Tord S Eriksson

Tord S Eriksson

Lives in Sweden Gothenburg, Sweden
Works as a busdriver/journalist
Joined on Jul 3, 2003
About me:

Like to draw, paint, and photograph nature and
flying 'objects', like aircraft, and, not least, birds!

Comments

Total: 318, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

SatchmoBill: Adobe believes many/most CS photoshop users will sign up for CC. Ha! When this bubble head thinking pops, Adobe will have a GIANT financial hole in their 2014/15 P&Ls, and mud smeared faces. Netflix redux.

Gataux GIMP.

Will have to refine my GIMP skills, and use Phocus more (Phocus is Hasselblad's editing software, that you sometimes can get for free!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/05/12/phocus25

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:40 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

jkoch2: Cut some slack, folks. Adobe is proposing nothing different than what your landlord, tax collector, insurance provider, cable service, water utility, or school bursar have been doing for years. Neither is it at all different from the way employees expect wages, rather than a single up-front payment, for services. Photographers play at this too, if the attempt to squeeze mulple sales of the "Memphis Tricycle" photo are an example.

The old software revenue model is due for extinction, since people are not going to continue to pay $2,000 for hardware or $600 for software every two or three years to obtain upgrades that will offer progressively thinner improvements, and which will be displaced by mobile devices and apps anyway.

Adobe knew the change might make some indignant, but probably took care to calculate that the disgruntled types weren't likely to be future buyers of CS7 or CS8 anyway.

Comparing it with car leasing is stupid, as you eventually own the damned car if you're not dead by then! But the software will stall ASAP you don't pay (or maybe just not able to pay the increasing annual fees). 20 years on you pay for the same software, or you lose access. Great idea, Adobe!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:36 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scorehound: I am just trying to wrap my head around the negativity surrounding this idea. For some users I can see it being a bad thing, especially if you've already sold your internal organs to buy photoshop in the past.

But for some users the ability to pay low monthly payments to be able to use the software and to have the ability to stop paying when you aren't using the software for periods of time then resume paying when you need to use the software (at least from what I understand) can be a really beneficial option for people who cannot afford a lump sum payment for photoshop or the Creative Suite.

I know people will disagree, but remember that Adobe isn't just doing this for kicks. There must have been something that spurred this - a lack in Photoshop sales, research on pricing and how to bring new people to Adobe, etc. By bringing more people to the fold, it will allow them to continue to create and enhance the software.

But that is just my opinion.

New economic brains taking over, most likely!

Next step is having to pay each time you use an Adobe font?!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:23 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

ianm2k4: Yes the negativity is just people expressing that they dont like change. The problem for them is that Adobe who they have come to rely on has changed its business model - something that is completely within their prerogative - whether it costs more or less to the end user. It not good moaning about this if you dont like it go elsewhere. If everyone goes elsewhere then I am am sure Adobe will change the model again but until then vote with your wallet.

Look at it this way.. If you have PS CS6 which cost around $600 and you pay the $50 a month.. then you get all the products for one year for the price of one . If you upgrade every year then you are quids in. If you upgrade every other year then dont pay the $50 a month, pay the $30 a month and you are close to even.

I really dont think people are doing the maths to see that they are neither up or down with the money in reality. And who cares if its a subscription model. Get used to it.. Its the way that its going or go somewhere else.

But you can't do that any more, can you?! That was what it was before this change, now you either have to get a simpler version, or pay over and over again!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:21 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

rdc13: I use Photoshop at work and at my home studio - cs5 at home, cs6 at work. I was thinking I'd update at home but now I'm thinking I'll just stay with v5 and wait a few years.

I think a lot of people will do the same. I don't need the latest and greatest, cs5 works VERY well and will for a long time.

Anybody remember Quark XPress, which DOMINATED page layout in the recent past?

Anybody still use it?

Anybody?

I used it for years, and do not any more, of course!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:19 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)

$30 a month if you want to have a possibility to opt out when you want?! I'd say they're joking, but evidently not.

Adobe used to be a consumer-friendly company, but like so many other companies the guys in charge nowadays don't care for us small people, a sad state of affairs indeed.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:17 UTC as 278th comment | 1 reply
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)

I've used Adobe for as long as I've edited my own photos, and those photos used by the magazines I've worked for as photographer, editor, editor-in-chief (in all, about 20 years), but, evidently, we small fish are not welcome any more!

Just hope Apple doesn't start with a similar scheme - maybe a cloud-based OS?! If you pay a subscription you can use your OS, and software, otherwise you're deleted?!

BIG BROTHER IS SEEING YOU, and is getting better and better at deciding if you're welcome or not.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:08 UTC as 280th comment
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

Airless: I'll just keep using CS6, and use lightroom to edit photos instead of ACR (if/when I buy a new camera that isn't supported by ACR 7.4). Annoying, but I don't ever pay for my software and I'm used to ACR's controls, so the inconvenience will still be worth it.

Adobe doesn't want us small guys anymore, sad, but that's the gist of it!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 19:57 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

rgames1: Interesting decision - they're moving the CS titles out of the amateur market. In the broader world of professional software, there are relatively few software packages that allow perpetual licenses, so this type of licensing is standard for most professions. Adobe products have been different, of course, because they have such a huge amateur user base. People don't buy enterprise resource planning or point of sale software packages and mess around with them in their free time.

I seriously doubt the move will have any effect on their base of professional users (the costs increases are small). Adobe is establishing a clearer distinction between their professional products and their less-featured counterparts (the Elements series). The amateurs will just switch from the full-featured software to the "lite" versions.

If you're a professional, that's actually a good thing because (in theory) Adobe will have more time to devote to the concerns of its professional user base.

rgames

Could well be a not so clever way of getting rid of us small customers, who often cost more per user than huge corporations!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 19:25 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

KHemmelman: Can't say I'm impressed. Maybe I'm wrong, but the whole interview struck me as a 'smoke & mirrors' excuse approach by a corporation hell bent on taking even more of your money. They're attempt to explain this away will only cause even more negative backlash and suspicion towards Adobe and their other products.

But on a positive note, there is an opportunity now for someone to step up and take a shot at winning over lost Adobe customers.

Apple should upgrade their Aperture, been a very long time since anything serious happened there!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 19:22 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hugo600si: *cough* bullllshit *cough*
They could have offered a perpetual license with the CC software, it just checks monthly, but no charges. Maintaining two versions is nonsense. The only risk you will run with that scheme is that Adobe can go bankrupt and you loose access, but I'm sure someone would take over the service at that time.

Greed is the only reason I see behind this.

I bet you're right about greed! And if I stop paying the fee, what happens then?!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 19:21 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

InTheMist: Acorn 4 and Pixelmator thank you for my business, Adobe.

Spent less than $50 in total on the Apple App Store.

Thanks for the tip!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 19:19 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: You can spin this anyway you want. You are still nickel & diming your customers to death.

I can hardly wait to see your company fall from its peak to become the 'myspace' or 'altavista' of photo/video editing because of you alienating those who have spent thousands of dollars keeping you afloat with your high-prices while you were the only real software out there. Now however, there are alternatives and more will become available after people find out how an already greedy company is forcing people to subscribe instead of own. (in some cases you already do that with ACR).

I'm going to tell everyone I know to tell everyone they know that you are abusing the public trust by selling them something they can't even really have without always spending more. It's like buying groceries and paying for them again every time you open the cupboard to eat.

Mark my words everyone,
THIS IS THE POINT IN HISTORY WHERE ADOBE FALLS!!!!!!!!

Meanwhile, I'm shopping for new software now.

There is a lot of logic in what you write - although I have been a LR user for some time.

At times you can get Hasselblad's editing software for free (from Hasselblad themselves, of course), which is decent, and works quite well - even for us non-Hassselbladers ;-)!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 19:18 UTC
On Adobe Photoshop CC: What it means for photographers news story (1879 comments in total)
In reply to:

skytripper: DPReview's original article on Adobe's switch to cloud-based software was entitled "Adobe heralds subscription-only future for Photoshop and Creative Suite"—a headline that looks like it was created in Adobe's PR department. A more accurate title for that article would have been "Adobe Declares War on Their Customers".

"Adobe Declares War on Their Customers", that's very well put.

I have been considering switching back to Aperture, this could well become the push I need!

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 19:08 UTC
On Hands-on with Nikon V2 article (452 comments in total)
In reply to:

drummercam: Looks like it could use some help from Marc Newson.

Make another sinking model, you mean?! The Newson version of Pentax was a sale dud, so why convert the V2 to something even more useless?!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 10:10 UTC

That would be a perfect sensor for Nikon V3! Even today you can take snippets of 4K with your V1 (2 second of 4K, at a time), but this could be the beginning of something really interesting!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2013 at 20:07 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
On Review in Progress: Pentax K-5 II and K-5 II S article (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Almeida: So it doesn't seem worth the hassle...

In my book the K-5 II seems to have better AF than the K-5, but if it is worth spending about twice as much as you do for a K-30, that has the same improved AF (I think), and a speedier processor, that's the question!

The K-5 IIs does have a slight upper hand - image-wise at least.

So K-5 II, if you already have a K-5 - definitely not worth the outlay.

I'd pick a K-30 as my back-up camera instead, and be prepared to be impressed - paint it matte black, and it'll look very pro!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2013 at 07:30 UTC
On Review in Progress: Pentax K-5 II and K-5 II S article (70 comments in total)

@McDuff,

Love shots you got there! The colours looks a bit muted, but that seem to be the way with the K-5 IIs, even with DPR's comparative test.

I switched from K-5 to D600, while the wife switched from her K-5 to a K-30, which under most situations beat the K-5's performance, not least AF.

I take most shots with my Nikon V1, though, and she with her OM-D.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2013 at 07:21 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
On Citizen Finetech Miyota creates 3.69m dot equivalent EVF news story (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

Benarm: The writing is on the wall. EVF will replace OVF like digital replaced film. Same goes for mirror flip and mechanical shutters. Obviously it won't happen overnight or in a first attempt/generation.

Provia-Fan,

It has been ages since the volume of shots were analog, as big former big users like magazines, newspapers, reconnaissance entities, astrophysicists, and the normal joe have totally changed to digital. Some studios still use film, and a few thousand enthusiasts, mainly because they simply can't afford as good digital gear, as they have analog.

A nice analog Hasselblad 503CW kit costs today about $3,500, while a barebones Hasselblad H5D-200MS kit costs over ten times more - a good Phase One kit costs a lot more, again, or roughly 5 times a nice Leica kit!

So quite a few of us with less than brilliant finances have to keep up with what we got, no matter if it is digital, or analog, but if I got a modern Phase One, I go for that, instantly - just need a far better computer to handle the load!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2013 at 22:11 UTC
On Fujifilm announces WiFi-enabled Finepix S8400W 44x superzoom news story (112 comments in total)
In reply to:

roy5051: Why don't Fujifilm, and the rest, improve on the dinosaur technology that is the 200,000 dot EVF?

@Xoio,

This baby is as cheap as it can be made, which the nine year old cameras you mention were not when you bought them! Look at cameras today that cost as much (in inflation-adjusted dollars), and you find far better specs!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2013 at 08:08 UTC
Total: 318, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »