Mark Alan Thomas

Mark Alan Thomas

Lives in United States United States
Joined on May 12, 2010

Comments

Total: 170, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jpino79: Poor update support from Apple for OS X Mavericks 10.9 users - there is no update available. Only Yosemite (10.10)?

Might be time to stop buying Macs.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 05:12 UTC
In reply to:

41mm: Foveon Inc. is based in California and Apple do not support the new SIGMA quattro RAW-standard ! Sorry, but shame on you, Apple !!

Apple has never supported any Foveon sensors. They don’t even support the linear DNGs derived from older Foveon raw files from 2008 and earlier. It’s never going to happen. We’ll be lucky if, in five years, Apple supports any third-party raw formats.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2015 at 05:11 UTC
In reply to:

jonby: I'm glad Leica are still here and able to stay in business doing what they do. If I had money to burn, however, this camera would still not move me to spend. Rangefinder viewing and focus - great; monochrome sensor - great; shutter dial - great. Fiddly little digital buttons, LCD screen, four-way controller, menu navigation - no. Suddenly it's like any other camera. Aesthetically It just feels a bit watered-down and incongruous. No, if I had the cash I'd be going for the M Edition 60 with no LCD and controls pared down to the photographic minimum. It's a shame for us mortals that you have to pay through the nose to have features removed (but something else gained). Someone else should consider giving us this option.

I have an M, and would love to have an M Edition 60, but it’s a cinch to use the M all day without chimping, pressing the buttons, or messing with the four-way controller. You can use it as if it were the 60. But I agree with the idea that the M is less “true” than the 60. It is.

Direct link | Posted on May 5, 2015 at 07:00 UTC
In reply to:

UnitedNations: My Nikon DF has better sensor than this camera...and better low light ISO ability...... Leica sure is expensive.

It’s not as if the Df is a cheap camera. It’s pushing three grand. Nobody’s going to argue that the Leica is about price/performance. If you want that, get a Rebel.

Direct link | Posted on May 4, 2015 at 22:28 UTC
In reply to:

UnitedNations: My Nikon DF has better sensor than this camera...and better low light ISO ability...... Leica sure is expensive.

I have a Df and a Leica M. Yes, the Df has a better sensor (at least on paper) with better low light ability, but the Leica makes more beautiful images, has vastly higher build quality, and has incredible lenses unmatched by anything available for the Nikon. The Nikon is a more versatile camera, is faster, and has better battery life, but it’s also about 50 times more complicated to operate. So enjoy your Df, but don’t go thinking that it’s some perfect thing and that the Leica has no merit, because that’s wrong.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 12:56 UTC
In reply to:

Ednaz: I've seen this on almost every Nikon owned, not at f16, but when shooting macro and working at effective apertures of f32 or higher. Not as dense as what's shown, but visible in that specific situation - macro, highly stopped down.

I suspect that there's a "tolerance" level for the spots...

Proof, or it’s a lie.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2015 at 04:45 UTC
In reply to:

JakeB: Take a great photo on your camera and lens of choice, convert to B&W in Silver Efex or similar, and I guarantee that in an ABX test NO-ONE will be able to tell the difference between that and a great photo from the Leica Monochrom.

You can't buy talent and skill.

You could get the same result smearing both photos with monkey feces. No one will be able to tell the difference.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 30, 2015 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

Thank goodness. I hope this means you’re going to throw yourself in front of a train or something equally dramatic.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 17:01 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

I could listen to you for hours.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:58 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

TheDman, a complete imbecile, said:

“I see you've edited your original post because you realized how dumb it was, and now have nothing further to add to the conversation. You know I've nailed you.”

And yet his own post ends with this:

“Comment edited 1 minute after posting”

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:54 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

TheDman wrote:

“There you go, so you admit you don't care if they eliminate choice, you just don't want them to eliminate your preferred choice.”

Straw man argument.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:51 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

TheDman needs to cut back on the spirits.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:47 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

I wouldn’t complain if Adobe eliminated subscriptions, but I would agree that, by doing so, they were eliminating a choice.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:44 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

TheDman: I would not complain if Adobe offered the choice to subscribe or purchase every product.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

Barry, I don’t expect you to feel guilty, but you have to accept the fact that by embracing Adobe’s subscription model, you have helped Adobe to eliminate choice and shift the balance of power away from consumers. Furthermore, a logical comparison cannot be made between subscriptions vs purchasing and Lightroom vs Aperture (and incidentally, I was an Aperture user before I became a Lightroom user).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

You can unsubscribe, but if you do the software is disabled. Adobe cannot disable software you purchase outright.

So for one, you give Adobe the power to prevent you from using the software you paid for.

For another, you agree to pay them every month whether or not they improve the software in a way you find meaningful or useful.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 15:51 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

I accept that you’re well-informed and that you’re comfortable with the subscription model. But you have to accept that by embracing subscription models you’ve helped to eliminate choice and leverage for people who don’t wish to subscribe. I can no longer purchase most Adobe software. So thanks for that.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

The worst aspect of renting software is that it switches the balance of power from you to the vendor. Suddenly you’re beholden to the whims and demands of the vendor, rather than the vendor being at the mercy of you, the customer. You really want to surrender that leverage just to save a few bucks? The second you agree to rent Lightroom, Adobe’s got you by the balls. Now imagine a future in which every piece of software you rely on requires its own subscription. Weird and creepy how some people can be so easily coerced into jumping off a cliff.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 14:40 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Grupp: Any serious hobbyist or professional who thinks that it's worth switching to another platform just because Adobe rents a combination of Photoshop and Lightroom for a measly $9.95/month is either just playing around or being flat-out unrealistic. I get it -- some of us would prefer to own the software. Well, that's not on the table. The question is, if you are serious, is $9.95 a month really burdensome? Not even close. And if you have invested hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in learning the ins and outs of Adobe products, switching to something else because you think $9.95 is too much to pay is being penny smart and pound foolish.

The cost is a red herring. I think it’s a great deal money-wise. What I object to is that if you stop paying, the software stops working. That makes the subscription fee more like paying for protection. Pay us or else!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 12:01 UTC
In reply to:

Nairda: will the LR 6 upgrade works from LR 4?

Yeah, you can upgrade any version all the way back to 1.0.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 20:56 UTC
Total: 170, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »