english_Wolf

english_Wolf

Lives in United States FL, United States
Works as a IT Consultant
Joined on Oct 28, 2007

Comments

Total: 37, showing: 21 – 37
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Gary Sibio: I have a paid-for copy of 6.0 and want to upgrade to 6.1 but I can't find a link anywhere for upgrading. Ho do I do this?

Scroll down, the link has been posted.

(I used yesterday)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 29, 2012 at 19:07 UTC
In reply to:

Dave: Once ACDsee Pro6 is purchased and the prograpm dopwnloaded, how many different computers that one owns, do they allow you to install the program on, with the Lic code they provide upon purchase?

Each licensed copy of this Software may be used on one single computer location by one user. "Use" of the Software means that you have loaded, installed, or run the Software on a computer or similar device.

http://nl.acdsee.com/support/downloads/updates/eula

Article 3.2

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 17:25 UTC

Well, my initial complaint about the new ACDSee 6 has been addressed.

The menu to confirm delete has been changed to remove it from the OS wide settings. ACDSee is back on my 'recommend' list.

For the ACDSee aficionados I use ACDSee nearly since its origin, 1997. The version 3.1 that I purchased is still working with standard files but not with the newer stuff.

Also, I noted that a couple of folks here mention that to keep a RAW file intact it must be 'read-only'. This is wrong. RAW does not change. The modifications made on the image are recorded on a 'hidden' text file. Delete that file and RAW is back in all it's glory and weaknesses.

If dealing with DNG there is no 'protection' at all. You just have to make a backup of your originals before starting messing with them. DNG is a processed format and not a RAW by the way, while better than a JPG the image coming out of the camera is not the unmodified sensor capture.

(Yes, RAW does have some processing - JPG thumbnail)

Direct link | Posted on Nov 28, 2012 at 17:21 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

Ejner Kristensen: My ideal camera would be an affordable Leica M.

I do not think this about comparisons or camera you wish you had..

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2012 at 17:43 UTC
On ACD Systems issues ACDSee Pro 6 and ACDSee 15 article (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

english_Wolf: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=42606320

Please read, found an important flaw that can lead to total destruction of data. I canceled my pre-order after I found it.

Basically ACDSee demands that you place the 'file delete' confirm at the OS level (recycle bin option) vs leaving it as an option limited to ACDSee image review manipulation.

Before we could select tools-option-file management confirm delete behavior on/off. Now this being set at the OS level. This means that if you accidentally select 'delete' when at the disk level or while opening a file (any program), say good bye to your data until you retrieve it from the recycle bin.

I am an IT consultnt and system administrator and ACDSee is now off my list of recommendation for those I consult for and definitively barred from the network I administer.

Note this information (use recycling option) came from ACDSee tech support.

Panicky? Open the delete 'delete w/o confirm at the OS level?

Ask any network administrator the mayhem that will cause. The option was there before. Why did they take it out?

As I said ACDSee 6 is banned in the networks I supervise (small photographer firms) and my own network. No one else other than MS has so far done this stupid thing.

You will change your tune when something important is deleted and the PC refuse to start and has to be restored with the accompanying loss of data (24/48 hours) on a somewhat correctly backed up system.

Also, note the 'until you retrieve from the recycling bin' IF possible. Folks that step on the mouse still exists, for info. ACDSee just empowers stupidity in this case.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2012 at 11:42 UTC
On ACD Systems issues ACDSee Pro 6 and ACDSee 15 article (75 comments in total)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=42606320

Please read, found an important flaw that can lead to total destruction of data. I canceled my pre-order after I found it.

Basically ACDSee demands that you place the 'file delete' confirm at the OS level (recycle bin option) vs leaving it as an option limited to ACDSee image review manipulation.

Before we could select tools-option-file management confirm delete behavior on/off. Now this being set at the OS level. This means that if you accidentally select 'delete' when at the disk level or while opening a file (any program), say good bye to your data until you retrieve it from the recycle bin.

I am an IT consultnt and system administrator and ACDSee is now off my list of recommendation for those I consult for and definitively barred from the network I administer.

Note this information (use recycling option) came from ACDSee tech support.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2012 at 16:36 UTC as 7th comment | 7 replies
On CVP-7242 (2) photo in Phil's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

Quite frankly I am not impressed ast all your post processing is obvious (look around the nose, the lips.
Also this young woman has pimples all over and were left there for all to see.

This should never have been as the 'winner'. It just shows to me that folks do not look at details, even when offered.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 21, 2012 at 17:24 UTC as 1st comment
On Nikon D800 preview (1110 comments in total)
In reply to:

english_Wolf: Competitor to medium camera? I think not. Competitor to the high end full frame cameras (regardless of brand)? Certainly.

What I miss is the sensel density comparison. It is important to know as low sensel density creates a faster performance and captures images that more vibrant (Nikon D3/4). That said, higher density captures more details and vibrancy can be brought back (sort of) with post processing (Nikon D3x00). The choices lies there and no where else.

The LEAF backs now go up to 80MB files... but what is the sensel density? Same reasoning, same questions. http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/products_aptus212.asp

Due to the lack of investment. This changing with the new consortium created recently (Mamya, Leaf and Phase one). The future will tell.

In the mean time $ for $ the FF DSLR is way ahead but in the sensel area, the FF DSLRs are gaining ground but is still far from catching up when it comes to light quality.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 16:46 UTC
On Nikon D800 preview (1110 comments in total)

Competitor to medium camera? I think not. Competitor to the high end full frame cameras (regardless of brand)? Certainly.

What I miss is the sensel density comparison. It is important to know as low sensel density creates a faster performance and captures images that more vibrant (Nikon D3/4). That said, higher density captures more details and vibrancy can be brought back (sort of) with post processing (Nikon D3x00). The choices lies there and no where else.

The LEAF backs now go up to 80MB files... but what is the sensel density? Same reasoning, same questions. http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/products_aptus212.asp

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 16:23 UTC as 299th comment | 8 replies

Actually, regardless of perfection in the electronic view finder I avoid them like the plague.
Why? I have thick glasses and my eyes cannot adapt (no dioptic elements is able to correct my vision). The result is that I purchase only DSLR cameras whose view screen can change to prism adjustment. When what I need 'snaps' into place as I focus, I do not seen the image but feel the difference. Then I snap.
I do not see any electronic capable of doing that so, for me, at least, my answer to this progress is 'blah'.
Would love to see this technology applies to my computer monitors thought.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2012 at 16:39 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply

In my opinion pixel has published an answer from a fraud, a hobbyist w/o a clue.

The bride comment? Not worth an answer.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 04:33 UTC as 88th comment
In reply to:

english_Wolf: Cost of traveling, per mile (from-to business)
Assistant pay, 'flat fee' (if any)
Cleaner cost (for 'uniform')
Time passed to shoot the wedding
Cost of printing (if any)
Time to create album(s) or folders (if any)
Cost of said albums and folders (if any)

For the film photographer (traditional)
Cost of film
Cost of processing
Cost of shipping
Cost of handling
Cost of lab PP

The rest is BS as it needs to be calculated over a year, using the total cost of running a business divided by the numbers of pictures taken in a year and multiplied by the number of pictures taken (VS. sold) by event.

Taxes ARE NOT A COST (unlike what that person said - 30% on 50k - cost??? wow!, this guy must be in France!)

As far as I know the tax is calculated on the NET profit, not the GROSS income to pay 15k you need serious net profit, not the measly gross of 50k. Sales taxes are limited to goods and not services. They are well bellow the claimed 30%, they are added to the bill and never inclusive.

Should have been taxes on gross profit NOT net profit.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 04:31 UTC
In reply to:

CanonPhotog: And I'm sorry, but counting your home rental (unless you would normally live in a cardboard box) as part of your wedding photography "expenses" simply because you're too cheap (or poor) to rent a separate space for your studio work is not exactly being very realistic (or honest) about the "true" costs of being a wedding photographer. Nobody cares what your personal expenses are - not your employer, and certainly not your client.

And what's that about high speed internet costs? $2500? Presumably per year? Well then, cut out the high speed internet throughout the rest of the year (8 months) when you aren't shooting weddings! That would save you over $1600/year.

I pay $370.00 pr year for the hosting (unlimited storage, unlimited domains and so forth.
I pay 480 for vonage phone per year
I pay 600 for ISP connection
Mobile is 360 per year
Where are the missing 690? And I included the phone, so really where is the grand missing?

In any case... If you read the post... 15k tax on 7k income??? Man, this woman is paying the gvt to take pictures!!! (remember the tax is paid on gross profit!, not gross income)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 04:30 UTC
In reply to:

thrill2k: One question I have is what did wedding photographers make in 70's, 80's, 90's, etc. I think if you are good you should charge whatever you can get, but has digital increased the amount you can charge, because you can deliver so much more?

You are talking about garbage collectors. Shoot as many as possible, it is cheap, hopefully one photo will be decent.

What is cheap here is the initial work.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 04:20 UTC

I have been a wedding photographer and I have yet to see so many lies and misinformation on photographer's cost, not counting the infamous $15k taxes on gross of 50k. Taxes are calculated on gross - expenses i.e. net profit - and that is just for starter...

A potential bride ('PB') posts a dubious comment on Craigslist...
A photographer answers with something that is as ridiculous as the 'PB' comment:

If you own your own business you will quickly spot all the half truths, lies and misinformation offered by the 'celebrated answer'. It is making the round in trade magazines.

Home: IRS allows only a % of a dwelling rent to be deducted if partially used by a business, same goes for any other expenses that are related to it (such has internet)
Car: A car lease cannot be entirely claimed at cost and deduction either (emergency rental can)
IT and photo equipment is prorated and can be taking out of the cost over x number of years, depending of purchase cost or lease.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 03:58 UTC as 90th comment

Repair, maintenance are fully deductible; exception: software.

WEB cost is grossly exaggerated. The cost of high speed is about $50.00 per month, the cost of ISP for storage is now in abysmally low.

Real cost of a wedding for the photographer takes a fraction of all the above especially when the 'studio' does other things. Like the mentioned family and senior portrait.

What the responder did not (for good reason?) approach is the difference quality between and mediocrity. Regardless of economic climate you pay for what you get, end of the ONLY story.
According to what I read this photographer is not worth any money she claims. She cannot even figure out her own cost!!! So take pictures?

The only things you can itemize as direct cost of a wedding are:

Digital photographer
Time passed to PP SOME of the pictures
Cost of media (disk or like media to deliver)

Cross over cost (digital/traditional)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 03:55 UTC as 91st comment | 1 reply

Cost of traveling, per mile (from-to business)
Assistant pay, 'flat fee' (if any)
Cleaner cost (for 'uniform')
Time passed to shoot the wedding
Cost of printing (if any)
Time to create album(s) or folders (if any)
Cost of said albums and folders (if any)

For the film photographer (traditional)
Cost of film
Cost of processing
Cost of shipping
Cost of handling
Cost of lab PP

The rest is BS as it needs to be calculated over a year, using the total cost of running a business divided by the numbers of pictures taken in a year and multiplied by the number of pictures taken (VS. sold) by event.

Taxes ARE NOT A COST (unlike what that person said - 30% on 50k - cost??? wow!, this guy must be in France!)

As far as I know the tax is calculated on the NET profit, not the GROSS income to pay 15k you need serious net profit, not the measly gross of 50k. Sales taxes are limited to goods and not services. They are well bellow the claimed 30%, they are added to the bill and never inclusive.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 03:53 UTC as 92nd comment | 2 replies
Total: 37, showing: 21 – 37
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »