It is not so much the lamenting of the price of tools in general, it is that Adobe is high priced compared to the competition. You might get more in the package, but much of it may not be needed. So when I compare all the other converters, they are running around $100-140 in price - about 1/2 to 1/3 the Lightroom price. And yes, I have tried Lightroom - part of it I like very much, but part of it is not needed for the workflow that I do. I sell photos for weddings, portraits and sports and need on-line ordering, money collection, lab interface, drop shipping and such. Lightroom and Photoshop offer me none of that. I use a tool that is called Darkroom from ExpressDigital and cost quite a bit too. But there isn't much competition to choose from for it.
So for my needs, I need a raw converter, an editor for a few things and some file management - Darkroom does quite a bit of that as well There are many types of photographers and workflows to suit their needs. Adobe tools suit some of them, but not all. Competitors are typically lower priced which makes the Adobe price when come out. I think the Leica comparison is more for those who don't have Leica who think it is overpriced. It may be better than the competitors, but not by enough for everyone to feel justified by the prices they ask. We have seen the same kind of thing from other vendors when they have a great product that has significant market share - Novell, Microsoft (debatable on great product-but have significant market share), Adobe and others have been able to charge a premium price and do so. I am not saying they shouldn't do it - if the market will bear it, then more power to them - but it certainly encourages me to look at other tools. Sorry for the rambling... -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, February 7, 2007, 8:40:17 AM, you wrote: BL> Godfrey, to clarify my point (of the initial message of this thread). BL> I consider LR pricing to be fair. I consider the way Adobe markets its BL> products outside US of A to be very user-repulsing. BL> On 2/7/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I fully expected Lightroom to be about $300. With the sophistication >> I see in this application and it's fit to my needs, that is inexpensive. >> >> The moaning and lamenting about Photoshop pricing reminds me of Leica >> owners with $30,000 worth of Leica M bodies and lenses in their bag >> going to CostCo to save three dollars on film processing and >> accepting the mediocre results. And then complaining about the >> results and blaming CostCo. It makes no sense to me. >> >> Image processing tools are, if anything, MORE important than fancy >> lenses if you're serious about making fine photographs. I bought >> Photoshop because, after trying every other tool available, it did >> the best job for me even if it didn't do everything I needed. I >> bought it before I started expecting to make a living from my >> photography, they just did the job right for me. I am buying >> Lightroom for the same reason. The two together address all my needs, >> and cost me less than the DA14. I like the DA14 very much, but if >> push came to shove I'd take Photoshop + Lightroom instead. Using them >> will likely generate the money to buy a DA14 faster than using a DA14 >> and less productive tools. >> >> Well, that's my perspective ... Everyone's entitled to their own >> opinion. >> >> Godfrey >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> BL> -- BL> Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
