ironcam: It seems to me that many people don't know that, although it produces the image of a 85/1.8, it still has the light capture capability of a f0.95.
The chase of for extreme shallow dof is just silly imo. Portraits where only the eyelashes are in focus are getting boring.
yabokkie, this is an old misconception that pops up now and then. Yes, it the same amount of light but it is concentrated on to an m4/3 image circle not a 35mm image circle. There is twice the light on each photo receptor compared to a 35mm 85/1.8
If that's representative, then one has to have a refreshingly simple sense of humour to enjoy it. And have extraordinarily sensitive satire detection circuits.
Scrozzy: Dear Mr Wilhite,
It's a hard G.
It can't possibly be everyone, since he disagrees with you.
In any case, it seem evident that plenty had naturally assumed that it was soft, so English being composed mostly of optional rules of thumb, I think the creator is the best authority on the subject, and not this individual called 'everyone', who is raving and need to possess a pig or two and jump in to a river.
NAwlins Contrarian: Sorry, but he doesn't get to dictate the pronunciation just because he created the file type. Standard pronunciation rules apply. Insofar as the G in GIF is for "graphics", which has a hard G, then GIF should likewise be pronounced with a hard G.
..that's right, like Geoff.
Russell McMahon: Interesting to me is the proportion of people who say that they have never heard it pronounced with a hard G. I've never heard it pronounced with a SOFT G. FWIW (possibly little :-) ) I've been using computers actively for almost 40 years. "Down here" in New Zealand we speak "The Queen's English" [tm] and British English is, I'm assured by experts, slowly morphing to follow our lead :-).
Actually I think it's that we are copying the Americans by softening out the ends of words. It's awful. It makes every one sound like a plebian.
Very boring article, but the NYtimes reader's comments below it are hilarious.
itsastickup: For photographers, the crucial Dxo report will be in to the HTC One and its APS-C photosites and dynamic range. Until that comes no decision on a smartphone is really possible.
It was handy shorthand; pedanticness should be done in private with other consenting adults.
For photographers, the crucial Dxo report will be in to the HTC One and its APS-C photosites and dynamic range. Until that comes no decision on a smartphone is really possible.
sehmuzb: The best alternative to the Cloud version of the Photoshop is the CS6. I see no reason to upgrade it and if you are looking for a better alternative to the Photoshop Cloud, I'm sure you can get the old version cheaper than paying a one year of rent to Adobe.
I hope that more people go this route so Adobe brings back the stand alone option.
I was wondering whether standardised RAW support (DNG?) solves that problem for many. Any thoughts on that?
Dundo Maroje: Paint.NET, that's the one I've been using for a long time, that's the one I've been expecting to show up in this while I was scrolling down, that's the BEST ONE!I love it and I don't wanna change it, NEVER :D
What else have you tried?
It's always good to get a bit of context/perspective to 5 star reviews. I find 3 star reviews more informative than 1 or 5 star.
Shi Yali: I have been using the GIMP for the last eight years and the program has made excellent progress. I'm using it to edit stock photos for commercial use and it certainly meets my needs. Those looking for a Photoshop alternative should give it a serious try.
And Gimp is relatively slow. Photoshop will use all your cores.
Gimp's not a patch on Photoshop. I've used both and would dearly love to be able to afford Photoshop for my own private use.
To those who understand the importance: Gimp is not yet more than 8bit, does not have nested layers and does not have non-destructive adjustment layers. Gimp is great for what it is, but it's not a good investment compared to the time saved when using Photoshop.
J Parker: Thanks DPReview:
Faststone Image Viewer--awesome interface for viewing and editing images that don't need extensive editing. Surprisingly powerful when you actually explore its features.
Virtual Studio (optikvervelabs.com) -- same as above, but it adds the excellent Virtual Photographer Plugin.
Although both of the above are free, if you can find used copies of Photoshop 7 or Elements 2-5, go for it (both should be dirt cheap and don't even require online registration or activation) -- and they run lightning fast compared to current editions of either). Photoshop 7 meets 95% of my needs compared to current versions.
Does photoshop 7 have nested and non-destructive layers?
drh681: IrfanView also has editing capability including the ability to us .8bf filters.
I often use Irfanview (though usually I use GIMP) and have it matched to the smartcurves adobe-compatible plugin (it's here : http://members.chello.at/easyfilter/curves.html ). I get a very superiour curves experience (including automatic colour correction white and black-point droppers), for free software, and it's often all I need. However Gimp has layers and masks which for any significant work is critical. Unhappily, both are still 8 bit (though the smartcurves plugin is 16 bit, if I remember correctly).
Where's Serif Photoplus?
Photoplus has nested and non-destructive adjustment layers, as well as full on editing capabilities and macros/batch processing. It used to be unusably buggy with batch-processing as a horrible after-thought, but it most certainly demands a quick review if anything, as possibly the closest thing to Photoshop out there.
itsastickup: The Sigma has bokeh issues. For a 50mm (equiv) lens, that's simply inexcusable. And the Dpreview article has, as usual, inadequate bokeh testing and sample pics.
For some kinds of photography, bokeh is a deal-breaker. Come on Dpreview, wake up and get some advice from someone who understands this issue.
Bokeh can certainly be measured and quantified. Look up circles of confusion +bokeh if you are unsure on this point.
The dpreview review mentions that it has bokeh issues.
"It is a 135 format lens, why should I care if somebody wants to put it on a lesser format camera without specifying the sensor size?"
You are evidently living in a 35mm bubble. Outside of it you will find that most DSLR owners are APS-C and this lens is for them a normal lens.
"And yes, I have one. An amazingly sharp and faultless lens, only equalled by Fujinon XF 35mm f/1.4 (for APS-C sensors, givin "normal" angle)."
Sure, but the Fuji does not have any bokeh issues.
Not on APS-C. Must I really be spelling that out on dpreview?
Or perhaps this is an example of a fullframer reaching "less than fullframe does not exist" nirvana.
The Sigma has bokeh issues. For a 50mm (equiv) lens, that's simply inexcusable. And the Dpreview article has, as usual, inadequate bokeh testing and sample pics.
Camediadude: Oh, isn't that a cute business model. Way to make millions of enemies overnight, Adobe! I will NEVER buy your garbage.
Trouble is, it's not garbage and it's the only show in town.
Zvonimir Tosic: Years ago world had The Britannica, based on subscriptions and outright purchase, and now we also have Wiki, the free encyclopaedia, supported by donations. We had expensive system software, servers, web servers, CMSes, paid by license, subscriptions, number of seats, terminals, whatnot, but society also developed more than an adequate number of free and opensource substitutes for it. Then MS Office, once uber-expensive, now with several free substitutes for it. Etc. Perhaps it is time for us in the age of digital cameras to have a robust imaging solution, which we'll own, vote for, and support voluntarily with donations. Like that, I bet that new cameras would be supported within days since the announcement, and not after months and months, waiting for some manager's approval.
Have to agree with that. Gimp is nowhere near Photoshop. No nested layers, no non-destructive adjustment layers, 8 bit etc