[J. Clarke[_2_]]

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:34:14 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:03:28 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its site,
I was amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of
its products did (or didn't) do, and why you might purchase it
(or not). When I complained about this, I received pretty much
a "we're Adobe -- we don't give a damn" response.

Since professionals have used many similar products for extended
periods of time, Adobe's explanations of what their products do are
adequate to provide a basic understanding of them.

And what of those who haven't used them? There are hundreds of new
potential customers every day who are ignorant of such things. What
do you do... ignore them?

There are a couple of levels of answers to this. To those with
general knowledge of image editing and image eding apps that somehow
haven't experienced PhotoShop, they can download the reference
manual, per another response. To the novice, there are numerous
PhotoShop courses available, both in person and on-line.

For example... What is the relationship between Lightroom and
Photoshop? Lightroom apparently does some things Photoshop also
does. Why would I use one and not the other? Or both? How do these
products interact (or not). What are the advantages and tradeoffs?

The relationship and differences should be obvious to experienced
image editors or photographers.

Obvious? Obvious how? How can you identify the dkifferences if there
is no easy way to determine the broad content and capabilities of
each?

It's obvious to pros in either the image editing or photographic industries.
Those that are not in either one of those industries or a professional in
support of one of those industries, the apps are probably overkill. In other
words, it would be unlikely that one could become a pro in one of those
areas and not get considerable exposure to the apps -- pun intended --
because of their market position.

But that's not what is being discussed. How can the ordinary person
who has no great familiarity with Adobe software obtain enough
information to make a meaningful comparison between the individual
products?

An ordinary person who has never worked in any of the fields for which
Adobe's various products are tailored has no need for their products.

Those who fall in neither category can probably
avoid both apps without consequence, and go with Gimp or some other
lower-end solution.

One of the best sales tools is to clearly explain what your product
can and can't do, and how its features work with the features of
other products in your line.

Selling it to... whom, exactly? Those who became "professionals"
within the last decade or two probably don't need such explanations.
Like I said earlier, PhotoShop is to image editing as ProTools is to
pro audio.

The present arrangement seems a good way to throttle off new buyers.

I doubt it.

It kept me from buying Adobe. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

What makes you think that Adobe even wants your business?

My oldest daughter is a graphic designer and she knows photoshop as
she was taught it at school. Her daughter is a graphic designer and
she too knows photoshop as she was taught it at school. But neither of
them really knows what is/isn't in Elements, Lightroom etc.

And, how many *non-Adobe* image editing apps did they learn in school? Just
the fact that those apps are being taught in schools that are training
designers, photographers, etc. says about all that needs to be said.
Non-pros have little to no need to know, since they are not the target users
of those products.

That may be the reason the improving amatuer cannot get sufficient
information to enable them to decide which of four different Adobe
products they really need.

Four? There are at least 20.

Look, if you're never been trained on anything and don't know what you
want, then get GIMP. It's free and it works and when you've used it for
a while and outgrow it you'll be able to read the Adobe product
descriptions and understand what you're reading. And if you never
outgrow it then you didn't need to spend for Adobe anyway.

[J. Clarke[_2_]]

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:26:26 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , William Sommerwerck
wrote:

you didn't look very hard. they explain their products in detail,
including comparing photoshop elements with the full photoshop.

Do I have to write a detailed essay to make the point clear? I'm not going
to.

don't waste your time.

Your mind is already madeup.

there's an overwhelming amount of information about adobe's products,

Tat's the problem. If only someone could summarize and compare the
capabilities of the various products it would be very helpful to the
would-be buyer.

You're just not getting it. Adobe is not the Toyota of sofware
companies, they're more like Peterbilt. If you don't have a CDL or run
a trucking company then you are not in Peterbilt's target market. They
are not losing the least bit of sleep over all the soccer moms who buy
Fords and Chevies and Toyotas instead one of their 15+ ton trucks. If
you haven't been trained in one of the fields that Adobe supports you
are not in their target market.

both on their site and other people's sites, if you were actually
interested in learning about them, that is.

you're obviously not interested in adobe anything, and like ssd, your
mind is already made up and nothing is going to change it.

[J. Clarke[_2_]]

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:04:57 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Photoshop is not an impulse purchase item. Buyers of the full version
are generally informed to some degree by exposure from some other
source. I can't imagine any buyer that made the decision to buy a
product of this cost based solely on what the primary website
describes.

why do non-pro users fixate on the full version of photoshop? it's
*well* beyond anything they need.

all they need is photoshop elements, which is usually around $50 and is
well within 'impulse buy' territory. sometimes it's even bundled for
free with hardware so they don't even need to act on an impulse. they
already have it.

Where can I find out the difference between Elements and full
Photoshop? Where can I find out what I lose/gain by buying Elements
(or Lightroom etc) rather than Photoshop? At the moment I feel as
though I am expected to make a very expensive stab in the dark.

Elements is about $70. Photoshop is about ten times that. The way you
avoid the "very expensive stab in the dark" is to buy the cheap product
and use it until you run into something that you need that it won't do.

meanwhile, pros will not think twice about buying the full photoshop
because they know that it's the only thing that will do what they need.
you could call that an impulse buy.

What's more, they have probably been taught on Photoshop and know no
other.

[Savageduck]

On 2012-07-29 21:17:33 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:25:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Also, when using Lightroom you can take your image file which has been
adjusted non-destructively and open it in the photo editor of your
choice to make any adjustments or edits you are not able to complete in
LR.

I know you don't mean it this way, and that you understand, but a
person who has not used any of these programs might think from reading
this that Lightroom is the only way to edit non-destructively and that
Photoshop and Elements don't allow non-destructive editing.

Agreed.


The person who starts with a RAW file in any version of CS or a later
version of Elements edits non-destructively. Once opened in Photoshop
or Elements, the user quickly learns the value of "Save As" or editing
on layers that can be discarded.

Yup! All reflex action now.

The person who starts with a .jpg out of camera also learns very
quickly the value of "Save As" and the adding of layers for editing.
Once cropped or flattened (if layers are added), the image in
Photoshop or Elements has been irreversibly changed, but only if it
was saved without the "Save As".

I don't have experience in editing in Lightroom (though I have
Lightroom), but the non-destructive aspect merely means you start over
and lose all your non-global edits if you do start over as far as I
can tell. You don't have the ability to delete layers.

Not exactly. This is when the virtual copy, or the edit copy comes into
play. Editing in LR is much like editing in ACR, hence Lightroom
behaves like ACR on steroids, particularly that it has RAW functions
such as lens profiling, noise reduction which actually works now, the
updated ACR engine, and a few other things.


In cloning, for example, if I have extensive cloning in different
areas, I'll clone one area, merge visible layers, and clone the next
area. If I botch the second area, I can delete that layer but still
have the first area the way I want it.

I assume you are talking about cloning in CS4.
Nothing wrong with that, if it is a work flow you are familiar and
comfortable with. I use a similar technique.

I would point out that if you are using LR to import from your camera
or card reader there is nothing stopping you making RAW adjustments as
you would in ACR. Make any other edits or adjustments you become
comfortable with in LR. Then select edit in CS4, either from the menu,
or by right clicking on the thumbnail, or the image in the main LR
window, now you will have three options Edit a copy with LR
adjustments, edit a copy, or edit the original (that is the original in
the LR library).

I usually use a copy with LR adjustments. Once the CS adjustments or
whatever personal workflow tweaks you might have made just save the
finished work and it will be appropriately saved back to LR as a tif,
psd, jpeg, or whatever you might have set up in the LR preferences to
be stacked with the original or virtual copy.

LR works very well with CSx. Since you have both, I suggest exploring
the combination.
BTW: I upgraded from LR2 to LR4 for a couple of reasons, but mostly for
the up dated new features and that I have no plans to upgrade to CS6
anytime soon so having LR4 gives me a path to RAW conversion engine
updates not available to legacy CS owners.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:48:21 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-29 15:49:10 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:58:10 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

The basic concept and features are spelled out on the Adobe web site,
If they don't meet, or if they exceed your requirements, don't buy it.
You might want to check out a trial demo version. If it doesn't suit
you, don't buy it, there might be another solution for you.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.html

You seem to be missing the point. The basic question is not 'what does
Photoshop do?' but how do I tell which Adobe product best meets my
needs?

I have provided you with a number of urls which spell out features
found in one product and not in the other.

What I and William Sommerwerck were complaining about was the absence
of (to quote William) any thing "to explain exactly what each of its
products did (or didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or not)."
Everyone seems to be interpreting this as meaning a detailed list of
features for each product. A presentation of this kind requires a
tremendous amount of analysis by the would-be buyer before they can
decide which product best meets their needs.

My wife is in the market for a new car. The other day we went along to
the presentation of the new Honda Euro Civic. The spec sheet listed
each model in a series of parallel columns with a row for each set of
features. If a feature applied to a particular model a there was a
large dot in a particular column. A would-be car buyer would be
shocked at the suggestion that they should go on line to separately
dig out the features of each model and then construct a chart to
enable the features to be compared. Why should be the would-be buyer
of Mr Adobe's fine products be treated any differently?

For example I have no need for the 3D features of CS6/5 extended, so I
didn't buy it.
When CS5 was released I liked the ideal of content aware fill and a few
other new features that came with it. So I upgraded to CS5. I haven't
seen any new features in CS6 which would entice me to upgrade.

But you were originally familiar with the product. There are many
people like William and I who have to learn the capabilities of each
product from the ground up.


Lightroom works as a stand alone image editor and more, as it gives you
a very good catalogue system, and it can integrate with Photoshop, or
any other editor.

Elements gives you many of the editing features of full versions of
Photoshop, but if you are familiar with the full version you could find
it odd to work with.

I believe that you would find Lightroom more than adequate for most of
your needs. There are also some interesting free plugins available for
Lightroom, and many of the well known plugin houses such as NIK have
their offerings installable Photoshop, Lightroom, Elements, and
function as stand-alone modules.

Nope. I'm in the Corel camp for at least the time being.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:53:46 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2012-07-29 17:17:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
said:

You seem to be missing the point. The basic question is
not "what does Photoshop do?" but how do I tell which
Adobe product best meets my needs?

Lightroom works as a stand-alone image editor and more,
as it gives you a very good catalogue system, and it can
integrate with Photoshop, or any other editor.

This is the sort of thing I'm complaining about.

If Lightroom has its own editing facilities -- then under what conditions
would I use it, and ignore Photoshop?

Most.

This isn't a matter of rummaging
through a list of editing features for the two products. Rather, it's
something Adobe should briefly discuss on its Website.

It does.


Adobe does not,

you are not looking hard enough, and if you are this incapable of
searching the web, you have a different set of problems.
Here is a starting point.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photos...ml?PID=2159997

Created "2012 - 07 - 23". All that existed when I looked a year or so
ago was a simplified version of this site which did nothing helpful.


because it has no understanding of how to sell merchandise.

I don't believe they have any problem with selling their merchandise,

It just assumes every person who does image editing will rush right out in a
buying frenzy.

In my opinion (some folks around here don't hold much weight to my
opinion) Lightroom gives the majority of photographers all they need
for cataloging, making RAW adjustments, making nondestructive
adjustments and edits, making intelligent nondestructive crops, having
a decent print terminal and output designer, being able to Geo tag and
map locate shots, having the ability to create web galleries and more.
Then if you have the need to have access to any other editor if there
are tasks which Lightroom cannot handle.

One of my prior beefs with Lightroom was the lack of adjustment layers.
That problem has been solved with the useful and FREE OnOne Software
product "Perfect Layers 2"
http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/perfect-layers/

They have other free plugins for Lightroom, all good fun.
There is also Matt Kloskowski, who is one of the guys in the Kelby
Training stable, and who provides a lot of free Lightroom actions and
plugins, and training at their web site.
http://lightroomkillertips.com/

So I would say that for 95% of users there would be little need to use
Photoshop. That said there are things I prefer doing using my Photoshop
workflow because I am comfortable with it. I also find myself using
lightroom as a selection table and a place to built collections of
shots giving them the odd occasional adjustment.
...and I am sure I mentioned that those adjustments were nondestructive.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:21:59 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Adobe, like most software of this type of application, offers trial
downloads. A comprehensive description of the features of Photoshop
would have to be book-like in length.

nonsense. they have descriptions on their web site, including demo
videos, and many third parties write about it too. none are book-like
in length.

And none of them are comprehensive descriptions.

they're comprehensive, but maybe you really do need a book.

here are many videos about cs5. it's probably too soon for a set of cs6
videos. i'd call these very comprehensive.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshop-cs5-feature-tour/photoshop-cs5-overview/

How many hours of this sort of stuff do you have to live through
before you can draw up a table of comparisons?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:36:34 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:21:59 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Adobe, like most software of this type of application, offers trial
downloads. A comprehensive description of the features of Photoshop
would have to be book-like in length.

nonsense. they have descriptions on their web site, including demo
videos, and many third parties write about it too. none are book-like
in length.

And none of them are comprehensive descriptions.

they're comprehensive, but maybe you really do need a book.

here are many videos about cs5. it's probably too soon for a set of cs6
videos. i'd call these very comprehensive.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshop-cs5-feature-tour/photoshop-cs5-overview/

The complaint is not about what is available, but what is in the Adobe
website. I don't think it's a valid complaint, but at least I read
carefully enough to know what the complaint is.

Thanks.

I don't know whether or not the complaint is valid now (I suspect it
may not be) but it certainly was two or three years ago.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:55:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

here are many videos about cs5. it's probably too soon for a set of cs6
videos. i'd call these very comprehensive.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshop-...p-cs5-overview
/

The complaint is not about what is available, but what is in the Adobe
website. I don't think it's a valid complaint, but at least I read
carefully enough to know what the complaint is.

but not carefully enough to know that the complaint is bogus.

there is a wealth of information at the adobe website, including the
videos at the link above.

if after watching those videos, someone doesn't understand what
photoshop can do, then they have more serious issues than which photo
editor to get.

If I ever come out of retirement I hope you get the job of sales
manager for my opposition. :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:34:24 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:04:56 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its site, I was
amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of its products did (or
didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or not). When I complained about
this, I received pretty much a "we're Adobe -- we don't give a damn"
response.

Adobe, like most software of this type of application, offers trial
downloads. A comprehensive description of the features of Photoshop
would have to be book-like in length.

nonsense. they have descriptions on their web site, including demo
videos, and many third parties write about it too. none are book-like
in length.

Nor are they comprehensive. Or even close. Or even remotely close.
The third party write-ups are not on the Adobe website, and that is
what the OP is whining about.

There are many, many ways to get comprehensive information about PS's
features. They just aren't on Adobe's website. Nor, in my opinion,
need they be.

Getting comprehensive information about PS's features was not the
problem that William Sommerwerck and I were complaining about. Please
make sure you understand the problem before you describe the
complainant as 'whining'.

Many of the book-length books on Photoshop cover only a limited number
of subjects. Scott Kelby is famous for this. I have many of his
books, but no one book of his covers all, most, or even a significant
number of the coverable topics.

And then you have to buy an an incomplete book on CS*, another on
PhotoShop Elements, another on Lightroom - No, that's not the way to
go.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:37:19 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:45:18 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:54:55 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 05:49:38 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Photoshop never seemed expensive to me.

Not if you're a professional photographer. But for someone who doesn't earn
their living doing graphics work, the price is several times beyond
outrageous.

Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its site, I was
amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of its products did (or
didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or not). When I complained about
this, I received pretty much a "we're Adobe -- we don't give a damn"
response.

Adobe, like most software of this type of application, offers trial
downloads. A comprehensive description of the features of Photoshop
would have to be book-like in length.

I don't think a comprehensive description is what is required.

Nor do I. It's the OP who want one.

I don't think so. When he first touched on the subject he wrote:

"I was amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of its
products did (or didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or
not).."

.... and in his next article he expanded his point by writing:

"And what of those who haven't used them? There are hundreds of new
potential customers every day who are ignorant of such things. What
do you do...ignore them?

For example... What is the relationship between Lightroom and
Photoshop? Lightroom apparently does some things Photoshop also
does. Why would I use one and not the other? Or both? How do these
products interact (or not). What are the advantages and tradeoffs?

One of the best sales tools is to clearly explain what your product
can and can't do, and how its features work with the features of
other products in your line. The goal is to get a "I like that --
I'll buy it!" reaction."

I don't think he was requesting anything other than a comprehensive
description of anything but the general capabilities of and the
relationships between the components of the product range.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 19:21:58 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

there's an overwhelming amount of information about adobe's products,

Tat's the problem. If only someone could summarize and compare the
capabilities of the various products it would be very helpful to the
would-be buyer.

many people have, including adobe. here's a good summary:

http://www.photoshopuser.com/cs6/cs6-features

"If only someone could summarize and compare ..."
Thats all about CS6 which the site does not compare with anything.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:03:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Photoshop never seemed expensive to me.

Not if you're a professional photographer. But for someone who doesn't earn
their living doing graphics work, the price is several times beyond
outrageous.

Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its site, I was
amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what each of its products did (or
didn't) do, and why you might purchase it (or not).

That's the main reason why I have never bought it. I like to know what
I'm paying for, especially when Adobe require my nose to bleed in the
process.

there are trial versions available, along with plenty of info about all
of their products adobe's site as well at other sites.

You don't get it, do you?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:24:06 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:14:28 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Photoshop never seemed expensive to me. I've paid over $5k for some
of the image editing software I used back then. Photoshop never was
all that good of a program compared to what was available, even some
that cost *less* than Photoshop, like the ULead products were more
efficient and flexible. That's why Adobe bought them and shelved
them.

ULead is now back in service with Corel.

ULead company never went away... Adobe bought Aldus to acquire the version
of Pagemaker that was under development (and became InDesign 1.0), and in
the process shelved Aldus PhotoStyler, which was a pro image editing app
developed by ULead. A non-compete agreement kept pro features, such as CMYK
editing, out of Uleads follow-up app, PhotoImpact. But, if ULead's
relationship with Corel turns out like Ventura Publisher and the Xara apps,
they're doomed.

It's not as simple as all that. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corel_Ventura
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[William Sommerwerck]

$40 is also cheap, but neither $50 nor $40
will buy you the current edition of Elements.

Wrong. I got v10 "on sale" at Costco.

[William Sommerwerck]

Those who actually have a genuine interest in learning
about the products won't limit themselves to only
Adobe's web site.

Why should they have to look anywhere else?

I'm reminded of a "counter-culture" optical store in College Park, MD,
called "For Eyes". (Get it?) 42 years ago I was interested in contact lenses
and walked in. The person there wasn't much interested in helping. "We don't
believe in pushing our products on customers." That's a great way to go out
of business.

Needless to say, I found an optical store that actually wanted to sell me
something and make me happy, and got my contacts there.

[William Sommerwerck]

But not carefully enough to know
that the complaint is bogus.

It's not bogus.

Let's put it this way... You're interested in Adobe photo-editing products.
You have specific questions about what they do and how they work together
(or not), so you can make an intelligent buying decision. You go to the
Adobe site, expecting clear answers to your questions. Will you find them?

I say you won't.

[William Sommerwerck]

I don't think he was requesting anything other than
a comprehensive description of anything but the
general capabilities of and the relationships between
the components of the product range.

Wow. Someone who understands what he reads.

Thank you.

[Neil Gould]

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:24:06 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 07:14:28 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Photoshop never seemed expensive to me. I've paid over $5k for some
of the image editing software I used back then. Photoshop never was
all that good of a program compared to what was available, even
some that cost *less* than Photoshop, like the ULead products were
more efficient and flexible. That's why Adobe bought them and
shelved them.

ULead is now back in service with Corel.

ULead company never went away... Adobe bought Aldus to acquire the
version of Pagemaker that was under development (and became InDesign
1.0), and in the process shelved Aldus PhotoStyler, which was a pro
image editing app developed by ULead. A non-compete agreement kept
pro features, such as CMYK editing, out of Uleads follow-up app,
PhotoImpact. But, if ULead's relationship with Corel turns out like
Ventura Publisher and the Xara apps, they're doomed.

It's not as simple as all that. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corel_Ventura

It pretty much _is_ as simple as that.

As a user of Ventura Publisher since version 1.1, as well as of the Aldus,
Corel, and Adobe products, that brief Wiki overview is not informative. The
fact is that Corel has mismanaged Ventura so badly that many of us serious
users have even offered to take it off their hands so we could update its
code base, and we are still the best (if not only) source of support for the
product (see: corel.ventura10). Xara had a couple of very interesting
graphics products that they introduced to the market, but when picked up by
Corel, they almost went under and are now nearly invisible. Could it be that
Corel didn't want Xara biting into CorelDraw and CorelPaint's market share?
How does that portend good things for ULead?

--
best regards,

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

Adobe does not, because it has no understanding
of how to sell merchandise.

What an amazing disconnect from reality!

Glad you agree with me.

READ WHAT I WROTE, DICKHEAD!

"None" seems to be an apt assessment of your wit and sense of humor.


To clarify the point... Good sales aren't necessarily proof of good
marketing.

In Adobe's case, Photoshop was (as far as I know) the first major paint
software * designed primarily for the special needs of photographic images.
Its rapid adoption doubtless reduced interest in other products. It didn't
hurt that it wasn't cheap, as Americans tend to associate price with
quality. And once you've invested in something expensive, you're unlikely to
pay more money to switch.

Photoshop sells well because it's "the standard" and it's expensive -- not
because it's the best choice among competitive products. Of which there are
few. Adobe needs to act as if it had serious competition, and market
Photoshop accordingly. A well-designed clone from a major software company
could do significant damage.

* as opposed to vector (draw) software

[UnsteadyKen]

William Sommerwerck wrote...

DO NOT PUT A READYBOOT DISK IN A W2K COMPUTER. You are asking for trouble. I
don't know how XP and Vista respond

Vista has no problems with readyboost, I use a 2GB SD card on my laptop
and it provides a small but welcome speed up in boot times,I did some
tests when I first installed it 3 years ago and it shortened boot time
by 10-20 seconds, can't say if it improves overall performance, but
things do seem slightly slower if I accidentally eject it.

--
Ken O'Meara

[Neil Gould]

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:34:14 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:03:28 -0400, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Adobe's arrogance doesn't help. The last time I visited its
site, I was amazed at how it failed to explain exactly what
each of its products did (or didn't) do, and why you might
purchase it (or not). When I complained about this, I received
pretty much
a "we're Adobe -- we don't give a damn" response.

Since professionals have used many similar products for extended
periods of time, Adobe's explanations of what their products do
are adequate to provide a basic understanding of them.

And what of those who haven't used them? There are hundreds of new
potential customers every day who are ignorant of such things.
What do you do... ignore them?

There are a couple of levels of answers to this. To those with
general knowledge of image editing and image eding apps that
somehow haven't experienced PhotoShop, they can download the
reference manual, per another response. To the novice, there are
numerous PhotoShop courses available, both in person and on-line.

For example... What is the relationship between Lightroom and
Photoshop? Lightroom apparently does some things Photoshop also
does. Why would I use one and not the other? Or both? How do these
products interact (or not). What are the advantages and tradeoffs?

The relationship and differences should be obvious to experienced
image editors or photographers.

Obvious? Obvious how? How can you identify the dkifferences if there
is no easy way to determine the broad content and capabilities of
each?

It's obvious to pros in either the image editing or photographic
industries. Those that are not in either one of those industries or
a professional in support of one of those industries, the apps are
probably overkill. In other words, it would be unlikely that one
could become a pro in one of those areas and not get considerable
exposure to the apps -- pun intended -- because of their market
position.

But that's not what is being discussed. How can the ordinary person
who has no great familiarity with Adobe software obtain enough
information to make a meaningful comparison between the individual
products?

It should be clear to the "ordinary person" that the majority of Adobe's
products are not intended for them.

My oldest daughter is a graphic designer and she knows photoshop as
she was taught it at school. Her daughter is a graphic designer and
she too knows photoshop as she was taught it at school. But neither
of them really knows what is/isn't in Elements, Lightroom etc.

And, how many *non-Adobe* image editing apps did they learn in
school? Just the fact that those apps are being taught in schools
that are training designers, photographers, etc. says about all that
needs to be said. Non-pros have little to no need to know, since
they are not the target users of those products.

That may be the reason the improving amatuer cannot get sufficient
information to enable them to decide which of four different Adobe
products they really need.

They already have the information they need; most Adobe products are not
aimed at amatuers, regardless of their status!

--
best regards,

Neil

[David Ruether[_3_]]

"j" wrote in message
:
On 7/24/2012 8:16 AM, David Ruether wrote:

I just dumped and reloaded Vegas Pro 11, and before I ran some
tests that had caused Pro to crash ever more frequently in the
past, I thought to remove the USB 4-gig thumb-drive from the
computer before reloading the program. The thumb drive may not
have been the cause of the problems, but without it and with
the new installation, Vegas Pro 11 passed my tests and did not
crash. 8^)
--DR

I've never had any trouble with flash memory cards, whether CF or SD.

Thumb drives are a completely different story. And my friends concur. A
cheap thumb drive will cause you grief.

Jeff

Hey, this thread has become ridiculous, so I have kept only the
above two entries (;-}) and have been dumping all the others,
including 93 more(!!!) just this morning... YIKES!;-)
--DR

[William Sommerwerck]

And, how many *non-Adobe* image editing apps did they learn in
school? Just the fact that those apps are being taught in schools
that are training designers, photographers, etc. says about all that
needs to be said. Non-pros have little to no need to know, since
they are not the target users of those products.

That may be the reason the improving amateur cannot get sufficient
information to enable them to decide which of four different Adobe
products they really need.

They already have the information they need; most Adobe products
are not aimed at amatuers, regardless of their status!

And that means that all Adobe products should be bought and used by all
professionals?

That is not an excuse for failing to provide adequate pre-sales support.

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
And, how many *non-Adobe* image editing apps did they learn in
school? Just the fact that those apps are being taught in schools
that are training designers, photographers, etc. says about all that
needs to be said. Non-pros have little to no need to know, since
they are not the target users of those products.

That may be the reason the improving amateur cannot get sufficient
information to enable them to decide which of four different Adobe
products they really need.

They already have the information they need; most Adobe products
are not aimed at amatuers, regardless of their status!

And that means that all Adobe products should be bought and used by
all professionals?

Do you not recognize a significant technical difference between "most Adobe
products" and "...all Adobe products..."?!?

That is not an excuse for failing to provide adequate pre-sales
support.

Interesting that only you amatuer users seem to feel that way. Perhaps you
can explain the reason that such a "failure" resulted in the market position
for those products (#1), and how they can somehow do better by wasting their
resources explaining those products to folks that are unlikely to need or
buy them?

--
best regards,

Neil

[Arny Krueger]

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ,
says...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...


No, he's not paging or swapping to the flash drive. That is instant
death.

http://dansdata.com/flashswap.htm

"If your Flash device is "4Gb" with a formatted capacity of 3900Mb, and
you
do nothing but write to it as fast as you can - at, say, 30Mb/s - you'll
still only be able to replace its entire contents every 130 seconds. At
that
rate, it'll take you 150 days to hit 100,000 cycles."

From from instant death, I'd say.

Yeah, that's at 30 Mb/sec. SATA runs 200 times that fast and it takes
you less than a day to mangle that drive.

If you're naive enough to seriouisly believe that real world disks that most
people actually use, even SSD, runs at SATA speeds there is no use
discussing *anything* with you.

Congratuations, you've just made a straw man argument!

If you're only running 30 Mb/sec why bother with flash drives anyway?

Because signficantly higher disk speed makes an amazing difference, even
when the processor is on the light side.

I just plugged a 128 GB SSD into a ca. 2006 laptop with a very crappy 1.8
GHz single core processor. In terms of things most people do most often,
such as and run programs like Word and Excel, the results are truely
amazing. The predecessor hard drive (ca. 300 GB) had the poor baby tied
into a knot, it was as lethargic as all get out.

Any crappy cheap hard drive today can do that.

Only for sequential I/O. Again, exactly how naive are you? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Paul wrote:

USB2 storage class transfer rate is in the neighborhood of 30MB/sec.
(If you use a USB3 driver, there's claims you can get up to around
35MB/sec
but there's no need for refinements here. This is ballpark arithmetic.)

there's absolutely no need for a usb3 driver. usb2 easily does 35
megabytes/sec, and has since well before there was usb3.

Based on what I see in the real world, 100 megabytes per second is not
unusual for USB 2. All you have to do is find something that actually runs
that fast!

[William Sommerwerck]

Interesting that only you amateur users seem to feel that way.
Perhaps you can explain the reason that such a "failure" resulted
in the market position for those products (#1), and how they can
somehow do better by wasting their resources explaining those
products to folks that are unlikely to need or buy them?

It's never a waste of resources to make an effort to capture a new customer.
Just because a product sells well, doesn't mean its manufacturer knows how
to best market it.

You obviously don't understand the psychology behind asking a customer
whether they want one egg or two eggs in their milkshake (when they actually
don't want any). You place clearly defined options in front of a customer,
in the expectation they will select one of them, rather than buying nothing.
As in... "Do you want Photoshop, Lightroom, or both?" You then explain what
they do and how they work, and the customer says "Oh, I don't need
Photoshop. I'll just buy Lightroom." ka-CHING.

Adobe's market position has little to do with the way Photoshop has been
promoted.

Photoshop was (as far as I know) the first major paint software * designed
primarily for the special needs of photographic images. Its rapid adoption
doubtless reduced interest in other products. It didn't hurt that it wasn't
cheap, as Americans tend to associate price with quality. And once you've
invested in something expensive, you're unlikely to put out additional
dollars to switch.

Photoshop sells well because it's "the standard" and it's expensive -- not
because it's the best choice among competitive products. Of which there are
essentially none. (Corel PhotoPaint seems to be the only meaningful
competitor, and it doesn't sell well because it's "obviously" too
inexpensive to be any good.)

Adobe needs to act as if it had serious competition, and market Photoshop
accordingly. A well-designed clone from a major software company at a
slightly lower price ($400, say) could do significant damage.

* as opposed to vector software

[David Ruether[_3_]]

"Someone Previously" wrote:

And, how many *non-Adobe* image editing apps did they learn in
school? Just the fact that those apps are being taught in schools
that are training designers, photographers, etc. says about all that
needs to be said. Non-pros have little to no need to know, since
they are not the target users of those products.

Um, not quite all that needs to be said...;-) MARKETING! 8^)
Canon in my early days practically gave their still gear to
university photographers so that students would see what they
"preferred" to use; later, Apple did the same with their
computers, flooding classrooms and offices with their products
(sold at lower than normal prices); Adobe followed suit - also
establishing its products firmly in the minds of the "young-uns"
during their education as "the ones" to use. Notice also what
does (and does not) appear in campus stores with "academic"
discounts attached...;-) It's called "smart marketing", and it
is not necessarily the placement of the best possible gear or
software for the intended purposes...
--DR

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


My wife is in the market for a new car. The other day we went along to
the presentation of the new Honda Euro Civic. The spec sheet listed
each model in a series of parallel columns with a row for each set of
features. If a feature applied to a particular model a there was a
large dot in a particular column. A would-be car buyer would be
shocked at the suggestion that they should go on line to separately
dig out the features of each model and then construct a chart to
enable the features to be compared. Why should be the would-be buyer
of Mr Adobe's fine products be treated any differently?

then it's good thing they did exactly that, isn't it?

http://www.adobe.com/products/photos...e-version-comp
arison.html

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I don't know whether or not the complaint is valid now (I suspect it
may not be) but it certainly was two or three years ago.

no it wasn't. the information was there, just like it is now, but about
older products.

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

here are many videos about cs5. it's probably too soon for a set of cs6
videos. i'd call these very comprehensive.

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/photoshop-...p-cs5-overview
/

How many hours of this sort of stuff do you have to live through
before you can draw up a table of comparisons?

about 0.00028 hours.

the following link loads in about 1 second for me:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photos...e-version-comp
arison.html

the point is that there is a *lot* of information at adobe's site, from
simple overviews to extensive demos and tutorials for those who want a
lot more than just a checklist.

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Thats all about CS6 which the site does not compare with anything.

http://prodesigntools.com/difference...-extended-vs-e
lements-vs-lightroom.html

http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/photoshop/f/elementscompare.htm

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That's the main reason why I have never bought it. I like to know what
I'm paying for, especially when Adobe require my nose to bleed in the
process.

there are trial versions available, along with plenty of info about all
of their products adobe's site as well at other sites.

You don't get it, do you?

it looks like you're the one who doesn't get it. i'm not the one who is
having trouble reading and understanding the numerous links provided.

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , William Sommerwerck
wrote:

Those who actually have a genuine interest in learning
about the products won't limit themselves to only
Adobe's web site.

Why should they have to look anywhere else?

they don't have to, but if they want additional opinions they should.

third party sites will tell you thinks you won't find at adobe's site,
such as shortcomings of the various products, or comparisons with
competing products.

information is good, but it's clear you aren't interested in any of it.
like ssd, your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it.

I'm reminded of a "counter-culture" optical store in College Park, MD,
called "For Eyes". (Get it?) 42 years ago I was interested in contact lenses
and walked in. The person there wasn't much interested in helping. "We don't
believe in pushing our products on customers." That's a great way to go out
of business.

amazing how 40 years later, they're still in business. maybe they know
something about selling contacts that you don't.

by the way, for eyes was founded in 1972 in philadelphia, so it wasn't
42 years ago. it doesn't say when they opened a store in maryland
though.
http://www.foreyes.com/about/
Our dedicated store associates are committed to providing the highest
level of customer service and focusing on fulfilling each customer's
individual needs.

Needless to say, I found an optical store that actually wanted to sell me
something and make me happy, and got my contacts there.

are they still in business?

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , William Sommerwerck
wrote:

But not carefully enough to know
that the complaint is bogus.

It's not bogus.

it is definitely bogus.

Let's put it this way... You're interested in Adobe photo-editing products.
You have specific questions about what they do and how they work together
(or not), so you can make an intelligent buying decision. You go to the
Adobe site, expecting clear answers to your questions. Will you find them?

I say you won't.

i say you will. links already provided in other posts.

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , William Sommerwerck
wrote:

In Adobe's case, Photoshop was (as far as I know) the first major paint
software * designed primarily for the special needs of photographic images.
Its rapid adoption doubtless reduced interest in other products. It didn't
hurt that it wasn't cheap, as Americans tend to associate price with
quality. And once you've invested in something expensive, you're unlikely to
pay more money to switch.

wrong. there is no lock-in to photoshop. if something better came along
and was able to read photoshop format files (and the format is
documented so this is easily done), it would be very easy to switch.

there are competing products that can read photoshop files, yet not too
many people switched. why? because none were as good as photoshop.

Photoshop sells well because it's "the standard" and it's expensive -- not
because it's the best choice among competitive products.

actually, it is the best choice among competing products.

Of which there are
few. Adobe needs to act as if it had serious competition, and market
Photoshop accordingly. A well-designed clone from a major software company
could do significant damage.

and in 20 years, none have managed to do that.

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Arny
Krueger wrote:

USB2 storage class transfer rate is in the neighborhood of 30MB/sec.
(If you use a USB3 driver, there's claims you can get up to around
35MB/sec
but there's no need for refinements here. This is ballpark arithmetic.)

there's absolutely no need for a usb3 driver. usb2 easily does 35
megabytes/sec, and has since well before there was usb3.

Based on what I see in the real world, 100 megabytes per second is not
unusual for USB 2. All you have to do is find something that actually runs
that fast!

not only is it unusual, but it's impossible.

100 megabytes/sec is more than twice as fast as what is physically
possible for usb 2.

[nospam[_3_]]

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Adobe does not,

you are not looking hard enough, and if you are this incapable of
searching the web, you have a different set of problems.
Here is a starting point.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photos...ml?PID=2159997

Created "2012 - 07 - 23". All that existed when I looked a year or so
ago was a simplified version of this site which did nothing helpful.

bull****. they've always had extensive information on their products.

thanks to the wayback machine, here's what was there in february, 2011,
about 1.5 years ago. unfortunately, not all of it has been archived but
it's very clear there was extensive information at the time about the
products.

http://web.archive.org/web/201010181...e.com/products
/photoshop/photoshop/whatisphotoshop/

http://web.archive.org/web/201103021...e.com/products
/photoshopel/

http://web.archive.org/web/201010081...e.com/digitali
mag/compare/

[William Sommerwerck]

information is good, but it's clear you aren't interested in any of it.
like ssd, your mind is made up and nothing is going to change it.

You have no idea what's currently going through my mind.

I'm reminded of a "counter-culture" optical store in College Park, MD,
called "For Eyes". (Get it?) 42 years ago I was interested in contact
lenses
and walked in. The person there wasn't much interested in helping. "We
don't
believe in pushing our products on customers." That's a great way to go
out
of business.

amazing how 40 years later, they're still in business. maybe they know
something about selling contacts that you don't.

Who said they were?

I hate to spoil things for you, but this store existed in College Park in
1970. Whatever connection it has/had with any other store of that name, I
don't know.