Dan4321: Too much fluff, I really just want something to develop the raws in the least amount of time and with the least amount of 'tweaking' required. Book mode, map mode, print-to-whatever mode, all those things are totally lost on people like me and probably 95% of the users out there. This is why a lot of people still use Digital Photo Professional over adobe camera raw for 99% of the photos out there. Make the raw development engine quick and intelligent with as much automatic setting as possible and only then will people like me be willing to pay that much for it.
Exactly. I'd be glad spending less time behind computers.
Charrick: First of all, I think that this technology has great potential. But it's sad that Adobe somewhat ruined it by using this synthetically blurred photo. That only breeds suspicion. Perhaps the first two photos were truly average blurred photos, but it's harder to take them completely on their word. I hope it's true, though.
One other thing. Did anyone notice the Adobe guy apologizing for the "slow computer". College kids showing each other cool programs might do that, but one of the most technologically oriented companies in the world can probably afford a computer that's at least an above average consumer PC when they're showing off their new software. It seems obviously to me that they got the best computer that money can buy and then apologized for it being slow.
Also, those idiots in the chairs on stage were completely annoying.
With all of this said, if that technology is actually as was demonstrated, it is one of the greatest advances in photo editing in history.
Exactly. If that technology delivers, great. But fooling people and unprofessional presenting is bad.
Anssi Kumpula: What Adobe did is presenting a non-real world photo that was not real-world photo. Was that a mistake?
I think it was, even if it doesn't make that technology look very promising.
Seems like I can't write. What I meant is Adobe using a non-real world photo in a demo but presenting it as a real world photo and that was a mistake.
The guy in the demo said: "Okay one more comparison. We found this image online. It's random internet photo... it's bad." Which clearly is to claim that photo was genuinely blurred by out-of-focus, camera shake or subject movement.
What Adobe did is presenting a non-real world photo that was not real-world photo. Was that a mistake?
karlviehe: for general purposes, in the rush to ever greater thinness, phone manufacturers have eliminated the possibility of including optical zooms ... say 5 to 7x ..... whch makes the phone only useful for "cocktail" photography ....The same is true of tablet PCs.This could easily be corrected.
I don't think lack of zoom lenses affects photography badly. I think it's putting people to think more with their feet. I like that.
Greg Lovern: I understand that Nikon is aiming these at compact camera upgraders, but I wonder how many people want a bounce flash unit but don't want a PASM dial.
And not having sense of depth and smooth backgrounds and foregrounds is what these cameras are not having. I believe many compact camera users find sense of depth in SLR photos flattering to the eye but they won't get that.
Nikon says customer surveys revealed what compact camera users want when they consider upgrading their cameras. I believe those people just don't know what they really want is DEPTH OF FIELD, that comes from larger sensor.
Nikon failed to acknowledge that in their conclusion.
Maybe I'm wrong and CX-size sensor is enough but it sure seems like all too small sensor to give compact camera upgraders the new dimension they might be looking for.
I'll argue that Golden Ratio is better rule to follow, though, it's not possible to show up on viewfinder as rule of thirds often is. But anyway you will get better if you composite a little to the center and not exactly to the first third. This is of course just a rule of thumb but anyways good to know because Golden Ratio is more flattering to the eye than Rule of Thirds.