Imagefoundry: very interesting article, especially for me. I've been photographing artworks professionally since early 90s (first assisting, then on my own) - and I have an expansive collection of 4x5 and 8x10 chromes of some pretty important works. However, copywork is copywork and I am sure if I tried to market these images I would face a major wrath from art community, and it's likely to be a career-ending move, aside of getting sued for copyright breach.
I wonder what Dr.Dee is thinking about legal framework for selling this collection.
He's looking to donate, not sell them. All he's asking is that the recipient be an institution so he can get a tax deduction from the contribution.
David Hart: "'If they [the client] ordered 10 slides, I’d shoot 12. It was cheaper to shoot extras than to go back and reshoot."
If I understand this correctly, these are the leftovers of the photos that he took for his clients. Presumably, they got the best of the bunch. It also appears that he didn't catalog them in any way so there is no idea, unless you go visit, what the subjects are and how many of them are actually decent photos.
It's like someone having a hockey card collection where all of the popular and mint condition cards were sold off and the rest were thrown in a box.
Is it really worth the effort? After all, presumably the actual art pieces and the original photos provided to the clients still exist.
The backups were just that, providing a spare identical slide/tranny in case the original was lost/damaged. Same lighting, angle, etc as the ones that went to clients.
amf1932: As a photo retoucher for many years, working with N.Y. ad agencies, and way before Photoshop was invented, we always had to correct skin blemishes, or any other distortions to make a model look as beautiful as possible. The corrections we made had to be approved by the higher ups before publication. This was and will still be continued no matter what the outcome of this article. I definitely approve of any or all retouching to enhance any photo, and it makes me sick that a subject such as this can cause such a commotion.
The issue isn't about the merits of retouching. The question is whether it's appropriate when done under the banner of a news organization.
jwaif: In you conclusions Cons you have "File numbering default that resets after every card format" Normally you have to set a Custom Function on Nikon's for File Number Sequence. On the D5200 that is custom setting d4.
Does this not work on the D5200 or was is not set?
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
As we wrote in the review, the default setting for d4 is 'Off'.
marike6: Question for DPR: Wasn't there a plan to get Andrew Reid from EOSHD to contribute some video content?
The D5200 is the first Nikon APS-C DSLR to actually best the Canon APS-C cameras for video quality, and much has been written elsewhere about it especially since Nikon has done such a good job controlling moire/aliasing vs the Canons.
But unfortunately the video section in this review is very short, and doesn't really talk about the dramatic improvement of the D5200 over the previous Nikons for video.
If readers here want to compare D5200 video with two of the best, see below:
D5200 vs GH3https://vimeo.com/59832019
D5200 vs 5D MK IIIhttps://vimeo.com/60135187
@rhlpetrusI think that on a fundamental level sites like EOSHD and dpr are serving two distinct audiences. There are clearly cameras with which it makes sense to give equal weight to the needs of both dedicated videographers and still photographers looking to shoot casual video and present it with minimal grading, sharpening and tonal corrections. With the D5200 we've chosen to address the latter group but have mentioned the camera's abilities for low light work and post-processing.
@bobbarberAvoiding moiré is of paramount concern in the DSLR video world. And for many, the trade-off of softer but less heavily processed footage that you can 'sharpen up' in post, for the appearance of crisp video, is one they're willing to make.
TOF guy: Thank you for another well done review.Looks like a good performance camera and great value. But Nikon should be dinged for not offering Mirror Lock-Up at this level. It should be added to the cons list.After the recent QC issues which Nikon has experienced, have you checked the Af accuracy (no back focus with any af sensor) ? How about dust / debris ? A lot of potential buyers would like to know if these issues in newly released cameras are in the past.
As a not very inconvenient workaround, you can set the camera to live view (which raises the mirror) and then capture the exposure.
@marike6,We're still exploring ways to integrate Andrew Reid's video-specific findings into our reviews. On cameras like the Panasonic GH3 and Canon 5D Mark III, which have garnered large followings in the DSLR video world, we do provide extensive coverage of video performance with direct input from Andrew Reid.
With the D5200, the video shooters we've spoken with are impressed with its ability to withstand more substantial sharpening corrections in post for the appearance of very crisp footage. But with our obvious emphasis on stills photography here at dpreview our primary focus for video performance has always been with OOC results.
On an objective level, the D5200 does not out-resolve the GH3, for example at base ISO. In fact, it falls noticeably short. What has videographers most excited about the D5200 is its impressive low light performance. And in this review we tried to provide samples which illustrate that.
Hope that clarifies things a bit.
AZBlue: What a fluff piece, DPR? You ask a question, get a non-answer, and don't press the guy for an answer? When you ask how do they justify the price increase, they say they cut the price in half. Obviously you have different information than they do - why didn't you explore that further? Why do you just ask a question and accept a less than satisfying answer?
This is a completely ridiculous article that doesn't put anyone's mind at east. Photographers prefer Lightroom to CC? FAQs ask why do you need Photoshop? Are you kidding me? So DPR's solution is to give Adobe PR another avenue to spout off while the FAQs push people towards Lightroom and talks them out of wanting Photoshop. Sounds like an agenda to me.
It's far from a stretch to ask whether there are photographers currently using Photoshop + Bridge who would not be just as well, if not better served by Lightroom.
Based on several comments I want to clarify that the interview with Adobe is limited to the first half of the story. The Reader FAQs are not part of the interview and are intended to provide answers to some common questions readers have been asking over the last two days. Apologies if we haven't made that distinction clear enough.
MiraShootsNikon: Message to Adobe's PR people:
Posting a smug drama headshot of your "VP of Creative Solutions" to head a smug message ("We anticipated this response . . .") doesn't help your cause.
Is the dude working to deliver creative tools, or responding to casting calls for extras in next week's episode of "Revenge?"
We picked the headshot to illustrate the story.
W5JCK: From an Adobe blog:
"Q: If you’re going to continue selling Photoshop CS6, will I still get Camera Raw updates?
A: Because Adobe is still selling Photoshop CS6, those customers will continue to receive updated file format compatibility via Adobe Camera Raw 8. When we update ACR8 with new camera support, Photoshop CS6 customers can work with the new version of the Camera Raw plug-in. No new features or functionality will be available in ACR to Photoshop CS6 customers as part of those updates."
So yes we can get ACR updates that work with PS CS6, but they won't contain anything new. WTF! Why give us ACR8 compatibility when it won't do anything for us? We will still have no new cameras added--EVER. What total BS this is!
'new camera support' means you get compatibility with Raw files Adobe supported since the current ACR release. So you can open the same Raw files as a CC user but will not have any of their new tools or features.
jameshamm: The cost is too high. If it was in the $10-$30 range, maybe. The way it is it's approaching $1k per year!
$49.99 X 12 = $599.88. That's without the existing user discount and includes all CC apps with a 1 year commitment. You can do PS only for $19.99/mo. Yes, the price for a 'cancel any time' plan is $74.99. But that's for users who presumably wouldn't be paying for access 12 consecutive months.
jto555: Hi, I bought Creative Cloud (Tuesday 7th May 2013), and they have overcharged my creditcard. When I rang customer support they hung-up on me. What do I do now to get my money back but I need Photoshop?
Those both seem rather unlikely. What's more likely is you may not have factored in sales tax when you confirmed the subscription and your phone connection may have dropped on a call.
Thomas Kachadurian: Adobe killed quarkXpress with inDesign only because quark got greedy. I've been using (and paying for) photoshop since version 2.0.
But I'll find another solution. There is always something else.
As a production freelancer in the 90's, I made a living using Quark. Adobe won because they developed a superior product with InDesign.
photo_rb: Question - Does the multiple software subscription also include Lightroom?
Lr is part of the CC collection but can also be purchased as a standalone product.
Just to clarify. The CC subscription obviously require an Internet connection to purchase and download the software, but the applocatipns are stored on your machine. If you have no need for file sharing or the upcoming functionality that requires Adobe's servers you can operate a PS session locally. But Adobe does need to ping its servers periodically to establish that you have a valid subscription. We are talking with Adobe about these changes and will share more details as soon as we have them.
Hi everyone,I'll be speaking with an Adobe rep in a few moments about this move. If you have any specific questions you'd like answered please reply to this post.
DaveCS: This would be interesting BUT, currently, SnapSeed has all I need from a mobile perspective. I honestly tried that mobile version of Photoshop and it was far too cumbersome. SnapSeed is a breeze in comparison.
The thing that has Lr users excited - even the ones who use Snapseed - is that you could sync the changes back to your Lr catalog, instead of editing twice (once on your mobile device and again on your laptop/desktop).
AbrasiveReducer: Kenny Rogers is a very skilled photographer. The guy from The Police does books. Given their access to interesting subject matter, it might be difficult to find celebrities who don't take great photos.
Sadly, it's never that hard to find people (even famous ones) who take poor photos. ;-)