sh10453

sh10453

Lives in United States Michigan, United States
Works as a Electrical & Computer Engineer
Joined on May 2, 2010
About me:

Been shooting since the days of Adam and Eve!

Comments

Total: 195, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Quick Review: PhotoKeeper article (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidKennard: The big problem with any cloud storage for me is simply that upload speeds are too slow for it to be a viable option for anything other than web-sized JPEGs.

Must be a result of the aging queen :-) ... Time for a young king so he'd push to modernize things (I vote for Kate as a queen), lol.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2015 at 02:25 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: Yup, this proves that there must be a God's 11th commandment that states "Thou Must Only Use Tiny Sensors In Tough Cameras".

@BigShooter ...
I'm sure you get BigShoots and excellent results from the 1/2.3" sensor when you make 24" prints.
Thanks for your feedback.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2015 at 13:05 UTC
On Quick Review: PhotoKeeper article (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidKennard: The big problem with any cloud storage for me is simply that upload speeds are too slow for it to be a viable option for anything other than web-sized JPEGs.

That is correct, rrr_hhh
Very much the same here in the USA.
That's why I have my data on 2, portable, pocket-size (2.5"), USB3, 2TB drives (2TB each).
No worry about uploading, downloading, privacy, spy agencies intercept, or Internet availability wherever I happen to be, and always in sync with my main hard disk.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 15:57 UTC
On Quick Review: PhotoKeeper article (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidKennard: The big problem with any cloud storage for me is simply that upload speeds are too slow for it to be a viable option for anything other than web-sized JPEGs.

In this case (over a TB of data), I'm wondering if it can be done easier by sending the drive to the clouds hosting company so they'd load the images and return the drive.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 15:33 UTC
On Quick Review: PhotoKeeper article (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonathanj: Interesting. Personally I just want a storage service, and I don't think anyone can beat Amazon Cloud Drive for price ($12 per year for unlimited photos).
However, I admit the Amazon feature set is almost non-existent in comparison, so there's definitely a market for sites like PhotoKeeper that have a much richer feature set.
And no, it's not an advert to write a short article about a new site that might be of interest to the readers. Keep writing them, guys :-)

Thanks. I agree that Yahoo can't be trusted with any of their free services. They have betrayed users multiple times, such as in dumping profiles, 360, chat rooms, etc.

For storage (not photo-sharing), I use a couple of portable, pocket size, USB3, external drives, 2TB each. They are getting cheap, around $80 for a 2TB drive. Always kept in sync with my images on the main hard disk.
In my case, I find this way of storage more convenient to me. Files are always available (and portable), no worry about Internet availability or downloading.
I only upload to the clouds some lower resolution files for sharing.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 15:28 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: Yup, this proves that there must be a God's 11th commandment that states "Thou Must Only Use Tiny Sensors In Tough Cameras".

I'm praying, and looking forward to the day when camera manufacturers stop making cameras with this size sensor, and stick to 1" sensors as the new minimum size, for any serious work!

1/2.x" sensors were acceptable 10 to 15 years ago, but now they have overstayed their initial welcome, although they could stay in little kids' (or toys) cameras!

Even the 1/1.7" sensors are getting old, at least for photographers and enthusiasts.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 13:48 UTC
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: Thanks for the cat pictures. Embarrassingly, they are a great test of lenses because feline fur has both the qualities of fine detail and soft fluffiness. It's hard for a lens to make fur look both sharply defined AND petable.

Even though it's a cliche that many photographers take pictures of their cats because they're too shy to ask women to pose for them, it remains a valid test of sensors and lenses and you guys should mandate a cat photo in every sample gallery.

Have you ever tried to open your 3 years old laptop to see how much cat hair has accumulated inside?

For some reason, cats seem to love walking (or even sitting) on the laptop's keyboard :-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 13:28 UTC
On Quick Review: PhotoKeeper article (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonathanj: Interesting. Personally I just want a storage service, and I don't think anyone can beat Amazon Cloud Drive for price ($12 per year for unlimited photos).
However, I admit the Amazon feature set is almost non-existent in comparison, so there's definitely a market for sites like PhotoKeeper that have a much richer feature set.
And no, it's not an advert to write a short article about a new site that might be of interest to the readers. Keep writing them, guys :-)

Don't you think Flickr beats Amazon Cloud?
1TB for FREE on Flickr, per account.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 13:13 UTC
On Quick Review: PhotoKeeper article (93 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidKennard: The big problem with any cloud storage for me is simply that upload speeds are too slow for it to be a viable option for anything other than web-sized JPEGs.

I don't think that the slow speeds are related to the cloud storage services / hosts.
Unless an extremely busy hosting site, the slow uploading speed is related to the user's machine capability (Ethernet speed, WiFi speed, ..., etc.), and the ISP's (Internet Service Provider) limits on upload speed, which usually varies by plans, and, in general, is far slower than the download speed.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 13:00 UTC
On Quick Review: PhotoKeeper article (93 comments in total)

Pixels.com is geared towards art and photography.
For anyone who sells images or artwork, I suggest taking a look at pixels.com.

Home page is: http://pixels.com/

As for the membership, free and premium ($30/year), here is what you get:

http://pixels.com/membershipplans.html

Disclaimer: I am in NO way shape or form affiliated with pixels.com or any other similar site.

Maybe DPR can consider a future article to compare some of these sites/services instead of dedicating an article to just one service (which has led some readers to label the article as advertisement).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2015 at 12:41 UTC as 8th comment
On Capture One Pro 8 software review article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

Skipper494: Can never understand why people think that a third party knows a camera manufacturer's RAW algorithm better than the camera manufacturer and, of course, the latter's converter comes free.

Even if the software and hardware departments are separate, they work together, very closely, throughout the design phases of a project.
That also includes outside suppliers, such as a sensor supplier if it is not made in house.
They meet constantly, daily, weekly, etc. for design feasibility, implementation, design verification, ..., sample production runs, and finally production.
They work on a project as a team for that projects, from the various departments, product planners, suppliers, lawyers (for legal matters), marketing, finance, etc.
So Skipper494 has a good point.
But the issue with free RAW converters that are provided with the cameras is that it is minimal and limited with what it can do in terms of editing.
The other bigger issue is that the people who are familiar and comfortable with the use of a certain software package don't want to bother with something else. They'll always swear by their program, and don't want to bother with anything else.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 21:11 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: 4 hours for data to arrive?
Couldn't they afford a DSL line??? Darn it. AT&T should've given them free DSL for the mission!

Now seriously, the technology is remarkable, and very impressive. Hats off to the engineers involved in the design of the ship and its various components.

Sadly, the whole crew of engineers combined on this mission probably makes far less money a year than a singer or an actress, who may not even have a high-school education!

One thing still baffles me about astronomers though.
How do they measure distances to other objects in space and declare that it is 100 billion, or 200, 300, ..., 500 billion LIGHT YEARS away?
Light, or a signal to that far can't come back to us during a lifetime, or 2, or a few lifetimes!!

A light year is the distance traveled by light (at ~ 300,000 km/sec) over a period of one year (or 31,536,000 seconds).

Thank you for caring to take the time to reply.
Personally I do not take what astronomers say at face value! :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 28, 2015 at 20:03 UTC
In reply to:

Bene Placito: This explains much of the "why" it happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg

Of course the public were not made aware of much of this.

Politicians know the truth, but they are shrewd, and the vast majority of the public is naive and ignorant, and simply take what the politician tells them at face value.

Politicians know this fact well. They are not in Washington to serve the public or the country first. Their first priority is to be re-elected.
Re-election campaigns require lots of money. Therefore, the politician becomes a slave to the big donors, and we know who the big donors are.

Sadly, some commenters here try to argue the facts.
Facts are facts; PERIOD! You do not argue facts because you make a fool of yourself.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 03:25 UTC
In reply to:

Bene Placito: This explains much of the "why" it happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg

Of course the public were not made aware of much of this.

@ Bene Placito
Thanks for this link.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2015 at 02:51 UTC

4 hours for data to arrive?
Couldn't they afford a DSL line??? Darn it. AT&T should've given them free DSL for the mission!

Now seriously, the technology is remarkable, and very impressive. Hats off to the engineers involved in the design of the ship and its various components.

Sadly, the whole crew of engineers combined on this mission probably makes far less money a year than a singer or an actress, who may not even have a high-school education!

One thing still baffles me about astronomers though.
How do they measure distances to other objects in space and declare that it is 100 billion, or 200, 300, ..., 500 billion LIGHT YEARS away?
Light, or a signal to that far can't come back to us during a lifetime, or 2, or a few lifetimes!!

A light year is the distance traveled by light (at ~ 300,000 km/sec) over a period of one year (or 31,536,000 seconds).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 02:04 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

AndroC: The source quoted for this website, Southwest Research Institute, is blocked by Bullguard - a very reputable security product - as being a malicious and dangerous site. ?

That link is actually a link to a PDF file which has the details about RALPH.
The site is safe.
Please forgive me if I told you that Bullguard is among the least effective antivirus programs actually, and known to produce a high level of false alarms.
This is according to the independent, and most respected Austrian organization for AV testing, which you may want to look at its latest report.
I went to the site and downloaded the PDF file. No alarm, no issues.
I use and trust the product that has been rated #1 over and over in their testing.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2015 at 01:40 UTC
On Capture One Pro 8 software review article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: There is a good number of free products available, and they have plenty of teeth in them.
LightZone, Picturenaut, SilkyPics (free version which comes with Panasonic cameras), and RAWTherapee are some examples.

It would be nice (and certainly useful to the fans and readers) if DPR would review and COMPARE these products among themselves and with some commercial ones.

Another inexpensive product ($40 to $80, much cheaper if not the latest version), which is a full fledged graphics editor, and it can handle RAW images as well, is Corel's Paint Shop Pro (probably the oldest graphics editor still in existence for PC's) is worth a full review

I'm not a fan of the outrageous prices in the $500, $600, ..., $1200 range.

Any readers opinions / support to this request? Please keep it simple and minimal.

I have been using LightZone for a while.
By default, without any slider adjustment, its rendering of RAW files seems to be identical to Canon's Digital Photo Professional, which is good for what I do.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 03:06 UTC
On Capture One Pro 8 software review article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: There is a good number of free products available, and they have plenty of teeth in them.
LightZone, Picturenaut, SilkyPics (free version which comes with Panasonic cameras), and RAWTherapee are some examples.

It would be nice (and certainly useful to the fans and readers) if DPR would review and COMPARE these products among themselves and with some commercial ones.

Another inexpensive product ($40 to $80, much cheaper if not the latest version), which is a full fledged graphics editor, and it can handle RAW images as well, is Corel's Paint Shop Pro (probably the oldest graphics editor still in existence for PC's) is worth a full review

I'm not a fan of the outrageous prices in the $500, $600, ..., $1200 range.

Any readers opinions / support to this request? Please keep it simple and minimal.

@ImageAmateur,
Thanks for sharing your experience with what you have used.
You may want to try LightZone. It's an open source program. They recently released version 4.1.
The site explain the history of this program for interested visitors.
It's quite extensive, and no doubt there is a learning curve.
I'll let you form your own opinion, if you decide to try it, rather than stating mine.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 15:54 UTC
On Capture One Pro 8 software review article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: There is a good number of free products available, and they have plenty of teeth in them.
LightZone, Picturenaut, SilkyPics (free version which comes with Panasonic cameras), and RAWTherapee are some examples.

It would be nice (and certainly useful to the fans and readers) if DPR would review and COMPARE these products among themselves and with some commercial ones.

Another inexpensive product ($40 to $80, much cheaper if not the latest version), which is a full fledged graphics editor, and it can handle RAW images as well, is Corel's Paint Shop Pro (probably the oldest graphics editor still in existence for PC's) is worth a full review

I'm not a fan of the outrageous prices in the $500, $600, ..., $1200 range.

Any readers opinions / support to this request? Please keep it simple and minimal.

@LadyGaga,
Thanks for your input, but judging by the number of "Likes" to my original suggestion, it looks like you are outgunned by a large margin :-)

=========

Now, generally, there is always a learning curve when we try to use new software that has extensive capabilities.
So I do understand the reluctance for some to abandon their comfort zone.
I understand that comfort zone very well because I absolutely hate Photoshop, as well as Lightroom, no matter how good people think they are; that's because I have been using Paint Shop Pro since its first DOS version back in 1989 (to the best of my recollection), long before most people even thought about digital cameras.

I need more YAY sayers, please, Click "Like" on the original post, above, if you support the request.

If you are sticking with what you have, regardless, it's fine, enjoy it, but please allow others to speak out.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 02:35 UTC
On Capture One Pro 8 software review article (290 comments in total)

There is a good number of free products available, and they have plenty of teeth in them.
LightZone, Picturenaut, SilkyPics (free version which comes with Panasonic cameras), and RAWTherapee are some examples.

It would be nice (and certainly useful to the fans and readers) if DPR would review and COMPARE these products among themselves and with some commercial ones.

Another inexpensive product ($40 to $80, much cheaper if not the latest version), which is a full fledged graphics editor, and it can handle RAW images as well, is Corel's Paint Shop Pro (probably the oldest graphics editor still in existence for PC's) is worth a full review

I'm not a fan of the outrageous prices in the $500, $600, ..., $1200 range.

Any readers opinions / support to this request? Please keep it simple and minimal.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2015 at 14:43 UTC as 57th comment | 8 replies
Total: 195, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »