jm67

jm67

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Sep 22, 2007

Comments

Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

I don't base purchases upon reviews. Over time, while I may have come to respect the point of view of certain sites such as this one, I don't purchase something according to someone I've never met and don't know. I also only buy something that has a return policy so that should it be not what I expected, it can be returned, even if there is a restocking fee. It's only fair. For me, reviews by anonymous persons are mostly entertainment. There are too many who swoon over their purchase and too many who obviously don't own it and swoon or hate it. Too many just love to see their name and/or opinion in "print".

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2013 at 14:19 UTC as 45th comment
On Adobe releases subscription-only Photoshop CC article (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kim Letkeman: " the relatively low monthly fee does make Photoshop rather more accessible to new users on a budget"

In the same way that the so-called relatively low barrier to borrow money from a "finance company" makes said money more accessible. But in neither case is it a good value. By the 5th year, a new user has spent over $1200 USD on one single application ...

20 bucks a month for one application is not "relatively low" ... it is "robbery" ... despite my preference for the speed of Photoshop, I am sticking with LR until they choose to put a gun to our heads for that one too. For my more advanced processing, I am happy so far with onOne Perfect Suite and Google Nik suite, both of which can be had at good prices for Lightroom (less than one year's "rental" for Photoshop CC.)

Adobe are playing a dangerous game here, and your trying to characterize the software as "more accessible" for the very people who cannot afford to be "bled" in perpetuity does us all a disservice.

The only advantage I can see is for a new user who needed to process their photos occasionally. Let's say someone shoots all summer and spends one month in the fall processing all those pics (or the ones they like the most). Do that, say a few months out of the year and the software is affordable. As for the other 99.99% of us, we can't work that way but those very lucky few might benefit.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2013 at 14:42 UTC
On Adobe releases subscription-only Photoshop CC article (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

Yanko Kitanov: Whoo-ha, let's go! Good bye legal Adobe, hello new crack and serial. Piratebay - show me my new PS CC :)

I'm not sure it's appropriate to encourage software theft but if you're stating that more will follow because of the CC model, I unfortunately feel that it's likely.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2013 at 14:39 UTC
On Adobe releases subscription-only Photoshop CC article (398 comments in total)

So, there are three camps here. First are the pros who need photoshop and have no choice but to submit to the cloud and suck it up (the cost). Then there are the small pros who will use what they have and see what the future holds (continue using what they have, submit or find an alternative). Then there are the hobbyists who will likely say goodbye to Adobe. Only those in category one will keep Adobe in business and time will tell how many will join, how many will stay and whether or not they too will find alternatives in the future. Sadly I think there will be enough subscribers that Adobe will never do an about face.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2013 at 14:36 UTC as 157th comment | 3 replies
On Classic lines when clients want you to work for free article (141 comments in total)

From the viewpoint of a wedding photographer...
Yes I know it doesn't quite fit all five but #s two and four do so frequently.

'It will mean great exposure for you.'
--No, it won't. I'm on the wrong side of the camera to be exposed.
'If you don't want to do it for free, I know other photographers who will.'
--Then why are you asking me?
'We could just find a stock photo if you're not interested.'
--I can recommend a few companies if you'd like to save time.
'My cousin has a DSLR and I think I can get him to do it if you don't want to.
(My personal favourite, the cousin, aunt, uncle and I get this alot),
--You'll cry when you see the results so I recommend hydrating first.
'If all goes well, it could lead to paid opportunities with our company.'
--I love betting on "maybes" and "ifs". Sign me up. I mean, pass.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 00:42 UTC as 62nd comment | 2 replies

How can it be both a "misstatement" and "out of context"? You've either slipped up and said something you shouldn't have or you have said something that has been snipped and is only part of a paragraph. In either case, should anyone care what she thinks? You know if you're a pro, amateur, hobbyist, student and so on. You don't need Marissa to tell you who you are. It's kind'a funny.

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2013 at 20:49 UTC as 94th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

jm67: I'm still using 24-70 ver.1 and have been awaiting comparisons of ver.1,2 and this lens. I'm getting to the point I would like VC even in this range at the end of a long day and had high hopes for the Tamron. The niggling thing for me is the AF speed. Everyone agrees it's slower than Canon but how slow is slow? I guess I'm just going to have to get a loaner or rent to find out for myself just how slow "slow" is. My only other question is...how come everyone seems to be reviewing this lens with the 5D2? Shouldn't it be stuck on to the 5D3 and/ or 6D?

Cordellwillis...no offense to anyone shooting anything other than the latest and greatest. It's just that the newest cameras have different AF systems and how this lens works with them is of concern to me. I've read mostly good things but I'll have to see for myself how slow is slow.
Hobbit Mob...I appreciate the input.
Tonywong...I saw that quite a while ago. Their shootout also appears to show the AF not too shabby.
The only thing I've seen so far is the-digital-picture wasn't too happy about the AF consistency. Others have been happy. Again, I'll just have to pop one on for myself and see if the VC warrants losing a hair of AF speed and corner sharpness.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2013 at 20:29 UTC

I'm still using 24-70 ver.1 and have been awaiting comparisons of ver.1,2 and this lens. I'm getting to the point I would like VC even in this range at the end of a long day and had high hopes for the Tamron. The niggling thing for me is the AF speed. Everyone agrees it's slower than Canon but how slow is slow? I guess I'm just going to have to get a loaner or rent to find out for myself just how slow "slow" is. My only other question is...how come everyone seems to be reviewing this lens with the 5D2? Shouldn't it be stuck on to the 5D3 and/ or 6D?

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2013 at 13:54 UTC as 17th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

intensity studios: The ONLY reason Lightroom is not going subscription-only is because there are VERY good alternatives currently available like Capture One and Aperture.

If Lightroom had a monopoly like Photoshop does, BELIEVE IT, they would force you into a software rental.

Adobe don't care about its users wants or needs.

I would hope that most if not all users of one or the other have caught on to this but it is worthwhile to emphasize the fact. Lightroom has equals (some may say betters) while Photoshop has pale imitators.

On another note, I just got an email from OnOne assuring me that THEY will never (yes, they have the guts to use the word "never") rent their software. So far Adobe is telling them that CS6 will be supported in the next Mac/Win versions. Here's hoping Win9 is better than 8 and that this little tidbit of info is true. An alternate converter paired with CS6 for the moment seems a possibility.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

awb1000: I only use Photoshop on occasion, so I see no value for me in this. I had been thinking about moving from Aperture to Lightroom, but that's off the table now.

"it makes little difference as it is a business expense."

That's a standard response I've seen in a lot of forums that I take offense at. A lot of people, Adobe included, seem to think that because you run a business (I for e.g. wedding (mainly) photographer), do not need to gripe about prices of software, cameras, computers etc. because I can simply "write it off". So very wrong. The trick to running a successful business is to spend as little as possible while getting the highest return. Lease a Honda, not a Ferrari. Just cause you can write it off, doesn't make spending loads of cash justifiable. Have to admit though, I'd love to drive from gig to gig in a Ferrari.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 19:12 UTC
In reply to:

jm67: People are still posting here? Even I have realized that by now, Adobe just does not care. Everyone will interpret the poll differently but I see it as at best, 1 out of 5 thinks Adobe's move is good. Maybe it's more and they aren't happy about the price but will CC-it anyway but still, Adobe just does not care.

What we really need from DPReview is some constructive help. Polls are fun but we need help with alternatives and not everyone has the time and resources to download and test trials. I remember not too long ago they compared raw converters and I'm going to revisit that article. But more helpful would be a fair review of possible alternatives to photoshop. Please leave out lightroom. I need (not yet but maybe in the future, sooner or later and hopefully later) a replacement for "photoshoping", not just raw conversions. Are you up for it DPReview?

Gary....I was being generous and including 4.3+4+10.7 and rounding it up to 20. I give Adobe the benefit of the doubt. Everyone will interpret the results differently but to me I'll call it at around 20%, which does not bode well for them.

In any case, anyone looking for a raw converter should (as I did) revisit the article from January this year by DPReview.
I see Greg actually posted the direct link. There are good alternatives to ACR. Still, it would be nice if DPR could stay on top of the issue by giving us a good comparison of various photo editing programs. If not now, hopefully when the competition rises to the challenge in the future so that we can have an unbiased source of information as to where we go from here.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 12:57 UTC

People are still posting here? Even I have realized that by now, Adobe just does not care. Everyone will interpret the poll differently but I see it as at best, 1 out of 5 thinks Adobe's move is good. Maybe it's more and they aren't happy about the price but will CC-it anyway but still, Adobe just does not care.

What we really need from DPReview is some constructive help. Polls are fun but we need help with alternatives and not everyone has the time and resources to download and test trials. I remember not too long ago they compared raw converters and I'm going to revisit that article. But more helpful would be a fair review of possible alternatives to photoshop. Please leave out lightroom. I need (not yet but maybe in the future, sooner or later and hopefully later) a replacement for "photoshoping", not just raw conversions. Are you up for it DPReview?

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 00:58 UTC as 95th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

riveredger: Thinking aloud ... I think the way a lot of these posters feel is the way most people feel when they get the bill from their wedding photographer

Yes, it is. Once you own it, you own it. I currently "own" (license) CS6. You can use it over and over. Once you rent it, you never own it. One day the owner will call you and ask for it back, unless you pay and pay. We're talking about two different things here and I'm sorry but your analogy to wedding photography doesn't make sense. I've yet to call up a couple from years ago and ask for a print back. Stop paying adobe and they will in effect, ask for their program back. They may have to pay me for another print, but once they have it, it's theirs to own, not rent. Once I start with CC, I rent it and "own" nothing. Or to probably put it better, I lose the use of it once I stop paying. The couple is still enjoying their photo over their mantle. Done.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 22:54 UTC
In reply to:

riveredger: Thinking aloud ... I think the way a lot of these posters feel is the way most people feel when they get the bill from their wedding photographer

Umm, yes I know. It's how I (we) make money. However, once you have a print, you have it. You can frame it, you can put in into an album, you can make a mouse pad out of it or whatever your heart desires. But you do not hang it on your wall and next month pay me another $20 or I come to your house and take it back. Big difference.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 22:37 UTC
In reply to:

riveredger: Thinking aloud ... I think the way a lot of these posters feel is the way most people feel when they get the bill from their wedding photographer

I WISH I could charge my customers like this. "If you want to keep looking at your photos, pay me $20 a month for life". Stop paying and you can't see them. Sweet. The reality is of course, I can't think of anyone who would stand for that. Odd isn't it?

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 22:25 UTC
In reply to:

Steven Brenner: Just wait, rental of cameras is next. Your camera will work for 6 months and then you will have to reauthorize its use for a fee. Either we rebel or we get %X*&#.

"Some perspective?
$10/month for the first year = $120
$20/month for the second year = $240
$20/month for the third year = $240
Total cost for 3 years = $600
CS6 $600
And there is no upgrade cost to the next version"
How about this math...
I have CS6. I've paid for it. There is no "cost" next year or any other year. I opt out of the cloud for now. Instead of an upgrade price to the next version in a few years, I now spend $720 for the next three years. I then spend $720 for the next three. And so on. Far in excess of upgrade pricing. What happens to those who in the past skipped versions? Sorry, we're forcing you to keep up now (and pay). They'll be hit even harder than those of us who faithfully upgrade constantly. I prefer to look at costs ten years in advance. $2.4k is a ton to spend on just photoshop. Oh, and currency conversions? Better hope your currency is strong vs. U.S. $. Not everyone is in the U.S.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 00:53 UTC
In reply to:

Danamr: Seriously.
Adobe is not a non-profit.
Adobe is not a charity.
Adobe does not owe you anything.
They are in business to make money. Software piracy costs them millions of dollars a year. This goes a long way to eliminating that.
Their pricing model is more than fair for what you get.
This is the future. Get used to it.

"Seriously.
Adobe is not a non-profit.
Adobe is not a charity.
Adobe does not owe you anything.
They are in business to make money. Software piracy costs them millions of dollars a year. This goes a long way to eliminating that.
Their pricing model is more than fair for what you get.
This is the future. Get used to it."
They owe us to be treated with respect. Fair pricing? What price is fair? To have prices double overnight is fair? To have a virtual monopoly gives them the right to charge this? Making money is fine, but please don't insult the intelligence of the loyal customers and tell them to simply get used to it. There is no alternative for now but wait if, just if, one appears. And piracy. I'm so sick of hearing about unsubstantiated millions lost to it. And I'm sick of hearing some people tell me I need to pay more for some theoretical losses to some swiped software. So Adobe by your logic will make up the loss by doubling my price. Why should I be ticked?

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 00:42 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: I'd love to be locked into CS6 and the current version of Adobe Camera RAW. Do it to me, except one big thing. Let me be able to buy camera modules for new cameras over the years.

You see, this is what Adobe has held over us in the past and still with this new rental agreement. When you get a new camera and unless you have the latest version of ACR and Photoshop, ACR will fail to recognize your RAW files. If you try to upgrade ACR to a version that will, it will often not work with your current version of Photoshop.. most often. So, you must upgrade Photoshop in order to be even able to upgrade your ACR to be able to convert the RAW files on your new camera.

So the idea that we can lock into some version really doesn't mean much. If you buy a new camera, you'll be forced to get on the wagon, same as now. There is just no choice under this rental scheme. It's a complete scam. ;-(

I completely agree with you on this, Guidenet.
One possible option is to find an alternative converter, e.g. DXO that renders to your taste and send the resulting tiff to photoshop for further editing. Right now we're all just scrambling to figure out what to do. That's one of my big problems which is security in knowing where I'll be in two to three years. I have couples booking weddings a year and more in the future and I have to know where my business will be so I can mold production and costs around it. Right now all this "might", "could", "maybe" stuff is irritating. I have to know what system, program and so on I'm using. Or...jump into the CC and double my Adobe budget and pass it onto the poor bride. I'm just going to sit tight and see how the rest of the year goes. Right now there's so much speculation. But yes, so right on with the raw converter.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:59 UTC

Can we please pick more than one? The first two are my main irritants though the third, oddly, comes in third for me.

Regardless, whatever we the users say, write, feel, Adobe knows they have a monopoly in this field. With everyone shouting (myself included) that they'll go to the competition, deep down inside we all know there is none. Not yet at least. I don't know if anyone out there has the will and money to come up with anything resembling photoshop in order to compete. Personally, I have more problems as I use Dreamweaver and design and maintain my own website. I fear I can't just tell Adobe good bye. For now I'm viable with CS6 but one day, I'll have to cave in. So Adobe's dip in revenue will be recouped in the future. I dread saying "I'll be back".

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:53 UTC as 821st comment
In reply to:

Jimmy2thou: If you add a 6th option. 'I would rather pay a one off fee to own the software I pay for' I would tick that.

Another thing. If Adobe really want to charge people for new features, why not add the option to allow us to pay for future ACR updates? I'm perfectly happy with everything in Photoshop CS6, so for me ACR is the only thing I would want to pay for. I don't want or need any anti blur features, or radial filters. I would rather know whatever camera I own in the future is supported.

The stupid thing is that for the price of Adobe Photoshop CC for 1 year I could actually buy an F1.4 lens, which would negate the need for the radial blur features anyway.

I could go on, but for me PS CS6 is all anyone really needs. Maybe a developer will bring out a plugin which works like ACR and therefore CS6 becomes the final version of Photoshop for everyone.

I really hope you listen to your users and change your mind on this.

This is another customer who will be opting out.

'Sad Face'

"If Adobe really want to charge people for new features, why not add the option to allow us to pay for future ACR updates? I'm perfectly happy with everything in Photoshop CS6, so for me ACR is the only thing I would want to pay for. I don't want or need any anti blur features, or radial filters. I would rather know whatever camera I own in the future is supported."

YES!!! I upgraded from CS3 to 4 simply so that I could open my 7D raws. I went to CS5 cause the raw processing got better. All the other bells and whistles are only that, mostly bells and whistles I don't care about. I can't figure out why Adobe can't give us Photoshop "light". We just need to open our raws and use layers and work in 16 bit. When was the last time anyone used any of the "filters" still on my filter menu? Anyone out there converting their 5D3 photos into "paintings"?

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:47 UTC
Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »