Maybe "Earned" instead of "Owns".
Altruisto: Technically ok but no "vision" , no "personal touch". Though everything has been already photographed , there's "uniqueness" in the true artistic photos that convey the photograph universe. I'm sorry to say that there's no such a thing in these photos. They look like technical photos in "gear review websites". Oh, Goodness!With all the good amateur photographers revolving around Dpreview, why choosing this one, and why no series of photos instead of this constellation of different takes?
"number 9 have a problem with densities"
Can you outline that a bit more, if you have a minute? I find it to be a very satisfying, solid composition that is well grounded and forces the eye to where it should, taking it in and out of the photo to add movement and circulate to each of the elements in turn, each taking the eye to the next, and building to a complete feeling. What would make it even better?
mayurgogoi: i like no 9
The effect of the cloud reflection mimicking and adding swirling motion in the water is striking.
Stitzer23: If you like the pics and/or the article, you are free to comment on this forum. if you dont like the pics and/or the article, you are also free to comment on this forum. i am in the latter group and sick of people having the position that if it is featured on dpreview, we should all like it. and i dont have to be a chef to dislike a certain dish at a restaurant (and yes people do like me in parties).
Stitzer23 has not uploaded any photos to their gallery yet
Rooru S: For $6200 I could hire a good looking escort for several days, travel somewhere, have a good time with her and have her take the pictures (or take some 'selfies').
That price was very specific.
Gazeomon: One cannot even delete PHOTOS from the hard drive and free some disc space.Every time I import images into Lightroom, this crappy PHOTO has to be clicked out of my sight. Just another APPLE p-ss off.
Just use the Image Capture app in /Applications/Utilities.
You can change the default app to use in the application list in the bottom of the window.
You don't need to delete any apps or use external utilities to achieve this.
madeinlisboa: Correct me if I'm wrong. Lightroom still has a huge problem. There is no list of filters applied to images, which means that an user must navigate through radial, gradients, brushes, etc, in order to check which ones were applied to an image.
For those who don't see what his problem is: Imagine working without a list of Layers in Photoshop, and you just had the history of what you'd done to work from, and to select your layers from a point in the composition. It would be unworkable. Filters are essentially Lightroom's layers.
Michael Uschold: For those of you wondering whether you want to get the CC version or upgrade, here are some numbers. This is most relevant for those who already own a desktop version of LR, like to upgrade regularly and cannot or do not want to pay for a PS desktop version.
LR5 came out June 9, 2013, which is 681 days (22.37 months) before LR6 came out. It was only 461 days or 15.14 from LR4 to LR5.
1. CC: LR + PS $9.99/month
2a. Desktop: LR5 to LR6 average cost was $3.53/month ($79 / 22.37) 2b: Desktop: LR4 to LR5 average cost was $5.21/month ($79 / 15.14) 2c: Deskt op: LR4 to LR6 average cost was $4.21/month ($158/ 37.52)
So if having PS is worth $5.78 or so per month ($9.99 - $4.21) and you like small monthly payments, it may be worth considering PS + LR CC.
I generally don't like subscription software, but these numbers kind of surprised me. I don't happen to need PS, but for those that do, price does not seem to be a significant deterant from getting PS + LR CC.
"That's like financing a house w/o knowing the interest rate for the majority of the financing period. Who outside the US does *that*?"
The majority of Australia does.
myung keun: Jony Ive's frenzy for minimalism doesn't only affect aesthetics but also functionality. I can live with less visual clutter, but not less functionality. That being said, there is of course a more sensible side to this:
This is just a start.I assume that Apple is working hard to widen their photography platform capabilities. They just needed a strong grounded foundation to built on.We all know that Apple is serious and passionate about photography.Aperture was a good software but it was trying to be a separate entity on its own and was not connected to the existing Apple infrastructure (at least not as well). The platform lost its merit to be expanded any further. Apple wanted a clean slate. A fresh start. They knew it's going to upset many of the existing loyal Aperture users. But they also knew they couldn't do that without sacrificing at least something.
The camera support isn't in Aperture. It at the OS level.
meanwhile: You only have to look around the Photos package a bit to realise this is just the beginning. It's not a replacement for Aperture, but they never said it was.
"Evidently Apple is thinking the same, as you can't control which images soar off into the cloud, and which are not"
100% agreed, except ... you can.
Well it's nothing to do with 'beliefs' for me, it's just about following the money. Apple produce the World's most used camera. The more people they can get that use that camera to use Mac OS X as well, the more money they make.
So the photo management needs to be solid and fully-featured - which it will be. For professionals? Who knows, maybe not, but Photos 1.0 is a 1.0 product.
It's in Apple Inc's best interest to improve it, and they will.
You only have to look around the Photos package a bit to realise this is just the beginning. It's not a replacement for Aperture, but they never said it was.
Myung, your logic and depth have no place here.
No problem, always like to help those that come across so nicely.
Photato: The message is clear.Apple is not a brand Professionals can rely on.
On the other hand, Apple just announced a partnership with IBM to develop software for Industrial Products and the Health Care Industry.
And to that I say. Once bitten, twice shy.
"Once bitten, twice shy"
If that was something that was a rock-solid rule, then nobody would Adobe products. So many killed over the years.
It's pretty simple, these are corporations, the $$ rules. If the heat goes out of the photography market at some point (unlikely, but eh) Lightroom will not be above the chop. Or if they think they can make more cash out of it (or reduce their development costs), there's nothing stopping them from recombining it with Photoshop at some point.
Not saying they will, but pretending that Adobe is above this kind of thing ignores history.
Just turn that off. Easy peasy.
flypaul: Apple are indeed now a consumer gadget company and any serious amateur or pro would be wise to wonder about the future and the company's support for serious software and even hardware long term. They have a bad record and it may be time to "think different" before they drop Mac altogether. "One more thing',my MacBook Pro is due for replacement in 4 months and if I'm not satisfied by then I'm gone.
Depends if you include dual-booting or the myriad of virtualization products as the "OSX platform". All three run fine on Macs.
PhotoKhan: I said this many years ago, I'll repeat it now for the benefit of avoiding any more future hassle.
The sooner any professional or advanced amateur photographer who rely in Raw output starts using LR and exploring it in order to get the amazing potential it entails, the sooner you'll be doing yourself an huge, mind-peace-inducing favor.
"Cool. See you in few years."
Without competition, Lightroom will have the same features and problems as now, and cost 3 times as much.
Lightroom doesn't work for me. It's not rubbish, I just don't like it.
Darktable is not bad, but it's not quite there yet for me.
Think I'll stick with Capture One, thanks. :-)