Ben O Connor: You folks also should recommend "traveling options" too. For example an Istanbul or Amsterdam trip would be very nice, different, even exotic for anyone's photography!
Yes to new & needed gear, more photography, more travelling!
I think he means a gift of a photo trip or maybe a photo workshop. My family and son's wife gave my son and I a workshop and it was a great gift. Both of us have renewed interest in photography.
eyedo: So stealing is at the top of his list for inspiration? You mean copyright infringement is ok by your moral compass Rick Sammon? Shame on you.It's illegal and not the right thing to do.
You missed his point completely.
I agree with smokin. Sure, he's gone beyond simply using HDR to expand his camera's dynamic range, and used that to generate art that otherwise would not have been possible. As viewers we can like or dislike his results, learn from it or not, but it's not right for us to criticize his use of technology.
rickpoole: Right now I spend a average of $40/yr on photo software. Switching to CC would more than triple that amount. More than I'd care to spend but not outrageous. But, with the prospect that if I choose to end my subscription my software will stop working rather than just stop updating it is and always will be a no go - regardless of the price.
Or you could export your LR library to TIFF with edits applied and simply load them into whatever software you choose to replace LR+PS CC with.
smatty: The CC renting software discussion aside, what serious photographer would really use an iPad to integrate a photo workflow?We have color calibrated and profiled monitors and printes (labs) to get a consisten color and contrast results and now we want to trust an unpfofiled iPad display???
I got a replacement unit from Apple the other day and held my old and new (replacement) unit next to each other inside the Apple store. The new display was at least 800 kelvin warmer than the old one! This will seriously flaw your results when the file is loaded back to your Mac.
To me LR for iOS is a more of a toy than a serious solution.
I agree. I"m still on a laptop when on the road, but for what I do on it, a tablet would do as well. But it would need to be an Android tablet. Hopefully that version is not far off.
Slynky: Hehe, imagine everyone's surprise after they are hooked into cloud storage, subscription services, monthly payments/updates, etc. and the internet access providers all decide to collectively start charging by the GB (instead of unlimited internet access).
ALL of this "repackaging" into monthly payments by various companies is nothing more than a disguised price-hike that also gives companies a more steady money flow.
As long as the money flow is not excessive and light users pay less, this seems reasonable. My provider already limits me to 300GB and hits me with a reasonable charge if I go over. Verizon does the same on my smart phone.
stratplaya: At first I was skeptical of this business model from Adobe, but now I like it. Before the cloud I just couldn't see myself buying the full Photoshop product for $600 or so when something new would be out next year. Now for $12 a month I get PS CC and Lightroom 5.
I think that's a good deal.
Or not. Adobe has a growing LR+PS CC following to keep happy.
rikkus: The article implies that the author immediately formats the card after import. Please don't do this.
After import, I set cards to read-only and put them in a specific place. Only after I've seen that the on-site backup and both off-site backups are complete do I enable writes on the card and format it.
This is a nice feature of LR .. if you have your external backup drive handy when you offload the image files from the card to you computer. LR will write the files to the external drive as well as to your computer internal drive during the import. I.e., you get your working copies and a backup in one operation. Of course, do some sort of check on both the in-computer and external drive copies before reformatting the card.
tkbslc: Your sample images presume the width of a square and a 16:9 display would be the same. However, generally monitors are priced per area, so a square monitor with the same area as a 16:9 monitor would be 75% as wide, but 133% taller. So your horizontally displayed photos get smaller, but your vertical images get larger. It's a nice compromise, but it also ensures nearly every photo wastes about 1/3 of the screen space instead of half of your photos wasting half the screen space.
The other issue is that movies just look better on a wide format screen. It's not even really a debate. Companies are saving lots of money by converting to all one aspect ratio and that's looking to be 16:9 all the way.
To reinforce what FinDERP said, two monitors is the way to go. There are a lot of reasons to have two monitors and if one must see a portrait image in a large format without scrolling, simply rotate one monitor 90 degrees. Most graphic card drivers support that. It even works if one monitor is smaller than the other. Lightroom supports two monitors! Even if a square monitor were less costly than a pair of conventional monitors, it would not offer the two-monitor benefits.
I'm surprised at the number of negative comments on this article. The author did not claim to be getting great images; he was clearly showing how to extract some images worth making from an environment that is difficult and not conducive to photography. Surely we've all been there (figuratively speaking).
Have you been to Ireland? It's a quite scenic and interesting place. But you can go there for a week or two and not see the sun. So what is an avid photographer to do? Pack away his equipment and spend two weeks visiting Pubs?
The author provides some good advice on how to bring home some decent images should your costly travel net you only cloudy or overcast weather.
Hugo, it seems not widely known that the Canon SL1 has an "s" (quiet) mode. In fact, it's noticeably quieter than the similar mode of my 5DIII. It's also handy to slow down the continuous shooting mode from 4 fps to about 2 fps. That coupled with the 18-55 kit lens makes for a compact and quiet camera.
zonoskar: Again a phone that exhibits this annoying color shading. Why does this only occur in phones and not in any of the compact camera's? How difficult is it to design a phone without this 'featue'? This is the main reason why I almost never get usable pictures out of my Lumia 920 (and other phones).
No sensor actually measures colors properly. There is always a need for a "profile" to adjust the color information provided by the sensor to the true colors. The profile is developed by the phone manufacturer and that's where the colors go awry. Hopefully a calibrated monitor is used to prepare the profile! The bottom line is that the colors are only as good as the profile that corrects the sensor output. I'd guess people like Datacolor are working on an app to fine tune color in the phone. They already have this for pad screens.
I only need Photoshop. I have been paying $11 or less per month for it ($199 for 18 months) since buying-in at 4.0. Now, after 12 months at $10/month, I'll be paying $20/month. That's nearly a doubling of the recent price. This is quite a slap in the face for my loyalty. Needless to say, I'm looking for an alternative and I'm sure new ones will be coming down the pike soon.
Fatality: By the way, to all the people who are planning on buying a new monitor.. Instead of buying one 30" monitor, I recommend getting two monitors in dual-head configuration -one 24" IPS and a second smaller cheap TFT monitor. Keep all of your tools on the TFT monitor (except the color palette) and do all of your processing and color work on the IPS monitor. It's less expensive this way and it's also better on the eyes since you can always turn off the second monitor if you don't need the extra screen real estate, plus you can conveniently adjust the position/angle of the second monitor. I'm using this setup since 2000 for 3D, digital imaging and illustration work, it's working really well for me..
(some advice to novice users) :)
I've used exactly this setup for many years. Having the smaller sRGB TFT monitor allows me to see proper color of sRGB jpegs and sRGB web content and also check sRGB files I produce from RAW AdobeRGB files. My 24" AdobeRGB monitor (older 96% of AdobeRGB monitor) does not have an sRGB mode and switching to that mode on the newer monitor several times each day would seem to be a nuisance
John Ellis: Does it really help for the overwhelming most of us who view our pictures on just average laptops and sharing them on the web or printing them on inkjets that cannot come close to showing all the color? Would certainly be nice if it could be appreciated and I guess in commercial work it might. Am I right?
You are right. Viewing jpegs or images from the internet requires only an sRGB monitor as both are, or should be, just sRGB. Unless you are working with images you expect to print with an AdobeRGB capable printer or a printhouse that accepts them, these monitors are in fact a bit of a nuisance. These may have an sRGB mode as have some other recent Dell monitors, and if they do, you will definitely want to use that mode for viewing jpegs or browsing. Or just buy a good sRGB monitor if you don't do AdobeRGB photo editing and printing.
I was hoping for manual zoom and fast shutter response. Is it just me or do you find the electric motor zoom control frustrating. I gave my G11 to my son because I could not deal with the show shutter response and the rubbery zoom control when trying to photograph my grand kids. Even for walk-around purposes, these two issues would get in the way. The workarounds such as manual focus don't seem to work for me. The Fuji X10 manual zoom looked good but the slower shutter response is still an issue. My walk-around and grand kid shooting is done with a 60D (or my 5DMkII if I'm doing landscape shooting in the same outing).
So, am I missing something here? Must a 60D be my smallest camera?
Thanks for any thoughts.