KB2799926 warning

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by philo , May 10, 2013.

  1. philo 

    nospam Guest

    Re: PING DUCK: Re: KB2799926 warning

    In article <201305121430208930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >> The only RAW files it handles are Canon CR2.

    > >
    > > i don't know what you did, but according to them, it does not support
    > > raw at all.

    >
    > I checked the support files folder and amongst all the bits and pieces
    > there, they have a setup for CR2. That is as far as I went with this
    > useless App before deleting it.


    that's odd. i watched the demo video:

    <http://www.organicimaging.com/content/organic-imaging-quickstart-tutori
    al>

    skip to 4:55, where twice he says camera raw files are not accepted.
     
    nospam, May 12, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. philo 

    philo  Guest

    On 05/12/2013 03:56 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    pg
    >>

    >
    > What's that lovely lady doing with you two slobs?
    >
    >>



    It's all in the personality :)
    >>
    >>
    >> Of course , being a slob at heart...you can see my tie is crooked!
    >> My wife is not only an artist, she is a gallery director...so the shot
    >> is not only of me and my wife...but the character "Frank" and the
    >> painting she did of him. Kind woman, my wife is, she lets me curate a
    >> photography show every two years or so.

    >
    > Too kind!
    >




    My 3rd one will be next year.

    However the years really past by fast and we are both long term planners.

    Last year when I gave my wife a calendar in January...
    a few days later she had the year planned already and honestly asked me
    if I could get her a calendar for the following year.
     
    philo , May 12, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. philo 

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/12/2013 12:56 PM, philo wrote:
    > On 05/12/2013 11:38 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    >> Cheap bastard!
    >>
    >> (that's a compliment for some people I know.)
    >>
    >>>

    >
    >
    > <GRIN>
    >
    >
    > Amazing what I do and do not spend money on...I am a bit of an enigma I
    > guess.
    >
    > I buy most of my clothing 2nd hand at the Goodwill store near my
    > house...most of the time a dress like a slob...
    > but also have no problem spending a lot of money when I need to.
    > Not only have I been known to buy an *expensive* suit on occasion...I
    > even own a tux for fancy affairs.
    >
    >
    > https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/336758_301637443196965_1918185778_o.jpg
    >

    You have a discinct resemblence to Groucho Marx.

    <http://media.photobucket.com/user/scoobyfro/media/groucho.gif.html?filters[term]=groucho%20marx&filters[primary]=images&filters[secondary]=videos&sort=1&o=17>

    <http://preview.tinyurl.com/cwzzv6a>





    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 13, 2013
    #23
  4. philo 

    philo  Guest

    On 05/12/2013 07:06 PM, PeterN wrote:
    > On 5/12/2013 12:56 PM, philo wrote:
    >> On 05/12/2013 11:38 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>
    >>> Cheap bastard!
    >>>
    >>> (that's a compliment for some people I know.)
    >>>
    >>>>

    >>
    >>
    >> <GRIN>
    >>
    >>
    >> Amazing what I do and do not spend money on...I am a bit of an enigma I
    >> guess.
    >>
    >> I buy most of my clothing 2nd hand at the Goodwill store near my
    >> house...most of the time a dress like a slob...
    >> but also have no problem spending a lot of money when I need to.
    >> Not only have I been known to buy an *expensive* suit on occasion...I
    >> even own a tux for fancy affairs.
    >>
    >>
    >> https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/336758_301637443196965_1918185778_o.jpg
    >>
    >>

    > You have a discinct resemblence to Groucho Marx.
    >


    And I have sarcastic humor like him too...

    only no cigar!
     
    philo , May 13, 2013
    #24
  5. philo 

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On 2013.05.12 13:07 , J. Clarke wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >>
    > >> On 2013.05.11 15:41 , Savageduck wrote:
    > >>> On 2013-05-11 09:26:27 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    > >>>
    > >>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 07:27:56 -0500, philo <philo@privcy.not> wrote:
    > >>>> : Just applied the above update to my wife's Win7 (64bit) machine and it
    > >>>> : broke CS6
    > >>>> :
    > >>>> : Uninstalled the update, rebooted and Photoshop is now working fine.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I guess you can't really expect Adobe to fix CS6 for you. But you can
    > >>>> rent its
    > >>>> replacement for the rest of your life. :^)
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Bob
    > >>>
    > >>> Wrong end of the problem Bob. Philo should have updated his wife's Win7
    > >>> by getting her a Mac. ;-)
    > >>>
    > >>> As far as Photoshop goes, I will be more than done with any further
    > >>> updates when Adobe stops a solid upgrade path. For now it appears there
    > >>> will be no CS7. So CS6 is the end of the road for me.
    > >>>
    > >>> Adobe is only doing the "Creative Cloud" thing to the CS Suite for now.
    > >>> So, until they kill it off I will continue to update Lightroom if the
    > >>> features/benefits outweigh to update cost.
    > >>>
    > >>> The LR - PS combo still fits my workflow comfortably
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> I'll stop at CS5 for PS. I don't have LR.
    > >>
    > >> I might even (shudder) get Aperture - though the reviews for it on the
    > >> Apple site aren't all that inspiring - maybe only bitchers comment?
    > >>
    > >> What Adobe are attempting do is insane pricewise.

    > >
    > > How? Retail on CS6 Master Collection was about $2500. At $50/month you
    > > can use it for about 5 years before you're up to the retail price. By
    > > the time five years have come along you'll probably be ready to upgrade
    > > to the next version, which upgrade would have cost $1200 or so, so now
    > > you're out to 7 years or so before you've spent more on rent than you
    > > would on purchase. I don't see this as being "insane".

    >
    > It may indeed work for people who use all aspects of it frequently. But
    > it's a poor model for amateurs to use.


    It doesn't just work for people who "use all aspects of it". Using two
    or three aspects of it is fine.

    > >> It occurs to me that it would not be offensive if they charged by unit
    > >> of work done by the rented software (say $1 / peta-flop of actual photo
    > >> processing). That way heavy users would pay more for it, and less heavy
    > >> users would pay proportionately less.
    > >>
    > >> It's insane to think the entire CS suite is on your computer - you can
    > >> only use 1 part of it at any time - and most of the time you aren't.
    > >> And Adobe wants to charge $600 / yr for that...

    > >
    > > How is that more insane than just charging $2500 up front for the same
    > > software?

    >
    > I can run the same install for 10 years if I choose. Or 20. Rental
    > model? No.


    You can run it, but in 20 years are you going to want to?

    > I can legally install CS5 on 2 machines. Rental model?


    The same.

    > (My home WinXP is 12 years old and for that matter was an upgrade from
    > Win-98. And I'll run it for as long as I need Windows on my Mac (for
    > the couple Windows apps I need, it's fine)).
    >
    >
    > >
    > >> What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly v. at
    > >> a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).

    > >
    > > A single-app membership is $19.99/month.

    >
    > Too much IMO. I'm at about $800 for CS3 + CS5 over 6+ years. That's
    > about $11/mo. But of course I had no intention of updating to CS6 and
    > will likely be running CS5 for another 5 years (at least). That would
    > be about $6 month.
    >
    > Yep. $10/mo would be acceptable.
    >
    > Again, I'd consider the rental model if it was work based and not
    > calendar based (eg: $1 per petaflop of photo processing work).


    Sounds like you're not really the target market.
     
    J. Clarke, May 13, 2013
    #25
  6. philo 

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:07:45 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:

    >
    > A single-app membership is $19.99/month.


    If buying this product is it for use on only ONE computer or only ONE OS.
    For me I'd say that buying such a thing should mean you can use it on as many computers as you own or use,provided you're only running one copy at a time.
    How often does it phone home or is it launched on-line in which case if I don;t have a network connection or a relible one then I can't use the software I'm renting.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 13, 2013
    #26
  7. philo 

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:07:45 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > A single-app membership is $19.99/month.

    >
    > If buying this product is it for use on only ONE computer or only ONE OS.
    > For me I'd say that buying such a thing should mean you can use it on as many computers as you own or use,provided you're only running one copy at a time.
    > How often does it phone home or is it launched on-line in which case if I don;t have a network connection or a relible one then I can't use the software I'm renting.


    "Yes, you can use Creative Cloud desktop applications on two computers
    at once, regardless of operating system, for the individual associated
    with the Creative Cloud membership. See the product license agreements
    page for more information."

    Whatever page you are on that mentions "buying" has nothing to do with
    Creative Cloud since you cannot buy Creative Cloud, only rent it.

    If you were actually researching instead of just parading your ignorance
    you would know that it phones home once a month.
     
    J. Clarke, May 13, 2013
    #27
  8. philo 

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/13/2013 6:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-05-13 14:26:27 -0700, Alan Browne
    > <> said:
    >
    >> On 2013.05.12 22:40 , J. Clarke wrote:
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> says...

    >>
    >>>>> How is that more insane than just charging $2500 up front for the same
    >>>>> software?
    >>>>
    >>>> I can run the same install for 10 years if I choose. Or 20. Rental
    >>>> model? No.
    >>>
    >>> You can run it, but in 20 years are you going to want to?

    >>
    >> I said 10 with 20 as an example of an outlier. For that matter I do
    >> have a few apps that are quite old and still very useful. (Including
    >> "CoolEdit" which I purchased for about $80 over 10 years ago. Adobe
    >> bought them out and sell the audio package for over $200. I'm quite
    >> pleased that I can keep using the v. from before they bought the co.).

    >
    > On my current Mac my 2001 edition of MS Office X still runs just fine
    > under OSX 10.6.8. That was first installed on my "Goose-neck lamp" G3 iMac.
    > MT-NW last updated in 2008, though long in the tooth, still works.
    >
    > Then PS CS2 is working OK on my G4 PB Pro 17'' (That won't run
    > CS3/4/5/6). That explained my upgrade to CS3 when I bought my Intel MBP
    > 17''.
    >
    >>>> I can legally install CS5 on 2 machines. Rental model?
    >>>
    >>> The same.

    >>
    >> Clarify.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> (My home WinXP is 12 years old and for that matter was an upgrade from
    >>>> Win-98. And I'll run it for as long as I need Windows on my Mac (for
    >>>> the couple Windows apps I need, it's fine)).
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly
    >>>>>> v. at
    >>>>>> a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A single-app membership is $19.99/month.
    >>>>
    >>>> Too much IMO. I'm at about $800 for CS3 + CS5 over 6+ years. That's
    >>>> about $11/mo. But of course I had no intention of updating to CS6 and
    >>>> will likely be running CS5 for another 5 years (at least). That would
    >>>> be about $6 month.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yep. $10/mo would be acceptable.
    >>>>
    >>>> Again, I'd consider the rental model if it was work based and not
    >>>> calendar based (eg: $1 per petaflop of photo processing work).
    >>>
    >>> Sounds like you're not really the target market.

    >>
    >> The whole notion of "renting" s/w is not my cup of tea. My use of s/w
    >> varies over time so paying rent for something not being used is not at
    >> all to my liking. Paying for use (work based) would be quite acceptable.
    >>
    >> When you rent, for example, a car, you're not only using it to do
    >> "work" but you're tying up capital when the vehicle is parked.
    >> Renting it by the day or week or whatever makes sense. (And whatever
    >> mileage charges or caps may be included).
    >>
    >> Renting s/w that is dormant on a machine at given time does not tie up
    >> any Adobe capital. So the notion of renting s/w by the calendar
    >> period is not all that logical for "part time" users.

    >
    > Agreed.
    > The rental model for S/W is not a good idea for the hobbyist.
    >


    Correct. However, renting makes sense for many businesses. Some of the
    advantages are:
    doesn't tie up capital;
    unless they are under a contract, there are no fixed liabilities that
    must be disclosed on the balance sheet;
    they may be able to vary the applications used on some periodic basis;
    (not sure though about that one;) and
    all payments are immediately tax deductible.

    I am not defending Adobe, indeed I signed a petition to allow a choice.
    Graphic houses, have far more influence on Adobe, than us casual users.
    OTOH we have more options to go elsewhere, if Adobe gets too frisky.

    I wonder how many here, who a pissing and moaning, have actually
    contacted Adobe to let their true feelings be known, in a manner that
    would convince Adobe that it would be to it's advantage to give us an
    option.
    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 14, 2013
    #28
  9. philo 

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <2013051310495350073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    >
    > On 2013-05-13 09:29:54 -0700, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >>
    > >> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:07:45 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>
    > >>> A single-app membership is $19.99/month.
    > >>
    > >> If buying this product is it for use on only ONE computer or only ONE OS.
    > >> For me I'd say that buying such a thing should mean you can use it on
    > >> as many computers as you own or use,provided you're only running one
    > >> copy at a time.
    > >> How often does it phone home or is it launched on-line in which case if
    > >> I don;t have a network connection or a relible one then I can't use the
    > >> software I'm renting.

    > >
    > > "Yes, you can use Creative Cloud desktop applications on two computers
    > > at once, regardless of operating system, for the individual associated
    > > with the Creative Cloud membership. See the product license agreements
    > > page for more information."
    > >
    > > Whatever page you are on that mentions "buying" has nothing to do with
    > > Creative Cloud since you cannot buy Creative Cloud, only rent it.
    > >
    > > If you were actually researching instead of just parading your ignorance
    > > you would know that it phones home once a month.

    >
    > ...and if you have failed to pay the "rent" through that period you
    > will be given notice of that failure with a demand for payment within a
    > specified period. Fail to meet that demand and the downloaded CC
    > modules will be disabled.


    You have 90 days before it deactivates.
     
    J. Clarke, May 14, 2013
    #29
  10. philo 

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On 2013.05.12 22:40 , J. Clarke wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...

    >
    > >>> How is that more insane than just charging $2500 up front for the same
    > >>> software?
    > >>
    > >> I can run the same install for 10 years if I choose. Or 20. Rental
    > >> model? No.

    > >
    > > You can run it, but in 20 years are you going to want to?

    >
    > I said 10 with 20 as an example of an outlier. For that matter I do
    > have a few apps that are quite old and still very useful. (Including
    > "CoolEdit" which I purchased for about $80 over 10 years ago. Adobe
    > bought them out and sell the audio package for over $200. I'm quite
    > pleased that I can keep using the v. from before they bought the co.).
    >
    > >
    > >> I can legally install CS5 on 2 machines. Rental model?

    > >
    > > The same.

    >
    > Clarify.


    You can install on two machines. I don't really see anything to
    clarify.

    > >> (My home WinXP is 12 years old and for that matter was an upgrade from
    > >> Win-98. And I'll run it for as long as I need Windows on my Mac (for
    > >> the couple Windows apps I need, it's fine)).
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>
    > >>>> What about those who just need photoshop? Will there be a monthly v. at
    > >>>> a reasonable rate? ($10.00 / month would be acceptable to me).
    > >>>
    > >>> A single-app membership is $19.99/month.
    > >>
    > >> Too much IMO. I'm at about $800 for CS3 + CS5 over 6+ years. That's
    > >> about $11/mo. But of course I had no intention of updating to CS6 and
    > >> will likely be running CS5 for another 5 years (at least). That would
    > >> be about $6 month.
    > >>
    > >> Yep. $10/mo would be acceptable.
    > >>
    > >> Again, I'd consider the rental model if it was work based and not
    > >> calendar based (eg: $1 per petaflop of photo processing work).

    > >
    > > Sounds like you're not really the target market.

    >
    > The whole notion of "renting" s/w is not my cup of tea. My use of s/w
    > varies over time so paying rent for something not being used is not at
    > all to my liking. Paying for use (work based) would be quite acceptable.
    >
    > When you rent, for example, a car, you're not only using it to do "work"
    > but you're tying up capital when the vehicle is parked. Renting it by
    > the day or week or whatever makes sense. (And whatever mileage charges
    > or caps may be included).
    >
    > Renting s/w that is dormant on a machine at given time does not tie up
    > any Adobe capital. So the notion of renting s/w by the calendar period
    > is not all that logical for "part time" users.


    But buying at Adobe prices isn't all that logical either.
     
    J. Clarke, May 14, 2013
    #30
  11. philo 

    Robert Coe Guest

    Re: PING DUCK: Re: KB2799926 warning

    On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:20:11 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    :
    : OK. The report [on "Organic Imaging"].
    :
    : The .dmg download was uneventful.
    : The installer is definitely a not what I would have expected of an
    : Apple compliant install. That said I went for the simplest install. The
    : two stage, two piece install is odd, but worked out in the end.
    : The App moved into the "Applications" folder, and the "Organic Imaging"
    : folder with all its contents ended up in my User folder.
    : Examining the "Organic Imaging" work files folder reveals it to be all Java.
    : The only RAW files it handles are Canon CR2.
    :
    : Here is the manual. This thing seems to be very Windowsish:
    : < http://www.organicimaging.com/sites/default/files/downloads/manual_en.pdf >
    : All it seems capable of is a set of basic
    : exposure/brightness/contrast/saturation adjustments.

    If that's all it does, and its only RAW mode is .CR2, you might as well use
    Canon's Digital Photo Professional. It does those things and more; it comes
    free with a Canon camera; and there's a version for the Mac (although I've
    used it only on Windows computers). It isn't perfect, but it does what it does
    pretty well. One thing it has, that some here have complained about other
    editors not having, is a very good aspect-ratio-based cropping tool.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 19, 2013
    #31
  12. philo 

    nospam Guest

    Re: PING DUCK: Re: KB2799926 warning

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > If that's all it does, and its only RAW mode is .CR2,


    it doesn't do *any* raw at all.
     
    nospam, May 19, 2013
    #32
  13. philo 

    Robert Coe Guest

    Re: PING DUCK: Re: KB2799926 warning

    On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:31:39 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : On 2013-05-19 05:25:32 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    :
    : > On Sun, 12 May 2013 12:20:11 -0700, Savageduck
    : > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : > :
    : > : OK. The report [on "Organic Imaging"].
    : > :
    : > : The .dmg download was uneventful.
    : > : The installer is definitely a not what I would have expected of an
    : > : Apple compliant install. That said I went for the simplest install. The
    : > : two stage, two piece install is odd, but worked out in the end.
    : > : The App moved into the "Applications" folder, and the "Organic Imaging"
    : > : folder with all its contents ended up in my User folder.
    : > : Examining the "Organic Imaging" work files folder reveals it to be all Java.
    : > : The only RAW files it handles are Canon CR2.
    : > :
    : > : Here is the manual. This thing seems to be very Windowsish:
    : > : < http://www.organicimaging.com/sites/default/files/downloads/manual_en.pdf >
    : > : All it seems capable of is a set of basic
    : > : exposure/brightness/contrast/saturation adjustments.
    : >
    : > If that's all it does, and its only RAW mode is .CR2, you might as
    : > well use Canon's Digital Photo Professional. It does those things and
    : > more; it comes free with a Canon camera; and there's a version for
    : > the Mac (although I've used it only on Windows computers). It isn't
    : > perfect, but it does what it does pretty well. One thing it has, that
    : > some here have complained about other editors not having, is a very
    : > good aspect-ratio-based cropping tool.
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : If all you have available and don't want to spend additional $$$, then
    : DPP will get your images through RAW(CR2) conversion and some
    : adjustment. I have a copy which came with my G11, and I have used it,
    : and I can confirm that it works. However, when compared with what is
    : available for the Mac other than Photoshop it is not a great performer.
    : Both Lightroom and PSE are far superior to DPP and I would use either
    : of those, separately or together before depending on DPP.

    DPP has evolved considerably over the several years I've been using it. I
    don't know enough about Lightroom to question your conclusion, but any
    comments regarding DPP should be based on familiarity with the most recent
    version.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 19, 2013
    #33
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Um9k?=

    Firewall warning keeps coming up...

    =?Utf-8?B?Um9k?=, Jun 8, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,528
    kapil [MSFT]
    Jun 9, 2005
  2. Quivis
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,430
    Quivis
    Oct 5, 2003
  3. Shorty

    Security warning from Mozilla?

    Shorty, Oct 23, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    955
    Leonidas Jones
    Oct 23, 2004
  4. Captain Infinity

    Turn off security warning?

    Captain Infinity, May 22, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,531
  5. Charles

    Warning: WARNING

    Charles, Aug 15, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    4,727
    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Brian_H=B9=A9?=
    Aug 16, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page