Joseph Black: In order for art to exist, artists have to exist. If someone wants to create artwork for free and distribute it to the unwashed masses they should be commended for such charitable work. If someone wants to devote their life to creating art they should have the ability to use that work to fund their continued existence in the form of purchasing food and shelter.If someone is going to create a situation in which art can be created then by not protecting that type of art the law is effectively disincentivizing anyone to create it. The language in the above article says to the world that you may own the camera and you may own the physical image by association, but nobody on Earth owns the intellectual property rights to it. If this image could have kept the artist in clothing, fed, and housed to create more art another day then the lack of rights to the image also means he lost that money and the ability to be a professional artist. Great pictures, but you get no credit pal. Go starve.
Anyone can take enough closeups of an animal that will eventually turn up a cute funny expression. The only reason this photo was remarkable and turned viral was because it was a "selfie" taken by the monkey, after the monkey stole the camera. This decision is hardly going to cause the incentive to create future works to diminish, unless you plan on lending your thousands of dollars worth of gear to a monkey. I do not believe that that was this photographers intent, even though he has tried to shape his story a bit over the last few weeks to make one think so.
Poss: Perpetual until it suits them to move to subscription… such as the time Apple ends Aperture for good.With no viable competition, Adobe can do EXACTLY as they please, when it tickles their fancy…The way I read this piece of news is this: There is already a LR CC even it was not supposed to ever exist. Ever. (Adobe’s words) So, let’s all trust a corporation to keep their word.
@Lee Jay, the word indefinite only means until they change their mind. It is not a promise. Note, they did not use the word forever.
While I agree that integrity of an image is important, in this case I see no difference from the function of cropping and cloning, it is simply the removal of unrelated content. Cropping in some situations could do a lot more to remove context from a photo than the cropping did in this case.
Hadarmil: Frankly, I'd give up some mm on both ends if they could make a faster super tele zoom. Oh, and keep it for crop sensors. We still don't have fast super telezooms for crop which would probably make them cheaper and lighter.Maybe Sigma will understand the market hole(as they occasionally do) and act to fill it. Right now I doubt the Tamron will be as good and cost effective to become a serious success for serious photogs. feels more in line like the old tactics of shoving larger unusable focal lengths to catch press attention. 200-500 f/4 sounds a little better even if you can't upgrade with it to FF.
Heck, why doesn't anyone make a crop fast prime? A sharp 2.8 300 for crop will get my money and probably a lot of others'.
Rant rant rant. Sure do hope I'm wrong.
Most could not afford a 200-500mm F4 and the size and weight would be huge. My guess is that this lens will sell in the $1500-$2300 range and the quality will be decent and the focus speed much better than their old model, I don't think Tamron would invest in this as a loser. The lens you are talking about would be in the $8,000 range at a minimum even from Sigma.
Karl Gnter Wnsch: Why not make it f/5.6 at the long end, then at least all focusing systems would be within their working range! At f/6.3 nobody should buy this lens as it will not focus reliably on all but the top of the line DSLR...
The 6.3 is only a third of a stop difference, I owned the Tamron 200-500mm and it also had 6.3 at the long end, it focused fine on my Canon 20D and later 7D. I sold it in anticipation of Tamron coming out with a VC version.
For typical photos 300 dpi is overkill. Many photo labs only have equipment that prints at either 240 or 256 dpi. It is rare for 210 dpi not to give great results and with larger prints you can often get away with 180 - 150 dpi.
What can you do with them? They are all essentially someone else's copyrighted work. If some one wants to keep them for another 50 - 100 years for the copyright to expire perhaps then they will have some value. In reality he has a duty to his past clients to destroy them.
Timmbits: The adobe execs attended a seminar that was sponsored by the server farm industry, convincing them that this is the future. Autodesk is headed this way, with $5000 software packages... but there is a huge difference between that, and something mainstream like adobe products. This move is quite naïve, and quite frankly, stupid. I predict that some of Adobe's upper management won't be around anymore next year... and if they still are, it'll only if they own the company, but nevertheless less rich as a result of their move.
Yes Autodesk is just as bad, They released an affordable version of Acad Light years ago and within a view years raised the price 300%. Now I use Draftsight and it is free.
Thank you DPReview, Now it is up to us to avoid the Adobe products if at all possible.
Heleno Costa: What about a daily subscribe option for U$ 1-2 . For sure, I would pay for it!
I also realize that this model would not address all of the concerns people are bring up, but I think at this price point it would satisfy most here if they truly thought about how they use Photoshop. I believe that most are mad, including myself, because we want to be able to use the best. The old upgrade program was at the edge of affordability for us casual users, and this subscription rate at how we use it, cannot be justified and we feel ripped off and left behind. If we could subscribe as we need a day at a time for $1 a day even if we had to do it with a 30 use card or something along those lines, I think it would make it a fair offering for us casual users and not alienate us.
I think that model would work well for most casual users. I tend to do my work in batches. I likely use Photoshop for editing no more than 50 days per year and could likely compress that. So yeah, I could handle that price, it would work out cheaper for me than the current perpetual upgrade method.
There you go, $1 for 1 app or $3 for the suite, as I need, I could live with that myself. It would be the only way I could see the cloud being a benefit for the casual user. Unfortunately Adobe would want around triple these rates, if they even considered it at all.
Otto Fabricius2: Again we see the arrogance of company which has reached a near monopoly status. Furthermore, cloud computing is really not ready yet. There have been to many serious problems, and many areas in the world do not have sufficient bandwidth for this use of the internet.
I am not defending Adobe, I will never support this new model, however, they are not requiring anyone to compute over the cloud. They only require a monthly subscription verification similar to an activation. Using their included cloud storage is completely optional and all programs are installed locally on the computer and can be used offline. So that doesn't bother most, it is the idea of perpetual fees and outrageous price that is more of the issue.
Kinematic Digit: Assuming that the polls as they stand at 4059, it means that Adobe has approximately .8 million dollars to lose from this forum alone. Keep pushing and maybe Adobe will take notice. However Photoshop is only a small part of the CS suite that they sell to.
I was at an industry advisory board meeting with graphic professionals, and all of them were looking forward to the new change/subscription model. We discussed how this affects photographers and we all pretty much agreed if you're using Photoshop (not Lightroom) it is a horrible deal.
Of the 2 million members only around 500,000 are paid, the rest are trial. Maybe that is how to get around this, use an old version of Photoshop and the rare occasion you need to use a new feature sign up for a trial.
Often they use a small sample rate for political polls to get a very good idea of how the public will vote. Fact is among photographers in this poll, only about 5% think this subscription method will work for them. I will give you the standard disclaimer that this poll is subject to an error of plus or minus 2%.
What is also so sad is that Adobe is essentially offering a $120 discount ($9.99 a month for 12months instead of $19.99) For those who have invested $699 in their software perhaps even recently, if they act right away.What a slap in the face. At least those who never bought before, it would take approx. 4-1/2 years before they would pay the same as someone who bought the full version once and upgraded twice.
glacierpete: The German computer mags publishing house heise brought it to the point on their website:
Adobe gets rid of a lot of problems at once:They don't have to animate their customers buying a new product/update every 2 yearsthe regular automatic updates have to be just good enough not to loose existing subscribersthe number of existing creative suites combinations has been drastically reduced, saving Adobe a lot of money.And in addition they don't have to cope with the used software market and transfer of licences.
Massively lowering their costs without giving a price advantage to their customers sounds like printing money.I am afraid in case Adobe get through with it, this model will be copied by many other software makers.
Unless there is a competitor that steps up to the plate, why do they even need to make regular updates? If the customer leaves he has nothing to use.
Likely the best alternative for many will be to keep using the older versions of Photoshop. While they will not updated camera RAW profiles, Adobe has committed (for now at least) to providing an up to date free raw to dng convertor. Then perhaps we can support plugin development by third parties for some additional features.
John Haugaard: This whole cry-baby approach is sad. "I want what I want, when I want. And I don't want to pay for value." Switch to The Gimp, or some great Corel product. You can have your perpetual license. Just quit the complaining.
Excuse me? Cry-baby's? Adobe has pulled out the rug from us, we have invested in their system and paid them good money for many years. This is tantamount to your land lord saying we really appreciate all your years here but your rent is doubling this month. It is even worse for those who have bought a $700 product in the last year expecting that they would be able to keep it up to date for a fair price every couple of years! Not only that they have even less reason to innovate now that they keep getting more money whether it is deserved or not. There is no excuse for this kind of greed and arrogance.
Wow Adobe, what a way to make Netflix's move look consumer friendly!