Heh, a brighter background, and larger text & buttons. The main problem with Photoshop Elements was that users had insecurities about whether or not it was professional... and now these 2 changes lunge it in exactly the wrong direction, adding everything people don't want to see in this program: brighter and larger.
If the interface had always been like this, perhaps people could appreciate it more (there are some programs out there that pull off bright/large very well), but there's a contrast effect where you compare something new with the version you had before it... and I can't imagine anyone liking 1) suddenly having large buttons, whereas before they were small... and 2) a bright interface, whereas before it was dark and professional. For instance, I absolutely can't stand editing darker images on a bright screen, because you can't see into the dark regions.
Hopefully, there will be options for this stuff, but I wonder how many people will find them.
Dario D: Unlike a lot of commenters, I trust that the Curiosity guys are making their camera decisions for logical reasons.
About the overall approach, though, I'm wondering if Kate Piecrust has a good point. She said:"I also find it interesting that a Mars probe ten years from now will, based on how things are done at NASA, likely be sporting the technology available today (...)"
If that's true, NASA might want to examine that, and see if there isn't a more future-proof way to approach this stuff.
(Heck, if it could technically work, there could just be a row of slots in the next rover's arm, ready to have a bunch of top-level phones duct-taped into them. (When one dies, it gets ejected.) To keep things simple, and isolated from the rest of the bot, each phone would have its own tiny solar panel, and an antennae to send its images to the MRO/whatever. (Of course, this is all oversimplified, but I'm of the impression that simplicity is an engineer's main thing. I'd send a camera Barbie.))
By the way, this panorama looks great: http://www.panoramas.dk/mars/curiosity-first-color-360.html(tons of still images stitched together)
Well, I'm not saying NASA must make the right decisions just because they're NASA. ;) Like I suggested, there's a good chance it's the *wrong* decision, just that it's made with actual reasoning behind it, not the wild idiocy that some seem to imply. It's like in sports: the coach makes an informed, probably very smart decision, but who's to say it's the RIGHT one? Then, when things go south, the commentators/fans want to lynch the coach, as if he did something *wrong*.
I certainly don't know that NASA did anything wrong here. I'm just saying: I hope they examine their methodology, and make certain they're going in the right direction, for next time. Sending a $2.5 billion probe to Mars with an 8 year-old camera on it sounds a little... off.
Unlike a lot of commenters, I trust that the Curiosity guys are making their camera decisions for logical reasons.
I've long thought that all cameras should have detailed in-camera movies, teaching how to do everything. (These ones look very specific/advanced, but I guess if you're buying a $7,000 camera, you're past the basics. I can't wait til all cameras come with full training.)
Kissing trains. :DGreat shot!
Wow, fantastic shot...
Yay, new Photoshop. :)I'm loving the darker interface. It's finally easier to see dark regions in images. (I'm just confused why Photoshop *Elements* got this ability 6 years ago, whereas this extremely expensive pro version of Photoshop has taken this long to catch up.)
On paper, the new features list seems pretty long, but CS6 still feels underwhelming. Consider this: I do heavy photography, digital painting, AND a moderate amount of web/interface design, and none of that is heavily affected in CS6.
I wish Adobe would prioritize these areas:- Lots of new Filters (like a post-processing studio, lens flare studio, texture stuff...)- Painting Tools- A more "buttonized" interface, with less things hidden in "menu closets".- 100% user-controlled toolbars. (example: I'd like to make myself a painting rack. Also, in the main toolbar, Mixer Brush is currently hidden under Brush. I'd rather make it visible at all times, then pile all of my unused tools "inside" some other button.)
I hope these companies (including Panasonic/Olympus) deeply think about what is said here:http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?55853-Why-have-Micro-4-3-lenses-on-large-body-cams&p=438981
Much good on Scott Kelby for doing this.(btw, his books/stuff helped get me going in photography.)
Oh boy, lots of great info on camera sensors (at least the parts my non-engineer self can follow, lol).To add to the social issues list, perhaps, here's a big one I've noticed:It seems camera companies have a deliberate unwillingness (still) to allow Point-&-Shoot cameras to perform in darker environments (like indoors), which likely contributes to this worldwide problem of people having dirt-poor perception of their self-image.
In other words, I believe the horrible results we get from frontal-flash, or underexposed, poor-looking photos, is a worldwide scourge on human self-perception. People already think they're ugly in GOOD shots, so, imagine what must happen when they see themselves portrayed even worse than reality.
Isn't it affordable for a company to just use a lower-megapixel version of even a 3 year-old D-SLR sensor (better low-light), or, for that matter, add a single screw to the onboard flash, allowing it to pivot upward, and become a beautifying bounce flash?