Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #28365 > unrolled thread

Aperture ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Contents

  Aperture ? Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2015-03-25 16:22 +0000
    Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 12:30 -0400
      Re: Aperture ? bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:02 +0100
        Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 16:07 -0400
        Re: Aperture ? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-25 20:22 +0000
          Re: Aperture ? tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-27 01:58 +0000
            Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 19:17 -0700
              Re: Aperture ? Me, myself and I <baiheli.pip.li@xs4all.nl> - 2015-03-27 08:27 +0100
                Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-27 01:25 -0700
              Re: Aperture ? tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-27 07:34 -0700
                Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
              Re: Aperture ? tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-03-28 05:14 +0000
                Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 14:25 +0000
                  Re: Aperture ? tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.org> - 2015-03-30 12:33 -0700
            Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
              Re: Aperture ? Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2015-03-29 20:46 +0000
                Re: Aperture ? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 18:53 -0400
                Re: Aperture ? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-04-01 10:31 +0000
        Re: Aperture ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-25 22:31 +0000
          Re: Aperture ? rcp27g@gmail.com - 2015-03-26 03:11 -0700
            Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 11:02 -0400
              Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 15:29 +0000
                Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 11:57 -0400
                  Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 16:02 +0000
                    Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 12:23 -0400
                      Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 16:39 +0000
                        Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 13:32 -0400
                          Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 18:12 +0000
            Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 08:28 -0700
              Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 15:57 +0000
                Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 12:00 -0400
                  Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 16:38 +0000
                    Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 10:04 -0700
                      Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 17:33 +0000
                        Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 13:51 -0400
                          Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 18:17 +0000
                            Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
                              Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 14:02 +0000
                        Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 11:02 -0700
                          Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 18:44 +0000
                            Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
                              Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 14:11 +0000
                    Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 13:32 -0400
                      Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 19:37 +0000
                        Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
                          Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-28 14:24 +0000
                Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 09:24 -0700
                  Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-26 16:50 +0000
              Re: Aperture ? Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-26 17:02 -0400
            Re: Aperture ? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-27 00:05 +0000
            Re: Aperture ? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-26 20:24 -0400
              Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 19:00 -0700
                Re: Aperture ? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-26 22:34 -0400
                Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-27 04:02 +0000
                  Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-26 21:24 -0700
                    Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-27 14:15 +0000
              Re: Aperture ? Me, myself and I <baiheli.pip.li@xs4all.nl> - 2015-03-27 08:24 +0100
                Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
              Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-27 23:10 -0400
      Re: Aperture ? Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2015-03-25 21:41 +0000
        Re: Aperture ? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 17:53 -0400
        Re: Aperture ? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-25 22:14 +0000
        Re: Aperture ? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-03-25 18:37 -0400
        Re: Aperture ? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-26 12:28 +1300
    Re: Aperture ? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-25 09:35 -0700
    Re: Aperture ? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-25 10:47 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#28401

In article <af6100e5-00a3-4aa4-80be-eaa701a8177b@googlegroups.com>,
<rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > How do people feel about darktable?  I have a hard-core open-source 
> > > friend who uses it, but I've never had a go myself.
> > 
> > Like most Free software clones of other packages it is designed for
> > religious zealots who have a moral objection to using the source of the
> > clone. That means that it, like the others, makes many compromises
> > because it's user-base is unwilling to switch to the better software.
> 
> While I wouldn't use quite such strong language, that description fits the
> friend in question who uses it.  While this description fits some open source
> projects, there are others that are sufficiently good that there is no
> particular need to pay good money for closed source alternatives (for example
> nobody pays money for a closed source web browser or email client anymore
> because the open source ones are good enough).  Without having the time or
> expertise to try this particular option, I was just interested in which of
> the two camps it falls into.

there is the occasional exception, but on the whole, open source
software is crap. you get what you pay for.

and as for the examples you gave, not all browsers or email apps are
open source or free. check the app store, both mac and ios, for
examples.

> > Darktable is a pale and distant imitation of Lightroom. Even I would
> > never use it willingly, and I really do very little with photos.
> 
> I personally am very wary of the moves Adobe is making to essentially make
> its creative suite software into software you rent rather than buy.

it's not just adobe. it's the way the industry is heading.

most those who complain weren't actually buying the software anyway.
they just want to bitch.

subscription has been a huge success for adobe, with subscription rates
much higher than they expected. the $10/mo plan for photographers for
the *full* photoshop (not elements) and lightroom is a very good deal.
there's no way you could match that by buying both every 2 years or so
(or even longer).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28404

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> it's not just adobe. it's the way the industry is heading.
>
> most those who complain weren't actually buying the software anyway.
> they just want to bitch.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Personally, I find the idea of
having to pay a subscription fee for the privilege of using a piece of
software to be very distasteful. I'd rather own it. Then again, I also
find the idea of paying a monthly/yearly fee to listen to music
distasteful. I suspect I'm not alone. I'm not sure what percentage of
the population would agree or not; but I suspect most would rather own
than rent.

> subscription has been a huge success for adobe, with subscription rates
> much higher than they expected. the $10/mo plan for photographers for
> the *full* photoshop (not elements) and lightroom is a very good deal.
> there's no way you could match that by buying both every 2 years or so
> (or even longer).

For me that's still too expensive, considering other products are out
there that are cheaper and do the same things in many cases.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28405

In article <cnimvlFk2liU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > it's not just adobe. it's the way the industry is heading.
> >
> > most those who complain weren't actually buying the software anyway.
> > they just want to bitch.
> 
> Not sure how you came to that conclusion. 

various forums, including dpreview.

a lot of users often skip a release or two and for those customers,
subscription can be more expensive, so they complain. 

however, those customers weren't generating much revenue for adobe. why
should adobe cater to people who buy photoshop every 2-3 releases (~5
years) ?? 

> Personally, I find the idea of
> having to pay a subscription fee for the privilege of using a piece of
> software to be very distasteful. I'd rather own it. Then again, I also
> find the idea of paying a monthly/yearly fee to listen to music
> distasteful. I suspect I'm not alone. I'm not sure what percentage of
> the population would agree or not; but I suspect most would rather own
> than rent.

i'm not fond of it either but the reality is that the industry is
moving towards subscription based software. microsoft offers office
365, for instance. 

music streaming services are also becoming popular because for a small
monthly fee you can listen to just about any music you want. there's no
need to buy it if you only listen to something on occasion, possibly
only once.

> > subscription has been a huge success for adobe, with subscription rates
> > much higher than they expected. the $10/mo plan for photographers for
> > the *full* photoshop (not elements) and lightroom is a very good deal.
> > there's no way you could match that by buying both every 2 years or so
> > (or even longer).
> 
> For me that's still too expensive, considering other products are out
> there that are cheaper and do the same things in many cases.

nothing comes anywhere close to what photoshop or lightroom do. they
are the standard to which others are compared.

you personally may not need what they can do, but that's entirely
different.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28408

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> nothing comes anywhere close to what photoshop or lightroom do. they
> are the standard to which others are compared.

That's not true. There are competitors that offer a *lot* of the same
functionality for a fraction of the price. Have a look around some time.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28409

In article <cniorsFk2liU5@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > nothing comes anywhere close to what photoshop or lightroom do. they
> > are the standard to which others are compared.
> 
> That's not true. There are competitors that offer a *lot* of the same
> functionality for a fraction of the price. Have a look around some time.

i have and there aren't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28412

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cniorsFk2liU5@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > nothing comes anywhere close to what photoshop or lightroom do. they
>> > are the standard to which others are compared.
>> 
>> That's not true. There are competitors that offer a *lot* of the same
>> functionality for a fraction of the price. Have a look around some time.
>
> i have and there aren't.

Well you're wrong. Some do come close to what Photoshop can do. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28416

In article <cnir26Fk2liU7@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> > nothing comes anywhere close to what photoshop or lightroom do. they
> >> > are the standard to which others are compared.
> >> 
> >> That's not true. There are competitors that offer a *lot* of the same
> >> functionality for a fraction of the price. Have a look around some time.
> >
> > i have and there aren't.
> 
> Well you're wrong. Some do come close to what Photoshop can do.

if you think that, then you don't know what photoshop can actually do.

but regardless, 'come close to' means it doesn't do all that photoshop
can do. you're proving my point. all it takes is one missing feature to
make it not an option.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28421

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cnir26Fk2liU7@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > nothing comes anywhere close to what photoshop or lightroom do. they
>> >> > are the standard to which others are compared.
>> >> 
>> >> That's not true. There are competitors that offer a *lot* of the same
>> >> functionality for a fraction of the price. Have a look around some time.
>> >
>> > i have and there aren't.
>> 
>> Well you're wrong. Some do come close to what Photoshop can do.
>
> if you think that, then you don't know what photoshop can actually do.

Stop being a complete jerk.

> but regardless, 'come close to' means it doesn't do all that photoshop
> can do.

I said there are competitors that offer a lot of the same functionality,
which is absolutely true. You can disagree all you want, but for a lot
of people there are other options than Photoshop that offer a lot of the
same functionality without the exorbitant cost.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28403

On 2015-03-26 10:11:10 +0000, rcp27g@gmail.com said:

> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 23:31:54 UTC+1, Lewis  wrote:
>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> was all, like:
>>> On 2015-03-25 16:30:44 +0000, nospam said:
>> 
>>>> In article <meuncq$83m$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>>>> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I know this has been mentioned here. I may(long story) find myself with it
>>>>> ere long. Is it really a useful photo editor?
>>>> 
>>>> nowhere near as useful as lightroom (or as fast), but none of that
>>>> matters anymore since it's been discontinued.
>> 
>>> How do people feel about darktable?  I have a hard-core open-source> > 
>>> friend who uses it, but I've never had a go myself.
>> 
>> Like most Free software clones of other packages it is designed for
>> religious zealots who have a moral objection to using the source of the
>> clone. That means that it, like the others, makes many compromises
>> because it's user-base is unwilling to switch to the better software.
> 
> While I wouldn't use quite such strong language, that description fits 
> the friend in question who uses it.  While this description fits some 
> open source projects, there are others that are sufficiently good that 
> there is no particular need to pay good money for closed source 
> alternatives (for example nobody pays money for a closed source web 
> browser or email client anymore because the open source ones are good 
> enough).  Without having the time or expertise to try this particular 
> option, I was just interested in which of the two camps it falls into.
> 
>> Darktable is a pale and distant imitation of Lightroom. Even I would
>> never use it willingly, and I really do very little with photos.
> 
> I personally am very wary of the moves Adobe is making to essentially 
> make its creative suite software into software you rent rather than buy.

Your are certainly correct to have been wary regarding Adobe's Creative 
Cloud model. I was. However, if you take a closer look you will 
discover that for those of us who are using a Photoshop workflow and 
who have been on the upgrade treadmill for years, the CC Photography 
Program @ $9.99/month is a bargain.

In my case. I got my first lesser versions of PS (PS LE) bundled with 
scanners & printers. My first full edition was PS7, then the leap to CS 
which was a full $599 not an upgrade. After that I paid $199 each for 
upgrades to CS2, CS3, CS5, & CS6, that brought my investment in 
Photoshop to about $2200. Then add Lightroom into the mix with LR Beta, 
LR @ $299 and an upgrade to LR2 for $99.

Now I pay $9.99/month ($120/year) and I get the latest updated versions 
of Photoshop and Lightroom, plus 20GB of cloud storage and 
conlaborative & showcase web space with Behance. Then there is the 
integration with the mobile apps which has been an unanticipated bonus, 
particularly with Lightroom Mobile which I have on my iPad & iPhone. 
With my iPhone, I have one Lightroom collection folder set for "Auto 
Import" so all iPhone shots go to that folder and are automatically 
synced to my desktop Lightroom.

I am more than satisfied paying the $9.99/month for what I get from 
Adobe. I have bought Pixelmator, and I have gone through trial & beta 
versions of many other photo editers. I have GIMP installed to fire up 
every 6 months or so to remind me why I don't use it. None of those 
other apps comes close to providing the functionality and ease of 
workflow that I get using Lightroom + Photoshop via the Creative Cloud 
for that mere $9.99/month.

...and I know there are those who live for the free & cheap, and there 
are those who might bee trying to make ends meet, but compared to what 
Adobe software & services cost 3 years ago, the various Creative Cloud 
applications are a bargain.


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28406

On 2015-03-26, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> Your are certainly correct to have been wary regarding Adobe's Creative 
> Cloud model. I was. However, if you take a closer look you will 
> discover that for those of us who are using a Photoshop workflow and 
> who have been on the upgrade treadmill for years, the CC Photography 
> Program @ $9.99/month is a bargain.

[snip]

> ...and I know there are those who live for the free & cheap, and there 
> are those who might bee trying to make ends meet, but compared to what 
> Adobe software & services cost 3 years ago, the various Creative Cloud 
> applications are a bargain.

Meh. Renting may seem like a bargain compared with the exorbitant prices
Adobe charges you to *purchase* their software, but it's still
expensive, and there are drawbacks, such as the fact that you have to
connect to their servers regularly or the software just stops working.
You do give up some freedom in return for that *cheaper* price.

Have you checked out Serif's Affinity Photo?:

<https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/>

It's in public beta at the moment - free download. At $40, it gives
Adobe Photoshop a run for its money - literally. And Affinity Designer,
the functional equivalent to Adobe Illustrator is very nice. Both have
allowed me to completely remove Adobe Creative Suite from my system -
good riddance:

<https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/>

Personally, I'm *much* more comfortable with paying a one-time fee of
$40 for a stand-alone app that does most everything Photoshop does and
doesn't require me to keep dishing out more money indefinitely and
regularly pinging some remote server for the "privilege" of the software
not outright refusing to run. Granted, I should realistically expect to
pay for an Affinity upgrade at some point in the distant future, but it
still won't be anywhere near to cost of Adobe's prices, so the
cost/benefit ratio is still better. Long live competition!

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28407

In article <cniojgFk2liU4@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > Your are certainly correct to have been wary regarding Adobe's Creative 
> > Cloud model. I was. However, if you take a closer look you will 
> > discover that for those of us who are using a Photoshop workflow and 
> > who have been on the upgrade treadmill for years, the CC Photography 
> > Program @ $9.99/month is a bargain.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > ...and I know there are those who live for the free & cheap, and there 
> > are those who might bee trying to make ends meet, but compared to what 
> > Adobe software & services cost 3 years ago, the various Creative Cloud 
> > applications are a bargain.
> 
> Meh. Renting may seem like a bargain compared with the exorbitant prices
> Adobe charges you to *purchase* their software, but it's still
> expensive, and there are drawbacks, such as the fact that you have to
> connect to their servers regularly or the software just stops working.
> You do give up some freedom in return for that *cheaper* price.

once a month it needs to ping, possibly less if you get the yearly
plan. big deal.

how many computers are off the grid for more than that? 

> Have you checked out Serif's Affinity Photo?:
> 
> <https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/>
> 
> It's in public beta at the moment - free download. At $40, it gives
> Adobe Photoshop a run for its money - literally. And Affinity Designer,
> the functional equivalent to Adobe Illustrator is very nice.

no it is't.

> Both have
> allowed me to completely remove Adobe Creative Suite from my system -
> good riddance:

then you didn't actually need creative suite.

> <https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/>
> 
> Personally, I'm *much* more comfortable with paying a one-time fee of
> $40 for a stand-alone app that does most everything Photoshop does and
> doesn't require me to keep dishing out more money indefinitely and
> regularly pinging some remote server for the "privilege" of the software
> not outright refusing to run. Granted, I should realistically expect to
> pay for an Affinity upgrade at some point in the distant future, but it
> still won't be anywhere near to cost of Adobe's prices, so the
> cost/benefit ratio is still better. Long live competition!

it's not even close to what photoshop can do.

photoshop elements is about $50 street price. you don't need the full
photoshop.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28411

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cniojgFk2liU4@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Meh. Renting may seem like a bargain compared with the exorbitant prices
>> Adobe charges you to *purchase* their software, but it's still
>> expensive, and there are drawbacks, such as the fact that you have to
>> connect to their servers regularly or the software just stops working.
>> You do give up some freedom in return for that *cheaper* price.
>
> once a month it needs to ping, possibly less if you get the yearly
> plan. big deal.

It's a big deal to me in principle, because the software *disables*
itself if no ping is made. I find that *very* distasteful. In contrast,
you can generally expect software that you purchase rather than rent to
continue working indefinitely as long as your system remains compatible.
It's fully within your control.

> how many computers are off the grid for more than that? 

That's not the point. All it takes is *once* to significantly
inconvenience you. The cost savings of renting software is really a ball
and chain.

>> Have you checked out Serif's Affinity Photo?:
>> 
>> <https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/>
>> 
>> It's in public beta at the moment - free download. At $40, it gives
>> Adobe Photoshop a run for its money - literally. And Affinity Designer,
>> the functional equivalent to Adobe Illustrator is very nice.
>
> no it is't.

"It isn't"? Designer isn't very nice? Designer isn't functionally
equivalent to Adobe Illustrator? Or were you referring to Affinity Photo
giving Photoshop a run for its money? Please explain.

>> Both have allowed me to completely remove Adobe Creative Suite from
>> my system - good riddance:
>
> then you didn't actually need creative suite.

And how would you know that? : ) I really don't see how you are
qualified to make that statement. You don't know much at all about what
my particular needs are, or how I have used Adobe Photoshop and
Illustrator for the past few decades.

>> <https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/>
>> 
>> Personally, I'm *much* more comfortable with paying a one-time fee of
>> $40 for a stand-alone app that does most everything Photoshop does and
>> doesn't require me to keep dishing out more money indefinitely and
>> regularly pinging some remote server for the "privilege" of the software
>> not outright refusing to run. Granted, I should realistically expect to
>> pay for an Affinity upgrade at some point in the distant future, but it
>> still won't be anywhere near to cost of Adobe's prices, so the
>> cost/benefit ratio is still better. Long live competition!
>
> it's not even close to what photoshop can do.

It certainly does a whole lot of what Photoshop does. The majority of
the features I use in Photoshop are there: layers, adjustments, effects,
channels, masks, most or all of the same tools and tool adjustments,
color spaces, file formats, and so on. And Serif seems to be adding more
and more functionality to bring it closer to Photoshop as time goes on.
It seems to be a very close competitor to Photoshop to me. So which
missing pieces of functionality make it "not even close" in your
opinion?

> photoshop elements is about $50 street price. you don't need the full
> photoshop.

I don't need Elements either when Affinity Designer does the same types
of things for $10 cheaper.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28414

On 2015-03-26 16:38:30 +0000, Jolly Roger said:

> On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <cniojgFk2liU4@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Meh. Renting may seem like a bargain compared with the exorbitant prices
>>> Adobe charges you to *purchase* their software, but it's still
>>> expensive, and there are drawbacks, such as the fact that you have to
>>> connect to their servers regularly or the software just stops working.
>>> You do give up some freedom in return for that *cheaper* price.
>> 
>> once a month it needs to ping, possibly less if you get the yearly
>> plan. big deal.
> 
> It's a big deal to me in principle, because the software *disables*
> itself if no ping is made.

Actually there is no immediate disabling of the software in the event 
of a failed ping. There will be email notification and an 18 day window 
to contact Adobe to advise of your online status. This is usually done 
by the subscriber merely logging into their Creative Cloud account.

> I find that *very* distasteful. In contrast,
> you can generally expect software that you purchase rather than rent to
> continue working indefinitely as long as your system remains compatible.
> It's fully within your control.

It took me a while to come around, and I swore that CS6 was going to be 
the end of the Adobe upgrade trail for me. However, the Phototography 
Program has given me what I want/need without having to worry about 
future upgrades at a reasonable cost.

>> how many computers are off the grid for more than that?
> 
> That's not the point. All it takes is *once* to significantly
> inconvenience you. The cost savings of renting software is really a ball
> and chain.

Strange, PS CC and LR5 work just fine regardless of being online or 
not. The payment of rent is not an online issue, and the installation 
check ping is usually once every 6 weeks and is not an issue.

Adobe isn't some evil empire.


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28417

On 2015-03-26, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-26 16:38:30 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
>
>> On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <cniojgFk2liU4@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Meh. Renting may seem like a bargain compared with the exorbitant prices
>>>> Adobe charges you to *purchase* their software, but it's still
>>>> expensive, and there are drawbacks, such as the fact that you have to
>>>> connect to their servers regularly or the software just stops working.
>>>> You do give up some freedom in return for that *cheaper* price.
>>> 
>>> once a month it needs to ping, possibly less if you get the yearly
>>> plan. big deal.
>> 
>> It's a big deal to me in principle, because the software *disables*
>> itself if no ping is made.
>
> Actually there is no immediate disabling of the software in the event 
> of a failed ping. There will be email notification and an 18 day window 
> to contact Adobe to advise of your online status. This is usually done 
> by the subscriber merely logging into their Creative Cloud account.

If you don't ping Adobe, the software disables itself and is rendered
useless. My point stands.

>> I find that *very* distasteful. In contrast,
>> you can generally expect software that you purchase rather than rent to
>> continue working indefinitely as long as your system remains compatible.
>> It's fully within your control.
>
> It took me a while to come around, and I swore that CS6 was going to be 
> the end of the Adobe upgrade trail for me. However, the Phototography 
> Program has given me what I want/need without having to worry about 
> future upgrades at a reasonable cost.

While I'm sure it's reasonable compared with Adobe's exorbitant upgrade
prices, it's definitely not reasonable compared with the upgrade prices
of other solutions from other competitors.

>>> how many computers are off the grid for more than that?
>> 
>> That's not the point. All it takes is *once* to significantly
>> inconvenience you. The cost savings of renting software is really a ball
>> and chain.
>
> Strange, PS CC and LR5 work just fine regardless of being online or 
> not.

Nope, not if you don't ping Adobe regularly, as you have already
admitted. If you don't, the software ceases to work and becomes useless. 

> The payment of rent is not an online issue, and the installation 
> check ping is usually once every 6 weeks and is not an issue.

It's an issue for me and anyone who would rather not pay rent to use
software, and anyone who would rather their software continue to
function correctly without constantly pinging Adobe. If you can ignore
the ball and chain around your neck because it suits your own needs,
fine; but don't expect the rest of the world to offer their necks as
well. To each, their own.

> Adobe isn't some evil empire.

Never said it was. What I did say is there are alternatives out there
that are cheaper and better for some of us.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28419

In article <cniu6mFmj2qU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > Adobe isn't some evil empire.
> 
> Never said it was. What I did say is there are alternatives out there
> that are cheaper and better for some of us.

nobody said otherwise.

however, there are many people for whom those alternatives are not
suitable replacements and never will be.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28422

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cniu6mFmj2qU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > Adobe isn't some evil empire.
>> 
>> Never said it was. What I did say is there are alternatives out there
>> that are cheaper and better for some of us.
>
> nobody said otherwise.

Nobody said Adobe was an evil empire either, but here we are...

> however, there are many people for whom those alternatives are not
> suitable replacements and never will be.

I doubt you can reasonably know what never will be. Never is a long,
long time.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28450

In article <cnj0p6Fmj2qU4@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> > Adobe isn't some evil empire.
> >> 
> >> Never said it was. What I did say is there are alternatives out there
> >> that are cheaper and better for some of us.
> >
> > nobody said otherwise.
> 
> Nobody said Adobe was an evil empire either, but here we are...

that's the implication by bashing the subscription model, which works
quite well for many people.

> > however, there are many people for whom those alternatives are not
> > suitable replacements and never will be.
> 
> I doubt you can reasonably know what never will be. Never is a long,
> long time.

photoshop has been around for 25 years and there are still features its
competitors don't have.

how long are you going to wait?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28459

On 2015-03-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cnj0p6Fmj2qU4@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Adobe isn't some evil empire.
>> >> 
>> >> Never said it was. What I did say is there are alternatives out there
>> >> that are cheaper and better for some of us.
>> >
>> > nobody said otherwise.
>> 
>> Nobody said Adobe was an evil empire either, but here we are...
>
> that's the implication by bashing the subscription model

No it isn't. Disliking the idea of renting software has absolutely
nothing to do with Adobe in particular, other than that Adobe happens to
be one of the companies offering software for rent. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28420

On 2015-03-26 17:33:10 +0000, Jolly Roger said:

> On 2015-03-26, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-03-26 16:38:30 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
>> 
>>> On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <cniojgFk2liU4@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Meh. Renting may seem like a bargain compared with the exorbitant prices
>>>>> Adobe charges you to *purchase* their software, but it's still
>>>>> expensive, and there are drawbacks, such as the fact that you have to
>>>>> connect to their servers regularly or the software just stops working.
>>>>> You do give up some freedom in return for that *cheaper* price.
>>>> 
>>>> once a month it needs to ping, possibly less if you get the yearly
>>>> plan. big deal.
>>> 
>>> It's a big deal to me in principle, because the software *disables*
>>> itself if no ping is made.
>> 
>> Actually there is no immediate disabling of the software in the event
>> of a failed ping. There will be email notification and an 18 day window
>> to contact Adobe to advise of your online status. This is usually done
>> by the subscriber merely logging into their Creative Cloud account.
> 
> If you don't ping Adobe, the software disables itself and is rendered
> useless. My point stands.

As I said there is no immediate disableing, due to a failed ping. There 
isnt even disabling after a refused credit card payment. They have a 
very wide margin and they are not going to leave you high and dry 
unless you actively discontinue the subscription.

...but you have an alternative you seem to be happy with, so carry on.

>>> I find that *very* distasteful. In contrast,
>>> you can generally expect software that you purchase rather than rent to
>>> continue working indefinitely as long as your system remains compatible.
>>> It's fully within your control.
>> 
>> It took me a while to come around, and I swore that CS6 was going to be
>> the end of the Adobe upgrade trail for me. However, the Phototography
>> Program has given me what I want/need without having to worry about
>> future upgrades at a reasonable cost.
> 
> While I'm sure it's reasonable compared with Adobe's exorbitant upgrade
> prices, it's definitely not reasonable compared with the upgrade prices
> of other solutions from other competitors.

However, the other solutions are not Lightroom or Photoshop, and that 
is only too obvious when you compare the latest editions of each of the 
various apps.

>>>> how many computers are off the grid for more than that?
>>> 
>>> That's not the point. All it takes is *once* to significantly
>>> inconvenience you. The cost savings of renting software is really a ball
>>> and chain.
>> 
>> Strange, PS CC and LR5 work just fine regardless of being online or
>> not.
> 
> Nope, not if you don't ping Adobe regularly, as you have already
> admitted. If you don't, the software ceases to work and becomes useless.

As I said above, it takes more than a missed ping or payment to kill 
the software.

>> The payment of rent is not an online issue, and the installation
>> check ping is usually once every 6 weeks and is not an issue.
> 
> It's an issue for me and anyone who would rather not pay rent to use
> software, and anyone who would rather their software continue to
> function correctly without constantly pinging Adobe. If you can ignore
> the ball and chain around your neck because it suits your own needs,
> fine; but don't expect the rest of the world to offer their necks as
> well. To each, their own.

Yup!

>> Adobe isn't some evil empire.
> 
> Never said it was. What I did say is there are alternatives out there
> that are cheaper and better for some of us.

...and that is the more rational way to state that position.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28424

On 2015-03-26, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-26 17:33:10 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
>
>> If you don't ping Adobe, the software disables itself and is rendered
>> useless. My point stands.
>
> As I said there is no immediate disableing, due to a failed ping. There 
> isnt even disabling after a refused credit card payment. They have a 
> very wide margin and they are not going to leave you high and dry 
> unless you actively discontinue the subscription.
>
> ...but you have an alternative you seem to be happy with, so carry on.

Some of us want our software to work many years from now regardless of
whether we are still shelling out money to Adobe on a regular basis to
keep its servers running. I understand that you may not be in that
group; but I happen to be one of them. Alternative solutions that don't
have that ball and chain attached are naturally more compelling to some
of us. 

>> While I'm sure it's reasonable compared with Adobe's exorbitant upgrade
>> prices, it's definitely not reasonable compared with the upgrade prices
>> of other solutions from other competitors.
>
> However, the other solutions are not Lightroom or Photoshop, and that 
> is only too obvious when you compare the latest editions of each of the 
> various apps.

What I have been saying all along is some competing solutions actually
offer a *lot* of the same functionality. And if you don't happen to need
the functionality that isn't there, then those competing solutions can
do the same things way cheaper and without the whole rent issue. I'm not
sure why this is so hard for some people to accept, but it's true none
the less.

> As I said above, it takes more than a missed ping or payment to kill 
> the software.

The software *will* be disabled if you don't ping Adobe. It's the
principle of the matter that I dislike. If I decide to drop off the edge
of the Earth for a year or twenty, I want my software to continue to
function. I don't think that's asking too much. That's why Creative
Cloud doesn't appeal to me, and that's why I am thankful that
competitive solutions that offer much of the same functionality exist,
and are cheaper as well. The same applies to my music. I want to be able
to listen to my music any time for as long as I want to, and don't think
I should have to shovel money out of my wallet on a constant basis to do
it. Different stroke for different folks.

>>> Adobe isn't some evil empire.
>> 
>> Never said it was. What I did say is there are alternatives out there
>> that are cheaper and better for some of us.
>
> ...and that is the more rational way to state that position.

My initial statement was perfectly rational.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web