Michael Ma: Amazing concept. Although, just skimming through these, I think your time would be better invested in something like Lynda.com for online learning. I don't disagree with the importance of a degree and having to go through a system getting one but Professors, although they do certainly possess valuable information that you want and need, don't necessarily make good teachers or presenters. If you've ever taught, a big part of the lesson plan is figuring out how to fill the 50 minutes or 80 minutes, which often results in a lot of endless droning of slides and creative ways to fill time.
Why not a carefully crafted 15 minute lecture that inspires and moves, and a few key takeaway concepts? Some students would complain that they are not getting their money's worth.
That carefully crafted 15 minute lecture may take 40 hours of research, planning, and prep. Instead you can just put 30 slides together and wing it based on your knowledge, and hopefully some of what you say will be absorbed.
Keep in mind that professors deal with students, who are typically young and have not had years of experience with the materials. Short, compact lectures may not let things 'sink in' as well as slower paced lectures. Also there is more time for students to ask questions in lectures. As such, lectures are not designed to be presented as an online, non-interactive teaching tool. That said, I don't disagree that many, many lectures are truly long, boring and ineffective.
Higuel: 3 clicks to finally reach the article: the site is getting even more user-unfriendly then ever!!! -_-
> It's supposedly much more about quality of content these days.
Since there are no universal rules for the quality of content, one of the few objective criteria is the number of clicks.
Now that I come to think of it, I guess I do get the point. This mini page essentially doubles the number of total clicks to the article, and as a result boosting the total clicks to DPR and makes DPR rank higher in search engine ranking.
Totally agree. I don't get the point of having a mini page that is nothing but a link.
australopithecus: What's beautiful about a game that hosts players who argue with referees, who act as if they are injured (put them in a rugby scrum for a few games then they'll learn about pain !) and who bite. For this they are paid ridiculous sums of money.
> Football fans always remind me of the nazi rally films.
Interesting. I don't suppose Justin Bieber concerts remind you of nazi rally as well?
Some make it happen, some watch it happen, some said 'what happened?'
Mais78: I guess that Apple realised that the package Aperture + Photoshop cannot compete with LR + Photoshop at $10/month or so.
>SDPharm, I disagree. Aperture just couldn't compete.
Sure. I'm not even sure what you meant by couldn't compete, but here are the numbers (from Wikipedia):
Adobe net income in 2013: 0.29 billionsApple net income in 2013: 37 billions
I'm sure LR only accounts for a small fraction to Adobe's profits (if any, I don't know if LR is profitable or not). If you were Apple, would you care about something that is contributing negligibly to your bottomline? Heck, if you do nothing and just put that $37B in a bank and generate a miserable 1% interest, you will make more money than the entire Adobe makes. Now, do you think Aperture couldn't compete, or Apple does not want to compete?
If you haven't, I suggest that you read Thom Hogan's blog on this topic. There is some very intriguing information there.
PVCdroid: I'm convinced Apple decided that people are too slow and dumb to handle complicated software. What's strange is their focus on photography lately with a new ad campaign. Draw them in and keep it simple, stupids. And I was suspicious Apple was going to go whole hog into new sensors/cameras/lenses/software with all their dough.
> I'm convinced Apple decided that people are too slow and dumb to handle complicated software.
Most of us are too busy to mess with complicated software. I support the entire IT system in my company. But do I enjoy it? No. I would rather go out there and enjoy taking pictures and have fun with my friends. Software is complicated when software designers become lazy and do not bother to make life easier for it's users. It's the dumb users that think thats how things are and did not bother to demand better software.
mimot13: Have a look on Thom Hogan's web page where his last comments concerning Aperture explains very clearly that with new ios8, photography "seen from Apple side" will be managed in a completely different way. This way has nothing to do of course, with the usual way used by Pros and Experts.. This is iclouded photography and I bet this will only adress approx. 5% of Pro's need. You'll also notice that the young children shown on some screens illustrating the forcoming ios8 capabilities make me concluding that this new photo application from Apple is mainly built for FAMILY.
> This way has nothing to do of course, with the usual way used by Pros and Experts.
I suspect you are right. As we all know, Apple likes to break rules. "The usual way' may not be the best way for everyone. If you can change the way 'pros' work and bring 80% of the results to the general consumers then you will change the world. We have much more interesting photos today to look at not because we can pull that extra 3 stops from deep shadows, but because millions of people are putting their photos in Instagram. Thanks for pointing out Thom's article. It's very intriguing.
You may be right, but my guess is that the Aperture/LR market is just too small for Apple to be interested in.
GiovanniB: Aperture is still the application with the best UI for pro users to manage large image libraries. No tedious switching between modules, full flexibility in comparing images while adjusting them, complete keyboard shortcut customization ... I already switched to Lightroom because of its better sharpening, integrated distortion correction etc., but miss the Aperture UI each day.
Sorry to see that Apple has become a toy company. They care more about the iPhones in 13 years old teenagers' pockets than about their (former) loyal pro user base. I remember how the presentation at Photokina 2006 finally convinced me to use Aperture, it was completely targeted at pro and enthusiast photographers. But boy, did they spiral down since.
> Sorry to see that Apple has become a toy company.
And this is when many so called 'pros' don't get it. They think anything easy and simple are just useless toys. And they failed to see that common folks are using these 'toys' to create new, amazing arts.
danieljcox: I agree with karip regarding miscalculations and a snow flake starting an avalanche. Right after Apple announced the death of Aperture they make sure to mention they plan to still support their other two pro apps. Then they release updates to those apps. Nice try, if anyone thinks that the other pro apps are not on the table for elimination, you're fooling yourself. One of the main ways Apple sold computers in the past was due to great softer that only ran on the Mac. The death of Aperture has seriously fractured my faith in Apple making great software for just their machines. That was the benefit of buying a Mac, it had the best software. Apple is eliminating one of the reasons to buy their equipment. Not a smart move. I'm really, really surprised at this announcement.
Daniel J. Coxwww.naturalexposures.com
> But at the moment they do not understand how important it is for the whole Apple's ecosystem to build also good computers and have some really creative people using them - also in the future. <
That's developers' job. Apple should not want to compete with its developers otherwise they risk alienating them. Apple's job is to show the public some good examples of how software should look and act. In this case, unfortunately, they did such a good job and it became an essential tool for us. It's Adobe's job, really, to give us good photo tools. But for me at least, Adobe's interface sucks. I use LR, but it just does not grow on me.
> When Photos for OS X ships next year, users will be able to migrate their existing Aperture libraries to Photos for OS X..
Wait, isn't Yosemite going to be released this fall?
Maklike Tier: It's always mildly humorous for me when companies blatantly lie about a product, when consumerism is essentially one gigantic lie anyway.
Still, this is not Leica's finest PR hour....
> @ Maklike Tier: So you're calling DPR liars, SDPharm?
No more than you are calling me a lier.
In my previous post, I specifically said "Did DPR lie? Does not seem so either."
If you are in a party with 10 people hanging around. Suddenly someone dropped dead. Then suddenly person A pointed to person B and said "he's the killer," while no one in the room said they saw anything. Wouldn't you ask person A to explain what happened?
At this point, seems like DPR is the only source of this "we don't use software lens correction claim." I can't seems to find any other photography site talking about it. I also see no official Leica statement about "we don't use software lens correction."
Latest conspiracy theory (in Cobert style): Leica did not lie, but DPR said it did, thus generating more than 1600 comments, as a result propelled Leica T into one the most popular camera list. Case closed. Mission accomplished. Good job, guys.
I'm not a journalist, and I don't have all day messing around the internet (that's DPR's job). But I did browse through Leica's press release and Leica T's product website. I did not see Leica saying they never use software correction. To me, at this point, it seems to be just hearsay. I would rather give Leica the benefit of the doubt and demand DPR comes up with solid evidence that Leica said that.
SDPharm: > DPR: Most interestingly, we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor. <
After re-reading this above statement, I guess one has to sigh and throw his hands up in the air.
Of course Leica uses optical correction to project the best image on the sensor. How would you otherwise apply software correction BEFORE the light hits the sensor?
The key is in three little words "rather than software."
Did Leica lie? Technically, no (not publicly anyway.) Did DPR lie? Does not seem so either. But it sure pointed a big finger at Leica. Fact is, regardless what was said and what was heard, most people will just start calling Leica a lier from now on.
Now we just have to decide if DPR is doing a good journalist's job, or it's another Reddit.
@ DStudio: The article currently has a comma and four additional letters - not sure if it's been edited...
My quote was a direct copy of the article on the front page of DPR. It is still there for your to see.
> DPR: Most interestingly, we were told they relied on optical corrections, rather than software to project the best possible image onto the sensor. <
@smorti has a good point here. There is no mention of 'optical-correction' anywhere on Leica's own website or in Leica T's press release. The only mention of this optical correction is by DPR. In fact, all lenses have optical correction (they are all multi-element lenses, aren't they?).
Unless Leica said "we don't use software correction" I wouldn't say Leica is lying.
Since DPR made a such a big fuzz insinuating that Leica is lying or false advertising, it had better come up with an official record, soon, where this 'optical correction' statement comes from.
I wish Pentax had made an EVF and made it tiltable like the Panasonic GX7. It just does not seem comfortable to hold such a big camera at eye level.