Michael Uschold

Michael Uschold

Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Works as a Semantic Technology Consultant
Joined on Mar 22, 2009

Comments

Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Sony rides wave of US Mirrorless sales surge article (732 comments in total)

I sure wish this would spawn the development of a wider seletion of affordable E-Mount lenses for NEX cameras. There are plenty of FE mount lenses coming on line, but their size and weight defeats the purpose of having small light camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2015 at 18:26 UTC as 76th comment | 5 replies

For those of you wondering whether you want to get the CC version or upgrade, here are some numbers. This is most relevant for those who already own a desktop version of LR, like to upgrade regularly and cannot or do not want to pay for a PS desktop version.

LR5 came out June 9, 2013, which is 681 days (22.37 months) before LR6 came out. It was only 461 days or 15.14 from LR4 to LR5.

1. CC: LR + PS $9.99/month

2a. Desktop: LR5 to LR6 average cost was $3.53/month ($79 / 22.37)
2b: Desktop: LR4 to LR5 average cost was $5.21/month ($79 / 15.14)
2c: Deskt op: LR4 to LR6 average cost was $4.21/month ($158/ 37.52)

So if having PS is worth $5.78 or so per month ($9.99 - $4.21) and you like small monthly payments, it may be worth considering PS + LR CC.

I generally don't like subscription software, but these numbers kind of surprised me. I don't happen to need PS, but for those that do, price does not seem to be a significant deterant from getting PS + LR CC.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 22:11 UTC as 93rd comment | 13 replies

To get the $79 desktop upgrade, do this:
1. Paste this link into a browser: https://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/software._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_mostpopular.html
2. Scroll down to Photoshop Lightroom 6 and click Buy.
3. Next to the "I want to buy" change the dropdown from Full to Upgrade.
4. Select the version of LR you currently have.
5. Click "Add to Cart"

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 21:36 UTC as 97th comment

As an owner of a NEX 6, I get excited when I see a new Sony lens announced, but they all seem to be for full frame, some of which can also fit my NEX 6. But this is overkill in size, weight and cost for my needs. I bought the NEX-6 is to be compact and light. So what was meant to excite, disappoints.

Sigh... If only Canon had a decent mirrorless offering, I would have got one a couple years ago.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 00:41 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Uschold: Is anyone aware of a single person that is making serious use of this technology that goes beyond it being an amusing gimick? What would that use be? Is this person a lone wolf, or are there significant numbers of people that found a greate niche use for this camera? What would those niche's be? There was a lot of hoopla about the Segway, which many regard as a flop. It has had dramatically less impact than the inventors imagined, but I think there are some important use cases to justify continued production, e.g. large manufacturing floors, postal delivery and police officers.

Personally, I think Lytro will be very lucky to find any significant cadre of users for the camera, but people have boundless creativity, so who knows.

Sure, but auto-focus is 1) clearly useful to 2) a lot of people for 3) very obvoius reasons. Noone can say that for Lytro at this point.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2015 at 21:10 UTC
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)

Is anyone aware of a single person that is making serious use of this technology that goes beyond it being an amusing gimick? What would that use be? Is this person a lone wolf, or are there significant numbers of people that found a greate niche use for this camera? What would those niche's be? There was a lot of hoopla about the Segway, which many regard as a flop. It has had dramatically less impact than the inventors imagined, but I think there are some important use cases to justify continued production, e.g. large manufacturing floors, postal delivery and police officers.

Personally, I think Lytro will be very lucky to find any significant cadre of users for the camera, but people have boundless creativity, so who knows.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 21:51 UTC as 30th comment | 4 replies
On Watkins Glen - Rainbow Falls photo in whumber's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

beautiful light

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 01:48 UTC as 2nd comment
On Appeeling Light photo in Michael Uschold's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

Thank you very much!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 01:45 UTC as 1st comment

Cars are GREAT, when they are used to take you from a to b. Cars are TERRIBLE when they are used as murder weapons or bank robbery escape vehicles. So it goes for most any technology. This technology of automatically figuring out what is in a photograph would be a GREAT timesaver for me personally in tagging and captioning photos, as well as for any photo library and any user of a photo library, for the greater accuracy. It could also be TERRIBLE for for privacy, if mis-used, like face-recognition.

So choose your perspective: great or terrible and act accordingly.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 00:52 UTC as 10th comment

I agree that technically the author did not take the photo. So legally, the case may be clear. However, doing what is legal is not always doing what is desirable or right.

If it was taken in a zoo, the author might deserve less credit than if it was taken in the wile. In the latter case, the photographer did a lot of work to get there and deserves more credit that Picasso would if his cook used his materials to make a painting.

If it was me making the decision, I would make a good faith gesture to the photographer and heed his request.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 20:10 UTC as 259th comment

Unfortunately, it is hard to find photo contests these days that are both free to enter and that do not retain rights to publish entrants' photos. So most contests seem commercialy motivated. Small fees might help pay for admin costs, but many fees are $10 or $15 or more per photo. Seems high.

I talked to a lawyer about this, and he said one of the issues is liability of the entity sponsoring the contest. It is simply not feasible to keep track of what rights are associated with which photos. I don't fully buy this argument, but there might be something to it. These days, rights can be in the metadata and used as a search field.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2014 at 18:02 UTC as 5th comment

It is certainly true that the rules are clearly stated. It would be good if there was a standard code of ethics (or some thing, it not ethics) for photo contests that well respected photography organizations would sign on to. Then contest sponsors could advertise their contests by saying it has been approved by this standard code. Not everyone reads the small print.

I think that DP Review should give careful thought as to what kinds of promotions it wishes to publicize. And for (what I consider) egrigous contest rules such as this one, DPReview should choose to not publicize it at all, or should highlight a warning about it.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2014 at 18:01 UTC as 6th comment

An excellent article. Two thoughts. First, please do some tests of the add-on lenses for smartphones, there may be some good quality lenses out there that can close the gap further between smartphones and DSLRs.

Second, I am glad to see film in the test. It can serve as a stable baseline against which to compare modern cameras. I recently made an 11x16 print from a Canon S45 4 megapixel camera that came out in 2002! I was startled to see that the quality was excellent. How many people need to print larger than that? A poor or average image quality rating from a modern camera need not deter a buyer, if they know it exceeds the quality of the best film ever (e.g. Velvia 50).

Of course, marketers don't want to hear this, they want to sell more and better stuff even if the quality improvement will never be directly experienced by the photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 18:57 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply
On Mobile Photography Awards seek entries post (5 comments in total)

Does anyone know what the entry fee is for? My enthusiasm for entering would vary depending on whether the proceeds went say to charity, vs. 100% to fund administrative costs and prizes vs. is a major profit-maker for the organization running the competition, even after paying out for admin and prizes. I see entry fees more and more for photo competitions which years ago was not the norm. I always wonder what they are for. One could easily spend $100s per year on such fees, which could be spend on photos or gear or other things.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 28, 2012 at 22:22 UTC as 1st comment
On Just Posted: Nikon D3200 in-depth Review article (358 comments in total)

Hmm, no penalty for 24 vs. 12 megapixels? What about reduced frames per second due to more processing needed, what about more noise at high ISO due to pixel density. Come on guys, you know better.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2012 at 01:12 UTC as 40th comment | 4 replies
On Photoshop CS6: Top 5 Features for Photographers article (98 comments in total)

Before the spot healing brush strokes applied at the end, there is obvious grass in the rock where the head was - not very impressive at all. The final version is not bad, I acknowledge.

On a separate point, pity about the dark tree top, likely a result of a graduated ND filter.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2012 at 21:55 UTC as 25th comment
On Scientists demonstrate 'paint-on' batteries article (108 comments in total)

The technology gives designers an option, it is not handcuffs. It does not require you do use it in a particular way. Most of the commenters seem to assume it is impossible to use the paint-on battery technology to make a rechargable-replaceable battery - what is that assumption based on? If that assumption is false, then you can still get the advantages of having the battery be any shape you want., which still frees up designers. Hopefully it would remove weight, but I saw nothing stated about that.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2012 at 19:46 UTC as 10th comment
On Scientists demonstrate 'paint-on' batteries article (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrr_hhh: I think it is absolutely anti ecological in its concept : what when the battery is at the end of its life ? Thrw it away, with heavy metal components (those of the battery) polluting the environment at a higher rate, becase they will be more difficult to separate from the body of the camera.

Frankly such discoveries are a disservice to the society. Research should be made with sustainable development in mind. And making gear more disposable than they already are is not going in that direction, rather the opposite.

You raise an important point. The discovery is not a disservice to society, but how we use it could be. I strongly support things being sustainable.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2012 at 19:36 UTC
On Canon significantly improves EOS 7D with firmware v2 article (296 comments in total)

With all those million dollar algorithms and super fast processors coming as a freebie, how about something mind-blowingly trivial: a interval timer for timelapse photography? No, instead we have to pay a lot of extra money for a not very small and light bit of kit. What a pain! The argument that few people use that feature is poor - there are many features on every camera and every computer and every piece of sophisticated software that few people use, but they are very important to the ones that do!

End rant. Other wise a happy Canon customer.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2012 at 05:06 UTC as 41st comment | 4 replies
On Nikon D4 & D800: What do the Professionals Think? article (391 comments in total)

Hallelujah - someone finally decided to make it easy to take timelapse movies. Are you listening Canon???? I don't mind the extra expense for the feature, I do mind having to carry and extra bit of gear around. And while you are at it, what's up with limiting exposures to 30 sec? Why not an arbitrary amount of hours or minutes. Compared to the stunning amount of complexity of the algorithms for noise reduction and everything else - providing a simple timelapse feature or setting longer exposures is utterly trivial.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2012 at 03:56 UTC as 112th comment | 1 reply
Total: 40, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »