 |
jkrumm
Lives in
Juneau, United States
Works as a
education
Has a website at
http://www.juneauphotographs.com
Joined on
Oct 13, 2007
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
nicolaiecostel: As I've been saying, this is not a valid test for low light. 2 years ago, when the guys from DPR were taking low-light shots in museums and pubs the low-light photos were much more eloquent in judging low-light capability.
And if the argument is that there has to be reproductibility, well, just use the same locations when testing other cameras.
I think DPR should build a pub for shooting in, and give free beer to any DPR member who visits Seattle.
Uncle Bob III: I have been using PS Elements for years but my ignorance of post processing is incredible. I tried an older version of LR and found it less capable than Elements. Is this LR4 as capable in image processing as Elements? Does it use Elements organizer or something similar? Also, I often have major problems with my color output vice the screen version as mentioned in the article. Will LR4 help? Finally, when my program asks me what should control color output should I choose Adobe, my program, or Epson (my printer)?
Lightroom is first of all a photo organizer. Bu t it's also a strong photographer-oriented photo editor. It allows you to easily apply selective edits to parts of your photo using the brush or grade tool. Doing the same thing would require using layers in Elements, and would take much longer.
It might help with your color problems too, but I'd read up on color management in general.
I think these have real potential for birders and macro photographers, provided the right lenses. I was watching a presentation by a 50 year photographer, biologist, author of 16 books, and he uses superzooms for certain types of work precisely because of the large depth of field. The silent operation is a real plus too.
Samuel Dilworth: Is it compatible with Photoshop Elements 9? Adobe's haphazard documentation is confusing on that point.
The readme file (http://www.adobe.com/special/photoshop/camera_raw/Camera_Raw_6.6_ReadMe.pdf) says "This new version of the Camera Raw plug-in replaces the original Camera Raw plug-in that was installed with Photoshop CS5, Photoshop Elements 9 and Premiere Elements 9."
It also says, "The Camera Raw 6.6 plug-in is not compatible with versions of Photoshop earlier than Photoshop CS5 or versions of Photoshop Elements earlier than Photoshop Elements 8 for Windows and Photoshop Elements 8 for Mac."
However, this webpage (http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5315) says: "This Camera Raw 6.6 update is not compatible with versions of Photoshop Elements earlier than Photoshop Elements 10." That conflicts with both the statements above.
It would be disappointing if Elements 9 users are already locked out of Camera Raw updates. Can anyone clarify the situation?
Elements has been dumbed down in some ways since version 6 anyways. I don't recommend it over Lightroom, which is still very much worth the upgrade each time.
IcyVeins: Is there anybody who doesn't immediately jump ahead to the number at the end before reading anything else in the review? I doubt it
Blind tests are great, especially for wine. It would certainly be interesting to see it for image quality too.
Olympus put up a PDF response to the media reports today...
http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/ir/tes/pdf/nr111019.pdf
rvalle: You know what? Just stick a phone module on a Fuji X10, get it running Android, and I'll be happy.
It's true, the first camera maker to produce a true "smart camera" will likely sell a lot of them if the price is right. I predict Samsung will be the first. It wouldn't need phone capability, but wireless and touchscreen with apps, combined with decent lens and a shutter button that doesn't make you jiggle the camera when you take a shot... The iCamera.
First Olympus, now Adobe. Everything's a blur.
We still are far from knowing the full story. Give it a few weeks. My guess is that the answers to "why" they made these payments are not nearly as scary or dramatic as people are assuming, but it's hard to say. It could be a case of basic graft, basic incompetency, or something completely different. It could take months of investigative reporting to uncover the true story, and we don't have very many actual investigative reporters around these days, just people exchanging the same memos and articles over and over again.
Bryan Campbell: Hopefully this will work just as well on a very subtle amounts of blur. I would love to go through many of my old raw photos and apply this plugin even if it was just to get rid of the smallest possible blur that might be there.
I agree. If it can turn an "almost" into a "perfect" I'll be happy.
These studio shots usually all look about the same to me, but this little Nikon looks surprisingly good at iso 1600 (raw). The thing they did, somehow, compared to the competition, if you check shadow areas and the paperclips, is keep really clean blacks, good contrast. It even looks better than the 5n in those areas. Other cameras beat it in resolution, it appears (no surprise).
Does it float? Perhaps it's a very expensive life-jacket.
What appeals to me here, as opposed to others in the top rankings, is the lack of cheesiness. It's an honest shot of a little kid, nicely framed.
Missing the red dot.
One thing that Elements 6 was great at was stiching Panos using raw files. When I upgraded to Elements 9 I could only get this feature to work by either using jpegs or 8 bit tiffs. Seems they dumbed it down and in the process made the whole thing more difficult. I suspect 10 is no different that way. Still, I've heard they added better layer control in 9 (haven't tried it), and overall it's hard to beat if you don't mind working in 8 bit (shouldn't matter in most cases).
Interesting and thorough article. Nicely done. I imagine it's similar for skiing, other than the cold and snow.
jkrumm: They appear to have done a decent job with this. If you compare the raw file to the Lx5, Canon S95, and Olympus XZ-1, this camera is right in there at iso 800.
It's likely a Panasonic sensor, since they make various sensors, just like Canon and Sony and Samsung.
They appear to have done a decent job with this. If you compare the raw file to the Lx5, Canon S95, and Olympus XZ-1, this camera is right in there at iso 800.
Not trying to be snide here, but this reads a little like an introduction to an article instead of an article itself. I found myself looking for part two.
Nicely done. An enjoyable read.