JamieTux

JamieTux

Lives in United Kingdom Basingstoke, United Kingdom
Has a website at www.jamestux.com
Joined on May 13, 2005

Comments

Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20
In reply to:

Biowizard: Apart from the niggling ongoing fees, the problem with CLOUD computing of ANY kind (not just Adobe, but let's include Facebook as an example) is that YOU, the USER, lose control of your environment.

For example, FB routinely "updates" its user experience. YOU, the USER have no say whether you want to take the update, or stick with what workds for you.

Again, Cloud services can go "down", whether for maintenance or system failure: not much help if YOU, the USER, is on a tight deadline and need cloud access to locate your work or re-authorise your software.

Then, as in the case of Adobe recently, a cloud service might suffer a successful hacking attempt, severely compromising YOUR, the USER'S security, IP and possibly financial details.

The WHOLE reason I (the USER) want the DESKTOP model is that I (...) can control my versions, I (...) can make sure I am secure.

Sorry, but CLOUD means that you CAN'T SEE WHERE YOU ARE GOING and HAVE NO CONTROL. Give me BLUE SKY ANY TIME: my DESKTOP.

Hi Biowizard,

That security issue is a problem with anyone holding your financial information whether it's via a cloud model or not and as for the cloud model...

The adobe products don't run on the cloud - you download them and run them on your own desktop and have the option too update (or not) whenever you want - you're not stuck with having to use any changes and experiences that Adobe make.

Your Facebook analogy is a little off for this reason - Creative Cloud is still a bunch of desktop applications but with web features added (like synchronised content and portfolios). Facebook (and google applications, etc) is a web app.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 09:32 UTC
On Get more accurate color with camera calibration article (202 comments in total)

Scott - you're right - but it is also the software to create the profile - doing them by hand is very time consuming!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 28, 2014 at 08:31 UTC as 78th comment
On A travel-sized large-format 4x5 camera? article (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

JamieTux: Can you still get quickload anywhere?

I knew the answer - but that's the concept the video is selling :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 08:15 UTC
On A travel-sized large-format 4x5 camera? article (218 comments in total)

Can you still get quickload anywhere?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2014 at 08:27 UTC as 38th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

AV Janus: I think this is a good deal.
The overall atmosphere in the comments suggest it is something pople can live with.
Those crying never for lifetime usage need to think of a few things:
- it is just one user of your photo, just he can use it,
- its just one photo, how glorious do you think our work is...
- 175$ for is good days pay in most o the world, plus somebody else could also buy it if its used more.
- its logical usage that if they buy it they can use it in more than one of theirs catalogue or web whatever.

Control your greed.

If it's unlimited usage rights does that mean an agency could buy a picture you posted then print it as posters and sell hundreds of thousands of them while you get that one time fee? Or that they could buy your picture and use it to promote something that you disagree with strongly. Or all of a sudden your picture of your teenage daughter is being used to sell condoms all over europe

I thinkbthat these are things you would need to think about before posting pictures there.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 9, 2014 at 11:44 UTC

I've just had a play - that's impressive!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 19:29 UTC as 32nd comment
On Behind the Shot: Lost in Space article (88 comments in total)

Stunning shot, well worth the effort, thanks for sharing!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2013 at 05:52 UTC as 36th comment
In reply to:

RumpelHund: Love the idea, Adobe will win over the community for sure. I don't see how anybody using one of those tools will find a flaw in the offer, unless it's about illegal copies of course.

Hope this pays off well enough for adobe in the long run.
For me (CS4 and LR5) it's the thing I hoped for.

Jose,

I'm sure that you have Photoshop 7 and a version of raw Adobe Raw Converter that works with your brand new camera right? If you're using Photoshop generally you have to upgrade when you upgrade your camera anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 10:39 UTC
In reply to:

dombi: There are two types of users.

- Professionals who use Photoshop on a daily basis (8 hours/day).
- Hobby users, who use Photoshop occasionally (maybe 8 hours/week or /month).

The current pricing might be good for professional users, who make a living using Photoshop. But it is too expensive for the hobby users, who don't use PS that much.

Adobe could come up with a "pre-paid" type user fee for the hobby users. Because hobby users probably don't want to pay the same price as the professional users, since they don't even use the software as much and probably as extensively.

Lets assume that a pro user uses PS on an average about 160 hours/month (20 days * 8 hours). They currently paying 10 USD for this, which comes to about 0.0625 USD/hour.

With this, how about a pre-paid plan, where a hobby user could open an pre-paid user account with a minimum of 10 USD, and then be charged by the hours of use. The hourly rate could be double of the pro: 0.125 USD/hour.

I'd sign up for it

Hi Inars - would you buy it anyway?

Until the subscription model I didn't use Photoshop and she was using old (CS2 or earlier) versions of photoshop, dreamweaver, indesign, etc)

I jumped at the subscription model - it means that I can keep my photography software up to date and my wife can use the design tools without us having to spend big chunks of money every time there's an upgrade.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 10:38 UTC
In reply to:

AshMills: Bear in mind that Lightroom 6 could be an additional charge...

Yes, it cost me nothing extra (over my standard CC subscription) to go from LR4 to LR5 - it's a subscription, not a rental..

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 10:34 UTC
In reply to:

RumpelHund: Love the idea, Adobe will win over the community for sure. I don't see how anybody using one of those tools will find a flaw in the offer, unless it's about illegal copies of course.

Hope this pays off well enough for adobe in the long run.
For me (CS4 and LR5) it's the thing I hoped for.

From about 20 lines above your post...

"To be clear, $9.99 is not an introductory price. It is the price for those of you who sign up by December 31, 2013. This offer will be available at the same time we introduce the new version of Lightroom 5.2 in a couple weeks. Visit the FAQ to learn more and follow Photoshop on Facebook, Twitter and Google+ to find out when the offer goes live."

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 08:25 UTC
In reply to:

dombi: There are two types of users.

- Professionals who use Photoshop on a daily basis (8 hours/day).
- Hobby users, who use Photoshop occasionally (maybe 8 hours/week or /month).

The current pricing might be good for professional users, who make a living using Photoshop. But it is too expensive for the hobby users, who don't use PS that much.

Adobe could come up with a "pre-paid" type user fee for the hobby users. Because hobby users probably don't want to pay the same price as the professional users, since they don't even use the software as much and probably as extensively.

Lets assume that a pro user uses PS on an average about 160 hours/month (20 days * 8 hours). They currently paying 10 USD for this, which comes to about 0.0625 USD/hour.

With this, how about a pre-paid plan, where a hobby user could open an pre-paid user account with a minimum of 10 USD, and then be charged by the hours of use. The hourly rate could be double of the pro: 0.125 USD/hour.

I'd sign up for it

This is crazy - Adobe sell Lightroom separately and they sell Elements for those that want most of the functionality at a much lower cost. But for $120/year you can get full Photoshop and Lightroom and you think that Adobe are charging too much? The last time I bought Photoshop it was about £500 - even if we use a 1:1 £:$ ratio that's 4 years of use plus Lightroom.

This is soo much cheaper than antyhing that they've ever done before (and you can still buy elements and Lightroom separately if that's what you want).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 08:17 UTC
In reply to:

JamieTux: 88db?

Assuming that a 3db gain is a doubling then they are talking 30 stops? Really?

I felt it was marketing hyperbole when thye switched measures from stops to db

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2013 at 11:51 UTC

88db?

Assuming that a 3db gain is a doubling then they are talking 30 stops? Really?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2013 at 09:26 UTC as 33rd comment | 3 replies
On Reuters showcases EOS-1D X multiple exposure modes article (226 comments in total)
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: Why do you require all these gimicks in Camera body when you have softwares with you including Photoshop......

Because if you're reporting on an event you don't have time to photoshop the images and get them out in real time...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2012 at 07:34 UTC
On Lightroom 4 Review article (480 comments in total)
In reply to:

snapshottomugshot: i am planning of purchasing lr4. but i cant decide yet till i figure this out.

im a new user of mac, i have a macbook pro. 10.6.8 but i don't know if im running a 64bit processor or 32 bit i have been turning over rocks to know this. can anyone help me.

It's 64bit, all Macs are now and the OS itself changed to ONLY 64bit (and broke a lot of 32bit only apps) at Snow Leopard - play away!

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 10:29 UTC
On ISO 25600 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (18 comments in total)

This still looks remarkably useable!

The rat is losing some detail and it's beginning to look a bit washed out but considering the conditions and the ISO wow!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 14:25 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
On Lensbaby Edge 80 Quick Review article (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: A very welcome product!

The overpriced TS lenses of the other major brands just lost their value overnight...

Good.

No they didn't, the Nikon ones for example are very sharp, even wide open, they give you much more control over tilt (and they give you shift, which is a completely different type of movement) and they have electronic aperture control so you don't have to compose stopped down...

Try taking a landscape with the whole view in focus or architecture with straight buildings then tell us that this replaces TS lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 15, 2012 at 06:02 UTC
On Just published - a quick Pentax 645D sample gallery article (132 comments in total)

Out of curiosity - are any of the images at ISO 100?

Great work on your link, tcom

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2011 at 14:52 UTC as 8th comment
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: I'm sure this is a nice lens and a good value. 50/1.8 lenses usually are. But with all due respect--and not wanting to seem like a snob--have things in photo reached a point where the introduction of a 50mm lens is that big a deal?

It's the first cheap 50mm that Nikon have produced that will work in AF on the bodies with no motors in as mentioned in the post, some of which are 4 or maybe 5 years old now - as the 85mm is not AFS either it's going to be an introduction to shallow dof or natural (low) light portraits for a lot of people.

So in lots of ways, yes it is a big deal!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2011 at 07:33 UTC
Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20