fireplace33

fireplace33

Lives in Austria Upper Austria, Austria
Joined on Nov 28, 2007

Comments

Total: 144, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Sunset on the Playa in the Unusual Natural Formations challenge (1 comment in total)

Nice photo.
The mystery of those sailing rocks has finally been solved and even caught on film!
The answer is "ice shove"

Direct link | Posted on Dec 6, 2014 at 22:30 UTC as 1st comment
On Massey Ferguson in the wheat field in the The Harvest challenge (1 comment in total)

great shot !

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 08:11 UTC as 1st comment
On Rice farmers I in the The Harvest challenge (4 comments in total)

wow, 1st and 2nd place !
both worthy winners. Good light , movement, composition,...
Interesting processing technique too.
I'm guessing it's a red filter in pp or IR filter while shooting ?
whatever, it delivers some very good contrast.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2014 at 08:11 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On Readers' Showcase: Portraits and People article (249 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ozyxy: What's up with horizontal websites? I liked #1 (and the other photos of course) and I clicked to see the photographer's website to see what else is there but the site requires horizontal scrolling to see the photos, I couldn't use it so I just left without seeing anything... I think photographers who create horizontal websites miss a lot of visitors. Nobody can use a horizontal website. Why don't they make their websites vertical as every website should be?

@Ozyxy
The web site for photo number 1 worked just fine for me. (with chrome)
I had no difficulty scrolling these super images horizontally.
Maybe , with a bit of practice, you'll be able master this skill too.
Good luck!

btw, Great portraits in this collection!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2014 at 21:35 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (821 comments in total)
In reply to:

fireplace33: This looks like a great camera. I was quite tempted.
Lots of nice „PROS“ but in the end put off by the same „CONS“ as mentioned in the conclusion
I’ve listed those CONS in order of imporatnce for me.

Anyone care to speculate if my "top cons" will be addressed and improved in the next version of this camera?

■ Lens range can be limiting
■ 12MP may not be enough for some users
■ Separate clip-on flash simply inconvenient
■ Manually positioning an AF point is awkward - no touchscreen
■ JPEG noise reduction and sharpening are rather crude at low ISOs
■ Noticeable lag switching from shooting mode to playback
■ Focus peaking often too subtle to see
■ Viewfinder can show 'tearing' effect, which will distract some users

@ Chrislumix,
You’re right about the users being different, judging from all the praise in your other forum comments you obviously love this camera.
Yes, it is good, but the optical zoom is a bit too short for me, I wouldn’t mind if the next version of this camera becomes slightly bigger because it still is a much smaller package than my big DSRL + 2 or 3 lenses and heavy tripod. Any sort of digital zoom is more or less just the same as cropping (even if it’s interpolated like with the i-zoom) and then you’re down to only a few real MPixels and not that's not enough for any larger quality prints, at least in the size & quality I’d like.

Even a F1.7 lens can’t provide a bit of fill flash light when it’s needed, and maybe I forgot to bring that little external flash :-(

A touchscreen would be a nice bonus

So for me the main Cons are really the first 3-4 on my list.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2014 at 12:18 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 Review preview (821 comments in total)

This looks like a great camera. I was quite tempted.
Lots of nice „PROS“ but in the end put off by the same „CONS“ as mentioned in the conclusion
I’ve listed those CONS in order of imporatnce for me.

Anyone care to speculate if my "top cons" will be addressed and improved in the next version of this camera?

■ Lens range can be limiting
■ 12MP may not be enough for some users
■ Separate clip-on flash simply inconvenient
■ Manually positioning an AF point is awkward - no touchscreen
■ JPEG noise reduction and sharpening are rather crude at low ISOs
■ Noticeable lag switching from shooting mode to playback
■ Focus peaking often too subtle to see
■ Viewfinder can show 'tearing' effect, which will distract some users

Direct link | Posted on Nov 20, 2014 at 15:29 UTC as 61st comment | 4 replies
On Cormorant taking off in the It flies!!! challenge (31 comments in total)

Excellent image !

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 18:22 UTC as 6th comment
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1869 comments in total)

I've read in the reviews and comments here that the flash is inconvenient (forget to take it with you) and also rather primitive (no swivel, no tilt)

2 questions:
- does that flash get its power from the camera?

-Are there other flash units avaialable either from Panasonic or a 3rd party that would be completely compatible and also light and small, but better, without being (much) bigger & heavier?
Thanks

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2014 at 08:29 UTC as 62nd comment | 5 replies
On Ghost Town: Shooting in Kolmanskop article (71 comments in total)

Nice use of light in these shots

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 06:39 UTC as 18th comment
On ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

Drazen Stojcic Buntovnik: Ever since about v4, ACDsee started cramming "feature" upon "feature" into what was once the best, fastest and lightest image viewer available. I remeber a time when ACDsee installation files were 5 MB in size. Nowdays it's over 100... It's just rediculous. Especially the "pro" version. If "pro" means a product is intended for professionals, then it's safe to asume they're using OTHER professional tools to edit and organize their photos. I have never ever used an "edit" funcion in ACDsee. All I want is is a super fast image viewer that instantly opens up any image file format and can equally quickly scroll through hundreds of images. And that's it. Unfortunately, ACDsee has steered away from performance and seems to be focused on being the jack of all trades, when all we need is a master of one: speed.

When I look at my raw images on the hard disk, their thumbs appear almost instantaneously because I use the database feature in ACDSee called
"catalogue folders" (or somthing like that, I'm translating here from the German version)
This feature goes through all selected folders and creates the thumbnails for each image on the disk. It can take a few hours, if you have thousands of images like I do, but it is only done once, while I'm sleeping, and then afterwards those thumbs all appear instantly.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 20:43 UTC
On ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

Drazen Stojcic Buntovnik: Ever since about v4, ACDsee started cramming "feature" upon "feature" into what was once the best, fastest and lightest image viewer available. I remeber a time when ACDsee installation files were 5 MB in size. Nowdays it's over 100... It's just rediculous. Especially the "pro" version. If "pro" means a product is intended for professionals, then it's safe to asume they're using OTHER professional tools to edit and organize their photos. I have never ever used an "edit" funcion in ACDsee. All I want is is a super fast image viewer that instantly opens up any image file format and can equally quickly scroll through hundreds of images. And that's it. Unfortunately, ACDsee has steered away from performance and seems to be focused on being the jack of all trades, when all we need is a master of one: speed.

@Peter v.d Werf
Glad to hear you have respect for the editing features of ACDSee PRO :-)
It is indeed very easy to use and has a multitude of useful editing and RAW development features.
Nice to have it all in one tool!
By the way, I have a decent computer with lots of RAM and hard drive space & fast processor & fast graphics card, certainly works fast enough for me.
One thing ACDSee doesn't have is working with layers like photoshop can, pity.
What do you think is even better in LR?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2014 at 08:23 UTC
On ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

fireplace33: @DPREVIEW
In your DPReview product database the latest version of ACDSee is shown as only version PRO 5.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/acd_systems/software/acdsee_pro5

I've mentioned this already in the past on your feedback forum, after the version 6 and 7 came along, that an update of your database would make sense. Perhaps you can now update your database to show PRO 8 is here!

Oh dear ignored by DPREVIEW again on this issue :-(
Looks like the DPREVIEW software database will stay locked on the stoneage for now...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 28, 2014 at 14:14 UTC
On ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: I've got to say, I'm underwhelmed. The interesting changes are for the users of the edit tab (the 'destrcutive', bit mapped editor). Nothing really new there for the person who shoots raw.

If you haven't used ACDSee Pro before, using this will be a great experience, because it's a good product. But frankly, the reason to upgrade from Pro 7 to Pro 8 seems non-existent for me as an existing user.

They've tried to incorporate their 'online' drive service a bit more seamlessly into the overall user interface, which is nice if you are a user of that service, I guess, but considering the recent price reductions for Google Drive and others, it seems pretty pricey to me. Too pricey IMO.

Do you mean there is already something like the 'pixel targeting' in the raw development mode of ver PRO7?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 16:41 UTC
On ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

Drazen Stojcic Buntovnik: Ever since about v4, ACDsee started cramming "feature" upon "feature" into what was once the best, fastest and lightest image viewer available. I remeber a time when ACDsee installation files were 5 MB in size. Nowdays it's over 100... It's just rediculous. Especially the "pro" version. If "pro" means a product is intended for professionals, then it's safe to asume they're using OTHER professional tools to edit and organize their photos. I have never ever used an "edit" funcion in ACDsee. All I want is is a super fast image viewer that instantly opens up any image file format and can equally quickly scroll through hundreds of images. And that's it. Unfortunately, ACDsee has steered away from performance and seems to be focused on being the jack of all trades, when all we need is a master of one: speed.

If you don't need the advanced features in the PRO version for developing your raw images or editing jpgs why not go for the cheaper non pro version with less features, or just use that that old version you have, or any other viewer of your choice.

I happen to like the editing/developing tools in ACDSee and find it to be fast enough as a general viewer/ organiser/ edit tool and don't want them to strip out any of these features!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 16:38 UTC
On ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced article (51 comments in total)

I really like ACDSee Pro.
It is easy to use and works well for my needs.
All my photos are processed, usually from RAW, with ACDSee
Looking forward to the new features in ver 8

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 18:29 UTC as 13th comment
On ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced article (51 comments in total)

@DPREVIEW
In your DPReview product database the latest version of ACDSee is shown as only version PRO 5.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/acd_systems/software/acdsee_pro5

I've mentioned this already in the past on your feedback forum, after the version 6 and 7 came along, that an update of your database would make sense. Perhaps you can now update your database to show PRO 8 is here!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2014 at 10:01 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
On Hands-on with Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 article (435 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alejandro Ruiz: Very interesting camera.
I first thought 75mm is a bit short, but them make some rough calculation and found that you can crop till something like 120mm and still having something like the same IQ (just considering mm² of sensor) of Sony RX100III !

Maybe someone can do the exact maths, but I guess if you cropped the image from 75mm so that it was equivalent to a 120mm focal length, then resulting image would have less than 5 Mpixels, which doesn't sound that good by today's standards

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2014 at 21:14 UTC
On Photokina 2014 Video: The Canon G7 X article (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cane: What is the shape of this thing? It's like a slightly melted rectangle to me, as opposed to the crisp edges of the Sony. Makes it look very p&s.

Don't worry, before it becomes available next month, you'd have time enough to practice holding a bar of soap in the shower ;-)
When it arrives you'll be impressed about how much better the camera is.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2014 at 21:54 UTC
In reply to:

Dan1964: I'll never buy another Canon pixma. Never had a printer that used so much ink just turning it off and on.

The 3rd party inks that I use cost about 1 Euro per cartridge. I have 6 cartridges in my MG6250. These 3rd party inks have a chip just like the original. Even if you multiplied that cost by 3 it would still be considerably cheaper than the OEM versions. Recently I put in some OEM inks and didn't notice that they lasted particularly longer?
They are just fine for the photo "proofs" and the other general office type I use.

here's a link to the German amazon
12 pieces for 12.90 Euro!

http://www.amazon.de/Druckerpatronen-F%C3%BCllstandanzeige-kompatibel-PGI-525BK-CLI-526BK/dp/B00BBVXK22/ref=sr_1_2?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=1-2&keywords=526+12

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 19:39 UTC
In reply to:

attomole: For a photographer even a budget restricted amateur I don't see the pont of anything less than A3+ Colour and B&W printer. Not that the all-in-ones are not fantastically usfull home office devices and even the cheapest branded ones I have used make nice colour prints, but A4 is not big enough to display.

There are not that many such devices out there (A3 photo printers) but I don't know of a review site that is across all the printers available and keeps pace with developments. I would have expected for the sort of people who come to this site it would be very useful data.

A3 is also too small for a decent sized print!
Any printer that can make bigger prints than A3, in a quality that you'd want to hang up, are so expensive that it is much better IMO to get those few prints, that you want large, done professionally.
The economics of that is obvious and the professional printers will be operated by someone capable, who's made hundreds of prints. and no worries at home about any wasted inks or calibration problems or blocked up print heads,... ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 20, 2014 at 19:24 UTC
Total: 144, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »