watson076: I'm done with Adobe. I tried to cancel CC and they told me they were charging me for canceling. I honestly didn't know it was a contract, simply thought this was month to month plan (so I admit that's my fault for not reading the fine print). I argued with them that this isn't a good time financially and just wanted to cancel the service without any charges but they were unable to comply.
Somebody describes her cancelling experience here:http://chocolateandvodka.com/2014/02/20/adobe-creative-cloud-subscription-warning/
Link to the mentioned Tripod & ballhead & technique test (it also includes full 24MP version of this image):http://jtra.cz/stuff/review/tripod-ballhead-technique-test/
ThePhilips: The “Gaussian Approximation” by Shea Hadstrom looks very interesting.
If we would ever get a decent programmable camera API, it'd be interesting to see what else can be achieved by changing the aperture during exposure. (Just imaging toying with the zoom effect!)
Yeah, too bad, most cameras are not programmable today.I have had same idea, I wrote about it here:http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.htmlbut none of my cameras and lenses allow to do that (without freelensing).
Henry Lozykowski: “bokeh” look at:http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf
"Nine rounded diaphragm blades guarantee images with exceptional bokeh" Wherever there are reports about a new camera lens, this sentence is often found. What characteristic of the image is actually meant by it? And what does the diaphragm have to do with it? We would like to address these questions today. But because "bokeh" is closely related to "depth of field," I would like to first begin with those topics on the following pages. It is true that a great deal has already been written about them elsewhere, and many may think that the topics have already been exhausted. Nevertheless I am sure that you will not be bored. I will use a rather unusual method to show how to use a little geometry to very clearly understand the most important issues of ‘depth of field’.
Yeah, that article is great. I have written something about bokeh too:http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.html
Sanjay Mehta: It's quite obvious that this move in response to piracy concerns. I can't remember where I read it, but an Adobe manager was claiming recently that this move was driven by more by software development cost concerns than anything else.
Words to the effect that their new cloud strategy would make it cheaper for them to deploy software on the lines of Google's server side changes.
But when you look at the details, the software still downloads and installs on your machine and periodically goes back to Adobe servers for updates and license management. They also claim that it can run up to some 90 days without needing internet access.
If that is the case, it's really just the regular installation on your machine, with some internet access.
As an Aperture user who was considering Lightroom, I'm now planning to stick with Aperture. Apple's App Store model is much more convenient and reasonable.
"this move was driven more by software development cost concerns than anything else"
Problem for Adobe is that Photoshop and related products are too good. It is becoming harder and harder to sell you next version.Some professionals may need it, but most could live with CS6 for a decade (though RAW support for new cameras may force them to upgrade).
In fact when Adobe gets most customers on to this rental model (they may lower the price for some time to do so), they may significantly reduce their software development.
As long as you are locked into file formats, you will have to pay to rent your access to your files (and also to apply your PS skills). They won't need to add new important features by then like they did have to do in past for each CS release.
I (non-pro) use a GIMP (on Linux), Geeqie (sorting images) and some RAW converters - all free. I have considered LR and PS, but with this kind of software rental I don't like it. LR is not tied to CC, but it may be in future.
The 17mm full-frame cannot capture the moon that big.
This page compares how much the moon fills the picture for several focal lengths (full-frame film): http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/howtophoto/
This is composite or a single picture where moon part is very enlarged in post processing. The result looks great, but author should have told us.