azazel1024

azazel1024

Lives in United States MD, United States
Works as a IT Project Manager
Joined on Apr 18, 2012

Comments

Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4
In reply to:

AJG: Glad I've got CS6 Suite, but last time. No chance on CC. I bet the CS6 Suite's packages will sell out fast. Now if they go with Lightroom CC as well and no stand alone package. I will removed adobe from my pc's and mac's for good! I shall start using Aperture, that I have and never used.

Yup, this is the only thing that keeps it mildly tolerable to me. I have CS6 and lightroom 4. I doubt I'll be looking to upgrade from CS6. Possibly ever, but I won't actually claim that. There may come a day where either CC offers enough irresistable goodness or some other image editing program does that I feel compelled to upgrade/pay a subscription (likely over my dead and decaying body).

Lightoom though handles 90% of my workflow and all similar products I have tried have been insufficient to my needs. If Adobe locks up lightroom with this creative cloud crap, then crap. I probably still won't pay for CC, but I'll be real mad. Lightroom I upgrade at every new version. Photoshop, well the last version I used was Elements 8, and frankly that was mostly good enough. I doubt I'll feel a need for an upgrade from CS6 for many, many years to come.

This software as as service thing in frankly bunk.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 12:00 UTC

Well, at least Lightroom is going to be traditional software still.

I think the thing that ticks me off to no end about this kind of stuff is how anti-consumer it is. They aren't doing it for the consumer's benifit. At best they are doing it to "reduce the piracy"...but you know what, I wouldn't be shocked if someone figures out how to pirate it still. You are still going to have to download an install the software, even if it is looking for a connection back to Adobe's servers. I can't picture Adobe making this true "cloud software", otherwise anyone without an internet connection is hosed.

Strike that, anyone who doesn't have a connection is hosed, it might just be those who temporarily don't have connections might not be off there is some kind of off-line mode. Otherwise, what the hell are people going to do traveling and wanting to edit pictures? What about a photographer trying to do image editing on site?

"cloud synching" and their limited online storage are not really feature

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 11:52 UTC as 330th comment | 3 replies

Hmm that is nice that Olympus is acknowledging it. I am planning on getting a 20 in the next week or so and I am worried about potential banding as well using it on my OM-D. Opinions seem very split on it with some saying it causes it and some saying it doesn't.

In my 2 weeks of OM-D use I'd say other than test shots I have only used over ISO1600 a handful of times. At least in general lighting, even with a measly little 60w equivelent LED or CFL light in the room I can shot my Sigma 30mm wide open or my Pany 14 or Oly 45 at an even wider aperature and be fine with the shutter speeds and IBIS.

That said, I'd also be a little annoyed if it turned out that approaching, reaching or exceeding ISO1600 produce really bad visual quality because of shadow banding. It would be nice to have the wider aperature to gain even better handhold ability, not just equal what I have with slower lenses because I can't use higher ISOs.

Fingers crossed I don't run in to the issue.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2012 at 19:49 UTC as 53rd comment

Very nice. I could certainly wish that the price was less, but it is just expensive enough to not be something I can afford anytime soon, but just cheap enough that some day I'll probably end up buying it (new or used).

A 24-70mm equivelent with weather sealing is EXACTLY the kind of walk about lens I want in "rough" weather (the Olympus 12-50/3.5-6.3 is interesting, but even with the OM-d's better high ISO noise, it is just too slow for me). That plus the 35-100/2.8 will make a great selection for event photographers. I notice that the lens doesn't even weigh an entire pound. NICE!

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:53 UTC as 18th comment
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4