Where all these ideas fall down is forgetting the nature of our own human weaknesses.
It is fine having all this facility for data storage and manipulation (as that is all it is), but unless one has a very organised mind and have initially put in place suitable indexes that mean something, extracting any of the useful data becomes more complex and difficult.
I'm very logical, but often I have to search my own computer to find a particular file and that is potentially tiny in comparison.
Also, there is more and more concern over access by third parties. It will become ever more difficult to keep your privacy and make decisions over possible future risks (how many times do people regret releasing things into the web?)
Ultimately, the possibilities and nature of the cloud clash with the limitations and nature of us as humans, and such a clash may well bring more problems than solutions.
Direct link |
Posted on Mar 16, 2012 at 09:54:57 UTC
as 49th comment
| 1 reply
She is now the photographer to whose talent I most aspire and I will certainly be buying the book.
A fabulous eye and yet she wasn't looking for acknowledgement, but apparently pursued her own interests and enjoyment.
Unfortunately, we are unlikely ever to see her kind again.
If I was to attain even a tenth of her artistic skill, no-one would ever see my work as it would all be on transitory electronic storage and the likelihood of it being of any use when I die, let alone anyone having sufficient curiosity to investigate, is small indeed.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 19, 2012 at 15:25:19 UTC
as 52nd comment
I don't know about other makes, but the main issue for me using third party lenses on a Sony is that the data for the lens in the microadjust system is not always correct. Consequently, adjusting for one can overwrite that for another lens, leaving focus errors. If Sony were to release all the background information and I could be sure of no conflicts, this would be of interest. As it is, Sony won't guarantee the body will support the lens properly and Tamron will almost certainy say their lens will work correctly, leaving the customer to discover the truth for himself!
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 16:53:21 UTC
as 72nd comment
| 1 reply
To a large degree, all truth is about subjective perception. Photography is no different, but man will always discuss the nature of such truths, as it affects how we interact with our world, our life and our very existence.
Direct link |
Posted on Dec 28, 2011 at 17:55:45 UTC
as 35th comment
I'm in agreement with Itchhh, plus I find it enough of a chore uploading my files from CF cards to my own servers. To add the difficulties of your average broadband into the mix I won't be signing up for this anytime soon.
I do appreciate the appeal on some levels, but I see too many weak links in the chain.
Direct link |
Posted on Sep 7, 2011 at 19:41:41 UTC
as 20th comment
aardvark7: As with all the other samples, they are very poor and would ordinarily end up 'on the cutting room floor'!
Even when trying to apply the single stated advantage, that of selecting focus point, it is so inaccurate and arbitrary, that the 'gain' is actually a negative. To see what I mean, just try getting the earring in focus on the first sample shot...
Even if this system succeeded to some degree, the thought of having to fool around afterwards with every shot, just to optimise focus, sends shivers down my spine! It's bad enough post processing 500 - 1000 wedding shots when I've pretty well nailed the focus and the exposure is already reasonably good. Add this into the mix and you are looking at nervous breakdown territory!!!
All that said, I'm with Joe on this: it's complete hooey!
So what, might I ask, is the point of the samples? They purport to show the results, but don't! Merely a feeble impression. We are told that the majority of use (certainly initially) will be for Facebook et al., but this only demonstrates it is not even usable for that. The only conclusions then are that the device is even more useless than common sense suggests and far less likely to see the light of day than has been stated.
Direct link |
Posted on Aug 22, 2011 at 07:59:19 UTC
As with all the other samples, they are very poor and would ordinarily end up 'on the cutting room floor'!
Even when trying to apply the single stated advantage, that of selecting focus point, it is so inaccurate and arbitrary, that the 'gain' is actually a negative. To see what I mean, just try getting the earring in focus on the first sample shot...
Even if this system succeeded to some degree, the thought of having to fool around afterwards with every shot, just to optimise focus, sends shivers down my spine! It's bad enough post processing 500 - 1000 wedding shots when I've pretty well nailed the focus and the exposure is already reasonably good. Add this into the mix and you are looking at nervous breakdown territory!!!
All that said, I'm with Joe on this: it's complete hooey!
Direct link |
Posted on Aug 19, 2011 at 10:28:43 UTC
as 38th comment
| 3 replies
Carefully selected shots which are both low resolution and seem to only have two distinct focus planes (rather than many) do nothing to suggest that this will have any use other than a curiosity for the foreseeable future. Also, as I have mentioned before, the nature of moving the decison about focus and depth of field to part of post-processing risks the artistic process. I'm far from convinced and this demonstration does nothing to cahnge that view.
Direct link |
Posted on Jul 25, 2011 at 20:00:04 UTC
as 91st comment
Ultimately, most digital camera users are 'lazy' and want instant gratification. This will likely mean that results will only ever be used to show what has just been taken, on the camera LCD, or posted on-line for others to play with. Anything else and it turns every user into a RAW photographer, having to process all their pictures, and there is great resistance to that among the vast majority of users. Indeed, to add choosing point of focus and perhaps depth of field to any adjustments of exposure, white balance and cropping makes the task of post-processing far too long-winded or intimidating for all but the keenest and I think the novelty might soon fade. I'm certain it will have it's place, as with 3D cameras, but it won't be mainstream anytime soon.
Direct link |
Posted on Jun 23, 2011 at 08:25:57 UTC
as 39th comment
| 3 replies
Liverpool , United Kingdom
Where all these ideas fall down is forgetting the nature of our own human weaknesses.
It is fine having all this facility for data storage and manipulation (as that is all it is), but unless one has a very organised mind and have initially put in place suitable indexes that mean something, extracting any of the useful data becomes more complex and difficult.
I'm very logical, but often I have to search my own computer to find a particular file and that is potentially tiny in comparison.
Also, there is more and more concern over access by third parties. It will become ever more difficult to keep your privacy and make decisions over possible future risks (how many times do people regret releasing things into the web?)
Ultimately, the possibilities and nature of the cloud clash with the limitations and nature of us as humans, and such a clash may well bring more problems than solutions.
T3: I would so love to have that 45/1.8 in black. It would look so much better on the black body. Come on, Oly!
What mysterious shop is already selling this camera before it is officially available???
She is now the photographer to whose talent I most aspire and I will certainly be buying the book.
A fabulous eye and yet she wasn't looking for acknowledgement, but apparently pursued her own interests and enjoyment.
Unfortunately, we are unlikely ever to see her kind again.
If I was to attain even a tenth of her artistic skill, no-one would ever see my work as it would all be on transitory electronic storage and the likelihood of it being of any use when I die, let alone anyone having sufficient curiosity to investigate, is small indeed.
I don't know about other makes, but the main issue for me using third party lenses on a Sony is that the data for the lens in the microadjust system is not always correct.
Consequently, adjusting for one can overwrite that for another lens, leaving focus errors.
If Sony were to release all the background information and I could be sure of no conflicts, this would be of interest. As it is, Sony won't guarantee the body will support the lens properly and Tamron will almost certainy say their lens will work correctly, leaving the customer to discover the truth for himself!
To a large degree, all truth is about subjective perception.
Photography is no different, but man will always discuss the nature of such truths, as it affects how we interact with our world, our life and our very existence.
Do my views not count anymore as I've been a full time pro for the last few years?
I was an amateur before and when I'm taking shots of my family and holidays I'm pretty sure no-one pays me...
I do think the desciption of the survey runs the risk of rendering it less than useful, although that wouldn't make it unique amongst surveys!
I'm in agreement with Itchhh, plus I find it enough of a chore uploading my files from CF cards to my own servers. To add the difficulties of your average broadband into the mix I won't be signing up for this anytime soon.
I do appreciate the appeal on some levels, but I see too many weak links in the chain.
aardvark7: As with all the other samples, they are very poor and would ordinarily end up 'on the cutting room floor'!
Even when trying to apply the single stated advantage, that of selecting focus point, it is so inaccurate and arbitrary, that the 'gain' is actually a negative. To see what I mean, just try getting the earring in focus on the first sample shot...
Even if this system succeeded to some degree, the thought of having to fool around afterwards with every shot, just to optimise focus, sends shivers down my spine! It's bad enough post processing 500 - 1000 wedding shots when I've pretty well nailed the focus and the exposure is already reasonably good. Add this into the mix and you are looking at nervous breakdown territory!!!
All that said, I'm with Joe on this: it's complete hooey!
So what, might I ask, is the point of the samples?
They purport to show the results, but don't! Merely a feeble impression.
We are told that the majority of use (certainly initially) will be for Facebook et al., but this only demonstrates it is not even usable for that.
The only conclusions then are that the device is even more useless than common sense suggests and far less likely to see the light of day than has been stated.
As with all the other samples, they are very poor and would ordinarily end up 'on the cutting room floor'!
Even when trying to apply the single stated advantage, that of selecting focus point, it is so inaccurate and arbitrary, that the 'gain' is actually a negative. To see what I mean, just try getting the earring in focus on the first sample shot...
Even if this system succeeded to some degree, the thought of having to fool around afterwards with every shot, just to optimise focus, sends shivers down my spine! It's bad enough post processing 500 - 1000 wedding shots when I've pretty well nailed the focus and the exposure is already reasonably good. Add this into the mix and you are looking at nervous breakdown territory!!!
All that said, I'm with Joe on this: it's complete hooey!
Carefully selected shots which are both low resolution and seem to only have two distinct focus planes (rather than many) do nothing to suggest that this will have any use other than a curiosity for the foreseeable future.
Also, as I have mentioned before, the nature of moving the decison about focus and depth of field to part of post-processing risks the artistic process.
I'm far from convinced and this demonstration does nothing to cahnge that view.
straylightrun: This just looks so wrong:
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/455/372/65.jpg
Do you mean the bizarre tiny sensor, or the bl**dy great thumb print on it???? :)
Ultimately, most digital camera users are 'lazy' and want instant gratification.
This will likely mean that results will only ever be used to show what has just been taken, on the camera LCD, or posted on-line for others to play with.
Anything else and it turns every user into a RAW photographer, having to process all their pictures, and there is great resistance to that among the vast majority of users.
Indeed, to add choosing point of focus and perhaps depth of field to any adjustments of exposure, white balance and cropping makes the task of post-processing far too long-winded or intimidating for all but the keenest and I think the novelty might soon fade.
I'm certain it will have it's place, as with 3D cameras, but it won't be mainstream anytime soon.