backayonder: $9.95 AUD a month for Lightroom and Photoshop less than two mugs of flat white.Seems a bargain to me. My shelf is littered with worthless copies of Lightroom 1 to 5 and CS versions too.
CS5 or 4 are far from useless. What you mean is that that CS5 doesn't have the latest Camera Raw.
Renting software is fine, as long as you don't care if it turns off when you stop paying. Whereas as you can still use the aforementioned CS5.
TN Args: I recommend DPR remove all comments that are overtly political -- including accusations that DPR are overtly political (because such comments are actually an overtly political statement by the commentator).
All I see is a bunch of interesting photos. I don't see any policy statements or policy position or implicit political endorsement in the article.
The comments I see are certainly against the forum rules on trolling (deliberately antagonizing other forum users, who may not share the political rage of the posts), and Bashing (in this case a political 'brand' to which many people would feel some loyalty or liking).
Seriously -- although my politics is a million miles from that of the people in the photos, I'm still offended by the comments.
Denials like the following can be read as political statements themselves:
"All I see is a bunch of interesting photos. I don't see any policy statements or policy position or implicit political endorsement in the article."
Pretending that photos of known public figures exist simply as shots of models is a political choice.
Mister Roboto: Who cares? Just give us a damn cheap 1TB SSD or 2x64GB Memory =D
And they are harder to wipe data from entirely.
Steve Balcombe: Don't get me wrong, I've had any number of gripes with Adobe in the past, not least of which was being forced to upgrade just to get compatibility with new camera models. But as pointed out in the Editorial they have continued supporting CS6 for much longer than previous versions. Anybody who owns CS5 and who exercised their right not to upgrade lost ACR upgrade compatibility years ago.
The subscription model is a good deal (very good actually) but I understand the philosophical objections and fears. Those who don't want to sign up can buy a perpetual licence for Lightroom, and a perpetual licence for Photoshop Elements - in fact Lightroom only is more than capable enough for routine photo processing. Or they can switch away from Adobe, but if you are thinking of doing that please don't whine about it - instead, use your new software for a while then come back and tell us about it. If it's good enough people will want to know.
Yes, but many wish to be able to purchase a license for CS7 or CS8--and would do so if given the opportunity.
Lightroom doesn't have some significant features of PS. It's also a resource hog.
AksCT: I have CS6 and disappointed to see it will no longer supported beyond new ACR.But, wouldn't that be the same issue, if Adobe has stay with old model of selling and released CS7?
"If you were one who kept your versions current, then the subscription is actually less." And the software dies if you don't pay.
So there's a caveat to the "cheaper" claim.
luigibozi: Autodesk is going to the cloud too, it's a trendy business model.
Another trend (Leica is in, again!): the camera manufacturers will include/pay photographer's subscription, at least for the camera warranty period.
And anyhow, one like, four, or zero, I'm still correct.
AutoDesk will likely be using the subscription model, not the cloud model.
cloud is very different.
gmail is the cloud. gmail doesn't work without access to the cloud, even if your web-browser will open.
this software will work for a least a month without internet based validation. nearly all of this software is on your hard drive. (there's a tiny bit of cloud storage included).
that's the huge difference.
"cloud" is just this trend, of tracking and privacy invasion, that was the thing for about 3 months in 2011. so it's a trendy term Adobe used in place of "rental" or "subscription".
acinod: So I've been tossing up between the RX100 IV and LX100 for a while.
I'm planning to take one on my Japan trip where I will be carrying it in my coat pocket (both cameras can fit in fine). I'm also new to photography but I'm willing to learn; I think the manual adjustments in the LX100 will be helpful for learning.
Here in Australia, the LX100 is $800 while the RX100 IV is $1200.
Due to pricing, a large sensor and size not being a concern, the LX100 seems like the superior choice. However, this review has made me start considering the RX100 IV again.
Should I get the LX100 or Rx100 IV?
Interesting thing: DXO sensor scores are nearly useless.
And then I'm basing my claim on having raws from both--albeit I await an update to ACR 9.
The RX100IV is NOT a significantly better high ISO camera than the III, while the LX100 is. And I've extracted plenty of raws from the III with ACR.
Don't cite DXO, use cameras.
CC is not cloud, it's rental. There's a huge difference.
What does this have to do with camera hardware, will the firmware be rental?
Care about higher ISOs and 4K video? The Panasonic is a better bet.
Want the most compact, the Sony is better. Want slow motion video, get the Sony.
The electronic viewfinder of the Sony is good but a pain to set up.
The Sony is more likely to slip out of your hand.
Want to shoot lots of photos of people with bright light sources over their shoulders? Get the Sony, since it has a built in flash.
If you really are new to digital photography, not one of these things will really matter.
The Fuji X30 has better out of jpegs than either, but it's not as good a high ISO low light camera as either the Sony or the Panasonic.
ttran88: Gold award for lossy RAW files. If Sony keeps getting Gold awards, when will they ever change the word lossy to lossless?
The award is not simply based on the quality of the raw files.
And I think this lossy thing is drawback.
No, then CS7 would be supported for some years, then you'd have to purchase the upgrade to CS8 after some years, if you wanted further updates to Camera Raw.
Whereas with the CC model the software dies completely once stop paying.
Rick Knepper: Once those who opt for Adobe CC try some of the features not found in CS6, the pain will subside.
Yeah, software that turns off if you don't pay is so special. Just like a Space Invaders game in 1980, well back then at least you could keep playing for your quarter dollar if you stayed alive.
Such a great feature, not.
Dan Routh: There are several RAW convertors available. And then there is Affinity Photo. Adobe is beginning it's move to drive away it's customer base.
And then Affinity is Mac only.
Well that's snotty of Adobe not to update CS6 through the end of ACR 9.
mcg734: How were you able to edit the RAW files in Adobe Camera raw? The current version 9.1 does not have support for the RX100 M4 ARW raw files yet.
CaptureOne 10.3 lists it as supported.
Can't you use the included, limited, CaptureOne?
Also RawTherapee will extract RX00IV raws.
Then there's IDC4.
I know the last two have weaknesses, but they work and C1 should be excellent--though I've not used C1 with these Sony raws.
TW14: I have the mkI. MK IV is a nice camera, but the improvement from mkI is not attractive enough for me to upgrade given the price point. A touch screen in mk V may change my mind though.
Optically better lens in the IV, an EVF, slow motion video. Faster frame rate. Better high ISOs.
acidic: I think Dick Cheney should take Donald Trump on a hunting trip.
I think your missing the point, Cheney would be shooting Trump.
photoaddict: And I remember how people said that there's no way a digital camera can outperform film in just a decade. If it was shot with a digital SLR camera, it would be sharp, clear, and more saturated. Low light? No problem, just boost the EV in RAW processor (especially the Nikon/Sony types).
I am sure glad film is over.
Except film is over for reporting this kind of situation. And manual gear boxes still do things automatics don't.
By all means use film, but no one is going to use it here, and automatic gearboxes be problematic--even the vaunted dual clutch automatics with real manual shifting included via paddles.