Other Software > Found Deals and Discounts
Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)
tomos:
Rob, if I may veer towards what I think Sagelight needs from a practical - I mean UI - point of view. You may well have these covered already!
I think these (especially the user shortcuts) would need to be implemented before any major price hike
* User shortcuts
* This is more a 'would be nice' request:- the ability to show a folder of images (as thumbnails) within Sagelight, OR, the ability to open files via drag drop from file manager. One can then have Sagelight & File manager windows showing to keep track of files & different versions & open files easily. This is more for when Sagelight is NOT the default image editor. (BTW I notice that 'fit to screen' doesnt work when SL is not a full-screen window.)
FWIW I may just fit into the cheaper version target (not sure till I see versions) - but I dont use RAW. I'd still consider the above to be very important in terms of using the programme - as opposed to just trying it out on one image to see what it does.
Rob Nelson:
Rob, if I may veer towards what I think Sagelight needs from a practical - I mean UI - point of view. You may well have these covered already!
I think these (especially the user shortcuts) would need to be implemented before any major price hike
•User shortcuts
•This is more a 'would be nice' request:- the ability to show a folder of images (as thumbnails) within Sagelight, OR, the ability to open files via drag drop from file manager. One can then have Sagelight & File manager windows showing to keep track of files & different versions & open files easily. This is more for when Sagelight is NOT the default image editor. (BTW I notice that 'fit to screen' doesnt work when SL is not a full-screen window.)
FWIW I may just fit into the cheaper version target (not sure till I see versions) - but I dont use RAW. I'd still consider the above to be very important in terms of using the programme - as opposed to just trying it out on one image to see what it does.
--- End quote ---
Thank for the suggestions. I agree with both ideas, but I do want to mention (especially since you don't use RAW) that there is a browser that comes up when you open a file that will show all of the thumbnails. It's the standard Windows browswer, which I generally like, but I am not happy that Windows 7 (as far as I know) did not include independent global/thumbnail callback support (just when you click on the image).
But, having said that, I have already planned a browser that fits into the spectrum of how Sagelight wants to define itself. As I split the software this become much more necessary, especially since I want to introduce a more rapid approach where you can make a certain level of changes (i.e. anything in the Quick Edit mode and the upcoming Kayak Mode which is quite extensive) as you scan through images. Kind of like Lightroom (et. al), but as an side-functional 'stage' or sub-function, where you can then come out and do the more aggresive things like cloning, Dodge and Burn, Masking, Undo Brush, etc. that can't as easily be saved as profiles that you can click back-and-forth between.
In terms of price...
A lot of this is the topic of the next message, so I'll put a lot of the context in there, if that's ok.
But, I just want to say that price has been the number one issue for me. I want to keep it low, but I just can't do it. I've been told by everyone I've showed it to in the industry that the price is currently too low. The real answer is to split the product, and that's what I am in the process of doing.
The issue, though, is the technology issue. For example, this page (http://www.sagelighteditor.com/vibrance.html) discusses just one of the things that's coming with version 4. Since it's an advance on the vibrance technology (i.e. in Lightroom), and Lightroom retails for $299, charging $39.95 for something that already has things Lightroom doesn't has been causing problems.
I mentioned in another note that my thought was that I wanted to charge as little as possible, thinking that it would lead to more sales, and it turns out to be the opposite. I've done a large amount amount of research on this in the last year, and it turns out that as you charge lower for a product that people look at it differently and look for different things (or not at all, depending).
I guess my thought is that Sagelight definitely needs some things -- even some basic things -- that aren't currently there, but there's also a lot of high-end things that are definitely competitive, as well as many things that are powerful and specific to Sagelight. That's why I have the lifetime version going right now. Some way to keep it low into the future for those who have it or buy it, at least before 4.0 is released in a few weeks.
As soon as 4.0 is released, though, I am focusing solely on those basic things (like addressing more user-based components like better saving options and more preference abilities, etc.).
Rob
Rob Nelson:
Hi, Dormouse.
Working out the correct pricing strategy for a product is extremely complex with many factors involved. My example above was just to illustrate that, at this stage in Sagelight development, the optimal strategy will be the one which maximises the sales and reputation. Being seen as cheap does not work because people will just think the product has little value; a higher price means that some people may evaluate and choose it. One off sales may or may not work, depending (for your long-term purpose) on whether those sales are to your target demographic.
--- End quote ---
Yes, I agree. Pricing has been very difficult, and the real issue is that -- at least for my quest to get some of the higher-end functions recognized -- the price has been too low. I mentioned in the last note that I showed it to some people in the industry. These were people in the right area of the business with a good knowledge of the market, and I heard the same thing from them: the price is too low.
Well, I think that's shame, but I have spent the last year deciding what to do about it. I think you hit it on the head when you mentioned splitting it into two versions.
My perception of your real target demographic (from Sagelight's features, the forum and most of the blog) is that it is to technically competent people with a real interest in photography and who spend a reasonable amount of time and money on it (there aren't too many other people that interested in RAW yet)
--- End quote ---
It turns out that Sagelight appeals to two specific groups, which is really what I wanted to do. I just didn't realize I was putting two editors into one product which would cause conflict issues. Sagelight appeals to beginners, but also to hobbyists. I have found out over the last year or so (since Sagelight has been a real bonafide venture; when it was Lightbox, that was just the initial entry) that I've been straddling a fence. Anytime I'd do something to make it easier, it wouldn't necessarily be appreciated by a hobbyists, and vice-versa. It's kind of weird. If I look at it, I can see that I've been writing the software trying to keep more beginners in mind, but all of the blogs have been about using it from a technological perspective. For example, masking typically doesn't interest a beginner, but I use it all the time in my examples.
I see a lot more people interested in RAW. I think it's growing. Though, the differences between the images with my little canon powershot with CHDK vs. the JPEG were so clear, I thought I'd get more of a response from the article I wrote about using CHDK. Oh, well!
This group is quite demanding and will tend to ignore products that seem too cheap or too simplistic
--- End quote ---
Yes, exactly. And I think I've been writing Sagelight around that group. I mean, I've been putting the power into it, for sure, but I think I've been making it less elegant for non-beginners in the process. I've been taking care of that, and version 4.0 is definitely geared for hobbyist-level functionality.
my suggestion would be to plan 2 versions - one for DSLR & the other for P&
--- End quote ---
Yes, I'm very glad you mentioned that. That is the current plan. The current plan is to have a simpler version that stays in the same range (perhaps a little less), and this new version that has a lot of high-end functionality. I've not really been able to push on the options as much as I want because of the issues discussed above, and this version allows me to just go for it in terms of offering and enabling some more advanced things, like various Color Space modes, etc.
I assume many fewer features than PS (currently there's very little of the creative/drawing/compositional features: SE is very much a photographers' tool) - which reduces price - but is a very specialist tool - which conversely increases price (basically because the potential number of sales will be much smaller).
--- End quote ---
That's been an issue in terms of how to price it, for sure. At first, with Lightbox (and perhaps the very first initial version of Sagelight), I felt that there were some elements missing that I needed to fix. But, Sagelight is getting more mature. Since it's just programmed by one guy at the moment, of course there are going to be things that aren't in there that would be nice. For example, had I had the time, I'd have an Exif editor in there, which I currently don't, as it's lower priority than, say, the High Pass functionality I just put in -- though, as I mentioned, once 4.0 is released, those smaller items will be the priority.
There are definitely many things Sagelight doesn't that a product like Lightbox has... But, on the other hand, Sagelight has some quantitatively and qualitiatively higher functionality than Photoshop and Lightroom, too. Though I don't have the Lasso Tool (on purpose), for the purposes of enhancing pictures, the masking is far more extensive. The autobalancing, as far as my results show, is much more accurate overall. And then there is just the general congolomerate.
This new version will feature not only the advanced on the vibrance technology, but also a much more aggressive and extensive layer-based system with the same basic controls as Lightroom (i.e. Local Contrast (i.e. clarity), Vibrance, Blacks, Saturation (which is also an advanced on the technology), High Pass filter, as well as a host of other functional modes. But, instead of one slider to control it, you can see and control the shape of the mask for each element, as well as be very specific with how the algorithm is doing it's job. For example, with the Local Contrast feature (aka clarity) you'll be able to control how Sagelight is determining the edges, as well as control the radius and steepeness of the local contrast curve.
I was going for $79.95 because I thought Lightroom was $100+. But someone recently corrected me and told me it retails for $299. I would like to keep it low, but I just honestly don't know when those anti-competetive issues we've discussed take over! (I'm not considerig anything close to $299, though.. ha.)
Given that you want to drive numbers, I would suggest that SE's price spends much (not necessarily most) of the time at the low end of that range
--- End quote ---
That's true. I've done that on purpose, and so far I think it works against itself. I mean, I'm happy to do it, but when it turns into a bad sales decision.....
quite a few ways of doing this that don't look like sales such as offering signed-up beta testers a very substantial discount
--- End quote ---
I'm glad you said that. I am thinking about that with the initial release of version 4.0. It will need to be beta-tested, and it might be a good way to get a feel for what the price should be as I get feedback?
The absolute target for now should be increasing reputation and sales to people who will contribute to the buzz around the product rather than the short-term absolute amount of $
--- End quote ---
I think that's why I'm late on version 4.0 (other issues that happened aside), because I have develop a lot of new technology, and I want to make sure it gets in there in the best way possible. For example, I really wasn't planning to put in the idea of doing user/mouse-drawn curves (since I have the sliders and they can be much more accurate), but this has now become such a tool for controlling the results of many elements (for example, edge masking, etc.), that it is now an integral part of the software that I can just call up as an object to control whatever can be controlled. But, the other side is doing in a way where it's available, useful, but not so obtrusive that it just makes things look very complicated from the start.
One of the main things I've learned over the last few months is about compartmentalization -- the idea of making things as easy as possible with just one slider and a bunch of defaults, but then making a way to change and control those parameters: if you want to.
Unfortunately, that will require an active forum & blog & relevant contributions on photog sites (at least until there are enough users doing that).
--- End quote ---
I'm glad you mentioned that, too. I will be writing a ton of articles once I release 4.0. But, I will also be back heavily on Sagelight's discussion board (I will turn it on a day or so) and the blog. I wanted to wait until I have 4.0 released, but I think it's better to do it now. Otherwise, I'd be too overwhelmed once I did release it. ha.
Thanks again for all of the thoughts and advice. I am getting more confident about what's working and what isn't working.
Rob
Lutz_:
Rob, I just wanted to mention perhaps you could use some more simplified nomenclature - e.g. currently there are the "quick edit mode" and "pro quick edit mode"? Is there also a "pro slow edit mode"?
Rob Nelson:
Rob, I just wanted to mention perhaps you could use some more simplified nomenclature - e.g. currently there are the "quick edit mode" and "pro quick edit mode"? Is there also a "pro slow edit mode"?
-Lutz_ (October 01, 2010, 12:25 AM)
--- End quote ---
ha... What kind of names (besides "pro slow edit mode", which I like) do you have in mind?
The Pro Quick Edit mode was supposed to suggest that the approach used was more advanced, like using more white-balance-based controls rather than curves, and using different formulas for the curves and that sort of thing.
The Pro Quick Edit mode in the new version is the basis for the split in basic vs. advanced areas, and is now called the Kayak mode (since the new product when it is released will be called Kayak). So that hopefully will separate the two ideas and make the idea of a "Quick Edit Mode" more relevant.
Actually, I am interested in finding another name for the Quick Edit Mode, if you (or anyone else) has any ideas?
Rob
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version