jlehet

Has a website at http://www.lehet.com
Joined on May 9, 2013

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14

For me, as I feared, the cloud plan has sucked compared to the old annual or 18 month or whatever releases. Those releases, which I bought every year, had clear changes, improvements, and most importantly, stability. Now you never know what will happen if you let CC upgrade. Odds are that something won’t work as you expect and you have to figure out what happened. There are always bugs.

Link | Posted on May 2, 2019 at 23:05 UTC as 233rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

splendic: Storage is cheap, so meh.

But I imagine this would be useful for delivering large albums to customers that don't require editing latitude.

Also makes it easier to serve up images on mobile.

I don't know. I tried it a bit to no good end. The only use for me would be my web site, which is definitely using too much bandwidth, even with my crazy coding to optimize which size image loads and whether to load a retina image, and using lazy-loading. But the web is also a trade-off between looking great and actually not being a usable image for someone to grab and print something small but good. Still, I tried this. If I've already compressed it, then this won't run. Using it from a 100% jpg yields a nice looking image but one bigger than I'm already uploading.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2015 at 14:41 UTC
On article Photosmith can keep photographers organized on the go (25 comments in total)

I remember the other serious missing feature -- no support for LR virtual copies.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2013 at 15:01 UTC as 6th comment
On article Photosmith can keep photographers organized on the go (25 comments in total)

Also of note: Jeffrey Friedl's Collection Publisher is fantastic for synching smart LR collections to folders, which are a snap to synch with the iPad. The only problem with that is that then you are stuck on the iPad with Apple's Photos app, which is completely useless for anything but looking (or emailing). No sorting, rating, or even knowing exactly what file you are looking at.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2013 at 13:10 UTC as 8th comment
On article Photosmith can keep photographers organized on the go (25 comments in total)

I think $20 would be a bargain for a solid solution to connect Lightroom to the iPad.

I've tried Photosmith 1 and 2, which really were a huge waste of time due to instability and all out failure. Photosmith 3 is solid. Yay! Good work!

But I still find that it's not really worth the time for my workflow because of a few missing features:

* No smart collections in the LR publish service. So if I wanted to have a synched collection that was "last 30 days," which would automagically synch between mac and Photosmith, that would be fantastic. But it's not there yet.

* Can't actually filter a view in Photosmith by keyword. This is a huge shortfall.

There was one other huge missing feature I can't remember at the moment.

Personally, I don't/wouldn't use Photosmith to do the first import in the field. I always go to the Mac first. But I really like to flip through photos on the iPad (with Retina screen), more than at desk.

Photosmith really does sync ratings between iPad and LR. Nice!

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2013 at 13:08 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
On article Adobe releases subscription-only Photoshop CC (394 comments in total)

As I've posted, I'm going to spend the money I'd normally spend on CS7 (and not for Creative Cloud now) on other stuff. First off: Nik Collection -- which is great! But I find I have to hunt around the internet for instruction. Lynda.com has some useful video.

Question: workflow. It seems clear after a day with it that the best possible workflow for these plugins is as a smart filter in a photoshop Smart Object. However, I'm trying to keep my workflow from being locked into proprietary Adobe formats, for reasons that will be obvious to many who post here.

My solution for now is to work with the smart object/smart filter, but also save it as a flattened tif.

Any Nik users? Workflow advice? Other advice for keeping a flexible workflow but not being locked into proprietary formats?

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 13:23 UTC as 62nd comment | 3 replies
On article Adobe releases subscription-only Photoshop CC (394 comments in total)

I've upgraded just about every version of photoshop since v2.0, and I also use Illustrator and InDesign, but far less frequently. I will keep these at CS6 unless the current conditions of the creative cloud change. I hope I will not have to rent it, though it might be somewhat more reasonable if there were assurance of future pricing. I don't want to get locked into a workflow and then have the financial ground shift under my feet (again).

I'm kind of sad, this upgrade time. I always like upgrading, and checking out the new features. Instead of giving Adobe the $200 that would have gone to Photoshop CS7, I'll buy the Nik plugin package, which gets great reviews. I will have some new toys to play with, and some good ones too.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2013 at 13:19 UTC as 84th comment
In reply to:

jefflins: I'm as upset as everybody else, but the bottom line is simply the pricing model...other concerns only confuse the issue. If it was a dollar a month would you have a problem with the model?

The thing is, if you are a graphics art house and use lots of products, the full suite is a deal at the price of 2 or 3 app subscriptions. Buy 2 get 12 free. The problem is that just one standalone app is too pricy. At 5 bucks a month I'm in. At 10 i'm thinking not. At 20 I'm not even considering it.

The price is some of the issue -- a relatively large increase for some configurations. For me there would be almost no issue at all if there were a contract and something like a lock-in. But they can do anything they want with the pricing in the future, and the more locked in and captive we all are, the more free Adobe is to hold us hostage in a big way, and squeeze out all but the wealthy and top design shops.

It's OK for them to lose half their customers every time they quadruple the price; they come out ahead each time they do that.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2013 at 10:58 UTC

All freelance creative professionals are getting squeezed from what I see. I know one good long-term designer who just became a massage therapist.

All the talk about Corel: Just my experience, but I had a horrible time with Corel, trying to upgrade/install Painter on the Mac last year. Their service was even worse than Adobe's, and I ended up getting my credit card company to dispute the charge. I never did manage to install the Painter XII upgrade. If you read the Painter forums you can see the horror. Corel bought Painter, a vibrant Mac application, and all but killed it.

Pixelmator is suddenly number 4 on the Top Paid list on the mac app store! Probably many people like me who thought, "What the heck, $15, I'll try it."

I do my fine art photos RAW -> 16 bit pixels, so I know Pixelmator won't replace PS right away for me. I was amazed though how solid and snappy it is, for $15! I tried doing a web image workflow with it. It was a little clunkier than PS, but very workable.

Link | Posted on May 13, 2013 at 10:51 UTC as 119th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

kymarto: I am loath to give more money to Adobe at this point, but I am thinking to upgrade to CS6 from CS5. I don't need the minor new features, but at least it will be somewhat supported for a time. But can I even upgrade at this point? I do not see upgrades anymore in the Adobe store? Does anyone know?

It's quite buried. You have to thrash around on the awful Adobe website, but it's there. I just upgraded my InDesign to CS6 yesterday. Photoshop is already there. I'll stay with CS6 as long as I can -- I used to upgrade PS every single version.

Link | Posted on May 12, 2013 at 15:39 UTC

While I don't mind paying (a reasonable amount) for adobe to continue to innovate and maintain their software, this has me completely bummed out.

As a publicly traded company, Adobe's allegiance is going to be to their stockholders, who demand as much profit for as little expense as possible.

This move means that if Adobe continues to innovate and do good work, they are doing it just for the fun of it. With us as a captive audience, we have to keep paying whether they do anything new and good or not. Also, they can raise the price in the future, as much as they want.

If they continue to innovate and keep the price steady, this isn't so bad. My biggest issue comes from the sense of insecurity as a captive-payer.

Right now I don't consider there is any alternative to Photoshop. But my workflow is suddenly changing to make sure I don't save anything in a proprietary format. Any image that is a PSD will also get saved as a flat .tif. And any PSD will no longer use Smart Objects etc.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 11:59 UTC as 515th comment
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14