Tom Goodman: Perfect internet photography. Click, look, delete.
Oh, and one more thing... Post something on this particular story a month from now when you've come back to admire these.
So, let me understand this: If you haven't painted the altar and ceiling of an important church you are not allowed to comment on it?
That was a question?
Perfect internet photography. Click, look, delete.
snegron2: Does this only affect those who have subscribed to Adobe via their cloud service, or are users of older versions of Photoshop at risk as well?
My guess is the original number of accounts reportedly compromised represent the number of CC subscribers and the larger number, reported later, represent the total number of customers with records on file (active and inactive). So, you have your answer though in typical fashion, Adobe did not provide it!
Tom Goodman: I am as in favor of advancements in technology as the next person but this is just getting out of hand. I don't yearn for the days of old. I don't go to exhibitions because the images were made on a cellphone. And I certainly don't give a hoot whether the photographer used pure rainwater for the final bath or devised a new sharpening tool that takes voice commands. I just want images to change my perceptions and understandings. Let me put this another way: when is the last time you saw an announcement for an exhibition of paintings at MOMA or the Met that said the show will feature work done only with horse hair brushes?
I can afford two minutes, Devendra, including this response
I am as in favor of advancements in technology as the next person but this is just getting out of hand. I don't yearn for the days of old. I don't go to exhibitions because the images were made on a cellphone. And I certainly don't give a hoot whether the photographer used pure rainwater for the final bath or devised a new sharpening tool that takes voice commands. I just want images to change my perceptions and understandings. Let me put this another way: when is the last time you saw an announcement for an exhibition of paintings at MOMA or the Met that said the show will feature work done only with horse hair brushes?
Peter Bendheim: Before this camera, photography was in the hands of the wealthy and the masses were excluded. This camera democratised photography, and changed everything.100 years later, the iphone and smart phones have done much the same thing on a far larger scale in a world where the population is now many times larger and photography had, by the onset of the 21st century again become a pursuit for the middle classes.Makes one think.
Mr. Bendheim is partially correct. Most of the daguerreotypes, tintypes, etc. made during the mid to late 19th C were made by itinerant photographers and humble portrait studios not wealthy people. While not literally made by the masses, they were mostly made of the masses and were not confined to those with wealth. While the Kodak camera did place cameras in the hands of the many, photography was widespread before its introduction and was not in any way exclusive.
And then there is the "B" setting on shutters.
Reto: Thanks for this article.
I sold my Canon DSLR plus half a dozen lenses some years ago. Nowadays I use an Olympus E-PL5 with a couple of excellent primes for work and private occasions. I never had a client who commented on its size but then I don't do weddings. ;-) My bills get paid according to what I deliver, not how big my camera is.
Small mirrorless cameras got so many advantages, size is just one of them.
" My bills get paid according to what I deliver, not how big my camera is."
Precisely, which is why exhibitions of cellphone photography are almost always uninteresting. The image, not the equipment, is what matters. This whole argument is a red herring.
"If they’re young enough, your kids may have only ever known a world in which smartphones are the most-popular devices for taking photos. That’s too bad."
Frankly, if it's bad for kids, it's even worse for adults! The axiom about the best camera you have, etc. is malarkey. If I am in a situation where I'd want to have my best camera to photograph something and all I have with me is a smartphone I don't take the picture.
Once again, the medium is the message and the irony is staggering. Management couldn't have invented a better response to their decision!
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!