Adobe MUST allow users to access their own edited images, with or without a subscription. Anything less would be outrageous. As for letting former subscribers continue to use a version of Lightroom with limited functions... this is neither here not there.
Samuel Dilworth: Paving the path to subscription-only Lightroom, as feared …
I long for the old days of selling something the customer wants at a fair price. Why is this model so untenable?
@String: It's not a conspiracy, it's an extortion racket.
Macx: 1) When considering equivalence (i.e. DoF, diffraction and total light/shot noise) sensor plays second fiddle to the lens: Given the same FoV and the same physical (virtual) aperture, you'll get the same image characteristics, no matter if you're shooting an image on your phone or on your medium format digital back. The thing that is holding your phone back in performance is for most intents and purposes the tiny lens and not the tiny sensor.
2) The difference in DoF and shot noise between different formats only come to play at the extreme ends of the exposure gamut: Bluntly, on a bright day, shooting for a wide depth of field your phone will give you roughly the same performance as your dslr. Only when the phone is out of its comfort zone the difference becomes apparent. Cameras using 1", 4:3 or APS-format sensors are a few stops shy of the comfort zone of current FF cameras. If you're not actually using those stops there is little to distinguish it.
"The thing that is holding your phone back in performance is for most intents and purposes the tiny lens and not the tiny sensor."
As written, this statement makes no sense. Tiny sensors, which almost always have large numbers of tiny pixels crammed into a tiny space, are inherently noisier than larger sensors with similar pixel counts. Unless everything I've read is in error, there's no way for that tiny sensor to produce images similar in quality to the images captured by sensors that are significantly larger.
PVCdroid: I'm convinced Apple decided that people are too slow and dumb to handle complicated software. What's strange is their focus on photography lately with a new ad campaign. Draw them in and keep it simple, stupids. And I was suspicious Apple was going to go whole hog into new sensors/cameras/lenses/software with all their dough.
Most people ARE too dumb to handle complicated software. Let's not forget that Apple's original mission was to make computers "for the rest of us". As people have gotten dumber and dumber, Apple software has followed suit.
Why is DP Review wasting time on this forgettable camera when many cameras that are much more worthy, and much more interesting, sometimes never get reviewed at all?
VadymA: Wouldn't consider it even for $0.99/month. I just despise PS counterintuitive concept of layers.
You're kidding, right?
Adobe wouldn't be doing this if Photoshop users were flocking to Creative Cloud the way some analysts claim they are.
CameraLabTester: Setting aside all the hype and hoollaballoo...
The ergonomics of this camera is starting to thread dangerously on the infamous Nikon 1 cardboard cut out... a very gruesome and ugly camera series.
Some people just aren't happy unless they're bashing something. Imagine living your whole life thinking the glass is always half-empty.
There are two photos of a young woman reading a newspaper in a cafe. Notice how much noise there is in the RAW conversion compared to the straight JPEG version.
AshMills: That's not very clear- will the "legacy" versions keep working if you stop paying?
Of course! No pay, no play. Legalized extortion at its finest!
Sannaborjeson: Owl is really interesting. The rest is just terribly overprocessed in software, to my taste.
Did somebody say something? It sounded like a squeaking rat.
Overprocessed is the new "normal". The masses have no taste, and have never had any taste.
balios: Sneaky. They've split the images into a checker-board pattern. A right-click save-as only gets you a tiny portion of the image. Adding to my Monet desktop backgrounds is going to take some work...
No, if you click what looks like a download icon at the bottom of the image on its descriptive page, you'll get the whole image at full size. On a Mac, you then just Control-click and select "Save image as". Dunno what the equivalent command is on a pc.
Neal Hood: Count me on the side of the 24-70 lens. For portraiture, just crop in raw to equate it to a 100 lens. It will work superbly and, I bet the outcome will be better than if taken with at 100 on a 28-100 lens. So there is a work around for the shorter mm lens on the series III, however there isn't much of a workaround if you really need 24 for a shot. 24mm adds more opportunity and capability than one might at first think.
Cropping an image shot at 70mm does not "equate it" to the same scene shot at 100mm because the perspective is different. The longer the lens, the more flattened the foreground/background relationships become. Conversely, the wider the lens, the more exaggerated those relationships become. You can shoot portraits even with a 35mm lens and simply crop the image, but the face will look more elongated than it would when shot with a longer lens. The 80-100mm focal length range is considered ideal for portrature because it creates a pleasing, natural-looking rendition of the human face—neither unnaturally flattened nor unnaturally elongated.
EssexAsh: "photographer Art Wolfe has built perhaps one of the strongest brands in his field."
Who? Guess his brand could be better. Whoever he is.
And who are you? Ignorant and proud of it!
Prairie Pal: Mostly muddled and distracted even if you reclassify it as surrealism. I always enjoy creative endeavors, but even the better of these lack enough polish to reach "meh" status. 1,3,7,11&12 are disasters.
It's your loss if you are too jaded to appreciate beauty when you see it.
Volkan Ersoy: Question: How many of you have visited the award site and looked at all of the photos (i.e. to see the whole story) before making a negative comment here?
Some of the photos on the award website are better than the winning photos, and some are a load of crap. Personally, I'm shocked by how many totally ordinary photos received awards.
Just what we always wanted to know: What types of photos are most popular with people who have NO TASTE!
As many others have said in so many words, I totally fail to see the point unless one is obsessed with closeups of nose hair or something like that. It is very easy to capture a pin-sharp image of any face by mounting almost any DSLR on a tripod and attaching a garden variety portrait lens.
For starters, this camera strap is ugly as sin!