sagebrushfire

sagebrushfire

Lives in United States San Bernardino, CA, United States
Works as a Survey Specialist & Tech Support
Joined on Aug 14, 2009

Comments

Total: 77, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On Adobe leaks 'Lightroom Mobile' app news story (210 comments in total)
In reply to:

sagebrushfire: I hope the price is incorrect. That's just despicable. As it stands you can buy the actual desktop software for under $150. If you keep the same camera body for around 4 years on average, you don't need any product updates.

So why on earth would I pay $400 for 4 years of Lightroom Mobile when I can just buy it once for $150 and use it on my computer?

Adobe's subscription service is good in that it opens up the software to people who either couldn't normally use it or would be forced to pirate it. That being said, it ultimately amounts to people spending a lot more money and you simply can't justify it by the fact that you always get the "Latest" version because people don't always NEED the "Latest" version. I have Photoshop CS6 at home and Elements 2.0 at work and honestly you can't tell they are 11 years apart. The demands we have of software and tech don't actually increase as fast as Adobe's update schedule suggests.

Lightroom is one program they can gouge people on because they keep having to add support for new camera's raw formats. If Canon, Nikon, Sony and Olympus could all just agree on a format or provide DNG support (I think some do) then it would be less of an issue. Most of their other software doesn't have that issue. They artificially control file compatibility for After Effects, Premiere, Flash and a few others but still there's nothing forcing people to upgrade.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2014 at 03:13 UTC
On Adobe leaks 'Lightroom Mobile' app news story (210 comments in total)

I hope the price is incorrect. That's just despicable. As it stands you can buy the actual desktop software for under $150. If you keep the same camera body for around 4 years on average, you don't need any product updates.

So why on earth would I pay $400 for 4 years of Lightroom Mobile when I can just buy it once for $150 and use it on my computer?

Adobe's subscription service is good in that it opens up the software to people who either couldn't normally use it or would be forced to pirate it. That being said, it ultimately amounts to people spending a lot more money and you simply can't justify it by the fact that you always get the "Latest" version because people don't always NEED the "Latest" version. I have Photoshop CS6 at home and Elements 2.0 at work and honestly you can't tell they are 11 years apart. The demands we have of software and tech don't actually increase as fast as Adobe's update schedule suggests.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2014 at 23:34 UTC as 43rd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

mpgxsvcd: 1736 x 1156 is NOT low resolution for video. That looks amazing. Minus the Moire.

Technically it's only 67,000 less pixels which is nothing; unfortunately its aspect ratio is skewed towards height compared to full HD so it would either get compressed or get cropped into sub-1080p resolution but most of the information is there.

1280x720p is also considered hi definition; it's getting less popular as 1080p becomes more ubiquitous but it's plenty of detail for most amateur and low-level (Weddings, Birthdays, Etc.) professional needs.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2013 at 00:17 UTC

Honestly I think it's worse to give someone something that's 60%+ painted and it shows, especially in the picture where the baby's foot mysteriously just cuts off and where the little girl looks like an angry swamp monster. It would be better to just use the picture as a slight reference and make a nice looking painting based off it.

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2013 at 05:09 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
On Using a perspective control lens for wedding photography news story (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: to all those detractors/negators of shallow DoF images shot 'in-camera' on the spot with the mounted lens...

why not just settle for a focus-free, 'infinite' super-high deep DoF everything is in focus, via tiny apertured tiny lensed tiny sensored cellphone cameras (or something smaller than a dSLR), and photoshop all the '3D pop' shallow DoF to your hearts content POST-PROCESSED (ad nauseum)... (blurry tunnel vision lens-baby optional)

happy now?

sdyue

Using a large aperture and getting a shallow DOF in-camera gives you an effect that you can't truly replicate in post because there's certain information that the camera didn't pick up and is lost forever.

That being said, there is some merit to the "use a camera as a data capturing device" approach. If you shoot in raw, use small apertures for the greatest depth of field and make your exposures as bland as possible (try to avoid any blown highlights or blackened shadows) you have a LOT of creative freedom in post. This is sometimes beneficial for a client that doesn't know what they want or needs many different effects but doesn't want multiple shoots, etc.

So I think there are merits to getting it right in the camera and making it right in post, it all depends on your workflow. Some people don't have time for ANY processing so in-camera has to be perfect; other people have no time for setting up shots in the field but all the processing time they want.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2013 at 07:27 UTC
On Online images and copyright infringement news story (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kibo in SF: Did the image have adequate copyright notices in the first place? Or is Google the guilty party?

That doesn't matter; a work protected the moment it's created. Searching for stock images via Google or any other search engine is the problem here; there are plenty of free and cheap online sources for stock photos (sxc.hu, morguefile, istockphoto, etc.) so I don't know why people insists on looking for stuff on Google. Google should either get rid of image search or have an incredibly annoying popup/disclaimer every time you search to remind you that you could be infringing on someone else's rights if you use the images you find. Then again the ultimate lesson here is that exposure opens you up to opportunities and risks at the same time; having your pictures online doesn't make your rights any easier to maintain.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 13:22 UTC
On Online images and copyright infringement news story (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

Murray Rothbard: All they had to do was horizontally flip the image and give it a very slight monochrome color overlay and they'd be totally in the clear since they'd have transformed the image.

What? That's called a derivative work and it most certainly will NOT protect you in anyway; it's copyright infringement. Is this supposed to be sarcastic or something?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2013 at 13:19 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: Way too slow. Ideal fps would be 300, but 120fps would be a good start.

300 FPS? There's no logical reason to ever present anything at 300 frames per second, your eyes and your brain could not process that much information, not to mention things that *should* have motion blur will mysteriously not have it. Look at your hand and wiggle it back and forth, see how blurry that is? Kiss that goodbye at 300FPS, how exactly would that be like "real life"? The sad thing here is that YOU are criticizing peoples' ignorance when you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about. High frame rates can deliver certain effects but the most practical use for anything over 60 fps is to remap to a lower fps for slow motion effects (300fps would be awesome in that respect, you could turn 1 second into 10, more than enough for most cinematic effects). And re:real life, frame rate is not analogous to the way your eyes perceive visual stimuli. For the sake of video and animation, 60-120 fps is the reasonable limit; any more is a waste of resources.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2013 at 00:34 UTC

This was not bad but ... why on earth did you compare Lightroom and Capture One Pro at two different preview sizes? They BOTH support 2048 and 2880; what on earth would make you think that changing Lightroom's setting but not Capture One's setting wouldn't be biased?

That is just such an incredibly amateur mistake I really had to make myself continue reading because I was expecting a train wreck of uneven and biased comparisons.

Overall I think this came to the right conclusion but would have benefited from ar least one section where you do a "Best Case Scenario" comparison and take a really noisey, poorly exposed image and try to make it as best as possible in each program - that's what a lot of people really care about: how far can I take my shooting and get good results? How many more images will I be able to save? Journalists and sports photographers are probably more interested in that sort of thing.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2013 at 05:32 UTC as 119th comment | 1 reply
On Classic HDR Landscape challenge (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

nwcycle: HDR can be way overdone, most are way over saturated, looks like a jigsaw puzzle cover, however some are done very tastefully....

Yeah I wish I had been more specific/strict with the rules so I could disqualify some of these, a few of them aren't even worth being voted on ...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2013 at 00:07 UTC
On Classic HDR Landscape challenge (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

l_objectif: To the host:
There are very active cheaters in DPR challenges. Please, read carefully all the posts in the following thread! Cheaters should not be allowed to participate and should be banned!...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50666187

That thread is too disorganized to sift through; we need a better way to deal with cheaters. I've had a few on my challenges.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2013 at 14:03 UTC
On Classic HDR Landscape challenge (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

CG33: Can it be black and white? HDR of course, but black and white.

Sorry didn't see this; I didn't mention it in the rules so I suppose yes; the only problem is that you're only going to get a tonally even look with JPEG and cheap monitors since sRGB only has 256 values in gray scale.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 18, 2013 at 14:01 UTC
On Mountain tones in the Split Toned Images challenge (8 comments in total)

Sorry I'm so very behind on my congratulations. This definitely deserved to be in first place, it's a brilliant image!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2012 at 06:55 UTC as 1st comment
On Modern Technology in Decay and Dilapidation challenge (1 comment in total)

Sorry my description got cut off, I must not have saved it when I was in the middle of editing.

For the additional rules: You get the point, technology has grown exponentially in the past 100 years so don't limit yourself to pictures of things like iPads and Digital Cameras if you don't want to; here are plenty of items we might consider to be "retro" that were actually incredibly advanced for their time.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2012 at 06:10 UTC as 1st comment

The ultimate camera is one that is essentially only a sturdy, well-built frame that can house interchangeable lenses, sensors, batteries, memory media readers and pc connection devices.

Ideally something that has a standardized design than can be upgraded in modules. Something similar does exist but it's far from being within a reasonable price point (I think it's a type of High Definition Camcorder).

I would really like to see a camera that can split it's resolution to become Full Frame or APS-C or M4/3, So maybe you shoot at 30MP M4/3, 18.7 MP APS-C and 15MP FF. The design would allow for various lenses and it would have to be mirror-less or the mirror would have to allow for the different types of lenses.

There are many times when I would gladly cut my resolution in half for a wider DOF and better low-light noise. Of course I don't know if that's logistically a sound idea, I just like the concept of an "all-in-one" camera.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2012 at 04:36 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

Jacques Cornell: "Low-res iPad Mini...in Apple refresh"

Way to dis Apple, DPR.

I doubt that was the intention but it's not like Apple doesn't deserve it. Their products are awesome but their business practices ... well they have more in common with a prison shower scene than I'm comfortable with.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2012 at 00:05 UTC
On Street Photography = street robbery? article (10 comments in total)

With freedom you just cannot have it all; to have absolute freedom would be a paradox because that would mean you're free to detract or take the freedom of others, who would then no longer have absolute freedom themselves.

So we argue and organize and find a balance that can satisfy the majority while giving the minority certain rights that allow them to coexist peacefully.

If you're in a non-essential public place or at a specifically planned event where photography is permitted, you don't have a reasonable right to privacy. You went out of your way to obtain access to a publicly available area.

Now, if you're walking in a business or residential area where you don't have much choice, perhaps you're traveling to work or school, I have less sympathy for photographers trying to snap your portrait because you have limited control over your ability to maintain privacy. That being said, photos of crowds or where a person is more or less unidentifiable are mostly harmless.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2012 at 05:53 UTC as 4th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Wildbegonia: Because is Tower of Pisa for Tower of Pizza does not exist. Fire Google! ;)

Oh ahahaha I don't know what I was thinking, all the same it totally works in Google.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2012 at 02:37 UTC

Okay it's official: it's everyone else and NOT me. This is such a wildly popular theme, just Google "Leaning Tower of Pizza" and you will see thousands of examples of large things appearing small. Google "Photograph Toy Effect" for more good examples.

I'm honestly miffed; the vast majority of these submissions make absolutely no sense ...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2012 at 03:53 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On StreetParde_2012_0011 in the Switch The Faces of Your Subjects challenge (1 comment in total)

I'm not even going to disqualify this because I wan't it to drag down your overall challenge rankings. You obvioulsy don't care, you haven't even withdrawn it.

Read the rules next time. How on Earth is it fun to enter challenges with random photos that have nothing to do with the themes? You don't actually win anything so what's the point?

As for the picture: this proves that an expensive camera doesn't magically take good pictures. You might have wanted to manually focus this on the iris for a shot with much more impact. If you're going to troll my challenges with unrelated pictures, at least upload really good ones.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2012 at 20:08 UTC as 1st comment
Total: 77, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »