vFunct

vFunct

Lives in Canada Canada
Works as a Working class
Joined on Mar 14, 2004

Comments

Total: 406, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

vFunct: Aperture isn't really designed for the 130GB people. It's more for the multiple 10s of terabytes of photos people. The professional photographers that might shoot 5000 shots a day.

With that, the features that are really missing here in the new Photos are Aperture's custom keywording and other search/select/sorting/filtering tools. That's the reason Aperture exists. Professionals don't need the lens correction, retouching, or other amateur tools that Lightroom users love. If pros need to retouch, they do it in Photoshop, so they don't need any of that low-end Lightroom garbage.

But they do need data management. Try finding a specific model or celebrity wearing a specific dress in your library? THAT was the power of Aperture for professional photographers, and I doubt that kind of capability will ever return.

The problem is that there's no custom metadata field. Aperture could let you define custom fields. For Photos, you need to put tags in the all-inclusive "Tags" field. This doesn't work in larger databases, where you might have "Marc Jacobs" the person, vs. "Marc Jacobs" the brand.

You really need separate custom fields for large databases. You'll know this when you start to have thousands of shoots and hundreds of thousands of photos.

Also, custom back-end CMS's would use the custom fields as well.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 22:30 UTC

Aperture isn't really designed for the 130GB people. It's more for the multiple 10s of terabytes of photos people. The professional photographers that might shoot 5000 shots a day.

With that, the features that are really missing here in the new Photos are Aperture's custom keywording and other search/select/sorting/filtering tools. That's the reason Aperture exists. Professionals don't need the lens correction, retouching, or other amateur tools that Lightroom users love. If pros need to retouch, they do it in Photoshop, so they don't need any of that low-end Lightroom garbage.

But they do need data management. Try finding a specific model or celebrity wearing a specific dress in your library? THAT was the power of Aperture for professional photographers, and I doubt that kind of capability will ever return.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 17, 2015 at 17:24 UTC as 160th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

vFunct: Cinematic action cameras really need 240fps...

haha Android fanboys are always whining about the iPhone's superior capabilities ahahaha!

Sucks that you're too poor to afford an iPhone hahah!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 23:02 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Cinematic action cameras really need 240fps...

lol oh so funny that your phone can't do 240fps hahahah still laughing hahaha what a terrible phone hahaha

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 15:20 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Cinematic action cameras really need 240fps...

hahaha your phone can't do 240fps hahaha!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 15:08 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Cinematic action cameras really need 240fps...

iPhone = 240FPS in HD. Not sure why you think HD is "stamp-size" resolution? Maybe you don't know anything?

LOL. your phone can't do 240fps. sucks for you! haha!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 04:11 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: Cinematic action cameras really need 240fps...

240fps (or higher) is far more important than 4k for action cameras. Right now you don't need 4k at all.

240fps can affect your story. 4k won't.

And, BTW, my iPhone can do 240fps, so tech shouldn't be an issue.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2015 at 02:23 UTC

Cinematic action cameras really need 240fps...

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 23:52 UTC as 8th comment | 11 replies
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

monsieurlumiere: For young videographer who study the basics, most of the equipment used are Canon 5D mk3 cameras and lenses. The cost of such equipment is more expensive than the XC-10. The future of the XC-10 will tell us if this equipment is good for videography students. If the XC-10 works well, It could be that it becomes the videography standard for students, as the 5D was.

Note that I don't think this camera is going to be a standard.. I think current 1" video cameras are much better suited for videographers than this camera.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 04:34 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

monsieurlumiere: For young videographer who study the basics, most of the equipment used are Canon 5D mk3 cameras and lenses. The cost of such equipment is more expensive than the XC-10. The future of the XC-10 will tell us if this equipment is good for videography students. If the XC-10 works well, It could be that it becomes the videography standard for students, as the 5D was.

Young videographers should NOT be using Canon 5D cameras. That's a really specialized use, for shallow depth-of-field.

There's a horrible over-use of shallow depth-of-field among amateur videographers today.

Shallow depth-of-field should only be used on very rare occasions, where having a sharp background becomes a distraction.

If you look at professional Hollywood movies, they don't use shallow depth-of-field everywhere. It's a rare thing, because it has a very specific storytelling requirement associated with it.

In the vast majority of cases, your videos should be sharp throughout the scene.

Because of this, for videography, a small sensor is much better than a large sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 04:33 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

vFunct: Too many "fine-art" photographers with no clue about photojournalism.

Why would anyone use a full-frame camera for a photojournalism?

Shallow depth-of-field is only for "fine-art" dorks.

Film size was limited by film speed. When you have higher ISOs available, you can use a smaller format. As film speeds improved, the film-size used could be smaller.

Photojournalists used to use 4x5 Large Format, which were around ISOs of 20-40.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 05:41 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

vFunct: BTW I've been a proponent of Nikon's 1 series since it came out, because a smaller sensor is so much better for photojournalism. They have a larger depth-of-field.

Video editors complain all the time about the crappy full-frame sensors that amateur videographers use, because NOTHING is in focus. The shallow depth-of-field for full-frame cameras are HORRIBLE. There's also a lot of shakiness and other problems with these full-frame dSLRs for video. You can ALWAYS tell when a full-frame dSLR is used, because they're always much worse than real video cameras that have much smaller sensors.

I commission photographers and videographers, for both art and news. A good way to get rejected by me is by telling me you shoot with video with a full-frame dSLR. Such amateurs.

Again, I can't emphasize enough: if you're shooting video, USE A SMALLER SENSOR. Your videos will be much better.

There's a reason professional video cameras don't use full-frame sensors.

The 35mm format used in movies is VERTICAL, which is about DX size. They AREN'T full frame!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 05:38 UTC
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)

BTW I've been a proponent of Nikon's 1 series since it came out, because a smaller sensor is so much better for photojournalism. They have a larger depth-of-field.

Video editors complain all the time about the crappy full-frame sensors that amateur videographers use, because NOTHING is in focus. The shallow depth-of-field for full-frame cameras are HORRIBLE. There's also a lot of shakiness and other problems with these full-frame dSLRs for video. You can ALWAYS tell when a full-frame dSLR is used, because they're always much worse than real video cameras that have much smaller sensors.

I commission photographers and videographers, for both art and news. A good way to get rejected by me is by telling me you shoot with video with a full-frame dSLR. Such amateurs.

Again, I can't emphasize enough: if you're shooting video, USE A SMALLER SENSOR. Your videos will be much better.

There's a reason professional video cameras don't use full-frame sensors.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 03:54 UTC as 42nd comment | 3 replies
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)

Everyone should buy this camera, and throw away their junk full-frame dSLRs.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 03:46 UTC as 43rd comment
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)

Too many "fine-art" photographers with no clue about photojournalism.

Why would anyone use a full-frame camera for a photojournalism?

Shallow depth-of-field is only for "fine-art" dorks.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 03:45 UTC as 44th comment | 5 replies
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProstheticEmpathy: I see a lot of 'not the target audience' comments, but I don't feel like I've had a clear explanation of who the target audience actually is.

If you have to ask, then it's not for you.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 12, 2015 at 03:42 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: More curious about their workflow optimizations.

The D5500 has a touch-screen now. We need to be able to start retouching/processing photos, and publishing them, right from the camera, without having to go through a computer. The CPUs in the cameras should be able to handle these now.

What we need to hear from Nikon is how they're going to allow App developers to create apps for their cameras, to optimize the photography workflow.

It really is the workflow that defines the camera-phone market. Thanks to their ability to process and publish photos right on-the-spot, camera phones have the most optimal workflow that photographers want.

We need the same ability to do so with our D4s, and other dSLRs. I need to be able to quickly select, rotate, crop, brighten, highlight, spot remove, maybe Title with custom fonts, then upload to our newswire CMS, right from the Camera.

Pro photojournalists need to publish their photos QUICKLY, and Nikon needs to get on the ball for that.

The D4s is only 16 MP, which is perfect for photojournalism work.

Now, it just needs a rapid workflow system.

I'd like to be able to post usable photos from the field, without having go through a computer first.

The reason is that my competitors are regular people using their cellphones and Instagram/Twitter. If they get the shot first, what good does it do me?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: More curious about their workflow optimizations.

The D5500 has a touch-screen now. We need to be able to start retouching/processing photos, and publishing them, right from the camera, without having to go through a computer. The CPUs in the cameras should be able to handle these now.

What we need to hear from Nikon is how they're going to allow App developers to create apps for their cameras, to optimize the photography workflow.

It really is the workflow that defines the camera-phone market. Thanks to their ability to process and publish photos right on-the-spot, camera phones have the most optimal workflow that photographers want.

We need the same ability to do so with our D4s, and other dSLRs. I need to be able to quickly select, rotate, crop, brighten, highlight, spot remove, maybe Title with custom fonts, then upload to our newswire CMS, right from the Camera.

Pro photojournalists need to publish their photos QUICKLY, and Nikon needs to get on the ball for that.

I don't care about your spam or viruses. I just want a camera that makes me work faster.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 05:21 UTC

More curious about their workflow optimizations.

The D5500 has a touch-screen now. We need to be able to start retouching/processing photos, and publishing them, right from the camera, without having to go through a computer. The CPUs in the cameras should be able to handle these now.

What we need to hear from Nikon is how they're going to allow App developers to create apps for their cameras, to optimize the photography workflow.

It really is the workflow that defines the camera-phone market. Thanks to their ability to process and publish photos right on-the-spot, camera phones have the most optimal workflow that photographers want.

We need the same ability to do so with our D4s, and other dSLRs. I need to be able to quickly select, rotate, crop, brighten, highlight, spot remove, maybe Title with custom fonts, then upload to our newswire CMS, right from the Camera.

Pro photojournalists need to publish their photos QUICKLY, and Nikon needs to get on the ball for that.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 11, 2015 at 00:13 UTC as 121st comment | 5 replies
On Lytro sheds jobs as it shifts focus to video article (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Why is the product bad? The Illum did exactly what Lytro says and did it well.

Now, no there's not a huge market for this tech limited to stills, but video is a whole other huge story.

And do you understand that you can adjust focus BEFORE taking a shot on a regular camera?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 04:24 UTC
Total: 406, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »