Adobe moving to subscription payment model

[swag72]

Star Tools is another astro specific package, very cheap in comparison.

[E621Keith]

I have tried to love GIMP, but it's a bit on the clunky side. Photoshop has an intuitive feel to it which GIMP lacks (at least for me). If you're looking for an alternative to those programs for processing AP images, then plenty of free options exist. The image processing techniques in "amateur" AP bear a lot of resemblance to processing that's done in various scientific fields where images are acquired. Scientists and programmers working in these fields have produced tools to make their work possible and that stuff is all available on-line. These tools aren't "painting programs" in the way GIMP is, for instance. Instead, they're used for tasks such as altering contrast, cropping, filtering, aligning image stacks, histogram equalization, etc.

For instance, ImageJ: http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/ is used in biological imaging, but it's pretty general purpose. There's a related project known as Fiji: http://fiji.sc/Fiji There's this one too: http://icy.bioimageanalysis.org/ There are also image processing tools in Python, Perl, and Octave. But those get more hard-core because you have to learn the programming language. In addition to all those there are obviously also the freeware astro-specific programs which no doubt everyone here is familiar with.

I tried using Matlab to process some AP images. While it works, it not fun doing everything in command line.

[jonathan]

GIMP has a scripting back-end to it, similar in principle to Photoshop's Actions but rather more difficult to get into as it requires some level of programming knowledge to create new processes and procedures. For someone who can do the programming, it could do some very nifty stuff, and if the script can be shared it might be possible to distribute so others can just add it to their GIMP install as another filter in a menu. I could never be bothered though.

[Ouroboros]

I would suggest Pixinsight is pretty close. Not cheap though!

Typed by me on my fone, using fumms... Excuse eny speling errurs.

I don't use it but looking at the specifications is Pixinsight a bit over 'featured' for most amateur astronomers? It is cheaper than PS though.

[Pig]

Why does none of this surprise me

[earth titan]

I don't use it but looking at the specifications is Pixinsight a bit over 'featured' for most amateur astronomers? It is cheaper than PS though.

Having played with PI for a few weeks, I would say there are features not needed but it has improved the imaging I've done, using a handful of the simpler ones.

Catch is though, that despite its excellence, I still use PS for some things.

Typed by me on my fone, using fumms... Excuse eny speling errurs.

[GlassWalker]

I've been using PixInsight for quite a while now. I wouldn't call myself an expert in it, but know enough to get what I need done in it. I know there's a lot more potential left to extract if I can make use of other features. However I don't think it is something to compare with PS, as they're different areas. It's like comparing Lr with PS. There's areas of functional overlap, but they're aiming at different things.

To me, PI does the heavy lifting up front. You need to get all your raw data together first and calibrate, align, stack it before doing the more cosmetic tweaks. Only there might you jump from PI to PS. So to me, for astro use I'd rate a package like PI as more important than PS. As such, I've never made the jump to full PS, having bought the home user PSE. I guess it is a hard line to draw for Adobe, as they want to milk the "pro" package as best they can, while throwing out something for the masses. At times I do run into limitations of PSE that would not be the case with PS, but as they're infrequent enough I use other tools as required to make up any gaps.

On that note, I wonder what they're going to do with PSE going forward.

[earth titan]

I know we all love to moan about software companies and about how they keep coming out with new tweaks, finding new points to leverage money, but they have staff to pay, buildings to rent and other costs so they have to keep making a profit. Although online collaboration ventures such as Linux, Gimp etc. have all made tremendous progress over the last 5 years, the main programs still need big companies to write them.

As major improvements become more difficult to justify to the customer, companies will inevitably move over to subscription, to ensure an income for the business.

It's inevitable I'm afraid.

[JamesF]

As major improvements become more difficult to justify to the customer, companies will inevitably move over to subscription, to ensure an income for the business.

An alternative reading of that might be that the company is no longer producing new products that the customer wants, so instead they're going to move to a subscription-based model so they can continue to charge the customer whilst producing new things they don't want.

Which is all very well until some other enterprising business comes along producing a similar product with the features that they've had for years that lots of people want and none of the ones that most people don't want and massively undercuts their pricing. All of a sudden there's nowhere to go but bankruptcy.

As a business, Adobe are probably between a rock and a hard place. Their investors probably demand new products, better returns and more cash coming in. Their customers are happy with what they have and don't feel the need to "upgrade". That's a very difficult circle for them to square.

James

[earth titan]

As a business, Adobe are probably between a rock and a hard place. Their investors probably demand new products, better returns and more cash coming in. Their customers are happy with what they have and don't feel the need to "upgrade". That's a very difficult circle for them to square.

James

Agreed.

[jonathan]

Has anyone tried Picasa? It seems like a pretty decent photo library type application, haven't really explored it much. There's also Photoscape which is handy for basic edits and batch processing.

[Cath]

As a software writer, I really do not like the idea of any customer having to pay for bug fixes or software problem fixes at all. When you buy something new it really ort to be in fully working order, if it isn't then you should not be made to pay more in order to get it fixed etc.

[earth titan]

1368345887[/url'>' post='1931872']

As a software writer, I really do not like the idea of any customer having to pay for bug fixes or software problem fixes at all. When you buy something new it really ort to be in fully working order, if it isn't then you should not be made to pay more in order to get it fixed etc.

When I used to write code for machinery - we had a joke in the office:

'I've found a bug..... Okay... Document it, then call it a feature'

[Naemeth]

As a software writer, I really do not like the idea of any customer having to pay for bug fixes or software problem fixes at all. When you buy something new it really ort to be in fully working order, if it isn't then you should not be made to pay more in order to get it fixed etc.

If a software has a bug in it and it's sold, can the customer not be entitled to a full refund due to it being a faulty product and not in proper working order?

[Cath]

If a software has a bug in it and it's sold, can the customer not be entitled to a full refund due to it being a faulty product and not in proper working order?

I'm not sure to be honest. But the practice of making people pay for fixes should be stopped one way or another. Just because it's software and not hardware (something you can physically touch and use as such) shouldn't make any difference.

[Beulah]

If a software has a bug in it and it's sold, can the customer not be entitled to a full refund due to it being a faulty product and not in proper working order?

Microsoft would go out of business!!

[Naemeth]

Microsoft would go out of business!!

Perhaps that may be the case. The law at least requires the company selling the software to either state any bugs that are in the software or give them a trial to check that bugs aren't there. If that isn't made available then it isn't of saleable quality. This of course applies to Adobe too, and any other company.

http://www.legislati...82/29/section/9