Rylee Isitt

Rylee Isitt

Lives in Canada British Columbia, Canada
Works as a Web Development
Has a website at http://www.ryleeisitt.ca
Joined on Nov 16, 2002

Comments

Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9
On Adobe hack affects 38 million users, not 2.9 million article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cogset: I received email and snail mail. Like others, the snail mail offered a credit watch service through experian.

Not a CC customer yet so my CR card was not stored there.

I haven't heard from Adobe, but I got an e-mail from Sony's Reader Store (they sell ebooks that use Adobe DRM) that I should change my passwords with Adobe. Funny to hear the news from Sony, but not Adobe!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 20:55 UTC
On Adobe hack affects 38 million users, not 2.9 million article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: HAHAHAHAHAHA

they asked for it... moving everyone to subscription!

ROTFLMAO

Even prior to CC, most people I know with legitimate copies of Adobe products bought them directly from Adobe online. In which case those account details were already there, prior to CC.

Moving to subscription mode surely increased the size of their customer database, but I wouldn't say it's to blame here.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 20:52 UTC
On Adobe hack affects 38 million users, not 2.9 million article (156 comments in total)
In reply to:

stern: Cloud... suuure! I'm currently in the process of switching to DXO Optics pro. Adobe asked for it.

I use CC... there's nothing "cloud" about it, despite the name. It runs off my HD like every other piece of Adobe software I've ever used.

The only difference is now you pay a monthly fee and, presumably, get perpetual updates to never versions as long as you keep paying.

I think they do have some actual cloud-based features, like uploading images and such, but I haven't actually experimented with them.

What was stolen was their database, containg user details, hashed passwords, maybe stuff like purchase history and so on. Every company has one. DXO Optics has one. It can be stolen too.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 20:44 UTC
In reply to:

kitsap2: If this was the fourth time for the scramble to attack a machine gunners nest, I would presume to see the bodies, or left over debris, of the previous three scrambles/attacks. The scene shows a completely empty scape.

But then, I wasn't there.

According to the wikipedia entry on the soldier that is believed to be show in this photo, he was the first of two casualties in that area that day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Borrell_Garc%C3%ADa

As you said, we weren't there. And Capa isn't around to answer our questions either. This will probably remain a "conspiracy theory" forever.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 20:41 UTC
On Stunning images of things invisible to the naked eye article (21 comments in total)
In reply to:

rurikw: Mind-blowing. Hard to imagine a more valid, worthwhile (and demanding) use for photography.

This is the type of photography I eventually settled on. The equipment is expensive to say the least, and I so far only go up to 20x magnification. For higher magnifications I need a better microscope, the one I have couldn't begin to compete. But for 20x and below you don't need a microscope at all, just attach microscope objectives to a camera directly.

The optics and camera are cheap, compared to the rigging you need, because it helps to be able to precisely position both camera and subject on micrometer scales.

And then there's the whole matter of preparing the specimen so that it's clean and posed properly. Not trivial at all.

And focus stacking is a very common technique, so you will wear out your camera's shutter much more quickly than you would with other types of photography!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 19:44 UTC
On Pentax K-3 preview (961 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daniel from Bavaria: Hi,

I myself do not and have never owned Pentax camera and do not plan to change. Nevertheless, I am really wondering why they are not more succesfull.
They are building really nice lenses, and absolutely competitive bodies with some really unique offerings - and btw also a very nice design.

Well done Pentax, I wish you will sell a lot of those to give Nikon and Canon a bit fire under their lazy buttocks.

Daniel

I bought a Pentax DSLR for a family member a few years back. I cannot see myself switching from Canon, but if any brand tempts me, it's Pentax. While I was learning the camera to teach my family how to use it, I was quite impressed by it overall. It's really my commitment of lenses and the adaptability of the EF lens mount to almost every other brand out there that keeps me with Canon. I've even got Pentax lenses that I use with my Canon camera!

As to why Pentax is not as successful, it has to be about the marketing or brand recognition. Because their cameras are very good.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 04:01 UTC

This camera is too pricey for me, and I'm already committed to Canon lenses, but I don't understand the hate it's getting.

A monochrome camera is extremely useful for many different types of photography, especially if it lacks an IR/UV block filter (or if this is removable - which they usually are if you're willing to void the warranty). Astrophotography and certain types of microscopy use monochrome cameras because their sensitivity, sharpness, and ability to capture a wide range of wavelengths (selectable by the use of filters) makes them good instruments for scientific work.

This body would also be very nice for landscape photography, even color landscape photography where an RGB filter wheel could be used.

Finally, monochrome photography is a viable art, and any tool which gives superior results is to be encouraged.

I think there's a market for this. I hope Leica sets a precedent here and encourages competitors to follow suit.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 03:24 UTC as 50th comment | 2 replies
On Photoshop CS6 Beta: New Features for Photographers article (154 comments in total)

Adobe has its work cut out for them if they are going to convince me to update yet again. The "problem" is that CS5 is actually overkill for my needs. So many features... so little reason to use them. I only upgrade from CS3 to get 64 bit.

It's interesting that the features which cause the most "wow" (context-sensitive fill, etc) are the ones I have never touched, while on the other hand I'd really like to see improvements made to re-size (make it gamma aware and add advanced upsizing technologies), curves (make the dialog larger for better ease of use), and basically just further improvements to existing, commonly used tools.

Improve the pattern recognition for aligning layers prior to focus stacking, and I'll upgrade.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2012 at 05:24 UTC as 73rd comment
On Peak a boo in the Quizz challenge (10 comments in total)

Or a "test" - it's the internal skeleton, so if that's what this is, it has to be dead. What that thing is in the middle, I have no idea!

Here's an image search to compare: http://images.google.ca/images?q=sea%20urchin%20test&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2009 at 20:35 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9