Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Joined on Nov 4, 2005


Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Preview:panasonic-lumix-dmc-gm5 (301 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pritzl: I found this sentence confusing: "I suspect there are more than a few potential GM5 customers who would like the LX100 experience better, trading its bigger size and (much brighter) fixed lens for more dedicated controls and a bigger viewfinder."

Doesn't the LX100 have more dedicated controls?

I think what was maybe meant by this IMO confusing sentence, was:
prospective buyers will compare both pluses and minuses.

Bigger size, and non- interchangeable lens, are considered minuses for the LX100 compared with the GM5.

Dedicated controls, and bigger viewfinder are considered pluses for the LX100.

The LX100's brighter lens is a plus when compared against the lens likely to be bundled with a GM.

Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

chrisnfolsom: With only 1" separation would that not reduce the stereo effect at distance? I usually us about 2.5" past 20". Anyway, will be nice to see, and I am sure without stereo the stitched images will look great. Now they just need to get the dynamic range up....

As far as I can tell, the stereo eye-point separation is NOT that between the two cameras located inside each "notch" - apart from anything else, these face different ways.

It must pair the camera on the left of one "notch", and the right-hand camera in the "notch" to its right, which faces in the same direction as the first camera does.

So the setup uses 16 cameras, as 8 stereo pairs, covering the 360. Each pair just a few inches separated - same as human stereo vision.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 18:21 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: Spot the Shark (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

ajamess: Great shot.

I must say, though, many of the "composition analyses" I see like this one feel a bit contrived after-the-fact. I bet most of this particular photographer's skill comes from a strong intuition developed over years of experience about what makes a good picture, rather than an extended study of annotated images like the one presented above.

It is doing such after-the-fact analyses (of one's own as well as other people's work) which helps to develop and train that personal "eye for a picture" - so that it will operate semi-instinctively and in a fresh manner, when the time comes.

This is more about alertly reacting to a picture, with awareness - than about attempting some universal formula. Someone once replied, when asked how to distinguish a good picture - "look at a million pictures, with attention, and you will soon know that all by yourself".

It is only attempting to rehearse these same steps prescriptively, before taking the picture, which is fatal.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 08:42 UTC
On article MIT algorithm predicts photo popularity (90 comments in total)

Some entertaining discussion of this kind of program here:

Direct link | Posted on Apr 29, 2014 at 09:02 UTC as 48th comment
In reply to:

Zigadiboom: The price is very reasonable as I believe paying a premium for a Hasselblad over a Pentax is well worth it... but the lack of wifi is a deal breaker for me as I need ready access to facebook and instagram to upload pictures of my kids and pets running around.

I want to know, for fashion use - does it have smirk detection?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 09:34 UTC
On article Cinetics Axis360 review (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

CarVac: Is there a way to align the panning around the entrance pupil of a lens so that you can be free of parallax errors?

No reason not to introduce an additional "nodal slide rail" between the L-shaped bracket and the camera, and then to slide the camera backward on that, adjusting everything until the right point along the lens axis is located to intersect the rotation axis.

This could also be your quick-release point maybe, to take the camera on and off the assembly altogether, without upsetting the parallax adjustments for a given lens setup.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2014 at 09:18 UTC
In reply to:

davidgp: Since when does Photoshop handle 3D information?!?!? Is that new with this version or has it had that capability for some time?

The CC Photoshop product includes the 3D and video tools, and other extras, for which you previously needed to have Photoshop Extended (which cost more).

Many of these extras will not typically be of much use to a stills photographer, but some may be - e.g. the "Median" method for combining time-interval stacked images.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 16, 2014 at 19:09 UTC
On Connect post Slender HTC One mini announced (5 comments in total)

Someone might want to double-check that "12 grams / 0.42 ounces" weight...

HTC's Wildfire was significantly more compact than many current smartphones, but you don't get much content onto that low res screen. A good idea, but a slightly frustrating reality - whereby some apps are not really usable. This, though, looks quite promising.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2013 at 11:30 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On article Adobe releases Photoshop Lightroom 5 (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

davidonformosa: I'm currently using Lightroom 3.6. Is it possible to upgrade directly to Lightroom 5? Do I get to upgrade for the reduced price?

@cfh25: "The UK pricing for the upgrade is £57.64, which includes 23% VAT (not sure how they get this figure)"

I believe electronic delivery is supplied to the UK from Eire, so subject to their local VAT rates. Something to do with minimising corporate taxation, apparently... IIRC physical shipments do accrue the UK VAT rate, though.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 09:13 UTC
On article Adobe releases Photoshop Lightroom 5 (252 comments in total)
In reply to:

SeeRoy: Is LR5 as deadly slow as LR4?
If it is, I'll be sticking with LR4.

There is a lot about this on the Adobe LR user forum. Some people have been experiencing good performance, other people bad performance, from similar levels of hardware - and AFAIK nobody has yet found a clear pattern to this. Some particularly intensive tools such as Clarity and NR have been particularly problematic, or else, not. So it is not guaranteed that you will get a good, or a bad, experience.

It is worth noting that different versions of LR4 have previously shown quite different performance, generally improving. It has taken time to optimise and tweak the new process version, across all the myriad hardware variations out there. But since LR5 uses the same PV as LR4 does, it should benefit from all that development - there's not the same "clean break" that was found when moving from LR3 to LR4.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 08:57 UTC
In reply to:

micahmedia: Great, can I get it without the BS file management crap?

"manage my files in folders and just make Lightroom mirror the folders" - this makes it sound as if people need to do TWO things once they start using LR, instead of ONE thing.

They don't. They can use LR to directly manage files in folders at the same time that they work on, use and manage these in other ways.

LR cannot easily replicate some pre-existing process of manually moving files through different folders to express a workflow. And if you persist in doing this anyway, LR is going to lose track and that makes extra work for you.

If LR is making extra work for you, you are using it wrongly.

At the simplest level: LR brings new pictures into the computer, in the right place, called the right thing, then they just stay there (regardless of your workflow steps) until you maybe decide to move them somewhere else for storage reasons, again assisted by LR. What's wrong with that, except maybe unfamiliarity?

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 08:48 UTC
In reply to:

micahmedia: Great, can I get it without the BS file management crap?

There are lots of other programs that work other ways. But LR is specifically ABOUT the BS file management crap of which you speak. That's its point and purpose: to integrate everything else it does, within that particular framework.

You might as well expect a bear to always behave hygienically in the woods; or expect a relaxation of the "must be Catholic" rule, for Popes.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2013 at 23:41 UTC
On article Lightroom 5 Public Beta: What's New (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dylan Borgman: Can anyone clarify if the LAB color readout is simply a color inspector or it allows us to manipulate curves in LAB space?

Using LAB curves instead of the usual RGB curves, is a common Photoshop technique to overcome some issues with RGB mode Curves. Few people use Lab for deliberately changing hues - altering a / b instead of R G B - they usually want Lab because they want to manipulate L in isolation. Alternatively, a Curves adjustment layer can be set to Luminance blending mode and achieve much the same effect on-the-fly without converting your whole image's colour mode.

Lightroom's tonal adjustments, just like those in ACR, have always worked in Luminance ANYWAY - one of the nicer aspects of working there rather than in PS. The separated RGB options of LR's Tone Curve are provided specifically for when you DO want to affect hue; as an exceptional matter, and in combination with many other hue controls such as WB and HSL. I don't see how Lab would add greatly to LR; its lack is no deficiency, anyway, IMO.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2013 at 07:58 UTC

"...not just an interchangeable lens camera but a creative magic box..."

Bold claim. Can they substantiate that? (grin)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2013 at 10:50 UTC as 24th comment

The only reason anyone could object to something like this, so far as I can see, is if the lens is then sold without revealing that it has been rebuilt. It is relatively easy to establish whether a lens is working properly or not, and if it is working properly, this is a commendable rescue IMO.

Being practical minded means doing whatever works, not just whatever people's preconceptions are comfortable with.

As for these internal parts of the lens being subject to corrosion in the future - they already were vulnerable to corrosion in the first place. Metal is metal. That is why it is such bad news to drop your lens into seawater (grin).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2013 at 09:17 UTC as 47th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Suave: Perhaps I am missing something, but how is 19mm a "telephoto"?

"telephoto" is often used loosely to denote any lenses with long focal lengths, but when used strictly, is the technical term for one particular kind of optical design. This design is what allows a "600mm focal length" lens to be sized much less than 600mm long physically, for example - and this outcome is most useful for long lenses; but can apply for short focal lengths too.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2013 at 19:09 UTC
On article The Lightroom catalog (304 comments in total)
In reply to:

KonstantinosK: In contrast to some comments below, I figured how to use Lightroom in no time without the slightest reading or any video tutorial. I can manage my photos easily and tweeking them to my liking is a joy. I found the processing of raw files excellent and far easier than any of the software supplied with the cameras that I've tried (Panasonic, Pentax, Sony and Nikon). In fact, I wouldn't shoot raw if it wasn't for Lightroom. And I really like the way third party plug-ins integrate into Lightroom. That's my opinion...

The difficulty is that many dissatisfied people expecting "the program to understand me" are using the wrong mental template of what is going on. There is no point in expecting LR to look or act like Bridge - if LR worked like Bridge, there'd be no reason for LR to exist as an alternative, everyone would just use Bridge.

A product like Lightroom (Aperture etc) represents a clean break from pure file- and folder-based working and is designed functionally for purpose. It would be misleading and confusing to offer a false similarity.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 30, 2012 at 00:38 UTC
On article The Lightroom catalog (304 comments in total)
In reply to:

fed2man: The thing I am struggling with is how to keep track and back up images that I have changed in Photoshop. I do cntrl/cmd E to send the image to PS, and when I have finished, provided I save it in PS the changed image is shown in LR. BUT, and this is a big BUT, all that LR has in its list of instructions database is the fact that it went to PS for changes; the changes themselves are not recorded.Thus I need to keep track of these images so I can back up the actual images, because the LR catalog alone, plus the original image, would not be able to recreate the PS changed image. Anyone know how to deal with this issue? Or put me tight if I have something wrong? Other than this I love LR!

In fact, the Photoshop edited image appears in Lightroom as a fresh image version. The prior version with all of its editing History up to that moment, is still also there.

The editing done in PS is - by definition - not of the kind that LR could have done or kept track of. It has to happen in an external, separate file on disk. The way that this is preserved, is by backing up the PS editing file (the PSD or the TIFF file complete with all its pixel and adjustment layers, masks and such) along with all the other image files that your LR Catalog is using. Such PS editing files are by default created inside the same folder as the camera file on which they have been - with adjustments - based. So they will be included automatically if you backup that folder.

Then you also backup your Catalog (database) file, regularly, and all of your work is safeguarded.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 30, 2012 at 00:13 UTC

There was a story recently where someone hung a small robust digital camera set on interval timer, round the neck of his cat - just to see what it got up to all day.

Beyond the short-lived novelty of how accidental they looked, those pictures were just as banal as this thing will likely produce - but the circumstances were at least a little more surprising.

That was IMO an interesting use for the technology. This whole notion here, though, sems to just pander to self-absorbed egotism. It is not up to any of us, to decide how fascinating - or otherwise - we are. Bah humbug.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 24, 2012 at 10:03 UTC as 59th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Sam Carriere: First, let us clarify that "awesomer" is not a word.
More importantly, leave it alone.

I don't require a photo sharing website to be "awesome", "awesomer" or even "awesomest".

In truth NO amount of overwhelming feelings of confusion and inadequacy, is going to be much assistance when seeking somewhere to put your pictures on the internet.

I personally am far more interested in experiencing the searing and unignorable emotions of: "works OK", and "remains available much of the time".

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 09:10 UTC
Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »