 |
wlad
Lives in
United States
Joined on
Sep 16, 2010
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Octane: Here is a thought. So far Adobe has limited support to the latest RAW support to the most recent version of Photoshop and Lightroom. BUT at the same time it always kept it's DNG converter available up to date and free. Unless they completely go crazy and abandon their free and open DNG format, this option should be available in the future.
For those who will stay with their current version of Photoshop but still want to use the latest cameras, they can use the latest version of the DNG converter, convert all raw files to DNG which then should load fine into older version of Lightroom and Photoshop.
Lightroom is dirt cheap ($99) and does a great job in terms of general mass processing of pictures - the "free" DNG converter would cost much more in the end - it would cost precious time.
wlad: That was obvious.
Photoshop is a $700 tool for professional GRAPHIC ARTISTS.
Lightroom is a $150 tool aimed at amateur and professional PHOTOGRAPHERS.
For every pro photographer that buys LR, there are at least hundred amateurs, who would never buy into that expensive "cloud" subscription nonsense.
JakeB, you mistake "control" for "manipulation options".
Photoshop does not give you control. It allows you to MODIFY your photos to a greater extent.
If you need Photoshop to get a great picture, you are NOT a photographer - you are a graphic artist.
That was obvious.
Photoshop is a $700 tool for professional GRAPHIC ARTISTS.
Lightroom is a $150 tool aimed at amateur and professional PHOTOGRAPHERS.
For every pro photographer that buys LR, there are at least hundred amateurs, who would never buy into that expensive "cloud" subscription nonsense.
ogl: 85/3.2 in 35 mm.
please, can we get to negative F-numbers already ?
Mssimo: Most people will pirate if:
Software is good, convenient, and high cost
Most people will buy if:
Software is good, convenient, and price is fair (High Value)
January 25, 2012
Most Pirated Software
Application
DriverPack Solution 11
Adobe Photoshop CS5.1
Microsoft Office 2010
Microsoft Word 2007
WinRAR 4.0
Nero Burning ROM 10.5
Adobe Illustrator CS5.1
ESET Smart Security 5
Windows 7 Ultimate SP1
Adobe After Effects CS4
Avast AntiVirus Home Edition
Corel Draw X5
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399318,00.asp
I wonder why anyone bothers stealing winrar, when there are free alternatives (that are just as good) available - like 7zip, peazip etc
Matsu: Dear Adobe: Thank you for your past offerings, as of right now, and unless things change, we're done. I will forgo upgrading to CS6 and stick with CS5 while I survey new products and train myself to use offerings from other makers. No use investing any more time training on software you intend to orphan.
As of right now, Lightroom is out and Aperture is in. Replacements for the others will come soon enough, especially going forward where more and more advanced editing will take place on iPads and the like.
Good luck.
Probably the best alternative to Photoshop is - Photoshop Elements.
Really, all those other "alternatives" are stuck somewhere in the 90ties in terms of features.
Paphios: I've been considering looking at alternative RAW converters other than Adobe's. Now that it will be a necessity the question seems to be which ones to try. Meanwhile I will just use CS6 until Adobe comes to its senses or a solid alternative appears.
I somehow doubt this whole thing has anything to do with Lightroom. It's probably relevant for Creative suite / Photoshop only.
Bart Hickman: $20/month for Photoshop? That's much more than double the current cost with upgrades. The competition must be jumping for joy at this huge market opening Adobe is handing them. CS6 will certainly be the last version of Photoshop I buy.
what competition ?
InTheMist: Interesting.
But is it sharp without too many aberrations?
well, since it is the "art" line of sigma, I expect it will beat the 17-55 Nikon in terms of sharpness. Not that the bar is set high though...
raztec: The mad rush to increase corporate profits. Keep making minor updates and try to render your previous versions obsolete.
I have LR3 and am doing just fine thank you.
major LR versions have never been minor updates
should have thought about it at the time he allegedly paid 250k for the first print.
I wonder if people are getting dumber, or if they are just deliberately exploiting the US legal system.
Who the hell spends 250k for a freaking paper ? I could understand it if it was the original Magna Carta or something of similar historical value. But a freaking photograph ? Give me a break.
Paul Guba: I guess if you want to distribute your high resolution images for free that is great. I am unsure why I would want to do that.
@psn - I have a private picasa web album where I share full resolution pictures with my family. Only specific google accounts can access this album, and they receive a notification whenever I add new pictures.
Paul Guba: I guess if you want to distribute your high resolution images for free that is great. I am unsure why I would want to do that.
to share them with your family so they can edit & print them for example
roblarosa: Not enough cats in this video.
@Peiasdf I think most studios do use CGI for effects like those, but it seems this german studio can accomplish similar effect with a single high speed camera mounted on a robotic arm.
As a geek, I'm impressed :)
roblarosa: Not enough cats in this video.
@JamesInCA - yes, what I linked is a wholly different league,
here's a behind the scenes movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2CLQdCU7O0
But I'm sure something similar could be built with an amateur level budget as well - without all those bells and whistles like a professional 3d modelling interfaces and stuff like that..
roblarosa: Not enough cats in this video.
..and it's a shame really, because the footage quality is barely enough for a video of cats... seriously, lots of artifacts, flickering, pretty awful really..
..and all it takes is a SINGLE camera:
http://vimeo.com/33408157#at=0
soo, the K-01 had been a huge success, and they decided to top that ?
wakaba: It has less than 50% capabilites of a Nikkor Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX AF-S Nikkor, is 50% more expensive and goes on a camera that cannot keep up with a 8 year old Nikon D50.
Who buys this crap?
wakaba = trolling sony hater, don't waste your time with him
wakaba: It has less than 50% capabilites of a Nikkor Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX AF-S Nikkor, is 50% more expensive and goes on a camera that cannot keep up with a 8 year old Nikon D50.
Who buys this crap?
1. it's half the size
2. it can go on a camera that destroys any 3+ years old APS-C DSLR in terms of image quality
3. and this camera is still pocketable
looks like a chinese fake camera for $60, google VP-T1000 Digital Camera ;)