In the above poll , there should have been an "all of the above" option because all those things are of concern... except "I thnk it might work fine."
I'm actually using the subscription option now because when factoring in the initial cost of CS6 plus upgrades down the road, and other economic factors, it makes more economic sense.
But due to the many changes the photography market and the economy have undergone, there have been many photographers, amateurs and pros alike, that have had to tighten their belts and cut back on monthly costs.
Being dependent upon a credit card that can be charged monthly and an internet connection to keep PS functional might mean that many folks who are struggling through this rough economy would lose access to PS.
I muddled thru with CS3 for 5 plus years, thru unemployment and lean times, I still had PS to work with. If it was a subscription service, I would have had to let it lapse and turn to GIMP or some other program to continue photography.
Be sure to save all your files as TIFFs or some other universal file format so you can open them in some other software.
This opens up the opportunity for some other company to develop a competing program. If Adobe ends perpetual licensing they will create a whole new market of consumers eager to dump Adobe. Google just acquired NIK...maybe Google could develp a stand alone professional grade program that offwers perpetual license? They have the know how and the resources to do it.
Disgruntled and rebelious PS user will be stampeeding to whomever offers an alternative.
This creates something of a conflict of rights. The right to freely take videos and photographs and the right of individuals to not be photographed and recorded without their permission.
Photographers have been dealing with this conflict for ages, but this takes things to a whole new level.
OldArrow: Well, someone can begin working on a wireless device that disables or scrambles all image and sound-recording gadgets within, say, 50 meters around it.I imagine many would like to have something like that installed on their premises, so it should be on the shelves sooner than in a year-ish.Unless, of course, some big money finds a way to make it illegal, by declaring that "personal freedom of recording has been taken from the people"...
@ Old Arrow...I beleive it is already illegal to operate a jamming device but it is not illegal to construct a pysical barrier that blocks cell signals. Some movie theatres and restaraunts have installed copper sheeting to block cell signals from their establishments.
Our soldiers in Afghanistan carry with them a device called "Thor" that jams cell phone signals so that explosive devices cannot be remotely detonated. It weighs about twentyfive pounds.
QuarryCat: makes no sense for me.I use a 35 or 50 mm or even a 28 mm - one alone is enough - my feet are the zoom - no ned for another big, expensive compromise lens.sounds crazy.
a 2,0/35-105 mm would be fantastic and a 4,0/50-300 mm is urgent needed...
There's a time and place for everything...times when a prime is fine and times when you need the flexibility of a zoom.
If you are in a fixed position and don't have the option to move in or back away, then a zoom will allow you to get some extra coverage or to get a little closer without having to crop in post and sacrifice pixels.
Changing position also changes perspective and with a wide angle getting in closer could result in some unpleasant distortion effects.
And packing a couple wide aperture primes covering that range;an 18, a 35 and something in the middle like a 24 or 28, would cost some serious cash and take up some serious camera bag space. In the Sigma line that would cost about 2K for comparable primes.
As far as I know Sigma makes the shortest 1.8 prime, a 20MM which goes for $630. So a 1.8 zoom of that focal range makes alot of sense.
The only arguement in favor of a prime would be superior image quality, which at 1.8 may be no better than a zoom.
utomo99: Why DIGIC 5 ? Why Not DIGIC 6 ?Canon SX270 HS using DIGIC 6
Because next year they can release an upgraded version so that everyone who bought this one can have a touch of buyers remorse. Its a new model so of course they have to hold back on features on the first one.
I've been waiting for Canon to upgrade the exposure bracket to five shots for us HDR shooters. I guess I'll have to wait a little longer.
In the meantime I'll have to keep on using a third party smart phone app to do what should be built into the camera.
Honey, I shrunk the Rebel!
Da99ve: The original dramatic sky is great, too. Leave it alone, as well. ;) No big foreground focal point is required other than the gentle arid nodule already there.
If this was all just a hypothetical test, fine. But I hope people don't over-think their original visions/moments, which is the heart of photography.
The brighteness on the right side of the sky makes the image seem less ominous. That might have been fixed with just a tonal adjustment, but since the point of the article is about blending images, that would have defeated the purpose of the article!
madeinlisboa: The more Photoshop you use the less photographer you are... I use Photoshop only for creativity and extreme problems. I still use Capture NX for 99% of my photos.It's sad to reach a point when you don't know if it is a photograph anymore...
That sounds very much like what they were saying about Eduard Steichen 115 years ago!
The painters said it wasn't art and the photographers said it wasn't photography.
Your opinion on Photoshop simply defines how you prefer to approach photography and is not an accurate description of all photographers.
Long before digital photography existed, we used to say that clicking the shutter is only the start of the photographic process. There's alot that takes place after the exposure is made that must be done for the photographers vision to be realized.
I could argue that if all one is doing is making a few tweaks in tone and color, that it's really no different than a snapshooter who drops the film off at the minilab and lets someone else finish the process. That would be an inaccurate statement but no less accurate than saying that using more photoshop makes one less a photographer.
Photography is a two step process, one is what happens before you take the shot, and one after.
jeep: One of the best uses of layer masks is selectively combining different exposures of the same scene to achieve a natural looking HDR image, without the overblown look of HDR software and tone mapping.
If done proerly, HDR can yield pefectly natural results. And an image properly tonemapped for a natural look appear more natural than an image pieced together in layers.
It's a matter of skill, and a matter of intent. And very much a matter of opinion.
There are times to strive for a natural look and a time for a more surrealistic look. This has been true not only as long as photography has been around, but as long as art in any form has been around!
Unskilled artists tend to be a bit heavy handed when applying special effects. But in the right hands, heavily tone mapped images may bring a beauty and interest to a scene that would otherwise be dull and boring. It takes as much skill to apply a heavy special effect without over doing it as it does to apply the effect to make it appear natural.
I revisited some of the images I had pieced together from bracketed shots and layers, and tonemapped them in HDR. They look more natural via HDRI than through layers.
Mssimo: If your shopping for monitors, make sure you buy a IPS panel. The other common type that is very bad for color and view angle is called TN.
Dell Ultrasharp monitors use LG panels; these are the same panels used in apple's best monitors. They are also used by HP pro line monitors.
I have two U3011's. (decoded name: Ultrasharp 30" 2011) They are huge. The 27" has more pixel density but its 16:9 (Less Height than 16:10; 2560x1600 vs 2560x1440)
@M Jesper.Not everyone knows every technical spec about every device. I'm far from stupid or technically illiterate but I have no idea what IPS or TN stand for.
Dvlee: Some years ago i worked for a studio that had a room full of vintage gear. There was a kit of old large format lenses that had interchangable rear elements that screwed onto the back of the shutter module. These elements enabled the the same lens to be used for 8x10 and 4x5 with exactly the same field of view. They seemed to work as well on other lenses that shared the same shutter module.
In 2002, when I first learned about the APS-C crop factor, I had opportunity to ask an optical designer if it was possible that such an element could be built into lenses for APS-C to compenste for crop factor so that the lens would have the same field of view on APS-C.
He explained, not only is it possible, it is the same principle that used in zoom lenses.
We all know that to focus a lens, al we are doing is moving the lens in relation to the film/sensor plane. Lookthe rear element of a prime lens and you'll see it move in and out as you turn the focus ring.(Continues in REPLY)
This lens was designed to provide an increase in speed using full frame lenses on an ILC, but I am more intrigued by the potential of this concept to allow full frame lenses to deliver the same field of view on APS-C.
With image stabilization, better noise reduction, and each generation of cams having better hi ISO performance, the need for faster lenses is moot. It’s more about the optical qualities of wide aperture(shallow depth of field, bokah) than “speed.”
When using a full frame lens APS-C crop factor forces us to either step back to get the same field of view, which changes perspective and depth of field, or use a shorter focal length, which will not have the same optical or depth of field qualities.
Lens makers have addressed the APS-C wide angle problem by making even wider lenses. Even the Canon 17mm tilt shift seems to have been created to address this.
This actual usefullness is limited to retaining the qualities of lenses like the 50mm1.2 ir 17mmTS-E.
Isit13: I've understood the maximum speed for a lens is dependent on the rear element diameter vs the sensor distance?
If so, this means you cannot get any magical low size number mounting a version of this with a f/1.2 Noct Nikkor?
I might add that this only work when using a lens designed for a big sensor on a camera with a smaller sensor, becasue the lens is designed to project a larger image circle and the adapor is shrinmking it donw to the size of the small sensor. It would work using a full frame lens on the smaller APS-C chip but not on a full frame sensor. The adaptor would make the image circle too small and the corners would be cut off.
The way this works is the exact opposite of a teleconvertor, which makes the image circle bigger, stretching the image out and making it appear larger. By spreading the image out...same amount of light over a wider space makes it dimmer.
Lens designers do know about this concept but it's a trickier design to build into the lens. Instead of designing these wide angle convertors into the lenses, they have instead given us ultra wide lenses for APS-C. I have an 11mm which is equal to 17mm on full frame and thats pretty damn wide!!
I wish I could draw you a diagram because its so hard to describe in words.
1st...this adaptor does not have any direct effect on the lens or the f stop. It does not increase the amount of light that enters the lens, it is only taking the light that is being projected in a wide beam and tightening the angle of the beam to a more narrow beam so that the SAME amount of light is being onto a smaller space. The same amount of light in a smaller space makes the light brighter.
2nd...the adaptor does not make the lens wider. You cannot make a 200 MM act like a wide angle. The problem is that when we use a wide angle lens intended for a large sensor on a camera with a small sensor, the lens projects too big a circle and the tiny sensor only sees a small portion of it; it crops the image, so the chip only see a portion of the image.
This adaptor makes a 40mm act like a 40mm by projecting a smaller image onto a smaller chip. It focuses the light into a small space and makes it brighter
nathanleebush: Am I crazy or is there not more barrel distortion with the adapter? Nobody seems to be talking about that. The aspect ratio is the same, but the image seems to warp more.
Its hard to tell with the samples provided...but I think I might see some distortion but not so much that could not easily be fixed in Photoshop.
If you take the same amount of light that covers a large area and redirect it so it covers a smaller area, you now have the same amount of lightconcentrated in a smallers space, which makes it brighter.
Its kind of like using a spotlight which uses a lens to adjust the size of the spot...the smaller the spot of light the brighter it become.
All this lens does is add one more element of refraction to the light path, bending it so as to turn a wide cone of light that covers the larger sensor area into a narrow cone of light that just covers the smaller sensor.
This not only concentrates the light making it brighter but also compresses the image so that the part of the image that would lie outside the sensor is now inside.
I think the fact that it compresses the angle of projection and enables the full field of view to be projected onto a smaller sensor is FAR more interesting and usefull than its brighteness boosting function.
If you look at a zoom lens you'll see the rear element stays still during focusing but moves while zooming in and out. He explained that the rear element(s) in a zoom plays an important role in the spread(coverage) of the cone of light which determines the magnification of the image. The lens elements that actually focus the lens are in front of the rear element(s). So in essence the rear element in a zoom lens is a built in tele/wide angle converter.
There really is no reason why a lens element to do this cannot be designed right into the lens.
So why don't they do this? It's a matter of economics. It's easier to design and manufacture the lenses without having to deal with an added element . Most APS-C cameras are designed to be smaller, lighter and less expensive than full frame lenses and the lenses need to mirror that design philosophy.
But it is possible and it would be better to have it specifically designed for a particular lens and built in than to use an adaptor.
Some years ago i worked for a studio that had a room full of vintage gear. There was a kit of old large format lenses that had interchangable rear elements that screwed onto the back of the shutter module. These elements enabled the the same lens to be used for 8x10 and 4x5 with exactly the same field of view. They seemed to work as well on other lenses that shared the same shutter module.