I'm shocked to learn Apple wasn't invited to this party.
Another bogeyman posing as an argument from the editorial department of DPR. An example of an alteration of significance would be Edward Curtis' removal of an alarm clock from an interior view of a "traditional" dwelling.
These are poor examples of a serious issue.
I will alert my mortgage broker immediately.
Shame on you, too, DPR. Tossing such soft lobs. Expecting such negative reaction? When the subject was first broached months ago the reaction was quick, plentiful and negative. The confirmation yesterday only unleashed the torrent and DRP "asks" if Adobe was surprised???!!!
What about an editorial stand based on your constituency, DPR????
Talk about disingenuous, "Adobe has said it will no longer be developing its Creative Suite range of software, leaving its subscription and cloud-based Creative Cloud as the only way of accessing the latest version of Photoshop."
Of course Adobe is continuing to develop its CS apps (as they now call their programs in an unintentional attempt to be link themselves to cellular phone companies who know a thing or two about abusing subscribers); they just want to control who has access to them. Now, there's nothing wrong with trying to thwart piracy, but the alleged brain trust at Adobe cannot figure out how to do that without screwing the people who have paid them loyally over the years. Maybe Adobe will diversify into auto insurance next. After all, they've already figured out the hardest part of that industry, making legal drivers pay the freight for illegal ones!!
Suggestion to DPR: Post the pictures with no commentary or explanation. Let them stand on their own merit. No mention of who, what, where, when or how.
Adobe is offering a single app one year subscription for $9.99 if renewed by July 31, 2013. They are taking their marketing cues from the broadband companies and offering sweet one year deals. Thereafter, the price will be anywhere from $19.99 to $49.99 depending on the app(s) you desire.
OR, you can just say no.
Adobe has already abandoned loyal users in the past by forcing them to upgrade to get the latest ACR and current camera/lens support for new products.
OR, you can use third party RAW editors.
Just say no to Adobe and don't believe for one moment without them you will never be able to edit your work in a sophisticated manner again.
Tom Goodman: I'd like to amend the now famous maxim that "the best camera you own is the one you have with you" to read "the best camera...except those built into cellphones."
You are wrong on every count. Indeed, cellphone camera zealots like yourself are the ones who believe equipment is all. Throwing around phrases like "pixel peeper" reveals your true orientation. I have never used it myself. Throwing around assertions about what "photography is really about" only reveals your own insecurities...or hubris!
I'd like to amend the now famous maxim that "the best camera you own is the one you have with you" to read "the best camera...except those built into cellphones."
I frequently experiment with subjects and techniques; however, I don't subject the public to every one of them.
Photographers & dealers create editions for several reasons. These include limiting the number of prints in order to artificially limit supply & also increasing demand not only for a particular image but for other images by the photographer. If an image is limited to an edition of 10, however, a few AP's are permitted. The limiting of availability is a contract between the photographer & the public. It is common for photographers to produce editions in different sizes. (See gallery & individual web sites for examples.) In Eggleston's case, it appears neither he nor his dealer(s) stated at the outset the image in question was available in different sizes, so the production of a new version in a larger size breaches a stated agreement. The other reason photographers limit editions is to "force" the public to look at other work. Some photographers even increase the price of succeeding images WITHIN an edition to "force" the public to look at other, less expensive images .
They are still crappy shots.
what_i_saw: "In addition, she has been told by law enforcement officers that physically intervening, 'would have likely only made the situation worse, endangering me, and further endangering [the victim]'.
She might have taken the little girl away from the scene. Or would that have endangered someone in some way? Honestly I have very little respect for such photographers. Hope she enjoys her little "Sunshine" of attention.
I shudder to think what negative effect this will have on the little one. Why people have kids when they can't provide a proper home environment for them?
Ethically speaking? Which code is this? It may be a journalist's professional responsibility to remain a dispassionate observer but no code exists that exempts humanity. There may be a code that protects journalists from divulging sources and there may be a code that requires honesty if not dispassion when disseminating images or reports, but no code precludes acting decently.
How flattering to the happy couples!
I'd ask for a refund if I were the couple in question.
dash2k8: I am struggling with the concept of mobile photography. I'd love to embrace its immediacy and intimacy, but I can't get around its technical limitations. Blowing up a phone shot to anything larger than A4 would require a huge dose of explaining to myself that the graininess is an "art form," not a limiting factor. Many peers have produced excellent images that look great online, so I am not doubting its place. I just cannot fathom it being a "real" alternative to the DSLRs that feed us. Would someone cover a presidential event with a phone, or with a top-of-the-line DSLR? Probably not, and that's my biggest problem.
"Art is all about technical limitations."!!!???? Glad you cleared that up. That sort of remark is tailor-made for this article. Technique is fundamental but hardly "all" by any criteria.
Josh152: If Adobe's attempt at turning it's software into a monthly a subscription service instead of flat one time fee works, droves of software publishers will follow suit. Image paying multiple $20,$30,$50 monthly fees to use the software you are already using now. Image if every publisher were like adobe, pay monthly fee and get access to multiple titles. Sounds good until you want to use use one or two pieces of software from multiple publishers. Even if its just 3 or 4 different publishers, it is going be an expensive proposition.
Consider also Microsoft or Apple for example could charge a monthly fee to use their OS and a separate free for the office suit ect. Every different category of software could have it's own fee.
The only way to keep software affordable is for us consumers to reject the subscription model entirely.
Francis Carver: I sincerely hope you are correct, but for now the rejections are verbal only. It is worth noting "only" 137 comments have been posted, a relatively small number.
At the very least, and it isn't much, Adobe should have made this policy apply only to a new version release going forward. Even that would have been contemptible of those among us who have upgraded multiple times over the years. Of course the other ace Adobe holds (actually, it would be more proper to say the other "body part" they hold) is that no one buying a new camera will have access to ACR updates without subscribing. Adobe already forced users of earlier versions of PS to buy the latest version to have access to ACR updates.
If DPR had any real independence (from its parent) and guts, it would write an editorial condemning this policy. They don't and therefore won't.
VA-ArtG: Adobe - you discount me as a loyal purchaser/up-grader for many years.Apparently, since you no longer value (if in fact you ever did) me and my Adobe loyalty, along with my hard earned money, please do take my utter disgust and contempt of this high handed tactic the wrong way. I just hope you lose all the cash cows you have turned loose to fend for themselves as second class citizens. I also wish you many outages and failures to provide contracted services so the sheep that follow you to the cloud stampede you into bankruptcy.
Thanks for nothing,Art Guertin
Could not have said it better myself. Literally, this is a contemptible decision.