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: 399, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

BadOmen: I was hoping for some improvments in 1:1 rendering. On my 4k monitor it still takes about a second to render a 1:1, no noticeable improvement. Fyi, I'm using a 5930k processor and triple sli 970's (Lightroom is only using one of the cards though)

One second would be sheer luxury! Ten is quite common for me with LR5. It was around two with 1.4. There is no point in making 1:1 renders if you intend to process your images at all because it will then make new ones anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 19:36 UTC
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Once upon a time, during the reign of S. Jobs, they released some code from Safari to the open public, so anyone could benefit from their development. Thanks to that move (calculated?), we had a browser revolution in the smartphone arena, which enabled far better standardisation of mobile UI and experience (something desktop environment never achieved).

Aperture should have been the same. If Apple does not want it, release it to the public. What would be so difficult about that? But I am afraid they did not do that because of Adobe, and because of the strange new ways Apple thinks nowadays, specially about its professional line of products.

After 18 years of Apple after 1998, I think they are at their worst when it comes to care of creative professionals, who once were bread and butter, highly regarded and touted by Apple. But nada anymore — in their videos one can see only celebrities wearing Apple Watches and endless crowd using iPads.

I didn't use iOS6 but noticed the move from iOS5 to 7 being quite negative. Not just the design but the interface got clunkier, with more taps needed. I moved on to 8, which actually has been a slightly better experience with one or two things tidied up but I really notice the RAM thing now.

Oddly, I've been using a Surface Pro for work and getting to love the new Windows interface. I never thought I'd find anything Windows to be more intuitive than anything Apple but it is! No RAM issues at all with that either. However, it's still Windows, with the odd thing breaking and crashing, ho hum (though much less than in the past).

I'm biding my time before replacing my iPhone, wondering if the next one has extra RAM. Just in case, I'm looking sideways at other options for the future, something made more easy as Apple quietly moves away from being something perfect for me to something less and less useful and more and more clunky. Oh dear. Bet I'm not the only one.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 09:12 UTC
In reply to:

TomBe: I think it's absurd to compare the two! There is no comparison. This is only a gratuidous article intended to lure attention. I challenge the author to discuss this with me and explain to me how in his right mind he can even think the two have anything in common

Good grief! It drew you in. Does that mean you identify yourself as part of "the masses"? Is that bad?

If you didn't find any new information, then that's unfortunate for you. I found new information and that was great. To call this article "troll-like bait" is ludicrous and just shows you misunderstood its point, which was to provide a helpful, objective point of view for a solid proportion of the readership who use Apple computers and are interested in photo management software options.

Then again, people get emotional over all sorts of things so I'm not surprised if one or two people lose objectivity.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 21:28 UTC
In reply to:

D610 User 1867: At first it felt like the iOS designers weren't talking to the OS X engineers (AirDrop anyone?), now it feels like the iOS designers are taking over Apple.

Fine. But why walk away from things that have been genuinely useful for many years? You'd think that a company that allegedly has many resources at its disposal would be able to produce simplistic, mobile-friendly software without having to gut the more serious capability it built a good reputation on. You can have both. The Surface Pro my work provides me proves that.

Actually, there is something else going on. Moving from iOS5 to 7 (I skipped 6), I was really annoyed by how many things needed a second or third tap, that just worked before. It's the same with Photos, you have to click and click again to unearth basic function within the programme. Much more so than with iPhoto, for example.

No, the whole emphasis is the same as the obsession with "thinness" in the hardware. Apparent neatness/simplicity at the expense of true function - and even if the function is there, it has to be tucked away or it wouldn't look ______ (insert word of choice here, I'll pick "bland").

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 09:56 UTC
In reply to:

TomBe: I think it's absurd to compare the two! There is no comparison. This is only a gratuidous article intended to lure attention. I challenge the author to discuss this with me and explain to me how in his right mind he can even think the two have anything in common

Look at the forums on the internet. Heaps of people have been asking if Photos can take the place of Aperture. The article is a nice, clear, objective discussion which answers the question well.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 01:50 UTC
In reply to:

aaanouel: I totally agree with you!
Photos is nothing more than an enhanced iiPhoto.
I was thinking just like you: Keep on using Aperture and Photoshop and starting to use lightroom instead,
Great article! ✎_________✔✔✔✔✔Txs4Sharing

Enhanced? Give a bit, take a bit!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 01:39 UTC
In reply to:

lacix: I have realized (finally!) how differently we defining, easy, logical or self-explanatory! For me LightRoom was very easy to understand and use from the very beginning. The the layout and workflow is absolutely the way I like! While its very advanced and capable for pro-business use, have the choice for no-nonsense easy-setting for home user and gradually could advance up to any level they want! For me using iPhoto or Photos are sometimes childish, sometime chaotic, and the constant redundancy of file handling makes me very angry and inpatient of some reason. (I believe Picasa even is a much better choice!)
Aperture was much better, but in IMO is no mach to LR or C1! CaptureOne is great, has its own “attitude”, (not so bad)! It would be my second choice for PP.

Despite wanting to use Aperture due to long term loyalty and trying time and again to make it work for me, I have to agree that Lightroom was always easy to understand. While it has got over-complex and slow recently, it still is way easier for me to use than Aperture, especially for file management.

However, it seems wrong to compare either programme to Photos. The latter is clearly aimed at the vast masses of iPhone photographers, who want to easily tweak a photo, or not tweak it at all, then share it with friends in various ways. It's not really a file management tool beyond that. Maybe even less so than iPhoto!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 23:46 UTC
In reply to:

D610 User 1867: At first it felt like the iOS designers weren't talking to the OS X engineers (AirDrop anyone?), now it feels like the iOS designers are taking over Apple.

"now it feels like the iOS designers are taking over Apple." Nailed it!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 23:33 UTC
In reply to:

hunterrt: If I have learned one thing about Apple over the years it is that you cannot depend on Apple over the long term. Anyone thinking of investing hundreds of hours of work in an Apple database product such as Aperture should think twice. With little to no thought Apple will take away software features, end support for its products, or happily break the functionality of its legacy products. There was only one app that I could not open on iOS 8 and it was an Apple app, iPhoto. If you were someone who liked the app and wanted to continue to use it, well too bad. Apple isn't allowing you the option.

Did you happen to like cover flow in iTunes, well too bad. While the functionality is still found in the finder, Apple decided to push its users into album view in hopes of selling more music. I left Aperture for LR years ago when Apple was transitioning its raw processing engine into the OS. At the time I had a brand new D200 and for months I couldn't use Aperture to process raw images.

I really liked coverflow in iTunes. While that has gone, there hasn't been one useful feature added since, only changes for the sake of change. I don't get it.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 23:28 UTC

"...but also the software's incredibly dumbed down interface, which feels a bit like someone stuffed an iPad into my MacBook Pro". I've spent a few hours this morning delving into Photos and trying to make it work and I came to a similar conclusion. In my case, I figured they'd made Photos "thin", just like the latest laptop!

Anyway, your article actually showed me more options than I realised were present, so thanks for that. No thanks to the software designers for hiding everything.

For me, I'll keep using Lightroom for serious work (for a little while, the bloat is really getting to me these days) and iPhoto for managing photos from my iPhone. One day, they may sort Photos out better, so I'll keep watching. Meanwhile, it's just too clunky for me. The whole iCloud thing is also pointless for those of us who don't have ultra-quick internet. Even then, I can't see much value in it, except for maybe shared albums (a la Mobile Me?).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 23:22 UTC as 109th comment
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Once upon a time, during the reign of S. Jobs, they released some code from Safari to the open public, so anyone could benefit from their development. Thanks to that move (calculated?), we had a browser revolution in the smartphone arena, which enabled far better standardisation of mobile UI and experience (something desktop environment never achieved).

Aperture should have been the same. If Apple does not want it, release it to the public. What would be so difficult about that? But I am afraid they did not do that because of Adobe, and because of the strange new ways Apple thinks nowadays, specially about its professional line of products.

After 18 years of Apple after 1998, I think they are at their worst when it comes to care of creative professionals, who once were bread and butter, highly regarded and touted by Apple. But nada anymore — in their videos one can see only celebrities wearing Apple Watches and endless crowd using iPads.

I wonder if it would actually be possible to "buy" the rights to develop Aperture from Apple? A bit like how Pixelmator is independent, but fits in seamlessly with the Apple structure, there would probably be a market for someone to take Aperture on and bring it up to date.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 23:15 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zoron: Time to come up with a new body and new organs.

That implies a Fuji 24MP RAW would be 45MB. Eek!

It's hard to put 12TB on a laptop and portable drive - what I mean is file size matters to the sort of people who need mobility. Anyway, so much storage is wasted now on image files which are way bigger than they need to be, for any use beyond bragging rights! Waste is never good.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 02:10 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

lambert4: I am so glad Fuji gets it, make weather sealed lens to match bodies.
The Micro four thirds assortment still has only one weather sealed prime, the 60mm Macro. One of these days we will get a few to go with the zooms?

Ah yes, lambert4, that's a good point. Weight is all relative but there are lightweight bodies so a light 25mm or similar that was weather resistant could be a little bit brilliant! I use a four thirds 25/2.8 when I want a light kit. It's so cheap to replace that I don't stress about it outdoors and so far so good (and it's an absolutely fabulous lens, can't think why it didn't get rave reviews).

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 02:00 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

lambert4: I am so glad Fuji gets it, make weather sealed lens to match bodies.
The Micro four thirds assortment still has only one weather sealed prime, the 60mm Macro. One of these days we will get a few to go with the zooms?

Micro four thirds has some truly excellent weather resistant zooms. Having weather resistant primes is pointless if you want to change focal length! (Though, of course, more weather resistant prime lenses would be a good thing as it increases available choices, in a system which has so much going for it.)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 19:52 UTC
On Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 moves from roadmap to retailers article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zoron: Time to come up with a new body and new organs.

Smaller files is a a real benefit. Doing that without any noticeable loss of resolution and keeping a clean file sounds like it's just a better sensor all round! Though plenty of fanatics will disagree 'cos that's what they like doing...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 19:49 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ben Stonewall: This thread should win some kind of prize for the sheer number of drooling, hate-filled trolls that have emerged from their Mom's basement to pour vitriol on a product that they'll never own, never mind use in any meaningful way.

And still, the GH4 doesn't match the video specs. (Nothing against the GH4, of course, seems to be a great tool.)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 09:16 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ben Stonewall: This thread should win some kind of prize for the sheer number of drooling, hate-filled trolls that have emerged from their Mom's basement to pour vitriol on a product that they'll never own, never mind use in any meaningful way.

Nope, none of those match both video and photo specs.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 23:12 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ben Stonewall: This thread should win some kind of prize for the sheer number of drooling, hate-filled trolls that have emerged from their Mom's basement to pour vitriol on a product that they'll never own, never mind use in any meaningful way.

Better? At both stills and video? Maybe? Cheaper cameras? Yes. Better at both stills and video and still cheaper? Can't think of any...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 20:01 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

vFunct: Too many "fine-art" photographers with no clue about photojournalism.

Why would anyone use a full-frame camera for a photojournalism?

Shallow depth-of-field is only for "fine-art" dorks.

dwill23: "Having way more light pushed to your sensor allows for much better shutter speeds". Actually, for a given depth of field, you'll get a higher shutter speed with a smaller format, without any need to push the sensitivity (though larger formats theoretically are more forgiving at that pushing, they still start off with a significant disadvantage).

Note, too, that journalists used 35mm film because of it's advantages over larger formats. There were no practical formats that were smaller over most of that time!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 19:56 UTC
In reply to:

Petrogel: Unfortunately Apple is moving from bad to worst, i don't believe that iPhotos is the evolution of Aperture, Lightroom 5 has already replaced the five year old aperture 3 successfully.

"Why would I shuffle around single files?" What on earth are you talking about? With Lightroom, you quickly (very quickly, even from a range of different folders which can be on different drives) select your files based on anything you like (rating, colour tag, keyword etc.) and put them wherever you like, even on an external drive, with a simple drag and drop or right click on the destination folder. You can create that destination folder, which is within the Finder's hierarchy, not hidden in Lightroom, from within Lightroom itself, super easily. Nothing could be quicker or simpler.

It's perfect for doing a big reorganisation of, e.g., wedding photos, or photos from a trip away, or anything really. Try doing that in Aperture and then finding your photos without using Aperture. It may be possible but it's not obvious like in Lightroom.

Not that Lightroom is perfect. Far from it...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 00:01 UTC
Total: 399, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »