in that case, it would be a no-brainer if the boiling trick worked, even only for 6 months.
The lens needing a new focus motor is practically a given since the focus motor in the 17-35 is notorious for squeaking-the-quitting.
spitfire31: Not to sound negative (some good ideas in the article, I think), but that heading profile photo, with a distracting strand of hair going right through the model's eye…
Personally, I'd have sent it straight into the Lightroom trash can for that reason.
I like the strand of hair over the eye as well- it makes the photograph have a more realistic look instead of the all-too-typical sanitized text-book stuff that often is counter reality.
Women have their hair blown, and strands of hair across their face, such hardly makes a photograph less attractive on that alone.
I didn't find the hair distractive. I found it refreshing, normal, and a relief that the photographer isn't chained down to technical convention that has reached the point of utter ridiculousness. :)
peterstuckings: Yes, agree with Lancet. Any wedding photog NOT doing this is behind the times...
Photographers have been using t/s lenses in glamour/fashion photography for years. A wedding photographer not doing this is hardly "behind the times"... especially since what you're looking at is fashion (bridal) photography as opposed to "wedding photography".
The shots look nice though! :)