Artistico: I will go against the general consensus and say that I think the subscription model might even reduce the number of pirated versions in use as it makes the initial cost of starting out using Adobe products so much more affordable when you spread the cost over time. I'm not saying it necessarily is cheaper in the long run, but it's more convenient for many, myself included.
Also, a lot of the people commenting don't seem to know anything about what the Creative Cloud is, how much it costs, and nor do they realise if and to what extent it affects them. They just seem to be against it on principle without even having defined the principle to start with. Please read up on it and understand what it is all about before commenting (as if that is ever going to happen).
By Artistico (19 hours ago)"I will go against the general consensus and say that I think the subscription model might even reduce the number of pirated versions."
And the way THAT will happen is through the fact that when you don't have anyone using your software anymore, who is going to want to pirate it? :)
meanwhile: I understand all the CC/cloud/Death to Adobe hoohaa, but ... how well does the Camera Shake Reduction feature work?
Anders, the "fix" that you've demonstrated, based on the examples you've shown, is possible without a special camera shake reduction tool, and quite easily I might add. Adobe needs to drastically update its PS software, and give customers a choice of purchasing, or subscribing, or they're going to lose a lot of loyal customers. ;)
TheProv: Are you serious? Really? Are you the same of DPreview or are you stealing only the name?It takes bravery to call this "camera review".Even I could do this "camera review".
Please be serious and start doing cameraphone reviews at the level I can see on your mother site (?) and for wich I know you are able to.
"Firstly, this is a phone review focusing on the camera capabilities of the device but this being a smartphone we are obviously looking at other factors too."
Then why weren't any of those "other factors" included in the Pros/Cons section of your review?
And why is DPR reviewing a cell phone that's been out now for over 5 months, and has already sold tens of millions of units? The GS Note II is an unqualified as well as a qualified success, hands down. This "review" would have been far more useful 4 1/2 months ago.
Once again, late to the party, and nothing really useful given to really help inform the consumer.
Joe Ogiba: And Here’s the Most Expensive Photograph in the World
This landscape shot of the Rhine River just fetched $4.3 million at auction.
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/11/11/and-heres-the-most-expensive-photograph-in-the-world/#ixzz1zttl0MZF
No accounting for taste now is there? ;)
Wow, guess duct tape really DOES fix everything. Sad really, that such an expensive piece of camera gear has to endure being taped up like that just to make it near perfect. This is definitely not a case of "you get what you pay for", but more a case of "if it ain't really, truly, honestly broke, fix it for as little as possible, and hope no one notices".
A product's defect is a defect, whether it affects the vast majority of that product's users or not. Tape is the poor man's solution, and the new 5DIII is NOT a poor man's (or a poor manufacture's) camera.
I sincerely hope the 5DIII doesn't get too hot inside during extensive use, or that tape is going to be losing its adhesive all over the insides of the camera.
The rest of his rant I'm not going to bother with, since most of the rest is either reasonable in terms of the expense, or not worth pursuing in its outlandishness. Suffice it say, regardless of whether I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with this particular photographer's little rant, it goes without saying that sending such a response as this to any client (or potential client) is not only not very professional, but could eventually be fatal in that it ends up costing him clients in the long run.
And I'm sorry, but counting your home rental (unless you would normally live in a cardboard box) as part of your wedding photography "expenses" simply because you're too cheap (or poor) to rent a separate space for your studio work is not exactly being very realistic (or honest) about the "true" costs of being a wedding photographer. Nobody cares what your personal expenses are - not your employer, and certainly not your client.
And what's that about high speed internet costs? $2500? Presumably per year? Well then, cut out the high speed internet throughout the rest of the year (8 months) when you aren't shooting weddings! That would save you over $1600/year.
Paying $400/month for a leased car, + $200 for insurance is his own fault for shelling out so much money for transportation. What does he drive - a Mercedes? And, $200/shoot for a second photographer? I say he needs to move a little more at the weddings he shoots at so he can get all those "more images and different angles" himself. And I'm sorry, we ALL pay our own taxes, so that's nothing special in his circumstance here, but his claim of paying $15000/year in taxes on an income of $50000/year? He pays 30% of his wedding income in taxes? Really?!?! He drives a $400/month car like a 1%'er, but he's apparently WAY, WAY overtaxed like the worst of the worst 99%'ers. Hmmm.
winparkman: I am a Lightroom user but I have used Corel since it first appeared in the early 1990s. Although PS5 is a better product, Corel is easier to use and the integration of the draw and photo package are hard to beat. It is very easy to create nice documents.
That said, Corel Photopaint is a dog when it comes to RAW. Corel needs an improvement. What is ironic is that Lightroom developed from a product called RAWshooter which was a giveaway with the Corel Graphics package (version 8 or so, as I recall).
markus7701, I was a RAWShooter Premium user, and subsequently, a Lightroom beta tester. Adobe acquired RAWShooter, then turned it into Lightroom. Adobe did not acquire RAWShooter "after" the release of Lightroom, but before, and yes, there were many contributions that RAWShooter made to the development of Lightroom, one being the Vibrance tool.
Marty4650: Adobe's problem is that people aren't upgrading. The diminishing returns curve has set in.
CS3, CS4, and CS5 work too well. In fact most people don't even use half of the capabilities that was built into PS at CS3.
They kept scraping for new features, and some like "content aware fill" are really useful, but other like 3D are dubious. There simply aren't enough people willing to fork over big bucks to get one more feature. Most photographers don't need the software capabilities that graphic designers do.
So now they see their path to profit lying in subscription sales, and cloud storage. I wish them luck, because I think this will fail. There are too many OTHER photo editing programs available that work well enough for most people's needs.
Incidentally, Microsoft is facing the exact same problem. Anyone who upgraded beyond Office 2003 is probably wondering why they spent their money.
Exactly! I went from CS3 to CS4 and didn't experience anything in the upgrade that was compelling enough to have made it worth the cost. CS5 was no different. In fact, CS3 was even more stable then CS4 and I actually prefer using it over CS4. My only regret is the lack of compatibility with earlier versions of ACR and newer camera models' RAW image files.
Personally, I don't think a prize should be offered that can't be utilized be all participants of the Challenges. I realize that if the Challenge winner is not a Nikon or Canon user, that they can just sell the lens, but that kind of defeats the purpose of offering a specific product as a prize vs. just simply offering money as a prize to begin with. Certainly, it's nice to have third-party companies offer up prizes like this to DPR Challenge winners, so kudos to Tamron for their generous offer. But honestly, the fact that the prize being offered is only usable to a select group of Challenge participants is a bit exclusionary. :)
Hasn't Kodak gone out of the digital camera business yet? Good grief. Their cameras are cheaply made/built, the image quality is only so-so, and there's never been a single stand-out camera in any of Kodak's never ending line of "disposable" digicams year after year. You know what I would actually love to see from Kodak? An old style Kodak camera but digital based of course, like these:
Build some digital P&S cameras that look like these and I'll be the first to buy one just for the retro look. Otherwise, meh.