I like the new Light option, but think it would be even better with a slightly heavier typeface on a very light gray background (i.e. with less glare than pure white).
It'll be good to have the choice of two styles, and I'd probably alternate between them, choosing the black background when images feature strongly in the article or forum I'm reading.
-- Richard --
mrcultureshock: I rented the GX7 for the Thanksgiving break and I find the EVF on the small side but I'm getting used to it. I didn't see any tearing or rainbow effects though. The photo and video qualities are excellent!
I also have no difficulty at all with the EVF of the GX7.
And I haven't noticed many GX7 owners or review sites (other than DPrevew) who seem to think this is a problem feature.
Quote "So in the spirit of yet-to-be-broken resolutions I'm going to suggest some ways you can expand your photographic horizons in the coming year."
Not only will I expand my horizons but I will also keep them LEVEL !
I believe Adobe made a big initial mistake by using the term "Import".
So often we hear of people being deterred from using LR because they think the word implies that somehow an extra copy of the file is always being created and/or moved to some special LR location on the HD.
I suppose the phrase "Make Lightroom aware of where the file is located, or being placed, on your hard drive" would have been more accurate (but wordy!) description of what is happening.
Trouble is, that like Adobe, I can't think of another word or simple expression which could be used instead of that slightly misleading word "Import".
Some interesting pointers, but why the obsession with such shallow DOF?
For example, the shot of the halved orange. Is this really the best way to show it? In this photo no part of the orange skin (of both halves) is in focus, and neither is most of the flesh of the fruit -- so we hardly see those textures at all.
If the reason was to focus and direct our attention to an important part of the image, then in this case it is to the small central core of pith -- which is not the most interesting or appetizing part!
It could be argued that almost all photos (inc. documentary) are SELECTED versions of reality.
Firstly, the photographer chooses to record the event, selects the viewpoint, perspective, focus of attention, framing (with the inclusion/exclusion that might imply), and selects the instant in time for that "snapshot". With the best will in the World to be objective, any two photographers at the same scene/event might come up with photos which could convey different meanings or messages to the viewer. The choice of whether to display the picture in colour or mono can also further modify a picture's mood .... and so on ..... before we even reach the question of Photoshop manipulation.
Thankyou for the very good and useful tutorial, Jean.
But to avoid criticism, I think you should have emphasized that "skin smoothing" need not be taken as far as the "plastic" look that some people here are complaining about.
Even in glamour shots, personally I like to see at least a subtle indication that some skin pores do indeed exist. Otherwise it would seem that the model's health is in great danger!
The article reads like advertiser's blurb -- no critical content at all.
The book is OK for what it is -- as a "how-to" guide, but many people might wish to also have a "why" guide with more in-depth information which would allow more flexible use of Photoshop.