I Have to Pirate COLOURS Now??

[YellowJersey]

As an Affinity user who gave adobe the finger years ago, it would have been nice if Linus included the fact that a perpetual Affinity license for each major release (currently on 2) is peanuts compared to what adobe used to charge for something like CS6. I recently bought Affinity 2 and paid something like $50 CAD, which is about on par what I paid for Affinity 1 when it first came out, and is also less than what one month of CC costs (Though, the $50 CAD is promotional, it will go up to around $80 CAD a bit later on, but that's still a far cry from what adobe was charging) By comparison, CS6 started around $250 USD (IIRC). The video implies that the cost is similar.

 This kind of shit (adobe and pantone, not Linus making a little goof) is also why I've clung to my legit copy of CS5 in the event that I don't know how to do something in Affinity but know how to do it in photoshop and why I avoid subscriptions. How long I'll be able to avoid subscriptions, though, is another question entirely.

[Keystone Nyan Cat]

Alright, but what can we do about this problem? Where the call of action that we add consumers can do something about it?

[poochyena]

On 11/13/2022 at 12:31 PM, sub68 said:

Yes.. but its elements, it stripped down for a averge user those not really good for advanced amateur and up.

1. Doesn't matter, what LTT said was still wrong.
2. Totally disagree. I'm a semi-professional (its a supplement to my business, not my full income) and I can do a lot with photoshop elements. Obviously the full version is better, but to say its not good, I disagree with. An "advanced amateur" is likely still using his/her phone and using free phone based editing.

On 11/14/2022 at 4:15 AM, Kisai said:

An Analogy is saying "Just use MS Paint and MS Movie Maker instead of Creative Cloud", Sure... you can, but it's a garbage experience, with none of the features people actually buy photoshop for. 

I literally never said anything even remotely similar. I never once, in even the slightlest sense, suggest people use elements over the full version of photoshop in that comment.

I swear I could say "I like waffles" and you'd ask why I hate pancakes.

Also, what do you mean to suggest elements has "none of the features people actually buy photoshop for."? Do people not buy it to edit raw files? To touch up photos with spot healing tools? To remove background? To have access to dozens of layers? I can do a lot of editing with photoshop elements.

[sub68]

32 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Doesn't matter, what LTT said was still wrong.

That's why I said yes.

33 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Totally disagree. I'm a semi-professional (its a supplement to my business, not my full income) and I can do a lot with photoshop elements. Obviously the full version is better, but to say its not good, I disagree with. An "advanced amateur" is likely still using his/her phone and using free phone based editing.

I looked at the ui and it looks like for mainstream imo, 

Most of it looks like not useful for me I do events as a volunteer so batch editing is most, I hardly touch PS anymore.

[JogerJ]

So Adobe allows the transfer of an Adobe product license, so theoretically you should be able to legally get your hands on a perpetual license of Adobe CS6 suite from someone else who has bought them previously.

Now imagine the markups these old licenses could sell at. Never have I imagined that perpetual licenses of legacy software could increase in value over time.

[Thomas4]

Not being that intelligent about colors, but YOU have the Pantone Chart/Book/Whatever and they have the Pantone Chart/Book/Whatever, exactly WHAT changes? I mean Pantone 100P is still 100P, or does the color change between users of the same?

On a monitor, the color isn't going to be the same anyway, so because... whatever, is, has, and never will be relevant.

[Kid.Lazer]

2 hours ago, JogerJ said:

So Adobe allows the transfer of an Adobe product license, so theoretically you should be able to legally get your hands on a perpetual license of Adobe CS6 suite from someone else who has bought them previously.

Now imagine the markups these old licenses could sell at. Never have I imagined that perpetual licenses of legacy software could increase in value over time.

The same thing has happened to Quickbooks. They moved to a subscription-only service, but you can sometimes find their last version with perpetual licenses on Ebay and whatnot for thousands of dollars.

[oiaohm]

23 hours ago, Thomas4 said:

Not being that intelligent about colors, but YOU have the Pantone Chart/Book/Whatever and they have the Pantone Chart/Book/Whatever, exactly WHAT changes? I mean Pantone 100P is still 100P, or does the color change between users of the same?

On a monitor, the color isn't going to be the same anyway, so because... whatever, is, has, and never will be relevant.

You got the problem close.   The problem is due to the way adobe handles Pantone with no fall back the result is all used Pantone colours are displayed on screen as black.

 

Yes the monitor is not going to be able reproduce the Pantone colour correctly.    If there had been RGB or cmyk reasonable fall back value everything been the same would not not happen.

 

There is another horrible fact Pantone 120C may not be Pantone 120C you get back for example might based on Dulux Lemon chiffon 2 instead.  Heck that could be in fact over 100 different colours used as the reference on the other end.

 

https://www.e-paint.co.uk/colour-alternatives.asp  Yes not everyone making items goes out and buys Pantone Chart/Book/Whatever.   Some of this is they already have another vendors reference samples.   Pantone reference samples are quite expensive and to be correct have to be replaced alot..   Lot of cases conversion data sites gets the items close enough customers don't notice.   Sample Item has to be made anyhow.

 

Colour matching is a mess of approximation.    Lets say I have new chip of Pantone 100P I am using that as a reference and the production location has a old faded sample chip of 100P the results are going to be out.   Lets say they have a newer chip from another vendor that is a only approximately Pantone 100P this could be less out than the faded sample chip of 100P.   Some of your paint vendor colour chips are 1/100 of the cost of Pantone chips.   This is why there are databases of alternatives.

 

Pantone Chart/Book/Whatever it self is normally only approximation because in reality is they fade or get damaged.

 

https://www.xrite.com/service-support/pantone_plastic_standard_chip_replacement_time_frame

 

Even the solid plastic chips fade.   Pantone standard samples are a consumable item like all colour sample items.   Of course those wanting to save on cost use the alternatives that cost less that are cheaper to replace so they can replace them more often and doing this results in over all higher precision.   Yes so you asked for Pantone 120C maker used Dulex Lemon chiffon 2 that they can get a new Dulex chip at bugger all cost every day of production to check production against the end product is going to have a precision of result 99% of the time it not going to be Pantone 100C but the colour spread is going to be less so production batch to production batch differences is going to be less.

 

Cases of nearest other vendor reference chip to Pantone being used in production happens alot because Pantone is one of the most expensive options.

 

It is kind of important to find out what a manufacture of item is going to use on the production floor in quality control.   If they are going to use X brand instead of Pantone  you might be better off with X brand chips so that you are really both on the same page.

 

This area is a bigger mess than most would dream.

[Chrontius]

https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2014/05/color-book/

 

Not any more.  As it happens, there's a newly discovered, public-domain alternative.