Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 15, 2007


Total: 96, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article PIX 2015: Chasing light with Joe McNally (35 comments in total)

Too much philosophy there Joe.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2015 at 18:48 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

Frank_BR: 46 gigapixel... RAW or JPEG? Compressed or uncompressed? 12 or 14 bit?

Does it matter at 46gig?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2015 at 22:22 UTC
In reply to:

danny006: It doesn't look like the milky way to me?

thats because the liars from NASA have sold us a bill of goods. This image is much closer to truth than the fake CGI we get from NASA.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2015 at 22:21 UTC
In reply to:

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.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 21:37 UTC

There is a reason why these photos were released - to stop NASA conspiracies.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 20:18 UTC as 56th comment

We do know, well some of us at least, that there is a lot of Photoshopping going on at NASA.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 30, 2015 at 19:05 UTC as 6th comment
On Connect post iPhone 6s and 6s Plus come with 12MP camera and 4K video (218 comments in total)

If iphone continues with this pace they will soon replace my DSLR sooner than I thought

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2015 at 17:21 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

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.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 16:01 UTC

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?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 15:59 UTC as 40th comment | 2 replies
On article Fujifilm X100T successor rumored to feature new lens (311 comments in total)

if the want to improve, put in a little zoom.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 15:39 UTC as 61st comment

Sony is the winner in the mirrorless department, and is now rivaling DSLR's in other respects.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2015 at 15:32 UTC as 200th comment | 14 replies

Kudos to Canon.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2015 at 17:33 UTC as 43rd comment

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.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 19:16 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies

Only Canon can legally scam people out of money like that.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 17:43 UTC as 49th comment

The skin tones are awful, is it the camera or the lens?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2015 at 17:39 UTC as 55th comment | 8 replies
On article Nikon D810A added to studio test scene comparison (26 comments in total)

High ISO defeintely holds up better in noise and color

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2015 at 18:16 UTC as 7th comment

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.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 05:32 UTC as 94th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

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.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

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).

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

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.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 15:34 UTC
Total: 96, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »