Adobe & their RAW strategy...

Robgo2 said:

Robgo2 wrote:

Robgo2 said:

Jim Hess wrote:

All I can say is if it was that easy to create what you are looking for it would already have been done. And, as I have said previously, there is Photoshop Elements, Paint Shop Pro, just to mention a couple that I'm sure were designed to do just what you are asking for. Do they not fill the bill? And if not, what is missing? The alternatives are there. Go get one and use it.

Click to expand...

For starters, Elements is not 16 bit

Click to expand...

Many tools in Elements are actually 16 bit. How to tell? When you open a 16 bit image in Elements any tool or function that is 16 bit will be usable. Those that are 8 bit will be grayed out.

Robgo2 said:

and Paint Shop Pro is not for Mac.

Click to expand...

I use Paint Shop Pro X5 on my Mac through Parallels 8 and Windows 8 at it works beautifully. I created a recent thread about it if you are interested. Parallels also allows files in an Apple OS drive to be read and written to. In PSP I can access files that are on my Mac's Fusion Drive or my external Apple OS formatted external drives with the same speeds that the mac does. It's fantastic. Parrallels 8 and a Systems Builder version of Windows 8 was $140.

Here's a screenshot of PSP X5 running next to Lightroom 5 on my iMac.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3712/9407822742_6c6bb74141_h.jpg

Robgo2 said:

I do expect Corel (and probably others) to seize the opportunity provided them by Adobe's new subscription policy.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't bet on that. While PSP X5 is by far the closest you can get to Photoshop of any image editor out there and an overall outstanding image editor development since they bought it from the original owner JASC has been painfully slow. Corel reminds me of the company in the movie Office Space where everyone shows up and does the bare minimum and are anxious to leave at 9:30am. That's why I went the Parallels way and I'm very happy I did. I'm in photo editing heaven.

Robgo2 said:

And thinking about it realistically, Adobe probably considers PS as a product for design professionals and graphic artists, and they want to herd photographers into Lightroom. I happen to like PS and dislike LR, but I am in the minority. I plan to continue using CS6 for as long as possible and then survey the field for alternatives.

Rob

Click to expand...

I like Lightroom 5 and use it with Paint Shop Pro X5 as my image editing and storage solution but I hate Photoshop. It is an archaic piece of software. You can literally compare it to the first version and quickly see how they are related. An absolutely horrid and dated interface. And that's because there has been no viable *professional* competitor to Photoshop in the market. Paint Shop Pro could have been that competition until the original owner decided to sell it to Corel.That said, for the serious amateur and even many professionals Paint Shop Pro X5 is certainly a viable alternative to Photoshop, and at a ridiculously small fraction of the price.

Lightroom, on the other hand, looks like it was designed by another company and the only reason why is because Lightroom still has a lot of viable professional competition.

Dan Marchant said:

Dan Marchant wrote:

The OP is currently using Lightroom so I think it is safe to assume that they would indeed make use of those features which are included in LR but not PSE's ACR.

Click to expand...

Just because it is there, does not mean you use it, or need it. Plus I understood that the OP was looking for alternatives to CS and LR due to the cost, and the direction Adobe is heading.

Take sharpening as an example. How many ways does one really need to sharpen? In Elements you can sharpen in ACR. Then in Editor you can sharpen with Unsharp Mask, Unsharp Mask using Layers, Luminosity Sharpening, Edge Sharpening, Sharpen Tool, and Adjust Sharpness. I count 7 ways and there are likely more. Clarity in ACR is similar to sharpening...

Wants and needs vary. I suspect there are many users of PS and LR that do not scratch the surface of what they can do. Not suggesting that is the case of the OP. That is for each person to decide. For me even Elements is way beyond what I will ever use. My only real dislike of Elements is the Organizer. It does a great job of importing images from a card reader. After that it sucks. I have no use for software that forces you to only delete or move files on your hard drives with that software, or it gets confused and sulks (for hours). I think LR is similar. Perhaps that is where Bridge does a better job. Don't know, as I haven't used it. I don't like the way Elements prints either, but I have Qimage for that.

Ron AKA said:

Ron AKA wrote:

Ron AKA said:

Dan Marchant wrote:

The OP is currently using Lightroom so I think it is safe to assume that they would indeed make use of those features which are included in LR but not PSE's ACR.

Click to expand...

Just because it is there, does not mean you use it, or need it. Plus I understood that the OP was looking for alternatives to CS and LR due to the cost, and the direction Adobe is heading.

Take sharpening as an example. How many ways does one really need to sharpen? In Elements you can sharpen in ACR. Then in Editor you can sharpen with Unsharp Mask, Unsharp Mask using Layers, Luminosity Sharpening, Edge Sharpening, Sharpen Tool, and Adjust Sharpness. I count 7 ways and there are likely more. Clarity in ACR is similar to sharpening...

Wants and needs vary. I suspect there are many users of PS and LR that do not scratch the surface of what they can do. Not suggesting that is the case of the OP. That is for each person to decide. For me even Elements is way beyond what I will ever use. My only real dislike of Elements is the Organizer. It does a great job of importing images from a card reader. After that it sucks. I have no use for software that forces you to only delete or move files on your hard drives with that software, or it gets confused and sulks (for hours). I think LR is similar. Perhaps that is where Bridge does a better job. Don't know, as I haven't used it. I don't like the way Elements prints either, but I have Qimage for that.

Click to expand...

I don't know about the Windows version but the Mac version of Elements runs fine if you delete the bloated 1GB file that is the Organizer.

Jim Hess said:

Jim Hess wrote:

I rest my case. You ask for alternatives to Photoshop that just have the things that photographers need. I mention a couple of them, and you and I both know that there are others. Your immediate responses, "yes but this, and yes but that" these programs won't do the things that I need to have done. I doubt there will ever be a program that will be exactly and only what you need. You can have all the fun you want waiting for that perfect program to come along. There hasn't been one yet, and I suspect it will be a long, long time before there ever is one. You say it should be a simple task for a company to do a program for photographers. Several have, but none of them do just exactly what you need done. So it isn't just a program for photographers that you want, it's a program that has precisely the features that YOU need. Good luck. I won't bother to irritate you anymore.

Click to expand...

You rest your case? I mention two easily addressed deficiencies, and you cite them as evidence of insurmountable obstacles to there ever being a true alternative to PS for photographers. In the world of technology, stuff happens all the time. Have you failed to notice?

Rob

Member said:

Basalite wrote:

Many tools in Elements are actually 16 bit. How to tell? When you open a 16 bit image in Elements any tool or function that is 16 bit will be usable. Those that are 8 bit will be grayed out.

Click to expand...

My biggest complaint about Elements is that layers are not 16 bit. I am not sure that anyone can see the difference if only working with a few layers, but if repeated work is done I worry that the difference will show up.

In fact I would have bought Elements 11 instead of another CS6 upgrade (and saved myself about $140) except for the color depth, HDR functionality and smart objects. I could do without the last item but thought I was going to have to spend another $60-75 for an HDR program so the price difference between Elements 11 and a CS6 upgrade was not as large as it looked. In addition I found the Perspective Crop in PS to be not only very helpful but extremely useful for me.

Member said:

Member said:

and Paint Shop Pro is not for Mac.

Click to expand...

I use Paint Shop Pro X5 on my Mac through Parallels 8 and Windows 8 at it works beautifully. I created a recent thread about it if you are interested. Parallels also allows files in an Apple OS drive to be read and written to. In PSP I can access files that are on my Mac's Fusion Drive or my external Apple OS formatted external drives with the same speeds that the mac does. It's fantastic. Parrallels 8 and a Systems Builder version of Windows 8 was $140.

Click to expand...

This was on sale as a bundle from BHPhotoVideo for considerably less when I got my MBP. I agree it works well through Parallels but it would be nice to have a Mac version. It seems counter-intuitive to run Windows software on the Mac and I have found that when I try to use PSP, through Parallels, as an external editor for various work-flow tools, it does not work well. The tool calls PSP, PSP opens but the image never actually shows up and I had to manually open it. It is one of the reasons I ended up upgrading to the Mac version of CS6.

Member said:

I like Lightroom 5 and use it with Paint Shop Pro X5 as my image editing and storage solution but I hate Photoshop. It is an archaic piece of software. You can literally compare it to the first version and quickly see how they are related. An absolutely horrid and dated interface. And that's because there has been no viable *professional* competitor to Photoshop in the market. Paint Shop Pro could have been that competition until the original owner decided to sell it to Corel.That said, for the serious amateur and even many professionals Paint Shop Pro X5 is certainly a viable alternative to Photoshop, and at a ridiculously small fraction of the price.'

Click to expand...

It seems odd to me that you dislike PS but like PSP. Their UIs are not that different in design so I don't see why you dislike one but not the other.

Personally I like both LR and PS but have been using PS more and more (and LR less and less) as I have started using Bridge as the basic search UI for PS. I know it does not have the organizational abilities of LR but I don't need nor want that functionality so Bridge works very well for me in connection with PS.

Member said:

Lightroom, on the other hand, looks like it was designed by another company and the only reason why is because Lightroom still has a lot of viable professional competition.

Click to expand...

Competition is usually good for the end user and that is why I wish Corel would make a real effort of do something to fill the hole left by PS moving to CC.

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

MikeFromMesa said:

Basalite wrote:

Many tools in Elements are actually 16 bit. How to tell? When you open a 16 bit image in Elements any tool or function that is 16 bit will be usable. Those that are 8 bit will be grayed out.

Click to expand...

My biggest complaint about Elements is that layers are not 16 bit. I am not sure that anyone can see the difference if only working with a few layers, but if repeated work is done I worry that the difference will show up.

Click to expand...

It doesn't take much at all for the combing effect to kick in. That's why I am now running PSP X5 on my Mac.

MikeFromMesa said:

In fact I would have bought Elements 11 instead of another CS6 upgrade (and saved myself about $140) except for the color depth, HDR functionality and smart objects. I could do without the last item but thought I was going to have to spend another $60-75 for an HDR program so the price difference between Elements 11 and a CS6 upgrade was not as large as it looked. In addition I found the Perspective Crop in PS to be not only very helpful but extremely useful for me.

Click to expand...

I have Elements 11 and use it only for panoramas and it's excellent auto color tool that works like the one in Photoshop. I use that tool for some of my film scans as it not only color corrects but also equalizes all colors to get rid of the funky look of certain films I used to use where some colors are seriously out of balance with others.

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa said:

and Paint Shop Pro is not for Mac.

Click to expand...

I use Paint Shop Pro X5 on my Mac through Parallels 8 and Windows 8 at it works beautifully. I created a recent thread about it if you are interested. Parallels also allows files in an Apple OS drive to be read and written to. In PSP I can access files that are on my Mac's Fusion Drive or my external Apple OS formatted external drives with the same speeds that the mac does. It's fantastic. Parrallels 8 and a Systems Builder version of Windows 8 was $140.

Click to expand...

This was on sale as a bundle from BHPhotoVideo for considerably less when I got my MBP. I agree it works well through Parallels but it would be nice to have a Mac version. It seems counter-intuitive to run Windows software on the Mac and I have found that when I try to use PSP, through Parallels, as an external editor for various work-flow tools, it does not work well. The tool calls PSP, PSP opens but the image never actually shows up and I had to manually open it. It is one of the reasons I ended up upgrading to the Mac version of CS6.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am working on finding a solution for that, although once open in PSP the saved image updates automatically in Lightroom 5. What I am doing right now is simply opening PSP's organizer to the folder that holds the images I am working on in Lightroom. Other than that, PSP works no differently than if it were a Mac app. Everything else is seamless and no different than the way a Mac app works, and Mac OS formatted drives are read and written to without any other software. Perfect.

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa said:

I like Lightroom 5 and use it with Paint Shop Pro X5 as my image editing and storage solution but I hate Photoshop. It is an archaic piece of software. You can literally compare it to the first version and quickly see how they are related. An absolutely horrid and dated interface. And that's because there has been no viable *professional* competitor to Photoshop in the market. Paint Shop Pro could have been that competition until the original owner decided to sell it to Corel.That said, for the serious amateur and even many professionals Paint Shop Pro X5 is certainly a viable alternative to Photoshop, and at a ridiculously small fraction of the price.'

Click to expand...

It seems odd to me that you dislike PS but like PSP. Their UIs are not that different in design so I don't see why you dislike one but not the other.

Click to expand...

I take it you have never customized PSP's interface before through Workspaces. Once you do that the different can be quite dramatic. For example, here is the way mine looks so far. Not only that but most of the tools and the way they function are often far more intuitive.





One could easily customize PSP's Workspace to have just one tool showing, not to mention having different Workspaces customized for different jobs.

MikeFromMesa said:

Personally I like both LR and PS but have been using PS more and more (and LR less and less) as I have started using Bridge as the basic search UI for PS. I know it does not have the organizational abilities of LR but I don't need nor want that functionality so Bridge works very well for me in connection with PS.

Click to expand...

Lightroom is my primary photo editor because it does most of what I need or want to do much easier than any other photo editor. I use it much more for its editing capabilities than file management.

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa said:

Lightroom, on the other hand, looks like it was designed by another company and the only reason why is because Lightroom still has a lot of viable professional competition.

Click to expand...

Competition is usually good for the end user and that is why I wish Corel would make a real effort of do something to fill the hole left by PS moving to CC.

Click to expand...

I doubt that will happen. Most of the work that went into making Paint Shop Pro so good was done years ago by its original owner, JASC. Corel is a crappy company that unfortunately owns PSP. Knowing that led me to go the Parallels route and I'm quite happy I did.

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

Competition is usually good for the end user and that is why I wish Corel would make a real effort of do something to fill the hole left by PS moving to CC.

Click to expand...

There is an ongoing thread on the Corel Blog regarding Mac versions of Paint Shop Pro and Draw. Mainly it is Mac users pleading with Corel to seize the opportunity to steal them away from Photoshop. Corel has responded by saying that they are "listening" but without making any promises. We shall see how it unfolds, but it is an example of how ignoring the Mac world has bitten Corel in the butt. Had they had Mac versions up and running, they would have seen a sizable migration of angry PS users from the Mac side. There are too many people using Macs these days for any consumer oriented company to write them off.

Corel Blog

All of which raises the question: How many Windows users have switched from PS to PSP since Adobe adopted the subscription policy? I doubt that any of us has the answer.

Rob

Robgo2 said:

Robgo2 wrote:

Robgo2 said:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

Competition is usually good for the end user and that is why I wish Corel would make a real effort of do something to fill the hole left by PS moving to CC.

Click to expand...

There is an ongoing thread on the Corel Blog regarding Mac versions of Paint Shop Pro and Draw. Mainly it is Mac users pleading with Corel to seize the opportunity to steal them away from Photoshop. Corel has responded by saying that they are "listening" but without making any promises.

Click to expand...

Like saying "I hear your pain". Sure, they hear. Doesn't mean they have any intention of doing anything about it. I suppose this is a good example of how using cross-platform software for development would have been a big advantage in the long run.

Robgo2 said:

We shall see how it unfolds, but it is an example of how ignoring the Mac world has bitten Corel in the butt. Had they had Mac versions up and running, they would have seen a sizable migration of angry PS users from the Mac side. There are too many people using Macs these days for any consumer oriented company to write them off.

Click to expand...

Depends upon whether or not they really want that market. I am not sure that the Mac market is large enough for companies like Corel to invest the money in a separate development effort. Parallel development is a pain since it is often hard to keep the two products in sync. Just take a look at ACDSee's Pro 6 (Windows) and Pro 3 (Mac). Those parts are correspond seem identical but there are modules that are completely missing in the Mac version.

Robgo2 said:

Corel Blog

All of which raises the question: How many Windows users have switched from PS to PSP since Adobe adopted the subscription policy? I doubt that any of us has the answer.

Click to expand...

Interesting question. I don't know but if there had been a Mac version of PSP I might not have upgraded to CS6. I have had PSP since X3 and upgraded with each version but now find that the interface issues are enough of a problem for me to have stopped using it.

Problem is that some of PSP's functionality is quite good. I have had a lot of luck with their HDR functionality, for example.

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

MikeFromMesa said:

Robgo2 wrote:

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

Competition is usually good for the end user and that is why I wish Corel would make a real effort of do something to fill the hole left by PS moving to CC.

Click to expand...

There is an ongoing thread on the Corel Blog regarding Mac versions of Paint Shop Pro and Draw. Mainly it is Mac users pleading with Corel to seize the opportunity to steal them away from Photoshop. Corel has responded by saying that they are "listening" but without making any promises.

Click to expand...

Like saying "I hear your pain". Sure, they hear. Doesn't mean they have any intention of doing anything about it. I suppose this is a good example of how using cross-platform software for development would have been a big advantage in the long run.

MikeFromMesa said:

We shall see how it unfolds, but it is an example of how ignoring the Mac world has bitten Corel in the butt. Had they had Mac versions up and running, they would have seen a sizable migration of angry PS users from the Mac side. There are too many people using Macs these days for any consumer oriented company to write them off.

Click to expand...

Depends upon whether or not they really want that market. I am not sure that the Mac market is large enough for companies like Corel to invest the money in a separate development effort. Parallel development is a pain since it is often hard to keep the two products in sync. Just take a look at ACDSee's Pro 6 (Windows) and Pro 3 (Mac). Those parts are correspond seem identical but there are modules that are completely missing in the Mac version.

MikeFromMesa said:

Corel Blog

All of which raises the question: How many Windows users have switched from PS to PSP since Adobe adopted the subscription policy? I doubt that any of us has the answer.

Click to expand...

Interesting question. I don't know but if there had been a Mac version of PSP I might not have upgraded to CS6. I have had PSP since X3 and upgraded with each version but now find that the interface issues are enough of a problem for me to have stopped using it.

Problem is that some of PSP's functionality is quite good. I have had a lot of luck with their HDR functionality, for example.

Click to expand...

PSP's Hue Map tool is the best of any product I've used including Photoshop and Lightroom.

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

MikeFromMesa said:

Robgo2 wrote:

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

Competition is usually good for the end user and that is why I wish Corel would make a real effort of do something to fill the hole left by PS moving to CC.

Click to expand...

There is an ongoing thread on the Corel Blog regarding Mac versions of Paint Shop Pro and Draw. Mainly it is Mac users pleading with Corel to seize the opportunity to steal them away from Photoshop. Corel has responded by saying that they are "listening" but without making any promises.

Click to expand...

Like saying "I hear your pain". Sure, they hear. Doesn't mean they have any intention of doing anything about it. I suppose this is a good example of how using cross-platform software for development would have been a big advantage in the long run.

MikeFromMesa said:

We shall see how it unfolds, but it is an example of how ignoring the Mac world has bitten Corel in the butt. Had they had Mac versions up and running, they would have seen a sizable migration of angry PS users from the Mac side. There are too many people using Macs these days for any consumer oriented company to write them off.

Click to expand...

Depends upon whether or not they really want that market. I am not sure that the Mac market is large enough for companies like Corel to invest the money in a separate development effort. Parallel development is a pain since it is often hard to keep the two products in sync. Just take a look at ACDSee's Pro 6 (Windows) and Pro 3 (Mac). Those parts are correspond seem identical but there are modules that are completely missing in the Mac version.

MikeFromMesa said:

Corel Blog

All of which raises the question: How many Windows users have switched from PS to PSP since Adobe adopted the subscription policy? I doubt that any of us has the answer.

Click to expand...

Interesting question. I don't know but if there had been a Mac version of PSP I might not have upgraded to CS6. I have had PSP since X3 and upgraded with each version but now find that the interface issues are enough of a problem for me to have stopped using it.

Problem is that some of PSP's functionality is quite good. I have had a lot of luck with their HDR functionality, for example.

Click to expand...

Amongst serious photographers and graphic designers, Macs may predominate, but even amongst general non-business users, they are selling very well. Just walk into any WiFi equipped coffee shop, and count how many Apple laptops are open. Also, there are many programs that run identically on both platforms. Office, Photoshop and Lightroom immediately come to mind, but even programs from small developers (e.g. Photo Ninja and Photo Mechanic) do as well. The point is that Corel and other developers can support both platforms, if they so choose. It may take more effort, but it is not as big a hurdle as it once was.

Rob

JCS56 said:

With my new EOS 6D is imposible to look at the RAW files. The only way to work in BRIDGE with this new RAW is to convert them to DNG. This leaves a orphan CR2 (RAW file) every time I delete from LR, I do this to select the keepers and do all the development. It appears that ADOBE wants more of my money in the form of updates, as my CS is not so old and not so cheap I will seek an alternative to LR which is what most use. Could you recommend alternatives to Ligth room?

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Another person with just your hardware and software configuration posted a similar question on an Adobe forum recently.

A responder had great success using Canon's free DPP software (comes with the camera) to view and delete unwanted RAWs, converting the keepers to 16 bit tiffs. Those he loaded into his LR or CSx to continue. You can bulk convert.

I like to retain the keeper originals as RAWs, anyway, for archive and much later re-working if needed. HD space is cheap, and over the years, software and my own skills improved such that the re-works were the way to go.

Personally, am delighted with the new 6D, now having 4 Canon DSLRs including the original 5D. 6D has a nice facilities/price ratio and suits my current photo requirements. Stared in 1948 developing and daylight printing with orthochromatic film and two old folding Kodak 120 cameras. There was much ex-WD hardware including Kodak aero-film cameras for sale.

Cheers, Tony.

tony brown said:

tony brown wrote:

tony brown said:

With my new EOS 6D is imposible to look at the RAW files. The only way to work in BRIDGE with this new RAW is to convert them to DNG. This leaves a orphan CR2 (RAW file) every time I delete from LR, I do this to select the keepers and do all the development. It appears that ADOBE wants more of my money in the form of updates, as my CS is not so old and not so cheap I will seek an alternative to LR which is what most use. Could you recommend alternatives to Ligth room?

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If you have Lightroom 5 your Canon camera will eventually be supported. It just takes a little time for Adobe to add support for new cameras. Then, you complain about converting to DNG. There are countless people who routinely convert to DNG when they import their images. They cite saving space and a number of other benefits. It really is a good alternative if you don't have the current version of Lightroom.

Those who convert to DNG often do it as they import their images. So there are no "orphan" raw images to worry about. But the choice is yours, of course. Not everyone likes Lightroom. And not everyone is willing or able, because of the expense involved, stay current with Photoshop. I'm not going to join the CC. But I have Photoshop CS6, and it has everything that I need.

Robgo2 said:

Robgo2 wrote:

Amongst serious photographers and graphic designers, Macs may predominate, but even amongst general non-business users, they are selling very well.

Click to expand...

I don't question your statement but I do wonder why this is. Clearly there are more photo editors, including serious photo editors, for Windows machines than for Macs and I have to wonder why, with so much more to choose from, photographers would choose the Mac.

I have used Windows machines for a very long time starting back in the mid 80s and am now using a Mac. The one thing that seems clear through use is that Windows listens more than Apple as there is a ton of things easy to do on Windows machines which are not easy on the Mac. I could give a lot of examples but will list only a few - you cannot delete selected items from the trash on Mac machines while you can on Windows machines, you can adjust the size of display icons on Windows machines which causes the window display to shift accordingly while adjusting icon sizes on the Mac does not work nearly as smoothly, you can move files on Windows machines while you have to copy and then delete them on the Mac. I am not saying that any of these are a big deal but, when you combine them all, it does seem more difficult to use the Mac to do some common things.

I am not an Apple-phobe as I now use a MBP. But software that I used on the Windows machine is often just not available on the Mac and, if it is, it often does not work the same way. So I just wonder.

Robgo2 said:

Just walk into any WiFi equipped coffee shop, and count how many Apple laptops are open.

Click to expand...

I am guessing that the sampling universe is very different in wifi equipped coffee shops than in general life. Places like Starbucks, which charges $4 for a specialized ice coffee, does not seem like a good sampling universe to me. Perhaps lots of people with lots of money have the Mac (considering its cost) but that is a far cry from the universe of photographers, or so it seems to me.

Robgo2 said:

Also, there are many programs that run identically on both platforms. Office, Photoshop and Lightroom immediately come to mind, but even programs from small developers (e.g. Photo Ninja and Photo Mechanic) do as well.

Click to expand...

Yes, those software houses have either done a good job in keeping the functionality in sync or are using cross-platform code. Adobe is apparently doing both.

However software like ACDSee's Pro 6/Pro 3, while serious software, has Mac versions that suffer seriously in comparison with their Windows version and there is lots of good software available for Windows not available for the Mac.

Robgo2 said:

The point is that Corel and other developers can support both platforms, if they so choose. It may take more effort, but it is not as big a hurdle as it once was.

Click to expand...

Right. But the problem probably is that they did not start with cross-platform development efforts and they are now stuck with Windows only code. The effort to convert to the Mac must be enormous and they are surely very reluctant considering the market place. I have seen efforts to do this sort of thing first hand and they often are not pretty.

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa said:

The point is that Corel and other developers can support both platforms, if they so choose. It may take more effort, but it is not as big a hurdle as it once was.

Click to expand...

Right. But the problem probably is that they did not start with cross-platform development efforts and they are now stuck with Windows only code. The effort to convert to the Mac must be enormous and they are surely very reluctant considering the market place. I have seen efforts to do this sort of thing first hand and they often are not pretty.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that Corel is seriously considering their prospects for a Mac version, but if they cannot do the trick, someone else will. Adobe has created a vacuum, and, as the saying goes, nature abhors a vacuum. I am confident that there are many clever programmers who will discover how to emulate much of Photoshop's functionality without its massive complexity. They will not burdened by umpteen versions of legacy code. In the meantime, most of us will continue using our current versions of PS until they stop working. That should be several years, at least. Lots of time for new products to come on the market or for Adobe to reverse its subscription-only policy.

Rob

Member said:

Basalite wrote:

I don't know about the Windows version but the Mac version of Elements runs fine if you delete the bloated 1GB file that is the Organizer.

Click to expand...

Or even never start it.

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

MikeFromMesa said:

Basalite wrote:

I don't know about the Windows version but the Mac version of Elements runs fine if you delete the bloated 1GB file that is the Organizer.

Click to expand...

Or even never start it.

Click to expand...

The problem is if you keep it that's 1GB of unused space taken up. In my case that's 1GB of space I want the SSD side of my Fusion drive to have access to.

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

MikeFromMesa said:

I am guessing that the sampling universe is very different in wifi equipped coffee shops than in general life. Places like Starbucks, which charges $4 for a specialized ice coffee, does not seem like a good sampling universe to me. Perhaps lots of people with lots of money have the Mac (considering its cost) but that is a far cry from the universe of photographers, or so it seems to me.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And I'm guessing that those who are interested in "serious" photo editing are going to be more affluent, on average, than those who are not. Hence, Starbucks might be a good place to scout for potential customers of an editing program. Remember, we're not talking about another iPhoto or Picasa.

Rob

Robgo2 said:

Robgo2 wrote:

And I'm guessing that those who are interested in "serious" photo editing are going to be more affluent, on average, than those who are not. Hence, Starbucks might be a good place to scout for potential customers of an editing program. Remember, we're not talking about another iPhoto or Picasa.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But it is not at all clear to me that the sampling universe at Starbucks is anything like the sampling universe of "serious photo editors", whatever that term means.

Presumably people who take photo editing seriously are more affluent than the average person in the US due to the cost of the hobby, but I also suspect more of them would qualify as "technical nerds" than would qualify as "Starbucks client" and I don't use that term (nerd) with disrespect. I am sure I quality as a "technical nerd". The point I am trying to make is that "more affluent" is not synonymous with "Starbucks client". Most of the software engineers I worked with would not be found within a mile of a Starbucks and they were, like me, technical nerds.

I have no figures and all of this is speculation, but, I suspect, it is true. None of which explains to me why so many photo editors use Mac equipment and Mac software. There is so much more on the Windows side.

MikeFromMesa said:

MikeFromMesa wrote:

MikeFromMesa said:

Robgo2 wrote:

Amongst serious photographers and graphic designers, Macs may predominate, but even amongst general non-business users, they are selling very well.

Click to expand...

I don't question your statement but I do wonder why this is. Clearly there are more photo editors, including serious photo editors, for Windows machines than for Macs and I have to wonder why, with so much more to choose from, photographers would choose the Mac.

Click to expand...

Mike are you regretting the switch to the Mac?

MikeFromMesa said:

I have used Windows machines for a very long time starting back in the mid 80s and am now using a Mac. The one thing that seems clear through use is that Windows listens more than Apple as there is a ton of things easy to do on Windows machines which are not easy on the Mac. I could give a lot of examples but will list only a few - you cannot delete selected items from the trash on Mac machines while you can on Windows machines,

Click to expand...

I think of that in the way the Mac OS does. If you have things in the trash you are likely to go back in to retrieve items, not delete and spare the rest to sit in the trash.

MikeFromMesa said:

you can adjust the size of display icons on Windows machines which causes the window display to shift accordingly while adjusting icon sizes on the Mac does not work nearly as smoothly, you can move files on Windows machines while you have to copy and then delete them on the Mac. I am not saying that any of these are a big deal but, when you combine them all, it does seem more difficult to use the Mac to do some common things.

Click to expand...

File moving looks the same to me. On the same drive it gets moved, no copies left behind. On an external drive a copy is moved.

MikeFromMesa said:

I am not an Apple-phobe as I now use a MBP. But software that I used on the Windows machine is often just not available on the Mac and, if it is, it often does not work the same way. So I just wonder.

Click to expand...

What are you wondering Mike?

alexsid said:

alexsid wrote:

alexsid said:

Jim Hess wrote:

I don't understand why it is that so many people seem to be waiting around for Adobe to fail just because they don't like the new marketing strategy. Let's face it, people. The whole industry is changing whether we like it or not.

Click to expand...

This just is not true. Yes, there is a powerful hype machine trying to make us believe in that. But the reality is that changes are not all in this direction: Linux and Open-Source movement have a huge impact (now used by Stock Exchanges, NASA, and almost all big companies). And after Snowden NSA leaks many businesses reconsider their usage of cloud computing:

http://channelnomics.com/2013/07/25/snowden-nsa-leaks-rattle-cloud/

alexsid said:

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not switching to Photoshop CC or any of the Adobe CC programs. It isn't worth it to me. If I'm stuck with Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CS6, that's OK. I can do anything I need with what I have right now. But don't expect some other company to step up with a version 3 or 4 that will compete with Photoshop which has matured through 14 versions.

Click to expand...

Yes, it will take some time - but I think that many photographers (e.g. landscape, architecture etc.) do not need all features of PhotoShop (true, designers need them). So producing an alternative good enough for _photographers_ is not that difficult.

alexsid said:

They have changed their marketing strategy to maximize their profit margin. Many are criticizing them for doing that. But isn't that what any company must do?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is true for public companies - they are responsible to their shareholders. Ideally, they would like to be able to get money for nothing. This is why consumers should be vocal - to protect their rights.

alexsid said:

Times change. Software changes. And we must change too.

Click to expand...

Yes, we should change - but by that I rather mean that we should be more vocal and spend more effort on protecting our rights.

I am not angry with Adobe's decision - like you said, it is their right to sell their software in any way they like. If they feel that they can raise the subscription price 400% in a year - fine, it is their right again. But at the same time it is our right not to be enthusiastic about CC and reject it, switching to other solutions.

Just like you, I plan to stay with CS6 and LR5 (hopefully, they will continue upgrading non-CC LR) for long time. I hope that Adobe is reasonable and if they see that there is big enough market for those who reject CC, they will release something like a somewhat stripped-down version of PhotoShop - something in between CC and PE.

Click to expand...

Not stripped down. Release the same products for CC as a perpetual license and most will likely upgrade.