Niklas Ramstedt: Am I the only one here who likes LR and PS CC and is prepared to pay for software?
It seems that way sometimes. Americans are happy to complain that everything is too costly. They also seem to have a Socialist flavor to their endless rage about Corporate profits and conspiracies despite their otherwise free market jingoism.This is occasionally leavened with an observation that they could probably make a better image editor if they had enough duct tape and twine and two weekends free.
falconeyes: Adobe did also update their blog article from 2013:-> http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/adobe-camera-raw-8-support-for-photoshop-cc-and-photoshop-cs6.html
IIRC, their promise to CS6 users when announcing it is the last version with a perpetual license was that support for new cameras to users with a perpetual license would never stop.
IE., that they would NOT *force* customers into CC. Now, it seems they break their promise.
I am now just awaiting see them increasing their monthly photography subscription price too ...
Lesson learned:Two years is about the time Adobe "forgets" about promises they made :(
You can use CS6 until Hell freezes over AFAIK.Your real problem will be accommodating OS upgrades and camera changes.But as the DNG converter will probably let you convert to DNG from the latest cameras I see no hardship different from any other stoic clinging to the "old ways".
joyclick: Why let Adobe enslave you,tether you,make you do everything at their bidding without you having any say/choice in the matter?Boycott adobe,support other companies so that adobe is sent to oblivion.
There are alternatives to Microsoft and Apple but still people use them despite the claims of how they will be driven to oblivion by their greed/malice/stupidity.
So far no credible alternative to PS is used by anyone in any numbers. C1 is a good product but not really breathing down LRs neck.Reading off a list of obscure PS competitors doesn't prove anything. It means there are a lot of PS wannabes who are scarcely used by anyone.
Steve in GA: Looking through the comments here, I'm struck by depth of the depth of the vitriol. Apparently, few of the commenters saw these pictures and simply paused to remember that awful day and the 3,000 people that died.
There is no saving Iraq from what we started. There never was. The Middle East has a complex history that the West has never understood or attempted to understand. This is not a left wing /right wing issue. It is just fact.
Thinking that military could achieve the stated goals in that environment was never believed by the military. Their job is fighting. They did that part.The cost of maintaining a force in country was unsustainable financially and politically. Even today the military morale has been deeply damaged by the multiple deployments and the shameless lack of support for veterans.So, no, you are wrong and no matter what the chickenhawks of your party say, you never could win Iraq and you will not win the Mideast even if you nuke it to glowing glass.
Your suggestion that a small number of troops could have secured the borders sounds exactly like the overblown pronouncements of an early victory. If you recall the borders were only a part of the problem. The real problem was an insurgency that was instigated by the remnants of Baathist sympathizers with some foreign elements that were getting throughout the historically porous borders. If the Administration had been schooled in even the tiniest bit of history of the region they would never have gone to Iraq in the first place.Sun Tzu has many encomiums that perfectly illustrate the folly of the Iraq war. Not the least of which is "No nation has benefited from prolonged war."
Actually Iraq was never "won" it was a tiger being held by the tail. To ensure our "victory" we would have had to maintain an occupying force of immense size and cost indefinitely.Public opinion about the war was overwhelmingly opposed to the continuation of the war and its multiple tours of duty, growing death toll and profound expense. In addition there was a growing realization that the Bush/Cheney administration had deceptively led the country into war and the bread and circus free credit show to distract us blew up and nearly destroyed our economy.President Obama brought troops home because the public DEMANDED it. They did not want to see more young men and women being killed to cover up the blunder of the Iraq war.THAT was why the GOP did not win the next election and THAT is why they didn't win the next one and THAT is why they won't win the next.
9-11 was portrayed as this generation's Pearl Harbor. In that event America got to exact terrible revenge on Japan for its attack. In this case there was no single point of focus that could render the requisite level of revenge.
The depth of the vitriol comes from the frustration at not being able to have prevented the attack despite our chest thumping rhetoric and also form our frustration that the subsequent actions of the Administration were profoundly wrong and resulted in countless innocent lives lost and colossal sums spent.In fact, the US played directly into Al Qaeda's hands by expending its fury in an unwinnable expedition costing us our global credibility and creating an enormous bloc of enemies worldwide.
So much for jingoism.
RichyjV: Quite a lot of WB/colour shifting of those tones, lots of blue in the shadows of some of them. Looks like the photographer trying to set the emotion rather than just documenting what the scene looked like. In this case I'd prefer it were not done, we shouldn't need to be told by the photographer how to feel about these shots.
These were scans made for archive and backup purposes. Production film scanners give beautiful results very quickly but show off the failure of film when underexposed. Film will look this way because the correction to overcome the tungsten/flourescent WB reveals the underexposure in the magenta and yellow layers. You can see the effect in digital by changing the WB and seeing the exposure correction you need to make to ensure that enough yellow and magenta light is being recorded to create a decent color balance in the shadows.
Just like today, if your exposure is off, post processing does not always save it.
Darn, I really wanted the 25 to be f1.6
Thanks for this. Nice to see clean thoughtful work.
cdembrey: Just what the world needs, another fugly retro-styled camera. I much preferred Panasonic's modern styling to Olympus' retro. Meh!
Duly noted. We will alert management.
Photomonkey: The snarky comments here seem to be rather shallow efforts at sounding clever.If you read the article he makes some very good points. First, that Hasselblad, like Porsche, can segment their models to appeal to different users. Second, specs are not everything (as we have seen many times before) and third (and IMO most importantly) they have a group of experienced people who have a deep knowledge of imaging that does not come from a copying machine background but rather from the diverse European perspective of optical instruments, toolmaking, and usability to fit the task.He has his work cut out for him but his sensitive approach to rebuilding the brand may surprise us all.
@b0k3h. You missed his emphasis on that being in the past. The entire point of the interview being to re-emphasize their departure from investment group micromanagement that so damaged their image.While it might not work, I applaud a person for taking on a project like this. The odds are long because the market is different. European engineering has a cachet still but the bulk of the consumer world is not willing or able to afford it. Thus we get an avalanche of smart aleck comments from armchair engineers and economists.
Not condescending. I have an enormous regard for Asian engineering in every field. The point is that for the segment of the market that values an engineering viewpoint that does not arise from the electronics industry, they provide an alternative. Sony, Samsung, Casio, while very sophisticated and accomplished at making excellent products, come from a consumer electronics background. The great brands of Japanese cameras were engineered from the historical perspective of mechanical cameras building on the legacy of Leica (as all 35mm did) and Rollei. Note his comment on specs. What he is highlighting is the internet driven preoccupation with context-free metrics advanced by an industry that knows how to push the buttons of GAS sufferers.
The snarky comments here seem to be rather shallow efforts at sounding clever.If you read the article he makes some very good points. First, that Hasselblad, like Porsche, can segment their models to appeal to different users. Second, specs are not everything (as we have seen many times before) and third (and IMO most importantly) they have a group of experienced people who have a deep knowledge of imaging that does not come from a copying machine background but rather from the diverse European perspective of optical instruments, toolmaking, and usability to fit the task.He has his work cut out for him but his sensitive approach to rebuilding the brand may surprise us all.
Photomonkey: So I guess I don't need the 645z
While your points are valid. They are only to a point.Studio photography is about lighting, not DR. DR is controlled by lighting. As for leaf shutter lenses, they are useful but Pentax has only a couple of old designs that are not user friendly and I am not sure if they work with the 645z.For me, I shoot architecture and commercial images. TS lenses:Canon-4, Pentax - 0. As for landscape, that is not a way full time photographers generally make their living. Fun but not moneymaking.
Yanko Kitanov: It's a pity they couldn't reach a bit closer to the 645z. Pentax is still in another league...
From what I can see there is not much difference. In a print it will be invisible. As for zooming in PS, who makes money that way?
So I guess I don't need the 645z
The real miracle that Sony put all these features into one body instead of dribbling them out over a period of years.
BigShooter: I really dislike articles like this...
Who cares what somebody shoots with, just create something and move on.
"Ever heard of an opinion?"Really? Your opinion is that everyone's was irrelevant. So the question is germane; why are you here?
EcoR1: Mirrorless are much cheaper to manufacture and assamble compared to DSLR. That thing alone will be a major driving force to make DSLR almost extinct in 10 years. What can Canikon do, when Sony starts putting their A7-series into 500-1000 euros category? Even now you can buy a new A7 just under 1000 euros. Full frame DSLR just can't compete with that.
I would agree with EcoR1 as electronics have steadily replaced mechanical components in every field if possible. The advantages cited being cost, size, reliability, and features. This has largely been borne out in many areas where prices are incredibly low for what was only recently deemed magical. The ability to robotically manufacture tens of thousands of digital components with far more features than say a simple mirror box augurs well for the concept.We all love beautiful machinery but today no one would dream of buying a camera such as a Pentax Spotmatic because even though it is well made and affordable (unlike Leica) it is impossible to have features the public demands. The world is changing and despite the warnings of the doomsayers at every new development, the photo world has not collapsed.