GaryJP

GaryJP

Lives in Hong Kong Hong Kong
Works as a TV Production, Directing, Shooting, Editing
Joined on Mar 11, 2006

Comments

Total: 934, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

GaryJP: Funny that Adobe and Apple hated each other so long, when they are increasingly becoming mirror images in terms of imposing their will on consumers.

Do you work for them by any chance? I ask because you are determined to miscontrue the position of others in order to defend them. Do you REALLY think the choice of the word "indefinitely" is an accident?

As I've explained elsewhere, Lightroom is supposed to be not just a processing programme but a media management programme. It takes time, effort, and resources, to import, say, four terabytes worth of images from many years into a programme or library.

Your argument seems to be that it does not matter if you cannot trust the software maker to not waste that work or force any conditions it likes on you once you have invested that effort.

Whether you are aware of it or not, Apple all but destroyed its reputation with professional film and video editors when it decided to dump its original Final Cut Pro for FCPX. After an uproar it kept the old software alive, and I know film and TV editors who still use it even while knowing their software is heading towards obsolescence.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: Funny that Adobe and Apple hated each other so long, when they are increasingly becoming mirror images in terms of imposing their will on consumers.

RPJG I really don't see the point of arguing with someone when you don't know what he has said or written. I bought it eventually. It was far from easy, and Adobe took me to a creative cloud page and/or greyed out the upgrade option many times first.

As for Adobe promises, let's see:

"Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?

A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."

Well it seems increasingly likely that indefinitely is a pretty short time. As I've said, I have one foot in and one foot out of Lightroom, and am damned if I'll use it as a photo management system when all that time investment can be too easily rendered useless.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:52 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: Funny that Adobe and Apple hated each other so long, when they are increasingly becoming mirror images in terms of imposing their will on consumers.

Read my posts. They have always said the same thing. Answering on the basis of wrong assumptions just makes you look stupid.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:40 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: Funny that Adobe and Apple hated each other so long, when they are increasingly becoming mirror images in terms of imposing their will on consumers.

In some places, apparently not.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: Funny that Adobe and Apple hated each other so long, when they are increasingly becoming mirror images in terms of imposing their will on consumers.

Barry, you seem not have read the problems many people have had in even getting access to it through Adobe's own site, particularly outside the US. At the same time, it was ADOBE, and not us, who claimed that Lightroom would NOT be emphasising CC any time soon.

Why so defensive? No one is asking for the precious cloud to die. We are just asking for the choice we always had. If the cloud is REALLY the best economic choice for most people they have the brains to make that decision for themselves.

The bottom line is the subscription model comes into play simply because the software is now mature enough that further upgrades will likely be minor. It takes the onus OFF the company to innovate or do anything to earn your upgrade money. What amazes me is that some of you cannot see this.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

There you go again Barry. No one is threatening the existence or choice of an alleged four million cloud subscribers. It is those who prefer to use the software standalone that Adobe has lied to and is lying to.

As for Dman and his "mistaken notion", if you encourage people to use software in a format that makes it part of an infrastructure, you are demanding a level of trust from them. One that implies long term commitment. I already trust software companies so little I store in generic formats such as rtf wherever possible.

As I said elsewhere Apple's decision to kill off professional level Final Cut Pro (and now Aperture) actually screwed over entire production houses who had purchased hardware that only worked with that software. Don't do that kind of thing and expect to be respected or trusted.

Adobe is urinating on its users heads and the shills tell us it is raining.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

TheDman: Will all the whiners please switch to Capture 1 already (like you keep threatening to do, but don't) so these comments sections can actually discuss the new product and not be filled with complaining about something that happened 2 years ago?

Incidentally, people who pay to use your product, whether it is a car, software, a movie, whatever, have EVERY right to have and express a view on it and on your corporate behaviour.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:10 UTC

Funny that Adobe and Apple hated each other so long, when they are increasingly becoming mirror images in terms of imposing their will on consumers.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 14:17 UTC as 47th comment | 32 replies
In reply to:

Abaregi: Feels like standalone is soon gone. Pushing CC hard.
Hope Sony still has the 30$ upgrade for capture 1 pro if LR7 is only CC.

NetMage, didn't work for me. Upgrade remained greyed out.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 14:16 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: They might be assuring us they are going to keep Lightroom as a standalone product, but it is a nightmare to get through their site without being signed up to a Creative Cloud you don't want. They are just pushing the standalone right to the periphery.

Liars. As we always knew.

Thanks to the helpful ones.

I eventually did find it, but then it refused to let me buy from that page because I am outside of the US (even though my account is as clear on the US page as on my local one). And the links for Lightroom standalone outside the US are even more seriously hidden. It's like entering through a derelict back door.

People who do not know what is going on , or make assumptions, like Mr Rossberg, just make themselves look like fools.

I never get why those who opt for Creative Cloud, unless paid by Adobe, are so defensive. We are not asking for THEIR choices to be taken away. We are asking to be given a choice to make the decision that is right for us. And there is no doubt from their web pages that Adobe is side-lining standalone despite their assurances.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 09:55 UTC
In reply to:

Abaregi: Feels like standalone is soon gone. Pushing CC hard.
Hope Sony still has the 30$ upgrade for capture 1 pro if LR7 is only CC.

If it is so easy to find and buy the Lightroom 6 upgrade, show us how.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 09:29 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

The point is they are liars, who have repeatedly said Lightroom will remain standalone, and that is no way to do business.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 09:22 UTC

They might be assuring us they are going to keep Lightroom as a standalone product, but it is a nightmare to get through their site without being signed up to a Creative Cloud you don't want. They are just pushing the standalone right to the periphery.

Liars. As we always knew.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 08:59 UTC as 58th comment | 15 replies
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

As for those figures you asked for, 50 US police were shot in 2014. The most in a year on record.

Police don't like to make the figures of those they kill available so not all have been counted, but AT LEAST 5,600 people have been killed by police in the US since 2000, most by shootings.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 05:27 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

Careful Edgar, your authoritarian and rightwing streak gets more apparent with every post.

And if you think those making justified criticisms of authority and its enforcers are the ones Orwell was writing about, you have entirely missed the point of Orwell.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 04:16 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

If you talked to more police you might learn that most see human and civil rights and the court system as fussy ways to release guys they just KNOW are bad.

And they have a varyingly trigger happy mindset depending on who they are policing.

The police force anywhere is not a haven of civil libertarians. And it is rather sad that the public needs protection from them. Maybe the percentage of bad apples is low, but the percentage of people covering up for them is not.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 03:58 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

You say no one is arguing they should not be filmed. I and others have pointed you to laws people are trying to introduce, in the US and internationally, to STOP third parties filming and photographing police.

US police shootings by race (age 15-19)

Whites 1.47 per million
Blacks 31.17 per million.

In the past few weeks I have seen with my own eyes video of two black men shot dead and a white guy beaten. All unjustifiably. No edits. You act as if these are rare cases. My bet is that a lot more happen when cameras are not running. And this is the tip of the iceberg.

It surprises me not that a couple of white Americans play this down. There is ABSOLUTELY an issue here unless one believes black people are more than twenty times more likely to need shooting.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 03:51 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

Another reason why police need to be filmed

http://www.wsls.com/story/28770340/california-sheriff-investigates-disturbing-video-of-suspect-being-beaten

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 04:32 UTC

I see a whole new marketing opportunity for Google glass here.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 04:12 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Marty4650: I really do believe that most people who believe "the cops are always wrong" will be shocked at the outcome here.

These bodycams will MOSTLY vindicate the police, and prove the suspects were lying about brutality or improper conduct. Of course, in a few cases they will support the suspects version. But the real incidence of police brutality may be much smaller than the police haters think it is.

There is a certain mindset in police officers, quite apart from the abusive few. I'd bet politically MOST veer to the right/Republican and so do most of those who choose to hear no wrong about them.

Marty and Edgar choose to ignore this.

No one is saying police should not be out there. But they should be caught for misusing their powers. As Jon Stewart says, it is not about being against cops. It is about being against bad cops.

There is ZERO reason, outside of undercover operations, why cops pursuing their duty should not be observed and recorded.

When looking suspicious = looking black. having long hair, or looking like a teenager, there is something wrong with the definition of suspicious. I am not even black and I have been profiled for two out of the three reasons. As a teen, my brother had a police car follow him and his friends for an hour, and they STILL got nothing on him.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 03:55 UTC
Total: 934, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »