W5JCK

W5JCK

Lives in United States Arlington, TX, United States
Works as a retired Technical Writer
Has a website at www.w5jck.com
Joined on Dec 10, 2011

Comments

Total: 133, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

W5JCK: To be clear, there is NO upgrade price to go from 6.x to 6.4. That is an incremental upgrade and is free. Upgrade prices are only for 5.x and earlier to 6.x.

For those having issues with installing try opening 6.3 and using the Help --> Upgrade menu item. It has always worked flawlessly for me on my Mac. The Adobe website is as bloated and convoluted as their software, good luck finding anything there.

Seriously? Judging from all the earlier posts about having to pay for 6.4 I would say many had no clue, as usual.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2016 at 17:33 UTC

To be clear, there is NO upgrade price to go from 6.x to 6.4. That is an incremental upgrade and is free. Upgrade prices are only for 5.x and earlier to 6.x.

For those having issues with installing try opening 6.3 and using the Help --> Upgrade menu item. It has always worked flawlessly for me on my Mac. The Adobe website is as bloated and convoluted as their software, good luck finding anything there.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 15:22 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Schweikert: Well LR 6.4 standalone crashes at start. Tried multiple updates and now full reinstall with update. Just craps out.

iMac running 10.8.5

Back to 6.3 to get work done.

I installed 6.4 on my MacBook Pro via the Update feature in LR 6.3 menus. It works fine with El Capitan.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2016 at 02:27 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: Prince of the Night (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

BadScience: if one is going to post an image with a tutorial, then the image has to be

A) good in the first place
B) processed with technical excellence

A) the scene; well its a stunning location - so difficult to mess it up really. But when shooting stars there are generally two ways to do it: with a fast lens and high ISO to get a shutter speed so that the stars appear as points; or with a low ISO to get star trails. Here the shutter is too long and the stars are ellipitical due to motion blur. For no reason.

B) the processing is abysmal. Far to brown and murky when it needs to be crisp and contrasty (the pool looks like a bog). Why is there a horrible brown smudge around the edge of the mountains?

Why are the stars not visible reflected in the pool? They would surely be orders of magnitude brighter than the muddy grey rocks which reflect perfectly?

What exactly was going on in the processing to mess this up?

Stars will noticeably trail if the exposure is too long. The old rule of thumb for 35mm film cameras was the 600 Rule. That is, 600 divided by focal length of lens. That rule doesn't work that well with digital, even full frame digital. Better is the 400 Rule for FF and the 267 Rule for APS-C cameras. But even that sometimes leaves star trails. If the OP used a FF camera with 16mm lens, then 30 sec exposure was too long. If he used an APS-C camera, then 30 sec exposure was way too long. But the real sad part is he used a terrible night sky lens that ruined the stars with horrible coma. And the next bad part is he shot at ISO 6400 which is too noisy. He should have used a faster and better IQ lens with better techniques to get decent stars. You will see much better star fields from the average poster in the DPReview Astrophotography forum.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2015 at 22:13 UTC
In reply to:

D200_4me: Despite all the crying and whining online, somehow I managed to figure out how to use the 6.2 interface and it was still a one-click "just import my dang photos" process. It worked well for me then and continues to work well for me now. No big news here. I never ran into any bugs (maybe I don't use the functions others were using?) and on my Windows 8 (now Windows 10) system, it keeps on churning out the files. Shooting raw, convert to DNG, export to jpg on PC as well as various online services. No issues.

My, so how does it feel to crawl up Adobe's backside? You must be pretty far up in there by now.

I too figured out the 6.2 method, but it sucked and took a while to drill down to the last directory. I really like the old import method much better. I installed this update and it is a great improvement, even though it takes us back in time!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2015 at 20:39 UTC

They are kidding, right? These are slow lenses. Why not just buy Rokinon lenses that f/1.4 or f/2.8. Much better deal, much better lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 10, 2015 at 01:28 UTC as 44th comment | 8 replies
On article Holga Digital camera project launched on Kickstarter (150 comments in total)

A fool with an urge to throw away money at Kickstarter is born every second. Might as well buy lottery tickets. Better chance of getting some of your investment back.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 31, 2015 at 21:56 UTC as 53rd comment
In reply to:

W5JCK: I don't understand the concept of making a $1300 bridge camera that is okay for taking Facebook and Instagram images but not images good enough to print. An a6000 with kit 210mm telephoto will do a much better job and cost less, and you will have printable images that are in focus. None, absolutely none, of these sample photos are good. That might be more photographer error than anything, but these tiny 1" sensors are never going to produce any real quality.

Digimat, you need to study photography physics. An f/2.8 lens on a 1" sensor is the equivalent of f/5.0 on an APS-C camera. So you are not losing two stops with a a6000 + 210mm kit zoom. You are gaining better sensor, better focus, better speed, and pretty much better everything including IQ, and all for less money and in a smaller package. The RX10 Mk I and II are both colossal wastes of money for grossly overpriced bridge cameras. I understand the allure of the pocket-able RX100 series, but not this big, lackluster monster.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 18:18 UTC

I don't understand the concept of making a $1300 bridge camera that is okay for taking Facebook and Instagram images but not images good enough to print. An a6000 with kit 210mm telephoto will do a much better job and cost less, and you will have printable images that are in focus. None, absolutely none, of these sample photos are good. That might be more photographer error than anything, but these tiny 1" sensors are never going to produce any real quality.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 13:52 UTC as 51st comment | 6 replies

The only awards Canon deserves to sweep are the camera equivalents of the Razzies! Canon simply doesn't innovate anymore, rarely comes out with a totally new model, and rarely approaches the quality of Sony and Nikon. Meh....

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2015 at 14:13 UTC as 55th comment | 2 replies
On article DJI Phantom 3 Standard photography drone unveiled (73 comments in total)

If I lived where there were a lot of drones being used by jerks, I would pay big money for a directional EMP device. Someone needs to build and market an affordable one. It would be great. Just point it at the drone and blast it with EMP (electro-magnetic pulse), and watch that fried annoyance fall from the sky without a trace of what happened to it. :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2015 at 13:51 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies

In many of these samples the lighting doesn't seem right. Look at the last one. Why is the person so dark and shadowy while the table and puzzle pieces are so well lit?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2015 at 13:18 UTC as 21st comment

My Sony a7 original cost me half as much as the 5DS and it still out scores the top of the line Canon! Glad I dropped Canon and went with Sony.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 19:56 UTC as 124th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

ddtwenty: Camera on ISS?
Why the position of image is so static?

I thought ISS will fly in very high speed all the time.

Put your mouse cursor on one of the tall skyscrapers and you will see the movement. Ground level things like roads don't show enough depth to indicate much movement from the high altitude, but tall objects do.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2015 at 21:30 UTC
On article Canon PowerShot G3 X: What you need to know (608 comments in total)

The original G1 X remains the only decent "X" model of the "G" series. And even it had a lackluster Canon sensor, compared to Sony sensors. But it did have a VF and a fully articulating LCD and plenty of dials and buttons. The other "X" models of the "G" series have all been too compromised by cost saving design changes to be worth buying. And while 600mm f/5.6 sounds good to the uninitiated, that translates into a slow lens that would be as dark as an f/10 on an APS-C sensor camera. So if you are going to shoot at 600mm the subject better be well lit, otherwise you better use a tripod and a long shutter and hope nothing moves within the FoV. And at 600mm f/5.6 I bet it is not sharp anywhere but perhaps in the center. Most likely that lens will need to be stopped down to at least f/8 and possibly f/11 to get a reasonably sharp image beyond the center.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2015 at 14:49 UTC as 91st comment | 4 replies
On article Sony adds XAVC S and high bitrate video to a6000 (185 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wolfgang Fieger: Not so impresdive as the same company never offered any firmware update for their pro model A99. Thought that body really needs some improvements that could be provided easily with updates

If you got 2 or 3 FW updates for a Sony camera you should be happy. Try owning a Canon which will rarely, if ever, get a FW update unless they are nailed to the wall by a major flaw they need to fix. Canon will gladly sell you the next model, but forget FW updates. And oh BTW, only a moron would think the FW update for one camera is not impressive because they haven't released one for another unrelated camera. @pcblade nailed it, though some morons apparently didn't get his sarcasm!!!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 17, 2015 at 15:01 UTC
On article Canon EOS Rebel T6s Review (468 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rodrigo Ayres Bordin: Is it possible to connect the camera to the computer, and download the pictures directly to a folder (Windows), or the camera only connects to smartphones?

Probably easier just to pull out the SD Card and plug it into the PC. Almost every PC has a card reader now. That way you don't have to mess with the Canon software unless you just want to.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2015 at 20:46 UTC

Butt ugly with too few dials and buttons. Looks like a high school class project. I'll leave it for pompous idiots with way more money than photography sense.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 14:41 UTC as 48th comment | 6 replies

Kickstarter, the place to go to beg for money when you are too lazy or too stupid to write a business plan and secure proper financing. Most of that KS crap never even makes it to market. Some of the KS projects have been little more than a scam to raise money for people who were too lazy to work. Enough with the BS KS crap already.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 14:29 UTC as 14th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Michael Ma: A filter for a lazy photographer to can't be bothered to take the photograph properly.

You are assuming this algorithm is just for professional photographers. It is for everyone, including the tourists on trains, planes, and in automobiles who cannot open a window to get the shot of a lifetime. Even pros find themselves in that situation on occasion.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2015 at 14:29 UTC
Total: 133, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »