Re: Digital Asset Management options

[Don Roberts <droberts@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Adobe does seem strange.  I have a new Powershot G11.  I can't open the RAW files in PS CS3 but I can get the updates to open them in PS Elements 6 and Lightroom 2.  I can get by with those almost all of the time.  But why handicap your flagship image editing program just to try to force people to buy new?  Not good customer relations.
Don

mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Well not long ago I had a question about Photoshop.  I just got a Canon 50D and low and behold CS2 wouldn't open the raw files.  Looked and couldn't find a way to make Photoshop to open them, so I called Adobe.  I would have understood if they told me that the 50D came out after CS2 and I would have to upgrade.  I would have greatly appreciated an update that would allow CS2 to open the current files.  They told me neither.  Instead they just said we don't support CS2 anymore and I would have to ask someone else, ie not our problem so go away.   I took that as Adobe telling me that I was indeed Number 1. 

Now I am already on the Photoshop train an there really isn't a practical way off, but it will be a long time before I get Lightroom.  I would hope someone at Adobe would read this and know that I think Adobe is Number 1 too and am going to keep my money in my pocket till I have to.  Frankly an apology would be nice but that's dreaming.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Digital Asset Management options
From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, January 12, 2010 2:06 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


On Tue, January 12, 2010 13:23, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Which Corel product are you using? I am old school too, but a good
> capture even back in the day was just the start. From altering developing
> times, print exposure times, filter packs, ect most of the same things we
> do in digital post processing were done back in the day too. It just the
> photographer didn't always do them their self.

Back then, it was a major step for an amateur photographer to start doing
their own darkroom work (at least in B&W). And a part of all professional
training that I saw. Most labs did very little beyond straight prints,
though I believe if you paid "exhibition printing" prices and were a
frequent customer, you could end up with a personal relationship with the
person who printed your work. Some top artistic professionals cut out the
middleman by employing their own printers. I think they went from doing
their own printing, to hiring an employee to do it to their
specifications.

I hardly ever did split-filter printing (on variable-contrast paper).
Never made contrast masks (useful even in B&W, I hear tell).

And then there were extremes like dye-transfer color printing, if you
REALLY desperately wanted control (and amazing colors, and incredible
shadow detail, and great permanence). Never did that either, though I own
a number of dye-transfer prints of my friend Ctein's work.

This modern idea that you shouldn't post-process is amusing. I suspect it
of being an interesting combination of artistic rejection of some of the
extremes of Photoshop abuse, and ignorance of just how much alteration was
done in top-grade printing in a darkroom. Some people, I suppose, may
also use it to excuse their laziness.

> I have forgotten about Bibble, but the Thumbs plus looks promising too.

Hope you find something you like. I'm not, it sounds like, as anti-Adobe
as you, but I'm always willing to help somebody trying to avoid doing more
business with them.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info