fatdeeman: Ok conspiracy theorists come at me, hit me with your best shot GO!
It took NASA 50 years to carefully craft these images before release to public.
There is a reason why these photos were released - to stop NASA conspiracies.
We do know, well some of us at least, that there is a lot of Photoshopping going on at NASA.
If iphone continues with this pace they will soon replace my DSLR sooner than I thought
donsdavid: Some professional photographers will not care if it's bigger, heavier or more expensive as long as it outperforms other lenses significantly. I own a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art lens and while it performs optically well, its AF consistency on accuracy is not on par with Canon L lenses counterparts. I have even found out that I get more shots in-focus using a notoriously-slow-AF Canon 85mm f/1.2L II than a Sigma 35mm Art.
...and some professionals will care.
at this price, this lens better take pictures while I sleep, otherwise no thank you. Besides what's been happening to Canon and Nikon lately? Is their business model to make poor photographers even poorer?
if the want to improve, put in a little zoom.
Sony is the winner in the mirrorless department, and is now rivaling DSLR's in other respects.
Kudos to Canon.
New lenses are always exciting until the price is revealed. Now I know why patience is considered a virtue. If you buy everything at the time of announcement you'd go broke.
$30K?????Only Canon can legally scam people out of money like that.
The skin tones are awful, is it the camera or the lens?
High ISO defeintely holds up better in noise and color
Verdict, if you own D810 stick with D810, 5DSr will not make your life better.Congrats to Canon users for getting a camera they needed.
Tower: Why people to blame the software. LR never as good as native camera software. I means LR could not be better then the Phocus or DPP.
LR is better in many respects including mass-post processing and cataloging. It does a lot of things well besides RAW processing.
Mark Alan Thomas: At last, subscribers and nervous persons can remove every trace of reality from their photos. If that’s not worth the price of extortion, I don’t know what is.
The practical application for de-haze would be done to a photo that was shot through an airplane window where glass reflection in the form of hazing is sort of apparent. De-haze works like the Black lever in the Basics panel (sort of).
NJOceanView: I may be in the minority, but for the cost of one month's smart phone bill, I get CC for an entire year, and I use it daily. I'm excited to read of new surprise improvements which for me are very useful: 1) I use content aware a lot and if it's faster that's great; 2) I often have to blur (e.g., remove items from a wall and then find the resultant distribution of values on the new "blank" wall is just not even enough) and then add my best-guess level of grain on top of that to ensure it doesn't look out of place; and 3) I'll probably use the de-haze feature only a handful of times a year, but I expect it will be great when I do need it. These are all tweaks to my work which purposely retains a very natural and unprocessed look.
So I'm downloading it; I'm excited to check it out; and I'm very happy Adobe keeps throwing these surprise improvements at us. P.S. For those who consider CC too expensive, check out OnOne's very cost-effective, pay-once, and similar-to-PS product.
I'm ticked off right now, because one of the plugins I use with Adobe just got obsolete by this new version, and I have to re-purchase an upgraded plugin to make it work with the latest version. Plus, I don't know why Adobe does this, but with every major upgrade I have to manually reinstall all my plugins and pray that they will work on the latest version.
Jylppy: I hate the thought that my photos are managed & edited with a software by greedy corporation like Adobe that I do not trust. There are companies that have earned their trust, but Adobe is not one of those.
@Barry PearsonI'm happy with CC, but because my job pays for it. Now, if I had to pay for it myself, I'd be looking really hard at alternatives.
j900: Dehaze in CC but not in standalone lightroom, one month after release. Am I the only one feeling screwed? Adobe's getting nasty and they will lose the business of some.
There is a new software one should look into, called Photo Affinity. Does pretty much everything that lightroom and photoshop does for photos.
Can this thing dehaze the thick layer of foundation that some women put on their face before a photoshoot?