ManuelVilardeMacedo: I tried Lightroom 5.7 last week. Adobe's website would only make the trial version available as part of CC, so I doubt new version 6 will be sold as a standalone application.Apparently Adobe succeded in dragging every Lr user to CC, despite it being outrageously expensive. You paid less for the standalone programme even if you updated it every year. I knew this would happen.As for the 5.7v I tried, it is exactly the same as Lr4, which I tried some three years ago, save for some presentation details. Lr6 will undoubtedly have some fancy features added, but I have no reason to believe it will bring any real improvement over previous versions.
@ManuelVilardeMacedo: I see. Thanks for explaining it, I get it now.
"I've been doing a lot of research on Adobe's website. Turns out Lr is still available as a standalone product."
The problem there was doing the research on Adobe's website. Lr standalone is easily found, instantly, at Amazon, B&H, Adorama...and usually for less than at Adobe.
karlwunsch: Why not making it available on Linux as well?
Requires resolving several issues:1. which of the many Linux distributions are we talking about here?2. of those, which Linux distributions have the APIs that make it easy to develop on Mac and Windows?3. of those that remain, which has a significant user base?4. of those that still remain, how many would pay enough to offset development costs?There is a very small number of people at the end there, and that's why it's not on Linux.
Anybody remember what happened to the big Corel initiative to go Linux on its graphics suite? Uh huh.
Mssimo: Lightroom really needs a panorama, and HDR feature. A face detection feature that exposes for subjects faces would be nice also. Maybe its too much to ask, but full GPU acceleration would be great for high MP cameras.
MPA1 - that probably means you *have* seen HDR images that were normal-looking, but since they didn't stand out, you didn't notice. Because technically, many of the best film darkroom professionals employed HDR-like techniques (masked and blended multi exposures) to make what we consider "normal" photos.
photo perzon: Would be nice if worked straight from iPhoto instead or export import
Translation: It would be nice if iPhoto's internal directory structure wasn't so convoluted and baffling.
LiSkynden: I dont believe it... again another stupid selfie LCD camera! First every camera brand ditched the good old vari-angle screen and now everyone puts on this stupid selfie LCD???
They have their smart phones for that. They dont buy bulky cameras with selfie LCD, helloo!
It's puzzling, these "serious" photographers who act like self-portraits have not been a respected genre of photography for decades going back to the film days.
GaryJP: Apple makes cameras?
(Incidentally my Samsung Note 4 has a better "camera" than my old iPhone and even shoots 4k video.)
Papi61, you're ignoring the fact that I mentioned, that many users in the comments came from Android back to iOS because of the iPhone camera. They don't work for the Verge, and they aren't Apple fanboys because their last phone was a consciously chosen Android.
Simple man: I don't understand the above chart.
Not that it matters. It's absolutly no surprise to see Apple pushing the big boys Nikon and Canon around a bit. Local zoos, museums any tourist area..... Smartphones and devices rule.
It's almost funny seeing people hold iPads up to take photos at the zoo. But not nearly as funny as a guy taking wildlife photos with his $3,000 kit. He is truly the misfit. His kit being made for safari; yet its resolved to a life of shooting caged creatures. And his photos are no better that the iPads. Don't believe? Check out FLICKR....
Shooting with an iPad is standing behind a 10-inch-wide rectangle to take a picture, so people call it ridiculous.
Ansel Adams also stood behind a 10-inch-wide rectangle to take a picture, and people call that professional...
Just Ed: It is amazing that the other smartphone manufacturer except for Samsung have such a small share.
Papi61, it's not crap, and it's not just about Internet usage. Every known metric says if you are a developer and you put out an app on iOS, you're probably going to make 8x the money you would if it was an Android app.
Because sheer market share doesn't count for anything. It's engagement and revenue that does.
It's the same reason Apple has less than 10% computer market share, but the Mac division alone is financially doing better than most PC companies (the ones who haven't gone out of business already).
Yes, Apple makes cameras. And this is a point underestimated by so many "serious" photographers.
In fact, the other day there was an article (linked below) claiming that the camera turns out to be a critical factor in customers choosing the iPhone. You'd think that was nonsense, but if you look in the article comments, a surprising number of commenters said yup, I picked the iPhone because of the camera.
And quite a few of those people actually came from Android. Because of the iPhone camera.
"To beat the iPhone, you have to beat the iPhone's camera."http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/13/7537011/iphone-6-camera-editorial
Kurt_K: So if Flickr is where all the phone-snappers hang out, where have the camera-using photographers migrated to? 500px?
There isn't enough data to say. The graphs only show percentages of 100%. These graphs still allow for the possibility that the serious cameras are still uploading at the same rate or more (haven't migrated anywhere), while phones may uploading at an even higher rate thanks to easier uploading (e.g. the recent upgrades to the Flickr phone app). To know for sure, they would have to show data for what the actual upload volumes per device are.
If the camera users are migrating anywhere, 500px is often mentioned as the place where they have gone. But we can't conclude that from this data. Also, 500px recently enabled direct uploads from their phone app, so the camera data there could soon become just as inconclusive.
If these are as "educational" as his color space analogies were, I will stay far away from them.
I liked the range of subject matter. Nice to see there's a lot more to the area than Amazon, Microsoft, and the Super Bowl Champions.
Carl bcn: First, Lightroom stopped having release candidate versions. Later, it was left behind when new features (namely the ability to paint on radial/graduated filter masks) were added to Camera Raw. Now it seems it is not getting even the updates to the ACR engine?What's next, LR for computers being discontinued and replaced by its ios-only mobile version? I hope that's not the future...
ACR updates for CS6 don't contain any new features that ACR for CC gets. Just updated camera and I guess lens support.
To expand on Carl bcd's answer, Adobe has claimed they are treating LR and ACR differently, at least in part to comply with revised US federal revenue recognition rules. Because ACR CC is under subscription it gets new features any time, like the painting on the mask feature, but because LR has a standalone version it can only get new features on a paid upgrade.
Apple referred to the same federal revenue recognition rules some time ago when they charged for certain updates.
Fogsville: Film emulations. For people who are too lazy to use the real stuff?:-)
You realize that the available range of film and paper types is shrinking at a rapid rate, which has only accelerated since the digital tipping point was passed?
In many cases it isn't that people are too lazy to use film, but the film they would like to use is simply no longer made. When that happens, these digital emulations of film may be the only way left to get that look.
shauravraj: Too freaking expensive for a student enthusiast like me .... why can't they make something cheap and affordable. Do any of you guys know any cheap photography drone?
Saying this is "too expensive" borders on entitlement thinking. Just a few years ago this was unavailable at any price. If this is too expensive...what is your camera budget? Because most of the really good bodies on DPreview - without lenses - start at around $799.
If drone photography is that important to you right now (i.e., there are so many other areas a "student enthusiast" should probably be concentrating on), just find someone in your town who rents good drones. You will pay a lot less to rent a better drone than this, than you will spend to buy this drone.
marc petzold: Nice Info about that particular picture background, i was happy to read it,more of that, please. That composition looks very good to my eyes.
Apart from that, the Canon 16-35 L II Lens wasn't that good reviewed at lenstip, for example:
Canon EF 16-35 mm f/2.8L II USM11. Summary
solid, sealed barrel, excellent image quality in the frame centre, chromatic aberration sensibly controlled, only slight distortion, taking into account the focal lengths range, low astigmatism, low vignetting level, very quick, silent and accurate autofocus, lens hood and a case included.
unacceptable image quality at frame edge in the aperture range from f/2.8-4.0, average work against bright light, bad price/quality ratio.
You are both right, because how focus is handled depends on the goal of the artist.
If the artist wants to create a "snapshot" that recreates what the eye sees at one split-second moment, then BadScience is correct and the one spot the eye was focused on at that moment should be in focus, and everything else should be as non-focused as they would be in human peripheral vision.
If the artist wants to create an "immersive" scene where you are able to examine your surroundings in detail as if you were standing there with time to look around, then RPJG is correct. Because what BadScience doesn't account for is if you were standing there looking around such a wide scene, as your eye moves from spot to spot, all those spots would be in focus at the moment the eye looks at them. Therefore all areas should be in focus in an immersive scene.
That's why you're both right. Because how an artist translates a real world 3D unlimited-time scene to a 2D still image is ambiguous and negotiable.
Saffron_Blaze: Wonder how they are going to deal with Personality Rights and Model Releases. Flickr is essentially a re-user by selling these images and it is their responsibility to ensure consent is obtained where required. For the type of commercial use they are engaging in here they would normally need them. I guess they are hoping those identifiable people never find out they have been sold by Flickr.
If Yahoo has good lawyers, they will be like nearly every other photography sales website out there: either requiring that all subjects be released, or more likely, that you the submitter are responsible for securing any necessary rights and you have the liability for any violations. Not that you couldn't challenge that, but Yahoo is big enough that they will probably cover that base, probably by trying to put the burden on the photographer (who should have that covered anyway).
backupgeek: Flickr making a profit printing your pictures, while you make nothing.
There are at least seven types of licenses you can assign to the pictures you post on Flickr.
If you marked your pictures Copyrighted or any of the Non-Commercial types of Creative Commons licenses, Flickr won't be printing your pictures.