• ¡Welcome to the PortraitPro Forum!
  • Portrait Professional is now PortraitPro!
Hello There, Guest! Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Maximum Image size?
Yup, looks like I was wrong. It is (currently) cheaper to buy standard and upgrade than the full version.

Judging what it cost me to pay for both daughter's wedding photographs, UK photographers are well able to pay, what, (to me), seems a very reasonable (dare I say cheap !) price being asked by Anthropics.
Skids Wrote:
admin Wrote:As for loyalty, if we made it cheaper for people to buy studio then upgrade to 64 than to buy 64 initially, then everyone would do that.    However, we do let existing customers purchase newer versions at a significant discount, a practice that other companies seem to be abandoning.


I have just had a look on the PP webpage

Portrait Professional Studio 64 is £99 (On offer admittedly)

I bought Portrait Professional Studio for £60 (As it is priced now again on offer) and the upgrade is £45 (Rounding up)

£60 + £45 = £105 therefore more expensive by £6 than if I were to buy the full package as a new customer!

Also at the moment because PP Studio is priced at £35 at the moment so if a new customer were to buy it at that price then upgrade for £45 it is £80 so it is £14 cheaper to buy then upgrade so that contradicts your statement above!

I agree. The 64bit is way to costly for me to justify the upgrade.
I find Protrait Professional is very, very cheap for the amount of time it saves compared to having to do the same things manually.

I do find it amazing that no matter how cheap something is, someone always complains about how expensive the version upgrades are and how that makes it impossible for them to contemplate upgrading. At the time of writing this, the difference between Studio and Studio 64 is $60, which is the cost of Studio = basically nothing for someone who has to even process one photo compared to any other method of doing it.

However, I find the discussion does not specifically enumerate the practical differences between the two versions enough to be able to readily determine if spending the meagre extra amount for Studio 64 is necessary. While 18MPx images can be handled by Studio, you do not state an explicit upper limit. I would like to know whether that 18MPx is close to the Studio limit or 100MPx is!

Also, does Studio 64 do some processing significantly faster or better as a result of the 'optimisations'? There appears to be no differences in functionality between the two versions. Is that correct?

Anyway, as Studio 64 is only $10 more if purchased as an upgrade compared to buying it outright, I will go with Studio until either:
- a reply to this post states worthwhile advantages, or
-I hit some processing limit.
The processing limits of the non 64 bit version depend on what you are doing to the image, and will change over time as we add more features, but basically, if it's currently not complaining about memory, then it's not an issue. The 64 bit version will offer some small speed advantages over 32 bit also.

Thank you.

I have already bought Studio and it works extremely well.
Wow. Just wow.

I can't believe that a professional photographer is quibbling so much about £14 - when the return on investment is so quick to be made up. I wonder if this person also jerks the local photo store around over the cost of cleaning materials for his lenses? Personally, with the money I've made off of having THIS program, I would buy this program at twice the price - although I'm certainly happy that they don't charge twice the price.

Just my twopence from across the pond.
The beauty of reality is that we are masters of its creation.
I think this bit of pricing difference is back once again. I just got an email about a discount to Studio 64. 15% off if I use the discount code. So I got to looking.

Right now, the base version is $40 (rounded). Studio is $60 and Studio 64 is $120. Looks like the upgrade price is $70. That isn't very good if one paid $60 and then the $70 to upgrade, seeing how you could have bought it for $10 less.

So enter in the 15% savings, which would get rid of the $10.

I understand the whole dynamics of this pricing structure and if one way to the Studio 64 version was better than people would do that to save money. That makes sense.

What doesn't seem right is that everyone, Admin included, seem to fixated on Studio 64 being able to handle unlimited size files, but 18mp files are not an issue with the regular Studio version. So what is the benefit of the 64 bit version? Really?

The comparison page says you get unlimited file size and 64 bit version is optimized for 64 bit OS. So? Does that mean it is 2 times faster? 10x faster? Anything? If no one wants to give numbers or theoretical increases in performance, what good is the 64 bit version to 90% of the users? Nothing?

There is a $20 difference between the base and the Studio version, and there is a world of difference in them For the extra $20 you get to read RAW and DNG files. Read and write 48-bit TIFF's. Batch process. Get the PS plug-in and work with differing color spaces.

A person would be "crazy" to not get the Studio version for the difference in price. It is only $20. A bargain. But for $60 more you get what? To work on larger files, that most don't even have?

Yeah, some will say that it is chicken feed, since you will get that money back in a day or a shoot, if you're a professional. Just because professional is in the name, doesn't mean you have to be one to use it. And everyone looks for a bargain. None of you professionals have had a bride (or groom) want to take your image to Wal-Mart to make copies to save a few dollars? I have.
This means you can run 64 bit photoshop with 32 bit Portrait Professional and vice versa.  Does that make sense?

Forum Jump:

1 Guest(s)