Class Four

Joined on Jan 23, 2012


Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15

I don't want your stupid cloud. I'm never going to want it. I didn't want it before your cloud was hacked. If I can't own the next version of Photoshop then I've bought my last version. You have zero interest in filling the needs of your customers. You don't care about the wants and needs of your customers. You are only interested in trying to maximize profits by charging monthly fees and everyone knows it.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2013 at 05:29 UTC as 26th comment
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1842 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: The adobe execs attended a seminar that was sponsored by the online storage and server farm industry, convincing them that this is the future.
They cited as a case study, Autodesk, which is headed this way... but there is a huge difference between renting $5000 CAD software, and something mainstream like adobe products.
This move is quite naïve, and quite frankly, stupid.
I predict that some of Adobe's upper management won't be around anymore next year... and if they still are, it'll only if they own the company, but nevertheless less rich as a result of their move.

I hope someone is fired. I find this move outrageous and will under no circumstances be participating. There's a grand they won't be getting.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2013 at 14:30 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Adobe, we don't trust you. According to the poll, "we" is about 96% of over 6,500 respondents. You have earned that loss of trust. Why should Lightroom be any different from CC if Photoshop isn't? If Lightroom had been a simplified version of PS then maybe more PS users would have migrated. I don't hate Lightroom, but I like PS and my workflow is already well-defined. By making this change you are FORCING people to either never upgrade their current PS or switch to another program. You hope we'll go use Lightroom, but why would we trust you not to get us hooked and stab us in the back again? Even if we did believe you, when switching programs don't you think you're opening up our choices to the entire field of available editing software and that we might choose to learn a system that hasn't completely lost our trust? I don't want you to go out of business, but I hope you lose enough stock value to forcefully eject whoever made this decision with extreme prejudice.

I hope me and the corporate jerk who made that call don't end up in the same prison. ...I will not be trading him for a carton of smokes. : )

Link | Posted on May 17, 2013 at 23:11 UTC

Vote with your wallets. It's all the corporate clowns running Adobe understand. You don't buy their crap they are forcing on you - and they will make changes. You don't own the product you just bought. You are renting. They can make changes anytime they like. You have to sign on to the internet and accept them or you are out of a product. Some businesses don't allow the computers doing the photo editing to even connect to the internet for security reasons. They don't want what they are working on stolen. I've spent thousands on Adobe - but the have lost my respect. If fact I think they suc for the way the treat their customers. They have got my last dollar. And anyone asking me (the camera guy as I'm know to many of my friends) - I will tell them whatever you do - DO NOT BUY ADOBE FOR ANY REASON. THEY HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR CUSTOMER NEEDS.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2013 at 22:40 UTC as 30th comment

Adobe are liars. They will tell you want you want to hear if it will get you to buy their product. Look at CS6. There was no talk of subscription based after CS6 or no one would have bought it knowing that Adobe would have no incentive to continue to upgrade it. Instead they will focus on subscription only and hope you will change over to that - wasting the money you spent on CS6. They will tell you what you want to hear to get you to buy. Then they will say market conditions changed and we had no plans but now it a direction we need to go. They will leave LR5 to die on the vine AFTER you has spent your money and then want you to go subscription. I will not pay them a monthly bill. I do not need anymore of those. Adobe leaves me no choice but to find somewhere else to spend my photo editing money. It wasn't my choice - it was there's and the smug arrogant VP that "manages' the product line. He is completely out of touch with customers and is only in touch with bottom line.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2013 at 22:30 UTC as 31st comment | 2 replies
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1842 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eugene CH: Hopefully, the Adobe VP of Creative Solutions, will have a look to this forum!!!

I hope after he is fired that the take his annual salary and put it toward customer relations. He's probably laughing right now reading this stuff.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 22:25 UTC
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1842 comments in total)

Adobe acts like oh boo hoo it's too difficult for us to support two products. That's bull. This is a money grab pure and simple. The higher in the corporate ladder you get the more inappropriate and down right stupid decisions effecting customers become. The more the decisions only focus on dollars. The product is THE SAME whether rented or purchased. The only difference, and the only additional thing to support, is the fact that one has timer forcing logon to ensure continued payment and one doesn't. You know it Adobe - stop lying. I write code for a living and I know it too.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 22:22 UTC as 124th comment
On article Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction (1842 comments in total)

to heck with you and adobe arrogant photoshop corp. clown. I always upgraded but will take my business elsewhere.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2013 at 02:48 UTC as 243rd comment

Any scope will work just fine in Africa or anywhere else. This is more marketing tool than anything else. It's certainly not made for low light. If you want to be ticked at Nikon, be ticked at them for making the optics used in the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

No one you know is ever going to Africa to hunt big game.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2013 at 00:40 UTC as 19th comment
On Article:4886827527 (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: I have to admit, I don't get it.

Even if my mobile device had a full-frame sensor and a great lens, I would never, ever, put an image on the web from the device when I took it, for lots of reasons:

- It tells people in real-time where I am (for example, that I'm not home), and I don't want that information to be freely available to anyone that wants it.
- The screens on these devices are totally uncalibrated and usually so far out of real calibration that they are just useless for post processing, and quite dubious for viewing images of any quality.
- If I'm out, the lighting environment I'm in could vary enormously thus greatly affecting how I would process the images.
- I want to choose the images I post from a whole set carefully after seeing them all together.
- I want to post-process my images with Lightroom before I post them, and LR doesn't run on any of these devices.
- I often shoot in raw, and most of these devices can't handle the processing or storage needs of raw.

lfinger, I have to agree with you. I take enough bad photos with great equipement. I don't need any help from my smart phone and I sure wouldn't want to bore people with crappy photos.

Posted on Oct 12, 2012 at 22:00 UTC
On Article:4886827527 (249 comments in total)

What? Cell phone photography? That's not real photography. I've had the latest top of the line smart phones for years and taken next to zero pictures with it and zero videos with it. The few I did take were worthless. dpreview should be for avid amatures, semi pros. and pros. using high quaility cameras. Also the mid-range and lower end stuff (point and Shots) should be reviewed so we can make informed decisions on backup cameras. I having real trouble understanding how a bunch of semi-crappy photos (blurry, underexposed) of the people across the table at the dinner making silly faces or a pic. of your expensive cup of coffee from the coffee house is going to have any real value. Pull the plug and focus on good quility cameras and good quaility photos. I like this site the way it is.

Posted on Oct 11, 2012 at 00:02 UTC as 35th comment | 3 replies

amazing shot.

Link | Posted on Oct 3, 2012 at 18:04 UTC as 16th comment
On article Roger Cicala investigates Canon's AF marketing claims (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

Class Four: I have a T3i and a 60d and they seem to have no focusing issues with the 5 or 6 lenses I have. Was thinking about picking up a 7d. Now I'm not so sure I want one. Is this a wide spread issue with 7d??

Thanks for the info. guys. 1DX and 5DMk3 are a little out of my budget. I think I'll pull the trigger on the 7d. My Canon lenses (some of them L) are all new this year. Hopefully, I won't have any issues as I don't seem to with T3i and 60d. Of coarse, I guess if I didn't get 3 cams, I could have got 1 really good one.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 13:51 UTC
On article Roger Cicala investigates Canon's AF marketing claims (89 comments in total)

I have a T3i and a 60d and they seem to have no focusing issues with the 5 or 6 lenses I have. Was thinking about picking up a 7d. Now I'm not so sure I want one. Is this a wide spread issue with 7d??

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 16:46 UTC as 28th comment | 3 replies
On article Canon updates EOS 60D and EOS 60Da firmware to v1.1.1 (19 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: Somebody used a 32-bit int to represent the S/N... Who knew that somebody else decides to make the serial number not really serial (unless they really produced more that 2 Billion 60Ds). :)

I would have also accepted "Act of God".

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2012 at 15:18 UTC
Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15