Mr Tudor: I just discovered that clicking on "Edit" on your "You" page will bring up the old page layout.
If it's still available, it's strange why they don't let the viewer customize it, if they like the old look better. Think you will win your bet though.
brudy: It's so awful from so many perspectives I don't know where to begin.
I still like Pbase. Old and clunky, Once in a great while breaks down...but the user interface is very easy to customize, you get 800mb a year (not like Flickr but who has 1TB of good photos?), the navigation is easy, the display qualities good for 24.95 and NO adds. I'm just using this to illustrate a point, since there are many equally good photo services available Zenfolio, Smugmug etc. etc....maybe some better...and many not mentioned. From what I've seen on the new Flickr, it's flashy etc. It all seems like Flickriver now sort of to me, endless. Is it going to hurt the groups and communities that have grown up around them? Has Flickr shot itself in the foot?
Hee hee. The irony
Alternative Energy Photography: Here's a thought. How many people here have at least once in their lives lost their job and it took 3, 4, 8, 12 months to find a new one? Yes, I am raising my hand too.
During that dry period, did you do like I did and cancel the cable, the newspaper, and even consider cancelling all non-essential memberships, retirement plans, kids' soccer, and other subscriptions except for the electric, water, and gas services? Yep, me too.
Maybe the "pros" will consider their Adobe membership critical, and will cancel their health club memberships instead. They cost about the same, $50 per month, depending on where you live.
But I think for most people, when family finances get tight as in this example, the priority will be to feed the wife and kids, not Adobe. So the Adobe subcription model might end up hurting Adobe in down times.
But then again, I still see a lot of apathy. Most of you will probably just put your Adobe membership on the credit card even when you have no job, right?
I think you are right. Especially in this case.
Wow..I don't remember more comments on a news item in DPR ever. Especially so quickly. I don't understand what happens to third party plug-ins and actions in the Creative Cloud. It seems to me that software plugin development will now be aimed at the "cloud", so programs like Gimp and Corel's Paint Shop will be left in the cold (since they've been able to use Photoshop plugins). This looks to me like a marketing move by Adobe, rather than a striving for excellence move (as in their previous efforts) to limit and monopolize photo editing. I jumped off their treadmill a while back. My version of Photoshop still does OK by me, even if I do have to develop Raw files in something else..Like Aftershot, Raw Therapee, or Lightroom and then transfer them in 16bit to Photoshop. Far as I'm concerned I may not purchase any more Adobe software.
I have an older version of Photoshop. It does pretty much what I want it to, but in conjunction with other editing programs (like Elements, Lightroom, Aftershot Pro, Raw Therapee, etc.etc). and it will stay as such. I fell out of the upgrade path (every third version), and at the time was worried that I did. I'm not so worried now, but instead rather happy. I'm not a "cloud" type of person...would rather control my own creative destiny, for better or worse.
It's a little different, someone taking street shots as opposed to shining strobes out of a vehicle. Kind of amazing that someone hasn't flipped a rock or two at him...or worse. Yeah I'm sort of a fan of good street shooters, and this guy except for a couple of shots doesn't make it with my view of it (not exactly a HCB, Maier or Winogrand), but of course, it's well that everybody has differing tastes.
The new mirrorCamera app, Camera app, not on a wallWho's the fairest of them all.
(very nice creative work though)
wyeman: Great picture, well captured.
Thanks very much...wished it was that kind of weather now :-)
It sounds like a great idea. Think though I'll wait and read some user opinions, and reviews, before plunking down that kind of cash. It would be nice to use my manual lenses wider (although that's possible now with a wide angle converter with limitations - size). It would also be great to use my Canon lenses on M4/3. But it's not cheap, and not altogether proven in real world use, yet.
Picked one up on sale for 79.95 USD. Good zoom range and sharp pics in good light. Very small for pocketability. Not so hot at high ISO, except for small photos, since the noise reduction seems pretty aggressive at over 400. Pretty good IQ for a reasonably priced small camera in good light. Wonderful at ISO 100 for what it is. Lack of manual controls means a bit of trickery involved to get certain shots, but then haven't explored all the scene modes etc. I'm not a big fan of art filters, but do like the 'pinhole' one. Wished it had a B&W option, but of course easily converted in PP. Neat little camera for the money, oh yeah, a metal body!
malabraxis: And that's why I cancelled my subscription to Time! Of course the world needs to be informed, but if misery and death are priorities of good photography, then I'd rather read Marvel comics...!
Granted it does (Time's choices) seem somewhat unbalanced in the death and misery department, and it's not at a good time for that for any of us who keep track of the news...There is a point where overload occurs, and a point where the right of privacy (and dignity) is a question. I think the real question is 'reportage' or sensationalism?...but of course those judgments differ. Where does morbid voyeurism start? and where does making people aware end? Guess we can only answer that for ourselves.
Let's pretend. That there was no Magnum, that Robert Cappa didn't die from a land mine, that Eugene Smith didn't get the Cr*p knocked out of him for exposing Minamata disease, that all of Walker Evans and Dorthea Lange's photography is meaningless. Or Alex Majoli's coverage of various not so pleasant wars and situations. I'm not defending the framing, the tonality, etc. of these Time magazine photos, but how do you dismiss a whole genre of photography just because it rocks the boat? Let's sugar coat the world, so it doesn't upset anyone, and we can all run on the treadmill of consumer complacency. If you don't like it, or if it disturbs...don't look.
A somewhat affordable, rangefinder in size - not required in operation, full frame mirrorless with manual controls, except the ability to autofocus, or to confirm focus with manual lenses - even mimicking the old split prism. Base ISO of 100 or below. LCD not required...good EVF. Maybe the auto ISO function (very handy for zone focus situations)
Yeah I know...it won't be somewhat affordable...so there goes my dream.
Interesting camera. People will have to remember what filters do. ;-)I do think this camera has a place in fine art photography..not just as a collectors piece.
Nice to have thanks. I think black font on white would read better when small...anyway still nice.
My Kid just got a phone with a 5mp camera for 1.00 USD along with a contract. Although sensors like the M9's are wonderful, it seems as if there's an analogy between losing film to digital, and losing digicam sales to phone cams. It's all kind of sad, just as I'm starting to shoot some film again..and glad it will continue..always have found it very consistent. It seems to me, that businesses that are slow to adapt, local or global..no matter how well they are managed otherwise, or how well they treat employees, are in these tough times failing. It isn't business as usual. Regardless of reasons it's sad, both for the tradition behind, and for the employees.
I think eventually a blend of both will occur. As the newness of video wears down, and the permanence of the still photo is again realized. There seems at least to me a need and use for both, but the pendulum is swinging at present and probably will continue for a while. It's hard to work for 'hard' print sources that no longer exist or are dying..Newspapers, magazines. Yet there is a certain transience in video and a certain permanence to stills.