deep7

deep7

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Works as a writer/photographer/ecologist
Has a website at deeppics.com
Joined on May 10, 2008
About me:

God makes it, I see it and photograph it. Sometimes that works well!

Comments

Total: 255, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On P9390968_ISO125 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (4 comments in total)

Maybe no AA filter? At 100% it looks a bit like you'd expect from high loss jpeg processing on small photosites but 100% would make a mighty big print so it's not bad really.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 21:07 UTC as 2nd comment
On Kodak Pixpro S-1 First Impressions Review preview (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

AngryCorgi: That fieldscope is gauranteed to be poop in terms of IQ. Like a $50 ebay "telephoto lens".

"Guaranteed"?? By whom? What tosh. It could be great or it could be mediocre but it's unlikely to be "poop". A completely unsubstantiated statement.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 01:00 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1723 comments in total)
In reply to:

blohum: Great article DPR and it's that last sentence that people always seem to forget: "There's no universally ideal 'sweet-spot' to that trade-off: but understanding equivalence can help you work out which balance is best for you."

I chose m43 knowing full-well what the limitations are. Will FF give better IQ... absolutely, will FF give thinner DOF, of course... do I care, not a bit... m43 is MY 'sweet-spot'.

Nah, no matter how small you make your body with a bigger sensor (and body size is more dictated by ergonomics, viewfinder size, battery size etc. etc.), the bigger lenses will be more and more of an issue. For Sony to match the m4/3 75-300 lens, for example, it would have to make a 150-600 lens which was only about f13 at the long end. On paper, that would actually be okay but the market could well scorn it. And yes, Sony's little 28-70 is smaller than my 12-40/2.8 but it doesn't actually bring any advantages - and making it as good across the frame would be quite some challenge at that size. No, the 35mm format works very well in the 35-90mm focal length range but less so at the extremes, unless you don't mind the weight. Hence the point made at the conclusion of the article.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 06:11 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (1723 comments in total)
In reply to:

blohum: Great article DPR and it's that last sentence that people always seem to forget: "There's no universally ideal 'sweet-spot' to that trade-off: but understanding equivalence can help you work out which balance is best for you."

I chose m43 knowing full-well what the limitations are. Will FF give better IQ... absolutely, will FF give thinner DOF, of course... do I care, not a bit... m43 is MY 'sweet-spot'.

And mine! I actually paid more for my m4/3 camera than the 35mm camera I was also considering and am very glad I made that decision.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 20:56 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

Puddleglum: Why are they still selling it in the App Store a day later? What a mess.

Good grief, am I feeding a monster? Better stop!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2014 at 19:39 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

Puddleglum: Why are they still selling it in the App Store a day later? What a mess.

I doubt that is true, though business is business. The existence of Pixelmator is good for Apple though and I suspect there is some collaboration for the software to integrate so well.

It will be interesting to see if "Photos" talks well to Pixelmator as an external editor. Might be helpful for one or two Aperture users, depending on how they use it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2014 at 07:28 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

Puddleglum: Why are they still selling it in the App Store a day later? What a mess.

Well, it works in iPhoto, Preview, even Pixelmator and probably other software, so that would be a major turnaround in how OSX works, which is unlikely.

The problem will come when you need OSX12 or 13 or whatever iteration to have RAW support for your latest greatest camera but Apple finally decides at that stage that Aperture will no longer be supported . That will be some way off for most of us.

Anyway, Apple have said that the new software will provide RAW support, so the point is moot.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 19:52 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)
In reply to:

mark moe: I like that Sony is weather sealed... I like tropical vacations and rain is a factor. I like its ND feature a lot too.

The extra zoom of the Panasonic does mean as much as the above to me.

And if you need a ND filter on the Panasonic, you can put one on and still have more money in your pocket.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2014 at 22:37 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

vFunct: Lightroom is awful and simply not as good as Aperture. Lightroom focuses on garbage features like Lens Correction, when the features like metadata workflow is FAR more important to a professional photographer than any "lens correction" ever could be.

No client in the world has EVER cared about lens distortion & correction. They don't even NOTICE it. So why the hell does Lightroom even include that as a "feature"? They should be trying to get their metadata workflow to be as good as Aperture's.

Really, Lightroom is only for high-end amateurs and other prosumers. It really isn't a professional calibre photo tool like Aperture is.

Meanwhile, looking over the Photos demo from WWDC, it does look like it's more Aperture than iPhoto, so that is a sign of relief. Also, it looks like we'll be able to move the Aperture database over to Photos, so that probably means it has Aperture's feature set, maybe including stacks and so on... dunno... we'll see.

" Aperture was the best DAM solution by a long way"?? I keep reading this but just don't get it. Aperture is such a mess for managing photos - unless you ONLY want to leave them in the Aperture library and never get to them any other way, which sounds like a recipe for disaster. Even then, it's messy. Not knocking Aperture, it has its strengths, but the digital asset management side of it is one of the strongest reasons I never made the move from Lightroom, despite trying many times. (I'm less of a fan of Lightroom with every new complicated/slower "upgrade" so regularly check out my options).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 01:59 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

vFunct: Lightroom is awful and simply not as good as Aperture. Lightroom focuses on garbage features like Lens Correction, when the features like metadata workflow is FAR more important to a professional photographer than any "lens correction" ever could be.

No client in the world has EVER cared about lens distortion & correction. They don't even NOTICE it. So why the hell does Lightroom even include that as a "feature"? They should be trying to get their metadata workflow to be as good as Aperture's.

Really, Lightroom is only for high-end amateurs and other prosumers. It really isn't a professional calibre photo tool like Aperture is.

Meanwhile, looking over the Photos demo from WWDC, it does look like it's more Aperture than iPhoto, so that is a sign of relief. Also, it looks like we'll be able to move the Aperture database over to Photos, so that probably means it has Aperture's feature set, maybe including stacks and so on... dunno... we'll see.

Software based lens correction is, more and more, being designed into modern lens designs. For good reason too, you end up with much lighter lenses. If your software can't keep up with that, it's archaic.

Sure, some professionals will always prefer lenses that don't require correction but their proportion of the client base is getting increasingly small, like it or not. Personally, I am over the moon with the quality I am getting out of a tiny, modern package and would no longer consider going back. I NEED a raw converter than allows lens correction...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2014 at 20:24 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

Puddleglum: Why are they still selling it in the App Store a day later? What a mess.

RAW support is part of the operating system, not the programme.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2014 at 20:00 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

MrTaikitso: iPhoto is one of the worst pieces of software ever developed, and I speak as a UX (User Experience) and software engineer. 1. A few years after it was launched, it managed to lose over 400 of my precious photos. And because they were being backed up, and the way the bug erased the images, I never got them back. Many others reported odd bugs too. 2. More recently, as part of a huge multi year archiving effort (& to escape it's bugs), I exported thousands of priceless photos & scans from iPhoto. Only later did I discover that EVERY SINGLE portrait oriented photo had been mysteriously cropped such that only about 5% of the photo was saved. I lost another 500 or so images & no idea which ones! 3. The UX is awful & inconsistent with Aperture, a superbly designed app, the very opposite of iPhoto. So why don't Apple do the reverse and make Aperture their default main photo/video app? Seems they are dumbing down to appeal to the idiots that buy iPhones purely to Snapchat & Instagram. Tragic!

MrTaikitso: That's a strange post. iPhoto is designed to be really easy to use - and is. Aperture is very confusing to use, which is the opposite direction to where Apple think they are heading (they only think they are heading there because, in the last few years, their "simplifying" has made life quite a bit harder!). Either way, making Aperture a default photo/video programme is never going to happen!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2014 at 00:51 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

Puddleglum: Why are they still selling it in the App Store a day later? What a mess.

Because they haven't stopped the programme, only further development of it. It's what the story says above!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2014 at 00:44 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

VadymA: Can somebody clarify what happens with all Aperture adjustments to RAW files (like brushes, curves, cloning, etc) when converting to another application, like Lightroom etc?

I always export my RAWs after edit, then import the exported files back in again. That way, if I abandon Lightroom, I've lost none of my hard work (I don't delete the original RAW files but store them separately). I'm not sure if that is easy to do in Aperture but I think it unwise to rely on non-destructive edits as a long term storage option in any programme.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 00:36 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

nrantoul: Man, this really sucks. I've got several years worth of work on Aperture, 4 separate libraries and an heavily invested in Aperture and its wonderful controls.
Thanks, Apple.

They haven't said you can't use Aperture, not that it's no longer going to be available. If it works for you now, nothing changes!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 00:32 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stewart McKInlay: As there is no mention of the new Photos for OSX being able to manipulate photos like Aperture we can only assume a dumbing down as suggested is happening. Most of us who enjoyed Aperture will feel sorely let down. But as usual Apple will expect loyalty from us!

If you look at the screenshot above, you will see that there is definitely some manipulation available and it could be better than iPhoto.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2014 at 00:30 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: While I personally have struggled for years to get my head around Aperture (it just seems a total mess, compared to Lightroom or even iPhoto), I do feel sorry for the many photographers whose brains are wired in a way that allows Aperture to make sense, because they no longer have an upgrade path.

On the other hand, that might be a good thing. Each new version of Lightroom has got more complex and runs slower and slower. I would have stayed on Lightroom 1.4 (very snappy) except Adobe force an "upgrade" with every new camera purchase. At least Aperture users can now get very comfortable and stay that way for years! After all, Apple aren't actually dropping Aperture just yet and, even if they do, it will still work for some time after that.

My real worry is this trendy talk about the "cloud". If I used a whole months internet allocation for uploading photos, I would only get a third of the photos on my hard drive shifted. Even that would take ten solid days. The whole idea is nuts. Great for temporary synchronisation but absolutely not a good idea for storage of vast libraries!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 21:48 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)

While I personally have struggled for years to get my head around Aperture (it just seems a total mess, compared to Lightroom or even iPhoto), I do feel sorry for the many photographers whose brains are wired in a way that allows Aperture to make sense, because they no longer have an upgrade path.

On the other hand, that might be a good thing. Each new version of Lightroom has got more complex and runs slower and slower. I would have stayed on Lightroom 1.4 (very snappy) except Adobe force an "upgrade" with every new camera purchase. At least Aperture users can now get very comfortable and stay that way for years! After all, Apple aren't actually dropping Aperture just yet and, even if they do, it will still work for some time after that.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 21:48 UTC as 88th comment | 3 replies
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jun2: I will continue to use Aperture. Don't really need further support. It works fine for last year or two without much update.

Aperture is not like Lightroom. You don't have to get a new version to get RAW support for a new camera. That comes with the operating system. Plug-ins will work for a long time too. Apple aren't killing Aperture yet, just stopping development of it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 21:34 UTC
On Apple to cease development of Aperture article (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

Benarm: *champagne bottles popping at Adobe headquarters*

Maybe just lemonade bottles. People who like Aperture can still use it. People who don't already use Lightroom or Capture One or whatever else. So the eighteen people who will now make a protest move to Adobe won't make Adobe hugely richer...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 21:28 UTC
Total: 255, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »