Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Adobe advertisement?
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Tony Cooper
May 19, 2013, 12:59:01 PM5/19/13
to
I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.
As we know, Adobe will *never* embed ads in Adobe programs. How could
this possibly happen?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yoiudp3kcw14w3/Capture.JPG
Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."
But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
it's an advertisement.
To quote an old joke, "Now that we know what you are, let's discuss
price".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.
As we know, Adobe will *never* embed ads in Adobe programs. How could
this possibly happen?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yoiudp3kcw14w3/Capture.JPG
Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."
But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
it's an advertisement.
To quote an old joke, "Now that we know what you are, let's discuss
price".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
nospam
May 19, 2013, 2:25:21 PM5/19/13
to
In article <0i0ip85sdvl11ko2j...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> As we know, Adobe will *never* embed ads in Adobe programs. How could
> this possibly happen?
i said embed ads in *paid* apps.
didn't you get elements bundled with hardware, i.e., free?
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yoiudp3kcw14w3/Capture.JPG
>
> Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
> Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
> try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
> membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."
if you actually read the text, it is telling you photoshop.com is
moving to a new home and they're going to be moving your photos there,
starting last month.
in other words, it's an informational banner giving you critical
information. hardly what most people would call an ad.
plus, they're not selling you anything anyway. revel is free.
there is a paid tier, but they don't mention that. not a very good ad,
is it?
> But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
> it's an advertisement.
except they're not trying to induce you into buying anything. they're
simply telling you that your existing photoshop.com account is going to
be moved to revel, whether you want it or not.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
> the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
>
> I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
> hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
> is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.
not listed in the screen shot below, it isn't.
> I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
> the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
>
> I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
> hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
> is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.
> As we know, Adobe will *never* embed ads in Adobe programs. How could
> this possibly happen?
didn't you get elements bundled with hardware, i.e., free?
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yoiudp3kcw14w3/Capture.JPG
>
> Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
> Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
> try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
> membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."
moving to a new home and they're going to be moving your photos there,
starting last month.
in other words, it's an informational banner giving you critical
information. hardly what most people would call an ad.
plus, they're not selling you anything anyway. revel is free.
there is a paid tier, but they don't mention that. not a very good ad,
is it?
> But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
> it's an advertisement.
simply telling you that your existing photoshop.com account is going to
be moved to revel, whether you want it or not.
Tony Cooper
May 19, 2013, 8:26:05 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 14:25:21 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <0i0ip85sdvl11ko2j...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
>> the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
>>
>> I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
>> hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
>> is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.
>
>not listed in the screen shot below, it isn't.
So the price must be listed in the actual ad for it to be an ad? Is
that true of all ads? Take a look at B&H's ads in the back of
photography magazines. Hundreds of items that are not priced in the
ad. Quibble, quibble, quibble.
>
>> As we know, Adobe will *never* embed ads in Adobe programs. How could
>> this possibly happen?
>
>i said embed ads in *paid* apps.
>
>didn't you get elements bundled with hardware, i.e., free?
No, it is a paid-for product. I can supply an image of the box. This
is a purchased version of Elements 9. I haven't had a bundled version
for several years. I think that was Elements 5 or 6 (but I'm not
sure). That went when I purchased a new computer.
ad? Naturally, it wouldn't be exactly the same since we can't have
links that open in a magazine ad.
>plus, they're not selling you anything anyway. revel is free.
A limited version is free, but the better version costs money. Is
this your criteria for something to be an ad? So if Adobe places an
ad in their program for, say, a free version of an anti-virus program
that is not branded Adobe, but that program has a better version that
is charged for, then it's not an ad?
dealers are simply telling me that they have certain models of
automobiles in stock. No prices are listed and there's nothing in
their ads that say "Buy me".
This is an ad. No matter how you quibble, it's an ad. It is placed
there in order to induce me to do something, and that involves me
buying something if I want the best way to do it. Adobe is doing what
you say they won't do.
wrote:
>In article <0i0ip85sdvl11ko2j...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
>> the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
>>
>> I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
>> hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
>> is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.
>
>not listed in the screen shot below, it isn't.
that true of all ads? Take a look at B&H's ads in the back of
photography magazines. Hundreds of items that are not priced in the
ad. Quibble, quibble, quibble.
>
>> As we know, Adobe will *never* embed ads in Adobe programs. How could
>> this possibly happen?
>
>i said embed ads in *paid* apps.
>
>didn't you get elements bundled with hardware, i.e., free?
is a purchased version of Elements 9. I haven't had a bundled version
for several years. I think that was Elements 5 or 6 (but I'm not
sure). That went when I purchased a new computer.
>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yoiudp3kcw14w3/Capture.JPG
>>
>> Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
>> Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
>> try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
>> membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."
>
>if you actually read the text, it is telling you photoshop.com is
>moving to a new home and they're going to be moving your photos there,
>starting last month.
>
>in other words, it's an informational banner giving you critical
>information. hardly what most people would call an ad.
If this same information was published in a magazine, would it be an
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7yoiudp3kcw14w3/Capture.JPG
>>
>> Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
>> Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
>> try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
>> membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."
>
>if you actually read the text, it is telling you photoshop.com is
>moving to a new home and they're going to be moving your photos there,
>starting last month.
>
>in other words, it's an informational banner giving you critical
>information. hardly what most people would call an ad.
ad? Naturally, it wouldn't be exactly the same since we can't have
links that open in a magazine ad.
>plus, they're not selling you anything anyway. revel is free.
this your criteria for something to be an ad? So if Adobe places an
ad in their program for, say, a free version of an anti-virus program
that is not branded Adobe, but that program has a better version that
is charged for, then it's not an ad?
>
>there is a paid tier, but they don't mention that. not a very good ad,
>is it?
>
>> But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
>> it's an advertisement.
>
>except they're not trying to induce you into buying anything. they're
>simply telling you that your existing photoshop.com account is going to
>be moved to revel, whether you want it or not.
Well, today's newspaper is full of non-ads, then. Several automobile
>there is a paid tier, but they don't mention that. not a very good ad,
>is it?
>
>> But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
>> it's an advertisement.
>
>except they're not trying to induce you into buying anything. they're
>simply telling you that your existing photoshop.com account is going to
>be moved to revel, whether you want it or not.
dealers are simply telling me that they have certain models of
automobiles in stock. No prices are listed and there's nothing in
their ads that say "Buy me".
This is an ad. No matter how you quibble, it's an ad. It is placed
there in order to induce me to do something, and that involves me
buying something if I want the best way to do it. Adobe is doing what
you say they won't do.
nospam
May 19, 2013, 10:10:25 PM5/19/13
to
In article <mbqip85dld3n7i7r7...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
what i said was that only revel is listed, not the paid revel premium.
for someone unfamiliar with the product, they'd never know there was a
second tier, unless they clicked the more info button.
> >> Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
> >> Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
> >> try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
> >> membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."
> >
> >if you actually read the text, it is telling you photoshop.com is
> >moving to a new home and they're going to be moving your photos there,
> >starting last month.
> >
> >in other words, it's an informational banner giving you critical
> >information. hardly what most people would call an ad.
>
> If this same information was published in a magazine, would it be an
> ad? Naturally, it wouldn't be exactly the same since we can't have
> links that open in a magazine ad.
i see it as informational, or a public service announcement.
> >plus, they're not selling you anything anyway. revel is free.
>
> A limited version is free, but the better version costs money. Is
> this your criteria for something to be an ad? So if Adobe places an
> ad in their program for, say, a free version of an anti-virus program
> that is not branded Adobe, but that program has a better version that
> is charged for, then it's not an ad?
that would be an ad but that isn't what they're doing.
they're informing you that photoshop.com is going away and revel is
replacing it. that's important info for someone who was using
photoshop.com.
> >there is a paid tier, but they don't mention that. not a very good ad,
> >is it?
> >
> >> But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
> >> it's an advertisement.
> >
> >except they're not trying to induce you into buying anything. they're
> >simply telling you that your existing photoshop.com account is going to
> >be moved to revel, whether you want it or not.
>
> Well, today's newspaper is full of non-ads, then. Several automobile
> dealers are simply telling me that they have certain models of
> automobiles in stock. No prices are listed and there's nothing in
> their ads that say "Buy me".
'buy me' is an invitation to buy.
there is no buy me in your screenshot. there are only two buttons, one
one how to get more info and the other on how to move to the new
system.
> This is an ad. No matter how you quibble, it's an ad. It is placed
> there in order to induce me to do something, and that involves me
> buying something if I want the best way to do it. Adobe is doing what
> you say they won't do.
nope. you don't have to buy anything. the 'best' way is the way that
fits your needs, which could be the free level. for me, the free
dropbox level is the best.
of course, they'd love it if you gave the money but that's not required.
anyway, call it an ad if you want. change what i said to adobe won't
push ads in the apps to paying customers of creative cloud, and they
won't. they're not going to piss off their pro customers, especially
ones who are paying $600 per year.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
> >> the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
> >>
> >> I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
> >> hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
> >> is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.
> >
> >not listed in the screen shot below, it isn't.
>
> So the price must be listed in the actual ad for it to be an ad? Is
> that true of all ads? Take a look at B&H's ads in the back of
> photography magazines. Hundreds of items that are not priced in the
> ad. Quibble, quibble, quibble.
i didn't say the price had to be listed.
> >> I have, but don't use, Adobe Elements 9. My daughter - who does use
> >> the program - called today and asked how to do something in Elements.
> >>
> >> I opened Elements, and much to my surprise, up popped an ad from Adobe
> >> hoping to lure me into subscribing to Adobe Revel. One of the options
> >> is paying $5.99 a month for Revel Premium.
> >
> >not listed in the screen shot below, it isn't.
>
> So the price must be listed in the actual ad for it to be an ad? Is
> that true of all ads? Take a look at B&H's ads in the back of
> photography magazines. Hundreds of items that are not priced in the
> ad. Quibble, quibble, quibble.
what i said was that only revel is listed, not the paid revel premium.
for someone unfamiliar with the product, they'd never know there was a
second tier, unless they clicked the more info button.
> >> Now I know that some will say "Oh, that's just trying to sell you an
> >> Adobe product, and that's not an ad. For it to be an ad, they have to
> >> try to sell you something not provided by Adobe. Like a health club
> >> membership or lava lamp or a nose hair clipper."
> >
> >if you actually read the text, it is telling you photoshop.com is
> >moving to a new home and they're going to be moving your photos there,
> >starting last month.
> >
> >in other words, it's an informational banner giving you critical
> >information. hardly what most people would call an ad.
>
> If this same information was published in a magazine, would it be an
> ad? Naturally, it wouldn't be exactly the same since we can't have
> links that open in a magazine ad.
> >plus, they're not selling you anything anyway. revel is free.
>
> A limited version is free, but the better version costs money. Is
> this your criteria for something to be an ad? So if Adobe places an
> ad in their program for, say, a free version of an anti-virus program
> that is not branded Adobe, but that program has a better version that
> is charged for, then it's not an ad?
they're informing you that photoshop.com is going away and revel is
replacing it. that's important info for someone who was using
photoshop.com.
> >there is a paid tier, but they don't mention that. not a very good ad,
> >is it?
> >
> >> But, I disagree. If they are trying to induce me to buy something,
> >> it's an advertisement.
> >
> >except they're not trying to induce you into buying anything. they're
> >simply telling you that your existing photoshop.com account is going to
> >be moved to revel, whether you want it or not.
>
> Well, today's newspaper is full of non-ads, then. Several automobile
> dealers are simply telling me that they have certain models of
> automobiles in stock. No prices are listed and there's nothing in
> their ads that say "Buy me".
there is no buy me in your screenshot. there are only two buttons, one
one how to get more info and the other on how to move to the new
system.
> This is an ad. No matter how you quibble, it's an ad. It is placed
> there in order to induce me to do something, and that involves me
> buying something if I want the best way to do it. Adobe is doing what
> you say they won't do.
fits your needs, which could be the free level. for me, the free
dropbox level is the best.
of course, they'd love it if you gave the money but that's not required.
anyway, call it an ad if you want. change what i said to adobe won't
push ads in the apps to paying customers of creative cloud, and they
won't. they're not going to piss off their pro customers, especially
ones who are paying $600 per year.
Tony Cooper
May 19, 2013, 11:15:56 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 22:10:25 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>the 'best' way is the way that fits your needs,
Well, that's a reversal in your thinking. When the discussion was
about film or digital, you insisted that digital is the "best way" and
gave no allowance to people who feel film fits their needs.
There may be hope for you.
wrote:
>the 'best' way is the way that fits your needs,
about film or digital, you insisted that digital is the "best way" and
gave no allowance to people who feel film fits their needs.
There may be hope for you.
nospam
May 20, 2013, 10:08:23 AM5/20/13
to
In article <275jp8houvta7j212...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
> When the discussion was
> about film or digital, you insisted that digital is the "best way" and
> gave no allowance to people who feel film fits their needs.
wrong. i never said digital was the best way.
what i said was that digital can do anything film can do, which is a
true statement.
<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >the 'best' way is the way that fits your needs,
>
> Well, that's a reversal in your thinking.
that's *always* been my thinking.
> >the 'best' way is the way that fits your needs,
>
> Well, that's a reversal in your thinking.
> When the discussion was
> about film or digital, you insisted that digital is the "best way" and
> gave no allowance to people who feel film fits their needs.
what i said was that digital can do anything film can do, which is a
true statement.
Tony Cooper
May 20, 2013, 9:08:10 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:08:23 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
You said:
"it's obviously a choice, but it's because they don't understand
digital technology and think film is better. anything they can do with
film can be done better with digital (or the same if they like the
look), and for less money too."
If not "best", the "better" of the two.
wrote:
"it's obviously a choice, but it's because they don't understand
digital technology and think film is better. anything they can do with
film can be done better with digital (or the same if they like the
look), and for less money too."
If not "best", the "better" of the two.
rwalker
May 21, 2013, 3:05:22 AM5/21/13
to
in a position where I was considering moving up to full blown
Photoshop, but I see now you can only SUBSCRIBE to it. Forget it, I'm
sticking with Elements 4 till it won't run any more.
James Silverton
May 21, 2013, 8:51:09 AM5/21/13
to
load and displays a panel with what I think are programmers' names while
loading.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
nospam
May 21, 2013, 9:09:08 AM5/21/13
to
In article <p27mp8dhbbv6lj8kh...@4ax.com>, rwalker
however, it will be the last version sold that way. you could upgrade
to cs6 whenever you want or you could get photoshop elements 11, which
is cheaper and does way more than what you have now.
<rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
> I'm still using Elements 4! I guess I'll stick with it. I am finally
> in a position where I was considering moving up to full blown
> Photoshop, but I see now you can only SUBSCRIBE to it. Forget it, I'm
> sticking with Elements 4 till it won't run any more.
wrong. photoshop cs6 is still sold and will continue to be sold.
> I'm still using Elements 4! I guess I'll stick with it. I am finally
> in a position where I was considering moving up to full blown
> Photoshop, but I see now you can only SUBSCRIBE to it. Forget it, I'm
> sticking with Elements 4 till it won't run any more.
however, it will be the last version sold that way. you could upgrade
to cs6 whenever you want or you could get photoshop elements 11, which
is cheaper and does way more than what you have now.
rwalker
May 23, 2013, 12:59:28 AM5/23/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:09:08 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Really? The Adobe web site certainly didn't make it very clear.
wrote:
Savageduck
May 23, 2013, 1:29:07 AM5/23/13
to
purchasing a license to PS CS6 or an upgrade from CS5.
They are doing all they can to lead CS users from the purchased license
to the rented CC variety. To buy the CS5 to CS6 upgrade I had to call
their 800 number and make arrangements. I was told that DVD versions of
any of the CS Suite modules were no longer available via direct sale
from Adobe, and that there would be no further deliveries to resellers,
that inventory is expected to dwindle by atrition.
There is no upgrade path to PS CS6 from PSE.
PSE11 and LR4 (soon to be LR5) remain available as DVD's.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
rwalker
May 23, 2013, 2:14:00 AM5/23/13
to
Eric Stevens
May 23, 2013, 4:49:05 AM5/23/13
to
to my address. It looks as though if I want to go that way its CC or
nothing.
[Thinks: One more piece of software to tie up my computer with on-line
updates. I will never get anything done.]
>There is no upgrade path to PS CS6 from PSE.
>
>PSE11 and LR4 (soon to be LR5) remain available as DVD's.
--
Regards,
Whisky-dave
May 23, 2013, 8:54:19 AM5/23/13
to
I've heard star trails are much more difficult with digital than with film due to the build up of noise. Not that I've tried it with a digital camera found it reasonably easy with my old film camera.
I still say it's easier to do IR with my practica L than my Canon G10 or perhaps you could tell me an easier way using digital becaus it's better that way.
Sandman
May 23, 2013, 9:08:04 AM5/23/13
to
In article <d7d54406-99b6-4732...@googlegroups.com>,
film?
> Not that I've tried it with a digital camera found it reasonably
> easy with my old film camera. I still say it's easier to do IR with
> my practica L than my Canon G10 or perhaps you could tell me an
> easier way using digital becaus it's better that way.
Well, it's probably easier with your older camera because it doesn't
have a strong IR blocking filter. Modern digital cameras have a strong
IR blocking filter. Older digital cameras does not (Nikon D70 is a
favorite amongst IR photographers).
Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
digital or not, it's due to the filter.
--
Sandman[.net]
Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > what i said was that digital can do anything film can do, which is a
> > true statement.
>
> And means little. I've heard star trails are much more difficult
> with digital than with film due to the build up of noise.
I can't see why noise would build up faster or more on digital than on
> > what i said was that digital can do anything film can do, which is a
> > true statement.
>
> And means little. I've heard star trails are much more difficult
> with digital than with film due to the build up of noise.
film?
> Not that I've tried it with a digital camera found it reasonably
> easy with my old film camera. I still say it's easier to do IR with
> my practica L than my Canon G10 or perhaps you could tell me an
> easier way using digital becaus it's better that way.
have a strong IR blocking filter. Modern digital cameras have a strong
IR blocking filter. Older digital cameras does not (Nikon D70 is a
favorite amongst IR photographers).
Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
digital or not, it's due to the filter.
--
Sandman[.net]
Whisky-dave
May 23, 2013, 10:39:32 AM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013 2:08:04 PM UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
> In article <d7d54406-99b6-4732...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > what i said was that digital can do anything film can do, which is a
>
> > > true statement.
>
> >
>
> > And means little. I've heard star trails are much more difficult
>
> > with digital than with film due to the build up of noise.
>
>
>
> I can't see why noise would build up faster or more on digital than on
>
> film?
partly because film has reciporsity failure, which means it gets less sensitive with exsposure, while camera sensors do not. Which for most will make digital better but not for this purpose.
> In article <d7d54406-99b6-4732...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > what i said was that digital can do anything film can do, which is a
>
> > > true statement.
>
> >
>
> > And means little. I've heard star trails are much more difficult
>
> > with digital than with film due to the build up of noise.
>
>
>
> I can't see why noise would build up faster or more on digital than on
>
> film?
Camera sensors will warm up with use, while film doesn't, well not in the same way, increasing this temerature adds noise which is why specislist digtial and film cameras are kept cold, very cold if possible.
> > Not that I've tried it with a digital camera found it reasonably
>
> > easy with my old film camera. I still say it's easier to do IR with
>
> > my practica L than my Canon G10 or perhaps you could tell me an
>
> > easier way using digital becaus it's better that way.
>
>
>
> Well, it's probably easier with your older camera because it doesn't
>
> have a strong IR blocking filter. Modern digital cameras have a strong
>
> IR blocking filter.
>Older digital cameras does not (Nikon D70 is a
>
> favorite amongst IR photographers).
> Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
>
> digital or not, it's due to the filter.
Why filter out something we can't see ?
Sandman
May 23, 2013, 11:06:33 AM5/23/13
to
In article <c52f31a0-f537-43c5...@googlegroups.com>,
measurable, or theoretically proven, but do we have any way to make
comparable samples? Say, an ISO100 film and a digital sensor set to
ISO100 for a 10 minute exposure on a starry cloud free night, and then
compare noise?
I mean, if the theory is that heat encourages noise in the sensor, then
the very fact that we are taking the photo at night would minimize that
effect, no? Sure, there are places on earth where nighttime is as hot as
daytime, but for the general case.
> > Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
> > digital or not, it's due to the filter.
>
> What about the filter ?
> Why filter out something we can't see ?
Huh? No, it's the other way around. The IR filter you add to the lens
filters everything BUT the IR light. So the only thing that reaches the
film/sensor is IR light. For film cameras and older digital cameras,
that would work just fine. The film/sensor registers only IR light, and
some really interesting photographs can be made.
On newer digital cameras, the manufacturer have added a strong IR
*blocking* filter in front of the sensor, that blocks IR light to reach
the sensor - meaning that if you add an IR filter in front of the lens,
then no light will reach the sensor, because the IR filter blocks normal
light and the IR block blocks IR light. :)
You can then do an IR conversion of your camera, removing the IR block
from in front of the sensor, then you can add an IR filter and shoot IR
pictures as normal.
--
Sandman[.net]
Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I can't see why noise would build up faster or more on digital than on
> > film?
>
> partly because film has reciporsity failure, which means it gets less
> sensitive with exsposure, while camera sensors do not. Which for most will
> make digital better but not for this purpose.
> Camera sensors will warm up with use, while film doesn't, well not in the
> same way, increasing this temerature adds noise which is why specislist
> digtial and film cameras are kept cold, very cold if possible.
Sure, but this is a marginal effect, surely? I mean, it may be
> > I can't see why noise would build up faster or more on digital than on
> > film?
>
> partly because film has reciporsity failure, which means it gets less
> sensitive with exsposure, while camera sensors do not. Which for most will
> make digital better but not for this purpose.
> Camera sensors will warm up with use, while film doesn't, well not in the
> same way, increasing this temerature adds noise which is why specislist
> digtial and film cameras are kept cold, very cold if possible.
measurable, or theoretically proven, but do we have any way to make
comparable samples? Say, an ISO100 film and a digital sensor set to
ISO100 for a 10 minute exposure on a starry cloud free night, and then
compare noise?
I mean, if the theory is that heat encourages noise in the sensor, then
the very fact that we are taking the photo at night would minimize that
effect, no? Sure, there are places on earth where nighttime is as hot as
daytime, but for the general case.
> > Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
> > digital or not, it's due to the filter.
>
> What about the filter ?
> Why filter out something we can't see ?
filters everything BUT the IR light. So the only thing that reaches the
film/sensor is IR light. For film cameras and older digital cameras,
that would work just fine. The film/sensor registers only IR light, and
some really interesting photographs can be made.
On newer digital cameras, the manufacturer have added a strong IR
*blocking* filter in front of the sensor, that blocks IR light to reach
the sensor - meaning that if you add an IR filter in front of the lens,
then no light will reach the sensor, because the IR filter blocks normal
light and the IR block blocks IR light. :)
You can then do an IR conversion of your camera, removing the IR block
from in front of the sensor, then you can add an IR filter and shoot IR
pictures as normal.
--
Sandman[.net]
nospam
May 23, 2013, 11:14:11 AM5/23/13
to
In article <orlrp8hb5jsm3l9lf...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
og_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html?start=10>
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >The Adobe web site has done its best to obfuscate any direct path to
> >purchasing a license to PS CS6 or an upgrade from CS5.
> >They are doing all they can to lead CS users from the purchased license
> >to the rented CC variety. To buy the CS5 to CS6 upgrade I had to call
> >their 800 number and make arrangements. I was told that DVD versions of
> >any of the CS Suite modules were no longer available via direct sale
> >from Adobe, and that there would be no further deliveries to resellers,
> >that inventory is expected to dwindle by atrition.
> >
> Amazon still has three copies of CS6 but, as usual, they will not ship
> to my address. It looks as though if I want to go that way its CC or
> nothing.
<http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catal
> >
> >The Adobe web site has done its best to obfuscate any direct path to
> >purchasing a license to PS CS6 or an upgrade from CS5.
> >They are doing all they can to lead CS users from the purchased license
> >to the rented CC variety. To buy the CS5 to CS6 upgrade I had to call
> >their 800 number and make arrangements. I was told that DVD versions of
> >any of the CS Suite modules were no longer available via direct sale
> >from Adobe, and that there would be no further deliveries to resellers,
> >that inventory is expected to dwindle by atrition.
> >
> Amazon still has three copies of CS6 but, as usual, they will not ship
> to my address. It looks as though if I want to go that way its CC or
> nothing.
og_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html?start=10>
nospam
May 23, 2013, 11:14:13 AM5/23/13
to
> I've heard star trails are much more difficult with digital than with film
> due to the build up of noise. Not that I've tried it with a digital camera
> found it reasonably easy with my old film camera.
astronomers love digital.
> due to the build up of noise. Not that I've tried it with a digital camera
> found it reasonably easy with my old film camera.
> I still say it's easier to do IR with my practica L than my Canon G10 or
> perhaps you could tell me an easier way using digital becaus it's better that way.
nospam
May 23, 2013, 11:14:14 AM5/23/13
to
> >Older digital cameras does not (Nikon D70 is a
> > favorite amongst IR photographers).
>
> > Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
> > digital or not, it's due to the filter.
>
> What about the filter ?
> Why filter out something we can't see ?
because digital sensors can see infrared.
> > favorite amongst IR photographers).
>
> > Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
> > digital or not, it's due to the filter.
>
> What about the filter ?
> Why filter out something we can't see ?
for normal photography you don't want infrared contamination.
PeterN
May 23, 2013, 2:22:05 PM5/23/13
to
lens focus adjusted.
<http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/Landscapes/21271534_mw4B9R#!i=1730614889&k=WGpJLmN>
--
PeterN
PeterN
May 23, 2013, 2:25:42 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/23/2013 11:06 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <c52f31a0-f537-43c5...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I can't see why noise would build up faster or more on digital than on
>>> film?
>>
>> partly because film has reciporsity failure, which means it gets less
>> sensitive with exsposure, while camera sensors do not. Which for most will
>> make digital better but not for this purpose.
>> Camera sensors will warm up with use, while film doesn't, well not in the
>> same way, increasing this temerature adds noise which is why specislist
>> digtial and film cameras are kept cold, very cold if possible.
>
> Sure, but this is a marginal effect, surely? I mean, it may be
> measurable, or theoretically proven, but do we have any way to make
> comparable samples? Say, an ISO100 film and a digital sensor set to
> ISO100 for a 10 minute exposure on a starry cloud free night, and then
> compare noise?
>
> I mean, if the theory is that heat encourages noise in the sensor, then
> the very fact that we are taking the photo at night would minimize that
> effect, no? Sure, there are places on earth where nighttime is as hot as
> daytime, but for the general case.
I freely admit that I don't understand the theory ofwhy, but ther has to
> In article <c52f31a0-f537-43c5...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I can't see why noise would build up faster or more on digital than on
>>> film?
>>
>> partly because film has reciporsity failure, which means it gets less
>> sensitive with exsposure, while camera sensors do not. Which for most will
>> make digital better but not for this purpose.
>> Camera sensors will warm up with use, while film doesn't, well not in the
>> same way, increasing this temerature adds noise which is why specislist
>> digtial and film cameras are kept cold, very cold if possible.
>
> Sure, but this is a marginal effect, surely? I mean, it may be
> measurable, or theoretically proven, but do we have any way to make
> comparable samples? Say, an ISO100 film and a digital sensor set to
> ISO100 for a 10 minute exposure on a starry cloud free night, and then
> compare noise?
>
> I mean, if the theory is that heat encourages noise in the sensor, then
> the very fact that we are taking the photo at night would minimize that
> effect, no? Sure, there are places on earth where nighttime is as hot as
> daytime, but for the general case.
be a reason cameras have a setting for long exposure NR.
>
>>> Either way, IR suitability is not due to whether or not the camera is
>>> digital or not, it's due to the filter.
>>
>> What about the filter ?
>> Why filter out something we can't see ?
>
> Huh? No, it's the other way around. The IR filter you add to the lens
> filters everything BUT the IR light. So the only thing that reaches the
> film/sensor is IR light. For film cameras and older digital cameras,
> that would work just fine. The film/sensor registers only IR light, and
> some really interesting photographs can be made.
>
> On newer digital cameras, the manufacturer have added a strong IR
> *blocking* filter in front of the sensor, that blocks IR light to reach
> the sensor - meaning that if you add an IR filter in front of the lens,
> then no light will reach the sensor, because the IR filter blocks normal
> light and the IR block blocks IR light. :)
>
> You can then do an IR conversion of your camera, removing the IR block
> from in front of the sensor, then you can add an IR filter and shoot IR
> pictures as normal.
>
>
>
adjusted, as IR focus is <> regular focus.
--
PeterN
Sandman
May 23, 2013, 3:21:33 PM5/23/13
to
In article <519e5f26$0$10769$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>,
Michael Covington, but he doesn't talk about how he determined the
amount of noise different temperatures, and states that DSLR's are
"noticeably" less noisy during winter than in the summer.
He also states that he hasn't tested new cameras, and the book was
published in 2007.
> > You can then do an IR conversion of your camera, removing the IR block
> > from in front of the sensor, then you can add an IR filter and shoot IR
> > pictures as normal.
>
> Did that at it works well for me. You also need to have the focus
> adjusted, as IR focus is <> regular focus.
Indeed - or convert a camera with LiveView so you can see the current
focus directly on the sensor. That way, you can add a IR block filter
and use the camera as normal as well as an IR camera.
--
Sandman[.net]
PeterN <peter.n...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > I mean, if the theory is that heat encourages noise in the sensor, then
> > the very fact that we are taking the photo at night would minimize that
> > effect, no? Sure, there are places on earth where nighttime is as hot as
> > daytime, but for the general case.
>
> I freely admit that I don't understand the theory ofwhy, but ther has to
> be a reason cameras have a setting for long exposure NR.
The idea seems to come from the book "Digital SLR Astrophotography" by
> > I mean, if the theory is that heat encourages noise in the sensor, then
> > the very fact that we are taking the photo at night would minimize that
> > effect, no? Sure, there are places on earth where nighttime is as hot as
> > daytime, but for the general case.
>
> I freely admit that I don't understand the theory ofwhy, but ther has to
> be a reason cameras have a setting for long exposure NR.
Michael Covington, but he doesn't talk about how he determined the
amount of noise different temperatures, and states that DSLR's are
"noticeably" less noisy during winter than in the summer.
He also states that he hasn't tested new cameras, and the book was
published in 2007.
> > You can then do an IR conversion of your camera, removing the IR block
> > from in front of the sensor, then you can add an IR filter and shoot IR
> > pictures as normal.
>
> Did that at it works well for me. You also need to have the focus
> adjusted, as IR focus is <> regular focus.
focus directly on the sensor. That way, you can add a IR block filter
and use the camera as normal as well as an IR camera.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
May 23, 2013, 3:21:55 PM5/23/13
to
Eric Stevens
May 23, 2013, 3:51:53 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:14:11 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Well, that's amazing. Every attempt I have made to contact Adobe
connects me via Australia. The link you have given me seems to work
without routing me through Australia although I didn't get quite to
the point of giving them my credit card data. Nor have I quite got to
the point of deciding to buy CS6 but I will try that URL if I decide
to in the near future.
Many thanks.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
wrote:
connects me via Australia. The link you have given me seems to work
without routing me through Australia although I didn't get quite to
the point of giving them my credit card data. Nor have I quite got to
the point of deciding to buy CS6 but I will try that URL if I decide
to in the near future.
Many thanks.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
PeterN
May 23, 2013, 5:24:21 PM5/23/13
to
--
PeterN
0 new messages