Another bad decision to shoot at ISO 800 in daytime. Why??? Great camera and a great lens. Why ruin the image with all that unnecessary noise.Besides the point, the noise levels are too high. I didn't expect that from Canon.
Are we looking at the same image? There is visible noise everywhere at ISO 400 in broad daylight.... That is not acceptable to me. The image is soft and why in the world shoot it at 400? I bet ISO 50 at 1/4000 and F8.0 would have been much better.Still, the noise levels are as bad as an iPhone 6+... Still loving my 1DX...
800 iso looks like this? Very disappointing...
oselimg: His camera is made of cheap plastic Canon and DR is way behind Sony sensors there fore I don't like the pictures. This also doesn't allow me to repeat how great my mirrorless camera is.
Who cares if the camera is cheap? maybe you and your mirrorless should try to be as creative as he is.
nzmacro: Very well done and yep, clever work. Enjoyed these a lot. A few negative comments in here, so I went and looked at a few of their sites and galleries. You are way ahead ;-) One even tries this type of work, no wonder they are a bit envious. All the best and great to see thanks. Danny.
There will always be negative comments when people see some unique, different and stunning. Instead of appreciating the work for what it is, envious people try to find something wrong with it so they feel better about not thinking about it themselves. Achraf clearly works on a limited budget and with "consumer" equipment. Still his work is awesome and clever. Cheers
I haven't tried Affinity but I actually might. I am disappointed with the new PS CC 2015... It is slower than CS6 on my 4.0Ghz iMac 5K and the interface is very PC-looking and the "new" features still don't warrant a switch from CS6.One thing that PS has is 25 years of leadership and therefore many plug-ins. Affinity needs to be able to use PS compatible plug-ins or get in touch with some of the most popular plug-in makers for a fair chance to replace PS.
Maybe Adobe should buy it and integrate it to LR. They have done it in the past with web design, illustration and layout software.
ewelch: Apple didn't sell enough copies of Aperture to justify the support it requires to keep it ahead of Lightroom.
But I won't use Lightroom in any case. I have tried it several times. I don't like it, and it's not appropriate for a multi-user environment where more than one photographer works on photos. Same was true about Aperture, mind you.
I always used iPhoto as well as Aperture or Lightroom. To make calendars, books, etc. So I suspect I will use Photos for that kind of thing. And to put photos on Facebook and share with friends and family.
But let's face it. I have 18 TBs of space at work, and about 10 TB of space at home. That does not translate to having everything online in any case!
I use Aperture for pro work and iPhoto to sync my albums to my iPhone and iPad. I have 35000 photos synced. I would need over 300GB to store them all online so I will still keep using both side by side
Alex Velasco: I was pretty heart broken when Apple announced the end of Aperture. I rely on Aperture, it works well (looks glorious on my new iMac) but has been in need of an overhaul for years.I have a dissenting opinion—mostly wishful thinking no doubt. :-) I think the market shifted for Apple. Photography is crucial to Apple’s strategy, but they might be reasoning that their pro and amateur markets have merged and there is no point maintaining two apps. That unlike video editors, pro and am photographers can be catered by one app alone. With Photos, Apple are setting their software design philosophy henceforth. I think it's something like: “Deceptively Simple”. At first sight, the software looks stupid. But, below the surface are the intermediate level and advanced controls and functions. I’m sure they will enhance the product gradually as with FinalCut Pro X.I’ll wait and see where Apple takes the Photos app. I will look elsewhere if they don't introduce good metadata functionality soon.
Agreed, but why remove one of the few real professional Apps they have? Photos is great for consumers who want something easy and effective. You can't do anything really professional with it.I remember paying like $600 for Aperture 1.0. Photos 1.0 is free. There ya go... U buy cheap, u get cheap.
tjbates: Apple finally got Aperture right with version 3, to then abandon it. I'm sticking with it just as I still use Final Cut Pro 7 for video. Just because software isn't supported doesn't mean it won't keep working. I have no interest in having my photos stored in a cloud. I'll continue to use Aperture 3 and avoid the downgrade to "Photos" until they finally get it right with version 3.
Mac OS X is becoming iOS X... Sadly...
Wurzle: I would try Phase one capture one for a very good alternative to adobes criminal way of making money.
Adobe has been making the best imaging software for over 20 years. Starting with the industry standard, Photoshop. Why is it criminal? They have hundreds of people and hours of R&D and spend a lit of money to deliver tools that help photographers. Why shouldn't they make their money back? If u want something good, pay for it. Otherwise, stay with crappy software like "Photos", which is appropriately, FREE
Jeff, there is a setting to store the files outside the Aperture library. That's how I use it.
It looks like Lightroom 6 might be the only thing to replace Aperture, at least for me. I have been trying to switch to LR for years but nothing is faster or easier to use than Aperture. I have too much time invested into it. I have been using it since V1.0 and still do...
NO. NO. NO. NO... Did I mention NO?