[Rob Barron]

Originally Posted by C-Man

I just wish my PSP X2 would open 40D raw images, because although I like photoshop it baffles the heck out of me for most things

You know you only have to ask if you have something you would like to know about C-man I am more than happy to put together a tutorial on any aspect of PS usage that you'd like help with.

Cheers,
Rob

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by C-Man

I just wish my PSP X2 would open 40D raw images, because although I like photoshop it baffles the heck out of me for most things

Well, the Corel web-site says PSP can handle RAW files - so have you updated the software? I'm sure that the 40D will be supported, but chances are the version you are running was pre-40D.

[VinnyP]

Part of the cost for Photoshop is the innovation development. They tend to do it first then others follow having seen how they do it. But none the less it can be expensive.

[silkstone]

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

Well, the Corel web-site says PSP can handle RAW files - so have you updated the software? I'm sure that the 40D will be supported, but chances are the version you are running was pre-40D.

It may not, Dabs. They tend not to update RAW support very often, and TBH it's not one of PSP's strengths. Use something else for RAW conversion, and then dabble with TIFFs or JPEGs in PSP.

[Rob Barron]

Vinny, I totally agree and am not disputing that Adobe have majr overheads paying top bods to come up with new features for the industry standard graphics software they produce. It is a fantastic bit of software and there simply isn't another that matches it (as good as some other progs definitely are) but given that it is used by millions of professionals around the world, they have ample scope for reducing it to a price that can be afforded by keen enthusiasts. I am not suggesting they should sell it for £50 or something, I think most enthusiasts would consider £250 very well spent to have a program like CS3 on their computers. But at over double that, it really is pushing it into the realms of pros only.

It has been said by many in the know in the industry that the price is actually designed to stake its claim for top place in the market. Would people consider Rolls Royce to be the creme de la creme of luxury saloons if they were exactly the same as they are now but only cost £50,000? In some eyes, no just because they take the view that expensive means the best.

Oh well, I've got my CS3 suite and won't be asking my friend for a paid up copy of anything for quite a while now. I only got it because he pays for a multi-licence pack in his firm. They have 6 professionals all using PS but they buy a licence for 10. They keep a couple of spares so that their workers can stick it on their laptops and take it home but they then have a couple of licences not needed so my friend being the boss, I get to have a copy. I don't take it for free though, I am not THAT much of a cheapskate <g> His company can't actually sell the licence to me for legal reasons but I have it by being enrolled as an unpaid member of staff (I'm an official advisor, hee hee) and the RNLI benefits from me as a thank you

It does make me wonder you know, there must be quite a few small companies who are in a similar boat. Might want to think about who you make your next friend <g>

Cheers,
Rob

[AQ]

Re prices. People have to remember that Adobe exist only to make money for their shareholders, which usually includes top level employees. If they could make more return by selling toy cars they probably would. Their prices are set by maximising how much they think the customer will pay without destroying the market. This is always a problem for the software industry as they are basically selling the same program over and over again to the same core user base with just a few new bells and whistles on it. This must suffer from the law of diminishing returns, how much more do you need in PS. Perhaps this is why they are selling Lightwave against the raw converter in PS. In principle 2 very similar programs but if you can sell both to the same user base you have increased tour revenue stream.

They would only consider reducing the price of PS by say half if they could sell more than twice as many copies and I do not see that happening. People will pirate a $20 program let alone one for £250. While that price may net a few more sales I think that most photographers would rather put it against a new lens than into a program they can get for free. Or am I just being cynical again.

This topic has been thrashed to death in many forums and having said my 2c worth I will now retire quietly

[Steve]

I find this discussion a little bit difficult to agree with. For the ones saying that its too expensive...if that the case simply don't buy it and use one of the many alternatives that are either free or cost much less. Trying to justify stealing with twisted logic doesn't work.

You may be balking at £500 for CS3 but you don't go stealing a £500 lens nor do you complain about that cost. Many of us here have camera equipment running into thousands of pounds in value and yet equally turn around in the next sentence and say that the cost of software is too expensive for us non professionals

At the end of the day any company can set whatever prices it want to for its products or services, either you pay it and get the goods legally or you don't and make do with alternatives. Anything else is illegal.

[AQ]

No one can argue with your logic Steve but the problems is very clear.

If you steal a lens someone suffers a physical loss. If you steal software that loss is much harder to quantify. Adobe and the shareholders does not have so much money in the back but they still make big profits. The Software companies claim that everyone who pirates Photoshop costs them $500 or so. That is obviously rubbish as most people with free copies would not pay for it but use something like the Gimp.

This an argument as old as software and it keep getting thrashed around and around. I really will try not to respond to any more posts in this thread. (But I am not promising )

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

... I think most enthusiasts would consider £250 very well spent to have a program like CS3 on their computers.

I agree (I was happy to get it for a similar price), therefore may I refer all such enthusiasts to the original post, where such a deal is indeed on offer

Originally Posted by Anthraquinone

This topic has been thrashed to death in many forums and having said my 2c worth I will now retire quietly

...

Originally Posted by Anthraquinone

... This an argument as old as software and it keep getting thrashed around and around. I really will try not to respond to any more posts in this thread. (But I am not promising )

[silkstone]

I've ordered the Linux version.

[VinnyP]

Unlike a car though you only buy it once at full price therafter so long as you change it every few years it only costs about 25% of the purchase price.