Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Lightroom and Elements
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
Dec 17, 2018 21:08:49   #
WiscJim Loc: Dousman, WI
 
I know it seems like they're holding you hostage. I have drifted to using other PP software and still have my old CS6 that I use occasionally. Instead of getting upset with the toll charges, think how much we used to spend on film. It kind of puts it into a different perspective.

Reply
Dec 17, 2018 21:52:33   #
IDguy Loc: Idaho
 
selmslie wrote:
I doubt that. Nikon has no reason to redesign the entire nef specification for each camera. The physical differences in sensor characteristics including the sensor dimensions are already covered by constants embedded in the nef file using standard Nikon tags.

It's more likely that a nef from a Z7 and Z6 is otherwise identical to one from a D850, D750 or even a crop sensor Nikon or Nikon 1.

Maybe someone would like to prove that by trying to process a nef from a Z6 or Z7 using Capture NX2 or Picture Window Pro. Or they can PM me a copy of a nef from any Nikon model released after 2015 and I will see if I can open it with either program. If I can I will be happy to post the results.
I doubt that. Nikon has no reason to redesign the... (show quote)


I can tell you my Lightroom 6 will not import my Z6 nef images. And Adobe refuses to allow me to download the fix.

Reply
Dec 17, 2018 22:19:54   #
f8lee Loc: New Mexico
 
tschuler wrote:



The intellectual property paradigm is similar between software and books, music, movies, etc. As a software engineer, there is one particular thing in the paradigm not shared with the software industry. For any of the software that I produce and then is marketed by my company, I do not get any royalties for each copy of the software program sold or for each time the software is used.


I thought that when you work for a company the product you create is owned by that company, similar to how (as I understand it) the copyright for shots taken by a photographer working for NatGeo (not a stringer, but a full time shooter back in the day) belong to his or her employer, NatGeo.

Reply
 
 
Dec 17, 2018 22:26:08   #
Bobwire1939
 
About a year ago I got fed up with Photoshop and PS Elements and went to Affinity Photo and have never looked back. It is cheap ($50.00) and no subscription I like it much more than Adobe.

Reply
Dec 17, 2018 22:32:14   #
Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey
 
mikeroetex wrote:
Your post makes no sense. Files from a D7200 won't be read by a 2008 version of LR, so you must have been paying for upgrades and not saving that $600. Why are you using Elements 14 and not Elements 9? Oops, won't read D7200 files? had to upgrade? That $600 disappeared a long time ago.

Then I suggest you read again. I did not say I did not update, but I do not update all the time often skipping the latest and the greatest if I do not need it. The cost of this has been about $900 over 16 years as opposed to $2000 I would have paid had it been subscription based from the get go. The combination of what I have now, LR6 and Elements 14 will process this camera for the length of it's life. So if in 5 years I need a new camera I will shop around for software or may take the subscription. This saves me about $600 in subscription fees. If you want to subscribe be my guest, but not all of us care for that model.

Reply
Dec 17, 2018 23:47:58   #
TucsonDave Loc: Tucson, Arizona
 
Bobwire1939 wrote:
About a year ago I got fed up with Photoshop and PS Elements and went to Affinity Photo and have never looked back. It is cheap ($50.00) and no subscription I like it much more than Adobe.


I started with Affinity Photo and have no issues. I am only a part time user of my camera and its lens and just got into post processing this year. I can see where more active photographers would like the subscription models. There are a lot of options. Look at a few and go with one. If it doesn't suite you after trying it out for a while, go to another. Have fun at the very least.

Reply
Dec 18, 2018 01:35:02   #
tschuler
 
f8lee wrote:
I thought that when you work for a company the product you create is owned by that company, similar to how (as I understand it) the copyright for shots taken by a photographer working for NatGeo (not a stringer, but a full time shooter back in the day) belong to his or her employer, NatGeo.


Exactly right. BUT, the author has his book published by a publishing house, a musician has his CD cut by a recording company, and an actor has his movie filmed by a motion picture studio. Their work is distributed by another company.

Yes, an author can publish a book by himself and collect the profits. But that would be akin to me working for myself and writing the software and trying to sell it on my own. The reason I work for a company and an author goes to a publishing house, a musician to a recording company, and an actor to the motion picture studio is to get our work out to the public in a mass way because that is what they are professionally able to do. The authors, musicians, actors, etc. who are collecting royalties are not distributing their work on their own.

Why doesn't the publishing house say to the author, "We will pay you X amount for your novel, and then we will own your novel and collect the profits from the sales of the book"? Diddo for the musician, actor, etc.

Reply
 
 
Dec 18, 2018 09:18:50   #
f8lee Loc: New Mexico
 
tschuler wrote:
Exactly right. BUT, the author has his book published by a publishing house, a musician has his CD cut by a recording company, and an actor has his movie filmed by a motion picture studio. Their work is distributed by another company.

Yes, an author can publish a book by himself and collect the profits. But that would be akin to me working for myself and writing the software and trying to sell it on my own. The reason I work for a company and an author goes to a publishing house, a musician to a recording company, and an actor to the motion picture studio is to get our work out to the public in a mass way because that is what they are professionally able to do. The authors, musicians, actors, etc. who are collecting royalties are not distributing their work on their own.

Why doesn't the publishing house say to the author, "We will pay you X amount for your novel, and then we will own your novel and collect the profits from the sales of the book"? Diddo for the musician, actor, etc.
Exactly right. BUT, the author has his book publi... (show quote)


I dunno - maybe because the music or publishing companies don't hire singers and writers to put on the weekly payroll (with all the ancillary costs that entails) in the hopes that they will produce a big blockbuster? If you are taking a regular salary you assume no risk. If I am a starving artist with dreams that I will make it big, I assume all the risk (and may starve to death while doing so). That might explain it.

Reply
Dec 18, 2018 12:43:52   #
tschuler
 
f8lee wrote:
I dunno - maybe because the music or publishing companies don't hire singers and writers to put on the weekly payroll (with all the ancillary costs that entails) in the hopes that they will produce a big blockbuster? If you are taking a regular salary you assume no risk. If I am a starving artist with dreams that I will make it big, I assume all the risk (and may starve to death while doing so). That might explain it.


Just because one works for a company doesn't mean you take no risk. Have you ever heard of layoffs? Our industry has experienced many companies with many layoffs. I myself was laid off. Hundreds of companies in the software industry have gone under.

Reply
Dec 18, 2018 23:40:46   #
f8lee Loc: New Mexico
 
tschuler wrote:
Just because one works for a company doesn't mean you take no risk. Have you ever heard of layoffs? Our industry has experienced many companies with many layoffs. I myself was laid off. Hundreds of companies in the software industry have gone under.


Sure, life itself has risks. Have you ever driven a car? Flown in a plane? Eaten romaine lettuce?

The point is, when you work for a company you get paid whether or not you come up with the next "big thing" - until they fire you or lay you off. But while they are paying you, your work product belongs to them,

If you don't like that arrangement, nobody is holding a gun to your head...just hang out your own shingle and go free lance - and invent the next big thing solo. Or is that too risky?

Reply
Dec 20, 2018 13:05:04   #
Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal
 
I personally don't like the subscription method. Sell me the DVDs, it's MINE! Give me upgrades.
Then again, this is still a heckova deal.
Anybody else here buy CS3? For *how* much? Then the "discounted" upgrade CS4 price was *what*?
I actually prefer Elements. PhotoShop and Premiere. PS Elements is $79- plus Socal %9.875 tax. Hmm
For @ $2.75 more per month (for me) I can has both LR and PS and all upgrades instead. Hmm.
I'll still have my "old" PS Elements 15.
Next year, after my Xmas decisions have been amortized, I'll decide.

Reply
 
 
Dec 23, 2018 10:38:37   #
topcat Loc: Alameda, CA
 
richandtd wrote:
Due to my refusal to pay the monthly tax that Adobe wants to charge my system which currently has the stand alone Lightroom 6 installed will have Elements 19 when it gets here. I’ve read all the wonderful positive remarks about the monthly tax but I just can not justify continually paying Adobe. Personally I think it is a money grabber game that Adobe has gone to. Anyway just ranting about what I consider an unnecessary tax.



Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.