Mollysnoot2

Mollysnoot2

Joined on Oct 19, 2011

Comments

Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Tunnel vision in the Underground challenge (5 comments in total)
In reply to:

tecnoworld: Very nice! Just a curiosity, why does the exif show 18mm, if the lens was a 8-16mm?

I wondered the same thing.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 27, 2014 at 12:44 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Guba: Tether support for 810?

You seem to be missing the section in the release notes which reads:

"Newly supported cameras for Tethered Capture in Lightroom 5.7: Nikon D810".

Guess not a priority for Paul Guba to check. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 16:51 UTC

According to the article you're linking to, he actually used a D7000 alongside the D800 - you missed off a '0'.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 13:17 UTC as 34th comment
On Adobe releases Camera Raw 8.2 and Lightroom 5.2 article (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

JordanAT: So that means PS/LR CC edition for $9.99 is also available? The original PS/CC press release said that it would be released with LR 5.2.

D Sharp, I agree: the FAQs still state £7.14 + VAT, and the homepage of Adobe's UK site states that it costs £8.78 (which is basically £7.14 + VAT (Irish VAT is 23%, not 20% as in the UK - Adobe UK is based in Ireland)). But clicking on the link under the £8.78 headline brings you to the CC page where it states, as you point out, that it will cost £9.75! Maybe someone's messed up here, but far from a good start...

Edit: looks like someone did mess up - see here: http://forums.adobe.com/message/5690835#5690835

So the price is still as they stated, £8.78 per month with VAT.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2013 at 22:33 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Guba: I guess if you want to distribute your high resolution images for free that is great. I am unsure why I would want to do that.

You can make albums private, so only people who you specifically choose can view the album, not the public at large. That would be a valid reason for wanting full resolution images.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2013 at 23:11 UTC
On The DSLR Field Camera article (180 comments in total)
In reply to:

mrdancer: I noticed a few folks here are using Photoshop. I've tried using Photoshop several times in the past, but it seems to take forever to construct panoramas, and the results are usually less than satisfactory. More importantly, it locks up on larger files (I usually stitch several dozen images at a time). I've found that M$ ICE seems to work the best of any stitching software I've used. It is fast, super-easy and very forgiving. Best of all, it is free. Just wanted to throw that out there for those of you suffering with Photoshop...

Just to clarify ryansholl, currently the max pixel dimensions in PS are actually 300,000 x 300,000, NOT 30,000. This has been the case for sometime now, but the 30,000 limit still exists for Elements, but certainly not all Adobe products.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 28, 2012 at 11:46 UTC
In reply to:

Absolutic: Blown highlights I see....

Me too. NASA needs to keep an eye on the histograms, and shoot raw!! ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2012 at 21:42 UTC
In reply to:

rondhamalam: Why stitching 55 images of 2MP while they can make out of only 4 images using D800.

NASA is not that smart.

They were worried about getting one that wouldn't focus on the left-hand side.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2012 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

mrxak: I still can't quite get over the sky crane maneuver. This robot is pretty much the coolest thing our species has ever done.

Agreed. I honestly didn't think it would work as there were so many things that could potentially go wrong on the descent (although I was really hoping that it would), and was keeping a close eye on the news to hear if it made it... And of course, it worked flawlessly. Outstanding engineering.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2012 at 21:36 UTC
On Lightroom Photo Import article (117 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sammy Yousef: My workflow is very different. I've only every messed with trial versions of Lightroom but i found to my horror that an earlier version was actually modifying my files (meta-data only). My workflow means that the only software to touch the files when they first come in are OS file copy programs.

I copy to a drive in directory structure that follows the pattern: YYYY\YYYYMMDDDescription. If I have multiple cards I am careful that all files have been copied by checking number of files and total size. I then carefully take care of name collisions and move everything into the top level folder for that shoot. I try not to do any editing at this stage as it complicates things. I run pixelfixer over the directory if I've done any high ISO shooting, and I may split the directory into files by different shooters if my wife and son have been using the cameras.

Now I can create a second copy of the directory, wipe my cards, and start editing the primary copy.

Lightroom doesn't HAVE to write metadata to your files: it's an option you can switch on or off depending on your preference (note that it's on by default though). If you want, LR can just store all the information relating to your images in its catalogue database, and never touch the original files.

M

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 09:50 UTC
In reply to:

mantra: this is the second edition ,isn't it?
i bought the first edition but it is more oriented to the film

does someone buy the second edition ? is a help for digital?

thanks

The snapshot of the front cover included in this article clearly shows that it is in fact the FIFTH edition, as does the article text itself.

M

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2012 at 08:55 UTC
In reply to:

Jim in AZ: $89 PS would be a dream and might actually make more money for Adobe.

No chance of Adobe dropping the price of PS to $89... Sounds like Jim is just dreaming out loud? :)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2012 at 21:15 UTC
On Canon issues allergy warning for EOS 650D/Rebel T4i article (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

shantu: Interesting news about exploding Nikon batteries...so now shall we start bashing Nikon?
http://www.nikonusa.com/Service-And-Support/Service-Advisories/h0ndzaip/EN-EL15-Battery-Recall-Service-Advisory.html

Wonder why DP Review did not cover this news ;)

They did cover it. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/04/25/Nikon-EN-EL15-battery-recall
Try to keep up.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2012 at 09:44 UTC
In reply to:

hbux: Is this going to run in CS4?

No.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 15:40 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photoman: *** Important Bug Found ***

Just found out from a customer I sold a D800E to, that if you use Camera Control Pro 2 or Nikon Transfer / NX View to transfer your RAWs, it drops the image quality down to a 5MP. Use a card reader or Bridge to transfer your RAW files.

I agree, but the Nikon software is apparently changing the metadata that defines what the resolution <should> be, and thus causing an issue for raw processing software that must use this metadata information as part of the processing pipeline: so the metadata is in conflict with the actual file resolution. I don't speak from experience on this one, but as I say, it's being flagged as an issue on some Adobe forum posts, and also by Photoman above, so there must be some truth in it.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:41 UTC
On Just Posted: In-depth Nikon D800 review article (541 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photoman: *** Important Bug Found ***

Just found out from a customer I sold a D800E to, that if you use Camera Control Pro 2 or Nikon Transfer / NX View to transfer your RAWs, it drops the image quality down to a 5MP. Use a card reader or Bridge to transfer your RAW files.

Actually Kodachrome200, there have been several folk reporting this issue on the Adobe forums. It seems to be consistent: Nikon Transfer (at least when directly connecting the camera to a computer) drops the resolution, and also drops the raw file from 14 to 12 bits. Some people have been unable to open their files in LR because of this. Apparently it's messing with the associated metadata tags for those fields. But this is of course an issue with the Nikon software, not the hardware, and I'm sure it'll be fixed ASAP.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 08:20 UTC
In reply to:

djmm: If I send my camera battery back to Nikon, can I still take pictures without battery inside the camera?

Of course not. You're joking, right?

M

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2012 at 09:31 UTC
On Adobe announces Photoshop CS6 and CS6 Extended article (82 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hopn: I have CS5 and just bought 5.5 to take advantage of the free upgrade to CS6. But then I was thinking, upgrade usually ask for previous version serial number, and if you buy 5.5 upgrade now, when installing cs6, just key in 5.5 upgrade? Is my logic off? or this is an opportunity for someone to buy into the suit for upgrade price?

I think we're all talking about the standalone Photoshop, not one of the suites. That explains why you're paying so much more for an upgrade, but nonetheless you seem to be getting a real bargain there with your "workaround"!

M

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2012 at 08:12 UTC
On Adobe announces Photoshop CS6 and CS6 Extended article (82 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hopn: I have CS5 and just bought 5.5 to take advantage of the free upgrade to CS6. But then I was thinking, upgrade usually ask for previous version serial number, and if you buy 5.5 upgrade now, when installing cs6, just key in 5.5 upgrade? Is my logic off? or this is an opportunity for someone to buy into the suit for upgrade price?

Weird, here in the UK it's a flat upgrade price regardless of whether you're on CS3/4/5/5.5 of £190 for the standard version: about $306. Even the extended price is way below $749.

M

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2012 at 17:43 UTC
On Adobe announces Photoshop CS6 and CS6 Extended article (82 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hopn: I have CS5 and just bought 5.5 to take advantage of the free upgrade to CS6. But then I was thinking, upgrade usually ask for previous version serial number, and if you buy 5.5 upgrade now, when installing cs6, just key in 5.5 upgrade? Is my logic off? or this is an opportunity for someone to buy into the suit for upgrade price?

I think you just enter the previous version's serial number when prompted. In fact, if you leave the previous version installed on your machine then it (from memory, might be wrong) doesn't even ask you for it.

Got to say though that I'm puzzled as to why you took this route. Why not just pay for the CS5 to CS6 upgrade? Getting CS5.5 seems an unneccesary step to me. Probably overlooking something!

That said, I have CS5 and intend to move to CS6 with no 'intermediate' step.

M

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2012 at 15:27 UTC
Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »