Lives in United States United States
Joined on May 27, 2010


Total: 1780, showing: 1061 – 1080
« First‹ Previous5253545556Next ›Last »
In reply to:

PETERKS: I don't understand the need for adolescent scatological humour. I had a friend whose recorded phone message was 'can't come to the phone I am having a sh*t' .......not good, not nice, quite a put off for a so called professional book it may deserve better. 21/05/2013. Its a bit like'Computers for Dummies'. It insults you before you pick it up.

If it sells the book, there's the need.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2013 at 20:52 UTC

I understand the need for an update (they weren't making enough money; nothing else was broken) but I don't see the attaction of having photos "served" at you as if they were coming out of a firehose. Instead of a photostream, its like a torrential photo-flood.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2013 at 18:52 UTC as 45th comment
In reply to:

inframan: Interesting. Now Flickr has managed to shed the last of its individuality, originality & uniqueness & looks like every other eye-candy website that holds your attention for about 5 seconds .

If this is the direction Yahoo takeovers are heading, I give MM < 3 years at the helm.


Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2013 at 18:45 UTC

To me it looks like the wall of a teenager's bedroom. Terribly busy, visual nightmare. But as with Photoshop, someone has decided on my behalf that it's an improvement.

I'm a bit puzzled by the invitation to upload photos at full resolution. Is this to make sure that when they are stolen, the person grabbing them has the best possible quality?

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2013 at 17:02 UTC as 55th comment | 6 replies
On 10 Photo Editing Programs (that aren't Photoshop) article (451 comments in total)

Dear DPR: Instead of saying these applications don't literally replace Photoshop 6, you could say "While they lack layers, paths, selections, marching ants, CMYK, emboss, spider warp and wind filters, etc, etc, etc, for many photographers these quickly mastered programs may be perfectly acceptable replacements for Photoshop".

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2013 at 04:36 UTC as 93rd comment | 8 replies
On 10 Photo Editing Programs (that aren't Photoshop) article (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

SRT3lkt: I saw thousands of people commenting on the articles about Adobe's new subscription plan. Where Have All The People Gone?

Heck, it's no fun saying something positive but money can be pretty eloquent.

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2013 at 04:25 UTC
On 10 Photo Editing Programs (that aren't Photoshop) article (353 comments in total)

Very helpful, DPR. I like Capture NX so much, I even use it for my Canon files (alhough I suppose Viveza would work just as well). Just convert to .tiff and you can use anything to process anything.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2013 at 23:25 UTC as 162nd comment | 2 replies
On 10 Photo Editing Programs (that aren't Photoshop) article (451 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bram de Mooij: Thanks. Good list.
Did not know about the Paintshop Pro / Nik Color Efex software deal.
But Color Efex is not $150 on it's own anymore. For that amount of money you get all the Nik modules from Google.

And, within their limitations, the NIK plug-ins are great. Very photographic, almost like working in a darkroom. For non-photogaphic but artistic effects the Topaz plug-ins are fun too and very inexpensive.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2013 at 23:21 UTC
On Just posted: Nikon D5200 in-depth review article (233 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: There is something strange a mid range camera with class leading IQ / video quality (D5200 is highest rated crop sensor camera on DxOMark, ever), or an absolutely loaded DSLR like the K-30 (100% Pentaprism VF, 16 mp Exmor sensor, weather sealing) being essentially rated as "Mediocre" by DPR.

What is DPR going to do when it reviews the Canon T5i / 700D, which has essentially the same IQ of the T2i / 550D released 2010? A Bronze Award? Or a Silver Award because it has a touch screen?

If DSLRs of the same class are to be judged by price/performance, you'd think that huge improvements in IQ and video (as we see with the D5200) or top end features like a bright 100% Pentaprism VF or weather sealing (like with the K-30) would put these two cameras at the very top of the low to mid-range of DSLRs. But for some odd reason they are not.

Fortunately most users are smart enough to do their own research and don't rely solely on one review site for answers.

Why not concentrate on what the camera can do for you, whether it meets your needs, instead of worrying about fairness and rating points? This is like sitting in an airport and when they call the Platinum, Diamond and Gold members to board everybody gets up. It doesn't mean anything.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2013 at 21:15 UTC
On Olympus to axe V-series point-and-shoot cameras article (133 comments in total)

As always, medical/scientific equipment to the rescue (the lack of which being what makes Nikon so vulnerable despite strong camera sales). But it's hard to see a path for Olympus. Low-end compact cameras are obviously a commodity and a phone is good enough for many. At the high end, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta used to be the poor man's Nikon or Canon but realistically, there's no D600 from any of these guys. That leaves the expensive, medium-sized camera segment which is pretty crowded.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2013 at 01:15 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

cfh25: Let's dream of a future headline:

"Google launches Adobe Collection for $149"

This is off-topic but I received the full NIK collection in my email, without even requesting it. Just showed up. Frankly, this worried me more than what Adobe is up to because I really like the NIK applications.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 19:06 UTC
In reply to:

califleftyb: I'm using CS2 in combination with other software and I'm ok with it. Here's why I never upgraded my CS2. I bought the entire creative suite for well over $1,000.00. A few years ago I decided to upgrade my Photoshop to CS4 and was happy to pay for the upgrade....but Adobe told me no way, I had to upgrade the entire suite for an outrageous amount (can't remember but I think was over $1k again). In other words, because I was their best customer they weren't going to extend the same courtesy as they would to their newest, or care to keep me in the Adobe family. My reaction was simple, sorry Adobe but I'm not bending over for your reaming.

I posted this little story at the time on DPReview and frankly most of the comments smugly said that Adobe was a business and had every right to use these business tactics and I should be happy to upgrade the suite at a price lower then buying a new version all together. So my response to this entire bruhaha is this.......... welcome to the party, pal!

Everything is cheap, or at least reasonable when it's somebody else's money.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

Josh152: Anyone who doesn't' think LR is going to end up on a subscription model eventually is fooling themselves. LR is still at the stage where lots of new features are being added and noticeable improvements to existing ones are still being made. just compare the lens correction tools of LR 3, 4, and 5. Or look at how the basic panel adjustments have been tweaked and improved. Heck entirely new modules have been add to LR since it was released.

Just wait until LR is as finished as PS is now and see how long adobe keeps losing sales as more and more people start skipping versions like a very large number of users currently do with PS before LR is on the subscription scheme too.

I think it's a little soon to argue on the one hand, that each version of Lightroom has significant improvements but people will soon skip new versions, especially if $99. or less. I do agree that photographically useful upgrades to Photoshop ended with content-aware fill.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 18:59 UTC
In reply to:

wlad: That was obvious.
Photoshop is a $700 tool for professional GRAPHIC ARTISTS.
Lightroom is a $150 tool aimed at amateur and professional PHOTOGRAPHERS.

For every pro photographer that buys LR, there are at least hundred amateurs, who would never buy into that expensive "cloud" subscription nonsense.

If you view a photograph as a starting point for some sort of computer "art" it's true you need something like Photoshop. But if you've got a lot of photos that look pretty good but need to be fine tuned in a reasonable amount of time, Lightroom is very capable.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 00:48 UTC
In reply to:

Robert Eckerlin: Great to know, that Lr will not become "subscription -only".

For me, it would also be great to learn that "Photoshop Elements" (PSE) will also not become "subscription only".

As Lightroom has progressed, I've noticed it does more and more of what I used Photoshop for. I remember thinking, if they add a few more features to Lightroom, it's going to be very tough to sell Photoshop. I'd like to think that was the plan but that's giving Adobe a lot of credit.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 00:43 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: "Basically we have no plans to make Lightroom subscription-only at any point in the future. We have plans to make Lightroom available in its current form pretty much indefinitely."

Despite the clarity of this statement, the tin-foil hatters are out in full-force. Just goes to show how hated the CC model is - it can even turn ordinarily-rational people into conspiracy-theorists.

Future business and marketing students will learn some excellent "how not to" lessons from this, and Thom Hogan will get 6 more columns out of it but it's done. Lightroom is being used as a peace offering to photographers and the rest is subscription, take it or leave it.

There will always be ways to open Raw files (although, if it's SilkyPix you might consider a different camera). I'll get by with LR and save some money. I suspect that's what students and hobbyists will do, too. Another upside, besides not having to buy each version of Photoshop is that the .CR2/.NEF vs. .DNG dilemma seems solved.

With hobbyists gone, there could be a NALRP where Scott Kelby explains how to do what Photoshop does, using only Lightroom. If an entire magazine can be devoted to Layers, why not?

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 00:36 UTC
In reply to:

the reason: Autofocus at f8, in 2013...

On the one hand, a vacuum cleaner can't be updated via firmware. On the other hand, if you buy an old Electrolux at a garage sale it will be reliable, repairable and state of the art long after your SLR has gone to the glue factory.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2013 at 21:23 UTC
In reply to:

balico: Canon feels the breath of Nikon ;)
This update doesn't make the crappy shadow detail any better compared to the D800, I suppose :)

Canon will improve their dynamic range when Nikon starts breathing.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2013 at 21:17 UTC
In reply to:

Sad Joe: I'd still love to buy a 5d3 if only I could afford one - I used one at a wedding a few months ago and didn't want to hand it back ! However even I as a massive Canon fan still feel that Canon are behind the game on FF mid stream DSLR's. No I'm not saying the Nikon D800 is simply better because of its 36MP but I am saying that I feel it very strange that Canon haven't introduced a similar BIG chip model - let's call it the 3D1 by now.

Then again the 700d is simply the 650d, which is simply the 600d etc - all based upon an 18MP sensor that is now 5 years old and didn't compare well to the Nikon sensor at the same price point even then....strange. Have all the top Canon designers gone to work elsewhere?

I'd certainly consider a 36mp Canon but when I'm copying the 22mp files from the 5D3, or moving them between LR and PS, I'm glad the files aren't any bigger. Of course I could go buy a new computer. It's only money, right?

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2013 at 21:10 UTC

This makes sense. If they put the few useful new Photoshop features in Lightroom there is even less reason to get the subscription--and people who do have the subscription may ask why they are paying top dollar for stuff they already have in Lightroom. On top of this, there are things in Lightroom, like perspective adjustment, that are beautifully simple and easy, but can be a tedious hassle in Photoshop.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2013 at 20:45 UTC as 169th comment
Total: 1780, showing: 1061 – 1080
« First‹ Previous5253545556Next ›Last »