Barry Pearson

Barry Pearson

Lives in United Kingdom Stockport, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired computer systems engineer
Joined on Sep 24, 2005
About me:

Photographic qualifications: LRPS, CPAGB

My websites require no registration, are non-commercial, and free of paid-for advertising.

I have no commercial or contractual relationship with digital photography companies, other than paying for the use of their products.

Comments

Total: 309, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

bildeb: I too think $10 per month is a good deal. I like it and find it very useful. I just installed the new 2015.5 and everything came through for me. I just had to reinstall Portrait Pro and Photo 10.5 and copy in some plug-ins.. I just used it to process 50 photos and it seems to be noticeably faster than the previous version.

My understanding is that the "Map" module in Lightroom is only available in the CC version. I read that this is because Adobe have to pay continuous royalties for its use, and so need to get continuous income.

Is this correct?

The point is that I have just made some serious use of the Lightroom Map module, using some photos I took with GPS switched on in my Pentax K-1, for some local history research. This itself proved valuable.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 08:55 UTC
In reply to:

bildeb: I too think $10 per month is a good deal. I like it and find it very useful. I just installed the new 2015.5 and everything came through for me. I just had to reinstall Portrait Pro and Photo 10.5 and copy in some plug-ins.. I just used it to process 50 photos and it seems to be noticeably faster than the previous version.

I subscribe to the full CC, not the Photography one. (I also use some of the other apps).

I think I get good value for the set of apps, updated at a reasonable rate.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 20:15 UTC
In reply to:

Ari Aikomus: Well... Maybe nice telezoom for APS-C K-70 camera, but where is new "70-300" zoom lens for fullframe K-1 !!??

Ricoh has a patent for an FF 100-300mm f/4 lens.

Ricoh aren't compromising in order to reduce the number of their new products. They are simply doing both FF and APS-C without compromise!

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 20:05 UTC
On article UPDATED: CP+ 2016: shooting the Pentax K-1 in Yokohama (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

tom1234567: I will wait for the Nikon D500 that will be a better camera for fast moving, whatever, 10fps is better than 4fps

Tom G

The K-1 is 4.4 fps in FF mode, 6.5 fps in crop (APS-C) mode.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 05:13 UTC
On article The long, difficult road to Pentax full-frame (617 comments in total)
In reply to:

phoenix15: One of the biggest job left for Ricoh now is Making attractive prime lenses. This should be 85/1.4, 135/2, Macro 200/4, and 300/2.8.

Pentax is not known for the zoomish lenses, I guess they should strengthen what they are good at.

I won't argue with the desire for more primes.

But the 5 recent (2015/2016; available now or for pre-order) "D FA" zooms are a pretty good match for the K-1.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2016 at 10:43 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 First Impressions Review (990 comments in total)
In reply to:

eyeswideshut: Sometimes it's the little things in life - like an LED over the mount. I mean how brilliant is that!
Oh and a great camera, too! Congratulations Pentax

Last year I did a nightshoot of old airplanes at the Shuttleworth Collection at Old Warden. I had to keep using a torch to see what I was doing.

If these lights avoid the need for a torch, what a super idea!

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2016 at 09:11 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Every serious brand new camera has a RAW converter for FREE in the bundled software.

It's time to dust off those camera's software CD's and give it a try.

If you don't want to be a monetary zombie, there are other ways around it...

.

HowaboutRAW: "Elements has a much more limited Camera Raw than PhotoShop or LightRoom."

I know. But how does it compare with other cheap or free raw converters? The options are less, but the basic processing engine is surely the same.

I know people who do excellent work with Photoshop Elements. I sometimes wonder if many of the people who don't keep updating Photoshop, and don't see the point in CC, actually need the full Photoshop at all?

(What I think Adobe might make money from is a non-subscription packaging of a subset of Lightroom & Elements, where Lightroom is used for asset management and raw conversion, and Elements is used for pixel-processing that will probably be enough for lots of photographers.)

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:14 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Every serious brand new camera has a RAW converter for FREE in the bundled software.

It's time to dust off those camera's software CD's and give it a try.

If you don't want to be a monetary zombie, there are other ways around it...

.

There is also Photoshop Elements which is far cheaper and not-subscription and has a raw converter.

Or am I missing something?

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 10:20 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (470 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cameron R Hood: I'll no longer be supporting Adobe in every way I possibly can. Bye bye. And I paid for the full version of the software, Riveredge. What if you occasionally need Illustrator and inDesign, like I do, two or three times a year? Are you into paying $50.00 a month for software you use rarely? Unless they let us rent by the month, I'll be looking elsewhere.

@Stanchung: "Think about students and hobbyists & retirees who really don't want to pay into it for a lifetime."

I'm a retiree and hobbyist who subscribes to the full CC. (Not just the Photography CC).

People are different from one-another. It is hard to generalise.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 10:08 UTC
In reply to:

tom1234567: Users with the LRcc version still have not been updated And I am one of the users whom have still not had the update. Tried everything even uninstalled reinstalled no joy turns out Adobe servers are Cr-p and can not cope with the downloads so here's hoping mabey today !!
TomG

I've just checked. My Lightroom CC was upgraded to 2015 9 days ago.

I have no explanation for your problem, but it isn't a general problem.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 10:41 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: The last time I tried this off-cloud trial of Photoshop it refused to work, saying I had already had it and needed to buy. I shall now attempt again, will let you know if it works... Do hope I dont have to be online all the time I'm working...Dont want my stuff getting to Adobe for free!! Does anyone?

There are things I fail in. I do not understand updates. Surely a competent designer is able to write down what we need globally, all of it, and then simply write all those needs and all those adjustments into Photoshop, or Windows, or Apple OS, or a Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Sony camera? Surely.

I agree there are technological advances in hardware, but in software? So far the only reason , me the old PJ has for even wanting Photoshop over Lightroom is they refuse to allow LR to sharpen at 0.2 pixels, forcing us to use 0.5 at least. Not an update then at all, a commercial tyranny.

@munro harrap: "Because to force me (and you) to spend money to open files from newer cameras they force you to buy the next version, and then the next version."

Typically not true. Convert those files to DNG using the free DNG Converter and they will open in earlier versions of software.

Remember that this is largely a problem forced by the camera makers, not Adobe. For example, Pentax users like me don't have this problem because we can shoot DNG. Lots of other cameras have used DNG over the years.

If other camera makers offered DNG as a user option (why not?) we wouldn't keep seeing this complaint.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 08:47 UTC
In reply to:

backayonder: A few months ago I noticed that when I edited a photo in Lightroom 5.7 and then opened it up in CS5 the image was dark so eventually decided to pay $9.99 a month for the latest Lightroom and Photoshop.

Problem solved. Just two cups of coffee a month its a no brainer especially when I think how much I have paid over the years whenever I upgraded Lightroom or Photoshop.

No you do not have to be online yes the software is installed on your PC and yes your work can be saved on your hard drive. I do not store any work on the cloud.

I have just checked on that well known auction site and there is hardly any copies of Photoshop for sale so Adobe have been successful in knocking Pirate copies on the head by going with the Subscription format and Lightroom is so cheap why would you bother with a dodgy copy?

As Photographers we are always updating our gear yet baulk at this subscription model? It is small change compared to the cost of getting our images developed in the old days of film?

@SFXR: "I admire your naivete. I wish I was still innocent. The subscription model is pirated all across the Internet, just like the CS versions were. I believe that the pirates have already updated the new patch that came out a week or two ago. Me, I'm sticking with my Adobe.com bought version of CS6 and then with something NOT Adobe when this software dies. Enjoy your koolaid."

That statement has 2 independent themes: whether it cures piracy, which matters to Adobe, and whether it is good for users, which matters to the rest of us.

As photographers, it is more important to focus on whether or not we personally benefit. (Unless we plan to pirate CC!)

I like the subscription approach. I'm not "naive" or "innocent". I've used Adobe software for many years, and the full CC (not the Photography CC) since before the big 2014 announcement and release. It works for me.

I accept that it doesn't work for everyone. This is for personal factors, not "naive" versus "not naive".

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 08:39 UTC
In reply to:

Barend: I want to buy software and install it on my computer. No cloud for me, NSA knows allready enough :-))
If LR is not supported anymore I go find an alternative.

@junk1: "Do you need to be online each time you use it? "

No. But it needs to check occasionally. (Perhaps once a month at least? I'm not sure).

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: This move by Adobe makes me wonder how successful their change to the, "creative cloud" business model has been.

If creative cloud were making big bucks for Adobe, would they have offered a second free trial?

@Smitty1: I was under the impression there was no cancel-when-you-want ability with this? Do students have that ability because normal end users do not (it is a yearly contract, shown at monthly rate to make the contract look sweeter)."

See the rules at the following:
Learn how to cancel your Creative Cloud membership or plan.
https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/cancel-membership.html

"If you cancel your annual membership (individual or team) within the first month, you will receive a full refund. Otherwise, you are billed 50 percent of your remaining contract obligation."

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

Raist3d: Hi Adobe. How about giving the new Lightroom CC only features to the stand alone Lightroom?

@Raist3d: "How about giving the new Lightroom CC only features to the stand alone Lightroom?"

"Stand-alone" is the cheaper option for people who have decided they don't need new features as they become available, but are prepared to wait, and perhaps even miss some releases!

Having made that choice, why expect to get things that haven't been paid for?

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 10:28 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: This move by Adobe makes me wonder how successful their change to the, "creative cloud" business model has been.

If creative cloud were making big bucks for Adobe, would they have offered a second free trial?

@Samuel Dilworth: "It works very well for Adobe. They make more money from fewer customers, and additionally can spend less on development since they don’t need brilliant new features every year or two to get people to upgrade."

Here is a New features summary for Adobe Photoshop CC 2015:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/whats-new.html

Follow the links on that page to new features in 2014, and new features in 2013.

There are lots of new developments, some big, lots small, as I've discovered in more than a year of using it. But, of course, some people may simply decide that although Adobe is obviously doing a lot of development work, what they doing isn't of interest to them.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 10:23 UTC
In reply to:

Steve in GA: This move by Adobe makes me wonder how successful their change to the, "creative cloud" business model has been.

If creative cloud were making big bucks for Adobe, would they have offered a second free trial?

@Steve: "This move by Adobe makes me wonder how successful their change to the "creative cloud" business model has been."

Judge for yourself:
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/61605102/sYlvCma1d3g5j7.pdf?PID=2159997
Or:
http://www.adobe.com/news-room/pressreleases/201412/121114Q4FY2014results.html?PID=2159997

4.61 million subscribers so far. Apparently good revenues. Investors like it (as would be expected).

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 10:17 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: The attraction of a wide angle macro lens escapes me. Every time I've ever wanted to do macro, I wanted longer focal lengths than practically any macro lens ever made.

So, I use my Kenko extension tube set with my 70-200. Even that doesn't really have enough working distance. Now, with a teleconverter and a crop body, then it feels about right.

So, my main macro lens has an equivalent focal length of 448mm.

I've tended to want longer macro lenses, because some of the things I want to photograph get spooked easily.

But when I bought a fisheye, I found uses for it that I wouldn't have thought of without have the lens to experiment with. I suspect it would be the same with this lens.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 08:16 UTC
In reply to:

stanic042: if the optical quality is any good (seems a bit cheap for ultra wide macro lens) this will be a very nice lens for the planned Pentax fullframe

My thought precisely! I've been wondering what wide angle lens to get for that camera. I suspect that some of my uses of a wide angle lens on that FF camera would permit Shift, and even though it isn't much, it might make an important difference.

(I've already got the long end largely sorted out).

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 08:12 UTC
In reply to:

The Straw Man: This lens looks like fun.

When I first got a fisheye lens, it was for fun. And it was fun! But I found that it could be very effective as a creative tool too.

I suspect this lens would be similar - certainly fun, but also opening up some new options that I wouldn't otherwise have thought of. (Sometimes I need new technology to kick me in new directions!)

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2015 at 08:07 UTC
Total: 309, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »