Digital BW, The Print

Carolyn Frayn writes:

> I don't even understand your point.

The point is that upgrades are usually a waste of time and money.

> Ya well, software has changed a little.

Not really.  It is always getting more bloated and complicated, but
that's about it.  The complaints of IT managers today echo the
complaints of IT managers forty years ago.

> Argh.

You don't really know, do you?  A new version came out, and you bought
it.  No real analysis of cost vs. benefit.  That's how most computer
users do things, thanks to heavy conditioning by computer hardware and
software vendors.

In the olden days, before times got tough, people were conditioned to do
the same thing with cars.  That's not as common today, although a few
people still feel they have to buy a new car simply because there are
new cars to buy.

> Nope.. There were many in between.

So what were the reasons for each incremental upgrade?  There are only a
few logically valid reasons for upgrading:

- An upgrade fixes a bug that interferes with your work.
- An upgrade provides a feature that will be essential to your work.
- An upgrade is forced by compatibility issues with other people.
- An upgrade is forced by other upgrades (hardware or software).

Note that features _essential_ to your work are extremely rare.  Most
people are emotionally attracted to new features, but they don't
actually _need_ them.

> I didn't say there were no delays, I said it was much faster.

Speed gains are usually due to hardware upgrades.  I don't recall ever
seeing speed gains with an upgrade of Photoshop, since each version
tends to be more bloated than its predecessor.

> So we're all sheep then. Conditioned and simple minded, good to know.

Yes.  That's the current IT business model for desktop systems.

> What does that have to do with upgrading photoshop.

A great deal, since for some people Photoshop is part of a
mission-critical workflow.

> And who dictates they are useless.

It's not up to anyone to prove them useless; it's up to vendors to prove
them useful, notably with respect to upgrades.  Unless they can count on
users upgrading blindly to each new version.

> Your photography then, there are other sorts out here.

The other sorts are more like digital art.  If all you are doing is
emulating what used to be done in the darkroom, the functions you need
are pretty simple.  If you are manipulating images beyond that, it's not
just photography any more.

> Do you print?

I usually have a lab print, as it's cheaper and the quality is better
(for color photos).  I can print my own black and white, but until I
dedicate a printer to B&W printing, the quality will not be optimal.

> THAT costs money too... Bells and whistles to one are worthwhile tools
> to another.

It's surprising how few bells and whistles can withstand the scrutiny of
careful analysis, however.

> That would be none of your business.

No need to give it, as I know there was none.  You never audited it,
anyway.  Nobody ever does.  If they did, they certainly wouldn't be
upgrading all the time.  But Microsoft, Adobe, Intel, AMD, and other
vendors appreciate your business.

> Oh yes, they're taking over.. Turn off adobe call home.

That has always been the trend with all software, including Photoshop.

> Well, this has been fun... Don't know how I got involved, but I'm
> stepping down... I know you love this argument stuff Anthony, I don't.
> It gets old fast and I have work to do.

Right.