SantaFeBill

SantaFeBill

Lives in United States Santa Fe, USA, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Apr 28, 2005

Comments

Total: 67, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: I was very disappointed to find that, at least for the U.S., the trial version dl is only available from Cnet and Zdnet. (Google 'ACDSee Ultimate 8 download'.) The former forces you to use their own dl sw and installer, which, the last time I tried it, wants to load a bunch of junk along with the sw you wanted. The latter requires that you join, with I'm sure the inevitable flood of more junk e-mails.
I'm contacting ACDSee and telling them I'm not going to be upgrading until I can get a trial directly from them, as has always been the case in the past.
(ACDSee Pro fan/user since v. 2.)
P.S. To be clear, clicking on the trial button on ACDSee's own site takes you directly to Cnet - no option to dl from ACDSee.

I tried again late yesterday (the 12th), and the trial button this time opened a dl directly from the ACDSee site.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2014 at 20:41 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

thelooch: Hi, I'm a developer at ACD Systems and I think I should make it known that a RAW update is being worked on right now, and we should be releasing it very soon. I'm not making an official announcement for the company here, but I think the update should be out before Christmas.

I urge that the update be made available for ACDSee Pro 8 as well, for those of us who may prefer to work there when an image doesn't need the extra features of Ultimate.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 19:25 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: If I was ACDSee I would be scratching a check to Dave Coffin right now to get the RAW support for the latest cameras out.

I can’t believe a company would allow their entire product line to be dependent on an outside resource that is not obligated to make updates on ACDSee’s timeline. If Dave Coffin decides he doesn’t want to support DCRAW anymore then ACDSee will cease to exist for all customers that would ever want to buy a new camera in the future.

ACDSee needs to either hire Dave Coffin or hire someone else that can do the RAW development in house. I know there are other editing programs in the same boat. They need to make changes as well. One day we will find that Lightroom is the ONLY option simply because they do RAW conversion development in house.

Seriously ACDSee’s recommendation for converting RAW images that their software doesn’t support is to use their competitors software until they get around to fixing their software.

Whenever someone has asked me about ACDSee Pro, I've recommended they try the program _if_ (assuming they want o work in RAW) it already supports the camera or cameras they use, they don't have plans to buy a new one anytime soon, or they're willing to use other sw with the new purchase until if and when ACDSee supports it.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 19:16 UTC
On ACDSee Ultimate 8 introduces layer-based editing article (61 comments in total)

I was very disappointed to find that, at least for the U.S., the trial version dl is only available from Cnet and Zdnet. (Google 'ACDSee Ultimate 8 download'.) The former forces you to use their own dl sw and installer, which, the last time I tried it, wants to load a bunch of junk along with the sw you wanted. The latter requires that you join, with I'm sure the inevitable flood of more junk e-mails.
I'm contacting ACDSee and telling them I'm not going to be upgrading until I can get a trial directly from them, as has always been the case in the past.
(ACDSee Pro fan/user since v. 2.)
P.S. To be clear, clicking on the trial button on ACDSee's own site takes you directly to Cnet - no option to dl from ACDSee.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2014 at 16:29 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies
On Canon announces long-awaited EOS 7D Mark II article (114 comments in total)

What Nikon should have announced - said as a Nikon user since the original Nikon F. If I had the $$, I'd switch. (I don't shoot video, so no 4K is irrelevant to me.)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 14:35 UTC as 20th comment
On Fast and full-frame: Nikon announces 24MP Nikon D750 article (407 comments in total)

This seems a most strange camera: It's billed as an action camera, but the fastest shutter speed is 1/4000 sec. My D200 goes to 1/8000. I know, smaller sensor in the D200, so less distance to travel, but still ... . Then, you've just introduced your top of the line xxx FX model, the D810, and now you introduce a less expensive camera with AF _improved_ over your top of the line one? Didn't the developers of the one talk to the developers of the other?
And the F6 (obviously full-frame :-) ) will flash sync at 1/250, according to its specs on Nikon U.S., although to me the difference between 1/200 and 1/250 sync wouldn't be in itself a deal breaker. But note that the F6 will do 8fps with the battery pack (moving film!). So I don't understand why the D750 'action camera' doesn't have the same frame rate.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 17:37 UTC as 26th comment | 5 replies
On Fujifilm offers silver X-T1 and firmware update article (143 comments in total)

Why wait until December to release the firmware for the black body to enable the new features? If the features work in the silver body in November, why not make the firmware update available then?
Or will the new features, such as the 1/32,000/sec shutter speed, only be available even on the silver body with the December firmware release? The story doesn't seem clear to me on these points.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 17:25 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies

I suppose interesting technology, but I've one question: Why? Why would I want my photos stored on a cloud, except perhaps for backup? If they are on local storage, they are accessible even when my Internet connection is down, which does happen. They are accessible if Google Drive goes away. (Cloud services never go away - yeah, right.)
Why would I want to be tied to a certain editor? I need to use whichever of my editing programs work best for a given image. Photo Ninja usually does the job, but sometimes ACDSee Pro does a better job of demosaicing the RAW file or I need the local adjustments in that program.
But perhaps this effort is aimed at the more casual photographer. Although I have to wonder if they wouldn't just be shooting JPEGs anyhow?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 16:28 UTC as 31st comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: What does the 'D.R.P.'under 'Leica' stand for?

Thanks for the information.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 20:28 UTC

What does the 'D.R.P.'under 'Leica' stand for?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 18:19 UTC as 44th comment | 3 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2071 comments in total)
In reply to:

Krich13: Very good write-up, and fair conclusions.
However, the Appendix sends a wrong message in my opinion. Yes, you just listed the lenses used for comparison and explicitly explained that they are NOT equivalent while having equal F-stop. I've got all that.
The indirect wrong message is that it looks like the FF lenses are the biggest and the most expensive.

I would like to mention (and I think your Article would benefit from it as well) that in some cases the Equivalent larger format lenses are neither bigger nor heavier than those for smaller format. As far as price is concerned, equivalent lenses get progressively MORE expensive with increase of a crop factor (if equivalent aperture can be reached at all).

@Krich13: A f/1.2 lens is _faster_ than a f/1.8 lens, _regardless_ of focal length or sensor size, assuming that the f-stops of both lenses are a somewhat accurate reflection of their relative T-values. The article makes this clear.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 18:29 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (425 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scotsman: The industry is worse off now. What in incentive does Adobe have to improve LR now, or even worse, Adobe could move it to subscription base only, and say SCREW YOU to the rest of us, as we have little choice now. I like LR but I'll not use a sub base program on my computers.

@Scotsman: If I understand correctly what I've read about Adobe's financial results, the subscription model has proven very profitable for them. I can't believe they won't extend it to LR.
So I'll make a bet, with up to 3 of you who live near or will be visiting Santa Fe: By the end of Sept. 2015, LR will be on a subscription basis, at least if you want the latest features and/or extended features. Already, if you want LR mobile, you have to be on subscription. Anyone interested, send me a private e-mail for details. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 21:59 UTC
On Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photo Pete: If the Adobe business model is successful how long will it be before Apple and Microsoft go the same way with their operating systems?

How robust are Adobe? Even the largest companies can fold (remember Kodak?). If Adobe fail as a company what will happen to your ability to use the software after the first failed attempt to log into the Adobe servers? What will happen to your 20Gb of Cloud storage?

Why should a hobbyist have to pay to have the latest features they don't need and why would a professional place their work entirely in the hands of another company over which they have no control?

The business model stinks and the more people that refuse to engage with it the better. Low price offers are a good sign. It is an indication that insufficient users are renting to make the scheme profitable enough.

@quiquae: Are you serious? Try running an app written for Windows 3.1 under Win7 or 8 ... .

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2014 at 14:01 UTC
On Adobe CC Announcements: What you need to know article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photo Pete: If the Adobe business model is successful how long will it be before Apple and Microsoft go the same way with their operating systems?

How robust are Adobe? Even the largest companies can fold (remember Kodak?). If Adobe fail as a company what will happen to your ability to use the software after the first failed attempt to log into the Adobe servers? What will happen to your 20Gb of Cloud storage?

Why should a hobbyist have to pay to have the latest features they don't need and why would a professional place their work entirely in the hands of another company over which they have no control?

The business model stinks and the more people that refuse to engage with it the better. Low price offers are a good sign. It is an indication that insufficient users are renting to make the scheme profitable enough.

You make a very good point. What happens if you've tied your future there and Adobe isn't any longer ... . At least if your apps and your images are on your computer, you can keep using them as you find another solution.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 23:06 UTC

I admit I'm not much into video, but still ... U.S.$900 for the camera, then another $5000 for a TV to view my badly done amateur 4K videos (since there is yet no 4K broadcast content in the U.S. - heck, HD TV here is still 1080i or even 720, not 1080p.) Plus of course 4K-enabled video editing sw and a monitor that would give some idea of what the 4K video looks like. Plus a computer or at least a graphics card/CPU upgrade.

For that amount of $$$, I could get a great FF DSLR plus a very good lens, probably two.

I'm sure I'm missing something ... . Just not sure what it is. :-;

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 15:57 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies

Thanks, but he should have waited 2 weeks or so and done one on LR 6. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2014 at 15:04 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

maksa: Sigma has discontinued 50-150mm F2.8 OS. The next step we are waiting is to announce 50-150mm F2.8 III. 800 grams, 140 mm, stabilized with Pentax and Sony DSLRs.

OK, let’s it would called 50-150mm DC APO OS HSM Art.

There's no evidence on the relevant U.S. sites that this lens has been discontinued. The Sigma site still shows it in its active lens list, not in the discontinued lens list. B&H, Adorama, and Roberts list the lens as available, not discontinued.
Where did you see that the lens was discontinued?

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2014 at 14:16 UTC
In reply to:

D1N0: F4 is more compact and lighter than F2.8. On Full frame it is adequate on APS-c a bit slow. Price point is a bit high though for a less well known third party manufacturer. I wonder

Once more with feeling: F/4 is F/4, regardless of the sensor size. (Cf. the Wikipedia article on f/stops) If a proper exposure for a given subject and ISO is 1/160 at f/4, its a proper exposure whether your camera's sensor is the size of a compact's or an 8x10 Leaf. (Assuming, of course, T-values of the various lenses are all reasonably close to f/4.)

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 15:59 UTC

Since I shoot DX, the only way I'd consider this lens rather than the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS would be if the Tokina were significantly less expensive - say US $750 rather than the c. US $990 that the Sigma can be purchased for. Given the announced Japanese price, I doubt that will be the case.

And then I'd have to wonder if the extra stop at the long end was worth it over the Nikon 70-300 VR at c. US $590 - and I'd get longer reach as well.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 15:45 UTC as 29th comment | 4 replies
On 1939: England in Color (part 1) article (221 comments in total)

Fascinating. Thank you very much. Especially poignant considering what was about to break over England and the world.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2014 at 23:26 UTC as 84th comment
Total: 67, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »