 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> But is that because that's the UI they're used to?
Apparently not. The UI was designed to make the whole flow from beginning to
end more efficient.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/3/2010 1:16 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> While it *is* truly amazing - to the point of being frightening - the
> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
> copy of Photoshop in the first place. Last time I checked, it's
> jaw-droppingly expensive...
I have owned Photoshop since CS2... The first purchase cost less than my
first serious telephoto zoom lens :) And I'm mostly normal :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/4/2010 5:43 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:35:47 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
> spake thusly:
>
>> What *does* annoy me is software which is both expensive *and*
>> defective...
>
> and on that note I just flicked to a webcomic in which the author states
> it was the first time he'd done one entirely with CS5 and it crashed
> five times.
>
Yeah... I'm expecting an update soon. It appears to hemorrhage memory
like mad. Though it hasn't crashed. I sat down the other morning to a
very angry Windows 7 complaining that Photoshop needed to be closed to
free some memory.
I popped over to process explorer and took a look: Private Bytes: 11
Gig...
so, now I restart it occasionally while working with it. ;)
I will say with regard to hobby that Photoshop and Visual studio are
probably used pretty frequently by serious hobbyists in their respective
fields.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> I have owned Photoshop since CS2... The first purchase cost less than my
> first serious telephoto zoom lens :)
OK, those really *are* expensive!
lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
> And I'm mostly normal :)
You're in povray.off-topic and you seriously expect us to believe you're
*normal*?? :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
> > I have owned Photoshop since CS2... The first purchase cost less than my
> > first serious telephoto zoom lens :)
>
> OK, those really *are* expensive!
>
> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
I think it's well worth it, but still amusing anyway! :)
> > And I'm mostly normal :)
>
> You're in povray.off-topic and you seriously expect us to believe you're
> *normal*?? :-P
Bingo! :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 09:07:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>>>> the
>>>>> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
>>>>> copy of Photoshop in the first place.
>>>> £361.58 on buy.com.
>>> I thought it was a lot more than that. Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of the
>>> whole "creative suite" rather than just Photoshop.
>>
>> That was the pricing on Creative Suite 4. Photoshop on its own is less
>> expensive - I figured you were thinking of the most expensive option,
>> so that's what I looked for (the most expensive version of Photoshop I
>> could find).
>>
>> How much did you think it was?
>
> ebuyer.com, Adobe Creative Suite 4, Complete Package, Windows: £1,502.62
That's what happens if you don't shop around - you end up paying a
ridiculous price for a product. ;-)
> If that doesn't make you feel slightly dizzy, I don't know what will...
I know I'd feel kinda dumb if I paid that much for it knowing that I
could get it for £361.58.
> (Weirdly enough, I can't seem to see a price for just Photoshop by
> itself, only Photoshop Elements is listed - or student versions, which
> obviously has totally different pricing.)
Yeah, I noticed that as well.
>>>> Windows Server 2008 by comparison is £631.22 on buy.com for a 5-user
>>>> CAL.
>>> Fortunately, unless you run a server, you don't need this product. (In
>>> other words, your employer is going to pay for it, not you.)
>>
>> That's frequently the case for users of Adobe Photoshop as well -
>> especially CS: The people who tend to use it are the pros, not the
>> hobbiest user.
>
> Well, yeah, there is that. It's not the package I'd choose to go out and
> buy. Then again, Mike apparently did...
Well, yeah, I have PhotoShop Elements, but it doesn't really run well
under WINE. I prefer the GIMP anyways.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:59:06 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (It still amuses me that I can buy a £200 camera and attach a £7,000
> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
Actually, my understanding from many professional photographers is that
that actually does make sense. The mechanics of a camera are pretty
simple, but the lens is what focuses the light and a poor quality lens
makes for poor quality photos.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:59:06 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> (It still amuses me that I can buy a £200 camera and attach a £7,000
>> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
>
> Actually, my understanding from many professional photographers is that
> that actually does make sense. The mechanics of a camera are pretty
> simple, but the lens is what focuses the light and a poor quality lens
> makes for poor quality photos.
Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not attach
it to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Wouldn't
that be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio just
to record the sound of a broken music box?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not at
tach
> it to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Woul
dn't
> that be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio jus
t
> to record the sound of a broken music box?
No, because the megapixels don't make or break the image. Unless you're
taking photos intended to be blown up to beyond poster size and then view
ed
from inches away, the pixel count is irrelevant.
The lens, however, lets you take pictures you wouldn't otherwise be able
to
take. Even a small quality change in the lens adds or removes an hour eac
h
day that you can take natural light pictures, or pictures that aren't
motion-blurred, or etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not attach
>> it to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Wouldn't
>> that be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio
>> just to record the sound of a broken music box?
>
> No, because the megapixels don't make or break the image. Unless you're
> taking photos intended to be blown up to beyond poster size and then
> viewed from inches away, the pixel count is irrelevant.
>
> The lens, however, lets you take pictures you wouldn't otherwise be able
> to take. Even a small quality change in the lens adds or removes an hour
> each day that you can take natural light pictures, or pictures that
> aren't motion-blurred, or etc.
I realise the lense is important. My mum has an 8 MP camera, and it
takes crap pictures compared to my lowly 3 MP camera. I'm sure it's
because hime has a 45 mm lense and hers has a 4.5 mm lense.
Still, the higher model cameras have presumably superior image sensors,
more sophisticated controls, and so on and so forth. If you've got £7k
to spend on a mere lense, why not buy the most possible camera to go
with it?
(And anyway, the £7k lense is only expensive because it's a zoom lense.
Like, you can be in Africa and take photos of stuff in Austalia. The
normal lenses for photographing everyday stuff aren't nearly that
expensive - although they aren't cheap either...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
