Rob

Rob

Lives in United States Jenison, MI, United States
Works as a Producer/Engineer
Has a website at www.fasttrax.us
Joined on Feb 11, 2000

Comments

Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11
On Adobe releases subscription-only Photoshop CC article (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob: 1. It will not stay at $20/month.
2. You will become a victim of perpetual payments. If you stop paying them everymonth, you won't be able to open that pdf image you took of your kids 2 years ago.
3. Not everyone wants to be a renter, making their landlords rich. Some prefer to own.

I meant PSD, as in those you edit and save in Photoshop format. With multiple layers, you do require PS to reopen and continue your work. I prefer to make a one-time purchase, pay the price, and then use whenever I want. Having to make payments every month in perpetuity in order to open/edit images years down the road does not sound like something to which I'd subscribe. I've checked the new trial version out, and it does not hold anything of interest. I suspect Adobe realizes that they have a mature product, and it will be harder coming up with new features to drive upgrades. So to keep the cashflow coming in, they decided to implement this subscription plan. Once you stop subscribing, you won't be able to work on your photos saved as PSD (Photoshop) format.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 04:04 UTC
On Adobe releases subscription-only Photoshop CC article (408 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: I will go against the general consensus and say that I think the subscription model might even reduce the number of pirated versions in use as it makes the initial cost of starting out using Adobe products so much more affordable when you spread the cost over time. I'm not saying it necessarily is cheaper in the long run, but it's more convenient for many, myself included.

Also, a lot of the people commenting don't seem to know anything about what the Creative Cloud is, how much it costs, and nor do they realise if and to what extent it affects them. They just seem to be against it on principle without even having defined the principle to start with. Please read up on it and understand what it is all about before commenting (as if that is ever going to happen).

I disagree. First, with all the focus on government spying on private consumer data, the public will become less amenable to connecting to the "cloud" (a corporate computer system). Second, the pirated version of CC is already all over the internet, so it didn't take them long.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2013 at 21:14 UTC
On Adobe releases subscription-only Photoshop CC article (408 comments in total)

1. It will not stay at $20/month.
2. You will become a victim of perpetual payments. If you stop paying them everymonth, you won't be able to open that pdf image you took of your kids 2 years ago.
3. Not everyone wants to be a renter, making their landlords rich. Some prefer to own.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2013 at 11:41 UTC as 88th comment | 6 replies
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1879 comments in total)

So I'm now a "renter" instead of an "owner". Thanks Adobe.... NOT. I don't plan to trade in my "perpetual license" for a PERPETUAL LEASE.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 11:44 UTC as 491st comment

The creative suite is a mature product and important "gotta have it" features will become far less frequent. Therefore, in order to grow revenues, a monthly tax will be imposed for its continued use. Its the ubiquitous monthly lease plan. Companies do make more off of those who perpetually lease and never own, all conveniently broken down into "small monthly payments". The cost of entry is reduced, but over time you will spend far more. Most consumers are only concerned with "what will my monthly payment be?".

I will not trade in my "perpetual license" for a perpetual lease payment.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 11:27 UTC as 88th comment
On Instagram responds to clamor around TOS changes post (79 comments in total)

OK, I'll trust them now that they've back pedaled..... NOT!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 19, 2012 at 12:51 UTC as 22nd comment

The 2.5 BILLION dollar project uses cameras sporting a whole 2 megapixes? Oh, the image is murky because the camera's removable dust cover is apparently coated with dust blown onto the camera during the rover's terminal descent. I guess they didn't take into account Mars might have some dust. That's 2,500 million dollars. Dang, if that Nikon 800 didn't have that focus issue....

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2012 at 00:50 UTC as 79th comment | 8 replies
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III review article (706 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo nuts: This is so fun. Re-ignition of the never-ending Canon-Nikon war!

Anyway, the D800 scores higher for (i) image quality (RAW and jpeg) (ii) low light ISO (iii) movie/video mode (iv) value.

The 5D3 scores higher for features and performance.

They end up with the same overall score. Hmmmm....

Strange.

Amazon owns dpreview. Amazon sells both cameras and is enjoying their current popularity I'm sure. Its no surprise that in order to keep all buyers happy they got "equal" but different scores.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2012 at 03:08 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III low-light ISO series samples article (344 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob: Please post a few of the RAW image files. I want to know if the loss of detail is noise reduction coming off the chip, or noise reduction processing for jpg.

DPP from Canon for now I guess, maybe it would require an update which Canon could provide. Soon an update from Adobe unless they pull the "you have to update us as well" like they did with the 5d2.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 21:52 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III low-light ISO series samples article (344 comments in total)

Please post a few of the RAW image files. I want to know if the loss of detail is noise reduction coming off the chip, or noise reduction processing for jpg.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 20:55 UTC as 41st comment | 3 replies
On Microsoft releases Camera Codec Pack with RAW support article (89 comments in total)

Installed this for my W7 64 bit system. I only wanted to be able to view image thumbnails when browsing in Explorer, but it does't. It shows a CR2 file type thumbnail, but no thumbnail of the image. Should it show thumbnail of the image?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2011 at 13:13 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11