Right up there with the EVF for stupid decisions.
lumigraphics: I had an A850 and loved it. But the shift to EVF killed it for me. Not even considering going back unless they bring back an OVF.
I have an a6000 and the EVF is vastly inferior to the OVF on my 6D.
I had an A850 and loved it. But the shift to EVF killed it for me. Not even considering going back unless they bring back an OVF.
lumigraphics: A Sony a5100 and pancake lens is reasonably close to the same size and a lot more flexible (I own an a5100, a6000, iPhone 4s, and iPhone 6.)
Yes its easier to carry the iPhone and a camera module than another gadget, but just saying.
I don't really do snapshot photography. I prefer to have my 6D outfit, but the Sony mirrorless bodies are small enough.
I shot medium and large format film for years, so all these little cameras just seem like toys ;)
A Sony a5100 and pancake lens is reasonably close to the same size and a lot more flexible (I own an a5100, a6000, iPhone 4s, and iPhone 6.)
I was always a big Aperture fan. Although I've been forced into Lightroom (Photos is a joke for a working pro), there are huge UI holes and missing features in LR.
Instead of fixing some of the problems, LR CC/6 doesnt really address anything useful for me. Ok, yeah, using the GPU. Otherwise I see nothing in the release notes that I care one bit about.
I'd love to see Adobe fix the myriad UI problems and make LR a lot easier to use.
Sorry but you guys botched a bunch of this. :sigh:
"Total light" is completely unimportant. Yes, there is less light hitting a smaller sensor, but it doesn't matter because its a smaller total area. Light PER SENSEL is the same.
And lenses don't matter at all. Given a frame-filling grey card (as an example) a 50mm f/4 and 100mm f/4 will give exactly the same 18% grey image on any sensor size. If lenses didn't work that way, you couldn't have external light meters.
Larger digital formats aren't less noisy because they are larger so they collect more light, its because they can have a lower sensel density. In the film days, it was because you didn't have to enlarge so much with a bigger negative.
smdh...and I'm only on page 2.
Eleson: Weird discussion.Who are you all accusing of breaking copyrights?- The person on fb that orders a print of a picture that you have agreed to share to them?- Or the print service company that offers the service to print a provided picture on an item?
Think before you share. Or just be happy that someone liked a picture you took anough to spend some cash on printing it.
No. I'm not happy that photos I upload, which are my copyrighted IP, are being exploited by some unauthorized service so they can compete with me and sell prints. I sell prints myself and a third party does NOT have my permission to do so.
If this company was selling coffee mugs with Disney characters on them, you better believe they would be sued into oblivion.
Seriously? This is idiotic. The images are nothing alike.
Dirk Jan: Thanks for the write up! Learned a new trick after using PS professionally for a year or ten, hehe. Then again, I don't do much skin retouching.Only one thing didn't work for me in CS5; copying the red channel and pasting it as a new layer through the the channel list. I did it exactly how you described (clicking to activate red channel only, ctr+c, clicking RGB channel -> ctrl+v), yet it only wants to copy all channels at once it seems. Through the Image menu it worked fine though.
I'm 47 and would put my work up against most of those posting on this board. Photoshop is a tool, used right it can make you images sparkle. I use a similar technique and get great results.
Yeah excellent work here! I gave this image 4 1/2 stars, it deserves the top 3 finish.