Lives in United States Austin, United States
Works as a Software
Joined on Feb 7, 2012


Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Any particular reason that DPReview notes the updated raw capacity to the not very good ADSee raw extractor, but skips noting the recent update to Aftershot? Aftershot is much better raw extraction software than ADSee. (No Aftershot is not up to the level of ACR, C1, DXO or PhotoNinja, but why ignore the recent update to Aftershot? And I’d bet that with some work Aftershot could play with the really serious raw extractors, unlike ADSee.)

DPReview has always seemed to depend on the manufacturers to push news and updates to them. It is why you don't see, for example, routine update information for Iridient (Raw) Converter or other niche products as they don't have dedicated marketing folks pushing announcements out to every web outlet.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 29, 2013 at 12:14 UTC

As some others here, I find the exclusion of Corel Aftershot Pro (fka Bilbble) puzzling. The current build of Aftershot is a capable, if not entirely perfect, RAW conversion and asset management platform with some unique features the other offerings here do not have. It is cross-platform, has been around I believe longer than the three products that were tested, and can be had for practically shareware prices.

Aftershot needs some investment for some cameras in its color profiles, and its asset management features are not as mature as these other products. It has superior speed, especially with multicore AMD support. I also believe that it renders, for many camera systems, with better acutance without added sharpening.

While many here have also argued that Aperture should have been included, it is unfortunately falling behind the other offerings. Somewhere along the way the vision and spirit of earlier versions of Aperture have been lost, and I worry for its future.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 24, 2013 at 15:25 UTC as 101st comment | 1 reply
On article Exhibition Review: 8x10 By Impossible (85 comments in total)

Polaroid prints have often been undervalued in the photographic community. I don't know if it is something about the seemingly "amateurish" (itself an abused term) status of the film, the often imperfect results, or what. This has been true even more of large format Polaroid, even though it is a demonstrably capable medium on many levels and by artists of all caliber.

The overuse of digital techniques that emulate different analog processes should not be allowed to devalue the beauty of those processes. The unique, one-of-a-kind, and often stunning Polaroid print or transfer is a great example of this. Aesthetically some of these prints are not my favorite, but the medium is capable of much more than the art depicted here. Walker Evans and Ansel Adams are just two artists who demonstrated well the potential of the format.

To the nay sayers here, I guess all I can suggest is that you further explore the body of work in this medium before so easily condemning it...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2012 at 02:56 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

raylob: Very convenient to have & to use. IQ is acceptable but you pay dearly for the consumables!

These little Selphy printers are all dye-sub models. Dye sublimation printers are continuous tone, three color thermal transfer technology. The overall output gamut of a dye sub is less than that of say a six color inkjet printer. They are additive CMY, and in general cannot approach the black density of other technologies. They do produce fairly vibrant color, and the continuous tone prints look nice enough.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2012 at 16:20 UTC
In reply to:

JoeSchmoe: The quality of these samples is embarrassing. Seems like DPR doesn't put much effort into taking non-technical photos anymore. For much better ones, see Robin Wong's review:


I completely agree with you, there are substantial issues with these photos across the board. Non-critical focus, focused everywhere but the eyes, little or no attention paid to background, therefore leaving us just to guess at what quality of bokeh the glass may have. I won't even get started on exposure and color grading.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 15:11 UTC
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: Wow, über sharp
But let's face it, it's not comparable with the Canon 135L for portrait pictures, the canon melts the bg completely.
But the oly can easily be the better landscape lens, it's much more portable

I wouldn't classify lenses as "portrait" or "landscape" lenses by their focal length alone. There are plenty of examples of phenomenal landscape photographs taken with lenses > 50mm, just as I've seem some remarkable people photographs taken with lenses < 35mm.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 15:09 UTC
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6