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

#28451

In article <cnj2d0Fmj2qU5@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> 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. 

where 'many years' is up until it stops working due to changes in os x
(or windows for that matter) or changes in the hardware on which it
runs (e.g., gpu support). 

there may also be features in a newer version that is desirable, which
means you'll 'shell out money' for an upgrade even if what you have
technically still works.

in other words, a subscription can be *less* expensive than upgrading
every couple of years, which is why adobe has seen a huge uptake, as
have other companies with subscriptions. 

it's also much more affordable for those with limited cash flow, where
someone can't just simply shell out $1000+ for the full suite but can
justify as little as $10/mo and have use of the best software in the
industry.

> >> 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.

*if* a competing product can do what you need for less money, then by
all means choose the alternative.

however, for a lot of people, that is definitely not the case.

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

#28460

On 2015-03-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cnj2d0Fmj2qU5@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >> 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. 
>
> where 'many years' is up until it stops working due to changes in os x

Nope. Your blanket statement does not apply to all people in all
situations. And neither does the software rent model. Not everyone
throws their old computers away, and not everyone upgrades their
operating systems to the latest versions on those computers. Such folks
expect the software on those computers to continue to work correctly -
without having to continuously shell out money from their wallets or
keep them regularly pinging Adobe servers. Some people simply aren't
happy selling that freedom to software companies in the form of rent
fees.

>> 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.
>
> *if* a competing product can do what you need for less money, then by
> all means choose the alternative.

Gosh. I'm so glad you approve of my own personal choices!

-- 
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]

#28415

In article <cnir05Fk2liU6@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.

the reality is that everyone is online all the time and pinging once a
month (or every 90 days for yearly customers) is not an issue.

> > 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.

it is the point.

the number of people for whom this is a problem is for all intents,
zero.

it's an *extreme* edge case where someone would be off the grid
anywhere close to 30 days.

> >> 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.

neither are replacements for illustrator or photoshop.

graphic artists will laugh at the suggestion of replacing either one
with affinity apps.

> >> 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.

if you think they can be easily replaced, then you haven't come close
to using the full power of either one.

> >> <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.

it does some of it, but there are still gaping holes, such as camera
raw, interoperability with lightroom, the wealth of plugins (not just
filter plugins) and much, much more. 

> 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?

then you don't use photoshop to its full potential. not everyone does.
nothing wrong with that. 

that's why adobe makes both photoshop elements and photoshop cs/cc.

> > 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.

that might work for you but it doesn't work for everyone.

affinity designer does not support camera raw which is a show stopper
right there for a *lot* of people, who get photoshop for *just* that
feature.

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

#28427

On 2015-03-26, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cnir05Fk2liU6@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> the reality is that everyone is online all the time

That's untrue. I have computers that aren't online all the time, and
some people have computers that are never or rarely online. Creative
Cloud is not attractive to those people. Other competing solutions are
much more attractive.

> and pinging once a month (or every 90 days for yearly customers) is
> not an issue.

It is an issue for some people, including me. Not sure why you are
having such a hard time accepting it.

>> > 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.
>
> it is the point.

You don't get to tell me what my own point is!

> the number of people for whom this is a problem is for all intents,
> zero.

I don't care how many other people care about it. *I* care about it,
which is why *I* am making the point. I dislike the principle of renting
software, and prefer competing solutions that offer much of the same
functionality for a fraction of the cost and without the requirement to
ping servers to continue functioning correctly. Your refusal to accept
my position and attempts to cast them as illegitimate isn't lost on me
either. You desperately need better manners.

> neither are replacements for illustrator or photoshop.

I didn't say that they were replacements. I said they offer much of the
same functionality, which they do.

> graphic artists will laugh at the suggestion of replacing either one
> with affinity apps.

You're full of it, and your blanket statement doesn't apply to all. I
know graphic artists who use both, and they say that Affinity Photo
has a lot of promise and may replace Photoshop for a lot of what they
do. They didn't claim it does *every* single thing Photoshop does, but
neither did *I*. And they weren't *laughing* either.

>> >> 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.
>
> if you think they can be easily replaced, then you haven't come close
> to using the full power of either one.

I never claimed they can be easily replaced. I said they have allowed
*me* to remove CS from *my* systems. Stop trying to put words in my
mouth to move the goal posts. I am well aware of a lot of Photoshop's
functionality since I worked in the pre press field for a decade or so.
So the fuck what if I don't use all of those features now? Some people,
even professionals in the field, don't use every single function of
Photoshop. I doubt many do use every single feature. All I have said is
that there are competing solutions that offer a lot of the functionality
for less cost and with more freedom. You seem to be completely unwilling
to accept that fact. And you're being a big jerk about it.

>> It certainly does a whole lot of what Photoshop does.
>
> it does some of it

It does a lot of it. You seem to want desperately to trivialize my
opinion on the matter. 

> but there are still gaping holes, such as camera raw

Photo already supports raw editing through the Develop persona. Since
it's still in beta, it's still under development, and Affinity has said
raw editing is in active development. I wouldn't call that a "gaping
hole".

> interoperability with lightroom, the wealth of plugins (not just
> filter plugins) and much, much more. 

Now you just sound like an Adobe salesman. "Oh, but competitors can't
use our plugins, and aren't integrated with our tools!". 

>> 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?
>
> then you don't use photoshop to its full potential. not everyone does.
> nothing wrong with that. 

Then maybe you should stop trying to trivialize my opinion acting as if
it's irrelevant.

>> > 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.
>
> that might work for you but it doesn't work for everyone.

Did I claim it works for everyone? No, I did not. I said for me and
anyone like me, competing solutions are attractive. You, on the other
hand, seem to want to trivialize my opinion on the matter.

> affinity designer does not support camera raw which is a show stopper
> right there for a *lot* of people, who get photoshop for *just* that
> feature.

You're wrong. Not only does the current beta support raw editing, but
Affinity is actively developing more raw editing functionality.

-- 
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]

#28452

In article <cnj5gbFmj2qU6@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> 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.
> >
> > the reality is that everyone is online all the time
> 
> That's untrue. I have computers that aren't online all the time, 

big deal. you still have computers that are online all the time.

> and
> some people have computers that are never or rarely online. 

not enough to matter and those are more than likely not their main
machine.

other stuff won't work if a system is off the grid, such as google
apps, dropbox and much more. 

> Creative
> Cloud is not attractive to those people. Other competing solutions are
> much more attractive.

nobody said creative cloud is for everyone. that's a straw man.

> > and pinging once a month (or every 90 days for yearly customers) is
> > not an issue.
> 
> It is an issue for some people, including me. Not sure why you are
> having such a hard time accepting it.

i have no problem accepting it.

why can't *you* accept that subscription software works out quite well
for many people?


> 
> > but there are still gaping holes, such as camera raw
> 
> Photo already supports raw editing through the Develop persona. Since
> it's still in beta, it's still under development, and Affinity has said
> raw editing is in active development. I wouldn't call that a "gaping
> hole".

their raw support is not as good as adobe's, which is widely considered
to be the best in the industry. 

plus apple's support for new cameras lags that of adobe and affinity is
using dcraw which gives rather poor results compared to other raw
converters, plus it's not all that fast.
 
> > interoperability with lightroom, the wealth of plugins (not just
> > filter plugins) and much, much more. 
> 
> Now you just sound like an Adobe salesman. "Oh, but competitors can't
> use our plugins, and aren't integrated with our tools!". 

straw man.

if there's a photoshop plugin that someone needs or even just wants to
use, then the competing apps are a non-starter. it's that simple.



> > affinity designer does not support camera raw which is a show stopper
> > right there for a *lot* of people, who get photoshop for *just* that
> > feature.
> 
> You're wrong. Not only does the current beta support raw editing, but
> Affinity is actively developing more raw editing functionality.

i'm not wrong.

camera raw is an adobe proprietary plugin that uses private photoshop
apis, i.e., it *can't* work in third party apps, and for lightroom,
camera raw it's integrated into the app itself.

other apps may have raw processing but it is not camera raw.

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

#28461

On 2015-03-28, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <cnj5gbFmj2qU6@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > the reality is that everyone is online all the time
>> 
>> That's untrue. I have computers that aren't online all the time, 
>
> big deal. you still have computers that are online all the time.

Since I can't run Adobe's for-rent software on them, I choose not to
support the rent model. Simple.

>> and
>> some people have computers that are never or rarely online. 
>
> not enough to matter

I assure you it matters to them. And they couldn't care less whether it
matters to you, trust me.

> and those are more than likely not their main machine.

Which doesn't matter much if that's where they want to run their
software. Maybe in your bizarre world it's acceptable to be unable to
run the software you want on machines that aren't your main machine. For
some of us, it's not acceptable.

> other stuff won't work if a system is off the grid, such as google
> apps, dropbox and much more. 

Therefore image editing software should not run on those machines, just
because Adobe likes the rent model? That may seem attractive to you -
not me. 

>> Creative Cloud is not attractive to those people. Other competing
>> solutions are much more attractive.
>
> nobody said creative cloud is for everyone. that's a straw man.

Nice try, but I'm not talking about everyone else - only the people who,
like me, dislike the rent model. 

>> > and pinging once a month (or every 90 days for yearly customers) is
>> > not an issue.
>> 
>> It is an issue for some people, including me. Not sure why you are
>> having such a hard time accepting it.
>
> i have no problem accepting it.

Apparently you do have a problem accepting it, as evidenced by your
disregard and arguments against each and every of my personal reasons
for not liking the rent model.

> why can't *you* accept that subscription software works out quite well
> for many people?

I do accept it. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't work well for me
or anyone who doesn't fit that use model.
 
>> > but there are still gaping holes, such as camera raw
>> 
>> Photo already supports raw editing through the Develop persona. Since
>> it's still in beta, it's still under development, and Affinity has said
>> raw editing is in active development. I wouldn't call that a "gaping
>> hole".
>
> their raw support is not as good as adobe's

Their raw support is in development and hasn't been finalized yet. So
you have no way of knowing the extent of it. And I still do not consider
it a "gaping hole" as you suggested.

> plus apple's support for new cameras lags that of adobe and affinity is
> using dcraw which gives rather poor results compared to other raw
> converters, plus it's not all that fast.

Still not what I'd consider to be a "gaping hole".
  
> if there's a photoshop plugin that someone needs or even just wants to
> use, then the competing apps are a non-starter. it's that simple.

And if not, it's no problem. : )

And you still sound like an Adobe salesman.

>> > affinity designer does not support camera raw which is a show stopper
>> > right there for a *lot* of people, who get photoshop for *just* that
>> > feature.
>> 
>> You're wrong. Not only does the current beta support raw editing, but
>> Affinity is actively developing more raw editing functionality.
>
> i'm not wrong.
>
> camera raw is an adobe proprietary plugin that uses private photoshop
> apis, i.e., it *can't* work in third party apps, and for lightroom,
> camera raw it's integrated into the app itself.
>
> other apps may have raw processing but it is not camera raw.

It supports raw formats.

-- 
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]

#28410

On 2015-03-26 15:57:36 +0000, Jolly Roger said:

> 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/>

Yes. I have the Beta installed on this Mac and it has much promise, but 
personally I find it to be closer related to GIMP than PS and I am not 
particularly comfortable with it UI. If you are happy with it, why 
should I object? The final release might be a better fit fo me, but for 
now I will pass.

As I stated, I also have paid for Pixelmator, and I highly recommend 
that for Mac users who don't want to go down the Adobe road.
For now the Adobe PS+LR workflow is what works best for me and I am 
prepared to pay for is, regardless of what others might think of my 
lack of frugality. For what is provided in that package it is a good 
value, and appears to be successful. If they do something to change 
that I might reconsider, but for now, along with my cable, my cell 
service, & Netflix, that $9.99/month is one of my regular monthly buget 
items.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#28413

On 2015-03-26, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-26 15:57:36 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
>
>> Have you checked out Serif's Affinity Photo?:
>> 
>> <https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/>
>
> Yes. I have the Beta installed on this Mac and it has much promise, but 
> personally I find it to be closer related to GIMP than PS and I am not 
> particularly comfortable with it UI.

Photo is closer to GIMP than Photoshop? I've used all three, and have
used Photoshop a lot and wouldn't draw that conclusion at all
considering that while it does do somethings differently, a whole lot of
the UI mimics the Photoshop UI.

> If you are happy with it, why should I object? 

The only reason I mention it is because it has allowed me to stop
sending bundles of money to Adobe, which is a big relief. I am very
happy that competitors are offering cheaper yet worthy alternatives. I
like having that money to spend on other things, and figure I'm probably
not alone in that respect. If you prefer to continue sending Adobe all
that money, that's cool by me. : )

> As I stated, I also have paid for Pixelmator, and I highly recommend 
> that for Mac users who don't want to go down the Adobe road.

I have Pixelmator too. It's a good image editor. Affinity Photo seems to
have more functionality that more closely resembles Photoshop.

-- 
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]

#28428

On 2015-03-26 11:28, Savageduck 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.

Maybe.  I object to renting s/w on calendar time.  It's not doing 
anything sitting on the disk unless I use it.

The pay model should be work done.  The s/w could easily have a model 
for $0.01/Gigaflop (whatever reasonable value) of actual work with a 
monthly cap.

In that sense s/w that I have doing nothing would cost nothing unless 
it's actually working for me.  As for Adobe it's not like it's a 
depreciating asset.

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

#28431

Okay, so one time? In band camp? rcp27g@gmail.com <rcp27g@gmail.com> was all, like:
> 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).

Web browsers began as free software and the commercial software were
clones/ports of the free stuff.

I did mean, specifically, free software that is designed to duplicate a
commercial package. Things like darktable and gimp.

>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.

True. And I am no defender of Adobe, I refuse to have any of their crap
on my own computers, but I'm not going to struggle with draktable either.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
Monique: He keeps putting his testicles all over me. Lane: Excuse me?

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

#28432

<rcp27g@gmail.com>
> 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.

What does that mean? Adobe CC is the gold standard for still and motion
photography, DTP, and media management. Nothing else comes close. And
you're wary of that? Doesn't "wary" mean "I'm unwilling to pay for it?"

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

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

#28434

On 2015-03-27 00:24:28 +0000, Davoud said:

> <rcp27g@gmail.com>
>> 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.
> 
> What does that mean? Adobe CC is the gold standard for still and motion
> photography, DTP, and media management. Nothing else comes close. And
> you're wary of that? Doesn't "wary" mean "I'm unwilling to pay for it?"

David, there is a fear that somehow Adobe is going to take advantage of 
them, and hold them to ransom.
All that paranoia is in the face of evidence that Adobe has actually 
discounted their software and services from the level they were at 3 
years ago. It seems to me that many of the folks complaining about the 
Adobe Creative Cloud model, are those who have the idea they *must* own 
their software and Adobe has removed that option for them, and should 
be derided for doing that.

The bottom line is all of the other image editors model themselves 
after PS and/or LR. Most have similar features, but none are the equal 
of the Adobe software. None of those apps I have compared to the Adobe 
SW match up for the needs of my particular workflow.

...but that is OK, those folks don't have to subscribe to the CC, they 
can buy the alternate offerings and rationalize that they are as well 
equiped as they might have been with Photoshop, or Lightroom, they are 
not.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#28436

<rcp27g@gmail.com>
> >> 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.

Davoud:
> > What does that mean? Adobe CC is the gold standard for still and motion
> > photography, DTP, and media management. Nothing else comes close. And
> > you're wary of that? Doesn't "wary" mean "I'm unwilling to pay for it?"

Savageduck:
> David, there is a fear that somehow Adobe is going to take advantage of 
> them, and hold them to ransom.

Wow! Those people must be living rough! If what you say is true, none
of those people pay rent or mortgages, have automobile registrations or
licenses, pay electric or phone or gas bills. How do they get their
Internet--public libraries? All of the foregoing are subscriptions
which, if you don't pay, you lose the services.

> The bottom line is all of the other image editors model themselves 
> after PS and/or LR. Most have similar features, but none are the equal 
> of the Adobe software.

Yeah, I'm not big on second-rate imitations. Mac user, ya know.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

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

#28437

On 2015-03-27, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-27 00:24:28 +0000, Davoud said:
>
>> <rcp27g@gmail.com>
>>> 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.
>> 
>> What does that mean? Adobe CC is the gold standard for still and motion
>> photography, DTP, and media management. Nothing else comes close. And
>> you're wary of that? Doesn't "wary" mean "I'm unwilling to pay for it?"
>
> David, there is a fear that somehow Adobe is going to take advantage of 
> them, and hold them to ransom.

Nobody has said anything about holding anyone ransom as far as I can
tell. A lot of people dislike the idea of renting software and would
prefer their software work without continuous payments and network
connections to Adobe servers. It's as simple as that. You don't have to
agree with them; but you also shouldn't belittle them for it. To each,
their own.

-- 
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]

#28438

On 2015-03-27 04:02:14 +0000, Jolly Roger said:

> On 2015-03-27, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-03-27 00:24:28 +0000, Davoud said:
>> 
>>> <rcp27g@gmail.com>
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> What does that mean? Adobe CC is the gold standard for still and motion
>>> photography, DTP, and media management. Nothing else comes close. And
>>> you're wary of that? Doesn't "wary" mean "I'm unwilling to pay for it?"
>> 
>> David, there is a fear that somehow Adobe is going to take advantage of
>> them, and hold them to ransom.
> 
> Nobody has said anything about holding anyone ransom as far as I can
> tell. A lot of people dislike the idea of renting software

That is OK.

> and would prefer their software work without continuous payments

That is either monthly, or one annual payment.

> and network connections to Adobe servers.

For some of the features, such as the 20GB CC storgage, Behance web 
page service, and Lightroom Mobile syncing that is true. However that 
can be done selectively and a constant connection isn't required.

> It's as simple as that. You don't have to agree with them; but you also 
> shouldn't belittle them for it. To each,
> their own.

That sentiment cuts both ways, so I have absolutely no objection to you 
selecting to use whatever image editing/asset management software 
strikes your fancy. I will continue to use my Lightroom + Photoshop 
workflow.


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#28444

On 2015-03-27, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-27 04:02:14 +0000, Jolly Roger said:
>
>> On 2015-03-27, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-27 00:24:28 +0000, Davoud said:
>>> 
>>>> <rcp27g@gmail.com>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> What does that mean? Adobe CC is the gold standard for still and motion
>>>> photography, DTP, and media management. Nothing else comes close. And
>>>> you're wary of that? Doesn't "wary" mean "I'm unwilling to pay for it?"
>>> 
>>> David, there is a fear that somehow Adobe is going to take advantage of
>>> them, and hold them to ransom.
>> 
>> Nobody has said anything about holding anyone ransom as far as I can
>> tell. A lot of people dislike the idea of renting software
>
> That is OK.

I'm so glad you approve. If you didn't approve, I wouldn't know what to
do! </sarcasm>

>> and would prefer their software work without continuous payments
>
> That is either monthly, or one annual payment.

Every month / year, or it stops working. You think I don't fully
understand this?

>> and network connections to Adobe servers.
>
> For some of the features, such as the 20GB CC storgage, Behance web 
> page service, and Lightroom Mobile syncing that is true. However that 
> can be done selectively and a constant connection isn't required.

Not constant, but continuous. If you don't connect to Adobe for a year,
your software will stop working.

>> It's as simple as that. You don't have to agree with them; but you also 
>> shouldn't belittle them for it. To each,
>> their own.
>
> That sentiment cuts both ways, so I have absolutely no objection to you 
> selecting to use whatever image editing/asset management software 
> strikes your fancy. I will continue to use my Lightroom + Photoshop 
> workflow.

It may come as a shock to you, but when I state I dislike something,
it's not about you.

-- 
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]

#28439

On 2015-03-27 00:24:28 +0000, Davoud said:

> <rcp27g@gmail.com>
>> 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.
> 
> What does that mean? Adobe CC is the gold standard for still and motion
> photography, DTP, and media management. Nothing else comes close. And
> you're wary of that? Doesn't "wary" mean "I'm unwilling to pay for it?"

This new policy of renting or subscribing to a service is a most 
ridiculous development. Adobe is the Monsanto of IT. The first 
developer who comes with a good replacement of Aperture will do good 
business. 

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

#28454

In article <551505c9$0$3022$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl>, Me,
myself and I <baiheli.pip.li@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> This new policy of renting or subscribing to a service is a most 
> ridiculous development. Adobe is the Monsanto of IT. 

subscription is not adobe's idea. it's been around for years and
microsoft and others have subscription offerings.

> The first 
> developer who comes with a good replacement of Aperture will do good 
> business. 

that's been out for years, and it's called lightroom. in fact, their
business was so good that it's the reason why aperture was cancelled.

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

#28453

In article <260320152024285191%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> What does that mean? Adobe CC is the gold standard for still and motion
> photography, DTP, and media management. Nothing else comes close.

exactly.

> And
> you're wary of that? Doesn't "wary" mean "I'm unwilling to pay for it?"

basically, but disguised as something else.

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

#28376

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

I didn't say I was planning to deliberately acquire it, but I'm avoiding
the aforementioned long story that might include it until it concludes. I
just wondered whether it could do things Graphic Converter doesn't.  iPhoto
is, in my opinion, useless.  My favorite graphics program still hasn't been
updated and my interest in PhotoShop is nonexistent.
-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

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

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

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

csiph-web