Which lightweight photo editor?

On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:37:55 -0400, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: wrote:
:
: : As to Photoshop, my wife uses it. It's quite expensive, but she thinks
: : it's well worth it.
:
: What does she think of Adobe's new pricing policy (which hadn't been
: finalized, apparently, when this thread was current)?
:
: where do you get the idea it hasn't been finalized?

Sorry, I had previously formed the impression that you were fluent in English.
The word I used was "hadn't", not "hasn't". They mean different things.

: creative cloud is finalized. it's a done deal.

I know. You've been trumpeting that fact for at least a week.

: adobe launched creative cloud *last* year and they were happy with the
: results. if going entirely creative cloud fails, they might reconsider
: their strategy, but that will be quite a while, if it happens at all.

I guess this isn't a point that would appeal to a fanboi like you, but it's
crossed my mind that going this route may suggest that Adobe has a cash flow
problem as they try to fund future enhancements.

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: : As to Photoshop, my wife uses it. It's quite expensive, but she thinks
: : it's well worth it.
:
: What does she think of Adobe's new pricing policy (which hadn't been
: finalized, apparently, when this thread was current)?
:
: where do you get the idea it hasn't been finalized?

Sorry, I had previously formed the impression that you were fluent in English.
The word I used was "hadn't", not "hasn't". They mean different things.

semantic games, i see.

but if you insist, creative cloud began around a year ago, and over the
past year, the uptake was stronger than adobe expected. whether the
predictions come true remains to be seen but so far, it's doing well:

http://asset0.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d...obe-CC-forecas
t_610x305.jpg

a little over a week ago, on may 6, 2013 at the adobe max conference in
los angeles, adobe announced that creative cloud would continue, but
that cs6 was the end of the line.

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pres...01305/050613Ad
obeUpdatesCreativeCloud.html

this thread started 9 days before that, on april 27, 2013.

if you think that a little more than a week before a major conference
adobe hadn't finalized anything, then you don't understand much about
the industry. this was *not* a spur of the moment decision.

: creative cloud is finalized. it's a done deal.

I know. You've been trumpeting that fact for at least a week.

no i haven't. i mentioned it once or twice, to correct those who
thought otherwise.

: adobe launched creative cloud *last* year and they were happy with the
: results. if going entirely creative cloud fails, they might reconsider
: their strategy, but that will be quite a while, if it happens at all.

I guess this isn't a point that would appeal to a fanboi like you,

more baseless insults.

but it's
crossed my mind that going this route may suggest that Adobe has a cash flow
problem as they try to fund future enhancements.

since you have said you won't use their products anymore, why do you
even care if they enhance it or not?

and instead of guessing, why not look at their financial statements to
see if they have a cash flow problem or not?

or do you just not like facts, so you can rant?

just because creative cloud is not what *you* want doesn't mean it's
going to fail or that adobe is on the verge of financial ruin.

On 5/17/2013 5:14 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:37:55 -0400, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: wrote:
:
: : As to Photoshop, my wife uses it. It's quite expensive, but she thinks
: : it's well worth it.
:
: What does she think of Adobe's new pricing policy (which hadn't been
: finalized, apparently, when this thread was current)?
:
: where do you get the idea it hasn't been finalized?

Sorry, I had previously formed the impression that you were fluent in English.
The word I used was "hadn't", not "hasn't". They mean different things.

: creative cloud is finalized. it's a done deal.

I know. You've been trumpeting that fact for at least a week.

: adobe launched creative cloud *last* year and they were happy with the
: results. if going entirely creative cloud fails, they might reconsider
: their strategy, but that will be quite a while, if it happens at all.

I guess this isn't a point that would appeal to a fanboi like you, but it's
crossed my mind that going this route may suggest that Adobe has a cash flow
problem as they try to fund future enhancements.


Actually this pricing model helps the medium to large users. the monthly
fee is not greater than the out of pocket cost, assuming an upgrade
every 18 months. The fee does not appear as a liability on their balance
sheet. It very much hurts the casual user and the amateurs like me.
Indeed I have signed a petition to Adobe to reverse its position, at
least as to Photoshop. I would like to see more here sign such a
petition, instead of ****ing and moaning.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Actually this pricing model helps the medium to large users. the monthly
fee is not greater than the out of pocket cost, assuming an upgrade
every 18 months. The fee does not appear as a liability on their balance
sheet. It very much hurts the casual user and the amateurs like me.

that's a good description.

for the casual user and amateurs, they offer lightroom and elements. if
those don't fit your needs, maybe another product from someone else
will.

Indeed I have signed a petition to Adobe to reverse its position, at
least as to Photoshop. I would like to see more here sign such a
petition, instead of ****ing and moaning.

good luck.

On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:00:04 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
: Actually [Adobe's new] pricing model helps the medium to large users.
: The monthly fee is not greater than the out of pocket cost, assuming
: an upgrade every 18 months. The fee does not appear as a liability
: on their balance sheet.

Well, I dunno. That's an interesting point. If the image files retained by a
user appear on his balance sheet as an asset, then anything that threatens the
integrity of that asset should presumably be carried as a liability. Adobe has
said that if you don't pay your bill, the program will stop working after a
few months. If the files are in Adobe's proprietary pseudo-RAW format (as I'd
assume they would be, for workflow convenience), won't they be nearly useless
if the user stops paying his bill? From that perspective, shouldn't an auditor
insist on treating as a liability the potential cost of converting those files
to another format? And the cost of implementing a new workflow? Etc.?

: It very much hurts the casual user and the amateurs like me. Indeed I
: have signed a petition to Adobe to reverse its position, at least as to
: Photoshop. I would like to see more here sign such a petition, instead
: of ****ing and moaning.

I sympathize with your position, Peter, but as a lifetime non-user of Adobe's
photo-editing products, I don't think I have standing to sign. :^)

Coincidentally, I had recently been thinking that maybe I'd have to break down
and learn to use Photoshop, since I occasionally run across things I want to
do that my current editor, Canon's DPP, doesn't support. Instead, I'm now
poking around Irfanview to see what nifty features it offers. I was pleased to
see that it can edit 16-bit TIFF files (though it throws away the Exif data
that a DPP-generated TIFF maintains) and that it does a decent job of
TIFF-to-JPEG conversion.

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: Actually [Adobe's new] pricing model helps the medium to large users.
: The monthly fee is not greater than the out of pocket cost, assuming
: an upgrade every 18 months. The fee does not appear as a liability
: on their balance sheet.

Well, I dunno. That's an interesting point. If the image files retained by a
user appear on his balance sheet as an asset, then anything that threatens the
integrity of that asset should presumably be carried as a liability. Adobe has
said that if you don't pay your bill, the program will stop working after a
few months.

1 month for monthly customers, 3 months for annual customers.

guess what happens if you stop paying your web hosting fees or your
cellphone bill. those stop working too.

If the files are in Adobe's proprietary pseudo-RAW format (as I'd
assume they would be, for workflow convenience),

you assume wrong. the files are .psd, the same format as what exists
now and has for years.

plenty of apps open psd files, including non-adobe apps, and the format
is documented.

won't they be nearly useless
if the user stops paying his bill?

the only thing that stops working if you don't pay the bill are the
apps.

the files are yours, forever. where did you get the idea that the files
would be locked down?

From that perspective, shouldn't an auditor
insist on treating as a liability the potential cost of converting those files
to another format? And the cost of implementing a new workflow? Etc.?

converting what files?

adobe does not own your personal files. where do people come up with
this nonsense?

On 5/18/2013 10:01 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:00:04 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
: Actually [Adobe's new] pricing model helps the medium to large users.
: The monthly fee is not greater than the out of pocket cost, assuming
: an upgrade every 18 months. The fee does not appear as a liability
: on their balance sheet.

Well, I dunno. That's an interesting point. If the image files retained by a
user appear on his balance sheet as an asset, then anything that threatens the
integrity of that asset should presumably be carried as a liability. Adobe has
said that if you don't pay your bill, the program will stop working after a
few months. If the files are in Adobe's proprietary pseudo-RAW format (as I'd
assume they would be, for workflow convenience), won't they be nearly useless
if the user stops paying his bill? From that perspective, shouldn't an auditor
insist on treating as a liability the potential cost of converting those files
to another format? And the cost of implementing a new workflow? Etc.?

: It very much hurts the casual user and the amateurs like me. Indeed I
: have signed a petition to Adobe to reverse its position, at least as to
: Photoshop. I would like to see more here sign such a petition, instead
: of ****ing and moaning.

I sympathize with your position, Peter, but as a lifetime non-user of Adobe's
photo-editing products, I don't think I have standing to sign. :^)

Coincidentally, I had recently been thinking that maybe I'd have to break down
and learn to use Photoshop, since I occasionally run across things I want to
do that my current editor, Canon's DPP, doesn't support. Instead, I'm now
poking around Irfanview to see what nifty features it offers. I was pleased to
see that it can edit 16-bit TIFF files (though it throws away the Exif data
that a DPP-generated TIFF maintains) and that it does a decent job of
TIFF-to-JPEG conversion.

Bob


Take a look at DXO, combined with OnOne.

--
PeterN

On 5/18/2013 10:01 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2013 23:00:04 -0400, PeterN
wrote:
: Actually [Adobe's new] pricing model helps the medium to large users.
: The monthly fee is not greater than the out of pocket cost, assuming
: an upgrade every 18 months. The fee does not appear as a liability
: on their balance sheet.

Well, I dunno. That's an interesting point. If the image files retained by a
user appear on his balance sheet as an asset, then anything that threatens the
integrity of that asset should presumably be carried as a liability. Adobe has
said that if you don't pay your bill, the program will stop working after a
few months. If the files are in Adobe's proprietary pseudo-RAW format (as I'd
assume they would be, for workflow convenience), won't they be nearly useless
if the user stops paying his bill? From that perspective, shouldn't an auditor
insist on treating as a liability the potential cost of converting those files
to another format? And the cost of implementing a new workflow? Etc.?


Several ways of looking at it, depending upon the inventory method used.
Lower of cost or market is the most common. Therefore the images will be
carried on the balance sheet at cost. I doubt they could use the retail
inventory method.
As to the liability, we are treading in unknown waters. FASB generally
provides that it is not necessary to show a liability, unless it can be
reasonably foreseen and reasonably certain. (I am simplyfying) Under the
IRC, the liability cannot be deducted until all events have occurred to
fix and determine the liability. Therefore, I don't think a liability
need be stated for an event that possibly may occur in the future. Of
course if the company knows it will incur a cost, because they plan to
discontinue using CC, my answer could be different.


--
PeterN

On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:34:22 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

--- snip ---

Take a look at DXO, combined with OnOne.

It's funny you should say that. I've been thinking much the same
thing.

Until now my editing has been done with Nikon NX2, Corel Paint Shop
Pro, Corel Photo Paint and DxO. Each of these have their strength and
their weaknesses but between them there is nothing much I can't do.
However I find it a pain in the plectrum to have to jump from one
application to another, especially when using Photo Paint means that I
have to startup the XP virtual machine within my Windows 7 machine.

More to the point the only way I have of passing an image from one
application to another is via JPG or TIFF files. There are obvious
reasons for not using JPG for any but the simplest tasks. On the
surface this should work well but I have discovered not all TIFF files
are born equal. There are 8 bit and 16 bit, TIFFs which support layers
and Tiffs which don't, TIFFS which use LZW compression and TIFFs which
use JPG compression and so on. All this means that its not possible
for me to pass a work in progress from application to another without
losing layers, masks etc.

It's the frustration arising from this fragmentation that has caused
me to hanker after CS6 no matter what the price. I had almost made up
my mind to spend the money when CC came over the horizon. I am going
away on a trip for several weeks and I have almost made up my mind to
front up with the money for CS6 or CC.

Then you made the comment that you had learned that DxO is likely to
release an upgrade containing some form of layers and masks. I went
back to OnOne and discovered a major upgrade since I last looked.

I've been thinking along the same lines as you that OnOne and DxO
might make a very capable combination but there still remains the
problem of their common interface. Both OnOne and Dxo will act as a
plugin to Photo Shop but will (say) OnOne accept DxO as a plug in? If
they can't do that carying out initial work in DxO and then exporting
to OnOne via TIFF may still be a viable answer. There is too much I
still don't know.

I would be grateful if anyone could help me unravel this tangle.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2013-05-20 15:21:49 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:34:22 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

--- snip ---

Take a look at DXO, combined with OnOne.

It's funny you should say that. I've been thinking much the same
thing.

Until now my editing has been done with Nikon NX2, Corel Paint Shop
Pro, Corel Photo Paint and DxO. Each of these have their strength and
their weaknesses but between them there is nothing much I can't do.
However I find it a pain in the plectrum to have to jump from one
application to another, especially when using Photo Paint means that I
have to startup the XP virtual machine within my Windows 7 machine.

More to the point the only way I have of passing an image from one
application to another is via JPG or TIFF files. There are obvious
reasons for not using JPG for any but the simplest tasks. On the
surface this should work well but I have discovered not all TIFF files
are born equal. There are 8 bit and 16 bit, TIFFs which support layers
and Tiffs which don't, TIFFS which use LZW compression and TIFFs which
use JPG compression and so on. All this means that its not possible
for me to pass a work in progress from application to another without
losing layers, masks etc.

It's the frustration arising from this fragmentation that has caused
me to hanker after CS6 no matter what the price. I had almost made up
my mind to spend the money when CC came over the horizon. I am going
away on a trip for several weeks and I have almost made up my mind to
front up with the money for CS6 or CC.

Then you made the comment that you had learned that DxO is likely to
release an upgrade containing some form of layers and masks. I went
back to OnOne and discovered a major upgrade since I last looked.

I've been thinking along the same lines as you that OnOne and DxO
might make a very capable combination but there still remains the
problem of their common interface. Both OnOne and Dxo will act as a
plugin to Photo Shop but will (say) OnOne accept DxO as a plug in? If
they can't do that carying out initial work in DxO and then exporting
to OnOne via TIFF may still be a viable answer. There is too much I
still don't know.

I would be grateful if anyone could help me unravel this tangle.

OnOne is made up of stand alone modules and plugins workable in PS
CS(4-6), PSE (9-11), LR (2-4), and Aperture (2.1-4). I am not aware of
direct plugin compatibility with DxO. The OnOne plugins & stand alone
do not have the ability to accept third party plugins. However, as you
have said, there is nothing stopping you from working in DxO and using
the OnOne stand alone modules, either with 16-bit TIFF, or if you
choose JPEG. I suspect you will be able to make this move either way.
I used OnOne some time back, but I have never updated as I find the NIK
offerings more to my liking.

Without paying the punitive price of CS6, I would suggest a combination
of LR4 (or the soon to be released LR5 {now in beta}), DxO as an
external editor for LR4, and either the NIK or OnOne Suites installed
in LR4.

--
Regards,

Savageduck