Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory
Comments on the Creative Suite 2 Release
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:00:27 -0400
From: Ric Cohn
Subject: pscs2
Considering the chatter out there about CS2 I'm
surprised there's been no comments here. While it looks like a nice upgrade
and, as for myself, I'll move up after the dust settles, I don't see
anything about CMYK changes. Is there anything I've missed that would
address any of the issues raised here in the past about the RGB>CMYK
conversion engine? Is it time to accept the fact that Adobe won't act in
this area and that this needs to be addressed by 3rd party programs or
plug-ins?
If I were to invest in a program that would give me
this control what would it be? Any other wish list items that weren't
addressed for users on this list?
Ric Cohn
_________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:45:56 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: pscs2
On 4/7/05 12:00 PM, "Ric Cohn" wrote:
Considering the chatter out there about CS2 I'm
surprised there's been
no comments here. While it looks like a nice upgrade
and, as for
myself, I'll move up after the dust settles, I
don't see anything
about CMYK changes.
There is nothing. Print with Preview has been
redesigned. You can print separations (a CMYK file to four files) in this
newer version. Nothing has (nor ever well) change with the 3Classic2 CMYK
engine. It1s a relic of pre-5.0 days and while I try to never say never, I
doubt you1ll see any changes to it (other than perhaps some day getting
pulled).
Is there anything I've missed that would address
any of the issues raised here in the past about the
RGB>CMYK conversion
engine?
Just as flakey as it1s ever been.
Is it time to accept the fact that Adobe won't act in
this area
and that this needs to be addressed by 3rd party
programs or plug-ins?
No, the application since version 5 has worked with
ICC profiles for just about everything to do with color and that will
continue.
Assign Profile and Convert to Profile have moved menu
locations. The soft proof has some newer names for popup menus. Otherwise
the functionality is the same. You can new see the working space of your
documents in the Info palette which is n ice.
If I were to invest in a program that would give me
this control what
would it be?
Control over what? If you have software to build your
own CMYK profiles, you have all the control you need (depending on the
software). Photoshop will use those profiles as you1ve specified.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 22:55:34 -0400
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: pscs2
Ric Cohn writes,
Considering the chatter out there about CS2 I'm
surprised there's been no comments here.
I would suspect that folks are finalizing their views
about it. People often change their opinions about the value of certain
features during the beta period. I'll probably post something next week but
there are still some features that I'm retesting to make sure that I'm not
missing anything.
Is there anything I've missed that would address any
of the issues raised here in the past about the RGB>CMYK conversion
engine?
No.
Is it time to accept the fact that Adobe won't act in
this area and that this needs to be addressed by 3rd party programs or
plug-ins?
Adobe is unlikely to act while the present Photoshop
team structure is in place. However, one can always hope that changes in
attitude or changes in personnel will occur.
As for third party programs, it has not been
demonstrated that they are any better than Custom CMYK, and they certainly
aren't as convenient.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:02:30 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Comments on Creative Suite 2
The following comments went out in my newsletter this
morning.
Dan Margulis
***********************
ON UPGRADING SOFTWARE
I first began using Adobe Illustrator in 1988. At that
time, the entire program fit on a floppy disk, unstuffed. You just dragged
it to the hard disk and started work.
We are now, with the announcement of Adobe's Creative
Suite 2 on Monday, April 4, at Illustrator 12. The application is now
almost 200 megs, and can't be run without massive computing power.
The temptation is to say that after three or four
upgrades most everything that is obviously wrong has been repaired and that
eventually you run out of new features to add. That's not quite true: new
technologies come along and need to be addressed. Photoshop's Camera Raw
was added in Photoshop CS not because the programming team was too stupid
to think of putting it in prior versions, but because the need for it had
not yet arisen. Similarly, certain features only become possible with
today's computers. Several Photoshop and Illustrator filters would have
been out of the question ten or even five years ago, not because they
weren't useful but because they simply couldn't have run fast enough for
anybody to want to deploy them.
That being said, however, upgrades are becoming more
difficult to justify, as the list of meritorious features to add
grows shorter, and the complexity of the software (and hence the difficulty
of developing it without crippling bugs) grows ever greater. Yet the
software companies depend on revenue from frequent upgrades. This is one
area in which the vendor and the buyer's interest diverge: the buyer wants
to buy an upgrade when there's a good one to be bought; the vendor wants to
sell one at a specific time, ready or not, valuable or not, leading often
to some of the following:
*The pressure to ship is so great that sometimes the
vendor ships such shoddy, bug-filled product that the user is better off
with the previous version. Examples: Quark 4.0, Illustrator 9.0.
*In a vain effort to justify an "upgrade"
that has no other good reason for existing, interfaces are designed
wholesale so that the vendor can hype workflow efficiency. Meanwhile, users
pull out their hair with frustration. Example: Illustrator 7.
*Because of deadline pressures, important features can
get dropped if they become buggy--even if they existed in the preceding
version. Example: GoLive CS.
*Granted that any new feature probably appeals only to
a minority (or else it would long since have been addressed) it's often
hard to sneak it in without overburdening the program and making it worse
for the majority. Example of doing it right: Camera Raw in Photoshop CS.
Example of doing it wrong: color management in Photoshop 5.
Valuable upgrades are still offered from time to time:
Photoshop 6, and Photoshop CS/Mac spring to mind. But an irritatingly high
number are not upgrades at all--they're sidegrades, or even downgrades.
Users realize this, and are more reluctant to commit to buying them. The
last times I've spoken at Photoshop World and Seybold, I've polled the
audience as to what version of Photoshop they use. Granted that by their
very attendance at the show they indicate that they're not afraid to spend
money, I was surprised by the results: around 10% are at Photoshop 5 or
earlier, with the remaining 90% divided about equally between Photoshops 6,
7, and CS.
Also, increasingly people have learned to pull the
trigger until an upgrade has been out for a while. Getting bitten by being
the first kid on the block to try out inadequately tested upgrades is an
experience most do not wish to repeat (example: those who loaded the first
version of Mac OX 10.3, and thereby fried their FireWire external drives).
Even after waiting, a certain amount of doggedness is
needed to find out the truth. The vendors, of course, hype their products;
it's been a while since any revision has been released without a claim that
it's the greatest advance in graphic arts since the birth of Michelangelo.
"Reviews" in the trade press might as well be (and sometimes in
fact are) written by the public relations staffs of the vendors. Any
product emanating from a major advertiser that only gets four-and-a-half
stars is seriously flawed; a rating of four stars probably means that there
the product can't even be booted up or that it inflicts some kind of
collateral damage on the system. Things like the extremely unpopular
activation scheme of Photoshop CS/Windows, now extended to all CS2
products, don't even get mentioned.
Worse, comments of "independent" experts are
highly suspect, particularly about Photoshop: some of them have exceedingly
incestuous relations with Adobe. No ethical line exists as to how close the
relationship needs to be before it should be divulged, but there are some
cases of outright shilling, where the relationship has become in effect one
of servant and master.
I and others have criticized Adobe's management
decision to upgrade all of its applications simultaneously, every 18
months, rather than just giving Creative Suite users an option to purchase
the next upgrades in advance, whenever they happen to be released. The
objection is not so much that 18 months is too short in this day and age,
which it is, as that requiring five independent teams to have a product
ready to ship on the same day is a recipe for disaster.
Acrobat 7 has been available for months now, but you
can't buy it as a Creative Suite upgrade until the remaining four apps are
ready. Once, say, two other apps are ready, the pressure is going to be
overwhelming on the other two. Especially today, it's only to be expected
that one or more of the programming teams is going to run into some
problems that can't be solved by the desired shipment date. In that case,
everybody would want the affected team to just say, look, we don't have
enough confidence in this software to ship it just yet, we're very sorry,
but we need six more weeks.
Unfortunately, they're not going to get permission to
take those six more weeks if they're holding up the release of four other
applications in the process. Several of the problems associated with this
policy manifest themselves in Photoshop CS2.
ON PHOTOSHOP CS2
The Convert to Profile, Assign Profile, and Color
Settings commands, which many people use several times a day, have been in
the same place since Photoshop 6. It was convenient for Adobe to move them
in CS2, so that they would reside in approximately the same places in all
Adobe applications. But it was not convenient for Photoshop users, who
often have to move back and forth between versions and do not appreciate
the moment of hesitation that it causes when looking for such commands.
While one can certainly live with this particular
issue, it is symptomatic of Photoshop CS2--long on changes for the
convenience of Adobe, short on changes that affect image processing, which
used to be the purpose of the program, and medium on changes that make our
workflow more efficient without necessarily making for better-quality
images. Here are some of the highlights and lowlights.
1. EXIT THE FILE BROWSER.
The File Browser was the most useful feature
introduced in Photoshop 7. It was substantially improved in Photoshop CS.
For the convenience of Adobe in marketing the Creative Suite, but to the
considerable inconvenience of the user, it has now been dropped altogether.
A new standalone application known as Bridge, not part of Photoshop itself,
is roughly intended to be a File Browser for all CS applications
simultaneously. It has a few new features that are of interest to small
minorities, such as the ability to batch-open Camera Raw files, or to
infinitesimal minorities, such as being able to embed more metadata.
Assuming that you don't specifically need the new
features, the move is a step backward. Bridge is slow. Being a separate
app, you have to keep booting it up, as opposed to using the File Browser,
which comes up instantaneously, and Bridge is significantly slower in
gathering data. Worse, I am unable to tell you that I think Bridge is
currently stable enough for a responsible software vendor to ship it. I
refer to bombs, strange behavior, and loss of stored data.
Now, a BIG WARNING. That last comment is based on beta
software. I've run several versions of CS2, but I haven't had much
experience with the most current beta version. I have spoken to other beta
users with different hardware configurations, though, and they echo what
I'm seeing currently.
Be that as it may, work on Bridge is continuing. It is
entirely possible that everything may be copasetic when the product
actually ships. Monitor on-line groups to find out. If Bridge's performance
is all that bad, it won't take long for the world to know. If people like
it, you'll know that rapidly as well.
Even if stable, I doubt that Bridge can be made to be
as speedy as File Browser for this release. For that reason, File Browser
should have been retained in Photoshop CS2, with Bridge running alongside
if if the user wanted. Bridge certainly has potential and it would not be
surprising if in CS3 Bridge is incontestably better than the File Browser
in CS. However, we're concerned with the here and now. The best we can hope
for CS2 seems to be something that emulates File Browser well, adds a few
capabilities, but is slightly slower. The worst possible case is something
that is *much* slower and is buggy.
Everyone hopes that the Bridge is going to be robust
and problem-free when it finally ships. But, suppose it still has problems?
Whoever is brave enough to suggest that it should be held is really putting
his job on the line, because if Bridge can't ship, neither can Photoshop,
or any other CS2 application. Forget that. The thing is going to ship,
buggy or not. We can only watch, wait, and hope for the best.
If Adobe should unleash unfinished software as a
matter of convenience, that IMHO would be a bigger outrage than the
following item--the one that has irate users burning up the on-line groups
with negative commentary.
2. PRODUCT ACTIVATION.
Aggressive copy protection ("activation")
was introduced in Photoshop CS for Windows only. A significant group of
users was and is quite upset about it. A constant complaint was that PC
users were being discriminated against. Therefore, for the convenience of
Adobe in deflecting this criticism, but to the great inconvenience of the
user, activation is now required not just for Photoshop/Windows, but for
the entire CS2 suite, on Macintosh as well.
The activation software is written not by Adobe but a
third party. When you first install, you are prompted to activate, which is
quick and easy if you have a Web connection. If you don't do it, the
software will die in 30 days. The activation locks the software to your
machine; every time you boot Photoshop up the activation is checked to
verify that you haven't drag-copied it to some other machine.
You are allowed to activate twice, so you can have a
copy on your laptop and on your business machine. However, you cannot
install and activate a third copy elsewhere without going to Adobe to ask
permission. Users of Photoshop CS/Windows who wanted to buy a new computer,
for example, couldn't throw the old one away and move Photoshop to the new
one unless they could talk some Adobe CSR into blessing it.
The CS2 activation scheme avoids this scenario. You
can now de-activate your own software on the Web. That disables Photoshop
on that machine, but allows another installation on another. But even with
CS2, you still have to beg someone at Adobe to allow you to use your own
software if something happens that prevents you from de- and re-activating
(like, you forget to deactivate before installing new hardware, or somebody
steals your laptop, or your hard disk dies, or Photoshop ceases to function
for other reasons.)
In principle, once you activate, you should never have
to worry about it again. In practice, a significant number of users
indicate that they have had to. The activation software is paranoid: many
things, such as system crashes, power spikes, defragmentations of hard
disks, and installation of unrelated software, are known to cause it to
fail. When it does, it deactivates Photoshop--no grace period, no
questions, no warning, no more Photoshop. Reactivating can in principle
either be done quickly on the Web, or, if you have a time and patience, by
calling Adobe. If you happen to be shooting in Death Valley or in
Anza-Borrego like I have been, not just hours away from Internet access but
also beyond the reach of cellular telephones, you are SOL.
For more than ten years, I've been suggesting that
users avoid applications, where possible, that use this type of time-bomb
protection, because it is proven unreliable over the long term. I say this
based on considerable personal experience with such protected software. In
each case, the vendor involved was just as earnest as and used almost
exactly the same language that Adobe does today: it isn't inconvenient, it
won't hassle the innocent user, it's foolproof, it won't be broken by
future developments.
And, so far, what has happened with the activation
that was put on Photoshop CS/Windows follows exactly the pattern one might
expect.
1) In at least 50% of cases the
activation works flawlessly. That's been my experience with the CS2 beta. I
activated once and never heard about the subject again.
2) In maybe 40% of cases the
activation does not work flawlessly, in that it occasionally deactivates
the software for no valid reason. However, *provided that there is constant
access to the Internet* the user is not seriously inconvenienced, because
reactivating on the web takes ten seconds, provided that whatever error
caused the deactivation doesn't also prevent reactivation.
3) In something like 10% of cases
there has been a more serious inconvenience. Part of this was due to the
necessity of contacting Adobe for permission to do things like install
additional peripherals; a problem theoretically taken care of in Photoshop
CS2 by the ability to deactivate before installing something new. Part was
user error, doing something like obliterating a crucial file that would
mandate reinstalling Photoshop, and thus would require Adobe's permission.
Part was due to events that neither the user nor Adobe can control (laptop
is stolen; hardware failure prevents installed copy from working), and
would again require Adobe's permission for you to reinstall your own
software. And part was due to defects in the protection software that
apparently only occur in certain rare circumstances (Photoshop must be
reactivated a wildly excessive number of times; activation drops in
mid-use; activation cannot be accomplished at all.)
As you can guess by reading my travel itinerary, I am
one of the people who do not have constant access to the Internet. During
2004, I'd guess that there were a good eight weeks during which I only had
sporadic, expensive, and unreliable connections. Plus, even if the
protection software itself does not malfunction, I have had three incidents
in the last two years that would have required contacting Adobe for
permission to reinstall my own software. Two of these occurred while I was
outside of the United States, both hardware failures that required
replacement of components that would cause the activation software to
assume that I had changed computers and therefore refuse me permission to
use Photoshop. The third occurred when a beta version of unrelated software
disabled one of my Creative Suite apps, forcing me to reinstall it from
scratch, which I could not have done were activation in effect. In none of
these cases would the new activation scheme of CS2 been helpful.
One of my students did these stories one better. He
also travels to remote sites, and found his Photoshop CS was disabled by a
glitch in the activation software during a shoot on an island in which
there is not only no internet but also no telephone service. He had to
reach Adobe by radiotelephone at God knows what cost.
This user, not wishing to repeat the experience, did
what many people in similar situations do. He, er, how shall I put this,
found a permanent solution to the problem of Photoshop CS deactivating
itself. I am not going to go into further details, except to say that the
professional software pirates are ecstatic that Adobe is getting them so
many new customers--people who under no other circumstances would be
considering their warez.
If you *do* have constant access to the Web, the
chances of you not being inconvenienced by activation-at least for another
year or so-are, I would guess, 90 to 95 percent. These are excellent odds
if you are playing poker, not such great odds if you are undergoing
surgery, nor when they affect the operation of software on which your
living depends. Also, they get worse as time goes on.
Somewhere around the time that Photoshop CS3 is
introduced, Microsoft will launch a new operating system called Longhorn.
If you own Photoshop CS/Windows, you'll have to call up and get Adobe's
permission to install Longhorn, as otherwise it will constitute a change of
computer and deactivate your software. However, it is far from obvious that
Photoshop CS will work at all under Longhorn. The underlying program itself
can almost certainly still run, just as older Mac software works in Classic
mode under OSX. Unfortunately, CS requires an OK from the protection
software before it launches, and such software has a poor record of
surviving major changes in OS. One of the reasons that OSX/Macintosh was so
slow to catch on in the graphic arts community was that many high-end users
*couldn't* switch. Their protection software, which their vendors had, just
like Adobe does today, assured them was foolproof and would work forever,
could not be reconciled with OS X's Classic mode.
Obviously, Adobe has no clue whether Photoshop
CS/Windows will function under Longhorn--the CS protection scheme was
hatched in early 2002, more than three years before Longhorn will actually
ship. Nevertheless, Adobe is assuring us that software that it did not
write is going to work flawlessly under an operating system that its
authors had never seen.
CS2 applications will work under the forthcoming Mac
OS 10.4 (Tiger), of which Adobe has prerelease copies. When Mac OS 11
ships, it's an entirely different story. Adobe has no more idea whether its
activation scheme will work at that point than you or I would. If Adobe
were serious about how its protection scheme will continue to operate well
into the future, it would post a bond to guarantee that users who could not
update their OS due to activation issues could get their money back.
Even saying that you are never going to upgrade your
OS, there are no guarantees that the software will continue to function for
as long as you want it to. As noted in the start of this newsletter, many
people do not upgrade for more than five years at a time. I myself am one
of them--in my office, I use two legal copies of Photoshop. One is
nominally CS, the other is Photoshop 6, which I acquired in 2000. The
reason I use Photoshop 6 is not that I am too cheap to buy a second copy of
CS, but rather that I think it is more reliable than later software in
certain key areas. I use Photoshop CS for most preliminary work because of
several advantages it has over Photoshop 6, but I save final files out of
Photoshop 6. I never use my legal copy of Photoshop 7 because for the
purposes of my work, Photoshop 7 was a downgrade from Photoshop 6.
Therefore, during the CS2 beta period, I have shoved
aside not Photoshop 6, but rather my copy of Photoshop CS. I anticipate
that I will continue to use Photoshop 6 daily until at least Photoshop CS3,
which is presumably late 2006/early 2007, seven years after its purchase.
Will someone be able to use Photoshop CS2 for seven
years if need be? It depends on at least three things. First, will Adobe
even be in business in 2012; second, will they be willing to continue to
activate very old software; third, will they be *able* to do so even if
they wish to?
As for the first, I expect Adobe will still be here in
2012, but you never know. The more pressing issue is whether the company
that Adobe contracted with to write this protection software will still be
around. If not, it won't matter whether Adobe wants to support the
product--they won't be able to.
As for the second, if the current Adobe management
team is still in charge in 2012, I very much doubt that it would think
about charging for or refusing to reactivate older software or about using
the reactivation process for some nefarious purpose. Unfortunately, nobody
knows who will be running Adobe in 2012. And, as we have seen all too
frequently recently, many corporate executives lose a lot of their ethical
sensibilities when increasing revenue is a possibility.
In the 1980s, I had a personal experience with an
industry-leading company whose ethical reputation was as least as good as
Adobe's is today. They introduced a new type of protection software with
the usual pious assurances that honest users would not be inconvenienced. A
few months after it was implemented, the company secretly modified it so
that its accounting department could deactivate the software remotely. When
pressed, they again used much the same soothing language we hear today.
"We're only enforcing our contractual rights. We won't turn your
software off unless we decide that your company owes us money, and you
should trust us to not to do it unfairly. The honest user has nothing to
worry about." The hidden feature came to light only when the company
inadvertently deactivated the entire network of one of its larger
customers, causing tens of thousands of dollars of damage which it
eventually had to make good.
The third is the killer. The chances are very poor
that this activation software will function at all in the 2012 environment.
If it doesn't, neither will Photoshop CS2.
The negatives of copy protection are so well known,
and so many users are howling about it, that Adobe has gone into a full
defensive mode. Its shills have been bombarding newsgroups with the same
line, over and over. It could have been worse! Adobe did not have to put in
this new feature whereby you can deactivate one installation and then
install another. It could have been *much* worse! The software could have
been even less reliable than the CS version was, and the Adobe customer
service folk could be like those of Quark, who assume that the user is a
pirate until proven otherwise. It could have been much, much worse!
Even more annoying than the notion that we should buy
product because it could be much, much worse is the implication that we
support piracy if we don't do so. These protection packages are most
necessary when the software itself is either so expensive or the number of
users so small that having a few unlicensed users does serious damage to
the vendor. In such cases they do deter piracy, because the casual user
can't defeat the protection, and the professional pirate isn't interested
in doing it because the market isn't big enough.
A mass-market app like Quark or Flash or, most of all,
Photoshop, is a wholly different story. A pirate version of Photoshop
CS/Windows, sans activation, appeared the same day that the legitimate
product shipped. Nothing can stop the appearance of such pirate versions
this time; Adobe depends no less on the good faith of its user base than it
ever has. The difference is, dishonest users are now being driven into the
arms of the pirates. Plus, certain people, of whom I am not one, feel that
if you have purchased Photoshop legitimately, you are also entitled to
purchase the pirate version just in case the activation on the legitimate
version fails. For example, while nobody can predict exactly what will
happen when Longhorn comes out, a fairly likely scenario is that the
pirated deactivated versions of Photoshop CS will continue to work and the
legitimate ones will not.
Thus, in the real world, this activation software is
inconvenient for the unsophisticated dishonest user, but it is really,
really convenient for those offshore firms who make a nice living by
cracking it and selling illicit copies of Photoshop for a fraction of what
Adobe does. Adding the protection is self-defeating; it empowers the
pirates rather than hurting them; if anybody is promoting piracy here, it
certainly isn't the user.
Forgetting that part, and with great respect to the
"independent" experts, the choice we have to make is not between
purchasing Photoshop CS2 or QuarkXPress 7. It is between purchasing
Photoshop CS2 or sticking with a previous version of Photoshop. Nobody
doubts that Adobe could make its software protection experience much, much
worse if they wished to. OTOH, it could also make it much, much better, by
the simple expedient of not including it at all.
There is no ethical issue with a vendor implementing
protection software, any more than it would be unethical for them to
quintuple the price of their software. Similarly, there is no ethical
problem for prospective customers to treat as a heavy negative in their
purchasing decision a feature that 1) serves no purpose at all except to
deny them under certain circumstances the ability to access their software;
2) is produced not by Adobe but by a company of unknown reliability and
ethics; 3) is unlikely to be viable at all for more than a couple of years;
4) is proven by the Photoshop CS/Windows experience to make periodic
incorrect deactivations.
3. TWO BIG IMPROVEMENTS, TWO
DISAPPOINTMENTS.
Two of the new CS2 capabilities that have received the
most hoopla are in fact nothing to be excited about; however, two new
features help image processing significantly, in addition to some less
important improvements that I will turn to in a moment.
*We now can apply three-dimensional or perspective
effects to selected items. As part of the Free Transform dialog, we can
warp a selection for such purposes as wrapping it around a cylindrical
shape. A new filter called Vanishing Point creates a related effect,
causing the selection to seem to disappear at a fixed point in the
background. I haven't played with these enough to form a conclusion as to
how powerful they are. But they fill a significant void. Even if they turn
out to be relatively crude and inflexible, they're still much better than
nothing, which is what users of previous versions have.
*A new filter called Surface Blur is very nice. It is
an advance over Gaussian Blur (and to some degree replaces Dust &
Scratches) because it detects edge areas and doesn't blur them, leaving the
impact on large areas of similar tonality, which is just what we want in
most cases. In addition to a Radius, it has a Threshold command that
further finetunes the possibilities in a way missing in other blur filters.
The filter is particularly effective in reducing noise in faces. Also, for
those who often blur the A and B channels of LAB, Surface Blur usually
gives much better results, because we don't get the sloppy color
transitions that can occur when we Gaussian Blur at a high radius. As you
might expect, the filter runs much slower than Gaussian Blur, but it's
worth it for the added quality.
The two overrated items are:
*Unsharp Mask is, if not the most important Photoshop
filter, one of the top five. The current incarnation is 15 years old. Much
more is known about sharpening today than was known back then. Given how
much *could* have been improved, the new Smart Sharpen filter is a big
disappointment. It is a hybrid between the old USM filter and Photoshop
CS's Shadow/Highlight command. It uses the same sharpening algorithm as
always, but it can be modified within whatever we define as being
highlights or shadows. If you choose the default settings, it works exactly
as the old USM filter does, except that the critical Threshold field has
inexplicably been omitted. I have heard second-hand that somebody thought
that the new highlight options somehow replaced the need for the Threshold.
They don't. The Threshold is most important in midtones, not highlights or
shadows.
Smart Sharpen's options are not
user-friendly. An expert can sometimes use it as a shortcut for certain
advanced routines, but that's about it. I can't say I would never use it,
but it would be a case of finding a default setting that would work well
with a certain category of image.
Drum scanners have had the
capability of separating white-line from dark-line sharpening for 20 years.
Amazingly, Photoshop still does not. The capability of separating the
lightening from the darkening functioning really belongs in all Photoshop
filters. But even if it had been built into this filter only, Smart Sharpen
would be five times the tool it is today. Furthermore, it would not be that
difficult, in today's age of fast computing, to create a filter that would
use unrelated calculations for light and dark sharpening, or even allow
multiple haloing. Such a filter would leave both Unsharp Mask and Smart
Sharpen in the dust.
*A much-ballyhooed new Noise Reduction filter, even at
its top strength, it doesn't seem to do much. Graininess is reduced, but
not enough to actually affect output quality, at least not in my tests. In
any event, I compared several images with Noise Reduction as opposed to
Surface Blur on a separate layer at a low opacity. The Surface Blur method
won every time.
4. A HALF-DOZEN OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS.
In addition to the Bridge capabilities mentioned
earlier, the following enhancements should be noted.
*Several new features, including a limited
curves-based interface, are added to Camera Raw.
*Layer grouping functions are made more sensible. We
can now select multiple layers at a time.
*We can customize our menus, so that we don't waste
space by listing useless items, such as Brightness/Contrast or the
Histogram Palette.
*We can redefine keyboard shortcuts, in case we don't
like Photoshop's built-in ones or wish to devise our own.
*The Shadow/Highlight command, previously restricted
to RGB and LAB, now also works in CMYK. If you are trying to do the things
people normally do with the S/H, however, CMYK is a bad place to do
it--with one exception. If you want to open up shadow detail in neutral
areas, the command works best in the L channel of LAB, somewhat worse in
RGB, worst of all in CMYK. To open highlight detail, RGB is slightly better
than LAB and CMYK is much worse. However, if the point is to open detail in
rich, saturated colors, CMYK will get better results provided that you know
how to configure the settings properly, which is not currently documented
anywhere.
5. THE WILD CARD: SMART OBJECTS.
The most technically interesting new feature is one
that allows embedding remotely changeable objects in the files not just of
Photoshop, but of other CS apps. IOW, suppose your client has a logo that
appears in many different contexts. After you've prepared fifty variants of
it, he announces that it's supposed to be purple rather than green. With
this feature you can correct a single file and all the other forty-nine
will update automatically.
I don't know how well this works in practice. I doubt
that many people need this feature enough to warrant its learning curve,
but some certainly do, and for these people the CS2 suite becomes very
interesting indeed.
6. IN SUMMARY.
As I did not participate in the testing program for
the entire Creative Suite either in 2003 or this year, I purchased my own
copy of Creative Suite Premium in 2003. I am given to understand that
InDesign CS2 is much improved, so I would purchase an upgrade to the entire
CS package under ordinary circumstances. Inasmuch as an improved InDesign
does not come close to being sufficient compensation for accepting
activation to five separate apps, however, I will not be purchasing
Creative Suite 2.
As a result of my participation in the beta program,
however, I expect to receive a free copy of Photoshop CS2. If I do, and if
the reduced speed of Bridge is the only issue, I will use CS2 in preference
to CS, retaining a copy of CS on my system in case the activation of CS2
fails while I am in the field. If, however, Bridge turns out to be *way*
slower, or if it causes frequent crashes and/or data loss, then that would
be, for me, a bigger negative than all of the gains cited above. I would
then put CS2 back in the box and continue life with CS.
Deciding whether to upgrade depends very much on what
parts of Photoshop are important to you. As mentioned earlier, I considered
Photoshop 7 a downgrade from Photoshop 6, because the biggest improvements,
other than File Browser, weren't relevant to my own workflow, whereas the
bad new features affected me considerably. Other people would see it
differently. For digital artists who make extensive use of Photoshop's
drawing functions, Photoshop 7 was a significant advance.
Photoshop CS/Mac was better in every way than
Photoshop 7, adding, among other things, Camera Raw, Shadow/Highlight, and
a better File Browser. I therefore recommended that Macintosh users of
Photoshop 7 buy the upgrade. Windows users, however, faced the negative of
activation. Personally, I would not have bought Photoshop CS/Windows. I own
no camera that generates a Camera Raw-compatible file. I often find myself
in places without an Internet connection. And I have long experience that
makes me distrust protection software. If any of these factors don't apply
to you, then I can certainly understand a decision to go for all the added
power. But Photoshop CS2 doesn't advance the ball as far as CS did.
If you already own Photoshop CS/Windows, then
Photoshop CS2 is attractive, although if you use File Browser a lot you may
wish to wait until you get a feel for how well the shipping version of
Bridge is being received. You've already bought into the activation scheme,
and CS2's is better than what you're running now. With an earlier Windows
version of Photoshop you face the choice described above: there are a lot
of good new things but you have to accept activation.
For Macintosh users of versions 7 and earlier I see
upgrading to Photoshop CS, while it's still available, as a better choice
than CS2. For a user of Photoshop CS/Mac I would recommend standing pat.
I've probably worked with thirty to fifty different
copy-protected products, some of which I regretted using at all because of
the protection. But in some cases there wasn't a choice, or in some cases
the product was so good that the inconvenience was worth it. And that's
what you should be asking yourself now. A protected product like Photoshop
CS2/Mac is incontestably much, much worse than Photoshop CS/Mac in the
critical area of software reliability and ease of continued use. If we are
to make the switch, there had best be other areas in which the new program
is much, much better. Photoshop CS arguably made the case for upgrading in
spite of the activation. CS2 does not.
I will be shopping for a car later this year. If the
dealer tells me that the reason I should buy his model is that it could
have been made much, much worse, I will think back on Creative Suite 2 with
fondness.
FURTHER READING ON THE ACTIVATION ISSUE
Acrimonious threads can be found at many sites. A
particularly good one with sensible commentary on both sides is running at
http://www.robgalbraith.com
Also, there are, for the time being, several threads
running at
http://www.adobeforums.com
At both sites, just search for forum threads with the
words "activation CS2". Note: during the introduction of
Photoshop CS/Windows, adobeforums was swamped with negative commentary
about activation, which it deleted from its search indices and moved into
the adobeforums equivalent of limbo. So, if the threads are no longer
there, they have doubtless received similar treatment.
To see an example of how toadying the trade press can
be, try
http:
//www.macworld.com/news/2005/04/03/activation/index.php
This is a major article-just as big as the
announcement of CS itself-entirely about activation, indicating that the
magazine considers activation to be a surpassingly important issue. Any
such article should of course give a lot of room to Adobe to voice its
views and to explain what it thinks we need to know. This one goes somewhat
farther: it is *entirely* devoted to an Adobe spokesman, who explains that
piracy is a problem and that we all should be thankful that Adobe has found
such an elegant solution to it, because they could have done something
much, much worse. There is not even a hint that many users are upset; no
suggestion that the software ever fails; and certainly nothing to indicate
that the likely result of requiring activation is to encourage, rather that
suppress, piracy.
A useful essay on the kinds of things that cause false
deactivation of Photoshop is found at
http://jazzdiver.com/photoshop/pscs_reactivation.htm
An overview of the intricacies of OS upgrades is found
in the business section of Sunday's (10 April) New York Times ("Will
the Next Version of Windows Be Worth the Wait," by Randall Stross.) It
discusses the hype surrounding new introductions, and also notes one point
that should be of interest to users of CS/Windows: "Longhorn is
unlikely to co-exist peaceably with existing software that sits atop the
operating system. [One analyst] said that gaining enhanced security
necessitates making a break with complementary software of the past, which
means 'compatibility is going to suffer.'"
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:29:44 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
On 4/14/05 9:02 AM, "Dan Margulis"
wrote:
The Convert to Profile, Assign Profile, and Color
Settings commands, which
many people use several times a day, have been in the
same place since
Photoshop 6. It was convenient for Adobe to move them
in CS2, so that they would reside in approximately the same places in all
Adobe applications. But it was not
convenient for Photoshop users, who often have to move
back and forth between
versions and do not appreciate the moment of
hesitation that it causes when
looking for such commands.
I agree and made this point over and over again but
alas, since other Adobe applications have these items in this location,
Photoshop got these items moved. However, you can now create any custom key
commands for any menu item in the application (as well as hide them)
providing a great deal of customization not available in previous versions
of Photoshop. I simply made my own key commands which is faster and makes
the location move less an issue. I think it1s fair to point out this menu
customization is very robust and a pretty cool CS2 feature. You can even
add color to any CS2 menu item, make any number of sets and toggle back to
the default settings quickly.
Assuming that you don't specifically need the new
features, the move is a
step backward. Bridge is slow.
First, you admit you1re using a beta (and an old one)
and you have to realize that speed optimization is the very last process
before going golden master. As such, any comments on speed, which may be
accurate, can1t be attribute until you actually have the final version. I
don1t disagree that some, (some) aspects of Bridge in the beta are slow.
Others are much faster. And as a stand-alone application, you can see great
speed increases by letting Bridge crank away doing operations while you
move back to Photoshop and continue to edit. This wasn1t something you
could do in the File Browser. I also think you1re somewhat unfair to the
Metadata features which are very important.
I agree that it would have been useful to keep the old
FB in CS2 so you didn1t have to use Bridge if you didn1t want to. There
were just as many who disagreed with this.
Being a separate app, you have to keep booting it
up, as opposed to using the File Browser
There are preferences to launch Bridge when Photoshop
launches. There1s also a button on the option bar to launch Bridge whenever
you wish. IF Bridge is running, moving to it is instantaneous. Some people
don1t want it running so I think it was wise to make it a preference to
have both launch or not. Also very nice is the ability to synchronize color
settings among all CS2 app1s from Bridge.
Worse, I am unable to tell
you that I think Bridge is currently stable enough for
a responsible software
vendor to ship it. I refer to bombs, strange behavior,
and loss of stored
data.
This is a beta and who knows how old.
Now, a BIG WARNING. That last comment is based on beta
software. I've run
several versions of CS2, but I haven't had much
experience with the most
current beta version.
Enough said. Point taken. As such, it1s questionable
if the comments should even have been mentioned considering this.
When you first install, you are prompted to
activate, which is quick and easy if you
have a Web connection. If you don't do it, the
software will die in 30 days. The
activation locks the software to your machine; every
time you boot Photoshop
up the activation is checked to verify that you
haven't drag-copied it to some
other machine.
You can install CS2 on as many machines as you wish.
You can launch and run it fully functional for 30 days after which you must
activate. However, you can in about 5 seconds deactivate computer A and
activate computer B should the need arise. You can install and not run and
that 30 days will be available forever (until you launch CS2 for the first
time).
I don1t love Activation but it1s one of the best
protection scheme1s I1ve used (and I1ve used a lot and I1m tired of
dongels). The activation is insurance that users abide by the EULA that
they have agreed to for years and years. You can have two machines fully
activated for one license. 3 machines might have been a lot better but
two1s a start. You can of course buy additional licensee and run on more
machines which is what people were supposed to do (and agreed to do) prior
to this version. Problem is, lots of people didn1t abide by the EULA.
You are allowed to activate twice, so you can have a
copy on your laptop and
on your business machine. However, you cannot install
a third copy elsewhere
without going to Adobe to ask permission.
No, not really. If you deactivate the laptop, you can
then activate a 3rd machine. When done, you can deactivate that machine and
go back to the original.
In principle, once you activate, you should never have
to worry about it
again. In practice, a significant number of users
indicate that they have had
to.
What users? If you1re referring to the activation in
CS, the activation in CS2 is totally different. This doesn1t mean it1s
perfect. And I wish you1d define what you mean by 3significant2 number and
how you got those stats. What percentage of users? It1s easy to say
significant users had problems but you need to back this up with facts. CS
or CS2? Big difference.
1) In at least 50% of cases the
activation works flawlessly. That's been
my experience with the CS2 beta. I activated once and
never heard about the
subject again.
In maybe 40% of cases....
In something like 10% of cases...
Again, where and how do you pull such figures? Be
accurate or be vague but unless you1ve got real data to back this up, it
sounds suspicious.
As you can guess by reading my travel itinerary, I am
one of the people who
do not have constant access to the Internet.
Do you have access to a phone?
Will someone be able to use Photoshop CS2 for seven
years if need be?
Well Photoshop 1.0.7 runs under classic on my G5 but
there1s no guarantees. Why would I want to run Photoshop 1.0.7 15 years
after it1s release? I can1t boot my G5 in classic, I have to run through OS
X. I can1t get a PCI card for a SCSI device in my G5 either. There1s all
kinds of issues with legacy hardware and software. I don1t see Adobe being
any better or worse than any other technology company. I also don1t expect
to be running CS2 for 7 years but if you feel the need, stick with CS or
run CS2 and if, big if, in 7 years it can1t be run, well you got a lot of
the old girl.
As for the first, I expect Adobe will still be here in
2012,
The dinosaurs didn1t expect that meteor... Anything
can happen. I1d like to think Adobe will be around in 2012 but I don1t know
if anyone on this list will be or not. I think this is a silly argument to
be worrying about.
As for the new features I WAS an Alpha and Beta tester
and have been using the product for 6 months. I1m not going to comment on
what you feel is good or bad because I respect your opinion about what YOU
think are compelling new features. You missed quite a few (the new
Vanishing Point is simply astounding). The new features in Adobe Camera RAW
3 are worth the $149 upgrade for tons of anyone processing RAW data. I1d be
happy to comment should anyone want specifics. Adobe will also offer demo1s
(fully functional for 30 days) and everyone can try the product and see if
they agree with Dan1s comments about new features or not.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:52:24 -0400
From: Ric Cohn
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
Dan,
Thanks for your thorough comments on the new Adobe
upgrades. Contrary to Andrew, I think you were very clear in your caveats
about them being based on Beta software and your personal workflow and
needs. The point is, unless the new features are "killer" for
your workflow (which it may be for many) the wisest course is to wait until
the dust settles. Based on past experience, any release as complicated at
this is likely to show issues when used by many thousands instead of just a
comparatively few hard working beta testers. I also am concerned about the
fact that Adobe's interest in promoting all it's products may lead to
development directions in any one product that are not in the best
interests of the users of that program. I fervently hope that Bridge
doesn't turn out to be one of these. I consider the File Browser one of the
killer features of PSCS and any degradation rather than improvement in it's
speed or functionality would be a major problem in my opinion.
I too am greatly bothered by the activation issue.
Besides the fact that I resent the ever encroaching intrusions into my life
by both government and industry, I too have had bad experiences with
activation. I've been kept out of legitimately owned software in the past,
at least once at such a critical time that it put a job I was working on
under tight deadline in jeopardy. I feel that my learning to use the
features I need of a program are difficult enough. Why should I have to
learn to be my own IT tech to keep it running? I also think that Adobe may
have underestimated the problems this "solution" will cause them.
As the software I use has gotten more stable and better designed I find
myself less and less in need of putting up with poorly designed software. I
think this is common among users. For example, on the web it used to be
enough for a company to have a presence. Now, if the site isn't quick, well
designed and easy to navigate, people will click away in seconds. Another
example I am very involved with is digital camera software. The differences
in quality between the different professional systems is now subtle enough
to make the software that runs it a significant deciding factor in
purchase. I understand from several salesmen of $20,000+ digital backs that
poorly designed software is a major determinant in what is being purchased
these days. They keep telling the company tech reps that the software is
the biggest hurdle to selling. Unfortunately, I don't believe several of
these companies can afford large enough software development departments to
improve these products at the speed needed. Just a few years ago anything
that worked seemed like a miracle. Personally, I have doubts on whether all
the manufacturers will survive this transition.
Finally, I agree with Dan that this could encourage
rather than reduce piracy. For example, I have 4 computers I use. One is a
dual G5 I use for my major Photoshop work. The second is an old G3 I use
mostly as a server for printing. The third is a laptop, and the fourth is a
home computer which I use when I work from home. In addition, I have one
employee who needs Photoshop on their computer so they can open and pass on
images to others. I do own 2 photoshop licenses, but according to Adobe
even this isn't enough regardless of how these machines are used! Maybe
activating and deactivating copies will be so painless that it won't be an
issue, but I doubt it-- see my notes above about reduced tolerance for
inconvenience. Also, I searched the Adobe site last night, but besides the
happy pabulum about the new activation scheme I find very little info on
specifics. If Adobe is going to sell additional "seats" at a
reasonable price then I think users would understand and pay up, but as I
understand it, unless you are a large user with many licenses, you will
need to buy a whole additional program at full price to add a 3rd computer.
As a typical photographer I have been reeling for
several years from the rapid changes brought about by changing technology,
stock and the general state of the world. One of the major
"improvements" with Bridge is giving users direct access to
stock. As I understand it this includes royalty free stock which is one of
the biggest problems for the photography business. I think it's ironic, but
possibly not just coincidence that the money people at Adobe are bringing
out both these features at once. Both seem to me to be ways that
Adobe thinks it can increase revenues without bringing any improvements to
the program.
My 2¢
Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:17:19 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
On 4/15/05 7:52 AM, "Ric Cohn" wrote:
I do own 2 photoshop licenses, but according
to Adobe even this isn't enough regardless of how
these machines are
used!
The EULA in CS, versus CS2 is identical as far as what
you1re allowed to do with your two licenses. In fact, you might have to go
back many versions of Photoshop to find the license being different (I
don1t recall what 1.0,7 specified and it1s not important). The ONLY
difference in CS2 is you must abide by the EULA due to activation. If you
own two licenses, you can install on four machines and use two of them at
the same time. If you wish to purchase a site license, it is available for
five machines on up.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:37:30 -0400
From: "Gene Palmiter"
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
This is all so pointless. The harder they make the
copy protection/activation the more hackers/crackers consider it a
challenge...and there are a lot of them out there. I bet the challenge is
met before the product reaches the shelves.
It's not a topic that we discuss much because we just
don't, but I have to wonder how many registered users also buy or download
the cracked version so that they don't have to reactivate every time they
change the configuration of their computer. Other illegal use that should
not be is the installation of the product on several computers in a home
office. Since I work alone why should I need several licenses to install on
all my computers? I only operate one at a time. At most I might be scanning
with one computer while I edit with another.
They are just going to alienate more of their user
base.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:07:14 -0600
From: "Les De Moss"
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Comments on Creative
Suite 2
I doubt alienation is a significant concern for Adobe,
in the short term. So long as Photoshop remains the world class leader in
imaging software, users have precious little choice but to jump through
whatever hoops Adobe dictates.
If Adobe ever pays a price for pent-up frustrations
among its users, it will not be until such time (if ever) that a
competitive product surfaces with a superior licensing/activation scheme.
When you own the only banana tree, you call the shots,
not the monkeys.
Les De Moss
DigiGraphics llc
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:30:27 -0400
From: "Gene Palmiter"
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Comments on Creative
Suite 2
You mistake my meaning. I do not mean that users will
give up using Photoshop...only that they will stop paying for it.
Activation is a hassle, and sometimes software stops working because of a
hardware change and this requires reactivation. This gets in the way of
people who are trying to earn a living. If for $10 more you can get a
copy from China that doesn't require activation it would be a good
investment. If it gets to be too much of a hassle people will start asking
why they should buy the first copy at all.
There was a time that software publishers were
struggling with copy protection. It looked like dongles were going to be
required for everything. A leading computer magazine, PC Mag I think,
announced that their best ratings would no longer go to any software that
required one. Perhaps this was in response to complaints from subscribers.
Dongles have virtually disappeared.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:38:15 -0700
From: Roger Howard
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
On Apr 15, 2005, at 9:37 AM, Gene Palmiter wrote:
Other illegal use that should not be is the
installation
of the product on several computers in a home office.
Since I work
alone why should I need several licenses to install on
all my computers?
This is demonstrably not true. You'll be able to
install CS2 on as many machines as you wish. You'll only be able to
*simultaneously* use CS2 on as many machines as your license allows. You
can easily activate/deactivate/activate back and forth, it takes seconds
and it just works.... during the beta I kept copies on several machines so
that I'd get used to this early on. The major problem for me is the few
times I forgot to deactivate on my home workstation when I hit the road and
found the copy on my laptop needed to be activated but I couldn't until I
returned home... working on a script to solve this now.
Look, I'm not one to defend product activation - I was
against it in principle with XP, and now with CS2. However, on a practical
level, I've yet to have a problem with either other than the one I mention
above. Technically it seems to work well, and it definitely does NOT make
installing it on multiple machines illegal - it simply enforces the
SIMULTANEOUS USE restrictions that have always been in the license.
I'm no big fan of it, btw. I'd rather do without; I'd
rather my vendors treat me as the honest customer I am. But as a sometime
developer and partner of many developers, I know the problems with piracy -
and we're NOT talking about the international mafias selling copies on the
streets of HK... Adobe has been pretty up front that they are adding this
layer to put a major stumbling block - not an impenetrable fence - up for
the "casual pirates" that supposedly comprise the largest portion
of the lost revenues argument. And I can sympathize - I've come into
companies seeing a single copy of Photoshop on 30 or 40 workstations, or
even worse. I've written reports objecting to this practice and been
ignored; but I also remember that for the much harder (dongles) or higher
risk anti-piracy systems these casual pirates tended to instead do the
right thing - buy the copies they absolutely needed.
Yep, there are going to be cracks, but they really
won't matter as it's not the concerted, determined pirate this is aimed at;
it's the casual "oh, I didn't know I needed more than one serial for
the whole company" stuff they are aiming at, and I bet it'll have a
positive effect (for Adobe's bottom line, if anyone cares).
Anyhow, again, in principle it'd be great if such
methods weren't necessary; in practice it's working fine for me other than
my occassional forgetfulness.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:59:41 +0100
From: Andrew Haley
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
Roger Howard writes:
I'm no big fan of it, btw. I'd rather do
without; I'd rather my
vendors treat me as the honest customer I am.
But as a sometime
developer and partner of many developers, I know
the problems with
piracy - and we're NOT talking about the
international mafias
selling copies on the streets of HK... Adobe has
been pretty up
front that they are adding this layer to put a
major stumbling
block - not an impenetrable fence - up for the
"casual pirates"
that supposedly comprise the largest portion of
the lost revenues
argument.
But there is a considerable cost to Adobe's customers.
We're running the risk that we might not be able to access our
precious Photoshop files because we can't get a copy of Photoshop
activated. And yeah, I'm sure there are other programs that access
Adobe's proprietary format, and I could hopefully solve the problem that
way instead. Maybe, always assuming I wasn't in the middle of the Gobi
desert at the time.
Adobe may be protecting their revenue, and they may be
doing so in a legitimate way, but there is no security measure that doesn't
have a few false negatives. Unfortunately, these false negatives --
effectively denials of service to legitimate customers -- don't hurt Adobe,
they hurt us.
And the only reason we put up with it is that they've
got us over a barrel.
Andrew.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:02:08 -0700
From: Jono Moore
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
On 4/15/05, Andrew Haley wrote:
And the only reason we put up with it is that they've
got us over a
barrel.
You have the choice of not purchasing the software.
Perhaps if enough people don't upgrade...
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:05:35 -0600
From: "Les De Moss"
Subject: Re: [ Comments on Creative Suite 2
From: "Gene Palmiter"
You mistake my meaning. I do not mean that users will
give up using
Photoshop...only that they will stop paying for it.
Yes. I took the term alienation to mean jumping ship,
not sailing with pirates.
As a professional user of Photoshop in my business,
I'd no sooner purchase a pirated copy of Photoshop than install Corel for
imaging (let's not start a thread on this). As a practical matter, it
benefits me and my business to support Adobe. It's a symbiotic
relationship; my purchase funds development that brings me needed software
and support. I would be surprised if the vast majority of professional
users do not fall into this category....come hell or activation.
I believe the actual financial damaged caused to Adobe
by use of pirated software is likely overstated, and that the broad net
cast by activation is designed to maximize every last pixel of profit. I
see nothing wrong with this, other than the approach, which I believe runs
amuck of the 80/20 rule... inconviencing 80 percent of users due to the
other 20. The paradigm ought be the other way around.
An argument also can be made in *favor* of pirated
software (Oh My!), that is, helping Adobe expand their worldwide presence
and authority in imaging software. Pirated Adobe software has likely
enabled an entire class of users to experience the product who otherwise
could not have afforded the chance. This undoubtably leads to future users
of legitimate copies. Students immediately come to mind. This is not say I
endorse pirated versions, only that there are marketing benefits as well as
profit consequences.
Les De Moss
DigiGraphics llc
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:45:27 -0700
From: "Dan Mc"
Subject: RE: Comments on Creative Suite 2
So - Do I understand this correctly? The
protection scheme is dependent on the program contacting adobe via internet
before it will be allowed to load? Is this another open port issue for my
system to worry about? I will certainly wait a while on this one,
seems just a release or so ago that there was no mention of the currency
checking code, I may be paranoid, but what else is hiding in there now that
they literally have open access in and out of every users machine?
Dan mccormack
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:02:03 -0700
From: Paul D. DeRocco
Subject: RE: Comments on Creative Suite 2
From: Les De Moss
I believe the actual financial damaged caused to Adobe
by use of pirated
software is likely overstated, and that the broad net
cast by
activation is designed to maximize every last pixel of
profit.
I think this is probably true. The so-called costs of
software piracy is always computed as the amount of pirated software
multiplied by the cost of that software, as though everyone who pirated the
software would have bought it legitimately had pirating somehow been
impossible. I would guess that the correct figure is closer to 1% of that.
An argument also can be made in *favor* of pirated
software (Oh My!), that
is, helping Adobe expand their worldwide presence and
authority in imaging
software. Pirated Adobe software has likely enabled an
entire class of users
to experience the product who otherwise could not have
afforded the chance.
This undoubtably leads to future users of legitimate
copies. Students
immediately come to mind. This is not say I endorse
pirated versions, only
that there are marketing benefits as well as profit
consequences.
Which ultimately boils down to the argument that
they'd make more money if they simply lowered the price. And they
apparently recognize that to some extent, since they provide student
discounts.
Ciao,
Paul D. DeRocco
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:49:49 -0400
From: Rafe Bustin
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
At 03:05 PM 4/15/2005 -0600, Les De Moss wrote:
An argument also can be made in *favor* of pirated
software (Oh My!), that
is, helping Adobe expand their worldwide presence and
authority in imaging
software. Pirated Adobe software has likely enabled an
entire class of users
to experience the product who otherwise could not have
afforded the chance.
This undoubtably leads to future users of legitimate
copies. Students
immediately come to mind. This is not say I endorse
pirated versions, only
that there are marketing benefits as well as profit
consequences.
A very astute observation, and there are precedents.
During their long and very active touring career, the
Grateful Dead never discouraged, and in fact encouraged amateur
"tapers" at their concerts.
The resulting tapes could be traded and copied, just
not bought or sold. Of course the benefit to the band was that folks
who heard and traded these tapes were likely to be (or become)
concert-goers. And very few rock bands made more money from concert
performances than the Dead.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:01:19 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
On 4/15/05 10:37 AM, "Gene Palmiter"
wrote:
This is all so pointless. The harder they make the
copy
protection/activation the more hackers/crackers
consider it a
challenge...and there are a lot of them out there. I
bet the challenge is
met before the product reaches the shelves.
No copy protection is 100%, not even hardware
protection (dongles). The idea isn1t to produce 100% (or even 90%)
efficiency but reduce the number of installs that are illegal. The figures
I1ve heard from someone inside of Adobe that is 3in the know2 is that the
ratio of illegal to legal copies of Photoshop is 3:1. If this is reduced to
even 2:1, its successful. I don1t think people should steal intellectual
property be it software or the rights to my images.
They are just going to alienate more of their user
base.
It might and I1m sure Adobe realizes this. But if the
result is less theft it may be worth this. In the end, only Adobe can
decide. They have the right to protect their property from theft like
anyone else. The question becomes how many locks and alarms do you put in
your home to feel secure before it becomes a prison. We all have to make
these decisions. If activation is such a negative aspect of this update, no
one is putting a gun to anyone1s head to buy it.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:55:33 -0700
From: Paul D. DeRocco
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
You mistake my meaning. I do not mean that users will
give up using
Photoshop...only that they will stop paying for it.
Activation is a hassle,
and sometimes software stops working because of a
hardware change and this
requires reactivation. This gets in the way of people
who are trying to earn
a living. If for $10 more you can get a copy
from China that doesn't
require activation it would be a good investment. If
it gets to be too much
of a hassle people will start asking why they should
buy the first copy at
all.
It may be that Adobe makes most of their money on
corporate sales. Companies generally don't use bootleg software because
it's hard to ensure that no disgruntled employee rats them out.
There was a time that software publishers were
struggling with copy
protection. It looked like dongles were going to be
required for everything.
A leading computer magazine, PC Mag I think, announced
that their best
ratings would no longer go to any software that
required one. Perhaps this
was in response to complaints from subscribers.
Dongles have virtually
disappeared.
Not for the really expensive professional tools.
ImagePrint and ProfileMaker still use dongles. So does some of the
engineering software that I use.
Ciao,
Paul D. DeRocco
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:09:25 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
Gene writes,
The harder they make the copy protection/activation
the more
hackers/crackers consider it a challenge...and there
are a lot of them out there. I bet the
challenge is met before the product reaches the
shelves.
It's not a challenge, it's a business. The people who
are doing it are highly skilled programmers, employed by successful,
client-oriented companies. The first uncracked release of Photoshop
CS/Windows had some flaws, and in response a corrective upgrade came out a
lot faster than certain legitimate firms issue theirs.
These companies exist because of certain facts of life
that are beyond the control of any vendor. Russian and Chinese artists need
their software just as we do. Adobe and Macromedia and Quark can't possibly
sell there at US prices, but if they lower the price to something that the
locals can afford, then the locals will buy it and export it to the United
States. Everybody knows that outside of the United States, Canada, and
Western Europe legitimate copies of software are hard to find, and
everybody turns a blind eye to it (except the vendors' public relations
departments, who report that piracy costs their company $59.3 quintillion
per year, on the theory that every unlicensed user in a poor country would
actually spend three months' salary to acquire legitimate software if the
companies mentioned above were not around.)
I got a look at these companies while in Russia and
China and was favorably impressed by their business model. However, I'm not
really sure that we need to encourage thair participation in the Western
market. Being good businessmen, I am sure they perceive the West as a great
potential growth area, and I imagine that, if pressed, they would have paid
Adobe a good deal of money to "protect" its software in the
manner of CS2. I have no reason to believe that Adobe was so bought off.
But, I still don't believe we should encourage these pirate firms to become
any more powerful than they already are, as Adobe is doing with this
release.
It's not a topic that we discuss much because we just
don't, but I have to
wonder how many registered users also buy or download
the cracked version so
that they don't have to reactivate every time they
change the configuration
of their computer.
It happens more with Quark, I'm sure, because AFAIK
Adobe has not had any problem with multiple-license sites, and Quark has.
Many users who have Quark site licenses where the software key
administrator has malfunctioned have thrown up their hands and adopted the
solution you have suggested. Certainly some Photoshop CS/Windows users have
adopted it as well, as in the example I cited in my review.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:26:07 -0400
From: Biosphere Photographie
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
Perhaps if enough people don't upgrade...
Or perhaps if people decided to go through the trouble
of phone activating their software, taking the time to complain about the
activation as they actually do it. If enough people do it at the same time,
that would put a lot of pressure on their phone system...
Warm Regards,
Francis
___________________________________
Francis Lépine - Photographer
Anne-Marie Auclair - Coordinator
Web: http://www.biospherephotographie.ca
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:01:34 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
Ric writes,
I too am greatly bothered by the activation issue.
Besides the
fact that I resent the ever encroaching intrusions
into my life by both
government and industry, I too have had bad
experiences with
activation. I've been kept out of legitimately owned
software in the
past, at least once at such a critical time that it
put a job I was
working on under tight deadline in jeopardy. I feel
that my learning to
use the features I need of a program are difficult
enough. Why should I
have to learn to be my own IT tech to keep it running?
I also think
that Adobe may have underestimated the problems this
"solution" will
cause them.
Two other links that I should have posted confirm the
above. These are particularly useful in that Adobe itself confirms the
basics of the story, and in that Acrobat 7 apparently uses the same
activation implementation as the rest of CS2.
http://www.pdfzone.com/article2/0,1759,1779934,00.asp
http:
//www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2005/3/8/0483/05937
Briefly: the user runs Acrobat 7 on a RAID array. The
activation software doesn't like it and repeatedly deactivates Acrobat.
User repeatedly reactivates it on the Web, but after a certain number of
reactivations the software won't allow it, thinking that if he walks like a
duck and quacks like a duck, etc., etc. User has to call Adobe to get
reactivated. CSR advises him that he needs to buy a *site license* even
though he works on a single computer, since the activation software thinks
that the RAID is two computers. Refers him to technical documentation
indicating that RAID arrays "may not be reliable enough" (or
words to that effect) to run with Photoshop CS2's activation software.
Advises that the alternative is to keep calling up Adobe every time the
software deactivates.
This sad tale is confirmed by Adobe spokesmen, who
inform us that, yes, there is a problem with RAID, yes, our CSR did say to
buy a site license but we have straightened that person out, yes, our
technical documentation does say that RAID arrays aren't reliable enough to
work with our activation software, yes, there are multiple customers
involved, yes, we did give them some software that eliminated the problem,
and we are certainly willing to work with other users who encounter similar
difficulties.
Fair enough. But if the chances of this happening to
us are only 5%--and I suspect they're higher--do the new features of
Photoshop CS2 really make up for it?
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 02:02:58 -0000
From: Stephen Marsh
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
--- In colortheory@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Mc"
wrote:
So - Do I understand this correctly? The
protection scheme is dependent on
the program contacting adobe via internet before it
will be allowed to load?
You get a short grace period, then activation is
required. This can be internet or phone.
The internet method is only required once per
activation, NOT every time you boot up Photoshop (unless it has changed,
which I doubt).
Is this another open port issue for my system to worry
about?
Only each time you need to activate.
I will certainly wait a while on this one, seems just
a release or so ago
that there was no mention of the currency checking
code, I may be
paranoid, but what else is hiding in there now that
they literally have open access
in and out of every users machine?
It is always wise to wait on a new release and to see
what other users,
rather than the media or those associated with it or
Adobe reports.
Yes, I do not recall a big issue being made in the
marketing materials of the currency protection in CS, It was discovered
during the beta. It is noted in CS2 release documentation that I saw on the
Adobe website.
This activation experiment has existed since v7 on the
PC in Australia, CS on the PC worldwide and now on Mac/PC in CS2 worldwide.
Dan Mc - If you are really interested in more info,
Adobe would have a page on this to explain concerns such as these.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:04:45 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
On 4/15/05 12:38 PM, "Roger Howard"
wrote:
The major problem for me is the few
times I forgot to deactivate on my home workstation
when I hit the road
and found the copy on my laptop needed to be activated
but I couldn't
until I returned home... working on a script to solve
this now.
I haven1t tested it (I should) but I suspect Timbuktu
would be a great way to do this remotely. It1s a great application for
doing all kinds of remote work on a number of machines.
However, on a practical level,
I've yet to have a problem with either other than the
one I mention above.
I 6 months of testing CS2, not a single issue on my
end.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:15:57 -0700
From: Paul D. DeRocco
Subject: RE: Comments on Creative Suite 2
From: Dan Mc
So - Do I understand this correctly? The
protection scheme is dependent on
the program contacting adobe via internet before it
will be allowed to load?
Is this another open port issue for my system to worry
about? I will
certainly wait a while on this one, seems just a
release or so ago that
there was no mention of the currency checking code, I
may be paranoid, but
what else is hiding in there now that they literally
have open
access in and out of every users machine?
As far as I know, it only has to contact Adobe when
you activate it, not when you run it. And there's no reason to believe it
opens a port for incoming traffic of any kind, any more than your web
browser or e-mail program does.
Of course, any software _could_ do those things.
However, this isn't the sort of thing that could be kept secret for long,
since there are tools for finding things like open ports.
Ciao,
Paul D. DeRocco
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 19:23:26 -0700
From: James Irelan
Subject: Re: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
This sounds like the way music software has been for a
long time. You get the serial number, but additionally you have to go
to the website and get an authorization code related to the digital ID # of
your computer. Companies store the number of times you've requested
the code, and they can build up and top out at three events, for instance,
even if you're still on the same computer if you've had to reformat or
reinstall on different discs- or if it's a new computer but still the only
one you use. So at some point you have to go in and delete some of
the auth codes, or sometimes write to the tech and get things straightened
out. It should be mainly a one time thing to authorize, but it can
wind up being more of a pain then that, even without a RAID. The old
PS way was indeed a lot nicer- just install and put the SN in.
James Irelan
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:25:59 -0400
From: "John Henry”
Subject: CS2 Why I am upgrading
I do not like the activation at all but I am going to
do the upgrade. In fact I am a ASN and am doing it soon. The reason for
this is I am a printer and need to serve to my customers. I had to do Quark
6 then 6.5 as I did CS1 and so on. The first good customer who calls and I
do not have it will walk (or surf) to the next guy.
That said I can get with a simple goggle search every
major graphic program out. Dongle free and fully unlocked. I own my rips
and software and pay to keep them up to date. I have problems with dongles
and hate the things. I now look for products that do not have them when
buying. I cannot do that with programs like CS2 that I must have to serve
my customers, staying back is just not a option my case.
P.S. Dan Photoshop 4 screams on my os9 only G4 <GI
still use it, as it is so fast for some basic work.
John Henry
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:49:34 -0500
From: Howard Smith
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
Like many other monkeys hanging around
in the treetops, I keep scanning the horizon for some signs of a new tree.
While I've bought many a legal copy of Photoshop and its upgrades
(knowing as most of do that free, pirated copies are easily obtained), the
copy protection thing turns me off totally. Adobe would do well to
commission a no-holds barred study of the situation to find out if copy
protection hurts them at least as much as it does their users. They
might be surprised to find that honest folk will continue buying legal
copies with or without copy protection while the curiosity seekers,
low-income students, and dishonest business people will find a way to get a
pirated version no matter what Adobe does about it. In the meantime,
it is a continuing irritation that Adobe (among others) lumps all of us
into the "thieves category". They're overlooking the
ultimate in copy protection to guard them from their loyal customer
base--stop selling the product. Then all of us thieves will have to
go back to shoplifting. In my own business I trust all of my
customers enough to accept checks and credit cards without identification.
The credit card charges are not even sent in for authorization until
after hours. In thirty years I've made a lot of money and have lost
very little. For some odd reason my customers don't seem to consider
cheating someone who puts that much trust in them. Sure, there's
always the con man (or woman) who will take advantage of another person's
trust, but I make far more than I lose by considering all of them to be
honest.
Don't try this if you sell liquor or
jewelry.
Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:10:24 -0400
From: Dragonfly Imaging & Printing
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Comments on Creative
Suite 2
Howard,
I agree with most of the comments raised by various
group members so far, but you 'nailed it' for me.
As a service-provider, we will have to pay for the
upgrade to stay current. However, it irks me that we might be paying for
some added 'inconvenience'.
John Toles
www.dragonflyprinting.com
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:34:36 +0100
From: "Bob Frost"
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
Dan,
I've been using CS on a Raid array since the
activation system was started for Windows versions without any problems.
The difference probably is that I use a Raid 0 array to speed things up.
The problems seem to be (from your references) when you use a Raid 1 array,
and I can't think why anyone would use a Raid 1 array for their system
drive - for data yes. Maybe CS2 is different?
The only time I have had to reactivate is if I have
replaced/reformatted the hard disk, or done a System Restore to an earlier
state.
Bob Frost.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:07:12 -0400
From: "jc castronovo"
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
I just had to re-activate CS on Windows 2k. We think
it had to do with a security update from Microsoft that changed that OS
enough to tip off CS. A real pain in the you know what as it happened that
we found out at the most embarrassing moment in front of a customer.
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:23:35 +0100
From: claudio corvino
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
About the issue on Photoshop CS2 activation and copy
protection, one could:
1. Buy his copy of Photoshop CS2 from Adobe, paying in
this way for his license - and install on his machine from a cracked,
Chinese CD.
2. Learn some Italian and buy a license from some
Italian guy, because the Italian version in not listed among the Photoshop
CS2 localized versions that require activation (according to Adobe's web
site). (About this, I can't say, as I'm still on v.6, the mine and Dan's
favorite).
-------------
Claudio Corvino
Lavori editoriali:
http://www.claudiocorvino.com/
Grafica & fotografia
http://www.diamantestudio.com/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:51:46 -0400
From: Peter Stema
Subject: CS2 and Activation
I played with cs2 (photoshop and ill) this weekend the
coolest things I saw were the interface to clone on a perspective grid and
they seemed to have added streamline to Illustrator
I wonder if you can instal to a fire wire drive
and move it between computers this should be with in their lincense
as it would only be running on one machine at a time...
Peter Stema
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:42:33 -0600
From: Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: CS2 and Activation
On 4/18/05 6:51 AM, Peter Stema wrote:
I played with cs2 (photoshop and ill) this weekend
the coolest things I saw were the interface to clone
on a perspective grid
and they seemed to have added streamline to
Illustrator
Vanishing Point. Amazingly cool and useful not that it
got a mention in the original 3review2. Keep an eye out for some really
superb video1s to download from Russell Brown. The series shows how this
new feature can be used.
I wonder if you can instal to a fire wire drive and
move it between computers
this should be with in their lincense as it
would only be running on one
machine at a time...
You can but if you1re referring to Activation, it1s
based on the CPU. So if you move the drive, no go unless you deactiavte
another computer.
Andrew Rodney
http://digitaldog.net/
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:41:42 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: CS2 and Activation
Andrew Rodney writes,
Vanishing Point. Amazingly cool and useful not that it
got a mention in the
original 3review2.
Since that is the second time you have asserted that I
didn't mention Vanishing Point, may I respectfully suggest that you reread
the section entitled "TWO BIG IMPROVEMENTS, TWO DISAPPOINTMENTS,"
and see what I stated was the first "Big Improvement" in
Photoshop CS2.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:50:33 EDT
From: Dan Margulis
Subject: Re: CS2 and Activation
Peter Stema writes,
I played with cs2 (photoshop and ill) this weekend
the coolest things I saw were the interface to clone
on a perspective grid
and they seemed to have added streamline to
Illustrator
Correct on both counts.
I wonder if you can instal to a fire wire drive and
move it between computers
this should be with in their lincense as it
would only be running on one
machine at a time...
Unfortunately, no. You have to both *install* and
*activate* Photoshop on every machine on which it runs; a portable disk
wouldn't help. While activation is fast, *installation* is very, very slow.
I'd estimate it takes 20 minutes. So, it isn't practical for you to drag a
hard drive around with the Photoshop CS2 installer and do it on every
machine you might sit down at.
You get two activations, so you can always install and
activate on two different computers. If you want to work on three or more
different computers, then you can install the software on as many as you
like, but you won't be able to launch Photoshop. You'd have to boot up
Photoshop on machines 1 or 2, de-activate it, then go to machine 3,
activate it, finish your work on machine 3, de-activate it, and go back to
machine 1 or 2 and re-activate it.
Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:57:21 -0700
From: Roger Howard
Subject: Re: CS2 and Activation
First, let me reiterate I'm no fan of activation, so
I'm just trying to be positive for now since it's here and there's not much
point in me moaning about it.
Second, yes, you can install on as MANY machines as
you want; and then you only have to activate if you're moving between
multiple machines.
As for installing it on a FireWire drive -
that's totally within the license (since the license terms are now
enforced by activation, and based on simultaneous use and NOT on the number
of installations). The problem with putting it on a FireWire drive
though is nothing new... Photoshop installs lots of files outside of the
Photoshop CS2 folder - in your /Library and ~/Library
So putting it on a FW drive won't gain you much but
headaches... better to just do a full install on each machine you might use
it on (and keep an image of the Photoshop install CD on your FW drive just
in case) and then activate/deactivate as needed.
Hope this helps.
You'd have to boot up Photoshop on machines 1 or 2,
de-activate it, then go to machine 3, activate it,
finish your work on machine 3,
de-activate it, and go back to machine 1 or 2 and
re-activate it.
Yep, and while the activation works well technically,
the human element (me) fails me! I sometimes forget to deactivate when I
move locations.
Also, to answer earlier concerns, activatation ONLY
needs a network connection when you activate, not every time it's fired up.
I don't see this as anything at all like the banknote scanning restriction,
as Adobe has very publicly described the activation process and their
reasons for doing it; they have a published privacy policy, which is even
accessible on every activation; and they have clearly stated they are not
reporting anything but hardware ID and serial number - no personally
identifying information (of course, they'll also get your IP). If Adobe
violates this privacy policy I'll be right there protesting, but until then
I see no cause for concern - it's very easy to monitor network traffic...
for instance, every time Photoshop connects to the network (for activation,
etc) I get a warning and a chance to allow/deny it (in my case, I use a
tool called Lil' Snitch - Windows users have similar tools available).
There's no network security risks (in terms of
opening up ontoward ports) as this is outbound traffic, akin to surfing the
Web - it's not running a publicly accessible server on your machine.
Best,
Roger
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:34:31 +0100
From: Richard Kenward
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
In his posting of Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Ric Cohn writes
As a typical photographer I have been reeling for
several years from
the rapid changes brought about by changing
technology, stock and the
general state of the world. One of the major
"improvements" with Bridge
is giving users direct access to stock. As I
understand it this
includes royalty free stock which is one of the
biggest problems for
the photography business. I think it's ironic, but
possibly not just
coincidence that the money people at Adobe are
bringing out both these
features at once. Both seem to me to be ways that
Adobe thinks it can
increase revenues without bringing any improvements to
the program.
Dear Ric
I think you will find that actually Adobe are only
making RF images available at the kick off and perhaps RM images 'may' be
available later together with some exposure for commissioned work.
We will see but this can only be seen as damage limitation as far as
thinking photographers are concerned.
This is most regrettable and has been the subject of
considerable discussion over on the Pro-imaging.org list as to how
best we can bring our concerns to the attention of Adobe as this business
model is unsustainable for professional image makers. This situation
would of course not arise if pro or amateur photographers did not make
their images available RF. However Adobe by actively encouraging it
by touting RF in their new release must accept responsibility for their
actions in all of this.
It is interesting that Adobe, a company so concerned
with safeguarding the copyright of their own products (quite rightly) are
now actively promoting a business model in RF where the photographer has to
give up all interest in his/her copyright of the material he/she has
created.
It appears that several well known photographer beta
testers voiced their considerable concern about this but were over ruled by
Adobe management. Perhaps the small commission Adobe stand to make
from the big stock agencies proved more interesting to them than the future
well being of professional photographers in general.
I therefore urge anyone who does not really understand
why RF image supply is so damaging to read the SAA white paper to be found
here. http:
//www.stockartistsalliance.org/PDF_Docs/SAA_StockLicensingModels.pdf
Best wishes
Richard
--
Richard Kenward
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:08:21 -0700
From: David Creamer
Subject: Re: Comments on Creative Suite 2
It is interesting that Adobe, a company so concerned
with safeguarding
the copyright of their own products (quite rightly)
are now actively
promoting a business model in RF where the
photographer has to give up
all interest in his/her copyright of the material
he/she has created.
"...has to give up all interest..."
Has to?
No one is forcing photographers to give up anything.
Last time I checked, participation in a RF company was the photographer's
decision.
Almost every designer is familiar with RF images. Most
art directors know when to use one and when to hire a photographer.
RF has been around for years. The Adobe Bridge does
make it easer to purchase, but it isn't changing the industry.
David Creamer
I.D.E.A.S. - Results-Oriented Training
http://www.IDEAStraining.com
___________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: Bridge 1.0.1, an emergency corrective update, was
released 25 May, 2005 to improve stability; conflicts with activation. It
was a 44.32 megabyte download. A second emergency update to Bridge was
released, similarly sized, on 15 July 2005.
Adobe Photoshop training classes are taught in the US by Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc.
Receive Schedule
and Pricing updates.
If you let us know how to contact you, we will enter you into our monthly drawing for a free 2-day class (A $895 value).
- Get free video training
- Get free tips, tricks and shortcuts
- Get special sale pricing and free seminar invitations
Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc. 4100 Perimeter Park South Atlanta, GA 30341
work sales@ledet.com work administration@ledet.com work webmaster@ledet.com
P work 770.414.5007 P work 877.819.2665 F fax 312.896.9094
- Authorized Training Provider
Copyright 2012. Sterling Ledet & Associates. All Rights Reserved.
Design by Digital Scientists, a Conversion Optimization Company.
