 |
Majikthize
Lives in
New York, NY, United States
Works as a
photographer
Has a website at
www.jacquescornell.com
Joined on
Jul 13, 2002
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
"Last year we actually cut the price of Lightroom in half in order to open it up to a broader market of photographers."
Riiiiiiiiight. After Apple dropped the price of Aperture to $80.
Darrell500: I for one am excited about the possibility of someone else filling the void left by Photoshop. I currently use CS6 and Lightroom 4 but will discontinue use of lightroom as there are currently a couple different options to fill that void. As for CS6 I'll use it untill there is a replacement from another vendor, I will then migrate to the new vendor. Interesting Microsoft has been itching to get in on Adobe's action maybe now is there chance
So long Adobe don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out!!
MS had their chance when they bought the excellent iView and rebadged it Expression Media. First they introduced bugs, then they let it languish, and finally they sold it. I wouldn't be too sanguine about MS doing anything significant in the digital imaging space.
jhinkey: Since many photographers (not graphics artists who heavily modify their images and still call it photography) don't use most of Photoshop, why not split Photoshop into a full version and a stripped down version with the features that most photographers only need.
I personally only use a handful of Photoshop features - I could use LR, but I absolutely detest the workflow that I'm forced to use - and would love to have a perpetual license version of Photoshop for Photographers option. Leave the CC version on subscription for those who need full PS capabilities and the latest and greatest feature releases.
MrMojo,
Point taken. Since I do all my global adjustments and many selective ones in Aperture non-destructively from RAW, I suppose 16-bit in the last step isn't really necessary. And, Elements+ looks pretty great. But, now that you've persuaded me that 16-bit isn't necessary, I'm not as chagrinned to discover that Pixelmator is 8-bit only ;-)
jhinkey: Since many photographers (not graphics artists who heavily modify their images and still call it photography) don't use most of Photoshop, why not split Photoshop into a full version and a stripped down version with the features that most photographers only need.
I personally only use a handful of Photoshop features - I could use LR, but I absolutely detest the workflow that I'm forced to use - and would love to have a perpetual license version of Photoshop for Photographers option. Leave the CC version on subscription for those who need full PS capabilities and the latest and greatest feature releases.
Except that they also stripped out 16-bit support from important tools, which makes it a hobbyist's toy.
Majikthize: Aperture + Pixelmator
Total cost = $95
I think we may thank Adobe eventually for weaning us off Photoshop, which is, let's face it, a lousy tool for photographers. It was always intended for designers and illustrators. In a workflow built around LR or Aperture, a streamlined and photo-focused pixel editor like Pixelmator is already a great alternative and could be a complete replacement with the addition of content-aware fill, recordable actions, and plugin support. Glad to see a Paint Selection Tool (i.e. Quick Selection Tool) coming soon in a free update.
Pixelmator's blog post of March 20, 2013, reports that OS X 10.8.3 has resolved the graphics driver issue. I don't have an Nvidia graphics chip, so can't confirm. I can say that Pixelmator works perfectly on my 2012 13" MBP.
As for Photoshop being the "premier image editing tool", that may be so, but the interface is dreadful, the ongoing interface changes over the years have made adapting to new versions a chore, and the app contains a ton of tools that are irrelevant to my workflow. I'm very happy to have Pixelmator as an affordable alternative that provides most of the tools I need with free updates and none of Adobe's new lock-in shenanigans. Just a few new features would make Pixelmator a complete PS replacement for me. These are recordable actions, content-aware fill, and plugin support. I do most of my retouching in Aperture, and only occasionally need a pixel editor for removing elements and stripping backgrounds.
AZBlue: What a fluff piece, DPR? You ask a question, get a non-answer, and don't press the guy for an answer? When you ask how do they justify the price increase, they say they cut the price in half. Obviously you have different information than they do - why didn't you explore that further? Why do you just ask a question and accept a less than satisfying answer?
This is a completely ridiculous article that doesn't put anyone's mind at east. Photographers prefer Lightroom to CC? FAQs ask why do you need Photoshop? Are you kidding me? So DPR's solution is to give Adobe PR another avenue to spout off while the FAQs push people towards Lightroom and talks them out of wanting Photoshop. Sounds like an agenda to me.
or Aperture.
You've heard of it, right? Aperture? You know, the DAM & non-destructive RAW total workflow tool that came BEFORE Lightroom? The one that revolutionized photo workflows? Ring a bell?
How come you NEVER mention it? 'Cause it's not made by Adobe?
Aperture + Pixelmator
Total cost = $95
I think we may thank Adobe eventually for weaning us off Photoshop, which is, let's face it, a lousy tool for photographers. It was always intended for designers and illustrators. In a workflow built around LR or Aperture, a streamlined and photo-focused pixel editor like Pixelmator is already a great alternative and could be a complete replacement with the addition of content-aware fill, recordable actions, and plugin support. Glad to see a Paint Selection Tool (i.e. Quick Selection Tool) coming soon in a free update.
michael offner: They release this information less than two months before this "policy" goes into effect. Therefore, people who bought CS6 with considerations for discounts for future upgrades got faked out. That's not treating customers fairly. Adobe absolutely should have given a one year notice before implementing this policy, NOT 2 months!!
Google is basically giving away professional software with their NIK plugins. So here we have a company saying, "We bought NIK, they were successful selling their product suite at $500.00, however, let's try to give it away via an unrestrictive upgrade policy or sell it for 1/3 the price", and then we have another company saying "How can we charge more and create captives".....
The Adobe brand has been badly tarnished. Excitement over their products really will be diminished because of this in my opinion.
"They had no legal obligation to do this. Why do you people think these large corporations care?"
Apparently, they don't, and that's the point.
"The cost of licensing just Photoshop CC over 18 months (the typical life-span of a version of Photoshop), is similar to the existing version-to-version upgrade prices, if you commit to a 24-month contract."
Huh? $20/month for 18 months = $360. Wasn't the CS6 upgrade price was $249? For the PS user who skipped every other version, this is a major price increase. Boo, hiss.
Still modal after all these years.
Nikon007: My advice has always been "stay away from wide Gamut unless you know what your doing". For me it's not worth the hassle to see colors no one else can. You don't see it in print, your clients don't see it, on the web they can't be seen. So what good is it? It's great for a dedicated graphics station but for general use it causes many folks a lot of head aches. So if WG is your cup of tea go for it. If your not sure do your research first, there are lot of threads on this subject going back for years and nothing has really changed.
You may not see it in prints from a lab, but photo inkjet printers have been able to print way beyond the sRGB colorspace for quite a while now.
clv100: Interesting article, but, as others have mentioned, not including Aperture was a mistake. At the very, very least it warranted a significant mention in the intro and closing comments. I hope you can find the time to revisit this work with Aperture included in the not too distant future.
The "cross-platform only" stipulation is a fig leaf. This site has long stubbornly ignored Aperture. The editors have insisted that this reflects market share, but I refuse to believe that there are more DXO users than Aperture users.
pizzolog: Tues, Dec 18, 2012
I agree with topstuff, The Sony RX100 is truly in a different class.
In spite of the fact all of these cameras and The RX100 are put together in this same article, dpReview also agrees with the premise topstuff puts forth, dpReview will not allow the RX100 to be compared with any of the other eight cameras on the RX100 conclusion page.
The Sony RX100 is an engineering marvel.
Sony has performed the unimaginable astonishingly well, but apparently blundered in doing the easy things badly, such as:
Vague clickless control dial
Unpredictable flash metering
Lack of ND filter
No lens filter option
Confusingly playback stills, MP4 and AVCHD
Irksome lag zoom in playback.
No hard copy manual.
These apparent quirks, on paper at least, seem to keep the RX100 from being the GEM it should be.
I hope that the RX200 overcomes all of these relatively simple shortcomings; then perhaps I would not mind spending $649.
The $299 Lumix LX7 is the better purchase and a great camera.
The RX100 RAW files look soft. Yes, the test images appear to be somewhat front-focused relative to some other cameras, but even objects near the front, like the watch, look soft and show less resolution than the GX1. In terms of practical resolution of fine detail, it doesn't appear to be any better at low ISO than even the 10MP LX7. I think the hype around the RX100's 20MP is overblown. If I really need to make high-resolution prints larger than 12"x18", I'd rather have a GX1. For prints up to 12"x18", I'd rather have the LX7 with its faster & sharper lens (especially at the tele end) and superb interface.
ddtwenty: My only one complaint to panasonic is that...
Please please do the next lx serie with the same 24 mm. Wide and put bigger sensor on them. Imagine if lx7 has larger sensor that can perfome better on high iso ... I think sony rx100 will hardly makes such phenomenon in this year.
And I think it dose not matter if pricing will go up high just like sony's.
There's a tradeoff involved with sensor size. Bigger sensor = bigger lens = bigger camera, OR same-size lens with smaller max aperture. Look at the LX7 vs GX1. The GX1 has a bigger sensor and consequently higher usable ISO, but the kit zoom lens starts at f3.5 vs. f1.4 for the LX7. Where you can shoot the LX7 at f1.4 and ISO 100, the GX1 will be at f3.5 and ISO 640. That's why I have both. LX 7 for pocketable every-day carry, and GX1 for planned shooting in good light for large (16"x24") prints.
jhahilt: Every one of these photos required at least a paragraph of explanation to make them relevant, a good picture should be able to stand and deliver on its own. Time has in the past given the world some incredible images, this lot fails
And every movie should be silent.
I could have taken that picture! If only I'd thought of it. If only I'd been there. If only I'd anticipated the subject would be there and do that at that moment. If only I'd planned ahead to be at the front of the crowd. If only I'd been willing to risk my life traveling though shelling and war and checkpoints controlled by 17-year-olds with AK-47s. If only I'd brought a fast prime lens. If only I'd schlepped a heavy bag of equipment halfway around the world for weeks and weeks away from home and family. Yeah, I could have taken that picture.
But I didn't.
Yea! Rendering of RAW files shot with aspect ratio set to 3:2 on Panasonic DMC-FZ38 is now fixed. Apple tech even called me to let me know ( - I reported the bug a while back). Classy!
I might have been interested if it were under $1000 like the 17-40 f4L and 70-200 f4L (both of which I own and recommend). That would make a nice lineup of affordable pro lenses. When I'm shooting events with very low ambient light, even f2.8 isn't enough and IS doesn't stop action, so I go with fast primes. Sharp f4 zooms fit nicely in my kit for those times when I've got plenty of light or am working with flash. I'm not too happy about the way Canon L lens prices have been climbing into the stratosphere.
Pandaemas: I awe apple devices for their display, but offering a low res device doesn't seem like a smart move...
The reason Apple kept the same res as the iPad 2 is that this way developers do not have to make yet another version of all of their apps. One of the big problems on Android is that the wide range of hardware specs makes software developers lives miserable. The iPad Mini runs regular iPad apps exactly the same as the larger iPad 2.
"Low-res iPad Mini...in Apple refresh"
Way to dis Apple, DPR.