According to the article you're linking to, he actually used a D7000 alongside the D800 - you missed off a '0'.
JordanAT: So that means PS/LR CC edition for $9.99 is also available? The original PS/CC press release said that it would be released with LR 5.2.
D Sharp, I agree: the FAQs still state £7.14 + VAT, and the homepage of Adobe's UK site states that it costs £8.78 (which is basically £7.14 + VAT (Irish VAT is 23%, not 20% as in the UK - Adobe UK is based in Ireland)). But clicking on the link under the £8.78 headline brings you to the CC page where it states, as you point out, that it will cost £9.75! Maybe someone's messed up here, but far from a good start...
Edit: looks like someone did mess up - see here: http://forums.adobe.com/message/5690835#5690835
So the price is still as they stated, £8.78 per month with VAT.
Paul Guba: I guess if you want to distribute your high resolution images for free that is great. I am unsure why I would want to do that.
You can make albums private, so only people who you specifically choose can view the album, not the public at large. That would be a valid reason for wanting full resolution images.
mrdancer: I noticed a few folks here are using Photoshop. I've tried using Photoshop several times in the past, but it seems to take forever to construct panoramas, and the results are usually less than satisfactory. More importantly, it locks up on larger files (I usually stitch several dozen images at a time). I've found that M$ 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.
Absolutic: Blown highlights I see....
Me too. NASA needs to keep an eye on the histograms, and shoot raw!! ;-)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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? :)
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-recallTry to keep up.
hbux: Is this going to run in CS4?
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.
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.
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?
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"!
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.
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.
Chaitanya S: user interface looks impressive.
I think there's a bit more to it than just a new interface colour.
Quantum3: Lightroom 4 has nice improvements, but new features? None... Just a rearrangement of the old stuff. The Density Panel (wrongly named "Basic") is some how, unpredictable in certain types of adjustments and quite lame too. Should be another blacks slider, like in LR3, because this one moves too much pixel data from shadows (it's equivalent to fill light), washing out the image. Of course, this happens with underexposed images. I do many underexposed images in order to fill the shadows when shooting landscapes and in LR4, there is no way to put back some blacks like in LR3 with the blacks slider. I like how works the clarity, but it also increases the contrast (by radius enlargement) in higher values instead of keeping the fixed radius like in LR3.
They should keep some features of LR3 instead of changing their algorithms.
And as for the new features, all the LR community was asking for a more organic type of neutral density filter but nothing of that happened.
Density panel? I think 'Basic' is much more self-explanatory. Calling it ‘density panel’ may be logical to you, but not I suspect to most LR users. It's called basic because you carry out the basic tonal and colour adjustments in this panel - how can that be called density?
Personally, I'm finding the new adjustments to be far superior than the older PV2010 - itself an evolution of PV2003. You should stick with it and it'll start to become more logical to use. I think most users who've been feeding back to various forums are very happy that Adobe have spent so much effort re-writing their develop algorithms, and I bet this is more important to most than an improved neutral density filter effect. Would you prefer that Adobe just keep on using an old 2003 set of algorithms to process your raw files, or would you prefer them to make use of new techniques and thinking that allow for greater control and higher quality rendering of your images? I know which one I'd go for...