winter1: Bug fix? The whole things a bl@@dy mess!
Come on Nikon, get your act together with this (falling on deaf ears I know!). Long time user of NX2 which I actually like but this is rubbish. I am actually holding on my purchase of D750 (have D800 & D600) because of this and I suspect many others out there are doing the same?
Have to admit to thinking the same. Until there is something out there that produces good results from Nikon cameras, won't be upgrading. LR never and still doesn't produce the same quality output that NX2 is capable of. So Nikon needs to produce something at least as good before I upgrade
koolbreez: The photographer did not willingly give the camera to the monkey with the intention of the monkey taking the pictures.
The monkey took the pictures on its own, with no instruction, or payment from the photographer to do so. This might have been a different case if the photographer had paid the monkey, with maybe fruit, for the monkey's work in taking the pictures, but as no form of payment took place, from the accounts of what happened, the monkey owns the copy-write, and with not contesting the creative commons designation by the monkey, the copy-write is lost, except for commercial purposes.
In law (US, UK, EU), a monkey can not own anything.
Is the rumour true: Nikon's new replacement for CNX2 is because Nik will not be providing any more updates for Nikon.
Shame if so. CNX2 gives far better image quality than LR when processing Nikon raw. Ok, its U point tech is quirky, but actually performed very well when one got used to it. And I recall struggling to edit a particular image in both LR and PS that was dead easy in CNX2. Only advantage LR has is the library and catalogues.
I tried the new Capture NX-D Beta, and frankly it's rather poor. Updates to adjustments is quirky and slow. And the layout is poorly designed, basically it tries to be a very poor copy of LR. The controls are just too small and difficult to use. Not happy with it. Just hope that updates to CNX2 will continue to be made available.
All those people who locked into Adobe's Cloud based CC programs; well it will be all your fault for allowing Adobe to have this control over us. It was a very, very silly thing for you to do. And you have also ruined it for the rest of us who didn't fall for it. So thanks for nothing :(
Poss: Perpetual until it suits them to move to subscription… such as the time Apple ends Aperture for good.With no viable competition, Adobe can do EXACTLY as they please, when it tickles their fancy…The way I read this piece of news is this: There is already a LR CC even it was not supposed to ever exist. Ever. (Adobe’s words) So, let’s all trust a corporation to keep their word.
Nikon have come out with new software: Capture NX-D. Only a Beta at the moment but looks like an updated and vastly (?)improved version of Capture NX2. Has similarities to LR. Can't see them adding Canon Raw though.
Taking a risk that I may upset just about everybody here (including the article's writer and dpreview itself) I must comment that there are many on here who don't appear to have a clue on what they are talking about. And, dare I suggest that the article's writer has not made things as clear as he should either. What really surprises me is that I would have expected most of the site's readers to be more aware than what they have shown here. Some posters appear to be complicating rather simple truths in order to make themselves appear to be more knowledgeable than they are. The article's writer does not at least do this and gets most of it right and has just left out some stuff that would have clarified things.
Marty4650: Whenever I use the Amazon customer reviews, I completely ignore the 5 star and the 1 star reviews, and read only the 2, 3, and 4 star reviews. My thinking is the fanboys will give it 5 stars, so there is no point even reading those reviews, and 1 star reviews are mostly people upset because the UPS truck arrived when they weren't home, had a warranty problem, or simply didn't read the product description and ordered the wrong product.
You usually find the most informative reviews in the middle of the rankings.
Marty, I guess you will never read a lot of my reviews then. I only tend to write reviews when the product is very poor and has been reviewed far too favorably and I want to set the record straight. My reviews are honest and based on real use rather than someone who has just opened the box and is excited and wants to tell people.
CMurdock: The last monitor I bought had a terrible image, and my bad review (the only one on CDW for that monitor) has probably cost the company a dozen sales now.
Sometimes enraged consumers will go to one review site after another to express their unhappiness. I've done that.
But CollBaxter that review may be the only worthwhile one there. Time after time I've seen reviews for very poor products that have rated it highly. More often or not its books in Amazon. Five stars predominating with only a couple of bad ones for what is really rubbish. What happens is that people buy something, then write a review after having the product for a very short time and as they are excited to have got the product rate it much higher than it deserves.
johnsong: It is not available as an individual license at this time
Thanks for link Mark B. Actually, it was hard.. Adobe so intent on pushing the dam Cloud it kept on going to the pricing for it.
domina: That's a good thing for photography and videography, it means now everyone will be able to sell to them on the strength of their current images rather than be employed by them permanently because of personal connections or past reputation. However, it's sad for the photographers as employees. Perhaps the newspaper should offer them free support to set up their freelance businesses.
Agree with you Jack. Domina's post is the stupidest thing I've read for ages. Wonder if he writes for Yahoo News.
Whoops! An error: the 4 example images are the same.
solarsky: The reduced version of this article might read (in 2012!):Nikon D800(E) shooting RAW+ good lens+ tripod+ filters+ suitable RAW developer software+ Kolor Autopano Giga (possibly also + Photomatix Pro)+ computer= Finished at much lower cost, at similar quality as the "complex approach", in much shorter time with much less of a fuss. Done.
No, this setup won't work. You can not replicate the effect of a tilt lens to increase the DOF in software; you can only replicate a reduction.
A 'How long is a piece of string' question. Canon users will vote for the 5D MkIII; Nikon users will vote for the D800. Others may vote for the OM-D or Fuji. As I have an D800 I would vote for it if I was bothered; but I'm aware that the Canon 5D Mk III is a great camera too. And the Sony SLT-A99, OM-D, Fuji X-Pro are not far behind.
JDThomas: “Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.” – Edward Weston
“The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant and immaterial” – Ansel Adams
In my first book I mentioned these two quotes, right afterward I pointed out this: Find me an Ansel Adams or Edward Weston image that DOESN'T follow at least ONE rule of composition. You can't. The reason why these photographers art is considered great is simply because they followed these rules intuitively.
Edward Weston didn't need to consult the rules of composition, his brain and eye naturally saw that way. Not all photographers are lucky enough to have that talent. Most of us have to think about it and work at composing compelling images. More often than not when you THINK you're breaking a rule take a closer look and you'll probably see that you have followed one of the rules of composition perfectly.
Adams was not a great photographer (gasp, groan) as anyone who has studied photography will tell you. His skill base and fame were due to the extraordinary quality of his prints and the methods he used to achieve this. I've been lucky to have seen an exhibition of his prints and they are outstanding; something you can not appreciate from books which do not do justice to the originals.
So, for me, Adams comments are not set in stone.
wansai: Who is to say the eyes can't be a certain location. Picasso would certainly have words with anyone demanding such.
Are they a good starting point for beginners? Sure they are- if you're just learning & your viewer is equally as uninitiated. But these basics have poisoned the well even among experienced creatives. People become strict adherents to these limitations & work blindly by these artificial bounds.
I reframe in photoshop and more often than not, I find placing them in the 3rds rule makes them really flat & cookie cutter. I'll shift it around until it feels & looks right to me. I have a background in fine arts and design so dumping rules comes easy because my idea comes first. For others, it cripples their mind even if their skill is there. It's rules like these that make it diificult for creatives to understand something like Asymmetry.
Ultimately, It's your story, not someone elses' and not some artificial guide!
The 'rules' are not some artifical guide. If you think that then you don't understand them. Picasso knew the rules, and also knew how to break them; which is the purpose of the article. Some of the rules are based on mathematical formula while others have just evolved from observations by artists over centuries.
There are many out there that instinctively follow the rules, while others learn them subconsciously during their career. If you are trained, then you learn the rules formally; and probably follow them subconsciously as well.
Me, it's taken 30 years of looking at 1000s of pictures, taking 1000s of pictures and being critiqued to get to the stage where I instinctively apply them or break them at will.
What I learned is that there is another rule: don't follow the rules; make the rules. So, for all those who have commented negatively on this very good article then I suggest that you learn the rules...
And about time too. But I have to question whether DXO are the best possible choice; they don't really go into enough depth.
Petrogel: This review thing is getting ridiculous !!!!!! in short while you'll be reviewing photo cameras belts !!!!!
So you guys are really thinking of reviewing camera belts. Oh come on!. You know dam well we want lens reviews, yet you waste precious time and space putting up this kind of stuff which we don't want. This site continues to get worse and is now starting to become an irrelevance.
I had a quick look at the terms and conditions here:https://d1ncmqs035wa42.cloudfront.net/other/1340157276-1281.pdf
It's a 17-page document but I was unable to find where Intel writes that it had rights to use competition submissions. Chapter 21 - release does not concern image rights, and Chapter 17- contest prize - does not mean that the photographer is signing off his rights to his photography.
I did not read every single paragraph, but can you point me towards the right paragraph?
You must be blind. IT'S IN CAPITAL LETTERS