Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2011
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 01:45:51 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>That does not mean that a State licensed real estate agent or real
>estate broker has to be a member of NAR to conduct business, but they
>might find conducting business difficult without such membership.


It used to be that only Realtors - members of NAR - had access to the
Multiple Listing Service. Only NAR members could list a property on
the MLS. Back when the MLS was available in printed form only, a real
estate agent had to be a member of NAR to subscribe. When the MLS
came out with computer access, only NAR members could subscribe. I
think that's changed now, but I don't know the specifics.

That was quite a significant reason to belong to NAR. It is less
significant now with anyone able to list their property on Craigslist,
but having the property listed in the MLS is still important.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2011
tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:54:24 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:36:35 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>One of the estate agents (realtors?) in the area of the UK where I am..
>>>
>>>I doubt if there are realtors in the UK. In the US, the term
>>>"Realtor" is a registered designation for a member of the National
>>>Association of Realtors.
>>>
>>>In the US, anyone licensed to sell or rent property is a real estate
>>>agent. If that person joins and pays dues to the NAR, the person can
>>>dub themselves a Realtor. Actually, NAR always capitalizes it thusly:
>>>REALTORŪ.
>>>
>>>The NAR actually gives a **** and writes nasty letters to publications
>>>that write "realtor". No one else gives a ****, though.

>>
>>
>>Thanks. I was in doubt, hence the question mark. So what do you
>>call, on your side of the pond, the people we call "estate agents"?
>>They are the people who market domestic property.

>
>We call them "real estate agents" or "realtors". We often use and
>write the term "realtor" incorrectly, but it's a commonly used term.
>
>>We also have "surveyors" who need to be professionally qualified,
>>whereas estate agents are just salesmen/women with no requirement for
>>qualifications.

>
>Laws in the US vary from state-to-state, but in most (if not all)
>states one must be licensed to sell real estate. In Florida, there is
>a required training course and a state test. Additional training
>courses are required annually to maintain the license.
>
>Another difference is that we are not required (in most, if not all)
>states to use an attorney to complete a real estate transaction. The
>closing (final papers) can be done by a title company. We can, of
>course, use an attorney if we choose to.



Thanks, it is interesting to learn about the differences between the
UK and USA. I have several American friends who seem to think that
the UK is more like the 51st State than a sovereign country with a
much longer history, and they are surprised to learn that quite a few
things are done differently over here.

Not better, not worse, just differently.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >An excuse to make more $$$$ for Adobe.

>
> Yes, that is mostly what it is. The vast majority of Photoshop users
> would be quite happy with a much earlier version of the software, or
> Elements,


the vast majority would? where in the world did you come up with that
nonsense?

> but Adobe cleverly limits compatibility with RAW files from
> recent digicams to later versions of the software. So unless you use
> the same digicam for years, you are forced to upgrade the software
> regularly and expensively.


nobody is forced to do anything. camera raw is completely free and you
don't even need photoshop to use it.

> The people who unthinkingly claim that digital is cheaper than film
> never seem to factor in the costs of frequent camera, hardware and
> software upgrades. Contrast that with film cameras that would last
> several decades and could always take advantage of the advances in
> sensor technology just by buying a few rolls of the latest film.


digital is without question cheaper than film unless you shoot very,
very few photos, and that's including upgrading cameras periodically.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2011
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2011-10-11 14:28:20 -0700, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> said:


[...]
> While you are correct in that sticking to a camera /computer/software
> system you might have invested in years ago will negate the need to
> upgrade anything, sometimes it is those who finally decide to step up
> to a new camera find themselves faced with the other costs of the
> update.


> While I would like to not be held captive by the Adobe ACR business
> model, they are blameless when it comes to developments necessitated by
> changes to the various common OS's, and demands to improve their basic
> product to move with the times, improve the user IO & features. It
> would be nice to have PS7 work with Windows 7/8 or OSX 10.6.8 or the
> new Lion, but it won't. The same is true with trying to move CS2 to the
> current OS's.


But then, in 95% of the time, running a software on a newer
version of otherwise compatible hardware and OS and libraries is
just a compile away. In the rest 5%, usually only minor changes
are needed, e.g. when a deprecated part of an OS or library has
been finally removed and a replacement has to be used.

It wouldn't exactly be hard for Adobe to do a recompile.

Nor would it be hard to add most RAW formats for new cameras
--- in fact, many are just a minor variation of a RAW format
of an earlier camera from the same vendor.

It just doesn't match their business model. (Compare that to
Bibble, where upgrades have been free within the same major
version up to now and where updated OSses (btw more than
Adobe supports!) and new cameras are handled as a normal
occurance. Oh, and Bibble has had features added. Many of
them.

> That said, while superficially CS5 performs the same basic functions as
> CS2, it has added features and a new ACR process engine which make it a
> very different piece of software to that sold just 3 years ago. It was
> rebuilt and a simple upgrade to the earier versions was not feasible.
> Denying any business the ability to recoup their development costs,
> which are considerable, would lead to stagnation in the incremental
> improvement of the state of this particular art.


The fact that there are enough FOSS raw converters and that they
are improving (and are in certain areas, though usually not in
ease of use better than commercial offerings), should be enough to
prove that "recouping the development costs" is not as necessary
as you make it out to be for steady improvement.


> The same is true for camera manufacturers.


Camera manufacturers have to transform matter to create each
camera. Buying the raw materials and transforming them into
the magical wonderful things that cameras are has a cost that
is borne for each single copy.

Adobe does incur rather negible costs per copy compared to that,
even if they mass-press CDs and operate download servers and
print manuals on dead trees.

In addition, the tools needed to build a prototype DSLR
camera (including the sensor and so on) have astronomical
costs and are still extremely expensive if you just hire them
for a few test chips, test camera bodies, test lenses etc.

Adobe can use commodity hardware (or souped up commodity hardware)
which isn't exactly dirt cheap ... but is well within the range
of the ordinary person, and many a computer gamer --- or DSLR
enthusiast has as expensive (or more expensive) gear.


Therefore I claim that you cannot compare software with hardware;
nor can you easily compare development costs for both; nor can
you claim the threat of stagnation would be even near similar.

>> The people who unthinkingly claim that digital is cheaper than film
>> never seem to factor in the costs of frequent camera, hardware and
>> software upgrades. Contrast that with film cameras that would last
>> several decades and could always take advantage of the advances in
>> sensor technology just by buying a few rolls of the latest film.


> True enough, but developments in digital imagery, particularly those
> built around the 35mm FF sensor have improved beyond that found by
> seeking out "a few rolls of the latest film".
> ...and the changes, while not moving fast enough for the instant
> gratification crowd, are moving faster with each generation of
> development. That includes the related development costs.


But not the prices Adobe is making --- they have nothing to do
with development costs, they're all about the highest gouging they
think they can get away with. After all, they're not a charity,
they're out for money, and lots of it.

If they included new cameras and features within a major version
and only changed the major version every 4 years and charged $100
or $150 for it, they'd still recover their development costs.
They'd just not make that much money.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2011
nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> but Adobe cleverly limits compatibility with RAW files from
>> recent digicams to later versions of the software. So unless you use
>> the same digicam for years, you are forced to upgrade the software
>> regularly and expensively.

>
> nobody is forced to do anything. camera raw is completely free and you
> don't even need photoshop to use it.


This is entirely false. I have frequently found that I could not use a
newer ACR with an older Photoshop, and there is no way I have found to
use ACR without Photoshop.

Are you sure you're not confused with Adobe DNG Converter? That's
entirely free, is a standalone program, and supports the latest
cameras. And can in fact be used as a workaround for the ACR problem,
just convert to DNG and then use your old ACR on that DNG; that works.

>> The people who unthinkingly claim that digital is cheaper than film
>> never seem to factor in the costs of frequent camera, hardware and
>> software upgrades. Contrast that with film cameras that would last
>> several decades and could always take advantage of the advances in
>> sensor technology just by buying a few rolls of the latest film.

>
> digital is without question cheaper than film unless you shoot very,
> very few photos, and that's including upgrading cameras periodically.


Well, you're clearly not doing it "unthinkingly", since you felt the
need to qualify your statement in two directions.

Styles in photography vary a lot. I used to shoot a LOT of film. But
lots of major photogrpahic artists used relatively small amounts,
especially those shooting medium and large formats. For me, the fact
that film and processng is "included" in my digital camera purchase is a
big win. For somebody who really needs a medium-format digital back to
get the quality they're used to, and who used to shoot only a hundred
sheets of film a year, digital is not cheaper, not by a long shot.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2011
Wolfgang Weisselberg <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-10-11 14:28:20 -0700, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> [...]
>> While you are correct in that sticking to a camera /computer/software
>> system you might have invested in years ago will negate the need to
>> upgrade anything, sometimes it is those who finally decide to step up
>> to a new camera find themselves faced with the other costs of the
>> update.

>
>> While I would like to not be held captive by the Adobe ACR business
>> model, they are blameless when it comes to developments necessitated by
>> changes to the various common OS's, and demands to improve their basic
>> product to move with the times, improve the user IO & features. It
>> would be nice to have PS7 work with Windows 7/8 or OSX 10.6.8 or the
>> new Lion, but it won't. The same is true with trying to move CS2 to the
>> current OS's.

>
> But then, in 95% of the time, running a software on a newer
> version of otherwise compatible hardware and OS and libraries is
> just a compile away. In the rest 5%, usually only minor changes
> are needed, e.g. when a deprecated part of an OS or library has
> been finally removed and a replacement has to be used.
>
> It wouldn't exactly be hard for Adobe to do a recompile.


However, *releasing* as commercial software something like that requires
extensive testing, and exposes you to support liabilities.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2011
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>> but Adobe cleverly limits compatibility with RAW files from
>>> recent digicams to later versions of the software. So unless you use
>>> the same digicam for years, you are forced to upgrade the software
>>> regularly and expensively.

>>
>> nobody is forced to do anything. camera raw is completely free and you
>> don't even need photoshop to use it.

>
>This is entirely false. I have frequently found that I could not use a
>newer ACR with an older Photoshop, and there is no way I have found to
>use ACR without Photoshop.



Agree 100%.


>Are you sure you're not confused with Adobe DNG Converter?



Probably - he certainly seems confused.

 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> but Adobe cleverly limits compatibility with RAW files from
> >> recent digicams to later versions of the software. So unless you use
> >> the same digicam for years, you are forced to upgrade the software
> >> regularly and expensively.

> >
> > nobody is forced to do anything. camera raw is completely free and you
> > don't even need photoshop to use it.

>
> This is entirely false.


it's exactly true.

> I have frequently found that I could not use a
> newer ACR with an older Photoshop, and there is no way I have found to
> use ACR without Photoshop.


you haven't?? because you explain how:

> Are you sure you're not confused with Adobe DNG Converter? That's
> entirely free, is a standalone program, and supports the latest
> cameras. And can in fact be used as a workaround for the ACR problem,
> just convert to DNG and then use your old ACR on that DNG; that works.


dng converter is exactly how you use camera raw without photoshop, and
the resultant dng can then be opened with older versions of photoshop.

there is no need to upgrade photoshop just to use a later version of
camera raw unless you want the convenience of having it integrated in
one app, or want some of the newer features they added.

> >> The people who unthinkingly claim that digital is cheaper than film
> >> never seem to factor in the costs of frequent camera, hardware and
> >> software upgrades. Contrast that with film cameras that would last
> >> several decades and could always take advantage of the advances in
> >> sensor technology just by buying a few rolls of the latest film.

> >
> > digital is without question cheaper than film unless you shoot very,
> > very few photos, and that's including upgrading cameras periodically.

>
> Well, you're clearly not doing it "unthinkingly", since you felt the
> need to qualify your statement in two directions.
>
> Styles in photography vary a lot. I used to shoot a LOT of film. But
> lots of major photogrpahic artists used relatively small amounts,
> especially those shooting medium and large formats. For me, the fact
> that film and processng is "included" in my digital camera purchase is a
> big win. For somebody who really needs a medium-format digital back to
> get the quality they're used to, and who used to shoot only a hundred
> sheets of film a year, digital is not cheaper, not by a long shot.


again, that's exactly what i said. film can be cheaper if you shoot few
shots. it's even cheaper if you don't shoot anything at all.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >>> but Adobe cleverly limits compatibility with RAW files from
> >>> recent digicams to later versions of the software. So unless you use
> >>> the same digicam for years, you are forced to upgrade the software
> >>> regularly and expensively.
> >>
> >> nobody is forced to do anything. camera raw is completely free and you
> >> don't even need photoshop to use it.

> >
> >This is entirely false. I have frequently found that I could not use a
> >newer ACR with an older Photoshop, and there is no way I have found to
> >use ACR without Photoshop.

>
> Agree 100%.


you missed the part where he explained how.

> >Are you sure you're not confused with Adobe DNG Converter?

>
> Probably - he certainly seems confused.


not in the least, which is more than i can say for others.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-14-2011
In article <2011101412103885365-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >>>> but Adobe cleverly limits compatibility with RAW files from
> >>>> recent digicams to later versions of the software. So unless you use
> >>>> the same digicam for years, you are forced to upgrade the software
> >>>> regularly and expensively.
> >>>
> >>> nobody is forced to do anything. camera raw is completely free and you
> >>> don't even need photoshop to use it.
> >>
> >> This is entirely false.

> >
> > it's exactly true.

>
> Only if you use the work around with DNG Converter, and even then you
> might be working with limitations,


it's not a workaround. it's a fully supported method.

the only limitations are that of camera raw itself, which you'd have if
you upgraded photoshop or lightroom.

> and the RAW conversion SW packaged
> with the camera might prove to be superior.


could be. every raw converter is a little different and some people
prefer one over the other. the same would apply if you upgraded
photoshop or lightroom.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop PeterN Digital Photography 10 10-23-2011 07:33 PM
Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop Trevor Digital Photography 9 10-17-2011 05:08 PM
Best Photoshop Feature You've Never Heard Of? Annika1980 Digital Photography 2 12-12-2005 04:50 PM
CurrentElement->next = CurrentElement->next->next (UNDEFINED?) Deniz Bahar C Programming 2 03-09-2005 12:45 AM



Advertisments